You are on page 1of 26

Intr.

alla Teoria dei Gruppi


Tesina

The Octonions and G2: an "Exceptional" Connexion

Student: Nicols Cuello

Professor: Dr. Lorenzo Magnea

March 2, 2012

Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 The Octonion Genesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Dierent Octonions Constructions 2.1 An Eight Dimensional Vector Space over the Reals . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 The Cayley-Dickson Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The 3.1 3.2 3.3 Exceptional Lie Algebra G2 The Algebra of Derivations on O . . . . Dimension of D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proof of the Simplicity of D: Main Lines 3.3.1 D is Semisimple . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 D is Simple . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 4 6 6 8 11 12 13 16 16 17 18

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

4 Conclusions

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1 The Octonion Genesis

The Hamilton Quaternions The starting point for the Octonions birth was the construction of the Quaternions by Hamilton in 1843. Inspired by the relation between C and 2-dimensional geometry, he tried for many years to add and multiply triplets searching for a bigger algebra which could have the same relation with the 3-dimensional geometry. Adding triplets was not a real problem, in fact it is equivalent to the sum of two elements in a 3-dimensional vector space. The crucial point was to nd out how to multiply them, it became a real obsession for Hamilton who related this fact in a letter to his son: Every morning in the early part of the above-cited month, on my coming down to breakfast, your (then) little brother William Edwin, and yourself, used to ask me: Well, Papa, can you multiply triplets? Whereto I was always obliged to reply, with a sad shake of the head: No, I can only add and subtract them. Today it easy to understand why this research couldnt met with success, in fact it is impossible to build a 3-dimensional normed division algebra. The story tells that he kept searching a way to do this multiplication until the 16th October 1843, when, while he was walking with his wife along the Canal River, he had a sort of revelation... As struck by the lightning, this equation came to his mind: i2 = j 2 = k 2 = ijk = 1 Hamilton understood that the basis he was looking for from the beginning for his algebra was in fact {1, i, j, k}, to his surprise this algebra was not three dimensional but four. So he left behind the triplets and started exploring this just-born 4-dimensional normed division algebra. His discovery was received with big enthusiasm because of their applications to geometry, even a school of quaternionsts was funded... But what really interest us is that this also gave some new ideas about the possibility of constructing bigger algebras. Graves versus Cayley Paternity controversies about some concepts or ideas seem to be very frequent in science... It does really matter who was the rst that discovered an amazing property or

solved an extremely hard problem. Among the most famous controversies, we may highlight the innitesimal calculus, which opposed Newton to Leibniz, and the Klein-Gordon formula which actually had been written a few years before by Erwin Schrodinger. The octonions had had their own controversy: the story tells that John T. Graves wrote a letter on October 1843 to his friend Hamilton complimenting him for his discovery and asking the following question: If with your alchemy you can make three pounds of gold, why should you stop there? He was clearing talking about the possibility of constructing bigger algebras, in fact a few months later he wrote again to Hamilton describing a new 8-dimensional algebra, which he called the octaves, and exposing some ideas about a hypothetic extension to 2n -dimensional algebras. Hamilton proposed him to publicize his interesting results on January 1844, the problem was that he personally assumed the reviewing task of the paper, and being too much busy with work on the quaternions, he kept putting it o. It is curious to see that the non associativity of octonions was only pointed out six months later by Hamilton... In the meantime Cayley, fresh out of Cambridge, published in March 1845 a paper where, apparently as an afterthought, he tacked on a brief description of the octonions... Just for the record, this paper is remembered as one of his worst works excluding the brief discussion about 8-dimensional algebra. The Graves recovery was almost immediate, but even showing his correspondence with Hamilton there was no way of reversing the situation, it was too late: octonions were already known as Cayley numbers by the community of mathematicians. Lacking a clear application to geometry or physics, the octonions remained a curiosity until 1925 when Elie Cartan described the triality (the symmetry between vectors and spinors in 8-dimensional Euclidean space). But all the attempts done to apply octonionic quantum mechanics to nuclear and particle physics the years later met with little success. Forgotten and then rediscovered In the 1980s the octonions became again a trendy subject of study after the astonishing discovery that the octonions explain some curious features of string theory, nevertheless this would take us too far away from the main scope of this article (and thereby from my understanding) so we will not develop this subject. However, even if their importance in physics remains unproved, the octonions still a very powerful tool to tie together some algebraic structures that otherwise appear as isolated and inexplicable exceptions.

1.2

Preliminaries

We present here some denitions and we recall some important results for quaternions which will turn very useful throughout this article. Denition 1. Algebra: A is an algebra over R if A is a real vector space having a distributive multiplication map with the properties that R is in the center of A and 1 is the multiplicative identity of A. Note that we do not require the associativity, as a matter of fact octonions form an algebra and they are not associative. Denition 2. Division Algebra: A nite dimensional algebra A is a division algebra if given a, b in A such that ab = 0, then either a = 0 or b = 0. 4

Denition 3. Normed Division Algebra: A nite dimensional algebra A is a normed division algebra if it is a normed vector space with norm N such that N (ab) = N (a)N (b) holds for all a, b in A. An important theorem written by Hurwitz asserts that there exist only four normed division algebras: the reals R, the complexes C, the quaternions H and the octonions O, cf. [1]. Conjugation Function and Norm Each complex number (a, b) can be uniquely written as a linear combination a + ib where a and b are real numbers. The multiplication between two complexes is given by the following rule: (a, b)(c, d) = (ac db)(ad + cb). The conjugation works as follows: (a, b) = (a, b), note that we have also (a, b)(c, d) = (a, b) (c, d) for all a, b, c, d R. Of particular interest are two maps from C to R: the norm and trace. Here we dene them for complexes, however they can be easily extended for quaternions and octonions. The norm on C is given by N (a, b) = (a, b)(a, b) = (a + ib)(a ib) = a2 + b2 , and the trace by tr(a, b) = (a, b) + (a, b) = (a + ib) + (a ib) = 2a. Quaternions Since the octonions were built as an extension of quaternions a quick review could be very useful at this stage. The quaternions, H, can be written as the elements of a 4-dimensional vector space with basis {1, i, j, k}: a + bi + cj + dk. The following Hamiltons rules show that the quaternions form an algebra: ij = k = ji, jk = i = kj, ki = j = ik, i2 = j 2 = k 2 = 1. This operations are synthesized in the Fig. 1.1, note that the arrow sense is important because it denes the sign of the product, as a consequence we see quaternions do not commute anymore, unlike complexes. The conjugation can be extended in the following way a + bi + cj + dk = a ib jc kd and, as for complexes, we have xy = x y with x, y H.

Figure 1.1: The Quaternion Multiplication

Chapter 2

Dierent Octonions Constructions


There exist three dierent ways of constructing the Octonions: one given by the multiplication table of the algebra but not really practical, another one which ensues from the consideration that complex numbers can be considered like a couple of real numbers, and nally the last based on a very geometrical view implying Cliord Algebras. We will expose in detail the two rsts and and omit the third one, we follow here the same scheme than J. Baez in his excellent article about Octonions [1].

2.1

An Eight Dimensional Vector Space over the Reals

The Multiplication Table: The simplest way to think of octonions is as an eight dimensional vector space where the basis is given by {1, e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 , e5 , e6 , e7 }. We can construct the multiplication table even if it is hardly lightening... 1 1 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e1 e1 1 e3 e2 e5 e4 e7 e6 e2 e2 e3 1 e1 e6 e7 e4 e5 e3 e3 e2 e1 1 e7 e6 e5 e4 e4 e4 e5 e6 e7 1 e1 e2 e3 e5 e5 e4 e7 e6 e1 1 e3 e2 e6 e6 e7 e4 e5 e2 e3 1 e1 e7 e7 e6 e5 e4 e3 e2 e1 1

1 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7

Table 2.1: Multiplication table We must however highlight some interesting properties: Every element in O is a linear combination of these basis elements where the scalars are in the eld R. By the distributive laws, this completely denes octonion multiplication; e1 , . . . , e7 are square roots of 1; ei and ej anticommute when i = j: 6 ei ej = ej ei

considering the set {i, j, k}, the index cycling identity holds: ei ej = ek ei+1 ej+1 = ek+1 the index doubling identity holds: ei ej = ek e2i e2j = e2k The particularity of octonions is that, unlike quaternions, they are non associative. For example, we have (e3 e7 )e5 = e4 e5 = e1 and e3 (e7 e5 ) = e3 (e2 ) = e1 , since (e3 e7 )e5 = e3 (e7 e5 ) this shows that the associativity is lost at this level. Nevertheless, Zorn demonstrated that octonions satisfy a particular type of associativity called alternate associativity. Denition 4. Alternative Associative: An algebra is alternate associative if any two elements generate an associative subalgebra. For all elements a and b in the algebra, this denition is equivalent to the validity to the following conditions: a(ba) = (ab)a a(ab) = (aa)b (2.1) a(bb) = (ab)b The equivalency of these denitions have been proved by Emil Artin [3]. To prove that octonions are in deed alternate associative, Zorn represented them as "matrices" containing both scalars and vectors using a modied version of matrix multiplication. In fact, the problem with the usual associative matrix multiplication is that this condition does not hold anymore for octonions. This modied matrix representations are presented in [5] with a particular stress on hermitian conjugation and their application to physical problems like the Diracs equation. Let x O, again it can be written as a linear combination of the eight basis elements: x = 7 i ei with e0 = 1 and i R. The conjugation of a generic x is dened to be i=0 x = 0 7 i ei , and as for complexes and quaternions, xy = x y for all x, y O. i=1 The Fano plane: There exists a better way to remember how to multiply octonions which consists in a diagram called the Fano plane given in Fig. 2.1. The multiplicative relationships between every basis element, except the identity, can be red in it. It works in a similar way than the Fig. 1.1: if we multiply following the arrow sense, the product takes a + sign, whereas, in the contrary sense, it takes a - sign. For example e2 e3 = e1 and e5 e2 = e7 . The Fano plane clearly shows that there exist 7 dierent sets into the octonions with a common property: in fact, because of the multiplication rules established above, if we consider the set of basis elements along a line plus the identity, e.g. {1, e7 , e2 , e5 }, adding or multiplying linear combinations of them yield another such linear combination. For this example, it is straightforward to show that the sum of 2 linear combinations of the chosen basis elements is a linear combination of the same elements, and for the multiplication we have: (a + be2 + ce5 + de7 )(a + b e2 + c e5 + d e7 ) = (aa bb cc dd ) (2.2)

+ (ab + ba + cd dc )e2 (2.3) + (ac bd + ca + db )e5 (2.4) + (ad + bc cb + da )e7 (2.5) 7

This means that {1, e7 , e2 , e3 } is a subalgebra. As this could be done for seven dierent combinations of four basis elements, we can arm there exist 7 subalgebras into the octonions: The external lines: {1, e6 , e1 , e7 }, {1, e7 , e2 , e5 }, {1, e5 , e3 , e6 }, The inner lines: {1, e1 , e4 , e5 }, {1, e2 , e4 , e6 }, {1, e3 , e4 , e7 } The inner cercle: {1, e1 , e2 , e3 } As a nal comment we may say that each one of this subalgebras is isomorphic to the quaternions, to see this we can dene a map from any octonion set of four dierent basis elements to the quaternions as it is done in [2]. This will prove useful in the next section where we are going to construct octonions from quaternions, in fact octonions can be considered as a vector space over any of these quaternions.

Figure 2.1: The Fano Plane

2.2

The Cayley-Dickson Construction

This construction will allow us to understand a little bit better the relation between R, C, H and O. We have already mentioned that any complex number can be considered as a couple of reals, as an extension we can consider quaternions as couples of complex numbers and octonions as pairs of quaternions as well. This procedure is known as the Cayley-Dickson Construction and fortunately its much more lightening than the multiplication table.

In order to describe this procedure in the most general way we call A one of the normed division algebras, R, C, H, or O. Here it is crucial to dene the multiplication and conjugation on A A, this will yield to the next normed division algebra in the series: the conjugation: (a, b) = (a, b) the multiplication: (a, b)(c, d) = (ac db, da + bc). We start at the zero level taking A = R, and we dene ((a, b)) = a + bi: as vector spaces we have C RR, so what we do need to check is that preserves multiplication. = The aim is to show the isomorphism between C and R R. Since a = a a R, ((a, b)(c, d)) = (ac db, da + bc). By denition of , ((a, b)(c, d)) = (ac db) + (da + bc)i = (a + bi)(c + di) hence, ((a, b)(c, d)) = (a, b)(c, d). The following step is to take A = C and show the isomorphism between H and CC. The isomorphism is dened this time as: ((a1 , a2 ), (b1 , b2 )) = a1 + a2 i + b1 j + b2 k. A straightforward calculation (cf Appendix A) shows this map preserves again the multiplication operation. This construction begins to lift the veil on the relation between our four normed algebras... As the reader may guess, quaternions can be viewed as a 2-dimensional vector space over the complexes. If we take the basis {1, j} and if = a + bi + cj + ck then we can also write = (a + bi) + (c + di)j where (a + bi) and (c + di) are in the complexes. This works since (c + di)j = cj + dk. We are nally arrived at the octonion construction which can be considered as a two dimensional vector space over the quaternions. The isomorphism is this time: (((a1 , a2 ), (b1 , b2 )), ((c1 , c2 ), (d1 , d2 ))) = a1 +a2 e1 +b1 e2 +b2 e3 +c1 e4 +c2 e5 d1 e6 +d2 e7 To prove this isomorphism, as we have already said that as vector spaces O H H, = we need to go through a long and tedious calculation to prove that the map preserves the multiplication operation (the main steps can be found in Appendix A). If x O then it can be written as a linear combination of the basis elements: x = a0 + a1 e1 + a2 e2 + a3 e3 + a4 e4 + a5 e5 + a6 e6 + a7 e7 Using the Fano plane for octonions (cf Fig. 2.1) we have: (a4 )e4 = a4 e4 , (a5 e1 )e4 = a5 e5 , (a6 e2 )e4 = a6 (e2 e4 ) = a6 (e4 e2 ) = a6 e6 , and (a7 e3 )e4 = e7 . So x can be rewritten as a combination of two quaternions in the following way: x = (a0 + a1 e1 + a2 e2 + a3 e3 ) + (a4 + a5 e1 a6 e2 + a7 e3 )e4 Note that the enigmatic minus sign for e6 comes from the multiplication rules cited above. This result explains why we say that x O is a ordered pair of quaternions, as 9 (2.6) (2.7)

we say as well that x H is a ordered pair of complexes and x C is a ordered pair of reals. If we keep applying this procedure we can obtain algebras of dimension 16, 32, 64 and so on. The matter is that, with each step, the sons get worse than the fathers! For instance: from R to C we loose the property than every element is its own conjugate, from C to H we loose commutivity, from H to O we loose associativity, naly, at sedonians, we loose the division algebra property. Now that we have studied two dierent constructions for the octonions, it is time to switch to the Exceptional Lie Algebra G2 . At the end of the next chapter we will nd out the exceptional relation that links octonions and G2 .

