Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2020 Sep 30;95(3):483–503. doi: 10.1007/s00010-020-00756-9

Gradual transitivity in orthogonality spaces of finite rank

Thomas Vetterlein 1,
PMCID: PMC8550102  PMID: 34720110

Abstract

An orthogonality space is a set together with a symmetric and irreflexive binary relation. Any linear space equipped with a reflexive and anisotropic inner product provides an example: the set of one-dimensional subspaces together with the usual orthogonality relation is an orthogonality space. We present simple conditions to characterise the orthogonality spaces that arise in this way from finite-dimensional Hermitian spaces. Moreover, we investigate the consequences of the hypothesis that an orthogonality space allows gradual transitions between any pair of its elements. More precisely, given elements e and f, we require a homomorphism from a divisible subgroup of the circle group to the automorphism group of the orthogonality space to exist such that one of the automorphisms maps e to f, and any of the automorphisms leaves the elements orthogonal to e and f fixed. We show that our hypothesis leads us to positive definite quadratic spaces. By adding a certain simplicity condition, we furthermore find that the field of scalars is Archimedean and hence a subfield of the reals.

Keywords: Orthogonality space, Hermitian space, Ordered field, Positive definite quadratic space

Introduction

An orthogonality space is a set endowed with a binary relation that is supposed to be symmetric and irreflexive. The notion was proposed in the 1960s by David Foulis and his collaborators [2, 28]. Their motivation may be seen as part of the efforts to characterise the basic model used in quantum physics: the Hilbert space. The strategy consists in reducing the structure of this model to the necessary minimum. Compared to numerous further approaches that have been proposed with a similar motivation [3, 4], we may say that Foulis’ concept tries to exhaust the limits of abstraction, focusing solely on the relation of orthogonality. The prototypical example of an orthogonality space is the projective Hilbert space together with the usual orthogonality relation. Just one aspect of physical modelling is this way taken into account—the distinguishability of observation results.

We have dealt with the problem of characterising complex Hilbert spaces as orthogonality spaces in our recent work [25, 26]. The idea was to make hypotheses on the existence of certain symmetries. In the infinite-dimensional case, just a few simple assumptions led to success [26], whereas in the finite-dimensional case, the procedure was considerably more involved [25].

In the present paper, we first of all point out a straightforward way of limiting the discussion to inner-product spaces. We deal here with the finite-dimensional case, that is, we assume all orthogonality spaces to have a finite rank. We introduce the notion of linearity and establish that any linear orthogonality space of a finite rank 4 arises from an (anisotropic) Hermitian space over some skew field.

On this basis, we are furthermore interested in finding conditions implying that the skew field is among the classical ones. However, to determine within our framework the characteristic properties of, say, the field of complex numbers is difficult and we are easily led to the choice of technical, physically poorly motivated hypotheses. Rather than tailoring conditions to the aim of characterising a particular field of scalars, we focus in this work on an aspect whose physical significance is not questionable: we elaborate on the principle of smooth transitions between states. A postulate referring to this aspect might actually be typical for any approach to interpret the quantum physical formalism; cf., e.g., [9]. A first attempt to apply the idea to orthogonality spaces is moreover contained in our note [27]. In the present work, we propose the following hypothesis. Let e and f be distinct elements of an irredundant orthogonality space. Then we suppose that an injective homomorphism from a subgroup of the abelian group of unit complex numbers to the group of automorphisms exists, the action being transitive on the closure of e and f and fixing elements orthogonal to e and f.

The complex Hilbert space does not give rise to an example of the orthogonality spaces considered here, but the real Hilbert space does. The natural means of visualising matters is an n-sphere, which nicely reflects the possibility of getting continuously from any point to any other one by means of a rotation, in a way that anything orthogonal to both is left at rest. As the main result of this contribution, we establish that any linear orthogonality space of finite rank that fulfils the aforementioned hypothesis regarding the existence of automorphisms arises from a positive definite quadratic space. We furthermore subject the orthogonality space to a simplicity condition, according to which there are no non-trivial quotients compatible with the automorphisms in question. We show that the field of scalars is then embeddable into the reals.

The paper is organised as follows. In Sect. 2, we recall the basic notions used in this work and we compile some basic facts on inner-product spaces and the orthogonality spaces arising from them. In Sect. 3, we introduce linear orthogonality spaces; we show that the two simple defining conditions imply that an orthogonality space arises from a Hermitian space over some skew field. In Sect. 4, we formulate the central hypothesis with which we are concerned in this paper, the condition that expresses, in the sense outlined above, the gradual transitivity of the space. We show that, as a consequence, the skew field is commutative, its involution is the identity, and it admits an order. The subsequent Sect. 5 is devoted to the group generated by those automorphisms that occur in our main postulate. In Sect. 6, we finally show that the exclusion of certain quotients of the orthogonal space implies that the ordered field actually embeds into R.

Orthogonality spaces

We investigate in this paper relational structures of the following kind.

Definition 2.1

An orthogonality space is a non-empty set X equipped with a symmetric, irreflexive binary relation , called the orthogonality relation.

We call nN the rank of (X,) if X contains n but not n+1 mutually orthogonal elements. If X contains n mutually orthogonal elements for any nN, then we say that X has infinite rank.

This definition was proposed by David Foulis; see, e.g., [2, 28]. The idea of an abstract orthogonality relation has been taken up by several further authors [1, 6, 10, 14, 20, 21], although definitions sometimes differ from the one that we use here. It should be noted that the notion of an orthogonality space is very general; in fact, orthogonality spaces are essentially the same as undirected graphs.

Orthogonality spaces naturally arise from inner-product spaces. We shall compile the necessary background material; for further information, we may refer, e.g., to [8, 18, 22].

By a -sfield, we mean a skew field (division ring) K together with an involutorial antiautomorphism :KK. We denote the centre of K by Z(K) and we let U(K)={εK:εε=1} be the set of unit elements of K.

Let H be a (left) linear space over the -sfield K. Then a Hermitian form on H is a map (·,·):H×HK such that, for any u,v,wH and α,βK, we have

(αu+βv,w)=α(u,w)+β(v,w),(w,αu+βv)=(w,u)α+(w,v)β,(u,v)=(v,u).

The form is called anisotropic if (u,u)=0 holds only if u=0.

By a Hermitian space, we mean a linear space H endowed with an anisotropic Hermitian form. If the -sfield K is commutative and the involution is the identity, then we refer to H as a quadratic space. We moreover recall that a field K is ordered if K is equipped with a linear order such that (i) αβ implies α+γβ+γ and (ii) α,β0 implies αβ0. If K can be made into an ordered field, K is called formally real. If K is an ordered field and we have that (u,u)>0 for any uH\{0}, then H is called positive definite.

As usual, we write uv for (u,v)=0, where u,vH. Applied to subsets of H, the relation is understood to hold elementwise. Moreover, we write [u1,,uk] for the subspace spanned by non-zero vectors u1,,ukH. For a subspace E of H, we write E=E\{0} and we define P(E)={[u]:uE}. That is, P(H) is the (base set of the) projective space associated with H.

We may now indicate our primary example of orthogonality spaces.

Example 2.2

Let H be a Hermitian space. Because the form is reflexive, [u][v] is equivalent to [v][u] for any u,vH, and because the form is anisotropic, [u][u] does not hold for any uH. In other words, the orthogonality relation on P(H) is symmetric and irreflexive and hence makes P(H) into an orthogonality space.

If H is finite-dimensional, the dimension of H coincides with the rank of (P(H),). If H is infinite-dimensional, (P(H),) has infinite rank.

We call an orthogonality space X irredundant if, for any e,fX, {e}={f} implies e=f. For example, for any Hermitian space H, (P(H),) is irredundant. For the reasons explained in the following remark, focusing on orthogonality spaces with this property is no serious restriction.

Remark 2.3

Let (X,) be an orthogonality space. If X is not irredundant, there are distinct elements that are, by means of the orthogonality relation, indistinguishable. Roughly speaking, X then arises from an irredundant space simply by multiplying some of its elements.

Indeed, for e,fX, define ef to hold if {e}={f}. Then is an equivalence relation. Moreover, ee and ff imply that ef is equivalent to ef. Thus the quotient set X/ can be made into an orthogonality space, where we have, for any e,fX, e/f/ if and only if ef. By construction, X/ is irredundant.

We conclude that, given an orthogonality space that is not irredundant, we can easily switch to an irredundant one whose structure can be considered as essentially the same.

Both orthogonality spaces and Hermitian spaces can be dealt with by lattice-theoretic means.

For a subset A of an orthogonality space (X,), we let

A={eX:eA},

where it is again understood that the orthogonality relation is applied to subsets of X elementwise. The map P(X)P(X),AA is a closure operator [5]. If A=A, we say that A is orthoclosed and we denote the set of all orthoclosed subsets of X by C(X,). We partially order C(X,) by set-theoretical inclusion and equip C(X,) with the operation . In this way, we are led to an ortholattice, from which (X,) can in certain cases be recovered.

Following Roddy [21], we call an orthogonality space point-closed if, for any eX, {e} is orthoclosed. Note that X is in this case irredundant. We recall moreover that a lattice with 0 is called atomistic if each element is the join of atoms.

Proposition 2.4

C(X,) is a complete ortholattice.

Moreover, ({{e}:eX},) is an orthogonality space and the map X{{e}:eX},e{e} is orthogonality-preserving. If (X,) is point-closed, then the map X({{e}:eX},),e{e} is an isomorphism between (X,) and the set of atoms of C(X,) endowed with the inherited orthogonality relation.

Proof

The collection of closed subsets of a closure space forms a complete lattice and this fact applies to C(X,). Moreover, A is clearly a complement of an AC(X,) and :C(X,)C(X,) is order-reversing as well as involutive. This shows the first part.

For any e,fX, we have {e}{f} if and only if ef. It follows that ({{e}:eX},) is an orthogonality space and the assignment e{e} is orthogonality-preserving. Moreover, if {e}={e} holds for any eX, then C(X,) is atomistic, the atoms being the singleton subsets. The second part follows as well.

An automorphism of (X,) is a bijection φ of X such that, for any x,yX, xy if and only if φ(x)φ(y). We denote the automorphism group of (X,) by Aut(X,). Moreover, the group of automorphisms of the ortholattice C(X,) is denoted by Aut(C(X,)). The correspondence between an orthogonality space (X,) and its associated ortholattice C(X,) extends as follows to automorphisms.

Proposition 2.5

Let φ be an automorphism of the orthogonality space (X,). Then

φ¯:C(X,)C(X,),A{φ(e):eA} 1

is an automorphism of the ortholattice C(X,).

If (X,) is point-closed, then Aut(X,)Aut(C(X,)),φφ¯ is an isomorphism.

Proof

The first part is clear. If the singleton subsets are orthoclosed, then C(X,) is atomistic and consequently, every automorphism is induced by a unique orthogonality-preserving permutation of the atoms. The second part follows as well.

We now turn to the correspondence between Hermitian spaces and ortholattices; see, e.g., [15, Section 34].

For a subset E of a Hermitian space H, we define E={uH:uE}. Let H be finite-dimensional. Then EH is a subspace of H if and only if E=E. We partially order the set L(H) of subspaces of H w.r.t. the set-theoretic inclusion and we endow L(H) with the complementation function . Then L(H) is a complete ortholattice.

We call an ortholattice irreducible if it is not isomorphic to the direct product of two non-trivial ortholattices. Here, an ortholattice is considered trivial if it consists of a single element.

Theorem 2.6

Let H be a Hermitian space of finite dimension m. Then L(H) is an irreducible, atomistic, modular ortholattice of length m.

Conversely, let L be an irreducible, atomistic, modular ortholattice of finite length m4. Then there is a -sfield K and an m-dimensional Hermitian space H over K such that L is isomorphic to L(H).

A linear operator U:HH of a Hermitian space H is called unitary if U is a linear isomorphism such that (U(x),U(y))=(x,y) for any x,yH. The group of unitary operators will be denoted by U(H) and its identity by I.

We denote the group of automorphisms of the ortholattice L(H) by Aut(L(H)). A description of Aut(L(H)) is the content of Piron’s version of Wigner’s Theorem [17, Theorem 3.28]; see also [16]. Note that the subspaces of H are in a natural one-to-one correspondence with the orthoclosed subsets of P(H); we may in fact identify the ortholattices L(H) and C(P(H),). Furthermore, by Proposition 2.5, we may identify the automorphisms of C(P(H),) with those of (P(H),). Based on these facts, we obtain the subsequent reformulation of Piron’s theorem, which in the case of a complex Hilbert space is actually a consequence of Uhlhorn’s Theorem [24]. We restrict here to a case in which automorphisms of (P(H),) are guaranteed to be induced by linear operators.

Theorem 2.7

Let H be a Hermitian space of finite dimension 3. For any unitary operator U, the map

φU:P(H)P(H),[x][U(x)] 2

is an automorphism of (P(H),). The map U(H)Aut(P(H),),UφU is a homomorphism, whose kernel is {εI:εZ(K)U(K)}.

Conversely, let φ be an automorphism of (P(H),) and assume that there is an at least two-dimensional subspace F of H such that φ([x])=[x] for any xF. Then there is a unique unitary operator U on H such that φ=φU and U|F is the identity.

For a unitary operator U of a Hermitian space H, φU will denote in the sequel the automorphism of (P(H),) induced by U according to (2).

The representation by Hermitian spaces

Our first aim is to identify finite-dimensional Hermitian spaces with special orthogonality spaces. In contrast to the procedure in [25], we do not deal already at this stage with symmetries. We rather derive the structure of a Hermitian space on the basis of two first-order conditions.

Throughout the remainder of this paper, (X,) will always be an irredundant orthogonality space of finite rank. We will call (X,) linear if the following two conditions are fulfilled:

(L1)

Let eX. Then for any fe there is a ge such that {e,g}={e,f}.

(L2)

Let eX. Then for any ge there is an fe,g such that {e,g}={e,f}.

Condition (L1) says that the collection of elements orthogonal to distinct elements e and f can be specified in such a way that f is replaced with an element orthogonal to e. (L1) can be seen as a version of orthomodularity; indeed, this property is among its consequences. But more is true; also atomisticity follows and thus (L1) can be regarded as the key property for the representability of X as a linear space.

Condition (L2) can be regarded as a statement complementary to (L1). Indeed, (L2) says that the collection of elements orthogonal to orthogonal elements e and g can be specified in such a way that g is replaced with a third element. We will actually need only the following immediate consequence of (L2): {e,g}, where eg, is never a two-element set. As we will see below, a closely related property of (X,) is its irreducibility.

Example 3.1

Let H be a finite-dimensional Hermitian space. Then (P(H),) is linear. To see that P(H) fulfils (L1), let x,yH. Putting z=y-(y,x)(x,x)-1x, we have zx and [x,y]=[x,z]. In particular then, {x,y}={x,z}. Also condition (L2) is immediate. Indeed, if x,yH such that xy, we have that [x,y]=[x,x+y]. In particular then, {x,y}={x,x+y}.

Lemma 3.2

Let (X,) fulfil (L1). Then (X,) is point-closed. In particular, C(X,) is atomistic, the atoms being the singletons {e}, eX.

Moreover, the assignment XC(X,),e{e} defines an isomorphism between (X,) and the set of atoms of C(X,) endowed with the inherited orthogonality relation.

Proof

Let eX and f{e}. Then {f}{e} and hence {e}{f}. Assume ef. Then there is, by (L1), a ge such that {e,g}={e,f}. It follows that g{e}={e,f}={e,g}, a contradiction. Hence f=e, and we conclude that {e}={e}.

The first part follows, the second part holds by Proposition 2.4.

We call a subset D of X orthogonal if D consists of pairwise orthogonal elements.

Lemma 3.3

Let (X,) fulfil (L1). Let DX be orthogonal and let eD. Then there is an fD such that (D{e})=(D{f}).

Proof

The assertion is trivial if D is empty; let us assume that D is non-empty. As we have assumed X to have finite rank, D is finite. Let D={d1,,dk}, where k1.

By (L1), there is an e1d1 such that {d1,e}={d1,e1}. Similarly, we see that there is, for i=2,,k, an eidi such that {di,ei-1}={di,ei}. We conclude

(D{e})={e}{d1}{dk}={d1}{e1}{d2}{dk}={d1}{d2}{e2}{dk}=={d1}{d2}{dk}{ek}=(D{ek}).

We observe that f=ek fulfils the requirement.

The following useful criterion for C(X,) to be orthomodular is due to Dacey [2]; see also [28, Theorem 35].

Lemma 3.4

C(X,) is orthomodular if and only if, for any AC(X,) and any maximal orthogonal subset D of A, we have A=D.

It follows that, by virtue of condition (L1), we may describe C(X,) as follows.

Lemma 3.5

Let (X,) fulfil (L1) and let m be the rank of X. Then C(X,) is an atomistic, modular ortholattice of length m.

Proof

By Proposition 2.4 and Lemma 3.2, C(X,) is an atomistic ortholattice. From Lemmas 3.3 and 3.4, it follows that C(X,) is orthomodular.

As we have assumed X to be of finite rank m, the top element X of C(X,) is the join of m mutually orthogonal atoms. It follows that C(X,) has length m.

We claim that C(X,) fulfils the covering property. Let AC(X,) and let eX be such that eA. By Lemma 3.4, there is an orthogonal set D such that A=D. By Lemma 3.3, there is an fD such that A{e}=(D{e})=(D{f})=A{f}. Note that {f} is an atom orthogonal to A. Hence it follows by the orthomodularity of C(X,) that A{e} covers A.

