Projection and Inclusion in Higher-Dimensional Spaces: What's the Difference?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter FreHam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Projection
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the differences between projection and inclusion when mapping between lower-dimensional and higher-dimensional spaces. Participants explore the implications of these mappings in the context of mathematical concepts such as embeddings, immersions, and the specific case of time-dependent systems in contact and symplectic manifolds.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Fred questions the difference between the projection from a four-dimensional space to a three-dimensional space and the inclusion from a three-dimensional space to a four-dimensional space, expressing confusion about their relationship and whether they are inverses.
  • One participant clarifies that the projection and inclusion are not inverses due to the non-unique mapping from (x, y, z) to (x, y, z, t), as multiple values of t can correspond to the same (x, y, z).
  • Another participant suggests that while a map from a lower-dimensional space to a higher-dimensional space can exist, it would not be "onto," and a linear map could map an n-dimensional space into an m-dimensional space (where n < m).
  • Fred seeks clarification on terminology, asking whether a map from a lower-dimensional space to a higher-dimensional space should be called an embedding, immersion, or inclusion, and expresses uncertainty about the nature of their specific case involving symplectic manifolds.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that projection and inclusion are not inverses and that the terminology around mappings between different dimensional spaces is nuanced. However, there is no consensus on the specific terms to use for mappings from lower-dimensional to higher-dimensional spaces.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of defining mappings in the context of specific mathematical structures, such as contact and symplectic manifolds, but do not resolve the terminology or the nature of these mappings in relation to Fred's original question.

Who May Find This Useful

Mathematicians, physicists, and students interested in differential geometry, manifold theory, and the relationships between different dimensional spaces may find this discussion relevant.

FreHam
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Suppose I have a space X with coordinates (x,y,z) and a space Y with coordinates (x,y,z,t), so that dim(Y)=dim(X)+1.

What is the difference between the projection (x,y,z,t)->(x,y,z) and the inclusion (x,y,z)->(x,y,z,t)? Are they each others inverses? Especially if x=x(t), y=y(t) and z=z(t)?

I'm really stuck somehow.

Cheers,

Fred.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what you mean by "the difference between" (x, y, z, t)-> (x, y, z) and (x, y, z)->(x, y, z, t). Obviously one is from R4 to R3 and the other is from R3 to R4.

However, the second one is not well defined since there is no way of knowing what t to append to (x, y, z). No, they are not inverse to one another. There exist an infinite number of (x, y, z, t) that map to the same (x, y, z) so the function is not "one to one" and does not have an inverse.

If you specify that x, y, and z are functions of t, you still have a problem- (x(t), y(t), z(t), t)- > (x, y, z) does NOT map R4 to R3, it maps a one-dimensional subset of R4 onto a one dimensional subset of R3. Also, trying to go from (x, y, z) to (x(t), y(t), z(t), t), a given triple, (x, y, z) may contain x, y, z, values that correspond to different values of t.
 
Is there then a possibility to define a map from the lower-dimensional space to the higher one? I'm basically considering time-dependent systems on a (2n+1)-dimensional contact manifold T*Q x R, and I want to include/embed (don't know what term to use) in a (2n+2)-dimensional symplectic manifold. The coordinates on T*Q x R are (q,p,t) and on the symplectic one (q,p,q',p'), where the primes denote some additional coordinates. Basically, q'=t but of some new time parameter, say s.
 
Yes, but not "onto". You could have a linear map that maps a space of dimension n to an n-dimensional subspace of a space of dimension m (n< m). That maps the n dimensional space into the m dimensional space.
 
So, do I get this right: you can only call a map from X to Y an inclusion if dim(X)=dim(Y)? How would you call a map from a lower-dimensional space to a higher-dimensional space? Embedding? Immersion? Inclusion? ...?

I'm not sure whether my case would actually be a symplectization of a contact manifold... hmm.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K