On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:41:23PM +0100, p...@mcs.st-and.ac.uk wrote: > It may be worse than you thought. I just got this from Martin Roeteller: > > |Dear Peter, > | > |I was wrong in three ways: first of all it was not about the > |classification of crystallographic groups, it was about the > |finite subgroups of SU(n). And the dimension was not as > |large as n=20, it was as small as n=3 (!!). And the > |original classification was not due to Kneser, as I > |thought, but was due to Blichfeldt.
This seems to be a different story, as SU (rather than GU) adds complications, and as it's not restricted to primitive linear groups... > | > |The paper is Ludl, "Comments on the classification of the > |finite subgroups of SU(3)", J Phys A Math Theory 44:255204, > |2011. Also on the arxiv at http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2308 > |and http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.3746. Apparently he found > |missing subgroups, the smallest one being a split extension > |of order 162. > | > |Best, > |Martin > > > > Dear all, > > > > has onyone compiled such a list, which would incorporate the > > classically known lists due to Blichfeldt for n=4 (with corrections), > > etc? > > (in particular the case n=4 is a bit questionable, as there were > > repeated publications of incomplete lists in this case). > > > > Thanks, > > Dima > > > > PS. an irreducible representation of a finite group is called > > primitive if it is not induced from a representation of a subgroup. _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum@mail.gap-system.org http://mail.gap-system.org/mailman/listinfo/forum
