Even a virtual course needs an opening line, so here it is : Take your favourite
of writing. I’m not sure what Cauchy would have thought (Cauchy died in 1857) about this ‘acknowledgement’ in his 1861-paper in which Mathieu describes
Also the opening sentenses of his 1873 paper are nice, something along the lines of “if no expert was able to fill in the details of my claims made twelve years ago, I’d better do it myself”.
However, even after this paper opinions remained divided on the issue whether or not he did really achieve his goal, and the matter was settled decisively by Ernst Witt connecting the Mathieu groups to Steiner systems (if I recall well from Mark Ronan’s book Symmetry and the monster)
As Mathieu observed, the quickest way to describe these groups would be to give generators, but as these groups are generated by two permutations on 12 respectively 24 elements, we need to have a mnemotechnic approach to be able to reconstruct them whenever needed.
Here is a nice approach, due to Gunther Malle in a Luminy talk in 1993 on “Dessins d’enfants” (more about them later). Consider the drawing of “Monsieur Mathieu” on the left. That is, draw the left-handed bandit picture on 6 edges and vertices, divide each edge into two and give numbers to both parts (the actual numbering is up to you, but for definiteness let us choose the one on the left). Then,
together with the order three permutation obtained from cycling counterclockwise
around a trivalent vertex and calling out the labels one encounters. For example, the three cycle corresponding to the ‘neck vertex’ is
is
A quick verification using GAP tells that these elements do indeed generate a simple group of order 95040.
Similarly, if you have to reconstruct the largest Mathieu group from scratch, apply the same method to the the picture above or to “ET Mathieu” drawing on the left. This picture I copied from Alexander Zvonkin‘s paper How to draw a group as well as the computational details below.
This is all very nice and well but what do these drawings have to do with Grothendieck’s “dessins d’enfants”? Consider the map from the projective line onto itself
defined by the rational map
where N. Magot calculated that
and finally
One verifies that this map is 12 to 1 everywhere except over the points
where
and hence there are 6 points lying over 1 each with mutiplicity two.
Right, now consider the complex projective line
number
trivalent vertices, those of multiplicity one to the three end-vertices. The white vertices correspond to mid-points of the six edges, so that we do get a drawing with twelve edges, one corresponding to each number. From the explicit description of f(z) it is clear that this map is defined over
smallest field containing all character-values of the Mathieu group
If we consider the white vertices (which incidentally each lie on two edges as all points lying over 0 are of multiplicity two) as mid-points of longer edges connecting the
black vertices we obtain a drawing on the sphere which looks like \”Monsieur Mathieu\” but this time as a right handed bandit, and applying our mnemotechnic rule we obtain _another_ (non conjugated) embedding of
What is the connection with
time we will say more about such free group products and show (among other things) that
arbitrary dessins d\’enfants which will allow us to assign to curves defined over