Log24

The Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) at Princeton in its Fall 2015 Letter 
revived "Beautiful Mathematics" as a title:

This ugly phrase was earlier used by Truman State University
professor Martin Erickson as a book title. See below. 

In the same IAS Fall 2015 Letter appear the following remarks
by Freeman Dyson —

". . . a special case of a much deeper connection that Ian Macdonald 
discovered between two kinds of symmetry which we call modular and affine.
The two kinds of symmetry were originally found in separate parts of science,
modular in pure mathematics and affine in physics. Modular symmetry is
displayed for everyone to see in the drawings of flying angels and devils
by the artist Maurits Escher. Escher understood the mathematics and got the
details right. Affine symmetry is displayed in the peculiar groupings of particles
created by physicists with high-energy accelerators. The mathematician
Robert Langlands was the first to conjecture a connection between these and
other kinds of symmetry. . . ." (Wikipedia link added.)

The adjective "modular"  might aptly be applied to . . .

The adjective "affine"  might aptly be applied to . . .

The geometry of the 4×4 square combines modular symmetry
(i.e., related to theta functions) with the affine symmetry above.

Hudson's 1905 discussion of modular symmetry (that of Rosenhain
tetrads and Göpel tetrads) in the 4×4 square used a parametrization
of that square by the digit 0 and the fifteen 2-subsets of a 6-set, but 
did not discuss the 4×4 square as an affine space.

For the connection of the 15 Kummer modular 2-subsets with the 16-
element affine space over the two-element Galois field GF(2), see my note
of May 26, 1986, "The 2-subsets of a 6-set are the points of a PG(3,2)" —

— and the affine structure in the 1979 AMS abstract
"Symmetry invariance in a diamond ring" —

For some historical background on the symmetry investigations by
Dyson and Macdonald, see Dyson's 1972 article "MIssed Opportunities."

For Macdonald's own  use of the words "modular" and "affine," see
Macdonald, I. G., "Affine Lie algebras and modular forms," 
Séminaire N. Bourbaki , Vol. 23 (1980-1981), Talk no. 577, pp. 258-276.

The "points" and "lines" of finite  geometry are abstract
entities satisfying only whatever incidence requirements
yield non-contradictory and interesting results. In finite
geometry, neither the points nor the lines are required to
lie within any Euclidean (or, for that matter, non-Euclidean)
space.

Models  of finite geometries may, however, embed the
points and lines within non -finite geometries in order
to aid visualization.

For instance, the 15 points and 35 lines of PG(3,2) may
be represented by subsets of a 4×4 array of dots, or squares,
located in the Euclidean plane. These "lines" are usually finite
subsets of dots or squares and not*  lines of the Euclidean plane.

Example — See "4×4" in this journal.

Some impose on configurations from finite geometry
the rather artificial requirement that both  points and lines
must be representable as those of a Euclidean plane.

Example:  A Cremona-Richmond pentagon —

A square version of these 15 "points" —

A 1905 square version of these 15 "points" 
with digits instead of letters —

See Parametrizing the 4×4 Array
(Log24 post of Sept. 13, 2016).

Update of 8 AM ET Sunday, Sept. 25, 2016 —
For more illustrations, do a Google image search
on "the 2-subsets of a 6-set." (See one such search.)

* But in some models are subsets of the grid lines 
   that separate squares within an array.

(A sequel to the previous post, Perfect Number)

Since antiquity,  six has been known as
"the smallest perfect number." The word "perfect"
here means that a number is the sum of its 
proper divisors — in the case of six: 1, 2, and 3.

The properties of a six-element set (a "6-set") 
divided into three 2-sets and divided into two 3-sets
are those of what Burkard Polster, using the same 
adjective in a different sense, has called 
"the smallest perfect universe" — PG(3,2), the projective
3-dimensional space over the 2-element Galois field.

A Google search for the phrase "smallest perfect universe"
suggests a turnaround in meaning , if not in finance, 
that might please Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer on her birthday —

The semantic  turnaround here in the meaning  of "perfect"
is accompanied by a model  turnaround in the picture  of PG(3,2) as
Polster's tetrahedral  model is replaced by Cullinane's square  model.

Further background from the previous post —

See also Kirkman's Schoolgirl Problem.

My statement yesterday morning that the 15 points
of the finite projective space PG(3,2) are indivisible 
was wrong.  I was misled by quoting the powerful
rhetoric of Lincoln Barnett (LIFE magazine, 1949).

Points of Euclidean  space are of course indivisible: 
"A point is that which has no parts" (in some translations).

And the 15 points of PG(3,2) may be pictured as 15
Euclidean  points in a square array (with one point removed)
or tetrahedral array (with 11 points added).

The geometry of  PG(3,2) becomes more interesting,
however, when the 15 points are each divided  into
several parts. For one approach to such a division,
see Mere Geometry. For another approach, click on the
image below.

Click to enlarge.

Background: Inscapes and The 2-subsets of a 6-set are the points of a PG(3,2).

Related remarks: Classical Geometry in Light of Galois Geometry.