Proximity and Remoteness in Directed and Undirected Graphs

Abstract: Let $D$ be a strongly connected digraph. The average distance $\bar{\sigma}(v)$ of a vertex $v$ of $D$ is the arithmetic mean of the distances from $v$ to all other vertices of $D$. The remoteness $\rho(D)$ and proximity $\pi(D)$ of $D$ are the maximum and the minimum of the average distances of the vertices of $D$, respectively. We obtain sharp upper and lower bounds on $\pi(D)$ and $\rho(D)$ as a function of the order $n$ of $D$ and describe the extreme digraphs for all the bounds. We also obtain such bounds for strong tournaments. We show that for a strong tournament $T$, we have $\pi(T)=\rho(T)$ if and only if $T$ is regular. Due to this result, one may conjecture that every strong digraph $D$ with $\pi(D)=\rho(D)$ is regular. We present an infinite family of non-regular strong digraphs $D$ such that $\pi(D)=\rho(D).$ We describe such a family for undirected graphs as well.

\section{Introduction}
In this paper we consider only finite  graphs and digraphs without loops or parallel edges and arcs.
We shall assume the reader is familiar with the standard terminology on graphs and digraphs and refer to \cite{GG} for terminology not discussed here.

Let $D=(V(D),A(D))$ be a strongly connected (often shortened to ``strong'') digraph with $n\ge 2$ vertices
($D$ is {\em strong} if for every pair $u,v$ of vertices in $D$ there are a path from $u$ to $v$ and a path from $v$ to $u$).
 We call
$n=|V(D)|$ the {\em order} of $D$ and $m=|A(D)|$ the {\em size} of $D.$ The \emph{distance} $d(u,v)$ from vertex  $u$ to vertex $v$ in $D$ is the length of a shortest $(u,v)$-dipath in $D$.
The \emph{distance} of a vertex  $u\in V(D)$ is defined as $\sigma(u)=\sum_{v\in V(D)}d(u,v)$,
and the \textit{average distance} of a vertex as
$\bar{\sigma}(u\emph)=\frac{\sigma(u)}{n-1}.$
The \emph{proximity} $\pi(D)$ and the \emph{remoteness} $\rho(D)$ are  $\min\{\bar{\sigma}(u)|\;u\in V(D)\}$ and $\max\{\bar{\sigma}(u)|\;u\in V(D)\}$, respectively. These parameters were introduced independently by Zelinka \cite{z} and Aouchiche and Hansen \cite{a} for undirected graphs and
studied in several papers, see e.g. \cite{a,b,d,dan,da,z}. We could not find any literature pertaining to proximity and remoteness for directed graphs. In this paper, we extend the study of these two distance measures from undirected graphs to directed graphs. (However, we also present a new result on the topic for undirected graphs.)

For additional terminology and notation, see the end of this section.

There are several results in the literature on proximity and remoteness and the relationship between these two distance measures and between them and other graph parameters such as minimum degree.
Zelinka \cite{z} and Aouchiche and Hansen \cite{a} independently showed that in a
connected graph $G$ of order $n$, the proximity and the remoteness are bounded from above as follows.
\begin{thm}\label{thmA}
Let $G$ be a connected graph of order $n\ge 2.$Then
\[ 1 \leq \pi(G)\leq\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{n+1}{4}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{n+1}{4} + \frac{1}{4(n-1)}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even.}
      \end{array} \right. \]
The lower bound holds with equality if and only if $G$ has a vertex of degree $n-1$. The upper bound holds with equality if and only if $G$ is a path or a cycle. Also,
$1 \leq \rho(G) \leq n/2.$ The lower bound holds with equality if and only if $G$ is a complete graph. The upper bound holds with equality if and only if $G$ is a path.
\end{thm}
In Section \ref{strong digraph}, we prove Theorem \ref{p_1}, which is an analog of Theorem \ref{thmA} for strong digraphs. Note that the upper bound for proximity in Theorems \ref{p_1} is different from the one
in Theorem \ref{thmA}.

The difference between remoteness and proximity
for graphs with just given order was bounded by Aouchiche and Hansen \cite{a} as follows.
\begin{thm}\label{thmB}
 Let $G$ be a connected graph on $n\geq 3$ vertices with remoteness $\rho(G)$ and proximity $\pi(G)$ Then
\[\rho(G)- \pi(G)\leq\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{n-1}{4}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{n-1}{4} + \frac{1}{4(n-1)}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even.}
      \end{array} \right. \]
Equality holds if and only if $G$ is a graph obtained from a path $P_{\lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil}$ and any connected graph $H$ on $\lfloor\frac{n}{2}+1\rfloor$ vertices by a coalescence of an endpoint of the path with any vertex of $H$.
\end{thm}
In Section \ref{strong digraph}, we obtain Theorem \ref{thm:rho-pi}, which is an analog of Theorem \ref{thmB} for strong digraphs. Note that the upper bound on the difference between remoteness and proximity
given in Theorem \ref{thm:rho-pi} is different from that in Theorem \ref{thmB}.
Theorem \ref{thm:rho-pi} describes all strong digraphs $D$ for which the upper bound on $\rho(D)-\pi(D)$ holds with equality. A trivial lower bound for $\rho(D)-\pi(D)$ is 0. Neither Theorem \ref{thmB} nor Theorem \ref{thm:rho-pi} provide characterizations on when   $\rho(H)=\pi(H),$ where $H$ is a graph and digraph, respectively. While it seems to be hard to characterize\footnote{It appears to be interesting  open questions to characterize such strong digraphs and connected graphs.} all digraphs $D$ with
 the property $\rho(D)=\pi(D),$ we start research in this direction in Section \ref{characterisation}. We prove that a tournament satisfies such a property if and only if it is regular. To show this result we first prove an analog of
 Theorem \ref{p_1} for strong tournaments, which may be of independent interest. One may conjecture that every strong digraph $D$ with $\rho(D)=\pi(D)$ is regular. However, we demonstrate that this is already false for bipartite tournaments. In Section \ref{und}, we show that this is also false for undirected graphs.

We conclude our paper in Section \ref{sec:disc} with a discussion about distance parameters for directed and undirected graphs. For more research on proximity and remoteness  and related distance parameters for undirected graphs, see, e.g., \cite{a,b,dan,da}.

\paragraph{Additional Terminology and Notation.}
The {\em complement} $\overline{D}$ of a digraph $D$ is a digraph with $V(\overline{D})=V(D)$ and $A(\overline{D})=\{uv\mid u\neq v\in V(D), uv\not\in A(D)\}.$ A digraph $D$ is {\em complete} if its complement has no arcs.
 If $v$ is a vertex in a digraph $D$, then the {\em out-neighbourhood} of $v$ is $N^+(v)=\{u\in V(D)\mid vu\in A(D)\}$ and {\em in-neighbourhood} of $v$ is $N^-(v)=\{u\in V(D)\mid uv\in A(D)\}$, and the out-degree $d_D^+(v)$ and in-degree $d_D^-(v)$ of $v$ are  $|N^+(v)|$ and $|N^-(v)|,$ respectively. We denote by $\Delta^+(D)$ and $\Delta^-(D)$ the maximum out-degree and maximum in-degree of $D$ respectively, similarly, by $\delta^+(D)$ and $\delta^-(D)$ the minimum out-degree and minimum in-degree of $D,$ respectively. The maximum semi-degree and the minimum semi-degree of $D$ are $\Delta^0(D) = \max\{\Delta^+(D), \Delta^-(D)\}$ and $\delta^0(D) = \min\{\delta^+(D), \delta^-(D)\}$ respectively.
A digraph $D$ is  {\em regular} if $\delta^0(D)=\Delta^0(D)$.

The {\em eccentricity} ${\rm ecc}(u)$ of a vertex $u$ in a digraph $D$ is the distance from $u$ to a vertex farthest from $u$, the \emph{radius} ${\rm rad}(D)$ and \emph{diameter} ${\rm diam}(D)$ are the minimum and maximum of all eccentricities of $D,$ respectively. For a nonnegative integer $p$, let $[p]=\{i\in \mathbb{Z}\mid 1\le i\le p\}.$ Thus, $[0]=\emptyset.$

If $i$ is a nonnegative integer and $v\in V(D)$, then $N^{+i}(v)$ is the set of all vertices at distance $i$ from $v$, and $n_i$ its cardinality. In particular, $N^{+0}(v)=\{v\}$ and $N^{+1}(v)=N^+(v).$
Observe that we have that $n_i \geq 1$ if and only if $0\leq i\leq {\rm ecc}(v)$. Let $p$ be a positive integer. A vertex $u$ of a digraph $D$ is called a {\em $p$-king} if $V(D)=\bigcup_{i=0}^p N^{+i}(u).$

We make use of the notion of {\em distance degree} $X(v)$ of $v$ defined in \cite{da}
as the sequence $(n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_{{\rm ecc}(v)}).$  For  an arbitrary sequence $X=(x_0,x_1,\dots ,x_{\ell})$ of integers, let $g(X)=\sum_{i=0}^{\ell}ix_i.$
Observe that $\sigma(v)=g(X(v)).$

An {\em orientation} of a graph $G$ is a digraph obtained from $G$ by replacing each edge by exactly one of the two possible arcs. We call an orientation of a complete graph and complete $k$-partite graph a {\em tournament} and a {\em $k$-partite tournament}, respectively. A 2-partite tournament is also called a {\em bipartite tournament}.

\section{Bounds on Proximity and Remoteness for Strong Digraphs}\label{strong digraph}

\begin{theorem}\label{p_1}
Let $D$ be a strong digraph on $n\geq 3$ vertices. Then
\[1\leq \pi(D)\leq \frac{n}{2}.\]
The lower bound holds with equality if and only if $D$ has a vertex of out-degree $n-1$. The upper bound holds with equality if and only if $D$ is a dicycle.
And,
\[1\leq \rho(D)\leq \frac{n}{2}.\]
The lower bound holds with equality if and only if $D$ is a complete digraph. The upper bound holds with equality if and only if $D$ is strong and contains a Hamiltonian dipath $v_1v_2\dots v_n$ such that
 $\{v_iv_j\mid 2\le i+1<j\le n\}\subseteq A(\overline{D}).$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The lower bounds and extreme digraphs for them are trivial. For the upper bounds, since $\pi(D)\leq \rho(D)$, it suffices to prove only the upper bound for remoteness. Let $u$ be an arbitrary vertex of $D.$ It suffices to show that
$\sigma(u)\le {n \choose 2}.$ Let $X(u)=(n_0,n_1,\ldots,n_d)$ and let $v\in N^{+d}(u).$ Then there is a dipath from $u$ to $v$ implying that $n_i\ge 1$ for every $i\in [d]$ (clearly $n_0=1$).
Let $X=X(u).$ Observe that $d\le n-1$ and if $d=n-1$ then $n_i=1$ for each $i\in [d]$  implying that $\sigma(u)=g(X)={n \choose 2}.$ If $d<n-1$ then there is a maximum $i$ such that $n_i>1.$ Observe that for $X'=(n_0,\dots, n_{i-1},n_i-1,n_{i+1},\dots ,n_d,1),$  we have $g(X)<g(X').$ Replacing $X$ by $X'$ and constructing a new $X'$ if $d$ is still smaller than $n-1,$ we will end up with $X=(1,\dots ,1)$ implying that $\sigma(u)< {n \choose 2}.$

Observe that the upper bound of $\pi(D)$ is reached if $D$ is a dicycle. Now let $D$ be a strong digraph such that is not $\overrightarrow{C}_{n}$ and let $u$ be a vertex such that $d=d^+_D(u)=\Delta^+(D)\geq 2$.  Then
$(n-1)\pi(D)\le \sigma(u)=g(X(u)).$ Observe that $X(u)=(1,d,n_2,\dots ,n_{{\rm ecc}(u)})$ and ${\rm ecc}(u)\le n-d.$ Using the same argument as in the paragraph above, we conclude that $g(X(u))<g(Y),$ where $Y=(1,y_1,\dots ,y_{n-1})$
and $y_i=1$ for each $i\in [n-1].$ Thus, $(n-1)\pi(D)<{n \choose 2}$ and $\pi(D)<n/2.$

