I Un-skewing a skew symmetric matrix (for want of a better phrase)

Trying2Learn
Messages
375
Reaction score
57
TL;DR Summary
A better term for the process of creating a skew symmetric matrix
Hello

Say I have a column of components

v = (x, y, z).

I can create a skew symmetric matrix:

M = [0, -z, y; z, 0; -x; -y, x, 0]

I can also go the other way and convert the skew symmetric matrix into a column of components.

Silly question now...

I have, in the past, referred to this as "skewing a column into a skew symmetric matrix" or "unskewing the skew symmetric matrix."

Is there a better phrase to describe this? (mostly, the second one).

(And forget the algebra and the reasons... I just need the term that best describes the process.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Representing a skew symmetric 3x3 matrix by a vector in ##\mathbb{R}^3## would be the fancy way of saying it.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top