Tag: noncommutative

yet another math2.0 proposal

Published February 11, 2009 by lievenlb

At present, some interesting experiments are going on exploring the potential of web 2.0 for mathematical research, that is, setting up a usable math 2.0 – environment.

The starting point is that math 2.0 should be something like blogs+extras. Most mathematicians are not that interested in the latest ICT-tools, but at least they are slowly getting used to reading blogs, so we should stick to this medium and try to enhance it for online-research.

Michael Nielsen has written a couple of posts on this : an after-dinner talk about doing science online aiming at a mathematics audience, building on an essay on the future of science.

Both posts were influential to Tim Gowers‘ dream of massively collaborative mathematics. He took an interesting problem, laid down a set of 12 rules-of-conduct and invited everyone to contribute. The project is still gaining momentum and Terry Tao is also posting about it on his blog.

Michael Nielsen compared Gowers’ approach to long established practice in the open-source software community.

Another interesting experiment is nLab, a knowledge-wiki set up by the reader-community of the n-category cafe. They describe it as : “In other words: this place is like the library, or alchemist’s laboratory, in the back room of the n-Category Café. You come here to work and go there to chat.
We are hoping to create here a space for presentation and archival storage of collaborative work of encyclopedic, didactic, expositional, but also original nature. This will include, but not be limited to, the subjects being discussed every day in the n-Café.”

Both experiments are working great, aided by the authority-status of the blogger, resp. the popularity of the blog, within the research topic. But, what about topics failing to have a blogger or blog of similar status? Should we all drop our current research-interest and convert to either combinatorics or higher-categories?

History taught us in case of failing authority we’d better settle for ‘manageable anarchy’. So, here’s my math2.0-anarchy-allowed-proposal :

per research-topic (say, an arXiv-topic) we’ll set up a seperate online-reasearch-environment
anyone interested in that topic is allowed to register and fill-out a profile linking to her list of publications, describe his research interests, her ongoing projects and other trivia
some may want to start a blog within the environment or join an already existing one, and should be allowed to do so
some may opt just to read blog posts and occasionally comment, and again, should be allowed to do so
some may want to set up a research-group to solve a specific problem. they may choose to do this in the open, or as a covert-operation, taking on new members only by invitation
some may use the environment mainly for networking or chatting-up with their friends
some research-groups may want to start a group-blog or knowledge-wiki to archive their finds
surely we’ll be not discussing math in ASCII but in latex
anyone will be able to follow specific sub-projects via RSS-feeds
anyone can see site-wide activity online, see who’s currently there and chat if they feel the need
anyone can do whatever sensible web2.0-thing there is I forgot by age and hence by ignorance

If this seems like a tall order to satisfy, a bit of research will show that we live at the fortunate moment in time when all the basic ingredient are there, freely available, to do just that!

Over the last weeks I’ve wasted too many hours googling for help, reading-up different fora to get it all working, but … somehow succeeded. Here’s a screen-shot of my very-own NSN (for : noncommutative-social-network) :

Please allow me a few more days to tidy things up and then I’ll make the link available so that anyone interested can experiment with it.

But then, I’ve no desire to spend my days web-mastering such a site. Perhaps some of you would like to take this on, provided you’d get it on a silver plate? (that is, without having to spend too much time setting it up).

So. I’ll run a series of posts explaining how to “set-up your own math2.0 environment”. I’m not aiming at the internet-savvy ones (they’ll probably do it a lot more efficiently), but at people like myself, who are interested to investigate web-based possibilities, but need to be told where to find the very basics, such as the location of their httpd.conf file or their php.ini and such.

I’ve zeroed my MacBookPro, re-installed OSX 10.5 from scratch, upgraded it to current 10.5.6 but no extras (say, vanilla 10.5.6). And I’ll guide you from there, in all gory details, with plenty of screen-shots as I would have liked to find them when I tried to set this up.

One Comment

Mumford’s treasure map

Published December 13, 2008 by lievenlb

David Mumford did receive earlier this year the 2007 AMS Leroy P. Steele Prize for Mathematical Exposition. The jury honors Mumford for “his beautiful expository accounts of a host of aspects of algebraic geometry”. Not surprisingly, the first work they mention are his mimeographed notes of the first 3 chapters of a course in algebraic geometry, usually called “Mumford’s red book” because the notes were wrapped in a red cover. In 1988, the notes were reprinted by Springer-Verlag. Unfortnately, the only red they preserved was in the title.

The AMS describes the importance of the red book as follows. “This is one of the few books that attempt to convey in pictures some of the highly abstract notions that arise in the field of algebraic geometry. In his response upon receiving the prize, Mumford recalled that some of his drawings from The Red Book were included in a collection called Five Centuries of French Mathematics. This seemed fitting, he noted: “After all, it was the French who started impressionist painting and isn’t this just an impressionist scheme for rendering geometry?””

These days it is perfectly possible to get a good grasp on difficult concepts from algebraic geometry by reading blogs, watching YouTube or plugging in equations to sophisticated math-programs. In the early seventies though, if you wanted to know what Grothendieck’s scheme-revolution was all about you had no choice but to wade through the EGA’s and SGA’s and they were notorious for being extremely user-unfriendly regarding illustrations…

So the few depictions of schemes available, drawn by people sufficiently fluent in Grothendieck’s new geometric language had no less than treasure-map-cult-status and were studied in minute detail. Mumford’s red book was a gold mine for such treasure maps. Here’s my favorite one, scanned from the original mimeographed notes (it looks somewhat tidier in the Springer-version)

It is the first depiction of $\mathbf{spec}(\mathbb{Z}[x]) $, the affine scheme of the ring $\mathbb{Z}[x] $ of all integral polynomials. Mumford calls it the”arithmetic surface” as the picture resembles the one he made before of the affine scheme $\mathbf{spec}(\mathbb{C}[x,y]) $ corresponding to the two-dimensional complex affine space $\mathbb{A}^2_{\mathbb{C}} $. Mumford adds that the arithmetic surface is ‘the first example which has a real mixing of arithmetic and geometric properties’.

Let’s have a closer look at the treasure map. It introduces some new signs which must have looked exotic at the time, but have since become standard tools to depict algebraic schemes.

For starters, recall that the underlying topological space of $\mathbf{spec}(\mathbb{Z}[x]) $ is the set of all prime ideals of the integral polynomial ring $\mathbb{Z}[x] $, so the map tries to list them all as well as their inclusions/intersections.

The doodle in the right upper corner depicts the ‘generic point’ of the scheme. That is, the geometric object corresponding to the prime ideal $~(0) $ (note that $\mathbb{Z}[x] $ is an integral domain). Because the zero ideal is contained in any other prime ideal, the algebraic/geometric mantra (“inclusions reverse when shifting between algebra and geometry”) asserts that the gemetric object corresponding to $~(0) $ should contain all other geometric objects of the arithmetic plane, so it is just the whole plane! Clearly, it is rather senseless to depict this fact by coloring the whole plane black as then we wouldn’t be able to see the finer objects. Mumford’s solution to this is to draw a hairy ball, which in this case, is sufficiently thick to include fragments going in every possible direction. In general, one should read these doodles as saying that the geometric object represented by this doodle contains all other objects seen elsewhere in the picture if the hairy-ball-doodle includes stuff pointing in the direction of the smaller object. So, in the case of the object corresponding to $~(0) $, the doodle has pointers going everywhere, saying that the geometric object contains all other objects depicted.

Let’s move over to the doodles in the lower right-hand corner. They represent the geometric object corresponding to principal prime ideals of the form $~(p(x)) $, where $p(x) $ in an irreducible polynomial over the integers, that is, a polynomial which we cannot write as the product of two smaller integral polynomials. The objects corresponding to such prime ideals should be thought of as ‘horizontal’ curves in the plane.

The doodles depicted correspond to the prime ideal $~(x) $, containing all polynomials divisible by $x $ so when we divide it out we get, as expected, a domain $\mathbb{Z}[x]/(x) \simeq \mathbb{Z} $, and the one corresponding to the ideal $~(x^2+1) $, containing all polynomials divisible by $x^2+1 $, which can be proved to be a prime ideals of $\mathbb{Z}[x] $ by observing that after factoring out we get $\mathbb{Z}[x]/(x^2+1) \simeq \mathbb{Z}[i] $, the domain of all Gaussian integers $\mathbb{Z}[i] $. The corresponding doodles (the ‘generic points’ of the curvy-objects) have a predominant horizontal component as they have the express the fact that they depict horizontal curves in the plane. It is no coincidence that the doodle of $~(x^2+1) $ is somewhat bulkier than the one of $~(x) $ as the later one must only depict the fact that all points lying on the straight line to its left belong to it, whereas the former one must claim inclusion of all points lying on the ‘quadric’ it determines.

Apart from these ‘horizontal’ curves, there are also ‘vertical’ lines corresponding to the principal prime ideals $~(p) $, containing the polynomials, all of which coefficients are divisible by the prime number $p $. These are indeed prime ideals of $\mathbb{Z}[x] $, because their quotients are
$\mathbb{Z}[x]/(p) \simeq (\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})[x] $ are domains, being the ring of polynomials over the finite field $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z} = \mathbb{F}_p $. The doodles corresponding to these prime ideals have a predominant vertical component (depicting the ‘vertical’ lines) and have a uniform thickness for all prime numbers $p $ as each of them only has to claim ownership of the points lying on the vertical line under them.

Right! So far we managed to depict the zero prime ideal (the whole plane) and the principal prime ideals of $\mathbb{Z}[x] $ (the horizontal curves and the vertical lines). Remains to depict the maximal ideals. These are all known to be of the form
$\mathfrak{m} = (p,f(x)) $
where $p $ is a prime number and $f(x) $ is an irreducible integral polynomial, which remains irreducible when reduced modulo $p $ (that is, if we reduce all coefficients of the integral polynomial $f(x) $ modulo $p $ we obtain an irreducible polynomial in $~\mathbb{F}_p[x] $). By the algebra/geometry mantra mentioned before, the geometric object corresponding to such a maximal ideal can be seen as the ‘intersection’ of an horizontal curve (the object corresponding to the principal prime ideal $~(f(x)) $) and a vertical line (corresponding to the prime ideal $~(p) $). Because maximal ideals do not contain any other prime ideals, there is no reason to have a doodle associated to $\mathfrak{m} $ and we can just depict it by a “point” in the plane, more precisely the intersection-point of the horizontal curve with the vertical line determined by $\mathfrak{m}=(p,f(x)) $. Still, Mumford’s treasure map doesn’t treat all “points” equally. For example, the point corresponding to the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_1 = (3,x+2) $ is depicted by a solid dot $\mathbf{.} $, whereas the point corresponding to the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_2 = (3,x^2+1) $ is represented by a fatter point $\circ $. The distinction between the two ‘points’ becomes evident when we look at the corresponding quotients (which we know have to be fields). We have

$\mathbb{Z}[x]/\mathfrak{m}_1 = \mathbb{Z}[x]/(3,x+2)=(\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z})[x]/(x+2) = \mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z} = \mathbb{F}_3 $ whereas $\mathbb{Z}[x]/\mathfrak{m}_2 = \mathbb{Z}[x]/(3,x^2+1) = \mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}[x]/(x^2+1) = \mathbb{F}_3[x]/(x^2+1) = \mathbb{F}_{3^2} $

because the polynomial $x^2+1 $ remains irreducible over $\mathbb{F}_3 $, the quotient $\mathbb{F}_3[x]/(x^2+1) $ is no longer the prime-field $\mathbb{F}_3 $ but a quadratic field extension of it, that is, the finite field consisting of 9 elements $\mathbb{F}_{3^2} $. That is, we represent the ‘points’ lying on the vertical line corresponding to the principal prime ideal $~(p) $ by a solid dot . when their quotient (aka residue field is the prime field $~\mathbb{F}_p $, by a bigger point $\circ $ when its residue field is the finite field $~\mathbb{F}_{p^2} $, by an even fatter point $\bigcirc $ when its residue field is $~\mathbb{F}_{p^3} $ and so on, and on. The larger the residue field, the ‘fatter’ the corresponding point.

In fact, the ‘fat-point’ signs in Mumford’s treasure map are an attempt to depict the fact that an affine scheme contains a lot more information than just the set of all prime ideals. In fact, an affine scheme determines (and is determined by) a “functor of points”. That is, to every field (or even every commutative ring) the affine scheme assigns the set of its ‘points’ defined over that field (or ring). For example, the $~\mathbb{F}_p $-points of $\mathbf{spec}(\mathbb{Z}[x]) $ are the solid . points on the vertical line $~(p) $, the $~\mathbb{F}_{p^2} $-points of $\mathbf{spec}(\mathbb{Z}[x]) $ are the solid . points and the slightly bigger $\circ $ points on that vertical line, and so on.

This concludes our first attempt to decypher Mumford’s drawing, but if we delve a bit deeper, we are bound to find even more treasures… (to be continued).

5 Comments

noncommutative F_un geometry (2)

Published October 17, 2008 by lievenlb

Last time we tried to generalize the Connes-Consani approach to commutative algebraic geometry over the field with one element $\mathbb{F}_1 $ to the noncommutative world by considering covariant functors

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

which over $\mathbb{C} $ resp. $\mathbb{Z} $ become visible by a complex (resp. integral) algebra having suitable universal properties.

However, we didn’t specify what we meant by a complex noncommutative variety (resp. an integral noncommutative scheme). In particular, we claimed that the $\mathbb{F}_1 $-‘points’ associated to the functor

$D~:~\mathbf{groups} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} \qquad G \mapsto G_2 \times G_3 $ (here $G_n $ denotes all elements of order $n $ of $G $)

were precisely the modular dessins d’enfants of Grothendieck, but didn’t give details. We’ll try to do this now.

For algebras over a field we follow the definition, due to Kontsevich and Soibelman, of so called “noncommutative thin schemes”. Actually, the thinness-condition is implicit in both Soule’s-approach as that of Connes and Consani : we do not consider R-points in general, but only those of rings R which are finite and flat over our basering (or field).

