Reconstructing Rational Functions on Finite Abelian Groups with Higher Autocorrelations

Matrix-valued memories make rank the natural budget of a learned representation: the number of independent directions a state spans bounds what it can bind, compose, and track. We report causal evidence, on a group-composition testbed trained under a hard single-state bottleneck with a fixed decoder that cannot launder rank, that gradient descent recruits precisely the rank the task's algebra demands. A companion paper [Larson, 2026a] establishes the analogous recruitment and causal necessity pattern on a $K$-pair associative-binding testbed, where exact recovery provably requires state rank at least $K$; this paper inherits that instrument and extends the rank law from a scalar capacity bound to a representation-theoretic one. We train toward chosen minimal faithful reference representations embedded in larger matrices. On group-composition state tracking over five finite groups spanning the solvable/non-solvable divide, the recruited rank equals the group's minimal faithful real representation dimension $d_{\min}$ (Spearman $\rho = 0.9747$, the design's tie-capped maximum), the dimension-matched solvable/non-solvable pair $S_4$/$A_5$ is statistically equivalent under a pre-registered test, and a pre-registered force-rank test separates a guaranteed similarity ceiling from empirical recovery at the target dimension: one rank below $d_{\min}$, cosine similarity is capped by the target's tied unit spectrum at $\sqrt{(d_{\min}{-}1)/d_{\min}} \le 0.894$, below the $0.9$ threshold in every group by construction, with observed cells at 86-95% (mean 91%) of that ceiling; at $d_{\min}$, not guaranteed a priori, recovery clears the pre-registered anchor-relative bar at four seeds per group in all five groups. Within this testbed, measured effective rank tracks representation dimension; the matched-dimension $S_4$/$A_5$ comparison establishes equivalence within the pre-registered tolerance.

We introduce an extremal invariant associated with Chowla-type order conditions in finite groups. A nonempty subset $S$ of a finite group $G$ is called a Chowla set if every element of $S$ has order greater than $|S|$, and we write $C(G)$ for the maximum cardinality of such a set. We first show that $C(G)$ is determined by the distribution of element orders in $G$. For cyclic groups, we derive an exact divisor formula and characterize the integers $n$ for which $C(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})=\varphi(n)$. We prove that $\liminf_{n\to\infty}C(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})/\varphi(n)=1$, whereas $\limsup_{n\to\infty}C(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})/\varphi(n)=\infty$, and we determine the corresponding lower and upper limits under normalization by $n$. For finite abelian groups, we obtain an explicit formula in terms of the invariant-factor decomposition, together with a closed formula for finite abelian $p$-groups. We then develop a linear analogue for finite field extensions. A nonzero $K$-subspace $A$ of an extension $L/K$ is called a Chowla subspace if $[K(a):K]>\dim_K A$ for every nonzero $a\in A$. Since this condition depends on $\dim_K A$, it does not generally require every nonzero element of $A$ to generate $L$ over $K$. Nevertheless, when $L/K$ is finite and separable, we prove the exact formula $C(L/K)=[L:K]-d_{\max}(L/K)$, where $d_{\max}(L/K)$ is the largest degree over $K$ of a proper intermediate field. For finite fields, we give a direct proof in every degree using a normal-basis construction. This work was developed through an expert-guided human-AI collaboration. A reasoning-focused configuration of Co-Scientist was used to explore examples and potential proof strategies. The authors formulated the problem, independently verified and completed all arguments, and wrote the final proofs.

A finite presentation < X | R > of a finite group is called `just finite' if removing any relation from R results in a presentation for an infinite group. It has been an open question (Kourovka Notebook, Problem 21.10) whether every finite group admits such a presentation. We resolve this conjecture in the affirmative.