Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Analogy between vectors and covectors

  1. Aug 27, 2008 #1

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    P1: A curve defines a vector at point.
    P2: A function defines a covector at a point.

    F1a: A congruence of curves defines a vector field.
    F1b:Every vector field corresponds to a congruence of curves.

    Statements F1 are analogous to P1.

    F2a: A "congruence of functions" defines a covector field?
    F2b: Every covector field correspond to a "congruence of functions"?

    What, if any, are the correct statements F2 that would be analogous to P2, just as F1 is analogous to P1?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 27, 2008 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    First you will have to explain what you mean by a "congurence of functions".
     
  4. Aug 27, 2008 #3

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The question is whether there is anything that when put in place "congruence of functions" will yield a true statement.

    If there is, great, then there is a statement F2 analogous to P2, like F1 is analogous to P1.

    Otherwise, is there any reason why such an analogy doesn't exist?
     
  5. Aug 27, 2008 #4

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I don't know if this counts as an analogy to you but for one, both vectors and covectors are vectors. And given a basis {v_1,...,v_n} of vectors, there is a natural basis {f_1,...,f_n} of covectors given by f_i(v_j)=1 if i=j and =0 otherwise.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covector
     
  6. Aug 27, 2008 #5

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    what is a congruence of curves? and how does it define a vector field? i.e. before finding a statement analogous to yours i need to understand your statement.
     
  7. Aug 27, 2008 #6

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, it's because of this interplay of vectors and covectors - ie. a vector is a covector to a covector, and a covector is a vector when the original vector is considered a covector - that I wanted to know if it extended beyond vector spaces.

    If you consider a trajectory, then you can define a velocity at every point along the trajectory. However, a velocity is actually meaningless on its own, and you have to specify a reference, such as a velocity with respect to some scalar field(s). So in some sense, it is better to consider the velocity vector as an operator, which is what a vector is with respect to a covector anyway. The scalar field defines a reference frame, which defines a covector at each point of the trajectory. The covector defined by the reference scalar field acting on the velocity vector gives the speed.

    So anyway - trajectories or curves define vectors, and scalar fields define covectors.

    Instead of just having a vector at a point, we can have vectors at every point in space. Since a trajectory gives rise to vectors, we can think of a vector field as being formed by many trajectories, all laid side by side so that they cover the entire space. That is what I mean by a congruence of curves, and why a congruence of curves gives rise to a vector field.

    From the point of view of vector spaces, covectors and vectors are completely analogous. However, going to trajectories and scalar fields there is no analogy, because a trajectory is a map from the real numbers into the space, and a function is a map from the space into the real numbers (though I guess coordinates are sometimes specified as maps from the real numbers into the space, but you need N of them). I just wanted to know which wins out - the vector space analogy, or the lack of analogy between functions into and functions from the real numbers.
     
  8. Aug 27, 2008 #7

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    (in a sense you have things sort of backwards, as a vector field is more elementary than a congruence of curves, which in fact is a solution of a diff.eq. given by the vector field.)

    but anyway, the correct analogy with your definition of a congruence of curves is just a single function, which gives a covector field.
     
  9. Aug 27, 2008 #8

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thanks, yes, a scalar function defines a covector field - so F2a works with "congruence of functions" being just "scalar function".

    But it seems that not every covector field can derived from a scalar function. So in F2b "congruence of functions" cannot be "scalar function". Is there anything that would work there?
     
  10. Aug 30, 2008 #9

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    not all differential equations have solutions. this is true for vector and covector fields.
     
  11. Aug 30, 2008 #10

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Thanks mathwonk!
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Analogy between vectors and covectors
  1. Vectors and covectors (Replies: 2)

Loading...