Hubbry Logo
Presentation of a groupPresentation of a groupMain
Open search
Presentation of a group
Community hub
Presentation of a group
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Presentation of a group
Presentation of a group
from Wikipedia

In mathematics, a presentation is one method of specifying a group. A presentation of a group G comprises a set S of generators—so that every element of the group can be written as a product of powers of some of these generators—and a set R of relations among those generators. We then say G has presentation

Informally, G has the above presentation if it is the "freest group" generated by S subject only to the relations R. Formally, the group G is said to have the above presentation if it is isomorphic to the quotient of a free group on S by the normal subgroup generated by the relations R.

As a simple example, the cyclic group of order n has the presentation

where 1 is the group identity. This may be written equivalently as

thanks to the convention that terms that do not include an equals sign are taken to be equal to the group identity. Such terms are called relators, distinguishing them from the relations that do include an equals sign.

Every group has a presentation, and in fact many different presentations; a presentation is often the most compact way of describing the structure of the group.[citation needed]

A closely related but different concept is that of an absolute presentation of a group.

Background

[edit]

A free group on a set S is a group where each element can be uniquely described as a finite length product of the form:

where the si are elements of S, adjacent si are distinct, and ai are non-zero integers (but n may be zero). In less formal terms, the group consists of words in the generators and their inverses, subject only to canceling a generator with an adjacent occurrence of its inverse.

If G is any group, and S is a generating subset of G, then every element of G is also of the above form; but in general, these products will not uniquely describe an element of G.

For example, the dihedral group D8 of order sixteen can be generated by a rotation r of order 8 and a flip f of order 2, and certainly any element of D8 is a product of r's and f's.

However, we have, for example, rfr = f−1, r7 = r−1, etc., so such products are not unique in D8. Each such product equivalence can be expressed as an equality to the identity, such as

rfrf = 1,
r8 = 1, or
f2 = 1.

Informally, we can consider these products on the left hand side as being elements of the free group F = ⟨r, f ⟩, and let R = ⟨rfrf, r8, f2. That is, we let R be the subgroup generated by the strings rfrf, r8, f2, each of which is also equivalent to 1 when considered as products in D8.

If we then let N be the subgroup of F generated by all conjugates x−1Rx of R, then it follows by definition that every element of N is a finite product x1−1r1x1 ... xm−1rm xm of members of such conjugates. It follows that each element of N, when considered as a product in D8, will also evaluate to 1; and thus that N is a normal subgroup of F. Thus D8 is isomorphic to the quotient group F/N. We then say that D8 has presentation

Here the set of generators is S = {r, f }, and the set of relations is R = {r 8 = 1, f 2 = 1, (rf )2 = 1}. We often see R abbreviated, giving the presentation

An even shorter form drops the equality and identity signs, to list just the set of relators, which is {r 8, f 2, (rf )2}. Doing this gives the presentation

All three presentations are equivalent.

Notation

[edit]

Although the notation S | R used in this article for a presentation is now the most common, earlier writers used different variations on the same format. Such notations include the following:[citation needed]

  • S | R
  • (S | R)
  • {S; R}
  • S; R

Definition

[edit]

Let S be a set and let FS be the free group on S. Let R be a set of words on S, so R naturally gives a subset of . To form a group with presentation , take the quotient of by the smallest normal subgroup that contains each element of R. (This subgroup is called the normal closure N of R in .) The group is then defined as the quotient group

The elements of S are called the generators of and the elements of R are called the relators. A group G is said to have the presentation if G is isomorphic to .[1]

It is a common practice to write relators in the form where x and y are words on S. What this means is that . This has the intuitive meaning that the images of x and y are supposed to be equal in the quotient group. Thus, for example, rn in the list of relators is equivalent with .[1]

For a finite group G, it is possible to build a presentation of G from the group multiplication table, as follows. Take S to be the set elements of G and R to be all words of the form , where is an entry in the multiplication table.

Alternate definition

[edit]

The definition of group presentation may alternatively be recast in terms of equivalence classes of words on the alphabet . In this perspective, we declare two words to be equivalent if it is possible to get from one to the other by a sequence of moves, where each move consists of adding or removing a consecutive pair or for some x in S, or by adding or removing a consecutive copy of a relator. The group elements are the equivalence classes, and the group operation is concatenation.[1]

This point of view is particularly common in the field of combinatorial group theory.

Finitely presented groups

[edit]

A presentation is said to be finitely generated if S is finite and finitely related if R is finite. If both are finite it is said to be a finite presentation. A group is finitely generated (respectively finitely related, finitely presented) if it has a presentation that is finitely generated (respectively finitely related, a finite presentation). A group which has a finite presentation with a single relation is called a one-relator group.

Recursively presented groups

[edit]

If S is indexed by a set I consisting of all the natural numbers N or a finite subset of them, then it is easy to set up a simple one to one coding (or Gödel numbering) f : FSN from the free group on S to the natural numbers, such that we can find algorithms that, given f(w), calculate w, and vice versa. We can then call a subset U of FS recursive (respectively recursively enumerable) if f(U) is recursive (respectively recursively enumerable). If S is indexed as above and R recursively enumerable, then the presentation is a recursive presentation and the corresponding group is recursively presented. This usage may seem odd, but it is possible to prove that if a group has a presentation with R recursively enumerable then it has another one with R recursive.