Finally, an atomistic ortholattice of finite length fulfilling the covering property is modular [15, Lemma 30.3].

We now turn to the consequences of condition (L2). In the presence of (L1), there are a couple of alternative formulations.

We call (X,) reducible if X is the disjoint union of non-empty sets A and B such that ef for any eA and fB, and otherwise irreducible.

Lemma 3.6

Let (X,) fulfil (L1). Then the following are equivalent:

  1. X fulfils (L2).

  2. For any orthogonal elements e,fX, {e,f} contains a third element.

  3. X is irreducible.

  4. C(X) is irreducible.

Proof

(1) (2): This is obvious.

(2) (1): Assume that (2) holds. Let e and g be orthogonal elements of X. By assumption, {e,g} contains a third element f. Then {f}{e}{g} and {e}{f}=. By Lemma 3.5, C(X) fulfils the exchange property, hence {e,f}={e}{f}={e}{g}={e,g} and we conclude {e,f}={e,g}. We have shown (L2).

(2) (3): Assume that X is reducible. Then X=AB, where A and B are disjoint non-empty sets such that ef for any eA and fB. Pick eA and fB and let g{e,f}. We have that either gA or gB. In the former case, gf and hence g{e,f}{f}=({e}{f}){f}={e}, that is, g=e. Similarly, in the latter case, we have g=f. We conclude that {e,f} contains two elements only.

(3) (4): Assume that C(X) is not irreducible. Then C(X) is the direct product of non-trivial ortholattices L1 and L2. The atoms of L1×L2 are of the form (p, 0) or (0, q), for an atom p of L1 or an atom q of L2, respectively. Furthermore, (a,0)(0,b) for any aL1 and bL2. We conclude that the set of atoms of C(X,) can be partitioned into two non-empty subsets such that any element of one set is orthogonal to any of the other one. In view of Lemma 3.2, we conclude that (X,) is reducible.

(4) (2): Assume that C(X) is irreducible. By [15, Theorem 13.6], below the join of any two atoms of C(X,) there is a third atom. In particular, for orthogonal elements e,fX, {e,f}={e}{f} contains a third element.

We summarise:

Theorem 3.7

Let (X,) be linear and of finite rank m. Then C(X,) is an irreducible, atomistic, modular ortholattice of length m.

We arrive at the main result of this section.

Theorem 3.8

Let (X,) be a linear orthogonality space of finite rank m4. Then there is a -sfield K and an m-dimensional Hermitian space H over K such that C(X,) is isomorphic to L(H). In particular, (X,) is then isomorphic to (P(H),).

Proof

By Theorems 3.7 and 2.6, there is an m-dimensional Hermitian space H such that C(X,) is isomorphic to L(H). Moreover, by Lemma 3.2, (X,) can be identified with the set of atoms of C(X,) endowed with the inherited orthogonality relation; and the same applies to (P(H),) and L(H).

The representation by quadratic spaces

Provided that the rank is finite and at least 4, we have seen that a linear orthogonality space arises from a Hermitian space over some -sfield. Our objective is to investigate the consequences of an additional condition. It will turn out that we can specify the -sfield considerably more precisely, namely, as a (commutative) formally real field.

We shall now make our idea precise to which we refer as the gradual transitivity of the orthogonality space. Given distinct elements e and f, we will require a divisible group of automorphisms to exist such that the group orbit of e is exactly {e,f} and {e,f} is kept pointwise fixed.

It seems natural to assume that the group is, at least locally, linearly parametrisable. By the following lemma, the automorphism that maps e to some fe actually interchanges e and f. Accordingly, we will postulate that the group is cyclically ordered.

Lemma 4.1

Let (X,) be linear and of rank 4. Let e,fX be such that ef. Let φ be an automorphism of X such that φ(e)=f and φ(d)=d for any de,f. Then φ(f)=e.

Proof

In accordance with Theorem 3.8, let H be the Hermitian space such that we can identify (X,) with (P(H),). Let u,vH be such that e=[u] and f=[v]. By Theorem 2.7, there is a unitary operator U inducing φ and being the identity on {u,v}. Then U(u)[v] and U(w)=w for any w[u,v]. Hence U(v)[u], that is, φ(f)=e.

In what follows, we write R/2πZ for the additive group of reals modulo {2kπ:kZ}, which can be identified with the circle group, that is, with the multiplicative group of complex numbers of modulus 1. Moreover, let G be a group of bijections of some set W, and let SW. Then we say that G acts on S transitively if S is invariant under G and the action of G restricted to S is transitive. Moreover, we say that G acts on S trivially if, for all gG, g is the identity on S.

We call an orthoclosed subset of the form {e,f}, where e and f are distinct elements of X, a line. We define the following condition on (X,).

(R1)
For any line LX, there is a divisible subgroup C of R/2πZ and an injective homomorphism κ:CAut(X,),tκt such that,
(α)
the group {κt:tC} acts on L transitively;
(β)
the group {κt:tC} acts on L trivially.

Our discussion will focus to a large extent on the symmetries of (X,) that are described in condition (R1). We will use the following terminology. For a line L, let κ:CAut(X,) be as specified in condition (R1). Then we call an automorphism κt, tC, a basic circulation in L and we call the subgroup {κt:tC} of Aut(X,) a basic circulation group of L. Note that, by the injectivity requirement in condition (R1), this group is isomorphic to C.

Moreover, we denote by Circ(X,) the subgroup of Aut(X,) that is generated by all basic circulations. The automorphisms belonging to Circ(X,) are called circulations and Circ(X,) itself is the circulation group.

Example 4.2

Let Rn, for a finite n1, be endowed with the usual Euclidean inner product. Then (P(Rn),) is a linear orthogonality space fulfilling (R1). Indeed, let uv be an orthonormal basis of a 2-dimensional subspace of Rn. Let C=R/2πZ and let κt, tC, be the rotation in the (oriented) u-v-plane by the angle eit and the identity on [u,v]. Then conditions (α) and (β) are obviously fulfilled.

For the general case, the intended effect of condition (R1) is described in the following lemma. For φAut(X,) and n1, we let φn=φφ (n factors).

Lemma 4.3

Let (X,) be of rank 4, linear, and fulfilling (R1). Let e and f be distinct elements of X. Then for each n1 there is an automorphism φ of (X,) such that φn(e)=f and φ(d)=d for any de,f. In the case when e and f are orthogonal, we have in addition that φn(f)=e.

Proof

By (R1), applied to {e,f}, there is a divisible subgroup C of Aut(X,) that acts transitively on {e,f} and is the identity on {e,f}. In particular, there is a ψC such that ψ(e)=f and, by the divisibility of C, there is for any n1 a φC such that φn=ψ. The first part is clear; the additional assertion follows from Lemma 4.1.

Our aim is to investigate the consequences of condition (R1) for a linear orthogonality space. We first mention that (L2), as part of the conditions of linearity, becomes redundant.

Lemma 4.4

Let (X,) fulfil (L1) and (R1). Then X fulfils (L2), that is, X is linear.

Proof

Let e,fX be orthogonal. We will show that {e,f} contains a third element. The assertion will then follow from Lemma 3.6.

Assume to the contrary that {e,f} is a two-element set. Let {κt:tC} be a basic circulation group of {e,f}. As the group acts transitively on {e,f}, there is a tC\{0} such that κt(e)=f. But {e,f} is invariant also under κt2 and we have κt22=κt, an impossible situation.

The transitivity of a linear orthogonality space, which by Lemma 4.3 is a consequence of condition (R1), allows us to subject the representing Hermitian space to an additional useful condition.

Lemma 4.5

Let (X,) be linear, of rank 4, and fulfilling (R1). Then there is a Hermitian space H such that (X,) is isomorphic to (P(H),) and such that each one-dimensional subspace contains a unit vector.

Proof

By Theorem 3.8, there is a Hermitian space H such that (X,) is isomorphic to (P(H),).

Let uH. We can define a new Hermitian form on H inducing the same orthogonality relation and such that u becomes a unit vector; see, e.g., [13]. By Lemma 4.3 and Theorem 2.7, there is for any vH a unitary operator such that U(u)[v]. The assertion follows.

For the rest of this section, let H be a Hermitian space over the -sfield K such that H is of finite dimension 4, each one-dimensional subspace contains a unit vector, and (P(H),) fulfils (R1). Our aim is to be as specific as possible about the -sfield K.

Lemma 4.6

Let T be a 2-dimensional subspace of H and let {κt:tC} be a basic circulation group of P(T). Then, for each tC, there is a uniquely determined unitary operator Ut inducing κt and being the identity on T. Moreover, CU(H),tUt is an injective homomorphism.

Proof

By Theorem 2.7, κt is, for each tR, induced by a unique unitary operator Ut such that Ut|T is the identity. In particular, κ0 is the identity on P(H), hence U0 must be the identity on H. Furthermore, for any s,tC, UsUt induces κs+t=κsκt and is the identity on T. The same applies to Us+t and it follows that Us+t=UsUt. Finally, the injectivity assertion follows from the fact that, according to (R1), the assignment tκt is already injective.

Lemma 4.7

K is commutative and the involution is the identity. In particular, H is a quadratic space.

Proof

Let T be a two-dimensional subspace of H. Let {κt:tC} be a basic circulation group of P(T) and, in accordance with Lemma 4.6, let the unitary operator Ut, for each tC, induce κt.

We will identify the operators Ut, tC, with their restriction to T and represent them, w.r.t. a fixed orthonormal basis b1,b2 of T, by 2×2-matrices. Let tC. Then Ut=αγβδ, where αα+ββ=γγ+δδ=1 and αγ+βδ=0. As κ(C) acts transitively on P(T), there is a pC such that Up([b1])=[b2] and consequently also Up([b2])=[b1]. Hence Up=0ε1ε20 for some ε1,ε2U(K).

Because

ε2γε1αε2δε1β=αγβδ·0ε1ε20=UtUp=Ut+p=UpUt=0ε1ε20·αγβδ=βε1δε1αε2γε2,

we have

Ut=αε1βε2βε1αε1=αε2βε1βε2αε2. 3

We next claim that, for any ξK, there is a tC such that ξ=β-1α, where αβ is the first column vector of Ut. Indeed, by the transitivity of κ(C), there is a tC such that Ut=αγβδ maps [e1] to [ξe1+e2]. Then β0 and [β-1α1]=[αβ]=[U(e1)]=[ξ1], thus the assertion follows.

The orthogonality of the column vectors of the first matrix in (3) implies αε2βε1+βε1αε1=0 and hence (β-1α)=-ε1β-1αε2, provided that β0. By the previous remark, we conclude ξ=-ε1ξε2 for any ξK. From the case ξ=1 we see that ε2=-ε1. Let ε=ε2. Then εU(K) is such that

ξ=εξεfor anyξK, 4

and we conclude that for each tC there are α,βK such that

Ut=α-ββα. 5

Let now sC be such that Us maps [e1] to [e1+e2]. Then there is a γK such that Us=γ-γγγ. Note that 2γγ=1; in particular, K does not have characteristic 2. Moreover, given any Ut according to (5), we have

α~-β~β~α~=γ-γγγ·α-ββα=UsUt=UtUs=α-ββα·γ-γγγ.

This means

αγ-βγ=γα-γβ=α~,αγ+βγ=γβ+γα=β~,γα+γβ=αγ+βγ=β~,γα-γβ=αγ-βγ=α~.

Consequently, 2αγ=2γα=α~+β~ and 2βγ=2γβ=β~-α~. Hence γ commutes with α and, because 2γ=γ-1, also with β. We conclude that γZ(K). By (4), it follows that γ=γ. Furthermore, we have (α+β+α-β)γ=α~+β~=2αγ and (β-α+α+β)γ=β~-α~=2βγ. It follows that α-β=α-β and α+β=α+β, that is, α=α and β=β.

