2
$\begingroup$

Note: This question seems like it might have been asked before, but the poster deleted it and I don't have enough reputation to see it.

Let $V$ be a finite-dimensional real vector space. Such an object is, in a canonical way, a smooth manifold. Thus it makes sense to speak of smooth charts $(U,\varphi)$ for such a space (where $U \subseteq V$ is open of course). Let us restrict attention to those charts for which $U=V$.

Then if the chart function $\varphi: V \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is linear, each of its component functions (which I call coordinate functions, since each specifies a different coordinate of the chart) is a linear function $V \to \mathbb{R}$, thus an element of $V^*$.

(Obviously none of this works over arbitrary fields or for infinite-dimensional vector spaces, hence the restrictions I assume/gave above.)

Question: Thus, does it make sense to interpret or even define dual bases to be linear charts from $V$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$, and $V^*$ to be the space of all linear coordinate functions?

In particular, this would provide a ready explanation for why the components of a vector are written with the opposite index placement when using the Einstein summation convention. If $E = x^i E_i$ is a vector in $V$, then the components $x^i$ could be interpreted as short-hand for the evaluation of the linear coordinate functions (i.e. elements of $V^*$) evaluated at $E$ rather than just scalars, i.e. $$E = x^i(E) E_i \,.$$ Since the $x^i$ are elements of $V^*$, rather than scalars in $\mathbb{R}$, it becomes quite obvious why they should have the index placement they do.

Also components/linear coordinates transform the same way that dual vectors do under changes of basis (i.e. they are covariant), so thinking about vectors/dual spaces/tensors the way physicists do, interpreting components/linear coordinate functions as being the same thing as elements of $V^*$ seems to make a certain amount of sense. It might also make dual vector spaces easier to understand for those who tend to think physically or geometrically (e.g.).

However, I have not seen this practice mentioned in any texts on differential geometry or linear algebra which I have ever read, so I imagine that there are probably problems with it which I am not noticing or understanding yet.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's not the same question. Somewhat related, but different. But I'm curious, how did you know about the older question and get the link to it? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Jan 11 '17 at 12:57
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielFischer Haha, I didn't know it at all, it came up on a google search. $\endgroup$ – Chill2Macht Jan 11 '17 at 13:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @William So Google has got more reputation than you do, what a shame! $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Jan 11 '17 at 13:39
2
$\begingroup$

Answering your second question, this notion is quite useful in coordinate-free algebraic geometry.

Given a finite-dimensional vector space $V$ over any field $k$, one may consider the dual space $V^*$ as the space of linear polynomial functions $V \to k$. Concretely, given a basis $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ for $V$, the dual elements $e_i^*$ corresponds to the coordinate functions $x_i : V \to k$. More generally however, the symmetric powers $Sym^d(V^*)$ corresponds to homogeneous polynomial functions of degree $d$. The symmetric algebra $Sym(V^*)$ is the ring of polynomial functions. Given a basis, one may identify it with $k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I hadn't considered that this point of view might be useful in algebraic geometry, but now that you explain why it makes a lot of sense. I had heard of the symmetric algebra being identifiable with polynomials before, but this explanation really makes it clear why -- I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me! $\endgroup$ – Chill2Macht Jan 11 '17 at 13:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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