18.07.2014 Views

John Stillwell - Naive Lie Theory.pdf - Index of

John Stillwell - Naive Lie Theory.pdf - Index of

John Stillwell - Naive Lie Theory.pdf - Index of

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

7.8 Discussion 159<br />

Indeed, von Neumann’s purpose in pursuing elementary constructions<br />

in <strong>Lie</strong> theory was to explain why continuity apparently implies differentiability<br />

for groups, a question raised by Hilbert in 1900 that became known as<br />

Hilbert’s fifth problem. It would take us too far afield to explain Hilbert’s<br />

fifth problem more precisely than we have already done in Section 7.3,<br />

other than to say that von Neumann showed that the answer is yes for compact<br />

groups, and that Gleason, Montgomery, and Zippin showed in 1952<br />

that the answer is yes for all groups.<br />

As mentioned in Section 4.7, Hamilton made the first extension <strong>of</strong> the<br />

exponential function to a noncommutative domain by defining it for quaternions<br />

in 1843. He observed almost immediately that it maps the pure imaginary<br />

quaternions onto the unit quaternions, and that e q+q′ = e q e q′ when<br />

qq ′ = q ′ q. He took the idea further in his Elements <strong>of</strong> Quaternions <strong>of</strong><br />

1866, realizing that e q+q′ is not usually equal to e q e q′ , because <strong>of</strong> the noncommutative<br />

quaternion product. On p. 425 <strong>of</strong> Volume I he actually finds<br />

the second-order approximation to the Campbell–Baker–Hausdorff series:<br />

e q+q′ − e q e q′ = qq′ − q ′ q<br />

2<br />

+ terms <strong>of</strong> third and higher dimensions.<br />

The early pro<strong>of</strong>s (or attempted pro<strong>of</strong>s) <strong>of</strong> the general Campbell–Baker–<br />

Hausdorff theorem around 1900 were extremely lengthy—around 20 pages.<br />

The situation did not improve when Bourbaki developed a more conceptual<br />

approach to the theorem in the 1960s. See for example Serre [1965], or<br />

Section 4 or Bourbaki [1972], Chapter II. Bourbaki believes that the proper<br />

setting for the theorem is in the framework <strong>of</strong> free magmas, free algebras,<br />

free groups, and free <strong>Lie</strong> algebras, all <strong>of</strong> which takes longer to explain<br />

than the pro<strong>of</strong>s by Campbell, Baker, and Hausdorff. It seems to me that<br />

these pro<strong>of</strong>s are totally outclassed by the Eichler pro<strong>of</strong> I have used in this<br />

chapter, which assumes only that the variables A, B, C have an associative<br />

product, and uses only calculations that a high-school student can follow.<br />

Martin Eichler (1912–1992) was a German mathematician (later living<br />

in Switzerland) who worked mainly in number theory and related parts <strong>of</strong><br />

algebra and analysis. A famous saying, attributed to him, is that there are<br />

five fundamental operations <strong>of</strong> arithmetic: addition, subtraction, multiplication,<br />

division, and modular forms. Some <strong>of</strong> his work involves orthogonal<br />

groups, but nevertheless his 1968 paper on the Campbell–Baker–Hausdorff<br />

theorem seems to come out <strong>of</strong> the blue. Perhaps this is a case in which an<br />

outsider saw the essence <strong>of</strong> a theorem more clearly than the experts.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!