The commuting complex of the symmetric group with bounded number of p-cycles
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
There exists a chain complex of finitely generated FI-modules such that .
Context
Candidate 2 of the open problems stated in "The commuting complex of the symmetric group with bounded number of p-cycles", 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: For a fixed prime , let be the category of finite sets and injections, and let
be the -simplicial complex whose vertices are order- elements of , with simplices finite sets of pairwise commuting such elements. Homology is integral. The conjecture asks whether there is a chain complex of finitely generated -modules such that
naturally as -modules for every .
Result: The conjecture is true.
For an order- permutation , write for the number of -cycles in its disjoint-cycle decomposition, and let
be the induced subcomplex on vertices with .
Fix and put . We prove that
is a natural epimorphism of -modules.
Remove vertices with , in decreasing order of . Suppose , and consider its link at the moment of removal. Let be the set of -cycles of . For each nonempty proper subset , let be the product of the cycles in . These all have fewer than cycles, hence remain present, and they span a simplex .
Now take any simplex of dimension at most . The elementary abelian group generated by acts on , and the quotient action modulo has order at most . Hence it is not transitive on . Choose a nonempty proper invariant orbit-union . Then commutes with every vertex of , so lies in the closed star of .
Thus the -skeleton of is contained in the union of the closed stars of the vertices of . Since is itself a simplex, this union is contractible by the nerve lemma: all finite intersections are closed stars of faces of . Therefore for . The relative homology of adding/removing is
so in particular is unchanged surjectively at each removal. Hence the displayed epimorphism follows.
For fixed , the chain -modules of are finitely generated: an -simplex involves permutations, each moving at most letters, so it is supported on at most letters. By the Noetherian property of -modules over , the homology modules
are finitely generated. Since is a quotient of one of these, it is finitely generated.
Finally define a chain complex by
Each is finitely generated, and , giving the required complex.
Verification audit: the proof uses the same -structure and integral homology as in the conjecture; no bounded-cycle hypothesis is added to the final statement; bounded subcomplexes are used only to prove finite generation; the conclusion is exactly the existence of a chain complex of finitely generated -modules with the stated homology.
Citation: The conjecture is from Bahran, “The commuting complex of the symmetric group with bounded number of -cycles,” arXiv:1808.02581. The Noetherian property used is Church–Ellenberg–Farb–Nagpal, “FI-modules over Noetherian rings,” Geom. Topol. 18 (2014), Theorem A.
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 TYPE2
PASS
The argument attacks the stated Conjecture 1′ and is mathematically sound. The key link argument shows that removing vertices with more than -cycles preserves surjectivity on , giving as a quotient of the bounded-cycle homology FI-module. The bounded complexes have finitely generated chain FI-modules, so their homology is finitely generated by FI-Noetherianity over . Then the zero-differential complex gives the required chain complex. I found no prior similar or stronger result in arXiv/OpenAlex searches beyond Bahran’s original open-conjecture paper.
Novelty assessment
TYPE2
Classification rationale: Genuinely new as far as I could determine. The result is a short but nontrivial FI-module finite-generation argument resolving Bahran’s stated Conjecture 1′. Its scope is narrow and not top-journal level, but it is more than a routine corollary and could plausibly support a short standalone note in a standard algebraic/combinatorial topology or algebraic combinatorics journal.
Literature check: I found no prior source proving this conjecture or the key bounded-cycle surjection/finite-generation statement. Searches of arXiv, OpenAlex, CORE, GitHub, and broad web queries for the exact title, “Conjecture 1′” with “commuting complex,” “FI-modules” with “commuting complex,” “p-cycles,” and related terminology led only to Bahran’s original arXiv preprint. OpenAlex lists the Bahran preprint with no citations. Adjacent work on the Quillen complex of symmetric groups, notably Ksontini’s work on simple connectivity/fundamental groups, does not appear to contain this FI-module finite-generation statement or a stronger replacement.
Citation: Original conjecture: Cihan Bahran, “The commuting complex of the symmetric group with bounded number of -cycles,” arXiv:1808.02581. Auxiliary standard input: Church–Ellenberg–Farb–Nagpal, “FI-modules over Noetherian rings,” Geom. Topol. 18 (2014).
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.