Modularity and Structure in Matroids
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Modularity and Structure in Matroids by Rohan Kapadia A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Combinatorics and Optimization Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2013 c Rohan Kapadia 2013 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract This thesis concerns sufficient conditions for a matroid to admit one of two types of structural characterization: a representation over a finite field or a description as a frame matroid. We call a restriction N of a matroid M modular if, for every flat F of M, rM (F ) + r(N) = rM (F \ E(N)) + rM (F [ E(N)): A consequence of a theorem of Seymour is that any 3-connected matroid with a modular U2;3-restriction is binary. We extend this fact to arbitrary finite fields, showing that if N is a modular rank-3 restriction of a vertically 4-connected matroid M, then any representation of N over a finite field extends to a representation of M. We also look at a more general notion of modularity that applies to minors of a matroid, and use it to present conditions for a matroid with a large projective geometry minor to be representable over a finite field. In particular, we show that a 3-connected, representable matroid with a sufficiently large projective geometry over a finite field GF(q) as a minor is either representable over GF(q) or has a U2;q2+1-minor. A second result of Seymour is that any vertically 4-connected matroid with a modular M(K4)-restriction is graphic. Geelen, Gerards, and Whittle partially generalized this from M(K4) to larger frame matroids, showing that any vertically 5-connected, representable matroid with a rank-4 Dowling geometry as a modular restriction is a frame matroid. As with projective geometries, we prove a version of this result for matroids with large Dowling geometries as minors, providing conditions which imply that they are frame matroids. iii Acknowledgements Above all, I would like to thank Jim Geelen for his guidance and inspiration. It has been a great experience being his student and it is an honour to have been able to learn so much from him. I thank my examining committee members, Rahim Moosa, James Oxley, Bruce Richter, and David Wagner, for their care in reading this thesis and their helpful comments. I would also like to thank everyone who has been at the Department of Combinatorics and Optimization during my time here for making it such a great place to be. This work was partially supported by a scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. v Table of Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgementsv Table of Contents vii 1 Introduction1 1.1 Matroids..............................2 1.1.1 Minors and duality....................3 1.1.2 Projective geometries...................4 1.1.3 Graphic matroids.....................5 1.1.4 Frame and Dowling matroids..............6 1.1.5 Connectivity........................8 1.2 Varieties of matroids.......................9 1.3 Three in a circuit and two disjoint rooted paths........ 10 1.4 Modular restrictions........................ 11 1.5 Conditions for representation over a field............ 14 1.6 Conditions for a frame representation.............. 16 1.7 Excluded minors of varieties.................... 17 1.8 Growth rates of minor-closed classes.............. 19 2 Modular planes 23 2.1 Modular sums........................... 25 2.2 General modular restrictions.................... 27 2.3 Duality............................... 29 2.4 Finding a deletion pair...................... 35 2.5 Stabilizers............................. 52 2.6 Finding distinguishing sets.................... 53 2.7 Connectivity............................. 61 2.8 Vertically 4-connected matroids.................. 71 vii 2.9 Excluded minors......................... 74 3 Projective geometries 77 3.1 Non-representable matroids................... 78 3.2 Representation over a subfield................... 81 3.3 The main theorem........................ 84 3.4 Growth rates............................ 87 4 Dowling geometries 89 4.1 Represented matroids........................ 91 4.2 Patchworks............................. 91 4.3 Group-labelled graphs...................... 94 4.4 A non-abelian group....................... 95 4.5 Coextensions of Dowling matroids................. 97 4.6 Vertex- and edge-labelled graphs................ 109 4.7 Unique maximal skeletons..................... 111 4.8 Tangles.............................. 119 4.9 Matroids with a Dowling geometry minor............ 122 4.10 Three elements in a circuit.................... 