Undergrad What is difference between transformations and automorphisms

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion clarifies the distinction between "transformations" and "automorphisms" in mathematical contexts. Transformations refer to mappings from a set into itself, primarily focusing on linear mappings, while automorphisms are specifically defined as bijective endomorphisms that respect the structure of categories such as groups and rings. The conversation emphasizes that automorphisms can be viewed as a subset of transformations, particularly in the context of linear functions and matrix groups. Additionally, the terms are context-sensitive, with transformations often implying linear mappings unless otherwise specified.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear mappings and functions
  • Familiarity with mathematical structures such as groups, rings, and algebras
  • Knowledge of morphisms, including endomorphisms and isomorphisms
  • Basic concepts of category theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of linear transformations in vector spaces
  • Explore the concept of inner automorphisms in group theory
  • Learn about the role of morphisms in category theory
  • Investigate the differences between linear and non-linear transformations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of transformations and automorphisms in various mathematical structures.

SVN
Messages
49
Reaction score
1
Could you please help me to understand what is the difference between notions of «transformation» and «automorphism» (maybe it is more correct to talk about «inner automorphism»), if any? It looks like those two terms are used interchangeably.

By «transformation» I mean mapping from some set into itself (transformation groups in geometry), not notions like «Laplace transform(ation)» or «Legendre transform(ation)» where, as far as I know, the term is being used for historical reasons mainly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Transformation normally refers to only linear mappings, aka functions. Of course this isn't a given as the term is not exactly defined out of context. Automorphisms on the other hand are precisely defined:

morphism - function which respects the structure: groups, rings, algebras, topologies, linearity etc. (in general: category)
endomorphism - morphism with the same set as domain and codomain
epimorphism - surjective morphism, surjection
monomorphism - injective morphism, injection
isomorphism - bijective morphism, bijection
automorphism - bijective endomorphism

Sometimes certain automorphisms have the additional property inner, which means they have a certain form themselves. Which, depends on the category.
 
Last edited:
@fresh_42 Will it be correct (albeit not quite rigourous, but for now I am trying to grasp the very idea) to say that transformations are automorphisms of space (set, manifold) arising in context of consideration of general linear group and subgroups thereof?
 
SVN said:
@fresh_42 Will it be correct (albeit not quite rigourous, but for now I am trying to grasp the very idea) to say that transformations are automorphisms of space (set, manifold) arising in context of consideration of general linear group and subgroups thereof?
As far as they are elements of a matrix group (matrix algebra), the term transformation is common.

If regular, then they are automatically automorphisms. But consider that a transformation in general doesn't have to be on the same vector space: a projection is also a (linear) transformation. So in a way - with respect to only linear functions - automorphisms are a subset of transformations. At last it will be necessary to consider if we speak about manifolds, where functions between different dimensions are not unusual. And don't forget, that by a transformation between manifolds it is very likely meant to refer to their linear tangent spaces, not the manifolds themselves. Also the word linear may often just be omitted, although there are also non-linear transformations thinkable, even if usually not called this way. All this shows, that the word transformation is rather context sensitive, but your are right, that in 99% of the cases it is simply a matrix (if given basis vectors). Transformation has the advantage, that we don't need to point out a basis.

If in doubt, i.e. no matrices around, it should be mentioned what is to be transformed.
 
@fresh_42 Pretty clear and exhaustively! Thank you very much!
 
hamidmeer said:
Whole information is sound good for everyone who want to know about the different between them. But i like to add more content about both terms.
... which depends on the specific category in question. Group, ring, field, algebra, vector space, topological homomorphisms all have different properties. Homomorphism just says "same structure": different structure - different rules.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
892
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K