Timeline for Is there a preferable convention for defining the wedge product?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 16, 2019 at 18:00 | comment | added | KConrad | The notion of exterior powers does not require the use of "unit" vectors to get things started, just like the concepts of linear independence and basis do not require "unit" vectors to be understood. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 15:50 | comment | added | Michael_1812 | KConrad, I used to think that these notions are standard: a unit form is a unit covariant tensor of the 1-st ran such that:e^i (e_j) = \delta^i_j where e_j is a unit vector. A skew form is a covariant tensor antisymmetric over all its indices. Aren't these definitions standard? | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 15:08 | comment | added | KConrad | You still never defined the terms unit form and a skew form that you are using. | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 13:55 | comment | added | Michael_1812 | Dear KConrad, thanks for your comment. I have improved my answer, as you advised. May I please ask you to help me with my question at math.stackexchange.com/questions/3149990/… | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 13:45 | history | edited | Michael_1812 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 201 characters in body
|
| Mar 16, 2019 at 8:59 | comment | added | KConrad | You should put your PS at the start rather than the end so the reader knows what that notation $[\ldots]$ means. Also indicate what you mean by "unit form" and "skew form". In brief, your post is saying the purpose of the factorials is to make the operation $\wedge$ associative. This is also the point made at the end of math.stanford.edu/~conrad/diffgeomPage/handouts/tensor.pdf if you read the last page (or start from the second to last page at "We have now reached the point..."). | |
| Mar 16, 2019 at 5:30 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 16, 2019 at 7:14 | |||||
| Mar 16, 2019 at 5:26 | history | answered | Michael_1812 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |