# Category: absolute

Some weeks ago, Robert Kucharczyk and Peter Scholze found a topological realisation of the ‘hopeless’ part of the absolute Galois group $\mathbf{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$. That is, they constructed a compact connected space $M_{cyc}$ such that etale covers of it correspond to Galois extensions of the cyclotomic field $\mathbb{Q}_{cyc}$. This gives, at least in theory, a handle on the hopeless part of the Galois group $\mathbf{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}_{cyc})$, see the previous post in this series.

Here, we will get halfway into constructing $M_{cyc}$. We will try to understand the topology of the prime ideal spectrum $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}])$ of the complex group algebra of the multiplicative group $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}$ of all non-zero algebraic numbers.

[section_title text=”Pontryagin duals”]

Take an Abelian locally compact group $A$ (for example, an Abelian group equipped with the discrete topology), then its Pontryagin dual $A^{\vee}$ is the space of all continuous group morphisms $A \rightarrow \mathbb{S}^1$ to the unit circle $\mathbb{S}^1$ endowed with the compact open topology.

There are these topological properties of the locally compact group $A^{\vee}$:

– $A^{\vee}$ is compact if and only if $A$ has the discrete topology,

– $A^{\vee}$ is connected if and only if $A$ is a torsion free group,

– $A^{\vee}$ is totally disconnected if and only if $A$ is a torsion group.

If we take the additive group of rational numbers with the discrete topology, the dual space $\mathbb{Q}^{\vee}$ is the one-dimensional solenoid

It is a compact and connected group, but is not path connected. In fact, it path connected components can be identified with the finite adele classes $\mathbb{A}_f/\mathbb{Q} = \widehat{\mathbb{Z}}/\mathbb{Z}$ where $\widehat{\mathbb{Z}}$ is the ring of profinite integers.

Keith Conrad has an excellent readable paper on this fascinating object: The character group of $\mathbb{Q}$. Or you might have a look at this post.

[section_title text=”The multiplicative group of algebraic numbers”]

A torsion element $x$ in the multiplicative group $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}$ of all algebraic numbers must satisfy $x^N=1$ for some $N$ so is a root of unity, so we have the exact sequence of Abelian groups

$0 \rightarrow \pmb{\mu}_{\infty} \rightarrow \overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times} \rightarrow \overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf} \rightarrow 0$

where the last term is the maximal torsion-free quotient of $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}$. By Pontryagin duality this gives us an exact sequence of compact topological groups

$0 \rightarrow (\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf})^{\vee} \rightarrow (\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times})^{\vee} \rightarrow \pmb{\mu}^{\vee}_{\infty} \rightarrow 0$

Here, the left-most space is connected and $\pmb{\mu}^{\vee}_{\infty}$ is totally disconnected. That is, the connected components of $(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times})^{\vee}$ are precisely the translates of the connected subgroup $(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf})^{\vee}$.

[section_title text=”Prime ideal spectra”]

The short exact sequence of Abelian groups gives a short exact sequence of the corresponding group schemes

$0 \rightarrow \mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf}]) \rightarrow \mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}] \rightarrow \mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\pmb{\mu}_{\infty}]) \rightarrow 0$

The torsion free abelian group $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf}$ is the direct limit $\underset{\rightarrow}{lim}~M_i$ of finitely generated abelian groups $M_i$ and as the corresponding group algebra $\mathbb{C}[M_i] = \mathbb{C}[x_1,x_1^{-1},\cdots, x_k,x_k^{-1}]$, we have that $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[M_i])$ is connected. But then this also holds for

$\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf}]) = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[M_i])$

The underlying group of $\mathbb{C}$-points of $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\pmb{\mu}_{\infty}])$ is $\pmb{\mu}_{\infty}^{\vee}$ and is therefore totally disconnected. But then we have

$\pi_0(\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}]) \simeq \pi_0(\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\pmb{\mu}_{\infty}]) \simeq \pmb{\mu}_{\infty}^{\vee}$

and, more importantly, for the etale fundamental group

$\pi_1^{et}(\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}],x) \simeq \pi_1^{et}(\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf}],y)$

So, we have to compute the latter one. Again, write the torsion-free quotient as a direct limit of finitely generated torsion-free Abelian groups and recall that connected etale covers of $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[M_i])=\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[x_1,x_1^{-1},\cdots,x_k,x_k^{-1}])$ are all of the form $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[N])$, where $N$ is a subgroup of $M_i \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ that contains $M_i$ with finite index (that is, adjoining roots of the $x_i$).

Again, this goes through the limit and so a connected etale cover of $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf}])$ would be determined by a subgroup of the $\mathbb{Q}$-vectorspace $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf} \otimes \mathbb{Q}$ containing $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf}$ with finite index.

But, $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}_{tf}$ is already a $\mathbb{Q}$-vectorspace as we can take arbitrary roots in it (remember we’re using the multiplicative structure). That is, $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}])$ is simply connected!

[section_title text=”Bringing in the Galois group”]

Now, we’re closing in on the mysterious space $M_{cyc}$. Clearly, it cannot be the complex points of $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}])$ as this has no proper etale covers, but we still have to bring the Galois group $\mathbf{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}_{cyc})$ into the game.

The group algebra $\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}]$ is a commutative and cocommutative Hopf algebra, and all the elements of the Galois group act on it as Hopf-automorphisms, so it is natural to consider the fixed Hopf algebra

$H_{cyc}=\mathbb{C}[\overline{\mathbb{Q}}^{\times}]^{\mathbf{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}_{cyc})}$

This Hopf algebra has an interesting alternative description as a subalgebra of the Witt ring $W(\mathbb{Q}_{cyc})$, bringing it into the realm of $\mathbb{F}_1$-geometry.

This ring of Witt vectors has as its underlying set of elements $1 + \mathbb{Q}_{cyc}[[t]]$ of formal power series in $\mathbb{Q}_{cyc}[[t]]$. Addition on this set is defined by multiplication of power series. The surprising fact is that we can then put a ring structure on it by demanding that the product $\odot$ should obey the rule that for all $a,b \in \mathbb{Q}_{cyc}$ we have

$(1-at) \odot (1-bt) = 1 – ab t$

In this mind-boggling ring the Hopf algebra $H_{cyc}$ is the subring consisting of all power series having a rational expression of the form

$\frac{1+a_1t+a_2t^2+ \cdots + a_n t^n}{1+b_1 t + b_2 t^2 + \cdots + b_m t^m}$

with all $a_i,b_j \in \mathbb{Q}_{cyc}$.

We can embed $\pmb{\mu}_{\infty}$ by sending a root of unity $\zeta$ to $1 – \zeta t$, and then the desired space $M_{cyc}$ will be close to

$\mathbf{Spec}(H_{cyc} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[\pmb{\mu}_{\infty}]} \mathbb{C})$

but I’ll spare the details for another time.

In case you want to know more about the title-picture, quoting from John Baez’ post The Beauty of Roots:

“Sam Derbyshire decided to to make a high resolution plot of some roots of polynomials. After some experimentation, he decided that his favorite were polynomials whose coefficients were all 1 or -1 (not 0). He made a high-resolution plot by computing all the roots of all polynomials of this sort having degree ≤ 24. That’s $2^{24}$ polynomials, and about $24 \times 2^{24}$ roots — or about 400 million roots! It took Mathematica 4 days to generate the coordinates of the roots, producing about 5 gigabytes of data.”

We know embarrassingly little about the symmetries of the roots of all polynomials with rational coefficients, or if you prefer, the absolute Galois group $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$.

In the title picture the roots of polynomials of degree $\leq 4$ with small coefficients are plotted and coloured by degree: blue=4, cyan=3, red=2, green=1. Sums and products of roots are again roots and by a symmetry we mean a map on all roots, sending sums to sums and products to products and leaving all the green dots (the rational numbers) fixed.

John Baez has an excellent post on the beauty of roots, including a picture of all polynomials of degree $\leq 5$ with integer coefficients between $-4$ and $4$ and, this time, colour-coded by: grey=2, cyan=3, red=4 and black=5.

In both pictures there’s a hint of the unit circle, black in the title picture and spanning the ‘white gaps’ in the picture above.

If we’d only consider the sub-picture of all (sums and products of) roots including the rational numbers on the horizontal axis and the roots of unity on the unit circle we’d get the cyclotomic field $\mathbb{Q}_{cyc} = \mathbb{Q}(\mu_{\infty})$. Here we know all symmetries: they are generated by taking powers of the roots of unity. That is, we know all about the Galois group $Gal(\mathbb{Q}_{cyc}/\mathbb{Q})$.

The ‘missing’ symmetries, that is the Galois group $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}_{cyc})$ remained a deep mystery, until last week…

[section_title text=”The oracle speaks”]

On september 15th, Robert Kucharczyk and Peter Scholze (aka the “oracle of arithmetic” according to Quanta-magazine) arXived their paper Topological realisations of absolute Galois groups.

They discovered a concrete compact connected Hausdorff space $M_{cyc}$ such that Galois extensions of $\mathbb{Q}_{cyc}$ correspond to connected etale covers of $M_{cyc}$.

Let’s look at a finite field $\mathbb{F}_p$. Here, Galois extensions of $\mathbb{F}_p$ (and there is just one such extension of degree $n$, upto isomorphism) correspond to connected etale covers of the circle $S^1$.

An etale map $X \rightarrow S^1$ is such that every circle point has exactly $n$ pre-images. Here again, up to homeomorphism, there is a unique such $n$-fold cover of $S^1$ (the picture on the left gives the cover for $n=2$).

.

If we replace $\mathbb{F}_p$ by the cyclotomic field $\mathbb{Q}_{cyc}$ then the compact space $M_{cyc}$ replaces the circle $S^1$. So, if we take a splitting polynomial of degree $n$ with coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}_{cyc}$, then there is a corresponding etale $n$-fold cover $X \rightarrow M_{cyc}$ such that for a specific point $p$ in $M_{cyc}$ its pre-images correspond to the roots of the polynomial. Nice!

Sadly, there’s a catch. Even though we have a concrete description of $M_{cyc}$ it turns out to be a horrible infinite dimensional space, it is connected but not path-connected, and so on.

Even Peter Scholze says it’s unclear whether new results can be proved from this result (see around 39.15 in his Next Generation Outreach Lecture).

Btw. if your German is ok, this talk is a rather good introduction to classical Galois theory and etale fundamental groups, including the primes=knots analogy.

[section_title text=”the imaginary field with one element”]

Of course there’s no mention of it in the Kucharczyk-Scholze paper, but this result is excellent news for those trying to develop a geometry over the imaginary field with one element $\mathbb{F}_1$ and hope to apply this theory to problems in number theory.

As a side remark, some of these people have just published a book with the EMS Publishing House: Absolute arithmetic and $\mathbb{F}_1$-geometry

The basic idea is that the collection of all prime numbers, $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$ is far too large an object to be a terminal object (as it is in schemes). One should therefore extend the setting of schemes to so called $\mathbb{F}_1$-schemes, in which $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$ is some higher dimensional object.

Initially, one hoped that $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})/\mathbb{F}_1$ might look like a curve, so that one could try to mimick Weil’s proof of the Riemann hypothesis for curves to prove the genuine Riemann hypothesis.

But, over the last decade it became clear that $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})/\mathbb{F}_1$ looks like an infinite dimensional space, a bit like the space $M_{cyc}$ above.

I’ll spare this to a couple of follow-up posts, but for now I’ll leave you with the punchline:

The compact connected Hausdorff space $M_{cyc}$ of Kucharczyk and Scholze is nothing but the space of complex points of $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Q}_{cyc})/\mathbb{F}_1$!

“Sometimes ideas, like men, jump up and say ‘hello’. They introduce themselves, these ideas, with words. Are they words? These ideas speak so strangely.”

“All that we see in this world is based on someone’s ideas. Some ideas are destructive, some are constructive. Some ideas can arrive in the form of a dream. I can say it again: some ideas arrive in the form of a dream.”

Here’s such an idea.

It all started when Norma wanted to compactify her twisted-prime-fruit pies. Norma’s pies are legendary in Twin Peaks, but if you never ate them at Double R Diner, here’s the concept.

Start with a long rectangular strip of pastry and decorate it vertically with ribbons of fruit, one fruit per prime, say cherry for 2, huckleberry for 3, and so on.

For elegance, I argued, the $p$-th ribbon should have width $log(p)$.

“That may very well look natural to you,” she said, “but our Geometer disagrees”. It seems that geometers don’t like logs.

Whatever. I won.

That’s Norma’s basic pie, or the $1$-pie as we call it. Next, she performs $n$ strange twists in one direction and $m$ magical operations in another, to get one of her twisted-pies. In this case we would order it as her $\frac{m}{n}$-pie.

Marketing-wise, these pies are problematic. They are infinite in length, so Norma can serve only a finite portion, limiting the number of fruits you can taste.

That’s why Norma wants to compactify her pies, so that you can hold the entire pastry in your hands, and taste the infinite richness of our local fruits.

“Wait!”, our Geometer warned, “You can never close them up with ordinary scheme-dough, the laws of scheme-pastry prohibit this!” He suggested to use a ribbon of marzipan, instead.

“Fine, then… Margaret, before you start complaining again, how much marzipan should I use?”, Norma asked.

“Well,” I replied, “ideally you’d want it to have zero width, but that wouldn’t close anything. So, I’d go for the next best thing, the log being zero. Take a marzipan-ribbon of width $1$.”

The Geometer took a $1$-pie, closed it with marzipan of width $1$, looked at the pastry from every possible angle, and nodded slowly.

“Yes, that’s a perfectly reasonable trivial bundle, or structure sheaf if you want. I’d sell it as $\mathcal{O}_{\overline{\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})}}$ if I were you.”

“In your dreams!  I’ll simply call this  a $1$-pastry, and an $\frac{m}{n}$-pie closed with a $1$-ribbon of marzipan can be ordered from now on as an $\frac{m}{n}$-pastry.”

“I’m afraid this will not suffice,” our Geometer objected, ” you will have to allow pastries having an arbitrary marzipan-width.”

“Huh? You want me to compactify an $\frac{m}{n}$-pie  with marzipan of every imaginable width $r$ and produce a whole collection of … what … $(\frac{m}{n},r)$-pastries? What on earth for??”

“Well, take an $\frac{m}{n}$-pastry and try to unravel it.”

Oh, here we go again, I feared.

Whereas Norma’s pies all looked and tasted quite different to most of us, the Geometer claimed they were all the same, or ‘isomorphic’ as he pompously declared.

“Just reverse the operations Norma performed and you’ll end up with a $1$-pie”, he argued.

So Norma took an arbitrary $\frac{m}{n}$-pastry and did perform the reverse operations, which was a lot more difficult that with pies as now the marzipan-bit produced friction. The end-result was a $1$-pie held together with a marzipan-ribbon of width strictly larger or strictly smaller than $1$, but never gave back the $1$-pastry. Strange!

“Besides”, the Geometer added, “if you take two of your pastries, which I prefer to call $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{M}$, rather than use your numerical system, then their product $\mathcal{L} \otimes \mathcal{M}$ is again a pastry, though with variable marzipan-width.

In the promotional stage it might be nice to give the product for free to anyone ordering two pastries.”

“And how should I produce such a product-pastry?”

“Well, I’m too lazy to compute such things, it must follow trivially from elementary results in Picard-pastry. Surely, our log lady will work out the details in your notation. No doubt it will involve lots of logs…”

And so I did the calculations in my dreams, and I wrote down all formulas in the Double R Diner log-book, for Norma to consult whenever a customer ordered a product, or power of pastries.

A few years ago we had a Japanese tourist visiting Twin Peaks. He set up office in the Double R Diner, consulted my formulas, observed Norma’s pastry production and had endless conversations with our Geometer.

I’m told he categorified Norma’s pastry-bizness, probably to clone the concept to the Japanese market, replacing pastries by sushi-rolls.

When he left, he thanked me for working out the most trivial of examples, that of the Frobenioid of $\mathbb{Z}$…

I wrote this little story some time ago.

The last couple of days this blog gets some renewed interest in the aftermath of the IUTT-Mochizuki-Fest in Oxford last week.

I thought it might be fun to include it, if only in order to decrease the bounce rate.

If you are at all interested in the maths, you may want to start with this google+ post, and work your way back using the links curated by David Roberts here.

Absolute geometry is the attempt to develop algebraic geometry over the elusive field with one element $\mathbb{F}_1$. The idea being that the set of all prime numbers is just too large for $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$ to be a terminal object (as it is in the category of schemes).

So, one wants to view $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$ as a geometric object over something ‘deeper’, the “absolute point” $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{F}_1)$.

Starting with the paper by Bertrand Toen and Michel Vaquie, Under $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$, topos theory entered this topic.

First there was the proposal by Jim Borger to view $\lambda$-rings as $\mathbb{F}_1$-algebras. More recently, Alain Connes and Katia Consani introduced the arithmetic site.

Now, there are lectures series on these two approaches, one by Yuri I. Manin, the other by Alain Connes.

.

Yuri I. Manin in Ghent

On Tuesday, February 3rd, Yuri I. Manin will give the inaugural lectures of the new $\mathbb{F}_1$-seminars at Ghent University, organised by Koen Thas.

Coffee will be served from 13.00 till 14.00 at the Department of Mathematics, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, Building S22 and from 14.00 till 16.30 there will be lectures in the Emmy Noether lecture room, Building S25:

14:00 – 14:25: Introduction (by K. Thas)
14:30 – 15:20: Lecture 1 (by Yu. I. Manin)
15:30 – 16:20: Lecture 2 (by Yu. I. Manin)

Recent work of Manin related to $\mathbb{F}_1$ includes:

Alain Connes on the Arithmetic Site

Until the beginning of march, Alain Connes will lecture every thursday afternoon from 14.00 till 17.30, in Salle 5 – Marcelin Berthelot at he College de France on The Arithmetic Site (hat tip Isar Stubbe).

Here’s a two minute excerpt, from a longer interview with Connes, on the arithmetic site, together with an attempt to provide subtitles:

——————————————————

(50.36)

And,in this example, we saw the wonderful notion of a topos, developed by Grothendieck.

It was sufficient for me to open SGA4, a book written at the beginning of the 60ties or the late fifties.

It was sufficient for me to open SGA4 to see that all the things that I needed were there, say, how to construct a cohomology on this site, how to develop things, how to see that the category of sheaves of Abelian groups is an Abelian category, having sufficient injective objects, and so on … all those things were there.

This is really remarkable, because what does it mean?

It means that the average mathematician says: “topos = a generalised topological space and I will never need to use such things. Well, there is the etale cohomology and I can use it to make sense of simply connected spaces and, bon, there’s the chrystaline cohomology, which is already a bit more complicated, but I will never need it, so I can safely ignore it.”

And (s)he puts the notion of a topos in a certain category of things which are generalisations of things, developed only to be generalisations…

But in fact, reality is completely different!

In our work with Katia Consani we saw not only that there is this epicyclic topos, but in fact, this epicyclic topos lies over a site, which we call the arithmetic site, which itself is of a delirious simplicity.

It relies only on the natural numbers, viewed multiplicatively.

That is, one takes a small category consisting of just one object, having this monoid as its endomorphisms, and one considers the corresponding topos.

This appears well … infantile, but nevertheless, this object conceils many wonderful things.

And we would have never discovered those things, if we hadn’t had the general notion of what a topos is, of what a point of a topos is, in terms of flat functors, etc. etc.

(52.27)

——————————————————-

I will try to report here on Manin’s lectures in Ghent. If someone is able to attend Connes’ lectures in Paris, I’d love to receive updates!

Reineke’s observation that any projective variety can be realized as a quiver Grassmannian is bad news: we will have to look at special representations and/or dimension vectors if we want the Grassmannian to have desirable properties. Some people still see a silver lining: it can be used to define a larger class of geometric objects over the elusive field with one element $\mathbb{F}_1$.

In a comment to the previous post Markus Reineke recalls motivating discussions with Javier Lopez Pena and Oliver Lorscheid (the guys responsable for the map of $\mathbb{F}_1$-land above) and asks about potential connections with $\mathbb{F}_1$-geometry. In this post I will ellaborate on Javier’s response.

The Kapranov-Smirnov $\mathbb{F}_1$-floklore tells us that an $n$-dimensional vectorspace over $\mathbb{F}_1$ is a pointed set $V^{\bullet}$ consisting of $n+1$ points, the distinguished point playing the role of the zero-vector. Linear maps $V^{\bullet} \rightarrow W^{\bullet}$ between $\mathbb{F}_1$-spaces are then just maps of pointed sets (sending the distinguished element of $V^{\bullet}$ to that of $W^{\bullet}$). As an example, the base-change group $GL_n(\mathbb{F}_1)$ of an $n$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_1$-space $V^{\bullet}$ is isomorphic to the symmetric group $S_n$.

This allows us to make sense of quiver-representations over $\mathbb{F}_1$. To each vertex we associate a pointed set and to each arrow a map of pointed sets between the vertex-pointed sets. The dimension-vector $\alpha$ of quiver-representation is defined as before and two representations with the same dimension-vector are isomorphic is they lie in the same orbit under the action of the product of the symmetric groups determined by the components of $\alpha$. All this (and a bit more) has been worked out by Matt Szczesny in the paper Representations of quivers over $\mathbb{F}_1$.

Oliver Lorscheid developed his own approach to $\mathbb{F}_1$ based on the notion of blueprints (see also part 2 and a paper with Javier).

Roughly speaking a blueprint $B = A // \mathcal{R}$ is a commutative monoid $A$ together with an equivalence relation $\mathcal{R}$ on the monoid semiring $\mathbb{N}[A]$ compatible with addition and multiplication. Any commutative ring $R$ is a blueprint by taking $A$ the multiplicative monoid of $R$ and $\mathcal{R}(\sum_i a_i,\sum_j b_j)$ if and only if the elements $\sum_i a_i$ and $\sum_j b_j$ in $R$ are equal.

One can extend the usual notions of prime ideals, Zariski topology and structure sheaf from commutative rings to blueprints and hence define a notion of “blue schemes” which are then taken to be the schemes over $\mathbb{F}_1$.

What’s the connection with Reineke’s result? Well, for quiver-representations $V$ defined over $\mathbb{F}_1$ they can show that the corresponding quiver Grassmannians $Gr(V,\alpha)$ are blue projective varieties and hence are geometric objects defined over $\mathbb{F}_1$.

For us, old-fashioned representation theorists, a complex quiver-representation $V$ is defined over $\mathbb{F}_1$ if and only if there is an isomorphic representation $V’$ with the property that all its arrow-matrices have at most one $1$ in every column, and zeroes elsewhere.

Remember from last time that Reineke’s representation consisted of two parts : the Veronese-part encoding the $d$-uple embedding $\mathbb{P}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^M$ and a linear part describing the subvariety $X \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^n$ as the intersection of the image of $\mathbb{P}^n$ in $\mathbb{P}^M$ with a finite number of hyper-planes in $\mathbb{P}^M$.

We have seen that the Veronese-part is always defined over $\mathbb{F}_1$, compatible with the fact that all approaches to $\mathbb{F}_1$-geometry allow for projective spaces and $d$-uple embeddings. The linear part does not have to be defined over $\mathbb{F}_1$ in general, but we can look at the varieties we get when we force the linear-part matrices to be of the correct form.

For example, by modifying the map $h$ of last time to $h=x_0+x_7+x_9$ we get that the quiver-representation

is defined over $\mathbb{F}_1$ and hence that Reineke’s associated quiver Grassmannian, which is the smooth plane elliptic curve $\mathbb{V}(x^3+y^2z+z^3)$, is a blue variety. This in sharp contrast with other approaches to $\mathbb{F}_1$-geometry which do not allow elliptic curves!

Oliver will give a talk at the 6th European Congress of Mathematics in the mini-symposium Absolute Arithmetic and $\mathbb{F}_1$-Geometry. Judging from his abstract,he will also mention quiver Grassmannians.