6
$\begingroup$

If you add an $x$ such that $x^2=-1$ to the reals, you get the complex numbers. If you add an $x$ such that $x^2=0$ to the reals, you get the dual numbers. If you add an $x$ such that $x^2=+1$ to the reals, you get the split complex numbers.

If you add an $x$ such that $x^2=x$ to the reals, you get... what? What's the name for that number system? You know, the one where $e^{a+bx} = e^a + (e^{a+b} - e^a)x$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I believe this will be isomorphic to $\Bbb{R}\times \Bbb{R}$. Which incidentally is the same as the split complex numbers. $\endgroup$ – jgon May 22 '15 at 5:06
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand (sorry if it's just me), but don't $0, 1$ already satisfy that? $\endgroup$ – MCT May 22 '15 at 5:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Soke, I was assuming we were taking $\Bbb{R}[x]/(x^2-x)$. $\endgroup$ – jgon May 22 '15 at 5:08
  • $\begingroup$ @jgon Oh okay, the material is probably just going over my head. $\endgroup$ – MCT May 22 '15 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Soke 0 and 1 do satisfy $v^2 = v$, but the question is about what you get when you add a third solution. $\endgroup$ – Craig Gidney May 22 '15 at 5:32
8
$\begingroup$

If $x^2=x$, then

$$ (2x-1)^2=4x^2-4x+1=4x-4x+1=1 $$

So you actually have the split-complex numbers in disguise.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't this just show that we can embed the split complex numbers into the number system of interest? It doesn't show they're isomorphic. $\endgroup$ – goblin May 22 '15 at 5:11
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @goblin: They're both $2$-dimensional... $\endgroup$ – Micah May 22 '15 at 5:11
  • $\begingroup$ It's pretty easy to find an inverse to show the embedding is onto and $1-1$ $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews May 22 '15 at 5:14
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting, so it's just a basis change where $j$ = $2x-1$? Good enough for me! Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Craig Gidney May 22 '15 at 5:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ indeed, adding $x$ so that $x^2+bx+c=0$, the resulting ring must be isomorphic to one of the three listed above, depending on whether $b^2-4c$ is negative, zero, or positive. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews May 22 '15 at 5:19
3
$\begingroup$

Similarly to Micah's answer, but showing an ismorphism to $\Bbb{R}\times \Bbb{R}$, note that

\begin{align} (a(1-x)+bx)(c(1-x)+dx) &= ac(1^2-2x+x^2)+(ad+bc)(x-x^2)+bdx^2 \\ &= ac(1-2x+x)+(ad+bc)(x-x)+bdx \\ &=ac(1-x)+bdx. \end{align}

Therefore the mapping to $\Bbb{R}\times \Bbb{R}$: $\varphi(a(1-x)+bx)=(a,b)$ preserves multiplication. Showing that it preserves addition is easy. Similarly the kernel must be trivial since if $\varphi(a(1-x)+bx)=0$, we have $a=b=0$, so $a(1-x)+bx=0$. Finally, this homomorphism is trivially surjective. Note that the mapping is well defined since $1-x$ and $x$ form a basis.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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