Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T01:02:14.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UNDECIDABILITY AND THE DEVELOPABILITY OF PERMUTOIDS AND RIGID PSEUDOGROUPS

Part of:Graph theorySemigroupsSpecial aspects of infinite or finite groupsAlgebraic structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2017

MARTIN R. BRIDSON and
HENRY WILTON
MARTIN R. BRIDSON
Affiliation:
Mathematical Institute, Andrew Wiles Building, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK; bridson@maths.ox.ac.uk
HENRY WILTON
Affiliation:
Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WB, UK; h.wilton@maths.cam.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

A permutoid is a set of partial permutations that contains the identity and is such that partial compositions, when defined, have at most one extension in the set. In 2004 Peter Cameron conjectured that there can exist no algorithm that determines whether or not a permutoid based on a finite set can be completed to a finite permutation group. In this note we prove Cameron’s conjecture by relating it to our recent work on the profinite triviality problem for finitely presented groups. We also prove that the existence problem for finite developments of rigid pseudogroups is unsolvable. In an appendix, Steinberg recasts these results in terms of inverse semigroups.

MSC classification

Primary:20F10: Word problems, other decision problems, connections with logic and automata05C60: Isomorphism problems (reconstruction conjecture, etc.) and homomorphisms (subgraph embedding, etc.)20M18: Inverse semigroups08A50: Word problems

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Forum of Mathematics, Sigma , Volume 5 , 2017, e10
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2017

References

Ash, C. J., ‘Inevitable graphs: a proof of the type II conjecture and some related decision procedures’, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 1(1) (1991), 127–146.Google Scholar
Auinger, K. and Steinberg, B., ‘On the extension problem for partial permutations’, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131(9) (2003), 2693–2703 (electronic).Google Scholar
Baer, R., ‘Free sums of groups and their generalizations II, III’, Amer. J. Math. 72 (1950), 625–670.Google Scholar
Baumslag, G., ‘A non-cyclic one-relator group all of whose finite quotients are cyclic’, J. Aust. Math. Soc. 10 (1969), 497–498.Google Scholar
Birget, J.-C., ‘The groups of Richard Thompson and complexity’, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 14(5–6) (2004), 569–626. International Conference on Semigroups and Groups in honor of the 65th birthday of Prof. John Rhodes.Google Scholar
Bridson, M. R. and Wilton, H., ‘The triviality problem for profinite completions’, Invent. Math. 202(2) (2015), 839–874.Google Scholar
Bulman-Fleming, S., Fountain, J. and Gould, V., ‘Inverse semigroups with zero: covers and their structure’, J. Aust. Math. Soc. Ser. A 67(1) (1999), 15–30.Google Scholar
Cameron, P., Extending partial permutations. http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/∼pjc/odds/partial.pdf, 2004.Google Scholar
Coulbois, T., ‘Partial action of groups on relational structures: a connection between model theory and profinite topology’, inSemigroups, Algorithms, Automata and Languages (Coimbra, 2001) (World Scientific Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 2002), 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, D. B. A., Cannon, J. W., Holt, D. F., Levy, S. V. F., Paterson, M. S. and Thurston, W. P., Word Processing in Groups (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston, MA, 1992).Google Scholar
Exel, R., ‘Inverse semigroups and combinatorial C ∗ -algebras’, Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 39(2) (2008), 191–313.Google Scholar
Hall, T. E., Kublanovskii, S. I., Margolis, S., Sapir, M. V. and Trotter, P. G., ‘Algorithmic problems for finite groups and finite 0-simple semigroups’, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 119 (1997), 75–96.Google Scholar
Herwig, B. and Lascar, D., ‘Extending partial automorphisms and the profinite topology on free groups’, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352(5) (2000), 1985–2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrushovski, E., ‘Extending partial isomorphisms of graphs’, Combinatorica 12(4) (1992), 411–416.Google Scholar
Kellendonk, J. and Lawson, M. V., ‘Tiling semigroups’, J. Algebra 224(1) (2000), 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khoshkam, M. and Skandalis, G., ‘Regular representation of groupoid C ∗ -algebras and applications to inverse semigroups’, J. reine angew. Math. 546 (2002), 47–72.Google Scholar
Lawson, M. V., Inverse Semigroups (World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1998). The theory of partial symmetries.Google Scholar
Lawson, M. V., ‘The structure of 0-E-unitary inverse semigroups. I. The monoid case’, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. (2) 42(3) (1999), 497–520.Google Scholar
Lawson, M. V., ‘ E ∗ -unitary inverse semigroups’, inSemigroups, Algorithms, Automata and Languages (Coimbra, 2001) (World Scientific Publications, River Edge, NJ, 2002), 195–214.Google Scholar
Margolis, S. W. and Meakin, J. C., ‘Free inverse monoids and graph immersions’, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 3(1) (1993), 79–99.Google Scholar
Margolis, S. W., Sapir, M. and Weil, P., ‘Closed subgroups in pro-V topologies and the extension problem for inverse automata’, Internat. J. Algebra Comput. 11(4) (2001), 405–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milan, D. and Steinberg, B., ‘On inverse semigroup C ∗ -algebras and crossed products’, Groups Geom. Dyn. 8(2) (2014), 485–512.Google Scholar
Nica, A., ‘On a groupoid construction for actions of certain inverse semigroups’, Internat. J. Math. 5(3) (1994), 349–372.Google Scholar
Paterson, A. L. T., Groupoids, Inverse Semigroups, and their Operator Algebras, Progress in Mathematics, 170 (Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1999).Google Scholar
Rimlinger, F., ‘Pregroups and Bass–Serre theory’, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 65 (1987), 361.Google Scholar
Slobodskoĭ, A. M., ‘Undecidability of the universal theory of finite groups’, Algebra Logika 20(2) (1981), 207–230, 251.Google Scholar
Stallings, J. R., Group Theory and Three-dimensional Manifolds (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1971).Google Scholar
Stallings, J. R., ‘Topology of finite graphs’, Invent. Math. 71(3) (1983), 551–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, B., ‘Finite state automata: a geometric approach’, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353(9) (2001), 3409–3464 (electronic).Google Scholar
Steinberg, B., ‘The uniform word problem for groups and finite Rees quotients of E-unitary inverse semigroups’, J. Algebra 266(1) (2003), 1–13.Google Scholar