2

It is well-known that number of pairs of commuting elements in finite group G is equal to number of conjugacy classes multiplied by cardinality of G. More generally here (MO275769) Qiaochu Yuan explains that it can be generalized:

Claim: Let $\pi$ be a finitely generated group and $G$ be a finite group. Then

$$\frac{|\text{Hom}(\pi \times \mathbb{Z}, G)|}{|G|}$$

is equal to the number of conjugacy classes of homomorphisms $\pi \to G$.

(Taking $\pi = \mathbb{Z} $ one obtains initial claim.) Here on MO Benjamin Steinberg provided nice proof based on Cauchy-Frobenius-Burnside orbit counting lemma.

Question: Is there any generalization of these relations to monoids/semigroups? In particular to a semigroup of ALL (non-necessarily non-degenerate) matrices over finite field $F_q$ ? Or for $G$ - ALL (non-necessarily bijective) maps of finite set to itself ? (The later is a kind of "field with one element" version of the previous).

Remark: If one counts pairs of elements: one from monoid another from group - then answer is positive - Benjamin Steinberg here on MO. However positive news may be finished here.

Remark: Commuting pairs for ALL (non-necessarily non-degenerate) matrices has been widely studied - the so-called "commuting variety", in particular there is nice generating function for such pairs due to Feit and Fine see e.g. MO271752.

Remark: I vaguely remember Benjamin Steinberg some years ago explained here on MO that there can be several definitions of "conjugacy classes" for semigroups, cannot find that post now. There is a paper on that arxiv1503 (thanks to David A. Jackson). So it might work for some and may not work for others.

Example no-go?: Let us look on 2x2 matrices over $F_q$: the number of commuting pairs seems to be $p^2(p^4+p^3-p)$, semigroup cardinality is $p^4$, group cardinality $(p^2-1)(p^2-p)$, number of "conjugacy classes" defined as conjugated with respect to GROUP (i.e. part of invertible elements) is $p^2+p$. So

$$p^2(p^4+p^3-p) \ne (p^2-1)(p^2-p) * (p^2+p ) ~~ \text{group cardinality used} $$ $$p^2(p^4+p^3-p) \ne (p^4) * (p^2+p ) ~~ \text{semigroup cardinality used}$$

So if I am not making mistake somewhere (for example incorrectly quoting number of commuting pairs or "conjugacy classes"), then - naively it might not work, it is a pity if would be so.

PS

On count of conjugacy classes - quote from Steven Sam blog:

As an aside, if we look at the conjugacy classes of all matrices instead of invertible matrices, i.e., we allow the domain of the partition valued functions above to include the polynomial x, then the number of such classes is \sum_j p_j(n) q^j where p_j(n) is the number of partitions of n into j parts. I think it’s a really nice formula (though it takes some work to show). See Chapter 1, Section 10 of the second edition of Enumerative Combinatorics I for a derivation of this formula.

So $p^2+p$ for $n=2$, $p$ - classes of scalar matrices, $p^2$ with "full" "Frobenius cell" (i.e. [[0,1],[,]]).

Further no-go examples 3x3 commuting pairs of matrices: $p^{12}+p^{11}+2p^{10}-2p^8-2p^7+p^5 $ - not factorizable. In comments Benjamin Steinberg provided examples of semigroups where number of commuting elements is not factorizable in product.

So to conclude: it seems easy factorization of number of commuting pairs to anything is impossible for even simple monoids. So the only hope might be some more complicated summation of products like cardinality of some subgroups multiplied on cardinality some conjugacy classes, where summation over some filtration - how far elements are from the invertible ones.

  • 1
    Related question https://mathoverflow.net/questions/143058/what-is-the-probability-two-random-maps-on-n-symbols-commute – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 17:03
  • You can count commuting pairs of invertible element, arbitrary elements as you do for groups. But the general situation doesn't match well with character theory or most definitions of conjugacy I know. – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 17:06
  • 1
    And please call semigroups S not G. It's like calling a ring F. – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 17:07
  • Matrices over a field are about the nicest semigroup you can have. To get weird examples do the following. Let A be an nxn 0/1 matrix. Take S to be 0',0,1,...,n. Make the product 0'i=0i=0=0i=i0' all i and if i ,j>0 then ij=0' if A_ij=1 and 0 else. This is a semigroup and i,j>1 commute iff A_ij=A_ji so the number of commuting pairs won't have any nice divisibility properties. – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 17:17
  • The other reasonable notion if conjugacy in matrices is A, B are conjugate if the invertible parts of their Fitting decomposition have the same size and are conjugate. This corresponds to having the same value for any complex character of M_n(F). I'm not sure if this gives better numerics. – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 17:24
  • @BenjaminSteinberg To add to your second comment I suppose (but haven't thought too hard) one could do this for every group $\mathscr{H}$-class, not just $\mathscr{H}_1$? Though of course "conjugacy" becomes slightly different. – Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda Sep 18 '21 at 17:46
  • @BenjaminSteinberg Thank you for your comments ! Let me think for a while. By the way cannot you point to that your answer on semigroup(monoid?) conjugacy various definitions ? (If I remember correctly it was you who described it). – Alexander Chervov Sep 18 '21 at 18:09
  • @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda I think you can only use the standard counting trick on elements of eSe for the maximal subgroup at e. – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 18:14
  • Im not sure such answer/question you are referring to and it is not so easy to search through all answers I have ever given – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 18:16
  • 2
    For various notions of conjugacy in semigroups, the OP might look at an October 2015 paper in the arXiv by Araujo, Kinyon Konieczny and Malheiro titled Four Notions of Conjugacy for Abstract Semigroups. My downloaded copy says 1503.00915v2. There might be later and published versions of this work. I apologize that I don't immediately know how to link to the arXiv or to put accent marks in names. I invite other more knowledgeable mathematicians to write an improved version of this comment. – David A. Jackson Sep 18 '21 at 18:46
  • The issue is that group conjugacy classes relate to commuting because you can rephrase commuting in terms of centralizers. For semigroups these various notions of conjugacy dont seem to have much to do with commuting. 3/4 of the notions in the paper @DavidA.Jackson mentioned have all elements conjugate in a nilpotent semigroup but the number of commuting pairs can look like almost anything (except 0 must commute with everything). The fourth notion was designed to eliminate too many things being conjugate to zero but still has nothing to do with commuting and I think is less natural. – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 19:17
  • @BenjaminSteinberg What about "Cauchy-Frobenius-Burnside orbit counting lemma" for monoids ? no hope ? – Alexander Chervov Sep 18 '21 at 19:42
  • No. There is no such lemma. Monoid actions are way more complicated than group actions. Even what is meant by an orbit is not so obvious since there are at least 3 reasonable notions weak orbits, strong orbits and forward orbits. While is true that counting fixed points is a character there are no orthogonality relations and also the trivial representation can appear as a composition factor in strange ways that have nothing to do with the number of orbits. – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 19:59
  • @BenjaminSteinberg if look from the other corner: restrict to Mat(n,F_q) , look on commuting pairs, admit it is NOT product , but still may be it is not far - may be some summation of terms - may be elements of monoid can be filtered by how far they are from the invertible and we can get summation along that filtration ? Feit-Fine is beautiful formula may be something is hidden behind it ... – Alexander Chervov Sep 18 '21 at 20:48
  • I wouldn't be surprised if something nice can be done for matrices. They are special. They have a semisimple algebra and so maybe character theory can help. I don't know the Feit-Fine result – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 21:49
  • Also you are looking at the F_q-rational points on the commuting matrix variety so maybe some geometry can be used – Benjamin Steinberg Sep 18 '21 at 21:50

0 Answers0