The black&white psychedelic picture on the left of a tessellation of the hyperbolic upper-halfplane, was called the Dedekind tessellation in this post, following the reference given by John Stillwell in his excellent paper Modular Miracles, The American Mathematical Monthly, 108 (2001) 70-76.

But is this correct terminology? Nobody else uses it apparently. So, let’s try to track down the earliest depiction of this tessellation in the literature…

Stillwell refers to Richard Dedekind’s 1877 paper “Schreiben an Herrn Borchard uber die Theorie der elliptische Modulfunktionen”, which appeared beginning of september 1877 in Crelle’s journal (Journal fur die reine und angewandte Mathematik, Bd. 83, 265-292).

There are a few odd things about this paper. To start, it really is the transcript of a (lengthy) letter to Herrn Borchardt (at first, I misread the recipient as Herrn Borcherds which would be really weird…), written on June 12th 1877, just 2 and a half months before it appeared… Even today in the age of camera-ready-copy it would probably take longer.

There isn’t a single figure in the paper, but, it is almost impossible to follow Dedekind’s arguments without having a mental image of the tessellation. He gives a fundamental domain for the action of the modular group on the hyperbolic upper-half plane (a fact already known to Gauss) and goes on in section 3 to give a one-to-one mapping between this domain and the complex plane using what he calls the ‘valenz’ function (which is our modular function , making an appearance in moonshine, and responsible for the black&white tessellation, the two colours corresponding to pre-images of the upper or lower half-planes).

Then there is this remarkable opening sentence.

Sie haben mich aufgefordert, eine etwas ausfuhrlichere Darstellung der Untersuchungen auszuarbeiten, von welchen ich, durch das Erscheinen der Abhandlung von Fuchs veranlasst, mir neulich erlaubt habe Ihnen eine kurze Ubersicht mitzuteilen; indem ich Ihrer Einladung hiermit Folge leiste, beschranke ich mich im wesentlichen auf den Teil dieser Untersuchungen, welcher mit der eben genannten Abhandlung zusammenhangt, und ich bitte Sie auch, die Ubergehung einiger Nebenpunkte entschuldigen zu wollen, da es mir im Augenblick an Zeit fehlt, alle Einzelheiten auszufuhren.

Well, just try to get a paper (let alone a letter) accepted by Crelle’s Journal with an opening line like : “I’ll restrict to just a few of the things I know, and even then, I cannot be bothered to fill in details as I don’t have the time to do so right now!” But somehow, Dedekind got away with it.

So, who was this guy Borchardt? How could this paper be published so swiftly? And, what might explain this extreme ‘je m’en fous’-opening ?

Carl Borchardt was a Berlin mathematician whose main claim to fame seems to be that he succeeded Crelle in 1856 as main editor of the ‘Journal fur reine und…’ until 1880 (so in 1877 he was still in charge, explaining the swift publication). It seems that during this time the ‘Journal’ was often referred to as “Borchardt’s Journal” or in France as “Journal de M Borchardt”. After Borchardt’s death, the Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik again became known as Crelle’s Journal.

As to the opening sentence, I have a toy-theory of what was going on. In 1877 a bitter dispute was raging between Kronecker (an editor for the Journal and an important one as he was the one succeeding Borchardt when he died in 1880) and Cantor. Cantor had published most of his papers at Crelle and submitted his latest find : there is a one-to-one correspondence between points in the unit interval [0,1] and points of d-dimensional space! Kronecker did everything in his power to stop that paper to the extend that Cantor wanted to retract it and submit it elsewhere. Dedekind supported Cantor and convinced him not to retract the paper and used his influence to have the paper published in Crelle in 1878. Cantor greatly resented Kronecker’s opposition to his work and never submitted any further papers to Crelle’s Journal.

Clearly, Borchardt was involved in the dispute and it is plausible that he ‘invited’ Dedekind to submit a paper on his old results in the process. As a further peace offering, Dedekind included a few ‘nice’ words for Kronecker

Bei meiner Versuchen, tiefer in diese mir unentbehrliche Theorie einzudringen und mir einen einfachen Weg zu den ausgezeichnet schonen Resultaten von Kronecker zu bahnen, die leider noch immer so schwer zuganglich sind, enkannte ich sogleich…

Probably, Dedekind was referring to Kronecker’s relation between class groups of quadratic imaginary fields and the j-function, see the miracle of 163. As an added bonus, Dedekind was elected to the Berlin academy in 1880…

Anyhow, no visible sign of ‘Dedekind’s’ tessellation in the 1877 Dedekind paper, so, we have to look further. I’m fairly certain to have found the earliest depiction of the black&white tessellation (if you have better info, please drop a line). Here it is

It is figure 7 in Felix Klein’s paper “Uber die Transformation der elliptischen Funktionen und die Auflosung der Gleichungen funften Grades” which appeared in may 1878 in the Mathematische Annalen (Bd. 14 1878/79). He even adds the j-values which make it clear why black triangles should be oriented counter-clockwise and white triangles clockwise. If Klein would still be around today, I’m certain he’d be a metapost-guru.

So, perhaps the tessellation should be called Klein’s tessellation?? Well, not quite. Here’s what Klein writes wrt. figure 7

Diese Figur nun - welche die eigentliche Grundlage fur das Nachfolgende abgibt - ist eben diejenige, von der Dedekind bei seiner Darstellung ausgeht. Er kommt zu ihr durch rein arithmetische Betrachtung.

Case closed : Klein clearly acknowledges that Dedekind did have this picture in mind when writing his 1877 paper!

But then, there are a few odd things about Klein’s paper too, and, I do have a toy-theory about this as well… (tbc)

• I Love Social Bookmarking
  
  • Subscribe
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Ma.gnolia
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

One computer and one system-upgrade ago, I tried to convince people to set up their own MOPP (My Online Publications Page).

The essence of such pages is that they need an update, once in a while… I’m a bit embarrassed to admit it, but, I failed to re-install the package, following my own instructions.

Fortunately, there are plenty of good alternatives around, today. After playing a bit with bibtex2html, Ive settled for the bib2html perl script by Patrick Riley.

Included are well documented directions. The most important being that you have to do a

sudo ln -s /usr/bin/perl /usr/local/bin/perl5¹

and change the user-specific entries in the bib2html.conf configuration file (if you have already key.pdf files around, you can just drop them in the output-directory and set . as the paperfiledirlist, and they will be found and linked to automatically. If not, you can always include links in the bib-file). Further, if you want to link to web-pages of your coauthors, remember that the script expects you to use : LastName, FirstName | http://webpage even if you used a different convention in your bib-file.

The result can be seen here. For ebook-download-junks : Ive included again full PDF-files of all versions of my book (starting with version 1 from 1999 to the final published version of last year). They can best be found using the sort-by-type page.

• I Love Social Bookmarking
  
  • Subscribe
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Ma.gnolia
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

1. thank you Rupert, via the comments [↩]

Most chess programs are able to give a numerical evaluation of a position. For example, the position below is considered to be worth +8.7 with white to move, and, -0.7 with black to move (by a certain program). But, if one applies combinatorial game theory as in John Conway’s ONAG and the Berlekamp-Conway-Guy masterpiece Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays it will turn out that the position can be proved to have an infinitesimal advantage for white…

So, what do we mean by this? First some basic rules of combinatorial game theory. To start, we evaluate a position without knowing which player has the move. A zero-game is by definition a position in which neither player has a good move, that is, any move by either player quickly leads to losing the game. Hence, a zero-game is a position in which the second player to move wins.

What is the chess-equivalent of a zero-position game? A position in which neither player has a good move is called a Mutual Zugzwang in chess literature. An example is given by the above position, if we restrict attention only to the 4 pieces in the upper right-hand corner and forget the rest. We don’t know who has the move, but, White cannot move at all and Black cannot move the King or Bishop without losing the Bishop and allowing White to promote the pawn and win quickly. In CGT-parlance, the upper-right position has value where the left options denote the White moves and the right options the Black moves.

All other values are determined by recursion. For example, consider a position in which White has just one move left before the sitution is again a Mutual Zugzwang, and, Black has no good move whatsoever. After white’s move, the position will again be a zero-position and Black has no options, so the value of this position would be denoted by and we call the value of this position to be . Similarly, if white has no options and black has one final move to make, the position would be considered to have value .

Clearly, these are just the three easiest game-values to have and the real kick comes further down the road when one can prove by recursion that some games have non-integer values (such as for a position in which white has one move to get to a mutual zugzwang and black has a move leading to a position of value (defined as before)), or non-number values such as where both white and black’s best move is to get to a mutal zugzwang. Game-values such as are called fuzzy (or confused with zero) and are defined by the property that the first player to move wins.

Similarly, positive game-values are those positions where White wins, independent of who has the move and negatives are those that Black wins. There is a whole menagery of game-values and the WinningWays-booklets give an example based introduction to this fascinating theory.

Brief as this introduction was, it will allow us to determine the exact value of the position in the above diagram. We know already that we can forget about the right-hand upper corner (as this is a zero-position) and concentrate attention to the left-hand side of the board.

It is easy to see that neither Knight can move without loosing quickly, nor can the pawns on a5 and b7. That is, white has just 2 options : either c3-c4 (quickly loosing after d5xc4 2. d3xc4,d4-d3 3. Nc1xd3,Na1-b3) or, and this is the only valid option c3xd4 leading to the position on the left below. Black has only one valid move : d4xc3 leading to the position on the right below.

Clearly, the left-diagram has value 0 as it is a mutual Zugzwang. The position on the right takes a moment’s thought : White has one move left d3-d4 leading to a 0-position, whereas black has one move d5-d4 leading to a position of value -1 (as black still has one move left d6-d5, whereas white has none). That is, the CGT-value of the right-hand position is and therefore, the value of the starting position is precisely equal to

(called tiny-one among ONAGers)

It can be shown that has a positive value (that is, White wins independently of who has the first move) but smaller than any positive number-valued games!

Noam Elkies has written a beautiful paper On numbers and endgames: Combinatorial game theory in chess endgames containing many interesting examples (the example above is an adaptation of his diagram9).

• I Love Social Bookmarking
  
  • Subscribe
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Ma.gnolia
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

I’ve always thought of Alain Connes as the unchallengeable world-champion opaque mathematical writing, but then again, I was proven wrong.

Alain’s writings are crystal clear compared to the monstrosity the AMS released to the world : In search of the Riemann zeros - Strings, fractal membranes and noncommutative spacetimes by Michel L. Lapidus.

Here’s a generic half-page from a total of 558 pages (or rather 314, as the remainder consists of appendices, bibliography and indices…). I couldn’t find a single precise, well-defined and proven statement in the entire book.

4.2. Fractal Membranes and the Second Quantization of Fractal Strings
“The first quantization is a mystery while the second quantization is a functor” Edward Nelson (quoted in [Con6,p.515])

We briefly discuss here joint work in preparation with Ryszard Nest [LapNe1]. This work was referred to several times in Chapter 3, and, as we pointed out there, it provides mathematically rigorous construction of fractal membranes (as well as of self-similar membranes), in the spirit of noncommutative geometry and quantum field theory (as well as of string theory). It also enables us to show that the expected properties of fractal (or self-similar) membranes, derived in our semi-heuristic model presented in Sections 3.2 and 3.2. are actually satisfied by the rigorous model in [LapNe1]. In particular, there is a surprisingly good agreement between the author’s original intuition on fractal (or self-similar) membrane, conceived as an (adelic) Riemann surface with infinite genus or as an (adelic) infinite dimensional torus, and properties of the noncommutative geometric model in [LapNe1]. In future joint work, we hope to go beyond [LapNe1] and to give even more (noncommutative) geometric content to this analogy, possibly along the lines suggested in the next section (4.3).
We will merely outline some aspects of the construction, without supplying any technical details, instead referring the interested reader to the forthcoming paper [LapNe1] for a complete exposition of the construction and precise statements of results.

Can the AMS please explain to the interested person buying this book why (s)he will have to await a (possible) forthcoming paper to (hopefully) make some sense of this apparent nonsense?

• I Love Social Bookmarking
  
  • Subscribe
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Ma.gnolia
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

Often, one can appreciate the answer to a problem only after having spend some time trying to solve it, and having failed … pathetically.

When someone with a track-record of coming up with surprising mathematical tidbits like John McKay sends me a mystery message claiming to contain “The secret of Monstrous Moonshine and the universe”, I’m happy to spend the remains of the day trying to make sense of the apparent nonsense

Let j(q) = 1/q + 744 + sum( c[k]*q^k,k>=1) be the Fourier expansion at oo of the elliptic modular function. Compute sum(c[k]^2,k=1..24) modulo 70

I expected the j-coefficients modulo 70 (or their squares, or their partial sums of squares) to reveal some hidden pattern, like containing the coefficients of Leech vectors or E(8)-roots, or whatever… and spend a day trying things out. But, all I got was noise… I left it there for a week or so, rechecked everything and… gave up

Subject:   Re: mystery message
From:  lieven.lebruyn@ua.ac.be
Date:  Fri 21 Mar 2008 12:37:47 GMT+01:00
To:    mckayj@Math.Princeton.EDU
    
i forced myself to recheck the calculations i did once after receiving your mail.
here are the partial sums of squares of j-coefficients modulo 70 for the first 
100 of them

[0, 46, 26, 16, 32, 62, 38, 3, 53, 13, 63, 39, 29, 59, 45, 10, 60, 40, 30,
 10, 40, 26, 6, 56, 42, 22, 68, 48, 48, 64, 64, 45, 25, 15, 31, 31, 67,
 47, 7, 21, 51, 31, 31, 61, 21, 1, 17, 12, 2, 16, 46, 60, 20, 10, 54, 49,
 63, 63, 53, 29, 29, 23, 13, 13, 27, 27, 17, 7, 67, 43, 43, 52, 42, 42,
 16, 6, 42, 42, 42, 36, 66, 32, 62, 52, 66, 66, 0, 25, 5, 5, 35, 21, 11,
 11, 57, 57, 61, 41, 41]

term 24 is 42…
i still fail to see the significance of it all.
atb :: lieven.

A couple of hours later I received his reply and simply couldn’t stop laughing…

From:  mckay@encs.concordia.ca
Subject:   Re: mystery message
Date:  Sat 22 Mar 2008 02:33:19 GMT+01:00
To:    lieven.lebruyn@ua.ac.be

I apologize for wasting your time. It is a joke
depending, it seems, on one’s cultural background.

See the google entry:

Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything

Best, John McKay

Still confused? Well, do it!

• I Love Social Bookmarking
  
  • Subscribe
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Ma.gnolia
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati