Undergrad Tensors & the Alternation Operator .... Browder, Propn 12.25

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Operator Tensors
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around understanding Proposition 12.2 from Andrew Browder's "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction," specifically regarding the alternation operator and the tensor product of multilinear forms. A participant expresses confusion about verifying the equality of tensors under a permutation defined by Browder. After analyzing the definitions and working through the proof, a consensus emerges that Browder's statement about the permutation may need correction, suggesting a different mapping for the permutation. The clarification indicates that while the proof's structure remains intact, the specific details regarding the permutation require adjustment for accuracy. This resolution helps participants grasp the concept more clearly.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew Browder's book: "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" ... ...

I am currently reading Chapter 12: Multilinear Algebra ... ...

I need some help in order to fully understand the proof of Proposition 12.2 on pages 277 - 278 ... ...Proposition 12.2 and its proof read as follows:
?temp_hash=2b124d2f5f463b0c168940189165f6c1.png

?temp_hash=2b124d2f5f463b0c168940189165f6c1.png

In the above proof by Browder (near the end of the proof) we read the following:

" ... ... To see also that ##A( \beta \otimes \alpha ) = 0##, we observe that ## \beta \otimes \alpha = \ ^{ \sigma }( \alpha \otimes \beta )## where ##\sigma## is the permutation which sends ##(1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , r+s )## to ##(r+1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , r+s, 1 \cdot \cdot \cdot , r )## ... ... "My question ... or more accurately problem ... is that given ##\sigma## as defined by Browder I cannot verify that ##\beta \otimes \alpha = \ ^{ \sigma }( \alpha \otimes \beta )## is true ...My working is as follows:

Let ##\alpha \in \bigwedge^r## and let ##\beta \in \bigwedge^s## ... ...

Then we have ...

##\beta \otimes \alpha (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } ) = \beta ( v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_s ) \alpha ( v_{ s+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } )##

and

##\alpha \otimes \beta (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } ) = \alpha ( v_1 , \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r ) \beta ( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } )##Now consider ##\sigma## where ...

... ##\sigma## sends ##(1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , r+s )## to ##(r+1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , r+s, 1 \cdot \cdot \cdot , r )##We have

##^{ \sigma } ( \alpha \otimes \beta ) (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } )##

##= \alpha \otimes \beta ( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s }, v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )## ... ... hmm ... this does not appear to be correct ...BUT ... ... if we consider ##\sigma_1## where ...

... ##\sigma_1## sends ##(1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , r+s )## to ##(s+1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , r+s, 1 \cdot \cdot \cdot , s )##

then we have

##^{ \sigma_1 } ( \alpha \otimes \beta ) (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } )##

##= ( \alpha \otimes \beta ) ( v_{ s+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s }, v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_s )##

##= \alpha ( v_{ s+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } ) \beta ( v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_s )##

##= \beta \otimes \alpha## ...
Given that my working differs from Browder ... I suspect I have made an error ...

Can someone please point out the error(s) in my working ...
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Browder - 1 - Proposition 12.25  ... ... PART 1 .png
    Browder - 1 - Proposition 12.25 ... ... PART 1 .png
    29.6 KB · Views: 412
  • Browder - 2 - Proposition 12.25  ... ... PART 2 .png
    Browder - 2 - Proposition 12.25 ... ... PART 2 .png
    23.3 KB · Views: 389
  • ?temp_hash=2b124d2f5f463b0c168940189165f6c1.png
    ?temp_hash=2b124d2f5f463b0c168940189165f6c1.png
    29.6 KB · Views: 530
  • ?temp_hash=2b124d2f5f463b0c168940189165f6c1.png
    ?temp_hash=2b124d2f5f463b0c168940189165f6c1.png
    23.3 KB · Views: 511
Physics news on Phys.org
Math Amateur said:
Let ##\alpha \in \bigwedge^r## and let ##\beta \in \bigwedge^s## ... ...

Then we have ...

##\beta \otimes \alpha (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } ) = \beta ( v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_s ) \alpha ( v_{ s+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } )##

and

##\alpha \otimes \beta (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } ) = \alpha ( v_1 , \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r ) \beta ( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } )##Now consider ##\sigma## where ...

... ##\sigma## sends ##(1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , r+s )## to ##(r+1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , r+s, 1 \cdot \cdot \cdot , r )##We have

##^{ \sigma } ( \alpha \otimes \beta ) (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s } )##

##= \alpha \otimes \beta ( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s }, v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )## ... ... hmm ... this does not appear to be correct ...
It's fine. Just take it a few lines further:

\begin{align*}
{}^\sigma(\alpha\otimes\beta) (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot v_{ r+s })
&=
\alpha \otimes \beta ( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s }, v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )\\
&=
\alpha( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s }) \beta (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )\\
&=
\beta (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )\alpha( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s })\\
&=
\beta\otimes\alpha (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r, v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s })\\
&=
\beta\otimes\alpha (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot v_{ r+s })
\end{align*}
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
andrewkirk said:
It's fine. Just take it a few lines further:

\begin{align*}
{}^\sigma(\alpha\otimes\beta) (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot v_{ r+s })
&=
\alpha \otimes \beta ( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s }, v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )\\
&=
\alpha( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s }) \beta (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )\\
&=
\beta (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )\alpha( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s })\\
&=
\beta\otimes\alpha (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r, v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s })\\
&=
\beta\otimes\alpha (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot v_{ r+s })
\end{align*}
Thanks Andrew ...

Appreciate your help ...

BUT ... just a clarification ...

You write:##^\sigma(\alpha\otimes\beta) (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot v_{ r+s })##

## = \alpha \otimes \beta ( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s }, v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )##

## = \alpha( v_{ r+1 }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ r+s }) \beta (v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r )##

Here you have the multilinear function (tensor) ##\alpha## with ##s## variables ...

... but ##\alpha## is of rank ##r## ... ?

Can you clarify ... ?
 
It's possible that what the author means by ##{}^\sigma(\alpha\otimes\beta)## is the converse of what I had assumed.

What is your understanding of what the author wants the ##\sigma## operator to mean? Under the author's definitions, do we have, for a tensor ##\eta## or rank ##m##:

$$({}^\sigma(\eta))(v_1,...,v(m)) = \eta(\sigma(v_1),...,\sigma(v_m))$$
or
$$({}^\sigma(\eta))(v_1,...,v(m)) = \eta(\sigma^{-1}(v_1),...,\sigma^{-1}(v_m))$$

If it's the latter then the proof works - but what you and I have written will need to be rewritten. If not, it doesn't.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
andrewkirk said:
It's possible that what the author means by ##{}^\sigma(\alpha\otimes\beta)## is the converse of what I had assumed.

What is your understanding of what the author wants the ##\sigma## operator to mean? Under the author's definitions, do we have, for a tensor ##\eta## or rank ##m##:

$$({}^\sigma(\eta))(v_1,...,v(m)) = \eta(\sigma(v_1),...,\sigma(v_m))$$
or
$$({}^\sigma(\eta))(v_1,...,v(m)) = \eta(\sigma^{-1}(v_1),...,\sigma^{-1}(v_m))$$

If it's the latter then the proof works - but what you and I have written will need to be rewritten. If not, it doesn't.

Hi Andrew ...

Thanks again for your help ...The definition of ##^{\sigma} \alpha## is definition 12.17 on page 274 of Browder and reads as follows:12.17 Definition. Let ##\alpha## be a tensor of rank ##r## and ##\sigma \in S_r##. We define a new tensor ##^{\sigma} \alpha## of rank ##r## by the formula

## ^{\sigma} \alpha ( v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r ) = \alpha ( v_{ \sigma(1) }, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_{ \sigma(r) } ) ##

for all ##v_1, \cdot \cdot \cdot , v_r \in V##
... so it is your first possibility ...

But .. I think that that leaves us with the same problem of a rank ##r## tensor expressed with ##s## input vectors ...

Can you resolve this difficulty ... or is Browder in error with his description of ##\sigma## ... ?Can you please help further ...

Peter
 
Thanks for that.

Given that definition, I think the author has got a key line the wrong way around in his proof. It doesn't wreck the proof. It just needs correction.

I think, at the bottom, where he wrote

Browder said:
##\beta\otimes\alpha = {}^\sigma(\alpha\otimes\beta)##, where ##\sigma## is the permutation which sends ##(1, ...,r+s)## to ##(r+1, ...,r+s,1,...,r))##

he should have written

"where ##\sigma## is the permutation which sends ##(1, ...,r+s)## to ##(s+1, ...,r+s,1,...,s))##"

I haven't checked it, but I feel pretty confident that that amendment will not derail his proof.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
andrewkirk said:
Thanks for that.

Given that definition, I think the author has got a key line the wrong way around in his proof. It doesn't wreck the proof. It just needs correction.

I think, at the bottom, where he wrote
he should have written

"where ##\sigma## is the permutation which sends ##(1, ...,r+s)## to ##(s+1, ...,r+s,1,...,s))##"

I haven't checked it, but I feel pretty confident that that amendment will not derail his proof.
Thanks Andrew ...

That resolves the issue ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K