The level of exposition is quite uneven throughout these notes. After all, they aren't meant to be a polished exposition but rather notes I take for myself. In some places I build concepts from first principles, while in others I gloss over details and focus only on the main results.

Sometime during the second half of the month, I also developed an open-source tool called Wander Console on a whim. It lets anyone with a website host a decentralised web console that recommends interesting websites from the 'small web' of independent, personal websites. Check my console here: wander/.

Although the initial version was ready after just about 1.5 hours of development during a break I was taking from studying algebraic graph theory, the subsequent warm reception on Hacker News and a growing community around it, along with the resulting feature requests and bug fixes, ended up taking more time than I had anticipated, at the expense of my algebraic graph theory studies. With a full-time job, it becomes difficult to find time for both open source development and mathematical studies. But eventually, I managed to return to my studies while making Wander Console improvements only occasionally during breaks from my studies.

Contents

1. Group Theory
   1. Permutation
   2. Group Homomorphism
   3. Group Homomorphism Preserves Identity
   4. Group Homomorphism Preserves Inverses
   5. Image of a Group Homomorphism
   6. Group Monomorphism
      1. Standard Proof
      2. Alternate Proof
   7. Permutation Representation
   8. Group Action
      1. Why Right Action?
      2. Example 1
      3. Example 2
   9. Group Actions Induce Permutations
   10. Group Actions Determine Permutation Representations
   11. Permutation Representations Determine Group Actions
   12. Bijection Between Group Actions and Permutation Representations
   13. Orbits
   14. Stabilisers
   15. Orbit-Stabiliser Theorem
   16. Faithful Actions
   17. Semiregular Actions
   18. Transitive Actions
   19. Conjugacy
       1. Conjugation as Group Action
       2. Right Conjugation vs Left Conjugation
   20. Conjugate Subgroups
   21. Conjugacy of Stabilisers
2. Algebraic Graph Theory
   1. Stabiliser Index
   2. Strongly Connected Directed Graph
   3. Shunting
   4. Automorphisms Preserve Successor Relation
   5. Test of \( s \)-arc Transitivity
   6. Moore Graphs
   7. Generalised Polygons
3. Computing
   1. Select Between Lines, Inclusive
   2. Select Between Lines, Exclusive
   3. Signing and Verification with SSH Key
   4. Block IP Address with nftables
   5. Debian Logrotate Setup

Group Theory

Permutation

A permutation of a set \( X \) is a bijection \( X \to X . \)

For example, take \( X = \{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 \} \) and define the map \[ \pi : X \to X; \; x \mapsto 1 + ((x + 1) \bmod 6). \] This maps \begin{align*} 1 &\mapsto 3, \\ 2 &\mapsto 4, \\ 3 &\mapsto 5, \\ 4 &\mapsto 6, \\ 5 &\mapsto 1, \\ 6 &\mapsto 2. \end{align*}

We can describe permutations more succinctly using cycle notation. The cycle notation of a permutation \( \pi \) consists of one or more sequences written next to each other such that the sequences are pairwise disjoint and \( \alpha \) maps each element in a sequence to the next element on its right. If the sequence is finite, then \( \alpha \) maps the final element back to the first one. Any element that does not appear in any sequence is mapped to itself. For example the cycle notation for the above permutation is \( (1 3 5)(2 4 6). \)

Group Homomorphism

A map \( \phi : G \to H \) from a group \( (G, \ast) \) to a group \( (H, \cdot) \) is a group homomorphism if, for all \( x, y \in G, \) \[ \phi(x \ast y) = \phi(x) \cdot \phi(y). \] We say that a group homomorphism is a map between groups that preserves the group operation. In other words, a group homomorphism sends products in \( G \) to products in \( H . \) For example, consider the groups \( (\mathbb{Z}, +) \) and \( (\mathbb{Z}_3, +). \) Then the map \[ \phi : \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}_3; \; n \mapsto n \bmod 3 \] is a group homomorphism because \[ \phi(x + y) = (x + y) \bmod 3 = (x \bmod 3) + (y \bmod 3) = \phi(x) + \phi(y) \] for all \( x, y \in \mathbb{Z}. \) As another example, consider the groups \( (\mathbb{R}_{\gt 0}, \times) \) and \( (\mathbb{R}, +). \) Then the map \[ \log : \mathbb{R}_{\gt 0} \to \mathbb{R} \] is a group homomorphism because \[ \log(m \times n) = \log m + \log n. \] Note that a group homomorphism preserves the identity element. For example, \( 1 \) is the identity element of \( (\mathbb{R}_{\gt 0}, \times) \) and \( 0 \) is the identity element of \( (\mathbb{R}, +) \) and indeed \( \log 1 = 0. \) Also, a group homomorphism preserves inverses. Indeed \( \log m^{-1} = -\log m \) for all \( m \in \mathbb{R}_{\gt 0}. \) These observations are proved in the next two sections.

Group Homomorphism Preserves Identity

Let \( \phi : G \to H \) be a group homomorphism from \( (G, \ast) \) to \( (H, \cdot). \) Let \( e_1 \) be the identity in \( G \) and let \( e_2 \) be the identity in \( H. \) Then \( \phi(e_1) = e_2. \) The proof is straightforward. Note first that \[ \phi(e_1) \cdot \phi(e_1) = \phi(e_1 \ast e_1) = \phi(e_1) \] Multiplying both sides on the right by \( \phi(e_1)^{-1}, \) we get \[ (\phi(e_1) \cdot \phi(e_1)) \cdot \phi(e_1)^{-1} = \phi(e_1) \cdot \phi(e_1)^{-1}. \] Using the associative and inverse properties of groups, we can simplify both sides to get \[ \phi(e_1) = e_2. \]

Group Homomorphism Preserves Inverses

Let \( \phi : G \to H \) be a group homomorphism from \( (G, \ast) \) to \( (H, \cdot). \) Let \( e_1 \) be the identity in \( G \) and let \( e_2 \) be the identity in \( H. \) Then for all \( x \in G, \) \(\phi(x^{-1}) = (\phi(x))^{-1}. \) The proof of this is straightforward too. Note that \[ \phi(x) \cdot \phi(x^{-1}) = \phi(x \ast x^{-1}) = \phi(e_1) = e_2. \] Thus \( \phi(x^{-1}) \) is an inverse of \( \phi(x), \) so \[ \phi(x^{-1}) = (\phi(x))^{-1}. \] The image of the inverse of an element is the inverse of the image of that element.

Image of a Group Homomorphism

Let \( \phi : G \to H \) be a group homomorphism. Then the image of the \( \phi, \) denoted \[ \phi(G) = \{ \phi(x) : x \in G \} \] is a subgroup of \( H. \) We will prove this now.

Let \( a, b \in \phi(G). \) Then \( a = \phi(x) \) and \( b = \phi(y) \) for some \( x, y \in G. \) Now \( ab = \phi(x)\phi(y) = \phi(xy) \in \phi(G). \) Therefore \( \phi(G) \) satisfies the closure property.

Let \( e_1 \) and \( e_2 \) be the identities in \( G \) and \( H \) respectively. Since a group homomorphism preserves the identity, \( \phi(e_1) = e_2. \) Hence the identity of \( H \) lies in \( \phi(G). \)

Finally, let \( a \in \phi(G). \) Then \( a = \phi(x) \) for some \( x \in G. \) Then \( a^{-1} = \phi(x)^{-1} = \phi(x^{-1}) \in \phi(G). \) Therefore \( \phi(G) \) satisfies the inverse property as well. Therefore \( \phi(G) \) is a subgroup of \( H. \)

Group Monomorphism

A map \( \phi : G \to H \) from a group \( (G, \ast) \) to a group \( (H, \cdot) \) is a group monomorphism if \( \phi \) is a homomorphism and is injective. In other words, a homomorphism \( \phi \) is called a monomorphism if, for all \( x, y \in G, \) \[ \phi(x) = \phi(y) \implies x = y. \] Let \( e_1 \) be the identity element of \( G \) and let \( e_2 \) be the identity element of \( H. \) A useful result in group theory states that a homomorphism \( \phi : G \to H \) is a monomorphism if and only if its kernel is trivial, i.e. \[ \ker(\phi) = \{ x \in G : \phi(x) = e_2 \} = \{ e_1 \}. \] Let us prove this now.

