MHB Why Do Different Texts Present Bilinear Forms Differently?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Forms Matrices
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew McInerney's book: First Steps in Differential Geometry: Riemannian, Contact, Symplectic ...

I am currently focussed on Chapter 2: Linear Algebra Essentials ... and in particular I am studying Section 2.8 The Dual of A Vector Space, Forms and Pullbacks ...

I need help with a basic aspect of Proposition 2.8.14 ...

Proposition 2.8.14 reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/5272I wanted some computational examples related to this proposition ... ... so I searched in the following books ...

Linear Algebra by Seymour Lipshutz (Schaum Series)

and

Advanced Linear Algebra by Bruce Cooperstein (CRC Press)... ... BUT ... ... I was confused by an apparent difference in the statement of the Proposition/Theorem ...The equivalent proposition/theorem in Lipshutz reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/5273The equivalent proposition/theorem in Cooperstein reads as follows:View attachment 5274Now both Cooperstein and Lipshutz seem to have reversed the role of the $$w$$ and $$v$$ in McInerney's proposition ... that is, in their notation they seem to assert the following:

$$b(v,w) = v^T B w $$
Can someone please explain the apparent discrepancy ... ?

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe McInerney is in error.
 
Deveno said:
I believe McInerney is in error.


Thanks so much, Deveno ...

Given what you have said I will alter my text appropriately and read on ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K