From BRYAN@wvnvm.wvnet.edu Thu Dec 8 15:02:35 1994 Return-Path: Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU by life.ai.mit.edu (4.1/AI-4.10) for /com/archive/cube-lovers id AA14755; Thu, 8 Dec 94 15:02:35 EST Message-Id: <9412082002.AA14755@life.ai.mit.edu> Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU by WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5833; Thu, 08 Dec 94 15:02:34 EST Received: from WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (NJE origin BRYAN@WVNVM) by WVNVM.WVNET.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4852; Thu, 8 Dec 1994 15:02:35 -0500 X-Acknowledge-To: Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 15:02:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Jerry Bryan" To: Subject: Re: Models for the Cube In-Reply-To: Message of 12/07/94 at 20:45:00 from , Martin.Schoenert@math.rwth-aachen.de On 12/07/94 at 20:45:00 Martin Schoenert said: >But C is not the largest such group. The largest such group is M, i.e., >the full group of symmetries of the entire cube. This is the reason why >I prefer to view G as a subgroup of MG, which is the semidirekt product >of M and G, even though I realize that MG is not physically realizable. But can't you speak of conjugates such as m'gm without regard to G being a subgroup of MG? I agree that MG seems like a very useful group, and it is a very nice model of what is going on. But doesn't g in G imply m'gm in G whether I ever heard of MG or not? = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Robert G. Bryan (Jerry Bryan) (304) 293-5192 Associate Director, WVNET (304) 293-5540 fax 837 Chestnut Ridge Road BRYAN@WVNVM Morgantown, WV 26505 BRYAN@WVNVM.WVNET.EDU