Every group has a terminating transfinite automorphism tower

The automorphism tower of a group is obtained by computing its automorphism group, the automorphism group of THAT group, and so on, iterating transfinitely. Each group maps canonically into the next using inner automorphisms, and so at limit stages one can take a direct limit and continue the iteration. The tower is said to terminate if a fixed point is reached, that is, if a group is reached which is isomorphic to its automorphism group by the natural map. This occurs if a complete group is reached, one which is centerless and has only inner automorphisms. Wielandt [1939] proved the classical result that the automorphism tower of any centerless finite group terminates in finitely many steps. Rae and Roseblade [1970] proved that the automorphism tower of any centerless Cernikov group terminates in finitely many steps. Hulse [1970] proved that the the automorphism tower of any centerless polycyclic group terminates in countably many steps. Simon Thomas [1985] proved that the automorphism tower of any centerless group eventually terminates. In this paper, I remove the centerless assumption, and prove that every group has a terminating transfinite automorphism tower.Comment: 4 pages, to appear in the Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, see also http://scholar.library.csi.cuny.edu/users/hamkins/papers.html#MyAutoTower

The modal logic of arithmetic potentialism and the universal algorithm

I investigate the modal commitments of various conceptions of the philosophy of arithmetic potentialism. Specifically, I consider the natural potentialist systems arising from the models of arithmetic under their natural extension concepts, such as end-extensions, arbitrary extensions, conservative extensions and more. In these potentialist systems, I show, the propositional modal assertions that are valid with respect to all arithmetic assertions with parameters are exactly the assertions of S4. With respect to sentences, however, the validities of a model lie between S4 and S5, and these bounds are sharp in that there are models realizing both endpoints. For a model of arithmetic to validate S5 is precisely to fulfill the arithmetic maximality principle, which asserts that every possibly necessary statement is already true, and these models are equivalently characterized as those satisfying a maximal $\Sigma_1$ theory. The main S4 analysis makes fundamental use of the universal algorithm, of which this article provides a simplified, self-contained account. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the philosophical differences of several fundamentally different potentialist attitudes---linear inevitability, convergent potentialism and radical branching possibility---are expressed by their corresponding potentialist modal validities.Comment: 38 pages. Inquiries and commentary can be made at http://jdh.hamkins.org/arithmetic-potentialism-and-the-universal-algorithm. Version v3 has further minor revisions, including additional reference