What is a Tensor Product and How Does it Relate to Vectors and Matrices?

ngc_1729
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi, can anyone please explain me how to understand this term? I tried to expand it, but seems I may not be right, so can anyone help me with expasion of this rhs term below? T is suppsoed to be symmetric, but when I expand it it doesn't seem to be symmetric, please help.

consider 2 mutually orthogonal directions a1,a2. associated with sides of a rectangular plane whose sides are d1,d2. and this rectangular plane is oriented at an arbitrary angle wrt global x axis.
Now consier a Transformation T as a function of (a1,a2) and (d1,d2) as :
T = \Sigma[(1/di)ai X ai] where i =1 to 2 and X is tensor product

when I expanded rhs of the above experssion I got:

T11 = a1 d1/d1 , T12 = a1d2/d1, T21 = a2d1/d2 , T22 = a2d2/d2
am I correct? if I am why is this not symmetric?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
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