Tag: arxiv

nostalgia

Published May 4, 2005 by lievenlb

Unlike the
cooler people out there, I haven’t received my
_pre-ordered_ copy (via AppleStore) of Tiger yet. Partly my own fault
because I couldn’t resist the temptation to bundle up with a
personalized iPod Photo!
The good news is that it buys me more time to follow the
housecleaning tips. First, my idea was to make a CarbonCopyClooner–
image of my iBook and put it on the _iMac_ upstairs which I
rarely use these days, do a clean
Tiger install on the iBook and gradually copy over the essential
programs and files I need (and only those!). But reading the
macdev-article, I think it is better to keep my iBook running Panther
and experiment with Tiger on the redundant iMac. (Btw. unless you want
to have a copy of my Mac-installation there will be hardly a point
checking this blog the next couple of weeks as I intend to write down
all details of the Panther/Tiger switch here.)

Last week-end I
started a _Paper-rescue_ operation, that is, to find among the
multiple copies of books/papers/courses, the ones that contain all the
required material to re-TeX them and unfortunately my _archive_
is in a bad state. There is hardly a source-file left of a paper prior
to 1999 when I started putting all my papers on the arXiv.

On the other hand, I do
have saved most of my undergraduate courses. Most of them were still
using postscript-crap like _epsfig_ etc. so I had to convert all
the graphics to PDFs (merely using Preview ) and
modify the epsfig-command to _includegraphics_. So far, I
converted all my undergraduate _differential geometry_ courses
from 1998 to this year and made them available in a uniform
screen-friendly viewing format at TheLibrary/undergraduate.

There are two
ways to read the changes in these courses over the years. (1) as a shift
from _differential_ geometry to more _algebraic_ geometry
and (2) as a shift towards realism wrt.the level of our undegraduate
students. In 1998 I was still thinking
that I could teach them an easy way into Connes non-commutative standard
model but didn’t go further than the Lie group sections (maybe one day
I’ll rewrite this course as a graduate course when I ever get
reinterested in the Connes’ approach). In 1999 I had the illusion that
it might be a good idea to introduce manifolds-by-examples coming from
operads! In 2000 I gave in to the fact
that most of the students which had to follow this course were applied
mathematicians so perhaps it was a good idea to introduce them to
dynamical systems (quod non!). The 2001 course is probably the
most realistic one while still doing standard differential geometry. In
2002 I used the conifold
singularity and conifold transitions (deformations and blow-ups) as
motivation but it was clear that the students did have difficulties with
the blow-up part as they didn’t have enough experience in
_algebraic_ geometry. So the last two years I’m giving an
introduction to algebraic geometry culminating in blow-ups and some
non-commutative geometry.

Leave a Comment

GMD

Published April 14, 2005 by lievenlb

I’m always
extremely slow to pick up a trend (let alone a hype), in mathematics as
well as in real life. It took me over a year to know of the existence of
_blogs_ and to realize that they were a much easier way to
maintain a webpage than manually modifying HTML-pages. But, eventually I
sometimes get there, usually with the help of the mac-dev-center. So, once again,
I read their gettings things done with your mac article long after it was
posted and completely unaware of the Getting Things Done (or GTD) hype.

At first, it just
sounds as one of those boring managament-nonsense-peptalk things (and
probably that is precisely what it generically is). Or what do you think
about the following resume from Getting
started with ‘Getting things done’ :

identify all the
stuff in your life that isn√ït in the right place (close all open
loops)
get rid of the stuff that isn√ït yours or you don√ït
need right now
create a right place that you trust and that
supports your working style and values
put your stuff in the
right place, consistently
do your stuff in a way that honors
your time, your energy, and the context of any given moment
iterate and refactor mercilessly

But in fact there is
also some interesting material around at the 43 folders website which bring this
management-talk closer to home such as the How does a
nerd hack GTD? post.

