En Passant II

Let’s party like it’s 1995! The Boston conference on Fermat produced a wonderful book, but now you can watch the original videos. Some first impressions: some of you used to have more hair (not naming names).

Forum of Mathematics Pi is, supposedly, a gold open access journal which is freely available to anyone. However, the designers of the journal decided to modify the model slightly to what I might call “access only to those unencumbered by taste,” by plastering a ridiculous sickly aquamarine running head across every page (click on the link here), making the entire paper an eyesore that is presumably impossible to print. Perhaps the point of this journal was to make it apparent that Elsevier does actually provide added value to their journals by not scribbling crayon markings all over the final product? Fortunately, the paper in question can also be downloaded here. (Hat tip to TG.)

Posted in Mathematics, Waffle | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scholze on Torsion 0

This will be the first zeroth of a series of posts talking about Scholze’s recent preprint, available here. This is mathematics which will, no question, have more impact in number theory than any recent paper I can think of. The basic intent of this post is to commit to future posts in which I will discuss the details. I should remark that Scholze’s writing is pretty clear, so these posts will mainly be for my own benefit rather than yours.

Here are some of the specific points that I might cover:

Basics: The Hodge-Tate Period map, Perfectoid spaces, etc. To be honest, I will probably skip the details here to begin with, and discuss them only at points where they become fundamental for understanding.

Theorem IV.3.1: The action of Hecke on the completed cohomology groups \(\widetilde{H}^i(\mathbf{Z}/p^n \mathbf{Z})\) for Shimura varieties is detected by the action of Hecke on classical cuspidal automorphic forms. Although it may end up being no easier to consider, this result is already intersting in some quite degenerate cases. For example, this is new even for \(X = U(2,1)/\mathbf{Q}\) and \(i = 1\) (Gee and Emerton’s results, for example, are contingent on the relevant Galois representations being three dimensional — now one knows that they are!). A very similar example is the case of a compact inner form of \(U(2,1)\) (so called Rogawski lattices) or, more generally, the simple Shimura variety of Kottwitz-Harris-Taylor type. Can one show in those cases that \(\widetilde{H}^i\) vanishes outside degree zero and outside the middle dimension? A weaker question: can one compute the completed cohomology in degree one? Compare with the work of Pascal Boyer.

Local Global Compatibility: Suppose one is in the ordinary case. Then the HLTT approach (via congruences, discussed previously on this blog (here, here, and here) should allow one to establish some cases of local-global compatibility. At ramified primes \(\ell \ne p\), the HLTT approach should also work, especially if one is also willing to assume that the residual representation is absolutely irreducible (using base change arguments). What can one do in the torsion case?

The Nilpotent Ideal: Scholze ultimately constructs Galois representations over \(\mathbf{T}/I\) for an ideal \(I\) such that \(I^m = 0\). The necessity of this ideal arises from a spectral sequence argument. (The parameter \(m\) only depends on the degree of the field and \(n\).) The Calegari-Geraghty modularity lifting argument (in the minimal case) can still be made to apply even with the presence of this ideal if one is in the minimal case, but not in the non-minimal case which will require \(m = 1\) (the Taylor Ihara’s avoidance trick requires more precise control than the minimal case). Are there any circumstances (extra assumptions, etc.) in which one can prove that \(m =1\)?

Posted in Mathematics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Bad Headlines, and Schoenberg Redux

A bad headline can go a good way towards making an otherwise interesting article seem condescending or off point. Slate seems particularly inept (or adept, depending on the intention) in choosing titles, a characteristic which must be particularly irritating for authors. A case in point: this recent article by J. Bryan Lowder in which he discusses Schoenberg’s Pierrot Lunaire. This blog has previously linked to Pierrot Lunaire, so there’s no complaint here about the selection, nor indeed of the article itself. But the headline “A Schoenberg piece you will actually like” suggests something quite different, and presenting Schoenberg’s Pierrot under that headline is a little like recommending Finnegans Wake in a column entitled “some light reading for the Beach this summer.” (No doubt when JSE gets around to writing the definitive Slate piece on Grothendieck, we can expect the title to be “Rings, you’re doing it wrong.”) As far as user friendly Schoenberg goes, there’s an obvious choice, namely the Verklärte Nacht Op. 4 string sextet from his pre twelve-tone days. Curiously enough, even this was panned as ultra-modern in its time. One critic described the sound “as if the score of Tristan had been smeared while the ink was still wet”, which actually sounds pretty good to me.

Posted in Music | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Swans

Since I first saw it, I’ve always been very impressed by Maya Plisetskaya’s dying swan. But Charles Riley gives her a run for her money in his own original performance with Yo Yo Ma. Compare and constrast!

