DOCSLIB.ORG

JMM 2017 Student Poster Session Abstract Book

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JMM 2017 Student Poster Session Abstract Book Abstracts for the MAA Undergraduate Poster Session Atlanta, GA January 6, 2017 Organized by Eric Ruggieri College of the Holy Cross and Chasen Smith Georgia Southern University Organized by the MAA Committee on Undergraduate Student Activities and Chapters and CUPM Subcommittee on Research by Undergraduates Dear Students, Advisors, Judges and Colleagues, If you look around today you will see over 300 posters and nearly 500 student presenters, representing a wide array of mathematical topics and ideas. These posters showcase the vibrant research being conducted as part of summer programs and during the academic year at colleges and universities from across the United States and beyond. It is so rewarding to see this session, which offers such a great opportunity for interaction between students and professional mathematicians, continue to grow. The judges you see here today are professional mathematicians from institutions around the world. They are advisors, colleagues, new Ph.D.s, and administrators. We have acknowledged many of them in this booklet; however, many judges here volunteered on site. Their support is vital to the success of the session and we thank them. We are supported financially by Tudor Investments and Two Sigma. We are also helped by the mem- bers of the Committee on Undergraduate Student Activities and Chapters (CUSAC) in some way or other. They are: Dora C. Ahmadi; Jennifer Bergner; Benjamin Galluzzo; Kristina Cole Garrett; TJ Hitchman; Cynthia Huffman; Aihua Li; Sara Louise Malec; Lisa Marano; May Mei; Stacy Ann Muir; Andy Nieder- maier; Pamela A. Richardson; Jennifer Schaefer; Peri Shereen; Eve Torrence; Violetta Vasilevska; Gerard A. Venema; and Jim Walsh. There are many details of the poster session that begin with putting out the advertisement in FOCUS, ensuring students have travel money, making sure the online submission system works properly, and organizing poster boards and tables in the room we are in today that are attributed to Gerard Venema (MAA Associate Secretary), Margaret Maurer (MAA), and Donna Salter (AMS). Our online submission system and technical support is key to managing the ever-growing number of poster entries we receive. Thanks to MAA staff, especially Margaret Maurer for her work setting up and managing the system this year. Preparation of the abstract book is a time-consuming task. Thanks to Beverly Ruedi for doing the final production work on the abstract book. Thank yous go to Angel R. Pineda (California State University, Fullerton), James P. Solazzo (Coastal Carolina University), Rebecca Garcia (Sam Houston State University), and Dora Ahmadi (Moorehead State University) for organizing an orientation for the judges and authoring the judging form. Thanks to all the students, judges, volunteers, and sponsors. We hope you have a wonderful experience at this years poster session! Eric Ruggieri College of the Holy Cross Chasen Smith Georgia Southern University 1 The MAA gratefully acknowledges the support of Tudor Investment Corporation and Two Sigma. Their generosity on behalf of the 2017 Undergraduate Student Poster Session enables students to interact with peers and role models in the mathematical sciences during the largest mathematics meeting in the world. Support for the student travel grant is provided by the National Science Foundation (grant DMS-1341843). Judges and Judge Affiliations 1. Roza Aceska, Ball State University 2. Bahar Acu, UCLA-USC 3. Stephen Adams, Cabrini University 4. Terrence Michael Adams, US Government 5. Konrad Aguilar, University of Denver 6. Waleed K. Al-Rawashdeh, Montana Tech 7. K. Scott Alberts, Truman State University 8. Ricardo Alfaro, University of Michigan-Flint 9. Mohamed Allali, Chapman University 10. Leyda Almodovar Velazquez, Stonehill College 11. Carlos Enrique Amendola, TU Berlin 12. Ibukun O.O. Amusan, Kentucky State University 13. Katie Anders, University of Texas at Tyler 14. Jacqueline M. Anderson, Bridgewater State University 15. Kathy Andrist, Utah Valley University 16. Angela Antonou, University of St. Francis 17. Moa Apagodu, Virginia Commonwealth University 18. Kassie Archer, University of Texas at Tyler 19. Mary Armon, Knox College 20. Andrea Arnold, North Carolina State University 21. Alexander G. Atwood, SUNY Suffolk County Community College 22. Chad Awtrey, Elon University 23. Mohammad K. Azarian, University of Evansville 24. Liljana Babinkostova, Boise State University 25. Nicholas R. Baeth, University of Central Missouri 26. Eric Bancroft, Grove City College 27. Debendra Banjade, Coastal Carolina University 28. Madhuri Bapat, Easten Arizona College 29. Rachel Barber, Mississippi State University 30. Roberto Barrera, Texas A&M University 31. Terry Lee Barron, Georgia Gwinnett College 32. Jeremiah D. Bartz, University of North Dakota 33. Deepak Basyal, University of Wisconsin Colleges 34. Daniel J. Bates, Colorado State University 35. Rachel Bates, Redlands Community College 36. Scott F. Beaver, Western Oregon University 37. Julie C. Beier, Earlham College 38. Julie A. Belock, Salem State University 39. Robert Benim, University of Georgia 40. Jenn Berg, fitchburg state university 3 4 Judges and Judge Affiliations 41. Heidi Berger, Simpson College 42. Charles Bergeron, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Science 43. Jennifer Bergner, Salisbury University 44. Daniel Irving Bernstein, North Carolina State University 45. Ghanshyam Bhatt, Tennessee State University 46. Karen M. Bliss, Virginia Military Institute 47. Kelly Bodwin, UNC Chapel Hill 48. PRIYA BOINDALA, Georgia Gwinnett College 49. Lynette J. Boos, Providence College 50. John Botzum, Kutztown University 51. Rachelle Bouchat, Indiana University of Pennsylvania 52. Dani Brake, University of Notre Dame 53. David M. Bressoud, CBMS 54. Abra Brisbin, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire 55. Elisabeth Mary Brown, North Carolina State University 56. Melanie Brown, Champlain College 57. Kurt M. Bryan, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 58. Douglas G. Burkholder, Lenoir-Rhyne University 59. Steve Butler, Iowa State University 60. Jason Todd Callahan, St. Edward’s University 61. Santiago Camacho, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 62. Kristin A. Camenga, Juniata College 63. Mindy Capaldi, Valparaiso University 64. James W. Carlson, Creighton University 65. Lori Carmack, Salisbury University 66. Debra Carney, Colorado School of Mines 67. James Case, Baltimore MD 68. Christopher J. Catone, Albright College 69. Pritha Chakraborty, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi 70. Darryl Chamberlain, Georgia State University 71. Sandra Chandler, Kennesaw State University 72. Shih-Wei Chao, University of North Georgia 73. Scott Chapman, Sam Houston State University 74. Kevin E. Charlwood, Washburn University 75. Vinodh Kumar Chellamuthu, Dixie State University 76. Tao Chen, CUNY LaGuardia Community College 77. Zhengqing Chen, Clarkson University 78. Po-Keng Cheng, SUNY-Stony Brook University 79. Elena Cheser, University of Hartford 80. Sher Chhetri, Florida Atlantic University, FL 81. Leah Rene Childers, Pittsburg State University Judges and Judge Affiliations 5 82. Youngin Cho, Ewha Womans University 83. Sl-Ghi Choi, University of Texas at Arlington 84. Timothy Chumley, Mount Holyoke College 85. Yu-Min Chung, College of William and Mary 86. Emily Cilli-Turner, University of Washington Tacoma 87. Veronica Maria Ciocanel, Brown University 88. Karen Elizabeth Clark, The College of New Jersey 89. Richard J. Cleary, Babson College 90. Henry L. Cohn, Microsoft Research New England 91. Benjamin Collins, University of Wisconsin-Platteville 92. James Burton Collins, West Texas A&M University 93. Randall E Cone, Salisbury University 94. Ivan Guillermo Contreras, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 95. Catherine Lynn Crockett, Point Loma Nazarene University 96. Jennifer Crodelle, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 97. Susan Crook, Loras College 98. Lawrence A. D’Antonio, Ramapo College 99. Ulrich Daepp, Bucknell University 100. Raj Dahal, Coastal Carolina University 101. Daniel A. Daly, Southeast Missouri State University 102. James Andrew Davis, University of Richmond 103. Rachel Davis, University of Wisconsin-Madison 104. Laura De Carli, Florida International University 105. Meghan Maureen De Witt, St Thomas Aquinas College 106. Louis A. Deaett, Quinnipiac University 107. Joyati Debnath, Winona State University 108. Steven M. Deckelman, University of Wisconsin 109. Mihiri DeSilva, Texas Tech University 110. Sougata Dhar, Northern Illinois University 111. John C. D. Diamantopoulos, Northeastern State University 112. James Dilts, University of California, San Diego 113. Dinh Trung Hoa, Auburn University 114. Tam Do, Rice University 115. Daniel W. Dobbs, Trine University 116. Yinlin Dong, University of Texas at Arlington 117. Elizabeth Donovan, Murray State University 118. Suzanne Doree, Augsburg College, Minneapolis 119. Allison Dorko, Oregon State University 120. J. Matthew Douglass, NSF / UNT‘ 121. Sarah Dumnich, Frostburg State University 122. Jacob Duncan, Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame 6 Judges and Judge Affiliations 123. Eric Alan Eager, University of Wisconsin - La Crosse 124. Richard Abe Edwards, Michigan State University 125. Joseph A. Eichholz, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 126. Sarah Eichhorn, University of California, Irvine 127. Galit Eizman, Harvard University 128. Ahmad El-Guindy, Texas A&M University at Qatar 129. Sharon Emerson-Stonnell, Longwood University 130. Martin F. Engman, Georgia Institute of Technology 131. Rachel Epstein, Georgia College 132. Samantha Erwin,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Graph Theory, Prentice -Hall of India
    Annexure 145 www.ccsenet.org/jmr Journal of Mathematics Research Vol. 3, No. 3; August 2011 Product Cordial Labeling in the Context of Tensor Product of Graphs S K Vaidya (Corresponding author) Department of Mathematics, Saurashtra University Rajkot-360 005. GUJARAT, India E-mail: [email protected] N B Vyas Atmiya Institute of Technology and Science Rajkot-360 005. GUJARAT, India E-mail: [email protected] Received: March 10, 2011 Accepted: March 28, 2011 doi:10.5539/jmr.v3n3p83 Abstract For the graph G1 and G2 the tensor product is denoted by G1(T p)G2 which is the graph with vertex set V(G1(T p)G2) = V(G1) × V(G2) and edge set E(G1(T p)G2) = {(u1, v1), (u2, v2)/u1u2E(G1) and v1v2E(G2)}. The graph Pm(T p)Pn is disconnected for ∀m, n while the graphs Cm(T p)Cn and Cm(T p)Pn are disconnected for both m and n even. We prove that these graphs are product cordial graphs. In addition to this we show that the graphs obtained by joining the connected components of respective graphs by a path of arbitrary length also admit product cordial labeling. Keywords: Cordial labeling, Porduct cordial labeling, Tensor product AMS Subject classification (2010): 05C78. 1. Introduction We begin with simple, finite and undirected graph G = (V(G), E(G)). For standard terminology and notations we follow (West, D. B, 2001). The brief summary of definitions and relevant results are given below. 1.1 Definition: If the vertices of the graph are assigned values subject to certain condition(s) then it is known as graph labeling.
    [Show full text]
  • Matroid Automorphisms of the F4 Root System
    ∗ Matroid automorphisms of the F4 root system Stephanie Fried Aydin Gerek Gary Gordon Dept. of Mathematics Dept. of Mathematics Dept. of Mathematics Grinnell College Lehigh University Lafayette College Grinnell, IA 50112 Bethlehem, PA 18015 Easton, PA 18042 [email protected] [email protected] Andrija Peruniˇci´c Dept. of Mathematics Bard College Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504 [email protected] Submitted: Feb 11, 2007; Accepted: Oct 20, 2007; Published: Nov 12, 2007 Mathematics Subject Classification: 05B35 Dedicated to Thomas Brylawski. Abstract Let F4 be the root system associated with the 24-cell, and let M(F4) be the simple linear dependence matroid corresponding to this root system. We determine the automorphism group of this matroid and compare it to the Coxeter group W for the root system. We find non-geometric automorphisms that preserve the matroid but not the root system. 1 Introduction Given a finite set of vectors in Euclidean space, we consider the linear dependence matroid of the set, where dependences are taken over the reals. When the original set of vectors has `nice' symmetry, it makes sense to compare the geometric symmetry (the Coxeter or Weyl group) with the group that preserves sets of linearly independent vectors. This latter group is precisely the automorphism group of the linear matroid determined by the given vectors. ∗Research supported by NSF grant DMS-055282. the electronic journal of combinatorics 14 (2007), #R78 1 For the root systems An and Bn, matroid automorphisms do not give any additional symmetry [4]. One can interpret these results in the following way: combinatorial sym- metry (preserving dependence) and geometric symmetry (via isometries of the ambient Euclidean space) are essentially the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Graph Operations and Upper Bounds on Graph Homomorphism Counts
    Graph Operations and Upper Bounds on Graph Homomorphism Counts Luke Sernau March 9, 2017 Abstract We construct a family of countexamples to a conjecture of Galvin [5], which stated that for any n-vertex, d-regular graph G and any graph H (possibly with loops), n n d d hom(G, H) ≤ max hom(Kd,d,H) 2 , hom(Kd+1,H) +1 , n o where hom(G, H) is the number of homomorphisms from G to H. By exploiting properties of the graph tensor product and graph exponentiation, we also find new infinite families of H for which the bound stated above on hom(G, H) holds for all n-vertex, d-regular G. In particular we show that if HWR is the complete looped path on three vertices, also known as the Widom-Rowlinson graph, then n d hom(G, HWR) ≤ hom(Kd+1,HWR) +1 for all n-vertex, d-regular G. This verifies a conjecture of Galvin. arXiv:1510.01833v3 [math.CO] 8 Mar 2017 1 Introduction Graph homomorphisms are an important concept in many areas of graph theory. A graph homomorphism is simply an adjacency-preserving map be- tween a graph G and a graph H. That is, for given graphs G and H, a function φ : V (G) → V (H) is said to be a homomorphism from G to H if for every edge uv ∈ E(G), we have φ(u)φ(v) ∈ E(H) (Here, as throughout, all graphs are simple, meaning without multi-edges, but they are permitted 1 to have loops).
    [Show full text]
  • European Journal of Combinatorics a Survey on Spherical Designs And
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector European Journal of Combinatorics 30 (2009) 1392–1425 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect European Journal of Combinatorics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejc A survey on spherical designs and algebraic combinatorics on spheres Eiichi Bannai a, Etsuko Bannai b a Faculty of Mathematics, Graduate School, Kyushu University, Hakozaki 6-10-1, Higashu-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8581, Japan b Misakigaoka 2-8-21, Maebaru-shi, Fukuoka, 819-1136, Japan article info a b s t r a c t Article history: This survey is mainly intended for non-specialists, though we try to Available online 12 February 2009 include many recent developments that may interest the experts as well. We want to study ``good'' finite subsets of the unit sphere. To consider ``what is good'' is a part of our problem. We start with n−1 n the definition of spherical t-designs on S in R : After discussing some important examples, we focus on tight spherical t-designs on Sn−1: Tight t-designs have good combinatorial properties, but they rarely exist. So, we are interested in the finite subsets on Sn−1, which have properties similar to tight t-designs from the various viewpoints of algebraic combinatorics. For example, rigid t-designs, universally optimal t-codes (configurations), as well as finite sets which admit the structure of an association scheme, are among them. We will discuss various results on the existence and the non-existence of special spherical t-designs, as well as general spherical t-designs, and their constructions.
    [Show full text]
  • COXETER GROUPS (Unfinished and Comments Are Welcome)
    COXETER GROUPS (Unfinished and comments are welcome) Gert Heckman Radboud University Nijmegen [email protected] October 10, 2018 1 2 Contents Preface 4 1 Regular Polytopes 7 1.1 ConvexSets............................ 7 1.2 Examples of Regular Polytopes . 12 1.3 Classification of Regular Polytopes . 16 2 Finite Reflection Groups 21 2.1 NormalizedRootSystems . 21 2.2 The Dihedral Normalized Root System . 24 2.3 TheBasisofSimpleRoots. 25 2.4 The Classification of Elliptic Coxeter Diagrams . 27 2.5 TheCoxeterElement. 35 2.6 A Dihedral Subgroup of W ................... 39 2.7 IntegralRootSystems . 42 2.8 The Poincar´eDodecahedral Space . 46 3 Invariant Theory for Reflection Groups 53 3.1 Polynomial Invariant Theory . 53 3.2 TheChevalleyTheorem . 56 3.3 Exponential Invariant Theory . 60 4 Coxeter Groups 65 4.1 Generators and Relations . 65 4.2 TheTitsTheorem ........................ 69 4.3 The Dual Geometric Representation . 74 4.4 The Classification of Some Coxeter Diagrams . 77 4.5 AffineReflectionGroups. 86 4.6 Crystallography. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 92 5 Hyperbolic Reflection Groups 97 5.1 HyperbolicSpace......................... 97 5.2 Hyperbolic Coxeter Groups . 100 5.3 Examples of Hyperbolic Coxeter Diagrams . 108 5.4 Hyperbolic reflection groups . 114 5.5 Lorentzian Lattices . 116 3 6 The Leech Lattice 125 6.1 ModularForms ..........................125 6.2 ATheoremofVenkov . 129 6.3 The Classification of Niemeier Lattices . 132 6.4 The Existence of the Leech Lattice . 133 6.5 ATheoremofConway . 135 6.6 TheCoveringRadiusofΛ . 137 6.7 Uniqueness of the Leech Lattice . 140 4 Preface Finite reflection groups are a central subject in mathematics with a long and rich history. The group of symmetries of a regular m-gon in the plane, that is the convex hull in the complex plane of the mth roots of unity, is the dihedral group of order 2m, which is the simplest example of a reflection Dm group.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficient Quantum Circuits for Szegedy Quantum Walks
    Efficient quantum circuits for Szegedy quantum walks T. Loke and J.B. Wang∗ School of Physics, The University of Western Australia, Perth WA 6009, Australia Abstract A major advantage in using Szegedy's formalism over discrete-time and continuous-time quantum walks lies in its ability to define a unitary quantum walk on directed and weighted graphs. In this paper, we present a general scheme to construct efficient quantum circuits for Szegedy quantum walks that correspond to classical Markov chains possessing transforma- tional symmetry in the columns of the transition matrix. In particular, the transformational symmetry criteria do not necessarily depend on the sparsity of the transition matrix, so this scheme can be applied to non-sparse Markov chains. Two classes of Markov chains that are amenable to this construction are cyclic permutations and complete bipartite graphs, for which we provide explicit efficient quantum circuit implementations. We also prove that our scheme can be applied to Markov chains formed by a tensor product. We also briefly discuss the implementation of Markov chains based on weighted interdependent net- works. In addition, we apply this scheme to construct efficient quantum circuits simulating the Szegedy walks used in the quantum Pagerank algorithm for some classes of non-trivial graphs, providing a necessary tool for experimental demonstration of the quantum Pagerank algorithm. 1. Introduction In the last two decades, quantum walks have produced a wide variety of quantum algo- rithms to address different problems, such as the graph isomorphism problem [1{3], ranking nodes in a network [4{6], and quantum simulation [7{11].
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Panoploid Tetracombs
    Uniform Panoploid Tetracombs George Olshevsky TETRACOMB is a four-dimensional tessellation. In any tessellation, the honeycells, which are the n-dimensional polytopes that tessellate the space, Amust by definition adjoin precisely along their facets, that is, their ( n!1)- dimensional elements, so that each facet belongs to exactly two honeycells. In the case of tetracombs, the honeycells are four-dimensional polytopes, or polychora, and their facets are polyhedra. For a tessellation to be uniform, the honeycells must all be uniform polytopes, and the vertices must be transitive on the symmetry group of the tessellation. Loosely speaking, therefore, the vertices must be “surrounded all alike” by the honeycells that meet there. If a tessellation is such that every point of its space not on a boundary between honeycells lies in the interior of exactly one honeycell, then it is panoploid. If one or more points of the space not on a boundary between honeycells lie inside more than one honeycell, the tessellation is polyploid. Tessellations may also be constructed that have “holes,” that is, regions that lie inside none of the honeycells; such tessellations are called holeycombs. It is possible for a polyploid tessellation to also be a holeycomb, but not for a panoploid tessellation, which must fill the entire space exactly once. Polyploid tessellations are also called starcombs or star-tessellations. Holeycombs usually arise when (n!1)-dimensional tessellations are themselves permitted to be honeycells; these take up the otherwise free facets that bound the “holes,” so that all the facets continue to belong to two honeycells. In this essay, as per its title, we are concerned with just the uniform panoploid tetracombs.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Statement
    Research Statement Nicholas Matteo My research is in discrete geometry and combinatorics, focusing on the symmetries of convex polytopes and tilings of Euclidean space by convex polytopes. I have classified all the convex polytopes with 2 or 3 flag orbits, and studied the possibility of polytopes or tilings which are highly symmetric combinatorially but not realizable with full geometric symmetry. 1. Background. Polytopes have been studied for millennia, and have been given many definitions. By (convex) d-polytope, I mean the convex hull of a finite collection of points in Euclidean space, whose affine hull is d-dimensional. Various other definitions don't require convexity, resulting in star-polytopes such as the Kepler- Poinsot polyhedra. A convex d-polytope may be regarded as a tiling of the (d − 1)- sphere; generalizing this, we can regard tilings of other spaces as polytopes. The combinatorial aspects that most of these definitions have in common are captured by the definition of an abstract polytope. An abstract polytope is a ranked, partially ordered set of faces, from 0-faces (vertices), 1-faces (edges), up to (d − 1)-faces (facets), satisfying certain axioms [7]. The symmetries of a convex polytope P are the Euclidean isometries which carry P to itself, and form a group, the symmetry group of P . Similarly, the automorphisms of an abstract polytope K are the order-preserving bijections from K to itself and form the automorphism group of K.A flag of a polytope is a maximal chain of its faces, ordered by inclusion: a vertex, an edge incident to the vertex, a 2-face containing the edge, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Five-Vertex Archimedean Surface Tessellation by Lanthanide-Directed Molecular Self-Assembly
    Five-vertex Archimedean surface tessellation by lanthanide-directed molecular self-assembly David Écijaa,1, José I. Urgela, Anthoula C. Papageorgioua, Sushobhan Joshia, Willi Auwärtera, Ari P. Seitsonenb, Svetlana Klyatskayac, Mario Rubenc,d, Sybille Fischera, Saranyan Vijayaraghavana, Joachim Reicherta, and Johannes V. Bartha,1 aPhysik Department E20, Technische Universität München, D-85478 Garching, Germany; bPhysikalisch-Chemisches Institut, Universität Zürich, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland; cInstitute of Nanotechnology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, D-76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany; and dInstitut de Physique et Chimie des Matériaux de Strasbourg (IPCMS), CNRS-Université de Strasbourg, F-67034 Strasbourg, France Edited by Kenneth N. Raymond, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved March 8, 2013 (received for review December 28, 2012) The tessellation of the Euclidean plane by regular polygons has by five interfering laser beams, conceived to specifically address been contemplated since ancient times and presents intriguing the surface tiling problem, yielded a distorted, 2D Archimedean- aspects embracing mathematics, art, and crystallography. Sig- like architecture (24). nificant efforts were devoted to engineer specific 2D interfacial In the last decade, the tools of supramolecular chemistry on tessellations at the molecular level, but periodic patterns with surfaces have provided new ways to engineer a diversity of sur- distinct five-vertex motifs remained elusive. Here, we report a face-confined molecular architectures, mainly exploiting molecular direct scanning tunneling microscopy investigation on the cerium- recognition of functional organic species or the metal-directed directed assembly of linear polyphenyl molecular linkers with assembly of molecular linkers (5). Self-assembly protocols have terminal carbonitrile groups on a smooth Ag(111) noble-metal sur- been developed to achieve regular surface tessellations, includ- face.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fundamental Group of SO(N) Via Quotients of Braid Groups Arxiv
    The Fundamental Group of SO(n) Via Quotients of Braid Groups Ina Hajdini∗ and Orlin Stoytchevy July 21, 2016 Abstract ∼ We describe an algebraic proof of the well-known topological fact that π1(SO(n)) = Z=2Z. The fundamental group of SO(n) appears in our approach as the center of a certain finite group defined by generators and relations. The latter is a factor group of the braid group Bn, obtained by imposing one additional relation and turns out to be a nontrivial central extension by Z=2Z of the corresponding group of rotational symmetries of the hyperoctahedron in dimension n. 1 Introduction. n The set of all rotations in R forms a group denoted by SO(n). We may think of it as the group of n × n orthogonal matrices with unit determinant. As a topological space it has the structure of a n2 smooth (n(n − 1)=2)-dimensional submanifold of R . The group structure is compatible with the smooth one in the sense that the group operations are smooth maps, so it is a Lie group. The space SO(n) when n ≥ 3 has a fascinating topological property—there exist closed paths in it (starting and ending at the identity) that cannot be continuously deformed to the trivial (constant) path, but going twice along such a path gives another path, which is deformable to the trivial one. For example, if 3 you rotate an object in R by 2π along some axis, you get a motion that is not deformable to the trivial motion (i.e., no motion at all), but a rotation by 4π is deformable to the trivial motion.
    [Show full text]
  • Expander Graphs
    Basic Facts about Expander Graphs Oded Goldreich Abstract. In this survey we review basic facts regarding expander graphs that are most relevant to the theory of computation. Keywords: Expander Graphs, Random Walks on Graphs. This text has been revised based on [8, Apdx. E.2]. 1 Introduction Expander graphs found numerous applications in the theory of computation, ranging from the design of sorting networks [1] to the proof that undirected connectivity is decidable in determinstic log-space [15]. In this survey we review basic facts regarding expander graphs that are most relevant to the theory of computation. For a wider perspective, the interested reader is referred to [10]. Loosely speaking, expander graphs are regular graphs of small degree that exhibit various properties of cliques.1 In particular, we refer to properties such as the relative sizes of cuts in the graph (i.e., relative to the number of edges), and the rate at which a random walk converges to the uniform distribution (relative to the logarithm of the graph size to the base of its degree). Some technicalities. Typical presentations of expander graphs refer to one of several variants. For example, in some sources, expanders are presented as bi- partite graphs, whereas in others they are presented as ordinary graphs (and are in fact very far from being bipartite). We shall follow the latter convention. Furthermore, at times we implicitly consider an augmentation of these graphs where self-loops are added to each vertex. For simplicity, we also allow parallel edges. We often talk of expander graphs while we actually mean an infinite collection of graphs such that each graph in this collection satisfies the same property (which is informally attributed to the collection).
    [Show full text]
  • On the Generalized Θ-Number and Related Problems for Highly Symmetric Graphs
    On the generalized #-number and related problems for highly symmetric graphs Lennart Sinjorgo ∗ Renata Sotirov y Abstract This paper is an in-depth analysis of the generalized #-number of a graph. The generalized #-number, #k(G), serves as a bound for both the k-multichromatic number of a graph and the maximum k-colorable subgraph problem. We present various properties of #k(G), such as that the series (#k(G))k is increasing and bounded above by the order of the graph G. We study #k(G) when G is the graph strong, disjunction and Cartesian product of two graphs. We provide closed form expressions for the generalized #-number on several classes of graphs including the Kneser graphs, cycle graphs, strongly regular graphs and orthogonality graphs. Our paper provides bounds on the product and sum of the k-multichromatic number of a graph and its complement graph, as well as lower bounds for the k-multichromatic number on several graph classes including the Hamming and Johnson graphs. Keywords k{multicoloring, k-colorable subgraph problem, generalized #-number, Johnson graphs, Hamming graphs, strongly regular graphs. AMS subject classifications. 90C22, 05C15, 90C35 1 Introduction The k{multicoloring of a graph is to assign k distinct colors to each vertex in the graph such that two adjacent vertices are assigned disjoint sets of colors. The k-multicoloring is also known as k-fold coloring, n-tuple coloring or simply multicoloring. We denote by χk(G) the minimum number of colors needed for a valid k{multicoloring of a graph G, and refer to it as the k-th chromatic number of G or the multichromatic number of G.
    [Show full text]