DOCSLIB.ORG

Free Algebras and Tensor Products

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Free Algebras and Tensor Products Free Algebras and Tensor Products Joe Lesnefsky Section 1 Introduction Introduction ∗ Physicists use tensors all the time, and I have yet to see a physicist actually explain what a tensor really is ∗ Have you ever used ∗ = , ∗ , 4 ∗ | =| | ∗ = + ↑↓⟩ ↑⟩ ↓⟩ ∗ 2 2 = 3 1 � � � ∗ And been confused what you were actually doing? ⊗ ⊕ Introduction (cont.) ∗ I want to answer: ∗ What is a tensor ∗ How do you build tensors ∗ How do you calculate with tensors ∗ Tensors hiding and overlooked in everyday physics ∗ To do this properly, we need to talk about category theory, multi-linearity, and free algebra presentations Introduction (cont.) ∗ If you carefully examine the example equations, you will see they are different “things” built up from smaller “things” ∗ : Hom , Hom , ℳ ⊗ ℳ → ℝ ⇒ ∗ | = | | | ∈ ℳ ℝ ⊗ ℳ ℝ ∗ = + = 2 + 2 4 End ↑↓⟩ ↑⟩ ↓⟩ ⇒ �↑⟩ ⊗ ↓⟩ ∈ ℂ ⊗ ℂ ≈ ℂ End End 2 � � ∗ We see� that2 � this symbol⇒4 joins� ⊗ these different⊗ � ∈ “things”ℂ ⊗ togetherℂ somehow≈ ℂ to make another “thing” ∗ How do we mathematically⊗ write down “thing”? Section 2 Category Theory Category Theory Definition 1 : A Category, , consists of 3 properties I. A collection of objects Ob II. Sets of morphismsℭ between these objects, including a distinct identity morphism : ℭ III. A composition of morphisms function ° which allows you to combine morphisms → Example Object Category Morphisms Hom , rings ring homomorphisms ℳ ⊗ ℳ ℝ | - vector spaces Continuous maps, 4 often restricted to �↑⟩ ⊗ ↓⟩ ℂ linear maps End rings ring 4 homomorphisms � ℂ Functors and Monoidal Categories Definition 2 : A functor, , maps category s.t. I. for Ob , associates for some Ob II. for Mor associates ℭ for⇝ some Mor III. for ∀ ∈ Morℭ , Mor ⇝ obeys II. and∈ III. From Defn 1. ∀ ∈ ℭ ⇝ ∈ ∀ ∈ ℭ ∈ Definition 3 : A monoidal category is a category s.t. functor : × where, up to natural isomorphism I. functor is associative : ℭ ∃ ⊗ forℭ , ℭ, ⇝ ℭOb II. there an identity object 1 Ob s.t. 1 1 ⊗ ⊗ ⊗ ≈ ⊗ ⊗ ∈ ℭ N.B. – The ∃ functor does not specify∈ HOWℭ we ⊗a linking ≈ these⊗ ≈ categories together just that we can do it somehow ⊗ Given the definition of a monoidal category, mathematician John Baez has made the conjecture . The (strong) Baez Conjecture Conjecture 1 : All physical phenomena can be modeled by a monoidal category Products ( ) vs. Co-Products ( ) ⊗ ⊕ ∗ The tensor functor does not say HOW objects are to be combined ∗ There are 2 ways to⊗ do this – Let = for , Ob for a monoidal category ∈ℑ ∗ Product Structure ⊗ ∗Focuses∈ ℭ on projecting down from ℭ with projections ⊗ ∗ Co-Product Structure ⟼ ∗ Focuses on including with inclusions ⊕ ⟼ Category Theory - Review ∗ So, given category theory and the (strong) Baez conjecture, we see that given the functor on a monoidal category we CAN link all mathematical objects useful for physics together⊗ ∗ Now, the question is HOW do we explicitly construct a s.t. it is useful for our physics calculations ∗ To do this we need to talk about multi-linearity . ⊗ Section 3 Multi-Linearity Why Do We Care About Linearity? ∗ Somewhat surprisingly, after some research I was not able to find a lot of literature about this fact ∗ Conjecture: Because it works!! ∗ Linear things are easy to calculate! ∗ QM is built on linear algebra: linear maps / eigenvalues / eigenvectors ∗ Superposition of waves implies linearity, lots of physics consists of non-interacting waves ∗ Often times, perturbative calculations are only carried out to linear order Multi-Linearity ∗ Given the functor and the desire to make compound objects out of linear primitives, we want to create an object linear in each⊗ primitive ⊗ Definition 4: For vector spaces , over field , a map 2 is multi-linear iff, for , and I. the vector sum ∶ ⊗ ⋯ − ⋯ ⊗ → , , + ∈, , =∈ , , , , + , , , , II. The scalar multiplication 1 1 1 , ⋯ , , ⋯, = , ⋯, ⋯= , , ⋯, , ⋯ 1 ⋯ ⋯ 1 ⋯ 1 ⋯ ⋯ ∗ How do we construct a functor which imposes multi- linearity? ⊗ Section 4 Free Algebras Groups - Review Definition 5: A group is a set, , with a binary operation × I. Operation is associative: = , , II. There an identity element 1 s.t. 1 = ∙∶1= → III. For ∙ there s.t.∙ ∙ =∙ ∙ ∀=1 ∈ ∃ −1 ∈ −1 ∙ −1 ∙ ∀ ∈ ∀ ∈ ∃ ∈ ∙ ∙ Free Groups Definition 6: Given a (alphabet) set , let a word in be a finite string of elements of Definition 7: Let the empty word, , be the word with no elements. Definition 8: Let concatenation be ∅an operation × by appending 2 words in a particular order → Definition 9: For define the element s.t. = = −1 −1 −1 Definition 10: Let∀ a reduced∈ word be a word with∈ all possible evaluated ∅ and removed for −1 Definition 11:∀ A ∈free group over (alphabet) set is the set of all reduced words of with the group operation of concatenation. I. Concatenation is associative – proof is beyond the scope of this lecture II. Identity element is III. Inverses are given by Defn. 9 ∅ Free Groups (cont.) ∗ Example: Let = , , . Words of are strings of elements of . For example ∗ - reduced ∗ -reduced ∗ −1 −1 −1 −1 – NOT reduced ∗ = −1 −=1 −1 so = (NOT reduced) and reducing−1 gives = −1 (reduced) 1 2 12 12 Properties of Free Groups ∗ Free groups allow you to impart a group structure to any (alphabet) set ∗ Given the (alphabet) set , the free group , is the most generic group you can form over ∗ All free groups have infinite order ∗ The simplest non-trivial free group is ∗ In general, free groups are NOT abelian ∗ Starting with these most generic groups over≈ aℤ set, we can introduce constraints called relators to customize the groups to our requirements (constraints) Equivalence Relations and Relators Definition 12: Given a set , a relation is a subset of × Example: Relations associate 2 elementsℛ of a set together. Consider the relations of =, , > etc . So = is associating elements , with each other via relation = ~ that satisfies the properties Definition≤ 13: An Equivalence Relation is a relation ∈ , , I. Reflexive - ~ ∀ II. ∈Symmetry ~ ~ III. Transitive ~ and ~ ~ ⇒ Example: Recall from grade school ⇒ these are all the properties of =. Thus an equivalence relation is a generalization of the idea of equality Definition 14: A relator is an equivalence relation on a free group Relators (cont.) ∗ Example: Construction of from ∗ The group is an abelian group of 2 elements with 2 every element having orderℤ 2 ( =ℤ1). 2 ∗ If we applyℤ the relator = to2 the free group we can see that2 for a word = = = ∗ So, if there≈ ℤ are an even2 number2 of a’s we have ~ but if there are⋯ an odd number ⋯ of ’s⋯ we have ~ ∗ This is exactly the structure of ℤ2 Group Presentations ∗ The previous example is that of a group presentation, which is a free group modulo (the normal closure of) some number of equivalence relations. ∗ For the previous example it is written: ∗ = ∗ In general, for2 an (alphabet) set and a set of relators ℤ2 ≈ ∶ , a presentation of a group is given by ∗ ℛ ∈ℑ ≈ ∶ ℛ ∈ℑ ≈ �≪ ℛ ∈ℑ≫ Free Algebras Definition 15: Given a vector space and an associative binary operation , : × an algebra is the pair , , ∙ ∙ → Definition 16: Given an algebra∙ ∙ = , , the free algebra is the algebra preserving the algebraic structure of using all elements of as generators ∙ ∙ ∗ Defns. 15 and 16 generalizes to any abelian category ∗ This includes virtually anything we would want for physics ∗ Examples of algebras are ∗ Cross Products / Outer Products ∗ Clifford Algebras N.B. – My defn for Free Algebras differs from the accepted defn written in terms of a universal property. Given the accepted defn I conjecture that these are equivalent, however I have not proven this rigorously Free Algebra “Presentations” Theorem 1: All groups are isomorphic to a presentation of a free group Theorem 2: All algebras have a projective resolution ∗ All the aforementioned properties of free groups carry over to other categories of algebraic objects mainly ∗ Free Rings ∗ Free R-Modules ∗ Free Vector Spaces ∗ If we want to “custom build” a mathematical object for our physics purposes all we need to do is the following: ∗ Cleverly choose an appropriate free algebra ∗ Figure out what physical constraints we want to impose ∗ Write relators for these constraints ∗ There is an object isomorphic to the free category modulo the relators (Thm 2) and should solve our problem Free Algebras - Review ∗ Given some set and some algebraic structure, , on that set, it is possible to create the “most generic” algebra, the free algebra , given a particular and ∗ Given a set of constraints we would like to impose on , we can write relators to impose these constraints ∗ Thm 2. guarantees that there will be an appropriate algebra isomorphic to this “presentation” which satisfies these constraints Section 5 Application : The Dirac Equation Origins of the Dirac Equation ∗ In an attempt to find a SR QM equation, we can look at our friend the Schrödinger Equation with a (classical) SR Hamiltonian modivated by E = + (for a free particle , = 0) 2 2 2 4 ∗ , = + , 2 2 2 4 ∗ Ψ , = ℏ + Ψ , 2 2 2 2 2 4 ∗ − Ψ+ −ℏ , =Ψ0 2 2 2 2 2 4 − ℏ − Ψ Origins of the Dirac Equation (cont.) ∗ = 0 – the Klein-Gordon Equation ∗ Assuming Minkowski2 4 metric − Ψ 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ∗ = −0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ∗ So adopting the notation of the d‘Alembertian wave operator = ∗ =0 □ 2 4 □ − Ψ Problems with the Klein-Gordon Equation ∗ A posteriori we know the Klein-Gordon Equation is a poor choice for a Hamilton / Lagrangian because: ∗ It is a second order
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notes and Solutions to Exercises for Mac Lane's Categories for The
    Stefan Dawydiak Version 0.3 July 2, 2020 Notes and Exercises from Categories for the Working Mathematician Contents 0 Preface 2 1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations 2 1.1 Functors . .2 1.2 Natural Transformations . .4 1.3 Monics, Epis, and Zeros . .5 2 Constructions on Categories 6 2.1 Products of Categories . .6 2.2 Functor categories . .6 2.2.1 The Interchange Law . .8 2.3 The Category of All Categories . .8 2.4 Comma Categories . 11 2.5 Graphs and Free Categories . 12 2.6 Quotient Categories . 13 3 Universals and Limits 13 3.1 Universal Arrows . 13 3.2 The Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.2.1 Proof of the Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.3 Coproducts and Colimits . 16 3.4 Products and Limits . 18 3.4.1 The p-adic integers . 20 3.5 Categories with Finite Products . 21 3.6 Groups in Categories . 22 4 Adjoints 23 4.1 Adjunctions . 23 4.2 Examples of Adjoints . 24 4.3 Reflective Subcategories . 28 4.4 Equivalence of Categories . 30 4.5 Adjoints for Preorders . 32 4.5.1 Examples of Galois Connections . 32 4.6 Cartesian Closed Categories . 33 5 Limits 33 5.1 Creation of Limits . 33 5.2 Limits by Products and Equalizers . 34 5.3 Preservation of Limits . 35 5.4 Adjoints on Limits . 35 5.5 Freyd's adjoint functor theorem . 36 1 6 Chapter 6 38 7 Chapter 7 38 8 Abelian Categories 38 8.1 Additive Categories . 38 8.2 Abelian Categories . 38 8.3 Diagram Lemmas . 39 9 Special Limits 41 9.1 Interchange of Limits .
