Geometry

Generalization of a plane for any number of dimensions.

Kind of the opposite of a line: the line has dimension 1, and the plane has dimension D-1.

In $D=2$, both happen to coincide, a boring example of an exceptional isomorphism.

Does not require straight line cuts.

Diffeomorphic to $SU(2)$.

A unique projective space can be defined for any vector space.

The projective space associated with a given vector space $V$ is denoted $\mathbf{P}(V)$.

The definition is to take the vector space, remove the zero element, and identify all elements that lie on the same line, i.e. $\vec{v}=\lambda \vec{w}$

The most important initial example to study is the real projective plane.

In those cases at least, it is possible to add a metric to the spaces, leading to elliptic geometry.

Just a circle.

Take ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with a line at $x=0$. Identify all the points that an observer

For some reason, Ciro Santilli is mildly obsessed with understanding and visualizing the real projective plane.

To see why this is called a plane, move he center of the sphere to $z=1$, and project each line passing on the center of the sphere on the x-y plane. This works for all points of the sphere, except those at the equator $z=1$. Those are the points at infinity. Note that there is one such point at infinity for each direction in the x-y plane.

It good to think about how Euclid's postulates look like in the real projective plane:

Unlike the real projective line which is homotopic to the circle, the real projective plane is not homotopic to the sphere.

The topological difference bewteen the sphere and the real projective space is that for the sphere all those points in the x-y circle are identified to a single point.

One more generalized argument of this is the classification of closed surfaces, in which the real projective plane is a sphere with a hole cut and one Möbius strip glued in.

This is the standard model.

Ciro Santilli's preferred visualization of the real projective plane is a small variant of the standard "lines through origin in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$".

Take a open half sphere e.g. a sphere but only the points with $z>0$.

Each point in the half sphere identifies a unique line through the origin.

Then, the only lines missing are the lines in the x-y plane itself.

For those sphere points in the circle on the x-y plane, you should think of them as magic poins that are identified with the corresponding antipodal point, also on the x-y, but on the other side of the origin. So basically you you can teleport from one of those to the other side, and you are still in the same point.

Ciro likes this model because then all the magic is confined just to the $z=0$ part of the model, and everything else looks exactly like the sphere.

It is useful to contrast this with the sphere itself. In the sphere, all points in the circle $z=0$ are the same point. But this is not the case for the projective plane. You cannot instantly go to any other point on the $z=0$ by just moving a little bit, you have to walk around that circle.

To see that the real projective plane is not simply connected space, considering the lines through origin model of the real projective plane, take a loop that starts at $(1,0,0)$ and moves along the $y=0$ great circle ends at $(-1,0,0)$.

Note that both of those points are the same, so we have a loop.

Now try to shrink it to a point.

There's just no way!

A polygon is a 2-dimensional polytope, polyhedra is a 3-dimensional polytope.

TODO understand and explain definition.

The 3D regular convex polyhedrons are super famous, have the name: Platonic solid, and have been known since antiquity. In particular, there are only 5 of them.

The counts per dimension are:

The cool thing is that the 3 that exist in 5+ dimensions are all of one of the three families:Then, the 2 3D missing ones have 4D analogues and the sixth one in 4D does not have a 3D analogue: the 24-cell. Yes, this is the kind of irregular stuff Ciro Santilli lives for.

Triangle, tetrahedron.

The name does not imply regular by default. For regular ones, you should say "regular polytope".

Non-regular description: take convex hull take D + 1 vertices that are not on a single D-plan.

square, cube. 4D case known as tesseract.

Convex hull of all $\{-1,1{\}}^D$ (Cartesian product power) D-tuples, e.g. in 3D:

From this we see that there are $2^D$ vertices.

Two vertices are linked iff they differ by a single number. So each vertex has D neighbors.

The non-regular version of the hypercube.

Examples: square, octahedron.

Take $(0,0,0,\dots ,0)$ and flip one of 0's to $\pm 1$. Therefore has $2\times D$ vertices.

Each edge E is linked to every other edge, except it's opposite -E.

3D parallelogram.

A convex regular polyhedron.

Their beauty is a classification type result as stated at classification of regular polytopes.

Bibliography:

The key and central motivation for studying Lie groups and their Lie algebras appears to be to characterize symmetry in Lagrangian mechanics through Noether's theorem, just start from there.

Notably local symmetries appear to map to forces, and local means "around the identity", notably: local symmetries of the Lagrangian imply conserved currents.

More precisely: local symmetries of the Lagrangian imply conserved currents.

TODO Ciro Santilli really wants to understand what all the fuss is about:

Oh, there is a low dimensional classification! Ciro is a sucker for classification theorems! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_low-dimensional_real_Lie_algebras

The fact that there are elements arbitrarily close to the identity, which is only possible due to the group being continuous, is the key factor that simplifies the treatment of Lie groups, and follows the philosophy of continuous problems are simpler than discrete ones.

Bibliography:

Bibliography:

Solving differential equations was apparently Lie's original motivation for developing Lie groups. It is therefore likely one of the most understandable ways to approach it.

It appears that Lie's goal was to understand when can a differential equation have an explicitly written solution, much like Galois theory had done for algebraic equations. Both approaches use symmetry as the key tool.

Like everything else in Lie groups, first start with the matrix as discussed at Section "Lie algebra of a matrix Lie group".

Intuitively, a Lie algebra is a simpler object than a Lie group. Without any extra structure, groups can be very complicated non-linear objects. But a Lie algebra is just an algebra over a field, and one with a restricted bilinear map called the Lie bracket, that has to also be alternating and satisfy the Jacobi identity.

Another important way to think about Lie algebras, is as infinitesimal generators.

Because of the Lie group-Lie algebra correspondence, we know that there is almost a bijection between each Lie group and the corresponding Lie algebra. So it makes sense to try and study the algebra instead of the group itself whenever possible, to try and get insight and proofs in that simpler framework. This is the key reason why people study Lie algebras. One is philosophically reminded of how normal subgroups are a simpler representation of group homomorphisms.

To make things even simpler, because all vector spaces of the same dimension on a given field are isomorphic, the only things we need to specify a Lie group through a Lie algebra are:Note that the Lie bracket can look different under different basis of the Lie algebra however. This is shown for example at Physics from Symmetry by Jakob Schwichtenberg (2015) page 71 for the Lorentz group.

As mentioned at Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4 "Lie Algebras", taking the Lie algebra around the identity is mostly a convention, we could treat any other point, and things are more or less equivalent.

Bibliography:

Elements of a Lie algebra can (should!) be seen a continuous analogue to the generating set of a group in finite groups.

For continuous groups however, we can't have a finite generating set in the strict sense, as a finite set won't ever cover every possible point.

But the generator of a Lie algebra can be finite.

And just like in finite groups, where you can specify the full group by specifying only the relationships between generating elements, in the Lie algebra you can almost specify the full group by specifying the relationships between the elements of a generator of the Lie algebra.

This "specification of a relation" is done by defining the Lie bracket.

The reason why the algebra works out well for continuous stuff is that by definition an algebra over a field is a vector space with some extra structure, and we know very well how to make infinitesimal elements in a vector space: just multiply its vectors by a constant $c$ that cana be arbitrarily small.

Every Lie algebra corresponds to a single simply connected Lie group.

The Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula basically defines how to map an algebra to the group.

Bibliography:

Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) 7.2 "The covering problem" gives some amazing intuition on the subject as usual.

Example at: Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 7 "EXPonentiation".

Example at: Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 7 "EXPonentiation".

Furthermore, the non-compact part is always isomorphic to ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, only the non-compact part can have more interesting structure.

The most important example is perhaps $SO(3)$ and $SU(2)$, both of which have the same Lie algebra, but are not isomorphic.

This simply connected is called the universal covering group.

E.g. in the case of $SO(3)$ and $SU(2)$, $SU(2)$ is simply connected, but $SO(3)$ is not.

The unique group referred to at: every Lie algebra has a unique single corresponding simply connected Lie group.

Most commonly refers to: exponential map.

Like everything else in Lie group theory, you should first look at the matrix version of this operation: the matrix exponential.

The exponential map links small transformations around the origin (infinitely small) back to larger finite transformations, and small transformations around the origin are something we can deal with a Lie algebra, so this map links the two worlds.

The idea is that we can decompose a finite transformation into infinitely arbitrarily small around the origin, and proceed just like the product definition of the exponential function.

The definition of the exponential map is simply the same as that of the regular exponential function as given at Taylor expansion definition of the exponential function, except that the argument $x$ can now be an operator instead of just a number.

Examples:

Solution $Z$ for given $X$ and $Y$ of: where $e$ is the exponential map.

If we consider just real number, $Z=X+Y$, but when X and Y are non-commutative, things are not so simple.

Furthermore, TODO confirm it is possible that a solution does not exist at all if $X$ and $Y$ aren't sufficiently small.

This formula is likely the basis for the Lie group-Lie algebra correspondence. With it, we express the actual group operation in terms of the Lie algebra operations.

Notably, remember that a algebra over a field is just a vector space with one extra product operation defined.

Vector spaces are simple because all vector spaces of the same dimension on a given field are isomorphic, so besides the dimension, once we define a Lie bracket, we also define the corresponding Lie group.

Since a group is basically defined by what the group operation does to two arbitrary elements, once we have that defined via the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula, we are basically done defining the group in terms of the algebra.

Cardinality $\le$ dimension of the vector space.

Basically a synonym for Lie group which is the way of modelling them.

Local symmetries appear to be a synonym to internal symmetry, see description at: Section "Internal and spacetime symmetries".

As mentioned at Quote , local symmetries map to forces in the Standard Model.

Appears to be a synonym for: gauge symmetry.

A local symmetry is a transformation that you apply a different transformation for each point, instead of a single transformation for every point.

TODO what's the point of a local symmetry?

Bibliography:

TODO. I think this is the key point. Notably, $U(1)$ symmetry implies charge conservation.

More precisely, each generator of the corresponding Lie algebra leads to one separate conserved current, such that a single symmetry can lead to multiple conserved currents.

This is basically the local symmetry version of Noether's theorem.

Then to maintain charge conservation, we have to maintain local symmetry, which in turn means we have to add a gauge field as shown at Video "Deriving the qED Lagrangian by Dietterich Labs (2018)".

Forces can then be seen as kind of a side effect of this.

Bibliography:

This important and common simple case has easy properties.

An Introduction to Tensors and Group Theory for Physicists by Nadir Jeevanjee (2011)s page 146.

For this sub-case, we can define the Lie algebra of a Lie group $G$ as the set of all matrices $M\in G$ such that for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$: If we fix a given $M$ and vary $t$, we obtain a subgroup of $G$. This type of subgroup is known as a one parameter subgroup.

The immediate question is then if every element of $G$ can be reached in a unique way (i.e. is the exponential map a bijection). By looking at the matrix logarithm however we conclude that this is not the case for real matrices, but it is for complex matrices.

Examples:

TODO example it can be seen that the Lie algebra is not closed matrix multiplication, even though the corresponding group is by definition. But it is closed under the Lie bracket operation.

This makes it clear how the Lie bracket can be seen as a "measure of non-commutativity"

Because the Lie bracket has to be a bilinear map, all we need to do to specify it uniquely is to specify how it acts on every pair of some basis of the Lie algebra.

Then, together with the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula and the Lie group-Lie algebra correspondence, this forms an exceptionally compact description of a Lie group.

The one parameter subgroup of a Lie group for a given element $M$ of its Lie algebra is a subgroup of $G$ given by:

Intuitively, $M$ is a direction, and $t$ is how far we move along a given direction. This intuition is especially vivid in for example in the case of the Lie algebra of $SO(3)$, the rotation group.

One parameter subgroups can be seen as the continuous analogue to the cycle of an element of a group.

Intuition, please? Example? mathoverflow.net/questions/278641/intuition-for-symplectic-groups The key motivation seems to be related to Hamiltonian mechanics. The two arguments of the bilinear form correspond to each set of variables in Hamiltonian mechanics: the generalized positions and generalized momentums, which appear in the same number each.

Seems to be set of matrices that preserve a skew-symmetric bilinear form, which is comparable to the orthogonal group, which preserves a symmetric bilinear form. More precisely, the orthogonal group has: and its generalization the indefinite orthogonal group has: where S is symmetric. So for the symplectic group we have matrices Y such as: where A is antisymmetric. This is explained at: www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucahad0/7302_handout_13.pdf They also explain there that unlike as in the analogous orthogonal group, that definition ends up excluding determinant -1 automatically.

Therefore, just like the special orthogonal group, the symplectic group is also a subgroup of the special linear group.

Invertible matrices. Or if you think a bit more generally, an invertible linear map.

When the field $F$ is not given, it defaults to the real numbers.

Non-invertible are excluded "because" otherwise it would not form a group (every element must have an inverse). This is therefore the largest possible group under matrix multiplication, other matrix multiplication groups being subgroups of it.

general linear group over a finite field of order $m$. Remember that due to the classification of finite fields, there is one single field for each prime power $m$.

Exactly as over the real numbers, you just put the finite field elements into a $n\times n$ matrix, and then take the invertible ones.

Is the set of all n-by-y square matrices.

Because $GL(n)$ is a Lie group we can use Section "Lie algebra of a matrix Lie group".

For every matrix $x$ in the set of all n-by-y square matrices $M_n$, $e^x$ has inverse $e^{-}x$.

Note that this works even if $x$ is not invertible, and therefore not in $GL(n)$!

Therefore, the Lie algebra of $GL(n)$ is the entire $M_n$.

Specials sub case of the general linear group when the determinant equals exactly 1.

This is a good first concrete example of a Lie algebra. Shown at Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4.2 "How to linearize a Lie Group" has an example.

We can use use the following parametrization of the special linear group on variables $x$, $y$ and $z$:

Every element with this parametrization has determinant 1: Furthermore, any element can be reached, because by independently settting $x$, $y$ and $z$, $M_{00}$, $M_{01}$ and $M_{10}$ can have any value, and once those three are set, $M_{11}$ is fixed by the determinant.

To find the elements of the Lie algebra, we evaluate the derivative on each parameter at 0:

Remembering that the Lie bracket of a matrix Lie group is really simple, we can then observe the following Lie bracket relations between them:

One key thing to note is that the specific matrices $M_x$, $M_y$ and $M_z$ are not really fundamental: we could easily have had different matrices if we had chosen any other parametrization of the group.

TODO confirm: however, no matter which parametrization we choose, the Lie bracket relations between the three elements would always be the same, since it is the number of elements, and the definition of the Lie bracket, that is truly fundamental.

Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 4.2 "How to linearize a Lie Group" then calculates the exponential map of the vector $x{M}_x+y{M}_y+z{M}_z$ as: with:

TODO now the natural question is: can we cover the entire Lie group with this exponential? Lie Groups, Physics, and Geometry by Robert Gilmore (2008) Chapter 7 "EXPonentiation" explains why not.

Just like for the finite general linear group, the definition of special also works for finite fields, where 1 is the multiplicative identity!

Note that the definition of orthogonal group may not have such a clear finite analogue on the other hand.