arXiv:1802.04994v2 [math.RA] 15 Feb 2018

Idempotent geometry in generic algebras
Yakov Krasnov and Vladimir G. Tkachev
Abstract. Using the syzygy method, established in our earlier paper,
we characterize the combinatorial stratification of the variety of twodimensional real generic algebras. We show that there exist exactly three
different homotopic types of such algebras and relate this result to potential applications and known facts from qualitative theory of quadratic
ODEs. The genericity condition is crucial. For example, the idempotent
geometry in Clifford algebras or Jordan algebras of Clifford type is very
different: such algebras always contain nontrivial submanifolds of idempotents.

1. Introduction
The aim of this paper is to further develop the geometrical approach to
generic commutative (maybe nonassociative) algebras initiated in [6] and
based on the topological index theory and singularity theory. More precisely,
we are interested in the following question: How the geometry of idempotents
in a generic algebra is determined by its algebraic structure, and vice versa. It
is classically known that idempotents play a distinguished role in associative
(matrix, Clifford) and nonassociative (Jordan, octonions) algebra structures
[14], [10]; see also very recent results for the so-called axial algebras [5] and
nonassociative algebras of cubic minimal cones [12], [15].
A key ingredient of our approach in [6] is the Euler-Jacobi formula
which gives an algebraic relation between the critical points of a polynomial
map and their indices. Indeed, there is a natural bijection between fixed
points of the squaring map ψ : x → x2 in a nonassociative algebra A and
its idempotents. By Bezóut’s theorem, the complexification AC has either
2dim A distinct idempotents (counting properly multiplicities and nilpotents
which can be thought of as idempotents at infinity), or there are infinitely
many idempotents. In the first case, the algebra A is called generic. Then the
dichotomy can be essentially reformulated as follows: an algebra is generic if
and only if 12 is not in the Peirce spectrum of the algebra. The Euler-Jacobi
formula applied to the squaring map ψ yields several obstructions both on the

2

Yakov Krasnov and Vladimir G. Tkachev

spectrum of the idempotents and also the idempotent configurations, the socalled syzygies. In particular, information about the spectrum of sufficiently
many idempotents completely determines the rest part of the spectrum and
also prescribes possible idempotent constellations.
In this paper, we focus on the vector syzygies, i.e. the obstruction on
the possible ‘geometry’ or configurations of idempotents. The main results
are presented for two-dimensional real generic algebras where we are able
to obtain a complete characterization. The reality assumption is needed, in
particular, because we are interested in certain topological invariants. We also
relate our results to potential applications and known facts from qualitative
theory of quadratic ODEs.

2. Preliminaries
We begin by recalling some standard concepts and definitions of nonassociative algebra. By A we denote a finite dimensional commutative nonassociative
algebra over a subfield K of the field of complex numbers. The algebra multiplication is denoted by juxtaposition. Thus, xy = yx for all x, y ∈ A but
x(yz) and (xy)z are not necessarily equal. By a slight abuse of terminology,
an algebra always mean a commutative nonassociative algebra.
If not explicitly stated otherwise, we shall assume that K = R, the field
of real numbers. By AC we denote the complexification of A obtained in an
obvious way by extending of the ground field such that dim A = dimC AC .
An operator of multiplication by y ∈ A is denoted by Ly , i.e. Ly x = yx.
An element c is called idempotent if c2 = c and 2-nilpotent if c2 = 0. By
Idm(A) = {0 6= c ∈ A : c2 = c} we denote the set of all nonzero idempotents
of A and the complete set of idempotents will be denoted by
Idm0 (A) = {0} ∪ Idm(A).
By Nil2 (A) we denote the set of 2-nilpotents, i.e. the elements x of A such
that x2 = 0.
Any semisimple idempotent 0 6= c = c2 ∈ A induces the corresponding
Peirce decomposition:
M
A=
Ac (λ),
λ∈σ(c)

where cx = xc = λx for any x ∈ Ac (λ) and σ(c) is the Peirce spectrum
of c (i.e. the spectrum of the operator Lc ). The Peirce spectrum σ(A) =
{λ1 , . . . , λs } of the algebra A is the set of all possible distinct eigenvalues λi
in σ(c), when c runs all idempotents of A.
Given a subset E ⊂ A we denote by Span(E) the subspace of A spanned
by A. By Affin(E) we denote the affine span of E, i.e. the smallest affine
subspace of A that contains E, regarded as a set of points in A. Equivalently,
Affin(E) = e + Span(E − e),
where e ∈ E is an arbitrary element and E − e = {x − e : x ∈ E}.

Idempotent geometry in generic algebras

3

3. General facts on the geometry of idempotents
Recall [6] that an nonassociative algebra over K is called generic if its complexification AC contains exactly 2n distinct idempotents. Then the following
characterization holds:
Proposition 3.1 (Theorem 3.2 in [6]). If A is a commutative generic algebra
then 12 6∈ σ(A). In the converse direction: if 12 6∈ σ(A) and A does not contain
2-nilpotents then A is generic.
Let us make some elementary observations. First, note that any two
nonzero idempotents are linearly independent. Indeed, c2 = λc1 implies c2 =
λ2 c1 , therefore, since λ 6= 0 we have λ = 1. Furthermore, we have
Proposition 3.2. If two nonzero idempotents lie on a line ` ⊂ A. Then either
of the following cases happens:
(a) the whole line consists of idempotents: ` ⊂ Idm(A), 12 ∈ σ(c) for any
c ∈ `, and for any two points c1 , c2 ∈ ` there holds c1 − c2 ∈ Nil2 (A);
(b) there are only two idempotents on `.
Proof. Let ` be a line in A and let c1 , c2 ∈ `, where ci ∈ Idm(A). Suppose (b)
does not hold, i.e. there exists another idempotent on the line: c ∈ ` ∩ Idm(A)
and c 6= c1 , c2 . Then there exists α ∈ R, α(α − 1) 6= 0 such that
(αc1 + (1 − α)c2 )2 = αc1 + (1 − α)c2 ,

(1)

therefore α(1 − α)(c1 + c2 − 2c1 c2 ) = 0, implying by the made assumption
that c1 + c2 = 2c1 c2 , or equivalently (c1 − c2 )2 = 0, hence c1 − c2 ∈ Nil2 (A).
It also follows that (1) holds true for all α ∈ K, therefore ` ⊂ Idm(A). Let
c = αc1 + (1 − α)c2 ∈ `. Then
c(c1 − c2 ) = αc1 + (α − 1)c2 + (1 − 2α)c1 c2
= αc1 + (α − 1)c2 + 12 (1 − 2α)(c1 + c2 )
= 21 (c1 − c2 ),
therefore c1 − c2 6= 0 is an eigenvector corresponding to 21 . This proves that
1

2 ∈ σ(c) for any c ∈ `. The proposition follows.
Lemma 3.3 (Square identity). Let A be a commutative algebra over K and
let c1 , . . . , ck+1 be idempotents in A such that
ck+1 =

k
X

αi ci ,

i=1

k
X

αi = 1.

(2)

i=1

Then
X

αi αj (ci − cj )2 = 0.

(3)

i<j

Proof. Using c2i = ci , 1 ≤ i ≤ k + 1 we obtain
k
X
i=1

αi ci =

k
X
i=1

αi2 ci + 2

X
i<j

αi αj ci cj .

(4)

4

Yakov Krasnov and Vladimir G. Tkachev

Using the second identity in (2) yields
αi (1 − αi ) =

X

αi αj ,

j6=i

therefore applying the latter identity to (4) readily yields
X
X
0=
αi αj (2ci cj − ci − cj ) =
αi αj (ci − cj )2 .
i<j

i<j

which proves (3).



Remark 3.4. The geometrical meaning of (2) is clear. Note that (2) implies
k
X

αi (ci − ck+1 ) = 0,

i=1

i.e. {c1 − ck+1 , . . . , ck − ck+1 } lie in a (k − 1)-dimensional subspace of A,
equivalently, ck+1 lies in the affine subspace Affin(c1 , . . . , ck ). Conversely, if
ck+1 lies in the affine subspace Affin(c1 , . . . , ck ) then (2) holds. Then αi can
be thought of as a sort of barycentric coordinates (even if ci are linearly
dependent).
Proposition 3.5. Let A be a generic algebra over K. If Π is a 2-dimensional
affine subspace of A then there exists at most 4 distinct idempotents in Π,
i.e.
card(Idm(A) ∩ Π) ≤ 4.
Proof. Let us suppose by contradiction that there exist 5 distinct idempotents
ci , 1 ≤ i ≤ 5 in Π. If some of ci = 0 then Π is a 2-dimensional subspace. Let,
for example, c5 = 0. Since any two nonzero idempotents non-collinear, c1 , c2
is a basis in Π, hence
c3 = αc1 + βc2 ,
where αβ 6= 0 because c3 is distinct from c1 , c2 . This yields
αc1 + βc2 = α2 c1 + β 2 c2 + 2αβc1 c2 ,
hence

1
(α(1 − α)c1 + β(1 − β)c2 ),
2αβ
i.e. Π = Span(c1 , c2 ) is a subalgebra. Since Π contains 5 distinct idempotents
(counting 0) then the subalgebra Π is non-generic, therefore A is non-generic
too, a contradiction. Thus, Π 63 0.
Let {ci , cj , ck } be any triple with distinct indices 1 ≤ i, j, k ≤ 5. Since A
is generic, ci , cj , ck cannot lie on the same line. Also, by the above argument,
the affine subspace Affin(ci , cj , ck ) does not contain the origin, thus {ci , cj , ck }
are linearly independent. For dimension reasons, Π is contained in the 3dimensional subspace Vijk := Span(ci , cj , ck ) of A. In particular, we can write
c1 c2 =

c4 = α1 c1 + α2 c2 + α3 c3 ,
c5 = β1 c1 + β2 c2 + β3 c3 ,

Idempotent geometry in generic algebras
where

3
X
i=1

αi =

3
X

βi = 1

5

and all αi , βi are nonzero

i=1

(where the latter condition follows from the fact that no pair of the idempotents can lie on the same line). Applying Lemma 3.3, we find
1
1
1
(c2 − c3 )2 +
(c1 − c3 )2 +
(c1 − c2 )2 = 0,
α1
α2
α3
(5)
1
1
1
(c2 − c3 )2 + (c1 − c3 )2 + (c1 − c2 )2 = 0,
β1
β2
β3
Since {c4 , c5 , ck }, 1 ≤ k ≤ 3, are linearly independent, we have
αi
βi
Then it follows from (5) that
αi βi
αj βj
(ck − ci )2 =
αk αi
αk αj
βk β i
βk βj

αj
βj

6= 0

(ck − cj )2 ,

{i, j, k} = {1, 2, 3}.

Therefore (c2 − c3 )2 , (c2 − c1 )2 and (c3 − c1 )2 are collinear, i.e.
(c1 − c2 )2 = λ(c1 − c3 )2 ,

λ ∈ K.

Expanding the latter identity yields
c1 u = 12 (1 − λ)c1 + 12 u,

where u := c2 − λc3 ,

hence,
c1 ((λ − 1)c1 + u) = (λ − 1)c1 + 12 (1 − λ)c1 + 12 u
= 12 ((λ − 1)c1 + u).
This shows that (λ−1)c1 +u is an eigenvector of Lc1 with eigenvalue 21 , i.e. 12 ∈
σ(A). This proves by Proposition 3.1 that A is not generic, a contradiction.

Note however that there are (necessarily non-generic) algebras with 5
idempotents lying in a two-dimensional affine subspace Π ⊂ A. A typical
situation is when these 5 idempotents lie on a quadric in Π, see two examples
below.
Example 3.6. Consider an algebra A with the ground vector space R3 equipped
by the following multiplication rule1 :
x2 = (x1 , x2 , x3 )2 = (x21 − x2 x3 , x22 − x1 x3 , x23 − x1 x2 ).

(6)

Then the set of a nonzero idempotents is the circle
Idm(A) = {x1 + x2 + x3 = 1, (x1 − 13 )2 + (x2 − 13 )2 + (x3 − 13 )2 = 23 }
1 Since

all algebras are commutative, the multiplication structure is uniquely determined
by the algebra square: x → x2 . Namely, the multiplication then recovered by linearization
xy = 12 ((x + y)2 − x2 − y 2 )

6

Yakov Krasnov and Vladimir G. Tkachev

and the set of a nonzero 2-nilpotents is
Nil2 (A) = {x31 = x32 = x33 }.
In particular, there exist complex (non-real) 2-nilpotents in the complexification AC . Furthermore, it is straightforward to verify that the spectrum of
any c ∈ Idm(A) is constant: σ(c) = {1, 12 , − 12 }.
Example 3.7. Let b(x, y) be a bilinear form on Rn , n ≥ 1. Consider an algebra
A on R × Rn with the following multiplication rule:
(x0 , x) • (y0 , y) = (x0 y0 + b(x, y), x0 y + y0 x),

x0 , y0 ∈ R, x, y ∈ Rn . (7)

The algebra is obviously commutative. It is well-known that the algebra A is
Jordan, see [3]. It is called a spin-factor [10] or a Jordan algebra of Clifford
type. Note that e = (1, 0) is the algebra unit. The set of nonzero idempotents
is given by
Idm(A) = {c = (x0 , x) : x0 = 12 , b(x, x) = 14 } ∪ {e}
and the set of a 2-nilpotents is Nil2 (A) = {(x0 , x) : x0 = b(x, x) = 0}. The
spectrum of any nonunital idempotent c 6= e is σ(c) = {1, 0, 21 , . . . , 12 }. For
example, let us consider n = 2 and b(x, y) = x1 y1 + x2 y2 the usual Euclidean
inner product. Then in the corresponding Jordan algebra, Idm(A) contains
the circle {x0 = 12 , x21 + x22 = 14 }.
A further analysis of the proof of Propsition 3.5 combined with Lemma 3.3
makes it is plausible to believe that the following conjecture is true:
Conjecture. If Π is a k-dimensional affine subspace of a generic algebra then
at most 2k distinct idempotents can be contained in Π.

4. Two-dimensional real generic algebras
Though the two-dimensional nonassociative algebras is a very well-studied
object, see for example H. Petersson’s paper [13], our results below have a
different nature.
Definition 4.1. A nonassociative algebra over R is called a real generic algebra
if its complexification AC is generic and additionally Idm(A) = Idm(AC ).
In this section we shall assume that A is a real generic algebra and
dimR A = 2. Let c0 = 0 and c1 , c2 , c3 denote four distinct idempotents of A.
Then since dim A = 2 and 1 ∈ σ(ci ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ 3, the second eigenvalue
λi is also real. Let us associate to each ci the value of the characteristic
polynomial of Lci evaluated at 21 :
χci ( 21 ) = ( 12 − 1)( 12 − λi ) = 41 (2λi − 1) ∈ R,
1
2,

(8)
χci ( 12 )

where σ(ci ) = {1, λi }, 1 ≤ i ≤ 3. Since A is generic, λi 6= hence
6= 0.
The sign of χci ( 12 ) has a clear topological interpretation. Let us consider
the vector field
ψA (x) = x2 − x : A → A.

Idempotent geometry in generic algebras

7

Any zero c of ψA is an idempotent of A and vice versa. If A is generic then all
zeros of ψA are isolated. Recall that the index of ψA at an isolated zero c is
the degree of the (normalized) mapping ψA (x) nearby c [11]. Let c ∈ Idm(A)
and let z ∈ A then
1
 ψA (c

+ z) = (2cz − z) + z 2 = 2(Lc − 12 )z + z 2 .

Since A is generic,
1
42

det dψA (c) = χc ( 12 ) = det(Lc − 12 ) 6= 0,

(9)

therefore, the index
indc ψA = sgn χc ( 12 )

(10)

By the Poincaré-Hopf theorem, the total index of the vector field is
equal to the Euler characteristic of A, i.e. vanishes. In particular, this yields
the index at infinity
3
X
sgn χc ( 12 ).
ind∞ ψA = −
i=1

Note that the latter sum is a topological invariant. This in particular means
that ind∞ ψA is invariant under small deformations of a generic algebra.
Our main goal is to study possible configurations of the idempotent
quadruple (c0 , c2 , c2 , c3 ) from topological point of view. To this end, note that
there is a syzygy for the nontrivial part of the algebra spectrum established
explicitly in [6] (see also [17]):
4λ1 λ2 λ3 − λ1 − λ2 − λ3 + 1 = 0.

(11)

Another way to present (11) in a generic algebra is
3
X
i=1

−1
1
1
1
1 = 1 − 2λ + 1 − 2λ + 1 − 2λ = 1,
4χci ( 2 )
1
2
3

(12)

see (40) in [6]. Furthermore, the idempotents also are balanced by the following ‘mean value’ type identity:
3
X
i=1

ci
= 0.
χci ( 12 )

(13)

By virtue of (12) let us rewrite the latter identity as
3
X

ai ci = 0 = c0 ,

i=1

3
X

ai = 1 =: −a0 ,

(14)

i=1

where
ai =

1
−1
=
.
1 − 2λi
4χci ( 12 )

(15)

The vector of coefficients a := (a1 , a2 , a3 ) ∈ R can be thought as the barycentric coordinates of c0 = 0 in the affine coordinate system (c1 , c2 , c3 ) in A.
Note that the case (−, −, −) is impossible by virtue of the second relation in

8

Yakov Krasnov and Vladimir G. Tkachev

(14). Therefore there are only three possible unordered sign configurations of
(a1 , a2 , a3 ):
sign configurations:

(+, +, +)

(+, +, −)

l

l

l

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

types:

(+, −, −)

referred further to as types (i), (ii) and (iii) respectively. These types can
be characterized geometrically, as follows: the three lines passing through
nonzero idempotents ci divide the plane A into 7 = 1 + 3 + 3 disjoint open
domains, see Fig. 1 below. It is straightforward to verify that the sign of the
triple (a1 , a2 , a3 ) is constant in each domain, see Fig. 1.
(−, −, +)
iii
ii
(+, −, +)
c1
(+, −, −)

c3
i
(+, +, +)

iii

ii

ii
(−, +, +)
c2
iii

(+, +, −)

(−, +, −)

Figure 1. The sign of (a1 , a2 , a3 )
This yields the following three unordered configurations of sign:
{+, +, +}

type (i)

c0 is inside of the triangle ∆(c1 , c2 , c3 )

{+, +, −}

type (ii)

c0 is in an unbounded trapezius domain

{+, −, −}

type (iii)

c0 is in an unbounded corner

The sign of χci ( 21 ) is an important parameter here. Indeed, as it was remarked
above, sgn χci ( 12 ) is exactly the index of the vector field ψA (x) = x2 − x,
thus carrying information on the topological ‘charge’ of the corresponding
idempotent ci . Note that since χ0 (t) = t2 , we have
sgn χc0 ( 21 ) = +1

⇒

sgn a0 = −1,

i.e. the sign of the zero idempotent is always negative (the corresponding
charge a0 has the opposite sign, i.e. positive). The three possible configurations of all four idempotents with their charges are shown in Fig. 2.

Idempotent geometry in generic algebras

ck

+

+ ci

− c0

−c
0

+c
k

+

λi , λj , λk <

cj

ci

1
2

−
λk <

type i

1
2

−

cj

< λi , λj

type ii

9

cj +

− c0

ck −

+ ci

λi , λj <

1
2

< λk

type iii

Figure 2. The three configuration types (c0 is marked in grey)
The three types can be described in terms of the Peirce spectrum as
follows. To this end, note that it follows from (11) that
λk −

1
(2λi − 1)(2λj − 1)
=−
,
2
4λi λj − 1

(16)

where i, j, k is a permutation of 1, 2, 3. Therefore if λi , λj > 12 then λk < 12 .
In that case, ai , aj < 0 and ak > 0, therefore we have type (ii) configuration.
Similarly, if λi , λj < 12 then λk > 12 , hence ai , aj > 0 and ak < 0, therefore
we have type (iii) configuration.
Let us show that all three types of generic algebras are realizable. It is
natural to ask if the condition (11) is sufficient to have an algebra with the
Peirce spectrum (λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ). The following proposition shows that this is the
case.
Theorem 4.2. If A is a generic two-dimensional commutative algebra over
a field K then its Peirce spectrum satisfies (11) and (13). In the converse
direction, given three numbers λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ∈ K satisfying (11), there exists
a generic two-dimensional commutative algebra over K such that σ(ci ) =
{1, λi }, i = 1, 2, 3, where ci are three distinct nonzero idempotents.
Proof. For the proof of the first part we refer to Theorem 4.7 in our recent
paper [6]. Thus, let us suppose that λ1 , λ2 , λ3 ∈ K satisfy (11). We consider
a two-dimensional vector space V over K. Let c1 , c2 be a basis of V . Turn V
into an algebra A = (V, ◦) by setting
c1 ◦ c1 = c1 ,

c2 ◦ c2 = c2 ,

c1 ◦ c2 = λ2 c1 + λ1 c2 .

Then c1 , c2 are obviously idempotents in A, and it is straightforward to see
that σ(ci ) = {1, λi }, i = 1, 2. Next, let
c3 = α2 c1 + α1 c2 ,
where
αi =

2λi − 1
, i = 1, 2.
4λ1 λ2 − 1

10

Yakov Krasnov and Vladimir G. Tkachev

Then using the definition of the multiplicative table on A we obtain
c3 ◦ c3 = α2 (α2 + 2λ2 α1 )c1 + α1 (α1 + 2λ1 α2 )c2
= α2 c1 + α1 c2
= c3 .
Hence c3 is a nonzero idempotent distinct of c1 , c2 . Furthermore, using (16)
we obtain σ(c3 ) = {1, λ3 }, hence A is a generic algebra with the desired
Peirce spectrum.

Taking into account the latter theorem, we see that all three types are
realizable. We give some explicit examples of each type.
Example 4.3 (Types (i) and (ii)). Let us define a nonassociative algebra H(τ )
be an algebra on R2 with multiplication
(x1 , x2 ) ◦ (y1 , y2 ) = (x1 y1 − x2 y2 , 12 (1 − τ 2 )(x1 y2 + x2 y1 )),
where τ > 0, τ 6= 1, is some fixed real. Then
1
Idm(A) = {c0 = 0, c1 = ( 1−τ
2,

−τ
1−τ 2 ),

τ
1
c2 = ( 1−τ
2 , 1−τ 2 ), c3 = (1, 0)},

and the nontrivial part of the spectrum is
λ1 = λ2 =

1 + τ2
,
2(1 − τ 2 )

λ3 = 12 (1 − τ 2 ) <

1
.
2

It follows that
• if 0 < τ < 1 then sgn(a1 , a2 , a3 ) = (−, −, +), hence H(τ ) has type (ii);
• if τ > 1 then sgn(a1 , a2 , a3 ) = (+, +, +), hence H(τ ) has type (i).

Example 4.4 (Type (ii)). Let A = R × R be the direct product of two copies
of reals R. Then Idm(A) = {c0 = 0, c1 = (1, 0), c2 = (0, 1), c3 = (1, 1)},
and c3 is the algebra unit. In the above notation, the nontrivial part of the
spectrum is λ1 = λ2 = 0 and λ3 = 1, hence using (15) we obtain
(a0 , a1 , a2 , a3 ) = (−1, 1, 1, −1),
therefore A has type (iii). Note that the zero idempotent and the algebra
unit have negative sign, while the two adjacent idempotents e1 = e3 − e2
have positive sign.
We emphasize that any deformation (i.e. a continuous path in the variety of all nonassociative commutative algebras) of any generic algebra A
switching its type must pass through non-generic algebras.

......

Idempotent geometry in generic algebras

11

5. Real generic algebras and Riccati type ODEs
We finish this section by indicating some useful correspondence between the
three algebra types and three possible phase portraits of quadratic systems of
ODEs with two independent variables. Recall that given a system of quadratic
ordinary differential equations
dX
= F (X),
(17)
dt
where F : Rn → Rn is a homogeneous degree two map, one can associate a
commutative algebra AF on Rn with multiplication
x ◦ y = 14 (F (x + y) − F (x − y))

(18)

(note that the right hand side is obviously bilinear in x, y). In the introduced
notation, (17) becomes a Riccati type ODE
Ẋ = X ◦ X = X 2

(19)

on the algebra AF . This construction is well-known and there exists a nice
correspondence between the standard algebraic concepts and ODE tools, we
refer the interested reader to [9], [16], [4], [7], [8]. For example, c ∈ Idm(AF )
if and only if the one-dimensional subspace spanned by c is an integral curve
of (17) (i.e. the separate variable solution X(t) = f (t)c is a solution to (17)).
In ODEs the idempotent is often called a Darboux point and the Peirce
numbers are known as the Kovalevskaja exponents, [18]. There are many
well-established quadratic ODEs, in particular, in mathematical biology or
dynamics of the so-called second order chemical reactions (i.e. the reactions
with a rate proportional to the concentration of the square of a single reactant
or the product of the concentrations of two reactants) [1].
In what follows, we focus on the particular case dim AF = n = 2. Recall
that Berlinskii’s Theorem [2] classifies the global behaviour of a quadratic
ODE system in the plane, in particular, it describes all possible configurations
of critical points. More precisely, if a plane ODE has four singular points in a
finite part of the phase plane, then only one of the following cases is possible:
(B1) three singular points are vertices of a triangle containing the fourth
point inside and this point is a saddle while the others are antisaddles
(a center, a focus or a node).
(B2) three singular points are vertices of a triangle containing the fourth
point inside, and this point is a antisaddle while the others are saddles.
(B3) these points are vertices of a convex quadrangular, where two opposite
vertices are saddles (antisaddles) and two others are antisaddles (saddles);
The reader easily recognize that these cases correspond to exactly to the
algebras of type (i), (ii) and (iii). Let us explain this in more detail in the case
of the quadratic systems. To this end, let us consider (19) in a two-dimensional
real generic algebra A with idempotents Idm(A) = {c0 = 0, c1 , c2 , c3 }. Then
the rays
`± (ci ) = {tci : t ∈ R± }, i = 1, 2, 3,

12

Yakov Krasnov and Vladimir G. Tkachev
F = (x2 − y 2 , −2xy)

F = (x2 − y 2 , 23 xy)

sF = (x2 , y 2 )

(B1)

(B2)

(B3)

type (i)

type (ii)

type (iii)

√
H( 3)

H( √13 )

R×R

Table 1. The ODE ↔ real generic NA correspondence

split A ∼
= R2 into 6 sector domains with vertices at the origin. Clearly, that
each `± (ci ) is an integral curve of (19), thus each of the sector 6 domains is
invariant under flow. Then the three different types of plane quadratic ODEs
corresponding to the three two-dimensional real generic algebra types are
shown on Table 5.

6. Some final remarks and questions
The case of real generic algebras of dim A ≥ 3 is more subtle. It is interesting to know which configurations of idempotents are realizable and which
geometrical concepts are naturally appear in this analysis. Recall that in the
two-dimensional case considered in the previous section, critical (non-generic)
situations occur exactly when three idempotents fall on one line. The situation in three dimensions is more complicated and involves quadric surfaces
instead. We are still able to get a nice description here but this requires a
more delicate work with the syzygies in the spirit of [6]. Full details will
appear elsewhere.
Note that any idempotent generates a one-dimensional subalgebra. Twodimensional subalgebras of generic algebras appear naturally in the configurations considered above. This motivates a very natural question: what can
be said about the possible number of subalgebras of a given generic algebra?
For example, the direct algebra product R × R × R has 6 two-dimensional
subalgebras. Is there exists more than six subalgebras in dimension three?
The latter example is a unital algebra. Is the unitality necessary for that?

Idempotent geometry in generic algebras

13

Acknowledgment
This work was done while the first author visited Linköping’s University. He
would like to thank the Mathematical Institution of Linköping’s University
for hospitality. The second author was partially supported by G.S. Magnusons
Foundation, grant MG 2017-0101.

References
1. Rutherford Aris, Mathematical modeling: A chemical engineer’s perspectiv, A
Chemical Engineer’s Perspective, vol. 1, Academic Press, 1999.
2. A. N. Berlinskiı̆, On the behavior of the integral curves of a differential equation,
Izv. Vysš. Učebn. Zaved. Matematika 1960 (1960), no. 2 (15), 3–18.
3. J. Faraut and A. Korányi, Analysis on symmetric cones, Oxford Mathematical
Monographs, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1994,
Oxford Science Publications.
4. H. Gradl and S. Walcher, On continuous time models in genetic and Bernstein
algebras, J. Math. Biol. 31 (1992), no. 1, 107–113.
5. J. I. Hall, F. Rehren, and S. Shpectorov, Primitive axial algebras of Jordan type,
J. Algebra 437 (2015), 79–115.
6. Y. Krasnov and V.G. Tkachev, Variety of idempotents in nonassociative algebras, Quaternionic and Clifford analysis. In honor of Wolfgang Sprß̈ig, Trends
Math., Birkhäuser/Springer Basel AG, Basel, 2018, to appear.
7. Ya. Krasnov, Differential equations in algebras, Hypercomplex analysis, Trends
Math., Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2009, pp. 187–205.
, Properties of ODEs and PDEs in algebras, Complex Anal. Oper. The8.
ory 7 (2013), no. 3, 623–634.
9. L. Markus, Quadratic differential equations and non-associative algebras, Contributions to the theory of nonlinear oscillations, Vol. V, Princeton Univ. Press,
Princeton, N.J., 1960, pp. 185–213.
10. K. McCrimmon, A taste of Jordan algebras, Universitext, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 2004.
11. John W. Milnor, Topology from the differentiable viewpoint, Princeton Landmarks in Mathematics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997, Based
on notes by David W. Weaver, Revised reprint of the 1965 original.
12. N. Nadirashvili, V.G. Tkachev, and S. Vlăduţ, Nonlinear elliptic equations
and nonassociative algebras, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 200,
American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2014.
13. Holger P. Petersson, The classification of two-dimensional nonassociative algebras, Results Math. 37 (2000), no. 1-2, 120–154.
14. Ian R. Porteous, Clifford algebras and the classical groups, Cambridge Studies
in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 50, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1995.
15. V.G. Tkachev, On an extremal property of jordan algebras of clifford type, 9 p.,
submitetd.
16. S. Walcher, Algebraic structures and differential equations, Jordan algebras
(Oberwolfach, 1992), de Gruyter, Berlin, 1994, pp. 319–326.

14

Yakov Krasnov and Vladimir G. Tkachev

17.
, On algebras of rank three, Comm. Algebra 27 (1999), no. 7, 3401–3438.
18. Xiang Zhang, Integrability of dynamical systems: algebra and analysis, Developments in Mathematics, vol. 47, Springer, Singapore, 2017.
Yakov Krasnov
Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900, Israel
e-mail: krasnov@math.biu.ac.il
Vladimir G. Tkachev
Department of Mathematics, Linköping University, Linköping, 58183, Sweden
e-mail: vladimir.tkatjev@liu.se

