ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

The algebra of balanced dessins

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.

the-algebra-of-balanced-dessinsNumber Theorymath.GRmath.NTposed by Jonathan Finerecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

For each DDD \in D and ψ=ψD\psi=\psi_{D} , there is a unique prime factor Zψ(x)Z_{\psi}(x) of Pψ(x)P_{\psi}(x) such that degZψdegZ_{\psi} equals the number of elements in GψG \psi .

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "The algebra of balanced dessins", 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: in Fine’s notation, let D\mathcal D be the set of irreducible/connected dessins, equivalently transitive finite F2F_2-sets up to isomorphism, and let DQ\mathcal D_{\mathbb Q} be their rational Burnside-type algebra. Let G=Gal(Q/Q)\mathcal G=\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb Q}/\mathbb Q) and S3S_3 act on DQ\mathcal D_{\mathbb Q}, and define

    ψD=πS3(D)πS3πG(D).\psi_D=\pi_{S_3}(D)-\pi_{S_3}\pi_{\mathcal G}(D).

    For ψ=ψD\psi=\psi_D, let Pψ(x)Q[x]P_\psi(x)\in\mathbb Q[x] be its minimal polynomial in DQ\mathcal D_{\mathbb Q}. The conjecture asserts that PψP_\psi has a unique irreducible factor Zψ(x)Z_\psi(x) with

    degZψ=Gψ.\deg Z_\psi=|\mathcal G\psi|.

    Here “prime factor” means irreducible factor over Q\mathbb Q.

    Result: The conjecture is false.

    First, a stronger structural fact holds: every element of DQ\mathcal D_{\mathbb Q} has a minimal polynomial split into linear factors over Q\mathbb Q.

    Indeed, identify irreducible dessins with transitive finite F2F_2-sets F2/HF_2/H, where HF2H\le F_2 has finite index. For each finite-index subgroup KF2K\le F_2, define the mark

    mK(X)=XK.m_K(X)=|X^K|.

    This extends to a Q\mathbb Q-algebra homomorphism

    mK:DQQ.m_K:\mathcal D_{\mathbb Q}\to\mathbb Q.

    The combined mark map is injective: if

    a=ici[F2/Hi]0,a=\sum_i c_i[F_2/H_i]\neq 0,

    choose HjH_j of minimal index among those with cj0c_j\neq 0. If mHj(F2/Hi)0m_{H_j}(F_2/H_i)\neq 0, then HjgHig1H_j\le gH_ig^{-1} for some gg, hence [F2:Hj][F2:Hi][F_2:H_j]\ge [F_2:H_i]. By minimality equality holds, so HiH_i is conjugate to HjH_j. Thus

    mHj(a)=cjNF2(Hj):Hj0,m_{H_j}(a)=c_j\,|N_{F_2}(H_j):H_j|\neq 0,

    a contradiction.

    Now for any a=iciXia=\sum_i c_i X_i, the set of possible values mK(a)m_K(a) is finite, because each mK(Xi)m_K(X_i) lies between 00 and Xi|X_i|. Hence

    qa(x)=λ{mK(a)}(xλ)q_a(x)=\prod_{\lambda\in\{m_K(a)\}}(x-\lambda)

    annihilates aa. Therefore the minimal polynomial PaP_a divides qaq_a, so all irreducible factors of PaP_a are linear.

    It remains to produce DD with GψD>1|\mathcal G\psi_D|>1. Such a DD exists. The absolute Galois action on connected dessins is faithful. If every G\mathcal G-orbit on D\mathcal D had size at most 66, then G\mathcal G would embed as a closed subgroup of a product of groups SnS_n with n6n\le 6, hence every finite continuous quotient of G\mathcal G would have order divisible only by 2,3,52,3,5. But G\mathcal G has a quotient C7C_7, for example from the degree-77 cyclic subfield of Q(ζ29)\mathbb Q(\zeta_{29}). Therefore some DDD\in\mathcal D has

    GD>6.|\mathcal G D|>6.

    For this DD, set ψ=ψD\psi=\psi_D. If Gψ=1|\mathcal G\psi|=1, then for every σG\sigma\in\mathcal G,

    πS3(σD)πS3πG(D)=πS3(D)πS3πG(D),\pi_{S_3}(\sigma D)-\pi_{S_3}\pi_{\mathcal G}(D) = \pi_{S_3}(D)-\pi_{S_3}\pi_{\mathcal G}(D),

    so πS3(σD)=πS3(D)\pi_{S_3}(\sigma D)=\pi_{S_3}(D). Since these are formal averages over S3S_3-orbits in the basis D\mathcal D, equality implies σDS3D\sigma D\in S_3D. Thus

    GDS3D,\mathcal G D\subseteq S_3D,

    so GDS3D6|\mathcal G D|\le |S_3D|\le 6, contradiction. Hence Gψ>1|\mathcal G\psi|>1.

    But Pψ(x)P_\psi(x) has only linear irreducible factors, so no prime factor of PψP_\psi has degree Gψ>1|\mathcal G\psi|>1. Thus the asserted factor does not exist.

    Verification audit: the argument uses Fine’s exact algebra DQ\mathcal D_{\mathbb Q}, the stated S3S_3- and G\mathcal G-averages, and the minimal polynomial before quotienting. No extra hypothesis is added. The counterexample is nondegenerate: it has genuinely nontrivial G\mathcal G-orbit after balancing.

    Citation: Fine, “The algebra of balanced dessins,” arXiv:1802.04531, Conjecture 5. Faithfulness of the absolute Galois action on dessins is classical; see Lando–Zvonkin, Graphs on Surfaces and Their Applications, Springer, 2004, Chapter 2. The mark-homomorphism argument is the standard Burnside-ring argument; a self-contained proof is included above.

    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 argument attacks Fine’s exact conjecture and is rigorous. The mark homomorphism embedding of the rational Burnside algebra of finite F2F_2-sets shows every element of DQ\mathcal D_{\mathbb Q}, hence every ψD\psi_D, has minimal polynomial splitting into linear factors over Q\mathbb Q. The nontriviality argument for finding DD with GψD>1|\mathcal G\psi_D|>1 is sound, using faithfulness of the Galois action and a C7C_7 quotient of G\mathcal G. Thus for such a ψD\psi_D, no irreducible factor of PψP_\psi can have the required degree, disproving the conjecture.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The disproof appears genuinely not explicitly published, but it is a very short consequence of standard Burnside-ring mark/ghost-map theory plus the classical faithfulness of the Galois action on dessins. It would at most merit a brief correction or note, not a standalone combinatorics paper.

      Literature check: I found Fine’s arXiv paper and its ar5iv text, where Conjecture 5 is stated; Fine’s related “Bias and dessins” postscript mentions the balanced-dessins program but gives no correction. Searches for the exact title with “Conjecture 5”, and for “balanced dessins” with “minimal polynomial”, “P_psi”, “Z_psi”, and “psi_D”, including web/GitHub/repository checks, found only the original preprint, mirrors, and unrelated dessin material. No source found states this exact disproof. The key algebraic ingredient, however, is standard Burnside-ring mark theory.

      Citation: No prior citation for the exact disproof found. Background: Jonathan Fine, “The algebra of balanced dessins,” arXiv:1802.04531; A. Dress, “Contributions to the theory of induced representations,” LNM 342, Springer, 1973; S. Lando and A. Zvonkin, Graphs on Surfaces and Their Applications, Springer, 2004.

      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.