Skip to content →

neverendingbooks Posts

E(8) from moonshine groups

Published May 15, 2009 by lievenlb

Are the valencies of the 171 moonshine groups are compatible, that is, can one construct a (disconnected) graph on the 171 vertices such that in every vertex (determined by a moonshine group G) the vertex-valency coincides with the valency of the corresponding group? Duncan describes a subset of 9 moonshine groups for which the valencies are compatible. These 9 groups are characterized as those moonshine groups G
having width 1 at the cusp and such that their intersection with the modular group is big.

Time to wrap up this series on John Duncan‘s paper Arithmetic groups and the affine E8 Dynkin diagram in which he gives a realization of the extended E(8)-Dynkin diagram (together with its isotropic root vector) from the moonshine groups, compatible with McKay’s E(8)-observation.

In the previous post we have described all 171 moonshine groups using Conway’s big picture. This description will allow us to associate two numbers to a moonshine group $G \subset PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $.
Recall that for any such group we have a positive integer $N $ such that

$\Gamma_0(N) \subset G \subset \Gamma_0(h,\frac{N}{h})+ $

where $h $ is the largest divisor of 24 such that $h^2 | N $. Let us call $n_G=\frac{N}{h} $ the dimension of $G $ (Duncan calls this number the ‘normalized level’) as it will give us the dimension component at the vertex determined by $G $.

We have also seen last time that any moonshine group is of the form $G = \Gamma_0(n_G || h)+e,f,g $, that is, $G/\Gamma_0(n_G ||h) $ is an elementary abelian group $~(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^m $ generated by Atkin-Lehner involutions. Let’s call $v_G=m+1 $ the valency of the group $G $ as it will give s the valency of the vertex determined by $G $.

It would be nice to know whether the valencies of the 171 moonshine groups are compatible, that is, whether one can construct a (disconnected) graph on the 171 vertices such that in each vertex (determined by a moonshine group $G $) the vertex-valency coincides with the valency of the corresponding group.

Duncan describes a subset of 9 moonshine groups for which the valencies are compatible. These 9 groups are characterized as those moonshine groups $G $
having width 1 at the cusp and such that their intersection with the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ is big, more precisely the index $[\Gamma : \Gamma \cap G] \leq 12 $ and $[\Gamma : \Gamma \cap G]/[G : \Gamma \cap G] \leq 3 $.

They can be described using the mini-moonshine picture on the right. They are :

The modular group itself $1=\Gamma $, being the stabilizer of the lattice 1. This group has clearly dimension and valency equal to one.

The modular subgroup $2=\Gamma_0(2) $ being the point-wise stabilizer of the lattices 1 and 2 (so it has valency one and dimension two, and, its normalizer $2+ =\Gamma_0(2)+ $ which is the set-wise stabilizer of the lattices 1 and 2 and the one Atkin-Lehner involution interchanges both. So, this group has valency two (as we added one involution) as well as dimension two.

Likewise, the groups $3+=\Gamma_0(3)+ $ and $5+=\Gamma_0(5)+ $ are the stabilzer subgroups of the red 1-cell (1,3) resp. the green 1-cell (1,5) and hence have valency two (as we add one involution) and dimensions 3 resp. 5.

The group $4+=\Gamma_0(4)+ $ stabilizes the (1|4)-thread and as we add one involution must have valency 2 and dimension 4.

On the other hand, the group $6+=\Gamma_0(6)+ $ stabilizes the unique 2-cell in the picture (having lattices 1,2,3,6) so this time we will add three involutions (horizontal and vertical switches and their product the antipodal involution). Hence, for this group the valency is three and its dimension is equal to six.

Remain the two groups connected to the mini-snakes in the picture. The red mini-snake (top left hand) is the ball with center 3 and hyperdistance 3 and determines the group $3||3=\Gamma_0(3||3) $ which has valency one (we add no involutions) and dimension 3. The blue mini-snake (the extended D(5)-Dynkin in the lower right corner) determines the group $4||2+=\Gamma(4||2)+ $ which has valency two and dimension 4.

The valencies of these 9 moonshine groups are compatible and they can be arranged in the extended E(8) diagram depicted below



Moreover, the dimensions of the groups give the exact dimension-components of the isotropic root of the extended E(8)-diagram. Further, the dimension of the group is equal to the order of the elements making up the conjugacy class of the monster to which exactly the given groups correspond via monstrous moonshine and hence compatible with John McKay‘s original E(8)-observation!



Once again, I would love to hear when someone has more information on the cell-decomposition of the moonshine picture or if someone can extend the moonshine E(8)-graph, possibly to include all 171 moonshine groups.

One Comment

looking for the moonshine picture

Published May 11, 2009 by lievenlb

We have seen that Conway’s big picture helps us to determine all arithmetic subgroups of $PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $ commensurable with the modular group $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $, including all groups of monstrous moonshine.

As there are exactly 171 such moonshine groups, they are determined by a finite subgraph of Conway’s picture and we call the minimal such subgraph the moonshine picture. Clearly, we would like to determine its structure.

On the left a depiction of a very small part of it. It is the minimal subgraph of Conway’s picture needed to describe the 9 moonshine groups appearing in Duncan’s realization of McKay’s E(8)-observation. Here, only three primes are relevant : 2 (blue lines), 3 (reds) and 5 (green). All lattices are number-like (recall that $M \frac{g}{h} $ stands for the lattice $\langle M e_1 + \frac{g}{h} e_2, e_2 \rangle $).

We observe that a large part of this mini-moonshine picture consists of the three p-tree subgraphs (the blue, red and green tree starting at the 1-lattice $1 = \langle e_1,e_2 \rangle $. Whereas Conway’s big picture is the product over all p-trees with p running over all prime numbers, we observe that the mini-moonshine picture is a very small subgraph of the product of these three subtrees. In fact, there is just one 2-cell (the square 1,2,6,3).

Hence, it seems like a good idea to start our investigation of the full moonshine picture with the determination of the p-subtrees contained in it, and subsequently, worry about higher dimensional cells constructed from them. Surely it will be no major surprise that the prime numbers p that appear in the moonshine picture are exactly the prime divisors of the order of the monster group, that is p=2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,41,47,59 or 71. Before we can try to determine these 15 p-trees, we need to know more about the 171 moonshine groups.

Recall that the proper way to view the modular subgroup $\Gamma_0(N) $ is as the subgroup fixing the two lattices $L_1 $ and $L_N $, whence we will write $\Gamma_0(N)=\Gamma_0(N|1) $, and, by extension we will denote with $\Gamma_0(X|Y) $ the subgroup fixing the two lattices $L_X $ and $L_Y $.

As $\Gamma_0(N) $ fixes $L_1 $ and $L_N $ it also fixes all lattices in the (N|1)-thread, that is all lattices occurring in a shortest path from $L_1 $ to $L_N $ (on the left a picture of the (200|1)-thread).

If $N=p_1^{a_1} p_2^{a_2} \ldots p_k^{a_k} $, then the (N|1)-thread has $2^k $ involutions as symmetries, called the Atkin-Lehner involutions. For every exact divisor $e || N $ (that is, $e|N $ and $gcd(e,\frac{N}{e})=1 $ we have an involution $W_e $ which acts by sending each point in the thread-cell corresponding to the prime divisors of $e $ to its antipodal cell-point and acts as the identity on the other prime-axes. For example, in the (200|1)-thread on the left, $W_8 $ is the left-right reflexion, $W_{25} $ the top-bottom reflexion and $W_{200} $ the antipodal reflexion. The set of all exact divisors of N becomes the group $~(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})^k $ under the operation $e \ast f = \frac{e \times f}{gcd(e,f)^2} $.

Most of the moonshine groups are of the form $\Gamma_0(n|h)+e,f,g,… $ for some $N=h.n $ such that $h | 24 $ and $h^2 | N $. The group $\Gamma_0(n|h) $ is then conjugate to the modular subgroup $\Gamma_0(\frac{n}{h}) $ by the element $\begin{bmatrix} h & 0 \ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $. With $\Gamma_0(n|h)+e,f,g,… $ we mean that the group $\Gamma_0(n|h) $ is extended with the involutions $W_e,W_f,W_g,… $. If we simply add all Atkin-Lehner involutions we write $\Gamma_0(n|h)+ $ for the resulting group.

Finally, whenever $h \not= 1 $ there is a subgroup $\Gamma_0(n||h)+e,f,g,… $ which is the kernel of a character $\lambda $ being trivial on $\Gamma_0(N) $ and on all involutions $W_e $ for which every prime dividing $e $ also divides $\frac{n}{h} $, evaluating to $e^{\frac{2\pi i}{h}} $ on all cosets containing $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & \frac{1}{h} \ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $ and to $e^{\pm \frac{2 \pi i }{h}} $ for cosets containing $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \ n & 0 \end{bmatrix} $ (with a + sign if $\begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \ N & 0 \end{bmatrix} $ is present and a – sign otherwise). Btw. it is not evident at all that this is a character, but hard work shows it is!

Clearly there are heavy restrictions on the numbers that actually occur in moonshine. In the paper On the discrete groups of moonshine, John Conway, John McKay and Abdellah Sebbar characterized the 171 arithmetic subgroups of $PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $ occuring in monstrous moonshine as those of the form $G = \Gamma_0(n || h)+e,f,g,… $ which are

  • (a) of genus zero, meaning that the quotient of the upper-half plane by the action of $G \subset PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $ by Moebius-transformations gives a Riemann surface of genus zero,
  • (b) the quotient group $G/\Gamma_0(nh) $ is a group of exponent 2 (generated by some Atkin-Lehner involutions), and
  • (c) every cusp can be mapped to $\infty $ by an element of $PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $ which conjugates the group to one containing $\Gamma_0(nh) $.

Now, if $\Gamma_0(n || h)+e,f,g,… $ is of genus zero, so is the larger group $\Gamma_0(n | h)+e,f,g,… $, which in turn, is conjugated to the group $\Gamma_0(\frac{n}{h})+e,f,g,… $. Therefore, we need a list of all groups of the form $\Gamma_0(\frac{n}{h})+e,f,g,… $ which are of genus zero. There are exactly 123 of them, listed on the right.

How does this help to determine the structure of the p-subtree of the moonshine picture for the fifteen monster-primes p? Look for the largest p-power $p^k $ such that $p^k+e,f,g… $ appears in the list. That is for p=2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,41,47,59,71 these powers are resp. 5,3,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1. Next, look for the largest p-power $p^l $ dividing 24 (that is, 3 for p=2, 1 for p=3 and 0 for all other primes). Then, these relevant moonshine groups contain the modular subgroup $\Gamma_0(p^{k+2l}) $ and are contained in its normalizer in $PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $ which by the Atkin-Lehner theorem is precisely the group $\Gamma_0(p^{k+l}|p^l)+ $.

Right, now the lattices fixed by $\Gamma_0(p^{k+2l}) $ (and permuted by its normalizer), that is the lattices in our p-subtree, are those that form the $~(p^{k+2l}|1) $-snake in Conway-speak. That is, the lattices whose hyper-distance to the $~(p^{k+l}|p^l) $-thread divides 24. So for all primes larger than 2 or 3, the p-tree is just the $~(p^l|1) $-thread.

For p=3 the 3-tree is the (243|1)-snake having the (81|3)-thread as its spine. It contains the following lattices, all of which are number-like.



Depicting the 2-tree, which is the (2048|1)-snake may take a bit longer… Perhaps someone should spend some time figuring out which cells of the product of these fifteen trees make up the moonshine picture!

4 Comments

Conway’s big picture

Published May 2, 2009 by lievenlb

Conway and Norton showed that there are exactly 171 moonshine functions and associated two arithmetic subgroups to them. We want a tool to describe these and here’s where Conway’s big picture comes in very handy. All moonshine groups are arithmetic groups, that is, they are commensurable with the modular group. Conway’s idea is to view several of these groups as point- or set-wise stabilizer subgroups of finite sets of (projective) commensurable 2-dimensional lattices.

Expanding (and partially explaining) the original moonshine observation of McKay and Thompson, John Conway and Simon Norton formulated monstrous moonshine :

To every cyclic subgroup $\langle m \rangle $ of the Monster $\mathbb{M} $ is associated a function

$f_m(\tau)=\frac{1}{q}+a_1q+a_2q^2+\ldots $ with $q=e^{2 \pi i \tau} $ and all coefficients $a_i \in \mathbb{Z} $ are characters at $m $ of a representation of $\mathbb{M} $. These representations are the homogeneous components of the so called Moonshine module.

Each $f_m $ is a principal modulus for a certain genus zero congruence group commensurable with the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. These groups are called the moonshine groups.

Conway and Norton showed that there are exactly 171 different functions $f_m $ and associated two arithmetic subgroups $F(m) \subset E(m) \subset PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $ to them (in most cases, but not all, these two groups coincide).

Whereas there is an extensive literature on subgroups of the modular group (see for instance the series of posts starting here), most moonshine groups are not contained in the modular group. So, we need a tool to describe them and here’s where Conway’s big picture comes in very handy.

All moonshine groups are arithmetic groups, that is, they are subgroups $G $ of $PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $ which are commensurable with the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ meaning that the intersection $G \cap \Gamma $ is of finite index in both $G $ and in $\Gamma $. Conway’s idea is to view several of these groups as point- or set-wise stabilizer subgroups of finite sets of (projective) commensurable 2-dimensional lattices.

Start with a fixed two dimensional lattice $L_1 = \mathbb{Z} e_1 + \mathbb{Z} e_2 = \langle e_1,e_2 \rangle $ and we want to name all lattices of the form $L = \langle v_1= a e_1+ b e_2, v_2 = c e_1 + d e_2 \rangle $ that are commensurable to $L_1 $. Again this means that the intersection $L \cap L_1 $ is of finite index in both lattices. From this it follows immediately that all coefficients $a,b,c,d $ are rational numbers.

It simplifies matters enormously if we do not look at lattices individually but rather at projective equivalence classes, that is $~L=\langle v_1, v_2 \rangle \sim L’ = \langle v’_1,v’_2 \rangle $ if there is a rational number $\lambda \in \mathbb{Q} $ such that $~\lambda v_1 = v’_1, \lambda v_2=v’_2 $. Further, we are of course allowed to choose a different ‘basis’ for our lattices, that is, $~L = \langle v_1,v_2 \rangle = \langle w_1,w_2 \rangle $ whenever $~(w_1,w_2) = (v_1,v_2).\gamma $ for some $\gamma \in PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $.
Using both operations we can get any lattice in a specific form. For example,

$\langle \frac{1}{2}e_1+3e_2,e_1-\frac{1}{3}e_2 \overset{(1)}{=} \langle 3 e_1+18e_2,6e_1-2e_2 \rangle \overset{(2)}{=} \langle 3 e_1+18 e_2,38 e_2 \rangle \overset{(3)}{=} \langle \frac{3}{38}e_1+\frac{9}{19}e_2,e_2 \rangle $

Here, identities (1) and (3) follow from projective equivalence and identity (2) from a base-change. In general, any lattice $L $ commensurable to the standard lattice $L_1 $ can be rewritten uniquely as $L = \langle Me_1 + \frac{g}{h} e_2,e_2 \rangle $ where $M $ a positive rational number and with $0 \leq \frac{g}{h} < 1 $.

Another major feature is that one can define a symmetric hyper-distance between (equivalence classes of) such lattices. Take $L=\langle Me_1 + \frac{g}{h} e_2,e_2 \rangle $ and $L’=\langle N e_1 + \frac{i}{j} e_2,e_2 \rangle $ and consider the matrix

$D_{LL’} = \begin{bmatrix} M & \frac{g}{h} \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} N & \frac{i}{j} \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}^{-1} $ and let $\alpha $ be the smallest positive rational number such that all entries of the matrix $\alpha.D_{LL’} $ are integers, then

$\delta(L,L’) = det(\alpha.D_{LL’}) \in \mathbb{N} $ defines a symmetric hyperdistance which depends only of the equivalence classes of lattices (hyperdistance because the log of it behaves like an ordinary distance).

Conway’s big picture is the graph obtained by taking as its vertices the equivalence classes of lattices commensurable with $L_1 $ and with edges connecting any two lattices separated by a prime number hyperdistance. Here’s part of the 2-picture, that is, only depicting the edges of hyperdistance 2.



The 2-picture is an infinite 3-valent tree as there are precisely 3 classes of lattices at hyperdistance 2 from any lattice $L = \langle v_1,v_2 \rangle $ namely (the equivalence classes of) $\langle \frac{1}{2}v_1,v_2 \rangle~,~\langle v_1, \frac{1}{2} v_2 \rangle $ and $\langle \frac{1}{2}(v_1+v_2),v_2 \rangle $.

Similarly, for any prime hyperdistance p, the p-picture is an infinite p+1-valent tree and the big picture is the product over all these prime trees. That is, two lattices at square-free hyperdistance $N=p_1p_2\ldots p_k $ are two corners of a k-cell in the big picture!
(Astute readers of this blog (if such people exist…) may observe that Conway’s big picture did already appear here prominently, though in disguise. More on this another time).

The big picture presents a simple way to look at arithmetic groups and makes many facts about them visually immediate. For example, the point-stabilizer subgroup of $L_1 $ clearly is the modular group $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. The point-stabilizer of any other lattice is a certain conjugate of the modular group inside $PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $. For example, the stabilizer subgroup of the lattice $L_N = \langle Ne_1,e_2 \rangle $ (at hyperdistance N from $L_1 $) is the subgroup

${ \begin{bmatrix} a & \frac{b}{N} \\ Nc & d \end{bmatrix}~|~\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix} \in PSL_2(\mathbb{Z})~} $

Now the intersection of these two groups is the modular subgroup $\Gamma_0(N) $ (consisting of those modular group element whose lower left-hand entry is divisible by N). That is, the proper way to look at this arithmetic group is as the joint stabilizer of the two lattices $L_1,L_N $. The picture makes it trivial to compute the index of this subgroup.

Consider the ball $B(L_1,N) $ with center $L_1 $ and hyper-radius N (on the left, the ball with hyper-radius 4). Then, it is easy to show that the modular group acts transitively on the boundary lattices (including the lattice $L_N $), whence the index $[ \Gamma : \Gamma_0(N)] $ is just the number of these boundary lattices. For N=4 the picture shows that there are exactly 6 of them. In general, it follows from our knowledge of all the p-trees the number of all lattices at hyperdistance N from $L_1 $ is equal to $N \prod_{p | N}(1+ \frac{1}{p}) $, in accordance with the well-known index formula for these modular subgroups!

But, there are many other applications of the big picture giving a simple interpretation for the Hecke operators, an elegant proof of the Atkin-Lehner theorem on the normalizer of $\Gamma_0(N) $ (the whimsical source of appearances of the number 24) and of Helling’s theorem characterizing maximal arithmetical groups inside $PSL_2(\mathbb{C}) $ as conjugates of the normalizers of $\Gamma_0(N) $ for square-free N.
J.H. Conway’s paper “Understanding groups like $\Gamma_0(N) $” containing all this material is a must-read! Unfortunately, I do not know of an online version.

Leave a Comment

the monster graph and McKay’s observation

Published April 22, 2009 by lievenlb

While the verdict on a neolithic Scottish icosahedron is still open, let us recall Kostant’s group-theoretic construction of the icosahedron from its rotation-symmetry group $A_5 $.

The alternating group $A_5 $ has two conjugacy classes of order 5 elements, both consisting of exactly 12 elements. Fix one of these conjugacy classes, say $C $ and construct a graph with vertices the 12 elements of $C $ and an edge between two $u,v \in C $ if and only if the group-product $u.v \in C $ still belongs to the same conjugacy class.

Observe that this relation is symmetric as from $u.v = w \in C $ it follows that $v.u=u^{-1}.u.v.u = u^{-1}.w.u \in C $. The graph obtained is the icosahedron, depicted on the right with vertices written as words in two adjacent elements u and v from $C $, as indicated.

Kostant writes : “Normally it is not a common practice in group theory to consider whether or not the product of two elements in a conjugacy class is again an element in that conjugacy class. However such a consideration here turns out to be quite productive.”

Still, similar constructions have been used in other groups as well, in particular in the study of the largest sporadic group, the monster group $\mathbb{M} $.

There is one important catch. Whereas it is quite trivial to multiply two permutations and verify whether the result is among 12 given ones, for most of us mortals it is impossible to do actual calculations in the monster. So, we’d better have an alternative way to get at the icosahedral graph using only $A_5 $-data that is also available for the monster group, such as its character table.

Let $G $ be any finite group and consider three of its conjugacy classes $C(i),C(j) $ and $C(k) $. For any element $w \in C(k) $ we can compute from the character table of $G $ the number of different products $u.v = w $ such that $u \in C(i) $ and $v \in C(j) $. This number is given by the formula

$\frac{|G|}{|C_G(g_i)||C_G(g_j)|} \sum_{\chi} \frac{\chi(g_i) \chi(g_j) \overline{\chi(g_k)}}{\chi(1)} $

where the sum is taken over all irreducible characters $\chi $ and where $g_i \in C(i),g_j \in C(j) $ and $g_k \in C(k) $. Note also that $|C_G(g)| $ is the number of $G $-elements commuting with $g $ and that this number is the order of $G $ divided by the number of elements in the conjugacy class of $g $.

The character table of $A_5 $ is given on the left : the five columns correspond to the different conjugacy classes of elements of order resp. 1,2,3,5 and 5 and the rows are the character functions of the 5 irreducible representations of dimensions 1,3,3,4 and 5.

Let us fix the 4th conjugacy class, that is 5a, as our class $C $. By the general formula, for a fixed $w \in C $ the number of different products $u.v=w $ with $u,v \in C $ is equal to

$\frac{60}{25}(\frac{1}{1} + \frac{(\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2})^3}{3} + \frac{(\frac{1-\sqrt{5}}{2})^3}{3} – \frac{1}{4} + \frac{0}{5}) = \frac{60}{25}(1 + \frac{4}{3} – \frac{1}{4}) = 5 $

Because for each $x \in C $ also its inverse $x^{-1} \in C $, this can be rephrased by saying that there are exactly 5 different products $w^{-1}.u \in C $, or equivalently, that the valency of every vertex $w^{-1} \in C $ in the graph is exactly 5.

That is, our graph has 12 vertices, each with exactly 5 neighbors, and with a bit of extra work one can show it to be the icosahedral graph.

For the monster group, the Atlas tells us that it has exactly 194 irreducible representations (and hence also 194 conjugacy classes). Of these conjugacy classes, the involutions (that is the elements of order 2) are of particular importance.

There are exactly 2 conjugacy classes of involutions, usually denoted 2A and 2B. Involutions in class 2A are called “Fischer-involutions”, after Bernd Fischer, because their centralizer subgroup is an extension of Fischer’s baby Monster sporadic group.

Likewise, involutions in class 2B are usually called “Conway-involutions” because their centralizer subgroup is an extension of the largest Conway sporadic group.

Let us define the monster graph to be the graph having as its vertices the Fischer-involutions and with an edge between two of them $u,v \in 2A $ if and only if their product $u.v $ is again a Fischer-involution.

Because the centralizer subgroup is $2.\mathbb{B} $, the number of vertices is equal to $97239461142009186000 = 2^4 * 3^7 * 5^3 * 7^4 * 11 * 13^2 * 29 * 41 * 59 * 71 $.

From the general result recalled before we have that the valency in all vertices is equal and to determine it we have to use the character table of the monster and the formula. Fortunately GAP provides the function ClassMultiplicationCoefficient to do this without making errors.


gap> table:=CharacterTable("M");
CharacterTable( "M" )
gap> ClassMultiplicationCoefficient(table,2,2,2);
27143910000

Perhaps noticeable is the fact that the prime decomposition of the valency $27143910000 = 2^4 * 3^4 * 5^4 * 23 * 31 * 47 $ is symmetric in the three smallest and three largest prime factors of the baby monster order.

Robert Griess proved that one can recover the monster group $\mathbb{M} $ from the monster graph as its automorphism group!

As in the case of the icosahedral graph, the number of vertices and their common valency does not determine the monster graph uniquely. To gain more insight, we would like to know more about the sizes of minimal circuits in the graph, the number of such minimal circuits going through a fixed vertex, and so on.

Such an investigation quickly leads to a careful analysis which other elements can be obtained from products $u.v $ of two Fischer involutions $u,v \in 2A $. We are in for a major surprise, first observed by John McKay:

Printing out the number of products of two Fischer-involutions giving an element in the i-th conjugacy class of the monster,
where i runs over all 194 possible classes, we get the following string of numbers :


97239461142009186000, 27143910000, 196560, 920808, 0, 3, 1104, 4, 0, 0, 5, 0,
6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0

That is, the elements of only 9 conjugacy classes can be written as products of two Fischer-involutions! These classes are :

  • 1A = { 1 } written in 97239461142009186000 different ways (after all involutions have order two)
  • 2A, each element of which can be written in exactly 27143910000 different ways (the valency)
  • 2B, each element of which can be written in exactly 196560 different ways. Observe that this is the kissing number of the Leech lattice leading to a permutation representation of $2.Co_1 $.
  • 3A, each element of which can be written in exactly 920808 ways. Note that this number gives a permutation representation of the maximal monster subgroup $3.Fi_{24}’ $.
  • 3C, each element of which can be written in exactly 3 ways.
  • 4A, each element of which can be written in exactly 1104 ways.
  • 4B, each element of which can be written in exactly 4 ways.
  • 5A, each element of which can be written in exactly 5 ways.
  • 6A, each element of which can be written in exactly 6 ways.

