Much like character theory simplifies working with group representations, marks simplify working with permutation representations and the Burnside ring.
If G acts on X, and H ≤ G (H is a subgroup of G), then the mark of H on X is the number of elements of X that are fixed by every element of H:, where
If H and K are conjugate subgroups, then mX(H) = mX(K) for any finite G-set X; indeed, if K = gHg−1 then XK = g · XH.
It is also easy to see that for each H ≤ G, the map Ω(G) → Z : X ↦ mX(H) is a homomorphism. This means that to know the marks of G, it is sufficient to evaluate them on the generators of Ω(G), viz. the orbits G/H.
For each pair of subgroups H,K ≤ G define
This is mX(H) for X = G/K. The condition HgK = gK is equivalent to g−1Hg ≤ K, so if H is not conjugate to a subgroup of K then m(K, H) = 0.
To record all possible marks, one forms a table, Burnside's Table of Marks, as follows: Let G1 (= trivial subgroup), G2, ..., GN = G be representatives of the N conjugacy classes of subgroups of G, ordered in such a way that whenever Gi is conjugate to a subgroup of Gj, then i ≤ j. Now define the N × N table (square matrix) whose (i, j)th entry is m(Gi, Gj). This matrix is lower triangular, and the elements on the diagonal are non-zero so it is invertible.
It follows that if X is a G-set, and u its row vector of marks, so ui = mX(Gi), then X decomposes as a disjoint union of ai copies of the orbit of type Gi, where the vector a satisfies,
- aM = u,
where M is the matrix of the table of marks. This theorem is due to (Burnside 1897).
Read more about this topic: Burnside Ring
Famous quotes containing the word marks:
“It is impossible to forget the sense of dignity which marks the hour when one becomes a wage-earner.... I felt that I had suddenly acquired value—to myself, to my family, and to the world.”
—Elizabeth Stuart Phelps (1844–1911)
“I regard almost all quarrels of princes on the same footing, and I see nothing that marks man’s unreason so positively as war. Indeed, what folly to kill one another for interests often imaginary, and always for the pleasure of persons who do not think themselves even obliged to those who sacrifice themselves for them!”
—Mary Wortley, Lady Montagu (1689–1762)
“What is clear is that Christianity directed increased attention to childhood. For the first time in history it seemed important to decide what the moral status of children was. In the midst of this sometimes excessive concern, a new sympathy for children was promoted. Sometimes this meant criticizing adults. . . . So far as parents were put on the defensive in this way, the beginning of the Christian era marks a revolution in the child’s status.”
—C. John Sommerville (20th century)