Tag: Galois

Andre Weil on the Riemann hypothesis

Published October 15, 2008 by lievenlb

Don’t be fooled by introductory remarks to the effect that ‘the field with one element was conceived by Jacques Tits half a century ago, etc. etc.’

While this is a historic fact, and, Jacques Tits cannot be given enough credit for bringing a touch of surrealism into mathematics, but this is not the main drive for people getting into F_un, today.

There is a much deeper and older motivation behind most papers published recently on $\mathbb{F}_1 $. Few of the authors will be willing to let you in on the secret, though, because if they did, it would sound much too presumptuous…

So, let’s have it out into the open : F_un mathematics’ goal is no less than proving the Riemann Hypothesis.

And even then, authors hide behind a smoke screen. The ‘official’ explanation being “we would like to copy Weil’s proof of the Riemann hypothesis in the case of function fields of curves over finite fields, by considering spec(Z) as a ‘curve’ over an algebra ‘dessous’ Z namely $\mathbb{F}_1 $”. Alas, at this moment, none of the geometric approaches over the field with one element can make this stick.

Believe me for once, the main Jugendtraum of most authors is to get a grip on cyclotomy over $\mathbb{F}_1 $. It is no accident that Connes makes a dramatic pauze in his YouTubeVideo to let the viewer see this equation on the backboard

$\mathbb{F}_{1^n} \otimes_{\mathbb{F}_1} \mathbb{Z} = \mathbb{Z}[x]/(x^n-1) $

But, what is the basis of all this childlike enthusiasm? A somewhat concealed clue is given in the introduction of the Kapranov-Smirnov paper. They write :

“In [?] the affine line over $\mathbb{F}_1 $ was considered; it consists formally of 0 and all the roots of unity. Put slightly differently, this leads to the consideration of “algebraic extensions” of $\mathbb{F}_1 $. By analogy with genuine finite fields we would like to think that there is exactly one such extension of any given degree n, denote it by $\mathbb{F}_{1^n} $.

Of course, $\mathbb{F}_{1^n} $ does not exist in a rigorous sense, but we can think if a scheme $X $ contains n-th roots of unity, then it is defined over $\mathbb{F}_{1^n} $, so that there is a morphism

$p_X~:~X \rightarrow spec(\mathbb{F}_{1^n} $

The point of view that adjoining roots of unity is analogous to the extension of the base field goes back, at least to Weil (Lettre a Artin, Ouvres, vol 1) and Iwasawa…“

Okay, so rush down to your library, pick out the first of three volumes of Andre Weil’s collected works, look up his letter to Emil Artin written on July 10th 1942 (19 printed pages!), and head for the final section. Weil writes :

“Our proof of the Riemann hypothesis (in the function field case, red.) depended upon the extension of the function-fields by roots of unity, i.e. by constants; the way in which the Galois group of such extensions operates on the classes of divisors in the original field and its extensions gives a linear operator, the characteristic roots (i.e. the eigenvalues) of which are the roots of the zeta-function.

On a number field, the nearest we can get to this is by adjunction of $l^n $-th roots of unity, $l $ being fixed; the Galois group of this infinite extension is cyclic, and defines a linear operator on the projective limit of the (absolute) class groups of those successive finite extensions; this should have something to do with the roots of the zeta-function of the field. However, our extensions are ramified (but only at a finite number of places, viz. the prime divisors of $l $). Thus a preliminary study of similar problems in function-fields might enable one to guess what will happen in number-fields.”

A few years later, in 1947, he makes this a bit more explicit in his marvelous essay “L’avenir des mathematiques” (The future of mathematics). Weil is still in shell-shock after the events of the second WW, and writes in beautiful archaic French sentences lasting forever :

“L’hypothèse de Riemann, après qu’on eu perdu l’espoir de la démontrer par les méthodes de la théorie des fonctions, nous apparaît aujourd’hui sous un jour nouveau, qui la montre inséparable de la conjecture d’Artin sur les fonctions L, ces deux problèmes étant deux aspects d’une même question arithmético-algébrique, où l’étude simultanée de toutes les extensions cyclotomiques d’un corps de nombres donné jouera sans doute le rôle décisif.

L’arithmétique gausienne gravitait autour de la loi de réciprocité quadratique; nous savons maintenant que celle-ci n’est qu’un premier example, ou pour mieux dire le paradigme, des lois dites “du corps de classe”, qui gouvernent les extensions abéliennes des corps de nobres algébriques; nous savons formuler ces lois de manière à leur donner l’aspect d’un ensemble cohérent; mais, si plaisante à l’œil que soit cette façade, nous ne savons si elle ne masque pas des symmétries plus cachées.

Les automorphismes induits sur les groupes de classes par les automorphismes du corps, les propriétés des restes de normes dans les cas non cycliques, le passage à la limite (inductive ou projective) quand on remplace le corps de base par des extensions, par example cyclotomiques, de degré indéfiniment croissant, sont autant de questions sur lesquelles notre ignorance est à peu près complète, et dont l’étude contient peut-être la clef de l’hypothese de Riemann; étroitement liée à celles-ci est l’étude du conducteur d’Artin, et en particulier, dans le cas local, la recherche de la représentation dont la trace s’exprime au moyen des caractères simples avec des coefficients égaux aux exposants de leurs conducteurs.

Ce sont là quelques-unes des directions qu’on peut et qu’on doit songer à suivre afin de pénétrer dans le mystère des extensions non abéliennes; il n’est pas impossible que nous touchions là à des principes d’une fécondité extraordinaire, et que le premier pas décisif une fois fait dans cette voie doive nous ouvrir l’accès à de vastes domaines dont nous soupçonnons à peine l’existence; car jusqu’ici, pour amples que soient nos généralisations des résultats de Gauss, on ne peut dire que nus les ayons vraiment dépassés.”

Leave a Comment

noncommutative F_un geometry (1)

Published October 13, 2008 by lievenlb

It is perhaps surprising that Alain Connes and Katia Consani, two icons of noncommutative geometry, restrict themselves to define commutative algebraic geometry over $\mathbb{F}_1 $, the field with one element.

My guess of why they stop there is as good as anyone’s. Perhaps they felt that there is already enough noncommutativity in Soule’s gadget-approach (the algebra $\mathcal{A}_X $ as in this post may very well be noncommutative). Perhaps they were only interested in the Bost-Connes system which can be entirely encoded in their commutative $\mathbb{F}_1 $-geometry. Perhaps they felt unsure as to what the noncommutative scheme of an affine noncommutative algebra might be. Perhaps …

Remains the fact that their approach screams for a noncommutative extension. Their basic object is a covariant functor

$N~:~\mathbf{abelian} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} \qquad A \mapsto N(A) $

from finite abelian groups to sets, together with additional data to the effect that there is a unique minimal integral scheme associated to $N $. In a series of posts on the Connes-Consani paper (starting here) I took some care of getting rid of all scheme-lingo and rephrasing everything entirely into algebras. But then, this set-up can be extended verbatim to noncommuative $\mathbb{F}_1 $-geometry, which should start from a covariant functor

$N~:~\mathbf{groups} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} $

from all finite groups to sets. Let’s recall quickly what the additional info should be making this functor a noncommutative (affine) F_un scheme :

There should be a finitely generated $\mathbb{C} $-algebra $R $ together with a natural transformation (the ‘evaluation’)

$e~:~N \rightarrow \mathbf{maxi}(R) \qquad N(G) \mapsto Hom_{\mathbb{C}-alg}(R, \mathbb{C} G) $

(both $R $ and the group-algebra $\mathbb{C} G $ may be noncommutative). The pair $(N, \mathbf{maxi}(R)) $ is then called a gadget and there is an obvious notion of ‘morphism’ between gadgets.

The crucial extra ingredient is an affine $\mathbb{Z} $-algebra (possibly noncommutative) $S $
such that $N $ is a subfunctor of $\mathbf{mini}(S)~:~G \mapsto Hom_{\mathbb{Z}-alg}(S,\mathbb{Z} G) $ together with the following universal property :

any affine $\mathbb{Z} $-algebra $T $ having a gadget-morphism $~(N,\mathbf{maxi}(R)) \rightarrow (\mathbf{mini}(T),\mathbf{maxi}(T \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C})) $ comes from a $\mathbb{Z} $-algebra morphism $T \rightarrow S $. (If this sounds too cryptic for you, please read the series on C-C mentioned before).

So, there is no problem in defining noncommutative affine F_un-schemes. However, as with any generalization, this only makes sense provided (a) we get something new and (b) we have interesting examples, not covered by the restricted theory.

At first sight we do not get something new as in the only example we did in the C-C-series (the forgetful functor) it is easy to prove (using the same proof as given in this post) that the forgetful-functor $\mathbf{groups} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} $ still has as its integral form the integral torus $\mathbb{Z}[x,x^{-1}] $. However, both theories quickly diverge beyond this example.

For example, consider the functor

$\mathbf{groups} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} \qquad G \mapsto G \times G $

Then, if we restrict to abelian finite groups $\mathbf{abelian} $ it is easy to see (again by a similar argument) that the two-dimensional integer torus $\mathbb{Z}[x,y,x^{-1},y^{-1}] $ is the correct integral form. However, this algebra cannot be the correct form for the functor on the category of all finite groups as any $\mathbb{Z} $-algebra map $\phi~:~\mathbb{Z}[x,y,x^{-1},y^{-1}] \rightarrow \mathbb{Z} G $ determines (and is determined by) a pair of commuting units in $\mathbb{Z} G $, so the above functor can not be a subfunctor if we allow non-Abelian groups.

But then, perhaps there isn’t a minimal integral $\mathbb{Z} $-form for this functor? Well, yes there is. Take the free group in two letters (that is, all words in noncommuting $x,y,x^{-1} $ and $y^{-1} $ satisfying only the trivial cancellation laws between a letter and its inverse), then the corresponding integral group-algebra $\mathbb{Z} \mathcal{F}_2 $ does the trick.

Again, the proof-strategy is the same. Given a gadget-morphism we have an algebra map $f~:~T \mapsto \mathbb{C} \mathcal{F}_2 $ and we have to show, using the universal property that the image of $T $ is contained in the integral group-algebra $\mathbb{Z} \mathcal{F}_2 $. Take a generator
$z $ of $T $ then the degree of the image $f(z) $ is bounded say by $d $ and we can always find a subgroup $H \subset \mathcal{F}_2 $ such that $\mathcal{F}_2/H $ is a fnite group and the quotient map $\mathbb{C} \mathcal{F}_2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \mathcal{F}_2/H $ is injective on the subspace spanned by all words of degree strictly less than $d+1 $. Then, the usual diagram-chase finishes the proof.

What makes this work is that the free group $\mathcal{F}_2 $ has ‘enough’ subgroups of finite index, a property it shares with many interesting discrete groups. Whence the blurb-message :

if the integers $\mathbb{Z} $ see a discrete group $\Gamma $, then the field $\mathbb{F}_1 $ sees its profinite completion $\hat{\Gamma} = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~\Gamma/ H $

So, yes, we get something new by extending the Connes-Consani approach to the noncommutative world, but do we have interesting examples? As “interesting” is a subjective qualification, we’d better invoke the authority-argument.

Alexander Grothendieck (sitting on the right, manifestly not disputing a vacant chair with Jean-Pierre Serre, drinking on the left (a marvelous picture taken by F. Hirzebruch in 1958)) was pushing the idea that profinite completions of arithmetical groups were useful in the study of the absolute Galois group $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}) $, via his theory of dessins d’enfants (children;s drawings).

In a previous life, I’ve written a series of posts on dessins d’enfants, so I’ll restrict here to the basics. A smooth projective $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $-curve $X $ has a Belyi-map $X \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}} $ ramified only in three points ${ 0,1,\infty } $. The “drawing” corresponding to $X $ is a bipartite graph, drawn on the Riemann surface $X_{\mathbb{C}} $ obtained by lifting the unit interval $[0,1] $ to $X $. As the absolute Galois group acts on all such curves (and hence on their corresponding drawings), the action of it on these dessins d’enfants may give us a way into the multiple mysteries of the absolute Galois group.

In his “Esquisse d’un programme” (Sketch of a program if you prefer to read it in English) he writes :

“C’est ainsi que mon attention s’est portée vers ce que j’ai appelé depuis la “géométrie algêbrique anabélienne”, dont le point de départ est justement une étude (pour le moment limitée à la caractéristique zéro) de l’action de groupe de Galois “absolus” (notamment les groupes $Gal(\overline{K}/K) $, ou $K $ est une extension de type fini du corps premier) sur des groupes fondamentaux géométriques (profinis) de variétés algébriques (définies sur $K $), et plus particulièrement (rompant avec une tradition bien enracinée) des groupes fondamentaux qui sont trés éloignés des groupes abéliens (et que pour cette raison je nomme “anabéliens”). Parmi ces groupes, et trés proche du groupe $\hat{\pi}_{0,3} $, il y a le compactifié profini du groupe modulaire $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $, dont le quotient par le centre $\pm 1 $ contient le précédent comme sous-groupe de congruence mod 2, et peut s’interpréter d’ailleurs comme groupe “cartographique” orienté, savoir celui qui classifie les cartes orientées triangulées (i.e. celles dont les faces des triangles ou des monogones).”

and a bit further, he writes :

“L’élément de structure de $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ qui me fascine avant tout, est bien sur l’action extérieure du groupe de Galois $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}) $ sur le compactifié profini. Par le théorème de Bielyi, prenant les compactifiés profinis de sous-groupes d’indice fini de $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $, et l’action extérieure induite (quitte à passer également à un sous-groupe overt de $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}},\mathbb{Q}) $), on trouve essentiellement les groupes fondamentaux de toutes les courbes algébriques définis sur des corps de nombres $K $, et l’action extérieure de $Gal(\overline{K}/K) $ dessus.”

So, is there a noncommutative affine variety over $\mathbb{F}_1 $ of which the unique minimal integral model is the integral group algebra of the modular group $\mathbb{Z} \Gamma $ (with $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $? Yes, here it is

$N_{\Gamma}~:~\mathbf{groups} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} \qquad G \mapsto G_2 \times G_3 $

where $G_n $ is the set of all elements of order $n $ in $G $. The reason behind this is that the modular group is the free group product $C_2 \ast C_3 $.

Fine, you may say, but all this is just algebra. Where is the noncommutative complex variety or the noncommutative integral scheme in all this? Well, we can introduce them too but as this post is already 1300 words long, I’ll better leave this for another time. In case you cannot stop thinking about it, here’s the short answer.

The complex noncommutative variety has as its ‘points’ all finite dimensional simple complex representations of the modular group, and the ‘points’ of the noncommutative $\mathbb{F}_1 $-scheme are exactly the (modular) dessins d’enfants…

Leave a Comment

the buckyball curve

Published July 2, 2008 by lievenlb

We are after the geometric trinity corresponding to the trinity of exceptional Galois groups

The surfaces on the right have the corresponding group on the left as their group of automorphisms. But, there is a lot more group-theoretic info hidden in the geometry. Before we sketch the $L_2(11) $ case, let us recall the simpler situation of $L_2(7) $.

There are some excellent web-page on the Klein quartic and it would be too hard to try to improve on them, so we refer to John Baez’ page and Greg Egan’s page for more details.

The Klein quartic is the degree 4 projective plane curve defined by the equation $x^3y+y^3z+z^3x=0 $. It can be tiled with a set of 24 regular heptagons, or alternatively with a set of 56 equilateral triangles and these two tilings are dual to each other

In the triangular tiling, there are 56 triangles, 84 edges and 24 vertices. The 56 triangles come in 7 bunches of 8 each and we give the 7 bunches of triangles each a different color as in the pictures below made by Greg Egan. Observe that in the hyperbolic tiling all triangles look alike, but in the picture on the left most of them get warped as we try to embed the quartic in 3-space (which is impossible to do properly). The non-warped triangles (the red ones) come into pairs, the top and bottom triangles of a triangular prism, one prism at each of the four ‘vertices’ of a tetrahedron.

The automorphism group $L_2(7) $ acts on these triangles as $S_4 $ acts on the triangles in a truncated cube.

The buckyball construction from a conjugacy class of order 11 elements from $L_2(11) $ recalled last time, has an analogon $L_2(7) $, leading to the truncated cube.

In $L_2(7) $ there are two conjugacy classes of subgroups isomorphic to $S_4 $ (the rotation-symmetry group of the cube) as well as two conjugacy classes of order 7 elements, each consisting of precisely 24 elements, say C and D. The normalizer subgroup of C has order 21, so there is a cyclic group of order 3 acting non-trivially on the conjugacy class C with 8 orbits consisting of three elements each. These are the eight triangles of the truncated cube identified above as the red triangles.

Shifting perspective, we can repeat this for each of the seven different colors. That is, we have seven truncated cubes in the Klein quartic. On each of them a copy of $S_4 $ acts and these subgroups form one of the two conjugacy classes of $S_4 $ in the group $L_2(7) $. The colors of the triangles of these seven truncated cubes are indicated by bullets in the picture above on the right. The other conjugacy class of $S_4 $’s act on ‘truncated anti-cubes’ which also come in seven bunches of which the color is indicated by a square in that picture.

If you spend enough time on it you will see that each (truncated) cube is completely disjoint from precisely 3 (truncated) anti-cubes. This reminds us of the Fano-plane (picture on the left) : it has 7 points (our seven truncated cubes), 7 lines (the truncated anti-cubes) and the incidence relation of points and lines corresponds to the disjointness of (truncated) cubes and anti-cubes! This is the geometric interpretation of the group-theoretic realization that $L_2(7) \simeq PGL_3(\mathbb{F}_2) $ is the isomorphism group of the projective plane over the finite field $\mathbb{F}_2 $ on two elements, that is, the Fano plane. The colors of the picture on the left indicate the colors of cubes (points) and anti-cubes (lines) consistent with Egan’s picture above.

Further, the 24 vertices correspond to the 24 cusps of the modular group $\Gamma(7) $. Recall that a modular interpretation of the Klein quartic is as $\mathbb{H}/\Gamma(7) $ where $\mathbb{H} $ is the upper half-plane on which the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ acts via Moebius transformations, that is, to a 2×2 matrix corresponds the transformation

[tex]\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{bmatrix}[/tex] <----> $ z \mapsto \frac{az+b}{cz+d} $

Okay, now let’s briefly sketch the exciting results found by Pablo Martin and David Singerman in the paper From biplanes to the Klein quartic and the buckyball, extending the above to the group $L_2(11) $.

There is one important modification to be made. Recall that the Cayley-graph to get the truncated cube comes from taking as generators of the group $S_4 $ the set ${ (3,4),(1,2,3) } $, that is, an order two and an order three element, defining an epimorphism from the modular group $\Gamma= C_2 \ast C_3 \rightarrow S_4 $.

We have also seen that in order to get the buckyball as a Cayley-graph for $A_5 $ we need to take the generating set ${ (2,3)(4,5),(1,2,3,4,5) } $, so a degree two and a degree five element.

Hence, if we want to have a corresponding Riemann surface we’d better not start from the action of the modular group on the upper half-plane, but rather the action via Moebius transformations of the
Hecke group

$H^5 \simeq C_2 \ast C_5 = \langle z \mapsto -\frac{1}{z}, z \mapsto z+ \phi \rangle $

where $\phi = \frac{1 + \sqrt{5}}{2} $ is the golden ratio.

But then, there is an epimorphism $H^5 \rightarrow L_2(11) $ (as this group is generated by one element of degree 2 and one of degree 5) and let $\Lambda $ denote its kernel. Observe that $\Lambda $ is the analogon of the modular subgroup $\Gamma(7) $ used above to define the Klein quartic.

Hence, Martin and Singerman define the buckyball curve as the modular quotient $X=\mathbb{H}/\Lambda $ which is a Riemann surface of genus 70.

The terminlogy is motivated by the fact that, precisely as we got 7 truncated cubes in the Klein quartic, we now get 11 truncated icosahedra (that is, buckyballs) in $X $. The 11 coming, analogous to the Klein case, from thefact that there are precisely two conjugacy classes of subgroups of $L_2(11) $ isomorphic to $A_5 $, each class containing precisely eleven elements!
The 60 vertices of the buckyball again correspond to the fact that there are 60 cusps in this case.

So, what is the analogon of the Fano plane in this case? Well, observe that the Fano-plane is a biplane of order two. That is, if we take as ‘points’ the points of the Fano plane and as ‘lines’ the complements of lines in the Fano plane then this defines a biplane structure. This means that any two distinct ‘points’ are contained in two distinct ‘lines’ and that two distinct ‘lines’ intersect in two distinct ‘points’. A biplane is said to be of order k is each ‘line’ consist of k-2 ‘points’. As the complement of a line in the Fano plane consists of 4 points, the Fano plane is therefore a biplane of order 2. The intersection pattern of cubes and anti-cubes in the Klein quartic is this biplane structure on the Fano plane.

In a similar way, Martin and Singerman show that the two conjugacy classes of subgroups isomorphic to $A_5 $ in $L_2(11) $, each containing exactly 11 elements, correspond to 11 embedded buckyballs (and 11 anti-buckyballs) in the buckyball-curve $X $ and that the intersection relations among them describe the combinatorial structure of a biplane of order three if we view the 11 buckys as ‘points’ and the anti-buckys as ‘lines’.

That is, the buckyball curve is a perfect geometric counterpart of the Klein quartic for the two trinities

At the Arcadian Functor, Kea also has a post on this in which she conjectures that the Kac-Moody algebra of E11 may be related to the buckyball curve.

References :

David Singerman, “Klein’s Riemann surface of genus 3 and regular embeddings of finite projective planes” Bull. London Math. Soc. 18 (1986) 364-370.

Pablo Martin and David Singerman, “From biplanes to the Klein quartic and the Buckyball” (note that this is a preliminary version, please contact David Singerman for the latest version).

5 Comments

Klein’s dessins d’enfant and the buckyball

Published June 30, 2008 by lievenlb

We saw that the icosahedron can be constructed from the alternating group $A_5 $ by considering the elements of a conjugacy class of order 5 elements as the vertices and edges between two vertices if their product is still in the conjugacy class.

This description is so nice that one would like to have a similar construction for the buckyball. But, the buckyball has 60 vertices, so they surely cannot correspond to the elements of a conjugacy class of $A_5 $. But, perhaps there is a larger group, somewhat naturally containing $A_5 $, having a conjugacy class of 60 elements?

This is precisely the statement contained in Galois’ last letter. He showed that 11 is the largest prime p such that the group $L_2(p)=PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_p) $ has a (transitive) permutation presentation on p elements. For, p=11 the group $L_2(11) $ is of order 660, so it permuting 11 elements means that this set must be of the form $X=L_2(11)/A $ with $A \subset L_2(11) $ a subgroup of 60 elements… and it turns out that $A \simeq A_5 $…

Actually there are TWO conjugacy classes of subgroups isomorphic to $A_5 $ in $L_2(11) $ and we have already seen one description of these using the biplane geometry (one class is the stabilizer subgroup of a ‘line’, the other the stabilizer subgroup of a point).

Here, we will give yet another description of these two classes of $A_5 $ in $L_2(11) $, showing among other things that the theory of dessins d’enfant predates Grothendieck by 100 years.

In the very same paper containing the first depiction of the Dedekind tessellation, Klein found that there should be a degree 11 cover $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} $ with monodromy group $L_2(11) $, ramified only in the three points ${ 0,1,\infty } $ such that there is just one point lying over $\infty $, seven over 1 of which four points where two sheets come together and finally 5 points lying over 0 of which three where three sheets come together. In 1879 he wanted to determine this cover explicitly in the paper “Ueber die Transformationen elfter Ordnung der elliptischen Funktionen” (Math. Annalen) by describing all Riemann surfaces with this ramification data and pick out those with the correct monodromy group.

He manages to do so by associating to all these covers their ‘dessins d’enfants’ (which he calls Linienzuges), that is the pre-image of the interval [0,1] in which he marks the preimages of 0 by a bullet and those of 1 by a +, such as in the innermost darker graph on the right above. He even has these two wonderful pictures explaining how the dessin determines how the 11 sheets fit together. (More examples of dessins and the correspondences of sheets were drawn in the 1878 paper.)

The ramification data translates to the following statements about the Linienzuge : (a) it must be a tree ($\infty $ has one preimage), (b) there are exactly 11 (half)edges (the degree of the cover),
(c) there are 7 +-vertices and 5 o-vertices (preimages of 0 and 1) and (d) there are 3 trivalent o-vertices and 4 bivalent +-vertices (the sheet-information).

Klein finds that there are exactly 10 such dessins and lists them in his Fig. 2 (left). Then, he claims that one the two dessins of type I give the correct monodromy group. Recall that the monodromy group is found by giving each of the half-edges a number from 1 to 11 and looking at the permutation $\tau $ of order two pairing the half-edges adjacent to a +-vertex and the order three permutation $\sigma $ listing the half-edges by cycling counter-clockwise around a o-vertex. The monodromy group is the group generated by these two elements.

Fpr example, if we label the type V-dessin by the numbers of the white regions bordering the half-edges (as in the picture Fig. 3 on the right above) we get
$\sigma = (7,10,9)(5,11,6)(1,4,2) $ and $\tau=(8,9)(7,11)(1,5)(3,4) $.

Nowadays, it is a matter of a few seconds to determine the monodromy group using GAP and we verify that this group is $A_{11} $.

Of course, Klein didn’t have GAP at his disposal, so he had to rule out all these cases by hand.

gap> g:=Group((7,10,9)(5,11,6)(1,4,2),(8,9)(7,11)(1,5)(3,4));
Group([ (1,4,2)(5,11,6)(7,10,9), (1,5)(3,4)(7,11)(8,9) ])
gap> Size(g);
19958400
gap> IsSimpleGroup(g);
true

Klein used the fact that $L_2(11) $ only has elements of orders 1,2,3,5,6 and 11. So, in each of the remaining cases he had to find an element of a different order. For example, in type V he verified that the element $\tau.(\sigma.\tau)^3 $ is equal to the permutation (1,8)(2,10,11,9,6,4,5)(3,7) and consequently is of order 14.

Perhaps Klein knew this but GAP tells us that the monodromy group of all the remaining 8 cases is isomorphic to the alternating group $A_{11} $ and in the two type I cases is indeed $L_2(11) $. Anyway, the two dessins of type I correspond to the two conjugacy classes of subgroups $A_5 $ in the group $L_2(11) $.

But, back to the buckyball! The upshot of all this is that we have the group $L_2(11) $ containing two classes of subgroups isomorphic to $A_5 $ and the larger group $L_2(11) $ does indeed have two conjugacy classes of order 11 elements containing exactly 60 elements (compare this to the two conjugacy classes of order 5 elements in $A_5 $ in the icosahedral construction). Can we construct the buckyball out of such a conjugacy class?

To start, we can identify the 12 pentagons of the buckyball from a conjugacy class C of order 11 elements. If $x \in C $, then so do $x^3,x^4,x^5 $ and $x^9 $, whereas the powers ${ x^2,x^6,x^7,x^8,x^{10} } $ belong to the other conjugacy class. Hence, we can divide our 60 elements in 12 subsets of 5 elements and taking an element x in each of these, the vertices of a pentagon correspond (in order) to $~(x,x^3,x^9,x^5,x^4) $.

Group-theoretically this follows from the fact that the factorgroup of the normalizer of x modulo the centralizer of x is cyclic of order 5 and this group acts naturally on the conjugacy class of x with orbits of size 5.

Finding out how these pentagons fit together using hexagons is a lot subtler… and in The graph of the truncated icosahedron and the last letter of Galois Bertram Kostant shows how to do this.

Fix a subgroup isomorphic to $A_5 $ and let D be the set of all its order 2 elements (recall that they form a full conjugacy class in this $A_5 $ and that there are precisely 15 of them). Now, the startling observation made by Kostant is that for our order 11 element $x $ in C there is a unique element $a \in D $ such that the commutator$~b=[x,a]=x^{-1}a^{-1}xa $ belongs again to D. The unique hexagonal side having vertex x connects it to the element $b.x $which belongs again to C as $b.x=(ax)^{-1}.x.(ax) $.

Concluding, if C is a conjugacy class of order 11 elements in $L_2(11) $, then its 60 elements can be viewed as corresponding to the vertices of the buckyball. Any element $x \in C $ is connected by two pentagonal sides to the elements $x^{3} $ and $x^4 $ and one hexagonal side connecting it to $\tau x = b.x $.

Leave a Comment

the buckyball symmetries

Published June 27, 2008 by lievenlb

The buckyball is without doubt the hottest mahematical object at the moment (at least in Europe). Recall that the buckyball (middle) is a mixed form of two Platonic solids

the Icosahedron on the left and the Dodecahedron on the right.

For those of you who don’t know anything about football, it is that other ball-game, best described via a quote from the English player Gary Lineker

“Football is a game for 22 people that run around, play the ball, and one referee who makes a slew of mistakes, and in the end Germany always wins.”

We still have a few days left hoping for a better ending… Let’s do some bucky-maths : what is the rotation symmetry group of the buckyball?

For starters, dodeca- and icosahedron are dual solids, meaning that if you take the center of every face of a dodecahedron and connect these points by edges when the corresponding faces share an edge, you’ll end up with the icosahedron (and conversely). Therefore, both solids (as well as their mixture, the buckyball) will have the same group of rotational symmetries. Can we at least determine the number of these symmetries?

Take the dodecahedron and fix a face. It is easy to find a rotation taking this face to anyone of its five adjacent faces. In group-slang : the rotation automorphism group acts transitively on the 12 faces of the dodecohedron. Now, how many of them fix a given face? These can only be rotations with axis through the center of the face and there are exactly 5 of them preserving the pentagonal face. So, in all we have $12 \times 5 = 60 $ rotations preserving any of the three solids above. By composing two of its elements, we get another rotational symmetry, so they form a group and we would like to determine what that group is.

There is one group that springs to mind $A_5 $, the subgroup of all even permutations on 5 elements. In general, the alternating group has half as many elements as the full permutation group $S_n $, that is $\frac{1}{2} n! $ (for multiplying with the involution (1,2) gives a bijection between even and odd permutations). So, for $A_5 $ we get 60 elements and we can list them :

the trivial permutation$~() $, being the identity.
permutations of order two with cycle-decompostion $~(i_1,i_2)(i_3,i_4) $, and there are exactly 15 of them around when all numbers are between 1 and 5.
permutations of order three with cycle-form $~(i_1,i_2,i_3) $ of which there are exactly 20.
permutations of order 5 which have to form one full cycle $~(i_1,i_2,i_3,i_4,i_5) $. There are 24 of those.

Can we at least view these sets of elements as rotations of the buckyball? Well, a dodecahedron has 12 pentagobal faces. So there are 4 nontrivial rotations of order 5 for every 2 opposite faces and hence the dodecaheder (and therefore also the buckyball) has indeed 6×4=24 order 5 rotational symmetries.

The icosahedron has twenty triangles as faces, so any of the 10 pairs of opposite faces is responsible for two non-trivial rotations of order three, giving us 10×2=20 order 3 rotational symmetries of the buckyball.

The order two elements are slightly harder to see. The icosahedron has 30 edges and there is a plane going through each of the 15 pairs of opposite edges splitting the icosahedron in two. Hence rotating to interchange these two edges gives one rotational symmetry of order 2 for each of the 15 pairs.

And as 24+20+15+1(identity) = 60 we have found all the rotational symmetries and we see that they pair up nicely with the elements of $A_5 $. But do they form isomorphic groups? In other words, can the buckyball see the 5 in the group $A_5 $.

In a previous post I’ve shown that one way to see this 5 is as the number of inscribed cubes in the dodecahedron. But, there is another way to see the five based on the order 2 elements described before.

If you look at pairs of opposite edges of the icosahedron you will find that they really come in triples such that the planes determined by each pair are mutually orthogonal (it is best to feel this on ac actual icosahedron). Hence there are 15/3 = 5 such triples of mutually orthogonal symmetry planes of the icosahedron and of course any rotation permutes these triples. It takes a bit of more work to really check that this action is indeed the natural permutation action of $A_5 $ on 5 elements.

Having convinced ourselves that the group of rotations of the buckyball is indeed the alternating group $A_5 $, we can reverse the problem : can the alternating group $A_5 $ see the buckyball???

Well, for starters, it can ‘see’ the icosahedron in a truly amazing way. Look at the conjugacy classes of $A_5 $. We all know that in the full symmetric group $S_n $ elements belong to the same conjugacy class if and only if they have the same cycle decomposition and this is proved using the fact that the conjugation f a cycle $~(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_k) $ under a permutation $\sigma \in S_n $ is equal to the cycle $~(\sigma(i_1),\sigma(i_2),\ldots,\sigma(i_k)) $ (and this gives us also the candidate needed to conjugate two partitions into each other).

Using this trick it is easy to see that all the 15 order 2 elements of $A_5 $ form one conjugacy class, as do the 20 order 3 elements. However, the 24 order 5 elements split up in two conjugacy classes of 12 elements as the permutation needed to conjugate $~(1,2,3,4,5) $ to $~(1,2,3,5,4) $ is $~(4,5) $ but this is not an element of $A_5 $.

Okay, now take one of these two conjugacy classes of order 5 elements, say that of $~(1,2,3,4,5) $. It consists of 12 elements, 12 being also the number of vertices of the icosahedron. So, is there a way to identify the elements in the conjugacy class to the vertices in such a way that we can describe the edges also in terms of group-computations in $A_5 $?

Surprisingly, this is indeed the case as is demonstrated in a marvelous paper by Kostant “The graph of the truncated icosahedron and the last letter of Galois”.

Two elements $a,b $ in the conjugacy class C share an edge if and only if their product $a.b \in A_5 $ still belongs to the conjugacy class C!

So, for example $~(1,2,3,4,5).(2,1,4,3,5) = (2,5,4) $ so there is no edge between these elements, but on the other hand $~(1,2,3,4,5).(5,3,4,1,2)=(1,5,2,4,3) $ so there is an edge between these! It is no coincidence that $~(5,3,4,1,2)=(2,1,4,3,5)^{-1} $ as inverse elements correspond in the bijection to opposite vertices and for any pair of non-opposite vertices of an icosahedron it is true that either they are neighbors or any one of them is the neighbor of the opposite vertex of the other element.

If we take $u=(1,2,3,4,5) $ and $v=(5,3,4,1,2) $ (or any two elements of the conjugacy class such that u.v is again in the conjugacy class), then one can describe all the vertices of the icosahedron group-theoretically as follows

Isn’t that nice? Well yes, you may say, but that is just the icosahedron. Can the group $A_5 $ also see the buckyball?

Well, let’s try a similar strategy : the buckyball has 60 vertices, exactly as many as there are elements in the group $A_5 $. Is there a way to connect certain elements in a group according to fixed rules? Yes, there is such a way and it is called the Cayley Graph of a group. It goes like this : take a set of generators ${ g_1,\ldots,g_k } $ of a group G, then connect two group element $a,b \in G $ with an edge if and only if $a = g_i.b $ or $b = g_i.a $ for some of the generators.

Back to the alternating group $A_5 $. There are several sets of generators, one of them being the elements ${ (1,2,3,4,5),(2,3)(4,5) } $. In the paper mentioned before, Kostant gives an impressive group-theoretic proof of the fact that the Cayley-graph of $A_5 $ with respect to these two generators is indeed the buckyball!

Let us allow to be lazy for once and let SAGE do the hard work for us, and let us just watch the outcome. Here’s how that’s done

A=PermutationGroup([‘(1,2,3,4,5)’,'(2,3)(4,5)’])
B=A.cayley_graph()
B.show3d()

The outcone is a nice 3-dimensional picture of the buckyball. Below you can see a still, and, if you click on it you will get a 3-dimensional model of it (first click the ‘here’ link in the new window and then you’d better control-click and set the zoom to 200% before you rotate it)

Hence, viewing this Cayley graph from different points we have convinced ourselves that it is indeed the buckyball. In fact, most (truncated) Platonic solids appear as Cayley graphs of groups with respect to specific sets of generators. For later use here is a (partial) survey (taken from Jaap’s puzzle page)

Tetrahedron : $C_2 \times C_2,[(12)(34),(13)(24),(14)(23)] $
Cube : $D_4,[(1234),(13)] $
Octahedron : $S_3,[(123),(12),(23)] $
Dodecahedron : IMPOSSIBLE
Icosahedron : $A_4,[(123),(234),(13)(24)] $

Truncated tetrahedron : $A_4,[(123),(12)(34)] $
Cuboctahedron : $A_4,[(123),(234)] $
Truncated cube : $S_4,[(123),(34)] $
Truncated octahedron : $S_4,[(1234),(12)] $
Rhombicubotahedron : $S_4,[(1234),(123)] $
Rhombitruncated cuboctahedron : IMPOSSIBLE
Snub cuboctahedron : $S_4,[(1234),(123),(34)] $

Icosidodecahedron : IMPOSSIBLE
Truncated dodecahedron : $A_5,[(124),(23)(45)] $
Truncated icosahedron : $A_5,[(12345),(23)(45)] $
Rhombicosidodecahedron : $A_5,[(12345),(124)] $
Rhombitruncated icosidodecahedron : IMPOSSIBLE
Snub Icosidodecahedron : $A_5,[(12345),(124),(23)(45)] $

Again, all these statements can be easily verified using SAGE via the method described before. Next time we will go further into the Kostant’s group-theoretic proof that the buckyball is the Cayley graph of $A_5 $ with respect to (2,5)-generators as this calculation will be crucial in the description of the buckyball curve, the genus 70 Riemann surface discovered by David Singerman and
Pablo Martin which completes the trinity corresponding to the Galois trinity

6 Comments

Arnold’s trinities

Published June 17, 2008 by lievenlb

Referring to the triple of exceptional Galois groups $L_2(5),L_2(7),L_2(11) $ and its connection to the Platonic solids I wrote : “It sure seems that surprises often come in triples…”. Briefly I considered replacing triples by trinities, but then, I didnt want to sound too mystic…

David Corfield of the n-category cafe and a dialogue on infinity (and perhaps other blogs I’m unaware of) pointed me to the paper Symplectization, complexification and mathematical trinities by Vladimir I. Arnold. (Update : here is a PDF-conversion of the paper)

The paper is a write-up of the second in a series of three lectures Arnold gave in june 1997 at the meeting in the Fields Institute dedicated to his 60th birthday. The goal of that lecture was to explain some mathematical dreams he had.

The next dream I want to present is an even more fantastic set of theorems and conjectures. Here I also have no theory and actually the ideas form a kind of religion rather than mathematics.
The key observation is that in mathematics one encounters many trinities. I shall present a list of examples. The main dream (or conjecture) is that all these trinities are united by some rectangular “commutative diagrams”.
I mean the existence of some “functorial” constructions connecting different trinities. The knowledge of the existence of these diagrams provides some new conjectures which might turn to be true theorems.

Follows a list of 12 trinities, many taken from Arnold’s field of expertise being differential geometry. I’ll restrict to the more algebraically inclined ones.

1 : “The first trinity everyone knows is”

where $\mathbb{H} $ are the Hamiltonian quaternions. The trinity on the left may be natural to differential geometers who see real and complex and hyper-Kaehler manifolds as distinct but related beasts, but I’m willing to bet that most algebraists would settle for the trinity on the right where $\mathbb{O} $ are the octonions.

2 : The next trinity is that of the exceptional Lie algebras E6, E7 and E8.

with corresponding Dynkin-Coxeter diagrams

Arnold has this to say about the apparent ubiquity of Dynkin diagrams in mathematics.

Manin told me once that the reason why we always encounter this list in many different mathematical classifications is its presence in the hardware of our brain (which is thus unable to discover a more complicated scheme).
I still hope there exists a better reason that once should be discovered.

Amen to that. I’m quite hopeful human evolution will overcome the limitations of Manin’s brain…

3 : Next comes the Platonic trinity of the tetrahedron, cube and dodecahedron

Clearly one can argue against this trinity as follows : a tetrahedron is a bunch of triangles such that there are exactly 3 of them meeting in each vertex, a cube is a bunch of squares, again 3 meeting in every vertex, a dodecahedron is a bunch of pentagons 3 meeting in every vertex… and we can continue the pattern. What should be a bunch a hexagons such that in each vertex exactly 3 of them meet? Well, only one possibility : it must be the hexagonal tiling (on the left below). And in normal Euclidian space we cannot have a bunch of septagons such that three of them meet in every vertex, but in hyperbolic geometry this is still possible and leads to the Klein quartic (on the right). Check out this wonderful post by John Baez for more on this.

4 : The trinity of the rotation symmetry groups of the three Platonics

where $A_n $ is the alternating group on n letters and $S_n $ is the symmetric group.

Clearly, any rotation of a Platonic solid takes vertices to vertices, edges to edges and faces to faces. For the tetrahedron we can easily see the 4 of the group $A_4 $, say the 4 vertices. But what is the 4 of $S_4 $ in the case of a cube? Well, a cube has 4 body-diagonals and they are permuted under the rotational symmetries. The most difficult case is to see the $5 $ of $A_5 $ in the dodecahedron. Well, here’s the solution to this riddle

there are exactly 5 inscribed cubes in a dodecahedron and they are permuted by the rotations in the same way as $A_5 $.

7 : The seventh trinity involves complex polynomials in one variable

the Laurant polynomials and the modular polynomials (that is, rational functions with three poles at 0,1 and $\infty $.

8 : The eight one is another beauty

Here ‘numbers’ are the ordinary complex numbers $\mathbb{C} $, the ‘trigonometric numbers’ are the quantum version of those (aka q-numbers) which is a one-parameter deformation and finally, the ‘elliptic numbers’ are a two-dimensional deformation. If you ever encountered a Sklyanin algebra this will sound familiar.

This trinity is based on a paper of Turaev and Frenkel and I must come back to it some time…

The paper has some other nice trinities (such as those among Whitney, Chern and Pontryagin classes) but as I cannot add anything sensible to it, let us include a few more algebraic trinities. The first one attributed by Arnold to John McKay

13 : A trinity parallel to the exceptional Lie algebra one is

between the 27 straight lines on a cubic surface, the 28 bitangents on a quartic plane curve and the 120 tritangent planes of a canonic sextic curve of genus 4.

14 : The exceptional Galois groups

explained last time.

15 : The associated curves with these groups as symmetry groups (as in the previous post)

where the ? refers to the mysterious genus 70 curve. I’ll check with one of the authors whether there is still an embargo on the content of this paper and if not come back to it in full detail.

16 : The three generations of sporadic groups

Do you have other trinities you’d like to worship?

Leave a Comment

Galois’ last letter

Published June 12, 2008 by lievenlb

“Ne pleure pas, Alfred ! J’ai besoin de tout mon courage pour mourir à vingt ans!”

