3 Infinite models
In this chapter we consider non-implications which are refuted only on infinite models, as those are more challenging to prove—they can’t be proved by directly giving an operation table and checking which laws it satisfies.
The singleton or empty magma obeys all equational laws. One can ask whether an equational law admits nontrivial finite or infinite models. An Austin law is a law which admits infinite models, but no nontrivial finite models. Austin
[
1
]
established the first such law, namely the order law
A shorter Austin law of order was established in
[
6
]
:
Theorem
3.1
Kisielewicz’s first Austin law
Definition 2.56 is an Austin law.
Proof
▶
First we show that every finite model of Definition 2.56 is trivial. Write and . For any , introduce the functions and . Definition 2.56 says that , hence by finiteness , showing that does not depend on the value of . Since
it follows that which by injectivity of implies that is a constant function (with fixed). Substituting for shows that the same is true for , and since
we conclude that is also a constant function. But this function is already known to be injective, thus there do not exist distinct elements in its domain, showing that the model must be trivial.
To construct an infinite model, consider the magma of positive integers with the operation defined by
Then and for all . If we have that
and since is a power of two for all it follows that
The case requires a further argument: observe that evaluates to one unless , in which case it evaluates to (which is greater than or equal to four). In particular, never takes the value two. Thus
concluding our proof that this magma is a model of Definition 2.56
An even shorter law (order ) was obtained by the same author in a follow-up paper
[
5
]
:
Theorem
3.2
Kisielewicz’s second Austin law
Definition 2.54 is an Austin law.
Proof
▶
Using the and notation as before, the law reads
In particular, for any , the map is injective, hence bijective in a finite model . In particular we can find a function such that for all Applying Equation 5 with , we conclude
and thus is independent of by injectivity of . Thus, the left-hand side of Equation 5 does not depend on , and so the model is trivial. This shows there are no non-trivial finite models.
To establish an infinite model, use with defined by requiring
and
for , and
for . Finally set
for . All other assignments of may be made arbitrarily. It is then a routine matter to establish Equation 5.
In that paper a computer search was also used to show that no law of order four or less is an Austin law.
An open question is whether Definition 2.52 is an Austin law. We have the following partial result from
[
5
]
:
Theorem
3.3
Equation 5093 has no non-trivial finite models
Definition 2.52 has no non-trivial finite models.
Proof
▶
From Definition 2.52 we see that the map is onto, hence injective in a finite model. Using this injectivity four times in Definition 2.52, we see that does not depend on , hence the expression does not depend on . By Definition 2.52 again, this means that does not depend on , which is absurd in a non-trivial model.
We also have such a non-implication involving two laws of order :
Proof
▶
For a finite magma , consider the set . Now and . They both map to , and due to the hypothesis is the identity on , so because is finite and must be inverse bijections on it, and therefore they commute.
Proof
▶
Consider , with defined as (bitwise XOR) if and are even, if only is even, if only is even, and if both are odd. Note that the range of the operation is the set of even naturals. Definition 2.44 is satisfied, because for even we get and for odd we get . Setting , Definition 2.41 isn’t satisfied.
The following result was established in
[
2
]
:
Theorem
3.6
Austin’s finite model theorem
Any law with at most two variables has a non-trivial finite model.
Proof
▶
If neither side of the law is a single variable then the zero law will work, so one can assume the law takes the form . Consider a finite field with the operation for some coefficients . Then the law becomes a pair of equations , in the coefficients for some polynomials with integer coefficients, which one can verify to not divide each other (they have the same degree, and do not have the same set of non-zero monomials). From Bezout’s theorem, this equation has a solution in some field, and hence by the Lefschetz principle it has a solution in a finite field.
Many implications for finite magmas rely on the fact that if are functions on a finite set , then if and only if . Two more complicated variants of this are as follows.
Lemma
3.7
Let be finite, and let be such that . Then .
Proof
▶
Call a point periodic if for some . Because the forward orbit in a finite space must repeat, we see that for each there exists an such that is periodic. Let be the first for which this occurs. If , then cannot be periodic (as this would imply periodic), and then we can see that . Hence the maximal value of is at most , which implies that is periodic for every . Thus there is an such that . Since , we have , as desired.
Lemma
3.8
Let be finite, and let be such that . Then .
Proof
▶
By hypothesis, uniquely determines . This prevents for any (because if is such that , then ), and hence also prevents for any . So again we have periodic for all , so for some . Then as required.
This can be used to obtain a few positive finite magma implications, for instance by setting to be left and right multiplication operators. Another useful lemma is
Lemma
3.9
Eventual period
Let be finite and . Then there exists such that .
Proof
▶
By the pigeonhole principle, there exists , such that , which implies on iteration that and hence , giving the claim.
As a sample application, we have
Corollary
3.10
3342
On a finite magma , equation 3342, , implies equation 3522, , as well as equation 4118, .
Proof
▶
Write , and , then we have , and our task is to show and for finite magmas, giving the four open implications.
Note that , hence is a homomorphism. By Lemma 3.9, there is with . From 3342 we have and . Then
and a similar argument gives .
Proposition
3.11
1167 implies 1096
For finite magmas, Equation 1167,
implies Equation 1096,
Proof
▶
We write 1167 as
hence is invertible and . In particular , hence squaring is injective, hence surjective. So 1167 can be rewritten as , hence is independent of . In particular
by 1167, hence the right-hand side of 1096 is independent of . Replacing with , the claim now follows from 1167.
Proposition
3.12
1133 implies 1167
For finite magmas, Equation 1133,
implies Equation 1167,
Proof
▶
1133 asserts that , hence is invertible and does not depend on . Setting we see from 1133 that and hence we have left-involution: . Replacing with in 1133 we now get , which since is its own inverse gives
In particular
hence as is its own inverse
Thus squaring is surjective, hence invertible.
Next, by 6 we have where . By 6 and the fact that is its own inverse, we have
hence . As is injective, we have , and then , giving 1167.
Proposition
3.13
1441 implies 4067, 1443 implies 3055
For finite magmas, Equation 1441,
implies Equation 4067,
and equation 1443,
implies Equation 3055,
Proof
▶
Write , then 1441 asserts that . Setting
we get , so by finiteness . Replacing with in 1441 we conclude which is 4067.
Clearly 1443 implies 1441, hence 4067 by the previous implication, so that 3055 simplifies to . Meanwhile, 1443 also implies . On taking square roots and using , we obtain . Applying this with we conclude , hence on replacing with we get as required.
Proposition
3.14
1681 implies 3877, 1701 implies 1035
For finite magmas, Equation 1681,
implies Equation 3877,
and Equation 1701,
implies Equation 1035,
Proof
▶
This is very similar to the previous proof. Write , then 1681 asserts . Again setting yields hence , and on replacing with in 1681 one obtains 3877.
For the second part, we simplify to , while 1701 gives hence , so , so as required. □