Skip to content →

Category: math

A forgotten type and roots of unity (again)

The monstrous moonshine picture is the finite piece of Conway’s Big Picture needed to understand the 171 moonshine groups associated to conjugacy classes of the monster.

Last time I claimed that there were exactly 7 types of local behaviour, but I missed one. The forgotten type is centered at the number lattice 84.

Locally around it the moonshine picture looks like this
Misplaced &

and it involves all square roots of unity (42, 4212 and 168) and 3-rd roots of unity (28, 2813, 2823 and 252) centered at 84.

No, I’m not hallucinating, there are indeed 3 square roots of unity and 4 third roots of unity as they come in two families, depending on which of the two canonical forms to express a lattice is chosen.

In the ‘normal’ expression Mgh the two square roots are 42 and 4212 and the three third roots are 28,2813 and 2823. But in the ‘other’ expression
Mgh=(gh,1h2M)
(with g.g1 mod h) the families of 2-nd and 3-rd roots of unity are
{4212=(12,1168),168=(0,1168)}
and
{2813=(13,1252),2823=(23,1252),252=(0,1252)}
As in the tetrahedral snake post, it is best to view the four 3-rd roots of unity centered at 84 as the vertices of a tetrahedron with center of gravity at 84. Power maps in the first family correspond to rotations along the axis through 252 and power maps in the second family are rotations along the axis through 28.

In the ‘normal’ expression of lattices there’s then a total of 8 different local types, but two of them consist of just one number lattice: in 8 the local picture contains all square, 4-th and 8-th roots of unity centered at 8, and in 84 the square and 3-rd roots.

Perhaps surprisingly, if we redo everything in the ‘other’ expression (and use the other families of roots of unity), then the moonshine picture has only 7 types of local behaviour. The forgotten type 84 appears to split into two occurrences of other types (one with only square roots of unity, and one with only 3-rd roots).

I wonder what all this has to do with the action of the Bost-Connes algebra on the big picture or with Plazas’ approach to moonshine via non-commutative geometry.

Comments closed

From the Da Vinci code to Galois

In The Da Vinci Code, Dan Brown feels he need to bring in a French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, to explain the mystery behind this series of numbers:

13 – 3 – 2 – 21 – 1 – 1 – 8 – 5



The Fibonacci sequence, 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55-89-144-… is such that any number in it is the sum of the two previous numbers.

It is the most famous of all integral linear recursive sequences, that is, a sequence of integers

a=(a0,a1,a2,a3,)

such that there is a monic polynomial with integral coefficients of a certain degree n

f(x)=xn+b1xn1+b2xn2++bn1x+bn

such that for every integer m we have that

am+n+b1am+n1+b2am+n2++bn1am+1+am=0

For the Fibonacci series F=(F0,F1,F2,), this polynomial can be taken to be x2x1 because
Fm+2=Fm+1+Fm

The set of all integral linear recursive sequences, let’s call it (Z), is a beautiful object of great complexity.

For starters, it is a ring. That is, we can add and multiply such sequences. If

a=(a0,a1,a2,), and a=(a0,a1,a2,) (Z)

then the sequences

a+a=(a0+a0,a1+a1,a2+a2,)anda×a=(a0.a0,a1.a1,a2.a2,)

are again linear recursive. The zero and unit in this ring are the constant sequences 0=(0,0,) and 1=(1,1,).

So far, nothing terribly difficult or exciting.

It follows that (Z) has a co-unit, that is, a ring morphism

ϵ : (Z)Z

sending a sequence a=(a0,a1,) to its first entry a0.

It’s a bit more difficult to see that (Z) also has a co-multiplication

Δ : (Z)(Z)Z(Z)
with properties dual to those of usual multiplication.

To describe this co-multiplication in general will have to await another post. For now, we will describe it on the easier ring (Q) of all rational linear recursive sequences.

For such a sequence q=(q0,q1,q2,)(Q) we consider its Hankel matrix. From the sequence q we can form symmetric k×k matrices such that the opposite i+1-th diagonal consists of entries all equal to qi
Hk(q)=[q0q1q2qk1q1q2qkq2qk+1qk1qkqk+1q2k2]
The Hankel matrix of q, H(q) is Hk(q) where k is maximal such that det Hk(q)0, that is, Hk(q)GLk(Q).

Let S(q)=(sij) be the inverse of H(q), then the co-multiplication map
Δ : (Q)(Q)(Q)
sends the sequence q=(q0,q1,) to
Δ(q)=i,j=0k1sij(Diq)(Djq)
where D is the shift operator on sequence
D(a0,a1,a2,)=(a1,a2,)

If a(Z) is such that H(a)GLk(Z) then the same formula gives Δ(a) in (Z).

For the Fibonacci sequences F the Hankel matrix is
H(F)=[1112]GL2(Z)with inverseS(F)=[2111]
and therefore
Δ(F)=2F FDFFFDF+DFDF
There’s a lot of number theoretic and Galois-information encoded into the co-multiplication on (Q).

To see this we will describe the co-multiplication on (Q) where Q is the field of all algebraic numbers. One can show that

(Q)(Q[Q×]Q[d])i=0QSi

Here, Q[Q×] is the group-algebra of the multiplicative group of non-zero elements xQ× and each x, which corresponds to the geometric sequence x=(1,x,x2,x3,), is a group-like element
Δ(x)=xxandϵ(x)=1

Q[d] is the universal Lie algebra of the 1-dimensional Lie algebra on the primitive element d=(0,1,2,3,), that is
Δ(d)=d1+1dandϵ(d)=0

Finally, the co-algebra maps on the elements Si are given by
Δ(Si)=j=0iSjSijandϵ(Si)=δ0i

That is, the co-multiplication on (Q) is completely known. To deduce from it the co-multiplication on (Q) we have to consider the invariants under the action of the absolute Galois group Gal(Q/Q) as
(Q)Gal(Q/Q)(Q)

Unlike the Fibonacci sequence, not every integral linear recursive sequence has an Hankel matrix with determinant ±1, so to determine the co-multiplication on (Z) is even a lot harder, as we will see another time.

Reference: Richard G. Larson, Earl J. Taft, ‘The algebraic structure of linearly recursive sequences under Hadamard product’

4 Comments

What we (don’t) know

Do we know why the monster exists and why there’s moonshine around it?

The answer depends on whether or not you believe that vertex operator algebras are natural, elegant and inescapable objects.

the monster

Simple groups often arise from symmetries of exceptionally nice mathematical objects.

The smallest of them all, A5, gives us the rotation symmetries of the icosahedron. The next one, Klein’s simple group L2(7), comes from the Klein quartic.

The smallest sporadic groups, the Mathieu groups, come from Steiner systems, and the Conway groups from the 24-dimensional Leech lattice.

What about the largest sporadic simple, the monster M?

In his paper What is … the monster? Richard Borcherds writes (among other characterisations of M):

“3. It is the automorphism group of the monster vertex algebra. (This is probably the best answer.)”

But, even Borcherds adds:

“Unfortunately none of these definitions is completely satisfactory. At the moment all constructions of the algebraic structures above seem artificial; they are constructed as sums of two or more apparently unrelated spaces, and it takes a lot of effort to define the algebraic structure on the sum of these spaces and to check that the monster acts on the resulting structure.
It is still an open problem to find a really simple and natural construction of the monster vertex algebra.

Here’s 2 minutes of John Conway on the “one thing” he really wants to know before he dies: why the monster group exists.



moonshine

Moonshine started off with McKay’s observation that 196884 (the first coefficient in the normalized j-function) is the sum 1+196883 of the dimensions of the two smallest simple representations of M.

Soon it was realised that every conjugacy class of the monster has a genus zero group (or ‘moonshine group’) associated to it.

Borcherds proved the ‘monstrous moonshine conjectures’ asserting that the associated main modular function of such a group is the character series of the action of the element on the monster vertex algebra.

Here’s Borcherds’ ICM talk in Berlin on this: What is … Moonshine?.

Once again, the monster vertex algebra appears to be the final answer.

However, in characterising the 171 moonshine groups among all possible genus zero groups one has proved that they are all of the form:

(ii) : (n|h)+e,g,

In his book Moonshine beyond the Monster, Terry Gannon writes:

“We now understand the significance, in the VOA or CFT framework, of transformations in SL2(Z), but (ii) emphasises that many modular transformations relevant to Moonshine are more general (called the Atkin-Lehner involutions).
Monstrous moonshine will remain mysterious until we can understand its Atkin-Lehner symmetries.

Comments closed