2
$\begingroup$

It is well-known the Hurwitz theorem showing that every unital composition algebra is of dimension 1, 2, 4 or 8 over the base field.

Is there an analogue in the non unital case? ¿Do non unital composition algebras of arbitrary dimension exist?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I think a big question is how you want to axiomatize these structures, as two axiomatizations which are equivalent in the presence of a unit might become drastically different when you remove from both the assumption of a unit. Particularly, the question is whether you want a notion of conjugation still to exist (in standard axiomatizations, as for example in the book by John H. Conway and Derek Smith, conjugation is defined by $v \mapsto 2\langle v, e \rangle - v$). $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Sep 10, 2012 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ Argh, $v \mapsto 2\langle v, e \rangle e - v$, where $e$ is the unit. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Sep 10, 2012 at 14:39
  • $\begingroup$ No, I would not need a conjugation. My definition for composition algebra is (cf.Zhevlakov et al. for instance): An algebra over a field F with quadratic form n(x) is called a composition algebra if: -n(xy)=n(x)n(y). -The form n(x) is strictly nondegenerate. - A has identity. In particular I am interested in removing the 2 las conditions so I just have a quadratic form n(x) [f(x,y)=n(x+y)-n(x)-n(y) bilinear] admitting composition. $\endgroup$ Sep 10, 2012 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry not to have replied sooner. If the quadratic form can be degenerate, what stops us from having both the algebra multiplication and $n$ be identically zero? $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Sep 15, 2012 at 17:05
  • $\begingroup$ And what if we keep non-degeneracy but remove the unit? $\endgroup$ Sep 27, 2012 at 18:58

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

If $A$ is a finite-dimensional algebra over a field, with a strictly non-degenerate multiplicative quadratic form, then the dimension of $A$ is 1, 2, 4 or 8. This result can be found in "The Book of Involutions" by Knus, Merkurjev, Rost and Tignol (Amer. Math. Soc. Coll. Publ. 44, Providence, 1998), Corollary (33.28). The argument for this is due to Kaplansky (Proc. Amer. Math. Soc 4, 1953), and consists of defining a new multiplication on $A$ which admits a unit element.

$\endgroup$
1

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.