Yoghourt v0.2 (beta)

Brought to you by Web-Kreation

Download the latest version here

This template is released under the Creative Commons Attribution v2.5.

Oct

28

Andrews-Curtis Conjecture

By Jon Heizer

Problem
The Bradley BEAR group that I am involved in is looking to prove/disprove the following concept.

Definitions
Alphabet: X={x1, x2,…, xn}

Syllables: x1±1, x2±1,…, xn±1

Words: Strings of syllables
    Ex: x1 x2 x1-1 x5

Syllables are words of length one.
The (unique) word of length zero is denoted *.

Words are multiplied by using concatenation (and reduction)
Ex:
w1 = x1 x3 x2-1
w2 = x2 x3-1 x4

w1 * w2 = (x1 x3 x2-1) * (x2 x3-1 x4) = x1 x4

You can only reduce when the inverses are touching.

Given w, to form w-1 read right to left and change the signs (NOTE: w * w-1 = *)

Ex: w = x1 x3 x2-1 → w-1 = x2 x3-1 x1-1

List of Moves on Collections of Words
Let (r1, r2, …, rn} be a list of n words on n letters.
(1) rj → rj-1
(2) rj → w1rjw1-1
(3) rj → rj rk or rk rj for some j≠k
(4) In all words, replace xi throughout with
       i) xi-1
      ii) xi xk (k≠i)
     iii) xk xi (k≠i)
(5)Add one new letter xn+1 and one new word rn+1 = xn+1 to the list
(6)The opposite of (5), if possible
(7)Just add * to the list
(8)Remove * from the list

Equivalence
Two lists of words, W1, W2, are T-Equivalent if one can be transformed to the other by a sequence of moves of type (1)-(8). W1 ~T W2

Two lists of words are N-Equivalent if one can be transformed to the other by a sequence of moves of type (1)-(6). W1 ~N W2

Let {Wo} denote the trivial list of words.

Andrews-Curtis Conjecture (1960’s)
If W ~T {Wo}, then W ~N {Wo}

I.e. if a collection of words can be transformed to {} by moves (1)-(8), then it can be transformed to {} by moves (1)-(6).

It is believed that AC is false. Potential counterexamples include:
{c-1 b c b-2, a-1 c a c-2, b-1 a b a-2}
{b a 2 b-1 a-3, a b2 a-1 b-3}
{a b a b-1 a-1 b-1, a4 b5}

These are known to be T-equivalent to {wo, but cannot be shown to be N-equivalent.

If there is no algorithm to reconize balanced presentations of the trivial group, then AC is false.

2 Responses so far

WTF?

and I am just past that point now after looking at this for a few days…

Leave a comment