Wedge product

  • Thread starter facenian
  • Start date
  • #1
394
15
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
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
hi facenian! :smile:

(use "\wedge" in latex :wink:)
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:
 
  • #3
394
15
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
 
  • #4
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
how about [itex]a\wedge (e_1\wedge e_2 + e_3\wedge e_4)[/itex] ? :wink:
 
  • #5
394
15
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
 
  • #6
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
hi facenian! :smile:

no, i'm using the same a as before (in a∧b, which you're trying to prove it isn't)

so let a = ∑i xiei :wink:
 
  • #7
394
15
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:
  • #8
tiny-tim
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
25,832
251
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:
 
  • #9
394
15
thank you very much tiny-tim your method is much better than mine!
 

Related Threads on Wedge product

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
835
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
977
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Top