Skip to content →

Tag: monster

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

the Riemann hypothesis and 5040

Yesterday, there was an interesting post by John Baez at the n-category cafe: The Riemann Hypothesis Says 5040 is the Last.

The 5040 in the title refers to the largest known counterexample to a bound for the sum-of-divisors function
σ(n)=d|nd=nd|n1d

In 1983, the french mathematician Guy Robin proved that the Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to
σ(n)n log(log(n))<eγ=1.78107... when n>5040.

The other known counterexamples to this bound are the numbers 3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,16,18,20,24,30,36,48,60,72,84,120,180,240,360,720,840,2520.




In Baez’ post there is a nice graph of this function made by Nicolas Tessore, with 5040 indicated with a grey line towards the right and the other counterexamples jumping over the bound 1.78107…



Robin’s theorem has a remarkable history, starting in 1915 with good old Ramanujan writing a part of this thesis on “highly composite numbers” (numbers divisible by high powers of primes).

His PhD. adviser Hardy liked his result but called them “in the backwaters of mathematics” and most of it was not published at the time of Ramanujan’s degree ceremony in 1916, due to paper shortage in WW1.



When Ramanujan’s paper “Highly Composite Numbers” was first published in 1988 in ‘The lost notebook and other unpublished papers’ it became clear that Ramanujan had already part of Robin’s theorem.

Ramanujan states that if the Riemann hypothesis is true, then for n0 large enough we must have for all n>n0 that
σ(n)n log(log(n))<eγ=1.78107... When Jean-Louis Nicolas, Robin's PhD. adviser, read Ramanujan's lost notes he noticed that there was a sign error in Ramanujan's formula which prevented him from seeing Robin's theorem.

Nicolas: “Soon after discovering the hidden part, I read it and saw the difference between Ramanujan’s result and Robin’s one. Of course, I would have bet that the error was in Robin’s paper, but after recalculating it several times and asking Robin to check, it turned out that there was an error of sign in what Ramanujan had written.”

If you are interested in the full story, read the paper by Jean-Louis Nicolas and Jonathan Sondow: Ramanujan, Robin, Highly Composite Numbers, and the Riemann Hypothesis.

What’s the latest on Robin’s inequality? An arXiv-search for Robin’s inequality shows a flurry of activity.

For starters, it has been verified for all numbers smaller that 101013

It has been verified, unconditionally, for certain classes of numbers:

  • all odd integers >9
  • all numbers not divisible by a 25-th power of a prime

Rings a bell? Here’s another hint:

According to Xiaolong Wu in A better method than t-free for Robin’s hypothesis one can replace the condition of ‘not divisible by an N-th power of a prime’ by ‘not divisible by an N-th power of 2’.

Further, he claims to have an (as yet unpublished) argument that Robin’s inequality holds for all numbers not divisible by 242.

So, where should we look for counterexamples to the Riemann hypothesis?

What about the orders of huge simple groups?

The order of the Monster group is too small to be a counterexample (yet, it is divisible by 246). 2 Comments

the monster dictates her picture

The monstrous moonshine picture is a sub-graph of Conway’s Big Picture on 218 vertices. These vertices are the classes of lattices needed in the construction of the 171 moonshine groups. That is, moonshine gives us the shape of the picture.

(image credit Friendly Monsters)

But we can ask to reverse this process. Is the shape of the picture dictated by group-theoretic properties of the monster?

That is, can we reconstruct the 218 lattices and their edges starting from say the conjugacy classes of the monster and some simple rules?

Look at the the power maps for the monster. That is, the operation on conjugacy classes sending the class of g to that of gk for all divisors k of the order of g. Or, if you prefer, the λ-ring structure on the representation ring.

Rejoice die-hard believers in F1-theory, rejoice!

Here’s the game to play.

Let g be a monster element of order n and take d=gcd(n,24).

(1) : If d=8 and a power map of g gives class 8C add (n|4) to your list.

(2) : Otherwise, look at the smallest power of g such that the class is one of 12J,8F,6F,4D,3C,2B or 1A and add (n|e) where e is the order of that class, or, if n>24 and e is even add (n|e2).

A few examples:

For class 20E, d=4 and the power maps give classes 4D and 2B, so we add (20|2).

For class 32B, d=8 but the power map gives 8E so we resort to rule (2). Here the power maps give 8E, 4C and 2B. So, the best class is 4C but as 32>24 we add (32|2).

For class 93A, d=3 and the power map gives 3C and even though 93>24 we add (93|3).

This gives us a list of instances (n|e) with n the order of a monster element. For N=n×e look at all divisors h of 24 such that h2 divides N and add to your list of lattices those of the form Mgh with g strictly smaller than h and (g,h)=1 and M a divisor of Nh2.

This gives us a list of lattices Mgh, which is an h-th root of unity centered as L=M×h (see this post). If we do this for all lattices in the list we can partition the L’s in families according to which roots of unity are centered at L.

This gives us the moonshine picture. (modulo mistakes I made)

The operations we have to do after we have our list of instances (n|e) is pretty straightforward from the rules we used to determine the lattices needed to describe a moonshine group.

Perhaps the oddest part in the construction are the rules (1) and (2) and the prescribed conjugacy classes used in them.

One way to look at this is that the classes 8C and 12J (or 24J) are special. The other classes are just the power-maps of 12J.

Another ‘rationale’ behind these classes may come from the notion of harmonics (see the original Monstrous moonshine paper page 312) of the identity element and the two classes of involutions, 2A (the Fischer involutions) and 2B (the Conway involutions).

For 1A these are : 1A,3C

For 2A these are : 2A,4B,8C

For 2B these are : 2B,4D,6F,8F,12J,24J

These are exactly the classes that we used in (1) and (2), if we add the power-classes of 8C.

Perhaps I should take some time to write all this down more formally.

Comments closed