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:
“Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
Is the eternal truth man’s fighting soul
Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?”
—Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)
“The very definition of the real becomes: that of which it is possible to give an equivalent reproduction.... The real is not only what can be reproduced, but that which is always already reproduced. The hyperreal.”
—Jean Baudrillard (b. 1929)
“The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)