Talk:Symmetric group
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Almost all modern published research in permutation groups uses fg to mean "apply f then apply g". I propose that the article use that convention and only note the other one as an exception. --Zero 03:57, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would tend to agree. I've come from reading the Schaum's Outline on Group Theory, and it was very disorienting to encounter the convention used here. --Paul 04:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
This text doesn't seem to follow: "The permutation f shown above is a cycle, since f(1) = 4, f(4) = 3 and f(3) = 1." What 'f' is it referring to? The only 'f' I see does not produce the results claimed here. Am I missing something obvious? --Paul 04:55, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- It is a vestige of earlier edits. Why don't you start on a clean-up (including the fg versus gf issue)? I'll back you up. --Zero 11:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- It's many months later, and I've just noticed your reply. Sorry for the delay, I got distracted. I may just do what you suggest. I need to get my bearings again.--Paul 05:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] More material and editing needed
Given the vast amount of material available on the symmetric group I find this article hardly adequate. It spends much time on explaining trivialities and little on explaining actual properties. There are books like Bruce Sagan's Symmetric Group dedicated to the subject. The representation theory is also very rich but available elsewhere without proper links. I added a couple of basic pieces but don't have a clear understanding if the community even cares about this. Mhym 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ordered sets?
Shouldn't the symmetric group be a functor Oset -> Grp rather than Set -> Grp? lars
[edit] permutation group
nobody seemed interpelled by my comment on Talk:Permutation, shouldn't et least permutation group and symmetric group better be merged? — MFH:Talk 19:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why should they be merged? A permutation group is in effect an injective homomorphism of any group to a symmetric group. But the group theory of the symmetric group is not particularly closely related to the basic discussion of orbits, and so on? Charles Matthews 17:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Big monster and little group
I seem to remember two large finite symmetric groups called big monster and little monster — is that right? Are they relevant? m.e. 15:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, those aren't symmetric groups. Charles Matthews 17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
