Tensor Product of V1 and V2 in Vector Space V: 0 Intersection Required?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conditions for defining the tensor product of two subspaces, V1 and V2, within a vector space V. It clarifies that the intersection of V1 and V2 does not need to be zero for the tensor product to exist. The tensor product is described as a bilinear operation that maps ordered pairs from two vector spaces into a new vector space, and it always exists as a construction rather than merely an operation. Additionally, the properties of the tensor product allow for the formation of a basis from the bases of the original vector spaces. Overall, the tensor product encompasses not only ordered pairs but also linear combinations of those pairs.
Werg22
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1
If V1 and V2 are both subspaces of a vector space V, then in order for their tensor product to be defined, does the intersection of V1 and V2 have to be 0?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No, infact an important example of tensor product is that between a vector space and itself.
V^2=VxV

One possible definition of tensor product is that it maps two vector spaces onto ordered pairs.
UxV contains ordered pairs (u,v) with u from U and v from V.
Edited to add. UxV also contains linear combinations of ordered pairs.
 
Last edited:
I see. But I have to say, I'm puzzled about this: according to one definition I have, the operation on pairs (u,v), u belonging to U and v belonging to V, that is used to construct the tensor product has to be bilinear. But that certainly isn't a sufficient condition, is it? One must also have that the operation in question applied to the whole of the cartesian product of a basis of U and a basis of V forms a basis for the tensor product, right? Does the tensor product always exist (i.e. is there always such a bilinear operation and vector space for any ordered pair of vector spaces)?
 
The tensor product always exists.
Existence is not a problem because tensor product is more a construction than an operation. That is the operation always endows the product with the required properties.
lets assume U and V are vector spaces over the same field F.
we want
(a1u1+a2v2,b1v1+b2v2)=a1b1(u1,v1)+a1b2(u1,v1)+a2b1(u2,v1)+a2b2(u2,v2)
so in declaring the tensor product has this property we determin the tensor product uniquely.
Since the tensor product is bilinear we can obtain a basis from the bases of the spaces used to construct it.
if
{u(i)} is a basis for U
and
{v(j)} is a basis for V
{u(i),v(j)} is a basis for UxV

it is important to notice that
X is an element of UxV does not mean X is of the form (u,v)
UxV contains all elements of the form (u,v), but also all linear combinations of such terms.
By a counting argument if
dim(U)=m
dim(V)=n
dim(UxV)=mn
dim(elements of the form (u,v))=m+n
I see I was unclear above I said
UxV contains ordered pairs (u,v) with u from U and v from V
which is true but it contains more ie sums of such.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top