Talk:Feit–Thompson theorem

message: A few very minor changes here to the previous text: the trivial character of A needs to be avoided if we are going to call the resulting characters of
G exceptional. Also, as previously written, if we take X_1 and X_2 to be irreducible characters of A which are in the same orbit under the action of the normalizer of A, then the result when X_1 - X_2 is induced to G
will be zero, not a virtual character of weight two. This is why I re-phrased things in terms of characters of the normalizer, (avoiding characters whose kernels contain A).
: Messagetolove 04:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to outline of proof and comparison to CA group proof

message: "Some of these dwarfed even the Feit–Thompson paper; one was over 1000 pages long." - Just out of curiosity... which? -- Schneelocke 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know which article the original editor was talking about, but if one were flexible enough, the two volume "paper" titled "The classification of quasithin groups." by Aschbacher and Smith is 1221 pages long.  It is more or less a single long article, and is more or less a necessary part of both the original and the revised proof, though it did not appear until 2004.  The math review says "In 1983, Danny Gorenstein announced the completion of the classification of the finite simple groups.  All of the major constituent theorems were published by 1983 with one exception. This exception was at last removed and the classification has now been completed with the publication of the two monographs under review."  A quick check of mathscinet shows lots of 100 page articles and specialized monographs of a few hundred pages, so while 1000 is a little out of the ordinary, a few hundred is not.  JackSchmidt 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long papers 

message: It may be worth mentioning the (much easier) Burnside's theorem for comparison here.  Tkuvho (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one instance of Burnside's theorem that does not follow directly from the truth of the Feit-Thompson theorem; namely, that groups of order 2aqb are solvable for a and b non-negative integers, and q prime (since such groups are of even order for a>0). Of course, if p and q are odd primes, then the fact that any group of order paqb is solvable (for a and b non-negative integers), follows easily from the Feit-Thompson theorem. PST 01:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with Burnside's theorem 

message: Namely, that all nonabelian finite simple groups -- aka all noncyclic finite simple groups -- are of even order.  Or am I missing something here?Daqu (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all true propositions are equivalent to 1 = 1, but logical equivalence is no criterion for whether a statement is "necessary" or advisable in a Wikipedia article. The audience isn't exclusively research mathematicians, as you may know.  And even in professional texts, important equivalent statements are usually listed together in a "The following are equivalent" type of theorem.  So I find your comment to be beside the point.Daqu (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I don't want to get drawn into a long discussion, and you are certainly entitled to your view about what I said, but in this case, it is much stronger than an abstract logical equivalence between the two statements. The actual paper is concerned with proving that there is no (non-cyclic) finite simple group of odd order with all proper subgroups solvable. If there were a non-Abelian finite simple group of odd order, there would be one of least order, and all its proper subgroups would be solvable, which is excluded by Feit-Thompson. There is nothing to stop someone making that remark somewhere in the text of the main article.Messagetolove (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently your are even averse to short discussions.Daqu (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the article mention this important consequence explicitly? 

message: I think this is relevant: http://www.msr-inria.inria.fr/events-news/feit-thompson-proved-in-coq  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.205.47.184 (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coq Proof 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Feit–Thompson theorem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161119094854/http://www.msr-inria.fr/news/feit-thomson-proved-in-coq/ to http://www.msr-inria.fr/news/feit-thomson-proved-in-coq/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified