Embedding Dihedral Groups in Vanishingly Small Symmetric Groups
16 Jul 2022 - Tags: sage , pretty-pictures
After the long and arduous process of writing my previous posts on
homotopy theories and
This post was asking about the smallest set on which certain groups can faithfully act. I actually wrote about this same idea almost exactly a year ago in a blog post here, and while answering this question I remembered that I wanted to follow up on that post. I mentioned some asymptotic result at the end of it that’s super hard to use, and I was sure I could get a more legible result if I wanted to1.
Well, when answering this question I was reminded that I want to!
First, let’s recall what question we want to answer:
In the last post, we showed that the dihedral group of an
A perfectly natural question, then, is how much smaller can we make this?
We showed that if
With this in mind, it seems entirely believable that we can get the ratio to be very small.
As is usually the case, before trying to prove this, I wanted to compute some values and see how quickly things are decreasing. This wasn’t really necessary in hindsight, but it did make for some pretty pictures!
First, here’s a plot of the minimal
xxxxxxxxxx
N = 100
data = [(n, sum(a^b for (a,b) in list(factor(n)))) for n in range(2,N)]
scatter_plot(data).show(axes_labels=['$n$', '$m$'])
You can see that the maximal values are always
To get a handle on just how much smaller, let’s plot the ratios
xxxxxxxxxx
N = 100
data = [(n, sum(a^b for (a,b) in list(factor(n)))/n) for n in range(2,N)]
scatter_plot(data).show(axes_labels=['$n$', '$m/n$'])
As a (very) quick exercise, for which
As a less quick exercise, set
Lastly, let’s take the minimal ratio we’ve seen so far
xxxxxxxxxx
N = 100
rmin = 1
data = []
for n in range(2,N):
r = sum(a^b for (a,b) in list(factor(n)))/n
if r < rmin:
rmin = r
data += [(n,rmin)]
scatter_plot(data).show(axes_labels=['$n$', '$\\min_{k \\leq n}\\ m(k)/k$'])
I would love to find a nice curve upper bounding this last scatter plot, but it seems like a possibly tricky problem in number theory. Formally:
Define
Can you find asymptotics for
If anyone wants to take a stab at this (or any other problems related to this sequence2), I would love to hear what you find ^_^.
Whatever the asymptotics are, it’s clear that
For completeness, let’s give a quick proof of this fact. It’s fairly easy,
so I encourage you to try it yourself! In fact, it’s quite easy to prove
various strengthenings of this fact. For instance, the proof we’re about
to give shows that we can take
Pick two primes
That is,
It’s nice to write up a quick relaxing post for once. I thought about trying to answer some of the number theoretic questions that I posed throughout (as well as a few that I didn’t), but I really wanted to keep this quick. Plus, I suspect a lot of these questions will be somewhat simple, and I might keep them in my back pocket in case a younger undergraduate comes to me looking for a project.
Also there’s an extra reason to be excited about this post:
it gave me an excuse to submit another sequence to the OEIS!
The inputs for which
It’s also nice to go back to an older post and give it the closure it really deserves. The asymptotic result I cited there is borderline unusable, and this post answers the question that I really wanted to ask in that post4.
Take care, and stay safe all ^_^. Talk Soon!
-
While writing that post all those months ago, I certainly did not want to. If I remmeber right, I finished writing that post at like 3 or 4 in the morning… ↩
-
For instance, how long can the wait time be before we see a better ratio?
Precisely, let
be the sequence of values so that . How far apart can be from ? -
I don’t know why, but submitting to the OEIS always makes me kind of giddy with excitement! ↩
-
It also brought up a whole host of other questions! This is a huge part of the fun of math for me – there’s always more to explore. ↩