Category: groups

Richard Borcherds on Witt and the Leech lattice

Published February 10, 2021 by lievenlb

A rare benefit of the Covid-situation is that Richard Borcherds decided to set up a YouTube channel with recordings of his online lectures.

Plenty of gems to be discovered there, including a talk on Monstrous Moonshine, and a talk he gave for the Archimedeans about the Sporadic Groups.

As part of his History of Science-course he addressed the question whether Witt discovered the Leech lattice.

A while ago I’ve blogged about that very same question here:

The summary of these posts being that I thought it was rather unlikely for Witt to have discovered the Leech lattice.

However, using the same sources, Borcherds rates a more than 90% probability for Witt to have indeed discovered the Leech lattice in 1940.

His evidence for this is:

Witt said he discovered it.
His construction (in his 1972 colloquium talk) is unlike any other construction of the Leech lattice.
Witt was the expert on Steiner systems, and the system S(5,8,24) is crucial in Leech’s construction of his lattice.

Leave a Comment

Sylvester’s synthemes

Published March 19, 2020 by lievenlb

I was running a bachelor course on representations of finite groups and a master course on simple (mainly sporadic) groups until Corona closed us down. Perhaps these blog-posts can be useful to some.

A curious fact, with ripple effect on Mathieu sporadic groups, is that the symmetric group $S_6$ has an automorphism $\phi$, different from an automorphism by conjugation.

In the course notes the standard approach was given, based on the $5$-Sylow subgroups of $S_5$.

Here’s the idea. Let $S_6$ act by permuting $6$ elements and consider the subgroup $S_5$ fixing say $6$. If such an odd automorphism $\phi$ would exist, then the subgroup $\phi(S_5)$ cannot fix one of the six elements (for then it would be conjugated to $S_5$), so it must act transitively on the six elements.

The alternating group $A_5$ is the rotation symmetry group of the icosahedron

Any $5$-Sylow subgroup of $A_5$ is the cyclic group $C_5$ generated by a rotation among one of the six body-diagonals of the icosahedron. As $A_5$ is normal in $S_5$, also $S_5$ has six $5$-Sylows.

More lowbrow, such a subgroup is generated by a permutation of the form $(1,2,a,b,c)$, of which there are six. Good old Sylow tells us that these $5$-Sylow subgroups are conjugated, giving a monomorphism
\[
S_5 \rightarrow Sym(\{ 5-Sylows \})\simeq S_6 \]
and its image $H$ is a subgroup of $S_6$ of index $6$ (and isomorphic to $S_5$) which acts transitively on six elements.

Left multiplication gives an action of $S_6$ on the six cosets $S_6/H =\{ \sigma H~:~\sigma \in S_6 \}$, that is a groupmorphism
\[
\phi : S_6 \rightarrow Sym(\{ \sigma H \}) = S_6 \]
which is our odd automorphism (actually it is even, of order two). A calculation shows that $\phi$ sends permutations of cycle shape $2.1^4$ to shape $2^3$, so can’t be given by conjugation (which preserves cycle shapes).

An alternative approach is given by Noah Snyder in an old post at the Secret Blogging Seminar.

Here, we like to identify the six points $\{ a,b,c,d,e,f \}$ with the six points $\{ 0,1,2,3,4,\infty \}$ of the projective line $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_5)$ over the finite field $\mathbb{F}_5$.

There are $6!$ different ways to do this set-theoretically, but lots of them are the same up to an automorphism of $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_5)$, that is an element of $PGL_2(\mathbb{F}_5)$ acting via Mobius transformations on $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_5)$.

$PGL_2(\mathbb{F}_5)$ acts $3$-transitively on $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_5)$ so we can fix three elements in each class, say $a=0,b=1$ and $f=\infty$, leaving six different ways to label the points of the projective line
\[
\begin{array}{c|cccccc}
& a & b & c & d & e & f \\
\hline
1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & \infty \\
2 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 3 & \infty \\
3 & 0 & 1 & 3 & 2 & 4 & \infty \\
4 & 0 & 1 & 3 & 4 & 2 & \infty \\
5 & 0 & 1 & 4 & 2 & 3 & \infty \\
6 & 0 & 1 & 4 & 3 & 2 & \infty
\end{array}
\]
A permutation of the six elements $\{ a,b,c,d,e,f \}$ will result in a permutation of the six classes of $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_5)$-labelings giving the odd automorphism
\[
\phi : S_6 = Sym(\{ a,b,c,d,e,f \}) \rightarrow Sym(\{ 1,2,3,4,5,6 \}) = S_6 \]
An example: the involution $(a,b)$ swaps the points $0$ and $1$ in $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_5)$, which can be corrected via the Mobius-automorphism $t \mapsto 1-t$. But this automorphism has an effect on the remaining points
\[
2 \leftrightarrow 4 \qquad 3 \leftrightarrow 3 \qquad \infty \leftrightarrow \infty \]
So the six different $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{F}_5)$ labelings are permuted as
\[
\phi((a,b))=(1,6)(2,5)(3,4) \]
showing (again) that $\phi$ is not a conjugation-automorphism.

Yet another, and in fact the original, approach by James Sylvester uses the strange terminology of duads, synthemes and synthematic totals.

A duad is a $2$-element subset of $\{ 1,2,3,4,5,6 \}$ (there are $15$ of them).
A syntheme is a partition of $\{ 1,2,3,4,5,6 \}$ into three duads (there are $15$ of them).
A (synthematic) total is a partition of the $15$ duads into $5$ synthemes, and they are harder to count.

There’s a nice blog-post by Peter Cameron on this, as well as his paper From $M_{12}$ to $M_{24}$ (after Graham Higman). As my master-students have to work their own way through this paper I will not spoil their fun in trying to deduce that

Two totals have exactly one syntheme in common, so synthemes are ‘duads of totals’.
Three synthemes lying in disjoint pairs of totals must consist of synthemes containing a fixed duad, so duads are ‘synthemes of totals’.
Duads come from disjoint synthemes of totals in this way if and only if they share a point, so points are ‘totals of totals’

My hint to the students was “Google for John Baez+six”, hoping they’ll discover Baez’ marvellous post Some thoughts on the number $6$, and in particular, the image (due to Greg Egan) in that post

which makes everything visually clear.

The duads are the $15$ red vertices, the synthemes the $15$ blue vertices, connected by edges when a duad is contained in a syntheme. One obtains the Tutte-Coxeter graph.

The $6$ concentric rings around the picture are the $6$ synthematic totals. A band of color appears in one of these rings near some syntheme if that syntheme is part of that synthematic total.

If $\{ t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4,t_5,t_6 \}$ are the six totals, then any permutation $\sigma$ of $\{ 1,2,3,4,5,6 \}$ induces a permutation $\phi(\sigma)$ of the totals, giving the odd automorphism
\[
\phi : S_6 = Sym(\{ 1,2,3,4,5,6 \}) \rightarrow Sym(\{ t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4,t_5,t_6 \}) = S_6 \]

Leave a Comment

214066877211724763979841536000000000000

Published August 18, 2019 by lievenlb

If you Googled this number a week ago, all you’d get were links to the paper by Melanie Wood Belyi-extending maps and the Galois action on dessins d’enfants.

In this paper she says she can separate two dessins d’enfants (which couldn’t be separated by other Galois invariants) via the order of the monodromy group of the inflated dessins by a certain degree six Belyi-extender.

She gets for the inflated $\Delta$ the order 19752284160000 and for inflated $\Omega$ the order 214066877211724763979841536000000000000 (see also this post).

After that post I redid the computations a number of times (as well as for other Belyi-extenders) and always find that these orders are the same for both dessins.

And, surprisingly, each time the same numbers keep popping up.

For example, if you take the Belyi-extender $t^6$ (power-map) then it is pretty easy to work out the generators of the monodromy group of the extended dessin.

For example, there is a cycle $(1,2)$ in $x_{\Omega}$ and you have to replace it by
\[
(11,12,13,14,15,16,21,22,23,24,25,26) \]
and similarly for other cycles, always replace number $k$ by $k1,k2,k3,k4,k5,k6$ (these are the labels of the edges in the extended dessin corresponding to edge $k$ in the original dessin, starting to count from the the ‘spoke’ of the $6$-star of $t^6$ corresponding to the interval $(0,e^{\frac{4 \pi i}{3}})$, going counterclockwise). So the edge $(0,1)$ corresponds to $k3$, and for $y$ you take the same cycles as in $y_{\Omega}$ replacing number $k$ by $k3$.

Here again, you get for both extended diagrams the same order of the monodromy group, and surprise, surprise: it is 214066877211724763979841536000000000000.

Based on these limited calculations, it seems to be that the order of the monodromy group of the extended dessin only depends on the degree of the extender, and not on its precise form.

I’d hazard a (probably far too optimistic) conjecture that the order of the monodromy groups of a dessin $\Gamma$ and the extended dessin $\gamma(\Gamma)$ for a Belyi-extender $\gamma$ of degree $d$ are related via
\[
\# M(\gamma(\Gamma)) = d \times (\# M(\Gamma))^d \]
(or twice that number), except for trivial settings such as power-maps extending stars.

Edit (august 19): In the comments Dominic shows that in “most” cases the monodromy group of $\gamma(\Gamma)$ should be the wreath product on the monodromy groups of $\gamma$ and $\Gamma$ which has order
\[
\# M(\Gamma)^d \times \# M(\gamma) \]
which fits in with the few calculations i did.

We knew already that the order of the monodromy groups op $\Delta$ and $\Omega$ is $1814400$, and sure enough
\[
6 \times 1814400^6 = 214066877211724763979841536000000000000. \]

If you extend $\Delta$ and $\Omega$ by the power map $t^3$, you get the orders
\[
17919272189952000000 = 3 \times 1814400^3 \]
and if you extend them with the degree 3 extender mentioned in the dessinflateurs-post you get 35838544379904000000, which is twice that number. (Edit : the order of the monodromy group of the extender is $6$, see also above)

As much as i like the Belyi-extender idea to construct new Galois invariants, i fear it’s a dead end. (Always glad to be proven wrong!)

3 Comments

the mystery Manin-Marcolli monoid

Published August 14, 2019 by lievenlb

A Belyi-extender (or dessinflateur) $\beta$ of degree $d$ is a quotient of two polynomials with rational coefficients
\[
\beta(t) = \frac{f(t)}{g(t)} \]
with the special properties that for each complex number $c$ the polynomial equation of degree $d$ in $t$
\[
f(t)-c g(t)=0 \]
has $d$ distinct solutions, except perhaps for $c=0$ or $c=1$, and, in addition, we have that
\[
\beta(0),\beta(1),\beta(\infty) \in \{ 0,1,\infty \} \]

Let’s take for instance the power maps $\beta_n(t)=t^n$.

For every $c$ the degree $n$ polynomial $t^n – c = 0$ has exactly $n$ distinct solutions, except for $c=0$, when there is just one. And, clearly we have that $0^n=0$, $1^n=1$ and $\infty^n=\infty$. So, $\beta_n$ is a Belyi-extender of degree $n$.

A cute observation being that if $\beta$ is a Belyi-extender of degree $d$, and $\beta’$ is an extender of degree $d’$, then $\beta \circ \beta’$ is again a Belyi-extender, this time of degree $d.d’$.

That is, Belyi-extenders form a monoid under composition!

In our example, $\beta_n \circ \beta_m = \beta_{n.m}$. So, the power-maps are a sub-monoid of the Belyi-extenders, isomorphic to the multiplicative monoid $\mathbb{N}_{\times}$ of strictly positive natural numbers.

In their paper Quantum statistical mechanics of the absolute Galois group, Yuri I. Manin and Matilde Marcolli say they use the full monoid of Belyi-extenders to act on all Grothendieck’s dessins d’enfant.

But, they attach properties to these Belyi-extenders which they don’t have, in general. That’s fine, as they foresee in Remark 2.21 of their paper that the construction works equally well for any suitable sub-monoid, as long as this sub-monoid contains all power-map exenders.

I’m trying to figure out what the maximal mystery sub-monoid of extenders is satisfying all the properties they need for their proofs.

But first, let us see what Belyi-extenders have to do with dessins d’enfant.

In his user-friendlier period, Grothendieck told us how to draw a picture, which he called a dessin d’enfant, of an extender $\beta(t) = \frac{f(t)}{g(t)}$ of degree $d$:

Look at all complex solutions of $f(t)=0$ and label them with a black dot (and add a black dot at $\infty$ if $\beta(\infty)=0$). Now, look at all complex solutions of $f(t)-g(t)=0$ and label them with a white dot (and add a white dot at $\infty$ if $\beta(\infty)=1$).

Now comes the fun part.

Because $\beta$ has exactly $d$ pre-images for all real numbers $\lambda$ in the open interval $(0,1)$ (and $\beta$ is continuous), we can connect the black dots with the white dots by $d$ edges (the pre-images of the open interval $(0,1)$), giving us a $2$-coloured graph.

For the power-maps $\beta_n(t)=t^n$, we have just one black dot at $0$ (being the only solution of $t^n=0$), and $n$ white dots at the $n$-th roots of unity (the solutions of $x^n-1=0$). Any $\lambda \in (0,1)$ has as its $n$ pre-images the numbers $\zeta_i.\sqrt[n]{\lambda}$ with $\zeta_i$ an $n$-th root of unity, so we get here as picture an $n$-star. Here for $n=5$:

This dessin should be viewed on the 2-sphere, with the antipodal point of $0$ being $\infty$, so projecting from $\infty$ gives a homeomorphism between the 2-sphere and $\mathbb{C} \cup \{ \infty \}$.

To get all information of the dessin (including possible dots at infinity) it is best to slice the sphere open along the real segments $(\infty,0)$ and $(1,\infty)$ and flatten it to form a ‘diamond’ with the upper triangle corresponding to the closed upper semisphere and the lower triangle to the open lower semisphere.

In the picture above, the right hand side is the dessin drawn in the diamond, and this representation will be important when we come to the action of extenders on more general Grothendieck dessins d’enfant.

Okay, let’s try to get some information about the monoid $\mathcal{E}$ of all Belyi-extenders.

What are its invertible elements?

Well, we’ve seen that the degree of a composition of two extenders is the product of their degrees, so invertible elements must have degree $1$, so are automorphisms of $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} – \{ 0,1,\infty \} = S^2-\{ 0,1,\infty \}$ permuting the set $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$.

They form the symmetric group $S_3$ on $3$-letters and correspond to the Belyi-extenders
\[
t,~1-t,~\frac{1}{t},~\frac{1}{1-t},~\frac{t-1}{t},~\frac{t}{t-1} \]
You can compose these units with an extender to get anther extender of the same degree where the roles of $0,1$ and $\infty$ are changed.

For example, if you want to colour all your white dots black and the black dots white, you compose with the unit $1-t$.

Manin and Marcolli use this and claim that you can transform any extender $\eta$ to an extender $\gamma$ by composing with a unit, such that $\gamma(0)=0, \gamma(1)=1$ and $\gamma(\infty)=\infty$.

That’s fine as long as your original extender $\eta$ maps $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$ onto $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$, but usually a Belyi-extender only maps into $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$.

Here are some extenders of degree three (taken from Melanie Wood’s paper Belyi-extending maps and the Galois action on dessins d’enfants):

with dessin $5$ corresponding to the Belyi-extender
\[
\beta(t) = \frac{t^2(t-1)}{(t-\frac{4}{3})^3} \]
with $\beta(0)=0=\beta(1)$ and $\beta(\infty) = 1$.

So, a first property of the mystery Manin-Marcolli monoid $\mathcal{E}_{MMM}$ must surely be that all its elements $\gamma(t)$ map $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$ onto $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$, for they use this property a number of times, for instance to construct a monoid map
\[
\mathcal{E}_{MMM} \rightarrow M_2(\mathbb{Z})^+ \qquad \gamma \mapsto \begin{bmatrix} d & m-1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \]
where $d$ is the degree of $\gamma$ and $m$ is the number of black dots in the dessin (or white dots for that matter).

Further, they seem to believe that the dessin of any Belyi-extender must be a 2-coloured tree.

Already last time we’ve encountered a Belyi-extender $\zeta(t) = \frac{27 t^2(t-1)^2}{4(t^2-t+1)^3}$ with dessin

But then, you may argue, this extender sends all of $0,1$ and $\infty$ to $0$, so it cannot belong to $\mathcal{E}_{MMM}$.

Here’s a trick to construct Belyi-extenders from Belyi-maps $\beta : \mathbb{P}^1 \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$, defined over $\mathbb{Q}$ and having the property that there are rational points in the fibers over $0,1$ and $\infty$.

Let’s take an example, the ‘monstrous dessin’ corresponding to the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_0(2)$

with map $\beta(t) = \frac{(t+256)^3}{1728 t^2}$.

As it stands, $\beta$ is not a Belyi-extender because it does not map $1$ into $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$. But we have that
\[
-256 \in \beta^{-1}(0),~\infty \in \beta^{-1}(\infty),~\text{and}~512,-64 \in \beta^{-1}(1) \]
(the last one follows from $(t+256)^2-1728 t^3=(t-512)^2(t+64)$).

We can now pre-compose $\beta$ with the automorphism (defined over $\mathbb{Q}$) sending $0$ to $-256$, $1$ to $-64$ and fixing $\infty$ to get a Belyi-extender
\[
\gamma(t) = \frac{(192t)^3}{1728(192t-256)^2} \]
which maps $\gamma(0)=0,~\gamma(1)=1$ and $\gamma(\infty)=\infty$ (so belongs to $\mathcal{E}_{MMM}$) with the same dessin, which is not a tree,

That is, $\mathcal{E}_{MMM}$ can at best consist only of those Belyi-extenders $\gamma(t)$ that map $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$ onto $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$ and such that their dessin is a tree.

Let me stop, for now, by asking for a reference (or counterexample) to perhaps the most startling claim in the Manin-Marcolli paper, namely that any 2-coloured tree can be realised as the dessin of a Belyi-extender!

2 Comments

Dessinflateurs

Published August 10, 2019 by lievenlb

I’m trying to get into the latest Manin-Marcolli paper Quantum Statistical Mechanics of the Absolute Galois Group on how to create from Grothendieck’s dessins d’enfant a quantum system, generalising the Bost-Connes system to the non-Abelian part of the absolute Galois group $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$.

In doing so they want to extend the action of the multiplicative monoid $\mathbb{N}_{\times}$ by power maps on the roots of unity to the action of a larger monoid on all dessins d’enfants.

Here they use an idea, originally due to Jordan Ellenberg, worked out by Melanie Wood in her paper Belyi-extending maps and the Galois action on dessins d’enfants.

To grasp this, it’s best to remember what dessins have to do with Belyi maps, which are maps defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$
\[
\pi : \Sigma \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1 \]
from a Riemann surface $\Sigma$ to the complex projective line (aka the 2-sphere), ramified only in $0,1$ and $\infty$. The dessin determining $\pi$ is the 2-coloured graph on the surface $\Sigma$ with as black vertices the pre-images of $0$, white vertices the pre-images of $1$ and these vertices are joined by the lifts of the closed interval $[0,1]$, so the number of edges is equal to the degree $d$ of the map.

Wood considers a very special subclass of these maps, which she calls Belyi-extender maps, of the form
\[
\gamma : \mathbb{P}^1 \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1 \]
defined over $\mathbb{Q}$ with the additional property that $\gamma$ maps $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$ into $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$.

The upshot being that post-compositions of Belyi’s with Belyi-extenders $\gamma \circ \pi$ are again Belyi maps, and if two Belyi’s $\pi$ and $\pi’$ lie in the same Galois orbit, then so must all $\gamma \circ \pi$ and $\gamma \circ \pi’$.

The crucial Ellenberg-Wood idea is then to construct “new Galois invariants” of dessins by checking existing and easily computable Galois invariants on the dessins of the Belyi’s $\gamma \circ \pi$.

For this we need to know how to draw the dessin of $\gamma \circ \pi$ on $\Sigma$ if we know the dessins of $\pi$ and of the Belyi-extender $\gamma$. Here’s the procedure

Here, the middle dessin is that of the Belyi-extender $\gamma$ (which in this case is the power map $t \rightarrow t^4$) and the upper graph is the unmarked dessin of $\pi$.

One has to replace each of the black-white edges in the dessin of $\pi$ by the dessin of the expander $\gamma$, but one must be very careful in respecting the orientations on the two dessins. In the upper picture just one edge is replaced and one has to do this for all edges in a compatible manner.

Thus, a Belyi-expander $\gamma$ inflates the dessin $\pi$ with factor the degree of $\gamma$. For this reason i prefer to call them dessinflateurs, a contraction of dessin+inflator.

In her paper, Melanie Wood says she can separate dessins for which all known Galois invariants were the same, such as these two dessins,

by inflating them with a suitable Belyi-extender and computing the monodromy group of the inflated dessin.

This monodromy group is the permutation group generated by two elements, the first one gives the permutation on the edges given by walking counter-clockwise around all black vertices, the second by walking around all white vertices.

For example, by labelling the edges of $\Delta$, its monodromy is generated by the permutations $(2,3,5,4)(1,6)(8,10,9)$ and $(1,3,2)(4,7,5,8)(9,10)$ and GAP tells us that the order of this group is $1814400$. For $\Omega$ the generating permutations are $(1,2)(3,6,4,7)(8,9,10)$ and $(1,2,4,3)(5,6)(7,9,8)$, giving an isomorphic group.

Let’s inflate these dessins using the Belyi-extender $\gamma(t) = -\frac{27}{4}(t^3-t^2)$ with corresponding dessin

It took me a couple of attempts before I got the inflated dessins correct (as i knew from Wood that this simple extender would not separate the dessins). Inflated $\Omega$ on top:

Both dessins give a monodromy group of order $35838544379904000000$.

Now we’re ready to do serious work.

Melanie Wood uses in her paper the extender $\zeta(t)=\frac{27 t^2(t-1)^2}{4(t^2-t+1)^3}$ with associated dessin

and says she can now separate the inflated dessins by the order of their monodromy groups. She gets for the inflated $\Delta$ the order $19752284160000$ and for inflated $\Omega$ the order $214066877211724763979841536000000000000$.

It’s very easy to make mistakes in these computations, so probably I did something horribly wrong but I get for both $\Delta$ and $\Omega$ that the order of the monodromy group of the inflated dessin is $214066877211724763979841536000000000000$.

I’d be very happy when someone would be able to spot the error!

One Comment

Monstrous dessins 3

Published August 3, 2019 by lievenlb

A long while ago I promised to take you from the action by the modular group $\Gamma=PSL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ on the lattices at hyperdistance $n$ from the standard orthogonal laatice $L_1$ to the corresponding ‘monstrous’ Grothendieck dessin d’enfant.

Speaking of dessins d’enfant, let me point you to the latest intriguing paper by Yuri I. Manin and Matilde Marcolli, ArXived a few days ago Quantum Statistical Mechanics of the Absolute Galois Group, on how to build a quantum system for the absolute Galois group from dessins d’enfant (more on this, I promise, later).

Where were we?

We’ve seen natural one-to-one correspondences between (a) points on the projective line over $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$, (b) lattices at hyperdistance $n$ from $L_1$, and (c) coset classes of the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_0(n)$ in $\Gamma$.

How to get from there to a dessin d’enfant?

The short answer is: it’s all in Ravi S. Kulkarni’s paper, “An arithmetic-geometric method in the study of the subgroups of the modular group”, Amer. J. Math 113 (1991) 1053-1135.

It is a complete mystery to me why Tatitscheff, He and McKay don’t mention Kulkarni’s paper in “Cusps, congruence groups and monstrous dessins”. Because all they do (and much more) is in Kulkarni.

I’ve blogged about Kulkarni’s paper years ago:

– In the Dedekind tessalation it was all about assigning special polygons to subgroups of finite index of $\Gamma$.

– In Modular quilts and cuboid tree diagram it did go on assigning (multiple) cuboid trees to a (conjugacy class) of such finite index subgroup.

– In Hyperbolic Mathieu polygons the story continued on a finite-to-one connection between special hyperbolic polygons and cuboid trees.

– In Farey codes it was shown how to encode such polygons by a Farey-sequence.

– In Generators of modular subgroups it was shown how to get generators of the finite index subgroups from this Farey sequence.

The modular group is a free product
\[
\Gamma = C_2 \ast C_3 = \langle s,u~|~s^2=1=u^3 \rangle \]
with lifts of $s$ and $u$ to $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ given by the matrices
\[
S=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix},~\qquad U= \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{bmatrix} \]

As a result, any permutation representation of $\Gamma$ on a set $E$ can be represented by a $2$-coloured graph (with black and white vertices) and edges corresponding to the elements of the set $E$.

Each white vertex has two (or one) edges connected to it and every black vertex has three (or one). These edges are the elements of $E$ permuted by $s$ (for white vertices) and $u$ (for black ones), the order of the 3-cycle determined by going counterclockwise round the vertex.

Clearly, if there’s just one edge connected to a vertex, it gives a fixed point (or 1-cycle) in the corresponding permutation.

The ‘monstrous dessin’ for the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_0(n)$ is the picture one gets from the permutation $\Gamma$-action on the points of $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z})$, or equivalently, on the coset classes or on the lattices at hyperdistance $n$.

Kulkarni’s paper (or the blogposts above) tell you how to get at this picture starting from a fundamental domain of $\Gamma_0(n)$ acting on teh upper half-plane by Moebius transformations.

Sage gives a nice image of this fundamental domain via the command

FareySymbol(Gamma0(n)).fundamental_domain()

Here’s the image for $n=6$:

The boundary points (on the halflines through $0$ and $1$ and the $4$ half-circles need to be identified which is indicaed by matching colours. So the 2 halflines are identified as are the two blue (and green) half-circles (in opposite direction).

To get the dessin from this, let’s first look at the interior points. A white vertex is a point in the interior where two black and two white tiles meet, a black vertex corresponds to an interior points where three black and three white tiles meet.

Points on the boundary where tiles meet are coloured red, and after identification two of these reds give one white or black vertex. Here’s the intermediate picture

The two top red points are identified giving a white vertex as do the two reds on the blue half-circles and the two reds on the green half-circles, because after identification two black and two white tiles meet there.

This then gives us the ‘monstrous’ modular dessin for $n=6$ of the Tatitscheff, He and McKay paper:

Let’s try a more difficult example: $n=12$. Sage gives us as fundamental domain

giving us the intermediate picture

and spotting the correct identifications, this gives us the ‘monstrous’ dessin for $\Gamma_0(12)$ from the THM-paper:

In general there are several of these 2-coloured graphs giving the same permutation representation, so the obtained ‘monstrous dessin’ depends on the choice of fundamental domain.

You’ll have noticed that the domain for $\Gamma_0(6)$ was symmetric, whereas the one Sage provides for $\Gamma_0(12)$ is not.

This is caused by Sage using the Farey-code
\[
\xymatrix{
0 \ar@{-}[r]_1 & \frac{1}{6} \ar@{-}[r]_1 & \frac{1}{5} \ar@{-}[r]_2 & \frac{1}{4} \ar@{-}[r]_3 & \frac{1}{3} \ar@{-}[r]_4 & \frac{1}{2} \ar@{-}[r]_4 & \frac{2}{3} \ar@{-}[r]_3 & \frac{3}{4} \ar@{-}[r]_2 & 1}
\]

One of the nice results from Kulkarni’s paper is that for any $n$ there is a symmetric Farey-code, giving a perfectly symmetric fundamental domain for $\Gamma_0(n)$. For $n=12$ this symmetric code is

\[
\xymatrix{
0 \ar@{-}[r]_1 & \frac{1}{6} \ar@{-}[r]_2 & \frac{1}{4} \ar@{-}[r]_3 & \frac{1}{3} \ar@{-}[r]_4 & \frac{1}{2} \ar@{-}[r]_4 & \frac{2}{3} \ar@{-}[r]_3 & \frac{3}{4} \ar@{-}[r]_2 & \frac{5}{6} \ar@{-}[r]_1 & 1}
\]

It would be nice to see whether using these symmetric Farey-codes gives other ‘monstrous dessins’ than in the THM-paper.

Remains to identify the edges in the dessin with the lattices at hyperdistance $n$ from $L_1$.

Using the tricks from the previous post it is quite easy to check that for any $n$ the monstrous dessin for $\Gamma_0(n)$ starts off with the lattices $L_{M,\frac{g}{h}} = M,\frac{g}{h}$ as below

Let’s do a sample computation showing that the action of $s$ on $L_n$ gives $L_{\frac{1}{n}}$:

\[
L_n.s = \begin{bmatrix} n & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -n \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \]

and then, as last time, to determine the class of the lattice spanned by the rows of this matrix we have to compute

\[
\begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 0 & -n \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 0 \\ 0 & -n \end{bmatrix} \]

which is class $L_{\frac{1}{n}}$. And similarly for the other edges.

2 Comments

Monstrous dessins 2

Published July 24, 2019 by lievenlb

Let’s try to identify the $\Psi(n) = n \prod_{p|n}(1+\frac{1}{p})$ points of $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z})$ with the lattices $L_{M \frac{g}{h}}$ at hyperdistance $n$ from the standard lattice $L_1$ in Conway’s big picture.

Here are all $24=\Psi(12)$ lattices at hyperdistance $12$ from $L_1$ (the boundary lattices):

You can also see the $4 = \Psi(3)$ lattices at hyperdistance $3$ (those connected to $1$ with a red arrow) as well as the intermediate $12 = \Psi(6)$ lattices at hyperdistance $6$.

The vertices of Conway’s Big Picture are the projective classes of integral sublattices of the standard lattice $\mathbb{Z}^2=\mathbb{Z} e_1 \oplus \mathbb{Z} e_2$.

Let’s say our sublattice is generated by the integral vectors $v=(v_1,v_2)$ and $w=(w_1.w_2)$. How do we determine its class $L_{M,\frac{g}{h}}$ where $M \in \mathbb{Q}_+$ is a strictly positive rational number and $0 \leq \frac{g}{h} < 1$?

Here’s an example: the sublattice (the thick dots) is spanned by the vectors $v=(2,1)$ and $w=(1,4)$

Well, we try to find a basechange matrix in $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ such that the new 2nd base vector is of the form $(0,z)$. To do this take coprime $(c,d) \in \mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $cv_1+dw_1=0$ and complete with $(a,b)$ satisfying $ad-bc=1$ via Bezout to a matrix in $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ such that
\[
\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} v_1 & v_2 \\ w_1 & w_2 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} x & y \\ 0 & z \end{bmatrix} \]
then the sublattice is of class $L_{\frac{x}{z},\frac{y}{z}~mod~1}$.

In the example, we have
\[
\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ -1 & 2 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 4 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 4 \\ 0 & 7 \end{bmatrix} \]
so this sublattice is of class $L_{\frac{1}{7},\frac{4}{7}}$.

Starting from a class $L_{M,\frac{g}{h}}$ it is easy to work out its hyperdistance from $L_1$: let $d$ be the smallest natural number making the corresponding matrix integral
\[
d. \begin{bmatrix} M & \frac{g}{h} \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} u & v \\ 0 & w \end{bmatrix} \in M_2(\mathbb{Z}) \]
then $L_{M,\frac{g}{h}}$ is at hyperdistance $u . w$ from $L_1$.

Now that we know how to find the lattice class of any sublattice of $\mathbb{Z}^2$, let us assign a class to any point $[c:d]$ of $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$.

As $gcd(c,d)=1$, by Bezout we can find a integral matrix with determinant $1$
\[
S_{[c:d]} = \begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix} \]
But then the matrix
\[
\begin{bmatrix} a.n & b.n \\ c & d \end{bmatrix} \]
has determinant $n$.

Working backwards we see that the class $L_{[c:d]}$ of the sublattice of $\mathbb{Z}^2$ spanned by the vectors $(a.n,b.n)$ and $(c,d)$ is of hyperdistance $n$ from $L_1$.

This is how the correspondence between points of $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$ and classes in Conway’s big picture at hyperdistance $n$ from $L_1$ works.

Let’s do an example. Take the point $[7:3] \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z})$ (see last time), then
\[
\begin{bmatrix} -2 & -1 \\ 7 & 3 \end{bmatrix} \in SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) \]
so we have to determine the class of the sublattice spanned by $(-24,-12)$ and $(7,3)$. As before we have to compute
\[
\begin{bmatrix} -2 & -7 \\ 7 & 24 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} -24 & -12 \\ 7 & 3 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} -1 & 3 \\ 0 & -12 \end{bmatrix} \]
giving us that the class $L_{[7:3]} = L_{\frac{1}{12}\frac{3}{4}}$ (remember that the second term must be taken $mod~1$).

If you do this for all points in $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z})$ (and $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z})$ and $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/3 \mathbb{Z})$) you get this version of the picture we started with

You’ll spot that the preimages of a canonical coordinate of $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z})$ for $m | n$ are the very same coordinate together with ‘new’ canonical coordinates in $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$.

To see that this correspondence is one-to-one and that the index of the congruence subgroup
\[
\Gamma_0(n) = \{ \begin{bmatrix} p & q \\ r & s \end{bmatrix}~|~n|r~\text{and}~ps-qr=1 \} \]
in the full modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ is equal to $\Psi(n)$ it is useful to consider the action of $PGL_2(\mathbb{Q})^+$ on the right on the classes of lattices.

The stabilizer of $L_1$ is the full modular group $\Gamma$ and the stabilizer of any class is a suitable conjugate of $\Gamma$. For example, for the class $L_n$ (that is, of the sublattice spanned by $(n,0)$ and $(0,1)$, which is of hyperdistance $n$ from $L_1$) this stabilizer is
\[
Stab(L_n) = \{ \begin{bmatrix} a & \frac{b}{n} \\ c.n & d \end{bmatrix}~|~ad-bc = 1 \} \]
and a very useful observation is that
\[
Stab(L_1) \cap Stab(L_n) = \Gamma_0(n) \]
This is the way Conway likes us to think about the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_0(n)$: it is the joint stabilizer of the classes $L_1$ and $L_n$ (as well as all classes in the ‘thread’ $L_m$ with $m | n$).

On the other hand, $\Gamma$ acts by rotations on the big picture: it only fixes $L_1$ and maps a class to another one of the same hyperdistance from $L_1$.The index of $\Gamma_0(n)$ in $\Gamma$ is then the number of classes at hyperdistance $n$.

To see that this number is $\Psi(n)$, first check that the classes at hyperdistance $p^k$ for $p$ a prime number and for all $k$ for the $p+1$ free valent tree with root $L_1$, so there are exactly $p^{k-1}(p+1)$ classes as hyperdistance $p^k$.

To get from this that the number of hyperdistance $n$ classes is indeed $\Psi(n) = \prod_{p|n}p^{v_p(n)-1}(p+1)$ we have to use the prime- factorisation of the hyperdistance (see this post).

The fundamental domain for the action of $\Gamma_0(12)$ by Moebius tranfos on the upper half plane must then consist of $48=2 \Psi(12)$ black or white hyperbolic triangles

Next time we’ll see how to deduce the ‘monstrous’ Grothendieck dessin d’enfant for $\Gamma_0(12)$ from it

Leave a Comment

Monstrous dessins 1

Published July 22, 2019 by lievenlb

Dedekind’s Psi-function $\Psi(n)= n \prod_{p |n}(1 + \frac{1}{p})$ pops up in a number of topics:

$\Psi(n)$ is the index of the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_0(n)$ in the modular group $\Gamma=PSL_2(\mathbb{Z})$,
$\Psi(n)$ is the number of points in the projective line $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$,
$\Psi(n)$ is the number of classes of $2$-dimensional lattices $L_{M \frac{g}{h}}$ at hyperdistance $n$ in Conway’s big picture from the standard lattice $L_1$,
$\Psi(n)$ is the number of admissible maximal commuting sets of operators in the Pauli group of a single qudit.

The first and third interpretation have obvious connections with Monstrous Moonshine.

Conway’s big picture originated from the desire to better understand the Moonshine groups, and Ogg’s Jack Daniels problem
asks for a conceptual interpretation of the fact that the prime numbers such that $\Gamma_0(p)^+$ is a genus zero group are exactly the prime divisors of the order of the Monster simple group.

Here’s a nice talk by Ken Ono : Can’t you just feel the Moonshine?

For this reason it might be worthwhile to make the connection between these two concepts and the number of points of $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$ as explicit as possible.

Surely all of this is classical, but it is nicely summarised in the paper by Tatitscheff, He and McKay “Cusps, congruence groups and monstrous dessins”.

The ‘monstrous dessins’ from their title refers to the fact that the lattices $L_{M \frac{g}{h}}$ at hyperdistance $n$ from $L_1$ are permuted by the action of the modular groups and so determine a Grothendieck’s dessin d’enfant. In this paper they describe the dessins corresponding to the $15$ genus zero congruence subgroups $\Gamma_0(n)$, that is when $n=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,16,18$ or $25$.

Here’s the ‘monstrous dessin’ for $\Gamma_0(6)$

But, one can compute these dessins for arbitrary $n$, describing the ripples in Conway’s big picture, and try to figure out whether they are consistent with the Riemann hypothesis.

We will get there eventually, but let’s start at an easy pace and try to describe the points of the projective line $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z})$.

Over a field $k$ the points of $\mathbb{P}^1(k)$ correspond to the lines through the origin in the affine plane $\mathbb{A}^2(k)$ and they can represented by projective coordinates $[a:b]$ which are equivalence classes of couples $(a,b) \in k^2- \{ (0,0) \}$ under scalar multiplication with non-zero elements in $k$, so with points $[a:1]$ for all $a \in k$ together with the point at infinity $[1:0]$. When $n=p$ is a prime number we have $\# \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}) = p+1$. Here are the $8$ lines through the origin in $\mathbb{A}^2(\mathbb{Z}/7\mathbb{Z})$

Over an arbitrary (commutative) ring $R$ the points of $\mathbb{P}^1(R)$ again represent equivalence classes, this time of pairs
\[
(a,b) \in R^2~:~aR+bR=R \]
with respect to scalar multiplication by units in $R$, that is
\[
(a,b) \sim (c,d)~\quad~\text{iff}~\qquad \exists \lambda \in R^*~:~a=\lambda c, b = \lambda d \]
For $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z})$ we have to find all pairs of integers $(a,b) \in \mathbb{Z}^2$ with $0 \leq a,b < n$ with $gcd(a,b)=1$ and use Cremona’s trick to test for equivalence:
\[
(a,b) = (c,d) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z})~\quad \text{iff}~\quad ad-bc \equiv 0~mod~n \]
The problem is to find a canonical representative in each class in an efficient way because this is used a huge number of times in working with modular symbols.

Perhaps the best algorithm, for large $n$, is sketched in pages 145-146 of Bill Stein’s Modular forms: a computational approach.

For small $n$ the algorithm in $\S 1.3$ in the Tatitscheff, He and McKay paper suffices:

Consider the action of $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*$ on $\{ 0,1,…,n-1 \}=\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ and let $D$ be the set of the smallest elements in each orbit,
For each $d \in D$ compute the stabilizer subgroup $G_d$ for this action and let $C_d$ be the set of smallest elements in each $G_d$-orbit on the set of all elements in $\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z}$ coprime with $d$,
Then $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})= \{ [c:d]~|~d \in D, c \in C_d \}$.

Let’s work this out for $n=12$ which will be our running example (the smallest non-squarefree non-primepower):

$(\mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z})^* = \{ 1,5,7,11 \} \simeq C_2 \times C_2$,
The orbits on $\{ 0,1,…,11 \}$ are
\[
\{ 0 \}, \{ 1,5,7,11 \}, \{ 2,10 \}, \{ 3,9 \}, \{ 4,8 \}, \{ 6 \} \]
and $D=\{ 0,1,2,3,4,6 \}$,
$G_0 = C_2 \times C_2$, $G_1 = \{ 1 \}$, $G_2 = \{ 1,7 \}$, $G_3 = \{ 1,5 \}$, $G_4=\{ 1,7 \}$ and $G_6=C_2 \times C_2$,
$1$ is the only number coprime with $0$, giving us $[1:0]$,
$\{ 0,1,…,11 \}$ are all coprime with $1$, and we have trivial stabilizer, giving us the points $[0:1],[1:1],…,[11:1]$,
$\{ 1,3,5,7,9,11 \}$ are coprime with $2$ and under the action of $\{ 1,7 \}$ they split into the orbits
\[
\{ 1,7 \},~\{ 3,9 \},~\{ 5,11 \} \]
giving us the points $[1:2],[3:2]$ and $[5:2]$,
$\{ 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11 \}$ are coprime with $3$, the action of $\{ 1,5 \}$ gives us the orbits
\[
\{ 1,5 \},~\{ 2,10 \},~\{ 4,8 \},~\{ 7,11 \} \]
and additional points $[1:3],[2:3],[4:3]$ and $[7:3]$,
$\{ 1,3,5,7,9,11 \}$ are coprime with $4$ and under the action of $\{ 1,7 \}$ we get orbits
\[
\{ 1,7 \},~\{ 3,9 \},~\{ 5,11 \} \]
and points $[1:4],[3:4]$ and $[5,4]$,
Finally, $\{ 1,5,7,11 \}$ are the only coprimes with $6$ and they form a single orbit under $C_2 \times C_2$ giving us just one additional point $[1:6]$.

This gives us all $24= \Psi(12)$ points of $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/12 \mathbb{Z})$ (strangely, op page 43 of the T-H-M paper they use different representants).

One way to see that $\# \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z}) = \Psi(n)$ comes from a consequence of the Chinese Remainder Theorem that for the prime factorization $n = p_1^{e_1} … p_k^{e_k}$ we have
\[
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z}) = \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/p_1^{e_1} \mathbb{Z}) \times … \times \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/p_k^{e_k} \mathbb{Z}) \]
and for a prime power $p^k$ we have canonical representants for $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/p^k \mathbb{Z})$
\[
[a:1]~\text{for}~a=0,1,…,p^k-1~\quad \text{and} \quad [1:b]~\text{for}~b=0,p,2p,3p,…,p^k-p \]
which shows that $\# \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/p^k \mathbb{Z}) = (p+1)p^{k-1}= \Psi(p^k)$.

Next time, we’ll connect $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z})$ to Conway’s big picture and the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_0(n)$.

Leave a Comment

the Riemann hypothesis and Psi

Published July 14, 2019 by lievenlb

Last time we revisited Robin’s theorem saying that 5040 being the largest counterexample to the bound
\[
\frac{\sigma(n)}{n~log(log(n))} < e^{\gamma} = 1.78107... \] is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis.

There’s an industry of similar results using other arithmetic functions. Today, we’ll focus on Dedekind’s Psi function
\[
\Psi(n) = n \prod_{p | n}(1 + \frac{1}{p}) \]
where $p$ runs over the prime divisors of $n$. It is series A001615 in the online encyclopedia of integer sequences and it starts off with

1, 3, 4, 6, 6, 12, 8, 12, 12, 18, 12, 24, 14, 24, 24, 24, 18, 36, 20, 36, 32, 36, 24, 48, 30, 42, 36, 48, 30, 72, 32, 48, 48, 54, 48, …

and here’s a plot of its first 1000 values

To understand this behaviour it is best to focus on the ‘slopes’ $\frac{\Psi(n)}{n}=\prod_{p|n}(1+\frac{1}{p})$.

So, the red dots of minimal ‘slope’ $\approx 1$ correspond to the prime numbers, and the ‘outliers’ have a maximal number of distinct small prime divisors. Look at $210 = 2 \times 3 \times 5 \times 7$ and its multiples $420,630$ and $840$ in the picture.

For this reason the primorial numbers, which are the products of the fist $k$ prime numbers, play a special role. This is series A002110 starting off with

1, 2, 6, 30, 210, 2310, 30030, 510510, 9699690, 223092870,…

In Patrick Solé and Michel Planat Extreme values of the Dedekind $\Psi$ function, it is shown that the primorials play a similar role for Dedekind’s Psi as the superabundant numbers play for the sum-of-divisors function $\sigma(n)$.

That is, if $N_k$ is the $k$-th primorial, then for all $n < N_k$ we have that the 'slope' at $n$ is strictly below that of $N_k$ \[ \frac{\Psi(n)}{n} < \frac{\Psi(N_k)}{N_k} \] which follows immediately from the fact that any $n < N_k$ can have at most $k-1$ distinct prime factors and $p \mapsto 1 + \frac{1}{p}$ is a strictly decreasing function.

Another easy, but nice, observation is that for all $n$ we have the inequalities
\[
n^2 > \phi(n) \times \psi(n) > \frac{n^2}{\zeta(2)} \]
where $\phi(n)$ is Euler’s totient function
\[
\phi(n) = n \prod_{p | n}(1 – \frac{1}{p}) \]
This follows as once from the definitions of $\phi(n)$ and $\Psi(n)$
\[
\phi(n) \times \Psi(n) = n^2 \prod_{p|n}(1 – \frac{1}{p^2}) < n^2 \prod_{p~\text{prime}} (1 - \frac{1}{p^2}) = \frac{n^2}{\zeta(2)} \] But now it starts getting interesting.

In the proof of his theorem, Guy Robin used a result of his Ph.D. advisor Jean-Louis Nicolas

known as Nicolas’ criterion for the Riemann hypothesis: RH is true if and only if for all $k$ we have the inequality for the $k$-th primorial number $N_k$
\[
\frac{N_k}{\phi(N_k)~log(log(N_k))} > e^{\gamma} \]
From the above lower bound on $\phi(n) \times \Psi(n)$ we have for $n=N_k$ that
\[
\frac{\Psi(N_k)}{N_k} > \frac{N_k}{\phi(N_k) \zeta(2)} \]
and combining this with Nicolas’ criterion we get
\[
\frac{\Psi(N_k)}{N_k~log(log(N_k))} > \frac{N_k}{\phi(N_k)~log(log(N_k)) \zeta(2)} > \frac{e^{\gamma}}{\zeta(2)} \approx 1.08… \]
In fact, Patrick Solé and Michel Planat prove in their paper Extreme values of the Dedekind $\Psi$ function that RH is equivalent to the lower bound
\[
\frac{\Psi(N_k)}{N_k~log(log(N_k))} > \frac{e^{\gamma}}{\zeta(2)} \]
holding for all $k \geq 3$.

Dedekind’s Psi function pops up in lots of interesting mathematics.

In the theory of modular forms, Dedekind himself used it to describe the index of the congruence subgroup $\Gamma_0(n)$ in the full modular group $\Gamma$.

In other words, it gives us the number of tiles needed in the Dedekind tessellation to describe the fundamental domain of the action of $\Gamma_0(n)$ on the upper half-plane by Moebius transformations.

When $n=6$ we have $\Psi(6)=12$ and we can view its fundamental domain via these Sage commands:

G=Gamma0(6) FareySymbol(G).fundamental_domain()

giving us the 24 back or white tiles (note that these tiles are each fundamental domains of the extended modular group, so we have twice as many of them as for subgroups of the modular group)

But, there are plenty of other, seemingly unrelated, topics where $\Psi(n)$ appears. To name just a few:

The number of points on the projective line $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$.
The number of lattices at hyperdistance $n$ in Conway’s big picture.
The number of admissible maximal commuting sets of operators in the Pauli group for the $n$ qudit.

and there are explicit natural one-to-one correspondences between all these manifestations of $\Psi(n)$, tbc.

Leave a Comment

the Riemann hypothesis and 5040

Published July 7, 2019 by lievenlb

Yesterday, there was an interesting post by John Baez at the n-category cafe: The Riemann Hypothesis Says 5040 is the Last.

The 5040 in the title refers to the largest known counterexample to a bound for the sum-of-divisors function
\[
\sigma(n) = \sum_{d | n} d = n \sum_{d | n} \frac{1}{d} \]

In 1983, the french mathematician Guy Robin proved that the Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to
\[
\frac{\sigma(n)}{n~log(log(n))} < e^{\gamma} = 1.78107... \] when $n > 5040$.

The other known counterexamples to this bound are the numbers 3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,16,18,20,24,30,36,48,60,72,84,120,180,240,360,720,840,2520.

In Baez’ post there is a nice graph of this function made by Nicolas Tessore, with 5040 indicated with a grey line towards the right and the other counterexamples jumping over the bound 1.78107…

Robin’s theorem has a remarkable history, starting in 1915 with good old Ramanujan writing a part of this thesis on “highly composite numbers” (numbers divisible by high powers of primes).

His PhD. adviser Hardy liked his result but called them “in the backwaters of mathematics” and most of it was not published at the time of Ramanujan’s degree ceremony in 1916, due to paper shortage in WW1.

When Ramanujan’s paper “Highly Composite Numbers” was first published in 1988 in ‘The lost notebook and other unpublished papers’ it became clear that Ramanujan had already part of Robin’s theorem.

Ramanujan states that if the Riemann hypothesis is true, then for $n_0$ large enough we must have for all $n > n_0$ that
\[
\frac{\sigma(n)}{n~log(log(n))} < e^{\gamma} = 1.78107... \] When Jean-Louis Nicolas, Robin's PhD. adviser, read Ramanujan's lost notes he noticed that there was a sign error in Ramanujan's formula which prevented him from seeing Robin's theorem.

Nicolas: “Soon after discovering the hidden part, I read it and saw the difference between Ramanujan’s result and Robin’s one. Of course, I would have bet that the error was in Robin’s paper, but after recalculating it several times and asking Robin to check, it turned out that there was an error of sign in what Ramanujan had written.”

If you are interested in the full story, read the paper by Jean-Louis Nicolas and Jonathan Sondow: Ramanujan, Robin, Highly Composite Numbers, and the Riemann Hypothesis.

What’s the latest on Robin’s inequality? An arXiv-search for Robin’s inequality shows a flurry of activity.

For starters, it has been verified for all numbers smaller that $10^{10^{13}}$…

It has been verified, unconditionally, for certain classes of numbers:

all odd integers $> 9$
all numbers not divisible by a 25-th power of a prime

Rings a bell? Here’s another hint:

According to Xiaolong Wu in A better method than t-free for Robin’s hypothesis one can replace the condition of ‘not divisible by an N-th power of a prime’ by ‘not divisible by an N-th power of 2’.

Further, he claims to have an (as yet unpublished) argument that Robin’s inequality holds for all numbers not divisible by $2^{42}$.

So, where should we look for counterexamples to the Riemann hypothesis?

What about the orders of huge simple groups?

The order of the Monster group is too small to be a counterexample (yet, it is divisible by $2^{46}$).

2 Comments