arXiv:1702.02997v3 [] 28 Mar 2018

The Noether numbers and the Davenport
constants of the groups of order less than 32
Kálmán Cziszter

∗ 1

, Mátyás Domokos

†1

and István Szöllősi

‡2,1

1

MTA Rényi Institute, 1053 Budapest, Reáltanoda utca 13-15,
Hungary
2
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Babeş-Bolyai
University, str. M. Kogălniceanu, nr. 1, 400084, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania

Abstract
The computation of the Noether numbers of all groups of order less
than thirty-two is completed. It turns out that for these groups in nonmodular characteristic the Noether number is attained on a multiplicity
free representation, it is strictly monotone on subgroups and factor groups,
and it does not depend on the characteristic. Algorithms are developed
and used to determine the small and large Davenport constants of these
groups. For each of these groups the Noether number is greater than the
small Davenport constant, whereas the first example of a group whose
Noether number exceeds the large Davenport constant is found, answering
partially a question posed by Geroldinger and Grynkiewicz.
2010 MSC: 13A50 (Primary) 20D60 (Secondary)
Keywords: polynomial invariant, product-one sequence, degree bound,
Noether number, Davenport constant

1
1.1

Introduction
The Noether number

Fix a base field F and a finite group G. Given a G-module V (i.e. a finite
dimensional F-vector space V together with an action of G via linear transformations) there is an induced action of G on the symmetric tensor algebra
S(V ) by F-algebra automorphisms. More concretely, S(V ) can be identified
with the polynomial algebra F[x1 , . . . , xn ] where x1 , . . . , xn is a basis of V , on
∗ Email: cziszter.kalman@gmail.com
Partially supported by National Research, Development and Innovation Office, NKFIH grants
PD113138, ERC HU 15 118286 and K115799.
† Email: domokos.matyas@renyi.mta.hu
Supported by National Research, Development and Innovation Office, NKFIH K 119934.
‡ Email: szollosi@gmail.com
Supported by ERC-AdG 321104 and GTC-31816 (Babeş-Bolyai University grant).

1

which G acts via linear substitutions of the variables. Noether [27] proved that
the algebra
S(V )G = {f ∈ S(V ) : g · f = f for all g ∈ G}
of polynomial invariants is generated by finitely many homogeneous elements.
Denote by β(S(V )G ) the minimal non-negative integer d such that S(V )G is
generated by its homogeneous components of degree at most d. Here we refer
to the standard grading on S(V ), so the variables xi all have degree one. The
Noether number of G is
β F (G) = sup{β(S(V )G ) : V is a G-module}.
The following general facts are well known:
(
=∞
when char(F) | |G|
F
β (G)
≤ |G| when char(F) ∤ |G|;

(1)

(see [29] for the case char(F) | |G|, [26] for the case char(F) = 0 and [14], [15]
for the case 0 < char(F) ∤ |G|).
From now on we assume that F is a fixed base field with char(F) ∤ |G|, and
write β(G) := β F (G) by suppressing from the notation the dependence of the
Noether number on F. It is well known that the Noether number is unchanged
when we extend the base field (see Subsection 4.3 for more information), so we
may assume in proofs that F is algebraically closed.
The exact value of the Noether number is known only for a very limited class
of groups. First of all, we have
β(G) = D(G) for abelian G

(2)

where D(G) is the Davenport constant (the maximal length of an irreducible
zero-sum sequence over G); this observation was used first in [30]. The exact
value of D(G) is known among others for abelian p-groups and for abelian groups
of rank at most two. Considering non-abelian groups, the Noether number of
the dihedral groups was determined in [30] (and in [32] for non-modular positive
characteristic) along with the Noether numbers of the quaternion group of order
8 and the alternating group A4 . Recent works of the first two authors of the
present paper (see [7], [8], [4], [5], [10]) added a few more (series) of groups to
this short list. These results indicated that a complete table of the Noether
numbers of “small” groups might be within reach. It turned out that indeed,
the reduction lemmas from [7] and considerations similar to the methods used
in the above mentioned papers are sufficient to determine the Noether numbers
for all groups of order less than 32. Note that the number of non-abelian groups
of order 32 is 44. This explains our choice of limiting the scope of this paper to
the groups of order less than 32.

1.2

The Davenport constants

Equality (2) inspired Geroldinger and Grynkiewicz [18] to look for an analogue
in the case of non-abelian groups. By a sequence over the finite group G we
mean a finite sequence of elements from G which is unordered and repetition of
terms is allowed. A sequence is product-one if the product of its elements in an
2

appropriate order is 1G . A sequence is product-one free if it has no product-one
subsequences. The small Davenport constant d(G) was defined in [28] as the
maximal length of a product-one free sequence. A sequence is considered as
an element of the free abelian monoid F (G) and product-one sequences form a
submonoid B(G) of F (G). The large Davenport constant D(G) was defined in
[18] as the maximal length of an atom (irreducible element) in B(G). We have
the inequality
d(G) + 1 ≤ D(G)
with equaliy for abelian G. The question whether β(G) is always between d(G)+
1 and D(G) was raised in [18] (the possible relation between the Noether number
and Davenport constants is discussed further in [10]). Using the implementation
of our algorithms presented in Section 6 we completed the determination of d(G)
and D(G) for groups of order less than 32. It turned out that d(G)+1 ≤ β(G) ≤
D(G) holds for these groups with the only exception being the Heisenberg group
H27 of order 27, for which we have β(H27 ) > D(H27 ).

1.3

Outline of the paper

In Section 2 we give a table containing the values of the Noether number and
the Davenport constants for each non-abelian group of order less than 32. In
Section 3 we provide references and proofs to verify the Noether numbers in
the table. We draw consequences from the obtained data and state some open
questions in Section 4. In particular, in non-modular characteristic for each
group of order less than 32 the Noether number is attained on a multiplicity
free representation (see Theorem 4.2), the Noether number is strictly monotone
with respect to taking subgroups or factor groups (see Theorem 4.5, which
is generalized to arbitrary finite groups in the subsequent paper [9]) and the
Noether number does not depend on the characteristic (see Theorem 4.7). In
Section 5 we turn to the Davenport constants. Notation and known results are
recalled in Sections 5.1 and 5.2. In Section 5.3 we present a theoretical proof
for the fact that D(H27 ) = 8; this seems to be of special interest because so
far this is the only known example of a group for which the Noether number is
greater than the large Davenport constant. Section 6 contains the description
of the algorithms we employed to compute the Davenport constants given in the
table in Section 2.

2

Noether numbers and Davenport constants

The classification of all groups of order less than 32 is given e.g. in [24, Chapter 22]. In the table below we present the Noether numbers and Davenport
constants of all the non-abelian groups of order less than 32. In the first
column we also give for reference the GAP (see [16]) identification numbers
(m, n) using which these groups can be constructed in GAP by the function call
SmallGroup(m,n).

3

GAP
G
(6, 1)
S3 = Dih6
Dih8
(8, 3)
(8, 4)
Q8 = Dic8
(10, 1)
Dih10
Dic12 = C3 ⋊ C4
(12, 1)
(12, 3)
A4
(12, 4)
Dih12
Dih14
(14, 1)
(16, 3) (C2 × C2 ) ⋊ C4 = (C4 × C2 ) ⋊ψ C2
C4 ⋊ C4
(16, 4)
(16, 6)
M16
(16, 7)
Dih16
SD16
(16, 8)
(16, 9)
Dic16
(16, 11)
Dih8 × C2 = (C4 × C2 ) ⋊−1 C2
Q8 × C2
(16, 12)
(16, 13)
(P auli) = (C4 × C2 ) ⋊φ C2
(18, 1)
Dih18
(18, 3)
S3 × C3
(18, 4)
(C3 × C3 ) ⋊−1 C2
Dic20
(20, 1)
(20, 3)
C5 ⋊ C4
(20, 4)
Dih20
C7 ⋊ C3
(21, 1)
(22, 1)
Dih22
C3 ⋊ C8
(24, 1)
(24, 3)
SL2 (F3 ) = Ã4
Dic24 = C3 ⋊ Q8
(24, 4)
(24, 5)
Dih6 × C4
(24, 6)
Dih24
Dic12 × C2
(24, 7)
(24, 8)
C3 ⋊ Dih8 = (C6 × C2 ) ⋊γ C2
(24, 10)
Dih8 × C3
Q8 × C3
(24, 11)
(24, 12)
S4
(24, 13)
A4 × C2
(24, 14)
Dih12 × C2 = (C6 × C2 ) ⋊−1 C2
(26, 1)
Dih26
H27 = U T3 (F3 )
(27, 3)
(27, 4)
M27 = C9 ⋊ C3
(28, 1)
Dic28 = C7 ⋊ C4
Dih28
(28, 3)
(30, 1)
Dih6 × C5
Dih10 × C3
(30, 2)
(30, 3)
Dih30

d
3
4
4
5
6
4
6
7
5
6
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
9
7
5
10
7
10
8
11
12
7
12
12
12
8
7
12
12
6
7
7
13
6
10
14
14
15
15
15

β
4
5
6
6
8
6
7
8
6
7
9
9
9
10
6
7
7
10
8
6
12
8
11
9
12
13
12
14
13
13
9
9
13
13
9
8
8
14
9
11
16
15
16
16
16

D
reference for β
6
[8, Theorem 10.3]
6
[8, Theorem 10.3]
6
[8, Theorem 10.3]
10
[8, Theorem 10.3]
9
[8, Theorem 10.3]
7
[7, Theorem 3.4]
9
[8, Theorem 10.3]
14
[8, Theorem 10.3]
7
Proposition 3.10
8
Proposition 3.1
10
[8, Theorem 10.3]
12
[8, Theorem 10.3]
12
[8, Theorem 10.3]
12
[8, Theorem 10.3]
7
[8, Corollary 5.5]
7
Proposition 3.2
7
[10, Example 5.4]
18
[8, Theorem 10.3]
10
Proposition 3.3
10
[8, Corollary 5.5]
15
[8, Theorem 10.3]
10 [7, Proposition 3.2]
15
[8, Theorem 10.3]
14 [7, Proposition 2.24]
22
[8, Theorem 10.3]
15
[8, Theorem 10.3]
13
[7, Corollary 3.6]
18
[8, Theorem 10.3]
15
[8, Theorem 10.3]
18
[8, Theorem 10.3]
11
Proposition 3.4
14
Proposition 3.5
14
[8, Theorem 10.3]
14
[8, Theorem 10.3]
12
[10, Example 5.3]
10
Proposition 3.8
10
[8, Corollary 5.5]
26
[8, Theorem 10.3]
8
[5, Corollary 15]
12
[8, Remark 10.4]
21
[8, Theorem 10.3]
21
[8, Theorem 10.3]
18
[8, Theorem 10.3]
20
[8, Theorem 10.3]
30
[8, Theorem 10.3]

In this table S3 and S4 are the symmetric groups of degree 3 and 4, Q8 is
the quaternion group of order 8, A4 is the alternating group of degree 4 and Ã4
4

is the binary tetrahedral group, H27 is the Heisenberg group of order 27 (i.e.
the group of unitriangular 3 × 3 matrices over the 3-element field). For m ≥ 2,
Dih2m is the dihedral group of order 2m, Dic4m is the dicyclic group given by
generators and relations
Dic4m := ha, b | a2m = 1,

b 2 = am ,

bab−1 = a−1 i.

Using for the semidirect product of two cyclic groups the notation
Cm ⋊d Cn = ha, b | am = 1, bn = 1, bab−1 = ad i

where d ∈ N is coprime to m

we have that SD2k is the semidihedral group
d = 2k−2 − 1 (k ≥ 4),

SD2k = C2k−1 ⋊d C2 ,
and for a prime p and k ≥ 3,
Mpk = Cpk−1 ⋊d Cp ,

d = pk−2 + 1.

Moreover, the symbol ⋊ always stands for a semidirect product that is not a
direct product.

3

Noether numbers

3.1

Abelian groups

It has been long known that for an abelian group G we have d(G) + 1 = β(G) =
D(G), see [10] for a recent survey largely motivated by this fact. Therefore we
can restate known results on the Davenport constants of abelian groups in terms
of the Noether number:
• if G is cyclic then β(G) = |G| (see for example [30]);
• if G is of rank two, i.e. G = Cn ×Cm for some m | n then β(G) = n+m−1
(see for example [19, Theorem 5.8.3]);
Pr
• if G is a p-group, i.e. G = Cpn1 × . . .× Cpnr then β(G) = 1 + i=1 (pni − 1)
(see for example [19, Theorem 5.5.9]);
• if G = C2 × C2 × C2n then D(G) = 2n + 2 by [13].
All abelian groups of order less than 32 fall under one of the four cases above.
We note that more recent progress on the Davenport constants of abelian groups
can be found in [1], [17, Corollary 4.2.13], [31], [2].

3.2

Groups with a cyclic subgroup of index two

Let G be a non-cyclic group having a cyclic subgroup of index two. According
to [8, Theorem 10.3] we have
(
2 if G = Dic4m , m > 1;
1
(3)
β(G) = |G| +
2
1 otherwise.
Formula (3) yields the Noether number for 27 groups out of the 45 groups from
the table in Section 2.
5

3.3

The generalized dihedral groups

The semi-direct product Dih(A) := A ⋊−1 C2 , where A is an abelian group
on which C2 acts by inversion, is called the generalized dihedral group obtained
from A. According to [8, Corollary 5.5] we have
β(Dih(A)) = D(A) + 1.

(4)

Combining this with the known values of Davenport constants given in Section 3.1 we can compute the Noether number of the three generalized dihedral
groups of order less than 32 which are not themselves dihedral groups (these are
(C4 ×C2 )⋊−1 C2 = Dih8 ×C2 , (C3 ×C3 )⋊−1 C2 , (C6 ×C2 )⋊−1 C2 = Dih12 ×C2 ).

3.4

Cases when the reduction lemmas give exact results

The kth Noether number βk (S(V )G ) (where k is a positive integer) was defined
k+1
in [7, Section 1.2] as the top degree of the factor space S(V )G /(S(V )G
,
+)
G
where S(V )+ stands for the sum of the positive degree homogeneous components of S(V )G . The supremum of βk (S(V ))G as V ranges over all G-modules
over F is denoted by βk (G) (for an abelian group G, βk (G) equals the kth
Davenport constant Dk (G) introduced in [22]). In the special case k = 1 we
have β1 (S(V )G ) = β(S(V )G ) and hence β1 (G) = β(G). Using the kth Noether
number one can get upper bounds on β(G) by the following reduction lemma:
β(G) ≤ ββ(G/N ) (N )

for N ⊳ G by [7, Lemma 1.4].

(5)

Lower bounds on β(G) can be derived from the following inequality:
β(G) ≥ β(G/N ) + β(N ) − 1

if G/N is abelian by [8, Theorem 4.3].

(6)

These results already suffice to establish the precise value of the Noether number
for several groups considered below when we combine them with the following
formula for the kth Noether number:
βk (Cn × Cm ) = nk + m − 1 for m | n by [22, Proposition 5].

(7)

Proposition 3.1. β(C4 ⋊ C4 ) = 7.
Proof. We have the lower bound β(C4 ⋊ C4 ) ≥ 2β(C4 ) − 1 = 7 by (6). On the
other hand G = C4 ⋊ C4 contains a normal subgroup isomorphic to the Klein
four-group K4 = C2 × C2 such that G/K4 ∼
= K4 . Hence by (5) and (7) we have
β(G) ≤ ββ(K4 ) (K4 ) = 7.
Proposition 3.2. β(Q8 × C2 ) = 7.
Proof. We have the lower bound β(Q8 × C2 ) ≥ β(Q8 ) + β(C2 ) − 1 = 7 by (6)
since β(Q8 ) = 6 by [30, Lemma 10.1]. On the other hand G has a normal
subgroup K4 such that G/K4 ∼
= K4 . Hence again β(G) ≤ ββ(K4 ) (K4 ) = 7 by
(5) and (7).
Proposition 3.3. β(S3 × C3 ) = 8.
Proof. We have β(S3 × C3 ) = β(C3 ⋊−1 C6 ) ≥ β(C3 ) + β(C6 ) − 1 = 8 by (6)
and the upper bound β(S3 × C3 ) ≤ β2 (C3 × C3 ) = 8 by (5) and (7).
6

Proposition 3.4. β(Dic12 × C2 ) = 9.
Proof. We have β(Dic12 ×C2 ) ≥ β(Dic12 )+β(C2 )−1 = 8+2−1 = 9 by (6) and
(3). On the other hand the center of the group G = Dic12 × C2 is isomorphic
to the Klein four-group K4 = C2 × C2 and we have G/K4 ∼
= Dih6 . So we get
β(G) ≤ ββ(Dih6 ) (K4 ) = β4 (K4 ) = 2 · 4 + 1 = 9 by (3), (5) and (7).
Proposition 3.5. β(C3 ⋊ Dih8 ) = 9.
Proof. The group G has an index two subgroup N ∼
= C3 ⋊ C4 = Dic12 . By (3)
we have β(N ) = 12 |N | + 2 = 8, implying by (6) that β(G) ≥ 8 + 2 − 1 = 9.
For the reverse inequality observe that the kernel of the action of Dih8 on
C3 is isomorphic to the Klein group K4 = C2 × C2 . So the subgroup K4 ≤ Dih8
is normal in G and as Dih8 /K4 ∼
=
= C2 acts by inversion on C3 we have G/K4 ∼
Dih6 . Therefore β(G) ≤ ββ(Dih6 ) (K4 ) = β4 (K4 ) = 2 · 4 + 1 = 9 by (3), (5) and
(7).
Example 3.6. For later reference let us construct here a representation of
G = C3 ⋊ Dih8 (where the kernel of the conjugation action of Dih8 on C3 is
isomorphic to C2 × C2 ) on which the Noether number is attained. Consider the
two-dimensional G-module U = F2 on which the representation is given by the
matrices






0 1
−1 0
ζ 0
a=
, b=
, c=
1 0
0 1
0 ζ2

where ζ is a primitive third root of unity. Here ha, bi ∼
= Dih8 , ca = c−1 and cb =
c, so these matrices are indeed generating the group in question. Since this group
is generated also by the pseudo-reflections a, b, and ac, the G-module structure
of S(U ) is well known by the Shephard-Todd-Chevalley theorem [3], [33]. In
particular, S(U )G = F[x, y]G is a polynomial ring generated by (xy)2 , x6 +
y 6 . The element x7 y − xy 7 is not contained in the ideal of S(U ) generated
by the above two invariants. It spans a one-dimensional G-invariant subspace
isomorphic to the one-dimensional G-module Fχ corresponding to the order two
homomorphism χ : G → F× given by the determinant on GL(U ). It follows
that in S(U ⊕ Fχ ) the element (x7 y − xy 7 )z is an indecomposable G-invariant,
where z spans the summand Fχ .

3.5

Some groups with an abelian normal subgroup of index two or three

In this section we shall discuss a group G with an abelian normal subgroup
A of index 2 or 3. Let V be a G-module over an algebraically closed base
field F. We shall fix the following notation: I := S(V )A , R := S(V )G . By
Clifford theory we know that each irreducible G-module is 1-dimensional or
is induced from a 1-dimensional A-module. Therefore it is possible to choose
the variables in S(V ) to be A-eigenvectors that are permuted up to scalars
by the action of G. We shall tacitly assume that the variables were chosen
that way. It follows that I is spanned by A-invariant monomials, permuted
by G up to scalars. It will be convenient to use the notation f g = g −1 · f
for g ∈ G and f ∈ S(V ). For a non-zero scalar multiple x of a variable let
b its weight (i.e. xa = (θ(x)(a))x ∈ Fx for all a ∈ A).
us denote by θ(x) ∈ A
b
Here A is the character group of A, i.e. the abelian group consisting of the
7

b ∼
group homomorphisms A → F× . Note that A
= A when F is algebraically
closed. For a non-zero scalar multiple w of a monomial y1 . . . yd the multiset
Φ(w) = {θ(y1 ), . . . , θ(yd )} is called the weight sequence of w. It is a sequence
b (where the order of the elements in a sequence is
over the abelian group A
b form a monoid with
disregarded and repetition is allowed). Sequences over A
multiplication denoted by “·” (see Section 5 for more discussion of this monoid),
such that for monomials w, w′ we have Φ(ww′ ) = Φ(w) · Φ(w′ ). The action of G
b by θg (a) = θ(gag −1 ). For a variable
on A by conjugation induces an action on A
g
x, g ∈ G and a ∈ A we have that x is a non-zero scalar multiple of a variable,
−1
and (xg )a = (xgag )g = (θ(x)(gag −1 )x)g = θ(x)g (a)xg , showing the equality
g
g
θ(x ) = θ(x) . Consequently, for a non-zero scalar multiple w of a monomial
b is extended componentwise
we have Φ(wg ) = Φ(w)g where the action of G on A
G
b
to sequences
over A. Denote by τ = τA : I → R the relative transfer map
P
f 7→ g∈G/A f g . It is a surjective R-module homomorphism, preserving the
grading (inherited from the standard grading on the polynomial ring S(V )).
The following lemma provides the common basis for the proofs of the upper
bounds for Noether numbers below:
b with |S| > d
Lemma 3.7. Suppose that for any zero-sum sequence S over A
which does not factor as the product of 1+[G : A] non-empty zero-sum sequences,
we have a factorization S = S1 · S2 as the product of two zero-sum sequences
satisfying the following: for each g ∈ G \ A, the sequence S1 · S2g factors as
the product of 1 + [G : A] non-empty zero-sum sequences. Then we have the
inequality β(G) ≤ d.
Proof. By Proposition 1.5 in [7], in order to prove β(S(V )G ) ≤ d it is sufficient
to show that I≥d+1 ⊆ I+ R+ where I≥d+1 stands for the sum of homogeneous
components of I of degree at least d + 1. That is, we need to show that any Ainvariant monomial w with deg(w) > d belongs to I+ R+ . So take an arbitrary
A-invariant monomial with deg(w) > d, and denote by S its weight sequence
Φ(w). If S factors into a product of 1 + [G : A] zero-sum sequences, then
w factors as the product of 1 + [G : A] non-trivial A-invariant monomials.
Thus w ∈ (I+ )1+[G:A] . On the other hand by Proposition 1.6 in [7] we have
(I+ )1+[G:A] ⊆ I+ R+ , implying in turn that w ∈ I+ R+ . Next, suppose that S
does not factor as the product of 1 + [G : A] non-empty zero-sum sequences.
Then by assumption we have a factorization S = S1 · S2 with the properties
in the statement. The monomial w factorizes as w = w1 w2 with Φ(w1 ) = S1 ,
Φ(w2 ) = S2 . We have the equality
X
w = w1 τ (w2 ) −
w1 w2g ,

where the summation above ranges over a set of representatives of the A-cosets
in G which are different from A. For each such summand, Φ(w1 w2g ) = S1 · S2g
factors as the product of 1 + [G : A] non-empty zero-sum sequences, so w1 w2g ∈
(I+ )1+[G:A] ⊆ I+ R+ . The first summand w1 τ (w2 ) above is also contained in
I+ R+ since τ (w2 ) ∈ R+ , implying in turn that w ∈ I+ R+ . Thus we showed
I≥d+1 ⊆ I+ R+ .
Proposition 3.8. β(A4 × C2 ) = 8.
Proof. First we show the inequality β(A4 ×C2 ) ≤ 8. We have A4 = K⋊hgi where
K∼
= C2 ×C2 and hgi ∼
= C3 , so G := A4 ×C2 contains an abelian normal subgroup
8

A = K × C2 , where g centralizes the last summand C2 , and conjugation by g
b additively,
gives an order 3 automorphism of K. Write the character group A
and denote its elements by {(0, ε), (a, ε), (b, ε), (c, ε) | ε = 0, 1}, where (0, 0)
is the zero element, {(a, 0), (b, 0), (c, 0), (0, 0)} is a subgroup, and the action
b given by (a, ε)g = (b, ε), (b, ε)g = (c, ε),
of hgi on A induces the action on A
g
(c, ε) = (a, ε). We shall apply Lemma 3.7, so take a zero-sum sequence S over
b with |S| ≥ 9, such that S does not factor as the product of four non-empty
A
b Since β2 (A) = 7 by Lemma 3.7 in [11], 0 does not
zero-sum sequences over A.
occur in S (otherwise S = {0} · T and |T | ≥ 8 > β2 (A) = 7 implies that T
is the product of three non-empty zero-sum sequences, a contradiction). On
b \ {(0, 0)}| implies that S contains an element
the other hand, |S| > 7 = |A
s with multiplicity at least 2, hence S = T0 · T , where T0 , T are zero-sum
sequences, T0 = {s, s} has length 2, so |T | ≥ 7. Note that T does not contain
a zero-sum subsequence of length 2 (since otherwise D(A) = 4 would imply
that S is the product of four non-empty zero-sum sequences). It follows that
b (each having multiplicity one), and so
T consists of the non-zero elements in A
T = T1 T2 where T1 = {(a, 1), (b, 0), (c, 0), (0, 1)}, T2 = {(a, 0), (b, 1), (c, 1)}. Set
S1 := T0 ·T1 and S2 := T2 . The factorization S = S1 ·S2 fulfills the requirements
of Lemma 3.7: indeed, (a, 1) = (c, 1)g occurs both in S1 and S2g , so S can be
written as S = T0 · {(a, 1), (a, 1)} · U where U is a zero-sum sequence of length
5. Hence by D(A) = 4 we get that S1 · S2g factors as the product of four non2
2
empty zero-sum sequences. Similarly, (a, 1) = (b, 1)g occurs also in S2g , hence
2
S1 · S2g also factors as the product of four non-empty zero-sum sequences. By
Lemma 3.7 we conclude that β(G) ≤ 8.
The subgroup K is normal in G and G/K ∼
= C6 , hence by (6) we obtain the
reverse inequality β(G) ≥ β(K) + β(C6 ) − 1 = 3 + 6 − 1 = 8.
Example 3.9. For later use we present a concrete A4 ×C2 -module on which the
Noether number is attained. We keep the notation used in the proof of Proposition 3.8. Let W be the 3-dimensional irreducible A4 -module (the non-trivial
direct summand in the 4-dimensional standard permutation representation of
A4 ) viewed as a G-module under the natural surjection G → A4 with kernel C2 .
Let U be the non-trivial 1-dimensional C2 -module viewed as a G-module under
the natural surjection G → C2 with kernel A4 . Set V := W ⊕(W ⊗U )⊕U . Then
S(V ) = F[x1 , x2 , x3 , y1 , y2 , y3 , z] where x1 , x2 , x3 are A-eigenvectors with weight
(a, 0), (b, 0), (c, 0) and they are permuted cyclically by g. Similarly y1 , y2 , y3 are
A-eigenvectors with weight (a, 1), (b, 1), (c, 1) and they are permuted cyclically
by g. The last variable z is fixed by g and is an A-eigenvector with weight (0, 1).
2
Denote by τ = τAG : I → R the relative transfer map f 7→ f + f g + f g . Then
R is spanned as an F-vector space by τ (w) where w ranges over the A-invariant
monomials. There is an N3 -grading on F[V ] given by
deg3 (xa1 1 xa2 2 xa3 3 y1b1 y2b2 y3b3 z d ) := (a1 + a2 + a3 , b1 + b2 + b3 , d).
This is preserved by the action of G, hence I and R are N3 -graded subalgebras.
Moreover, τ preserves the N3 -grading. We claim that τ (x31 x32 y3 z) is indecomposable, that is, it is not contained in (R+ )2 . Suppose to the contrary that
τ (x31 x32 y3 z) is a linear combination of elements of the form τ (w)τ (w′ ) where w
and w′ are non-trivial A-invariant monomials and deg3 (w)+deg 3 (w′ ) = (6, 1, 1).

9

There is no A-invariant variable in F[V ], so both w and w′ above have total degree at least 2. The hgi-orbits of the A-invariant monomials w with
deg3 (w) = (∗, ∗, 1), deg3 (w) 6= (6, 1, 1) and where deg3 (w) is dominated by
(6, 1, 1) are
x1 x2 y3 z, x31 x2 y3 z, x1 x32 y3 z, x1 x2 x23 y3 z.
The G-invariants of degree 2 or 4 depending only on x1 , x2 , x3 are
τ (x21 ) = x21 + x22 + x23 ,

τ (x21 x22 ) = x21 x22 + x21 x23 + x22 x23 ,

τ (x41 ) = x41 + x42 + x43 .

It follows that
τ (x31 x32 y3 z) = τ (x1 x2 y3 z)(λ1 τ (x41 ) + λ2 τ (x21 x22 ))
+ τ (x21 )(µ1 τ (x31 x2 y3 z) + µ2 τ (x1 x32 y3 z) + µ3 τ (x1 x2 x23 y3 z))
for some λ1 , λ2 , µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ∈ F. Comparing the coefficients of x51 x2 y3 z, x1 x52 y3 z,
x1 x2 x43 y3 z, x1 x32 x23 y3 z we conclude
0 = λ1 + µ1 = λ1 + µ2 = λ1 + µ3 = λ2 + µ2 + µ3 .
It follows that the coefficient λ2 + µ1 + µ2 of x31 x32 y3 z on the right hand side
is 0, whereas on the left hand side it is 1. This contradiction implies that
τ (x31 x32 y3 z) ∈
/ (R+ )2 , hence β(S(V )G ) ≥ 8.
Proposition 3.10. β((C2 × C2 ) ⋊ C4 ) = 6.
Proof. We have G = (C2 × C2 ) ⋊ hgi where hgi ∼
= C4 . The group G contains
the abelian normal subgroup A := C2 × C2 × hg 2 i. We use the same notation
b as in the proof of Proposition 3.8. The action of hgi on A
b
for the elements of A
is given by
(a, ε)g = (b, ε),

(b, ε)g = (a, ε),

(c, ε)g = (c, ε),

(0, ε)g = (0, ε)

for ε = 0, 1.

b with |S| ≥ 7 which is not the product of
Take a zero-sum sequence S over A
three non-empty zero-sum sequences. Since D(A) = 4 by Lemma 3.7 in [11], S
has no zero-sum subsequence of length at most 2. It follows that S consists of the
b (each element having multiplicity 1), hence S = S1 · S2
non-zero elements of A
where S1 = {(b, 0), (b, 1), (0, 1)} and S2 = {(a, 0), (a, 1), (c, 0), (c, 1)}. We have
that
S1 · S2g = {(b, 0), (b, 0)} · {(b, 1), (b, 1)} · {(c, 0), (c, 1), (0, 1)}
is the product of 3 = 1+[G : A] zero-sum sequences. By Lemma 3.7 we conclude
the desired inequality β(G) ≤ 6.
On the other hand β(G) ≥ β(C2 × C2 )+ β(C4 )− 1 = 3 + 4 − 1 = 6 by (6).
Example 3.11. For later use we present a G-module on which the Noether
number of the group G = (C2 × C2 ) ⋊ C4 is attained. Consider the G-module
V = F4 on which the action is given by the matrices






