On the number of universal algebraic geometries
Abstract.
The algebraic geometry of a universal algebra is defined as the collection of solution sets of systems of term equations. Two algebras and are called algebraically equivalent if they have the same algebraic geometry. We prove that on a finite set with there are countably many algebraically inequivalent Mal’cev algebras and that on a finite set with there are continuously many algebraically inequivalent algebras.
Key words and phrases:
Universal algebraic geometry, Clones, Algebraic sets2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
08A40, (08A62, 08B05, 03C05)1. Introduction
Universal algebraic geometry, introduced in [18, 10], is based on the notion of algebraic sets. Given a universal algebra , a subset of is algebraic if it is the solution set of a system of (possibly infinitely many) term equations in the language of . Following [17], we denote the collection of the algebraic subsets of by and we define the universal algebraic geometry of by . Clearly, for a universal algebra , is completely determined by its clone of term functions (cf. [8, 19]). We define the universal algebraic geometry of a clone on a set by . Following [17], we say that two clones and on the same set are algebraically equivalent, , if . In [17, 21] one finds examples of different clones that are algebraically equivalent; in fact Tóth and Waldhauser [21] proved that on the two element set there are only finitely many algebraically inequivalent clones. Pinus showed that on each finite set there are only finitely many universal algebraic geometries closed under taking unions [17, 6]. The aim of this note is to provide infinite families of algebraically inequivalent clones on a finite set.
Analysing the construction of clones on in [13], we obtain:
Theorem 1.1.
Let be a finite set with . Then there are algebraically inequivalent clones on .
The proof will be given in Section 5.
A clone is called a Mal’cev clone if it contains a ternary function such that for all ,
and it is called constantive if every unary constant function on is in . Using Idziak’s construction from [12], we prove:
Theorem 1.2.
Let be a finite set with . Then there are exactly algebraically inequivalent constantive Mal’cev clones on .
The proof will be given in Section 4. It relies on the following fact:
Theorem 1.3.
Let be a prime, and let . Then there are exactly algebraically inequivalent clones that contain .
The proof will be given in Section 3.
In Table 1 we summarize our current knowledge on the number of algebraically inequivalent clones on a finite set.
Property of the clone on an -element set | Number of clones | Number of clones modulo |
---|---|---|
[20] | finite [21] | |
[13] | (Theorem 1.1) | |
constantive, | [1] | ? |
equationally additive | ? | finite [17, 6] |
Mal’cev, | finite [7] | finite |
constantive, Mal’cev, | [2, 12] | (Theorem 1.2) |
contains , squarefree | finite [11, 4, 15] | finite |
contains , | [2, 12] | (Theorem 1.3) |
2. Notation
We write for the set of positive integers and for , . For a set the -th component of is denoted by and . We will use the notions clone, and as they are commonly used in universal algebra [8, 16]. For with , we define the -th -ary projection by for all . We set . For a clone on , is the set of -ary functions in . For , for and for , we define by for all , and we call a minor of . If is a -ary term in the language of a universal algebra , we write for the term . Observe that in this case .
Let be a set and let be a clone on . For and for , we define to be the intersection of all the elements of that contain as a subset. Since the intersection of a collection of elements of is an element of , we infer that . The following lemma will be used to assess whether a set is algebraic with respect to a clone , which is equivalent to .
Lemma 2.1.
Let be a set, let be a clone on , let , let , and let . Then we have
Proof.
“”: We assume that for all with , we have . We show that . To this end, we show that for each with , we have . Since is algebraic with respect to , there exists a system of -equations such that . Since , we have for all . Therefore, the assumption yields for all , and thus .
“”: We assume that there exist such that and . Then satisfies , , and . Thus, . ∎
3. Countably many algebraically inequivalent constantive expansions of
Let be an expanded group. Following [3], a function is absorbing if for all with .
Lemma 3.1.
Let be a prime, let with and , let be the algebra , where is defined by
and let . If is absorbing, then is the constant zero function.
Lemma 3.1 states that the algebra is -supernilpotent (cf. [5]). We provide a proof that makes no use of the notion of supernilpotency.
