Talk:Robbins algebra
Add topic | Equational prover was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 26 November 2025 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Doesn't make sense
[edit]As it stands the article doesn't make any sense. For example it gives the impression that a Robbins algebra only has the elements 0 and 1 although I'm sure that's not the intention. It would be nice if people who decided to write mathematical articles actually understood mathematics. 81.106.197.184 (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I have made significant alterations and now I believe it's fine. On the other hand it doesn't seem to contain essentially different information than what can be found at the Boolean algebrasarticle so I wonder if it is justified to have this article. The only thing I can think off to try and justify this article is to add an outline of the proof. I will read the proof eventually and perhaps I will add the outline here. 81.106.197.184 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
infix notation
[edit]I have erased the mention of infix in the introduction because I didn't feel it was adding any useful information. One can see from the algebra link what the usual notation is and the notation is not part of the definition anyway. Finally the infix link was pointing to the wrong place.
I have erased mention of "dual" in the history section because it's not clear in what sense Robbins's axiom is a dual of Huntington's axiom. If dual is to be mentioned then it should either be explained in-place or a link given. By the way is it "Robbins's axiom" or "Robbins axiom" ?
Finally, I moved things around in the history section so that a precise description of what Huntington proved appears right after the claim that he proved something. Spiros Bousbouras (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
remove incorrect proof
[edit]I've deleted the "proof" that was on this page as in several places it used double negation elimination which is not one of the axioms of a Robbins algebra. Proving that not(not x) = x in a Robbins algebra is in fact as difficult as proving the Robbins conjecture. Once you've proved it, you can derive Huntington's axiom by substituting a -> not(a) in Robbins's axiom and eliminating all the double negations. Nick8325 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Citation Error
[edit]So any editors know, citation (10) leads to a 404 error, which means the resource was likely pulled. I'm not a regular Wikipedian, so I leave the edit details in everyone else's hands, but this website seems to work instead: https://math.colgate.edu/~amann/MA/robbins_complete.pdf . Hopefully I was able to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-24454-16 (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2026 (UTC)