I A = norm-preserving linear map (+other conditions) => A = lin isometry

Shirish
Messages
242
Reaction score
32
I'm studying "Semi-Riemannian Geometry: The Mathematical Langauge of General Relativity" by Stephen Newman. Theorem 4.4.4 in that book:

Let ##(V,g)## be a scalar product space, and let ##A:V\to V## be a linear map. Then:
  1. If ##A## is a linear isometry, then ##\|A(v)\|=\|v\|\ \forall\ v\in V##
  2. If ##\|A(v)\|=\|v\|\ \forall\ v\in V##, and if ##A## maps spacelike (resp. timelike and lightlike) vectors to spacelike (resp. timelike and lightlike) , then ##A## is a linear isometry.

The proof of part 2 is given like this:

Since ##\|A(v)\|=\|v\|## is equivalent to ##|\langle A(v),A(v)\rangle|=|\langle v,v\rangle|##, the assumption regarding the way ##A## maps vectors yields ##\langle A(v),A(v)\rangle=\langle v,v\rangle##.

Seems a bit incomplete. I'd like to know if my approach is correct:

$$\langle A(v+tw),A(v+tw)\rangle=\langle A(v)+tA(w),A(v)+tA(w)\rangle$$
$$=\langle A(v),A(v)\rangle+t^2\langle A(w),A(w)\rangle+2t\langle A(v),A(w)\rangle=\langle v,v\rangle+t^2\langle w,w\rangle+2t\langle A(v),A(w)\rangle$$

But $$\langle A(v+tw),A(v+tw)\rangle=\langle v+tw,v+tw\rangle=\langle v,v\rangle+t^2\langle w,w\rangle+2t\langle v,w\rangle$$

(I'm not even sure if the ##t## coefficient matters) The above shows that ##\langle v,w\rangle=\langle A(v),A(w)\rangle##.

Is this fine? Secondly, wouldn't this same theorem more generally hold for a linear map ##A:V\to W##, where ##V,W## are both scalar product spaces (regardless of dimensions of ##V## and ##W##)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The book proof is just a sketch. The point is that without the second condition you could have$$\langle Av, Aw\rangle = -\langle v,w\rangle$$Your proof needs to take this into account.
 
PeroK said:
The book proof is just a sketch. The point is that without the second condition you could have$$\langle Av, Aw\rangle = -\langle v,w\rangle$$Your proof needs to take this into account.
Yep that I understood already (I mean about why the additional conditions are needed apart from norm preservation), but I was still wondering if the whole theorem holds in more general conditions
 
Shirish said:
Yep that I understood already (I mean about why the additional conditions are needed apart from norm preservation), but I was still wondering if the whole theorem holds in more general conditions
Yes, it must. The proof is not dependent on the image space being ##V##.
 
From
##\langle v+w,v+w\rangle=\langle v,v\rangle+\langle w,w\rangle+2\langle v,w\rangle##

you have

##\langle v,w\rangle = \frac12 \left[\langle v+w,v+w\rangle-\langle v,v\rangle-\langle w,w\rangle \right]##

Thus the inner product of any pair of vectors is determined by inner products of the form ##\langle a,a\rangle##. That is why they didn't write any more.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
10K