10

Chapter 3

The Exceptional Lie Algebra G2


For this incursion into the Exceptional Lie Algebras, we will rst need to recall some algebraic denitions, then, once established these concepts, we proceed to the calculation of the Algebra of Derivations on O which will lead us to the dimension of D. Finally, we will describe the more signicative steps in the demonstration of the simplicity of D, this result will show up the relation between G2 and the octonions. We follow here the same major lines than K.E. McLewin in her thesis of Master Degree [2]. Preliminary denitions Denition 5. Lie Algebra: L is a Lie Algebra over a eld F if L is a vector space over F and it has an operation called bracket [ , ] satisfying: bilinearity: [x + x , y] = [x, y] + [x , y], [x, y + y ] = [x, y] + [x, y ] and [x, y] = [x, y] = [x, y] for all x, x , y, y L and F antisymmetry: [x, y] = [y, x] the Jacobi identity: [x, [y, z]] + [y, [z, x]] + [z, [x, y]] = 0 Denition 6. Commute: Given a Lie algebra L, two elements x, y L are said to commute if [x, y] = 0. Denition 7. Lie Ideal: Given a Lie algebra L, I L is a Lie ideal if given any x L, y I, [x, y] I. Denition 8. Simple Lie Algebra: a Lie Algebra L is a simple Lie algebra if [L, L] = 0 and if L has no ideals other than (0) and itself. Denition 9. Semisimple Lie Algebra: A Lie Algebra L is semisimple if it is the direct sum of simple Lie Algebras. Specically, r Li , where implies [Li , Lj ] = 0 for all i=1 i = j and each Li is simple. As we have studied in Intr. alla Teoria dei Gruppi, there exist two types of families of Lie Algebras which have been classied by Lie itself. The rst category is composed by the complex simple Lie Algebras which are innite: Al , Bl , Cl and Dl . All these algebras are assumed to be over the complexes. The 5 exceptional Lie Algebras E6 , E7 , E8 , F4 and G2 form the second category. G2 is the algebra we are particularly interested in, is a Simple Lie Algebra and it has dimension 14, this result will turn to be very important to prove the link with the algebra of derivations over O. 11

3.1

The Algebra of Derivations on O

The main scope of this section will be to show that the set of derivations over O is a Lie Algebra, in order to do this we rst need to dene the derivation over an algebra: Denition 10. Derivation over A: given an algebra A over a eld F, we dene a derivation over A as a function D : A A such that: D(x + y) = D(x) + D(y), D(x) = D(x), D(xy) = xD(y) + D(x)y, for all F, and for all x, y A. We denote D(A) to be the set of derivations over A. To gain an insight into derivations, we recall some propositions concerning D which will be useful for the incoming demonstrations. All the detailed proofs can be found in [2], we skip them to concentrate on crucial results of the reasoning. Proposition 1. Let A be a division algebra over R. If D D(A), then D() = 0 for all R. Proposition 2. If D D(O), then tr(D(x)) = 0 for all x O. Proposition 3. D(x) = D(x) for all x O. To get to D(O) it is instructive to take a D D(H) and to extend it in such a way that the extended version belongs to D(O). In the rst chapter we said that quaternions were a 4 dimensional vector space with basis {1, e1 , e2 , e3 }. As D is linear, it is fully dened by its behavior on the basis elements. The trick here is to extend this derivation using the fact that an octonion can be considered as an ordered pair of quaternions: a + ber with a, b H. Multiplying a generic quaternion (expressed as a linear combination of these basis elements) by one of the remaining basis elements from octonions yields another quaternion (expressed as a linear combination of the 4 remaining dierent basis elements). To do this, we use the multiplication table for octonions given in chapter 2. We have liberty on this choice: e4 , e5 , e6 or e7 . Lets choose e4 , specically we dene: D(e4 ) = ce4 where c = c0 + c1 e1 + c2 e2 + c3 e3 H. Then: ce4 = (c0 + c1 e1 + c2 e2 + c3 e3 )e4 = c0 e4 + c1 e5 c2 e6 + c3 e7 O Thus our extension is well dened since D(a + be4 ) = D(a) + bD(e4 ) + D(b)e4 . This extension permits to found the following result according to what was mentioned before: Proposition 4. Let D D(H). If we dene D(e4 ) = ce4 from some c H, then D D(O). The proof of this proposition is relegated to appendix. This "extended division" stills having the properties of derivation. To prove that D(O) is indeed a Lie Algebra it has to fulll the 3 conditions given in denition 5. We have to dene the multiplicative 12 (3.1) (3.2) (3.3)

law for elements in D(O), we choose the bracket on D as follows: if E, D D(O), then [D, E] = DE ED. Using this denition it is straightforward to show that it is bilinear, antisymmetric and, since our bracket was dened using the commutator, it satises the Jacobi identity. This leads to the following theorem: Theorem 1. D(O) is a Lie Algebra. From now on we will use the notation D for D(O).

