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. | |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 > _______________________________________________ Forum mailing list Forum@mail.gap-system.org http://mail.gap-system.org/mailman/listinfo/forum