Since α=α=εαε, we have αε=εα, and similarly we see that βε=εβ. Hence (β-1α)=εβ-1αε=β-1α, provided that β0. We conclude ξ=ξ for any ξK. That is, the involution is the identity, and the -sfield is commutative.

We continue by showing that K can be endowed with an ordering to the effect that the quadratic space H becomes positive definite. We refer to [19, §1] for further information on the topic of fields and orderings.

Lemma 4.8

K is a formally real field. W.r.t. any order on K, the hermitian form on H is positive definite.

Proof

Let

SK={α12++αk2:α1,,αkK,k0}

and note that, if K admits an order, then all elements of SK will be positive. We shall show that SK-SK={0}; it then follows that SK can be extended to a positive cone determining an order that makes K into an ordered field; see, e.g., [19, Theorem (1.8)].

Assume to the contrary that SK-SK contains a non-zero element. Then there are α1,,αkK\{0}, k1, such that α12++αk2=0.

It follows that that there are non-zero vectors v1,,vk such that (vi,vi)=α12++αi2, i=1,,k. Indeed, let u be any unit vector. Then v1=α1u is non-zero and of length α12. Moreover, let 1i<k and assume that vi is non-zero and of length α12++αi2. Let u be a unit vector orthogonal to vi. Then vi+1=vi+αi+1u is again non-zero and has length α12++αi+12.

We conclude that, in particular, there is a non-zero vector vk that has length α12++αk2=0. But this contradicts the anisotropy of the form.

To show also the second assertion, let us fix an order of K and let vH. Then there is a unit vector uH and an αK such that v=αu. It follows (v,v)=(αu,αu)=α2>0.

We summarise what we have shown.

Theorem 4.9

Let (X,) be a linear orthogonality space of finite rank 4 that fulfils (R1). Then there is an ordered field K and a positive-definite quadratic space H over K, possessing unit vectors in each one-dimensional subspace, such that (X,) is isomorphic to (P(H),).

We conclude the section with a comment on the formulation of our condition (R1).

Remark 4.10

For the proof of Theorem 4.9, we have not made use of the divisibility condition in (R1), which hence could be dropped. So far, only Lemma 4.4, which we did not use in the sequel, depended on divisibility.

We think, however, that it is natural to include this property as it well reflects the idea of gradual transitions between pairs of elements of an orthogonality space. Furthermore, omitting divisibility would be especially interesting if C could possibly be finite. But this is not the case. Indeed, the field of scalars K of the representing linear space has characteristic 0 and hence each two-dimensional subspace contains infinitely many one-dimensional subspaces. Hence C is necessarily infinite and thus anyhow “dense” in R/2πZ.

The circulation group

We have established that linear orthogonality spaces of rank at least 4 arise from positive definite quadratic spaces in case condition (R1) is fulfilled. We insert a short discussion of the symmetries that are required to exist as part of (R1).

In this section, H will be a positive definite quadratic space over an ordered field K such that H is of finite dimension 4, each one-dimensional subspace contains a unit vector, and (P(H),) fulfils (R1). For further information on quadratic spaces, we may refer, e.g., to [22].

In accordance with the common practice, we call the unitary operators of H from now on orthogonal and we denote the group of orthogonal operators by O(H). Furthermore, with any endomorphism A of H we may associate its determinant detA. For an orthogonal operator U, we have detU{1,-1} and we call U a rotation if detU=1. The group of rotations is denoted by SO(H). For a two-dimensional subspace T of H, we call USO(H) a basic rotation in T if U|T is the identity, and we denote the group of basic rotations in T by SO(T,H).

As should be expected, the basic circulations correspond to the basic rotations.

Proposition 5.1

Let T be a two-dimensional subspace of H and let C be a basic circulation group of P(T). Then C={φU:USO(T,H)} and the map SO(T,H)C,UφU is an isomorphism.

In particular, there is a unique basic circulation group of P(T). Moreover, any two basic circulation groups are isomorphic.

Proof

In accordance with Lemma 4.6, let {Ut:tC} be the subgroup of O(H) such that C={φUt:tC}. We have to show that {Ut:tC} coincides with SO(T,H).

As for any tC we have Ut=(Ut2)2, it is clear that UtSO(T,H). Conversely, let USO(T,H). We again fix an orthonormal basis of T and identify the operators in question with the matrix representation of their restriction to T. Then we have U=α-ββα for some α,βK such that α2+β2=1. As C acts transitively on P(T), there is a tC such that Ut(10)[αβ]. This means that Ut equals either

α-ββαor-αβ-β-α.

Furthermore, we have U0=1001 and from Uπ2=U0 it follows that Uπ=U0 or Uπ=-U0. Since by the injectivity requirement in (R1) the first possibility cannot apply, we have Uπ=-U0=-100-1. Hence either U=Ut or U=UtUπ=Ut+π. The assertion follows and we conclude that C={φU:USO(T,H)}.

By Lemma 4.6, we thus have the isomorphism CSO(T,H),tUt. Moreover, CC,tκt is an isomorphism, and κt=φUt for any tC. We conclude that SO(T,H)C,UφU is an isomorphism.

The first part as well as the uniqueness assertion are shown. Finally, any two groups SO(T,H) and SO(T,H), where T and T are 2-dimensional subspaces of H, are isomorphic, hence the final assertion follows as well.

Given a line L in (P(H),), we can speak, in view of Proposition 5.1, of the basic circulation group of L. We should note however that, in contrast to the statements on uniqueness and isomorphy in Proposition 5.1, the homomorphism from a subgroup C of R/2πZ to a basic circulation group is not uniquely determined. Indeed, the group C may possess an abundance of automorphisms, as is the case, e.g., for C=R/2πZ.

In Proposition 5.1, we have characterised the basic circulation groups as subgroups of SO(H). We may do so also with respect to the orthogonality space itself.

Lemma 5.2

Let LP(H) be a line. Then the basic circulation group of L consists of all automorphisms φ of (P(H),) such that φ|L is the identity and φ|L is either the identity or does not have any fixed point.

Proof

Let C be the basic circulation group of L, and let T be the 2-dimensional subspace of H such that L=P(T).

Let φC. By Proposition 5.1, φ is induced by some USO(T,H). Then U|T is the identity and, w.r.t. an orthonormal basis of T, we have U|T=α-ββα, where α,βK are such that α2+β2=1. If β=0, then α=1 or α=-1 and hence U|T induces the identity on P(T). If β0, U|T does not possess any eigenvector and hence U|T induces on P(T) a map without fixed points.

Conversely, let φ be an automorphism of P(H) such that φ|L is the identity and φ|L is either the identity or does not have any fixed point. By Theorem 2.7, φ is induced by an orthogonal operator U such that U|T is the identity. W.r.t. an orthonormal basis of T, U|T is of the form α-ββα or αββ-α, where α2+β2=1. In the latter case, U|T has the distinct eigenvalues 1 and -1, hence φ|L has exactly two fixed points. We conclude that U|T is of the form of the first matrix and hence USO(T,H). By Proposition 5.1, φ=φU belongs to C.

It seems finally natural to ask how Circ(P(H),) is related to SO(H). By Proposition 5.1, we know that Circ(P(H),){φU:USO(H)}: any circulation is induced by a rotation. Under an additional assumption, we can make a more precise statement. We call a field Pythagorean if any sum of two squares is itself a square.

In what follows, PSO(H)=SO(H)/({I,-I}SO(H)) is the projective special orthogonal group of H.

Proposition 5.3

Assume that K is Pythagorean. Then we have Circ(P(H),)={φU:USO(H)}. Furthermore, the map SO(H)Circ(P(H),),UφU is a surjective homomorphism. Its kernel is {I,-I}SO(H), hence it induces an isomorphism between PSO(H) and Circ(P(H),).

Proof

By Theorem 2.7, SO(H)Aut(P(H),),UφU is a homomorphism, whose kernel is {I,-I}SO(H). By Proposition 5.1, under this homomorphism the images of the subgroups SO(T,H) of SO(H), where T are the 2-dimensional subspaces, are exactly the basic circulation groups.

We shall show that SO(H) is generated by the basic rotations. Since Circ(P(H),) is by definition generated by the basic circulations, the assertions will then follow.

Note first that, for any elements γ,δK that are not both 0, there are α,β,ϱK such that α2+β2=1, ϱ0, and

α-ββαγδ=ϱ0.

Indeed, let ϱ2=γ2+δ2, α=γϱ, and β=-δϱ.

We recall that a basic rotation in the plane spanned by two coordinates axes is called a Givens rotation; see, e.g., [23]. We conclude that any matrix in Kn×n can be transformed by left multiplication with Givens rotations into row echelon form. When doing so with a matrix representing a rotation, the resulting matrix must be diagonal, an even number of the diagonal entries being -1 and the remaining ones being 1. We conclude that each rotation is the product of basic rotations in 2-dimensional subspaces spanned by the elements of any given basis.

Embedding into Rn

Our final aim is to present a condition with the effect that our orthogonality space arises from a quadratic space over an Archimedean field. In order to exclude the existence of non-zero infinitesimal elements, we shall require that our orthogonality space is, in a certain sense, simple.

An equivalence relation θ on an orthogonality space (X,) is called a congruence if any two orthogonal elements belong to distinct θ-classes. Obviously, X possesses at least one congruence, the identity relation, which we call trivial. For a congruence θ on X, we can make X/θ into an orthogonality space, called the quotient orthogonality space: for e,fX, we let e/θf/θ if there are eθe and fθf such that ef.

Given an automorphism φ of (X,), we call a congruence θ φ -invariant if, for any e,fX, we have that eθf is equivalent to φ(e)θφ(f). If θ is φ-invariant for every member φ of a subgroup G of Aut(X,), we say that θ is G -invariant.

We consider the following condition on (X,):

(R2)

(X,) does not possess a non-trivial Circ(X,)-invariant congruence.

Example 6.1

Let again Rn, n4, be endowed with the usual inner product. By Proposition 5.3, Circ(P(Rn),) consists exactly of those automorphisms of (P(Rn),) that are induced by some USO(n). Moreover, SO(n) acts primitively on P(Rn), that is, no non-trivial partition of P(Rn) is invariant under SO(n). This means that no non-trivial partition of P(Rn) is invariant under Circ(P(Rn)). In particular, the only Circ(P(Rn))-invariant congruence is the identity relation. We conclude that (P(Rn),) fulfils (R2).

Let H be a positive definite quadratic space over the ordered field K as in Section 5, that is, we assume that H is of finite dimension 4, each one-dimensional subspace of H contains a unit vector, and (P(H),) fulfils (R1).

Following Holland [12], we define

IK={αK:α<1nfor allnN\{0}},MK={αK:1n<α<nfor somenN\{0}}

to be the sets of infinitesimal and medial elements of K, respectively. Then IK is an additive subgroup of K closed under multiplication; MK is a multiplicative subgroup of K; and we have IK·MK=IK and MK+IK=MK.

We call K Archimedean if the only infinitesimal element is 0. We have that K is Archimedean exactly if all non-zero elements are medial. For the following result, see, e.g., [7, 11].

Theorem 6.2

An Archimedean ordered field is isomorphic to a subfield of the ordered field R.

We shall show that condition (R2) implies K to be Archimedean. Following again [12], we define

IH={xH:(x,x)IK},MH={xH:(x,x)MK}

to be the set of infinitesimal and medial vectors, respectively. Then IH is a subgroup of H and we have IK·MH=MK·IH=IH, IK·IHIH, and MK·MH=MH. Furthermore, the Schwarz inequality implies that (x,y)IK if x,yIHMH and at least one of x and y is infinitesimal.

Furthermore, for [x],[y]P(H), we put [x][y] if there are medial vectors x[x] and y[y] such that x-yIH.

Lemma 6.3

Assume that (P(H),) fulfils (R2). Then K is a subfield of the ordered field R.

Proof

We first show that is an equivalence relation on P(H). Clearly, is reflexive and symmetric. Let x,y,zH be such that [x][y] and [y][z]. Then there are x[x]MH, y,y[y]MH, and z[z]MH such that x-y,y-zIH. Let αK be such that y=αy. Then α2=(y,y)-1(y,y)MK and consequently αMK. Hence αz is a medial vector as well, and x-αz=(x-y)+(y-αz)=(x-y)+α(y-z)IH.

We claim that is a congruence. Let x,yH be such that [x][y]. Then there are x[x]MH and y[y]MH such that y-xIH. It follows (x,y)=(x,x+(y-x))=(x,x)+(x,y-x). Since (x,y-x)IK, we have (x,y)MK. We have shown that [x]⊥̸[y], because otherwise (x,y)=0.

Let φCirc(P(H),). Then φ is induced by an orthogonal operator U. For any x,yH, we have that [x][y] implies [U(x)][U(y)]. Indeed, if x[x]MH and y[y]MH are such that x-yIH, then also U(x)[U(x)]MH and U(y)[U(y)]MH are such that U(x)-U(y)=U(x-y)IH. We conclude that is φ-invariant.

We have thus shown that is a Circ(P(H),)-invariant congruence on P(H). By condition (R2), is trivial.

Assume finally that K contains the non-zero infinitesimal element δ. For orthogonal unit vectors u and v, we then have [u][u+δv], because u and u+δv are medial vectors whose difference is infinitesimal. It follows that is non-trivial, a contradiction. We conclude that K must be Archimedean.

Again, we summarise our results.

Theorem 6.4

Let (X,) be a linear orthogonality space of finite rank 4 that fulfils (R1) and (R2). Then there is an ordered subfield K of R and a positive-definite quadratic space H over K, possessing unit vectors in each one-dimensional subspace, such that (X,) is isomorphic to (P(H),).

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): project I 4579-N and the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR): project 20-09869L. He thanks for the many fruitful discussions on this paper, in particular with Mark Pankov and Jan Paseka. Moreover, he would like to thank the anonymous referees whose helpful comments led to an improvement of the paper.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Austrian Science Fund (FWF).

Footnotes

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Brunet O. Orthogonality and dimensionality. Axioms. 2013;2:477–489. doi: 10.3390/axioms2040477. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dacey JR. Orthomodular Spaces. Amherst: University of Massachusetts; 1968. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Engesser K, Gabbay DM, Lehmann D, editors. Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structure. Quantum Structures. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Engesser K, Gabbay DM, Lehmann D, editors. Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures. Quantum Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Erné M. Closure. In: Mynard F, Pearl E, editors. “Beyond Topology”, Contemporary Mathematics. Providence: American Mathematical Society; 2009. pp. 163–238. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Finch PD. Orthogonality relations and orthomodularity. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 1970;2:125–128. doi: 10.1017/S0004972700041678. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Fuchs L. Partially Ordered Algebraic Systems. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1963. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gross H. Quadratic Forms in Infinite Dimensional Vector Spaces. Boston: Birkhäuser; 1979. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hardy, L.: Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms. arXiv:quant-ph/0101012
  • 10.Hedlíková J, Pulmannová S. Orthogonality spaces and atomistic orthocomplemented lattices. Czechoslov. Math. J. 1991;41:8–23. doi: 10.21136/CMJ.1991.102428. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Holland SS. Orderings and square roots in -fields. J. Algebra. 1977;46:207–219. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Holland SS. -valuations and ordered -fields. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 1980;262:219–243. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Holland SS. Orthomodularity in infinite dimensions; a theorem of M. Solèr, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. New Ser. 1995;32:205–234. doi: 10.1090/S0273-0979-1995-00593-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.MacLaren MD. Atomic orthocomplemented lattices. Pac. J. Math. 1964;14:597–612. doi: 10.2140/pjm.1964.14.597. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Maeda F, Maeda S. Theory of Symmetric Lattices. Berlin: Springer; 1970. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mayet R. Some characterizations of the underlying division ring of a Hilbert lattice by automorphisms. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1998;37:109–114. doi: 10.1023/A:1026669407606. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Piron C. Foundations of Quantum Physics. Reading: W.A. Benjamin; 1976. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Piziak R. Orthomodular lattices and quadratic spaces: a survey. Rocky Mt. J. Math. 1991;21:951–992. doi: 10.1216/rmjm/1181072924. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Prestel A. Lectures on Formally Real Fields. Berlin: Springer; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pulmannová, S.: Representations of quantum logics and transition probability spaces. In: Bitsakis, E.I., Nicolaidis, E. (eds.) The Concept of Probability. Proceedings of the Delphi Conference (Delphi 1987), Springer, pp. 51–59 (1989)
  • 21.Roddy MS. An orthomodular lattice. Algebra Univers. 1992;29:564–579. doi: 10.1007/BF01190782. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Scharlau W. Quadratic and Hermitian Forms. Berlin: Springer; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sewell G. Computational Methods for Linear Algebra, 3rd edn. London: Wiley; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Uhlhorn U. Representation of symmetry transformations in quantum mechanics. Ark. Fys. 1963;23:307–340. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vetterlein Th. Orthogonality spaces of finite rank and the complex Hilbert spaces. Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 2019;16:1950080. doi: 10.1142/S0219887819500804. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vetterlein T. Orthogonality spaces arising from infinite-dimensional complex Hilbert spaces. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10773-019-04230-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vetterlein, T.: Orthogonality spaces allowing gradual transitions. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of the European Society of Fuzzy Logic and Technology (Prague 2019), pp. 192–197. Atlantis Press (2019)
  • 28.Wilce, A.: Test spaces. In: 4, pp. 443–549

Articles from Aequationes Mathematicae are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES