While this is a historic fact, and, Jacques Tits cannot be given enough credit for bringing a touch of surrealism into mathematics, but this is not the main drive for people getting into F_un, today.

There is a much deeper and older motivation behind most papers published recently on . Few of the authors will be willing to let you in on the secret, though, because if they did, it would sound much too presumptuous…

So, let’s have it out into the open : F_un mathematics’ goal is no less than proving the Riemann Hypothesis.

And even then, authors hide behind a smoke screen. The ‘official’ explanation being “we would like to copy Weil’s proof of the Riemann hypothesis in the case of function fields of curves over finite fields, by considering spec(Z) as a ‘curve’ over an algebra ‘dessous’ Z namely “. Alas, at this moment, none of the geometric approaches over the field with one element can make this stick.

Believe me for once, the main Jugendtraum of most authors is to get a grip on cyclotomy over . It is no accident that Connes makes a dramatic pauze in his YouTubeVideo to let the viewer see this equation on the backboard

But, what is the basis of all this childlike enthusiasm? A somewhat concealed clue is given in the introduction of the Kapranov-Smirnov paper. They write :

“In [?] the affine line over was considered; it consists formally of 0 and all the roots of unity. Put slightly differently, this leads to the consideration of “algebraic extensions” of . By analogy with genuine finite fields we would like to think that there is exactly one such extension of any given degree n, denote it by .

Of course, does not exist in a rigorous sense, but we can think if a scheme contains n-th roots of unity, then it is defined over , so that there is a morphism

The point of view that adjoining roots of unity is analogous to the extension of the base field goes back, at least to Weil (Lettre a Artin, Ouvres, vol 1) and Iwasawa…“

Okay, so rush down to your library, pick out the first of three volumes of Andre Weil’s collected works, look up his letter to Emil Artin written on July 10th 1942 (19 printed pages!), and head for the final section. Weil writes :

“Our proof of the Riemann hypothesis (in the function field case, red.) depended upon the extension of the function-fields by roots of unity, i.e. by constants; the way in which the Galois group of such extensions operates on the classes of divisors in the original field and its extensions gives a linear operator, the characteristic roots (i.e. the eigenvalues) of which are the roots of the zeta-function.

On a number field, the nearest we can get to this is by adjunction of -th roots of unity, being fixed; the Galois group of this infinite extension is cyclic, and defines a linear operator on the projective limit of the (absolute) class groups of those successive finite extensions; this should have something to do with the roots of the zeta-function of the field. However, our extensions are ramified (but only at a finite number of places, viz. the prime divisors of ). Thus a preliminary study of similar problems in function-fields might enable one to guess what will happen in number-fields.”

A few years later, in 1947, he makes this a bit more explicit in his marvelous essay “L’avenir des mathematiques” (The future of mathematics). Weil is still in shell-shock after the events of the second WW, and writes in beautiful archaic French sentences lasting forever :

“L’hypothèse de Riemann, après qu’on eut perdu l’espoir de la démontrer par les méthodes de la théorie des fonctions, nous apparaît aujourd’hui sous un jour nouveau, qui la montre inséparable de la conjecture d’Artin sur les fonctions L, ces deux problèmes étant deux aspects d’une même question arithmético-algébrique, où l’étude simultanée de toutes les extensions cyclotomiques d’un corps de nombres donné jouera sans doute le rôle décisif.

L’arithmétique gaussienne gravitait autour de la loi de réciprocité quadratique; nous savons maintenant que celle-ci n’est qu’un premier example, ou pour mieux dire le paradigme, des lois dites “du corps de classe”, qui gouvernent les extensions abéliennes des corps de nobres algébriques; nous savons formuler ces lois de manière à leur donner l’aspect d’un ensemble cohérent; mais, si plaisante à l’Å“il que soit cette façade, nous ne savons si elle ne masque pas des symmétries plus cachées.

Les automorphismes induits sur les groupes de classes par les automorphismes du corps, les propriétés des restes de normes dans les cas non cycliques, le passage à la limite (inductive ou projective) quand on remplace le corps de base par des extensions, par example cyclotomiques, de degré indéfiniment croissant, sont autant de questions sur lesquelles notre ignorance est à peu près complète, et dont l’étude contient peut-être la clef de l’hypothese de Riemann; étroitement liée à celles-ci est l’étude du conducteur d’Artin, et en particulier, dans le cas local, la recherche de la représentation dont la trace s’exprime au moyen des caractères simples avec des coefficients égaux aux exposants de leurs conducteurs.

Ce sont là quelques-unes des directions qu’on peut et qu’on doit songer à suivre afin de pénétrer dans le mystère des extensions non abéliennes; il n’est pas impossible que nous touchions là à des principes d’une fécondité extraordinaire, et que le premier pas décisif une fois fait dans cette voie doive nous ouvrir l’accès à de vastes domaines dont nous soupçonnons à peine l’existence; car jusqu’ici, pour amples que soient nos généralisations des résultats de Gauss, on ne peut dire que nous les ayons vraiment dépassés.”

Nobody will deny the ancient Greek were pretty good at maths, but still they were extremely unsure about the status of zero as a number. They asked themselves, “How can nothing be something?”, and, paradoxes such as of Zeno’s depend in large part on that uncertain interpretation of zero. It lasted until the 9th century before Indian scholars were comfortable enough to treat 0 just as any other number.

Italian gamblers/equation-solvers of the early 16th century were baffled by the fact that the number of solutions to quartic equations could vary, seemingly arbitrary, from zero to four until Cardano invented ‘imaginary numbers’ and showed that there were invariably four solutions provided one allows these imaginary or ‘phantom’ numbers.

Similar paradigm shifts occurred in mathematics much more recently, for example the discovery of the quaternions by William Hamilton. This object had all the telltale signs of a field-extension of the complex numbers, apart from the fact that the multiplication of two of its numbers a.b did not necessarely give you the same result as multiplying the other way around b.a.

Hamilton was so shaken by this discovery (which he made while walking along the Royal canal in Dublin with his wife on october 16th 1843) that he carved the equations using his penknife into the side of the nearby Broom Bridge (which Hamilton called Brougham Bridge), for fear he would forget it. Today, no trace of the carving remains, though a stone plaque does commemorate the discovery. It reads :

Here as he walked by
on the 16th of October 1843
Sir William Rowan Hamilton
in a flash of genius discovered
the fundamental formula for
quaternion multiplication
[Unparseable or potentially dangerous latex formula. Error 6 ]
& cut it on a stone of this bridge

The fact that this seems to be the least visited tourist attraction in Dublin tells a lot about the standing of mathematics in society. Fortunately, some of us go to extreme lengths making a pilgrimage to Hamilton’s bridge…

In short, the discovery of mathematical objects such as 0, the square root of -1, quaternions or octonions, often allow us to make great progress in mathematics at the price of having to bend the existing rules slightly.

But, to suggest seriously that an unobserved object should exist when even the most basic arguments rule against its existence is a different matter entirely.

Probably, you have to be brought up in the surrealistic tradition of artists such as Renee Magritte, a guy who added below a drawing of a pipe a sentence saying “This is not a pipe” (Ceci n’est pas une pipe).

In short, you have to be Belgian…

Jacques Tits was a Belgian (today he is a citizen of a far less surrealistic country : France). He is the ‘man from Uccle’ (in Mark Ronan’s bestselling Symmetry and the Monster), the guy making finite size replicas of infinite Lie groups. But also the guy who didn’t want to stop there.

He managed to replace the field of complex numbers by a finite field , consisting of precisely a prime-power elements, but wondered what this group might become if were to go down to size , even though everyone knew that there couldn’t be a field having just one element as and these two numbers have to be in any fields DNA.

Tits convinced himself that this elusive field had to exists because his limit-groups had all the characteristics of a finite group co-existing with a Lie group, its companion the Weyl group. Moreover, he was dead sure that the finite geometry associated to his versions of Lie groups would also survive the limit process and give an entirely new combinatorial geometry, featuring objects called ‘buildings’ containing ‘appartments’ glued along ‘walls’ and more terms a real-estate agent might use, but surely not a mathematician…

At the time he was a researcher with the Belgian national science foundation and, having served that agency twenty years myself, I know he had to tread carefully not to infuriate the more traditional committee-members that have to decide on your grant-application every other year. So, when he put his thoughts in writing

he added a footnote saying : “ isn’t generally considered a field”. I’m certain he was doing a Magritte :

(as we call today his elusive field )

ceci n’est pas un corps