Monday, 6 June 2011

class field theory - Topological Langlands?

In a workshop about the geometry of $mathbb{F}_1$ I attended recently, it came up a question related to a mysterious but "not-so-secret-anymore" seminar about... an hypothetical Topological Langlands Correspondence!



I had never heard about this program; I have found this page via Google:



http://www.math.jhu.edu/~asalch/toplang/



I only know a bit about the Number-Theoretic Langlands Program, and I still have a hard time trying to understand what is happening in the Geometrical one, so I cannot even start to draw a global picture out of the information dispersed in that site.



So, the questions are: What do you know (or what can you infere from the web) about the Topological Langlands Correspondence? Which is the global picture? What are its analogies with the (original) Langlands Program? Is it doable, or just a "little game" for now? What has been proved until now? What implications would it have?



(Note: It is somewhat difficult to tag this one, feel free to retag it if you have a better understanding of the subject than I have!)

ac.commutative algebra - What is the transcendence degree of Q_p and C over Q?

In both cases the transcendence degree is the cardinality of the continuum. CH is not needed.



This is a corollary of the following result: let $K$ be any infinite field, and let $L/K$ be any extension. Then



$# L = operatorname{max} (# K, operatorname{trdeg}_K L)$.



To prove this, in turn it suffices to establish the following two results (each of which is straightforward):



1) If $K$ is infinite and $L/K$ is algebraic, then $# L = # K$.



2) If $K$ is any infinite field, $T = {t_i}_{i in I}$ is an arbitrary set of indeterminates and $K(T)$ is a purely transcendental function field in the indeterminates $T$, then $ # K(T) leq # T + # K$.

ho.history overview - Problem of Mouton

The problem studied by the seventeenth century astronomer Gabriel Mouton was to construct logarithmic and trigonometric tables using only addition and subtraction, avoiding multiplication and division (so that the calculations could be performed by unskilled workers). Mouton derived an interpolation formula using successive numerical differences, that would later be used by Gaspard de Prony and others.



See: "The history of mathematical tables", by Martin Campbell-Kelly (Oxford UP, 2003).
or see http://youryuboku2.web.fc2.com/eBooks/Hairdressers.pdf

Sunday, 5 June 2011

dg.differential geometry - Must a surface obtained by exponentiating a plane in a tangent space of a Riemannian manifold be geodesically convex?

I don't think that's true. If the dimension of $M$ is bigger than that of $P$, then a necessary condition is that every tangent hyperplane $Psubset T_pM$ develops locally into a totally geodesic submanifold of $M$. This is not true for arbitrary manifolds. Some examples of manifolds in which this is true include those of constant sectional curvature. Symmetric spaces being a special subclass which verifies this conditions. Someone more awake can probably come up with a sufficient criterion.



I can't think of a very good example right now, but I am pretty sure that if take the 3-dimensional Riemannian Schwarzschild solution, start from a $r$-orthogonal plane outside of the apparent horizon, you'd get a counterexample.



If the dimension of $P$ is the same as dimension of $M$, however, then you should be okay as long as you make $U$ small enough.



Edit: Ah, for $P$ 2 dimensional and $M$ 3, by applying the Codazzi equations one sees that a necessary condition for locally developing the hyperplanes to totally geodesic submanifolds is that $Ric(X,Y) = 0$ whenever $g(X,Y) = 0$. This is obviously a very strong condition that is not satisfied by most manifolds.

ct.category theory - "adjoint" =?= "inverse of composite endofunctor is uniform bi-composition"

Understanding adjoints has always been (and continues to be) a bit of a struggle for me.



Today I stumbled upon a property of adjoint functors which seemed extremely intuitive to me. I was wondering why this property isn't mentioned more often in introductory category theory literature, and whether or not it completely characterizes adjunctions.



If two functors $F:Cto D$ and $U:Dto C$ are adjoint $Fdashv U$, then for every $f:F(Y)to X$ in $D$ there exists an $hat f:Yto U(X)$ in $C$ such that



$$ U(f)circ eta_Y = hat f$$
$$ epsilon_Xcirc F(hat f)=f$$



If we substitute the top equation into the bottom, we get



$$ epsilon_Xcirc F(U(f)circ eta_Y)=f$$



and by functoriality we get



$$ epsilon_Xcirc F(U(f))circ F(eta_Y)=f$$
$$ epsilon_Xcirc (Fcirc U)(f)circ F(eta_Y)=f$$



What the last equation says is that we can recover any morphism $f$ from the action of the "round trip endofunctor" $Fcirc U$ on it by pre-composing with $epsilon_X$ and post-composing with $F(eta_Y)$. These two morphisms are determined only by the domain and codomain of $f$ -- we only needed to know $X$ and $F(Y)$ in order to pick the two morphisms. We would have picked the same two morphisms for some $gneq f$ as long as $g:F(Y)to X$.



So, I believe it is correct to say that "if the domain of a morphism is within the range of a functor which has a right adjoint, then it can be recovered from the action of the composite endofunctor on it by pre-composition with some morphism and post-composition with some other morphism, where the choice of these two morphisms is completely determined by the domain and codomain of the original morphism". There is, of course, an equivalent statement for morphisms with a codomain in the range of a functor with a left adjoint.



So, my three questions are: (1) is this correct, (2) if so, why isn't it used to explain adjunctions to beginners (I certainly would have caught on quicker!) and (3) does the condition completely characterize adjoint functors?



Thanks,

ho.history overview - Great mathematicians born 1850-1920 (ET Bell's book ≲ x ≲ Fields Medalists)

Motivated by an e-mail from grshutt, I looked myself at the Princeton Companion to Mathematics. I discovered that the editors of the PCM answered the same question as the one that I posed here. Part VI is a collection of biographies of 95 mathematicians, plus one for Bourbaki, and the fact that the Bernoullis share a slot. They chose 37 mathematicians born between 1850 and 1920, exactly in the middle of the range that I suggested. See the table contents to see who they picked. They also wrote nice biographies, although they are much shorter and more sedate than E.T. Bell's single-author work.



It is a little embarrassing that we had this whole discussion without noticing that the PCM, with Timothy Gowers as the chief editor, had already done the same work. But it is also useful. It seems that when informed people carefully make lists of influential mathematicians of comparable length, they'll arrive at roughly the same list. Typically the intersection is about 1/2 if the lists are exactly the same length. PCM's list is longer than Bell (in the corresponding period) and mine, and shorter than Pete's, so we can look at who I (or Harrison) included but they did not, or who they included but Pete did not.



PCM minus Pete: Fredholm, Vallée-Poussin, Russell, Sierpinski*, Littlewood*, Skolem, Ramanujan*, Courant, Kolmogorov*, Church, Hodge* (* = honorable mention in Pete's list)



me minus PCM: Picard, Hurwitz, Lefschetz, Siegel, Chevalley, Gelfand



Harrison minus PCM: Henri Cartan, MacLane, Erdos, Feynman



Bell minus PCM: Zeno, Eudoxus, Poncelet, Monge



PCM $cap$ Pete $cap$ Harrison $cap$ me: Hilbert, Minkowski, Hausdorff, Cartan, Noether, Weyl, Banach, von Neumann, Godel, Weil



Some of the differences can be explained as a somewhat different emphasis. In listing Russell and Church, the PCM gave more credit to the philosophical end of logic. (This is also grshutt's point in in his answer posted here and in his letter.) Whether Feynman should "count" is another question with two different reasonable answers. (As I said in a comment, the argument for Feynman is that he is an architect of quantum field theory, and quantum field theory is arguably a fundamental mathematical theory, even though parts of it haven't been made rigorous.)



And I suppose that some of the differences indicate the ill-defined side of the question, or they are just random fluctuations, and aren't really worth arguing over.

Saturday, 4 June 2011

elliptic curves - The class number formula, the BSD conjecture, and the Kronecker limit formula

The following observation suggests that perhaps the analogy between
class groups and Tate-Shafarevich groups is not as close as one might
think, and that, at least in the quadratic case, the right object is
the group of ideal classes modulo squares.



Let $Q_0$ denote the principal binary quadratic form with
discriminant $d$, and let ${mathcal P}: Q_0(X,Y) = 1$ be the
associated Pell conic. For each prime power $q = p^r$, denote
the number of ${mathbb F}_q$-rational points on ${mathcal P}$
by $q - a_q$; it is easily checked that $a_q = chi(q)$, where
$chi = (frac{d}{cdot})$ is the quadratic character with
conductor $d$.



Define the local zeta function at $p$ as the formal power series
$$ Z_p(T) = expBig(sum_{r=1}^infty N_r frac{T^r}r Big), $$
where $N_r$ denotes the number of ${mathbb F}_q$-rational points
on ${mathcal P}$. A simple calculation shows that
$$ Z_p(T) = frac{1}{(1-pT)(1-chi(p)T)}. $$



Set $P_p(T) = frac1{1 - chi(p)T} $ and define the global $L$-series as
$$ L(s,chi) = prod_p P_p(p^{-s}). $$
This is the classical Dirichlet L-series, which played a major role in
Dirichlet's proof of primes in arithmetic progression, and was almost
immediately shown to be connected to the class number formula.



Class groups do not occur in the picture above; like their big brothers,
the Tate-Shafarevich group, they are related to the global object we
started with: the Pell conic. The integral points on the affine Pell
conic form a group, which acts (in a more or less obvious way - think
of integral points as units in some quadratic number fields) on the
rational points of curves of the form
$$ Q(x,y) = 1, $$
where $Q$ is a primitive binary quadratic form with discriminant $d$.
This action makes $Q$ into a principal homogeneous space ("over the
integers"), and the usual action of SL$_2({mathbb Z})$ on quadratic
forms respects this structure. The equivalence classes of such spaces
form a group with respect to taking the Baer sum, which coincides with
the classical Gauss composition of quadratic forms.



Principal homogeneous spaces with an integral point are trivial in the
sense that they are equivalent to the Pell conic ${mathcal P}$. The
spaces with a local point everywhere (i.e. with rational points) form
a subgroup Sha isomorphic to the group $Cl^+(d)^2$ of square classes.
Defining Tamagawa numbers for each prime $p$ as $c_p = 1$ or $=2$
according as $p$ is coprime to $d$ or not, we find that the usual class
number (in the strict sense) is the order of Sha times the product of
all Tamagawa numbers (the latter is twice the genus class number).



Now we can use Dirichlet's class number formula for proving the BSD
conjecture for conics:
$$ lim_{s to 0} s^{-r} L(s,chi) = frac{2hR}{w} =
frac{|Sha| cdot R^+ cdot prod c_p}
{| {mathcal P}({mathbb Z})_{tors}|}. $$
Observe that $R^+$ denotes the regulator of the Pell conic, i.e. the logarithm
of the smallest totally positive unit $> 1$.



The proof of Dirichlet's class number formula uses the class group, which
is a group containing Sha as a quotient, and a group related to the Tamagawa
numbers as a subgroup. It remains to be seen whether such a group exists in
the elliptic case.



It might be possible to make advance without having such a group:
in the case of Pell conics, the zeta functions of ideal classes are,
if I recall it correctly, closely related to the series defined by
summing over all $1/Q(x,y)^s$ for integers $x$, $y$. The question
remains how to imitate such a construction for the genus 1 curves
representing elements in Sha.



Remark: The Tamagawa numbers may be defined as certain $p$-adic integrals;
see an unpublished masters thesis (in Japanese) by A. Iwaomoto, Kyoto 2005.
For more info on the above, see
here.



For ideas pointing in a different direction, see



  • D. Zagier, The Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture from a naive point of view,
    Prog. Math. 89, 377-389 (1991)