4
$\begingroup$

Let $V$ be a finite-dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{R}$ equipped with an inner product $\omega(-,-)$. One standard fact is that there is an induced inner product on $\wedge^k V$. For instance, this shows up when you're setting up Hodge theory.

All the constructions I've seen in books construct the inner product on $\wedge^k V$ by first choosing an orthonormal basis $\{e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$ for $(V,\omega)$, and then declaring that the basis $e_{i_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge e_{i_k}$ for $\wedge^k V$ where the $i_j$ range over increasing sequences $1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_k \leq n$ is an orthonormal basis for $\wedge^k V$.

This strikes me as pretty unnatural; in particular, you then have to do a calculation to prove that $O(V,\omega)$ acts on $\wedge^k V$ by orthogonal transformations.

Does anyone know a good coordinate-free way to do this? I know a partial solution. Namely, you can view $\omega(-,-)$ as giving an isomorphism $\iota\colon V \rightarrow V^{\ast}$, and we then get an isomorphism $$\wedge^k V \stackrel{\wedge^k \iota}{\longrightarrow} \wedge^k V^{\ast} \cong \left(\wedge^k V\right)^{\ast}.$$ This gives a nondegenerate bilinear form on $\wedge^k V$. However, while it is easy to see that this bilinear form is symmetric, it is not obvious that it is positive-definite (and the calculation you have to do for this is no easier than what I'm trying to avoid!).

Another feature I'd like from a construction is uniqueness: namely, the inner product on $\wedge^k V$ should (up to rescaling) be the unique inner product such that $O(V,\omega)$ acts by orthogonal transformations on $\wedge^k V$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I would say that the calculation you have to do to show that your inner product is positive-definite is in fact easier than the one you want to avoid. Your definition quickly implies that the $e_{i_1}\wedge\dots e_{i_k}$ are orthonormal. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28, 2023 at 23:54
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Re: it is not obvious that it is positive-definite. Of course not. The procedure you described works for ANY non-degenerate bilinear form $\omega$, with arbitrary signature. (Any such form provides an isomorphism $V\to V^*$ and the procedure you outlined works.) The fact that you need to do a computation to show that pos def $\omega$ generates a pos def form on $\wedge^k V$ is probably a feature, not a bug, of your argument. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 1, 2023 at 1:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For uniqueness, you need to bring in a bit of representation theory. Let's say $\jmath\colon \wedge^k V \to (\wedge^k V)^* \cong \wedge^k V$ represents a different $O(\omega,V)$ invariant inner product, while the maps and isomorphism should be read as those of $O(\omega,V)$ representations. Since $\wedge^k V$ is an irreducible representation, by Schur's lemma, $\jmath$ must be proportional to the identity, which represents your standard inner product. Uniqueness fails for example for $S^k V$, because it is not an irreducible representation (exercise). $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 1, 2023 at 9:39
  • $\begingroup$ For pure elements, I believe $\langle u_1\wedge\cdots\wedge u_k,v_1\wedge\cdots\wedge v_k\rangle=\det[\omega(u_i,v_j)]$, so basically the Gramian determinant but polarized. Also see this answer of mine for a geometric interpretation. tldr: it generalizes $u\cdot v=\|u\|\|v\|\cos\theta$ to angles between subspaces. $\endgroup$
    – anon
    Commented Jun 27, 2023 at 17:40

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

I'm going to answer my own question, summarizing the comments and adding a little more from my own reflections (marked community wiki, though it doesn't matter since this is not a registered account and I can't earn reputation from it).

The first observation (from Tom Goodwillie) is that it is actually very easy to see that the inner product I wrote down is positive definite. Indeed, it is almost immediate that if $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ is an orthonormal basis for $V$, then the $e_{i_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge e_{i_k}$ form an orthonormal basis for $\wedge^k V$.

The second observation builds on what Igor Khavkine pointed out. Namely, it is obvious from pure thought that the inner product I wrote down is either positive definite or negative definite. This is actually a general phenomena, as follows.

Theorem: Let $G$ be a compact Lie group and let $W$ be a finite-dimensional irreducible real representative of $G$. Then $W$ has a $G$-invariant inner product $\omega(-,-)$, and if $\omega'(-,-)$ is any $G$-invariant symmetric bilinear form on $W$ then there exists some $r \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $\omega'(-,-) = r \cdot \omega(-,-)$. In particular, if $\omega'(-,-)$ is nonzero it is either positive definite or negative definite.

The existence of $\omega(-,-)$ follows from the usual averaging argument (this is where we use the fact that $G$ is compact, which is not used in the rest of the proof). As for $\omega'(-,-)$, since $\omega(-,-)$ is nondegenerate there exists a linear map $f\colon V \rightarrow V$ such that $\omega'(x,y) = \omega(x,f(y))$ for all $x, y \in V$. For $g \in G$, we have $$\omega'(x,y) = \omega'(gx,gy) = \omega(gx,f(gy)) \quad \text{and} \quad \omega'(x,y) = \omega(x,f(y)) = \omega(gx, g f(y))$$ for all $x,y \in V$. From this and the nondegeneracy of $\omega(-,-)$, we see that $f(gy) = g f(y)$ for all $y \in V$. Since $V$ is irreducible, Schur's Lemma implies that there exists some $r \in \mathbb{R}$ with $f(y) = r y$ for all $y \in V$. In particular, $$\omega'(x,y) = \omega(x,f(y)) = \omega(x,r y) = r \cdot \omega(x,y),$$ as desired.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ You can also get the uniqueness making use of only a small number of elements of the symmetry group. Write $e_I$ for $e_{i_1}\wedge\dots \wedge e_{i_k}$. If the sets $I$ and $J$ are distinct then $\omega(e_I,e_J)$ is $0$ because it is invariant under changing the sign of $e_j$ for some $j\in J$, $j\notin I$. And $\omega(e_I,e_I)$ is independent of $I$ by permuting the basis. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 1, 2023 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ @TomGoodwillie: Oh, that's a nice observation! Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Cindy
    Commented Mar 1, 2023 at 21:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .