Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

From Group Operations to Geometric Structures: Amalgamations, HNN-Extensions, and Twisting in Coset Geometries

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that free products, amalgamated products, HNN-extensions, semidirect products, and a twisting operation can all be performed directly on coset incidence geometries while preserving flag-transitivity and residual…

desk verdict A useful gluing toolkit for coset geometries, with a load-bearing gap in the HNN-extension proof that needs repair before the main preservation claim can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24662 v1 pith:RTS7KCSA submitted 2025-05-30 math.GR math.COmath.GT

Claudio Alexandre Piedade , Philippe Tranchida This is my paper
classification math.GRmath.COmath.GT MSC 20E0651E3020F5520F36
keywords IncidencegeometryCosetsystemsAmalgamatedproductsHNN-extensionsTwistingShephardgroupsArtin-TitsFlag-transitivity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the standard ways of gluing groups together—free products, amalgamated products, HNN-extensions, semidirect products, and a twisting operation—can be lifted to the setting of coset incidence geometries. A coset incidence geometry is an incidence structure built from the cosets of a fixed family of subgroups of a group, with incidence given by nonempty intersection. Under compatibility or admissibility conditions on the input geometries, the paper proves that the resulting composite is again a flag-transitive coset geometry, and that residual connectedness, firmness, and thinness are preserved exactly when the inputs have them. This matters because it provides a flexible way to assemble new highly symmetric geometries from old ones, without the restrictive linear-diagram conditions that earlier polytope constructions required. It also yields new families of Shephard groups with well-behaved parabolic subgroups and points toward a fundamental geometry for graphs of coset geometries.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the translation of incidence-geometric properties into group-theoretic identities. A coset system $(G,(G_i)_{i\in I})$ is flag-transitive exactly when $G_J G_i = \bigcap_{j\in J} G_j G_i$ for all subsets $J$ and types $i$ outside $J$, and residual connectedness is equivalent to each parabolic subgroup $G_J$ being generated by the maximal parabolics that contain it properly. For each construction—free product, amalgam, HNN-extension, semidirect product, twisting—the parabolic subgroups of the new system are shown to be special subgroups of the corresponding group-theoretic composite, and technical lemmas prove that intersections and products of such special subgroups obey the identities needed to transfer these criteria from the factors to the composite.

What would settle it

Concrete test: take a flag-transitive residually connected coset system $\alpha$ whose type set has two or more orbits of size greater than one under an admissible action of a group $B$, and set $\beta$ to a flag-transitive system on $B$. If the resulting $T(\alpha,\beta)$ fails flag-transitivity or residual connectedness, then the single-orbit restriction in the twisting theorem is essential. A simpler check is to take an action that satisfies all of Definition 4.5 except the orbit-intersection property and verify whether the conclusion of Proposition 4.9 still holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a family of preservation theorems. For compatible coset incidence systems, the free product and amalgamated product systems are flag-transitive and residually connected exactly when the factors are, and the same holds for firmness and thinness. For an admissible isomorphism between two parabolic subgroups of a single system, the HNN-extension system preserves flag-transitivity, residual connectedness, and firmness. For a semidirect action that is admissible and has exactly one non-singleton orbit on types satisfying the orbit-intersection property, the twisting system preserves flag-transitivity, residual connectedness, finiteness, firmness, and thinness. In the thin case, the constructions send regular hypertopes to regular hypertopes.

