Grassmann Numbers: Generator Symbols & More

  • Thread starter Thread starter captain
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Grassmann Numbers
captain
Messages
163
Reaction score
0
i was not sure where to put this topic since I don't know which subject of math grassmann math constitutes. Is there an actual grassman number or is it symbolically represented by generators?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Grassmann algebras

captain said:
Is there an actual grassman number or is it symbolically represented by generators?

Well, the answer depends upon what you mean by an "actual" number!

If for you an "actual number" is one which can be added and multiplied, then Grassmann numbers are actual numbers.

If an "actual number" is one which has a geometric interpretation (e.g. complex numbers can be interpreted as plane vectors), then Grassmann numbers are actual numbers, although their interpretation is rather different from what you might have in mind if you are only familiar with real and complex numbers.

If for you an "actual number" is one which has in some suitable linear algebra-inspired sense only one "component", then a Grassmann number is not an actual number.

captain said:
i was not sure where to put this topic since I don't know which subject of math grassmann math constitutes.

The natural place for a question about Grassmann numbers would be the "Linear and Algebra" subforum.

Grassmann numbers are elements of a Grassmann algebra, or exterior algebra, and they can be used to compute with geometric quantities---roughly, "area" elements. If you want to compute an integral over some "surface", then exterior calculus, which is based upon the notion of a Grassmann algebra, is just what you want. A nice exposition which stresses the geometric interpretation is

Desmond Fearnsley-Sander, "A Royal Road to Geometry", Mathematics Magazine 53 (1980): 259--268.

Those interested in "flat two-dimensional Galilean spacetime" (one of the nine planar homogeneous geometries found by Klein) should note that this can be identified with the Grassmann algebra on one generator (a trivial example!) considered as a two-dimensional real algebra.

Someone--- I guess me--- should say that a Grassmann algebra is simply a real linear associative algebra generated by n elements (which we can think of as "vectors" in R^n)
\vec{e}_1, \; \vec{e}_2, \dots \vec{e}_n
where we have a wedge product (bilinear, associative) such that
\vec{e}_j \wedge \vec{e}_k = -\vec{e}_k \wedge \vec{e}_j
which implies
\vec{e}_j \wedge \vec{e}_j = 0
Then wedge products of k distinct generators are "k-multivectors" in R^n; we can think of a k-multivector as a k-dimensional rhombus in R^n, modulo an affine transformation (so that only the "orientation in space" and "k-volume" of the rhombus have geometric significance, not the directions of its edges). A Grassmann number is then a linear combination of k-multivectors. The Grassmann algebra generated by n "vectors" as above has dimension 2^n, with a vector basis consisting of unity, the n basis vectors, the n choose 2 bivectors, ... and the volume element
\omega = \vec{e}_1 \wedge \vec{e}_2 \wedge \dots \vec{e}_n
Here, summing the binomial coefficients gives
1+n + \left( \begin{matrix} n \\ 2 \end{matrix} \right) <br /> + \left( \begin{matrix} n \\ 3 \end{matrix} \right) + \dots <br /> + \left( \begin{matrix} n \\ n-1 \end{matrix} \right) + 1 = 2^n
 
Last edited:
It is well known that a vector space always admits an algebraic (Hamel) basis. This is a theorem that follows from Zorn's lemma based on the Axiom of Choice (AC). Now consider any specific instance of vector space. Since the AC axiom may or may not be included in the underlying set theory, might there be examples of vector spaces in which an Hamel basis actually doesn't exist ?
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top