00 голосов за00 голосов против

14 просмотров14 стр.mat

Oct 02, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

DOC, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

mat

© All Rights Reserved

14 просмотров

00 голосов за00 голосов против

mat

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

important counting results in group theory. The proof is easy enough to

give in a paragraph now that weve set up the requisite machinery.

Remember that we counted fixed points by looking at the size of the

stabilizer subgroup. Lets count them another way. Since a fixed point is

really a pair

such that

fixed points of . (Note that this is a function of the group action, not the

group, but again were abusing notation.) Counting the total number of

fixed points vertically, then horizontally, gives the following.

Proposition:

On the other hand, by the orbit-stabilizer theorem, its true for any orbit

that

partition

name.

Orbit-counting lemma: The number of orbits in a group action is given

by

First, though, Id like to note that the proof is usually presented slightly

differently. I prefer this presentation because vertical and horizontal

counting is a very general technique and its good to see it spelled out

when it appears. The orbit-counting lemma is not, by any means,

a deep or technicalresult, but its value is in the change of perspective:

averaging the behavior of every group element tells us the aggregate

behavior of the group action. The emphasis on

a character, and such averaging arguments are also common in

representation theory.

Now, one example application I mentioned was about painting the faces of

a cube up to rotational symmetry. This is the example used in

the Wikipedia article on Burnsides lemma, so instead of repeating

Wikipedia Ill just add that the group in question is known as

the octahedral group. Its not too hard to list its elements explicitly and

figure out their fixed points.

I would give more examples, but the next big result I want to prove is, in

my opinion, just as easy for the general case as for any of the interesting

examples, so Ill give the examples later. Recall that the general situation

the PET deals with is that, given a set

on which a group

acts, we want

where

denote

(Once more, this is a function of the group action and not just the group.)

Orbit-counting tells us that to do this it suffices to count the number of

fixed points of a given

fix a function

if and only if

? This is possible

for all

, but after a

having the same color. In other words, if

in the cycle decomposition of

then

),

each cycle can be colored independently of the other cycles. This gives the

following preliminary result which we will generalize to Polyas theorem.

Baby Polya:

In other words,

permutations in

with

cycles divided by

is the number of

. It is, of course, quite useful

functions

, but

Balls and urns

In this example

symmetry group

is a set of size

the balls and colors as the urns. It can be solved with an elementary

counting argument: an arrangement of

which correspond to balls and

symbols,

of

OOOO|O||OO|||

which corresponds to the sequence

terms of group actions if you like), the number of ways to do this is

.

Note that this is a polynomial in

of degree

is also equal to

number of permutations in

with

in

is the

a direct proof of this fact is a good exercise.)

In this example, baby Polya didnt tell us a better way to count the orbits

of the group action, but rather gave us information about the group of

symmetries. In the next example, we know more about the group of

symmetries than the orbits.

Necklaces

Now the symmetry group is the cyclic group

and

is a finite

set of colors for each of the beads of a necklace. Describing the cycle

decomposition of elements of

is generated by

follows.

addition of

integer

is isomorphic to the

such that

. If

more generally,

.

It follows that the number of cycles in the cycle decomposition of

is

beads

and colors is

.

To get a nicer formula, we need to count the solutions

to

which has

.

Setting

Setting

as A000031 in the OEIS. This identity can also be proven via Mobius

inversion, another fascinating area of combinatorics I hope to discuss

someday.

Simple graphs of small order

Here

, the action

, where a

down the cycle decomposition of permutations acting on pairs in general,

so well have to make do with small examples.

First, it should be clear that the number of cycles induced by a given

permutation

on

the number of conjugacy classes in

of

, so lets take

group has

elements arranged in the following conjugacy classes,

1.

2.

there are

3.

cycles.

organize into two cycles, but of different sizes (check this). The remaining four

edges form another cycle, so there are

4.

cycles.

. The three edges connecting

The edge

5.

to

cycles.

to

form three cycles. The remaining four edges are all fixed, so there are

6.

form two cycles. The edges

cycles.

are fixed. The remaining four edges

7.

edges connecting

. The edge

Phew! In total, baby Polya tells us that the number of non-isomorphic (not

necessarily connected) simple graphs on

vertices is

to

, and you can find the list here. But isnt this computation so much

? This is

Stanley says that there exist explicit formulas describing the cycle

decomposition of the action of

of

generalizes.

Now, by restricting ourselves to a few classes of permutation that we

understand well, we can compute lower bounds on the number of nonisomorphic graphs. For example, taking only the identity gives the trivial

lower bound

.

The OEIS gives more precise asymptotic expansions along these lines. We

can also use this technique to get an upper bound. First, note that the

reason we picked transpositions is that any non-identity permutation

induces at most

transpositions are the equality case. All other permutations induce larger

cycles, so have less of them, which gives the upper bound

.

Unfortunately, the two are rather far apart (far larger than a constant

factor). Even if we attempt the casework going through other nice

conjugacy classes, I believe the gap between the lower and upper bounds

we get remains large. The upper bound gives us much more information

than the lower bound, however; asymptotically, the lower bound reduces

to the trivial lower bound, whereas the upper bound is a factor of

smaller than the trivial upper bound (the number of labeled graphs on

vertices).

Where do we go from here?

The analysis we had to do in the case of simple graphs suggests that we

might not only like to count the number of cycles in a given group action,

but how many cycles there are of each length. It would be useful, in

particular, if we could do this for the symmetric group. Our analysis also

suggests that baby Polya isnt detailed enough: if we want to compute the

a fixed number of edges, what we need is a way to generalize baby Polya

to count functions with a specified number of uses of each color.

Both of these concerns are answered by the PET and its surrounding

machinery. As a motivating example, consider prime necklaces, i.e.

let

number of necklaces is

theorem. Now let

where

number of necklaces using two colors, but with the additional constraint

that there are exactly

This is a natural enough question, but baby Polya isnt equipped to specify

how many of each color there are.

We can solve this problem by hand, though. There are

labeled

necklaces. Two of these necklaces are in their own orbit: they are the

necklaces consisting of alternating colors. Every other labeled necklace

has trivial stabilizer subgroup (why?), hence is in a full orbit. This gives

a combinatorial proof that

its true that

necklaces with

and

such that

Again, this can be proven by hand (and its easier to consider a smaller

symmetry group to do it), but were going for generality here.

number of orbits that use a particular combination of colors, it will be

very interesting to compute the number of orbits using every combination

of colors, packaged into a generating function; the particular coefficients

of this generating function will tell us about particular combinations of

colors, but its the entire function that is most easily computed. The next

post will discuss and justify the use of generating functions; Ill try to start

from the beginning and give plenty of references.

Exercises

Compute

group

Compute

thealternating group

given by a partition

with

operator

space over

on the representation of

that

RHS as

? What does this have to do with the third exercise?)

(cube and necklace colorings)

Contact Graeme

Home

Email

Twitter

the Cauchy-Frobenius lemma or the orbit-counting theorem.

Burnside's Lemma

Xg denote the set of elements in X that are fixed by g.

Burnside's lemma asserts the following formula for the number

of orbits, denoted |X/G|:

|X/G| =

1 g

|X |

|G| g G

reached from the other by through the action of an element of

G. For example, if X is the set of colorings of a cube, and G is

the set of rotations of the cube, then two elements of X belong

to the same orbit precisely when one is a rotation of the other.

Example

which there are 2 pieces each of 5 different kinds. How many

ways is this possible?

Solution:

Create 4 more virtual people. Now there are 10 pieces of cake

to be distributed among 10 people. The number of

permutations of 10 things is 10!, and since there are 5

indistinguishable pairs, we divide by 2^5. 10!/2^5=113400 is

the number of elements of X.

Now we apply Burnside's lemma, where the permutation group

of order 113400 is acted on by the group of permutations of the

four virtual people, of size 4! = 24. That is, if two of the 113400

people, then they belong to the same orbit, and so the number

of orbits is the number of distinct answers to the original

question.

The group of permutations of 4 objects has 1 identity element,

six 2-cycles, eight 3-cycles, six 4-cycles, and 3 pairs of 2cycles, as given by the following table:

cycles

number of permutations

example

identity

(1)(2)(3)(4)

2-cycles

(12)(3)(4)

3-cycles

(123)(4)

4-cycles

(1234)

pair of 2-cycles

(12)(34)

Total

24

each permutation of G, and add them up. That means, for a

given permutation of G, for example interchanging the cakes

selected by virtual persons 1 and 2, what elements of X are left

unchanged? That would be just the elements of X in which

virtual persons 1 and 2 have the same kind of cake. The

number of such elements is the number of ways for persons 1

and 2 to pick one kind of cake, and then persons 3 through 10

to choose from two pieces of each of four kinds of cake -- the

example is filled out as the second row of the following table:

cycles

number of

permutations

identity

example

permutation

(# perm)*(fixed

elements in this perm)

= total fixed elements

of X

(1)(2)(3)(4)

1 * 113400 = 113,400

6 * 12600 = 75,600

2-cycles

(12)(3)(4)

same type of cake. 5 ways to pick a type of

cake for 1,2 to share, then 8!/24 ways to pick

the other pieces. 5*8!/24=12600.

3-cycles

(123)(4)

None of the elements of X are fixed by a 3cycle, because 1,2,3 must have at least two

kinds of cake among them.

4-cycles

(1234)

No fixed elements of X.

pair of 2cycles

Total

24

(12)(34)

ways to pick the kind of cake for 3,4;

6!/23 ways to pick the other pieces.

5*4*6!/23=1800.

3 * 1800 = 5400

194,400

under permutations of the virtual people.

Same example not using Burnside's Lemma -- the hard way

(cases)

Lemma, I'll show you how I solved it before this wonderful

lemma was pointed out to me...

Proof that 6 distinct people (123456) can choose a piece of

cake from 2 of each of 5 kinds (AABBCCDDEE) in 8100

ways:

For each of the 5 cases where person 1 and person 2 choose

the same kind of cake, then persons 3-6 have 204 ways to

choose among the remaining 4 kinds of cake.

For each of the 20 cases where person 1 and person 2 chose

different kinds of cake, then persons 3-6 have 354 ways to

choose among the remaining eight pieces of cake.

5*204 + 20*354 = 8100

Proof that 4 distinct people (3456) can choose a piece of

cake from 2 of each of 4 kinds (BBCCDDEE) in 204 ways:

For each of the 4 cases where person 3 and person 4 choose

the same kind of cake, then persons 5-6 have 9 ways to pick

cake from CCDDEE, namely CC, CD, CE, DC, DD, DE, EC,

ED, EE.

For each of the 12 cases where persons 3 and 4 choose

different kinds of cake, then persons 5-6 have 14 ways to pick

cake from BCDDEE, namely BC, BD, BE, CB, CD, CE, DB, DC,

DD, DE, EB, EC, ED, EE.

Proof that 4 distinct people (3456) can choose a piece of

cake from (ABCCDDEE) in 354 ways:

For the 2 cases where persons 3 and 4 choose A and B, then

persons 5-6 have 9 ways to pick cake from CCDDEE (see

above).

For the 12 cases where person 3 or 4 chooses A or B, and

person 4 or 3, respectively, chooses C, D, or E, then persons 56 have 14 ways to pick from BCDDEE (see above).

For the 6 cases where persons 3 and 4 each choose different

C, D, or E, then persons 5-6 have 21 ways to pick from

ABCDEE, namely AB, AC, AD, AE, BA, BC, BD, BE, CA, CB,

CD, CE, DA, DB, DC, DE, EA, EB, EC, ED, EE

For the 3 cases where persons 3 and 4 each choose CC, DD,

or EE, then persons 5-6 have 14 ways to pick from ABEE,

namely AB, AD, AE, BA, BD, BE, DA, DB, DD, DE, EA, EB, ED,

EE

2*9 + 12*14 + 6*21 + 3*14 = 354

Same example not using Burnside's Lemma -- the easy way

Case 1: Only two people choose the same kind of cake as

another person.

In this case, there are C(5,1)=5 ways to choose the kind of cake

chosen by 2 people, and then 6!/2 ways to permute the cakes,

considering that one pair of cakes are indistinguishable.

5*6!/2=1800.

Case 2: Four of the people choose the same kind of cake as

another person.

In this case, there are C(5,2)=10 ways to choose the two kinds

of cake chosen by these 4 people, and C(3,2) ways for the two

remaining people to choose from among the three other cake

considering two pairs of cakes are indistinguishable.

10*3*6!/4=5400.

Case 3: All six people choose the same kind of cake as another

person.

In this case, there are C(5,3)=10 ways to choose the three

kinds of cake, and then 6!/8 ways to permute the cakes,

considering three pairs of cakes are indistinguishable.

10*6!/8=900.

Adding the cases, 1800+5400+900=8100.

Internet references

the faces of a cube with three colors.

Mathworld: Cauchy-Frobenius Lemma

Dr. Math: Permutations in a Necklace -- using Burnside's

Lemma to count the number of different necklaces. (From the

same site: Polya-Burnside Lemma)

Jaap's Puzzle Page: Useful Mathematics -- Permutations, The

parity of a permutation, Disjoint cycle notation, The Order of a

permutation, Groups, Conjugation, Commutation Size of the

group, Subgroups, Centre, Supergroup, Metrics, God's

Algorithm, Counting, The number of orientations, The number

of permutations, The number of combinations, Burnside's

Lemma

Bard College Abstract Algebra Math332: Quiz2 Practice

Problems.pdf (mirror)

Haskell for Maths: Polya Counting -- How many different ways

are there to colour the faces of a dodecahedron using red,

green and blue? No, the answer's not 312...

Related pages in this website

"hyper-binary" partition

Combination identities

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.