Load-bearing premise

The constructions require the input systems to satisfy compatibility or admissibility conditions; the most restrictive is the twisting condition that the action have exactly one non-singleton orbit on types and satisfy the orbit-intersection property. The paper itself notes that multiple non-singleton orbits are not handled, so if that property fails the twisting construction is not proven to preserve the advertised properties.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Regular hypertopes are closed under free products, amalgamated products, and twisting, so each operation produces a new regular hypertope from old ones.
  • Shephard groups built as free products or twistings of Coxeter and Artin–Tits groups have parabolic subgroups satisfying $\langle J\rangle\cap\langle K\rangle=\langle J\cap K\rangle$ and the factorization identity $\langle J\rangle\langle K\rangle\cap\langle J\rangle\langle L\rangle=\langle J\rangle(\langle K\rangle\cap\langle L\rangle)$, making their coset complexes flag complexes.
  • The proposed graph-of-coset-systems construction produces a fundamental geometry that is independent of the chosen spanning tree in the worked example, supporting a graph-of-groups theory for coset geometries.
  • The operations preserve finiteness, firmness, and thinness under the stated hypotheses, so the new geometries inherit the full package of regularity from the inputs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The compatibility and admissibility conditions look like exactly the conditions needed for the parabolic subgroups of the composite to be special in the normal-form sense; if that is the true mechanism, the conditions may be replaceable by a single lattice-isomorphism condition rather than a list of separate hypotheses.
  • The single-orbit restriction on twisting suggests a natural extension: iterating twistings with different groups could build geometries whose type set carries several non-singleton orbits, effectively producing orbifold-like coset geometries; the paper leaves this as future work.
  • A universal-property characterization—showing that the constructed systems are initial objects in a suitable category of coset geometries over the inputs—would settle whether these are the correct analogues of the group operations; the paper explicitly raises this question.
  • If the orbit-intersection property is equivalent to the orbit map preserving intersections of parabolic subgroups of the acting system, then checking admissibility reduces to a finite combinatorial check whenever that acting system is finite.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper defines coset incidence systems for free products, free products with amalgamation, HNN-extensions, semidirect products, and a twisting operation, and claims that under compatibility or admissibility conditions these constructions preserve flag-transitivity, residual connectedness, firmness, and in thin cases regularity. The second half applies the constructions to Shephard groups, deriving parabolic intersection properties and flag-complex statements, and sketches a notion of graph of coset incidence systems. The main load-bearing results are the preservation theorems, Theorems 3.8, 3.23, 3.35, and 4.12.

Significance. If the preservation theorems are correct, the paper offers a useful systematic framework for gluing coset geometries and for proving flag-transitivity and residual connectedness in one stroke; the Shephard-group applications give concrete, checkable intersection properties and connect the framework to existing families such as B_n(2,∞). A positive feature is that the arguments largely reduce to quoted external criteria (Theorem 2.1, Theorem 2.3, normal-form theorems for free products and HNN-extensions), which makes the main claims independently checkable. However, the HNN-extension preservation theorem contains a serious proof gap, so the paper as it stands is not complete.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, Lemma 3.29(b)] The proof of Lemma 3.29(b) is not valid as written. After writing w=cd with c the longest prefix of w belonging to C, the proof asserts that if w∈CE then the suffix d belongs to E, 'as in the reduced word case'. This inference is justified for free products because every suffix of a reduced free-product word is again reduced, but it is not justified for HNN-extensions: membership in E=⟨E_A,t⟩ is not suffix-closed in general, since Britton normal forms can contain pins whose allowed placement depends on the deleted prefix. Neither specialness of the subgroups nor the longest-prefix choice repairs this. Because Lemma 3.29(b) is the mechanism used to prove G_SG_Q∩G_SG_L=G_S(G_Q∩G_L) in Theorem 3.35, the flag-transitivity of α∗φ is not established unless this lemma is either repaired with a correct proof or replaced by a different argument.
  2. [§3.3, Theorem 3.35] The proof of Theorem 3.35 is incomplete in Cases 1–4. Each case is dismissed with 'following a similar proof' or 'as in Case 1', and these cases are exactly the ones involving the stable letter t, where the suffix-closure problem from Lemma 3.29(b) arises. In particular, from g=aq with a∈G_S and q∈G_Q, the proof directly concludes q∈G_L when g∈G_SG_L; this is the same unsupported inference. A complete proof needs either a detailed normal-form argument for the HNN-extension or a different derivation of the required intersection equality. As it stands, the main new claim of §3.3 is not fully supported.
  3. [§4.2, Proposition 4.10] The last case of the residual-connectedness proof for the twisting is only sketched. To prove that A_{(L∖O_{Jβ})∪Jα} is contained in ⟨G_{J∪{i}}, G_{J∪{j}}⟩, the text says either 'notice' that the containment holds or that one can use the B_{Jβ}-factor of G_{J∪{j}} acting on the A-factor of G_{J∪{i}} to transform it into the desired subgroup. This is not a detailed argument, and the orbit notation makes it hard to verify. Since residual connectedness of T(α,β) is one of the advertised preservation properties, a full proof of this containment should be supplied.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3, Definition 3.31 and surrounding text] The notation A_S is used both for an intersection of maximal parabolics and for a subgroup generated by them; for example, A_S=∩_{s∈S}A_s and later A_S=⟨A_s∣s∈S⟩ appear with the same symbol. Please use distinct notations such as A_S^{∩} and A_S^{gen} to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [§2.1, Lemma 2.5] Statements (c) and (d) in Lemma 2.5 are identical as printed, and the proof merely says (c)⇔(d) trivially. Presumably one statement should refer to the intersection-based parabolic and the other to the generated parabolic; please correct this.
  3. [§4.2, Definition 4.5 and Lemma 4.7] The orbit notation is confusing because O_J is redefined immediately before Definition 4.6; the reader must carefully track whether O_J means the orbit under B_{Iβ\J} or under B_J. Please state the convention once and use it consistently in Definition 4.6, Lemma 4.7, and Proposition 4.9.
  4. [§4.2, Proposition 4.10] There is a typo in the final case: 'j ∈ K \ J2' should read 'j ∈ K \ Jα'.
  5. [§5.4, Example 5.18] The verification that the three choices of spanning trees give isomorphic fundamental coset geometries is very condensed, especially the identifications of the parabolic subgroups such as H_J≅G_J. Since this example motivates the proposed Bass-Serre theory, it would benefit from a table of the type sets and maximal parabolics for each spanning tree.
  6. [§6] Section 6 correctly concedes that the twisting construction handles only one non-singleton orbit; it would be helpful to state this restriction explicitly in the abstract or in the statement of Theorem 4.12 so that readers do not over-interpret the advertised general framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the preservation theorems deduce flag-transitivity and residual connectedness from the corresponding input properties via explicit transfer lemmas, and the sole self-citation to [14] is introductory, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are preservation theorems for coset incidence systems under free products, amalgamated products, HNN-extensions, semidirect products, and twisting. In each case the construction is an explicit definition of new coset incidence systems (Definitions 3.3, 3.19, 3.31, 4.1, 4.6), and the preservation proofs are direct reductions to the external flag-transitivity and residual-connectedness criteria of Theorem 2.1, Proposition 2.2, Theorem 2.3, and Lemma 2.5, combined with the transfer lemmas Lemma 3.2, Lemma 3.15, Lemma 3.29, and Lemma 4.7. The hypotheses of those transfer lemmas are the flag-transitivity conditions of the input geometries, so the argument is a genuine derivation rather than a restatement of the conclusion. Compatibility and admissibility conditions are explicit hypotheses of the constructions, not properties extracted from the target conclusion; for example, the orbit-intersection property in Definition 4.5 is an input condition, and Section 6 explicitly records the limitation that the twisting construction is not extended to multiple non-singleton orbits. The applications to Shephard groups are also non-circular: Theorem 5.4 uses the free-product theorem, and Propositions 5.12 and 5.13 prove an isomorphism between a twisting geometry and the Shephard group Bn(2,∞) by Tietze transformations, then derive parabolic-intersection properties from the already-established flag-transitivity and residual connectedness of the twisting geometry, rather than assuming those intersection properties as input. The only self-citation, reference [14], appears in the introduction as background on the authors' earlier halving construction and is not used as a premise in any preservation proof. The skeptical concern about the suffix-closure inference in Lemma 3.29(b) and Theorem 3.35 is a potential correctness gap in a transfer lemma, not a circularity: the theorem does not assume the conclusion it proves, and a failure of Lemma 3.29(b) would make the proof incomplete rather than tautological. Accordingly, no step of the claimed derivation reduces by definition, by fitted input, or by self-citation to its own target.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The central claims depend on standard results in combinatorial group theory and on restrictive admissibility conditions that are introduced for this paper; verifying whether these conditions are necessary is left open.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Normal form theorems for free products, amalgamated products, and HNN-extensions (Britton's Lemma), as cited from Lyndon-Schupp [35].
    Used in Section 3 to compare intersections of special subgroups and to reduce words; no proof is given in the paper.
  • standard math Buekenhout-Cohen criteria for flag-transitivity, residual connectedness, firmness, and thinness of coset incidence systems (Theorems 2.1, 2.3, 2.6, 2.7).
    These quoted results from [18] are the group-theoretic testbed for the preservation theorems.
  • standard math Coxeter and Artin-Tits parabolic intersection properties (Proposition 2.10 and Theorem 2.11).
    Inputs for Theorem 2.12 and for the Shephard-group applications; cited to Bourbaki [32] and Godelle-Paris [7].
  • domain assumption The input coset incidence systems are flag-transitive, residually connected, and satisfy the relevant (RC1), (FIRM), or (THIN) conditions.
    Each preservation theorem is conditional on these hypotheses on alpha and beta; they are stated explicitly in Sections 3 and 4.
  • ad hoc to paper Compatibility and admissibility conditions (compatibility on L, admissible isomorphisms, and (beta, phi)-admissibility with the single-orbit and IPO conditions) are sufficient for the constructions.
    These are new definitions introduced to make the proofs work; no universal property or necessity result is given, and Section 6 concedes the HNN-extension type set choice is not forced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Group Operations to Geometric Structures: Amalgamations, HNN-Extensions, and Twisting in Coset Geometries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RTS7KCSA