133 References 137 Glossary of Notation 143 Index 145 viii Chapter 1 Introduction For many types of combinatorial objects, we can often prove that each object either admits a well-understood structural description or has a small obstruction to it. A famous example is Kuratowski's theorem that any graph is either planar or has one of two specific graphs, K5 and K3;3, as a minor [34]. A remarkable extension of this fact is Robertson and Seymour's graph minor theorem, which says that every class of graphs closed under the minor relation has a finite set of excluded minors, or minor-minimal graphs not in the class [43]. Moving to the realm of matroids, Tutte showed that every matroid is either graphic or has one of five particular non-graphic matroids as a minor [53]. Graphicness is one of the two most common types of structural description we encounter for matroids; the other is that of representability over a fixed finite field. Tutte showed that there is a unique excluded minor for the class of binary matroids [51], and there are four and seven excluded minors, respectively, for the matroids representable over the fields of order three and four [4, 48, 14]. For each larger finite field F, Geelen, Gerards, and Whittle have recently announced a proof of Rota's Conjecture [44], which asserts that there are finitely many excluded minors for the class of F-representable matroids. In this thesis, we consider a variant of these excluded-minor questions for matroids, exhibiting sufficient conditions for a matroid to be representable over a finite field F. When a matroid M has an F-representable minor with particular properties, we show that either M itself is F-representable or that it has a specific small minor obstruction. An example is the following consequence of one of our main theorems. Theorem 1.0.1. Any vertically 4-connected matroid with PG(2; q) as a re- striction is either GF(q)-representable or has a U2;q2+1-minor. In addition to representability, we will also investigate conditions under 1 2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION which a matroid belongs to a certain class of `graph-like' matroids called the frame matroids over a field, which are those that have a representation with at most two non-zero entries per column. A special case of one of our theorems is that if a highly connected representable matroid M has a particular large frame matroid called a Dowling geometry as a minor, then M is either also a frame matroid or has a small minor obstruction to being a frame matroid. In the next section, we summarize the concepts of matroid theory that we refer to in this chapter. Next, we define varieties of matroids, and then we present two striking theorems of Seymour that give sufficient conditions for a matroid to be binary and to be graphic. We then outline the main results of the thesis, which mainly consist of extensions of these two theorems in various directions. Finally, we discuss two topics to which our results relate: excluded minors for varieties of matroids and growth-rate functions of minor-closed classes. 1.1 Matroids Whitney introduced matroids as a way to capture the linear dependence proper- ties of finite subsets of a finite-dimensional vector space [55]. A comprehensive reference on matroid theory can be found in Oxley [37]. We let F be a field, E a finite set, and A 2 Fk×E a k × jEj matrix whose columns are indexed by the elements of E. For each X ⊆ E, we denote by AjX the restriction of A to the set of columns X. The rank of the matrix AjX, rank(AjX), is equal to the dimension of the subspace of Fk spanned by the columns indexed by X. We abbreviate rank(AjX) as r(X); this function always satisfies three properties: (R1)0 ≤ r(X) ≤ jXj, for all X ⊆ E, (R2) r(X) ≤ r(Y ), for all X ⊆ Y ⊆ E, and (R3) r(X) + r(Y ) ≥ r(X \ Y ) + r(X [ Y ), for all X; Y ⊆ E. We take these three properties as axioms to define a more general class of objects. A matroid is a pair M = (E; r) consisting of a finite set E and a function r : 2E ! Z that satisfies (R1)-(R3). We call E the ground set of M and r(X) the rank of a set X ⊆ E(M), and to avoid ambiguity we will always write E(M) and rM for the ground set and rank function of a matroid M. The rank of a matroid M, denoted r(M), is equal to rM (E(M)). An F-representation of a matroid M is an F-matrix A with columns indexed by E(M) such that for all X ⊆ E(M), rM (X) is actually the rank of the 1.1. MATROIDS 3 matrix AjX. We call a matroid representable over F or F-representable if it has an F-representation, and representable if it has a representation over some field. Conversely, when A is an F-matrix, we write MF(A) for the matroid with A as an F-representation.