==== TABLE OF CONTENTS ==== A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//01-introduction.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//02-criterion.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//02a-embedding.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//03-pairing.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//04-hypergraph.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//05-prescription.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//06-cellular-automata.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//diagram-merge.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//paper.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//trade.tex A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//references.bib =========================== ==== BEGIN A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//01-introduction.tex ==== \section{Introduction} \label{sec:introduction} If a linear map on a finite-dimensional vector space has a left inverse, that inverse is also a right inverse. A group algebra need not have finite dimension, but each of its elements still has finite support. Kaplansky's direct-finiteness conjecture asks whether this finite support is enough: for every field $K$, group $G$, and $a,b\in K[G]$, must $ab=1$ imply $ba=1$? Here $K[G]$ consists of finite formal sums $\sum_g c_g g$, multiplied using the group law. A unital ring with this property is \emph{directly finite}; it is \emph{stably finite} if all its finite square matrix rings are directly finite. This distinction matters to a counterexample. Producing matrices $AB=I\ne BA$ over a group algebra does not by itself produce scalar elements with the same property. Our construction first produces the matrix pair, then embeds its matrix algebra in a larger group algebra to obtain the following scalar conclusion. \begin{theorem} \label{thm:main} There exist a finite field $K$ of characteristic two, a finitely presented group $G$ containing an element of odd prime order, and elements $a_{\mathrm{out}},b_{\mathrm{out}}\in K[G]$ such that \[ a_{\mathrm{out}}b_{\mathrm{out}}=1, \qquad b_{\mathrm{out}}a_{\mathrm{out}}\ne1. \] The field, group, and finite sums are specified by a terminating prescription involving finite sets and finite-field arithmetic. \end{theorem} Thus Theorem~\ref{thm:main} resolves the unrestricted conjecture negatively in characteristic two. The construction uses odd-order torsion and does not assert that $K=\F_2$. The prescription need not be computationally practical and has not been executed: its termination is proved, and the two product assertions have algebraic certificates independent of any decision procedure for the group word problem. \paragraph{History and positive results.} For a finite group $G$, the algebra $K[G]$ and all its finite square matrix rings are finite dimensional, so elementary linear algebra gives stable finiteness. The classical characteristic-zero theorem uses a different substitute for dimension. Kaplansky's operator-algebra argument places $\mathbb C[G]$ in a finite tracial setting; Montgomery gave a proof using the operator-norm closure of the regular representation and its identity-coefficient trace, including the extension to every finite matrix size~\cite{Montgomery1969}. The trace rules out a proper one-sided inverse. For an arbitrary characteristic-zero field, all coefficients of a proposed finite matrix pair lie in a finitely generated subfield, which embeds in $\mathbb C$. Thus the complex result gives stable finiteness over every characteristic-zero field. In positive characteristic, rank and approximation methods have supplied broad classes of positive results without a complex representation. Ara, O'Meara, and Perera proved stable finiteness over arbitrary division rings for free-by-amenable groups, using Sylvester rank functions and amenable translation rings~\cite{AraOMearaPerera2002}. Elek and Szab\'o obtained stable finiteness over arbitrary division rings for all sofic groups from finite approximate models and a rank construction~\cite[Corollary~4.7]{ElekSzabo2004}. These are restrictions on a possible counterexample's group, not assumptions that the group constructed here satisfies. Dykema and Juschenko clarified how a matrix obstruction can nevertheless yield a scalar one: for a fixed field and group, stable finiteness is equivalent to direct finiteness after taking the direct product with every finite group~\cite[Theorem~2.2]{DykemaJuschenko2015}. Their reduction embeds a matrix algebra in a finite-group algebra and adds the complementary identity. We realize this transfer explicitly for the field used here, giving both the matrix units and the resulting two elements. \paragraph{Finite presentation and soficity.} For a finite nonempty set $\Omega$, write $d_\Omega(f,h)$ for the fraction of points on which two maps $f,h:\Omega\to\Omega$ differ. In the finite-map formulation of Elek and Szab\'o~\cite[Definition~4.2]{ElekSzabo2004}, a group $\Gamma$ is \emph{sofic} if, for every finite $E\subseteq\Gamma$ and every $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$, there are a finite nonempty $\Omega$ and a map $\sigma:\Gamma\to\Omega^\Omega$ such that \[ \begin{aligned} d_\Omega\bigl(\sigma(gh),\sigma(g)\sigma(h)\bigr)&\le\varepsilon && (g,h\in E),\\ d_\Omega\bigl(\sigma(1),\id\bigr)&\le\varepsilon,\\ d_\Omega\bigl(\sigma(g),\id\bigr)&>1-\varepsilon && (g\in E\setminus\{1\}), \end{aligned} \] where products of maps denote composition. Thus soficity asks for finite approximate models of multiplication in which nonidentity elements act almost without fixed points. The stable-finiteness theorem of Elek and Szab\'o~\cite[Corollary~4.7]{ElekSzabo2004} applies to the field $K$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. If its particular group $G$ were sofic, then $K[G]$ would be stably finite and hence directly finite by the matrix-size-one case, contradicting the two displayed product assertions. Therefore this same $G$ is nonsofic. In particular, the construction supplies a finitely presented counterexample to the assertion that every group is sofic. The finite presentation is established directly in Section~\ref{sec:finite-presentation}; the nonsoficity conclusion uses only the scalar defect and the cited theorem. \paragraph{Cellular automata.} For a nonempty finite alphabet $A$, a configuration is an arbitrary function $x:G\to A$. A \emph{cellular automaton} on $A^G$ is a map given by a finite set $M\subset G$ and a local rule $\phi:A^M\to A$ through \[ \tau(x)(g)=\phi\bigl((x(gu))_{u\in M}\bigr). \] The group $G$ is \emph{surjunctive} if every injective cellular automaton on $A^G$ is surjective, for every such $A$. Gottschalk's conjecture asserts that every group is surjunctive~\cite{Gottschalk1973}. The problem asks whether finite local dependence and translation symmetry preserve the finite-set implication from injectivity to surjectivity on the infinite configuration space. Gromov developed a general symbolic-algebraic surjunctivity theorem~\cite[Section~7.G$'$]{Gromov1999}; Weiss gave the finite-alphabet sofic-group theorem directly~\cite[Theorem~3.2]{Weiss2000}. Elek and Szab\'o explicitly recorded the implication from surjunctivity to direct finiteness over finite fields~\cite[Section~1]{ElekSzabo2004}. Ceccherini-Silberstein and Coornaert developed the linear theory: their equivalence, quantified over all coefficient fields, relates stable finiteness to injective-to-surjective behavior of linear cellular automata with finite-dimensional vector alphabets~\cite[Theorem~4.2]{CSCCoornaert2006}. Phung proved stable finiteness over every field for surjunctive groups, using algebraic cellular automata~\cite[Theorem~B]{Phung2023}. Ceccherini-Silberstein, Coornaert, and Phung later gave a model-theoretic proof and a monoid extension~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{CSCPhungGroup2025,CSCPhungMonoid2025}. These results connect algebraic finiteness to a dynamical property rather than imposing finite dimensionality. For the finite field in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, the short algebra-to-automaton passage can be given directly. The coefficients of $b_{\mathrm{out}}$ define a local rule, the coefficients of $a_{\mathrm{out}}$ give a left inverse on all configurations, and a nonzero coefficient of $b_{\mathrm{out}}a_{\mathrm{out}}-1$ identifies a missing point-indicator configuration. Section~\ref{sec:cellular} proves this standard transfer in full, including the multiplication convention. It gives a negative resolution of Gottschalk's conjecture for the group in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}; it requires no further existence theorem or approximation assumption. The characteristic-two scalar pair in Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is also the input to the companion counterexample to the group-ring Determinant Conjecture~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{DeterminantCompanion}. By a separate construction, that paper produces an integral square matrix over another finitely generated group, invertible over its rational group ring, whose Fuglede--Kadison determinant lies strictly between zero and one. \paragraph{The construction.} The obstacle is to force a one-sided inverse while retaining a certificate that the reverse product is not the identity. The proof separates these requirements through finite incidence data. Let $\mathcal F$ be a family of subsets of a finite set $V$. We require that each point lie in $\ell+1$ members, where $\ell$ is an odd prime, and that the bipartite incidence graph have girth at least $12$. We also require column vectors $x_v\in K^m$ satisfying \[ \sum_{v\in f}x_vx_v^{\mathsf T}=0\quad(f\in\mathcal F), \qquad \sum_{v\in V}x_vx_v^{\mathsf T}=-I_m, \qquad m<|V|\le m\ell^2. \] Theorem~\ref{thm:criterion} turns these finite data into a counterexample. Two parts of this criterion explain the separation. First, a planar balance argument proves that copies of the additive group $\F_\ell^2$, glued along their one-dimensional subgroups according to the incidence structure, embed in the resulting group. Incidence girth forces a contradiction with Euler's formula for any diagram witnessing a collapsed local element. Second, character idempotents and prescribed subgroup conjugations pack a rectangular factorization into square matrices. Their forward product is the identity by the displayed pairings. To detect the reverse-product defect, we sandwich it by the packing maps and obtain a matrix in an embedded subgroup algebra. A homomorphism from that algebra to $K$ sends this matrix to $X^{\mathsf T}X-I_{|V|}$, where $X$ has columns $x_v$. Since $X$ has only $m<|V|$ rows, $X^{\mathsf T}X$ cannot be the identity, so the original defect is nonzero. The homomorphism is used only on the subgroup algebra; it is not asserted to extend to the larger group algebra. A finite auxiliary group then converts the matrix obstruction into the scalar outputs of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. To produce the incidence data, we take full affine lines over a finite field $Q\subset K$ and remove a small set of points. Low-degree interpolation on these holes gives the vectors $x_v$: the pairings sum to zero on each full line, but removing the holes leaves the nonzero total $-I_m$. The geometric task is to retain a regular line system of large incidence girth. We combine random small-dimensional slabs with an exact trade in each bundle of directions through a hole. Hole selection and a weighted local-lemma estimate rule out triangles, rectangles, and pentagons of lines; the local trades preserve regularity. A uniform bound from Linnik's theorem supplies compatible parameters~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{Xylouris2011}. Low-degree polynomial products and affine-line restrictions also occur in the coding-theoretic constructions of Golowich--Lin and Dinur--Liu--Zhang~\cite{GolowichLin2024,DinurLiuZhang2025}: degree bounds add under products, while restriction to a line does not increase degree. Here these features produce the line and total pairing identities. We use no coding-theoretic theorem from those works. The only non-elementary existence theorem imported into the direct construction is the uniform least-prime bound; the group embeddings, finite matrix block, interpolation, and probability argument needed here are proved below. Section~\ref{sec:pairing} first explains the polynomial pairing and the two size bounds. Section~\ref{sec:criterion} formulates the algebraic criterion and proves that its local groups embed. Section~\ref{sec:packing} completes the passage from subgroup averages to scalar elements, including a certificate for the reverse defect. Section~\ref{sec:hypergraph} then supplies the required affine-line system by the full probability and local-trade argument. Section~\ref{sec:prescription} fixes all choices and completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. Section~\ref{sec:cellular} gives the cellular automaton and determines its image by finite local equations. \paragraph{Conventions.} All incidence structures in the proof are finite. Their incidence graphs have one vertex for each point and one for each member of the family, with an edge for each membership. The girth is the length of a shortest cycle, and is infinite for a forest. An affine $Q$-line is a translate of a one-dimensional $Q$-subspace. A direction is such a linear subspace, not a chosen nonzero vector. Superscript $\mathsf T$ denotes transpose, without any involution on the coefficient field. All group presentations define abstract discrete groups. ==== END A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//01-introduction.tex ==== ==== BEGIN A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//02-criterion.tex ==== \section{An incidence criterion and its embedded local groups} \label{sec:criterion} We now leave affine geometry. The following criterion is the algebraic part of the construction. Its input consists of a finite incidence system and vectors satisfying two matrix identities. All groups and group-algebra elements in its conclusion are constructed in this section and Section~\ref{sec:packing}; no further geometric assumption enters those arguments. \begin{theorem}[Incidence criterion] \label{thm:criterion} Let $\ell$ be an odd prime, let $K$ be a finite field of characteristic two containing a primitive $\ell$th root of unity $\zeta$, and put $\kappa=\ell^2$. Let $V$ be a finite set of cardinality $t$, and let $\mathcal F$ be a finite family of nonempty subsets of $V$. Assume that every $v\in V$ belongs to exactly $\ell+1$ members of $\mathcal F$ and that the bipartite incidence graph of $V$ and $\mathcal F$ has girth at least $12$. Suppose that an integer $m$ and column vectors $x_v\in K^m$, $v\in V$, satisfy \begin{equation} \label{eq:criterion-size} 0m$, choose a nonzero $y\in\ker X$. Then \begin{equation} \label{eq:nonzero-witness} \varepsilon\bigl(e(TU-P)\bigr)y=-y\ne0. \end{equation} One explicit choice is the first nonzero column of $I_t-X^{\mathsf T}X$: this matrix is nonzero because $\rank(X^{\mathsf T}X)\le m0$ such that this prime exists and $\ell\le c q^{100L}$; see, for example, \cite[Theorem~1.1]{Xylouris2011}. Set \begin{equation}\label{eq:hypergraph-parameters} D=\ell+1,\qquad s=\lfloor\log_qD\rfloor,\qquad b=s+20,\qquad n=10b,\qquad N_{\rm pt}=q^n. \end{equation} Thus $q^{100}\mid D$, $s\ge100$, and \begin{equation}\label{eq:hypergraph-growth} q^s\le D0$ independent of $h$, because $n$ is bounded. Choose each point of $S$ independently with probability $\theta=5M/|S|$. For large $h$ this is at most $1$, and $\theta=O(D^{-2})$. If $X$ is the chosen set, then $\mathbb E|X|=5M$ and $\operatorname{Var}(|X|)\le5M$. Also $M>q^{n-2s-2}=q^{8s+198}\to\infty$. Chebyshev's inequality therefore gives \begin{equation}\label{eq:hypergraph-initial-holes} \Pr(4M\le |X|\le6M)=1-o(1). \end{equation} There are at most $D^2N_{\rm pt}$ triples $(j,r,C)$, and every $C+W_r$ has at most $q^{b+2}$ points. Repeated affine spaces in this count only cause overcounting. A union bound over choices of $100$ selected points bounds the probability that any such space contains more than $100$ points of $X$ by \[ D^2N_{\rm pt}(\theta q^{b+2})^{100} =O\left(q^{2s+2+n+100(b+2-2s)}\right) =O\left(q^{2402-88s}\right)=o(1). \] Mark every selected point belonging to a pair of distinct selected points in one translate of some $W_r$. Also mark every selected point belonging to a tuple of four distinct selected witnesses for an exceptional rectangle. The expected number of collision pairs is at most $N_{\rm pt}(D/q)q^2\theta^2$. There are at most $N_{\rm pt}(D/q)^2(q-1)^2\le N_{\rm pt}D^2$ choices of rectangle data, and at most $q^8$ witness tuples per rectangle. Each distinct tuple is selected with probability at most $\theta^4$; tuples containing a point outside $S$ have probability zero. Thus the number $Z$ of marked points satisfies \[ \frac{\mathbb EZ}{M} \le \frac{2N_{\rm pt}(D/q)q^2\theta^2 +4N_{\rm pt}D^2q^8\theta^4}{M} =O\left(\frac qD+\frac{q^8}{D^4}\right)=o(1). \] Markov's inequality gives $Z\le M$ with probability $1-o(1)$. Choose an outcome satisfying this bound, Equation~\eqref{eq:hypergraph-initial-holes}, and the occupancy bound, and delete all marked points. The remaining set $O$ has $3M\le |O|\le6M$, hence the required bounds. Deletion preserves the occupancy bound and eliminates every obstruction in \textup{(i)} and \textup{(iii)}. \end{proof} Fix such an $O$. Put \[ T_r=\bigcup_{o\in O}(o+W_r). \] The \emph{replacement lines of label $R_r$} are all the lines of direction $e_r$ in each $o+W_r$, except $o+e_r$ itself. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:hypergraph-replacement-lines} The replacement lines avoid $O$ and are pairwise disjoint within each label $R_r$. No exceptional rectangle has all four side lines among these replacement lines. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Property~\textup{(i)} of Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-holes} says that different holes lie in disjoint translates of a fixed $W_r$. Within one such plane the replacement lines are parallel and omit its unique hole. This proves the first assertions. If a rectangle used four replacement lines, each side would have its corresponding hole as a witness. These four witnesses must be distinct. Opposite sides of direction $e_r$ lie in $W_r$-cosets separated by a nonzero vector in $e_{r'}$, which lies outside $W_r$. Their planes are therefore disjoint. The planes of two adjacent sides intersect exactly at their shared corner, because $W_r\cap W_{r'}=0$. This corner is on both side lines, so neither off-line witness can equal it. The resulting four distinct witnesses contradict property~\textup{(iii)} of Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-holes}. \end{proof} \subsection{Random slabs and short polygons} The holes and the replacement lines are now fixed. It remains to partition the rest of the space into lines without introducing short polygons. We first choose the slabs in which those lines will lie, excluding a finite list of events that would allow such polygons; the line partitions themselves are constructed only afterward. Independently for each index $j$ and each coset $C$ of $U_j$, choose a uniformly random two-dimensional subspace $P_{j,C}\subset E_j$. The translates of $d_j\oplus P_{j,C}$ partition $C$ into three-dimensional affine \emph{slabs}. For $u\in U_j$, write $u^{(E_j)}$ for its $E_j$-component. A fixed nonzero vector of $E_j$ belongs to $P_{j,C}$ with probability \begin{equation}\label{eq:hypergraph-inclusion-probability} p_* = \frac{q^2-1}{q^{b-1}-1}\le 2q^{3-b}. \end{equation} Indeed, linear automorphisms of $E_j$ act transitively on its nonzero vectors, and every two-dimensional subspace contains $q^2-1$ of them. We define a finite list of bad events before selecting any lines inside the slabs. First, for each pair of holes in a coset $C$ of $U_j$, declare it bad if they occupy the same slab. Their difference has nonzero $E_j$-component: otherwise it would lie in $d_j\subset W_{\rho(j)}$, contrary to Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-holes}\textup{(i)}. This event is exactly the inclusion of that component in $P_{j,C}$ and has probability $p_*$. The other events concern closed labelled sequences of $k$ nonzero steps, $k\in\{3,4,5\}$, in $\mathcal A$. The allowed step types are \begin{align*} G_j &: \quad u\in U_j,\quad u^{(E_j)}\ne0;\\ R_r &: \quad u\in e_r\setminus\{0\}, \quad\hbox{both endpoints belong to }T_r. \end{align*} We call $G_j$ steps \emph{generic} and $R_r$ steps \emph{replacement} steps; a replacement step vector will also be called exceptional. An $R_r$ step need not lie on a replacement line: its endpoint condition only requires membership in $T_r$, which every actual replacement line satisfies. This deliberately enlarges the list of possible polygons. Require at least one $G$ step and distinct labels at cyclically adjacent steps. Repeated vertices are allowed, so this list can only be larger than the list of simple polygons that will matter for girth. For each such sequence, declare it bad if every $G_j$ step has $u^{(E_j)}\in P_{j,C}$, where $C$ is the $U_j$-coset containing that step. All point, label, and step choices are finite, so the complete event list is finite. The three hole conditions now have separate roles. Condition~\textup{(i)} separates the replacement planes within each bundle and makes each hole-pair event test a nonzero $E_j$-component. Condition~\textup{(ii)} controls the hole contributions to the event counts for a fixed $P_{j,C}$. Condition~\textup{(iii)} has already excluded rectangles formed entirely from replacement lines. \Needspace{8\baselineskip} \begin{lemma}\label{lem:hypergraph-polygons} Every candidate sequence with a generic step has one of the following forms. \begin{enumerate}[label=\textup{(\roman*)}] \item A rectangle alternating $G_j,R_r$, with opposite vectors paired. \item A rectangle alternating distinct $G_j,G_{j'}$, with opposite vectors paired. \item A pentagon containing two $G_j$ steps, two $G_{j'}$ steps, and one $R_r$ step, where $\rho(j)=\rho(j')=r$. \end{enumerate} If $g$ is the number of distinct generic labels, its bad event uses $2g$ distinct random variables and has probability $p_*^{2g}$. In case~\textup{(iii)}, the exceptional vector and one vector of each generic label determine the other two vectors, once their order is fixed. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Before classifying the sequence, observe that each step involves at most two members of the list of $W$- and $E$-spaces. Thus at most $2k\le10$ distinct spaces occur, and their directness is available from Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-direction-spaces}. Closure forces the sum of the $E_j$-components to be zero for each generic label. Each such label therefore occurs at least twice. Cyclic non-adjacency in a sequence of at most five steps allows any label at most twice. Consequently $g$ is $1$ or $2$, and each generic label occurs exactly twice. If $g=1$, the direction $d_j$ and the distinct occurring directions $e_r$ are linearly independent. In its own bundle this uses just the two distinct directions $d_j,e_{\rho(j)}$; other bundles contribute independent $W$-spaces. Every exceptional label must therefore occur twice as well. Only case~\textup{(i)} is possible, and closure gives the claimed opposite vectors. If $g=2$ and $k=4$, the labels must alternate, and $U_j\cap U_{j'}=0$ forces the opposite vectors to pair. If $k=5$, there is one exceptional step, of label $R_r$. Its nonzero $e_r$-component must be canceled by the $W$-components of the generic steps. Neither zero contribution nor a contribution from just one of the directions $d_j,d_{j'}$ can cancel it, since each such direction differs from $e_r$. Thus both generic labels belong to bundle $r$, giving case~\textup{(iii)}. After choosing the exceptional vector and one vector of each generic label, closure prescribes the sum of the remaining vector in $U_j$ and the remaining vector in $U_{j'}$. Their direct sum makes these vectors unique. Finally, between the two occurrences of a generic label $G_j$ there is, in one cyclic direction, exactly one intervening step. That step has a different label and a nonzero vector outside $U_j$, by Equation~\eqref{eq:hypergraph-intersections}. The two occurrences therefore belong to different $U_j$-cosets: if the first starts at $x$ with vector $u\in U_j$ and the intervening vector is $v\notin U_j$, the second starts at $x+u+v\notin x+U_j$. Variables from different generic labels are also distinct. All $2g$ variables are consequently independent, and Equation~\eqref{eq:hypergraph-inclusion-probability} gives the asserted event probability. \end{proof} \subsection{Avoiding the slab events} The classification controls the probability of each polygon event. To avoid all events simultaneously, we must also control how many of them use any one slab variable. We bound the sum of their probabilities at a fixed $P_{j,C}$; the local lemma will apply once this bound is at most $1/16$. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:hypergraph-event-bounds} Let $\mu$ be the largest, over all variables $P_{j,C}$, of the sum of probabilities of bad events using that variable. Then $\mu=O(q^{-7})$, uniformly in the variable, and every event uses at most four variables. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} The assertion about four variables follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-polygons}, with one variable for a hole-pair event. Fix $P_{j,C}$. There are at most $100$ holes in $C$, since $C\subset C+W_r$ for any $r$. Hole pairs therefore contribute at most $100^2p_*$. For a polygon using this variable, cyclically rotate so that one of its $G_j$ steps starts the sequence. Rotations and orders of at most five labels introduce only an absolute constant factor in all the following counts. For a generic rectangle choose the other label ($\le D$ choices), the sequence's initial point in $C$ ($q^b$ choices), and one vector of each label ($\le q^{2b}$ choices). Closure determines the other two vectors. The contribution is therefore $O(Dq^{3b}p_*^4)$. For a mixed rectangle $G_j,R_r$, both endpoints of the initial generic step belong to $C\cap T_r$. A hole $o$ can contribute to this intersection only if $o\in C+W_r$, so there are at most $100$ such holes. Each intersection $C\cap(o+W_r)$, when nonempty, is a coset of $U_j\cap W_r$. It has $q$ points if $r=\rho(j)$ and one point otherwise. Thus $C\cap T_r$ has at most $100q$ points in the first case and at most $100$ in the second. Choose the two endpoints, and then choose the exceptional vector in $e_r$ in at most $q$ ways. Summing over the $D/q$ bundles gives at most \[ O\left(100^2\left(q^3+\frac Dq\,q\right)\right) =O\bigl(100^2(q^3+D)\bigr) \] mixed rectangles, and hence a contribution $O(100^2(q^3+D)p_*^2)$. This is an upper bound even when some selected endpoints or vectors fail the candidate conditions. For a pentagon the other generic label is in bundle $\rho(j)$, giving at most $q$ choices. Choose the sequence's initial point in $C$, one vector of each generic label, and the exceptional vector. There are at most $q^{b+2b+1}$ choices after the label is chosen. Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-polygons} determines the remaining vectors, so the contribution is $O(q^{3b+2}p_*^4)$. In total, \begin{align*} \mu &\le 100^2p_*+ O\left(Dq^{3b}p_*^4+(D+q^3)p_*^2+q^{3b+2}p_*^4\right)\\ &=O\left(q^{-s-17}+q^{-7}+q^{-s-33} +q^{-2s-31}+q^{-s-6}\right) =O(q^{-7}), \end{align*} using $b=s+20$, Equation~\eqref{eq:hypergraph-growth}, and Equation~\eqref{eq:hypergraph-inclusion-probability}. The constants in these event counts are absolute; in particular the bound is uniform. \end{proof} The following is a special case of the asymmetric Lov\'asz local lemma; we include the classical conditional-probability proof. For the origins see Erd\H{o}s and Lov\'asz~\cite{ErdosLovasz1975}; for the product-form condition used below see \cite[Theorem~1.1]{MoserTardos2009}. No resampling algorithm is needed. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:hypergraph-local-lemma} Let a finite collection of events be determined by independent random variables, with each event assigned a nonempty set of at most four variables that determine it. If the sum of event probabilities at every variable is at most $1/16$, there is positive probability that no event occurs. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Connect two events when their assigned sets share a variable. An event is independent of all its non-neighbors jointly. Set $x_A=2\Pr(A)$. Since each event has a nonempty assigned set, $0\le x_A\le1/8<1$, and for every event \[ \sum_{B\text{ neighbor of }A}x_B\le 2\cdot4\cdot\frac1{16} =\frac12. \] It follows that \begin{equation}\label{eq:hypergraph-local-lemma-condition} \Pr(A)\le x_A\prod_{B\text{ neighbor of }A}(1-x_B), \end{equation} because the product is at least $1-\sum_Bx_B\ge1/2$. We prove inductively that \[ \Pr\left(A\,\middle|\,\bigcap_{B\in\mathcal S}B^c\right)\le x_A \] whenever $\mathcal S$ is a sublist excluding $A$, and that all conditioning events in this assertion have positive probability. The empty sublist follows from Equation~\eqref{eq:hypergraph-local-lemma-condition}. At each induction step, positivity for a sublist follows by exposing its events in order and using the smaller conditional bounds and $x_B<1$. For the bound, split $\mathcal S$ into neighbors and non-neighbors of $A$. Let $B_0$ be avoidance of the non-neighbors and $D_0$ avoidance of the neighbors. Independence gives $\Pr(A\mid B_0)=\Pr(A)$, and \[ \Pr(A\mid B_0\cap D_0) \le \frac{\Pr(A)}{\Pr(D_0\mid B_0)} \le \frac{\Pr(A)} {\prod_{B\in\mathcal S,\ B\text{ neighbor of }A}(1-x_B)} \le x_A. \] The middle bound uses the smaller conditional bounds successively; the last uses Equation~\eqref{eq:hypergraph-local-lemma-condition}. The same successive conditioning for the full finite event list gives positive probability of avoiding all events. \end{proof} By Lemmas~\ref{lem:hypergraph-event-bounds} and \ref{lem:hypergraph-local-lemma}, for all sufficiently large $h$ we can fix the spaces $P_{j,C}$ so that every slab contains at most one hole and none of the candidate polygon events occurs. \subsection{Line partitions, the local trade, and girth} The slab choices have excluded every candidate short polygon with a generic step, but no line partition has yet been specified. We now partition each slab, perform the trades that remove the holes, and check that every possible short incidence cycle is one of the excluded polygons. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:hypergraph-slab-partition} Let a three-dimensional affine space have direction $P\oplus d$, where $\dim_QP=2$ and $\dim_Qd=1$. If it has no designated point, it has a line partition whose directions project nontrivially to $P$. If it has a designated point $o$, it has a line partition containing $o+d$, with every other line's direction projecting nontrivially to $P$. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} In the first case use parallel lines of any fixed nonzero direction in $P$. In the second choose $0\ne\delta\in d$ and a $Q$-linear operator $J$ on $P$ with no eigenvector over $Q$. Identify $P$ with the $Q$-space of a quadratic field extension of $Q$, and let $J$ be multiplication by an element $\eta$ outside $Q$. An equation $\eta x=\lambda x$ with $x\ne0$ and $\lambda\in Q$ would imply $\eta=\lambda$, so this operator has the required property. Besides $o+d$, use the lines \begin{equation}\label{eq:hypergraph-slab-lines} \left\{o+x+\gamma(Jx)\delta: x\in P,\ \gamma(x)=1\right\}, \qquad 0\ne\gamma\in\operatorname{Hom}_Q(P,Q). \end{equation} The set $\gamma(x)=1$ is an affine line in $P$. Its displayed lift is injective, with direction projecting onto the nonzero line $\ker\gamma$, so it is an affine line with the required direction. For each $x\ne0$, the vectors $x,Jx$ form a basis of $P$. For every $c\in Q$ there is consequently exactly one functional with $\gamma(x)=1$ and $\gamma(Jx)=c$, and it is nonzero. Thus the $q^2-1$ lines in Equation~\eqref{eq:hypergraph-slab-lines} partition the $q^3-q$ points off $o+d$. The axis $o+d$ supplies the remaining $q$ points. \end{proof} For each $j$, apply Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-slab-partition} separately in every slab of every coset of $U_j$, using its unique hole as the designated point when present. This gives a preliminary line partition of all of $\mathcal A$ for each $j$. The line through a hole $o$ in partition $j$ is $o+d_j$. These hole axes are the only lines whose directions have zero $E_j$-component. Every other line has a nonzero $E_j$-component in its direction, lying in the corresponding $P_{j,C}$. \begin{lemma}\label{lem:hypergraph-trade} For every hole $o$ and bundle $r$, remove the $q$ lines $o+d_j$ with $\rho(j)=r$, and insert the $q-1$ replacement lines of label $R_r$ in $o+W_r$. After all these operations, the resulting set $\mathcal F$ consists of lines in $V$, and every point of $V$ has degree $D$. The surviving lines of each preliminary partition are pairwise disjoint, as are the replacement lines within each label. There are no duplicate lines across different labels. \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Within $o+W_r$, the removed fan uses every direction except $e_r$. Each point off $o+e_r$ lies on exactly one removed line and exactly one inserted line. The hole $o$ loses $q$ incidences and gains none; other points of $o+e_r$ lose and gain none. Thus every non-hole point has zero net change in degree in each trade. No removal is requested twice. Two holes using the same line of one preliminary partition would be in the same slab, which was excluded. Lines from distinct preliminary partitions have directions in distinct $U_j$'s with zero intersection, so cannot coincide. Inserted lines of a given label are distinct by Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-replacement-lines}. Lines of different labels cannot coincide either: their direction spaces are distinct $U_j$'s or $e_r$'s with pairwise zero intersections, by Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-direction-spaces}. Hence the pointwise degree changes genuinely add when all trades are performed, even if planes from different bundles overlap. Initially every point has one incidence in each of the $D$ partitions. Each hole loses all $D$ of its incidences, and every non-hole retains degree $D$. All inserted lines avoid the holes, and all preliminary lines through a hole were removed. Finally, disjointness within a surviving preliminary label is inherited from its partition, and disjointness within a replacement label was proved in Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-replacement-lines}. \end{proof} The pointwise incidence changes are summarized in Figure~\ref{fig:hypergraph-trade}. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:hypergraph}] Use the holes from Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-holes}, the successful slab choices, and the line family from Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-trade}. The size and degree assertions have been proved. Label surviving preliminary lines from partition $j$ by $G_j$, and replacement lines by their labels $R_r$. Two distinct affine lines have at most one common point, so a cycle of length less than $12$ in the incidence graph would give a polygon of $k=3,4$, or $5$ nonzero steps along its successive lines. Consecutive labels, including the last and first, are different because lines of one label are disjoint. If there is a generic step, this polygon is one of the candidate sequences used above. Each generic step's $E_j$-component lies in its slab direction $P_{j,C}$, so the corresponding bad event would occur, a contradiction. If all steps have replacement labels, the distinct occurring $e_r$ directions are independent: at most five $W_r$'s occur. Closure forces every label to occur at least twice, while cyclic non-adjacency allows at most twice. The only possibility is a four-step alternating rectangle, with opposite vectors paired. This is forbidden by Lemma~\ref{lem:hypergraph-replacement-lines}. Thus the incidence girth is at least $12$. \end{proof} This supplies the full-line system, exact degree, and girth required by Proposition~\ref{prop:pairing}. That proposition uses the same holes to produce the two matrix pairings and the size inequalities for Theorem~\ref{thm:criterion}. Section~\ref{sec:prescription} now makes the choices by finite enumeration. ==== END A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//04-hypergraph.tex ==== ==== BEGIN A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//05-prescription.tex ==== \section{A terminating prescription for the witnesses} \label{sec:prescription} We now fix every choice in the preceding construction. The purpose of the prescription is to define one field, one group, and two finite sums without relying on an unspecified successful random choice. \subsection{Finite search for the incidence data} Order binary coefficient vectors lexicographically, with $0<1$; for a polynomial of fixed degree use the list of coefficients in increasing degree order. For each integer $h\ge2$, perform the following finite computations. \begin{enumerate}[label=\textup{(\arabic*)}] \item Put $q=2^h$, and let $\ell$ be the least prime congruent to $-1$ modulo $q^{100}$. Test successive integers in that class for primality. Linnik's theorem guarantees that this search terminates. Define $D=\ell+1$, $s=\lfloor\log_qD\rfloor$, $b=s+20$, and $n=10b$ as in Section~\ref{sec:hypergraph}. \item Let $g$ be the lexicographically first monic irreducible polynomial over $\F_2$ of degree $h(\ell-1)$, and put \begin{equation} \label{eq:exact-field} K=\F_2[Z]/(g(Z)). \end{equation} Order $K$ by the coefficient vectors of its unique representatives of degree less than $h(\ell-1)$, padded by zeros. Irreducible polynomials of this degree exist, and irreducibility is a finite test. \item Take the subfield \[ Q=\{x\in K:x^q=x\}, \] with its induced order. It has $q$ elements since $h$ divides $h(\ell-1)$. Let $\zeta$ be the first element of $K$ of multiplicative order $\ell$. Such an element exists: Fermat's little theorem gives $\ell\mid 2^{\ell-1}-1$, so $\ell$ divides $|K^\times|=2^{h(\ell-1)}-1$, and $K^\times$ is cyclic. \item Form $\mathcal A=Q^n$ in lexicographic order and the index simplex $S$ of Section~\ref{sec:pairing}. Order subsets of a finite ordered set by their indicator vectors, with $0<1$. In particular this orders affine lines as subsets of $\mathcal A$, families of lines as subsets of the ordered line set, and pairs $(O,\mathcal F)$ lexicographically. Test every pair with $O\subset S$ and $\mathcal F$ a family of full affine $Q$-lines for the following conditions: \begin{enumerate}[label=\textup{(\alph*)}] \item $2q^n/D^2\le |O|\le7q^n/D^2$; \item every line of $\mathcal F$ is contained in $\mathcal A\setminus O$; \item every point of $\mathcal A\setminus O$ lies on exactly $D$ lines of $\mathcal F$; \item the incidence graph has no cycle of length less than $12$. \end{enumerate} \end{enumerate} Start with $h=2$. For a fixed $h$, step~\textup{(4)} tests only finite sets and a finite graph. Stop at the first successful pair; if every pair fails, increase $h$ by one and repeat. This selects the least successful $h$ and then the first successful pair in its prescribed order. Theorem~\ref{thm:hypergraph} guarantees success for every sufficiently large $h$, uniformly in the enumeration of $Q$, so the outer search terminates. The search enumerates the required incidence data directly, not the auxiliary random choices used to prove their existence. The auxiliary extension field in that proof is only a model for a $Q$-vector space; it is not required to embed in $K$. Fix these data and write $m=|O|$, $t=|V|$, where $V=\mathcal A\setminus O$. The indicator polynomials $f_o$ and vectors $x_v$ are the unique ones from Proposition~\ref{prop:pairing}; their coefficients may be computed by finite-field linear algebra. We use the induced orders on $O$, $V$, and $\mathcal F$. \subsection{Local groups, the presentation, and the two sums} At each point $v$, use the standard coordinate copy $K_v^0=(\F_\ell^2,+)$, and for each line $f$ use $L_f^0=(\F_\ell,+)$. Order $\F_\ell$ by the residues $0,\ldots,\ell-1$ and $\F_\ell^2$ lexicographically. Order its one-dimensional subspaces as subsets. Match them in order to the $D=\ell+1$ incident lines at $v$, and define $\iota_{vf}$ by sending $1\in L_f^0$ to the first nonzero vector of the assigned direction. These maps specify the group $N$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:embedding} without any further choices. Choose $v_*$ to be the first point of $V$. The isomorphism $\phi_v:K_v\to K_{v_*}$ preserves the standard coordinates transported from the embedded copies. Order linear forms on $\F_\ell^2$ by their coefficient pairs. Assign the points of $V$, in order, to the first $t$ pairs \[ (s,\alpha),\qquad 1\le s\le m,\quad \alpha\in(\F_\ell^2)^*, \] in lexicographic order. Proposition~\ref{prop:pairing} gives $t\le m\ell^2$, so there are enough pairs. This fixes every slot and every character in the construction of Theorem~\ref{thm:criterion}. For the finite presentation of $N$, use the local zero-sum relators of length at most three, as justified in Section~\ref{sec:criterion}. Section~\ref{sec:packing} then defines $H=N\times\langle z\rangle$, the conjugation extension $L$, the finite group $F=(\mathbb Z/\ell)^m\rtimes S_m$, and finally $G=L\times F$; Section~\ref{sec:finite-presentation} gives the resulting finite presentation. The regular-permutation action used to prove that $H$ embeds in $L$ is an embedding certificate; a choice of such permutations is not part of the definition of the group. With this group fixed, the formulas in Section~\ref{sec:packing} give $e,P,U,T,C,J_0$, the two square matrices $a_{\rm mat},b_{\rm mat}$, and the matrix units $p_{ij}$. The two required finite expressions are \begin{equation} \label{eq:exact-outputs} \begin{split} a_{\mathrm{out}}&=1-\sum_{i=1}^m p_{ii} +\sum_{i,j=1}^m(a_{\rm mat})_{ij}p_{ij},\\ b_{\mathrm{out}}&=1-\sum_{i=1}^m p_{ii} +\sum_{i,j=1}^m(b_{\rm mat})_{ij}p_{ij}. \end{split} \end{equation} Coefficients from $K[L]$ and matrix units from $K[F]$ are viewed in the two factors of $K[G]$. The displayed expressions, together with the preceding formulas, involve only finitely many group words and field coefficients. They define finite sums whether or not distinct displayed words represent the same group element; no word-equality oracle is used to normalize them. \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}] The finite search terminates by Theorem~\ref{thm:hypergraph}. Its output satisfies Proposition~\ref{prop:pairing}, and hence every hypothesis of Theorem~\ref{thm:criterion}. That theorem proves the two product assertions for \eqref{eq:exact-outputs}, supplies a finite presentation of this group $G$, and retains an embedded element of order $\ell$. In particular the nonvanishing of the reverse-product defect follows by specializing the right-hand side of Equation~\eqref{eq:reverse-sandwich}, which lies in $\Mat_t(K[H])$, to a nonzero matrix over $K$; it does not depend on an unproved inequality between group words. The prime $\ell$ is odd, and the field in \eqref{eq:exact-field} is finite of characteristic two. \end{proof} \subsection{Scope of the construction} The construction uses torsion explicitly. The embedded subgroups of orders $\ell$, $\ell^2$, and $\ell^3$ have odd order, so every denominator in their averages is invertible in $K$. In the finite auxiliary group we invert only $|(\mathbb Z/\ell)^m|$, never $|S_m|$. Characteristic two makes the regular degree $\ell+1$ vanish as a scalar, allowing the simultaneous line and total pairing identities of Proposition~\ref{prop:pairing}. No assertion about group algebras of torsion-free groups is needed. For comparison, if $G_0$ is finite, then $K_0[G_0]$ is finite dimensional over every field $K_0$, even when the characteristic divides $|G_0|$. Left multiplication is a faithful representation of this algebra. In finite dimension, $L_aL_b=I$ implies $L_bL_a=I$, and hence $ab=1$ implies $ba=1$. Thus the group in Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is necessarily infinite. Finally, for any group and any two finite group-algebra sums, the union of their supports generates a finitely generated subgroup. Its group algebra embeds in the original one, so both product assertions already hold or fail in that subgroup algebra. Finite generation is therefore automatic for a direct-finiteness counterexample after passing to the support subgroup. The stronger finite-presentation conclusion for the particular group $G$ here comes from the presentation argument in Section~\ref{sec:finite-presentation}; it does not follow merely from finite generation of the support subgroup. ==== END A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//05-prescription.tex ==== ==== BEGIN A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//06-cellular-automata.tex ==== \section{An injective nonsurjective cellular automaton} \label{sec:cellular} The scalar elements constructed in Section~\ref{sec:prescription} now give a cellular automaton over the finite alphabet $K$. We prove the standard transfer explicitly, in the right-neighbor convention used in the introduction; compare\ \cite[Section~1]{ElekSzabo2004}. The proof applies to all configurations, not just finitely supported ones, and identifies the image by finite local equations. \subsection{The group algebra acting on all configurations} For this subsection, let $K$ be any field and $G$ any group, with identity $1_G$. For $c=\sum_{u\in G}c_u u\in K[G]$, put $\supp(c)=\{u\in G:c_u\ne0\}$. Multiplication in $K[G]$ is \[ (cd)_w=\sum_{uv=w}c_ud_v. \] Every sum has only finitely many nonzero terms. Define a $K$-linear map $T_c:K^G\to K^G$ by \begin{equation} \label{eq:ca-operator} (T_cx)(g)=\sum_{u\in G}c_u x(gu). \end{equation} This sum is finite even when $x$ has infinite support. If $K$ is finite, it is a cellular automaton with memory $\supp(c)$. \begin{lemma} \label{lem:ca-representation} For every field $K$ and group $G$, the assignment $c\mapsto T_c$ is a faithful unital $K$-algebra homomorphism from $K[G]$ to the algebra of $K$-linear endomorphisms of $K^G$, with composition as multiplication. In particular, \begin{equation} \label{eq:ca-composition} T_c\circ T_d=T_{cd},\qquad T_1=\id_{K^G}. \end{equation} \end{lemma} \begin{proof} Linearity in $c$ and the identity $T_1=\id_{K^G}$ follow directly from Equation~\eqref{eq:ca-operator}. For $x\in K^G$ and $g\in G$, \begin{align*} (T_c(T_dx))(g) &=\sum_{u\in G}c_u\sum_{v\in G}d_vx(guv)\\ &=\sum_{w\in G}\left(\sum_{uv=w}c_ud_v\right)x(gw) =(T_{cd}x)(g). \end{align*} All sums being regrouped are finite. In particular, the product is $cd$, not $dc$, for this right-neighbor convention. For $h\in G$, let $\delta_h\in K^G$ take value $1_K$ at $h$ and zero elsewhere. Then \begin{equation} \label{eq:ca-coefficient} (T_c\delta_h)(1_G)=c_h. \end{equation} Thus $T_c=0$ implies that every coefficient $c_h$ is zero, proving faithfulness. \end{proof} \subsection{The local rule and its image} \begin{proposition} \label{prop:ca-transfer} Let $K$ be a finite field, $G$ a group, and $a,b\in K[G]$ satisfy $ab=1$. Put $M=\supp(b)$ and define \begin{equation} \label{eq:ca-rule} \phi:K^M\longrightarrow K, \qquad \phi(p)=\sum_{u\in M}b_up(u). \end{equation} The cellular automaton $\tau=T_b$ is injective, and \begin{equation} \label{eq:ca-image} \im(\tau)=\{y\in K^G:T_{ba}y=y\}. \end{equation} If $ba\ne1$, every $h\in G$ with $(ba-1)_h\ne0$ gives a configuration $\delta_h\notin\im(\tau)$; hence $\tau$ is not surjective. \end{proposition} \begin{proof} The support of $b$ is finite, so Equation~\eqref{eq:ca-rule} is a single finite-memory local rule, used at every $g\in G$. The alphabet $K$ is finite and nonempty. Lemma~\ref{lem:ca-representation} gives \begin{equation} \label{eq:ca-leftinverse} T_a\circ\tau=T_{ab}=T_1=\id_{K^G}. \end{equation} Applying $T_a$ to $\tau(x)=\tau(x')$ yields $x=x'$ for arbitrary $x,x'\in K^G$. If $y=\tau(x)=T_bx$, then \[ T_{ba}y=T_bT_aT_bx=T_bx=y, \] by Equation~\eqref{eq:ca-leftinverse}. Conversely, if $T_{ba}y=y$, then $y=T_b(T_ay)$ lies in the image of $\tau$. This proves Equation~\eqref{eq:ca-image}. If $(ba-1)_h\ne0$, Equation~\eqref{eq:ca-coefficient} gives \[ \bigl(T_{ba}\delta_h-\delta_h\bigr)(1_G) =\bigl(T_{ba-1}\delta_h\bigr)(1_G) =(ba-1)_h\ne0. \] Therefore $\delta_h$ is not fixed by $T_{ba}$, and Equation~\eqref{eq:ca-image} excludes it from the image. This calculation also covers $h=1_G$, when $\delta_h(1_G)=1_K$ rather than zero. \end{proof} Equation~\eqref{eq:ca-image} describes the image by the uniform finite local equations \[ \sum_{u\in\supp(ba-1)}(ba-1)_u\,y(gu)=0 \qquad(g\in G). \] Thus the missing configuration has no preimage even among infinitely supported functions. No restriction to finitely supported configurations has entered the argument. The memory need not be minimal. If a finite expression for $b$ is $b=\sum_{j=1}^r\lambda_j u_j$, with $\lambda_j\in K$ and $u_j\in G$ and with repetitions allowed, take $M'=\{u_j:1\le j\le r\}$ and $\phi'(p)=\sum_{j=1}^r\lambda_j p(u_j)$. Repeated group elements automatically combine to give the same operator $T_b$. Consequently, the finite word expressions of Equation~\eqref{eq:exact-outputs} specify the local rule without an algorithm deciding which displayed words represent the same group element. \begin{corollary} \label{cor:nonsurjunctive} For the field $K$, group $G$, and outputs of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, the cellular automaton $T_{b_{\mathrm{out}}}:K^G\to K^G$ is injective and not surjective. Its image is the fixed set of $T_{b_{\mathrm{out}}a_{\mathrm{out}}}$. In particular, $G$ is not surjunctive. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} Apply Proposition~\ref{prop:ca-transfer} to $a=a_{\mathrm{out}}$ and $b=b_{\mathrm{out}}$. Their product relations are proved in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, and the nonzero reverse-product defect has a nonzero coefficient in the ordinary group algebra. \end{proof} Characteristic two is used to construct the algebraic witnesses, not in Proposition~\ref{prop:ca-transfer}. Finiteness of the field supplies the finite alphabet, and the scalar form of the witnesses makes that alphabet $K$ itself rather than a vector space over $K$. The existence of a nonzero defect coefficient is certified algebraically; no practical execution of the finite search or normalization of group words is asserted. \subsection{Transport to a group of type \texorpdfstring{$F_\infty$}{F infinity}} A group has type $F_\infty$ if it admits a classifying CW complex with finitely many cells in every dimension. The finite presentation of $G$ allows a further consequence: a separate embedding theorem transports the same scalar counterexample to an overgroup of type $F_\infty$. \begin{corollary} \label{cor:finfty-counterexample} For the finite characteristic-two field $K$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, there are a group $U$ of type $F_\infty$ and scalar elements $A,B\in K[U]$ such that $AB=1$ and $BA\ne1$. The group $U$ is nonsofic and nonsurjunctive. \end{corollary} \begin{proof} The group $G$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is finitely presented. The companion embedding theorem~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{UniversalFinftyCompanion} therefore gives an injection $i:G\hookrightarrow U$ into a group of type $F_\infty$. Extending $i$ linearly over the same field $K$ gives a unital algebra injection $i_*:K[G]\hookrightarrow K[U]$: distinct group basis elements remain distinct. Set $A=i_*(a_{\mathrm{out}})$ and $B=i_*(b_{\mathrm{out}})$. Then \[ AB=1,\qquad BA-1=i_*(b_{\mathrm{out}}a_{\mathrm{out}}-1)\ne0. \] If $U$ were sofic, Elek--Szab\'o's theorem \cite[Corollary~4.7]{ElekSzabo2004} would make $K[U]$ stably finite, contradicting these scalar identities. Proposition~\ref{prop:ca-transfer}, applied to $U,K,A,B$, makes $T_B:K^U\to K^U$ an injective nonsurjective cellular automaton over the finite alphabet $K$, with left inverse $T_A$ in the same right-neighbor convention. Hence $U$ is nonsurjunctive. \end{proof} ==== END A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//06-cellular-automata.tex ==== ==== BEGIN A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//diagram-merge.tex ==== \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering \begin{tikzpicture}[ x=1cm, y=1cm, font=\small, merge white/.style={circle, draw, fill=white, line width=.6pt, minimum size=5.5pt, inner sep=0pt}, merge black/.style={circle, draw, fill=black, minimum size=4.5pt, inner sep=0pt}, merge edge/.style={line width=.6pt}, merge auxiliary/.style={densely dashed, line width=.55pt} ] \begin{scope} \coordinate (merge-before-p-position) at (-1.1,1.65); \coordinate (merge-before-q-position) at (1.1,1.65); \coordinate (merge-before-x-position) at (0,0); \draw[merge edge] (-1.55,2.2) -- (merge-before-p-position) -- (merge-before-x-position) -- (merge-before-q-position) -- (1.55,2.2); \draw[merge auxiliary] (merge-before-p-position) .. controls (-.92,1.47) and (-.15,.43) .. (0,.43) .. controls (.15,.43) and (.92,1.47) .. (merge-before-q-position); \node[merge white, label=above:{$f$}, label=left:{$p$}] (merge-before-p) at (merge-before-p-position) {}; \node[merge white, label=above:{$f$}, label=right:{$q$}] (merge-before-q) at (merge-before-q-position) {}; \node[merge black, label=below:{$v$}, label=left:{$x$}] (merge-before-x) at (merge-before-x-position) {}; \node at (-.76,.78) {$a$}; \node at (.76,.78) {$b$}; \end{scope} \draw[-{Stealth[length=5pt]}, line width=.6pt] (1.95,1) -- node[above=3pt] {contract} (3.35,1); \begin{scope}[xshift=5.1cm] \coordinate (merge-after-r-position) at (0,1.65); \coordinate (merge-after-x-position) at (0,0); \draw[merge edge] (-.75,2.2) -- (merge-after-r-position) -- (.75,2.2); \draw[merge edge] (merge-after-x-position) .. controls (-.63,.45) and (-.63,1.2) .. (merge-after-r-position); \draw[merge edge] (merge-after-x-position) .. controls (.63,.45) and (.63,1.2) .. (merge-after-r-position); \node[merge white, label=above:{$f$}, label=right:{$r$}] (merge-after-r) at (merge-after-r-position) {}; \node[merge black, label=below:{$v$}, label=left:{$x$}] (merge-after-x) at (merge-after-x-position) {}; \node at (-.72,.82) {$a$}; \node at (.72,.82) {$b$}; \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \caption{The white vertices $p,q$, both labelled $f$, merge to $r$ along the dashed auxiliary arc in the empty sector between their consecutive edges at the black vertex $x$, labelled $v$. The edges of weights $a,b$ remain distinct parallel edges.} \label{fig:merge} \end{figure} ==== END A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//diagram-merge.tex ==== ==== BEGIN A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//paper.tex ==== \documentclass[11pt]{article} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage{lmodern} \usepackage[margin=1.03in]{geometry} \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,mathtools} \usepackage{enumitem,booktabs,graphicx,xcolor} \usepackage{tikz} \usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta,positioning,calc} \usepackage{microtype} \usepackage{needspace} \usepackage{hyperref} \usepackage{bookmark} \input{glyphtounicode-cmex.tex} \pdfgentounicode=1 \hypersetup{colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue!45!black,citecolor=blue!45!black,urlcolor=blue!45!black,pdftitle={A Counterexample to Kaplansky's Direct-Finiteness Conjecture in Characteristic Two},pdfauthor={OpenAI}} \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section] \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition} \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma} \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary} \theoremstyle{definition} \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition} \theoremstyle{remark} \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark} \numberwithin{equation}{section} \newcommand{\F}{\mathbb F} \newcommand{\Mat}{\operatorname{Mat}} \newcommand{\diag}{\operatorname{diag}} \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}} \newcommand{\im}{\operatorname{im}} \newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}} \newcommand{\supp}{\operatorname{supp}} \newcommand{\GL}{\operatorname{GL}} \setlist[enumerate]{itemsep=3pt,topsep=5pt} \setlist[itemize]{itemsep=3pt,topsep=5pt} \setlength{\emergencystretch}{1.5em} \title{A Counterexample to Kaplansky's Direct-Finiteness Conjecture in Characteristic Two} \author{OpenAI} \date{September 23, 2026} \begin{document} \maketitle \begin{abstract} We disprove Kaplansky's direct-finiteness conjecture by constructing a finite field $K$ of characteristic two, a finitely presented group $G$, and finite sums $a,b\in K[G]$ with $ab=1$ but $ba\ne1$. The group $G$ is nonsofic. The same elements define a cellular automaton on $K^G$ that is injective but not surjective, disproving Gottschalk's surjunctivity conjecture. \end{abstract} \input{sections/01-introduction} \input{sections/03-pairing} \input{sections/02-criterion} \input{sections/04-hypergraph} \input{sections/05-prescription} \input{sections/06-cellular-automata} \bibliographystyle{alphaurl} \bibliography{references} \end{document} ==== END A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//paper.tex ==== ==== BEGIN A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//trade.tex ==== \begin{figure}[htbp] \centering \begin{tikzpicture}[>=Stealth,scale=.9, every node/.style={font=\small}] \begin{scope}[shift={(-3.35,0)}] \draw[rounded corners,gray!55] (-2.25,-1.65) rectangle (2.25,1.65); \node at (0,2.05) {Remove a fan of $q$ lines}; \draw[gray,dashed] (0,-1.45)--(0,1.45); \draw[blue!65!black] (-1.9,-1.1)--(1.9,1.1); \draw[blue!65!black] (-1.9,-.4)--(1.9,.4); \draw[blue!65!black] (-1.9,.4)--(1.9,-.4); \draw[blue!65!black] (-1.9,1.1)--(1.9,-1.1); \fill[red!75!black] (0,0) circle (2.5pt); \node[fill=white,inner sep=1pt,above left] at (-.05,.08) {$o$}; \node[fill=white,inner sep=1pt,above right] at (0,.98) {$o+e_r$}; \node at (0,-2.05) {All directions in $W_r$ except $e_r$}; \end{scope} \draw[->,thick] (-.65,0)--(.65,0); \begin{scope}[shift={(3.35,0)}] \draw[rounded corners,gray!55] (-2.25,-1.65) rectangle (2.25,1.65); \node at (0,2.05) {Insert $q-1$ parallel lines}; \draw[gray,dashed] (0,-1.45)--(0,1.45); \draw[teal!70!black] (-1.65,-1.4)--(-1.65,1.4); \draw[teal!70!black] (-.8,-1.4)--(-.8,1.4); \draw[teal!70!black] (1.35,-1.4)--(1.35,1.4); \fill[red!75!black] (0,0) circle (2.5pt); \node[fill=white,inner sep=1pt,above left] at (-.05,.08) {$o$}; \node[fill=white,inner sep=1pt,above right] at (0,.98) {$o+e_r$}; \node at (0,-2.05) {Direction $e_r$; omit the line through $o$}; \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \caption{Schematic of the trade inside $o+W_r$. Every point off $o+e_r$ loses and gains one incidence; $o$ loses $q$ incidences, and other points of $o+e_r$ are unaffected. The strokes illustrate line families, not a real-plane realization of finite-field incidences.} \label{fig:hypergraph-trade} \end{figure} ==== END A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//trade.tex ==== ==== BEGIN A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//references.bib ==== @article{Xylouris2011, author = {Xylouris, Triantafyllos}, title = {On the least prime in an arithmetic progression and estimates for the zeros of {Dirichlet} {$L$}-functions}, journal = {Acta Arithmetica}, volume = {150}, number = {1}, pages = {65--91}, year = {2011}, doi = {10.4064/aa150-1-4}, url = {https://www.impan.pl/shop/publication/transaction/download/product/83078} } @article{CSCPhungMonoid2025, author = {Ceccherini-Silberstein, Tullio and Coornaert, Michel and Phung, Xuan Kien}, title = {Stable finiteness of monoid algebras and surjunctivity}, journal = {Theoretical Computer Science}, volume = {1042}, pages = {115228}, year = {2025}, doi = {10.1016/j.tcs.2025.115228}, url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18287v1}, note = {Preprint version: arXiv:2405.18287v1} } @article{CSCPhungGroup2025, author = {Ceccherini-Silberstein, Tullio and Coornaert, Michel and Phung, Xuan Kien}, title = {First-order model theory and {Kaplansky}'s stable finiteness conjecture for surjunctive groups}, journal = {Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics}, volume = {19}, pages = {495--503}, year = {2025}, doi = {10.4171/GGD/885}, url = {https://ems.press/content/serial-article-files/51166?nt=1} } @article{DykemaJuschenko2015, author = {Dykema, Ken and Juschenko, Kate}, title = {On stable finiteness of group rings}, journal = {Algebra and Discrete Mathematics}, volume = {19}, number = {1}, pages = {44--47}, year = {2015}, url = {https://admjournal.luguniv.edu.ua/index.php/adm/article/view/1174} } @article{ElekSzabo2004, author = {Elek, G{\'a}bor and Szab{\'o}, Endre}, title = {Sofic groups and direct finiteness}, journal = {Journal of Algebra}, volume = {280}, number = {2}, pages = {426--434}, year = {2004}, doi = {10.1016/j.jalgebra.2004.06.023}, url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0305440v2} } @misc{GolowichLin2024, author = {Golowich, Louis and Lin, Ting-Chun}, title = {Quantum {LDPC} codes with transversal non-{Clifford} gates via products of algebraic codes}, howpublished = {arXiv:2410.14662v1}, year = {2024}, url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14662v1} } @inproceedings{DinurLiuZhang2025, author = {Dinur, Irit and Liu, Siqi and Zhang, Rachel Yun}, title = {New codes on high dimensional expanders}, booktitle = {40th Computational Complexity Conference ({CCC} 2025)}, series = {Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics}, volume = {339}, pages = {27:1--27:42}, publisher = {Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik}, year = {2025}, doi = {10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2025.27}, url = {https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.CCC.2025.27} } @article{AraOMearaPerera2002, author = {Ara, Pere and O'Meara, Kevin C. and Perera, Francesc}, title = {Stable finiteness of group rings in arbitrary characteristic}, journal = {Advances in Mathematics}, volume = {170}, number = {2}, pages = {224--238}, year = {2002}, doi = {10.1006/aima.2002.2075} } @article{Montgomery1969, author = {Montgomery, M. Susan}, title = {Left and right inverses in group algebras}, journal = {Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society}, volume = {75}, number = {3}, pages = {539--540}, year = {1969}, doi = {10.1090/S0002-9904-1969-12234-2} } @article{Linnik1944, author = {Linnik, U. V.}, title = {On the least prime in an arithmetic progression. {I}. {The} basic theorem}, journal = {Recueil Math\'ematique (Nouvelle s\'erie)}, volume = {15(57)}, number = {2}, pages = {139--178}, year = {1944}, url = {https://www.mathnet.ru/eng/sm6196} } @article{HNN1949, author = {Higman, Graham and Neumann, B. H. and Neumann, Hanna}, title = {Embedding theorems for groups}, journal = {Journal of the London Mathematical Society}, volume = {24}, number = {4}, pages = {247--254}, year = {1949}, doi = {10.1112/jlms/s1-24.4.247} } @incollection{ErdosLovasz1975, author = {Erd{\H{o}}s, Paul and Lov{\'a}sz, L{\'a}szl{\'o}}, title = {Problems and results on 3-chromatic hypergraphs and some related questions}, booktitle = {Infinite and Finite Sets, Vol.~II}, series = {Colloquia Mathematica Societatis J{\'a}nos Bolyai}, volume = {10}, publisher = {North-Holland}, address = {Amsterdam}, pages = {609--627}, year = {1975}, url = {https://www.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/1975-34.pdf} } @misc{MoserTardos2009, author = {Moser, Robin A. and Tardos, G{\'a}bor}, title = {A constructive proof of the general {Lov{\'a}sz Local Lemma}}, howpublished = {arXiv:0903.0544v3}, year = {2009}, url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0544v3} } @article{DynFloater2014, author = {Dyn, Nira and Floater, Michael S.}, title = {Multivariate polynomial interpolation on lower sets}, journal = {Journal of Approximation Theory}, volume = {177}, pages = {34--42}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.1016/j.jat.2013.09.008} } @incollection{Gottschalk1973, author = {Gottschalk, Walter}, title = {Some general dynamical notions}, editor = {Beck, Anatole}, booktitle = {Recent Advances in Topological Dynamics}, series = {Lecture Notes in Mathematics}, volume = {318}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Berlin, Heidelberg}, pages = {120--125}, year = {1973}, doi = {10.1007/BFb0061728} } @article{Gromov1999, author = {Gromov, Mikhail}, title = {Endomorphisms of symbolic algebraic varieties}, journal = {Journal of the European Mathematical Society}, volume = {1}, number = {2}, pages = {109--197}, year = {1999}, doi = {10.1007/PL00011162} } @article{Weiss2000, author = {Weiss, Benjamin}, title = {Sofic groups and dynamical systems}, journal = {Sankhy{\=a}: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A}, volume = {62}, number = {3}, pages = {350--359}, year = {2000}, url = {https://www.jstor.org/stable/25051326} } @article{CSCCoornaert2006, author = {Ceccherini-Silberstein, Tullio and Coornaert, Michel}, title = {Linear cellular automata: {Garden} of {Eden Theorem}, {L}-surjunctivity and group rings}, journal = {Algebra and Discrete Mathematics}, note = {no.~2}, pages = {22--35}, year = {2006}, url = {https://admjournal.luguniv.edu.ua/index.php/adm/article/view/886} } @article{Phung2023, author = {Phung, Xuan Kien}, title = {A geometric generalization of {Kaplansky}'s direct finiteness conjecture}, journal = {Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society}, volume = {151}, number = {7}, pages = {2863--2871}, year = {2023}, url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.07930v1} } @misc{DeterminantCompanion, author = {{OpenAI}}, title = {{A Counterexample to the Group-Ring Determinant Conjecture}}, howpublished = {OpenAI Math Release preprint \href{https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/A-Counterexample-to-the-Group-Ring-Determinant-Conjecture-September-23-2026/paper.pdf}{OAI:A-Counterexample-to-the-Group-Ring-Determinant-Conjecture-September-23-2026}}, year = {2026} } @misc{UniversalFinftyCompanion, author = {{OpenAI}}, title = {{A universal group of type $F_\infty$}}, howpublished = {OpenAI Math Release preprint \href{https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/preprints/A-universal-group-of-type-F-infinity-September-23-2026/paper.pdf}{OAI:A-universal-group-of-type-F-infinity-September-23-2026}}, year = {2026} } ==== END A-Counterexample-to-Kaplanskys-Direct-Finiteness-Conjecture-in-Characteristic-Two//references.bib ====