In Section 2 we explained, that instead of studying the
index of the subgroup generated by in for
we can instead study the index of the subgroup generated
by in where is the group
generated by , respectively
This is done in this section by choosing relators from , i.e. splitting
, and then trying to complete with respect to the
ordering chosen using the Knuth-Bendix completion procedure.
When this can be done successfully, Gröbner basis techniques in more general
group rings can be applied.
For example, provided the relators are of the form ,
, we can use the Knuth-Bendix
completion procedure to get a finite,
convergent presentation of the underlying group.
For the examples ,
all relators having this form were used to
define the new respective groups
(see Table 2).
The example in general gives better results than before, that is, fewer cosets are enumerated. The best result is now 45/45 cosets enumerated maximal/total for syl-l-abAB and I-ALL compared to 143/143 for kbo-A and NONE.
For on the other hand we get worse results, that is for most combinations more cosets have to be enumerated. The best result now is 913/1045 cosets enumerated maximal/total for syl-l-CcBbAa and P-R compared to 821/867 for kbo-a and P-ALL.
For we get optimal results for all orderings combined with strategy NONE. All other combinations are equally good or better, with two exceptions, namely strategy I-R combined with the syllable ordrings.
For we get better results for most combinations but the are quite some combinations which behave worse. The best result improved to 1092/1103 cosets enumerated maximal/total for kbo-B and NONE compared to 1105/1566 for kbo-A and P-R.
For most combinations are worse and only a few are better. The best result which was already optimal remained the same.
For we have almost as many combinations which are better as those which are worse. The best result improved to 448/549 cosets enumerated maximal/total for syl-l-abAB and I-R compared to 766/773 for kbo-A and NONE.
For holds the same. The best result improved to 560/656 cosets enumerated maximal/total for syl-l-CcBbAa and NONE compared to 1637/1671 for ll-CcBbAa and I-R.
For again we have a mix of better and worse combinations. The best result improved to 30949/42538 cosets enumerated maximal/total for ll-abcABC and P-ALL compared to 43931/56621 for syl-l-CcBbAa and P-ALL. But it is still worse than the best results for Felsch. Nevertheless, we are about as good as the default strategy of Felsch type.
Overall, we have the same problem as before. We have no hints about which combination to choose to get good results for the coset enumeration process. Nevertheless, we have an additional parameter to further improve this process. It should be noted, that we also have the choice not to add all of the relators having the form . That is, we can move only some of them or even other relators, provided that there exists a finite and convergent presentation of the underlying group.
For example, in Appendix E.3 the results for the example are tabulated but this time we split the set of relators into and . This was inspired by the fact that is one of the generators of the subgroup. As before some combinations yielded better results some worse. The best result was 911/995 cosets enumerated maximal/total for kbo-C and P-ALL and lies between the best result for the standard enumeration, which was 821/867 for kbo-a and P-ALL, and the best result for the first modified enumeration, which is 913/1045 for syl-l-CcBbAa and P-R.