Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:08:38.079Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on train algebras

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Victor M. Abraham
Victor M. Abraham
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computing, Thames Polytechnic, London and Department of Statistics, Birkbeck College, London
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Train algebras were first introduced by Etherington in (1) and proved very useful in dealing with problems in mathematical genetics. The types of algebras which arose were commutative, non-associative and finite-dimensional. It proved convenient in the general theory to regard them as defined over the complex numbers. We remind the reader of some basic definitions. A baric algebra is one which admits a non-trivial homomorphism into its coefficient field K. A (principal) train algebra is baric and has a rank equation in which the coefficients of a general element x depend only on its baric value, generally called the weight of x. A special train algebra (STA) is a baric algebra in which the nilideal is nilpotent and all its right powers are ideals; the nilideal being the set of elements of A of weight zero. In (2) Etherington showed that in a baric algebra one can always take a very simple basis consisting of a distinguished element of unit weight and all other basis elements of weight zero.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 53 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Edinburgh Mathematical Society 1976

References

REFERENCES

(1) Etherington, I. M. H., Genetic algebras, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 59 (1939), 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2) Etherington, M. H., Commutative train algebras of ranks 2 and 3, J. London Math. Soc. 15 (1940), 136–149; 20 (1945), 238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3) Gerstenhaber, M., On nilalgebras and linear varieties of nilpotent matrices, II, Duke Math. J. 27 (1960), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4) Schafer, R. D., Structure of genetic algebras, Amer. J. Math. 71 (1949), 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5) Schafer, R. D., An Introduction to Nonassociative Algebras (Academic Press, London, 1966).Google Scholar
(6) Suttles, D., A counterexample to a conjecture of Albert, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (5) (1972), A-566.Google Scholar