DOCSLIB.ORG

Problems with a Lot of Potential: Energy Optimization on Compact Spaces a DISSERTATION SUBMITTED to the FACULTY of the UNIVERSIT

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Problems with a Lot of Potential: Energy Optimization on Compact Spaces a DISSERTATION SUBMITTED to the FACULTY of the UNIVERSIT Problems with a lot of Potential: Energy Optimization on Compact Spaces A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Ryan William Matzke IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dmitriy Bilyk May 2021 © Ryan William Matzke 2021 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Acknowledgments I do not think that I can ever completely express my gratitude towards my adviser, Professor Dmitriy Bilyk. When I was applying for the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship in my first year of graduate school, with a project in Additive Combinatorics, a subject no one at the University of Minnesota particularly studies, Dmitriy was the only one who was willing to advise the project. When I asked him what he did for research, he offered for me, someone he barely knew, to join his current research, letting me learn about Discrepancy Theory and Energy Optimization by working on new problems, and getting me interested in and excited about the two subjects. He helped me work through the culture shock I had as I switched from undergraduate math courses and research to the much harder work of being a professional mathematician and the impostor syndrome I dealt with as I faced, for the first time in my life, academic challenges I wasn’t sure I could overcome. I am deeply grateful for Dmitriy’s consistent, unyielding support, his thoughtful feedback and advice, and the independence he encouraged, all of which has helped me grow into the mathematician I couldn’t imagine being in my first year. I also appreciate him as a person, bringing life with him wherever he goes, caring about others, and making research such a fun and exciting experience. So, to my mentor, collaborator, role model, and friend, Dmitriy Bilyk, thank you so much. You’ve helped me make my dream job a reality. It has been an honor and a blast being your first student and I hope I continue to make you proud. I don’t think I can fully express my appreciation of Professor Bela´ Bajnok either. He put a great deal of work, thought, and fun into the Abstract Math and research courses he created at Gettysburg College, and by far these courses, as well as Bela´ himself, are most responsible for my decision of going into mathematics, a subject I never considered pursuing when I began college. Through these courses, I learned how much more there was to mathematics that just using formulas or procedures, how it could be so much more fun and challenging, how to discuss and present mathematical ideas, and what it meant to do research. Course by course, I grew immensely as a mathematician and fell more in love i with the subject. Beyond the courses, Bela´ has been a phenomenal and fun collaborator and a pillar of support and mentorship, encouraging my continued growth, giving me guidance on how to do that, and believing in me. When I was stuck deciding between pursuing Physics or Mathematics, Bela´ helped me see that I would benefit most from focusing more on one subject rather than an even split between the two. By letting go of Physics, I was able to do a semester abroad in the Budapest Semesters in Mathematics program, participate in several research projects and programs, and attend more conferences as an undergraduate, all of which helped me get accepted into an excellent doctorate program. So, to my mentor, collaborator, role model, and friend Bela´ Bajnok, thank you so much. You helped me realize what my dream job is and have helped me all along the way. To the many teachers of Neshaminy School District and professors and staff of Get- tysburg College and the University of Minnesota, as well as the various mathematicians worldwide, who have given me several positive experiences as a student and supported me on my journey to this point, thank you. In particular, I want to thank Randi Danziger, who taught a class called Academic Enrichment (A.E.) at my elementary school. A.E. was a course that covered a wide variety of topics not normally covered in standard classes and designed for students that needed something more challenging and academically engaging. It was a class I desperately needed, but for a time it seemed that I couldn’t take it. I have had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder my entire life, something that made my first few years of school very difficult, and near the end of second grade I was diagnosed and began taking medication that drastically improved my ability to concentrate. However, this seemingly came too late, as I had already failed the test to get into the class for third grade, due to my struggle with focus, and the school’s administration said that it didn’t matter that I had been diagnosed and medicated, I couldn’t join A.E. since I didn’t pass the test. Having had me as a student for A.E. in first and second grade, Randi knew that I needed the class and that I had been diagnosed and medicated. When she found out what we had been told by the administration, she told my parents how I could retake the test with the ii school psychologist, and I passed with flying colors. It’s a good thing too, because while I was bursting with curiosity as a child, A.E. classes helped me develop a true love for learning and critical thinking, qualities that have stuck with me into my adult life. I want to thank Darren Glass, who was my undergraduate adviser and my first math professor at Gettysburg College. Darren and his Honors Calculus 2 course, which focused on only sequences, series, and differential equations, instead of all the tricks for integration, con- vinced me to try the college’s introductory proof-writing course (Abstract Math 1), which was where I truly started to fall in love with mathematics. Darren was the first person to show me how mathematics could involve a higher level of critical thinking and how it was more than just finding answers to problems. He guided me through undergrad, helping me find and partake in many opportunities that furthered my development as a mathematician and supported me throughout and beyond, and I am very grateful to him. I am also very thankful of Professors Pete Johnson and Overtoun Jenda, who gave me my first research experience outside of Gettysburg and outside of Additive Combinatorics through their REU at Auburn University, as well as the many opportunities they gave me to present my work or participate in more research collaborations through the Masamu program with SAMSA. They have been incredibly supportive throughout my mathematical career, and have given me several wonderful experiences with mathematics which have certainly played a role in my growth as a mathematician. I am grateful as well to my collaborators of the work in this dissertation beyond my adviser: Feng Dai, Damir Ferizovic,´ Alexey Glazyrin, Josiah Park, and Oleksandr Vlasiuk. I always have more fun working on research with others, and I appreciate so very much how great of an experience it has been to work with you all so far and how much you’ve helped me learn and grow over the past six years. I would like to thank my Preliminary and Final Oral Exam committee members, Max Engelstein, Svitlana Mayboroda, Andrew Odlyzko, and Vic Reiner for all of their feedback and everything they helped me learn through my two exams. I would also like to thank Greg Blekherman, Henry Cohn, David iii de Laat, Axel Flinth, Michael Lacey, Tongseok Lim, Galyna Livshyts, Svitlana Mayboroda, Robert McCann, Bruno Poggi, Danylo Radchenko, Bruce Reznick, Alexander Reznikov, Daniela Schiefeneder, Alexander Shapiro, Stefan Steinerberger, and Yao Yao for the helpful discussions my collaborators or I have had with them during the course of our work. I asked many friends, family members, and colleagues to proofread this dissertation, and for their effort and incredibly helpful feedback, I would like to thank Angeliki Matzke, Dmitriy Bilyk, Megan Aslanian, Esther Banaian, Katie Behling, Olivia Cannon, Mary Clarke, Jennifer Dorey, Alexey Glazyrin, Taylor Jacovich, Michelle Janossy, Steve Kenyon, Scott Magers, Jessica Matzke, Julie Matzke, Lauren McCabe, Brian McEvoy, Jackie McMillen, Lisa Naples, Amanda Plimpton, Maddie Price, Cecily Santiago, Josie Spencer, Stefan Steinerberger, Eric Stucky, and Oleksandr Vlasiuk. I am also grateful to Adrienne Sands for helping me with the template for this dissertation. Finally, I am incredibly grateful to all of my friends and family for making my life so much brighter and loving and supporting me throughout everything, on both good days and rough days, and helping me make it though all of my struggles, especially my impostor syndrome. To my siblings and parents, thank you so much for helping me become who I am today, and believing in me, whether or not you think you know what I do. Thank you for being there for me when I didn’t think I could become a doctor, and making sure I knew you all were proud of me no matter what, but you still thought I could make it through the program. Thank you for helping me realize what I needed to change in order to tackle the biggest challenge of my life and helping me believe that I could do it again. Thank you for the love and support you show me everyday. To my parents, thank you for always trying to do what was best for me. Thank you for getting me help when I needed it, whether it was speech therapy or getting me tested for ADHD.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Complex Measures 1 11
    Tutorial 11: Complex Measures 1 11. Complex Measures In the following, (Ω, F) denotes an arbitrary measurable space. Definition 90 Let (an)n≥1 be a sequence of complex numbers. We a say that ( n)n≥1 has the permutation property if and only if, for ∗ ∗ +∞ 1 all bijections σ : N → N ,theseries k=1 aσ(k) converges in C Exercise 1. Let (an)n≥1 be a sequence of complex numbers. 1. Show that if (an)n≥1 has the permutation property, then the same is true of (Re(an))n≥1 and (Im(an))n≥1. +∞ 2. Suppose an ∈ R for all n ≥ 1. Show that if k=1 ak converges: +∞ +∞ +∞ + − |ak| =+∞⇒ ak = ak =+∞ k=1 k=1 k=1 1which excludes ±∞ as limit. www.probability.net Tutorial 11: Complex Measures 2 Exercise 2. Let (an)n≥1 be a sequence in R, such that the series +∞ +∞ k=1 ak converges, and k=1 |ak| =+∞.LetA>0. We define: + − N = {k ≥ 1:ak ≥ 0} ,N = {k ≥ 1:ak < 0} 1. Show that N + and N − are infinite. 2. Let φ+ : N∗ → N + and φ− : N∗ → N − be two bijections. Show the existence of k1 ≥ 1 such that: k1 aφ+(k) ≥ A k=1 3. Show the existence of an increasing sequence (kp)p≥1 such that: kp aφ+(k) ≥ A k=kp−1+1 www.probability.net Tutorial 11: Complex Measures 3 for all p ≥ 1, where k0 =0. 4. Consider the permutation σ : N∗ → N∗ defined informally by: φ− ,φ+ ,...,φ+ k ,φ− ,φ+ k ,...,φ+ k ,..
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A. Measure and Integration
    Appendix A. Measure and integration We suppose the reader is familiar with the basic facts concerning set theory and integration as they are presented in the introductory course of analysis. In this appendix, we review them briefly, and add some more which we shall need in the text. Basic references for proofs and a detailed exposition are, e.g., [[ H a l 1 ]] , [[ J a r 1 , 2 ]] , [[ K F 1 , 2 ]] , [[ L i L ]] , [[ R u 1 ]] , or any other textbook on analysis you might prefer. A.1 Sets, mappings, relations A set is a collection of objects called elements. The symbol card X denotes the cardi- nality of the set X. The subset M consisting of the elements of X which satisfy the conditions P1(x),...,Pn(x) is usually written as M = { x ∈ X : P1(x),...,Pn(x) }.A set whose elements are certain sets is called a system or family of these sets; the family of all subsystems of a given X is denoted as 2X . The operations of union, intersection, and set difference are introduced in the standard way; the first two of these are commutative, associative, and mutually distributive. In a { } system Mα of any cardinality, the de Morgan relations , X \ Mα = (X \ Mα)and X \ Mα = (X \ Mα), α α α α are valid. Another elementary property is the following: for any family {Mn} ,whichis { } at most countable, there is a disjoint family Nn of the same cardinality such that ⊂ \ ∪ \ Nn Mn and n Nn = n Mn.Theset(M N) (N M) is called the symmetric difference of the sets M,N and denoted as M #N.
    [Show full text]
  • Gsm076-Endmatter.Pdf
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/gsm/076 Measur e Theor y an d Integratio n This page intentionally left blank Measur e Theor y an d Integratio n Michael E.Taylor Graduate Studies in Mathematics Volume 76 M^^t| American Mathematical Society ^MMOT Providence, Rhode Island Editorial Board David Cox Walter Craig Nikolai Ivanov Steven G. Krantz David Saltman (Chair) 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 28-01. For additional information and updates on this book, visit www.ams.org/bookpages/gsm-76 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Taylor, Michael Eugene, 1946- Measure theory and integration / Michael E. Taylor. p. cm. — (Graduate studies in mathematics, ISSN 1065-7339 ; v. 76) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: 978-0-8218-4180-8 1. Measure theory. 2. Riemann integrals. 3. Convergence. 4. Probabilities. I. Title. II. Series. QA312.T387 2006 515/.42—dc22 2006045635 Copying and reprinting. Individual readers of this publication, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make fair use of the material, such as to copy a chapter for use in teaching or research. Permission is granted to quote brief passages from this publication in reviews, provided the customary acknowledgment of the source is given. Republication, systematic copying, or multiple reproduction of any material in this publication is permitted only under license from the American Mathematical Society. Requests for such permission should be addressed to the Acquisitions Department, American Mathematical Society, 201 Charles Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02904-2294, USA. Requests can also be made by e-mail to [email protected]. © 2006 by the American Mathematical Society.
    [Show full text]
  • About and Beyond the Lebesgue Decomposition of a Signed Measure
    Lecturas Matemáticas Volumen 37 (2) (2016), páginas 79-103 ISSN 0120-1980 About and beyond the Lebesgue decomposition of a signed measure Sobre el teorema de descomposición de Lebesgue de una medida con signo y un poco más Josefina Alvarez1 and Martha Guzmán-Partida2 1New Mexico State University, EE.UU. 2Universidad de Sonora, México ABSTRACT. We present a refinement of the Lebesgue decomposition of a signed measure. We also revisit the notion of mutual singularity for finite signed measures, explaining its connection with a notion of orthogonality introduced by R.C. JAMES. Key words: Lebesgue Decomposition Theorem, Mutually Singular Signed Measures, Orthogonality. RESUMEN. Presentamos un refinamiento de la descomposición de Lebesgue de una medida con signo. También revisitamos la noción de singularidad mutua para medidas con signo finitas, explicando su relación con una noción de ortogonalidad introducida por R. C. JAMES. Palabras clave: Teorema de Descomposición de Lebesgue, Medidas con Signo Mutua- mente Singulares, Ortogonalidad. 2010 AMS Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 28A10; Secondary 28A33, Third 46C50. 1. Introduction The main goal of this expository article is to present a refinement, not often found in the literature, of the Lebesgue decomposition of a signed measure. For the sake of completeness, we begin with a collection of preliminary definitions and results, including many comments, examples and counterexamples. We continue with a section dedicated 80 Josefina Alvarez et al. About and beyond the Lebesgue decomposition... specifically to the Lebesgue decomposition of a signed measure, where we also present a short account of its historical development. Next comes the centerpiece of our exposition, a refinement of the Lebesgue decomposition of a signed measure, which we prove in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sphere Packing Problem in Dimension 8 Arxiv:1603.04246V2
    The sphere packing problem in dimension 8 Maryna S. Viazovska April 5, 2017 8 In this paper we prove that no packing of unit balls in Euclidean space R has density greater than that of the E8-lattice packing. Keywords: Sphere packing, Modular forms, Fourier analysis AMS subject classification: 52C17, 11F03, 11F30 1 Introduction The sphere packing constant measures which portion of d-dimensional Euclidean space d can be covered by non-overlapping unit balls. More precisely, let R be the Euclidean d vector space equipped with distance k · k and Lebesgue measure Vol(·). For x 2 R and d r 2 R>0 we denote by Bd(x; r) the open ball in R with center x and radius r. Let d X ⊂ R be a discrete set of points such that kx − yk ≥ 2 for any distinct x; y 2 X. Then the union [ P = Bd(x; 1) x2X d is a sphere packing. If X is a lattice in R then we say that P is a lattice sphere packing. The finite density of a packing P is defined as Vol(P\ Bd(0; r)) ∆P (r) := ; r > 0: Vol(Bd(0; r)) We define the density of a packing P as the limit superior ∆P := lim sup ∆P (r): r!1 arXiv:1603.04246v2 [math.NT] 4 Apr 2017 The number be want to know is the supremum over all possible packing densities ∆d := sup ∆P ; d P⊂R sphere packing 1 called the sphere packing constant. For which dimensions do we know the exact value of ∆d? Trivially, in dimension 1 we have ∆1 = 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Sphere Packing, Lattice Packing, and Related Problems
    Sphere packing, lattice packing, and related problems Abhinav Kumar Stony Brook April 25, 2018 Sphere packings Definition n A sphere packing in R is a collection of spheres/balls of equal size which do not overlap (except for touching). The density of a sphere packing is the volume fraction of space occupied by the balls. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ In dimension 1, we can achieve density 1 by laying intervals end to end. In dimension 2, the best possible is by using the hexagonal lattice. [Fejes T´oth1940] Sphere packing problem n Problem: Find a/the densest sphere packing(s) in R . In dimension 2, the best possible is by using the hexagonal lattice. [Fejes T´oth1940] Sphere packing problem n Problem: Find a/the densest sphere packing(s) in R . In dimension 1, we can achieve density 1 by laying intervals end to end. Sphere packing problem n Problem: Find a/the densest sphere packing(s) in R . In dimension 1, we can achieve density 1 by laying intervals end to end. In dimension 2, the best possible is by using the hexagonal lattice. [Fejes T´oth1940] Sphere packing problem II In dimension 3, the best possible way is to stack layers of the solution in 2 dimensions. This is Kepler's conjecture, now a theorem of Hales and collaborators. mmm m mmm m There are infinitely (in fact, uncountably) many ways of doing this! These are the Barlow packings. Face centered cubic packing Image: Greg A L (Wikipedia), CC BY-SA 3.0 license But (until very recently!) no proofs. In very high dimensions (say ≥ 1000) densest packings are likely to be close to disordered.
    [Show full text]
  • (Measure Theory for Dummies) UWEE Technical Report Number UWEETR-2006-0008
    A Measure Theory Tutorial (Measure Theory for Dummies) Maya R. Gupta {gupta}@ee.washington.edu Dept of EE, University of Washington Seattle WA, 98195-2500 UWEE Technical Report Number UWEETR-2006-0008 May 2006 Department of Electrical Engineering University of Washington Box 352500 Seattle, Washington 98195-2500 PHN: (206) 543-2150 FAX: (206) 543-3842 URL: http://www.ee.washington.edu A Measure Theory Tutorial (Measure Theory for Dummies) Maya R. Gupta {gupta}@ee.washington.edu Dept of EE, University of Washington Seattle WA, 98195-2500 University of Washington, Dept. of EE, UWEETR-2006-0008 May 2006 Abstract This tutorial is an informal introduction to measure theory for people who are interested in reading papers that use measure theory. The tutorial assumes one has had at least a year of college-level calculus, some graduate level exposure to random processes, and familiarity with terms like “closed” and “open.” The focus is on the terms and ideas relevant to applied probability and information theory. There are no proofs and no exercises. Measure theory is a bit like grammar, many people communicate clearly without worrying about all the details, but the details do exist and for good reasons. There are a number of great texts that do measure theory justice. This is not one of them. Rather this is a hack way to get the basic ideas down so you can read through research papers and follow what’s going on. Hopefully, you’ll get curious and excited enough about the details to check out some of the references for a deeper understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Curvature of Piecewise Flat Spaces
    Communications in Commun. Math. Phys. 92, 405-454 (1984) Mathematical Physics © Springer-Verlag 1984 On the Curvature of Piecewise Flat Spaces Jeff Cheeger1'*, Werner Mϋller2, and Robert Schrader3'**'*** 1 Department of Mathematics, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA 2 Zentralinstitut fur Mathematik, Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Mohrenstrasse 39, DDR-1199 Berlin, German Democratic Republic 3 Institute for Theoretical Physics, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA Abstract. We consider analogs of the Lipschitz-Killing curvatures of smooth Riemannian manifolds for piecewise flat spaces. In the special case of scalar curvature, the definition is due to T. Regge considerations in this spirit date back to J. Steiner. We show that if a piecewise flat space approximates a smooth space in a suitable sense, then the corresponding curvatures are close in the sense of measures. 0. Introduction Let Xn be a complete metric space and Σ CXn a closed, subset of dimension less than or equal to (n— 1). Assume that Xn\Σ is isometric to a smooth (incomplete) ^-dimensional Riemannian manifold. How should one define the curvature of Xn at points xeΣ, near which the metric need not be smooth and X need not be locally homeomorphic to UCRnΊ In [C, Wi], this question is answered (in seemingly different, but in fact, equivalent ways) for the Lipschitz-Killing curva- tures, and their associated boundary curvatures under the assumption that the metric on Xn is piecewise flat. The precise definitions (which are given in Sect. 2), are formulated in terms of certain "angle defects." For the mean curvature and the scalar curvature they are originally due to Steiner [S] and Regge [R], respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Interpretation of the 30 8-Simplexes in the E8 240-Polytope
    Physical Interpretation of the 30 8-simplexes in the E8 240-Polytope: Frank Dodd (Tony) Smith, Jr. 2017 - viXra 1702.0058 248-dim Lie Group E8 has 240 Root Vectors arranged on a 7-sphere S7 in 8-dim space. The 12 vertices of a cuboctahedron live on a 2-sphere S2 in 3-dim space. They are also the 4x3 = 12 outer vertices of 4 tetrahedra (3-simplexes) that share one inner vertex at the center of the cuboctahedron. This paper explores how the 240 vertices of the E8 Polytope in 8-dim space are related to the 30x8 = 240 outer vertices (red in figure below) of 30 8-simplexes whose 9th vertex is a shared inner vertex (yellow in figure below) at the center of the E8 Polytope. The 8-simplex has 9 vertices, 36 edges, 84 triangles, 126 tetrahedron cells, 126 4-simplex faces, 84 5-simplex faces, 36 6-simplex faces, 9 7-simplex faces, and 1 8-dim volume The real 4_21 Witting polytope of the E8 lattice in R8 has 240 vertices; 6,720 edges; 60,480 triangular faces; 241,920 tetrahedra; 483,840 4-simplexes; 483,840 5-simplexes 4_00; 138,240 + 69,120 6-simplexes 4_10 and 4_01; and 17,280 = 2,160x8 7-simplexes 4_20 and 2,160 7-cross-polytopes 4_11. The cuboctahedron corresponds by Jitterbug Transformation to the icosahedron. The 20 2-dim faces of an icosahedon in 3-dim space (image from spacesymmetrystructure.wordpress.com) are also the 20 outer faces of 20 not-exactly-regular-in-3-dim tetrahedra (3-simplexes) that share one inner vertex at the center of the icosahedron, but that correspondence does not extend to the case of 8-simplexes in an E8 polytope, whose faces are both 7-simplexes and 7-cross-polytopes, similar to the cubocahedron, but not its Jitterbug-transform icosahedron with only triangle = 2-simplex faces.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2010.10200V3 [Math.GT] 1 Mar 2021 We Deduce in Particular the Following
    HYPERBOLIC MANIFOLDS THAT FIBER ALGEBRAICALLY UP TO DIMENSION 8 GIOVANNI ITALIANO, BRUNO MARTELLI, AND MATTEO MIGLIORINI Abstract. We construct some cusped finite-volume hyperbolic n-manifolds Mn that fiber algebraically in all the dimensions 5 ≤ n ≤ 8. That is, there is a surjective homomorphism π1(Mn) ! Z with finitely generated kernel. The kernel is also finitely presented in the dimensions n = 7; 8, and this leads to the first examples of hyperbolic n-manifolds Mfn whose fundamental group is finitely presented but not of finite type. These n-manifolds Mfn have infinitely many cusps of maximal rank and hence infinite Betti number bn−1. They cover the finite-volume manifold Mn. We obtain these examples by assigning some appropriate colours and states to a family of right-angled hyperbolic polytopes P5;:::;P8, and then applying some arguments of Jankiewicz { Norin { Wise [15] and Bestvina { Brady [6]. We exploit in an essential way the remarkable properties of the Gosset polytopes dual to Pn, and the algebra of integral octonions for the crucial dimensions n = 7; 8. Introduction We prove here the following theorem. Every hyperbolic manifold in this paper is tacitly assumed to be connected, complete, and orientable. Theorem 1. In every dimension 5 ≤ n ≤ 8 there are a finite volume hyperbolic 1 n-manifold Mn and a map f : Mn ! S such that f∗ : π1(Mn) ! Z is surjective n with finitely generated kernel. The cover Mfn = H =ker f∗ has infinitely many cusps of maximal rank. When n = 7; 8 the kernel is also finitely presented. arXiv:2010.10200v3 [math.GT] 1 Mar 2021 We deduce in particular the following.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimality and Uniqueness of the Leech Lattice Among Lattices
    ANNALS OF MATHEMATICS Optimality and uniqueness of the Leech lattice among lattices By Henry Cohn and Abhinav Kumar SECOND SERIES, VOL. 170, NO. 3 November, 2009 anmaah Annals of Mathematics, 170 (2009), 1003–1050 Optimality and uniqueness of the Leech lattice among lattices By HENRY COHN and ABHINAV KUMAR Dedicated to Oded Schramm (10 December 1961 – 1 September 2008) Abstract We prove that the Leech lattice is the unique densest lattice in R24. The proof combines human reasoning with computer verification of the properties of certain explicit polynomials. We furthermore prove that no sphere packing in R24 can 30 exceed the Leech lattice’s density by a factor of more than 1 1:65 10 , and we 8 C give a new proof that E8 is the unique densest lattice in R . 1. Introduction It is a long-standing open problem in geometry and number theory to find the densest lattice in Rn. Recall that a lattice ƒ Rn is a discrete subgroup of rank n; a minimal vector in ƒ is a nonzero vector of minimal length. Let ƒ vol.Rn=ƒ/ j j D denote the covolume of ƒ, i.e., the volume of a fundamental parallelotope or the absolute value of the determinant of a basis of ƒ. If r is the minimal vector length of ƒ, then spheres of radius r=2 centered at the points of ƒ do not overlap except tangentially. This construction yields a sphere packing of density n=2 r Án 1 ; .n=2/Š 2 ƒ j j since the volume of a unit ball in Rn is n=2=.n=2/Š, where for odd n we define .n=2/Š .n=2 1/.
    [Show full text]
  • Octonions and the Leech Lattice
    Octonions and the Leech lattice Robert A. Wilson School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS 18th December 2008 Abstract We give a new, elementary, description of the Leech lattice in terms of octonions, thereby providing the first real explanation of the fact that the number of minimal vectors, 196560, can be expressed in the form 3 × 240 × (1 + 16 + 16 × 16). We also give an easy proof that it is an even self-dual lattice. 1 Introduction The Leech lattice occupies a special place in mathematics. It is the unique 24- dimensional even self-dual lattice with no vectors of norm 2, and defines the unique densest lattice packing of spheres in 24 dimensions. Its automorphism group is very large, and is the double cover of Conway’s group Co1 [2], one of the most important of the 26 sporadic simple groups. This group plays a crucial role in the construction of the Monster [13, 4], which is the largest of the sporadic simple groups, and has connections with modular forms (so- called ‘Monstrous Moonshine’) and many other areas, including theoretical physics. The book by Conway and Sloane [5] is a good introduction to this lattice and its many applications. It is not surprising therefore that there is a huge literature on the Leech lattice, not just within mathematics but in the physics literature too. Many attempts have been made in particular to find simplified constructions (see for example the 23 constructions described in [3] and the four constructions 1 described in [15]).
    [Show full text]