Symmetric designs and four dimensional projective special unitary groups
Seyed Hassan Alavi, Mohsen Bayat, Asharf Daneshkhah, Sheyda Zang, Zarin

TL;DR
This paper classifies symmetric designs with specific automorphism groups related to four-dimensional projective special unitary groups, identifying eight unique designs with particular parameters and automorphism groups.
Contribution
It provides a complete classification of symmetric designs admitting flag-transitive, point-primitive automorphism groups with socle $PSU_{4}(q)$, including explicit parameter and group descriptions.
Findings
Eight non-isomorphic designs found
Designs have parameters with λ in {3,6,18}
Automorphism groups are either $PSU_{4}(2)$ or $PSU_{4}(2):2$
Abstract
In this article, we study symmetric designs admitting a flag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism group whose socle is . We prove that there exist eight non-isomorphic such designs for which and is either , or .
| Line | Designs | References∗ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Menon | [5, 10] | |||||||
| Menon | [5, 10] | |||||||
| Complement of | [5, 10] | |||||||
| Complement of | [5, 10] | |||||||
| Complement of Higman design | [5, 10] | |||||||
| Complement of Higman design | [5, 10] | |||||||
| - | [5, 10, 17] | |||||||
| - | [5, 10, 17] | |||||||
| The last column addresses to references in which a design with the parameters in the line has been constructed. | ||||||||
| Line | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
| novelty if | ||
| , novelty if | ||
| and odd prime | ||
| odd | ||
| odd | ||
| novelty, , | ||
| Note: | ||
| divides |
|---|
| , , | , …, | |||||
| , , | , …, | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subdegrees | |
|---|---|
| , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
| , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | |
| , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| , , , , , | |
| , , , | |
| , |
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsFinite Group Theory Research · Coding theory and cryptography · graph theory and CDMA systems
Symmetric designs and four dimensional projective special unitary groups
Seyed Hassan Alavi
Seyed Hassan Alavi, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
[email protected] and [email protected] (G-mail is preferred)
,
Mohsen Bayat
Mohsen Bayat, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
,
Asharf Daneshkhah
Asharf Daneshkhah, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
[email protected] and [email protected] (G-mail is preferred)
and
Sheyda Zang Zarin
Sheyda Zang Zarin, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran.
Dedicated to Cheryl E. Praeger on the occasion of her 70th birthday
Abstract.
In this article, we study symmetric designs admitting a flag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism group whose socle is . We prove that there exist eight non-isomorphic such designs for which and is either , or .
Key words and phrases:
Symmetric design, flag-transitive, point-primitive, automorphism group, unitary groups
Mathematics Subject Classification:
05B05; 05B25; 20B25
Corresponding author: Asharf Daneshkhah
A symmetric design is an incidence structure consisting of a set of points and a set of blocks such that every point is incident with exactly blocks, and every pair of blocks is incident with exactly points. A nontrivial symmetric design is one in which . A flag of is an incident pair , where and are a point and a block of , respectively. An automorphism of a symmetric design is a permutation of the points permuting the blocks and preserving the incidence relation. An automorphism group of is called flag-transitive if it is transitive on the set of flags of . If is primitive on the point set , then is said to be point-primitive. The complement of a symmetric design is the symmetric design whose set of points is the same as the set of points of and whose blocks are the complements of the blocks of , that is, incidence is replaced by non-incidence and vice versa. We here adopt the standard notation as in [6, 8] for finite simple groups of Lie type, for example, we use , , , and to denote the finite classical simple groups. A group is said to be almost simple with socle if , where is a nonabelian simple group. Symmetric and alternating groups on letters are denoted by and , respectively. We denote by the cyclic group of order , and we write for an elementary abelian group of order . Further notation and definitions in both design theory and group theory are standard and can be found, for example in [4, 8, 11, 14]. We also use the software GAP [12] for computational arguments.
The main aim of this paper is to study flag-transitive and point-primitive symmetric designs. It is known that if a nontrivial symmetric design with admits a flag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism group , then must be an affine or almost simple group [20]. Therefore, it is somehow interesting to study such designs whose automorphism group is an almost simple group with socle being a finite simple group of low rank. In this direction, we recently studied such symmetric designs for a finite exceptional simple group [3]. In the case where is a sporadic simple group, there exist four possible parameters (see [21]). For finite classical groups , in [2], we proved that there are only five possible symmetric designs (up to isomorphism) admitting a flag-transitive and point-primitive almost simple automorphism group with socle , see also [22]. This study for gives rise to only one nontrivial design which is a Desarguesian projective plane and (see [1]), however when , there is no such non-trivial symmetric designs for , see [9]. This paper is devoted to studying symmetric designs admitting a flag-transitive and point-primitive almost simple automorphism group whose socle is .
Theorem 0.1**.**
Let be a symmetric design with , and let . Suppose that is an automorphism group of whose socle is with . If is flag-transitive and point-primitive with , then and , , or , and , , and are as in one of the lines of Table 1.
**Comments on Table 1 **
**Lines 1-2: **
The symmetric designs are Menon design, that is to say, symmetric designs with parameters , for . This designs can be constructed by orthogonal spaces. Let be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of dimension over a finite field of size with discriminant , for . The point set consists of all anisotropic -dimensional subspaces satisfying , and blocks in have the form , for . Then is a symmetric design with parameters , (see [5, 10]). This design is rank 3 with the full automorphism group . If , then we obtain the symmetric design with flag-transitive rank point-primitive automorphism group [5, 8, 10].
**Lines 3-4: **
These symmetric designs are the complement of the projective geometry . The group with odd acts on as a rank primitive group [10]. For and , we have the symmetric design with parameters and rank point-primitive automorphism group [5, 8, 10]. The complement of this design with parameters is flag-transitive.
**Lines 5-6: **
These designs are orthogonal symmetric designs introduced by Higman [13], a series of designs with parameters , where and are odd and . Let be an orthogonal space of dimension . In this design, the points are all isotropic -dimensional subspaces and the blocks are of the form , for . The group is an automorphism group of this design and the group is its full automorphism group. For and , we have the symmetric design with rank antiflag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism group [5, 8, 10]. Thus the complement of this design with parameters is flag-transitive.
**Lines 7-8: **
It is shown in [17, Theorem 3.3] that, up to isomorphism, there is only one symmetric design with flag-transitive and point-primitive full automorphism group . This design can also be obtained from orthogonal space. Let be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of dimension over with discriminant , for . The point set consists of all anisotropic -dimensional subspaces satisfying , and blocks have the form , for . Then is a symmetric with parameters (see [5, 10]). The design in these lines obtained when with flag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism group [5, 8, 10].
Note that Praeger [17, Theorem 3.3] proved that, up to isomorphism, there is the unique flag-transitive and point-primitive symmetric design with parameters whose full automorphism group is . It is worthy here to mention that she also proved that, up to isomorphism, there is exactly one flag-transitive and point-imprimitive symmetric design with this parameters, see [17, Corollary 1.2].
1. Preliminaries
In this section, we state some useful facts in both design theory and group theory. Recall that a group is called almost simple if , where is a nonabelian simple group. If is a maximal subgroup not containing the socle of an almost simple group , then , and since we may identify with , the group of inner automorphisms of , we also conclude that divides . This implies the following elementary and useful fact:
Lemma 1.1**.**
[1, Lemma 2.2]* Let be an almost simple group with socle , and let be maximal in not containing . Then*
- (a)
; 2. (b)
* divides .*
Lemma 1.2**.**
Suppose that is a symmetric design admitting a flag-transitive and point-primitive almost simple automorphism group with socle of Lie type. Suppose also that the point-stabiliser , not containing , is not a parabolic subgroup of . Then .
Proof.
Note that is maximal in , then by Tits’ Lemma [19, 1.6], divides , and so . ∎
Lemma 1.3**.**
[15, 3.9]* If is a group of Lie type in characteristic , acting on the set of cosets of a maximal parabolic subgroup, and is not , (with odd) and , then there is a unique subdegree which is a power of .*
Lemma 1.4**.**
[2, Lemma 2.1]* Let be a symmetric design, and let be a flag-transitive automorphism group of . If is a point in and , then*
- (a)
; 2. (b)
* is square;* 3. (c)
* and ;* 4. (d)
; 5. (e)
, for all subdegrees of .
If a group acts primitively on a set and (with ), then the point-stabiliser is maximal in [11, Corollary 1.5A ]. Therefore, in our study, we need a list of all maximal subgroups of almost simple group with socle . Note that if is a maximal subgroup of , then is not necessarily maximal in in which case is called a novelty. By [6, Tables 8.10 and 8.11], the complete list of maximal subgroups of an almost simple group with socle are known, and in this case, there arise only three novelties.
Lemma 1.5**.**
Let be a group such that , and let be a maximal subgroup of not containing and . Then is (isomorphic to) one of the subgroups listed in Table 2.
Proof.
The maximal subgroups of can be read off from [6, Tables 8.10 and 8.11]. ∎
2. Proof of the main result
In this section, suppose that is a nontrivial symmetric design and is an almost simple automorphism group with simple socle , where with prime, that is to say, . Suppose also that is the underlying vector space of over the finite field .
Let now be a flag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism group of . Then the point-stabiliser is maximal in [11, Corollary 1.5A]. Set . Then by Lemma 1.5, the subgroup is (isomorphic to) one of the subgroups as in Table 2. Moreover, by Lemma 1.1,
[TABLE]
Note that . Therefore, by Lemmas 1.1(b) and 1.4(c),
[TABLE]
We now consider all possibilities for the subgroup as in Table 2, and prove that the only possible cases are those have been listed in Table 1.
Lemma 2.1**.**
If , then and .
Proof.
In this case, , and so by (2.1), we have that . Then by Lemma 1.4(a), divides . It follows from Lemma 1.3 that has a subdegree of prime power , and so by Lemma 1.4(e), we conclude that divides . Hence divides , and since divides , it follows that divides . Let now be a positive integer such that . Since , we have that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 1.4(a), , and so
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Since is integer, (2.4) implies that
[TABLE]
It is easy to know that , and so divides . Let be a positive integer such that . Then
[TABLE]
If , then would divide , and so . Note by (2.3) that which implies that , which is a contradiction. Therefore, , and hence . It follows from (2.4) that . By (2.2), divides . Therefore, must divide . Since and divides , must divide . This holds only when in which case , and . By [17, Theorem 3.3], this design is unique (up to isomorphism) with full automorphism group . ∎
Lemma 2.2**.**
The subgroup cannot be .
Proof.
Here , where . According to (2.1), we have that . Note by Lemma 1.4(a) that divides . Moreover, by Lemma 1.3 and Lemma 1.4(e), divides , where is a prime power subdegree of . Therefore divides , and since divides , it follows that divides . If is a positive integer such that , then since , we have that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 1.4(a), , and so
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
It follows from (2.7) that . It is easy to know that , and so divides . By (2.6), we conclude that , and hence and by (2.7). Note by Lemma 1.4(c) that divides . Then must divide . Since , must divide . Therefore divides , which is impossible. ∎
Lemma 2.3**.**
If is , then and .
Proof.
Let be a canonical basis for the underlying unitary space . In this case, , where is a -dimensional non-degenerate subspace, say . Then which implies by (2.1) that . Let now . Then has a subdegree dividing (see [16, p. 549] and [18, p. 336]). Therefore Lemma 1.4(d) implies that must divide . On the other hand, divides . Therefore, divides , and so , for some positive integer . Then
[TABLE]
By Lemma 1.4(a), we have that , and so
[TABLE]
We first show that does not divide . If would divide , then by (2.9), should divide . Let now be a positive integer such that . Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, must divide , and so . Note by (2.8) that . Thus , which is a contradiction. Therefore, does not divide .
Note by Lemma 1.1(b) that divides , where . Since is not a multiple of , we must have , where . Then, by (2.9), we must have
[TABLE]
Let now and . Then , and so (2.10) implies that divides . Thus . Note that , for . Therefore, (2.8) implies that , for all .
We now show that does not divide . If would divide , then by (2.9), should divide . As , it follows that . Therefore,
[TABLE]
For the pairs as in (2.15), since and , the parameter does not divide , which is a contradiction. Therefore, is not a multiple of . Again applying Lemmas 1.1(b) and (2.9), we have that
[TABLE]
where . If and , then . It follows from (2.16) that divides , and so . This inequality holds only for . For these values of , as divides , for , we conclude that in which case , and . It follows from [5, 10] that the design is the complement of with parameters and flag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism group or . ∎
Lemma 2.4**.**
If is , then and .
Proof.
In this case, , where . Then by (2.1), we have , and since , it follows from (2.2) that divides . By [16, 23] and Lemma 1.4(c), we may assume that is at least , and so
[TABLE]
This implies that . Thus
[TABLE]
This inequality is true only when . Since is a divisor of , for each such , the possible values of and are listed in Table 3.
The only possible parameters satisfying and is when . By [5, 10], the design is the Higman design with parameters and flag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism group or . ∎
Lemma 2.5**.**
The subgroup cannot be , for .
Proof.
In this case, preserves a decomposition of nonsingular subspaces and . Take the partition . Then the subdegree of divides (see [16, p. 550] and [18, pp. 336-337]). Thus by Lemma 1.4(e), we conclude that divides . Note in this case that , where . By (2.1), we have that .
