1984
DOI: 10.1007/bf01158039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Springer forms and the first Tits construction of exceptional Jordan division algebras

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2004
2004

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, ,7 must be a pure second Tits construction. Summing up, we have arrived at an example of a pure second Tits construction Albert division algebra which is arguably more accessible than the one given by Albert [2] as well as the Albert algebra of generic matrices [11]. …”
Section: Examples: the Unital Tits Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In particular, ,7 must be a pure second Tits construction. Summing up, we have arrived at an example of a pure second Tits construction Albert division algebra which is arguably more accessible than the one given by Albert [2] as well as the Albert algebra of generic matrices [11]. …”
Section: Examples: the Unital Tits Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also obtain several characterizations of those absolutely simple Jordan algebras of degree 3 and dimension 9 whose octonion algebras are split (2.11). Furthermore, the explicit description we have derived for the reduced model leads to a (comparatively) straightforward construction of Albert division algebras with nonzero invariants mod 2 (4.11), forcing them to be pure second Tits constructions in the sense of [17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But then, by [PR4,Corollary 3] and [PR2,(4.8)], it follows that J 2 contains an isomorphic copy of L. Therefore, J 1 and J 2 contain the same cubic subfields. Now, in J 1 x = 0 1 0 is a Kummer element with x 3 = µ.…”
Section: Theorem 3 ([Pr3 Theorem 2 ])mentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Notice that our definition of q E differs from the one in [11,14] by a sign, bringing us back to the original normalization due to Springer, cf. Springer and Veldkamp [17, (6.5)].…”
Section: Springer Formsmentioning
confidence: 96%