Fun with F_un
- Looking for F_un
- The F_un folklore
- Absolute linear algebra
- F_un and braid groups
Recall that an n-braid consists of n strictly descending elastic strings connecting n inputs at the top (named 1,2,…,n) to n outputs at the bottom (labeled 1,2,…,n) upto isotopy (meaning that we may pull and rearrange the strings in any way possible within 3-dimensional space). We can always change the braid slightly such that we can divide the interval between in- and output in a number of subintervals such that in each of those there is at most one crossing.
n-braids can be multiplied by putting them on top of each other and connecting the outputs of the first braid trivially to the inputs of the second. For example the 5-braid on the left can be written as
with
the braid on the top 3 subintervals and
the braid on the lower 5 subintervals.
In this way (and using our claim that there can be at most 1 crossing in each subinterval) we can write any n-braid as a word in the generators
(with
) being the overcrossing between inputs i and i+1. Observe that the undercrossing is then the inverse
. For example, the braid on the left corresponds to the word

Clearly there are relations among words in the generators. The easiest one we have already used implicitly namely that
is the trivial braid.
Emil Artin proved in the 1930-ies that all such relations are consequences of two sets of ‘obvious’ relations. The first being commutation relations between crossings when the strings are far enough from each other. That is we have
whenever 
=
The second basic set of relations involves crossings using a common string

=
Starting with the 5-braid at the top, we can use these relations to reduce it to a simpler form. At each step we have outlined to region where the relations are applied
=
=
=
These beautiful braid-pictures were produced using the braid-metapost program written by Stijn Symens.
Tracing a string from an input to an output assigns to an n-braid a permutation on n letters. In the above example, the permutation is
. As this permutation doesn’t change under applying basic reduction, this gives a group-morphism

from the braid group on n strings
to the symmetric group. We have seen
before that the symmetric group
has a F-un interpretation as the linear group
over the field with one element. Hence, we can ask whether there is also a F-un interpretation of the n-string braid group and of the above group-morphism.
Kapranov and Smirnov suggest in
their paper that the n-string braid group
is the general linear group over the polynomial ring
over the field with one element and that the evaluation morphism (setting t=0)
gives the groupmorphism 
The rationale behind this analogy is a theorem of
Drinfeld’s saying that over a finite field
, the
profinite completion of
is embedded in the fundamental group of the space of q-polynomials of degree n in much the same way as the n-string braid group
is the fundamental group of the space of complex polynomials of degree n without multiple roots.
And, now that we know the basics of absolute linear algebra, we can give an absolute braid-group representation
![\mathbb{B}_n = GL_n(\mathbb{F}_1[t]) \rightarrow GL_n(\mathbb{F}_{1^n}) \mathbb{B}_n = GL_n(\mathbb{F}_1[t]) \rightarrow GL_n(\mathbb{F}_{1^n})](/latexrender/pictures/c9579ae63fe20dd91138d4f2ccf6c22f.gif)
obtained by sending each generator
to the matrix over
(remember that
where
are the n-th roots of unity)

and it is easy to see that these matrices do indeed satisfy Artin’s defining relations for
.
is the algebra of
-valued functions (under the convolution product) on the double coset-space
where
and 
(that is, such that
) with
a rational point represented by the couple
(the entries in the matrix definition of a representant of
) lying in the fractal comb
if
with
. Last time we have seen that the algebra 


is the rational groupalgebra
of the (additive) group
we have that
). Hence, the groupalgebra has LOTS of zero-divisors. In fact, this group-algebra doesn’t have any good ringtheoretic properties except for the fact that it can be realized as a limit of finite groupalgebras (semi-simple algebras)![\mathbb{Q}[\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}] = \underset{\rightarrow}{lim}~\mathbb{Q}[\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z}] \mathbb{Q}[\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}] = \underset{\rightarrow}{lim}~\mathbb{Q}[\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z}]](/latexrender/pictures/e7924e9bd71b106fd89be1b82c649f8e.gif)


and using (1)) as saying that
and
, the
. A class of group-morphisms of interest to us are the maps given by multiplication by n on
such that
whence equation (5) can be rewritten as
, which looks good until you think that
is not an automorphism…
defined by
and then, we can rewrite equation (6) as
, but again, note that
is NOT an automorphism.
for any double-coset-class
represented by the matrix
could be written in the Hecke algebra as
. That is, we can write the Bost-Connes Hecke algebra as![\mathcal{H} = \oplus_{\frac{m}{n} \in \mathbb{Q}^+_{\times}}~\mathbb{Q}[\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}] X_mX_n^* \mathcal{H} = \oplus_{\frac{m}{n} \in \mathbb{Q}^+_{\times}}~\mathbb{Q}[\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}] X_mX_n^*](/latexrender/pictures/aa1b953ca05d452e8ffe67c33ff58057.gif)
would be automorphisms, this would say that
to its profinite completion
(limit over all finite index normal subgroups
) gives an embedding of the sets of (continuous) simple finite dimensional representations
we would like the above embedding to be dense in some kind of noncommutative analogon of the
.
as in
be the vectorspace with basis the conjugacy classes of elements of
separate finite dimensional (semi)simple representations of 
is dense. For, suppose it would be contained in a proper closed subset then there would be a class-function vanishing on all simples of
so, in particular, there should be a bound on the number of simples of finite quotients
which clearly is not the case (just look at the quotients
).
.
Even if you don’t know the formal definition of a profinte group, you know at least one example which explains the concept : the
aka the absolute Galois group. By definition it is the group of all
. Clearly, it is an object of fundamental importance for mathematics but in spite of this very little is known about it. For example, it obviously is an infinite group but, apart from the complex conjugation, try to give one (1!) other nontrivial element… On the other hand we know lots of finite quotients of
. For, take any finite Galois extension
, then its Galois group
is a finite group and there is a natural onto morphism
obtained by dividing out all
-automorphisms of
then classical Galois theory tells us that there is a projection
by dividing out the normal subgroup of all
and these finite maps are compatible with those from the absolute Galois group, that is, for all such finite Galois extensions, the diagram below is commutative![\xymatrix{Gal \ar[rr]^{\pi_L} \ar[rd]_{\pi_K} & & G_L \ar[ld]^{\pi_{LK}} \\
& G_K &} \xymatrix{Gal \ar[rr]^{\pi_L} \ar[rd]_{\pi_K} & & G_L \ar[ld]^{\pi_{LK}} \\
& G_K &}](/latexrender/pictures/a83d2bcf00cefc1eff52e2c9bbbeafb6.gif)
and hence a better and better finite approximation
of the absolute Galois group 
. If the term ‘projective limit’ scares you off, it just means that all the projections
coming from finite Galois theory are compatible with those coming from the big Galois group as before. That’s it : profinite groups are just projective limits of finite groups.
These groups come equipped with a natural topology : the
and between normal subgroups and Galois subfields. For each finite Galois extension
we have a normal subgroup of finite index, the kernel
of the projection map above. Let us take the set of all
as a fundamental system of neighborhoods of the identity element in
. Finite field extensions correspond in this bijection to open subgroups and the usual normal subgroup and factor group correspondences hold!
of finite index. For each of those we have a quotient map to a finite group
and clearly if
we have a quotient map of finite groups
compatible with the quotient maps from ![\xymatrix{\Gamma \ar[rr]^{\pi_U} \ar[rd]_{\pi_V} & & G_U \ar[ld]^{\pi_{UV}} \\
& G_V &} \xymatrix{\Gamma \ar[rr]^{\pi_U} \ar[rd]_{\pi_V} & & G_U \ar[ld]^{\pi_{UV}} \\
& G_V &}](/latexrender/pictures/ef02f6b8a47cf14eafc287ae84d5e2b8.gif)
and groupmorphisms
we can ask for the ‘best’ group mapping to each of the
. By ‘best’ we mean that any other group with this property will have a morphism to the best-one such that all quotient maps are compatible. This ‘best-one’ is called the projective limit
and therefore we call
has finite image and this is why they are of little use for people studying the Galois group as it conjecturally reduces the study of these representations to ‘just’ all representations of all finite groups. Instead they consider representations to other topological fields such as p-adic numbers
and call these Galois representations. 
, where K is an extension of finite type of the prime field) on (profinite) geometric fundamental
groups of algebraic varieties (defined over K), and more particularly (breaking with a well-established tradition) fundamental groups which are very far
from abelian groups (and which for this reason I call anabelian). Among
these groups, and very close to the group
, there is the profinite compactification of the modular group
, whose quotient by its centre
contains the former as congruence subgroup mod 2, and can also be
interpreted as an oriented cartographic group, namely the one classifying triangulated oriented maps (i.e. those whose faces are all triangles or
monogons).
The above text is taken from
on these curves and their associated dessins. Because every permutation representation of 
. In this way one realizes the absolute Galois group as a subgroup of the outer automorphism group of the profinite group
. So a natural question presents itself : how are these two ‘geometrical’ objects 
we see that in this case

and the roots of unity are even dense in the Zariski topology. This might look a bit strange at first because clearly all roots of unity lie on the unit circle which ’should be’ their closure in the complex plane, but that’s because we have a real-analytic intuition. Remember that the Zariski topology of
is just the cofinite topology, so any closed set containing the infinitely many roots of unity should be the whole space!
is the generator of
. Now suppose that there is a polynomial
vanishing on all the continuous simples of
then this means that the dimensions of the character-spaces of all finite quotients
(for consider
as the character of
for which there is no bound on the number of irreducibles for finite quotients, then morally the continuous simple space for the profinite completion
.
, what do we mean by the “Zariski topology” on the noncommutative space
? Next time we will clarify what this might be and show that indeed in this case the subset