Proof.
Let be the set of all operations on that are induced by a sum of monomials of the form , where , are pairwise distinct variables, , and the following property is satisfied:
(3.1) |
It is clear that , that the projection clone satisfies , and that contains the constant functions. Furthermore, it is straightforward to verify that for we have that , and . Hence . We assume that is absorbing, and consider the representation of as a sum of monomials, each one satisfying (3.1). Since is absorbing, is the constant -function. Thus, the sum of those monomials of that do not involve induces the constant zero function. Therefore, there exists a representation of as a sum of monomials of the above form, each of them involving the variable . A similar argument applies to all the other variables . Therefore, there exists a (possibly empty) sum of monomials that induces the same polynomial function as such that each monomial involves all the variables and satisfies (3.1). If is such a monomial, then , and therefore . Since , (3.1) implies , contradicting the assumption . Hence is induced by the empty sum of monomials, and therefore it is the constant -function. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
For each , let and be as in the statement of Lemma 3.1. For , for and for , we use as a shorthand for . Let with . We claim that . For proving this, we let
and show that ; as a consequence .
First we prove that . To this end, we consider the term equation . We have that and . Hence Lemma 2.1 yields .
We now prove that . To this end, let us consider an equation of the form with . This equation is equivalent to . Hence it suffices to consider equations of the form . If is satisfied by all elements of , then the function is absorbing and has arity greater than . Lemma 3.1 implies that is the constant zero function. Therefore, the equation is satisfied by all elements in . Hence Lemma 2.1 yields and therefore .
We conclude that is an infinite family of algebraically inequivalent clones. ∎
4. Countably many algebraically inequivalent constantive Mal’cev clones on finite sets with at least 4 elements
We report a construction from [12, Section 3]: Let be a finite set such that and let be a constantive clone on with a Mal’cev term . The construction picks an element and an element and constructs a new clone on the set .
For all and for all , the operation is defined by
A binary operation on is defined by
Finally, is defined as the clone on generated by and all unary constant operations.
Lemma 4.1.
Let be a finite set with , let be a constantive clone on and let . Then
(4.1) |
Proof.
Let be the set of all unary constant functions on . We will show that all projections on satisfy (4.1), and that for all , for all -ary
and for all -ary that satisfy (4.1), also satisfies (4.1). From this, we conclude that every function in satisfies (4.1).
Clearly, all the projections satisfy (4.1).
Let , let be -ary functions on that satisfy (4.1), and let be an -ary function on from . We will show that satisfies (4.1).
We first consider the case that with . If there exists such that , then by the definition of , , and hence satisfies (4.1). If for all , there exists such that , then by the definition of we have
Therefore satisfies (4.1).
Now we consider the case that is the function (and ). Let be -ary functions on satisfying (4.1). We show that satisfies (4.1). Since satisfy (4.1), we have to consider the following cases.
Case 1: : In this case, the definition of yields . Since is constantive, , and thus satisfies (4.1).
Case 2: and there exists such that : In this case, the definition of yields . This implies that , and thus satisfies (4.1).
Case 3: and there exists such that : In this case, the definition of yields . This implies that , and thus satisfies (4.1).
Case 4: There exist such that and : In this case, the definition of yields , thus satisfies (4.1).
Lemma 4.2.
Let be a finite set with , let be a constantive clone on , let , and let . Then if and only if .
Proof.
If , then . Thus by Lemma 4.1, there exists such that , and therefore , which implies . ∎
Lemma 4.3.
[12, Section 3] Let be a finite set with and let be a constantive Mal’cev clone on . Then is a constantive Mal’cev clone on a set of cardinality .
Proposition 4.4.
Let be a finite set with , and let be two constantive Mal’cev clones on . If and are not algebraically equivalent, then and are not algebraically equivalent.
Proof.
Without loss of generality, we assume that there exists that is algebraic with respect to but not with respect to . Note that then . Since is constantive, is not empty. Then there exists such that .
