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

  • Thread starter Thread starter FreHam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Projection
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differences between projection and inclusion in higher-dimensional spaces, specifically from a 4D space Y to a 3D space X and vice versa. Projection from (x, y, z, t) to (x, y, z) is well-defined, while inclusion from (x, y, z) to (x, y, z, t) lacks clarity due to the ambiguity of the t value. These mappings are not inverses, as multiple (x, y, z, t) can correspond to the same (x, y, z), indicating a lack of one-to-one correspondence. The conversation also touches on the terminology for mapping between dimensions, questioning whether terms like embedding or immersion are appropriate for lower to higher-dimensional spaces. Ultimately, the distinction between these concepts is crucial for understanding time-dependent systems in mathematical frameworks.
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.
 
Mathematics 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.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top