Tag: arxiv

noncommutative F_un geometry (2)

Published October 17, 2008 by lieven

Last time we tried to generalize the Connes-Consani approach to commutative algebraic geometry over the field with one element $F_{1}$ to the noncommutative world by considering covariant functors

$N : groups \to sets$

which over $C$ resp. $Z$ become visible by a complex (resp. integral) algebra having suitable universal properties.

However, we didn’t specify what we meant by a complex noncommutative variety (resp. an integral noncommutative scheme). In particular, we claimed that the $F_{1}$ -‘points’ associated to the functor

$D : groups \to sets G \mapsto G_{2} \times G_{3}$ (here $G_{n}$ denotes all elements of order $n$ of $G$ )

were precisely the modular dessins d’enfants of Grothendieck, but didn’t give details. We’ll try to do this now.

For algebras over a field we follow the definition, due to Kontsevich and Soibelman, of so called “noncommutative thin schemes”. Actually, the thinness-condition is implicit in both Soule’s-approach as that of Connes and Consani : we do not consider R-points in general, but only those of rings R which are finite and flat over our basering (or field).

So, what is a noncommutative thin scheme anyway? Well, its a covariant functor (commuting with finite projective limits)

$X : {Alg}_{k}^{f d} \to sets$

from finite-dimensional (possibly noncommutative) $k$ -algebras to sets. Now, the usual dual-space operator gives an anti-equivalence of categories

${Alg}_{k}^{f d} \leftrightarrow {Coalg}_{k}^{f d} A = C^{*} \leftrightarrow C = A^{*}$

so a thin scheme can also be viewed as a contra-variant functor (commuting with finite direct limits)

$X : {Coalg}_{k}^{f d} \to Sets$

In particular, we are interested to associated to any {tex]k $- a l g e b r a$ A $ its representation functor :

$rep (A) : {Coalg}_{k}^{f d} \to Sets C \mapsto A l g_{k} (A, C^{*})$

This may look strange at first sight, but $C^{*}$ is a finite dimensional algebra and any $n$ -dimensional representation of $A$ is an algebra map $A \to M_{n} (k)$ and we take $C$ to be the dual coalgebra of this image.

Kontsevich and Soibelman proved that every noncommutative thin scheme $X$ is representable by a $k$ -coalgebra. That is, there exists a unique coalgebra $C_{X}$ (which they call the coalgebra of ‘distributions’ of $X$ ) such that for every finite dimensional $k$ -algebra $B$ we have

$X (B) = C o a l g_{k} (B^{*}, C_{X})$

In the case of interest to us, that is for the functor $rep (A)$ the coalgebra of distributions is Kostant’s dual coalgebra $A^{o}$ . This is the not the full linear dual of $A$ but contains only those linear functionals on $A$ which factor through a finite dimensional quotient.

So? You’ve exchanged an algebra $A$ for some coalgebra $A^{o}$ , but where’s the geometry in all this? Well, let’s look at the commutative case. Suppose $A = C [X]$ is the coordinate ring of a smooth affine variety $X$ , then its dual coalgebra looks like

$C [X]^{o} = \oplus_{x \in X} U (T_{x} (X))$

the direct sum of all universal (co)algebras of tangent spaces at points $x \in X$ . But how do we get the variety out of this? Well, any coalgebra has a coradical (being the sun of all simple subcoalgebras) and in the case just mentioned we have

$c o r a d (C [X]^{o}) = \oplus_{x \in X} C e_{x}$

so every point corresponds to a unique simple component of the coradical. In the general case, the coradical of the dual coalgebra $A^{o}$ is the direct sum of all simple finite dimensional representations of $A$ . That is, the direct summands of the coalgebra give us a noncommutative variety whose points are the simple representations, and the remainder of the coalgebra of distributions accounts for infinitesimal information on these points (as do the tangent spaces in the commutative case).

In fact, it was a surprise to me that one can describe the dual coalgebra quite explicitly, and that $A_{\infty}$ -structures make their appearance quite naturally. See this paper if you’re in for the details on this.

That settles the problem of what we mean by the noncommutative variety associated to a complex algebra. But what about the integral case? In the above, we used extensively the theory of Kostant-duality which works only for algebras over fields…

Well, not quite. In the case of $Z$ (or more general, of Dedekind domains) one can repeat Kostant’s proof word for word provided one takes as the definition of the dual $Z$ -coalgebra
of an algebra (which is $Z$ -torsion free)

$A^{o} = f : A \to Z : A / K e r (f) is finitely generated and torsion free$

(over general rings there may be also variants of this duality, as in Street’s book an Quantum groups). Probably lots of people have come up with this, but the only explicit reference I have is to the first paper I’ve ever written. So, also for algebras over $Z$ we can define a suitable noncommutative integral scheme (the coradical approach accounts only for the maximal ideals rather than all primes, but somehow this is implicit in all approaches as we consider only thin schemes).

Fine! So, we can make sense of the noncommutative geometrical objects corresponding to the group-algebras $C Γ$ and $Z Γ$ where $Γ = P S L_{2} (Z)$ is the modular group (the algebras corresponding to the $G \mapsto G_{2} \times G_{3}$ -functor). But, what might be the points of the noncommutative scheme corresponding to $F_{1} Γ$ ???

Well, let’s continue the path cut out before. “Points” should correspond to finite dimensional “simple representations”. Hence, what are the finite dimensional simple $F_{1}$ -representations of $Γ$ ? (Or, for that matter, of any group $G$ )

Here we come back to Javier’s post on this : a finite dimensional $F_{1}$ -vectorspace is a finite set. A $Γ$ -representation on this set (of n-elements) is a group-morphism

$Γ \to G L_{n} (F_{1}) = S_{n}$

hence it gives a permutation representation of $Γ$ on this set. But then, if finite dimensional $F_{1}$ -representations of $Γ$ are the finite permutation representations, then the simple ones are the transitive permutation representations. That is, the points of the noncommutative scheme corresponding to $F_{1} Γ$ are the conjugacy classes of subgroups $H \subset Γ$ such that $Γ / H$ is finite. But these are exactly the modular dessins d’enfants introduced by Grothendieck as I explained a while back elsewhere (see for example this post and others in the same series).

Comments closed

Connes-Consani for undergraduates (1)

Published October 3, 2008 by lieven

A couple of weeks ago, Alain Connes and Katia Consani arXived their paper “On the notion of geometry over $F_{1}$ ”. Their subtle definition is phrased entirely in Grothendieck‘s scheme-theoretic language of representable functors and may be somewhat hard to get through if you only had a few years of mathematics.

I’ll try to give the essence of their definition of an affine scheme over $F_{1}$ (and illustrate it with an example) in a couple of posts. All you need to know is what a finite Abelian group is (if you know what a cyclic group is that’ll be enough) and what a commutative algebra is. If you already know what a functor and a natural transformation is, that would be great, but we’ll deal with all that abstract nonsense when we’ll need it.

So take two finite Abelian groups A and B, then a group-morphism is just a map $f : A \to B$ preserving the group-data. That is, f sends the unit element of A to that of B and
f sends a product of two elements in A to the product of their images in B. For example, if $A = C_{n}$ is a cyclic group of order n with generator g and $B = C_{m}$ is a cyclic group of order m with generator h, then every groupmorphism from A to B is entirely determined by the image of g let’s say that this image is $h^{i}$ . But, as $g^{n} = 1$ and the conditions on a group-morphism we must have that $h^{i n} = (h^{i})^{n} = 1$ and therefore m must divide i.n. This gives you all possible group-morphisms from A to B.

They are plenty of finite abelian groups and many group-morphisms between any pair of them and all this stuff we put into one giant sack and label it $abelian$ . There is another, even bigger sack, which is even simpler to describe. It is labeled $sets$ and contains all sets as well as all maps between two sets.

Right! Now what might be a map $F : abelian \to sets$ between these two sacks? Well, F should map any abelian group A to a set F(A) and any group-morphism $f : A \to B$ to a map between the corresponding sets $F (f) : F (A) \to F (B)$ and do all of this nicely. That is, F should send compositions of group-morphisms to compositions of the corresponding maps, and so on. If you take a pen and a piece of paper, you’re bound to come up with the exact definition of a functor (that’s what F is called).

You want an example? Well, lets take F to be the map sending an Abelian group A to its set of elements (also called A) and which sends a groupmorphism $A \to B$ to the same map from A to B. All F does is ‘forget’ the extra group-conditions on the sets and maps. For this reason F is called the forgetful functor. We will denote this particular functor by ${\underset{―}{G}}_{m}$ , merely to show off.

Luckily, there are lots of other and more interesting examples of such functors. Our first class we will call maxi-functors and they are defined using a finitely generated $C$ -algebra R. That is, R can be written as the quotient of a polynomial algebra

$R = \frac{C [x_{1}, \dots, x_{d}]}{(f_{1}, \dots, f_{e})}$

by setting all the polynomials $f_{i}$ to be zero. For example, take R to be the ring of Laurant polynomials

$R = C [x, x^{- 1}] = \frac{C [x, y]}{(x y - 1)}$

Other, and easier, examples of $C$ -algebras is the group-algebra $C A$ of a finite Abelian group A. This group-algebra is a finite dimensional vectorspace with basis $e_{a}$ , one for each element $a \in A$ with multiplication rule induced by the relations $e_{a} . e_{b} = e_{a . b}$ where on the left-hand side the multiplication . is in the group-algebra whereas on the right hand side the multiplication in the index is that of the group A. By choosing a different basis one can show that the group-algebra is really just the direct sum of copies of $C$ with component-wise addition and multiplication

$C A = C \oplus \dots \oplus C$

with as many copies as there are elements in the group A. For example, for the cyclic group $C_{n}$ we have

$C C_{n} = \frac{C [x]}{(x^{n} - 1)} = \frac{C [x]}{(x - 1)} \oplus \frac{C [x]}{(x - ζ)} \oplus \frac{C [x]}{(x - ζ^{2})} \oplus \dots \oplus \frac{C [x]}{(x - ζ^{n - 1})} = C \oplus C \oplus C \oplus \dots \oplus C$

The maxi-functor asociated to a $C$ -algebra R is the functor

$maxi (R) : abelian \to sets$

which assigns to a finite Abelian group A the set of all algebra-morphism $R \to C A$ from R to the group-algebra of A. But wait, you say (i hope), we also needed a functor to do something on groupmorphisms $f : A \to B$ . Exactly, so to f we have an algebra-morphism $f^{'} : C A \to C B$ so the functor on morphisms is defined via composition

$maxi (R) (f) : maxi (R) (A) \to maxi (R) (B) ϕ : R \to C A \mapsto f^{'} \circ ϕ : R \to C A \to C B$

So, what is the maxi-functor $maxi (C [x, x^{- 1}]$ ? Well, any $C$ -algebra morphism $C [x, x^{- 1}] \to C A$ is fully determined by the image of $x$ which must be a unit in $C A = C \oplus \dots \oplus C$ . That is, all components of the image of $x$ must be non-zero complex numbers, that is

$maxi (C [x, x^{- 1}]) (A) = C^{*} \oplus \dots \oplus C^{*}$

where there are as many components as there are elements in A. Thus, the sets $maxi (R) (A)$ are typically huge which is the reason for the maxi-terminology.

Next, let us turn to mini-functors. They are defined similarly but this time using finitely generated $Z$ -algebras such as $S = Z [x, x^{- 1}]$ and the integral group-rings $Z A$ for finite Abelian groups A. The structure of these inegral group-rings is a lot more delicate than in the complex case. Let’s consider them for the smallest cyclic groups (the ‘isos’ below are only approximations!)

$Z C_{2} = \frac{Z [x]}{(x^{2} - 1)} = \frac{Z [x]}{(x - 1)} \oplus \frac{Z [x]}{(x + 1)} = Z \oplus Z$

$Z C_{3} = \frac{Z [x]}{(x^{3} - 1)} = \frac{Z [x]}{(x - 1)} \oplus \frac{Z [x]}{(x^{2} + x + 1)} = Z \oplus Z [ρ]$

$Z C_{4} = \frac{Z [x]}{(x^{4} - 1)} = \frac{Z [x]}{(x - 1)} \oplus \frac{Z [x]}{(x + 1)} \oplus \frac{Z [x]}{(x^{2} + 1)} = Z \oplus Z \oplus Z [i]$

For a $Z$ -algebra S we can define its mini-functor to be the functor

$mini (S) : abelian \to sets$

which assigns to an Abelian group A the set of all $Z$ -algebra morphisms $S \to Z A$ . For example, for the algebra $Z [x, x^{- 1}]$ we have that

$mini (Z [x, x^{- 1}] (A) = (Z A)^{*}$

the set of all invertible elements in the integral group-algebra. To study these sets one has to study the units of cyclotomic integers. From the above decompositions it is easy to verify that for the first few cyclic groups, the corresponding sets are $\pm C_{2}, \pm C_{3}$ and $\pm C_{4}$ . However, in general this set doesn’t have to be finite. It is a well-known result that the group of units of an integral group-ring of a finite Abelian group is of the form

$(Z A)^{*} = \pm A \times Z^{\oplus r}$

where $r = \frac{1}{2} (o (A) + 1 + n_{2} - 2 c)$ where $o (A)$ is the number of elements of A, $n_{2}$ is the number of elements of order 2 and c is the number of cyclic subgroups of A. So, these sets can still be infinite but at least they are a lot more manageable, explaining the mini-terminology.

Now, we would love to go one step deeper and define nano-functors by the same procedure, this time using finitely generated algebras over $F_{1}$ , the field with one element. But as we do not really know what we might mean by this, we simply define a nano-functor to be a subfunctor of a mini-functor, that is, a nano-functor N has an associated mini-functor $mini (S)$ such that for all finite Abelian groups A we have that $N (A) \subset mini (S) (A)$ .

For example, the forgetful functor at the beginning, which we pompously denoted ${\underset{―}{G}}_{m}$ is a nano-functor as it is a subfunctor of the mini-functor $mini (Z [x, x^{- 1}])$ .

Now we are allmost done : an affine $F_{1}$ -scheme in the sense of Connes and Consani is a pair consisting of a nano-functor N and a maxi-functor $maxi (R)$ such that two rather strong conditions are satisfied :

there is an evaluation ‘map’ of functors $e : N \to maxi (R)$
this pair determines uniquely a ‘minimal’ mini-functor $mini (S)$ of which N is a subfunctor

of course we still have to turn this into proper definitions but that will have to await another post. For now, suffice it to say that the pair $({\underset{―}{G}}_{m}, maxi (C [x, x^{- 1}]))$ is a $F_{1}$ -scheme with corresponding uniquely determined mini-functor $mini (Z [x, x^{- 1}])$ , called the multiplicative group scheme.

Continued here

the future of… (3)

Published September 11, 2008 by lieven

It is always great to hear about new and clever ways to use blogs and the internet to promote (and hopefully do) science better. So, I’m a keen consumer of the Flash-presentations of the talks at the Science in the 21st century conference. Bee of Backreaction is one of the organizers and has a post on it as does Woit of Not Even Wrong.

Chad Orzel of Uncertain Principles gave an entertaining talk titled Talking to My Dog about Science: Weblogs and Public Outreach. Not that much about the dog bit except that two of his blog-posts explaining physics to his dog landed him a book contract (book scheduled to appear early 2009).

He compared two ways of communicating scientific discoveries : the Newtonian way (aka publishing in peer reviewed journals) aiming deliberately to make your texts only readable to the experts, versus the Galileian way (aka blogging or science-journalism) trying to find a method to maximize your readership and concluded (based on history) that the Newton-manner is far better for your career…

Jacques Distler of Musings continued his crusade to convince us to use mathML for TeX-rendering in Blogs, Wikis, MathML: Scientific Communication. Of course he is right, but as long as the rendering depends on the client to install extra fonts I’m not going to spend another two weeks sanitizing this blog to make it XHTML-compliant. We’ll just have to wait for html5 and compatible browsers…

A talk I found extremely interesting was The Future is a Foreign Country by Timo Hannay of the Nature Publishing Group on the new challenges facing publishers in times of internet.

Above a text-message filed in as homework (‘describe your holiday’). When Timo decrypted it, I had to think about my old idea of writing a course using only text-messages…

Truly shocked was I when I saw the diagram below in Paul Ginsparg’s talk Next-Generation Implications of Open Access

It depicts the number of submissions to the arXiv by day-time of submission over 24hours. I would have expected a somewhat smooth pattern but was totally blown away by the huge peak around 16hrs. I’ll let you discover the mystery for yourself but it seems to be related to the dead-line for submission, the corresponding order the papers are mentioned in the emails send out, and its effect on the number of references these papers get within the first year…

Somewhat unlucky was Victor Henning in his talk Mendeley: A Last.fm for Research? when he wanted to demonstrate the mendeley web-interface but lost his internet connection…

Still, it seems like a good initiative so I’ve registered with the mendeley site, downloaded the software and hope to explore it over the coming days. I really hope this will turn out to be the one web2-idea catching on among the mathematics-community…