05/14/2021, 09:27 PM
(05/14/2021, 06:42 PM)MphLee Wrote: Thank you for the time James. I apologize for some grammar errors.
(05/14/2021, 03:36 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: Personally, I'm a fan of conjugate classes; but you're right; technically that's incorrect. I would usually always consider invertible (at least, locally) maps. So, in that frame work it's correct.
I'm sorry but here you lose me. In which local framework elements of [f,g] can be thought as part of a conjugacy class in the literal meaning of the term?
....
Quote: I do like equivariant, but that seems a tad restrictive when we're just considering one variable.
What do you mean?
....
I simply meant, when I think of this relation, I am usually assuming they are at least locally invertible; so the idea of conjugation is typically valid on some domain. But then again; that's because I always use holomorphic functions.
Secondly, equivariant seems to be a concept on flows; and this symbol seems independent of flows. The definition of equivariant seems reserved for flows. It kind of throws a stick in the mud when we just want a term for monoids.
Honestly, maybe "X"-Isomorphism would be good. They are isomorphisms... We'd just need a good term to put instead of "X."