Math Mapgenerated 2026-10-25 · a354234
PUBLIC BUILD

run 033Settled

The Ihara primes of the host are its relators. Kesten–Grigorchuk say their density is the free density (cogrowth maximal) iff the group is amenable, with the deficit a sub-exponential "error term". Is that error term visibly sub-exponential at word length ≤ 48 on the Grigorchuk group?

slug
host-primes-cogrowth
state
run
created
2026-09-27
sealed
2026-09-27
measured
2026-09-27
statistic
κ = [ln p(48) − ln p(40)] / [ln p(24) − ln p(16)], where p(m) = R(m) / (4·3^{m−1}) and R(m) is the number of reduced words of length m in {a, b, c, d} (no two equal adjacent letters) equal to 1 in the Grigorchuk group — closed non-backtracking walks of length m from the identity in its Cayley graph, computed exactly by dynamic programming on the ball of radius 24 under the faithful level-8 action
outcome
confirmed
script
R25_host_primes/cogrowth.py
artifacts
[R25_host_primes/cogrowth.json, R25_host_primes/cogrowth_H.json, R25_host_primes/cogrowth.log]
builds_on
[030, P-026]
concepts
[growth-of-groups, zeta-primes, graph-theory]
programme
PG-02
source
../lab/runs/033-host-primes-cogrowth.md

Predictionκ ∈ [0.45, 0.85] — the per-step decay of the return probability slows by 15–55% between the two windows, as a stretched exponential exp(−c·m^β) with β between 0.25 and 0.7 does; the deficit from free density is sub-exponential at this scale

Falsifierκ ≥ 0.97 — constant decay rate, i.e. exponential decay of the return probability: at this scale the relator count behaves like a non-amenable group's, and amenability is invisible below length 48

VerdictCONFIRMED — κ = 0.665. The per-step decay of ln p over successive windows of eight is 0.119, 0.077, 0.064, 0.057, 0.051 (m = 8→16 through 40→48): the return probability's decay keeps slowing, the relator density is closing on the free density 3ᵐ sub-exponentially, and at m = 48 the local exponent log₃R(m)/m is 0.884. Ball of radius 24: 132,748 elements; R(48) = 1.74×10²⁰ of 4·3⁴⁷ words. Controls, unscored: the affine Coxeter group Ã₃ (amenable, polynomial growth) decays 0.122, 0.070, 0.051, 0.040, 0.033, κ = 0.47; the non-affine Coxeter control (growth rate 1.93, contains F₂) reaches only radius 18 and decays 0.181, 0.157, 0.140 over m = 8→32, κ on the matched windows [8,16 | 24,32] = 0.77 against the Grigorchuk group's 0.54 and Ã₃'s 0.42 — the ordering non-amenable > intermediate > polynomial that Kesten–Grigorchuk predicts, though the non-amenable control's rate has not yet flattened at these lengths, which is why it was not the seal.

Sealed before the count was run (2026-09-27, codifier). Below 0.45 is unanticipated.

Why this is the push on the graph prime number theorem. In a (q+1)-regular graph the primitive backtrackless cycles of length m number ~ qᵐ/m — N/log N once more — with the error term set by the Ihara poles, i.e. by whether the graph's Riemann hypothesis holds. For the infinite Cayley graph of a group the primes are the relators, and their count per vertex is R(m) up to the tail correction. Kesten (spectral radius 1 iff amenable) with Grigorchuk's cogrowth theorem (cogrowth rate maximal iff amenable) says: the graph PNT holds at full density qᵐ upstairs iff the group is amenable — and those are exactly the groups whose finite quotients fail the graph RH. Expanders are the mirror: the universal cover is a tree with no primes at all, and the quotients can be Ramanujan. Primes dense upstairs, zeros off the line downstairs; primes absent upstairs, zeros on the line. This run measures the "error term" on the intermediate-growth host, where the density is full but approached sub-exponentially.

Controls, reported not scored. Two Coxeter groups on four involutions in the integral Tits representation, same reduced-word normalisation: Ã₃ (4-cycle, m = 3 on neighbours, 2 on opposites; virtually ℤ³, amenable, polynomial growth — expect κ ≈ 0.6 from p ~ m^{−3/2}) and the same graph with one opposite pair set to m = 3 (non-affine, contains F₂, non-amenable — expect κ closer to 1, but a polynomial prefactor keeps it below 1 at this scale, which is why the control is not the seal).

Also reported. The tailless counts C(m) (cyclically reduced relators — the Ihara primes proper), the local exponent γ(m) = log₃ R(m) / m, and the shortest relators found by length.

---

Measured, same evening

m81624324048
Grigorchuk R(m)2726.9×10⁵2.44×10⁹9.57×10¹²3.99×10¹⁶1.74×10²⁰
Grigorchuk p(m)0.0310.0120.00650.00390.00250.0016
Grigorchuk γ(m) = log₃R/m0.6380.7650.8200.8500.8700.884
Ã₃ p(m)0.0160.00600.00340.00230.00170.0013
Ã₃ γ(m)0.5620.7260.7960.8350.8610.879
non-affine H p(m)0.00750.00180.000510.00017——
non-affine H γ(m)0.4770.6560.7230.761——

Per-step decay of ln p over the windows 8→16, 16→24, 24→32, 32→40, 40→48: Grigorchuk 0.119, 0.077, 0.064, 0.057, 0.051; Ã₃ 0.122, 0.070, 0.051, 0.040, 0.033; H 0.181, 0.157, 0.140 (to 32). κ = 0.665 for the Grigorchuk group (band [0.45, 0.85]); 0.47 for Ã₃; 0.77 for H on the shorter matched windows, where the Grigorchuk value is 0.54.

Shortest relators: Grigorchuk R(3..8) = 6, 6, 12, 36, 78, 272 (bcd and its rotations at length 3; the group has odd relators); Ã₃ has relators at even lengths only, R(4) = 4 (the two commuting pairs), R(6) = 16; H has R(4) = 2 (one commuting pair), R(6) = 14.

Reading. At every accessible length the three groups have relator-density exponents within 0.1 of each other (0.77–0.88): the level does not separate amenable from not, as the seal's prose said it would not. The trend does: the two amenable groups' decay rates fall steadily toward zero — the polynomial one faster than the intermediate one, as p ~ m^{−3/2} against exp(−c m^β) requires — while the non-amenable control's rate is two to three times larger at the same lengths and, by Kesten, must level off at −ln ρ > 0. So the host's primes obey the graph prime number theorem at full density with a sub-exponential error term, which is the amenable signature, and the same amenability is why the quotients' Ihara zeta fails its Riemann hypothesis (run 030 correction, N-026 correction 3: the gap is a path's). That is the pushed analogy, measured on one side.

What would sharpen it. Fit β: log(−d ln p/dm) against log m over m ∈ [16, 48] gives the stretched exponent directly (the five windows give slope −0.5 to −0.65, i.e. β ≈ 0.35–0.5, from a coarse fit — not sealed; for Ã₃ the same fit gives the 1.5/m of a ℤ³ walk exactly: 0.034 predicted, 0.033 measured at m = 44). And the finite quotients' side: the Ihara zeta of Cay(G/St(4)) from its adjacency spectrum, its non-trivial poles against the Ramanujan circle, against the relator count R(m) for m below the systole 16, where the quotient's primes are the group's own.

generated 2026-10-25the lab index