|
|
Re: Orthogonal complement
Posted:
Mar 4, 2013 2:47 PM
|
|
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:07:30 -0500, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>In <6n89j89nt8lml3bpql31qkk5ggrb1q85ui@4ax.com>, on 03/04/2013
> at 07:34 AM, David C. Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> said:
>
>>The two of us are evidently interpreting the word "non-degenerate"
>>differently. I was just sort of guessing what that meant...
>
>Were you thinking of "definite"? The Lorentz metric is not definite.
>
>>Hmm. According to the definition at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilinear_form
>
>>your f is _not_ non-degenerate. In the notation used there we have
>>f_1(s)(s) = 0, hence f_1 is not an isomorphism.
>
>There is a difference between "f_1(s)(s) = 0" and "f_1(s) = 0".
Oops. Sorry.
>Check
>the determinant, then note "If V is finite-dimensional then, relative
>to some basis for V, a bilinear form is degenerate if and only if the
>determinant of the associated matrix is zero ? if and only if the
>matrix is singular, and accordingly degenerate forms are also called
>singular forms. Likewise, a nondegenerate form is one for which the
>associated matrix is non-singular, and accordingly nondegenerate forms
>are also referred to as non-singular forms. These statements are
>independent of the chosen basis."
>
>BTW, I only see "f"; where do you see "f_1".
In the wikipedia article they say that if B is a bilinear
form then B_1 and B_2 are defined by etc. Here
the form is f, so the same notation leads to f_1
and f_2.
|
|
