Skip to content →

neverendingbooks Posts

noncommutative geometry

Today I
did prepare my lectures for tomorrow for the NOG master-class on
non-commutative geometry. I\’m still doubting whether it is worth TeXing
my handwritten notes. Anyway, here is what I will cover tomorrow :

– Examples of l-algebras (btw. l is an
arbitrary field) : matrix-algebras, group-algebras lG of finite
groups, polynomial algebras, free and tensor-algebras, path algebras
lQ of a finite quiver, coordinaterings O(C) of affine smooth
curves C etc.
– Refresher on homological algebra : free and
projective modules, exact sequences and complexes, Hom and Ext groups
and how to calculate them from projective resolutions, interpretation of
Ext^1 via (non-split) short exact sequences and stuff like that.
– Hochschild cohomology and noncommutative differential forms.
Bimodules and their Hochschild cohomology, standard complex and
connection with differential forms, universal bimodule of derivations
etc.
– Non-commutative manifolds. Interpretation of low degree
Hochschild cohomology, characterization of non-commutative points as
separable l-algebras and examples. Formally smooth algebras
(non-commutative curves) characterised by the lifting property for
square-free extensions and a proof that formally smooth algebras are
hereditary.

Next week I will cover the representation
varieties of formally smooth algebras and the semigroup on their
connected (or irreducible) components.

Leave a Comment

Van Eck phreaking

This
week I reread with pleasure all 918 pages of Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson and found out
that last time I had been extremely choosy in subplots. There are 4
major plots : one contemporary (a couple of geeks trying to set up a data-haven) and three
WW2 stories : the Waterhouse-plot about cracking Enigma and other
crypto-systems featuring a.o. Alan Turing, the Shaftoe-plot about the
crazy division 2702 trying to cover-up that Enigma has been broken and
the Goto Dengo-plot about hiding the Japanese Gold reserve in the
jungle. Five years ago I was mostly interested in the first two subplots
and later on in the book I jumped chapters quite a bit, it seems.

During the first read I assumed that the Van Eck
phreaking-bit was just another paranoid misconception of the two present
day main players Randy&Avi, but this week I wasn\’t so sure anymore so
the first thing I did when we came home was Googling on Van Eck phreaking which really does
exist!

Van Eck phreaking is a form of eavesdropping in which
special equipment is used to pick up telecommunication signals or data
within a computer device by monitoring and picking up the
electromagnetic fields.
The U.S. government has been involved
with EM interpretation for many years under a top-secret program
code-named “TEMPEST”.

It seems that in 1985 the
Dutch scientist Wim Van Eck wrote a paper \’Electromagnetic Radiation from Video Display Units:
An Eavesdropping Risk?\’
He concluded: “If no preventive measures
are taken, eavesdropping on a video-display unit is possible at several
hundred meters distance, using only a normal black-and-white TV
receiver, a directional antenna, and an antenna amplifier.” He proved
it by taking a BBC crew around London in a van, showing them what was on
the computer screens at various companies.
To me it seems that
putting your computer inside a Faraday cage is a simpler counter-measure than
the cumbersome method of Randy in the novel (but I have to admit, he
was in prison at the time…). There is a more detailed manual on
phreaking
available, but the best text I found (sofar) on Van Eck
phreaking is Soft Tempest: Hidden Data Transmission Using
Electromagnetic Emanations
by Markus G. Kuhn and Ross J.
Anderson.

Leave a Comment

a noncommutative Grothendieck topology

We have seen that a non-commutative $l$-point is an
algebra$P=S_1 \\oplus … \\oplus S_k$with each $S_i$ a simple
finite dimensional $l$-algebra with center $L_i$ which is a separable
extension of $l$. The centers of these non-commutative points (that is
the algebras $L_1 \\oplus … \\oplus L_k$) are the open sets of a
Grothendieck-topology on
$l$. To define it properly, let $L$ be the separable closure of $l$
and let $G=Gal(L/l)$ be the so called absolute
Galois group. Consider the
category with objects the finite $G$-sets, that is : finite
sets with an action of $G$, and with morphisms the $G$-equivariant
set-maps, that is: maps respecting the group action. For each object
$V$ we call a finite collection of morphisms $Vi \\mapsto V$ a
cover of $V$ if the images of the finite number of $Vi$ is all
of $V$. Let $Cov$ be the set of all covers of finite $G$-sets, then
this is an example of a Grothendieck-topology as it satisfies
the following three conditions :

(GT1) : If
$W \\mapsto V$ is an isomorphism of $G$-sets, then $\\{ W \\mapsto
V \\}$ is an element of $Cov$.

(GT2) : If $\\{ Vi \\mapsto
V \\}$ is in $Cov$ and if for every i also $\\{ Wij \\mapsto Vi \\}$
is in $Cov$, then the collection $\\{ Wij \\mapsto V \\}$ is in
$Cov$.

(GT3) : If $\\{ fi : Vi \\mapsto V \\}$ is in $Cov$
and $g : W \\mapsto V$ is a $G$-morphism, then the fibered
products
$Vi x_V W = \\{ (vi,w) in Vi x W : fi(vi)=g(w) \\}$is
again a $G$-set and the collection $\\{ Vi x_V W \\mapsto V \\}$
is in $Cov$.

Now, finite $G$-sets are just
commutative separable $l$-algebras (that is,
commutative $l$-points). To see this, decompose a
finite $G$-set into its finitely many orbits $Oj$ and let $Hj$ be the
stabilizer subgroup of an element in $Oj$, then $Hj$ is of finite
index in $G$ and the fixed field $L^Hj$ is a finite dimensional
separable field extension of $l$. So, a finite $G$-set $V$
corresponds uniquely to a separable $l$-algebra $S(V)$. Moreover, a
finite cover $\\{ W \\mapsto V \\}$ is the same thing as saying
that $S(W)$ is a commutative separable $S(V)$-algebra. Thus,
the Grothendieck topology of finite $G$-sets and their covers
is anti-equivalent to the category of commutative separable
$l$-algebras and their separable commutative extensions.

This raises the natural question : what happens if we extend the
category to all separable $l$-algebras, that is, the category of
non-commutative $l$-points, do we still obtain something like a
Grothendieck topology? Or do we get something like a
non-commutative Grothendieck topology as defined by Fred Van
Oystaeyen (essentially replacing the axiom (GT 3) by a left and right
version). And if so, what are the non-commutative covers?
Clearly, if $S(V)$ is a commutative separable $l$-algebras, we expect
these non-commutative covers to be the set of all separable
$S(V)$-algebras, but what are they if $S$ is itself non-commutative,
that is, if $S$ is a non-commutative $l$-point?

Leave a Comment