Undergrad Proof of Existence of Tensor Product .... Further Question ...

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of Theorem 10.1 from Bruce N. Cooperstein's "Advanced Linear Algebra (Second Edition)," specifically regarding the existence of a tensor product. Peter seeks clarification on why the vector space Z possesses a universal mapping property (UMP) while V does not. He concludes that Z has a UMP because it is defined as the vector space based on the set X, which inherently possesses this property. The conversation emphasizes the significance of understanding the universal mapping problem in the context of tensor products.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with vector spaces and their properties
  • Understanding of universal mapping properties in linear algebra
  • Knowledge of bilinear maps and their relation to tensor products
  • Basic concepts of linear transformations and mappings
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of universal mapping properties in vector spaces
  • Learn about bilinear maps and their role in defining tensor products
  • Review Section 10.1 of Cooperstein's "Advanced Linear Algebra" for deeper insights
  • Explore conditions on the kernel and image of linear maps in algebra
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those focusing on linear algebra, tensor products, and universal mapping properties. This discussion is beneficial for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of these advanced concepts.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Bruce N. Coopersteins book: Advanced Linear Algebra (Second Edition) ... ...

I am focused on Section 10.1 Introduction to Tensor Products ... ...

I need help with another aspect of the proof of Theorem 10.1 regarding the existence of a tensor product ... ...The relevant part of Theorem 10.1 reads as follows:
?temp_hash=b2111ef8ae3decfb3487a4288419e3ab.png

?temp_hash=b2111ef8ae3decfb3487a4288419e3ab.png

?temp_hash=b2111ef8ae3decfb3487a4288419e3ab.png

In the above text we read the following:" ... ... Recall that V_1 \times \ ... \ \times V_m = X and that Z is a vector space based on X. Since W is a vector space and f is a map from X to W, by the universal property of Z there exists a unique linear transformation S \ : \ Z \longrightarrow W such that S restricted to X is f. ... ..."Now I have summarised the mappings involved in Theorem 10.1 in Figure 1 below ... ...

?temp_hash=103d7bc653fad9a1cc4300e9c88a4a21.png
My question is as follows:

Why does Z have a universal mapping property ...? ... ... and indeed if Z has one, why doesn't V ... ... giving us the relationship T \gamma = f that we want ... what is special about Z?
Hope someone can help ...

Peter

*** NOTE ***

... ... oh no! ... ... I think I have just realized the answer to my question ... hmm ... embarrassingly simple ... ... I think that Z has a UMP because ( Z, \iota ) is assumed to be the vector space based on the set X... and vector spaces based on a set have a UMP ... is that right? ... see Cooperstein Definition 10.1 on the first page of Section 10.1 provided below ...

Can someone confirm that this is the reason Z has a Universal Mapping Property ...

Peter
==========================================================*** NOTE ***It may help readers of the above post to be able to read Cooperstein's introduction to Section 10.1 where he covers, among other things, the notion of a vector space being based on a set and the idea of the universal mapping problem ... ... so I am providing this text as follows:
?temp_hash=c9f6a4cb768e80949ddfbbb6334eb0e0.png

?temp_hash=c9f6a4cb768e80949ddfbbb6334eb0e0.png

?temp_hash=c9f6a4cb768e80949ddfbbb6334eb0e0.png

?temp_hash=c9f6a4cb768e80949ddfbbb6334eb0e0.png
 

Attachments

  • Cooperstein - 1 - Theorem 10.1 - PART 1       ....png
    Cooperstein - 1 - Theorem 10.1 - PART 1 ....png
    36.5 KB · Views: 1,024
  • Cooperstein - 2 - Theorem 10.1 - PART 2        ....png
    Cooperstein - 2 - Theorem 10.1 - PART 2 ....png
    29.4 KB · Views: 732
  • Cooperstein - 3 - Theorem 10.1 - PART 3        ....png
    Cooperstein - 3 - Theorem 10.1 - PART 3 ....png
    37.9 KB · Views: 846
  • Figure 1 - Cooperstein - Theorem 10.1 - Mappings.png
    Figure 1 - Cooperstein - Theorem 10.1 - Mappings.png
    18.6 KB · Views: 976
  • Cooperstein - 1 - Section 10.1 - PART 1     ....png
    Cooperstein - 1 - Section 10.1 - PART 1 ....png
    70.8 KB · Views: 664
  • Cooperstein - 2 - Section 10.1 - PART 2     ....png
    Cooperstein - 2 - Section 10.1 - PART 2 ....png
    38.4 KB · Views: 595
  • Cooperstein - 3 - Section 10.1 - PART 3     ....png
    Cooperstein - 3 - Section 10.1 - PART 3 ....png
    35.3 KB · Views: 679
  • Cooperstein - 4 - Section 10.1 - PART 4     ....png
    Cooperstein - 4 - Section 10.1 - PART 4 ....png
    33.1 KB · Views: 661
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think a helpful thing to know/understand is the concept of maps factoring through (the quotient, here): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_jargon in algebra, there are conditions on the kernel of a map. Factoring through is in analogy with the factoring of numbers as products.

You are given functions f:A-->C , g: A-->B . Then f factors through g if there is an h: with f=hg ; h is a map from B-->C. This is I think the clearest way of understanding the tensor product. For vector spaces V,W , the tensor product , ## V \ Oline W ## is a vector space in which every bilinear map defined on VxW into a third vector space Z factors through a linear map from the tensor product into Z. The conditions on the kernel guarantee that maps factor through. I will look up the conditions on the kernel and image of the respective groups and get back with it.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
Thanks WWGD ... most helpful ...

Peter
 
Math Amateur said:
Thanks WWGD ... most helpful ...

Peter
Glad it helped, Peter, I went through my own pain trying to understand it -- I feel your pain :).
 
Thanks again WWGD ... good to have your support ...

Peter
 
  • Like
Likes WWGD
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K