ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

GEOMETRY, COMBINATORICS, AND ALGEBRA OF INDUCTIVELY PIERCED CODES

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.

geometry-combinatorics-and-algebra-of-inductively-pierced-codes-2Commutative Algebramath.ACmath.COposed by Caitlin Lienkaemperrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

For each nn, there exists a term order such that a code is 0- or 1-inductively pierced if and only if the reduced Gröbner basis contains binomials of degree 2 or less.

Context

Candidate 2 of the open problems stated in "GEOMETRY, COMBINATORICS, AND ALGEBRA OF INDUCTIVELY PIERCED CODES", 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: for each nn, there is a term order on the neural toric ideal variables such that a neural code C⊆{0,1}n\mathcal C\subseteq\{0,1\}^n is 00- or 11-inductively pierced iff the reduced Gröbner basis of its toric ideal ICI_{\mathcal C} has only binomials of degree ≤2\le 2. This uses the standard toric ideal

    IC=ker⁡(K[pc:c∈C∖{0}]→K[x1,…,xn]),pc↦∏i∈supp⁡(c)xi.I_{\mathcal C}=\ker\Big(K[p_c:c\in\mathcal C\setminus\{0\}]\to K[x_1,\dots,x_n]\Big),\qquad p_c\mapsto \prod_{i\in \operatorname{supp}(c)}x_i .

    The word “only” is forced by the surrounding proposition in Gross--Obatake--Youngs.

    Result: The statement is false already for n=4n=4.

    Let

    C={0000,1100,1010,0101,0011},\mathcal C=\{0000,1100,1010,0101,0011\},

    i.e. the nonzero supports are

    12, 13, 24, 34.12,\ 13,\ 24,\ 34.

    This code is not 00- or 11-inductively pierced. Indeed,

    X1={12,13},X2={12,24},X3={13,34},X4={24,34}.X_1=\{12,13\},\quad X_2=\{12,24\},\quad X_3=\{13,34\},\quad X_4=\{24,34\}.

    No XiX_i has size 11, so there is no 00-piercing. For a 11-piercing, the two zones containing the pierced label must be nested after deleting that label; equivalently they must have the form Z∪{i}Z\cup\{i\} and Z∪{i,j}Z\cup\{i,j\}. But each displayed pair is incomparable. Hence there is no initial 00- or 11-piercing, so C\mathcal C is not 11-inductively pierced.

    Now compute the toric ideal. Write

    a=p12,b=p13,c=p24,d=p34.a=p_{12},\quad b=p_{13},\quad c=p_{24},\quad d=p_{34}.

    Then

    a↦x1x2,b↦x1x3,c↦x2x4,d↦x3x4.a\mapsto x_1x_2,\quad b\mapsto x_1x_3,\quad c\mapsto x_2x_4,\quad d\mapsto x_3x_4.

    The only integer relation among the exponent vectors is

    (1,1,0,0)+(0,0,1,1)=(1,0,1,0)+(0,1,0,1),(1,1,0,0)+(0,0,1,1)=(1,0,1,0)+(0,1,0,1),

    so

    IC=⟨ad−bc⟩.I_{\mathcal C}=\langle ad-bc\rangle.

    Thus for every term order, the reduced Gröbner basis is the single quadratic binomial ad−bcad-bc or bc−adbc-ad. Therefore the reduced Gröbner basis has degree ≤2\le 2 for every term order, while C\mathcal C is not 00- or 11-inductively pierced.

    So no term order for n=4n=4 can make the proposed equivalence true.

    Citation: Counterexample given here. Definitions and conjecture: Gross, Obatake, Youngs, “Neural ideals and stimulus space visualization,” arXiv:1607.00697, Conjecture 4.9.

    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 is valid for the conjecture as stated. For
      C={0000,1100,1010,0101,0011}\mathcal C=\{0000,1100,1010,0101,0011\}, each label appears in two incomparable supports, so no label is an initial 00- or 11-piercing; hence the code is not 00- or 11-inductively pierced.

      Its toric ideal has columns 12,13,24,3412,13,24,34 with the single primitive relation

      v12+v34=v13+v24,v_{12}+v_{34}=v_{13}+v_{24},

      so IC=⟨p12p34−p13p24⟩I_{\mathcal C}=\langle p_{12}p_{34}-p_{13}p_{24}\rangle. Therefore every reduced Gröbner basis is a single quadratic binomial, for every term order. This contradicts the proposed iff statement for n=4n=4.

      A literature check found related work on inductively pierced codes and toric ideals, but no prior occurrence of this specific stronger counterexample. Note: if an unstated “well-formed code” restriction were intended, this example would need rechecking, but that restriction is not in the supplied conjecture.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: New as far as I could find, but minor. The counterexample is a very small n=4n=4 code whose toric ideal is just the standard principal quadratic relation for a 4-cycle, while the code has no initial 0- or 1-piercing. This is an elementary observation and likely only suitable as a short remark/erratum, not a standalone paper.

      Literature check: I found the original conjecture in Gross–Obatake–Youngs, where they also note that quadratic generation alone is not sufficient, but they do not give this Gröbner-basis counterexample. Lienkaemper’s later paper quotes the conjecture and discusses related quadratic Gröbner-basis conjectures, including noting a flawed earlier proof, but does not resolve or refute Conjecture 4.9. I found no open-access paper, update, or note containing this specific counterexample or an equivalent stronger disproof.

      Citation: Original conjecture: Elizabeth Gross, Nida Kazi Obatake, Nora Youngs, “Neural ideals and stimulus space visualization,” arXiv:1607.00697, Conjecture 4.9. Related follow-up: Caitlin Lienkaemper, “Geometry, combinatorics, and algebra of inductively pierced codes,” arXiv:1811.04712.

      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.