Let . We claim that
(4.2) |
To prove (4.2), let . By Lemma 2.1 it suffices to show that there are two functions such that and . Since and is algebraic with respect to , Lemma 2.1 implies that there are such that and . We set and . Then and , which concludes the proof of (4.2).
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
We proceed by induction on . For the base case , we use Theorem 1.3 with and . For the induction step we let and be a collection of pairwise algebraically inequivalent constantive Mal’cev clones on a set of cardinality . Then Proposition 4.4 and Lemma 4.3 imply that is a collection of pairwise algebraically inequivalent constantive Mal’cev clones on a set of cardinality . ∎
5. Continuously many algebraically inequivalent clones on sets with at least 3 elements
Let . For and for , a function depends on its -th argument if there exist and such that . If depends on exactly one of its arguments, then is called essentially unary. The essential arity of is defined by . Let be a set of finitary functions on . We say that belongs to up to inessential arguments if there exist , and a function such that for all .
Let and for each , let . For each , let be the set consisting of all the functions such that
(5.1) | ||||
(5.2) |
We set and
Lemma 5.1.
The sets and satisfy the following properties:
-
(1)
For all with , we have .
-
(2)
For all and for all with , we have that and .
-
(3)
For all with , we have .
-
(4)
For all , for all and for all , we have .
-
(5)
For all , for all and for all , we have .
Proof.
(1) Let , let with and let . We prove that . If , then there exists such that for all the function does not depend on its -th argument. Let us define by for all . We prove that . To this end, let . Since , we have . Moreover, since for all , does not depend on its -th argument, . This concludes the proof of (1).
(2) Let and let . If is not constantly zero, then there exists such that . Changing any one of the coordinates of to , the value of changes from to . Hence depends on all of its arguments and (1) implies that it cannot be essentially unary. This concludes the proof of (2).
(3) Let with . Seeking a contradiction, we suppose that is not a projection. Then belongs to up to inessential arguments. Thus, there exist and such that for all . If , then (1) yields , and so is the constant -function, contradicting . If , then , contradicting . This concludes the proof of (3).
(4) Let us assume that the image of is , with , and let us define
We first prove that is a functional relation. To this end, let be such that . We show that . Clearly, if , then , and therefore . This concludes the proof that is a functional relation. Now we prove that . Condition (5.1) is clearly satisfied since . We prove that satisfies (5.2). To this end, let with . We show that . Since and , there exists such that and for all . Since we have . Moreover, since is the image of , we have . Thus, . Hence there exists such that . Then for each there exists such that , and then . Thus, , and so satisfies (5.2). This proves that . Since and for all , belongs to up to inessential arguments. Hence . This concludes the proof of (4).
Lemma 5.2.
The set is a clone.
Proof.
We prove that is closed under , , , and as they are defined in [14] (cf. [9, 19]). To this end, let . Lemma 5.1(5) yields that , , , and . Let and let be the function defined by for all . We prove that belongs to . If is constant, then is a constant mapping with the same function value as . Hence is a minor of , and thus by Lemma 5.1(5), . If is a projection, then either is a projection or . In both cases belongs to . If is a projection, then is a minor of . Hence Lemma 5.1(5) yields . Finally, let us assume that both and belong to up to inessential arguments and is not constant. Then there exist , , and such that for all and for all we have and . If , then for all we have . Thus, is a minor of and Lemma 5.1(4) yields . Let us now assume that and let be defined by for all . We now prove that . Since belongs to , satisfies (5.1). We now prove that satisfies (5.2). To this end, let be such that . Then, since satisfies (5.2), we infer that . Moreover, since satisfies (5.1) and (5.2), we have that and . Thus, there exists such that and for all we have . This proves that . Thus, satisfies (5.2), and so . Moreover, we have that for all
Therefore belongs to up to inessential arguments, and so . Therefore, is closed under . ∎
We make use of the following construction from [13] (cf. [19, Chapter 3]). For each , the function is defined by
For each , is defined as .
Lemma 5.3.
Let , let and let . Then we have:
-
(1)
If is constant, then .
-
(2)
If is essentially unary, then is a projection.
