Monday, February 27, 2012

Torsion in the Twists (Belt/Plate Trick)

This is a follow-up post to the statement at the end of Everyday I'm $\mathbb{RP}^{n+1}$, that $\pi_1\left(\mathbb{RP}^3\right) \cong \mathbb{Z}_2$

$\mathbb{Z}_2$...  Isn't that the finite simple group of order two?

It was only a matter of time before I found an excuse to post this...

Anyway, have some links:

A quick video of the corresponding plate trick* 
Brief discussions here and here of the belt/plate trick, courtesy Wikipedia.
Some nice demonstrations (and also discussions) of the tricks, courtesy Bob Palais.
A quick video of the much-related quaternion handshake**

*In the plate trick, a path in $SO(3)$ corresponding to a $720^\circ$ rotation is traced out over time by your hand, and the homotopy to a $0^\circ$ rotation is traced out 'spatially' as you move up/down your arm.  These roles are reversed in the belt trick, where the path is traced out spatially and the homotopy occurs over time.

**$\mathbb{RP}^3$ is a quotient of $S^3 \subset \mathbb{R}^4$.  The quaternions are isomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^4$ as an $\mathbb{R}$-vector space.
So it shouldn't be too surprising that $SO(3)$ is a quotient of the unit quaternions.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

$SO(3)$ What



There's a bunch of facts about $SO(3)$ in the last post that were used but not proven.  I threw a proof in, but it ended up being longer and less coherent than I had hoped.

So I dumped it here instead.  I'll probably re-tool that entire post in the coming week...

Monday, February 20, 2012

Everyday I'm $\mathbb{RP}^{n+1}$

When I was just a little boy and my dad was tucking me into bed one night, we (somehow) got to talking about the overall shape of the universe.  It just sort of goes on forever... doesn't it?  According to my old man, there were some people who thought that space didn't exactly go on forever.  "When you travel far enough in that direction," he said, pointing to one corner of the room, "you eventually come back to the place you started, but you'll approach it from there," he said as he pointed to the opposite corner.

At the time,  I had imagined that he was describing something like a 3-torus, i.e. $S^1 \times S^1 \times S^1$.  Nowadays, I'm certain he was talking about $\mathbb{RP}^3$ instead.

Hrm... I should ask him about this stuff the next time I see him...

Pinkie Pie's parents must have taught her how to appreciate abstract notions of space as well.

Today we'll construct $\mathbb{RP}^3$ and see why it's homeomorphic to $SO(3)$, a subset of $O(3)$.
Don't fret if you don't know what it means for two spaces to be 'homeomorphic'.  We're just going to visualize each one and convince ourselves that they're both the same shape.

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Everyday I'm $\mathbb{RP}^n$


So Rainbow Dash was like, "Hey Fluttershy, have you been doing exercises with the Zariski Topology recently?  'Cause you've got one affine variety right there."


(Fluttershy's reaction needs no further comment)

Nerdy jokes aside...
Today we'll be building projective spaces!  Euclidean Geometry and Algebraic Geometry construct these spaces in different ways, so we'll do them both and look at how we can relate one to the other.


The space that gives us our familiar $n$-dimensional geometries, $\mathbb{R}^n$, is called the affine $n$-space over $\mathbb{R}$.  You can also have affine spaces over an arbitrary field $\mathbb{F}$, but... we won't go there today.

The projective $n$-space over a field is the equivalence class of lines through the origin in the affine $n+1$-space over that field.  Basically, we get rid of the origin, $\vec{0}$, and 'collapse' together each equivalence class of points in $\mathbb{F}^n \backslash \{\vec{0}\}$ under the equivalence relation $\vec{a_1} \sim \vec{a_2}$ iff $\vec{a_1} = \lambda \vec{a_2}$ for some $\lambda \in \mathbb{F}$.  That's a bit abstract, so let's try to make this more intuitive.  Let's just try to construct $\mathbb{RP}^2$ out of $\mathbb{R}^3$ for now.

Let's do some judicious collapsing:  Instead of collapsing the entire equivalence class of $\vec{a}$ to a single point, let's just map each $\vec{a} \in \mathbb{R}^3$ to the point on unit sphere, $S^2$, corresponding to $\frac{\vec{a}}{||\vec{a}||}$

Note that the point we sent $\vec{a}$ to, $\frac{\vec{a}}{||\vec{a}||}$, is genuinely in the same equivalence class as $\vec{a}$ (as $\frac{1}{||\vec{a}||} \in \mathbb{R}$).

Note that I've only 'partially collapsed' $\mathbb{R}^3 \backslash \{\vec{0}\}$; each pair of antipodes (opposite poles) $a, b \in S^2$ are in the same equivalence class by $a = -b$.


So if the sun is the origin in $\mathbb{R}^3$, all ponies on the line connecting the sun to Rarity  (excluding any ponies hiding in the center of the sun, but including any ponies hiding on the other half of the line, behind the sun) are mapped to the same point of $\mathbb{RP}^2$


For those who don't understand what this 'collapsing points' nonsense is all about:  I'm defining a quotient map from one topological space to another.  This happens in the same way you might 'stitch' one edge of $[0,1]\times [0,1]$ to another to make a a möbius band, or 'squash' $S^2$ into the closed unit disc of vectors of norm $\leq 1$ in the $xy$-plane.  The way you 'collapse' the sides of $S^2$ into each other to form $\mathbb{RP}^2$ is not something you can do in $3$-space... so if the precise shape of the thing we end up with is hard to visualize, that's why.

Since we're going to collapse one half of the sphere directly into the other, let's only worry about one half of the sphere for now (without worrying about what's going to happen to the equator).  Let it be the half resting above the $xy$ plane, i.e. all $(x,y,z) \in S^2$ such that $z > 0$.  "Project" the surface of the sphere (via the lines through the origin) onto the plane $z=1$, i.e. map each $(x,y,z)$ in this half of $S^2$ to $(\frac{x}{z},\frac{y}{z},1)$.  This is a bijection between $\mathbb{R}^2$, i.e. the plane defined by $z=1$, and the open upper half of $S^2$.  So $\mathbb{RP}^2$ is just like $\mathbb{R}^2$ if we leave out the stuff related to that equator in the $xy$ plane (note that these are the only equivalence classes of points that aren't defined by our map).  Now what's so special about this equator?  Time for a detour...

The way the projective plane is built from Euclid's axioms is that we take our affine plane, and for each equivalence class of parallell lines, we add a corresponding 'point at infinity'.
Note that in order for parallell lines to truly form equivalence classes, we have to let every line $l_1$ be parallell to itself (maybe 'lines that have the same slope' is the better term).
So these 'points at infinity' are sort of like a spot on the horizon.  They're infinitely far away, but they occupy well-defined angles from the origin.  Technically speaking though, it's a pair of angles from the origin: the point where the lines $x=1$ and $x=2$ is both 'infinitely far up' and 'infinitely far down.'
Projective space sort of wraps around on itself.  Additionally, the collection of points at infinity also form a 'line at infinity,' but how they happen to form a line might not be obvious until we look back at our other construction...

This 'line at infinity' is  precisely the equator of $S^2$ in the $xy$ plane that we couldn't map into the plane of $z=1$.  And the  'point at infinity' that corresponds to the class of lines with slope $m$ will correspond to the points $\left( \frac{m}{\sqrt{m^2+1}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{m^2+1}},0 \right)$ and $\left( \frac{-m}{\sqrt{m^2+1}},\frac{-1}{\sqrt{m^2+1}},0\right)$ in the $xy$ plane.

It's a nice way of relating one model to another, but it still doesn't give you a visual understanding of what $\mathbb{RP}^2$ should look like once you actually collapse that equator together.  The "shape" you'll end up with is what you'd get if you took a unit disc, and stitched its boundary circle to the boundary circle of a möbius band.  In order to do that, your disc has to twist around and through itself.  Again, regular surfaces in $3$-space are not allowed to do this.  As I might have been hinting before, $\mathbb{RP}^2$, like the Klein bottle, can't be embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$.  They can do immersions into $\mathbb{R}^3$, but not embeddings.

That's all for now.  The next installment of $\mathbb{RP}^n$-related stuff will probably be about doing all that conic section tomfoolery in $\mathbb{RP}^2$.  And maybe why $SO(3) \cong \mathbb{RP}^3$

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Thoughts $O(n)$ Matrices

My sister recently came home from visiting her boyfriend's family in India, and she brought back some of the best tea Hyderabad had to offer.  Needless to say, I approve of their courtship.
Best Assam ever.  Image stolen from here
While I work on more fancy math shenanigans, let's look at my favorite groups of matrices, the orthogonal and unitary groups.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Suspicious... Ugh

I can't get my hooves on (or my head around) a nice proof of Schur Orthogonality.  I still don't know how to fill in the gaps left in the proof in Serre's book, and all the online proofs I've found involve taking a straight shot of category theory. 
I know, right?
I don't think I have any readers to disappoint right now, but for the people who somehow stumbled in here and are following this business... I'm taking a break from this character theory stuff.  I really ought to learn all the math in these lecture-thingies before I start writing them...

I'mma try to learn some stuff about manifolds while I wait for Mac Lane's book on Category Theory to come in the mail...

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Smale's Paradox

Just stumbled across a nice demonstration of this eversion on youtube:

Part 1  |  Part 2

One of the members of Smale's group, Bernard Morin, is notable for being an accomplished topologist in spite of being blind since the age of six.  He was also the first person to parametrize Boy's Surface, an immersion of the real projective plane in 3-space.  Here's a model of Boy's surface at a mathematical research institute in Oberwolfach, Germany:

Morin, who is still alive, was shown this model one day.  Being blind, he had to touch the surface to determine what it was.  After a minute or two of feeling around, he shook his head and said, "This is not Boy's Surface.  This is a mirror image of Boy's Surface."  Morin was, apparently, the first person to point this out.

So with that, think of all the new perspectives you might get if you blindfolded yourself for a month. Vision being a crutch for your spatial imagination and all that.

Story source: the guy who taught me Algebraic Topology.