DOCSLIB.ORG

301 Recall That Λ(R, S) = Max{ Ρ(R),Ρ(R + 1), . . . , Ρ(N)} As In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
301 Recall That Λ(R, S) = Max{ Ρ(R),Ρ(R + 1), . . . , Ρ(N)} As In 14. Compositions over General Fields 301 Recall that λ(r, s) = max{ρ(r),ρ(r + 1),...,ρ(n)} as in (12.25). Moreover ρF (n, n) = ρ(n) because the Hurwitz–Radon Theorem holds true over F . We have just proved that if F has characteristic zero then: r # s ≤ r ∗F s and ρF (n, r) ≤ ρ#(n, r). However this algebraic result was proved using non-trivial topology. Is there a truly algebraic proof of the “Hopf Theorem”: r s ≤ r ∗F s for fields of characteristic zero? Does this result remain true if the field has positive characteristic? One productive idea is to apply Pfister’s results on the multiplicative properties of sums of squares. If F is a field (where 2 = 0), define • DF (n) ={a ∈ F : a is a sum of n squares in F }. • Recall that if q is a quadratic form over F then DF (q) is the set of values in F represented by q. The notation above is an abbreviated version: DF (n) = DF (n1). Evaluating one of our bilinear composition formulas at various field elements estab- lishes the following simple result. 14.3 Lemma. If [r, s, n] is admissible over F then for any field K ⊇ F , DK (r) · DK (s) ⊆ DK (n). Some multiplicative properties of these sets DF (n) were proved earlier. The clas- sical n-square identities show that DF (1), DF (2), DF (4) and DF (8) are closed under −1 −1 −1 2 multiplication. Generally a ∈ DF (n) implies a ∈ DF (n) since a = a · (a ) . Therefore those sets DF (n) are groups if n = 1, 2, 4 or 8. In the 1960s Pfister showed m that every DF (2 ) is a group. This was proved above in Exercise 0.5 and more gen- erally in (5.2). Applying this result to the rational function field F(X,Y) provides some explicit 2m-square identities. Of course any such identity for m>3 cannot be bilinear (it must involve some denominators). Here is another proof that [3, 5, 6] is not admissible. We know [3, 5, 7] is admis- sible over any F and therefore DF (3) · DF (5) ⊆ DF (7). In fact we get equality here. = 2 +···+ 2 ∈ 2 + 2 + 2 = Given any a a1 a7 DF (7) we may assume that a1 a2 a3 0 and factor out that term: a2 + a2 + a2 + a2 a = (a2 + a2 + a2) · 1 + 4 5 6 7 . 1 2 3 2 + 2 + 2 a1 a2 a3 The numerator and denominator of the fraction are in DF (4) (at least if the numerator is non-zero). Since DF (4) is a group the quantity in brackets is a sum of 5 squares, so that a ∈ DF (3) · DF (5). When that numerator is zero the conclusion is even easier. Therefore for any field F , DF (3) · DF (5) = DF (7). 302 14. Compositions over General Fields If [3, 5, 6] is admissible over F then by (14.3): DK (6) = DK (7) for every such K ⊇ F. Of course this equality can happen in some cases. For instance if the form 61 is • isotropic over F then it is isotropic over every K ⊇ F and DK (n) = K for every n ≥ 6. On the other hand Cassels (1964) proved that in the rational function field = R + 2 +···+ 2 K (x1,...,xn) the element 1 x1 xn cannot be expressed as a sum of n squares. Applied to n = 6 this shows that DK (6) = DK (7) and therefore [3, 5, 6] is not admissible over R. Cassels’ Theorem was the breakthrough which inspired Pfister to develop his theory of multiplicative forms. He observed that a quadratic form ϕ over F can be viewed in two ways. On one hand ϕ is a homogeneous quadratic polynomial ϕ(x1,...,xn) ∈ F [X]. On the other hand it is a quadratic mapping ϕ : V → F arising from a symmetric bilinear form bϕ : V × V → F , and we speak of subspaces, isometries, etc. We write ϕ ⊂ q when ϕ is isometric to a subform of q. The general result we need is the Cassels–Pfister Subform Theorem. It was stated in (9.A.1) and we state it again here. 14.4 Subform Theorem. Let ϕ, q be quadratic forms over F such that q is anisotropic. Let X = (x1,...,xs) be a system of indeterminates where s = dim ϕ. Then q ⊗F(X) represents ϕ(X) over F(X)if and only if ϕ ⊂ q. 14.5 Corollary. Suppose s and n are positive integers and n1 is anisotropic over F . The following statements are equivalent. (1) s ≤ n. (2) DK (s) ⊆ DK (n) for every field K ⊇ F . 2 +···+ 2 (3) x1 xs is a sum of n squares in the rational function field F(x1,...,xs). Proof. For (3) ⇒ (1), apply the theorem to the forms q = n1 and ϕ = s1. To generalize the proof above that [3, 5, 6] is not admissible, we need to express the product DF (r) · DF (s) as some DF (k). This was done by Pfister (1965a). It is surprising that Pfister’s function is exactly r s, the function arising from the Hopf– Stiefel condition! 14.6 Proposition. DF (r) · DF (s) = DF (r s), for any field F . In the proof we use the fact that DF (m + n) = DF (m) + DF (n). Certainly if c ∈ DF (m+n), then c = a +b where a is a sum of m squares, b is a sum of n squares. The Transversality Lemma (proved in Exercise 1.15) shows that this can be done with a,b = 0. This observation enables us to avoid separate handling of the cases a = 0 and b = 0. 14. Compositions over General Fields 303 Proof of 14.6. Since the field F is fixed here we drop that subscript. We will use the characterization of r s given in (12.10). The key property is Pfister’s observation, mentioned earlier: D(2m) · D(2m) = D(2m). By symmetry we may assume r ≤ s and proceed by induction on r + s. Choose the smallest m with 2m <s≤ 2m+1. We first prove D(r) · D(s) ⊆ D(r s).Ifr ≥ 2m then r + s>2m+1 and r s = 2m+1. Then D(r) · D(s) ⊆ D(2m+1) = D(r s), as hoped. Otherwise r<2m <sand we express s = s + 2m where s > 0. Then r s = r (s + 2m) = (r s) + 2m by (12.10). Therefore D(r) · D(s) = D(r) · (D(s) + D(2m)) ⊆ D(r) · D(s) + D(r) · D(2m) ⊆ D(r s) + D(2m) = D((r s) + 2m) = D(r s). For the equality we begin with a special case. Claim. D(2m) · D(2m + 1) = D(2m+1). For if c ∈ D(2m+1) then c = a + b where a,b ∈ D(2m). Then c = a(1 + b/a) and 1 + b/a ∈ D(2m + 1) since D(2m) is a group. This proves the claim. If r ≥ 2m then r s = 2m+1 and the claim implies that D(r s) = D(2m+1) ⊆ D(r)·D(s). Otherwise r<2m <sand r s = (r s)+2m as before. If c ∈ D(r s) then c = a + b where a ∈ D(r s) and b ∈ D(2m). The induction hypothesis implies that a = a1a2 where a1 ∈ D(r) and a2 ∈ D(s ). Then c = a1(a2 + b/a1) and m m m a2 + b/a1 ∈ D(s ) + D(2 ) · D(r) = D(s ) + D(2 ) = D(s + 2 ) = D(s). Hence c ∈ D(r) · D(s). 14.7 Proposition. If (r s)1 is anisotropic over the field F then r s ≤ r ∗F s. Proof. Suppose [r, s, n] is admissible over F . By (14.3) and (14.6), DK (r s) ⊆ DK (n) for every field K ⊇ F .Ifn<r s then (14.5) provides a contradiction. This provides an algebraic proof of Hopf’s Theorem over R (for normed bilinear pairings). Unfortunately these ideas do not apply over C or over any field of positive characteristic, because n1 is isotropic for every n ≥ 3 in those cases. Pfister’s methods lead naturally to “rational composition formulas”, that is, for- mulas where denominators are allowed. 14.8 Theorem. For positive integers r, s, n the following two statements are equiva- lent. (1) r s ≤ n. (2) DK (r) · DK (s) ⊆ DK (n) for every field K. Furthermore if F is a field where n1 is anisotropic, then the following statements are also equivalent to (1) and (2). Here X = (x1,...,xr ) and Y = (y1,...,ys) are systems of indeterminates. (3) DK (r) · DK (s) ⊆ DK (n) where K = F(X,Y). 2 +···+ 2 2 +···+ 2 = 2 +···+ 2 (4) There is a formula (x1 xr )(y1 ys ) z1 zn where each zk ∈ F(X,Y). 304 14. Compositions over General Fields (5) There is a multiplication formula as above where each zk is a linear form in Y with coefficients in F(X). Proof. The equivalence of (1) and (2) follow from (14.5) and (14.6). Trivially (2) ⇒ (3), (3) ⇒ (4) and (5) ⇒ (4). ⇒ ∈ = 2 ···+ 2 Proof that (4) (5). Given the formula where zk F(X,Y), let α x1 xr . · 2 +···+ 2 = Then α (y1 ys ) is a sum of n squares in F(X,Y). Setting K F(X) this 2 + ··· + 2 is the same as saying: n 1 represents αy1 αys over K(Y). Since n 1 is anisotropic the Subform Theorem 14.4 implies that sα⊂n1 over K.Now interpret quadratic forms as inner product spaces to restate this condition as: there is a K-linear map f : Ks → Kn carrying the form sα isometrically to a subform of n1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DERIVATIONS and PROJECTIONS on JORDAN TRIPLES an Introduction to Nonassociative Algebra, Continuous Cohomology, and Quantum Functional Analysis
    DERIVATIONS AND PROJECTIONS ON JORDAN TRIPLES An introduction to nonassociative algebra, continuous cohomology, and quantum functional analysis Bernard Russo July 29, 2014 This paper is an elaborated version of the material presented by the author in a three hour minicourse at V International Course of Mathematical Analysis in Andalusia, at Almeria, Spain September 12-16, 2011. The author wishes to thank the scientific committee for the opportunity to present the course and to the organizing committee for their hospitality. The author also personally thanks Antonio Peralta for his collegiality and encouragement. The minicourse on which this paper is based had its genesis in a series of talks the author had given to undergraduates at Fullerton College in California. I thank my former student Dana Clahane for his initiative in running the remarkable undergraduate research program at Fullerton College of which the seminar series is a part. With their knowledge only of the product rule for differentiation as a starting point, these enthusiastic students were introduced to some aspects of the esoteric subject of non associative algebra, including triple systems as well as algebras. Slides of these talks and of the minicourse lectures, as well as other related material, can be found at the author's website (www.math.uci.edu/∼brusso). Conversely, these undergraduate talks were motivated by the author's past and recent joint works on derivations of Jordan triples ([116],[117],[200]), which are among the many results discussed here. Part I (Derivations) is devoted to an exposition of the properties of derivations on various algebras and triple systems in finite and infinite dimensions, the primary questions addressed being whether the derivation is automatically continuous and to what extent it is an inner derivation.
    [Show full text]
  • Moufang Loops and Alternative Algebras
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 132, Number 2, Pages 313{316 S 0002-9939(03)07260-5 Article electronically published on August 28, 2003 MOUFANG LOOPS AND ALTERNATIVE ALGEBRAS IVAN P. SHESTAKOV (Communicated by Lance W. Small) Abstract. Let O be the algebra O of classical real octonions or the (split) algebra of octonions over the finite field GF (p2);p>2. Then the quotient loop O∗=Z ∗ of the Moufang loop O∗ of all invertible elements of the algebra O modulo its center Z∗ is not embedded into a loop of invertible elements of any alternative algebra. It is well known that for an alternative algebra A with the unit 1 the set U(A) of all invertible elements of A forms a Moufang loop with respect to multiplication [3]. But, as far as the author knows, the following question remains open (see, for example, [1]). Question 1. Is it true that any Moufang loop can be imbedded into a loop of type U(A) for a suitable unital alternative algebra A? A positive answer to this question was announced in [5]. Here we show that, in fact, the answer to this question is negative: the Moufang loop U(O)=R∗ for the algebra O of classical octonions over the real field R andthesimilarloopforthe algebra of octonions over the finite field GF (p2);p>2; are not imbeddable into the loops of type U(A). Below O denotes an algebra of octonions (or Cayley{Dickson algebra) over a field F of characteristic =2,6 O∗ = U(O) is the Moufang loop of all the invertible elements of O, L = O∗=F ∗.
    [Show full text]
  • Malcev Algebras
    MALCEVALGEBRAS BY ARTHUR A. SAGLEO) 1. Introduction. This paper is an investigation of a class of nonassociative algebras which generalizes the class of Lie algebras. These algebras satisfy certain identities that were suggested to Malcev [7] when he used the com- mutator of two elements as a new multiplicative operation for an alternative algebra. As a means of establishing some notation for the present paper, a brief sketch of this development will be given here. If ^4 is any algebra (associative or not) over a field P, the original product of two elements will be denoted by juxtaposition, xy, and the following nota- tion will be adopted for elements x, y, z of A : (1.1) Commutator, xoy = (x, y) = xy — yx; (1.2) Associator, (x, y, z) = (xy)z — x(yz) ; (1.3) Jacobian, J(x, y, z) = (xy)z + (yz)x + (zx)y. An alternative algebra A is a nonassociative algebra such that for any elements xi, x2, x3 oí A, the associator (¡Ci,x2, x3) "alternates" ; that is, (xi, x2, xs) = t(xiv xh, xh) for any permutation i%,i2, i%of 1, 2, 3 where « is 1 in case the permutation is even, — 1 in case the permutation is odd. If we introduce a new product into an alternative algebra A by means of a commutator x o y, we obtain for any x, y, z of A J(x, y, z)o = (x o y) o z + (y o z) o x + (z o y) o x = 6(x, y, z). The new algebra thus obtained will be denoted by A(~K Using the preceding identity with the known identities of an alternative algebra [2] and the fact that the Jacobian is a skew-symmetric function in /l(-), we see that /1(_) satis- fies the identities (1.4) ïoï = 0, (1.5) (x o y) o (x o z) = ((x o y) o z) o x + ((y o z) o x) o x + ((z o x) o x) o y Presented to the Society, August 31, 1960; received by the editors March 14, 1961.
    [Show full text]
  • Gauging the Octonion Algebra
    UM-P-92/60_» Gauging the octonion algebra A.K. Waldron and G.C. Joshi Research Centre for High Energy Physics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 8052, Australia By considering representation theory for non-associative algebras we construct the fundamental and adjoint representations of the octonion algebra. We then show how these representations by associative matrices allow a consistent octonionic gauge theory to be realized. We find that non-associativity implies the existence of new terms in the transformation laws of fields and the kinetic term of an octonionic Lagrangian. PACS numbers: 11.30.Ly, 12.10.Dm, 12.40.-y. Typeset Using REVTEX 1 L INTRODUCTION The aim of this work is to genuinely gauge the octonion algebra as opposed to relating properties of this algebra back to the well known theory of Lie Groups and fibre bundles. Typically most attempts to utilise the octonion symmetry in physics have revolved around considerations of the automorphism group G2 of the octonions and Jordan matrix representations of the octonions [1]. Our approach is more simple since we provide a spinorial approach to the octonion symmetry. Previous to this work there were already several indications that this should be possible. To begin with the statement of the gauge principle itself uno theory shall depend on the labelling of the internal symmetry space coordinates" seems to be independent of the exact nature of the gauge algebra and so should apply equally to non-associative algebras. The octonion algebra is an alternative algebra (the associator {x-1,y,i} = 0 always) X -1 so that the transformation law for a gauge field TM —• T^, = UY^U~ — ^(c^C/)(/ is well defined for octonionic transformations U.
    [Show full text]
  • O/Zp OCTONION ALGEBRA and ITS MATRIX REPRESENTATIONS
    Palestine Journal of Mathematics Vol. 6(1)(2017) , 307313 © Palestine Polytechnic University-PPU 2017 O Z OCTONION ALGEBRA AND ITS MATRIX = p REPRESENTATIONS Serpil HALICI and Adnan KARATA¸S Communicated by Ayman Badawi MSC 2010 Classications: Primary 17A20; Secondary 16G99. Keywords and phrases: Quaternion algebra, Octonion algebra, Cayley-Dickson process, Matrix representation. Abstract. Since O is a non-associative algebra over R, this real division algebra can not be algebraically isomorphic to any matrix algebras over the real number eld R. In this study using H with Cayley-Dickson process we obtain octonion algebra. Firstly, We investigate octonion algebra over Zp. Then, we use the left and right matrix representations of H to construct repre- sentation for octonion algebra. Furthermore, we get the matrix representations of O Z with the = p help of Cayley-Dickson process. 1 Introduction Let us summarize the notations needed to understand octonionic algebra. There are only four normed division algebras R, C, H and O [2], [6]. The octonion algebra is a non-commutative, non-associative but alternative algebra which discovered in 1843 by John T. Graves. Octonions have many applications in quantum logic, special relativity, supersymmetry, etc. Due to the non-associativity, representing octonions by matrices seems impossible. Nevertheless, one can overcome these problems by introducing left (or right) octonionic operators and xing the direc- tion of action. In this study we investigate matrix representations of octonion division algebra O Z . Now, lets = p start with the quaternion algebra H to construct the octonion algebra O. It is well known that any octonion a can be written by the Cayley-Dickson process as follows [7].
    [Show full text]
  • The Exchange Property and Direct Sums of Indecomposable Injective Modules
    Pacific Journal of Mathematics THE EXCHANGE PROPERTY AND DIRECT SUMS OF INDECOMPOSABLE INJECTIVE MODULES KUNIO YAMAGATA Vol. 55, No. 1 September 1974 PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 55, No. 1, 1974 THE EXCHANGE PROPERTY AND DIRECT SUMS OF INDECOMPOSABLE INJECTIVE MODULES KUNIO YAMAGATA This paper contains two main results. The first gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a direct sum of inde- composable injective modules to have the exchange property. It is seen that the class of these modules satisfying the con- dition is a new one of modules having the exchange property. The second gives a necessary and sufficient condition on a ring for all direct sums of indecomposable injective modules to have the exchange property. Throughout this paper R will be an associative ring with identity and all modules will be right i?-modules. A module M has the exchange property [5] if for any module A and any two direct sum decompositions iel f with M ~ M, there exist submodules A\ £ At such that The module M has the finite exchange property if this holds whenever the index set I is finite. As examples of modules which have the exchange property, we know quasi-injective modules and modules whose endomorphism rings are local (see [16], [7], [15] and for the other ones [5]). It is well known that a finite direct sum M = φj=1 Mt has the exchange property if and only if each of the modules Λft has the same property ([5, Lemma 3.10]). In general, however, an infinite direct sum M = ®i&IMi has not the exchange property even if each of Λf/s has the same property.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Enveloping Algebras for Simple Malcev Algebras
    Pr´e-Publica¸c˜oes do Departamento de Matem´atica Universidade de Coimbra Preprint Number 10–32 UNIVERSAL ENVELOPING ALGEBRAS FOR SIMPLE MALCEV ALGEBRAS ELISABETE BARREIRO AND SARA MADARIAGA Abstract: It is our goal to present an universal enveloping algebra for the simple (non-Lie) 7-dimensional Malcev algebra M(α, β, γ) in order to obtain an universal enveloping algebra for simple Malcev algebras and to study its properties. Keywords: Simple Malcev algebra; universal enveloping algebra. Introduction The universal enveloping algebra of an algebra is a basic tool in the study of its representation theory. Given a algebra A, let us denote by A− the algebra obtained from A by replacing the product xy by the commutator [x, y]= xy yx, for elements x, y A. It is known that if A is an associative − ∈ algebra one obtains a Lie algebra A− and, conversely, the Poincar´e-Birkhoff- Witt Theorem establishes that any Lie algebra is isomorphic to a subalgebra of A− for some associative algebra A ([1], [2]). If we start with an alternative algebra A (alternative means that x(xy)= 2 2 x y and (yx)x = yx , for x, y A) then A− is a Malcev algebra. Since any associative algebra is in particular∈ an alternative algebra, then the Mal- cev algebra A− is a natural generalization of the Lie algebra A−. In [4], P´erez-Izquierdo and Shestakov presented an enveloping algebra of Malcev algebras (constructed in a more general way), generalizing the classical no- tion of universal enveloping algebra for Lie algebras. They proved that for every Malcev algebra M there exist an algebra U(M) and an injective Malcev algebra homomorphism ι : M U(M)− such that the image of M lies into the alternative nucleus of U(M−→), being U(M) a universal object with respect to such homomorphism.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Theorems in Mathematics
    SOME FUNDAMENTAL THEOREMS IN MATHEMATICS OLIVER KNILL Abstract. An expository hitchhikers guide to some theorems in mathematics. Criteria for the current list of 243 theorems are whether the result can be formulated elegantly, whether it is beautiful or useful and whether it could serve as a guide [6] without leading to panic. The order is not a ranking but ordered along a time-line when things were writ- ten down. Since [556] stated “a mathematical theorem only becomes beautiful if presented as a crown jewel within a context" we try sometimes to give some context. Of course, any such list of theorems is a matter of personal preferences, taste and limitations. The num- ber of theorems is arbitrary, the initial obvious goal was 42 but that number got eventually surpassed as it is hard to stop, once started. As a compensation, there are 42 “tweetable" theorems with included proofs. More comments on the choice of the theorems is included in an epilogue. For literature on general mathematics, see [193, 189, 29, 235, 254, 619, 412, 138], for history [217, 625, 376, 73, 46, 208, 379, 365, 690, 113, 618, 79, 259, 341], for popular, beautiful or elegant things [12, 529, 201, 182, 17, 672, 673, 44, 204, 190, 245, 446, 616, 303, 201, 2, 127, 146, 128, 502, 261, 172]. For comprehensive overviews in large parts of math- ematics, [74, 165, 166, 51, 593] or predictions on developments [47]. For reflections about mathematics in general [145, 455, 45, 306, 439, 99, 561]. Encyclopedic source examples are [188, 705, 670, 102, 192, 152, 221, 191, 111, 635].
    [Show full text]
  • Enveloping Algebra for Simple Malcev Algebras
    Motivation Simple Malcev algebras Enveloping algebra of Lie algebras Enveloping algebra of simple Malcev algebras Enveloping algebra for simple Malcev algebras Elisabete Barreiro (joint work with Sara Merino) Centre for Mathematics - University of Coimbra Portugal International Conference on Algebras and Lattices Prague, June 2010 Elisabete Barreiro (Univ. Coimbra, Portugal) Enveloping for simple Malcev algebras ICAL Prague 2010 1 / 16 Motivation Simple Malcev algebras Enveloping algebra of Lie algebras Enveloping algebra of simple Malcev algebras .A algebra finite dimensional over a field K .A − algebra: replacing the product xy in A by the commutator [x; y] = xy − yx, x; y 2 A. Ak(A) algebra: provided with commutator [x; y] = xy − yx and associator A(x; y; z) = (xy)z − x(yz), x; y; z 2 A. A associative =) A− Lie algebra alternative =) A− Malcev algebra x(xy) = x2y (yx)x = yx2; x; y 2 A not necessarily associative =) Ak(A) Akivis algebra Lie Malcev Akivis Elisabete Barreiro (Univ. Coimbra, Portugal) Enveloping for simple Malcev algebras ICAL Prague 2010 2 / 16 Motivation Simple Malcev algebras Enveloping algebra of Lie algebras Enveloping algebra of simple Malcev algebras CONVERSELY Theorem (Poincare-Birkhoff-Witt)´ Any Lie algebra is isomorphic to a subalgebra of A− for a suitable associative algebra A. Theorem An arbitrary Akivis algebra can be isomorphically embedded into an Akivis algebra Ak(A) for an algebra A. Reference: I. P. Shestakov, Every Akivis algebra is linear, Geometriae Dedicata 77 (1999), 215–223. Lie X Malcev ? Akivis X Elisabete Barreiro (Univ. Coimbra, Portugal) Enveloping for simple Malcev algebras ICAL Prague 2010 3 / 16 Motivation Simple Malcev algebras Enveloping algebra of Lie algebras Enveloping algebra of simple Malcev algebras QUESTION: Is any Malcev algebra isomorphic to a subalgebra of A−, for some alternative algebra A? .
    [Show full text]
  • An Algebraic Proof Sedenions Are Not a Division Algebra and Other Consequences of Cayley-Dickson Algebra Definition Variation
    An algebraic proof Sedenions are not a division algebra and other consequences of Cayley-Dickson Algebra definition variation Richard D. Lockyer Email: [email protected] Abstract The Cayley-Dickson dimension doubling algorithm nicely maps ℝ → ℂ → ℍ → → and beyond, but without consideration of any possible definition variation. Quaternion Algebra ℍ has two orientations, and they drive definition variation in all subsequent algebras, all of which have ℍ as a subalgebra. Requiring Octonion Algebra to be a normed composition algebra limits the possible orientation combinations of its seven ℍ subalgebras to sixteen proper orientations, which are itemized. Identification of the subalgebras for Sedenion Algebra and orientation limitations on these subalgebras provides a fully algebraic proof that all subalgebras cannot be oriented as proper Octonion Algebras, verifying Sedenion Algebra is not generally a normed composition division algebra. The 168 standard Cayley-Dickson doubled Sedenion Algebra primitive zero divisors are presented, as well as representative forms that will yield primitive zero divisors for all 2048 possible maximal set proper subalgebra orientations for Sedenion Algebras; algebraic invariant Sedenion primitive zero divisors. A simple mnemonic form for validating proper orientations is provided. The method to partition any number of algebraic element products into product term sets with like responses to all possible proper orientation changes; either to a single algebraic invariant set or to one of 15 different algebraic variant sets, is provided. Most important for based mathematical physics, the stated Law of Octonion Algebraic Invariance requires observables to be algebraic invariants. Its converse, The Law of the Unobservable suggests homogeneous equations of algebraic constraint built from the algebraic variant sets.
    [Show full text]
  • Weak Associativity and Deformation Quantization
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Nuclear Physics B 910 (2016) 240–258 www.elsevier.com/locate/nuclphysb Weak associativity and deformation quantization V.G. Kupriyanov a,b,∗ a CMCC-Universidade Federal do ABC, Santo André, SP, Brazil b Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia Received 19 June 2016; accepted 3 July 2016 Available online 12 July 2016 Editor: Hubert Saleur Abstract Non-commutativity and non-associativity are quite natural in string theory. For open strings it appears due to the presence of non-vanishing background two-form in the world volume of Dirichlet brane, while in closed string theory the flux compactifications with non-vanishing three-form also lead to non-geometric backgrounds. In this paper, working in the framework of deformation quantization, we study the violation of associativity imposing the condition that the associator of three elements should vanish whenever each two of them are equal. The corresponding star products are called alternative and satisfy important for physical applications properties like the Moufang identities, alternative identities, Artin’s theorem, etc. The condition of alternativity is invariant under the gauge transformations, just like it happens in the associative case. The price to pay is the restriction on the non-associative algebra which can be represented by the alternative star product, it should satisfy the Malcev identity. The example of nontrivial Malcev algebra is the algebra of imaginary octonions. For this case we construct an explicit expression of the non-associative and alternative star product.
    [Show full text]
  • WHEN IS ∏ ISOMORPHIC to ⊕ Introduction Let C Be a Category
    WHEN IS Q ISOMORPHIC TO L MIODRAG CRISTIAN IOVANOV Abstract. For a category C we investigate the problem of when the coproduct L and the product functor Q from CI to C are isomorphic for a fixed set I, or, equivalently, when the two functors are Frobenius functors. We show that for an Ab category C this happens if and only if the set I is finite (and even in a much general case, if there is a morphism in C that is invertible with respect to addition). However we show that L and Q are always isomorphic on a suitable subcategory of CI which is isomorphic to CI but is not a full subcategory. If C is only a preadditive category then we give an example to see that the two functors can be isomorphic for infinite sets I. For the module category case we provide a different proof to display an interesting connection to the notion of Frobenius corings. Introduction Let C be a category and denote by ∆ the diagonal functor from C to CI taking any object I X to the family (X)i∈I ∈ C . Recall that C is an Ab category if for any two objects X, Y of C the set Hom(X, Y ) is endowed with an abelian group structure that is compatible with the composition. We shall say that a category is an AMon category if the set Hom(X, Y ) is (only) an abelian monoid for every objects X, Y . Following [McL], in an Ab category if the product of any two objects exists then the coproduct of any two objects exists and they are isomorphic.
    [Show full text]