Deciding finiteness of matrix groups in positive characteristic
A. S. Detinko, D. L. Flannery, E. A. O'Brien

TL;DR
This paper introduces algorithms to determine whether finitely generated matrix groups over fields of positive characteristic are finite, completing the solution for all fields and providing computational tools with MAGMA implementations.
Contribution
It presents the first complete algorithmic solution for deciding finiteness of matrix groups over any field, including positive characteristic, and computes their order over function fields.
Findings
Algorithms successfully decide finiteness for positive characteristic fields.
MAGMA implementations are publicly available.
Provides a method to compute the order of finite matrix groups.
Abstract
We present a new algorithm to decide finiteness of matrix groups defined over a field of positive characteristic. Together with previous work for groups in zero characteristic, this provides the first complete solution of the finiteness problem for finitely generated matrix groups over an arbitrary field. We also give an algorithm to compute the order of a finite matrix group over a function field of positive characteristic. Our MAGMA implementations of these algorithms are publicly available.
| Group | Runtime.1 | Runtime.2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | |||||
| - | |||||
| - | |||||
| - | |||||
| Group | Order | Runtime | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsFinite Group Theory Research · Coding theory and cryptography · graph theory and CDMA systems
Deciding finiteness of matrix groups in positive characteristic
A. S. Detinko and D. L. Flannery and E. A. O’Brien
Abstract.
We present a new algorithm to decide finiteness of matrix groups defined over a field of positive characteristic. Together with previous work for groups in zero characteristic, this provides the first complete solution of the finiteness problem for finitely generated matrix groups over an arbitrary field. We also give an algorithm to compute the order of a finite matrix group over a function field of positive characteristic. Our implementations of these algorithms are publicly available in Magma.
1. Introduction
Deciding finiteness is a fundamental problem for any class of potentially infinite groups. For matrix groups over a field of zero characteristic, the algorithms of [1, 6] provide a solution of this problem, and their implementations perform satisfactorily for reasonably large input (cf. [6, Section 4]). Deciding finiteness over a purely transcendental extension of a finite field was considered by several authors [3, 9, 10]. The approach taken in [10] relies on the fact that a subgroup of is finite if and only if, for every finite subfield of , the enveloping algebra is finite. Since the dimension of this algebra may depend exponentially on (see [10, Theorem 3.3]), this leads to exponential-time algorithms. The polynomial-time algorithms of [3, 9] involve significant computing over function fields, and so we expect that they are practical only for small input. We know of no implementations of the algorithms of [3, 9, 10].
A uniform approach to deciding finiteness of matrix groups over an infinite field via congruence homomorphisms was proposed in [5, Section 4.3], and applied to nilpotent groups. We implemented this approach, for rational nilpotent groups, in the computer algebra systems Magma [2] and GAP (see the ‘Nilmat’ package [4]). Its performance is usually much better than existing procedures in GAP and Magma.
The idea of using congruence homomorphisms to decide finiteness of matrix groups was further developed in [6], for groups over a function field of zero characteristic. In this paper we extend the ideas of [6] to positive characteristic. As in that earlier paper, our main method is the application of congruence homomorphisms to enable a comparison of dimensions of certain enveloping algebras. However, the finiteness problem in positive characteristic is more complicated: a finite subgroup of need not be completely reducible, and it can be unboundedly large. The opposite holds in characteristic zero.
Despite these difficulties, we obtain a substantial improvement upon the algorithms of [3, 9, 10]. We avoid their most inefficient step: computing a basis of the enveloping algebra of the input group over a function field (see Sections 2 and 3). As in [6], much of the computation takes place in the coefficient field—which is finite here. Although the number of (function and finite) field operations of our finiteness testing algorithm is polynomial in certain parameters of the input, our primary goal was to develop a practical algorithm. We have implemented it in Magma [2] and demonstrate that it performs well for a range of input.
We also give an algorithm to compute the order of a finite matrix group over a function field of positive characteristic, based on the same strategy used to decide finiteness. This algorithm finds an isomorphic copy of over a finite field, which can be used to derive additional information about . In Section 4 we present a simplified finiteness test for nilpotent groups. Finally, in Section 5, we report on the performance of our Magma implementation of these algorithms.
By elementary structure theory of finitely generated field extensions, any finitely generated matrix group is defined over a finite extension of a function field. As explained below, we can construct an isomorphism of onto a group defined over the function field, in larger degree. Thus the results of this paper together with [1, 6] effectively allow us to decide finiteness of a finitely generated matrix group over any field (cf. also [6, Section 3.2.2]).
2. Preliminaries and background
Let be a field of characteristic , and let , where . We may assume that is a finite extension of a function field , where the are algebraically independent indeterminates, and is the finite field of size . Replacement of elements of by matrices over according to the multiplication action of on an -basis of defines an isomorphism of into , where . So without loss of generality, from now on , , and is a power of the prime .
In fact is contained in for a finitely generated integral domain . We can take , where is a common multiple of the denominators of the non-zero entries of the and , . We say that is admissible (or -admissible) if . Here the are in the algebraic closure of ; note that need not contain such that is admissible. For an admissible , let denote the positive integer such that . Let be the ring homomorphism whose kernel is generated by the monomials , . If necessary, we extend to for any in the obvious way. With a slight abuse of notation, the induced congruence homomorphisms on and on the full matrix algebra will also be denoted . Evaluation of on a subset of is simply substitution of for in the entries of the elements of , . We denote as .
Lemma 2.1**.**
If is finite then the kernel of on is a -group.
Proof.
This holds for by [5, Proposition 3.2 and Example 3.6]. The result for follows readily: the kernel of a composite of congruence homomorphisms, all of whose kernels are -groups, is a -group. ∎
Corollary 2.2**.**
If is finite and completely reducible, then is an isomorphism from onto for every admissible .
Let be a field extension, and suppose that is a finite subset of such that the enveloping algebra is finite-dimensional as a -vector space. We now describe a standard procedure that constructs a basis of consisting of elements from the monoid generated by . (Since we use the procedure to compute an enveloping algebra basis only over a finite field, we assume that is finite in the description.)
Input: , a finite field, and a subfield of .
Output: a basis of the enveloping algebra , where .
- (I)
.
- (II)
While there exist and such that do .
- (III)
Return .
We now set up a convention. Suppose that is duplicate-free. For that is a word in the elements of , we canonically define a pre-image of in : if then .
Lemma 2.3**.**
* are -linearly independent if and only if they are -linearly independent.*
Proof.
The non-trivial -linear dependence between the yields a system of equations with coefficients in . Since is a solution of this system, for all . Thus, if the are -linearly independent then they must be -linearly independent. The other direction is obvious. ∎
Corollary 2.4**.**
If is finite, then .
Proof.
By Lemma 2.3, . Conversely, has a basis consisting of elements of ; that basis is therefore an -linearly independent subset of . Hence . ∎
We write for .
Lemma 2.5**.**
If is finite then the kernel of on is contained in the radical of and the radical of .
Proof.
The proofs of Proposition 3.2 and Corollary 3.3 in [3] carry over. ∎
Lemma 2.6**.**
If is completely reducible, then is finite if and only if is an isomorphism, for any -admissible and .
Proof.
If is finite then is completely reducible over the extension field of (see e.g. [8, 1.8, p. 12]), so the radical of is zero. Lemma 2.5 now implies that on is trivial. ∎
Note that Lemma 2.6 implies Corollary 2.2.
Lemma 2.7**.**
The algebras and are isomorphic if and only if
[TABLE]
Proof.
A basis of maps under to a spanning set of , which is a basis if and only if the -dimensions of these two algebras are equal. ∎
Corollary 2.8**.**
If is completely reducible, then is finite if and only if, for every -admissible ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
This follows from Corollary 2.4, Lemma 2.6 and Lemma 2.7. ∎
Lemma 2.9**.**
If are -linearly independent, then are -linearly independent.
