Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I stumbled over a statement on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duality_%28projective_geometry%29 and would like to ask how this could possibly be true. It states the following

The projective planes $PG(2,K)$ for any division ring $K$ are self-dual.

Is this really true? Or rather: What is wrong with the following argument that (if correct) would contradict the statement:

For a finite dimensional left vector space $V$ over a division ring $K$, we have the dual left vector space $V^{\star}$ over $K^{op}$ (the opposite division ring of $K$). Now, it is certainly true that $P(V^{\star})$ is isomorphic to the dual of $P(V)$. Thus, $P(V)$ is isomorphic to its dual if and only if $P(V) \cong P(V^{\star})$. Since $V$ and $V^{\star}$ have the same dimension, does that not necessarily imply that $K$ and $K^{op}$ are isomorphic by the Second Fundamental Theorem of projective Geometry?

In fact, isn't $PG(2,K)$ (or $PG(n,K)$ for any $n \geq 2$) being self-dual simply eqvuialent to $K \cong K^{op}$ (which is of course is not always the case). I also recall that I have read this somewhere.

So, to put it in one line: What is wrong? The statement on Wikipedia or my reasoning?


EDIT: I found some course notes in which it is also claimed that $PG(n,K)$ is self-dual iff $K$ is self-dual (see 6.1 in http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~pjc/pps/pps6.pdf). This does contradict what Wikipedia says, doesn't it?

share|improve this question
8  
Your reasoning is very convincing. I think it's a good rule of thumb that when something in Wikipedia looks wrong, and not just at first glance, then it probably is. –  Tom Goodwillie Nov 24 '12 at 15:03
2  
Looking at the history of the article, that sentence appears to have been introduced by User:Wcherowi on September 25, 2011. en.wikipedia.org/w/… You can also write directly to the interested user on his/her talk-page (link from the above revision) –  Pietro Majer Nov 24 '12 at 20:46
    
Thanks for the comment Tom and for your suggestion, Pietro. However, what I still would like to have is a definite answer to my original question. There are surely people on this board who know projective geometry well enough to decide whether PG(2,K) being self-dual really is equivalent to $K \cong K^{op}$ (contradicting the wikipedia article) or not. –  E. Vargas Nov 25 '12 at 21:49
1  
I can't say I've ever gone through the proof, and I didn't know that it went by one of those opaque numerical names ("Second Theorem of ..."), but I'm sure that there is a theorem to the effect that a division ring can be constructed (up to isomorphism) from the projective plane that it determines. So I am sure you are right. –  Tom Goodwillie Nov 25 '12 at 23:02
    
Doesn't Desargues imply Pappus? In which case assuming K is not commutative gives a contradiction. Gerhard "Or Does Pappus Imply Desargues?" Paseman, 2012.11.25 –  Gerhard Paseman Nov 26 '12 at 1:10
show 1 more comment

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I think you are right. There is a theorem that asserts that if two projective spaces $P(V,F)$ and $P(V',F')$ are isomorphic then the skew fields $F$ and $F'$ are isomorphic. Thus if $P(V,F)$ and $P(V^*,F^{op})$ are isomorphic then $F\cong F^{op}$ as skew fields.

I recommand these course notes "Essential Concepts of Projective Geometry" available here (the author gives a lot of references): http://math.ucr.edu/~res/progeom/ in particular look at appendix C.

share|improve this answer
    
Alright then. I accept this answer. Thank you. –  E. Vargas Nov 26 '12 at 9:48
    
David -- re "There is a theorem that asserts that...": do you have a reference? –  algori Nov 26 '12 at 20:52
1  
This is theorem IV.17 of "Essential concepts of projective geometry", the author gives a lot of references among them: chapter 6 of R. Hartshorne. "Foundations of Projective Geometry". Benjamin, New York, 1967. –  David C Nov 27 '12 at 7:10
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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