Groups defined by as simple as possible rules... as computer strings?
- From: Anton Suchaneck <asuchaneck@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:57:23 +0200
Hi,
I've just learned about group theory and I was wondering if it is possible
to define specific groups by a few equations only.
For example a simple cyclic group could be defined by g*g*g*g=1 and all
other elements just can be written as g*g and g*g*g without giving them
explicit names.
Of course sometimes these defining equations contain more than one element
and it would be good to minimize the number of elements used.
Is there a method to do this systematically and is it possible to use
equations of the form "...=1" only? (say a*b*c=1 and b*b=1)
I'd find it instructive to imagine groups as computer strings (e.g. "gg",
"ggg") which can be catenated with rules of cancellation (e.g.
"gg"+"ggg"="ggggg"="g" since "gggg"=""). In this model the associative
property is implicit.
A problem that *shouldn't* appear in the rules is that one had to expand a
string to reduce it again, e.g.
reduce "abc" with "bc=aac", "aaa="":
so that "abcd"="aaacc"="cc"
Is that possible?
Anton
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Groups defined by as simple as possible rules... as computer strings?
- From: Roger Beresford
- Re: Groups defined by as simple as possible rules... as computer strings?
- From: James Buddenhagen
- Re: Groups defined by as simple as possible rules... as computer strings?
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Groups defined by as simple as possible rules... as computer strings?
- From:
- Re: Groups defined by as simple as possible rules... as computer strings?
- From: Jim Spriggs
- Re: Groups defined by as simple as possible rules... as computer strings?
- Prev by Date: Re: The brain is like a surface - a hypersurface - a maximum hypersurface.
- Next by Date: Re: Why Fourier and Laplace transforms?
- Previous by thread: roots of polynomials on a field
- Next by thread: Re: Groups defined by as simple as possible rules... as computer strings?
- Index(es):