Proof.
Clear, since is -linear. ∎
Now we state an algorithm to decide whether an enveloping algebra and its congruence image are isomorphic, for admissible and . This uses the same approach as the algorithm of [6].
Input: a finite subset of , an -admissible , a positive integer .
Output: ‘true’ if acts on as an isomorphism, where ; ‘false’ otherwise.
- (I)
If has duplicates then return ‘false’.
- (II)
Construct .
Let be the set of canonical pre-images .
- (III)
For and
find such that .
If , then return ‘false’.
- (IV)
Return ‘true’.
If returns ‘true’ then is finite, and the set found in step (II) is a basis of . (For is a spanning set by step (III), and it is linearly independent by Lemma 2.9.) Observe that we obtain this basis after a calculation over a finite field, rather than over the function field .
By Lemma 2.6, the following algorithm decides finiteness of a completely reducible subgroup of .
Input: a finite subset of such that is completely reducible.
Output: ‘true’ if is finite; ‘false’ otherwise.
- (I)
Find an -admissible .
- (II)
Return .
Corollary 2.8 implies that we can also decide finiteness of a completely reducible group by testing whether acts as an isomorphism on , for given . However might be larger than , which is bounded above by .
Now suppose that is a (finitely generated, not necessarily completely reducible) subgroup of , and that we know where is an isomorphism on if is finite. We may now decide finiteness of just as in , namely, by applying . Unfortunately, such need not exist. On the other hand, there always exist such that is an isomorphism on if is finite. We consider these issues again at the end of Section 3.
3. Deciding finiteness and computing orders in positive characteristic
We now present a general algorithm to decide finiteness of a finitely generated subgroup of . The approach is similar to the finiteness testing algorithm of [3], but avoids its most complicated step: computing a basis of over . We also outline a simple method to determine the order of a finite subgroup of .
We continue with established notation: is an -admissible -tuple of elements from such that is duplicate-free, and is a basis of computed via , with canonical pre-image . For and such that , where , define . We assume that does not divide . For , denote the trace of over by :
[TABLE]
Observe that is in .
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let and be as defined above. If is finite and , then is a non-zero element of the radical of .
Proof.
If then where . In fact implies that for all . But this contradicts . Hence is non-zero. We verify that as in the proof of [3, Corollary 3.5]. ∎
Lemma 3.2**.**
The nullspace of the radical of is a non-zero -module.
Proof.
For all and in the nullspace of , we have , since is an ideal of . Thus as required. ∎
So if is finite and , then the nullspace of contains a non-trivial -module. We compute such a submodule using the following procedure.
Input: a finite subset of , and .
Output: a -module in the nullspace of , for .
- (I)
.
- (II)
While there exists such that do .
- (III)
Return .
Since each pass through the while loop reduces the dimension of , terminates in at most iterations. If is a non-zero element of (for example, if is finite and for ), then the output is a proper non-zero -submodule of the underlying space .
Now we present our main algorithm for deciding finiteness. We use the following notation. Let be a -submodule of and extend a basis of to a basis of . Write with respect to the latter basis in block triangular form; denotes the projection homomorphism from onto the block diagonal group, whose kernel is the unitriangular subgroup that fixes and elementwise.
Input: a finite subset of .
Output: ‘true’ if is finite; ‘false’ otherwise.
- (I)
Find an -admissible such that does not divide .
If for distinct , then set and go to (IV).
- (II)
.
Let be the canonical pre-image of .
- (III)
If there exist and such that , where and , then set ;
else return ‘true’.
- (IV)
.
If then return ‘false’;
else let , ,
for do
, , go to (III).
At any stage of , we test finiteness of constituents of in block triangular form. In looping back to step (III) from step (IV), the dimension of the -module strictly reduces. Thus, eventually the algorithm finds either that all constituents are finite, or that one of them is infinite. In the former case has a finite homomorphic image whose kernel is a finitely generated unipotent subgroup of , and so is also finite; in the latter case is infinite.
The maximum number of iterations of is , and its main component has cost finite field operations. The principal difference between and the simpler alternative for completely reducible input is that the former calls . The operations carried out over the function field are matrix addition, matrix multiplication, and nullspace and intersection of subspaces. All use field operations where . For just one indeterminate, admissible always exist in where is the largest degree of denominators in entries of the matrices in ; a similar estimate holds for . In practice, admissible may be found over a smaller finite field, even the prime subfield.
We turn now to the problem of determining the order of a finite subgroup of . Below we give a simple procedure to solve this problem, based on the next lemma.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let be a finite subset of . There are infinitely many admissible , , such that . If then for all but finitely many admissible .
Proof.
Let . For each pair , where , choose a position in which and have different entries, and let be the difference of the entries. Denote by the product of all these differences. If then . Since there are infinitely many admissible such that , and only finitely many admissible such that if , the result follows. ∎
Corollary 3.4**.**
Let be finite. There are infinitely many admissible such that and . If then and for all but finitely many admissible .
Remark 3.5*.*
It is not true that if is finite then there are infinitely many admissible such that . Indeed may be less than for every admissible . For example, consider the subgroup of generated by \tiny{\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}1&1\\ 0&1\end{array}\right)} and \tiny{\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}1&X\\ 0&1\end{array}\right)}. For all we have , whereas .
Corollary 3.4 implies that if is finite and , then there is a positive integer such that is an isomorphism on whenever . As such may be impracticably large, our implementation of the following algorithm uses the intrinsic random selection function in Magma.
Input: such that is finite.
Output: .
- (I)
Randomly select an -admissible .
- (II)
If ‘true’ then return ;
else replace by and go to (I).
We end this section with some comments on . Recall that may depend exponentially on . However, sometimes we can replace by in step (II) above, thereby bringing the relevant dimension back to no more than . For instance, this is valid if is cyclic or completely reducible. However, in general we cannot make this modification (cf. Remark 3.5).
Notice that constructs an isomorphic copy of defined over a finite field. We can use this copy and machinery for matrix groups over finite fields to answer other questions about .
4. Deciding finiteness of nilpotent matrix groups
In this section we develop a specialized algorithm to decide finiteness of nilpotent subgroups of . We remove the limitation of [5, Section 4.3] that the ground field is perfect. Our algorithm represents an improvement of the positive characteristic finiteness testing algorithm of [5], including a more efficient transfer to the completely reducible case. An important application is to decide whether a single element of has finite order.
For the rest of this section, is nilpotent. We let and denote respectively the diagonalizable and unipotent parts of . Namely, and are the unique matrices such that is diagonalizable, is unipotent, and .
Lemma 4.1**.**
If has finite order then and are both in .
Proof.
Cf. [11, Corollary 1, p. 135]. ∎
Define and . The next result follows from part of [11, Proposition 3, pp. 136-137] (which does not require that the ground field be perfect).
Lemma 4.2**.**
- (i)
The maps defined by and for are homomorphisms; thus and .
- (ii)
.
Lemma 4.3**.**
* is finite if and only if is finite.*
Proof.
By Lemma 4.2 (i), is finite if is finite. As a finitely generated periodic matrix group, is finite. Hence if is finite then is finite by Lemma 4.2 (ii). ∎
Let be the positive integer such that . By [12, p. 192], is the maximum order of a unipotent element of . Define and .
Lemma 4.4**.**
- (i)
* is finite if and only if is finite.*
- (ii)
If is finite then is completely reducible.
Proof.
(i) Certainly is finite if is finite. Suppose that is finite. Then each has finite order, so has order coprime to . Thus . Since by Lemma 4.1, we have , and so is finite. Lemma 4.3 now completes the proof of this item.
(ii) If is finite then . Further, since each generator of the nilpotent group has trivial unipotent part (by the choice of ). ∎
Lemma 4.4 justifies correctness of the following.
Input: a finite subset of such that is nilpotent.
Output: ‘true’ if is finite; ‘false’ otherwise.
