nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqypren5k53ms4x26agn2qg4anqpe3a7zuy39qjjd5slavzskqn2qgxcaztfm (nprofile…ztfm) nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyqq8j77xgrvm742rk8tgup5px58p8n5j9qjej065ges3yerc4eemueddnqz (nprofile…dnqz) nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyzs8jfr3se3redkc5mknpwqdlx8qhkhggjhshfwfv0nwv7ft76kuyusn7dy (nprofile…n7dy) nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyr6yt3p8p6sr80hw5k2s5apxuwjvnpvmjwhdwysupxh5j259kd0equaral2 (nprofile…ral2) - Nice! I was wondering why the formula was just a single quotient, as in the groupoid cardinality of the weak quotient of a set by a group action, rather than a sum of quotients as in Burnside's lemma for counting the set of orbits of a group action. The only case where those two match are when the action is free!
But looking at the paper I see some sums of quotients, so it looks like they've been repackaged as a single quotient.
Still, the groupoid cardinality would be fun to see, because it should be simpler (as usual).
John Carlos Baez
npub17u…8pd6m
2025-11-04 10:22:28 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…wxgc
Author Public Key
npub17u6xav5rjq4d48fpcyy6j05rz2xelp7clnl8ptvpnval9tvmectqp8pd6mSeen on
wss://relay.ditto.pubPublished at
2025-11-04 10:22:28 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "36c909713140f14d940fc2a3ec4832b7b251569b6649c7d33eec65edd2974f19",
"pubkey": "f7346eb283902ada9d21c109a93e83128d9f87d8fcfe70ad819b3bf2ad9bce16",
"created_at": 1762251748,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"4799d2d48ee1532b5d44d40457b300731ef85c244a0949b487fac142c09a8083",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"p",
"00797bc640d9bf5543b1d68e0681350e13ce922825993f544661126478ae73be",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"p",
"a079247186623cb6d8a6ed30b80df98e0bdae844af0ba5c963e6e6792bf6adc2",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"p",
"f445c4270ea033beeea5950a7426e3a4c9859b93aed7121c09af492a85b35f90",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"p",
"33103dbe06c89141664669ee858c3b9d835eea0e12f4b6d57b33ceb9fe103aae",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"p",
"1f131b566f6af3fef69a7595fad3cedd76754f89a78d50dfb077790083146994",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"p",
"c621d586b28835d9262289b00cc6bdfe7d54565d8087f4d8160d151b23919979",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"p",
"0a815c7a135490b945de4160425052fb4cd3e683e5a692950726a3afc0ec31f3",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
],
[
"e",
"562c9dbb45452bc96504c6417cbb9cdb9f100705493b0081a5c173e6a6b2f1c2",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mathstodon.xyz/users/johncarlosbaez/statuses/115490930575093990",
"activitypub"
],
[
"client",
"Mostr",
"31990:6be38f8c63df7dbf84db7ec4a6e6fbbd8d19dca3b980efad18585c46f04b26f9:mostr",
"wss://relay.ditto.pub/"
]
],
"content": "nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqypren5k53ms4x26agn2qg4anqpe3a7zuy39qjjd5slavzskqn2qgxcaztfm nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyqq8j77xgrvm742rk8tgup5px58p8n5j9qjej065ges3yerc4eemueddnqz nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyzs8jfr3se3redkc5mknpwqdlx8qhkhggjhshfwfv0nwv7ft76kuyusn7dy nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyr6yt3p8p6sr80hw5k2s5apxuwjvnpvmjwhdwysupxh5j259kd0equaral2 - Nice! I was wondering why the formula was just a single quotient, as in the groupoid cardinality of the weak quotient of a set by a group action, rather than a sum of quotients as in Burnside's lemma for counting the set of orbits of a group action. The only case where those two match are when the action is free!\n\nBut looking at the paper I see some sums of quotients, so it looks like they've been repackaged as a single quotient.\n\nStill, the groupoid cardinality would be fun to see, because it should be simpler (as usual).",
"sig": "b2df503f91f92b6d0482ec64e71de3e042a4abdf0e760df1d8c31a9df7540739a0c733d46eff74363e1244ad505c52a02c7669c651af14fea84f091caf4b3ea4"
}