ProbXiv
sign in

Block Sorting: A Characterization and some Heuristics

Algebra · math.CO · math.RT · posed by Meena Mahajan, Raghavan Rama, S. Vijayakumar · open

1 attempt · 1 machine check

Statement

But we conjecture that at least one of π and π^{-1} will always have a sufficiently large strong compatible set to ensure a better approximation for bs(π)=bs(π^{-1}) .

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "Block Sorting: A Characterization and some Heuristics", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed conjecture: let sc(π)\operatorname{sc}(\pi) be the maximum size of a strongly compatible edge set in the order graph GπG_\pi of a finite permutation πSn\pi\in S_n. Since a compatible set of size ss yields a block-sorting sequence of length n1sn-1-s, the conjecture most naturally means:

    ε>0 πSn:n1max{sc(π),sc(π1)}(2ε)bs(π).\exists \varepsilon>0\ \forall \pi\in S_n:\quad n-1-\max\{\operatorname{sc}(\pi),\operatorname{sc}(\pi^{-1})\} \le (2-\varepsilon)\operatorname{bs}(\pi).

    Equivalently, at least one of π,π1\pi,\pi^{-1} always has a strong compatible set large enough to give a better-than-2 approximation. This is the formal reading supported by the paper’s surrounding discussion of approximation ratios from compatible/strongly compatible sets.

    Result: The conjecture is false. In fact, even the weaker strict claim with factor <2<2 fails.

    For r2r\ge2, set n=2r+2n=2r+2 and define

    πr=1, r+2,r+3,,2r+1, 2,3,,r+1, 2r+2.\pi_r=1,\ r+2,r+3,\dots,2r+1,\ 2,3,\dots,r+1,\ 2r+2.

    Then πr1=πr\pi_r^{-1}=\pi_r. Its blocks are

    1,r+22r+1,2r+1,2r+2.1,\qquad r+2\cdots 2r+1,\qquad 2\cdots r+1,\qquad 2r+2.

    Moving the block 2r+12\cdots r+1 immediately after 11 sorts the permutation, so bs(πr)=1\operatorname{bs}(\pi_r)=1.

    Now compute sc(πr)\operatorname{sc}(\pi_r). Let

    L={2,,r+1},H={r+2,,2r+1}.L=\{2,\dots,r+1\},\qquad H=\{r+2,\dots,2r+1\}.

    A strongly compatible set of size n3=2r1n-3=2r-1 is

    {(1,n)}{(i,i+1):2ir}{(i,i+1):r+2i2r}.\{(1,n)\}\cup \{(i,i+1):2\le i\le r\}\cup \{(i,i+1):r+2\le i\le 2r\}.

    It is strong because (1,n)(1,n) contains all other listed edges both by value and by position, and the remaining unit edges lie in disjoint chains.

    Conversely, no strongly compatible set can have size n2n-2 or n1n-1. In any compatible set, edges form vertex-disjoint directed paths. No path can contain vertices from both LL and HH: edges from LL to HH are absent because their positions are reversed, and edges from HH to LL are impossible by value order. Thus a set of size n2n-2 would have exactly two path components, one covering all of LL and one covering all of HH, with two extra edges attaching 11 and/or nn. The only possibilities force one of the following forbidden configurations:

    • (1,2)(1,2) together with the HH-unit edges: (1,2)(1,2) contains them by position but not by value;
    • (2r+1,n)(2r+1,n) together with the LL-unit edges: same violation;
    • (1,2)(1,2) and (2r+1,n)(2r+1,n): they interleave by position;
    • (1,r+2)(1,r+2) and (r+1,n)(r+1,n): they interleave by value.

    Hence sc(πr)=n3\operatorname{sc}(\pi_r)=n-3. Since πr1=πr\pi_r^{-1}=\pi_r,

    n1max{sc(πr),sc(πr1)}=n1(n3)=2.n-1-\max\{\operatorname{sc}(\pi_r),\operatorname{sc}(\pi_r^{-1})\} = n-1-(n-3)=2.

    But bs(πr)=1\operatorname{bs}(\pi_r)=1, so the ratio is exactly 22. Therefore no better-than-2 guarantee can follow from taking the larger strong compatible set of π\pi and π1\pi^{-1}.

    Citation: Definitions and context: Mahajan, Rama, and Vijayakumar, “Block Sorting: A Characterization and some Heuristics,” Nordic Journal of Computing, DOI 10.5555/1515784.1515790. The counterexample above is constructed here.

    Reviews

    1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1

      PASS

      The proposed involutive family πr=1,H,L,n\pi_r=1,H,L,n is sorted by one block move, so bs(πr)=1\operatorname{bs}(\pi_r)=1. The argument that no strong compatible set has size n2n-2 is essentially sound: any such compatible set would have two path components spanning LL and HH, and the possible attachments of 11 and nn force value/position interval conflicts, so sc(πr)=n3\operatorname{sc}(\pi_r)=n-3. Since πr1=πr\pi_r^{-1}=\pi_r, using the larger strong compatible set for π\pi or π1\pi^{-1} still gives length 22, exactly a factor 22, refuting any strict better-than-2 guarantee under the stated approximation interpretation.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The accepted construction is a simple counterexample family to a narrow heuristic conjecture about strong compatible sets in block sorting. It does not introduce a new method or improve general block-sorting/transposition-distance theory; it shows that a particular hoped-for better-than-2 guarantee from this heuristic is impossible. This would be useful as a corrigendum or short remark, but it is too elementary and too localized to support a standalone combinatorics paper.

      Literature check: I found the original paper and related block/strip-sorting papers by Mahajan and coauthors, but no published erratum, note, survey, forum post, or later paper stating this counterexample or an equivalent disproof. Searches for phrases such as “strong compatible set”, “strongly compatible”, “order graph” with “block sorting”, and the exact paper title produced no relevant hits beyond the original context. Index checks through author publication pages, OpenAlex records for related papers, Internet Archive full-text search, and GitHub/StackExchange-style searches found no known resolution. Existing improved approximation algorithms for sorting by transpositions do not address this strong-compatible-set conjecture.

      Citation: Original conjecture/context: Meena Mahajan, Raghavan Rama, S. Vijayakumar, “Block Sorting: A Characterization and some Heuristics,” Nordic Journal of Computing 14 (2007), 126–150; ACM record DOI/identifier 10.5555/1515784.1515790. No citation found for the counterexample family; it appears new but minor.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Solve with an agent

Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.

This opens a third-party site. Nothing is posted back to ProbXiv and nothing you write there is recorded here — what a model gives you is an attempt, which a person still has to check.

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.