# Tag: Ramanujan

Whenever I visit someone’s YouTube or Twitter profile page, I hope to see an interesting banner image. Here’s the one from Richard Borcherds’ YouTube Channel.

Not too surprisingly for Borcherds, almost all of these numbers are related to the monster group or its moonshine.

Let’s try to decode them, in no particular order.

196884

John McKay’s observation $196884 = 1 + 196883$ was the start of the whole ‘monstrous moonshine’ industry. Here, $1$ and $196883$ are the dimensions of the two smallest irreducible representations of the monster simple group, and $196884$ is the first non-trivial coefficient in Klein’s j-function in number theory.

$196884$ is also the dimension of the space in which Robert Griess constructed the Monster, following Simon Norton’s lead that there should be an algebra structure on the monster-representation of that dimension. This algebra is now known as the Griess algebra.

Here’s a recent talk by Griess “My life and times with the sporadic simple groups” in which he tells about his construction of the monster (relevant part starting at 1:15:53 into the movie).

1729

1729 is the second (and most famous) taxicab number. A long time ago I did write a post about the classic Ramanujan-Hardy story the taxicab curve (note to self: try to tidy up the layout of some old posts!).

Recently, connections between Ramanujan’s observation and K3-surfaces were discovered. Emory University has an enticing press release about this: Mathematicians find ‘magic key’ to drive Ramanujan’s taxi-cab number. The paper itself is here.

“We’ve found that Ramanujan actually discovered a K3 surface more than 30 years before others started studying K3 surfaces and they were even named. It turns out that Ramanujan’s work anticipated deep structures that have become fundamental objects in arithmetic geometry, number theory and physics.”

Ken Ono

24

There’s no other number like $24$ responsible for the existence of sporadic simple groups.

24 is the length of the binary Golay code, with isomorphism group the sporadic Mathieu group $M_24$ and hence all of the other Mathieu-groups as subgroups.

24 is the dimension of the Leech lattice, with isomorphism group the Conway group $Co_0 = .0$ (dotto), giving us modulo its center the sporadic group $Co_1=.1$ and the other Conway groups $Co_2=.2, Co_3=.3$, and all other sporadics of the second generation in the happy family as subquotients (McL,HS,Suz and $HJ=J_2$)

24 is the central charge of the Monster vertex algebra constructed by Frenkel, Lepowski and Meurman. Most experts believe that the Monster’s reason of existence is that it is the symmetry group of this vertex algebra. John Conway was one among few others hoping for a nicer explanation, as he said in this interview with Alex Ryba.

24 is also an important number in monstrous moonshine, see for example the post the defining property of 24. There’s a lot more to say on this, but I’ll save it for another day.

60

60 is, of course, the order of the smallest non-Abelian simple group, $A_5$, the rotation symmetry group of the icosahedron. $A_5$ is the symmetry group of choice for most viruses but not the Corona-virus.

3264

3264 is the correct solution to Steiner’s conic problem asking for the number of conics in $\mathbb{P}^2_{\mathbb{C}}$ tangent to five given conics in general position.

Steiner himself claimed that there were $7776=6^5$ such conics, but realised later that he was wrong. The correct number was first given by Ernest de Jonquières in 1859, but a rigorous proof had to await the advent of modern intersection theory.

Eisenbud and Harris wrote a book on intersection theory in algebraic geometry, freely available online: 3264 and all that.

248

248 is the dimension of the exceptional simple Lie group $E_8$. $E_8$ is also connected to the monster group.

If you take two Fischer involutions in the monster (elements of conjugacy class 2A) and multiply them, the resulting element surprisingly belongs to one of just 9 conjugacy classes:

1A,2A,2B,3A,3C,4A,4B,5A or 6A

The orders of these elements are exactly the dimensions of the fundamental root for the extended $E_8$ Dynkin diagram.

This is yet another moonshine observation by John McKay and I wrote a couple of posts about it and about Duncan’s solution: the monster graph and McKay’s observation, and $E_8$ from moonshine groups.

163

163 is a remarkable number because of the ‘modular miracle’
$e^{\pi \sqrt{163}} = 262537412640768743.99999999999925…$
This is somewhat related to moonshine, or at least to Klein’s j-function, which by a result of Kronecker’s detects the classnumber of imaginary quadratic fields $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-D})$ and produces integers if the classnumber is one (as is the case for $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-163})$).

The details are in the post the miracle of 163, or in the paper by John Stillwell, Modular Miracles, The American Mathematical Monthly, 108 (2001) 70-76.

His description of the $j$-function (at 4:13 in the movie) is simply hilarious!

Borcherds connects $163$ to the monster moonshine via the $j$-function, but there’s another one.

The monster group has $194$ conjugacy classes and monstrous moonshine assigns a ‘moonshine function’ to each conjugacy class (the $j$-function is assigned to the identity element). However, these $194$ functions are not linearly independent and the space spanned by them has dimension exactly $163$.

Yesterday, there was an interesting post by John Baez at the n-category cafe: The Riemann Hypothesis Says 5040 is the Last.

The 5040 in the title refers to the largest known counterexample to a bound for the sum-of-divisors function
$\sigma(n) = \sum_{d | n} d = n \sum_{d | n} \frac{1}{d}$

In 1983, the french mathematician Guy Robin proved that the Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to
$\frac{\sigma(n)}{n~log(log(n))} < e^{\gamma} = 1.78107...$ when $n > 5040$.

The other known counterexamples to this bound are the numbers 3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,16,18,20,24,30,36,48,60,72,84,120,180,240,360,720,840,2520.

In Baez’ post there is a nice graph of this function made by Nicolas Tessore, with 5040 indicated with a grey line towards the right and the other counterexamples jumping over the bound 1.78107…

Robin’s theorem has a remarkable history, starting in 1915 with good old Ramanujan writing a part of this thesis on “highly composite numbers” (numbers divisible by high powers of primes).

His PhD. adviser Hardy liked his result but called them “in the backwaters of mathematics” and most of it was not published at the time of Ramanujan’s degree ceremony in 1916, due to paper shortage in WW1.

When Ramanujan’s paper “Highly Composite Numbers” was first published in 1988 in ‘The lost notebook and other unpublished papers’ it became clear that Ramanujan had already part of Robin’s theorem.

Ramanujan states that if the Riemann hypothesis is true, then for $n_0$ large enough we must have for all $n > n_0$ that
$\frac{\sigma(n)}{n~log(log(n))} < e^{\gamma} = 1.78107...$ When Jean-Louis Nicolas, Robin's PhD. adviser, read Ramanujan's lost notes he noticed that there was a sign error in Ramanujan's formula which prevented him from seeing Robin's theorem.

Nicolas: “Soon after discovering the hidden part, I read it and saw the difference between Ramanujan’s result and Robin’s one. Of course, I would have bet that the error was in Robin’s paper, but after recalculating it several times and asking Robin to check, it turned out that there was an error of sign in what Ramanujan had written.”

If you are interested in the full story, read the paper by Jean-Louis Nicolas and Jonathan Sondow: Ramanujan, Robin, Highly Composite Numbers, and the Riemann Hypothesis.

What’s the latest on Robin’s inequality? An arXiv-search for Robin’s inequality shows a flurry of activity.

For starters, it has been verified for all numbers smaller that $10^{10^{13}}$…

It has been verified, unconditionally, for certain classes of numbers:

• all odd integers $> 9$
• all numbers not divisible by a 25-th power of a prime

Rings a bell? Here’s another hint:

According to Xiaolong Wu in A better method than t-free for Robin’s hypothesis one can replace the condition of ‘not divisible by an N-th power of a prime’ by ‘not divisible by an N-th power of 2’.

Further, he claims to have an (as yet unpublished) argument that Robin’s inequality holds for all numbers not divisible by $2^{42}$.

So, where should we look for counterexamples to the Riemann hypothesis?

What about the orders of huge simple groups?

The order of the Monster group is too small to be a counterexample (yet, it is divisible by $2^{46}$).

(After-math of last week’s second year lecture on elliptic
curves.)

We all know the story of Ramanujan and the taxicab, immortalized by Hardy

“I remember once going to see him when he was lying ill at Putney. I had ridden in taxicab no. 1729 and remarked that the number seemed to me rather a dull one, and that I hoped it was not an unfavorable omen. ‘No,’ he replied, ‘it’s a very interesting number; it is the smallest number expressible as a sum of two cubes in two different ways’.”

When I was ten, I wanted to become an archeologist and even today I can get pretty worked-up about historical facts. So, when I was re-telling this story last week I just had to find out things like :

the type of taxicab and how numbers were displayed on them and, related to this, exactly when and where did this happen, etc. etc. Half an hour free-surfing further I know a bit more than I wanted.

Let’s start with the date of this taxicab-ride, even the year changes from source to source, from 1917 in the dullness of 1729 (arguing that Hardy could never have made this claim as 1729 is among other things the third Carmichael Number, i.e., a pseudoprime relative to EVERY base) to ‘late in WW-1’ here

Between 1917 and his return to India on march 13th 1919, Ramanujan was in and out a number of hospitals and nursing homes. Here’s an attempt to summarize these dates&places (based on the excellent paper Ramanujan’s Illness by D.A.B. Young).

(may 1917 -september 20th 1917) : Nursing Hostel, Thompson’s Lane in Cambridge.
(first 2 a 3 weeks of october 1917) : Mendip Hills Senatorium, near Wells in Somerset. (november 1917) : Matlock House Senatorium atMatlock in Derbyshire.
(june 1918 – november 1918) : Fitzroy House, a hospital in Fitzroy square in central London. (december 1918 – march 1919) : Colinette House, a private nursing home in Putney, south-west London. So, “he was lying ill at Putney” must have meant that Ramanujan was at Colinette House which was located 2, Colinette Road and a quick look with Google Earth

shows that the The British Society for the History of Mathematics Gazetteer is correct in asserting that “The house is no longer used as a nursing home and its name has vanished” as well as.”

“It was in 1919 (possibly January), when Hardy made the famous visit in the taxicab numbered 1729.”

Hence, we are looking for a London-cab early 1919. Fortunately, the London Vintage Taxi Association has a website including a taxi history page.

“At the outbreak of the First World War there was just one make available to buy, the Unic. The First World War devastated the taxi trade.
Production of the Unic ceased for the duration as the company turned to producing munitions. The majority of younger cabmen were called up to fight and those that remained had to drive worn-out cabs.
By 1918 these remnant vehicles were sold at highly inflated prices, often beyond the pockets of the returning servicemen, and the trade deteriorated.”

As the first post-war taxicab type was introduced in 1919 (which became known as the ‘Rolls-Royce of cabs’) more than likely the taxicab Hardy took was a Unic,

and the number 1729 was not a taxicab-number but part of its license plate. I still dont know whether there actually was a 1729-taxicab around at the time, but let us return to mathematics.

Clearly, my purpose to re-tell the story in class was to illustrate the use of addition on an elliptic curve as a mean to construct more rational solutions to the equation $x^3+y^3 = 1729$ starting from the Ramanujan-points (the two solutions he was referring to) : P=(1,12) and Q=(9,10). Because the symmetry between x and y, the (real part of) curve looks like

and if we take 0 to be the point at infinity corresponding to the asymptotic line, the negative of a point is just reflexion along the main diagonal. The geometric picture of addition of points on the curve is then summarized
in

and sure enough we found the points $P+Q=(\frac{453}{26},-\frac{397}{26})$ and $(\frac{2472830}{187953},-\frac{1538423}{187953})$ and so on by hand, but afterwards I had the nagging feeling that a lot more could have been said about this example. Oh, if Im allowed another historical side remark :

I learned of this example from the excellent book by Alf Van der Poorten Notes on Fermat’s last theorem page 56-57.

Alf acknowledges that he borrowed this material from a lecture by Frits Beukers ‘Oefeningen rond Fermat’ at the National Fermat Day in Utrecht, November 6th 1993.

Perhaps a more accurate reference might be the paper Taxicabs and sums of two cubes by Joseph Silverman which appeared in the april 1993 issue of The American Mathematical Monthly.

The above drawings and some material to follow is taken from that paper (which I didnt know last week). I could have proved that the Ramanujan points (and their reflexions) are the ONLY integer points on $x^3+y^3=1729$.

In fact, Silverman gives a nice argument that there can only be finitely many integer points on any curve $x^3+y^3=A$ with $A \in \mathbb{Z}$ using the decomposition $x^3+y^3=(x+y)(x^2-xy+y^2)$.

So, take any factorization A=B.C and let $B=x+y$ and $C=x^2-xy+y^2$, then substituting $y=B-x$ in the second one obtains that x must be an integer solution to the equation $3x^2-3Bx+(B^2-C)=0$.

Hence, any of the finite number of factorizations of A gives at most two x-values (each giving one y-value). Checking this for A=1729=7.13.19 one observes that the only possibilities giving a square discriminant of the quadratic equation are those where $B=13, C=133$ and $B=19, C=91$ leading exactly to the Ramanujan points and their reflexions!

Sure, I mentioned in class the Mordell-Weil theorem stating that the group of rational solutions of an elliptic curve is always finitely generated, but wouldnt it be fun to determine the actual group in this example?

Surely, someone must have worked this out. Indeed, I did find a posting to sci.math.numberthy by Robert L. Ward : (in fact, there is a nice page on elliptic curves made from clippings to this newsgroup).

The Mordell-Weil group of the taxicab-curve is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}$ and the only difference with Robert Wards posting was that I found besides his generator

$P=(273,409)$ (corresponding to the Ramanujan point (9,10)) as a second generator the point
$Q=(1729,71753)$ (note again the appearance of 1729…) corresponding to the rational solution $( -\frac{37}{3},\frac{46}{3})$ on the taxicab-curve.

Clearly, there are several sets of generators (in fact that’s what $GL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ is all about) and as our first generators were the same all I needed to see was that the point corresponding to the second Ramanujan point (399,6583) was of the form $\pm Q + a P$ for some integer a. Points and their addition is also easy to do with sage :

sage: P=T([273,409])
sage: Q=T([1729,71753])
sage: -P-Q
(399 : 6583 : 1)

and we see that the second Ramanujan point is indeed of the required form!