Which groups are amenable to proving exponent two for matrix multiplication?

December 06, 2017 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Jonah Blasiak, Thomas Church, Henry Cohn, Joshua A. Grochow, Chris Umans arXiv ID 1712.02302 Category math.GR Cross-listed cs.DS, math.CO Citations 28 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 3 months ago
Abstract
The Cohn-Umans group-theoretic approach to matrix multiplication suggests embedding matrix multiplication into group algebra multiplication, and bounding $Ο‰$ in terms of the representation theory of the host group. This framework is general enough to capture the best known upper bounds on $Ο‰$ and is conjectured to be powerful enough to prove $Ο‰= 2$, although finding a suitable group and constructing such an embedding has remained elusive. Recently it was shown, by a generalization of the proof of the Cap Set Conjecture, that abelian groups of bounded exponent cannot prove $Ο‰= 2$ in this framework, which ruled out a family of potential constructions in the literature. In this paper we study nonabelian groups as potential hosts for an embedding. We prove two main results: (1) We show that a large class of nonabelian groups---nilpotent groups of bounded exponent satisfying a mild additional condition---cannot prove $Ο‰= 2$ in this framework. We do this by showing that the shrinkage rate of powers of the augmentation ideal is similar to the shrinkage rate of the number of functions over $(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^n$ that are degree $d$ polynomials; our proof technique can be seen as a generalization of the polynomial method used to resolve the Cap Set Conjecture. (2) We show that symmetric groups $S_n$ cannot prove nontrivial bounds on $Ο‰$ when the embedding is via three Young subgroups---subgroups of the form $S_{k_1} \times S_{k_2} \times \dotsb \times S_{k_\ell}$---which is a natural strategy that includes all known constructions in $S_n$. By developing techniques for negative results in this paper, we hope to catalyze a fruitful interplay between the search for constructions proving bounds on $Ο‰$ and methods for ruling them out.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” math.GR

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted