Physical dimensions in math
$begingroup$
I was interested in the idea of of formalising the idea of physical dimensions with an algebraic structure containing "all physical quantities of any type". You'd need:
- Scalar multiplication over the reals (so you can get "2 kg" from "2 * kg")
- Addition within the same dimension (so you can have "kg + kg = 2 kg")
- Multiplication of any two elements (so you can have "J = N m = N * m")
- Inverses (so you can have "m/s = m * s^(-1)")
A tensor algebra could formalise this system -- but then you'd get all sorts of objects like "1 kg + 1 m", which make no sense.
A group would make sense -- with sub-groups like "mass measurements", "time measurements", "real numbers", "units" -- but then you can't have zero. Plus, I'd like to have some notion of units or "unit vectors"/"unit tensors".
What's a good way to formalise this?
abstract-algebra group-theory physics tensor-products dimensional-analysis
asked Nov 29 '18 at 17:44
Abhimanyu Pallavi SudhirAbhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
894619
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was interested in the idea of of formalising the idea of physical dimensions with an algebraic structure containing "all physical quantities of any type". You'd need:
- Scalar multiplication over the reals (so you can get "2 kg" from "2 * kg")
- Addition within the same dimension (so you can have "kg + kg = 2 kg")
- Multiplication of any two elements (so you can have "J = N m = N * m")
- Inverses (so you can have "m/s = m * s^(-1)")
A tensor algebra could formalise this system -- but then you'd get all sorts of objects like "1 kg + 1 m", which make no sense.
A group would make sense -- with sub-groups like "mass measurements", "time measurements", "real numbers", "units" -- but then you can't have zero. Plus, I'd like to have some notion of units or "unit vectors"/"unit tensors".
What's a good way to formalise this?
abstract-algebra group-theory physics tensor-products dimensional-analysis
asked Nov 29 '18 at 17:44
Abhimanyu Pallavi SudhirAbhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
894619
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Also consider that some physical measurements are unitless.
$endgroup$
– David K
Nov 29 '18 at 18:20
2
$begingroup$
You might be interested in the "mathematical properties" section of the Wikipedia article on dimensional analysis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
$endgroup$
– awkward
Nov 29 '18 at 19:55
$begingroup$
I would suggest a bundle of Abelian groups over the rational vector space of dimensions mentioned in the above wikipedia article: there's an assigned Abelian group to each dimension.
$endgroup$
– Berci
Nov 29 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was interested in the idea of of formalising the idea of physical dimensions with an algebraic structure containing "all physical quantities of any type". You'd need:
- Scalar multiplication over the reals (so you can get "2 kg" from "2 * kg")
- Addition within the same dimension (so you can have "kg + kg = 2 kg")
- Multiplication of any two elements (so you can have "J = N m = N * m")
- Inverses (so you can have "m/s = m * s^(-1)")
A tensor algebra could formalise this system -- but then you'd get all sorts of objects like "1 kg + 1 m", which make no sense.
A group would make sense -- with sub-groups like "mass measurements", "time measurements", "real numbers", "units" -- but then you can't have zero. Plus, I'd like to have some notion of units or "unit vectors"/"unit tensors".
What's a good way to formalise this?
abstract-algebra group-theory physics tensor-products dimensional-analysis
asked Nov 29 '18 at 17:44
Abhimanyu Pallavi SudhirAbhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
894619
$endgroup$
I was interested in the idea of of formalising the idea of physical dimensions with an algebraic structure containing "all physical quantities of any type". You'd need:
- Scalar multiplication over the reals (so you can get "2 kg" from "2 * kg")
- Addition within the same dimension (so you can have "kg + kg = 2 kg")
- Multiplication of any two elements (so you can have "J = N m = N * m")
- Inverses (so you can have "m/s = m * s^(-1)")
A tensor algebra could formalise this system -- but then you'd get all sorts of objects like "1 kg + 1 m", which make no sense.
A group would make sense -- with sub-groups like "mass measurements", "time measurements", "real numbers", "units" -- but then you can't have zero. Plus, I'd like to have some notion of units or "unit vectors"/"unit tensors".
What's a good way to formalise this?
abstract-algebra group-theory physics tensor-products dimensional-analysis
abstract-algebra group-theory physics tensor-products dimensional-analysis
asked Nov 29 '18 at 17:44
Abhimanyu Pallavi SudhirAbhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
894619
asked Nov 29 '18 at 17:44
Abhimanyu Pallavi SudhirAbhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
894619
asked Nov 29 '18 at 17:44
Abhimanyu Pallavi SudhirAbhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
894619
asked Nov 29 '18 at 17:44
Abhimanyu Pallavi SudhirAbhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
894619
asked Nov 29 '18 at 17:44
Abhimanyu Pallavi SudhirAbhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
894619
894619
1
$begingroup$
Also consider that some physical measurements are unitless.
$endgroup$
– David K
Nov 29 '18 at 18:20
2
$begingroup$
You might be interested in the "mathematical properties" section of the Wikipedia article on dimensional analysis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
$endgroup$
– awkward
Nov 29 '18 at 19:55
$begingroup$
I would suggest a bundle of Abelian groups over the rational vector space of dimensions mentioned in the above wikipedia article: there's an assigned Abelian group to each dimension.
$endgroup$
– Berci
Nov 29 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Also consider that some physical measurements are unitless.
$endgroup$
– David K
Nov 29 '18 at 18:20
2
$begingroup$
You might be interested in the "mathematical properties" section of the Wikipedia article on dimensional analysis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
$endgroup$
– awkward
Nov 29 '18 at 19:55
$begingroup$
I would suggest a bundle of Abelian groups over the rational vector space of dimensions mentioned in the above wikipedia article: there's an assigned Abelian group to each dimension.
$endgroup$
– Berci
Nov 29 '18 at 23:25
1
1
$begingroup$
Also consider that some physical measurements are unitless.
$endgroup$
– David K
Nov 29 '18 at 18:20
$begingroup$
Also consider that some physical measurements are unitless.
$endgroup$
– David K
Nov 29 '18 at 18:20
2
2
$begingroup$
You might be interested in the "mathematical properties" section of the Wikipedia article on dimensional analysis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
$endgroup$
– awkward
Nov 29 '18 at 19:55
$begingroup$
You might be interested in the "mathematical properties" section of the Wikipedia article on dimensional analysis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
$endgroup$
– awkward
Nov 29 '18 at 19:55
$begingroup$
I would suggest a bundle of Abelian groups over the rational vector space of dimensions mentioned in the above wikipedia article: there's an assigned Abelian group to each dimension.
$endgroup$
– Berci
Nov 29 '18 at 23:25
$begingroup$
I would suggest a bundle of Abelian groups over the rational vector space of dimensions mentioned in the above wikipedia article: there's an assigned Abelian group to each dimension.
$endgroup$
– Berci
Nov 29 '18 at 23:25
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You could just use a multivariate polynomial ring $mathbb R[x_1, x_2,x_3,x_4,ldots]$ and map units of measure to a specific $x_i$. To obtain inverses you can go one step further to the field of fractions of this ring $mathbb R(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4ldots)$.
That allows you to do addition and $mathbb R$ scaling inside the subspace $langle x_irangle$. Inversions are obviously possible in the field of fractions.
This allows you to freely construct different products of different units, and you can tell what combination is going on by the makeup of its monomial coefficient. If $x_1$ is kg and $x_2$ is s, then $frac{x_1}{x_2^2}$ is kg/s^2.
Until you're a little more specific about what you hope to achieve, and why just using $mathbb R$ with conversions between units doesn't satisfy your problem, I'm not sure what else can be said.
I'm also don't know why you are worried about addition between objects where addition isn't appropriate. Why do you want to eliminate it? It happens all the time in physical interpretations of Clifford algebra, and Clifford algebra is still useful. Extra nonsense that we don't use isn't a justification to throw out the stuff that works.
answered Nov 29 '18 at 18:25
rschwiebrschwieb
106k12102249
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018937%2fphysical-dimensions-in-math%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You could just use a multivariate polynomial ring $mathbb R[x_1, x_2,x_3,x_4,ldots]$ and map units of measure to a specific $x_i$. To obtain inverses you can go one step further to the field of fractions of this ring $mathbb R(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4ldots)$.
That allows you to do addition and $mathbb R$ scaling inside the subspace $langle x_irangle$. Inversions are obviously possible in the field of fractions.
This allows you to freely construct different products of different units, and you can tell what combination is going on by the makeup of its monomial coefficient. If $x_1$ is kg and $x_2$ is s, then $frac{x_1}{x_2^2}$ is kg/s^2.
Until you're a little more specific about what you hope to achieve, and why just using $mathbb R$ with conversions between units doesn't satisfy your problem, I'm not sure what else can be said.