Since , we conclude that divides . Note also that divides . Therefore, divides . Since divides , we conclude that divides , where . Thus , for some positive integer . Since and , it follows that
[TABLE]
where and
[TABLE]
Note by (2.2) that , where . Then, by (2.17), we must have
[TABLE]
Let now and . Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, (2.19) implies that
[TABLE]
So . Since also , for all . Therefore, . This inequality holds only for pairs as in Table 4 below:
For these values of , and the parameter as in (2.18), there is no parameter satisfying (2.17) for which the fraction is a positive integer, which is a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.6**.**
The subgroup cannot be .
Proof.
Let be a standard basis for underlying unitary space . In this case, preserves a partition of totally singular subspaces and of dimension , say and . Let now . Then the subdegree of divides (see [16, p. 550] and [18, pp. 336-337]). Thus by Lemma 1.4(e), we conclude that divides . Here , and so (2.1) implies that .
Note that and . Then is coprime to . Note also that divides . Thus divides . Since divides , it follows that divides , where , and hence , for some positive integer . Therefore,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Note by (2.2) that , where . Then, by (2.20), we must have
[TABLE]
Let now and . Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, (2.22) implies that . So . Since , for all , . This inequality holds only for pairs as in Table 5 below:
The only value of satisfying (2.20) when is as in (2.21) for which the fraction is a positive integer is when . In which case, we obtain the parameters with . In what follows, we make use of the software GAP [12] and show that such a design never exists.
Let be one of the groups , or , and is , or , respectively. We note that the group has one conjugacy class of subgroup containing . We use the command AtlasGroup("U4(4)") to define the group , and then we find all subgroups of containing . Since the maximal subgroups of is not available in GAP, we need to construct as a subgroup of . We first define the semidirect product and then we embed this group into as a subgroup via command IsomorphicSubgroups(G,T). For each group , there is only one such isomorphic subgroup in , and then by IntermediateSubgroups(G,K), we find the overgroups of . Now we can choose those subgroups of index . Then we define the right coset action of on the set of right cosets of in , and so we can view and as subgroups of by taking image of the permutation representation of the right coset action. We now obtain the -orbits on and the subdegrees of which are listed in Table 6. Since is flag-transitive, each -orbit of size (if there exists) would be a possible base block for . At this stage, we obtain two base blocks for each group , see Table 6. Although, the command BlockDesign( 41600, [B], G ) returns true for the obtained base blocks, these designs are not symmetric as , for some . ∎
Lemma 2.7**.**
The subgroup cannot be , where and odd prime.
Proof.
In this case, . It follows from (2.1) that
[TABLE]
Note by (2.2) that divides . We may assume that by [16, 23]. Moreover, as . Since by Lemma 1.4(b), we must have
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
Note that and . Then , and this implies that or . Since is odd, we must have . Therefore,
[TABLE]
By (2.2), divides . Then by Lemma 1.4(c), we have that
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
Since divides and is coprime to by Lemma 1.2, must divide . Now Lemma 1.4(c) implies that
[TABLE]
and so
[TABLE]
Since by (2.25), it follows that
[TABLE]
Since also , , which is impossible. ∎
Lemma 2.8**.**
If is , then and .
Proof.
Here , where and . So by (2.1), we have , where . It follows from (2.2) that divides , where . We now consider the following two cases.
Case 1: Let be even. Then . If , then . It follows from (2.2) that divides . We then easily observe that for each divisor of , the fraction is not a positive integer unless , in which case and . By [5, 10], this design is a Menon design with parameters and flag-transitive automorphism group or .
Let now . Note that is coprime to . Moreover, since and , it follows that divides . Therefore, divides , we have that is a divisor of , where . Then there exists a positive integer such that . Thus,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
We first show that does not divide . Let divide . Then (2.27) implies that divides . Thus , which is impossible. Therefore, does not divide , and so it follows from Lemma 1.1(b) and (2.27) that
[TABLE]
where . Let and . Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, by (2.29), we conclude that . This inequality holds only when . Then for each with , the possible values of are listed in Table 7 below. By (2.28), we can also find an upper bound for listed as in the third column of Table 7.
We now obtain by (2.27), the parameter , but for such , we can not find any possible parameter satisfying Lemma 1.4(a), which is a contradiction.
Case 2: Let be odd. Then and . Note that divides . Set . Then is coprime to . Moreover, , and . Therefore divides , and so Lemmas 1.4(a) and 1.2 imply that divides , where and
[TABLE]
Then , for some positive integer , and so
[TABLE]
where , and
[TABLE]
As in Case 1, we first show that does not divide . Assume the contrary. Then (2.32) implies that , and so , for some positive integer . Thus
[TABLE]
Since , we have that
[TABLE]
Since also and , it follows that
[TABLE]
and so divides . Therefore, by (2.34), we conclude that
[TABLE]
As
[TABLE]
must divide . Since now , we conclude that , and so . Moreover, . Therefore,
[TABLE]
If , then the inequality (2.37) holds only for the pairs as below:
[TABLE]
Note that and , for the values of as in (2.41), we can find the parameter from (2.32), and hence we easily observe that for these values , the fraction is not a positive integer, which is a contradiction. Therefore, . In this case, and , where by (2.31) and (2.35). Therefore, is at most , or respectively for , or . Moreover, for these values of and , divides . Therefore, is as in Table 8 for which, by (2.32), we cannot find any possible parameters and . Hence, is not a multiple of .
Therefore, by Lemma 1.1(b) and (2.32), we conclude that
[TABLE]
where and . Let now and . Then . It follows from (2.42) that . This inequality holds only for pairs as in Table 9 below:
Again these values of do not give rise to any possible parameters, which is a contradiction. ∎
Lemma 2.9**.**
The subgroup cannot be with odd.
Proof.
In this case, . Then by (2.1), we have that , where . Note in this case that is either or .
Suppose first . It follows from (2.2) that divides , where . Moreover, Lemma 1.4(a) implies that divides . Note that . Since , we have that is a divisor of . Then there exists a positive integer such that . Since now , it follows that , and since , we must have . As , , for odd, and this does not hold for any , which is a contradiction.
Suppose now . Then . Since divides . Then , where and is a positive integer. Thus . As , we must have , and so , for odd. Thus , however, for these values of , we cannot find any possible parameters. ∎
Lemma 2.10**.**
The subgroup cannot be with odd.
Proof.
In this case, , and so by (2.1), we have that , where . It follows from (2.2) that divides , where . Moreover, Lemma 1.4(a) implies that divides . As is odd, or . Let be if , and if . Then divides , and so is a divisor of . Suppose that is a positive integer such that . Since now , it follows that , and since , we must have . Therefore, , for odd, and this does not give rise to any possible parameters. ∎
Lemma 2.11**.**
The subgroup cannot be the subgroups as in the lines 11-16 of Table 2.
Proof.
By Lemmas 1.1(b) and 1.4(c), we have that . Therefore, the lines 13-14 can be ruled out. For the remaining cases, this inequality holds only for listed as in Table 10. However, for such , no divisor of exists such that is a positive integer, which is a contradiction.
∎
Proof of Theorem 0.1.
The proof of the main result follows immediately from Lemmas 2.1–2.11. ∎
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank anonymous referees for providing us helpful and constructive comments and suggestions. They would also like to mention that their names has been written in alphabetic order.
References
- [1]
S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, Flag-transitive point-primitive symmetric designs and three dimensional projective special linear groups, Bulletin of Iranian Mathematical Society (BIMS) 42 (1) (2016) 201–221.
- [2]
S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, A. Daneshkhah, Symmetric designs admitting flag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism groups associated to two dimensional projective special groups, Designs, Codes and Cryptography (2015) 1–15.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10623-015-0055-9
- [3]
S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, A. Daneshkhah, Symmetric designs and finite simple exceptional groups of lie type, ArXiv e-prints (2017) 1–44.
URL http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017arXiv170201257H
- [4]
T. Beth, D. Jungnickel, H. Lenz, Design Theory:, Design Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
URL https://books.google.com/books?id=VfVh8VaGGeYC
- [5]
S. Braić, A. Golemac, J. Mandić, T. Vučičić, Primitive symmetric designs with up to 2500 points, J. Combin. Des. 19 (6) (2011) 463–474.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcd.20291
- [6]
J. N. Bray, D. F. Holt, C. M. Roney-Dougal, The maximal subgroups of the low-dimensional finite classical groups, vol. 407 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, with a foreword by Martin Liebeck.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139192576
- [7]
A. R. Camina, A survey of the automorphism groups of block designs, J. Combin. Des. 2 (2) (1994) 79–100.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcd.3180020205
- [8]
J. H. Conway, R. T. Curtis, S. P. Norton, R. A. Parker, R. A. Wilson, Atlas of finite groups, Oxford University Press, Eynsham, 1985, maximal subgroups and ordinary characters for simple groups, With computational assistance from J. G. Thackray.
