Finite subdirect closure of admissible markings (Stage A) — manuscript Lemma 2.1 #
Given a finite family of admissible markings q i : Marking (G i), the diagonal
marking a ↦ (i ↦ q i a) into the product ∀ i, G i, corestricted to the
subgroup it generates (subdirectSubgroup q), is again admissible. This is the
formal content of manuscript Lemma 2.1 (and the engine behind the cofinality
argument of Lemma 2.2).
The proof decomposes uniformly, exactly as in the plan (§5):
- relations — via
GExpr.eval_map(corestrict along the subgroup inclusion) andGExpr.eval_pi(work coordinatewise); the wild word is never unfolded; - generation — by construction, the corestricted generators generate the closure;
- wild pro-2 condition — the diagonal images of
x₀, x₁lie in the normal 2-subgroup∏ᵢ O₂(Gᵢ), whose pullback to the subdirect subgroup is a normal 2-subgroup, hence insideO₂of the subdirect subgroup by maximality (normal_pSubgroup_le_pCore).
The diagonal marking a ↦ (i ↦ q i a) into the product ∀ i, G i.
Equations
- Q2Presentation.diagonalMarking q a i = q i a
Instances For
The diagonal marking, corestricted to the subdirect subgroup it generates.
Equations
Instances For
A finite product (as a Subgroup.pi) of p-groups is a p-group.
Relator preservation under the subdirect construction: if a word evaluates to
1 in every factor, it evaluates to 1 at the subdirect marking. Uniform via
GExpr.eval_map (subgroup inclusion) and GExpr.eval_pi (coordinatewise).
The diagonal image of a generator that lies in every factor's 2-core lands in the 2-core of the subdirect subgroup.
Finite subdirect closure of admissibility (manuscript Lemma 2.1). If each
q i is admissible, then the corestricted diagonal marking into the subdirect
subgroup is admissible.