3.2

Dimension of D

We would like to show now that, as G2 , D has dimension 14. To do this we start with a generic D D, the splitting of this algebra into the basis elements would have the form 7 i=1 i ei , 0 = 0 because of the proposition 2. Again, as D is a linear map, it is fully determined by its eect on the basis elements. Since we can construct e3 , e5 , e6 and e7 from e1 , e2 and e4 using the multiplication relations given in chapter 2, if we dene:
7

D(e1 ) =
i=1 7

ei i ,

(3.4)

D(e2 ) =
i=1 7

ei i ,

(3.5)

D(e4 ) =
i=1

ei i ,

(3.6)

then we have the derivation rules that follow: D(e3 ) = D(e1 )e2 + e1 D(e2 ) D(e5 ) = D(e1 )e4 + e1 D(e4 ) D(e6 ) = D(e4 )e2 + e4 D(e2 ) D(e7 ) = D(e3 )e4 + e3 D(e4 ) = D(e1 e2 )e4 + e3 D(e4 ) = [D(e1 )e2 + e1 D(e2 )]e4 + e3 D(e4 )

The explicit form of each D(ei ) for i = 1, 2, ..., 7 can be computed using these relations (see Appendix B), note that they depend on 7 3 = 21 variables. The results are given in the table 3.1. The number of variables can be decreased searching for the relations between these dierent coecients. As this result will bridge the gap between octonions and the G2 we will recall in detail the proof of the following proposition: Proposition 5. Suppose D D and we let
7 7 7

D(e1 ) =
i=1

ei i ,

D(e2 ) =
i=1

ei i ,

D(e4 ) =
i=1

ei i

13

1 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7

D(e1 ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D(e2 ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D(e3 ) 2 1 3 3 1 + 2 6 5 7 + 4 4 7 5 + 6

D(e4 ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D(e5 ) 4 1 5 6 3 7 + 2 5 1 + 4 2 7 3 + 6

D(e6 ) 4 2 5 3 6 7 + 1 6 1 + 7 2 + 4 3 5

D(e7 ) 6 + 5 3 7 4 2 4 7 + 1 5 6 2 1 7 3 6 3 + 5 1 + 2 + 4

Table 3.1: General Form of Derivations on the Octonions fully dening D. Then: 1 = 2 = 4 = 1 + 2 = 1 + 4 = 2 + 4 = 6 + 5 3 = 0 Proof: We start showing that 1 = 2 = 4 = 0. As the three results are obtained in the same way, we do the explicit calculation just for the rst one. Consider D(e1 e1 ) = D(1) = 0, cf. prop. 1. By the properties of the derivation we have: e1 D(e1 ) + D(e1 )e1 = 0
7 7

e1 (
i=1 7

i ei ) + (
i=1 7

i ei )e1 = 0

21 +
i=2

i e1 ei +
i=2

i ei e1 = 0

Since e1 ei = ei e1 , we get 1 = 0. The other two results are obtained considering D(e2 e2 ) = 0 and D(e4 e4 ) = 0, it follows that 2 = 0 and 4 = 0 respectively. To prove that 1 + 2 = 1 + 4 = 2 + 4 = 0 we use the trace. Remember it is a map from O to R and D(tr(x)) = 0 for all x O, cf. prop. 2. Considering D(tr(e1 e2 )) = 0 D(e1 e2 + e1 e2 ) = 0 Since ab = ba for all a, b O, then: D(e1 e2 ) + D(e2 e1 ) = 0 D(e1 )e2 + e1 D(e2 ) + D(e2 )e1 + e2 D(e1 ) = 0 Using ei = ei and D(x) = D(x), we obtain: D(e1 )e2 + e1 D(e2 ) + D(e2 )e1 + e2 D(e1 ) = 0 14

Substituting:
7 7 7 7

(
i=1

i ei )e2 + e1 (
i=1

i ei ) + (
i=1

i ei )e1 + e2 (
i=1

i ei ) = 0

and since e2 = 1 for all i, i


7 7 7 7

2 +
i=1,i=2

i ei e2 1 +
i=1,i=1

i e1 ei 1 +
i=1,i=1

i e i e 1 2 +
i=1,i=2

i e2 ei = 0

Using ei ej = ej ei , we remark that the two rst sums cancel with the other two: 2 + 1 = 0 For the other two relations the same calculation can be done, the starting point is D(tr(e1 e4 )) = 0 and D(tr(e2 e4 )) = 0, this leads to 1 + 4 = 0 and 2 + 4 = 0 respectively. There remains the last relation: 6 + 5 3 = 0. We consider now: D(tr(e3 e4 )) = 0 and using the same properties as before we found: D(e3 e4 + e3 e4 ) =0

D(e3 e4 ) + D(e4 e3 ) = 0 D(e3 e4 ) + D(e4 e3 ) = 0 It can be expanded in this way: D(e1 e2 )e4 + e3 D(e4 ) + D(e4 )e3 + e4 D(e1 e2 ) =0

{D(e1 )e2 + e1 D(e2 )}e4 + e3 D(e4 ) + D(e4 )e3 + e4 {D(e1 )e2 + e1 D(e2 )} = 0 Splitting the D(ei ) into sum we found, by an analogous computation as above, the relation sought: 6 + 5 3 = 0. Plugging this relations in the table 3.1 we obtain the table 3.2. The fact that the number of independent variables is equal to 14 starts to show up the relation with G2 . D(e1 ) 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 D(e2 ) 0 2 0 3 4 5 6 7 D(e3 ) 0 3 3 0 6 5 7 + 4 4 7 5 + 6 D(e4 ) 0 4 4 6 + 5 0 5 6 7 D(e5 ) 0 5 5 7 4 5 0 2 7 3 + 6 D(e6 ) 0 6 6 4 + 7 6 7 + 2 0 3 5 D(e7 ) 0 7 7 5 6 7 3 6 3 + 5 0

1 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7

Table 3.2: Linearly Independent Form of Derivations on the Octonions 15

Explicitly these variables are: 2 , . . . , 7 ; 3 , . . . , 7 and 5 , . . . , 7 . However, for the moment we have just shown that D has at maximum 14 dimensional so we need to prove that it is exactly 14. The following two theorems, cf. [2] once again for the proofs, permit to establish it: Theorem 2. Every octonion map of the form in table 3.2 is a derivation. Theorem 3. A linear mapping on the octonions D has the form in table 3.2 if and only if D is a derivation over the octonions. As the mentioned table has exactly 14 independent variables we can nally assert that D, the algebra of derivations over the octonions, has dimension 14.

3.3

Proof of the Simplicity of D: Main Lines

Note that semisimplicity is a necessary condition for simplicity. The next step of the proof is to show that D has no nonzero abelian ideals. From Intr. alla Teoria dei Gruppi one could think to compute the Cartan-Killing metric g and then apply the Cartans criterium computing the determinant of g . However, as octonions arent associative we cannot construct a standard matrix representation. We mentioned in chapter 2 that a modied version of representations can be found, nevertheless to my knowledge there doesnt exist a way to extend this criterium to these representations. As the detailed proof of the simplicity of D would lead us too far of the main scope of this article, we will just show how we can get to the nal result by enumerating the most important results and quickly explaining some steps.

3.3.1

D is Semisimple

We recall the two denitions of the properties we want to prove. Denition 11. Semisimple Algebra: an algebra is Semisimple if and only if it has no nonzero abelian ideals. Denition 12. Simple Algebra: an algebra is Simple if and only if it has no nonzero ideals. It can be proved by contradiction that D has no nonzero abelian ideals: we suppose it exists a nonzero abelian ideal and we show that this implies that the ideal is {0}, which is a contradiction. The explicit proof needs to dene the basis of D. Using the table 3.2, the 14 basis elements of D can be easily computed. For instance, let D1 be the derivation dened by table 3.2 in which 2 = 1 and all other i , i , i are equal to zero. The other basis elements could be dened in a similar way, we get then the basis {D1 , . . . , D14 } in correspondence with {2 , . . . , 7 , 2 , . . . , 7 , 4 , . . . , 7 }. Dening a restriction D within these basis elements it can be shown, cf. [2], that D has no nonzero abelian ideals, thus: Proposition 6. D is semisimple.

16

The next step is the complexication of D, DC , some parts of the proof will need some concepts concerning Lie algebras over the complexes. Making some basic considerations we get: dimC (DC ) = dimR (D) = 14. Using Lie Algebra properties, it follows that D semisimple implies: Proposition 7. DC is semisimple.

3.3.2

D is Simple

To show that D is simple it is sucient to show DC is simple. As DC is semisimple it can be written as the direct sum of simple Lie Algebras: DC = r Di for some r N i=1 and each Di simple. Thus, if D DC , then D = Di with Di Di . In order to demonstrate the simplicity of DC , we have to show that r = 1. To do this, a detailed study of DC is required, which is omitted here. We obtain at the end of the trail that DC is a direct sum of either one or two simple Lie Algebras. As dimC (DC ) = 14, either DC is a simple Lie algebra of dimension 14 or DC is a direct sum of two simple Lie Algebras whose dimensions add up to 14. So we have to search, among the Lie Algebras we introduced at the beginning of this chapter, two which verify this condition or directly a Lie Algebra of dimension 14. Note that G2 has dimension 14 as mentioned in the preliminaries, so it is the perfect candidate. Using the results about the dimensions of Simple Lie Algebras studied in Intr. alla Teoria dei Gruppi, we get that the Simple Lie Algebras of dimension less than or equal to 14 are: A1 : dimension 3, A2 : dimension 8, B2 : dimension 10, G2 : dimension 14. Among these algebras, it is impossible to obtain 14 by the sum of two elements. . . The closer we can get is 3 + 10 = 13. At this level, we can assert that r = 2, thus r = 1 and this enables us to conclude: Theorem 4. DC is a simple Lie algebra. Furthermore, DC is isomorphic to the exceptional Lie algebra G2 . And nally, Theorem 5. D is a real Lie algebra of type G2

17

Chapter 4

Conclusions
We started showing how octonions were constructed more than 150 years ago as an extension of quaternions. The most curious property of octonions is the non associativity, however here we concentrated on how octonions could be viewed as an ordered pair of quaternions. The Cayley-Dickson construction has been very useful to this scope, and it showed up the relation between the Normed Division Algebras R, C, H and O. Nevertheless, at the end of the chapter 2, it was hard to believe that a relation could be found with the Simple Lie Algebras, specially with G2 . A quick review of Lie Algebras permitted us to explore the algebra of derivations over an algebra, giving us some important results concerning D, the algebra of derivations on O. The next step was to compute the dimension of D: 14. It was a very encouraging result since we knew that G2 has the same dimension. The bridge between O and D started to show up at this point... Clearly, the end of the chapter 3 did not have the pretension to rigorously prove the exposed theorems concerning the simplicity of D. However these main lines were interesting since it was an application of an algebra complexication as viewed at lesson. Throughout this article we have used concepts from Group Theory, and it is worth noticing that this theory showed once again its powerful capability to tie together algebraic structures extremely dierent, such as Octonions and the Exceptional Lie Algebra G2 .

18

Appendix A
Isomorphism between C C and H
Here u1 , u2 , v1 , v2 C and a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 , c1 , c2 , d1 , d2 R (u1 , u2 )(v1 , v2 ) = (u1 v1 v2 u2 , v2 u1 + u2 v1 ) = ((a1 , a2 )(c1 , c2 ) (d1 , d2 )(b1 , b2 ), (d1 , d2 )(a1 , a2 ) + (b1 , b2 )(c1 , c2 )) = ((a1 c1 a2 c2 , a1 c2 + a2 c1 ) (d1 b1 + b2 d2 , d1 b2 d2 b1 ), (d1 a1 d2 a2 , d1 a2 + d2 a1 ) + (b1 c1 + c2 b2 , b2 c1 + b1 c2 )) = ((a1 c1 a2 c2 d1 b1 b2 d2 , a1 c2 + a2 c1 d1 b2 + b1 d2 ), (d1 a1 + b1 c2 d2 a2 + c2 b2 , d1 a2 + d2 a1 + b2 c1 b1 c2 ))

The multiplication of two ordered pairs of complexes is a new pair of ordered complexes. Thus, applying we obtain a quaternion expressed in the basis elements {1, i, j, k}: ((u1 , u2 )(v1 , v2 )) = a1 c1 a2 c2 b1 d1 b2 d2 i (a1 c2 + a2 c1 d1 b2 + d2 b1 ) j (d1 a1 + b1 c1 d2 a2 + c2 b2 ) k (d1 a2 + d2 a1 + b2 c1 b1 c2 ) On the other side,

(u1 , u2 )(v1 , v2 ) = (a1 + a2 i + b1 j + b2 k)(c1 + c2 i + d1 j + d2 k) = a1 c1 a2 c2 b1 d1 b2 d2 i (a1 c2 + a2 c1 + b1 d2 b2 d1 ) j (a1 d1 + b1 c1 + b2 c2 a2 d2 ) k (a1 d2 + b2 c1 + a2 d1 b1 c2 ) Hence, we have shown that ((u1 , u2 )(v1 , v2 )) = (u1 , u2 )(v1 , v2 )

19

Isomorphism between H H and O (main steps)


We want to show that: ((h1 , h2 ), (h3 , h4 )) = (h1 , h2 )(h3 , h4 ) where hi H. To do this we start computing explicitly (h1 , h2 ). Using this result, (h3 , h4 ) can be easily found substituting 1 by 3 and 2 by 4. As we are applying to an ordered pair of quaternions, we obtain the expression of an octonion in terms of the basis elements {1, e1 , e2 , . . . , e7 }. When we multiply the two octonions obtained, we get an octonion again by the multiplication rules established in chapter 2. A tedious, but straightforward, calculation leads to the generic expression. On the other side, we have to compute (h1 , h2 )(h3 , h4 ). Using the relations dening the multiplication and the conjugation, this can be expressed as an ordered pair of two new quaternions: (h , h ). When we apply , we obtain the expression of an octonion in terms of the basis elements {1, e1 , e2 , . . . , e7 } again. Comparing it with the precedent result, we found that both are equal, which completes the demonstration.

20

Appendix B
Proof of proposition 4, from [2]
Proposition. Let D D(H). If we dene D(e4 ) = ce4 from some c H, then D D(O). Proof: D is linear on O from our construction. We have to check that the derivation condition is fullled for all x, y O: D(xy) = x D(y) + D(x) y However, since this condition already holds for H and since D is linear on O, we need only prove D(ei a) = ei D(a) + D(ei )a holds for i = 4, . . . , 7 and for arbitrary a H. We will only show the calculation for i = 4 since the proof is nearly identical for the others. Let a = a0 + a1 e1 + a2 e2 + a3 e3 + a4 e4 + a5 e5 + a6 e6 + a7 e7 .

D(e4 a) = a0 D(e4 ) + a1 D(e4 e1 ) + a2 D(e4 e2 ) + a3 D(e4 e3 ) + +a4 D(e4 e4 ) + a5 D(e4 e5 ) + a6 D(e4 e6 ) + a7 D(e4 e7 )

D(e4 a) = a0 D(e4 ) + a1 e4 D(e1 ) + a1 D(e4 )e1 + a2 e4 D(e2 ) + a2 D(e4 )e2 + +a3 e4 D(e3 ) + a3 D(e4 )e3 + a4 e4 D(e4 ) + a4 D(e4 )e4 + a5 e4 D(e5 ) + +a5 D(e4 )e5 + a6 e4 D(e6 ) + a6 D(e4 )e6 + a7 e4 D(e7 ) + a7 D(e4 )e7

D(e4 a) =
i=1

e4 (ai D(ei )) + D(e4 )a0 +


i=1

D(e4 )(ai ei )

D(e4a) = e4
i=1

ai D(ei ) + D(e4 )(a0 +


i=1

ai ei )

D(e4 a) = e4 D(a) + D(e4 )a.

21

Explicit form of D(ei ) for i = 1, 2, . . . , 7


D(e1 ) = 1 e1 + 2 e2 + 3 e3 + 4 e4 + 5 e5 + 6 e6 + 7 e7

D(e2 ) = 1 e1 + 2 e2 + 3 e3 + 4 e4 + 5 e5 + 6 e6 + 7 e7

D(e3 ) = D(e1 )e2 + e1 D(e2 ) = 1 e1 e2 + 2 e2 e2 + 3 e3 e2 + 4 e4 e2 + 5 e5 e2 + 6 e6 e2 + 7 e7 e2 + +1 e1 e1 + 2 e1 e2 + 3 e1 e3 + 4 e1 e4 + 5 e1 e5 + 6 e1 e6 + 7 e1 e7 = 1 e3 2 3 e1 + 4 e6 5 e7 6 e4 + 7 e5 1 + 2 e3 3 e2 + 4 e5 5 e4 + 6 e7 7 e6 = (2 1 ) + (3 )e1 + (3 )e2 + (1 + 2 )e3 + (6 5 )e4 + +(7 + 4 )e5 + (4 7 )e6 + (5 + 6 )e7

D(e4 ) = 1 e1 + 2 e2 + 3 e3 + 4 e4 + 5 e5 + 6 e6 + 7 e7

D(e5 ) = D(e1 )e4 + e1 D(e4 ) = 1 e1 e4 + 2 e2 e4 + 3 e3 e4 + 4 e4 e4 + 5 e5 e4 + 6 e6 e4 + 7 e7 e4 + +1 e1 e1 + 2 e1 e2 + 3 e1 e3 + 4 e1 e4 + 5 e1 e5 + 6 e1 e6 + 7 e1 e7 = 1 e5 2 e6 + 3 e1 4 5 e1 + 6 e2 7 e3 1 + 2 e3 3 e2 + 4 e5 5 e4 + 6 e7 7 e6 = (4 1 ) + (5 )e1 + (6 3 )e2 + (7 + 2 )e3 + (5 )e4 + +(1 + 4 )e5 + (2 7 )e6 + (3 + 6 )e7

D(e6 ) = D(e4 )e2 + e4 D(e2 ) = 1 e1 e2 + 2 e2 e2 + 3 e3 e2 + 4 e4 e2 + 5 e5 e2 + 6 e6 e2 + 7 e7 e2 + +1 e4 e1 + 2 e4 e2 + 3 e4 e3 + 4 e4 e4 + 5 e4 e5 + 6 e4 e6 + 7 e4 e7 = 1 e3 2 3 e1 + 4 e6 5 e7 6 e4 + 7 e5 1 e5 + 2 e6 3 e7 4 + 5 e1 6 e2 7 e3 = (2 4 ) + (3 + 5 )e1 + (6 )e2 + (1 7 )e3 + (6 )e4 + +(7 1 )e5 + (4 + 2 )e6 + (5 3 )e7

22

D(e7 ) = D(e3 )e4 + e3 D(e4 ) = (2 1 )e4 3 e1 e4 3 e2 e4 + (1 + ) e3 e4 + +(6 3 )e4 e4 + (7 + 4 )e5 e4 + (4 7 )e6 e4 + (5 + 6 )e7 e4 1 e3 e1 + 2 e3 e2 + 3 e3 e3 + 4 e3 e4 + 5 e3 e5 + 6 e3 e6 + 7 e3 e7 = (6 + 5 3 ) + (7 4 2 )e1 + (4 4 2 )e2 + (5 6 )e3 +(2 1 7 )e4 + (3 6 )e5 + (3 + 5 )e6 + (1 + 2 + 4 )e7

1 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7

D(e1 ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D(e2 ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D(e3 ) 2 1 3 3 1 + 2 6 5 7 + 4 4 7 5 + 6

D(e4 ) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D(e5 ) 4 1 5 6 3 7 + 2 5 1 + 4 2 7 3 + 6

D(e6 ) 4 2 5 3 6 7 + 1 6 1 + 7 2 + 4 3 5

D(e7 ) 6 + 5 3 7 4 2 4 7 + 1 5 6 2 1 7 3 6 3 + 5 1 + 2 + 4

Table 1: General Form of Derivations on the Octonions

23

Bibliography
1. John C. Baez, The Octonions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 39, 145-205, 2002. 2. K.E. McLewin, Octonions and the Exceptional Lie Algebra G2 , 2004. 3. R.D. Schafer, An Introduction to Nonassociative Algebras, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1961. 4. Wikipedia, Split-octonion and Octonion articles. 5. J. Daboul, R, Delbourgo, Matrix Representation of Octonions and Generalizations, arxiv: hep-th/9906065v1.

24