Standard Proof

Suppose \( \phi : G \to H \) is a monomorphism. Since a homomorphism preserves the identity element, we have \( \phi(e_1) = e_2. \) Therefore \[ e_1 \in \ker(\phi). \] Let \( x \in \ker(\phi). \) Then \( \phi(x) = e_2 = \phi(e_1). \) Since \( \phi \) is injective, \( x = e_1. \) Therefore \[ \ker(\phi) = \{ e_1 \}. \] Conversely, suppose \( \ker(\phi) = \{ e_1 \}. \) Let \( x, y \in G \) such that \( \phi(x) = \phi(y). \) Then \[ \phi(x \ast y^{-1}) = \phi(x) \cdot \phi(y^{-1}) = \phi(x) \cdot (\phi(y))^{-1} = \phi(y) \cdot (\phi(y))^{-1} = e_2. \] Hence \[ x \ast y^{-1} \in \ker(\phi) = \{ e_1 \}, \] so \[ x \ast y^{-1} = e_1. \] Multiplying both sides on the right by \( y, \) we obtain \[ x = y. \] This completes the proof.

Alternate Proof

Here I briefly discuss an alternate way to think about the above proof. The above proof is how most texts usually present these arguments. In particular, the proof of injectivity typically proceeds by showing that equal images imply equal preimages. It's a standard proof technique. When I think about these proofs, however, the contrapositive argument feels more intuitive to me. I prefer to think about how unequal preimages must have unequal images. Mathematically, there is no difference at all but the contrapositive argument has always felt the most natural to me. Let me briefly describe how this proof runs in my mind when I think about it more intuitively.

Suppose \( \phi \) is a monomophorism. Since a homomorphism preserves the identity element, clearly \( \phi(e_1) = e_2. \) Since \( \phi \) is injective, it cannot map two distinct elements of \( G \) to \( e_2. \) Thus \( e_1 \) is the only element of \( G \) that \( \phi \) maps to \( e_2 \) which means \( \ker(\phi) = \{ e_1 \}. \)

To prove the converse, suppose \( \ker(\phi) = \{ e_1 \}. \) Consider distinct elements \( x, y \in G. \) Since \( x \ne y, \) we have \( x \ast y^{-1} \ne e_1. \) Therefore \( x \ast y^{-1} \notin \ker(\phi). \) Thus \( \phi(x \ast y^{-1}) \ne e_2. \) Since \( \phi \) is a homomorphism, \[ \phi(x \ast y^{-1}) = \phi(x) \cdot \phi(y^{-1}) = \phi(x) \cdot \phi(y)^{-1}. \] Therefore \( \phi(x) \cdot \phi(y)^{-1} \ne e_2 \) which implies \[ \phi(x) \ne \phi(y). \] This proves that \( \ker(\phi) = \{ e_1 \} \) implies that \( \phi \) is injective and thus a monomorphism.

Permutation Representation

Let \( G \) be a group and \( X \) a set. Then a homomorphism \[ \phi : G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X) \] is called a permutation representation of \( G \) on \( X . \) The homomorphism \( \phi \) maps each \( g \in G \) to a permutation of \( X. \) We say that each \( g \in G \) induces a permutation of \( X. \)

For example, let \( G = (\mathbb{Z}_3, +) \) and \( X = \{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 \}. \) Define the map \( \phi : G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X) \) by \begin{align*} \phi(0) &= (), \\ \phi(1) &= (024)(135), \\ \phi(2) &= (042)(153). \end{align*} It is easy to verify that this is a homomorphism. Here is one way to verify it: \begin{align*} \phi(0)\phi(1) &= ()(024)(135) = (024)(135) = \phi(0 + 1), \\ \phi(0)\phi(2) &= ()(042)(153) = (042)(153) = \phi(0 + 2), \\ &\;\,\vdots \\ \phi(2)\phi(1) &= (042)(153)(024)(135) = () = \phi(0) = \phi(2 + 1), \\ \phi(2)\phi(2) &= (042)(153)(042)(153) = (024)(135) = \phi(1) = \phi(2 + 2). \end{align*} We will meet this homomorphism again in the form of group action \( \alpha \) in the next section.

Group Action

Let \( G \) be a group with identity element \( e. \) Let \( X \) be a set. A right action of \( G \) on \( X \) is a map \[ \alpha : X \times G \to X \] such that \begin{align*} \alpha(x, e) &= x, \\ \alpha(\alpha(x, g), h) &= \alpha(x, gh) \end{align*} for all \( x \in X \) and all \( g, h \in G. \) The two conditions above are called the identity and compatibility properties of the group action respectively. Note that in a right action, the product \( gh \) is applied left to right: \( g \) acts first and then \( h \) acts. If we denote \( \alpha(x, g) \) as \( x^g, \) then the notation for the two conditions can be simplified to \( x^e = x \) and \( (x^g)^h = x^{gh} \) for all \( g, h \in G. \)

Why Right Action?

We discuss right group actions here instead of left group actions because we want to use the notation \( \alpha(x, g) = x^g, \) which is quite convenient while studying permutations and graph automorphisms. It is perfectly possible to use left group actions to study permutations as well. However, we lose the benefit of the convenient \( x^g \) notation. In a left group action, the compatibility property is \( \alpha(g, \alpha(h, x)) = \alpha(gh, x) , \) so if we were to use the notation \( \alpha(g, x) = x^g, \) the compatibility property would look like \( (x^h)^g = x^{gh}. \) This reverses the order of exponents which can be confusing. Right group actions avoid this notational inconvenience.

Example 1

Let \( G = \mathbb{Z}_3 \) be the group under addition modulo \( 3 . \) Let \( X = \{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 \}. \) Define an action \( \alpha \) of \( G \) on \( X \) by \[ \alpha(x, g) = x^g = (x + 2g) \bmod 6. \] Each \( g \in G \) acts as a permutation of \( X. \) For example, the element \( 0 \in \mathbb{Z}_3 \) acts as the identity permutation. The element \( 1 \in \mathbb{Z}_3 \) acts as the permutation \( (0 2 4)(1 3 5). \) The element \( 2 \in \mathbb{Z}_3 \) acts as the permutation \( (0 4 2)(1 5 3). \) The following table shows how each \( g \in G \) permutes \( X. \) \[ \begin{array}{c|ccc} x_{\downarrow} \backslash g_{\rightarrow} & 0 & 1 & 2 \\ \hline 0 & 0 & 2 & 4 \\ 1 & 1 & 3 & 5 \\ 2 & 2 & 4 & 0 \\ 3 & 3 & 5 & 1 \\ 4 & 4 & 0 & 2 \\ 5 & 5 & 1 & 3 \\ \end{array} \] From the table we see that each \( g \in G \) permutes the elements of \( \{ 0, 2, 4 \} \) among themselves. Similarly, the elements of \( \{ 1, 3, 5 \} \) are permuted among themselves. These sets \( \{0, 2, 4 \} \) and \( \{ 1, 3, 5 \} \) are called the orbits of the action. The concept of orbits is formally introduced in its own section further below.

Example 2

Now let \( G = \mathbb{Z}_6 \) be the group under addition modulo \( 6. \) Let \( X = \{ 0, 1, \dots, 8 \}. \) Define an action \( \beta \) of \( G \) on \( X \) by \[ \beta(x, g) = x^g = (x + 3g) \bmod 9. \] Now the table for the action looks like this: \[ \begin{array}{c|cccccc} x_{\downarrow} \backslash g_{\rightarrow} & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 \\ \hline 0 & 0 & 3 & 6 & 0 & 3 & 6 \\ 1 & 1 & 4 & 7 & 1 & 4 & 7 \\ 2 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 2 & 5 & 8 \\ 3 & 3 & 6 & 0 & 3 & 6 & 0 \\ 4 & 4 & 7 & 1 & 4 & 7 & 1 \\ 5 & 5 & 8 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 2 \\ 6 & 6 & 0 & 3 & 6 & 0 & 3 \\ 7 & 7 & 1 & 4 & 7 & 1 & 4 \\ 8 & 8 & 2 & 5 & 8 & 2 & 5 \end{array} \] This action splits \( X \) into three orbits \( \{ 0, 3, 6 \}, \) \( \{ 1, 4, 7 \} \) and \( \{ 2, 5, 8 \}. \)

Group Actions Induce Permutations

Earlier, we saw an example of a group action and observed that each element of the group acts as a permutation. That was not merely a coincidence. It is indeed a general property of group actions. Whenever a group \( G \) acts on a set \( X, \) each element \( g \in G \) determines a bijection \( X \to X. \) In other words, every element of \( G \) acts as a permutation of \( X. \) Let us see why this must be the case.

Consider the group action \( \alpha : X \times G \to X. \) Fix \( g \in G \) and let \( x \) vary over \( X \) to obtain the map \[ \alpha_g : X \to X; \; x \mapsto \alpha(x, g). \] We show that \( \alpha_g \) is a bijection. First we prove injectivity. Let \( e \) be the identity element of \( G. \) Let \( x, y \in X. \) Then \begin{align*} \alpha_g(x) = \alpha_g(y) & \implies \alpha(x, g) = \alpha(y, g) \\ & \implies \alpha(\alpha(x, g), g^{-1}) = \alpha(\alpha(y, g), g^{-1}) \\ & \implies \alpha(x, gg^{-1}) = \alpha(y, gg^{-1}) \\ & \implies \alpha(x, e) = \alpha(y, e) \\ & \implies x = y. \end{align*} The \( x^g \) notation allows us to write the above proof more conveniently as follows: \begin{align*} \alpha_g(x) = \alpha_g(y) & \implies \alpha(x, g) = \alpha(y, g) \\ & \implies (x^g)^{g^{-1}} = (y^g)^{g^{-1}} \\ & \implies x^{g g^{-1}} = y^{g g^{-1}} \\ & \implies x^e = y^e \\ & \implies x = y. \end{align*} This completes the proof of injectivity. Now we prove surjectivity. Let \( y \in X. \) Take \( x = \alpha(y, g^{-1}). \) Then \[ \alpha_g(x) = \alpha(x, g) = \alpha(\alpha(y, g^{-1}), g) = \alpha(y, g^{-1} g) = \alpha(y, e) = y. \] Again, if we write \( x = y^{g^{-1}}, \) the above step can be written more succinctly as \[ \alpha_g(x) = x^g = (y^{g^{-1}})^g = y^{(g^{-1} g)} = y^e = y. \] Thus every element \( y \in X \) has a preimage in \( X \) under \( \alpha_g. \) Hence \( \alpha_g \) is surjective. Since we have already shown that \( \alpha_g \) is injective, we now conclude that \( \alpha_g \) is bijective. Therefore \( \alpha_g \) is a permutation of \( X. \) Stated symbolically, \[ \alpha_g \in \operatorname{Sym}(X). \] Note that \[ \alpha_g(x) = \alpha(x, g) = x^g. \] Thus both \( \alpha_g(x) \) and \( x^g \) serve as convenient shorthands for \( \alpha(x, g). \)

Group Actions Determine Permutation Representations

We have seen that each group element \( g \in G \) induces (acts as) a permutation of \( X. \) Precisely speaking, each \( g \in G \) determines a permutation \( \alpha_g \) of \( X. \) Now define a map \[ \phi: G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X); \; g \mapsto \alpha_g. \] We now show that this map is a homomorphism. This means that we want to show that \( \phi(gh) = \phi(g) \phi(h). \) Since \( \phi(g), \phi(h) \in \operatorname{Sym}(X), \) the right-hand side is a product of permutations of \( X. \) We first define the product of two permutations \( \pi, \rho : X \to X \) by \[ \pi \rho : X \to X; \; x \mapsto \rho(\pi(x)). \] In other words, \( \pi \rho = \rho \circ \pi. \) Now \begin{align*} \phi(gh)(x) & = \alpha_{gh}(x) \\ & = \alpha(x, gh) \\ & = \alpha(\alpha(x, g), h) \\ & = \alpha_h(\alpha_g(x)) \\ & = (\alpha_h \circ \alpha_g)(x) \\ & = (\alpha_g \alpha_h)(x) \\ & = (\phi(g) \phi(h))(x). \end{align*} Since the above equality holds for all \( x \in X, \) we conclude that \[ \phi(gh) = \phi(g) \phi(h). \] Hence \( \phi \) is a group homomorphism from \( G \) to \( \operatorname{Sym}(X). \) Therefore \( \phi \) is a permutation representation of \( G \) on \( X. \) It maps each group element \( g \in G \) to a permutation \( \alpha_g \in \operatorname{Sym}(X). \)

Note the multiple levels of abstraction here. The group action \( \alpha : X \times G \to X \) determines a permutation representation \( \phi : G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X). \) Each element \( g \in G \) together with the group action \( \alpha \) determines a permutation \( \alpha_g : X \to X. \)

Also note that \( \phi(g)(x) = \alpha_g(x) = \alpha(g, x) = x^g. \) In fact, \( \phi(g) = \alpha_g. \)

Permutation Representations Determine Group Actions

Consider a permutation representation \( \phi : G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X). \) Define a map \[ \alpha : X \times G \to X; \; (x, g) \mapsto \phi(g)(x). \] First we verify the identity property of group actions. Since \( \phi \) is a homomorphism, it preserves the identity element. Therefore \( \phi(e) \) is the identity permutation. Hence \[ \alpha(x, e) = \phi(e)(x) = x \] Now we verify the compatibility property of the action. For all \( g, h \in G \) and \( x \in X, \) we have \begin{align*} \alpha(\alpha(x, g), h) & = \alpha(\phi(g)(x), h) \\ & = \phi(h)(\phi(g)(x)) \\ & = (\phi(h) \circ \phi(g))(x) \\ & = (\phi(g)\phi(h))(x) \\ & = \phi(gh)(x) \\ & = \alpha(x, gh). \end{align*} This completes the proof of the fact that every permutation representation determines a group action.

Bijection Between Group Actions and Permutation Representations

There is a bijection between the group actions \( \alpha : X \times G \to X \) and permutation representations \( \phi : G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X). \) We now show that these two constructions are inverses of each other.

Given a right action \( \alpha : X \times G \to X, \) define \[ \phi_{\alpha} : G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X) \quad \text{by} \quad \phi_{\alpha}(g)(x) = \alpha(x, g). \] Given a permutation representation \( \phi : G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X), \) define \[ \alpha_{\phi} : X \times G \to X \quad \text{by} \quad \alpha_{\phi}(x, g) = \phi(g)(x). \] We now show that these two constructions undo each other. Take an arbitrary group action \( \alpha : X \times G \to X \) and construct the corresponding permutation representation \( \phi_{\alpha}. \) Then take this permutation representation and construct the group action \( \alpha_{\phi_{\alpha}}. \) But \[ \alpha_{\phi_{\alpha}}(x, g) = \phi_{\alpha}(g)(x) = \alpha(x, g). \] Therefore \( \alpha_{\phi_{\alpha}} = \alpha. \) Similarly, starting with the permutation representation \( \phi, \) we get \[ \phi_{\alpha_{\phi}}(g)(x) = \alpha_{\phi}(x, g) = \phi(g)(x). \] Therefore \( \phi_{\alpha_{\phi}} = \phi. \) Hence there is a bijection between group actions \( \alpha : X \times G \to X \) and permutation representations: \( \phi : G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X) . \) In fact, a group action and the corresponding permutation representation contain the same information, namely how the elements \( g \in G \) acts as permutations of \( X. \) For this reason, many advanced texts do not make any distinction between the group action and its permutation representation. They often use them interchangeably even though technically they have different domains.

