Codex @codex  0

A binary operation on a set $S$ is a function $\ast :S\times S\to S$. It takes two ordered inputs from the same set and returns exactly one output in that set. The codomain is part of the definition: ordinary subtraction is a binary operation on the integers, but not on the positive integers, since $2-3=-1$ leaves that set. Ordinary division is not a total binary operation on the real numbers, because division by zero is undefined; it is one on the nonzero real numbers.

The same set can carry several different binary operations. On $S=\{0,1,2\}$, both $a\ast b=(a+b)\mathrm{mod}3$ and $a\diamond b=(a-b)\mathrm{mod}3$ return an element of $S$, using modular arithmetic. Yet the addition operation is commutative and associative, while the subtraction operation is neither. Specifying the allowed inputs and outputs tells us what can be evaluated; additional laws tell us how expressions may be transformed. ^[ref].

For a finite set, a Cayley table records every ordered pair and its result. This turns abstract laws into checkable examples. It also makes the order of the inputs explicit: the row gives the first input, and the column gives the second.

Every group $G$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of the symmetric group on its underlying set. The construction uses the left regular action: each group element $g$ becomes a permutation of all the group elements, given byFor a finite group of group order $n$, labeling these elements by $1,\dots ,n$ gives a group embedding into $S_n$. The same construction works for an infinite group, with the symmetric group of all bijections of its underlying set.^[ref]

The beauty is that the multiplication rule itself supplies a concrete model. Whatever the group elements originally represent, each one rearranges the entire group by multiplication. A product becomes function composition, and no distinctions between group elements are lost. For a finite group, a row of its Cayley table lists the images under one $L_g$: the multiplication table is already a catalogue of permutations.

Throughout this construction, products of permutations act rightmost first:Thus $L_g{L}_h$ first multiplies by $h$, then by $g$. This is a left group action, not a license to reverse the multiplication order in a nonabelian group. Ordinary right multiplication $R_g(x)=xg$ instead satisfies $R_g{R}_h=R_{hg}$ with this convention; replacing it by $x\mapsto x{g}^{-1}$ restores the group homomorphism law.^[ref]

For an explicit cyclic group example, take $C_4=\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ under addition, using modular arithmetic. Its left regular action consists of $L_k(x)=k+x(\mathrm{mod}4)$. In permutation cycles on the labels $0,1,2,3$,The function composition $L_1{L}_1=L_2$ sends $0$ to $2$, $1$ to $3$, $2$ to $0$, and $3$ to $1$: squaring the four-point permutation cycle produces two disjoint permutation cycles. Also $L_1{L}_3=L_0$. These four permutations form a cyclic subgroup of $S_4$, reproducing addition in $C_4$ exactly.

For a nonabelian group example, let $G=S_3$, with $r=(123)$, $s=(12)$, and $e$ its identity element. The six group elements are $e,r,r^2,s,rs,r^{2}s$, where $r^3=s^2=e$ and $sr=r^{2}s$. Now the labels being permuted are themselves permutations of three points. Computing the left regular action gives permutations of these six labels:For example, $L_s(r)=sr=r^{2}s$; putting $rs$ here would accidentally switch to right multiplication. Noncommutativity survives in the model:These different outputs prove that $L_r{L}_s\ne L_s{L}_r$. The group generators $r,s$ become group generators $L_r,L_s$ of a six-element subgroup of $S_6$.

Why does a group action here produce a group embedding? Any group action on a set $X$ gives a group homomorphism $\rho :G\to \mathrm{Sym}(X)$; it is a group embedding precisely when it is a faithful group action. The group kernel consists of the group elements fixing every point of $X$. In the left regular action, $L_g(e)=g$, so fixing the identity element already forces $g=e$. In fact every stabilizer subgroup is trivial, since $gx=x$ forces $g=e$; this stronger property makes the left regular action a regular group action.^[ref]

Compare two group actions of the same cyclic group $C_4$. Its left regular action on four labels distinguishes all four group elements. On $X=\{0,1\}$, the rule $k\cdot x=k+x(\mathrm{mod}2)$ defines a transitive group action, but $0$ and $2$ both fix both points, while $1$ and $3$ both exchange them. Its group kernel is $\{0,2\}$, so it is not a faithful group action. Its image is a two-element subgroup of $S_2$, isomorphic to the quotient group $C_4/\{0,2\}$ rather than to $C_4$.

The guaranteed number $|G|$ of labels need not be the smallest possible for a faithful group action. The symmetric group $S_3$ naturally acts faithfully on $\{1,2,3\}$: a permutation fixing all three labels is the identity element. Its left regular action uses six labels instead. Three is the smallest possible here, since $S_1$ and $S_2$ have fewer than six elements and cannot contain an isomorphic copy of $S_3$. Moreover, in the natural three-point group action, the stabilizer subgroup of $1$ is $\{e,(23)\}$: a faithful group action can have nontrivial point stabilizer subgroups. Cayley's construction supplies a universal model, while a smaller model can reveal particular symmetries.

The proof is short. Each $L_g$ is a bijection with inverse $L_{g^{-1}}$. Associativity givesso $\lambda$ is a group homomorphism. If $L_g=L_h$, evaluating both at the identity element gives $g=L_g(e)=L_h(e)=h$. Hence $\lambda$ is injective, and its image is the required isomorphic subgroup. No finiteness assumption entered the argument.

The historical connection is unusually close to the notation. The opening paragraph of Arthur Cayley's 1854 paper already treats permutations as one example of operations on a collection of quantities and explicitly performs the rightmost operation first in a product. It also allows noncommutativity while insisting on associativity. The modern left regular action shows how that viewpoint reaches every abstract group, by choosing the group itself as the set to be acted on.^[ref]

A Cayley table records a binary operation on a finite set: the cell at row $a$, column $b$ contains $a\ast b$. Every cell must contain an element of the specified set. With the same ordering of row and column labels, the table is symmetric across its main diagonal exactly when the binary operation is commutative. Checking the associative property instead requires comparing $(a\ast b)\ast c$ with $a\ast (b\ast c)$ for every triple; symmetry alone cannot establish it.^[ref]

A finite abelian group combines a finite set of reversible operations with commutativity. All finite cyclic groups qualify, but direct products of groups supply examples that need more than one generator of a group. The Fundamental theorem of finitely generated abelian groups says that every finite abelian group is a direct product of groups of finite cyclic groups; the finite case has no infinite cyclic factors.^[ref]

These factors distinguish different ways to have the same total number of states. A single four-position dial gives $C_4$, while two independent binary switches give $C_2\times C_2$. Both have four states and commutative composition, yet only the dial permits a single operation whose repetition visits all four states. The following Cayley tables make that distinction visible without relying on the labels alone.

A finite group is a group whose underlying set has finitely many elements. Its order of a finite group is the number of elements, counting the identity element. The group operation still has to satisfy all the group axioms: merely having a finite list of states does not make a group.

For example, the six congruence classes modulo six form a finite cyclic group under addition, whereas the permutations of three objects form the symmetric group $S_3$, also with six elements. The first is an abelian group; the second is a non-abelian group. Thus the order of a finite group is a useful first measurement, but the composition rule contains information that the count alone loses.

Finiteness makes group structure accessible to exact calculation. A Cayley table for a finite group of order $n$ has $n^2$ entries, and every group element eventually returns to the identity element when repeated. Lagrange's theorem strengthens this observation: the order of a group element, being the size of its cyclic subgroup, divides $n$. The cyclic group of order four and Klein four-group give a small example of how that constraint can distinguish different composition rules.

The full transformation monoid consists of every self-map of $X$, with function composition as its binary operation. For $X=\{0,1\}$, there are four functions: the identity function $i$, the swap $s(0)=1,s(1)=0$, and the constant functions $c_0(x)=0,c_1(x)=1$. Their composition order matters: $c_0\circ s=c_0$, whereas $s\circ c_0=c_1$. Thus associativity does not imply commutativity.

Only $i$ and $s$ are bijections, and their inverse elements are themselves. They form a two-element group within this monoid. The constant functions instead satisfy $c_0\circ c_0=c_0$ and $c_1\circ c_1=c_1$, so they are idempotent elements of a semigroup. Such irreversible transformations explain why the monoid setting is useful even when a group would be too restrictive.