The upper bound of $\rho(D)$ is reached if and only if $D$ is strong and there is a vertex $v_1$ such that ${\rm ecc}(v_1)=n-1.$ The last condition is equivalent to
$D$ containing a Hamiltonian dipath $v_1v_2\dots v_n$ such that $\{v_iv_j\mid 2\le i+1<j\le n\}\subseteq A(\overline{D})$ (as otherwise ${\rm ecc}(v_1)<n-1$).
\end{proof}

Theorem \ref{p_1} allows us to easily prove the following:

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:rho-pi}
Let $D$ be a strong digraph, then $\rho(D)-\pi(D)\leq \frac{n}{2}-1$. The upper bound holds with equality if and only if $D$ contains a Hamiltonian dipath $v_1v_2\dots v_n$ such that
 $\{v_iv_j\mid 2\le i+1<j\le n\}\subseteq A(\overline{D})$ and there is at least one of the vertices $v_{n-1}, v_n$ has out-degree $n-1$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The upper bound follows from the lower bound on $\pi(D)$ and upper bound on $\rho(D)$ in Theorem \ref{p_1}.
Observe that if $\rho(D)-\pi(D)=\frac{n}{2}-1$, then $\rho(D)=\frac{n}{2}$ and $\pi(D)=1$. By Theorem \ref{p_1}, this is equivalent to
$D$ containing a Hamiltonian dipath $v_1v_2\dots v_n$ such that
 $\{v_iv_j\mid 2\le i+1<j\le n\}\subseteq A(\overline{D})$ and the out-degree of at least  one of the vertices $v_{n-1}, v_n$ being $n-1.$
\end{proof}

\section{Digraphs $D$ with $\rho(D)=\pi(D)$} \label{characterisation}

We call a tournament $T$ \textit {regular} if $d^+(u)=d^-(u)=\frac{n-1}{2}$ for every $u\in V(T).$ This can happen only when $n$ is odd.
A tournament is \textit {almost regular} if $n$ is even and $d^+(u)=\frac{n}{2}$ or $d^+(u)=\frac{n-2}{2}$ for every $u\in V(T).$

This section has two parts: the first proves that for a strong tournament $T,$  $\rho(T)=\pi(T)$ if and only if $T$ is regular,
and the second provides an infinite family of strong bipartite tournaments $T$ for which  $\rho(T)\ne \pi(T).$

\subsection{Tournaments}

We will use the following well-known result.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop2}\cite{l}
Every tournament contains a 2-king, moreover, every vertex with maximum out-degree is a 2-king.
\end{proposition}

The next theorem is an analog of Theorem \ref{p_1}  for tournaments and allows us to easily show that for a strong tournament $T,$  $\rho(T)=\pi(T)$ if and only if $T$ is regular.

\begin{theorem}\label{p_3}
Let $D$ be a strong tournament on $n$ vertices, then
\[\frac{n}{n-1}\leq\pi(D)\leq\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{3}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{2(n-1)}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even}
      \end{array} \right. \]
 The lower bound holds with equality if and only if $\Delta^+(D)=n-2.$
      The upper bound holds with equality if and only if $D$ is a regular or
      almost regular tournament.
And,
   \[\frac{n}{2}\geq\rho(D)\geq\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{3}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{2(n-1)}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even}
      \end{array} \right. \]
      The lower bound holds with equality if and only if $D$ is a regular or almost regular tournament. The upper bound holds with equality if and only if $D$ is isomorphic to the tournament
      $T_n$ with $V(T_n)=\{v_1,\dots ,v_n\}$ and $A(T_n)=\{v_iv_{i+1}\mid i\in [n-1]\}\cup \{v_jv_i\mid 2\le i+1<j\le n\}.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $D$ is strong, $\Delta^+(D)\le n-2.$ Thus, $\frac{n}{n-1}\leq\pi(D).$
We have $\pi(D)=\frac{n}{n-1}$ if and only if there are vertices $u,v,w$ such that $ux\in A(D)$ for all $x\in V(D)\setminus \{u,v\},$ $vu\in A(D)$ but $wv\in A(D),$
which if and only if   $\Delta^+(D)=n-2$ since by  Proposition \ref{prop2} a vertex of out-degree $n-2$ is a 2-king.

For the upper bound on $\pi(D)$, consider a vertex $u$ of $D$ such that $d^+(u)=\Delta^+(D)$. Then, by Proposition \ref{prop2}, $u$ is a 2-king of $D$.
Since the average out-degree is $\frac{n-1}{2}$, we have that
\[d^+(u)\geq\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{n-1}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{n}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even}.
      \end{array} \right. \]
      Now, \begin{align*}
        \sigma(u)&=\sum_{i=0}^{d}in_i\\
        &=\Delta^+(D)+2\left(n-\Delta^+(D)-1\right)\\
        &\leq\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{3}{2}(n-1)
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{3}{2}n-2
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even}.
      \end{array} \right.
      \end{align*}
  And taking the average completes the proof to this bound. Observe that the equality holds only when \[d^+(u)=\Delta^+(D)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{n-1}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{n}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even}.
      \end{array} \right. \]\\
  The upper bound of $\rho(D)$ and the fact that there is only one tournament $D$ (up to isomorphism) with $\rho(D)=n/2$
  follow from  the corresponding bound in Theorem \ref{p_1} and the characterization of digraphs $H$ for which  $\rho(H)=n/2$.

  For the lower bound of $\rho(D)$, consider a vertex $u$ of $D$ such that $d^+(u)=\delta^+(D)$. We have that
  \[d^+(u)\leq\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{n-1}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{n-2}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even}.
      \end{array} \right. \]
 Now, \begin{align*}
        \sigma(u)&=\sum_{i=0}^{d}in_i\\
        &\geq\delta^+(D)+2\left(n-\delta^+(D)-1\right)\\
        &\geq\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{3}{2}(n-1)
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{3}{2}n-1
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even}.
      \end{array} \right.
      \end{align*}
  And taking the average completes the proof to this bound. Observe that the equality holds only when
  \[d^+(u)=\delta^+(D)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{n-1}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is odd,} \\
        \\
    \frac{n-2}{2}
        & \textrm{if $n$ is even}.
  \end{array} \right.\]
  Thus the lower bound holds with equality if and only if $D$ is a regular or almost regular tournament.
\end{proof}

Theorem  \ref{p_3} allows us to easily obtain such a characterization of strong tournaments $T$ with  $\rho(T)=\pi(T).$

\begin{theorem}\label{prop}
For any strong tournament $T$, we have $\rho(T)=\pi(T)$ if and only if $T$ is a strong regular tournament.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\pi(D)\le \rho(D)$ for every strong digraph and by the upper bounds on $\pi(H)$ and lower bounds for $\rho(H)$ for strong tournaments in Theorem  \ref{p_3}
(including the characterizations of when the bounds hold), we have that for a strong tournament $T$ of order $n,$ $\rho(T)=\pi(T)$ if and only if $T$ is regular.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Bipartite Tournaments}

 Due to Theorem \ref{prop}, one may conjecture that every digraph $D$ with $\rho(D)=\pi(D)$ is regular. However, in this subsection we will show that this is not true and such counterexamples can be found already among bipartite tournaments. To obtain such counterexamples, we will first study some properties of strong bipartite tournaments.

In what follows, let $T=T[A,B]$ be a strong bipartite tournament with partite sets $A$ and $B$ of sizes $n$ and $m$, respectively.

\begin{defn}
A bipartite tournament is called \emph{bad} if there exists a vertex, the out-neighborhood of which is a proper subset of the out-neighborhood of another vertex, otherwise it is called \emph{good}.
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}
For a vertex $v$, we denote by $M(v)$ the set of vertices with the same out-neighborhood as $v$, i.e., $M(v)=\{u| N^+(u)=N^+(v)\}$; and we denote $|M(v)|$ by $\mu(u)$.
\end{defn}

\begin{lem}\label{lem:notnice}
If $T=T[A,B]$ be a bad strong bipartite tournament, then $\pi(T)\ne \rho(T).$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let vertices $u$ and $v$ be such that $N^+(u)\subset N^+(v).$ Then there is a vertex $w\in N^+(v)\setminus N^+(u).$
Note that for every $x\in (A\cup B)\setminus \{u,v,w\},$ we have $d(v,x)\le d(u,x).$ Since $vwu$ is a path in $T,$ we have $2=d(v,u)\le d(u,v).$ Finally, $1=d(v,w)<d(u,w).$
Thus, $\sigma(v)<\sigma(u)$ implying $\pi(T)\ne \rho(T).$
\end{proof}

Thus, we may restrict ourselves only to good strong bipartite tournaments.
The next lemma follows from the main result in \cite{GG}: for every $k\ge 2,$ if a $k$-partite tournament $D$ has at most one vertex of in-degree zero, then every vertex of $D$ is a 4-king.

\begin{lem}\label{lem:nice}
Let $T$ be a good strong bipartite tournament, then every vertex of $T$ is a $4$-king.
\end{lem}

\begin{lem}\label{lem:formulas}
Let $T=T[A,B]$ be good, $\rho(T)=\pi(T)$ and $u\ne v\in (T).$ If both $u$ and $v$ are in $A$ or in $B$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A}
\mu(u)-d^+(u)=\mu(v)-d^+(v)
\end{equation}
If $v\in A$ and $u\in B$ then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AB}
    2(\mu(v)-d^+(v))+|B|=2(\mu(u)-d^+(u))+|A|
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For every vertex $v\in A$, $\sigma(v)=\sum_{i=0}^{4}in_i=d^+(v)+2(n-\mu(v))+3(m-d^+(v))+4(\mu(v)-1)=2(\mu(v)-d^+(v))+2n+3m-4.$ Similarly, if $v\in B$ then
$\sigma(v)=2(\mu(v)-d^+(v))+2m+3n-4.$ The results of the lemma follow from $\sigma(u)=\sigma(v)$ when $u$ and $v$ are from the same partite set of $T$ and when they are from different partite sets of $T.$
\end{proof}

Lemmas \ref{lem:nice} and \ref{lem:formulas} imply the following:

\begin{cor}\label{cor:iff}
For a strong bipartite tournament $T,$ we have $\rho(T)=\pi(T)$ if and only if $T$ is good and there is a constant $c$ such that for every $v\in A$ and $u\in B$,
$$ 2(\mu(v)-d^+(v))+m=2(\mu(u)-d^+(u))+n=c$$ In particular, for a strong bipartite tournament $T$ with $n=m$, we have
$\rho(T)=\pi(T)$ if and only if $T$ is good and $d^+(u)- \mu(u)$ is the same for every vertex $u$.
\end{cor}

To help us find bipartite tournaments $T$ with $\rho(T)=\pi(T),$ one can use the following:

\begin{cor}\label{cor:reg}
Let $T$ be a good bipartite tournament and $c$ a constant such that $\mu(x)=c$ for every $x\in V(T).$  Then  $\rho(T)=\pi(T)$ if and only if $d^+(v)=m/2$ and $d^+(u)=n/2$ for every $v\in A$ and $u\in B.$
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\rho(T)=\pi(T).$ By (\ref{eq:A}) and  $\mu(x)=c$ for every $x\in V(T),$ there exist constants $c'$ and $c''$ such that $d^+(v)=c'$ and $d^+(u)=c''$ for every $v\in A$ and $u\in B.$  Since $T$ has $nm$ arcs, $c'n+c''m=nm.$ By (\ref{eq:AB}) and  $\mu(x)=c$ for every $x\in V(T),$ we have $m-2c'=n-2c''$ implying $c''=c'-\frac{m-n}{2}.$ After substitution of $c''$ by $c'-\frac{m-n}{2}$ in $c'n+c''m=nm$ and simplification, we obtain $c'=m/2.$ This and $m-2c'=n-2c''$ imply $c''=n/2.$

Now suppose that $d^+(v)=m/2$ and $d^+(u)=n/2$ for every $v\in A$ and $u\in B.$  Since $\mu(x)=c$ for every $x\in V(T)$ and $T$ is good, by Corollary \ref{cor:iff}, we have $\rho(T)=\pi(T).$
\end{proof}

The following result shows, in particular, that there are non-regular digraphs $D$ for which $\rho(D)=\pi(D).$

\begin{theorem}\label{prop1}
For both $|A|=|B|$ and $|A|\ne |B|$, there is an infinite number of bipartite tournaments  $T$ with $\rho(T)=\pi(T).$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For the case $|A|=|B|,$ we can use the following simple bipartite tournament $T$. Let $n$ be even and let $A_1\cup A_2$ and $B=B_1\cup B_2$ be partitions of $A$ and $B$ into subsets of size $n/2.$ Let $N^+(v_i)=B_i$ for every $v_i\in A_i$ for $i=1,2.$ By Corollary \ref{cor:reg},  $\rho(T)=\pi(T).$

For the case of $|A|\ne |B|,$ first consider the following bipartite tournament $T_1$.  Let $A=\{1,2,3,4\}, B=\{1',2',3',4',5',6'\}$, and $N^+(1)=\{1',2',3'\},N^+(2)=\{1',4',5'\}, N^+(3)=\{2',4',6'\},$ $N^+(4)=\{3',5',6'\}.$
Observe that $ d^+(v)=3$  and  $\mu(v)=1$ for every $ v\in A$ and $d^+(u)=2$ and $\mu(u)=1$ for every $u\in B.$ Thus, by Corollary  \ref{cor:reg}, $T_1$ has $\rho(T_1)=\pi(T_1).$ Now we obtain a new bipartite tournament $T_t$ from $T_1$ by replacing every vertex $x$ in $T$ by $t\ge 2$ vertices $x_1,\dots , x_t$ such that $x_iy_j\in A(T_t)$ if and only if $xy\in A(T).$ Let $A_t$ and $B_t$ be the partite sets of $T_t$, $t\ge 1.$
Observe that for every $t\ge 1,$ $T_t$ is good, $\mu(x)=t$ for every $x\in V(T_t),$ and $d^+(v)=|B_t|/2$ and $d^+(u)=|A_t|/2$ for every $v\in A$ and $u\in B.$ Thus, by Corollary \ref{cor:reg} $\rho(T)=\pi(T).$
\end{proof}

\section{Undirected Graphs $G$ with  $\rho(G)=\pi(G)$}\label{und}

Using computer search, we found two non-regular graphs $G$ for which  $\rho(G)=\pi(G).$ The graphs are depicted in Figures \ref{fig:1} and \ref{fig:2}. Using the first of the graphs, we will prove the following:

\begin{theorem}
There is an infinite number of non-regular graphs $G$ with $\rho(G)=\pi(G).$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Consider the following non-regular graph $G$ (see Fig. \ref{fig:1}) with $V(G)=\{v_i\mid i\in \{0\}\cup [8]\}$ and
$$E(G)=\{v_0v_3, v_0v_6, v_0v_7, v_1v_4, v_1v_6, v_1v_8, v_2v_5, v_2v_7, v_2v_8, v_3v_6, v_3v_7, v_4v_6, v_4v_8, v_5v_7, v_5v_8\}.$$
Observe that $X(v_0)=X(v_1)=\ldots=X(v_5)=(1, 3, 4, 1)$ and $X(v_6)=X(v_7)=X(v_8)=(1, 4, 2, 2).$ Thus,
$\sigma(v_i)= 22$ for every $i\in \{0\}\cup [8]$ implying that $\rho(G)=\pi(G).$ Now obtain a new graph $G_t$ from $G$ by replacing every vertex $x$ in $G$ by $t\ge 2$ vertices $x_1,\dots , x_t$ such that $x_iy_j\in E(G_t)$ if and only if $xy\in E(G).$ Hence for any pair $x_i,x_j\in E(G_t)$ we have that $d(x_i,x_j)=2$. Thus, $\sigma(x_i)=22+2(t-1)$ for every vertex $x_i$ of $G_t$ implying that $\rho(G_t)=\pi(G_t).$
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 4cm]{1.jpg}
\caption{A non-regular graph $G$ of order 9 with $\rho(G)=\pi(G)$}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 6cm]{2.jpg}
\caption{A non-regular graph $G$ of order 11 with $\rho(G)=\pi(G)$}
\label{fig:2}
\end{figure}

\section{Discussion}\label{sec:disc}
The following inequalities hold by definition for both connected graphs and strong digraphs:
\[\pi(D)\leq\rho(D), \quad {\rm rad}(D)\leq {\rm diam}(D),\quad \pi(D)\leq {\rm rad}(D), \quad \rho(D)\leq {\rm diam}(D),\quad 1\leq {\rm diam}(D)\leq n-1.\]

For strong digraphs, the parameters ${\rm rad}(D)$ and $\rho(D)$ are incomparable as we can see from the following two examples.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[($i$)] Let $c\in [n-1]$ be arbitrary.  Denote by $D_c$ the strong digraph with vertices $v_0,v_1,\dots ,v_{n-1}$ and
    arc set $$A(D_c)=\{v_0v_j\mid j\in [n-1]\}\cup \{v_pv_{p+1}\mid p\in [n-2]\}\cup \{v_{n-1}v_1,v_cv_0\}.$$
 It is not hard to see that ${\rm rad}(D_c)=1$ and $\rho(D_c)=\frac{n}{2}$, hence, ${\rm rad}(D_c)< \rho(D)$ for $n\geq 3$.
    \item[($ii$)] If $D$ is a dicycle $\overrightarrow{C}_{n}$ on $n$ vertices, we have that ${\rm rad}(D)=n-1$ and $\rho(D)=\frac{n}{2}$, hence, ${\rm rad}(D)>\rho(D)$ for $n\geq 3$.
\end{enumerate}

The following results hold for connected graphs but do not necessarily for strong digraphs.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[1.] For  a connected graph $G,$ ${\rm diam}(G)\leq 2{\rm rad}(G)$.
A simple example showing that this inequality does not hold for strong digraphs is when $D$ is the digraph $D_c$ defined above. Then ${\rm rad}(D)=1$ and ${\rm diam}(D)=n-1$, hence, ${\rm diam}(D)>2{\rm rad}(D)$.
\item[2.] For  a connected graph $G,$ if $v$ is a vertex of $G$ such that ${\rm ecc}(v)={\rm rad}(G)=r$, then for each $i\in [r-1]$, there exist at least two vertices at distance $i$ from $v$.
A counterexample to this observation for strong digraphs is when $D$ is a dicycle. Then ${\rm ecc}(v)={\rm rad}(G)=n-1$ for every vertex $v\in V(D),$ and for every vertex $v\in V(D)$ there is only one vertex of distance $i\in [n-2]$ from $v.$
\item[3.] For a connected graph $G$  of order $n$, if $n\geq 2$ then $1\leq {\rm rad}(G)\leq \lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor$.
As counterexample for strong digraphs, again consider $D$ to be a dicycle on $n$ vertices. Indeed, ${\rm rad}(D)=n-1>\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor$ for $n\geq 3$.
\end{enumerate}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Discrete Mathematics (cs.DM)


Abstract: A result by C. C.-A. Cheng, J. H. Mckay and S. S.-S. Wang says the following: Suppose the Jacobian of $A$ and $B$ is invertible in $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$ and the Jacobian of $A$ and $w$ is zero for $A,B,w \in \mathbb{C}[x,y]$. Then $w \in \mathbb{C}[A]$. We show that in CMW's result it is possible to replace $\mathbb{C}$ by any field of characteristic zero, and we conjecture the following 'two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over $D$': Suppose the Jacobian of $A$ and $B$ is invertible in $D[x,y]$ and the Jacobian of $A$ and $w$ is zero for $A,B,w \in D[x,y]$, $D$ is an integral domain of characteristic zero. Then $w \in D[A]$. We show that if the famous two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture is true, then the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture is true.

\section{Introduction}
Throughout this note, $k$ denotes a field of characteristic zero,
$D$ denotes an integral domain of characteristic zero
($D$ is commutative) with field of fractions $Q(D)$.
The group of invertible elements of a ring $R$ will be denoted by $R^*$.

In ~\cite[Theorem 1]{wang younger}, C. C.-A. Cheng, J. H. Mckay and S. S.-S. Wang have shown that
`the centralizer with respect to the Jacobian' of an element $A \in \mathbb{C}[x,y]$
which has a Jacobian mate, equals the polynomial ring in $A$ over $\mathbb{C}$:
Suppose $\Jac(A,B) \in \mathbb{C}^*$ and $\Jac(A,w)=0$ for $A,B,w \in \mathbb{C}[x,y]$.
Then $w \in \mathbb{C}[A]$.

We show that $\mathbb{C}$ can be replaced by $k$.

Then we conjecture that $k$ can be replaced by any integral domain of characteristic zero,
and call this 'the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over $D$':
Suppose $\Jac(A,B) \in D^*$ and $\Jac(A,w)=0$ for $A,B,w \in D[x,y]$.
Then $w \in D[A]$.

The famous two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture says that every $k$-algebra
endomorphism $f: (x,y) \mapsto (p,q)$ of $k[x,y]$
having an invertible Jacobian,
$\Jac(p,q):=p_xq_y-p_yq_x \in k[x,y]^*=k^*$, is an automorphism
of $k[x,y]$; it was raised by O. H. Keller ~\cite{keller},
actually over $\mathbb{Z}$ not over $k$.

We show that if the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture is true
then the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture is true.
Therefore, if the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture is false for some $D$,
then the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture is false.
We 'believe' that the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture is true,
so there should be no counterexample to the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture.

\section{CMW's theorem over $k$}
We will show in two ways that in CMW's theorem it is possible to
replace $\mathbb{C}$ by $k$.
\subsection{First way: Independent of the original CMW's theorem}
We will apply the following observation of E. Formanek.

\begin{proposition}[Formanek's observation]\label{lemma formanek}
Let $F$ be any field.
Assume that $C,D \in F[x,y]$ are algebraically dependent over $F$.
Then there exist $h \in F[x,y]$
and $u(t), v(t) \in F[t]$,
such that
$C=u(h)$ and $D=v(h)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The proof of Formanek can be found in ~\cite{formanek}.
We wish to mention that it uses L\"uroth's theorem, a sharpening of E. Noether (characteristic zero)
and A. Schinzel (arbitrary field);
those three results can be found in ~\cite[first chapter]{schinzel}.
\end{proof}

The following is a known result due to Jacobi (1841);
we will only need the second statement of it.
\begin{theorem}[Jacobi's theorem]\label{jacobi}
Let $F$ be any field, $C,D \in F[x,y]$.
\begin{itemize}
\item [(1)] If $C$ and $D$ are algebraically dependent over $F$,
then $\Jac(C,D)=0$.
\item [(2)] Assume that $F$ is of characteristic zero.
If $\Jac(C,D)=0$,
then $C$ and $D$ are algebraically dependent over $F$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
See ~\cite[page 8]{alg dep} or ~\cite[pages 19-20]{makar deri}.
\end{proof}

Actually, in $(2)$ of Jacobi's theorem, the base field $F$ can be either a field of characteristic zero
or a field of large enough characteristic, as is shortly explained in ~\cite[page 8]{alg dep}.
However, we are only interested in the zero characteristic case,
since we are interested in the (two-dimensional) Jacobian Conjecture,
which has a counterexample over a field of prime characteristic $P$,
for example, $(x,y) \mapsto (x+x^P,y)$.

Now we are ready to prove CMW's result over $k$:

\begin{theorem}[CMW's theorem over $k$]\label{cmw char zero}
Suppose $\Jac(A,B) \in k^*$ and $\Jac(A,w)=0$
for $A,B,w \in k[x,y]$.
Then $w \in k[A]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
$\Jac(A,w)=0$, so by Jacobi's theorem, Theorem \ref{jacobi} $(2)$,
we obtain that $A$ and $w$ are algebraically dependent over $k$.

By Formanek's observation, Proposition \ref{lemma formanek},
applied to $A$ and $w$
we obtain that there exist $h \in k[x,y]$
and $u(t), v(t) \in k[t]$,
such that
$A=u(h)$ and $w=v(h)$.

Then,
$u'(h)\Jac(h,B)=\Jac(u(h),B)=\Jac(A,B) \in k^*$,
where the first equality can be easily proved.
Therefore, $u'(h) \in k^*$ (and $\Jac(h,B) \in k^*$).

Write
$u(t)=c_mt^m+c_{m-1}t^{m-1}+\cdots+c_2t^2+c_1t+c_0$, $c_j \in k$,
so
$u'(t)=m c_m t^{m-1}+(m-1) c_{m-1} t^{m-2}+\cdots+2 c_2 t+c_1$,
and then
$u'(h)=m c_m h^{m-1}+(m-1) c_{m-1} h^{m-2}+\cdots+2 c_2 h+c_1$.

{}From $u'(h) \in k^*$, we obtain that
$m c_m h^{m-1}+(m-1) c_{m-1} h^{m-2}+\cdots+2 c_2 h+c_1 \in k^*$,
which implies that
$m c_m = (m-1) c_{m-1} = \ldots = 2 c_2 =0$,
$c_1 \in k^*$, and $c_0 \in k$.
Since $k$ is of characteristic zero, we necessarily have
$c_m = c_{m-1} = \ldots = c_2 =0$.

Therefore,
$u(t)=c_1t+c_0$, $c_1 \in k^*$, and $c_0 \in k$,
so
$A=u(h)=c_1 h+c_0$.

Then, $h=\frac{A-c_0}{c_1}$,
which shows that
$w=v(h)=v(\frac{A-c_0}{c_1}) \in k[A]$.
\end{proof}

The above proof of Theorem \ref{cmw char zero} (which is based on Formanek's observation)
is independent of ~\cite[Theorem 1]{wang younger}, so it can serve as another proof for ~\cite[Theorem 1]{wang younger}.

Our proof of Theorem \ref{cmw char zero} is not valid if we replace $k$ by a field of large enough characteristic
(= a characteristic for which Jacobi's theorem, Theorem \ref{jacobi} $(2)$, is valid);
indeed, although Formanek's observation is valid for any field, we needed zero characteristic for
'$j c_j=0$ implies $c_j=0$, $2 \leq j \leq m$', and we do not have control on $m$.

\subsection{Second way: Dependent on the original CMW's theorem}
We can prove CMW's theorem over $k$, Theorem \ref{cmw char zero},
in a way which is not based on Formanek's observation, but it relies on
the original proof ~\cite[Theorem 1]{wang younger}.
For convenience, we will divide our proof to three steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item Step 1: Replace $\mathbb{C}$ by an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.
\item Step 2: Prove the result for any sub-field of an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.
\item Step 3: Consider $k$ as a sub-field of $\bar{k}$, where $\bar{k}$ is an algebraic closure of $k$.
\end{itemize}

\begin{proposition}[Step 1]\label{step 1}
Let $L$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.
Suppose $\Jac(A,B) \in L^*$ and $\Jac(A,w)=0$
for $A,B,w \in L[x,y]$.
Then $w \in L[A]$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The proof of the original CMW's theorem ~\cite[Theorem 1]{wang younger}
is still valid if we replace $\mathbb{C}$ by $L$.
Indeed, that proof uses three results: Jacobi's theorem, Theorem \ref{jacobi} $(1)$,
~\cite[Theorem 1]{wang deri} and ~\cite[Corollary 1.5, p. 74]{bass}.
In order to replace $\mathbb{C}$ by any algebraically closed field
of characteristic zero, it is enough to check that each of these three results are valid
over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero; indeed:
\begin{itemize}
\item Theorem \ref{jacobi} $(1)$ is over any field.
\item ~\cite[Theorem 1]{wang deri} is over any ring.
\item ~\cite[Corollary 1.5, p. 74]{bass} is over an algebraically closed field
of characteristic zero.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}[Step 2]\label{step 2}
Let $L$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero,
and let $K \subseteq L$ be any sub-field of $L$.

Suppose $\Jac(A,B) \in K^*$ and $\Jac(A,w)=0$
for $A,B,w \in K[x,y]$.
Then $w \in K[A]$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
$w \in K[x,y]$, so we can write
$w= \sum_{j=0}^{s}w_j y^j$, for some $w_j \in K[x]$, $0 \leq j \leq s$.
$A \in K[x,y]$, so we can write
$A= \sum_{l=0}^{t}A_l y^l$, for some $A_l \in K[x]$, $0 \leq l \leq t$.

$A,B,w \in K[x,y] \subseteq L[x,y]$ satisfy
$\Jac(A,B) \in K^* \subseteq L^*$
and $\Jac(A,w)=0$,
so Proposition \ref{step 1} implies that $w \in L[A]$,
namely,
$w= \sum_{i=0}^{r} c_i A^i$ for some $c_i \in L$, $0 \leq i \leq r$.

We will show that for every $0 \leq i \leq r$,
$c_i \in K$, by induction on $r$:

If $r=0$, then $w= c_0$.
Then
$\sum_{j=0}^{s}w_j y^j= c_0$,
so
$\sum_{j=0}^{s}w_j y^j- c_0 =0$,
namely,
$\sum_{j=1}^{s}w_j y^j +(w_0 - c_0) =0$.
As an equation in $L[x,y]=L[x][y]$,
we get $w_0 - c_0 = 0$
and $w_j = 0$, $1 \leq j \leq s$.
Hence $K[x] \ni w_0 = c_0 \in L$,
so $c_0 \in L \cap K[x] = K$.

If $r=1$, then $w=c_0 +c_1 A$.
On the one hand,
$w=c_0 +c_1 A= c_0 + c_1(\sum_{l=0}^{t}A_l y^l)
= c_0 + c_1(A_0+A_1y+\cdots+A_{t-1} y^{t-1} + A_t y^t)
= (c_0 + c_1A_0)+ c_1A_1y+ \cdots+ c_1A_{t-1} y^{t-1}+ c_1A_t y^t$;
as an element of $L[x][y]$ its $(0,1)$-degree equals $t$
and its $(0,1)$-leading term is $c_1A_t y^t$.
On the other hand,
$w= \sum_{j=0}^{s}w_j y^j= w_0+ w_1y+ \cdots+ w_{s-1}y^{s-1}+ w_sy^s$;
as an element of $K[x][y] \subseteq L[x][y]$ its $(0,1)$-degree equals $s$
and its $(0,1)$-leading term is $w_s y^s$.
Combining the two yields that $t=s$
and $c_1 A_t = w_s$.
Hence $c_1 = \frac{w_s}{A_t} \in K(x)$,
so $c_1 \in L \cap K(x) = K$.
{}From $w=c_0 +c_1 A$,
we get $c_0 = w- c_1 A \in K[x,y]$.
Hence $c_0 \in L \cap K[x,y] = K$,
so $c_0 \in K$.
Therefore, we obtained that
$w=c_0 +c_1 A \in K[A]$.

If $r \geq 2$:
On the one hand,
$w= \sum_{i=0}^{r} c_i A^i
= \sum_{i=0}^{r} c_i (\sum_{l=0}^{t}A_l y^l)^i
= c_0+c_1(\sum_{l=0}^{t}A_l y^l)+\cdots+c_r(\sum_{l=0}^{t}A_l y^l)^r$;
as an element of $L[x][y]$ its $(0,1)$-degree equals $tr$
and its $(0,1)$-leading term is $c_r A_t^r y^{tr}$.
On the other hand,
$w= \sum_{j=0}^{s}w_j y^j$;
as an element of $K[x][y] \subseteq L[x][y]$ its $(0,1)$-degree equals $s$
and its $(0,1)$-leading term is $w_s y^s$.
Combining the two yields that $tr=s$
and $c_r A_t^r = w_s$.
Hence $c_r = \frac {w_s}{A_t^r} \in K(x)$,
so $c_r \in L \cap K(x) = K$.

Then $\sum_{i=0}^{r-1} c_i A^i = w- c_r A^r \in K[x,y]$.
We can apply the induction hypothesis on
$\sum_{i=0}^{r-1} c_i A^i$ and obtain that
for every $0 \leq i \leq r-1$,
$c_i \in K$.
Therefore, we obtained that
$w=\sum_{i=0}^{r} c_i A^i \in K[A]$.
\end{proof}

Now we present a second proof for CMW's theorem over $k$,
Theorem \ref{cmw char zero}:
\begin{proposition}[Step 3, second proof for CMW's theorem over $k$]\label{step 3}
Suppose $\Jac(A,B) \in k^*$ and $\Jac(A,w)=0$
for $A,B,w \in k[x,y]$.
Then $w \in k[A]$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $\bar{k}$ be an algebraic closure of $k$.
We have, $k \subseteq \bar{k}$
with $\bar{k}$ an algebraically closed field
of characteristic zero.
Apply Proposition \ref{step 2}
and get that $w \in k[A]$.
\end{proof}

\section{The two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture}

For $u,v \in R[x,y]$, $R$ a commutative ring,
we will use the following usual terminology:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\Jac(u,v) \in R[x,y]^*=R^*$, then we say that $u$
has a \textit{Jacobian mate} in $R[x,y]$, $v$ (and vice versa),
and $u,v$ is a \textit{Jacobian pair} (in $R[x,y]$).
\item If $(x,y) \mapsto (u,v)$ is an automorphism of $R[x,y]$,
then we say that $u,v$ is an \textit{automorphism pair} (in $R[x,y]$).
(An automorphism pair is a Jacobian pair, since the Jacobian
of an automorphism pair is invertible in $R[x,y]$).
\end{itemize}
Also, we will use the following non-usual terminology:
If $\Jac(u,v)=0$, then we say that $v$ is in 'the centralizer
of $u$ with respect to the Jacobian',
$u$ is in 'the centralizer of $v$ with respect to the Jacobian',
and $u,v$ 'commute with respect to the Jacobian'.

{}From CMW's theorem over $k$, Theorem \ref{cmw char zero}
or Proposition \ref{step 3}, it is immediate to obtain the following:

\begin{theorem}\label{cmw domain}
Suppose $\Jac(A,B) \in D[x,y]^*=D^*$
and $\Jac(A,w)=0$ for

$A,B,w \in D[x,y]$.
Then $w \in Q(D)[A]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
$A,B \in D[x,y] \subset Q(D)[x,y]$
satisfy
$\Jac(A,B) \in D^* \subset Q(D)^*$
and
$w \in D[x,y] \subset Q(D)[x,y]$
satisfies $\Jac(A,w)= 0$.
We can apply Theorem \ref{cmw char zero} or Proposition \ref{step 3}
($Q(D)$ is a field of characteristic zero)
and obtain that $w \in Q(D)[A]$.
\end{proof}

Theorem \ref{cmw domain} shows that
there exists $d(w) \in D$ such that $d(w)w \in D[A]$;
indeed, since $w \in Q(D)[A]$ we can write
$w= \sum \frac{\lambda_i}{\mu_i}A^i$,
for some $0 \neq \mu_i, \lambda_i \in D$.
Then,
$w= \frac{1}{d} \sum d_i A^i$,
where
$d= \prod{\mu_i} \in D^*$
and
$d_j= \frac{\lambda_j \prod{\mu_i}}{\mu_j} \in D$.
Therefore,
$dw= d(\frac{1}{d} \sum d_i A^i)
= d\frac{1}{d} (\sum d_i A^i)
= \sum d_i A^i \in D[A]$.
This does not tell much, since each $w$ has its own $d=d(w)$,
so in order to obtain the centralizer of $A$ with respect to the Jacobian,
we will need to add (apriori) infinitely many $\frac{1}{d(w)}$'s to $D$.
In other words, we can say that the centralizer of $A$ is
$D[\{\frac{1}{d(w)}\}_{w}][A] \subseteq Q(D)[A]$.
We conjecture that the centralizer of $A$ is the smallest possible
(= every $\frac{1}{d(w)}$ belongs to $D$), namely $D[A]$.

\begin{conjecture}[The two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over $D$]\label{cent conj int dom}
Suppose $\Jac(A,B) \in D[x,y]^*=D^*$ and $\Jac(A,w)=0$
for $A,B,w \in D[x,y]$.
Then $w \in D[A]$.
\end{conjecture}

\begin{examples}[Non-counterexamples]\label{examples cmw}

\textbf{First non-counterexample:}
The following is not a counterexample to
the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over $\mathbb{Z}$:
$A=2+3y$, $w=1+y$; clearly $w$ is in the centralizer of $A$ w.r.t. the Jacobian,
and $w=1+y=\frac 13+\frac 13 (2+3y)=\frac 13+\frac 13 A
\in \mathbb{Q}[A]-\mathbb{Z}[A]$.
However, $A$ does not have a Jacobian mate in $\mathbb{Z}[x,y]$,
since if $B \in \mathbb{Z}[x,y]$ was a Jacobian mate of $A$,
then, by definition,
$-3B_x= \Jac(A,B) \in \mathbb{Z}[x,y]^*=\mathbb{Z}^*= \{1,-1\}$
($B_x$ denotes the derivative of $B$ w.r.t. $x$),
so $B_x = \pm \frac 13 \notin \mathbb{Z}[x,y]$,
which is impossible (since $B \in \mathbb{Z}[x,y]$
implies that $B_x \in \mathbb{Z}[x,y]$).

