ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

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.

braid-groups-clusters-and-free-probability-an-outline-from-the-aim-10Number Theorymath.NTmath.PRposed by Drew Armstrongrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

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 Δ\Delta 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

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

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.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

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

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 statement: a cancellative finitely generated monoid MM, with left and right lcms for every pair of elements, must be a classical Garside monoid, i.e. must contain a Garside element Δ\Delta whose left and right divisor sets coincide, are finite, and generate MM. The wording is ambiguous about whether nontrivial units are excluded; the literal text does not exclude them.

    Result: The literal statement is false.

    Let

    M=N×ZM=\mathbb N\times \mathbb Z

    with addition. It is a commutative cancellative monoid, generated by

    (1,0), (0,1), (0,1).(1,0),\ (0,1),\ (0,-1).

    Divisibility is:

    (a,b)(c,d)    (ca,db)N×Z    ca.(a,b)\mid(c,d)\iff (c-a,d-b)\in \mathbb N\times\mathbb Z\iff c\ge a.

    Thus any two elements (a,b),(c,d)(a,b),(c,d) have an lcm, unique up to multiplication by a unit, represented by any element with first coordinate max(a,c)\max(a,c). Equivalently,

    ((a,b)+M)((c,d)+M)=(max(a,c),0)+M.((a,b)+M)\cap((c,d)+M)=(\max(a,c),0)+M.

    But MM is not a classical Garside monoid. For any Δ=(n,z)\Delta=(n,z), its divisors are

    {(k,t):0kn, tZ},\{(k,t):0\le k\le n,\ t\in\mathbb Z\},

    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 MM has infinite unit group {0}×Z\{0\}\times\mathbb Z.

    A standard repaired theorem is true: if MM is a finitely generated Gaussian monoid—cancellative, conical/atomic, with left and right lcms—then MM is Garside. In that setting the finitely many atoms have a common lcm Δ\Delta, and the Dehornoy–Paris theorem says this Δ\Delta 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 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 counterexample M=N×ZM=\mathbb N\times\mathbb Z 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 Δ=(n,z)\Delta=(n,z), the divisor set contains {(k,t):0kn, tZ}\{(k,t):0\le k\le n,\ t\in\mathbb Z\}, 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 Z\mathbb Z 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 N×Z\mathbb N\times\mathbb Z 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 endorsements

    No 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

no comments

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.