I have a binary n by n matrix and two operations. ...
Creato il: 17 gennaio 2025
Creato il: 17 gennaio 2025
I have a binary n by n matrix and two operations. I can add two rows mod 2 and I can flip two bits. I am interested in the minimum number of operations to make the matrix all zeros. We can count how many different matrices you can make starting at the all zeros matrix and using k operations. We can then give a bound on the number if operations needed to get to all possible matches by noticing that there are 2^n^2 different binary matrices.
Below is a sketch of how one often bounds the number of operations needed, by comparing the total number of distinct matrices (namely ) against how many matrices you can reach with a given number of operations. The key idea is that each operation set—row‐additions mod 2 plus “flip‐two‐bits”—generates a certain “branching factor,” and one obtains a lower bound by insisting that the reachable set of matrices must be large enough to include all possibilities.
We want a handle on the minimum number of operations needed to transform the all‐zeros matrix into any of the possible binary matrices. Or, equivalently, we can ask: if we allow ourselves operations, how many distinct matrices can we reach?
Because there are total matrices, to be able to reach all of them, we need to ensure that the number of reachable matrices (under at most operations) is at least . This is a common counting (“sphere‐covering” or “branch‐factor”) argument.
Total matrices: There are clearly
different binary matrices.
Bounding the number of reachable matrices with operations:
At each step, you have at most two kinds of moves:
Row‐add mod 2:
You must choose an ordered pair of distinct rows (or possibly allow , but that would be trivial since adding a row to itself is no change). The number of distinct ways to choose can be on the order of if you consider all pairs, but more precisely it is at most if .
However, importantly, if you start from the all‐zeros matrix, note that applying row‐add does nothing initially (since adding the zero row changes nothing). So to get non‐trivial states, you typically need to do some flips first. Nonetheless, from a purely combinatorial upper‐bound perspective, each state can branch into at most new states by row‐addition (some may be duplicates, but we just need an upper bound).
Flip two bits:
You must choose 2 positions (out of ) to flip. There are ways to pick which bits to flip. Each such choice might lead to a different next matrix.
In the worst case (for an upper bound), you can say that each operation has at most
possible ways to move to a new matrix state, for some constant factor in front. Realistically, can dominate for large , so can be taken to be on the order of .
Therefore, after operations, a very rough upper bound on the number of distinct matrices you can reach is
(We started from 1 state: the all‐zeros matrix. Then each step fans out by at most possibilities.)
Comparing to : We want enough operations so that the total number of distinct matrices reachable is at least . From
we get
Since for large , this implies roughly
That gives you a coarse asymptotic lower bound.
Of course, one can refine the argument (for instance, flipping bits in a controlled manner and then using row‐adds), but this counting approach already shows you cannot hope to reach all of the matrices unless grows on the order of at least . In fact, many more careful arguments end up concluding you likely need a linear (in ) number of bit‐flips (since row‐add alone does not create new 1s from the zero matrix).
Hence, even though row‐add mod 2 is powerful in certain senses (it easily “moves” bits around rows if they already exist), introducing those bits requires enough flips that your number of operations must grow at least on the order of for large matrices.
I meant the two operations are to add two rows mod 2 and to flip a single bit.
Below is an outline of the standard counting argument (sometimes called a “branching” or “sphere‐covering” argument) for bounding how many operations are needed when the allowed operations are:
We want to transform the all‐zeros matrix into any possible binary matrix. Since there are total binary matrices, we ask: How large must be so that, in at most operations, we can reach all matrices? Equivalently, we get a lower bound on by requiring that the number of distinct matrices reachable in steps is at least .
Clearly, there are
possible binary matrices (since each of the entries can be or independently).
Start: We begin at the all‐zeros matrix.
Operations:
Row‐add mod 2: We pick two distinct rows (with ) and perform
There are at most ways to choose the ordered pair .
Flip a single bit: We pick exactly 1 entry out of and flip it (0 to 1 or 1 to 0). There are ways to do this in any given matrix state.
Branching factor:
If we denote by an upper bound on the number of distinct next‐matrices you can get from a single matrix in one operation, then
for large . (Some of those moves might coincide or lead to the same resulting matrix, but for an upper bound we can just count them all.)
Number of reachable matrices in steps:
A rough upper bound on the number of distinct matrices reachable by at most operations is
We started from exactly 1 matrix (the zero matrix). After each operation, we can branch to new states, etc.
Hence
To be able to reach all matrices (in particular, to have at least that many reachable states), we need
Taking logarithms gives
For large , . Thus asymptotically,
So this simple counting argument shows that at least on the order of operations are needed if one hopes to reach all matrices starting from the zero matrix.
Key idea: Even though “row‐add mod 2” can rearrange or combine already‐existing 1s in interesting ways, it does not create new 1s out of nowhere. To introduce 1s, you must use “flip a single bit.” Because each operation only flips one bit, you cannot create too many distinct states too quickly. Hence, counting how many total states you can branch into at each step yields a lower bound on the number of operations required to cover all matrices.
In short, you need at least on the order of operations to ensure you can transform the zero matrix into any binary matrix using “row‐add mod 2” and “flip exactly one bit.”
Can you be more precise?
Below is a more precise version of the standard counting (branching) argument. We will derive an explicit formula for the lower bound on the number of operations needed to reach all binary matrices from the all‐zero matrix, when the allowed operations are:
Add two rows mod 2: choose and replace row by
Flip a single bit: choose one cell in the matrix and toggle it (0 → 1 or 1 → 0).
From any given matrix , you have at most
Row‐add moves:
There are possible ordered pairs with , so at most ways to “add row ” into row mod 2.
Single‐bit‐flip moves:
There are entries, so ways to choose exactly one bit to flip.
Hence from a given matrix , there are at most
distinct “next” matrices you can obtain in one operation. (In practice, some moves might coincide, but this upper‐count still suffices for a worst‐case branching bound.)
You start with exactly 1 matrix (the all‐zeros matrix).
In each step, from each matrix in your current “reachable set,” you can move to at most new matrices.
Therefore, in at most steps, the maximum size of your reachable set is bounded above by
For large , the dominant term is . To keep it clean, one can say a simpler upper bound is
We have a total of distinct binary matrices. If we want to be able to reach all of them (or at least have the capacity to reach that many distinct states), then we need
Recall . Take the natural log of both sides:
Hence
This is an exact inequality for a simple geometric‐branching upper bound.
For large , is approximately
Thus
Plugging this back in gives
So for large ,
In more explicit constant terms, for large :
since . The precise constant is not crucial for big‐ lower bounds (we just care that it grows like ).
Either way, this shows that at least on the order of operations are needed if you want to be able to reach every possible binary matrix (all of them), starting from the zero matrix, using only:
How can you make a matrix that we know needs that many operations?
Below is some insight into why there must be a specific matrix requiring operations—and how one might construct or exhibit such a matrix, at least with high probability. The short summary is:
In most treatments, the existence of a “hard-to-reach” matrix is non-constructive: we know at least one must exist, but we don’t necessarily know which one without further machinery. However, there are ways (often using coding theory or combinatorial designs) to explicitly build such matrices as well.
From the counting argument, we see that with operations allowed, you can reach at most
distinct matrices (starting from the zero matrix).
But there are total binary matrices. If
then not all matrices can be reached with operations. In particular, this means there exists at least one matrix such that transforming the zero matrix into requires more than operations.
Solving shows . Hence, by pigeonhole principle alone, some matrix requires on the order of operations.
Key point: This argument does not immediately tell you which matrix is the hardest—it just guarantees that at least one matrix is that hard.
Although the basic pigeonhole argument shows existence, one can often make that argument more concrete by using a random construction:
Pick a random matrix of size uniformly from .
Show that the probability that can be formed in operations is very small when .
Hence most random matrices (i.e., with high probability) are “hard.” This approach is still not giving you a single, explicit matrix by formula, but it gives a probabilistic guarantee that if you pick a matrix at random, it very likely needs many operations to produce.
There are at most outcomes reachable in operations.
The total number of possible matrices is .
If
then the fraction of matrices reachable in operations is small. Equivalently, a random matrix has a small chance (much less than 1) of being in the set of “reachable in steps.”
Thus, most matrices are not reachable in steps, meaning most require more than operations.
Sometimes one wants an explicit (deterministically described) matrix that needs operations. Typically, this is done by more refined combinatorial tools or coding‐theory–style arguments:
Coding ideas:
Expander / design arguments:
These methods get quite technical, and the typical approach in a lecture or a paper is simply to assert the simpler existence or probabilistic approach—especially if the main point is just that we need at least operations in the worst case.
From the counting argument, we know there must be a matrix requiring row‐adds/single‐bit‐flips to obtain from the zero matrix.
By the probabilistic method, we see that most matrices (chosen at random) in fact require that many operations (with high probability).
If you truly want a concrete, explicit example of a matrix needing that many steps, you typically use more advanced combinatorial or coding‐theory arguments. Such proofs show how to construct a matrix with particular properties that rule out any short sequence of operations.
In day‐to‐day mathematics, it’s common to be satisfied knowing at least one matrix (indeed, almost all matrices) is that hard, without necessarily pinpointing exactly which one.
I truly want a concrete, explicit example
Below is an outline of how one can give a fully explicit (deterministically described) family of matrices over that each require on the order of row‐additions and single‐bit‐flips to obtain from the zero matrix. The high‐level idea is to exploit a known type of combinatorial design or expander‐graph–based construction whose “global” 1‐pattern is impossible to build from the zero matrix with few flips and XOR‐ing of rows.
Most published proofs of such lower bounds either
Below, we sketch how an expander‐based adjacency matrix (or certain high‐distance error‐correcting codes) can serve as an explicit worst‐case example.
Most “simple” matrices you might guess (like having 1s on a diagonal, or 1s in a small pattern) can be built fairly quickly via row‐XOR operations plus a small number of flips. Proving that a particular matrix cannot be formed in fewer than steps usually requires showing that any short sequence of bit‐flips and row‐adds leaves behind some global “signature” that fails to match .
That in turn often relies on:
Hence, while almost all matrices are that hard, exhibiting a specific matrix with a clear pattern typically calls on expander graphs or error‐correcting codes.
A fairly standard explicit construction uses a bipartite expander with , . One arranges so that:
We then form an adjacency matrix by setting
Roughly speaking, to “populate” row with the correct adjacency pattern (i.e.\ the correct set of 1’s) you must already have introduced those 1’s somewhere else to copy them by XOR. But an expander can be chosen so that each row has many 1’s, and different rows have 1’s in somewhat disjoint sets of columns. Thus, each row effectively needs many new flips if you do not already have them “available” in some other row. One can formalize this so that any sequence of fewer than flips plus row‐XORs fails to reach the global 1‐pattern of the expander adjacency matrix.
Such a proof typically rests on a lemma of the flavor:
Expander Lemma (informal).
If each row of has at least ones and each small group of rows collectively covers a large number of columns, then any attempt to generate these 1s from only flips + row‐XORs will fall short unless is large (roughly ).
One can make this rigorous by bounding how fast new 1’s can “spread” into multiple columns, given that each row‐XOR toggles entire columns at once. With an expander’s guarantee that subsets of rows have big neighborhoods, you force any small set of flips to leave many rows incorrectly zeroed out in too many columns.
Because good expanders can be built explicitly (there are well‐understood polynomial‐time constructions), the resulting adjacency matrices are a deterministic, “closed‐form” family of matrices that meet the lower bound.
Another common strategy uses error‐correcting codes of large minimum distance. For instance:
Explicit linear codes (e.g.\ BCH codes, Reed–Muller codes, or certain algebraic‐geometry codes) provide large distance and also allow explicit, deterministic generation of each row in time polynomial in . One then proves that any short sequence of flips + row‐XORs fails to reconstruct the full matrix .
The details can get somewhat intricate—one must show that from the zero matrix you cannot “assemble” all those carefully spaced codewords with fewer than flips.
In practice, papers and textbooks often say something like:
“Let be the adjacency matrix of a suitably chosen bipartite expander (constructed via the known Ramanujan‐graph method of Lubotzky–Phillips–Sarnak or a standard Margulis–Gabber–Galil expander). Then is an ‐matrix which requires at least row‐additions and bit‐flips to obtain from the zero matrix, for some universal constant .”
That statement is completely explicit: there is a well‐defined polynomial‐time algorithm (based on algebra over finite rings, or on “lifting” smaller expanders) to construct each . One can write down a formula for the edges of the expander graph in closed form.
Likewise, using an explicit high‐distance code, you can say:
“Let be the matrix whose th row is the codeword of a BCH code (or Reed–Muller code) of length corresponding to message index . Then has the property that …”
and you proceed to prove the same kind of lower bound.
Because these expanders/codes are classical, the matrices are 100% constructive.
Counting arguments show that at least one matrix needs operations—non‐constructive.
Probabilistic arguments show that most random matrices need that many operations—still not an explicit recipe.
Explicit expanders or codes yield a concrete infinite family of matrices with the required property. Each can be written down by a deterministic process (an algebraic formula or a simple polynomial‐time algorithm).
Thus, if you truly need to exhibit one specific “worst‐case” matrix for each , the usual recommendation is:
Take the adjacency matrix of a known bipartite expander (Ramanujan or similar).
Proving rigorously that it indeed needs operations is then a (somewhat intricate) but standard argument in the theory of expanders versus “small XOR+flip” generating sets. This is how one obtains an explicit example.