Weird Notation for Trace of an Endomorphism
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I am having some difficulty understanding a piece of notation from Riemannian Geometry: and Introduction to Curvature by John M. Lee.
In Section 2 just under equation 2.3 Lee defines the trace operator which lowers the rank of a tensor by 2.
He defines the map:
$$mathrmtr:T_l+1^k+1(V)longrightarrow T_l^k(V)$$
By letting:
$$mathrmtr; F(omega^1,dotsomega^l,V_1,dots,V_k)$$
be the trace of the endomorphism:
$$F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet)$$
But how is it that $F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet) inmathrmEnd(V)$, it looks like it should belong to $T_l+1^k+1$, I think my confusion lies with the $bullet$ in the above expression. Unforturnately I cannot find any explanation of this notation in the textbook. Is this notation common for something that I am not aware of?
linear-algebra notation trace tensor-rank
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I am having some difficulty understanding a piece of notation from Riemannian Geometry: and Introduction to Curvature by John M. Lee.
In Section 2 just under equation 2.3 Lee defines the trace operator which lowers the rank of a tensor by 2.
He defines the map:
$$mathrmtr:T_l+1^k+1(V)longrightarrow T_l^k(V)$$
By letting:
$$mathrmtr; F(omega^1,dotsomega^l,V_1,dots,V_k)$$
be the trace of the endomorphism:
$$F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet)$$
But how is it that $F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet) inmathrmEnd(V)$, it looks like it should belong to $T_l+1^k+1$, I think my confusion lies with the $bullet$ in the above expression. Unforturnately I cannot find any explanation of this notation in the textbook. Is this notation common for something that I am not aware of?
linear-algebra notation trace tensor-rank
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I am having some difficulty understanding a piece of notation from Riemannian Geometry: and Introduction to Curvature by John M. Lee.
In Section 2 just under equation 2.3 Lee defines the trace operator which lowers the rank of a tensor by 2.
He defines the map:
$$mathrmtr:T_l+1^k+1(V)longrightarrow T_l^k(V)$$
By letting:
$$mathrmtr; F(omega^1,dotsomega^l,V_1,dots,V_k)$$
be the trace of the endomorphism:
$$F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet)$$
But how is it that $F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet) inmathrmEnd(V)$, it looks like it should belong to $T_l+1^k+1$, I think my confusion lies with the $bullet$ in the above expression. Unforturnately I cannot find any explanation of this notation in the textbook. Is this notation common for something that I am not aware of?
linear-algebra notation trace tensor-rank
I am having some difficulty understanding a piece of notation from Riemannian Geometry: and Introduction to Curvature by John M. Lee.
In Section 2 just under equation 2.3 Lee defines the trace operator which lowers the rank of a tensor by 2.
He defines the map:
$$mathrmtr:T_l+1^k+1(V)longrightarrow T_l^k(V)$$
By letting:
$$mathrmtr; F(omega^1,dotsomega^l,V_1,dots,V_k)$$
be the trace of the endomorphism:
$$F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet)$$
But how is it that $F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet) inmathrmEnd(V)$, it looks like it should belong to $T_l+1^k+1$, I think my confusion lies with the $bullet$ in the above expression. Unforturnately I cannot find any explanation of this notation in the textbook. Is this notation common for something that I am not aware of?
linear-algebra notation trace tensor-rank
asked Aug 7 at 18:44
Logan Toll
658415
658415
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
For fixed $omega^1, ldots, omega^l in V^*$ and $V_1, ldots, V_k in V$ the notation $F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet)$ signifies an element $G in T_1^1(V)$ such that
$$G(omega^l+1, V_k+1) = F(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, omega^l+1, V_1, ldots, V_k, V_k+1).$$
Then $operatornametr F in T_l^k(V)$ is defined by
$$(operatornametr F)(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, V_1, ldots, V_k) = operatornametrG.$$
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
For fixed $omega^1, ldots, omega^l in V^*$ and $V_1, ldots, V_k in V$ the notation $F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet)$ signifies an element $G in T_1^1(V)$ such that
$$G(omega^l+1, V_k+1) = F(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, omega^l+1, V_1, ldots, V_k, V_k+1).$$
Then $operatornametr F in T_l^k(V)$ is defined by
$$(operatornametr F)(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, V_1, ldots, V_k) = operatornametrG.$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
For fixed $omega^1, ldots, omega^l in V^*$ and $V_1, ldots, V_k in V$ the notation $F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet)$ signifies an element $G in T_1^1(V)$ such that
$$G(omega^l+1, V_k+1) = F(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, omega^l+1, V_1, ldots, V_k, V_k+1).$$
Then $operatornametr F in T_l^k(V)$ is defined by
$$(operatornametr F)(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, V_1, ldots, V_k) = operatornametrG.$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
For fixed $omega^1, ldots, omega^l in V^*$ and $V_1, ldots, V_k in V$ the notation $F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet)$ signifies an element $G in T_1^1(V)$ such that
$$G(omega^l+1, V_k+1) = F(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, omega^l+1, V_1, ldots, V_k, V_k+1).$$
Then $operatornametr F in T_l^k(V)$ is defined by
$$(operatornametr F)(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, V_1, ldots, V_k) = operatornametrG.$$
For fixed $omega^1, ldots, omega^l in V^*$ and $V_1, ldots, V_k in V$ the notation $F(omega^1,dots,omega^l,bullet,V_1,dots,V_k,bullet)$ signifies an element $G in T_1^1(V)$ such that
$$G(omega^l+1, V_k+1) = F(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, omega^l+1, V_1, ldots, V_k, V_k+1).$$
Then $operatornametr F in T_l^k(V)$ is defined by
$$(operatornametr F)(omega^1, ldots, omega^l, V_1, ldots, V_k) = operatornametrG.$$
answered Aug 7 at 21:51
md2perpe
6,07111022
6,07111022
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875264%2fweird-notation-for-trace-of-an-endomorphism%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password