Skip to content →

neverendingbooks Posts

the father of all beamer talks

Who was the first mathematician to give a slide show talk? I don’t have the
definite answer to this question, but would like to offer a strong
candidate : Hermann Minkowski gave the talk “Zur Geometrie der Zahlen” (On the
geometry of numbers) before the third ICM in 1904 in Heidelberg and even
the title page of his paper in the proceedings indicates that he did
present his talk using slides (Mit Projektionsbildern auf einer
Doppeltafel)

Seven
of these eight slides would be hard to improve using LaTeX

What concerns
us today is the worst of all slides, the seventh, where Minkowski tries
to depict his famous questionmark function $?(x) $, sometimes also called
the _devil’s staircase_

The devil’s
staircase is a fractal curve and can be viewed as a mirror (taking a
point on the horizontal axis to the point on the vertical axis through
the function value) having magical simplifying properties : – it takes
rational numbers to _dyadic numbers_, that is those of the form
$n.2^{-m}$ with $n,m \in \mathbb{Z} $. – it takes quadratic
_irrational_ numbers to rational numbers. So, iterating this
mirror-procedure, the devil’s staircase is a device solving the main
problem of Greek Mathematics : which lengths can be constructed using
ruler and compass? These _constructible numbers_ are precisely those
real numbers which become after a finite number of devil-mirrors a
dyadic number. The proofs of these facts are not very difficult but
they involve a piece of long-forgotten mathematical technology :
_continued fractions_. By repeted approximations using the
floor-function (the largest natural number less than or equal to the real
number), every positive real number can be written as

$a = a_0 +
\frac{1}{a_1 + \frac{1}{a_2 + \frac{1}{a_3 + \frac{1}{\dots}}}} $

with all $a_i $ natural numbers. So, let us just denote from now on this
continued fraction of a by the expression

$a = \langle
a_0;a_1,a_2,a_3,\dots \rangle $

Clearly, a is a rational number if
(and also if but this requires a small argument using the Euclidian
algorithm) the above description has a tail of zeroes at the end and
(slightly more difficult) $a$ is a real quadratic irrational number
(that is, an element of a quadratic extension field
$\mathbb{Q}\sqrt{n} $) if and only if the continued fraction-expression
has a periodic tail. There is a lot more to say about
continued-fraction expressions and I’ll do that in another
‘virtual-course-post’ (those prepended with a (c): sign). For the
impatient let me just say that two real numbers will lie in the same
$GL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-orbit (under the action via Moebius-transformations)
if and only if their continued fraction expressions have the same tails
eventually (which has applications in noncommutative geometry as in the
work of Manin and Marcolli but maybe I’ll come to this in the (c):
posts).

Right, now we can define the mysterious devil-stair function
$?(x) $. If a is in the real interval $[0,1] $ and if $a \in
\mathbb{Q} $ then $a = \langle 0;a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n,0,0,\dots
\rangle $ and we define $?(a) = 2 \sum_{k=1}^{n} (-1)^k
2^{-(a_1+a_2+\dots+a_k)} $ and if a is irrational with continued
fraction expression $a = \langle 0;a_1,a_2,a_3,\dots \rangle $, then

$?(a) = 2 \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} (-1)^{k+1} 2^{-(a_1+a_2+\dots+a_k)} $

A
perhaps easier description is that with the above continued-fraction
expression, the _binary_ expansion of $?(a) $ has the following form

$?(a) = 0,0 \dots 01 \dots 1 0 \dots 0 1 \dots 1 0 \dots 0 1 \dots
1 0 \dots $

where the first batch of zeroes after the comma has length
$a_1-1 $, the first batch of ones has length $a_2 $ the next batch of
zeroes length $a_3 $ and so on.

It is a pleasant exercise to verify that
this function does indeed have the properties we claimed before. A
recent incarnation of the question mark function is in Conway’s game of
_contorted fractions_. A typical position consists of a finite number of
boxed real numbers, for example the position might be

$\boxed{\pi} + \boxed{\sqrt{2}} + \boxed{1728} +
\boxed{-\frac{1}{3}} $

The Rules of the game are : (1) Both
players L and R take turns modifying just one of the numbers such that
the denominator becomes strictly smaller (irrational numbers are
supposed to have $\infty$ as their ‘denominator’). And if the boxed
number is already an integer, then its absolute value must decrease.
(2) Left must always _decrease_ the value of the boxed number, Right
must always increase it. (3) The first player unable to move looses
the game. To decide who wins a particular game, one needs to compute
the value of a position $\boxed{x} $ according to the rules of
combinatorial game theory (see for example the marvelous series of four
books Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays. It turns out that this CG-value is no other than $?(x)$
… And, Conway has a much improved depiction of the devil-staircase in
his book On Numbers And Games

One Comment

Monsieur Mathieu

Even a virtual course needs an opening line, so here it is : Take your favourite $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representation Here is mine : the permutation presentation of the Mathieu group(s). Emile Leonard Mathieu is remembered especially for his discovery (in 1861 and 1873) of five sporadic simple groups named after him, the Mathieu groups $M_{11},M_{12},M_{22},M_{23} $ and $M_{24} $. These were studied in his thesis on transitive functions. He had a refreshingly direct style
of writing. I’m not sure what Cauchy would have thought (Cauchy died in 1857) about this ‘acknowledgement’ in his 1861-paper in which Mathieu describes $M_{12} $ and claims the construction of $M_{24} $.

Also the opening sentenses of his 1873 paper are nice, something along the lines of “if no expert was able to fill in the details of my claims made twelve years ago, I’d better do it myself”.

However, even after this paper opinions remained divided on the issue whether or not he did really achieve his goal, and the matter was settled decisively by Ernst Witt connecting the Mathieu groups to Steiner systems (if I recall well from Mark Ronan’s book Symmetry and the monster)

As Mathieu observed, the quickest way to describe these groups would be to give generators, but as these groups are generated by two permutations on 12 respectively 24 elements, we need to have a mnemotechnic approach to be able to reconstruct them whenever needed.

Here is a nice approach, due to Gunther Malle in a Luminy talk in 1993 on “Dessins d’enfants” (more about them later). Consider the drawing of “Monsieur Mathieu” on the left. That is, draw the left-handed bandit picture on 6 edges and vertices, divide each edge into two and give numbers to both parts (the actual numbering is up to you, but for definiteness let us choose the one on the left). Then, $M_{12} $ is generated by the order two permutation describing the labeling of both parts of the edges

$s=(1,2)(3,4)(5,8)(7,6)(9,12)(11,10) $

together with the order three permutation obtained from cycling counterclockwise
around a trivalent vertex and calling out the labels one encounters. For example, the three cycle corresponding to the ‘neck vertex’ is $~(1,2,3) $ and the total permutation
is

$t=(1,2,3)(4,5,6)(8,9,10) $

A quick verification using GAP tells that these elements do indeed generate a simple group of order 95040.

Similarly, if you have to reconstruct the largest Mathieu group from scratch, apply the same method to the the picture above or to “ET Mathieu” drawing on the left. This picture I copied from Alexander Zvonkin‘s paper How to draw a group as well as the computational details below.

This is all very nice and well but what do these drawings have to do with Grothendieck’s “dessins d’enfants”? Consider the map from the projective line onto itself

$\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}$

defined by the rational map

$f(z) = \frac{(z^3-z^2+az+b)^3(z^3+cz^2+dz+e)}{Kz} $

where N. Magot calculated that

$a=\frac{107+7 \sqrt{-11}}{486},
b=-\frac{13}{567}a+\frac{5}{1701}, c=-\frac{17}{9},
d=\frac{23}{7}a+\frac{256}{567},
e=-\frac{1573}{567}a+\frac{605}{1701} $

and finally

$K =
-\frac{16192}{301327047}a+\frac{10880}{903981141} $

One verifies that this map is 12 to 1 everywhere except over the points ${
0,1,\infty } $ (that is, there are precisely 12 points mapping under f to a given point of $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} – { 0,1,\infty } $. From the expression of f(z) it is clear that over 0 there lie 6 points (3 of which with multiplicity three, the others of multiplicity one). Over $\infty $ there are two points, one with multiplicity 11 and one with multiplicity one. The difficult part is to compute the points lying over 1. The miraculous fact of the given values is that

$f(z)-1 = \frac{-B(z)^2}{Kz} $

where

$B(z)=z^6+\frac{1}{11}(10c-8)z^5+(5a+9d-7c)z^4+(2b+4ac+8e-6d)z^3+$
$(3ad+bc-5e)z^2+2aez-be) $

and hence there are 6 points lying over 1 each with mutiplicity two.

Right, now consider the complex projective line $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} $ as the Riemann sphere $S^2 $ and mark the six points lying over 1 by a white vertex and the six points lying over 0 with a black vertex (in the source sphere). Now, lift the real interval $[0,1] $ in the target sphere $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} = S^2 $ to its inverse image on the source sphere. As there are exactly 12 points lying over each real
number $0 \lneq r \lneq 1 $, this inverse image will consist of 12 edges which are noncrossing and each end in one black and one white vertex. The obtained graph will look like the \”Monsieur Mathieu\” drawing above with the vertices corresponding to the black vertices and the three points over 1 of multiplicity three corresponding to the
trivalent vertices, those of multiplicity one to the three end-vertices. The white vertices correspond to mid-points of the six edges, so that we do get a drawing with twelve edges, one corresponding to each number. From the explicit description of f(z) it is clear that this map is defined over $\mathbb{Q}\sqrt{-11} $ which is also the
smallest field containing all character-values of the Mathieu group $M_{12} $. Further, the Galois group of the extension $Gal(\mathbb{Q}\sqrt{-11}/\mathbb{Q}) =
\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} $ and is generated by complex conjugation. So, one might wonder what would happen if we replaced in the definition of the rational map f(z) the value of a by $a = \frac{107-\sqrt{-11}}{486} $. It turns out that this modified map has the same properties as $f(z) $ so again one can draw on the source sphere a picture consisting of twelve edges each ending in a white and black vertex.

If we consider the white vertices (which incidentally each lie on two edges as all points lying over 0 are of multiplicity two) as mid-points of longer edges connecting the
black vertices we obtain a drawing on the sphere which looks like \”Monsieur Mathieu\” but this time as a right handed bandit, and applying our mnemotechnic rule we obtain _another_ (non conjugated) embedding of $M_{12} $ in the full symmetric group on 12 vertices.

What is the connection with $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representations? Well, the permutation generators s and t of $M_{12} $ (or $M_{24} $ for that matter) have orders two and three, whence there is a projection from the free group product $C_2 \star C_3 $ (here $C_n $ is just the cyclic group of order n) onto $M_{12} $ (respectively $M_{24} $). Next
time we will say more about such free group products and show (among other things) that $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) \simeq C_2 \star C_3 $ whence the connection with $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. In a following lecture we will extend the Monsieur Mathieu example to
arbitrary dessins d\’enfants which will allow us to assign to curves defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $ permutation representations of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ and other _cartographic groups_ such as the congruence subgroups $\Gamma_0(2) $ and
$\Gamma(2) $.

9 Comments

noncommutative geometry : a medieval science?

According to a science article in the New York Times, archeologists have discovered “signs of advanced math” in medieval mosaics. An example of a quasi-crystalline Penrose pattern was found at the Darb-i Imam shrine in Isfahan, Iran.

“A new study shows that the Islamic pattern-making process, far more intricate than the laying of one‚Äôs bathroom floor, appears to have involved an advanced math of quasi crystals, which was not understood by modern scientists until three decades ago. Two years ago, Peter J. Lu, a doctoral student in physics at Harvard University, was transfixed by the geometric pattern on a wall in Uzbekistan. It reminded him of what mathematicians call quasi-crystalline designs. These were demonstrated in the early 1970s by Roger Penrose, a mathematician and cosmologist at the University of Oxford. Mr. Lu set about examining pictures of other tile mosaics from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Turkey, working with Paul J. Steinhardt, a Princeton cosmologist who is an authority on quasi crystals and had been Mr. Lu’s undergraduate adviser. ”

Penrose tilings are one of the motivating examples of Alain Connes’ book as there is a $C^* $-algebra associated to it. In fact, the algebra is AF ( a limit of semi-simple finite dimensional algebras) so is even a formally smooth algebra in Kontsevichian noncommutative geometry (it is remarkable how quickly one gets used to silly terminology…). However, the Penrose algebra is simple, so rather useless from the point of view of finite dimensional representations… Still, Connesian noncommutative geometry may be a recent incarnation of the medieval Tehran program (pun intended). Thanks to easwaran for the link (via Technorati).

Added, March 1 : I haven’t looked at the Connes-Marcolli paper A walk in the noncommutative garden for a while but now that I do, I see that they mentioned the above already at the end of their section on Tilings (page 32). They also include clearer pictures.


One Comment