Skip to main content
20 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 22, 2018 at 5:15 comment added YCor @LSpice G. Vitali. Sostituzioni sopra una infinità numerabile di elementi. Bollettino Mathesis 7: 29–31, 1915.
Apr 21, 2018 at 23:14 comment added LSpice @YCor, what is the Vitali paper?
Apr 21, 2018 at 22:32 history reopened Derek Holt
Benjamin Steinberg
Daniel Loughran
Johannes Hahn
David Handelman
Apr 21, 2018 at 21:53 comment added Andreas Thom @Qfwfq: This is a question which can be answered by any competent google search and thus is not of research level. We see a lot of questions asked for the sake of asking (I believe) and this should be discouraged in my opinion.
Apr 21, 2018 at 16:50 comment added YCor More explicitly, it's a sub-duplicate of mathoverflow.net/questions/281289/…
Apr 21, 2018 at 16:12 comment added YCor It also has many sort-of duplicates: one already mentioned math.stackexchange.com/questions/846209; it is already answered in mathoverflow.net/questions/12291 (although the question is distinct), etc (search "Schreier-Ulam")
Apr 21, 2018 at 15:41 review Reopen votes
Apr 21, 2018 at 22:32
Apr 21, 2018 at 15:36 comment added Qfwfq Okay to close the question as "no longer relevant". But... is it really so offtopic?
Apr 21, 2018 at 15:10 history closed YCor
Emil Jeřábek
Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine
Andreas Thom
R. van Dobben de Bruyn
Not suitable for this site
Apr 21, 2018 at 12:58 vote accept Dominic van der Zypen
Apr 21, 2018 at 10:27 comment added YCor Andreas' argument also shows that it has no nontrivial homomorphism into any torsion-free abelian group (while Vitali's fact does not discard homomorphisms into $\mathbf{Q}$). Actually it shows that the abelianization has exponent $\le 2$. So the combination of the two arguments shows that the group is perfect, which of course follows from Onofri's later (and more difficult) classification of normal subgroups.
Apr 21, 2018 at 10:21 comment added YCor Nice, it's indeed even simpler than Vitali's (which is not fancy however, but takes a few more lines). Vitali's paper (which is 2-3 pages) was up to my knowledge, the first where the the group of all permutations of an infinite set was defined and considered as a group. The question of looking at homomorphisms to $Z/2Z$ was natural since the initial question was whether one can extend the signature homomorphism.
Apr 21, 2018 at 9:49 comment added Andreas Thom The answer is: no. You do not need to know anything fancy, only that every element in $Sym(X)$ is conjugate to its inverse -- which is obvious from looking at the cycle decomposition. What is less trivial is Vitali's theorem, but that is not needed to exclude existence homomorphisms to $Z$.
Apr 21, 2018 at 9:24 comment added Peter LeFanu Lumsdaine Just a side remark: the definition of $\mathrm{Sym}(X)$ works just fine for empty $X$! Including that unnecessary “non-empty” in so many definitions is nothing but a superstitious habit.
Apr 21, 2018 at 9:14 comment added YCor (I should say that precisely Vitali stated and proved that $\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Sym}(X),\mathbf{Z}/2\mathbf{Z})=0$, and that his method consists in proving that every element is a product of, say 4, squares.)
Apr 21, 2018 at 8:59 review Close votes
Apr 21, 2018 at 15:11
Apr 21, 2018 at 8:32 answer added Taras Banakh timeline score: 12
Apr 21, 2018 at 8:31 comment added Derek Holt Or see this MSE question for example.
Apr 21, 2018 at 8:23 comment added YCor No. Vitali proved in 1915 that every element of $\mathrm{Sym}(X)$, for $X$ infinite, is a product of squares, and therefore $\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Sym}(X),\mathbf{Z}/2\mathbf{Z})=\{0\}$
Apr 21, 2018 at 8:08 history asked Dominic van der Zypen CC BY-SA 3.0