Dtjytyk

Consider a copy of $mathbb{Z}$

This forms a group when equipped with the "+" operator

Let us consider now $text{End}(mathbb{Z},+) $ the set of endomorphisms that preserve the additive structure, these endomorphisms are functions and have an associative structure that they "fit" into, namely

$$ (text{End}(mathbb{Z}, +), times ) $$

Forms a set with an associative operator.

We can go further and look at the "closure" of

$$ (text{End}(mathbb{Z}, +) - lbrace (x rightarrow 0*x) rbrace, times ) $$

By defining inverses for each of the endomorphisms and this set is equivalent to $mathbb{Q} - lbrace 0 rbrace $.

What is really weird to me, is if I repeat this algorithm, of taking a group, and looking at the endomorphisms of the group, and "completing" the endomorphism structure (and removing some elements) I don't end up with another group.

Exponentiation is neither associative nor commutative.

Why abstractly is this happening? For example if I have some group G and I look at

$$ G rightarrow text{End}(G) rightarrow text{End}^2 (G) rightarrow ...
$$

And G is commutative, and End(G) also forms a natural commutative group, then why does $text{End}^2(G)$ suddenly not form a commutative and associative group, or to relax our constraints maximally, when and why do these endomorphism sequences stop creating semigroups?

Some notes: (in response to @Qiaochu’s answer)

I think our viewpoints are subtly different. If we take the endomorphisms of an object S we can identify each endomorphism with an element of S (often by seeing how the endomorphism moves a non identity element). Having built a map $m: S rightarrow text{End}(S)$ we can then define the binary operator $B: S times S rightarrow S$ by $B(a,b) = m(a)[b]$. It is the case that when S was the integers with Addition then B was commutative and associative (since B was multiplication). But when S is the rationals (without 0) with multiplication then B is exponentiation and exponentiation is neither commutative nor associative. Basically I’m trying to understand what properties does a group S need to have so that the B operation constructed as above is at the least associative

What is really weird to me, is if I repeat this algorithm, of taking a group, and looking at the endomorphisms of the group, and "completing" the endomorphism structure (and removing some elements) I don't end up with another group.

I don't know what construction you're describing here. The endomorphisms of $mathbb{Q}^{times}$, like the endomorphisms of any abelian group, form a ring (more or less a ring of infinite matrices). Unlike $mathbb{Z}$ this ring is noncommutative and has zero divisors, so it's not at all clear what it would mean to take fractions.

In general,

• the endomorphisms of any object in any category whatsoever always form a monoid under composition,


• for abelian groups we have the special property that $text{Ab}$ is canonically enriched over itself, so endomorphisms form a monoid internal to $text{Ab}$, which is to say a ring. Generally this ring will be noncommutative and have zero divisors.