MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991942795 · doi:10.1142/s0218196707004025

COMMUTATOR SUBGROUPS OF FREE NILPOTENT GROUPS

2007· article· en· W1991942795 on OpenAlexaff
Narain Gupta, Inder Bir S. Passi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Algebra and Computation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFinite Group Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsFree groupRank (graph theory)Commutator subgroupNilpotentNormal subgroupQuotientGroup (periodic table)CommutatorAlgebra over a fieldPhysicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For fixed m, n ≥ 2, we examine the structure of the nth lower central subgroup γn(F) of the free group F of rank m with respect to a certain finite chain F = F(0) > F(1) > ⋯ > F(l-1) > F(l) = {1} of free groups in which F(k) is of finite rank m(k) and is contained in the kth derived subgroup δk(F) of F. The derived subgroups δk(F/γn(F)) of the free nilpotent group F/γn(F) are isomorphic to the quotients F(k)/(F(k) ∩ γn(F)) and admit presentations of the form 〈xk,1,…,xk,m(k): γ(n)(F(k))〉, where γ(n)(F(k)), contained in γn(F), is a certain partial lower central subgroup of F(k). We give a complete description of γn(F) as a staggered product Π1 ≤ k ≤ l-1(γ〈n〉(F(k))*γ[n](F(k)))F(k+1), where γ〈n〉(F(k)) is a free factor of the derived subgroup [F(k),F(k)] of F(k) having countable infinite rank and generated by a certain set of reduced commutators of weight at least n, and γ[n](F(k)) is the subgroup generated by a certain finite set of products of non-reduced ordered commutators of weight at least n. There are some far-reaching consequences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Algebra and ComputationSame topicFinite Group Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207