## Your favorite surprising connections in Mathematics

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?

-
I think it could be interpreted as restricting the breadth of the list. I would suggest removing the tag to avoid this. – François G. Dorais Feb 8 2010 at 0:30

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.

-

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. $\delta = \text{(some sign)} *d*$ and $*$ 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.

-

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.

-
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.
-

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.

-

I'll take a risk and provide a slightly off-topic connection (feel free to downvote).

How come mathematics can describe physical phenomenons so accurately.

I faced this in the article by Eugene Wigner "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".

-

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.

-
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 8 2010 at 0:20
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 8 2010 at 0:35
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 8 2010 at 3:37

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 spacial 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.

-
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 8 2010 at 14:28
show 1 more comment

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 See also http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/~matwujie/cohen.wu.GT.revised.29.august.2007.pdf

-
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. mathoverflow.net/questions/234/… – Ryan Budney Feb 8 2010 at 7:17

Another surprising connection: The Ax-Kochen theorem that for each positive integer $d$ there is a finite set $Y_d$ of prime numbers, such that if $p$ is any prime not in $Y_d$ then every homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$ over the $p$-adic numbers in at least $d^2+1$ variables has a nontrivial zero.

This was proved using model theory.

-

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.

-

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).
-

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 $$f=P_0+\frac{1}{P_1+\frac{1}{P_2+\ddots}}$$ 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.

-

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.

-

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.)

-

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.

-

I believe the way R. Schoen solved Yamabe problem "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 "http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1987-17-01/S0273-0979-1987-15514-5/" for a nice account on this surprising connection between Differential Geometry and General Relativity.

-

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

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

-

Fact that something such well known as group of rotations S(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!

-

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.

-

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!

-

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.

-

I would say Gy. Elekes' beautiful and simple argument utilizing incidence theory to prove a sum-product result.

-
It would be easier to assess this answer if you told us a little something about the argument and/or the result! – Qiaochu Yuan Jul 25 2011 at 14:40

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!

-

That the Jeffreys' prior in the pole-zero parameterization of a transfer function is the hyperbolic transfinite diameter of the support of the poles and zeros.

It's my favorite because I just discovered it last month. I like laughing at my own jokes.

-
-