Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21eeb144d325c4f

Jump to content

Talk:Perfect group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Kreizhn in topic Unnecessarily complicated wording?

the realm of group theory ? 'tf is that ?! just say "in group theory" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.49.101 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

"In group theory" is definitely the prominent phrase in most Wikipedia mathematics article. However, every author has a different style, and perhaps those involved in writing the opening of this article felt that "the realm of group theory" fits better in the sentence. That said, it is irrelevant to the article as a whole; if you wish to change it, you are most welcome to do so and I do not think anyone will object. PST 02:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unnecessarily complicated wording?

[edit]

Perhaps I am just being silly, but I feel that the phrase

"More generally, any non-abelian simple group is perfect since the commutator subgroup is a normal subgroup with abelian quotient."

is perhaps unnecessarily complicated as it requires the reader to piece together a few implications. More precisely, the reader must realize that since the group is simple, it has no non-trivial normal subgroups implying that the commutator is either or . Now if then is abelian, but this is not possible, hence and the group is perfect. This could be written much simpler by just saying that a non-abelian simple group only has quotients or , one of which is trivial and the other of which is abelian. However, if someone objects I won't bother to change it. Kreizhn (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply