Skip to main content
14 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 22, 2016 at 5:19 comment added HJRW You don't need folding to prove Marshall Hall's theorem, anyway. This is a common misconception.
Oct 15, 2016 at 19:05 comment added Derek Holt Perhaps the problem is that the language used in the Stallings proof is very topological, although the proof is essentially combinatorial and can be worded more algebraically. For example, what is known by many as Stallings Folding would be referred to as the coincidence routine in coset enumeration by people who work in computational group theory.
Oct 15, 2016 at 16:10 comment added HJRW The fact you are asking for basically is Marshall Hall's theorem: the special case of a cyclic subgroup is no easier than the general case. As Andy says, you should learn the proof. I blogged about it here: ldtopology.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/… .
Oct 15, 2016 at 3:27 history edited user371374
edited tags
Oct 15, 2016 at 3:27 vote accept user371374
Oct 15, 2016 at 3:05 comment added Andy Putman Marshall Hall's theorem is a basic piece of geometric group theory, and its proof is not difficult. I recommend learning it. Indeed, it would be useful to you if you went through the proof specializing everything to the case you are after. You'll find it very enlightening and elementary (and also completely algorithmic). The blog post I pointed you to is a good place to start.
Oct 15, 2016 at 3:03 comment added YCor Note that Andy's post answered the question in its original formulation.
Oct 15, 2016 at 1:59 history edited user371374 CC BY-SA 3.0
Changed the question.
Oct 15, 2016 at 1:51 vote accept user371374
Oct 15, 2016 at 1:56
Oct 14, 2016 at 22:56 history undeleted Stefan Kohl
Andy Putman
Todd Trimble
Oct 14, 2016 at 20:28 history deleted user371374 via Vote
Oct 14, 2016 at 20:13 answer added Andy Putman timeline score: 22
Oct 14, 2016 at 20:06 review First posts
Oct 14, 2016 at 20:32
Oct 14, 2016 at 20:05 history asked user371374 CC BY-SA 3.0