BRAID GROUPS, CLUSTERS, AND FREE PROBABILITY: AN OUTLINE FROM THE AIM WORKSHOP, JANUARY 2005
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
Given a cancellative, finitely-generated monoid M in which lcm's exist, is M necessarily a Garside monoid? That is, does there exist a Garside element in M ?
Context
Candidate 10 of the open problems stated in "BRAID GROUPS, CLUSTERS, AND FREE PROBABILITY: AN OUTLINE FROM THE AIM WORKSHOP, JANUARY 2005", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
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.
NEW
Problem: Reconstructed statement: a cancellative finitely generated monoid , with left and right lcms for every pair of elements, must be a classical Garside monoid, i.e. must contain a Garside element whose left and right divisor sets coincide, are finite, and generate . The wording is ambiguous about whether nontrivial units are excluded; the literal text does not exclude them.
Result: The literal statement is false.
Let
with addition. It is a commutative cancellative monoid, generated by
Divisibility is:
Thus any two elements have an lcm, unique up to multiplication by a unit, represented by any element with first coordinate . Equivalently,
But is not a classical Garside monoid. For any , its divisors are
which is infinite. Hence no element has a finite divisor set, so no classical Garside element exists.
The defect is the missing “no nontrivial units / conical / atomic-noetherian” hypothesis. Indeed has infinite unit group .
A standard repaired theorem is true: if is a finitely generated Gaussian monoid—cancellative, conical/atomic, with left and right lcms—then is Garside. In that setting the finitely many atoms have a common lcm , and the Dehornoy–Paris theorem says this is a Garside element.
Audit: the counterexample satisfies the literal hypotheses, including finite generation, cancellativity, and existence of lcms; it violates exactly the Garside conclusion.
Citation: Counterexample elementary. Repaired theorem: P. Dehornoy and L. Paris, “Gaussian groups and Garside groups, two generalisations of Artin groups,” Proc. London Math. Soc. 79 (1999), 569–604.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1
PASS
The counterexample is valid for the literal supplied conjecture. It is finitely generated and cancellative, and its principal ideal intersections show that left/right lcms exist up to units. For any , the divisor set contains , hence is infinite, so no classical Garside element exists. Thus the stated conjecture, without a conical/no-nontrivial-units hypothesis, is false.
Novelty assessment
TYPE1
Classification rationale: The accepted resolution is a valid but very minor counterexample to the literal wording. The issue is simply the omitted “no nontrivial units/conical” hypothesis; indeed even an infinite finitely generated group such as makes the lcm condition degenerate while having no classical Garside element with finite divisor set. This is a routine observation rather than a publishable combinatorial contribution.
Literature check: I found the standard repaired result in the Garside/Gaussian monoid literature: finitely generated Gaussian-type monoids under the usual noetherian/atomic/conical hypotheses are Garside. I did not find evidence that this exact AIM wording was separately published as “solved” by the counterexample, but the obstruction from units is standard and immediate from definitions.
Citation: P. Dehornoy and L. Paris, “Gaussian groups and Garside groups, two generalisations of Artin groups,” Proc. London Math. Soc. 79 (1999), 569–604.
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.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.