MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there a standard notion of non-degeneracy for multilinear forms?

My motivation is simple curiosity, by the way!

share|cite|improve this question
For alternating forms one definition is that it's symplectic -- wedging it with itself enough times produces a volume form. – Ryan Budney Mar 22 '10 at 22:03
@WW: The quadratic form F(x,y) = xy is nondegenerate over any field, even though f(0,y) = f(x,0) = 0. Your parenthetical definition is correct, but it is not equivalent to what you or fpqc said. – Pete L. Clark Mar 22 '10 at 22:31
(Deleted some of my earlier comments.) So for bilinear forms F:V^2 to R, it is said to be non-degenerate if the map V -> V^* induced by F is an isomorphism. For multilinear forms V^k to R, asking that the induced map V -> (V^*)^k is isomorphic is obviously too strong. Is injectivity not good enough? – Willie Wong Mar 22 '10 at 23:19
That map should be into the $n-1$st tensor power, and no, I don't think that it is correct. I have an inductive definition for you: Say an n-form is nondegenerate if all of the maps induced by substitution into the jth variable $f_j:V\to (V^*)^{\otimes(n-1)}$ map nonzero vectors of $V$ to nondegenerate $n-1$-forms. We define a 1-form to be nondegenerate if it is not identically zero. This recovers the bilinear case. – Harry Gindi Mar 23 '10 at 0:34
up vote 9 down vote accepted

I'm not sure if this notion is "standard", but there is one such notion, used for example in Nigel Hitchin's paper Stable forms and special metrics (arXiv:math/0107101) for alternating multilinear forms. The idea is that symplectic structures on a vector space $V$ can be characterised by the fact that they lie in an open orbit of $\mathrm{GL}(V)$ on $\Lambda^2V^*$. Hitchin calls these stable forms and shows that apart from the the case of symplectic forms, there are stable $3$-forms in dimensions 6,7 and 8; the $G_2$-invariant $3$-form in a seven-dimensional vector space (i.e., the imaginary component of the multiplication of imaginary octonions) being one such example.

Hitchin's notion is very fruitful, as it provides a variational approach to 7-dimensional riemannian metrics of weak $G_2$ holonomy, for example.

share|cite|improve this answer
Very interesting. Thanks! – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Mar 23 '10 at 0:13

Basic idea: a bilinear form $B$ is degenerate if there are two nonzero vectors $v$ and $w$ so that not only is $$B(v,w)=0,$$ but also either vector is enough to kill $B$ without help from the other: $$B(v,-) = 0 \mbox{ and } B(-,w)=0.$$

Another way to say it: even if we perturb $v$ and $w$, $B(v \otimes w)=0$ to first order. From this point of view, we see that a bilinear form is degenerate iff it is an element of the variety dual to the Segre embedding of $\mathbb{P}V \times \mathbb{P}W$ in $\mathbb{P}(V \otimes W)$.

This motivation generalizes gracefully to the following definition from Gelfand, Kapranov, and Zelevinsky's book Discriminants, resultants, and multidimensional determinants:

A $p$-linear form $T$ is said to be degenerate if either of the following equivalent conditions holds:

  • there exist nonzero vectors $\beta_i$ so that, for any $1 \leq j \leq p$, $$ T \left( \beta_1, \ldots , \beta_{j-1} , x_j ,\beta_{j+1}, \ldots , \beta_{p} \right) = 0 \mbox{ for all $x_{j}$;} $$

  • there exist nonzero vectors $\beta_{i}$ so that $T$ vanishes at $\otimes \beta_{i}$ along with every partial derivative with respect to an entry of some $\beta_{i}$: $$ T \mbox{ and } \frac{\partial T}{\partial \beta^{(j)}_{i}} \mbox{ vanish at $\otimes \beta_{i}$.}$$

In certain favorable cases (when the dimensions of the vector spaces $V_i$ are not too different) the dual to the Segre is a hypersurface; in other words, there is a single polynomial---the hyperdeterminant---which vanishes exactly at the degenerate multilinear forms. This polynomial possesses many magical properties and is much subtler than determinants of bilinear forms.

I can attest that this definition is at least useful, if not standard, since it came up in a substantial way in an elementary question about coin flipping: .

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.