Skip to content →

Author: lievenlb

un-doing the Grothendieck?

(via the Arcadian Functor) At the time of the doing the Perelman-post someone rightfully commented that “making a voluntary retreat from the math circuit to preserve one’s own well-being (either mental, physical, scientific …)” should rather be called doing the Grothendieck as he was the first to pull this stunt.

On Facebook a couple of people have created the group The Petition for Alexander Grothendieck to Return from Exile. As you need to sign-up to Facebook to use this link and some of you may not be willing to do so, let me copy the description.

Alexander Grothendieck was born in Berlin, Germany on March 28, 1928. He was one of the most important and enigmatic mathematicians of the 20th century. After a lengthy and very productive career, highlighted by the awarding of the Fields Medal and the Crafoord Prize (the latter of which he declined), Grothendieck disappeared into the French countryside and ceased all mathematical activity. Grothendieck has lived in self-imposed exile since 1991.

We recently spotted Grothendieck in the “Gentleman’s Choice” bar in Montreal, Quebec. He was actually a really cool guy, and we spoke with him for quite some time. After a couple of rounds (on us) we were able to convince him to return from exile, under one stipulation – we created a facebook petition with 1729 mathematician members!

If 1729 mathematicians join this group, then Alexander Grothendieck will return from exile!!

1729 being of course the taxicab-curve number. The group posts convincing photographic evidence (see above) for their claim, has already 201 members (the last one being me) and has this breaking news-flash

Last week Grothendieck, or “the ‘Dieck” as we affectionately refer to him, returned to Montreal for a short visit to explain some of the theories he has been working on over the past decade. In particular, he explained how he has generalised the theory of schemes even further, to the extent that the Riemann Hypothesis and a Unified Field Theory are both trivial consequences of his work.

You know what to do!

2 Comments

please, use this bookmarklet!

Great! You’ve finally managed to arXiv your paper after months of laborious research, and now, you’re eagerly awaiting response…

The odds are you’ll be disappointed, if not frustrated. Chances are high that if you get any response at all it is only to clarify that someone else (usually the person emailing you) proved this result a long time ago, or that your result could be generalized enormously, or that you could have shortened your proof tremendously if only you were more educated, or …
Mathematics seems to be more of a pissing contest than anything else, at such moments.

Imagine someone would be kind enough, at that particular moment, to send you an email saying not much more than : “Gee thanks! Ive just browsed through your paper arXived today and you really made my day! Keep up the good work, all the best :: lieven” (change the name to your liking)

Sadly, math-circles are not known for their ‘good-vibes’ generally. Mind you, Ive send similar emails to people posting on the arXiv, but, admittedly, I did it far fewer than I might have. Often I like (even admire) a result but repress the urgent need to communicate that feeling to the author, perhaps my Asperger kicking up…

Now that you may feel some empathy with the situation, let’s get to a similar situation in math-blogging. Sometimes, you spend a lot of time writing a post (( but probably you have to be blogging yourself to appreciate the amount of energy it takes to write a genuine post compared to a link-post or a couple-of-lines-not-going-into-the-specifics post )) , release it to the world, see tons of RSS-bots and genuine hits passing by and then what?… nothing! no reply, no email, no comment, nothing at all!

Personally, I’m not that influenced by this. When I blog I do it because (1) Ive the time, at that particular moment and (2) I like to write about the things I do, at that moment. But sometimes, it comes to us all, that feeling of ‘why am I doing this after all? can’t I spend my time more sensibly doing something else?’ and when you begin to have these doubts it usually marks the beginning of a long silence at your blog (( browse my archive and I can tell you specifically what happened at that particular moment to stop blogging ))

So, here’s an appeal to all you lurkers at math-blogs : give these people, once in a while, something back…. Ive thought for a long time that this lurk-but-no-comment attitude was something typical of mathematicians, but, as often, when researched in more depth, I have to admit that I’m wrong! Read the post Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute by Jakob Nielsen to find out that most blogs act along a 90-9-1 scheme :

User participation often more or less follows a 90-9-1 rule:

90% of users are lurkers (i.e., read or observe, but don’t contribute).
9% of users contribute from time to time, but other priorities dominate their time.
1% of users participate a lot and account for most contributions: it can seem as if they don’t have lives because they often post just minutes after whatever event they’re commenting on occurs.

So, the good news is, it’s not that particular to us autistic mathematicians. But, wouldn’t it be even better if you could do something positive about it? Speaking for myself : often I read a post I like, and (being a semi-pro myself) appreciate the work had to be put into producing such a post, but even then I don’t feel the urge to communicate this positive feeling to the blogger in question. Perhaps, we could accelerate things by having a bookmarklet in your bookmarks-bar that does the following : when you like a post, go to the post-page where you are asked to leave a comment. Hit the bookmarklet and it will automatically fill in your name, URL, email adress and a supporting message along the lines of “Nice post! I’m not so much of a commenter, but rather than not replying at all, I found it important to let you know that people actually read and like your post. All the best (and perhaps later I’ll comment more to the point) :: lieven (again, change the name to your liking).

Well, I’ve just done that! So please take a few minutes off your time to read and follow-up the instructions below and have a math-blog-bookmarklet up in your bookmark-bar to tell the blogger in question you really liked her/his post. This may just be enough motivation for them to carry on…

Okay! Here the nitty-gritty (it takes under 2 minutes, so please, do it now!).

part 1 : copy the following text and save it as blogmarklet.html

  • Download mathblogmarklet.txt and save it into your favorite text-program as bookmarklet.html and change your URL, name, email and custom message (please extend on your compliments…)

  • Once you saved the file as bookmarklet.html open the file under your favourite browser (Safari or Flock) and drag the link to your bookmark-bar.

part 2 : use it!

  • Whenever you visit a blog-post you like, go to the page of that post where you can leave a comment. Hit the bookmarklet and your comment-fields are filled (but PLEASE ADD TO THE DEFAULT COMMENT IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT) and press the submit-button!

  • That’s it!

For example, Ive just changed the layout of this blog. Please leave a specific comment what you think about it.

14 Comments

the Bost-Connes Hecke algebra

As before, $\Gamma $ is the subgroup of the rational linear group $GL_2(\mathbb{Q}) $ consisting of the matrices

$\begin{bmatrix} 1 & b \\ 0 & a \end{bmatrix} $ with $a \in \mathbb{Q}_+ $ and $\Gamma_0 $ the subgroup of all matrices $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & n \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $ with $n \in \mathbb{N} $. Last time, we have seen that the double coset space $\Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $ can be identified with the set of all rational points in the fractal comb consisting of all couples $~(a,b) $ with $a=\frac{m}{n} \in \mathbb{Q}_+ $ and $b \in [0,\frac{1}{n}) \cap \mathbb{Q} $

The blue spikes are at the positive natural numbers $a={ 1,2,3,\ldots } $. Over $a=1 $ they correspond to the matrices $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $ with $\gamma \in [0,1) \cap \mathbb{Q} $ and as matrix-multiplication of such matrices corresponds to addition of the $\gamma $ we see that these cosets can be identified with the additive group $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z} $ (which will reappear at a later stage as the multiplicative group of all roots of unity).

The Bost-Connes Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}(\Gamma,\Gamma_0) $ is the convolution algebra of all comlex valued functions with finite support on the double coset space $\Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $. That is, as a vector space the algebra has as basis the functions $e_X $ with $X \in \Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $ (that is, $X $ is a point of the fractal comb) and such that $e_X(X)=1 $ and $e_X(Y)=0 $ for all other double cosets $Y \not= X $. The algebra product on $\mathcal{H} $ is the convolution-product meaning that if $f,f’ $ are complex functions with finite support on the Bost-Connes space, then they can also be interpreted as $\Gamma_0 $-bi-invariant functions on the group $\Gamma $ (for this just means that the function is constant on double cosets) and then $f \ast f’ $ is the function defined for all $\gamma \in \Gamma $ by

$f \ast f'(\gamma) = \sum_{\mu \in \Gamma/ \Gamma_0} f(\mu) f'(\mu^{-1} \gamma) $

Last time we have seen that the coset-space $\Gamma / \Gamma_0 $ can be represented by all rational points $~(a,b) $ with $b<1 $. At first sight, the sum above seems to be infinite, but, f and f’ are non-zero only at finitely many double cosets and we have see last time that $\Gamma_0 $ acts on one-sided cosets with finite orbits. Therefore, $f \ast f $ is a well-defined $\Gamma_0 $-bi-invariant function with finite support on the fractal comb $\Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $. Further, observe that the unit element of $\mathcal{H} $ is the function corresponding to the identity matrix in $\Gamma $.

Looking at fractal-comb picture it is obvious that the Bost-Connes Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H} $ is a huge object. Today, we will prove the surprising result that it can be generated by the functions corresponding to the tiny portion of the comb, shown below.

That is, we will show that $\mathcal{H} $ is generated by the functions $e(\gamma) $ corresponding to the double-coset $X_{\gamma} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $ (the rational points of the blue line-segment over 1, or equivalently, the elements of the group $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z} $), together with the functions $\phi_n $ corresponding to the double-coset $X_n = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} $ for all $ n \in \mathbb{N}_+ $ (the blue dots to the right in the picture) and the functions $\phi_n^* $ corresponding to the double cosets $X_{1/n} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{n} \end{bmatrix} $ (the red dots to the left).

Take a point in the fractal comb $X = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix} $ with $~(m,n)=1 $ and $\gamma \in [0,\frac{1}{n}) \cap \mathbb{Q} \subset [0,1) \cap \mathbb{Q} $. Note that as $\gamma < \frac{1}{n} $ we have that $n \gamma < 1 $ and hence $e(n \gamma) $ is one of the (supposedly) generating functions described above.

Because $X = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & m \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & n \gamma \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{n} \end{bmatrix} = X_m X_{n \gamma} X_{1/n} $ we are aiming for a relation in the Hecke algebra $\phi_m \ast e(n \gamma) \ast \phi^*_n = e_X $. This is ‘almost’ true, except from a coefficient.

Let us prove first the equality of functions $e_X \ast \phi_n = n \phi_m \ast e(n \gamma) $. To do this we have to show that they have the same value for all points $Y \in \Gamma_0 \backslash \Gamma / \Gamma_0 $ in the fractal comb. Let us first study the function on the right hand side.

$\phi_m \ast e(n \gamma) = \sum_{g \in \Gamma/\Gamma_0} \phi_m(g) e(n \gamma)(g^{-1}Y) $. Because $X_m \Gamma_0 $ is already a double coset (over $m $ we have a comb-spike of length one, so all rational points on it determine at the same time a one-sided and a double coset. Therefore, $\phi_m(g) $ is zero unless $g = X_m $ and then the value is one.

Next, let us consider the function on the left-hand side. $e_X \ast \phi_n(Y) = \sum_{g \in \Gamma / \Gamma_0} e_X(g) \phi_m( g^{-1} Y) $. We have to be a bit careful here as the double cosets over $a=\frac{m}{n} $ are different from the left cosets. Recall from last time that the left-cosets over a are given by all rational points of the form $~(a,b) $ with $ b < 1 $ whereas the double-cosets over a are represented by the rational points of the form $~(a,b) $ with $b < \frac{1}{n} $ and hence the $\Gamma_0 $-orbits over a all consist of precisely n elements g.
That is, $e_X(g) $ is zero for all $ g \in \Gamma/\Gamma_0 $ except when g is one of the following matrices

$ g \in { \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma+\frac{1}{n} \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix}, \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma + \frac{2}{n} \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix}, \ldots, \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma + \frac{n-1}{n} \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix} } $

Further, $\phi_n(g^{-1}Y) $ is zero unless $g^{-1}Y \in \Gamma_0 \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} \Gamma_0 $, or equivalently, that $Y \in \Gamma_0 g \Gamma_0 \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} \Gamma_0 = \Gamma_0 g \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} \Gamma_0 $ and for each of the choices for g we have that

$ \begin{bmatrix} 1 & \gamma + \frac{k}{n} \\ 0 & \frac{m}{n} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & n \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & n \gamma + k \\ 0 & m \end{bmatrix} \sim \begin{bmatrix} 1 & n\gamma \\ 0 & m \end{bmatrix} $

Therefore, the function $e_X \ast \phi_n $ is zero at every point of the fractal comb unless at $\begin{bmatrix} 1 & n \gamma \\ 0 & m \end{bmatrix} $ where it is equal to $n $. This proves the claimed identity of functions and as one verifies easily that $\phi_n^* \ast \phi_n = 1 $, it follows that all base vectors $e_X $ of $\mathcal{H} $ can be expressed in the claimed generators

$ e_X = n \phi_m \ast e(n \gamma) \ast \phi_n^* $

Bost and Connes use slightly different generators, namely with $\mu_n = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \phi_n $ and $\mu_n^* = \sqrt{n} \phi_n^* $ in order to have all relations among the generators being defined over $\mathbb{Q} $ (as we will see another time). This will be important later on to have an action of the cyclotomic Galois group $Gal(\mathbb{Q}^{cycl}/\mathbb{Q}) $ on certain representations of $\mathcal{H} $.

5 Comments