Profinite geometric iterated monodromy groups of postcritically finite polynomials in degree 3

Dean Wardell; Mikhail Hlushchanka; Olga Lukina

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 34 references

Profinite geometric iterated monodromy groups of postcritically finite polynomials in degree 3

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that for postcritically finite cubic polynomials over number fields satisfying a mild preimage condition, the profinite geometric iterated monodromy group is finitely invariably generated and is determined up to conjugacy…

desk verdict Strong extension of Pink's program to non-unicritical cubics; the flagged model-group independence gap is real but minor and repairable. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05033 v1 pith:VKLYJQYN submitted 2025-07-07 math.DS math.GRmath.NT

Mikhail Hlushchanka , Olga Lukina , Dean Wardell This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DSmath.GRmath.NT MSC 37P0537B0537F10

keywords polynomialdynamicsprofiniteiteratedmonodromygroupsautomorphismsoftreesself-similaractionsinvariablegeneratingsetsregularbranchtorsion

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

The paper studies profinite geometric iterated monodromy groups attached to postcritically finite (PCF) cubic polynomials over number fields. Such a group is a closed subgroup of the automorphism group of a ternary rooted tree, and it can be viewed as a generic representation of the absolute Galois group of the field. The main result is that, under a mild hypothesis on preimages of postcritical points, this profinite group is finitely invariably generated, and its isomorphism class is determined entirely by the combinatorial ramification portrait of the polynomial. The proof works by constructing an explicit model group from the portrait, showing that every geometric iterated monodromy group in the class is conjugate to its model, and then proving that the model groups have the stated algebraic properties. If correct, this gives a complete classification of these profinite groups by a finite combinatorial datum, along with control over branch structure and torsion.

What carries the argument

The central device is the (Y)-restricted model group, a profinite subgroup of $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ generated by $r+2$ recursively defined elements $a=(x,1,1)(1\,2)$, $b=(1,1,y)(2\,3)$, and $c_i=(c_{i,1},c_{i,2},c_{i,3})$, whose first-level sections are exactly the model generators attached to postcritical points, each occurring once. Wreath recursions of this sparse form, with the nontrivial sections placed on an orbit transversal, encode the ramification portrait; the paper proves that each standard generator of $G_{\mathrm{geom}}(f)$ is conjugate to such an element, and that a group generated by conjugates of model generators together with an odometer is conjugate to the model group itself. The odometer (an element acting transitively on every level) is the additional generator that makes the standard generating set invariably generate.

What would settle it

Compute the level-two or level-three permutation action of a standard generator $g_p$ for an explicit cubic PCF polynomial satisfying (Y), for instance one realizing a portrait from the paper's examples; if $g_p$ is not conjugate in $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ to the sparse wreath recursion $(g_{q_1},1,1)(1\,2)$ or one of its listed alternatives, Theorem 1.5 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For every degree-3 PCF polynomial $f$ over a number field whose ramification portrait has exactly one vertex with three incoming edges (Assumption (Y)), the standard generating set $S=\{g_p: p\in P(f)\}$ of the profinite geometric iterated monodromy group $G_{\mathrm{geom}}(f)$ is an invariable generating set, so $G_{\mathrm{geom}}(f)$ is finitely invariably generated; and whenever two such polynomials have isomorphic ramification portraits, their groups are conjugate by an automorphism of the ternary rooted tree $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$. The generator $g_\infty$ corresponding to the infinite critical point must be included in the invariable generating set, in contrast to the unicritical cases treated earlier. The same portrait also determines branch and torsion structure: $G_{\mathrm{geom}}(f)$ is regular branch over the closure of its commutator subgroup and contains torsion elements of every order realizable in $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the normal-form assertion (Proposition 3.5(ii)) that each standard generator $g_p$ is conjugate in $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$ to a wreath recursion whose only nontrivial first-level sections are the generators attached to postcritical preimages of $p$; if any standard generator escaped this sparse form, the model groups would not represent $G_{\mathrm{geom}}(f)$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If two cubic PCF polynomials satisfying (Y) have isomorphic ramification portraits, their profinite geometric iterated monodromy groups are conjugate in $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$; the portrait is a complete invariant up to tree automorphism.
The standard generating set including $g_\infty$ is an invariable generating set, so $G_{\mathrm{geom}}(f)$ is finitely invariably generated, a stronger property than finite topological generation.
$G_{\mathrm{geom}}(f)$ is regular branch over the closure of its commutator subgroup and contains torsion of every order $2^m3^n$ realizable in $\mathrm{Aut}(T)$.
For cubic polynomials with disjoint critical orbits and divisibility conditions on orbit lengths, the associated groups form filtrations: one group can be conjugated into another, as in Theorem 1.9.
The classification extends the quadratic and unicritical programs to cubic polynomials with two distinct finite critical points, with the new feature that the infinite critical point's generator is needed for invariable generation.

Reading between the lines

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

The portrait-to-group dictionary suggests the same rigidity may hold for higher-degree PCF maps: the ramification portrait, not the field of definition, could be the organizing invariant for geometric iterated monodromy groups, as asked in the paper's Problem 1.11.
The necessity of $g_\infty$ suggests that finite invariable generating sets for PCF groups generally require an element with full level transitivity, so odometer-free groups (such as some arithmetic iterated monodromy groups) may fail finite invariable generation.
The model-group technique may transfer to algebraic settings over fields of characteristic prime to 2 and 3, where groups are defined by algebraic paths rather than topological petals, as the authors explicitly note.
One could test portrait rigidity computationally: enumerate cubic ramification portraits and compare finite level-$n$ quotients of the model groups to detect whether any two distinct portraits yield the same profinite group, refining the filtration result.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a solid, genuinely new contribution. It carries Pink's quadratic program to cubic PCF polynomials with two finite critical points under Assumption (Y), and it does so honestly: the new infinite-critical-point generator for invariable generation is a real phenomenon, not a cosmetic tweak. The model groups are clearly defined, the branch and torsion results are plausible and well-motivated, and the paper is refreshingly explicit about the profinite-versus-discrete subtlety in Theorem 1.5(ii).

The main theorems are supported by coherent long inductions. I cannot machine-verify them, and the authors do leave a number of steps as 'straightforward,' but I did not find circularity or a hidden assumption of the conclusion. The reliance on Proposition 3.5(ii) (the sparse normal form for standard generators) is real, but that is standard iterated-monodromy theory and the paper states it as a structural tool rather than smuggling it in.

The stress-test note about Theorem 1.5(ii) has a point but overstates it. Remark 4.6 asserts model-group independence from the choice of which critical value gets (1 2) versus (2 3) without proof. That is a genuine expository gap. It is not a fatal flaw: conjugating by the tree automorphism that swaps coordinates 1 and 3 (with trivial sections) sends (1 2) to (2 3), swaps the first and third sections of the recursive generators, and therefore conjugates the two candidate model groups. One sentence would fix Remark 4.6. The same coordinate swap handles the case where the portrait has an automorphism interchanging the critical orbits, so Theorem 1.5(ii) survives.

The other soft spots are minor: a few external citations carry weight (e.g., the odometer product claim from Nekrashevych), and the induction in Section 5 could use a small expansion where it says 'straightforward.' The class of polynomials is restricted by (Y), but the paper is clear about that and explains why unicritical cubics fall outside.

Who should read this: people working on arboreal Galois representations, self-similar groups, and Pink's program. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: accept, with a request to fill in the one-line justification in Remark 4.6 and to tighten the few hand-waved verification steps.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper studies profinite geometric iterated monodromy groups of postcritically finite cubic polynomials over number fields satisfying Assumption (Y). For such polynomials, the authors introduce explicit '(Y)-restricted model groups' generated by recursively defined automorphisms of the ternary rooted tree. Their main results are: (i) the standard generating set of Ggeom(f), including the generator at infinity, is an invariable generating set; (ii) Ggeom(f) is determined up to conjugation in Aut(T) by the ramification portrait of f; (iii) such groups are regular branch over the closure of their commutator subgroup and contain torsion elements of all orders realizable in Aut(T); and (iv) a filtration or inclusion result for groups associated to polynomials with disjoint critical orbits under divisibility conditions. The proofs combine conjugacy criteria in Aut(T), an induction on tree levels, and the combinatorial structure of the portrait. The paper is largely self-contained, developing the needed conjugacy results in Section 2 and the iterated monodromy background in Section 3.

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial advance beyond the unicritical cases treated by Pink and by Adams and Hyde. The model-group description gives a concrete, portrait-dependent presentation of Ggeom(f), and the invariable generation result is new, with the generator at infinity playing an essential role. The paper also establishes strong structural properties, namely regular branch behavior and the full torsion spectrum realizable in Aut(T). The self-contained treatment of conjugacy in the automorphism group of a rooted tree is a useful contribution in its own right, and the model groups are defined without free parameters. The main claims are concrete and falsifiable. The proofs are detailed, though a few steps are delegated to 'straightforward' verification or to external references.

major comments (1)

[§4, Remark 4.6 and §5.3, proof of Theorem 1.5(ii)] The construction of the (Y)-restricted model group in Proposition 4.5 depends on an arbitrary choice of which finite critical value is assigned the first-level transposition (1 2) and which is assigned (2 3). Remark 4.6 asserts without proof that Gmodel(f) is determined by the ramification portrait up to relabeling, and the proof of Theorem 1.5(ii) relies on this to assume that G = G' when the ramification portraits of f and f' are isomorphic. If the portrait admits an automorphism interchanging the two finite critical orbits, the two possible labelings give a priori different recursive systems, and no argument is given that the resulting closed subgroups of Aut(T) are equal or W-conjugate. This is load-bearing for the classification claim. To repair the proof, either show that swapping the labels conjugates the model group by a first-level permutation of the ternary tree, or, in the proof of Theorem 1.5(ii), choose the labels for f and f' compatibly with the given portrait isomorphism. As written, the classification proof is incomplete at this point.

minor comments (3)

[§5.1, proof of Theorem 5.1, Step 3] The elements u_{i,1}, u_{i,2} are chosen so that u_{i,k} gamma_{i,k} u_{i,k}^{-1} = c_{i,k}|_{T_{n-1}}, but the subsequent display conjugates C_i (whose sections are written as hat c_{i,k}) and concludes the result is c_i|_{T_n}. For the displayed equality to hold, the u_{i,k} should conjugate hat c_{i,k}, not gamma_{i,k}. This appears to be a typo, but it should be corrected for the induction step to be verifiable as written.
[§4, Proposition 4.5] The verification that the constructed automorphisms satisfy Condition (D) of Proposition 2.15 is not spelled out. Although it follows immediately from the form of the recursions (each cyclic section product is a generator or the identity), a short sentence would help the reader confirm that the application of Proposition 2.15 is legitimate.
[§1.2, Theorem 1.5(i)] The statement that the standard generating set S is invariable might be emphasized as including g_infty; the role of the infinite critical point generator is a key new phenomenon compared with the quadratic and unicritical cases, and the current phrasing in the abstract and introduction could be clearer on this point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity found; one unproved well-definedness assertion in Remark 4.6 is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained rather than circular. Standard generators are defined via p-petals in Section 3.3, and Proposition 3.5 derives their wreath-recursion normal form from the monodromy of the covering f^n: P^1 \ f^{-n}(P) -> P^1 \ P (Parts (i) and (ii)) plus the conjugacy criterion Proposition 2.10; it does not presuppose the classification. Proposition 4.5 then builds Gmodel(f) recursively from the ramification portrait (critical orbits and preimages in P), and Proposition 2.15 plus Corollary 4.1 are used to show each standard generator gp is W-conjugate to the corresponding model generator. This is a genuine transfer argument: the model group is defined by combinatorial data, not by the conclusion that Ggeom(f) is classified by the portrait. The invariable-generation statement (Theorem 5.1) and the conjugacy-of-groups statement (Theorem 5.5) are proved for model groups using the recursive conditions (Y1)-(Y4) and Lemma 4.9; no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction. Self-citations ([12], [20], and Hlushchanka's thesis) are background or illustrative; the load-bearing references for covering monodromy and portrait realization are external ([21], [26], [16]). The one flagged issue is not circular: Remark 4.6 asserts, without proof, that Gmodel(f) is 'canonical ... up to relabeling' and 'determined by the ramification portrait of f', and the proof of Theorem 1.5(ii) uses exactly this assertion ('As the ramification portraits of f and f' are isomorphic, we can assume that G = G'; see Remark 4.6'). That is an omitted well-definedness proof for the relabeling choice between the two finite critical values, not a reduction of the theorem's conclusion to its own input. If the two labelings were to produce non-conjugate model groups, Theorem 1.5(ii) would not follow from the written argument, but the gap is in a missing verification, not in a circular equation or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on standard monodromy theory, the specific domain assumption (Y), and two externally cited facts: the profinite-completion identification and the kneading-automaton odometer property. The realization theorem for polynomial portraits is used for the converse identification of model groups. No numerical free parameters are fitted, and the only invented object is the model group construction, which is explicitly derived from the portrait.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption f is a degree-3 PCF polynomial over a number field with two distinct finite critical points and satisfying Assumption (Y).
The entire theorem is stated for this class. Assumption (Y), defined in Section 1.2, is needed to force the normal forms in Corollary 4.1 and the structure of the model generators.
standard math Ggeom(f) is the profinite completion of the discrete iterated monodromy group (Jones, Nekrashevych).
Proposition 3.2 is quoted from the literature and identifies the profinite geometric iterated monodromy group with the profinite completion of the discrete iterated monodromy group for PCF maps. This identification is the bridge from topological monodromy to Galois groups.
standard math The product of model generators is an odometer (Lemma 4.7(ii), cited to Nekrashevych's kneading automaton theory).
This external result is used to supply an odometer in the invariable generating set for model groups. If it failed, the proof of Theorem 5.1(ii) would lose its canonical odometer.
standard math Realization of abstract polynomial portraits by Floyd, Kim, Koch, Parry, and Saenz.
This external theorem is used in Remark 4.6 to assert that every (Y)-restricted model group arises from some PCF cubic polynomial. It supports the identification of model groups with portraits in Theorem 1.5(ii), though the forward direction of the theorem does not logically require it.

invented entities (1)

(Y)-restricted model group
purpose: A canonical profinite subgroup of Aut(T) built from the ramification portrait by recursive wreath recursion formulas, used as a proxy for Ggeom(f) after conjugation.
This is a paper-specific mathematical construction, fully defined in Definition 4.3. It is not an unexplained empirical entity, but it has no existence criterion outside the paper itself; its validity is established by the proofs in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Profinite geometric iterated monodromy groups of postcritically finite polynomials in degree 3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VKLYJQYN

@misc{pith2026250705033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Profinite geometric iterated monodromy groups of postcritically finite polynomials in degree 3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VKLYJQYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05033}
}

read the original abstract

In this article, we study the properties of profinite geometric iterated monodromy groups associated to polynomials. Such groups can be seen as generic representations of absolute Galois groups of number fields into the automorphism group of a regular rooted tree. Our main result is that, for a degree 3 postcritically finite polynomial over a number field, where each finite postcritical point has at least one preimage outside the critical orbits, the associated profinite geometric iterated monodromy group is finitely invariably generated. Moreover, this group is determined by the isomorphism class of the ramification portrait of the polynomial, up to conjugation by an automorphism of the ternary rooted tree. We also study the group-theoretical properties of such groups, namely their branch and torsion properties. In particular, we show that such groups are regular branch over the closure of their commutator subgroup, and that they contain torsion elements of any order realizable in the ternary tree.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05033 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Critical orbits for two typical cases: left, both c1 and f(c1) are not periodic; right, c2 is periodic. By the proof of Theorem 1.5, Ggeom(f) is conjugate to a (Y)-restricted model group G, with the model generators given by Proposition 4.5. Here, one of the following two alternatives is realized for the postcritical orbit of each critical point ci , i = 1, 2: ● If the orbit of f(ci) is strictly pre-periodic, then t… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Adams and T

O. Adams and T. Hyde, Profinite iterated monodromy groups of unicritical polynomials , arXiv: 2504.13028, 2025

arXiv 2025
[2]

Ahmad, R.L

F. Ahmad, R.L. Benedetto, J. Cain, G. Carroll, and L. Fang, The arithmetic basilica: a quadratic PCF arboreal Galois group, J. Number Theory , 238: 842–868, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Aitken, F

W. Aitken, F. Hajir and C. Maire, Finitely ramified iterated extensions , Int. Math. Res. Not. , 14: 855–880, 2005

work page 2005
[4]

Bass and A

H. Bass and A. Lubotzky, Nonarithmetic superrigid groups: counterexamples to Platonov’s conjecture , Ann. of Math. (2) , 151: 1151–1173, 2000

work page 2000
[5]

R. L. Benedetto, X. Faber, B. Hutz, J. Juul and Y. Yasufuku, A large arboreal Galois representation for a cubic postcritically finite polynomial , Res. Number Theory , 3, Paper No. 29, 21 pp., 2017

work page 2017
[6]

Benedetto, W

R.L. Benedetto, W. DeGroot, X. Ni, J. Seid, A. Wei, and S. Winton, Arboreal Galois groups for cubic polynomials with colliding critical points , J. Number Theory , 274: 72–103, 2025

work page 2025
[7]

Boston and R

N. Boston and R. Jones, Arboreal Galois representations, Geom. Dedicata, 124: 27–35, 2007

work page 2007
[8]

Bridson and F.J

M.R. Bridson and F.J. Grunewald, Grothendieck’s problems concerning profinite completions and rep- resentations of groups , Ann. of Math. (2) , 160: 359–373, 2004

work page 2004

Show all 34 references

[9]

I. Bouw, O. Ejder, and V. Karemaker, Dynamical Belyi maps and arboreal Galois groups, Manuscripta Math., 165: 1–34, 2021

2021
[10]

Bridy, R

A. Bridy, R. Jones, G. Kelsey, and R. Lodge, Iterated monodromy groups of rational functions and periodic points over finite fields , Math. Ann., 390(1): 439–475, 2024

2024
[11]

Bridy and T

A. Bridy and T. Tucker, Finite index theorems for iterated Galois groups of cubic polynomials , Math. Ann., 373: 37–72, 2019

2019
[12]

Cortez and O

M.I. Cortez and O. Lukina, Settled elements in profinite groups , Adv. Math., 404, Paper No. 108424, 56 pp., 2022

2022
[13]

J. Dyer, S. Hurder and O. Lukina, Molino theory for matchbox manifolds , Pacific J. Math. , 289: 91–151, 2017. PROFINITE GEOMETRIC ITERATED MONODROMY GROUPS IN DEGREE 3 37

2017
[14]

Ejder, Arithmetic monodromy groups of dynamical Belyi maps , Arithmetic, geometry, cryptography, and coding theory 2021, Contemp

¨O. Ejder, Arithmetic monodromy groups of dynamical Belyi maps , Arithmetic, geometry, cryptography, and coding theory 2021, Contemp. Math., 779: 91–102, 2022

2021
[15]

Ejder, On the iterated monodromy groups of quadratic rational functions with periodic critical points, arXiv: 2401.14862, 2024

¨O. Ejder, On the iterated monodromy groups of quadratic rational functions with periodic critical points, arXiv: 2401.14862, 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Floyd, D

W. Floyd, D. Kim, S. Koch, W. Parry, and E. Saenz, Realizing polynomial portraits, arXiv:2105.10055, 2022

2022 arXiv
[17]

Forster, Lectures on Riemann surfaces , Grad

O. Forster, Lectures on Riemann surfaces , Grad. Texts in Math., vol. 81, Springer-Verlag, New York- Berlin, 1981

1981
[18]

Goksel, A local-global conjugacy question arising from arithmetic dynamics , Groups Geom

V. Goksel, A local-global conjugacy question arising from arithmetic dynamics , Groups Geom. Dyn., 18: 635–648, 2024

2024
[19]

Grothendieck, Repr´ esentations lin´ eaires et compactification profinie des groupes discrets , Manuscripta Math., 2: 375–396, 1970

A. Grothendieck, Repr´ esentations lin´ eaires et compactification profinie des groupes discrets , Manuscripta Math., 2: 375–396, 1970

1970
[20]

Hlushchanka, Invariant graphs, tilings, and iterated monodromy groups , Ph.D

M. Hlushchanka, Invariant graphs, tilings, and iterated monodromy groups , Ph.D. dissertation, Jacobs University Bremen, 2017

2017
[21]

Jones, Fixed-point-free elements of iterated monodromy groups , T rans

R. Jones, Fixed-point-free elements of iterated monodromy groups , T rans. Am. Math. Soc. 367.3: 2023–2049, 2015

2023
[22]

Th´ eorie des nombres et applications

R. Jones, Galois representations from pre-image trees: an arboreal survey , Actes de la conf´ erence “Th´ eorie des nombres et applications”, CIRM, Luminy, 107–136, 2013

2013
[23]

Kantor, A

W.M. Kantor, A. Lubotzky and A. Shalev, Invariable generation of infinite groups , J. Algebra , 421: 296–310, 2015

2015
[24]

Lubotzky, Torsion in profinite completions of torsion-free groups , Quart

A. Lubotzky, Torsion in profinite completions of torsion-free groups , Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2), 44: 327–332, 1993

1993
[25]

Lucchini, Invariable generation of iterated wreath products of cyclic groups, Beitr

A. Lucchini, Invariable generation of iterated wreath products of cyclic groups, Beitr. Algebra Geom., 58(3): 477–482, 2017

2017
[26]

Nekrashevych, Self-similar groups, Math

V. Nekrashevych, Self-similar groups, Math. Surveys Monogr., vol. 117, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005

2005
[27]

Nekrashevych An uncountable family of 3-generated groups with isomorphic profinite completions , Internat

V. Nekrashevych An uncountable family of 3-generated groups with isomorphic profinite completions , Internat. J. Algebra Comput. , 24(1): 33–46, 2014

2014
[28]

Pink, Profinite iterated monodromy groups arising from quadratic polynomials , arXiv:1307.5678

R. Pink, Profinite iterated monodromy groups arising from quadratic polynomials , arXiv:1307.5678

arXiv
[29]

Pink, Profinite iterated monodromy groups arising from quadratic morphisms with infinite postcritical orbits, arXiv:1309.5804

R. Pink, Profinite iterated monodromy groups arising from quadratic morphisms with infinite postcritical orbits, arXiv:1309.5804

arXiv
[30]

Platonov and O.I

V.P. Platonov and O.I. Tavgen, On the Grothendieck problem of profinite completions of groups , Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 288: 1054–1058, 1986

1986
[31]

Pyber, Groups of intermediate subgroup growth and a problem of Grothendieck , Duke Math

L. Pyber, Groups of intermediate subgroup growth and a problem of Grothendieck , Duke Math. J. , 121: 169–188, 2004

2004
[32]

Ribes and P

L. Ribes and P. Zalesskii, Profinite groups, Ergebn. der Mathematik, vol. 40, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000

2000
[33]

Wiegold, Transitive groups with fixed-point free permutations, Arch

J. Wiegold, Transitive groups with fixed-point free permutations, Arch. Math. (Basel), 27(5): 473–475, 1976

1976
[34]

Wiegold, Transitive groups with fixed-point-free permutations

J. Wiegold, Transitive groups with fixed-point-free permutations. II , Arch. Math. (Basel) , 29(6): 571–573, 1977. Mikhail Hlushchanka, Korteweg-de Vries Institute for Mathematics, University of Amster- dam, P.O. Box 94248, 1090 GE Amsterdam, The Netherlands, mikhail.hlushchan...

1977

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Adams and T

O. Adams and T. Hyde, Profinite iterated monodromy groups of unicritical polynomials , arXiv: 2504.13028, 2025

arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

Ahmad, R.L

F. Ahmad, R.L. Benedetto, J. Cain, G. Carroll, and L. Fang, The arithmetic basilica: a quadratic PCF arboreal Galois group, J. Number Theory , 238: 842–868, 2022

work page 2022

[3] [3]

Aitken, F

W. Aitken, F. Hajir and C. Maire, Finitely ramified iterated extensions , Int. Math. Res. Not. , 14: 855–880, 2005

work page 2005

[4] [4]

Bass and A

H. Bass and A. Lubotzky, Nonarithmetic superrigid groups: counterexamples to Platonov’s conjecture , Ann. of Math. (2) , 151: 1151–1173, 2000

work page 2000

[5] [5]

R. L. Benedetto, X. Faber, B. Hutz, J. Juul and Y. Yasufuku, A large arboreal Galois representation for a cubic postcritically finite polynomial , Res. Number Theory , 3, Paper No. 29, 21 pp., 2017

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Benedetto, W

R.L. Benedetto, W. DeGroot, X. Ni, J. Seid, A. Wei, and S. Winton, Arboreal Galois groups for cubic polynomials with colliding critical points , J. Number Theory , 274: 72–103, 2025

work page 2025

[7] [7]

Boston and R

N. Boston and R. Jones, Arboreal Galois representations, Geom. Dedicata, 124: 27–35, 2007

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Bridson and F.J

M.R. Bridson and F.J. Grunewald, Grothendieck’s problems concerning profinite completions and rep- resentations of groups , Ann. of Math. (2) , 160: 359–373, 2004

work page 2004