arXiv:math/0307321v2 [math.GR] 31 Oct 2003 bandfo h EEb rtn opubs-permissions@ieee to writing by IEEE the from obtained emte.Hwvr emsint ern/euls this reprint/republish to permission However, permitted. EE uhpriso fteIE osnti n a ml IEE imply way any in not does IEEE the of permission Such IEEE. Copyright < ω 4)hv h aeepnn smti utpiain which multiplication, matrix makes as exponent same the of have 16 [4]) Chapter ma- decompositions—see inverting LUP computing equations, trices, of computing systems example, th solving all (for determinants, that known problems is algebra It linear history). the standard for 420] p. algo- [4, original (see Strassen’s rithm to improvements of sequence a ing .. eto 69i [4]). in 16.9 of Section terms al e.g., in non-algebraic expressed are is there complexity whose addition, gorithms In algebra. linear mic ieyblee that believed widely di eti yeo medn fmti multiplication matrix algebra of group the embedding into of type certain a admit n h xoeto arxmlilcto.Teeaetwo are groups There identifying (1) approach: multiplication. this matrix to components of exponent the ing na most at in utpiain hti h mletnumber smallest each the matrix for of is exponent what the of multiplication: question the raises immediately in,cmae with compared tions, ro htcranfmle fgop forder of groups of families a certain including that (1), proof support We to examples groups. and such machinery of present representations irreducible the of sions utpytwo multiply Introduction 1. paper. this usi in result be constructions that may the to routes it potential that suggest hope we we and (2), possible, and (1) both achieve completely port h praht il exponent yield to approach the eea aryeaoaetcnqe o bounding for techniques elaborate fairly Several edvlpanw ru-hoei praht bound- to approach group-theoretic new, a develop We tasn[4 aetesatigdsoeyta n can one that discovery startling the made [14] Strassen n 2 × . ω

38 c udmna ubrfrudrtnigalgorith- understanding for number fundamental a n > ε 03IE.Rpitdfo rceig fte4t nulSym Annual 44th the of Proceedings from Reprinted IEEE. 2003 u oCpesihadWnga 6,follow- [6], Winograd and Coppersmith to due , arxmlilcto,ancsaycniinfor condition necessary a multiplication, matrix O n ( n 0 × ω arxmlilcto a ecridout carried be can multiplication matrix , ru-hoei praht atMti Multiplication Matrix Fast to Approach Group-theoretic A + n ε ) emn,W 98052-6399 WA Redmond, arcsi only in matrices ω 2 prtos Clearly operations? C n [email protected] Abstract 2 = [ 3 n irsf Way Microsoft One irsf Research Microsoft G o h tnadagrtm This algorithm. standard the for ] n 2 otoln h dimen- the controlling (2) and , u h etbudkonis known bound best the but , er Cohn Henry 2 lhuhw antyet cannot we Although . O ( aeilfravriigo rmtoa upsso o cre for or purposes promotional or advertising for material n 2 . og ycosn ove hsdcmn,yuaret l prov all to agree you document, this view to choosing By .org. 81 ω ) n ω nosmn fayo onl nvriyspout rser or products University’s Cornell of any of endorsement E ≥ edopera- field 2+ uhthat such o 2 (1) tis It . ω G ω (see, sup- that oimo onain fCmue cec.Ti aeilis material This Science. Computer of Foundations on posium are ng e - 438 aionaIsiueo Technology of Institute California eateto optrScience Computer of Department lcdt hsaaoyt ieahg-ee ecito fo of description we high-level technique. section a give this to In analogy this (FFT). elucidate Transform Fourier Fast the using oei hsppradtewl-nw loih o multi- for algorithm degree well-known two the plying and paper this in pose multiplication polynomial fast with Analogy 1.1. combinatorial). to more structure is theirs algebraic (whereas more of use have make to and seems different, completely framework is our technique our However, swer. rus hc ol edto about lead would [6]) which of abeli groups, in 11 subsets” equivoluminous Section disjoint “three (in avoiding Winograd and Coppersmith nw,btsne19 ooyhsbe bet mrv on improve paper: to this able In been them. has nobody 1990 since but known, • • • hr sacoeaaoybtentefaeokw pro- we framework the between analogy close a is There u prahi eiicn faqeto se by asked question a of reminiscent is approach Our [email protected] hspaper. might this that path a to lead illuminate would question. answer this to positive answer A the know to not do barrier We on approach. potential bounds a non-trivial (Ques- represents obtaining theory directly that representation below) in 4.1 question tion a pose We of families. number group a and for pa- groups diverse bounds critical non-trivial this prove and bounding rameter for techniques exhibit also eto h prahb dniyn aiyo groups mirrors of that parameter family a a which identifying for by as- approach theory the group of the pect of feasibility the demonstrate We algorithm. machinery original Strassen’s existing since the up built from separate entirely and simple almost relatively is approach repre- The and theory theory. group sentation of domain the into problem the edvlpanwapoc obounding to approach new a develop We aaea A91125 CA Pasadena, hitpe Umans Christopher ω 2 = tn e olciewrsfrrsl rrdsrbto mus redistribution or resale for works collective new ating n sn h ehiusta epeetin present we that techniques the using oyoil in polynomials soso h oyih aspoetn it. protecting laws copyright the of isions ie.Itra rproa s fti aeilis material this of use personal or Internal vices. ω 2 = otdhr ihpriso fthe of permission with here posted O fi a oiiean- positive a has it if ( ω n prahs2 We 2. approaches log ω n ω ) htimports that operations sn this using be t an ur Suppose we wish to multiply the polynomials A(x) = and |T | × |U| matrices, respectively, then we define n 1 i n 1 i − a x and B(x) = − b x . The naive way to i=0 i i=0 i 1 1 2 A¯ = a s− t and B¯ = b t− u. do this is to compute n products of the form aibj , and s,t t,u fromP these the 2n−1 coefficientsP of the product polynomial If S,T,UXsatisfy the triple product propertyX (see Defini- A(x) · B(x). Of course a far better algorithm is possible; tion 2.1), then we can read off the entries of the product we describe it below in language that easily translates into matrix AB from A¯B¯ ∈ C[G]: entry (AB) is simply the our framework for matrix multiplication. s,u coefficient of the group element s 1u. Let G bea groupand let C[G] be the group algebra—that − C In the case of polynomial multiplication, the simplicity is, every element of [G] is a formal sum g G agg with ∈ of the embedding obscures the fact that if G is too large ag ∈ C, and the product of two such elements is 2 P (e.g., if |G| = n rather than O(n)), then the benefit of the entire scheme is destroyed. Avoiding this pitfall turns out to be the main challenge in the new setting. We wish to em- a g · b h = a b f.  g   h   g h bed matrix multiplication into a group algebra over a small g G h G f G gh=f X∈ X∈ X∈ X group G, as the size of G is a lower bound on the com-       plexity of multiplication in C[G]. It is not surprising, for We often identify the element g G agg with the vector ∈ example, that n × n matrix multiplication can be embed- of its coefficients. If G is the cyclic group of order m, then 3 P ded into the group algebra of a group of order n . We show the product of two elements a = (ag)g G and b = (bg)g G 3 ∈ ∈ that abelian groups cannot beat n and we identify families is a cyclic convolution of the vectors a and b. The impor- of non-abelian groups of size n2+o(1) that admit such an tant observation is that a cyclic convolution is almost what embedding. is needed to compute the coefficients of the product polyno- It might seem that this result together with the above mial A(x)·B(x)—the only problem is that it wraps around. trick for performing group algebra multiplication (i.e., tak- To avoid this problem, we embed A(x) and B(x) as ele- ing the DFT, multiplying in the Fourier domain, and trans- ¯ ¯ C ments A, B ∈ [G] as follows: Let z be a generator of G, forming back) would imply that ω = 2. There are, how- which we assume to be a cyclic group of order m> 2n − 1, ever, two complications introduced by the fact that we are and define forced to work with non-abelian groups. The first is that we n 1 n 1 know of fast algorithms to compute the DFT only for lim- − − i i ited classes of non-abelian groups (see Section 13.5 in [4]). A¯ = aiz and B¯ = biz . i=0 i=0 However, the DFT is linear, and because of the recursive X X structure of divide and conquer matrix multiplication algo- Since the group size m is large enough to avoid wrapping rithms, linear transformations applied before and after the around, we can read off the coefficients of the product poly- recursive step are “free.” For example, in Strassen’s original nomial from the element A¯B¯ ∈ C[G]: the coefficient of matrix multiplication algorithm, the number of matrix addi- xi in A(x)B(x) is the coefficient of the group element zi tions and scalar multiplications in the recursive step does in A¯B¯. This is a wordy account of a so-far simple cor- not affect the bound on ω. So this potential complication is respondence, but the payoff is near. The Discrete Fourier in fact no problem at all. Transform (DFT) for C[G] is an invertible linear transfor- The second complication is that for C[G] when G is non- G mation D : C[G] → C| |, which turns multiplication in abelian, multiplication in the Fourier domain is not simply C C G G [G] into pointwise multiplication of vectors in | |. We pointwise multiplication of vectors in C| |. Instead it is can therefore compute the product A¯B¯ by first computing block-diagonal matrix multiplication, where the dimensions D(A¯) and D(B¯) and then computing the inverse DFT of of the blocks are the dimensions of the irreducible repre- their pointwise product. Thus, using the O(m log m) Fast sentations of G. We thus obtain a reduction of n × n ma- Fourier Transform algorithm, we can perform multiplica- trix multiplication to a number of smaller matrix multipli- tion in C[G] (and therefore polynomial multiplication, via cations of varying sizes, which gives rise to an inequality the embedding above) in O(m log m) operations. involving the exponent ω of matrix multiplication. If the One of the main results of the present paperis that matrix size of G were exactly n2, then this inequality would im- multiplication can be embedded into group algebra mul- ply that ω = 2. However, the smallest one can make |G| tiplication in an analogous way. The embedding is not is n2+o(1), and then the question of whether the inequality as simple as the embedding of polynomial multiplication, implies ω = 2 turns on the representation theory of G. We but it has a natural and clean description in terms of a show that when |G| = n2+o(1), even slight control over the property of subsets of G (which we often take to be sub- dimension of the largest irreducible representation is suffi- groups). In particular, if S,T , and U are subsets of G and cient to achieve ω = 2. Some control is necessary to avoid A = (as,t)s S,t T and B = (bt,u)t T,u U are |S| × |T | trivialities such as reducing to an even larger matrix multi- ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈

439 plication problem. We can achieve that much control; the group, let Q(S) denote the right quotient set of S, i.e., issue of whether it is possible to achieve more control is the 1 subject of Question 4.1. Q(S)= {s1s2− : s1,s2 ∈ S}.

1.2. Outline Definition 2.1. A group G realizes hn1,n2,n3i if there are subsets S1,S2,S3 ⊆ G such that |Si| = ni, and for qi ∈ Following some preliminaries below, Sections 2 Q(Si), if through 4 are devoted to outlining our approach. In Sec- q1q2q3 =1 tions 5 and 7, we show that a variety of different types then q1 = q2 = q3 =1. We call this condition on S1,S2,S3 of groups support matrix multiplication within our frame- the triple product property. If we wish to emphasize the spe- work, and in the process demonstrate a number of use- cific subsets, we say that G realizes hn1,n2,n3i through ful proof techniques. Section 5 highlights linear groups, S1,S2,S3. whose representation theory makes them especially attrac- tive for our purposes. Section 6 describes a parallel with In most of our examples, matrix multiplication will be Lie groups and gives a construction that suggests that finite realized through subgroups H1, H2, H3 of G, rather than linear groups may indeed be a fruitful line of inquiry. In arbitrary subsets. In that case, the triple product property Section 7.2 we consider wreath product constructions, and is especially simple, because Q(Hi) = Hi: it states that if in Section 7.3 we use the combinatorial notion of Sperner h1h2h3 = 1 with hi ∈ Hi, then h1 = h2 = h3 = 1. An capacity to demonstrate the surprising fact that the k-fold equivalent formulation replaces h1h2h3 = 1 with h1h2 = k k direct product of a group may support n × n matrix mul- h3. tiplication even when the group itself fails to support n × n Perhaps the simplest example comes from the product matrix multiplication. This suggests a potential route to an- Cn × Cm × Cp of cyclic groups, which clearly realizes swering Question 4.1 in the affirmative. We end by men- hn,m,pi through Cn ×{1}×{1}, {1}× Cm ×{1}, and tioning some open problems and variants of our overall ap- {1}×{1}× Cp. We will see a number of less trivial exam- proach in Section 8. ples shortly.

