Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 0708.2494

A formula for the normal subgroup growth of Baumslag-Solitar groups

Abstract

We give an exact formula for the number of normal subgroups of each finite index in the Baumslag-Solitar group BS(p,q) when p and q are coprime. Unlike the formula for all finite index subgroups, this one distinguishes different Baumslag-Solitar groups and is not multiplicative. This allows us to give an example of a finitely generated profinite group which is not virtually pronilpotent but whose zeta function has an Euler product.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J. O. Button. 2007-08-18. A formula for the normal subgroup growth of Baumslag-Solitar groups. https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2494

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Left and right zero subsemigroups and an elementary approach to the Rees-Sushkevich Theorem

In a semigroup $S$ with idempotent $e$, the set of all elements $a$ of $S$ such that $ae=a$ and $ea=e$ forms the maximum left zero subsemigroup of $S$ containing $e$, and the set of all elements $b$ of $S$ such that $be=e$ and $eb=b$ forms the maximum right zero subsemigroup of $S$ containing $e$. We use these maximal right and left zero subsemigroups along with the maximal subgroups of a semigroup in the determination of maximal right and left subgroups, rectangular band subsemigroups, completely simple subsemigroups, rectangular subgroups, and completely $0$-simple subsemigroups. An elementary approach of the Rees-Sushkevich Theorem follows. Then we define rectangular $0$-bands and rectangular $0$-groups as completely $0$-simple analogues of rectangular bands and rectangular groups.

math.GR↗

Common overlattices in trees and trees with fins

Bass and Kulkarni proved that any pair of free uniform lattices in the automorphism group of a tree have conjugates that both lie inside a third uniform lattice (which is not necessarily free). We show that this does not generalise to trees with fins. The construction of our counter-example involves working with a certain generalisation of the universal groups of Burger and Mozes.

math.GR↗