I Pin & Spin Groups: Double Covers of Orthogonal & SO Groups

Click For Summary
Pin Groups serve as the double cover of the Orthogonal Group, while Spin Groups serve as the double cover of the Special Orthogonal Group. Both Pin and Spin are classified as groups, but there is a distinction regarding the presence of the identity element. Only one of these double covers contains the identity element, leading to confusion about their group status. Clarification confirms that both Pin and Spin are indeed groups, despite the nuances in their definitions. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for comprehending the structure of these mathematical groups.
redtree
Messages
335
Reaction score
15
TL;DR
Do both sets of the double cover contain an identity element?
Pin Groups are the double cover of the Orthogonal Group and Spin Groups are the double cover of the Special Orthogonal Group. Both sets of the double cover are considered to be groups, but it seems that only one of the sets of the double cover actually contains the identity element, which means that both are not groups. Am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$$
\underbrace{\{\ldots \det =\pm 1\}}_{\text{Group}}=\underbrace{\{\ldots \det =-1\}}_{\text{ no Group}}\cup \underbrace{\{\ldots \det =1\}}_{\text{Group}}
$$
 
Got it; thanks!
 
redtree said:
Got it; thanks!
Just to be clear, both Pin and Spin are groups.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. But this one involves probability, known as the Monty Hall Problem. Please see any number of YouTube videos on this for an explanation, I'll leave it to them to explain it. I question the predicate of all those who answer this...
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.