Skip to content →

neverendingbooks Posts

football representation theory

Unless
you never touched a football in your life (that’s a _soccer-ball_
for those of you with an edu account) you will know that the world
championship in Germany starts tonight. In the wake of it, the field of
‘football-science’ is booming. The BBC runs its The
Science of Football-site
and did you know the following?

Research indicates that watching such a phenomenon is not
only exciting, it can be good for our health too. The Scottish
researchers found that there were 14% fewer psychiatric admissions in
the weeks after one World Cup than before it started.

But, would you believe that some of the best people in the field
(Kostant and Sternberg to name a few) have written papers on the
representation theory of a football? Perhaps this becomes more plausible
when you realize that a football has the same shape as the buckyball aka Carbon60.
Because the football (or buckyball) is a truncated icosahedron, its
symmetry group is $A_5$, the smallest of all simple groups and its
representations explain some physical properties of the buckyball. Some
of these papers are freely available and are an excellent read. In fact,
I’m thinking of using them in my course on representations of finite
groups, nxt year. Mathematics and the Buckyball by Fan
Chung and Schlomo Sternberg is a marvelous introduction to
representation theory. Among other things they explain how Schur’s
lemma, Frobenius reciprocity and Maschke’s theorem are used to count the
number of lines in the infra red buckyball spectrum! The Graph of the
Truncated Icosahedron and the Last Letter of Galois
by Bertram
Kostant explains the observation, first made by Galois in his last
letter to Chevalier, that $A_{5} = PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_5)$ embeds into
$PSL_{2}(\mathbb{F}_{11})$ and applies this to the buckyball.

In effect, the model we are proposing for C60is such that
each carbon atom can be labeled by an element of order 11 in PSl(2,11)
in such a fashion that the carbon bonds can be expressed in terms of the
group structure of PSl(2,11). It will be seen that the twelve pentagons
are exactly the intersections of M with the twelve Borel sub- groups of
PSl(2,11). (A Borel subgroup is any subgroup which is conjugate to the
group PSl(2,11) defined in (2).) In particular the pentagons are the
maximal sets of commuting elements in M. The most subtle point is the
natural existence of the hexagonal bonds. This will arise from a group
theoretic linkage of any element of order 11 in one Borel subgroup with
a uniquely defined element of order 11 in another Borel subgroup.

These authors consequently joined forces to write Groups and the
Buckyball
in which they give further applications of the Galois
embeddings to the electronic spectrum of the buckyball. Another
account can be found in the Master Thesis by Joris Mooij called The
vibrational spectrum of Buckminsterfullerene – An application of
symmetry reduction and computer algebra
. Plenty to read should
tonight’s match Germany-Costa Rica turn out to be boring…

Leave a Comment

writing with gloves on

Okay, let’s have it out in the open :

I’m officially diagnosed as being depressed by both PD1 and PD2!

Coming from the two top experience-experts on my mood swings, I’d better take this
seriously. So, do they come up with an explanation for this ‘depression’?

PD1 blames it on the celebrated mid-life-crisis which in her world is merely the generic phrase uttered when a parent does something ‘odd’.

If thePartner wants to spend some time among old friends, or wants to get involved in community work, it’s called ‘mid-life crisis’.

When both of us join a demonstration for the first time in over a decade, it’s MLC etc. etc.

In recent years I heard her say the MLC- phrase often enough referring to her friends’ parents and thePartner but somehow I always got away, until recently…

PD2 blames it on my turning 48 last week, a fact I cannot deny but then, what’s so special about 48? I don’t get it.

Feeble as their explanations may be, they still may have a point. Sure, some losses do affect me. Some recent, some imminent, some unfortunately permanent, some hopefully temporary…

I realise this is a bit cryptic to the uninitiated, but then I’ve given up writing about personal stuff a long time ago (to the dismay of PD2 who would welcome more web-presence when self-googling…).

But wait… Hey, that may be part of the problem :

I’ve given up writing about so many things recently that there’s hardly anything sufficiently interesting left to write about.

In the post-Dutroux scare I did remove all pictures and references to our daughters from my web-pages, for you don’t want to know the weirdos that have a look at it and you definitely do not want to think about what they might do when they obtain my address from the university web-page….

Surely a valid point. So, away with all writing about personal stuff.

Then, more recently (and I hope at least some of you noticed it…) I’ve imposed a ban on critical postings about people or events going on in noncommutative algebra/geometry. The reason behind this decision is personal, so if I didnt tell you in private you’ll never find it here.

Speaking about this with Paul Smith at the last Oberwolfach, he had an hilarious reply.

“I wouldn’t say you were critical. I’d say you are sometimes pretty intense and I love it, as long as I’m not on the receiving end…”

But see, that’s just the problem. Mathematicians are so vane that there is always someone who feels to be on the receiving end!

Let’s say, hypothetically speaking, that I write a somewhat critical post about the ongoing cluster-algebra hype, we all know some people who will not like it. Ditto about (again hypothetically…) symplectic-reflection algebras, ditto about etc. etc.

Compare this with the entertaining about-life-or-death fights going on in physics-blogs. If you don’t know what I’m talking about and want to have a good laugh, have a go at the comments to this Not Even Wrong Post.

Possibly, I should come to terms with the fact that blogging is an activity which will never be tolerated by the autism-enriched environment of mathematicians and that I should just give it up.

Or, perhaps, I should regain my writing-freedom and blog about whatever I feel strongly about at that particular moment in time (and remember, I do suffer from violent mood-swings so these opinions may change overnight…), be it critical or if you want ‘intense’, and hope that not too many will think they are on the receiving end…

I realize that I will sometimes be accused of ‘jealousy’, sometimes of being ‘frustrated’. But, let’s face it : bottling up one’s frustrations, that’s precisely the thing that leads to a genuine depression…

Leave a Comment

symmetry and the monster

Mark
Ronan
has written a beautiful book intended for the general public
on Symmetry and the Monster. The
book’s main theme is the classification of the finite simple groups. It
starts off with the introduction of groups by Galois, gives the
classifivcation of the finite Lie groups, the Feit-Thompson theorem and
the construction of several of the sporadic groups (including the
Mathieu groups, the Fischer and Conway groups and clearly the
(Baby)Monster), explains the Leech lattice and the Monstrous Moonshine
conjectures and ends with Richard Borcherds proof of them using vertex
operator algebras. As in the case of Music of the
Primes
it is (too) easy to be critical about notation. For example,
whereas groups are just called symmetry groups, I don’t see the point of
calling simple groups ‘atoms of symmetry’. But, unlike du Sautoy,
Mark Ronan stays close to mathematical notation, lattices are just
lattices, characer-tables are just that, j-function is what it is etc.
And even when he simplifies established teminology, for example
‘cyclic arithmetic’ for modular arithmetic, ‘cross-section’
for involution centralizer, ‘mini j-functions’ for Hauptmoduln
etc. there are footnotes (as well as a glossary) mentioning the genuine
terms. Group theory is a topic with several colourful people
including the three Johns John Leech, John
McKay
and John Conway
and several of the historical accounts in the book are a good read. For
example, I’ve never known that the three Conway groups were essentially
discovered in just one afternoon and a few telephone exchanges between
Thompson and Conway. This year I’ve tried to explain some of
monstrous moonshine to an exceptionally good second year of
undergraduates but failed miserably. Whereas I somehow managed to give
the construction and proof of simplicity of Mathieu 24, elliptic and
modular functions were way too difficult for them. Perhaps I’ll give it
another (downkeyed) try using ‘Symmetry and the Monster’ as
reading material. Let’s hope Oxford University Press will soon release a
paperback (and cheaper) version.

Leave a Comment