Crystallography & Symmetry
patterns derived from their groups
Concept

Transfer matrix — where it appears

A way of counting arrangements one layer at a time, carrying forward how many partial arrangements end in each possible layer. It turns a count over an enormous set into a product of small steps, and it accepts a constraint on one cell, which is how an exact conditional count is taken.

Named by 10 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The allowed energies of the Fibonacci chain, level by level. The set of energies at which a wave neither grows nor decays, for periodic approximants of the Fibonacci chain of 5, 8, 13, 21, 34 and 55 sites. Each row has exactly one band per site, and each band splits into smaller ones at the next level rather than growing. Nothing in the picture converges to an interval: the gaps opened at one level survive at every level after it, and the limit is a Cantor set — closed, containing no interval at all, and of measure zero, which is a theorem of Sütő's rather than something these six rows prove.

A spectrum that is a Cantor set

A wave in a periodic chain has bands with gaps between them. A wave in the Fibonacci chain has gaps inside the gaps, at every scale — and the traces that decide where they are obey a recursion with a quantity it cannot change.

aperiodic · Quasicrystals Four of the 980 piles in a three-cube box. A stack of unit cubes in the corner of a box, seen down the body diagonal. Every visible face is one of three rhombi and the picture is a tiling of one fixed hexagon — the same hexagon for every pile, because a pile in an a×b×c box always shows ab+bc+ca faces however it is stacked. The four here are taken at even intervals through the enumeration, from the empty box to the full one.

A facet with no energy in it

Stack cubes into the corner of a box and look down the body diagonal: the pile is a tiling of a hexagon by three rhombi, and the number of piles is a product MacMahon wrote down in 1916. Because the count is exact, so is the average pile — and the average has a flat corner meeting a rounded middle, which is the shape of an equilibrium crystal, arrived at by counting with no surface energy anywhere in the argument.

aperiodic · Entropy Every arrangement on a torus 4 across, sorted by defects. The transfer matrix that counts ice arrangements chooses, at each vertex, the one horizontal arrow the rule permits. Enumerating both choices instead and carrying a polynomial that records how many vertices end up with three arrows in or three out gives the number of arrangements at every defect count at once. The first column, drawn solid, is the ice count — 2970 arrangements with no defect at all, which is the number the earlier transfer matrix gives and is checked against it. The second column is empty: no arrangement has exactly one defective vertex, because a defect carries a charge and the charges on a closed surface must cancel. The columns together add to two raised to the number of edges, which is every assignment of arrows whatever.

What a defect costs the count

Each broken vertex relaxes the rule and so adds arrangements — the question left standing was whether each adds a fixed amount or the cloud around it costs some back. The exact count at every defect number at once answers the first half outright: almost all of the rise is the freedom to choose which vertices break, and what is left once that is taken out exactly is small, uneven, and lowest at the first count that needs a four.

aperiodic · Entropy One rule, one lattice, two entropies. The number of arrangements per vertex for square ice, counted two ways on the same lattice with the same rule. On a torus the count falls towards Lieb's exact value of 1.5396 from above. Inside a domain wall — every arrow on the top and bottom edges pointing in, every arrow on the left and right pointing out — the count rises towards 3√3/4, which is 1.2990, from below. A residual entropy is supposed to be a bulk quantity that forgets the boundary; these two differ by sixteen per cent and the only difference between them is the boundary.

The count that depends on the edge

A residual entropy is supposed to be a bulk number: so much per vertex, whatever surrounds the lattice. Square ice has two of them. On a torus the count per vertex heads for 1.5396 and inside a domain wall it heads for 1.2990, with the same rule on the same lattice — and the sixteen per cent between them is sitting in the corners.

aperiodic · Entropy A colouring, and the arrows it writes. A proper three-colouring of the cells of a four-by-four torus — no two cells sharing an edge carry the same colour — with an arrow drawn on each shared edge by the difference of the two colours it separates. The difference is one or two modulo three, never nought, so every edge gets a direction. At each corner four cells meet and their four differences go round a cycle and add to nothing modulo three, which forces two of the arrows in and two out. That is the ice rule, arrived at from a colouring with no arrows in its statement.

Three colours on a chessboard

Colour the cells of a board in three colours so that no two sharing an edge agree. The number of ways is the number of ice arrangements on the same board — the same integer, to the last digit, at every even size — so a residual entropy a calorimeter reads is also the answer to a colouring problem with no physics in it at all. At odd sizes the two counts part company, and why they do is a condition on going round.

aperiodic · Entropy How often a broken vertex carries four. Of all the broken vertices in all the arrangements with a given number of them, the fraction whose four arrows all point the same way — on tori four, five and six vertices across. If the vertices were independent that fraction would be one in five at every count. With only two defects it is far lower, 0.085, 0.075 and 0.066 on the three tori, and falling with the size; as the count rises it climbs, oscillating, to one in five and stays there. The odd counts sit above the even ones because an odd number of defects cannot be made of twos alone — three defects must hold exactly one four, which is a share of one third.

A four is not two twos

A vertex of square ice can break the rule with three arrows one way or with all four, and a census that counts the two apart finds them behaving as charges of two and four should: the fours are rare while defects are few, a pair of fours is squeezed about four times as hard as a pair of twos, and the dip an earlier census reported turns out to be nothing but the first count that cannot be made without a four.

aperiodic · Entropy Every arrangement on two tori, by how it winds. The ice arrangements on tori eight and nine vertices across, each placed at the pair of numbers it winds by — how much the height on the faces gains going once round the torus across and once round it down — with a disc whose area grows with the number of arrangements there. On the even torus every winding is even and the arrangements crowd the centre; on the odd torus every winding is odd and there is no centre to crowd, so they sit at plus and minus one. Solid discs are the sectors whose windings are both multiples of three, which are exactly the arrangements that are also three-colourings. On the even torus that is exactly a third of everything; on the odd torus it is the four sectors at plus and minus three, and they hold about one arrangement in eighty.

A winding does not dilute

Three-colourings of an odd torus are a small and shrinking fraction of the ice arrangements on it, and the natural guess is that the fraction goes to nothing. It does not. It settles near one in twenty-eight, because the windings that decide it are a property of the whole surface rather than of its edge — and on even tori the same windings put exactly a third of the arrangements in one class, which in the limit is Jacobi's theta identity.

aperiodic · Entropy One invariant for every invertible chain. The quantity x² + y² + z² − 2xyz − 1, built from the half-traces of the transfer matrices of the two words a substitution produces at each level and of their product, for six substitutions at one energy, logarithmic. For the golden, silver and bronze chains and for the golden rule reversed it is V²/4 = 0.09 at every level — the same number for all four, computed in exact integers. For period-doubling and Thue–Morse it wanders by orders of magnitude from one level to the next.

One invariant for every chain that can be undone

The Fibonacci chain's transfer matrices obey a recursion with a quantity it cannot change, and the natural guess is that every quasiperiodic chain has its own. It does not. The conserved quantity is the trace of the commutator of the two tiles' matrices, so every chain a reversible substitution builds from the same two tiles — golden, silver, bronze — conserves the same number, exactly, at every length and every energy. Period-doubling and Thue–Morse, whose rules cannot be undone, conserve nothing.

aperiodic · Quasicrystals The exact third on every even rectangle. Square ice on twelve tori with both sides even, eight of them rectangles that are not squares, up to 6 × 12 and 8 × 8: the number of ice arrangements, the number whose two windings are both divisible by three, and their ratio. It is one third exactly, as a ratio of integers, on every one.

The third survives a rectangle

On every even square torus, exactly a third of the square-ice arrangements have both windings divisible by three, and the explanation offered was a theta function that is its own dual. A test was proposed: on a torus twice as long as it is wide the two windings have different stiffnesses, the explanation gives a different number, and the exact third should fail. It does not fail on any of eight rectangles. But the explanation, worked through properly for a rectangle, never predicted that it would. The two directions of a rectangle are each other's duals, and their factors cancel to a third at every shape.

aperiodic · Entropy Tribonacci keeps one number at every length, and its neighbours do not. The size of tr(ABC) − tr(ACB), computed in exact integers on three two-site tiles, at each application of four rules, on a logarithmic scale. Under tribonacci it stays 24 while the traces themselves reach dozens of digits. Under the plastic rule and the rule x³ = x² + 1, both of which can be undone, it wanders and grows. Under a rule that cannot be undone it passes through zero and runs off the scale.

Three tiles keep a number that asks which way they face

Two tiles always conserve something: every reversible rule keeps the trace of their commutator. Three letters were expected to conserve nothing, and most rules do conserve nothing. The tribonacci rule keeps exactly one number, the difference between a product of three matrices and the same product reversed. It is zero for any tile that reads the same both ways, so it measures direction rather than difference, and one rule in fifty keeps it, for a reason that can be read off the words.

aperiodic · Quasicrystals

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

EntropyEnumerationLocal rulesResidual entropyCensusCountingHeight functionAutomorphismCommutatorDefectDualityEquilibrium shape

All concepts