Friday, October 07, 2022

Abstract Algebra Adventures Part 2: Trirational numbers

Complex numbers are often written in their rectangular form \(a + bi\) where \(a\) and \(b\) are real numbers and \(i\) is an imaginary square root of \(-1\). If we visualize the real number line and the imaginary number line as the orthogonal axes of a Cartesian plane, we could say that \((a,b)\) are the complex number's Cartesian coordinates.

Another useful way to represent complex numbers is via their polar form \(re^{\theta{i}}\), which emphasizes the vector-like nature of complex numbers. In this form, \(r\) is a real number denoting the magnitude of the vector and \(\theta\) is the angle between the positive real axis and the vector. This form is related to another coordinate system: the polar coordinates; the polar coordinates in this case are \((r,\theta)\). We can convert a complex number's polar form to its rectangular form with the help of Euler's formula: \(e^{i\theta}=\cos(\theta) + i\sin(\theta)\).

This post is about a third form for complex numbers. This time, it's based on a type of homogeneous coordinates.


Definitions

By "homogeneous coordinates" I specifically mean coordinates that still represent the same point after each coordinate is scaled by the same amount. Meaning that for a set of, say, three coordinates \((a:b:c)\), we consider them to be homogeneous when \((xa:xb:xc)=(a:b:c)\) for any non-zero positive real number \(x\).

Examples of homogeneous coordinate systems are projective coordinates and barycentric coordinates. But here we will talk about something a bit different from those two.

Given \(a \in{\Bbb{R}}\) and \(b,c \in{\Bbb{R}_{>0}}\), the homogeneous coordinates \((a:b:c)\) can be represented by a complex number written in this form:

\[a*b^{\omega}*c^{\omega^2}\]

where \(\omega=-\frac{1}{2} + i\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\) and \(\omega^2=-\frac{1}{2} - i\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\) are the primitive third roots of unity.

The third roots of unity have this nice property:

\[1+\omega+\omega^2=0\]

Which means for any non-zero positive number \(x\),

\[x*x^{\omega}*x^{\omega^2}=x^{1+\omega+\omega^2}=1\]

\[\therefore{(xa)*(xb)^{\omega}*(xc)^{\omega^2}=a*b^{\omega}*c^{\omega^2}}\]

In other words, scaling all three components by the same amount does not change the value of the number. This is exactly what we expect from homogeneous coordinates \((a:b:c)\).

(The reason why I'm limiting \(b\) and \(c\) to non-zero positive reals here is because there's no widely accepted method for evaluating complex powers of a negative number or of zero. Readers could try playing with negative denominators if they wish using their own methods. I also have a section below for cases where \(b\) and/or \(c\) are complex numbers, but I want to start this off with the simpler case of real numbers.)


Trirational numbers

For convenience, we'll also use the notation \(a\unicode{x25B6}b\unicode{x25B6}c\), which we'll call a "trirational number" as an analogy to the rational numbers (see the "Comparison to fractions" section below for more on this analogy).

\[a\unicode{x25B6}b\unicode{x25B6}c\overset{\text{def}}{=}a*b^{\omega}*c^{\omega^2}\]

We'll call \(a\) the "numerator" of the trirational number while \(b\) and \(c\) are the two positive "denominators" of the trirational number.

We can also write trirational numbers vertically:

\[\begin{matrix}
a \\[-5pt]
\unicode{x25BC} \\[-5pt]
b \\[-5pt]
\unicode{x25BC} \\[-5pt]
c \\[-5pt]
\end{matrix}\quad\text{or}\quad\begin{matrix}a \\
\unicode{x25B6}b \\
\unicode{x25B6}c \\
\end{matrix}\]

Abstract Algebra Adventures Part 1: Introduction

I'm one of those people who had good grades in Math back in school but who promptly forgot a lot about the subject as soon as it no longer really mattered. As an average non-mathematician adult nerd, I do occasionally read math-related articles on Wikipedia for fun, and I'm subscribed to several "MathTubers", but for most of my life I couldn't really say that math was a passion of mine, and it shows by how little of what I read/watch actually sticks to my head.

I think I'm starting to develop a taste for abstract algebra, though. You could say it became my pandemic hobby. 😆 Take note that I never took any abstract algebra classes back in college, so this was quite a journey for me, to say the least.

No, I still haven't taken any formal classes or anything like that. So far I've only been learning things bit by bit, not as part of a systematic abstract algebra course, but as stepping stones to answer questions that actually interest me.

For example, I once wondered how to position three points on the complex plane in the "nicest" way possible. At first "nicest" was pretty vague and I didn't really know exactly what I was looking for, but eventually I learned about the third roots of unity \(-\frac{1}{2} \pm i\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\) and their many cool properties. As I learned more, my questions became more informed and more specific, and soon enough I started having a better understanding and appreciation for certain math topics:

  • roots of unity and cyclic groups in general
  • quaternions, octonions, etc. (I already knew about \(i^2=j^2=k^2=ijk=-1\), but I didn't start playing with quaternion rotations and stuff like that until all this happened)
  • Geometric/Clifford algebras
  • other unital algebras over the field of real numbers
  • regular and uniform polytopes and their connection to abstract algebra
I also learned way more linear algebra than I bargained for. As someone who's always had an irrational dislike for matrices, I have begrudgingly accepted their utility, especially since there are tools I could use to easily work with them without doing things by hand.

Speaking of tools, websites like Wolfram Alpha and matrixcalc.org, as well as the small programs that I wrote to study the things mentioned above, all gave me enough confidence to create my own algebraic structures despite my lack of mathematical talent.

As for the value/usefulness of those structures I created, well, I have no idea. I'll describe them later in this series of posts, then maybe actual mathematicians could take a look and provide their insight if they wish. But at this point it's all just fun and games to me.

Continued in Part 2.

I'm blogging again!

You read that right. After years of false starts, I think I'm ready to get back to blogging.

If you're one of the few people who used to read my old blog, you might notice that I've disabled public viewing. I plan to move my favorite posts from there to here, then afterwards I will be deleting that blog permanently.

The reasons for this are deeply personal, so I don't know if I'll ever talk about it. Honestly I have so many other things I'd rather talk about instead, so let's just wrap up this "introductory post" and get to the fun stuff, shall we?

Monday, April 09, 2018

Hard Reset

I removed all previous content. You see, in many ways I am no longer the same person who wrote those old posts, and I no longer wish to be associated with them. This is for the best, I think.

Whether or not I will use this blog regularly remains to be seen. I have some ideas I want to share, but I need to get my life back on track first.

So many things to fix, so little time...