Skip to content →

Tag: geometry

Vacation reading

Published July 26, 2007 by lievenlb

Im in the process of writing/revising/extending the course notes for next year and will therefore pack more math-books than normal.

These are for a 3rd year Bachelor course on Algebraic Geometry and a 1st year Master course on Algebraic and Differential Geometry. The bachelor course was based this year partly on Miles Reid’s Undergraduate Algebraic Geometry and partly on David Mumford’s Red Book, but this turned out to be too heavy going. Next year I’ll be happy if they know enough on algebraic curves. The backbone of these two courses will be Fulton’s old but excellent Algebraic curves. It’s self contained (unlike Hartshorne’s book that assumes a prior course on commutative algebra), contains a lot of exercises and goes on to the Brill-Noether proof of Riemann-Roch. Still, Id like to extend it with the introductory chapter and the chapters on Riemann surfaces from Complex Algebraic Curves by Frances Kirwan, a bit on elliptic and modular functions from Elliptic curves by Henry McKean and Victor Moll and the adelic proof of Riemann-Roch and applications of it to the construction of algebraic codes from Algebraic curves over finite fields by Carlos Moreno. If time allows Id love to include also the chapter on zeta functions but I fear this will be difficult.

These are to spice up a 2nd year Bachelor course on Representations of Finite Groups with a tiny bit of Galois representations, both as motivation and to wet their appetite for elliptic curves and algebraic geometry. Ive received Fearless Symmetry by Avner Ash and Robert Gross only yesterday and find it hard to stop reading. It attempts to explain Galois representations and generalized reciprocity laws to a general audience and from what I read so far, they really do a terrific job. Another excellent elementary introduction to elliptic curves and Galois representations is in Invitation to the Mathematics of Fermat-Wiles by Yves Hellegouarch. On a gossipy note, the appendix “The origin of the elliptic approach to Fermat’s last theorem” is fun reading. Finally, Ill also take Introduction to Fermat’s Last Theorem by Alf van der Poorten along simply because I love his writing style.

These are included just for fun. The Poincare Conjecture by Donal O’Shea because I know far too little about it, Letters to a Young Mathematician by Ian Stewart because I like the concept of the book and finally The sensual (quadratic) form by John Conway because I need to have at all times at least one Conway-book nearby.

Continue readingVacation reading
4 Comments

Shameless Self-Promotion

Published July 18, 2007 by lievenlb

It looks like I’m off the hook and can relax (after a few months of rewriting/correcting/learning LaTeX-quirks). To all of you NeverEndingBooks readers : the bookproject has ended and will appear sometime this fall. It will be around 600 pages thick and cost just under 100$. This is about 4 times the amount NeverEndingBook-ers paid over at Lulu.com. To all (?!) those who did : treasure the two volumes, they will become (extremely rare) collectors’ items, one fine day. Here is the final cover-design :

Compare it to the covers produced two years ago by the NeverEndingBooks-design department (thanks again Jan and the rest of the crew).

The final fight was over the promotional material. The copywriters did include the captivating sentence “A Novel Approach to Difficult Cases in Mathematics and Physics”… Here’s my reply

I realize Im a difficult (some say hopeless) case, but there is little point advertising this. Here a few alternatives that may require spicing-up

“A gentle introduction to one of mathematics’ (and even physics’) hottest topics”
“A novel approach to noncommutative geometry”
“Get rid of singularities by going noncommutative!”
“The first readable text on an over-hyped topic…”
etc. etc.

I can do better if I have to, so please tell me and I’ll open up a bottle of wine.
Whatever you do, please remove the difficult cases-sentence from all material.

atb+apologies :: lieven.

UPDATE (august 1st) : if you want to order the book for your university-library, have a look at the promo flyer. All my suggestions (apart from the last one) are included…

One final comment about all of this. The project started as a bookproject with the AMS in 1999 and was abandoned (for a variety of reasons, all of them only relevant to myself) sometime early 2002.

Here’s the one thing that will hurt for some time to come. I wanted to dedicate the book to “the women in my life : my mother, Ann, Gitte&Bente”. Unfortunately, my mother will never see the book. The current dedication is :

This book is dedicated to the women in my life
Simonne Stevens (1926-2004), Ann, Gitte&Bente

Continue readingShameless Self-Promotion
10 Comments

Mathieu’s blackjack (3)

Published July 17, 2007 by lievenlb

If you only tune in now, you might want to have a look at the definition of Mathieu’s blackjack and the first part of the proof of the Conway-Ryba winning strategy involving the Steiner system S(5,6,12) and the Mathieu sporadic group $M_{12} $.

