Exceptional lift · page 2 of 3

The Albert algebra

Put octonions in the off-diagonal entries of a Hermitian \(3\times3\) matrix. Matrix multiplication stops being associative, but a determinant survives, and so do two groups: the maps preserving the determinant (\(\Esix\)) and those preserving the product (\(\Ffour\)).

Roadmap of this page

OctonionsWhat algebra replaces the real numbers?

(octonions) Definition

\(\Oc\) is the real vector space with basis \(e_0=1,e_1,\dots,e_7\) and the bilinear product with \(e_0\) the unit, \(e_k^2=-1\) (\(k\ge1\)), and

\[e_ie_{i+1}=e_{i+3},\quad e_{i+1}e_{i+3}=e_i,\quad e_{i+3}e_i=e_{i+1},\qquad e_ae_b=-e_be_a\ (a\ne b,\ a,b\ge1),\]

indices of \(e_1,\dots,e_7\) read mod 7. Conjugation \(\bar x\) negates \(e_1,\dots,e_7\). Put

\[\Nm:\Oc\to\R,\quad \Nm(x)=x\bar x=\textstyle\sum_k x_k^2,\qquad \Tr:\Oc\to\R,\quad \Tr(x)=x+\bar x=2x_0 .\]

Over \(\C\): \(\Oc_\C=\Oc\otimes_\R\C\), with \(\Nm\) and \(\Tr\) extended \(\C\)-bilinearly (so \(\Nm(x)=\sum x_k^2\) is no longer a sum of absolute values; see octonions over \(\C\)). The multiplication rule is drawn as the Fano plane.

(what survives) [Baez, §1.1, Thm 1], [SV, Ch. 1] Proved (cited)

For \(x,y,z\in\Oc_\C\):

\[\Nm(xy)=\Nm(x)\Nm(y),\qquad \Tr(xy)=\Tr(yx),\qquad \Tr((xy)z)=\Tr(x(yz))=\Tr((yz)x),\]

and \(\Oc\) is alternative (any two elements generate an associative subalgebra), but \((xy)z\ne x(yz)\) in general: \((e_1e_2)e_3=e_4e_3=-e_6\), \(e_1(e_2e_3)=e_1e_5=e_6\).

Sources: multiplicativity of \(\Nm\) and alternativity, Baez §1.1 (Thm 1 lists the normed division algebras); the trace identities are composition-algebra identities treated in Springer–Veldkamp, Ch. 1 (exact lemma number unverified), and are checked numerically by the lab. The lab below measures \(\lVert (xy)z-x(yz)\rVert\) on its current entries, next to \(\Tr((xy)z)-\Tr(x(yz))\), which stays 0.

Hermitian octonionic matricesWhich matrices still have a good product?

(Albert algebra) Definition

The Albert algebra \(\Jalg\) is the complex vector space of matrices

\[X=\begin{pmatrix}a&z&\bar y\\ \bar z&b&x\\ y&\bar x&c\end{pmatrix},\qquad a,b,c\in\C,\ \ x,y,z\in\Oc_\C,\]

so \(\dim_\C\Jalg=3+3\cdot8=27\), with the

\[\jo:\Jalg\times\Jalg\to\Jalg,\qquad X\jo Y=\tfrac12(XY+YX),\]

identity \(\one=\diag(1,1,1)\) and trace \(\tr X=a+b+c\). Write \(\Jo=\{X:\tr X=0\}\), of dimension 26.

With real entries in place of octonions this is \(\mathrm{Sym}_3(\C)\) from the \(\SL_3/\SO_3\) page; the bridge is the position of \(x,y,z\): the entry \(x\) sits where \(Y_{23}\) sat.

For \(n\ge4\) the Hermitian \(n\times n\) octonionic matrices are not a Jordan algebra; for \(n\le3\) they are. This is why the octonionic row of the family stops at \(3\times3\), and why \(\Esix/\Ffour\) has no “\(\Esix(n)\)” companions. In the Jordan–von Neumann–Wigner classification of simple formally real Jordan algebras, \(\mathfrak h_3(\Oc)\) is the only one built from octonionic matrices [JNW; Baez, §3, the list (1)–(5)].

The cubic determinantWhat replaces \(\det\) when the entries do not associate?

(cubic norm) [Baez, §3.4] Definition

\[\det:\Jalg\to\C,\qquad \det X=abc-a\Nm(x)-b\Nm(y)-c\Nm(z)+\Tr\big((xy)z\big).\]

The last term is unambiguous by . Baez prints the matrix with \(z^*\) in position \((1,2)\); here \(z\) sits there, which is what makes the last term \(\Tr((xy)z)\) (see the convention note). Three special cases show what each term does; together they are the content of the formula, and expanding the general case (a cubic polynomial in 27 variables) adds nothing.

(three special elements) Proved here

  1. Real entries \(x,y,z\in\C\cdot1\): \(\Nm(x)=x^2\), \(\Tr((xy)z)=2xyz\), and \(\det X\) is the usual determinant of a symmetric matrix, e.g. \(\det\begin{pmatrix}1&.7&.3\\ .7&2&.5\\ .3&.5&3\end{pmatrix}=4.31\) by both formulas.
  2. Diagonal: \(\det\diag(a,b,c)=abc\); in particular \(\det\one=1\).
  3. One off-diagonal entry \(x\), \(y=z=0\): \(\det X=a\,(bc-\Nm(x))\), a scalar times a \(2\times2\) determinant.

The trace is the derivative of \(\det\) at \(\one\): from the formula, \(\det(\one+tY)=1+t\,\tr Y+O(t^2)\) for every \(Y\in\Jalg\).

Two groupsWhich linear maps of \(\Jalg\) preserve \(\det\), and which preserve \(\jo\)?

(\(\Esix\), \(\Ffour\)) Definition

\[\Esix=\{g\in\GL(\Jalg):\det(gX)=\det X\ \text{for all }X\},\qquad \Ffour=\Aut(\Jalg)=\{g\in\GL(\Jalg):g(X\jo Y)=gX\jo gY\}.\]

(identification) Proved (cited)

  1. \(\Esix\) is a simple algebraic group of type \(E_6\) and \(\Ffour\) one of type \(F_4\) [SV, Ch. 7]; \(\dim\esix=52+26=78\) [Yokota, Thm 3.2.1], and \(\Esix\) is connected, being diffeomorphic to (compact \(E_6\))\(\times\R^{78}\) [Yokota, Thm 3.14.1].
  2. \(\dim\Ffour=\dim\Der(\Jalg)=52\) [CS; Baez, §4.2].
  3. \(\Ffour=\{g\in\GL(\Jalg):\det(gX)=\det X,\ g\one=\one\}=\{g\in\Esix:g\one=\one\}\) [Yokota, §2.13, Definition, p. 65].

(3) is the precise sense in which \(\Ffour\) “is” the stabilizer of the identity, as \(\SO_3\) was on the \(\SL_3/\SO_3\) page. The Lie algebras are checked numerically on the Proposition page: \(\dim\Der(\Jalg)=52\), \(\dim\esix=78\).

Explicit elementsCan we write down elements of \(\Esix\) and \(\Ffour\) by hand?

(four kinds of moves) Proved here

  1. \(\sigma(a,b,c;x,y,z)=(b,c,a;y,z,x)\) lies in \(\Ffour\).
  2. \(\varphi\), applying \(e_k\mapsto e_{k+1}\) (\(k=1,\dots,7\), mod 7) to each of \(x,y,z\), lies in \(\Ffour\).
  3. For real \(g\in\SL_3\), the map \(X\mapsto gXg^T\) lies in \(\Esix\). For \(g=\diag(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)\) with \(\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3=1\) and not all \(\lambda_k^2=1\), it moves \(\one\) to \(\diag(\lambda_1^2,\lambda_2^2,\lambda_3^2)\ne\one\), so it is not in \(\Ffour\).
  4. \(X\mapsto sX\) lies in \(\Esix\) only when \(s^3=1\).
Proof

Proof of (1), (2), (4)

(1) \(\sigma(X)=PXP^T\) for the permutation matrix \(P\) with \(P e_1=e_3, Pe_2=e_1,Pe_3=e_2\); real scalar matrices associate with octonion matrices, so \(\sigma(X\jo Y)=\sigma X\jo\sigma Y\). (2) The map \(e_k\mapsto e_{k+1}\) sends each relation \(e_ie_{i+1}=e_{i+3}\) to another one, so it is an automorphism of \(\Oc\); applied entrywise it preserves every matrix product. (4) \(\det(sX)=s^3\det X\).

Proof

Proof of (3): the computation where associativity is replaced

\(\SL_3(\R)\) is generated by diagonal matrices and shears \(I+tE_{ij}\), so it suffices to treat these.

Diagonal. \(a\mapsto\lambda_1^2a\), \(x\mapsto\lambda_2\lambda_3x\), \(y\mapsto\lambda_3\lambda_1y\), \(z\mapsto\lambda_1\lambda_2z\) (and cyclically). Every term of \(\det\) picks up \((\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3)^2=1\); for instance \(\Tr((xy)z)\mapsto\lambda_2\lambda_3\cdot\lambda_3\lambda_1\cdot\lambda_1\lambda_2\,\Tr((xy)z)\).

Shear \(g=I+tE_{12}\) (the others follow by conjugating with \(\sigma\) and transposition). Row then column operation give

\[a'=a+t\Tr(z)+t^2b,\qquad z'=z+tb,\qquad y'=y+t\bar x,\qquad b'=b,\ c'=c,\ x'=x .\]

Using \(\Nm(p+q)=\Nm(p)+\Nm(q)+\Tr(p\bar q)\), \(\bar{\bar x}=x\) and \(x\bar x=\Nm(x)\):

\[\Nm(y')=\Nm(y)+t\Tr(yx)+t^2\Nm(x),\qquad \Nm(z')=\Nm(z)+tb\Tr(z)+t^2b^2,\] \[\Tr((xy')z')=\Tr((xy)z)+tb\Tr(xy)+t\Nm(x)\Tr(z)+2t^2b\Nm(x).\]

Collect the coefficient of \(t\) in \(\det X'\):

\[\Tr(z)(bc-\Nm(x))-b\Tr(yx)-bc\Tr(z)+b\Tr(xy)+\Nm(x)\Tr(z)=b\big(\Tr(xy)-\Tr(yx)\big)=0,\]

and of \(t^2\): \(b(bc-\Nm(x))-b\Nm(x)-b^2c+2b\Nm(x)=0\). So \(\det X'=\det X\).

The only octonionic input was \(\Tr(xy)=\Tr(yx)\) and expanding \((x\bar x)z=\Nm(x)z\), which needs only alternativity. On the \(\SL_3/\SO_3\) page the same step was “\(\det\) is multiplicative”.

Microworld: moving \(X\) in \(\Jalg\)Which moves keep \(\det\), and which keep \(\one\)?

Albert lab · state \(X\in\Jalg\) (real coordinates), moves from , invariant \(\det X\)

Change

Moves without parameters

Moves with \(i\), \(j\) and a number

Start

\(X\), live

The lab uses real coordinates (the real form \(\mathfrak h_3(\Oc)\)); every identity it checks is polynomial, so it holds over \(\C\) as well. The verdict line tests the composite map on random elements: it is a check, and the proofs are and .

The variety and its tangent spaceHow big is the set of \(X\) with \(\det X=1\)?

\[\Xe=\{X\in\Jalg:\det X=1\},\qquad T_\one\Xe=\{Y:\tfrac{d}{dt}\det(\one+tY)|_{t=0}=0\}=\{Y:\tr Y=0\}=\Jo .\]

So \(\dim\Xe=26\), and Challenge A shows \(\Esix\) moving \(\one\) inside \(\Xe\). The Proposition states that \(\Esix\) reaches all of \(\Xe\), so \(\Xe\cong\Esix/\Ffour\): \(26=78-52\), as \(5=8-3\) in the matrix lab.