Understanding the Relationship Between Lie Algebras and Lie Groups

Lapidus
Messages
344
Reaction score
12
How come that a Lie algebra is defined as being non-associative and at same time it describes a Lie group locally? I wonder because groups are, again by definition, asscioative.

thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Let

<br /> a \otimes b \equiv [a, b] = a b - b a<br />

Then:

<br /> a \otimes (b \otimes c) = [a,[b,c]] = [a, b c] - [a, c b] = a b c - b c a - a c b + c b a<br />

But:

<br /> (a \otimes b) \otimes c = [[a, b], c] = [a b, c] - [b a, c] = a b c - c a b - b a c + c b a<br />

These two expressions are not the same. Thus, the operation \otimes is not associative. But, the Lie algebra is precisely defined through such an operation.
 
Lapidus said:
a Lie algebra is defined as being non-associative and at same time it describes a Lie group locally?
The way it "describes a Lie group locally" is somewhat involved. In any case, the product operation of the Lie group and the bracket operation of the corresponding Lie algebra are by no means the same. Specifically, for a Lie group G, the corresponding Lie algebra is the tangent space of G at the identity, which 'is' the space of left invariant vector fields. The Lie bracket is the usual commutator of two vector fields. This is an entirely different operation than the group multiplication of G.

For more information, see wikipedia.
 
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...
Back
Top