0 1 0 0
−1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 
0 1 0 0
0 −1 0 0 





a=
0 0 1 0  , b =  0 0 1 0  , c = 0 0 ω 0 
0 0 0 ω
0 0 0 −1
0 0 0 −1
10

where ω is a primitive fourth root of unity. Then a, b generate a subgroup of
GL(V ) isomorphic to C2 × C2 , c4 is the identity matrix, and conjugation by
c interchanges a and b. So G can be identified with the subgroup of GL(F4 )
generated by a, b, c. Moreover, the 2 × 2 upper left blocks of a, b, c give the
reflection representation of G = G/hc2 i ∼
= Dih8 on W = F2 ⊂ V . Denote by
x, y, z, w the standard basis vectors in V = F4 , so W = SpanF {x, y}, S(V ) =
F[x, y, z, w] and S(W ) = F[x, y]. We claim that the G-invariant
xy(x2 − y 2 )zw
b given by
in F[x, y, z, w]G is indecomposable. Consider the characters χ, ψ ∈ G
χ(a) = χ(b) = χ(c) = −1,

ψ1 (a) = ψ1 (b) = 1, ψ1 (c) = ω,

ψ2 (a) = ψ2 (b) = −1, ψ2 (c) = ω
and Fχ , Fψ1 , Fψ2 the corresponding one-dimensional G-modules. Clearly we
have the G-module isomorphisms
Fz ∼
= F ψ1 ,

Fw ∼
= F ψ2 ,

Fxy(x2 − y 2 ) ∼
= Fχ .

Since c restricts to an order two transformation of W , the modules Fψ1 , Fψ2 and
their duals do not occur as a summand in S(W ), it follows that S(V )G contains
no element that has degree 1 in z and degree 0 in w, and S(V )G contains no
element that has degree 1 in w and degree 0 in z. The equalities ψ1 ψ2 = χ
and χ2 = 1 show that the elements of S(V )G having degree 1 both in z and w
are exactly the elements of the form zwh where h ∈ S(W ) and Fh ∼
= Fχ . The
G-module structure of S(W ) and the structure of S(V )G ∩ S(W ) = S(W )G is
well known from the Shephard-Todd-Chevalley Theorem [3], [33]. We infer that
Fχ occurs with multiplicity one in the degree 4 component of S(W ), namely as
the subspace spanned by xy(x2 − y 2 ), and does not occur in lower degrees. This
clearly implies that xy(x2 − y 2 )zw is indecomposable in S(V )G .

4
4.1

Observations and open questions
The Noether number and multiplicity free representations

When char(F) = 0, it was shown in [30] that as a consequence of Weyl’s Theorem
on polarizations, β(G) is attained on the regular representation of G, which
contains each irreducible G-module with multiplicity equal to its dimension
(see [25] for a variant of Weyl’s Theorem [35] valid in positive non-modular
characteristic). However for the small groups studied here, the Noether number
is usually attained on some G-modules of much smaller dimensions. Recall that a
G-module V is multiplicity free if it is the direct sum of pairwise non-isomorphic
irreducible G-modules.
To deal with some particular cases below, we need first to state explicitly
the following corollary of the proof of the inequality (6) given in [8]:
Lemma 4.1. Let N be a normal subgroup of G with G/N abelian. For any
N -module W there exists a multiplicity free G/N -module U such that
G
N
β(S(U ⊕ IndG
N W ) ) ≥ β(S(W ) ) + D(G/N ) − 1.

11

In particular, if β(S(W )N ) = β(N ), β(G) = β(N ) + D(G/N ) − 1, IndG
N (W ) is
multiplicity free and has no summand on which N acts trivially, then β(G) is
attained on a multiplicity free G-module.
Theorem 4.2. There exists a multiplicity free G-module V such that β(G) =
β(S(V )G ) in each of the following cases:
1. G is abelian;
2. G has a cyclic subgroup of index two;
3. G has order less than 32.
Proof. It is sufficient to prove our claim in the case when F is algebraically
closed, so let us assume this.
b the group of characters
1. The case when G is abelian is known. Denote by G
×
b
(G → F homomorphisms) of G, and for χ ∈ G let Fχ be the 1-dimensional
G-module on which G acts via χ. It is well known (see for example Proposition
b of length
4.7 in [10]) that if there exists an irreducible zero-sum sequence over G
b with components in {χ1 , . . . , χk } ⊆ G,
b then β(G) = β(S(Lk Fχi )G ).
D(G)
i=1
2. For the dicyclic groups G = Dic4m (where m > 1) we gave an example
in the proof of Proposition 9.1 in [8] of a 2-dimensional irreducible G-module V
with β(S(V )Dic4m ) = 2m + 2.
Let G be a non-abelian group with a cyclic subgroup N of index two, and let
b . Then IndG Fχ is a 2-dimensional irreducible G-module,
χ be a generator of N
N
and so the module U ⊕ IndG
N Fχ from Lemma 4.1 is multiplicity free (being
the direct sum of a 2-dimensional irreducible and the non-trivial 1-dimensional
1
G
module). Moreover, we have β(S(U ⊕ IndG
N Fχ ) ) ≥ β(N ) + 1 = 2 |G| + 1, and
1
2 |G| + 1 = β(G) unless G is dicyclic.
3. Similar argument works for C7 ⋊ C3 , C5 ⋊ C4 , and M27 : let N be a
b.
maximal cyclic normal subgroup of the given group, and χ a generator of N
G
Then IndN Fχ is an irreducible G-module of dimension |G/N |, and we are done
by Lemma 4.1, taking into account the known value of β(G) from Section 2.
Now suppose that G = A⋊−1 C2 is a generalized dihedral group with A being
b such
a non-trivial abelian group. Take a minimal subset Λ = {χ1 , . . . , χr } ⊂ A
b contains an atom of length D(A),
b all of whose components belong to
that B(A)
Λ. By minimality of Λ, it does not contain the trivial character, and if χ and
χ−1 both belong to Λ, then χ = χ−1 . If χ 6= χ−1 , then IndG
A Fχ is irreducible and
as an A-module is isomorphic to Fχ ⊕ Fχ−1 , whereas if χ = χ−1 is non-trivial,
then IndG
A Fχ is the direct sum of two non-isomorphic 1-dimensional G-modules,
which as A-modules are isomorphic to Fχ . It follows that for W = Fχ1 ⊕· · ·⊕Fχr
the G-module IndG
A W is multiplicity free and contains no summands on which
A acts trivially. Thus we are done by Lemma 4.1.
The groups Q8 × C2 , S3 × C3 , C4 ⋊ C4 , can also be settled by Lemma 4.1,
taking into account the known value of β(G) from Section 2. Indeed, for the
2-dimensional irreducible Q8 -module W we have β(S(W ))Q8 = 6 (see [30])
8 ×C2
and IndQ
is the direct sum of the two non-isomorphic irreducible twoQ8
dimensional Q8 × C2 -modules. Essentially the same argument can be used for
Dic12 × C2 : after inducing up to Dic12 × C2 the irreducible two-dimensional
Dic12 -module on which the Noether number is attained we get a direct sum
of two non-isomorphic irreducible Dic12 × C2 -modules. Note that S3 × C3 ∼
=
12

b3 we have that IndC3 ⋊C6 Fχ is the direct
C3 ⋊−1 C6 and for a non-trivial χ ∈ C
C3
sum of the three pairwise non-isomorphic irreducible 2-dimensional S3 × C3 b4 , we have that IndC4 ⋊C4 Fχ is the direct sum
modules. For a generator χ ∈ C
C4
of two non-isomorphic irreducible two-dimensional modules.
The cases of the groups C3 ⋊ Dih8 , A4 × C2 and (C2 × C2 ) ⋊−1 C4 were
settled in Example 3.6, Example 3.9 and Example 3.11.
An irreducible module on which the Noether number is attained is given
e4 in [7], for H27 in [5]. It was pointed out in
already in the literature for A4 , A
[10, Example 5.3 and 5.4] that the Noether number for S4 is attained on the
product of the standard four-dimensional permutation representation and the
sign representation, and for the Pauli group (C4 × C2 ) ⋊φ C2 on the direct sum
of the two-dimensional pseudo-reflection representation and a one-dimensional
representation (see also [6] for some details referred to in [10]).
Problem 4.3. Does there exist a group G for which β(S(V )G ) < β(G) for all
multiplicity free G-modules V ?
Remark 4.4. (i) By a theorem of Draisma, Kemper and Wehlau [12] the universal degree bound for separating invariants is known to be attained on multiplicity
free representations.
(ii) We mention a conjecture of Hunziker [23, Conjecture 5.1] made for reflection groups that has a similar flavor as the topic of Section 4.1.

4.2

The strict monotonicity of the Noether number

Since all G/N -modules can be viewed as G-modules, the inequality β(G/N ) ≤
β(G) holds for any normal subgroup N of any finite group G. It was proven by
B. Schmid [30] that β(H) ≤ β(G) for any subgroup H of G. We shall refer as
S and F for the following conditions on a finite group G:
S: β(H) < β(G) for each proper subgroup H of G.
F: β(G/N ) < β(G) for each non-trivial normal subgroup N of G.
It is shown in a subsequent paper [9] that conditions S and F (by generalizing
(6) for non-abelian N ) hold for all finite groups. We collect in Theorem 4.5
below facts on the properties S and F that can be read off from the results
obtained or quoted in the present paper.
Theorem 4.5. Condition S holds for any finite nilpotent group G. Moreover,
both S and F hold when
1. G is abelian;
2. G has a cyclic subgroup of index two;
3. G ∼
= Cp ⋊ Cq for odd primes p, q where q | p − 1;
4. G has order less than 32.
Proof. Suppose first that G is nilpotent, and let H be a proper subgroup of G.
It is well known that H is contained as a prime index normal subgroup in a
subgroup K of G, whence we have β(G) ≥ β(K) ≥ β(H) + [K : H] − 1 > β(H)
by (6). So S holds for G. Note that if G is abelian, then any factor group
13

of G is isomorphic to a subgroup of G, hence F follows from S. If G has a
cyclic subgroup of index two, then any subgroup or factor group of G has a
subgroup of index at most two as well, whence (3) shows that both S and F
hold. Any non-trivial subgroup or factor group of Cp ⋊ Cq has order p or q, and
β(Cp ⋊ Cq ) ≥ p + q − 1 by (6).
Assume finally that G is a non-abelian group of order less than 32 that
contains no cyclic subgroup of index two. Theorem 1.1 in [7] asserts that β(H) <
1
2 |H| unless H has a cyclic subgroup of index at most two, or H is isomorphic
to one of C2 × C2 × C2 , C3 × C3 , A4 , or Ã4 . Taking into account (3) and
the values of the Noether numbers of C2 × C2 × C2 , C3 × C3 , A4 and Ã4 ,
this implies that β(H) ≤ 2 + 12 |H| for any non-cyclic H, with equality only if
H ∼
= Dic4m is a dicyclic group. Since our G has no cyclic subgroups or factor
groups of order at least 21 |G|, we conclude that for any proper subgroup or
factor group H of G the inequality β(H) ≤ max{2 + 41 |G|, 31 |G|} holds, with
strict inequality unless H ∼
= Dic4m is a dicyclic group of order 12 |G| or H is a
1
cyclic group of order 3 |G|. This immediately implies that S and F hold for G
provided that β(G) > max{2 + 41 |G|, 31 |G|}. From now on assume in addition
that β(G) ≤ max{2 + 14 |G|, 31 |G|}. So G is one of the following groups from the
table in Section 2: the two groups of order 16 with Noether number 6, the group
of order 18 with Noether number 6, the two groups of order 24 with Noether
number 8, or the group of order 27 with Noether number 9. Now Dih8 × C2
has exactly four elements of order 4 and no element of order 8, consequently
does not have Q8 = Dic8 as a subgroup or a factor group, hence S and F hold
for this group. The group (C2 × C2 ) ⋊ C4 has C2 × C2 × C2 as a subgroup.
Therefore any order 8 subgroup or factor group of this group contains C2 × C2
as a subgroup, and hence it is not dicyclic. The group (C3 × C3 ) ⋊−1 C2 has no
element of order 6 and has no dicyclic subgroups or factor groups (as its order
is not divisible by 4). The groups A4 × C2 and Dih12 × C2 have no element
of order 8 and do not have a subgroup or factor group isomorphic to Dic12 (as
these groups do not have an element of order 4). Finally, the Heisenberg group
does not have an element of order 9. So S and F hold for all groups of order
less than 32.

4.3

Dependence on the characteristic

It is proved in [25, Corollary 4.2] that β F (G) may depend only on the characteristic of F, but not on F. Therefore we introduce the notation
β char(F) (G) = β F (G).
Moreover, by [25, Theorem 4.7] we have β p (G) ≥ β 0 (G) for all primes p, and
β p (G) = β 0 (G) holds for all but finitely many primes p. Knop remarks in [25]
that “Presently, no group G and prime p not dividing |G| with β p (G) > β 0 (G)
seems to be known”. This observation inspires the following question:
Problem 4.6. Does the equality β p (G) = β 0 (G) hold for all finite groups G
and primes p not dividing |G|?
The paper [34] reports as a folklore conjecture that for any permutation ZGmodule V (i.e. when V is a free Z-module with a basis preserved by the action
of G) we have β(S(F ⊗Z V )G ) = β(S(Q ⊗Z V )G ) provided that char(F) does
14

not divide |G|. We note that if this conjecture is true, then Problem 4.6 has a
positive answer. Indeed, it follows from [25, Theorem 6.1] and (1) that if p does
not divide |G| then β p (G) = β(S(F ⊗Z V )G ) where F is a field of characteristic
p and V is the direct sum of |G| copies of the regular G-module defined over Z
(hence in particular V is a permutation ZG-module).
In Theorem 4.7 below we collect the cases for which Problem 4.6 has a
positive answer by the results obtained or quoted in the present paper.
Theorem 4.7. The equality β p (G) = β(G) holds for all primes p not dividing
the order of G in each of the following cases:
1. G is abelian;
2. G has a cyclic subgroup of index two;
3. G has order less than 32.
Proof. It has been long known that if G is abelian then β p (G) = D(G) for all
p ∤ |G|. Formula (3) for the Noether number of a group with a cyclic subgroup
of index two is valid in all non-modular characteristic. Finally, the quantities
in the table in Section 2 are independent of the characteristic of the base field
(provided that it is non-modular), whence the statement holds also for the
remaining groups of order less than 32.

4.4

Further observations

Remark that the groups S3 × C3 and (C3 × C3 ) ⋊−1 C2 both have the structure
(C3 × C3 ) ⋊α C2 , the only difference being in the automorphism α. However,
their Noether numbers are different.
The groups Dih8 × C2 , (C2 × C2 ) ⋊ C4 and the Pauli group all have the
structural description (C4 × C2 )⋊α C2 , only the automorphism α being different
in the three cases. The Noether numbers of the first two are equal, and differ
from the Noether number of the third one.
This shows that it would be interesting to understand how β(A ⋊α B) depends on α.

5
5.1

Davenport constants
The monoid of product-one sequences

In this section we introduce further notation related to the small and large
Davenport constants of a not necessarily abelian finite group. We follow the
presentation of [10].
Let G0 ⊆ G be a non-empty subset of a finite group G. A sequence over G0
means a finite sequence of terms from G0 which is unordered, and repetition of
terms is allowed (in other words, a sequence over G0 is a multiset of elements
from G0 ). A sequence will be considered as an element of the free abelian
monoid F (G0 ) whose generators are identified with the elements of G0 . We use
the symbol “·” for the multiplication in the monoid F (G0 ) – this agrees with
the convention in the monographs [19, 21] – and we denote multiplication in G
by juxtaposition of elements. For example, considering elements g1 , g2 ∈ G0 we

15

have that g1 · g2 ∈ F (G0 ) is a sequence of length 2, while g1 g2 is an element
of G. Furthermore, we use brackets for the exponentiation in F (G0 ). So for
g ∈ G0 , S ∈ F (G0 ), and k ∈ N0 , we have
g [k] = g · . . . · g ∈ F (G)
| {z }
k

Let

and S [k] = |S · .{z
. . · S} ∈ F (G) .
k

S = g1 · . . . · g|S| =

Y

g [vg (S)]

g∈G0

be a sequence
over G0 ; here vg (S) is the multiplicity of g in S and we call
P
|S| = g∈G vg (S) the length of S. If vg (S) > 0, i.e. S = g · R for a sequence R
with |R| = |S| − 1, then we write
S · g [−1] = R

for the sequence obtained from S by removing one occurrence of g. More generally, we write R = S · T [−1] if we have S = R · T for some sequences R, S, T . The
identity element 1F (G0 ) in F (G0 ) is called the trivial sequence, and has length
|1F (G0 ) | = 0. We have the usual divisibility relation in the free abelian monoid
F (G0 ) and write T | S if T divides S. A divisor T of S will also be called a
subsequence of S. We call supp(S) = {g ∈ G0 | vg (S) > 0} ⊆ G0 the support of
S. The set of products of S is
π(S) = {gτ (1) . . . gτ (|S|) ∈ G | τ ∈ Sym{1, . . . , |S|}} ⊆ G
(if |S| = 0, we use the convention that π(S) = {1G }). Clearly, π(S) is contained in a G′ -coset, where G′ = [G, G] = hg −1 h−1 gh | g, h ∈ Gi denotes the
commutator subgroup of G. Set
[
π(T ) ⊆ G.
(8)
Π(S) =
T |S
1F(G0 ) 6=T

The sequence S is called a
• product-one sequence if 1G ∈ π(S),
• product-one free sequence if 1G ∈
/ Π(S).
The set
B(G0 ) = {S ∈ F (G0 ) : 1G ∈ π(S)}
of all product-one sequences over G0 is obviously a submonoid of F (G0 ). We
denote by A(G0 ) the set of atoms in the monoid B(G0 ). The length of an atom
is clearly bounded by |G|. The large Davenport constant of G0 is
D(G0 ) = max{|S| : S ∈ A(G0 )} ∈ N.
Moreover, we denote by M(G0 ) the set of product-one free sequences over G0
and we define the small Davenport constant of G0 as
d(G0 ) = max{|S| : S ∈ M(G0 )}.
We have the inequality
d(G0 ) + 1 ≤ D(G0 )
with equality when the elements in G0 commute with each other.
16

5.2

Some known results

For a non-cyclic group G with a cyclic subgroup of index two Olson and White
[28] proved that d(G) = 12 |G|. Morover, recently it was proven by Geroldinger
and Grynkiewicz [18] that for these groups D(G) = d(G) + |G′ |.
For the non-abelian semidirect product Cp ⋊ Cq where p, q are odd primes
it was shown by Grynkiewicz [20, Corollary 5.7 and Theorem 5.1] that we have
d(Cp ⋊ Cq ) = p + q − 2 and D(Cp ⋊ Cq ) = 2p.

5.3

The large Davenport constant for H27

Consider H27 , the Heisenberg group with 27 elements having the presentation
ha, b, c | a3 = b3 = c3 = 1, c = [a, b] = a−1 b−1 abi. This is an extraspecial
group, its commutator subgroup hci coincides with the center Z := Z(H27 ). As
a result, the commutator identities (which hold for any group) take the following
simpler form in this particular case:
[x, yz] = [x, y][x, z] [xy, z] = [x, z][y, z]

(9)

for any x, y, z ∈ H27 . As [c, x] = 1 for any x ∈ H27 we see that the value of
[x, y] depends only on the cosets xZ and yZ so that the commutator defines
in fact a bilinear map on H27 /Z ∼
= C3 × C3 with values in C3 . Moreover as c
commutes with every other element of the group it is immediate that every Zcoset has a representative of the form ai bj for some i, j ∈ Z/3Z and by repeated
applications of (9) we get
[ai bj , ak bl ] = cil−jk = c



det i j
k l .

