7
$\begingroup$

Let $V$ be a $n$-dimensional $\mathbb{R}$-vector space. Let $\phi:V\to\mathbb{R}$ a homogeneous form of degree $n$, i.e. $\phi(\lambda v)=\lambda^n \phi(v)$.

If we define the symmetric multinear [!see edit!] operator $\Phi:V^n\to\mathbb{R}$ by $$\Phi[v_1,\ldots,v_n]=\frac{1}{n!} \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{1\leq j_1<\cdots<j_k\leq n} (-1)^{n-k}\phi (v_{j_1}+\cdots+v_{j_k}),$$ then we can see that for any $v\in V$, $\Phi(v,\ldots,v)=\phi(v)$ (using homogeneity and this combinatoric formula).

The question is: Is this necessarily the only symmetric multilinear form $\Phi$ satisfying $\Phi(v,\ldots,v)=\phi(v)$? If yes, why? If not, is there extra condition(s) on $\phi$ which would imply the uniqueness?

[Edit: It is actually not clear that with this setting $\Phi$ is multilinear. We probably need to add some condition on $\phi$.]

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Where do the $v_i$'s enter on the r.h.s? Are those $s_j$'s supposed to be $v$'s? $\endgroup$ – Alex R. Aug 16 '13 at 22:52
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks and sorry. yes they are $v$'s. I edited it already. $\endgroup$ – Gilles Bonnet Aug 16 '13 at 22:55
3
$\begingroup$

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_of_an_algebraic_form

The answer is almost written down in your question! You simply need to prove the identity written with $\Phi[\sum v,\sum v, \cdots, \sum v]$ instead of $\phi(\sum v)$ on the RHS must hold for any multilinear symmetric $\Phi$. This, together with the condition on the diagonal, shows this is necessarily the form of $\Phi$.

To prove this, you could take as inspiration the famous bilinear case $Q(u+v,u+v)-Q(u,u)-Q(v,v) = 2 Q(u,v)$.

Alternatively, you can prove uniqueness by deriving the expression from the above Wiki article. Consider $A=\lambda_1 v_1+\cdots+\lambda_n v_n$. Then $$\partial/\partial \lambda_1 \Phi[A,A,\cdots,A]\mid_{\lambda_1=0} = \cdots = n\Phi[v_1,A',A',\cdots,A']$$ and so on inductively allows you to express $\Phi$ at any point as a derivative of $\phi$. ($A'$ has no 1 term.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nice. I just add here the complement to understand the dots in the last equality. By multilinearity and symmetry we have: $$\Phi[A,\ldots,A]=\sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k} \lambda_1^k\Phi[\underbrace{v_1,\ldots,v_1}_{k},\underbrace{A',\ldots,A'}_{n-k}].$$ But $\partial/\partial\lambda_1 (\lambda_1^k\Phi[v_1,\ldots,v_1,A',\ldots,A'])|_{\lambda_1=0}=1$ for $k=1$ and $0$ otherwise. Hence $\partial/\partial\lambda_1 \Phi[A,\ldots,A] |_{\lambda_1=0}=n\Phi[v_1,A',\ldots,A'].$ $\endgroup$ – Gilles Bonnet Aug 17 '13 at 8:29
  • $\begingroup$ This is an old question, but I want to say thank you for the great answer! The "alternatively" is kind of messy, actually. Directly tackling $\Phi[v_1,\ldots,v_n]=\frac{1}{n!} \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{1\leq j_1<\cdots<j_k\leq n} (-1)^{n-k}\Phi (\sum_{m=1}^k v_{j_m}, \dots, \sum_{m=1}^k v_{j_m})$ term-wise, on the other hand, leads to a nice and concise combinatorial proof. $\endgroup$ – 4ae1e1 May 21 '14 at 5:41

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.