76
$\begingroup$

Many mathematical areas have a notion of "dimension", either rigorously or naively, and different dimensions can exhibit wildly different behaviour. Often, the behaviour is similar for "nearby" dimensions, with occasional "dimension leaps" marking the boundary from one type of behaviour to another. Sometimes there is just one dimension that has is markedly different from others. Examples of this behaviour can be good provokers of the "That's so weird, why does that happen?" reaction that can get people hooked on mathematics. I want to know examples of this behaviour.

My instinct would be that as "dimension" increases, there's more room for strange behaviour so I'm more surprised when the opposite happens. But I don't want to limit answers so jumps where things get remarkably more different at a certain point are also perfectly valid.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ Who reads blogs anymore? They are soooo October-2009ish. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 13, 2009 at 15:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Andrew, I don't see a question in there... $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster
    Commented Nov 13, 2009 at 16:05
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ That's a very nice question. $\endgroup$
    – Gil Kalai
    Commented Nov 13, 2009 at 17:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It was a mistake to hastily close the question and indeed I had a few more examples to mention when I will have time. Probably, (unless reopened,) I will simply revive the question in some way. $\endgroup$
    – Gil Kalai
    Commented Jun 24, 2010 at 12:15
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Gil, I've arbitrarily reopened this question. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 24, 2010 at 15:40

34 Answers 34

1
2
2
$\begingroup$

Say that a square matrix $u$ with entries in a unital $\mathrm{C}^*$-algebra is a magic unitary if its entries are projections which sum to the identity on each row and column: $$\sum_{k=1}^N u_{ik}=\sum_{k=1}^Nu_{kj}=1.$$

Let $C(S_N^+)$ be the universal $\mathrm{C}^*$-algebra generated by the entries of a magic unitary $u\in M_N(C(S_N^+))$.

Then:

For $N\leq 3$, $C(S_N^+)$ is commutative and finite dimensional; but for $N\geq 4$, $C(S_N^+)$ is non-commutative and infinite dimensional.

It is a nice exercise to prove this at $N=3$.

The significance of this is contained in the quip:

There are no quantum permutations on three or fewer symbols.

To explain all this, including the choice of notation, please see the book, Quantum Permutation Groups, by Teo Banica.

An alternative reference is the survey:

T. Banica, J. Bichon, and B. Collins, Quantum permutation groups: a survey, Banach Center Publ. 78 (2007), 13-34.

The original reference is:

S. Wang, Quantum symmetry groups of finite spaces, Comm. Math. Phys. 195 (1998), 195–211

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The spaces of sequences of real or complex numbers, $(l^p,||·||_p)$, are not pre-Hilbert spaces unless $p=2$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Is this really 'dimension'? $\endgroup$
    – Spencer
    Commented Apr 18, 2011 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ Well, the poster said: "Many mathematical areas have a notion of "dimension", either rigorously or naively, [...]", and thus I felt the p-notion to fit the question. $\endgroup$
    – Jose Brox
    Commented Apr 22, 2011 at 11:06
1
$\begingroup$

Isn't the Frobenius theorem on real division algebras an example?

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

The max number of points interconnected (every-to-every) by lines of any curvature, such that no line crosses any other line. For $\mathbb{R}^2$ it is only 4 points (smth. like Mercedes symbol) - why 4 and not 3 or 5? How many points are possible to connect in such way in $\mathbb{R}^3$? (I suggest, infinite number, but it is interesting to look at a proof). What are some special properties of the Euclidean $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that the number of interconnected points jumps from 4 in $\mathbb{R}^2$ to infinity in $\mathbb{R}^3$?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ R^3 doesn't have any special properties in that sense. The issue is that curves only have codimension 1 in R^2, so they can separate the plane into multiple components, whereas they can't separate R^3. You could probably formulate a similar problem about using surfaces with boundary to connect 1-manifolds (circles or line segments) in R^3 and get a finiteness result for that if you really wanted. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2009 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ There are a few finiteness results of that type -- for example Seifert surfaces for knots (orientable surfaces that bound a knot in 3-space). If the knot is a special type "fibers over S1" and if the Surface is required to be "incompressible" (minimal genus) then it's known to be unique. You can of course always complicate surfaces by adding handles. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 18, 2009 at 21:38
1
2

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .