Definition
The definition uses the idea, explained on its own page, of a central series for a group. The following are equivalent formulations:
- A nilpotent group is one that has a central series of finite length.
- A nilpotent group is one whose lower central series terminates in the trivial subgroup after finitely many steps.
- A nilpotent group is one whose upper central series terminates in the whole group after finitely many steps.
For a nilpotent group, the smallest n such that G has a central series of length n is called the nilpotency class of G ; and G is said to be nilpotent of class n. (By definition, the length is n if there are n + 1 different subgroups in the series, including the trivial subgroup and the whole group.)
Equivalently, the nilpotency class of G equals the length of the lower central series or upper central series. If a group has nilpotency class at most m, then it is sometimes called a nil-m group.
It follows immediately from any of the above forms of the definition of nilpotency, that the trivial group is the unique group of nilpotency class 0, and groups of nilpotency class 1 are exactly the non-trivial abelian groups.
Read more about this topic: Nilpotent Group
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“Although there is no universal agreement as to a definition of life, its biological manifestations are generally considered to be organization, metabolism, growth, irritability, adaptation, and reproduction.”
—The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, the first sentence of the article on “life” (based on wording in the First Edition, 1935)
“... if, as women, we accept a philosophy of history that asserts that women are by definition assimilated into the male universal, that we can understand our past through a male lens—if we are unaware that women even have a history—we live our lives similarly unanchored, drifting in response to a veering wind of myth and bias.”
—Adrienne Rich (b. 1929)
“It’s a rare parent who can see his or her child clearly and objectively. At a school board meeting I attended . . . the only definition of a gifted child on which everyone in the audience could agree was “mine.””
—Jane Adams (20th century)