    [Show full text]
  • Arithmetical Foundations Recursion.Evaluation.Consistency Ωi 1
    ••• Arithmetical Foundations Recursion.Evaluation.Consistency Ωi 1 f¨ur AN GELA & FRAN CISCUS Michael Pfender version 3.1 December 2, 2018 2 Priv. - Doz. M. Pfender, Technische Universit¨atBerlin With the cooperation of Jan Sablatnig Preprint Institut f¨urMathematik TU Berlin submitted to W. DeGRUYTER Berlin book on demand [email protected] The following students have contributed seminar talks: Sandra An- drasek, Florian Blatt, Nick Bremer, Alistair Cloete, Joseph Helfer, Frank Herrmann, Julia Jonczyk, Sophia Lee, Dariusz Lesniowski, Mr. Matysiak, Gregor Myrach, Chi-Thanh Christopher Nguyen, Thomas Richter, Olivia R¨ohrig,Paul Vater, and J¨orgWleczyk. Keywords: primitive recursion, categorical free-variables Arith- metic, µ-recursion, complexity controlled iteration, map code evaluation, soundness, decidability of p. r. predicates, com- plexity controlled iterative self-consistency, Ackermann dou- ble recursion, inconsistency of quantified arithmetical theo- ries, history. Preface Johannes Zawacki, my high school teacher, told us about G¨odel'ssec- ond theorem, on non-provability of consistency of mathematics within mathematics. Bonmot of Andr´eWeil: Dieu existe parceque la Math´e- matique est consistente, et le diable existe parceque nous ne pouvons pas prouver cela { God exists since Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists since we cannot prove that. The problem with 19th/20th century mathematical foundations, clearly stated in Skolem 1919, is unbound infinitistic (non-constructive) formal existential quantification. In his 1973
    [Show full text]
  • A Some Basic Rules of Tensor Calculus
    A Some Basic Rules of Tensor Calculus The tensor calculus is a powerful tool for the description of the fundamentals in con- tinuum mechanics and the derivation of the governing equations for applied prob- lems. In general, there are two possibilities for the representation of the tensors and the tensorial equations: – the direct (symbolic) notation and – the index (component) notation The direct notation operates with scalars, vectors and tensors as physical objects defined in the three dimensional space. A vector (first rank tensor) a is considered as a directed line segment rather than a triple of numbers (coordinates). A second rank tensor A is any finite sum of ordered vector pairs A = a b + ... +c d. The scalars, vectors and tensors are handled as invariant (independent⊗ from the choice⊗ of the coordinate system) objects. This is the reason for the use of the direct notation in the modern literature of mechanics and rheology, e.g. [29, 32, 49, 123, 131, 199, 246, 313, 334] among others. The index notation deals with components or coordinates of vectors and tensors. For a selected basis, e.g. gi, i = 1, 2, 3 one can write a = aig , A = aibj + ... + cidj g g i i ⊗ j Here the Einstein’s summation convention is used: in one expression the twice re- peated indices are summed up from 1 to 3, e.g. 3 3 k k ik ik a gk ∑ a gk, A bk ∑ A bk ≡ k=1 ≡ k=1 In the above examples k is a so-called dummy index. Within the index notation the basic operations with tensors are defined with respect to their coordinates, e.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Globularily Generated Double Categories
    Free Globularily Generated Double Categories I Juan Orendain Abstract: This is the first part of a two paper series studying free globular- ily generated double categories. In this first installment we introduce the free globularily generated double category construction. The free globularily generated double category construction canonically associates to every bi- category together with a possible category of vertical morphisms, a double category fixing this set of initial data in a free and minimal way. We use the free globularily generated double category to study length, free prod- ucts, and problems of internalization. We use the free globularily generated double category construction to provide formal functorial extensions of the Haagerup standard form construction and the Connes fusion operation to inclusions of factors of not-necessarily finite Jones index. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 The free globularily generated double category 11 3 Free globularily generated internalizations 29 4 Length 34 5 Group decorations 38 6 von Neumann algebras 42 1 Introduction arXiv:1610.05145v3 [math.CT] 21 Nov 2019 Double categories were introduced by Ehresmann in [5]. Bicategories were later introduced by Bénabou in [13]. Both double categories and bicategories express the notion of a higher categorical structure of second order, each with its advantages and disadvantages. Double categories and bicategories relate in different ways. Every double category admits an underlying bicategory, its horizontal bicategory. The horizontal bicategory HC of a double category C ’flattens’ C by discarding vertical morphisms and only considering globular squares. 1 There are several structures transferring vertical information on a double category to its horizontal bicategory, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Tensor Algebra
    TENSOR ALGEBRA Continuum Mechanics Course (MMC) - ETSECCPB - UPC Introduction to Tensors Tensor Algebra 2 Introduction SCALAR , , ... v VECTOR vf, , ... MATRIX σε,,... ? C,... 3 Concept of Tensor A TENSOR is an algebraic entity with various components which generalizes the concepts of scalar, vector and matrix. Many physical quantities are mathematically represented as tensors. Tensors are independent of any reference system but, by need, are commonly represented in one by means of their “component matrices”. The components of a tensor will depend on the reference system chosen and will vary with it. 4 Order of a Tensor The order of a tensor is given by the number of indexes needed to specify without ambiguity a component of a tensor. a Scalar: zero dimension 3.14 1.2 v 0.3 a , a Vector: 1 dimension i 0.8 0.1 0 1.3 2nd order: 2 dimensions A, A E 02.40.5 ij rd A , A 3 order: 3 dimensions 1.3 0.5 5.8 A , A 4th order … 5 Cartesian Coordinate System Given an orthonormal basis formed by three mutually perpendicular unit vectors: eeˆˆ12,, ee ˆˆ 23 ee ˆˆ 31 Where: eeeˆˆˆ1231, 1, 1 Note that 1 if ij eeˆˆi j ij 0 if ij 6 Cylindrical Coordinate System x3 xr1 cos x(,rz , ) xr2 sin xz3 eeeˆˆˆr cosθθ 12 sin eeeˆˆˆsinθθ cos x2 12 eeˆˆz 3 x1 7 Spherical Coordinate System x3 xr1 sin cos xrxr, , 2 sin sin xr3 cos ˆˆˆˆ x2 eeeer sinθφ sin 123sin θ cos φ cos θ eeeˆˆˆ cosφφ 12sin x1 eeeeˆˆˆˆφ cosθφ sin 123cos θ cos φ sin θ 8 Indicial or (Index) Notation Tensor Algebra 9 Tensor Bases – VECTOR A vector v can be written as a unique linear combination of the three vector basis eˆ for i 1, 2, 3 .
    [Show full text]
  • Groups and Categories
    \chap04" 2009/2/27 i i page 65 i i 4 GROUPS AND CATEGORIES This chapter is devoted to some of the various connections between groups and categories. If you already know the basic group theory covered here, then this will give you some insight into the categorical constructions we have learned so far; and if you do not know it yet, then you will learn it now as an application of category theory. We will focus on three different aspects of the relationship between categories and groups: 1. groups in a category, 2. the category of groups, 3. groups as categories. 4.1 Groups in a category As we have already seen, the notion of a group arises as an abstraction of the automorphisms of an object. In a specific, concrete case, a group G may thus consist of certain arrows g : X ! X for some object X in a category C, G ⊆ HomC(X; X) But the abstract group concept can also be described directly as an object in a category, equipped with a certain structure. This more subtle notion of a \group in a category" also proves to be quite useful. Let C be a category with finite products. The notion of a group in C essentially generalizes the usual notion of a group in Sets. Definition 4.1. A group in C consists of objects and arrows as so: m i G × G - G G 6 u 1 i i i i \chap04" 2009/2/27 i i page 66 66 GROUPSANDCATEGORIES i i satisfying the following conditions: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric Algebra Techniques for General Relativity
    Geometric Algebra Techniques for General Relativity Matthew R. Francis∗ and Arthur Kosowsky† Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University 136 Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854 (Dated: February 4, 2008) Geometric (Clifford) algebra provides an efficient mathematical language for describing physical problems. We formulate general relativity in this language. The resulting formalism combines the efficiency of differential forms with the straightforwardness of coordinate methods. We focus our attention on orthonormal frames and the associated connection bivector, using them to find the Schwarzschild and Kerr solutions, along with a detailed exposition of the Petrov types for the Weyl tensor. PACS numbers: 02.40.-k; 04.20.Cv Keywords: General relativity; Clifford algebras; solution techniques I. INTRODUCTION Geometric (or Clifford) algebra provides a simple and natural language for describing geometric concepts, a point which has been argued persuasively by Hestenes [1] and Lounesto [2] among many others. Geometric algebra (GA) unifies many other mathematical formalisms describing specific aspects of geometry, including complex variables, matrix algebra, projective geometry, and differential geometry. Gravitation, which is usually viewed as a geometric theory, is a natural candidate for translation into the language of geometric algebra. This has been done for some aspects of gravitational theory; notably, Hestenes and Sobczyk have shown how geometric algebra greatly simplifies certain calculations involving the curvature tensor and provides techniques for classifying the Weyl tensor [3, 4]. Lasenby, Doran, and Gull [5] have also discussed gravitation using geometric algebra via a reformulation in terms of a gauge principle. In this paper, we formulate standard general relativity in terms of geometric algebra. A comprehensive overview like the one presented here has not previously appeared in the literature, although unpublished works of Hestenes and of Doran take significant steps in this direction.
