Tag: simples

noncommutative topology (3)

Published February 3, 2006 by lievenlb

For
finite dimensional hereditary algebras, one can describe its
noncommutative topology (as developed in part 2)
explicitly, using results of Markus
Reineke in The monoid
of families of quiver representations. Consider a concrete example,
say

$A = \begin{bmatrix} \mathbb{C} & V \\ 0 & \mathbb{C}
\end{bmatrix}$ where $V$ is an n-dimensional complex vectorspace, or
equivalently, A is the path algebra of the two point, n arrow quiver
$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[r] \ar[r] \ar@/_/[r] & \vtx{}} $
Then, A has just 2 simple representations S and T (the vertex reps) of
dimension vectors s=(1,0) and t=(0,1). If w is a word in S and T we can
consider the set $\mathbf{r}_w$ of all A-representations having a
Jordan-Holder series with factors the terms in w (read from left to
right) so $\mathbf{r}_w \subset \mathbf{rep}_{(a,b)}~A$ when there are a
S-terms and b T-terms in w. Clearly all these subsets can be given the
structure of a monoid induced by concatenation of words, that is
$\mathbf{r}_w \star \mathbf{r}_{w’} = \mathbf{r}_{ww’}$ which is
Reineke’s *composition monoid*. In this case it is generated by
$\mathbf{r}_s$ and $\mathbf{r}_t$ and in the composition monoid the
following relations hold among these two generators
$\mathbf{r}_t^{\star n+1} \star \mathbf{r}_s = \mathbf{r}_t^{\star n}
\star \mathbf{r}_s \star \mathbf{r}_t \quad \text{and} \quad
\mathbf{r}_t \star \mathbf{r}_s^{\star n+1} = \mathbf{r}_s \star
\mathbf{r}_t \star \mathbf{r}_s^{\star n}$ With these notations we can
now see that the left basic open set in the noncommutative topology
(associated to a noncommutative word w in S and T) is of the form
$\mathcal{O}^l_w = \bigcup_{w’} \mathbf{r}_{w’}$ where the union is
taken over all words w’ in S and T such that in the composition monoid
the relation holds $\mathbf{r}_{w’} = \mathbf{r}_w \star \mathbf{r}_{u}$
for another word u. Hence, each op these basic opens hits a large number
of $~\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}$, in fact far too many for our purposes….
So, what do we want? We want to define a noncommutative notion of
birationality and clearly we want that if two algebras A and B are
birational that this is the same as saying that some open subsets of
their resp. $\mathbf{rep}$’s are homeomorphic. But, what do we
understand by *noncommutative birationality*? Clearly, if A and B are
prime Noethrian, this is clear. Both have a ring of fractions and we
demand them to be isomorphic (as in the commutative case). For this
special subclass the above noncommutative topology based on the Zariski
topology on the simples may be fine.

However, most qurves don’t have
a canonical ‘ring of fractions’. Usually they will have infinitely
many simple Artinian algebras which should be thought of as being
_a_ ring of fractions. For example, in the finite dimensional
example A above, if follows from Aidan Schofield‘s work Representations of rings over skew fields that
there is one such for every (a,b) with gcd(a,b)=1 and (a,b) satisfying
$a^2+b^2-n a b < 1$ (an indivisible Shur root for A).

And
what is the _noncommutative birationality result_ we are aiming
for in each of these cases? Well, the inspiration for this comes from
another result by Aidan (although it is not stated as such in the
paper…) Birational
classification of moduli spaces of representations of quivers. In
this paper Aidan proves that if you take one of these indivisible Schur
roots (a,b) above, and if you look at $\alpha_n = n(a,b)$ that then the
moduli space of semi-stable quiver representations for this multiplied
dimension vector is birational to the quotient variety of
$1-(a^2+b^2-nab)$-tuples of $ n \times n $-matrices under simultaneous
conjugation.

So, *morally speaking* this should be stated as the
fact that A is (along the ray determined by (a,b)) noncommutative
birational to the free algebra in $1-(a^2+b^2-nab)$ variables. And we
want a noncommutative topology on $\mathbf{rep}~A$ to encode all these
facts… As mentioned before, this can be done by replacing simples with
bricks (or if you want Schur representations) but that will have to wait
until next week.

Leave a Comment

a noncommutative topology 2

Published February 1, 2006 by lievenlb

A *qurve*
is an affine algebra such that $~\Omega^1~A$ is a projective
$~A~$-bimodule. Alternatively, it is an affine algebra allowing lifts of
algebra morphisms through nilpotent ideals and as such it is the ‘right’
noncommutative generalization of Grothendieck’s smoothness criterium.
Examples of qurves include : semi-simple algebras, coordinate rings of
affine smooth curves, hereditary orders over curves, group algebras of
virtually free groups, path algebras of quivers etc.

Hence, qurves
behave a lot like curves and as such one might hope to obtain one day a
‘birational’ classification of them, if we only knew what we mean
by this. Whereas the etale classification of them is understood (see for
example One quiver to
rule them all or Qurves and quivers )
we don’t know what the Zariski topology of a qurve might be.

Usually, one assigns to a qurve $~A~$ the Abelian category of all its
finite dimensional representations $\mathbf{rep}~A$ and we would like to
equip this set with a topology of sorts. Because $~A~$ is a qurve, its
scheme of n-dimensional representations $\mathbf{rep}_n~A$ is a smooth
affine variety for each n, so clearly $\mathbf{rep}~A$ being the disjoint
union of these acquires a trivial but nice commutative topology.
However, we would like open sets to hit several of the components
$\mathbf{rep}_n~A$ thereby ‘connecting’ them to form a noncommutative
topological space associated to $~A~$.

In a noncommutative topology on
rep A I proposed a way to do this and though the main idea remains a
good one, I’ll ammend the construction next time. Whereas we don’t know
of a topology on the whole of $\mathbf{rep}~A$, there is an obvious
ordinary topology on the subset $\mathbf{simp}~A$ of all simple finite
dimensional representations, namely the induced topology of the Zariski
topology on $~\mathbf{spec}~A$, the prime spectrum of twosided prime ideals
of $~A~$. As in commutative algebraic geometry the closed subsets of the
prime spectrum consist of all prime ideals containing a given twosided
ideal. A typical open subset of the induced topology on $\mathbf{simp}~A$
hits many of the components $\mathbf{rep}_n~A$, but how can we extend it to
a topology on the whole of the category $\mathbf{rep}~A$ ?

Every
finite dimensional representation has (usually several) Jordan-Holder
filtrations with simple successive quotients, so a natural idea is to
use these filtrations to extend the topology on the simples to all
representations by restricting the top (or bottom) of the Jordan-Holder
sequence. Let W be the set of all words w such as $U_1U_2 \ldots U_k$
where each $U_i$ is an open subset of $\mathbf{simp}~A$. We can now define
the *left basic open set* $\mathcal{O}_w^l$ consisting of all finite
dimensional representations M having a Jordan-Holder sequence such that
the i-th simple factor (counted from the bottom) belongs to $U_i$.
(Similarly, we can define a *right basic open set* by counting from the
top or a *symmetric basic open set* by merely requiring that the simples
appear in order in the sequence). One final technical (but important)
detail is that we should really consider equivalence classes of left
basic opens. If w and w’ are two words we will denote by $\mathbf{rep}(w
\cup w’)$ the set of all finite dimensional representations having a
Jordan-Holder filtration with enough simple factors to have one for each
letter in w and w’. We then define $\mathcal{O}^l_w \equiv
\mathcal{O}^l_{w’}$ iff $\mathcal{O}^l_w \cap \mathbf{rep}(w \cup w’) =
\mathcal{O}^l_{w’} \cap \mathbf{rep}(w \cup w’)$. Equivalence classes of
these left basic opens form a partially ordered set (induced by
set-theoretic inclusion) with a unique minimal element 0 (the empty set
corresponding to the empty word) and a uunique maximal element 1 (the
set $\mathbf{rep}~A$ corresponding to the letter $w=\mathbf{simp}~A$).
Set-theoretic union induces an operation $\vee$ and the operation
$~\wedge$ is induced by concatenation of words, that is,
$\mathcal{O}^l_w \wedge \mathcal{O}^l_{w’} \equiv \mathcal{O}^l_{ww’}$.
This then defines a **left noncommutative topology** on $\mathbf{rep}~A$ in
the sense of Van Oystaeyen (see [part
1](http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/noncommutative-topology-1 $
). To be precise, it satisfies the axioms in the left and middle column
of the following picture and
similarly, the right basic opens give a right noncommutative topology
(satisfying the axioms of the middle and right columns) whereas the
symmetric opens satisfy all axioms giving the basis of a noncommutative
topology. Even for very simple finite dimensional qurves such as
$\begin{bmatrix} \mathbb{C} & \mathbb{C} \\ 0 & \mathbb{C}
\end{bmatrix}$ this defines a properly noncommutative topology on the
Abelian category of all finite dimensional representations which
obviously respect isomorphisms so is really a noncommutative topology on
the orbits. Still, while this may give a satisfactory local definition,
in gluing qurves together one would like to relax simple representations
to *Schurian* representations. This can be done but one has to replace
the topology coming from the Zariski topology on the prime spectrum by
the partial ordering on the *bricks* of the qurve, but that will have to
wait until next time…

One Comment

the Klein stack

Published June 15, 2005 by lievenlb

Klein’s
quartic $X$is the smooth plane projective curve defined by
$x^3y+y^3z+z^3x=0$ and is one of the most remarkable mathematical
objects around. For example, it is a Hurwitz curve meaning that the
finite group of symmetries (when the genus is at least two this group
can have at most $84(g-1)$ elements) is as large as possible, which in
the case of the quartic is $168$ and the group itself is the unique
simple group of that order, $G = PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_7)$ also known as
Klein\’s group. John Baez has written a [beautiful page](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/klein.html) on the Klein quartic and
its symmetries. Another useful source of information is a paper by Noam
Elkies [The Klein quartic in number theory](www.msri.org/publications/books/Book35/files/elkies.pd).
The quotient map $X \rightarrow X/G \simeq \mathbb{P}^1$ has three
branch points of orders $2,3,7$ in the points on $\mathbb{P}^1$ with
coordinates $1728,0,\infty$. These points correspond to the three
non-free $G$-orbits consisting resp. of $84,56$ and $24$ points.
Now, remove from $X$ a couple of $G$-orbits to obtain an affine open
subset $Y$ such that $G$ acts on its cordinate ring $\mathbb{C}[Y]$ and
form the Klein stack (or hereditary order) $\mathbb{C}[Y] \bigstar G$,
the skew group algebra. In case the open subset $Y$ contains all
non-free orbits, the [one quiver](www.matrix.ua.ac.be/master/coursenotes/onequiver.pdf) of this
qurve has the following shape $\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[dd] \\
\\ \vtx{} \ar@/^/[uu]} $ $\xymatrix{& \vtx{} \ar[ddl] & \\
& & \\ \vtx{} \ar[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar[uul]} $ $\xymatrix{& &
\vtx{} \ar[dll] & & \\ \vtx{} \ar[d] & & & & \vtx{} \ar[ull] \\ \vtx{}
\ar[dr] & & & & \vtx{} \ar[u] \\ & \vtx{} \ar[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar[ur]
&} $ Here, the three components correspond to the three
non-free orbits and the vertices correspond to the isoclasses of simple
$\mathbb{C}[Y] \bigstar G$ of dimension smaller than $168$. There are
two such of dimension $84$, three of dimension $56$ and seven of
dimension $24$ which I gave the non-imaginative names \’twins\’,
\’trinity\’ and \’the dwarfs\’. As we want to spice up later this
Klein stack to a larger group, we need to know the structure of these
exceptional simples as $G$-representations. Surely, someone must have
written a paper on the general problem of finding the $G$-structure of
simples of skew-group algebras $A \bigstar G$, so if you know a
reference please let me know. I used an old paper by Idun Reiten and
Christine Riedtmann to do this case (which is easier as the stabilizer
subgroups are cyclic and hence the induced representations of their
one-dimensionals correspond to the exceptional simples).

Leave a Comment

sexing up curves

Published June 10, 2005 by lievenlb

Here the
story of an idea to construct new examples of non-commutative compact
manifolds, the computational difficulties one runs into and, when they
are solved, the white noise one gets. But, perhaps, someone else can
spot a gem among all gibberish…
[Qurves](http://www.neverendingbooks.org/toolkit/pdffile.php?pdf=/TheLibrary/papers/qaq.pdf) (aka quasi-free algebras, aka formally smooth
algebras) are the \’affine\’ pieces of non-commutative manifolds. Basic
examples of qurves are : semi-simple algebras (e.g. group algebras of
finite groups), [path algebras of
quivers](http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-06/msg0033251.html) and
coordinate rings of affine smooth curves. So, let us start with an
affine smooth curve $X$ and spice it up to get a very non-commutative
qurve. First, we bring in finite groups. Let $G$ be a finite group
acting on $X$, then we can form the skew-group algebra $A = \mathbfk[X]
\bigstar G$. These are examples of prime Noetherian qurves (aka
hereditary orders). A more pompous way to phrase this is that these are
precisely the [one-dimensional smooth Deligne-Mumford
stacks](http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~danielch/paper/stacks.pdf).
As the 21-st century will turn out to be the time we discovered the
importance of non-Noetherian algebras, let us make a jump into the
wilderness and consider the amalgamated free algebra product $A =
(\mathbf k[X] \bigstar G) \ast_{\mathbf k G} \mathbfk H$ where $G
\subset H$ is an interesting extension of finite groups. Then, $A$ is
again a qurve on which $H$ acts in a way compatible with the $G$-action
on $X$ and $A$ is hugely non-commutative… A very basic example :
let $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ act on the affine line $\mathbfk[x]$ by
sending $x \mapsto -x$ and consider a finite [simple
group](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SimpleGroup.html) $M$. As every
simple group has an involution, we have an embedding
$\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \subset M$ and can construct the qurve
$A=(\mathbfk[x] \bigstar \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}) \ast_{\mathbfk
\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}} \mathbfk M$ on which the simple group $M$ acts
compatible with the involution on the affine line. To study the
corresponding non-commutative manifold, that is the Abelian category
$\mathbf{rep}~A$ of all finite dimensional representations of $A$ we have
to compute the [one quiver to rule them
all](http://www.matrix.ua.ac.be/master/coursenotes/onequiver.pdf) for
$A$. Because $A$ is a qurve, all its representation varieties
$\mathbf{rep}_n~A$ are smooth affine varieties, but they may have several
connected components. The direct sum of representations turns the set of
all these components into an Abelian semigroup and the vertices of the
\’one quiver\’ correspond to the generators of this semigroup whereas
the number of arrows between two such generators is given by the
dimension of $Ext^1_A(S_i,S_j)$ where $S_i,S_j$ are simple
$A$-representations lying in the respective components. All this
may seem hard to compute but it can be reduced to the study of another
quiver, the Zariski quiver associated to $A$ which is a bipartite quiver
with on the left the \’one quiver\’ for $\mathbfk[x] \bigstar
\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ which is just $\xymatrix{\vtx{}
\ar@/^/[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar@/^/[ll]} $ (where the two vertices
correspond to the two simples of $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$) and on the
right the \’one quiver\’ for $\mathbf k M$ (which just consists of as
many verticers as there are simple representations for $M$) and where
the number of arrows from a left- to a right-vertex is the number of
$\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$-morphisms between the respective simples. To
make matters even more concrete, let us consider the easiest example
when $M = A_5$ the alternating group on $5$ letters. The corresponding
Zariski quiver then turns out to be $\xymatrix{& & \vtx{1} \\\
\vtx{}\ar[urr] \ar@{=>}[rr] \ar@3[drr] \ar[ddrr] \ar[dddrr] \ar@/^/[dd]
& & \vtx{4} \\\ & & \vtx{5} \\\ \vtx{} \ar@{=>}[uurr] \ar@{=>}[urr]
\ar@{=>}[rr] \ar@{=>}[drr] \ar@/^/[uu] & & \vtx{3} \\\ & &
\vtx{3}} $ The Euler-form of this quiver can then be used to
calculate the dimensions of the EXt-spaces giving the number of arrows
in the \’one quiver\’ for $A$. To find the vertices, that is, the
generators of the component semigroup we have to find the minimal
integral solutions to the pair of equations saying that the number of
simple $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ components based on the left-vertices is
equal to that one the right-vertices. In this case it is easy to see
that there are as many generators as simple $M$ representations. For
$A_5$ they correspond to the dimension vectors (for the Zariski quiver
having the first two components on the left) $\begin{cases}
(1,2,0,0,0,0,1) \\ (1,2,0,0,0,1,0) \\ (3,2,0,0,1,0,0) \\
(2,2,0,1,0,0,0) \\ (1,0,1,0,0,0,0) \end{cases}$ We now have all
info to determine the \’one quiver\’ for $A$ and one would expect a nice
result. Instead one obtains a complete graph on all vertices with plenty
of arrows. More precisely one obtains as the one quiver for $A_5$
$\xymatrix{& & \vtx{} \ar@{=}[dll] \ar@{=}[dddl] \ar@{=}[dddr]
\ar@{=}[drr] & & \\\ \vtx{} \ar@(ul,dl)|{4} \ar@{=}[rrrr]|{6}
\ar@{=}[ddrrr]|{8} \ar@{=}[ddr]|{4} & & & & \vtx{} \ar@(ur,dr)|{8}
\ar@{=}[ddlll]|{6} \ar@{=}[ddl]|{10} \\\ & & & & & \\\ & \vtx{}
\ar@(dr,dl)|{4} \ar@{=}[rr]|{8} & & \vtx{} \ar@(dr,dl)|{11} & } $
with the number of arrows (in each direction) indicated. Not very
illuminating, I find. Still, as the one quiver is symmetric it follows
that all quotient varieties $\mathbf{iss}_n~A$ have a local Poisson
structure. Clearly, the above method can be generalized easily and all
examples I did compute so far have this \’nearly complete graph\’
feature. One might hope that if one would start with very special
curves and groups, one might obtain something more interesting. Another
time I\’ll tell what I got starting from Klein\’s quartic (on which the
simple group $PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_7)$ acts) when the situation was sexed-up
to the sporadic simple Mathieu group $M_{24}$ (of which
$PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_7)$ is a maximal subgroup).

Leave a Comment

simple groups

Published October 24, 2004 by lievenlb

I
found an old copy (Vol 2 Number 4 1980) of the The Mathematical Intelligencer with on its front
cover the list of the 26 _known_ sporadic groups together with a
starred added in proof saying

added in
proof … the classification of finite simple groups is complete.
there are no other sporadic groups.

(click on the left picture to see a larger scanned image). In it is a
beautiful paper by John Conway “Monsters and moonshine” on the
classification project. Along the way he describes the simplest
non-trivial simple group $A_5 $ as the icosahedral group. as well as
other interpretations as Lie groups over finite fields. He also gives a
nice introduction to representation theory and the properties of the
character table allowing to reconstruct $A_5 $ only knowing that there
must be a simple group of order 60.
A more technical account
of the classification project (sketching the main steps in precise
formulations) can be found online in the paper by Ron Solomon On finite simple
groups and their classification. In addition to the posts by John Baez mentioned
in this
post he has a few more columns on Platonic solids and their relation to Lie
algebras, continued here.

Leave a Comment

Galois and the Brauer group

Published February 9, 2004 by lievenlb

Last time we have seen that in order to classify all
non-commutative $l$-points one needs to control the finite
dimensional simple algebras having as their center a finite
dimensional field-extension of $l$. We have seen that the equivalence
classes of simple algebras with the same center $L$ form an Abelian
group, the
Brauer group. The calculation of Brauer groups
is best done using
Galois-cohomology. As an aside :
Evariste Galois was one of the more tragic figures in the history of
mathematics, he died at the age of 20 as a result of a duel. There is
a whole site the Evariste Galois archive dedicated to his
work.

But let us return to a simple algebra $T$ over the
field $L$ which we have seen to be of the form $M(k,S)$, full
matrices over a division algebra $S$. We know that the dimension of
$S$ over $L$ is a square, say $n^2$, and it can be shown that all
maximal commutative subfields of $S$ have dimension n over $L$.
In this way one can view a simple algebra as a bag containing all
sorts of degree n extensions of its center. All these maximal
subfields are also splitting fields for $S$, meaning that
if you tensor $S$ with one of them, say $M$, one obtains full nxn
matrices $M(n,M)$. Among this collection there is at least one
separable field but for a long time it was an open question
whether the collection of all maximal commutative subfields also
contains a Galois-extension of $L$. If this is the case, then
one could describe the division algebra $S$ as a crossed
product. It was known for some time that there is always a simple
algebra $S’$ equivalent to $S$ which is a crossed product (usually
corresponding to a different number n’), that is, all elements of
the Brauer group can be represented by crossed products. It came as a
surprise when S.A. Amitsur in 1972 came up with examples of
non-crossed product division algebras, that is, division algebras $D$
such that none of its maximal commutative subfields is a Galois
extension of the center. His examples were generic
division algebras $D(n)$. To define $D(n)$ take two generic
nxn matrices, that is, nxn matrices A and B such that all its
entries are algebraically independent over $L$ and consider the
$L$-subalgebra generated by A and B in the full nxn matrixring over the
field $F$ generated by all entries of A and B. Somewhat surprisingly,
one can show that this subalgebra is a domain and inverting all its
central elements (which, again, is somewhat of a surprise that
there are lots of them apart from elements of $L$, the so called
central polynomials) one obtains the division algebra $D(n)$ with
center $F(n)$ which has trancendence degree n^2 1 over $L$. By the
way, it is still unknown (apart from some low n cases) whether $F(n)$
is purely trancendental over $L$. Now, utilising the generic
nature of $D(n)$, Amitsur was able to prove that when $L=Q$, the
field of rational numbers, $D(n)$ cannot be a crossed product unless
$n=2^s p_1…p_k$ with the p_i prime numbers and s at most 2. So, for
example $D(8)$ is not a crossed product.

One can then
ask whether any division algebra $S$, of dimension n^2 over $L$, is a
crossed whenever n is squarefree. Even teh simplest case, when n is a
prime number is not known unless p=2 or 3. This shows how little we do
know about finite dimensional division algebras : nobody knows
whether a division algebra of dimension 25 contains a maximal
cyclic subfield (the main problem in deciding this type of
problems is that we know so few methods to construct division
algebras; either they are constructed quite explicitly as a crossed
product or otherwise they are constructed by some generic construction
but then it is very hard to make explicit calculations with
them).

Leave a Comment

Brauer’s forgotten group

Published February 4, 2004 by lievenlb

Non-commutative geometry seems pretty trivial compared
to commutative geometry : there are just two types of manifolds,
points and curves. However, nobody knows how to start classifying
these non-commutative curves. I do have a conjecture that any
non-commutative curve can (up to non-commutative birationality) be
constructed from hereditary orders over commutative curves
by universal methods but I’ll try to explain that another
time.

On the other hand, non-commutative points
have been classified (at least in principle) for at least 50
years over an arbitrary basefield $l$. non-commutative
$l$-points $P$ is an $l$-algebra such that its double
$d(P) = P \\otimes P^o$ ( where $P^o$ is the opposite algebra,
that is with the reverse multiplication) has an element$c=\\sum_i
a_i \\otimes b_i with \\sum_i a_ib_i = 1 (in $P$)$ and such that for
all p in $P$ we have that $(1 \\otimes a).c = (a \\otimes 1).c$ For
people of my generation, c is called a separability idempotent
and $P$ itself is called a separable $l$-algebra.
Examples of $l$-points include direct sums of full matrixrings
(of varying sizes) over $l$ or group-algebras $lG$ for $G$ a
finite group of n elements where n is invertible in $l$. Hence, in
particular, the group-algebra $lG$ of a p-group $G$ over a field $l$
of characteristic p is a non-commutative singular point and
modular representation theory (a theory build almost single
handed by
Richard Brauer) can be viewed as
the methods needed to resolve this singularity. Brauer’s name is
still mentioned a lot in modular representation theory, but another
of his inventions, the Brauer group, seems to be hardly known
among youngsters.

Still, it is a crucial tool
in classifying all non-commutative $l$-points. The algebraic
structure of an $l$-point $P$ is as follows : $$P = S_1 + S_2 + …
+ S_k$$ where each S_i is a simple algebra (that is, it
contains no proper twosided ideals), finite dimensional over
its center $l_i$ which is in its turn a finite dimensional
separable field extension of $l$. So we need to know all
simple algebras $S$, finite dimensional over their center $L$ which
is any finite dimensional separable field extension of $l$. The
algebraic structure of such an $S$ is of the form$$S = M(a,D)$$ that
is, full axa matrices with entries in $D$ where $D$ is a
skew-field (or some say, a division algebra) with
center $L$. The $L$-dimension of such a $D$ is always a square,
say b^2, so that the $L$-dimension of $S$ itself is also a square
a^2b^2. There are usually plenty such division algebras, the simplest
examples being quaternion algebras. Let p and q be two
non-zero elements of $L$ such that the conic $C : X^2-pY^2-bZ^2 =
0$ has no $L$-points in the projective $L$-plane, then the
algebra$D=(p,q)_2 = L.1 + L.i + L.j + L.ij where i^2=p, j^2=q and
ji=-ij$ is a four-dimensional skew-field over $L$. Brauer’s idea to
classify all simple $L$-algebras was to associate a group to them,
the Brauer group, $Br(L)$. Its elements are equivalence
classes of simple algebras where two simple algebras $S$ and
$S’$ are equivalent if and only if$M(m,S) = M(n,S’)$ for some sizes
m and n. Multiplication on these classes in induced by
the tensor-product (over $L$) as $S_1 \\otimes S_2$ is again a simple
$L$-algebra if $S_1$ and $S_2$ are. The Brauer group $Br(L)$ is an
Abelian torsion group and if we know its structure we know all
$L$-simple algebras so if we know $Br(L)$ for all finite dimensional
separable extensions $L$ of $l$ we have a full classification of
all non-commutative $l$-points.

Here are some examples
of Brauer groups : if $L$ is algebraically closed (or separable
closed), then $Br(L)=0$ so in particular, if $l$ is algebraically
closed, then the only non-commutative points are sums of matrix rings.
If $R$ is the field of real numbers, then $Br(R) = Z/2Z$ generated by
the Hamilton quaternion algebra (-1,-1)_2. If $L$ is a complete
valued number field, then $Br(L)=Q/Z$ which allows to describe also
the Brauer group of a number field in terms of its places. Brauer groups
of function fields of (commutative) varieties over an algebraically
closed basefield is usually huge but there is one noteworthy
exception $Tsen’s theorem$ which states that $Br(L)=0$ if $L$ is the
function field of a curve C over an algebraically closed field. In 1982
Merkurjev and Suslin proved a marvelous result about generators of
$Br(L)$ whenever $L$ is large enough to contain all primitive roots
of unity. They showed, in present day lingo, that $Br(L)$
is generated by non-commutative points of the quantum-planes
over $L$ at roots of unity. That is, it is generated by cyclic
algebras of the form$(p,q)_n = L
\\< X,Y>/(X^n=p,Y^n=q,YX=zXY)$where z is an n-th primitive root of
unity. Next time we will recall some basic results on the relation
between the Brauer group and Galois cohomology.

2 Comments

the cpu 2 generation

Published January 15, 2004 by lievenlb

Never
ever tell an ICT-aware person that you want to try to set up a
home-network before you understand all 65536 port-numbers and their corresponding
protocols. Here is what happened to me this week. Jan Adriaenssens returned from an extended vacation in New Zealand and I told him
about my problems with trying to set up WebDAV securely. He
stared at me with that look that teenage children have if they
find out their parents dont know how to handle the simplest things on a
mobile such as saving a number, writing an SMS let alone use the
dictionary… and asked ‘now why would you want to do that??? I just
use AppleTalk to connect to my computer securely’. Now I’m not such a
fool that I didnt try this out but I didnt manage to get matrix
mounted on my Desktop. ‘Oh, but thats probably because of the
firewall’ Jan said ‘just send an email to Peter (the guy running the
defenses here) and ask him to open up ports 548 and
427…’ And sure enough five minutes later the problem was
solved and I could trow my WebDAV-plans in the dustbin (although, I
think Ive found a use for WebDAV but will keep this a bit longer to
myself until I checked it out). If you think that was the end of it,
think twice. Never ever point an ICT-professional to your
computer. They then start looking at its firewall-logs and find all
sorts of things such as : ‘I noticed that traffic from port 53
was dropped to the firewall, could it be that you configured the
firewall as DNS-server. If this is the case, you better remove it and it
will increase your network-speed, I think.’ And sure enough that
IP-address was set on my machine as one of two possibilities for the
DNS-server so I quickly removed it and in the process thought that maybe
I should also remove the other one so I did send Peter another email
asking whether that was ok. It turned out that the second IP address was
the genuine DNS-server so I got a sec answer back ‘You better leave
this as it is otherwise not much will work…’ Oh, shame, shame eternal
shame on me!

My only defense is that I still belong
to what I would call the cpu 2 generation (I’m a few years too
old to belong to the more computer-aware generation X). When I
started out doing research in 1980 the single most important command was

cpu 2

which you had to type before you could run any program.
By typing this you asked to be given 2 minutes of central processing
time, so you had to write all your programs in such a way that either
they gave a result back within 2 minutes or to include lots of
output-commands giving you a chance to determine at which parameters you
would restart the program for your next cpu 2. I once computed in
this way all factorial maximal orders in quaternion algebras by spending
a couple of days in the computer room. These days any desktop computer
would finish this task in half a minute. Perhaps the younger generations
will appreciate all the hard computer-work we had to do back then if
they read a bit from the computer history museum page!

Leave a Comment