2
$\begingroup$

The Grassmann algebra provides for an alternative of generalizing the quaternion algebra as opposed to the Clifford algebra. Here we define the wedge product $u \wedge v $.

Now there exists a particular useful theorem:

Vectors $u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_r$ are linearly dependent if, and only if, their wedge product vanishes, $$u_1 \wedge u_2 \wedge \ldots \wedge u_r = 0 \ . $$

Curiously though, this does not give a method of finding a linear relation, given that we have linear depenedent vectors. How would we go about using wedge products to find a linear relation between linear dependent vectors?

In an excercise I showed the following vectors $$(e_1+e_2+e_3) ,\ (e_2+e_3+e_4) ,\ (e_3+e_4+e_5) , \ (e_1+e_3+e_5) \\ (\{e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4,e_5\} \text{ a basis of the underlying vector space}) $$to be linear dependent by computing their wedge product.

Since we end up with 2-vectors cancelling each other out, I suppose we can not get a linear relation among these.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ I don't se how you manage to kill $(e_1+e_2+e_3)\wedge e_4\wedge e_5$-terms. Agree with Rene, those three are independent. May be a typo or something? $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jul 4 '14 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ I am redoing it right now. Hold on.. $\endgroup$ – Mussé Redi Jul 4 '14 at 18:21
  • $\begingroup$ Denote $$u := (e_1+e_2+e_3) \wedge (e_2 +e_3 +e_4) \ , v := (e_3+e_4+e_5) \wedge (e_1 +e_3 +e_5)\ . $$ We have $$ u = e_{12}+e_{13}+e_{14}+e_{24}+e_{34} \ , \\ v = e_{13}+e_{41}+e_{43}+e_{45}+e_{51}. $$ This yields $$ u\wedge v = e_{1243}+e_{1245}+e_{1345}+e_{2431}+e_{2451}+e_{3451} = 0 \ . $$ The last identity follows by considering the permutations of the indices. So I do indeed think that the given vectors are linearly dependent, since the wedge product vanishes. $\endgroup$ – Mussé Redi Jul 4 '14 at 18:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So you really have four vectors ? $\endgroup$ – Rene Schipperus Jul 4 '14 at 19:01
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I edited. Sorry for the typo. $\endgroup$ – Mussé Redi Jul 4 '14 at 19:04
0
$\begingroup$

You can. Say you have $$\sum a_i v_i=0$$ then wedge with $u_1 \wedge \ldots \hat{v_i}\wedge \ldots \wedge \hat{v_j} \ldots \wedge u_r$

you get $$a_i u_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge \hat{v_j} \ldots \wedge u_r +a_j u_1 \wedge \ldots \hat{v_i}\wedge \ldots \wedge u_r=0$$ So $a_i:a_j$ is determined.

But there is some problem with your example they are not dependent.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ +1: Just feel like remarking that this works only if the $r$ vectors span a space of dimension $r-1$. If the span has a lower dimension, then all those wedges involving $r-1$ vectors vanish. As they should, of course, because in that case there are two linearly independent dependency relations, so you should not be able to determine $a_i:a_j$. This is an abstraction of the method working on $n$ vectors in $\Bbb{R}^n$: the determinant vanishes, iff they are dependent. You get the (ratios of) coefficients in a non-trivial dependency relation, iff one or more of $(n-1)\times(n-1)$ minors $\neq0$. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Jul 4 '14 at 18:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JyrkiLahtonen True, I am assuming that $u_1 \wedge u_2 \wedge \ldots \wedge u_{r-1} \neq 0$ for if they were zero then there will be a relation between the first $r-1$ vectors and you could apply my answer in a lower dimension. $\endgroup$ – Rene Schipperus Jul 4 '14 at 18:20
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by the sum $\sum a_iv_i$ and the hatted vectors? If we wedge the whole sum with an r-vector we get more than two multivectors (each term of the sum is wedged separately). Could you perhaps illustrate your method with my example? $\endgroup$ – Mussé Redi Jul 5 '14 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ I can illustrate with a different example, but it is too much work with your example. If you want to work it yourself, take the $a(e_1+e_2+e_3)+b(e_1+\dots =0$ and wedge with $(e_1+e_2+e_3)\wedge (e_2+e_3+e_4)$ and the other combinations to get the ratios of the coefficients $a:b:c:d$ $\endgroup$ – Rene Schipperus Jul 5 '14 at 16:13

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.