So, what is a noncommutative thin scheme anyway? Well, its a covariant functor (commuting with finite projective limits)

$\mathbb{X}~:~\mathbf{Alg}^{fd}_k \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} $

from finite-dimensional (possibly noncommutative) $k $-algebras to sets. Now, the usual dual-space operator gives an anti-equivalence of categories

$\mathbf{Alg}^{fd}_k \leftrightarrow \mathbf{Coalg}^{fd}_k \qquad A=C^* \leftrightarrow C=A^* $

so a thin scheme can also be viewed as a contra-variant functor (commuting with finite direct limits)

$\mathbb{X}~:~\mathbf{Coalg}^{fd}_k \rightarrow \mathbf{Sets} $

In particular, we are interested to associated to any {tex]k $-algebra $A $ its representation functor :

$\mathbf{rep}(A)~:~\mathbf{Coalg}^{fd}_k \rightarrow \mathbf{Sets} \qquad C \mapsto Alg_k(A,C^*) $

This may look strange at first sight, but $C^* $ is a finite dimensional algebra and any $n $-dimensional representation of $A $ is an algebra map $A \rightarrow M_n(k) $ and we take $C $ to be the dual coalgebra of this image.

Kontsevich and Soibelman proved that every noncommutative thin scheme $\mathbb{X} $ is representable by a $k $-coalgebra. That is, there exists a unique coalgebra $C_{\mathbb{X}} $ (which they call the coalgebra of ‘distributions’ of $\mathbb{X} $) such that for every finite dimensional $k $-algebra $B $ we have

$\mathbb{X}(B) = Coalg_k(B^*,C_{\mathbb{X}}) $

In the case of interest to us, that is for the functor $\mathbf{rep}(A) $ the coalgebra of distributions is Kostant’s dual coalgebra $A^o $. This is the not the full linear dual of $A $ but contains only those linear functionals on $A $ which factor through a finite dimensional quotient.

So? You’ve exchanged an algebra $A $ for some coalgebra $A^o $, but where’s the geometry in all this? Well, let’s look at the commutative case. Suppose $A= \mathbb{C}[X] $ is the coordinate ring of a smooth affine variety $X $, then its dual coalgebra looks like

$\mathbb{C}[X]^o = \oplus_{x \in X} U(T_x(X)) $

the direct sum of all universal (co)algebras of tangent spaces at points $x \in X $. But how do we get the variety out of this? Well, any coalgebra has a coradical (being the sun of all simple subcoalgebras) and in the case just mentioned we have

$corad(\mathbb{C}[X]^o) = \oplus_{x \in X} \mathbb{C} e_x $

so every point corresponds to a unique simple component of the coradical. In the general case, the coradical of the dual coalgebra $A^o $ is the direct sum of all simple finite dimensional representations of $A $. That is, the direct summands of the coalgebra give us a noncommutative variety whose points are the simple representations, and the remainder of the coalgebra of distributions accounts for infinitesimal information on these points (as do the tangent spaces in the commutative case).

In fact, it was a surprise to me that one can describe the dual coalgebra quite explicitly, and that $A_{\infty} $-structures make their appearance quite naturally. See this paper if you’re in for the details on this.

That settles the problem of what we mean by the noncommutative variety associated to a complex algebra. But what about the integral case? In the above, we used extensively the theory of Kostant-duality which works only for algebras over fields…

Well, not quite. In the case of $\mathbb{Z} $ (or more general, of Dedekind domains) one can repeat Kostant’s proof word for word provided one takes as the definition of the dual $\mathbb{Z} $-coalgebra
of an algebra (which is $\mathbb{Z} $-torsion free)

$A^o = { f~:~A \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}~:~A/Ker(f)~\text{is finitely generated and torsion free}~} $

(over general rings there may be also variants of this duality, as in Street’s book an Quantum groups). Probably lots of people have come up with this, but the only explicit reference I have is to the first paper I’ve ever written. So, also for algebras over $\mathbb{Z} $ we can define a suitable noncommutative integral scheme (the coradical approach accounts only for the maximal ideals rather than all primes, but somehow this is implicit in all approaches as we consider only thin schemes).

Fine! So, we can make sense of the noncommutative geometrical objects corresponding to the group-algebras $\mathbb{C} \Gamma $ and $\mathbb{Z} \Gamma $ where $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ is the modular group (the algebras corresponding to the $G \mapsto G_2 \times G_3 $-functor). But, what might be the points of the noncommutative scheme corresponding to $\mathbb{F}_1 \Gamma $???

Well, let’s continue the path cut out before. “Points” should correspond to finite dimensional “simple representations”. Hence, what are the finite dimensional simple $\mathbb{F}_1 $-representations of $\Gamma $? (Or, for that matter, of any group $G $)

Here we come back to Javier’s post on this : a finite dimensional $\mathbb{F}_1 $-vectorspace is a finite set. A $\Gamma $-representation on this set (of n-elements) is a group-morphism

$\Gamma \rightarrow GL_n(\mathbb{F}_1) = S_n $

hence it gives a permutation representation of $\Gamma $ on this set. But then, if finite dimensional $\mathbb{F}_1 $-representations of $\Gamma $ are the finite permutation representations, then the simple ones are the transitive permutation representations. That is, the points of the noncommutative scheme corresponding to $\mathbb{F}_1 \Gamma $ are the conjugacy classes of subgroups $H \subset \Gamma $ such that $\Gamma/H $ is finite. But these are exactly the modular dessins d’enfants introduced by Grothendieck as I explained a while back elsewhere (see for example this post and others in the same series).

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

This week at F_un Mathematics (1)

Published October 11, 2008 by lievenlb

In case you haven’t noticed it yet : I’m not living here anymore.

My blogging is (at least for the moment) transfered to the F_un Mathematics blog which some prefer to call the “ceci n’est pas un corps”-blog, which is very fine with me.

Javier gave a talk at MPI on Soule’s approach to algebraic geometry over the elusive field with one element $\mathbb{F}_1 $ and wrote two posts about it The skeleton of Soule’s F_un geometry and Gadgets a la Soule. The rough idea being that a variety over the field with one element only acquires flesh after a base extension to $\mathbb{Z} $ and to cyclotomic integers.

I did some posts on a related (but conceptually somewhat easier) approach due to Alain Connes and Katia Consani. I’ve tried to explain their construction at the level of (mature) undergraduate students. So far, there are three posts part1, part2 and part3. Probably there is one more session to come in which I will explain why they need functors to graded sets.

In the weeks to come we plan to post about applications of this F_un-geometry to noncommutative geometry (the Bost-Connes system) and Grothendieck’s anabelian geometry (the theory of dessins d’enfant). I’ll try to leave a short account of the main posts here, but clearly you are invited to feed your feedreader this.

Perhaps I’ll return here for a week mid november to do some old-fashioned vacation blogging. I have to admit I did underestimate Numeo.fr. Rumours have it that our place is connected wirelessly to the web…

Leave a Comment

Connes-Consani for undergraduates (3)

Published October 10, 2008 by lievenlb

A quick recap of last time. We are trying to make sense of affine varieties over the elusive field with one element $\mathbb{F}_1 $, which by Grothendieck’s scheme-philosophy should determine a functor

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

from finite Abelian groups to sets, typically giving pretty small sets $N(A) $. Using the F_un mantra that $\mathbb{Z} $ should be an algebra over $\mathbb{F}_1 $ any $\mathbb{F}_1 $-variety determines an integral scheme by extension of scalars, as well as a complex variety (by extending further to $\mathbb{C} $). We have already connected the complex variety with the original functor into a gadget that is a couple $~(\mathbf{nano}(N),\mathbf{maxi}(R)) $ where $R $ is the coordinate ring of a complex affine variety $X_R $ having the property that every element of $N(A) $ can be realized as a $\mathbb{C} A $-point of $X_R $. Ringtheoretically this simply means that to every element $x \in N(A) $ there is an algebra map $N_x~:~R \rightarrow \mathbb{C} A $.

Today we will determine which gadgets determine an integral scheme, and do so uniquely, and call them the sought for affine schemes over $\mathbb{F}_1 $.

Let’s begin with our example : $\mathbf{nano}(N) = \underline{\mathbb{G}}_m $ being the forgetful functor, that is $N(A)=A $ for every finite Abelian group, then the complex algebra $R= \mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}] $ partners up to form a gadget because to every element $a \in N(A)=A $ there is a natural algebra map $N_a~:~\mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}] \rightarrow \mathbb{C} A $ defined by sending $x \mapsto e_a $. Clearly, there is an obvious integral form of this complex algebra, namely $\mathbb{Z}[x,x^{-1}] $ but we have already seen that this algebra represents the mini-functor

$\mathbf{min}(\mathbb{Z}[x,x^{-1}])~:~\mathbf{abelian} \rightarrow \mathbf{sets} \qquad A \mapsto (\mathbb{Z} A)^* $

and that the group of units $(\mathbb{Z} A)^* $ of the integral group ring $\mathbb{Z} A $ usually is a lot bigger than $N(A)=A $. So, perhaps there is another less obvious $\mathbb{Z} $-algebra $S $ doing a much better job at approximating $N $? That is, if we can formulate this more precisely…

In general, every $\mathbb{Z} $-algebra $S $ defines a gadget $\mathbf{gadget}(S) = (\mathbf{mini}(S),\mathbf{maxi}(S \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C})) $ with the obvious (that is, extension of scalars) evaluation map

$\mathbf{mini}(S)(A) = Hom_{\mathbb{Z}-alg}(S, \mathbb{Z} A) \rightarrow Hom_{\mathbb{C}-alg}(S \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C}, \mathbb{C} A) = \mathbf{maxi}(S \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C})(A) $

Right, so how might one express the fact that the integral affine scheme $X_T $ with integral algebra $T $ is the ‘best’ integral approximation of a gadget $~(\mathbf{nano}(N),\mathbf{maxi}(R)) $. Well, to begin its representing functor should at least contain the information given by $N $, that is, $\mathbf{nano}(N) $ is a sub-functor of $\mathbf{mini}(T) $ (meaning that for every finite Abelian group $A $ we have a natural inclusion $N(A) \subset Hom_{\mathbb{Z}-alg}(T, \mathbb{Z} A) $). As to the “best”-part, we must express that all other candidates factor through $T $. That is, suppose we have an integral algebra $S $ and a morphism of gadgets (as defined last time)

$f~:~(\mathbf{nano}(N),\mathbf{maxi}(R)) \rightarrow \mathbf{gadget}(S) = (\mathbf{mini}(S),\mathbf{maxi}(S \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C})) $

then there ought to be $\mathbb{Z} $-algebra morphism $T \rightarrow S $ such that the above map $f $ factors through an induced gadget-map $\mathbf{gadget}(T) \rightarrow \mathbf{gadget}(S) $.

Fine, but is this definition good enough in our trivial example? In other words, is the “obvious” integral ring $\mathbb{Z}[x,x^{-1}] $ the best integral choice for approximating the forgetful functor $N=\underline{\mathbb{G}}_m $? Well, take any finitely generated integral algebra $S $, then saying that there is a morphism of gadgets from $~(\underline{\mathbb{G}}_m,\mathbf{maxi}(\mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}]) $ to $\mathbf{gadget}(S) $ means that there is a $\mathbb{C} $-algebra map $\psi~:~S \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}] $ such that for every finite Abelian group $A $ we have a commuting diagram

$\xymatrix{A \ar[rr] \ar[d]_e & & Hom_{\mathbb{Z}-alg}(S, \mathbb{Z} A) \ar[d] \\
Hom_{\mathbb{C}-alg}(\mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}],\mathbb{C} A) \ar[rr]^{- \circ \psi} & & Hom_{\mathbb{C}-alg}(S \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C}, \mathbb{C} A)} $

Here, $e $ is the natural evaluation map defined before sending a group-element $a \in A $ to the algebra map defined by $x \mapsto e_a $ and the vertical map on the right-hand side is extensions by scalars. From this data we must be able to show that the image of the algebra map

$\xymatrix{S \ar[r]^{i} & S \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C} \ar[r]^{\psi} & \mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}]} $

is contained in the integral subalgebra $\mathbb{Z}[x,x^{-1}] $. So, take any generator $z $ of $S $ then its image $\psi(z) \in \mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}] $ is a Laurent polynomial of degree say $d $ (that is, $\psi(z) = c_{-d} x^{-d} + \ldots c_{-1} x^{-1} + c_0 + c_1 x + \ldots + c_d x^d $ with all coefficients a priori in $\mathbb{C} $ and we need to talk them into $\mathbb{Z} $).

Now comes the basic trick : take a cyclic group $A=C_N $ of order $N > d $, then the above commuting diagram applied to the generator of $C_N $ (the evaluation of which is the natural projection map $\pi~:~\mathbb{C}[x.x^{-1}] \rightarrow \mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}]/(x^N-1) = \mathbb{C} C_N $) gives us the commuting diagram

$\xymatrix{S \ar[r] \ar[d] & S \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{C} \ar[r]^{\psi} & \mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}] \ar[d]^{\pi} \\
\mathbb{Z} C_n = \frac{\mathbb{Z}[x,x^{-1}]}{(x^N-1)} \ar[rr]^j & & \frac{\mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}]}{(x^N-1)}} $

where the horizontal map $j $ is the natural inclusion map. Tracing $z \in S $ along the diagram we see that indeed all coefficients of $\psi(z) $ have to be integers! Applying the same argument to the other generators of $S $ (possibly for varying values of N) we see that , indeed, $\psi(S) \subset \mathbb{Z}[x,x^{-1}] $ and hence that $\mathbb{Z}[x,x^{-1}] $ is the best integral approximation for $\underline{\mathbb{G}}_m $.

That is, we have our first example of an affine variety over the field with one element $\mathbb{F}_1 $ : $~(\underline{\mathbb{G}}_m,\mathbf{maxi}(\mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}]) \rightarrow \mathbf{gadget}(\mathbb{Z}[x,x^{-1}]) $.

What makes this example work is that the infinite group $\mathbb{Z} $ (of which the complex group-algebra is the algebra $\mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}] $) has enough finite Abelian group-quotients. In other words, $\mathbb{F}_1 $ doesn’t see $\mathbb{Z} $ but rather its profinite completion $\hat{\mathbb{Z}} = \underset{\leftarrow} \mathbb{Z}/N\mathbb{Z} $… (to be continued when we’ll consider noncommutative $\mathbb{F}_1 $-schemes)

In general, an affine $\mathbb{F}_1 $-scheme is a gadget with morphism of gadgets
$~(\mathbf{nano}(N),\mathbf{maxi}(R)) \rightarrow \mathbf{gadget}(S) $ provided that the integral algebra $S $ is the best integral approximation in the sense made explicit before. This rounds up our first attempt to understand the Connes-Consani approach to define geometry over $\mathbb{F}_1 $ apart from one important omission : we have only considered functors to $\mathbf{sets} $, whereas it is crucial in the Connes-Consani paper to consider more generally functors to graded sets. In the final part of this series we’ll explain what that’s all about.

Leave a Comment

F_un hype resulting in new blog

Published October 3, 2008 by lievenlb

At the Max-Planck Institute in Bonn Yuri Manin gave a talk about the field of one element, $\mathbb{F}_1 $ earlier this week entitled “Algebraic and analytic geometry over the field F_1”.

Moreover, Javier Lopez-Pena and Bram Mesland will organize a weekly “F_un Study Seminar” starting next tuesday.

Over at Noncommutative Geometry there is an Update on the field with one element pointing us to a YouTube-clip featuring Alain Connes explaining his paper with Katia Consani and Matilde Marcolli entitled “Fun with F_un”. Here’s the clip

Finally, as I’ll be running a seminar here too on F_un, we’ve set up a group blog with the people from MPI (clearly, if you are interested to join us, just tell!). At the moment there are just a few of my old F_un posts and a library of F_un papers, but hopefully a lot will be added soon. So, have a look at F_un mathematics

One Comment

F_un with Manin

Published September 10, 2008 by lievenlb

Amidst all LHC-noise, Yuri I. Manin arXived today an interesting paper Cyclotomy and analytic geometry over $\mathbb{F}_1 $.

The paper gives a nice survey of the existent literature and focusses on the crucial role of roots of unity in the algebraic geometry over the non-existent field with one element $\mathbb{F}_1 $ (in French called ‘F-un’). I have tried to do a couple of posts on F-un some time ago but now realize, reading Manin’s paper, I may have given up way too soon…

At several places in the paper, Manin hints at a possible noncommutative geometry over $\mathbb{F}_1 $ :

This is the appropriate place to stress that in a wider context of Toen-Vaqui ‘Au-dessous de Spec Z’, or eventually in noncommutative $\mathbb{F}_1 $-geometry, teh spectrum of $\mathbb{F}_1 $ loses its privileged position as a final object of a geometric category. For example, in noncommutative geometry, or in an appropriate category of stacks, the quotient of this spectrum modulo the trivial action of a group must lie below this spectrum.

Soule’s algebras $\mathcal{A}_X $ are a very important element of the structure, in particular, because they form a bridge to Arakelov geometry. Soule uses concrete choices of them in order to produce ‘just right’ supply of morphisms, without a priori constraining these choices formally. In this work, we use these algebras and their version also to pave a way to the analytic (and possibly non-commutative) geometry over $\mathbb{F}_1 $.

Back when I was writing the first batch of F-un posts, I briefly contemplated the possibility of a noncommutative geometry over $\mathbb{F}_1 $, but quickly forgot about it because I thought it would be forced to reduce to commutative geometry.

Here is the quick argument : noncommutative geometry is really the study of coalgebras (see for example my paper or if you prefer more trustworthy sources the Kontsevich-Soibelman paper). Now, unless I made a mistake, I think all coalgebras over $\mathbb{F}_1 $ must be co-commutative (even group-like), so reducing to commutative geometry.

Surely, I’m missing something…

9 Comments

the future of this blog (2)

Published August 14, 2008 by lievenlb

is decided : I’ll keep maintaining this URL until new-year’s eve. At that time I’ll be blogging here for 5 years…

The few encounters I’ve had with architects, taught me this basic lesson of life : the main function of several rooms in a house changes every 5 years (due to children and yourself getting older).

So, from january 1st 2009, I’ll be moving out of here. I will leave the neverendingbooks-site intact for some time to come, so there is no need for you to start archiving it en masse, yet.

Previously I promised to reconsider this blog’s future over a short vacation, but as vacation is looking to be as illusory as the 24-dimensional monster-manifold, I spend my time throwing up ideas into thin and, it seems, extremely virtual air.

Some of you will think this is a gimmick, aiming to attract more comments (there is no post getting more responses than an imminent-end-to-this-blog-post) but then I hope to have settled this already. Neverendingbooks will die on 31st of december 2008. The only remaining issue being : do I keep on blogging or do I look for another time-consumer such as growing tomatoes or, more probably, collecting single malts…

For reasons I’ve stated before, I can see little future in anything but a conceptual-, group- blog. The first part I can deal with, but for the second I’ll be relying on others. So, all I can do is offer formats hoping that some of you are willing to take the jump and try it out together.

Such as in the bloomsday-post where I sketched the BistroMath blog-concept. Perhaps you thought I was just kidding, hoping for people to commit themselves and them calling “Gotcha…”. Believe me, 30 years of doing mathematics have hardwired my brains such that I always genuinely believe in the things I write down at the moment I do (but equally, if someone offers me enough evidence to the contrary, I’ll drop any idea on the spot).

I still think the BistroMath-project has the potential of leading to a bestseller but Ive stated I was not going to pursue the idea if not at least 5 people were willing to join and at least 1 publisher showed an interest. Ironically, I got 2 publishers interested but NO contributors… End of that idea.

Today I offer another conceptual group-blog : the Noether-boys seminar (with tagline ; _the noncommutative experts’ view on 21st century mathematics_). And to make it a bit more concrete Ive even designed a potential home-page :

So, what’s the deal? In the 1930-ties Emmy Noether collected around her in Goettingen an exceptionally strong group of students and collaborators (among them : Deuring, Fitting, Levitski, Schilling, Tsen, Weber, Witt, VanderWaerden, Brauer, Artin, Hasse, MacLane, Bernays, Tausky, Alexandrov… to name a few).

Collectively, they were know as the “Noether-boys” (or “Noether-Knaben” or “Trabanten” in German) and combined seminar with a hike to the nearby hills or late-night-overs at Emmy’s apartment. (Btw. there’s nothing sexist about Noether-boys. When she had to leave Germany for Bryn Mawr College, she replaced her boys to form a group of Noether-girls, and even in Goettingen there were several women in the crowd).

They were the first generation of mathematicians going noncommutative and had to struggle a bit to get their ideas accepted.
I’d like to know what they might think about the current state of mathematics in which noncommutativity seems to be generally accepted, even demanded if you want to act fashionable.

I’m certain half of the time they would curse intensely, and utter something like ‘steht shon alles bei Frau Noether…’ (as Witt is witnessed to have done at least once), and about half the time they might get genuinely interested, and be willing to try and explain the events leading up to this to their fellow “Trabanten”. Either way, it would provide excellent blog-posts.

So I’m looking for people willing to borrow the identity of one of the Noether-boys or -girls. That is, you have to be somewhat related to their research and history to offer a plausible reaction to recent results in either noncommutative algebra, noncommutative geometry or physics. Assuming their identity you will then blog to express your (that is, ‘their’) opinion and interact with your fellow Trabanten as might have been the case in the old days…

I’d like to keep Emmy Noether for the admin-role of the blog but all other characters are free at this moment (except I’m hoping that no-one will choose my favourite role, which is probably the least expected of them anyway).

So please, if you think this concept might lead to interesting blogging, contact me! If I don’t get any positives in this case either, I might think about yet another concept (or instead may give up entirely).

4 Comments

the future of this blog

Published August 6, 2008 by lievenlb

Some weeks ago Peter Woit of Not Even Wrong and Bee of Backreaction had a video-chat on all sorts of things (see the links above to see the whole clip) including the nine minute passage below on ‘the future of (science) blogs’.

click here to see the video

The crucial point being that blogging takes time and that one often feels that the time invested might have been better spend doing other things. Bee claims it doesn’t take her that long to write a post, but given their quality, I would be surprised if it took her less than one to two hours on average.

Speaking for myself, I’ve uploaded two (admittedly short) notes to the arXiv recently. The shorter one took me less time than an average blogpost, the longer one took me about the time I need for one of the better posts. So, is it really justified to invest that amount of time in something as virtual as a blog?

Probably it all depends on the type of blog you’re running and what goal (if any) you want to achieve with it.

I can see the point in setting up a blog connected to a book you once wrote or intend to write (such as Not Even Wrong or Terry Tao).

I can also understand that people start a blog to promote their research-topic or to have a social function for people interested in the same topic (such as Noncommutative Geometry or the n-category cafe).

I can even imagine the energy boost resulting from setting up a group-blog with fellow researchers working at the same place (such as Secret Blogging Seminar or the Everything Seminar and some others).

So, there are plenty of good reasons to start and keep investing in a serious mathematical blog (as opposed to mere link-blogs (I won’t mention examples) or standard-textbook-excerpts-blogs (again, I’ll refrain from giving examples)).

What is needed is either a topical focus or a clear medium term objective. Unfortunately, this blog has neither…

At present, I feel like the journalist, spending too much time getting into a subject merely to write a short piece on it for today’s paper, which will be largely forgotten by tomorrow, but still hoping that his better writings will result into something having a longer half-life…

That is, I need to reconsider the future of this blog and will do so over a short vacation. As always, suggestions you might have are welcome. Perhaps I should take the bait offered by John McKay in his comment yesterday and do a series on the illusory 24-dimensional monster-manifold.

At the very least it would take this blog back to the only time when it was somewhat focussed on a single topic and was briefly called MoonshineMath. But then, even this is not without risks…

7 Comments