St Bernard on collaboration

I found the answer to the annoying bureaucrats who ask what percentage of the work on a publication was done by each of its authors, in the writings of St Bernard. He said,

Grace is necessary to salvation, free will equally so—but grace in order to give salvation, free will in order to receive it. Therefore we should not attribute part of the good work to grace and part to free will; it is performed in its entirety by the common and inseparable action of both; entirely by grace, entirely by free will, but springing from the first in the second.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 2 Comments

Location parameters and twin vertices

It is a pleasant experience when two previous interests suddenly reappear and combine to give something new. This happened to me yesterday, and to add to the pleasure, the two previous interests were things I had first worked on with former students: location parameters and twin vertices in graphs.

Location parameters

If you are lost, you look for landmarks, and find your position by using them. Location parameters describe this procedure in graphs.

Let Γ be a graph. A set S of vertices is called a metric resolving set if all vertices can be uniquely identified from knowledge of the list of their distances from vertices in S; in other words, if d(v,s) = d(w,s) for all vertices s in S, then v = w. The metric dimension of Γ is the size of the smallest metric resolving set.

This parameter and other similar ones cropped up many times and were given many different names; this resulted in a large amount of duplication of work, since one researcher had no easy way of finding out what others had done. This prompted my former student Robert Bailey to suggest to me that we should try to write a definitive survey about this, pulling together all the different names. We did, and it is now one of my most cited papers, in the Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society in 2011.

There are other similar measures. For example, if we replace “distances” by “adjacencies” in the definition (i.e. require that a vertex is determined by the set of its neighbours in S) we get adjacency resolving sets and adjacency dimension. (I always felt that this was a much more natural concept in a graph than the metric versions, but it has not received as much attention.)

An alternative version is to use symmetry as our guide: S is a base if, for any two distinct vertices v and w, there is no automorphism of Γ moving v to w and fixing all vertices in S. The size of the smallest base is, of course, the base size.

Since any adjacency resolving set is a metric resolving set, and any metric resolving set is a base, the sequence (base size, adjacency dimension, metric dimension) is non-decreasing. The gaps can be arbitrarily large: for example, a long path has metric dimension 1 but large adjacency dimension, while a large random graph has base size 1 but large metric dimension.

Twin vertices

I came across these and their significance when I was working with my former student Colva Roney-Dougal on generation of groups. We were looking at the generating graph, whose vertex set is the group, two vertices joined if they generate the group. We constructed the generating graph of the alternating group A5, and idly wondered what its automorphism group was, expecting it to be not too far from the group A5 itself. To our shock, the computer told us that the number of automorphisms was 23482733690880.

It turns out that most of this is explained by twin vertices. Two vertices v and w of a graph Γ are twins if they have the same neighbours apart from one another. So there are two kinds of twins: closed twins, where v and w are joined, and open twins, where they are not. Fortunately it turns out that a vertex cannot have both a closed twin and an open twin. So being equal or twins is an equivalence relation on the vertex set, and all pairs of vertices in a non-singleton equivalence class are the same kind of twins.

If v and w are twins, then the transposition swapping these two vertices and fixing everything else is a graph automorphism, which tells nothing about the graph except that the two vertices are twins. So the automorphism group contains the direct product of symmetric groups on the non-singleton twin classes. Now in the generating graph of A5, an element of order 3 or 5 is twin to all its non-identity powers; so the automorphism group contains (S2)10×(S4)6, and all these automorphisms should be regarded as junk.

The argument shows that for graphs defined on groups (generating graph, commuting graph, power graph, etc.), there are many pairs of twins. I found that twin reduction (where we successively identify pairs of twins until none remain) was a valuable tool for investigating these graphs.

Combining

In the course of straightening out the proof of a theorem, I noticed the relation between location parameters and twins. Here is a clean and simple result showing how it works.

Theorem Let Γ be a graph in which every vertex has a twin. Then the base size, metric dimension, and adjacency dimension of Γ are all equal; the common value is the number of vertices minus the number of twin classes.

Here is the proof. Let n and r be the numbers of vertices and twin classes in a graph satisfying the hypothesis.

First we show that the base size is at least n−r. Suppose that S is a set of size smaller than this. Then there must be a twin class containing two vertices outside S. We can swap these two without affecting the rest of the graph. So S is not a base.

