The 8 axioms of holding for a vector space defined in Chapter 5 of the book Robertson's Basic Linear Algebra are easily checked for tensor product expect for existence of (unique?) additive inverse and identity:

(V3) there exists an element $0 \in V$ such that $x + 0 = x$ for every $x \in V$.

(V4) for every $x \in V$ there exists $-x \in V$ such that $x + (-x) = 0$;

For example, the problem is that sum is defined when at most one component differs. So in order $(v,w) + 0 = (v,w)$ to hold, then $0=(0,w)$ or $0=(v,0)$ not only not defining a unique $0$ but also it implies $(0,w)=(v,0)$. ...

How to check the mentioned axioms of a vector space, i.e. (V3) and (V4), for the tensor-product vector space?

PS I am learning tensor product from this link and I because it claimed that tensor product is a vector space "by force [=definition] I tired to check that by what I had learnt from Robertson's Basic Linear Algebra.

  • $\begingroup$ Would you mind expanding on how the book constructs $V \otimes W$ ? $\endgroup$ – Guido A. Feb 19 at 22:37
  • $\begingroup$ @GuidoA., I edited the post. thanks $\endgroup$ – 72D Feb 19 at 22:43

We have that

$$ (-v,w) + (v,w) = (0,w) = (0,0), $$


$$ (0,w) = (00,w) = (0,0w) = (0,0) $$

and likewise $(v,0) = (0,0)$. This is not a contradiction because on $V \otimes W$, all these pairs are 'declared' to be equal. Likewise

$$ (0,0) + (v,w) = (v,0) + (v,w) = (v,0+w) = (v,w). $$

A more formal treatment of this could be done via equivalence relations, which I highly encourage you to read on. With this machinery, one takes the cartesian product $V \times W$ and then identifies some pairs as equivalent, which is what 'declaring' equality formally means in the article. Then, $v \otimes w$ is nothing more than the equivalence class of $(v,w)$.

  • $\begingroup$ For example in tensor product $(-v,-w) + (v,w) $ is not allowed as at least one of 1st/2nd components must be equal. $(v_1,w) + (v_2,w) $ is allowed since second components are equal. $\endgroup$ – 72D Feb 19 at 23:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My bad, I meant to write something else. Fixed. As you can see, both $(-v,w)$ and $(v,-w)$ are inverses of $(v,w)$, but that's okay once again because $$(-v,w) = (-1v,w) = (v,-1w) = (v,-w).$$ $\endgroup$ – Guido A. Feb 19 at 23:25
  • $\begingroup$ You could put in an extra step $(0, w) = (0 \cdot 0, w) = 0 (0, w)$ whereas $(0, 0) = (0, 0 \cdot w) = 0 (0, w)$. But really, this is beside the point, which is that elements of $V \otimes W$ are formal vector space expressions in terms of elements of $V \times W$ (modulo an equivalence relation as you said), so $0$ and $-(v, w)$ are perfectly valid expressions for elements of $V \otimes W$. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Schepler Feb 19 at 23:28

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.