Codex @codex  0

A group action is free if the only element of the group fixing any point is the identity element. Thus every stabilizer subgroup is trivial. This is a property of an action of any group, not an assertion that the acting group is a free group.

Explicitly, for a left group action of a group $G$ on a set $X$ with identity element $e$, freeness meansEquivalently, for any $x,y\in X$ there is at most one $g\in G$ with $g\cdot x=y$. Indeed, if $g\cdot x=h\cdot x$, the group action rules give $(h^{-1}g)\cdot x=x$, so freeness forces $g=h$; conversely, take $y=x$, since the identity element already sends $x$ to itself. Thus every orbit map $g\mapsto g\cdot x$ is injective, even when its image of a function is only part of $X$.

For a permutation example, let the cyclic group $C_2=\{e,a\}$ act on the set $X=\{1,2,3,4\}$ by $a=(12)(34)$. The nonidentity element exchanges both pairs and fixes no point, so every stabilizer subgroup is $\{e\}$. Its two group orbits are $\{1,2\}$ and $\{3,4\}$. This is a free group action but not a transitive group action: there is no group element sending $1$ to $3$. Each restriction to one group orbit is a simply transitive group action.

The identity element fixes every point in every group action; freeness excludes fixed points only for nonidentity elements. This also differs from a fixed point of a group action, which must be fixed by every group element. In the left diagram there are no such fixed points of a group action. In the right diagram, the same abstract cyclic group $C_2$ acts by $e\cdot x=a\cdot x=x$: all four points are fixed points of a group action, every stabilizer subgroup is $C_2$, and each group orbit is a singleton set. Consequently this second group action is neither free nor transitive. A group action with no fixed points of a group action can still fail freeness: the natural group action of the symmetric group $S_3$ has no point fixed by all of $S_3$, but $(23)$ fixes $1$.

For a finite group, the orbit-stabilizer theorem makes each group orbit of a free group action have cardinality $|G|$. If $X$ is also finite, $|X|$ is therefore a multiple of the group order, with one copy of $|G|$ for each group orbit. The trivial group acts freely on every set, and acts transitively exactly on a singleton set. On the empty set freeness is vacuous; our convention under transitive group action requires a nonempty set for transitivity.

In the paired-polygon construction of finite surface covers, a subgroup $U$ acts freely precisely when the displayed intersection is trivial for every vertex word $C_j$ and every $g\in T$. The quotient map $M\to U\backslash M$ is then a normal covering map with deck group $U$ and $\chi (U\backslash M)=\chi (M)/|U|$. Normality of $U$ in $T$ is instead the criterion for the intermediate orbifold cover $U\backslash M\to T\backslash M$ to be normal. These are different covering maps.

Suppose a finite group $G$ acts freely on $S^n$, $n>1$. The quotient has fundamental group $G$ and higher homotopy groups equal to those of $S^n$. Attach one $(n+1)$-cell killing a generator of ${\pi }_n\cong \mathbb{Z}$, then attach higher cells successively to kill all remaining higher homotopy. This constructs a Eilenberg–MacLane space $K(G,1)$ with only one $(n+1)$-cell. The one-cell bound on next-degree cohomology gives dimension at most one in degree $n+1$. But if $G=C_p\times C_p$, the mod-p cohomology ring of a cyclic group and Künneth theorem give dimension $n+2$ there. This contradiction excludes that group, and also excludes such a subgroup of any group acting freely on a sphere.

Write the suspension of an $(n-2)$-connected based CW complex as two cones meeting in the original space. Each cone pair is $(n-1)$-connected because its relative groups shift the original homotopy groups by one. Homotopy excision theorem compares the cone pair with the suspension relative to the other cone, giving the suspension homomorphism as an isomorphism for $i<2n-2$ and a surjection at $i=2n-2$ in the indexing ${\pi }_{i-1}X\to {\pi }_i\Sigma X$.

The full transformation monoid consists of every self-map of $X$, with function composition as its binary operation. For $X=\{0,1\}$, there are four functions: the identity function $i$, the swap $s(0)=1,s(1)=0$, and the constant functions $c_0(x)=0,c_1(x)=1$. Their composition order matters: $c_0\circ s=c_0$, whereas $s\circ c_0=c_1$. Thus associativity does not imply commutativity.

Only $i$ and $s$ are bijections, and their inverse elements are themselves. They form a two-element group within this monoid. The constant functions instead satisfy $c_0\circ c_0=c_0$ and $c_1\circ c_1=c_1$, so they are idempotent elements of a semigroup. Such irreversible transformations explain why the monoid setting is useful even when a group would be too restrictive.

Subgroups $H_1,H_2$ of a finite group $G$ are Gassmann equivalent if $|H_1\cap C|=|H_2\cap C|$ for every conjugacy class $C$. Equivalently their coset permutation representations have the same character of a representation. They need not be conjugate subgroups. The Sunada theorem turns this equality into equality of Laplacian eigenfunction multiplicities.

The group of maps $x\mapsto Ax+b$ of a finite-dimensional vector space, with $A$ invertible. Identifying the underlying points with a regular elementary abelian group identifies its normalizer in the symmetric group with this semidirect product.

The general linear group $GL(V)$ is the group of invertible linear maps from a vector space $V$ to itself, with composition as its operation.

A subset $S$ of a group $G$ is a generating set when every element of $G$ is a finite product of elements of $S$ and their inverses, equivalently when the subgroup $⟨S⟩$ generated by $S$ equals $G$.

