From: john baez Subject: Freudenthal-Tits magic square and projective planes Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:05:59 -0800 (PST) Newsgroups: sci.math.research Summary: [missing] The Freudenthal-Tits magic square is a marvelous and somewhat mysterious method of relating the exceptional Lie groups to the normed division algebras R, C, H, and O: reals, complexes, quaternions and octonions. In his book Geometry of Lie Groups, Boris Rosenfeld proposes a new explanation of the magic square. The idea is that each group in the square arises as the symmetry group of the projective plane over some algebra K tensor K', where K and K' are division algebras chosen from R, C, H and O. The most interesting examples of his construction involve the algebras C tensor O, H tensor O and O tensor O. These are supposed to yield the groups E_6, E_7 and E_8. However, I never understood his construction in these cases, because the algebras in question are not division algebras, so I don't know what the projective planes over them are supposed to be. Unfortunately, in his book he says simply that these cases work like the others - he only explicitly treats the cases where the algebra in question is a division algebra. His perhaps more detailed paper on the subject is in Russian. From other literature on the magic square, e.g. J. M. Landsberg and L. Manivel's article "The projective geometry of Freudenthal's magic square", I get the impression that everyone else is just as confused as I am about Rosenfeld's tantalizing claim. But yesterday I picked up a book by Frederick Stevenson called Projective Planes. He says that every abstract projective plane can be thought of as the projective plane over some "ternary ring" - a funky generalization of a division ring. So: does anyone know if C tensor O, H tensor O and O tensor O are ternary rings? Or do I have to figure this out for myself? If someone told me that the tensor product of ternary rings were a ternary ring, I would be happy - at least if it were true. ============================================================================== From: Linus Kramer Subject: Re: Freudenthal-Tits magic square and projective planes Date: 2 Feb 2000 12:00:01 -0600 Newsgroups: sci.math.research Summary: [missing] john baez wrote: > > The Freudenthal-Tits magic square is a marvelous and somewhat mysterious > method of relating the exceptional Lie groups to the normed division > algebras R, C, H, and O: reals, complexes, quaternions and octonions. > In his book Geometry of Lie Groups, Boris Rosenfeld proposes a new > explanation of the magic square. The idea is that each group in the > square arises as the symmetry group of the projective plane over some > algebra K tensor K', where K and K' are division algebras chosen from > R, C, H and O. > > The most interesting examples of his construction involve the > algebras C tensor O, H tensor O and O tensor O. These are > supposed to yield the groups E_6, E_7 and E_8. However, I never > understood his construction in these cases, because the algebras > in question are not division algebras, so I don't know what the > projective planes over them are supposed to be. Unfortunately, > in his book he says simply that these cases work like the others - > he only explicitly treats the cases where the algebra in question > is a division algebra. His perhaps more detailed paper on the > subject is in Russian. > > From other literature on the magic square, e.g. J. M. Landsberg and > L. Manivel's article "The projective geometry of Freudenthal's magic > square", I get the impression that everyone else is just as confused > as I am about Rosenfeld's tantalizing claim. > > But yesterday I picked up a book by Frederick Stevenson called Projective > Planes. He says that every abstract projective plane can be thought of > as the projective plane over some "ternary ring" - a funky generalization > of a division ring. > The word 'ring' is misleading. 'Ternary field' would be better. > So: does anyone know if C tensor O, H tensor O and O tensor O are > ternary rings? Or do I have to figure this out for myself? > > If someone told me that the tensor product of ternary rings were > a ternary ring, I would be happy - at least if it were true. No, it is not. A ternary ring is a generalization of a field; put t(x,z,y)=xy+z, then you obtain an example of a ternary field (or ring). For example, C tensor O has zero divisors, so there is no projective plane (in the proper sense) associated to this algebraic structure. The crux with Rosenfeld's work is that his terminology is almost incomprehensible for others. For one thing, he says E_6 and so on without explaining what real form of E_6 he is really talking about. Imagine someone talking about a real group of type A_n - this could be SL_{n+1}(R), SU_{k,n+1-k}(C), or SL_m(H), n=2m+1. These groups are geometrically very different, and the same is true for the various groups of type, say, E_6! Ok, I was not quite right that there are no projective planes over these tensor products. There is an analogue of projective planes, coordinatized by rings (instead of fields or division algebras). You may want to look up Veldkamp's survey in the 'Handbook of Incidence Geometry'. The complex Lie group E_6 acts on the 'complexified Cayley plane' where you replace the Cayley algebra O by O tensor C. You obtain a so-called V-plane (formerly known as Hjelmslev plane). Frankly, I think these geometries are cumbersome. The proper way to study these groups is via their Tits buildings. These are much more reasonable geometries. Tits invented them in order to produce nice geometries for all exeptional groups. I think it's very characteristic that Rosenfeld usually quotes almost exclusively literature from the pre-Tits era. The Freudenthal-Tits magic square is as follows. B1 A2 C3 F4 A2 A2xA2 A5 E6 C3 A5 D6 E7 F4 E6 E7 E8 One should read these a the complexifications of certain real Lie algebras. The corresponding real Lie groups are SO(3) SU(3) Sp(3) F4(-52) SL_3(R) SL_3(C) SL_3(H) E6(-26) Sp_6(R) SU_{3,3}(C) U_5*(H) E7(-25) F4(4) E6(2) E7(-5) E8(-24) The groups in the first row are the elliptic motion groups of the projective planes over R,C,H,O, the second line gives full collineation groups of these planes. [A comercial break: Look up Salzmann et al., Compact projective planes, de Gruyter Verlag, Ch.1 for these two lines] The third line are the automorphism groups of certain rank 3 polar spaces, with diagram o---o===o K K R where K=R,C,H,O - Tits buildings of rank three, with the 4 classical projective planes as residues. Tits' lecture note 'Buildings of spherical type and finite BN pairs' is a great reference. The fourth line are F4-buildings, sometimes called metasymplectic spaces, with diagram o---o===o---o K K R R K=R,C,H,O. If you want to know what a metsymplectic space is, I recommend A.Cohen's article in the 'Handbook of incidence geometry' (besides Tits' lecture note, of course). Anyway, these 12 geometries are (from my point of view) what the Freudenthal-Tits magic square is all about. Regards, Linus Kramer -- Linus Kramer Mathematisches Institut Universitaet Wuerzburg Am Hubland 97074 Wuerzburg Germany E-mail: kramer@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de http://www.mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~kramer ============================================================================== From: baez@math.ucr.edu (John Baez) Subject: This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 145) Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 10:30:02 -0600 (CST) Newsgroups: sci.math.research Summary: [missing] Keywords: Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week145.html This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 145) John Baez I know I promised to talk about homotopy theory and n-categories, but I've gotten sidetracked into thinking about projective planes, so I'll talk about that this Week and go back to the other stuff later. Sorry, but if I don't talk about what intrigues me at the instant I'm writing this stuff, I can't get up the energy to write it. So: There are many kinds of geometry. After Euclidean geometry, one of the first to become popular was projective geometry. Projective geometry is the geometry of perspective. If you draw a picture on a piece of paper and view it from a slant, distances and angles in the picture will get messed up - but lines will still look like lines. This kind of transformation is called a "projective transformation". Projective geometry is the study of those aspects of geometry that are preserved by projective transformations. Interestingly, 2-dimensional projective geometry has some curious features that don't show up in higher dimensions. To explain this, I need to tell you about projective planes. I talked a bit about projective planes in "week106". The basic idea is to take the ordinary plane and add some points at infinity so that every pair of distinct lines intersects in exactly one point. Lines that were parallel in the ordinary plane will intersect at one of the points at infinity. This simplifies the axioms of projective geometry. But what exactly do I mean by "the ordinary plane"? Well, ever since Descartes, most people think of the plane as R^2, which consists of ordered pairs of real numbers. But algebraists also like to use C^2, consisting of ordered pairs of complex numbers. For that matter, you could take any field F - like the rational numbers, or the integers modulo a prime - and use F^2. Algebraic geometers call this sort of thing an "affine plane". A projective plane is a bit bigger than an affine plane. For this, start with the 3-dimensional vector space F^3. Then define the projective plane over F, denoted FP^2, to be the space of lines through the origin in F^3. You can show the projective plane is the same as the affine plane together with extra points, which play the role of "points at infinity". In fact, you can generalize this a bit - you can make sense of the projective plane over F whenever F is a division ring! A division ring is a like a field, but where multiplication isn't necessarily commutative. The best example is the quaternions. In "week106" I talked about the real, complex and quaternionic projective planes, their symmetry groups, and their relation to quantum mechanics. Here's a good book about this stuff, emphasizing the physics applications: 1) V. S. Varadarajan, Geometry of Quantum Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2nd ed., 1985. So far, so good. But there's another approach to projective planes that's even more general. This approach goes back to Euclidean geometry: it's based on a list of axioms. In this approach, a projective plane consists of a set of "points", a set of "lines", and a relation which tells us whether or not a given point "lies on" a given line. I'm putting quotes around all these words, because in this approach they are undefined terms. All we get to work with are the following axioms: A) Given two distinct points, there exists a unique line that both points lie on. B) Given two distinct lines, there exists a unique point that lies on both lines. C) There exist four points, no three of which lie on the same line. D) There exist four lines, no three of which have the same point lying on them. Actually we can leave out either axiom C) or axiom D) - the rest of the axioms will imply the one we leave out. It's a nice little exercise to convince yourself of this. I put in both axioms just to make it obvious that this definition of projective plane is "self-dual". In other words, if we switch the words "point" and "line" and switch who lies on who, the definition stays the same! Duality is one of the great charms of the theory of projective planes: whenever you prove any theorem, you get another one free of charge with the roles of points and lines switched, thanks to duality. There are lots of different kinds of "duality" in mathematics, but this is probably the grand-daddy of them all. Now, it's easy to prove that starting from any division ring F, we get a projective plane FP^2 satisfying the above axioms. The fun part is to try to go the other way! Starting from a structure satisfying the above axioms, can you cook up a field that it comes from? Well, starting from a projective plane, you can try to recover a division ring as follows. Pick a line and throw out one point - and call that point "the point at infinity". What's left is an "affine line" - let's call it L. Let's try to make L into a division ring. To do this, we first need to pick two different points in L, which we call 0 and 1. Then we need to cook up rules for adding and multiplying points on L. For this, we use some tricks invented by the ancient Greeks! This should not be surprising. After all, those dudes thought about arithmetic in very geometrical ways. How can you add points on a line using the geometry of the plane? Just ask any ancient Greek, and here's what they'll say: First pick a line L' that's parallel to L - meaning that L and L' intersect only at the point at infinity. Then pick a line M that intersects L at the point 0 and L' at some point which we call 0'. We get a picture like this: | ----------0'------------------------------------------ L' | | M| | ----------0------------------------------------------ L | Then, to add two points x and y on L, draw this picture: | | ----------0'----------------|------------------------- L' | \ | \ | \ | \ M| \N M'| \N' | \ | \ ----------0-----x-----------y-----z------------------ L | \ | \ In other words, draw a line M' parallel to M through the point y, draw a line N through x and 0', and draw a line N' parallel to N and going through the point where M' and L' intersect. L and N' intersect at the point called z... and we define this point to be x + y! This is obviously the right thing, because the two triangles in the picture are congruent. What about multiplication? Well, first draw a line L' that intersects our line L only at the point 0. Then draw a line M from the point 1 to some point 1' that's on L' but not on L: L'/ / / 1' /| / | / | ----------0---1------------------------------------ L | |M | Then, to multiply x and y, draw this picture: / /|\ / | \ / | \ L'/ | \ / | \ / | \ 1' | \ /|\ | \ / | \N | \N' / | \ | \ ----------0---1---x--y----------z------------------ L | \ | \ |M |M' | | In other words, draw a line N though 1' and x, draw a line M' parallel to M through the point y, and draw a line N' parallel to N through the point where L' and M' intersect. L and N' intersect at the point called z... and we define this point to be xy! This is obviously the right thing, because the triangle containing the points 1 and x is similar to the triangle containing y and z. So, now that we've cleverly figured out how to define addition and multiplication starting from a projective plane, we can ask: do we get a division ring? And the answer is: not necessarily. It's only true if our projective plane is "Desarguesian". This is a special property named after an old theorem about the real projective plane, proved by Desargues. A projective plane is Desarguesian if Desargues' theorem holds for this plane. But wait - there's an even more basic question we forgot to ask! Namely: was our ancient Greek method of defining addition and multiplication independent of the choices we made? We needed to pick some points and lines to get things going. If you think about it hard, these choices boil down to picking four points, no three of which lie on a line - exactly what axiom C) guarantees we can do. Alas, it turns out that in general our recipe for addition and multiplication really depends on *how* we chose these four points. But if our projective plane is Desarguesian, it does not! In fact, if we stick to Desarguesian projective planes, everything works very smoothly. For any division ring F the projective plane FP^2 is Desarguesian. Conversely, starting with a Desarguesian projective plane, we can use the ancient Greek method to cook up a division ring F. Best of all, these two constructions are inverse to each other - at least up to isomorphism. At this point you should be pounding your desk and yelling "Great - but what does `Desarguesian' mean? I want the nitty-gritty details!" Okay.... Given a projective plane, define a "triangle" to be three points that don't lie on the same line. Now suppose you have two triangles xyz and x'y'z'. The sides of each triangle determine three lines, say LMN and L'M'N'. If we're really lucky, the line through x and x', the line through y and y', and the line through z and z' will all intersect at the same point. We say that our projective plane is "Desarguesian" if whenever this happens, something else happens: the intersection of L and L', the intersection of M and M', and the intersection of N and N' all lie on the same line. If you have trouble visualizing what I just said, take a look at this webpage, which also gives a proof of Desargues' theorem for the real projective plane: 1) Roger Mohr and Bill Trigs, Desargues' Theorem, http://spigot.anu.edu.au/people/samer/Research/Doc/ECV_Tut_Proj_Geom/node25.html Desargues' theorem is a bit complicated, but one cool thing is that its converse is its dual. This is easy to see if you stare at it: "three lines intersecting at the same point" is dual to "three points lying on the the same line". Even cooler, Desargues' theorem implies its own converse! Thus the property of being Desarguesian is self-dual. Another nice fact about Desarguesian planes concerns collineations. A "collineation" is a map from a projective plane to itself that preserves all lines. Collineations form a group, and this group acts on the set of all "quadrangles" - a quadrangle being a list of four points, no three of which lie on a line. Axiom C) says that every projective plane has at least one quadrangle. It turns out that if a projective plane is Desarguesian, the group of collineations acts transitively on the set of quadrangles: given any two quadrangles, there's a collineation carrying one to the other. This is the reason why the ancient Greek trick for adding and multiplying doesn't depend on the choice of quadrangle when our projective plane is Desarguesian! An even more beautiful fact about Desarguesian planes concerns their relation to higher dimensions. Just as we defined projective planes through a list of axioms, we can also define projective spaces of any dimension n = 1,2,3,.... The simplest example is FP^n - the space of lines through the origin in F^{n+1}. The neat part is that when n > 2, this is the *only* example. Moreover, any projective plane sittting inside one of these higher-dimensional projective spaces is automatically Desarguesian! So the non-Desarguesian projective planes are really freaks of dimension 2. All this is very nice. But there are some obvious further questions, namely: what's special about projective planes that actually come from *fields*, and what can we say about non-Desarguesian projective planes? The key to the first question is an old theorem proved by the last of the great Greek geometers, Pappus, in the 3rd century CE. It turns out that in any projective plane coming from a field, the Pappus Theorem holds. Conversely, any projective plane satisfying the Pappus Theorem comes from a unique field. We call such projective planes "Pappian". The Pappus theorem will be too scary if I explain it using only words, so I'll tell you to look at this picture instead: 2) Pappus' theorem, http://www.anglia.co.uk/education/mathsnet/dynamic/pappus.html Now, what about the non-Desarguesian projective planes? If we try to get a division ring from an *arbitrary* projective plane, we fail miserably. However, we can still define addition and multiplication using the tricks described above. These operations depend crucially our choice of a quadrangle. But if we list all the axioms these operations satisfy, we get the definition of an algebraic gadget called a "ternary ring". They're called "ternary rings" because they're usually described in terms of a ternary operation that generalizes xy + z. But the precise definition is too depressing for me give here. It's a classic example of what James Dolan calls "centipede mathematics", where you take a mathematical concept and see how many legs you can pull off before it can no longer walk. A ternary ring is like a division ring that can just barely limp along on its last legs. I'm not a big fan of centipede mathematics, but there is one really nice example of a ternary ring that isn't a division ring. Namely, the octonions! These are almost a division ring, but their multiplication isn't associative. I already talked about the octonions in "week59", "week61", "week104" and "week105". In "week106", I explained how you can define OP^2, the projective plane over the octonions. This is the best example of a non-Desarguesian projective plane. One reason it's so great is that that its group of collineations is E6. E6 is one of the five "exceptional simple Lie groups" - mysterious and exciting things that deserve all the study they can get! Next I want to talk about the relation between projective geometry and the *other* exceptional Lie groups, but first let me give you some references. To start, here's a great book on projective planes and all the curious centipede mathematics they inspire: 3) Frederick W. Stevenson, Projective Planes, W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1972. You'll learn all about nearfields, quasifields, loops, Cartesian groups, and so on. For a more distilled introduction to the same stuff, try the last chapter of this book: 4) Marshall Hall, The Theory of Groups, Macmillan, New York, 1959. If you're only interested in Desarguesian projective planes, try this: 5) Robin Hartshorne, Foundations of Projective Geometry, Benjamin, New York, 1967. In particular, this book gives a nice account of the collineation group in the Desarguesian case. The punchline is simple to state, so I'll tell you. Suppose F is a division algebra. Then the collineation group of FP^2 is generated by two obvious subgroups: PGL(2,F) and the automorphism group of F. The intersection of these two subgroups is the group of inner automorphisms of F. If the above references are too intense, try this leisurely, literate introduction to the subject first: 6) Daniel Pedoe, An Introduction to Projective Geometry, Macmillan, New York, 1963. And you're really interested in the *finite* projective planes, you can try this reference, which assumes very little knowledge of algebra: 7) A. Adrian Albert and Reuben Sandler, An Introduction to Finite Projective Planes, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1968. For a nice online introduction to projective geometry over the real numbers and its applications to image analysis, try this: 8) Roger Mohr and Bill Triggs, Projective geometry for image analysis, http://spigot.anu.edu.au/people/samer/Research/Doc/ECV_Tut_Proj_Geom/node1.html Finally, for interesting relations between projective geometry and exceptional Lie groups, try this: 9) J. M. Landsberg and L. Manivel: The projective geometry of Freudenthal's magic square, preprint available as math.AG/9908039. The Freudenthal-Tits magic square is a strange way of describing most of the exceptional Lie groups in terms of the real numbers, complex numbers, quaternions and octonions. In the usual way of describing it, you start with two of these division algebras, say F and F'. Then let J(F) be the space of 3x3 self-adjoint matrices with coefficients in F. This is a Jordan algebra with the product xy + yx. As mentioned in "week106", Jordan algebras have a lot to do with projective planes. In particular, the nontrivial projections in J(F) correspond to the 1- and 2-dimensional subspaces of F^3, and thus to the points and lines in the projective plane PF^2. Next, let J_0(F) be the subspace of J(F) consisting of the *traceless* self-adjoint matrices. Also, let Im(F') be the space of pure imaginary element of K'. Finally, let the magic Lie algebra M(F,F') be given by M(K,K') = Der(J(K)) + J_0(K) x Im(K') + Der(K') Here + stands for direct sum, x stands for tensor product, and Der stands for the space of derivations of the algebra in question. It's actually sort of tricky to describe how to make M(F,F') into a Lie algebra, and I'm sort of tired, so I'll wimp out and tell you to read this stuff: 10) Hans Freudenthal, Lie groups in the foundations of geometry, Adv. Math. 1 (1964) 143. 11) Jacques Tits, Algebres alternatives, algebres de Jordan et algebres de Lie exceptionelles, Proc. Colloq. Utrecht, vol. 135, 1962. 12) R. D. Schafer, Introduction to Non-associative Algebras, Academic Press, 1966. By the way, the paper by Freudenthal is a really mind-bending mix of Lie theory and axiomatic projective geometry, definitely worth looking at. Anyway, if you do things right you get the following square of Lie algebras M(F,F'): F = R F = C F = H F = O F' = R A1 A2 C3 F4 F' = C A2 A2+A2 A5 E6 F' = H C3 A5 B6 E7 F' = O F4 E6 E7 E8 Here R, C, H and O stand for the reals, complexes, quaternions and octonions. If you don't know what all the Lie algebras in the square are, check out "week64". (I should admit that the above square is not very precise, because I don't say which real forms of the Lie algebras in question are showing up.) The first fun thing about this square is that F4, E6, E7 and E8 are four of the five exceptional simple Lie algebras - and the fifth one, G2, is just Der(O). So all the exceptional Lie algebras are related to the octonions! And the second fun thing about this square is that it's symmetrical along the diagonal, even though this is not at all obvious from the definition. This is what makes the square truly "magic". I don't really understand the magic square, but it's on my to-do list. That's one reason I'm glad there's a new paper out that describes the magic square in a way that makes its symmetry manifest: 13) C. H. Barton and A. Sudbery, Magic squares of Lie algebras, preprint available as math.RA/0001083. It also generalizes the magic square in a number of directions. But what I really want is for the connection between projective planes, division algebras, exceptional Lie groups and the magic square to becomes truly *obvious* to me. I'm a long way from that point. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous issues of "This Week's Finds" and other expository articles on mathematics and physics, as well as some of my research papers, can be obtained at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ For a table of contents of all the issues of This Week's Finds, try http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twf.html A simple jumping-off point to the old issues is available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/twfshort.html If you just want the latest issue, go to http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/this.week.html