|Search user languages|
- Following a fortnight’s inactivity, pages are unwatched and threads here below are archived; please start a new thread below if you wish to resume.
You are welcome to email me, add a new comment (by using the + tab above, or ), or contribute to an existing discussion below.
If I don't reply for a while, I'm probably not logging in much — email me if you want to get in touch.
For reference: Guidelines on using talk pages.
Dynkin diagram folding
Hi Nils von Barth,
I noticed you worked on the article/section Dynkin_diagram#Folding. I added some chart examples of these folding, although I can't say I did the "directed graph" aspect correctly. Also I used Coxeter notation, line for 3, labels above 3, rather than double/triple lines. I just added an arrow above the higher order lines. If you know better, please help. I'm surprised there's like a number of C~k versions by arrows >>, <<, and <>, based on foldings of different simply-laced higher graphs! Similarly F~4 can project from E~6 or E~7 with reversed arrows!? I have no confirmation what this means, but for the undirected Coxeter-Dynkin diagrams, it looks correct! Thanks for a look if you can help. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. On the directed graphs, Humphreys shows clearly directed arrows on a table on p96.  So, either there's something that demands a direct direction, or when it was written (1990), folding wasn't firmly defined, and he didn't recognize alternate forms?! What do you think? Tom Ruen (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
p.p.s. I see the main limitation, is the Hn Coxeter group families are excluded from the Dynkin graphs, so if the charts are correct and can stay, they should be replaced in multiline format, and Hn cases removed. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Tom – thanks for your fabulous diagrams!
- I’m not expert in this, so I did some reading – your diagrams look mostly correct, but you’re right, some changes would be in order, specifically:
- Dynkin-only (eliminate Hn)
- Affine: change the naming of the affine graphs – the different directions have different names
- Add 1 more affine graph, and separate out the two ones mapping to “G~2” – I think they go to different graphs.
- I elaborate below; the tables at Kac pp. 53–55 are our key reference!
- To rephrase, the question you have is
- “which way to direct the edges?”
- The issue is that, for the affine diagrams, you get different directions (and your reasoning seems correct to me), not all from the first series (see below).
- Thoughts follow (unindent for legibility):
- Firstly, there are several series of affine Dynkin diagrams; see affine Dynkin diagram, and tables on Kac pp. 53–55 (Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, Victor Kac) – I only just learned this.
- These diagrams need to be labeled with superscripts (1, 2, or 3), as in – the tildes correspond to the first series (the “extended” Dynkin diagrams), but there are some from the second series here in folding.
- Direction isn’t much of a problem for the regular diagrams, but the Hn are not directed, so what exactly these maps mean is a bit unclear.
- Further, there is a correct direction for the extended Dynkin diagrams; Humphreys is listing the first series:
- (for reference, C~n is >-...-<, F~4 is -->-, and G~2 is <-).
The changes we get are:
- By this reasoning, the 4 foldings A~2k–2 → C~k, D~k+2 → B~k+1, E~6 → F~4, and D~2k+1 → C~k correspond to maps in the second series – the arrows are wrong for the first series; you didn’t comment on the two directions for B…
- It’s also not clear to me which way the arrow should go on “G~2” in E~7 → G~2, because the vertices on both sides of the multiple side are branch points, but I think the arrow should point to the center (the other way from E~6 → G~2); this maps to the third series.
- The → H~k maps of (regular) diagrams don’t correspond to Lie algebras, which is a bit confusing or misleading in this context…
- Also, the I2(8) diagram is an extended Dynkin diagram ( – Kac page 55), so you may want to include it. (The other I2(p) are not affine Dynkin diagrams, though of course they are Coxeter ones.)
So, concretely, what I’d suggest is:
- Use Dynkin diagrams, for consistency with the rest of the article/section and to avoid confusion (discussion and diagrams of Coxeter folding would be interesting, but separate) – I think you’re suggesting this above in regards to the Hn.
- It’s fine if you want to draw the arrows above the edges (instead of on the edge), but it would be clearer if you use double and triple edges rather than numbers.
- Also, as you suggest, we should eliminate the Hn from the Dynkin article.
- Use Kac’s notation ( etc.), since some are from the second series.
- Add the (that’s a square mapping to a quadruple line).
- I think the “G~2” in E~7 → G~2 () should instead be but this is only a guess – it’s the only remaining diagram we don’t otherwise hit, and note that the branch point (valence 3 vertex) in E~7 maps to the center point in the “G~2”, while the branch point in E~6 maps to an outside point.
- I’m not completely sure how this works, but I think this is right.
I think this fixes it – all the diagrams are valid, and we get all of Kac’s diagrams. Hope these help, and thanks so much – ガンバテ！ (Japanese “bon courage”)
- —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm so glad you're a good careful thinker to can help sort this out. For me, its long past my sleep time. I'd be glad if you want to try your own graphics to replace mine, with corrected notations. Mine can still be helpful as "Coxeter foldings", even if also need some corrections possibly.
- On E~7--> G~2, I'm convinced it is G~2. Vertically we have a side-ways W zig-zag, which is really a fully folded A5, order 6 symmetry. And the 3 parallel order-3 angles on the right are just 3, so it's [6,3]!
Goodnight. I'm very happy if we can get some sense here! I have emailed some others for advice too.
- p.s. It seems like you could fold A7 into D~4 as a 3-4 zig-zag and merging the 3 nodes into one for a 1-4 branching. Does that make any sense? Can you fold a finite group and get an infinite one?! (Well at least that's similar to my relation of E~7 and E~6 in the G2 folding, seeing the left node column merged or not.) Tom Ruen (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- The "directed arrow" rule seems to mean to point to the side with less nodes. A perfect zig-zag folding is a folded simplex (An), and will have an odd number of nodes (in Weyl groups), so the arrow is clear. (Hk have 4 nodes, two on each side so no arrow!) The only other cases are like D4-->G2, 3:1, which really is 5 nodes of a 4-simplex foldest as 3:2, with the two nodes merged. So anyway, I think this is clear and my graphs are correct. If I have some time on Sunday evening, maybe I'll try making a chart of Dynkins style graphs (but I don't want to spend too much time on prettiness (like SVG) until its confirmed). Tom Ruen (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was annoyed at an incompleteness, so I took the time to update the W A5 --> G4 folding, and added A3 --> C2/B2 for good measure. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I made some Dynkin versions. I kept arrows above the edges, more clear on small scales. So they are ugly, but compact. For me tweaking pixels in MSPaint is less frustrating than SVG. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Tom – the newer versions (red vertical lines, Dynkin versions) are very nice!
I’ll leave graphic design choices up to you – I trust your MSPaint skills, and I well remember all the problems that SVG poses.
The other change is to fix the notation – several of the diagrams (the ones with the “wrong way arrows”) are not extended Dynkin diagrams, but rather other affine Dynkin diagrams. Using the notation on Kac p. 55, the maps should be changed as follows:
- A~2k–2 → C~k
- Firstly, the index on this is wrong – it should be (remember, extended adds one vertex above the index – this is right in the finite diagram).
- Secondly, the target is notated by (arrows are opposite of C~).
- D~k+2 → B~k+1
- This maps to – arrow is backwards for B~.
- E~6 → F~4
- This maps – arrow is backwards for F~4.
- D~2k+1 → C~k
- This maps to – arrows are >>, not the >< you find in C~.
Two other issues:
- It might also be clearer to replace the ~ by (1), for consistency with the (2)…
- Also, the bottom right picture in the affine ones isn’t right – you’re taking the quotient of a non-simply laced diagram, which you can’t do (or at least is more delicate) – notice that you’re taking a quotient of a diagram with doubled edges (C~) and the doubled edges disappear in the quotient. Maybe this makes sense, but I’d be very careful.
Thanks again for your continuous improvements!
- —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm seeing a bit more "Extended" means "~" format by adding one node to finite groups, and the superscripts (1)/(2) define wider directed-graph variations than the original extended definitions. I'm content to use the superscript notations, but FIRST, I think I need an enumeration of these forms before the folding section in the article, like Coxeter-Dynkin diagram summary tables I list all the groups by symbols. Secondly on indexing, extended or not, agreed there's some confusion, but I can't see exactly until things are properly defined. I just did one update, removed one of the lower-right graphs that didn't match in the folding. I have 2-3 extra busy work days this week, so unsure when I can do more. I'll try to more carely make an enumeration table of the groups and names. (Perhaps I should make some parallel Dynkin symbol codes elements like CD, so they can be more easily built up. Less combinations than CD, since no rings!) Tom Ruen (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I found Affine Dynkin diagrams. Good! This superscript syntax is defined at least! I wish I had more time, but at negative time now! Tom Ruen (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Cleaned up link formatting. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, actually listing the affine Dynkin diagrams first (before getting into folding!) makes a lot of sense. No rush – I’m busy myself, and it’s holidays. I won’t close this thread until we’ve finished this, so it shouldn’t slip through the cracks. I’ll see about writing a section on affine Dynkin diagrams (so there’s a good place for the diagrams to go, of course).
- —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nils. I created element symbols for Dynkins, and added summary tables by dimension, but I'm sure there's some arrow problems. I tried to follow what was in the book chart. I see the superscript (2) implies a 2-order folding of a higher node family, but the A/D extensions still don't make sense to me, like the folded ~A family should have arrows pointing in opposite directions. Dynkin_diagram#Affine_Dynkin_graphs If you can sort them out and correct, I'd be glad. At least the graphs are all enumerated I think, even if the labels (or arrows) are wrongly connected. I'll try to look more at the book on google and see if I can see anything more clearly. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tom – thanks for the fabulous tables!
Agreed, the naming/numbering and arrows for the higher families are really confusing to me too – I’ll see if I can figure out what’s going on.
- —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nils. I've been nervous about the arrow issues, and I found examples of reverse definitions:
-  Notes on Coxeter transformations and the McKay correspondence, By Rafael Stekolshchik, 2008: Folding examples - Bn arrow directs inwards, Cn, arrow directs outward.
-  Reflection groups and Coxeter groups, By James E. Humphreys, 1990 - B~n arrow directs outward
-  Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, Victor G. Kac, 1990 - Bn points outward
-  Page 7 - finite foldings with arrows and letter names
All but the first seem consistent, and the last defines the arrow directions in relation to foldings, so if I assume that is the correct standard, all my folding arrows are reversed, and B/C relations reversed!
p.s. Below is a table from the first book above (by Stekolshchik), page 36 (this page not on googlebooks), showing two naming systems, first is in relation to Quiver_(mathematics) usage. I added these also to the test-new chart above left. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Inflationism for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflationism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. LK (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Hōchōdō
Hello! Your submission of Hōchōdō at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Maile (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Hōchōdō
|On 16 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hōchōdō, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that hōchōdō (庖丁道?, the way of the cleaver) is a traditional Japanese culinary art form of filleting a fish or fowl without touching it with one's hands (demonstration pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hōchōdō. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
A barnstar for you!
|The Writer's Barnstar|
|After spotting Hōchōdō on the Main Page, I took a tour through some of your other article creations - there's some fascinating stuff in there. Thanks for your work improving the encyclopedia, and for broadening my education at the same time! Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)|