We’re trying to disprove the existence of misfits, that is, of non-hexad positions having a total value of at least 21 such that every move to a hexad would increase the total value. So far, we succeeded in showing that such a misfit must have the patern

$\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline 6 & III & \ast & 9 \\ 5 & II & 7 & . \\ IV & I & 8 & . \\ \hline & & & \end{array} $

That is, a misfit must contain the 0-card (queen) and cannot contain the 10 or 11(jack) and must contain 3 of the four Romans. Now we will see that a misfit also contains precisely one of {5,6} (and consequently also exactly one card from {7,8,9}). To start, it is clear that it cannot contain BOTH 5 and 6 (then its total value can be at most 20). So we have to disprove that a misfit can miss {5,6} entirely (and so the two remaining cards (apart from the zero and the three Romans) must all belong to {7,8,9}).

Lets assume the misfit misses 5 and 6 and does not contain 9. Then, it must contain 4 (otherwise, its column-distribution would be (0,3,3,0) and it would be a hexad). There are just three such positions possible

$\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline . & \ast & \ast & . \\ . & \ast & \ast & . \\ \ast & . & \ast & . \\ \hline – & – & ? & ? \end{array} $ $\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline . & \ast & \ast & . \\ . & . & \ast & . \\ \ast & \ast & \ast & . \\ \hline – & + & ? & ? \end{array} $ $\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline . & . & \ast & . \\ . & \ast & \ast & . \\ \ast & \ast & \ast & . \\ \hline – & 0 & ? & ? \end{array} $

Neither of these can be misfits though. In the first one, there is an 8->5 move to a hexad of smaller total value (in the second a 7->5 move and in the third a 7->6 move). Right, so the 9 card must belong to a misfit. Assume it does not contain the 4-card, then part of the misfit looks like (with either a 7- or an 8-card added)

$\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline . & \ast & \ast & \ast \\ . & \ast & ? & . \\ . & \ast & ? & . \\ \hline & & & \end{array} $ contained in the unique hexad $\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline \ast & \ast & \ast & \ast \\ . & \ast & & . \\ . & \ast & & . \\ \hline & & & \end{array} $

Either way the moves 7->6 or 8->6 decrease the total value, so it cannot be a misfit. Therefore, a misfit must contain both the 4- and 9-card. So it is of the form on the left below

$\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline . & ? & \ast & \ast \\ . & ? & ? & . \\ \ast & ? & ? & . \\ \hline & & & \end{array} $ $\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline . & . & \ast & . \\ . & \ast & \ast & \ast \\ \ast & \ast & . & . \\ \hline – & 0 & – & + \end{array} $ $\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline . & . & \ast & \ast \\ . & \ast & \ast & . \\ \ast & \ast & . & . \\ \hline & & & \end{array} $

If this is a genuine misfit only the move 9->10 to a hexad is possible (the move 9->11 is not possible as all BUT ONE of {0,1,2,3,4} is contained in the misfit). Now, the only hexad containing 0,4,10 and 2 from {1,2,3} is in the middle, giving us what the misfit must look like before the move, on the right. Finally, this cannot be a misfit as the move 7->5 decreases the total value.

That is, we have proved the claim that a misfit must contain one of {5,6} and one of {7,8,9}. Right, now we can deliver the elegant finishing line of the Kahane-Ryba proof. A misfit must contain 0 and three among {1,2,3,4} (let us call the missing card s), one of $5+\epsilon $ with $0 \leq \epsilon \leq 1 $ and one of $7+\delta $ with $0 \leq \delta \leq 2 $. Then, the total value of the misfit is

$~(0+1+2+3+4-s)+(5+\epsilon)+(7+\delta)=21+(1+\delta+\epsilon-s) $

So, if this value is strictly greater than 21 (and we will see in a moment is has to be if it is at least 21) then we deduce that $s < 1 + \delta + \epsilon \leq 4 $. Therefore $1+\delta+\epsilon $ belongs to the misfit. But then the move $1+\delta \epsilon \rightarrow s $ moves the misfit to a 6-tuple with total value 21 and hence (as we see in a moment) must be a hexad and hence this is a decreasing move! So, finally, there are no misfits!

Hence, from every non-hexad pile of total value at least 21 we have a legal move to a hexad. Because the other player cannot move from an hexad to another hexad we are done with our strategy provided we can show (a) that the total value of any hexad is at least 21 and (b) that ALL 6-piles of total value 21 are hexads. As there are only 132 hexads it is easy enough to have their sum-distribution. Here it is

That is, (a) is proved by inspection and we see that there are 11 hexads of sum 21 (the light hexads in Conway-speak) and there are only 11 ways to get 21 as a sum of 6 distinct numbers from {0,1,..,11} so (b) follows. Btw. the obvious symmetry of the sum-distribution is another consequence of the duality t->11-t discussed briefly at the end of part 2.

Clearly, I’d rather have conceptual proofs for all these facts and briefly tried my hand. Luckily I did spot the following phrase on page 326 of Conway-Sloane (discussing the above distribution) :

“It will not be easy to explain all the above observations. They are certainly connected with hyperbolic geometry and with the ‘hole’ structure of the Leech lattice.”

So, I’d better leave it at this…

References

Joseph Kahane and Alexander J. Ryba, “The hexad game“

John H. Conway and N. J.A. Sloane, “Sphere packings, Lattices and Groups” chp. 11 ‘The Golay codes and the Mathieu groups’

Continue readingMathieu’s blackjack (3)
Leave a Comment

Hexagonal Moonshine (3)

Published July 13, 2007 by lievenlb

Hexagons keep on popping up in the representation theory of the modular group and its close associates. We have seen before that singularities in 2-dimensional representation varieties of the three string braid group $B_3 $ are ‘clanned together’ in hexagons and last time Ive mentioned (in passing) that the representation theory of the modular group is controlled by the double quiver of the extended Dynkin diagram $\tilde{A_5} $, which is an hexagon…

Today we’re off to find representations of the extended modular group $\tilde{\Gamma} = PGL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $, which is obtained by adding to the modular group (see this post for a proof of generation)

$\Gamma = \langle U=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \\\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix},V=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\\ -1 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \rangle $ the matrix $R=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix} $

In terms of generators and relations, one easily verfifies that

$\tilde{\Gamma} = \langle~U,V,R~|~U^2=R^2=V^3=(RU)^2=(RV)^2=1~\rangle $

and therefore $\tilde{\Gamma} $ is the amalgamated free product of the dihedral groups $D_2 $ and $D_3 $ over their common subgroup $C_2 = \langle~R~\rangle $, that is

$\tilde{\Gamma} = \langle U,R | U^2=R^2=(RU)^2=1 \rangle \ast_{\langle R | R^2=1 \rangle} \langle V,R | V^3=R^2=(RV)^2=1 \rangle = D_2 \ast_{C_2} D_3 $

From this description it is easy to find all n-dimensional $\tilde{\Gamma} $-representations $V $ and relate them to quiver-representations. $D_2 = C_2 \times C_2 $ and hence has 4 1-dimensonal simples $S_1,S_2,S_3,S_4 $. Restricting $V\downarrow_{D_2} $ to the subgroup $D_2 $ it decomposes as

$V \downarrow_{D_2} \simeq S_1^{\oplus a_1} \oplus S_2^{\oplus a_2} \oplus S_3^{\oplus a_3} \oplus S_4^{\oplus a_4} $ with $a_1+a_2+a_3+a_4=n $

Similarly, because $D_3=S_3 $ has two one-dimensional representations $T,S $ (the trivial and the sign representation) and one simple 2-dimensional representation $W $, restricting $V $ to this subgroup gives a decomposition

$V \downarrow_{D_3} \simeq T^{b_1} \oplus S^{\oplus b_2} \oplus W^{\oplus b_3} $, this time with $b_1+b_2+2b_3=n $

Restricting both decompositions further down to the common subgroup $C_2 $ one obtains a $C_2 $-isomorphism $V \downarrow_{D_2} \rightarrow^{\phi} V \downarrow_{D_3} $ which implies also that the above numbers must be chosen such that $a_1+a_3=b_1+b_3 $ and $a_2+a_4=b_2+b_3 $. We can summarize all this info about $V $ in a representation of the quiver

Here, the vertex spaces on the left are the iso-typical factors of $V \downarrow_{D_2} $ and those on the right those of $V \downarrow_{D_3} $ and the arrows give the block-components of the $C_2 $-isomorphism $\phi $. The nice things is that one can also reverse this process to get all $\tilde{\Gamma} $-representations from $\theta $-semistable representations of this quiver (having the additional condition that the square matrix made of the arrows is invertible) and isomorphisms of group-representation correspond to those of quiver-representations!

This proves that for all n the varieties of n-dimensional representations $\mathbf{rep}_n~\tilde{\Gamma} $ are smooth (but have several components corresponding to the different dimension vectors $~(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4;b_1,b_2,b_3) $ such that $\sum a_i = n = b_1+b_2+2b_3 $.

The basic principle of _M-geometry_ is that a lot of the representation theory follows from the ‘clan’ (see this post) determined by the simples of smallest dimensions. In the case of the extended modular group $\tilde{\Gamma} $ it follows that there are exactly 4 one-dimensional simples and exactly 4 2-dimensional simples, corresponding to the dimension vectors

$\begin{cases} a=(0,0,0,1;0,1,0) \\\ b=(0,1,0,0;0,1,0) \\\ c=(1,0,0,0;1,0,0) \\\ d=(0,0,1,0;1,0,0) \end{cases} $ resp. $\begin{cases} e=(0,1,1,0;0,0,1) \\\ f=(1,0,0,1;0,0,1) \\\ g=(0,0,1,1;0,0,1) \\\ h=(1,1,0,0;0,0,1) \end{cases} $

If one calculates the ‘clan’ of these 8 simples one obtains the double quiver of the graph on the left. Note that a and b appear twice, so one should glue the left and right hand sides together as a Moebius-strip. That is, the clan determining the representation theory of the extended modular group is a Moebius strip made of two hexagons!

However, one should not focuss too much on the hexagons (that is, the extended Dynkin diagram $\tilde{A_5} $) here. The two ‘backbones’ (e–f and g–h) have their vertices corresponding to 2-dimensional simples whereas the topand bottom vertices correspond to one-dimensional simples. Hence, the correct way to look at this clan is as two copies of the double quiver of the extended Dynkin diagram $\tilde{D_5} $ glued over their leaf vertices to form a Moebius strip. Remark that the components of the sotropic root of $\tilde{D_5} $ give the dimensions of the corresponding $\tilde{\Gamma} $ simples.

The remarkable ubiquity of (extended) Dynkins never ceases to amaze!

Continue readingHexagonal Moonshine (3)
One Comment

Hexagonal Moonshine (2)

Published July 11, 2007 by lievenlb

Delving into finite dimensional representations of the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ it is perhaps not too surprising to discover numerical connections with modular functions. Here, one such strange observation and a possible explanation.

Using the _fact_ that the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ is the free group product $C_2 \ast C_3 $ it is fairly easy to see that the variety of all n-dimensional representations $\mathbf{rep}_n~\Gamma $ is smooth (though it contains several connected components). Some of these components will contain simple representations, some will not. Anyway, we are not interested in all n-dimensional representations but in the isomorphism classes of such representations. The best algebraic approximation to this problem is by studying the quotient varieties

$\mathbf{iss}_n~\Gamma = \mathbf{rep}_n~\Gamma // GL(n) $

under the action of $GL(n) $ by basechange. Geometric invariant theory tells us that the points of this quotient variety correspond to isoclasses of semi-simple n-dimensional representations (whence the notation $\mathbf{iss}_n $). Again, these quotient varieties split into several connected components, some of which will have an open subset of points corresponding to simple representations.

It is a natural idea to compute the codimension of subvariety of proper semi-simples in the component of maximal dimension containing simple representations. _M-geometry_ allows you to reduce such calculation to quiver-problems. Anyway, if one does this for small values of n one obtains the following sequence of codimension-numbers (starting with $n=1 $

0,1,1,1,1,3,1,3,3,3,3,5,3,5,5,5,5,7,5,7,…

which doesnt seem too exciting before you feed it to Sloan’s integer sequences encyclopedia when one discovers that it is precisely sequence A063195 which gives the dimensions of weight 2n _cuspidal newforms_
for $\Gamma_0(6) $…

The optimistic “moonshine”-interpretation of this might be that these newforms can be viewed somehow as functions on the varieties of finite dimensional $\Gamma $-representations having the property that they pick out generic simple representations as their non-zeroes.

Be that as it may (one never knows in these matters), here a more down-to-earth explanation. The sequence A063195 obviously has a 6-periodicity behaviour so it suffices to understand why the codimension-sequence should have a similar feature (modulo computing the first few terms of it and observing the coincidence with the first few terms of A063195).

The modular group has exactly 6 one-dimensional representations and if one calculates their clan as in hexagonal moonshine (1) one obtains the hexagonal quiver

[tex]\xymatrix{& \vtx{S_1} \ar@/^/[dl] \ar@/^/[dr] & \\ \vtx{S_6} \ar@/^/[ur] \ar@/^/[d] & & \vtx{S_2} \ar@/^/[ul] \ar@/^/[d] \\ \vtx{S_5} \ar@/^/[u] \ar@/^/[dr] & & \vtx{S_3} \ar@/^/[u] \ar@/^/[dl] \\ & \vtx{S_4} \ar@/^/[ur] \ar@/^/[ul] & }[/tex]

M-geometry tells us that this clan contains enough information to determine the components of $\mathbf{rep}_n~\Gamma $ that contain simple representations. They correspond to dimension-vectors of this hexagonal quiver, say

$~(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6) $

such that $a_i \leq a_{i-1}+a_{i+1} $. Moreover, the component is of maximal dimension if the components $a_i $ are evenly spread over the six vertices.
This then explains that the codimension sequence we are interested in must satisfy 6-periodicity.

Reference

This post corrects the erroneous statement made in math.AG/0610587 that the codimension sequence are the dimensions of weight 2n modular forms. The day the paper hit the arXiv I informed the author of the mistakes he made and told him how they could be corrected. Having waited 9 months I’ve given up hope that a revision/correction is imminent.

Continue readingHexagonal Moonshine (2)
Leave a Comment

Hexagonal Moonshine (1)

Published June 18, 2007 by lievenlb

Over at the Arcadian Functor, Kea is continuing her series of blog posts on M-theory (the M is supposed to mean either Monad or Motif). A recurrent motif in them is the hexagon and now I notice hexagons popping up everywhere. I will explain some of these observations here in detail, hoping that someone, more in tune with recent technology, may have a use for them.

The three string braid group $B_3 $ is expected to play a crucial role in understanding monstrous moonshine so we should know more about it, for example about its finite dimensional representations. Now, _M geometry_ is pretty good at classifying finite dimensional representations provided the algebra is “smooth” which imples that for every natural number n the variety $\mathbf{rep}_n~A $ of n-dimensional representations of A is a manifold. Unfortunately, the group algebra $A=\mathbb{C} B_3 $ of the three string braid group is singular as we will see in a moment and the hunt for singularities in low dimensional representation varieties will reveal hexagons.

Continue readingHexagonal Moonshine (1)
One Comment

bloomsday end

Published June 9, 2007 by lievenlb

From time to time you may see here a message that NeverEndingBooks ends on Bloomsday (June 16th). Soon after, I hope to restart with another blog at the same URL. For starters, Neverendingbooks refers to my never-ending bookproject on noncommutative geometry started in 1999, a millenium ago… Today I\’m correcting the proofs and have even seen the cover-design of the book, supposed to be published in the fall. So, it should be really EndingBook(s), finally. From time to time it is good to start afresh. The next project is still pretty vague to me but it will be a lot more focussed and center around topics like Moonshine, the Monster, the Mathieu groups, Modular forms and group etc. Suggestions for a blogtitle are welcome (M-theory is already taken…). Besides there are technical problems with the machine running the blog, a new one is expected around June 16th. As I will not be able to clone between the two (one PPC, the new one Intel) I decided to start again from scratch. Anyway, Ive made a database-dump of NeverEndingBooks and will make it available to anyone interested in reading old posts (even the ones with a private-status). Finally, there are other reasons, better kept private. Give me a couple of weeks to resurface. For now, all the best.

2 Comments

recap and outlook

Published May 7, 2007 by lievenlb

After a lengthy spring-break, let us continue with our course on noncommutative geometry and $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representations. Last time, we have explained Grothendiecks mantra that all algebraic curves defined over number fields are contained in the profinite compactification
$\widehat{SL_2(\mathbb{Z})} = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~SL_2(\mathbb{Z})/N $ of the modular group $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ and in the knowledge of a certain subgroup G of its group of outer automorphisms. In particular we have seen that many curves defined over the algebraic numbers $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $ correspond to permutation representations of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. The profinite compactification $\widehat{SL_2}=\widehat{SL_2(\mathbb{Z})} $ is a continuous group, so it makes sense to consider its continuous n-dimensional representations $\mathbf{rep}_n^c~\widehat{SL_2} $ Such representations are known to have a finite image in $GL_n(\mathbb{C}) $ and therefore we get an embedding $\mathbf{rep}_n^c~\widehat{SL_2} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{rep}_n^{ss}~SL_n(\mathbb{C}) $ into all n-dimensional (semi-simple) representations of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. We consider such semi-simple points as classical objects as they are determined by – curves defined over $\overline{Q} $ – representations of (sporadic) finite groups – modlart data of fusion rings in RCTF – etc… To get a feel for the distinction between these continuous representations of the cofinite completion and all representations, consider the case of $\hat{\mathbb{Z}} = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z} $. Its one-dimensional continuous representations are determined by roots of unity, whereas all one-dimensional (necessarily simple) representations of $\mathbb{Z}=C_{\infty} $ are determined by all elements of $\mathbb{C} $. Hence, the image of $\mathbf{rep}_1^c~\hat{\mathbb{Z}} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{rep}_1~C_{\infty} $ is contained in the unit circle

and though these points are very special there are enough of them (technically, they form a Zariski dense subset of all representations). Our aim will be twofold : (1) when viewing a classical object as a representation of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ we can define its modular content (which will be the noncommutative tangent space in this classical point to the noncommutative manifold of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $). In this way we will associate noncommutative gadgets to our classical object (such as orders in central simple algebras, infinite dimensional Lie algebras, noncommutative potentials etc. etc.) which give us new tools to study these objects. (2) conversely, as we control the tangentspaces in these special points, they will allow us to determine other $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representations and as we vary over all classical objects, we hope to get ALL finite dimensional modular representations. I agree this may all sound rather vague, so let me give one example we will work out in full detail later on. Remember that one can reconstruct the sporadic simple Mathieu group $M_{24} $ from the dessin d’enfant

This
dessin determines a 24-dimensional permutation representation (of
$M_{24} $ as well of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $) which
decomposes as the direct sum of the trivial representation and a simple
23-dimensional representation. We will see that the noncommutative
tangent space in a semi-simple representation of
$SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ is determined by a quiver (that is, an
oriented graph) on as many vertices as there are non-isomorphic simple
components. In this special case we get the quiver on two points
$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^2ex/[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar@/^2ex/[ll]
\ar@{=>}@(ur,dr)^{96} } $ with just one arrow in each direction
between the vertices and 96 loops in the second vertex. To the
experienced tangent space-reader this picture (and in particular that
there is a unique cycle between the two vertices) tells the remarkable
fact that there is **a distinguished one-parameter family of
24-dimensional simple modular representations degenerating to the
permutation representation of the largest Mathieu-group**. Phrased
differently, there is a specific noncommutative modular Riemann surface
associated to $M_{24} $, which is a new object (at least as far
as I’m aware) associated to this most remarkable of sporadic groups.
Conversely, from the matrix-representation of the 24-dimensional
permutation representation of $M_{24} $ we obtain representants
of all of this one-parameter family of simple
$SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representations to which we can then perform
noncommutative flow-tricks to get a Zariski dense set of all
24-dimensional simples lying in the same component. (Btw. there are
also such noncommutative Riemann surfaces associated to the other
sporadic Mathieu groups, though not to the other sporadics…) So this
is what we will be doing in the upcoming posts (10) : explain what a
noncommutative tangent space is and what it has to do with quivers (11)
what is the noncommutative manifold of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $? and what is its connection with the Kontsevich-Soibelman coalgebra? (12)
is there a noncommutative compactification of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $? (and other arithmetical groups) (13) : how does one calculate the noncommutative curves associated to the Mathieu groups? (14) : whatever comes next… (if anything).
Leave a Comment