Then we show that the adjacency dimension is at most n−r. Take a set S containing all but one vertex from each twin class. Then S has size n−r. We claim that it is an adjacency resolving set. Two vertices outside S are not twins, and so differ in their adjacencies to some vertex, say w. But then they differ in their adjacencies to every vertex in the twin class of w, and at least one of these lies in S.

Thus the non-decreasing sequence (base size, metric dimension, adjacency dimension) we met earlier is bounded above and below by n−r, and the theorem is proved.

There is a lot more that can be said. For example, suppose that Γ has a unique universal vertex (joined to all others), and all other vertices are twins. Then the three location parameters of Γ are all equal. I do not know if there is a general theorem summing all this up, but I think it is a technique rather than a theorem. Also, similar things can be done for relational structures other than graphs.

Anyway, I recommend the study of location parameters of graphs defined on groups to those interested in the subject.

Posted in doing mathematics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Singing mathematics

Yesterday we had a fascinating colloquium talk about the Kerala school of mathematics, given by Aditya Kolachana from IIT Madras (where, by a remarkable coincidence, I am giving a remote talk next week).

I knew a bit about this subject, since when I visited Kerala in 2010, I was given a book about the Kerala school and its founder Madhava (14th century CE). Two of his achievements were to find the power series for the inverse tangent and hence the alternating series for pi usually attributed to Leibniz, and then (since this series converges very slowly) to discover some remarkably ingenious tricks to get faster convergence, so that he was able to compute pi to 11 places of decimals.

One remarkable feature of the talk was that the speaker showed us several times the Sanskrit verse in which the mathematical results were expressed, and proceeded to sing or chant them. He explained that it is much easier to remember a song than a piece of text, and so this was done for the benefit of students. I do not know whether he was taught mathematics this way, or whether he studied the chanting of mathematical verses when he became a historian of mathematics. But it seemed remarkably effective.

One downside of the Indian method of writing mathematics, which has led outsiders to think that Indians were not interested in proofs, is that the proofs were not included in the primary texts but only in commentaries on them, and while some primary texts have been unearthed and translated, this has happened much less for the commentaries.

But we should not feel superior about this. Today, in several application areas including statistics, some journals take the view that mathematical proofs should not be included in the paper but relegated to the supplementary material.

Posted in exposition, history | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Worrying news

From the International Mathematical Union newsletter:

Paper mills and predatory journals have strongly professionalised their activities in the past 10 years and are now creating a substantial revenue. There is a growing parallel universe of fake mathematical science that undermines the trust in science and devaluates the classical selection criteria for scientific excellence based on the (over-)use of bibliometrics). The concrete starting point was that in November 2023, Clarivate (the company computing impact factors of journals that owns “Web of Science”) announced that it had excluded the entire field of mathematics from the most recent edition of its list of authors of highly cited papers because of extensive citation manipulation.

Posted in publishing | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Bill Jackson

My former colleague Bill Jackson is retiring from Queen Mary. Robert Johnson has put together a nice tribute to Bill, which you can find at https://www.seresearch.qmul.ac.uk/ccant/news/4784/retirement-of-professor-bill-jackson/.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Cluster detection and error correction

A thought, possibly worthless, but I will record it anyway.

Today I heard a talk by Brian Franczak from MacEwan University. It was on cluster detection in data, a big topic in artificial intelligence now. The new feature was that he and his colleagues were detecting clusters in data where there is missing or corrupted data. They had an algorithm, and their implementation of it compares favourably in both performance and runtime with more established algorithms.

After the talk, somebody asked a question, which I completely failed to hear. What I thought had been asked was: can this method be used for error correction, when data is transmitted through a noisy channel which can erase or alter some symbols in a transmitted word?

This was not the question actually asked, but I think that the answer is yes. As usual in error correction, we will only transmit words from a code having the property that any two of its words are at a considerable distance apart. So we proceed as follows. If not too many errors are made, then the received word will be closer to the transmitted word than to any other codeword. So the received words will form clusters centred on codewords, and identifying the cluster containing a given received word will determine the transmitted word uniquely (provided that not too many errors have actually occurred).

So the remaining question is whether their algorthm competes with any of the many known decoding algorithms. This is not a trivial question, since the general problem of decoding linear codes is known to be NP-complete, so there is room for new ideas in the field.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Paul Halmos and Tom Blyth

Tom Blyth, a long-term member of the Mathematics department in St Andrews, died in May this year at the age of 85.

Last week, I spotted the Head of Department talking to a woman carrying a big heavy bag. We learned later that it was Abigail, Tom’s daughter, who had brought his mathematics books to the department; we were invited to help ourselves, so I took a couple.

One of them was I want to be a mathematician: an automathography, by the Hungarian-American mathematician Paul Halmos.

Halmos was a wide-ranging mathematician. He was once introduced by Frank Bonsall with the words “Professor Halmos may look like one mathematician, but in reality he is an equivalence class, and has worked in several fields, including algebraic logic and ergodic theory; this afternoon his representative from Hilbert space will address us.”

So what does he have in common with Tom Blyth?

For one thing, both wrote linear algebra textbooks. Halmos published Finite-Dimensional Vector Spaces in 1942. It is very difficult now, when linear algebra is part of the bedrock of mathematics, applicable in many fields (including statistics, dynamics, quantum mechanics and economics), to realise how non-standard and innovative it was back then. Blyth’s book Basic Linear Algebra (with Edmund Robertson) came out in 1998 in the SUMS series and was one of their best sellers.

But there must be more. Blyth’s copy of Halmos’s automathography bears the handwritten inscription “To Tom Blyth, with all best wishes, Paul Halmos”. On reading it, I discovered that Halmos was very fond of Scotland and visited a number of times. On looking up St Andrews in the index, I found that he had been an invited lecturer at the St Andrews Mathematical Colloquium in 1972. He writes, “I made some new friends at that colloquium and met several old ones. Tom Blyth was the junior faculty member at St Andrews and was charged with local arrangements, and he discharged his duties very well.” After that, he came to the Colloquium whenever he could.

So this was no doubt a thank-you present.

Incidentally, Halmos calls his book an “automathography”, explaining that it is the story of his mathematics, not of his life. This is true: many mathematicians appear and are named in its pages, but as far as I can tell he does not tell us the name of his wife, though she accompanied him on a number of trips. He also tells of non-mathematical adventures in places like Montevideo, Moscow, and Washington (the last of these on an attempt to challenge the authorities’ refusal to give him a passport to attend the ICM in 1952).

Posted in books | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Between transitive and primitive, 2: results

Partitions and the partition lattice

The partitions of a set Ω are partially ordered by refinement: Π1 is below Π2 if every part of Π1 is contained in a part of Π2. With this order, they form a lattice; the infimum or meet of two partitions is the partition whose parts are all non-empty intersections of a part of the first with a part of the second, and the supremum or join is the partition in which the part containing a point α consists of all points that can be reached from α by taking steps alternately within a part of each of the two partitions. The greatest element is the universal partition U with a single part, while the smallest is the partition E whose parts are singletons.

Now let G be a transitive permutation group on Ω. The set of G-invariant partitions has the following properties:

  • it is a sublattice of the partition lattce;
  • it contains U and E;
  • all of its elements are uniform, that is, have all parts of the same size.

This is a situation which has been studied in experimental design in statistics, the partitions corresponding to factors which are likely to affect the experimental result. But statisticians like their factors to be orthogonal, and so add an extra condition:

  • the equivalence relations corresponding to the partitions commute.

This has the effect that the part containing α of the supremum of two partitions is found by taking a step within a part of one and then a step within a part of the other (in either order); no further steps are required. This condition implies that the lattice satisfies the modular law, but not conversely. (The modular law states that, if ac, then a∨(bc) = (ab)∧c.)

I note in passing that commuting is not itself enough to imply nice properties for general equivalence relations. Statisticians associate a vector space with each partition, the functions which are constant on its parts (the effect of that factor), and want the orthogonal projections onto these subspaces to commute; only if the partitions are uniform does this reduce to commutativity of the relations.

A set of partitions satisfying these four conditions is called an orthogonal block structure.

Permutation groups

We will say that a transitive permutation group G on Ω has the OB property if its invariant partitions form an orthogonal block structure.

This may look a bit unmotivated in the permutation group context, but it turns out to be surprisingly common: of the 1954 transitive groups of degree 16, in 1886 of them the invariant partitions form an orthogonal block structure.

This raises the first of many open questions: What proportion of transitive groups have the OB property? How does it behave for large degree? In particular, characterise the degrees for which every transitive group has the OB property. (This set includes all primes, as well as numbers such as 15, 33 and 35.)

This can be looked at another way. If G is transitive, the lattice of invariant partitions is isomorphic to the lattice of subgroups containing the stabiliser of a point α in Ω. The correspondence works like this: to a partition Π corresponds the setwise stabiliser of the part of Π containing α. Thus G has the OB property if and only if the subgroups containing Gα commute (in the sense that HK = KH).

In particular, a regular group has the OB property if and only if any pair of its subgroups permute. These groups are determined by a theorem of Iwasawa. They are nilpotent, and there are only a few possibilities for the Sylow subgroups.

Another consequence is that, since normal subgroups commute, a pre-primitive permutation group (as described in the preceding post) has the OB property.

Distributive lattices, generalised wreath products, and the PB property

A lattice is distributive if, for all a,b,c, we have a∨(bc) = (ab)∨(ac).

The distributiive law is equivalent to its dual (with ∧ and ∨ interchanged) and implies the modular law. Every finite distributive lattice is isomorphic to a sublattice of the Boolean lattice of subsets of a set. More precisely, an element of a lattice is called join-indecomposable or JI if it cannot be written as the join of two smaller elements. Now the non-zero JI elements of a distributive lattice L form a poset P, and conversely, the down-sets (sets closed downwards in the order) in a poset form a distributive lattice; these constructions are mutually inverse.

Statisticians have also been interested in orthogonal block structures satisfying the distributive law. Such a structure can be built from a finite poset P with a finite set associated to each point of P; the set Ω is the Cartesian product of these subsets. The order is a little complicated so I won’t describe it here. A distributive orthogonal block structure is called a poset block structure because of this construction.

A feature of poset block structures is that they all have large and precisely describable automorphism groups, unlike general orthogonal block structures. The latter include structures built from Latin squares: Ω is the set of cells of the square, and the partitions other than U and E correspond to rows, columns and letters. Automorphisms are just isotopisms of the Latin square (permutations of rows, columns and letters preserving the structure), and it is known that almost all Latin squares have no non-trivial isotopisms.

By contrast, there is a notion of generalised wreath product of a family of transitive permutation groups indexed by a poset P, which includes the direct product (in its product action) if P is a 2-element antichain, and the wreath product (in its imprimitive action) if P is a 2-element chain. Now it can be shown that the automorphism group of a poset block structure is the generalised wreath product of symmetric groups on the sets associated with the elements of P.

We say that a permutation group G has the PB property if its invariant partitions form a poset block structure. Thus, we see that a group with the PB property is embeddable in a generalised wreath product of symmetric groups.

In fact, a stronger embedding theorem is true. A classical result of Krasner and Kaloujnine states that an imprimitive permutation group G is embeddable in the wreath product of the group induced by the stabiliser of a block on the points of the block with the group induced by G on the set of blocks. Motivated by this, we show that, given a permutation group G with the PB property, with associated poset P, we can associate a group G*(p) with each element p in P in such a way that G is embeddable in the generalised wreath product of these groups over P.

I will say a little more about the embedding. Given a group G with the PB property, there is one obvious choice for a subgroup G(p). The element p of the poset corresponds to a join-indecomposable non-zero partition Π in the lattice. There is then a unique partition Π maximal with respect to being finer than Π. We could put G(p) to be the group induced by the stabiliser of a part of Π on the set of parts of Π it contains. This is exactly what happens in the KK theorem. Unfortunately, examples show that it doesn’t work in general, so we need something more complicated. There is a unique coarsest partition Γ satisfying Γ∧Π = Π; we take the group induced by a part of Γ∨Π on the parts of Γ it contains. This is the group G*(p) of the theorem.

We have also looked at what happens if we have more than one poset. Given a family of groups on an index set M, the map from posets on M to the corresponding generalised wreath products preserves intersection and inclusion, where the relations on posets are on the subsets of M2 forming the order relations. This implies that any generalised wreath product is the intersection of the iterated wreath products over the linear extensions of the posets.

There is lots more in the paper, including a detailed history of orthogonal block structures, but that is enough for an overlong post.

Posted in mathematics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Between transitive and primitive, I: history

I do enjoy being able to describe some mathematics to you. In this post and the next, it is the somewhat neglected class of transitive but imprimitive finite permutation groups. The paper is on the arXiv, 2409.10461.

The official history

In the late 1960s, combinatorial methods seriously entered permutation group theory.

If a permutation group G on a finite set Ω is primitive but not 2-transitive, then any orbit of G on ordered pairs of distinct elements of Ω is the edge set of a connected (indeed, strongly connected) digraph whose automorphism group contains G. Moreover, the collection all these digraphs forms a combinatorial structure called a homogeneous coherent configuration. These structures had been developed in three different areas of mathematics: permutation groups (via Schur, Wielandt and Donald Higman); experimental design in statistics (via Bose and his school), and the graph isomorphism problem (Weisfeiler and his colleagues).

So when we (Marina Anagnostopoulou-Merkouri, Rosemary Bailey and I) came to look at permutation groups which are transitive but not primitive, it was natural to follow this format. What do such groups preserve? (The answer: partitions.) What structure do these partitions form? (The answer: a lattice.) So the combinatorial structures underlying our study should be lattices of partitions.

We have just put a paper on the arXiv developing the theory.

The secret history

Mathematics is a human activity, and as in all human activities, nothing is quite as simple as it seems.

I arrived in Oxford to study for a DPhil in 1968. My supervisor, Peter Neumann, was just putting the finishing touches to a long paper on primitive permutation groups of degree 3p (extending a result of Wielandt for groups of degree 2p). I was given the paper to read; it kindled my lifelong interest in the interface between group theory and combinatorics.

The paper was never published. One of the reasons for this was that Leonard Scott and Olaf Tamaschke had obtained similar results. (There was a plan that Neumann and Scott would collaborate, but nothing came of it.) Had it been published, it would have been a significant contribution to the rapidly developing area between permutation groups and combinatorics. However, a decade later, the Classification of Finite Simple Groups had rendered the main theorem of the paper obsolete.

Peter died, a victim of Covid in care homes, in late 2020. In the summer of 2022, Marina, finishing her penultimate year of her MMath in St Andrews, asked me if I would supervise her on a summer research project. I had in mind that there was some serious combinatorial information in the 3p paper, and suggested a project to extract results about coherent configurations and association schemes from it. Leonard Scott was able to provide a scan of the paper, with only a few small bits missing (my copy had disappeared long ago). We applied for, and were awarded, an Undergraduate Research Bursary by the London Mathematical Socety.

So Marina set to work, and we produced a paper doing the job, combining combinatorics, group theory, and history. We submitted it to the Journal of the London Mathematical Society, which I considered appropriate since the paper crossed boundaries and would interest many readers. To my slight surprise (since Peter had been a stalwart of the LMS, including Publications Secretary for many years), they turned it down, almost by return, not because of the mathematics, but because it was inappropriate. It found a home in Algebraic Combinatorics (though it probably won’t have the same breadth of readership there).

Anyway, Marina had finished the work before the money ran out, so she asked me for another problem. I hit on the following idea. Suppose that Q and Q are permutation group properties, with Q stronger than Q. Is there a “natural” property P, logically independent of Q, such that the conjunction of P and Q is equivalent to Q? (This would hopefully throw light on the gap between Q and Q.)

We found several candidates among the synchronization hierarchy; most of them turned out to be rather trivial. But we struck gold in one place, arising from a confusion of Galois which had been pointed out by Peter Neumann.

Two possible properties of a permutation group are primitivity (no non-trivial invariant partitions) and quasi-primitivity (every non-trivial normal subgroup is transitive). The first easily implies the second. Neumann showed that, in his Second Memoir, Galois sometimes used one, sometimes the other, to mean “primitivity”. These two properties are ideal for the Q and Q of our set-up; take P to be the property “every invariant partition is the orbit partition of a subgroup (which, without loss of generality, can be taken to be a normal subgroup)”. We called this property pre-primitivity.

So we wrote a paper on this, with contributions from Enoch Suleiman, and it was published in the Journal of Algebra.

Having found a profitable line on properties weaker than primitivity, we wished to continue, and it was only at this point that we realised that we should be looking at lattices of partitions.

As it happened, at the other desk in my office, and overhearing my conversations with Marina, was Rosemary, who was able to point out that statisticians working on experimental design (Fisher, Yates, Nelder, Kempthorne, Speed, and others including herself) had been looking at such things for some time, and had developed a considerable body of theory. So of course she joined the team. I will tell you about some of the results in the next post.

Footnote

This is my fourth ABC collaboration.

Posted in doing mathematics | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

New open access journal?

A message from Ross Kang.

Dear colleagues,

On behalf of MathOA, we are excited to open a call for proposals for a new startup fund, intended to stimulate the founding of new high-quality Diamond OA mathematics journals:

The call closes December 15, 2024.

Posted in publishing | Leave a comment