2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.crma.2006.01.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A propos de la propriété de Bergman

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…, t N S . The following lemma was suggested to us by Y. Cornulier and a similar result appears in Khelif [17,Theorem 6].…”
Section: Cofinality and Strong Cofinalitymentioning
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…, t N S . The following lemma was suggested to us by Y. Cornulier and a similar result appears in Khelif [17,Theorem 6].…”
Section: Cofinality and Strong Cofinalitymentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Khelif [17] provided an example of a group G where the least cardinal of a cofinal chain of subgroups for G is ℵ 0 and that satisfies the group Bergman property. Using the same reasoning as in Example 2.6 we deduce that Khelif's group satisfies (iii).…”
Section: Cofinality and Strong Cofinalitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that an uncountable group with cofinality = ω is not necessarily Cayley bounded: the free product of two uncountable groups of cofinality = ω, or the direct product of an uncountable group of cofinality = ω with Z, are obvious counterexamples. On the other hand, a Cayley bounded group with cofinality ω is announced in [Khe05].…”
Section: Strongly Bounded Groupsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Khelif [16,Définition 5] introduces a condition having an interesting similarity to (32). Given an algebra-type T and a natural number n, let W (n, T ) denote the set of all n-ary words in the operations of T. Note that if S is an algebra of type T, then an element of W (n, T ) ω induces an n-ary operation on S ω .…”
Section: Proof (I)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Let us fix i 0 for the remainder of the proof, and establish (16). We first note that (15) entails the weaker statement gotten by ignoring cases before the i 0 th, and replacing all the ideals I i (i ≥ i 0 ) with the larger ideal I i0 :…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%