I'm going to assume every constraint is of the form.
$$\sigma_x\sigma_y\cdots\sigma_z=1$$
We are going to convert each constraint to an $n$ dimensional vector, where $n$ is the number of qbits.
Let's say we only have $6$ qbits, for brevity. The constraints would translate as:
$\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4 = 1 \;\;\;\; \Rightarrow \; (1,1,1,1,0,0)$
$\sigma_1 \sigma_3 \sigma_5 = 1 \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \Rightarrow \; (1,0,1,0,1,0)$
$\sigma_4 \sigma_6 = 1 \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \Rightarrow \; (0,0,0,1,0,1)$
$\sigma_1 \sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_6 = 1\;\; \Rightarrow (1,0,1,1,1,1)$
Composition/multiplication of constraints corresponds to the addition of vectors. Note that $1 + 1 = 0 $ (since $\sigma_i^2=1$) .
The next step is to order the constraints (vectors) lexicographically
(ie. vectors in which the $a_1$ member is $1$ go first), place them as rows of a matrix, and perform Gaussian elimination on the matrix.
This ensures that the redundant constraints are eliminated.
We are left with $m$ "generator" constraints such that not one of them can be written as a combination of the others. The number of all possible constraints is $2^m$, with each being a unique combination of the generator constraints. Then you can check whether or not a given constraint can be written in terms of the generator ones by applying reduction to it.
Let's take your given example.
$\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4 = 1$
$\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_6 = 1$
$\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_7 \sigma_8 = 1$
$\sigma_7 \sigma_8 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$
$\sigma_3 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$
Applying Gaussian elimination we eliminate the first constraint from the second (as they both start with $a_1$) and get:
$\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4 = 1$
$\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_6 = 1$
$\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_7 \sigma_8 = 1$
$\sigma_7 \sigma_8 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$
$\sigma_3 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$
Now the second constraint is the smallest (lexicographically) that starts with $a_3$, and we can eliminate it from the third and fifth (also start with $a_3$), getting:
$\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4 = 1$
$\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_6 = 1$
$\sigma_5 \sigma_6 \sigma_7 \sigma_8 = 1$
$\sigma_7 \sigma_8 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$
$\sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$
After a final ordering we have:
$\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4 = 1$
$\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_6 = 1$
$\sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$
$\sigma_5 \sigma_6 \sigma_7 \sigma_8 = 1$
$\sigma_7 \sigma_8 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$
Gausian elimination has been applied: each constraint starts with a different $\sigma_n$, and they are arranged in order. We're left with $5$ generating constraints (none of them was redundant), so the total number of all possible constraints would be $2^5 = 32$ . This corresponds to the possible combinations of the generating constraints (ie. a given generating constraint is either included, or not).
Finally, let's check whether:
$\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$
could be fulfilled from our generating constraints (also called basis).
It starts with $a_3$ so it can be reduced by our second generating constraint (as it also starts with $a_3$). The second one is $\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_6 = 1$, and the reduction is $\sigma_5 \sigma_6 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$ . This now starts with $a_5$, and can be reduced by our fourth generating constraint, giving: $\sigma_7 \sigma_8 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$. This can be reduced by (and coincides with) our fifth generating constraint, giving $1=1$ (true). So the relationship
$\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10} = 1$ can indeed be deduced from our generating constraints, by composing the second , the fourth and the fifth.
To give an example of something that can not be deduced from our generating constants, take:
$\sigma_7 \sigma_{10} = 1$
We reduce it with the fifth constrain to get:
$\sigma_8 \sigma_{9} = 1$ . However, notice that the starting term of this constraint, $\sigma_8$, is not among the stating terms of our generating constraints. Therefore, it is irreducible. So, $\sigma_7 \sigma_{10} = 1$ can not be deduced from our given generating constraints.
Edit: more detail on how the number of implicitly fulfilled constraints is equal to $2$ to the power of the number of generating constraints:
Given that in our example we have $5$ generating constraints, we shall map a constraint to each number from $0$ to $2^5-1$, giving a total of $2^5$ constraints. The key is that the numbers going from $0$ to $2^5-1$ are the binary numbers of up to $5$ digits:
Take the number $19$ for example. Written in binary it is $10011_2$. We see that the first, second, and fifth digits are $1$ (indexing the digits from right to left). Therefore the constraint corresponding to to the number $19$ is obtained by composing the first, second, and fifth of our generating constraints:
$(\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4)(\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_6 )(\sigma_7 \sigma_8 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10}) = 1$
This simplifies to:
$\sigma_1 \sigma_2\sigma_5 \sigma_6 \sigma_7 \sigma_8 \sigma_9 \sigma_{10}= 1$
This is the constraint associated to the number $19$. We can do this for any number going from $0$ to $2^5-1$, to generate all implicitly fulfilled constraints (as written in canonical from):
The number $0$ corresponds to the constraint $1 = 1$.
The number $3$ (ie. $11_2$) corresponds to $(\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_3 \sigma_4)(\sigma_3 \sigma_4 \sigma_5 \sigma_6 ) = 1$, which gives: $\sigma_1 \sigma_2 \sigma_5 \sigma_6 = 1$.
I had already applied Gaussian elimination to many abelian group structures in the past, so it was easy to see that it can apply here too. Now, if the operators were not commutative, it would be a harder problem.
– user3257842 Sep 22 '22 at 07:51