Orbits

Let \( G \) act on a set \( X. \) For an element \( x \in X, \) the orbit of \( x \) under the action of \( G \) is the set of all elements of \( X \) that can be reached from \( x \) by the action of elements of \( G. \) Symbolically, the orbit of \( x \) is the set \[ x^G = \{ x^g : g \in G \}. \] In other words, the orbit of \( x \) contains every element of \( X \) that \( x \) can be moved to by the group action. If \( y \in x^G, \) then there exists some \( g \in G \) such that \( y = x^g . \)

The orbits of a group action partition the set \( X. \) That is, every element of \( X \) lies in exactly one orbit and two orbits are either identical or disjoint. Thus the group action decomposes the set \( X \) into disjoint subsets (the orbits), each consisting of elements that can be transformed into one another by the action of \( G. \)

Stabilisers

Let \( G \) be a group acting on a set \( X. \) For an element \( x \in X, \) the stabiliser of \( x \) is the set \[ G_x = \{ g \in G : x^g = x \}. \] The stabiliser \( G_x \) consists of all elements of \( G \) that fix the element \( x. \) The stabiliser \( G_x \) is a subgroup of \( G. \) Indeed, the identity element \( e \in G \) satisfies \( x^e = x, \) so \( e \in G_x. \) If \( g, h \in G_x, \) then \( x^{gh} = (x^g)^h = x. \) If \( g \in G_x, \) then \( x^{g^{-1}} = (x^g)^{g^{-1}} = x. \)

Intuitively, the stabiliser measures how much symmetry of the group action leaves the element \( x \) unchanged. The larger the stabiliser, the more elements of \( G \) fix \( x. \)

Orbit-Stabiliser Theorem

Let \( G \) be a group acting on a set \( X. \) The orbit-stabiliser theorem states that for any \( x \in X, \) \[ \lvert G_x \rvert \cdot \lvert x^G \rvert = \lvert G \rvert. \] Stated differently, the index of the stabiliser \( G_x \) in the group \( G \) is given by \[ [ G : G_x ] = \lvert G_x \backslash G \rvert = \lvert G \rvert / \lvert G_x \rvert = \lvert x^G \rvert. \] There is a bijection between the right cosets of \( G_x \) and the elements of \( x^G. \) Demonstrating this bijection proves the above equation. We will work with right cosets of \( G_x. \) Define \[ \phi : G_x \backslash G \to x^G; \; G_x g \mapsto x^g. \] We want to show that \( \phi \) is a bijection. But first we need to show that \( \phi \) is well defined. A coset \( G_x g \in G_x \backslash G \) can also be written as \[ G_x g = G_x h \] for some \( h \in G. \) If \( x^g \ne x^h, \) then \( \phi \) would not be well defined, since \( \phi \) must assign each coset in \( G_x \backslash G \) to exactly one element in the orbit \( x^G \) in order to be a function. This can be shown using the following equivalences: \begin{align*} G_x g = G_x h & \iff hg^{-1} \in G_x \\ & \iff x = x^{h g^{-1}} \\ & \iff x^g = x^h \\ \end{align*} This proves two things at once. The fact that \[ G_x g = G_x h \implies x^g = x^h \] proves that when the same coset is written using two different representatives, the image does not change. Therefore \( \phi \) is well defined. Further \[ x^g = x^h \implies G_x g = G_x h \] proves that \( \phi \) is injective. To show that \( \phi \) is surjective, let \( y \in x^G. \) Then \( y = x^g \) for some \( g \in G. \) Since \( \phi(G_x g) = x^g, \) we get \[ \phi(G_x g) = y. \] Thus every element of \( x^G \) is the image of some right coset \( G_x g \) under \( \phi. \) This completes the proof of a bijection between the right cosets of \( G_x \) and the elements of \( x^G. \) Therefore \( \lvert G_x \backslash G \rvert = \lvert x^G \rvert \) and hence \( \lvert G \rvert / \lvert G_x \rvert = \lvert x^G \rvert , \) which establishes the orbit-stabiliser theorem.

Faithful Actions

Let \( G \) act on a set \( X. \) The action is called faithful if distinct elements of \( G \) induce distinct permutations of \( X. \) In other words, the only element of \( G \) that acts as the identity permutation of \( X \) is the identity element \( e \in G. \) Symbolically, the action is faithful if \[ g \ne e \implies \exists x \in X, \; x^g \ne x. \] Equivalently, \[ \forall x \in X, \; x^g = x \implies g = e. \] The action is faithful if the only element of \( G \) that fixes every element of \( X \) is the identity, i.e. \[ \bigcap_{x \in X} G_x = \{ e \}. \] Recall that every group action determines a permutation representation \( \phi : G \to \operatorname{Sym}(X). \) From this point of view, the action is faithful precisely when the permutation representation is faithful, that is, when the homomorphism \( \phi \) is injective (or equivalently when \( \ker(\phi) = \{ e \} \)). In other words, the action is faithful if and only if the associated homomorphism \( \phi \) is a monomorphism.

Semiregular Actions

A group action of \( G \) on \( X \) is called semiregular if no non-identity element of \( G \) fixes any element of \( X. \) In other words, whenever \( g \ne e, \) the permutation of \( X \) induced by \( g \) moves every element of \( X. \) Symbolically, \[ g \ne e \implies \forall x \in X, \; x^g \ne x. \] Equivalently, \[ \exists x \in X, \; x^g = x \implies g = e. \] The action is semiregular if \[ \forall x \in X, \; G_x = \{ e \}. \] This is a stronger property than faithfulness. Faithfulness only guarantees that when \( g \ne e, \) the element \( g \) moves at least one element of \( X. \) But semiregularity guarantees that when \( g \ne e, \) the element \( g \) moves every element of \( X . \) Therefore every semiregular action is faithful, but not every faithful action is semiregular.

Transitive Actions

Let \( G \) act on a set \( X. \) The action is called transitive if there is only one orbit. In other words, the action is transitive if every element of \( X \) can be reached from any other element by the action of some element of \( G. \) Symbolically, the action is transitive if \[ \forall x, y \in X \; \exists g \in G, \; x^g = y. \] Equivalently, the action is transitive if \[ x^G = X \] for some (and hence every) \( x \in X. \)

Conjugacy

Let \( G \) be a group. Let \( x, g \in G. \) The element \[ g^{-1} x g \] is called a conjugate of \( x \) by \( g. \) Any element \( y \in G \) that can be written as \( g^{-1} x g \) for some \( g \in G \) is said to be a conjugate of \( x. \) The conjugacy class of \( x \) in \( G \) is the set \[ x^G = \{ g^{-1} x g : g \in G \}. \] In other words, the conjugacy class of \( x \) is the set of all elements of \( G \) that are conjugate to \( x. \) At first, reusing the orbit notation \( x^G \) for the conjugacy class may seem like an abuse of notation. However, we will see in the next section that the conjugacy class is precisely the orbit of \( x \) under the action of \( G \) on itself by conjugation. Thus \( x^G \) is in fact a natural and accurate notation for the conjugacy class.

Conjugation as Group Action

Conjugation can be seen as an action of a group on itself. Define the map \[ \alpha : G \times G \to G; \; (x, g) \mapsto g^{-1} x g. \] Note that \[ \alpha(x, e) = e^{-1} x e = x \] and \[ \alpha(\alpha(x, g), h) = h^{-1} (g^{-1} x g) h = (gh)^{-1} x (gh) = \alpha(x, gh). \] Therefore \( \alpha \) satisfies the two defining properties of a right group action. The conjugacy class \( x^G \) is precisely the orbit of \( x \) under the conjugation action. Therefore the orbits of the conjugation action of \( G \) on itself are the conjugacy classes of \( G. \)

Right Conjugation vs Left Conjugation

We observed above that the conjugation action is a right action of a group on itself. Let \( x, g \in G \) and let \[ y = g^{-1} x g. \] Now let \( h = g^{-1}. \) Then we can write the above equation as \[ y = h x h^{-1}. \] According to the previous section, \( y \) is the conjugate of \( x \) by \( g. \) However, many texts call \( y \) the conjugate of \( x \) by \( h. \) Both are valid perspectives. In both perspectives, \( x \) and \( y \) are conjugates of each other. Precisely,

• In the first perspective, we have \( y = g^{-1} x g \) and we say that \( y \) is a conjugate of \( x \) by \( g. \) A corollary is that \( x \) is a conjugate of \( y \) by \( g^{-1}. \)
• In the second perspective, we have \( y = h x h^{-1} \) and we say that \( y \) is a conjugate of \( x \) by \( h. \) A corollary is that \( x \) is a conjugate of \( y \) by \( h^{-1}. \)

Although in both perspectives, \( x \) and \( y \) are conjugates of each other, the group element by which one is conjugated to the other is different. This leads to different group actions as well.

