DOCSLIB.ORG

The Average Size of the Kernel of a Matrix and Orbits of Linear Groups, II: Duality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Average Size of the Kernel of a Matrix and Orbits of Linear Groups, II: Duality The average size of the kernel of a matrix and orbits of linear groups, II: duality Tobias Rossmann School of Mathematics, Statistics and Applied Mathematics National University of Ireland, Galway Define a module representation to be a linear parameterisation of a collection of module homomorphisms over a ring. Generalising work of Knuth, we define duality functors indexed by the elements of the symmetric group of degree three between categories of module representations. We show that these functors have tame effects on average sizes of kernels. This provides a general framework for and a generalisation of duality phenomena previously observed in work of O’Brien and Voll and in the predecessor of the present article. We discuss applications to class numbers and conjugacy class zeta functions of p-groups and unipotent group schemes, respectively. Contents 1 Introduction . 1 2 Module representations . 4 3 Average sizes of kernels and ask zeta functions—revisited . 6 4 Knuth duality for module representations . 9 5 Effects of Knuth duality on average sizes of kernels . 16 6 Conjugacy classes of nilpotent groups I: duality . 22 7 Conjugacy classes of nilpotent groups II: alternation . 25 1 Introduction Class numbers. Let k(G) denote the class number (= number of conjugacy classes) of a finite group G. As is well-known, k(G) = # Irr(G) (?) arXiv:1807.01101v2 [math.RA] 26 Aug 2019 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20D15, 20E45, 05A15, 15B33, 13E05, 11M41 Keywords. Average size of a kernel, duality, conjugacy classes, p-groups, Lie rings, unipotent groups The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Substantial parts of the research described here were carried out while the author was a Feodor Lynen Research Fellow at the University of Auckland. is the number of ordinary irreducible characters of G. No natural bijection between conjugacy classes and irreducible characters of general finite groups has been found. Instead, (?) seems to be best understood in terms of dualities; see e.g. the discussion [30]. In a recent paper [26], O’Brien and Voll applied techniques previously employed in the study of representation growth of infinite groups to the study of class numbers of finite p-groups; here, and throughout this article, p denotes a prime. The main techniques they used were the Lazard correspondence and the Kirillov orbit method. The former provides an equivalence of categories between p-groups and Lie rings subject to suitable assumptions. The latter provides a Lie-theoretic characterisation of irreducible representations of suitable groups in terms of co-adjoint orbits. Suppose that G = exp(g) is a finite p-group corresponding to a Lie ring g via the Lazard correspondence. As a refinement of (?), O’Brien and Voll obtained two different expressions for k(G), corresponding to both sides of (?); for groups of exponent p, their description involves the rank loci of two types of “commutator matrices” attached to g. Average size of kernels. Given finite abelian groups V and W and a subgroup M ⊂ Hom(V, W ), the average size of the kernel of the elements of M is the rational number 1 X ask(M) := |Ker(a)|. (†) |M| a∈M These numbers appeared in work of Linial and Weitz [21] and Fulman and Goldstein [11]. They were further investigated by the author [27]. Using p-adic Lie theory, it turns out that numbers of the form ask(M) include numbers of orbits and conjugacy classes of suitable linear groups. In [27, §8], this was applied to the study of orbit-counting and conjugacy class zeta functions associated with unipotent pro-p groups. An elementary yet crucial ingredient of [27] was the following observation (see [27, Lem. 2.1]) going back to Linial and Weitz: X ask(M) = |xM|−1. (‡) x∈V Knuth duality. The two expressions (†)–(‡) for ask(M) and those for k(G) in [26, Thm A] are formally similar and seem to suggest a common underlying notion of duality. Indeed, we will see in §§4–5 that a suitable generalisation (see §3) of the above setting for average sizes of kernels explains the dualities of both [26] and (‡). Namely, these dualities reflect the effects of two different involutions in the symmetric group S3 of degree three acting by functors (which we call “Knuth dualities”) on the isomorphism classes of objects of suitable categories of “module representations”. Special cases of this action are ubiquitous in the study of semifields where they are known under the heading of “Knuth orbits”; see [17] and e.g. [19]. While somewhat technical to set up rigorously in the present setting, Knuth duality as studied here only requires elementary linear algebra. The innocuous yet crucial abstraction step is the following: rather than a subgroup M of Hom(V, W ) as above, we θ consider a possibly non-injective homomorphism M −→ Hom(V, W ); we will dub such 2 maps “module representations” in §2. Generalising (†), we let 1 X ask(θ) := |Ker(aθ)|. |M| a∈M The aforementioned S3-action now permutes the three groups M, V , and W , combined with taking suitable duals. While essentially equivalent S3-actions have been studied in related settings in the literature, the present article seems to be the first to systematically explore the effects of this action on average sizes of kernels. In particular, our main result here, Theorem 5.2, constitutes a simultaneous and unified generalisation of both (‡) and the final assertion of [26, Thm A] (the aforementioned two expressions for k(G)). Lie algebras as module representations. Each Lie algebra g over Z (“Lie ring”) gives rise to a canonical associated module representation, namely its adjoint representation adg g −−→ Hom(g, g). Clearly, g and adg determine one another. Indeed, using the formalism developed in §2.2, the rule g 7→ adg embeds the category of Lie algebras over Z into the “homotopy category” of module representations over Z. Let p be a prime and let g be a finite nilpotent Lie algebra g of class < p over Z/pn. As we will see in §6, by embedding the category of such Lie algebras into a category of module representations over Z/pn, the function ask( · ) (defined on the latter category) extends taking the class number k(exp(g)) of the finite p-group exp(g) associated with g. Crucially, Knuth duals of adjoint representations of Lie algebras need not be of the same form. It is therefore reasonable to enlarge the original ambient category of Lie algebras. A natural (but possibly intractable) question suggested by this point of view asks which numbers of the form ask(θ) (where θ is a module representation) are, or are related to, class numbers k(G) of groups. We contribute two results towards answering this question. First, we will see in §7 that ask(α) is essentially a class number for each “alternating” module representation α, a class of module representations far more general than adjoint representations of Lie algebras. Secondly, we will see that for each module representation θ M −→ Hom(V, W ) (subject to some finiteness conditions), the number 1 X ask2(θ) := |Ker(aθ)|2 |M| a∈M is, up to a harmless factor, the class number of a group. We will discuss the relationship between the numbers ask(θ) and ask2(θ) and give several examples of the latter. Acknowledgement The author is grateful to Christopher Voll for comments and discussions and to the anonymous referee for several helpful and insightful suggestions. Notation Throughout, rings are assumed to be associative, commutative, and unital. Unless otherwise specified by subscripts, tensor products are taken over their natural base rings. 3 Maps (including matrices) usually act on the right. For an object A, we often let A id itself refer to the identity morphism A −−→A A. The symbol O always denotes a discrete n valuation ring (DVR) and P denotes its maximal ideal. We write On = O/P , K = O/P, and q = |K| whenever K is finite. We let K denote the field of fractions of O. 2 Module representations Throughout, let R be a ring. 2.1 Modules We recall standard terminology and set up notation. Let Mod(R) be the category of R-modules and R-homomorphisms and let mod(R) be the full subcategory of Mod(R) consisting of finitely generated modules. Let ( · )∗ = Hom( · ,R) denote the usual dual. The evaluation map associated with R-modules V and W is εV V −−→W Hom Hom(V, W ),W , x 7→ (φ 7→ xφ). εV Recall that V is reflexive if V −→R V ∗∗ is an isomorphism. The following is folklore. Proposition 2.1. Let P and P 0 be finitely generated projective R-modules. Then: (i) P is reflexive. (ii) P ∗ is finitely generated and projective. (iii) The natural maps P ∗ ⊗ P 0 → Hom(P, P 0) and P ∗ ⊗ (P 0)∗ → (P ⊗ P 0)∗ are both isomorphisms. Proof. See e.g. [15, Ch. 5, p. 66, Thm] for (i)–(ii) and [25, 12.14–12.19] for (iii). Projective modules over local rings are free; see e.g. [28, Tag 0593]. If R is Noetherian and V and W are finitely generated R-modules, then Hom(V, W ) is finitely generated. 2.2 Eight categories of module representations θ Module representations. A module representation over R is a homomorphism M −→ Hom(V, W ), where M, V , and W are R-modules. We occasionally write M = Mθ, V = Vθ, and W = Wθ. A module representation θ can be equivalently described in terms of ∗θ the bilinear multiplication Vθ × Mθ −→ Wθ defined by x ∗θ a = x(aθ) for x ∈ Vθ and a ∈ Mθ. The maps ∗θ are precisely the “bimaps” studied by Wilson et al.; see e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A General Theory of Localizations
    GENERAL THEORY OF LOCALIZATION DAVID WHITE • Localization in Algebra • Localization in Category Theory • Bousfield localization Thank them for the invitation. Last section contains some of my PhD research, under Mark Hovey at Wesleyan University. For more, please see my website: dwhite03.web.wesleyan.edu 1. The right way to think about localization in algebra Localization is a systematic way of adding multiplicative inverses to a ring, i.e. given a commutative ring R with unity and a multiplicative subset S ⊂ R (i.e. contains 1, closed under product), localization constructs a ring S−1R and a ring homomorphism j : R ! S−1R that takes elements in S to units in S−1R. We want to do this in the best way possible, and we formalize that via a universal property, i.e. for any f : R ! T taking S to units we have a unique g: j R / S−1R f g T | Recall that S−1R is just R × S= ∼ where (r; s) is really r=s and r=s ∼ r0=s0 iff t(rs0 − sr0) = 0 for some t (i.e. fractions are reduced to lowest terms). The ring structure can be verified just as −1 for Q. The map j takes r 7! r=1, and given f you can set g(r=s) = f(r)f(s) . Demonstrate commutativity of the triangle here. The universal property is saying that S−1R is the closest ring to R with the property that all s 2 S are units. A category theorist uses the universal property to define the object, then uses R × S= ∼ as a construction to prove it exists.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Objects in Categories
    Complete objects in categories James Richard Andrew Gray February 22, 2021 Abstract We introduce the notions of proto-complete, complete, complete˚ and strong-complete objects in pointed categories. We show under mild condi- tions on a pointed exact protomodular category that every proto-complete (respectively complete) object is the product of an abelian proto-complete (respectively complete) object and a strong-complete object. This to- gether with the observation that the trivial group is the only abelian complete group recovers a theorem of Baer classifying complete groups. In addition we generalize several theorems about groups (subgroups) with trivial center (respectively, centralizer), and provide a categorical explana- tion behind why the derivation algebra of a perfect Lie algebra with trivial center and the automorphism group of a non-abelian (characteristically) simple group are strong-complete. 1 Introduction Recall that Carmichael [19] called a group G complete if it has trivial cen- ter and each automorphism is inner. For each group G there is a canonical homomorphism cG from G to AutpGq, the automorphism group of G. This ho- momorphism assigns to each g in G the inner automorphism which sends each x in G to gxg´1. It can be readily seen that a group G is complete if and only if cG is an isomorphism. Baer [1] showed that a group G is complete if and only if every normal monomorphism with domain G is a split monomorphism. We call an object in a pointed category complete if it satisfies this latter condi- arXiv:2102.09834v1 [math.CT] 19 Feb 2021 tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Category of G-Groups and Its Spectral Category
    Communications in Algebra ISSN: 0092-7872 (Print) 1532-4125 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lagb20 Category of G-Groups and its Spectral Category María José Arroyo Paniagua & Alberto Facchini To cite this article: María José Arroyo Paniagua & Alberto Facchini (2017) Category of G-Groups and its Spectral Category, Communications in Algebra, 45:4, 1696-1710, DOI: 10.1080/00927872.2016.1222409 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2016.1222409 Accepted author version posted online: 07 Oct 2016. Published online: 07 Oct 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 12 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lagb20 Download by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] Date: 29 November 2016, At: 17:29 COMMUNICATIONS IN ALGEBRA® 2017, VOL. 45, NO. 4, 1696–1710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2016.1222409 Category of G-Groups and its Spectral Category María José Arroyo Paniaguaa and Alberto Facchinib aDepartamento de Matemáticas, División de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Iztapalapa, Mexico, D. F., México; bDipartimento di Matematica, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Let G be a group. We analyse some aspects of the category G-Grp of G-groups. Received 15 April 2016 In particular, we show that a construction similar to the construction of the Revised 22 July 2016 spectral category, due to Gabriel and Oberst, and its dual, due to the second Communicated by T. Albu. author, is possible for the category G-Grp.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 4 Supergroups
    Lecture 4 Supergroups Let k be a field, chark =26 , 3. Throughout this lecture we assume all superalgebras are associative, com- mutative (i.e. xy = (−1)p(x)p(y) yx) with unit and over k unless otherwise specified. 1 Supergroups A supergroup scheme is a superscheme whose functor of points is group val- ued, that is to say, valued in the category of groups. It associates functorially a group to each superscheme or equivalently to each superalgebra. Let us see this in more detail. Definition 1.1. A supergroup functor is a group valued functor: G : (salg) −→ (sets) This is equivalent to have the following natural transformations: 1. Multiplication µ : G × G −→ G, such that µ ◦ (µ × id) = (µ × id) ◦ µ, i. e. µ×id G × G × G −−−→ G × G id×µ µ µ G ×y G −−−→ Gy 2. Unit e : ek −→ G, where ek : (salg) −→ (sets), ek(A)=1A, such that µ ◦ (id ⊗ e)= µ ◦ (e × id), i. e. id×e e×id G × ek −→ G × G ←− ek × G ց µ ւ G y 1 3. Inverse i : G −→ G, such that µ ◦ (id, i)= e ◦ id, i. e. (id,i) G −−−→ G × G µ e eyk −−−→ Gy The supergroup functors together with their morphisms, that is the nat- ural transformations that preserve µ, e and i, form a category. If G is the functor of points of a superscheme X, i.e. G = hX , in other words G(A) = Hom(SpecA, X), we say that X is a supergroup scheme. An affine supergroup scheme X is a supergroup scheme which is an affine superscheme, that is X = SpecO(X) for some superalgebra O(X).
