What does it mean that inner product is bilinear and non-singular

rayman123
Messages
138
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hello everyone! I am reading abour Poincares duality between 2 cohomology groups and here comes an inner product defined as

\left\langle \omega, \eta\right\rangle \equiv \int_{M}\omega \wedge \eta

and then the author of my book says ''The product is bilinear and non-singular'' that is if \omega\neq 0 or \eta \neq 0[/tex] , \left\langle \omega, \eta\right\rangle [/tex] cannot vanish identically...<br /> can someone please explain me this concept, what does it mean bilinear and non-singular??<br /> <br /> Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A function, f(u, v), is "bilinear" if and only if f(au+ bw,v)= af(u, v)+ bf(w,v) and f(u, av+ bw)= af(u,v)+ bf(u,w).

Non-singular simply means that f(u,v) is not 0 for all u and v.
 
HallsofIvy said:
A function, f(u, v), is "bilinear" if and only if f(au+ bw,v)= af(u, v)+ bf(w,v) and f(u, av+ bw)= af(u,v)+ bf(u,w).

okej so f is a function of 2 variables, and are a and b some constants? I am not sure If I understand this equation...
Oh now I think I am getting it
 
Last edited:
I have another question about the very same wedge product

in my book it is written
[\omega \wedge \eta][/itex] is independent of the choice of the representatives of [\omega] and [\eta]. For example if we take \omega^{'}=\omega+d\psi[/tex] instead of \omega[/tex] we have<br /> <br /> [\omega^{'}\wedge \eta]\equiv [(\omega+d\psi)\wedge \eta]=[\omega\wedge \eta+d(\psi\wedge \eta)]=[\omega\wedge \eta][/tex]<br /> <br /> <br /> then the term d(\psi\wedge \eta)=0 but why<br /> I checked the definition for the wedge product d(\omega\wedge \eta)=(d\omega)\wedge \eta+ (-)^{q}\omega\wedge (d\eta) where \omega\in \Omega^{q}(M)[/tex] and d\omega\in \Omega^{q+1}(M)[/tex]<br /> <br /> <br /> But I cannot see it giving me 0...Could you show it to me how did they get d(\psi\wedge \eta)=0
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Back
Top