    [Show full text]
  • Tensor, Exterior and Symmetric Algebras
    Tensor, Exterior and Symmetric Algebras Daniel Murfet May 16, 2006 Throughout this note R is a commutative ring, all modules are left R-modules. If we say a ring is noncommutative, we mean it is not necessarily commutative. Unless otherwise specified, all rings are noncommutative (except for R). If A is a ring then the center of A is the set of all x ∈ A with xy = yx for all y ∈ A. Contents 1 Definitions 1 2 The Tensor Algebra 5 3 The Exterior Algebra 6 3.1 Dimension of the Exterior Powers ............................ 11 3.2 Bilinear Forms ...................................... 14 3.3 Other Properties ..................................... 18 3.3.1 The determinant formula ............................ 18 4 The Symmetric Algebra 19 1 Definitions Definition 1. A R-algebra is a ring morphism φ : R −→ A where A is a ring and the image of φ is contained in the center of A. This is equivalent to A being an R-module and a ring, with r · (ab) = (r · a)b = a(r · b), via the identification of r · 1 and φ(r). A morphism of R-algebras is a ring morphism making the appropriate diagram commute, or equivalently a ring morphism which is also an R-module morphism. In this section RnAlg will denote the category of these R-algebras. We use RAlg to denote the category of commutative R-algebras. A graded ring is a ring A together with a set of subgroups Ad, d ≥ 0 such that A = ⊕d≥0Ad as an abelian group, and st ∈ Ad+e for all s ∈ Ad, t ∈ Ae.
    [Show full text]
  • A Treatise on Quantum Clifford Algebras Contents
    A Treatise on Quantum Clifford Algebras Habilitationsschrift Dr. Bertfried Fauser arXiv:math/0202059v1 [math.QA] 7 Feb 2002 Universitat¨ Konstanz Fachbereich Physik Fach M 678 78457 Konstanz January 25, 2002 To Dorothea Ida and Rudolf Eugen Fauser BERTFRIED FAUSER —UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ I ABSTRACT: Quantum Clifford Algebras (QCA), i.e. Clifford Hopf gebras based on bilinear forms of arbitrary symmetry, are treated in a broad sense. Five al- ternative constructions of QCAs are exhibited. Grade free Hopf gebraic product formulas are derived for meet and join of Graßmann-Cayley algebras including co-meet and co-join for Graßmann-Cayley co-gebras which are very efficient and may be used in Robotics, left and right contractions, left and right co-contractions, Clifford and co-Clifford products, etc. The Chevalley deformation, using a Clif- ford map, arises as a special case. We discuss Hopf algebra versus Hopf gebra, the latter emerging naturally from a bi-convolution. Antipode and crossing are consequences of the product and co-product structure tensors and not subjectable to a choice. A frequently used Kuperberg lemma is revisited necessitating the def- inition of non-local products and interacting Hopf gebras which are generically non-perturbative. A ‘spinorial’ generalization of the antipode is given. The non- existence of non-trivial integrals in low-dimensional Clifford co-gebras is shown. Generalized cliffordization is discussed which is based on non-exponentially gen- erated bilinear forms in general resulting in non unital, non-associative products. Reasonable assumptions lead to bilinear forms based on 2-cocycles. Cliffordiza- tion is used to derive time- and normal-ordered generating functionals for the Schwinger-Dyson hierarchies of non-linear spinor field theory and spinor electro- dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning 3 Universal Properties, Limits and Colimits
    Category theory and diagrammatic reasoning 13th February 2019 Last updated: 7th February 2019 3 Universal properties, limits and colimits A division problem is a question of the following form: Given a and b, does there exist x such that a composed with x is equal to b? If it exists, is it unique? Such questions are ubiquitious in mathematics, from the solvability of systems of linear equations, to the existence of sections of fibre bundles. To make them precise, one needs additional information: • What types of objects are a and b? • Where can I look for x? • How do I compose a and x? Since category theory is, largely, a theory of composition, it also offers a unifying frame- work for the statement and classification of division problems. A fundamental notion in category theory is that of a universal property: roughly, a universal property of a states that for all b of a suitable form, certain division problems with a and b as parameters have a (possibly unique) solution. Let us start from universal properties of morphisms in a category. Consider the following division problem. Problem 1. Let F : Y ! X be a functor, x an object of X. Given a pair of morphisms F (y0) f 0 F (y) x , f does there exist a morphism g : y ! y0 in Y such that F (y0) F (g) f 0 F (y) x ? f If it exists, is it unique? 