- #1

- 70

- 0

I don't understand how come [itex]\theta(\alpha_i,\alpha_i)=-1[/itex]

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter yifli
- Start date

- #1

- 70

- 0

I don't understand how come [itex]\theta(\alpha_i,\alpha_i)=-1[/itex]

- #2

- 22,129

- 3,297

Hi yifli!

That -1 arises because the real numbers are not algebraically closed. In the complex numbers, we have that T is diagonalizable with 0 or 1 on the diagonal.

Basically, saying that theta is diagonalizable is equivalent to picking an orthogonal base for theta. Let's pick an example:

[tex]\theta(x,y)=xy[/tex]

This is a bilinear form and the following base is orthogonal: v=(5,0), w=(0,10). However, we can normalize this by doing:

[tex]\frac{v}{\sqrt{\theta(v,v)}}[/tex]

This yields the base (1,0), (0,1). So we have a diagonalizable matrix with 1's on the diagonal.

However, let's pick

[tex]\theta(x,y)=-xy[/tex]

this is a bilinear form. An orthogonal base for this is again v=(1,0), w=(0,1). However, for this we have

[tex]\theta(v,v)=-1[/tex]

So if we try to normalize this, we get

[tex]\frac{v}{\sqrt{\theta(v,v)}}=\frac{v}{\sqrt{-1}}[/tex]

but this cannot be in the real numbers. It is possible in the complex number, however, and this yields the orthonormal base (-i,0),(0,-i). The norms for this basis are 1, thus we get the matrix with 1's on the diagonal.

I don't understand how come [itex]\theta(\alpha_i,\alpha_i)=-1[/itex]

That -1 arises because the real numbers are not algebraically closed. In the complex numbers, we have that T is diagonalizable with 0 or 1 on the diagonal.

Basically, saying that theta is diagonalizable is equivalent to picking an orthogonal base for theta. Let's pick an example:

[tex]\theta(x,y)=xy[/tex]

This is a bilinear form and the following base is orthogonal: v=(5,0), w=(0,10). However, we can normalize this by doing:

[tex]\frac{v}{\sqrt{\theta(v,v)}}[/tex]

This yields the base (1,0), (0,1). So we have a diagonalizable matrix with 1's on the diagonal.

However, let's pick

[tex]\theta(x,y)=-xy[/tex]

this is a bilinear form. An orthogonal base for this is again v=(1,0), w=(0,1). However, for this we have

[tex]\theta(v,v)=-1[/tex]

So if we try to normalize this, we get

[tex]\frac{v}{\sqrt{\theta(v,v)}}=\frac{v}{\sqrt{-1}}[/tex]

but this cannot be in the real numbers. It is possible in the complex number, however, and this yields the orthonormal base (-i,0),(0,-i). The norms for this basis are 1, thus we get the matrix with 1's on the diagonal.

Last edited:

- #3

- 279

- 0

- #4

- 22,129

- 3,297

Indeed, I've edited my post. Sorry yifli!

Share: