DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is...The Monster?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

?WHAT IS... The Monster? Richard E. Borcherds When I was a graduate student, my supervisor John wishes to multiply elements of the monster ex- Conway would bring into the department his one- plicitly, R. A. Wilson can supply two matrices that year-old son, who was soon known as the baby generate the monster. But there is a catch: Each ma- monster. A more serious answer to the title ques- trix takes up about five gigabytes of storage, and tion is that the monster is the largest of the to quote from Wilson’s atlas page: “[S]tandard gen- (known1) sporadic simple groups. Its name comes erators have now been made as 196882 × 196882 from its size: The number of elements is matrices over GF(2)…. They have been multiplied together, using most of the computing resources 8080, 17424, 79451, 28758, 86459, 90496, of Lehrstuhl D für Mathematik, RWTH Aachen, for 17107, 57005, 75436, 80000, 00000 about 45 hours….” (The difficulty of multiplying two elements of the monster is caused not so much =246.320.59.76.112.133.17. by its huge size as by the lack of “small” repre- 19.23.29.31.41.47.59.71, sentations; for example, the symmetric group S50 about equal to the number of elementary particles is quite a lot bigger than the monster, but it only in the planet Jupiter. takes a few minutes to multiply two elements by The monster was originally predicted to exist by hand.) Finally the modular representations of the B. Fischer and by R. L. Griess in the early 1970s. Griess monster for large primes were worked out by constructed it a few years later in an extraordinary G. Hiss and K. Lux; the ones for small primes still tour de force as the group of linear transformations seem to be out of reach at the moment. on a vector space of dimension 196883 that preserve In the late 1970s John McKay decided to switch a certain commutative but nonassociative bilinear from finite group theory to Galois theory. One product, now called the Griess product. function that turns up in Galois theory is the elliptic Our knowledge of the structure and represen- modular function tations of the monster is now pretty good. The j(τ)=q−1 + 744 + 196884q + 21493760q2 + ··· 194 irreducible complex representations were n worked out by Fischer, D. Livingstone, and M. P. = c(n)q Thorne (before the monster was even shown to (q = e2πiτ), which is essentially the simplest non- exist). These take up eight large pages in the atlas constant function invariant under the action [A] of finite groups, which is the best single source τ → (aτ + b)/(cτ + d) of SL (Z) on the upper half of information about the monster (and other finite 2 plane {τ| (τ) > 0}. He noticed that the coefficient simple groups). The subgroup structure is mostly 196884 of q1 was almost equal to the degree known; in particular there is an almost complete 196883 of the smallest complex representation of list of the maximal subgroups, and the main gaps the monster (up to a small experimental error). in our knowledge concern embeddings of very The term “moonshine” roughly means weird rela- small simple groups in the monster. If anyone tions between sporadic groups and modular func- tions (and anything else) similar to this. It was Richard E. Borcherds is professor of mathematics at the clear to many people that this was just a mean- University of California, Berkeley. His work is supported in part by NSF grant DMS-9970611. His email address ingless coincidence; after all, if you have enough is [email protected], and his homepage is large integers from various areas of mathematics, http://www.math.berkeley.edu/~reb/. then a few are going to be close just by chance, and 1The announcement of the classification of the finite John McKay was told that his observation was simple groups about twenty years ago was a little over- about as useful as looking at tea leaves. John enthusiastic, but a recent 1,300-page preprint by Thompson took McKay’s observation further and M. Aschbacher and S. D. Smith should finally complete it. pointed out that the next few coefficients of the 1076 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 49, NUMBER 9 elliptic modular function were also simple linear that the symmetric group S3 is a group of diagram combinations of dimensions of irreducible repre- automorphisms of the Lie algebra D4. The monster sentations of the monster; for example, 21493760 Lie algebra has a denominator formula, similar to = 21296876 + 196883 + 1 . He suggested that there the Weyl denominator formula for finite-dimen- should be a natural infinite-dimensional graded sional Lie algebras and the Macdonald-Kac identi- representation V = n∈Z Vn of the monster such ties for affine Lie algebras, which looks like that the dimension of V is the coefficient c(n) of n − −1 − m n c(mn) qn in j(τ), at least for n =0 . (The constant term of j(σ ) j(τ)=p (1 p q ) m>0 j(τ) is arbitrary, since adding a constant to j still n∈Z produces a function invariant under SL2(Z) and is 2πiσ 2πiτ set equal to 744 mainly for historical reasons.) where p = e , q = e . This formula was dis- Conway and Norton [C-N] followed up Thompson’s covered independently in the 1980s by several peo- ple, including M. Koike, S. P. Norton, and D. Zagier. suggestion of looking at the McKay-Thompson se- There are similar identities with j(τ) replaced by ries T (τ)= Trace(g|V )qn , whose coefficients g n n the McKay-Thompson series of any element of the are given by the traces of elements g of the mon- monster, and C. J. Cummins and T. Gannon showed ster on the representations V , and found by cal- n that any function satisfying such identities is a culating the first few terms that these functions all Hauptmodul. So this provides some sort of expla- seemed to be Hauptmoduls of genus 0. (A Haupt- nation of Conway and Norton’s observation that the modul is a function similar to j but invariant under McKay-Thompson series are all Hauptmoduls. some group other than SL (Z).) A. O. L. Atkin, 2 So the question “What is the monster?” now has P. Fong, and S. D. Smith showed by computer cal- several reasonable answers: culation that there was indeed an infinite-dimen- 1. It is the largest sporadic simple group or al- sional graded representation of the monster whose ternatively the unique simple group of its order. McKay-Thompson series were the Hauptmoduls 2. It is the automorphism group of the Griess found by Conway and Norton, and soon afterwards algebra. I. B. Frenkel, J. Lepowsky, and A. Meurman explic- 3. It is the automorphism group of the monster itly constructed this representation using vertex vertex algebra. (This is probably the best an- operators. swer.) If a group acts on a vector space it is natural to 4. It is a group of diagram automorphisms of the ask if it preserves any algebraic structure, such as monster Lie algebra. a bilinear form or product. The monster module Unfortunately none of these definitions is constructed by Frenkel-Lepowsky-Meurman has a completely satisfactory. At the moment all con- vertex algebra structure invariant under the ac- structions of the algebraic structures above seem tion of the monster. Unfortunately there is no easy artificial; they are constructed as sums of two or way to explain what vertex algebras are; see [K] for more apparently unrelated spaces, and it takes a the best introduction to them. Roughly speaking, lot of effort to define the algebraic structure on the vertex algebras can be thought of (at least in char- sum of these spaces and to check that the monster acterstic 0) as commutative rings with derivation acts on the resulting structure. It is still an open where the ring multiplication is not quite defined problem to find a really simple and natural everywhere; this is analogous to rational maps in construction of the monster vertex algebra. algebraic geometry, which are also not quite defined everywhere. A more concrete but less intuitive de- References finition of a vertex algebra is that it consists of a [A] J. H. CONWAY, R. T. CURTIS, S. P. NORTON, R. A. PARKER, space with a countable number of bilinear products and R. A. WILSON, Atlas of Finite Groups, Clarendon satisfying certain rather complicated identities. In Press, Oxford, 1985; see also the online Atlas of Fi- the case of the monster vertex algebra V = Vn, nite Group Representations at http://www.mat. bham.ac.uk/atlas/v2.0/. this gives bilinear maps from Vi × Vj to Vk for all integers i,j,k, and the special case of the map [C-N] J. H. CONWAY and S. P. NORTON, Monstrous moonshine, Bull. London. Math. Soc. 11 (1979), 308–39. from V2 × V2 to V2 is (essentially) the Griess prod- [K] V. KAC, Vertex Algebras for Beginners, second edition, uct. So the Griess algebra is a sort of section of the University Lecture Series, vol. 10, American Mathe- monster vertex algebra. matical Society, Providence, RI, 1998. Following an idea of Frenkel, one can use the monster vertex algebra and the Goddard-Thorn The “WHAT IS...?” column carries short (one- or “no-ghost theorem” from string theory to construct two-page), nontechnical articles aimed at graduate stu- the monster Lie algebra. This is a Z2 -graded Lie dents. Each article focuses on a single mathematical ob- algebra whose piece of degree (m, n) ∈ Z2 has ject, rather than a whole theory.
Recommended publications
  • Math 412. Simple Groups

    Math 412. Simple Groups

    Math 412. Simple Groups DEFINITION: A group G is simple if its only normal subgroups are feg and G. Simple groups are rare among all groups in the same way that prime numbers are rare among all integers. The smallest non-abelian group is A5, which has order 60. THEOREM 8.25: A abelian group is simple if and only if it is finite of prime order. THEOREM: The Alternating Groups An where n ≥ 5 are simple. The simple groups are the building blocks of all groups, in a sense similar to how all integers are built from the prime numbers. One of the greatest mathematical achievements of the Twentieth Century was a classification of all the finite simple groups. These are recorded in the Atlas of Simple Groups. The mathematician who discovered the last-to-be-discovered finite simple group is right here in our own department: Professor Bob Greiss. This simple group is called the monster group because its order is so big—approximately 8 × 1053. Because we have classified all the finite simple groups, and we know how to put them together to form arbitrary groups, we essentially understand the structure of every finite group. It is difficult, in general, to tell whether a given group G is simple or not. Just like determining whether a given (large) integer is prime, there is an algorithm to check but it may take an unreasonable amount of time to run. A. WARM UP. Find proper non-trivial normal subgroups of the following groups: Z, Z35, GL5(Q), S17, D100.
  • GROUP ACTIONS 1. Introduction the Groups Sn, An, and (For N ≥ 3)

    GROUP ACTIONS 1. Introduction the Groups Sn, An, and (For N ≥ 3)

    GROUP ACTIONS KEITH CONRAD 1. Introduction The groups Sn, An, and (for n ≥ 3) Dn behave, by their definitions, as permutations on certain sets. The groups Sn and An both permute the set f1; 2; : : : ; ng and Dn can be considered as a group of permutations of a regular n-gon, or even just of its n vertices, since rigid motions of the vertices determine where the rest of the n-gon goes. If we label the vertices of the n-gon in a definite manner by the numbers from 1 to n then we can view Dn as a subgroup of Sn. For instance, the labeling of the square below lets us regard the 90 degree counterclockwise rotation r in D4 as (1234) and the reflection s across the horizontal line bisecting the square as (24). The rest of the elements of D4, as permutations of the vertices, are in the table below the square. 2 3 1 4 1 r r2 r3 s rs r2s r3s (1) (1234) (13)(24) (1432) (24) (12)(34) (13) (14)(23) If we label the vertices in a different way (e.g., swap the labels 1 and 2), we turn the elements of D4 into a different subgroup of S4. More abstractly, if we are given a set X (not necessarily the set of vertices of a square), then the set Sym(X) of all permutations of X is a group under composition, and the subgroup Alt(X) of even permutations of X is a group under composition. If we list the elements of X in a definite order, say as X = fx1; : : : ; xng, then we can think about Sym(X) as Sn and Alt(X) as An, but a listing in a different order leads to different identifications 1 of Sym(X) with Sn and Alt(X) with An.
  • Chapter 25 Finite Simple Groups

    Chapter 25 Finite Simple Groups

    Chapter 25 Finite Simple Groups Chapter 25 Finite Simple Groups Historical Background Definition A group is simple if it has no nontrivial proper normal subgroup. The definition was proposed by Galois; he showed that An is simple for n ≥ 5 in 1831. It is an important step in showing that one cannot express the solutions of a quintic equation in radicals. If possible, one would factor a group G as G0 = G, find a normal subgroup G1 of maximum order to form G0/G1. Then find a maximal normal subgroup G2 of G1 and get G1/G2, and so on until we get the composition factors: G0/G1,G1/G2,...,Gn−1/Gn, with Gn = {e}. Jordan and Hölder proved that these factors are independent of the choices of the normal subgroups in the process. Jordan in 1870 found four infinite series including: Zp for a prime p, SL(n, Zp)/Z(SL(n, Zp)) except when (n, p) = (2, 2) or (2, 3). Between 1982-1905, Dickson found more infinite series; Miller and Cole showed that 5 (sporadic) groups constructed by Mathieu in 1861 are simple. Chapter 25 Finite Simple Groups In 1950s, more infinite families were found, and the classification project began. Brauer observed that the centralizer has an order 2 element is important; Feit-Thompson in 1960 confirmed the 1900 conjecture that non-Abelian simple group must have even order. From 1966-75, 19 new sporadic groups were found. Thompson developed many techniques in the N-group paper. Gorenstein presented an outline for the classification project in a lecture series at University of Chicago in 1972.
  • Arxiv:1911.10534V3 [Math.AT] 17 Apr 2020 Statement

    Arxiv:1911.10534V3 [Math.AT] 17 Apr 2020 Statement

    THE ANDO-HOPKINS-REZK ORIENTATION IS SURJECTIVE SANATH DEVALAPURKAR Abstract. We show that the map π∗MString ! π∗tmf induced by the Ando-Hopkins-Rezk orientation is surjective. This proves an unpublished claim of Hopkins and Mahowald. We do so by constructing an E1-ring B and a map B ! MString such that the composite B ! MString ! tmf is surjective on homotopy. Applications to differential topology, and in particular to Hirzebruch's prize question, are discussed. 1. Introduction The goal of this paper is to show the following result. Theorem 1.1. The map π∗MString ! π∗tmf induced by the Ando-Hopkins-Rezk orientation is surjective. This integral result was originally stated as [Hop02, Theorem 6.25], but, to the best of our knowledge, no proof has appeared in the literature. In [HM02], Hopkins and Mahowald give a proof sketch of Theorem 1.1 for elements of π∗tmf of Adams-Novikov filtration 0. The analogue of Theorem 1.1 for bo (namely, the statement that the map π∗MSpin ! π∗bo induced by the Atiyah-Bott-Shapiro orientation is surjective) is classical [Mil63]. In Section2, we present (as a warmup) a proof of this surjectivity result for bo via a technique which generalizes to prove Theorem 1.1. We construct an E1-ring A with an E1-map A ! MSpin. The E1-ring A is a particular E1-Thom spectrum whose mod 2 homology is given by the polynomial subalgebra 4 F2[ζ1 ] of the mod 2 dual Steenrod algebra. The Atiyah-Bott-Shapiro orientation MSpin ! bo is an E1-map, and so the composite A ! MSpin ! bo is an E1-map.
  • Quasi P Or Not Quasi P? That Is the Question

    Quasi P Or Not Quasi P? That Is the Question

    Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 2 Quasi p or not Quasi p? That is the Question Ben Harwood Northern Kentucky University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/rhumj Recommended Citation Harwood, Ben (2002) "Quasi p or not Quasi p? That is the Question," Rose-Hulman Undergraduate Mathematics Journal: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://scholar.rose-hulman.edu/rhumj/vol3/iss2/2 Quasi p- or not quasi p-? That is the Question.* By Ben Harwood Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Northern Kentucky University Highland Heights, KY 41099 e-mail: [email protected] Section Zero: Introduction The question might not be as profound as Shakespeare’s, but nevertheless, it is interesting. Because few people seem to be aware of quasi p-groups, we will begin with a bit of history and a definition; and then we will determine for each group of order less than 24 (and a few others) whether the group is a quasi p-group for some prime p or not. This paper is a prequel to [Hwd]. In [Hwd] we prove that (Z3 £Z3)oZ2 and Z5 o Z4 are quasi 2-groups. Those proofs now form a portion of Proposition (12.1) It should also be noted that [Hwd] may also be found in this journal. Section One: Why should we be interested in quasi p-groups? In a 1957 paper titled Coverings of algebraic curves [Abh2], Abhyankar conjectured that the algebraic fundamental group of the affine line over an algebraically closed field k of prime characteristic p is the set of quasi p-groups, where by the algebraic fundamental group of the affine line he meant the family of all Galois groups Gal(L=k(X)) as L varies over all finite normal extensions of k(X) the function field of the affine line such that no point of the line is ramified in L, and where by a quasi p-group he meant a finite group that is generated by all of its p-Sylow subgroups.
  • Our Mathematical Universe: I. How the Monster Group Dictates All of Physics

