Matroids with nine elements

Abstract: We describe the computation of a catalogue containing all matroids with up to nine elements, and present some fundamental data arising from this cataogue. Our computation confirms and extends the results obtained in the 1960s by Blackburn, Crapo and Higgs. The matroids and associated data are stored in an online database, and we give three short examples of the use of this database.

\section{Introduction}

In the late 1960s, Blackburn, Crapo \& Higgs published a technical report describing
the results of a computer search for all simple matroids on up to eight elements (although the resulting
paper \cite{MR0419270}  did not appear until 1973). In both the report and the paper they
said

\begin{quote}
{\em ``It is unlikely that a complete tabulation of 9-point geometries will be
either feasible or desirable, as there will be many thousands of them. The
recursion $g(9) = g(8)^{3/2}$ predicts 29260."}
\end{quote}

Perhaps this comment dissuaded later researchers in matroid theory, because their catalogue remained unextended for more than 30 years, which surely makes it one of the longest standing
computational results in combinatorics. However, in this paper we demonstrate that they were in
fact unduly pessimistic, and describe an orderly algorithm
(see McKay \cite{MR1606516} and Royle \cite{MR1614301})
that confirms their computations and extends them by determining the 383172 pairwise
non-isomorphic matroids on nine elements (see Table~\ref{tab:allmat9}).

Although this number of matroids is easily manageable on today's
computers, our  experiments with 10-element matroids suggests that there are at least
$2.5 \times 10^{12}$ sparse paving matroids of rank 5 on 10 elements. However we refrain from making
any analogous predictions about the desirability or feasibility of constructing a catalogue of
10-element matroids!

We give some fundamental data about these matroids, and briefly describe how they are
incorporated into an online database that provides access to a far greater range of data; this online
database is accessible at  \url{http://people.csse.uwa.edu.au/gordon/small-matroids.html}.

\section{Matroids, flats and hyperplanes}

We assume that the reader is familiar with the general idea of a matroid as being a
combinatorial generalization of a multiset of vectors in a vector space, in that it consists
of a set of elements and combinatorially defined concepts of dependence,
independence etc. with properties
analogous to the same concepts in vector spaces (see Oxley \cite{MR2065730} for a gentle
introduction to matroids, and Oxley \cite{MR1207587} for complete details).

There are many equivalent ways to make this description precise, but for definiteness we
will take a matroid $M = (E,r)$ to be a set $E$ together with a {\rm rank function}
$$
r : 2^E \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}
$$
satisfying the three conditions:

\noindent
(R1) If $A \subseteq E$ then $0 \leq r(A) \leq |A|$.\\
(R2) If $A \subseteq B \subseteq E$ then $r(A) \leq r(B)$.\\
(R3) If $A, B \subseteq E$, then
$
r(A \cap B) + r(A \cup B) \leq r(A) + r(B).
$

The matroid equivalents of various concepts from linear algebra may then be defined using the rank
function so that, for example, a set of elements $A \subseteq E$ is {\em independent} if
$|A| = r(A)$, and {\em spanning} if $r(A) = r(E)$. The rank of the matroid itself is
defined to be $r(E)$.

A {\em flat} is a set of elements $F \subseteq E$ such that for all $e \in E \backslash F$,
$$
r(F \cup e) > r(F).
$$
A flat is the matroid equivalent of a subspace, and as with subspaces, a crucial property of flats is that the intersection of two flats is again a flat. The intersection of all the flats containing a
subset $A \subseteq E$ is called the {\em closure} of $A$ and denoted by ${\rm cl}(A)$; it can be viewed as analogous to the subspace generated by a set of vectors.

The collection of flats of a matroid $M$ under inclusion, together with the two operations
$$
A \wedge B = A \cap B \qquad A \vee B = {\rm cl}(A \cup B)
$$
forms a {\em geometric lattice}  ${\cal L}(M)$. Figure~\ref{fig:lattice} shows this lattice for a rank-3
matroid with 7 elements, where a label such as $013$ is shorthand for the subset $\{0,1,3\}$.
In this lattice we say that $A$ {\em covers} $B$ if $A \subset B$ and  there are no flats $C$ such
that $A \subset C \subset B$.
The rank function of $M$ can be
uniquely recovered from ${\cal L}(M)$ --- the rank of a flat is the length of the maximal
chain from $\emptyset$ to that flat, and the  rank of any other subset $A \subseteq E$ is the rank
of ${\rm cl}(A)$. In fact more is true, because the {\em hyperplanes} (i.e. the flats of rank $r(E)-1$) are sufficient to determine the remaining flats, and hence the entire matroid.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=2, yscale=2]
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (1.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (2.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (3.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (4.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (5.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (6.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (7.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (1.0,3.2) -- (0.72,4.8);
\path[draw] (1.0,3.2) -- (2.18,4.8);
\path[draw] (1.0,3.2) -- (5.09,4.8);
\path[draw] (1.0,3.2) -- (6.54,4.8);
\path[draw] (2.0,3.2) -- (2.9,4.8);
\path[draw] (2.0,3.2) -- (4.36,4.8);
\path[draw] (2.0,3.2) -- (5.09,4.8);
\path[draw] (2.0,3.2) -- (5.81,4.8);
\path[draw] (3.0,3.2) -- (0.72,4.8);
\path[draw] (3.0,3.2) -- (5.81,4.8);
\path[draw] (3.0,3.2) -- (7.27,4.8);
\path[draw] (4.0,3.2) -- (1.45,4.8);
\path[draw] (4.0,3.2) -- (5.09,4.8);
\path[draw] (4.0,3.2) -- (7.27,4.8);
\path[draw] (5.0,3.2) -- (1.45,4.8);
\path[draw] (5.0,3.2) -- (3.63,4.8);
\path[draw] (5.0,3.2) -- (5.81,4.8);
\path[draw] (5.0,3.2) -- (6.54,4.8);
\path[draw] (6.0,3.2) -- (2.18,4.8);
\path[draw] (6.0,3.2) -- (2.9,4.8);
\path[draw] (6.0,3.2) -- (3.63,4.8);
\path[draw] (6.0,3.2) -- (7.27,4.8);
\path[draw] (7.0,3.2) -- (4.36,4.8);
\path[draw] (7.0,3.2) -- (6.54,4.8);
\path[draw] (7.0,3.2) -- (7.27,4.8);
\path[draw] (0.72,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (1.45,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (2.18,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (2.9,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (3.63,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (4.36,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (5.09,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (5.81,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (6.54,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (7.27,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (4.0,1.6) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](4.0,1.6) node [below left] {\small $\emptyset$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (1.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](1.0,3.2) node [below left] {\footnotesize $0$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (2.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](2.0,3.2) node [below left] {\footnotesize $1$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (3.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](3.0,3.2) node [below left] {\footnotesize $2$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (4.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](4.0,3.2) node [below left] {\footnotesize $3$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (5.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](5.0,3.2) node [below right] {\footnotesize $4$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (6.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](6.0,3.2) node [below right] {\footnotesize $5$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (7.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](7.0,3.2) node [below right] {\footnotesize $6$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (0.72,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](0.72,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $02$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (1.45,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](1.45,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $34$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (2.18,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](2.18,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $05$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (2.9,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](2.9,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $15$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (3.63,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](3.63,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $45$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (4.36,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](4.36,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $16$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (5.09,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](5.09,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $013$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (5.81,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](5.81,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $124$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (6.54,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](6.54,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $046$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (7.27,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](7.27,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $2356$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (4.0,6.4) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](4.0,6.4) node [above right] {\footnotesize $0123456$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The lattice of flats of a rank 3 matroid on 7 elements}
\label{fig:lattice}
\end{figure}

Two matroids $M_1 = (E_1, r_1)$ and $M_2 = (E_2, r_2)$ are {\em isomorphic} if there is a
bijection $\rho: E_1 \rightarrow E_2$ such that $r_2(\rho(A)) = r_1(A)$ for all $A \subseteq E$.
For most (but not all) applications, it is appropriate to treat isomorphic matroids as equal and when
counting and cataloguing matroids we are usually interested only in pairwise non-isomorphic matroids.

We can determine matroid isomorphism by using
the {\em hyperplane graph} of the matroid, which is
the bipartite graph whose vertices are the elements and hyperplanes of the matroid and
where a hyperplane-vertex is adjacent to an element-vertex if and only if the hyperplane contains the element. From our previous discussion, it is
clear that two matroids are isomorphic if and only if their hyperplane graphs are isomorphic as
bipartite graphs (i.e. with the bipartition fixed).
Although the theoretical complexity of graph isomorphism is not known, in practice Brendan
McKay's program {\tt nauty} \cite{MR635936} can easily process graphs with thousands of vertices
(except for a few pathologically difficult, but poorly understood graphs). As
the hyperplane graphs of the nine-element matroids have an average of only 74 vertices, isomorphism
for matroids of this size is very easy to resolve in practice.

We note that using hyperplanes is a somewhat arbitrary choice and that any other collection
of subsets that determines the matroid, such as the set of flats or the set of independent sets, could be
used analogously.

\section{Extensions and modular cuts}

If $M = (E, r)$ is a matroid and $e \in E$, then the restriction of $r$ to the subsets of
$E \backslash e$ is itself a rank function, and so determines a matroid $M\backslash e =
(E \backslash e, r \mid_{E \backslash e})$. We say that $M\backslash e$ is obtained
by {\em deleting} $e$ from $M$ and conversely that $M$ is an {\em single-element extension} of
$M\backslash e$.

Now suppose that we have a list ${\cal M}_k$ of the matroids on $k$ elements (or more precisely, one representative from each isomorphism class of matroids on $k$ elements). Then we can form
the list ${\cal M}_{k+1}$ of all matroids on $k+1$ elements by first finding all possible single-element extensions of every matroid in ${\cal M}_k$ and then eliminating unwanted isomorphic copies.

The key to extending a matroid in all possible ways lies in understanding the relationship
between the flats of a matroid $M$ and the flats of a single-element deletion $N = M\backslash e$. Letting
${\cal F}(M)$ denote the set of flats of a matroid $M$, it is easy to see that
\begin{equation}\label{flats}
{\cal F}(M\backslash e) = \{ F \backslash e \mid F \in {\cal F}(M) \}.
\end{equation}

Thus suppose that we are given the matroid $N$ and wish to add a new element $e$, thereby finding all matroids $M$ such that $M \backslash e = N$. By (\ref{flats}), every flat of $M$ is of the
form $F$ or $F \cup \{e\}$ where $F \in {\cal F}(N)$. More precisely, for each flat $F \in {\cal F}(N)$
exactly one of the following three situations must hold  in $M$:

\begin{enumerate}
\item $F \in {\cal F}(M)$ and $F \cup \{e\} \in {\cal F}(M)$
\item $F \in {\cal F}(M)$ but $F \cup \{e\} \notin {\cal F}(M)$
\item $F \notin {\cal F}(M)$ but $F \cup \{e\} \in {\cal F}(M)$
\end{enumerate}

Thus the flats of $M\backslash e$ are partitioned into three parts  in such a way that $M$ can
be uniquely recovered from $M \backslash e$ and this partition. Thus we can construct every
possible single-element extension of a matroid $N$ by considering all ``suitable'' partitions of
${\cal F}(N)$ into three parts and forming the different candidates for $M$ accordingly.

This is feasible in practice because Crapo \cite{MR0190045} showed that only certain highly
structured partitions of ${\cal F}(M\backslash e)$ can actually arise, and therefore only a
very limited number of partitions need be considered when extending a matroid.  To describe
this result we need one more piece of terminology: two flats $F, G \in {\cal F}(M)$ are a {\em
modular pair} if
$$
r(F) + r(G) = r(F \cup G) + r(F \cap G).
$$

What Crapo showed was that if $N = M\backslash e$ and ${\cal F}(N) = {\cal F}_1 \cup {\cal F}_2 \cup {\cal F}_3$ is the partition of the flats of $N$ according to the three possibilities listed above (respectively), then

\begin{enumerate}
\item ${\cal F}_3$ is an up-set in the lattice ${\cal L}(N)$ i.e. if $F \in {\cal F}_3$ then any flat
containing $F$ is in ${\cal F}_3$.

\item ${\cal F}_3$ is closed under taking intersections of {\em modular pairs} of flats.

\item ${\cal F}_2$ is the set of flats covered in ${\cal L}(N)$ by a member of ${\cal F}_3$.
\end{enumerate}

The set ${\cal F}_3$ is called a {\em modular cut} and ${\cal F}_2$ the {\em collar} of the
modular cut. As the modular cut determines its collar and ${\cal F}_1$ consists of the remaining
flats, it follows that the
modular cut alone determines the entire partition. Therefore we have the following
result:

\begin{theorem}
There is a 1-1 correspondence between modular cuts of $N$ and single-element extensions
of $N$.
\end{theorem}

Figure~\ref{fig:modcut} shows the modular cut $\{45, 0123456\}$ and the corresponding partition for
the matroid of Figure~\ref{fig:lattice}.

\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=2, yscale=2]
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (1.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (2.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (3.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (4.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (5.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (6.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (4.0,1.6) -- (7.0,3.2);
\path[draw] (1.0,3.2) -- (0.72,4.8);
\path[draw] (1.0,3.2) -- (2.18,4.8);
\path[draw] (1.0,3.2) -- (5.09,4.8);
\path[draw] (1.0,3.2) -- (6.54,4.8);
\path[draw] (2.0,3.2) -- (2.9,4.8);
\path[draw] (2.0,3.2) -- (4.36,4.8);
\path[draw] (2.0,3.2) -- (5.09,4.8);
\path[draw] (2.0,3.2) -- (5.81,4.8);
\path[draw] (3.0,3.2) -- (0.72,4.8);
\path[draw] (3.0,3.2) -- (5.81,4.8);
\path[draw] (3.0,3.2) -- (7.27,4.8);
\path[draw] (4.0,3.2) -- (1.45,4.8);
\path[draw] (4.0,3.2) -- (5.09,4.8);
\path[draw] (4.0,3.2) -- (7.27,4.8);
\path[draw] (5.0,3.2) -- (1.45,4.8);
\path[draw] (5.0,3.2) -- (3.63,4.8);
\path[draw] (5.0,3.2) -- (5.81,4.8);
\path[draw] (5.0,3.2) -- (6.54,4.8);
\path[draw] (6.0,3.2) -- (2.18,4.8);
\path[draw] (6.0,3.2) -- (2.9,4.8);
\path[draw] (6.0,3.2) -- (3.63,4.8);
\path[draw] (6.0,3.2) -- (7.27,4.8);
\path[draw] (7.0,3.2) -- (4.36,4.8);
\path[draw] (7.0,3.2) -- (6.54,4.8);
\path[draw] (7.0,3.2) -- (7.27,4.8);
\path[draw] (0.72,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (1.45,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (2.18,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (2.9,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (3.63,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (4.36,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (5.09,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (5.81,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (6.54,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[draw] (7.27,4.8) -- (4.0,6.4);
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (4.0,1.6) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](4.0,1.6) node [below left] {\small $\emptyset$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (1.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](1.0,3.2) node [below left] {\footnotesize $0$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (2.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](2.0,3.2) node [below left] {\footnotesize $1$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (3.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](3.0,3.2) node [below left] {\footnotesize $2$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (4.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](4.0,3.2) node [below left] {\footnotesize $3$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (5.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](5.0,3.2) node [below right] {\footnotesize $4$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (6.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](6.0,3.2) node [below right] {\footnotesize $5$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=gray] (7.0,3.2) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](7.0,3.2) node [below right] {\footnotesize $6$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (0.72,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](0.72,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $02$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (1.45,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](1.45,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $34$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (2.18,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](2.18,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $05$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (2.9,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](2.9,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $15$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=black] (3.63,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](3.63,4.8) node [above left] {\footnotesize $45$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (4.36,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](4.36,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $16$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (5.09,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](5.09,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $013$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (5.81,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](5.81,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $124$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (6.54,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](6.54,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $046$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=white] (7.27,4.8) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](7.27,4.8) node [above right] {\footnotesize $2356$};
\path[fill,draw][fill=black] (4.0,6.4) circle (0.05cm);
\path[draw](4.0,6.4) node [above right] {\footnotesize $0123456$};
\path[draw] [ultra thick, dashed] (2.7,6.7) .. controls (3.6,3.9) .. (5,6.7);
\path[draw] [ultra thick, dashed] (0,3.7) -- (4,3.7) .. controls +(0:0.5cm) and +(180:0.5cm) .. (5.5,2.5) .. controls +(0:0.5cm) and +(180:0.5cm) .. (7,3.7) -- (8,3.7);
\path[draw] (3.5,7) node {Modular cut ${\cal F}_3$};
\path[draw] (1.5,6) node {Collar ${\cal F}_2$};
\path[draw] (1.5,2) node {Remaining flats ${\cal F}_1$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{A modular cut (black nodes) and its collar (white nodes)}
\label{fig:modcut}
\end{figure}

The minimal elements of a modular cut form an anti-chain in ${\cal L}(N)$, and thus an easy way to
determine the modular cuts of $N$ is simply to compute all the anti-chains of ${\cal L}(N)$, form
their up-sets and then check that the resulting set of flats is closed under intersection of modular pairs.

Blackburn, Crapo \& Higgs used a more complicated scheme for computing modular cuts that avoids
creating up-sets that are {\em not} modular cuts, but the overhead of the simpler scheme was
sufficiently modest that we never had any need to implement the more complicated one. This also
enhances our confidence in the correctness of our results in that existing very-well tested programs (for independent sets in graphs) could be used for computing anti-chains rather than necessarily
less-tested bespoke programs.

\section{An orderly algorithm}

Our sole remaining task therefore is to consider matroid isomorphism and how to eliminate unwanted
isomorphic copies of the matroids that are constructed, and for this we implemented a
straightforward (partially) orderly algorithm (Read \cite{MR0491273}, McKay \cite{MR1606516}, Royle \cite{MR1614301}).

In combinatorial construction, an {\em orderly
algorithm} is one that is structured in such a way that it never outputs more than one
representative of each isomorphism class of the objects being constructed, in this case
matroids.  What this means in practice is that as each matroid is produced by the
extension procedure, it can be subjected to a test {\em not involving any other matroids} that
determines whether it should be added to the output or rejected.  Thus there is never
any need to compare {\em pairs} of matroids, or test a newly-constructed matroid against
a list of previously-constructed ones to check if it is really new.

Our algorithm falls into the category of ``canonical construction path'' orderly algorithms.  Suppose that $M$ is a matroid and that it has hyperplane graph ${\cal H}(M)$. Then {\tt nauty} can be used
to compute the canonical labelling of ${\cal H}(M)$ and thereby identify a distinguished element of
$M$ --- for example, the element that receives the lowest canonical label. This then
identifies a distinguished single-element deletion of $M$, namely the matroid obtained by
deleting the distinguished element. The essence of the canonical construction path orderly
algorithm is that it only accepts matroids that are constructed as an extension of this
distinguished single-element deletion --- whenever an isomorphic copy of $M$ arises as
an extension of one its {\em other} single-element deletions, it is rejected.

Although this ensures that the matroids generated by extending one matroid never need
be compared with the matroids generated by extending a different matroid, it is still
possible that two extensions from the {\em same} matroid may be isomorphic. Indeed this
will necessarily happen if a matroid has two different, but isomorphic, modular cuts. However rather
than perform isomorph rejection directly on modular cuts (many
of which may lead to matroids that are subsequently rejected) we instead implemented simple
``compare-and-filter'' isomorph rejection on the set of matroids that were {\em accepted} when
extending a single matroid.

Putting all this together, we get the procedure described in
Algorithm~\ref{alg1}.

\renewcommand{\algorithmicdo}{{\sc Do}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicforall}{{\sc For Each}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicend}{{\sc End}}
\renewcommand{\algorithmicfor}{{\sc For}}

\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Isomorph-free extension of a set $X_k$ of $k$-element matroids}
\label{alg1}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\FORALL {matroid $N \in X_k$}
\STATE {Set $N^+ \leftarrow \emptyset$.}
\FORALL {modular cut of $N$}
\STATE {Form the single element extension $M$ determined by the modular cut.}
\STATE {Canonically label ${\cal H}(M)$ and add $M$ to $N^+$ if and only if the newly added element is in the same orbit as the lowest canonically labelled element-vertex of ${\cal H}(M)$.}
\ENDFOR
\STATE {Filter isomorphic matroids from $N^+$ and add the remainder to $X_{k+1}$.}
\ENDFOR
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

Notice that each matroid in $X_k$ is processed entirely independently of the remaining matroids
in $X_k$ and therefore the computation can be arbitrarily partitioned between as many
computers as desired.

\begin{theorem}
If $X_k$ contains one representative from each isomorphism class of $k$-element matroids, then
$X_{k+1}$ contains one representative from each isomorphism class of $(k+1)$-element matroids.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be an arbitrary $(k+1)$-element matroid, and let $M'$ be its distinguished single-element
deletion. By the hypothesis that $X_k$ contains one
representative from each isomorphism class of $k$-element matroids, a matroid isomorphic to $M'$ will be processed at some stage, and so a matroid isomorphic to $M$ will be constructed and then accepted. The filtering stage ensures that only one isomorph of $M$ will be
accepted during the processing of $M'$ and the orderly aspect of the algorithm ensures that
any isomorph of $M$ is rejected whenever it is constructed as an extension of any matroid other than $M'$.
Therefore $X_{k+1}$ contains exactly one matroid isomorphic to $M$.
\end{proof}

\section{Results}

We implemented the algorithm described in the previous section, and the resulting numbers
of matroids constructed are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:allmat9} (the totals form
sequence A055545 in Neil Sloane's OEIS \cite{oeis}).

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular*}{0.75\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\path[fill]}}|l|rrrrrrrrrr|}
\hline
$r\backslash n$& $0$& $1$& $2$& $3$& $4$& $5$& $6$& $7$& $8$ &$9$\\
\hline
$0$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$\\
$1$&&$1$&$2$&$3$&$4$&$5$&$6$&$7$&$8$&$9$\\
$2$&&&$1$&$3$&$7$&$13$&$23$&$37$&$58$&$87$\\
$3$&&&&$1$&$4$&$13$&$38$&$108$&$325$&$1275$\\
$4$&&&&&$1$&$5$&$23$&$108$&$940$&$190214$\\
$5$&&&&&&$1$&$6$&$37$&$325$&$190214$\\
$6$&&&&&&&$1$&$7$&$58$&$1275$\\
$7$&&&&&&&&$1$&$8$&$87$\\
$8$&&&&&&&&&$1$&$9$\\
$9$&&&&&&&&&&$1$\\
\hline
Total& $1$& $2$& $4$& $8$& $17$& $38$& $98$& $306$& $1724$&$383172$\\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{All matroids on up to 9 elements}
\label{tab:allmat9}
\end{center}
\end{table}

These numbers are symmetric with respect to rank because of the theory of matroid {\em duality} --- if
$M = (E, r)$ is a matroid of rank $r$, then the function $r^*: 2^E \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}$ given
by
$$
r^*(A) =  |A| + r(E \backslash A) - r(E)
$$
is a rank function that determines a matroid $M^* = (E, r^*$) of rank $|E|-r$ known as the
{\em dual} of $M$. We emphasize that our algorithm did {\em not} exploit duality to reduce computation
time by only constructing matroids of rank up to $|E|/2$, but rather we used the fact that our
collection was closed under duality as a ``sanity check'' on the correctness of our implementation.

A {\em loop} in a matroid is an element of rank 0. If a matroid $M$ has a loop $\ell$ then it
appears in every flat, and the lattice ${\cal L}(M)$ has exactly the same structure as the lattice
${\cal L}(M\backslash \ell)$. Therefore loops play little structural role in $M$ and it is common
to consider them as trivial, and to consider only loopless matroids.

Two elements $e$ and $f$ are said to be {\em parallel} in a loopless matroid $M$ if $r(\{e,f\}) = 1$. In this situation $e$ and $f$ are essentially duplicate elements and each flat either contains both
of them or neither of them. Replacing $\{e,f\}$ with a single element wherever they occur does not alter the structure of the lattice ${\cal L(M)}$, and so again it is fairly common to consider them as trivial.

