Planar rooted trees and Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula

Today on arXiv was posted the paper

Posetted trees and Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff product, by Donatella Iacono, Marco Manetti

with the abstract

We introduce the combinatorial notion of posetted trees and we use it in order to write an explicit expression of the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula.

The paper may be relevant (check also the bibliography!) for the subject of writing “finitary“, “noncommutative” BCH formulae, from self-similarity arguments using dilations.

Advertisements

Entering “chora”, the infinitesimal place

There is a whole discussion around the key phrases “The map is not the territory” and “The map is the territory”. From the wiki entry on the map-territory relation, we learn that Korzybski‘s dictum “the map is not the territory” means that:

A) A map may have a structure similar or dissimilar to the structure of the territory,

B) A map is not the territory.

Bateson, in “Form, Substance and Difference” has a different take on this: he starts by explaining the pattern-substance dichotomy

Let us go back to the original statement for which Korzybski is most famous—the statement that the map is not the territory. This statement came out of a very wide range of philosophic thinking, going back to Greece, and wriggling through the history of European thought over the last 2000 years. In this history, there has been a sort of rough dichotomy and often deep controversy. There has been violent enmity and bloodshed. It all starts, I suppose, with the Pythagoreans versus their predecessors, and the argument took the shape of “Do you ask what it’s made of—earth, fire, water, etc.?” Or do you ask, “What is its pattern?” Pythagoras stood for inquiry into pattern rather than inquiry into substance.1 That controversy has gone through the ages, and the Pythagorean half of it has, until recently, been on the whole the submerged half.

Then he states his point of view:

We say the map is different from the territory. But what is the territory? […] What is on the paper map is a representation of what was in the retinal representation of the man who made the map–and as you push the question back, what you find is an infinite regress, an infinite series of maps. The territory never gets in at all.

Always the process of representation will filter it out so that the mental world is only maps of maps of maps, ad infinitum.

At this point Bateson puts a very interesting footnote:

Or we may spell the matter out and say that at every step, as a difference is transformed and propagated along its pathways, the embodiment of the difference before the step is a “territory” of which the embodiment after the step is a “map.” The map-territory relation obtains at every step.

Inspired by Bateson, I want to explore from the mathematical side the point of view that there is no difference between the map and the territory, but instead the transformation of one into another can be understood by using tangle diagrams.

Let us imagine that the exploration of the territory provides us with an atlas, a collection of maps, mathematically understood as a family of two operations (an “emergent algebra”). We want to organize this spatial information in a graphical form which complies with Bateson’s footnote: map and territory have only local meaning in the graphical representation, being only the left-hand-side (and r-h-s respectively) of the “making map” relation.

Look at the following figure:

In the figure from the left, the “v” which decorates an arc, represents a point in the “territory”, that is the l-h-s of the relation, the “u” represents a “pixel in the map”, that is the r-h-s of a relation. The relation itself is represented by a crossing decorated by an epsilon, the “scale” of the map.

The opposite crossing, see figure from the right, is the inverse relation.

Imagine now a complex diagram, with lots of crossings, decorated by various
scale parameters, and segments decorated with points from a space X which
is seen both as territory (to explore) and map (of it).

In such a diagram the convention map-territory can be only local, around each crossing.

There is though a diagram which could unambiguously serve as a symbol for
“the place (near) the point x, at scale epsilon” :

In this diagram, all crossings which are not decorated have “epsilon” as a decoration, but this decoration can be unambiguously placed near the decoration “x” of the closed arc. Such a diagram will bear the name “infinitesimal place (or chora) x at scale epsilon”.

“Metric spaces with dilations”, the book draft updated

Here is the updated version.

Many things left to be done and to explain properly, like:

  • the word tangent bundle and more flexible notions of smoothness, described a bit hermetically and by means of examples here, section 6,
  • the relation between curvature and how to perform the Reidemeister 3 move, the story starts here in section 6 (coincidence)
  • why the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula can be deduced from self-similarity arguments (showing in particular that there is another interpretation of the Lie bracket than the usual one which says that the bracket is related to the commutator). This will be posted on arxiv soon. UPDATE:  see this post by Tao on the (commutative, say) BCH formula. It is commutative because of his “radial homogeneity” axiom in Theorem 1, which is equivalent with the “barycentric condition” (Af3) in Theorem 2.2 from “Infinitesimal affine geometry…” article.
  • a gallery of emergent algebras, in particular you shall see what “spirals” are (a kind of generalization of rings, amazingly connecting by way of an example with another field of interests of mine, convex analysis).

