How to make given numbers grassmann

  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Grassmann Numbers
Click For Summary
The discussion highlights the confusion surrounding the definition and properties of Grassmann numbers, similar to the initial struggles with complex numbers due to a lack of rigorous definitions. The author proposes a multiplication rule for Grassmann numbers on \mathbb{R} that maintains the anti-commuting property, suggesting that an additional dimension is necessary for proper multiplication. There is a distinction made between Grassmann numbers and Grassmann algebras, with the latter being defined over a vector space. The conversation also touches on the limitations of algebraic field extensions over \mathbb{C} and the implications of moving from complex numbers to Hamiltonian and octonion structures. Overall, the exploration emphasizes the need for clearer definitions and structures in understanding Grassmann numbers and their algebraic properties.
jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
At high school age I had trouble with complex numbers, because there was no rigor definition given to them, but instead only the property i^2=-1, and then we were supposed to calculate with it. This lead to somewhat mystical interpretations of imaginary unit sometimes, until I figured out the definition of complex numbers as \mathbb{R}^2 with given multiplication rule.

Now I'm having precisely the same problem with Grassmann numbers. I have often encountered "definitions" where the property xy=-yx is given, but nothing more precise about what the numbers actually are. I see it is easy to define an algebra where there is a finite amount of Grassmann variables, but I'm not sure this is satisfactory always. In physics it seems to be, that for example entire complex field \mathbb{C} can be merely promoted to become Grassmann algebra.

Here's my attempt to make Grassmann multiplication onto \mathbb{R}:

We first identify \mathbb{R} with \mathbb{R}\times\{0\}\subset\mathbb{R}^2, and then define a multiplication *:\mathbb{R}^2\times\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}^2 as follows.

For all x\in\mathbb{R}, (x,0)*(x,0)=(0,0).

If 0<x<x', then (x,0)*(x',0)=(0,xx') and (x',0)*(x,0)=(0,-xx').

If x<0 and 0<x', then (x,0)*(x',0)=-(|x|,0)*(x',0).

If x,x'<0, then (x,0)*(x',0)=(|x|,0)*(|x'|,0).

For all (x,y),(x',y')\in\mathbb{R}^2, (x,y)*(x',y')=(x,0)*(x',0).

I think if one wants an anti-commuting multiplication on \mathbb{R}, it is necessary to add one dimension like this. You cannot have all products inside the original space. Now this * should be a proper multiplication, with the desired anti-commuting property. Or does there seem to be problems with this definition?

Is there other definitions that would be equivalent with this? Or is there other definitions, which are not equivalent with this?

One thing that disturbs me is that I'm not sure how to do the same thing with \mathbb{C}, because there is not natural order relation <, so precisely the same definition wouldn't work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no such thing as Graßmann numbers. There is only the Graßmann algebra over a vector space ##V## defined as
$$
\bigwedge (V) = T(V) / \langle v\otimes w -w \otimes v \rangle
$$
where ##T(V)## is the tensor algebra over ##V## and ##\langle \;X\;\rangle## the ideal generated by ##X##.

The other question: There is no algebraic field extension of ##\mathbb{C}##, and especially no finite one. The Hamiltonians ##\mathbb{H}## are a four dimensional skew field (division algebra) over ##\mathbb{R}##, over ##\mathbb{C}## we have ##\mathbb{H} \otimes_\mathbb{R} \mathbb{C} \cong \mathbb{M}_2(\mathbb{C})##. Cayley's octonians ##\mathbb{O} \cong \mathbb{H}^2## are an eight dimensional division algebra over ##\mathbb{R}##. However, as we have lost multiplicative commutativity when passing from complex numbers to Hamilton's numbers, we now lose multiplicative associativity, too. All other extensions over the complex numbers are either transcendental or have zero divisors.

The real numbers with the cross product as multiplication is a three dimensional real Lie algebra.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
817
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
912
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
842
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
998