A matroid is called {\em simple} if it contains no loops and no parallel elements.  Every matroid
can be obtained from a unique simple matroid by adding a number of loops and parallel elements,
and so in some sense the simple matroids are the ``building blocks'' from which all matroids
can be constructed.  Conversely, the unique simple matroid obtained from $M$ by removing
all loops and replacing each parallel class (i.e. set of mutually parallel elements) by a single element
is called the {\em simplification} of $M$.

The catalogue of Blackburn, Crapo \& Higgs  only contains the  {\em simple} matroids, and so we give their numbers in Table~\ref{tab:simple9} and note that our computations
are in complete agreement with theirs. In addition, Acketa \cite{MR740223} used Blackburn, Crapo \& Higgs' catalogue to compute the numbers of all matroids (by adding loops and parallel elements
in all possible ways) and our computations are also in complete agreement with his.  More recently, Dukes \cite{MR2119297} has given additional data about the
matroids on up to 8 elements and again our results are in accordance with his.

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular*}{0.75\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\path[fill]}}|l|rrrrrrrrrr|}
\hline
$r\backslash n$& $0$& $1$& $2$& $3$& $4$& $5$& $6$& $7$& $8$ &$9$\\
\hline
$0$&$1$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&\\
$1$&&$1$&&&&&&&&\\
$2$&&&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$\\
$3$&&&&$1$&$2$&$4$&$9$&$23$&$68$&$383$\\
$4$&&&&&$1$&$3$&$11$&$49$&$617$&$185981$\\
$5$&&&&&&$1$&$4$&$22$&$217$&$188936$\\
$6$&&&&&&&$1$&$5$&$40$&$1092$\\
$7$&&&&&&&&$1$&$6$&$66$\\
$8$&&&&&&&&&$1$&$7$\\
$9$&&&&&&&&&&$1$\\
\hline
Total&$1$&$1$&$1$&$2$&$4$&$9$&$26$&$101$&$950$&$376467$\\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Simple matroids on up to 9 elements}
\label{tab:simple9}
\end{center}
\end{table}

We remark that declaring loops and parallel elements --- but not their duals --- to be trivial
displays a somewhat
{\em graph-theoretical} bias. In a matroid arising from a graph, a loop comes from
a loop in the graph and parallel elements come from multiple edges, both of which are
routinely excluded in much of graph theory. However, from a matroidal perspective, a matroid and
its dual have equal status, and thus a loop is no more or less trivial than its dual, which is a {\em coloop}.
Similarly, parallel elements are no more or less trivial than the dual structure, which are elements
in {\em series}. In graphs, coloops correspond to cut-edges and elements in series correspond to paths
with internal vertices of degree two. Graph theorists are understandably reluctant to declare these
structures trivial because it would mean doing away with both trees and cycles!  Matroidally
however, the natural building blocks are those matroids that are both {\em simple} and {\em cosimple} (i.e. the dual matroid is also simple) and so we give their numbers in Table~\ref{tab:simplecosimple9}.

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular*}{0.75\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\path[fill]}}|l|rrrrrrrrrr|}
\hline
$r\backslash n$& $0$& $1$& $2$& $3$& $4$& $5$& $6$& $7$& $8$ &$9$\\
\hline
$0$&$1$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&\\
$1$&&&&&&&&&&\\
$2$&&&&&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$\\
$3$&&&&&&$1$&$6$&$20$&$65$&$380$\\
$4$&&&&&&&$1$&$20$&$525$&$185620$\\
$5$&&&&&&&&$1$&$65$&$185620$\\
$6$&&&&&&&&&$1$&$380$\\
$7$&&&&&&&&&&$1$\\
\hline
Total&$1$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$1$&$2$&$8$&$42$&$657$&$372002$\\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Simple and cosimple matroids on up to 9 elements}
\label{tab:simplecosimple9}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\section{Paving Matroids}

A {\em circuit} in a matroid is a minimal dependent set. It is possible for a matroid to have
no circuits (in which case it consists entirely of coloops) but otherwise a matroid of rank $r$
must have a circuit of size at most $r+1$. If the minimum circuit size is equal to $r+1$, then the
matroid is a {\em uniform matroid} $U_{r,n}$ which has the property that the rank of a set $A$
is equal to $\min(r, |A|)$. If the minimum circuit size is at least $r$, then the matroid is called a {\em paving matroid}.

We need some more terminology before we can understand why paving matroids
form an important class of matroids.

A {\em $d$-partition} of a set $E$ is a set ${\cal S}$ of subsets of $E$ all of size at least $d$, such that every $d$-subset of $E$ lies in a unique member of ${\cal S}$. Therefore a $1$-partition of a set is simply a normal partition, while a $2$-partition of a set is known as
a {\em pairwise balanced design} with index 1. Obviously the set ${\cal S} = \{E\}$ is a
$d$-partition for any $d$, and we call this the {\em trivial} $d$-partition.

The connection between paving matroids and $d$-partitions is given by the following
result:

\begin{theorem}
If $M = (E,r)$ is a paving matroid of rank $d+1 \geq 2$ then its hyperplanes form a non-trivial $d$-partition of $E$. Conversely, the elements of any non-trivial $d$-partition of $E$ form the set of
hyperplanes of a paving matroid of rank $d+1$.
\end{theorem}

The {\em discrete} $d$-partition of a set $E$ consists of all the $d$-subsets of $E$ and the
corresponding paving matroid is the uniform matroid $U_{d+1,|E|}$.

Based on the rather limited evidence in the catalogue of matroids on up to 8 elements,
Welsh \cite{MR0427112} asked whether {\em most} matroids are paving matroids. Examining the catalogue of 9-element
matroids and tabulating the results in Table~\ref{tab:simplepaving9} we see that $71.71\%$ of the simple matroids on 9 elements are paving matroids, compared to $49.50\%$ of the 8-element simple matroids, thus providing some additional evidence that paving matroids do indeed predominate.

\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular*}{0.75\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\path[fill]}}|l|rrrrrrrrrr|}
\hline
$r\backslash n$& $0$& $1$& $2$& $3$& $4$& $5$& $6$& $7$& $8$ &$9$\\
\hline
$0$&$1$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&$$&\\
$1$&&$1$&&&&&&&&\\
$2$&&&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$&$1$\\
$3$&&&&$1$&$2$&$4$&$9$&$23$&$68$&$383$\\
$4$&&&&&$1$&$2$&$5$&$18$&$322$&$147163$\\
$5$&&&&&&$1$&$2$&$5$&$39$&$119050$\\
$6$&&&&&&&$1$&$2$&$6$&$178$\\
$7$&&&&&&&&$1$&$2$&$6$\\
$8$&&&&&&&&&$1$&$2$\\
$9$&&&&&&&&&&$1$\\
\hline
Total&$1$&$1$&$1$&$2$&$4$&$8$&$18$&$50$&$439$&$266784$\\
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Simple paving matroids on up to 9 elements}
\label{tab:simplepaving9}
\end{center}
\end{table}

A $d$-partition is called {\em sparse} if it contains no subsets of size greater than
$d+1$, and similarly we call a paving matroid of rank $d+1$ sparse if its hyperplanes all have size
$d$ or $d+1$.  A sparse paving matroid is determined completely by its hyperplanes of
size $d+1$ --- the $d$-partition must consist of these hyperplanes together with every $d$-set
not yet contained in one of these. These hyperplanes are necessarily circuits, and so they
form the set of {\em circuit-hyperplanes} of the matroid.

Sparse paving matroids have the attractive property that their duals are also sparse paving
matroids --- in fact the circuit-hyperplanes of $M^*$ are the complements of the
circuit-hyperplanes of $M$. Moreover if $M$ and its dual are both paving matroids, then
they are necessarily sparse and so the sparse paving matroids forms the largest possible dual-closed
family of paving matroids.

Computationally, sparse paving matroids are attractive
because they can be viewed simply as independent sets in a certain graph.
The {\em Johnson graph} $J(n,d+1)$ is the graph whose vertices are all the $(d+1)$-subsets
of an $n$-set, and where two vertices are adjacent if and only if the intersection of the corresponding
subsets has size $d$. Therefore an {\em independent set} of vertices in $J(n,d+1)$
is precisely the set of circuit-hyperplanes of a sparse paving matroid of rank $d+1$,
and conversely. Moreover the automorphism group of $J(n,d+1)$ is equal to the symmetric group
$S_n$ except in the special case where $n = 2(d+1)$ in which case the graph has an additional automorphism of order 2 induced by complementation on $(d+1$)-sets.

We note in passing that the {\em size} of the maximum independent set in the Johnson graphs $J(n,d+1)$ has been intensively
studied because such an independent set is directly equivalent to a {\em constant weight
code} of length $n$, weight $d+1$ and minimum distance $4$.

More generally, we can form the analogous graph on the $d+1$, $d+2$, $\ldots$, $n-1$ sets of an
$n$-set where again two vertices are adjacent if the corresponding sets meet in set of size $d$. Then
an independent set in this graph corresponds to a not-necessarily-sparse paving matroid

\section{Representability}

A matroid $M = (E,r)$ of rank $k$ is {\em representable} over a field ${\mathbb F}$ if there is a mapping
$$
\rho: E \rightarrow {\mathbb F}^k
$$
such that for any set $A \subseteq E$,
$$
r(A) = \dim {\rm span}(\rho(A)).
$$

To prove that a matroid {\em is} representable, it suffices to provide a suitable representation $\rho$, but it is considerably harder to prove that a matroid is {\em not} representable. However, Ingleton showed that if $M = (E,r)$ is representable and $A$, $B$, $C$,  $D \subseteq E$, then
\begin{align*}
r(A) + r(B) + r(A \cup B \cup C) & +  r(A \cup B \cup D) + r(C \cup D) \\
& \leq  r(A \cup B) + r(A \cup C) + r(A \cup D) + r(B \cup C) + r(B \cup D).
\end{align*}
It is therefore sometimes possible to show that a matroid is not representable by displaying four
subsets $A$, $B$, $C$ and $D$ for which this inequality is violated. For want of a convenient term, we will call such matroids {\em Ingleton non-representable}.

Figure~\ref{fig:nonreps} gives a schematic diagram of the Ingleton-non-representable matroids on 8 elements; all of the matroids are sparse paving matroids and the diagram shows how they are related to each other under {\em relaxation of a circuit-hyperplane}, so that for example, the matroid $F_8$ is
obtained from $AG(3,2)'$ by relaxing a circuit-hyperplane. Any named matroids are listed according to their names in Oxley \cite{MR1207587} while the remainder are given just by their number in the database. Dual pairs of matroids are connected by dotted lines.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.25,yscale =2]

\path[draw] (6,0) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1771) {{\footnotesize $V_8$}};
\path[draw] (6,1) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1724) {{\footnotesize $V_8^+$}};

\path[draw](6,8) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1485) {{\footnotesize $AG(3,2)'$}};

\path[draw](6,7) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1486) {{\footnotesize $F_8$}};

\path[draw](3,6) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1490) {{\scriptsize $1490$}};
\path[draw](5,6) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1492) {{\scriptsize $1492$}};
\path[draw](7,6) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1491) {{\scriptsize $1491$}};
\path[draw](9,6) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1493) {{\footnotesize $Q_8$}};

\path[draw](2,5) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1494) {{\scriptsize $1494$}};
\path[draw](4,5) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1499) {{\scriptsize $1499$}};
\path[draw](6,5) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1501) {{\scriptsize $1501$}};
\path[draw](8,5) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1500) {{\scriptsize $1500$}};
\path[draw](10,5) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1502) {{\scriptsize $1502$}};

\path[draw](0,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1508) {{\scriptsize $1508$}};
\path[draw](1,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1510) {{\scriptsize $1510$}};
\path[draw](2,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1509) {{\scriptsize $1509$}};
\path[draw](3,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1518) {{\scriptsize $1518$}};
\path[draw](4,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1520) {{\scriptsize $1520$}};
\path[draw](5,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1524) {{\scriptsize $1524$}};
\path[draw](6,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1525) {{\scriptsize $1525$}};
\path[draw](7,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1526) {{\scriptsize $1526$}};
\path[draw](8,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1532) {{\scriptsize $1532$}};
\path[draw](9,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1527) {{\scriptsize $1527$}};
\path[draw](10,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1529) {{\scriptsize $1529$}};
\path[draw](11,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1528) {{\scriptsize $1528$}};
\path[draw](12,4) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1531) {{\scriptsize $1531$}};

\path[draw](0,3) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1549) {{\scriptsize $1549$}};
\path[draw](2,3) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1568) {{\scriptsize $1568$}};
\path[draw](4,3) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1572) {{\scriptsize $1572$}};
\path[draw](6,3) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1576) {{\scriptsize $1576$}};
\path[draw](8,3) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1578) {{\scriptsize $1578$}};
\path[draw](10,3) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1579) {{\scriptsize $1579$}};
\path[draw](12,3) node [inner sep = 1pt] (v1580) {{\scriptsize $1580$}};

\path[draw] (1,2) node [inner sep=1pt] (v1641) {{\scriptsize $1641$}};
\path[draw] (3,2) node [inner sep=1pt] (v1646) {{\scriptsize $1646$}};
\path[draw] (5,2) node [inner sep=1pt] (v1654) {{\scriptsize $1654$}};
\path[draw] (7,2) node [inner sep=1pt] (v1656) {{\scriptsize $1656$}};
\path[draw] (9,2) node [inner sep=1pt] (v1660) {{\scriptsize $1660$}};
\path[draw] (11,2) node [inner sep=1pt] (v1657) {{\scriptsize $1657$}};

\path[draw] (v1485.south)--(v1486.north);
\path[draw] (v1486.south)--(v1491.north);
\path[draw] (v1486.south)--(v1490.north);
\path[draw] (v1486.south)--(v1493.north);
\path[draw] (v1486.south)--(v1492.north);
\path[draw] (v1490.south)--(v1499.north);
\path[draw] (v1490.south)--(v1500.north);
\path[draw] (v1491.south)--(v1502.north);
\path[draw] (v1491.south)--(v1501.north);
\path[draw] (v1491.south)--(v1499.north);
\path[draw] (v1492.south)--(v1501.north);
\path[draw] (v1492.south)--(v1500.north);
\path[draw] (v1493.south)--(v1502.north);
\path[draw] (v1493.south)--(v1500.north);
\path[draw] (v1494.south)--(v1510.north);
\path[draw] (v1494.south)--(v1524.north);
\path[draw] (v1494.south)--(v1508.north);
\path[draw] (v1499.south)--(v1527.north);
\path[draw] (v1499.south)--(v1525.north);
\path[draw] (v1499.south)--(v1526.north);
\path[draw] (v1499.south)--(v1524.north);
\path[draw] (v1500.south)--(v1525.north);
\path[draw] (v1500.south)--(v1528.north);
\path[draw] (v1501.south)--(v1532.north);
\path[draw] (v1501.south)--(v1529.north);
\path[draw] (v1501.south)--(v1525.north);
\path[draw] (v1501.south)--(v1524.north);
\path[draw] (v1502.south)--(v1531.north);
\path[draw] (v1502.south)--(v1525.north);
\path[draw] (v1502.south)--(v1532.north);
\path[draw] (v1502.south)--(v1526.north);
\path[draw] (v1508.south)--(v1549.north);
\path[draw] (v1508.south)--(v1576.north);
\path[draw] (v1508.south)--(v1568.north);
\path[draw] (v1509.south)--(v1549.north);
\path[draw] (v1510.south)--(v1572.north);
\path[draw] (v1510.south)--(v1578.north);
\path[draw] (v1510.south)--(v1549.north);
\path[draw] (v1518.south)--(v1568.north);
\path[draw] (v1520.south)--(v1572.north);
\path[draw] (v1524.south)--(v1578.north);
\path[draw] (v1524.south)--(v1576.north);
\path[draw] (v1525.south)--(v1578.north);
\path[draw] (v1525.south)--(v1580.north);
\path[draw] (v1525.south)--(v1579.north);
\path[draw] (v1525.south)--(v1576.north);
\path[draw] (v1526.south)--(v1578.north);
\path[draw] (v1526.south)--(v1579.north);
\path[draw] (v1527.south)--(v1578.north);
\path[draw] (v1528.south)--(v1580.north);
\path[draw] (v1529.south)--(v1576.north);
\path[draw] (v1531.south)--(v1579.north);
\path[draw] (v1531.south)--(v1580.north);
\path[draw] (v1532.south)--(v1576.north);
\path[draw] (v1532.south)--(v1579.north);
\path[draw] (v1549.south)--(v1646.north);
\path[draw] (v1549.south)--(v1654.north);
\path[draw] (v1549.south)--(v1641.north);
\path[draw] (v1568.south)--(v1641.north);
\path[draw] (v1568.south)--(v1656.north);
\path[draw] (v1572.south)--(v1646.north);
\path[draw] (v1572.south)--(v1660.north);
\path[draw] (v1576.south)--(v1654.north);
\path[draw] (v1576.south)--(v1656.north);
\path[draw] (v1578.south)--(v1660.north);
\path[draw] (v1578.south)--(v1654.north);
\path[draw] (v1579.south)--(v1654.north);
\path[draw] (v1579.south)--(v1657.north);
\path[draw] (v1580.south)--(v1660.north);
\path[draw] (v1580.south)--(v1657.north);
\path[draw] (v1580.south)--(v1656.north);
\path[draw] (v1641.south)--(v1724.north);
\path[draw] (v1646.south)--(v1724.north);
\path[draw] (v1654.south)--(v1724.north);
\path[draw] (v1656.south)--(v1724.north);
\path[draw] (v1657.south)--(v1724.north);
\path[draw] (v1660.south)--(v1724.north);
\path[draw] (v1724.south)--(v1771.north);

\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1490)--(v1492);
\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1499)--(v1501);
\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1508)--(v1510);
\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1518)--(v1520);
\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1526)--(v1532);
\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1527)--(v1529);
\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1568)--(v1572);
\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1576)--(v1578);
\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1641)--(v1646);
\path[draw] [thick, dotted] (v1656)--(v1660);

\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The 39 Ingleton-non-representable matroids on 8 elements}
\label{fig:nonreps}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

In addition to the 39 Ingleton-non-representable matroids, there are five other rank-4 matroids on 8
elements that are non-representable. Four of these are related to the sparse paving matroid $P_8$.
The matroid $P_8$ is a ternary matroid which has the representation

$$
\bordermatrix{&0&1&2&3&\phantom{-}4&5&6&\phantom{-}7\cr
& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \phantom{-}0 & 1 & 1 & -1 \cr
& 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \phantom{-}1 & 0 & 1 & \phantom{-}1 \cr
& 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \phantom{-}1 & 1 & 0 & \phantom{-}1 \cr
& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 &\phantom{-} 0\cr
}
$$

The circuit-hyperplanes of this matroid are $\{0,1,2,3\}$, $\{0,1,3,6\}$, $ \{0,2,3,5\}$, $\{1,2,3,4\}$, $\{0,3,4,7\}$,
$\{1,2,5,6\}$, $\{0,4,5,6\}$, $\{1,4,5,7\}$, $\{2,4,6,7\}$ and $\{3,5,6,7\}$. We define four associated sparse paving matroids as follows: $P_1$ is obtained from $P_8$ by relaxing the circuit-hyperplane $\{3,5,6,7\}$, $P_2'$
is obtained from $P_1$ by relaxing $\{0,3,4,7\}$, $P''_2$ is obtained from $P_1$ by relaxing $\{1,2,5,6\}$ and
$P_3$ is obtained from $P_1$ by relaxing both $\{0,3,4,7\}$ and $\{1,2,5,6\}$.

\begin{prop}
The four matroids $P_1$, $P'_2$, $P''_2$ and $P_3$ are all non-representable, but not Ingleton non-representable.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Let $M \in \{P_1, P'_2, P''_2, P_3\}$ and consider the basis $B = \{0,1,2,3\}$. Then following Section 6.4 of Oxley \cite{MR1207587} a representation for $M$ may be assumed to have the following form where $a,b,c,d,e \not=0$ are
unknown elements of some field.

\[
A =
\bordermatrix{&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&7\cr
& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \cr
& 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & a \cr
& 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & b & 0 & c \cr
& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1& d & e & 0\cr
}
\]

Now the sets $\{0,4,5,6\}$,
$\{1,4,5,7\}$ and $\{2,4,6,7\}$  are circuits in $M$ and so the submatrices of $A$ defined on those particular sets of columns each have determinant 0. This gives the following three conditions respectively: $b(e-1) + d = 0$,
$b - c - d = 0$ and $a+e -1 = 0$ which implies that
$$
a = (1-e), \quad c = be\quad {\rm and} \quad d = b(1-e)
$$

However consider the submatrix of $A$ with columns $\{3,5,6,7\}$. The determinant of this is
\[
\left|\begin{array}{cccc}0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\0 & 0 & 1 & 1-e \\0 & b & 0 & be \\1 & b(1-e) & e & 0\end{array}\right| = 0
\]
contradicting the fact that $\{3,5,6,7\}$ is independent in $M$.

Checking Ingleton non-representability of a matroid is a task best left to a computer. \end{proof}

The fifth non-representable matroid of size 8 for which Ingleton's condition gives no information is obtained from the matroid $L_8$ by relaxing a circuit-hyperplane, where $L_8$ is the sparse paving matroid whose circuit-hyperplanes are the 6 faces and the 2 colour-classes of a cube (see Oxley \cite{MR1207587} p510). It can be shown to be non-representable using an analogous argument.

How effective is Ingleton's criterion for detecting non-representability among 9-element matroids? Perhaps surprisingly, it gives {\em no additional information} at all --- that is,  a 9-element matroid is Ingleton non-representable if and only if it contains an Ingleton-non-representable matroid on 8 elements as a minor.

\section{A matroid database}

One of the major uses of any sort of combinatorial catalogue is to compile data regarding the
various combinatorial properties of the objects in the catalogue, and then to use this to
answer questions or explore conjectures concerning the existence, or number of objects
with various combinations of properties.

A common limitation of combinatorial catalogues is that their use is often restricted to their
immediate creator and/or those researchers willing and able to download the raw data files and write
their own programs, often resulting in significant duplication of effort.
We have attempted to ameliorate this problem by incorporating the data into a
relational database (using MySQL, although this is not important) and providing an online
interface that permits ``end users" to search, browse and investigate the data.

Currently we have computed a fairly substantial subset of what might be termed the ``fundamental properties" of
matroids. This includes various counts associated with each matroid such as numbers of loops, coloops, circuits, cocircuits,
independent sets, bases, hyperplanes, flats and circuit-hyperplanes. It includes numerical properties such as the
size of the automorphism group, the number of orbits of the automorphism group, the connectivity, the minimum circuit size.
Various structural properties such as whether the matroid is binary, ternary, regular, paving, base-orderable, transversal and so on have
also been included.  More importantly however, we have incorporated information about the {\em relationships} between
the matroids --- relationships such as duality, deletion and contraction of elements, relaxation of circuit-hyperplanes, truncations and simplifications. Finally we have included auxiliary information such as information about rank polynomials and representations over small finite fields.

Rather than present a large number of tables of data in this paper, we give three simple examples of the use of the database, and invite readers to explore their own particular interests by using the
database at \url{http://people.csse.uwa.edu.au/gordon/small-matroids.html}.

\subsection{Excluded minors for $GF(5)$}

One of the most fundamental results in matroid theory is Tutte's characterization of matroids
representable over $GF(2)$ in terms of excluded minors: a matroid is binary if and only if it does
not contain $U_{2,4}$ as a minor.

Similar characterizations are known for matroids representable over $GF(3)$ where there
are 4 excluded minors and $GF(4)$ where there are 7 excluded minors.  The
analogous characterization for $GF(5)$ is not known or even conjectured, with prevailing
opinion suggesting that such a characterization is likely to be extremely complex and unwieldy.
In fact, Whittle \cite{MR2179649}
suggests that ``It is not clear that the problem for finding the specific excluded minors
for $GF(5)$ is that well motivated'' and that the real question in representability is
to resolve Rota's conjecture that the list of excluded minors for representability over any
field is finite.

It is straightforward to determine the matroids on up to 9 elements that {\em are} representable over $GF(5)$ by finding all sets of at most 9 points in the projective space $PG(3,5)$ that are pairwise inequivalent under the action of the  group $PGL(4,5)$, identifying the corresponding matroids (which have rank at most 4) and then finding their duals.

Once this is done, we can identify the matroids that are {\em not} $GF(5)$-representable but for
which every single-element deletion and single-element contraction {\em is} $GF(5)$-representable
and thus determine the excluded minors on at most 9 elements. Table~\ref{tab:exgf5} shows
the numbers of matroids that were found, confirming the belief that an excluded minor
characterization of $GF(5)$-representable matroids in the traditional style would indeed be very cumbersome.

\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|ccrl|}
\hline
Size & Rank & No.&Comment\\
\hline
7&2&1&Uniform $U_{2,7}$\\
7&3&5&\\
7&4&5&\\
7&5&1&Uniform $U_{5,7}$\\
\hline
8&3&2&\\
8&4&92&\\
8&5&2&\\
\hline
9&3&9&\\
9&4&219&\\
9&5&219&\\
9&6&9&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Excluded minors for $GF(5)$ on up to nine elements}
\label{tab:exgf5}
\end{table}

\subsection{Numbers of bases}

In a matroid of rank $r$ on $n$ elements, the number $b$ of bases must necessarily satisfy
$
1 \leq b \leq \binom{n}{r}.
$
In 1969, Welsh \cite{MR0278975} conjectured that for {\em every triple} $(n,r,b)$ such that $0 \leq r \leq n$ and $1 \leq b \leq \binom{n}{r}$, there is
a matroid of rank $r$ on $n$ elements with exactly $b$ bases --- in other words, everything that can happen, does.

We can check this all matroids on up to 9 elements with a single SQL statement (though note that \verb+binomial+ is not a built-in function, but must be programmed):

{\small
\begin{verbatim}
SELECT tmp.size, tmp.rank, COUNT(*) FROM
  (SELECT DISTINCT size, rank, numBases FROM matroids9) as tmp
  GROUP BY tmp.size, tmp.rank
  HAVING COUNT(*) <> binomial(tmp.size, tmp.rank);
\end{verbatim}
}

The inner \verb+SELECT+ statement first creates a list of all the distinct triples $(n,r,b)$ represented in the database and
gives it the alias \verb+tmp+. The outer \verb+SELECT .... GROUP BY+ statement {\em counts} the triples in \verb+tmp+ for
each fixed pair $(n,r)$, while the \verb+HAVING+ statement extracts the pairs where this count is not equal to $\binom{n}{r}$, thus representing one or
more ``missing'' triples.

{\small
\begin{verbatim}
+------+------+----------+
| size | rank | COUNT(*) |
+------+------+----------+
|    6 |    3 |       19 |
+------+------+----------+
\end{verbatim}
}

The output  shows that there are only 19 triples of the form $(6,3,b)$, rather than the expected 20. In fact, the missing triple is $(6,3,11)$ --- there are no rank-3 matroids on 6 elements with exactly 11 bases --- a fact that was previously observed by Anna de Mier (personal communication). The absence of any  other missing triples with $n \leq 9$ and the exponential explosion in numbers of matroids as $n$ reaches 10 leads us to strongly believe the following conjecture:

\begin{conjecture}
For every triple $(n,r,b)$ such that $0 \leq r \leq n$ and $1 \leq b \leq \binom{n}{r}$ there is
a matroid of rank $r$ on $n$ elements with exactly $b$ bases {\em except when}
$$
(n,r,b) = (6,3,11).
$$
\end{conjecture}

\subsection{Transversal matroids}

Given two bases $A$ and $B$ of a matroid, the subsets $X \subseteq A$ and
$Y \subseteq B$ are called {\em exchangeable} if both
$A \backslash X \cup Y$ and $B \backslash Y \cup X$
are bases.

A matroid is called {\em base-orderable} if for any two bases $A$ and $B$ there is
a bijection $\varphi: A \rightarrow B$ such that $a$ and $\varphi(a)$ are exchangeable, while it
is {\em strongly base-orderable} if the bijection can be selected so that $X$ and $\varphi(X)$
are exchangeable for every {\em subset} $X \subseteq A$. A matroid on a set $E$ is a {\em transversal matroid} if there is a bipartite graph $G$ with bipartition $E \cup F$ such that the independent sets of $M$ are precisely the subsets of $E$ that are the endpoints of a matching (i.e. an independent set of edges) of $G$.

It is obvious that strongly base-orderable matroids are base-orderable, but less obvious that
transversal matroids and their duals (which need not be transversal matroids) are strongly-base orderable. These classes of matroids are important but not fully understood, and
therefore the numbers of  matroids in each of these classes is of some interest. Determining whether a matroid is base-orderable or strongly base-orderable is straightforward, and we implemented the
algorithm given by Brualdi \& Dinolt \cite{MR0304210} for testing transversality.

Table~\ref{tab:transversal} gives these
numbers where each cell of the table contains four numbers which, reading from top to
bottom are the total number of matroids and the number of base-orderable, strongly base-orderable and
transversal matroids respectively. For the omitted ranks (ranks 0, 1, 7, 8 and 9) all the matroids
in the catalogue are
transversal.

\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|rrrrrrrr|}
\hline
Rank $\backslash$Size & $2$ &$3$&$4$&$5$&$6$&$7$&$8$&$9$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$2$}&\small $1$&\small $3$&\small $7$&\small $13$&\small $23$&\small $37$&\small $58$&\small $87$\\
&\small $1$&\small $3$&\small $7$&\small $13$&\small $23$&\small $37$&\small $58$&\small $87$\\
&\small $1$&\small $3$&\small $7$&\small $13$&\small $23$&\small $37$&\small $58$&\small $87$\\
&\small $1$&\small $3$&\small $7$&\small $13$&\small $22$&\small $34$&\small $50$&\small $70$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$3$}&&\small $1$&\small $4$&\small $13$&\small $38$&\small $108$&\small $325$&\small $1275$\\
&&\small $1$&\small $4$&\small $13$&\small $37$&\small $101$&\small $284$&\small $956$\\
&&\small $1$&\small $4$&\small $13$&\small $37$&\small $101$&\small $284$&\small $956$\\
&&\small $1$&\small $4$&\small $13$&\small $37$&\small $92$&\small $209$&\small $442$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$4$}&&&\small $1$&\small $5$&\small $23$&\small $108$&\small $940$&\small $190214$\\
&&&\small $1$&\small $5$&\small $23$&\small $101$&\small $677$&\small $70569$\\&&&\small $1$&\small $5$&\small $23$&\small $101$&\small $644$&\small $55081$\\&&&\small $1$&\small $5$&\small $23$&\small $100$&\small $432$&\small $1804$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$5$}&&&&\small $1$&\small $6$&\small $37$&\small $325$&\small $190214$\\
&&&&\small $1$&\small $6$&\small $37$&\small $284$&\small $70569$\\
&&&&\small $1$&\small $6$&\small $37$&\small $284$&\small $55081$\\
&&&&\small $1$&\small $6$&\small $37$&\small $272$&\small $2806$\\
\hline
\multirow{4}{*}{$6$}&&&&&\small $1$&\small $7$&\small $58$&\small $1275$\\
&&&&&\small $1$&\small $7$&\small $58$&\small $956$\\
&&&&&\small $1$&\small $7$&\small $58$&\small $956$\\
&&&&&\small $1$&\small $7$&\small $58$&\small $817$\\
\hline

\end{tabular}
\caption{Numbers of matroids, base-orderable matroids, strongly base-orderable matroids and transversal matroids.}
\label{tab:transversal}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\section{Matroids on ten elements?}

Given that 30+ years have elapsed since the catalogue of matroids on 8 elements was created and with the benefit of advances both in raw computational power and techniques in combinatorial construction, it may seem rather unambitious to extend the catalogue only to 9 elements.

However our initial experiments on the feasibility of constructing the matroids on 10 elements lead us to the conclusion that even {\em counting} the 10-element matroids would be a major undertaking, let alone constructing them.

This is very unfortunate because we have a strong feeling that the absence of geometric representations available for rank-3 and rank-4 matroids means that rank-5 matroids are in some sense much less well understood than their lower rank counterparts. One of our original motivations
in embarking on this project was the belief that the rank-5 matroids on 10 elements might be a fertile source of interesting and/or counterintuitive examples and counterexamples for this reason.

\subsection{Paving matroids of rank 4}

From our analysis above, the sparse paving matroids of rank 4 on 10 elements are in 1-1 correspondence with independent sets in the Johnson graph $J(10,4)$, with isomorphism of
matroids and isomorphism under the automorphism group $S_{10}$ of the graph being
the same. Therefore a straightforward orderly algorithm as outlined in Royle \cite{MR1614301} can be used to construct them. This computation was performed in a few days using idle time on a network of about 50 computers, and the resulting numbers are presented
in Table~\ref{tab:spm10} which shows a total of
$3150333219$ (i.e. $\approx 3.150 \times 10^9$) sparse paving matroids of rank 4 on 10 elements.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|cr|cr|cr|cr|}
\hline
Size&Number&Size&Number&Size&Number&Size&Number\\
\hline
$0$&$1$&$8$&$521367$&$16$&$579539500$&$24$&$1355$\\
$1$&$2$&$9$&$3539486$&$17$&$329728133$&$25$&$250$\\
$2$&$3$&$10$&$18146294$&$18$&$130254690$&$26$&$58$\\
$3$&$13$&$11$&$69516384$&$19$&$35087875$&$27$&$13$\\
$4$&$73$&$12$&$197898106$&$20$&$6400127$&$28$&$4$\\
$5$&$575$&$13$&$416277780$&$21$&$818999$&$29$&$1$\\
$6$&$5838$&$14$&$642315652$&$22$&$84722$&$30$&$1$\\
$7$&$59818$&$15$&$720126836$&$23$&$9263$&&\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Independent sets in $J(10,4)$}
\label{tab:spm10}
\end{table}

Computation of the {\em non-sparse} paving matroids of rank 4 on 10 elements is a somewhat fiddly bookkeeping exercise, but it involves
no qualitatively different techniques. The essence of our approach is to
divide the search according to
whether the largest hyperplane
has size $k=5$, $6$, $7$, $8$ or $9$.
For each size $k$, we construct an auxiliary graph $G(k)$ defined on the $4$-, $5$-, $\ldots$, $k$-sets that meet a fixed $k$-set (e.g. $\{0,1,\ldots,k-1\}$) in less than 3 points and with adjacency again defined by intersection in at least 3 points. Then an independent set of $G(k)$ together with $\{0,1,\ldots,k-1\}$ and all 3-sets not already covered forms the set of hyperplanes of a non-sparse paving matroid. However we need to be a little careful with isomorphism --- this procedure distinguishes a particular $k$-set and so if a matroid has $c$ orbits on hyperplanes of size $k$, then it will contribute $c$
pairwise non-isomorphic independent sets to $G(k)$. Therefore each independent set
contributes $1/c$ to the
total count of matroids, where $c$ is the number of orbits that the corresponding matroid has
on hyperplanes of size $k$. Of course if the matroid has only one hyperplane of size $k$,
then $c=1$ follows immediately with no special calculation.

Table~\ref{tab:nspm10} shows the results of this calculation broken down according to the size of the
largest hyperplane $k$ and how many hyperplanes of this size are in the matroid.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|ccr|}
\hline
Max. hyp. $k$ & No. $k$-hyps. & No. matroids\\
\hline
5&1&1222076172\\
5&2&147724716\\
5&3&5558695\\
5&4&64194\\
5&5& 232\\
5&6&6\\
6&1& 2369590\\
6&2& 164\\
7&1& 435\\
8&1&5\\
9&1&1\\
\hline
Total & &1377794210\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Non-sparse paving matroids of rank 4 on 10 elements}
\label{tab:nspm10}
\end{table}

Adding the numbers of sparse and non-sparse paving matroids, we conclude that there
are  $4528127429$ ($\approx 4.528 \times 10^9$) paving matroids of rank 4 on 10 elements.

\subsection{Paving matroids of rank 5}

We have been unable to complete the analogous computation for the sparse paving matroids of
rank 5 on 10 elements. These correspond to independent sets in the Johnson graph $J(10,5)$ but
with one additional complication. The automorphism group of $J(10,5)$ is $S_{10} \times Z_2$
with the additional $Z_2$ being induced by complementation of 5-sets. This
means that each independent set of $J(10,5)$ produced by the orderly algorithm corresponds to
a dual pair of matroids --- usually two matroids, but only one when the matroid is self-dual.
Thus the total number of matroids is twice the number of independent sets of $J(10,5)$ minus the number of self-dual matroids.

We can determine the number of self-dual sparse paving matroids on 10 elements in a separate computation by exploiting the fact that the corresponding independent sets must have a non-trivial automorphism involving the $Z_2$ part of the automorphism group of $J(10,5)$. This separate computation yields a total of $99022169$ self-dual sparse paving matroids.

However the sheer number of independent sets in $J(10,5)$ makes it infeasible for us to complete the first part of the computation. We can however make an ``informed guess'' of the magnitude of the number by executing a fixed percentage of the search. First, the orderly algorithm was used to compute the entire collection of independent sets of size 9, of which there are 20680075. A random sample of this collection was selected, and the search completed just using these as the starting points.
Although it is hard to say anything statistically precise, our prior experience with such orderly algorithms suggest that the number of independent sets produced is roughly proportional to the size of the random sample of starting points.

A sample of 60000 starting points (0.2901\% of the search space) yielded $3.875 \times 10^9$ independent sets giving an estimate of $1.336 \times 10^{12}$ independent sets in $J(10,5)$.  Therefore we estimate that there are about $2.65 \times 10^{12}$ sparse paving matroids of rank 5 on 10 elements.

\bibliographystyle{acm2url}

Matroids with nine elements


On the exponent of the automorphism group of a compact Riemann surface

Abstract: Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$, and let $Aut(X)$ be its group of automorphims. We show that the exponent of $Aut(X)$ is bounded by $42(g-1)$. We also determine explicitly the infinitely many values of $g$ for which this bound is reached and the corresponding groups. Finally we discuss related questions for subgroups $G$ of $Aut(X)$ that are subject to additional conditions, for example being solvable.

\subsection*{1. Introduction}

\noindent
Throughout the paper $X$ will be a compact Riemann surface of
genus $g\geq 2$. We write $Aut(X)$ for the full group of conformal
automorphisms of $X$.
\par
The order of a group $G$ is denoted by $|G|$, the cyclic group of
order $n$ by $C_n$, and the neutral element in a group by $\iota$.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 1.1. (Hurwitz)} \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$. Then
$$|Aut(X)|\leq 84(g-1).$$
\rm

\noindent
Moreover, it is known that there are infinitely many values of $g$ for
which the bound in Theorem 1.1 is reached. For proofs of all this see
for example [A, pp.46] or [Br, Theorem 3.17].
\par
A group $Aut(X)$ that reaches the bound $|Aut(X)|=84(g-1)$ is called
a {\bf Hurwitz group}.
In Section 3 we will provide some more details on these groups.
\\ \\
After this one may of course ask how big a group $G$ that
satisfies some additional properties can be if it acts as
a group of automorphisms on a Riemann surface of genus $g$
(i.e. if $G\subseteq Aut(X)$). From the vast literature we
select some results that are relevant for this paper.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 1.2.} \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$, and let
$G$ be a subgroup of $Aut(X)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] If $G$ is solvable, then $|G|\leq 48(g-1)$. There are
infinitely many values of $g$ for which this bound is reached.
\item[(b)] If $G$ is supersolvable, then for $g\geq 3$ we have
$|G|\leq 18(g-1)$. There are infinitely many values of $g$ for
which this bound is reached. The biggest supersolvable group of
automorphisms for genus $2$ has order $24$.
\item[(c)] If $G$ is nilpotent, then $|G|\leq 16(g-1)$. There are
infinitely many values of $g$ for which this bound is reached.
\item[(d)] If $G$ is abelian, then $|G|\leq 4g+4$. For each
$g\geq 2$ there are abelian groups of order $4g+4$ acting as
automorphisms on a Riemann surface of genus $g$.
\end{itemize}
\rm

\noindent
{\bf Proof.} \rm
(a) The bound results from the facts that Hurwitz groups are not
solvable (see Corollary 3.2 (a) below) and that $48(g-1)$ is the
next possible size of $Aut(X)$ [Br, Lemma 3.18]. Groups that reach
the bound were constructed in [Ch] and [G1]. See also [G2] for
improvements and minor corrections.
\par
(b) The papers [Z2] and [GMl] seem to have been written independently
and at almost the same time. In [Z2] the condition for $g$ to reach
the bound contains an error, which is pointed out in [GMl] and also
corrected in [Z3].
\par
(c) [Z1, Theorems 1.8.4 and 2.1.2]
\par
(d) See [G1, p.271]. The paper [Ml] contains more precise information,
namely on page 711 for each abelian group the minimal genus for which
it can occur in $Aut(X)$.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
Given $G\subseteq Aut(X)$, it is in general very difficult to decide
whether $G$ equals $Aut(X)$ or is a proper subgroup. In the special case
$|G|=48(g-1)$ we automatically have equality, as by [Br, Lemma 3.18] the
only bigger order is $84(g-1)$, which is not a multiple of $48(g-1)$.
\par
A statement as in Theorem 1.2 for cyclic subgroups of $Aut(X)$
is of course equivalent to a statement about element orders. In
[H, Theorem 6] for each $n$ the minimum genus for an automorphism
of order $n$ is given. From this one can get the following classical
result. Alternatively, see [G1, p.270].
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 1.3. (Wiman)} \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$. Then the
element orders of $Aut(X)$ are bounded by $4g+2$.
\par
For each $g\geq 2$ there exists an $X$ of genus $g$ such that
$Aut(X)$ contains elements of order $4g+2$.
\rm
\\ \\
The paper [N] classifies all Riemann surfaces with an automorphism
of order $\geq 3g$.
\\ \\
In this paper we investigate a problem that does not seem to have
been treated yet in the literature, namely bounding the exponent
of $Aut(X)$ (or of a subgroup $G\subseteq Aut(X)$) in terms of the
genus.
\\

\subsection*{2. The exponent of a group}

\noindent
The {\bf exponent} $exp(G)$ of a finite group $G$ is the least common
multiple of all element orders. Equivalently, $exp(G)$ is the smallest
positive integer $e$ such that $\sigma^e =\iota$ for all $\sigma\in G$.
\\ \\
We leave the following three facts as easy exercises.
\\ \\
{\bf Lemma 2.1.} \it
$$exp(G)=\prod_p exp(G_p),$$
where the product is over all primes $p$ dividing $|G|$ and $G_p$
is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Lemma 2.2.} \it
The exponent of a finite $p$-group $P$ is the biggest element order.
In particular, $exp(P)=|P|$ if and only if $P$ is cyclic.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Corollary 2.3.} \it
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $exp(G)=|G|$ if and only if all Sylow subgroups of
$G$ are cyclic.
\item[(b)] $exp(G)=\frac{1}{2}|G|$ if and only if for all odd primes
$p$ the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ are cyclic and the (non-cyclic)
Sylow $2$-subgroup has a cyclic subgroup of index $2$.
\end{itemize}
\rm

\noindent
Finite groups whose Sylow subgroups are all cyclic are called
{\bf Z-groups}, possibly from the German word zyklisch or perhaps
in honor of H. Zassenhaus, who completely described the structure
of these groups. For many purposes the form in [R, Theorem 10.1.10]
is better than the one in [Za, Satz 5].
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 2.4. (Zassenhaus)} \it
A $Z$-group that is not cyclic can be written as a semidirect product
$$C_m\rtimes C_n$$
where $(m,n)=1$ and $m$ is odd. In particular, such a group is
metacyclic and hence supersolvable.
\rm
\\ \\
The most important type of groups for our paper are the ones from
Corollary 2.3 (b), and the most important instance of such groups
is the following.
\\ \\
{\bf Example 2.5.}
Let $p$ be an odd prime. Then
$$|PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p)|=\frac{p^3 -p}{2}\ \ \ \hbox{\rm and} \ \ \
exp(PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p))=\frac{p^3 -p}{4}.$$

\noindent
Actually, finite groups $G$ with $exp(G)=\frac{1}{2}|G|$ have been
completely classified, the solvable ones in [Za, Satz 7] and the
nonsolvable ones in [S] and [W2]. See also the first page of [W1]
where it is explained why the different types discussed in [S] and
[W2] cover all possible cases. The final summary is
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 2.6. (Suzuki, Wong)} [W2, Theorem 2] \it
Let $G$ be a nonsolvable finite group in which all Sylow subgroups
of odd order are cyclic and a Sylow $2$-subgroup has a cyclic subgroup
of index $2$. Then $G$ has a normal subgroup $G_1$ such that
$[G:G_1]\leq 2$ and
$$G_1 =L\times M,$$
where $L$ is isomorphic to $SL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p)$ or $PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p)$ for some
prime $p\geq 5$, and $M$ is a $Z$-group whose order is prime to that
of $L$.
\rm
\\

\subsection*{3. Hurwitz groups}

In this section we collect the necessary details about Hurwitz groups.
See [C] for more background.
\par
The first result comes from the fact that Hurwitz groups are exactly
the non-trivial finite quotients of the triangle group
$\Gamma(0;2,3,7)$. See for example [Br, Theorem 3.17]. Actually,
Section 3 of [Br] is a compact survey (with references) that covers
everything we need about triangle groups.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 3.1.} \it
A non-trivial, finite group is a Hurwitz group if and only if it can
be generated by two elements $\sigma$ and $\tau$ subject to
$$\sigma^2 =\tau^3 =(\sigma\tau)^7=\iota$$
and some other relations.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Corollary 3.2.} \it
Let $G$ be a Hurwitz group. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $G$ has no non-trivial abelian quotient group. So the
commutator group $G'$ equals $G$, and $G$ is not solvable.
\item[(b)] Every non-trivial quotient group of $G$ has order divisible
by $42$.
\item[(c)] Every non-trivial quotient of $G$ is again a Hurwitz group.
\end{itemize}
\rm

\noindent
{\bf Proof.} \rm
We write $\tilde{\sigma}$ and $\tilde{\tau}$ for the images of
$\sigma$ and $\tau$ in the quotient.
\par
(a) If $\tilde{\sigma}$ and $\tilde{\tau}$ commute, then
$(\tilde{\sigma}\tilde{\tau})^6=\tilde{\iota}$,
and consequently $\tilde{\sigma}\tilde{\tau}=\tilde{\iota}$,
$\tilde{\sigma}=\tilde{\iota}$, and $\tilde{\tau}=\tilde{\iota}$.
\par
(b) Similarly, if $42$ does not divide the order of the quotient
group, then one, and hence all, of $\tilde{\sigma}$, $\tilde{\tau}$,
$\tilde{\sigma}\tilde{\tau}$
must equal $\tilde{\iota}$.
\par
(c) This is immediate from Theorem 3.1.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
The question which finite groups are Hurwitz groups is far from
being completely solved. Even for finite simple groups the answer
is quite irregular (see [C]). We are interested in a special type
of group.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 3.3. (Macbeath)} [Mb, Theorem 8] \it
The group $PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_q)$ is a Hurwitz group if and only if
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $q=7$,
\item[(ii)] $q=p$, a prime, with $p\equiv \pm 1\ (\hbox{\rm mod } 7)$,
\item[(iii)] $q=p^3$, where $p$ is a prime with $p\equiv \pm 2$ or
$\pm 3\ (\hbox{\rm mod } 7)$,
\end{itemize}
and for no other values of $q$.
\par
In cases (i) and (iii) there is only one Riemann surface on which
$G$ acts as a Hurwitz group. In case (ii) there are three Riemann
surfaces for each $G$.
\rm
\\ \\
In contrast, we point out the following easy result.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 3.4.} \it
$SL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p)$ is not a Hurwitz group.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
Obviously the involution $\sigma$ (in Theorem 3.1) of a Hurwitz
group cannot be central. But $SL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p)$ has exactly one involution,
which thus is of course central. Actually, it is the negative of the
unit matrix.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
By Corollary 3.2 the exponent of a Hurwitz group has to be divisible
by $42$. For use in later sections we refine this statement. To that
end we need the following group theoretic result.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 3.5.} \it
Let $G$ be a non-abelian, simple group of order $2^a 3^b 5^c 7^d$ with
abelian Sylow $2$-subgroup. Then $G$ must be among the groups
$PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_{p^n})$ with $p\in\{2,3,5,7\}$.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
By [Wa, Theorem I] and the remarks immediately after it, a non-abelian
finite simple group $G$ that has abelian Sylow $2$-subgroups and is not
of type $PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_{p^n})$ must either be the Janko group $J_1$ of order
$175,560=2^3 \cdot 3\cdot 5\cdot 7\cdot 11\cdot 19$ or it must contain
a subgroup $PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_{3^{2n+1}})$ with $n>0$.
\par
By an elementary number theoretic argument we show now that the order
of such a group is always divisible by a prime $p>7$. Obviously,
$(3^{2n+1})^2 -1$ is congruent to $8$ (mod $16$), $-1$ (mod $3$), and
$3$ (mod $5$). So if it is not divisible by any prime $p>7$, it must
be of the form
$$(3^{2n+1})^2 -1 = 8\cdot 7^m\ \ \ \hbox{\rm with}\ m>1.$$
Calculating modulo $9$ shows that $m$ must be divisible by $3$,
say $m=3k$. And modulo $7$ we see that necessarily $n=3h+1$. Thus
$(3^{4h+2},2\cdot 7^k)$ is an integral solution of $x^3 -y^3 =1$.
But writing this as $(x-y)(x^2+xy+y^2)=1$ clearly shows the
impossibility of such integral solutions.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
Doubtlessly, the groups in Theorem 3.5 can be completely determined,
and most likely this is known. But the crude version above suffices
for our goal, namely to prove
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 3.6.} \it
There are no Hurwitz groups of exponent $2\cdot 3\cdot 7^n$. In
particular, there are no Hurwitz groups of exponent $42$.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
Assume that $G$ is such a group. Let $N$ be a maximal normal subgroup.
By Corollary 3.2 (b) and (c), $G/N$ is a simple Hurwitz group, whose
exponent is of the same form, possibly with a smaller $n$.
\par
The Sylow $2$-subgroup of $G/N$ has exponent $2$; so in particular it
must be abelian. Hence $G/N\cong PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_{p^n})$ with $p\in\{2,3,5,7\}$
by Theorem 3.5. Now Theorem 3.3 leaves only the following four candidates
for $G/N$, which however all fail:
$PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_7)$ has exponent $2^2\cdot 3\cdot 7$;
$PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_8)$ has exponent $2\cdot 3^2 \cdot 7$;
$PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_{27})$ has exponent $2\cdot 3\cdot 7\cdot 13$;
and $PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_{125})$ has exponent $2\cdot 3^2 \cdot 5\cdot 7\cdot 31$.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\

\subsection*{4. The main result}

\noindent
{\bf Theorem 4.1.} (Main Theorem, first version) \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$. Then
$$exp(Aut(X))\leq 42(g-1).$$
Equality holds if and only if $G=Aut(X)$ is a Hurwitz group
with $exp(G)=\frac{1}{2}|G|$.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
If $exp(Aut(X))=|Aut(X)|$, then $Aut(X)$ is supersolvable by
Theorem 2.4. By Theorem 1.2 (b) therefore $exp(Aut(X))$ is
significantly smaller than $42(g-1)$.
\par
In all other cases we have
$exp(Aut(X))\leq \frac{1}{2}|Aut(X)|\leq \frac{84}{2}(g-1)$,
with equality if and only if $exp(Aut(X))=\frac{1}{2}|Aut(X)|$
and $|Aut(X)|=84(g-1)$.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
{\bf Remark 4.2.}
Theorem 4.1 already shows that there are infinitely many values of
$g$ for which the bound $42(g-1)$ cannot be reached, simply because
there are no Hurwitz groups for these $g$. Take for example $g=7^n +1$.
A group of order $84\cdot 7^n$ has a normal Sylow $7$-subgroup, so it
is solvable and thus cannot be a Hurwitz group. See [A, Chapter 5] for
more sequences of $g$ without Hurwitz groups.
\par
On the other hand, there are infinitely many values of $g$ for which
at least one surface reaches $42(g-1)$. For example with the groups
in Theorem 3.3 (i) and (ii). In the remainder of this section we want
to show that these examples are the only ones.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 4.3.} \it
The only Hurwitz groups with $exp(G)=\frac{1}{2}|G|$ are the groups
$PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p)$ where $p=7$ or $p$ is a prime that is congruent to
$\pm 1$ modulo $7$.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
As a complete classification of all Hurwitz groups is not known,
and would almost certainly be very complicated anyway, we start
with the other condition. Let $G$ be a non-solvable group with
$exp(G)=\frac{1}{2}|G|$. These are completely classified in
Theorem 2.6.
\par
If $G$ moreover is a Hurwitz group, we must have $G=G_1$ in that theorem
by Corollary 3.2. Furthermore, the $Z$-group $M$ in that theorem must
be trivial, for otherwise we could map from $G$ to $M$ and from there
to an abelian quotient, contradicting Corollary 3.2. So we are left with
the possibilities $G\cong PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p)$ or $G\cong SL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p)$. But the
second possibility is excluded by Theorem 3.4. Finally we apply
Theorem 3.3.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
Combining Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.3 we obtain
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 4.4.} (Main Theorem, final version) \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$. Then
$$exp(Aut(X))\leq 42(g-1).$$
This bound can be reached if and only if
$$g=\frac{p^3 -p}{168}+1$$
where $p=7$ or $p$ is a prime that is congruent
to $\pm 1$ modulo $7$.
The only Riemann surface of genus $3$ that reaches the bound
is the Klein quartic, whose automorphism group is isomorphic
to $PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_7)$. If $p\equiv\pm 1\ (\hbox{\rm mod } 7)$,
there are $3$ non-isomorphic Riemann surfaces $X$ of genus
$g=\frac{p^3 -p}{168}+1$ with $exp(Aut(X))=42(g-1)$. In every
case
$$Aut(X)\cong PSL_2({\mathbb{F}}_p).$$
\rm
\\

\subsection*{5. Solvable groups}

In accordance with Theorem 1.2 we now try to find upper bounds on
$exp(G)$ for the $G\subseteq Aut(X)$ that are subject to additional
conditions.
\par
The following partial result, which might be interesting in its own
right, will be used repeatedly.
\\ \\
{\bf Proposition 5.1.} \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$, and let
$G\subseteq Aut(X)$ be a $Z$-group. Then
$$|G|<16(g-1).$$
\rm
\\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
For $g=2$ there are four groups of order $\geq 16$ [Br, p.77], but
none of them has a cyclic Sylow $2$-subgroup.
\par
So we can suppose from now on that $g\geq 3$. Since $Z$-groups are of
course metabelian, by [ChP] we have $|G|\leq 16(g-1)$ with two possible
exceptions, namely $|G|=48$ for $g=3$ and $|G|=80$ for $g=5$. But by
Theorem 1.2 (b) these two metabelian exceptions cannot be supersolvable,
and hence in particular not $Z$-groups.
\par
By [ChP] all metabelian groups $G$ of order $16(g-1)$ are quotients
of $\Gamma(0;2,4,8)$. If such a $G$ is a $Z$-group, then Theorem 2.4
implies that $G$, and hence also $\Gamma(0;2,4,8)$ has a cyclic quotient
of order $16$, which is clearly impossible.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
{\bf Remark 5.2.}
We don't know what could be a sharp bound in Proposition 5.1. In any
case there are infinitely many $Z$-groups of order $10(g-1)$. Namely,
by [BJ, Theorem 1] for every big enough prime $p$ with
$p\equiv 1\ (mod\ 5)$ there exists a Riemann surface $X$ of genus
$p+1$ such that $Aut(X)$ contains $G\cong C_p\rtimes C_{10}$.
\\ \\
{\bf Proposition 5.3.} \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 3$, and
let $G$ be a solvable subgroup of $Aut(X)$. Then
$$exp(G)\leq 16(g-1).$$
\rm
\\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
If $exp(G)<\frac{1}{2}|G|$, Theorem 1.2 (a) implies
$exp(G)\leq \frac{1}{3}|G|\leq16(g-1)$.
And if $exp(G)=|G|$, we even have $exp(G)<16(g-1)$
by Proposition 5.1.
\par
Solvable groups $G$ with $exp(G)=\frac{1}{2}|G|$ have been
completely classified in [Za, Satz 7]. We only need the
following key fact from the proof: If $exp(G)=\frac{1}{2}|G|$,
then $G$ contains a normal $Z$-group $G_1$ such that $G/G_1$
is isomorphic to $C_2$ or $A_4$ or $S_4$.
\par
If $[G:G_1]=2$, we have $exp(G)=|G_1|<16(g-1)$ by Proposition 5.1.
In the remaining cases we have to show that $|G|\leq 32(g-1)$. By
[Br, Lemma 3.18] there are only three possible orders of solvable
groups bigger than $32(g-1)$, namely $48(g-1)$, $40(g-1)$ and
$36(g-1)$. Correspondingly, we have to show that $G$ cannot be
a quotient of $\Gamma(0;2,3,8)$, $\Gamma(0;2,4,5)$ or
$\Gamma(0;2,3,9)$.
\par
Obviously, the only finite quotient of $\Gamma(0;2,4,5)$ of
order prime to $5$ is $C_2$. So $\Gamma(0;2,4,5)$ cannot have
a quotient $G$ that has a quotient $A_4$ or $S_4$.
Likewise, $\Gamma(0;2,3,8)$ has no quotient $C_3$ and hence
no quotient $G$ with $G/G_1\cong A_4$, whereas
$\Gamma(0;2,3,9)$ has no quotient $C_2$ and hence no quotient
$G$ with $G/G_1\cong S_4$,
\par
For the remaining two cases we use that since $G_1$ is
supersolvable, the elements in $G_1$ of odd order form
a characteristic subgroup $U$ of $G_1$ [R, Theorem 5.4.9].
The normality of $G_1$ in $G$ implies that $U$ is normal
in $G$. Furthermore, if $U$ is non-trivial and $p_1$ is the
smallest prime divisor of $|U|$, by Zappa's Theorem
[R, Theorem 5.4.8] $U$ has a normal subgroup $M$ of index
$p_1$. Since the Sylow $p_1$-subgroups of $U$ are cyclic,
$M$ is even characteristic in $U$, and hence normal in $G$.
\par
If $G/G_1\cong S_4$ we obtain a chain of normal subgroups
$$G/M\triangleright N\triangleright V\triangleright G_1/M\triangleright
U/M\triangleright I$$
with factors $C_2$, $C_3$, $C_2\times C_2$, $C_{2^e}$, $C_{p_1}$.
Now assume moreover that $G$ is a quotient of $\Gamma=\Gamma(0;2,3,8)$.
By [Br, Example 3.8] we have $\Gamma'\cong\Gamma(0;3,3,4)$ and
$\Gamma''\cong\Gamma(0;4,4,4)$ with $\Gamma/\Gamma'\cong C_2$ and
$\Gamma'/\Gamma''\cong C_3$. This implies that $N$ is a quotient
of $\Gamma'$ and $N'=V$ and $V$ is a quotient of $\Gamma''$.
In particular, $V$ cannot have a quotient $C_{p_1}$.
\par
On the other hand, $U/M$ is a normal subgroup of $N$. Let $C$ be
its centralizer in $N$. As $N/C$ can be embedded into the automorphism
group of $U/M$, which is cyclic, we see $C\supseteq N'=V$. So $U/M$ is
central in $V$. This means that $V$ is a direct product of its Sylow
$2$-subgroup and $U/M$. In particular, $V$ has a quotient $C_{p_1}$.
\par
The resolution of this contradiction is that $U$ must be trivial.
Consequently $48(g-1)=|G|=3\cdot 2^{e+3}$. Since $exp(G)=24(g-1)$,
in that case $G$ must contain an element of order $8(g-1)$. By
Theorem 1.3 this is only possible if $8(g-1)\leq 4g+2$, i.e.,
if $g\leq 2$.
\par
Similarly, if $G$ is a quotient of $\Gamma=\Gamma(0;2,3,9)$ with
$G/G_1\cong A_4$, we obtain that $G'$ lies between $G$ and $G_1$
with $G/G'\cong C_3$ and $G'$ is a quotient of the commutator group
$\Gamma'\cong\Gamma(0;2,2,2,3)$. Moreover, since $36$ divides $|G|$,
we have $U/M\cong C_3$, and as above this group is central in $G'/M$,
leading to the contradiction that $\Gamma'$ should have a quotient
$C_3$.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
We don't know whether for $g>2$ the bound in Proposition 5.3 can
be reached, and if yes whether infinitely often.
\par
For genus $2$ we mention that the Bolza surface $y^2 = x^5 -x$ has
automorphism group $GL_2({\mathbb{F}}_3)$ of order $48$ and exponent $24$.
\\ \\
{\bf Remark 5.4.}
By [Z2, Theorem 4.1] or [GMl, Lemma 4.1] the supersolvable group of
order $24$ for $g=2$ has exponent $12$.
\par
If $g\geq 3$ and $G$ is supersolvable but not a $Z$-group, then from
Theorem 1.2 (b) we get $exp(G)\leq \frac{1}{2}|G|\leq 9(g-1)$, which
is smaller than the examples mentioned in Remark 5.2. This shows that
bounding $exp(G)$ for supersolvable groups $G$ amounts to the same as
bounding $|G|$ for $Z$-groups $G$.
\\ \\
A finite nilpotent group $G$ is the direct product of its Sylow
subgroups. Its exponent therefore is the biggest element order
(see Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2). So by Theorem 1.3 we have
$exp(G)\leq 4g+2$. By [N, Theorem 1] there is a unique surface
of genus $g$ that has an automorphism of order $4g+2$. Putting
all together we obtain
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 5.5.} \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$, and let
$G$ be a nilpotent subgroup of $Aut(X)$. Then
$$exp(G)\leq 4g+2.$$
For every $g\geq 2$ there exists, up to isomorphism, exactly one
Riemann surface of genus $g$ that realizes this bound, namely
$$y^2 =x^{2g+1}-1,$$
which has $Aut(X)\cong C_{4g+2}$.
\rm
\\ \\
Obviously the same result holds for abelian subgroups $G$ of
$Aut(X)$.
\\

\subsection*{6. On $|G|/exp(G)$}

Finally, we investigate the case when $exp(G)$ is as small as
possible compared to $|G|$.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 6.1.} \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$, and let
$G$ be a subgroup of $Aut(X)$. Then
$$\frac{|G|}{exp(G)}\ \ \hbox{\it divides}\ \ 2(g-1).$$
\rm
\\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
This is a well-known consequence of the Hurwitz formula
$$2g-2=|G|(2h-2)+\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{|G|}{|S_i|}(|S_i|-1)$$
for the covering $X\to X/G$. Here $P_1 ,\ldots , P_r$ are the branch
points on the genus $h$ Riemann surface $X/G$, and $S_i$ is the
stabilizer of a point on $X$ above $P_i$. Since $S_i$ is always cyclic,
$\frac{|G|}{exp(G)}$ divides $\frac{|G|}{|S_i|}$.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
{\bf Proposition 6.2.} \it
Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 2$, and let
$G$ be a subgroup of $Aut(X)$. If $|G|/exp(G)=2(g-1)$, then $G$
must be solvable and $exp(G)\leq 24$.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
If $|G|/exp(G)=2(g-1)$, then Theorem 1.1 implies $exp(G)\leq 42$,
with equality if and only if $G$ is a Hurwitz group of exponent
$42$. But by Theorem 3.6 such groups do not exist.
\par
The second biggest possible size of $G$ is $|G|=48(g-1)$ [Br, Lemma 3.18].
This shows $exp(G)\leq 24$. Consequently, $exp(G)$ cannot have more than
$2$ different prime divisors. By Burnside's $p^m q^n$-Theorem (see for
example [R, Theorem 8.5.3]) this implies that $G$ is solvable.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
If $|G|/exp(G)=2(g-1)$, then $exp(G)$ must of course be even and
divisible by all primes that divide $g-1$.
\par
Moreover, the cases $exp(G)=22$, $16$ or $14$ cannot occur in
Proposition 6.2, because there are no $G$ of order $44(g-1)$,
$32(g-1)$ or $28(g-1)$ ([Br, Lemma 3.18]).
On the other hand, the Bolza surface from Remark 5.2 shows that
$exp(G)=24$ can occur, at least for $g=2$. We don't know whether
it can occur for $g>2$. But we have the following general
finiteness result.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 6.3.} \it
There are only finitely many groups $G$ that reach the bound
$|G|/exp(G)=2(g-1)$ in Theorem 6.1.
\rm
\\ \\
{\bf Proof.} \rm
Let $|G|/exp(G)=2(g-1)$. Dividing the Hurwitz formula in the proof
of Theorem 6.1 by $|G|/exp(G)$, we obtain
$$1=exp(G)(2h-2)+\sum_{i=1}^r \frac{exp(G)}{|S_i|}(|S_i|-1).$$
Fix one of the remaining exponents $24$, $20$, $18$, $12$, $10$,
$8$, $6$, $4$, $2$. Then, since $|S_i|$ divides $exp(G)$, there are
only finitely many values $h$ and $r$ for which this equation has
a solution. More precisely, we must have $h=0$ and $r\leq 5$, as
$h=1$ would imply $r=1$, $|S_1|=2$, and $exp(G)=2$, which is not
possible. By the theory of Fuchsian groups, $G$ is a quotient of
a group that is generated by $2h+r-1$ elements. But by the affirmative
solution to the restricted Burnside problem [Ze] there are only
finitely many finite groups with a given number of generators and
a given exponent.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\
Finally, the case $exp(G)=2$ can be completely settled. All groups
of exponent $2$ are abelian; so we do this in slightly more generality.
\\ \\
{\bf Theorem 6.4.} \it
There are only five abelian groups $G$ that reach the bound
$|G|/exp(G)=2(g-1)$ in Theorem 6.1, namely
\begin{itemize}
\item $C_2 \times C_2$ and $C_6 \times C_2$ for $g=2$;\
\item $C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$ and $C_4 \times C_4$ for $g=3$;
\item $C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2 \times C_2$ for $g=5$.
\end{itemize}
\rm

\noindent
{\bf Proof.} \rm
If $G\subseteq Aut(X)$ is abelian, then $|G|\leq 4g+4$ by
Theorem 1.2 (d). If moreover $|G|/exp(G)=2(g-1)$, this leaves
only the possibilities $exp(G)\in\{2,4,6\}$ for $g=2$,
$exp(G)\in\{2,4\}$ for $g=3$, and $exp(G)=2$ for $g>3$.
So besides the groups listed in the theorem, the possible
candidates are $C_4 \times C_2$ for $g=2$, $C_4 \times C_2 \times C_2$
for $g=3$, and $(C_2)^r$, $r\geq 5$ for $g=2^{r-2}+1$.
But [Ml, Theorem 4] shows that the minimum genus for the latter
three types is bigger.
\hfill$\Box$
\\ \\ \\
{\bf Acknowledgements.} I am indebted to the anonymous referee for
her/his careful reading of the manuscript and for many constructive
comments. These have not only improved the presentation, but have
also substantially strengthened some of the results.
Specifically, the trick with the centralizer of $U/M$ in the proof
of Proposition 5.3 is due to the referee. This has improved the bound
from originally $24(g-1)$ to $16(g-1)$.
Equally due to the referee is the observation that in Theorem 6.3 the
number of generators of $G$ can be bounded for every exponent, which
is crucial for getting finiteness overall.
\\

\subsection*{\hspace*{10.5em} References}
\begin{itemize}

\item[{[A]}] R.~Accola: \it Topics in the Theory of Riemann Surfaces,
\rm Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1595,
Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1994

\item[{[BJ]}] M.~Belolipetsky and G.~A.~Jones: Automorphism
groups of Riemann surfaces of genus $p+1$, where $p$ is prime,
\it Glasgow Math. J. \bf 47 \rm (2005), 379-393

\item[{[Br]}] T.~Breuer: \it Characters and Automorphism Groups
of Compact Riemann Surfaces, \rm LMS Lecture Notes 280, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2000

\item[{[Ch]}] B.~P.~Chetiya: On genuses of compact Riemann
surfaces admitting solvable automorphism groups,
\it Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. \bf 12 \rm (1981), 1312-1318

\item[{[ChP]}] B.~P.~Chetiya and K.~Patra: On metabelian groups of
automorphisms of compact Riemann surfaces, \it J. London Math. Soc.
\bf 33 \rm (1986), 467-472

\item[{[C]}] M.~Conder: Hurwitz groups: a brief survey, \it
Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) \bf 23 \rm (1990), 359-370

\item[{[G1]}] G.~Gromadzki: Maximal groups of automorphisms of
compact Riemann surfaces in various classes of finite groups,
\it Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exact. Fis. Natur. Madrid \bf 82 no. 2
\rm (1988), 267-275

\item[{[G2]}] G.~Gromadzki: On soluble groups of automorphism of
Riemann surfaces, \it Canad. Math. Bull. \bf 34 \rm (1991), 67-73

\item[{[GMl]}] G.~Gromadzki and C.~Maclachlan: Supersoluble
groups of automorphisms of compact Riemann surfaces,
\it Glasgow Math. J. \bf 31 \rm (1989), 321-327

\item[{[H]}] W.~J.~Harvey: Cyclic groups of automorphisms
of a compact Rieman surface, \it Quart. J. Math. Oxford (2),
\bf 17 \rm (1966), 86-97

\item[{[Mb]}] A.~M.~Macbeath: Generators of the linear fractional groups,
in: Number Theory (Houston 1967), \it Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. \bf 12,
\rm American Mathematical Society, Providence (1969), 14-32

\item[{[Ml]}] C.~Maclachlan: Abelian groups of automorphisms of compact
Riemann surfaces, \it Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) \bf 15 \rm (1965),
699-712

\item[{[N]}] K.~Nakagawa: On the orders of automorphisms of a closed
Riemann surface, \it Pacific J. Math. \bf 115 no. 2 \rm (1984), 435-443

\item[{[R]}] D.~J.~S.~Robinson: \it A Course in the Theory of Groups,
\rm Springer GTM 80, New York - Berlin, 1982

\item[{[S]}] M.~Suzuki: On finite groups with cyclic Sylow subgroups
for all odd primes, \it Amer. J. Math. \bf 77 \rm (1955), 657-691

\item[{[Wa]}] J.~H.~Walter: The characterization of finite groups
with abelian Sylow $2$-subgroups, \it Ann. of Math. (2) \bf 89 \rm
(1969), 405-514

\item[{[W1]}] W.~J.~Wong: On finite groups whose $2$-Sylow subgroups
have cyclic subgroups of index $2$, \it J. Austral. Math. Soc. \bf 4
\rm (1964), 90-112

\item[{[W2]}] W.~J.~Wong: On finite groups with semi-dihedral Sylow
$2$-subgroups, \it J. Algebra \bf 4 \rm( 1966), 52-63

\item[{[Za]}] H.~Zassenhaus: \"Uber endliche Fastk\"orper, \it
Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg \bf 11 \rm (1935), 187-220

\item[{[Ze]}] E.~I.~Zelmanov: A solution of the restricted Burnside
problem for $2$-groups, \it Math. USSR Sbornik \bf 72 \rm (1991),
543-565

\item[{[Z1]}] R.~Zomorrodian: Nilpotent automorphism groups of
Riemann surfaces, \it Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. \bf 288 no. 1
\rm (1985), 241-255

\item[{[Z2]}] R.~Zomorrodian: Bounds for the order of supersoluble
automorphism groups of Riemann surfaces, \it Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
\bf 108 no. 3 \rm (1990), 587-600

\item[{[Z3]}] R.~Zomorrodian: On a theorem of supersoluble
automorphism groups, \it Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
\bf 131 no. 9 \rm (2003), 2711-2713

\end{itemize}

\noindent
{\sc Andreas Schweizer}\\
Department of Mathematics,\\
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST),\\
Daejeon 305-701,\\
South Korea\\
e-mail: {\tt schweizer@kaist.ac.kr}

\end{document}

Complex Variables (math.CV); Algebraic Geometry (math.AG); Group Theory (math.GR)