When we say that \( y = g^{-1} x g \) is a conjugate of \( x \) by \( g, \) the group action \[ \alpha : G \times G \to G; \; (x, g) \mapsto g^{-1} x g. \] is a right group action as demonstrated in the previous section. But when we say that \( y = h x h^{-1} \) is a conjugate of \( x \) by \( h, \) the conjugation action is no longer a right group action because the compatibility property is violated: \[ \alpha(\alpha(x, g), h) = h ( g x g^{-1} ) h^{-1} = (hg) x (hg)^{-1} = \alpha(x, hg). \] We get \( \alpha(x, hg) \) instead of the required \( \alpha(x, gh) . \) So with the second perspective, the group action is no longer a right action. Instead it is a left action since \[ \alpha(g, \alpha(h, x)) = g (h x h^{-1}) g^{-1} = (gh) x (gh)^{-1} = \alpha(gh, x). \] In this post we will work only with the first perspective because we will use right actions throughout.

Conjugate Subgroups

Let \( G \) be a group. Let \( H \le G. \) Define \[ g^{-1} H g = \{ g^{-1} h g : h \in H \}. \] We say that \( g^{-1} H g \) is a conjugate of \( H \) by \( g. \)

Conjugacy of Stabilisers

Let \( G \) be a group acting on a set \( X. \) Let \( x \in X \) and \( g \in G. \) Then \[ g^{-1} G_x g = G_{x^g}. \] That is, \( G_{x^g} \) is a conjugate of \( G_x \) by \( g. \) This result can be summarised as follows: stabilisers of elements in the same orbit are conjugate. Or more explicitly: the stabiliser of \( x^g \) is a conjugate of the stabiliser of \( x \) by \( g. \) The proof is straightforward. Let \( h \in G. \) Then \begin{align*} h \in g^{-1} G_x g & \iff g^{-1} (g h g^{-1}) g \in g^{-1} G_x g \\ & \iff g h g^{-1} \in G_x \\ & \iff x^{g h g^{-1}} = x \\ & \iff (x^g)^h = x^g \\ & \iff h \in G_{x^g}. \end{align*} Therefore \( g^{-1} G_x g = G_{x^g}. \)

Algebraic Graph Theory

Stabiliser Index

In a vertex-transitive graph \( \Gamma, \) for any \( x \in V(\Gamma) \) and all \( y \in V(\Gamma), \) there exists \( g \in G \) such that \( x^g = y. \) Therefore \( x^G = V(\Gamma). \) Thus by the orbit-stabiliser theorem, \[ [ G : G_x ] = \lvert G_x \backslash G \rvert = \lvert x^G \rvert = \lvert V(\Gamma) \rvert. \]

Strongly Connected Directed Graph

A path in a directed graph \( \Gamma \) is a sequence of vertices \( v_0, \dots, v_r \) of distinct vertices such that \( (v_{i - 1}, v_i) \) is an arc of \( \Gamma \) for \( i = 1, \dots, r . \)

A directed graph is strongly connected if for every ordered pair of vertices \( (u, v) \) there is a path from \( u \) to \( v . \)

Shunting

Let \( \alpha = ( \alpha_0, \dots, \alpha_s ) \) and \( \beta = ( \beta_0, \dots, \beta_s ) \) be two \( s \)-arcs in a graph \( \Gamma. \) We say that \( \beta \) is a successor of \( \alpha \) if \( \beta_i = \alpha_{i + 1} \) for \( 0 \le i \le s - 1. \) We also say that \( \alpha \) can be shunted onto \( \beta. \)

In section 4.2 of Godsil and Royle, there is a rather technical setup which first defines \( X^{(s)} \) as the directed graph with the \( s \)-arcs of a graph \( X \) as its vertices such that \( (\alpha, \beta) \) is an arc of \( X^{(s)} \) if and only if \( \alpha \) can be shunted onto \( \beta \) in \( X. \) Then it goes on to show that if \( X \) is a connected graph with a minimum degree two and \( X \) is not a cycle, then \( X^{(s)} \) is strongly connected for all \( s \ge 0. \)

That is a very technical way of saying that in a connected graph \( X \) that is not a cycle and has a minimum degree two, any \( s \)-arc \( \alpha \) can be sent to any \( s \)-arc \( \beta \) by repeated shunting. The proof is quite technical too and pretty long, so I'll omit it here.

Automorphisms Preserve Successor Relation

We will obtain a nifty result here that will prove to be very useful in the next section. Let \( S(\gamma) \) denote the set of all successors of the \( s \)-arc \( \gamma \) of a graph. Let \( g \) be an automorphism of the graph. Then \[ \delta \in S(\gamma) \iff \delta^g \in S(\gamma^g). \] This follows directly from the fact that automorphisms preserve adjacency, so they must preserve successor relation as well. A corollary of this is that for an automorphism \( h, \) we have \[ \delta^{h^{-1}} \in S(\gamma) \iff \delta \in S(\gamma^h). \] This is the form that will be useful soon.

Test of \( s \)-arc Transitivity

The results in the previous two sections lead to a remarkably simple proof of the fact that the Petersen graph is \( 3 \)-arc transitive. Let us see how.

Let \( P \) be the Petersen graph whose vertices are the \( 2 \)-subsets of \( \{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 \} \) with adjacency given by disjointness of the \( 2 \)-subsets. Then \( \operatorname{Aut}(P) \cong S_5 \) since any permutation of \( \{ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 \} \) induces a permutation of the vertices that preserves disjointness and hence adjacency. We will use the shorthand \( ab \) to represent each vertex \( \{ a, b \} \) of \( P. \) Consider the \( 3 \)-arc \[ \alpha = (12, 34, 15, 23). \] It has exactly two successors, namely \[ \beta_1 = (34, 15, 23, 14), \quad \beta_2 = (34, 15, 23, 45). \] Let \( g_1 = (13)(245) \) and \( g_2 = (13524). \) Then \begin{align*} \alpha^{g_1} & = (12, 34, 15, 23)^{(13)(245)} = (34, 15, 23, 14) = \beta_1, \\ \alpha^{g_2} & = (12, 34, 15, 23)^{(13524)} = (34, 51, 23, 45) = \beta_2. \end{align*} Let \( H = \langle g_1, g_2 \rangle \le \operatorname{Aut}(P). \) Consider an \( s \)-arc \( \alpha^h \) for some \( h \in H. \) Let \( \delta \in S(\alpha^h). \) Then by the result in the previous section, we get \[ \delta^{h^{-1}} \in S(\alpha) = \{ \beta_1, \beta_2 \} = \{ \alpha^{g_1}, \alpha^{g_2} \}. \] Therefore \[ \delta \in \{ \alpha^{g_1 h}, \alpha^{g_2 h} \}. \] Thus \[ \delta \in \alpha^{H}. \] We started with an \( s \)-arc \( \alpha^h \in \alpha^H \) and showed that its successors \( \delta \) also lie in \( \alpha^H. \) Thus the orbit \( \alpha^H \) is closed under taking successors.

Now by the shunting result discussed previously, \( \alpha \) can be sent to any \( 3 \)-arc of \( P \) by repeated shunting. Therefore all \( 3 \)-arcs of \( P \) belong to \( \alpha^H. \) Therefore the automorphisms in \( H \) can send any \( 3 \)-arc of \( P \) to any other thus making \( P \) \( 3 \)-arc transitive.

Moore Graphs

Graphs with diameter \( d \) and girth \( 2d + 1 \) are known as Moore graphs.

There are an infinite number of Moore graphs with diameter \( 1 \) since the complete graphs \( K_n, \) where \( n \ge 3, \) have diameter \( 1 \) and girth \( 3. \)

There are three known Moore graphs of diameter \( 2. \) They are \( C_5, \) \( J(5, 2, 0) \) also known as the Petersen graph and the Hoffman-Singleton graph. They are respectively \( 2 \)-regular, \( 3 \)-regular and \( 7 \)-regular. There is a famous result that proves that a Moore graph must be \( 2 \)-regular, \( 3 \)-regular, \( 7 \)-regular or \( 57 \)-regular. It is unknown currently whether a \( 57 \)-regular Moore graph of diameter \( 2 \) exists.

