Research area

Algebra and discrete mathematics

Driving question

What algebraic structures are generated by computational models?

Tensor categories, representation theory, elliptic integrable systems, mathematical physics, formal series, semirings, metric groups, linear invariants, and discrete topology.

Research themes
11
Research papers
0
Research pages
14
Related claims
138

Algebra changes character with its coordinates

An algebraic operation may be elementary in the coordinates that generate it and highly irregular in the coordinates in which it is observed. Conversely, a canonical-looking algebra of observations may be much larger than the finite controls that actually produce the sequence. FPRD studies both presentations and the map between them.

This is not a claim that algebra is subjective. The group law, formal series, or transformation action is fixed. What changes is which structure is local, which generators are finite, and which regularity survives transport back to the visible carrier.

Worked case · one operation, two roles

A group product that is also its distance

A metric-group product on the nonnegative half-line is one binary operation ⋆\star that makes[0,∞)[0,\infty) a group and defines its metric byd(x,y)=x⋆yd(x,y)=x\star y. The group axioms force identity zero, exponent two, and commutativity. The numerical condition left to prove is

x⋆y≤x+y. x\star y\le x+y.

Thus one operation must simultaneously encode symmetric difference in an abstract Boolean group and obey the triangle inequality in ordinary real coordinates.

Worked case · transport through a presentation

Nested digits make the construction explicit

For c>0c>0, definehc(t)=t/(c+t)h_c(t)=t/(c+t) and read an infinite digit stream by

Ec(a0,a1,…)=a0+hc ⁣(a1+hc ⁣(a2+⋯ )). E_c(a_0,a_1,\ldots) =a_0+h_c\!\left(a_1+h_c\!\left(a_2+\cdots\right)\right).

For c≥1c\ge1, this readout is a continuous bijection fromNN\mathbb N^{\mathbb N} to the half-line. Writing Dc=Ec−1D_c=E_c^{-1}, coordinatewise bitwise XOR transports to

x⋆cy=Ec(Dc(x)⊕Dc(y)). x\star_c y=E_c\bigl(D_c(x)\mathbin{\oplus}D_c(y)\bigr).

Explicit construction · FPRD-T115

The transported operation is a metric-group product for everyc≥1c\ge1. For0<c<10<c<1, this particular readout is discontinuous and misses an interval, soc=1c=1 is the sharp boundary of the family—not a universal boundary for all constructions.

Read the construction and endpoint analysis →

Worked case · intrinsic versus ordinary topology

Computable digit dynamics can look discontinuous on the line

With digit names, the c=2c=2 product is computed by XOR followed by the nested readout. In ordinary real coordinates, however, its discontinuities are exactly

(Q>0×(0,∞))∪((0,∞)×Q>0). \bigl(\mathbb Q_{>0}\times(0,\infty)\bigr) \cup \bigl((0,\infty)\times\mathbb Q_{>0}\bigr).

The product is still Baire class 1 and Riemann integrable on compact rectangles, and each translationTa(x)=a⋆2xT_a(x)=a\star_2x is cadlag. But no metric-group product on the half-line can be separately continuous in the ordinary topology. The same algebra is therefore computable in its intrinsic names and noncomputable from ordinary Cauchy names.

This is a clean representation result: the operation is unchanged, while the available names determine whether its local rule is visible. The decoder itself has a weaker measurability classification than the transported binary product, so regularity is not silently passed back through the coordinates.

Worked case · discrete rigidity

On the integers, the metric inequality forces XOR

Uniqueness theorem · FPRD-T120

If ∘\circ is a Boolean group law on N0\mathbb N_0 with identity zero andp∘q≤p+qp\circ q\le p+q, then

p∘q=p⊕q. p\circ q=p\mathbin{\oplus}q.

Read the binary-block induction and prior-art boundary →

The proof grows the operation table through consecutive binary blocks; injectivity and the numerical bound leave exactly the XOR value at each step. This is rigidity on the discrete carrier. It does not classify metric-group products on the real half-line.

Worked case · visible algebra versus control algebra

A finite presentation can cast an infinite algebraic shadow

Let a polynomial/Hadamard automaton over{a,b}\{a,b\} give both letters the control updates

X⟼XY,Y⟼Y+1,F(X)=F(Y)=1. X\longmapsto XY,\qquad Y\longmapsto Y+1, \qquad F(X)=F(Y)=1.

Its controls recognizef(w)=∣w∣!f(w)=|w|! andg(w)=∣w∣+1g(w)=|w|+1. Both depend only on word length, so this is already a finite presentation by commutative controls.

Counterexample · FPRD-CPA-C05

The derivative Hadamard algebraD(f)=Q[δuf:u∈Σ∗]⊙D(f)=\mathbb Q[\delta_u f:u\in\Sigma^*]_{\odot}is nevertheless not finitely generated, even though the larger control algebraQ[f,g]⊙\mathbb Q[f,g]_{\odot} is.

Read the factorial construction and proof boundary →

The example blocks a tempting normalization test: finite generation of the visible derivative algebra is not necessary for a finite positive presentation. The derivative-algebra failure already appears over a unary alphabet, where commutativity itself is automatic; the two-letter form shows the same obstruction in the nontrivial permutation setting. It does not settle whether every commutative output has some presentation with commutative controls.

Open frontier · regular actions

Better ordinary regularity requires a different presentation

The nested-XOR family contains translations of infinite total variation on [0,1][0,1]. A metric-group product whose every translation is locally of bounded variation would instead be equivalent to a regular elementary abelian 2-group action by locally BV permutations satisfying

∣ha(x)−x∣≤a(a,x≥0). |h_a(x)-x|\le a\qquad(a,x\ge0).

FPRD-T124 is an equivalence, not an existence theorem. Several natural coordinate doctrines are ruled out, but a different regular locally-BV action is neither constructed nor refuted.

Integrated program · quotients and receipts

The missing datum is often an obstruction class

The Quotient Arsenal now supplies one reusable chain of exact interfaces. Matrix invariants leave a Jordan fibre receipt; a cochain quotient produces a connecting class; graph covers retain monodromy; factorization lifts retain a transported product cokernel; anonymous graph cards retain an equivariant matching defect. In each case the quotient is useful precisely because its loss is named and tested.

local lifts sew⟺[defect]=0, \text{local lifts sew} \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad [\text{defect}]=0,

The form of the bracket changes—cohomology, cokernel, monodromy, or orbit module—but the proof obligation does not. A vanishing witness must supply an actual correction, and the corrected object must still lie in the intended admissible class.

The matrix calibration makes the distinction concrete. Conjugation invariants remember the characteristic polynomial and hence the eigenvalues with multiplicity. They forget the Jordan partition. That missing partition is recovered exactly from the increments of dim⁡ker⁡(A−λI)k\dim\ker(A-\lambda I)^k. A different question—whether two states have identical outputs CAkvCA^kv for every future time—has the universal quotient V/⋂k=0n−1ker⁡(CAk)V/\bigcap_{k=0}^{n-1}\ker(CA^k). These are two legitimate quotients with different declared observations; neither should be mistaken for the other.

In the abelian cochain case, this is the classical connecting homomorphism made constructive. Lift a closed quotient probe, take its differential in the null subcomplex, and test whether that cocycle is a coboundary. A primitive is the correction that produces a closed lift. For nested quotients the second obstruction is a coset, because changing the intermediate lift changes its raw representative.

A finite Čech totalization extends this test from one quotient map to a cover of local presentations. It keeps internal closedness and overlap agreement on separate axes. Strict descent requires a correction in Čech degree zero; a higher-degree primitive supplies coherence data but not necessarily one global section. The same choice issue appears in a cross-axis obstruction staircase: the raw second defect depends on the first primitive, while its quotient class is canonical. For reduction in stages, direct products have zero extension curvature, whereas the real Heisenberg group supplies an explicit nonzero-curvature boundary.

Read the matrix quotient, Jordan receipt, and observation boundary →

Read the cohomological sewing theorem and its exact boundaries →

Read the local-to-global totalization and stage receipts →

Where the area is moving

The area now has two complementary directions: transport explicit algebra through representations while tracking the regularity it loses, and recover finite algebraic presentations from families of observable derivatives, or prove why a proposed recovery doctrine is too small. Rational series, transformation actions, and polynomial loop invariants provide further test cases.

Working answer to the driving question. Computational models generate algebra through their update and observation maps. The intrinsic structure is what survives exact transport; finite generation, continuity, and computability may belong only to one side of that transport and must be proved separately.

Open questions

  • Does the explicit metric-group construction admit a nontrivial locally bounded-variation action on the whole half-line?
  • Does every commutative polynomial-automaton series admit a presentation with commutative controls?
  • Can the least hidden dimension of a polynomial orbit be determined effectively in general?
  • What is the complexity of minimum faithful transformation degree beyond the known group and bounded cases?
  • Which constrained positive planar factorization classes have effectively separable Hurwitz orbits?
  • Which relational receipts repair anonymous graph-deck synchronization beyond the two-path obstruction?
  • Does Cheng's canonical diagonal condensation recover the original modular tensor category for every braided fusion subcategory?
  • Does elliptic Calogero--Moser spectral geometry supply a versality theorem that excludes persistently nonreduced isolated critical points?
  • Is the standard-metric Vietoris--Rips complex of Z^n contractible at every scale r at least n?
  • At quartic degree, do the full level-three eigenstate constraints bound the fourth momentum moments without an SOS decomposition of the shifted potential?
  • Does every quadratic graded Möbius algebra of a Sylvester matroid have only linear first syzygies?

Focused programs

Research results

Claims

The unified Claims index contains 138 definitions, theorems, counterexamples, computational findings, and open questions associated with this area.

Browse all 138 related claims →