LORENTZIAN SURFACES WITH CONSTANT CURVATURES AND TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE 3-DIMENSIONAL LORENTZIAN SPACE (Q5286737)

From MaRDI portal

!

This is the item page for this Wikibase entity, intended for internal use and editing purposes. Please use the normal view instead:

scientific article; zbMATH DE number 227235
Language Label Description Also known as
default for all languages
No label defined
    English
    LORENTZIAN SURFACES WITH CONSTANT CURVATURES AND TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE 3-DIMENSIONAL LORENTZIAN SPACE
    scientific article; zbMATH DE number 227235

      Statements

      LORENTZIAN SURFACES WITH CONSTANT CURVATURES AND TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE 3-DIMENSIONAL LORENTZIAN SPACE (English)
      0 references
      0 references
      1 September 1993
      0 references
      Galois field
      0 references
      permutation polynomial
      0 references
      Cayley objects
      0 references
      quadratic polynomial
      0 references
      A combinatorial object is taken to mean a vertex set with additional structure consisting of a subset of the union of the set and all its iterated power sets. This includes all the usual objects such as graphs, digraphs, simplicial complexes and designs. A Cayley object is a combinatorial object whose vertex set is a group and where translation by group elements give automorphisms of the object. Pálfy showed in 1987 that in general, two isomorphic Cayley objects with the same group as vertex set are isomorphic by a group isomorphism if and only if they each have 4 vertices or else \(\text{gcd} (m, \varphi (m)) = 1\) where \(\varphi\) is the Euler \(\varphi\)-function and the vertex set of each is the cyclic group of order \(m\). In this paper Cayley objects over the field \(\text{GF} (p^ 2)\) are considered. Given two such objects, where one of the objects has a Sylow \(p\)-subgroup of its automorphism group containing the translations and the map \(\theta (x) = x^ p - x\), it is shown that the two objects are isomorphic if and only if they are isomorphic by a quadratic polynomial in \(\theta\). This result as given in Theorem 5 is misstated. The assumption that the two objects are isomorphic is left out.
      0 references

      Identifiers