Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Introduction To Computational Group Theory: Ákos Seress
An Introduction To Computational Group Theory: Ákos Seress
An Introduction To Computational Group Theory: Ákos Seress
An Introduction to
Computational
Group Theory
Ákos Seress
C
an one rotate only one corner piece in groups to a certain extent, there are two systems
Rubik’s cube? What are the energy which are particularly well suited for computa-
levels of the buckyball molecule? Are tions with groups: GAP and Magma. Also, nu-
the graphs on Figure 1 isomorphic? merous stand-alone programs and smaller sys-
What is the Galois group of the poly- tems are available.
nomial x8 + 2x7 + 28x6 + 1728x + 3456 ? What GAP can be obtained by anonymous ftp from
are the possible symmetry groups of crystals? servers on three continents; the addresses can
These are all questions which, directly or in a not be found on the World Wide Web page
so obvious way, lead to problems in computa- http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/.
tional group theory. For the availability of Magma, please see the
Algebraic structures are well suited for ma- World Wide Web page http://www.maths.
chine computations. One reason for that is that usyd.edu.au:8000/comp/magma/.
we can describe large objects very concisely by The important subareas of CGT correspond
a set of generators: for example, 50 bits are to the most frequently used representations of
enough to define GL5 (2) , a group of order groups: permutation groups, matrix groups, and
9999360 , by two 0-1 matrices of size 5 × 5 . groups defined by generators and relators, as
Even more importantly, often we can find a gen- well as to perhaps the most powerful tool for the
erating set which reflects the structure of the investigation of groups, representation theory.
group so that structural and quantitative prop- Also, there are specialized and more efficient al-
erties can be read off easily. gorithms for special classes such as nilpotent or
Computational group theory (CGT) is one of solvable groups. In this survey in each subarea
the oldest and most developed branches of com- we attempt to indicate the basic ideas and the
putational algebra. Although most general-pur- size of jobs which can be handled by the current
pose symbolic algebra programs can handle systems on a reasonable machine. Of course, we
cannot be comprehensive here. Also, because of
space restrictions, our reference list consists
Ákos Seress is associate professor of mathematics at The
only of surveys, conference volumes, books, and
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. His e-mail ad- journal special issues. Individual results are ref-
dress is akos@math.ohio-state.edu. erenced in the text only if they appear in these
Partially supported by NSF Grant CCR-9503430 and by
volumes; most of the others can be traced back
the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. from these sources. An extended version of this
article, with complete references, can be ob-
Acknowledgement: the author is indebted to G. Havas,
D. Holt, W. Kantor, K. Lux, J. Neubüser, and E. O’Brien
tained from http://www.math.ohio-
for their helpful comments. The part of the section state.edu/˜akos/ or http://www.math.
“Polyclyclic Groups” about quotient group methods was rwth-aachen.de/˜Akos.Seress/. E. O’Brien’s
written by J. Neubüser. database of papers on group theory, including
it is also the case for groups given by polycyclic the newly obtained vectors have to be formed,
presentations. corresponding to the construction of Schreier
A group is called polycyclic if it has a finite generators in Lemma 1.1.) Then each h ∈ H can
subnormal series of the form be written uniquely in the form
di di di
(1) G = G1 B G2 B · · · B Gn B Gn+1 = 1, (3) h = h1 1 h2 2 · · · hk k ,
with cyclic factors Gi /Gi+1 . If, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n , we with exponents 0 ≤ dij < |Gij : Gij+1 |. The pro-
pick ai ∈ Gi \ Gi+1 such that Gi = hGi+1 , ai i , cedure can be used for membership testing in
then each g ∈ G can be written uniquely in the H as well, by attempting to factorize any given
e e e
form g = a11 a22 · · · ann , where ei ∈ Z for infinite g ∈ G as in (3). When membership testing is
cyclic factors Gi /Gi+1 , and 0 ≤ ei < |Gi : Gi+1 | available, we can compute normal closures of
for finite factor groups. This description of g is subgroups and derived series and lower central
called a collected word for g . For finite poly- series, and handle homomorphisms. This
cyclic groups, we also have method can be extended to infinite polycyclic
groups, and we shall see an analogous procedure
|Gi :Gi+1 | εi;i+1 εi;i+2 εi;n
ai = ai+1 ai+2 · · · an , for permutation groups in the next section.
The other basic method is to consider larger
for 1 ≤ i ≤ n,
(2) εi,j;i+1 εi,j;i+2 εi,j;n
and larger factor groups of G . We construct a
aj ai = ai ai+1 ai+2 · · · an , subnormal chain (1), which is a refinement of a
for 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n. chain of normal subgroups
G = N1 B N2 B · · · B Nm = 1, with Ni /Ni+1 ele-
These are the relators for the so-called power- mentary abelian. Then we use induction to ex-
conjugate presentation (pcp) for G . (For infinite tend information from G/Ni to G/Ni+1 . Since
polycyclic groups, similar relators have to be G/Ni acts as a group of linear transformations
added to (2) for the inverses of the ai of infinite on Ni /Ni+1, often linear algebra methods can be
order.) used.
The pcp’s are very compact, but still rela- Given the usefulness of pcp’s, one may try to
tively easily manageable representations of poly- construct one from other representations. In
cyclic groups. For finite solvable groups, as most applications, the groups arise as finitely
shown by the work of Laue, Neubüser, and presented groups, and there is a collection of al-
Schoenwaelder in [1]; Celler; Eick in [7]; Glasby gorithms for finding pcp’s of certain factor
and Slattery in [2]; Mecky; Neubüser; M. Smith; groups.
and Wright, pcp’s can be used to determine vir- The first of these was Macdonald’s pQ -algo-
tually all structural properties. Among others, rithm for finding p-quotients of a finitely pre-
conjugacy classes of elements, complements to sented group. This was soon turned into a pow-
normal subgroups, normalizers, and Frattini erful tool by Newman and used for the study of
subgroups can be computed, and it is possible Burnside groups. Let Fn be the free group of
to find automorphism groups. For these tasks, rank n and q a power of a prime. The Burnside
if there are algorithms in other representations group B(n, q) is the largest factor group of Fn
of groups, they can handle only groups of much with all elements of order dividing q . B(n, q) may
smaller order. There are examples of structural be infinite, but, as was recently proved by Zel-
exploration of polycyclic groups with log |G| in manov, it has a largest finite factor group B(n, q).
the thousands; currently, groups of that size The first big success of the p-quotient method
cannot be handled in any other representation. was the determination of |B(4, 4)| = 2422 by Al-
We indicate two basic methods, which are ford, Havas, and Newman. (In this particular in-
used in almost all algorithms dealing with finite stance of Burnside groups, we have
solvable groups. The first one is to exploit analo- B(4, 4) = B(4, 4) .) For small primes p, present
gies with linear algebra. Each collected word can implementations can determine quotients of
be represented as an integer vector of length n, Burnside groups of order pk with k in the thou-
the coordinates being the exponents of the ai . sands.
The relators (2) imply that if w1 , w2 are collected The family of available quotient group algo-
words and the first m positions of w1 are 0 , then rithms nowadays includes an NQ -method that
the first m positions in the collected word for determines possibly infinite nilpotent quotients
w1 w2 are the same as in w2 . Thus, given a list of a finitely presented group by Nickel, two dif-
of generators for a subgroup H ≤ G , a non- ferent SQ-methods for finding finite solvable
commutative version of Gaussian elimination factor groups by Plesken and Niemeyer, and a
can be used to obtain generators h1 , . . . , hk for P CQ -method for finding infinite polycyclic fac-
H in row-echelon form. (Besides the usual steps tor groups by Sims in [2] and by Lo in [7]. All of
of row reduction, powers and commutators using these algorithms proceed by induction. As a
first step, an epimorphism ϕ : G → G/G0 is con- last five years, a remarkable convergence of the
structed. A polycyclic presentation for G/G0 can approaches occurred: for example, in GAP, most
be obtained by adding to the relators of G that of the permutation group library uses imple-
all pairs of generators commute and computing mentations of algorithms with the fastest known
the cyclic decomposition of the resulting abelian asymptotic running times.
group. Suppose that an epimorphism ϕ is known The basic ideas of permutation group ma-
onto a nilpotent or polycyclic group H . Then an nipulation are due to Sims. A base for
attempt is made to lift ϕ to an epimorphism of G ≤ Sym(Ω) is a sequence B = (β1 , . . . , βm ) of
G onto an extension group K of H by a normal points from Ω such that the pointwise stabilizer
subgroup N that is central in the case of pQ and GB = 1 . The sequence B defines a subgroup
NQ or just abelian in the other cases. chain
The methods for finding such N and K and
for lifting ϕ differ in the various quotient meth- (4) G = G[1] ≥ G[2] ≥ · · · ≥ G[m] ≥ G[m+1] = 1
ods. In the case of pQ , they amount to solving
linear equations over GF(p) that on one hand rep- where G[i] = G(β1 ,... ,βi−1 ) . A strong generating set
resent confluence conditions for the pcp pre- (SGS) relative to B is a generating set S for G with
sentation and on the other hand stem from the the property that
relations for G . In the case of NQ , congruences
occur instead of equations, while in the case of (5) hS ∩ G[i] i = G[i] for 1 ≤ i ≤ m + 1.
SQ’s, modular representations of H are con- [i]
sidered. Finally, in the case of P CQ ’s, Gröbner Given an SGS, the orbits βG i and transversals
basis techniques come into play. It should be no Ri for G[i] mod G[i+1] can be easily computed. As
wonder that the time requirement for NQ , and an analogue of (3) in the section “Polycyclic
especially for SQ and P CQ , is much higher than Groups”, every g ∈ G can be written uniquely in
for pQ , and so applications of these are far the form
more restricted.
(6) g = rm rm−1 · · · r1
Permutation Groups
The situation is quite satisfactory in the case of with ri ∈ Ri . Factorizing elements in this form
permutation group algorithms as well: most is called sifting and may be considered as a per-
structural properties of permutation groups of mutation group version of Gaussian elimina-
reasonable degree and order can be readily com- tion. It can be used for membership testing;
puted. Working with permutation representa- computing normal closures of subgroups, de-
tions is usually the method of choice when study- rived series, and lower central series; handling
ing simple groups and their subgroup structure, homomorphisms; and finding the pointwise sta-
provided that the simple group has a permuta- bilizer of any subset of Ω .
tion representation of sufficiently small degree. We sketch the basic idea of an SGS construc-
“Reasonable” and “sufficiently small” degree, of tion. Given G = hT i , we maintain a sequence
course, depend on the available software and B = (β1 , . . . , βk ) of already-known elements of a
hardware; currently, it is in the low hundred base and approximations Si for a generating set
thousands, while the logarithm of the group of the stabilizer G(β1 ,... ,βi−1 ) . We say that the data
order may be in the low hundreds. structure is up-to-date below level j if
This is the area of CGT where the complexity
analysis of algorithms is the most developed. The (7) hSi iβi = hSi+1 i
reason for that is the connection with the cele- S
brated Graph Isomorphism Problem. The decisive holds for all j < i ≤ k . It is easy to see that Si
result in establishing the connection is Luks’s is an SGS for G if and only if it generates G and
polynomial time algorithm for the isomorphism the data structure is up-to-date below level 0.
testing of graphs with bounded valence, where In the case when the data structure is up-to-
the isomorphism problem is reduced to finding date below level j , we compute a transversal Rj
setwise stabilizers of subsets in the permutation for hSj i mod hSj iβj . Then we test whether (7)
domain of groups with composition factors of holds for i = j . By Lemma 1.1, this can be done
bounded size. This result not only established by sifting the Schreier generators obtained from
a link between complexity theory and CGT but Rj and Sj in the group hSj+1 i . If all Schreier gen-
provided new methodology for permutation erators are in hSj+1 i , then we say that the data
group algorithms. structure is up-to-date below level j − 1 ; other-
Because of the approach from two different wise we add a nontrivial Schreier generator h to
points of view, complexity theoretic and practi- Sj+1 and say that the data structure is up-to-date
cal, algorithms for numerous tasks were devel- below level j + 1. In the case j = k, we also choose
oped independently in the two contexts. In the a new base point βk+1 from the support of h.
We start the algorithm by choosing β1 ∈ Ω puting the centralizer of elements, the inter-
which is moved by at least one generator in T section of two subgroups, or setwise stabilizers
and setting S1 := T . At that moment, the data of subsets of the permutation domain. These
structure is up-to-date below level 1; the algo- tasks are polynomially equivalent, and graph
rithm terminates when the data structure be- isomorphism can be reduced to them (see Luks
comes up-to-date below level 0. in [6]). Therefore, it is suspected that no poly-
A second generation of algorithms uses di- nomial time algorithms exist.
vide-and-conquer techniques by utilizing the im- Practical algorithms for these problems use
primitivity block structure of the input group, backtrack methods. Let B be a fixed base of G .
thereby reducing the problems to primitive The images of base points uniquely determine
groups. We mention Luks’s and P. Neumann’s re- the elements of G , while the image of an initial
sults on computing a composition series, the segment of B defines a coset of some G[i] (cf.
Sylow subgroup constructions by Kantor, and the (4)). The images of all initial segments define a
asymptotically fastest deterministic SGS con- partial order by inclusion, which is called the
struction by Babai, Luks, and Seress. The latter search tree for G . Traditional backtrack meth-
runs almost a factor n2 faster than the asymp- ods systematically examine the elements of the
totically fastest versions of Sims’s original search tree. Especially valuable is when a node
method. The required group-theoretic arsenal for close to the root can be eliminated, because all
these algorithms includes consequences of the elements of G less than this node (i.e., elements
classification of finite simple groups and, in the of the appropriate coset) can be excluded at
case of the Sylow subgroup constructions, de- once. A new generation of backtrack methods
tailed knowledge of the classical simple groups. was developed by Leon in [3], based on ideas
(We mention, however, that a composition series from B. McKay’s graph isomorphism testing pro-
can be computed without using the simple group gram nauty. Nowadays centralizers can be com-
classification by a result of Beals.) puted in groups of degree in the tens of thou-
The running time of most algorithms for sands, provided that they have a small base.
G = hSi ≤ Sn does not depend only on the input The computation of normalizers of subgroups
length |S|n but also on the order of G . More- seems to be harder: in theory, polynomial time
over, in groups of current interest, it frequently equivalence with centralizers is not known, and
happens that the degree of G is in the tens of practical computation is much more compli-
thousands or even higher, so even a Θ(n2 ) al- cated.
gorithm may not be practical. On the other hand,
log |G| is often small. Therefore, a recent trend Representation Theory
is to search for algorithms with running time of As John Conway writes in the introduction of the
the form O(n|S| logk |G|) . These are called Atlas [5], “the ordinary character table is be-
nearly linear algorithms, since their running yond doubt the most compendious way of con-
time is O(n logc n) if log |G| is bounded from veying information about a group to the skilled
above by a polylogarithmic function of n. This reader.” However, computing a character table
happens, for example, for all permutation rep- from scratch is not an easy task. Therefore, GAP
resentations of finite simple groups except the contains tables for the most frequently used
alternating ones. groups, including all tables in the Atlas and ta-
There is a large library of nearly linear algo- bles for most of the maximal subgroups of spo-
rithms by Babai, Beals, Cooperman, Finkelstein; radic groups.
Luks and Seress in [7]; Morje in [7]; and Schön- A basic idea for computing the complex ir-
ert. Roughly, everything that can be done in reducible characters of a group G is due to
polynomial time can also be done in nearly lin- Burnside. In the group algebra CG of G , the
ear time in groups which do not have composi- sum SC of the elements of a conjugacy class C
tion factors of exceptional Lie type. The price we is in the center of CG ; in fact, taking these sums
pay for the speedup is that most algorithms are for all conjugacy classes, we get a basis for
random Monte Carlo: they may return an incor- Z(CG) . For a fixed conjugacy class C , the prod-
rect answer, with probability of error bounded ucts SC SCi decompose as a linear combination
by the user. Although there is a recent theoret- of the SCj ’s, and the coefficients, taken for all
ical result by Kantor and Seress that upgrades possible Ci , define a matrix MC . Since the SCj ’s
all nearly linear time algorithms to Las Vegas (i.e., are in Z(CG) , the matrices MCj commute and are
to guaranteed correct output) for groups with no simultaneously diagonalizable. The irreducible
exceptional Lie type composition factors, the characters can be easily computed from the en-
practicability of this method is not demonstrated tries in the diagonal forms.
yet. To perform the computation sketched above,
At present there are no polynomial time al- we must know the conjugacy classes and the
gorithms for some important tasks such as com- class-multiplication coefficients, which boils
down to an algorithm to determine which con- The other large area of representation theory
jugacy class a given group element belongs to. is the theory of modular representations. Brauer
Dixon performs the diagonalization over prime characters are even harder to compute than or-
fields Zp for (large) primes p, and the result is dinary ones, so GAP also contains a library of
lifted back to C . Schneider in [2] introduces Brauer character tables, including all tables in the
strategies to select a small collection of the MCj ’s modular extension of the Atlas [8].
from which the new basis for the diagonal form In the case of representations over the com-
can be computed. The Dixon-Schneider method plex numbers, most computations deal only with
can be used for groups of moderate order (about the character tables. On the other hand, over fi-
|G| < 109 ) and with not too many conjugacy nite fields, the emphasis is also on the compu-
classes (in the low hundreds). tation with the representations themselves. One
For larger groups, we may try to compute the of the reasons is that modular representations
character table interactively (see Neubüser, occur naturally in different areas of CGT: for ex-
Pahlings, Plesken in [1], and [9]). We may know ample, when considering groups acting on the
some (not necessarily irreducible) characters elementary abelian factors (section “Polycyclic
from a matrix or a permutation representation Groups”) or when studying matrix groups (sec-
of G , and there are machine commands to in- tion “Matrix Groups”).
duce characters of subgroups, restrict characters Dealing with a modular representation
of overgroups, and extend characters of factor G ≤ GLd (F) , a fundamental problem is to find in-
groups. We may also take products of known variant submodules or to prove that G acts ir-
characters (corresponding to tensor products reducibly. This can be done, for example, using
of representations), and, if the power maps for a generalization by Holt and Rees of R. Parker’s
conjugacy classes are known, we can compute idea, the so-called Meat-Axe. Also, in studying the
the generalized characters defined by structure of large dimensional modules, some-
times the condensation method (see Ryba in [2],
χ (n) (g) := χ(g n ) .
and [9]) can be applied. This means that given
Once a set of characters is collected, the hunt
G ≤ GLd (F) , we find a subalgebra A ≤ FG and an
for the irreducible ones may begin. Taking scalar
A -module N of possibly much smaller dimen-
products, we may subtract multiples of the
sion than M such that the submodule lattices of
known irreducible characters to decrease the
M and N are isomorphic. For example, Cooper-
norms of the characters in our collection. Ear-
man, Hiss, Lux, and Muller recently condensed
lier methods tried to split characters as the sum
a 976841775-dimensional module of the spo-
of characters with smaller norms. Nowadays the
radic simple Thompson group to 1403 dimen-
most effective method seems to be the applica-
sions.
tion of Lovász’s basis reduction algorithm to
the set of known characters to obtain a basis of Matrix Groups
the lattice L of the generalized characters which Matrix groups are important and very compact
consists of elements of small norm. Then, fol- representations of groups, but pose serious com-
lowing an idea of W. Plesken, we may consider putational problems. For groups over the inte-
embeddings of the basis vectors of L into the gers, the membership problem is undecidable al-
lattice Zm as vectors with the indicated norm and ready in four dimensions. (However, on the
find the standard basis of Zm , which corre- positive side, the finiteness of matrix groups
sponds to the irreducible characters, as linear over Z can be determined by a practical poly-
combinations of the basis vectors of L. Quite re- nomial time algorithm of Babai, Beals, and Rock-
markably, despite the numerous possibilities more.) There are difficulties with matrix groups
for the embedding, this method usually quickly defined over finite fields as well. Rewriting ma-
produces some irreducible characters. trix groups as permutation groups on the un-
The method of generating characters by hunt- derlying vector space, which was the early ap-
ing for irreducibles can be iterated: when a larger proach, results in an exponential blowup of the
collection of irreducible characters is known, it input size. Moreover, two basic ingredients,
may be worthwhile to induce characters of which were crucial for the efficient handling of
smaller subgroups or compute higher tensor solvable and permutation groups, are missing:
powers. Initially, we may restrict the computa- there may be no subgroup chain with small in-
tions to rational characters because of the cost dices, analogous to (1) or (4), and it is not clear
of handling the irrational numbers. When irra- how to generalize Gaussian elimination. Large
tional characters are finally computed, we can fields also cause problems, since the discrete log-
use the fact that if n is the order of some g ∈ G , arithm problem arises already for 1 × 1 matri-
then each character value on g can be written ces. Nevertheless, despite all these difficulties,
as an integer linear combination of the powers there is a concentrated attack from both the
of a primitive nth root of unity. practical and theoretical sides to determine the
structure of matrix groups over finite fields. Concerning the other cases of the Aschbacher
Currently, this is the most active area of CGT. classification, the Meat-Axe (cf. section “Repre-
Most effort concentrates on the matrix recog- sentation Theory”) can be used to test irre-
nition project: given a matrix group G ≤ GLd (q) ducibility and absolute irreducibility of G . There
by a list of generators, find at least one category are also programs by Holt, Leedham-Green,
of Aschbacher’s classification to which G be- O’Brien, and Rees computing imprimitivity and
longs. Aschbacher’s theorem classifies sub- tensor decompositions. The exploration of
groups of GLd (q) into nine categories: roughly, groups beyond classifying them in one of the As-
modulo scalars G is an almost simple group or chbacher classes has also started. The imple-
isomorphic to a subgroup of GLd (q 0 ) for some mentations of the algorithms indicated in the
q 0 |q, or there is a normal subgroup of G natu- previous three paragraphs can handle groups of
dimension in the low hundreds over moderately
rally associated with the action of G on the un-
sized fields ( q < 216).
derlying vector space. Once a category is found,
While randomization can often be used to
it can be used to explore the structure of the
speed up permutation group algorithms, it seems
group further. For example, if the group acts im-
to be an indispensable tool for the study of ma-
primitively and we find a decomposition
trix groups. In theory, concerning polynomial
V = V1 ⊕ V2 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Vm of the underlying vector
time construction the situation is satisfactory:
space such that the Vi are permuted by G , then
Babai gives a Monte Carlo algorithm which, after
we can construct a homomorphism ϕ : G → Sm.
a preprocessing phase consisting of O(log5 |G|)
The image of ϕ is a permutation group of low
group operations, constructs independent,
degree, so it can be handled easily. In this case,
nearly uniformly distributed elements at a cost
the “naturally associated” normal subgroup is the
of O(log |G|) group operations per random ele-
kernel of ϕ ; we can obtain generators for it and ment. (Nearly uniform means that each element
apply our methods recursively to the action on of G is selected with probability between
the lower-dimensional vector spaces Vi . (1 − ε)/|G| and (1 + ε)/|G| for some small ε .) In
The first subproblem solved both in theory practice, the heuristic product replacement al-
and practice is the recognition of the classical gorithm of Celler, Leedham-Green, Murray,
almost simple groups in their natural represen- O’Brien, and Niemeyer is used. This starts with
tation. Neumann and Praeger introduced the a list (g1 , g2 , . . . , gm ) of generators; at each step,
basic ideas. We say that a number is ppd(q, d) two indices i, j are selected randomly and one
if it has a prime divisor p such that p|q d − 1 and of gi , gj is replaced by the product gi gj . After
p 6 |q i − 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ d − 1 . Neumann and K replacements as preprocessing, we start to out-
Praeger give precise estimates for the proportion put the newly created elements of the list as ran-
of elements in groups G ≥ SLd (q) whose order dom elements of G . It is shown that if m is at
is ppd(q, d) and for those whose order is least twice the size of a minimal generating set
ppd(q, d − 1) . It turns out that among 5.5d ran- of G , then the limit distribution of the sequence
domly and independently chosen elements, both (g1 , g2 , . . . , gm ) is uniform among all generating
types occur with probability >0.99. On the other sequences of length m, and computational evi-
hand, the (short) list of subgroups containing dence shows that in applications for matrix
both types of elements but not containing SLd (q) groups of dimension in the low hundreds, K
is determined, and special tests are devised to can be chosen around 100 . Although the con-
eliminate them. This method was extended by structed random elements are not independent,
Niemeyer and Praeger in a highly nontrivial way the ratio of elements with properties relevant for
to the other classical groups. An alternative ap- the algorithms (for example, the ppd property)
proach is described by Celler and Leedham- seems in experimental tests to be close to the
Green in [7]. Here, random elements of G are cho- ratio of such elements in the group.
sen, their order is determined, and groups of the We mention that some of the algorithms de-
Aschbacher classification which cannot contain scribed in this section work in the more general
elements of this order are eliminated. context of black box groups (cf. the extended ver-
The classical matrix groups can also be rec- sion of this survey on the World Wide Web).
ognized constructively; the output is not only a
proof that G is a classical group, but every ele- Applications
ment of G can be expressed effectively in terms We finish this survey by briefly mentioning some
of the given generating set. Celler and Leedham- available databases, applications of CGT, and
Green handle the case G ≥ SLd (q) in the natural stand-alone programs.
representation; Cooperman, Finkelstein, and Lin- In the nineteenth century a central problem
ton in [7] handle the case G = SLd (2) in any rep- of group theory was the classification of groups
resentation; while Kantor and Seress handle all of a given order. Currently, GAP contains a library
classical groups in any representation. of the 174366 groups of order at most 1000, but
not 512 or 768 constructed by Besche and Eick. ters, London Math. Soc. Monographs (N. S.), vol. 11,
Among these, the 56092 groups of order 256 Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
were found by O’Brien, and it is expected that [9] Klaus Lux and Herbert Pahlings, Computational
aspects of representation theory of finite groups
there are more than a million groups of order
(G. O. Michler and C. M. Ringel, eds.), Represen-
512.
tation Theory of Finite Groups and Finite-Di-
The 42038 transitive permutation groups of mensional Algebras, Progr. Math., vol. 95,
degree at most 31, constructed by Hulpke, are Birkhauser-Verlag, 1991, pp. 37–64.
also available. In principle this list can be used [10] J. NeubÜser, An elementary introduction to coset
to compute Galois groups; the computations are table methods in computational group theory (C. M.
practical up to degree 15. Nonaffine primitive Campbell and E. F. Robertson, eds.), Groups – St.
permutation groups are listed up to degree 1000 Andrews 1981, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note
by Dixon and Mortimer and solvable permuta- Ser., vol. 71, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982, pp.
tion groups up to degree 255 by Short. The list 1–45.
[11] ———, An invitation to computational group the-
of 4-dimensional space groups by Brown, Bülow,
ory (C. M. Campbell, T. C. Hurley, E. F. Robertson,
Neubüser, Wondratschek, and Zassenhaus and S. J. Tobin, and J. J. Ward, eds.), Groups ‘93 – Gal-
conjugacy class representatives of irreducible way/St. Andrews, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note
maximal finite subgroups of GLn (Q) for n ≤ 24 Ser., vol. 212, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995, pp.
by Nebe and Plesken are now also online. In the 457–475.
section “Representation Theory” we already men- [12] Ákos Seress, Nearly linear time algorithms for per-
tioned the availability of ordinary and modular mutation groups: An interplay between theory
character tables. Probably just the sizes of these and practice, Acta Appl. Math. (1997), to appear.
databases indicate the computational difficulties [13] Charles C. Sims, Computation with finitely pre-
sented groups, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994.
obtaining them.
The applications of CGT in group theory are
too numerous to list here. We just mention one
of them: the construction of some of the sporadic
finite simple groups by Sims and Norton.
Both GAP and Magma support the application
of CGT to related fields such as other areas of
abstract algebra, graph theory, and coding the-
ory. Magma covers other areas of symbolic com-
putation as well; it has a particularly strong
number theory component. Finally, we mention
two stand-alone programs that may be used to
investigate finitely presented groups. QUOTPIC
by Holt and Rees is a user-friendly graphical in-
terface to display factor groups of fp-groups,
while the system Magnus, in the beta-release
stage, works with infinite fp-groups.
References
[1] Michael D. Atkinson, ed., Computational group
theory, Academic Press, London, New York, 1984;
Durham, 1982.
[2] John Cannon, ed., Computational group theory I,
J. Symbolic Comput. 9 (5-6) (1990).
[3] ——— , Computational group theory II, J. Symbolic
Comput. 12 (4-5) (1991).
[4] John Cannon and George Havas, Algorithms
for groups, Australian Comput. J. 24 (1992), 51–60.
[5] J. H. Conway, R. T. Curtis, S. P. Norton, R. A.
Parker, and R. A. Wilson, Atlas of finite groups,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985.
[6] Larry Finkelstein and William M. Kantor, eds.,
Groups and computation, DIMACS Ser. Discrete
Math. Theoret. Comput. Sci., vol. 11, Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, RI, 1993.
[7] ——— , Groups and computation II, DIMACS Ser. Dis-
crete Math. Theoret. Comput. Sci., vol. 28, Amer.
Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.
[8] Christoph Jansen, Klaus Lux, Richard Parker,
and Robert Wilson, An atlas of Brauer charac-