Every finitely presented group is recursively presented, but there are recursively presented groups that cannot be finitely presented. However a theorem of Graham Higman states that a finitely generated group has a recursive presentation if and only if it can be embedded in a finitely presented group.[2] From this we can deduce that there are (up to isomorphism) only countably many finitely generated recursively presented groups. Bernhard Neumann has shown that there are uncountably many non-isomorphic two generator groups. Therefore, there are finitely generated groups that cannot be recursively presented.

History

[edit]

One of the earliest presentations of a group by generators and relations was given by the Irish mathematician William Rowan Hamilton in 1856, in his icosian calculus – a presentation of the icosahedral group.[3] The first systematic study was given by Walther von Dyck, student of Felix Klein, in the early 1880s, laying the foundations for combinatorial group theory.[4]

Examples

[edit]

The following table lists some examples of presentations for commonly studied groups. Note that in each case there are many other presentations that are possible. The presentation listed is not necessarily the most efficient one possible.

Group Presentation Comments
the free group on S A free group is "free" in the sense that it is subject to no relations.
, the surface group of orientable genus The bracket stands for the commutator:
Cn, the cyclic group of order n
Dn, the dihedral group of order 2n Here r represents a rotation and f a reflection
D, the infinite dihedral group
Dicn, the dicyclic group The quaternion group Q8 is a special case when n = 2
Z × Z
Z/mZ × Z/nZ
the free abelian group on S where R is the set of all commutators of elements of S
Sn, the symmetric group on n symbols generators:
relations:
  • ,
  • ,

The last set of relations can be transformed into

using .

Here σi is the permutation that swaps the ith element with the i+1st one. The product σiσi+1 is a 3-cycle on the set {i, i+1, i+2}.
Bn, the braid groups generators:

relations:

  • ,
Note the similarity with the symmetric group; the only difference is the removal of the relation .
V4 ≅ D2, the Klein 4 group
T ≅ A4, the tetrahedral group
O ≅ S4, the octahedral group
I ≅ A5, the icosahedral group
Q8, the quaternion group For an alternative presentation see Dicn above with n=2.
SL(2, Z) topologically a and b can be visualized as Dehn twists on the torus
GL(2, Z) nontrivial Z/2Zgroup extension of SL(2, Z)
PSL(2, Z), the modular group PSL(2, Z) is the free product of the cyclic groups Z/2Z and Z/3Z
Heisenberg group
BS(m, n), the Baumslag–Solitar groups
Tits group [a, b] is the commutator

An example of a finitely generated group that is not finitely presented is the wreath product of the group of integers with itself.

Some theorems

[edit]

Theorem. Every group has a presentation.

To see this, given a group G, consider the free group FG on G. By the universal property of free groups, there exists a unique group homomorphism φ : FGG whose restriction to G is the identity map. Let K be the kernel of this homomorphism. Then K is normal in FG, therefore is equal to its normal closure, so G | K⟩ = FG/K. Since the identity map is surjective, φ is also surjective, so by the First Isomorphism Theorem, G | K⟩ ≅ im(φ) = G. This presentation may be highly inefficient if both G and K are much larger than necessary.

Corollary. Every finite group has a finite presentation.

One may take the elements of the group for generators and the Cayley table for relations.

Novikov–Boone theorem

[edit]

The negative solution to the word problem for groups states that there is a finite presentation S | R for which there is no algorithm which, given two words u, v, decides whether u and v describe the same element in the group. This was shown by Pyotr Novikov in 1955[5] and a different proof was obtained by William Boone in 1958.[6]

Constructions

[edit]

Suppose G has presentation S | R and H has presentation T | Q with S and T being disjoint. Then

  • the free product GH has presentation S, T | R, Q;
  • the direct product G × H has presentation S, T | R, Q, [S, T]⟩, where [S, T] means that every element from S commutes with every element from T (cf. commutator); and
  • the semidirect product Gφ H has presentation S, T | R, Q, {t s t−1 φt(s)−1 | s in S, t in T}⟩.[7]

Deficiency

[edit]

The deficiency of a finite presentation S | R is just |S| − |R| and the deficiency of a finitely presented group G, denoted def(G), is the maximum of the deficiency over all presentations of G. The deficiency of a finite group is non-positive. The Schur multiplicator of a finite group G can be generated by −def(G) generators, and G is efficient if this number is required.[8]

Geometric group theory

[edit]

A presentation of a group determines a geometry, in the sense of geometric group theory: one has the Cayley graph, which has a metric, called the word metric. These are also two resulting orders, the weak order and the Bruhat order, and corresponding Hasse diagrams. An important example is in the Coxeter groups.

Further, some properties of this graph (the coarse geometry) are intrinsic, meaning independent of choice of generators.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In , particularly in the field of , a presentation of a group provides a method to define the group abstractly using a generating set and a corresponding set of relations that these generators must satisfy. Formally, a presentation is denoted as SR\langle S \mid R \rangle, where SS is a set of generators and RR is a set of relations (words in the on SS that are set equal to the identity), with the group being the of the on SS by the normal subgroup generated by RR. This construction allows for concise descriptions of complex groups without enumerating all elements, making it essential for studying infinite or large finite groups. The concept emerged in the late 19th century as part of the development of , with Walther von Dyck formalizing the use of generators and relations in 1882–1883 to define groups independently of their realizations in permutations or matrices. Earlier contributions, such as William Rowan Hamilton's 1856 description of the icosahedral group via generators and relations in his icosian calculus, laid groundwork, but von Dyck's work established the modern framework. Presentations are particularly powerful for finitely presented groups, where both SS and RR are finite, enabling algorithmic approaches like the word problem, though solvability remains challenging in general. Notable examples include the dihedral group DnD_n of order 2n2n, presented as x,yx2=1,yn=1,xyx1=y1\langle x, y \mid x^2 = 1, y^n = 1, xyx^{-1} = y^{-1} \rangle, which captures the symmetries of a regular nn-gon. The fundamental group of a closed orientable surface of genus gg is given by x1,y1,,xg,ygi=1g[xi,yi]=1\langle x_1, y_1, \dots, x_g, y_g \mid \prod_{i=1}^g [x_i, y_i] = 1 \rangle, illustrating applications in topology. In combinatorial group theory, presentations facilitate the study of free groups, Coxeter groups, and braid groups, with theorems like the Nielsen-Schreier theorem relating subgroups' presentations to the original group's.

Fundamentals

Background

In , a group is a fundamental consisting of a nonempty set GG together with a :G×GG\cdot: G \times G \to G that satisfies four axioms: closure (the result of the operation is always in GG), associativity (for all a,b,cGa, b, c \in G, (ab)c=a(bc)(a \cdot b) \cdot c = a \cdot (b \cdot c)), the existence of an eGe \in G such that ea=ae=ae \cdot a = a \cdot e = a for all aGa \in G, and the existence of inverses (for each aGa \in G, there is an element a1Ga^{-1} \in G with aa1=a1a=ea \cdot a^{-1} = a^{-1} \cdot a = e). This structure captures symmetries and transformations in diverse mathematical contexts, from permutations to matrices. While finite groups can often be described explicitly via Cayley tables listing all elements and their products, such enumerations become impractical for infinite groups or those with complex structures, where listing every element and operation is infeasible. Group presentations address this by providing a succinct method to define a group through a of generators—elements that can produce all others via the operation—and a set of relations that impose the necessary constraints on those generators. This approach enables the study of arbitrarily large or abstract groups without exhaustive listings, emphasizing structural properties over explicit membership. At their core, presentations conceptualize any group GG as a of a on the generators by the normal subgroup generated by the relations, where a is the "freest" possible group on a given set, with no relations imposed beyond those required for group axioms. This construction formalizes how relations "kill" unwanted elements in the to yield the desired structure. The idea of describing groups via generators and relations arose in 19th-century , building on earlier work in and symmetries; linked groups to equation solvability in the 1830s, advanced abstract definitions in the 1850s, and Walther von Dyck formalized presentations using in the 1880s.

Notation

In , the standard notation for a presentation of a group GG is G=SRG = \langle S \mid R \rangle, where SS denotes a set of generators and RR denotes a set of relators. This notation arises from the free group on the alphabet SS, with RR specifying the additional structure imposed on that free group. The generators in SS are formal symbols that serve as the building blocks for elements of GG, combined through the group operation and inverses to form words. Relators in RR are specific words in the generators and their inverses that are set equal to the , enforcing the relations that define the group's structure beyond the free group axioms. A key distinction exists between relators and relations: relators are the words themselves in RR, while relations are the equations of the form r=1r = 1 (where rRr \in R) that these words represent in the group. This separation emphasizes that relators generate a of the , whereas relations describe the resulting equalities among group elements. Certain conventions simplify presentations. In a symmetric presentation, the set RR is closed under inversion and conjugation by generators, meaning that if rRr \in R, then r1Rr^{-1} \in R and all cyclically reduced conjugates of rr and r1r^{-1} are also in RR. One-relator presentations, denoted Sr\langle S \mid r \rangle for a single relator rr, represent a special case where the group is defined by exactly one such word equal to the identity.

Definition

In group theory, a presentation of a group GG is formally defined as an SR\langle S \mid R \rangle, where SS is a generating set for GG, FSF_S denotes the on the set SS, and RR is a set of relators consisting of words in the elements of FSF_S such that GG is isomorphic to the FS/NF_S / N, with NN being the normal closure of RR in FSF_S. This construction captures the structure of GG by specifying generators and the relations they must satisfy, ensuring that every element of GG can be expressed as a product of powers of elements from SS, modulo the imposed relations. The normal closure NN plays a crucial role in this definition, as it is the smallest of FSF_S containing RR, generated by all conjugates of the relators in RR under elements of FSF_S. This inclusion of conjugates ensures that the relations hold invariantly under conjugation in the , making NN normal and thus preserving the group structure in GG. Without the normal closure, the subgroup generated by RR alone might not suffice, as it could fail to be normal, leading to inconsistencies in the . Two presentations SR\langle S \mid R \rangle and SR\langle S' \mid R' \rangle of the same group GG are equivalent if one can be transformed into the other via a finite sequence of Tietze transformations, which include operations such as introducing a new generator and a corresponding relator that defines it in terms of existing generators, eliminating a redundant generator, or replacing a relator with an equivalent one obtained by inserting or deleting trivial relations. These transformations preserve the isomorphism class of the presented group and provide a systematic way to simplify or compare presentations. Presentations of a given group GG are not unique; distinct pairs SR\langle S \mid R \rangle and SR\langle S' \mid R' \rangle can yield isomorphic groups, reflecting the flexibility in choosing generating sets and relations while maintaining the underlying . This non-uniqueness underscores the combinatorial nature of group presentations, where equivalent descriptions may vary significantly in .

Equivalent Formulations

Von Dyck's theorem establishes an equivalent formulation for the group defined by a presentation XR\langle X \mid R \rangle. Specifically, any group HH generated by the set XX in which every relator in RR evaluates to the is isomorphic to the quotient of the on XX by the normal closure of RR. This theorem, originally proved by Walther von Dyck in 1882, underscores that the presented group is the universal object satisfying the given generators and relations. Tietze transformations provide a systematic way to obtain equivalent presentations of the same group, allowing for the removal of redundancies. These transformations, introduced by Heinrich Tietze in , consist of four operations: (1) adding a new generator expressed as a word in the existing generators along with the corresponding defining relation; (2) eliminating a generator by substituting a word expressing it in terms of the remaining generators throughout the relations; (3) adding a new relation that is a consequence of the existing ones; and (4) deleting a relation provided the subgroup it generates is contained in the normal closure of the remaining relations. Applying a sequence of these moves preserves the isomorphism class of the group, enabling simplification such as reducing redundant generators or relations. A is termed balanced if the number of generators equals the number of relators. While Tietze transformations can alter the balance—for instance, by introducing or eliminating generators and relations without changing the group—they facilitate the transformation to a balanced form when possible, aiding in the analysis of deficiency and efficiency in presentations. The structure of a presentation also relates implicitly to Cayley graphs, where the generators define the edges, and the relations inform the identification of loops corresponding to trivial words; this geometric view supports studying the word problem through path equivalences in the graph. Two presentations define isomorphic groups if and only if one can be transformed into the other via a finite sequence of Tietze transformations, providing a criterion for equivalence in the finitely presented case. This equivalence holds more generally for recursively presented groups under analogous infinite sequences of moves, though decidability issues arise.

Classifications

Finitely Presented Groups

A finitely presented group is one that possesses a presentation consisting of a finite generating set SS and a finite set of relations RR, denoted G=SRG = \langle S \mid R \rangle. In this setup, GG is isomorphic to the quotient of the on SS by the normal closure of the subgroup generated by the elements of RR. This finite nature distinguishes finitely presented groups from broader classes of presentations, enabling certain computational approaches while also revealing fundamental limitations. Every finitely presented group is finitely generated, as the SS serves as a generating set for GG. However, the converse does not hold: there exist finitely generated groups that lack any finite presentation. A classic example is the lamplighter group Z2Z\mathbb{Z}_2 \wr \mathbb{Z}, which is generated by two elements but requires infinitely many relations to define it precisely, making it impossible to capture with a finite set of relators. This distinction underscores that finite generation alone does not guarantee the compactness provided by finite relations. A key computational challenge for finitely presented groups is the word problem: given a word in the generators from SS, determine whether it represents the in GG using the relations in RR. While solvable for specific classes like finite groups or hyperbolic groups, the word problem is undecidable in general for finitely presented groups. Boone established this by explicitly constructing a finitely presented group whose word problem cannot be resolved algorithmically, building on earlier work by Novikov. Representative examples of finitely presented groups abound in group theory. The infinite Z\mathbb{Z} admits the a\langle a \mid \rangle, featuring a single generator and no relations, reflecting its free abelian on one generator. Similarly, the DnD_n of order 2n2n is given by r,srn=1,s2=1,srs1=r1\langle r, s \mid r^n = 1, s^2 = 1, srs^{-1} = r^{-1} \rangle, capturing the symmetries of a regular nn-gon with rotations and reflections. These presentations not only define the groups but also facilitate Tietze transformations, which preserve equivalence between finite presentations by adding or removing generators and relations in controlled ways.

Recursively Presented Groups

A recursively presented group is a that admits a SR\langle S \mid R \rangle, where SS is a finite generating set and RR is a recursively enumerable of the F(S)F(S) on SS. This means there exists an that can enumerate all elements of RR, allowing the relations to be listed sequentially, though RR may be infinite. Every finitely presented group is recursively presented, since a finite set of relations is trivially recursively enumerable, but the converse does not hold: there exist recursively presented groups that cannot be finitely presented. The recursive enumerability of RR ties recursively presented groups closely to , enabling the encoding of undecidable problems from Turing machines into group presentations. Specifically, the word problem for such a group—the task of deciding whether a given word in the generators represents the identity—is always recursively enumerable, as one can dovetail searches through the enumerated relations to verify triviality. However, unlike in the finitely presented case where the word problem may or may not be decidable, recursive presentations broaden the scope to groups where the word problem remains undecidable, yet the set of trivial words is semi-decidable. This relaxation from finite to recursively enumerable relations allows descriptions of a larger class of finitely generated groups, including those that embed into finitely presented groups via Higman's embedding theorem. A example involves constructing a recursively presented group whose word problem encodes the for . One adjoins generators simulating Turing machine configurations and enumerates relations corresponding to valid halting computations, making the identity words precisely those representing non-halting instances; since the is undecidable, the word problem is likewise undecidable. Such groups illustrate how recursive presentations capture computational hardness while maintaining finite generation.

