# SET THEORY, QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS

http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.html

Notes On The Concept of Quantum Set Theory

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Introduction Classical Set Theory & Symbolic Logic Classical Set theory: symmetric difference and complementation Duality Maps Boolean Algebras (Rings) General Rings Measure Algebras Measures Complex Hilbert Spaces V and Quantization Complex Clifford Algebras & Representations The Lower Dimensional CL(V) Algebras Clifford Subalgebras & The Periodicity Theorem More Formal Clifford Algebra Structure The Pseudoscalar in Complex Clifford Algebras A Uniform Clifford Algebra Basis The Even Clifford Subalgebra The Clifford Group The Discrete Clifford Group G-Gradings, Gradings and Semigradings of Algebras The Trace Functional Tr(.) & Trace Norm Spinors Closure of the bivectors on SO(n) ring Closure on bivectors with vectors on ISO(n) ring Construction from the C*-algebra A(V) of operators on V: The Physicality of It All Reconceptualizing Set Theory The Number (Cardinality) Operator Expected Cardinality Representation Constructions. Intermezzo On Classical & Quantum Statistical Mechanics Ontology, Representations & General sets Classical & Quantum Correspondences Hypergroups Quantum Categories

Introduction This continues the introductory essay on the physical notions of quantum set theory.

1 of 36

10/16/2010 5:47 AM

SET THEORY, QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS

http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.html

The idea of quantum set theory, while it sounds to be of a mathematical nature, is necesarily of a physical nature if one means to quantize "points" that comprise sets in such a way that they are treated as physical objects with physical properties. Although there is a fair amount of pure mathematics below, the hard part comes when having to decide on the physics of treating the concept so that it becomes reduced to something which adequately deals with "physical space" and its classically approximate locally Euclidean E3. Though the expression of quantum theory is highly mathematical, the physical theory is indeed physical, hence more specific than any particular mathematics. A recurring mathematical structure in physics is the Lie algebra su(2), which describes spin, isotopic spin associated with electrical charge, happens to be abstractly identical to the algebra of SO(3) since SU(2) is the universal covering group of SO(3), whose algebra is normally associated with classical and QM angular momentum operators in an E3. It occurs again in my FCCR(n) algebra, for n=2, as the defining representation of su(2), where it describes a smallest q-oscillator, and would appear to model the smallest and simplest possible quantum object, and therefore be the most likely candidate to model a physical point, or more accurately any smallest physical event (process), and its energetic excitations represented algebraically by the irreducible representations of su(2) which exist for every dimension n > 1. The su(2) algebra appears later below, but for now, begining at the begining, I construct a genuine algebra of sets, which act together, with a few possibly interesting mathematical remarks, and get to an algebra to Clifford algebra mapping as quantization centering on the power set, outline some Clifford algebra theory and its various relationships, and finally get to discussing the nature of any quantum set theory.

Classical Set Theory & Symbolic Logic There are two common ways of looking at classical set theory, one (symbolic logic) involves the points of some universe of discourse, and a membership relation, while the other first proceeds without a membership relation, but from a set of axioms about some pair of binary relations on a collection of sets.

Classical Set theory using symmetric difference and complementation (Kuratowski)

Classical naïve set theory is most often introduced through the intuitively clear binary operations of union "∪" and intersections "∩". I will assume that these operations are known in their finite applications, as well, the standard interpretive representations in terms of Venn diagrams. In particular, the concept of null set; the relations of disjointness and equality are assumed here known and understood. Interjection: let us take note at this early point that a classical empty set is also a void, a physical space or spacetime "vacuum" is not a void: a vacuum though it may be, it is not devoid of content. This is clear if we understand space or spacetime in the sense quantum field theory. A void cannot properly model a vacuum. These two operations alone are not powerful enough to provide definitions for further structure that would match the intuitive ideas of a general naïve set theory. If one uses additionally, the assumptions of difference and complementation:

2 of 36

10/16/2010 5:47 AM

SET THEORY, QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS

http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.html

**Duality of ∩ and ∪, and the dual map "c" of complementation.
**

In addition, the set theoretic difference '-' can be defined by A - B := A ∩ Bc

where in the context of some specific universal, most comprehensive set U, one can define "The complementation operator", "c" operating on any set is Ac := U - A

Boolean Algebras

An algebraic axiomatization, courtesy of the structures of George Boole (1813 - 1864) called Boolean algbera, takes as primitive, the operators ∩, ∪ and -, is given axiomatically: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. A ∪ B = B ∪ A A ∩ B = B ∩ A A ∪ (B ∪ C) = (A ∪ B) ∪ C A ∩ (B ∩ C) = (A ∩ B) ∩ C A ∪ 0 = A A ∪ (A ∩ B) = A A ∩ (B ∪ C) = (A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ C) a ∩ (a ∪ B) = A (A - B) ∪ B = A ∪ B (A - B) ∩ B = 0 (A ∩ U) = A

Then with U posited, an absolute, well defined complementation can be defined, U - A := = Ac U - (A ∩ B) = U ∩ (A ∩ B)c = U ∩ (Ac ∪ Bc) = (U ∩ Ac) ∪ (U ∩ Bc) = (Ac ∪ Bc)

(A ∩ B)c

[Showing the set theoretic principle of duality] and dually (exchanging ∪ and ∩) (A ∪ B)c With (A - B) (A - B)c = = = (Ac ∩ Bc) (A ∩ Bc) (A ∩ Bc)c = (Ac ∪ B)

Define the "is a subset of" relation 'subs' as a logical equivalence A subs B <=> (A ∪ B = B)

3 of 36

10/16/2010 5:47 AM

Without a field. The ∩ operator is already assumed commutative by axiom 2.} (not necessarily implying even countability) on which two operations. and the associated sense of scalar multiplication of vectors. x and + are defined so that: 1. 4.nc. the Boolean ring becomes a "ring with involution".t.A). The objects of the theory can also be represented by logical propositions. assume that there is a universal set U. Ac so. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. that A ▲ B and A ∩ B are disjoint: (A ∩ B) ∩ (A ▲ B) = 0 commutativity associativity L distributivity
Now. 3. It is easy to see that for any A and B.A
Then. B. there is no field involved. where "▲" corresponds to "+" and ∩ corresponds to "x".
where it can be shown that for the symmetric difference one has (visualize a Venn diagram) A ▲ B = B ▲ A. Sets will not form a ring under the ∩ and ∪ operations. that representation isn't required. "x" is a binary operation on R A x (B + C) = (A x B) + (A x C) (B + C) x A = (B x A) + (C x A)
A ring is called associative.SET THEORY. R is a commutative group w.
4 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. the algebra becomes a ring.html
Although the algebraic characterization of Boolean algebras can clearly be represented as an algebra of sets. (A ▲ B) ▲ C = A ▲ (B ▲ C). however first define the symmetric difference operator "▲" A ▲ B = (A . Each is in a sense reducible to the other. "+". In modern terminology. A Boolean algebra is not at all what one would call an "algebra" in the modern sense of a vector space over a field with a multiplication defined as a binary operation on the vectors. General Rings
A ring is a collection R of {A. Now. if (A x B) = (B x A). R's distributivity is implied by commutativity. A ▲ U := Ac defines a unary involutive complement operation := U . and commutative..main.r.. Among other things. 2.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. a Boolean algebra in Boole's sense is really a Boolean Ring. if (A x B) x C = A x (B x C). . in which case the algebra can also be represented by a propositional calculus. with additive identity "0".B) ∪ (B . A ∩ (B ▲ C) = (A ∩ B) ▲ (A ∩ C). the complementation operator being the involution (of order 2). sets with the operations of "▲" and "∩" *do* form a commutative and associative ring. and reintroduce and particularize by definition the complementation operator "c".

A) (Ac ∪ Bc) ∩ (Bc ∪ Ac) ((Ac ∪ Bc) ∩ Bc) ∪ ((Bc ∪ Ac) ∩ Ac) (Bc) ∪ (Ac) (B ∩ A)c U is an identity for ∩ every A is idempotent under ∩
[The Clifford relation mimic?] (A ∩ B) ▲ (B ∩ A)c = U There is a natural binary field structure of {0. (A ∩ A) ▲ (A ∩ A) (A ∩ A) ▲ (A ∩ A)c (A ∩ B) ▲ (B ∩ A) = = = U 0 0 U A A 0 Ac ∪ Bc Ac .SET THEORY. 0 is an identity for "▲" every A is its own inverse under "▲"
A ▲ (A ∩ B)
(A .A)c (Ac . A : B := A ∪ Bc
5 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. as the extrema of an interval or lattice of algebra elements) with operations "▲" and "∩" 0 ▲ 0 0 ▲ U U ▲ U 0 ∩ 0 0 ∩ U U ∩ U = = = = = = 0 U 0 0 0 U
The "∩" operator is the ring "multiplication" operator. = = A ▲ B ▲ (A ∩ B) = = A.B)c ∩ (B .nc.html
For any A and B.B)c (A ▲ B)c = = = = = = = = = = = = Then.B) ∩ (Bc . U} (thought of perhaps.B (A . QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. A ▲ 0 A ▲ A = = 0 ▲ A 0.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.main.B) redefines the difference operator (A ∩ Bc) (A ∪ B) redefines the ∪ operator
which is unambiguous by associativity of "▲" A ▲ Ac A ∩ U A ∩ A A ∩ Ac (A ∩ B)c (A . for which one can define a "division" operator ":" by.

It is an operation of division that is not really attached to multiplicative inverses.html
so A : A A : U U : A = = =
A ∪ Ac A ∪ Uc U ∪ Ac
= = =
U A U
(U is the identity for : ) ( " ) (this does *not* define a specific inverse function. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. (B . The closest. Some equational relationships (theorems) are demonstrated: (A : Bc) (A : Bc)c (Ac : B)c = = (A ∪ B) (A ∪ B)c = (Ac ∩ Bc) (Ac ∪ Bc)c = (A ∩ B) = = = = A ∪ (B ∩ C)c A ∪ (Bc ∪ Cc) (A ∪ Bc) ∪ Cc (A : B) : C
=
A : (B ∩ C)
A : (B ∪ C)
= A ∪ (B ∪ C)c = A ∪ (Bc ∩ Cc) = (A ∪ Bc) ∩ Cc = (A ∩ Bc) ∪ (A ∩ Cc) = (A ∪ Bc) ∪ (Ac ∪ C)c = (A : B) ∪ (C ∪ Ac)c = (A : B) ∪ (C : A)c = (A : B) : (C : A)
6 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. but rather an "inverse relation")
With this division operation (relation).nc. the inverse of every set is the identity U.B)
(Ac : Bc)c
=
The complementation operator relates ":" and "-" to each other the way that it relates ∩ and ∪. and noting that this is not equivalent to B:A.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.main.A)
(A ∩ Bc)c = (Ac ∪ B) = (B : A) (Ac ∪ B)c = (A ∩ Bc) = (A .B)c = = = A consistent with the idempotence under ∩ Ac
(Ac : Bc) (A : B)c
Ac ∪ B inverting "numerator & denominator" = B : A (A ∪ Bc)c (Ac ∩ B) multiplying A inverse by B. but A : Ac Ac : A = = A ∪ A A c ∪ Ac = = = = (A . one can come to a ∩ inverse is A → Ac.SET THEORY. it seems.

us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. such that: 1) f(∅) = 0 2) ∀i∈Z Ai ∈ F ⇒ f( ∪i Ai )
=
Σi f(Ai)
The second. ∅ ∈ F 2) A ∈ F ⇒ S-A ∈ F 3) ∀i∈Z: Ai ∩ Ai = ∅ for i ≠ j ∧ Ai ∈ F ⇒ ∪i Ai ∈ F
Measures
A real valued measure on S relative to F is a set functional f. that quantization of the points starts by assigning to each point a distinct element of a basis for complex vector space V equipped with a generalized
7 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
.B)c ∩ (B .nc. the open sets of a metric topology generate a σ-algebra of sets upon which a measure can successfully be defined.SET THEORY. f: F ─→ [0. E. most important requirement is called countable additivity. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham..html
A ∩ (B : C)
= = = = = = = = = =
A ∩ (B ∪ Cc) (A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ Cc) (A ∩ B) ∪ (Ac ∪ C)c (A ∩ B) : (Ac ∪ C) (A ∩ B) : (C : A) (Ac ∪ Bc)c ∪ (Ac ∪ C)c (Bc ∪ Ac)c ∪ (C ∪ Ac)c (Bc : A)c ∪ (C : A)c ((Bc : A)c : (C : A)) ((Ac : B)c : (C : A)) ∪ (B ∪ Cc) ∪ B) ∪ Cc ∪ B) : C : Bc ) : C
A ∪ (B : C)
= A = (A = (A = (A =
(A ▲ B)c
(A . [i] In these there are nice relationships between measures and topology. ∞]. This can be played out more formally:
A σ-algebra of subsets of a set S is a family F of subsets such that: 1) The null set.main.
Construction from the Hilbert space V
There is a constructive argument from very general Q principles that if S is some finite set of cardinality n.g.A)c = (A ∩ Bc)c ∩ (B ∩ Ac)c = (B : A) ∩ (A : B)
Measure Algebras Some of the most interesting topological spaces are metric spaces.

H is the inner product's ground form. CL(V) inherits the complex structure of V. which can be defined for any arbitrary vector space. but the entire subtheoretical structure. A Clifford algebra then also has a Grassmannian substructure (ignoring its inner product values. but in more complicated a way than classical (simply statistical) fuzziness would imply. These eigenfunctions are Dirac δ functions. Γj} = 2 δkj
using a Kronecker δ. {Γk. the quantum mechanical points in the spectrum of the position operator q (which are perfectly classical!) being associated to the eigenfunctions of q as singleton states. the fundamental generators of a Clifford algebra. the power set of S. since. what is being quantized is not just the points of S as singletons.
we can always replace Γk with (i Γk). One may equally write these last relationships as. Here. and general states are certain generalized complex linear combinations of δ functions (distributions). or setting them all to zero) from which a proper grading can be defined. however.e. and in analogy to. {Γk. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. so any facile reconciliation between those two demands should not be missed. and where all the Γk can be chosen to be Hermitean.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.main. (ek. the subsets of the classical S.nc. and so is considered as a complex Clifford algebra. This is a generalization of.
This complex CL(V) is actually the quantization of a Boolean ring associated with a set S and with the power set 2S. Further. the idea of determinate membership of a point in a set has evaporated. Formally. H ej) is the inner product of ek and ej. This has the result that any indefiniteness of V's inner product is *lost* in lifting to CL(V). Γj} = Γk Γk + Γj Γk = 2 (ek. Γj} = 0
the algebra so defined is a Grassmann algebra with antisymmetric "outer" product as the associative product assumed here and represented by simple notational adjunction. the quantization of the power set of S is accomplished by mapping the elements of the basis of V to Γi. this increased complexity is the result of the admissibility of complex linear combinations of "points".. Conceptually. Moreover. This symmetrized product of the generators Γk then is the image in the map of the inner product between the basis vectors of V. if (Γk)² = -1.
8 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. are (eliminating the linear ordering on points) the precursors of the quantum states of S. This is an important point that is easily passed by too quickly: a fundamental contradiction between Quantum theory and Relativity theory is simply that one respects a noneuclidean norm while the other demands a Euclidean norm. for some k. i.SET THEORY. This is as good a place as any to note that when the inner product of a Clifford algebra becomes completely degenerate so that the defining relation of the generators becomes {Γk. H ej)
where the ek are the basis elements of V. CL(V). and it has become "fuzzy".html
(possibly indefinite) inner product.

The faithful representation is. but most generally. not simple. Γj} = 2 δkj
define ak := (1/sqrt 2) (Γk + i Γk*) so ak† = (1/sqrt 2) (Γk . it is fairly simple for complex algberas: First. For n = 2m. Γj†}) -i {Γk. n = 1-6
For n = 0. be the algebra for a complex V of n dimensions. there is a single faithful.main. Γj} [XYZZY Is this really true?] {ak.SET THEORY. For n odd. defined by {Γk. hodge star. Γj†} +i {Γk†. and so the algebra is simple. So. complex Clifford algebras are faithfully represented by 2m x 2m complex algebras of matricies of complex V's of dimension 2m. there is one irreducible representation of dimension 2m.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. Γj†} and then (1/2) (2 δkj + {Γk†. by virtue of it being a direct sum. and (2m + 1). irreducible representation that is isomorphic to the complete complex algebra of 2m x 2m matricies. every representation of a real or complex Clifford algebra is completely reducible.i Γk*) Often the Γs are taken to be Hermitean. of course. and whether the natural ring structure is extended to a real or complex field. ∩. While the structure is more complicated for real Clifford algebras. The Lower Dimensional CL(V) Algebras. A faithful but reducible representation exists. aj†} = = 2 δkj
Complex Clifford Algebras and their Representations There are structural differences in CL(V) depending on whether n is odd or even. and of dimension 2ⁿ.nc. Let CL(n). (Or. they don't have to be. it must also be true that {Γk†. adjunction. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. If not.
9 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. which is not faithful. should it be really the other way around?) -----------------
Fermionic Creation and Annihilation operators from the Γk. aj†} ----------------= δkj {ak. even.html
----------------The mapping from a set theoretic ring with ▲. n = 2m + 1. but also mutually annihilating two-sided ideals in the faithfully representing algebra of dimension 22m = 2n-1. it exists as a direct sum of two irreducible (nonfaithful) representations where the direct summands are not only subalgebras. c to a Clifford algebra with +.