    [Show full text]
  • Of F-Points of an Algebraic Variety X Defined Over A
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 14, Number 3, Pages 509{534 S 0894-0347(01)00365-4 Article electronically published on February 27, 2001 R-EQUIVALENCE IN SPINOR GROUPS VLADIMIR CHERNOUSOV AND ALEXANDER MERKURJEV The notion of R-equivalence in the set X(F )ofF -points of an algebraic variety X defined over a field F was introduced by Manin in [11] and studied for linear algebraic groups by Colliot-Th´el`ene and Sansuc in [3]. For an algebraic group G defined over a field F , the subgroup RG(F )ofR-trivial elements in the group G(F ) of all F -pointsisdefinedasfollows.Anelementg belongs to RG(F )ifthereisa A1 ! rational morphism f : F G over F , defined at the points 0 and 1 such that f(0) = 1 and f(1) = g.Inotherwords,g can be connected with the identity of the group by the image of a rational curve. The subgroup RG(F )isnormalinG(F ) and the factor group G(F )=RG(F )=G(F )=R is called the group of R-equivalence classes. The group of R-equivalence classes is very useful while studying the rationality problem for algebraic groups, the problem to determine whether the variety of an algebraic group is rational or stably rational. We say that a group G is R-trivial if G(E)=R = 1 for any field extension E=F. IfthevarietyofagroupG is stably rational over F ,thenG is R-trivial. Thus, if one can establish non-triviality of the group of R-equivalence classes G(E)=R just for one field extension E=F, the group G is not stably rational over F .
    [Show full text]
  • Adams Operations and Symmetries of Representation Categories Arxiv
    Adams operations and symmetries of representation categories Ehud Meir and Markus Szymik May 2019 Abstract: Adams operations are the natural transformations of the representation ring func- tor on the category of finite groups, and they are one way to describe the usual λ–ring structure on these rings. From the representation-theoretical point of view, they codify some of the symmetric monoidal structure of the representation category. We show that the monoidal structure on the category alone, regardless of the particular symmetry, deter- mines all the odd Adams operations. On the other hand, we give examples to show that monoidal equivalences do not have to preserve the second Adams operations and to show that monoidal equivalences that preserve the second Adams operations do not have to be symmetric. Along the way, we classify all possible symmetries and all monoidal auto- equivalences of representation categories of finite groups. MSC: 18D10, 19A22, 20C15 Keywords: Representation rings, Adams operations, λ–rings, symmetric monoidal cate- gories 1 Introduction Every finite group G can be reconstructed from the category Rep(G) of its finite-dimensional representations if one considers this category as a symmetric monoidal category. This follows from more general results of Deligne [DM82, Prop. 2.8], [Del90]. If one considers the repre- sentation category Rep(G) as a monoidal category alone, without its canonical symmetry, then it does not determine the group G. See Davydov [Dav01] and Etingof–Gelaki [EG01] for such arXiv:1704.03389v3 [math.RT] 3 Jun 2019 isocategorical groups. Examples go back to Fischer [Fis88]. The representation ring R(G) of a finite group G is a λ–ring.
