VIGRE REU 2003 - LIE THEORY AND WIRELESS ANTENNAE NETWORKS
Hi, my name is Rupert Venzke and I'm working with the Rutgers University
VIGRE mathematics REU program this summer. I recently completed
an M.A. degree in mathematics at the
University of Pittsburgh and
I will begin study in the mathematics Ph.D program at the
California Institute of
Technology this September. Currently,
I am studying Lie Theory and Algebraic Geometry here with
Dr. Shawn Robinson,
Dr. Chris Woodward, and
Sasha Ovetsky.
Our research question is a mathematical reformulation of a practical
problem from electrical engineering. Certain communications systems
operate by sending out data in the form of a string of matrices, each
matrix chosen from some initially prescribed finite set called a
constellation. However, it is ultimately inevitable that static will
interfere with such data transmission from time to time. Thus, we would
like to design our matrix "alphabet" in such a way as to minimize the
probability of confusing such matrix signals.
In practice, the matrices in the constellation are special unitary
matices. A special unitary matrix is a matrix of determinant 1 whose
conjugate transpose is its inverse. Computing the probability of
confusing any two such square matrices A and B requires evaluation of an
integral that is approximated very closely by a fraction whose denominator
has a term of the form |det(A - B)|^(1/n), where n is the number of rows
of A, B. All other things being equal, we attempt to minimize the
probability by maximizing the value of value of |det(A - B)|^(1/n).
Given a constellation {A1, ..., Ak} of special unitary matrices, we define
the diversity product of the constellation to be the minimum of the values
|det(Ai - Aj)|^(1/n), i and j distinct. In the case of matrices contained
in SU(2), SU(2) can be visualized geometrically as a three manifold unit
sphere S^3 in C^2. In this case, matrices of the constellation are
identified with certain points in S^3 and the diversity product is a
direct measure of the minimum distance between any two such distinct
points of the constellation in S^3. So, given any integer k, the problem
of forming good constellations in SU(2) amounts to spacing k points on S^3
as far apart as possible. More generally, for the case of larger
matrices, the paradigm is that we are attempting to geometrically space
out some number of points on a manifold in a nice way.
We can explicitly compute some initial values of Z(SU(n), k) =
(1/2)*maximum over constellations of k elements in SU(n) of {minimum
|det(Ai - Aj)|^(1/n)}.
For example, Z(SU(1), k) is just half the length of a side of a regular
k-gon inscribed in a unit circle. Z(SU(2), 2) is 1, since the optimal way
of spacing out 2 points on S^3 is to place them at antipodes. Similarly,
Z(SU(2), 3) = sqrt(3)/2 since sqrt(3) is the edge length of an equilateral
triangle inscribed in a unit circle; Z(SU(2), 4) = sqrt(6)/3 since
2*sqrt(6)/3 is the edge length of a regular tetrahedron inscribed in a
unit sphere; and Z(SU(2), 5) = sqrt(10)/4, half the length of an edge of a
generalized regular 4-d tetrahedron inscribed in unit S^3.
To simplify the problem, initially only constellations with group
structure were considered. In addition to this structure, because we are
dealing with the reciprocal of terms |det(A - B)| we would like the group
to be designed in such a way that |det(A - B)| is always non-zero.
Thinking of the matrices as operators on an n dimensional complex space,
this condition is really equivalent to requiring that the operators do not
fix any vector of C^n. Such arrangements are called fixed point free
groups and there is a general result classifying fixed point free group
into 6 nice infinite families.
Of these 6 families, representations from one family in particular,
referred to as the J_m,r family, seemed to do surprisingly well. These
representations are built as certain products of representations of
SL2(F5), a constellation that does well in SU(2). In fact, we found that
the group SL2(F5), known as the binary icosahedral group, can be
identified with the collection of vertices of a regular 4-d polyhedron
called the 600-cell. The 600-cell consists of 600 3-d tetrahedrons glued
together along faces in 4-d in a highly symmetric fashion. When viewed
from this perspective, we see that representations of SL2(F5) actually
give rise to the optimal value of Z(SU(2), 120).
Next, by considering centers of tetrahedral faces of the 600-cell, we get
a dual polyhedron known as the 120-cell. This figure consists of 120
dodecahedrons pieced together in a nice symmetric way. Because of the
symmetries involved, one would expect the 120-cell to give rise to a whole
new class of good constellations. In fact, what makes a
constellation good, in addition to low diversity, is whether it
has a large number of nodes in contrast with the dimension of
the space. Currently, I am finishing a program to compute such
representations and their corresponding diversities.
We would now like to produce results for non-group constellations. The
case of constellations in SU(2) has been essentially solved. Our goal
is to now use a technique from algebraic geometry to produce good
constellations for SU(3). We work with Bott-Samelson Varieties. A
variety is a zero-set of some multi-variable polynomial. In this sense, a
variety is like a surface, but much more general than a manifold. To form
Bott-Samelson varieties associated to SU(n), we first identify each
transposition of the symmetric group on n letters with a particular
subgroup of SU(n) isomorphic to SU(2) containing the diagonal special
unitary group T. Then, a Bott-Samelson variety is a product of k such
subgroups, modulo a specific action by T^k. A corresponding Bott-Samelson
map here is the product map from a Bott-Samelson variety to SU(n)/T.
Choosing the subgroups in a way consistent with the shortest decomposition
into transpositions of the longest Weyl group element leads to a nice
Bott-Samelson map. Specifically, the Bruhat decomposition of the image
forms a simplicial complex in which one element of the decomposition is a
dense open subset of the image precisely where the Bott-Samelson map is
1-1. This gives us a method for identifying representations in SU(3) with
collections of representations of SU(2).
So, we form new constellations in SU(n) from previous ones in SU(2) via a
nice product. However, because of the construction, our new
constellations will have zero diversity. However, in spite of the fact
that our constellations have zero diversity, there is still a nice
inherent symmetry. Our job now is to delete constellations in some
satisfactory manner so as to preserve the symmetry while avoiding a
degenerate case in which zero diversity is got. Using the construction
outlined above,
Here are a few references
related to the project.
Last year, I worked on an intriguing REU project in Representation Theory
with Shawn Robinson. If you're interested, follow this mysterious link.