In this paper
AbstractStatement and conventionsPowering and averagingSink components and stationary denominatorsA short common minimum-rank wordFrom permutations to all transformationsReferencesWorksComputer Science
A superlogarithmic lower bound for deterministic word separation
Abstract
Let be the maximum, over distinct binary words of length , of the least number of states in a complete deterministic finite automaton that accepts exactly one of them. We prove . The main step is a common word of length that, after suitable powering of the generators, reaches the sink components of every transformation pair on states and attains minimum rank on each sink. This transfers the balanced positive permutation identities of Xu and Regan to the full transformation monoid without changing their leading logarithmic length. The conclusion concerns deterministic automata; it makes no assertion about nondeterministic separators.
Statement and conventions
All logarithms are natural. A word acts on states in written order: . The same convention is used for products of transition matrices. Thus a transformation matrix has one entry 1 in each row, and is the indicator of the inverse image of the subset whose indicator is .
Write for the monoid of all transformations of a -element set. A binary identity for is a pair of distinct words whose evaluations agree for every choice of the two generators in . An identity is balanced if the two words have the same number of occurrences of each letter. In particular, they have the same length.
Theorem 1.1. For every sufficiently large integer there are distinct balanced binary words which form an identity for and satisfy
Consequently, for complete deterministic binary automata,
In particular is not .
The correspondence between transformation identities and deterministic word separation is standard; see Bulatov, Karpova, Shur, and Startsev [1]. We use the following established input, keeping its permutation hypothesis explicit.
Theorem 1.2 (Xu–Regan, Theorem A.1 of [2]). There are distinct balanced positive binary identities for the symmetric group on points such that .
The proof below establishes the transformation-monoid extension. It does not infer a lower bound for deterministic automata merely from a lower bound for permutation automata. Nor does it infer any lower bound for nondeterministic automata, whose transitions need not be functions.
Prepared with AI assistance from OpenAI Codex in mathematical exploration, checking, and manuscript preparation.
Powering and averaging
Fix , a permutation , and an arbitrary transformation on . Put
where the product is over primes. There are at most factors, each at most , so .
Lemma 2.1. Every cycle of or has length 1 or a prime exceeding . There are at most nontrivial cycles of either transformation. Moreover is precisely the cyclic set of , and is a permutation on .
Proof. A cycle of a transformation on points has length . Every prime-power divisor of with prime at most divides . There can be at most one prime divisor greater than , and its exponent is one. The cycles of the th power therefore have lengths 1 or that remaining prime. Each nontrivial cycle uses more than points. Finally every transient path of has length less than . Thus maps every point onto a cycle of , and its restriction to that cyclic set is a permutation. This is also its own cyclic set. □
The type of consists of the two multisets of cycle lengths, including fixed points. Only types occur: each list of nontrivial cycles has at most entries in , and each number of fixed points has at most choices. All random choices below depend only on this type.
For every distinct nontrivial cycle length of , choose independently a uniform integer in , add these integers, and add an independent uniform integer in . Call the result . Define in the same way using the cycle lengths of , then add 1. All choices for and are independent. Since the sum of the distinct cycle lengths is at most , we have and . The residue of modulo every -cycle length is uniform; the same holds for modulo every -cycle length.
Lemma 2.2. There are intervals of consecutive integers, with and , such that
Proof. Before the last uniform summand, either sum is supported on at most integers. A most probable value has probability at least . Adding the last uniform summand supplies the required interval, each point having probability at least . The additional 1 in makes its interval positive. □
Let and . The first matrix averages uniformly on each -orbit. The second sends each point uniformly onto the cyclic -orbit containing its -image. An independent random block has word and matrix
A block has at most letters.
Sink components and stationary denominators
A sink is a sink strongly connected component of the directed graph with edges and . Sinks are closed under both letters and are unions of -orbits.
Lemma 3.1. For every type there is a word of length sending every state into a sink, simultaneously for all labeled pairs of that type.
Proof. After one random block, conditional on the current -orbit, the point is uniform on that orbit. On these orbits consider the quotient chain that starts with this uniform distribution and applies a block. Each positive transition has probability at least : choose a point in the initial -orbit and a point in the relevant cyclic -orbit. The quotient graph includes every edge induced by between -orbits, because the average on a cyclic -orbit includes the first -image. Consequently every quotient vertex has a path to a sink.
Every singleton -orbit reached after a block is a cyclic point of . Indeed, the last -rotation cannot enter an -fixed point from a different point. If that point is -fixed it is already a singleton sink. Otherwise it lies on a nontrivial -cycle. Suppose a quotient path enters this singleton and then leaves it. The entering transition and the leaving transition use the same cyclic -orbit, so the predecessor can reach the successor in one block. The intermediate singleton can be deleted. A shortest path therefore has no intermediate singleton. With at most nontrivial -orbits, it has at most edges.
It follows that, from any state, at most blocks reach a sink with probability at least . Sinks are absorbing. After such windows the failure probability is at most . There are at most labeled pairs and starting states per pair. Choose . A union bound gives a positive probability of success in every case, hence a common word. Its length is .
Fix a sink . The quotient chain just used is irreducible on its -orbits, since their graph is the quotient of the strongly connected union graph. Each positive transition into an orbit produces a uniform point of that orbit. Starting from any state, one block first produces such a uniform distribution. These facts show that is irreducible on the states of as well.
We recall directly why this gives a unique positive stationary row probability . Cesaro averages of any row probability have a convergent subsequence, and a limit is stationary. If any of its coordinates is positive, stationarity and irreducibility propagate positivity to every coordinate. A column satisfying attains its maximum on a nonempty set closed under every positive transition; irreducibility forces that set to be all of . Thus the right kernel of is one-dimensional. Equality of row and column rank gives the same statement for the left kernel, proving uniqueness. Since the last averaging operation is , the measure is uniform on each -orbit and .
Lemma 3.2. On every sink the coordinates of are rational with a common positive denominator , for an absolute constant .
Proof. The assertion is immediate for a singleton sink. In a nonsingleton sink write for the -orbits and for the cyclic -orbits. Let be the weight of each point of under , and let be the weight of each point of after applying . Set
Stationarity and normalization are exactly
An -fixed point in this sink cannot be transient for : it would have no incoming -edge, by Lemma 2.1, and no incoming -edge other than its loop. It also cannot be -fixed, since then it would itself be a sink. Hence it lies on a nontrivial -cycle, and (3.1) identifies its with the corresponding . If is a singleton, its point is in a nontrivial -orbit. Furthermore no singleton -orbit has this -basin, since all those points lie on nontrivial -cycles. Equation (3.2) therefore expresses this as an integer combination of the belonging to nontrivial -orbits.
Eliminate both kinds of singleton variable using these formulas. At most variables remain. All equations have integer coefficients bounded by and right sides 0 or 1. Conversely a solution of the reduced system reconstructs a solution of (3.1)–(3.3). That system has a unique solution, by the uniqueness of and the definition of the intermediate measure. Thus a square nonsingular subsystem can be selected. Hadamard’s determinant inequality bounds its determinant in absolute value by . Cramer’s rule gives this determinant as a common denominator of the remaining variables. The eliminated variables are integer combinations of them, so the same denominator works for every coordinate of .
A short common minimum-rank word
Continue on a fixed sink and regard as rational linear operators on columns. Define
It is a linear subspace invariant under and , because and has finite order. Let be the largest subspace of invariant under both and . Equivalently, if and only if for every word . For , both letters preserve and keep in . The assertion for follows by setting in (4.1).
Lemma 4.1. It suffices in (4.1) to test and from Lemma 2.2. The operators , , span all nonnegative powers of . The operators , , span all positive powers of .
Proof. The minimal polynomial of the invertible operator has nonzero constant term and degree at most . The resulting recurrence expresses every power of in the span of any consecutive powers. For , its action on the linear image is invertible: Lemma 2.1 gives , and hence is bijective. Its minimal polynomial again has degree at most and nonzero constant term. Multiplying its recurrence by an initial positive power of proves the claim about positive powers.
For completeness the subtraction of the constant in (4.1) respects these recurrences. The constant column is fixed by and by and belongs to . Both relevant minimal polynomials therefore vanish at . For fixed , the sequence satisfies the recurrence for for . Its vanishing on forces vanishing for all positive , by extending the recurrence in both directions. For each such , the recurrence for extends vanishing from to all . □
Lemma 4.2. If , there is a product of at most blocks , with , which sends outside . The empty product is allowed.
Proof. Put . Given the -invariant space , let be its closure under all nonnegative powers of , and let be the closure of under . Every is -invariant. If the construction has stabilized at a space invariant under both letters.
The rational representation of is semisimple: its minimal polynomial divides for some , which has no repeated roots in characteristic zero. A cycle of prime length contributes one trivial factor and one irreducible factor with minimal polynomial ; its irreducibility follows from Eisenstein’s criterion after replacing by . Thus the entire representation has at most nontrivial simple factors, counted with multiplicity. If contains only trivial factors, acts as the identity on that quotient. Hence . This makes already -invariant, so and the construction has stabilized. Every other growth step uses a nontrivial factor. There are therefore at most rounds before stabilization.
The stabilized space is the smallest -invariant space containing . If it were contained in , then . Thus some spanning word produced within these rounds sends outside . Its outermost power can be deleted, using the -invariance of and its inverse. Delete identity powers and combine neighboring powers. The result has at most the stated number of positive runs. By Lemma 4.1, expand each power in the powers from and each positive power in the powers from . If every resulting word sent into , linearity would put the original word there too. At least one resulting product has the required property.
Lemma 4.3. For every type there is a word of length such that, on each sink of every pair of that type, every column of belongs to .
Proof. Starting at the indicator of any subset of the sink, take independent blocks and put . All remain indicators. Set and . Stationarity gives and therefore
If , Lemma 4.1 supplies a pair from for which . Its probability is at least , and its difference has absolute value at least by Lemma 3.2. Thus the right side of (4.2) is at least .
If , Lemma 4.2 reaches such a drift point along at most blocks, each with probability at least . In a horizon , the expected gain in is consequently at least for an absolute . Unused steps have nonnegative drift. The subspace is absorbing for these operations.
Let be the probability of being outside after horizons. Since , telescoping the horizon gains gives . The sequence is nonincreasing, so . With the probability of remaining outside is at most , uniformly over the starting indicator. Repeating this experiment times makes it at most , by conditioning at the start of each experiment.
There are at most labeled pairs, at most sinks per pair, and at most subsets per sink. Choosing and applying a union bound gives a single sequence that sends every such indicator into its respective . Its number of letters is . If the sampled blocks are , take the forward word . This order is essential: its column action is exactly the successive inverse-image experiment. In particular every singleton indicator, hence every column of , is stable.
:::
For a sink , let denote the minimum rank of any word restricted to , including the empty word.
Lemma 4.4. The word of Lemma 4.3 has rank on every sink to which that lemma applies.
Proof. For a column of , stability implies for every word . Since is strictly positive and these columns are indicators, is nonzero exactly when is nonzero. Thus and have the same number of nonzero columns and hence the same transformation rank on . If a word had rank smaller than , then , a contradiction.
Proposition 4.5. There are words , depending only on , of length such that, for every powered pair in (2.1), sends all states into sinks and has minimum rank on every sink. With and , both and restrict to permutations of .
Proof. Concatenate the words of Lemma 3.1 over all types to obtain . Once a state has entered a sink, all later letters keep it there. Concatenate the words of Lemma 4.3 over all types to obtain . For a fixed pair and sink, the factor belonging to its type has rank by Lemma 4.4. Composing on either side by words cannot increase that rank, and cannot decrease it below by its definition. Thus has the required rank. The number of types is , so the length bound survives concatenation.
For each sink put . Since , ; their cardinalities are both , and hence . Moreover is contained in the union of the sinks, so
This equality uses the factorization . Now maps each into itself. Its image there is , whose rank is at least and at most . It is therefore a bijection on . The same argument applies to . Since the sink images are disjoint, both macros are permutations of all of .
From permutations to all transformations
Proposition 5.1. There are distinct balanced words , of length which agree whenever the first generator is a permutation on points and the second is an arbitrary transformation.
Proof. Take the words of Theorem 1.2. In the powered generators use the macros , , preceded by the common word . By Proposition 4.5, the prefix maps into and the macros act as permutations of . A permutation identity on points holds on by adjoining fixed points if . Hence
in every powered evaluation. The displayed literal words are distinct: the two macros have the same length and different first letters, so their substitution is injective; adjoining a common prefix also is injective. They are balanced because are balanced and have the same number of substituted copies of .
Replace each letter by its th power. This injective uniform substitution transfers the identity from to and preserves balance. If , the resulting length is . Its logarithm is at most
Lemma 5.2 (Cyclic-set encoding). If is a balanced identity for pairs with the first generator a permutation on at most points, substitute , and append to both words. The resulting words form a distinct balanced identity for . Their length is at most .
Proof. Let be arbitrary transformations on points. The map sends every point into the cyclic set of . On , the map is a permutation and is a transformation of to itself. If denotes the stated substitution, associativity gives
The right sides agree, which proves the identity.
To see injectivity of , write a word uniquely as . Its image has zero-run lengths . These recover the original word; the case of no ones is included. Appending a common suffix preserves distinctness by cancellation in the free monoid. If the input counts are , the output counts are zeros and ones. Thus balance is preserved, as is the claimed length bound.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Proposition 5.1 also applies on fewer than points: extend both generators by fixed points to a -element set. Lemma 5.2 now proves the identity assertion and (1.1), since its additional logarithmic cost is .
An identity for is an identity for all transformations on at most states, by the same extension argument. Therefore its two words finish in the same state in every complete deterministic automaton of at most states, for every starting state and every accepting set. No such automaton separates them.
Fix and put . As , . Equation (1) gives for all sufficiently large . Append the same number of zeros to both words to reach length exactly . They remain distinct and form an identity, so . Since this holds for every fixed , it gives (2). □
References
Email address: [email protected]
Email address: [email protected]
Email address: [email protected]
Email address: [email protected]
References
- [1]A. A. Bulatov, O. Karpova, A. M. Shur, and K. Startsev, Lower bounds on words separation: Are there short identities in transformation semigroups?, Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 24 (2017), no. 3, Paper P3.35. doi:10.37236/6450.DOI
- [2]C. Xu and K. Regan, An improved lower bound for separating words by permutation automata, arXiv:2610.11098v1 (2026), Theorem A.1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.11098.