-
(3)
If depends exactly on the arguments with , then the following two conditions are satisfied:
-
(a)
For all we have .
-
(b)
For all with , we have .
-
(a)
Proof.
Equations (5.1) and (5.2) imply that for all , . Thus, Lemma 5.2 yields that for all , . Since , then either or belongs to up to inessential arguments. If is a constant, then it cannot be a projection. Hence it belongs to up to inessential arguments. Thus, by Lemma 5.1(1), is the constant zero. This proves (1). We now prove (2). Let us assume that is essentially unary. Then by Lemma 5.1(3), is a projection. This proves (2). We now prove (3). Let us assume that depends on its arguments , let and let be such that . Since , is not a projection. Since , belongs to up to inessential arguments. This, together with Lemma 5.1(2), implies that there exists such that for all , and depends on all of its arguments. Since , (5.1) implies that . Moreover, since , (5.2) and (5.1) yield . This proves (3). ∎
Proposition 5.4.
Let , let and let . Then if and only if .
Proof.
If , then by definition. We now assume that and prove that .
If , since , Lemma 2.1 implies that there exist such that and . We now prove that one of the two is a projection and the other depends on at least two of its arguments. Seeking contradictions, let us suppose that this is not the case. We distinguish cases accordingly to the essential arity of and .
Case 1: and are constant: In this case .
Case 2: is constant and is essentially unary: In this case, Lemma 5.3 yields that is the constant function and is a projection. Let . Since , . Lemma 5.3 yields and . Hence . Thus, .
Case 3: is essentially unary and is constant: This case is symmetric to Case 2.
Case 4: is constant and depends on at least two of its arguments: In this case Lemma 5.3 yields .
Case 5: is depends on at least two of its arguments and is constant: This case is symmetric to Case 4.
Case 6: and are both essentially unary: In this case Lemma 5.3(2) implies that both and are projections. Thus .
Thus, we have proved that one among and is a projection, while the other depends on at least two of its arguments. Without loss of generality, let us assume that is a projection and that depends on at least two of its arguments. Let
Note that . Let be such that for all . We claim . Seeking a contradiction, let us suppose that . Let be such that . Then, since , we have . On the other hand, Lemma 5.3(3) implies that . Thus we get the desired contradiction and deduce that is the -th projection. Next, we prove that does not depend on its -th argument. Seeking a contradiction, let us suppose that depends on its -th argument. Then, since depends on at least two of its arguments, there exists such that depends also on its -th argument. Let be such that . Since , we have that . On the other hand, Lemma 5.3 implies that because . From this contradiction, we conclude that does not depend on its -th argument.
Corollary 5.5.
On the set there are exactly algebraically inequivalent clones.
Proof.
Let be the set of all clones on and let be defined by . Proposition 5.4 yields that for all we have if and only if . Therefore, is injective. Hence there are at least algebraically inequivalent clones on . Since by [19, Theorem 3.1.4] there are at most clones on , we can conclude that there are exactly algebraically inequivalent clones on . ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
We first show that for a set and an element , has at least as many algebraically inequivalent clones as . To this end, let be a finite set with , let be the set of all clones on , let , let , let be the set of all clones on , and let be defined by
We first prove that for all , is a clone on . Clearly, all the projections belong to . Let , let . Then
The definition of yields . Thus, belongs to and . Therefore, is a clone on .
Next, we prove that satisfies
(5.4) |
For proving (5.4), let , let , let and let us assume that . We prove that . To this end, let . By Lemma 2.1 it suffices to prove that there are such that and . Since and , Lemma 2.1 yields that there exist such that and . Let and let . Then clearly , and . Thus, .
Let us now assume that . We prove that . Let . By Lemma 2.1 it suffices to show that there are such that and . We split the proof into two cases.
Case 1: : In this case Lemma 2.1 implies that there are such that and . Then for , we set
By the definition of , both and belong to , and, since , .
Case 2: : Let with . For , we define
By construction, we have that . Hence . Moreover, and . Thus, we can conclude that . Equation (5.4) implies that for all , if then .