There are infinitely many Moore graphs of diameter \( d \ge 3 \) because the odd cycles \( C_{2d + 1} \) are \( 2 \)-regular graphs with diameter \( d \) and girth \( 2d + 1 \) for all \( d \ge 1. \) However, there are no \( k \)-regular Moore graphs for diameter \( d \ge 3 \) when \( k \ge 3. \)

Generalised Polygons

Bipartite graphs with diameter \( d \) and girth \( 2d \) are known as generalised polygons. This is easy to understand. If we take a classical \( d \)-gon and create the incidence graph of its vertices and edges, then the incidence graph is the cycle \( C_{2d} \) which has diameter \( d \) and girth \( 2d. \)

The converse is not always true. For example, the Heawood graph which has diameter \( d = 3 \) and girth \( 2d = 6. \) It is the incidence graph of Fano plane, which is a projective plane rather than a classical \( d \)-gon.

Although a generalised polygon is not always the incidence graph of a classical polygon, the idea behind the definition comes from a simple observation. If we take a classical \( d \)-gon and form the incidence graph of its vertices and edges, we obtain the cycle \( C_{2d}. \) This graph is bipartite and has diameter \( d \) and girth \( 2d. \) The definition of a generalised polygon abstracts these properties. Any bipartite graph with diameter \( d \) and girth \( 2d \) is called a generalised polygon, even when it is not the incidence graph of a classical \( d \)-gon. In this way the definition allows much richer graphs than simple cycles.

Computing

Select Between Lines, Inclusive

Select text between two lines, including both lines:

sed '/pattern1/,/pattern2/!d'

sed -n '/pattern1/,/pattern2/p'

Here are some examples:

$ printf 'A\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nG\nH\n' | sed '/C/,/F/!d'
C
D
E
F
$ printf 'A\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nG\nH\n' | sed -n '/C/,/F/p'
C
D
E
F

Select Between Lines, Exclusive

Select text between two lines, excluding both lines:

sed '/pattern1/,/pattern2/!d; //d'

Here is an example usage:

$ printf 'A\nB\nC\nD\nE\nF\nG\nH\n' | sed '/C/,/F/!d; //d'
D
E

The negated command !d deletes everything not matched by the 2-address range /C/,/F/, i.e. it deletes everything before the line matching /C/ as well as everything after the line matching /F/. So we are left with only the lines from C to F, inclusive. Finally, // (the empty regular expression) reuses the most recently used regular expression. So when /C/,/F/ matches C, the command //d also matches C and deletes it. Similarly, F is deleted too. That's how we are left with the lines between C and F, exclusive.

Here are some excerpts from POSIX.1-2024 that help understand the !d and //d commands better:

A function can be preceded by a '!' character, in which case the function shall be applied if the addresses do not select the pattern space. Zero or more <blank> characters shall be accepted before the '!' character. It is unspecified whether <blank> characters can follow the '!' character, and conforming applications shall not follow the '!' character with <blank> characters.

If an RE is empty (that is, no pattern is specified) sed shall behave as if the last RE used in the last command applied (either as an address or as part of a substitute command) was specified.

Signing and Verification with SSH Key

Here are some minimal commands to demonstrate how we can sign some text using SSH key and then later verify it.

ssh-keygen -t ed25519 -f key
echo hello > hello.txt
ssh-keygen -Y sign -f key.pub -n file hello.txt
echo "jdoe $(cat key.pub)" > allowed.txt
ssh-keygen -Y verify -f allowed.txt -I jdoe -n file -s hello.txt.sig < hello.txt

Here are some examples that demonstrate what the outputs and signature file look like:

$ ssh-keygen -Y sign -f key.pub -n file hello.txt
Signing file hello.txt
Write signature to hello.txt.sig

$ cat hello.txt.sig
-----BEGIN SSH SIGNATURE-----
U1NIU0lHAAAAAQAAADMAAAALc3NoLWVkMjU1MTkAAAAgAwP6RnmFVrZO0m/nRIHyvr2S19
itsKegj9p/BZKqP1sAAAAEZmlsZQAAAAAAAAAGc2hhNTEyAAAAUwAAAAtzc2gtZWQyNTUx
OQAAAEB8ylqjCLgInF8DvROnLSm1UUWd0VuLPesI+1NhMrV9BjH5lf0w20kHunJW3qRIjw
Jfs9+q/e47KdlR8wBQaHYD
-----END SSH SIGNATURE-----

$ ssh-keygen -Y verify -f allowed.txt -I jdoe -n file -s hello.txt.sig < hello.txt
Good "file" signature for jdoe with ED25519 key SHA256:9ZJuUJNMy1UXo3AlQy8L7baD3LOfEbgQ30ELIt+8wWc

Block IP Address with nftables

Here is a sequence of commands to create an nftables rule from scratch to block an IP address:

$ sudo nft list ruleset
$ sudo nft add table inet filter
$ sudo nft list ruleset
table inet filter {
}
$ sudo nft add chain inet filter input { type filter hook input priority 0 \; }
$ sudo nft list ruleset
table inet filter {
        chain input {
                type filter hook input priority filter; policy accept;
        }
}
$ sudo nft add rule inet filter input ip saddr 172.236.0.216 drop
$ sudo nft list ruleset
table inet filter {
        chain input {
                type filter hook input priority filter; policy accept;
                ip saddr 172.236.0.216 drop
        }
}

Here is how to undo the above setup step by step:

$ sudo nft -a list ruleset
table inet filter { # handle 1
        chain input { # handle 1
                type filter hook input priority filter; policy accept;
                ip saddr 172.236.0.216 drop # handle 2
        }
}
$ sudo nft delete rule inet filter input handle 2
$ sudo nft list ruleset
table inet filter {
        chain input {
                type filter hook input priority filter; policy accept;
        }
}
$ sudo nft delete chain inet filter input
$ sudo nft list ruleset
table inet filter {
}
$ sudo nft delete table inet filter
$ sudo nft list ruleset
$

Finally, the following command deletes all rules, chains and tables. It wipes the entire ruleset, so use it with care.

$ sudo nft flush ruleset
$ sudo nft list ruleset
$

All outputs above were obtained using nftables v1.1.3 on Debian 13.2 (Trixie).

Debian Logrotate Setup

Observed on Debian 11.5 (Bullseye) that logrotate is set up on it via systemd. Here are some outputs that show what the setup is like:

$ sudo systemctl status logrotate.service
● logrotate.service - Rotate log files
     Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/logrotate.service; static)
     Active: inactive (dead) since Mon 2026-03-30 00:00:17 UTC; 19h ago
TriggeredBy: ● logrotate.timer
       Docs: man:logrotate(8)
             man:logrotate.conf(5)
    Process: 2148235 ExecStart=/usr/sbin/logrotate /etc/logrotate.conf (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
   Main PID: 2148235 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
        CPU: 574ms

Mar 30 00:00:16 spweb systemd[1]: Starting Rotate log files...
Mar 30 00:00:17 spweb systemd[1]: logrotate.service: Succeeded.
Mar 30 00:00:17 spweb systemd[1]: Finished Rotate log files.
$ sudo systemctl status logrotate.timer
● logrotate.timer - Daily rotation of log files
     Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/logrotate.timer; enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
     Active: active (waiting) since Mon 2026-01-19 19:19:34 UTC; 2 months 9 days ago
    Trigger: Tue 2026-03-31 00:00:00 UTC; 4h 7min left
   Triggers: ● logrotate.service
       Docs: man:logrotate(8)
             man:logrotate.conf(5)

Warning: journal has been rotated since unit was started, output may be incomplete.
$ sudo systemctl list-timers logrotate
NEXT                        LEFT         LAST                        PASSED  UNIT            ACTIVATES
Tue 2026-03-31 00:00:00 UTC 4h 7min left Mon 2026-03-30 00:00:16 UTC 19h ago logrotate.timer logrotate.service

1 timers listed.
Pass --all to see loaded but inactive timers, too.
$ head /lib/systemd/system/logrotate.service
[Unit]
Description=Rotate log files
Documentation=man:logrotate(8) man:logrotate.conf(5)
RequiresMountsFor=/var/log
ConditionACPower=true

[Service]
Type=oneshot
ExecStart=/usr/sbin/logrotate /etc/logrotate.conf

$ cat /lib/systemd/system/logrotate.timer
[Unit]
Description=Daily rotation of log files
Documentation=man:logrotate(8) man:logrotate.conf(5)

[Timer]
OnCalendar=daily
AccuracySec=1h
Persistent=true

[Install]
WantedBy=timers.target
$ grep -vE '^#|^$' /etc/logrotate.conf
weekly
rotate 4
create
include /etc/logrotate.d
$ ls -l /etc/logrotate.d/
total 40
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 120 Aug 21  2022 alternatives
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 173 Jun 10  2021 apt
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 130 Oct 14  2019 btmp
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  82 May 26  2018 certbot
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 112 Aug 21  2022 dpkg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 128 May  4  2021 exim4-base
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 108 May  4  2021 exim4-paniclog
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 329 May 29  2021 nginx
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 374 May 20  2022 rsyslog
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root  28 Mar 17 01:52 susam -> /opt/susam.net/etc/logrotate
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 145 Oct 14  2019 wtmp

To force log rotation right now, execute:

sudo systemctl start logrotate.service

Read on website | #notes | #mathematics | #linux | #technology

Most of last month's notes grew out of my reading of Algebraic Graph Theory by Godsil and Royle. I am still exploring and learning this subject. This month, however, I dove into another book with the same title but this book is written by Norman Biggs. As a result, many of the notes that follow are drawn from Biggs's treatment of the topic.

Since I already had a good understanding of the subject from the earlier book, I decided to skip the first fourteen chapters of the new book. I began with Chapter 15, which discusses automorphisms of graphs and then moved on to the following chapters on graph symmetries. My main reason for picking up Biggs's book was to understand Tutte's well known result that any \( s \)-arc-transitive finite cubic graph must satisfy \( s \le 5. \) While I did not reach that chapter this month, I made substantial progress with the book. I hope to work through the proof of Tutte's theorem next month.

Contents

1. Degree of Vertices in an Orbit
2. Regular Non-Vertex-Transitive Graphs
3. Vertex-Transitive But Not Edge-Transitive
4. Edge-Transitivex But Not Vertex-Transitive
5. Bipartiteness as a Necessary Condition
6. Graph with an Automorphism Group
7. Permutation Groups Need Not Be Automorphism Groups
8. Symmetric Graphs

Degree of Vertices in an Orbit

If two vertices of a graph belong to the same orbit, then they have the same degree. In other words, for a graph \( X, \) if \( x, y \in V(X) \) and there is an automorphism \( \alpha \) such that \( \alpha(x) = y, \) then \( \deg(x) = \deg(y). \)

The proof is quite straightforward. Let \begin{align*} N(x) &= \{ v_1, \dots, v_r \}, \\ N(y) &= \{ w_1, \dots, w_s \} \end{align*} represent the neighbours of \( x \) and \( y \) respectively. Therefore we have \[ x \sim v_1, \; \dots, \; x \sim v_r. \] Since an automorphism preserves adjacency, we get \[ \alpha(x) \sim \alpha(v_1), \; \dots, \; \alpha(x) \sim \alpha(v_r). \] Substituting \( \alpha(x) = y, \) we get \[ y \sim \alpha(v_1), \; \dots, \; y \sim \alpha(v_r). \] Thus \[ \alpha(N(x)) = \{ \alpha(v_1), \; \dots, \; \alpha(v_r) \} \subseteq N(y). \] A similar argument works in reverse as well. By the definition of automorphism, if \( \alpha \) is an automorphism, so is \( \alpha^{-1}. \) From the definition of \( N(y) \) above, we have \[ y \sim w_1, \; \dots, \; y \sim w_s. \] Therefore \[ \alpha^{-1}(y) \sim \alpha^{-1}(w_1), \; \dots, \; \alpha^{-1}(y) \sim \alpha^{-1}(w_s). \] This is equivalent to \[ x \sim \alpha^{-1}(w_1), \; \dots, \; x \sim \alpha^{-1}(w_s). \] Thus \[ \alpha^{-1}(N(y)) = \{ \alpha^{-1}(w_1), \; \dots, \; \alpha^{-1}(w_s) \} \subseteq N(x) \] This can be rewritten as \[ \{ \alpha^{-1}(w_1), \; \dots, \; \alpha^{-1}(w_s) \} \subseteq \{ v_1, \dots, v_r \}. \] Therefore \[ N(y) = \{ w_1, \dots, w_s \} \subseteq \{ \alpha(v_1), \dots, \alpha(v_r) \} = \alpha(N(x)). \] We have shown that \( \alpha(N(x)) \subseteq N(y) \) and \( N(y) \subseteq \alpha(N(x)). \) Thus \[ \alpha(N(x)) = N(y). \] Thus \[ \lvert N(y) \rvert = \lvert \alpha(N(x)) \rvert = r. \] Therefore both \( x \) and \( y \) have \( r \) neighbours each. Hence \( \deg(x) = \deg(y). \)

Regular Non-Vertex-Transitive Graphs

The Frucht graph and the Folkman graph are examples of graphs that are \( k \)-regular but not vertex-transitive. In fact, the Folkman graph is a semi-symmetric graph, i.e. it is regular and edge-transitive but not vertex-transitive.

Vertex-Transitive But Not Edge-Transitive

The circular ladder graph \( CL_3, \) i.e. the triangular prism graph, is vertex-transitive but not edge-transitive.

Every vertex has the same local structure. Every vertex has degree \( 3 \) and it lies on exactly one of the two triangles and it has exactly one 'vertical' edge connecting it to the corresponding edge on the other triangle. Any vertex can be sent to any other by an automorphism.

Since triangle edges are in a triangle and vertical edges are in no triangle, no automorphism can send a triangle edge to a vertical edge or vice versa. Therefore the graph is not edge-transitive.

Edge-Transitivex But Not Vertex-Transitive

The complete bipartite graphs \( K_{m,n} \) with \( m \ne n \) are edge-transitive but not vertex-transitive.

Every edge connects one vertex from the \( m \)-part to one vertex from the \( n \)-part. Any permutation of vertices inside the \( m \)-part preserves adjacency. Similarly, any permutation of vertices inside the \( n \)-part preserves adjacency.

Take two arbitrary edges \[ uv, \; u'v' \in E(K_{m,n}) \] where \( u, u' \) are vertices that lie in the \( m \)-part and \( v, v' \) are vertices that lie in the \( n \)-part. Permute vertices within the \( m \)-part to send \( u \) to \( u'. \) Similarly, permute vertices within the \( n \)-part to send \( v \) to \( v'. \) This gives an automorphism that sends the edge \( uv \) to \( u'v'. \) In this manner we can find an automorphism that sends any edge to any other. Therefore, \( K_{m,n} \) is edge-transitive.

However, \( K_{m,n} \) is not vertex-transitive since no automorphism can send a vertex in the \( m \)-part to a vertex in the \( n \)-part since the vertices in the \( m \)-part have degree \( n \) and the vertices in the \( n \)-part have degree \( m. \)

Bipartiteness as a Necessary Condition

If a connected graph is edge-transitive but not vertex-transitive, then it must be bipartite.

Graph with an Automorphism Group

In 1938, Frucht proved that for every finite abstract group \( G, \) there exists a graph whose automorphism group is isomorphic to \( G . \)

Remarkably, this result remains valid even when we restrict our attention to cubic graphs. That is, for every finite abstract group \( G, \) there exists a cubic graph whose automorphism group is isomorphic to \( G. \) Moreover, the result has been extended to graphs satisfying various additional graph-theoretical properties, such as \( k \)-connectivity, \( k \)-regularity and prescribed chromatic number.

Permutation Groups Need Not Be Automorphism Groups

Consider the following specialised version of the problem discussed in the previous section: Given a permutation group on a set \( X, \) must there exist a graph with vertex set \( X \) whose automorphism group is precisely that permutation group?

The answer is no. Consider the cyclic group \( C_3 \) acting on \( X = \{ a, b, c \}. \) There is no graph \( \Gamma \) with \( V(\Gamma) = X \) and \( \operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma) \cong C_3. \) If we take \( \Gamma = K_3, \) then \( C_3 \subset S_3 = \operatorname{Aut}(K_3) \) but \( C_3 \ne \operatorname{Aut}(K_3) . \)

Symmetric Graphs

It is interesting that while we study graph symmetry through concepts such as graph automorphisms, vertex-transitivity, edge-transitivity, etc. the name symmetric graph is reserved for graphs that are \( 1 \)-arc-transitive. A vertex-transitive graph or an edge-transitive graph need not be \(1\)-arc-transitive and therefore need not be symmetric.

