BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:researchseminars.org
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
X-WR-CALNAME:researchseminars.org
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Jeremy Alm (Southern Illinois University)
DTSTART:20251002T180000Z
DTEND:20251002T190000Z
DTSTAMP:20260423T021357Z
UID:OLS/188
DESCRIPTION:Title: <a href="https://researchseminars.org/talk/OLS/188/">Re
 lation Algebra and Sumset Problems in Abelian Groups</a>\nby Jeremy Alm (S
 outhern Illinois University) as part of Online logic seminar\n\n\nAbstract
 \nAn abstract relation algebra (RA) is called representable if it embeds i
 n a collection of binary relations closed under union\, complementation\, 
 composition\, conversion\, and identity. The question of representability 
 is undecidable for finite RAs. It is therefore of interest to impose vario
 us restrictions on the RAs or on the representations themselves in order t
 o narrow the search space. \n\nFor example\, one might consider only so-ca
 lled "cyclic" representations\, which affords a log-quadratic improvement 
 in search time. If we further assume that the automorphism group of the al
 gebra A with c "colors" (symmetric diversity atoms) contains a cycle of le
 ngth c\, and consider only those cyclic representations that arise via a f
 inite field method (due to Comer)\, we actually get decidability:  we can 
 check for Comer representations of A in O(c^8 / log c) time. \n\nIf an RA 
 A has no 3-cycles ("rainbow triangles")\, then representability of A is de
 cidable without restriction on the "type" of representation\, a result due
  to Maddux. \n\nA "Goldilocks" happy medium might be found by restricting 
 attention to representations over abelian groups more generally.  In this 
 context\, problems can be stated in terms of sumset conditions for partiti
 ons of the group. For example\,\n\nFor which finite abelian G does there e
 xist a partition G = {0} u A u B such that\n\n<ul>\n  <li>A = -A</li>\n<li
 >B = -B</li>\n<li>A + A = G</li>\n<li>A + B = G \\ {0}</li>\n  <li>B + B =
  {0} u A ?</li>\n  </ul>\n\n\nThis formulation has two real advantages: fi
 rst\, the problem is understandable to any mathematician\; second\, we can
  bring in results from the additive number theory literature. \n\nNotice t
 hat the set B above is a sum-free set.  Constructing sum-free sets with ot
 her desired properties is difficult in general. We will discuss this in th
 e context of a problem I've been working on for almost 20 years.\n
LOCATION:https://researchseminars.org/talk/OLS/188/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