@misc{pith2026250524662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Group Operations to Geometric Structures: Amalgamations, HNN-Extensions, and Twisting in Coset Geometries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RTS7KCSA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24662}
}
read the original abstract

Coset incidence geometries, introduced by Jacques Tits, provide a versatile framework for studying the interplay between group theory and geometry. In this article, we build upon that idea by extending classical group-theoretic constructions (amalgamated products, HNN-extensions, semi-direct products, and twisting) to the setting of coset geometries. This gives a general way to glue together incidence geometries in various ways. This provides a general framework for combining or gluing incidence geometries in different ways while preserving essential properties such as flag-transitivity and residual connectedness. Using these techniques, we analyze families of Shephard groups, which generalize both Coxeter and Artin-Tits groups, and their associated simplicial complexes. Our results also point to the existence of a Bass-Serre theory for coset geometries and of a fundamental geometry of a graph of coset geometries.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sur les analogues alg´ ebriques des groupes semi-simples complexes,

    J. Tits, “Sur les analogues alg´ ebriques des groupes semi-simples complexes,” in Col- loque d’alg` ebre sup´ erieure, tenu ` a Bruxelles du 19 au 22 d´ ecembre 1956, Centre Belge de Recherches Math´ ematiques, pp. 261–289,´Etablissements Ceuterick, Louvain, 1957

    work page 1956

  2. [2]

    G´ eom´ etries poly´ edriques et groupes simples,

    J. Tits, “G´ eom´ etries poly´ edriques et groupes simples,” inAtti della II Riunione del Groupement des Math´ ematiciens d’Expression Latine, pp. 66–88, Edizioni Cremonese, 1963

    1963

  3. [3]

    Buekenhout, ed., Handbook of incidence geometry

    F. Buekenhout, ed., Handbook of incidence geometry . Oxford, England: North- Holland Publishing, 1995

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    Tits, Buildings of spherical type and finite BN-pairs

    J. Tits, Buildings of spherical type and finite BN-pairs. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 386, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1974

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    Abramenko and K

    P. Abramenko and K. S. Brown, Buildings: Theory and Applications . Springer New York, 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    On some bruhat decomposition and the structure of the Hecke rings of p-adic Chevalley groups,

    N. Iwahori and H. Matsumoto, “On some bruhat decomposition and the structure of the Hecke rings of p-adic Chevalley groups,” Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. , vol. 25, no. 1, p. 5–48, 1965

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    K( π, 1) and word problems for infinite type artin–tits groups, and applications to virtual braid groups,

    E. Godelle and L. Paris, “K( π, 1) and word problems for infinite type artin–tits groups, and applications to virtual braid groups,”Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 272, p. 1339–1364, Feb. 2012

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    The K( π,1)-problem for hyperplane complements associated to infinite reflection groups,

    R. Charney and M. W. Davis, “The K( π,1)-problem for hyperplane complements associated to infinite reflection groups,” J. Amer. Math. Soc. , vol. 8, no. 3, p. 597, 1995. FROM GROUP OPERATIONS TO GEOMETRIC STRUCTURES 59

    work page 1995

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Topology of the complement of real hyperplanes in C N ,

    M. Salvetti, “Topology of the complement of real hyperplanes in C N ,” Inventiones Mathematicae, vol. 88, p. 603–618, Oct. 1987

    1987

  2. [10]

    K( π,1) conjecture for artin groups,

    L. Paris, “K( π,1) conjecture for artin groups,” in Annales de la Facult´ e des sciences de Toulouse: Math´ ematiques, vol. 23, pp. 361–415, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Highly symmetric hypertopes,

    M. E. Fernandes, D. Leemans, and A. I. Weiss, “Highly symmetric hypertopes,” Aequationes Math., vol. 90, no. 5, pp. 1045–1067, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Abelian covers of regular hypertopes,

    W.-J. Zhang, “Abelian covers of regular hypertopes,” Journal of Algebra , vol. 650, pp. 123–144, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Hexagonal extensions of toroidal maps and hypermaps,

    M. E. Fernandes, D. Leemans, and A. I. Weiss, “Hexagonal extensions of toroidal maps and hypermaps,” in Discrete Geometry and Symmetry: Dedicated to K´ aroly Bezdek and Egon Schulte on the Occasion of Their 60th Birthdays , pp. 147–170, Springer, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Constructing new geometries: A generalized ap- proach to halving for hypertopes,

    C. A. Piedade and P. Tranchida, “Constructing new geometries: A generalized ap- proach to halving for hypertopes,” Combinatorica, vol. 45, Jan. 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Rank 4 toroidal hypertopes,

    E. Ens, “Rank 4 toroidal hypertopes,” Ars Mathematica Contemporanea , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 67–79, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Flag transitive geometries with trialities and no dualities coming from suzuki groups,

    D. Leemans, K. Stokes, and P. Tranchida, “Flag transitive geometries with trialities and no dualities coming from suzuki groups,”Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, vol. 213, p. 106033, 2025

    2025

  9. [17]

    Infinite families of hypertopes from centrally symmetric polytopes,

    C. A. Piedade, “Infinite families of hypertopes from centrally symmetric polytopes,” The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics , pp. P2–20, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    Buekenhout and A

    F. Buekenhout and A. M. Cohen, Diagram geometry: related to classical groups and buildings, vol. 57. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    McMullen and E

    P. McMullen and E. Schulte, Abstract regular polytopes, vol. 92. Cambridge University Press, 2002

    2002

  12. [20]

    Generalized free products with amalgamated subgroups,

    H. Neumann, “Generalized free products with amalgamated subgroups,” American Journal of Mathematics , vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 590–625, 1948

    1948

  13. [21]

    Embedding theorems for groups,

    G. Higman, B. H. Neumann, and H. Neuman, “Embedding theorems for groups,” Journal of the London Mathematical Society , vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 247–254, 1949

    1949

  14. [22]

    Serre, Trees

    J.-P. Serre, Trees. Springer Science & Business Media, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    A combination theorem for negatively curved groups,

    M. Bestvina and M. Feighn, “A combination theorem for negatively curved groups,” Journal of Differential Geometry , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 85–101, 1992

    1992

  16. [24]

    Klein–maskit combination theorem for anosov subgroups: amalgams,

    S. Dey and M. Kapovich, “Klein–maskit combination theorem for anosov subgroups: amalgams,” Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) , vol. 2025, no. 819, pp. 1–43, 2025

    2025

  17. [25]

    On representation varieties of artin groups, projective arrangements and the fundamental groups of smooth complex algebraic varieties,

    M. Kapovich and J. J. Millson, “On representation varieties of artin groups, projective arrangements and the fundamental groups of smooth complex algebraic varieties,” Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. , vol. 88, no. 1, p. 5–95, 1998

    1998

  18. [26]

    CAT(0) and cubulated Shephard groups,

    K. M. Goldman, “CAT(0) and cubulated Shephard groups,” J. Lond. Math. Soc. , vol. 111, no. 1, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Finite unitary reflection groups,

    G. C. Shephard and J. A. Todd, “Finite unitary reflection groups,” Canadian Journal of Mathematics , vol. 6, p. 274–304, 1954

    1954

  20. [28]

    Simple dual braids, noncrossing partitions and Mikado braids of type Dn,

    B. Baumeister and T. Gobet, “Simple dual braids, noncrossing partitions and Mikado braids of type Dn,” Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society , vol. 49, no. 6, p. 1048–1065, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Artin groups of Euclidean type,

    J. McCammond and R. Sulway, “Artin groups of Euclidean type,” Invent. Math. , vol. 210, no. 1, p. 231–282, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Proof of the K(π, 1) conjecture for affine Artin groups,

    G. Paolini and M. Salvetti, “Proof of the K(π, 1) conjecture for affine Artin groups,” Invent. Math. , vol. 224, no. 2, p. 487–572, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Pasini, Diagram Geometries

    A. Pasini, Diagram Geometries. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, Sept. 1994

    1994

  24. [32]

    Bourbaki, Groupes et alg` ebres de Lie - Chapitres 4, 5 et 6

    N. Bourbaki, Groupes et alg` ebres de Lie - Chapitres 4, 5 et 6 . Berlin, Germany: Springer, Dec. 2006. 60 CLAUDIO ALEXANDRE PIEDADE AND PHILIPPE TRANCHIDA

    2006

  25. [33]

    Van der Lek, The homotopy type of complex hyperplane complements

    H. Van der Lek, The homotopy type of complex hyperplane complements . PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen, 1983

    1983

  26. [34]

    Magnus, A

    W. Magnus, A. Karrass, and D. Solitar, Combinatorial group theory: Presentations of groups in terms of generators and relations . Courier Corporation, 2004

    2004

  27. [35]

    R. C. Lyndon and P. E. Schupp, Combinatorial Group Theory . Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 2001

    2001

  28. [36]

    Generalized free products with amalgamated subgroups, part i,

    H. Neumann, “Generalized free products with amalgamated subgroups, part i,” American Journal of Mathematics , vol. 70, p. 590, July 1948

    1948

  29. [37]

    An atlas of small regular abstract polytopes,

    M. I. Hartley, “An atlas of small regular abstract polytopes,” Periodica Mathematica Hungarica, vol. 53, p. 149–156, Sept. 2006. Claudio Alexandre Piedade, Centro de Matem ´atica da Universidade do Porto, Universidade do Porto, Portugal, Orcid number 0000-0002-0746-5893 Email ...

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.