diff --git a/content/essays/index-period-normal-forms/index.md b/content/essays/index-period-normal-forms/index.md index 6b1b70d..4a89916 100644 --- a/content/essays/index-period-normal-forms/index.md +++ b/content/essays/index-period-normal-forms/index.md @@ -39,7 +39,8 @@ history: The fixed-resource monoid-aggregated model gives a genuine finite-index theory, but the first normal-form bound is far too coarse if stated only as a -pigeonhole bound in a huge product monoid. The correct next move is to +[pigeonhole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle) bound in a +huge product monoid. The correct next move is to analyze, for each behavior type, the cyclic submonoid generated by its child contribution. This gives an exact index-period pumping rule. @@ -51,10 +52,13 @@ after a harmless external tie-break; and the example computations become concrete rather than schematic. There is also an important algebraic correction. One should not assume that -every finite commutative monoid is a semilattice of abelian groups. That +every [finite commutative monoid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoid) is a +[semilattice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semilattice) of [abelian +groups](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_group). That statement holds for special regular/Clifford-type commutative monoids, not for arbitrary finite commutative monoids. Threshold monoids already contain -aperiodic saturation behavior that is not group-like. The universal +[aperiodic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperiodic_semigroup) saturation +behavior that is not group-like. The universal finite-monoid fact needed here is simpler: for each element $g$ of a finite monoid, the sequence @@ -622,7 +626,8 @@ $$ N(g) := \operatorname{ind}(g) + \operatorname{per}(g) - 1. $$ -The exact pumping lemma says every coefficient of $g$ can be reduced to at +The exact [pumping lemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumping_lemma) says +every coefficient of $g$ can be reduced to at most $N(g)$ without changing the monoid value. @@ -808,7 +813,8 @@ $0$ with period $1$. If $g = 1$, then $0g = 0$ and $ng = 1$ for all $n \geq
If $M$ is a finite Boolean semilattice, for example a finite power of $(\{0, -1\}, \vee, 0)$, every element is idempotent. Hence every behavior type has +1\}, \vee, 0)$, every element is +[idempotent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idempotence). Hence every behavior type has bound $0$ if its contribution is zero and bound $1$ otherwise.
@@ -842,7 +848,8 @@ $$ :::: exhibit-body The sequence $ng$ is periodic from the beginning. Its least positive period -is the additive order of $g$ in the cyclic group. The displayed formula for +is the [additive order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_(group_theory)) +of $g$ in the [cyclic group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_group). The displayed formula for the order in $\mathbb{Z}/q\mathbb{Z}$ is standard. [□]{.proof-qed} :::: @@ -1262,8 +1269,9 @@ bound is $|B_{\mathcal{R}}| + 1$ vertices for a repeated behavior vector.
-If labels vary along a unary path, one obtains the finite transformation -semigroup generated by the maps $U_a$ for $a \in A$: this is the subsemigroup, +If labels vary along a unary path, one obtains the finite [transformation +semigroup](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_semigroup) +generated by the maps $U_a$ for $a \in A$: this is the subsemigroup, under composition, of the finite monoid of all self-maps of $B_{\mathcal{R}}$ generated by the maps $U_a$. Long labeled unary words can be pumped using repetitions in this finite transformation semigroup, but the @@ -1651,7 +1659,7 @@ are intrinsically unique, which is generally false.
-Fix a total order $\preceq$ on the finite universe $U_{\mathcal{R}}$. For +Fix a [total order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order) $\preceq$ on the finite universe $U_{\mathcal{R}}$. For example, order first by number of vertices, then by height, then recursively by sorted child lists and vertex labels. @@ -1905,7 +1913,9 @@ separating $X$ and $Y$, and set $\operatorname{sep}_{\mathcal{F}}(X, Y) =
-For fixed $\mathcal{R}$, a game characterization is nearly tautological: +For fixed $\mathcal{R}$, a +[game characterization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfeucht%E2%80%93Fra%C3%AFss%C3%A9_game) +is nearly tautological: Spoiler can choose a differing coordinate $P \in D(\mathcal{R})$ if one exists, and otherwise Duplicator wins because behavior vectors agree. A nontrivial game should therefore characterize resource growth, restricted