    [Show full text]
  • Groups and Categories
    \chap04" 2009/2/27 i i page 65 i i 4 GROUPS AND CATEGORIES This chapter is devoted to some of the various connections between groups and categories. If you already know the basic group theory covered here, then this will give you some insight into the categorical constructions we have learned so far; and if you do not know it yet, then you will learn it now as an application of category theory. We will focus on three different aspects of the relationship between categories and groups: 1. groups in a category, 2. the category of groups, 3. groups as categories. 4.1 Groups in a category As we have already seen, the notion of a group arises as an abstraction of the automorphisms of an object. In a specific, concrete case, a group G may thus consist of certain arrows g : X ! X for some object X in a category C, G ⊆ HomC(X; X) But the abstract group concept can also be described directly as an object in a category, equipped with a certain structure. This more subtle notion of a \group in a category" also proves to be quite useful. Let C be a category with finite products. The notion of a group in C essentially generalizes the usual notion of a group in Sets. Definition 4.1. A group in C consists of objects and arrows as so: m i G × G - G G 6 u 1 i i i i \chap04" 2009/2/27 i i page 66 66 GROUPSANDCATEGORIES i i satisfying the following conditions: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 395: Category Theory Northwestern University, Lecture Notes
    Math 395: Category Theory Northwestern University, Lecture Notes Written by Santiago Can˜ez These are lecture notes for an undergraduate seminar covering Category Theory, taught by the author at Northwestern University. The book we roughly follow is “Category Theory in Context” by Emily Riehl. These notes outline the specific approach we’re taking in terms the order in which topics are presented and what from the book we actually emphasize. We also include things we look at in class which aren’t in the book, but otherwise various standard definitions and examples are left to the book. Watch out for typos! Comments and suggestions are welcome. Contents Introduction to Categories 1 Special Morphisms, Products 3 Coproducts, Opposite Categories 7 Functors, Fullness and Faithfulness 9 Coproduct Examples, Concreteness 12 Natural Isomorphisms, Representability 14 More Representable Examples 17 Equivalences between Categories 19 Yoneda Lemma, Functors as Objects 21 Equalizers and Coequalizers 25 Some Functor Properties, An Equivalence Example 28 Segal’s Category, Coequalizer Examples 29 Limits and Colimits 29 More on Limits/Colimits 29 More Limit/Colimit Examples 30 Continuous Functors, Adjoints 30 Limits as Equalizers, Sheaves 30 Fun with Squares, Pullback Examples 30 More Adjoint Examples 30 Stone-Cech 30 Group and Monoid Objects 30 Monads 30 Algebras 30 Ultrafilters 30 Introduction to Categories Category theory provides a framework through which we can relate a construction/fact in one area of mathematics to a construction/fact in another. The goal is an ultimate form of abstraction, where we can truly single out what about a given problem is specific to that problem, and what is a reflection of a more general phenomenom which appears elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1305.5974V1 [Math-Ph]
    INTRODUCTION TO SPORADIC GROUPS for physicists Luis J. Boya∗ Departamento de F´ısica Te´orica Universidad de Zaragoza E-50009 Zaragoza, SPAIN MSC: 20D08, 20D05, 11F22 PACS numbers: 02.20.a, 02.20.Bb, 11.24.Yb Key words: Finite simple groups, sporadic groups, the Monster group. Juan SANCHO GUIMERA´ In Memoriam Abstract We describe the collection of finite simple groups, with a view on physical applications. We recall first the prime cyclic groups Zp, and the alternating groups Altn>4. After a quick revision of finite fields Fq, q = pf , with p prime, we consider the 16 families of finite simple groups of Lie type. There are also 26 extra “sporadic” groups, which gather in three interconnected “generations” (with 5+7+8 groups) plus the Pariah groups (6). We point out a couple of physical applications, in- cluding constructing the biggest sporadic group, the “Monster” group, with close to 1054 elements from arguments of physics, and also the relation of some Mathieu groups with compactification in string and M-theory. ∗[email protected] arXiv:1305.5974v1 [math-ph] 25 May 2013 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Generaldescriptionofthework . 3 1.2 Initialmathematics............................ 7 2 Generalities about groups 14 2.1 Elementarynotions............................ 14 2.2 Theframeworkorbox .......................... 16 2.3 Subgroups................................. 18 2.4 Morphisms ................................ 22 2.5 Extensions................................. 23 2.6 Familiesoffinitegroups ......................... 24 2.7 Abeliangroups .............................. 27 2.8 Symmetricgroup ............................. 28 3 More advanced group theory 30 3.1 Groupsoperationginspaces. 30 3.2 Representations.............................. 32 3.3 Characters.Fourierseries . 35 3.4 Homological algebra and extension theory . 37 3.5 Groupsuptoorder16..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Differential Geometry Cahiers De Topologie Et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques, Tome 35, No 4 (1994), P
