PreprintPDF Available

Poincaré's conjecture proved by G. Perelman by the isomorphism of Minkowski space and the separable complex Hilbert space

Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.


The physical interpretation of the conjecture is what is meant
Poincaré’s conjecture proved by G. Perelman
by the isomorphism of Minkowski space and the separable complex Hilbert space
The set of all complex numbers, is granted. Then the
corresponding set of all subset of is the separable complex
Hilbert space .
There is one common and often met identification of with
the set of all ordinals of , which rests on the identification
of any set with its ordinal. However, if any ordinal is identified
as a certain natural number, and all natural numbers in Peano
arithmetic are finite1, and should not be equated, for
includes actually infinite subsets2 of 2. Here “actually infinite
subset” means ‘set infinite in the sense of set theory”.
Furthermore, is identified as the set Η of all well-ordered
sets which elements are elements of some set of 2, i.e. in other
words, the elements of 2 considered as classes of equivalency
in ordering are differed in ordering within any class of that
Those distinctions can be illustrated by the two basic
interpretations of :(1)as the vectors of n-dimensional
complex generalization of the usual 3D real Euclidean space,
isomorphic to Η, and (2) as the squarely integrable functions,
isomorphic to . The latter adds to the former unitarity (unitary
invariance), which is usually interpreted as energy conservation
in their application in quantum mechanics. Back seen, energy
conservation is a physical equivalent of both (3) equivalence
after ordering and (4) actual infinity, i.e. to (5) the concept of
ordinal number in set theory.
On the contrary, once one does not involves energy
conservation, e.g. generalizing it to energy-momentum
conservation as in the theory of general relativity or that of
entanglement, Η rather than is what should be used unlike
quantum mechanics based on , and actual infinity avoided or
at least precisely thought before utilizing.
Furthermore, (6) the relation between and can be
interpreted as the 3D Euclidean space under (7) the additional
condition of cyclicality (reversibility) of  conventionally
identifying the first “infinite” element with the “first” element
of any (trans)finite well-ordering. Indeed, the axiom of
induction in Peano arithmetic does not admit infinite natural
numbers3. If one needs to reconcile both finite and transfinite
induction to each other, the above condition is sufficient.
It should be chosen for Poincaré’s conjecture [34] proved by
G. Perelman [35-37]. If that condition misses, the topological
structure is equivalent to any of both almost disjunctive
domains4 of Minkowski’s space of special relativity5 rather
than to a 4D Euclidean ball. The two domains of Minkowski
space can be interpreted as two opposite, “causal directions”
resulting in both reversibility of the 3D Euclidean space and
topological structure of the above 4D ball.
The relation between and generates any of the two
areas of as follows. Both unitarity of and non-unitarity of
for any ordinal and any well-ordering of length are
isomorphic to a 3D Euclidean sphere6 with the radius (). All
those spheres represent the area at issue.
That construction can be interpreted physically as well.
Energy (E) conservation as unitarity represents the class of
1 This is a property implied by the axiom of induction.
2 Here “actually infinite subset” means ‘set infinite in the sense of set
3 1 is finite. The successor of any finite natural number is finite.
Consequently, all natural numbers are finite for the axiom of induction.
equivalence of any ordinal . If the concept of physical force
(F) is introduced as any reordering, i.e. the relation between any
two elements of the above class, it can be reconciled with
energy conservation (unitarity) by the quantity of distance (x)
in units of elementary permutations for the reordering so
that. =.
Back seen, both (6) and (7) implies Poincaré’s conjecture
and thus offer another way of its proof.
One can discuss the case where is identified with and
what it implies. Then (8) the axiom of induction in Peano
arithmetic should be replaced by transfinite induction
correspondingly to (4) above, and (9) the statistical ensemble
of well-orderings (as after measurement in quantum
mechanics) should be equated to the set of the same elements
(as the coherent state before measurement in quantum
mechanics) for (3) above.
In fact, that is the real case in quantum mechanics for
unitarity as energy conservation is presupposed. Then (8)
implies the theorems of absence of hidden variables in quantum
mechanics [1], [2], i.e. a kind of mathematical completeness
interpretable as the completeness of quantum mechanics vs.
