Permutation Loops- successor operation

  • Thread starter Thread starter MathematicalPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Loops Permutation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the successor operation in permutation loops, highlighting confusion over the notation and explanation provided on a referenced webpage. Users clarify that the notation used for permutations can be misleading, suggesting a more standard format for better understanding. The example provided illustrates how specific sequences relate to each other through permutations, emphasizing the importance of reading operations from right to left. It is noted that the topic relates more to group theory than combinatorics, requiring familiarity with abstract algebra concepts. Overall, the conversation aims to clarify the successor operation and its notation within the context of permutation groups.
MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
in this page I've encountered this topic (it's a topic from combinatorics, so it's relevant to discrete maths with sets and so on [that's my justification to post it here o:) ), anyway from my point of view the page describes poorly the successor operation:
"The resulting
sequence of elements constitutes another loop, which we will call
the "successor" of the original loop."

here's an example of such successor from the webpage:
I = 123 C = 231
A = 132 D = 312
B = 213 E = 321
IDEACB = A
DEACBI = A
EACBID = B
ACBIDE = A
CBIDEA = A
BIDEAC = E
i don't understand why for example the first sequence of elements equals A (or is identical to it), perhaps i missed something from the explanation, anyone care to explain.

btw, here's the page:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath031.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
There is a better notation than this. When they say I = 123, they mean that I sends 1 to 1, 2 to 2, and 3 to 3. If you have X = xyz, then X sends 1 to x, 2 to y, and 3 to z. A more standard notation would be to write it like this:

Code:
X = [1 2 3]
    [x y z]

So X sends whatever is in the top row to the thing directly above it. So in particular, we have:

Code:
A = [1 2 3]
    [1 3 2]

A basically just swaps 2 and 3. This is commonly denoted as (23). We will use this notation from now on. X = (xy) means that it sends x to y, y to x, and leaves z fixed. X' = (x'y'z') means that it sends x' to y', y' to z', and z' to y'. We can denote I as (), since it does nothing.

Now, if you have something like:

(123)(23)(23)(132)(231)(12)(321)

then you read it from right to left. The right-most one sends 1 to 3. The next one leaves 3 fixed. The next one sends 3 to 1, and then 1 to 3, 3 to 2, 2 to 3, and finally 3 to 1, so this whole thing sends 1 to 1. Next, look at 2. The right most one sends 2 to 1, then the next one sends 1 to 2, the next one sends 2 to 3, then 3 to 2, then 2 to 3, then 3 to 2, then 2 to 3, so this whole thing sends 2 to 3. Obviously, it sends 3 to 2, so we get:

(123)(23)(23)(132)(231)(12)(321) = (23) = (32)

Note that (23) and (32) are the same. However, given your original notation, 23 and 32 are not even defined. You should also notice that (123) and (312) are the same, but given your original notation, 123 and 312 are defined but are not equal, since 123 is:

[1 2 3]
[1 2 3]

which is just (), and 312 is:

[1 2 3]
[3 1 2]

which is (132).

IDEACB
= ()(132)(13)(23)(123)(12)
= (23)
= A

as required. See if you can figure out the rest for yourself.
 
By the way, I don't think the site did a bad job of explaining things, it seems that you're just unfamiliar with the permuation groups. Do you know what a group is? As far as I can tell, this has much more to do with group theory (part of abstract algebra) and much less to do with combinatorics. There is some relation to the idea of permutations as a group, and permutations where you calculate things like "n arrange k," but from the part of that link that I read, this has much less to do with calculating things like "n arrange k" and more to do with group theory. At very least, it seems to require some knowledge of group theory but no particular knowledge of combinatorics. Maybe further down the page on that link, things are different...
 
ok, i understand it, a bit tricky i think but nice. anyway my knowledge on group theory mainly stands on knowledge of the axioms (and when the author did specify accosiativity and identity element it felt as if it's connected to groups), and the simple theorems with the identity element of a group, not a lot i know :blushing:

btw, thanks for the help.
 
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...

Similar threads

Back
Top