ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

RECURSIONS ASSOCIATED TO TRAPEZOID, SYMMETRIC AND ROTATION SYMMETRIC FUNCTIONS OVER GALOIS FIELDS

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.

recursions-associated-to-trapezoid-symmetric-and-rotation-symmetric-2Representation Theorymath.COmath.RTposed by Francis N. Castro, Robin Chapman, Luis A. Medina, L. Brehsner Sepúlvedarecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

Let (5.3)δo(j)={0if j is even1if j is odd.(5.3) \qquad \delta_o(j) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if } j \text{ is even} \\ 1 & \text{if } j \text{ is odd.} \end{cases} Define rk(n){r_{k}(n)} by (5.4) rk(0)=kr_{k}(0)\quad=\quad k rk(j)=2j−δo(j)⋅2,for 1≤j≤k−1r_{k}(j)\quad=\quad 2^{j}-\delta_{o}(j)\cdot 2,\quad for \ 1 \leq j \leq k-1 rk(n)=2∑l=0k−2rk(n−(l+2)),for n≥k.r_{k}(n)\quad=\quad 2 \sum_{l=0}^{k-2}r_{k}(n-(l+2)),\quad for \ n \geq k. Then, S(R2,3,...,k(n))=rk(n)S(R_{2,3,...,k}(n))=r_{k}(n) for all values of n ≥k.

Context

Candidate 2 of the open problems stated in "RECURSIONS ASSOCIATED TO TRAPEZOID, SYMMETRIC AND ROTATION SYMMETRIC FUNCTIONS OVER GALOIS FIELDS", 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: For k≥2k\ge 2, work over F2\mathbb F_2. Define

    R2,3,…,k(n)=∑i=1nXiXi+1⋯Xi+k−1,R_{2,3,\ldots,k}(n)=\sum_{i=1}^n X_iX_{i+1}\cdots X_{i+k-1},

    with indices modulo nn, and

    S(F)=∑x∈F2n(−1)F(x).S(F)=\sum_{x\in\mathbb F_2^n}(-1)^{F(x)}.

    Let δo(j)=1\delta_o(j)=1 if jj is odd and 00 otherwise. Define rkr_k by

    rk(0)=k,rk(j)=2j−2δo(j)(1≤j≤k−1),r_k(0)=k,\qquad r_k(j)=2^j-2\delta_o(j)\quad(1\le j\le k-1),

    and

    rk(n)=2∑ℓ=0k−2rk(n−ℓ−2)(n≥k).r_k(n)=2\sum_{\ell=0}^{k-2}r_k(n-\ell-2)\quad(n\ge k).

    The conjecture asserts:

    S(R2,3,…,k(n))=rk(n)(n≥k).S(R_{2,3,\ldots,k}(n))=r_k(n)\qquad(n\ge k).

    Result: The conjecture is true.

    Let A=AkA=A_k be the k×kk\times k matrix indexed by 0,…,k−10,\ldots,k-1 with

    Ai0=1(0≤i≤k−1),Ai,i+1=1(0≤i≤k−2),Ak−1,k−1=−1,A_{i0}=1\quad(0\le i\le k-1),\qquad A_{i,i+1}=1\quad(0\le i\le k-2),\qquad A_{k-1,k-1}=-1,

    and all other entries 00.

    A closed walk in this transition graph records a cyclic binary word: state ii means the current terminal run of 11’s has length ii, capped at k−1k-1. The only negative transition is k−1→k−1k-1\to k-1, exactly when a cyclic block of kk consecutive 11’s occurs. Hence, for n≥kn\ge k,

    S(R2,3,…,k(n))=tr⁡(An).S(R_{2,3,\ldots,k}(n))=\operatorname{tr}(A^n).

    Now compute the characteristic polynomial. Since AA and ATA^T have the same characteristic polynomial, expanding XI−ATXI-A^T along its first row gives

    χA(X)=Xk−2(Xk−2+Xk−3+⋯+X+1).\chi_A(X)=X^k-2(X^{k-2}+X^{k-3}+\cdots+X+1).

    By Cayley-Hamilton,

    An=2(An−2+An−3+⋯+An−k)(n≥k),A^n=2(A^{n-2}+A^{n-3}+\cdots+A^{n-k})\qquad(n\ge k),

    so

    tr⁡(An)=2∑ℓ=0k−2tr⁡(An−ℓ−2).\operatorname{tr}(A^n)=2\sum_{\ell=0}^{k-2}\operatorname{tr}(A^{n-\ell-2}).

    It remains to check the initial values. Clearly

    tr⁡(A0)=k.\operatorname{tr}(A^0)=k.

    For 1≤j≤k−11\le j\le k-1, every cyclic binary word of length jj contributes +1+1, except the all-one word, which contributes (−1)j(-1)^j. Thus

    tr⁡(Aj)=2j−1+(−1)j=2j−2δo(j).\operatorname{tr}(A^j)=2^j-1+(-1)^j=2^j-2\delta_o(j).

    Therefore tr⁡(An)\operatorname{tr}(A^n) satisfies exactly the same recurrence and initial conditions as rk(n)r_k(n). Hence

    S(R2,3,…,k(n))=tr⁡(An)=rk(n)S(R_{2,3,\ldots,k}(n))=\operatorname{tr}(A^n)=r_k(n)

    for all n≥kn\ge k.

    Verification audit: the case k=2k=2 is included; the boundary case n=kn=k uses the paper’s convention that the nn cyclic shifts are all counted, so duplicated monomials cancel according to parity in F2\mathbb F_2. No extra hypotheses are introduced.

    Citation: The conjecture is Conjecture 5.2 in Castro, Chapman, Medina, and Sepúlveda, “Recursions associated to trapezoid, symmetric and rotation symmetric functions over Galois fields,” Discrete Mathematics 341 (2018), 1915–1931. The proof above is self-contained.

    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 proof attacks the correct R2,3,…,k(n)R_{2,3,\ldots,k}(n) statement. The weighted transfer matrix correctly counts cyclic binary words with sign (−1)# cyclic k-blocks of ones(-1)^{\#\text{ cyclic }k\text{-blocks of ones}}, hence equals S(R2,3,…,k(n))S(R_{2,3,\ldots,k}(n)) for n≥kn\ge k. The characteristic polynomial gives exactly the stated recurrence, and the trace initial values match rk(0)=kr_k(0)=k and rk(j)=2j−2δo(j)r_k(j)=2^j-2\delta_o(j). I found no fatal gap or mismatch.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The result appears genuinely new as an explicit resolution of Castro–Chapman–Medina–Sepúlveda Conjecture 5.2, but it is a very small contribution. The proof is a standard transfer-matrix/finite-state automaton argument for cyclic binary words with a weight on runs of kk ones, followed by an elementary characteristic-polynomial computation. It resolves a narrow one-parameter conjecture, but introduces no new method and is likely too short/routine for a standalone combinatorics paper except perhaps as a brief note or part of a broader work.

      Literature check: I found the conjecture in the original arXiv/journal paper, where only Conjecture 4.4 is noted as having been upgraded to a theorem; Conjecture 5.2 remains listed as an observation/conjecture. Searches for the exact conjecture label and notation, including “Conjecture 5.2” with “rotation symmetric Boolean functions”, R2,3,…,kR_{2,3,\ldots,k}, S(R2,3,…,k(n))S(R_{2,3,\ldots,k}(n)), and the displayed recurrence/characteristic polynomial, did not reveal an open-access paper, note, forum post, or repository proving the statement. I also checked the arXiv author page/feed for Luis A. Medina and related follow-up papers by the authors; later work concerns symmetric polynomials/value distributions, not this rotation-symmetric conjecture. General transfer-matrix and pattern-occurrence methods certainly contain the technique, but I found no explicit prior statement of this recurrence in the literature.

      Citation: Francis N. Castro, Robin Chapman, Luis A. Medina, and L. Brehsner Sepúlveda, “Recursions associated to trapezoid, symmetric and rotation symmetric functions over Galois fields,” Discrete Mathematics 341 (2018), 1915–1931; arXiv:1702.08038.

      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.