Since by Corollary 5.5 there are algebraically inequivalent clones on the set and since there are at most clones on a finite set, we deduce that on each finite set with there are exactly algebraically inequivalent clones. ∎
Acknowledgements
References
- [1] István Ágoston, János Demetrovics, and László Hannák, On the number of clones containing all constants (a problem of R. McKenzie), Lectures in universal algebra (Szeged, 1983), Colloq. Math. Soc. János Bolyai, vol. 43, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986, pp. 21–25.
- [2] Erhard Aichinger, Constantive Maľcev clones on finite sets are finitely related, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 138 (2010), no. 10, 3501–3507.
- [3] by same author, On the direct decomposition of nilpotent expanded groups, Comm. Algebra 42 (2014), no. 6, 2651–2662.
- [4] Erhard Aichinger and Peter Mayr, Polynomial clones on groups of order , Acta Math. Hungar. 114 (2007), no. 3, 267–285.
- [5] Erhard Aichinger and Nebojša Mudrinski, On various concepts of nilpotence for expansions of groups, Publ. Math. Debrecen 83 (2013), 583–604.
- [6] Erhard Aichinger and Bernardo Rossi, A clonoid based approach to some finiteness results in universal algebraic geometry, Algebra Universalis 81 (2020), no. 1, Paper No. 8, 7.
- [7] Andrei Bulatov, On the number of finite Maľtsev algebras, Contributions to General Algebra 13 (Velké Karlovice, 1999/Dresden, 2000), Heyn, Klagenfurt, 2001, pp. 41–54.
- [8] Stanley Burris and Hanamantagouda P. Sankappanavar, A course in universal algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 78, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981, available on-line at http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~snburris/htdocs/UALG/univ-algebra.pdf.
- [9] Miguel Couceiro and Erkko Lehtonen, Galois theory for sets of operations closed under permutation, cylindrification, and composition, Algebra Universalis 67 (2012), no. 3, 273–297.
- [10] Èvelina Yu. Daniyarova, Alexei G. Myasnikov, and Vladimir N. Remeslennikov, Algebraic geometry over algebraic structures. II. Foundations, Fundam. Prikl. Mat. 17 (2011/12), no. 1, 65–106, translation in J. Math. Sci. (N.Y.) 185 (2012), no. 3, 389–416.
- [11] Stefano Fioravanti, Expansions of abelian square-free groups, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 31 (2021), no. 4, 623–638.
- [12] Paweł M. Idziak, Clones containing Maľtsev operations, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 9 (1999), no. 2, 213–226.
- [13] Jurij I. Janov and Aľbert A. Mučnik, Existence of -valued closed classes without a finite basis, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 127 (1959), no. 1, 44–46, (Russian).
- [14] Anatolij I. Maľcev, Iterative Post algebras, Nauka, Novosibirsk, 1976.
- [15] Peter Mayr, Polynomial clones on squarefree groups, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 18 (2008), no. 4, 759–777.
- [16] Ralph N. McKenzie, George F. McNulty, and Walter F. Taylor, Algebras, lattices, varieties. Vol. I, The Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Mathematics Series, vol. I, Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, Monterey, CA, 1987.
- [17] Aleksandr G. Pinus, On algebraically equivalent clones, Algebra Logika 55 (2016), no. 6, 760–768, translation in Algebra Logic 55 (2016), no. 6, 501–506.
- [18] Boris I. Plotkin, Some concepts of algebraic geometry in universal algebra, Algebra i Analiz 9 (1997), no. 4, 224–248, translation in St. Petersburg Math. J. 9 (1998), no. 4, 859–879.
- [19] Reinhard Pöschel and Lev A. Kalužnin, Funktionen- und Relationenalgebren, Mathematische Monographien, vol. 15, VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1979.
- [20] Emil L. Post, The two-valued iterative systems of mathematical logic, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 5, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1941.
- [21] Endre Tóth and Tamás Waldhauser, On the shape of solution sets of systems of (functional) equations, Aequationes Math. 91 (2017), no. 5, 837–857.