R). CL(n. M(2) can also be taken as an irreducible. but 2. M(4) can also be taken an irreducible. the Clifford algebra (of the "vacuum") has dimension 1. For n = 4. it is C + C. w. For n = 1. etc. yet not faithful representation of CL(5). QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. R) X CL(n-8. and in terms of their faithful representations.SET THEORY. C can also be taken as an irreducible.html
taken as even. For n = 2. For n = 3. n=8. a diagonal 2x2 complex (reducible) matrix. it is M(4) + M(4) which is a subalgebra of M(8) = CL(6).us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. the general "Periodicity Theorem" which says that for REAL algebras for sufficiently large dimensions.t. so CL(n + 2) = = CL(n) X CL(2) CL(n) X M(2)
10 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. CL(n) < CL(n+1)
More can be said about the structure of the sequence in n of CL(n). The faithful Clifford algebra representation is expressed by the full (irreducible) algebra of 2x2 complex matrices M(2).nc. For n = 6. it is the irreducible M(4). There is also in Clifford Algebra Theory.r. which is a subalgebra of M(4). yet not faithful representation of CL(3).
Clifford Subalgebras & The Periodicity Theorem
Generally. that period is not 8. and CL(2m) is a Clifford subalgebra of CL(2m+1) CL(2m+1) is a Clifford subalgebra of CL(2m+2) = CL(2(m+1))
So the set of algebras {CL(n)} actually forms a nested sequence by the subalgebra relation. which has representations as a real algebra over certain 2x2 matricies. and is isomorphic to the complex field C. (Complex Dirac algebra) For n = 5. a tensor product
but for COMPLEX algebras. R) = CL(8. the faithful representation is expressed by the direct (reducible) sum M(2) + M(2) = CL(3). it is the irreducible M(8) = CL(6). yet not faithful representation of CL(1).main. mirroring a nested sequence of classical abstract sets {Sn} by the subalgebra (subset) relation.

. (n-2) factors (n-1) factors n factors scalar vector bivector trivector <-> null set <-> singleton subsets <-> diploid subsets <-> triploid subsets
pseudobivector pseudovector pseudoscalar <-> (n-volume)
the full subsetset {S}
Define the symbol CLk(n) as the subspace of CL(n) spanned by the elements of degree k.. one may also form a vector where the basis elements are Clifford algebras by using these operations together with some field of scalars. and 2ⁿ x 2m = 2(n+m)
So is the direct sum. 2ⁿ + 2ⁿ = 2ⁿ⁺1
and only if the number of algebras appearing in the direct sum is a power of two.html
Formal question: Is the direct product of any two Clifford algebras a Clifford algebra? Yes. Then.
More Formal Clifford Algebra Structure A basis for CL(n) as a vector space are the k-fold products of the Γk.. linearly independent monomials is (n k).nc. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. of course adding the dimensions of all these homogeneous subspaces.. Γk i < j < . These monomial forms of degree k classify the geometric objects that are subspaces of the underlying vector space:
I Γi Γi Γj Γi Γj Γk .us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. A state of S associated with definite cardinality k ≤ n is a complex linear combination of the basis elements that are
11 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
.SET THEORY. < k NOTE: As a formal model of a quantum set theory..main. It is not difficult to see that the number of kth degree. Dim( CLk(n) ) = (n k)
Then. scalar to pseudoscalar (binomial theorem) n Σ (n k) k=0 = 2ⁿ = Dim( CL(n) )
as it should. In order to fix the specific bases of the CLk(n) subspaces. a binomial coefficient. the degree of these objects is the cardinality of an underlying subset. we fix the ordering of the products of Γk to be a "natural ordering" so that for any monomial Γi Γj . but only if all the algebras have the same dimension..

not so for a real Clifford algebra. (Γk Γj Γl)² = +(Γk Γj Γl) = -(Γk Γj = +(Γk Γk = -(Γk Γk = .SET THEORY. More about structure in the dual space later. 3 (mod 4)
Since we are remaining with complex algebras.main.
The dual space of linear functionals then is represented by the fully antisymmetric tensorial objects of V.
Such a state then is homogeneous of degree k. Similarly. that signature is wiped out in the complex Clifford algebra.e(n))
so.. form the projection operators P(n+) = (1/2)(1 + e(n)). when n = 2. P²(n+) = P(n+). P²(n-) = P(n-)
verifying that these have the property of projection operators.nc.. as required of projection operators. n..g. which makes their structures more complicated...n represent the pseudoscalar (or volume) term of degree n. we can redefine e(n) by e(n) := │ e123 . P(n-) = (1/2)(1 . These project out two nonintersecting ideals of the algebra.
A Uniform Clifford Algebra Basis
For k ≠ j. (Γk Γj)² = +(Γk Γj) (Γk Γj) = -(Γk Γk) (Γj Γj) = . The Clifford algebra can then be found as a subalgebra of the full (free) tensor algebra over V. for all n e²(n) = +1
thus. 3 (mod 4)
Then. e²(n) = │ +1 when n = 0. Now. 1 (mod 4) │ │ i e123 . for a complex CL over any V with signature.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.. n.html
homogeneous of degree k. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. 1 (mod 4) │ │ -1 when n = 2. e.I (Γk Γk) Γj) Γj) Γj Γl) (Γl Γj Γl) (Γl Γj Γl) (Γj Γl Γl)
12 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
.
The Pseudoscalar in Complex Clifford Algebras
Let e(n) := e1234. then..I
requiring one multiplicative interchange. the square of a trivector monomial will require three interchanges and so square to -I. when n = 0.

So then. e(n) will be a member of CLE(n). for a basis of the full Clifford algebra.nc.main. as is consistent with the treatment of the pseudoscalar. Γj} {Γk*. writing CLE(n) = CLE(n) P(n+) + CLE(n) P(n-)
CLE(n) is seen to fall into two simple ideals when n is even. when n is odd it clearly will not. Let all monomials of degree equal to 2 and 3 mod 4 acquire a factor of 'i'. Γj*}
The Even Clifford Subalgebra
Let CLE(n). the even subalgebra.(. CLE(n) is then a Clifford algebra of dimension 2n-1. we have uniformly. maps CL(n) → E( CL(n) ) = CLE(n) = CL(n-1)
effectively decrements the dimension of the underlying vector space.SET THEORY.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. the even selector. by 1. following the pattern for the pseudoscalar.). V.
increments the dimension of V by 2. Γj*} = = = I +I -I n odd n even = + I
{Γk*.). CL(n) → CL(2) X CL(n) = CL(n+2) Therefore.) as -. CLE(n) is. define -. if ΓA is defined so that A runs over all the sequences of indicies that specify all the monomial basis elements. CL(n) → E( CL(2) X CL(n) )
13 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. a Clifford algebra homomorphism. The map.CL(n) while the map. and so on.html
(Γk Γj Γl Γm)²
=
+(Γk = = = = = = =
Γj Γl -(Γk +(Γk -(Γk +(Γk -(Γk +(Γk + I
Γm) (Γk Γj Γl Γj Γl Γk) (Γm Γj Γk Γl) (Γm Γj Γk Γl) (Γj Γk Γj Γl) (Γj Γk Γj Γl) (Γj Γk Γj Γl) (Γl
Γm ) Γj Γl Γj Γl Γm Γl Γm Γl Γl Γm Γj Γm
Γm ) Γm ) Γm ) Γm ) Γm ) Γm )
so fourth degree monomials require six interchanges. = E( CL(n+2) ) = CL(n+1) := E( CL(n) ) = CL(n-1). (ΓA)² CONJECTURE: when then {Γk. so renaming E(. and is simple when n is odd. in general not simple: When n is even. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. be the elements of CL(n) for which the terms of odd degree vanish. E(. Then.

in some literature. for k not equal to j │ 2m .
The Discrete Clifford Group
is the set of elements in CL(n) that make CL(n) into its group algebra. from which any finite dimensional representation is constructed are finite dimensional matrix algebras.SET THEORY. │ 2m . From the constraint that defines the generators Γk. writing.
The Clifford Group
---------The Clifford Group is the set of invertible elements in CL(n) which then exhibits the structure of a multiplicative group.
G-Gradings.html
increments the dimension of V by 1. I'll take the more refined approach of [Chevalley 1954] Letting G be an additive group. Here.nc. and so. since there is only one such representation. so similarly define the operator ++ (. we see that Tr( Γk Γj ) = 0. however. ++ CL(n) := E( CL(2) X CL(n) ) = CL(n+1)
These two operators are like annihilation and creation operators.) & Trace Norm
The irreducible representations of Clifford algebras. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. for n = 2m for n = 2m + 1
Tr( (Γk)² )
=
│
[More trace formulas] All the ΓA have trace zero. to be graded algebras.main. except the identity Γ0. but what they annihilate and create are Clifford subalgebras. and the fact that Tr(AB) = Tr(BA). a trace operator is well defined immediately in that no further topological restrictions are required: the properties of the formal trace on the abstract algebra are valid independently of any faithful representation. Gradings and Semigradings of Algebras
Clifford algebras are said.). Trace Norm Hodge* dual map maps entities to pseudoentities and vice versa CLm(n) → CLn-k(n)
This operation is Qset theoretical cognate of taking the relative complement
14 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. a G-grading of an algebra
The Trace Functional Tr(.

nc.g. which statistics it will obey. This is immediately possible since Lie groups are always analytic manifolds. there are two classes of spinors of given dimension.main.. The statistics. define the bivector basis b[kj] := [Γk. Cliffordization of a 1-particle QM projective Hilbert space is exactly a Fermionic 2nd quantization. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. O(n.html
A
→
S .A
Duality Rotations: exp( i α e(n) ) Clifford conjugation maps a vector x to -x Automorphisms of Algebras Involutive Automorphisms Order 2 Order 4 Fourier Automorphisms of Clifford Algebras Inner Automorphisms Outer Automorphisms The Inner product
Spinors Cf. so generally. Relation of the spinor representation to the vector representation.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. e. The role of the bivectors in defining the planes of rotation..SET THEORY. Γj]
which will obey the commutation relations [b[kj]. Spinor Contexts
Spinors are found algebraically within a Clifford algebra as 1-sided ideals. Finkelstein's Question: Does Cliffordization of a Clifford algebra as a vector space yield a Clifford algebra? Conceptually. These groups arise by analytic continuation of the real parameters of O(n) and SO(n). and the coordinate parameters of these groups are analytic functions on the Lie groups. A solitary. i. b[lm]] = δkl b[jm] + δjm b[kl]
15 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. in V. isolated particle "does not know" whether it is a Fermion or a Boson. C). SO(n.
Closure of the bivectors on SO(n) ring
For an underlying Euclidean space. the operation of Cliffordization can be viewed as a "Fermionic Quantization". is as statistics is. C). The simply connected spinor groups that are the univeral covering groups of the doubly connected orthogonal and complex orthogonal groups. and within a collection or population. a concept relative to.e.

The Q rule for combining systems is to take a direct product.δjl b[km] .
Closure on bivectors with vectors on ISO(n) ring
As before. This direct product realizes the C*-algebra of linear operators on CL(V) as a vector space.nc. If the algebra is complex. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. where the algebra has dimension 22n.δkm b[jl] This provides a representation of the orthogonal algebra so(n).us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. [b[kj]. ----------------This shows that quantization of the power set of S.html
. Either from the periodicity theorem or from the above.SET THEORY. if the algebra is real. ----------------Systems defined and constructed by direct product C & Q -----------------
Construction from the C*-algebra A(V) of operators on V:
Now let us look from a different perspective. This is actually a representation of the associated "spin group". but the matrices will be 2n x 2n. or points of S and quantize them individually. q). for the representation of Spin(p. For a pseudoeuclidean space simply replace the δ with the metric tensor. and forming the direct product as Q composition of systems. the representation is that of su(n) and is its spin representation. mapping the Boolean ring to a Clifford algebra is equivalent to quantizing the singletons of A individually. in the tensor product of V with its isomorphic dual space. Γi] = δik Γj δij Γk ?? check indicies
The Lie group ISO(n) is a semidirect product of the group of rotations with a commutative groupt of translations. we have an n-fold direct product of 2x2 matrices yielding a matrix algebra of 2ⁿ x 2ⁿ matrices. The space V may be mapped by injections into the space of the tensor product of CL(V) with itself: V → V x V → A(V) → CL(V) x CL(V)
into the algebra as projection operators. and so this last construction is actually that of CL(V) x CL(V).main. a direct product of CL(V) with its isomorphic dual as a vector space. provided that the singleton quantization is a map of each point to a copy of the algebra M(2) of 2x2 complex matrices.
16 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. doing that. where we take the elements. by associating to each element a copy of FCCR(2) algebra of 2x2 complex matrices. with p+q=n. define the bivector set antisymmetric in its indicies Inclusion of the vectors in the SO(n) ring forms ISO(n) with the vectors Γi as generators of translations.

main.html
however. {}. a point acquires even more structure since it now comes equipped with some dichotomic variable that behaves much like the spin of the electron. and not just a bit of mathematical prestadigitation. e. {}}. F†} = I(2).SET THEORY. GL(2. we have an eight real dimensional M(2) algebra which is a gl(2. the important aspect of any concept of "quantum set theory" is that it is fundamentally a model of a *physical* concept. and so the M(2) is actually a single "point" that must always carry along with it a peculiar charge that accounts for its own possible state. is that the spin algebra is complexified.
If {x-} is associated with (1. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. when FCCR(2) expressing the Canonical Anticommutation Relations (CAR) is written in terms of the Fermionic creation and annihilation operators F† and F. the anticommutator {F.
The Physicality of It All
Again. This evokes the idea of an algebraic form of a membership function concerning a point and a potential singleton set. {{}. points acquire a strange kind of "charge" when quantized. however. think perhaps in terms of oriented 0-simplex)
17 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
.nc. where F = │ 0 │ │ 0 1 │ │. . thus replicating the vacuum. 1). C). C) algebra to describe a Qpoint with irreducible quantum extension resulting from the incompressibility of the Planck extensions of space and time. c) = D X SL(2. in a way.g. {}}. whether or not they are classically.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. He also considered the construction of sets and their cardinalities through {} → {{}}. and in a Q context the distinction between x and {x} is physically enforced as a real physical concept. since the possibilities of both {x} and {} must be taken into account. This is perfectly in keeping with the Q principle seen in Feynman's path integral formulation where all *kinematical* possibilities are counted and weighted. in the "number representation". The difference here. so that instead of a three dimensional su(2) algebra. So. the 2x2 identity. 0 │ and F† is the Hermitean conjugate
so. it is seen that this map to M(2) for each point must be the mapping of V to V x V to A(V) to CL(V) x CL(V) where V is of dimension 1..] The passage from V to CL(V) mirrors a bracing operation which takes an element x to its singleton {x}. [I believe David Finkelstein said a number of things very much like this over twenty years ago. creating something from nothing in grand Wheelerian fashion.. dynamically possible.. thus. and I'm sure that he talked about the bracing operation. Physical structure becomes more explicit. and taking about an algebra with the operations of bracing and replication. Moreover. or like the electric charge of isotopic spin. respectively. 0)† and {x+} with (0. then (topologically. the null set is associated with the space of scalars. D is a complex dilitation. the mathematical formalisms of these two are identical.. {{}.

Now. of the complex general linear group GL(2.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.
18 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. of real dimension 8. this is the complexified Dirac algebra. For one Qpoint. but it is still a "thing". and so the algebra of operators "the old observables" are actually elements of a CL(n) X CL(n) = CL(2n). The quantum set theoretical states are actually represented elements of the algebra. and assuming that one can always distinguish otherwise instinguishble points by some labeling procedure. size being the number of holes that can be occupied by points. S contains points and one can freely select those points to form subsets.html
│ 0 │ │ 0
1 │ │ 0 │ │ │ │ 0 │ │ 1 │ → → {x-} {x0}
=
│ 1 │ │ │ │ 0 │.nc. │ 0 │ │ 1 0 │ │ 1 │ │ │ │ 0 │ │ 0 │ │ 0 │ │ │ │ 1 │
0 │ │ 0 │ │ │ │ 0 │ │ 1 │ →
=
=
F†: {x+}
{x-}
→
{x0} annihilating x+ by attempting to create an additional unit charge.] {x+} creating a unit charge for {x-}
NB: the null set {} = {x0} is a vacuum.
│ 0 │ │ 0
1 │ │ 1 │ │ │ │ 0 │ │ 0 │
=
│ 0 │ │ │ │ 0 │
while. one has to be careful about selecting points that fit into a priori measured subset containers whose size must also be specified. which is spanned by the generators of the Lie algebra gl(2.
F : {x+} {x-} │ 0 │ │ 1
annihilating a unit charge from x annihilating x by annihilating its charge │ 0 │ │ │ │ 0 │. orientable 0-simplex. ----------------This means that an irreducible "quantum point" has a structure and that the structure is formally expressed by M(2). think of a binary field where 1+1=0. [Formally. a kind of container for a quantum point with its acquired charge. that is CL(4). Construct the Q(2) and P(2) -----------------
Reconceptualizing Set Theory
Originally. in forming subsets. The (Fermionic) "quantum point" is then a quantization of a classical. C). Basic Combinatorial Problems: If the holes are distinguishable If the points are distinguishable If the points are indistinguishable If the holes are indistinguishable If the points are distinguishable If the points are indistinguishable ----------------Raise the states into the FCCR algebra and generalize to density matrices. C). Galois fields have an implicit toroidal global topology.SET THEORY. the number of points m that can be placed in the container must be m ≤ k. not worrying about point duplications. If a container's size is k.main.

say the Planck length. If there is a fundamental size associated with a Qpoint. But. a fairly large number of particles is required to exist in the sample under inspection. is that Bosonic condensation is an ideal phenomenon in the limit of an infinite number of points/particles.SET THEORY.that. it matters whether physical points of space are Fermionic. This is the ruling principle for the counting procedure in quantum statistical mechanics that results in Fermi-Dirac statistics. and possible interaction energies so that the energy levels of the system and their occupation numbers can be computed. by looking at things very generally. the principle implies that that system will not. generally. in both theory and practice. ----------------Physically. is a wrong argument in favor of a Fermionic quantum nature of physical points. infinities in the spacetime fabric appear not to exist. as well as the extension of a set or ensemble of Qpoints. the appropriate algebra is CL(4). Pauli's principle has an interesting consequence: by so severely restricting the occupation numbers of system energy levels of systems (quantum sets) of Qpoints. in itself is a strange and very interesting idea that connects what we do in our pathetically limited intelligence with physical reality. This insures that Qsets always have an extent that can be interpreted as physically spatial. as well a temporal. it is necessary to specify the form of single Qpoint energy.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. not only will it be impossible for Qpoints to coalesce. think of the structure of "Cooper Pairs" in the theory of superfluidity that allows Fermions to pair off as antialigned entities of net zero spin that become Bosons that are capable of such a condensation. singularities. an abstract quantum point of any set is a Fermionic entity to which the Pauli exclusion principle can be applied: the fully antisymmetrized "states" (products of the anticommuting Γk) corresponding to the classical subsets of S. regardless of the pathologies possible in physical theory predicated on continua. An important point to keep in mind. Pauli's principle says that Fermionic objects of a *system* can only exist in distinct energy levels of the system. or otherwise. but are also typical of how the states of Fermionic systems combine in quantum theory. allowing the physical development of what one might call singularities. That. to see a Bose-Einstein condensation..html
----------------For a diploid set. To use this principle here requires the construction of Fermi-Dirac statistical mechanics of quantum points. be able to undergo a condensation phase transition. structurally. however. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. which is a complexified Dirac algebra. but number does . A little speculation allows that if one wanted to see physics geometrized so that particles arise from spatial structure that this kind of pairing and condensation may be a useful idea by explaining that particles are essentially condensates. Size may not matter. One can still. Aspects of any recogizable phase transition are only seen within the context of a "sufficient" number of whatever statistical entities.main.e. i.nc. This means that Qpoints maintain their own proper extensions. interestingly. simply put. This means that a reasonable first approach to the subject at hand in physical terms is through
19 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. as we shall see. To say the least. then. Without even getting that far. Bosonic. The Pauli exclusion principle can be applied to such quantum points once the symbol of energy can be defined. In order to do this however. there will be a lower bound on the size of Qsets of n Qpoints for any n.

for n = 2m.
A collection of subsets of S is a generator of a topology in S. representing a quantum state of an abstract set of classical cardinality n. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. in interfering quantum alternatives. z-1(n) Tr( s s† ) = 2ⁿ Σ c A cA † A=0 2ⁿ Σ |cA|² A=0
=
The "pure states" (a density matrix M. 2m + 1. and Γk(m) are the basis elements. 2m + 1
2m.
and where A labels the uniform basis elements spanning the algebra CL(n). and as such can be parsed into a double sum.SET THEORY. and in so doing. What does a subset mean physically? It means that the elements of the subset have formed a system. and are then in some sense in physical proximity to one another. and m labels those homogeneous subspaces. Furthermore. where M² = M) of a set is then an abritrary collection of subsets with complex weighting. let s be a general element of CL(n). passing from a complex Clifford algebra CL(n) to a projective complex Clifford algebra PCL(n). In the uniform algebra basis defined above s Then Tr( ΓA s ) where z(n) = = = 2ⁿ Σ c A ΓA A=0 z(n) cA 2m.
First. A probability interpretation for CL(n) demands that n (n m) Σ Σ ck(m) ck(m)*
=
1
20 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. The state s expresses the idea that the elements of a quantum S can partake of membership in several subsystems of the system S. that could be normalized to provide a probability interpretation in the usual way. s = n (n m) Σ Σ ck(m) Γk(m) m=0 k=0
where k labels the basis elements spanning the subspace with m products of the n defining generators Γk. for n = 2m.nc.main. The subsets of the fixed set S are its natural "eigenstates" specified by the basis ΓA. The cm are the complex coefficients.html
Clifford algebras.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. The general "pure" quantum state s of the set S is a complex linear combination of the 2ⁿ antisymmetric basis elements above.

meaning that for the purposes of first quantization.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. Such a mapping is then invariant under the group of complex transformations of basis that preserves orthogonality since no particular basis is preferred. The partition of Sn given by singletons {x} of all the elements x in Sn is mapped to an orthogonal basis of Vn. define a linear operator # on the g-basis that maps every element Γk(m) to (m Γk(m)) # Γk(m) = m Γk(m)
Defined on the basis elements. The above normalization condition selects representatives of the rays as classes of states.html
m=0 k=0 where '*' indicates complex conjugation. taking as a representative
21 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. U(n). Then. The reversion Automorphism and the dual algebra of linear functionals
The Number (Cardinality) Operator
On CL(n). QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. also preserves lengths of the vectors of Vn. in addition to preserving angles.SET THEORY.
Expected Cardinality
n (n m) Σ Σ m ck(m) ck(m)* m=0 k=0
=
<s|#|s>
Representation Constructions. and associating with each of orthogonal basis elements vj an equivalence class {cj vj} where cj are arbitrary non zero complex numbers. and then also on PCL(n) as (projective) vector spaces. There are two levels of quantizations involved First quantization maps a set Sn of cardinality n to a complex Hilbert space Vn of dimension n. and Brauer & Weyl [Brauer 1935] Quantum Cognates of Classical Set Theoretic Operations. whose elements are the rays of CL(n). properly we must as done with the Hilbert space in QM. pass to a Projective Clifford algebra PCL(n).
See [Hestenes 1966]. the lengths of vectors of Vn may be factored out of the situation by standardizing them.main. and these representatives are those lying on the Euclidean unit sphere of the 2ⁿ dimensional vector space that is CL(n). its action extends to CL(n) and to PCL(n) by linearity.nc. That group is is the Lie group U(n).

there is only one point. From this condition comes the unending seeming craziness and confusion about quantum theory. this is a classical cognate of the quantized situation. Projectivizing. as can the elements of a basis of Vn.SET THEORY. by which the object is forced briefly to exhibit a classical aspect.html
subclass those elements with norm 1. This still leaves a phase factor free so that the equivalence class of vectors {exp(iaj) vj} is associated with a point xj of Sn.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. already. the elements of Sn can be labeled with a set of any n consecutive integers.nc. Introducing the Dirac notation for State Spaces
22 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. It is important to recognize that any act of physical measurement is the result of some subtle aspect of interaction between a quantum system and a macroscopic (non quantum or classical) measuring device. Ordering points of Sn and equivalence classes of basis vectors of Vn : For any finite n. There is nothing in any conception of quantum theory to prevent this. and are more like binary holes that may be filled or not filled by a "dynamical Qpoint". This still being "first quantization". What is characteristic of any quantum theory is the quantum states are complex linear combinations of the classical possibilities (outcomes of any classical determination by measurement). Given the integer set. Here. so that Sn by xj → { exp(i aj) vj } → PVn
where j ranges over the set of consecutive labeling integers. No other recognition in standard quantum theory shows so forcefully how quantum theory is a construction whose very purpose is to describe one aspect of reality in the language and terms of another. this can be done in n! ways. and from these possibilities any particular permutation of labeling that might be convenient can be chosen. hence their equivalence classes. or how the integer labels are permuted. and the Sn actually represents a set of possibilities that can be associated with that point. The points of S are classical possibilities of a single Qpoint. this choice determines an ordering of the xj.main. the essence of a constraint set by a model of physical reality enters the picture. It is important to have such cognates in any quantum theory because an essential part of quantum theory has always been a method by which quantum things my be interepreted in classical ways in order that there be predictable classical results that can be subjected to measurement. under the condition that the aspect to be described defies the terms and language by which it is described. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. Regardless of which set of integers is chosen.

us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.j Σ (ak)* ak k =
Σ |ak|² k
=
1
having used the orthonormality of |vk>. bra ket <v| |u> := := bra(c)ket <v|u>
which denotes the inner product of |v> and |u>. then a classical measurement of "where the Qpoint is". upon a determination of the state.SET THEORY. |v> → <v|
is accomplished by Hermitean conjugation. as. of course. Such an interpretation can be easily extended by asserting that |<f|g>|² is the relative probability that if the Qpoint is in the state |f>. but this assumption of possibility is already implicit in the saying of "let the Qpoint be in the state
23 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. any vector |v> of PVn then has a dual. If
the Qpoint is "in the state |f>". which is to say the application of the commuting operations on matricies of complex conjugation and transposition. and also its associated projective Hilbert space is an inner product space isometrically isomorphic to its dual space of linear functionals. the state will be found to be |g>. This allows the |ak|² to be interpreted as probabilities. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. The map from the space kets to the dual space of bras in any representation. denoted by a "bra vector" <v|. that determining the state of the Qpoint can be done. <f|f> = Σ (ak)* aj <vk|vj> k.main. This assumes.nc. must have as an outcome on the possibilities of Sn.html
A "quantum state" of a Qpoint constrained to be an element of the set Sn as a "ket vector". The probability that the Qpoint will be found in the hole xk of Sn is given by |<f|vk>|² = |ak|²
The complex quantity <f|vk> is called a "probability amplitude".j = =
Σ (ak)* aj δkj k. Since |f> is a member of the projective Hilbert space PVn. |f> = Σ ak |vk> k Any Hilbert space. so that the "bra(c)ket". elision produces the notation. in Dirac notation.

