Timeline for Schreier's index formula
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 22, 2014 at 22:44 | vote | accept | Pablo | ||
| Apr 16, 2014 at 10:46 | vote | accept | Pablo | ||
| Apr 16, 2014 at 10:46 | |||||
| Apr 16, 2014 at 10:46 | vote | accept | Pablo | ||
| Apr 16, 2014 at 10:46 | |||||
| Apr 15, 2014 at 1:31 | comment | added | Benjamin Steinberg | @HJRW, this is why I hedged to the rf case. | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 20:54 | comment | added | HJRW | Of course, a group with no finite quotients might be said to satisy Schreier's index formula. So without the assumption of residual finiteness, the question is essentially vacuous. | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 17:18 | answer | added | Derek Holt | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 16:43 | answer | added | Benjamin Steinberg | timeline score: 8 | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 16:10 | comment | added | Benjamin Steinberg | Let me hedge and assume the group is residually finite. | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 16:02 | comment | added | Benjamin Steinberg | I believe only a free group satisfies Schreier's index formula and that this was first observed by van den Dries and Lubotzsky, who proved a pro-p analogue. | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 13:29 | comment | added | Pablo | Yes it does denote that. | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 12:05 | comment | added | HenrikRüping | Does $d$ denote the minimal number of generators of a group? | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 9:35 | history | asked | Pablo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |