Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: field with one element

Bottom of Page

1 to 38 of 38

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2009

    created field with one element with two useful references

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2014

    added to field with one element some of the original references (Tits, Manin, Soulé) which were missing, with some brief words in the text.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2014)

    Where in the literature, if anywhere, might I find the statement or claim or proposal that Spec(ℤ)∪place ∞Spec(\mathbb{Z}) \cup place_{\infty} is ℙ 𝔽 1\mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{F}_1} ?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014

    I thought the whole basis of the original observation of Tits was that formulae for number of points in projective spaces over F qF_q, made sense with q=1q = 1. Projective nn-space is a set of size nn, vector spaces of dimension nn over F 1F_1 are pointed sets of size n+1n+1, etc. as in week 259.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2014)

    This however is not the statement that the function field analogy suggests, is it, it is not the statement that ℙ 𝔽 1=Spec(ℤ)∪place ∞\mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{F}_1} = Spec(\mathbb{Z}) \cup place_{\infty}

    At least some people go around claiming that 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1-geometry is what makes the function field analogy work (e.g. Peter Arndt in reply to your question on MO here, or Duff in an MO question here). I am getting the impression that however the bulk of the literature on 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 does not really relate to that. (?)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014

    Hmm, mind you here

    The space ℙ 1\mathbb{P}_1 has three points, c Xc_X , c Yc_Y , η\eta, two closed and one open. (p. 10)

    I guess that agrees with John’s

    The projective line over F 1F_1 has just two points (or more precisely, two closed points).

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2014)

    Thanks for providing these links. But so all of this is not (!) what the function field analogy suggests.

    Or am I missing something?

    Let’s step back, before discussing the projective line, let’s consider the affine line:

    In which approaches to 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 is ℤ=𝔽 1[x]\mathbb{Z} = \mathbb{F}_1[x] ?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2014)

    Hm, maybe nobody does. I thought I saw this somewhere, but now I don’t find it anymore.

    But what then do people say concerning interpreting the function field analogy in terms of geometry over 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1? Clearly zeta functions are discussed all over the place in this context, but what beyond that? Does anyone discuss any other entries of the analogy table in terms of 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014

    Kapranov and Smirnov opt for

    …we introduce the affine line over F 1F_1, to consist of 0 and the roots of unity of all orders. So as a set it is identified with the algebraic closure of F 1F_1. Also, the affine line should be regarded as the spectrum of the non-existing ring F 1[t]F_1[t].

    Soulé’s affine line over F 1F_1 is bottom of p. 4 here.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014

    Perhaps you saw the first footnote to these mathcamp notes.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2014)

    Thanks again, David!

    So neither Kapranov-Smirnov nor Soulé say anything resembling Z=F1[x], or am I missing something?

    But that footnote does!! That’s excellent. Now I am not feeling so alone anymore :-)

    But I am perplexed: the whole starting point of the function field analogy and apparently also the community’s subconcious expectation is that F1[x] should be like Z. But at the same time none of the dozens of proposals for F1 gives something like this? Is this possible?

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014

    It would be very nice if the affine line over 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 “is” Specℤ\operatorname{Spec} \mathbb{Z}… but that seems unlikely to me, because Specℤ\operatorname{Spec} \mathbb{Z} is somehow not very “homogeneous”. I also would not say that the function field analogy starts with 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1; if anything, it is 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 that starts with the function field analogy!

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014

    The function field analogy starts with saying that ZZ is like F q[x]F_q[x] for q→1q\to 1.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2014)

    Hm, actually Michael Rosen’s book on the analogy “Number theory in function fields” starts with saying on its pages 1 and 2 that ℤ\mathbb{Z} is like F q[x]F_q[x] for q=3. Er? Maybe it’s time for me to get another coffee.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2014

    Does what Connes writes on p. 3 of this help us a little with the conundrum of #14?

    |ℙ d(𝔽 1)|=3 d−1−12=|ℙ d(𝔽 3)|. |\mathbb{P}^d(\mathbb{F}_1)| = \frac{3^{d-1} - 1}{2} = |\mathbb{P}^d(\mathbb{F}_3)|.

    Some restriction of points to degree zero gets us to the d+1d + 1 expected.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 30th 2014
    • (edited Sep 30th 2014)

    I have added pointer to Durov’s text and in particular pointer to equation (0.4.24.2) there, where the definition of modules over 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 being modules over the maybe monad finally appears. (Also added the analogous pointer to maybe monad.)

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2018

    I added a reference

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJun 16th 2018

    Fixed a link

    diff, v34, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2018
    • (edited Sep 10th 2018)

    Which authors admit that algebraic K-theory over the field with one element is… stable cohomotopy?

    I see Guillot 06 “Adams operations in cohomotopy” says this

    Apparently also Deitmar 06, but now I don’t find this.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018
    • (edited Sep 11th 2018)

    You saw this MO question? Peter Arndt’s answer mentions Deitmar’s role.

    Riepe suggests Priddy “Transfer, symmetric groups, and stable homotopy theory” for an early appearance.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    am starting a section “Algebra over 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1” (here), to record some basics.

    What’s a canonical source to cite for the idea or fact that modules over 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 are pointed finite sets (to go here)?

    Sometimes this is apparently attributed to

    • Christophe Soulé, Les varietes sur le corps a un element Mosc. Math. J., 4(1):217-244, 312, 2004 (pdf)

    but I didn’t spot that exact statement in there. Wikipedia credits Noad Snyder’s secret seminar here (at the bottom). (?)

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    David, our messages overlapped! Thanks for the pointer to Deitmar’s article!

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    The latter from 1973 starts out with

    K-theory of the category of finite sets and permutations together with the composition law of disjoint union corresponds to stable cohomotopy theory.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018
    • (edited Sep 11th 2018)

    Hi David,

    so Priddy in his article, when he says “K-theory”, means K-theory of a permutative category, and the line you quote then refers to this result by Segal: K(FinSet)≃𝕊K(FinSet) \simeq \mathbb{S}.

    What I am trying to write out is how this is the first step in the “proof” that 𝕊≃K𝔽 1≔K(𝔽 1Mod)\mathbb{S} \simeq K \mathbb{F}_1 \coloneqq K(\mathbb{F}_1 Mod), where on the right I mean the K-theory of the permutative category of 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1-modules, in accord with this example.

    Therefore my question for a good source of the claim or definiton that 𝔽 1Mod=FinSet\mathbb{F}_1 Mod = FinSet (or maybe =FinSet */= FinSet^{\ast/}, but that doesn’t make a difference for the K-theory of a permutative category, since it only sees the isomorphisms).

    Now looking more closely at Noah Snyder’s old post (here) I get the impression that his argument is meant to be a review of Durov 07.

    Now in Durov 07 I see mentioning of this statement as a parenthetical inside remark 2.5.6. Does Durov’s article make this more explicit in the sections before?

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    John Baez told me about modules over F 1F_1 being pointed sets at least as far back as 2006. I’ll see if I can trace back.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    Thanks. I suppose the statement is folklore, but it would be nice to find some “canonical” reference that could be cited in publications.

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    TWF 187 perhaps but for some reason I see a blank at John’s page.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    According to John on Azimuth, yesterday:

    You may have noticed that all the pictures in my lectures are gone. That’s because they’re held on the U.C. Riverside math department server math.ucr.edu, and this server is down. It’s been down for several days since a power outage on campus. I’m trying to get people to restart it, but so far with no luck!

    This explains the TWF observation of David_R.

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    Gee, that sounds bad. Hopefully they have a backup…

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018
    • (edited Sep 11th 2018)

    added pointer also to

    • Jack Morava, Rekha Santhanam, Power operations and absolute geometry, 2012 (pdf)

    which sort of builds on

    and his interpretation of stable cohomotopy as algebraic K-theory over 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 (and which seems to be the only article citing it?!)

    diff, v39, current

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    Using cached pages, I see even I knew it in 2005. In 2002, (TWF184) John was speaking of the projective spaces over F 1F_1 as finite sets. But as you say in #26, it’s folklore.

    On my travels, I see that John Berman in his thesis (Chap. 4) – Categorified algebra and equivariant homotopy theory – is after

    a picture that unites noncommutative motivic homotopy theory (arising from the Eilenberg-Watts theorem) with global equivariant homotopy theory

    which pairs ’Algebraic K-theory’ with ’Equivariant sphere spectrum’.

    We anticipate that this analogy could be made rigorous by an understanding of noncommutative motives over the field with one element.

    • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    Thanks for the pointer to Berman (p. 92 I suppose?) I have added pointers here and here

    • CommentRowNumber33.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2018

    Yes p.92.

    • CommentRowNumber34.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2019

    added pointer to

    diff, v44, current

    • CommentRowNumber35.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 4th 2019
    • (edited Oct 4th 2019)

    So after the sentence

    The perspective that the K-theory K𝔽 1K \mathbb{F}_1 over 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 should be stable Cohomotopy has been highlighted in (Deitmar 06, p. 2, Guillot 06).

    I have added this sentence:

    Generalized to equivariant stable homotopy theory, the statement that equivariant K-theory K G𝔽 1 K_G \mathbb{F}_1 over 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 should be equivariant stable Cohomotopy is discussed in Chu-Lorscheid-Santhanam 10, 5.3.

    Am adding this now also to the respective points at stable Cohomotopy and equivariant stable Cohomotopy.

    diff, v44, current

    • CommentRowNumber36.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2020

    Changed Berman article link to the arXiv version.

    diff, v45, current

    • CommentRowNumber37.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2024

    added pointer to:

    Speculation on quantum field theory over 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 (via wonderful compactifications of configuration spaces of points)

    prodded by today’s

    • Seyed Khaki, Original 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1 in emergent spacetime [arXiv:2401.07822]

    diff, v47, current

    • CommentRowNumber38.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2024

    Added

    • Jonathan Beardsley, So Nakamura, Projective Geometries and Simple Pointed Matroids as 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1-modules [arXiv:2404.04730]

    and its claim, following Connes and Consani, that the right way to think about 𝔽 1\mathbb{F}_1-modules is as Segal Γ\Gamma-sets, i.e., pointed functors Fin *→Set *Fin_{\ast} \to Set_{\ast}. Also the remark that algebraic K-theory is still the sphere spectrum.

    diff, v48, current

1 to 38 of 38

  1.