13

My question is directly inspired by this other recent question, but I was trying to figure out whether or not it holds for $\mathbb R$. This led me to two questions. Let $n \ge 2$ be an integer (we're not including $n = 1$ as there are trivial counterexamples in dimension $1$).

  1. Let $V$ and $W$ be real vector spaces, both of dimension $n$, and let $f: V \to W$ be a bijection which sends zero to zero and affine lines to affine lines. Is $f$ necessarily linear?

  2. Let $V$ be a real vector space of dimension $n$. If we forget the vector space structure on $V$, and remember only the data of what the affine lines in $V$ are and $n$, can we recover the topology on $V$?

An affirmative to question 1 implies an affirmative to question 2: Simply choose any bijection $f: V \to \mathbb R^n$ which preserves affine lines, and $f$ is necessarily a homeomorphism.

In dimension $n=2$, question $2$ is equivalent to the following problem:

  • Using only the data of what the affine lines are, given $3$ distinct parallel lines (which can be characterized as those which don't intersect with each other), determine which line is in the middle.

Once you know that, you can describe open sets in terms of the unions of lines between two parallel lines.

Similarly, for $n=2$, question 2 is also equivalent to:

  • Using only the data of what the affine lines are, given a line and $3$ distinct points, determine which point is in the middle.

It would also be good to know whether, and how, the answers to 1 and 2 depend on the dimension of $V$.

  • 1
    I guess you know it, but it seems worth to mention that if $n=2$, then parallel lines are mapped to parallel lines, and $f$ is at least additive: for linear independent $a$ and $b$, look at the parallelogram with points $0$, $a$, $b$ and $a+b$ and its image. If $a$ and $b$ are linear dependend, choose $c$ linear independend from them and use the previous result on $((a+c)+b)+(-c)$. – Christian Sievers Nov 29 '16 at 05:40
  • 1
    I am sure this was asked many times at MSE. The result is true (von Staudt circa 1850) and you can find its proof for instance in Hartshorn's book in projective geometry. – Moishe Kohan Nov 29 '16 at 10:39
  • 2
    @MoisheCohen I apologize if this question has been asked before. I did try to Google it! You should post an answer to that effect. – Dustan Levenstein Nov 29 '16 at 12:18

2 Answers2

4

I'll provide an outline of a proof - thanks to Moishe Cohen and Christian Sievers for providing some of the hints.

Theorem: Let $F$ be any field with at least $3$ elements, let $V$ and $W$ be vector spaces over $F$, both of dimension $\ge 2$, and let $f: V \to W$ be a bijection which sends $0$ to $0$ and affine lines to affine lines. Then $f$ is semi-linear, that is, there is an automorphism $\phi: F \to F$ such that $f(av+w) = \phi(a)f(v)+f(w)$, for every $v, w \in V$ and $a \in F$.

In the case of $F = \mathbb R$, there are no nontrivial automorphisms, so every such bijection is linear.

Of course, the presense of $0$ is a minor technicality; it enables the easy use of linear algebra. Without $0$, every map is "semi-affine".

In the following outline, there is good Euclidean Geometric intuition for $F = \mathbb R$, but all steps can be carried out algebraically for arbitrary fields.

  1. Affine planes in $V$ can be characterized as follows: For two lines $L_1$ and $L_2$ which intersect at a unique point, their affine span $A$ is the union of the two lines with all lines $L$ which intersect $L_1$ and $L_2$ at distinct points. This is the step that requires $|F| \ge 3$; everything after hinges only on knowing what the affine lines and affine planes and $0$ are.

  2. We can therefore characterize parallel lines: They are the pairs of lines which are disjoint and lie in the same affine plane.

  3. We can characterize addition: If $v$ and $w$ are linearly independent, then denote by $L_v$ and $L_w$ the lines which go through $0$ and $v$, and $0$ and $w$ respectively. Let $L_v'$ be the line parallel to $L_v$ which passes through $w$, and let $L_w'$ be the line parallel to $L_w$ which passes through $v$. Then $v+w$ is the unique point in the intersection of $L_v'$ and $L_w'$. Furthermore, $(-w)$ can be characterized by $(v+w)+(-w) = v$. Then for $v'$ linearly dependent with $v$, $v+v' = ((v+w)+v')+(-w)$.

  4. For nonzero vectors $v$, denote $L_v$ as in 3. For linearly independent $v$ and $w$, we can characterize the bijection $L_v \to L_w$ given by $a v \mapsto a w$, for each $a \in F$. Explicitly, $aw$ is the intersection with $L_w$ of the line through $av$ which is parallel to the line passing through $v$ and $w$.

  5. For $v'$ nonzero and linearly dependent with $v$, we can characterize the same bijection $L_v \to L_{v'}$ via an auxiliary linearly independent $w$.

  6. Fix an arbitrary $v \neq 0$ in $V$. The above constructions give us addition on $L_v$ and allow us to construct the multiplication map $L_v \times L_v \to L_v$ given by $(av, bv) \mapsto abv$. This assigns the structure of a field to $\mathbb L_v := L_v$. This field is, of course, isomorphic to $F$. The above observations allow us to define the vector space action of $\mathbb L_v$ on $V$.

  7. The function $f$ must restrict to an isomorphism of fields $\mathbb L_v \to \mathbb L_{f(v)}$, and be linear with respect to this isomorphism. The isomorphism of fields need not necessarily agree with the map $av \mapsto af(v)$, which is why $f$ may not necessarily be linear.

  • Does this result have a name? Can I find it in a textbook somewhere? – Inzinity Mar 14 '23 at 17:19
  • I'll trust Moishe Kohan on his offered reference - "Foundations of Projective Geometry" by Robin Hartshorne. – Dustan Levenstein Mar 14 '23 at 17:35
  • Thanks, couldn't find it in there. But I just found an even more general result that does not even assume bijectivity, namely theorem 1.8 in this article. The result stated in the answer immediately follows from it. – Inzinity Mar 14 '23 at 18:39
  • @Inzinity Hi, would you please check the author's proof of that theorem 1.8 in the article you mentioned? In step 2 (on page 6) the author skips the part where he is supposed to prove that parallelity is preserved. What do you think about it? – cnikbesku Nov 13 '23 at 23:18
2

See for instance my answer here. (I remember answering similar questions more than once, but maybe only in comments, which are not searchable.) In that answer I discuss the case of projective transformations while you are asking here about affine transformations, but the proof is the same. The idea, due to von Staudt (it appeared in his 1850 2-volume book on projective geometry), is to do "geometric algebra", i.e. to encode the binary algebraic operations in a field by certain point-line configurations. A good reference is "Foundations of Projective Geometry" by Robin Hartshorne. As for where the topology shows up: One can recover the topology of ${\mathbb R}$ from its ordered field structure which, in turn, can be recovered from pure algebra, as $x^2>0$ for all $x\ne 0$ and vice versa (every positive real number is a square). The situation is drastically different over other fields, e.g. over the complex numbers since one has to take into account the entire absolute Galois group which does not act continuously on ${\mathbb C}$.

The following is a configuration which describes the addition of real numbers.

enter image description here

An aside: The idea of "geometric algebra" goes back to the classical Greek mathematics (for them the entire algebra was geometric); it is still quite useful, some of the most spectacular applications are in the field of oriented matroids and convex polytopes (Mnev's universality theorem): Mnev was using the original von Staudt's configurations to prove his theorem.

Moishe Kohan
  • 97,719
  • I'm not sure I understand what the claim is. Are you saying that one can some how "realize" $\mathbb R$ within the point-line configurations embedded in the data of the affine lines of $V$? – Dustan Levenstein Nov 29 '16 at 18:25
  • @DustanLevenstein: For the precise proof you have to read Hartshorne's book. The bottom line is that every bijection of $R^n$ ($n>1$) which preserves collinearity is an affine transformations and it is a corollary of the 2nd fundamental theorem of projective geometry. I tried to explain some of the ideas of the proof but that's probably hopeless. – Moishe Kohan Nov 30 '16 at 02:18
  • I'm not asking for the proof; all I'm asking you to do is explain what the sentence "encode the binary algebraic operations in a field by certain point-line configurations" means. Precisely what algebraic operations in what field are we talking about? We already know what $\mathbb R$ is, so I'm guessing you're talking about some realization of $\mathbb R$ in terms of the incidence structure, but I can only guess with what you've written. – Dustan Levenstein Nov 30 '16 at 02:27
  • 1
    @DustanLevenstein then indeed, these are the binary operations of the field of real numbers (addition and multiplication). Von Staudt considers an affine line in the affine plane with two points marked on the line (which will be 0 and 1) and a certain collection of auxiliary points and lines in the plane. Given this data he defines geometrically two functions from the square of the affine line to the affine line. These functions are then shown to coincide with the binary field operations. – Moishe Kohan Nov 30 '16 at 02:50
  • 1
    Once you know this, given a bijection $b$ of the plane preserving collinearity as well as the two marked points on the distinguished affine line L, it follows that the bijection $b$ restricted to $L$ is a field automorphism. Then use the fact that the field of real numbers has no nontrivial automorphisms. Hence the bijection restricts to the identity on $L$. This is the key part of the proof. – Moishe Kohan Nov 30 '16 at 02:54
  • That is much clearer. If you incorporate that outline of the proof into your answer, I'll upvote and accept it. – Dustan Levenstein Nov 30 '16 at 04:50
  • +1, thank you for your hints. I thought a more thorough answer was in order though. – Dustan Levenstein Dec 02 '16 at 03:35
  • If you want me to change my accepted answer to yours, all you need to do is incorporate your last two comments into your answer. I just wanted to make sure nobody needs to dig through the comments to find a useful answer. – Dustan Levenstein Dec 03 '16 at 15:48
  • @DustanLevenstein: The useful answer is in the first paragraph of my answer which contains the precise reference for anybody willing to go to a library and read a book. Everything else is extra. Normally, I do not duplicate solutions which can be found in standard and accessible references. – Moishe Kohan Dec 03 '16 at 16:02
  • No, that's completely contrary to the spirit of math stackexchange. There are many answers here that simply elucidate the contents of books. A reference is not an adequate substitute for a proper answer here. – Dustan Levenstein Dec 03 '16 at 16:48