A What Is the Role of 'n' and the Virgule in the Wedge Product Formalism?

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill_1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Permutation
Bill_1
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Formalism of wedge product
Hi guys!
I have some difficulty to correctly understand the following formalism.

Specifically the using of virgule and the "n" in aink expression.

Does the virgule have some rapport with permutation or combination?
And what represent the n in the expression?

Here you can find the book: https://www2.tulane.edu/~ftbirtel/wedge product.pdf

Thanks for your help!
Screenshot_20240823-004026.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
are you referring to the wedge operator ^ as a virgule?

It's not. The wedge operator is a real operator used in differential geometry to represent the exterior product between two differential forms.

It's an anti-commutative operator, i.e., a^b = - b^a, where a and b are differential forms of the same type.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exterior_algebra
 
Your formula is simple the distributive law, or the bilinear property of the wedge product:
$$
(\vec{a}+\vec{b})\wedge (\vec{c}+\vec{d}) = \vec{a}\wedge (\vec{c}+\vec{d})+\vec{b}\wedge (\vec{c}+\vec{d})=\vec{a}\wedge \vec{c}+\vec{a}\wedge \vec{d}+\vec{b}\wedge \vec{c}+\vec{b}\wedge \vec{d}
$$
and the anti-kommutativity ##a\wedge b=-b\wedge a## that allows us to sort the vectors at the cost of one minus sign per permutation. ##n## is the dimension of the vector spaces where the ##v_j## and basisvectors ##e_k## were taken from. And of course
$$
\vec{v}\wedge \alpha\vec{w}=\alpha\vec{v}\wedge \vec{w}\, , \,(\alpha \in \mathbb{R})
$$

Note that ##\vec{v}\wedge \vec{v}=0.## The wedge product over linearly dependent vectors is zero.
 
Last edited:
I think the " virgule", which means " comma" in French, represents indices and subindices in your pic. The wedge operator is part of Geometric Algebra, where you glue objects together ( parallelepipeds), to build larger objects. Why don't you look it up and ask followups?
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top