MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $G \leq {\rm S}_n$ be a finite permutation group, and let $S = \{g_1, \dots, g_k\}$ be a generating set for $G$ which is closed under inversion and which does not contain the identity. The growth function of $G$ with respect to $S$ is the sequence $(a_0, a_1, a_2, \dots)$, where $a_r$ is the number of elements of $G$ which can be written as products of $r$, but no fewer, generators $g_i$. The diameter of $G$ with respect to $S$ is the largest $r$ such that $a_r > 0$.

Question: How hard is it to compute the diameter and the growth function of a given permutation group $G$ of degree $n$? Or more specifically: using current computer technology, is it feasible to do this for any given group $G$ of degree $n \leq 100$ and any given sufficiently small generating set $S$?

The motivation for this question is that while the Schreier-Sims algorithm allows e.g. to compute the order of such groups and to perform element tests instantaneously, even only computing the diameter of the Rubik's Cube Group with respect to its natural generating set was a major effort -- and its growth function is apparently not known in full so far.

My feeling goes in the direction that one can do essentially better, i.e. that it should be possible to find an algorithm for computing diameter and growth function which is by orders of magnitude more efficient than enumerating group elements by brute force. However maybe I am wrong, and somebody can point out reasons why these problems cannot be solved efficiently?

share|cite|improve this question

This seems quite difficult, for an example of results (and an indication of the difficulty) see Ganesan's 2011 paper.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for the reference. -- Though I don't see that the paper answers the question. The author derives bounds on the diameter of certain Cayley graphs, shows that they are sharp and says that the naive way to evaluate the bounds takes $n!$ times a polynomial operations. Though I have not read everything in full. – Stefan Kohl Aug 15 '13 at 9:11

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.