We all remember the last words of Evariste Galois to his brother Alfred. Lesser known are the mathematical results contained in his last letter, written to his friend Auguste Chevalier, on the eve of his fatal duel. Here the final sentences :

Tu prieras publiquement Jacobi ou Gauss de donner leur avis non sur la verite, mais sur l’importance des theoremes.
Apres cela il se trouvera, j’espere, des gens qui trouvent leur profis a dechiffrer tout ce gachis.
Je t’embrasse avec effusion.
E. Galois, le 29 Mai 1832

A major result contained in this letter concerns the groups $L_2(p)=PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_p) $, that is the group of $2 \times 2 $ matrices with determinant equal to one over the finite field $\mathbb{F}_p $ modulo its center. $L_2(p) $ is known to be simple whenever $p \geq 5 $. Galois writes that $L_2(p) $ cannot have a non-trivial permutation representation on fewer than $p+1 $ symbols whenever $p > 11 $ and indicates the transitive permutation representation on exactly $p $ symbols in the three ‘exceptional’ cases $p=5,7,11 $.

Let $\alpha = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $ and consider for $p=5,7,11 $ the involutions on $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{F}_p} = \mathbb{F}_p \cup { \infty } $ (on which $L_2(p) $ acts via Moebius transformations)

$\pi_5 = (0,\infty)(1,4)(2,3) \quad \pi_7=(0,\infty)(1,3)(2,6)(4,5) \quad \pi_{11}=(0,\infty)(1,6)(3,7)(9,10)(5,8)(4,2) $

(in fact, Galois uses the involution $~(0,\infty)(1,2)(3,6)(4,8)(5,10)(9,7) $ for $p=11 $), then $L_2(p) $ leaves invariant the set consisting of the $p $ involutions $\Pi = { \alpha^{-i} \pi_p \alpha^i~:~1 \leq i \leq p } $. After mentioning these involutions Galois merely writes :

Ainsi pour le cas de $p=5,7,11 $, l’equation modulaire s’abaisse au degre p.
En toute rigueur, cette reduction n’est pas possible dans les cas plus eleves.

Alternatively, one can deduce these permutation representation representations from group isomorphisms. As $L_2(5) \simeq A_5 $, the alternating group on 5 symbols, $L_2(5) $ clearly acts transitively on 5 symbols.

Similarly, for $p=7 $ we have $L_2(7) \simeq L_3(2) $ and so the group acts as automorphisms on the projective plane over the field on two elements $\mathbb{P}^2_{\mathbb{F}_2} $ aka the Fano plane, as depicted on the left.

This finite projective plane has 7 points and 7 lines and $L_3(2) $ acts transitively on them.

For $p=11 $ the geometrical object is a bit more involved. The set of non-squares in $\mathbb{F}_{11} $ is

${ 1,3,4,5,9 } $

and if we translate this set using the additive structure in $\mathbb{F}_{11} $ one obtains the following 11 five-element sets

${ 1,3,4,5,9 }, { 2,4,5,6,10 }, { 3,5,6,7,11 }, { 1,4,6,7,8 }, { 2,5,7,8,9 }, { 3,6,8,9,10 }, $

$ { 4,7,9,10,11 }, { 1,5,8,10,11 }, { 1,2,6,9,11 }, { 1,2,3,7,10 }, { 2,3,4,8,11 } $

and if we regard these sets as ‘lines’ we see that two distinct lines intersect in exactly 2 points and that any two distinct points lie on exactly two ‘lines’. That is, intersection sets up a bijection between the 55-element set of all pairs of distinct points and the 55-element set of all pairs of distinct ‘lines’. This is called the biplane geometry.

The subgroup of $S_{11} $ (acting on the eleven elements of $\mathbb{F}_{11} $) stabilizing this set of 11 5-element sets is precisely the group $L_2(11) $ giving the permutation representation on 11 objects.

An alternative statement of Galois’ result is that for $p > 11 $ there is no subgroup of $L_2(p) $ complementary to the cyclic subgroup

$C_p = { \begin{bmatrix} 1 & x \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}~:~x \in \mathbb{F}_p } $

That is, there is no subgroup such that set-theoretically $L_2(p) = F \times C_p $ (note this is of courese not a group-product, all it says is that any element can be written as $g=f.c $ with $f \in F, c \in C_p $.

However, in the three exceptional cases we do have complementary subgroups. In fact, set-theoretically we have

$L_2(5) = A_4 \times C_5 \qquad L_2(7) = S_4 \times C_7 \qquad L_2(11) = A_5 \times C_{11} $

and it is a truly amazing fact that the three groups appearing are precisely the three Platonic groups!

Recall that here are 5 Platonic (or Scottish) solids coming in three sorts when it comes to rotation-automorphism groups : the tetrahedron (group $A_4 $), the cube and octahedron (group $S_4 $) and the dodecahedron and icosahedron (group $A_5 $). The “4” in the cube are the four body diagonals and the “5” in the dodecahedron are the five inscribed cubes.

That is, our three ‘exceptional’ Galois-groups correspond to the three Platonic groups, which in turn correspond to the three exceptional Lie algebras $E_6,E_7,E_8 $ via McKay correspondence (wrt. their 2-fold covers). Maybe I’ll detail this latter connection another time. It sure seems that surprises often come in triples…

Finally, it is well known that $L_2(5) \simeq A_5 $ is the automorphism group of the icosahedron (or dodecahedron) and that $L_2(7) $ is the automorphism group of the Klein quartic.

So, one might ask : is there also a nice curve connected with the third group $L_2(11) $? Rumour has it that this is indeed the case and that the curve in question has genus 70… (to be continued).

Reference

Bertram Kostant, “The graph of the truncated icosahedron and the last letter of Galois”

Leave a Comment

adeles and ideles

Published January 29, 2008 by lievenlb

Before we can even attempt to describe the adelic description of the Bost-Connes Hecke algebra and its symmetries, we’d probably better recall the construction and properties of adeles and ideles. Let’s start with the p-adic numbers $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $ and its field of fractions $\hat{\mathbb{Q}}_p $. For p a prime number we can look at the finite rings $\mathbb{Z}/p^n \mathbb{Z} $ of all integer classes modulo $p^n $. If two numbers define the same element in $\mathbb{Z}/p^n\mathbb{Z} $ (meaning that their difference is a multiple of $p^n $), then they certainly define the same class in any $\mathbb{Z}/p^k \mathbb{Z} $ when $k \leq n $, so we have a sequence of ringmorphisms between finite rings

$ \ldots \rightarrow^{\phi_{n+1}} \mathbb{Z}/p^n \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow^{\phi_n} \mathbb{Z}/p^{n-1}\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow^{\phi_{n-1}} \ldots \rightarrow^{\phi_3} \mathbb{Z}/p^2\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow^{\phi_2} \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z} $

The ring of p-adic integers $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $ can now be defined as the collection of all (infinite) sequences of elements $~(\ldots,x_n,x_{n-1},\ldots,x_2,x_1) $ with $x_i \in \mathbb{Z}/p^i\mathbb{Z} $ such that
$\phi_i(x_i) = x_{i-1} $ for all natural numbers $i $. Addition and multiplication are defined componentswise and as all the maps $\phi_i $ are ringmorphisms, this produces no compatibility problems.

One can put a topology on $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $ making it into a compact ring. Here’s the trick : all components $\mathbb{Z}/p^n \mathbb{Z} $ are finite so they are compact if we equip these sets with the discrete topology (all subsets are opens). But then, Tychonov’s product theorem asserts that the product-space $\prod_n \mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z} $ with the product topology is again a compact topological space. As $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $ is a closed subset, it is compact too.

By construction, the ring $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $ is a domain and hence has a field of fraction which we will denote by $\hat{\mathbb{Q}}_p $. These rings give the p-local information of the rational numbers $\mathbb{Q} $. We will now ‘glue together’ these local data over all possible prime numbers $p $ into adeles. So, forget the above infinite product used to define the p-adics, below we will work with another infinite product, one factor for each prime number.

The adeles $\mathcal{A} $ are the restricted product of the $\hat{\mathbb{Q}}_p $ over $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $ for all prime numbers p. By ‘restricted’ we mean that elements of $\mathcal{A} $ are exactly those infinite vectors $a=(a_2,a_3,a_5,a_7,a_{11},\ldots ) = (a_p)_p \in \prod_p \hat{\mathbb{Q}}_p $ such that all but finitely of the components $a_p \in \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $. Addition and multiplication are defined component-wise and the restriction condition is compatible with both adition and multiplication. So, $\mathcal{A} $ is the adele ring. Note that most people call this $\mathcal{A} $ the finite Adeles as we didn’t consider infinite places, i will distinguish between the two notions by writing adeles resp. Adeles for the finite resp. the full blown version. The adele ring $\mathcal{A} $ has as a subring the infinite product $\mathcal{R} = \prod_p \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $. If you think of $\mathcal{A} $ as a version of $\mathbb{Q} $ then $\mathcal{R} $ corresponds to $\mathbb{Z} $ (and next time we will see that there is a lot more to this analogy).

The ideles are the group of invertible elements of the ring $\mathcal{A} $, that is, $\mathcal{I} = \mathcal{A}^{\ast} $. That s, an element is an infinite vector $i = (i_2,i_3,i_5,\ldots) = (i_p)_p $ with all $i_p \in \hat{\mathbb{Q}}_p^* $ and for all but finitely many primes we have that $i_p \in \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p^* $.

As we will have to do explicit calculations with ideles and adeles we need to recall some facts about the structure of the unit groups $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p^* $ and $\hat{\mathbb{Q}}_p^* $. If we denote $U = \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p^* $, then projecting it to the unit group of each of its components we get for each natural number n an exact sequence of groups

$1 \rightarrow U_n \rightarrow U \rightarrow (\mathbb{Z}/p^n \mathbb{Z})^* \rightarrow 1 $. In particular, we have that $U/U_1 \simeq (\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^* \simeq \mathbb{Z}/(p-1)\mathbb{Z} $ as the group of units of the finite field $\mathbb{F}_p $ is cyclic of order p-1. But then, the induced exact sequence of finite abalian groups below splits

$1 \rightarrow U_1/U_n \rightarrow U/U_n \rightarrow \mathbb{F}_p^* \rightarrow 1 $ and as the unit group $U = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim} U/U_n $ we deduce that $U = U_1 \times V $ where $\mathbb{F}_p^* \simeq V = { x \in U | x^{p-1}=1 } $ is the specified unique subgroup of $U $ of order p-1. All that remains is to determine the structure of $U_1 $. If $p \not= 2 $, take $\alpha = 1 + p \in U_1 – U_2 $ and let $\alpha_n \in U_1/U_n $ denote the image of $\alpha $, then one verifies that $\alpha_n $ is a cyclic generator of order $p^{n-1} $ of $U_1/U_n $.

But then, if we denote the isomorphism $\theta_n~:~\mathbb{Z}/p^{n-1} \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow U_1/U_n $ between the ADDITIVE group $\mathbb{Z}/p^{n-1} \mathbb{Z} $ and the MULTIPLICATIVE group $U_1/U_n $ by the map $z \mapsto \alpha_n^z $, then we have a compatible commutative diagram

[tex]\xymatrix{\mathbb{Z}/p^n \mathbb{Z} \ar[r]^{\theta_{n+1}} \ar[d] & U_1/U_{n+1} \ar[d] \\
\mathbb{Z}/p^{n-1} \mathbb{Z} \ar[r]^{\theta_n} & U_1/U_n}[/tex]

and as $U_1 = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~U_1/U_n $ this gives an isomorphism between the multiplicative group $U_1 $ and the additive group of $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $. In case $p=2 $ we have to start with an element $\alpha \in U_2 – U_3 $ and repeat the above trick. Summarizing we have the following structural information about the unit group of p-adic integers

$\hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p^* \simeq \begin{cases} \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_{p,+} \times \mathbb{Z}/(p-1)\mathbb{Z}~(p \not= 2) \\ \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_{2,+} \times \mathbb{Z}/2 \mathbb{Z}~(p=2) \end{cases}$

Because every unit in $\hat{\mathbb{Q}}_p^* $ can be written as $p^n u $ with $u \in \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p^* $ we deduce from this also the structure of the unit group of the p-adic field

$\hat{\mathbb{Q}}_p^* \simeq \begin{cases} \mathbb{Z} \times \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_{p,+} \times \mathbb{Z}/(p-1)\mathbb{Z}~(p \not= 2) \\ \mathbb{Z} \times \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_{2,+} \times \mathbb{Z}/2 \mathbb{Z}~(p=2) \end{cases} $

Right, now let us start to make the connection with the apparently abstract ringtheoretical post from last time where we introduced semigroup crystalline graded rings without explaining why we wanted that level of generality.

Consider the semigroup $\mathcal{I} \cap \mathcal{R} $, that is all ideles $i = (i_p)_p $ with all $i_p = p^{n_p} u_p $ with $u_p \in \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p^* $ and $n_p \in \mathbb{N} $ with $n_p=0 $ for all but finitely many primes p. Then, we have an exact sequence of semigroups

$1 \rightarrow \mathcal{G} \rightarrow \mathcal{I} \cap \mathcal{R} \rightarrow^{\pi} \mathbb{N}^+_{\times} \rightarrow 1 $ where the map is defined (with above notation) $\pi(i) = \prod_p p^{n_p} $ and exactness follows from the above structural results when we take $\mathcal{G} = \prod_p \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p^* $.

This gives a glimpse of where we are heading. Last time we identified the Bost-Connes Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H} $ as a bi-crystalline group graded algebra determined by a $\mathbb{N}^+_{\times} $-semigroup crystalline graded algebra over the group algebra $\mathbb{Q}[\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}] $. Next, we will entend this construction starting from a $\mathcal{I} \cap \mathcal{R} $-semigroup crystalline graded algebra over the same group algebra. The upshot is that we will have a natural action by automorphisms of the group $\mathcal{G} $ on the Bost-Connes algebra. And… the group $\mathcal{G} = \prod_p \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p^* $ is the Galois group of the cyclotomic field extension $\mathbb{Q}^{cyc} $!

But, in order to begin to understand this, we will need to brush up our rusty knowledge of algebraic number theory…

4 Comments

the Bost-Connes Hecke algebra

Published January 19, 2008 by lievenlb

As before, $\Gamma $ is the subgroup of the rational linear group $GL_2(\mathbb{Q}) $ consisting of the matrices

$\begin{bmatrix} 1 & b \\ 0 & a \end{bmatrix} $ with $a \in \mathbb{Q}_+ $ and $\Gamma_0 $ the subgroup of all matrices $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & n \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $ with $n \in \mathbb{N} $. Last time, we have seen that the double coset space $\Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $ can be identified with the set of all rational points in the fractal comb consisting of all couples $~(a,b) $ with $a=\frac{m}{n} \in \mathbb{Q}_+ $ and $b \in [0,\frac{1}{n}) \cap \mathbb{Q} $

The blue spikes are at the positive natural numbers $a={ 1,2,3,\ldots } $. Over $a=1 $ they correspond to the matrices $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $ with $\gamma \in [0,1) \cap \mathbb{Q} $ and as matrix-multiplication of such matrices corresponds to addition of the $\gamma $ we see that these cosets can be identified with the additive group $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z} $ (which will reappear at a later stage as the multiplicative group of all roots of unity).

The Bost-Connes Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}(\Gamma,\Gamma_0) $ is the convolution algebra of all comlex valued functions with finite support on the double coset space $\Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $. That is, as a vector space the algebra has as basis the functions $e_X $ with $X \in \Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $ (that is, $X $ is a point of the fractal comb) and such that $e_X(X)=1 $ and $e_X(Y)=0 $ for all other double cosets $Y \not= X $. The algebra product on $\mathcal{H} $ is the convolution-product meaning that if $f,f’ $ are complex functions with finite support on the Bost-Connes space, then they can also be interpreted as $\Gamma_0 $-bi-invariant functions on the group $\Gamma $ (for this just means that the function is constant on double cosets) and then $f \ast f’ $ is the function defined for all $\gamma \in \Gamma $ by

$f \ast f'(\gamma) = \sum_{\mu \in \Gamma/ \Gamma_0} f(\mu) f'(\mu^{-1} \gamma) $

Last time we have seen that the coset-space $\Gamma / \Gamma_0 $ can be represented by all rational points $~(a,b) $ with $b<1 $. At first sight, the sum above seems to be infinite, but, f and f’ are non-zero only at finitely many double cosets and we have see last time that $\Gamma_0 $ acts on one-sided cosets with finite orbits. Therefore, $f \ast f $ is a well-defined $\Gamma_0 $-bi-invariant function with finite support on the fractal comb $\Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $. Further, observe that the unit element of $\mathcal{H} $ is the function corresponding to the identity matrix in $\Gamma $.

Looking at fractal-comb picture it is obvious that the Bost-Connes Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H} $ is a huge object. Today, we will prove the surprising result that it can be generated by the functions corresponding to the tiny portion of the comb, shown below.

That is, we will show that $\mathcal{H} $ is generated by the functions $e(\gamma) $ corresponding to the double-coset $X_{\gamma} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $ (the rational points of the blue line-segment over 1, or equivalently, the elements of the group $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z} $), together with the functions $\phi_n $ corresponding to the double-coset $X_n = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} $ for all $ n \in \mathbb{N}_+ $ (the blue dots to the right in the picture) and the functions $\phi_n^* $ corresponding to the double cosets $X_{1/n} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{n} \end{bmatrix} $ (the red dots to the left).

Take a point in the fractal comb $X = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix} $ with $~(m,n)=1 $ and $\gamma \in [0,\frac{1}{n}) \cap \mathbb{Q} \subset [0,1) \cap \mathbb{Q} $. Note that as $\gamma < \frac{1}{n} $ we have that $n \gamma < 1 $ and hence $e(n \gamma) $ is one of the (supposedly) generating functions described above.

Because $X = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & m \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & n \gamma \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{n} \end{bmatrix} = X_m X_{n \gamma} X_{1/n} $ we are aiming for a relation in the Hecke algebra $\phi_m \ast e(n \gamma) \ast \phi^*_n = e_X $. This is ‘almost’ true, except from a coefficient.

Let us prove first the equality of functions $e_X \ast \phi_n = n \phi_m \ast e(n \gamma) $. To do this we have to show that they have the same value for all points $Y \in \Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $ in the fractal comb. Let us first study the function on the right hand side.

$\phi_m \ast e(n \gamma) = \sum_{g \in \Gamma/\Gamma_0} \phi_m(g) e(n \gamma)(g^{-1}Y) $. Because $X_m \Gamma_0 $ is already a double coset (over $m $ we have a comb-spike of length one, so all rational points on it determine at the same time a one-sided and a double coset. Therefore, $\phi_m(g) $ is zero unless $g = X_m $ and then the value is one.

Next, let us consider the function on the left-hand side. $e_X \ast \phi_n(Y) = \sum_{g \in \Gamma / \Gamma_0} e_X(g) \phi_m( g^{-1} Y) $. We have to be a bit careful here as the double cosets over $a=\frac{m}{n} $ are different from the left cosets. Recall from last time that the left-cosets over a are given by all rational points of the form $~(a,b) $ with $ b < 1 $ whereas the double-cosets over a are represented by the rational points of the form $~(a,b) $ with $b < \frac{1}{n} $ and hence the $\Gamma_0 $-orbits over a all consist of precisely n elements g.
That is, $e_X(g) $ is zero for all $ g \in \Gamma/\Gamma_0 $ except when g is one of the following matrices

$ g \in { \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma+\frac{1}{n} \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma + \frac{2}{n} \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix}, \ldots, \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma + \frac{n-1}{n} \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix} } $

Further, $\phi_n(g^{-1}Y) $ is zero unless $g^{-1}Y \in \Gamma_0 \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} \Gamma_0 $, or equivalently, that $Y \in \Gamma_0 g \Gamma_0 \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} \Gamma_0 = \Gamma_0 g \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} \Gamma_0 $ and for each of the choices for g we have that

$ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma + \frac{k}{n} \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & n \gamma + k \\ 0 & m \end{bmatrix} \sim \begin{bmatrix} 1 & n\gamma \\ 0 & m \end{bmatrix} $

Therefore, the function $e_X \ast \phi_n $ is zero at every point of the fractal comb unless at $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & n \gamma \\ 0 & m \end{bmatrix} $ where it is equal to $n $. This proves the claimed identity of functions and as one verifies easily that $\phi_n^* \ast \phi_n = 1 $, it follows that all base vectors $e_X $ of $\mathcal{H} $ can be expressed in the claimed generators

$ e_X = n \phi_m \ast e(n \gamma) \ast \phi_n^* $

Bost and Connes use slightly different generators, namely with $\mu_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \phi_n $ and $\mu_n^* = \sqrt{n} \phi_n^* $ in order to have all relations among the generators being defined over $\mathbb{Q} $ (as we will see another time). This will be important later on to have an action of the cyclotomic Galois group $Gal(\mathbb{Q}^{cycl}/\mathbb{Q}) $ on certain representations of $\mathcal{H} $.

5 Comments

the crypto lattice

Published January 12, 2008 by lievenlb

Last time we have seen that tori are dual (via their group of characters) to lattices with a Galois action. In particular, the Weil descent torus $R_n=R^1_{\mathbb{F}_{p^n}/\mathbb{F}_p} \mathbb{G}_m $ corresponds to the permutation lattices $R_n^* = \mathbb{Z}[x]/(x^n-1) $. The action of the generator $\sigma $ (the Frobenius) of the Galois group $Gal(\mathbb{F}_{p^n}/\mathbb{F}_p) $ acts on the lattice by multiplication with $x $.

An old result of Masuda (1955), using an even older lemma by Speiser (1919), asserts than whenever the character-lattice $T^* $ of a torus $T $ is a permutation-lattice, the torus is rational, that is, the function-field
of the torus $\mathbb{F}_p(T) $ is purely trancendental

$\mathbb{F}_p(y_1,\ldots,y_d) = \mathbb{F}_p(T) = (\mathbb{F}_{q^n}(T^*))^{Gal} $

(recall from last time that the field on the right-hand side is the field of fractions of the $Gal $-invariants of the group-algebra of the free Abelian group $T^* = \mathbb{Z} \oplus \ldots \oplus \mathbb{Z} $ where the rank is equal to the dimension $d $ of the torus).

The basic observation made by Rubin and Silverberg was that the known results on crypto-compression could be reformulated in the language of algebraic tori as : the tori $T_2 $ (LUC-system) and $T_6 $ (CEILIDH-system) are rational! So, what about the next cryptographic challenges? Are the tori $T_{30} $, $T_{210} $ etc. also rational varieties?

Recall that as a group, the $\mathbb{F}_p $-points of the torus $T_n $, is the subgroup of $\mathbb{F}_{p^n}^* $ corresponding to the most crypto-challenging cyclic subgroup of order $\Phi_n(p) $ where $\Phi_n(x) $ is the n-th cyclotomic polynomial. The character-lattice of this crypto-torus $T_n $ we call the crypto-lattice and it is

$T_n^* = \mathbb{Z}[x]/(\Phi_n(x)) $

(again the action of the Frobenius is given by multiplication with $x $) and hence has rank $\phi(n) $, explaining that the torus $T_n $ has dimension $\phi(n) $ and hence that we can at best expect a compression from $n $-pits to $\phi(n) $-pits. Note that the lattice $T_n^* $ is no longer a permutation lattice, so we cannot use the Masuda-Speiser result to prove rationality of $T_n $.

What have mathematicians proved on $T_n $ before it became a hot topic? Well, there is an old conjecture by V. E. Voskresenskii asserting that all $T_n $ should be rational! Unfortunately, he could prove this only when $n $ is a prime power. Further, he proved that for all $n $, the lattice $T_n $ is at least stably-rational meaning that it is rational upto adding free parameters, that is

$\mathbb{F}_p(T_n)(z_1,\ldots,z_l) = \mathbb{F}_p(y_1,\ldots,y_{d+l}) $

which, sadly, is only of cryptographic-use if $l $ is small (see below). A true rationality result on $T_n $ was proved by A.A. Klyashko : $T_n $ is rational whenever $n=p^a.q^b $ a product of two prime powers.But then, $30=2 \times 3 \times 5 $ the first unknown case…

At Crypto 2004, Marten van Dijk and David Woodruff were able to use an explicit form of Voskresenskii stable rationality result to get an asymptotic optimal crypto-compression rate of $n/\phi(n) $, but their method was of little practical use in the $T_{30} $, for what their method gave was a rational map

$T_{30} \times \mathbb{A}^{32}_{\mathbb{F}_p} \rightarrow \mathbb{A}^{40}_{\mathbb{F}_p} $

and the number of added parameters (32) is way too big to be of use.

But then, one can use century-old results on cyclotomic polynomials to get a much better bound, as was shown in the paper Practical cryptography in high dimensional tori by the collective group of all people working (openly) on tori-cryptography. The idea is that whenever q is a prime and a is an integer not divisible by q, then on the level of cyclotomic polynomials we have the identity

$\Phi_{aq}(x) \Phi_a(x) = \Phi_a(x^q) $

On the level of tori this equality implies (via the character-lattices) an ismorphism (with same assumptions)

$T_{aq}(\mathbb{F}_p) \times T_a(\mathbb{F}_p) \simeq (R^1_{\mathbb{F}_{p^q}/\mathbb{F}_p} T_a)(\mathbb{F}_p) = T_a(\mathbb{F}_{p^q}) $

whenever aq is not divisible by p. Apply this to the special case when $q=5,a=6 $ then we get

$T_{30}(\mathbb{F}_p) \times T_6(\mathbb{F}_p) \simeq R^1_{\mathbb{F}_{p^5}/\mathbb{F}_p} T_6(\mathbb{F}_p) $

and because we know that $T_6 $ is a 2-dimensional rational torus we get, using Weil descent, a rational map

$T_{30} \times \mathbb{A}^2_{\mathbb{F}_p} \rightarrow \mathbb{A}^{10}_{\mathbb{F}_p} $

which can be used to get better crypto-compression than the CEILIDH-system!

This concludes what I know of the OPEN state of affairs in tori-cryptography. I’m sure ‘people in hiding’ know a lot more at the moment and, if not, I have a couple of ideas I’d love to check out. So, when I seem to have disappeared, you know what happened…

Leave a Comment