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 get some big picture of tensor and tensor product by reading their Wikipedia articles, and several questions and answers posted before by others. But I cannot figure out how to show the following isomorphic equivalences:

  1. from Zach Conn:

    For finite-dimensional spaces V,W, the tensor product $V^* \otimes W$ is isomorphic to the space of homomorphisms $\textrm{Hom}(V, W)$. So in other words every linear map $V \to W$ has a tensor expansion, i.e., a representation as a tensor in $V^* \otimes W$.

    I wonder why "the tensor product $V^* \otimes W$ is isomorphic to the space of homomorphisms $\textrm{Hom}(V,W)$"?

  2. from Hans Lundmark:

    a bilinear map $B:V \times U \to \mathbb{R}$ can be canonically identified with an element of the space $V^* \otimes U^*$.

    How is a bilinear map $B:V \times U \to \mathbb{R}$ canonically identified with an element of the space $V^* \otimes U^*$?

  3. from Qiaochu Yuan:

    • A linear transformation $V \to V$,
    • An element of $V^* \otimes V$,
    • A linear map $V \otimes V^* \to \mathbb{R} $.

    The identification (of the first) with the second picture comes from the fact that dual distributes over tensor product (which again comes down to tensor contraction) and the fact that $V^{**} \cong V$. Alternately, again by tensor contraction, there is a natural bilinear map $V \times (V^* \otimes V) \to V$ which identifies an element of $V^* \otimes V$ with a linear transformation $V \to V$.

    How does that dual distributes over tensor product come from tensor contraction, and how does this lead to the identification?

    How is the natural bilinear map $V \times (V^* \otimes V) \to V$ defined?

Thanks and regards!

share|improve this question
    
Hint for 1. Try first to define a linear map from the tensor product to the Hom space. [Suggestions: define $R$, try to improve the formatting...] –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Aug 13 '11 at 7:38
2  
@Tim: You should choose a definition of tensor product, otherwise it is not clear what the appropriate answer to each of your questions is. –  Zhen Lin Aug 13 '11 at 7:43
    
Dear @Zhen. Thanks for the edit. Can't we assume that the tensor product is defined by the usual universal property? –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Aug 13 '11 at 7:56
    
@Zhen: The definition of tensor product I used is by a bilinear mapping with universal property. –  Tim Aug 13 '11 at 12:43

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

I'll attempt to sketch some of these maps below.

  1. $\DeclareMathOperator{\Hom}{Hom}$Let's try to define a linear map $\Phi\colon V^* \otimes W \to \Hom(V, W)$. We know that this is the same as giving a bilinear $V^* \times W \to \Hom(V, W)$. Now, given a functional $f\colon V \to \mathbf{R}$ and an element $w \in W$, I can produce a linear map $V \to W$ that sends $x \mapsto f(x)w$.

    To see that this is surjective [which is enough, since the dimensions match up], pick a basis $\{v_i\}$ of $V$ and a basis $\{w_i\}$ of $W$. Let $\{v_i^*\}$ be the dual basis to $\{v_i\}$. Then $$\Phi(v_i^* \otimes w_j)(v_k) = \delta_{ik}w_j.$$ So this sends $v_i$ to $w_j$, and sends all other $v_j$, $j \neq i$ to zero. These maps certainly span $\Hom(V, W)$.

  2. We want a bilinear map $V^* \times U^* \to \operatorname{Bilin}(V, U)$. If $f\colon V \to \mathbf{R}$ and $g\colon U \to \mathbf {R}$ are functionals, there is nothing more bilinear than multiplication: define $V \times U \to \mathbf{R}$ by $(x, y) \mapsto f(x)g(y)$.

  3. It's not clear to me what Qiaochu meant here, so I must be missing something. This actually follows from (2), since that part will show that giving an element of $V^* \otimes U^*$ is the same as giving a bilinear $V \times U \to \mathbf{R}$, and that's the same as an element of $(V \otimes U)^*$.

share|improve this answer
    
+1!Very nice! About 1.: I would have avoided describing the inverse isomorphism. I would have used the fact the linear maps are sums of rank one linear maps to prove the surjectivity. I must be missing something ... –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Aug 13 '11 at 9:12
    
That is probably the nicest way to prove that it's an isomorphism, yes! But I remember the inverse having some significance. I'll look around. –  Dylan Moreland Aug 13 '11 at 15:29

I'll note that there is a slightly different universal property the tensor product satisfies: for any three vector spaces $U, V, W$ over a common field $k$, there is an isomorphism $$\textrm{Hom}(U \otimes V, W) \cong \textrm{Hom}(U, \textrm{Hom}(V, W))$$ which is moreover natural in $U$ (contravariantly), $W$ (covariantly) and $V$ (extraordinarily). Taking $W = k$ yields the usual universal property in terms of bilinear maps. (A bilinear map $U \times V \to k$, after all, is essentially the same thing as a linear map $U \to \textrm{Hom}(V, k)$.)

The above adjunction property yields an alternative abstract-nonsense answer for the first question, if we take the isomorphism $(U \otimes V)^* \cong U^* \otimes V^*$ for granted. Recall that every finite-dimensional vector space is naturally isomorphic to its double dual. So, if $U$ and $V$ are finite-dimensional $k$-vector spaces, $$U^* \otimes V \cong \textrm{Hom}((U^* \otimes V)^*, k) \cong \textrm{Hom}(U^{**} \otimes V^*, k) \cong \textrm{Hom}(U^{**}, V^{**}) \cong \textrm{Hom}(U, V)$$ Obviously, this proof doesn't work when either $U$ or $V$ are infinite-dimensional. (In fact, the claim isn't even true.)

Dylan's answer adequately addresses the second question, so I'll skip that.

As for the third question, I too am not sure what Qiaochu meant. To me, tensor contraction is the linear map $U^* \otimes U \to k$ which is obtained from the bilinear map $U^* \times U \to k$ given by $(\alpha, v) \mapsto \alpha (v)$. If you think of $U^* \otimes U$ as being a space of matrices, this is just the trace map.

The natural bilinear map $\epsilon : V \times (V^* \otimes V) \to V$ Qiaochu is alluding to is the map given by $(v, \alpha \otimes v') \mapsto \alpha(v) v'$. In other words, it is the result of evaluating an element of $V^* \otimes V$, regarded as a linear map $V \to V$, at $v$. (But there is another natural bilinear map, namely the one given by $(v, \alpha \otimes v') \mapsto \alpha(v') v$. I'm quite sure this isn't the one he meant.) Another way of getting $\epsilon$ is by considering what happens to the map $V^* \otimes V \to \textrm{Hom}(V, V)$ from the first question under the isomorphism $$\textrm{Hom}((V^* \otimes V) \otimes V, V) \cong \textrm{Hom}(V^* \otimes V, \textrm{Hom}(V, V))$$

As for the connection with tensor contraction: note that there is a natural isomorphism $V \otimes (V^* \otimes V) \cong (V \otimes V^*) \otimes V$, and a natural isomorphism $V \otimes V^* \cong V^* \otimes V$; the map $\epsilon$ is essentially the composition of the trace map with these isomorphisms.

share|improve this answer
1  
Tensor contraction is the result of pairing together any factor of $V$ with any factor of $V^{\ast}$ in a tensor product of vector spaces under the evaluation map. The map I had in mind is a special case of the map $V \otimes (V^{\ast} \otimes W) \to W$ (so the first two factors are supposed to be paired). –  Qiaochu Yuan Aug 13 '11 at 14:05

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.