1.3. Preliminaries Lemma 2.1. If G realizes hn1,n2,n3i, then it does so for every permutation of n1,n2,n3. Let hn,m,pi denote the structural tensor for rectangular Proof. Suppose G realizes hn1,n2,n3i through S1,S2,S3, matrix multiplication of n×m by m×p matrices, and let R and suppose si,si′ ∈ Si. We need to show that the order in denote the tensor rank function. (See [4] for background on which 1, 2, and 3 appear in the equation matrix multiplication and tensors. We will use this material only in the proof of Theorem 4.1.) We will typically work 1 1 1 s1′ s1− s2′ s2− s3′ s3− =1 over the field of complex numbers; if we use another field 1 F , we will write hn,m,piF . As usual ω will denote the is irrelevant. Conjugating by s1′ s1− shows that it is equiva- exponent of matrix multiplication over C. lent to 1 1 1 We will use the following basic fact from representation s2′ s2− s3′ s3− s1′ s1− =1, theory: the group algebra C[G] of a finite group G decom- so we can perform a cyclic shift. To get a transposition, we poses as the direct product take the inverse of the initial equation, which yields d1 d1 dk dk C[G] ∼ C × ×···× C × = 1 1 1 s3s3′− s2s2′− s1s1′− =1, of matrix algebras of orders d1,...,dk. These numbers are called the character degrees of G, or the dimensions of the i.e., a transposition of 1 with 3 (the roles of s and s′ have irreducible representations. It follows from computing the been reversed, but that is irrelevant). These two permuta- 2 dimensions of both sides that |G| = i di . See [11] and tions generate all permutations of {1, 2, 3}. [10] for background on representation theory. P Lemma 2.2. If N is a normal subgroup of G that realizes hn ,n ,n i and G/N realizes hm ,m ,m i, then G real- 2. Realizing matrix multiplication via groups 1 2 3 1 2 3 izes hn1m1,n2m2,n3m3i.

In this section we describe the embeddingof matrix mul- Proof. Suppose N realizes hn1,n2,n3i through S1,S2,S3, tiplication into group algebra multiplication, and we iden- and suppose T1,T2,T3 are lifts to G of the three subsets of tify a property of groups G that implies that the group al- G/N that realize hm1,m2,m3i. Then we claim that G re- gebra of G admits such an embedding. If S is a subset of a alizes hn1m1,n2m2,n3m3i through the pointwise products

440 S1T1,S2T2,S3T3. We needto checkthatfor si,si′ ∈ Si and 3. The pseudo-exponent ti,ti′ ∈ Ti, The pseudo-exponent of a group measures the quality of 1 1 1 (s1′ t1′ )(s1t1)− (s2′ t2′ )(s2t2)− (s3′ t3′ )(s3t3)− =1 the embedding afforded by Theorem 2.3 in a single, well- behaved parameter, which in some ways mirrors the expo- iff si = si′ and ti = ti′ for all i. If we reduce this equation nent ω of matrix multiplication. modulo N, we find that ti = ti′ modulo N, and hence also in G. The equation in G then becomes Definition 3.1. The pseudo-exponent α(G) of a non-trivial finite group G is the minimum of 1 1 1 s1′ s1− s2′ s2− s3′ s3− =1, 3log |G| log nmp from which we deduce si = si′ , as desired. over all n,m,p (not all 1) such that G realizes hn,m,pi. The pseudo-exponent of the trivial group is 3. One useful special case of Lemma 2.2 is that if G1 realizes hn1,m1,p1i and G2 realizes hn2,m2,p2i, then When it is clear from the context which group is in- G1 × G2 realizes hn1n2,m1m2,p1p2i. tended, we often write α instead of α(G). Note that in the Our first theorem describes the embedding of matrix special case that G realizes hn,n,ni, its pseudo-exponent multiplication into group algebra multiplication: satisfies α ≤ logn |G|. In general, if G realizes hn,m,pi, then

Theorem 2.3. Let be any field. If realizes , 3 F G hn,m,pi α ≤ log √nmp |G|. then the number of field operations required to multiply n × m with m × p matrices over F is at most the number of Lemma 3.1. The pseudo-exponent of a finite group G is operations required to multiply two elements of F [G]. Fur- always greater than 2 and at most 3. If G is abelian, then it is exactly 3. thermore, hn,m,piF ≤ F [G]. Proof. The upper bound of 3 is trivial: use the subgroups For the definition of the restriction relation ≤ in the last H1 = H2 = {1} and H3 = G. sentence, see Section 14.3 of [4]. For the lower bounds, suppose G realizes hn1,n2,n3i (with n1n2n3 > 1) through subsets S1,S2,S3. It follows Proof. Let G realize hn,m,pi through subsets S,T,U. from the definition of realization that the map (x, y) 7→ 1 Suppose A is an n × m matrix, and B is an m × p ma- x− y is injective on S1 × S2 and its image intersects the trix. We will index the rows and columns of A with the sets quotient set Q(S3) only in the identity. Thus, |G| ≥ n1n2, S and T , respectively, those of B with T and U, and those and |G| >n1n2 unless n3 =1. Similarly, |G|≥ n2n3 with of AB with S and U. equality only if n1 =1, and |G|≥ n1n3 with equality only 3 2 Consider the product if n2 =1. Thus, |G| > (n1n2n3) , so α(G) > 2. If G is abelian, then the product map S1 × S2 × S3 → G must be injective, so |G|≥ n1n2n3 and α(G) ≥ 3. 1 1 A s− t B ′ t′− u  st   t u  The pseudo-exponent is well-behaved with respect to s S,t T t′ T,u U ∈X∈ ∈X∈ group extensions:     in the group algebra. We have Lemma 3.2. If N is a normal subgroup of G, then α(G) ≤ max(α(N), α(G/N)). 1 1 1 (s− t)(t′− u)= s′− u′ Proof. Suppose N realizes hn1,n2,n3i and G/N realizes hm ,m ,m i. Then Lemma 2.2 implies that the pseudo- iff s = s , t = t , and u = u , so the coefficient of s 1u in 1 2 3 ′ ′ ′ − exponent of G is at most the product is 3log |G| 3log |N| +3log |G/N| = , AstBtu = (AB)su. log n1m1n2m2n3m3 log n1n2n3 + log m1m2m3 t T X∈ which is bounded above by the larger of Thus, one can simply read off the matrix product from the 3log |N| 3log |G/N| group algebra productby looking at the coefficients of s 1u and , − log n n n log m m m with s ∈ S,u ∈ U, and the assertions in the theorem state- 1 2 3 1 2 3 ment follow. as desired.

441 can return to (a,b,c) is if i+j =0, so that must be the case. However, h1 fixes (a,b − i,c + i) for i > 0 (since such a triple is smaller than (a,b,c)), so we musthave i =0. Itfol- lows that (a,b,c) is fixed by each of h1,h2,h3, so by induc- tion all triples are fixed and hence h1 = h2 = h3 =1.

The same holds for all symmetric groups, since one can look at the largest subgroup of the form Sn(n+1)/2.

4. Relating the pseudo-exponent to ω Figure 1. A triangular array of points.

In this section we relate the pseudo-exponent α to the Non-abelian groups can have pseudo-exponent less than exponent of matrix multiplication ω. As with many of the 3. The smallest example is the symmetric group S3 on 3 results since Strassen’s algorithm, our main theorems are elements. It realizes h2, 2, 2i through its three subgroups of stated as bounds on ω, rather than explicit algorithms, but order 2, so it has pseudo-exponent at most log2 6 (and one of course algorithms are implicit in the proofs. can check that it is exactly log2 6). Next, we generalize this construction to show that it is possible to come arbitrarily Theorem 4.1. Suppose G has pseudo-exponent α, and the close to pseudo-exponent 2, as follows. character degrees of G are {di}. Then Given a triangular array of points in the plane, as in Fig- ω/α ω ure 1, we consider the group of permutations of the points, |G| ≤ di . i together with three subgroups, one for each side of the tri- X angle. Each subgroup permutes the set of points on each The intuition is simple: the problem of multiplying ma- line parallel to its side of the triangle. The proof of Theo- trices of size |G|1/α reduces to multiplication in C[G], rem 3.3, while not phrased in geometric terms, shows that which is equivalent to multiplying a collection of matrices these subgroups satisfy the triple product property. ω of sizes di. These multiplications should take about di op- erations, so dω should be an approximate upper bound Theorem 3.3. The pseudo-exponent of Sn(n+1)/2 is at most i i for the number of operations required to multiply matrices 1/αP ω/α 2 − log2 1 of size |G| , i.e., roughly |G| . It is convenient that 2+ + O . log n (log n)2 when one makes this idea precise, these crude approxima-   tions become exact bounds. Proof. There are n(n+1)/2 triples (a,b,c) with a,b,c ≥ 0 Proof. Suppose G realizes hn,m,pi with nmp = |G|3/α and a + b + c = n − 1. We view Sn(n+1)/2 as the group (it follows from the definition of the pseudo-exponent that of permutations of these triples. Let Hi be the subgroup that fixes the i-th coordinate. The size of this subgroup is G realizes such a tensor). By Theorem 2.3, 1!2! ...n!, so the pseudo-exponent bound is hn,m,pi≤ C[G] ≃ hdi, di, dii. (1) log(n(n + 1)/2)! 2 − log2 1 i =2+ + O , M log 1!2! ...n! log n (log n)2   We will need two facts about the rank of matrix multiplica- assuming these subgroups satisfy the triple product prop- tion: for all n′,m′,p′, erty. For that, we need to prove that if h1h2h3 = 1 with ω/3 (n′m′p′) ≤ R(hn′,m′,p′i) hi ∈ Hi, then h1 = h2 = h3 =1. Suppose h h h = 1 with h ∈ H . We will order the 1 2 3 i i (Proposition 15.5 in [4]), and for each ε > 0 there exists triples lexicographically, so that (0, 0,n − 1) is the smallest C > 0 such that for all k, triple and (n − 1, 0, 0) is the largest, and prove by induction using this ordering that h1, h2, and h3 fix every triple. R(hk,k,ki) ≤ Ckω+ε Suppose all triples smaller than (a,b,c) are fixed by each of h1,h2,h3 (in the base case, the set of such triples (Proposition 15.1 in [4]). is empty). The permutation h3 cannot send (a,b,c) to a The ℓ-th tensor power of (1) is smaller triple, since all smaller triples are fixed points, so h3 must send it to (a+i,b−i,c) with i ≥ 0. Then h2 sends ℓ ℓ ℓ hn ,m ,p i≤ hdi1 ...diℓ , di1 ...diℓ , di1 ...diℓ i, that to (a + i + j, b − i,c − j) for some j. The only way h1 i1,...,iℓ M

442 if we use Corollary 4.3. Suppose there exists a family G1, G2,... of finite groups such that α(Gi)=2+ o(1) as i → ∞, and hn1,m1,p1i ⊗ hn2,m2,p2i ≃ hn1n2,m1m2,p1p2i. furthermore α(Gi) − 2= o(γ(Gi) − 2). Then the exponent It follows from taking the rank of both sides that of matrix multiplication is 2. ℓ These corollaries are weakenings of Theorem 4.1, the ℓω/α ω+ε advantage being that they only require knowledge of γ(G), |G| ≤ C di , i ! which is typically easier to work with than the complete set X of character degrees that is required for Theorem 4.1. and if we take the ℓ-th root and let ℓ go to infinity, then we It is reasonable to ask whether the requirement α<γ deduce that which occurs in Corollary 4.2 is necessary. It turns out that |G|ω/α ≤ dω+ε. i it is, because if α ≥ γ, then for all ω > 0, i X ω/α ω/γ ω Finally, because this inequality holds for all ε > 0, it must |G| ≤ |G| ≤ di , hold for ε =0 as well, by continuity. i X 1/γ Notice that if α(G) were 2, then this theorem would im- where the second inequality holds because |G| = di for 2 ply that ω = 2 (using i di = |G|, the Cauchy-Schwarz some i. Then the inequality in Theorem 4.1 holds even for inequality, and the fact that every non-trivial group has at ω = 3. The necessity of α<γ makes perfect sense, be- least two irreducible representations).P In general, though, cause when it fails to hold, the approach amounts to a re- we need to control the character degrees of G. The max- duction of matrix multiplication to several instances, one of imum possible character degree for any non-trivial group which is as large as the original instance. In fact, the con- is (|G| − 1)1/2; we show below that an upper bound of struction in the proofof Theorem 3.3 succumbs to this prob- 1/2 ε |G| − for fixed ε> 0 would be sufficient to obtain ω =2 lem: there we proved that α(Sn(n+1)/2) ≤ 2+O(1/ log n), from a family of groups with pseudo-exponentapproaching but it turns outthat γ(Sn(n+1)/2) = 2+Θ(1/(n log n)) (see 2 (and that even a much weaker bound suffices). [15]). However, there exist non-abelian groups for which We define γ(G), or simply γ when G is clear from the α<γ and α < 3; one example is the group in Proposi- context, so that |G|1/γ is the maximum character degree tion 7.4 below. of G (γ(G) = ∞ if G is abelian). Ideally, we’d like the If we do have access to the complete set of charac- exponent of matrix multiplication ω to be boundedaboveby ter degrees then there is a relatively simple condition to the pseudo-exponent α. The following corollary shows that check to determine whether the inequality in Theorem 4.1 in the region near 2, this actually happens, with a correction yields a non-trivial bound on ω. The condition is that 3/α 3 factor that depends on γ. |G| > i di . To see this observe that the inequality in Theorem 4.1 is equivalent to Corollary 4.2. Let G be a finite group. If α(G) < γ(G), P ω then log |G|≤ log dω. (2) γ − 2 α i ω ≤ α . i γ − α X   The right-hand side is convex as a function of ω, and the Proof. Let {di} denote the character degrees. Then by The- left-hand side is linear. Furthermore, as ω → ∞, the right- orem 4.1, hand side is asymptotic to ω/α ω 2 2 |G| ≤ d − d ω i i log |G|, i γ X (ω 2)/γ 2 ≤ |G| − di which is smaller than the left-hand side when α<γ (which i X is the non-trivial case). Therefore (2) gives no information 1+(ω 2)/γ = |G| − , about ω in the interval [2, 3] unless it rules out ω =3, which is equivalent to the above stated condition. We do not have which implies ω(1/α − 1/γ) ≤ 1 − 2/γ. Dividing by examples of groups meeting this condition. 1/α − 1/γ (which is positive by assumption) yields the We are thus led to pose the following question in repre- stated result. sentation theory: Like α(G), we have γ(G) > 2 for all G, and Corol- Question 4.1. Does there exist a finite group that realizes lary 4.2 shows that our approach amounts to a race be- hn,m,pi and has character degrees {di} such that tween α(G) and γ(G) to see which approaches 2 faster. 3 The most attractive form of this corollary is the following nmp > di ? special case: i X

443 It is possible that there is a theorem in representationthe- 1 0 H2 = : y ∈ Fq , ory that implies that the answer to this question is “no.” In y 1    that case the approach we have outlined cannot be used di- and rectly to obtain boundson ω; however even in this case there 1+ z z H = : z ∈ F . are variantsof ourapproachthat would not be ruled out (see, 3 −z 1 − z q    e.g., Subsection 8.2). On the other hand, a positive answer We need to check that for hi ∈ Hi, if h1h2 = h3, then might point the direction to a proof that using our ω = 2 h1 = h2 = h3 =1. To check that, we multiply to get approach: it would seem strange if the best bound groups 1 x 1 0 1+ xy x could prove were some constant strictly between 2 and 3, = . 0 1 y 1 y 1 and the condition in Corollary 4.3 for ω =2 feels very nat-       ural. That can be of the form 1+ z z 5. Linear groups −z 1 − z   Matrix groups over finite fields are an important class only if x = y = z =0, as desired. of finite groups. They are especially attractive for our pur- One might hope that SL (F ) realizes poses because their representation sizes, as measured by γ, n q n(n 1)/2 n(n 1)/2 n(n 1)/2 are well behaved. We will focus on the case of SLn(Fq) hq − , q − , q − i for simplicity, although we see no reason why it should perform better than other linear groups. If n > 1 is held through three conjugates of the group of upper-triangular matrices with 1’s on the diagonal. However, that fails for fixed, γ(SLn(Fq)) approaches 2+2/n as q tends to infin- ity (which can be deduced from [9], according to a private q = 2 and n =3, according to calculations using the com- communication from G. Lusztig). Thus, if one could prove puter program GAP (see [7]); furthermore, no subgroups of these orders work for q =2 and n =3. that α(SLn(Fq))=2+ o(1) for some fixed n, then Corol- 6 2 lary 4.2 would imply ω = 2. Even if one lets n grow, one Proposition 5.2. The group SL2(Fq2 ) of order q − q re- might still hope that α would tend to 2 faster than γ. We alizes hq2, q2, q3 − qi. cannot prove that α even approaches 2 at all as n, q → ∞, Proof. Let x 7→ x¯ denote the Frobenius automorphism of but comparison with Theorem 6.1 below suggests that it Fq2 over Fq. The three subgroups we will use are does. In this section we concentrateon the case of SL2(Fq). For later reference, we collect here the character degrees 1 x H1 = : x ∈ Fq2 , of SL2(Fq): 0 1    Degree Multiplicity (q odd) Multiplicity (q even) 1 0 H2 = : y ∈ F 2 , q +1 (q − 3)/2 (q − 2)/2 y 1 q    q 1 1 and q − 1 (q − 1)/2 q/2 F (q + 1)/2 2 0 H3 = SU2( q) (q − 1)/2 2 0 a b = : a,b ∈ F 2 ,aa¯ + b¯b =1 . 1 1 1 −¯b a¯ q    3 (See Exercise 28.2 and its solution in [11] for q even, Note that to check that |H3| = q − q, one just needs to ¯ ¯ and [13] for q odd, but note that [13] has a typo in the mul- count solutions to aa¯ + bb = 1. For a fixed b with bb 6= 1, tiplicity for degree q +1 at the bottom of the first column there are q + 1 corresponding choices of a that work; if ¯ 2 on page 122.) bb =1, then a =0. There are (q − 1) − (q + 1) non-zero choices of b with b¯b 6=1 (to which we must add b =0), and F 3 Proposition 5.1. The group SL2( q) of order q − q real- q +1 with b¯b = 1. Thus, there are (q2 − q − 1)(q +1)+ izes hq,q,qi. 3 (q +1)= q − q elements of H3. Unfortunately, this pseudo-exponent bound tends to 3 as As in the previous proof, checking the triple product q → ∞, but at least it is always strictly better than 3. (We property amounts to checking that can also prove similarly that F .) α(SLn( q)) < 3 1+ xy x a b = Proof. Consider the three parabolic subgroups y 1 −¯b a¯     1 x implies x = y = b = 0 and a = 1, which is a trivial H = : x ∈ F , 1 0 1 q calculation.   

444 Proposition 5.2 proves that Let M ∈ SOn(R), A ∈ U, and B ∈ L. We wish to prove that if MA = B, then M = A = B = I. Let lim inf α(SL2(Fq)) ≤ 18/7, n q e1,...,en be the standard basis of R . We will prove by →∞ induction on i that Mei = ei. Once we know that M = I, which is substantially better than 3 but still not near 2. Us- it follows that A = B, and thus A = B = I because U and F ing Theorem 4.1 and the character degrees of SL2( q), one L are disjoint except for the identity. (A = B = I will also can show that if follow directly from the proof that M = I.) Let A and B denote the i-th columns of A and B, and lim inf α(SL2(Fq)) < 9/4, i i q →∞ denote their j-th entries by Aij and Bij . Note that this in- then Question 4.1 has a positive answer. dexing of rows and columns is opposite to the standard con- vention, but it will be more convenient in this proof. Be- 6. Lie groups cause MA = B, we have

MAi = Bi. In the category of Lie groups, one can set up a theory parallel to that of the previous sections. We do not know We start with the base case i = 1. Since A is in U, we how to use it to bound the exponent of matrix multiplica- have A1 = e1. Thus, |B1| = |MA1| = |Me1| = |e1| =1, tion (because of course Lie groups of positive dimension since M is an orthogonal matrix. Because B11 = 1, the are infinite). However, we have had more luck constructing only way |B1| can be 1 is if B1 = e1. Thus, Me1 = e1. examples using Lie groups than with finite linear groups, Now suppose that Mej = ej for all j

Definition 6.1. Let G be a Lie group, with submanifolds Bi = ei + Bij ej . j>i M1,M2,M3 such that for qi ∈ Q(Mi), if q1q2q3 = 1 then X q = q = q =1. We say that G has Lie pseudo-exponent 1 2 3 Now the induction hypothesis implies that at most dim(G) . Bi = MAi = Mei + Aij ej, (dim(M ) + dim(M ) + dim(M ))/3 ji j

445 7. Additional examples When F is a finite field, the group described above is an extraspecial group, and we obtain the following bound: In this section we explore a variety of different types of F groups, and prove non-trivial pseudo-exponent bounds for Corollary 7.3. In the above framework, with F = q of them. We hope that these examples (together with the ones odd characteristic, n = 2, and hx, yi = x1y1 − wx2y2 for we have already seen) will serve as something of a tool kit some w ∈ F that is not a square, the finite group G has for constructing a group that might answer Question 4.1, pseudo-exponent at most 2.5. and possibly even a family of groups that prove ω =2. Here, xi denotes the i-th coordinate of the vector x.

7.1. Solvable groups 2 2 Proof. Note that hz,zi = 0 implies z1 = wz2 , which by our choice of w can only happen when z = 0. Thus Non-abelian simple (or almost simple) groups appear to Proposition 7.1 is satisfied. The group has order q5, and the be a fruitful source of groups with small pseudo-exponents. three subgroups have size q2, leading to a pseudo-exponent However, solvable groups also do quite well. In this bound of 2.5 as claimed. section, we will construct solvable groups that have Lie pseudo-exponent tending to 2, and finite solvable groups A slight variant of this construction works for even q as with pseudo-exponentbounds of 2.5 and 2.4811 . . . (which, well, but the pseudo-exponentbound is identical so we omit GAP tells us, is the best pseudo-exponent attained using the details. three subgroups in any group of order up to 100). One quite different example is the following Frobenius Let F be a field, and h, i a symmetric bilinear form on group of order 80. We found the group by a brute force F n. Define multiplication in search using GAP, and Michael Aschbacher supplied the following humanly understandable proof that it works. n G = {(x, y, α) : x, y ∈ F , α ∈ F } F Let C5 ⊂ 16× be the unique subgroup of order 5. Con- sider its semidirect product ⋉F with the additive via G = C5 16 group of F16, where multiplication is defined by (x, y, α)(u,v,β) = (x + u,y + v, α + β +2hu,yi), (α, x)(β,y) = (αβ, βx + y). and define the three subgroups Proposition 7.4. The group G = C5⋉F16 realizes h5, 5, 8i, n H1 = {(x, 0, 0) : x ∈ F }, and thus α(G) ≤ 3log200 80=2.4811 . . . .

n H2 = {(0, y, 0) : y ∈ F }, Proof. Let and H1 = {(α, 0) : α ∈ C5} n H3 = {(z,z, hz,zi) : z ∈ F }. and Proposition 7.1. If the only element z ∈ F n satisfying H2 = {(α, α − 1) : α ∈ C5} hz,zi = 0 is z = 0, then H , H , and H satisfy the triple 1 2 3 (i.e., H2 is H1 conjugated by (1, 1)). Let product property.

H3 = {(1, x) : x ∈ F16, Tr x =0}, Proof. We simply need to check that H3 avoids all elements of the form (x, 0, 0)(0, y, 0) = (x, y, 0), except when x = where Tr denotes the trace from F to F . These groups y =0. The only way such an element can be in H , i.e., of 16 2 3 satisfy |H | = |H | = 5 and |H | = 8. All we need to the form , is if and . That 1 2 3 (z,z, hz,zi) x = y = z hz,zi =0 check is the triple product property. means z =0 and thus x = y =0, as desired. We must verify that unless α and β are both 1, the prod- When F = R, the group described above is a Heisenberg uct group, and we obtain the following bound: (α, 0)(β,β − 1)=(αβ,β − 1) 1 Corollary 7.2. In the above framework, with F = R, and is not in H3. For it to be in H3, we must have α = β− and h, i the standard inner product, the Lie group G has Lie Tr (β − 1)=0. However, pseudo-exponent at most 2+1/n. Tr (β − 1) = Tr β − Tr 1= Tr β, Proof. It is clear that Proposition 7.1 is satisfied; the group dimension is 2n + 1, and the three subgroups each have and Tr β =1 for β ∈ C \{1} because the minimal polyno- 2 3 4 dimension n. mial over F2 of such a β is 1+ β + β + β + β .

446 This proposition generalizes as follows (see [3] for back- By Stirling’s formula, ground on cohomology): Let G be a group that acts on an log(n!(2n)n) 1+log2 1 abelian group A, θ : G → A a 1-cocycle, and B ⊆ A a =2+ + O , log n! log n (log n)2 subgroup. If θ(g) ∈ B implies g = 1 for all g ∈ G, then   the semidirect product G⋉A realizes h|G|, |G|, |B|i via the so all that remains is to verify the triple product property. subgroups G ×{0}, {(g,θ(g)) : g ∈ G}, and {1}× B. (In Suppose h1 = (π′, 0) ∈ H1 and h2 = (π,πu − u) ∈ Proposition 7.4, the 1-cocycle is a coboundary.) Unfortu- H2. Their product is (π′π,πu − u), and if it equals h3 = nately, we do not know any other good examples. (σ, σv−v) ∈ H3, then πu−u = σv−v. The i-th coordinate Unlike the cases of extraspecial groups and matrix of πu − u is π(i) − i, and that of σv − v is (n +1 − σ(i)) − groups, we do not know how to generalize Proposition 7.4 (n +1 − i) = i − σ(i). Thus, h1h2 = h3 implies π(i)+ to achieve Lie pseudo-exponent arbitrarily near 2. The σ(i)=2i for all i. This is an equation in A, and hence best we know how to do is the following. Let H be the holds only modulo 2n. However, π(i), σ(i), and i are all quaternions, and U ⊂ H× be the group of unit quater- in {1,...,n}, so the equation holds in the integers as well. nions (which is isomorphic to SU(2)). Then within the Because π(1) and σ(1) are both at least 1, we concludefrom semidirect product U ⋉H, the three subgroups U ×{0}, π(1) + σ(1) = 2 that π(1) = σ(1) = 1. Then π(2) and {(u,u − 1) : u ∈ U}, and {(0, x) : Tr x = 0} satisfy σ(2) must be at least 2, and π(2) + σ(2) = 4, so π(2) = the triple product property and prove that the Lie pseudo- σ(2) = 2, etc. We conclude that π and σ are both trivial, ⋉H exponent of U is at most 7/3. as is π′ because π′π = σ. Thus, h1 = h2 = h3 = 1, as desired. 7.2. Wreath products This construction is an improvement over Theorem 3.3, because it achieves essentially the same pseudo-exponent In this section we present another family of groups that bound, while at the same time α ≤ γ. A more complicated achieves pseudo-exponent 2+o(1). This family is described variant of this construction achieves a comparable pseudo- in terms of the wreath product: if A is a group, then the exponent and has α<γ. n wreath product A ≀ Sn is the semidirect product Sn ⋉ A , n where Sn acts on A by permuting the coordinates (and the 7.3. Direct products and the Sperner capacity multiplication is of course via (π,u)(π′, v) = (ππ′, π′u + v)). It is natural to attempt to improve the pseudo-exponent of a finite group G by forming some group derived from Theorem 7.5. Let A be the cyclic group of order 2n, and it, such as a power Gk. We know that γ(Gk) = γ(G), let G = A ≀ S . Then n n so that parameter becomes no smaller. Lemma 3.2 implies k 1+log2 1 that α(G ) ≤ α(G), and in this section we show that it is α(Gn) ≤ γ(Gn)=2+ + O . possible to achieve α(Gk) < α(G). log n (log n)2   We will be led for the first time since Lemma 2.2 to real- n ize matrix multiplication through quotient sets that are not Proof. We view Gn as the semidirect product Sn ⋉A , and will use the three subgroups subgroups. Proposition 7.6 below proves that this compli- cation is necessary to determine the pseudo-exponents of

H1 = {(π, 0) : π ∈ Sn}, certain groups. Let Dm be the dihedral group generated by x and y, with H2 = {(π,πu − u) : π ∈ Sn}, and 2 m 1 the relations y = x =1 and yxy = x− . H3 = {(π,πv − v) : π ∈ Sn}, Proposition 7.6. For every m, Dm realizes h2, 2, 2⌊m/3⌋i, where u = (1, 2,...,n), and v = (n,n − 1,..., 1). and hence α(Dm) < 3 for m ≥ 9. If m is a prime greater n As each subgroup has size n! in a group of size n!(2n) , than 3, then no three subgroups prove α(Dm) < 3. Proof. Let S = hyi be the subgroup generated by y, S = log(n!(2n)n) 1 2 α ≤ , hyx2i, and S = {x3k, yx3k+1 : 0 ≤ k < (m − 2)/3}. log n! 3 Then one can check by simple case analysis that Dm real- assuming the triple product property holds. The largest izes h2, 2, 2⌊m/3⌋i through S1,S2,S3. Note that S3 is a subgroup iff m is a multiple of 3. character degree of Gn is |Sn| = n! (see Theorem 25.6 in [10]) and so |G|1/γ = n!, which implies When m is prime, all subgroups of Dm have order 1, 2, m, or 2m, and it is easy to rule out each case (except when log(n!(2n)n) m = 3, in which case three subgroups of order 2 prove γ = . log n! α(D3) < 3).

447 Proposition 7.6 is not optimal: D5 realizes h2, 2, 3i then the answer to Question 4.1 is “yes.” through {1,y}, {1, yx}, {1, x2, yx4}. However, we have Also, note that Lemma 3.2 implies that for all G, checked using GAP that it is optimal for m = 4, and thus lim inf α(Gk) = inf α(Gk). α(D4)=3. k k 1 We now use the combinatorial notion of Sperner capac- →∞ ≥ Thus, even if the answer to Question 4.1 is “no,” there are ity to show that α(Dk) < 3 for large k, despite the fact that 4 combinatorial consequences. For example, knowing that α(D4)=3. k α(D2n) ≥ 3log8n 4 4n for all n and k would give a new − Proposition 7.7. If S ⊆ (Z/mZ)k is a subset in which no proof of the Sperner capacity bound |S|≤ (m − 1)k above, k k in the case of even . two distinct vectors differ by an element of {0, 1} , then Dm m realizes h2k, 2k, |S|i. 8. Concluding comments Proof. We identify Z/mZ with the subgroup hxi ⊆ Dm i k k (via i ↔ x ), so that S ⊆ hxi ⊆ Dm. The subgroups 8.1. Open questions hyi and hyxi of Dm have pointwise product hyihyxi = {1,y,yx,x}. Therefore the condition on differences of ele- The most pressing question arising in this paper is Ques- ments in S implies that hyik, hyxik, and S satisfy the triple tion 4.1, which represents a potential barrier to obtaining product property, since (hyikhyxik) ∩ hxik = {1, x}k, and non-trivial bounds on ω using our techniques. However, Q(S) ⊆ hxik avoids {1, x}k. there are numerous other open questions that are relevant to The problem of making S as large as possible has been Question 4.1 and the ultimate goal of proving ω =2. studied before; a generalization of this problem is known as the Sperner capacity of a directed graph [8, 12]. It is known Matrix groups. As pointed out in Section 5, matrix that |S|≤ (m − 1)k (see Theorem 1.2 in [1], which extends groups seem to be one of the most promising families of several earlier papers [2, 5]), and that examples, but we still know very little about them. Can our bounds for α(SL2(Fq)) be improved? We see no rea- (1 o(1))k |S| = (m − 1) − son why they should be optimal. Recall that beating 9/4 asymptotically would settle Question 4.1. We know even can be achieved by the following construction: less about SLn(Fq) (only that α(SLn(Fq)) < 3), so any Assume that (m−1) divides k, andtake S to bethesetof non-trivialconstruction would be of interest. The only other all vectors in (Z/mZ)k with exactly k/(m−1) occurrences finite matrix groups that we have studied are those closely of each element of {0, 1,...,m−2}. Now suppose we have connected to SLn (such as PSLn or GLn), but there are u, v ∈ S with u − v ∈ {0, 1}k. For each coordinate i such a number of other families. What can one say about the that ui = 0, we have vi ∈ {0,m − 1} because ui − vi ∈ pseudo-exponents of the groups in these families? {0, 1}, and thus vi = 0. Then whenever ui = 1, it follows that vi = 1, because all k/(m − 1) cases in which vi = 0 Quotient sets. The examples in Subsection 7.3 show that have ui =0 as well. Repeating this argument yields u = v, quotient sets sometimes outperform subgroups. For which as desired. groups does this occur? Are there general constructions of We conclude that direct products can help: useful quotient sets other than via Sperner capacity? Can they be used to improve our constructions for S or the Corollary 7.8. We have α(Dk) ≤ (3+o(1)) log 8, which n 4 12 wreath product? What about matrix groups? approaches 3log12 8=2.51 . . . as k → ∞. This pseudo-exponent bound comes tantalizingly close Lie groups. Can one use Lie groups to prove anything to settling Question 4.1: if about ω directly? Do results on the Lie pseudo-exponent imply anything about the pseudo-exponents of related finite k lim inf α(D4 ) < 3log12 8, groups? Compact Lie groups seem more closely analogous k →∞ to finite groups than non-compact Lie groups are, so study- then the answer to the question is “yes,” and our methods ing them might be illuminating. (All of the Lie groups in do in fact prove ω < 3 (at least). The same holds in general this paper are non-compact.) for D2n (which has n − 1 characters of degree 2 and 4 of degree 1) ; the Sperner capacity construction proves that Group extensions. Extensions of groups with pseudo- k α(D2n) ≤ (3 + o(1)) log8n 4 4n, and if exponent 3 can have substantially smaller pseudo- − exponents, as demonstrated by the solvable groups in Sub- k lim inf α(D2n) < 3log8n 4 4n, section 7.1. (Recall that solvable groups are formed from k − →∞

448 abelian groups by taking repeated extensions.) Is there a that the techniques we have developed in this paper could general way to lower α or raise γ by taking extensions? As help with this variant as well, although in general we find it a first step, can one find a family of solvable groups with difficult to work with conjugacy constraints. pseudo-exponents tending to 2? Acknowledgements Powers of groups. The simplest case of group extensions is taking powers of a group. Given G, what can one say We are grateful to Michael Aschbacher, Noam Elkies, k about the asymptotic pseudo-exponent infk 1 α(G ) of G? Bobby Kleinberg, L´aszl´oLov´asz, Amin Shokrollahi, David ≥ As noted in Subsection 7.3, γ(Gk) = γ(G), so if there ex- Vogan, and Avi Wigderson for helpful discussions. k ists a group such that infk 1 α(G )=2, then ω = 2 by ≥ Corollary 4.3. References

8.2. Extensions [1] N. Alon. On the capacity of digraphs. European J. Combi- natorics, 19:1–5, 1998. It is natural to attempt to extend our methods in vari- [2] A. Blokhuis. On the Sperner capacity of the cyclic triangle. ous ways. For example, one might try to obtain bounds on J. Algebraic Combinatorics, 2:123–124, 1993. border ranks of tensors, perhaps by using deformations of [3] K. S. Brown. Cohomology of Groups. Number 87 in Grad- group algebras. It is also reasonable to ask whether our ap- uate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, 1982. proach (given its reliance on representation theory) works in [4] P. B¨urgisser, M. Clausen, and M. A. Shokrollahi. Algebraic Complexity Theory, volume 315 of Grundlehren der mathe- finite characteristic, as well as over C. As Theorem 2.3 in- matischen Wissenschaften. Springer-Verlag, 1997. dicates, one can just as easily embed matrix multiplication [5] R. Calderbank, P. Frankl, R. L. Graham, W. Li, and C into F [G] rather than [G], where F has characteristic p. L. Shepp. The Sperner capacity of the cyclic triangle for lin- As long as p does not divide |G|, the representation theory ear and nonlinear codes. J. Algebraic Combinatorics, 2:31– of G, and all other aspects of our approach, work out iden- 48, 1993. tically, assuming F is algebraically closed. Sch¨onhage has [6] D. Coppersmith and S. Winograd. Matrix multiplication via shown that the exponent of matrix multiplication over arbi- arithmetic progressions. J. Symbolic Computation, 9:251– trary fields depends only on the characteristic (see Corol- 280, 1990. lary 15.18 in [4]), so we lose nothing by requiring that F be [7] The GAP Group. GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Pro- (http://www.gap- algebraically closed. gramming, Version 4.3, 2002. system.org). We conclude by mentioning a particular variant of our [8] L. Gargano, J. K¨orner, and U. Vaccaro. Sperner theorems approach that does not require any control of the character on directed graphs and qualitative independence. J. Combi- degrees, and thus may still be viable even if there is a nega- natorial Theory Series A, 61:173–192, 1992. tive answer to Question 4.1. We have found less structure to [9] J. A. Green. The characters of the finite general linear make use of, and it seems less attractive, but it uses similar groups. Transactions of the American Mathematical Soci- ideas. Suppose we have distinct elements xi,j ,yk,ℓ ∈ G, ety, 80:402–447, 1955. for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j, k ≤ m, and 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ p, such that [10] B. Huppert. Character Theory of Finite Groups. Num- ber 25 in de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 1998. xi,j yj,ℓ ∼ xi′,kyk′,ℓ′ ⇔ i = i′, k = k′,ℓ = ℓ′, (3) [11] G. James and M. Liebeck. Representations and Characters where ∼ denotes conjugacy of elements. Then we embed of Groups. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2001. matrix as ¯ C , and matrix A = (ai,j ) A = i,j ai,j xi,j ∈ [G] [12] J. K¨orner and G. Simonyi. A Sperner-type theorem and qual- B = (b ) as B¯ = b y ∈ C[G]. We can pursue k,ℓ k,ℓ Pk,ℓ k,ℓ itative independence. J. Combinatorial Theory, 59:90–103, a similar strategy to compute AB. In this case, however, 1992. P in the Fourier domain, we need only to compute the trace [13] J. Lafferty and D. Rockmore. Fast fourier analysis for SL2 of each of the matrix products in the block-diagonal matrix over a finite field and related numerical experiments. Exper- 2 imental Mathematics, 1:115–139, 1992. multiplication. That requires only i di = |G| multiplica- tions, and so we can conclude that the rank of hn,m,pi is [14] V. Strassen. Gaussian elimination is not optimal. Numerical at most |G|. P Mathematics, 13:354–356, 1969. [15] A. M. Vershik and S. V. Kerov. Asymptotics of the largest Let G be a group with subsets S1,S2 and S3 satisfying and the typical dimensions of irreducible representations of the triple product property. If we replace conjugacy with a symmetric group. Functional Analysis and its Applica- equality in (3), then it can be satisfied by taking {xi,j } = tions, 19:21–31, 1985. 1 S1S2− (where i indexes S1 and j indexes S2) and {yk,ℓ} = 1 S2S3− (k indexes S2 and ℓ indexes S3), so it is possible

449