The Ingleton inequality holds for metacyclic groups and fails for supersoluble groups
David A. Craven

TL;DR
This paper investigates the validity of the Ingleton inequality in finite groups, proving it holds for metacyclic groups but not for supersoluble groups, and provides computational tools for further analysis.
Contribution
It establishes the Ingleton inequality always holds for metacyclic groups and fails for supersoluble groups, addressing previous gaps and providing computational verification tools.
Findings
Ingleton inequality holds for all metacyclic groups.
Ingleton inequality fails for some supersoluble groups.
No nilpotent violators of the inequality have order less than 1024.
Abstract
The Ingleton inequality first appeared in matroid theory, where Ingleton proved in 1971 that every rank function coming from a representable matroid on four subsets satisfies a particular inequality. Because this inequality is not implied by submodularity, Shannon-type axioms alone, it and various analogues play a central role in separately linear and non-linear phenomena in a variety of areas of mathematics. The Ingleton inequality for finite groups concerns the various intersections of four subgroups. It holds for many quadruples of subgroups of finite groups, but not all, the smallest example being four subgroups of , of order 120. Open questions are whether the Inlgeton inequality always holds for metacycle and nilpotent groups. (There is a proof in the literature due to Oggier and Stancu, but there is an already known issue with their proof, which we address in this article.)…
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 · Geometric and Algebraic Topology · Limits and Structures in Graph Theory
