230

There are certain things in mathematics that have caused me a pleasant surprise -- when some part of mathematics is brought to bear in a fundamental way on another, where the connection between the two is unexpected. The first example that comes to my mind is the proof by Furstenberg and Katznelson of Szemeredi's theorem on the existence of arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions in a set of integers which has positive upper Banach density, but using ergodic theory. Of course in the years since then, this idea has now become enshrined and may no longer be viewed as surprising, but it certainly was when it was first devised.

Another unexpected connection was when Kolmogorov used Shannon's notion of probabilistic entropy as an important invariant in dynamical systems.

So, what other surprising connections are there out there?

YCor
  • 60,149
  • It should be mentioned that the connection you refer to is due to Furstenberg (http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=498471). Later Furstenberg and Katznelson together used this connection to derive other combinatorial results, including a multidimensional extension of Szemeredi's theorem and a density version of the Hales-Jewett's theorem. – Joel Moreira Aug 23 '15 at 17:46
  • This question is off topic. Please consult the "don't ask" part of the help page, which instructs us all to "avoid asking subjective questions where every answer is equally valid, like 'What’s your favorite ______?'" https://mathoverflow.net/help/dont-ask – David White Jan 15 '24 at 02:54

89 Answers89

190

As well known as the connection is, I am constantly amazed by the power of analytical geometry (developed by Descartes and Fermat) to make connections between geometrical ideas and algebraic ideas. It seems remarkable to me that so much geometrical information (as for example in the case of the conic sections) can be represented so succinctly (via quadratic equations in two variables). The geometry suggests things to think about in algebra and the algebra suggests things to think about in geometry. It is just amazing!!

  • 50
    This is the observation that should have occurred to everyone first! (It didn't to me either.) It is so familiar we forget how amazing it is. – SixWingedSeraph Feb 08 '10 at 03:02
  • 26
    I totally agree. To put another exclamation point on this idea, Algebra and Geometry co-existed for around a thousand years before this observation was made mainstream by Descartes and Fermat. I wonder what other yet-unseen mathematics we'll weave, in a thousand years, into middle school education. – Hiro Lee Tanaka Sep 29 '13 at 22:34
163

Monstrous Moonshine.

I mean why should the Fourier series of the $j$-invariant have coefficients related to the dimensions of the representations of the largest sporadic simple group? And why should the proof of this fact drag in mathematics from String Theory?

Dan Piponi
  • 8,086
111

I'll recycle one I mentioned in a thread last week, connecting an elementary problem about polynomials to the classification of finite simple groups:

Definition: A polynomial $f(x) \in \mathbb{C}[x]$ is indecomposable if whenever $f(x) = g(h(x))$ for polynomials $g$, $h$, one of $g$ or $h$ is linear.

Theorem. Let $f, g$, be nonconstant indecomposable polynomials over $\mathbb C$. Suppose that $f(x)-g(y)$ factors in $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$. Then either $g(x) = f(ax+b)$ for some $a,b \in \mathbb{C}$, or $$\operatorname{deg} f = \operatorname{deg} g = 7, 11, 13, 15, 21, \text{ or } 31,$$ and each of these possibilities does occur.

The proof uses the classification of the finite simple groups [!!!] and is due to Fried ["Exposition on an arithmetic-group theoretic connection via Riemann's existence theorem", 1980, in the proceedings of the 1979 Santa Cruz conference on finite groups], following a the reduction of the problem to a group/Galois-theoretic statement by Cassels [1970]. [W. Feit, "Some consequences of the classification of finite simple groups," 1980.]

LSpice
  • 11,423
104

My favorite surprise, which is perhaps the record-holder for the longest time it took for the two ideas to be brought together, is the connection between regular n-gons and Fermat primes. The Greeks knew how to construct regular n-gons by ruler and compass for n=3,4,5,6. Fermat introduced numbers of the form $2^{2^m}+1$ around 1640 in the mistaken belief they were prime for all m. Then in 1796 Gauss discovered how to construct the regular 17-gon, and a few years later showed that the n in a constructible n-gon is the product of some power of 2 by distinct Fermat primes.

99

From an essay of Arnol'd:

Jacobi noted, as mathematics' most fascinating property, that in it one and the same function controls both the presentations of a whole number as a sum of four squares and the real movement of a pendulum.

(Source: On teaching mathematics, V. Arnol’d, 1997, trans. A. Goryunov.)

Qiaochu Yuan
  • 114,941
  • 20
    See also: "My Lunch with Arnol'd" which helps put this surprise in perspective by showing it through the eyes of an amateur mathematician... http://www.gomboc.eu/99.pdf – David White May 19 '11 at 20:08
  • 1
    Also related :), there's a very nice article (in french) by Alain Chenciner where he starts discussing the pendulum and ends up connecting to Riemann surfaces. Even if you know very little french the figures are enjoyable and suggestive. As a bonus, there's a short rant, on the state of physics in the math curricula in France which probably has some universal qualities. – Pablo Lessa Jul 05 '17 at 17:12
  • @PabloLessa sadly that link is broken! is there another place where one might be able to find them? – Samantha Y Nov 27 '18 at 22:11
  • 1
    @SamanthaY https://perso.imcce.fr/alain-chenciner/Pendule_a_Gazette.2001.pdf – Pablo Lessa Dec 27 '18 at 19:18
  • @PabloLessa: This seems an extremely nice article. Do you know any English translation of it? – Bumblebee Aug 31 '20 at 16:19
  • 2
    @Bumblebee Here's a very bad one: http://www.cmat.edu.uy/~lessa/terrible-translations/chenciner.txt – Pablo Lessa Sep 01 '20 at 22:17
96

Quillen's result in Elementary proofs of some results of cobordism theory using Steenrod operations that the ring of cobordism classes of (stably) complex manifolds is isomorphic to Lazard's ring (i.e. the universal ring classifying formal group laws). This seems so mysterious to me. Why should cobordism classes of complex manifolds have anything to do with the algebraic geometry of formal group laws? Nevertheless this has been one of the most important observations for modern homotopy theory. It is the driving force behind Chromatic Stable Homotopy which tries to build a dictionary between the algebraic geometry of FGLs and structures present in the stable homotopy category. It is shocking how successful this has been.

LSpice
  • 11,423
82

Here is one of my favorites. If you consider a singular node of an algebraic curve locally it looks like the curves $xy=0$ in $\mathbb{C}^2$, or $x^2+y^2=0$. This consists of two smooth arcs intersecting to each other transversally (reducible in particular).

Now, one step further, if we consider a cusp which is analytically equivalent to the origin in the curve $y^2+x^3=0$ in $\mathbb{C}^2$, it is locally irreducible. However, here comes the interesting point, if we intersect the singularity with a small ball $$[(x,y)\in \mathbb C^2:\ |x|^2+|y|^2=\epsilon]\cong S^3$$ what we've got is that such an intersection is $$(ae^{2i\theta},a^{3/2}e^{3i\theta})\subset S^1\times S^1\subset S^3$$ which is contained in a torus winding two times in one direction in the torus and three times in the other direction, in other words, we have an trefoil knot. alt text

Now in the case of surfaces, all these facts give rise to an amazing relation between topology and algebraic geometry. The underlaying space topological space in $\mathbb C^4$ of $$x^2+y^2+z^2+w^3=0$$ is a manifold!! (note it is singular at the origin in the context of AG!). As far as I know, if one intersects a small ball with the singularity, as I did above, one gets a topological sphere whose differential structure is NOT the standard one. Even more, considering in $\mathbb C^5$ the following hypersurface $$x^2+y^2+z^2+w^3+t^{6k-1}=0$$ and carrying out the intersection with a small sphere around the origin, for $k=1,2,\ldots 28$ one may get all the 28 possible exotic differential structures on the 7-sphere that Milnor found.

  • 1
    Wow,that IS pretty whack,Csar.This example alone is a testament to the power of modern topology and geometry and the incredible connections it has uncovered. – The Mathemagician Jul 15 '10 at 19:55
  • 3
    There's an interesting related result -- let $SS_n(X)$ denote the space of subsets of a topological space $X$ where the subsets have cardinality between $1$ and $n$. As a space, you can consider it to be $X^n / \Sigma_n$. Then $SS_3(S^1)$ is the 3-sphere. By design, $SS_n(S^1)$ has a fixed-point free $SO_2$-action, so it's a Seifert-fibred space. A non-singular orbit of this $SO_2$-action on $SS_3(S^1)$ is the trefoil knot. – Ryan Budney Aug 16 '10 at 00:00
  • 5
    Your claim about taking the link of the singular point of the hypersurface $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^3 = 0$, and getting an exotic five-sphere, sounds wrong to me. Is there a reference for this? – Sam Nead Mar 13 '11 at 22:08
  • 1
    Ah - here is the question I saw - http://mathoverflow.net/questions/22138/exotic-differentiable-structures-on-manifolds-in-dimensions-5-and-6 – Sam Nead Mar 13 '11 at 22:12
  • 2
    @RyanBudney I'm confused by the claim that $SS_3 (S^1)$ is the 3-sphere. If $SS_3 (S^1)$ is really the same as the symmetric product $(S^1)^3/\Sigma_3$, then there are maps $S^1\to (S^1)^3/\Sigma_3 \to S^1$ defined by $z \mapsto [z, 1, 1]$ and $[x, y, z]\mapsto xyz$ which compose to the identity. So $(S^1)^3/\Sigma_3$ isn't simply connected. – Dan Ramras Sep 01 '19 at 01:51
  • 3
    @DanRamras, apologies, I somehow conflated the two spaces. Delete my 2nd sentence -- those two aren't quite the same. – Ryan Budney Sep 01 '19 at 07:06
66

The beautiful analogy between number fields and function fields (and in general, algebra and geometry) that one learns about in arithmetic algebraic geometry.

Some specific examples:

  • The idea that a Galois group and a fundamental group (one algebro-number theoretic, the other geometric/topological) are two instances of the same thing.

  • The use of the term ramification in both number theory and geometry. Describing $\mathbb{Z}$ as simply connected because $\mathbb{Q}$ has no unramified extensions.

  • The appearance of integral closure in both algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory. The integral closure, in the former case, actually corresponds to a distinct geometric idea: non-singularity.

  • The idea of considering a prime number to be a point; then viewing localization at that prime, -adic completion at that prime, and the residue field of that prime as if they were the corresponding geometric objects. In particular, using the term "local" in number theory, as if we were talking about geometry! This idea is built into scheme theory.

There are many more examples.

Galois Groups and Fundamental Groups by Szamuely looks deeply into the relationships between Galois groups and fundamental groups and eventually develops a theory which covers both.

An Invitation to Arithmetic Geometry by Lorenzini explores the beautiful relation between algebraic curves and algebraic number theory.

This post ("Mazur's knotty dictionary" on the neverendingbooks.org blog) explores the analogy between prime numbers and knots.

J W
  • 748
David Corwin
  • 15,078
59

How about something simple: $e^{i\pi}=-1$.

