Skip to content →

Category: math

Pariah moonshine and math-writing

Published October 20, 2017 by lievenlb

Getting mathematics into Nature (the journal) is next to impossible. Ask David Mumford and John Tate about it.

Last month, John Duncan, Michael Mertens and Ken Ono managed to do just that.

Inevitably, they had to suffer through a photoshoot and give their university’s PR-people some soundbites.

CAPTION

In the simplest terms, an elliptic curve is a doughnut shape with carefully placed points, explain Emory University mathematicians Ken Ono, left, and John Duncan, right. “The whole game in the math of elliptic curves is determining whether the doughnut has sprinkles and, if so, where exactly the sprinkles are placed,” Duncan says.

CAPTION

“Imagine you are holding a doughnut in the dark,” Emory University mathematician Ken Ono says. “You wouldn’t even be able to decide whether it has any sprinkles. But the information in our O’Nan moonshine allows us to ‘see’ our mathematical doughnuts clearly by giving us a wealth of information about the points on elliptic curves.”

(Photos by Stephen Nowland, Emory University. See here and here.)

Some may find this kind of sad, or a bad example of over-popularisation.

I think they do a pretty good job of getting the notion of rational points on elliptic curves across.

That’s what the arithmetic of elliptic curves is all about, finding structure in patterns of sprinkles on special doughnuts. And hey, you can get rich and famous if you’re good at it.

Their Nature-paper Pariah moonshine is a must-read for anyone aspiring to write a math-book aiming at a larger audience.

It is an introduction to and a summary of the results they arXived last February O’Nan moonshine and arithmetic.

Update (October 21st)

John Duncan send me this comment via email:

“Strictly speaking the article was published in Nature Communications (https://www.nature.com/ncomms/). We were also rejected by Nature. But Nature forwarded our submission to Nature Communications, and we had a great experience. Specifically, the review period was very fast (compared to most math journals), and the editors offered very good advice.

My understanding is that Nature Communications is interested in publishing more pure mathematics. If someone reading this has a great mathematical story to tell, I (humbly) recommend to them this option. Perhaps the work of Mumford–Tate would be more agreeably received here.

By the way, our Nature Communications article is open access, available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00660-y.”

2 Comments

Grothendieck seminar at the ENS

Published October 19, 2017 by lievenlb

Next week, the brand new séminaire « Lectures grothendieckiennes » will kick off on Tuesday October 24th at 18hr (h/t Isar Stubbe).



There will be one talk a month, on a tuesday evening from 18hr-20hr. Among the lecturers are the ‘usual suspects’:

Pierre Cartier (October 24th) will discuss the state of functional analysis before Grothendieck entered the scene in 1948 and effectively ‘killed the subject’ (said Dieudonné).

Alain Connes (November 7th) will talk on the origins of Grothendieck’s introduction of toposes.

In fact, toposes will likely be a recurrent topic of the seminar.

Laurant Lafforgue‘s title will be ‘La notion de vérité selon Grothendieck'(January 9th) and on March 6th there will be a lecture by Olivia Caramello.

Also, Colin McLarty will speak about them on May 3rd: “Nonetheless one should learn the language of topos: Grothendieck on building houses”.

The closing lecture will be delivered by Georges Maltsiniotis on June 5th 2018.

Further Grothendieck news, there’s the exhibition of a sculpture by Nina Douglas, the wife of Michael Douglas, at the Simons Center for Geometry and Physics (h/t Jason Starr).



It depicts Grothendieck as shepherd. The lambs in front of him have Riemann surfaces inserted into them and on the staff is Grothendieck’s ‘Hexenkuche’ (his proof of the Riemann-Roch theorem).



Leave a Comment

Grothendieck topologies as functors to Top

Published November 27, 2016 by lievenlb

Either this is horribly wrong, or it must be well-known. So I guess I’m asking for either a rebuttal or a reference.

Take a ‘smallish’ category $\mathbf{C}$. By this I mean that for every object $C$ the collection of all maps ending in $C$ must be a set. On this set, let’s call it $y(C)$ for Yoneda’s sake, we can define a pre-order $f \leq g$ if there is a commuting diagram

$\xymatrix{D \ar[rr]^f \ar[rd]_h & & C \\ & E \ar[ru]_g &}$

A sieve $S$ on $C$ is the same thing as a downset in $y(C)$ with respect to this pre-order. Composition with $h : D \rightarrow C$ gives a map $h : y(D) \rightarrow y(C)$ such that $h^{-1}(S)$ is a downset (or, sieve) in $y(D)$ whenever $S$ is a downset in $y(C)$.

A Grothendieck topology on $\mathbf{C}$ is a function $J$ which assigns to every object $C$ a collection $J(C)$ of sieves on $C$ satisfying:

  • $y(C) \in J(C)$,
  • if $S \in J(C)$ then $h^{-1}(S) \in J(D)$ for every morphism $h : D \rightarrow C$,
  • a sieve $R$ on $C$ is in $J(C)$ if there is a sieve $S \in J(C)$ such that $h^{-1}(R) \in J(D)$ for all morphisms $h : D \rightarrow C$ in $S$.

From this it follows for all downsets $S$ and $T$ in $y(C)$ that if $S \subset T$ and $S \in J(C)$ then $T \in J(C)$ and if both $S,T \in J(C)$ then also $S \cap T \in J(C)$.

In other words, the collection $\mathcal{J}_C = \{ \emptyset \} \cup J(C)$ defines an ordinary topology on $y(C)$, and the second condition implies that we have a covariant functor

$\mathbf{J} : \mathbf{C} \rightarrow \mathbf{Top}$ sending $C \mapsto (y(C),\mathcal{J}_C)$

That is, one can view a Grothendieck topology as a functor to ordinary topological spaces.

Furher, the topos of sheaves on the site $(\mathbf{C},J)$ seems to fit in nicely. To a sheaf

$A : \mathbf{C}^{op} \rightarrow \mathbf{Sets}$

one associates a functor of flabby sheaves $\mathcal{A}(C)$ on $(y(C),\mathcal{J}_C)$ having as stalks

$\mathcal{A}(C)_h = Im(A(h))$ for all points $h : D \rightarrow C$ in $y(C)$

and as sections on the open set $S \subset y(C)$ all functions of the form

$s_a : S \rightarrow \bigsqcup_{h \in S} \mathcal{A}(C)_h$ where $s_a(h)=A(h)(a)$ for some $a \in A(C)$.

2 Comments