Hubbard's & Hubbards Concrete To Abstract Function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the "concrete to abstract function" as defined in Hubbard & Hubbard's text on vector calculus, linear algebra, and differential forms. Participants explore the nature of this function, its properties, and whether it has a standardized name in mathematical literature.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on whether the "concrete to abstract function" has another standardized name.
  • Another participant suggests that it might be related to the dot product.
  • A different participant counters that it is not a scalar product since the output is a vector, indicating it is a mapping from R^m to V.
  • One participant expresses that the function appears to be a linear map from R^m to V, specifically mapping the standard basis vectors to the corresponding vectors in V.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the function, with some suggesting it relates to known concepts like the dot product while others clarify its distinct characteristics. No consensus is reached regarding a standardized name or classification.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of consensus on the terminology and classification of the function, and the discussion does not resolve the potential connections to other mathematical concepts.

CMoore
Messages
16
Reaction score
1
Hubbard's & Hubbards "Concrete To Abstract" Function

On page 215 of H&H Vector Calculus, Linear algebra and Differential Forms text the authors define something they call the "concrete to abstract function". It is defined as follows:

Let (x_1, ..., x_m) be a point in R^m and let {v_1, ..., v_m} be a set of vectors in V. The, the abstract to concrete function F is given by

F(x_1, ..., x_m) = x_1*v_1 + ... + x_m*v_m.

Is there another name/ standardized name for this function?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org


The dot product?
 


No...It's not a scalar product because the result is a vector, not a number; it's a mapping from R^m to V.
 


Ah good point
 


I don't see anything special about it; it's just a linear map from Rm to V that takes ei (the ith standard basis vector in Rm) to vi.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K