One might say that physicists study the symmetry of nature, while mathematicians study the nature of symmetry.

1/

@GWOMaths Observing symmetry in nature, such as noting the similarity between the symmetries of a snowflake and a hexagon, is readily comprehensible. What does it mean then to study "the nature of symmetry"?

2/
@GWOMaths Mathematicians define a "group", G, as a set of elements {a,b,c, ...} with a binary operation ⊡ and a distinguished element e (the identity of G) satisfying these specific properties:

3/
@GWOMaths For all a, b, c in G
1) Closure: a⊡b is in G.
2) Associativity: (a⊡b)⊡c = a⊡(b⊡c)
3) Identity: e⊡a = a⊡e = a.
4) Inverse: There exists an element a* such that a*⊡a = a⊡a* = e.

4/
@GWOMaths Just as functions on the integers, rationals, or reals are defined as mappings, mathematicians define a *group morphism* μ as a mapping from one group to another that preserves the group structure:

5/
@GWOMaths For groups G = [{a,b,c, ...}, ⊡, e] and H = [{α,β,γ, ...}, ⊠, ε]
then μ: G ⟼ H is a "group morphism" if for all elements of G:
μ(a⊡b) = μ(a)⊠μ(b). Note that for all a:
μ(a)⊠ε = μ(a) = μ(a⊡e) = μ(a)⊠μ(e)
and hence μ(e)=ε; Similarly it can be shown that
μ(a*) = μ(a)*.
@GWOMaths Thus the definition of such a *group morphism* preserves the group structure. When such a *morphism* is both *onto* (ie every element of H is mapped to by one or more elements of G) and *one-to-one* (only one element of G maps to each element in H) it is termed an *isomorphism*.
@GWOMaths For mathematical purposes, when there exists an *isomorphism* between two groups G = [{a,b,c, ...}, ⊡, e] and H = [{α,β,γ, ...}, ⊠, ε] then G and H are termed *isomorphic*, or *the same up to isomorphism*.
@GWOMaths Now all the finite groups can be classified in terms of various internal structures, first collecting those which are *the same up to isomorphism* and then collecting families with similar internal structure.
@GWOMaths When all the families of groups - Cyclic, Alternating, and assorted Lie Group Types - have been defined, there are remaining 26 groups that don't fit anywhere: the *sporadic groups*.
@GWOMaths Of these 26 *sporadic groups*, two stand out from the others in terms of their size:

- the *Baby Monster*, *B*, of size
2⁴¹ ⋅ 3¹³ ⋅ 5⁶ ⋅ 7² ⋅ 11 ⋅ 13 ⋅ 17 ⋅ 19 ⋅ 23 ⋅ 31 ⋅ 47; and
@GWOMaths - the *(Fischer–Griess) Monster), *M*, of size
2⁴⁶ ⋅ 3²⁰ ⋅ 5⁹ ⋅ 7⁶ ⋅ 11² ⋅ 13³ ⋅ 17 ⋅ 19 ⋅ 23 ⋅ 29 ⋅ 31 ⋅ 41 ⋅ 47 ⋅ 59 ⋅ 71.

Counting up the number of distinct primes in that last number gives us 15.
@GWOMaths Therefore today's answer is that:

The number of distinct prime factors
in the size, n, of the *Monster Group* M
is

15.
@GWOMaths @threadreaderapp unroll

More from Maths

It is trying when mathematicians declare condescendingly that there is no point doing things because their models tell them so. Well maybe some of the assumptions don't hold up. How did that work out for the no additional risk from large events and no point in border controls...


During wave 1 cases fell very fast, faster than I think most people were expecting. Particularly in Scotland. Rt was probably ~0.5 until we started easing off.

This was despite a constant leak of cases coming out of hospitals and LTC facilities as we were rationing PPE and are policies were nowhere near ideal. There was insistence from infection control that droplet protections were sufficient. We have all learned a lot since then.

Not to mention we have learned to avoid the shit show of actively importing cases into care homes. We've learned not to repeat that. Other sectors have learned too.

We've learned a lot and there's no reason we can't control this new variant. But we will not manage if we don't try and act with clarity of purpose.

You May Also Like