- (I)
.
- (II)
Return .
For nilpotent input, is superior to -, because it immediately reduces to the completely reducible case.
may be further refined. Rather than computing a basis of an enveloping algebra in step (II), it suffices to test whether has trivial kernel on . A practical method to do this is given at the end of [5, Section 4.2]. Likewise, computing orders can be made more efficient for nilpotent input. A specialized method to compute the order of a nilpotent subgroup of is implemented in Nilmat [4], and may be used in step (II) of .
5. Implementation and performance
Implementations of our algorithms are publicly available in Magma. In this section we report on their performance and dependence on the main input parameters: the degree , the number of generators , and size of the coefficient field. We also investigated how runtimes vary with the degrees, coefficients and number of summands of polynomials appearing in matrix entries.
The experiments reported in Table 1 were undertaken on a GHz machine with 4GB RAM running Magma V2.15-10.
As tests, we chose groups with extremal properties, that pass through all stages of each algorithm. The column ‘Runtime.1’ in Table 1 lists the CPU time in seconds of for input . The column ‘Runtime.2’ lists the time for when is nilpotent. Note that the are finite and the are infinite for .
Polynomials in the matrix entries of , have degrees up to , and many summands with large coefficients. The are absolutely irreducible: is a conjugate of in , whereas is generated by and infinite order matrices in . Testing each group necessitates computing an algebra basis of maximal size in . The performance of is essentially identical to that of for this input.
The have non-trivial unipotent normal subgroups, and so are not completely reducible. The group is the Kronecker product of a conjugate of in with a 10-generator unipotent subgroup of . The group is generated by and infinite order matrices of the form , where is an upper triangular element of .
The are nilpotent and not completely reducible. The group is the Kronecker product of a -dimensional unipotent group with a -dimensional completely reducible nilpotent group over . Specifically, the latter group is a conjugate of a block diagonal group, whose blocks are a Sylow -subgroup and a Sylow -subgroup of . The group is generated by and infinite order diagonal matrices of the form , where .
The are cyclic. The group is generated by , where , is unipotent, and is a conjugate of a randomly chosen -element of . Also where is a lower triangular element of . Comparison of the last two columns of Table 1 for and demonstrates the superiority of - for nilpotent input.
Performance of depends on the algorithm used to find the order of a matrix group over a finite field. Magma uses the (random) Schreier-Sims algorithm [7, Chapter 7]. In Table 2 we report on using to compute the orders of the following groups over a univariate function field: is a conjugate of the full monomial subgroup of , and are nilpotent groups constructed in the same manner as ( but not is completely reducible), and is cyclic unipotent.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] L. Babai, R. Beals, and D. N. Rockmore, Deciding finiteness of matrix groups in deterministic polynomial time , Proc. of International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation ISSAC ’93 (ACM Press), 1993, pp. 117–126.
- 2[2] W. Bosma, J. Cannon, and C. Playoust, The Magma algebra system. I. The user language , J. Symbolic Comput. 24 (1997), no. 3-4, 235–265.
- 3[3] A. S. Detinko, On deciding finiteness for matrix groups over fields of positive characteristic , LMS J. Comput. Math. 4 (2001), 64–72 (electronic).
- 4[4] A. S. Detinko, B. Eick, and D. L. Flannery, Nilmat—Computing with nilpotent matrix groups. A refereed GAP 4 package; see http://www.gap-system.org/Packages/nilmat.html (2007).
- 5[5] A. S. Detinko and D. L. Flannery, Algorithms for computing with nilpotent matrix groups over infinite domains , J. Symbolic Comput. 43 (2008), 8–26.
- 6[6] by same author, On deciding finiteness of matrix groups , J. Symbolic Comput. 44 (2009), 1037–1043.
- 7[7] Derek F. Holt, Bettina Eick, and Eamonn A. O’Brien, Handbook of computational group theory , Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, 2005.
- 8[8] B. Huppert and N. Blackburn, Finite groups II , Springer, 1982.
