Johnny5 Posted June 12, 2005 Author Posted June 12, 2005 if ij = a+bi+cj then multipliying by i on both sides means -j=ai-b+cij=ai-b+a+bi+cj thus c=-1' date=' a-b=0 and a+b=0 or a=b=0 so ij --j, but then i(1+j)=0 so we have zero divisors, which means it can't be a field, thus meaning it isn't that much like C. Introducing k removes this problem, though we lose commutativity so strictly we only have a division algebra not a field. All of these terms would pretty much have been meaningless to Hamilton, I imagine.[/quote'] I think you made a mistake up there. You seem to have lost a c? You start off with if ii=-1 & ij = a+bi+cj then iij=i(a+bi+cj) hence -j = ai-b+cij (see i think you lost that boldfaced c right there) And since the assumption is that ij = a+bi+cj it would follow that: -j = ai-b+cij = ai-b+c(a+bi+cj ) You say "thus c=-1" but i do not see how you drew that conclusion. If I assume that c=-1, then we have: -j = ai-b-ij = ai-b-(a+bi-j ) ai-ij = ai-a-bi+j -ij = -a-bi+j ij = a+ bi - j Which oddly enough is true, if c=-1. But how did you draw the following three conclusions? 1. c=-1 2. a=0 3. b=0 ? I just don't see it. Regards
matt grime Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 entirely possible - i make mistakes all the time. so -j=ai-b+c(a+bi+cj) is what it should read so ca-b=0, a+cb=0 c^2=-1 well, that's even easier then, since c^2=-1 has no solution in the reals.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now