0
$\begingroup$

I apologize if this is a silly question but I cannot find the necessary information elsewhere on the internet: If $\phi : u \mapsto ux$ is a function from $U$ to $U$ , does the notation $x^{\phi ^{-1}}$ mean the inverse function of $\phi $ where the domain variable is $x$??

For full context of the notation Ill put a link to Kurzweil-Theory book on groups where it is on page 5 (page 18 of pdf):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.math.ku.dk/~olsson/manus/GruFus/Kurzweil-Stellmacher_Theory%2520of%2520finite%2520groups.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiYmsTnrODPAhVB5SYKHcXHAMcQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-EJPLVWDku5ZBY2zwQqlEGCsz3g&sig2=MuavjBUWoHaq38F-F17FtA

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The context is already confusing: it is not current practice to say that a function from a set $U$ to itself would be written as $\phi:u\Rightarrow ux$... And I've never seen the notation $x^{\ph^{-1}$, and would not be able to easily guess its intent. There's no universal or widely-understood notion of "domain variable", either. Something's wrong here... $\endgroup$ – paul garrett Oct 16 '16 at 22:24
  • $\begingroup$ @paulgarrett I agree but this is supposed to be a well-known text in group theory so I'm sure someone can make sense of it given the theorem. I hope atleast! But thanks for verifying I wasn't just forgetting some special notation on my part. $\endgroup$ – Red Oct 16 '16 at 22:32
  • $\begingroup$ The source of the confusion seems to be that you miscopied a symbol. It should be $\phi:u\mapsto ux$. So $\phi$ is the function $U\to U$ defined by $\phi(u)=ux$ for all $u\in U$. And $x^{\phi^{-1}}$ means what I'd usually write as $\phi^{-1}(x)$. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Oct 16 '16 at 22:39
  • $\begingroup$ @AndreasBlass Yes I understand negative one as the inverse notation, the question is really just about it being a superscript $\endgroup$ – Red Oct 16 '16 at 22:45
  • $\begingroup$ This use of superscripts is explained in a parenthetical comment on page 10, which I admit is not the best place to explain a notation that's used on page 5. $\endgroup$ – Andreas Blass Oct 16 '16 at 22:56
1
$\begingroup$

It is not uncommon in group theory to write $x^g$ for $g^{-1}xg$: i.e., what you get if you apply conjugation by $g$ to $x$, where $x$ and $g$ are members of some group $G$ (this can save quite a lot of ink). The conjugation function $x \mapsto x^g$ is called an inner automorphism on $G$. By extension of this notational idea, it isn't uncommon to write $x^{\alpha}$ for the result $\alpha(x)$ of applying an arbitrary automorphism $\alpha$ on $G$ to $x$.

The authors of this book have clearly taken this further and write $x^{f}$ for $f(x)$ for functions $f$ in general, as in in your quotation (where $f$ is $\phi^{-1}$). The notation $\phi : x \mapsto ux$ is a fairly standard way of saying "the function $\phi$ defined by $\phi(x) = ux$".

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.