in article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, steven h. cullinane <email@example.com> wrote:
|Thanks for your reply. | |The answer to your question is "yes." | |As for the notation, a Google search on "AGL(n,q)" should convince |you that it is standard, and not my own invention. | |Don't feel bad. Your bafflement at standard group-theoretic notation |was shared by the brilliant John Baez. See his sci.math post of |March 29, 1993, on "Symplectic structures on finite groups"-- | |"I don't understand the 'AGL' business...."
perhaps you were baffled by the meaning of the phrase "your own notation"? i wasn't suggesting that you invented the notation or that it isn't a standard notation in some community, rather just commenting on the fact that i myself don't ordinarily use it, having dozens of other notations to use in its place, of some degree of standardness in some community.
my current favorite way of thinking about the homomorphism 4! -> 3! is as the "line at infinity in the projective completion" functor from affine planes to projective lines over the field z/2.