Like when you first hear that, what the hell does the ratio of circumference to diameter of circles have to do with the square root of negative one and the base of the natural exponent?

Michael Hardy
  • 11,922
  • 11
  • 81
  • 119
  • 4
    ...or between exponential and trigonometric functions generally. – Michael Hardy Apr 23 '11 at 01:05
  • 27
    In my opinion, this becomes a lot less mysterious as soon as you think of the exponential and trigonometric functions as eigenfunctions of the differentiation operator (respectively, its square), which is really the reason they're both so important. The basic properties and interrelationships of these functions - including the above identity - are natural consequences of this formulation. – Robin Saunders Jul 29 '11 at 03:06
  • 34
    Well yes, but that's the way it is with all these surprising results, isn't it? They all indicate a connection that no one had suspected, but is undoubtedly important. Once that connection is chewed over enough and becomes something you learn as a matter of course, then the original surprising result becomes "understandable", or sometimes even "trivial". But it certainly wasn't originally, and often isn't even to people first encountering these things today. – Carl Offner Sep 30 '13 at 00:54
  • 2
    Well, last time I had to teach that and tried to remember how it is proved, I realized that in fact that is the definition of $\pi$ (as soon as one parametrizes the unit circle by $e^{it}$ and sees that this curve has constant speed one, that is). – Benoît Kloeckner Apr 12 '15 at 11:29
  • 1
    @CarlOffner Feynman in his book "Surely you're joking..." recalls his amusement while he and other physics students watched two maths students discuss: the first asks the second why a certain result follows from the assumptions. "It's trivial! It's trivial!" replies the second, and begins a complicated explanation. The first one is trying hard to follow. But after 15 minutes, finally he admits "You were right, it's trivial". Physicists then would joke that mathematicians only prove trivial theorems. – Del Aug 31 '19 at 08:23
  • When I first heard that, my reaction was “What does it mean to take $e$ to an imaginary power?” I knew the formula $e = 1/0! + 1/1! + 1/2! + \cdots$, but $e^{it}=\cos(t)+i\sin(t)$ looked like an arbitrary convention. So I thought “this is a pretty formula if you accept the arbitrary convention”. It became impressive once I learned a definition of $e^x$ for complex $x$ that followed from real considerations, and a justification for calling it a power function with a proof that $e^x e^y = e^{x+y}$ — but that was years later than the first time I saw this. –  Oct 28 '21 at 15:38
53

The ubiquity of Littlewood-Richardson coefficients. Given three partitions $\lambda, \mu, \nu$ each with at most $n$ parts, there is a combinatorial definition for a number $c^\nu_{\lambda, \mu}$ which is nonzero if and only if any of the following statements are true:

  • There exist Hermitian matrices $A, B, C$ whose eigenvalues are $\lambda, \mu, \nu$, respectively and $A + B = C$ (one can also replace Hermitian by real symmetric)
  • The irreducible representation of ${\bf GL}_n({\bf C})$ with highest weight $\nu$ is a subrepresentation of the tensor product of those irreducible representations with highest weights $\lambda$ and $\mu$.
  • Indexing the Schubert cells of the Grassmannian ${\bf Gr}(d,{\bf C}^m)$ (where $d \ge n$ and $m-d$ is at least as big as any part of $\lambda, \mu, \nu$) by $\sigma_\lambda$ appropriately, the cycle $\sigma_\nu$ appears in the intersection product $\sigma_\lambda \sigma_\mu$.
  • There exists finite Abelian $p$-groups $A,B,C$ and a short exact sequence $0 \to A \to B \to C \to 0$ such that $B \cong \bigoplus_i {\bf Z}/p^{\nu_i}$, $A\cong \bigoplus_i {\bf Z}/p^{\lambda_i}$, and $C\cong \bigoplus_i {\bf Z}/p^{\mu_i}$.

And probably many more things.

Steven Sam
  • 10,197
48

Ehud Hrushovski's proof, using model theory, of the geometric Mordell-Lang conjecture in algebraic geometry.

Zavosh
  • 1,376
45

Connection between the typical number of isolated nonzero solutions ($N$) of a system of equations $$f_1=f_2=\cdots=f_n=0,$$ where each $f_k$ is a polynomial in $n$ complex variables, and the mixed volume ($V$) of the Newton polytopes of $f_k$: $$N=(n!)\cdot V.$$

Michael Hardy
  • 11,922
  • 11
  • 81
  • 119
43

Here is a copypaste of something I've already mentioned in another question.

The fastest known solution of the word problem in braid groups originated from research on large cardinal axioms; the proof is independent of the existence of large cardinals, although the first version of the proof did use them. See Dehornoy, From large cardinals to braids via distributive algebra, Journal of knot theory and ramifications, vol. 4 (1995), no. 1, 33–79 (MR).

To me this is an absolute mystery! Large cardinals are usually considered an esoteric subject situated on the border of the observable universe. So why should they have any relevance to braids, a very down to earth part of mathematics? Let alone give an algorithm for distinguishing braids, and what's more, the fastest algorithm known.

algori
  • 23,231
  • 3
    Slides of a recent talk by Dehornoy on the history of this braid group problem may be found at

    http://math.unicaen.fr/~dehornoy/Talks/DyfShort.pdf

    – John Stillwell Feb 19 '10 at 01:45
40

The work of Nabutovsky and Weinberger applying computability theory (a.k.a. recursion theory) to differential geometry. For example one of their results is that if you consider the space of Riemannian metrics on a smooth compact manifold $M$ of dimension at least 5 and sectional curvature $K\le 1$, then there are infinitely many extremal metrics. This is a purely geometric statement, but the only known proof uses concepts from computability theory. Moreover the results from computability theory that are used in their work are very deep; prior to their work, some skeptics regarded this area of computability theory as being overly specialized and having no hope of being connected to other areas of mathematics. See the exposition of Robert Soare (available on his website) for more information.

Timothy Chow
  • 78,129
39

I think the disparity between the world-views in low-dimensional topology versus high-dimensional topology are surprising. Even after you learn the reasons why, IMO they should still be surprising. Examples:

1) Teichmuller space exists, yet hyperbolic manifolds in dimension $3$ and larger are rigid. There are many interesting connections here such as the link between conformal geometry, complex analysis and hyperbolic geometry in dimension 2.

2) Exotic smooth structures on $\mathbb R^4$ but not on $\mathbb R^n$ for $n\neq 4$.

3) Why the Poincare conjecture/hypothesis is "hard" in dimensions $3$ and $4$ yet relatively "easy" in other dimensions.

4) Geometry being particularly relevant to $2$ and $3$-dimensional manifolds yet less so in higher dimensions.

I could go on. Some of these are connections, some I suppose are disconnections. But a connection is only a surprise if you have reason to think otherwise. :)

Ryan Budney
  • 43,013
  • 3
    @Ryan: is the fact that geometry is less useful in high dimensions an empirical observation, or is there more mathematical content to this? – Jim Conant Mar 13 '11 at 17:44
  • 4
    @Jim: From Hillman's "Four-manifolds, Geometries and Knots", up to homeomorphism there are only 11 geometric 4-dimensional manifolds with finite fundamental group. In dimension 4 a finite-volume hyperbolic manifold's volume is a function of its Euler characteristic. I see those as having a fair bit of content. Sorry for being slow to reply. – Ryan Budney Sep 01 '11 at 06:40
    1. Because dimension 4 has infinite differential structure?
    – Takahiro Waki Jan 05 '17 at 13:09
36

The pair correlation function between Riemann zeta function zeros is the same as the pair correlation function between eigenvalues of random Hermitian matrices.

Alex R.
  • 4,902
  • 2
  • 40
  • 66
  • 15
    A caveat, this is not a theorem. Montgomery showed this for test functions whose Fourier transform had restricted support (in fact, support [-2,2] iirc.) Montgomery conjectured the same holds for more general test functions. Odlyzko's computations provided spectacular numerical evidence. And Katz-Sarnak proved an analogous statement for function fields. – Stopple Mar 13 '11 at 20:02
  • 3
    Yes, it is indeed a fascinating relation, but one should add it assumes RH – Adrien Hardy Oct 24 '15 at 10:32
36

McKay's observation that the special fiber in the desingularization of du Val singularities is a bunch of $\mathbb P^1$s linked according to the Dynkin diagram corresponding to the group of the singularity.

  • 5
    This seems to be part of the more general phenomenon of the ADE classification. Worth a separate answer (which points back to this one)? – Todd Trimble Jan 13 '15 at 15:25
35

This is probably not the most serious of applications, but I found the equivalence (in game theory) of the determinacy of Nash's board game Hex with the Brouwer Fixed Point theorem to be a surprising, if somewhat lighthearted, connection.

You can read David Gale's paper.

Adrian Petrescu
  • 201
  • 3
  • 6
  • I thought of another (in my opinion, simpler) proof of the Brouwer Fixed Point theorem, but I don't know where I could write it. It goes through the standard equivalence to the nonexistence of a retract from $I^2$ to its boundary. The main idea is the following fact: Suppose that $A,B\subset I^2$ are disjoint closed sets, where $A\cap\partial I^2=(0,1)$ and $B\cap\partial I^2=(1,0)$. Then $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ are in the same connected component of $I^2\setminus(A\cup B)$. This can be proven by drawing a (sheared) Hex board on the square with small enough hexagon size. – Akiva Weinberger May 30 '17 at 01:46
  • You then suppose a retract $f:I^2\to\partial I^2$ exists. The inverse images of $(0,1)$ and $(1,0)$ fit the hypotheses of the above fact, and so $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ must be in the same connected component of $f^{-1}\big(\partial I^2\setminus{(0,1),(1,0)}\big)$. Applying the retract to this, one obtains that $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$ are in the same connected component of $\partial I^2\setminus{(0,1),(1,0)}$, which is clearly false; contradiction. – Akiva Weinberger May 30 '17 at 01:51
33

I was recently amazed at a quick connection between two facts I've known since high school. The Euler characteristic of a sphere, thought of as #vertices + #faces - #edges on a polyhedron, buckyball, etc., is 2; I re-deduced this from the fact that the derivative of $f(x)=1/x$ is $f'(x)=-1/x^2$.

The steps of the proof are as follows: construct the Riemann sphere using two complex charts, both C, with the holomorphic transition map $f(z)=1/z$ on each neighborhood minus its origin. Now we want to look at the Chern class of the cotangent bundle, which in standard orientation is the negative of the Euler class of the tangent bundle, i.e. the sphere. Well, assuming complex analysis, look at $df=\frac{-1}{z^2}dz$ to see the effect of the transition map on the cotangent bundles: as a ``holomorphic'' 1-form, that has a double pole at one point and no zeros. Thus we know that a section of the cotangent bundle of the sphere has divisor degree $-2$. So $\chi(S^2)=2$ and I now cannot separate this fact from $f'(x)=-1/x^2$ in my mind. It seem somehow more mysterious, ridiculous, and delightful that this connection is so short.

(Everyone I've mentioned this to prefers their own proof and perhaps it's better to do this slightly more directly to get a self-intersection 2 for a section of the tangent bundle, i.e. vector fields vanish twice, which gives the Euler class in $H^2(S^2)$ as a multiple of the orientation class.)

Michael Hardy
  • 11,922
  • 11
  • 81
  • 119
33

My favorite connection in mathematics (and an interesting application to physics) is a simple corollary from Hodge's decomposition theorem, which states:

On a (compact and smooth) riemannian manifold $M$ with its Hodge-deRham-Laplace operator $\Delta,$ the space of $p$-forms $\Omega^p$ can be written as the orthogonal sum (relative to the $L^2$ product) $$\Omega^p = \Delta \Omega^p \oplus \cal H^p = d \Omega^{p-1} \oplus \delta \Omega^{p+1} \oplus \cal H^p,$$ where $\cal H^p$ are the harmonic $p$-forms, and $\delta$ is the adjoint of the exterior derivative $d$ (i.e. $\delta = \text{(some sign)} \star d\star$ and $\star$ is the Hodge star operator). (The theorem follows from the fact, that $\Delta$ is a self-adjoint, elliptic differential operator of second order, and so it is Fredholm with index $0$.)

From this it is now easy to proof, that every not trivial deRham cohomology class $[\omega] \in H^p$ has a unique harmonic representative $\gamma \in \cal H^p$ with $[\omega] = [\gamma]$. Please note the equivalence $$\Delta \gamma = 0 \Leftrightarrow d \gamma = 0 \wedge \delta \gamma = 0.$$

Besides that this statement implies easy proofs for Poincaré duality and what not, it motivates an interesting viewpoint on electro-dynamics:

Please be aware, that from now on we consider the Lorentzian manifold $M = \mathbb{R}^4$ equipped with the Minkowski metric (so $M$ is neither compact nor riemannian!). We are going to interpret $\mathbb{R}^4 = \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^3$ as a foliation of spacelike slices and the first coordinate as a time function $t$. So every point $(t,p)$ is a position $p$ in space $\mathbb{R}^3$ at the time $t \in \mathbb{R}$. Consider the lifeline $L \simeq \mathbb{R}$ of an electron in spacetime. Because the electron occupies a position which can't be occupied by anything else, we can remove $L$ from the spacetime $M$.

Though the theorem of Hodge does not hold for lorentzian manifolds in general, it holds for $M \setminus L \simeq \mathbb{R}^4 \setminus \mathbb{R}$. The only non vanishing cohomology space is $H^2$ with dimension $1$ (this statement has nothing to do with the metric on this space, it's pure topology - we just cut out the lifeline of the electron!). And there is an harmonic generator $F \in \Omega^2$ of $H^2$, that solves $$\Delta F = 0 \Leftrightarrow dF = 0 \wedge \delta F = 0.$$ But we can write every $2$-form $F$ as a unique decomposition $$F = E + B \wedge dt.$$ If we interpret $E$ as the classical electric field and $B$ as the magnetic field, than $d F = 0$ is equivalent to the first two Maxwell equations and $\delta F = 0$ to the last two.

So cutting out the lifeline of an electron gives you automagically the electro-magnetic field of the electron as a generator of the non-vanishing cohomology class.

Fallen Apart
  • 1,605
  • 12
  • 18
kostja
  • 91
32

Complex multiplication of elliptic curves and the explicit construction of the maximal abelian extension of a quadratic imaginary number field.

Hunter Brooks
  • 4,683
  • 1
  • 33
  • 28
Zavosh
  • 1,376
  • Could someone give a brief explanation of what's surprising? A total ignoramus like me just sees "something in arithmetic geometry/number theory connected to something in arithmetic geometry/number theory". (Maybe even that's wrong.) – Tom Leinster Feb 08 '10 at 04:43
  • 3
    If you evaluate (appropriately normalized) elliptic functions at points lying in quadratic imaginary fields, the values you obtain are algebraic numbers, lying in abelian extensions of said quadratic imaginary fields; and all such extensions can be obtained in this way. (Compare with: $e^{2\pi i z}$ evaluated at rational numbers gives algebraic numbers, which generate abelian extension of ${\mathbb Q}$, and all abelian extension of ${\mathbb Q}$ are obtained in this way. – Emerton Feb 08 '10 at 05:03
  • Thanks, Emerton. But I still don't get a sense of why this is a "surprising connection". I'm not disputing that it is - I'd just like to learn, at least, where the element of surprise lies. – Tom Leinster Feb 08 '10 at 06:15
  • 1
    Another way of saying it is that (with some slight fiddling) coordinates of points of finite order on an elliptic curve with complex multiplication give abelian extensions of the appropriate quadratic imaginary field. This was Kronecker's Jugendtraum (dream of his youth). Only in few cases is this explicit description of abelian extensions possible.

    Why do I think it is surprising? Compare what Emerton said above, $\exp(2 \pi iz)$ generating abelian extensions of $\mathbb{Q}$. Tell this to someone and ask them to guess how you'd generalise! It really is surprising that it is possible at all.

    – Sam Derbyshire Feb 08 '10 at 08:37
  • Thanks! I get some sense now of why it's a surprise. I still don't really see why it's a surprising connection, but I'm happy that I've learned something. – Tom Leinster Feb 08 '10 at 10:14
  • The generalization from $\exp(2\pi iz)$ to elliptic curves isn't that difficult to imagine (although it certainly is beautiful!). The values of $\exp(2\pi iz)$ at rational numbers are roots of unity which are the torsion elements of the algebraic group $\Q^{x}$. The points of finite order on an elliptic curve are the torsion elements of the algebraic group that is the elliptic curve. So one gets abelian extensions by adjoining torsion elements of algebraic groups. – Anonymous Feb 08 '10 at 17:53
  • 13
    Elliptic curves (over $\mathbb{C}$) have their origins in studying elliptic integrals. As analytic objects they are $\mathbb{C}$ modulo a lattice. It's not immediately obvious to me that this is an algebraic object, and that the Weierstrass $\mathcal{P}$ function, which is an infinite sum, should compute anything number theoretic. So perhaps the connection is between analysis and algebra/arithmetic from this point of view. – Zavosh Feb 08 '10 at 21:16
  • Is this from Rubin's works? – Turbo Apr 12 '15 at 07:19
32

My personal favorite is Multiple Zeta Values $$ \zeta(s_1,\ldots,s_d) = \sum_{n_1>\ldots>n_d} \frac{1}{n_1^{s_1}\ldots n_d^{s_d}} $$ They appears in relation with

  • Quantum groups (they are coefficient of Drinfeld's KZ associator)
  • Deformation quantization (Kontsevich's formula for the affine space)
  • Feynmann diagrams (a large class of diagrams evaluate to MZV's)
  • Kashiwara-Vergne conjecture (representation theory of Lie groups)
  • Modular forms (Zagier noticed that the space of relations in depth 2 is canonically isomorphic to the space of cusp forms on $SL_2$ through their period polynomials)
  • Moduli spaces of curves of genus 0 $\mathcal{M}_{0,n}$

the list goes on and on... the reason for all this lies in the theory of mixed Tate motives over $\mathbb{Z}$.

AFK
  • 7,387
31

The Jones polynomial of knot theory and Feynman path integrals.

Zavosh
  • 1,376
  • 2
    I'm not sure why this is surprising. It was originally defined via subfactors, but the path integral formalism followed very closely behind. Also, I'm not sure that Feynman path integrals count as mathematics... – Daniel Moskovich Feb 08 '10 at 05:07
  • 3
    Well, you are right. I think "surprising" is a subjective property, perhaps an experience of facing one's own ignorance. I don't know much about subfactors and first saw this polynomial in the context of knot invariants, divorced from its origins. For this reason, the physics connection seemed like a big surprise. It appears that you are an expert and so it is not surprising to me that you are not surprised. – Zavosh Feb 08 '10 at 15:50
  • Well then couldn't you say that it's the connection to knot theory that's the surprise? – Thierry Zell Aug 15 '10 at 14:00
  • 9
    I always found it ironic that knot theory began with Lord Kelvins model of atoms as knots in ether (loosely speaking). After a 360 degree rotation (or make that 720 degree :-) we're at string theory now. – Hauke Reddmann Jul 25 '11 at 12:00
31

It is possible to compute the Betti numbers of a smooth complex variety $X(\mathbb{C})$ by computing the cardinality of $X(\mathbb{F}_{p^n})$ for a prime $p$ with good reduction and a finite number of positive integers $n$; in other words, by brute force.

The above claim is wrong, so I'll phrase it the other way around. The Betti numbers of a smooth complex variety control the behavior of the number of points on $X(\mathbb{F}_{p^n})$; for example, for a smooth projective curve of genus $g$ we have $|\text{Card}(X(\mathbb{F}_q))| - q - 1| \le 2g \sqrt{q}$.

Generally I find the relationship between the arithmetic and topological properties of varieties surprising, although maybe this is a temporary kind of surprise that arithmetic geometers are used to. Another example: if $X$ is a curve, then whether the curvature of $X(\mathbb{C})$ is positive, zero, or negative determines whether $X(\mathbb{Q})$ is rationally parameterizable, a finitely generated group, or finite (unless it's empty).

Qiaochu Yuan
  • 114,941
  • I'm a bit confused: why does one know the zeta function of a variety by just knowing finitely many values of $#X({\bf F}_{p^n})$? – Steven Sam Feb 08 '10 at 04:52
  • Hmm. You're right; I'd need a bound on the sum of the Betti numbers to conclude that. My mistake. – Qiaochu Yuan Feb 08 '10 at 05:01
  • 3
    Because if you enough such values, you can solve for the eigenvalues of Frobenius on etale cohomology, and hence compute the zeta-function. But the number of values you need will depend on the number of eigenavlues, hence on the dimension you are trying to compute (if I understand things correctly). – Emerton Feb 08 '10 at 05:05
  • Now that I think about it, it's not obvious to me that a less naive algorithm wouldn't be able to recover the entire zeta function from finitely many values of #X(F_{p^n}) knowing only the dimension of the variety. Knowing the possible absolute values of the eigenvalues might help out enough. – Qiaochu Yuan Feb 08 '10 at 05:43
  • Can't one just exhibit curves of very high genus in $\mathbb A_2 (\mathbb F_{p^n})$ that pass through any given set of points? Choose the $\mathbb F_{p^n}$ points of some low-genus curve, you then need to go to $F_{p^m}$, for $m$ not a divisor of $n$, to tell the difference. – Will Sawin Feb 02 '12 at 00:53
30

Special values of the Riemann zeta function and class numbers of cyclotomic fields.

Hunter Brooks
  • 4,683
  • 1
  • 33
  • 28
29

Ulam's problem on determining the length of the longest increasing subsequence of a random permutation. The solution and the full description of the answer brought together ideas from integrable systems, combinatorics, representation theory, probability (appearing in the form of polynuclear growth model for instance), and random matrix theory.

Gjergji Zaimi
  • 85,056
24

Le plus court chemin entre deux vérités dans le domaine réel passe par le domaine complexe. (The shortest path between two truths in the real domain passes through the complex domain.) — Jacques Hadamard Paul Painlevé

It is often credited to Hadamard, but in fact Painlevé said this exact quote, and Hadamard in one of his books merely paraphrased it: "it has been written that..." See https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/61924

Hadamard clearly had his proof of the prime number theorem, along the approach of Riemann, in mind. The ubiquity of complex numbers may deserve a full answer in itself; but here we might highlight its use in number theory: Riemann zeta function and other L-functions, modular forms (which would be a whole answer in itself).

YCor
  • 60,149
Unknown
  • 2,815
  • 4
    Why down vote? I thought Jacques Hadamard expressed in his quote that in his time the connection of prime numbers to the zeroes of the Riemann zeta function was surprising and much of a shortcut to proving the Prime Number Theorem. – Unknown Jun 02 '10 at 01:05
  • 4
    Probably it would not have been downvoted had the post included the content of your comment. As it is, it is pretty non-specific (even though the quote and its context are fairly widely known). – Todd Trimble Jan 13 '15 at 15:00
  • The original quote is by Paul Painlevé. See http://homepage.math.uiowa.edu/~jorgen/hadamardquotesource.html – puzzlet Jun 11 '18 at 09:34
24

Here is one of my favorite, that I learned from A. G. Khovanskii: let $f$ be a univariate rational function with real coefficients. Then, you can think of $f$ as inducing a continuous self-map of $\mathbb{RP}^1 \cong S^1$, in particular, it has a topological degree, say $[f]$, and if $f$ happens to be a polynomial, it is obvious that $[f]=0$ if $\deg(f)$ is even, and that $[f]=\pm 1$ if $\deg(f)$ is odd (depending on the sign of the main coefficient).

If the decomposition of $f$ in continued fraction is $$ f=P_0+\cfrac{1}{P_1+\cfrac{1}{P_2+\ddots}}$$ Then one can prove easily that $[f]$ is the (finite) sum: $[f]=\sum_{i \geq 0} (-1)^i[P_i]$. (Khovanskii himself taught this to high-schoolers in Moscow.)

The interesting connection for me follows: for any real polynomial $P$, the topological degree of the fraction $P'/P$ is clearly the (negative of the) number of real roots of $P$. Thus, the computation formula above applied to $[P'/P]$ allows us to recover Sturm's theorem.

I don't know if it really qualifies as a new proof of the theorem, but it's definitely a different point of view on that proof.

Thierry Zell
  • 4,536
22

Goppa’s construction of error-correcting codes from curves, leading to the Tsfasman–Vladut–Zink bound (the first improvement over the Gilbert–Varshamov bound; see Modular curves, Shimura curves, and Goppa codes, better than Varshamov–Gilbert bound). An error-correcting code may be regarded as a combinatorial structure, and I think that this is a surprising connection between algebraic geometry and combinatorics.

LSpice
  • 11,423
user2734
  • 1,371
22

The fact that the circumference of a unit circle is used to normalize the bell curve. Elementary compared to the other examples, yes, but how shocking was it when you first learned it?

Chad Groft
  • 1,189
  • 9
  • 15
  • 6
    To me, this isn't really shocking. It's a natural consequence of the cute (and, yes, maybe even surprising) fact that the square of $\int e^{x^2};dx$ is equal to $\int e^{x^2 + y^2};dx;dy$, the integral of a function whose level sets are circles. – Vectornaut Feb 01 '12 at 21:45
  • 2
    @Vectornaut: your point is that this connection can be understood; but it still strikes me as initially surprising. – Benoît Kloeckner Apr 12 '15 at 11:33
  • 1
    @BenoîtKloeckner, I see. I was never surprised because, if I recall correctly, I never knew the normalization factor before being shown how to find it. – Vectornaut Apr 12 '15 at 21:29
  • I think James Stirling may have been the first to know this. – Michael Hardy Dec 15 '21 at 18:12
20

The surprising applications of algebraic geometry to number theory, for instance evidenced in the work of Deligne in proving the Ramanujan conjectures.

Feb7
  • 481
  • 7
    Or, Riemann's use of complex variables to prove the Prime number theorem. – Feb7 Feb 08 '10 at 00:16
  • 1
    To me it seems tautological that algebraic geometry should apply to number theory. – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 00:23
  • 1
    "Algebraic geometry" is the subject in the book of Griffiths and Harris, before it was reshaped later into the form we see. Most of it was achieved due to Andre Weil's insight and great work. – Feb7 Feb 08 '10 at 00:25
  • 1
    Since the OP wants examples specific to additive number theory, I mention the Hardy-Littlewood circle method, which is certainly surprising. – Feb7 Feb 08 '10 at 01:00
  • 17
    Riemann did not prove the prime number theorem. – S. Carnahan Feb 08 '10 at 04:50
  • 5
    Although he came pretty close! – Emerton Feb 08 '10 at 05:05
  • 8
    Deligne's work was about counting solutions to equations over finite fields. Ramanujan's conjecture was about bounding the absolute values of the Fourier coefficients of a certain complex analytically defined function. How is the connection possibly tautological? – Emerton Feb 08 '10 at 05:14
  • 6
    Indeed, the connection between the Weil conjectures (and in particular the Riemann hypothesis, the proof of which is the work of Deligne being referred to) and Ramanujan's conjecture was only made some time after both conjectures were formulated (by Serre, I believe). – Emerton Feb 08 '10 at 05:17
  • 2
    Perhaps Serre was the first to formulate it in print, but I heard him say several times that it was an idea of Weil. – Olivier Feb 08 '10 at 07:45
  • Dear Olivier,

    Thanks! I began to wonder about this after I posted my comment.

    – Emerton Feb 08 '10 at 13:52
18

There exist two binary trees with rotation distance $2n-6$. The proof is unexpected and based on hyperbolic geometry (Sleator, Tarjan, Thurston (1988), "Rotation distance, triangulations, and hyperbolic geometry").

18

The analogy, still not understood to the full I think, between prime numbers and knots.

See Arithmetic topology in Wikipedia.

A most condensed picture is given by the Kapranov-Reznikov-Mazur dictionary

enter image description here

This is actually closely related to several answers here, and in fact initially I mentioned it in a comment to one of the answers but then still decided to make a separate entry.

17
  1. The Curry-Howard isomorphism linking various lambda calculi with intuitionistic logics; its extension to the classic logic via the concept of continuations.
  2. The conncetion between Borel hierarchy and arithmetical hierarchy.
  3. Fagin's theorem --- and later the whole branch of descriptive complexity --- linking well-known complexity classes with logics over finite models.
  • Nice timing, I was just thinking about posting points one and three of your list :) –  Mar 13 '11 at 17:59
16

The connection between homotopy groups of S2, Brunnian braids over the sphere, and Brunnian braids. This knocked me off my chair when I first heard about it. I know no conceptual explanation of this connection.

A. Berrick, F. R. Cohen, Y. L. Wong and J. Wu, Configurations, braids and homotopy groups, J. Amer. Math. Soc., 19 (2006), 265-326. Also available at http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/~matwujie/BCWWfinal.pdf (Wayback Machine) See also http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/~matwujie/cohen.wu.GT.revised.29.august.2007.pdf (Wayback Machine)

  • 3
    I'd like to find a more geometric proof of their result. There's a lot of geometric constructions that lead me to suspect such a result but I haven't found anything quite right. The main idea is to consider the closure of a Brunnian braid then look at things like the Koschorke invariants. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/234/a-k-component-link-defines-a-map-tk-confk-s3-does-the-homotopy-type-captu/4058#4058 – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 07:17
16

Taniyama-Shimura-Weil connecting error terms counting number of points on an elliptic curve over finite fields and the Fourier coefficients of modular forms. It's less surprising these days because it's almost as famous as the two things it connects.

user5831
  • 2,009
15

Paul Vojta's discovery of the unexpected parallels between value distribution theory (Nevanlinna theory) in complex analysis and Diophantine approximation in number theory. See, e.g., Vojta's paper "Recent Work on Nevanlinna Theory and Diophantine Approximation". Serge Lang and William Cherry discuss the matter in their book Topics in Nevanlinna Theory.

14

I don't know whether people will consider this surprising or not.

I think it may have been in the earliest part of the 20th century that it was shown that random walks in $n$ dimensions are recurrent if $n\le2$ and transient if $n\ge3.$

Then in the 1950s it was shown that the maxmimum-likelihood estimator of the expected value of a multivariate normal distribution in $n$ dimensions is an admissible estimator, in the decision-theoretic sense, when $n\le2$ but (a surprise) not when $n\ge3.$

Around 1990 or so, Morris L. (Joe) Eaton showed that these two propositions both say essentially the same thing.

Michael Hardy
  • 11,922
  • 11
  • 81
  • 119
14

Root systems, which are completely combinatorial objects, have a lot to do with topological objects, such as compact Lie groups, and linear algebraic objects, such as Lie algebras. Not just that, they classify semisimple ones among them!

Michael Hardy
  • 11,922
  • 11
  • 81
  • 119
Shripad
  • 478
12

There are several surprises regarding convex polytopes:

A) There are combinatorial types of polytopes that cannot be realized with rational coordinates (first discovered by Perles). This is not the case in three dimension but by now there are examples in every dimension greater equal 4. This adds to several examples on the wild combinatorial nature of convex polytopes in dim at least 4.

B) The applications of commutative algebra to the study of face-numbers of polytopes - Stanley proofs of the upper bound theorem using the Cohen-Macaulay argument and many subsequent results. Also surprising is the application of algebraic geometry: toric varieties, Hard Lefschetz theorem, intersection homology etc.

C) It is a special surprise that some proofs regarding the face number of polytopes applies only to polytopes with rational coordinates.

Gil Kalai
  • 24,218
12

I agree with Zavosh that Jones' linking of Von Neumann algebras to knot theory is one of the great connections in modern times. Closer to home for me is Pisier's use of a theorem of Beurling on holomorphic semigroups to prove the duality of type and cotype of B-convex Banach spaces.

Bill Johnson
  • 31,077
12

That mechanical vibrations (mass-spring-dashpot systems) satisfy the same differential equations as electrical systems (inductor-resistor-capacitor circuits).

John D. Cook
  • 5,147
12

Another surprising connection is the Ax-Kochen theorem. Let $\mathcal{F}_{p,n,d}$ denote the set of homogeneous polynomials ("forms") in $n$ variables over the $p$-adics $\mathbb{Q}_p$ of degree $d$. The Ax-Kochen theorem is: For every positive integer $d$ there is a finite set $Y_d$ of "bad" prime numbers such that if $p$ is a "good" prime for $d$ (i.e. not in $Y_d$) then every $f \in \mathcal{F}_{p,d^2+1,d}$ has a non-trivial zero.

This was proved using model theory.

  • 4
    This would be easier to read as “for each degree $d$, for all sufficiently large primes $p$, any homogenous polynomial of degree $d$ in at least $d^2+1$ variables has a non-trivial zero in the $p$-adic numbers.” –  Oct 28 '21 at 16:01
12

The connection between rational homotopy theory and local algebra has been very useful, I was told. See Section 3 of this survey by Kathryn Hess and the references therein, especially Anick's counterexample to a conjecture of Serre.

Hailong Dao
  • 30,261
12

Grothendieck's dessins d'enfants: the Galois group $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$ acts on certain graphs (with a decoration) on 2-dimensional topological surfaces.

Michael Hardy
  • 11,922
  • 11
  • 81
  • 119
asv
  • 21,102
  • 6
  • 49
  • 114
12

Being a physicist I'm still puzzled by the connection between:

  1. Wick theorem -- which is combinatorics (for me).
  2. Multivariate Gaussian integrals -- which is calculus (for me).
  3. Determinants and eigensystems -- which is linear algebra (for me).
Kostya
  • 143
  • And these are intimately related to the Hermite polynomials whose moments are the perfect matchings of the vertices of the hypertetrahedra/hypertriangles/n-simplices with applications in combinatorics, geometry, analysis, and, of course, physics. – Tom Copeland Nov 16 '21 at 20:28
11

Another post reminded me of the following fact. The Poisson summation formula is a special case of the trace formula. Also the Frobenius reciprocity for finite groups follows from another special case of the trace formula, where the groups in question are finite. I find that these two theorems are related in such a way very surprising.

MBN
  • 459
  • 7
  • 11
  • 1
    For me, the Frobenius reciprocity formula follows from $\left(A\otimes_R B\right)\otimes_S C\cong A\otimes_R\left(B\otimes_S C\right)$, where $R$ and $S$ are two unital (not necessarily commutative) rings, $A$ is a $\left(\mathbb Z,R\right)$-bimodule, $B$ is a $\left(R,S\right)$-bimodule, and $C$ is a $\left(S,\mathbb Z\right)$-bimodule. The "other" Frobenius formula is simply the trace of the former. Is this what you mean? But then I wouldn't really call it a connection. – darij grinberg Feb 08 '10 at 11:26
  • 4
    The connection that I was talking about is the following. The Arthur-Selberg trace formula is an identity of distributions for a pair of groups(with some conditions). When the groups are R and Z, then the trace formula reduces to Poisson summation. When the groups are finite, and with the right choice of a test function, the trace formula reduces to Frobenius reciprocity. – MBN Feb 08 '10 at 14:28
  • 1
    There is some subtlety in making the tensor-product associativity be the complete answer... for the topological vector space end of the analogy. Too technical, and maybe not immediately interesting, but P. Cartier's 1973/4 Sem. Bourb. talk/article explains how certain technical points (at a later "perfect" extreme the Dixmier-Malliavin theorem) make heuristics into theorems in such regards. Maybe the fact that the heuristics are "obvious" makes the actual surprise less? – paul garrett Feb 04 '16 at 00:40
11

I'd like to share the very elementary fact (so elementary that I found surprising only after I taught Calculus course) that all the elementary functions are analytic in the global way. Of course, that's no surprise for polynomials. But I found no intuition why the trigonometric functions and the exponential functions, in the way they are originally considered by human, turn out to be equal to their Taylor expansions everywhere. Consider again the fact that Taylor expansion uses only the information on an infinitesimal neighborhood at a point, a function which is not originally defined by power series should be of extremely little chance to equal its Taylor expansion. I don't know if I'm right, but I finally told my students this is really a miracle.

Liren Lin
  • 195
  • 6
    You are completely correct, that this is in some way an astonishing thing. The downvotes are an expression of the absence of this astonishment from the official account of things... So, by accident, it is not surprising that you'd get downvotes. But I think you are perfectly correct... – paul garrett Feb 04 '16 at 00:32
  • 6
    This is part of a larger miracle that complex numbers are so useful in maths, and mathematicians tend to forget how it is miraculous and non-trivial @paulgarrett – reuns Oct 31 '16 at 19:43
  • "Official" accounts consist of CURRICULA, in which it is (dishonestly) decreed that EVERYONE must, or should, follow the curriculum, and this practice anesthetizes most people against astonishment, by a mechanism that is blindingly obvious and that we all see in operation daily. That the story of the naked emperor is not exaggerated is seen in the fact that nearly all otherwise intelligent people don't see this. – Michael Hardy Dec 15 '21 at 18:21
  • You seem to take advantage of the fact that elementary function can mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. For example, most of the "elementary functions" listed here are not entire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_function – Christian Remling Jun 24 '22 at 00:30
11

The inverse calculus of a slope is the calculation of an area.

Barrow's Lemma: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus

mikitov
  • 332
10

Stone duality usually refers to the equivalence between the category of Boolean algebras and the category of compact totally disconnected spaces. This duality intertwines the theory of Boolean algebras with general topology so much that Boolean algebras cannot be studied in depth without mentioning general topology and compact totally disconnected spaces cannot be studied in great detail without mentioning their relation with Boolean algebras. For example, the free Boolean algebras and free $\sigma$-complete Boolean algebras are normally represented not in terms of generators and relations, but as clopen sets (Baire sets) on the cantor cube $2^{I}$ for some set $I$.

Stone duality was originally a very surprising result, and it is probably a bit surprising to people seeing this result for the first time as well. Around 1937 when Marshall Stone formulated this duality it was difficult to imagine nice topological spaces that arose from algebraic structures rather than geometric or analytic structures.

Besides Stone duality, there are many dualities (equivalences of categories) similar in nature to Stone duality that relate different structures to each other and hence relate different areas of mathematics to each other (I have developed some of these dualities myself). For instance, one can relate topologies satisfying higher separation axioms with topologies that are not even $T_{1}$. One can also relate structures such as proximity spaces and uniform spaces with algebras of sets and Boolean algebras. There are also many dualities relating different in order theory to each other.

  • Here's my terse expository account of Stone's duality: the totally disconnected compact Hausdorff space associated with a Boolean algebra $A$ is the space of all homomorphisms from $A$ into the two-element Boolean algebra, with the topology of pointwise convergence of nets of such homomorphisms. The Boolean algebra associated with a totally disconnected compact Hausdorff space is the set of all clopen subsets with the meet and join operations. To every homomorphism of Boolean algebras there naturally corresponds a continuous mapping beteween these spaces, going in the opposite direction. – Michael Hardy Sep 26 '22 at 17:55
10

The chromatic number of the Kneser graph $KG_{n,k}$ is equal exactly $2n-k+2$. There are very simple proof based on Borsuk-Ulam theorem.

10

The connection between the sphere packing problem and modular forms which was brought to light by recent breakthrough work of Viazovska (https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.04246) is very surprising, in my opinion.

Sam Hopkins
  • 22,785
10

I believe the way R. Schoen solved Yamabe problem (after the contributions of Yamabe, Trudinger, Obata and Aubin) is truly impressive: after a long series of computations, he unexpectedly related the constant term in the expansion of certain Green functions associated to Yamabe problem (a Differential Geometry problem) with the so-called ADM mass in General Relativity (from Mathematical Physics); thus, he "reduced" the (remaining cases of) Yamabe problem to the infamous positive mass theorem, a result S.-T. Yau and himself proved (using Differential Geometry) to answer a (seemingly unrelated) central problem in General Relativity. See the survey of Lee and Parker for a nice account on this surprising connection between Differential Geometry and General Relativity.

Matheus
  • 1,675
9

Application of ``thermodynamic formalism'' to questions of Analysis. Thermodynamic formalism have its origin in equilibrium statistical mechanics. First unexpected thing was its application to the theory of smooth dynamical systems, see beautiful paper of Ruelle, Is our mathematics natural? in BAMS. Later unexpected applications were discovered to problems of analysis which have nothing to do with dynamical systems, statistical mechanics or mathematical physics. One example is Astala's theorem on the area distortion under quasiconformal mappings. There is a very simple, self-contained proof of this theorem in MR1283548, using no dynamical considerations. But it is hard to imagine how could this proof be invented without dynamical and "thermodynamical" considerations.

9

The surprising application of algebra into solving the problem of classification of manifolds or topological spaces, from which arose such concepts as fundamental group, homology groups, etc..

I think a lot of things will be "surprising" like this. I think the creations of most of the important topics or active areas of research in math arose out of some such "surprising" connection.

Feb7
  • 481
  • 4
    No, I don't think that everything is really surprising. There are a lot of theorems that have been based on hard work, but within the existing circle of ideas surrounding that result. What I'm after is when disparate parts of mathematics are brought together in unexpected ways. – Victor Miller Feb 08 '10 at 00:20
  • The fundamental group and homology were designed to study manifolds. So again this isn't remotely surprising that they'd be useful in the study of manifolds. – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 00:23
  • Yes of course. But I meant, if you look at a manifold, who on earth would imagine that a group or module over a ring would help to classify them? When I took my first course in topology, this notion was a big surprise to me. – Feb7 Feb 08 '10 at 00:27
  • Before being confronted with this surprise what were you imagining would be useful? These were the first ideas people had when studying manifolds. First there were things like Betti numbers which were counts of the number of non-separating closed curves in a surface, but that quickly evolved into homology and soon after the fundamental group. – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 00:33
  • 7
    Well personally it was surprising for me. I knew something about point set topology from one book, and from the next book I knew about groups, rings, linear algebra and so on. Then I go and sit in algebraic topology course because it was mandatory for some reason, and lo and behold! – Feb7 Feb 08 '10 at 00:35
  • Surprise means something unexpected happens -- expectation brings with it a prerequisite consideration of the problem. What you're describing would maybe be more accurately called bewilderment? – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 01:46
  • 3
    Hi Ryan, would you consider it obvious that the obstruction to promoting a homotopy equivalence to a simple homotopy equivalence should live in a group? And if so, could you have guessed which group? I think there are many places in topology where algebra is surprisingly effective. And for at least half a century mathematicians studied topological spaces, and manifolds in particular, before beginning to apply algebra to these questions. In 1942 the field was still referred to, at least by some, as "combinatorial topology" rather than "algebraic topology". – Tom Church Feb 08 '10 at 03:37
  • In fact I thought that the germs of the start of homology theory were in the study of periods of integrals.

    If you look at the original papers in what today would be called homological algebra, the theorems were proved not by the fairly straightforward algebra as they are nowadays (cf. Serge Lang's infamous statement about "generalized abstract nonsense"), but by a lot of technical skill using a lot of topological reasoning.

    – Victor Miller Feb 08 '10 at 04:15
  • Hi Tom, I was never making claims about anything being obvious, but whether or not they should be seen as a surprise. A surprise by its meaning implies people originally had a different expectation. Without expectation there can be no surprise. Re: Simple homotopy (a different topic) that was a far more subtle and slow progression than the development of the fundamental group. Certainly if all you've ever dealt with is simply-connected spaces the Whitehead group might come as a shock. But if you've fought through a homotopy and homeo classification of lens spaces, much less so. – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 05:28
  • To clarify via an analogy, there are many elements of American law that are not obvious to me, but when I learn these non-obvious things by-and-large I'm not surprised, as I have expectations that things are more complicated than I might imagine with my background, after all I'm neither American nor a lawyer or a politician. – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 05:34
  • That said, of course I would expect the study of topology and geometry ultimately to relate to algebra and analysis. That's a tiny aspect of what is perhaps the largest "major arc" in mathematical history, as Joseph Malkevich's post expresses. It's the kind of thing we see in mathematics all the time, why should topology be any different? – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 05:38
  • I suspect a reluctance to adopt cohomology was due to it having no real advantages, at least until 1936 when Whitney constructed the cup product. – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 14:09
  • Oh, I misattributed that. It's Alexander and Kolmogoroff that defined the cup product, in 1935. Alexander's definition was problematic and fixed by Cech and Whitney in 1936. Whitney is the one that gave cup product its name and notation. – Ryan Budney Feb 08 '10 at 15:12
8

The connection between 'Electric-magnetic duality in string theory' and Langlands Program. See e.g. Witten-Kapustin. Not exactly a connection between two mathematics areas, but I think it nevertheless partially qualifies.

user90041
  • 709
8

This is another old connection, but the very idea of analytic number theory is counterintuitive - why should continuous tools give answers to integer-based questions? Two examples:

  • The Basel problem, $\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{6}.$
  • The Hardy-Ramanujan-Rademacher formula for the number of integer partitions of $n$.
7

This is much fuzzier than many of the other answers, but the connections between graph theory, arithmetic, and geometry are breathtaking. (IMHO, anyone working anywhere even close to the intersection of these fields who hasn't read [at least some of] Serre's Trees needs to. Really everyone should read Trees though.)

7

Stumbled on the following couple of days ago, when searching a good picture for a general 3-step filtration in an abelian category (in fact, there are similar structures in triangulated categories which I am ultimately up to):enter image description here

After feasting my eyes on it for a while I suddenly realized that what I am actually staring at is the Desargues configuration (in the form of five generic planes in 3-space)!

Not sure if this has any significance or whether one can do anything with it, but I certainly find it amusing.

  • I guess it also solves the problem of placing 9 points in the plane so there are 9 lines with 3 points on a line. – Gerry Myerson Mar 24 '15 at 12:20
  • @GerryMyerson If I'm not mistaken that one is the Pappus configuration. Desargues' is $10_310_3$, i. e. ten points three on a line, ten lines three at a point (as five generic planes in 3-space produce $\binom53$ points and $\binom52$ lines intersecting like that) – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Mar 24 '15 at 17:11
  • Yes, I missed a line. 10 it is. – Gerry Myerson Mar 24 '15 at 22:35
  • I don't know what the precise definition of $\text{“} 10_3 10_3 \text{”}$ is, but there exists at least one configuration of 10 lines and 10 points with each line passing through three of the 10 points and each point lying on three of the 10 lines, that is not incidence-isomorphic to the Desargues configuration, so I wonder whether that notation is enough to specify a particular configuration. – Michael Hardy Jun 29 '22 at 02:46
  • @MichaelHardy The notation means precisely what you say, $p_\gamma q_\beta$ means $p$ points, $q$ lines with $\gamma$ lines through each point, $\beta$ points on each line. Can you give a reference for that another $10_310_3$? – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Jun 29 '22 at 05:48
  • @მამუკაჯიბლაძე : Wikipedia's article titled "Desargues configuration" has an illustation captioned "A non-Desargues ($10_310_3$) configuration." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desargues_configuration – Michael Hardy Jun 29 '22 at 22:26
  • 1
    @MichaelHardy Thank you! I should remember, definitely have seen it before. What I did not notice before is that Wikipedia says there are still seven more! – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Jun 30 '22 at 05:36
7

It seems that no one gave this one yet, although it probably hides behind many of previous answers.

The fact that in $\mathbb{C}$, product by a fixed complex number corresponds to a similarity is an incredible and far-reaching connection between algebra and geometry.

Among other things, it ties holomorphic functions with conformal maps of surfaces, so that for example one can identify a Riemann surface with a surface having a Riemannian metric of curvature $-1$, $0$ or $1$; more generally it allows for the use of complex analysis to study a number of problems in the geometry of surfaces.

  • 1
    I originally learned this as the DEFINITION of multiplication of complex numbers, so when I encountered it presented as a theorem, I found it puzzling and wondered what the difference was between the theorem and the definition. – Michael Hardy Jun 29 '22 at 03:13
7

I also guess the links between differential geometry and geometric analysis on one hand and algebraic topology on the other were rather surprising when they were found.

  1. The Pontryagin-Thom construction. Smooth cobordism is described by homotopy groups of the Thom spectrum (which seems to have forgotten the smooth structures entirely). On the way, it gives one one of the most geometric motivations to study homotopy theory and spectra.

  2. The Atiyah-Singer index theorem allows one to guess the dimension of solution/moduli spaces of (sometimes even nonlinear) partial differential equations using characteristic classes that do not involve any hard analysis at all. Because the topological formula for the index also has a geometric interpretation, one gets applications to curvature questions in Riemannian geometry as a bonus. The surprise continues when one compares the different proofs of this theorem using either abstract $K$-theory (Atiyah-Singer) or the heat equation (Atiyah-Bott-Patodi, Getzler, Bismut, and others) or the geometry and representation theory of Lie groups (Berline-Vergne). The combination of these methods is still leading to new insights not only in differential topology.

7

The amazing connection between $\eta$-identities and affine root systems, due to Macdonald and further elaborated upon by Kac! These identities encompass the Jacobi triple product identity, Euler's pentagonal number identity and many others. And these have connections to Complex simple Lie algebras.

Shripad
  • 478
6

Classification of symmetric spaces by using classification of simple lie algebras due to cartan is my favourite one!

Koushik
  • 2,076
6

Traveling wave solutions to the KdV Equation for any speed and whose profiles look like the graph of the $\wp$-function for any elliptic curve.

More precisely, if $u(x, t)$ is a solution of the KdV Equation that has the form $$u(x, t) = w(x + ct)$$ then $$u(x,t)=-2\wp(x + ct + \omega; k_1, k_2)+2c/3.$$

(See e.g. Glimpses of Soliton Theory: The Algebra and Geometry of Nonlinear PDEs by Alex Kasman)

5

Connection:

  1. The Langrange polynomial interpolation formula;
  2. The Chinese Remainder Theorem.

Formulations:

  1. Let $\ K\ $ be a field of characteristic $\ 0.\ $ Let $\ \phi:A\rightarrow K\ $ be an arbitrary function, where $\ A\ $ is a non-empty finite subset of $\ K.\ $ Then there exists an exactly polynomial $\ f:K\rightarrow K\ $ of degree $\ n < |A|,\ $ such that $\ \forall_{x\in A}\ f(x)=\phi(x)$.
  2. Let $\ A\ $ be a nonempty finite set of positive integers such that $\ \gcd(a\ b)=1\ $ for every two different $\ a\ b\in A.\ $ Let $\ \phi:A\rightarrow\mathbb Z\ $ be arbitrary. Then there exists $\ f\in\mathbb Z\ $ such that $\ \forall_{a\in A}\ f\equiv \phi(a) \mod a.\ $ The integer $\ f\ $ is unique in the following sense: $$\ \forall_{a\in A}\ g\equiv\phi(a)\!\!\!\mod a\quad \Rightarrow\quad g\equiv f\!\!\!\mod \prod A$$

Crucial special (basic) cases:

  1. There exists exactly one polynomial $\ f_b:K\rightarrow K\ $ of degree $\ n < |A|,\ $ such that $\ f_b(b)=1,\ $ and $\ \forall_{x\in A\setminus\{b\}}\ f_b(x)=0\,\ $ for every $\ b\in A\ $ (actually $\ \deg(f)=|A|-1$).
  2. There exista exactly one integer $\ f_b\!\!\mod\prod A\ $ such that $\ f_b\equiv 1\!\!\mod b,\ $ and $\ \forall_{a\in B\setminus\{b\}}\ f_b\equiv 0\!\!\mod a\ $ for every $\ b\in A$.

Once we get the basic elements $\ f_b,\ $ then $\ f\ $ is uniquely obtained as the respective linear combination of elements $\ f_b\ $ both in the Lagrange and in the Chinese cases.

Construction (of the basis elements):

  1. $\ \forall_{t\in K}\ f_b(t):=\frac{L_b(t)}{L_b(b)},\ $ where $\ L_b(t):=\prod_{a\in A\setminus\{b\}}\ (t-a)$
  2. $\ f_b\ := C_b\cdot d_b,\ $ where $\ C_b:=\prod_{a\in A\setminus\{b\}} a,\ $ and $\ d_b\cdot C_b\equiv 1\mod b$.

We see that $\ C_b\ $ corresponds to $\ L_b,\ $ and $\ d_b\ $ to $\ \frac 1{L_b(b)}$.

This connection, when generalized, unites the algebraic number theory and the theory of algebraic functions.

  • 3
    I don't see why this is surprising. – Todd Trimble Jan 13 '15 at 14:46
  • @ToddTrimble -- what about the topological dimension and the fixed point property? (I am just curious, see above--and you're welcome to down-vote it too, fair is fair, it should be a two-way street). – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Jan 13 '15 at 20:03
  • 1
    I don't have a real opinion on that since I don't know what you are alluding to there. Offhand, it sounded interesting. – Todd Trimble Jan 13 '15 at 20:18
  • @ToddTrimble -- (me and sophisticated alluding? :-); there is my answer in the same surprising connection thread just a couple places above this answer on which we are commenting right now (well, I am more diverting than commenting). – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Jan 13 '15 at 20:34
  • You mean here: http://mathoverflow.net/a/143549/2926 Yeah, I knew which answer you meant, but I still don't know what that connection is about. Sorry I can't respond more intelligently. Perhaps you could explain just a bit more there? – Todd Trimble Jan 13 '15 at 20:42
  • 1
    @ToddTrimble -- the above connection is basic since Kronecker to the specialists in algebraic number theory and algebraic geometers. But if you name Lagrange's interpolation and the Chinese theorem in one breath to, say, true (:-) experts in Analysis they will be most likely bewildered. – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Jan 16 '15 at 05:44
  • 1
    @WłodzimierzHolsztyński: In my opinion, this an interesting analogy at the the very least! – José Hdz. Stgo. Oct 28 '21 at 04:56
5

The existence of Nash equilibria is an example that connects elementary aspects of game theory, probability, geometry, and algebraic topology.

5

Another point that hasn't been mentioned yet: To prove the nonexistence of scissors congruences, one typically uses algebraic $K$-theory.

5

This is a bit old but I still find it surprising.

Fourier series were essentially invented by Brook Taylor and Daniel Bernoulli. The first noticed the rather obvious fact that sines and cosines represent the movement of a string pretty well, and the second added the observation that a sum of sines and cosines also represents a possible evolution of the string. Then D'Alembert put these discoveries in perspective, inventing the wave equation. But all this is quite natural: the connection between oscillations, sums of sines-cosines, and the wave equation is not too surprising.

Now, think of Fourier who discovered that the heat equation can be analyzed using sines and cosines too. The intuition that equations having nothing to do with oscillations can be solved using sines and cosines is quite deep and unexpected, and the impact on mathematics was dramatic.

4

"Vojta's analogy" between Nevanlinna theory and Diophantine approximation. Nevanlinna theory studies holomorphic curves from the affine line $C$ to complex projective space $P^n$ (or to other complex manifolds). The main characteristic of such a curve is called the Nevanlinna characteristic. It was introduced by H. Cartan (for the case of projective space) in 1929. Almost simultaneously, heights was introduced to number theory by Weil and Siegel (1928).

Some people noticed the similarity of these two notions, but only in 1987, Vojta started to explore this similarity systematically. The result was very profitable for both theories.

  • Since http://mathoverflow.net/a/15520/121 is about the same analogy, perhaps an edit would be more appropriate. – S. Carnahan Jan 17 '15 at 01:22
4

Fact that something such well known as group of rotations SO(3) is connected but not simply connected and which is more it may be shown (!) by Dirac Belt or even by toying of cup of tee and a hand!

kakaz
  • 1,596
4

One more. The application of string theory (mirror symmetry) to solving the Clemens conjecture in enumerative geometry, by finding the generating function for the number of rational curves which pass through a certain number of points. The coefficients are Gromov-Witten invariants. This is the work of Candelas, et al.

SandeepJ
  • 1,617
  • Clemens conjecture (on finiteness of the number of rational curves of fixed degree on a quintic 3-fold) was solved??? No it wasn't. – VA. May 11 '10 at 23:35
  • @Valery, you are right. I don't know how Clemens conjecture got in there.. :-) I was just thinking of the general problem of enumerating curves passing through a certain number of points. (P.S reply was delayed because I didn't notice the outstanding comment) – SandeepJ Jun 15 '10 at 01:08
3

Definitely not a pure interplay between two subfields of math, but the omnipresence of quaternions in physics is stunning. I even figured out a few years ago that writing down the equivalent of Cauchy-Riemann equations for functions of a quaternionic variable in a matricial form and multiplying this matrix on the left by the metric tensor of special relativity directly gives rise to continuity equation and wave equation, which is truly intriguing and amazingly beautiful.

3

The homotopy hypothesis, namely that two concepts, one that of a (weak) $n$-groupoid arising in higher category theory, and the other that of (the homotopy type of) a topological space $X$ with $\pi_i\left(X\right)=0$ for all $i > n,$ are the same thing.

3

A recent connection between macroeconomics and electrodynamics by Maldacena: see Appendix here that derives Maxwell equations from the condition that currency exchange banks don't go bust (in a certain made-up but not too unreasonable currency exchange setup).

Michael
  • 2,175
  • I am not exactly sure that some non-trivial macroeconomics can be extracted from the connection. I think it is more of an illustrative thing, though I might be wrong –  May 22 '18 at 13:17
3

I find it a fascinating and productive perspective that the algebra of compositional and multiplicative inversion of formal power series are determined by the refined Euler characteristic / refined signed face partition polynomials of the associahedra (cf. MO-A1 and MO-A2) and the permutahedra (cf. MO-A3). These, in turn, are related to Lie infinitesimal generators, formal group laws, functional iteration, complex dynamics (Maupertuis action principal, Hamilton-Jacobi dynamics/geometric optics), the antipodes of combinatorial Hopf algebras, the calculus and group properties of the Sheffer polynomials, lattice paths and trees (and other combinatorial models), algebraic geometry, Koszul duality of operads, and scattering processes in quantum field theory among other areas of current research in math and physics. Compositional inversion via reciprocals of formal power series is also connected to noncrossing partitions (cf. OEIS A134264) and, consequently, the theory of free probability (and random matrices), a relation that can be derived from successive inversions via the permutahedra and associahedra.

I was certainly surprised with these revelations after first deriving the partition polynomials for the two types of inversion while exploring the Sheffer umbral/finite operator calculus and then subsequently finding the connections to permutahedra via Alford Arnold's OEIS entry A049019 and the associahedra via an article by Loday, and I believe the associations among the convex polytopes and the two types of inversion can be said surprising from a historical perspective as well. The three dimensional permutahedron is a Archimedean polytope--been around for a while--yet recognition of the explicit relation between the combinatorics of the faces of the permutahedra and multiplicative inversion seems relatively recent (probably this century only), and, despite Newton having derived at least the first few partition polynomials for compositional inversion of formal power series, Loday seems to be the first to have noticed the connection between associahedra (a 20'th century invention) and inversion.

In an interview by Quanta Magazine, Federico Ardila expressed his surprise at some of these connections. He collaborated with Marcelo Aguiar to produce some interesting perspectives on these relationships.

Tom Copeland
  • 9,937
  • I'm cheating slightly. The refined noncrossing partitions can be derived through multiplicative inversion (MI) of formal power series--an inversion related to refined Pascal partition polynomials--more quickly than by MI of formal Taylor series, or e.g.f.s, which is directly related to the combinatorics of permutahedra, but the MIs differ only by simple scaling factors of the indeterminates. – Tom Copeland Nov 16 '21 at 21:04
3

Category theory shows that products are dual to coproducts.

Aka multiplication is dual to addition.

That category theory could say something new about such simple concepts is what convinced me to study it.

Mozibur Ullah
  • 2,222
  • 14
  • 21
3

Disclaimer: This is a little bit of self-promotion, but when I discovered it, I was very fascinated by the relationship:

There are positive definite kernels, hence a reproducing kernel Hibert space over pitches of musical notes which can approximately capture the perceived consonance of two musical notes. Details are described here: http://orges-leka.de/knn-music/Measuring_note_similarity_with_positive_definite_kernels.pdf

One manifestation of this relationship, to create relaxing study music, can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc7D3Q_6baU

I find it intriguing that something like a Hilbert space shows up in the perceived consonance of musical notes. It opens up new possibilities for application of geometric intuition to music.

3

We all know how the limiting Fibonacci ratio $(1+\sqrt5)/2$ is tied in with the geometry and construction of the regular pentagon. But what about the connection between the neusis construction of the regular hendecagon and the tribonacci constant, the latter defined as the limiting ratio of the sequence $1,1,1,3,5,9,17,\ldots$ (each term after the third is the sum of the previous three)? It turns out that the tribonacci constant is connected with the cosines of the hendecagonal angles via the Gauss sum.

Neusis construction of the regular hendecagon

We begin with the existence of the referenced neusis construction. The neusis constructibility of regular $n$-gons is guaranteed by the existence of a (or many) neusis trisection of an angle, if the Euler totient function of $n$ has no prime factors greater than $3$. Now, $11$ is the smallest natural number failing to meet this criterion, as its Euler totient is a multiple of $5$. However, Benjamin and Snyder[1] demonstrate a neusis construction for the regular hendecagon. In the method they present, the solubility of a quintic equation to determine parameters that can be put into a neusis construction depends on a resolving seventh-degree equation, which seems to be a step backwards. However, for the specific quintic equation for $2\cos(2k\pi/11)$ with $k\not\equiv0\bmod 11$:

$$x^5+x^4-4x^3-3x^2+3x+1=0$$

"a miracle occurs"; the seventh-degree equation is reducible and the required equation is reduced to a cubic factor, rendered in the work as

$$u^3+2u^2+2u+2=0.$$

This root of a cubic equation is neusis constructible, and the parameters required to retrieve the regular hendecagon are derived in terms of this root.

The above cubic equation is not the tribonacci ratio equation, which is instead

$$t^3-t^2-t-1=0;$$

but it turns out that $t=-1/(1+u)$ and the distance from the pole of the neusis to the catch line for one of the marks may be rendered as $1/t(=-(1+u))$. So where might the tribonacci ratio have come from in this solution of a seemingly unrelated quintic equation?

The 11th-order Gauss sum

If you are familiar with quadratic Gauss sums, you have probably seen the result

$$\sin(2\pi/11)-\sin(4\pi/11)+\sin(6\pi/11)+\sin(8\pi/11)+\sin(10\pi/11)=\sqrt{11}/2,$$

which is just the imaginary part of the quadratic sum with eleventh roots of unity. In a rather common homework problem in this area, the above sum is multiplied through by $\cos(8\pi/11)$, various manipulations are made with the trigonometric sum-product relations, then the multiplier $\cos(8\pi/11)$ is divided back out to get the sine-tangent relation

$$4\sin(2\pi/11)-\tan(8\pi/11)=\sqrt{11}$$

or something similar. We could have just as well used the multiplier $\cos(2k\pi/11)$ for any $k\in\{1,2,3,4,5\}$ to get a group of five of these relations which may be symmetrically expressed as

$$4\sin(6k\pi/11)-\tan(2k\pi/11)=(k\mid11)\sqrt{11}$$

where $(k\mid11)$ is the Legendre symbol of residue $k\bmod11$. This applies for all integers $k$, including $0$ (which trivially gives $0=0$).

The tribonacci constant emerges from the Gauss sum

Suppose we square the above symmetric relation and render $x=2\cos(2k\pi/11)$, the quintic roots for which we (and Benjamin and Snyder) intended to solve. We can use multiple-angle trigonometric formulae and the Pythagorean relation $\sin^2\theta+\cos^2\theta=1$ to obtain a rational-function equation for $x$, from which fractions may be cleared to obtain a polynomial equation. The net result, however, isn't the quintic equation we expect but an octic one:

$$x^8-6x^6-x^5+9x^4+5x^3-x^2-4x-1=0.$$

What happened to the quintic equation for the trigonometric roots? It's actually there, as a factor of the octic. And guess what the complementary cubic factor is:

$$(x^5+x^4-4x^3-3x^2+3x+1)\color{blue}{(x^3-x^2-x-1)}=0.$$

So the cubic factor found by Benjamin and Snyder, which enables the neusis construction of the regular hendecagon, is not entirely an accident. In the form of the tribonacci constant, and therefore one of the distance parameters in Benjamin and Snyder's construction, it is adjoined to the quintic roots through the Gauss sum!

