Log24

From the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, Jan. 26, 2005:

What is known about unit cubes
by Chuanming Zong, Peking University

Abstract: Unit cubes, from any point of view, are among the simplest and the most important objects in n-dimensional Euclidean space. In fact, as one will see from this survey, they are not simple at all….

From Log24, now:

What is known about the 4×4×4 cube
by Steven H. Cullinane, unaffiliated

Abstract: The 4×4×4 cube, from one point of view, is among the simplest and the most important objects in n-dimensional binary space. In fact, as one will see from the links below, it is not simple at all.

Solomon’s Cube

The Klein Correspondence, Penrose Space-Time, and a Finite Model

Non-Euclidean Blocks

Geometry of the I Ching

Related material:

Monday’s entry Just Say NO and a poem by Stevens,

“The Well Dressed Man with a Beard.”

The phrase "Blue Dream" in the previous post
suggests a Web search for Traumnovelle .
That search yields an interesting weblog post
from 2014 commemorating the 1999 dies natalis 
(birth into heaven) of St. Stanley Kubrick.

Related material from March 7, 2014,
in this  journal —

That  2014 post was titled "Kummer Varieties." It is now tagged
"Kummerhenge." For some backstory, see other posts so tagged.

The above title was suggested by a film trailer quoted here Saturday —

" Jeremy Irons' dry Alfred Pennyworth:
'One misses the days when one's biggest concerns
were exploding wind-up penguins.' "

"Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition" describes, among other books,
an edition of the I Ching  published on December 1, 2015.

Excerpt from this journal on that date —

Related material —

The Log24 version  (Nov. 9, 2005, and later posts) —

The Warner Brothers version —

The Paramount version —

See also related material in the previous post, Transformers.

Flashback to St. Andrew's Day, 2013 —

If the object is a cube, change arises from the fact
that the object has six  faces…

and is the unit cell for the six -dimensional
hyperspace H over the two-element field —

A different representation of the unit cell of
the hyperspace H (and of the I Ching ) —

“The About page contains detailed descriptions of the project….”

— The Illustris project on constructing a model of the universe

For the mathematics of a simpler traditional Chinese model
of everything, see

• Geometry of the I Ching ,
• Solomon’s Cube, and the
• Diamond Space about  page.

(Continued)

Further context: Galois I Ching

In several posts now tagged Chessboard, 
an I Ching chessboard
image in which adjacent squares 
have the Karnaugh property—

— has been replaced by a picture of
the original 1989 version in which
the Karnaugh property applies only to cells
that are adjacent in a cubic, not square,
arrangement—

(Continued from April 23, 2009, and February 13, 2010.)

Paul Valéry as quoted in yesterday’s post:

“The S[elf] is invariant, origin, locus or field, it’s a functional property of consciousness” (Cahiers, 15:170 [2: 315])

The geometric example discussed here yesterday as a Self symbol may seem too small to be really impressive. Here is a larger example from the Chinese, rather than European, tradition. It may be regarded as a way of representing the Galois field GF(64). (“Field” is a rather ambiguous term; here it does not, of course, mean what it did in the Valéry quotation.)

From Geometry of the I Ching—

The above 64 hexagrams may also be regarded as
the finite affine space AG(6,2)— a larger version
of the finite affine space AG(4,2) in yesterday’s post.
That smaller space has a group of 322,560 symmetries.
The larger hexagram  space has a group of
1,290,157,424,640 affine symmetries.

From a paper on GL(6,2), the symmetry group
of the corresponding projective  space PG(5,2),*
which has 1/64 as many symmetries—

(Click to enlarge.)

For some narrative in the European  tradition
related to this geometry, see Solomon’s Cube.

* Update of July 29, 2011: The “PG(5,2)” above is a correction from an earlier error.

It is well known that the seven (2² + 2 +1) points of the projective plane of order 2 correspond to 2-point subspaces (lines) of the linear 3-space over the two-element field Galois field GF(2), and may be therefore be visualized as 2-cube subsets of the 2×2×2 cube.

Similarly, recent posts* have noted that the thirteen (3² + 3 + 1) points of the projective plane of order 3 may be seen as 3-cube subsets in the 3×3×3 cube.

The twenty-one (4² + 4 +1) points of the (unique) projective plane of order 4 may also be visualized as subsets of a cube– in this case, the 4×4×4 cube. This visualization is somewhat more complicated than the 3×3×3 case, since the 4×4×4 cube has no central subcube, and each projective-plane point corresponds to four, not three, subcubes.

These three cubes, with 8, 27, and 64 subcubes, thus serve as geometric models in a straightforward way– first as models of finite linear spaces, hence as models for small Galois geometries derived from the linear spaces. (The cubes with 8 and 64 subcubes also serve in a less straightforward, and new, way as finite-geometry models– see The Eightfold Cube, Block Designs, and Solomon's Cube.)

A group of collineations** of the 21-point plane is one of two nonisomorphic simple groups of order 20,160. The other is the linear group acting on the linear 4-space over the two-element Galois field  GF(2). The 1899 paper establishing the nonisomorphism notes that "the expression Galois Field is perhaps not yet in general use."

Coordinates of the 4×4×4 cube's subcubes can, of course, be regarded as elements of the Galois field GF(64).

The preceding remarks were purely mathematical. The "dreams" of this post's title are not. See…

See also Geometry of the I Ching and a search in this journal for "Galois + Ching."

* February 27 and March 13

** G₂₀₁₆₀ in Mitchell 1910,  LF(3,2²) in Edge 1965

— Mitchell, Ulysses Grant, "Geometry and Collineation Groups
   of the Finite Projective Plane PG(2,2²),"
   Princeton Ph.D. dissertation (1910)

— Edge, W. L., "Some Implications of the Geometry of
   the 21-Point Plane," Math. Zeitschr. 87, 348-362 (1965)

On a book by Margaret Wertheim:

“She traces the history of space beginning with the cosmology of Dante. Her journey continues through the historical foundations of celestial space, relativistic space, hyperspace, and, finally, cyberspace.” –Joe J. Accardi, Northeastern Illinois Univ. Lib., Chicago, in Library Journal, 1999 (quoted at Amazon.com)

There are also other sorts of space.

© 2005 The Institute for Figuring