Tag: modular

Superpotentials and Calabi-Yaus

Published December 22, 2007 by lievenlb

Yesterday, Jan Stienstra gave a talk at theARTS entitled “Quivers, superpotentials and Dimer Models”. He started off by telling that the talk was based on a paper he put on the arXiv Hypergeometric Systems in two Variables, Quivers, Dimers and Dessins d’Enfants but that he was not going to say a thing about dessins but would rather focuss on the connection with superpotentials instead…pleasing some members of the public, while driving others to utter despair.

Anyway, it gave me the opportunity to figure out for myself what dessins might have to do with dimers, whathever these beasts are. Soon enough he put on a slide containing the definition of a dimer and from that moment on I was lost in my own thoughts… realizing that a dessin d’enfant had to be a dimer for the Dedekind tessellation of its associated Riemann surface!
and a few minutes later I could slap myself on the head for not having thought of this before :

There is a natural way to associate to a Farey symbol (aka a permutation representation of the modular group) a quiver and a superpotential (aka a necklace) defining (conjecturally) a Calabi-Yau algebra! Moreover, different embeddings of the cuboid tree diagrams in the hyperbolic plane may (again conjecturally) give rise to all sorts of arty-farty fanshi-wanshi dualities…

I’ll give here the details of the simplest example I worked out during the talk and will come back to general procedure later, when I’ve done a reference check. I don’t claim any originality here and probably all of this is contained in Stienstra’s paper or in some physics-paper, so if you know of a reference, please leave a comment. Okay, remember the Dedekind tessellation ?

So, all hyperbolic triangles we will encounter below are colored black or white. Now, take a Farey symbol and consider its associated special polygon in the hyperbolic plane. If we start with the Farey symbol

[tex]\xymatrix{\infty \ar@{-}_{(1)}[r] & 0 \ar@{-}_{\bullet}[r] & 1 \ar@{-}_{(1)}[r] & \infty} [/tex]

we get the special polygonal region bounded by the thick edges, the vertical edges are identified as are the two bottom edges. Hence, this fundamental domain has 6 vertices (the 5 blue dots and the point at $i \infty $) and 8 hyperbolic triangles (4 colored black, indicated by a black dot, and 4 white ones).

Right, now let us associate a quiver to this triangulation (which embeds the quiver in the corresponding Riemann surface). The vertices of the triangulation are also the vertices of the quiver (so in our case we are going for a quiver with 6 vertices). Every hyperbolic edge in the triangulation gives one arrow in the quiver between the corresponding vertices. The orientation of the arrow is determined by the color of a triangle of which it is an edge : if the triangle is black, we run around its edges counter-clockwise and if the triangle is white we run over its edges clockwise (that is, the orientation of the arrow is independent of the choice of triangles to determine it). In our example, there is one arrows directed from the vertex at $i $ to the vertex at $0 $, whether you use the black triangle on the left to determine the orientation or the white triangle on the right. If we do this for all edges in the triangulation we arrive at the quiver below

where x,y and z are the three finite vertices on the $\frac{1}{2} $-axis from bottom to top and where I’ve used the physics-convention for double arrows, that is there are two F-arrows, two G-arrows and two H-arrows. Observe that the quiver is of Calabi-Yau type meaning that there are as much arrows coming into a vertex as there are arrows leaving the vertex.

Now that we have our quiver we determine the superpotential as follows. Fix an orientation on the Riemann surface (for example counter-clockwise) and sum over all black triangles the product of the edge-arrows counterclockwise MINUS sum over all white triangles
the product of the edge arrows counterclockwise. So, in our example we have the cubic superpotential

$IH’B+HAG+G’DF+FEC-BHI-H’G’A-GFD-CEF’ $

From this we get the associated noncommutative algebra, which is the quotient of the path algebra of the above quiver modulo the following ‘commutativity relations’

$\begin{cases} GH &=G’H’ \\ IH’ &= IH \\ FE &= F’E \\ F’G’ &= FG \\ CF &= CF’ \\ EC &= GD \\ G’D &= EC \\ HA &= DF \\ DF’ &= H’A \\ AG &= BI \\ BI &= AG’ \end{cases} $

and morally this should be a Calabi-Yau algebra (( can someone who knows more about CYs verify this? )). This concludes the walk through of the procedure. Summarizing : to every Farey-symbol one associates a Calabi-Yau quiver and superpotential, possibly giving a Calabi-Yau algebra!

6 Comments

Anabelian & Noncommutative Geometry 2

Published December 19, 2007 by lievenlb

Last time (possibly with help from the survival guide) we have seen that the universal map from the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ to its profinite completion $\hat{\Gamma} = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~PSL_2(\mathbb{Z})/N $ (limit over all finite index normal subgroups $N $) gives an embedding of the sets of (continuous) simple finite dimensional representations

$\mathbf{simp}_c~\hat{\Gamma} \subset \mathbf{simp}~\Gamma $

and based on the example $\mu_{\infty} = \mathbf{simp}_c~\hat{\mathbb{Z}} \subset \mathbf{simp}~\mathbb{Z} = \mathbb{C}^{\ast} $ we would like the above embedding to be dense in some kind of noncommutative analogon of the Zariski topology on $\mathbf{simp}~\Gamma $.

We use the Zariski topology on $\mathbf{simp}~\mathbb{C} \Gamma $ as in these two M-geometry posts (( already, I regret terminology, I should have just called it noncommutative geometry )). So, what’s this idea in this special case? Let $\mathfrak{g} $ be the vectorspace with basis the conjugacy classes of elements of $\Gamma $ (that is, the space of class functions). As explained here it is a consequence of the Artin-Procesi theorem that the linear functions $\mathfrak{g}^{\ast} $ separate finite dimensional (semi)simple representations of $\Gamma $. That is we have an embedding

$\mathbf{simp}~\Gamma \subset \mathfrak{g}^{\ast} $

and we can define closed subsets of $\mathbf{simp}~\Gamma $ as subsets of simple representations on which a set of class-functions vanish. With this definition of Zariski topology it is immediately clear that the image of $\mathbf{simp}_c~\hat{\Gamma} $ is dense. For, suppose it would be contained in a proper closed subset then there would be a class-function vanishing on all simples of $\hat{\Gamma} $ so, in particular, there should be a bound on the number of simples of finite quotients $\Gamma/N $ which clearly is not the case (just look at the quotients $PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_p) $).

But then, the same holds if we replace ‘simples of $\hat{\Gamma} $’ by ‘simple components of permutation representations of $\Gamma $’. This is the importance of Farey symbols to the representation problem of the modular group. They give us a manageable subset of simples which is nevertheless dense in the whole space. To utilize this a natural idea might be to ask what such a permutation representation can see of the modular group, or in geometric terms, what the tangent space is to $\mathbf{simp}~\Gamma $ in a permutation representation (( more precisely, in the ‘cluster’ of points making up the simple components of the representation representation )). We will call this the modular content of the permutation representation and to understand it we will have to compute the tangent quiver $\vec{t}~\mathbb{C} \Gamma $.

profinite groups survival guide

Published December 14, 2007 by lievenlb

Even if you don’t know the formal definition of a profinte group, you know at least one example which explains the concept : the Galois group of the algebraic numbers $Gal = Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}) $ aka the absolute Galois group. By definition it is the group of all $\mathbb{Q} $-isomorphisms of the algebraic closure $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $. Clearly, it is an object of fundamental importance for mathematics but in spite of this very little is known about it. For example, it obviously is an infinite group but, apart from the complex conjugation, try to give one (1!) other nontrivial element… On the other hand we know lots of finite quotients of $Gal $. For, take any finite Galois extension $\mathbb{Q} \subset K $, then its Galois group $G_K = Gal(K/\mathbb{Q}) $ is a finite group and there is a natural onto morphism $\pi_K~:~Gal \rightarrow G_K $ obtained by dividing out all $K $-automorphisms of $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $. Moreover, all these projections fit together nicely. If we take a larger Galois extension $K \subset L $ then classical Galois theory tells us that there is a projection $\pi_{LK}~:~G_L \rightarrow G_K $ by dividing out the normal subgroup of all $K $-automorphisms of $L $ and these finite maps are compatible with those from the absolute Galois group, that is, for all such finite Galois extensions, the diagram below is commutative

[tex]\xymatrix{Gal \ar[rr]^{\pi_L} \ar[rd]_{\pi_K} & & G_L \ar[ld]^{\pi_{LK}} \\
& G_K &}[/tex]

By going to larger and larger finite Galois extensions $L $ we get closer and closer to the algebraic closure $\overline{Q} $ and hence a better and better finite approximation $G_L $ of the absolute Galois group $Gal $. Still with me? Congratulations, you just rediscovered the notion of a profinite group! Indeed, the Galois group is the projective limit

$Gal = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~G_L $

over all finite Galois extensions $L/\mathbb{Q} $. If the term ‘projective limit’ scares you off, it just means that all the projections $\pi_{KL} $ coming from finite Galois theory are compatible with those coming from the big Galois group as before. That’s it : profinite groups are just projective limits of finite groups.

