How to make given numbers grassmann

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Grassmann Numbers
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the rigorous definition and properties of Grassmann numbers and their algebraic structures. The author attempts to define Grassmann multiplication on the real numbers, proposing a multiplication rule that incorporates anti-commuting properties. The conversation highlights the distinction between Grassmann numbers and Grassmann algebra, emphasizing that the latter is defined over a vector space and involves the tensor algebra. Additionally, it addresses the limitations of extending these concepts to complex numbers and the implications of moving from complex to Hamiltonian numbers.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with algebraic structures, specifically Grassmann algebra
  • Knowledge of tensor algebra and vector spaces
  • Basic concepts of Lie algebras and division algebras
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Grassmann algebra over vector spaces
  • Explore the construction and applications of tensor algebra
  • Investigate the relationship between Hamiltonian numbers and Grassmann numbers
  • Learn about the implications of non-commutative algebras in physics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying advanced algebraic structures, particularly those interested in the applications of Grassmann numbers and their role in theoretical physics.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K