While the norm. one can write for an inner product x u or cos θ = x u / (|x| |u|) = |x| |u| cos θ
for the cosine of the angle between vectors x and u. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. It could. are not made any physical sense of. |y>. be the other way around since |<f|g>|² = |<g|f>|²
The associated amplitudes. or worse.<y|u>) + <y|v> <x|u> + <y|v> + i (<x|v> . obfuscated. |v> are all real vectors. let |f> |g> = = |x> + i |y> |u> + i |v>
where |x>. Methods of such a preparation and of subsequent determination are not required to be the same. only be understood as complex.html
|f>". of course.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. <f|f> of any element of PVn is real. are complex conjugates of one another.i <y|) (|u> + i |v>) <x|u> + i (<x|v> . the inner product <f|g>. one can see additional assumptions creeping in that are in many texts either not.<y|u>)²
24 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. In discussing the interpretation of |<f|vk>|² and |<f|g>|². then <f|f> = = = = = = = = = = = := where |<f|g>|² r² = = (<x| . so <f|g> = <g|f>*
In real spaces.<y|u>) r (cos θ + i sin θ)
<g|g>
<f|g>
(<x|u> + <y|v>)² + (<x|v> . Already. In a complex space. the notion of succession enters in such a way that the bra is understood to preceed the ket temporally.<y|x>) <x|x> + <y|y> 1 (<u| . however. in general. can.i <y|) (|x> + i |y>) (<x| . an amplitude.i <y|) (|x> + i |y>) <x|x> + <y|y> + i (<x|y> . |u>.SET THEORY.i <v|) (|u> + i |v>) <u|u> + <v|v> 1 (<x| . and has the value 1.main.nc. are thereafter ignored. mentioned at all.

nc. and inability to make them is intimately intertwined with the thought processes of quantum statistical mechanics. When we insist on mixing physics with metaphysics.<y|u>)²/(<x|u> + <y|v>)²)1/2
or sec² θ But sec² θ + tan² θ so. we include the possibility of this primary cognitive act in our models of reality by assuming for the models the Law Of the
25 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
.main. This is this. Representations & General sets Ontology and Set Theory Consider a universal aggregate U of monadal (in the sense of Leibnitz) entities. avoiding such levels and hierarchy of ontology is equally unavoidable.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.html
With |<f|g>|² cos α = = = |<f|f>|² |<g|g>|² cos² α
|<f|g>| r
for the angle between |f> and |g>. cos θ = (<x|u> + <y|v>)/r
=
1 ----------------------------------------------(1 + (<x|v> . all identical replicates of one another. and that is not this: the foundation of classical logic. but one that needs to be understood in terms of a hierarchy that transcends the well accepted Aristotelian metaphysics abstracted and generalized from formal logic. If we can somehow isolate one of these entities in some way. cos α cos θ = (<x|u> + <y|v>)
Intermezzo On Classical & Quantum Statistical Mechanics Ontology. tan θ = (<x|v> . we have committed the first and primary act or operation of human cognition: we have made a distinction or discrimination. The phase of the amplitude is given by. This should lead us to examine the concept of ontology. and yet the mixed language of such things tends to avoid some obvious necessary distinctions of the hierarchy. something quite unavoidable in the pursuit of science. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham.SET THEORY.<y|u>) / (<x|u> + <y|v>) = 1 = (1 + (<x|v> . Formally. and perhaps understand it not as a monolithic concept.<y|u>)²/(<x|u> + <y|v>)²)
We also have then the relation. Both such distinctions.

is the language which foolishly confuses the concepts. Similarly then. but we want to return to the levels of the total picture that lie beneath the levels of formal languages. or not a flea. prototypically between mathematics and metamathematics. of course. The most available example of these ontological distinctions is the general distinction between theory and metatheory. Those two levels are a putative core ontology. or "the category of all sets". and these distinctions are really distinctions between levels of ontology. these two different ontologies would be almost impossible to correlate meaningfully. this process creates a denumerable infinity of hierarchies of language. requiring the linguistic form "(n+1)-gories of n-gories". and more particular in language in describing any level of existence. A HS teacher long ago typified its usage with the discriminating assertion. It may be that this is a worthwhile level of ontology to create or conceive of. of course. and practically speaking. one may not speak of the "categories of all categories" either. Their "existence" is ambiguous. We prevent (or complicate) the issue of circularity by making such distinctions as just made. and in my writing about. and therefore paradoxical. A label is the same conceptually as a coordinate value.html
Excluded Middle (LOME). presumably on a higher level is even more suspect. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. however badly." It is a primary axiom of the model of standard symbolic logic. can be argued to be a subset of itself. and so necessarily speak perhaps of "aggregates of categories". Is there then an ontological level of which each of our individual cognitive experiences is merely a projection? This is after all the level of the Platonic ideal. but these two ontologies are entirely different. not only between two different laws.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. but it does not exist on the same level as elementary particles are said to exist. The threat of circularity in this primary concept of discrimination is very real. but this is not the same as the Law Of Discrimination (LOD) that allows us to make the discrimination in the first place. A thing "Ding an sich" may be said to have core ontology. and so we become skeptical of. This is metalinguistics. This is to say that. but necessarily. at least and even within the usual concepts of quantum field theory. my cognitive abstraction of it may also be said to have an ontological property.main.SET THEORY. The word "category" has. Again we make a distinction within the usual ontological garbage can: there are levels of ontology. Language "exists". Notice that a discrimination has just been made. To say that "X exists" is meaningless. in a roundabout formal way. The uneasy assumption is that this cognitive construction somehow mirrors some aspect of the reality presumed to lie beneath the sensory perceptions upon which the cognitive model is built. but also implicitly between two types of laws. has been selected as standard in the literature for the concept. It is often necessary to split naïve concepts in order to avoid either circularities or paradoxes. is not the same as a set. unless the statement is also placed within a hierarchy of levels of existence. The existence of language. a concept of hierarchies. where we speak of the structures of formal linguistics. ot "category" is a label. that the concept of existence is not a unical concept. asserts a structural relationship between some cognitive model of reality and human cognitive capabilities that operate on that model. The ontology hierarchy gets kicked up another notch should we begin to notice that human communication is matters such as these can to some extent be shared. "everything in the world is either a flea. and not a subset of itself. In doing that we have immediately operated within the level meta to it. A solution is to bar the expression defining the concept as stated. Do my metameta considerations have ontology? Clearly
26 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. In principle. I have gone to the metameta level. and insist that it be properly framed as "the aggregate of all sets". and the ontology of the cognitive abstractions that we generally assume mirror the core ontology in some way. while LOD which necessarily comes before it. An early example of such a split is the Richardian paradox arising from the naïve concept of "the set of all sets".nc. but never "n-gories of n-gories". the point being that the concept for which "aggregate". but is forced to split off another concept. properly understood between physics and metaphysics. The problem. The LOEM is merely a law for symbolic manipulation. and must reasonably and logically be held separate.

We are also awash in distinctions even more primitively. To a large extent. but we seem to have indications and feedback to the contrary. a primitive and also powerful operation that can lead to considerations of ontology as above. pattern matchings or recognitions. is this not all a matter of formal nonsense wherein the n-tologies do not "really" exist? No. of patterns. and less than useful. is still perfectly clear that n-tology is not equivalent to m-tology. when m ≠ n. as these glyphs encoded by electrical bits. as far as I can see. of course. exactly because each of them as conceptually constructed has a physical presence in terms of quantum neurochemistry. and finally time by utilizing memory in combination of sequences of pattern differences. however.and even more complicatedly interrelated. where all "real" existence becomes pure thought. and so deny all of existence. though the cap of a significantly more finite human provides an earlier cutoff. So. and to worlds much larger. and the written symbols of language if only because their ontologies are also quite different . Damasio.main. Here. the assumption of the ontology of time. this begins to look almost like the perverse worlds of German idealism as expounded upon by Hegel. But. As the concept of language necessarily splits into the formal hierarchy of language levels. The only way to avoid this hierarchy is to deny 0-tology. for whether or not he is aware of it. alas Hegel did. nybbles and bytes. it is more truth than philosophical poetry. is a consequence of our neurochemistry of perception. unless one begins to take it seriously. Platonism can be a useful and aesthetically satisfying frame of mind. Infinitudes or finitudes. and primitively we immediately tend to interpret the world around us in terms of the cognitively processed sensations available to us. The major difference. differences of patterns. and the proof is the mirroring of that you are reading. gives the foundation of the conceptualizations of both set theory and the natural numbers as naïve concepts. It is. but which is bound to error when his sensibilities are extended to worlds much smaller. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham.nc. among then Thomas R. It provides the foundation for the construction assessment of measures. which. reducing all language and "knowledge" to random babbling. the concept of ontology splits necessarily into a parallel hierarchy of "n-tologies". however.html
they do in terms of quantum neurochemistry. whose existence (0-tology) could not be allowed. Maybe that is exactly what it is. language. While Protagoras may well have expounded well with philosophical insight that man is the measure of all things. the ultimate cap being the finiteness of the universe. all that he is able to measure at any given time. what has all of this to do with set theory? Underneath the formalistics of set theory lies a hardwired human cognitive apparatus. is that Hegel thought of existence as something absolutely monolithic and without a hierarchy. as we perceive it. and in that sense they have a physical existence and manifestation. It is an evolutionary trick that works well in the context of the mesoscale world of his existence. The ability is not an absolute. The warning.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. There is in this the same understandings and some of the insights of Kant in his "Critique" as well as that of several modern neurologists. a hierarchy of ontologies is exposed as being a necessary aspect of the concept. we have great difficulty in conceiving of other precisely because we are awash in this construction like the proverbial fish in water. One can make similar hierarchical distinctions among: thought. a flavor neoplatonism. The presumed ability to make the single isolation of a "one" from the others.SET THEORY. We make distinctions. we create our mathematical models of time based in this primitive and subconscious construction. Is the hierarchy of n-tologies really infinite as it would appear? No. The difficulties of the scientist in entering conceptually
27 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. even if only in our heads. of which the formalistics are an abstraction. That would be a major impasse. The perception of time is a cognitive activity. That was really all about making necessary distinctions. man's given self is that by which he does measure all.

