According to Wikipedia,

$$x+y = (x_0+y_0)+(x_1+y_1) i+(x_2+y_2) j+(x_3+y_3) k$$


$$\begin{align} x y &=( x_0 y_0 - x_1 y_1 - x_2 y_2 - x_3 y_3)\\ &+( x_0 y_1 + x_1 y_0 + x_2 y_3 - x_3 y_2) \mathrm i\\ &+( x_0 y_2 - x_1 y_3 + x_2 y_0 + x_3 y_1) \mathrm j\\ &+( x_0 y_3 + x_1 y_2 - x_2 y_1 + x_3 y_0) \mathrm k \end{align}$$

It's clear how to get the addition, but how do you get the multiplication? Especially, why is

$x_1 \cdot \mathrm i \cdot y_0 = x_1 \cdot y_0 \cdot \mathrm i$ for $x_1, y_0 \in \mathbb{R}$

It might be a dumb question, but I really don't get it. I would appreciate if you use only what I know for your answer, if possible.

What I know

$$i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1$$ $$ijk=-1$$

which implies

$$\begin{align} ij &= k\\ ji &= -k\\ jk &= i\\ kj &= -i\\ ki &= j\\ ik &= -j \end{align}$$


$$\begin{align} (-1) \cdot \mathrm i &= \mathrm i \cdot (-1)\\ (-1) \cdot \mathrm j &= \mathrm j \cdot (-1)\\ (-1) \cdot \mathrm k &= \mathrm k \cdot (-1) \end{align}$$

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The basis is $1,i,j,k$ and $1\cdot i=i\cdot 1$ so that $r\cdot i=i\cdot r$ for real $r$. $\endgroup$ – Dietrich Burde Sep 9 '13 at 9:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is kind of defined that way. Multiplication by an element of $\mathbb R$ is special. That is why it is called an $R$-algebra. That means, I think you should add to the list of things you know that $rx = xr$ for any $r \in \mathbb R$. $\endgroup$ – Tunococ Sep 9 '13 at 10:10

$ix_1=x_1i$ is only one contract and if we define $x=x_0+ix_1+jx_2+kx_3$ and $y=y_0+iy_1+jy_2+ky_3$(there is no reason that define $x=x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k$ or $y=y_0+y_1i+y_2j+y_3k$ and one of them can be used), then we can define $xy$ as follows $$\begin{align} x y &=( x_0 y_0 - x_1 y_1 - x_2 y_2 - x_3 y_3)\\ &+i( x_0 y_1 + x_1 y_0 + x_2 y_3 - x_3 y_2) \\ &+j( x_0 y_2 - x_1 y_3 + x_2 y_0 + x_3 y_1) \\ &+k( x_0 y_3 + x_1 y_2 - x_2 y_1 + x_3 y_0) \end{align}$$ and also note that $$ix_1=(0,x_1,0,0)=x_1i,(x_1=(x_1,0,0,0),i=(0,1,0,0),j=(0,0,1,0),k=(0,0,0,1))$$ if we define $$xy=(x_0 y_0 - x_1 y_1 - x_2 y_2 - x_3 y_3,x_0 y_1 + x_1 y_0 + x_2 y_3 - x_3 y_2,x_0 y_2 - x_1 y_3 + x_2 y_0 + x_3 y_1,x_0 y_3 + x_1 y_2 - x_2 y_1 + x_3 y_0).$$

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ This is just making the position of $i^{-1}$ ambiguous by putting it under the fraction... (I could have believed that this was true even when $x$ is a quaternion.) $\endgroup$ – Tunococ Sep 9 '13 at 10:07
  • $\begingroup$ I've understood that $x \mathrm i = \mathrm ix$ with $x \in \mathbb{R}$, but why is $x \mathrm i y = xy \mathrm i$? Wait a second... Ah, I understand! Lets say $x = ab$ with $a,b \in \mathbb{R}$. Then I can use your argument to get $ab \mathrm i = a \mathrm i b$. Thanks! (Now I'll check if I get the same for general multiplication, then I'll accept or ask in comment my question.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Thoma Sep 9 '13 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ No, you don't need that argument to show $xyi = xiy$ with $x, y \in \mathbb R$ if you know $xi = ix$. This is because $xyi = x(yi) = x(iy) = xiy$. (I assume associativity, since you've written $xyi$ without parentheses.) $\endgroup$ – Tunococ Sep 9 '13 at 10:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This post is very misleading. It is not at all clear why you aren't showing that $i$ commutes with any quaternion $x$ (not just $x \in \mathbb{R}$). In particular, you cannot move the denominator around as you do. $xi^{-1} \neq i^{-1}x$ in general! $\endgroup$ – Alexander Sep 19 '13 at 14:08

One thing that should be said (that Tunococ has mentioned in the comments) is that

elements of $\Bbb F$ in any associative $\Bbb F$-algebra are essentially assumed to be central.

(The "elements of $\Bbb F$" are of course $\{\lambda 1\mid \lambda\in \Bbb F\}$, their usual embedding.)

This is hiding in the axiom of compatibility with scalars. For any $\Bbb F$ algebra $A$, and any $x\in A$, that axiom gives $\lambda x=((\lambda 1)x)1=(1(\lambda x))1=(\lambda x)1=x(\lambda 1)=x\lambda$.

The quaternions are, after all, an $\Bbb R$-algebra generated by $i,j$ with special relations. The historical perspective at the quaternion article does not really do a good job of explaining that point.

A common alternative definition of algebras makes this even more obvious. It goes something like "an $\Bbb F$-algebra is a ring $A$ and a ring homomorphism $r:\Bbb F\to Z(A)$" where $Z(A)$ is the center of $A$. Assuming this definition, one easily sees the "regular" algebra axioms are satsified by $r(\Bbb F)$, which is (isomorphic to, hence) identified with $\Bbb F$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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