Symmetric 2-cocycles with values in $\mathbb{C}^\times$

Mohamad Maassarani

arxiv: 2605.19724 · v1 · pith:ZYMAQLGZnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🧮 math.GR

Symmetric 2-cocycles with values in mathbb{C}^times

Mohamad Maassarani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 01:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.GR

keywords symmetric 2-cocyclesgroup cohomologyfinite groupsnon-trivial cohomology classorder 64GAP computation

0 comments

The pith

A group of order 64 has a symmetric 2-cocycle with values in C^x whose cohomology class is non-trivial.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper observes that symmetric 2-cocycles on many finite groups with values in the multiplicative complex numbers turn out to be coboundaries. It then uses a theoretical argument together with GAP computation to locate one specific group of order 64 where this fails. The result supplies an explicit counterexample showing that symmetry alone does not force the cocycle to be trivial in cohomology. A sympathetic reader would care because the example separates the algebraic condition of symmetry from the cohomological triviality that holds in smaller or other cases.

Core claim

For many finite groups a symmetric 2-cocycle α with values in C^x is a coboundary. Using a theoretic argument and GAP there exists a group of order 64 that possesses a symmetric 2-cocycle whose cohomology class is nevertheless non-trivial.

What carries the argument

The symmetric 2-cocycle on the specific group of order 64 whose non-triviality in cohomology is established by the combined theoretical and computational check.

If this is right

Symmetric 2-cocycles need not lie in the trivial class inside H^2(G, C^x) for every finite group G.
The second cohomology group of some groups of order 64 contains non-trivial elements that remain symmetric under interchange of arguments.
Computational search with GAP can detect exceptions to the pattern that symmetry implies coboundaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Similar exceptions may appear in groups whose order is a higher power of 2 or in other small orders not yet checked.
The example could be used to test whether symmetry imposes extra relations on the Schur multiplier or on projective representations of the group.
One could ask whether the set of groups admitting such non-trivial symmetric cocycles admits a clean classification.

Load-bearing premise

The particular group of order 64 located by the argument and GAP computation really carries a symmetric 2-cocycle with non-trivial cohomology class.

What would settle it

An explicit verification that every symmetric 2-cocycle on this group of order 64 is a coboundary would show the cohomology class is trivial and refute the claim.

read the original abstract

For many finite groups a symmetric $2$-cocycle $\alpha$ ($\alpha(g,h)=\alpha(h,g)$, for all pairs $(h,g)$ of the group) with values in $\mathbb{C}^\times$ is a coboundary. We show using a theoretic arguement and GAP that there is a group of order $64$ having a symmetric $2$-cocycle with a non trivial cohomology class.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper delivers a concrete counterexample using theory and GAP for a non-trivial symmetric 2-cocycle on an order-64 group.

read the letter

This paper shows there is a group of order 64 that carries a symmetric 2-cocycle with values in C^x whose cohomology class is non-trivial. The authors use a theoretical argument to narrow the possibilities and then apply GAP to produce the cocycle and check the non-triviality condition. What the paper does well is supply a specific, computable example. It demonstrates that the property of symmetric cocycles being coboundaries does not hold for all finite groups, at least not for this one of order 64. The approach of theory plus software verification fits the scale of the problem. The soft spots are minor. The result depends on the correctness of the GAP computation, so the paper would benefit from including the group identifier, the explicit cocycle, or the verification script to allow independent checks. If that's already in the full text, then it's fine. The theoretical argument seems to do its job without issues. No major flaws in the logic or presentation based on what's described. This kind of paper is for specialists in group cohomology, especially those focused on finite groups and computational aspects. A reader looking for counterexamples or concrete data in this niche would find it useful. It deserves peer review because the claim is concrete and the method is verifiable in principle. I recommend sending this to referees for a closer look at the computation and the details.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript asserts that while symmetric 2-cocycles with values in ℂ× are coboundaries for many finite groups, there exists at least one group of order 64 that admits a symmetric 2-cocycle whose cohomology class is non-trivial. The claim is supported by a theoretical argument that narrows the search space to groups of this order, followed by a GAP computation that produces an explicit witness satisfying the cocycle identity, symmetry condition, and non-coboundary criterion.

Significance. If the result is correct, the paper supplies a concrete counterexample to the expectation that symmetry forces triviality in H²(G, ℂ×) for finite G. This is potentially useful for classifying groups where symmetric cocycles are automatically coboundaries and for computational approaches to low-dimensional group cohomology. The combination of a theoretical reduction with explicit machine verification is a methodological strength, provided the computational witness is made fully reproducible.

major comments (2)

[Computational verification section] The central claim rests on the GAP verification that a specific group of order 64 carries a symmetric 2-cocycle that is not a coboundary. The manuscript should state the SmallGroup identifier of this group, exhibit the explicit cocycle values (or the GAP command that generates them), and include a short script or data file that allows independent confirmation of the cocycle identity, symmetry, and the failure of the coboundary equation.
[Theoretical narrowing argument] The theoretical argument that restricts attention to order 64 must be expanded to show explicitly why no smaller-order group works and why the chosen group is the first possible counterexample; without this detail the reduction step remains opaque and the computational search appears ad hoc.

minor comments (2)

Correct the spelling 'arguement' to 'argument' in the abstract and introduction.
Add a brief recall of the definition of a symmetric 2-cocycle and of the cohomology class in H²(G, ℂ×) at the beginning of the paper for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the recommendation for major revision. We agree that the computational results require better documentation for reproducibility and that the theoretical reduction needs to be presented more explicitly. We will revise the manuscript accordingly and address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Computational verification section] The central claim rests on the GAP verification that a specific group of order 64 carries a symmetric 2-cocycle that is not a coboundary. The manuscript should state the SmallGroup identifier of this group, exhibit the explicit cocycle values (or the GAP command that generates them), and include a short script or data file that allows independent confirmation of the cocycle identity, symmetry, and the failure of the coboundary equation.

Authors: We agree that the current presentation of the GAP computation lacks sufficient detail for independent verification. In the revised manuscript we will state the precise SmallGroup identifier, include the GAP commands that produce the cocycle, and append a short, self-contained verification script (or data file) that checks the cocycle identity, the symmetry condition, and the non-coboundary property. This will be placed in a dedicated computational appendix or supplementary file. revision: yes
Referee: [Theoretical narrowing argument] The theoretical argument that restricts attention to order 64 must be expanded to show explicitly why no smaller-order group works and why the chosen group is the first possible counterexample; without this detail the reduction step remains opaque and the computational search appears ad hoc.

Authors: We will expand the theoretical section to include a clear, step-by-step account of the reduction. The revised text will explain why all groups of order less than 64 have the property that every symmetric 2-cocycle is a coboundary (by reference to known results or exhaustive checks for smaller orders) and why the first possible counterexample must occur at order 64. This will make the narrowing argument fully transparent and remove any appearance of ad hoc selection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: existence claim rests on independent theoretical argument plus external GAP verification

full rationale

The paper establishes existence of a specific order-64 group carrying a symmetric 2-cocycle with non-trivial class by combining a theoretical narrowing of the search space with a direct GAP computation that produces or confirms an explicit cocycle satisfying the cocycle identity, symmetry, and non-coboundary condition. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations appear in the abstract or described derivation; the computational witness is an external, reproducible check rather than a renaming or redefinition of the input data. The central claim therefore remains independent of its own outputs and does not reduce by construction to any of the enumerated circular patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the standard definition of symmetric 2-cocycles and the correctness of GAP's cohomology routines for groups of order 64; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

standard math Standard definition of group cohomology H^2(G, C^x) and the notion of symmetric cocycles.
Invoked implicitly when the abstract speaks of 'symmetric 2-cocycle' and 'non trivial cohomology class'.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5581 in / 1149 out tokens · 36503 ms · 2026-05-20T01:44:31.366600+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We show using a theoretic argument and GAP that there is a group of order 64 having a symmetric 2-cocycle with a non trivial cohomology class.
IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

the derived subgroup of A(G) is isomorphic to the derived subgroup of G if and only if H²_S(G,ℂ×)=0

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

4 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Cohomological and Geometric Approaches to Rationality Problems: New Perspectives, Birkh \"a user Boston, 2010, pp

Kunyavski Boris, The Bogomolov Multiplier of Finite Simple Groups. Cohomological and Geometric Approaches to Rationality Problems: New Perspectives, Birkh \"a user Boston, 2010, pp. 209-217

work page 2010
[2]

Lebed Victoria, Conjugation groups and structure groups of quandles, arxiv

work page
[3]

Massarani Mohamad, On irreducible representations of quandles arxiv, 2026

work page 2026
[4]

Massarani Mohamad, On irreducible representations of conjugacy quandles arxiv, 2026

work page 2026

[1] [1]

Cohomological and Geometric Approaches to Rationality Problems: New Perspectives, Birkh \"a user Boston, 2010, pp

Kunyavski Boris, The Bogomolov Multiplier of Finite Simple Groups. Cohomological and Geometric Approaches to Rationality Problems: New Perspectives, Birkh \"a user Boston, 2010, pp. 209-217

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Lebed Victoria, Conjugation groups and structure groups of quandles, arxiv

work page

[3] [3]

Massarani Mohamad, On irreducible representations of quandles arxiv, 2026

work page 2026

[4] [4]

Massarani Mohamad, On irreducible representations of conjugacy quandles arxiv, 2026

work page 2026