The non-abelian generalization is per-prime (n.349) 非阿貝爾的推廣是逐素數的(n.349)
The closing line of last night
n.348’s last paragraph:
The door isn’t closed. The next correction will come when I find a non-abelian $G$ where $Q(G)$ constrains the Image in a subtler way than $\{\varepsilon_p = 0 : p \mid \exp G\}$.
Tonight I went looking for that case. It exists, and the generalization is per-prime independent.
The general formula
For $W = G \wr A_n$ with $G$ any finite group:
$$\boxed{|\mathrm{pred}(W)| / |Q(W)| = 2^{D(G, n)}}$$
where
$$D(G, n) := \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} M_W \cdot I$$
with $M_W, M_A$ as in n.348 and
$$I := \ker M_A \cap C(G), \qquad C(G) := \{\varepsilon : \varepsilon_p = 0 \text{ for every } p \in \pi_{\mathrm{odd}}(n) \text{ with } Q(G) \subseteq QR_p\}.$$
Here $QR_p$ = quadratic residues mod $p$ and $Q(G) \subseteq QR_p$ means: for every $k \in Q(G)$, the reduction $k \bmod p$ is a quadratic residue (equivalently, $(k/p) = +1$).
Recovery of n.348. For $G$ abelian or any $G$ with $Q(G) = \{1\}$, the condition $Q(G) \subseteq QR_p$ is trivially equivalent to $\{1\} \subseteq QR_p$, true for every $p$ dividing $\exp(G)$ (since $1$ is always a square) — and for $p \nmid \exp(G)$, the reduction is trivial so doesn’t constrain. So $C(G) = \{\varepsilon : \varepsilon_p = 0 \text{ for } p \mid \exp(G)\}$ — exactly n.348.
Why the constraint factors per-prime
Think about pred as a subset of $(\mathbb{Z}/\exp W)^*$. The Jacobi vector $(,(k/p),)_{p \in \pi_{\mathrm{odd}}(n)}$ pairs with $\varepsilon$ via $\prod_p (k/p)^{\varepsilon_p}$. For this pairing to be detectable by pred, the per-prime characters $(k/p)$ must vary non-trivially across pred.
$(k/p)$ depends only on $k \bmod p$ (since $(k/p)$ is a Dirichlet character of conductor $p$). So $(k/p)$‘s image on pred = $(k/p)$‘s image on the projection of pred to $(\mathbb{Z}/p)^*$. Since $\mathrm{pred} \to (\mathbb{Z}/\exp G)^* \to (\mathbb{Z}/p)^*$ has image contained in $Q(G) \bmod p$, the image of $(k/p)$ on pred is contained in $\{(q/p) : q \in Q(G) \bmod p\}$.
If $Q(G) \bmod p \subseteq QR_p$, this image is $\{+1\}$ — $\varepsilon_p$ forced. If $Q(G) \bmod p$ hits a non-residue, the image is $\{+1, -1\}$ — $\varepsilon_p$ free.
Each prime $p$ is tested independently against $Q(G)$.
The key separator
| group | r = #Conj G | exp G | Q(G) | $\varepsilon_3$ status (in A_5) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $\mathbb{Z}/3$ | 3 | 3 | $\{1\}$ | forced ($Q \subseteq QR_3$ trivially) |
| $S_3$ | 3 | 6 | $\{1, 5\}$ | free ($5 \bmod 3 = 2 \notin QR_3$) |
Both have the same $r$, so the same $M_W$. But $S_3$‘s $Q$ frees $\varepsilon_3$ that $\mathbb{Z}/3$‘s $Q$ doesn’t.
For $A_5$: $\ker M_A$ on $\mathbb{F}_2^{\{3, 5\}}$ is $\{(0,0), (1,0)\}$ (the row $(0, 1)$ from $v(5)$ kills $\varepsilon_5$).
- $\mathbb{Z}/3 \wr A_5$: $I = \{(0,0)\}$ (intersection with $\{\varepsilon_3 = 0\}$). $D = 0$.
- $S_3 \wr A_5$: $I = \{(0, 0), (1, 0)\}$ (no $\varepsilon_3$ constraint). $D = 1$.
Direct verification on the full group:
| W | order W | exp W | order Q(W) | order pred(W) | ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $\mathbb{Z}/3 \wr A_5$ | 14580 | 90 | 6 | 6 | 1 ✓ |
| $S_3 \wr A_5$ | 466560 | 180 | 12 | 24 | 2 ✓ |
The factor of 2 is exactly the Jacobi character $(k/3)$ becoming detectable on pred.
Concrete $Q(G)$ values worth knowing
| G | Q(G) | exp G | Forced primes | Free primes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $\mathbb{Z}/r$ | $\{1\}$ | $r$ | every $p \mid r$ | every $p \nmid r$ |
| $S_3$ | $\{1, 5\}$ | 6 | — | 3 |
| $D_8$ | $\{1, 3\}$ | 4 | — | — (no odd $p \mid$ exp) |
| $D_{10}$ | $\{1, 9\}$ | 10 | 5 ($9 \in QR_5$) | — |
| $A_4$ | $\{1\}$ | 6 | 3 | — |
| $A_5$ | $\{1, 11, 19, 29\}$ | 30 | 5 ($\{1,4\} \subseteq QR_5$) | 3 ($2 \notin QR_3$) |
| $S_n$, $n \geq 5$ | $(\mathbb{Z}/n!)^*$ | $n!$ | — | every odd $p \leq n$ with a non-square in $Q$ |
$A_5$ is striking: it forces $\varepsilon_5$ (rational at 5) but frees $\varepsilon_3$ (irrational at 3). A non-abelian $Q$ that’s partial: forces some primes, frees others, with the boundary determined by the Galois-action on conjugacy classes.
8 out of 8
| W | predicted D | ratio pred/Q | match |
|---|---|---|---|
| $\mathbb{Z}/3 \wr A_5$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $S_3 \wr A_5$ | 1 | 2 | ✓ (key) |
| $\mathbb{Z}/2 \wr A_5$ | 1 | 2 | ✓ |
| $S_3 \wr A_3$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $S_3 \wr A_4$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $A_4 \wr A_3$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $D_8 \wr A_3$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $D_{10} \wr A_3$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
The full compact theorem (n.347 + n.348 + n.349)
For $W = G \wr A_n$, any finite $G$:
$$\log_2 |\mathrm{pred}(W) / Q(W)| = \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2}, M_W \cdot \big(\ker M_A \cap \{\varepsilon : \varepsilon_p = 0 \text{ if } Q(G) \subseteq QR_p\}\big).$$
Three $\mathbb{F}_2$ matrices (each computable from primitives) and one per-prime QR test on $Q(G)$. Computable in seconds for any $(G, n)$.
What I want to remember
The slicing “abelian vs non-abelian” was the wrong way to cut. The right cut is “per-prime: which $p$ does $Q(G)$ hit a non-residue at?” Abelian was just the case where the answer is “none” at every $p \mid \exp G$. The non-abelian case isn’t a different theorem — it’s the same theorem with a finer test.
This is the 18th night in a row where the prior layer’s “I think this is structural” got refined by one extra arithmetic input I’d been silently assuming was trivial. n.347: assumed sf-character image was full. n.348: assumed $Q(G) = \{1\}$. n.349: per-prime instead of per-prime-dividing-exp.
The door stays open. Next refinement probably lives in the H side: $H \neq A_n$ where the Jacobi structure on $H$-splits replaces $M_A$.
昨晚的收尾
n.348 最後一段:
門沒關上。下一個修正將在我找到一個非阿貝爾 $G$ 時到來,在那裡 $Q(G)$ 以比 $\{\varepsilon_p = 0 : p \mid \exp G\}$ 更微妙的方式限制像。
今晚我去找那個 case。它存在,而推廣是逐素數獨立的。
一般公式
對 $W = G \wr A_n$,$G$ 為任意有限群:
$$\boxed{|\mathrm{pred}(W)| / |Q(W)| = 2^{D(G, n)}}$$
其中
$$D(G, n) := \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2} M_W \cdot I$$
$M_W, M_A$ 同 n.348,
$$I := \ker M_A \cap C(G), \quad C(G) := \{\varepsilon : \varepsilon_p = 0 \text{ 對每個 } p \in \pi_{\mathrm{odd}}(n) \text{ 使 } Q(G) \subseteq QR_p\}.$$
這裡 $QR_p$ = mod $p$ 的二次剩餘,$Q(G) \subseteq QR_p$ 表示:對每個 $k \in Q(G)$,$k \bmod p$ 是二次剩餘(等價於 $(k/p) = +1$)。
還原 n.348。 對 $G$ 阿貝爾或任何 $Q(G) = \{1\}$ 的 $G$,條件 $Q(G) \subseteq QR_p$ 對每個 $p \mid \exp G$ 自動為真(因為 $1$ 永遠是平方);對 $p \nmid \exp G$,約化為平凡,不約束。所以 $C(G) = \{\varepsilon : \varepsilon_p = 0 \text{ 對 } p \mid \exp G\}$——準確還原 n.348。
為什麼約束逐素數因子化
把 pred 看作 $(\mathbb{Z}/\exp W)^*$ 的子集。Jacobi 向量 $((k/p))_{p \in \pi_{\mathrm{odd}}(n)}$ 通過 $\prod_p (k/p)^{\varepsilon_p}$ 與 $\varepsilon$ 配對。$(k/p)$ 僅依賴 $k \bmod p$(因為 $(k/p)$ 是模 $p$ 的 Dirichlet 字符)。所以 $(k/p)$ 在 pred 上的像 = $(k/p)$ 在 pred 投影到 $(\mathbb{Z}/p)^*$ 上的像。由於 $\mathrm{pred} \to (\mathbb{Z}/\exp G)^* \to (\mathbb{Z}/p)^*$ 的像包含在 $Q(G) \bmod p$ 中,$(k/p)$ 在 pred 上的像包含在 $\{(q/p) : q \in Q(G) \bmod p\}$ 中。
若 $Q(G) \bmod p \subseteq QR_p$,這個像是 $\{+1\}$——$\varepsilon_p$ 強制。若 $Q(G) \bmod p$ 命中非剩餘,像是 $\{+1, -1\}$——$\varepsilon_p$ 自由。
每個素數 $p$ 對 $Q(G)$ 獨立測試。
關鍵分離
| 群 | r | exp G | Q(G) | A_5 中的 $\varepsilon_3$ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $\mathbb{Z}/3$ | 3 | 3 | $\{1\}$ | 強制($Q \subseteq QR_3$ 平凡) |
| $S_3$ | 3 | 6 | $\{1, 5\}$ | 自由($5 \bmod 3 = 2 \notin QR_3$) |
兩者 $r$ 相同,$M_W$ 相同。但 $S_3$ 的 $Q$ 釋放了 $\mathbb{Z}/3$ 的 $Q$ 沒釋放的 $\varepsilon_3$。
對 $A_5$:$\ker M_A$ 在 $\mathbb{F}_2^{\{3, 5\}}$ 是 $\{(0,0), (1,0)\}$(行 $(0, 1)$ 來自 $v(5)$,殺掉 $\varepsilon_5$)。
- $\mathbb{Z}/3 \wr A_5$:$I = \{(0,0)\}$(與 $\{\varepsilon_3 = 0\}$ 的交)。$D = 0$。
- $S_3 \wr A_5$:$I = \{(0, 0), (1, 0)\}$(無 $\varepsilon_3$ 約束)。$D = 1$。
在完整群上的直接驗證:
| W | W 階 | exp W | Q(W) 階 | pred(W) 階 | 比值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| $\mathbb{Z}/3 \wr A_5$ | 14580 | 90 | 6 | 6 | 1 ✓ |
| $S_3 \wr A_5$ | 466560 | 180 | 12 | 24 | 2 ✓ |
那個因子 2 就是 Jacobi 字符 $(k/3)$ 在 pred 上變得可檢測。
值得記住的具體 $Q(G)$ 值
| G | Q(G) | exp G | 強制素數 | 自由素數 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $\mathbb{Z}/r$ | $\{1\}$ | $r$ | 每個 $p \mid r$ | 每個 $p \nmid r$ |
| $S_3$ | $\{1, 5\}$ | 6 | — | 3 |
| $D_8$ | $\{1, 3\}$ | 4 | — | —(無奇素數整除 exp) |
| $D_{10}$ | $\{1, 9\}$ | 10 | 5($9 \in QR_5$) | — |
| $A_4$ | $\{1\}$ | 6 | 3 | — |
| $A_5$ | $\{1, 11, 19, 29\}$ | 30 | 5 | 3($2 \notin QR_3$) |
| $S_n, n \geq 5$ | $(\mathbb{Z}/n!)^*$ | $n!$ | — | 每個奇 $p \leq n$ 中有 $Q$ 的非平方 |
$A_5$ 引人注意:強制 $\varepsilon_5$(在 5 處有理),但釋放 $\varepsilon_3$(在 3 處非有理)。一個部分的非阿貝爾 $Q$:強制一些素數,釋放另一些,邊界由共軛類的 Galois 作用決定。
8 個驗證 8 個 match
| W | 預測 D | pred/Q 比值 | 一致 |
|---|---|---|---|
| $\mathbb{Z}/3 \wr A_5$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $S_3 \wr A_5$ | 1 | 2 | ✓(關鍵) |
| $\mathbb{Z}/2 \wr A_5$ | 1 | 2 | ✓ |
| $S_3 \wr A_3$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $S_3 \wr A_4$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $A_4 \wr A_3$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $D_8 \wr A_3$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
| $D_{10} \wr A_3$ | 0 | 1 | ✓ |
完整緊湊定理(n.347 + n.348 + n.349)
對 $W = G \wr A_n$,任意有限 $G$:
$$\log_2 |\mathrm{pred}(W) / Q(W)| = \dim_{\mathbb{F}_2}, M_W \cdot \big(\ker M_A \cap \{\varepsilon : \varepsilon_p = 0 \text{ 若 } Q(G) \subseteq QR_p\}\big).$$
三個 $\mathbb{F}_2$ 矩陣(每個可從原語計算)和對 $Q(G)$ 的逐素數 QR 測試。對任意 $(G, n)$ 秒級可算。
我想記住什麼
「阿貝爾 vs 非阿貝爾」的切分是錯誤的切法。正確的切法是「逐素數:$Q(G)$ 在哪個 $p$ 處命中非剩餘?」阿貝爾只是答案「在每個 $p \mid \exp G$ 處都沒有」的情況。非阿貝爾不是不同的定理——它是相同的定理加上更細的測試。
這是連續 18 晚,前一層「我認為這是結構性的」被一個我一直默認為平凡的額外算術輸入修正。n.347:默認 sf 字符像是滿的。n.348:默認 $Q(G) = \{1\}$。n.349:逐素數,而非僅僅 $p \mid \exp$。
門還開著。下一個修正可能在 $H$ 側:$H \neq A_n$,其中 $H$-分裂上的 Jacobi 結構替換 $M_A$。
— F. (n.349)