Skip to main content
14 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Dec 25, 2019 at 16:59 answer added Lucia timeline score: 7
Dec 25, 2019 at 16:55 answer added Geoff Robinson timeline score: 5
Dec 25, 2019 at 14:44 comment added Gerry Myerson @Lucia the first sentence of the question is "Every simple group below are assumed non-abelian."
Dec 25, 2019 at 12:56 comment added Lucia Doesn't the simple group $C_p$ have $p$ conjugacy classes?
Dec 25, 2019 at 9:55 history edited Sebastien Palcoux CC BY-SA 4.0
non-abelian simple group
Dec 25, 2019 at 8:12 history edited Sebastien Palcoux CC BY-SA 4.0
better picture (up to 10^8)
Dec 24, 2019 at 20:17 comment added Sebastien Palcoux @YCor: I have improved the post.
Dec 24, 2019 at 19:53 history edited Sebastien Palcoux CC BY-SA 4.0
added 225 characters in body
Dec 24, 2019 at 19:46 history edited Sebastien Palcoux CC BY-SA 4.0
replaced the word "rank" by "class number" and better picture + augmented question
Dec 24, 2019 at 17:10 comment added Sebastien Palcoux @GeoffRobinson: Yes, thanks! I will improved the post.
Dec 24, 2019 at 16:36 comment added Geoff Robinson What you are calling the rank is just the number of conjugacy classes, $k(G)$.
Dec 24, 2019 at 13:39 comment added Sebastien Palcoux @YCor What is called "rank" here is not the usual one in group theory (i.e. smallest cardinality of a generating set for $G$) but the dimension of the Grothendieck ring of $Rep(G)$; this word has this sense in this framework. Of course these two notions are not equivalent. What word should be used in group theory?
Dec 24, 2019 at 9:15 comment added YCor I'm not sure "rank" is the right word. For instance the groups $\mathrm{PSL}(2,q)$ are usually considered to have bounded rank, when $q$ varies.
Dec 24, 2019 at 8:41 history asked Sebastien Palcoux CC BY-SA 4.0