\textbf{Second non-counterexample:}
The following is not a counterexample to
the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over
$D:= k[a^2,ab,b^2,a^3,b^3]$, where $a$ and $b$ are transcendental over $k$;
it is due to YCor ~\cite{my}:
$A=(ax+by)^2=a^2x^2+2abxy+b^2y^2 \in D[x,y]$,
$w=(ax+by)^3=a^3x^3+3a^2bx^2y+3ab^2xy^2+b^3y^3$;
clearly $w$ is in the centralizer of $A$ w.r.t. the Jacobian.
{}From considerations of degrees, $w \notin D[A]$
and also from considerations of degrees, $w \notin Q(D)[A]$
(the degree of $w$ is $3$, while the degree of a polynomial in
$A$ is even).
However, $A$ does not have a Jacobian mate in $D[x,y]$;
this can be seen in two ways:
\begin{itemize}
\item Otherwise, by Theorem \ref{cmw domain},
$w \in Q(D)[A]$, but $w \notin Q(D)[A]$.
\item Otherwise, if $B \in D[x,y]$ was a Jacobian mate of $A$,
then, by definition,
$\Jac(A,B) \in D[x,y]^*=D^*=k^*$
A direct computation shows that
$\frac 12 \Jac(A,B)= (a^2x+aby)B_y-(b^2y+abx)B_x$,
hence $\Jac(A,B)|(x=0,y=0)=0$,
which contradicts $\Jac(A,B) \in k^*$.
\end{itemize}
\end{examples}

The two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture has a positive answer (at least)
in the following two special cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item First special case: $D$ is, in addition, a field; this is CMW's theorem over $k$,
Theorem \ref{cmw char zero} or Proposition \ref{step 3}.
\item Second special case: $(x,y) \mapsto (A,B)$ is, in addition, an automorphism
($A,B$ is an automorphism pair);
this is the content of the following Theorem \ref{cmw domain auto}.
\end{itemize}

\begin{theorem}[Special case: Automorphism pair]\label{cmw domain auto}
Suppose $\Jac(A,B) \in D[x,y]^*=D^*$ and $\Jac(A,w)=0$
for $A,B,w \in D[x,y]$.
Further assume that $(x,y) \mapsto (A,B)$
is an automorphism of $D[x,y]$.
Then $w \in D[A]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Denote
$g: (x,y) \mapsto (A,B)$.
By assumption, $g$ is an automorphism
of $D[x,y]$,
so $g^{-1}: D[x,y] \to D[x,y]$
exists and is also an automorphism of $D[x,y]$.

\textbf{First step $A=x$:}
If $A=x$, then it is easy to see that $w \in D[A]= D[x]$.
Indeed,
$w_y = \Jac(x,w)= \Jac(A,w)= 0$,
where $w_y$ is the derivative of $w$
with respect to $y$.
Write $w$ in its $(0,1)$-degree form:
$w=w_0+w_1y+w_2y^2+\cdots+w_my^m$,
where
$w_0,w_1,w_2,\ldots,w_m \in D[x]$.
We have just seen that $w_y= 0$,
hence,
$0= w_y= w_1+2w_2y+\cdots+mw_my^{m-1}$,
which implies that
$w_1=2w_2= \ldots =mw_m=0$,
so
$w_1=w_2= \ldots =w_m=0$
(since the characteristic of $D$ is zero).
Therefore, $w=w_0 \in D[x]= D[A]$,
and we are done.

\textbf{Second step $A$ arbitrary:}
The general case can be obtained from the special case $A=x$.

Claim: $u:= g^{-1}(w)$ is in the centralizer of $x$.
Proof of Claim:
$\Jac(x,u)=\Jac(g^{-1}(A),g^{-1}(w))=0$,
since $\Jac(A,w)=0$
(it is clear that if $A$ and $w$ are algebraically dependent
over $D$, then $g^{-1}(A)$ and $g^{-1}(w)$
are also algebraically dependent over $D$).
Apply the first step and get that
$g^{-1}(w) = u \in D[x]$.
Hence we can write
$g^{-1}(w)= d_0+d_1x+d_2x^2+\cdots+d_lx^l$,
for some
$d_0,d_1,d_2,\ldots,d_l \in D$.
Then,
$w= g(d_0+d_1x+d_2x^2+\cdots+d_lx^l)
= g(d_0)+g(d_1x)+g(d_2x^2)+\cdots+g(d_lx^l)
= g(d_0)+g(d_1)g(x)+g(d_2)g(x^2)+\cdots+g(d_l)g(x^l)
= d_0+d_1A+d_2A^2+\cdots+d_lA^l \in D[A]$.
\end{proof}

It is not surprising that we have not succeeded to find a counterexample
to the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture,
since when we picked an $A \in D[x,y]$ which has a Jacobian mate $B \in D[x,y]$,
those $A$ and $B$ always defined an automorphism of $D[x,y]$,
and for an automorphism of $D[x,y]$ (= $A$ is part
of an automorphism pair) the conjecture holds by Theorem \ref{cmw domain auto}.

Given a commutative ring $R$, denote:
\begin{itemize}
\item $JC(2,R)$: The two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $R$ is true,
namely, every $R$-algebra endomorphism of $R[x,y]$
having an invertible Jacobian (the Jacobian is in
$R[x,y]^*=R^*$) is an automorphism of $R[x,y]$.
\item $CC(2,R)$: The two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over $R$ is true,
namely, if $\Jac(A,B) \in R[x,y]^*=R^*$ and $\Jac(A,w)=0$
for $A,B,w \in R[x,y]$, then $w \in R[A]$.
\end{itemize}

We have,
\begin{theorem}[$JC(2,D)$ implies $CC(2,D)$]\label{more general than jc}
If the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $D$ is true,
then the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over $D$ is true.
\end{theorem}

We do not know if the converse of Theorem \ref{more general than jc} is true, namely,
if a positive answer to the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over $D$
implies a positive answer to the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $D$.

\begin{proof}
Assume that $A \in D[x,y]$ has a Jacobian mate
$B$ in $D[x,y]$,
and $w \in D[x,y]$ satisfies $\Jac(A,w)= 0$.
We must show that $w \in D[A]$.
By assumption, the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $D$ is true,
so $(x,y) \mapsto (A,B)$ is an automorphism of $D[x,y]$.
Apply Theorem \ref{cmw domain auto} and get that $w \in D[A]$.
\end{proof}

Recall ~\cite[Lemma 1.1.14]{essen book} which says that
$JC(2,\mathbb{C})$ implies $JC(2,D)$, therefore:

\begin{theorem}\label{more general than jc 2}
If the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $\mathbb{C}$ is true,
then the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over $D$ is true.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
$JC(2,\mathbb{C}) \Rightarrow JC(2,D) \Rightarrow CC(2,D)$,
where the first implication is due to ~\cite[Lemma 1.1.14]{essen book},
while the second implication is due to Theorem \ref{more general than jc}.
\end{proof}

Of course, Theorem \ref{more general than jc} implies that
if there exists an integral domain $D$ of characteristic zero
such that the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over $D$ is false,
then the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $D$ is false,
and then, by ~\cite[Lemma 1.1.14]{essen book},
the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $\mathbb{C}$ is false.

We suspect that the two-dimensional Centralizer Conjecture over \textit{any} integral domain
of characteristic zero is true, because we 'believe' that the two-dimensional
Jacobian Conjecture is true.

Finally, we wish to quote A. van den Essen ~\cite[page 2]{essen amazing image}:
``... All these experiences fed my believe that the Jacobian Conjecture, if
true at all, would be difficult to generalize, since it felt like a kind of optimal
statement".

\section{Non-commutative analog: The first Weyl algebra}

By definition, the $n$'th Weyl algebra $A_n(k)$ is the unital associative $k$-algebra
generated by $2n$ elements $X_1, \ldots, X_n, Y_1, \ldots, Y_n$
subject to the following defining relations:
$[Y_i,X_j]= \delta_{ij}$, $[X_i,X_j]= 0$ and $[Y_i,Y_j]= 0$,
where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta.
When $n=1$, we will denote the generators by $X,Y$
instead of by $X_1,Y_1$.

The first Weyl algebra, $A_1(k)$, was first studied by Dirac ~\cite{dirac}.
In ~\cite{dixmier}, Dixmier posed six questions concerning $A_1(k)$,
$k$ is a field of characteristic zero. The first question asked if every
$k$-algebra endomorphism of $A_1(k)$ is an automorphism of $A_1(k)$;
this is known as Dixmier Conjecture.

Given a commutative ring $R$, denote:
\begin{itemize}
\item $JC(n,R)$: The $n$-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $R$ is true,
namely, every $R$-algebra endomorphism of $R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$
having an invertible Jacobian (the Jacobian is in
$R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]^*=R^*$) is an automorphism of $R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$.
\item $DC(n,R)$: The $n$'th Dixmier Conjecture over $R$ is true, namely,
every $R$-algebra endomorphism of $A_n(R)$ is an automorphism of $A_n(R)$.
\item $JC(\infty,R)$: For all $n \in \mathbb{N}$,
the $n$-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $R$ is true.
\item $DC(\infty,R)$: For all $n \in \mathbb{N}$,
the $n$'th Dixmier Conjecture over $R$ is true.
\end{itemize}

There is a well-known connection between the Jacobian Conjecture and the Dixmier Conjecture,
which says the following:
For all $n \in \mathbb{N}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] $DC(n,k)$ $\Rightarrow$ $JC(n,k)$.
\item [(ii)] $JC(2n,k)$ $\Rightarrow$ $DC(n,k)$.
\end{itemize}
The first result can be found in ~\cite[Theorem 4.2.8]{essen book}
and in ~\cite[page 297]{bcw} (immediately after Proposition 2.3).
The second result was proved independently by Y. Tsuchimoto ~\cite{tsuchimoto}
and by A. Belov-Kanel and M. Kontsevich ~\cite{belov}.
There exist additional proofs due to V. V. Bavula ~\cite{bavula jacobian},
and due to K. Adjamagbo and A. van den Essen ~\cite{essen adja}.
{}From $(i)$ and $(ii)$ it is clear that $JC(\infty,k)$ is
equivalent to $DC(\infty,k)$.

In the non-commutative algebra $A_1(k)$,
denote the centralizer of an element $P$ by $\Cent(P)$
(= all the elements in $A_1(k)$ which commute with $P$).

An analog result in $A_1(k)$ to CMW's result in $k[x,y]$ exists,
and is due to J. A. Guccione, J. J. Guccione and C. Valqui, namely:

\begin{theorem}[Analog of CMW's theorem over $k$]\label{analog cmw}
If $P,Q \in A_1(k)$ satisfy $[Q,P] \in A_1(k)^*=k^*$,
then $\Cent(P)=k[P]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
See ~\cite[Theorem 2.11]{ggv cent}.
\end{proof}

Notice that the non-commutative case ~\cite[Theorem 2.11]{ggv cent}
is already over $k$, while the commutative case ~\cite[Theorem 1]{wang younger}
is over $\mathbb{C}$ and we showed in Theorem \ref{cmw char zero} and in
Proposition \ref{step 3} that $\mathbb{C}$ can be replaced by $k$.

\begin{remark}
It seems that none of the proofs of Theorem \ref{cmw char zero}
and Proposition \ref{step 3} has a non-commutative version:
\begin{itemize}
\item The proof of Theorem \ref{cmw char zero} is based on
Formanek's observation, Proposition \ref{lemma formanek},
and on Jacobi's theorem, Theorem \ref{jacobi} $(2)$, which together
say the following:
Assume that $C,D \in k[x,y]$ satisfy $\Jac(C,D)=0$.
Then there exist $h \in k[x,y]$
and $u(t), v(t) \in k[t]$,
such that
$C=u(h)$ and $D=v(h)$.
However, there exists a known counterexample due to Dixmier ~\cite{dixmier}
to this result in the non-commutative case, namely,
there exist $C,D \in A_1(k)$ satisfying $[C,D]=0$,
but there exist no $h \in A_1(k)$
and $u(t), v(t) \in k[t]$,
such that
$C=u(h)$ and $D=v(h)$.
For more details on the counterexample, see ~\cite{makar cent weyl}
and ~\cite{mo makar}.
\item The proof of Proposition \ref{step 3} is based on the original CMW's
theorem; the proof of the original CMW's theorem uses results concerning
$\mathbb{C}[x,y]$ (such as extension of derivations), and we do not know if
those results have non-commutative analogs.
\end{itemize}
\end{remark}

CMW's theorem over $k$ implies Theorem \ref{cmw domain},
and similarly, the analog of CMW's theorem over $k$, Theorem \ref{analog cmw},
implies the following analog of Theorem \ref{cmw domain}:

\begin{theorem}\label{cmw domain dix}
Suppose $[A,B] \in A_1(D)^*=D^*$ and $[A,w]=0$
for $A,B,w \in A_1(D)$.
Then $w \in Q(D)[A]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
$A,B \in A_1(D) \subset A_1(Q(D))$
satisfy
$[A,B] \in D^* \subset Q(D)^*$
and
$w \in A_1(D) \subset A_1(Q(D))$
satisfies $[A,w]= 0$.
We can apply Theorem \ref{analog cmw}
($Q(D)$ is a field of characteristic zero)
and obtain that $w \in Q(D)[A]$.
\end{proof}

We conjecture the non-commutative analog of Conjecture \ref{cent conj int dom}:
\begin{conjecture}[The (first) Centralizer Conjecture over $D$]\label{cent conj int dom dix}
Suppose $[A,B] \in A_1(D)^*=D^*$ and $[A,w]=0$
for $A,B,w \in A_1(D)$.
Then $w \in D[A]$.
\end{conjecture}

The following useful equation will be applied in Examples \ref{examples cmw dix}
and in the proof of Theorem \ref{cmw domain auto dix}.

\begin{lemma}[Useful equation]\label{useful}
For all
$t(Y) \in k[Y]$ and $i \in \mathbb{N}$:
$[t(Y),X^i]=i X^{i-1}t'(Y)+\binom{i}{2} X^{i-2}t''(Y)+\dots$.
\end{lemma}

In particular, this equation is valid for $t(Y) \in D[Y]$
(since $t(Y) \in D[Y] \subset Q(D)[Y]$).

\begin{proof}
See ~\cite[Proposition 1.6]{ggv dix}.
\end{proof}

The analog of Examples \ref{examples cmw} is:

\begin{examples}[Non-counterexamples]\label{examples cmw dix}

\textbf{First non-counterexample:}
The following is not a counterexample to
the (first) Centralizer Conjecture over $\mathbb{Z}$:
$A=2+3Y$, $w=1+Y$; clearly $w \in \Cent(A)$,
and $w=1+Y=\frac 13+\frac 13 (2+3Y)=\frac 13+\frac 13 A
\in \mathbb{Q}[A]-\mathbb{Z}[A]$.
However, $A$ does not have a Dixmier mate in $A_1(\mathbb{Z})$,
since if $B \in A_1(\mathbb{Z})$ was a Dixmier mate of $A$,
then by the definition of a Dixmier mate,
$[A,B] \in A_1(\mathbb{Z})^*=\mathbb{Z}^*= \{1,-1\}$.
But this is impossible from the following direct computation:
Write $B=\sum b_{ij}X^iY^j$, $b_{ij} \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Then,

$[B,A]= [\sum b_{ij}X^iY^j,2+3Y]= \sum b_{ij}[X^iY^j,2+3Y]$
$= \sum b_{ij}(X^i[Y^j,2+3Y]+[X^i,2+3Y]Y^j)$
$=\sum b_{ij}[X^i,2+3Y]Y^j= \sum 3b_{ij}[X^i,Y]Y^j$
$=-\sum 3b_{ij}[Y,X^i]Y^j= -\sum 3b_{ij}iX^{i-1}Y^j$
$=-\sum 3ib_{ij}X^{i-1}Y^j$.
If $[A,B] \in \{1,-1\}$,
then
$\sum 3ib_{ij}X^{i-1}Y^j \in \{1,-1\}$.
Therefore, $3b_{10} \in \{1,-1\}$,
so $b_{10} \in \{\frac 13,-\frac 13\}$,
a contradiction to $b_{10} \in \mathbb{Z}$.

\textbf{Second non-counterexample:}
The following is not a counterexample to
the (first) Centralizer Conjecture over
$D:= k[a^2,ab,b^2,a^3,b^3]$, where $a$ and $b$ are transcendental over $k$:
$A=(aX+bY)^2$, $w=(aX+bY)^3$.
$w \in \Cent(A)$ (clear), $w \notin Q(D)[A]$ (considerations of degrees),
$A$ does not have a Dixmier mate in $A_1(\mathbb{D})$
(direct computation).
\end{examples}

The (first) Centralizer Conjecture has a positive answer (at least)
in the following two special cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item First special case: $D$ is, in addition, a field;
this is the analog of CMW's theorem over $k$,
Theorem \ref{analog cmw}.
\item Second special case: $(X,Y) \mapsto (A,B)$ is, in addition, an automorphism
($A,B$ is an automorphism pair);
this is the content of the following Theorem \ref{cmw domain auto dix}.
\end{itemize}

\begin{theorem}[Special case: Automorphism pair]\label{cmw domain auto dix}
Suppose $[A,B] \in A_1(D)^*=D^*$ and $[A,w]=0$
for $A,B,w \in A_1(D)$.
Further assume that $(X,Y) \mapsto (A,\lambda B)$,
$\lambda=[A,B]^{-1}$, is an automorphism of $A_1(D)$.
Then $w \in D[A]$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Denote
$g: (X,Y) \mapsto (A,\lambda B)$.
By assumption, $g$ is an automorphism
of $A_1(D)$,
so $g^{-1}: A_1(D) \to A_1(D)$
exists and is also an automorphism of $A_1(D)$.

Write $w=\sum w_{ij}X^iY^j$, $w_{ij} \in D$,
$0 \leq i \leq m$, $0 \leq j \leq l$.

\textbf{First step $A=X$:}
If $A=X$, then it is easy to see that $w \in D[A]= D[X]$.
Indeed,
$\sum jw_{ij}X^iY^{j-1}=\sum w_{ij}X^i jY^{j-1}
=\sum w_{ij}X^i[Y^j,X]=\sum w_{ij}(X^i[Y^j,X]+[X^i,X]Y^j)
=\sum w_{ij}[X^iY^j,X]=[\sum w_{ij}X^iY^j,X] = [w,X]= [w,A]= 0$.

Therefore, $jw_{ij}=0$,
$0 \leq i \leq m$, $1 \leq j \leq l$.
Since $D$ is of characteristic zero,
$w_{ij}=0$,
$0 \leq i \leq m$, $1 \leq j \leq l$.
Then,
$w=\sum_{i=0}^{m} w_{i0}X^iY^0
= \sum_{i=0}^{m} w_{i0}X^i \in D[X]$.

\textbf{Second step $A$ arbitrary:}
The general case can be obtained from the special case $A=X$.

Claim: $u:= g^{-1}(w)$ is in the centralizer of $X$.

Proof of Claim:
$[X,u]=[g^{-1}(A),g^{-1}(w)]$
$=g^{-1}(A)g^{-1}(w)-g^{-1}(w)g^{-1}(A)$
$=g^{-1}(Aw)-g^{-1}(wA)=g^{-1}(Aw-wA)$
$=g^{-1}([A,w])=g^{-1}(0)=0$.
Apply the first step and get that
$g^{-1}(w) = u \in D[X]$.
Hence we can write
$g^{-1}(w)= d_0+d_1X+d_2X^2+\cdots+d_lX^l$,
for some
$d_0,d_1,d_2,\ldots,d_l \in D$.
Then,
$w= g(d_0+d_1X+d_2X^2+\cdots+d_lX^l)
= g(d_0)+g(d_1X)+g(d_2X^2)+\cdots+g(d_lX^l)
= g(d_0)+g(d_1)g(X)+g(d_2)g(X^2)+\cdots+g(d_l)g(X^l)
= d_0+d_1A+d_2A^2+\cdots+d_lA^l \in D[A]$.
\end{proof}

We have an analog to Theorem \ref{more general than jc}:
\begin{theorem}\label{more general than jc dix}
If the first Dixmier Conjecture over $D$ is true,
then the (first) Centralizer Conjecture over $D$ is true.
\end{theorem}

We do not know if the converse of Theorem \ref{more general than jc dix} is true, namely,
if a positive answer to the (first) Centralizer Conjecture over $D$
implies a positive answer to the first Dixmier Conjecture over $D$.

\begin{proof}
Assume that $A \in A_1(D)$ has a Dixmier mate
$B$ in $A_1(D)$,
and $w \in A_1(D)$ satisfies $[A,w]= 0$.
We must show that $w \in D[A]$.
By assumption, the first Dixmier Conjecture over $D$ is true,
so $(X,Y) \mapsto (A,\lambda B)$, $\lambda=[A,B]^{-1}$,
is an automorphism of $A_1(D)$.
Apply Theorem \ref{cmw domain auto dix} and get that $w \in D[A]$.
\end{proof}

We do not know if an analog of ~\cite[Lemma 1.1.14]{essen book} exists,
hence we do not know how to obtain an analog of Theorem \ref{more general than jc 2}.

Of course, Theorem \ref{more general than jc dix} implies that
if there exists an integral domain $D$ of characteristic zero
such that the first Centralizer Conjecture over $D$ is false,
then the first Dixmier Conjecture over $D$ is false,
namely, there exists $A,B \in A_1(D)$,
$[B,A]=1$ and $(X,Y) \mapsto (A,B)$ is not an automorphism of
$A_1(D)$. We have recalled above in $(ii)$ that $JC(2n,k)$ $\Rightarrow$ $DC(n,k)$.
If this implication is also valid if we replace $k$ by $D$,
namely, $JC(2n,D)$ $\Rightarrow$ $DC(n,D)$,
then, in particular, $JC(2,D)$ $\Rightarrow$ $DC(1,D)$.
Therefore, if the first Dixmier Conjecture over $D$ is false,
then the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $D$ is false,
and then by ~\cite[Lemma 1.1.14]{essen book},
the two-dimensional Jacobian Conjecture over $\mathbb{C}$ is false.

\bibliographystyle{plain}


The complexity of intersecting subproducts with subgroups in Cartesian powers

Abstract: Given a finite abelian group $G$ and a natural number $t$, there are two natural substructures of the Cartesian power $G^t$; namely, $S^t$ where $S$ is a subset of $G$, and $x+H$ a coset of a subgroup $H$ of $G^t$. A natural question is whether two such different structures have non-empty intersection. This turns out to be an NP-complete problem. If we fix $G$ and $S$, then the problem is in $P$ if $S$ is a coset in $G$ or if $S$ is empty, and NP-complete otherwise; if we restrict to intersecting powers of $S$ with subgroups, the problem is in $P$ if $\bigcap_{n\in\mathbb{Z} \mid nS \subset S} nS$ is a coset or empty, and NP-complete otherwise. These theorems have applications in the article [Spe21], where they are used as a stepping stone between a purely combinatorial and a purely algebraic problem.

\section{Introduction}
\label{section:intro}
In this article, we take a look at intersecting cosets of submodules of Cartesian powers of modules, with powers of subsets of those modules. Although our final classification theorems hold only for abelian groups, i.e. $\mathbb{Z}$-modules, some of our lemmas in between also hold for more general modules.

We now give our definitions and theorems.

\begin{defn}
\label{defn:pgs}
Let $R$ be a commutative ring that is finitely generated as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module, let $G$ be a finite $R$-module and $S$ a subset of $G$. Then define the problem $P_{G,S}^R$ as follows. With input $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, x_* \in G^t$, the $t$-th Cartesian power of $G$, and $H$ a submodule of $G^t$ given by a list of generators, decide whether $(x_* + H) \cap S^t$ is non-empty. Write $P_{G,S}$ for $P_{G,S}^\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}
\label{defn:pigs}
Let $R$ be a commutative ring that is finitely generated as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module, let $G$ be a finite $R$-module and $S$ a subset of $G$. Then define the problem $\Pi_{G,S}^R$ as the subproblem of $P_{G,S}^R$ where $x_* = 0$. I.e., with input $t \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ and $H$ a submodule of $G^t$ given by a list of generators, decide whether $H \cap S^t$ is non-empty. Write $\Pi_{G,S}$ for $\Pi_{G,S}^\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{defn}

\begin{rem}
If $R$ is not finitely generated as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module, we can replace it by its image in $\End(G)$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
Note that $R,G,S$ are \textit{not} part of the input of the problem. In particular, computations inside $G$ can be done in $O(1)$.
\end{rem}

Note these problems are certainly in $\mathcal{NP}$, as one can easily give an $R$-linear combination of the generators (and add $x_*$ if necessary), and check that it lies in $S^t$. These problems are further studied in Section \ref{section:group}. For $R = \mathbb{Z}$, an $R$-module is just an abelian group; we prove two theorems that completely classify the problems $P_{G,S}$ and $\Pi_{G,S}$, in the sense that for each problem we either have a polynomial time algorithm or a proof of NP-completeness.

\begin{defn}
With $G$ an abelian group and $S \subset G$, we call $S$ a \emph{coset} if there is some $x \in G$ such that $S - x$ is a subgroup of $G$.
\end{defn}

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:pgs}
If $S$ is empty or a coset, then we have $P_{G,S} \in \P$. In all other cases, $P_{G,S}$ is NP-complete.
\end{thm}

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:pigs}
If $S$ is empty or $\theta(S) := \bigcap_{a \in \mathbb{Z} \mid aS \subset S} aS$ is a coset, then we have $\Pi_{G,S} \in \P$. In all other cases, $\Pi_{G,S}$ is NP-complete.
\end{thm}

\begin{rem}
\label{rem:psi}
Note that if $0 \in S$, then $\theta(S) = \{0\}$; additionally, if $G$ is a group with order a prime power and $S$ does not contain 0, then $\theta(S) = S$, as will be proven in Lemma~\ref{lem:psipowerp}.
\end{rem}

This paper is based on the author's thesis \cite{spelier2018}.

\newpage
\section{Group-theoretic \texorpdfstring{$\mathcal{NP}$}{NP}-complete problems}
\label{section:group}
In this section we will completely classify the group-theoretic problems $P_{G,S}$ and $\Pi_{G,S}$. Some of the lemmas we use to prove Theorems \ref{thm:pgs} and \ref{thm:pigs} we give for general $P_{G,S}^R$ (resp. $\Pi_{G,S}^R$) and some only for $P_{G,S}$ (resp. $\Pi_{G,S}$). Throughout this section, let $R$ be a commutative ring, finitely generated as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module. All abelian groups and $R$-modules we consider in this section are finite. We will use definitions and notations for $\P$ and $\mathcal{NP}$ as given in Appendix \ref{section:pnp}.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:pgs}}
\label{subs:pgs}
We first introduce four general lemmas that will help with the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:pgs}. As defined in the appendix, for two problems $P,Q$ we use the notation $P \leq Q$ if there is a reduction from $P$ to $Q$ and we write $P \approx Q$ if $P \leq Q$ and $Q \leq P$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:transinvar}
We have $P_{G,S}^R \approx P_{G,S+g}^R$ for all $g \in G$ (i.e., the problem is translation invariant).
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For the reduction $P_{G,S}^R \leq P_{G,S+g}^R$, we send an instance $(t,x_*,H)$ to $(t,x_* + (g,\ldots,g),H)$. By symmetry, we also have $P_{G,S+g}^R \leq P_{G,S}^R$; by the definition of $\approx$, we are done.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:restrict}
If $G'$ is a submodule of $G$, then we have $P_{G',G' \cap S}^R \leq P_{G,S}^R$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Given an instance $(t,x_*,H)$ of the first $P_{G',G' \cap S}^R$, we see it is also an instance of $P_{G,S}^R$, and as $H \cap S^t \subset G'^t \cap S^t = (G' \cap S)^t$, we see it is a yes-instance of the first problem exactly if it is a yes-instance of the second one.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:divideout}
Let $G'$ be a submodule of $G$ and $S'$ a subset of $G$, and define $S = S' + G'$. Then we have $P_{G/G',S'}^R \approx P_{G,S}^R$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For the reduction $P_{G/G',S'}^R \leq P_{G,S}^R$ we send an instance $(t,x_*,H)$ to $(t,x_*,H + G'^t)$; this works exactly because of the property $S = S' + G'$. For the reduction $P_{G,S}^R \leq P_{G/G',S'}^R$, we pass everything through the map $G \rightarrow G/G'$.
\end{proof}

For the last lemma, we first introduce a definition.

\begin{defn}
Let $G$ be an $R$-module. A \emph{transformation} on $G$ is a map $\varphi : G \to G$ of the form $x \mapsto c(x) + g$ with $c$ an $R$-linear endomorphism of $G$ and $g \in G$. For $S \subset G$, we write $S_{\varphi}$ for $S \cap \varphi^{-1}(S)$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
Since $R$ is commutative, multiplication by $r \in R$ is an $R$-linear endomorphism of $G$.
\end{rem}

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:transformation}
Let $G$ be an $R$-module, $S$ a subset of $G$ and $\varphi$ a transformation on $G$. Then $P_{G,S_{\varphi}}^R \leq P_{G,S}^R$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $c$ be an $R$-linear endomorphism of $G$, and $g \in G$ such that $\varphi$ is given by $x\mapsto c(x) + g$. Let $(t,x_*,H)$ be an instance of $P_{G,S_{\varphi}}$. Define $\Gamma = G^{t} \times G^t$ with $\pi_1,\pi_2$ the two projections, let $x_*' = (x_*,c(x_*) + g) \in \Gamma$ and $H' = \{(h,c(h)) \mid h \in H\} \subset \Gamma$. Note that $H$ is naturally isomorphic to $H'$ by $f: h \mapsto (h,c(h))$, as $R$ is commutative. We then see that for $h \in H$ we have that $x_*' + f(h) \in S^{2t}$ if and only if $\pi_1(x_*' + f(h)),\pi_2(x_*' + f(h)) \in S^{t}$ if and only if $x_* + h \in S$ and $c(x_*+h)+g = \varphi(x_* +h) \in S$, which is equivalent to $x_* + h \in S_{\varphi}$. This shows that $(2t,x_*',H')$ is a yes-instance of $P_{G,S}^R$ if and only if $(t,x_*,H)$ is a yes-instance of $P_{G,S_{\varphi}}^R$.
\end{proof}

We will now prove the easy part of Theorem~\ref{thm:pgs} with the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:pgseasy}
If $S \subset G$ is empty or a coset of some subgroup of $G$, then $P_{G,S}^R \in \P$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
As a submodule is in particular a subgroup, we have the inequality $P_{G,S}^R \leq P_{G,S}$, so it suffices to prove the lemma assuming that $R = \mathbb{Z}$. If $S$ is empty, then the problem is easy --- the answer is always no for $t > 0$ and yes for $t = 0$. If $S$ is of the form $a + G'$ with $a \in G$ and $G'$ a submodule of $G$, then by Lemma~\ref{lem:divideout} the problem is equivalent to $P_{G/G',\{a\}}$. To solve $P_{G/G',\{a\}}$ in polynomial time, we only need to decide whether the single element $(a,\ldots,a)-x_*$ is in $H$: this is simply checking whether a linear system of equations over $\mathbb{Z}$ has a solution, which can be done in polynomial time as proven in \textsection14 of \citep{lenstra2008lattices}. Here we use that $R$ is finitely generated as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module. Hence we indeed find that $P_{G/G',\{a\}}$ admits a polynomial time algorithm.
\end{proof}

We will prove the NP-complete part of Theorem~\ref{thm:pgs} by induction on $|S|$. There are two base cases: $|S| = 2$ for any group $G$, and $|S| = |G| - 1$ for $G = C_2^2$ where $C_2$ is the cyclic group of order $2$. Both cases follow from a reduction from $n$-colorability.
\begin{defn}
Let $n \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 1}$ be given. Then define the problem $n$-colorability as follows. Given as input a graph $(V,E)$, decide whether there exists a mapping $V \to \{1,\dots,n\}$ such that adjacent vertices have different images.
\end{defn}

\begin{lem}
Let $G$ be an $R$-module of cardinality at least $3$, and $S$ a subset of cardinality $|G|-1$. Then $P_{G,S}^R$ is NP-complete.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By translating, we can assume $S = G \setminus \{0\}$. We will reduce from $|G|$-colorability.

Let $(V,E)$ be an instance of $|G|$-colorability. Note that $G^V = \{(g_v)_{v\in V} \mid g_v \in G\}$ can be thought of as all ways of assigning elements of $G$ to the vertices. Let $f$ be the homomorphism from $G^V$ to $G^E$ defined by $(g_v)_{v\in V} \mapsto (g_u-g_v)_{(u,v) \in E}$, and note that an assignment in $G^V$ is a $|G|$-coloring if and only if it is sent to an element of $S^E$. Then we can take $H$ to be the submodule of $G^E$ generated by the images of $R$-generators of $G^V$, of which we need at most $|G||V|$. This is a valid reduction as $(V,E)$ will be $|G|$-colorable if and only if $H \cap S^E \not=\varnothing$; we can take $x_*$ to be zero.

As we have $|G| \geq 3$, the $|G|$-colorability problem is NP-complete \citep{garey} hence $P_{G,S}$ is NP-complete.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:s2}
Let $G$ be an $R$-module and $S$ a subset of cardinality $2$ which is not a coset of a subgroup. Then $P_{G,S}^R$ is NP-complete.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Write $S = \{s,s+d\}$. Because of Lemma~\ref{lem:transinvar} we can take $s = 0$. Since $S$ is of cardinality $2$ and not a subgroup, we have $-d,2d \not\in S$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:restrict} we are allowed to take $G = Rd$, and by renaming we can take $d = 1$, the module $G$ some finite quotient of $R$ and $S = \{0,1\}$ with $-1,2 \not\in S$.

We reduce from $3$-colorability. Let $C$ be our set of three colors. Given a graph $(V,E)$, we will construct a subgroup $H \subset \Gamma := G^{V \times C} \times G^{V} \times G^V \times G^{E\times C}$ and $x_* \in \Gamma$ such that $H + x_*$ has an element in $T := S^{V \times C} \times S^{V} \times S^V \times S^{E\times C} $ exactly if $(V,E)$ is 3-colorable. Let $\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3,\pi_4$ denote the four projections from $\Gamma$ on the four factors $G^{V \times C},G^{V}  ,G^V ,G^{E\times C}$. We take $H$ to be the image of $G^{V \times C}$ under the map
\begin{align*}
    \varphi: G^{V \times C} &\to \Gamma \\
    f &\mapsto (f,\sigma(f),\sigma(f),\tau(f)) \\
\end{align*}
where we define
\begin{align*}
    \sigma(f)(v) &= \sum_{c \in C} f(v,c)\\
    \tau(f)(e,c) &= \sum_{v \in e} f(v,c).
\end{align*} Furthermore, we choose $x_* = (0,0,-1,0)$. We see $\varphi$ gives an isomorphism $G^{V \times C} \to H$, with inverse $\pi_1$. Note that $\pi_1(\varphi(f) + x_*)$ needs to be in $\{0,1\}^{V \times C}$ for $\varphi(f) + x_*$ to be in $T$, and $\pi_1(\varphi(f) + x_*)\in \{0,1\}^{V \times C}$ happens if and only if $f$ itself is in $\{0,1\}^{V \times C}$.

To prove this is truly a reduction, we interpret $\{0,1\}^{V \times C}$ as assignments of subsets of $C$ to the vertices $V$, using the bijection between $\Fun(V,\{0,1\}^C)$ and $\Fun(V\times C,\{0,1\}) = \{0,1\}^{V \times C}$. A $3$-coloring of $(V,E)$ can then be equivalently redefined as such an assignment $f \in \{0,1\}^{V \times C}$ with the property that for every vertex $v \in V$ we have $\sigma(f)(v) =1$, i.e., each vertex gets a single color, and that for every $c \in C,\{i,j\} \in E$ we have $f(i)(c),f(j)(c)$ not both $1$. It suffices to show that these colorings map under $\varphi$ exactly to those $h \in \varphi(\{0,1\}^{V \times C})$ with $h + x_* \in T$.

Let $f \in \{0,1\}^{V \times C}$ be such a coloring with subsets of $C$, and let $h = \varphi(f)$ be the corresponding element of $H$. Then note that $\pi_2(h + x_*) \in \{0,1\}^{V \times C'}$ if and only if $\sigma(f)(v)$ is either $0$ or $1$. Also, $\pi_3(h+x_*)(v) = \sigma(f)(v) - 1$, which is $-1 \not\in S$ if $\sigma(f)(v) = 0$. Hence $(\pi_2(h+x_*),\pi_3(h+x_*)) \in \{0,1\}^{V} \times \{0,1\}^{V}$ if and only if for every vertex $v \in V$ we have $\sigma(f)(v) = 1$.

Finally, note that $\pi_4(h + x_*)(e,c)$ is in $\{0,1\}$ exactly if the two endpoints of $e$ do not both have color $c$. This completes the proof that the elements of $\{0,1\}^{V \times C}$ that are $3$-colorings correspond to $h \in H$ with $h + x_* \in T$, and hence the reduction is completed.
\end{proof}

\subsubsection{Induction step for a special kind of group}
\label{subsubs:special}
First, we will do the induction step for a special family of finite groups: $G = \langle a,b \rangle$ with $a\not= b$ and $S$ containing $0,a,b$, but not $a+b$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:pigsspecial}
Let $G$ be a finite abelian group generated by two distinct elements $a, b$, and $S$ a subset of $G$ containing $0,a,b$ but not $a + b$. Assume Theorem~\ref{thm:pgs} holds for all $P_{G',S'}$ with $|G'| + |S'| < |G| + |S|$. Then $P_{G,S}$ is NP-complete.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
In this proof, we will heavily use Lemma~\ref{lem:transformation}. We restrict to bijective transformations of the form $x \mapsto cx + g$ with $c = \pm 1$. If $\varphi$ is a transformation on $G$ and $P_{G,S_{\varphi}}$ is NP-complete, so is $P_{G,S}$. For the NP-completeness of the former, we only need $2 \leq |S_{\varphi}| < |S|$ and $S_{\varphi}$ not a coset, and then we are done by the induction hypothesis. We can also interpret this in another way: if two of the three conditions on $S_{\varphi}$ hold, then either we are done immediately, or the third one does not hold, which gives us more information about $S$. If $\varphi$ is bijective, then  $|S_{\varphi}| \leq |S|$ with equality if and only if $\varphi$ induces a permutation of $S$.

We will now prove the following claim: let $A = \{g \in G \mid g,g+a,g+b \in S, g+a+b \not\in S\}$. We already know that $0 \in A$. We will prove that if $g \in A$, then $\Pi_{G,S}$ is NP-complete or $g - 2a \in A$. For the proof, we can by Lemma~\ref{lem:transinvar} assume that $g = 0$.

We do a case distinction, based on whether $a-b$ is in $S$ or not. First, we assume it is. Let $\varphi_1: x\mapsto a+b-x$, and note that $a,b\in S_{\varphi_1},0\not\in S_{\varphi_1}$, so either we are done or $S_\phi \ni a,b$ is a coset, implying that $a + \langle b-a \rangle \subset S$, which we now assume. Now let $\varphi_2$ be the transformation  $x \mapsto a-b + x$. Note $0,a,b\in S_{\varphi_2}$, so $2 \leq |S|$ and $S_{\varphi_2}$ is not a coset. This now tells us that either we are done, or $S = S_{\varphi_2}$, meaning we can write $S = \Sigma + \langle b-a \rangle$ for some set $\Sigma$. Writing $\Gamma = G/\langle b-a \rangle$ we see $\Sigma$ is not a coset in $\Gamma$. Furthermore by Lemma~\ref{lem:divideout} we know $P_{G,S} \approx P_{\Gamma,\Sigma}$. Since $b-a \not= 0$, we have that $|\Sigma| + |\Gamma|$ is strictly smaller than $|S| + |G|$, which means that by the induction hypothesis we know $P_{\Gamma,\Sigma}$ to be NP-complete. Hence $P_{G,S} \in \mathcal{NPC}$ as we wanted to show.

In the remaining case, we have $a-b\not\in S$ and similarly we can assume that $b-a \not\in S$ holds as well. Looking at $x \mapsto b-x$ or $x \mapsto a -x$ we see we can assume $\langle a \rangle, \langle b \rangle \subset S$. Now we look at $\varphi_3: x\mapsto x-a-b$. If $-a-b\in S$, all conditions are met and we are done. So assume $-a-b\not\in S$. Finally taking $\varphi_4: x\mapsto a-b+x$, we can see that we must have $-a + \langle a-b \rangle \subset S$. We now have have $0-2a,a-2a,b-2a\in S, a+b-2a\not\in S$, hence $-2a \in A$.  This proves the claim.

Now $A$ is closed under $g \mapsto g - 2a$ and by symmetry also under $g \mapsto g- 2b$. As $a,b$ are of finite order, we find $2G \subset A$ and hence $S = \{ka + \ell b \mid k,\ell\in\mathbb{Z}, k\ell \equiv 0 \bmod 2\}$ and $G \setminus S = a+b+\langle 2a, 2b\rangle$, meaning $A = 2G$. Dividing out by $A$ and using Lemma~\ref{lem:divideout} we see we $P_{G,S}$ is equivalent to $P_{G/A,S'}$ where $S' = \{0,a,b\}$. Note that $|G/A| = 4$; we know $0,a+b$ are different in $G/A$ as $x \in \langle 2a, 2b\rangle$ implies $x \in S$, and then $a$ is non-zero as we have that $0+b \in S$ but $a + b \not\in S$, hence $a \not \in \langle 2a, 2b\rangle$. So $G/A = C_2^2$ and $|S'| = |G/A|-1$. We have already proven this to be NP-complete, so we are done.
\end{proof}

\subsubsection{Induction step for general case}
Finally, we will prove Theorem~\ref{thm:pgs} in the general case, by reducing to the case in Lemma~\ref{lem:pigsspecial}. For this, we first prove the following little lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:sab}
Let $G$ be an abelian group, and $S$ a subset of $G$. If $S$ has at least three elements, and the following statement holds
\[
\forall s,a,b: \left(s,s+a,s+b \in S \wedge a\not=b\right) \Rightarrow s+a+b\in S,
\]
then $S$ is a coset.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since the statement is translation invariant, assume $0 \in S$; we will prove that $S$ is a subgroup. Let $\{0,x,y\}$ be a subset of $S$ of size three, i.e. $x,y$ non-zero and different. As per the property for $s =0, a = x, b = y$, we already have $x+y \in S$, it suffices to prove that $x+x,-x \in S$. As $x+y\in S$, we can apply the property with $(x+y,-x,-x-y)$ to see $-x \in S$ and with $(y,x,-y+x)$ to get $2x \in S$, concluding the proof.
\end{proof}
Now for any instance $P_{G,S}$ with $S$ not a coset and with at least three elements, we can by contraposition of Lemma~\ref{lem:sab} find $s,a,b$ with $s,s+a,s+b\in S$ and $a\not=b$ and $s+a+b\not\in S$; by translating, we can assume $s = 0$. Then, we set $G' = \langle a,b \rangle$ and $S' = S \cap G'$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:pigsspecial}, we know $P_{G',S'}$ is NP-complete, and then by Lemma~\ref{lem:restrict} we find $P_{G,S}$ is NP-complete, as we wanted to show. This concludes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:pgs}.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:pigs}}
\label{subs:pigs}
We will show that Theorem~\ref{thm:pigs} follows immediately from Theorem~\ref{thm:pgs} and a lemma that relates the two problems. That lemma holds in the generality of $R$-modules, so we first will give a general definition of a useful function $\theta$.
\begin{defn}
Let $G$ be an $R$-module, and $S$ a subset of $G$. Then we write
\[
\theta(S) = \bigcap_{r \in R \mid rS \subset S} rS.
\]
\end{defn}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:pgspigs}
With $G$ a finite $R$-module, $S \subset G$ we have the following equivalence of problems
\[
\Pi_{G,S}^R = \Pi_{G,\theta(S)}^R \approx \Pi_{R\theta(S),\theta(S)}^R \approx P_{R\theta(S),\theta(S)}^R
\]
where $R\theta(S)$ means the $R$-module generated by $\theta(S)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We have to prove three equivalences, where the first is an equality. As defined in the appendix, two problems are the same if they have the same set of instances and the same set of yes-instances.

For the first one, note that if $(t,H)$ is a yes-instance of $\Pi_{G,S}^R$ with certificate $h \in H \cap S^{t}$, then
\[
\left(\prod_{r \in \im(R \to \End(G)) : rS \subset S} r\right)  h
\]
is in $\theta(S)^t$ as $R$ is commutative, hence $(t,H)$ is a yes-instance of $\Pi_{G,\theta(S)}^R$. The other way around, if $(t,H)$ is a yes-instance of $\Pi_{G,\theta(S)}^R$, then it is a yes-instance of $\Pi_{G,S}^R$ since $\theta(S)$ is a subset of $S$, proving the first equality.

For the second one, write $S' = \theta(S), G' = RS'$ and note that $\Pi_{G,S'} \leq \Pi_{G',S'}$ by taking any instance $H$ of the first problem and intersecting it with $G'^t$ using the kernel algorithm from \textsection14 of \citep{lenstra2008lattices}, since $H \cap S'^t = (H \cap G'^t) \cap S'^t$. And by Lemma~\ref{lem:restrict}, the inequality $\Pi_{G',S'} \leq \Pi_{G,S'}$ holds as well.

The real work happens in the third equivalence. Note $\Pi_{G',S'}^R \leq P_{G',S'}^R$ by taking $x_* = 0$. To show $P_{G',S'}^R \leq \Pi_{G',S'}^R$, let $(t,x_*,H)$ be an instance of $P_{G',S'}^R$. Let $n = |S'|$, and enumerate $S' = \{s_1,\dots,s_n\}$. We will construct an instance $(t',H')$ of the first problem; we will take $t' = t + n$ and $H' = H \times \{0\}^t + R\cdot y_*$ where $y_*$ is defined as $(x_*,s_1,\dots,s_n) $.

We need to check that if $(t,x_*,H)$ is a yes-instance, so is $(t',H')$ and vice versa. The first implication is trivial; if $h \in H$ has $x_* + h \in S^t$, then $h' = y_* + (h,0)$ is an element of $H'$, and lies in $S'$ on every coordinate, hence we see $h' \in H' \cap S'^{t'}$. For the other implication, let $h' = ay_* + (h,0)$ be an element of $H' \cap S'^{t'}$. Looking at the last $|S'|$ coordinates, we see $aS' \subset S'$. But as $\theta(S') = \theta^2(S) = \theta(S) = S'$, we must have $aS' = S'$. Since $a$ induces a bijection on $S'$ and $S'$ generates $G'$ we see $a$ is a unit in $\End(G')$, using the commutativity of $R$. Then some power of $a$ is its inverse in $\End(G')$. Hence we can multiply $h'$ with $a^{-1} \in \End(G')$, and since $a^{-1}S' = S'$ we see $y_* + a^{-1}(h,0) \in S'^{t'}$. Restricting to the first $t$ places, we see $x_* + h \in S'^{t}$, hence $(x_* + H) \cap S'^t \not= \varnothing$ as we wanted to show.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:pigs}]
Theorem~\ref{thm:pigs} now follows trivially from Theorem~\ref{thm:pgs} and Lemma~\ref{lem:pgspigs}.
\end{proof}

As promised in the introduction, we will also prove a short lemma about $\theta$ which generalises the case that $G$ has prime power cardinality.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:psipowerp}
Let $G$ be an $R$-module such that $A := \im(R \to \End(G))$ is local. Let $S$ be a subset of $G$. Then $\theta(S)$ equals $\{0\}$ if $0 \in S$ and $S$ otherwise.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Obviously, if $0 \in S$ then for every integer $a$ we have $0 \in aS$ so $\{0\} \subset \theta(S)$, and $0S \subset S$ hence $\theta(S) \subset \{0\}$, proving the first part. For the second part, in a local finite ring the powers of the maximal ideal must stabilise, which by Nakayama's lemma mean they must become zero. So every element of $A$ is either invertible or nilpotent. If $r \in A$ is nilpotent, and $0 \not\in S$, then $rS \not\subset S$; otherwise, we would have $r^k S \subset S$ for every $k \in \mathbb{Z}_{> 0}$, contradicting with the nilpotency of $r$ and $0 \not \in S$. That means that if $rS \subset S$ then on $G$, we have that $r$ induces an automorphism, and $rS \subset S$ then implies by cardinality that $rS = S$. Hence in this case $\theta(S) = S$, as we set out to prove.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Some important examples of when the conditions are satisfied, are the case where $R$ itself is local, and the case where $R = \mathbb{Z}$ and $G$ has prime power cardinality.
\end{rem}