Reference

  1. E. BENJAMIN and C. SNYDER (2014). On the construction of the regular hendecagon by marked ruler and compass . Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 156, pp 409-424 doi:10.1017/S0305004113000753
Michael Hardy
  • 11,922
  • 11
  • 81
  • 119
Oscar Lanzi
  • 1,603
  • I won't say it's a bad answer, but it's long and takes a while to get into, on a topic which maybe few have exposure to, and it may not be very clear what exactly is surprising about it. As opposed to, say, the link between the Riemann Hypothesis and random matrix theory. – Todd Trimble May 26 '23 at 22:53
3

The Gauss-Bonnet theorem. It only uses concepts from classical differential geometry of 2D surfaces and can be explained to an undergraduate, but it connects geometric notions of curvature to a purely topological concept (the Euler characteristic), thereby relating two very different levels of mathematical structure. I still find the result pretty amazing.

tparker
  • 1,243
  • There is a discrete counterpart: the sum of the defects of the vertices of a polyhedron homeomorphic to a sphere is two full circles. The defect of a vertex is the amount by which the sum of the angles falls short of a full circle. If the sum exceeds a circle, the defect is negative. I think Descartes may have been the first to state this. – Michael Hardy May 27 '23 at 19:24
3

Although it is not all that spectacular, since it does not really relate two different fields of mathematics, it has always been surprising to me that the gradient flow equation for the Chern-Simons functional on a (closed, oriented) 3-manifold $Y$ turns out to be the ASD(=Yang-Mills) equation on the cylinder $Y\times\mathbb{R}$.


The next thing is not really a connection, but definitely one of my favorite surprises in mathematics. By the work of Michael Freedman, the classification of closed, oriented, simply-connected topological 4-manifolds is basically equivalent to the classification of unimodular, symmetric bilinear forms (uSBFs) over the integers. As nice as this is, it comes with the grain of salt that the classification of uSBFs is not an easy task. Specifically, the classification of definite uSBFs is a hard problem and far from being solved.

And now comes the surprise: Simon Donaldson tells us that if we look at smooth 4-manifolds, then the only definite uSBFs that can occur are the trivial ones!

3

Using the Chinese remainder theorem for proving Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

2

I am always impressed how countability conditions and topological properties interact, like in the following cases.

Assume there is a topological group $P$ which is, as an abstract group, isomorphic to a direct product of groups $G$ and $H$. Assume all groups to be Hausdorff and locally compact. Then $P$ is isomorphic as a topological group to $G\times H$ in the product topology if $G$ and $H$ are sigmacompact.

And another example: Every non-discrete locally compact totally disconnected group has uncountable cardinality.

Abel Stolz
  • 804
  • 5
  • 15
1

I have been studying a paper recently called "Pointwise Fourier Inversion: a Wave Equation Approach" by Mark Pinsky and Michael Taylor. Even though Fourier analysis and PDEs have close connections, a particular connection I like is that the solution to the standard wave equation \begin{equation*} (\partial^2_t-\Delta)u=0 \end{equation*} with initial velocity $0$ and initial position $f(x)$ is used to establish pointwise convergence of the partial Fourier Integrals \begin{equation*} S_Rf(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\int_{|\xi|\leq R}\hat{f}(\xi)e^{ix\cdot\xi} \, d\xi \end{equation*} in $L^2$ as $R\to\infty$ so that we have "concrete" statements to deal with rather than arbitrary information and distributions.

Michael Hardy
  • 11,922
  • 11
  • 81
  • 119
1

Complex analysis and Brownian motion

Here there have a been a variety of results eg. conformal invariance of Brownian motion, various proofs of known complex analysis results. It has been used for intuition purposes eg. see answers by B.Thurston Does Riemann map depend continuously on the domain?. The connections are also still being explored in the study of SLE curves (defined in terms of a 1d-Brownian motion) in various statistical models.

A priori this bridge is surprising even if one just starts with the original construction using the heat equation.

Random matrices and Partial differential equations

Here the main connections come through integrability theory. The main equation that stands out here is the KPZ equation and the KPZ universality class. The height function has beautiful formulas in terms of Airy processes and Fredholm determinant quantities that show up in random matrix theory. In particular, when dealing with boundary conditions, we find different types of random matrix families. So the connections run deep.

eg. see survey by PL Ferrari "From interacting particle systems to random matrices".

This bridge is surprising given the fact that KPZ originates from the study of interfaces and the Burgers equation which in turn was studied as a model for turbulence.

Renormalization, Regularity structures and SPDEs

This is more of a recent development. But I personally think it is quite surprising that so many of the tools/concepts developed in the specific setting of quantum fields such as Feynman-diagrams, BPHZ renormalization turn out to have analogues that apply to large families of stochastic differential equations. And that the generalization of rough paths was the natural framework to formalize those notions.

Thomas Kojar
  • 4,449
0

In topology, the connection between the fixed point property and the topological dimension (the covering dimension)--the following two theorems are equivalent:

  • the cube $\ I^n\ $ has the fixed point property;
  • there exists a normal topological space $\ X\ $ such that $\ \dim X\ \ge\ n$.

for every $\ n=0\ 1\ ...$

The connection is my notion of the universal function (or universal morphism in general). The beginning of the story is:

THEOREM $\ \dim X \ge n\ \Leftrightarrow\ \exists\text{ universal } f:X\rightarrow I^n\ $ (for every completely regular space $\ X$).

======================================================

======== 2022-10-15 ==========

====

Mathematicians that worked on the topological dimension theory and on the the fixed point property are among the greatest. The dimension theory is an integral part of topology, and a bridge between the general and algebraic topology. The f.p.p. appears in the theory of differential and integral equations, functional analysis, ...

The theory of universal maps (and morphisms) is shocking rather than a surprising bridge or rather a common roof over the dimension theory and f.p.p. Many related theorems get or should get farther clarification and a generalization.


The following theorem features dimension and fixed points only (and not universal maps at all!) but its proof is simple and natural only after involving universal maps:

Theorem (Włodzimierz Holsztyński) Let $\ X\ $ be a Hausdorff compact space such that the product $\ X\times\mathbb I^n\ $ of $\ X\ $ and the finite-dimensional cube $\ \mathbb I^n,\ $ has the fixed point property. Then, for any continuous mapping $\ f:X\times\mathbb I^n\to X\ $ there exists $\ x\in X\ $ such that

$$ \dim\{t\in\mathbb I^n: f(x,t)=x\}\ \ge n. $$


This theorem was followed by another theorem about $\ f:X\times\mathbb I^n\to X\ $; this time the theorem is about a narrower class of spaces, namely for Hausdorff compact ANR spaces, it applies the Lefschetz number in its assumption, and the proof takes advantage of a generalized Hurewicz dimension theory theorem by B.Pasynkov, but the thorem still manages to arrive at the same conclusion as in the theorem above.

And there are theorems about universal maps explicitly that generalize pairs of theorems, one from the dimension theory, and one from the f.p.p. theory. The theory of universal maps and morphisms is neglected for no rational reason.

Wlod AA
  • 4,686
  • 16
  • 23
  • @ToddTrimble -- done! :-) – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Jan 13 '15 at 23:01
  • 1
    Thanks. I have to keep reminding myself what it means for $f$ to be "universal" (for every $g: X \to I^n$ there exists $x \in X$ such that $f(x) = g(x)$). By the way, just so you know: even if you type @name, the intended recipient won't receive notification unless he/she commented before (or was the one who posted). I just happened to notice you made an edit, so I took a look and saw you tried to reach me. – Todd Trimble Jan 13 '15 at 23:28
  • @ToddTrimble -- yes, about the system of notifications, thank you for the info. And this time indeed, the system reacted to at-T immediately, expanded it to your full name. – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Jan 14 '15 at 00:14
0

The Selberg trace formula, relating chaotic geodesic motion on a compact space of negative curvature with the eigenvalues of the Laplacian operator on that space. (someone mentioned trace formulas already, but from a different perspective)

Marcel
  • 2,510
0

I remember the first time I heard about quadratic reciprocity, I thought it was very "strange". If $p$ and $q$ are two odd primes, why is the question of whether or not $p$ is a quadratic residue mod $q$ related to the different question of whether or not $q$ is a quadratic residue mod $p$?

I remember reading some proofs and yet, not feeling that the proofs "explained" what was really going on under the hood (well, of course, they were proofs, and I did not have doubts about them, but they did not seem to explain the full story).

Then I was excited to learn about Artin's work and of course the Langlands program.

That being said, I remember watching an interview with Langlands where he remarked something along the lines that when he first learned about quadratic reciprocity, he just thought it was some kind of curiosity or something, but he didn't attach much importance to it (sorry for paraphrasing, if someone knows the exact quote, I can include it here, instead of my paraphrase!).

Malkoun
  • 5,011
-4

The following amazing connection is a special case of a theorem by Sato Kentaro and another theorem by Norman Perlmutter.

Theorem: The following are equivalent for regular $\kappa$:

(i) For every function $f: \kappa\rightarrow\kappa$, there is some $\alpha\lt\kappa$ such that $f``\alpha\subseteq\alpha$ and there is some $j: V\prec M$ with critical point $\alpha$, and $V_{j^2(f)(j(\alpha))}\subseteq M$.

(ii) For every function $f: \kappa\rightarrow\kappa$, there is some $\alpha\lt\kappa$ such that $f``\alpha\subseteq\alpha$ and there is some $j: V\prec M$ with critical point $\alpha$, and $M^{j(f)(\alpha)}\subseteq M$.

(iii) For every $rank(S)=\kappa$, there is some $\mathfrak M$,$\mathfrak N\in S$, and a $j: \mathfrak M\prec\mathfrak N$.

Proof. $(i)\leftrightarrow (iii)$ follows from a theorem in Sato Kentaro's Double helix in large large cardinals and iteration of elementary embeddings, and $(ii)\leftrightarrow (iii)$ from Norman Perlmutter's The large cardinals between supercompact and almost-huge.◼

Another amazing theorem is this:

Theorem: The following are equivalent:

(i) For every $\gamma$, there is some $j: V\prec M$ with critical point $\kappa$, and $V_{j(\gamma)}\subseteq M$.

(ii) For every $\lambda$, there is some $j: V\prec M$ with critical point $\kappa$, $M^{\lambda}\subseteq M$ and $V_{j(\kappa)}\subseteq M$.

(iii) $\kappa$ is extendible.

Proof. $(i)\leftrightarrow (iii)$ follows from a theorem in Sato Kentaro's Double helix in large large cardinals and iteration of elementary embeddings, and $(ii)\leftrightarrow (iii)$ from Konstantinos Tsaprounis' Elementary chains and $C^{(n)}$-cardinals.◼

These all highlight the shocking connection between strongness and extendibility.

Zach Teitler
  • 6,197
Master
  • 1,103
  • 4
    What is shocking about these connections? – provocateur Nov 02 '21 at 22:31
  • 4
    From the question: "some part of mathematics is brought to bear in a fundamental way on another, where the connection between the two is unexpected" While I don't mean to disparage the result, I don't think strongness and extendibility are disparate in this way, so I don't think this is a good answer to the question. – Noah Schweber Dec 03 '21 at 19:18
-6

Complex numbers : Dual numbers : Double numbers :: Elliptic geometry : Euclidean geometry : Hyperbolic geometry

but also

Complex numbers : Dual numbers : Double numbers :: Euclidean geometry : Galilean geometry : Minkowski geometry

and also

Complex numbers : Dual numbers : Double numbers :: Hyperbolic geometry : Minkowski geometry : anti-de Sitter geometry

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguerre_transformations

wlad
  • 4,823