1
$\begingroup$

Can anyone help me showing the following:

Let $E$, $F$, $G$ and $H$ vector spaces and $\varphi:E\times F\rightarrow G$ a bilinear map. If for every $\psi:E\times F\rightarrow H$ bilinear there is an unique linear map $f:G\rightarrow H$ such that $\psi=f\circ \varphi$ then $(G, \varphi)$ is a tensor product of $E$ and $F$.

The definition I have for tensor product of vector spaces is:

Definition: Let $E, F$ and $G$ be vector spaces and $\varphi:E\times F\rightarrow G$ a bilinear map. We say the pair $(G, \varphi)$ is a tensor product of $E$ and $F$ if:

(i) $\textrm{im}(\varphi)=G$.

(ii) For every $\psi:E\times F\rightarrow H$ bilinear, where $H$ is an arbitrary vector space, there is linear map $f:G\rightarrow H$ such that $\psi=f\circ \varphi$.

So using this definition it suffices showing the map $\varphi:E\times F\rightarrow G$ is surjective for solving my problem...

Any help will be welcome..Thanks

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Is the above true for any vector space $\,H\,$ ? $\endgroup$
    – DonAntonio
    Jun 29 '13 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ Which definition of the tensor product do you use? $\endgroup$ Jun 29 '13 at 15:40
  • $\begingroup$ I was writing exactly that @BorisNovikov =D $\endgroup$
    – PtF
    Jun 29 '13 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ That's right @DonAntonio $\endgroup$
    – PtF
    Jun 29 '13 at 15:42
2
$\begingroup$

(i) is not correct, it should be $\langle \mathrm{im}(\phi) \rangle = G$.

In order to solve the "exercise" (which in fact, is the equivalence between your wrong definition (which should be seen as a characterization) and the correct definition), you only have to show (i). To do that, apply the given universal property to see that the inclusion $\langle \mathrm{im}(\phi) \rangle \hookrightarrow G$ induces a bijection $\hom(G,H) \to \hom(\langle \mathrm{im}(\phi) \rangle,H)$ for every $H$. This implies that $\langle \mathrm{im}(\phi) \rangle \to G$ is an isomorphism (Yoneda Lemma; any argument (especially the ones which will appear in the other answers) are repetitions of the proof of the Yoneda Lemma).

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the tip.. As to $(i)$ note that $\textrm{span}\{\varphi(x, y):x\in E, y\in F\}=G$ if and only if $\textrm{im}(\varphi)=G$... $\endgroup$
    – PtF
    Jun 29 '13 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ @PtF: I don't understand your comment. Your claim is false. $\endgroup$ Jun 29 '13 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ Well: If $g\in G$ then $g\in \textrm{span}\{\varphi(x, y):x\in E, y\in F\}$, that is, $\displaystyle g=\sum_{\alpha\in I}\alpha \varphi(x, y)$ for some scalars $\alpha$. Since $\varphi(x, y)\in \textrm{im}(\varphi)$ and $\textrm{im}(\varphi)$ is closed for vector operations we have $g\in \textrm{im}(\varphi)$ hence $G\subset \textrm{im}(\varphi)$ and the equality $\textrm{im}(\varphi)=G$ holds. $\endgroup$
    – PtF
    Jun 29 '13 at 17:51
  • $\begingroup$ Conversely if $g\in \textrm{span}\{\varphi(x, y):x\in E, y\in F\}$ then $\displaystyle g=\sum_{\alpha\in I}\alpha_I\varphi(x, y)$ and $g\in \textrm{im}(\varphi)=G$, that is, $\textrm{span}\{\varphi(x, y):x\in E, y\in F\}\subset G$. Now if $g\in G=\textrm{im}(\varphi)$ then $g=\varphi(x, y)$ for some $x\in E$ and $y\in F$ hence $g\in \textrm{span}\{\varphi(x, y):x\in E, y\in F\}$. Therefore, $\textrm{span}\{\varphi(x, y):x\in E, y\in F\}=G$. $\endgroup$
    – PtF
    Jun 29 '13 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ $\phi$ is not linear, it is bilinear. It's image is not a subspace (unless $\dim(E),\dim(F) \leq 1$). $\endgroup$ Jun 29 '13 at 20:02
0
$\begingroup$

Your confusion stems from a lack of understanding of the unconventional notation used by your book (Greub's Multilinear Algebra, 2nd ed).

In p. 2, the book states: "We shall denote $\text{Im}\,\varphi$ the subspace of $G$ generated by $S$", where $S$ is the usual image of $\varphi$ and $G$ is the codomain of $\varphi$.

The author does indeed formulate the way you've mentioned. However, the first thing in the book (p. 1) is to show that the image of a bilinear map is not in general a subspace. The definition you cite is in p. 4; so just read the previous pages, which are worthwhile.

$\endgroup$

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.