Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
  
  
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2015
   • (edited Dec 1st 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexSince there wasn't a page [[octonionic Hopf fibration]], I started one, copying over the start of [[quaternionic Hopf fibration]]. The weirdness of the octonions doesn't prevent anything there, does it?

   Since there wasn’t a page octonionic Hopf fibration, I started one, copying over the start of quaternionic Hopf fibration. The weirdness of the octonions doesn’t prevent anything there, does it?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2015
   • (edited Dec 1st 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItex$p_\mathbb{O}$ is not exactly given by the formula $[x/y;1]$ as one must be careful in defining $\mathbb{OP}^1$: it's not just $(\mathbb{O}\times \mathbb{O}\setminus\{(0,0)\})/\mathbb{O}^\times$. Also, it's not clear how much one can think of it as being a "Moufang loop principal bundle". Clearly there is an "action" map $S^15\times S(\mathbb{O}) \to S^15$, and I'm pretty convinced this induces a diffeomorphism $S^15\times S(\mathbb{O}) \to S^15\times_{S^8} S^{15}$, but while there is probably a sensible notion of what it means for a loop to act on a set or space, I don't know what it is.

   is not exactly given by the formula as one must be careful in defining : it’s not just .

   Also, it’s not clear how much one can think of it as being a “Moufang loop principal bundle”. Clearly there is an “action” map , and I’m pretty convinced this induces a diffeomorphism , but while there is probably a sensible notion of what it means for a loop to act on a set or space, I don’t know what it is.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexOK, I had a suspicion I should be wary. I've put 'Under construction'. There's an account of the fibration on p.7 of [this](http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0899). I wonder of I can extract that.

   OK, I had a suspicion I should be wary. I’ve put ’Under construction’.

   There’s an account of the fibration on p.7 of this. I wonder of I can extract that.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2015
   • (edited Dec 1st 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexDoes this look right? Because of the noncommutativity of the octonions, we cannot simply imitate the construction for the quaternions in [[quaternionic Hopf fibration]]. First, we decompose $\mathbb{O}^2$ into the octonionic lines, $l_m := \{(x, m x)|x \in \mathbb{O}\}$ or $l_{\infty} := \{(0, y)|y \in \mathbb{O}\}$. In this way the fibration $\mathbb{O}^2 \setminus 0 \to S^8 = \{m \in \mathbb{O}\} \union \{\infty\}$ is obtained, with fibers $\mathbb{O} \setminus 0$, and the intersection with the unit sphere $S^{15} \subset \mathbb{O}^2$ provides the octonionic Hopf fibration.

   Does this look right?

   Because of the noncommutativity of the octonions, we cannot simply imitate the construction for the quaternions in quaternionic Hopf fibration. First, we decompose into the octonionic lines, or . In this way the fibration is obtained, with fibers , and the intersection with the unit sphere provides the octonionic Hopf fibration.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItex_Non-associativity_, you mean?

   Non-associativity, you mean?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexOn octonionic projective geometry, you might try reading Baez starting [here](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/octonions/node8.html).

   On octonionic projective geometry, you might try reading Baez starting here.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexHmm, now I wondering whether it really was wrong as it was originally. In #2 David R. said >$p_\mathbb{O}$ is not exactly given by the formula $[x/y;1]$ as one must be careful in defining $\mathbb{OP}^1$: it's not just $(\mathbb{O}\times \mathbb{O}\setminus\{(0,0)\})/\mathbb{O}^\times$. But doesn't this [MO answer](http://mathoverflow.net/a/24070/447) say that's what $p_\mathbb{O}$ is?

   Hmm, now I wondering whether it really was wrong as it was originally. In #2 David R. said

   is not exactly given by the formula as one must be careful in defining : it’s not just .

   But doesn’t this MO answer say that’s what is?

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexDavid C., I think you're safe. Baez [here](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/octonions/node9.html) describes the projective line for any of the four normed division algebras $\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{C}, \mathbb{H}, \mathbb{O}$ as being the space of $2 \times 2$ Hermitian idempotents of rank $1$, and for the octonionic case these are the matrices of the form $a_{11} = x^\ast x, a_{12} = x^\ast y, a_{21} = y^\ast x, a_{22} = y^\ast y$ where ${\|x\|}^2 + {\|y\|}^2 = 1$ (so $(x, y) \in S^{15}$). A little more analysis shows the manifold of such matrices is $S^8$, with the projection $p: S^{15} \to S^8$ essentially as you described it, but see that page for the complete details.

   David C., I think you’re safe. Baez here describes the projective line for any of the four normed division algebras as being the space of Hermitian idempotents of rank , and for the octonionic case these are the matrices of the form where (so ). A little more analysis shows the manifold of such matrices is , with the projection essentially as you described it, but see that page for the complete details.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks, Todd. I started [[15-sphere]] as it appears to have one or two special properties.

   Thanks, Todd.

   I started 15-sphere as it appears to have one or two special properties.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2015
    • (edited Dec 2nd 2015)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexSorry for coming in late. It seems that the more robust way of speaking about the Hopf fibrations is via the _[[Hopf construction]]_. That does not mention projective spaces and it needs nothing but a binary pairing operation to exist. The only thing is, unless I am missing something, that if you plug in the product operation of a division algebra into the Hopf construction as is, then the Hopf construction (which uses $(x,y) \mapsto x \cdot y$) spits out the negative of the standard Hopf fibration (which instead uses $(x,y)\mapsto x \cdot y^{-1}$ on one chart and $(x,y)\mapsto x^{-1} \cdot y$ on the other), by [this proposition](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hopf+construction#HopfInvariantFromProductOfDegrees). I had tried to spell out the relation [here](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hopf+construction#HopfFibrations).

    Sorry for coming in late. It seems that the more robust way of speaking about the Hopf fibrations is via the Hopf construction. That does not mention projective spaces and it needs nothing but a binary pairing operation to exist.

    The only thing is, unless I am missing something, that if you plug in the product operation of a division algebra into the Hopf construction as is, then the Hopf construction (which uses ) spits out the negative of the standard Hopf fibration (which instead uses on one chart and on the other), by this proposition. I had tried to spell out the relation here.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexMaybe the different parameterizations of $S^8$ and $S^15$ are relevant. What is the map that takes the parameterization of $S^{15}$ at [[Hopf construction]] to the unit sphere in $\mathbb{O}^2$? $$ S^{7}\ast S^{7} = (S^{7}\times I \times S^{7})/\sim \simeq \left\{ (x,t,y) \,, {\vert x \vert}^2 = 2t \,,\; {\vert y\vert}^2 = 2 - 2t \right\} $$

    Maybe the different parameterizations of and are relevant. What is the map that takes the parameterization of at Hopf construction to the unit sphere in ?

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: Todd_Trimble
    Format: MarkdownItex> It seems that the more robust way of speaking about the Hopf fibrations is via the Hopf construction. Oh, good point. I guess that would be a first step towards creating a classifying bundle for an $H$-space $X$, with the ability to pass to later stages mandated by satisfaction of $A_\infty$ conditions on $X$ (in the octonionic case we can't get past step one).

    It seems that the more robust way of speaking about the Hopf fibrations is via the Hopf construction.

    Oh, good point. I guess that would be a first step towards creating a classifying bundle for an -space , with the ability to pass to later stages mandated by satisfaction of conditions on (in the octonionic case we can’t get past step one).

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: Todd_Trimble
    Format: MarkdownItexI've added some material to [[join of topological spaces]], including an example which gives more details on what I was driving at in the previous comment.

    I’ve added some material to join of topological spaces, including an example which gives more details on what I was driving at in the previous comment.

14. • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: Todd_Trimble
    Format: MarkdownItexI've added some material to [[join of topological spaces]], including an example which gives more details on what I was driving at in the previous comment. [[Milnor construction]] needs to be made more precise in a couple of spots, which I intend to get to later.

    I’ve added some material to join of topological spaces, including an example which gives more details on what I was driving at in the previous comment.

    Milnor construction needs to be made more precise in a couple of spots, which I intend to get to later.

15. • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThanks, Todd!

    Thanks, Todd!

16. • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2015
    • (edited Dec 2nd 2015)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexDavid, re #11: the map in the Hopf construction is just the product operation. In the parameterization which I had chosen in the entry it is $$ \array{ S^7 & \longrightarrow & S^4 \\ \left\{ (x,t,y) \,, {\vert x \vert}^2 = 2t \,,\; {\vert y\vert}^2 = 2 - 2t \right\} &\stackrel{{(x,y) \mapsto z \coloneqq x \cdot y} \atop {t \mapsto t}}{\longrightarrow}& \left\{ (z,t) \,,\; {\vert z \vert}^2 + (1 - 2t)^2 = 1 \right\} } \,. $$ Notice that it is the multiplicativity of the norm in division algebras which makes this parameterization work: if ${\vert x \vert}^2 = 2t$ and ${\vert y\vert}^2 = 2 - 2t$ then it follows that $$ \begin{aligned} {\vert x \cdot y\vert}^2 + (1- 2t)^2 & = {\vert x \vert}^2 {\vert y \vert}^2 + (1-2t)^2 \\ & = 2t (2-2t) + (1 - 2t)^2 \\ & = 1 \end{aligned} \,, $$ (I have added this further clarification now also to the entry, at the end of the subsection [here](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Hopf+construction#HopfFibrations)).

    David, re #11: the map in the Hopf construction is just the product operation. In the parameterization which I had chosen in the entry it is

    Notice that it is the multiplicativity of the norm in division algebras which makes this parameterization work: if and then it follows that

    (I have added this further clarification now also to the entry, at the end of the subsection here).

17. • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexRe #16, I saw that. I was just wondering how the Hopf construction map, i.e., product, looks under the change of coordinates. So there's $S^15$ as the unit sphere in $\mathbb{O}^2$ and as $S^7 * S^7$, and $S^8$ as lines in $\mathbb{O}^2$ and as $\Sigma S^7$. What happens when we pass from the unit sphere in $\mathbb{O}^2$ to $S^7 * S^7$ to $\Sigma S^7$ to lines in $\mathbb{O}^2$?

    Re #16, I saw that. I was just wondering how the Hopf construction map, i.e., product, looks under the change of coordinates.

    So there’s as the unit sphere in and as , and as lines in and as . What happens when we pass from the unit sphere in to to to lines in ?

18. • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2015
    • (edited Dec 3rd 2015)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThe parameterization of $S^7 \star S^7$ that I gave in the entry manifestly identifies it with the unit sphere in $\mathbb{O}^2$, in its standard coordinates. Moreover, the parameterization I gave for $\Sigma S^7$ is manifestly so that $z$ parameterizes a hemisphere of $S^4$ and the two possible solutions for $t$ identify it as one or the other hemisphere. Each hemisphere in turn is naturally identified via stereographic projection with the chart $[z;1]$ or $[1,z]$ of $\mathbb{P}\mathbb{O}^1$. That's why I said that the standard parameterization of the Hopf fibrations is via $(x,y) \mapsto x y^{-1}$ (in one chart) or $(x,y ) \mapsto x^{-1} y$ (in the other), while the Hopf construction gives $(x,y) \mapsto x y$.

    The parameterization of that I gave in the entry manifestly identifies it with the unit sphere in , in its standard coordinates. Moreover, the parameterization I gave for is manifestly so that parameterizes a hemisphere of and the two possible solutions for identify it as one or the other hemisphere. Each hemisphere in turn is naturally identified via stereographic projection with the chart or of .

    That’s why I said that the standard parameterization of the Hopf fibrations is via (in one chart) or (in the other), while the Hopf construction gives .

19. • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexAh yes. of course. But then what? So these are inequivalent constructions of the Hopf fibration? Different elements of $\pi_{15}(S^8)$? Is that why you say the "negative of the standard Hopf fibration"?

    Ah yes. of course. But then what? So these are inequivalent constructions of the Hopf fibration? Different elements of ? Is that why you say the “negative of the standard Hopf fibration”?

20. • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: DavidRoberts
    Format: MarkdownItexI'm not entirely convinced that the identification of $\Sigma S^7$ as given with $S^8$ represents the element 1 in $\pi_8(S^8)$, and not the element -1. There's an implicit isomorphism $ [0,1]\simeq[-1,1]$ in Urs' parameterisation, reversing the orientation. But from the formula for the degrees given, assuming inversion has degree -1, then the usual Hopf fibration using $x\cdoty^{-1}$ would have degree -1, whereas the general construction with smash and suspension would have degree +1. It's not clear to me what's going on, since the Hopf fibration are taken to be the generators in their respective homotopy groups.

    I’m not entirely convinced that the identification of as given with represents the element 1 in , and not the element -1. There’s an implicit isomorphism in Urs’ parameterisation, reversing the orientation.

    But from the formula for the degrees given, assuming inversion has degree -1, then the usual Hopf fibration using would have degree -1, whereas the general construction with smash and suspension would have degree +1. It’s not clear to me what’s going on, since the Hopf fibration are taken to be the generators in their respective homotopy groups.

21. • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexYes, as mentioned in #10, the Hopf construction (curiously enough) gives the negative of the Hopf fibration. (And both -1 and +1 are generators of $\mathbb{Z}$..., if that's what you were alluding to?)

    Yes, as mentioned in #10, the Hopf construction (curiously enough) gives the negative of the Hopf fibration. (And both -1 and +1 are generators of …, if that’s what you were alluding to?)

22. • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2015
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexI added some parts from above. There are no doubt more interesting things to say about $spin(9)$ etc.

    I added some parts from above. There are no doubt more interesting things to say about etc.

23. • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2015
    • (edited Dec 22nd 2015)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI'd like to know the fixed points of the octonionic Hopf fibration under subgroups of $G_2 = Aut_{\mathbb{R}}(\mathbb{O})$; probably I'd particularly like to know the fixed points under the standard $SO(4)$-subgroup and its further $SO(3)$-subgroup. I still have little idea, but at least I found this article here: * [[Reiko Miyaoka]], _The linear isotropy group of $G_2/SO(4)$, the Hopf fibering and isoparametric hypersurfaces_, Osaka J. Math. Volume 30, Number 2 (1993), 179-202. ([Euclid](http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ojm/1200784357)) which in its section 2 gives a detailed desription of these subgroups. I have added this pointer to the entry now. Curiously, the article is otherwise concerned with understanding not the octonionic but the quaternionic Hopf fibration, and maybe the relation between the above subgroups and the quaternionic Hopf fibration is just what I really need. But not sure yet. Need to put this aside for the moment.

    I’d like to know the fixed points of the octonionic Hopf fibration under subgroups of ; probably I’d particularly like to know the fixed points under the standard -subgroup and its further -subgroup.

    I still have little idea, but at least I found this article here:

    • Reiko Miyaoka, The linear isotropy group of , the Hopf fibering and isoparametric hypersurfaces, Osaka J. Math. Volume 30, Number 2 (1993), 179-202. (Euclid)

    which in its section 2 gives a detailed desription of these subgroups. I have added this pointer to the entry now.

    Curiously, the article is otherwise concerned with understanding not the octonionic but the quaternionic Hopf fibration, and maybe the relation between the above subgroups and the quaternionic Hopf fibration is just what I really need. But not sure yet. Need to put this aside for the moment.

24. • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2019
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexmade more explicit that statement $$ \array{ S^7 &\overset{fib(h_{\mathbb{O}})}{\longrightarrow}& S^{15} &\overset{h_{\mathbb{O}}}{\longrightarrow}& S^8 \\ = && = && = \\ \frac{Spin(8)}{Spin(7)} &\longrightarrow& \frac{Spin(9)}{Spin(7)} &\longrightarrow& \frac{Spin(9)}{Spin(8)} } $$ which * Liviu Ornea, Maurizio Parton, Paolo Piccinni, Victor Vuletescu, _Spin(9) geometry of the octonionic Hopf fibration_, ([arXiv:1208.0899](http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0899), [doi:10.1007/s00031-013-9233-x]( https://doi.org/10.1007/s00031-013-9233-x)) make but in passing, on their p. 7. Analogous coset-presentations of the other Hopf fibrations must be well know, such as $$ \array{ S^3 &\overset{fib(h_{\mathbb{H}})}{\longrightarrow}& S^{7} &\overset{h_{\mathbb{H}}}{\longrightarrow}& S^4 \\ = && = && = \\ \frac{Spin(4)}{Spin(3)} &\longrightarrow& \frac{Spin(5)}{Spin(3)} &\longrightarrow& \frac{Spin(5)}{Spin(4)} } $$ What would be a reference that makes this explicit? <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/octonionic+Hopf+fibration/13">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/octonionic+Hopf+fibration/13">v13</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/octonionic+Hopf+fibration">current</a>

    made more explicit that statement

    which

    • Liviu Ornea, Maurizio Parton, Paolo Piccinni, Victor Vuletescu, Spin(9) geometry of the octonionic Hopf fibration, (arXiv:1208.0899, doi:10.1007/s00031-013-9233-x)

    make but in passing, on their p. 7.

    Analogous coset-presentations of the other Hopf fibrations must be well know, such as

    What would be a reference that makes this explicit?

    diff, v13, current

25. • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 31st 2019
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexadded pointer to * Herman Gluck, Frank Warner, Wolfgang Ziller, _The geometry of the Hopf fibrations_, L'Enseignement Math&eacute;matique, t.32 (1986), p. 173-198 which in its Prop. 7.1 explicitly states and proves the $Spin(9)$-equivariance of the octonionic Hopf fibration (but fails to mention the coset representation that makes this manifest) <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/octonionic+Hopf+fibration/14">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/octonionic+Hopf+fibration/14">v14</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/octonionic+Hopf+fibration">current</a>

    added pointer to

    • Herman Gluck, Frank Warner, Wolfgang Ziller, The geometry of the Hopf fibrations, L’Enseignement Mathématique, t.32 (1986), p. 173-198

    which in its Prop. 7.1 explicitly states and proves the -equivariance of the octonionic Hopf fibration

    (but fails to mention the coset representation that makes this manifest)

    diff, v14, current

26. • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2019
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexIn view of #24, perhaps we could also have $$ \array{ S^1 &\overset{fib(h_{\mathbb{C}})}{\longrightarrow}& S^{3} &\overset{h_{\mathbb{C}}}{\longrightarrow}& S^2 \\ = && = && = \\ \frac{Spin(2)}{Spin(1)} &\longrightarrow& \frac{Spin(3)}{Spin(1)} &\longrightarrow& \frac{Spin(3)}{Spin(2)} } $$ And perhaps then in the real case if we can cope with $Spin(0)$.

    In view of #24, perhaps we could also have

    And perhaps then in the real case if we can cope with .

27. • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2019
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexYes, I suppose so. Would be good to add.

    Yes, I suppose so. Would be good to add.

28. • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2019
    • (edited Apr 29th 2019)
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexI guess it could come in the context of a discussion of $Spin(3) \simeq SU(2) \simeq Sp(1)$-equivariance. Presumably a similar idea applies as with the quaternion case: $Sp(1)$ acts on unit quaternions, $S^3$, and $Spin(3)$ acting on 2-sphere by its action on 3-space. Then the fibration itself is equivariant.

    I guess it could come in the context of a discussion of -equivariance. Presumably a similar idea applies as with the quaternion case: acts on unit quaternions, , and acting on 2-sphere by its action on 3-space. Then the fibration itself is equivariant.

29. • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2019
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexGiven the starring role played by the quaternionic Hopf fibration in Urs's recent [paper](https://ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/Twisted+Cohomotopy+implies+M-theory+anomaly+cancellation), we might expect the octonionic version to have featured in physics somewhere. I see Joe Polchinski gives it a role in [Open Heterotic Strings, p. 7](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510033), discussed on p. 3 of [When D-branes Break](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0606216).

    Given the starring role played by the quaternionic Hopf fibration in Urs’s recent paper, we might expect the octonionic version to have featured in physics somewhere.

    I see Joe Polchinski gives it a role in Open Heterotic Strings, p. 7, discussed on p. 3 of When D-branes Break.

30. • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexAdded a reference and result about lack of $S^1$ subfibrations. * Maurizio Parton, [[Paolo Piccinni]], _The Role of Spin(9) in Octonionic Geometry_, ([arXiv:1810.06288](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06288)). <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/octonionic+Hopf+fibration/16">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/octonionic+Hopf+fibration/16">v16</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/octonionic+Hopf+fibration">current</a>

    Added a reference and result about lack of subfibrations.

    • Maurizio Parton, Paolo Piccinni, The Role of Spin(9) in Octonionic Geometry, (arXiv:1810.06288).

    diff, v16, current

31. • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
    • PermaLink
    Author: David_Corfield
    Format: MarkdownItexAdded another comment on subfibrations, but we don't have a definition of that concept yet. Presumably a fibration involving subspaces. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/octonionic+Hopf+fibration/16">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/octonionic+Hopf+fibration/16">v16</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/octonionic+Hopf+fibration">current</a>

    Added another comment on subfibrations, but we don’t have a definition of that concept yet. Presumably a fibration involving subspaces.

    diff, v16, current

32. • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2019
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThanks, I have copied it over also to his "Selected writings" list, [here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Paolo+Piccinni#PartonPiccinni18)

    Thanks, I have copied it over also to his “Selected writings” list, here