23

Is there a single first-order sentence $\varphi$ in the language of groups such that for every finite $\mathfrak{A}$ we have $$\mathfrak{A}\models\varphi\quad\iff\quad\mathfrak{A}\cong S_n\mbox{ for some finite $n$}?$$

Clearly this can be done with a first-order theory in place of a single sentence: if for each $n$ we let $\varphi_n$ be the sentence asserting "Either the structure is isomorphic to $S_m$ for some $m\le n$, or the structure has $>n!$ elements," then the finite models of $\{\varphi_n:n\in\mathbb{N}\}$ are exactly the finite symmetric groups. Similarly, a single second-order sentence can do the job. However, I don't see how to do the job with a single first-order sentence.

Noah Schweber
  • 245,398
  • 1
    Incidentally, note that the first-order-theory argument above shows that any class of finite structures (in a finite language) can be pinned down (within the class of finite structures in that language) by a first-order theory. The nontrivial aspect is then the complexity of the theory in question, e.g. computably axiomatizable or not. – Noah Schweber Apr 12 '21 at 03:55
  • perhaps a silly question, but can this be done for the finite cyclic groups? (+1) – Atticus Stonestrom Apr 12 '21 at 04:47
  • 2
    @AtticusStonestrom Unless I'm missing something you can show via Ehrenfeucht-Fraisse games that for every $n$ there is a non-cyclic finite group $G$ which is $n$-equivalent to some cyclic group; this rules out a one-sentence axiomatization. Unfortunately, cyclicity - and in particular, guaranteeing non-cyclicity - is simpler than symmetricitude, so I don't see how to run the analogous argument for the symmetric groups. – Noah Schweber Apr 12 '21 at 05:08
  • 1
    I already +1'd this question, but I wish I could +1 again for "symmetricitude" – HallaSurvivor Apr 12 '21 at 05:11
  • 5
    This paper mentions near the beginning that the non-abelian simple groups are characterized amongst finite groups by a first-order sentence. Since you can remove the sporadic groups by hand, if you could show that the groups of Lie type and the alternating groups are separated by a first-order sentence (which seems plausible), then you'd have that the alternating groups can be characterized by a first-order sentence. – James Hanson Apr 12 '21 at 19:26
  • 5
    You might be able to then leverage this into a sentence for the symmetric groups if the alternating groups are uniformly definable in the symmetric groups. You would also need to show that there is a sentence that separates symmetric groups from other index 2 extensions of alternating groups. – James Hanson Apr 12 '21 at 19:29
  • 2
    @JamesHanson That'd be a delightful application of the CFSG! – Noah Schweber Apr 12 '21 at 19:58
  • @JamesHanson Looks like we'll have to wait for a necessary use of CFSG along these lines, sadly. :P – Noah Schweber Apr 14 '21 at 14:38

1 Answers1

19

Yes. The key observation is that the symmetric groups $S_n$ (at least for $n>6$) uniformly interpret their action by permutations on the set $[n] = \{1,\dots,n\}$. The interpretation is explained in this answer by Itai Bar-Natan, but I'll repeat it here for completeness.

  1. For $n>6$, $\sigma\in S_n$ is a transposition if and only if $\sigma$ has order $2$ and for every conjugate $\sigma' = \rho\sigma\rho^{-1}$, $\sigma\sigma'$ has order $1$, $2$, or $3$. So the set $T$ of transpositions is uniformly definable. In another answer to the same question, Noam Elkies points out that when $n=6$, $T$ is not even definable, since the outer automorphism of $S_6$ maps $T$ to the set $T_3$ of products of three disjoint transpositions.
  2. The set $X = \{(\tau_1,\tau_2)\in T^2\mid \tau_1\neq \tau_2\text{ and }\tau_1\tau_2\text{ has order }3\}$ is also uniformly definable. Note that a pair $(\tau_1,\tau_2)$ is in $X$ if and only if $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are distinct transpositions which are not disjoint, i.e., there is a unique element $k\in [n]$ such that $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ both move $k$. We think of the pair $(\tau_1,\tau_2)$ as identifying the element $k$.
  3. The equivalence relation $\sim$ on $X$ given by $(\tau_1,\tau_2)\sim (\tau_1',\tau_2')$ if and only if the pairs $(\tau_1,\tau_2)$ and $(\tau_1',\tau_2')$ both identify the same element $k$ is uniformly definable by the formula asserting that for all $i,j\in \{1,2\}$, $\tau_i = \tau_j'$ or $(\tau_i,\tau_j')\in X$. Note $X/{\sim}$ is in natural bijection with $[n]$.
  4. Finally, the induced action of $S_n$ on $X/{\sim}$ is uniformly definable by conjugation. Note that if $(\tau_1,\tau_2)\in X$ and identifies the element $k\in [n]$, say $\tau_1 = (k\, i)$ and $\tau_2 = (k\, j)$, then for any $\sigma\in S_n$, $\sigma\tau_1\sigma^{-1} = (\sigma(k)\,\sigma(i))$ and $\sigma\tau_2\sigma^{-1} = (\sigma(k)\,\sigma(j))$. So $(\sigma\tau_1\sigma^{-1},\sigma\tau_2\sigma^{-1})\in X$ and identifies the element $\sigma(k)$. It follows that this action of $S_n$ on $X$ respects the equivalence relation $\sim$.

Given all this, we can identify the symmetric groups by the following sentence: (1) $G\cong S_n$ for some $n\leq 6$, or (2) (a) the formula defining $\sim$ defines an equivalence relation on the definable set $X\subseteq G^2$ and (b) conjugation defines a group action of $G$ on $X/{\sim}$ (in particular it respects $\sim$) and (c) this action is faithful and (d) for any pair of distinct elements of $X/{\sim}$, there is an element of $G$ which transposes them and fixes the rest of the elements of $X/{\sim}$.

The finite symmetric groups certainly satisfy this sentence. And if a finite group $G$ satisfies this sentence, then the action of $G$ on $X/{\sim}$ gives a homomorphism $G\to S_{X/{\sim}}$ which is injective (because the action is faithful) and surjective (because the symmetric group on the finite set $X/{\sim}$ is generated by transpositions). So $G$ is isomorphic to $S_{X/{\sim}}$.

Alex Kruckman
  • 76,357
  • 3
    Lovely! I'm quite surprised by this. – Noah Schweber Apr 14 '21 at 14:38
  • wow!!! I find this truly remarkable (+1) – Atticus Stonestrom Apr 14 '21 at 15:08
  • Wow! Thank you! What about infinite models of this theory? – Thomas Forster May 18 '21 at 23:15
  • @ThomasForster Every infinite model of this theory interprets a faithful action on an infinite set which includes all finite support permutations. But for an infinite set, there's a lot of room between the group of finite support permutations and the full symmetric group. It's not clear to me which grouos in between are models. – Alex Kruckman May 19 '21 at 01:07
  • Alex, I barged into this thread beco's i am interested in the various 1st-order theories of symmetric groups on infinite sets. Apparently they come in a wide variety. I can see that the symmetric group on an uncountable set satisfies ``every element commutes with at least one involution'' whereas this does not hold in the symm grp on a ctble set. Apparently not all symm grps on uncountble sets are elem equiv, and i would like to understand this better. I have my own nefarious reasons for interest in this which i won't bore you with unless asked. Somthng to do w strongly typed set theory. – Thomas Forster May 20 '21 at 02:08
  • 1
    @ThomasForster I see - unfortunately I know basically nothing about the complete theories of infinite symmetric groups. You're probably aware that Shelah has some papers on the topic? – Alex Kruckman May 20 '21 at 02:46
  • Yes i am. They are extremely scary, and also off limits (for me) beco's they concern infinite wellordered sets only, and i am interested in (for example) beth numbers without any use of AC.choice. – Thomas Forster May 20 '21 at 07:32