Also of interest are his findings after
a year working with the GTD setup. These are contained in three posts :
A Year
of Getting Things Done: Part 1, The Good Stuff, followed by A Year of
Getting Things Done: Part 2, The Stuff I Wish I Were Better At to
end with A Year of
Getting Things Done: Part 3, The Future of GTD?. If these three
postings don’t get you intrigued, nothing else will.

So, is
there something like _GMD : Getting Mathematics Done_? Clearly, I
don’t mean getting theorems proved, that’s a thing of a few seconds of
inspiration and months to fill in the gaps. But, perhaps all this GTD
and the software mentioned can be of some help to manage the
everyday-workflow of mathematicians, such as checking the arXiv and the
web, maintaining an email-, pdf- and BiBTeX-database, drafting papers,
books and courses etc.

In the next few weeks I’ll try out some
of the tricks. Probably another way to state this is the question “which
Apps will survive Tiger?” Now that it is official that Tiger (that is, Mac
10.4 to non-apple eaters) will be released by the end of the month it is
time to rethink which of the tools I really like to keep and which is
just useless garbage I picked up along the road. For example, around
this time last year I had a Perl
phase and bought half a meter or so of O’Reilly Perl-books. And yes
I did write a few simple scripts, some useful such as my own arXiv RSS-feeds,
some not so useful as a web-spider I wrote to check on changes in the
list of hamepages of people working in non-commutative algebra and
geometry. A year later I realize I’ll never become a Perl Monk. So from now on I want to
make my computer-life as useful and easy as possible, relying on wizards
to provide me with cool software to use and help me enjoy mathematics
even more. I’ll keep you posted how my GMD-adventure goes.

Leave a Comment

seen this quiver?

Published March 25, 2005 by lievenlb

The above quiver on 10 vertices is not symmetric, but has the
interesting property that every vertex has three incoming and three
outgoing arrows. If you have ever seen this quiver in another context,
please drop me a line. My own interest for it is that it is the ‘one
quiver’ for a non-commutative compactification of $GL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. If
you like to know what I mean by this, you might consult the
Granada-notes which I hope to post over the weekend.

On a
different matter, if you want to know what all this hype on derived
categories and the classification project is about but got lost in the
pile of preprints, you might have a look at the Bourbaki talk by Raphael
Rouquier Categories
derivees et geometrie birationnelle posted today on the arXiv.

Leave a Comment

necklaces (again)

Published March 23, 2005 by lievenlb

I have
been posting before on the necklace Lie algebra : on Travis
Schedler's extension of the Lie algebra structure to a Lie bialgebra
and its deformation and more recently
in connection with Michel Van den Bergh's double Poisson paper.
Yesterday, Victor Ginzburg and Travis Schedler posted their paper Moyal quantization of
necklace Lie algebras on the arXiv in which they give a Moyal-type
construction of the Hopf algebra deformation of the necklace Lie
bialgebra found by Schedler last year.
It would be nice if
someone worked out a few examples of these constructions in full detail.
But as often in the case of (wild) quiver situation it is not clear what
an 'interesting' example might be. For the finite and tame case
we have a full classification by (extended) Dynkin diagrams so a natural
class of examples but it isn't clear how to find gems in the
complement.
One natural source of double quiver situations seems
to come from what I called the One Quiver of a
formally smooth algebra. This one quiver of group algebras of some
interesting arithemetical groups such as the modular group
$PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ and $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ were calculated before and
turned out to be consisting of one (resp. two) components which are the
double of the tame quiver $\tilde{A}_5 $.
To obtain the double of
a wild quiver situation loook at the group $GL_2(\mathbb{Z}) = D_4
\bigstar_{D_2} D_6 $. In a previous post
I thought to have calculated it, but lately I found that this was
incorrect. Even the version I computed last week still had some mistakes
as Raf
Bocklandt discovered. But as of yesterday we are pretty certain that
the one quiver for $GL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ consists of two components. One of
these is the double quiver of an interesting wild quiver

$\xymatrix{& \vtx{} \ar@{=}[rr] \ar@{=}[dd] & & \vtx{} \ar@{=}[dd]
\\ \vtx{} \ar@{=}[ur] \ar@{=}[rr] \ar@{=}[dd] & & \vtx{} \ar@{.}[ur]
\ar@{.}[dd] \ar@{=}[dr] \\ & \vtx{} \ar@{.}[rr] \ar@{=}[dr] & & \vtx{}
\\ \vtx{} \ar@{=}[rr] \ar@{.}[ur] & & \vtx{} \ar@{=}[ur]} $

where each double line indicates that there is an arrow in each
direction between the vertices. So, it is an interwoven pattern of one
big cycle of length 6 (reminiscent of the modular group case) with 4
cycles of length 5. Perhaps the associated necklace Lie (bi)algebra and
its deformation might be interesting to work out.
However, the
second component of the one quiver for $GL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ is _not_
symmetric.Maybe I will come back to the calculation of these quivers
later.

Leave a Comment

google scholar

Published November 20, 2004 by lievenlb

Yet another great Google service : Google Scholar. Just type in a name
(for example mine) and you will get a
list of all his/her publications which are listed on the net. A
printable version of the paper if possible, a reference if not. In the
first case it even lists all versions available on the net. But even in
the latter case it has an extremely useful link next to it “Cited
by somany” which gives all references to the paper Google can
find. Clearly, it also finds all papers posted on the arXiv but the
great additional value is that you no longer have to search departmental
or personal webpages yourself. If you want to find out more about this
service, read the about page.

Leave a Comment

reading backlog

Published November 8, 2004 by lievenlb

One of the things I like most about returning from a vacation is to
have an enormous pile of fresh reading : a week's worth of
newspapers, some regular mail and much more email (three quarters junk).
Also before getting into bed after the ride I like to browse through the
arXiv in search for interesting
papers.
This time, the major surprise of my initial survey came
from the newspapers. No, not Bush again, _that_ news was headline
even in France. On the other hand, I didn't hear a word about Theo Van
Gogh being shot and stabbed to death in Amsterdam. I'll come
back to this later.
I'd rather mention the two papers that
somehow stood out during my scan of this week on the arXiv. The first is
Framed quiver moduli,
cohomology, and quantum groups by Markus
Reineke. By the deframing trick, a framed quiver moduli problem is
reduced to an ordinary quiver moduli problem for a dimension vector for
which one of the entries is equal to one, hence in particular, an
indivisible dimension vector. Such quiver problems are far easier to
handle than the divisible ones where everything can at best be reduced
to the classical problem of classifying tuples of $n \\times n$ matrices
up to simultaneous conjugation. Markus deals with the case when the
quiver has no oriented cycles. An important examples of a framed moduli
quiver problem _with_ oriented cycles is the study of
Brauer-Severi varieties of smooth orders. Significant progress on the
description of the fibers in this case is achieved by Raf Bocklandt,
Stijn Symens and Geert Van de Weyer and will (hopefully) be posted soon.

The second paper is Moduli schemes of rank
one Azumaya modules by Norbert Hoffmann and Urich Stuhler which
brings back longforgotten memories of my Ph.D. thesis, 21 years
ago…

Leave a Comment

double Poisson algebras

Published October 26, 2004 by lievenlb

This morning,
Michel Van den Bergh posted an interesting paper on the arXiv
entitled Double
Poisson Algebras. His main motivation was the construction of a
natural Poisson structure on quotient varieties of representations of
deformed multiplicative preprojective algebras (introduced by
Crawley-Boevey and Shaw in Multiplicative
preprojective algebras, middle convolution and the Deligne-Simpson
problem) which he achieves by extending his double Poisson structure
on the path algebra of the quiver to the 'obvious' universal
localization, that is the one by inverting all $1+aa^{\star} $ for $a $ an
arrow and $a^{\star} $ its double (the one in the other direction).
For me the more interesting fact of this paper is that his double
bracket on the path algebra of a double quiver gives finer information
than the _necklace Lie algebra_ as defined in my (old) paper with Raf
Bocklandt Necklace
Lie algebras and noncommutative symplectic geometry. I will
certainly come back to this later when I have more energy but just to
wet your appetite let me point out that Michel calls a _double bracket_
on an algebra $A $ a bilinear map
$\{ \{ -,- \} \}~:~A \times A
\rightarrow A \otimes A $
which is a derivation in the _second_
argument (for the outer bimodulke structure on $A $) and satisfies
$\{ \{ a,b \} \} = – \{ \{ b,a \} \}^o $ with $~(u \otimes v)^0 = v
\otimes u $
Given such a double bracket one can define an ordinary
bracket (using standard Hopf-algebra notation)
$\{ a,b \} = \sum
\{ \{ a,b \} \}_{(1)} \{ \{ a,b \} \}_{(2)} $
which makes $A $ into
a Loday
algebra and induces a Lie algebra structure on $A/[A,A] $. He then
goes on to define such a double bracket on the path algebra of a double
quiver in such a way that the associated Lie structure above is the
necklace Lie algebra.

2 Comments

a cosmic Galois group

Published October 6, 2004 by lievenlb

Are
there hidden relations between mathematical and physical constants such
as

$\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 h c} \sim \frac{1}{137} $

or are these numerical relations mere accidents? A couple of years
ago, Pierre Cartier proposed in his paper A mad day’s work : from Grothendieck to Connes and
Kontsevich : the evolution of concepts of space and symmetry that
there are many reasons to believe in a cosmic Galois group acting on the
fundamental constants of physical theories and responsible for relations
such as the one above.

The Euler-Zagier numbers are infinite
sums over $n_1 > n_2 > ! > n_r \geq 1 $ of the form

$\zeta(k_1,\dots,k_r) = \sum n_1^{-k_1} \dots n_r^{-k_r} $

and there are polynomial relations with rational coefficients between
these such as the product relation

$\zeta(a)\zeta(b)=\zeta(a+b)+\zeta(a,b)+\zeta(b,a) $

It is
conjectured that all polynomial relations among Euler-Zagier numbers are
consequences of these product relations and similar explicitly known
formulas. A consequence of this conjecture would be that
$\zeta(3),\zeta(5),\dots $ are all trancendental!

Drinfeld
introduced the Grothendieck-Teichmuller group-scheme over $\mathbb{Q} $
whose Lie algebra $\mathfrak{grt}_1 $ is conjectured to be the free Lie
algebra on infinitely many generators which correspond in a natural way
to the numbers $\zeta(3),\zeta(5),\dots $. The Grothendieck-Teichmuller
group itself plays the role of the Galois group for the Euler-Zagier
numbers as it is conjectured to act by automorphisms on the graded
$\mathbb{Q} $-algebra whose degree $d $-term are the linear combinations
of the numbers $\zeta(k_1,\dots,k_r) $ with rational coefficients and
such that $k_1+\dots+k_r=d $.

The Grothendieck-Teichmuller
group also appears mysteriously in non-commutative geometry. For
example, the set of all Kontsevich deformation quantizations has a
symmetry group which Kontsevich conjectures to be isomorphic to the
Grothendieck-Teichmuller group. See section 4 of his paper Operads and motives in
deformation quantzation for more details.

It also appears
in the renormalization results of Alain Connes and Dirk Kreimer. A very
readable introduction to this is given by Alain Connes himself in Symmetries Galoisiennes
et renormalisation. Perhaps the latest news on Cartier’s dream of a
cosmic Galois group is the paper by Alain Connes and Matilde Marcolli posted
last month on the arXiv : Renormalization and
motivic Galois theory. A good web-page on all of this, including
references, can be found here.

Leave a Comment

cotangent bundles

Published September 9, 2004 by lievenlb

The
previous post in this sequence was [moduli spaces][1]. Why did we spend
time explaining the connection of the quiver
$Q~:~\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar[rr]^a & & \vtx{} \ar@(ur,dr)^x} $
to moduli spaces of vectorbundles on curves and moduli spaces of linear
control systems? At the start I said we would concentrate on its _double
quiver_ $\tilde{Q}~:~\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[rr]^a && \vtx{}
\ar@(u,ur)^x \ar@(d,dr)_{x^*} \ar@/^/[ll]^{a^*}} $ Clearly,
this already gives away the answer : if the path algebra $C Q$
determines a (non-commutative) manifold $M$, then the path algebra $C
\tilde{Q}$ determines the cotangent bundle of $M$. Recall that for a
commutative manifold $M$, the cotangent bundle is the vectorbundle
having at the point $p \in M$ as fiber the linear dual $(T_p M)^*$ of
the tangent space. So, why do we claim that $C \tilde{Q}$
corresponds to the cotangent bundle of $C Q$? Fix a dimension vector
$\alpha = (m,n)$ then the representation space
$\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q = M_{n \times m}(C) \oplus M_n(C)$ is just
an affine space so in its point the tangent space is the representation
space itself. To define its linear dual use the non-degeneracy of the
_trace pairings_ $M_{n \times m}(C) \times M_{m \times n}(C)
\rightarrow C~:~(A,B) \mapsto tr(AB)$ $M_n(C) \times M_n(C)
\rightarrow C~:~(C,D) \mapsto tr(CD)$ and therefore the linear dual
$\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q^* = M_{m \times n}(C) \oplus M_n(C)$ which is
the representation space $\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q^s$ of the quiver
$Q^s~:~\xymatrix{\vtx{} & & \vtx{} \ar[ll] \ar@(ur,dr)} $
and therefore we have that the cotangent bundle to the representation
space $\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q$ $T^* \mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q =
\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~\tilde{Q}$ Important for us will be that any
cotangent bundle has a natural _symplectic structure_. For a good
introduction to this see the [course notes][2] “Symplectic geometry and
quivers” by [Geert Van de Weyer][3]. As a consequence $C \tilde{Q}$
can be viewed as a non-commutative symplectic manifold with the
symplectic structure determined by the non-commutative 2-form
$\omega = da^* da + dx^* dx$ but before we can define all this we
will have to recall some facts on non-commutative differential forms.
Maybe [next time][4]. For the impatient : have a look at the paper by
Victor Ginzburg [Non-commutative Symplectic Geometry, Quiver varieties,
and Operads][5] or my paper with Raf Bocklandt [Necklace Lie algebras
and noncommutative symplectic geometry][6]. Now that we have a
cotangent bundle of $C Q$ is there also a _tangent bundle_ and does it
again correspond to a new quiver? Well yes, here it is
$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[rr]^{a+da} \ar@/_/[rr]_{a-da} & & \vtx{}
\ar@(u,ur)^{x+dx} \ar@(d,dr)_{x-dx}} $ and the labeling of the
arrows may help you to work through some sections of the Cuntz-Quillen
paper…

[1]: http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php?p=39
[2]: http://www.win.ua.ac.be/~gvdwey/lectures/symplectic_moment.pdf
[3]: http://www.win.ua.ac.be/~gvdwey/
[4]: http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php?p=41
[5]: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.QA/0005165
[6]: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/0010030

2 Comments

moduli spaces

Published September 9, 2004 by lievenlb

In [the previous part][1] we saw that moduli spaces of suitable representations
of the quiver $\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar[rr] & & \vtx{}
\ar@(ur,dr)} $ locally determine the moduli spaces of
vectorbundles over smooth projective curves. There is yet another
classical problem related to this quiver (which also illustrates the
idea of looking at families of moduli spaces rather than individual
ones) : _linear control systems_. Such a system with an $n$ dimensional
_state space_ and $m$ _controls_ (or inputs) is determined by the
following system of linear differential equations $ \frac{d x}{d t}
= A.x + B.u$ where $x(t) \in \mathbb{C}^n$ is the state of the system at
time $t$, $u(t) \in \mathbb{C}^m$ is the control-vector at time $t$ and $A \in
M_n(\mathbb{C}), B \in M_{n \times m}(\mathbb{C})$ are the matrices describing the
evolution of the system $\Sigma$ (after fixing bases in the state- and
control-space). That is, $\Sigma$ determines a representation of the
above quiver of dimension-vector $\alpha = (m,n)$
$\xymatrix{\vtx{m} \ar[rr]^B & & \vtx{n} \ar@(ur,dr)^A} $
Whereas in control theory (see for example Allen Tannenbaum\’s Lecture
Notes in Mathematics 845 for a mathematical introduction) it is natural
to call two systems equivalent when they only differ up to base change
in the state-space, one usually fixes the control knobs so it is not
natural to allow for base change in the control-space. So, at first
sight the control theoretic problem of classifying equivalent systems is
not the same problem as classifying representations of the quiver up to
isomorphism. Fortunately, there is an elegant way round this which is
called _deframing_. That is, for a fixed number $m$ of controls one
considers the quiver $Q_f$ having precisely $m$ arrows from the first to
the second vertex $\xymatrix{\vtx{1} \ar@/^4ex/[rr]^{B_1}
\ar@/^/[rr]^{B_2} \ar@/_3ex/[rr]_{B_m} & & \vtx{n} \ar@(ur,dr)^A} $
and the system $\Sigma$ does determine a representation of this new
quiver of dimension vector $\beta=(1,n)$ by assigning to the arrows the
different columns of the matrix $B$. Isomorphism classes of these
quiver-representations do correspond precisely to equivalence classes of
linear control systems. In [part 4][1] we introduced stable and
semi-stable representations. In this framed-quiver setting call a
representation $(A,B_1,\ldots,B_m)$ stable if there is no proper
subrepresentation of dimension vector $(1,p)$ for some $p \lneq n$.
Perhaps remarkable this algebraic notion has a counterpart in
system-theory : the systems corresponding to stable
quiver-representations are precisely the completely controllable
systems. That is, those which can be brought to any wanted state by
varying the controls. Hence, the moduli space
$M^s_{(1,n)}(Q_f,\theta)$ classifying stable representations is
exactly the moduli space of completely controllable linear systems
studied in control theory. For an excellent account of this moduli space
one can read the paper [Introduction to moduli spaces associated to
quivers by [Christof Geiss][2]. Fixing the number $m$ of controls but
varying the dimensions of teh state-spaces one would like to take all
the moduli spaces $ \bigsqcup_n~M^s_{(1,n)}(Q_f,\theta)$
together as they are all determined by the same formally smooth algebra
$\mathbb{C} Q_f$. This was done in a joint paper with [Markus Reineke][3] called
[Canonical systems and non-commutative geometry][4] in which we prove
that this disjoint union can be identified with the _infinite
Grassmannian_ $ \bigsqcup_n~M^s_{(1,n)}(Q_f,\theta) =
\mathbf{Gras}_m(\infty)$ of $m$-dimensional subspaces of an
infinite dimensional space. This result can be seen as a baby-version of
George Wilson\’s result relating the disjoint union of Calogero-Moser
spaces to the _adelic_ Grassmannian. But why do we stress this
particular quiver so much? This will be partly explained [next time][5].

[1]: http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php?p=350
[2]: http://www.matem.unam.mx/~christof/
[3]: http://wmaz1.math.uni-wuppertal.de/reineke/
[4]: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/0303304
[5]: http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php?p=352

Leave a Comment