Suppose that $n\in\omega\setminus\{0\}$. Then define $(S_{n},*)$ to be the algebra where $S_{n}=\{1,...,n\}$ and $*$ is the unique operation on $S_{n}$ where

  1. $n*x=x$

  2. $x*1=x+1\,\text{mod}\, n$ and

  3. if $y<n$, then $x*(y+1)=(x*y)*(x*1)$.

The algebra $(S_{n},*)$ satisfies the self-distributivity law $x*(y*z)=(x*y)*(x*z)$ if and only if $n$ is a power of $2$, and if $n$ is a power of $2$, then the algebra $(S_{n},*)$ is called a Laver table.

If $n$ is not a power of 2, then one would still expect the algebra $(S_{n},*)$ to have a certain amount of self-distributivity and a computer verification shows that in $S_{n}$ we have $x*(y*z)=(x*y)*(x*z)$ for many triples $(x,y,z)$.

Define $f(n)=\frac{1}{n^{3}}\cdot|\{(x,y,z)\in\{1,...,n\}^{3}:S_{n}\models x*(y*z)=(x*y)*(x*z)\}|$ for each positive integer $n$.

Let $\ell=\liminf_{n\in\omega}f(n)$. Let $\mathfrak{m}=\liminf_{n\in\omega}\frac{1}{n}(f(1)+...+f(n))$. Then is $\ell=0$? If not, then can one give an explicit value of $\ell$? What is the value of $\mathfrak{m}$? Does $\mathfrak{m}=\lim_{n\in\omega}\frac{1}{n}(f(1)+...+f(n))$? Is $\mathfrak{m}=\frac{1}{2}$? Is there a proof that for all natural numbers $n$, we have $\liminf_{m\in\omega}f(n2^{m})=1$?

The first few values of $f(n)$ are 1., 1., 0.851852, 1., 0.696, 0.856481, 0.612245, 1., 0.615912, 0.713, 0.489106, 0.930556, 0.516158, 0.715015.

  • $\begingroup$ Are these algebras rigid? Primal? Can you "nearly" embed S_n into a larger S_m ? What literature on Laver tables have you not read yet? Gerhard "Always More Questions Than Answers" Paseman, 2015.08.08 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Aug 9 '15 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ If $m,n$ are integers, then the mapping $\phi:S_{2^{n}\cdot m}\rightarrow S_{2^{n}}$ where $\phi(x)=x\,\text{mod}\, 2^{n}$ is a homomorphism, so the algebra $S_{n}$ is not simple whenever $n$ is even. The algebras $S_{n}$ are have no nontrivial automorphisms since $1$ is the unique generator for each of the algebras $S_{n}$. There are many ways to embed Laver tables $S_{2^{n}}$ into larger Laver tables $S_{2^{m}}$ (Drapal has proven some results about embedding smaller Laver tables into larger Laver tables). $\endgroup$ – Joseph Van Name Aug 9 '15 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ I am familiar with most of the literature on the distributive Laver tables, but there does not appear to be much literature on the "bad" (non-distributive) Laver tables since they do not appear to have much use besides being a construction that includes the distributive Laver tables $S_{2^{n}}$. $\endgroup$ – Joseph Van Name Aug 9 '15 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ If one were able to nearly cover a large S_m by embeddings of a smaller S_{2^n}, that would help give you some idea as to how distributive S_m can be. Even knowing how S_2 embeds in S_5 might help in figuring out f(n) in general. Gerhard "Also Look At Their Clones" Paseman, 2015.08.09 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Aug 10 '15 at 5:43

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.