However, every \( s \)-arc-transitive graph is \(1 \)-arc-transitive for \( s \ge 1. \) Consequently, every \( s \)-arc-transitive graph is symmetric. Moreover, every distance-transitive graph is also \( 1 \)-arc-transitive and hence symmetric.

Formally, we say that a graph \( \Gamma \) is \( 1 \)-arc-transitive (or equivalently, symmetric) if for all \( 1 \)-arcs \( uv \) and \( u'v' \) of \( \Gamma, \) there is an automorphism \( \alpha \in \operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma) \) such that \( \alpha(uv) = u'v'. \)

Stated in more basic terms, we can say that \( \Gamma \) is symmetric if for all \( u, v, u', v' \in V(\Gamma) \) satisfying \( u \sim v \) and \( u' \sim v', \) there exists \( \alpha \in \operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma) \) such that \( \alpha(u) = u' \) and \( \alpha(v) = v'. \)

Switching gears now, we say that \( \Gamma \) is distance-transitive if for all \( u, v, u', v' \in V(\Gamma) \) satisfying \( d(u, v) = d(u', v'), \) there exists \( \alpha \in \operatorname{Aut}(\Gamma) \) such that \( \alpha(u) = u' \) and \( \alpha(v) = v'. \) Since all \( 1 \)-arcs \( uv \) and \( u'v' \) satisfy \( d(u, v) = d(u', v') = 1, \) distance-transitivity implies that there is an automorphism that sends \( uv \) to \( u'v'. \) Therefore a distance-transitive graph is also \( 1 \)-arc-transitive.

To summarise, a graph must possess a certain degree of symmetry in order to be called symmetric. It turns out that merely having a non-trivial automorphism group is not sufficient. Even being vertex-transitive or edge-transitive is not enough for a graph to be called symmetric. The graph needs to be at least \( 1 \)-arc-transitive to be called symmetric.

Another interesting aspect of this terminology is that the property of being asymmetric is not the exact opposite of being symmetric. For example, a vertex-transitive graph need not be symmetric. However, that does not make it asymmetric. A graph is called asymmetric if it has no non-trivial automorphisms, i.e. its automorphism group contains only the identity permutation. Thus, if a graph has at least two vertices and is vertex-transitive, it must admit a non-trivial automorphism that maps one vertex to another. So while such a vertex-transitive may not be symmetric, it isn't asymmetric either.

Read on website | #notes | #mathematics

Contents

1. Cayley Graphs
2. Vertex-Transitive Graphs
3. Arc-Transitive Graphs
4. Bipartite Graphs and Cycle Parity
5. Tutte's Theorem
6. Tutte's 8-Cage
7. Linear Congruential Generator
8. Numbering Lines

Cayley Graphs

Let \( G \) be a group and let \( C \subseteq G \) such that \( C \) is closed under taking inverses and does not contain the identity, i.e. \[ \forall x \in C, \; x^{-1} \in C, \qquad e \notin C. \] Then the Cayley graph \( X(G, C) \) is the graph with the vertex set \( V(X(G, C)) \) and edge set \( E(X(G, C)) \) defined by \begin{align*} V(X(G, C)) &= G, \\ E(X(G, C)) &= \{ gh : hg^{-1} \in C \}. \end{align*} The set \( C \) is known as the connection set.

Vertex-Transitive Graphs

A graph \( X \) is vertex-transitive if its automorphism group acts transitively on its set of vertices \( V(X). \) Intuitively, this means that no vertex has a special role. We can 'move' the graph around so that any chosen vertex becomes any other vertex. In other words, all vertices are indistinguishable. The graph looks the same from each vertex.

The \( k \)-cube \( Q_k \) is vertex-transitive. So are the Cayley graphs \( X(G, C). \) However the path graph \( P_3 \) is not vertex-transitive since no automorphism can send the middle vertex of valency \( 2 \) to an end vertex of valency \( 1. \)

Arc-Transitive Graphs

The cube \( Q_3 \) is \( 2 \)-arc-transitive but not \( 3 \)-arc-transitive. In \( Q_3, \) a \( 3 \)-arc belonging to a \( 4 \)-cycle cannot be sent to a \( 3 \)-arc that does not belong to a \( 4 \)-cycle. This is easy to explain. The end vertices of a \( 3 \)-arc belonging to a \( 4 \)-cycle are adjacent but the end vertices of a \( 3 \)-arc not belonging to a \( 4 \)-cycle are not adjacent. Therefore, no automorphism can map the end vertices of the first \( 3 \)-arc to those of the second \( 3 \)-arc.

For intuition, imagine that a traveller stands on a vertex and chooses an edge to move along. They do this \( s \) times thereby walking along an arc of length \( s, \) also known as an \( s \)-arc. By the definition of \( s \)-arcs, the traveller is not allowed to backtrack from one vertex to the previous one immediately. In an \( s \)-arc-transitive graph, these arcs look the same no matter which vertex they start from or which edges they choose. In the cube, this is indeed true for \( s = 2. \) All arcs of length \( 2 \) are indistinguishable. No matter which arc of length \( 2 \) the traveller has walked along, the graph would look the same from their perspective at each vertex along the arc. However, this no longer holds good for arcs of length \( 3 \) since there are two distinct kinds of arcs of length \( 3. \) The first kind ends at a distance of \( 1 \) from the starting vertex of the arc (when the arc belongs to a \( 4 \)-cycle). The second kind ends at a distance \( 3 \) from the starting vertex of the arc (when the arc does not belong to a \( 4 \)-cycle). Therefore the cube is not \( 3 \)-arc-transitive.

Bipartite Graphs and Cycle Parity

A graph is bipartite if and only if it contains no cycles of odd length. Equivalently, every cycle in a bipartite graph has even length. Conversely, if every cycle in a graph has even length, then the graph is bipartite.

Tutte's Theorem

For any \( s \)-arc-transitive cubic graph, \( s \le 5. \) This was demonstrated by W. T. Tutte in 1947. A proof can be found in Chapter 18 of Algebraic Graph Theory by Norman Biggs.

In 1973, Richward Weiss established a more general theorem that proves that for any \( s \)-arc-transitive graph, \( s \le 7. \) The bound is weaker but it applies to all graphs rather than only to cubic ones.

Tutte's 8-Cage

The book Algebraic Graph Theory by Godsil and Royle offers the following two descriptions of Tutte's 8-cage on 30 vertices:

Take the cube and an additional vertex \( \infty. \) In each set of four parallel edges, join the midpoint of each pair of opposite edges by an edge, then join the midpoint of the two new edges by an edge, and finally join the midpoint of this edge to \( \infty. \)

Construct a bipartite graph \( T \) with the fifteen edges as one colour class and the fifteen \( 1 \)-factors as the other, where each edge is adjacent to the three \( 1 \)-factors that contain it.

It can be shown that both descriptions construct a cubic bipartite graph on \( 30 \) vertices of girth \( 8. \) It can be further shown that there is a unique cubic bipartite graph on \( 30 \) vertices with girth \( 8. \) As a result both descriptions above construct the same graph.

Linear Congruential Generator

Here is a simple linear congruential generator (LCG) implementation in JavaScript:

function srand (seed) {
  let x = seed
  return function () {
    x = (1664525 * x + 1013904223) % 4294967296
    return x
  }
}

Here is an example usage:

> const rand = srand(0)
undefined
> rand()
1013904223
> rand()
1196435762
> rand()
3519870697

Numbering Lines

Both BSD and GNU cat can number output lines with the -n option. For example:

$ printf 'foo\nbar\nbaz\n' | cat -n
     1  foo
     2  bar
     3  baz

However I have always used nl for this. For example:

$ printf 'foo\nbar\nbaz\n' | nl
     1  foo
     2  bar
     3  baz

While nl is specified in POSIX, the cat -n option is not.

Read on website | #notes | #mathematics | #programming | #javascript | #shell