On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 2:34:26 PM UTC+8 Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 05:41:33 UTC+2 hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 1:55:45 AM UTC+8 Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>>> The "GO" mentioned here should correspond to the O(3;1) (or perhaps
>>> O(1;3) )
On Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 05:41:33 UTC+2 hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 1:55:45 AM UTC+8 Nils Bruin wrote:
>
>> The "GO" mentioned here should correspond to the O(3;1) (or perhaps
>> O(1;3) ) mentioned in the wikipedia article.
>>
>
> Do you mean that these two ways
On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 1:55:45 AM UTC+8 Nils Bruin wrote:
> The "GO" mentioned here should correspond to the O(3;1) (or perhaps O(1;3)
> ) mentioned in the wikipedia article.
>
Do you mean that these two ways of writing are a matter of convention?
>
> The problem with the "real numbe
The "GO" mentioned here should correspond to the O(3;1) (or perhaps O(1;3)
) mentioned in the wikipedia article.
The problem with the "real numbers" is that representing many elements
exactly in it is complicated. For many algebraic questions, you can
probably get away with considering the grou
On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 6:27:18 PM UTC+8 Nils Bruin wrote:
> It depends a little on what coefficients you want. If you're happy with
> rational numbers then this should do the trick:
>
As far as the Lorentz group is concerned, I think it should be constructed
on real numbers filed in gener
It depends a little on what coefficients you want. If you're happy with
rational numbers then this should do the trick:
G = diagonal_matrix(QQ,4,[-1,1,1,1])
lorentz_group = GO(4,QQ,invariant_form=G)
which just constructs the group of (in this case QQ-valued) matrices that
preserve the quadratic