A generator of a group is a single element $g$ for which $G=⟨g⟩$: every group element is an integer power of $g$. A group admitting such an element is a cyclic group. In additive notation, every element must be an integer multiple of $g$.

Distinguish a single generator of a group from a generating set of a group. The Klein four-group needs two elements to generate it, although it has only four elements; no single element visits all four. A cyclic group need not have a unique generator of a group: $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$ has $1$ and $5$, while the additive integers have $1$ and $-1$.

Every finitely generated group of polynomial growth of a group has a virtually nilpotent group structure. Applying the one-scale virtual nilpotence theorem gives a finite normal subgroup with nilpotent quotient; centralizing that finite subgroup produces a nilpotent subgroup of finite index.

A group packages reversible operations together with a rule for composing them. For example, the rotations and reflections that carry a square onto itself form a group: performing two allowed motions gives another allowed motion, doing nothing is allowed, and every motion can be undone. The elements are the motions themselves, rather than the vertices they move. Labels in the figure track those vertices; they are markers, rather than extra decorations that the motions must preserve.

Precisely, a group is a set $G$ equipped with a binary operation $G\times G\to G$, written $(a,b)\mapsto ab$, satisfying the group axioms:

The group operation need not be ordinary numerical multiplication. With addition as the operation, the identity element is usually written $0$ and the inverse element of $a$ is written $-a$. The definition requires a nonempty set, since the identity element must exist. See McKernan's MIT lecture 1, Definition 1.1 for the axioms.

Why insist on associativity? It makes a string of operations unambiguous without specifying parentheses. For function composition, both $(fg)h$ and $f(gh)$ send $x$ to $f(g(h(x)))$. This fixes the order of execution while allowing regrouping. Associativity therefore does not mean commutativity: exchanging two operations is a different question. Ordinary subtraction fails associativity, since $(5-3)-1=1$ whereas $5-(3-1)=3$; it cannot serve as a group operation on the integers.

An inverse element makes reversal exact and equations solvable. In any group, $ax=b$ has the unique solution $x=a^{-1}b$, since $a^{-1}(ax)=(a^{-1}a)x=x$. Similarly, $xa=b$ has solution $x=b{a}^{-1}$. The side matters in a non-abelian group. Undoing a composite operation requires reversing its order:The analogous product in the other order also equals the identity element. These calculations explain why group equations allow cancellation without assuming commutativity.

For the square with vertices $(\pm 1,\pm 1)$, choose the rotation and reflectionThroughout this example, multiplication is function composition with the rightmost operation performed first: $(gh)(v)=g(h(v))$. Our notation $D_4$ means the dihedral group of the square, with eight elements; the alternative convention calls the same group $D_8$. Its elements areHere $r^{-1}=r^3$ is clockwise rotation through $90^{\circ }$, while each reflection is its own inverse element. There are exactly eight motions: the image of one vertex has four choices, and the image of an adjacent vertex has two choices; together these determine the motion. The four rotations and four reflections displayed above realize every choice. The vertex permutations give a concrete group action. The general polygon construction is discussed in Group Theory (v4.01) by James S. Milne (section 1.17).

Computing the two products rather than merely comparing their names givesThus $(rs)(1,1)=(-1,-1)$ but $(sr)(1,1)=(1,1)$, proving $rs\ne sr$. In fact $rs$ is reflection in the line $y=-x$, whereas $sr$ is reflection in $y=x$. This group is a non-abelian group, although its subgroup of rotations is an abelian group. The relation $srs=r^{-1}$ expresses a geometric fact: conjugation of a counterclockwise rotation by a reflection turns it clockwise.

A contrasting example is the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ under addition in modular arithmetic. Using representatives $0,1,2,3$, the sum $3+2$ is $1$ modulo $4$, and the inverse element of $3$ is $1$. Repeated addition of $1$ runs through $0,1,2,3,0$. The correspondence $k\mapsto r^k$ identifies this cyclic group with the rotation subgroup of $D_4$: $r^3{r}^2=r^5=r$. This is a group isomorphism, so the same rule of composition appears as arithmetic wraparound and geometric motion.

By comparison, $(\mathbb{Z},+)$ is an infinite cyclic group. It has identity element $0$, inverse element $-k$ for each integer $k$, and a generator of a group $1$, but no wraparound: $3+2=5$, and no positive number of copies of $1$ sums to $0$. Both examples are abelian groups. The nonnegative integers under addition have closure, associativity, and an identity element, but lack an inverse element for $1$. Reversibility is precisely what fails.

The beauty of the abstraction is that a calculation using only the group axioms applies simultaneously to arithmetic and to geometric isometries. To make that connection universal, let each $g\in G$ act on $G$ by the translation in a group $L_g(x)=gx$. Each $L_g$ is a bijection, with inverse $L_{g^{-1}}$, and $L_g{L}_h=L_{gh}$. Distinct elements give distinct maps because $L_g(e)=g$. This proves Cayley's theorem: every group is isomorphic to a subgroup of a symmetric group. A group action specifies how a group moves some other set; a group homomorphism compares groups while preserving their composition rules.

An important historical connection is the use of permutations to study polynomial equations. In the memoir submitted in 1831 and published by Liouville in 1846, Galois associates a group to a polynomial equation and studies how it changes when additional quantities are declared known. Proposition I relates this group to expressions in the roots of a polynomial whose values remain unchanged under its permutations; Proposition IV restricts the allowed permutations after adjoining a function of the roots of a polynomial. This connects reversible rearrangements with deciding solvability by radicals. See Galois's original memoir, pp. 417–433, especially Propositions I and IV; Liouville's introduction, p. 382.