Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(2022.04.28)
(2022.04.28)
(2022.04.28)
Philsang Yoo
Colloquium
April 28, 2022
1/18
Plan of the Talk
2/18
Fermat’s Last Theorem
3/18
Fermat’s Last Theorem
One may think that the equation is so random and not of any significant
importance for mathematics. However, it turns out to be relevant to
seemingly different subjects of independent interest; in fact, the theorem
was first proved by studying fundamental objects such as elliptic curves
and modular forms.
3/18
Elliptic Curves
An elliptic curve E over Q is defined by an equation
y 2 + c1 xy + c3 y = x 3 + c2 x 2 + c4 x + c6 with ci ∈ Q.
4/18
Elliptic Curves
An elliptic curve E over Q is defined by an equation
y 2 + c1 xy + c3 y = x 3 + c2 x 2 + c4 x + c6 with ci ∈ Q.
4/18
Elliptic Curves
An elliptic curve E over Q is defined by an equation
y 2 + c1 xy + c3 y = x 3 + c2 x 2 + c4 x + c6 with ci ∈ Q.
4/18
Elliptic Curves
An elliptic curve E over Q is defined by an equation
y 2 + c1 xy + c3 y = x 3 + c2 x 2 + c4 x + c6 with ci ∈ Q.
p 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 ···
Solp 4 4 4 9 - 9 19 19 24 29 24 ···
ap (E) −2 −1 1 −2 - 4 −2 0 −1 0 7 ···
The elliptic curve E has a bad reduction at 11.
4/18
Modular Forms
5/18
Modular Forms
5/18
Modular Forms
5/18
Modular Forms
5/18
Modular Forms
where bn (f )’s are all related by the SL2 (Z) symmetry. Note that a
random sequence {bn } wouldn’t give a modular form.
5/18
Modularity Theorem
6/18
Modularity Theorem
That modularity theorem implies FLT was known earlier by the work of
Ribet which is in turn based on the work of Frey and Serre.
6/18
Modularity Theorem
That modularity theorem implies FLT was known earlier by the work of
Ribet which is in turn based on the work of Frey and Serre.
Theorem (Ribet)
If a, b, and c are positive integers such that ap + b p = c p for p ≥ 5, then
the elliptic curve defined by y 2 = x(x − ap )(x + b p ) is not modular.
6/18
Modularity Theorem
That modularity theorem implies FLT was known earlier by the work of
Ribet which is in turn based on the work of Frey and Serre.
Theorem (Ribet)
If a, b, and c are positive integers such that ap + b p = c p for p ≥ 5, then
the elliptic curve defined by y 2 = x(x − ap )(x + b p ) is not modular.
6/18
An Explicit Example of Modularity Theorem
For the elliptic curve E defined by y 2 + y = x 3 − x 2
p 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 ···
Solp 4 4 4 9 - 9 19 19 24 29 24 ···
ap (E) −2 −1 1 −2 - 4 −2 0 −1 0 7 ···
one can find a modular form
%∞
fE (q) = q (1 − q n )2 (1 − q 11n )2 = q(1 − q)2 (1 − q 11 )2 (1 − q 2 )2 · · ·
n=1
= q − 2q 2 − q 3 + 2q 4 + q 5 + 2q 6 − 2q 7 − 2q 9 − 2q 10 + q 11
−2q 12 + 4q 13 + 4q 14 − q 15 − 4q 16 − 2q 17 + 4q 18 + 2q 20 + 2q 21
−2q 22 − q 23 + 4q 25 − 8q 26 + 5q 27 − 4q 28 + 2q 30 + 7q 31 + · · ·
That is, one has ap (E) = bp (fE ) for all primes except for p = 11. This is
not at all possible for a random sequence {ap }; we crucially needed deep
and surprising relations between elliptic curves and modular forms.
7/18
The Main Diagram of the Langlands Program
[Langlands 1967] proposed a generalization of this picture:
Algebraic Geometry
Motives❈
① ❈❈
①①① ❈❈
① ❈❈
①①① ! ❈❈
① L-functions ❈❈
①①① ❧❧" # $$$ ❈❈
① ❧ $
①① ❧❧❧❧ $$$ ❈❈
①
①
① ❧❧❧❧ ❧ $$$$ ❈❈❈
①① ❧❧❧ $$$$ ❈❈❈
$
Harmonic Analysis
Number Theory
Representation Theory
Galois Rep’n
Automorphic Rep’n
8/18
The Main Diagram of the Langlands Program
[Langlands 1967] proposed a generalization of this picture:
Algebraic Geometry
Motives❈
① ❈❈
①①① ❈❈
① ❈❈
①①① ! ❈❈
① L-functions ❈❈
①①① ❧❧" # $$$ ❈❈
① ❧ $
①① ❧❧❧❧ $$$ ❈❈
①
①
① ❧❧❧❧ ❧ $$$$ ❈❈❈
①① ❧❧❧ $$$$ ❈❈❈
$
Harmonic Analysis
Number Theory
Representation Theory
Galois Rep’n
Automorphic Rep’n
Langlands
{automorphic representations of G } % $ {Gal(F /F ) → Ǧ }
& &
"! modularity
"!
{modular forms} % $ {elliptic curves}
with a number field F , reductive group G and its dual group Ǧ ; the
example is when F = Q and G = Ǧ = GLn with n = 2. 8/18
Three Step Variants
1 [Weil’s Rosetta Stone; Analogy]
◮ number field F ↔ algebraic curve C over Fq ;
◮ (unramified) automorphic representations are Fun (BunG (C )(Fq ));
◮ (unramified) Galois representations are {π1ét (C , x) → Ǧ }/Ǧ ;
9/18
Three Step Variants
1 [Weil’s Rosetta Stone; Analogy]
◮ number field F ↔ algebraic curve C over Fq ;
◮ (unramified) automorphic representations are Fun (BunG (C )(Fq ));
◮ (unramified) Galois representations are {π1ét (C , x) → Ǧ }/Ǧ ;
◮ [Drinfeld for G = GL2 , L. Lafforgue for G = GLn ] for a Ǧ -local
system σ on C , we want a function fσ on BunG (C )(Fq ).
9/18
Three Step Variants
1 [Weil’s Rosetta Stone; Analogy]
◮ number field F ↔ algebraic curve C over Fq ;
◮ (unramified) automorphic representations are Fun (BunG (C )(Fq ));
◮ (unramified) Galois representations are {π1ét (C , x) → Ǧ }/Ǧ ;
◮ [Drinfeld for G = GL2 , L. Lafforgue for G = GLn ] for a Ǧ -local
system σ on C , we want a function fσ on BunG (C )(Fq ).
9/18
Three Step Variants
1 [Weil’s Rosetta Stone; Analogy]
◮ number field F ↔ algebraic curve C over Fq ;
◮ (unramified) automorphic representations are Fun (BunG (C )(Fq ));
◮ (unramified) Galois representations are {π1ét (C , x) → Ǧ }/Ǧ ;
◮ [Drinfeld for G = GL2 , L. Lafforgue for G = GLn ] for a Ǧ -local
system σ on C , we want a function fσ on BunG (C )(Fq ).
9/18
Three Step Variants
1 [Weil’s Rosetta Stone; Analogy]
◮ number field F ↔ algebraic curve C over Fq ;
◮ (unramified) automorphic representations are Fun (BunG (C )(Fq ));
◮ (unramified) Galois representations are {π1ét (C , x) → Ǧ }/Ǧ ;
◮ [Drinfeld for G = GL2 , L. Lafforgue for G = GLn ] for a Ǧ -local
system σ on C , we want a function fσ on BunG (C )(Fq ).
10/18
Categorical Formulation
10/18
Categorical Formulation
D-mod(BunG (C )) ≃ QCoh(FlatǦ (C ))
10/18
Categorical Formulation
D-mod(BunG (C )) ≃ QCoh(FlatǦ (C ))
Remark
• category of flat bundles on space of vector bundles vs
category of vector bundles on space of flat bundles
10/18
Categorical Formulation
D-mod(BunG (C )) ≃ QCoh(FlatǦ (C ))
Remark
• category of flat bundles on space of vector bundles vs
category of vector bundles on space of flat bundles
• The conjecture is known to be wrong as soon as G is non-abelian.
10/18
Why Geometric Langlands?
11/18
Why Geometric Langlands?
11/18
Why Geometric Langlands?
11/18
Why Geometric Langlands?
11/18
Why Geometric Langlands?
11/18
Enumerative Geometry
The aim of the subject is to count the number of solutions satisfying a
geometric condition. The simplest is
Q. How many straight lines are there passing two given points
on a plane?
A. 1
12/18
Enumerative Geometry
The aim of the subject is to count the number of solutions satisfying a
geometric condition. The simplest is
Q. How many straight lines are there passing two given points
on a plane?
A. 1
One can make all sorts of variation. Of historical importance is
Q. How many rational curves of degree d are there on a generic
quintic threefold?
where
• a (generic) quintic threefold is
X = {[x0 , · · · , x4 ] ∈ P4 | F (x0 , · · · , x4 ) = 0} for a (generic) degree 5
homogeneous polynomial F ;
• a rational curve of degree d in P4 is [α0 , · · · , α4 ] where αi is of
degree d in coordinates [u, v ] of P1 , that is, of the form
12/18
Rational Curves of Degree d on a Quintic Threefold
Finding a rational curve on X ⊂ P4 means imposing the condition
F (α0 (u, v ), · · · , α4 (u, v )) = 0; we would like to find {(ai,j )0≤i≤4, 0≤j≤d }
which solves the equation. As it is a polynomial equation of degree 5d in
u and v , it is of the form
13/18
Rational Curves of Degree d on a Quintic Threefold
Finding a rational curve on X ⊂ P4 means imposing the condition
F (α0 (u, v ), · · · , α4 (u, v )) = 0; we would like to find {(ai,j )0≤i≤4, 0≤j≤d }
which solves the equation. As it is a polynomial equation of degree 5d in
u and v , it is of the form
13/18
Rational Curves of Degree d on a Quintic Threefold
Finding a rational curve on X ⊂ P4 means imposing the condition
F (α0 (u, v ), · · · , α4 (u, v )) = 0; we would like to find {(ai,j )0≤i≤4, 0≤j≤d }
which solves the equation. As it is a polynomial equation of degree 5d in
u and v , it is of the form
13/18
Rational Curves of Degree d on a Quintic Threefold
Finding a rational curve on X ⊂ P4 means imposing the condition
F (α0 (u, v ), · · · , α4 (u, v )) = 0; we would like to find {(ai,j )0≤i≤4, 0≤j≤d }
which solves the equation. As it is a polynomial equation of degree 5d in
u and v , it is of the form
13/18
Rational Curves of Degree d on a Quintic Threefold
Finding a rational curve on X ⊂ P4 means imposing the condition
F (α0 (u, v ), · · · , α4 (u, v )) = 0; we would like to find {(ai,j )0≤i≤4, 0≤j≤d }
which solves the equation. As it is a polynomial equation of degree 5d in
u and v , it is of the form
14/18
Mirror Symmetry
Physicists had a totally different way of looking at the counting problem:
1 Curve counting problem is natural “invariants” of a 2-dimensional
physical theory, say labelled by (X , A).
14/18
Mirror Symmetry
Physicists had a totally different way of looking at the counting problem:
1 Curve counting problem is natural “invariants” of a 2-dimensional
physical theory, say labelled by (X , A).
2 A physical theory (X , A) is dual to another theory (X̌ , B); meaning
that they have different descriptions but in terms of invariants they
are indistinguishable.
14/18
Mirror Symmetry
Physicists had a totally different way of looking at the counting problem:
1 Curve counting problem is natural “invariants” of a 2-dimensional
physical theory, say labelled by (X , A).
2 A physical theory (X , A) is dual to another theory (X̌ , B); meaning
that they have different descriptions but in terms of invariants they
are indistinguishable.
3 Natural “invariants” of (X̌ , B) are easier to compute.
14/18
Mirror Symmetry
Physicists had a totally different way of looking at the counting problem:
1 Curve counting problem is natural “invariants” of a 2-dimensional
physical theory, say labelled by (X , A).
2 A physical theory (X , A) is dual to another theory (X̌ , B); meaning
that they have different descriptions but in terms of invariants they
are indistinguishable.
3 Natural “invariants” of (X̌ , B) are easier to compute.
4 As the invariants should be the same, from the easier computation,
we make the conjectural answer for the curve counting problem!
This is called Mirror Symmetry.
14/18
Mirror Symmetry
Physicists had a totally different way of looking at the counting problem:
1 Curve counting problem is natural “invariants” of a 2-dimensional
physical theory, say labelled by (X , A).
2 A physical theory (X , A) is dual to another theory (X̌ , B); meaning
that they have different descriptions but in terms of invariants they
are indistinguishable.
3 Natural “invariants” of (X̌ , B) are easier to compute.
4 As the invariants should be the same, from the easier computation,
we make the conjectural answer for the curve counting problem!
This is called Mirror Symmetry.
Once a physics context is found for the problem, it not only enriched the
initial problem, but also completely reshaped algebraic geometry and
symplectic geometry ever since.
There is an even better invariant in terms of a category of “branes” or
“boundary conditions”:
Conjecture (Homological Mirror Symmetry, Kontsevich 1994)
There is an equivalence of categories Fuk(X ) ≃ Coh(X̌ ).
14/18
Kapustin–Witten “Geometric Langlands is S-duality!”
Recall the geometric Langlands correspondence
D-mod(BunG (C )) ≃ QCoh(FlatǦ (C )
15/18
Kapustin–Witten “Geometric Langlands is S-duality!”
Recall the geometric Langlands correspondence
D-mod(BunG (C )) ≃ QCoh(FlatǦ (C )
Kapustin and Witten argued at the physical level of rigor that by thinking
of a certain duality, called S-duality, one can obtain the geometric
Langlands correspondence. In other words, even without knowing
anything about number theory or various technicalities, one could have
found the statement! It sounds mind-blowing.
15/18
Kapustin–Witten “Geometric Langlands is S-duality!”
Recall the geometric Langlands correspondence
D-mod(BunG (C )) ≃ QCoh(FlatǦ (C )
Kapustin and Witten argued at the physical level of rigor that by thinking
of a certain duality, called S-duality, one can obtain the geometric
Langlands correspondence. In other words, even without knowing
anything about number theory or various technicalities, one could have
found the statement! It sounds mind-blowing.
There is a 4d theory (G , Ψ) for G and Ψ ∈ CP1 and there is a duality
(G , 0) ↔ (Ǧ , ∞).
15/18
Kapustin–Witten “Geometric Langlands is S-duality!”
Recall the geometric Langlands correspondence
D-mod(BunG (C )) ≃ QCoh(FlatǦ (C )
Kapustin and Witten argued at the physical level of rigor that by thinking
of a certain duality, called S-duality, one can obtain the geometric
Langlands correspondence. In other words, even without knowing
anything about number theory or various technicalities, one could have
found the statement! It sounds mind-blowing.
There is a 4d theory (G , Ψ) for G and Ψ ∈ CP1 and there is a duality
(G , 0) ↔ (Ǧ , ∞). Upon compactification on C , where for M = Σ × C we
declare only Σ to be a new spacetime, it becomes
(T ∗ BunG (C ), A) ≃ (LocǦ (C ), B):
15/18
Kapustin–Witten “Geometric Langlands is S-duality!”
Recall the geometric Langlands correspondence
D-mod(BunG (C )) ≃ QCoh(FlatǦ (C )
Kapustin and Witten argued at the physical level of rigor that by thinking
of a certain duality, called S-duality, one can obtain the geometric
Langlands correspondence. In other words, even without knowing
anything about number theory or various technicalities, one could have
found the statement! It sounds mind-blowing.
There is a 4d theory (G , Ψ) for G and Ψ ∈ CP1 and there is a duality
(G , 0) ↔ (Ǧ , ∞). Upon compactification on C , where for M = Σ × C we
declare only Σ to be a new spacetime, it becomes
(T ∗ BunG (C ), A) ≃ (LocǦ (C ), B):
D-mod(BunG (C )) QCoh(LocǦ (C ))
15/18
Motivations, Quotes, Result
• Mathematical understanding of Kapustin–Witten’s work
16/18
Motivations, Quotes, Result
• Mathematical understanding of Kapustin–Witten’s work
Here is an interesting quote from Witten’s interview on the occasion
of his 2014 Kyoto Prize reception:
I felt like I discovered the meaning of life and couldn’t explain it.
16/18
Motivations, Quotes, Result
• Mathematical understanding of Kapustin–Witten’s work
Here is an interesting quote from Witten’s interview on the occasion
of his 2014 Kyoto Prize reception:
I felt like I discovered the meaning of life and couldn’t explain it.
I wanted to explain the meaning of life.
16/18
Motivations, Quotes, Result
• Mathematical understanding of Kapustin–Witten’s work
Here is an interesting quote from Witten’s interview on the occasion
of his 2014 Kyoto Prize reception:
I felt like I discovered the meaning of life and couldn’t explain it.
I wanted to explain the meaning of life.
• Capturing algebraic structures
16/18
Motivations, Quotes, Result
• Mathematical understanding of Kapustin–Witten’s work
Here is an interesting quote from Witten’s interview on the occasion
of his 2014 Kyoto Prize reception:
I felt like I discovered the meaning of life and couldn’t explain it.
I wanted to explain the meaning of life.
• Capturing algebraic structures
Experts were not too excited because the geometric Langlands
theory is for an algebraic curve or a Riemann surface C while
Kapustin–Witten’s proposal is for a topological surface.
16/18
Motivations, Quotes, Result
• Mathematical understanding of Kapustin–Witten’s work
Here is an interesting quote from Witten’s interview on the occasion
of his 2014 Kyoto Prize reception:
I felt like I discovered the meaning of life and couldn’t explain it.
I wanted to explain the meaning of life.
• Capturing algebraic structures
Experts were not too excited because the geometric Langlands
theory is for an algebraic curve or a Riemann surface C while
Kapustin–Witten’s proposal is for a topological surface. Here is a
quote from Drinfeld’s email on this point:
... this gave me an excuse not to study their work (and probably
I am not alone) ... Due to your work, I don’t have this excuse
anymore, so I should try to eventually understand what you are
doing ...
16/18
Motivations, Quotes, Result
• Mathematical understanding of Kapustin–Witten’s work
Here is an interesting quote from Witten’s interview on the occasion
of his 2014 Kyoto Prize reception:
I felt like I discovered the meaning of life and couldn’t explain it.
I wanted to explain the meaning of life.
• Capturing algebraic structures
Experts were not too excited because the geometric Langlands
theory is for an algebraic curve or a Riemann surface C while
Kapustin–Witten’s proposal is for a topological surface. Here is a
quote from Drinfeld’s email on this point:
... this gave me an excuse not to study their work (and probably
I am not alone) ... Due to your work, I don’t have this excuse
anymore, so I should try to eventually understand what you are
doing ...
17/18
What do we get?
• [Elliott–Y.] developed a physics framework to capture Geometric
Langlands Theory; found new conjectures and prove new theorems
in the subject; surprising and unexpected results from a traditional
perspective
• [Hilburn–Y.] found a new construction in geometric representation
theory considerably generalizing the seminal work of
[Braverman–Finkelberg–Nakajima]
17/18
What do we get?
• [Elliott–Y.] developed a physics framework to capture Geometric
Langlands Theory; found new conjectures and prove new theorems
in the subject; surprising and unexpected results from a traditional
perspective
• [Hilburn–Y.] found a new construction in geometric representation
theory considerably generalizing the seminal work of
[Braverman–Finkelberg–Nakajima]
• began new subject “(de Rham) 3d Homological Mirror Symmetry”
(cf. [Braverman–Finkelberg])
17/18
What do we get?
• [Elliott–Y.] developed a physics framework to capture Geometric
Langlands Theory; found new conjectures and prove new theorems
in the subject; surprising and unexpected results from a traditional
perspective
• [Hilburn–Y.] found a new construction in geometric representation
theory considerably generalizing the seminal work of
[Braverman–Finkelberg–Nakajima]
• began new subject “(de Rham) 3d Homological Mirror Symmetry”
(cf. [Braverman–Finkelberg])
• united symplectic representation theory
[Braden–Licata–Proudfoot–Webster, Bezrukavnikov, Losev,
Okounkov] and geometric Langlands theory
17/18
What do we get?
• [Elliott–Y.] developed a physics framework to capture Geometric
Langlands Theory; found new conjectures and prove new theorems
in the subject; surprising and unexpected results from a traditional
perspective
• [Hilburn–Y.] found a new construction in geometric representation
theory considerably generalizing the seminal work of
[Braverman–Finkelberg–Nakajima]
• began new subject “(de Rham) 3d Homological Mirror Symmetry”
(cf. [Braverman–Finkelberg])
• united symplectic representation theory
[Braden–Licata–Proudfoot–Webster, Bezrukavnikov, Losev,
Okounkov] and geometric Langlands theory
• [Ben-Zvi–Sakellaridis–Venkatesh] used the idea to find new structure
in the original Langlands program
17/18
What do we get?
• [Elliott–Y.] developed a physics framework to capture Geometric
Langlands Theory; found new conjectures and prove new theorems
in the subject; surprising and unexpected results from a traditional
perspective
• [Hilburn–Y.] found a new construction in geometric representation
theory considerably generalizing the seminal work of
[Braverman–Finkelberg–Nakajima]
• began new subject “(de Rham) 3d Homological Mirror Symmetry”
(cf. [Braverman–Finkelberg])
• united symplectic representation theory
[Braden–Licata–Proudfoot–Webster, Bezrukavnikov, Losev,
Okounkov] and geometric Langlands theory
• [Ben-Zvi–Sakellaridis–Venkatesh] used the idea to find new structure
in the original Langlands program
• [Raghavendran–Y.] developed a framework for string theory and
created a source to generate new examples of S-duality which in
turn will lead to interesting mathematics
17/18
Summary