Defining Bilinear, Multilinear Maps (Tensor Prod., maybe)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bacle
  • Start date Start date
Bacle
Messages
656
Reaction score
1
Hi, Everyone:

We know that for a fin.dim V.Space , given a basis {v1,..,vn}, then a linear map
T is uniquely defined/specified once we know the values t(v1),T(v2),..,T(vn).

Now, let's consider a bilinear map on VxW (with W not nec. different from V),
both fin. dim. V.spaces over the same field F, with respective bases
{v1,..,vn} and {w1,..,wm}.

I am trying to see what info re the basis vectors of V,W to uniquely determine
a bilinear map defined on VxW. ( we turn VxW into a V.Space over F in the standard
way: basis is {(v1,0),..,(vn,0), (0,w1),..,(0,wm)} , addition is done pairwise, etc.

I know that defining a bilinear map B on the basis alone is not enough to determine
B. What else do we need? I think this has to see with the tensor product V(x)W.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
T is determined by its action on basis vectors because Tx=T(x_iv_i)=x_iTv_i. B is determined by its action on basis vectors because B(x,y)=x_iy_jB(v_i,w_j).
 
But the pairs (vi,wj) are not basis vectors of VxW; the basis vectors of VxW
are :{(v1,0),..,(vn,0),(0,w1),...,(0,wm)}, so B is determined by its action on
the pairs (vi,wj), not on basis vectors for VxW.
 
But now the goal is, I think, to show that every bilinear map in VxW can be
represented by a linear map L in V(x)W, by:

L(v(x)w)= B(v,w)

And then I think we need to show that L is actually linear on V(x)W .
 
Bacle said:
But the pairs (vi,wj) are not basis vectors of VxW; the basis vectors of VxW
are :{(v1,0),..,(vn,0),(0,w1),...,(0,wm)}, so B is determined by its action on
the pairs (vi,wj), not on basis vectors for VxW.
But

B(v_i,w_j)=B((v_i,0)+(0,w_j))=B(v_i,0)+B(0,w_j)

so B ís uniquely determined by its action on basis vectors.
 
my lucid explanation of tensor products and bilinear maps is in my notes at:

http://www.math.uga.edu/~roy/and a google search will certainly find better sources. but i hope you like mine.
 
##\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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top