Can quaternion group be represented by 3x3 matricies?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the representation of the quaternion group, ##Q=\{1,-1,i,-i,j,-j,k,-k\}##, using matrices, specifically exploring the possibility of representing it with ##3x3## matrices. Participants consider various dimensions of matrix representations, including ##2x2## and ##4x4## matrices, and discuss the implications and methods of such representations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a ##2x2## matrix representation of the quaternion group and questions the existence of non-trivial ##3x3## or ##4x4## representations.
  • Another participant argues against the need for more complex representations, suggesting that padding ##2x2## matrices with zeros to form larger matrices does not serve a clear purpose.
  • A different participant proposes a method to derive ##3x3## or ##4x4## matrices by ensuring they satisfy the quaternion multiplication table, indicating that multiple solutions may exist.
  • Several participants share links to external sources, including Wikipedia, to support their points and explore the topic further.
  • One participant provides a specific ##4x4## matrix representation of the quaternion group and questions how to derive a corresponding ##3x3## representation without padding.
  • Another participant suggests that additional conditions may be necessary for non-trivial representations in higher dimensions, cautioning against trivial embeddings.
  • There is mention of the representation theory of ##SU(2##, noting its relation to the quaternions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and feasibility of representing the quaternion group with ##3x3## matrices. While some propose methods and explore possibilities, others question the practicality and relevance of such representations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of non-trivial ##3x3## representations.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of deriving matrix representations that satisfy quaternion arithmetic without resorting to padding. There is uncertainty about the uniqueness of such representations and the conditions required for higher-dimensional matrices.

jackmell
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
54
Hi,

The Quaternion group, ##Q=\{1,-1,i,-i,j,-j,k,-k\}##, can be realized by ##2x2## matricies:

##
\begin{align*}
1=\begin{bmatrix} 1,0 \\ 0,1\end{bmatrix} &\hspace{10pt} i=\begin{bmatrix} \omega,0 \\ 0,-\omega\end{bmatrix} & \hspace{10pt}j=\begin{bmatrix} 0,1 \\ -1,0\end{bmatrix} & \hspace{10pt}k=\begin{bmatrix} 0,\omega \\ \omega,0\end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
##

with ##\omega^2=-1##.

I was told ##Q## can also be represented (non-trivially)by ##3x3## or ##4x4## matricies but could not find any source explaining this and was hoping someone here could either provide a reference or explain this a bit.

Thanks,
Jack
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't see any reason to want to represent them in a more complicated way! Of course, you can always convert a 2 by 2 matrix to 3 by 3 by appending a new row and column consisting entirely of 0s (and to 4 by 4 by appending two new rows and columns consisting entirely of 0s).

For example, change [tex]\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 \\ -1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}[/tex] to [tex]\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}[/tex] or to [tex]\begin{bmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}[/tex]

But to what purpose?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
I've never tried to do this, but here is an idea:

The important thing is that the 3x3 (or 4x4) matrices that represent the unit quaternions satisfy the quaternion multiplication table. If you write a 3x3 matrix for each unit quaternion, filled with undetermined constants, and write down all of the entries in the multiplication table that need to be satisfied, you'll get a system of equations that you could solve for the undetermined constants. It may turn out that there is not a unique 3x3 or 4x4 matrix that will work, but a whole bunch of them.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jackmell
Ok thanks. That's an idea worth trying. However maybe I should code it first for 2x2 matrix and see if I come up with the right answer then I should be able to scale it up to 3x3.
 
micromass said:
Afraid I don't see that micromass although the reference you cited is interesting for further study. Might you explain a little further? Perhaps I'm just not understanding the concept well enough. I thought there may be a set of four 3x3 matricies:
##
\begin{align*}
1=\begin{bmatrix} a_1,b_1,c_1 \\ d_1,e_1,f_1\\g_1,h_1,j_1\end{bmatrix}&\hspace{20pt}i=\begin{bmatrix} a_2,b_2,c_2 \\ d_2,e_2,f_2\\g_2,h_2,j_2\end{bmatrix}&j=\begin{bmatrix} a_3,b_3,c_3 \\ d_3,e_3,f_3\\g_3,h_3,j_3\end{bmatrix}&k=\begin{bmatrix} a_4,b_4,c_4 \\ d_4,e_4,f_4\\g_4,h_4,j_4\end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
##
such that they obey quaternion arithmetic. For example ##i^2=-I## that is without embedding the associated 2x2 matrices in 3x3 matricies and padding with zeros.
 
jackmell said:
Afraid I don't see that micromass although the reference you cited is interesting for further study. Might you explain a little further? Perhaps I'm just not understanding the concept well enough. I thought there may be a set of four 3x3 matricies:
##
\begin{align*}
1=\begin{bmatrix} a_1,b_1,c_1 \\ d_1,e_1,f_1\\g_1,h_1,j_1\end{bmatrix}&\hspace{20pt}i=\begin{bmatrix} a_2,b_2,c_2 \\ d_2,e_2,f_2\\g_2,h_2,j_2\end{bmatrix}&j=\begin{bmatrix} a_3,b_3,c_3 \\ d_3,e_3,f_3\\g_3,h_3,j_3\end{bmatrix}&k=\begin{bmatrix} a_4,b_4,c_4 \\ d_4,e_4,f_4\\g_4,h_4,j_4\end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
##
such that they obey quaternion arithmetic. For example ##i^2=-I## that is without embedding the associated 2x2 matrices in 3x3 matricies and padding with zeros.
But aren't there, in the quoted source? If you want one for each "basis quaternion" , use the matrix R in the link and for each of a,b,c,d, let the others be 0, e.g., for a rotation by a, use a =a+0i+0j+ 0k , etc.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Geofleur
Here's a ##GL_4(\mathbb{R})## representation of the quaternion group:

##1=\begin{bmatrix} 1,0,0,0 \\ 0,1,0,0 \\ 0,0,1,0 \\ 0,0,0,1\end{bmatrix}\quad i=\begin{bmatrix}0,1,0,0 \\-1,0,0,0\\0,0,0,-1\\0,0,1,0\end{bmatrix}\quad j=\begin{bmatrix}0,0,1,0\\0,0,0,1\\-1,0,0,0\\0,-1,0,0\end{bmatrix}\quad k=\begin{bmatrix}0,0,0,1\\0,0,-1,0\\0,1,0,0\\-1,0,0,0\end{bmatrix}
##

and if you check the algebra, these satisfy the quaternion group relations. They come from the Wikipedia article on quaternions.

However I do now know how to construct an equivalent (without padding) one for a 3x3. Can someone figure this one out? Actually, how is the 4x4 derived anyway? Can I just continue with larger matricies? Can I construct a set of say 10x10 matricies that satisfy the Quaternion group relations? What about a set of nxn matricies?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Geofleur
jackmell said:
Here's a ##GL_4(\mathbb{R})## representation of the quaternion group:

##1=\begin{bmatrix} 1,0,0,0 \\ 0,1,0,0 \\ 0,0,1,0 \\ 0,0,0,1\end{bmatrix}\quad i=\begin{bmatrix}0,1,0,0 \\-1,0,0,0\\0,0,0,-1\\0,0,1,0\end{bmatrix}\quad j=\begin{bmatrix}0,0,1,0\\0,0,0,1\\-1,0,0,0\\0,-1,0,0\end{bmatrix}\quad k=\begin{bmatrix}0,0,0,1\\0,0,-1,0\\0,1,0,0\\-1,0,0,0\end{bmatrix}
##

and if you check the algebra, these satisfy the quaternion group relations. They come from the Wikipedia article on quaternions.

However I do now know how to construct an equivalent (without padding) one for a 3x3. Can someone figure this one out? Actually, how is the 4x4 derived anyway? Can I just continue with larger matricies? Can I construct a set of say 10x10 matricies that satisfy the Quaternion group relations? What about a set of nxn matricies?
Maybe you should include additional conditions for your embedding or for your representation into ## Gl( n, \mathbb R) ##, otherwise, the fact that ##Gl (n, \mathbb R) ## embeds in ## Gl(n+k, \mathbb R) ## will give you a trivial yes answer.
 
  • #10
WWGD said:
Maybe you should include additional conditions for your embedding or for your representation into ## Gl( n, \mathbb R) ##, otherwise, the fact that ##Gl (n, \mathbb R) ## embeds in ## Gl(n+k, \mathbb R) ## will give you a trivial yes answer.

Yes, I meant a non-trivial representation into ##GL_{n+1}(\mathbb{R})## (without just padding a row an column with zeros).
 
  • #11
Last edited:
  • #12
What you should be looking up is the representation theory of SU(2), of which the quaternions are a subgroup.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K