Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on Is there a closed formula for multiplication of imaginary units in the direct limit of the Cayley-Dickson construction?

Post

Is there a closed formula for multiplication of imaginary units in the direct limit of the Cayley-Dickson construction?

+3
−0

The Cayley-Dickson construction is a way to systematically construct, starting from the real numbers, a sequence of ever higher-dimensional real algebras $A_k$ which starts with complex numbers and quaternions.

The rules are as follows:

  • Each algebra comes with an operation called conjugation, where the conjugate of $a$ is denoted as $a^*$.

  • The algebra $A_0$ is simply the real numbers themselves, with conjugation defined as the identity.

  • The algebra $A_{n+1}$ is given by pairs of elements of $A_n$, with addition, multiplication and conjugation defined as

    \begin{align} (a, b) + (c, d) &= (a+c, b+d)\\ (a, b) \cdot (c, d) &= (a c - d^* b, d a + b c^*)\\ (a, b)^* &= (a^*, -b) \end{align}

Now one property of the construction is that each algebra $A_n$ can be identified with the subalgebra of $A_{n+1}$ where the second element is $0$; it is easily verified that $(a,0) + (b,0) = (a+b, 0)$, $(a, 0) \cdot (b,0) = (ab, 0)$ and $(a,0)^* = (a^*, 0)$.

This means you can generate the direct limit to arrive at an infinite-dimensional algebra $A$. The elements of $A$ are given by sequences of real numbers with finite support (that is, they eventually turn constant zero). Addition is per element, conjugation changes all signs except the first element.

Where it gets complicated is multiplication. Let's define $i_n$ as the sequence which has $a_n=1$ and $a_k=0$ for $k\ne n$. So when e.g. looking at the embedding of the quaternions (that is, the sequences with $a_n=0$ for all $n\ge 4$, we have $i_0=1$, $i_1=i$, $i_2=j$, $i_3=k$).

Now it is obvious that if we determine an explicit formula for the products $i_m i_n$, that can be used to directly calculate every product in $A$.

What is easy to determine is that if we denote with $m\oplus n$ the bitwise exclusive or of the natural numbers $m$ and $n$, then we must have $i_m i_n = \pm i_{m\oplus n}$. What I couldn't figure out is a general formula for the sign. Let's call that $\sigma(m, n)$, such that in general, we can say $$i_m i_n = \sigma(m,n) i_{m\oplus n},\quad |\sigma(m,n)| = 1$$

What is obvious is that, since $i_0=1$ is the multiplicative identity of $A$, for all $n$ we have $\sigma(0,n) = \sigma(n,0) = 1$. Also, all imaginary units square to $-1$, therefore for any $n\ne 0$, $\sigma(n,n)=-1$.

Also, from the product definition, one can derive a recursion rule for $\sigma$: If both $m$ and $n$ are less than $2^k$, then you have (note the varying order of the arguments to $\sigma$):

\begin{align} \sigma(m, 2^k + n) &= \sigma(n, m)\\ \sigma(2^k + m, n) &= \begin{cases} 1 &\text{if $n=0$}\\ -\sigma(m,n) &\text{otherwise} \end{cases}\\ \sigma(2^k + m, 2^k + n) &= \begin{cases} -1 & \text{if $n=0$}\\ \sigma(n, m) &\text{otherwise} \end{cases} \end{align}

What I didn't find, however, is a closed formula. Can anyone help me?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Not in OEIS (1 comment)
Not in OEIS
Peter Taylor‭ wrote 2 months ago

I checked the top-left of the table, reading antidiagonals in both directions, and found nothing in OEIS. This is mildly surprising, but it rules out some obvious guesses.