9
$\begingroup$

In Gravitation (Misner, Thorne & Wheeler), the wedge product over a vector space $V$ is introduced as just the antisymmetrised tensor product: for $u, v \in V$, they define $$u \wedge v = u \otimes v - v \otimes u$$ I'm trying to work out how to fit this together with the characterisation of the exterior algebra $\Lambda V$ as the quotient of the tensor algebra $T(V)$ by the two-sided ideal $I$ generated by tensor products of the form $v \otimes v$. In that characterisation (at least in Wikipedia), the wedge product is defined by $$[u] \wedge [v] = [u \otimes v]$$ where square brackets indicate equivalence classes, for the equivalence relation $\sim$ induced by the ideal (i.e., $u \sim v$ iff $v = u + i$, for some $i \in I$). At first, I took it that the way they fit together was that we would be able to show that

$$u \otimes v \sim u \otimes v - v \otimes u$$

But so far as I'm able to tell, this isn't the case: what we can show instead is that $u \otimes v \sim -v \otimes u$, and hence that $$u \otimes v \sim \frac{1}{2} (u \otimes v - v \otimes u)$$ Having browsed a bit, this answer suggests to me that what's going on is just that there are two ways of relating the exterior algebra to the tensor algebra: the MTW characterisation amounts to treating $\Lambda V$ as a subalgebra of $T(V)$ (specifically, the subalgebra generated by antisymmetric tensor products), rather than as a quotient algebra of $T(V)$. Is that correct? If so, what are the advantages of a subalgebra vs a quotient algebra construction, and vice versa?

(Apologies if this is overly duplicative of the linked discussion - it was a bit too abstract for me to be sure I'd followed it correctly.)

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

Over a real vector space $V$ one can regard the second exterior power $\Lambda^2 V$ as either a subspace of $V\otimes V$ (the space of antisymmetric tensors) or as a quotient space of $V\otimes V$ (by factoring out the subspace generated by the $v\otimes v$). Over $\Bbb R$ these definitions are equivalent; the equivalence class $[v\otimes w]$ corresponding to the tensor $\frac12(v\otimes w-w\otimes v)$.

But over a vector space of characteristic 2, or over a ring where $2$ is not invertible, these definitions can vary. I would say the right definition is as a quotient of $V\otimes V$. But let $V$ be a vector space of dimension $n$ over the field $\Bbb F_2$. Here antisymmetry is the same as symmetry, so the antisymmetric tensors in $V\otimes V$ have dimension $\frac12n(n+1)$. However the "right" definition as a quotient gives the dimension of $\Lambda^2(V)$ as $\frac12n(n-1)$.

Of course all these considerations extend to $\Lambda^k(V)$. Over a field of characteristic zero, it matters not which approach we take.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

From your computation, the two definition are equivalent apart from a factor of $2$.

$\endgroup$

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.