These groups come equipped with a natural topology : the Krull topology. Again, this notion is best clarified by considering the absolute Galois group. Now that we have $Gal $ we would like to extend the classical Galois correspondence between subgroups and subfields $\mathbb{Q} \subset K \subset \overline{\mathbb{Q}} $ and between normal subgroups and Galois subfields. For each finite Galois extension $K/\mathbb{Q} $ we have a normal subgroup of finite index, the kernel $U_K=Ker(\pi_K) $ of the projection map above. Let us take the set of all $U_K $ as a fundamental system of neighborhoods of the identity element in $Gal $. This defines a topology on $Gal $ and this is the Krull topology. As every open subgroup has finite index it is clear that this turns $Gal $ into a compact topological group. Its purpose is that we can now extend the finite Galois correspondence to Krull’s Galois theorem :

There is a bijective lattice inverting Galois correspondence between the set of all closed subgroups of $Gal $ and the set of all subfields $\mathbb{Q} \subset F \subset \overline{\mathbb{Q}} $. Finite field extensions correspond in this bijection to open subgroups and the usual normal subgroup and factor group correspondences hold!

So far we had a mysterious group such as $Gal $ and reconstructed it from all its finite quotients as a projective limit. Now we can reverse the situation : suppose we have a wellknown group such as the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $, then we can look at the set of all its normal subgroups $U $ of finite index. For each of those we have a quotient map to a finite group $\pi_U~:~\Gamma \rightarrow G_U $ and clearly if $U \subset V $ we have a quotient map of finite groups $\pi_{UV}~:~G_U \rightarrow G_V $ compatible with the quotient maps from $\Gamma $

[tex]\xymatrix{\Gamma \ar[rr]^{\pi_U} \ar[rd]_{\pi_V} & & G_U \ar[ld]^{\pi_{UV}} \\
& G_V &}[/tex]

For the family of finite groups $G_U $ and groupmorphisms $\pi_{UV} $ we can ask for the ‘best’ group mapping to each of the $G_U $ compatible with the groupmaps $G_{UV} $. By ‘best’ we mean that any other group with this property will have a morphism to the best-one such that all quotient maps are compatible. This ‘best-one’ is called the projective limit

$\hat{\Gamma} = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~G_U $

and as a profinite group it has again a Krull topology making it into a compact group. Because the modular group $\Gamma $ had quotient maps to all the $G_U $ we know that there must be a groupmorphism to the best-one
$\phi~:~\Gamma \rightarrow \hat{\Gamma} $ and therefore we call $\hat{\Gamma} $ the profinite compactification (or profinite completion) of the modular group.

A final remark about finite dimensional representations. Every continuous complex representation of a profinite group like the absolute Galois group $Gal \rightarrow GL_n(\mathbb{C}) $ has finite image and this is why they are of little use for people studying the Galois group as it conjecturally reduces the study of these representations to ‘just’ all representations of all finite groups. Instead they consider representations to other topological fields such as p-adic numbers $Gal \rightarrow GL_n(\mathbb{Q}_p) $ and call these Galois representations.

For people interested in Grothendieck’s dessins d’enfants, however, continuous complex representations of the profinite compactification $\hat{\Gamma} $ is exactly their object of study and via the universal map $\phi~:~\Gamma \rightarrow \hat{\Gamma} $ above we have an embedding

$\mathbf{rep}_c~\hat{\Gamma} \rightarrow \mathbf{rep}~\Gamma $

of them in all finite dimensional representations of the modular group (
and we have a similar map restricted to simple representations). I hope this clarifies a bit obscure terms in the previous post. If not, drop a comment.

4 Comments

Anabelian vs. Noncommutative Geometry

Published December 12, 2007 by lievenlb

This is how my attention was drawn to what I have since termed
anabelian algebraic geometry, whose starting point was exactly a study
(limited for the moment to characteristic zero) of the action of absolute
Galois groups (particularly the groups $Gal(\overline{K}/K) $, where K is an extension of finite type of the prime field) on (profinite) geometric fundamental
groups of algebraic varieties (defined over K), and more particularly (breaking with a well-established tradition) fundamental groups which are very far
from abelian groups (and which for this reason I call anabelian). Among
these groups, and very close to the group $\hat{\pi}_{0,3} $ , there is the profinite compactification of the modular group $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $, whose quotient by its centre
$\{ \pm 1 \} $ contains the former as congruence subgroup mod 2, and can also be
interpreted as an oriented cartographic group, namely the one classifying triangulated oriented maps (i.e. those whose faces are all triangles or
monogons).

The above text is taken from Alexander Grothendieck‘s visionary text Sketch of a Programme. He was interested in the permutation representations of the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ as they correspond via Belyi-maps and his own notion of dessins d’enfants to smooth projective curves defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $. One can now study the action of the absolute Galois group $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}) $ on these curves and their associated dessins. Because every permutation representation of $\Gamma $ factors over a finite quotient this gives an action of the absolute Galois group as automorphisms on the profinite compactification

$\hat{\Gamma} = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~\Gamma/N $

where the limit is taken over all finite index normal subgroups $N \triangleleft PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. In this way one realizes the absolute Galois group as a subgroup of the outer automorphism group of the profinite group $\hat{\Gamma} $. As a profinite group is a compact topological group one should study its continuous finite dimensional representations which are precisely those factoring through a finite quotient. In the case of $\hat{\Gamma} $ the simple continuous representations $\mathbf{simp}_c~\hat{\Gamma} $ are precisely the components of the permutation representations of the modular group. So in a sense, anabelian geometry is the study of these continuous simples together wirth the action of the absolute Galois group on it.

In noncommutative geometry we are interested in a related representation theoretic problem. We would love to know the simple finite dimensional representations $\mathbf{simp}~\Gamma $ of the modular group as this would give us all simples of the three string braid group $B_3 $. So a natural question presents itself : how are these two ‘geometrical’ objects $\mathbf{simp}_c~\hat{\Gamma} $ (anabelian) and $\mathbf{simp}~\Gamma $ (noncommutative) related and can we use one to get information about the other?

This is all rather vague so far, so let us work out a trivial case to get some intuition. Consider the profinite completion of the infinite Abelian group

$\hat{\mathbb{Z}} = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z} = \prod_p \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $

As all simple representations of an Abelian group are one-dimensional and because all continuous ones factor through a finite quotient $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z} $ we see that in this case

$\mathbf{simp}_c~\hat{\mathbb{Z}} = \mu_{\infty} $

is the set of all roots of unity. On the other hand, the simple representations of $\mathbb{Z} $ are also one-dimensional and are determined by the image of the generator so

$\mathbf{simp}~\mathbb{Z} = \mathbb{C} – { 0 } = \mathbb{C}^* $

Clearly we have an embedding $\mu_{\infty} \subset \mathbb{C}^* $ and the roots of unity are even dense in the Zariski topology. This might look a bit strange at first because clearly all roots of unity lie on the unit circle which ‘should be’ their closure in the complex plane, but that’s because we have a real-analytic intuition. Remember that the Zariski topology of $\mathbb{C}^*$ is just the cofinite topology, so any closed set containing the infinitely many roots of unity should be the whole space!

Let me give a pedantic alternative proof of this (but one which makes it almost trivial that a similar result should be true for most profinite completions…). If $c $ is the generator of $\mathbb{Z} $ then the different conjugacy classes are precisely the singletons $c^n $. Now suppose that there is a polynomial $a_0+a_1x+\ldots+a_mx^m $ vanishing on all the continuous simples of $\hat{\mathbb{Z}} $ then this means that the dimensions of the character-spaces of all finite quotients $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z} $ should be bounded by $m $ (for consider $x $ as the character of $c $), which is clearly absurd.

Hence, whenever we have a finitely generated group $G $ for which there is no bound on the number of irreducibles for finite quotients, then morally the continuous simple space for the profinite completion

$\mathbf{simp}_c~\hat{G} \subset \mathbf{simp}~G $

should be dense in the Zariski topology on the noncommutative space of simple finite dimensional representations of $G $. In particular, this should be the case for the modular group $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $.

There is just one tiny problem : unlike the case of $\mathbb{Z} $ for which this space is an ordinary (ie. commutative) affine variety $\mathbb{C}^* $, what do we mean by the “Zariski topology” on the noncommutative space $\mathbf{simp}~PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ ? Next time we will clarify what this might be and show that indeed in this case the subset

$\mathbf{simp}_c~\hat{\Gamma} \subset \mathbf{simp}~\Gamma $

will be a Zariski closed subset!

5 Comments

more iguanodons via kfarey.sage

Published December 11, 2007 by lievenlb

For what it is worth, Ive computed some more terms in the iguanodon series. Here they are

$L_2(7),M_{12},A_{16},M_{24},A_{28},A_{40},A_{48},A_{60},A_{68},A_{88},A_{96},A_{120},A_{132},A_{148},A_{164},A_{196},\ldots $

By construction, the n-th iguanodon group $Ig_n $ (corresponding to the n-th Farey sequence) is a subgroup of the alternating group on its (half)legs. Hence to prove that all remaining iguanodons are alternating groups boils down to proving that they are sufficiently transitive, for example, by showing that there are permutations of certain cycle-types in the group. Im sure any grouptheorist can crack this problem over lunch, so if you did please drop a comment.

Clearly, I didnt do the calculations in the archaic way of the previous post (as depicted on the left) which consisted in adding a pair of new legs at the proper place in the spine for every new Farey number, write down the two generating permutations, giving them to GAP and check simplicity and the isomorphism type.

Instead I used a nice SAGE-package to compute with Farey-symbols written by Chris Kurth and available from his website. As this package is a good tool to experiment hunting for other dinosaur-series of simple groups coming from series of Farey-symbols, Ill include the details for $Ig_3 $ (the example used to outline the construction of the Iguanodon-series ).

First we need to have the n-th Farey-sequence $F(n) $. There are several short Python programs around to do this, for example this one from the Python-Cookbook. Save it to your sage-directory and name it fareyseq.py and load it into sage via load fareyseq.py. Then typing farey(3) to the sage-prompt spits back

sage: farey(3)
[(1, 3), (1, 2), (2, 3)]

That is, 0 and 1 are not included and Farey-numbers are represented by numerator-denominator couples. The iguanodon-series uses the Fareys upto 1/2, identifies the edges connecting 0 and 1 to $\infty $ and makes all other intervals odd. That is, the corresponding Farey symbol for F(3) is

[tex]\xymatrix{\infty \ar@{-}[r]_{1} & 0 \ar@{-}[r]_{\bullet} & \frac{1}{3} \ar@{-}[r]_{\bullet} & \frac{1}{2} \ar@{-}[r]_{\bullet} & 1 \ar@{-}[r]_{1} & \infty}[/tex]

(to add to the confusion, I denote odd intervals by a black-bullet whereas in Kulkarni’s paper they are white…) Anyway, get Kurth’s kfarey-package and save the folder as kfarey in your sage-folder. Kurth uses the following notation for Farey-symbols

The Farey Symbol is a list [a,b,p] where 
a is a list of numerators, b a list of denominators, and p the pairing 
information. If x[i]=a[i]/b[i]: 
inf x0 x1 x2 ... xn inf 
  p0 p1 p2 ... pn pn+1 
So p[i] is the pairing of the side between x[i-1] and x[i]. The p[i]’s can be 
positive integers, indicating pairing between sides, or -2 or -3, meaning 
an even or odd pairing respectively.

The above Farey-symbol is therefore represented as
[[0,1,1,1],[1,3,2,1],[1,-3,-3,-3,1]]. The kfarey-function LRCosetRep(F) returns two permutations L and R giving the permutation action of the two generators of the modular group $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $

$~~~L = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix}~\qquad \text{and} \qquad~R = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $

on the half-legs of the inguanodon (the dessin corresponding to the Farey-symbol). Here’s the sage transcript

sage: load kfarey/farey.sage
sage: load kfarey/conggroups.sage
sage: load kfarey/LR.sage
sage: ig3=[[0,1,1,1],[1,3,2,1],[1,-3,-3,-3,1]]
sage: LRCosetRep(ig3)
[(1,2,3,9,10,11,6,7,8,4,5)(12), (1,8,4,2,11,6,3,12,10,7,5)(9)]

Giving these two generators to GAP one verifies that they indeed generate $M_{12} $

gap> ig3:=Group((1,2,3,9,10,11,6,7,8,4,5)(12), (1,8,4,2,11,6,3,12,10,7,5)(9));
Group([ (1,2,3,9,10,11,6,7,8,4,5), (1,8,4,2,11,6,3,12,10,7,5) ])
gap> IsSimpleGroup(ig3);
true
gap> IsomorphismTypeInfoFiniteSimpleGroup(ig3);
rec( series := “Spor”, name := “M(12)” )

kfarey has plenty of other useful functions. One can even create an .eps file of the fundamental domain specified by the subgroup of the modular group encoded by the Farey symbol using MakeEpsFile(F). For the above example it returns the picture on the right. Not quite as nice as the one on the left, but surely a lot easier to create.

5 Comments

problema bovinum

Published December 3, 2007 by lievenlb

Suppose for a moment that some librarian at the Bodleian Library announces that (s)he discovered an old encrypted book attributed to Isaac Newton. After a few months of failed attempts, the code is finally cracked and turns out to use a Public Key system based on the product of two gigantic prime numbers, $2^{32582657}-1 $ and $2^{30402457}-1 $, which were only discovered to be prime recently. Would one deduce from this that Newton invented public key cryptography and that he used alchemy to factor integers? (( Come to think of it, some probably would ))

The cynic in me would argue that it is a hell of a coincidence for this text to surface exactly at the moment in history when we are able to show these numbers to be prime and understand their cryptographic use, and conclude that the book is likely to be a fabrication. Still, stranger things have happened in the history of mathematics…

In 1773, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing at that time librarian at the Herzog-August-Bibliothek discovered and published a Greek epigram in 22 elegiac couplets. The manuscript describes a problem sent by Archimedes to the mathematicians in Alexandria.

In his beautiful book “Number Theory, an approach through history. From Hammurapi to Legendre” Andre Weil asserts (( Chapter I,IX )):

Many mathematical epigrams are known. Most of them state problems of little depth; not so Lessing’s find; there is indeed every reason to accept the attribution to Archimedes, and none for putting it into doubt.

This Problema Bovidum (the cattle problem) is a surprisingly difficult diophantine problem and the simplest complete solution consists of eigth numbers, each having about 206545 digits. As we will see later the final ingredient in the solution is the solution of Pell’s equation using continued fractions discovered by Lagrange in 1768 and published in 1769 in a long memoir. Lagrange’s solution to the Pell equation was inserted in Euler’s “Algebra” which was composed in 1771 but published only in 1773… the very same year as Lessing’s discovery! (( all dates learned from Weil’s book Chp. III,XII ))

Weil’s book doesn’t include the details of the original epigram. The (lost) archeologist in me wanted to see the original Greek 22 couplets as well as a translation. So here they are : (( thanks to the Cattle problem site ))

A PROBLEM

which Archimedes solved in epigrams, and which he communicated to students of such matters at Alexandria in a letter to Eratosthenes of Cyrene.

If thou art diligent and wise, O stranger, compute the number of cattle of the Sun, who once upon a time grazed on the fields of the Thrinacian isle of Sicily, divided into four herds of different colours, one milk white, another a glossy black, a third yellow and the last dappled. In each herd were bulls, mighty in number according to these proportions: Understand, stranger, that the white bulls were equal to a half and a third of the black together with the whole of the yellow, while the black were equal to the fourth part of the dappled and a fifth, together with, once more, the whole of the yellow. Observe further that the remaining bulls, the dappled, were equal to a sixth part of the white and a seventh, together with all of the yellow. These were the proportions of the cows: The white were precisely equal to the third part and a fourth of the whole herd of the black; while the black were equal to the fourth part once more of the dappled and with it a fifth part, when all, including the bulls, went to pasture together. Now the dappled in four parts were equal in number to a fifth part and a sixth of the yellow herd. Finally the yellow were in number equal to a sixth part and a seventh of the white herd. If thou canst accurately tell, O stranger, the number of cattle of the Sun, giving separately the number of well-fed bulls and again the number of females according to each colour, thou wouldst not be called unskilled or ignorant of numbers, but not yet shalt thou be numbered among the wise.

