1993
DOI: 10.1007/bf02572390
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automorphism groups of countable highly homogeneous partially ordered sets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
26
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another possible use of generics would be to streamline the proof of the simplicity of Aut(P, <) given in [1] (where 16 conjugates were in general required to express one non-identity element as a product of conjugates of another). The correct minimum number is probably 3 or 4, and one could establish sufficiency of 4 by showing that for any non-identity g 1 and g 2 , there is h such that g 1 h −1 g 2 h is generic.…”
Section: Further Questionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Another possible use of generics would be to streamline the proof of the simplicity of Aut(P, <) given in [1] (where 16 conjugates were in general required to express one non-identity element as a product of conjugates of another). The correct minimum number is probably 3 or 4, and one could establish sufficiency of 4 by showing that for any non-identity g 1 and g 2 , there is h such that g 1 h −1 g 2 h is generic.…”
Section: Further Questionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The two main examples we have in mind are Aut(Q, <) (where we already knew from [11] that there are generics), and the automorphism group of the countable universalhomogeneous partial ordering (P, <) (where we did not). This latter structure has been considered by Schmerl (in the context of his classification of all the countable homogeneous partial orders [10]) and Glass, McCleary and Rubin [1], in studying its automorphism group (principally the verification of its simplicity). The point about these two cases is that we cannot possibly expect to use automorphisms of finite substructures, because all but trivial finite partial automorphisms must have distinct domain and range.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We single out, among others, the results of [10,13] and refer to [6,14] for a broader view to the field of automorphisms of homogeneous posets, as well as for a wealthy source of open problems.…”
Section: Dolinkamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Let (X, <) be the countable universal poset and G = Aut(X, <). If g is any nonidentity element of G, then every element of G can be written as a product of at most 16 conjugates of alternately g and its inverse [GMR,Thm. 1'], so G is simple in a very strong sense.…”
Section: 2mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3.9]. However, G contains strongly embracing elements (that is, elements h that satisfy x < xh for all x ∈ X) [GMR,Cor. 3.3], and products or conjugates of strongly embracing elements are again strongly embracing, so the conjugation-invariant subsemigroup generated by a strongly embracing element is not all of G.…”
Section: 2mentioning
confidence: 99%