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

Let us take the octonions as having all integer coefficients and the multiplication table at BAEZ

We have a standard conjugation operator with $\bar{1} = 1$ and $\bar{e_i}= - e_i,$ extend by linearity. Then we get a norm, or squared Euclidean length, as $Nx = x \bar{x} = \bar{x} x,$ and the $N(xy) = Nx \; Ny.$ We get the real part $\mathcal Rx = \frac{1}{2} (x + \bar{x}). $ We will call an octonion $o$ pure if its real part is $0,$ that is $\bar{o} = -o.$ We also retrieve the ordinary dot product with $(x,y)= \mathcal R(x\bar{y}).$ Among a million other facts, multiplication on either the left or the right by a fixed octonion preserves angles, and multiplication by any of the $e_i$ rotates everything $90^\circ.$

The main law we need is the "alternative algebra" law, $$ (xy)x = x(yx). $$ I like the quick summary of the laws in Robert Wilson 2008 SEMINAR PDF

LEMMA: $$ (\bar{t} x) t = \bar{t} (x t) $$

Proof: Write $t = r + o $ with $r$ real and $o$ pure. The $\bar{t} = r - o.$ Calculation gives $$ (\bar{t} x) t = r^2 x + r x o - r o x - (ox)o, $$ while $$ \bar{t} (x t) = r^2 x + r x o - r o x - o(xo). $$ Since $ (ox)o = o (xo) $ the lemma follows.

To the question of interest, which was done for the quaternions as the matrix in formula (10) on page 755 of Pall Automorphs (1940) and Theorem 3 on page 176 of Jones and Pall (1939), both available as pdfs at TERNARY

Let $$ o = o_1 e_1 + o_2 e_2 + o_3 e_3 + o_4 e_4 + o_5 e_5 + o_6 e_6 + o_7 e_7 $$ be a "proper" pure quaternion, that is $\gcd(o_1,o_2,o_3,o_4,o_5,o_6,o_7) = 1,$ with square norm $$ No = m^2 = o_1^2 + o_2^2 + o_3^2 + o_4^2 + o_5^2 + o_6^2 + o_7^2 $$ for integer $m.$

QUESTION: is it necessarily the case that we can find some integral octonion $t,$ with $Nt = m,$ such that $$ o = \pm \bar{t} (e_j t) $$ for some $j =1,2,3,4,5,6,7?$

EDDITTT: I got an email from a kind fellow who has a Maple package for playing with octonions, who says that with $o = e_4 + e_5 + e_6 + e_7$ of norm 4 has no expression as $ o = \bar{t} (e_1 t). $ I have asked him if checking all possible $\pm e_j$ makes any difference. It is a big help to be able to experiment, I don't have any computer programs myself this time. I will put in his name if he says that is alright. Oh, his Maple program may be using a slightly different multiplication table from the one I picked, i think there are 240 or 480 possible versions.

Note that the proof by Jones and Pall uses associativity and, essentially, unique factorization (Theorem 2) for a proof by induction on the number of prime factors in out $m.$ That proof cannot work in quite such a pleasant manner. That is, their Theorem 2 is likely false, but perhaps this (Theorem 3) can be recovered as a very special case. Note that I can live with $m$ being odd, Jones and Pall needed to do that. For seven squares I do not think it should be necessary.

Oh, automorphs. It is fairly likely that every rational automorph of the sum of seven squares can be written with the seven rows being $\bar{t} (e_i t),$ and then divide by $m.$ I'm just saying.

EDIT, JUNE 7: note that the question to which I was trying to apply octonions has an affirmative answer due to J. S. Hsia, see Filling in a rational orthogonal matrix given one row while the octonion approach to seven variables was just not very effective. That is, it works for some 7-tuples but the percentage of failures goes up as the coefficients increase in size.

share|improve this question
    
Note: in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinny_Legs_and_All_%28novel%29 a belly dancer in a restaurant in New York agrees to perform the dance of the seven veils, but requires that it be the same day and time as the Super Bowl. –  Will Jagy Dec 25 '12 at 22:57
add comment

3 Answers 3

Hi Will - I'm not sure whether you were exploring a particular application of the octonions, but I want to point out that understanding the spaces where $o=\pm \bar{t} \( e_j t \)$ exists are interesting. Papers like http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1497 or http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.2255 use such constructs, and you're wondering about the further restriction of $t$ and $o$ being a 'proper octonion'. Thanks for posting your question, and some investigation. I wonder what actually are the spaces where a $t$ exists for some $e_j$ such that $o=\pm \bar{t} \( e_j t \)$ for a given $o$? Quick question: With "integral octonion" did you mean any octonion that is made from integral coefficients? Or did you mean the (arguably) more customary use where "integral octonions" refers to a (reschaled) version of the E8 lattice? Thanks, Jens

share|improve this answer
    
Hi, Jens. I meant integral coefficients, with the multiplication table from Baez. I understand there are several useful sorts of octonions. The reason i picked this one is that someone asked on MSE whether any vector of $n$ integers that also has integral length $m$ can be placed as the first row of a square matrix $P$ with $P P^T = m^2 I,$ that is $\frac{1}{m}P$ is rational and orthogonal. I found it true from $n = 2,3,4,8,$ false for $n=9,$ and computers suggested true for $n=5,6,7$ but I cannot be sure. math.stackexchange.com/questions/261204/… –  Will Jagy Dec 27 '12 at 6:31
add comment

Sometimes nobody knows a question because it is just nonsense.

For distinct indices $i,j,k = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,$ I have proved this little item by checking 35 triples in the Baez multiplication table: $$ (e_i e_j) e_k = (e_j e_k) e_i = (e_k e_i) e_j. $$ As a result, $$ (e_i e_j) e_k + (e_k e_j) e_i = 0. $$ I was pretty sure I had proved these with some calculations that forced the second version, but I also wanted to check, and it's true.

W. Edwin Clark, emeritus at the University of South Florida, told me the example i edited into the question. A little more is true: if $Nt = 2,$ then the only possibilities I found for $\bar{t} e_i t$ are $\pm 2, \pm 2 e_j.$

Next I went ahead and checked $Nt = 3.$ This is also a complete bust. The possibilities for $\bar{t} e_i t$ are $\pm 3, \pm 3 e_j, \; \pm e_j \pm 2 e_k \pm 2 e_m.$ There is simply not enough variety to create anything with $9 = 4 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0.$

In conclusion, this was stupid, but now I know a bit more than I did.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I agree!

The process of taking Norm or Conjugates of Octonions (as premised by the question) creates a trivial answer to the question.

Just FYI, I too have a Mathematica notebook here that addresses octonions (and its Cayley-Dickson quaternion half). See that here. This is referenced in the mathematica.stackexchange.com forum here.

share|improve this answer
    
It is not clear in what way is this an answer to the question. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jun 8 '13 at 1:44
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.