Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Address #186 #187

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Aug 24, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
28 changes: 23 additions & 5 deletions tex/linalg/dets.tex
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -106,9 +106,24 @@ \section{Wedge product}
it's an area zero parallelogram!

The \textbf{miracle of wedge products} is that the only additional condition
we need to add to the tensor product axioms is that $v \wedge w = -(w \wedge v)$.
we need to add to the tensor product axioms is that $v \wedge v = 0$.
Then suddenly, the wedge will do all our work of interpreting volumes for us.

\begin{remark*}
[Side digression on definitions in mathematics]
This ``property-based'' philosophy is a common trope in modern mathematics.
You have some intuition about an object you wish to define,
and then you write down a wishlist of properties that ``should'' follow.
But then it turns out the properties are sufficient to work with,
and so for the definition, you just define an abstract object
satisfying all the properties on your wishlist.
Thereafter the intuition plays no ``official'' role;
it serves only as cheerleading motivation for the wishlist.

For wedge products,
the wishlist has only the single property $v \wedge v = 0$.
\end{remark*}

In analog to earlier:
\begin{proposition}
[Basis of $\Lambda^2(V)$]
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -181,16 +196,19 @@ \section{Wedge product}
in increasing order.
\end{proof}


\section{The determinant}
\prototype{$(ae_1+be_2)\wedge(ce_1+de_2) = (ad-bc)(e_1\wedge e_2)$.}

Now we're ready to define the determinant.
Suppose $T \colon V \to V$ is a square matrix.
We claim that the map $\Lambda^m(V) \to \Lambda^m(V)$ given on wedges by
\[ v_1 \wedge v_2 \wedge \dots \wedge v_m
\mapsto T(v_1) \wedge T(v_2) \wedge \dots \wedge T(v_m) \]
and extending linearly to all of $\Lambda^m(V)$ is a linear map.
(You can check this yourself if you like.)
\mapsto T(v_1) \wedge T(v_2) \wedge \dots \wedge T(v_m). \]
and extending linearly to all of $\Lambda^m(V)$ is a
well-defined linear map
(Here ``well-defined'' means that equivalent elements of the domain
get mapped to equivalent elements of the codomain.
This, and linearity, both follow from $T$ being a linear map.)
We call that map $\Lambda^m(T)$.
\begin{example}
[Example of $\Lambda^m(T)$]
Expand Down
Loading