7.25 (1980)

Open

We associate with words in the alphabet $x, x^{-1}, y, y^{-1}, z, z^{-1}, \dots$ operations which are understood as functions in variables $x, y, z, \dots$. We say that a word $A$ is expressible in words $B_1, \dots, B_n$ on the group $G$ if $A$ can be constructed from the words $B_1, \dots, B_n$ and variables by means of finitely many substitutions of words one into another and replacements of a word by another word which is identically equal to it on $G$. A list of words is said to be functionally complete on $G$ if every word can be expressed on $G$ in words from this list. A word $B$ is called a Schaeffer word on $G$ if every word can be expressed on $G$ in $B$ (compare with A. V. Kuznetsov, Matem. Issledovaniya, Kishinëv, 6, no. 4 (1971), 75–122 (Russian)). Does there exist an algorithm which decides
$\qquad$ a) by a word $B$, whether it is a Schaeffer word on every group? Compare with the problem of describing all such words in (A. G. Kurosh, Theory of Groups, Moscow, Nauka, 1967, p. 435 (Russian)); here are examples of such words: $xy^{-1}$, $x^{-1}y^2 z$, $x^{-1}y^{-1}zx$.
$\qquad$ b) by a list of words, whether it is functionally complete on every group?
$\qquad$ c) by words $A, B_1, \dots, B_n$, whether $A$ is expressible in $B_1, \dots, B_n$ on every group? (This is a problem from A. V. Kuznetsov, ibid., p. 112.)
$\qquad$ d) the same for every finite group? (For finite groups, for example, $x^{-1}$ is expressible in $xy$.) For a fixed finite group an algorithm exists (compare with A. V. Kuznetsov, ibid., § 8).

Comments

All comments are the responsibility of the user. Comments appearing on this page are not verified for correctness. Please keep posts mathematical and on topic. If you want to submit a proof (or a partial proof), please use the dedicated proof submission form rather than posting it in the comments.
Order by newest first or oldest first.

No comments yet. Be the first to comment.

Proof claims

Proof claims are the responsibility of the submitter. Appearance here does not mean the claim has been checked for mathematical correctness. Moderators only screen for spam, abuse, and obviously low-effort submissions.

No proof claims yet.