My favorite part about math is the terminology--for example, take the hyperreal numbers, *R, (equivalence classes of sequences of real numbers constructed by taking all real series and denoting their convergent point a hyperreal number--and apparently if it doesn't converge like (0,1,0,1,0...) then you just assign it to either 0 or 1? I don't know all the ins and outs of them). The hyperreal numbers *R are cool because they're non-Archimedian. Numbers like the reals are Archimedian because if there's a number a < 1/n, where n is any natural number, then a as to be 0. But the hyperreals have infinitesimals like ϵ= (1, 1/2, 1/4, ...), which is smaller than everything, but bigger than 0. This also means the hyperreals have infinitely large numbers, like 1/ϵ--which should remind you of how the Riemannian sphere acts with infinity and 0. And then *R has appreciable numbers, which are just real numbers plus infinitesimals α = a+ ϵ, a in R. Pretty cool stuff. Turns out the hyperreals are a much easier way to conjugate by a series of matrices, which is needed to do to find conjugacy limits of things. But the reason I bring this up is because some of the terms are pretty cool. If you have an appreciable number, α = a+ ϵ, and you want to go back to the reals, you just "take the shadow of α," which, though it just means to take the real part, a, of α, makes it sound really cool, like it's from some children's TV show about children's card games. And another cool term, galaxy, is represented Galϵ(x) = {y in *R, | |x- y| <= kϵ}, k in R. During the lecture, when she introduced "galaxies," I turned to the guy to my right and said "I love math," and he nodded in agreement.
Anyway, this post should be fairly short and easy to grasp, especially compared to the other posts, and the posts about to come. This will just introduce the concept of a group.
A group is a set G with a binary operation, * : G x G -> G, such that the following three properties
- For g,h,i in G, (g * h) * i = g * (h * i), ie, * is associative
- There exists an identity element, e, in G such that, g in G, g * e = e * g = g
- For each g in G, there exists an inverse g-1 in G such that g * g-1 = g-1 * g = e
But remember that because * is a binary operation, then for G = {a,b,c} to be a group, a*b has to also be in G as well. This property is called closure and is essential to bear in mind.
Furthermore, a group G is abelian if its binary operation is commutative, that is, gh=hg, g,h in G.
Common groups include the integers under addition represented as (Z, +) or referred to Z mod n, consisting of the elements {0,1,2,...,n-1}. To form the multiplicative group (Z, •), one must remove the 0 element, as to satisfy the inverse requirement of a group--g in Z, 0•g = 0 =/= 1.
Symmetry involves and necessitates group theory. Given a finite set A, its permutations (bijections from A->A) result in interesting properties, with application to geometry. If A = {1,2,...,n}, the group of possible permutations of A is called Sn, the symmetry group of n.
If n=3, then we may model geometrically the elements of S3 with the vertices of a triangle.
from Troy University |
Here, various permutations of Sn yield
different transpositions. For example, mapping 1->2, 2->3, and
3->1 results in a rotation by 120°, but the mapping 1->1, 2->3,
3->2 results in a reflection across the angle bisector of vertex 1.
Also, groups are key for complex analysis. Not only are there many groups involving C, but the big one, which this project is titled for, is called the Linear Fractional Group, ie all the Mobius Transformations together. Matrices are a great way to represent groups, and in the next post about Mobius Transformations, I will probably also introduce the analogous matrices.
EDIT== By the way, the title is a joke based on
How do hyperreal numbers have extremely small numbers, and real numbers do not? And how come the real numbers don't have extremely large numbers as well?
ReplyDeleteWell, real numbers have really small numbers, but not infinitesmals. We have to define what they are, and It's all because real numbers are Archimedean. That means if a number is less than one over any natural number, that number has to be 0. It's like a game. If you give me any number greater than 0, in the reals, I can find you a number such that one over that number is smaller than your number. But if we're in the hyperreals, we're not really working with "numbers" as youre probably thinking of. Rather we denote a number in the hypereals as the limit of whatever some sequence converges to. So if we have a sequence like (1, 1/2, 1/4, ...) then that's limit is really small, but it's not 0.
DeleteIt's kinda like how in calculus we have notions of differentials. They're really small, smaller than every number, but differentials aren't "numbers" in the reals. But something along those lines could be in the hyperreals.
Infinity is the same thing. How many time have you been told "infinity is not a number" but it's instead a concept we can work with. Same thing goes--but we can have infinitely large numbers in the hyperreals insofar as they're the limit of some sequence or one over an infinitisimal.
Hey Connor, these hyperreal numbers sound very interesting! So suppose I was to cross the hyperreal numbers by themselves to form a "hyperreal plane". Would this plane have a homeomorphism to the reimann sphere, considering how the reimann sphere can represent some of these hyperreal numbers? (If not, could you puncture the hyperreal plane and get a homeomorphism to the reimann sphere?)
ReplyDeleteGreat question Shrey, making me think! I'm going to preface this with an giant: I don't really know much on this, I'm going to answer your question as well as I can using all that I know about hyperreals and complex numbers, but I very well may be wrong.
DeleteFirst of all, I don't know what you mean by "considering how the reimman sphere can represent some of these hyperreal numbers". Keep in mind *R is just an extension of R.
That said, I think I'd say "no"--at least if you mean the Riemannian sphere with any interesting properties from it. Like you may be able to construct a sphere from the hyperreals using some projection, but I don't know if you'd get anything from it.
Though there is a transfer principle from R to *R (and vice versa) of first order logical statements, that doesnt entail that they share all of their properties, namely only R is Archimedian. (But I think that's irrelvant anyway to point out)
The whole point of the hyperreals is that you get infinitesimals and infinitely large numbers. But I don't know how that could be accounted for on the sphere, where all the infinities are represented as just one point. Also, the complex plane can map nicely to the sphere because it has no infinitesimals (essentially the same problem I just mentioned, just on the lower half of the sphere). I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Riemannian sphere is still Archimedian, which seems to be a problem. I think you'd have to take the shadow of the stuff you're working with, but that would essentially just make it Real.
What do you think?
So this has been pretty rambly and probably nonresponsive, but as a final thought I'll point out that hyperreals are used in analysis for derivatives and integrals sometimes, but I haven't seen anything for them in complex..
Hey Connor, sorry for not replying to this earlier (It's really strange that there's no notification system for Blogger)!
DeleteThat explanation makes some sense; I think you're right when you say the Reimannian projection would break down at the infinity point and wouldn't really represent the hyperreals completely.
Looks like you're developing some mathematical intuition! :D
I am glad I took Category Theory so I can understand most of this (so far). How far beyond that class does this your research go?
ReplyDeleteSo far, I've only gone into subjects from Category theory, but if from the post I just made forward, it's going to be a lot of complex analysis and higher math. One site that I'm looking at a lot is a 600 level course. I don't really know what that means, but we'll see!
DeleteI have that shirt!!! Isn't is an awesome feeling when you first understand a lecture in a seminar. I'm really proud of you.
ReplyDelete