Relation To Central Extensions
The study of such covering groups led naturally to the study of central and stem extensions.
A central extension of a group G is an extension
- 1 → K → C → G → 1
where K ≤ Z(C) is a subgroup of the center of C.
A stem extension of a group G is an extension
- 1 → K → C → G → 1
where K ≤ Z(C) ∩ C′ is a subgroup of the intersection of the center of C and the derived subgroup of C; this is more restrictive than central.
If the group G is finite and one considers only stem extensions, then there is a largest size for such a group C, and for every C of that size the subgroup K is isomorphic to the Schur multiplier of G. If the finite group G is moreover perfect, then C is unique up to isomorphism and is itself perfect. Such C are often called universal perfect central extensions of G, or covering group (as it is a discrete analog of the universal covering space in topology). If the finite group G is not perfect, then its Schur covering groups (all such C of maximal order) are only isoclinic.
It is also called more briefly a universal central extension, but note that there is no largest central extension, as the direct product of G and an abelian group form a central extension of G of arbitrary size.
Stem extensions have the nice property that any lift of a generating set of G is a generating set of C. If the group G is presented in terms of a free group F on a set of generators, and a normal subgroup R generated by a set of relations on the generators, so that G ≅ F/R, then the covering group itself can be presented in terms of F but with a smaller normal subgroup S, C ≅ F/S. Since the relations of G specify elements of K when considered as part of C, one must have S ≤ .
In fact if G is perfect, this is all that is needed: C ≅ / and M(G) ≅ K ≅ R/. Because of this simplicity, expositions such as (Aschbacher 2000, §33) handle the perfect case first. The general case for the Schur multiplier is similar but ensures the extension is a stem extension by restricting to the derived subgroup of F: M(G) ≅ (R ∩ )/. These are all slightly later results of Schur, who also gave a number of useful criteria for calculating them more explicitly.
Read more about this topic: Schur Multiplier
Famous quotes containing the words relation to, relation, central and/or extensions:
“It would be disingenuous, however, not to point out that some things are considered as morally certain, that is, as having sufficient certainty for application to ordinary life, even though they may be uncertain in relation to the absolute power of God.”
—René Descartes (1596–1650)
“A theory of the middle class: that it is not to be determined by its financial situation but rather by its relation to government. That is, one could shade down from an actual ruling or governing class to a class hopelessly out of relation to government, thinking of gov’t as beyond its control, of itself as wholly controlled by gov’t. Somewhere in between and in gradations is the group that has the sense that gov’t exists for it, and shapes its consciousness accordingly.”
—Lionel Trilling (1905–1975)
“There is no such thing as a free lunch.”
—Anonymous.
An axiom from economics popular in the 1960s, the words have no known source, though have been dated to the 1840s, when they were used in saloons where snacks were offered to customers. Ascribed to an Italian immigrant outside Grand Central Station, New York, in Alistair Cooke’s America (epilogue, 1973)
“The psychological umbilical cord is more difficult to cut than the real one. We experience our children as extensions of ourselves, and we feel as though their behavior is an expression of something within us...instead of an expression of something in them. We see in our children our own reflection, and when we don’t like what we see, we feel angry at the reflection.”
—Elaine Heffner (20th century)