Let us forget about the actual numbers for the moment and concentrate on the orders of these 9 conjugacy classes : 1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,6. These are precisely the components of the fundamental root of the extended Dynkin diagram $\tilde{E_8} $!

This is the content of John McKay’s E(8)-observation : there should be a precise relation between the nodes of the extended Dynkin diagram and these 9 conjugacy classes in such a way that the order of the class corresponds to the component of the fundamental root. More precisely, one conjectures the following correspondence



This is similar to the classical McKay correspondence between finite subgroups of $SU(2) $ and extended Dynkin diagrams (the binary icosahedral group corresponding to extended E(8)). In that correspondence, the nodes of the Dynkin diagram correspond to irreducible representations of the group and the edges are determined by the decompositions of tensor-products with the fundamental 2-dimensional representation.

Here, however, the nodes have to correspond to conjugacy classes (rather than representations) and we have to look for another procedure to arrive at the required edges! An exciting proposal has been put forward recently by John Duncan in his paper Arithmetic groups and the affine E8 Dynkin diagram.

It will take us a couple of posts to get there, but for now, let’s give the gist of it : monstrous moonshine gives a correspondence between conjugacy classes of the monster and certain arithmetic subgroups of $PSL_2(\mathbb{R}) $ commensurable with the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. The edges of the extended Dynkin E(8) diagram are then given by the configuration of the arithmetic groups corresponding to the indicated 9 conjugacy classes! (to be continued…)

Leave a Comment

The Scottish solids hoax

Published March 25, 2009 by lievenlb

A truly good math-story gets spread rather than scrutinized. And a good story it was : more than a millenium before Plato, the Neolithic Scottish Math Society classified the five regular solids : tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron. And, we had solid evidence to support this claim : the NSMS mass-produced stone replicas of their finds and about 400 of them were excavated, most of them in Aberdeenshire.

Six years ago, Michael Atiyah and Paul Sutcliffe arXived their paper Polyhedra in physics, chemistry and geometry, in which they wrote :

Although they are termed Platonic solids there is
convincing evidence that they were known to the Neolithic people of Scotland at least a
thousand years before Plato, as demonstrated by the stone models pictured in fig. 1 which
date from this period and are kept in the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.

Fig. 1 is the picture below, which has been copied in numerous blog-posts (including my own scottish solids-post) and virtually every talk on regular polyhedra.



From left to right, stone-ball models of the cube, tetrahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron and octahedron, in which ‘knobs’ correspond to ‘faces’ of the regular polyhedron, as best seen in the central dodecahedral ball.

But then … where’s the icosahedron? The fourth ball sure looks like one but only because someone added ribbons, connecting the centers of the different knobs. If this ribbon-figure is an icosahedron, the ball itself should be another dodecahedron and the ribbons illustrate the fact that icosa- and dodeca-hedron are dual polyhedra. Similarly for the last ball, if the ribbon-figure is an octahedron, the ball itself should be another cube, having exactly 6 knobs.
Who did adorn these artifacts with ribbons, thereby multiplying the number of ‘found’ regular solids by two (the tetrahedron is self-dual)?

The picture appears on page 98 of the book Sacred Geometry (first published in 1979) by Robert Lawlor. He attributes the NSMS-idea to the book Time Stands Still: New Light on Megalithic Science (also published in 1979) by Keith Critchlow. Lawlor writes

The five regular polyhedra or
Platonic solids were known and worked with
well before Plato’s time. Keith Critchlow in
his book Time Stands Still presents convincing
evidence that they were known to the Neolithic peoples of Britain at least 1000 years
before Plato. This is founded on the existence
of a number of sphericalfstones kept in the
Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. Of a size one
can carry in the hand, these stones were carved
into the precise geometric spherical versions of
the cube, tetrahedron, octahedron, icosahedron
and dodecahedron, as well as some additional
compound and semi-regular solids, such as the
cube-octahedron and the icosidodecahedron.
Critchlow says, ‘What we have are objects
clearly indicative of a degree of mathematical
ability so far denied to Neolithic man by any
archaeologist or mathematical historian’. He
speculates on the possible relationship of these
objects to the building of the great astronomical stone circles of the same epoch in Britain:
‘The study of the heavens is, after all, a
spherical activity, needing an understanding of
spherical coordinates. If the Neolithic inhabitants of Scotland had constructed Maes Howe
before the pyramids were built by the ancient
Egyptians, why could they not be studying the
laws of three-dimensional coordinates? Is it not
more than a coincidence that Plato as well as
Ptolemy, Kepler and Al-Kindi attributed
cosmic significance to these figures?’

As Lawlor and Critchlow lean towards mysticism, their claims should not be taken for granted. So, let’s have a look at these famous stones kept in the Ashmolean Museum. The Ashmolean has a page dedicated to their Stone Balls, including the following picture (the Critchlow/Lawlor picture below, for comparison)



The Ashmolean stone balls are from left to right the artifacts with catalogue numbers :

  • Stone ball with 7 knobs from Marnoch, Banff (AN1927.2728)
  • Stone ball with 6 knobs and isosceles triangles between, from Fyvie, Aberdeenshire (AN1927.2731)
  • Stone ball with 6 knobs and isosceles triangles between, from near Aberdeen (AN1927.2730)
  • Stone ball with 4 knobs from Auchterless, Aberdeenshire (AN1927.2729)
  • Stone ball with 14 knobs from Aberdeen (AN1927.2727)

Ashmolean’s AN 1927.2729 may very well be the tetrahedron and AN 1927.2727 may be used to forge the ‘icosahedron’ (though it has 14 rather than 12 knobs), but the other stones sure look different. In particular, none of the Ashmolean stones has exactly 12 knobs in order to be a dodecahedron.

Perhaps the Ashmolean has a larger collection of Scottish balls and today’s selection is different from the one in 1979? Well, if you have the patience to check all 9 pages of the Scottish Ball Catalogue by Dorothy Marshall (the reference-text when it comes to these balls) you will see that the Ashmolean has exactly those 5 balls and no others!

