Skip to main content
added 795 characters in body
Source Link
Derek Holt
  • 37.4k
  • 4
  • 95
  • 149

The following calculations seem to distinguish between them.

>  #LowIndexSubgroups(GA,4);
30
>  #LowIndexSubgroups(GB,4);
26

They have different numbers of homomorphisms onto $A_4$:

> #Homomorphisms(GA,Alt(4),Sym(4));
5
> #Homomorphisms(GB,Alt(4),Sym(4));
1

(The options third argument $\mathsf{Sym(4)}$ means count (surjective homomorphisms) up to conjugacy in $\mathsf{Sym(4)}$.)

Here is yet another approach:

> P,phi:=pQuotient(GA,3,1); 
> AQInvariants(Kernel(phi));
[ 2, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
> P,phi:=pQuotient(GB,3,1);
> AQInvariants(Kernel(phi));
[ 0, 0, 0, 0 ]

In fact these three methods are all detecting the same difference in finite quotients of the groups, but I included them all to give you an indication of possible techniques for proving non-isomorphism.

Ultimately, all of these techniques rely on looking at various types of computable quotients of the groups. Unfortunately there are examples of pairs of non-isomorphic finitely presented groups which cannot be distinguished in this fashion by their computable quotients (in fact the unsolvability of the general isomorphism problem implies that such examples must exist.)

The following calculations seem to distinguish between them.

>  #LowIndexSubgroups(GA,4);
30
>  #LowIndexSubgroups(GB,4);
26

They have different numbers of homomorphisms onto $A_4$:

> #Homomorphisms(GA,Alt(4),Sym(4));
5
> #Homomorphisms(GB,Alt(4),Sym(4));
1

(The options third argument $\mathsf{Sym(4)}$ means count (surjective homomorphisms) up to conjugacy in $\mathsf{Sym(4)}$.)

The following calculations seem to distinguish between them.

>  #LowIndexSubgroups(GA,4);
30
>  #LowIndexSubgroups(GB,4);
26

They have different numbers of homomorphisms onto $A_4$:

> #Homomorphisms(GA,Alt(4),Sym(4));
5
> #Homomorphisms(GB,Alt(4),Sym(4));
1

(The options third argument $\mathsf{Sym(4)}$ means count (surjective homomorphisms) up to conjugacy in $\mathsf{Sym(4)}$.)

Here is yet another approach:

> P,phi:=pQuotient(GA,3,1); 
> AQInvariants(Kernel(phi));
[ 2, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0 ]
> P,phi:=pQuotient(GB,3,1);
> AQInvariants(Kernel(phi));
[ 0, 0, 0, 0 ]

In fact these three methods are all detecting the same difference in finite quotients of the groups, but I included them all to give you an indication of possible techniques for proving non-isomorphism.

Ultimately, all of these techniques rely on looking at various types of computable quotients of the groups. Unfortunately there are examples of pairs of non-isomorphic finitely presented groups which cannot be distinguished in this fashion by their computable quotients (in fact the unsolvability of the general isomorphism problem implies that such examples must exist.)

Source Link
Derek Holt
  • 37.4k
  • 4
  • 95
  • 149

The following calculations seem to distinguish between them.

>  #LowIndexSubgroups(GA,4);
30
>  #LowIndexSubgroups(GB,4);
26

They have different numbers of homomorphisms onto $A_4$:

> #Homomorphisms(GA,Alt(4),Sym(4));
5
> #Homomorphisms(GB,Alt(4),Sym(4));
1

(The options third argument $\mathsf{Sym(4)}$ means count (surjective homomorphisms) up to conjugacy in $\mathsf{Sym(4)}$.)