MHB A Basic Question Regarding the Universal Property of the Tensor Product.

caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
(All vector spaces are over a fixed field $F$).

Universal Property of Tensor Product. Given two finite dimensional vector spaces $V$ and $W$, the tensor product of $V$ and $W$ is a vector space $V\otimes W$, along with a multilinear map $\pi:V\times W\to V\otimes W$ such that whenever there is multilinear map $A:V\times W\to X$ to any vector space $X$, there exists a unique linear map $\bar A:V\otimes W\to X$ such that $\bar A\circ \pi = A$.Notation. We write $\pi(v,w)$ as $v\otimes w$.First Question: Is the map $\pi :V\times W\to V\otimes W$ sujective?

I think it should be surjective since $\pi(V\times W)$ also satisfies the universal property of tensor product of $V$ and $W$. Since $V\otimes W$ is given by a universal property, it is unique upto a unique isomorphism and thus $\pi$ should be surjective.

Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere in the the above said things.Main Question:
Assuming all is well so far, I am confused in the following:

Let $(e_1,\ldots, e_m)$ and $(f_1,\ldots, f_n)$ be bases for $V$ and $W$ repectively.

I was wondering what member of $V\times W$ maps to $e_1\otimes f_1 + e_2\otimes f_2$.

Since $\pi$ is surjective, some member should map to it.

But I am lost as to how to find it.

Can somebody help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
caffeinemachine said:
(All vector spaces are over a fixed field $F$).

Universal Property of Tensor Product. Given two finite dimensional vector spaces $V$ and $W$, the tensor product of $V$ and $W$ is a vector space $V\otimes W$, along with a multilinear map $\pi:V\times W\to V\otimes W$ such that whenever there is multilinear map $A:V\times W\to X$ to any vector space $X$, there exists a unique linear map $\bar A:V\otimes W\to X$ such that $\bar A\circ \pi = A$.Notation. We write $\pi(v,w)$ as $v\otimes w$.First Question: Is the map $\pi :V\times W\to V\otimes W$ surjective?
No, that map is not usually surjective. In fact, if $\dim V = m$ and $\dim W = n$, then $\dim V\times W = m+n$, but $\dim V \otimes W = mn$.

One way to see this is that if $\{v_1,\ldots,v_m\}$ is a basis for $V$ and $\{w_1,\ldots,w_n\}$ is a basis for $W$, then $\{v_1,\ldots,v_m,w_1,\ldots,w_n\}$ is a basis for $V\times W$, and $\{v_i\otimes w_j : 1\leqslant i \leqslant m,1\leqslant j\leqslant n\}$ is a basis for $V\otimes W$.
 
Opalg said:
No, that map is not usually surjective. In fact, if $\dim V = m$ and $\dim W = n$, then $\dim V\times W = m+n$, but $\dim V \otimes W = mn$.

One way to see this is that if $\{v_1,\ldots,v_m\}$ is a basis for $V$ and $\{w_1,\ldots,w_n\}$ is a basis for $W$, then $\{v_1,\ldots,v_m,w_1,\ldots,w_n\}$ is a basis for $V\times W$, and $\{v_i\otimes w_j : 1\leqslant i \leqslant m,1\leqslant j\leqslant n\}$ is a basis for $V\otimes W$.
That clears things up. Thanks.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top