Matrix Algebra: Info on M^{-1}_{i} M_{j} + M^{-1}_{j} M_{i} = 2\delta_{ij} I

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the algebraic expression M^{-1}_{i} M_{j} + M^{-1}_{j} M_{i} = 2\delta_{ij} I, exploring its properties and potential classifications within the context of matrix algebra. Participants are seeking references and clarifications regarding the nature of this algebra, its relation to known algebraic structures, and the implications of the indices i and j.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks information on the algebraic expression and its classification within existing mathematical frameworks.
  • Another participant suggests a similarity to commutator relationships in quantum mechanics, noting the potential for analogous results with non-complex rotation matrices.
  • A participant argues that the presence of inverses in the expression generally prevents it from being equivalent to (anti)commutator algebra, although exceptions exist for specific cases like the Pauli matrices.
  • There is a request for clarification on the constraints that might apply to the operators M_{i} and M_{j} in the context of this algebra.
  • One participant expresses that specifying constraints on the operators may not be necessary, focusing instead on the classification of representations of the algebra.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the algebra is equivalent to (anti)commutator algebra, with some suggesting specific cases where equivalence holds, while others maintain that such equivalences do not generally apply. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the classification and properties of the algebra.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the need for clarity on the definitions and constraints of the matrices involved, indicating that the discussion may depend on specific mathematical definitions and contexts.

JustMeDK
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I would like to know where, if possible, I could find some information on the (matrix) algebra

[itex]M^{-1}_{i} M_{j} + M^{-1}_{j} M_{i} = 2\delta_{ij} I[/itex].

I expect this algebra to be among the very many different algebras that mathematicians have studied, but I have been unable to Google my way to any relevant reference regarding it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey JustMeDK and welcome to the forums.

This looks a lot like the commutator relationship for operators in Quantum mechanics with the exception that there is an imaginary coeffecient there. I'd imagine though that you can get a similar result if you used standard non-complex rotation matrices (i.e. unitary as opposed to special unitary).

Here's the wiki for commutators (Look at the section on ring theory for definition):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutator

Here is the article on the quantum mechanical aspect I referred to above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_commutation_relation

The thing though that we need to know is what these subscripts i and j refer to. What does Mi and Mj refer to? How do you define them?
 
Thanks for your reply, chiro.

But, unless I am fundamentally mistaken, the algebra I mention is generally not (due to the presence also of inverses, [itex]M_{i}^{-1}[/itex]) equivalent to some (anti)commutator algebra. Of course, in special cases equivalence is present: for instance, if [itex]M_{i}[/itex] are taken to be the Pauli matrices, [itex]\sigma_{i} = \sigma_{i}^{-1}[/itex], then the algebra reduces to an anticommutator algebra, the signature (3,0) Clifford algebra specifically. But I am unable to see that in general there should be such equivalences.

PS: The subscripts [itex]i,j[/itex] are just indices running from [itex]1[/itex] to the number [itex]n[/itex], say, of elements [itex]M_{i}[/itex].
 
Last edited:
JustMeDK said:
Thanks for your reply, chiro.

But, unless I am fundamentally mistaken, the algebra I mention is generally not (due to the presence also of inverses, [itex]M_{i}^{-1}[/itex]) equivalent to some (anti)commutator algebra. Of course, in special cases equivalence is present: for instance, if [itex]M_{i}[/itex] are taken to be the Pauli matrices, [itex]\sigma_{i} = \sigma_{i}^{-1}[/itex], then the algebra reduces to an anticommutator algebra, the signature (3,0) Clifford algebra specifically. But I am unable to see that in general there should be such equivalences.

PS: The subscripts [itex]i,j[/itex] are just indices running from [itex]1[/itex] to the number [itex]n[/itex], say, of elements [itex]M_{i}[/itex].

So can you outline any constraints imposed on the operators in explicit detail?
 
I do not think that it should be necessary to specify any constraints on the operators [itex]M_{i}[/itex], other than they are taken to be matrices of some dimension (i.e., focusing on representations only of the algebra, rather than realizations generally). What I would like to know is the classification of the representations of such an algebra, in the same way that for instance Clifford algebras have been classified. In order to do so, it would, of course, be very helpful for me to know the mathematical name, if any, of such an algebra.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K