84:
74:
53:
22:
350:
uncommon, the question arises of whether it should be removed entirely instead of using it but having to explain it. The duality pairing is nothing but the application operator, and this should be expressible with the notation already employed. I have a feeling that the expression follows rather directly from the definition preceding it, and is thus not saying much. —
549:. I think it would be worth mentioning the connection here. Given a nonsingular bilinear or hermitian product, one can identify the vector space with its dual, which is the simplest example of "lowering indices". The transpose of a linear operator on a vector space can then be defined as a linear operator on the same vector space rather than on its dual.
263:
I am very sorry for having done something possibly beyond my competence. I was looking for "transpose" and encountered "duality pairing" which I had to look up outside of
Knowledge (Paul Garrett, Abstract Algebra), and which was connected there to BLFs, and so I inserted this link, which you consider
519:
You've expressed my direction of thought exactly. I was mentally trying to picture how understandable it would be in the form you've written it, and concur that it doesn't help. I guess the notation in general (overloading of parentheses etc.) is what I find awkward, but I'm stuck with that. So I
307:
Definitely, your's is the appropriate link. I think it suffices, and there is no need for a rewriting of the given brackets with new variable names to explain the involved bilinear maps. Checking the links you and I gave, I noticed the tar pit I jumped in, blinded by the simple occurrance of "dual
349:
I'm still interested in exploring the use of the -notation in this case. I imagine that it is usually used to emphasize the symmetry between a space and its dual through the identification of a space with its double dual, but that does not seem to be the point here. Since the notation is also
232:
uses a duality pairing that (by the implication of the recently added link) relies on the existence of such bilinear forms. While they can presumably be related if defined and adhering to suitable constraints (and may be a confusion with the adjoint), this seems completely superfluous to the
362:
I have seen a lot of notation around this already and I do not really appreciate one kind especially. The problem of denoting what acts on what is delt with in many ways. Here its is the brackets. I'm not sure if
556:
431:
496:
140:
282:
gets used to mean so many similar but nonequivalent things that this gets confusing. I think that it may help to additionally define the duality pairing explicitly here, e.g. =
264:
to be undue. I hope, the rest I did is a correct edit of a typo and and a more foolproof formulation. I'm going to revert the inserted link. True for finite dimension?
584:
130:
579:
359:
Thanks for your kind words! I'll stop apologizing and will express my personal dissatisfaction with edits of mine in an other form in the future. :)
106:
346:
is encouraged and I really don't see what there is to apologize about. And I'm not particularly sure-footed here, just interested in details.
560:
97:
58:
546:
298:. What do you think? I do not know enough about the infinite-dimensional case, but it would seem to apply there too. —
33:
367:
438:
510:
333:
269:
278:
I agree with your initial impulse to link it, and I've found a suitable definition that I've linked to. The word
229:
21:
233:
definition an understanding of the transpose defined here. Or perhaps the duality pairing is simply a map
506:
329:
265:
39:
83:
552:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
328:
in mapping to the relevant field. Thanks for the communication and sorry again for my flippancy.
89:
73:
52:
521:
351:
299:
246:
343:
564:
524:
514:
354:
337:
302:
273:
249:
573:
320:
245:(the action of the covector on a vector), in which case the link should be revised. —
505:
to save one explicit level of mapping. Perhaps it's just a matter of accomodation?
310:
258:
102:
79:
499:
is any better. I remember physicists defining scalar products as a map
342:
Relax – your engagement has entirely constructive throughout, being
15:
441:
370:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
490:
425:
426:{\displaystyle f^{*}(\varphi )(v)=\varphi (f(v))}
545:I was looking at this entry and comparing it to
541:Link to article on raising and lowering indices?
491:{\displaystyle (f^{*}(\varphi ))(v)=\varphi fv}
186:is defined independently of any bilinear forms
8:
19:
550:
47:
449:
440:
375:
369:
290:), the defined action of the dual vector
49:
557:2A02:C7D:5E4F:E900:AC6B:ECC0:792A:82DC
7:
162:As far as I can tell, the transpose
95:This article is within the scope of
158:Undue reference to duality pairing?
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
585:Low-priority mathematics articles
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
580:Start-Class mathematics articles
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
473:
467:
464:
461:
455:
442:
420:
417:
411:
405:
396:
390:
387:
381:
1:
109:and see a list of open tasks.
547:Raising and lowering indices
525:16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
515:10:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
355:17:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
338:14:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
303:22:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
274:20:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
250:17:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
601:
565:11:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
520:think we leave it as is. —
324:restricts itself to twice
228:, yet the second part of
134:
67:
46:
141:project's priority scale
98:WikiProject Mathematics
492:
427:
28:This article is rated
493:
428:
439:
368:
316:two arbitrary spaces
308:space" in the link:
121:mathematics articles
488:
423:
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
567:
555:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
592:
504:
498:
497:
495:
494:
489:
454:
453:
433:
432:
430:
429:
424:
380:
379:
262:
174:of a linear map
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
600:
599:
595:
594:
593:
591:
590:
589:
570:
569:
543:
500:
445:
437:
436:
435:
371:
366:
365:
364:
256:
215:
194:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
598:
596:
588:
587:
582:
572:
571:
542:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
487:
484:
481:
478:
475:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
452:
448:
444:
422:
419:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
378:
374:
360:
347:
326:one space only
294:on the vector
211:
190:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
597:
586:
583:
581:
578:
577:
575:
568:
566:
562:
558:
554:
548:
540:
526:
523:
518:
517:
516:
512:
508:
503:
485:
482:
479:
476:
470:
458:
450:
446:
414:
408:
402:
399:
393:
384:
376:
372:
361:
358:
357:
356:
353:
348:
345:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
322:
321:bilinear form
317:
313:
312:
306:
305:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
260:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
227:
223:
219:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
551:— Preceding
544:
501:
325:
319:
315:
311:bilinear map
309:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
242:
238:
234:
230:§ Definition
225:
221:
217:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
161:
137:Low-priority
136:
96:
62:Low‑priority
40:WikiProjects
314:allows for
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
30:Start-class
574:Categories
502:V x V → R
318:, whereas
280:transpose
553:unsigned
522:Quondum
352:Quondum
300:Quondum
259:Quondum
247:Quondum
139:on the
36:scale.
507:Purgy
330:Purgy
266:Purgy
561:talk
511:talk
344:bold
334:talk
270:talk
255:Hi,
207:and
434:or
131:Low
576::
563:)
513:)
480:φ
459:φ
451:∗
403:φ
385:φ
377:∗
336:)
272:)
241:→
237:×
224:→
220:×
216::
203:→
199:×
195::
182:→
178::
170:→
166::
559:(
509:(
486:v
483:f
477:=
474:)
471:v
468:(
465:)
462:)
456:(
447:f
443:(
421:)
418:)
415:v
412:(
409:f
406:(
400:=
397:)
394:v
391:(
388:)
382:(
373:f
332:(
296:v
292:w
288:v
286:(
284:w
268:(
261::
257:@
243:K
239:V
235:V
226:K
222:W
218:W
213:W
209:B
205:K
201:V
197:V
192:V
188:B
184:W
180:V
176:f
172:V
168:W
164:f
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