Infinitely Presented Groups

Infinitely presented groups are those that do not admit a finite , requiring either an of generators SS or an infinite set of relations RR (or both) to define them via the quotient of the on SS by the normal closure of RR. In the case of finitely generated groups, this typically manifests as an infinite set of relations, as the generator set remains finite. More generally, presentations extend to arbitrary cardinalities: for any group GG, there exists a presentation with G|G| generators {xggG}\{x_g \mid g \in G\} and relations xgxh=xghx_g x_h = x_{gh} for all g,hGg, h \in G, along with inverse relations xgxg1=1x_g x_{g^{-1}} = 1; here, the relation set RR has at most G2+G|G|^2 + |G|, which is uncountable if G|G| exceeds the continuum. Such presentations pose significant challenges, particularly when SS or RR is uncountable or non-enumerable, as there is no algorithmic means to enumerate or verify the relations, rendering computational study impossible beyond countable cases. These constructions are especially pertinent in set-theoretic group theory, where groups may arise from structures of high cardinality, such as automorphism groups of large set-theoretic models. For instance, the trivial group admits an infinite presentation {aiiN}ai=1 i\langle \{a_i \mid i \in \mathbb{N}\} \mid a_i = 1 \ \forall i \rangle, where the relations are redundant but infinitely many, illustrating how even finitely presentable groups can be described infinitely. Modern developments, particularly post-2000, have integrated these notions with descriptive through the of the of marked groups G\mathcal{G}_\infty, a whose is homeomorphic to the , with 202^{\aleph_0}. Infinitely presented groups often correspond to points in this , where uncountable neighborhoods accumulate, linking presentability to geometric invariants like the Bieri-Neumann-Strebel-Renz invariant Σ(G)\Sigma(G) and properties of metabelian groups. Free groups of infinite rank serve as a basic example with infinite generators and no relations, highlighting the breadth of such presentations.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Work

The concept of a group presentation, describing groups via generators and relations, emerged in the late as part of the shift toward abstract . Walther von Dyck introduced this framework in 1882, building on Arthur Cayley's earlier ideas of groups as sets of transformations satisfying certain relations. In his seminal paper, von Dyck formalized presentations for both finite and infinite groups, emphasizing that any group could be defined abstractly by a set of generators and relations, independent of concrete realizations like . He also established the von Dyck theorem, which guarantees that a group defined by generators and relations maps onto any group satisfying those relations, providing a foundational tool for studies. This work extended to groups, where von Dyck demonstrated how relations could capture their structure without explicit representations. In the early 1900s, Max Dehn advanced the application of group presentations to topology, particularly in studying fundamental groups of surfaces. Dehn's 1910-1912 papers provided explicit presentations for these groups, linking algebraic relations to geometric properties like genus. For instance, he derived presentations for orientable surfaces, showing how generators correspond to loops and relations to surface identifications, which facilitated the computation of homotopy invariants. This approach was pivotal for surface classification and influenced early combinatorial group theory by highlighting decidability in low-dimensional cases. Dehn also extended presentations to knot complements, introducing algorithms to derive knot group relations from diagrams, though full solvability remained elusive. The 1920s saw further refinements through the works of Kurt Reidemeister and Otto Schreier, who deepened the understanding of free groups and their subgroups within presentations. Reidemeister's 1926 book "Knoten und Gruppen" advanced the application of group presentations to , particularly in analyzing the structure of knot groups as quotients of free groups. Schreier, in 1927, proved that subgroups of free groups are themselves free (the Nielsen-Schreier theorem), generalizing Reidemeister's results on normal subgroups and providing a method to construct explicit generators for such subgroups via Schreier transversals. Their collaborative insights, often termed the Reidemeister-Schreier process, allowed for systematic derivation of presentations for subgroups, enhancing the combinatorial toolkit for group analysis. Prior to Pyotr Novikov's 1955 demonstration of the unsolvability of the word problem, research on group presentations concentrated on cases where algorithmic solutions were feasible, such as knot groups. Dehn and Reidemeister's efforts in the 1910s-1920s focused on these, developing presentations from knot diagrams and exploring properties like peripheral subgroups, assuming solvability for classification purposes. This era emphasized geometric interpretability, with knot groups treated as quotients of free groups by meridinal relations, enabling partial invariants but revealing limitations in general decidability. Such work underscored the tractability of specific topological groups before broader undecidability results shifted the field.

Key Theorems

The Novikov–Boone theorem establishes the existence of finitely presented groups with undecidable word problems, marking a foundational result in algorithmic . Independently, in 1955, Pyotr Novikov constructed such a group by encoding the into the relations of a finite presentation, demonstrating that no algorithm can generally determine whether two words represent the same element. William W. Boone provided a parallel construction in 1956, also relying on recursive encoding techniques to show unsolvability. These results resolved a major open question posed by Max Dehn in 1911, proving that the word problem is undecidable for the class of all finitely presented groups. Boone's 1959 work further refined this by giving an explicit recursive of a group with an unsolvable word problem, simplifying earlier arguments and providing a more accessible construction based on Higman's . This involves a of generators and relations derived from a recursively enumerable set, ensuring the word problem mirrors the undecidability of the for Turing machines. The construction has been influential in subsequent developments, as it allows recursively presented groups into finitely presented ones while preserving undecidability. The Adian–Rabin theorem extends these ideas to broader classes of properties, asserting that any of finitely presented groups—such as triviality, simple connectivity, or hyperbolicity—is undecidable. Sergei Adian and showed that for any such property, there exists a finitely presented group where membership cannot be algorithmically determined from the . This applies particularly to hyperbolic groups, where deciding hyperbolicity from a finite is impossible, as hyperbolicity satisfies the Markov condition of being preserved under finite extensions and embeddings. The theorem underscores the inherent limitations in algorithmic recognition for "reasonable" algebraic properties in group . Connections to the highlight further undecidability in presentations involving exponent restrictions. The negative solution by Adian and Novikov demonstrates that for sufficiently large odd exponents (greater than 4381), the free Burnside groups of rank at least two are infinite, constructed via finite presentations with relations enforcing periodicity but yielding non-trivial infinite structures. This implies the unsolvability of determining finiteness for such presentations with large exponents, linking bounded-length relations to undecidable membership questions. These results, building on Novikov's earlier techniques, reveal deep ties between presentation theory and the general Burnside problem's algorithmic insolubility.

Examples

Simple Examples

The , consisting solely of the , admits the empty presentation \langle \mid \rangle, which specifies no generators and no relations, or equivalently aa\langle a \mid a \rangle, where the single generator aa is subject to the relation that equates it to the identity. These presentations capture the absence of non-trivial structure, as any word in the generators immediately reduces to the identity due to the imposed relations. The Zn\mathbb{Z}_n of order nn, which is abelian and generated by a single element of order nn, has the standard aan\langle a \mid a^n \rangle. Here, the single relation an=1a^n = 1 enforces that all powers of aa beyond n1n-1 wrap around, yielding the finite cyclic structure, while words not multiples of nn remain distinct. This highlights how a minimal relation suffices to define finite cyclic groups from the on one generator. The free group F2F_2 on two generators, the "freest" non-abelian group with no imposed relations beyond those inherent to group axioms, is presented as a,b\langle a, b \mid \rangle. In this empty-relator setup, reduced words in aa, bb, and their inverses form an infinite basis, with no collapses, illustrating the foundational role of free groups in presentation theory. Distinct reduced words represent distinct elements, underscoring the absence of relations. The Klein four-group, an abelian group of order 4 isomorphic to Z2×Z2\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2, possesses the presentation a,ba2,b2,aba1b1\langle a, b \mid a^2, b^2, aba^{-1}b^{-1} \rangle, or equivalently a,ba2=b2=(ab)2=1\langle a, b \mid a^2 = b^2 = (ab)^2 = 1 \rangle. These relations ensure both generators have order 2 and commute, producing exactly four elements: 11, aa, bb, and abab, each of order dividing 2. This example demonstrates how multiple relations can compactly define a small non-cyclic abelian group.

Complex Examples

The S3S_3, which consists of all permutations of three elements and has order 6, admits the a,ba2=b3=(ab)2=1\langle a, b \mid a^2 = b^3 = (ab)^2 = 1 \rangle, where aa can be taken as a transposition such as (1 2)(1\ 2) and bb as a 3-cycle such as (1 2 3)(1\ 2\ 3). This captures the rotational and reflectional symmetries of an , reflecting S3S_3's to the of order 6. The relations ensure that the group is non-abelian, with the generated by bb being cyclic of order 3 and normal, while aa inverts bb. The trefoil knot group, the of the complement of the trefoil knot in R3\mathbb{R}^3, has the x,yx2=y3\langle x, y \mid x^2 = y^3 \rangle. This one-relator arises from simplifying the Wirtinger via Tietze transformations, highlighting the group's non-abelian and its origins as the (2,3)-torus knot group. The abelianization of the group is Z\mathbb{Z}. The Baumslag–Solitar group BS(2,3)BS(2,3) is defined by the a,bba2b1=a3\langle a, b \mid b a^2 b^{-1} = a^3 \rangle, a one-relator group that exemplifies non-Hopfian behavior. The relation encodes a non-trivial action of bb on powers of aa, leading to embeddings of Z[1/6]\mathbb{Z}[1/6] into the group and rendering it non-residually finite. This group has deficiency 1, as the single relation balances the two generators. The Heisenberg group modulo an odd prime pp, an extraspecial pp-group of order p3p^3, arises from upper triangular 3×33 \times 3 matrices over Fp\mathbb{F}_p with 1s on the diagonal. It has presentation x,y,zxp=yp=zp=1,xz=zx,yz=zy,yx=xyz\langle x, y, z \mid x^p = y^p = z^p = 1, \, xz = zx, \, yz = zy, \, yx = xyz \rangle, where z=[x,y]z = [x, y] generates the center. The generators correspond to matrix translations: xx shifts the (1,2)-entry, yy the (2,3)-entry, and zz the (1,3)-entry, with the commutator relation capturing the non-abelian nilpotency class 2.

Advanced Concepts

Constructions

The free product of two groups is a fundamental construction in combinatorial group theory for combining presentations without additional relations beyond those of the factors. Given groups G=XRG = \langle X \mid R \rangle and H=YSH = \langle Y \mid S \rangle, where XX and YY are disjoint sets of generators, the free product GHG * H has presentation XYRS\langle X \cup Y \mid R \cup S \rangle. This presentation arises from the universal property of the free product, which ensures that any homomorphisms from GG and HH to a common group extend uniquely to a homomorphism from GHG * H. The elements of GHG * H consist of reduced words alternating between non-identity elements of GG and HH, with the group operation defined by concatenation followed by reduction at the junctions. This construction extends naturally to finite or infinite free products of multiple groups by iteratively applying the binary free product, yielding a presentation that is the disjoint union of all generators and relations. Free products preserve freeness in the sense that the free product of free groups is free on the of bases, and they play a key role in embedding theorems and decompositions of groups. The amalgamated free product refines the free product by identifying isomorphic subgroups of the factors. For groups G=XRG = \langle X \mid R \rangle and H=YSH = \langle Y \mid S \rangle with disjoint X,YX, Y, subgroups AGA \leq G and BHB \leq H, and isomorphism ϕ:AB\phi: A \to B, the amalgamated free product GAHG *_A H (more precisely, GϕHG *_\phi H) has presentation XYRS{w1ϕ(w)wW}\langle X \cup Y \mid R \cup S \cup \{ w^{-1} \phi(w) \mid w \in W \} \rangle, where WW is a set of words in the generators of AA that generate AA as a or via Tietze transformations. In practice, if AA and BB are generated by specific words uiu_i in GG and vi=ϕ(ui)v_i = \phi(u_i) in HH, the relations include ui=viu_i = v_i for each ii. This identifies the images of AA and BB in the free product, forming the colimit (pushout) in the category of groups. Amalgamated free products are essential for decomposing groups along splittings, such as in the study of one-relator groups or surface groups, where they capture gluings of fundamental domains. The normal form for elements involves alternating representatives of the amalgamated , ensuring unique reduced words except across the amalgamation. HNN extensions provide a dual construction to amalgamated products, enabling the "absorption" of isomorphisms between subgroups via a stable letter. Given a group G=XRG = \langle X \mid R \rangle, subgroups U,VGU, V \leq G, and ψ:UV\psi: U \to V, the HNN extension G,tt1ut=ψ(u) uU\langle G, t \mid t^{-1} u t = \psi(u) \ \forall u \in U \rangle adds the generator tt and relations conjugating elements of UU to their images in VV. If UU and VV are generated by words uiu_i and vi=ψ(ui)v_i = \psi(u_i), the relations are t1uit=vit^{-1} u_i t = v_i. This construction embeds GG into a larger group and is particularly powerful for embedding one group into another with prescribed isomorphisms, as originally shown for countable groups. The Britton lemma provides a normal form for HNN extensions, consisting of reduced words where no subword is of the form t±1ut1t^{\pm 1} u t^{\mp 1} with uU±1u \in U^{\pm 1} or t±1vt1t^{\pm 1} v t^{\mp 1} with vV±1v \in V^{\pm 1}, allowing algorithmic manipulation of elements. HNN extensions generalize ascending HNNs for solvable word problems and are used in embedding theorems to construct groups with specific properties, such as infinite finitely generated subgroups. Graphs of groups unify free products, amalgamated products, and HNN extensions within Bass-Serre theory, providing a framework for the fundamental groups of one-dimensional complexes with local group structures. A graph of groups G\mathcal{G} consists of an underlying graph Γ\Gamma, groups GvG_v at each vertex vΓv \in \Gamma, groups GeG_e at each edge eΓe \in \Gamma, and monomorphisms ιe,v:GeGv\iota_{e,v}: G_e \to G_v for incident vv. The fundamental group π1(G)\pi_1(\mathcal{G}) is generated by the union of all GvG_v and GeG_e, with relations from the GvG_v, GeG_e, and ιe,v\iota_{e,v}, constructed iteratively: along a spanning tree, use amalgamated free products for edges, and HNN extensions for loops or branches. For a connected graph, π1(G)\pi_1(\mathcal{G}) acts on the Bass-Serre tree (the universal cover), with quotient Γ\Gamma and stabilizers the vertex/edge groups. This construction yields presentations for fundamental groups of graphs of groups via the vertex and edge presentations amalgamated along inclusions, enabling decompositions of groups acting on trees without global fixed points. Bass-Serre theory thus characterizes splittings of groups as graphs of groups, with applications to subgroup structures and rigidity in hyperbolic groups.

Deficiency

In combinatorial , the deficiency of a finite presentation P=SRP = \langle S \mid R \rangle of a group GG, denoted \def(P), is defined as the difference between the number of generators and the number of relators: \def(P) = |S| - |R|. This quantity measures the "efficiency" of the presentation by indicating how many more generators than relations are used to define GG. For a finitely presented group GG, the deficiency \def(G) is the maximum value of \def(P) over all finite presentations PP of GG. A key property of deficiency is that it provides a lower bound on the minimal number of relations required in any presentation. Specifically, if GG has minimal number of generators d(G)d(G), then in any presentation with d(G)d(G) generators, the number of relations is at least d(G) - \def(G); equivalently, \def(G) is the largest possible excess of generators over relations across equivalent presentations. This maximal deficiency is attained in presentations that are "optimal" in balancing generators and relations, and for certain groups, it coincides with presentations using the fewest generators. Finite groups always have non-positive deficiency, reflecting their bounded presentation complexities. For s, the deficiency equals the rank. The FnF_n of rank nn has a presentation x1,,xn\langle x_1, \dots, x_n \mid \rangle with no relations, yielding \def(F_n) = n, and this is maximal since adding relations would decrease the deficiency while preserving the group. Perfect groups, which have trivial abelianization, have non-positive deficiency: \def(G) \leq 0, as their presentations cannot exceed zero excess of generators over relations without altering the group structure. For example, many finite perfect groups admit balanced presentations (deficiency zero) but none with positive deficiency. The deficiency connects to homological algebra through the homology groups of GG. In particular, \def(G) \leq \rk(H_1(G, \mathbb{Z})) - d(H_2(G, \mathbb{Z})), where \rk(H1(G,Z))\rk(H_1(G, \mathbb{Z})) is the torsion-free rank (first b1(G)b_1(G)) and d(H2(G,Z))d(H_2(G, \mathbb{Z})) is the minimal number of generators of the second homology (). This bound arises from the structure of the presentation complex and the Hopf formula for H2H_2, implying that \def(G) \leq b_1(G) in general. Groups achieving equality are called efficient, such as free groups where b1(Fn)=nb_1(F_n) = n and d(H2)=0d(H_2) = 0.

Geometric Interpretations

The geometric interpretation of a group presentation begins with the , which provides a combinatorial model for the group's structure. For a group GG generated by a finite set SS, the ΓS(G)\Gamma_S(G) has vertices corresponding to elements of GG and directed edges from gg to gsgs labeled by sSs \in S, for each gGg \in G. This graph equips GG with a word metric, where the distance between elements reflects the minimal length of words in SS relating them, turning the group into a amenable to . In this framework, the relations (relators) of the presentation manifest as closed cycles in the , representing words that evaluate to the . Building on the Cayley graph, the presentation complex offers a higher-dimensional geometric realization. For a presentation SR\langle S \mid R \rangle of GG, the presentation complex KS,R(G)K_{S,R}(G) is a 2-dimensional CW-complex with a single 0-cell (vertex), 1-cells corresponding to generators in SS (forming a wedge of circles as the 1-skeleton, isomorphic to the Cayley graph's structure at the identity), and 2-cells attached along the relators in RR. The universal cover of this complex, known as the Cayley complex CS,R(G)C_{S,R}(G), has the Cayley graph as its 1-skeleton and lifts the 2-cells to disks bounded by relator cycles, providing a contractible space whose fundamental group is GG. This construction links algebraic relations to topological fillings, enabling the study of group properties through isoperimetric functions and van Kampen diagrams in the complex. In the context of hyperbolic groups—those whose s are δ\delta-hyperbolic metric spaces for some δ>0\delta > 0—Dehn's algorithm leverages this geometry to solve the word problem. The algorithm iteratively reduces a given word ww by replacing subwords that contain more than half of any relator with the complementary portion, relying on the thin triangles property of the to ensure paths (shortest words) suffice for verification. Specifically, in a hyperbolic group with a Dehn presentation (where relators satisfy a linear ), any non-trivial reduced word cannot be filled by a disk of area linear in its length without containing a full relator, allowing the process to terminate and decide if ww equals the identity. This geometric criterion ensures efficient solvability, contrasting with the general undecidability of the word problem for finitely presented groups. Modern developments in extend these ideas through small cancellation theory adapted to hyperbolic planes. Post-1980, Gromov introduced geometric small cancellation conditions for group actions on δ\delta-hyperbolic spaces, generalizing classical combinatorial criteria to ensure quotients remain hyperbolic. Olshanskii's work in the further refined this by developing metric small cancellation over hyperbolic groups, enabling constructions of "monsters" like Tarski groups with prescribed properties while preserving hyperbolicity via controlled overlaps in relator diagrams on the hyperbolic plane. Subsequent contributions by Delzant and others applied these to relatively hyperbolic settings, yielding SQ-universality and theorems that embed arbitrary countable groups as subgroups of hyperbolic ones. This framework underscores how presentations can model intricate geometric actions, bridging algebra and non-positive curvature geometry.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.