Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Regrettable definition/notation

  1. Sep 21, 2013 #1
    hello, I would like to hear some comments about this situation. There seems to be two incompatible definitions concerning "Tensor Product" and "Dyadic product" of two vectors. The mathematical definition states tha [itex]a\otimes b[/itex] is a bilinear funtion defined on [itex]V^*\times V^*[/itex] with values in R while the dyadic product and also sometimes called tensor product written as ab and sometimes [itex]a\otimes b[/itex] is defined as a linear operator defined on V with values in V
    I reached this conclution after looking up for the mathematical definition in "Tensor Analysis on Manifolds" by Bishop and for the defintion used in physics in "Mechanics" by Symon, "Continuum Mechanics" by Chadwick,"Continuum Mechanics" by Spencer
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 21, 2013 #2

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    You'll probably find that the bilinear function can be written as an operator.
     
  4. Sep 22, 2013 #3
    were the bilinear function defined on VxV or V*xV it would be possible but since it is denfined on V*xV* I don't know how to do it.
     
  5. Sep 22, 2013 #4

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I can understand the first definition, but not the second. What I would think would be correct is this:

    The tensor product of vectors [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] is a bilinear function of type [itex](V^*\times V^*) \rightarrow R[/itex], which is also a linear function of type [itex]V^*\rightarrow V[/itex]

    (I'm using [itex]A \rightarrow B[/itex] to mean the type of functions that take objects of type [itex]A[/itex] and return objects of type [itex]B[/itex])
     
  6. Sep 22, 2013 #5
    The definition states the action of ab on a vector c through the equation:

    [itex]a\otimes b (c)= (b.c)a[/itex] where b.c is the escalar product
     
  7. Sep 22, 2013 #6

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Ah! Then I understand the two definitions. They aren't exactly the same, but they are both natural. If you have a scalar product, then there is NO difference between [itex]V[/itex] and [itex]V^*[/itex]. So all the following are equivalent:

    1. [itex](V^* \times V^*) \rightarrow R[/itex]
    2. [itex]V^* \rightarrow (V^* \rightarrow R)[/itex]
    3. [itex]V^* \rightarrow V^{**}[/itex]
    4. [itex]V^* \rightarrow V[/itex]
    5. [itex]V \rightarrow V[/itex]

    1-3 are always equivalent. 4 is equivalent for finite-dimensional vector spaces, and 5 is equivalent for finite dimensional vectors spaces with a scalar product.
     
  8. Sep 22, 2013 #7
    How is 3 equivalent to 1 or 2?
     
  9. Sep 22, 2013 #8

    stevendaryl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    For any vector space [itex]V[/itex], the dual space [itex]V^*[/itex] is defined to be the linear functions of type [itex]V \rightarrow R[/itex].
     
  10. Sep 22, 2013 #9
    Right!
     
  11. Jan 12, 2014 #10
    Yes, that's right. The piece of information I was not using is that the diad definition presupposes the existance of an internal product while the mathematical definition of tensor product does not. So taking into consideration the internal product we have a natural isomorphism between V* and V and finally both definitions coincide
     
  12. Jan 12, 2014 #11

    Simon Bridge

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Well done: I knew you'd get there :)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Regrettable definition/notation
  1. Notation issue (Replies: 3)

  2. Notation for vectors (Replies: 6)

  3. Definition of Entropy (Replies: 5)

  4. Abuse of Notations? (Replies: 22)

Loading...