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen’s hypothesis of the
incompleteness of quantum mechanics [3]:
The (8) and (9) together imply the axiom of choice. Indeed,
the coherent state (the unordered set of elements) excludes any
well-ordering for the impossibility of hidden variables implied
by (8). However, it can be anyway well-ordered for (9). This
forces the well-ordering principle (“theorem”) to be involved,
which in turn to the axiom of choice.
Furthermore, can be represented as all sets of qubits.
A qubit is defined in quantum mechanics and information as
the (10) normed superposition of two orthogonal7 subspaces of
:   0+1
0,1 are the two orthogonal subspaces of .
,  :||+||= 1.
Then, (11) Q is isomorphic to a unit 3D Euclidean ball, in
which two points in two orthogonal great circles ate chosen so
that the one of them (the corresponding to the coefficient ) is
on the surface of the ball.
That interpretation is obvious mathematically. It makes
sense physically and philosophically for the above
consideration of space as the relation of and .
Now, it can be slightly reformulated and reinterpreted as the
joint representability of and , and thus their unifiablity in
terms of quantum information.
Particularly, any theory of quantum information, including
quantum mechanics as far as it is so representable, admits the
coincidence of model and reality: right a fact implied by the
impossibility of hidden variables in quantum mechanics for any
hidden variable would mean a mismatch of model and reality.
can be interpreted as an equivalent series of qubits for any
two successive axes of are two orthogonal subspaces of :
4 They are almost disjunctive as share the light cone.
5 Indeed, special relativity is a causal theory, which excludes the
reverse causality implied by cyclicality.
6 This means the surface of a 3D Euclidean ball.
7 Any two disjunctive subspaces of are orthogonal to each other.
; then (12) any successive pair ,=;
 under the following conditions:
(13)  =
()(); =
(14) = 0;=
(15) If both , = 0,  = 0 ,  = 1.
(14) and (15) are conventional, chosen rather arbitrarily only
to be conserved a one-to-one mapping between and .
is intendedly constructed to be ambivalent to unitarity for
any qubit is internally unitary, but the series of those is not.
Furthermore, one can define n-bit where a qubit is 2-bit
therefore transforming unitarily any non-unitary n-series of
complex numbers. The essence of that construction is the
double conservation between the two pairs: “within out of”
and “unitarity – nonunitarity”.
That conservation is physical and informational, in fact. The
simultaneous choice between many alternatives being unitary
and thus physically interpretable is equated to a series of
elementary or at least more elementary choices. Then, the
visible as physical inside will look like the chemical outside
and vice versa. If a wholeness such as the universe is defined
to contain internally its externality, this can be modeled anyway
consistently equating the non-unitary “chemical” and unitary
“physical” representations in the framework of a relevant
physical and informational conservation.
can be furthermore interpreted as all possible pairs of
characteristic functions of independent probability
distributions and thus, of all changes of probability
distributions of the state of a system, e.g. a quantum system.
Practically all probability distributions and their
characteristic functions of the states of real systems are
continuous and even smooth as usual. The neighboring values
of probability implies the neighborhood of the states. Thus the
smoothness of probability distribution implies a well-ordering
and by the meditation of it, a kind of causality: the probability
of the current state cannot be changed jump-like.
This is an expression of a deep mathematical dependence (or
invariance) of the continuous (smooth) and discrete. The
probability distribution can mediate between them as follows:
can be defined as the sets of the ordinals of  where a
representative among any subset of the permutations (well-
orderings) of elements is chosen according a certain and thus
constructive rule. That rule in the case in question is to be
chosen that permutation (well-ordering), the probability
distribution of which is smooth. Particularly, the homotopy of
can identified with, and thus defined as that mapping of
into conserving the number of elements, i.e. the
dimensionality of the vector between and . If is
interpreted as the set of types on , this implies both “axiom of
univalence” [4] and an (iso)morphism between the category of
all categories and the pair of and .
That consideration makes obvious the equivalence of the
continuous (smooth) and discrete as one and the same well-
ordering chosen as an ordinal among all well-orderings
(permutations) of the same elements and it by itself
accordingly. In other words, the continuous (smooth) seems to
be class of equivalence of the elements of a set (including finite
as a generalization of continuity as to finite sets).
Furthermore, the same consideration can ground (3) and (9)
above, i.e. the way, in which a coherent state before
measurement is equivalent of the statistical ensemble of
measured states in quantum mechanics. The same property can
be called “invariance to choice” including the invariance to the
axiom of choice particularly.
This means that the pure possibility, e.g. that of pure
existence in mathematics, also interpretable as subjective
probability should be equated to the objective probability of the
corresponding statistical ensemble once unitarity (energy
conservation) has already equated and .
Indeed, the set or its ordinal can be attributed to the elements
of and the statistical mix of all elements of corresponding
to a given element of . Any measurement ascribes randomly
a certain element of the corresponding subset of to any given
element of . Thus measurement is not unitary, e.g. a collapse
of wave function.
Then, and can be interpreted as two identical but
complementary dual spaces of the separable complex Hilbert
space. Initarity means right their identity, and the non-unitarity
of measurement representing a random choice means their
That “invariance to choice” can ground both so-called Born
probabilistic [5] and Everett (& Wheeler) “many-worlds”
interpretations of quantum mechanics [6], [7], [8]. The former
means the probability for a state to be measured or a “world” to
take place, and the former complement that consideration by
the fact that all elements constituting the statistical ensemble
can be consistently accepted as actually existing.
One can emphasize that the Born interpretation ascribes a
physical meaning of the one component (namely the square of
the module as probability) of any element of the field of
complex numbers underlying both and . After that, the
physical meaning of the other component, the phase is even
much more interesting. It should correspond to initarity, and
then, it seems to be redundant, i.e. the field of real numbers
would be sufficient, on the one hand, but furthermore, to time,
well-ordering, and choice implied by it. In other words, just the
phase is what is both physical and mathematical “carrier” and
“atom” of the invariance of choice featuring the separable
complex Hilbert space.
[1] Neuman, J. von. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik.
Berlin: Springer, pp. 167-173 (1932).
[2] Kochen, S., Specker, E. The Problem of Hidden Variables in
Quantum Mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics
17(1): 5987 (1968).
[3] Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N. Can QuantumMechanical
Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Physical
Review 47(10): 777780.
[4] (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, Univalent
Foundations Program) Homotopy type theory univalent
foundations of mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Lulu Press, Univalent
Foundations Program (2013).
[5] Max Born - Nobel Lecture: The Statistical Interpretations of
Quantum Mechanics". Nobel Media AB 2014.
Web. 13 Jul 2016.
-lecture html>
[6] Everett III, H. "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics.
Reviews of Modern Physics 29(3): 454-462 (1957).
[7] DeWitt, B. S., Graham, N. (eds.) The many-worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics a fundamental exposition. Princeton, NJ:
University Press (1973)
[8] Wheeler, J. A., Zurek, W. H (eds.). Quantum theory and
measurement. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Forty years after the advent of quantum mechanics the problem of hidden variables, that is, the possibility of imbedding quantum theory into a classical theory, remains a controversial and obscure subject. Whereas to most physicists the possibility of a classical reinterpretation of quantum mechanics remains remote and perhaps irrelevant to current problems, a minority have kept the issue alive throughout this period. (See Freistadt [5] for a review of the problem and a comprehensive bibliography up to 1957.) As far as results are concerned there are on the one hand purported proofs of the non-existence of hidden variables, most notably von Neumann’s proof, and on the other, various attempts to introduce hidden variables such as de Broglie [4] and Bohm [1] and [2]. One of the difficulties in evaluating these contradictory results is that no exact mathematical criterion is given to enable one to judge the degree of success of these proposals.
In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality. A sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing the system. In quantum mechanics in the case of two physical quantities described by non-commuting operators, the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge of the other. Then either (1) the description of reality given by the wave function in quantum mechanics is not complete or (2) these two quantities cannot have simultaneous reality. Consideration of the problem of making predictions concerning a system on the basis of measurements made on another system that had previously interacted with it leads to the result that if (1) is false then (2) is also false. One is thus led to conclude that the description of reality as given by a wave function is not complete.