Skip to content →

Tag: Grothendieck

We sit in our ivory towers and think

I’m on vacation, and re-reading two ‘metabiographies’:

Philippe Douroux : Alexandre Grothendieck : Sur les traces du dernier génie des mathématiques

and

Siobhan Roberts : Genius At Play: The Curious Mind of John Horton Conway



.

Siobhan Roberts’ book is absolutely brilliant! I’m reading it for the n-th time, first on Kindle, then hardcopy, and now I’m just flicking through its pages, whenever I want to put a smile on my face.

So, here’s today’s gem of a Conway quote (on page 150):

Pure mathematicians usually don’t found companies and deal with the world in an aggressive way. We sit in our ivory towers and think.

(Conway complains his words were taken out of context, in an article
featuring Stephen Wolfram.)

If only university administrations worldwide would accept the ‘sitting in an ivory tower and think’-bit as the job description, and evaluation criterium, for their pure mathematicians.

Sadly… they prefer managers to thinkers.

This reminds me of another brilliant text, perhaps not receiving the attention it deserves:

Daniel J. Woodhouse : An open letter to the mathematical community.

Woodhouse offers a reaction to the ‘neoliberal upper management and bloated administration’ of universities:

Within the sphere of pure mathematics — the oldest and most successful of humanity’s intellectual endeavors — I believe our best chance at preserving the integrity and dignity of our tradition is to return to our Pythagorean roots. We should become a cult.

How?

Let us seclude ourselves in mountain caves and daub mysterious equations in blood across rock-faces to ward off outsiders. Let us embrace our most impenetrable mathematical texts as sacred and requiring divinely distributed revelation.

Why?

I am convinced that the current system has dulled our understanding of the value we offer through our instruction. Modern mathematical techniques are the foundation of modern science, medicine, and technology, and we should be the literal, rather than metaphorical, high priests of this temple. Only by withholding our insights will we be able to reassert the intrinsic worth of our knowledge.

I hope these few paragraphs have wetted your appetite to read the manifesto in full, and then take action!

One Comment

Dessinflateurs

I’m trying to get into the latest Manin-Marcolli paper Quantum Statistical Mechanics of the Absolute Galois Group on how to create from Grothendieck’s dessins d’enfant a quantum system, generalising the Bost-Connes system to the non-Abelian part of the absolute Galois group Gal(Q/Q).

In doing so they want to extend the action of the multiplicative monoid N× by power maps on the roots of unity to the action of a larger monoid on all dessins d’enfants.

Here they use an idea, originally due to Jordan Ellenberg, worked out by Melanie Wood in her paper Belyi-extending maps and the Galois action on dessins d’enfants.



To grasp this, it’s best to remember what dessins have to do with Belyi maps, which are maps defined over Q
π:ΣP1
from a Riemann surface Σ to the complex projective line (aka the 2-sphere), ramified only in 0,1 and . The dessin determining π is the 2-coloured graph on the surface Σ with as black vertices the pre-images of 0, white vertices the pre-images of 1 and these vertices are joined by the lifts of the closed interval [0,1], so the number of edges is equal to the degree d of the map.

Wood considers a very special subclass of these maps, which she calls Belyi-extender maps, of the form
γ:P1P1
defined over Q with the additional property that γ maps {0,1,} into {0,1,}.

The upshot being that post-compositions of Belyi’s with Belyi-extenders γπ are again Belyi maps, and if two Belyi’s π and π lie in the same Galois orbit, then so must all γπ and γπ.

The crucial Ellenberg-Wood idea is then to construct “new Galois invariants” of dessins by checking existing and easily computable Galois invariants on the dessins of the Belyi’s γπ.

For this we need to know how to draw the dessin of γπ on Σ if we know the dessins of π and of the Belyi-extender γ. Here’s the procedure



Here, the middle dessin is that of the Belyi-extender γ (which in this case is the power map tt4) and the upper graph is the unmarked dessin of π.

One has to replace each of the black-white edges in the dessin of π by the dessin of the expander γ, but one must be very careful in respecting the orientations on the two dessins. In the upper picture just one edge is replaced and one has to do this for all edges in a compatible manner.

Thus, a Belyi-expander γ inflates the dessin π with factor the degree of γ. For this reason i prefer to call them dessinflateurs, a contraction of dessin+inflator.

In her paper, Melanie Wood says she can separate dessins for which all known Galois invariants were the same, such as these two dessins,



by inflating them with a suitable Belyi-extender and computing the monodromy group of the inflated dessin.

This monodromy group is the permutation group generated by two elements, the first one gives the permutation on the edges given by walking counter-clockwise around all black vertices, the second by walking around all white vertices.

For example, by labelling the edges of Δ, its monodromy is generated by the permutations (2,3,5,4)(1,6)(8,10,9) and (1,3,2)(4,7,5,8)(9,10) and GAP tells us that the order of this group is 1814400. For Ω the generating permutations are (1,2)(3,6,4,7)(8,9,10) and (1,2,4,3)(5,6)(7,9,8), giving an isomorphic group.

Let’s inflate these dessins using the Belyi-extender γ(t)=274(t3t2) with corresponding dessin



It took me a couple of attempts before I got the inflated dessins correct (as i knew from Wood that this simple extender would not separate the dessins). Inflated Ω on top:



Both dessins give a monodromy group of order 35838544379904000000.

Now we’re ready to do serious work.

Melanie Wood uses in her paper the extender ζ(t)=27t2(t1)24(t2t+1)3 with associated dessin



and says she can now separate the inflated dessins by the order of their monodromy groups. She gets for the inflated Δ the order 19752284160000 and for inflated Ω the order 214066877211724763979841536000000000000.

It’s very easy to make mistakes in these computations, so probably I did something horribly wrong but I get for both Δ and Ω that the order of the monodromy group of the inflated dessin is 214066877211724763979841536000000000000.

I’d be very happy when someone would be able to spot the error!

One Comment

Monstrous dessins 1

Dedekind’s Psi-function Ψ(n)=np|n(1+1p) pops up in a number of topics:

  • Ψ(n) is the index of the congruence subgroup Γ0(n) in the modular group Γ=PSL2(Z),
  • Ψ(n) is the number of points in the projective line P1(Z/nZ),
  • Ψ(n) is the number of classes of 2-dimensional lattices LMgh at hyperdistance n in Conway’s big picture from the standard lattice L1,
  • Ψ(n) is the number of admissible maximal commuting sets of operators in the Pauli group of a single qudit.

The first and third interpretation have obvious connections with Monstrous Moonshine.

Conway’s big picture originated from the desire to better understand the Moonshine groups, and Ogg’s Jack Daniels problem
asks for a conceptual interpretation of the fact that the prime numbers such that Γ0(p)+ is a genus zero group are exactly the prime divisors of the order of the Monster simple group.

Here’s a nice talk by Ken Ono : Can’t you just feel the Moonshine?



For this reason it might be worthwhile to make the connection between these two concepts and the number of points of P1(Z/nZ) as explicit as possible.

Surely all of this is classical, but it is nicely summarised in the paper by Tatitscheff, He and McKay “Cusps, congruence groups and monstrous dessins”.

The ‘monstrous dessins’ from their title refers to the fact that the lattices LMgh at hyperdistance n from L1 are permuted by the action of the modular groups and so determine a Grothendieck’s dessin d’enfant. In this paper they describe the dessins corresponding to the 15 genus zero congruence subgroups Γ0(n), that is when n=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,16,18 or 25.

Here’s the ‘monstrous dessin’ for Γ0(6)



But, one can compute these dessins for arbitrary n, describing the ripples in Conway’s big picture, and try to figure out whether they are consistent with the Riemann hypothesis.

We will get there eventually, but let’s start at an easy pace and try to describe the points of the projective line P1(Z/nZ).

Over a field k the points of P1(k) correspond to the lines through the origin in the affine plane A2(k) and they can represented by projective coordinates [a:b] which are equivalence classes of couples (a,b)k2{(0,0)} under scalar multiplication with non-zero elements in k, so with points [a:1] for all ak together with the point at infinity [1:0]. When n=p is a prime number we have #P1(Z/pZ)=p+1. Here are the 8 lines through the origin in A2(Z/7Z)



Over an arbitrary (commutative) ring R the points of P1(R) again represent equivalence classes, this time of pairs
(a,b)R2 : aR+bR=R
with respect to scalar multiplication by units in R, that is
(a,b)(c,d)  iff λR : a=λc,b=λd
For P1(Z/nZ) we have to find all pairs of integers (a,b)Z2 with 0a,b<n with gcd(a,b)=1 and use Cremona’s trick to test for equivalence:
(a,b)=(c,d)P1(Z/nZ) iff adbc0 mod n
The problem is to find a canonical representative in each class in an efficient way because this is used a huge number of times in working with modular symbols.

Perhaps the best algorithm, for large n, is sketched in pages 145-146 of Bill Stein’s Modular forms: a computational approach.

For small n the algorithm in §1.3 in the Tatitscheff, He and McKay paper suffices:

  • Consider the action of (Z/nZ) on {0,1,,n1}=Z/nZ and let D be the set of the smallest elements in each orbit,
  • For each dD compute the stabilizer subgroup Gd for this action and let Cd be the set of smallest elements in each Gd-orbit on the set of all elements in Z/nZ coprime with d,
  • Then P1(Z/nZ)={[c:d] | dD,cCd}.

Let’s work this out for n=12 which will be our running example (the smallest non-squarefree non-primepower):

  • (Z/12Z)={1,5,7,11}C2×C2,
  • The orbits on {0,1,,11} are
    {0},{1,5,7,11},{2,10},{3,9},{4,8},{6}
    and D={0,1,2,3,4,6},
  • G0=C2×C2, G1={1}, G2={1,7}, G3={1,5}, G4={1,7} and G6=C2×C2,
  • 1 is the only number coprime with 0, giving us [1:0],
  • {0,1,,11} are all coprime with 1, and we have trivial stabilizer, giving us the points [0:1],[1:1],,[11:1],
  • {1,3,5,7,9,11} are coprime with 2 and under the action of {1,7} they split into the orbits
    {1,7}, {3,9}, {5,11}
    giving us the points [1:2],[3:2] and [5:2],
  • {1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11} are coprime with 3, the action of {1,5} gives us the orbits
    {1,5}, {2,10}, {4,8}, {7,11}
    and additional points [1:3],[2:3],[4:3] and [7:3],
  • {1,3,5,7,9,11} are coprime with 4 and under the action of {1,7} we get orbits
    {1,7}, {3,9}, {5,11}
    and points [1:4],[3:4] and [5,4],
  • Finally, {1,5,7,11} are the only coprimes with 6 and they form a single orbit under C2×C2 giving us just one additional point [1:6].

This gives us all 24=Ψ(12) points of P1(Z/12Z) (strangely, op page 43 of the T-H-M paper they use different representants).

One way to see that #P1(Z/nZ)=Ψ(n) comes from a consequence of the Chinese Remainder Theorem that for the prime factorization n=p1e1pkek we have
P1(Z/nZ)=P1(Z/p1e1Z)××P1(Z/pkekZ)
and for a prime power pk we have canonical representants for P1(Z/pkZ)
[a:1] for a=0,1,,pk1 and[1:b] for b=0,p,2p,3p,,pkp
which shows that #P1(Z/pkZ)=(p+1)pk1=Ψ(pk).

Next time, we’ll connect P1(Z/nZ) to Conway’s big picture and the congruence subgroup Γ0(n).

Comments closed