(10)

By (10) the elements x = ai bj and y = ak bl commute if and only if the vectors
(i, j) and (k, l) are linearly dependent over Z/3Z. For the rest we denote by
x̄ the image of any x ∈ H27 at the natural surjection H27 → C3 × C3 and we
extend this notation to sequences in the obvious way, as well.
We say that two sequences S and T over a group G are similar if α(S) = T
for an automorphism α ∈ Aut(G) (the action of Aut(G) on G extends naturally
to an action on F (G)). A sequence S over G is called degenerate if supp(S) is
contained in a proper subgroup of G.
Lemma 5.1. Let T = R · S be a product-one sequence such that |π(R)| = 3 and
S is not product-one free. Then T is not an atom.
Proof. By the assumption on S there is a non-empty product-one sequence
U | S. Consider the sequence V = T ·U [−1] . Then V̄ is a zero-sum sequence over
C3 × C3 , whence π(V ) ⊆ Z. But for R | V we have |π(R)| = 3 hence π(V ) = Z
so that V is also a product-one sequence. Thus the equality T = U · V shows
that T is not an atom.
Lemma 5.2. Let T be a non-degenerate sequence over H27 \ Z of length at least
3. Then either |π(T )| = 3 or T̄ = ē · f¯ · (−ē−f¯) for a basis {ē, f¯} of H27 /Z
Proof. Assume that π(T ) is not a full Z-coset. As T is non-degenerate there
must be two elements e, f in T such that [e, f ] = c. Hence |π(T )| = 2. Let
g be an arbitrary element in T · (e · f )[−1] . Then ḡ 6= ē because otherwise
17

π(g ·e·f ) ⊇ {gef, gf e, f ge} = gef Z. Also ḡ 6= −ē because otherwise π(g ·e·f ) ⊇
{gef, gf e, ef g} = gef Z. Similarly ḡ is different from f¯, −f¯.
As a result in the Z/3Z-vector space H27 /Z ∼
= C3 × C3 we have a relation
αē + β f¯ + γḡ = 0 where the coefficients α, β are non-zero. Moreover γ 6= 0 also
holds by the linear independence of ē and f¯. Up to similarity and the choice of
the basis e, f only two cases are possible: (i) ē+f¯ = ḡ, but then [e, f ] = [e, g] = c,
hence π(e · f · g) = ef gZ, again a contradiction, or (ii) ē + f¯ + ḡ = 0; then
[e, f ] = [g, e] = [f, g] = c hence ef g = cf eg = f ge = cgf e = gef = cegf , so
that |π(e · f · g)| = 2.
In the proof below we shall use the following ad hoc terminology: A subset
of C3 × C3 of the form {e, f, −e − f } where e, f form a basis of C3 × C3 will be
called an affine line, while a subset of the form {e, f, e + f } where e, f form a
basis of C3 × C3 will be called an affine cap (the terminology is motivated by the
literature on the so-called cap set problem). Note that a three-element subset of
C3 × C3 in which any two elements are linearly independent over Z/3Z is either
an affine line or an affine cap.
Proposition 5.3. D(H27 ) ≤ 8.
Proof. Assume indirectly that there is an atomic product-one sequence T of
length at least 9. After ordering the elements of T = g1 · g2 · · · gn in such a way
that g1 g2 · · · gn = 1 and replacing T with T ′ = g1 · · · g8 · (g9 g10 · · · gn ) we may
assume that |T | = 9.
A. If T is degenerate then it is in fact an irreducible zero-sum sequence over
C3 × C3 , hence |T | ≤ D(C3 × C3 ) = 5, a contradiction. So for the rest we assume
that T is non-degenerate so that T̄ contains a basis {e, f } of H27 /Z.
B. T̄ contains an element g 6∈ hei ∪ hf i (i.e. T̄ has an affine line or an affine
cap as a subsequence). Otherwise, if T̄ is contained in the set hei ∪ hf i then
T = C · A1 · . . . · At where C̄ = 0[k] and Āi ∈ {e[3] , f [3] , −e · e, −f · f }. Choose
ai ∈ π(Ai ) for i = 1, . . . , t. Then the sequence Q := C · a1 · . . . · at is a zero-sum
sequence over Z ∼
= C3 , hence if k + t > 3 then Q factors into the product of
two non-empty zero-sum sequences and T factors accordingly, a contradiction.
If k > 0 then we get k + t ≥ k + (9 − k)/3 > 3, as |Ai | ≤ 3 for all i, again a
contradiction. Hence k = 0, t = 3 and T̄ is similar to e[6] · f [3] . Then T contains
a degenerate subsequence of length 6 > D(C3 × C3 ), which in turn must contain
a proper zero-sum subsequence R such that R̄ = e[3] . Then the complement
S = T · R[−1] has |S| = 6, hence π(S) = Z by Lemma 5.2, a contradiction by
Lemma 5.1.
C. T̄ cannot contain a subsequence R̄ | T̄ similar to one of the following
sequences:
e · f · (−e) · (−f )

(11)

e · f · (e + f )[2]

(12)

Indeed, these sequences R̄ are such that for their preimages R we have that
π(R) = Z by Lemma 5.2. So for any such R | T the complement S = T ·
R[−1] must be product-one free, as otherwise we would get a contradiction by
Lemma 5.1. Hence S cannot be degenerate, as |S| = 5 = D(C3 × C3 ) and
π(S) ⊆ Z \ {1}. Therefore by Lemma 5.2 it is necessary that S = x · y · L where

18

x̄ = ȳ = 0 and L̄ is an affine line. Moreover by our assumption we must have
π(L) = Z \{1} and x, y ∈ Z \{1}, as well. But then 1 ∈ π(x·L), a contradiction.
D. We claim that T̄ must contain an affine line and 0 6∈ supp(T̄ ). For assume
that T̄ does not contain an affine line. Then T̄ still contains an affine cap by B,
so we may assume that e ·f · (e + f ) | T . Then to avoid affine lines it is necessary
that e − f, f − e, −e − f do not occur in T̄ . To avoid subsequences of type (11)
we have either vT̄ (−e) = 0 or vT̄ (−f ) = 0. Assume now that vT̄ (−e) > 0 and
vT̄ (−f ) = 0 (the case vT̄ (−e) = 0 and vT̄ (−f ) > 0 is analogous). Then to avoid
subsequences of type (12) we must have vT̄ (f ) = vT̄ (e + f ) = 1. As a result the
image of T̄ modulo hei is f [2] · 0[7] , but this is not a product-one sequence in
C3 × C3 /hei ∼
= C3 , a contradiction.
So it remains that T̄ = 0[k] · e[i] · f [j] · (e + f ). Since T̄ is a zero-sum sequence
over C3 × C3 we must have i ≡ j ≡ 2 (mod 3). As |T̄ | = 9 either k + i = 6 or
k + j = 6 and we get again a degenerate subsequence which must contain a zerosum subsequence R such that its complement S = T · R[−1] has π(S) = Z by
Lemma 5.2, again a contradiction. Thus T̄ contains an affine line. An argument
similar to the one in C shows also that 0 does not occur in T̄ .
From now on we assume that T̄ contains the affine line L̄ = {e, f, g} as a
subsequence.
P
E. Next we claim that x∈−L̄ vT̄ (x) ≤ 1. Indeed, T̄ cannot contain two
different elements x, y belonging to −L̄ because that would yield a subsequence
of type (11). Moreover, vT̄ (x) ≥ 2 for some x in −L would yield the type (12)
subsequence x · x · L · (−x)[−1] of T̄ .
F. We claim that vT̄ (e − f ) = 0 and vT̄ (f − e) = 0. For assume to the
contrary that vT̄ (e − f ) > 0 (the case vT̄ (f − e) > 0 being analogous). Observe
that for any x in L we must have vT̄ (x) = 1 to avoid subsequences of type (12).
In view of E it follows that vT̄ (e − f ) + vT̄ (f − e) ≥ |T | − 4 = 5 = D(C3 × C3 ), so
that T has again a degenerate subsequence containing a zero-sum subsequence
R (with supp(R̄) ⊆ {0, e − f, f − e}) such that its complement S = T · R[−1]
has π(S) = Z by Lemma 5.2, leading to a contradiction by Lemma 5.1.
G. Now we prove that supp(T̄ ) = L. For otherwise it would follow from
D, E, F that T̄ = (−x) · x · T̄0 where vL (x) > 0 and supp(T̄0 ) ⊆ L. But T̄0
must also be a zero-sum sequence, hence |T̄0 | is divisible by 3 because the only
irreducible zero-sum sequences over C3 × C3 with support contained in L are
e[3] , f [3] , (−e−f)[3] , e · f · (−e−f ). But then |T | ≡ 2 mod 3, contradicting the
assumption that |T | = 9.
H. So we have a factorization T = L · R such that L̄ = e · f · g with
e + f + g = 0 ∈ C3 × C3 and supp(R̄) ⊆ {e, f, g}. For any such factorization
L̄ and R̄ are zero-sum sequences, hence π(R) ⊆ Z, moreover |π(R)| = 3 by
Lemma 5.2, so that 1 ∈ π(R) and consequently 1 6∈ π(L). Observe now that an
element in supp(T̄ ), say e must have vT̄ (e) ≥ 3. Let Q = x1 · x2 · x3 | T be such
that Q̄ = e[3] and x1 ∈ L. If xi 6= x1 for some i > 1 then consider the sequence
[−1]
L′ := L · x1 · xi . By assumption π(L) = Z \ {1} and x−1
1 xi ∈ Z \ {1} hence
′
′
′
π(L′ ) = π(L)x−1
1 xi ∋ 1. Thus L̄ = L̄ and T = L · R would be a factorization of
T as a product of two product-one sequences. We conclude that x1 = x2 = x3 ,
so that Q is a product-one subsequence and T = Q · S where S̄ is a product-one
sequence over C3 × C3 and hence S is a product-one sequence by Lemma 5.2.
This contradicts the assumption that T is an atom.
Remark 5.4. The idea of Lemma 5.1 appears in the proof of a result of
19

Grynkiewicz [20, Corollary 3.4] which yields for the Heisenberg group of order p3 the inequality
D(G) ≤ d(G) + |G′ | = d(G) + p.

(13)

We established by our algorithm that d(H27 ) = 6 so in this case (13) gives
D(G) ≤ 9 which in view of Proposition 5.3 is not sharp. On the other hand we
show below that Proposition 5.3 is sharp.
Proposition 5.5. D(H27 ) ≥ 8.
Proof. Assume c ∈ π(a[i] · b[j] ) for some i, j ∈ N. Then i, j > 0 since c 6∈ hai and
c 6∈ hbi. Moreover c̄ = 0 = āi b̄j holds, as well. But since ā and b̄ are independent
in C3 × C3 it is necessary that i ≡ j ≡ 0 mod 3. It follows that i + j ≥ 6. On
the other hand c = [a, b] = aabbab hence the minimal expression of c in terms
of a and b has length 6. By a similar argument the same is true for c−1 , as well.
Now ccbbaaba = 1 and we claim that the product-one sequence S = a[3] ·
[3]
b · c[2] is an atom. Otherwise let S = T · R for some non-empty product-one
sequences T, R and we may assume that vT (c) > 0. If vR (c) > 0 holds, too,
then T · c[−1] contains only a, b and c−1 ∈ π(T · c[−1] ). Hence, by what has been
said before, T · c[−1] = a[3] · b[3] . But then R = c, which is not a product-one
sequence. From this contradiction it follows that vR (c) = 0 hence c[2] | T . But
then supp(T · c[−2] ) ⊆ {a, b} and c ∈ π(T · c[−2] ), hence again T · c[−2] = a[3] · b[3] ,
so that R is empty, which is a contradiction.

5.4

Diameter of the Cayley digraph

Next we state a general inequality that can be obtained by a similar argument as the proof of Proposition 5.5. This result is not used here, but seems
worthwhile to mention, as it involves the diameter of Cayley digraphs, which
(in contrast with the large Davenport constant for a non-abelian group) has a
rather extensive literature:
Proposition 5.6. Let X be a set of generators of a finite group G and Cay(G, X)
the corresponding Cayley digraph. Then D(G) ≥ diam(Cay(G, X)) + 1.
Proof. Let 1 = g0 , g1 , . . . , gd ∈ G be a sequence of vertices on a non-self-crossing
path of maximal length in Cay(G, X), so that d = diam(Cay(G, X)). Now set
−1
si = gi−1
gi for all i = 1, . . . , d and consider the sequence S = s1 · . . . · sd · gd−1 .
By construction S is a product-one sequence and we claim that it is an atom in
B(X ∪ {gd−1 }). For otherwise S = A · B for some product-one sequences A, B
where gd−1 ∈ A, and then we can order the elements of A in such a way that
we obtain an equality si1 · · · sir gd−1 = 1 where r < d. But since si ∈ X for
all i, this means that we have in Cay(G, X) a path of length r from 1 to gd , a
contradiction.
Problem 5.7. Is there any relation between maxX⊆G {diam(Cay(G, X))} and
d(G)? More concretely, based on a little computer experimentation we raise
the following question: does the inequality d(G) ≥ diam(Cay(G, X)) hold in
general?

20

6

Computing the Davenport constants

We take over the following notations from Section 5.1: let F = F (G) be the
monoid of all sequences of elements in G, let M ⊆ F be the set of product-one
free sequences and A ⊆ F the set of atoms, i.e. all product-one sequences which
cannot be written as the product of two non-empty product-one subsequences.
For any k ≥ 1 let Fk ⊆ F denote the set of all sequences of length k and set
Mk = M ∩ Fk , Ak = A ∩ Fk . Moreover, M0 = {1F } consists of the empty
sequence.
We propose two algorithms: one for enumerating all product-one free sequences and another one for computing all the atoms and thereby establishing
the values of d(G) and D(G), respectively. We have implemented these algorithms in the GAP computer algebra system (see [16]) and used them to compute
and/or verify the small and large Davenport constants given in Section 2.
The algorithms construct the set M (respectively A) successively, as a union
of the sets Mk (respectively Ak ). During the construction of the sets Mk or Ak
we are not testing all elements of Fk for being product-one free or atomic (as
this task would be practically unfeasible), but we limit the scope of our search
to a much smaller subset defined in what follows.
A sequence T is called a splitting of a sequence S if T = S · g [−1] · x · y for
some g ∈ supp(S) and x, y ∈ G such that xy = g. We denote by S ≺ T the
fact that T is a splitting of S. For any subset S ⊂ F (G) we set γ(S) := {T ∈
F (G) : S ≺ T for some S ∈ S}.
Lemma 6.1. For any k ≥ 1 we have Mk+1 ⊆ γ(Mk ) and Ak+1 ⊆ γ(Ak ).
Proof. If T = g · h · T ′ is a product-one free (respectively atomic) sequence of
length k + 1 ≥ 2, then obviously the sequence S = (gh) · T ′ has length k and is
product-one free (respectively atomic) too. Moreover, S ≺ T .
Remark 6.2. Observe that by this lemma if Mk = ∅ for some k ≥ 1 then
Ml = ∅ for every l > k. So the smallest k such that Mk = ∅ equals d(G) + 1.
Similarly the smallest k such that Ak = ∅ is equal to D(G) + 1.
Another idea used for reducing the complexity of our algorithms was to
enumerate the elements of Mk and Ak only “up to similarity”. Recall from
Section 5.3 that two sequences S and T are said to be similar if there is an
automorphism α ∈ Aut(G) such that S = α(T ).
Lemma 6.3. Let Rk be a set of Aut(G)-orbit representatives over Mk (respectively Ak ). Then there is a system of Aut(G)-orbit representatives Rk+1 over
Mk+1 (respectively Ak+1 ) such that Rk+1 ⊆ γ(Rk ).
Proof. Observe that the relation ≺ is compatible with the Aut(G)-action in the
sense that S ≺ T holds if and only if α(S) ≺ α(T ) for some α ∈ Aut(G) if and
only if α(S) ≺ α(T ) for each α ∈ Aut(G).
Now we prove that for any sequence T ∈ Mk+1 its Aut(G)-orbit Orb(T )
has a non-empty intersection with γ(Rk ). Take an arbitrary sequence S ≺ T so
that S ∈ Mk . As Rk ⊆ Mk is a complete set of representatives, there is some
R ∈ Rk such that R = α(S) for some α ∈ Aut(G). Hence by the compatibility
of ≺ it follows that R = α(S) ≺ α(T ). As a result α(T ) ∈ Orb(T ) ∩ γ(Rk ) and
we are done. The proof is similar for the case of Ak .
21

6.1

Algorithm for computing the small Davenport constant

Let us record the following obvious statement:
Lemma 6.4. A sequence R of length k ≥ 1 is product-one free if and only if
1∈
/ π(R) and for all g ∈ supp(R) we have that R · g [−1] ∈ Mk−1 .
Given an arbitrary finite group G, Algorithm 1 computes the small Davenport constant.
The set of all product-one free sequences of G may be obtained
S
as M = k Mk after the repeat-until loop has terminated (right after line 33).
In lines 3–5 of the algorithm we have identified the sequences of length
one with the respective group elements. Hence the set M1 of product-one free
sequences having length one consists of all the group elements except the identity
(line 3), from which we choose a set R1 of Aut(G)-orbit representatives (line
4). For every length-one sequence we store the set of products (line 5). These
initial data having been established, the algorithm proceeds with computing the
sets Mk and Rk for all increasing k > 1, until it finds the first value k for which
Mk = ∅. The finiteness of the algorithm is guaranteed by Lemma 6.1 (together
with Remark 6.2).
Observe that inside the for-loops in line 14 the variable R will take successively all the values from the set γ(Rk−1 ), therefore it is guaranteed that for
k > 1 all the possible candidate sequences will be tested for being product-one
free and the set Rk (from Lemma 6.3) is built correctly.
Before testing the sequence R for being product-one free (using Lemma 6.4),
in line 15 it is checked first whether the sequence R is among the already computed product-one free sequences of length k (via the condition R ∈
/ Mk ).
Elimination of duplicates is essential for correctly building the set Rk of representatives (so that in line 18 we compute only the set Rk ⊆ γ(Rk−1 ) and not
one of its supersets). If R is a new sequence (in the sense that it is not similar
to any of the already found product-one free sequences), it gets tested using the
conditions from Lemma 6.4 (the second condition from line 15 and the condition
from line 17). π(R) is computed (in line 16) using the following observation: for
any sequence R and fixed x ∈ R, we can write
[
π(R) =
π(R1 ) x π(R2 ).
R1 ·R2 =R·x[−1]

If R is found to be product-one free, it is also added as a new representative of
the Aut(G)-orbits (line 18). The orbit itself is computed successively (and stored
in the variable OR ) by evaluating all the automorphisms α on the sequence R.
In line 27 the set OR will be the same as the set Orb(R) of Aut(G) orbits of R.
For every new sequence R′ (new in the sense of not being in the already
computed part of the orbit), we also have to compute and store the set π(R′ )
by acting with the proper automorphism α on the set π(R) (line 24). Hence
the algorithm stores the product sets for all the enumerated product-one free
sequences. This is essential for a relatively fast computation performed in line
16.
The set Mk gets computed in line 27 as a union of Aut(G) orbits of the
representatives. In the last step, the value k − 1 is returned: this is the small
Davenport constant of G, as explained in Remark 6.2.
22

Algorithm 1: SmallDavenport(G)
input : G
output: d(G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34

M0 ← {1FG };
π(1FG ) ← {1G };
M1 ← G \ {1G };
R1 ← {gα : α ∈ M1 / Aut(G)};
forall g ∈ M1 do π(g) ← {g};
k ← 1;
repeat
k ← k + 1;
Mk ← ∅;
Rk ← ∅;
forall S ∈ Rk−1 do
forall g ∈ supp(S) do
forall x ∈ G \ {1G , g} do
R ← S · g [−1] · x · (x−1 g);
[−1]
if R ∈
/ Mk and
∈ Mk−1 then
S ∀g ∈ supp(R) : R · g
π(R) ← R1 ·R2 =R·x[−1] (π(R1 ) x π(R2 ));
if 1G ∈
/ π(R) then
Rk ← Rk ∪ {R};
OR ← {R};
forall α ∈ Aut(G) do
R′ ← α(R);
if R′ ∈
/ OR then
OR ← OR ∪ {R′ };
π(R′ ) ← α (π(R));
end
end
Mk ← Mk ∪ OR ;
end
end
end
end
end
until Mk = ∅;
return k − 1;

23

6.2

Algorithm for computing the large Davenport constant

Given an arbitrary finite group G, Algorithm 2 computes the large
Davenport
S
constant. The set of all atoms of G may be obtained as A = k Ak after the
repeat-until loop has terminated (right after line 19).
The algorithm begins with loading the sets A1 and R1 with the sequence
consisting only of the identity element of the group. In line 11 the variable
S ′ will take successively all the values from the set γ(Rk−1 ), therefore it is
guaranteed that for k > 1 all the possible candidate sequences will be tested for
being atoms and the set Ak (from Lemma 6.3) is built correctly. In line 10 the
variable h is prevented from taking the values 1G or g, since this would bring
in the identity element in the support of S ′ .
The algorithm first checks whether a candidate sequence S ′ is among the
already computed atoms of length k via the condition S ′ ∈
/ Ak from line 12,
ensuring that S ′ is a new atom (in the sense that it is not similar to any of the
already found atoms of length k). Checking whether a sequence S ′ is an atom
is performed by the second condition in line 12: by definition the product-one
sequence S ′ is an atom if it cannot be written as a product of shorter atoms.
The predicate D(S ′ , k) in line 12 is true if and only if the product-one sequence
S ′ of length k is not an atom and may be given in the following way:
′

D(S , k) ⇐⇒ ∃A ∈
′

k
⌊[
2⌋

i=2
[−1]

S ·A

Ai with A | S ′ such that
∈ Ak−|A| or D(S ′ · A[−1] , k − |A|).

It may be implemented using a recursive function, bailing out with a positive
answer as soon as it finds a decomposition of S ′ into atoms.
In line 13 the newly found atom S ′ gets added to the set Rk of representatives
and the set Ak of atoms is completed with the Aut(G) orbit of S ′ , denoted by
Orb(S ′ ) (in line 14). In the last step, the value k − 1 is returned as the large
Davenport constant of G, as explained in Remark 6.2.
Although the check is performed only for a system of representatives of
the Aut(G) orbits of atoms (for all S ′ ∈ Rk−1 ), the “decomposability test”
described by the predicate D(S ′ , k) uses the whole set of already computed
Sk−1
atoms i=2 Ai , which is the main performance bottleneck of the algorithm.

24

Algorithm 2: LargeDavenport(G)
input : G
output: D(G)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

A1 ← {1G };
R1 ← {1G };
k ← 1;
repeat
k ← k + 1;
Ak ← ∅;
Rk ← ∅;
forall S ∈ Rk−1 do
forall g ∈ supp(S) do
forall x ∈ G \ {1G , g} do
S ′ ← S · g [−1] · x · (x−1 g);
if S ′ ∈
/ Ak and not D(S ′ , k) then
Rk ← Rk ∪ {S ′ };
Ak ← Ak ∪ Orb(S ′ );
end
end
end
end
until Ak = ∅;
return k − 1;

Remark 6.5. We have used a GAP implementation of Algorithm 1 and 2 to
compute the small and large Davenport constants from the table in Section 2
in case of those groups for which a formula for these constants in not readily
available (see Subsection 5.2).
Although parallelization is easily achievable in case of both algorithms, a
“single-threaded” implementation was found to fit our present requirements,
using a personal computer clocked at 2 GHz.
The small Davenport constants from Section 2 have been obtained in under a
minute worth of computation, with the single exception of the group M27 = C9 ⋊
C3 , for which d(M27 ) = 10 has been obtained in about 7 minutes. This group
was found to have a number of 102212 product-one free sequences, grouped in
1987 equivalence classes. In contrast, the second most “difficult” group (among
the non-abelian groups of order less than 32 that contain no cyclic subgroup of
index two) was H27 = U T3 (F3 ) for which our implementation of Algorithm 1
yielded the following data in about 40 seconds: d(H27 ) = 6 with 69026 productone free sequences partitioned by the similarity relation into 187 equivalence
classes. In case of the other groups the running times range from below one
second up to half a minute.
Computation of the large Davenport constant using Algorithm 2 is more
demanding. The most time-consuming group from the list was SL2 (F3 ) = Ã4 ,
with the large Davenport constant being 13, housing 499695 atoms partitioned
in 21033 equivalence classes. In the case of this group the computation took
about 40 minutes. Excepting C3 ⋊Dih8 = (C6 ×C2 )⋊γ C2 and S4 (computation
25

taking about 24 minutes for each of them), the running times hardly reached one
minute. For example in the interesting case of H27 , the large Davenport constant
D(H27 ) = 8 was computed in 19 seconds. This group has 108827 atoms grouped
in only 340 equivalence classes (this explaining the relative quick computation
within this group).

References
[1] G. Bhowmik and J.-C. Schlage-Puchta, Davenport’s constant for groups of
the form Z3 ⊕Z3 ⊕Z3d , Additive combinatorics, 307–326, CRM Proc. Lecture
Notes, 43, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2007.
[2] F. Chen and S. Savchev, Long minimal zero-sum sequences in the groups
C2r−1 ⊕ C2k , Integers 14 (2014), Paper No. A 23, 29 pp.
[3] C. Chevalley, Invariants of finite groups generated by reflections, Amer. J.
Math. 77 (1955), 778-782.
[4] K. Cziszter, The Noether number of the non-abelian group of order 3p,
Periodica Math. Hungarica 68 (2014), 150-159.
[5] K. Cziszter, On the Noether number of p-groups, arXiv:1604.01938
[6] K. Cziszter and M. Domokos, On the generalized Davenport constant and
the Noether number, Central European Journal of Mathematics 11 (2013),
1605-1615.
[7] K. Cziszter and M. Domokos, Groups with large Noether bound, Ann. Inst.
Fourier (Grenoble) 64, no. 3 (2014), 909-944.
[8] K. Cziszter and M. Domokos, The Noether number for the groups with a
cyclic subgroup of index two, Journal of Algebra 399 (2014), 546-560.
[9] K. Cziszter and M. Domokos, Lower bounds on the Noether number, Transform. Groups, 2018, DOI 10.1007/s00031-018-9479-4.
[10] K. Cziszter, M. Domokos, and A. Geroldinger, The interplay of invariant theory with multiplicative ideal theory and with arithmetic combinatorics, in: Scott T. Chapman, M. Fontana, A. Geroldinger, B.Olberding
(Eds.), Multiplicative Ideal Theory and Factorization Theory, SpringerVerlag, 2016, pp. 43-95.
[11] Ch. Delorme, O. Ordaz, and D. Quiroz, Some remarks on Davenport constant, Discrete Mathematics 237 (2001),119-128.
[12] J. Draisma, G. Kemper, and D.Wehlau, Polarization of separating invariants, Canad. J. Math. Soc. 60 (2008), 556-571.
[13] P. van Emde Boas and D. Kruyswijk. A combinatorial problem on finite abelian groups. III. Math. Centrum Amsterdam Afd. Zuivere Wisk.,
1969(ZW-008):32 pp., 1969.
[14] P. Fleischmann, The Noether bound in invariant theory of finite groups,
Adv. Math. 156 (2000), 23-32.
26

[15] J. Fogarty, On Noether’s bound for polynomial invariants of a finite group,
Electron. Res. Announc. Amer. Math. Soc. 7 (2001), 5-7.
[16] The GAP Group, GAP – Groups, Algorithms, and Programming, Version
4.8.6 ; 2016, (http://www.gap-system.org).
[17] A. Geroldinger, Additive group theory and non-unique factorizations, Combinatorial number theory and additive group theory, 1-86, Adv. Courses
Math. CRM Barcelona, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2009.
[18] A. Geroldinger and D. J. Grynkiewicz, The large Davenport constant I:
Groups with a cyclic index 2 subgroup, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 217 (2013),
863-885.
[19] A. Geroldinger and F. Halter-Koch, Non-Unique Factorizations. Algebraic,
Combinatorial and Analytic Theory, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol.
278, Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2006.
[20] D. J. Grynkiewicz, The large Davenport constant II: General upper bounds,
J. Pure Appl. Algebra 217 (2013), 222-2246.
[21] D. J. Grynkiewicz, Structural Additive Theory, Developments in Mathematics, Springer, 2013.
[22] F. Halter-Koch, A generalization of Davenport’s constant and its arithmetical applications, Colloquium Mathematicum LXIII (1992), 203–210.
[23] M. Hunziker, Classical invariant theory for finite reflection groups, Transformation groups 2 (1997), 145-161.
[24] J.F. Humphreys, A course in group theory, Oxford University Press, 1996.
[25] F. Knop, On Noether’s and Weyl’s bound in positive characteristic, in
”Invariant Theory in All Characteristics”, (Ed.: H. E. A. Eddy Campbell
and D. L. Wehlau), CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes 35, Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, Rhode Island, pp. 175-188, 2004.
[26] E. Noether, Der Endlichkeitssatz der Invarianten endlicher Gruppen, Math.
Ann. 77 (1916), 89-92.
[27] E. Noether, Der Endlichkeitssatz der Invarianten endlicher linearer Gruppen der Charakteristik p, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen (1926), 28-35.
[28] J. E. Olson and E. T. White, Sums from a sequence of group elements, in:
H. Zassenhaus (Ed.), Number Theory and Algebra, Academic Press, 1977,
pp. 215-222.
[29] D. R. Richman, Invariants of finite groups over fields of characteristic p,
Adv. Math. 124 (1996), 25-48.
[30] B. J. Schmid, Finite groups and invariant theory, in “Topics in invariant theory” (M.-P. Malliavin, ed.), Lecture notes in mathematics, no. 1478,
Springer, 1989-90, pp. 35-66.

27

[31] W. A. Schmid, The inverse problem associated to the Davenport constant
for C2 ⊕ C2 ⊕ C2n , and applications to the arithmetical characterization of
class groups, Electron. J. Combin. 18 (2011), no. 1, Paper 33, 42 pp.
[32] M. Sezer, Sharpening the generalized Noether bound in the invariant theory
of finite groups, J. Algebra 254 (2002), 252-263.
[33] G. C. Shephard and J. A. Todd, Finite unitary reflection groups, Canad.
J. Math. 6 (1954), 274-304.
[34] D. L. Wehlau, Some problems in invariant theory, in ”Invariant Theory in
All Characteristics”, (Ed.: H. E. A. Eddy Campbell and D. L. Wehlau),
CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes 35, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
Rhode Island, pp. 265-274, 2004.
[35] H. Weyl, The classical groups, Second edition, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, 1946.

28

