A theorem on Quadratic Forms in Reid's Book not at all clear.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a theorem on quadratic forms presented in Reid's book on Algebraic Geometry. Participants explore the definition and implications of quadratic forms, seek clarification on specific terms used in the theorem, and share personal experiences with the text.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references Hoffman & Kunze's definition of a quadratic form as a function from an inner product space to a field, specifically relating it to the mapping of vectors to their squared norms.
  • Another participant expands on the definition, stating that a quadratic form can be expressed in terms of a bilinear form, indicating that a real inner product is a specific case of this.
  • Questions arise regarding the completeness of Reid's statement about the existence of a basis such that the quadratic form can be expressed in a specific summation form, with requests for clarification on the notation used.
  • One participant asserts that the definition provided is indeed the general definition of a quadratic form.
  • Clarification is provided regarding the notation in Reid's theorem, explaining that the $x_i$'s represent the coordinates of a vector with respect to a basis, while the $\epsilon_i$ are elements of the field.
  • Participants share personal anecdotes about their experiences with Reid's book, expressing a mix of frustration and camaraderie.
  • Another participant suggests additional resources for learning differential geometry, indicating a shared interest in rigorous study.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the definitions and implications of quadratic forms. While some agree on the general definition, there is uncertainty about specific terms and the completeness of Reid's statements, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential ambiguity in Reid's statements and the need for clearer definitions, particularly regarding the notation used in the theorem. There is also a recognition that the text may present challenges in comprehension.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and scholars of algebraic geometry, linear algebra, and differential geometry, particularly those seeking clarification on quadratic forms and their applications.

caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Hello MHB,
I have been reading a book on Algebraic Geometry by Reid.

On page 15, there's a theorem on Quadratic forms. The book doesn't explicitly define what a Quadratic Form is. From Hoffman & Kunze's book on Linear Algebra I found that given an inner product space $V$ over a field $F$, the Quadratic Form determined by the inner product is a function from $V$ to $F$ which maps every vector $v\in V$ to the scalar $||v||^2$.

In the above context I can make sense of Theorem (B) in this:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B77QF0wgZJZ7VmhBcy1BaExTN28/edit

Does anybody see what Reid means by his Theorem B?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
caffeinemachine said:
From Hoffman & Kunze's book on Linear Algebra I found that given an inner product space $V$ over a field $F$, the Quadratic Form determined by the inner product is a function from $V$ to $F$ which maps every vector $v\in V$ to the scalar $||v||^2$.

That is a particular case of quadratic form. More general, $Q:V\to F$ is a quadratic form iff there exists a bilinear form $f:V\times V\to F$ such that $Q(x)=f(x,x)$ for all $x\in V.$ Note that a real inner product is a bilinear form.

Does anybody see what Reid means by his Theorem B?

Every cuadratic form on a finite dimensional vector space is diagonalizable. This, as a consequence that every quadratic form can be expressed as $Q(x)=f_s(x,x)$ with $f_s$ symmetric bilinear form (if $\operatorname{carac}F\neq 2$).
 
Thank you Fernando Revilla for your help. I have a few follow up questions.

Fernando Revilla said:
That is a particular case of quadratic form. More general, $Q:V\to F$ is a quadratic form iff there exists a bilinear form $f:V\times V\to F$ such that $Q(x)=f(x,x)$ for all $x\in V.$ Note that a real inner product is a bilinear form.
Is this the most general definition of a Quadratic Form?

Fernando Revilla said:
Every cuadratic form on a finite dimensional vector space is diagonalizable. This, as a consequence that every quadratic form can be expressed as $Q(x)=f_s(x,x)$ with $f_s$ symmetric bilinear form (if $\operatorname{carac}F\neq 2$).
To understand this better, can you please tell me what does Reid mean by $x_i$'s in his statement. I think his statement is incomplete. He says that there exists a basis such that $Q=\sum_{i=1}^n\varepsilon_ix_i^2$. He doesn't specify what are $x_i$'s.

Can you please write Reid's statement in a more intelligible form?

Thanks.
 
caffeinemachine said:
Is this the most general definition of a Quadratic Form?

Yes, that is the general definition.

To understand this better, can you please tell me what does Reid mean by $x_i$'s in his statement. I think his statement is incomplete. He says that there exists a basis such that $Q=\sum_{i=1}^n\varepsilon_ix_i^2$. He doesn't specify what are $x_i$'s.

Those $x_i$ are the coordinates of a generic vector $x\in V$ with respect to the mentioned basis, and $\epsilon_i$ are elementes of $F.$
 
caffeinemachine,

Having sat an examined reading course set by Professor Reid (Dr then) 20 years ago, based on this book, I can only wish you the best of luck in your quest. Thinking back to my revision from this book I am reminded of the following words from Dante's Inferno:

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here...(Sweating)
 
Semillon said:
caffeinemachine,

Having sat an examined reading course set by Professor Reid (Dr then) 20 years ago, based on this book, I can only wish you the best of luck in your quest. Thinking back to my revision from this book I am reminded of the following words from Dante's Inferno:

Abandon hope, all ye who enter here...(Sweating)
Haha! I know that feel bro!
 
Hi caffeinemachine,

It seems we have a common interest in learning differential geometry rigorously. I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but the following seems like a great resource for complementary free material that could provide alternative avenues when you get stuck. I'm currently using it to get my head around the various equivalent definitions of a manifold (e.g. Munkres vs Spivak).

Free Differential Geometry Books Download | Ebooks Online

Semillon.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K