# Category: number theory

If you have neither the time nor energy to watch more than one interview or talk about Grothendieck’s life and mathematics, may I suggest to spare that privilege for Leila Schneps’ talk on ‘Le génie de Grothendieck’ in the ‘Thé & Sciences’ series at the Salon Nun in Paris.

I was going to add some ‘relevant’ time slots after the embedded YouTube-clip below, but I really think it is better to watch Leila’s interview in its entirety. Enjoy!

These three ideas (re)surfaced over the last two decades, claiming to have potential applications to major open problems:

• (2000) $\mathbb{F}_1$-geometry tries to view $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$ as a curve over the field with one element, and mimic Weil’s proof of RH for curves over finite fields to prove the Riemann hypothesis.
• (2012) IUTT, for Inter Universal Teichmuller Theory, the machinery behind Mochizuki’s claimed proof of the ABC-conjecture.
• (2014) topos theory : Connes and Consani redirected their RH-attack using arithmetic sites, while Lafforgue advocated the use of Caramello’s bridges for unification, in particular the Langlands programme.

It is difficult to voice an opinion about the (presumed) current state of such projects without being accused of being either a believer or a skeptic, resorting to group-think or being overly critical.

We lack the vocabulary to talk about the different phases a mathematical idea might be in.

Such a vocabulary exists in (information) technology, the five phases of the Gartner hype cycle to represent the maturity, adoption, and social application of a certain technology :

1. Technology Trigger
2. Peak of Inflated Expectations
3. Trough of Disillusionment
4. Slope of Enlightenment
5. Plateau of Productivity

This model can then be used to gauge in which phase several emerging technologies are, and to estimate the time it will take them to reach the stable plateau of productivity. Here’s Gartner’s recent Hype Cycle for emerging Artificial Intelligence technologies.

Picture from Gartner Hype Cycle for AI 2021

What might these phases be in the hype cycle of a mathematical idea?

1. Technology Trigger: a new idea or analogy is dreamed up, marketed to be the new approach to that problem. A small group of enthusiasts embraces the idea, and tries to supply proper definitions and the very first results.
2. Peak of Inflated Expectations: the idea spreads via talks, blogposts, mathoverflow and twitter, and now has enough visibility to justify the first conferences devoted to it. However, all this activity does not result in major breakthroughs and doubt creeps in.
3. Trough of Disillusionment: the project ran out of steam. It becomes clear that existing theories will not lead to a solution of the motivating problem. Attempts by key people to keep the idea alive (by lengthy papers, regular meetings or seminars) no longer attract new people to the field.
4. Slope of Enlightenment: the optimistic scenario. One abandons the original aim, ditches the myriad of theories leading nowhere, regroups and focusses on the better ideas the project delivered.

A negative scenario is equally possible. Apart for a few die-hards the idea is abandoned, and on its way to the graveyard of forgotten ideas.

5. Plateau of Productivity: the polished surviving theory has applications in other branches and becomes a solid tool in mathematics.

It would be fun so see more knowledgable people draw such a hype cycle graph for recent trends in mathematics.

Here’s my own (feeble) attempt to gauge where the three ideas mentioned at the start are in their cycles, and here’s why:

• IUTT: recent work of Kirti Joshi, for example this, and this, and that, draws from IUTT while using conventional language and not making exaggerated claims.
• $\mathbb{F}_1$: the preliminary programme of their seminar shows little evidence the $\mathbb{F}_1$-community learned from the past 20 years.
• Topos: Developing more general theory is not the way ahead, but concrete examples may carry surprises, even though Gabriel’s topos will remain elusive.

Clearly, you don’t agree, and that’s fine. We now have a common terminology, and you can point me to results or events I must have missed, forcing me to redraw my graph.

Wednesday, Alexander Smirnov (Steklov Institute) gave the first talk in the $\mathbb{F}_1$ world seminar. Here’s his title and abstract:

Title: The 10th Discriminant and Tensor Powers of $\mathbb{Z}$

“We plan to discuss very shortly certain achievements and disappointments of the $\mathbb{F}_1$-approach. In addition, we will consider a possibility to apply noncommutative tensor powers of $\mathbb{Z}$ to the Riemann Hypothesis.”

Here’s his talk, and part of the comments section:

Smirnov urged us to pay attention to a 1933 result by Max Deuring in Imaginäre quadratische Zahlkörper mit der Klassenzahl 1:

“If there are infinitely many imaginary quadratic fields with class number one, then the RH follows.”

Of course, we now know that there are exactly nine such fields (whence there is no ‘tenth discriminant’ as in the title of the talk), and one can deduce anything from a false statement.

Deuring’s argument, of course, was different:

The zeta function $\zeta_{\mathbb{Q} \sqrt{-d}}(s)$ of a quadratic field $\mathbb{Q}\sqrt{-d}$, counts the number of ideals $\mathfrak{a}$ in the ring of integers of norm $n$, that is
$\sum_n \#(\mathfrak{a}:N(\mathfrak{a})=n) n^{-s}$
It is equal to $\zeta(s). L(s,\chi_d)$ where $\zeta(s)$ is the usual Riemann function and $L(s,\chi_d)$ the $L$-function of the character $\chi_d(n) = (\frac{-4d}{n})$.

Now, if the class number of $\mathbb{Q}\sqrt{-d}$ is one (that is, its ring of integers is a principal ideal domain) then Deuring was able to relate $\zeta_{\mathbb{Q} \sqrt{-d}}(s)$ to $\zeta(2s)$ with an error term, depending on $d$, and if we could run $d \rightarrow \infty$ the error term vanishes.

So, if there were infinitely many imaginary quadratic fields with class number one we would have the equality
$\zeta(s) . \underset{\rightarrow}{lim}~L(s,\chi_d) = \zeta(2s)$
Now, take a complex number $s \not=1$ with real part strictly greater that $\frac {1}{2}$, then $\zeta(2s) \not= 0$. But then, from the equality, it follows that $\zeta(s) \not= 0$, which is the RH.

To extend (a version of) the Deuring-argument to the $\mathbb{F}_1$-world, Smirnov wants to have many examples of commutative rings $A$ whose multiplicative monoid $A^{\times}$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}^{\times}$, the multiplicative monoid of the integers.

What properties must $A$ have?

Well, it can only have two units, it must be a unique factorisation domain, and have countably many irreducible elements. For example, $\mathbb{F}_3[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ will do!

(Note to self: contemplate the fact that all such rings share the same arithmetic site.)

Each such ring $A$ becomes a $\mathbb{Z}$-module by defining a new addition $+_{new}$ on it via
$a +_{new} b = \sigma^{-1}(\sigma(a) +_{\mathbb{Z}} \sigma(b))$
where $\sigma : A^{\times} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^{\times}$ is the isomorphism of multiplicative monoids, and on the right hand side we have the usual addition on $\mathbb{Z}$.

But then, any pair $(A,A’)$ of such rings will give us a module over the ring $\mathbb{Z} \boxtimes_{\mathbb{Z}^{\times}} \mathbb{Z}$.

It was not so clear to me what this ring is (if you know, please drop a comment), but I guess it must be a commutative ring having all these properties, and being a quotient of the ring $\mathbb{Z} \boxtimes_{\mathbb{F}_1} \mathbb{Z}$, the coordinate ring of the elusive arithmetic plane
$\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z}) \times_{\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{F}_1)} \mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$

Smirnov’s hope is that someone can use a Deuring-type argument to prove:

“If $\mathbb{Z} \boxtimes_{\mathbb{Z}^{\times}} \mathbb{Z}$ is ‘sufficiently complicated’, then the RH follows.”

If you want to attend the seminar when it happens, please register for the seminar’s mailing list.

For some time I knew it was in the making, now they are ready to launch it:

The $\mathbb{F}_1$ World Seminar, an online seminar dedicated to the “field with one element”, and its many connections to areas in mathematics such as arithmetic, geometry, representation theory and combinatorics. The organisers are Jaiung Jun, Oliver Lorscheid, Yuri Manin, Matt Szczesny, Koen Thas and Matt Young.

From the announcement:

“While the origins of the “$\mathbb{F}_1$-story” go back to attempts to transfer Weil’s proof of the Riemann Hypothesis from the function field case to that of number fields on one hand, and Tits’s Dream of realizing Weyl groups as the $\mathbb{F}_1$ points of algebraic groups on the other, the “$\mathbb{F}_1$” moniker has come to encompass a wide variety of phenomena and analogies spanning algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, arithmetic, combinatorics, representation theory, non-commutative geometry etc. It is therefore impossible to compile an exhaustive list of topics that might be discussed. The following is but a small sample of topics that may be covered:

Algebraic geometry in non-additive contexts – monoid schemes, lambda-schemes, blue schemes, semiring and hyperfield schemes, etc.
Arithmetic – connections with motives, non-archimedean and analytic geometry
Tropical geometry and geometric matroid theory
Algebraic topology – K-theory of monoid and other “non-additive” schemes/categories, higher Segal spaces
Representation theory – Hall algebras, degenerations of quantum groups, quivers
Combinatorics – finite field and incidence geometry, and various generalizations”

The seminar takes place on alternating Wednesdays from 15:00 PM – 16:00 PM European Standard Time (=GMT+1). There will be room for mathematical discussion after each lecture.

The first meeting takes place Wednesday, January 19th 2022. If you want to receive abstracts of the talks and their Zoom-links, you should sign up for the mailing list.

Perhaps I’ll start posting about $\mathbb{F}_1$ again, either here, or on the dormant $\mathbb{F}_1$ mathematics blog. (see this post for its history).

Last time I mentioned the talk “From noncommutative geometry to the tropical geometry of the scaling site” by Alain Connes, culminating in the canonical isomorphism (last slide of the talk)

Or rather, what is actually proved in his paper with Caterina Consani BC-system, absolute cyclotomy and the quantized calculus (and which they conjectured previously to be the case in Segal’s Gamma rings and universal arithmetic), is a canonical isomorphism between the $\lambda$-rings
$\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}] \simeq \mathbb{W}_0(\overline{\mathbb{S}})$
The left hand side is the integral groupring of the additive quotient-group $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$, or if you prefer, $\mathbb{Z}[\mathbf{\mu}_{\infty}]$ the integral groupring of the multiplicative group of all roots of unity $\mathbf{\mu}_{\infty}$.

The power maps on $\mathbf{\mu}_{\infty}$ equip $\mathbb{Z}[\mathbf{\mu}_{\infty}]$ with a $\lambda$-ring structure, that is, a family of commuting endomorphisms $\sigma_n$ with $\sigma_n(\zeta) = \zeta^n$ for all $\zeta \in \mathbf{\mu}_{\infty}$, and a family of linear maps $\rho_n$ induced by requiring for all $\zeta \in \mathbf{\mu}_{\infty}$ that
$\rho_n(\zeta) = \sum_{\mu^n=\zeta} \mu$
The maps $\sigma_n$ and $\rho_n$ are used to construct an integral version of the Bost-Connes algebra describing the Bost-Connes sytem, a quantum statistical dynamical system.

On the right hand side, $\mathbb{S}$ is the sphere spectrum (an object from stable homotopy theory) and $\overline{\mathbb{S}}$ its ‘algebraic closure’, that is, adding all abstract roots of unity.

The ring $\mathbb{W}_0(\overline{\mathbb{S}})$ is a generalisation to the world of spectra of the Almkvist-ring $\mathbb{W}_0(R)$ defined for any commutative ring $R$, constructed from pairs $(E,f)$ where $E$ is a projective $R$-module of finite rank and $f$ an $R$-endomorphism on it. Addition and multiplication are coming from direct sums and tensor products of such pairs, with zero element the pair $(0,0)$ and unit element the pair $(R,1_R)$. The ring $\mathbb{W}_0(R)$ is then the quotient-ring obtained by dividing out the ideal consisting of all zero-pairs $(E,0)$.

The ring $\mathbb{W}_0(R)$ becomes a $\lambda$-ring via the Frobenius endomorphisms $F_n$ sending a pair $(E,f)$ to the pair $(E,f^n)$, and we also have a collection of linear maps on $\mathbb{W}_0(R)$, the ‘Verschiebung’-maps which send a pair $(E,f)$ to the pair $(E^{\oplus n},F)$ with
$F = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & f \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 \end{bmatrix}$
Connes and Consani define a notion of modules and their endomorphisms for $\mathbb{S}$ and $\overline{\mathbb{S}}$, allowing them to define in a similar way the rings $\mathbb{W}_0(\mathbb{S})$ and $\mathbb{W}_0(\overline{\mathbb{S}})$, with corresponding maps $F_n$ and $V_n$. They then establish an isomorphism with $\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}]$ such that the maps $(F_n,V_n)$ correspond to $(\sigma_n,\rho_n)$.

But, do we really have the go to spectra to achieve this?

All this reminds me of an old idea of Yuri Manin mentioned in the introduction of his paper Cyclotomy and analytic geometry over $\mathbb{F}_1$, and later elaborated in section two of his paper with Matilde Marcolli Homotopy types and geometries below $\mathbf{Spec}(\mathbb{Z})$.

Take a manifold $M$ with a diffeomorphism $f$ and consider the corresponding discrete dynamical system by iterating the diffeomorphism. In such situations it is important to investigate the periodic orbits, or the fix-points $Fix(M,f^n)$ for all $n$. If we are in a situation that the number of fixed points is finite we can package these numbers in the Artin-Mazur zeta function
$\zeta_{AM}(M,f) = exp(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\# Fix(M,f^n)}{n}t^n)$
and investigate the properties of this function.

To connect this type of problem to Almkvist-like rings, Manin considers the Morse-Smale dynamical systems, a structural stable diffeomorphism $f$, having a finite number of non-wandering points on a compact manifold $M$.

From Topological classification of Morse-Smale diffeomorphisms on 3-manifolds

In such a situation $f_{\ast}$ acts on homology $H_k(M,\mathbb{Z})$, which are free $\mathbb{Z}$-modules of finite rank, as a matrix $M_f$ having only roots of unity as its eigenvalues.

Manin argues that this action is similar to the action of the Frobenius on etale cohomology groups, in which case the eigenvalues are Weil numbers. That is, one might view roots of unity as Weil numbers in characteristic one.

Clearly, all relevant data $(H_k(M,\mathbb{Z}),f_{\ast})$ belongs to the $\lambda$-subring of $\mathbb{W}_0(\mathbb{Z})$ generated by all pairs $(E,f)$ such that $M_f$ is diagonalisable and all its eigenvalues are either $0$ or roots of unity.

If we denote for any ring $R$ by $\mathbb{W}_1(R)$ this $\lambda$-subring of $\mathbb{W}_0(R)$, probably one would obtain canonical isomorphisms

– between $\mathbb{W}_1(\mathbb{Z})$ and the invariant part of the integral groupring $\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}]$ for the action of the group $Aut(\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}) = \widehat{\mathbb{Z}}^*$, and

– between $\mathbb{Z}[\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}]$ and $\mathbb{W}_1(\mathbb{Z}(\mathbf{\mu}_{\infty}))$ where $\mathbb{Z}(\mathbf{\mu}_{\infty})$ is the ring obtained by adjoining to $\mathbb{Z}$ all roots of unity.

In recent months, my primary focus was on teaching and family matters, so I make advantage of this Christmas break to catch up with some of the things I’ve missed.

Peter Woit’s blog alerted me to the existence of the (virtual) Lake Como-conference, end of september: Unifying themes in Geometry.

In Corona times, virtual conferences seem to sprout up out of nowhere, everywhere (zero costs), giving us an inflation of YouTubeD talks. I’m always grateful to the organisers of such events to provide the slides of the talks separately, as the generic YouTubeD-talk consists merely in reading off the slides.

Allow me to point you to one of the rare exceptions to this rule.

When I downloaded the slides of Alain Connes’ talk at the conference From noncommutative geometry to the tropical geometry of the scaling site I just saw a collage of graphics from his endless stream of papers with Katia Consani, and slides I’d seen before watching several of his YouTubeD-talks in recent years.

Boy, am I glad I gave Alain 5 minutes to convince me this talk was different.

For the better part of his talk, Alain didn’t just read off the slides, but rather tried to explain the thought processes that led him and Katia to move on from the results on this slide to those on the next one.

If you’re pressed for time, perhaps you might join in at 49.34 into the talk, when he acknowledges the previous (tropical) approach ran out of steam as they were unable to define any $H^1$ properly, and how this led them to ‘absolute’ algebraic geometry, meaning over the sphere spectrum $\mathbb{S}$.

Sadly, for some reason Alain didn’t manage to get his final two slides on screen. So, in this case, the slides actually add value to the talk…

An integral $n$-dimensional lattice $L$ is the set of all integral linear combinations
$L = \mathbb{Z} \lambda_1 \oplus \dots \oplus \mathbb{Z} \lambda_n$
of base vectors $\{ \lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n \}$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$, equipped with the usual (positive definite) inner product, satisfying
$(\lambda, \mu ) \in \mathbb{Z} \quad \text{for all \lambda,\mu \in \mathbb{Z}.}$
But then, $L$ is contained in its dual lattice $L^* = Hom_{\mathbb{Z}}(L,\mathbb{Z})$, and if $L = L^*$ we say that $L$ is unimodular.

If all $(\lambda,\lambda) \in 2 \mathbb{Z}$, we say that $L$ is an even lattice. Even unimodular lattices (such as the $E_8$-lattice or the $24$ Niemeier lattices) are wonderful objects, but they can only live in dimensions $n$ which are multiples of $8$.

Just like the Conway group $Co_0 = .0$ is the group of rotations of the Leech lattice $\Lambda$, one might ask whether there is a very special lattice on which the Monster group $\mathbb{M}$ acts faithfully by rotations. If such a lattice exists, it must live in dimension at least $196883$.

Simon Norton (1952-2019) – Photo Credit

A first hint of such a lattice is in Conway’s original paper A simple construction for the Fischer-Griess monster group (but not in the corresponding chapter 29 of SPLAG).

Conway writes that Simon Norton showed ‘by a very simple computations that does not even require knowledge of the conjugacy classes, that any $198883$-dimensional representation of the Monster must support an invariant algebra’, which, after adding an identity element $1$, we now know as the $196884$-dimensional Griess algebra.

Further, on page 529, Conway writes:

Norton has shown that the lattice $L$ spanned by vectors of the form $1,t,t \ast t’$, where $t$ and $t’$ are transposition vectors, is closed under the algebra multiplication and integral with respect to the doubled inner product $2(u,v)$. The dual quotient $L^*/L$ is cyclic of order some power of $4$, and we believe that in fact $L$ is unimodular.

Here, transposition vectors correspond to transpositions in $\mathbb{M}$, that is, elements of conjugacy class $2A$.

In his post, Adam considers the $196883$-dimensional lattice $L’ = L \cap 1^{\perp}$ (which has $\mathbb{M}$ as its rotation symmetry group), and asks for the minimal norm (squared) of a lattice point, which he believes is $448$, and for the number of minimal vectors in the lattice, which might be
$2639459181687194563957260000000 = 9723946114200918600 \times 27143910000$
the number of oriented arcs in the Monster graph.

Here, the Monster graph has as its vertices the elements of $\mathbb{M}$ in conjugacy class $2A$ (which has $9723946114200918600$ elements) and with an edge between two vertices if their product in $\mathbb{M}$ again belongs to class $2A$, so the valency of the graph must be $27143910000$, as explained in that old post the monster graph and McKay’s observation.

When I asked Adam whether he had more information about his lattice, he kindly informed me that Borcherds told him that the Norton lattice $L$ didn’t turn out to be unimodular after all, but that a unimodular lattice with monstrous symmetry had been constructed by Scott Carnahan in the paper A Self-Dual Integral Form of the Moonshine Module.

Scott Carnahan – Photo Credit

The major steps (or better, the little bit of it I could grasp in this short time) in the construction of this unimodular $196884$-dimensional monstrous lattice might put a smile on your face if you are an affine scheme aficionado.

Already in his paper Vertex algebras, Kac-Moody algebras, and the Monster, Richard Borcherds described an integral form of any lattice vertex algebra. We’ll be interested in the lattice vertex algebra $V_{\Lambda}$ constructed from the Leech lattice $\Lambda$ and call its integral form $(V_{\Lambda})_{\mathbb{Z}}$.

One constructs the Moonshine module $V^{\sharp}$ from $V_{\Lambda}$ by a process called ‘cyclic orbifolding’, a generalisation of the original construction by Frenkel, Lepowsky and Meurman. In fact, there are now no less than 51 constructions of the moonshine module.

One starts with a fixed point free rotation $r_p$ of $\Lambda$ in $Co_0$ of prime order $p \in \{ 2,3,5,7,13 \}$, which one can lift to an automorphism $g_p$ of the vertex algebra $V_{\Lambda}$ of order $p$ giving an isomorphism $V_{\Lambda}/g_p \simeq V^{\sharp}$ of vertex operator algebras over $\mathbb{C}$.

For two distinct primes $p,p’ \in \{ 2,3,5,7,13 \}$ if $Co_0$ has an element of order $p.p’$ one can find one such $r_{pp’}$ such that $r_{pp’}^p=r_{p’}$ and $r_{pp’}^{p’}=r_p$, and one can lift $r_{pp’}$ to an automorphism $g_{pp’}$ of $V_{\Lambda}$ such that $V_{\Lambda}/g_{pp’} \simeq V_{\Lambda}$ as vertex operator algebras over $\mathbb{C}$.

Problem is that these lifts of automorphisms and the isomorphisms are not compatible with the integral form $(V_{\Lambda})_{\mathbb{Z}}$ of $V_{\Lambda}$, but ‘essentially’, they can be performed on
$(V_{\Lambda})_{\mathbb{Z}} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Z}[\frac{1}{pp’},\zeta_{2pp’}]$
where $\zeta_{2pp’}$ is a primitive $2pp’$-th root of unity. These then give a $\mathbb{Z}[\tfrac{1}{pp’},\zeta_{2pp’}]$-form on $V^{\sharp}$.

Next, one uses a lot of subgroup information about $\mathbb{M}$ to prove that these $\mathbb{Z}[\tfrac{1}{pp’},\zeta_{2pp’}]$-forms of $V^{\sharp}$ have $\mathbb{M}$ as their automorphism group.

Then, using all his for different triples in $\{ 2,3,5,7,13 \}$ one can glue and use faithfully flat descent to get an integral form $V^{\sharp}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ of the moonshine module with monstrous symmetry and such that the inner product on $V^{\sharp}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ is positive definite.

Finally, one looks at the weight $2$ subspace of $V^{\sharp}_{\mathbb{Z}}$ which gives us our Carnahan’s $196884$-dimensional unimodular lattice with monstrous symmetry!

Beautiful as this is, I guess it will be a heck of a project to deduce even the simplest of facts about this wonderful lattice from running through this construction.

For example, what is the minimal length of vectors? What is the number of minimal length vectors? And so on. All info you might have is very welcome.

Whenever I visit someone’s YouTube or Twitter profile page, I hope to see an interesting banner image. Here’s the one from Richard Borcherds’ YouTube Channel.

Not too surprisingly for Borcherds, almost all of these numbers are related to the monster group or its moonshine.

Let’s try to decode them, in no particular order.

196884

John McKay’s observation $196884 = 1 + 196883$ was the start of the whole ‘monstrous moonshine’ industry. Here, $1$ and $196883$ are the dimensions of the two smallest irreducible representations of the monster simple group, and $196884$ is the first non-trivial coefficient in Klein’s j-function in number theory.

$196884$ is also the dimension of the space in which Robert Griess constructed the Monster, following Simon Norton’s lead that there should be an algebra structure on the monster-representation of that dimension. This algebra is now known as the Griess algebra.

Here’s a recent talk by Griess “My life and times with the sporadic simple groups” in which he tells about his construction of the monster (relevant part starting at 1:15:53 into the movie).

1729

1729 is the second (and most famous) taxicab number. A long time ago I did write a post about the classic Ramanujan-Hardy story the taxicab curve (note to self: try to tidy up the layout of some old posts!).

Recently, connections between Ramanujan’s observation and K3-surfaces were discovered. Emory University has an enticing press release about this: Mathematicians find ‘magic key’ to drive Ramanujan’s taxi-cab number. The paper itself is here.

“We’ve found that Ramanujan actually discovered a K3 surface more than 30 years before others started studying K3 surfaces and they were even named. It turns out that Ramanujan’s work anticipated deep structures that have become fundamental objects in arithmetic geometry, number theory and physics.”

Ken Ono

24

There’s no other number like $24$ responsible for the existence of sporadic simple groups.

24 is the length of the binary Golay code, with isomorphism group the sporadic Mathieu group $M_24$ and hence all of the other Mathieu-groups as subgroups.

24 is the dimension of the Leech lattice, with isomorphism group the Conway group $Co_0 = .0$ (dotto), giving us modulo its center the sporadic group $Co_1=.1$ and the other Conway groups $Co_2=.2, Co_3=.3$, and all other sporadics of the second generation in the happy family as subquotients (McL,HS,Suz and $HJ=J_2$)

24 is the central charge of the Monster vertex algebra constructed by Frenkel, Lepowski and Meurman. Most experts believe that the Monster’s reason of existence is that it is the symmetry group of this vertex algebra. John Conway was one among few others hoping for a nicer explanation, as he said in this interview with Alex Ryba.

24 is also an important number in monstrous moonshine, see for example the post the defining property of 24. There’s a lot more to say on this, but I’ll save it for another day.

60

60 is, of course, the order of the smallest non-Abelian simple group, $A_5$, the rotation symmetry group of the icosahedron. $A_5$ is the symmetry group of choice for most viruses but not the Corona-virus.

3264

3264 is the correct solution to Steiner’s conic problem asking for the number of conics in $\mathbb{P}^2_{\mathbb{C}}$ tangent to five given conics in general position.

Steiner himself claimed that there were $7776=6^5$ such conics, but realised later that he was wrong. The correct number was first given by Ernest de Jonquières in 1859, but a rigorous proof had to await the advent of modern intersection theory.

Eisenbud and Harris wrote a book on intersection theory in algebraic geometry, freely available online: 3264 and all that.

248

248 is the dimension of the exceptional simple Lie group $E_8$. $E_8$ is also connected to the monster group.

If you take two Fischer involutions in the monster (elements of conjugacy class 2A) and multiply them, the resulting element surprisingly belongs to one of just 9 conjugacy classes:

1A,2A,2B,3A,3C,4A,4B,5A or 6A

The orders of these elements are exactly the dimensions of the fundamental root for the extended $E_8$ Dynkin diagram.

This is yet another moonshine observation by John McKay and I wrote a couple of posts about it and about Duncan’s solution: the monster graph and McKay’s observation, and $E_8$ from moonshine groups.

163

163 is a remarkable number because of the ‘modular miracle’
$e^{\pi \sqrt{163}} = 262537412640768743.99999999999925…$
This is somewhat related to moonshine, or at least to Klein’s j-function, which by a result of Kronecker’s detects the classnumber of imaginary quadratic fields $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-D})$ and produces integers if the classnumber is one (as is the case for $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-163})$).

The details are in the post the miracle of 163, or in the paper by John Stillwell, Modular Miracles, The American Mathematical Monthly, 108 (2001) 70-76.

His description of the $j$-function (at 4:13 in the movie) is simply hilarious!

Borcherds connects $163$ to the monster moonshine via the $j$-function, but there’s another one.

The monster group has $194$ conjugacy classes and monstrous moonshine assigns a ‘moonshine function’ to each conjugacy class (the $j$-function is assigned to the identity element). However, these $194$ functions are not linearly independent and the space spanned by them has dimension exactly $163$.

A Belyi-extender (or dessinflateur) is a rational function $q(t) = \frac{f(t)}{g(t)} \in \mathbb{Q}(t)$ that defines a map
$q : \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}$
unramified outside $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$, and has the property that $q(\{ 0,1,\infty \}) \subseteq \{ 0,1,\infty \}$.

An example of such a Belyi-extender is the power map $q(t)=t^n$, which is totally ramified in $0$ and $\infty$ and we clearly have that $q(0)=0,~q(1)=1$ and $q(\infty)=\infty$.

The composition of two Belyi-extenders is again an extender, and we get a rather mysterious monoid $\mathcal{E}$ of all Belyi-extenders.

Very little seems to be known about this monoid. Its units form the symmetric group $S_3$ which is the automrphism group of $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} – \{ 0,1,\infty \}$, and mapping an extender $q$ to its degree gives a monoid map $\mathcal{E} \rightarrow \mathbb{N}_+^{\times}$ to the multiplicative monoid of positive natural numbers.

If one relaxes the condition of $q(t) \in \mathbb{Q}(t)$ to being defined over its algebraic closure $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$, then such maps/functions have been known for some time under the name of dynamical Belyi-functions, for example in Zvonkin’s Belyi Functions: Examples, Properties, and Applications (section 6).

Here, one is interested in the complex dynamical system of iterations of $q$, that is, the limit-behaviour of the orbits
$\{ z,q(z),q^2(z),q^3(z),… \}$
for all complex numbers $z \in \mathbb{C}$.

In general, the 2-sphere $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} = S^2$ has a finite number of open sets (the Fatou domains) where the limit behaviour of the series is similar, and the union of these open sets is dense in $S^2$. The complement of the Fatou domains is the Julia set of the function, of which we might expect a nice fractal picture.

Let’s take again the power map $q(t)=t^n$. For a complex number $z$ lying outside the unit disc, the series $\{ z,z^n,z^{2n},… \}$ has limit point $\infty$ and for those lying inside the unit circle, this limit is $0$. So, here we have two Fatou domains (interior and exterior of the unit circle) and the Julia set of the power map is the (boring?) unit circle.

Fortunately, there are indeed dynamical Belyi-maps having a more pleasant looking Julia set, such as this one

But then, many dynamical Belyi-maps (and Belyi-extenders) are systems of an entirely different nature, they are completely chaotic, meaning that their Julia set is the whole $2$-sphere! Nowhere do we find an open region where points share the same limit behaviour… (the butterfly effect).

There’s a nice sufficient condition for chaotic behaviour, due to Dennis Sullivan, which is pretty easy to check for dynamical Belyi-maps.

A periodic point for $q(t)$ is a point $p \in S^2 = \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}$ such that $p = q^m(p)$ for some $m > 1$. A critical point is one such that either $q(p) = \infty$ or $q'(p)=0$.

Sullivan’s result is that $q(t)$ is completely chaotic when all its critical points $p$ become eventually periodic, that is some $q^k(p)$ is periodic, but $p$ itself is not periodic.

For a Belyi-map $q(t)$ the critical points are either comlex numbers mapping to $\infty$ or the inverse images of $0$ or $1$ (that is, the black or white dots in the dessin of $q(t)$) which are not leaf-vertices of the dessin.

Let’s do an example, already used by Sullivan himself:
$q(t) = (\frac{t-2}{t})^2$
This is a Belyi-function, and in fact a Belyi-extender as it is defined over $\mathbb{Q}$ and we have that $q(0)=\infty$, $q(1)=1$ and $q(\infty)=1$. The corresponding dessin is (inverse images of $\infty$ are marked with an $\ast$)

The critical points $0$ and $2$ are not periodic, but they become eventually periodic:

$2 \rightarrow^q 0 \rightarrow^q \infty \rightarrow^q 1 \rightarrow^q 1$
and $1$ is periodic.

For a general Belyi-extender $q$, we have that the image under $q$ of any critical point is among $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$ and because we demand that $q(\{ 0,1,\infty \}) \subseteq \{ 0,1,\infty \}$, every critical point of $q$ eventually becomes periodic.

If we want to avoid the corresponding dynamical system to be completely chaotic, we have to ensure that one of the periodic points among $\{ 0,1,\infty \}$ (and there is at least one of those) must be critical.

Let’s consider the very special Belyi-extenders $q$ having the additional property that $q(0)=0$, $q(1)=1$ and $q(\infty)=\infty$, then all three of them are periodic.

So, the system is always completely chaotic unless the black dot at $0$ is not a leaf-vertex of the dessin, or the white dot at $1$ is not a leaf-vertex, or the degree of the region determined by the starred $\infty$ is at least two.

Going back to the mystery Manin-Marcolli sub-monoid of $\mathcal{E}$, it might explain why it is a good idea to restrict to very special Belyi-extenders having associated dessin a $2$-coloured tree, for then the periodic point $\infty$ is critical (the degree of the outside region is at least two), and therefore the conditions of Sullivan’s theorem are not satisfied. So, these Belyi-extenders do not necessarily have to be completely chaotic. (tbc)

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!)