    CAHIERS DE TOPOLOGIE ET GÉOMÉTRIE DIFFÉRENTIELLE CATÉGORIQUES M. V. LOSIK Categorical differential geometry Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catégoriques, tome 35, no 4 (1994), p. 274-290 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=CTGDC_1994__35_4_274_0> © Andrée C. Ehresmann et les auteurs, 1994, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catégoriques » implique l’accord avec les conditions générales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam.org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ CAHIERS DE TOPOLOGIE ET VolumeXXXV-4 (1994) GEOMETRIE DIFFERENTIELLE CATEGORIQUES CATEGORICAL DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY by M.V. LOSIK R6sum6. Cet article d6veloppe une th6orie g6n6rale des structures g6om6triques sur des vari6t6s, bas6e sur la tlieorie des categories. De nombreuses generalisations connues des vari6t6s et des vari6t6s de Rie- mann r.entrent dans le cadre de cette th6orie g6n6rale. On donne aussi une construction des classes caractéristiques des objets ainsi obtenus, tant classiques que generalises. Diverses applications sont indiqu6es, en parti- culier aux feuilletages. Introduction This paper is the result of an attempt to give a precise meaning to some ideas of the "formal differential geometry" of Gel’fand. These ideas of Gel’fand have not been formalized in general but they may be explained by the following example. Let C*(Wn; IR) be the complex of continuous cochains of the Lie algebra Wn of formal vector fields on IRn with coefficients in the trivial Wn-module IR and let C*(Wn,GL(n, R)), C*(Wn, O(n)) be its subcomplexes of relative cochains of Wn relative to the groups GL(n, R), 0(n), respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Section I.9. Free Groups, Free Products, and Generators and Relations
    I.9. Free Groups, Free Products, and Generators and Relations 1 Section I.9. Free Groups, Free Products, and Generators and Relations Note. This section includes material covered in Fraleigh’s Sections VII.39 and VII.40. We define a free group on a set and show (in Theorem I.9.2) that this idea of “free” is consistent with the idea of “free on a set” in the setting of a concrete category (see Definition I.7.7). We also define generators and relations in a group presentation. Note. To define a free group F on a set X, we will first define “words” on the set, have a way to reduce these words, define a method of combining words (this com- bination will be the binary operation in the free group), and then give a reduction of the combined words. The free group will have the reduced words as its elements and the combination as the binary operation. If set X = ∅ then the free group on X is F = hei. Definition. Let X be a nonempty set. Define set X−1 to be disjoint from X such that |X| = |X−1|. Choose a bijection from X to X−1 and denote the image of x ∈ X as x−1. Introduce the symbol “1” (with X and X−1 not containing 1). A −1 word on X is a sequence (a1, a2,...) with ai ∈ X ∪ X ∪ {1} for i ∈ N such that for some n ∈ N we have ak = 1 for all k ≥ n. The sequence (1, 1,...) is the empty word which we will also sometimes denote as 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Topological Groups and Lie Groups
    Appendix A Topological Groups and Lie Groups This appendix studies topological groups, and also Lie groups which are special topological groups as well as manifolds with some compatibility conditions. The concept of a topological group arose through the work of Felix Klein (1849–1925) and Marius Sophus Lie (1842–1899). One of the concrete concepts of the the- ory of topological groups is the concept of Lie groups named after Sophus Lie. The concept of Lie groups arose in mathematics through the study of continuous transformations, which constitute in a natural way topological manifolds. Topo- logical groups occupy a vast territory in topology and geometry. The theory of topological groups first arose in the theory of Lie groups which carry differential structures and they form the most important class of topological groups. For exam- ple, GL (n, R), GL (n, C), GL (n, H), SL (n, R), SL (n, C), O(n, R), U(n, C), SL (n, H) are some important classical Lie Groups. Sophus Lie first systematically investigated groups of transformations and developed his theory of transformation groups to solve his integration problems. David Hilbert (1862–1943) presented to the International Congress of Mathe- maticians, 1900 (ICM 1900) in Paris a series of 23 research projects. He stated in this lecture that his Fifth Problem is linked to Sophus Lie theory of transformation groups, i.e., Lie groups act as groups of transformations on manifolds. A translation of Hilbert’s fifth problem says “It is well-known that Lie with the aid of the concept of continuous groups of transformations, had set up a system of geometrical axioms and, from the standpoint of his theory of groups has proved that this system of axioms suffices for geometry”.
    [Show full text]