1 This has the form of a division problem where a and b are arbitrary morphisms in X (which need to have the same target), x is constrained to be in the image of a functor F , and composition is composition of morphisms.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 the Tensor Algebra
    J. Zintl: Part 3: The Tensor Product 9 THE TENSOR ALGEBRA 9 The tensor algebra 9.1 Multi-fold tensor products Up to this point, we have been considering tensor products of pairs of mod- ules M1 and M2 over a ring R. In many applications, the modules involved are free of finite ranks. In this special case, corollary ?? implies that we ∗ can identify M1 ⊗R M2 with Hom R(M1 ;M2). So for purely computational purposes, working with matrices would suffice in these cases. The theory of multilinear algebra unfolds its full strength in the natural generalization to tensor products of several R-modules M1, M2,..., Mp for some p ≥ 2. Throughout this section let (R; +; ·) always be a commutative ring with a multiplicative identity element. 2 2 9.1 Example. Consider M := R as an R-module. Let fe1; e2g ⊆ R 2 2 2 denote the standard basis of R . The standard inner product h ; i : R ×R ! R is a bilinear map. It is easy to see that the map 2 2 2 ' : R × R × R ! R (u; v; w) 7! hu; vi · hw; e1i is 3-linear. We claim that all of the information about the map ' can be recovered from the family of real numbers f'(ei; ej; ek)g1≤i;j;k≤2. Indeed, for 2 2 2 an arbitrary element (u; v; w) = ((u1; u2); (v1; v2); (w1; w2)) 2 R × R × R , we compute applying the rules for multilinear maps '(u; v; w) = '(u1e1 + u2e2; v1e1 + v2e2; w1e1 + w2e2) P = uivjwk'(ei; ej; ek): 1≤i;j;k≤2 In analogy to lemma 5.10 ??, we could think of the family fai;j;kg1≤i;j;k≤2 := f'(ei; ej; ek)g1≤i;j;k≤2 as a \3-dimensional matrix", or a 2 × 2 × 2 cube with entries in R, which represents the map ' by a suitably defined vector mul- 1 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Two-Spinors and Symmetry Operators
    Two-spinors and Symmetry Operators An Investigation into the Existence of Symmetry Operators for the Massive Dirac Equation using Spinor Techniques and Computer Algebra Tools Master’s thesis in Physics Simon Stefanus Jacobsson DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2021 www.chalmers.se Master’s thesis 2021 Two-spinors and Symmetry Operators ¦ An Investigation into the Existence of Symmetry Operators for the Massive Dirac Equation using Spinor Techniques and Computer Algebra Tools SIMON STEFANUS JACOBSSON Department of Mathematical Sciences Division of Analysis and Probability Theory Mathematical Physics Chalmers University of Technology Gothenburg, Sweden 2021 Two-spinors and Symmetry Operators An Investigation into the Existence of Symmetry Operators for the Massive Dirac Equation using Spinor Techniques and Computer Algebra Tools SIMON STEFANUS JACOBSSON © SIMON STEFANUS JACOBSSON, 2021. Supervisor: Thomas Bäckdahl, Mathematical Sciences Examiner: Simone Calogero, Mathematical Sciences Master’s Thesis 2021 Department of Mathematical Sciences Division of Analysis and Probability Theory Mathematical Physics Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Gothenburg Telephone +46 31 772 1000 Typeset in LATEX Printed by Chalmers Reproservice Gothenburg, Sweden 2021 iii Two-spinors and Symmetry Operators An Investigation into the Existence of Symmetry Operators for the Massive Dirac Equation using Spinor Techniques and Computer Algebra Tools SIMON STEFANUS JACOBSSON Department of Mathematical Sciences Chalmers University of Technology Abstract This thesis employs spinor techniques to find what conditions a curved spacetime must satisfy for there to exist a second order symmetry operator for the massive Dirac equation. Conditions are of the form of the existence of a set of Killing spinors satisfying some set of covariant differential equations.
    [Show full text]