The sad lesson to be learned is : whether the Critchlow/Lawlor balls are falsifications or fabrications, they most certainly are NOT the Ashmolean stone balls as they claim!

Clearly this does not mean that no neolithic scott could have discovered some regular polyhedra by accident. They made an enormous amount of these stone balls, with knobs ranging from 3 up to no less than 135! All I claim is that this ball-carving thing was more an artistic endeavor, rather than a mathematical one.

There are a number of musea having a much larger collection of these stone balls. The Hunterian Museum has a collection of 29 and some nice online pages on them, including 3D animation. But then again, none of their balls can be a dodecahedron or icosahedron (according to the stone-ball-catalogue).

In fact, more than half of the 400+ preserved artifacts have 6 knobs. The catalogue tells that there are only 8 possible candidates for a Scottish dodecahedron (below their catalogue numbers, indicating for the knowledgeable which museum owns them and where they were found)

  • NMA AS 103 : Aberdeenshire
  • AS 109 : Aberdeenshire
  • AS 116 : Aberdeenshire (prob)
  • AUM 159/9 : Lambhill Farm, Fyvie, Aberdeenshire
  • Dundee : Dyce, Aberdeenshire
  • GAGM 55.96 : Aberdeenshire
  • Montrose = Cast NMA AS 26 : Freelands, Glasterlaw, Angus
  • Peterhead : Aberdeenshire

The case for a Scottish icosahedron looks even worse. Only two balls have exactly 20 knobs

  • NMA AS 110 : Aberdeenshire
  • GAGM 92 106.1. : Countesswells, Aberdeenshire

Here NMA stands for the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland in Edinburg (today, it is called ‘National Museums Scotland’) and
GAGM for the Glasgow Art Gallery and Museum. If you happen to be in either of these cities shortly, please have a look and let me know if one of them really is an icosahedron!

UPDATE (April 1st)

Victoria White, Curator of Archaeology at the
Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum, confirms that the Countesswells carved stone ball (1892.106.l) has indeed 20 knobs. She gave this additional information :

The artefact came to Glasgow Museums in the late nineteenth century as part of the John Rae collection. John Rae was an avid collector of prehistoric antiquities from the Aberdeenshire area of Scotland. Unfortunately, the ball was not accompanied with any additional information regarding its archaeological context when it was donated to Glasgow Museums. The carved stone ball is currently on display in the ‘Raiders of the Lost Art’ exhibition.

Dr. Alison Sheridan, Head of Early Prehistory, Archaeology Department, National Museums Scotland makes the valid point that new balls have been discovered after the publication of the catalogue, but adds :

Although several balls have turned up since Dorothy Marshall wrote her synthesis, none has 20 knobs, so you can rely on Dorothy’s list.

She has strong reservations against a mathematical interpretation of the balls :

Please also note that the mathematical interpretation of these Late Neolithic objects fails to take into account their archaeological background, and fails to explain why so many do not have the requisite number of knobs! It’s a classic case of people sticking on an interpretation in a state of ignorance. A great shame when so much is known about Late Neolithic archaeology.

2 Comments

Geometry of the Okubo algebra

Published March 14, 2009 by lievenlb

Last week, Melanie Raczek gave a talk entitled ‘Cubic forms and Okubo product’ in our Artseminar, based on her paper On ternary cubic forms that determine central simple algebras of degree 3.

I had never heard of this strange non-associative product on 8-dimensional space, but I guess it is an instance of synchronicity that now the Okubo algebra seems to pop-up everywhere.

Yesterday, there was the post the Okubo algebra by John Baez at the n-cafe, telling that Susumu Okubo discovered his algebra while investigating quarks.

I don’t know a thing about the physics, but over the last days I’ve been trying to understand some of the miraculous geometry associated to the Okubo algebra. So, let’s start out by defining the ‘algebra’.

Consider the associative algebra of all 3×3 complex matrices $M_3(\mathbb{C}) $ with the usual matrix-multiplication. In this algebra there is the 8-dimensional subspace of trace zero matrices, usually called the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl}_3 $. However, we will not use the Lie-bracket, only matrix-multiplication. Typical elements of $\mathfrak{sl}_3 $ will be written as $X,Y,Z,… $ and their entries will be denoted as

$X = \begin{bmatrix} x_0 & x_1 & x_2 \\ x_3 & x_4 & x_5 \\ x_6 & x_7 & -x_0-x_4 \end{bmatrix} $

For any two elements $X,Y \in \mathfrak{sl}_3 $ one defines their Okubo-product to be the 3×3 matrix

$X \ast Y = \frac{1}{1-\omega}(Y.X-\omega X.Y) – \frac{1}{3}Tr(X.Y) 1_3 $

where $\omega $ is a primitive 3-rd root of unity and $1_3 $ is the identity matrix. Written out in the entries of X and Y this operation looks horribly complicated

$X \ast Y = \frac{1}{1-\omega} \begin{bmatrix} p_{11} & p_{12} & p_{13} \\ p_{21} & p_{22} & p_{23} \\ p_{31} & p_{32} & -p_{11}-p_{22} \end{bmatrix} $

with

[tex]\begin{eqalign} \\ p_{11} &= (1-\omega)x_0y_0+x_3y_1+x_6y_2-\omega(x_1y_3+x_2y_6)-\frac{1}{3}T \\ p_{12} &= x_1y_0+x_4y_1+x_7y_2-\omega(x_0y_1+x_1y_4+x_2y_7) \\ p_{13} &= x_2y_0+x_5y_1-x_0y_2-x_4y_2-\omega(x_0y_2+x_1y_5-x_2y_0-x_2y_4) \\
p_{21} &= x_0y_3+x_3y_4+x_6y_5 – \omega(x_3y_0+x_4y_3+x_5y_6) \\
p_{22} &= (1-\omega)x_4y_4+x_1y_3+x_7y_5 – \omega(x_3y_1+x_5y_7) – \frac{1}{3}T \\
p_{23} &= x_2y_3+x_5y_4-x_0y_5-x_4y_5-\omega(x_3y_2+x_4y_5-x_5y_0-x_5y_4) \\
p_{31} &= x_0y_6+x_3y_7-x_6y_0-x_6y_4-\omega(x_6y_0+x_7y_3-x_0y_6-x_4y_6) \\
p_{32} &= x_1y_6+x_4y_7-x_7y_0-x_7y_4 – \omega(x_6y_1+x_7y_4-x_0y_7-x_4y_7) \\
T &= 2x_0y_0+2x_4y_4+x_1y_3+x_2y_6+x_3y_1+x_5y_7+x_6y_2+x_7y_5+x_0y_4+x_4y_0
\end{eqalign}[/tex]

The crucial remark to make is that $X \ast Y $ is again a trace zero matrix. That is, we have defined a new operation on $\mathfrak{sl}_3 $.

$\mathfrak{sl}_3 \times \mathfrak{sl}_3 \rightarrow \mathfrak{sl}_3~\qquad~\qquad~(X,Y) \mapsto X \ast Y $

This Okubo-product is neither a Lie-bracket, nor an associative multiplication. In fact, it is a lot ‘less associative’ than that other 8-dimensional algebra, the octonions. The only noteworthy identity it has is that $X \ast (Y \ast X) = (X \ast Y) \ast X $. So, why should we be interested in this horrible algebra?

Well, let us consider the subset of $\mathfrak{sl}_3 $ consisting of those matrices X satusfying $Tr(X^2)=0 $. That is, with the above notation, all matrices X such that

$x_0^2+x_4^2+x_1x_3+x_2x_6+x_5x_7=0 $

In the 8-dimensional affine space $\mathfrak{sl}_3 $ these matrices form a singular quadric with top the zero-matrix. So, it is better to go projective. That is, any non-zero matrix $X \in \mathfrak{sl}_3 $ determines a point in 7-dimensional projective space $\mathbb{P}^7 $ with homogeneous coordinates

$\overline{X} = [x_0:x_1:x_2:x_3:x_4:x_5:x_6:x_7] \in \mathbb{P}^7 $

and the points $\overline{X} $ corresponding to solutions of $Tr(X^2)=0 $ form a smooth 6-dimensional quadric $Q \subset \mathbb{P}^7 $ with homogeneous equation

$Q = \mathbb{V}(x_0^2+x_4^2+x_1x_3+x_2x_6+x_5x_7) $

6-dimensional quadrics may be quite hard to visualize, so it may help to recall the classic situation of lines on a 2-dimensional quadric (animated gif taken from surfex).

A 2-dimensional quadric contains two families of lines, often called the ‘blue lines’ and the ‘red lines’, each of these lines isomorphic to $\mathbb{P}^1 $. The rules-of-intersection of these are :

  • different red lines are disjoint as are different blue lines
  • any red and any blue line intersect in exactly one point
  • every point of the quadric lies on exactly one red and one blue line

The lines in either family are in one-to-one correspondence with the points on the projective line. We therefore say that there is a $\mathbb{P}^1 $-family of red lines and a $\mathbb{P}^1 $-family of blue lines on a 2-dimensional quadric.

A 6-dimensional quadric $Q \subset \mathbb{P}^7 $ contains two families of ‘3-planes’. That is, there is a family of red $\mathbb{P}^3 $’s contained in Q and a family of blue $\mathbb{P}^3 $’s. Can we determine these red and blue 3-planes explicitly?

Yes we can, using the Okubo algebra-product on $\mathfrak{sl}_3 $. Take $X \in \mathfrak{sl}_3 $ defining the point $\overline{X} \in Q $ (that is, $Tr(X^2)=0 $). then all 3×3 matrices one obtains by taking the Okubo-product with left X-factor form a 4-dimensional linear subspace in $\mathfrak{sl}_3 $

$L_X = { X \ast Y~|~Y \in \mathfrak{sl}_3 } \simeq \mathbb{C}^4 \subset \mathfrak{sl}_3 $

so its non-zero matrices determine a 3-plane in $\mathbb{P}^7 $ (consisting of all points with homogeneous coordinates $[p_{11}:p_{12}:p_{13}:p_{21}:p_{22}:p_{23}:p_{31}:p_{32}] $, using the above formulas) which actually lies entirely in the quadric Q. These are precisely the bLue 3-planes in Q. That is, the family of all bLue 3-planes consists precisely of the 3-planes

$\mathbb{P}(L_X) $ with $X \in \mathfrak{sl}_3 $ satisfying $Tr(X^2)=0 $

Phrased differently, any point $\overline{X} \in Q $ determines a blue 3-plane $\mathbb{P}(L_X) $.

Similarly, any point $\overline{X} \in Q $ determines a Red 3-plane by taking Okubo-products with Right X-factor, that is, $\mathbb{P}(R_X) $ is a 3-plane for Q where

$R_X = { Y \ast X~|~Y \in \mathfrak{sl}_3 } \simeq \mathbb{C}^4 \subset \mathfrak{sl}_3 $

and all Red 3-planes for Q are of this form. But, this is not all… these correspondences are unique! That is, any point on the quadric defines a unique red and a unique blue 3-plane, or, phrased differently, there is a Q-family of red 3-planes and a Q-family of blue 3-planes in Q. This is a consequence of triality.

To see this, note that the automorphism group of a 6-dimensional smooth quadric is the rotation group $SO_8(\mathbb{C}) $ and this group has Dynkin diagram $D_4 $, the most symmetrical of them all!

In general, every node in a Dynkin diagram has an interesting projective variety associated to it, a so called homogeneous space. I’ll just mention what these spaces are corresponding to the 4 nodes of $D_4 $. Full details can be found in chapter 23 of Fulton and Harris’ Representation theory, a first course.

The left-most node corresponds to the orthogonal Grassmannian of isotropic 1-planes in $\mathbb{C}^8 $ which is just a fancy way of viewing our quadric Q. The two right-most nodes correspond to the two connected components of the Grassmannians of isotropic 4-planes in $\mathbb{C}^8 $, which are our red resp. blue families of 3-planes on the quadric. Now, as the corresponding dotted Dynkin diagrams are isomorphic



there corresponding homogeneous spaces are also isomorphic. Thus indeed, there is a one-to-one correspondence between points of the quadric Q and red 3-planes on Q (and similarly with blue 3-planes on Q).

Okay, so the Okubo-product allows us to associate to a point on the 6-dimensional quadric Q a unique red 3-plane and a unique blue 3-plane (much as any point on a 2-dimensional quadric determines a unique red and blue line). Do these families of red and blue 3-planes also satisfy ‘rules-of-intersection’?

Yes they do and, once again, the Okubo-product clarifies them. Here they are :

  • two different red 3-planes intersect in a unique line (as do different blue 3-planes)
  • the bLue 3-plane $\mathbb{P}(L_X) $ intersects the Red 3-plane $\mathbb{P}(R_Y) $ in a unique point if and only if the Okubo-product $X \ast Y \not= 0 $
  • the bLue 3-plane $\mathbb{P}(L_X) $ intersects the Red 3-plane $\mathbb{P}(R_Y) $ in a unique 2-plane if and only if the Okubo-product $X \ast Y = 0 $

That is, Right and Left Okubo-products determine the Red and bLue families of 3-planes on the 6-dimensional quadric as well as their intersections!

4 Comments

Connes & Consani go categorical

Published March 12, 2009 by lievenlb

Today, Alain Connes and Caterina Consani arXived their new paper Schemes over $ \mathbb{F}_1$ and zeta functions. It is a follow-up to their paper On the notion of geometry over $ \mathbb{F}_1$, which I’ve tried to explain in a series of posts starting here.

As Javier noted already last week when they updated their first paper, the main point of the first 25 pages of the new paper is to repace abelian groups by abelian monoids in the definition, making it more in tune with other approaches, most notably that of Anton Deitmar. The novelty, if you want, is that they package the two functors $\mathbf{rings} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} $ and $\mathbf{ab-monoid} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} $ into one functor $\mathbf{ring-monoid} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} $ by using the ‘glued category’ $\mathbf{ring-monoid} $ (an idea they attribute to Pierre Cartier).

In general, if you have two categories $\mathbf{cat} $ and $\mathbf{cat’} $ and a pair of adjoint functors between them, then one can form the glued-category $\mathbf{cat-cat’} $ by taking as its collection of objects the disjoint union of the objects of the two categories and by defining the hom-sets between two objects the hom-sets in either category (if both objects belong to the same category) or use the adjoint functors to define the new hom-set when they do not (the very definition of adjoint functors makes that this doesn’t depend on the choice).

Here, one uses the functor $\mathbf{ab-monoid} \rightarrow \mathbf{rings} $ assigning to a monoid $M $ its integral monoid-algebra $\mathbb{Z}[M] $, having as its adjoint the functor $\mathbf{rings} \rightarrow \mathbf{ab-monoid} $ forgetting the additive structure of the commutative ring.

In the second part of the paper, they first prove some nice results on zeta-functions of Noetherian $\mathbb{F}_1 $-schemes and extend them, somewhat surprisingly, to settings which do not (yet) fit into the $\mathbb{F}_1 $-framework, namely elliptic curves and the hypothetical $\mathbb{F}_1 $-curve $\overline{\mathbf{spec}(\mathbb{Z})} $.

One Comment

math2.0-setup : final comments

Published February 26, 2009 by lievenlb

Last time I promised to come back explaining how to set-up LaTeX-support, figuring I had to tell you about a few modifications I had to make in order to get Latexrender run on my mac…

A few google searches made it plain how out of touch I am on these matters (details below). But first, there was this comment to this series by Link Starbureiy :

“I took part in Gowers’ blog discussion. My input was to move things over to Google collaboration tools, like Google Knol, and perhaps Google Sites. However, those tools for large-scale collaboration may not be the best solution anymore. I like the NSN idea, but worry about it’s very long-term stability. Would you consider porting the project over to the Google App Engine so that it can be played with in the orkut sandbox (http://sandbox.orkut.com)?”

I thought I made it clear from the outset that I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life web-mastering a site such as NSN. All I wanted to show is that the technology is there free for the taking, and show that you do not have to be a wizard to get it running even on a mac…

I would really love it when some groups, or universities, on institutes, would set up something resembling this dedicated to a single arXiv-topic. Given our history, Antwerp University might be convinced to do this for math.RA but (a) I’m not going to maintain this on my own and (b) there may very well be a bandwidth problem if such a thing would become successful… (although, from past experiences and attempts I’ve made over the years, this is extremely unlikely for this target-group).

So please, if your group has some energy to spare, set-up your own math2.0-network, port it to Google Apps, Knol, Orkut or whatever, and I’d love to join and contribute to it.

As to LaTeX-support : this is trivial these days. First you need a working LaTeX-system on your virgin macbook. The best way is to download The MacTeX-2008 Distribution at work (it is a huge 1.19Gb download…). Next, install the fauxml-wordpress plugin (that is, download it to YourHome/Downloads and then drag the file faux-ml.php to the Library/WebServer/Documents/wp-content/plugins/ directory. Next, install likewise the WP-LateX plugin following the instructions, go to the configuring page and set the directory for latex and dvipng (if you follow my instructions they should be located at /usr/texbin/latex and /usr/texbin/dvipng), fill in the text color and background color you desire and clip your default latex-documentstyle/includepackages/newcommands section from your latest paper into the LaTeX Preamble window and believe me, you’re done!!!



One Comment

Ceci n’est pas un blog…

Published February 23, 2009 by lievenlb

“Lieven le Bruyn’s NEVERENDINGBOOKS isn’t really a blog at all…”

Vlorbik’s unintentional [smack in the face](http://vlorbik.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/kiss-joy-as-it-flies $ left me bewildered ever since.

There aren’t that many [mathematical blogs](http://www-irma.u-strasbg.fr/article817.html) around, and, sure enough, we all have a different temperament, and hence a distinct style. I have no definition of what a mathematical blog should (or should not) be.

All I can say is that I try to reconcile an introvert character with a very public medium, partly because I think it is important for mathematics to be www-visible, but mostly because I’ve enjoyed exploring web-possibilities ever since someone told me of the existence of a language called html.

I’m a [Bauhaus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus)-fan and hence like minimal wordpress-themes such as [Equilibrium](http://madebyon.com/equilibrium-wordpress-theme $. Perhaps this confuses some.

For this reason I’ve reinstalled the old-theme as default, and leave the reader to decide in the sidebar. This may not make this a blog yet, but it sure looks more like one…

As a one-time attempt to fit into the vast scenery of link-post-blogs, let’s try to increase the google visibility of some family-related sites (sorry, no math-links beyond) :

– The economic crisis is hitting hard at small companies such as my [sister’s-in-law](http://www.tuinkultuurlava.be) offering gardening-services.
– My god-child Tine is away for six months on a scholarship to Austria and blogging at [Tine’s adventures in Graz](http://www.tinesavontuuringraz.blogspot.com $.
– My daughter Gitte (aka here as PD1) is an [artist](http://www.gittte.be).
– My father, who will turn 79 next week, runs one of the most [popular blogs on skynet.be](http://zonnehart2008.skynetblogs.be $.

Leave a Comment