Posted in Music | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Elsevier’s answer to public criticism:

The following was sent to editors for an Elsevier journal; a copy of the email mysteriously fell into my hands, and I reproduce it here (in part):

Following discussions with the board and at Elsevier this year, we feel that a change in how you are compensated for your editorial work is needed for next year. We sincerely appreciate the time and expertise that you dedicate to the journal, and know that without it, the journal would not be what it is today. Beginning in 2013, we would like to offer all Associate Editors an honorarium per handled manuscript (be it a rejection or acceptance) of 60 USD.

I guess this is one way to prevent editorial board revolts!

Posted in Mathematics, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Understatement

This supposition, the so-called Twin Prime Conjecture, is not necessarily obvious .

“He wasn’t a big name, and I get the impression that he wasn’t one of the leading analytical number theorists,” said Richard Taylor, a respected mathematician and a member of the journal’s editorial board.

Posted in Mathematics | Leave a comment

Bush, the Messiah (and Emma Kirkby)

The title of this post is, in part, a public service message to use the Oxford comma. However, there is a thread (in my mind) linking the three titular subjects. The connection between George Bush and the Messiah is not an obvious one, I admit, but hear me out. When I think of Bush, I think of the phrase “either you’re with us, or your against us.” I then always associate this phrase with “If God be for us, who can be against us?.” Was Bush consciously echoing the King James Bible? To me, of course, the latter phrase does not recall the Bible but rather Handel’s Messiah. All of which is a roundabout way of saying that this is another music post, with (who else) but Emma Kirkby performing with Christopher Hogwood and the Academy of Ancient Music (I have a recording on CD by the same ensemble which sounds to have been made contemporaneously with the video). The vintage of the haircuts is more H.W. than G., however.

Posted in Music, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Finiteness of the global deformation ring over local deformation rings

(This post is the result of a conversation I had with Matt). Suppose that

\(\overline{\rho}: G_{F} \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbf{F})\)

is a continuous mod-\(p\) absolutely irreducible Galois representation. For now, let’s assume that \(F/F^{+}\) is a CM field, and \(\overline{\rho}\) is essentially self-dual and odd. Associated to this representation is a global deformation ring \(R\) (of essentially self-dual representations) consisting of representations with no local restriction at primes dividing \(p\) and the condition of being unramified at primes away from \(p\). One also has a (collection of) local (unrestricted) deformation rings for the set of primes \(v|p\), combining to give a ring \(R^{\mathrm{loc}}\). Let us also assume that \(\overline{\rho}\) has suitably big image (for example, its restriction to \(F(\zeta_p)\) is adequate). Then we have:

Proposition: The map \(R^{\mathrm{loc}} \rightarrow R\) is finite.

(Matt and Vytas prove this in the modular (odd) case when \(n = 2\) and \(F = \mathbf{Q}\), although I’m not sure whether the paper exists yet [actually, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t]. Possibly if I was listening closer to Matt’s talk at Fields I might have remembered the argument, since I vaguely think it came up there, although possibly only briefly.)

Here one has to be a little careful defining deformation rings in the local case, of course (for those worried by such issues, simply choose suitable framings). To prove this, it suffices to prove the result after base change, so we may assume that \(\overline{\rho}\) is unramified at all primes, and completely trivial at all primes dividing \(p\). By Nakayama’s lemma, the problem above reduces to the following:

Proposition: Let \(F^{\mathrm{ur}}\) be the maximal extension of \(F\) unramified everywhere. Let \(\Gamma\) be the Galois group of \(F^{\mathrm{ur}}\) over \(F\). Then \(\Gamma\) does not admit a continuous essentially self-dual representation:

\(\Gamma \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(A)\)

such that \(A\) is a complete local Notherian \(\mathbf{F}\)-algebra of positive dimension.

This is a special case of the generalization of the unramified Fontaine-Mazur conjecture due to Boston. Recall that the group \(\Gamma\) may be infinite (Golod-Shafarevich), but that Fontaine-Mazur predicts that the image of any such representation into any characteristic zero \(p\)-adic analytic group has finite image. Boston conjectured that the same finiteness would hold for homomorphisms of \(\Gamma\) into \(\mathrm{GL}_n(A)\) for rings like \(A = \mathbf{F}[[T]]\). It turns out that even though the Fontaine-Mazur conjecture is hard, when \(A\) has characteristic \(p\) the conjecture is amenable to modularity lifting theorems by comparison to a new deformation ring in regular weight.

The proof is as follows:

Step 1: Using lifting theorems (Theorem 4.3.1 from BLGGT), we may assume, after a finite base change, that \(\overline{\rho}\) is potentially ordinarily modular of level one for some regular weight \(w\).

Step 2: Using minimal modularity theorems in the ordinary case (Section 10 from Thorne’s Jussieu paper, or Theorem 2.2.2 of BLGGT, both using work of Geraghty), deduce that the minimal weight \(w\) ordinary deformation ring \(S\) is finite over \(W(\mathbf{F})\), and hence that \(S/p\) is finite over \(\mathbf{F}\). Strictly speaking, theorems of this kind are required to prove the previous result.

Step 3: Note that the minimal everywhere unramified deformations of \(\overline{\rho}\) (i.e., the deformations coming from \(\Gamma\)) of characteristic \(p\) are all ordinary of weight \(w\), because everything unramified is ordinary, and in characteristic \(p\) any two weights are the same. Hence \(R/p\) is a quotient of \(S/p\), from which it follows from the finiteness of \(S\) that \(R\) is also finite.

While I am using the latest modularity lifting theorems here, weaker versions for \(n=2\) with some local assumptions on \(\overline{\rho}\) follow from 90’s era technology (say Taylor’s Remarks on a conjecture of Fontaine and Mazur paper from 2000, or even earlier if one assumes residual modularity).

Via the usual argument, this result also applies to even Galois representations \(\overline{\rho}: G_{\mathbf{Q}} \rightarrow \mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbf{F})\) with large image. In particular, the unramified deformation rings in these cases will be finite over \(W(\mathbf{F})\), and there will be at most finitely many counter examples to the unramified Fontaine-Mazur conjecture in characteristic zero for a fixed residual representation. One can also apply it to many classes of higher dimensional non-self dual representations by taking irreducible summands of \(\rho \otimes \rho^{\vee}\). For example, one can take any representation of \(\mathbf{Q}\) whose image contains \(\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbf{F}_p)\) if \(n\) is even, since then the associated \((n^2 – 1)\)-dimensional representation \(\mathrm{Ad}^0(\overline{\rho})\) restricted to an auxiliary CM field is irreducible, odd, self-dual, and adequate for large enough \(p\). Similar remarks apply to representations over an arbitrary field \(F\) with generic enough image by taking the tensor induction down to \(\mathbf{Q}\).

If one starts allowing ramification at auxiliary primes, things become a little harder. One fix is to build the auxiliary primes into the local deformation ring \(R^{\mathrm{loc}}\), although this might be considered cheating. The problem is that one cannot deduce (in general) that more general ordinary deformation rings \(S\) are finite in the non-minimal situation. Although perhaps one can get by with the Taylor trick in some contexts. One should be OK with \(\mathrm{GL}_2\) by Ihara’s Lemma.

Posted in Mathematics | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

Michael Pollan is not a scientist

Michael Pollan is popular because he is an engaging speaker who spins a narrative about food that dovetails with the political inclinations of his audience. He has a degree in English, and, as far as I know, no scientific training whatsoever, but yet, he commands an enourmous amount of space in the New York Times and other liberal media to pontificate about nutritional science. Why does anyone take him seriously?

I don’t see any reason why I should care what Pollan thinks I should be eating. Science reporting should consist of a reporter explaining the consensus opinion (or otherwise) of scientists, not a dilettante peddling an Alice Waters based cult dressed up as homespun wisdom. Let me be clear that I am not claiming anything he says in particular is wrong, I’m just feel that most of his conclusions are not arrived at in any scientific way, and the reason he has such a following is that his voice resonates with the intuition of self-indulgent (relatively) highly paid and well educated liberal elites (a class which I include myself). I avoid processed food, I seek out organic produce [for certain foods when it makes an appreciable difference in taste] (well, to be honest, it’s not usually me who does the food shopping because when I’m in charge I usually forget half the ingredients), and I almost always eat home-cooked meals with relatively little meat and plenty of fresh vegetables; and I do this for reasons of culture, taste, socioeconomic status, and because I want to be healthy. I pretty much agree with a lot of Pollan says (in the brief interviews I’ve seen him give), but what’s to stop him deciding (if he hasn’t already) that genetically modified foods are rubbish based on his own oversimplified philosophy rather than what science has to say? Or that vaccines are dangerous because his grandmother didn’t get them?

Posted in Food, Waffle | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Equidistribution of Heegner Points

I saw a nice talk by Matt Young recently (joint work with Sheng-Chi Liu and Riad Masri) on the following problem.

For a fundamental discriminant \(|D|\) of an imaginary quadratic field \(F\), one has \(h_D\) points in \(X_0(1)(\mathbf{C})\) with complex multiplication by the ring of integers of \(F\). Choose a prime \(q\) which splits in \(F = \mathbf{Q}(\sqrt{-|D|})\). One obtains a set of \(2 h_D\) points in \(X_0(q)(\mathbf{C})\), given explicitly as follows:

\(\mathbf{C}/\mathfrak{a} \mapsto \mathbf{C}/\mathfrak{a} \mathfrak{q}^{-1}\)

for \(\mathfrak{a}\) in the class group and \(\mathfrak{q}\) one of the two primes above \(q\) in \(F\). The complex points \(X_0(q)(\mathbf{C})\) can be thought of as being tiled by \(q+1\) copies of the fundamental domain \(\Omega\) in the upper half plane.

Problem: How large does \(D\) have to be to guarantee that every one of the \(q+1\) copies of \(\Omega\) contains one of the \(2 h_K\) CM points by \(\mathcal{O}_F\)?

This is the question that Young and his collaborators answer. Namely, one gets an upper bound of the shape \(|D| < O(q^{m + \epsilon})\) (with some explicit \(m\), possibly 20), the point being that this is a polynomial bound. Note that this proof is not effective, since it trivially gives a lower bound on the order of the class group which is a power bound in the discriminant, and no such effective bounds are known.

I idly wondered during the talk about the following "mod-\(p\)" version of this problem. To be concrete, suppose that \(p = 2\) (the general case will be similar). We now suppose that \(D\) is chosen so that \(2\) is inert in \(F\). Then all the \(h_K\) points in \(X_0(1)(\overline{\mathbf{F}}_2)\) are supersingular, which means that they all reduce to the same curve \(E_0\) with \(j\)-invariant \(1728\). Now, as above, choose a prime \(q\) which splits in \(F\). The pre-image of \(j=1728\) in \(X_0(q)(\overline{\mathbf{F}}_2)\) consists of exactly \(q+1\) points.

Problem: How large does \(|D|\) have to be to ensure that these points all come from the reduction of one of the \(2 h_K\) CM points by \(\mathcal{O}_F\) as above?

Since \(E_0\) is supersingular, we know that \(\mathrm{Hom}(E_0,E_0)\) is an order in the quaternion algebra ramified at \(2\) and \(\infty\). In fact, it is equal to the integral Hamilton quaternions \(\mathbf{H}\). If \(E\) and \(E'\) are lifts of \(E_0\), then there is naturally a degree preserving injection:

\(\mathrm{Hom}(E,E') \rightarrow \mathrm{Hom}(E_0,E_0) = \mathbf{H}.\)

The degree on the LHS is the degree of an isogeny, and it is the canonical norm on the RHS.
In particular, if \(E = \mathbf{C}/\mathfrak{a}\) and \(E' = \mathbf{C}/\mathfrak{a} \mathfrak{q}^{-1}\), then one obtains a natural map:

\(\psi_{\mathfrak{a}}: \mathfrak{q}^{-1} \simeq \mathrm{Hom}(E,E') \rightarrow \mathbf{H}\)

preserving norms. The norm map on \(\mathfrak{q}^{-1}\) is \(N(x)/N(\mathfrak{q}^{-1})\). The image of the natural \(q\) isogeny is simply \(\psi_{\mathfrak{a}}(1)\), whose image has norm \(q\). Hence the problem becomes:

Problem: If one considers all the \(2 h_K\)-maps:

\(\psi_{\mathfrak{a}}: \mathfrak{q}^{-1} \rightarrow \mathbf{H}, \qquad \psi_{\mathfrak{a}}: \overline{\mathfrak{q}}^{-1} \rightarrow \mathbf{H},\)

do the images of \(1\) cover the \(q+1\) elements of \(\mathbf{H}\) of norm \(q\)?

Given a field \(F\) in which \(2\) is inert, it wasn’t obvious how to explicitly write down the maps \(\psi_{\mathfrak{a}}\), but this problem does start to look similar in flavour to the original one. Moreover, to make things even more similar, in the original formulation over \(\mathbf{R}\) one can replace modular curves by definite quaternion algebras ramified at (say) \(2\) and \(q\), and then the Archimidean problem now also becomes a question of a class group surjecting onto a finite set of supersingular points. In fact, this Archimedean analogue may well be *equivalent* to the \(\mod 2\) version I just described! Young told me that his collaborators had mentioned working with various quotients coming from quaternion algebras as considered by Gross, which I took to mean the finite quotients coming from definite quaternion algebras as above. Hence, with any luck, they will provide an answer this problem.

Posted in Mathematics | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment