Dot/bilinear product in C^n / Orthogonality

plelix
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Say I have 2 complex (normalized) column vectors x and y in C^N:

The standard dot product <x,y> = x*y (where * denotes conjugate transpose) gives me a "measure of orthogonality" of the two vectors.

Now the bilinear product (c,y) = x'y (' denotes transpose) seems to give another "measure of orthogonality" for a somehow 'weaker' notion of orthogonality..

Can somebody point me in any direction to better grasp this concept, I'm having a hard time understanding this second "measure" ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is exactly one of the reasons why you need to take conjugates on complex vectors to have a valid way of defining an inner product on a vector space over C;
your second product (x,y) = x'y is not an inner product over C^n, because it is not positive definite ( take the norm of ( i , 0 ) for example ). As you can see, if it is not positive definite, it fails to be an inner product.
If you didn't know, or have forgotten, positive-definite means that your form satisfies <x,x> > 0 for all x unless x = 0, in which case <x,x> = 0 must be true.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\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...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
52
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top