What Happens When a Group Leaves a Subset of a Countably Infinite Set Stable?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of a group G acting on a vector space V and the implications of G leaving a subspace W stable. It is established that "G leaves W stable" means that G maps W to itself, denoted as GW = W or GW ⊆ W. The conversation further explores the implications of these mappings in finite-dimensional vector spaces and poses exercises related to infinite groups acting on countably infinite sets, referencing concepts from information theory and the Banach-Tarski Paradox.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector spaces and subspaces
  • Familiarity with group theory and group actions
  • Knowledge of finite-dimensional spaces
  • Basic concepts in information theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of group actions in linear algebra
  • Explore the implications of the Banach-Tarski Paradox in mathematical contexts
  • Investigate stabilizers in group theory
  • Learn about the hyperbolic plane and its applications in geometry
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in advanced concepts of group theory and vector spaces.

jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
If [itex]G\subset \textrm{End}(V)[/itex], and [itex]W\subset V[/itex] is a subspace of a vector space V, and somebody says "G leaves W stable", does it mean [itex]GW=W[/itex] or [itex]GW\subset W[/itex] or something else?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It means it maps W to itself.
 
Finite dimensions

jostpuur said:
If [itex]G\subset \textrm{End}(V)[/itex], and [itex]W\subset V[/itex] is a subspace of a vector space V, and somebody says "G leaves W stable", does it mean [itex]GW=W[/itex] or [itex]GW\subset W[/itex] or something else?

Exercise: what can you say about these alternatives if V is finite dimensional?

If you read the "What is Information Theory?" thread: Exercise: suppose we have some infinite group G acting on some countably infinite set X. Suppose that for some [itex]A \subset X[/itex], some [itex]g \in G[/itex] takes [itex]A \mapsto B \subset A[/itex]. What is the corresponding statement about stabilizers? If you have read Stan Wagon, The Banach-Tarski Paradox, what does this remind you of? Can you now give a concrete example (with illustration) of this phenomenon? (Hint: hyperbolic plane.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K