How Are Dual Vector Components Determined by Basis Vectors?

AI Thread Summary
Dual vectors are determined by their values on basis vectors, which means their components in a given basis are fixed by the basis itself. This leads to confusion about the variability of components, as they seem constant across different bases. The equation mentioned, e^i(e_j) = δ^i_j, is indeed reliant on the choice of basis, and may not apply to all orthonormal bases. The Riesz Representation Theorem allows for expressing functionals as inner products with vectors in the space, reinforcing the connection between dual spaces and their bases. Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the nature of dual spaces and their components.
noahcharris
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,

So I'm going through a chapter on dual spaces and I came across this:

"A key property of any dual vector ##f## is that it is entirely determined by its values on basis vectors.

## f_i \equiv f(e_i) ##

which we refer to as the components of ##f## in the basis ##{e_i}##, this is justified by

##e^i(e_j) = \delta^i_j## "

-- This doesn't make any sense to me. How are the components of the dual space only dependent on the basis of V? Wouldn't that mean the components are always the same? I thought the whole point of components was that they varied.

Also, is the second equation assuming a cartesian basis? (not sure what the technical term is) Because I can think of some orthonormal bases for which this doesn't hold. i.e. I can think of some orthonormal basis where 'picking off' the ith component does not yield 1.

I'm obviously confused.

Dual spaces in general just confuse me, I understand that the dual space is the set of linear functionals on V, and that they can be represented as 1-forms, but as far as the details go (coordinates and bases of the dual space) I'm completely lost. Any help would be much appreciated.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Using the Riesz Representation of functionals in an inner-product space, you can express any functional as an inner product with a vector in the space. Implying that you would use the same basis set to express the representation (i.e. vector form).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riesz_representation_theorem
 
RUber said:
Using the Riesz Representation of functionals in an inner-product space, you can express any functional as an inner product with a vector in the space. Implying that you would use the same basis set to express the representation (i.e. vector form).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riesz_representation_theorem

Could you expand what you mean by 'vector form'? Are you talking about a differential form (covector)?
 
The vector form I was referring to is just the ##f_i = f(e_i)## notation you used.
 
  • Like
Likes mattclgn
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top