On Quaternions and Octonions: Their

Geometry, Arithmetic, and Symmetry

by John H. Conway and Derek A. Smith
John C. Baez
Department of Mathematics, University of California
Riverside, California 92521
USA

email: [email protected]
August 12, 2004

Conway and Smith’s book is a wonderful introduction to the normed division

algebras: the real numbers (R), the complex numbers (C), the quaternions (H)
and the octonions (O). The first two are well-known to every mathematician. In
constrast, the quaternions and especially the octonions are sadly neglected, so
the authors rightly concentrate on these. They develop these number systems
from scratch, explore their connections to geometry, and even study number
theory in quaternionic and octonionic versions of the integers.
Conway and Smith warm up by studying two famous subrings of C: the
  


Gaussian integers and Eisenstein integers. The Gaussian integers are the com-

 

 

 
plex numbers x + iy for which x and y are integers. They form a square lattice:

i 


 0 
  1


 
 
  


Any Gaussian integer can be uniquely factored into ‘prime’ Gaussian integers —
at least if we count differently ordered factorizations as the same, and ignore the
ambiguity introduced by the invertible Gaussian integers, namely ±1 and ±i.
To show this, we can use a straightforward generalization of Euclid’s proof for
ordinary integers. The key step is to show that given nonzero Gaussian integers
a and b, we can always write
a = nb + r

1
for some Gaussian integers n and r, where the ‘remainder’ r has

|r| < |b|.

This is equivalent to showing that we can find a Gaussian integer n with

|a/b − n| < 1.

And this is true, because no point in the complex plane has distance ≥ 1 to the
nearest Gaussian integer.
Similarly, the Eisenstein integers are complex numbers of the form x + ωy




where x and y are integers and ω is a nontrivial cube root of 1. These form a
lattice with hexagonal symmetry:
ω 
 


 !
!" 0 #
#$ 1 %
%&
'
'( )
)* +,
Again one can prove unique factorization up to reordering and units, using
the fact that no point in the complex plane has distance ≥ 1 to the nearest
Eisenstein integer.
To see the importance √ of this condition, consider the ‘Kummer integers’:
numbers of the form x + −5y where x and y are integers. If we draw an
open ball of radius 1/2 about each Kummer integer, there is still room for more
disjoint open balls of this radius:

2.23 5.4 54 −5 7.6 76 9.8 98

01
:.:; =.< =< 0 ?.> ?> 1 /.- /-
Thus there exist points in the complex plane with distance ≥ 1 from the nearest
Kummer integer, so Euclid’s proof of unique prime factorization fails — and so
does unique prime factorization:
√ √
2 · 3 = 6 = (1 + −5)(1 − −5).

In short, there is an interesting relation between number theory and a subject

on which Conway is an expert: densely packed lattices [5]. For a lattice in a
normed division algebra to be closed under multiplication, all its points must
have distance ≥ 1 from each other: otherwise the smallest element of nonzero

2
norm, say z, would have |z| < 1 and thus |z 2 | < |z| — a contradiction! On the
other hand, for the Euclidean algorithm to work, at least in the simple form
described here, there must be no point in the plane with distance ≥ 1 from the
nearest lattice point. So for both of these to hold, our lattice must be ‘well
packed’: if we place open balls of radius 1/2 centered at all the lattice points,
they must be disjoint, but they must not leave room for any more disjoint open
balls of this radius.
When it comes to subrings of the complex numbers, these ideas are well-
known. Back in the 1890’s, Minkowski used them to study unique prime fac-
torization (or more generally, ideal class groups) not only for algebraic integers
in quadratic number fields, as we have secretly been doing here, but also in
other number fields, which require lattices in higher dimensions. He called this
subject ‘the geometry of numbers’ [4, 11, 16]. Conway and Smith explore a
lesser-known aspect of the geometry of numbers by applying it to subrings of
the quaternions and octonions. But they cannot resist a little preliminary detour
into the geometry of lattices in 2 dimensions — nor should we.
The Gaussian and Eisenstein integers are the most symmetrical lattices in
the plane, since they have 4-fold and 6-fold rotational symmetry, respectively.
As such, they naturally turn up in the classification of 2-dimensional space
groups. A ‘space group’ is a subgroup of the Euclidean group (the group of
transformations of Rn generated by rotations, reflections and translations) that
acts transitively on a lattice. Up to isomorphism, there are 230 space groups
in 3 dimensions. These act as symmetries of various kinds of crystals, so they
form a useful classification scheme in crystallography — perhaps the most easily
understood application of group theory to physics. In 2 dimensions, there are
just 17 isomorphism classes of space groups. These are also called ‘wallpaper
groups’, since they act as symmetries of different wallpaper patterns. Conway
and Smith describe all these groups. Two of them act on a lattice with the least
amount of symmetry:
LAK LK XAW XW IAIJ UAUV
GAGAHGHG FAEFAE FEFE BA@BA@ B@B@ CADAC CDC
AD D
NAM NM OAOP QAQR SAST
Seven act on a lattice with rectangular symmetry:

3
 kAkl eAef `A_^]\[ `_^]\[ dAc dc
iAij gAgh ZAY ZY bAa ba
mAmAnmnm oAoApopo ArqArq rqrq sAtsAsts
tAt
or alternatively, on one with rhombic symmetry. Three act on a lattice with
square symmetry, and five act on a lattice with hexagonal symmetry.
After this low-dimensional warmup, Conway and Smith’s book turns to the
quaternions and their applications to geometry. The quaternions were discov-
ered by Sir William Rowan Hamilton in 1843. Fascinated by the applications
of complex numbers to 2d geometry, he had been struggling unsuccessfully for
many years to invent a bigger algebra that would do something similar for 3d
geometry. In modern language, it seems he was looking for a 3-dimensional
normed division algebra. Unfortunately, no such thing exists! Finally, on Octo-
ber 16th, while walking with his wife along the Royal Canal to a meeting of the
Royal Irish Academy in Dublin, he discovered a 4-dimensional normed division
algebra. In his own words, “I then and there felt the galvanic circuit of thought
close; and the sparks which fell from it were the fundamental equations between
i, j, k; exactly such as I have used them ever since.” He was so excited that he
carved these equations on the soft stone wall of Brougham Bridge.
Hamilton’s original inscription has long since been covered by other graffiti,
though a plaque remains to commemorate the event. The quaternions, which
in the late 1800’s were a mandatory examination topic in Dublin and the only
advanced mathematics taught in some American universities, have now sunk
into obscurity. The reason is that the geometry and physics which Hamilton
and his followers did with quaternions is now mostly done using the dot product
and cross product of vectors, invented by Gibbs in the 1880’s [7]. Scott Kim’s
charming sepia-toned cover art for this book nicely captures the ‘old-fashioned’
flavor of some work on quaternions. But the quaternions are also crucial to
some distinctly modern mathematics and physics.
As a vector space, the quaternions are

H = {a + bi + cj + dk : a, b, c, d ∈ R}.

They become an associative algebra with 1 as the multiplicative unit via:

i2 = j 2 = k 2 = −1,

ij = k = −ji and cyclic permutations.

Copying what works for complex numbers, we define the ‘conjugate’ of a quater-
nion q = a + bi + cj + dk to be q = a − bi − cj − dk, and define its ‘real part’ to
be Re(q) = a. It is then easy to check that

qq = qq = a2 + b2 + c2 + d2 .

4
This suggests defining a norm by |q|2 = qq, and it then turns out that the
quaternions are a normed division algebra:

|qq 0 | = |q||q 0 |.

In particular, any nonzero quaternion has a two-sided multiplicative inverse

given by
q −1 = q/|q|2 .
It follows that the quaternions of norm 1 form a group under multiplication.
This group is usually called SU(2), because people think of its elements as 2 × 2
unitary matrices with determinant 1. However, the quaternionic viewpoint is
better adapted to seeing how this group describes rotations in 3 and 4 dimen-
sions. The unit quaternions act via conjugation as rotations of the 3d space
of ‘pure imaginary’ quaternions, namely those with Re(q) = 0. This gives a
homomorphism from SU(2) onto the 3d rotation group SO(3). The kernel of
this homomorphism is {±1}, so we see SU(2) is a double cover of SO(3). The
unit quaternions also act via left and right multiplication as rotations of the 4d
space of all quaternions. This gives a homomorphism from SU(2) × SU(2) onto
the 4d rotation group SO(4). The kernel of this homomorphism is {±(1, 1)}, so
we see SU(2) × SU(2) is a double cover of SO(4).
These facts are incredibly important throughout mathematics and physics.
With their help, Conway and Smith classify the finite subgroups of the 3d
rotation group SO(3), its double cover SU(2), the 3d rotation/reflection group
O(3), and the 4d rotation group SO(4). These classifications are all in principle
‘well known’. However, they seem hard to find in one place, so Conway and
Smith’s elegant treatment is very helpful.
Next, Conway and Smith turn to quaternionic number theory. The obvious
analogue of the Gaussian integers are the ‘Lipschitz integers’, namely quater-
nions of the form a + bi + cj + dk where a, b, c, d are all integers. The Lipschitz
integers are a subring of the quaternions, and this has a nice application to
ordinary number theory. Applying the formula |zz 0 | = |z||z 0 | to the product of
two Gaussian integers gives the famous ‘two squares formula’:

(x2 + y 2 )(x02 + y 02 ) = (xx0 − yy 0 )2 + (xy 0 + yx0 )2

which shows that the set of integers expressible as the sum of two squares is
closed under multiplication. Similarly, taking the norm of the product of two
Lipschitz integers gives a ‘four squares formula’. This shows the set of integers
expressible as the sum of four squares is closed under multiplication. This fact is
less impressive than it might at first sound, since one can prove that all integers
can be written as the sum of four squares — but the four-square formula reduces
the task of proving this to the case of prime numbers.
Alas, the Lipschitz integers are not well packed, so their factorization into
Lipschitz primes is far from unique. This was noted already by Lipschitz himself
[8]. For example:
(1 + i)(1 − i) = 2 = (1 + j)(1 − j).

5
However, it is easy to correct this problem. Consider the cubical lattice of all
points with integer coordinates in Rn . To make the distance to the nearest
lattice point as big as possible, we can go to any point with all half-integer
coordinates. The distance to the nearest lattice point is then
q

1 2

2 p
2 + · · · + 21 = n/4.
This gets arbitrarily large as n increases — so in high dimensions we could pack
space with a cubical lattice of steel balls with half-inch radius snugly touching
each other, but still leave places light-years
p away from metal.
More to the point, the distance n/4 reaches 1 precisely in dimension 4 —
the case we are interested in. So, if we place open balls of radius 1/2 centered at
the Lipschitz integers, there is still room to slip in a translated copy of this lattice
of balls centered at quaternions a + bi + cj + dk where a, b, c, d are half-integers.
This gives the ‘Hurwitz integers’: quaternions of the form a + bi + cj + dk where
a, b, c, d are either all integers or all integers plus 1/2.
The Hurwitz integers are a well-packed lattice and also a subring of the
quaternions. This lets Conway and Smith prove a version of unique prime fac-
torization for Hurwitz integers. To state this result, they restrict attention to
‘primitive’ Hurwitz integers, namely those that are not divisible by any natural
number. They show that for any primitive Hurwitz integer Q and any factor-
ization of |Q|2 into a product p0 p1 · · · pk of ordinary prime numbers, there is a
factorization
Q = P 0 P1 · · · Pk
of Q into a product of Hurwitz primes with |Pi |2 = pi . Moreover, given any
factorization with this property, all the other factorizations with this property
are of the form
Q = (P0 U1 )(U1−1 P1 U2 ) · · · (Uk−1 Pk )
where the Ui are Hurwitz integers of norm 1 — of which there are precisely 24, as
we shall soon see. Conway and Smith call this ‘uniqueness up to unit-migration’.
For example, these two factorizations are not the same up to unit-migration if
we work in the Lipschitz integers:
(1 + i)(1 − i) = 2 = (1 + j)(1 − j)
but they become so in the Hurwitz integers, since we have
(1 + i)U = (1 + j), U −1 (1 − i) = (1 − j)
where U is a Hurwitz integer of norm 1, namely 21 (1 − i + j − k).
The Hurwitz integers are so beautiful that we should pause and admire them
before following Conway and Smith to higher dimensions. Though it is far from
obvious, they give the densest possible lattice packing of balls in 4 dimensions
[5]. In this setup, each ball touches 24 others. For example, the ball centered at
the origin touches the balls centered at Hurwitz integers of norm 1. There are
8 of these with integer coordinates:
±1, ±i, ±j, ±k,

6
and 16 with half-integer coordinates:
1
(±1 ± i ± j ± k).
2
The 8 with integer coordinates form the vertices of a cross-polytope (the 4d
analogue of an octahedron):

‚ ƒ„ƒ…
wx
k

j
1

−i
}~ € i

yz {|
uv
−1
−j

−k

while the 16 with half-integer coordinates form the vertices of a hypercube (the
4d analogue of a cube):

ž ›œ
Š‰ˆ Šˆ †‡ ‹Œ ™š
Ž‰ Ž Ÿ 
¥¦ ¡¢
£¤ —˜ •– “”
 ‘’
Taken together, they form the vertices of a regular polytope called the ‘24-cell’:

7
 ÓÔ ¯°
¿À
ĉà Äà ÅÆ ¹º
µ¶ §¨ ­®
ÕÖ ËÌ
³´ ÇÈ
ÏÐ ÉÊ
±² «¬ ·¸ ©ª
»¼ ½¾
ÁÂ
ÑÒ ÍÎ
All but one of the regular polytopes in 4 dimensions are analogues of Platonic
solids in 3 dimensions; the exception is the 24-cell. The picture above is a bit
too cluttered to reveal all the charms of this entity. It is helpful to look at
3-dimensional slices:

Re(q) = 1

Re(q) = 1/2

Re(q) = 0

Re(q) = −1/2

Re(q) = −1

The thin dashed lines show one of the faces of the 24-cell: though distorted in
this picture, it is really a regular octahedron. Since the hypercube is dual to the
cross-polytope, the 24-cell is self-dual — so it has 24 of these octahedral faces,
and if we draw a dot in the middle of each one, we get the vertices of another
24-cell.
There is much more to say in favor of the 24-cell. It is not only a regular
polytope; it is also a group! More precisely, its vertices form a 24-element
subgroup of SU(2). This is usually called the ‘binary tetrahedral group’, since
it is a double cover of the rotational symmetry group of the tetrahedron. This
group also goes by the name of SL(2, Z/3): 2 × 2 matrices with determinant 1
having entries in the integers modulo 3. In this guise it explains some of the
mystical importance of the number 24 in bosonic string theory [18].

8
 It would be enjoyable to spend more time delving into these matters, but alas,
this review is not the proper place. Instead, we should move on to the octonions.
These were first discovered by Hamilton’s college friend John Graves. It had
been Graves’ interest in algebra that got Hamilton thinking about complex
numbers and their generalizations in the first place. The day after discovering
the quaternions, Hamilton sent a letter describing them to Graves. The day
after Christmas on that same year, Graves wrote to Hamilton describing an
8-dimensional algebra which he called the ‘octaves’. He showed that they were
a normed division algebra, and used this to express the product of two sums
of eight squares as another sum of eight squares: the ‘eight squares theorem’.
Hamilton offered to publicize Graves’ discovery, but kept putting it off, absorbed
in work on the quaternions. Eventually Arthur Cayley rediscovered them and
published an article announcing their existence in 1845. For this reason they are
sometimes called ‘Cayley numbers’ — but these days, all right-thinking people
call them the ‘octonions’.
As a vector space, the octonions are
7
X
O = {a0 + ai ei : a0 , . . . , a7 ∈ R}.
i=1

We make them into a nonassociative algebra with 1 as multiplicative unit using

a gadget called the ‘Fano plane’:
e6

e4 e1

e7

e3 ei2 e5

There are 7 points and 7 lines in this picture, if we count the circle containing
e1 , e2 , e4 as an honorary ‘line’. Each line contains 3 points, and each of these
triples is equipped with a cyclic order as indicated by the arrows. The rule is
that if ei , ej , ek are cyclically ordered in this way, they satisfy:
e2i = e2j = e2k = −1,
ei ej = ek = −ej ei and cyclic permutations.
Thus, they give a copy of the quaternions inside the octonions.
Copying what P worked for the quaternions,
P we define the ‘conjugate’ of an
octonion a = a0 + 7i=1 ai ei to be a = a0 − 7i=1 ai ei , and define its ‘real part’
to be Re(a) = a0 . It is then easy to check that
7
X
aa = aa = a2i ,
i=0

9
so we can define a norm by |a|2 = aa. This makes the octonions into a normed
division algebra:
|aa0 | = |a||a0 |,
and any nonzero octonion has a two-sided inverse given by

a−1 = a/|a|2 .

A brute-force verification of these last facts is unpleasant, in part because the oc-
tonions are nonassociative. It is also not very enlightening. Conway and Smith
wisely use the ‘Cayley–Dickson construction’ instead. This is a dimension-
doubling procedure that produces C from R, H from C, and O from H, and
explains why they are normed division algebras — while also explaining why
there are no more.
Conway and Smith then develop the fascinating relationship between oc-
tonions and Spin(8), the double cover of the rotation group in 8 dimensions.
In physics lingo, the octonions can be described not only as the vector rep-
resentation of Spin(8), but also the left-handed spinor representation and the
right-handed spinor representation. This fact is called ‘triality’. It has many
amazing spinoffs, including structures like the exceptional Lie groups and the ex-
ceptional Jordan algebra, and the fact that supersymmetric string theory works
best in 10-dimensional spacetime — fundamentally because the 2-dimensional
worldsheet of the string wants 8 extra dimensions to wiggle around in, and
8 + 2 = 10. To develop the theory of triality, Conway and Smith make use
of Moufang loops and their isotopies — two concepts which never made much
sense to me until I saw their lucid treatment. Anyone interested in triality must
read this section.
Next, Conway and Smith tackle octonionic number theory. Various lattices
in O present themselves as possible octonionic analogues of the integers, but
the best candidate is the least obvious. Starting with the most obvious, the
‘Gravesian integers’ are octonions of the form
7
X
a = a0 + ai ei
i=1

where all the coefficients ai are integers. The ‘Kleinian integers’ are octonions
where the ai are either all integers or all half-integers. Both these are lattices
closed under multiplication — but alas, neither is well-packed. To get a denser
lattice, first pick a line in the Fano plane. Then, take all integral linear combi-
nations of Gravesian integers, octonions of the form
1
(±1 ± ei ± ej ± ek )
2
where ei , ej and ek lie on this line, and those of the form

1
(±ep ± eq ± er ± es )
2

10
where ep , eq , er , es all lie off this line. The resulting lattice is called the ‘double
Hurwitzian integers’. Actually we obtain 7 isomorphic copies of the double
Hurwitzian integers this way, one for each line in the Fano plane.
The double Hurwitzian integers are closed under multiplication, and it is
easy to see that as a lattice, they are the product of two copies of the Hurwitz
integers — hence their name. In fact, they can be obtained from the Hurwitz in-
tegers using the Cayley–Dickson doubling construction. But unlike the Hurwitz
integers, they are not well-packed. To see this, note that the point
1
(1 + ei + ep + eq )
2
has distance 1 from all the double Hurwitzian integers.
To fix this, we need an even denser lattice closed under multiplication. One
natural guess is to take the union of all 7 copies of the double Hurwitzian
integers. This gives a well-packed lattice — and in fact, the densest possible
lattice packing of balls in 8 dimensions. In this setup, each ball touches 240
others. To see this, just count the lattice vectors of norm 1. First, we have ±e i
for i = 0, . . . 7. Second, we have 12 (±1 ± ei ± ej ± ek ) where ei , ej and ek all lie
on some line in the Fano plane. And third, we have 21 (±ep ± eq ± er ± es ) where
ep , eq , er , es all lie off some line. There are 2 × 8 = 16 vectors of the first form,
24 × 7 = 112 of the second form, and 24 × 7 = 112 of the third form, for a total
of 240.
Curiously, I had just been thinking about this lattice when Conway and
Smith’s book arrived in my mail. After checking a couple of cases, I had jumped
to the conclusion that it is closed under multiplication. I was shocked to read
that it is not. But I was comforted to hear that this is a common mistake.
Following Coxeter [6], Conway and Smith call it ‘Kirmse’s mistake’, after the
first person to make it in public. To rub salt in the wound, they mockingly call
this lattice the ‘Kirmse integers’.
To fix Kirmse’s mistake, you need to perform a curious trick. Pick a number
j from 1 to 7. Then, take all the Kirmse integers
7
X
a = a0 + ai ei
i=1

and switch the coefficients a0 and aj . As a lattice, the resulting ‘Cayley integers’
are just a reflected version of the Kirmse integers, so they are still well-packed.
But bizarrely, they are now closed under multiplication! Since this trick involved
an arbitrary choice, there are 7 different copies of the Cayley integers containing
the Gravesian integers. And this is as good as it gets: each one is maximal
among lattices closed under multiplication.
Conway and Smith then study prime factorization in the Cayley integers.
This is a fascinating subject, but even trickier than the quaternionic case, since
the octonions are nonassociative: one has to worry about different parenthe-
sizations, as well as different orderings. So at this point, I will stop trying to
explain their work, and leave it to them. Instead, I will say a bit about a topic

11
that Conway and Smith skip: how the Hurwitz integers and Cayley integers
show up in the theory of Lie groups.
Every compact simple Lie group K has a subgroup that is isomorphic to a
product of circles and is as big as possible while having this property. Though
not unique, this subgroup is unique up to conjugation; it is called a ‘maximal
torus’ and denoted T . Since it is abelian, it is much easier to study than K
itself. We cannot recover K just from this subgroup T . But K has a god-given
Riemannian metric on it, which restricts to a metric on T . One of the miracles
of Lie theory is that knowing the group T together with this metric on it is
enough to determine K up to isomorphism, at least when K is connected.
We can simplify things even further if we work with the Lie algebra t of the
torus T . Since T is abelian, the bracket on t vanishes. If that were all, t would
be a mere vector space. However, t also has an inner product coming from the
Riemannian metric on T . There is also a lattice L in t, namely the kernel of the
exponential map
exp: t → T.
So, t is really an inner product space with a lattice in it. From the lattice one
can recover the torus T ∼ = t/L, and from the inner product on t one can recover
the metric on this torus. So, we have compressed all the information about K
into something very simple: an inner product space containing a lattice. Not
any lattice in an inner product space comes from a compact simple Lie group in
this manner. However, we can work out which ones do — and Hurwitz integers
and the Cayley integers do!
In this context, the Hurwitz integers are called the ‘D4 lattice’, and the
corresponding Lie group is Spin(8), the double cover of the rotation group in 8
dimensions. I already mentioned that this group is closely tied to the octonions
via triality. Now we are seeing its ties to the quaternions! In this context,
triality manifests itself as the symmetry that cyclically permutes the Hurwitz
integers i, j, and k.
Similarly, in this context the Cayley integers are called the ‘E8 lattice’. The
corresponding group is also called E8 . It is the biggest of the 5 exceptional
cases that show up in the classification of compact simple Lie groups. In order
of increasing dimension, these are called G2 , F4 , E6 , E7 and E8 — where the
subscript gives the dimension of the maximal torus. They are all connected to
the octonions, and they all play a role in string theory. In some ways E8 is the
most mysterious, because its smallest nontrivial representation is the ‘adjoint
representation’, in which it acts by conjugation on its own Lie algebra. Since E8
is 248-dimensional, this means that the smallest matrices we can use to describe
its elements are of size 248×248. This is a nuisance, but the real problem is that
the best way to understand a group is to see it as the group of symmetries of
something. In the adjoint representation, we are only seeing E8 as symmetries
of itself ! It seems to be pulling itself up into existence by its own bootstraps.
Recently some mathematical physicists have been studying a construction of
E8 as the symmetries of a 57-dimensional manifold equipped with extra struc-
ture [12, 14]. When I heard this, the number 57 instantly intrigued me — and

12
not just because Heinz advertises 57 varieties of ketchup, either. No, the real
reason was that the smallest nontrivial representation of E8 ’s little brother E7
is 56-dimensional. When you study exceptional Lie algebras, you start noticing
that strange numbers can serve as clues to hidden relationships... and indeed,
there is one here.
One can actually find the numbers 56 and 57 lurking in the geometry of the
240 Cayley integers of norm 1. However, it helps to begin with some general
facts about graded Lie algebras. Here I am not referring to Z/2-graded Lie
algebras, also known as ‘Lie superalgebras’. Instead, I mean Lie algebras g that
have been written as a direct sum of subspaces g(i), one for each integer i, such
that [g(i), g(j)] ⊆ g(i + j). If only the middle 3 of these subspaces are nonzero,
so that
g = g(−1) ⊕ g(0) ⊕ g(1),
we say that g is ‘3-graded’. Similarly, if only the middle 5 are nonzero, so that

g = g(−2) ⊕ g(−1) ⊕ g(0) ⊕ g(1) ⊕ g(2),

we say L is ‘5-graded’, and so on. In these situations, some nice things happen
[12]. First of all, g(0) is always a Lie subalgebra of g. Second of all, it acts on
each other space g(i) by means of the bracket. Third of all, if g is 3-graded, we
can give g(1) a product by picking any element k ∈ g(−1) and defining

x ◦ y = [[x, k], y].

This product automatically satisfies the identities defining a ‘Jordan algebra’:

x ◦ y = y ◦ x,

x ◦ (y ◦ (x ◦ x)) = (x ◦ y) ◦ (x ◦ x),
so 3-graded Lie algebras are a great source of Jordan algebras [15].
If k is the Lie algebra of a compact simple Lie group K, there is a very nice
way to look for gradings of its complexification g = C ⊗ k. This involves some
more Lie theory — standard stuff that I will only briefly sketch here [1, 10].
Recall that we can pick a maximal torus T for K. The Lie algebra t of this
maximal torus is contained in k, and similarly its complexification h = C ⊗ t
is contained in g. It turns out that g is the direct sum of h and a bunch of
1-dimensional complex vector spaces gr , one for each ‘root’ r. Roots are certain
special vectors in the ‘dual lattice’ L∗ , meaning the lattice of vectors ` ∈ t∗ such
that `(v) is an integer for all v in the original lattice L. It is handy to define g0
to be h, so that M
g= gr .
r∈{roots}∪{0}

The great thing about this decomposition is that

[gr , gr0 ] ⊆ gr+r0

13
whenever r and r 0 are either roots or zero. So, to put a grading on g, we just
need to slice t with evenly spaced parallel hyperplanes in such a way that each
root, as well as the origin, lies on one of these hyperplanes.
Now let us turn to the case of E8 . Let us call the complexification of its
Lie algebra — what we have been calling g above — simply e8 . In this case t
is the octonions and L is the Cayley integers. However, it will be simpler to
work in a coordinate system where L is the Kirmse integers, since they have
the same geometry as a lattice, and they are easier to describe. This could be
called ‘Kirmse’s revenge’.
If we use the inner product hx, yi = Re(x∗ y) on the octonions to identify
t with its dual, it turns out that L∗ = L: the lattice of Kirmse integers is
self-dual. Moreover, the roots are just the Kirmse integers of norm 1. Since
there are 240 of these, the dimension of E8 is 240 + dim(h) = 248. To put a
grading on e8 , you should imagine these 240 roots as the vertices of a gleaming
8-dimensional diamond. Imagine yourself as a gem cutter, turning around this
diamond, looking for nice ways to slice it. You need to slice it with evenly
spaced parallel hyperplanes that go through every vertex, as well as the center
of the diamond.
The easiest way to do this is to let each slice go through all the roots whose
real part takes a given value. This value can be 1, 21 , 0, − 21 , or −1, so we obtain
a 5-grading of the Lie algebra e8 . We can count the number of roots in each
slice:
• The number of roots with real part 1 is 1.
1
• The number of roots with real part 2 is 56.
• The number of roots with real part 0 is 126.
• The number of roots with real part − 21 is 56.
• The number of roots with real part −1 is 1.
The only root with real part 1 is the octonion 1. Similarly, the only root with
real part −1 is the octonion −1. We get 56 roots with real part 21 by multiplying
the number of lines in the Fano plane by the number of sign choices in
1
(1 ± ei ± ej ± ek ).
2
The number of roots with real part − 21 is the same, by symmetry. We get 126
roots with real part 0 by subtracting all the other numbers on the above list
from 240.
It follows that there is a 5-grading of e8 :

e8 = e8 (−2) ⊕ e8 (−1) ⊕ e8 (0) ⊕ e8 (1) ⊕ e8 (2),

where the dimensions of the subspaces work as follows:

248 = 1 + 56 + 134 + 56 + 1.

14
Here we must remember to include t in e8 (0), obtaining a Lie subalgebra of
dimension 126 + 8 = 134.
This immediately shows how to get E8 to act on a 57-dimensional manifold.
Form the group E8 , and form the subgroup P whose Lie algebra is e8 (−2) ⊕
e8 (−1) ⊕ e8 (0). The quotient E8 /P is a manifold on which E8 acts. Its tangent
spaces all look like e8 (1) ⊕ e8 (2), so they are 57-dimensional! These tangent
spaces are complex vector spaces, so we are getting a 57-dimensional complex
manifold on which the complexification of E8 acts, but with some extra work
we can get certain ‘real forms’ of E8 to act on 57-dimensional real manifolds.
The options have been catalogued by Kaneyuki [13].
In the above grading of e8 , the 134-dimensional Lie algebra e8 (0) is the direct
sum of the Lie algebra e7 and the 1-dimensional abelian Lie algebra gl(1). This
comes as little surprise if one knows that the dimension of e7 is 133, but the
reason for it is that if we take all the roots of e8 that are orthogonal to a given
root, we obtain the roots of e7 . From this point of view, the 5-grading of e8
looks like this:
e8 = C ⊕ F ⊕ (e7 ⊕ gl(1)) ⊕ F ⊕ C.
Recall that e8 (0) = e7 ⊕gl(1) acts on all the other spaces e8 (i). In particular, C is
the 1-dimensional trivial representation of e7 ⊕ gl(1), while F is the ‘Freudenthal
algebra’: a 56-dimensional representation of e7 ⊕ gl(1), which happens to be the
smallest nontrivial representation of e7 . This gadget was Freudenthal’s way of
trying to understand the group E7 . It has a symplectic structure and ternary
product that are invariant under E7 , and he showed that E7 is precisely the
group of transformations preserving these structures [2, 9]. It is not clear to me
how enlightening this is. More interesting is that these three facts:
• E8 is 248-dimensional.
• E8 is the symmetry group of a 57-dimensional manifold equipped with
extra geometrical structure.
• E7 is the symmetry group of a 56-dimensional vector space equipped with
extra algebraic structure.
turn out to have a common origin: namely, that when we pack 8-dimensional
balls in a lattice modelled after the Cayley integers, each ball has 240 nearest
neighbors, and when we take any one of these neighbors and count the number
of others that touch it, we find that there are 56!
There are many more games to play along these lines. For example, we have
just seen that the pure imaginary Kirmse integers of norm 1 are the roots of E7 .
These form the vertices of a gemstone in 7 dimensions, and we can repeat our
‘gem-cutting’ trick to get a 3-grading of E7 :

e7 = e7 (−1) ⊕ e7 (0) ⊕ e7 (1)

for which the dimensions work as follows:

133 = 27 + 79 + 27.

15
Since the dimension of e6 is 78, it is not very surprising that e7 (0) is the di-
rect sum of e6 and the one-dimensional abelian Lie algebra gl(1). Since 3-
gradings give Jordan algebras, it is also not surprising that e7 (1) is a famous
27-dimensional Jordan algebra. The ‘exceptional Jordan algebra’ is the space
h3 (O) of 3 × 3 self-adjoint matrices with octonion entries, equipped with the
product a ◦ b = 21 (ab + ba). This is a Jordan algebra over the real numbers. It
is 27-dimensional, since its elements look like this:

α z ∗ y∗
 

h3 (O) = { z β x  : x, y, z ∈ O, α, β, γ ∈ R}.
y x∗ γ

Its complexification J = C ⊗ h3 (O) is none other than e7 (1). The space e7 (−1)
is best thought of as the dual of this, so we have:

e7 = J∗ ⊕ (e6 ⊕ gl(1)) ⊕ J.

Using our facts about graded Lie algebras, this implies that e6 acts on J and
J∗ . In fact, J and its dual are the smallest nontrivial representations of e6 .
Furthermore, if we use the above inclusion of e6 in e7 , we can take our previous
decomposition of e8 :

e8 = C ⊕ F ⊕ (e7 ⊕ gl(1)) ⊕ F ⊕ C.

and decompose everything in sight as irreducible representations of e6 . When

we do this, the Freudenthal algebra decomposes as

F = C ⊕ J∗ ⊕ J ⊕ C,

with the dimensions working as follows:

56 = 1 + 27 + 27 + 1.

Usually people identify J with its dual here, and use this decomposition to write
elements of the Freudenthal algebra as 2 × 2 matrices:
 
α x
F={ : x, y ∈ J, α, β ∈ C}.
y β

This is probably too much ‘exceptional mathematics’ for most people to

enjoy, at least on first exposure, so I shall stop here. The point, however, is
that the three largest exceptional Lie groups sit inside each other like nested
Russian dolls, in a pattern determined by the geometry of the Cayley integers
— or the Kirmse integers, if you prefer. Furthermore, this pattern explains how
the smallest nontrivial representations of these Lie groups can be built from
matrices involving octonions. There is a world of strange beauty to be explored
here... and Conway and Smith’s book provides a lucid and elegant introduction.
Indeed, I should emphasize that Conway and Smith’s book is remarkably
self-contained. It assumes no knowledge of number theory, string theory, Lie

16
theory or lower-case Gothic letters. It scarcely hints at some of the more esoteric
delights I have mentioned here. Indeed, I mention these only to show that the
quaternions and octonions are part of a fascinating and intricate landscape of
structures, which can be toured at greater length elsewhere [3, 17]. The place
to start is Conway and Smith.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Bill Dubuque, José Carlos Santos, Thomas Larsson, Tony
Smith, and Tony Sudbery for help with this review.

References
[1] J. F. Adams, Lectures on Lie Groups, Benjamin, New York, 1969.
[2] J. F. Adams, Lectures on Exceptional Lie Groups, eds. Z. Mahmud and M.
Mimira, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996.
[3] J. C. Baez, The octonions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 39 (2002), 145–205.
Corrected version available at math.RA/0105155.
[4] J. W. S. Cassels, An Introduction to the Geometry of Numbers, Springer,
Berlin, 1997.
[5] J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane, Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups,
2nd edition, Springer, Berlin, 1993.
[6] H. S. M. Coxeter, Integral Cayley numbers, Duke Math. Jour. 13 (1946),
561–578.
[7] M. J. Crowe, A History of Vector Analysis, University of Notre Dame Press,
Notre Dame, 1967.
[8] D. D. Fenster, Leonard Eugene Dickson and his work in the arithmetics of
algebras, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 52 (1998), 119–159.
[9] Hans Freudenthal, Beziehungen der e7 und e8 zur Oktavenebene, I, II,
Indag. Math. 16 (1954), 218–230, 363–368. III, IV, Indag. Math. 17 (1955),
151–157, 277–285. V — IX, Indag. Math. 21 (1959), 165–201, 447–474. X,
XI, Indag. Math. 25 (1963) 457–487.
[10] W. Fulton and J. Harris, Representation Theory — a First Course,
Springer, Berlin, 1991.
[11] P. M. Gruber and C. G. Lekkerkerker, Geometry of Numbers, second edi-
tion, North-Holland, New York, 1987.
[12] M. Gunaydin, K. Koepsell and H. Nicolai, Conformal and quasiconformal
realizations of exceptional Lie groups, Comm. Math. Phys. 221 (2001),
57–76. Also available as hep-th/0008063.

17
[13] S. Kaneyuki, Graded Lie algebras, related geometric structures, and
pseudo-hermitian symmetric spaces, in Analysis and Geometry on Com-
plex Homogeneous Domains, by Faraut, Kaneyuki, Koranyi, Lu, and Roos,
Birkhauser, New York, 2000.
[14] T. A. Larsson, Structures preserved by exceptional Lie algebras, available
as math-ph/0301006.
[15] K. McCrimmon, Jordan algebras and their applications, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. 84 (1978), 612–627.
[16] C. L. Siegel, Lectures on the Geometry of Numbers, Springer, Berlin, 1989.
[17] T. A. Springer and F. D. Veldkamp, Octonions, Jordan Algebras and Ex-
ceptional Groups, Springer, Berlin, 2000.
[18] M. Waldschmidt, P. Moussa, J.-M. Luck, and C. Itzykson, eds., From Num-
ber Theory to Physics, Springer, Berlin, 1992.

18