Definition
Suppose G is a finitely generated group; and T is a finite symmetric set of generators (symmetric means that if then ). Any element can be expressed as a word in the T-alphabet
Let us consider the subset of all elements of G which can be presented by such a word of length ≤ n
This set is just the closed ball of radius n in the word metric d on G with respect to the generating set T:
More geometrically, is the set of vertices in the Cayley graph with respect to T which are within distance n of the identity.
Given two nondecreasing positive functions a and b one can say that they are equivalent if there is a constant C such that
for example if .
Then the growth rate of the group G can be defined as the corresponding equivalence class of the function
where denotes the number of elements in the set . Although the function depends on the set of generators T its rate of growth does not (see below) and therefore the rate of growth gives an invariant of a group.
The word metric d and therefore sets depend on the generating set T. However, any two such metrics are bilipschitz equivalent in the following sense: for finite symmetric generating sets E, F, there is a positive constant C such that
As an immediate corollary of this inequality we get that the growth rate does not depend on the choice of generating set.
Read more about this topic: Growth Rate (group Theory)
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“No man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this—”devoted and obedient.” This definition would do just as well for a porter. It might even do for a horse. It would not do for a policeman.”
—Florence Nightingale (1820–1910)
“Perhaps the best definition of progress would be the continuing efforts of men and women to narrow the gap between the convenience of the powers that be and the unwritten charter.”
—Nadine Gordimer (b. 1923)
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)