Alternate definition of vector/covector addition and scaling.

139 Views Asked by At

As I was self-studying the geometric intuition behind the exterior and tensor algebras, I naturally decided to review covariant and contravariant vectors. Of course, this led me back to vector spaces and dual spaces whereupon I stumbled upon a question.

Let $V$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over a field F. Let $V*$ be its dual space.

Could we define vector/covector addition and scaling using relations? Note that I am using the definition of a relation as a subset of a cartesian product between elements of either V, V*, or F.

Here is what I am thinking. Note that I will not be using the conventions regarding upper/lower indices for the purposes of this question.

Define vector addition as a relation as follows. Fix a $w \in V$. Then, $\forall u, w \in V$, we say that $ v+u = w$ iff $v_i + u_i = w_i$, where $v_i, u_i, w_i$ are the $i$th scalar components of $v, u, w$ respectively with respect to the basis of the vector space.

Similarly, define vector scaling as a relation as follows. Fix a $u \in V$. Then, $\forall v \in V$ and $ \forall \lambda \in F$, we say that $\lambda v = u$ iff $\lambda v_i = u_i$.

Define covector addition as a relation as follows: Fix a $ \theta \in V*$. Then, $\forall \psi, \phi \in V*$ and $\forall x \in V$, we say that $ \psi+\phi = \theta$ iff $\psi(x)+\phi(x) = \theta(x)$.

Similarly, define covector scaling as a relation as follows: Fix a $\theta \in V*$. Then, $ \forall \psi \in V*$, $ \forall x \in V$, and $\forall \lambda \in F$, we say that $ \lambda \psi = \theta$ iff $\lambda \psi(x)= \theta(x)$.

Do these definitions make sense? Are they consistent with the usual definition of vector/covector operations as maps from cartesian products to a single element of $V$ or $V*$?

If these definitions do work, then I think that the usual axioms regarding vector spaces and dual spaces can be derived. It is also possible that I am completely wrong here. Either way, any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks in advance!

1

There are 1 best solutions below

2
On BEST ANSWER

The definition on the dual space is correct, though we don't need to express the addition and scalar multiplication functions as relations.

For the vectors, you're wrong: there's no such thing a priori as the '$i$th scalar component' of a general vector in a general vector space, only after (finding and) fixing a basis.

Your work, however, is basically just showing that $F^n$ with the coordinatewise operations satisfies the definition of a vector space.