Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeNov 21st 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded to [[simple group]] an example I was given on MO: the simple group of cardinality $\kappa$, given by taking the smallest normal subgroup of $Aut(\kappa)$ containing the 3-cycles. This is essentially the 'even' permutations for an infinite set. This is nice, because I was trying to think of a simple group (or one with only _small_ normal subgroups) with inaccessible cardinality, and some obvious tricks weren't working.

   Added to simple group an example I was given on MO: the simple group of cardinality $\kappa$, given by taking the smallest normal subgroup of $Aut(\kappa)$ containing the 3-cycles. This is essentially the ’even’ permutations for an infinite set.

   This is nice, because I was trying to think of a simple group (or one with only small normal subgroups) with inaccessible cardinality, and some obvious tricks weren’t working.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 26th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded to [[simple group]] the easy-to-prove proposition that a directed colimit of simple groups is also simple, which enters into David's observation above. Also mean to add at some point the proof of simplicity of finite alternating groups $A_n$ for $n \geq 5$, but need more time to examine which ones out there I think are 'nice'.

   Added to simple group the easy-to-prove proposition that a directed colimit of simple groups is also simple, which enters into David’s observation above.

   Also mean to add at some point the proof of simplicity of finite alternating groups $A_n$ for $n \geq 5$, but need more time to examine which ones out there I think are ’nice’.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMar 27th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI just learned that [Volume 7 of the classification has been published](https://bookstore.ams.org/surv-40-7/) !! I updated [[classification of finite simple groups]] to reflect this, since it stated (from ten years ago) that six volumes were available.

   I just learned that Volume 7 of the classification has been published !! I updated classification of finite simple groups to reflect this, since it stated (from ten years ago) that six volumes were available.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 27th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexAs part of this morning's work, I recorded the result at [[simple group]] that every group (finite or infinite) embeds in a simple group.

   As part of this morning’s work, I recorded the result at simple group that every group (finite or infinite) embeds in a simple group.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 27th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI tried to look into the matter of skepticism (about the classification theorem), especially with regard to Conway, but the only concrete lead I found suggests that the correct word here is "pessimism", not "skepticism". Have a look.

   I tried to look into the matter of skepticism (about the classification theorem), especially with regard to Conway, but the only concrete lead I found suggests that the correct word here is “pessimism”, not “skepticism”. Have a look.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMar 28th 2018
   • (edited Mar 28th 2018)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexSerre talks about his attitude [in this talk](https://youtu.be/MZ6_JKYdKog?t=53m25s). I've linked to a part where he makes comments about the classification in response to an audience comment, but IIRC he makes several comments through the body of the talk. To paraphrase, he says something like "Ashbacher says there is a proof, because he sees the various pieces that are in the literature, and essentially how they all connect, but for us, I will not consider that as a proof, if there are pieces you have to arrange (after all many more theorems are like that)". He goes on to say the the Classification is acceptable, if people state it as a hypothesis to a theorem: the theorem is then true modulo the Classification. Serre goes on to say the situation is much worse for the ATLAS, but has since reversed his view on that, given recent independent verification work.

   Serre talks about his attitude in this talk. I’ve linked to a part where he makes comments about the classification in response to an audience comment, but IIRC he makes several comments through the body of the talk. To paraphrase, he says something like “Ashbacher says there is a proof, because he sees the various pieces that are in the literature, and essentially how they all connect, but for us, I will not consider that as a proof, if there are pieces you have to arrange (after all many more theorems are like that)”. He goes on to say the the Classification is acceptable, if people state it as a hypothesis to a theorem: the theorem is then true modulo the Classification. Serre goes on to say the situation is much worse for the ATLAS, but has since reversed his view on that, given recent independent verification work.