• Corpus ID: 119588940

On an Inequality of Dimension-like Invariants for Finite Groups

@article{Fernando2015OnAI,
  title={On an Inequality of Dimension-like Invariants for Finite Groups},
  author={Ravi Fernando},
  journal={arXiv: Group Theory},
  year={2015}
}
  • Ravi Fernando
  • Published 2 February 2015
  • Mathematics
  • arXiv: Group Theory
In this paper, we introduce several notions of "dimension" of a finite group, involving sizes of generating sets and certain configurations of maximal subgroups. We focus on the inequality $m(G) \leq \mathrm{MaxDim}(G)$, giving a family of examples where the inequality is strict, and showing that equality holds if $G$ is supersolvable. 

On Behaviors of Maximal Dimension

In this paper, we investigate behaviors of Maximal Dimension, a group invariant involving certain configuration of maximal subgroups, which we denote by MaxDim. We prove that in some special cases,

On the dimension of an Abelian group

We introduce a measure of dimensionality of an Abelian group. Our definition of dimension is based on studying perpendicularity relations in an Abelian group. For G ≅ ℤn, dimension and rank coincide

On the Intersection Numbers of Finite Groups

The covering number of a nontrivial finite group $G$, denoted $\sigma(G)$, is the smallest number of proper subgroups of $G$ whose set-theoretic union equals $G$. In this article, we focus on a dual

On the minimal dimension of a finite simple group

Irredundant generating sets and dimension-like invariants of the finite group

Whiston proved that the maximum size of an irredundant generating set in the symmetric group $S_n$ is $n-1$, and Cameron and Cara characterized all irredundant generating sets of $S_n$ that achieve

Maximal irredundant families of minimal size in the alternating group

Let G be a finite group. A family $${\mathcal {M}}$$M of maximal subgroups of G is called “irredundant” if its intersection is not equal to the intersection of any proper subfamily. $${\mathcal

Maximal subgroups of finite soluble groups in general position

For a finite group G we investigate the difference between the maximum size $${{\mathrm{MaxDim}}}(G)$$MaxDim(G) of an “independent” family of maximal subgroups of G and maximum size m(G) of an

The Replacement Property of PSL$(2,p)$ and PSL$(2,p^2)$

In 2014, Benjamin Nachman showed that when $p\equiv$1 mod 8, the 2-dimensional projective linear group over the field of $p$ elements fails the replacement property if the maximal length $m$ of an

Maximal subgroups of finite soluble groups in general position

For a finite group G we investigate the difference between the maximum size MaxDim(G)\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb}

Maximal irredundant families of minimal size in the alternating group

Let G be a finite group. A family M\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs}

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 11 REFERENCES

Independent Sets in Some Classical Groups of Dimension Three

Given a finite group G, an independent set S in G is a set where no element of S can be written as a word in the other elements of S. A minimax set is an independent generating set for G of largest

Theory of Groups

Maximal Independent Generating Sets of the Symmetric Group

Supersolubility and some Characterizations of Finite Supersoluble Groups, 2nd Edition

Preface In chapter 1 we introduce the idea of a supersoluble group and we investigate its connexion with other similar concepts such as solubility and nilpotency. In chapter 2 we look at supersoluble

Viewing P as a K-module via π, then, the P i form a chain of K-submodules of P . By complete reducibility, we can write P i+1 = P i ⊕ Q i+1 for some onedimensional submodules Q 1

    By Theorem 2.3 in [7] (attributed to Guido Zappa), there exists a series of subgroups 1 = P 0 < P 1 < · · · < P r = P , all normal in the full group G, with |P i+1 /P i | = p for each i

      for any group, but we can do better. The next two propositions establish a many-to-one correspondence between groups satisfying (2) and (smaller) groups satisfying

        From now on, we will view P as (Z/pZ) r , with K acting separately on the coordinates. Given that G = P ⋊ K satisfies condition (2), we claim that K satisfies (3)