Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am trying to prove the following from a book I am reading through.

Thm: If $\omega$ is a 2-form on $\mathbb{R}^4$ and $\omega \wedge \omega = 0$, then $\omega$ is decomposable. Note decomposable means can be written of the form $\omega = x \wedge y$.

I know that I can write my 2-form as $\omega = a_1 e_1 \wedge e_2 + a_2 e_1 \wedge e_3 + a_3 e_1 \wedge e_4 + a_4 e_2 \wedge e_3 + a_5 e_2 \wedge e_4 + a_6 e_3 \wedge e_4$, where $e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4$ are basis elements. Then I have $0 = \omega \wedge \omega = (a_1a_6-a_2a_5+a_3a_4)(e_1 \wedge e_2 \wedge e_3 \wedge e_4)$. Thus $(a_1a_6-a_2a_5+a_3a_4)=0$.

I don't know what to do from here. Thanks for the help!

share|improve this question
    
The theorem that $\omega\wedge\omega=0$ implies $\omega=x\wedge y$ is proved using induction by Nigel Hitchin in Projective geometry (chapter 3) see pages 48-49. –  Andrey Sokolov Jun 17 '13 at 5:17
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

You can prove this by proving the contrapositive. Suppose $\omega$ is not decomposable.

That means that $\omega$ necessarily must be the sum of two (and only two) decomposable terms, like $\omega = x \wedge y + z \wedge w$. Consider what happens if you add a term like $y \wedge z$. You should realize that you can lump that into one of the two terms and just create a new basis vector to maintain the same form.

Now, look at the wedge product of $\omega$ with itself. You should be able to argue that (1) as long as $x, y, z, w$ are linearly independent, $\omega \wedge \omega \neq 0$, and (2) if they are linearly dependent, then the original supposition that $\omega$ is not decomposable has been violated.

If you can do that, then you have proven then the following statement: If $\omega$ is not decomposable, then $\omega \wedge \omega \neq 0$. The contrapositive of this statement is also true as a result, and it is that contrapositive that you're interested in.

share|improve this answer
add comment

One problem with your approach is that your basis is too generic, which is inconvenient for computations. Try some special basis: e.g. Combine $a_1e_1 \wedge e_2 + a_2 e_1 \wedge e_3 + a_3 e_1\wedge e_4$ as $e_1 \wedge (a_1e_2 + a_2e_3 + a_3e_4)$. Then let $e_2' = a_1e_2 + a_2e_3 + a_3e_4$ we can replace the sum of first three terms as $e_1 \wedge e_2'$. Eliminate $e_2$ by substituting $e_2 = \frac{1}{a_1} (e_2' - a_2e_3 - a_3e_4)$. There are degenerate cases ($a_1 = 0$) that can be handled case by case - I'll write more details here if you need it.

Using this idea you can show that $\omega$ can be written as $$a e_1 \wedge e_2 + b e_2 \wedge e_3 + c e_3 \wedge e_4$$ for a suitable basis $\{e_1,\cdots,e_4\}$. Now can you proceed?

share|improve this answer
    
If I could write it of your form wouldn't that mean that $\Lambda^k(V*)$ had dimension 3 when I know it has dimension 6? –  Leo Spencer Apr 21 '13 at 1:40
    
Also, where are you suggesting I replace $e_2$ with $e'_2$ –  Leo Spencer Apr 21 '13 at 1:47
    
@Leo Spencer, answer updated. For your question, notice I am claiming is that every 2 tensor can be written in that form for SOME basis (that depends on the 2 tensor in hand), rather than all 2 tensors can be written in that form for a fixed basis. –  Sanchez Apr 21 '13 at 6:10
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.