Anyone familiar with Peano' (or Grassman) algebra?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter enigma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Peano
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Peano and Grassmann algebra, specifically focusing on proof questions related to join and meet operations in the context of subspaces. Participants explore definitions, properties, and implications of these algebraic structures, with an emphasis on linear independence and dimensionality.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a proof involving join and meet operations, expressing difficulty in demonstrating that two subspaces are the same under certain conditions.
  • Another participant suggests that if the sets are independent and a linear combination equals zero, then the coefficients must also be zero, implying linear independence of the subspaces.
  • A question is raised about the definition of 'n' in the context of Peano algebra, prompting clarification on its meaning related to dimensions.
  • A participant provides a definition of 'n' as the number of dimensions in addition to the projective plane, linking it to the structure of Peano algebra.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about their knowledge of Grassmann algebra and the terminology used in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the correctness of the proof or the implications of linear independence. Participants express varying levels of understanding and uncertainty regarding the concepts discussed.

Contextual Notes

Some participants acknowledge potential confusion regarding terminology and definitions, indicating that the discussion may depend on specific interpretations of the algebraic structures involved.

enigma
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,739
Reaction score
20
I'm an engineer, not a mathematician...

the professor has assigned several proof questions, and I'm having difficulty answering them...

(This may need to be moved to homework help, but the topic is unusual, so I thought I'd get better response here)

Terminology: v is a join operation, ^ is a meet operation D[] is a bracket operation

Example:

Show that when:

[tex]A = a_1 \vee a_2, B = b_1 \vee b_2, \ and\ n = 2[/tex]

then

[tex]A \wedge B = -D[a_2 , b_1 , b_2] a_1 + D[a_1 , b_1 , b_2] a_2[/tex]
[tex]= D[a_1 , a_2 , b_2] b_1 - D[a_1 , a_2 , b_1] b_2[/tex]

If the meet is zero, then assuming that the sets [itex](a_1, a_2)[/itex] and [itex](b_1, b_2)[/itex] are both independent, the four brackets must be zero. Show that, in this case, the two subspaces [itex]A_s[/itex] and [itex]B_s[/itex] are the same.

Now, proving the first part is fairly simple: just run though the definition of the meet.

I'm having difficulty with the second part. I thought that the definition of the meet is the intersection of the two subspaces. If the subspaces are the equal, then wouldn't the meet be either As or Bs?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Answering my own question somewhat:

OK. If the sets are independent, and [itex]\alpha a_1 + \beta a_2 = 0[/itex] , then [itex]\alpha \ and \ \beta[/itex] need to be zero because independancy implies [itex]a_1 \ and \ a_2[/itex] are not equal.

If [itex]D[a_i, b_i, b_j] \ and \ D[a_i, a_j, b_i][/itex] are zero for any combination of i and j, that means that the two subspaces A and B are linearly independent for any combination of bases. This must mean that they are the same subspace.

Is that correct?
 
Pardon my ignorance; I have barely ever done any reading on Grassman algebra. I probably won't be able to help you. But what is the definition of n?
 
n is the number of dimensions in addition to the projective plane: PA[Rn+1], where PA represents peano algebra.

so, the dimensions of a two dimensional projective space is PA[R2+1] corresponding to e0 e1 and e2 as the three coordinates, with e1 being the x direction, e2 being the y direction and e0 being the perspective direction.

*I hope I'm not botching up my terminology here...*
 
Ummm

I'll get back to you in a few weeks on this.
 
You must know the answer by now! If you have time, could you sketch it out for us? If you're too busy, that's understandable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K