lines. Oscar Wilde said. which. and even dependent on such pocesses. a distinction which is both enlightening and obscurant. if you like. Back to Set Theory: In classical set theory. and so create distinctions where none exist. and this is the difficulty of understanding quantum theory: it defies the structure of our neurological hardwiring that gives rise to the 1-ontology of cognition. they do behave according to their natures and best interests. The differences between what we call reason and emotion depend rather on the differences in premises rather that the procedures.
28 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
.nc. but his ability to be willfully irrational and willfully quite insane. If one can understnd that the logic of emotions exists. In any case. often from ignorance and misguided application of idealism rooted in Platonic thinking. The obscurant aspect is to suggest that emotions are somehow extralogical. their 1-ontology is being assumed to be equivalent to their 1-ontology. the question of whether the idealized Platonic forms of mathematics. The overarching problem is that Wilde's distinction is commonly held. are real is fairly easily settled in the affirmative my noting that they are mental abstractions that necessarily have neurochemical existence.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. points. the aggregate of replicates that somehow. Now. I believe. All artists and scientists are just a little bit. we have just objectified ideal Platonic forms of whatever kind. or cat's life is not exactly ideologically motivated. by saying it. They are mammals. If the elements have 0-ontology. and that n-tological distinctions are not. we may still label these utterly identical elements of U. A dog's. What truly distinguishes man from other animals is not that he is rational. and so understand that "being a rational animal" in no way distinguishes homo sapiens sapiens. or a lot. it is also responsible for all his arts amd sciences. he was not simply being cute or outré. he creates a dichotomy of the rational versus the emotional. Other animals might be said to be "crazy" only insofar as their relationsships with "man" are considered. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. While this characteristic insanity is clearly responsible for every myriad misery. horror and atrocity of human history. even in U. Playing on the distinctions first. and that they are chaotic. other than as usual to induce thought is beyond me. etc. tetrahera. progressions and sylogisms. But. it might be worth noting that the context of n-tologies.main. play with associated equivalence classes.html
into these other worlds are surely that they defy the immediate sensory perceptions with which they come equipped and indeed programmed. But this equivalence is not valid. we have understood the importance of levels of langauage. Wilde made equivalences precisely to indicate the falsities of language. and that metamathematics must be distinguished from mathematics. Man is not the "the rational animal". and the reptilian brain is already capable. and our quantum theories tell us this precisely. and that is also exactly why they are valued. intuitively made by artists and scientists. Before leaving Wilde and Plato. N-tologies are really all about objectifications. we assume. is entirely untrue. which is not to say that abstraction and prediction is beyond them. a fair amount of irrational imagination is required of any theoretician. "Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason. except on a different level of ontology.SET THEORY. one also then understands the logic behind the behavior or animals other than human." What was in back of Wilde's rather prodigeous mind in saying that. that routinely acts completely contrary to his own best interest. made by Plato. but. it seems that the levels of language regarding containers has not yet suggested the importance of the levels of language of that which is contained by the containers. They are. triangles. crazy. Since Gödel. if any thing he is "the crazy animal". as they regularly conceive of perfectly "crazy" things that "normal" people do not. of course. if only conceptually.. On their own. however. that goes with the field. to make things tighter. That is exactly what they both do.

we assign a complex number z to the container. If we can isolate one element. which is to say. is there a "within reason" codicil? How would that matter.e. with the square of the absolute value |z|² ≤ 1.SET THEORY. i. Physicists tend to think of the SU(2) structure and its attached "kinematical" CAR constraint as being the mathematics of spin. A quantal way of thinking about the primitive isolation problem in U is to consider a one monad container. Classically the answer is either yes (1). say A and B. The question to be posed and resolved within this primitive theory is then whether or not the container is occupied. do not fail to make that distinction. A). or no (0). B2) and (A2.. there should be no especial reason why we can do it again. or not. or reducing the notational language in an obvious way. within and among all levels of language.main. B1). There is a seemingly redundant way of expressing this idea with two complex numbers z0 and z1.. and ask whether or not it is occupied. including the concepts of the LOEM and of the cognate set theoretical concept of "occupation". a quantum theoretic SU(2) structure is a model of a dichotomic variable is the replacement for the functional. (Think perhaps of U as a thermodynamic reservoir to which the container in question is attached. and the mathematical model using only one variable was a cheat that structurally is no different from an unnecessarily complicated expression of a fuzzy set relation: there is no provision for the necessary phased competition in superposition of classically mutually excluding alternatives. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. The mathematics of SU(2) and CAR in quantum theory is an appropriate model for the basis of a quantum set theory of singletons in any U.) One way of thinking about the transition from the classical concept to the quantum concept (so "metaquantizing" conceptually) is to understand that the question of occupation splits into two distinct.html
The general dictum derived has to do with distinctions: Do not confuse your models with reality.nc. (A. formally? Question: On what level of language should the previous question(s) be considered?
If two isolations can be performed. which the LOEM does express.e. classical LOEM. Quantally. in containers labeled 1 and 2. and we can claim that this is a
29 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. Question: Is the operation of replication universally. i.. with z in the closed unit disk of the complex plane. allow replication of the operation of discrimination as the replication of the elements of U was allowed.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. Making a leap that will be obvious to any physicist. the first giving the amplitude for nonoccupation and the second giving the amplitude for occupation so that
|z0|² + |z1|²
=
1
This is the correct statement of the quantum model. there are two situations we can consider: (A1. and the two isolated monads can be labeled. B) and (B. but related questions:
1 Is the container occupied? 2 Is the container empty?
A tacit assumption of this little discussion is that the isolating container can contain only one monad. This is already a dictum in a meta meta theoretical language. allowable? Given a finiteness of the universe. when it is really the correct quantum expression of any classically dichotomic concept.

Is it two profiles. and that is why the second is the correct formulation.nc. as being chemical. after you have discovered them. You can never see the two possibilities "superposed". then so is the overall matter of occupation in any of them. in parallel to the normalization condition on the SU(2) situation of mutually exclusive classical alternatives. You see one. If we were somehow quantum beings capable of cognition. our theoretical physics would then presumably look very different. With all of the above in mind. it should be clear that the answer is yes. The care involved should not really distinguish between the classical situation and quantum situation. we naturally impose on the independent amplitudes. A rather general principle of quantum theory. With the classical structure of mutual exclusivity of the containers for one monad. but that one must be careful about distinguishing n-tologies. consider an n-dimensional complex Hilbert space associated to (represented by) one monad and n-containers. The feature has an important consequence of allowing that the model can easily control/track cardinality of a set that is to be constructed from quantum singletons modeled by SU(2). The complex Hilbert space Vn can be constructed as an n-fold tensor product of the occupation amplitude z ∈ C. and not a bug.html
feature of this system. we perceive classical classical structures). the underlying perceptual neurology has indeed a quantum level existence. An especial difficulty.main. or a vase? Anybody who has played with these things knows very well that seeing (perceiving) the two possibilities is an all or nothing experience.
n Σ |zj|² j
=
1
where j labels the independent copies of C in the tensor product. do these sets actually exist? From the discussion above on n-tologies. the appropriate questions need to be asked in both cases. The standard normalization is then not simply a technical convenience of probabilistic formalism. One clue to the underlying Q nature of our neurology may be any of the now classic Gestaltist experiments where an image can be perceived in two different ways. That the theory imposes this normalization constraint is an indication that it very specifically looks to the classical nature of the classical side of the relationship expressed by quantum theory between quantum and classical ontologies. perception bound existence (1-ontology). The viewpoint that yields a single complex number isolates the single container and ignores its conceptual complement altogether. it must. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. One might ask the question.
30 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. and in this sense. and yet also perhaps our saving grace regarding epistemology and physical theory is that while in full structure our beings are classical regarding perceptions (i. If the occupation of each container is a statistical matter. That is to say that intrinsically. The viewpoint that yields the two complex numbers explicitly considers this alternative. or the other. The first viewpoint does not do this. The very formal expressions of quantum theory express relationships between a quantum ontology (0-ontology) and our apparently classical. the question should seem to be neither nonsense nor trivial.SET THEORY. The alternative of what happens to a monad if it does not occupy the container is not explicitly accounted for.. and with effort switch between them. the second viewpoint does. it is an expression of the fact that there is a classical aspect of interpretation contained in the quantum theory. It may be worth while to look at these two viewpoints in more detail. often reinforced by Feynman. with > 1.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. Warning: the Hilbert space construction following immediately is a cheat in exactly the same way that the single complex number model was a cheat. From that very same discussion. is that a quantum theoretical model must enummerate *all* (kinematically) possible states of the system. the model of observing a quantum dichotomic variable comes to mind.e.

The cheat is resolved by taking a direct (tensor) product of n copies of SU(2) instead of C because there are independent yes-no classical (dichotomic) independent choices for the occupation of each container. valid in classical and quantum contexts is by direct (tensor) product. Let k = 0. then. A reading of von Neumann [Neumann 1932] makes this clear from another viewpoint. this is what Dirac's original "hole theory" was about. we always let k=0 label the "someplace else state". Hilbert space of two monads and n-containers Same containers v. the cheat is resolved by taking a direct (tensor) product of SU(n) x SU(n) instead of SU(n) because there are independent yes-no classical choices for the occupation of each container. we will need a tensor product of n copies of SU(2). we will need one copy of SU(n). apposed to some abstract mathematical space.SET THEORY. 1.html
quantum theory is not just about quantum ontology. This points out a very difficult and confusing aspect of quantum theory: it necessarily contains a connection between the "bizarre" quantum world and the structure of the human sensory world of classical physics. Even with a Fermionic assumption. and a connection between quantum states and classical measurements on those states. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. a binomial coefficient number of elements in the direct sum. For one monad with n containers. The formal method of combining systems. then there are really n-1 containers. a quantum dynamics of sequences of states. For one monad in n containers. different containers. direct (tensor) product as a If points of a quantum set theory are quantum objects. but not actually be singularities.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. it appears that we must make a decision as to whether they are Bosons of Fermions.main. For n monads with one container that can contain at least n monads.. SU(n) with n being the number of containers or the number of truth values. SU(n) is appropriate. This nicely generalizes the SU(2) model above since one of these containers can always be taken to be the container that is "someplace else". since a Bosonic nature would presumably imply that low energy space would routinely suffer Boson condensations. a kind of condensation behavior is not completely locked out. 2. with p+q=n. .. For m monads in n containers an m-fold product of SU(n) Alternative interpretations? For one monad in n containers.nc. making the Fermionic assumption for physical space seems to mediate
31 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. but for accounting for a monad not being in the container. we will need a tensor product of n copies of SU(2). but is really about a quantum ontology that is related to what amounts to free ranging classical measurements: it is about a set of quantum kinematics of possible states. There are (n 2). one can argue in favor of the stability of space by assuming a fundamental Fermionic nature. For two monads each in n containers. to begin with. If one thinks finitistically. If we do that. therefore. and that requires some messiness: a direct sum of SU(p) x SU(q). (n-1) label the containers (or states). While the monads are quantally indistinguishable. however. ignoring parastatistics for now. the question is whether or not the containers are indistinguishable. Overall. such condensations will only look like the peaks of singularities.. simply by distinguishing the unitary transformation of temporal propagation of the state function from the nonunitary propagation of measurement. If one is considering the physical kind of space with which we are familiar. In a very real sense. remembering the BCS formalism of superconductivity and its "Cooper Pairing". One can also interpret the SU(n) model as a single quantum monad with n-ary (rather than binary SU(2)) logic.

Spatial singularlities (or pseudosingularities) occur in regions of high energy density and not low energy density. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. one must have the idea that this condition is what forces the Fermionic enities together in such a way that they exhibit Bosonic properties. Jordan. In GR.html
undersireable extremes and would seem to provide the necessary physical behavior. von Neumann.indistinguishability. however. A formal quantum set theory can be mapped to the formal propositional calculus of quantum logic as discussed long ago by Birkhoff.SET THEORY. There is a difference of thought pattern here. and seeing how the pairng mechanism works in BCS formalism would probably be a good test and clue to whether or not that story pans out. Formal Set theory may be mapped to a formal propositional calculus. So. Only the mathematics will know for sure. that is almost the opposite from thinking in the BCS context.
Symmetry and Antisymmetry . Where do the permutational symmetries even (Bosonic) and odd (Fermionic) come from in the context of indistinguishability of points? Second Quantization and Tensor Algebras Symmetric and Antisymmetric Tensor Subalgebras Supersymmetry and Fermionic Creation and Annihilation Operators s in SO(n) Inner s Γk s(-1) = & Outer Automorphisms
Σ Mkj Γj j
s in SU(n)
32 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. discussed in terms also of orthomodular lattices. opposed to the Boolean lattices of classical logic. et al. Monad exchange Container exchange
Any set theory of elements is indifferent to what the elements or points actually represent.main.. essentially allowing a nonvanishing cosmological constant. and so achieves the effect.nc.
Varadarajan and the Geometry of Quantum Logic The Membership Relation
System Combination and the Direct Product. if one allows an energetic content to the spacetime 'substance' itself. then that idea is that a gravitational force of contraction overcomes the peculiar Fermionic force of repulsion. so the vectors of Vn are also indifferent to what they may represent.

SET THEORY. an l. of the generators. not ontological but conceptualized intermediate point) general singleton an element of V CL element of homogeneous degree 1. i. irreducible partition complementation an orthogonal basis of V orthogonal complementation in V Hodge-star map in CL -----Duality rotation
Algebra deformation? │ cos a │ │ sin a -sin a │ │ A │ │ │ │ c cos a │ │ A │
disjointness union of disjoint sets union intersection of sets division
orthogonality tensor product intersection of subspaces in V
------------------------------------------------------------------Boolean Ring (associative) Clifford Ring (nonassociative) symmetric difference Clifford anticommutator Clifford IRREP associative multiplication
∩ (intersection) ∪ (union) difference Tensor product Associative multiplication Lie multiplication (antisymmetric)
33 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
.main.html
Classical & Quantum Correspondences
Fermionic second quantization maps 2S.nc. Hilbert V and Clifford CL ---------------------------------------------------------------point singleton set w/ cardinality k a basis vector of V (eigenpoint) basis vector of a CL (eigenset) subspace of V of dimension k CL element of homogeneous degree k
(illusory.e. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. the power set of S to the Clifford algebra CL(V).c.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. A Table of conceptual correspondences in this case: Classical S Quantum..

The Dimension of S Expected Dimension Automorphisms of a kinematical algebra and the most general "dynamical evolution" I will now resort to FCCR theory to develop an energetics of Qpoints.SET THEORY.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. one can quantize set theory.main. that an entire body of "deformed mathematics" can also be constructed. in a general mathematical sense. it seems. again formally. then a second quantization is a quantization of categories. Nothing seems immune to the quantization monster. Let the Γk correspond to the eigenvectors of Q(n) Projection operators Density matrices.
TOC
34 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. more generally. That done. Simplicial homology connection and the boundary operator
Hypergroups Quantum Categories If. much as one speaks of deformed algebras since formal logic may be expressed as an algebra from a metamathematical perspective. structural change by defomation appears to be easier and better defined that the physically illusive notion of quantization. Perhaps then. that an entire body of quantized mathematics can be developed. Yet. and Qsubsets.nc. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. in a formal sense.html
CL(n) as a Finite Fermionic Fock Space Statistical Mechanics and Density Matricies direct product CL(n) X CL(n) → CL(2n) Cluster Expansion The Dimension of subsets The dimension of a k-point set must be less than k.

nc.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1.
Physics Pages
Math Pages
Home Page
Top of Page (TOC)
Email me.
3.nc.us
READ WARNING BEFORE SENDING E-MAIL
35 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
.main.
2.SET THEORY. Bill Hammel at
bhammel@graham.html
Footnotes
1.main. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham.

These documents may be freely reproduced.
The URL for this document is:
http://graham.nc. products. 2003
Last Updated: June 26.main.main. Permission is also granted to refer to or describe these documents in commercial books. what I give freely.nc. rules always have exceptions.html
Created: August 14. ask. This copyright and permission notice must appear in all copies.us). 2006
Last Updated: August 5.SET THEORY.html
COPYRIGHT NOTICE REGARDING ALL ORIGINAL WORK HEREIN: © August 2003 by Bill Hammel (bhammel@graham.main. copied and disseminated by any electronic. 2009
36 of 36
10/16/2010 5:47 AM
. digital or written means.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. I find repugnant the idea of someone expropriating. but in no case may such copying or dissemination be charged for.nc. 2004
Last Updated: September 1. for profit. QUANTUM SET THEORY & CLIFFORD ALGEBRAS
http://graham. The idea is very simple. or online services. Permission to use for any noncommercial. educational purpose. They are works of love given freely. no person or body has supported any of the original works contained in this pages.us/~bhammel/QSET/qset1. If you have a problem with this.