- [9]
A. Daneshkhah, S. Zang Zarin, Flag-transitive point-primitive symmetric designs and three dimensional projective special unitary groups, Bulletin of the Korean Mathematical Society. 54 (6) (2017) 2029–-2041.
- [10]
U. Dempwolff, Primitive rank 3 groups on symmetric designs, Des. Codes Cryptogr. 22 (2) (2001) 191–207.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008373207617
- [11]
J. D. Dixon, B. Mortimer, Permutation groups, vol. 163 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1996.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0731-3
- [12]
The GAP Group, GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version 4.7.9 (2015).
- [13]
D. G. Higman, Finite permutation groups of rank , Math. Z. 86 (1964) 145–156.
URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01111335
- [14]
D. Hughes, F. Piper, Design Theory, Up (Methuen), Cambridge University Press, 1988.
URL http://books.google.com/books?id=pAw5AAAAIAAJ
- [15]
M. W. Liebeck, J. Saxl, G. Seitz, On the overgroups of irreducible subgroups of the finite classical groups., Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 50 (3) (1987) 507–537.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1112/plms/s3-50.3.426
- [16]
E. O’Reilly-Regueiro, Biplanes with flag-transitive automorphism groups of almost simple type, with classical socle, J. Algebraic Combin. 26 (4) (2007) 529–552.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10801-007-0070-7
- [17]
C. E. Praeger, The flag-transitive symmetric designs with 45 points, blocks of size 12, and 3 blocks on every point pair, Des. Codes Cryptogr. 44 (1-3) (2007) 115–132.
URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10623-007-9071-8
- [18]
J. Saxl, On finite linear spaces with almost simple flag-transitive automorphism groups, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 100 (2) (2002) 322–348.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jcta.2002.3305
- [19]
G. M. Seitz, Flag-transitive subgroups of Chevalley groups, Ann. of Math. (2) 97 (1973) 27–56.
- [20]
D. Tian, S. Zhou, Flag-transitive point-primitive symmetric designs with at most 100, J. Combin. Des. 21 (4) (2013) 127–141.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcd.21337
- [21]
D. Tian, S. Zhou, Flag-transitive - symmetric designs with sporadic socle, J. Combin. Des. 23 (2015) 140–150.
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcd.21385
- [22]
D. Tian, S. Zhou, Classification of flag-transitive primitive symmetric designs with as socle, J. Math. Res. Appl. 36 (2) (2016) 127–139.
- [23]
S. Zhou, H. Dong, W. Fang, Finite classical groups and flag-transitive triplanes, Discrete Math. 309 (16) (2009) 5183–5195.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, Flag-transitive point-primitive symmetric designs and three dimensional projective special linear groups, Bulletin of Iranian Mathematical Society (BIMS) 42 (1) (2016) 201–221.
- 2[2] S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, A. Daneshkhah, Symmetric designs admitting flag-transitive and point-primitive automorphism groups associated to two dimensional projective special groups, Designs, Codes and Cryptography (2015) 1–15. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s 10623-015-0055-9 · doi ↗
- 3[3] S. H. Alavi, M. Bayat, A. Daneshkhah, Symmetric designs and finite simple exceptional groups of lie type, Ar Xiv e-prints (2017) 1–44. URL http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017 ar Xiv 170201257 H
- 4[4] T. Beth, D. Jungnickel, H. Lenz, Design Theory:, Design Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1999. URL https://books.google.com/books?id=Vf Vh 8Va G Ge YC
- 5[5] S. Braić, A. Golemac, J. Mandić, T. Vučičić, Primitive symmetric designs with up to 2500 points, J. Combin. Des. 19 (6) (2011) 463–474. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcd.20291 · doi ↗
- 6[6] J. N. Bray, D. F. Holt, C. M. Roney-Dougal, The maximal subgroups of the low-dimensional finite classical groups, vol. 407 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, with a foreword by Martin Liebeck. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO 9781139192576 · doi ↗
- 7[7] A. R. Camina, A survey of the automorphism groups of block designs, J. Combin. Des. 2 (2) (1994) 79–100. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcd.3180020205 · doi ↗
- 8[8] J. H. Conway, R. T. Curtis, S. P. Norton, R. A. Parker, R. A. Wilson, Atlas of finite groups, Oxford University Press, Eynsham, 1985, maximal subgroups and ordinary characters for simple groups, With computational assistance from J. G. Thackray.
