Timeline for Automorphism Group of a p-group : Looking for a Reference
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 15, 2016 at 9:22 | comment | added | yakov | @JSpecter You have obtained a very weak result in so complicated way. For an easier proof, see any textbook containing sections devoted finite p-groups.. | |
| Nov 26, 2012 at 2:04 | comment | added | DavidLHarden | There is some material that is pretty close to a proof of this (it contains most, if not all, of the elements of the proof) in Marshall Hall Jr.'s "Theory of Finite Groups". | |
| Nov 25, 2012 at 22:02 | comment | added | Jason Mraz | @DavidLHarden: But you don't want to prove something that is well known in a paper you are writing... By proving it, it's kind of saying that you are the one that figured this theorem out... But if you already saw this post... Have you got any idea for possible reference? In your first message I quoted, you said that it's well known, do you know where can I find it ? Thanks ! | |
| Nov 25, 2012 at 11:15 | comment | added | DavidLHarden | Why is a reference considered preferable to a proof? A proof is what you want to find in the reference. | |
| Nov 24, 2012 at 14:56 | comment | added | Rene Schoof | @McKay, when $p>2$, the automorphism group of a cyclic group of order $p^3$ contains elements of order $p^2$, but $GL(3,p)$ does not. | |
| Nov 24, 2012 at 0:32 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | @JSpecter. Since $\prod(p^n-p^k)$ is the order of GL$(n,p)$, I'm wondering if Aut$(G)$ is in fact isomorphic to some subgroup of GL$(n,p)$. Is it a silly thought? | |
| Nov 24, 2012 at 0:27 | comment | added | Brendan McKay | @Mraz, it isn't anything to do with copyright. However, you are right that it's best to cite a published paper if it exists. | |
| Nov 23, 2012 at 19:30 | comment | added | Jason Mraz | Thanks @JSpecter! I'll go over your proof later today... The problem is that a friend of mine needs this fact for a paper he's writing, and I don't think a proof of a known fact is something that he would want to put in his paper (due to copyrighting rights) Thanks anyway ! | |
| Nov 23, 2012 at 14:46 | history | edited | JSpecter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 23, 2012 at 13:05 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | Note that it is completely pointless to put \displaystyle (on outer bracing level) into displayed equations (they are already set in display style), and even more pointless to put more than one of these in one formula (the first declaration remains in effect). Judging from the usage, you may be confusing \displaystyle with \limits. | |
| Nov 23, 2012 at 12:56 | history | undeleted | JSpecter | ||
| Nov 23, 2012 at 12:53 | history | deleted | JSpecter | ||
| Nov 23, 2012 at 12:45 | history | edited | JSpecter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 23, 2012 at 12:40 | history | edited | JSpecter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 23, 2012 at 12:35 | history | edited | JSpecter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 35 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2012 at 12:25 | history | edited | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix markup
|
| Nov 23, 2012 at 12:12 | history | edited | JSpecter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 42 characters in body; added 44 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2012 at 12:04 | history | answered | JSpecter | CC BY-SA 3.0 |