Need more work on bivectors here; if there is a lot more to write about on p-vectors, then maybe the bivector stuff should be shifted to a new article.--- Mpatel 08:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Yep,
There must be a mistake here :
in terms of a basis of
is not a basis of because these 2-vectors are not linearly independant. If we take and these 2 2-vectors are linked by the relation = - .
A good basis for should be with
Shouldn't the name of the lemma be "multivecotor" instead of "p-vector"? -- Trigamma 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, the entire entry for P-Vector makes no sense to anyone that is not a specialist in tensorial math. And if someone is a specialist in tensor math, why would they be reading this section. This section needs a rewrite into a form that actually conveys a description without a complete reliance on other abstract concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.92.155 ( talk) 16:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems that way to me too; also no in-line references. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is a proposal for a new section:
If a and b are any vectors in a real three-dimensional Euclidean vector space, then the complex vector A given by:
is a bivector, where i = √−1. Two bivectors A = a + i b and A′ = a′ + i b′ are equal if and only if a = a′ and b = b′. [1]
Given an orthonormal triad of real unit vectors i, j, k,
Introducing another bivector B, dot and cross products are: [1]
Unit bivectors { eℓ } are related to the imaginary i=√-1 using the connection (for example): [2]
connecting this discussion to that above, which does not use the imaginary i. See also these historical remarks. [3]
Brews ohare ( talk) 19:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope no too tendentiously, I changed the redirection from bivector to p-vector and wrote a starting article for bivector at Bivector in accordance with some objections here that the general case was too abstruse for the uninitiated. Perhaps you could take a look at that and make any necessary changes. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The restriction of the term p-vector to refer only to differential geometry seems too narrow. It also has meaning in linear algebra. For example, a bivector also is called sometimes a 2-vector, and is not restricted to differential geometry. Perhaps the use of p-vector as an adjective to describe a field, as in bivector field, is more appropriately restricted to differential geometry? Should the name of this article be changed to p-vector field? Brews ohare ( talk) 16:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Need more work on bivectors here; if there is a lot more to write about on p-vectors, then maybe the bivector stuff should be shifted to a new article.--- Mpatel 08:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Yep,
There must be a mistake here :
in terms of a basis of
is not a basis of because these 2-vectors are not linearly independant. If we take and these 2 2-vectors are linked by the relation = - .
A good basis for should be with
Shouldn't the name of the lemma be "multivecotor" instead of "p-vector"? -- Trigamma 15:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, the entire entry for P-Vector makes no sense to anyone that is not a specialist in tensorial math. And if someone is a specialist in tensor math, why would they be reading this section. This section needs a rewrite into a form that actually conveys a description without a complete reliance on other abstract concepts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.92.155 ( talk) 16:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Seems that way to me too; also no in-line references. Brews ohare ( talk) 19:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is a proposal for a new section:
If a and b are any vectors in a real three-dimensional Euclidean vector space, then the complex vector A given by:
is a bivector, where i = √−1. Two bivectors A = a + i b and A′ = a′ + i b′ are equal if and only if a = a′ and b = b′. [1]
Given an orthonormal triad of real unit vectors i, j, k,
Introducing another bivector B, dot and cross products are: [1]
Unit bivectors { eℓ } are related to the imaginary i=√-1 using the connection (for example): [2]
connecting this discussion to that above, which does not use the imaginary i. See also these historical remarks. [3]
Brews ohare ( talk) 19:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I hope no too tendentiously, I changed the redirection from bivector to p-vector and wrote a starting article for bivector at Bivector in accordance with some objections here that the general case was too abstruse for the uninitiated. Perhaps you could take a look at that and make any necessary changes. Brews ohare ( talk) 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The restriction of the term p-vector to refer only to differential geometry seems too narrow. It also has meaning in linear algebra. For example, a bivector also is called sometimes a 2-vector, and is not restricted to differential geometry. Perhaps the use of p-vector as an adjective to describe a field, as in bivector field, is more appropriately restricted to differential geometry? Should the name of this article be changed to p-vector field? Brews ohare ( talk) 16:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)