Proving Non-Decomposability of Wedge Product in Higher Dimensional Vector Spaces

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter facenian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Product Wedge
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
8 replies · 4K views
facenian
Messages
433
Reaction score
25
I have this problem(from Tensor Analysis on Manyfolds by Bishop and Goldberg): prove that
[itex]e_1^ e_2 + e_3^e_4[/itex] is not decomposable when the dimension of the vector space is greater than 3 and e_i are basis vectors.
I solved it by mounting a set of 6 equations with 8 unknows and studying the different posibilities cheking that each one is not solvable.
Is there any nicer way to tackle this problem? if so please let me know
 
on Phys.org
hi facenian! :smile:

(use "\wedge" in latex :wink:)
facenian said:
I have this problem(from Tensor Analysis on Manyfolds by Bishop and Goldberg): prove that
[itex]e_1\wedge e_2 + e_3\wedge e_4[/itex] is not decomposable when the dimension of the vector space is greater than 3 and e_i are basis vectors.
I solved it by mounting a set of 6 equations with 8 unknows and studying the different posibilities cheking that each one is not solvable.
Is there any nicer way to tackle this problem? if so please let me know

you need to prove that it cannot equal [itex]a\wedge b[/itex] where a and b are 1-forms …

so express a and b in terms of the basis :wink:
 
tiny-tim said:
hi facenian! :smile:

(use "\wedge" in latex :wink:)


you need to prove that it cannot equal [itex]a\wedge b[/itex] where a and b are 1-forms …

so express a and b in terms of the basis :wink:


helo tiny-tim, thanks for your prompt response and yes I did what you suggested and it led me to what I explained
 
tiny-tim said:
how about [itex]a\wedge (e_1\wedge e_2 + e_3\wedge e_4)[/itex] ? :wink:

you mean, let [itex]a=\sum_{i<j} x_{ij} e_i\wedge e_j[/itex] and then conclude tha [itex]a[/itex] must be null? Please let me know if that's what you meant and/or if I'm correct
 
I'm sorry I did not explained it correctly I should have said:

you mean, let [itex]a=\sum_i x_{i} e_i[/itex] and then conclude tha [itex]a[/itex] must be null because we are left with a linear conbination of basic vectors of the form [itex]\sum x_i e_i\wedge e_j\wedge e_k=0[/itex] .Please let me know if that's what you meant and/or if I'm correct
 
Last edited:
facenian said:
you mean, let [itex]a=\sum_i x_{i} e_i[/itex] and then conclude tha [itex]a[/itex] must be null because we are left with a linear conbination of basic vectors of the form [itex]\sum x_i e_i\wedge e_j\wedge e_k=0[/itex] …

… which has to be 0, because a ∧ (a ∧ b) = 0

yes :smile:
 
thank you very much tiny-tim your method is much better than mine!