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.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top