But come, understand also all these conditions regarding the cattle of the Sun. When the white bulls mingled their number with the black, they stood firm, equal in depth and breadth, and the plains of Thrinacia, stretching far in all ways, were filled with their multitude. Again, when the yellow and the dappled bulls were gathered into one herd they stood in such a manner that their number, beginning from one, grew slowly greater till it completed a triangular figure, there being no bulls of other colours in their midst nor none of them lacking. If thou art able, O stranger, to find out all these things and gather them together in your mind, giving all the relations, thou shalt depart crowned with glory and knowing that thou hast been adjudged perfect in this species of wisdom.

The Lessing epigram may very well be an extremely laborious hoax but it is still worth spending a couple of posts on it. It gives us the opportunity to retell the amazing history of Pell’s problem rangingfrom the ancient Greeks and Indians, over Fermat and his correspondents, to Euler and Lagrange (with a couple of recent heroes entering the story). And, on top of this, the modular group is all the time just around the corner…

4 Comments

Tetra-lattices

Published August 24, 2007 by lievenlb

Error-correcting codes can be used to construct interesting lattices, the best known example being the Leech lattice constructed from the binary Golay code. Recall that a lattice $L $ in $\mathbb{R}^n $ is the set of all integral linear combinations of n linearly independent vectors $\{ v_1,\ldots,v_n \} $, that is

$L = \mathbb{Z} v_1 \oplus \ldots \oplus \mathbb{Z} v_n $

The theta function of the lattice is the power series

$\Theta_L(q) = \sum_l a_l q^l $

with $a_l $ being the number of vectors in $L $ of squared length $l $. If all squared lengths are even integers, the lattice is called even and if it has one point per unit volume, we call it unimodular. The theta function of an even unimodular lattice is a modular form. One of the many gems from Conway’s book The sensual (quadratic) form is the chapter “Can You Hear the Shape of a Lattice?” or in other words, whether the theta function determines the lattice.

Ernst Witt knew already that there are just two even unimodular lattices in 16 dimensions : $E_* \oplus E_8 $ and $D_{16}^+ $ and as there is just one modular form of weigth 8 upto scalars, the theta function cannot determine the latice in 16 dimensions. The number of dimensions for a counterexamle was sunsequently reduced to 12 (Kneser), 8 (Kitaoka),6 (Sloane) and finally 4 (Schiemann).

Sloane and Conway found an elegant counterexample in dimension 4 using two old friends : the tetracode and the taxicab number 1729 = 7 x 13 x 19.

2 Comments

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.

4 Comments

Mathieu’s blackjack (2)

Published July 17, 2007 by lievenlb

(continued from part one). Take twelve cards and give them values 0,1,2,…,11 (for example, take the jack to have value 11 and the queen to have value 0). The hexads are 6-tuples of cards having the following properties. When we star their values by the scheme on the left below and write a 0 below a column if it has just one star at the first row or two stars on rows two and three (a + if the unique star is at the first row or two stars in the other columns, and a – if the unique star in on the second row or two stars in rows one and two) or a ? if the column has 3 or 0 stars, we get a tetracodeword where we are allowed to replace a ? by any digit. Moreover, we want that the stars are NOT distributed over the four columns such that all of the possible outcomes 0,1,2,3 appear once. For example, the card-pile { queen, 3, 4, 7, 9, jack } is an hexad as is indicated on the right below and has column-distributions (1,1,2,2).

$\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline 6 & 3 & 0 & 9 \\ 5 & 2 & 7 & 10 \\ 4 & 1 & 8 & 11 \\ \hline & & & \end{array} $ $\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline & \ast & \ast & \ast \\ & & \ast & \\ \ast & & & \ast \\ \hline – & 0 & – & + \end{array} $

The hexads form a Steiner-system S(5,6,12), meaning that every 5-pile of cards is part of a unique hexad. The permutations on these twelve cards, having the property that they send every hexad to another hexad, form the sporadic simple group $M_{12} $, the _Mathieu group_ of order 95040. For now, we assume these facts and deduce from them the Conway-Ryba winning strategy for Mathieu’s blackjack : the hexads are exactly the winning positions and from a non-hexad pile of total value at least 21 there is always a legal (that is, total value decreasing) move to an hexad by replacing one card in the pile by a card from the complement.

It seems that the first proof of this strategy consisted in calculating the Grundy values of all 905 legal positions in Mathieu’s blackjack. Later Joseph Kahane and Alex Ryba gave a more conceptual proof, that we will try to understand.

Take a non-hexad 6-pile such that the total value of its cards is at least 21, then removing any one of the six cards gives a 5-pile and is by the Steiner-property contained in a unique hexad. Hence we get 6 different hexads replacing one card from the non-hexad pile by a card not contained in it. We claim that at least one of these operations is a legal move, meaning that the total value of the cards decreases. Let us call a counterexample a misfit and record some of its properties until we can prove its non-existence.

A misfit is a non-hexad with total value at least 21 such that all 6 hexads, obtained from it by replacing one card by a card from its complement, have greater total value

A misfit must contain the queen-card. If not, we could get an hexad replacing one misfit-card (value > 0) by the queen (value zero) so this would be a legal move. Further, the misfit cannot contain the jack-card for otherwise replacing it by a lower-valued card to obtain an hexad is a legal move.

A misfit contains at least three cards from {queen,1,2,3,4}. If not, three of these cards are the replacements of misfit-cards to get an hexad, but then at least one of the replaced cards has a greater value than the replacement, giving a legal move to an hexad.

A misfit contains more than three cards from {queen=0, 1,2,3,4}. Assume there are precisely three $\{ c_1,c_2,c_3 \} $ from this set, then the complement of the misfit in the hexad {queen,1,2,3,4,jack} consists of three elements $\{ d_1,d_2,d_3 \} $ (a misfit cannot contain the jack). The two leftmost columns of the value-scheme (left above) form the hexad {1,2,3,4,5,6} and because the Mathieu group acts 5-transitively there is an element of $M_{12} $ taking $\{ 0,1,2,3,4,11 \} \rightarrow \{ 1,2,3,4,5,6 \} $ and we may even assume that it takes $\{ c_1,c_2,c_3 \} \rightarrow \{ 4,5,6 \} $. But then, in the new value-scheme (determined by that $M_{12} $-element) the two leftmost columns of the misfit look like

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

and the column-distribution of the misfit must be either (3,0,2,1) or (3,0,1,2) (it cannot be (3,0,3,0) or (3,0,0,3) otherwise the (image of the) misfit would be an hexad). Let {i,j} be the two misfit-values in the 2-starred column. Replacing either of them to get an hexad must have the replacement lying in the second column (in order to get a valid column distribution (3,1,1,1)). Now, the second column consists of two small values (from {0,1,2,3,4}) and the large jack-value (11). So, at least one of {i,j} is replaced by a smaller valued card to get an hexad, which cannot happen by the misfit-property.

Now, if the misfit shares four cards with {queen,1,2,3,4} then it cannot contain the 10-card. Otherwise, the replacement to get an hexad of the 10-card must be the 11-card (by the misfit-property) but then there would be another hexads containing five cards from {queen,0,1,2,3,jack} which cannot happen by the Steiner-property. Right, let’s summarize what we know so far about our misfit. Its value-scheme looks like

$\begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline 6 & III & \ast & 9 \\ 5 & II & 7 & . \\ IV & I & 8 & . \\ \hline & & & \end{array} $ and it must contain three of the four Romans. At this point Kahane and Ryba claim that the two remaining cards (apart from the queen and the three romans) must be such that there is exactly one from {5,6} and exactly one from {7,8,9}. They argue this follows from duality where the dual pile of a card-pile $\{ x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_6 \} $ is the pile $\{ 11-x_1,11-x_2,\ldots,11-x_6 \} $. This duality acts on the hexads as the permutation $~(0,11)(1,10)(2,9)(3,8)(4,7)(5,6) \in M_{12} $. Still, it is unclear to me how they deduce from it the above claim (lines 13-15 of page 4 of their paper). I’d better have some coffee and work around this (to be continued…)

If you want to play around a bit with hexads and the blackjack game, you’d better first download SAGE (if you haven’t done so already) and then get David Joyner’s hexad.sage file and put it in a folder under your sage installation (David suggests ‘spam’ himself…). You can load the routines into sage by typing from the sage-prompt attach ‘spam/hexad.sage’. Now, you can find the hexad from a 5-pile via the command find_hexad([a1,a2,a3,a4,a5],minimog_shuffle) and you can get the winning move for a blackjack-position via blackjack_move([a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6],minimog_shuffle). More details are in the Joyner-Casey(Luers) paper referenced last time.

Reference

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

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!

One Comment