No difference between covectors and functions?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mordechai9
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difference Functions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between covectors and functions, particularly in the context of manifolds and vector spaces. Participants explore the implications of treating vectors and covectors as isomorphic in certain settings, while also addressing the distinctions between linear functions and arbitrary functions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that there seems to be no difference between functions from R^n to R and covectors, leading to confusion about their interpretation.
  • Another participant agrees to some extent but questions the utility of identifying functions and covectors, noting that the tangent and cotangent spaces are diffeomorphic but not equivalent to functions from R^n to R, which are infinite-dimensional.
  • A third participant clarifies that covectors are linear functions defined on a vector space, contrasting them with arbitrary functions on R^n that do not need to respect linearity.
  • It is noted that while finite-dimensional vector spaces are isomorphic to their duals, this is not necessarily true in infinite-dimensional cases where the dual space can be larger.
  • A later reply indicates a growing understanding of the distinction, emphasizing that regular functions do not have to be linear, whereas covectors are multilinear by definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between covectors and functions, with some acknowledging similarities while others emphasize important distinctions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of these relationships.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of interpreting functions and covectors as equivalent, particularly in terms of linearity and dimensionality. The nuances of finite versus infinite-dimensional spaces are also noted but not fully resolved.

mordechai9
Messages
204
Reaction score
0
I'm reading into an introductory book on manifolds (Tu) and they start out by showing vectors are isomorphic to derivations at a point. They go on to introduce covectors, k-tensors, and then I've just gotten to the point where they introduce the "d" operator which constructs a 1-form from a continuous function.

It seems like vectors in R^n can be interpreted isomorphically as points in R^n (though I haven't tried to prove it.) This suggests that there is really no difference between functions (R^n --> R) and covectors, and so I feel a little bit confused or unsure about things. Is this just a fluke for this specific type of k-tensor (i.e., the covector) or am I interpreting things incorrectly?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're correct in a certain sense, but I'm not quite sure I see the benefit of the identification. If you're working on n-dimensional Euclidean space, the base space, the tangent space at a point, and the cotangent space at a point are all diffeomorphic (i.e. we can treat them all as points in R^n).

But it's certainly not the same as functions from R^n to R - this is infinite dimensional no matter how you look at it.
 
Covectors are linear functions, and therefore must be defined on a vector space. If you have a function on a manifold M, then applying the d operator to that function will give you a covector in each of the tangent spaces TpM.

In your example you have a space Rn. A function on Rn is arbitrary, and does not need to respect the linear structure of Rn, whereas a covector on Rn has to be a linear function on the space of tangent vectors, which in this case is isomorphic to Rn as you said. (a vector space and its dual space are isomorphic as vector spaces.)
 
Any finite-dimensional vector space is isomorphic to its dual. However, in the infinite-dimensional case, the dual space might be strictly larger than the original vector space.
 
Ahh ok, I think I am understanding, especially the post from dx gets to the heart of my confusion. I forgot that regular functions don't have to be linear, whereas the covectors (or generally k-tensors) are supposed to be multilinear by definition. Thanks a lot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K