3
$\begingroup$

I know the construction of the Hodge star operator in the context of (pseudo-)euclidean real vector spaces. Apart from the scalar product it involves a orientation of the vector space, which one has to choose (at least if one is not willing to deal with forms of odd parity).

While I was wondering how to extend this definition to vector spaces over arbitrary fields, I realised that I even do not know what an orientation of a vector space $V$ over a general field $k$ is. In case there is such a notion: How could one use the definition in order to define a Hodge star operator?) Or is there a better definition?

A slight extension of this question I am also interested in is the case of a finitely presented flat module over a local ring (which includes the case where the module is the germ of sections of a vector bundle over a locally ringed space at a point).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In the real case, an orientation is not an $\mathrm{SL}(V)$-orbit in $\det(V)$ but a $\mathrm{GL}^+(V)$-orbit. Equivalently, it is an orientation of $\det(V)$, so if you can figure out the 1-dimensional case (from whatever your goal is) you are done. $\endgroup$ Dec 16, 2010 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comment on $\mathrm{SL}(V)$ being the wrong group!(When I wrote this I was still thinking about the Hodge star where we have a metric and an $\mathrm{SO}(V)$.) I am correcting my question. $\endgroup$ Dec 16, 2010 at 12:34

3 Answers 3

11
$\begingroup$

An orientation of the $n$-dimensional real vector space $V$ is an equivalence class of generators of the $1$-dimensional vector space $det(V)=\Lambda^n(V)$ under the relation $\omega\sim c\omega$, $c>0$.

A basis-free description of the usual Hodge star for a real vector space with positive inner product is exactly as Mariano has described it (up to some sign depending on $k$ and $n$, I believe). This description can be used to define a "Hodge star" for any finite-dimensional $V$ over any field, as soon as an inner product and a volume are given.

But in the usual (real, positive) case we also require the volume to be compatible with the inner product in the sense that $\langle\omega,\omega\rangle=1$, following a standard convention for extending an inner product on $V$ to exterior powers of $V$. A positive definite inner product on $V$ gives a positive definite inner product on $det(V)$, and there are exactly two possible compatible choices of $\omega$, one for each orientation of $V$.

Without this compatibility, the star that you get will not have the usual formal properties. The scalar $\langle\omega,\omega\rangle$ will enter into the formula for star composed with star.

For other fields, or even for indefinite inner products in the real case, there will not always be a compatible $\omega$, but if there is one then there will be exactly two: the question of existence of a compatible volume for a given inner product has to do with $k^{\star}/k^{\star 2}$, while the uniqueness has to do with the kernel of squaring $k^{\star}\to k^{\star}$. (In the real case these groups are easily confused, since they are isomorphic, and in fact isomorphic via the obvious map.)

I suppose that in the real but not definite case one settles for using a volume for which $|\langle\omega,\omega\rangle|=1$; such a volume exists and is unique up to sign.

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

Let $n=\dim V<\infty$. If you fix a non-degenerate bilinear form $V\times V\to k$, you get an isomorphism $\beta:V\to V^*$. Now fix a non-zero element $\omega\in\bigwedge^nV$. Multiplication in the exterior algebra gives you a non-degenerate pairing $ \bigwedge^kV\times\bigwedge^{n-k}V\to\bigwedge^nV$ which, using $\omega$ as a basis of the codomain, gives you a non-degenerate pairing $\bigwedge^kV\times\bigwedge^{n-k}V\to k$, and consequently an isomorphism $\bigwedge^kV\to(\bigwedge^{n-k}V)^*$. Finally, since $(\bigwedge^{n-k}V)^*$ is canonically the same as $\bigwedge^{n-k}(V^*)$, and $\beta$ induces an isomorphism $\bigwedge^{n-k}(V^*)\to \bigwedge^{n-k}(V)$, we end up with isomorphisms $\bigwedge^kV\to\bigwedge^{n-k}V$. These deserve to be called the Hodge star with respect to the pair $(\beta,\omega)$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice, I actually prefer the lambdas to the big wedges. Probably you prefer the big wedges… But I really do no think it makes sense to edit stuff to match one's preferences. $\endgroup$ Dec 19, 2017 at 21:09
  • $\begingroup$ I apologise if the change is unwelcome, and I won't fiddle with it again if you want to change it back. I agree that a purely stylistic edit doesn't make sense. I edited because of the misplaced parentheses, and thought I'd just fix the $\bigwedge$'s while I was in there. (I know that $\Lambda$ isn't uncommon, but I think that it's semantically wrong, like writing $<x, y>$ instead of $\langle x, y\rangle$.) $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Dec 20, 2017 at 0:30
  • $\begingroup$ @lspice, I prefer an objection based on esthetics than one based on semantics! ;-) (I don't like bigwedges because they have descenders; if it did fit in the line I think I'd use it) There is no rule than mandates writing $\bigotimes V$ for the tensor algebra, and essentially everyone writes $TV$, for example. $\endgroup$ Dec 21, 2017 at 4:03
5
$\begingroup$

I would say the orientation of $V$ is a $(k^*)^2$-orbit on $\det (V) \setminus \{0\}$. It generalizes to rings. I don't think it gives Hodge-star but I may be wrong.

If you need Hodge-star, you don't monkey around, choose a basis and define Hodge-star using this basis. Now your "orientation" is an equivalence class of bases defining the same Hodge-star.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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