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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bacle
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and characterization of bilinear maps on the Cartesian product of two finite-dimensional vector spaces, V and W. Participants explore how to uniquely determine such maps based on the basis vectors of these spaces and their implications for tensor products.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that a linear map T is uniquely defined by its action on a basis of a finite-dimensional vector space.
  • Another participant suggests that a bilinear map B can be determined by its action on basis vectors, specifically through the expression B(x,y)=x_iy_jB(v_i,w_j).
  • Some participants argue that the pairs (v_i,w_j) are not basis vectors of the space VxW, and thus B is determined by its action on these pairs rather than on the basis vectors of VxW.
  • There is a proposal to show that every bilinear map in VxW can be represented by a linear map L in the tensor product V(x)W, with the relationship L(v(x)w)=B(v,w).
  • One participant reiterates that B is uniquely determined by its action on the basis vectors, using the expression B(v_i,w_j)=B((v_i,0)+(0,w_j))=B(v_i,0)+B(0,w_j) to support this claim.
  • A participant shares a link to their notes on tensor products and bilinear maps, suggesting that additional resources may be found through a Google search.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether bilinear maps can be uniquely determined by their action on basis vectors or if pairs of basis vectors are necessary. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the conditions under which bilinear maps can be defined and represented.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of basis vectors in the context of VxW and the assumptions made about the relationships between bilinear maps and linear maps in the tensor product. Some mathematical steps and definitions remain unresolved.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K