Group Abstract Group Abstract

Message Boards Message Boards

Branchlike lattice coordinates arbitrariness

POSTED BY: Federico Pasqua
3 Replies

Thanks a lot, this was exactly the problematic point I was trying to explain. It is not a trivial procedure but is overlooked as taken for granted in the papers, causing many problems of understanding.

POSTED BY: Federico Pasqua

I think this problem has been mentioned several times now, so maybe a more detailed elaboration would be nice.

I honestly don't see how you can define any meaningful embedding in a space like, say, $\mathbb{Z}^{1,3}$. For one thing, any finite graph can always be (even polygonally if you want) embedded in an infinite number of different ways into $\mathbb{R}^3$ (that is, without any crossings between vertices). Adding a temporal dimension to this space would inevitably add even more ambiguity.

By the way, let's say we have a graph and choose a certain embedding into $\mathbb{Z}^{1,3}$ by assigning four coordinates to each vertex $(t,\vec{x})$. It is always possible to obtain a new embedding by the transformation (which is just one simple example of many): $$(t,\vec{x})\mapsto (t,\lambda \vec{x})\qquad \lambda \neq 0$$

This could easily turn space-like distances between vertices into time-like distances, deeming these terms useless. Am I wrong here?

POSTED BY: Malthe Andersen

In the relativity paper, I say "If one now considers performing a layered graph embedding of a causal graph..."

Layered digraph embedding (at least for acyclic digraphs) is a well-defined optimization problem, in which all edges are given by monotonic-downwards curves, and crossings between edges are minimized, so a metric constructed on the basis of such an embedding into a discrete lattice is a well-defined metric. Am I missing something here?

POSTED BY: Jonathan Gorard
Reply to this discussion
Community posts can be styled and formatted using the Markdown syntax.
Reply Preview
Attachments
Remove
or Discard