I'm also don't know why you are worried about addition between objects where addition isn't appropriate. Why do you want to eliminate it? It happens all the time in physical interpretations of Clifford algebra, and Clifford algebra is still useful. Extra nonsense that we don't use isn't a justification to throw out the stuff that works.
answered Nov 29 '18 at 18:25
rschwiebrschwieb
106k12102249
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could just use a multivariate polynomial ring $mathbb R[x_1, x_2,x_3,x_4,ldots]$ and map units of measure to a specific $x_i$. To obtain inverses you can go one step further to the field of fractions of this ring $mathbb R(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4ldots)$.
That allows you to do addition and $mathbb R$ scaling inside the subspace $langle x_irangle$. Inversions are obviously possible in the field of fractions.
This allows you to freely construct different products of different units, and you can tell what combination is going on by the makeup of its monomial coefficient. If $x_1$ is kg and $x_2$ is s, then $frac{x_1}{x_2^2}$ is kg/s^2.
Until you're a little more specific about what you hope to achieve, and why just using $mathbb R$ with conversions between units doesn't satisfy your problem, I'm not sure what else can be said.
I'm also don't know why you are worried about addition between objects where addition isn't appropriate. Why do you want to eliminate it? It happens all the time in physical interpretations of Clifford algebra, and Clifford algebra is still useful. Extra nonsense that we don't use isn't a justification to throw out the stuff that works.
answered Nov 29 '18 at 18:25
rschwiebrschwieb
106k12102249
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You could just use a multivariate polynomial ring $mathbb R[x_1, x_2,x_3,x_4,ldots]$ and map units of measure to a specific $x_i$. To obtain inverses you can go one step further to the field of fractions of this ring $mathbb R(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4ldots)$.
That allows you to do addition and $mathbb R$ scaling inside the subspace $langle x_irangle$. Inversions are obviously possible in the field of fractions.
This allows you to freely construct different products of different units, and you can tell what combination is going on by the makeup of its monomial coefficient. If $x_1$ is kg and $x_2$ is s, then $frac{x_1}{x_2^2}$ is kg/s^2.
Until you're a little more specific about what you hope to achieve, and why just using $mathbb R$ with conversions between units doesn't satisfy your problem, I'm not sure what else can be said.
I'm also don't know why you are worried about addition between objects where addition isn't appropriate. Why do you want to eliminate it? It happens all the time in physical interpretations of Clifford algebra, and Clifford algebra is still useful. Extra nonsense that we don't use isn't a justification to throw out the stuff that works.
answered Nov 29 '18 at 18:25
rschwiebrschwieb
106k12102249
$endgroup$
You could just use a multivariate polynomial ring $mathbb R[x_1, x_2,x_3,x_4,ldots]$ and map units of measure to a specific $x_i$. To obtain inverses you can go one step further to the field of fractions of this ring $mathbb R(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4ldots)$.
That allows you to do addition and $mathbb R$ scaling inside the subspace $langle x_irangle$. Inversions are obviously possible in the field of fractions.
This allows you to freely construct different products of different units, and you can tell what combination is going on by the makeup of its monomial coefficient. If $x_1$ is kg and $x_2$ is s, then $frac{x_1}{x_2^2}$ is kg/s^2.
Until you're a little more specific about what you hope to achieve, and why just using $mathbb R$ with conversions between units doesn't satisfy your problem, I'm not sure what else can be said.
I'm also don't know why you are worried about addition between objects where addition isn't appropriate. Why do you want to eliminate it? It happens all the time in physical interpretations of Clifford algebra, and Clifford algebra is still useful. Extra nonsense that we don't use isn't a justification to throw out the stuff that works.
answered Nov 29 '18 at 18:25
rschwiebrschwieb
106k12102249
answered Nov 29 '18 at 18:25
rschwiebrschwieb
106k12102249
answered Nov 29 '18 at 18:25
rschwiebrschwieb
106k12102249
answered Nov 29 '18 at 18:25
rschwiebrschwieb
106k12102249
106k12102249
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018937%2fphysical-dimensions-in-math%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Also consider that some physical measurements are unitless.
$endgroup$
– David K
Nov 29 '18 at 18:20
2
$begingroup$
You might be interested in the "mathematical properties" section of the Wikipedia article on dimensional analysis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
$endgroup$
– awkward
Nov 29 '18 at 19:55
$begingroup$
I would suggest a bundle of Abelian groups over the rational vector space of dimensions mentioned in the above wikipedia article: there's an assigned Abelian group to each dimension.
$endgroup$
– Berci
Nov 29 '18 at 23:25