Gleason metric and CC distance

In the series of posts on Hilbert’s fifth problem, Terence Tao defines a Gleason metric, definition 4 here, which is a very important ingredient of the proof of the solution to H5 problem.

Here is Remark 1. from the post:

The escape and commutator properties are meant to capture “Euclidean-like” structure of the group. Other metrics, such as Carnot-Carathéodory metrics on Carnot Lie groups such as the Heisenberg group, usually fail one or both of these properties.

I want to explain why this is true. Look at the proof of theorem 7. The problem comes from the commutator estimate (1). I shall reproduce the relevant part of the proof because I don’t yet know how to write good-looking latex posts:

From the commutator estimate (1) and the triangle inequality we also obtain a conjugation estimate

\displaystyle  \| ghg^{-1} \| \sim \|h\|

whenever {\|g\|, \|h\| \leq \epsilon}. Since left-invariance gives

\displaystyle  d(g,h) = \| g^{-1} h \|

we then conclude an approximate right invariance

\displaystyle  d(gk,hk) \sim d(g,h)

whenever {\|g\|, \|h\|, \|k\| \leq \epsilon}.

The conclusion is that the right translations in the group are Lipschitz (with respect to the Gleason metric). Because this distance (I use “distance” instead of “metric”) is also left invariant, it follows that left and right translations are Lipschitz.

Let now G be a connected Lie group with a left-invariant distribution, obtained by left translates of a vector space D included in the Lie algebra of G. The distribution is completely non-integrable if D generates the Lie algebra by using the + and Lie bracket operations. We put an euclidean norm on D and we get a CC distance on the group defined by: the CC distance between two elements of the group equals the infimum of lengths of horizontal (a.e. derivable, with the tangent in the distribution) curves joining the said points.

The remark 1 of Tao is a consequence of the following fact: if the CC distance is right invariant then D equals the Lie algebra of the group, therefore the distance is riemannian.

Here is why: in a sub-riemannian group (that is a group with a distribution and CC distance as explained previously) the left translations are Lipschitz (they are isometries) but not all right translations are Lipschitz, unless D equals the Lie algebra of G. Indeed, let us suppose that all right translations are Lipschitz. Then, by Margulis-Mostow version (see also this) of the Rademacher theorem , the right translation by an element “a” is Pansu derivable almost everywhere. It follows that the Pansu derivative of the right translation by “a” (in almost every point) preserves the distribution. A simple calculus based on invariance (truly, some explanations are needed here) shows that by consequence the adjoint action of “a” preserves D. Because “a” is arbitrary, this implies that D is an ideal of the Lie algebra. But D generates the Lie algebra, therefore D equals the Lie algebra of G.

If you know a shorter proof please let me know.

UPDATE: See the recent post 254A, Notes 4: Bulding metrics on groups, and the Gleason-Yamabe theorem by Terence Tao, for details of the role of the Gleason metric  in the proof of the Hilbert 5th problem.

Curvature and Brunn-Minkowski inequality

A beautiful paper by Yann Ollivier and Cedric Villani

A curved BRUNN–MINKOWSKI INEQUALITY on the discrete hypercube OR: WHAT IS THE RICCI CURVATURE OF THE DISCRETE  HYPERCUBE?

The Brunn-Minkowski inequality  says that  the log  of the volume (in euclidean spaces) is concave. The concavity inequality is improved, in riemannian manifolds with Ricci curvature at least K, by a quadratic term with coefficient proportional with K.

The paper is remarkable in many ways. In particular are compared two roads towards curvature in spaces more general than riemannian: the coarse curvature introduced by Ollivier and the other based on the displacement convexity of the entropy function (Felix Otto , Cedric Villani, John Lott, Karl-Theodor Sturm), studied by many researchers. Both are related to  Wasserstein distances . NONE works for sub-riemannian spaces, which is very very interesting.

In few words, here is the description of the coarse Ricci curvature: take an epsilon and consider the application from the metric space (riemannian manifold, say) to the space of probabilities which associates to a point from the metric space the restriction of the volume measure on the epsilon-ball centered in that point (normalized to give a probability). If this application is Lipschitz with constant L(epsilon) (on the space of probabilities take the L^1 Wassertein distance) then the epsilon-coarse Ricci curvature times epsilon square is equal to 1 minus L(epsilon) (thus we get a lower bound of the Ricci curvature function, if we are in a Riemannian manifold). Same definition works in a discrete space (this time epsilon is fixed).
The second definition of Ricci curvature comes from inverse engineering of the displacement convexity inequality discovered in many particular spaces. The downside of this definition is that is hard to “compute” it.

Initially, this second definition was related to the L^2 Wasserstein distance which,  according to Otto calculus, gives to the space of probabilities (in the L^2 frame) a structure of an infinite dimensional riemannian manifold.

Concerning the sub-riemannian spaces, in the first definition the said application cannot be Lipschitz and in the second definition there is (I think) a manifestation of the fact that we cannot put, in a metrically acceptable way, a sub-riemannian space into a riemannian-like one, even infinite dimensional.

Bayesian society

It is maybe a more flexible society one which is guided by a variable ideology “I”,  fine-tuned continuously by bayesian techniques. The individual would be replaced by the bayesian individual, which forms its opinions from informations coming through a controlled channel. The input informations are made more or less available to the individual by using again bayesian analysis of interests, geographical location and digital footprint (creative commons attribution 2.0 licence, free online), closing the feedback loop.

A difference which makes four differences, in two ways

Gregory Bateson , speaking about the map-territory relation

“What is in the territory that gets onto the map? […] What gets onto the map, in fact, is difference.

A difference is a very peculiar and obscure concept. It is certainly not a thing or an event. This piece of paper is different from the wood of this lectern. There are many differences between them, […] but if we start to ask about the localization of those differences, we get into trouble. Obviously the difference between the paper and the wood is not in the paper; it is obviously not in the wood; it is obviously not in the space between them .

A difference, then, is an abstract matter.

Difference travels from the wood and paper into my retina. It then gets picked up and worked on by this fancy piece of computing machinery in my head.

… what we mean by information — the elementary unit of information — is a difference which makes a difference.

(from “Form, Substance and Difference”, Nineteenth Annual Korzybski Memorial
Lecture delivered by Bateson on January 9, 1970, under the auspices of the Institute of General Semantics, re-printed from the General Semantics Bulletin, no.
37, 1970, in Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972))

This “difference which makes a difference” statement is quite famous, although sometimes considered only a figure of speach.

I think it is not, let me show you why!

For me a difference can be interpreted as an operator which relates images of the same thing (from the territory) viewed in two different maps, like in the following picture:

This figure is taken from “Computing with space…” , see section 1 “The map is the territory” for drawing conventions.

Forget now about maps and territories and concentrate on this diagram viewed as a decorated tangle. The rules of decorations are the following: arcs are decorated with “x,y,…”, points from a space, and the crossings are decorated with epsilons, elements of a commutative group (secretly we use an emergent algebra, or an uniform idempotent right quasigroup, to decorate arcs AND crossings of a tangle diagram).

What we see is a tangle which appears in the Reidemeister move 3 from knot theory. When epsilons are fixed, this diagram defines a function called (approximate) difference.

Is this a difference which makes a difference?

Yes, in two ways:

1. We could add to this diagram an elementary unknot passing under all arcs, thus obtaining the diagram

Now we see four differences in this equivalent tangle: the initial one is made by three others.
The fact that a difference is selfsimilar is equivalent with the associativity of the INVERSE of the approximate difference operation, called approximate sum.

2. Let us add an elementary unknot over the arcs of the tangle diagram, like in the following figure

called “difference inside a chora” (you have to read the paper to see why). According to the rules of tangle diagrams, adding unknots does not change the tangle topologically (although this is not quite true in the realm of emergent algebras, where the Reidemeister move 3 is an acceptable move only in the limit, when passing with the crossing decorations to “zero”).

By using only Reidemeister moves 1 and 2, we can turn this diagram into the celtic looking figure

which shows again four differences: the initial one in the center and three others around.

This time we got a statement saying that a difference is preserved under “infinitesimal parallel transport”.

So, indeed, a difference makes four differences, in at least two ways, for a mathematician.

If you want to understand more from this crazy post, read the paper 🙂

computing with space | open notebook

Neoyuva's Blog

Reinventing myself.

MolView

computing with space | open notebook

MaidSafe

The Decentralised Internet is Here

Voxel-Engine

An experimental 3d voxel rendering algorithm

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP

a personal view of the theory of computation

%d bloggers like this: