The Burnside ring of a group

[Newtech66]

Resolves #35475.

We implement the Burnside ring for a group $G$. We provide a few ways to construct elements, either directly as a formal sum of orbit types $[G/H]$ (where $H$ is a subgroup of $G$), or by providing a group action $\alpha: G \times X \rightarrow X$ on some set $X$. Finally, we implement addition and multiplication of ring elements.

Depends on #38371.

📝 Checklist

• The title is concise and informative.
• The description explains in detail what this PR is about.
• I have linked a relevant issue or discussion.
• I have created tests covering the changes.
• I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview.

@mantepse

[github-actions]

Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit dccdfbf; changes) is ready! 🎉
This preview will update shortly after each push to this PR.

[mantepse]

@trevorkarn, I'm adding you here because of your request at #35475 (comment)

The current branch is a prototype, not yet ready for review.

[trevorkarn]

@trevorkarn, I'm adding you here because of your request at #35475 (comment)

The current branch is a prototype, not yet ready for review.

Thanks so much @mantepse! Just let me know when it is ready for review.

[Newtech66]

You're right...we can do better. (that is a brilliant observation...how do I make such observations myself...)

AtomicConjugacyClass can store 2 things: the permgroup and the multicardinality (we will normalize any input beforehand such that the domains are of the form [1...a] [a+1...b] ... [...n]). That takes care of the multivariate aspect.

We can get rid of UnivariateMolecularConjugacyClasses and merge its functionality into other classes.

Then, we do need AtomicConjugacyClasses for basis keys of PolynomialMolecularDecomposition, but then do we want to allow mixing $k$-variate species together? Like having univariate and bivariate species in the same sum? That doesn't feel like it makes sense, so for both classes we should add a variable like k as in P=PolynomialMolecularDecomposition(k=2) to denote that this is the ring of $k$-variate species. Input can be of the form (permgroup, domains_list) where domains_list must be something that can be turned into a valid SetPartition of [1..n] for some $n \geq$ permgroup.degree().

[mantepse]

You're right...we can do better. (that is a brilliant observation...how do I make such observations myself...)

Thank you - maybe do math for 25 years or so?

AtomicConjugacyClass can store 2 things: the permgroup and the multicardinality (we will normalize any input beforehand such that the domains are of the form [1...a] [a+1...b] ... [...n]). That takes care of the multivariate aspect.

No! That's a misunderstanding!

• AtomicConjugacyClass should just store a directly indecomposable permutation group, normalized. More precisely, the parent class AtomicConjugacyClasses has a cache and an _element_constructor_, that normalizes the input and puts it into the cache if it's not already there
• in the unary case MolecularConjugacyClass represents a product of conjugacy classes of atomic subgroups.
• in the $d$-ary case (which may actually be done in the same class), we additionally need a set partition of the domain $X$ into $d$ parts.

but then do we want to allow mixing k-variate species together? Like having univariate and bivariate species in the same sum?

No, (strictly speaking) you cannot add and multiply species of different arity. (In principle, one could regard any species as a species of larger arity, but I'm not sure we want to do that). Composition takes a species $F$ of arity $m$ and $m$ species $G_1,\dots,G_m$ of (the same) arity $k$, and produces a species of arity $k$.

That doesn't feel like it makes sense, so for both classes we should add a variable like k as in P=PolynomialMolecularDecomposition(k=2) to denote that this is the ring of k-variate species.

Yes!

Input can be of the form (permgroup, domains_list) where domains_list must be something that can be turned into a valid SetPartition of [1..n] for some n≥ permgroup.degree().

Hm, domains_list should be a set partition of the domain into precisely $k$ parts, $X_1,\dots,X_k$ and permgroup should then be a subgroup of $\mathfrak S_{X_1}\times\mathfrak S_{X_k}$.

[Newtech66]

AtomicConjugacyClass should just store a directly indecomposable permutation group, normalized. More precisely, the parent class AtomicConjugacyClasses has a cache and an element_constructor, that normalizes the input and puts it into the cache if it's not already there

Maintaining a cache here doesn't sound useful: we can only interpret it as a species and have some naming functionality and caching if we also have the set partition of its domain (how else can we distinguish the singleton species $X$ and $Y$ in the bivariate case, for example)? Instead we should have a cache in MolecularConjugacyClasses.

[mantepse]

AtomicConjugacyClass should just store a directly indecomposable permutation group, normalized. More precisely, the parent class AtomicConjugacyClasses has a cache and an element_constructor, that normalizes the input and puts it into the cache if it's not already there

Maintaining a cache here doesn't sound useful: we can only interpret it as a species and have some naming functionality and caching if we also have the set partition of its domain (how else can we distinguish the singleton species X and Y in the bivariate case, for example)? Instead we should have a cache in MolecularConjugacyClasses.

I probably misled you with the name: I would not have used AtomicConjugacyClass for species, but rather for permutation groups. So, I probably should have called it ConjugacyClassOfDirectlyIndecomposableSubgroups or whatever. Thinking about it, probably the class ConjugacyClassOfSubgroups will also not be necessary.

Only the class PolynomialMolecularDecomposition should "interpret" a subgroup as a species, as follows: For simplicity, suppose that we consider bivariate species, and suppose that the species F is atomic. It is represented as a pair (G_F, P) where G_F is an instance of ConjugacyClassOfDirectlyIndecomposableSubgroups(normalized, in particular with domain $1,\dots,n$) andP` is an assignment of each element in the domain to one of the two "variables". It was wrong of me to call this a set partition, because we need to remember which elements belong to which variable.

For example, X could be represented as $(\mathfrak S_1, (\{1\}, \{\}))$, and Y as $(\mathfrak S_1, (\{\}, \{1\}))$, and $\mathcal E_2(XY)$ as $([(1,3)(2,4)], (\{1,3\}, \{2,4\}))$.

For a further example, suppose now that we look at univariate species, then $([(1,3)(2,4)], (\{1,2,3,4\}))$ would instead describe the species $\mathcal E_2(X^2)$, which is (of course!) also atomic.

[mantepse]

Slightly puzzled as to which time of the day you happen to work :-)

[Newtech66]

I created a class ConjugacyClassOfDirectlyIndecomposableSubgroups, and AtomicSpecies (which pairs the conjugacy class with an integer vector) and MultivariateAtomicSpecies (the set of $k$-variate atomic species), and PolynomialMolecularDecomposition (now the ring of $k$-variate virtual species) now has basis_keys=IndexedFreeAbelianMonoid(MultivariateAtomicSpecies) (no more explicit molecular species class).

Still several bugs, need to fix.

Update: All done for now, I hope.

[Newtech66]

• The Burnside ring functionality seems completely independent of the rest of the things we are doing here. I still think we should split this PR and open the Burnside ring part of it for review.
• The current implementation using IndexedFreeAbelianMonoid for basis_keys feels a bit awkward but it works. As a next step, we can define class PolynomialSpecies(IndexedFreeModuleElement) as the element class for PolynomialMolecularDecomposition and add some functions to it like composition(self, others), derivative(self), pointed(self), __call__(self, U) (return structures on $U$?). Though I don't know how we would extend this to an infinite series. Like, for example, $S = E \circ C$ (where $S$ = species of permutations, $E$ = species of sets, $C$ = species of cycles).

[Newtech66]

@trevorkarn You can review this PR.

[mantepse]

I think we should not rush to move this into sagemath, I would rather wait until the design of #38446 is fixed.

[trevorkarn]

@trevorkarn You can review this PR.

Thanks @Newtech66 I'll take a look!

[trevorkarn]

I'm having trouble viewing the documentation. Did you add the file as described in https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/sage_manuals.html#section-add-file?

[trevorkarn]

It might be good to have some examples where G is not a SymmetricGroup just as a test

[trevorkarn]

It could be nice to have a little more documentation for the whole file (as opposed to documentation for each class or method only)

[Newtech66]

I'm having trouble viewing the documentation. Did you add the file as described in https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/developer/sage_manuals.html#section-add-file?

Oops, added it now. en/reference/rings/sage/rings/burnside

[trevorkarn]

Documentation preview for this PR

Thanks! It looks like there is still a "missing title". (Check out https://doc-pr-37991--sagemath.netlify.app/html/en/reference/rings/sage/rings/burnside.)

I am also wondering if there is a better place to put this. Of course I think Burnside rings are important, but probably they are not as important as (say) general quotient rings. Maybe it would be better to put it inside the combinatreference? Just a thought.

Could you also add some tests for cases where the base ring is not ZZ? Maybe QQ and ZZ.quo(6) just as an example?

[dimpase]

Burnside rings belong to group theory (or indeed rings). It's more of a coincidence that they have applications in combinatorics