Universal Kernel

kernel

What does a description forget?

The stabilizer of the image of a point under a description: what the description cannot tell apart there. It covers the kernel of a homomorphism, the stabilizer of an orbit and the congruence kernel of a reduction.

seam theorythe study of seams
Existencestabilizer classNumberN(H)/HConsistencyrigidity, monodromyMarkingsOut(G)Forgettingdescription, kernelImpossibilitynegative space
6Les continus
continuumspinor systemcommit algebra
5Les complétions
completionorientation
4Les doubles vies
lifedouble lifedictionarytype law
3Ce qui est su
bridgestatusrefuteddescriptionkernelGalois gap
Negative spaceabsenceforced gapwindowimprintreduction
2Les sutures
seamseam groupoidrigid objectcoherenceseam systemseam monodromygaugepowerquotient classtwisting elementseam over an automorphismGalois category
1L’incarnation
objectstabilizer classmarkingincarnationalignmentnew object
0Le fonds classique

G-sets and G-maps · stabilizers and normalizers · orbitals · permutation isomorphism · Gassmann equivalence · the table of marks

Plate 3.5Floor three through kernels: a built bridge is a description that forgets nothing, an absence an empty fibre, a carrier imprint is induced from a kernel, and monodromy is what remains of the loops once the kernel of the holonomy is divided out.
Definition(Description, kernel)

The kernel of a description d ⁣:X→Yd\colon X\to Y at a point x0x_0 is Kd(x0)={γ∈Γ: d(γx0)=d(x0)}=Γd(x0)K_d(x_0)=\{\gamma\in\Gamma:\ d(\gamma x_0)=d(x_0)\}=\Gamma_{d(x_0)}, the stabilizer of the image of x0x_0; what dd forgets at x0x_0 is the fibre of dd through it.

Proposition(The classical kernels)

(a) If φ ⁣:Γ→G\varphi\colon\Gamma\to G is a surjective homomorphism, regarded as a description of the regular Γ\Gamma-set Γ\Gamma by the Γ\Gamma-set GG, its kernel at 1 is ker⁡φ\ker\varphi. (b) For a point yy of a Γ\Gamma-set, the orbit description γ↦γy\gamma\mapsto\gamma y has kernel Γy\Gamma_y at 1; so the stabilizer principle says that an object is the regular set with the kernel of its orbit description divided out. (c) If d ⁣:X→Yd\colon X\to Y is a description between transitive Γ\Gamma-sets with Γx0=H\Gamma_{x_0}=H and Γd(x0)=L\Gamma_{d(x_0)}=L, then H≤LH\le L, the kernel at x0x_0 is LL, and what dd forgets at x0x_0 is a copy of L/HL/H.

These are classical, and no novelty is claimed for them. What the definition adds is a single word for three situations that the following results treat alike.

Proof

(a) φ(γ)=φ(1)\varphi(\gamma)=\varphi(1) exactly when γ∈ker⁡φ\gamma\in\ker\varphi. (b) γy=y\gamma y=y exactly when γ∈Γy\gamma\in\Gamma_y. (c) γx0=x0\gamma x_0=x_0 implies d(γx0)=d(x0)d(\gamma x_0)=d(x_0), and the fibre is Lx0≅L/HLx_0\cong L/H.

Proposition(A kernel acts trivially or freely)

Let φ ⁣:Γ→G\varphi\colon\Gamma\to G be a surjective homomorphism of finite groups with kernel NN. A transitive Γ\Gamma-set Γ/H^\Gamma/\hat H comes from a GG-set through φ\varphi if and only if NN acts on it trivially, if and only if N≤H^N\le\hat H. If NN is central of prime order, then NN acts on every transitive Γ\Gamma-set either trivially or without fixed points.

For the double cover SL⁡(2,7)→PSL⁡(2,7)\SL(2,7)\to\PSL(2,7) the kernel is {±I}\{\pm I\}, and the objects it cannot see are the four new objects, those on which the kernel acts without fixed points.

Proof

NN is normal, so it fixes the coset γH^\gamma\hat H exactly when N≤γH^γ−1N\le\gamma\hat H\gamma^{-1}, that is, when N≤H^N\le\hat H, and then it fixes every coset. If NN is central, nn fixes γH^\gamma\hat H exactly when n∈H^n\in\hat H, whatever γ\gamma; if ∣N∣|N| is prime, N∩H^N\cap\hat H is NN or 1.

Theorem(The kernel of reduction fixes the Minkowski form) computed

Let ω\omega be a primitive cube root of unity, O=Z[ω]\mathcal O=\Z[\omega] and p=(3+ω)\mathfrak p=(3+\omega), a prime of norm 7. The reduction PSL⁡(2,O)→PSL⁡(2,7)\PSL(2,\mathcal O)\to\PSL(2,7) is a description with kernel Γ(p)\Gamma(\mathfrak p). Let PSL⁡(2,C)\PSL(2,\C) act on the Hermitian 2×22\times2 matrices by X↦gXg∗X\mapsto gXg^*, preserving det⁡X=t2−x2−y2−z2\det X=t^2-x^2-y^2-z^2, and put p=3+ωp=3+\omega,

t1=(1p01),t2=(1pω01),t3=(10p1).t_1=\begin{pmatrix}1&p\\0&1\end{pmatrix},\qquad t_2=\begin{pmatrix}1&p\omega\\0&1\end{pmatrix},\qquad t_3=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\p&1\end{pmatrix}.

(a) The images of t1t_1, t2t_2, t3t_3 lie in Γ(p)\Gamma(\mathfrak p). (b) The quadratic forms invariant under t1t_1 and t2t_2 are spanned by det⁡\det and the square of the lower diagonal entry. (c) The quadratic forms invariant under t1t_1, t2t_2 and t3t_3 are the multiples of det⁡\det. Hence the quadratic forms invariant under Γ(p)\Gamma(\mathfrak p) are the multiples of the Minkowski form.

Proof

(a) Each tit_i has determinant 1, entries in O\mathcal O and off-diagonal entries in p\mathfrak p. (b), (c) By machine: in a rational basis the three actions are rational 4×44\times4 matrices, and the invariant symmetric matrices solve linear equations. The form det⁡\det is invariant under all of SL⁡(2,C)\SL(2,\C).

The conceptual reason is Borel’s density theorem: Γ(p)\Gamma(\mathfrak p) is a lattice in PSL⁡(2,C)\PSL(2,\C), hence Zariski dense, so it has the same polynomial invariants as PSL⁡(2,C)≅SO⁡+(1,3)\PSL(2,\C)\cong\SO^+(1,3). The computation makes the statement independent of that theorem, and no novelty is claimed for it.

Proposition(The algebra su(3)x\mathfrak{su}(3)_x as a kernel) computed

For each imaginary unit exe_x of the octonion table, the description of the derivation algebra g2\mathfrak g_2 by its effect on exe_x, D↦D(ex)D\mapsto D(e_x), maps g2\mathfrak g_2 onto the 6-dimensional orthogonal complement of span(1,ex)\mathrm{span}(1,e_x). Its kernel is the algebra su(3)x\mathfrak{su}(3)_x, of dimension 8, which commutes with left multiplication by exe_x.

Remark(Floor three through kernels)

The concepts that record what is known about seams can all be stated with descriptions. A built bridge is a description that forgets nothing. An absence is an empty fibre: the orbit types of a finite GG-set are read from its marks by inverting the table of marks, so a forced gap is an empty fibre of the orbit-type description, and the window of an absence is the image of its invariant. A carrier imprint is induced from what an orbit description forgets. And monodromy is what remains of the loops once the kernel of the holonomy is divided out. Each statement reformulates classical facts, and no novelty is claimed.

Built from
description
The volume’s word
kernel