Skip to content →

Tag: Bost

The Langlands program and non-commutative geometry

The Bulletin of the AMS just made this paper by Julia Mueller available online: “On the genesis of Robert P. Langlands’ conjectures and his letter to Andre Weil” (hat tip +ChandanDalawat and +DavidRoberts on Google+).

It recounts the story of the early years of Langlands and the first years of his mathematical career (1960-1966)leading up to his letter to Andre Weil in which he outlines his conjectures, which would become known as the Langlands program.

Langlands letter to Weil is available from the IAS.

The Langlands program is a vast net of conjectures. For example, it conjectures that there is a correspondence between

n-dimensional representations of the absolute Galois group Gal(Q/Q), and

– specific data coming from an adelic quotient-space GLn(AQ)/GLn(Q).

For n=1 this is essentially class field theory with the correspondence given by Artin’s reciprocity law.

Here we have on the one hand the characters of the abelianised absolute Galois group

Gal(Q/Q)abGal(Q(μμ)/Q)Z^

and on the other hand the connected components of the idele class space

GL1(AQ)/GL1(Q)=AQ/Q=R+×Z^

For n=2 it involves the study of Galois representations coming from elliptic curves. A gentle introduction to the general case is Mark Kisin’s paper What is … a Galois representation?.

One way to look at some of the quantum statistical systems studied via non-commutative geometry is that they try to understand the “bad” boundary of the Langlands space GLn(AQ)/GLn(Q).

Here, the Bost-Connes system corresponds to the n=1 case, the Connes-Marcolli system to the n=2 case.

If AQ is the subset of all adeles having almost all of its terms in Z^p, then there is a well-defined map

π : AQ/QR+(x,x2,x2,)|x|p|xp|p

The inverse image of π over R+ are exactly the idele classes AQ/Q, so we can view them as the nice locus of the horrible complicated quotient of adele-classes AQ/Q. And we can view the adele-classes as a ‘closure’ of the idele classes.

But, the fiber π1(0) has horrible topological properties because Q acts ergodically on it due to the fact that log(p)/log(q) is irrational for distinct primes p and q.

This is why it is better to view the adele-classes not as an ordinary space (one with bad topological properties), but rather as a ‘non-commutative’ space because it is controlled by a non-commutative algebra, the Bost-Connes algebra.

For n=2 there’s a similar story with a ‘bad’ quotient M2(AQ)/GL2(Q), being the closure of an ‘open’ nice piece which is the Langlands quotient space GL2(AQ)/GL2(Q).

Comments closed

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

Roots of unity and the Big Picture

All lattices in the moonshine picture are number-like, that is of the form Mgh with M a positive integer and 0g<h with (g,h)=1. To understand the action of the Bost-Connes algebra on the Big Picture it is sometimes better to view the lattice Mgh as a primitive h-th root of unity, centered at hM.

The distance from M to any of the lattices Mgh is equal to 2log(h), and the distances from M and Mgh to hM are all equal to log(h).

For a prime value h, these h lattices are among the h+1 lattices branching off at hM in the h-adic tree (the remaining one being h2M).

For general h the situation is more complex. Here’s the picture for h=6 with edges in the 2-adic tree painted blue, those in the 3-adic tree red.

Misplaced &

To describe the moonshine group (n|h)+e,f, (an example was worked out in the tetrahedral snake post), we need to study the action of base-change with the matrix
x=[11h01]
which sends a lattice of the form Mgh with 0g<h to Mg+Mh, so is a rotation over 2πMh around hM. But, we also have to describe the base-change action with the matrix y=[10n1] and for this we better use the second description of the lattice as Mgh=(gh,1h2M) with g the multiplicative inverse of g modulo h. Under the action by y, the second factor 1h2M will be fixed, so this time we have to look at all lattices of the form (gh,1h2M) with 0g<h, which again can be considered as another set of h-th roots of unity, centered at hM. Here's this second interpretation for h=6: Misplaced & Under x the first set of h-th roots of unity centered at hM is permuted, whereas y permutes the second set of h-th roots of unity.
These interpretations can be used to spot errors in computing the finite groups Γ0(n|h)/Γ0(n.h).

Here’s part of the calculation of the action of y on the (360|1)-snake (which consists of 60-lattices).

First I got a group of order roughly 600.000. After correcting some erroneous cycles, the order went down to 6912.

Finally I spotted that I mis-numbered two lattices in the description of x and y, and the order went down to 48 as it should, because I knew it had to be equal to C2×C2×A4.

Comments closed