    Our Mathematical Universe: I. How the Monster Group Dictates All of Physics

    October, 2011 PROGRESS IN PHYSICS Volume 4 Our Mathematical Universe: I. How the Monster Group Dictates All of Physics Franklin Potter Sciencegems.com, 8642 Marvale Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. E-mail: [email protected] A 4th family b’ quark would confirm that our physical Universe is mathematical and is discrete at the Planck scale. I explain how the Fischer-Greiss Monster Group dic- tates the Standard Model of leptons and quarks in discrete 4-D internal symmetry space and, combined with discrete 4-D spacetime, uniquely produces the finite group Weyl E8 x Weyl E8 = “Weyl” SO(9,1). The Monster’s j-invariant function determines mass ratios of the particles in finite binary rotational subgroups of the Standard Model gauge group, dictates Mobius¨ transformations that lead to the conservation laws, and connects interactions to triality, the Leech lattice, and Golay-24 information coding. 1 Introduction 5. Both 4-D spacetime and 4-D internal symmetry space are discrete at the Planck scale, and both spaces can The ultimate idea that our physical Universe is mathematical be telescoped upwards mathematically by icosians to at the fundamental scale has been conjectured for many cen- 8-D spaces that uniquely combine into 10-D discrete turies. In the past, our marginal understanding of the origin spacetime with discrete Weyl E x Weyl E symmetry of the physical rules of the Universe has been peppered with 8 8 (not the E x E Lie group of superstrings/M-theory). huge gaps, but today our increased understanding of funda- 8 8 mental particles promises to eliminate most of those gaps to 6.
  • Group Properties and Group Isomorphism

    Group Properties and Group Isomorphism

    GROUP PROPERTIES AND GROUP ISOMORPHISM Evelyn. M. Manalo Mathematics Honors Thesis University of California, San Diego May 25, 2001 Faculty Mentor: Professor John Wavrik Department of Mathematics GROUP PROPERTIES AND GROUP ISOMORPHISM I n t r o d u c t i o n T H E I M P O R T A N C E O F G R O U P T H E O R Y is relevant to every branch of Mathematics where symmetry is studied. Every symmetrical object is associated with a group. It is in this association why groups arise in many different areas like in Quantum Mechanics, in Crystallography, in Biology, and even in Computer Science. There is no such easy definition of symmetry among mathematical objects without leading its way to the theory of groups. In this paper we present the first stages of constructing a systematic method for classifying groups of small orders. Classifying groups usually arise when trying to distinguish the number of non-isomorphic groups of order n. This paper arose from an attempt to find a formula or an algorithm for classifying groups given invariants that can be readily determined without any other known assumptions about the group. This formula is very useful if we want to know if two groups are isomorphic. Mathematical objects are considered to be essentially the same, from the point of view of their algebraic properties, when they are isomorphic. When two groups Γ and Γ’ have exactly the same group-theoretic structure then we say that Γ is isomorphic to Γ’ or vice versa.
  • Mathematics for Humanists

    Mathematics for Humanists

    Mathematics for Humanists Mathematics for Humanists Herbert Gintis xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Press xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxx Copyright c 2021 by ... Published by ... All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gintis, Herbert Mathematics for Humanists/ Herbert Gintis p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN ...(hardcover: alk. paper) HB... xxxxxxxxxx British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available The publisher would like to acknowledge the author of this volume for providing the camera-ready copy from which this book was printed This book has been composed in Times and Mathtime by the author Printed on acid-free paper. Printed in the United States of America 10987654321 This book is dedicated to my mathematics teachers: Pincus Shub, Walter Gottschalk, Abram Besikovitch, and Oskar Zariski Contents Preface xii 1 ReadingMath 1 1.1 Reading Math 1 2 The LanguageofLogic 2 2.1 TheLanguageofLogic 2 2.2 FormalPropositionalLogic 4 2.3 Truth Tables 5 2.4 ExercisesinPropositionalLogic 7 2.5 Predicate Logic 8 2.6 ProvingPropositionsinPredicateLogic 9 2.7 ThePerilsofLogic 10 3 Sets 11 3.1 Set Theory 11 3.2 PropertiesandPredicates 12 3.3 OperationsonSets 14 3.4 Russell’s Paradox 15 3.5 Ordered Pairs 17 3.6 MathematicalInduction 18 3.7 SetProducts 19 3.8 RelationsandFunctions 20 3.9 PropertiesofRelations 21 3.10 Injections,Surjections,andBijections 22 3.11 CountingandCardinality 23 3.12 The Cantor-Bernstein Theorem 24 3.13 InequalityinCardinalNumbers 25 3.14 Power Sets 26 3.15 TheFoundationsofMathematics
  • 18.704 Supplementary Notes March 23, 2005 the Subgroup Ω For

    18.704 Supplementary Notes March 23, 2005 the Subgroup Ω For

    18.704 Supplementary Notes March 23, 2005 The subgroup Ω for orthogonal groups In the case of the linear group, it is shown in the text that P SL(n; F ) (that is, the group SL(n) of determinant one matrices, divided by its center) is usually a simple group. In the case of symplectic group, P Sp(2n; F ) (the group of symplectic matrices divided by its center) is usually a simple group. In the case of the orthog- onal group (as Yelena will explain on March 28), what turns out to be simple is not P SO(V ) (the orthogonal group of V divided by its center). Instead there is a mysterious subgroup Ω(V ) of SO(V ), and what is usually simple is P Ω(V ). The purpose of these notes is first to explain why this complication arises, and then to give the general definition of Ω(V ) (along with some of its basic properties). So why should the complication arise? There are some hints of it already in the case of the linear group. We made a lot of use of GL(n; F ), the group of all invertible n × n matrices with entries in F . The most obvious normal subgroup of GL(n; F ) is its center, the group F × of (non-zero) scalar matrices. Dividing by the center gives (1) P GL(n; F ) = GL(n; F )=F ×; the projective general linear group. We saw that this group acts faithfully on the projective space Pn−1(F ), and generally it's a great group to work with.
  • The Mathieu Groups (Simple Sporadic Symmetries)

    The Mathieu Groups (Simple Sporadic Symmetries)

    The Mathieu Groups (Simple Sporadic Symmetries) Scott Harper (University of St Andrews) Tomorrow's Mathematicians Today 21st February 2015 Scott Harper The Mathieu Groups 21st February 2015 1 / 15 The Mathieu Groups (Simple Sporadic Symmetries) Scott Harper (University of St Andrews) Tomorrow's Mathematicians Today 21st February 2015 Scott Harper The Mathieu Groups 21st February 2015 2 / 15 1 2 A symmetry is a structure preserving permutation of the underlying set. A group acts faithfully on an object if it is isomorphic to a subgroup of the 4 3 symmetry group of the object. Symmetry group: D4 The stabiliser of a point in a group G is Group of rotations: the subgroup of G which fixes x. ∼ h(1 2 3 4)i = C4 Subgroup fixing 1: h(2 4)i Symmetry Scott Harper The Mathieu Groups 21st February 2015 3 / 15 A symmetry is a structure preserving permutation of the underlying set. A group acts faithfully on an object if it is isomorphic to a subgroup of the symmetry group of the object. The stabiliser of a point in a group G is Group of rotations: the subgroup of G which fixes x. ∼ h(1 2 3 4)i = C4 Subgroup fixing 1: h(2 4)i Symmetry 1 2 4 3 Symmetry group: D4 Scott Harper The Mathieu Groups 21st February 2015 3 / 15 A group acts faithfully on an object if it is isomorphic to a subgroup of the symmetry group of the object. The stabiliser of a point in a group G is Group of rotations: the subgroup of G which fixes x.
  • §2. Elliptic Curves: J-Invariant (Jan 31, Feb 4,7,9,11,14) After

    §2. Elliptic Curves: J-Invariant (Jan 31, Feb 4,7,9,11,14) After

    24 JENIA TEVELEV §2. Elliptic curves: j-invariant (Jan 31, Feb 4,7,9,11,14) After the projective line P1, the easiest algebraic curve to understand is an elliptic curve (Riemann surface of genus 1). Let M = isom. classes of elliptic curves . 1 { } We are going to assign to each elliptic curve a number, called its j-invariant and prove that 1 M1 = Aj . 1 1 So as a space M1 A is not very interesting. However, understanding A ! as a moduli space of elliptic curves leads to some breath-taking mathemat- ics. More generally, we introduce M = isom. classes of smooth projective curves of genus g g { } and M = isom. classes of curves C of genus g with points p , . , p C . g,n { 1 n ∈ } We will return to these moduli spaces later in the course. But first let us recall some basic facts about algebraic curves = compact Riemann surfaces. We refer to [G] and [Mi] for a rigorous and detailed exposition. §2.1. Algebraic functions, algebraic curves, and Riemann surfaces. The theory of algebraic curves has roots in analysis of Abelian integrals. An easiest example is the elliptic integral: in 1655 Wallis began to study the arc length of an ellipse (X/a)2 + (Y/b)2 = 1. The equation for the ellipse can be solved for Y : Y = (b/a) (a2 X2), − and this can easily be differentiated !to find bX Y ! = − . a√a2 X2 − 2 This is squared and put into the integral 1 + (Y !) dX for the arc length. Now the substitution x = X/a results in " ! 1 e2x2 s = a − dx, 1 x2 # $ − between the limits 0 and X/a, where e = 1 (b/a)2 is the eccentricity.
  • Infinite Iteration of Matrix Semigroups II. Structure Theorem for Arbitrary Semigroups up to Aperiodic Morphism

    Infinite Iteration of Matrix Semigroups II. Structure Theorem for Arbitrary Semigroups up to Aperiodic Morphism

    JOURNAL OF ALGEBRA 100, 25-137 (1986) Infinite Iteration of Matrix Semigroups II. Structure Theorem for Arbitrary Semigroups up to Aperiodic Morphism JOHN RHODES Deparrmenr of Mathematics, Universily of Califiwnia, Berkeley, California 94720 Communicated by G. B. Pwston Received March 17, 1984 The global theory qf semigroups (finite or infinite) consists of the following: Given a semigroup T, find semigroups S and X and a surmorphism 0 so that: where (a. I ) X is an easily globally computed (EGC) semigroups; (a.2) S is a special subsemigroup of X; (a.3) 0 is a fine surmorphism. Of course we must precisely define these three notions; see below and also the Introduction of Part I, [Part I]. The most famous example of (a) is the following: Let the semigroup T be generated by the subset A (written T= (A )), and let A + be the free semigroup over A; then we have (where 0 is defined by (a,,..., a,)8= a,. .. a,.) Here intuitively A + is “easily globally computed” because concatenation of two strings is a trans- parent multiplication and A + < A + i s surely special. However, here 0 need not be “line’‘-the unsolvability of the word problem for semigroups is one way to state this; we shall formulate it differently later (in fact, using the 25 0021-8693/86 $3.00 CopyrIght t-8 1986 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproductmn m any form reserved. 26 JOHN RHODES definitions given below, 8: A + + T will be called “line” iff T is an idem- potent-free semigroup). In this paper “special” will be taken to mean “equal;” so (a) becomes: Given a semigroup T, find a semigroup X and a surmorphism 8 such that (b) T++‘X, where (b.1) X is easily globally computed (EGC), (b.2) 6, is a line surmorphism.