Differing definitions of an inner product

  • Thread starter Kreizhn
  • Start date
743
1
Hey all,

This might seem like a stupid question, and this might not be the correct forum, but hopefully someone can clarify it really easily.

I often have seen two definitions of an inner product on a vector space. Firstly, it can be defined as a bilinear map on a [itex] \mathbb F-[/itex]vector space V as
[tex] \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle : V \times V \to \mathbb F[/itex]
satisfying the usual inner product conditions. An example that comes to mind is the Riemannian metric, which is a 2-tensor and so acts on two copies of a tangent space. Alternatively, I've seen it defined as
[tex] \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle : V^* \times V \to \mathbb F [/tex]
satisfying the usual inner product conditions. An example that comes to mind here is the formalism used in the Riesz Representation theorem.

The only place I've really seen the first definition is in the case of Riemannian metrics, hence the motivation for posting this discussion in this forum.

Now I know that for finite dimensional vector spaces that V and [itex] V^* [/itex] are isomorphic: is this the reason for the differing notations? Or is it perhaps that in the second case when the domain is [itex] V^*\times V[/itex] we've some how canonically identified a vector [itex] v \in V [/itex] with its induced linear functional
[tex] v \mapsto \langle v, \cdot \rangle [/tex]?

Again, this may seem really simple but I'd appreciate any response.
 
1,444
4
The pairing

[tex]
\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle : V^* \times V \to \mathbb F
[/tex]

i s natural and it is not inducing an extra structure on V. On the other hand

[tex]
\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle : V \times V \to \mathbb F
[/tex]

is essentially the same as fixing a particular identification of V and V* (though it is somewhat more complicated for sesquilinear scalar products).
 
Last edited:
743
1
Are those supposed to be the same domains? And is there a particular identification, like the one I mentioned in my original post?
 
1,444
4
I have made an error in my comment (unnecessary star in the second formula). Now corrected.
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,845
17
Alternatively, I've seen it defined as
[tex] \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle : V^* \times V \to \mathbb F [/tex]
satisfying the usual inner product conditions. An example that comes to mind here is the formalism used in the Riesz Representation theorem.
While I have seen the natural product on V* x V written with that notation,
I have never seen it called an "inner product", except when being sloppy. The big point of the Riesz Representation theorem is that for the particular topological inner product space of interest, every continuous linear functional is the transpose of a vector.
 

Related Threads for: Differing definitions of an inner product

Replies
4
Views
14K
  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top