on June 10, 2008 by lieven in geometry, Comments (2)
Absolute linear algebra
Fun with F_un
- Looking for F_un
- The F_un folklore
- Absolute linear algebra
- F_un and braid groups
- F_un with Manin
Today we will define some basic linear algebra over the absolute fields
following the Kapranov-Smirnov document. Recall from last time that
and that a d-dimensional vectorspace over this field is a pointed set
where
is a free
-set consisting of n.d elements. Note that in absolute linear algebra we are not allowed to have addition of vectors and have to define everything in terms of scalar multiplication (or if you want, the
-action). In the hope of keeping you awake, we will include an F-un interpretation of the power residue symbol.
Direct sums of vectorspaces are defined via
, that is, correspond to the disjoint union of free
-sets. Consequently we have that
.
For tensor-product we start with
the vectorspace cooresponding to the Cartesian product of free
-sets. If the dimensions of
and
are respectively d and e, then
consists of n.d.n.e elements, so is of dimension n.d.e. In order to have a sensible notion of tensor-products we have to eliminate the n-factor. We do this by identifying
with
and call the corresponding vectorspace
. If we denote the image of
by
then the identification merely says we can pull the
-action through the tensor-sign, as we’d like to do. With this definition we do indeed have that
.
Recall that any linear automorphism
of an
vectorspace
with basis
(representants of the different
-orbits) is of the form
for some powers of the primitive n-th root of unity
and some permutation
. We define the determinant
. One verifies that the determinant is multiplicative and independent of the choice of basis.
For example, scalar-multiplication by
gives an automorphism on any
-dimensional
-vectorspace
and the corresponding determinant clearly equals
. That is, the det-functor remembers the dimension modulo n. These mod-n features are a recurrent theme in absolute linear algebra. Another example, which will become relevant when we come to reciprocity laws :
Take. Then, a
vectorspace
of dimension d is a set consisting of 2d elements
equipped with a free involution. Any linear automorphism
is represented by a
matrix having one nonzero entry in every row and column being equal to +1 or -1. Hence, the determinant
.
On the other hand, by definition, the linear automorphismdetermines a permutation
on the 2d non-zero elements of
. The connection between these two interpretations is that
the determinant gives the sign of the permutation!
For a prime power
with
, we have seen that the roots of unity
and hence that
is a vectorspace over
. For any field-unit
we have the power residue symbol

On the other hand, multiplication by
is a linear automorphism on the
-vectorspace
and hence we can look at its F-un determinant
. The F-un interpretation of a classical lemma by Gauss asserts that the power residue symbol equals
.
An
-subspace
of a vectorspace
is a subset
consisting of full
-orbits. Normally, in defining a quotient space we would say that two V-vectors are equivalent when their difference belongs to W and take equivalence classes. However, in absolute linear algebra we are not allowed to take linear combinations of vectors…
The only way out is to define
to correspond to the free
-set
obtained by identifying all elements of W with the zero-element in
. But… this will screw-up things if we want to interpret
-vectorspaces as
-spaces whenever
.
For this reason, Kapranov and Smirnov invent the notion of an equivalence
between
-spaces to be a linear map (note that this means a set-theoretic map
such that the invers image of 0 consists of full
-orbits and is a
-map elsewhere) satisfying the properties that
and for every element
we have that the number of pre-images
is congruent to 1 modulo n. Observe that under an equivalence
we have that
.
This then allows us to define an exact sequence of
-vectorspaces to be
![\xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & V_1^{\bullet} \ar[r]^{\alpha} & V^{\bullet} \ar[r]^{\beta} & V_2^{\bullet} \ar[r] & 0} \xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & V_1^{\bullet} \ar[r]^{\alpha} & V^{\bullet} \ar[r]^{\beta} & V_2^{\bullet} \ar[r] & 0}](/latexrender/pictures/1c6cc83fab80ae19ecb147f23c2668b9.gif)
with
a set-theoretic inclusion, the composition
to be the zero-map and with the additional assumption that the map induced by 

is an equivalence. For an exact sequence of spaces as above we have the congruence relation on their dimensions
.
More importantly, if as before
and we use the embedding
to turn usual
-vectorspaces into absolute
-spaces, then an ordinary exact sequence of
-vectorspaces remains exact in the above definition.
. Then, a
vectorspace
is represented by a
matrix having one nonzero entry in every row and column being equal to +1 or -1. Hence, the determinant
.
on the 2d non-zero elements of
the determinant gives the sign of the permutation!







Per Vognsen
September 3, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
I came across this excellent series on F_un through a circuitous route, so apologies for the post necromancy.
You said:
"In order to have a sensible notion of tensor-products we have to eliminate the n-factor."
You seem to have backed away from the guiding principle that vector spaces over F_un should be not mere sets but pointed sets. Then there is an analogy with pointed topological spaces, where the coproduct is wedge sum and the product is smash product. Now remember that the smash product can be constructed as the unpointed topological product divided by the wedge sum. When you decategorify spaces to dimensions then the quotient by the wedge sum becomes a division by the dimension of the wedge sum, what you call n.
Per Vognsen
September 3, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
A few more random observations. These are all based on gut intuition so there may be some mistakes. However, the coherence of the story makes me feel it is essentially right.
"Then, a mathbb{F}_{1^2} vectorspace V^{bullet} of dimension d is a set consisting of 2d elements V equipped with a free involution."
This can be considered a discrete, globally trivial covering space of degree 2 where GL is the group of deck transformations.
If rather than a free involution it was an involution with a single fixed point then it be a branched cover of degree 2 and a branch point at the fixed point of ramification index 1, a discrete counterpart of the Riemann surface for the square root. Orbit-stabilizer counting tells us that the number of points upstairs and downstairs have opposite parity. Topologically, this corresponds to the usual argument for relating the Euler characteristics of a branched cover and its base space, which proceeds by triangulating the ramification loci in the base space, extending that to a triangulation of the whole space, and then pulling it back to the total space of the branched cover. Then the covering map is simplicial and you can do orbit-stabilizer counting on the monodromy groups to compute the relationship between the Euler characteristics.
"For this reason, Kapranov and Smirnov invent the notion of an equivalence"
This is the same thing as a congruence relation in universal algebra for the algebraic theory of vector spaces of dimension n over F_q where q = 1 (mod n). Using the covering space analogy, it's an isomorphism of covering spaces, a map of total spaces that preserves fibers. From the categorical point of view, pointed covering spaces are diagrams of shape 1 -> W -> V and a morphism in this category between 1 -> W -> V and 1 -> W' -> V' is just a way of commutatively filling in the rungs with morphisms. Your statement that dim(X^{bullet}) equiv dim(Y^{bullet})~mod(n) then means that an isomorphism of covering spaces induces an isomorphism of base spaces.
If we were working with only locally trivial covering spaces, we'd have to substitute "locally" in a few places above. "Locally" is formalizable in terms of categorical localization. That notion becomes more interesting with branched covers, where localization should be equivalent to studying monodromy at different points. Going back to the Euler characteristic analogy I made before, the different non-free (nilpotency) points make additively independent contributions to the Euler characteristic, so there should be some sort of homomorphism from the product of all monodromy groups to the additive integers, giving the difference between the Euler characteristic upstairs and downstairs. The product of monodromy groups reminds me of adeles and the homomorphism into the integers reminds me of the total degree function on divisors.
That was a lot of random ideas. Assuming they are not nonsense, are these well known in the literature?