Chapter 2 defined the trace of an operator by
choosing a basis, writing down the matrix, and adding
the diagonal entries; it then proved that the answer
does not depend on the choice (Definition 4.5.2).
That is a correct definition and an unsatisfying one. It
says how to compute the number, not what the number is,
and the independence of the basis arrives afterwards, as
a theorem about similar matrices. Section 03 offers a
way out. An operator on is an element of (Theorem 15.3.9), and on
there is one obvious scalar-valued map that uses no
basis at all: apply the functional to the vector. This
section builds that map, proves that it is the trace,
and extends it to tensors with many slots.
Evaluation, made linear
The dual space was invented so that its elements
could eat vectors. The eating is a function of two
arguments, and it is bilinear: linear in because is a linear map,
and linear in because that is
how is added
and scaled (Definition 5.1.2). A
bilinear map is exactly what the tensor product converts
into a linear one, and by now this should be a
reflex.
Contraction is the evaluation pairing, turned
into a single linear map by the tensor product.
Definition
15.4.1 (Contraction)
Let be a
vector space over . The
contraction of is the unique linear
map
Well-definedness. The pairing is bilinear, so Definition 15.2.1 supplies
exactly one linear map on taking
those values. Nothing else is chosen: no basis, no
finite dimension, no extra structure on .
Examples.
- In coordinates. Let , let be a basis and its dual basis (Definition 5.1.3), so
. A general
is by Theorem 15.2.5, and The contraction sums the coefficients whose
two indices agree. That is a diagonal sum, which is the
first hint of what is coming.
- The smallest case. If , pick and
let be dual
to it. Every element of is , and . So is
the isomorphism . Degenerate, and worth
seeing: the contraction is the only thing that can
happen here.
- A functional times a vector, in . With , ,
and , , the
dot product. Chapter 11’s inner product on is this contraction
composed with the identification of with its dual —
which is extra structure, and is why the dot product is
not a contraction of .
Nonexample by minimal change.
Replace by
. The
assignment is not
bilinear — doubling multiplies it by
— so no linear
map on agrees with it, and Definition 15.2.1 does not
apply. The exact clause that fails is linearity in each
slot.
Why one upper slot and one lower
slot. Contraction needs a functional
and a vector: the functional supplies the
mouth. There is no analogous map .
Warning. There is no
canonical contraction of two vectors. A linear
map is the same thing as a bilinear form on (Definition 15.2.1 with
), and Chapter
14 spent a chapter on the fact that a vector space
carries many bilinear forms and prefers none of
them. Each basis of supplies one, ,
and different bases supply different ones: on the standard basis
gives the dot product, while gives a
form under which and are not orthogonal.
Only the pairing between and is free of charge.
Contraction is the trace
We can now say what the trace is.
Theorem
15.4.1 (The Trace Is a Contraction)
Let be a
finite-dimensional vector space over , and let be the isomorphism of Theorem 15.3.9. Then that is, as maps .
Idea. Both sides are linear in
, so by Lemma 15.3.2 it is enough
to check simple tensors. And is the rank-at-most-one map , whose trace can be
read off from a single well-chosen basis: put first.
Proof. Both and are
linear, being composites of linear maps (Theorem 4.5.3 for
the first). By Lemma 15.3.2 it suffices
to prove for all
,
.
Write , so for every . If , then
and , so
both sides vanish. Otherwise is a linearly
independent list, so by Theorem 1.8.2 it
extends to a basis of with .
For each , so column of has
in row and zeros
below it (Definition 4.1.1).
Hence the only nonzero diagonal entry is the one in
position ,
equal to . By Definition 4.5.2,
, as required.
What has changed. Chapter 2’s
definition named a basis and then had to prove that the
answer survived a change of basis, using Theorem 4.2.5.
Here nothing was named. The map was manufactured by the
universal property out of the evaluation pairing, which
exists before any basis does, and was manufactured
the same way. So basis-independence is not a theorem
about ; there is no basis in the
construction to be independent of. Chapter 4’s theorem
is still true, and it is what makes the two descriptions
agree — but it is now an observation about a
computation of the trace, not part of its
definition. The single basis used in the proof above was
a convenience for reading off one number, not a choice
the answer could depend on.
Two consequences come free. First, the trace of a
rank-one map.
Corollary
15.4.2 (Trace of a Rank-One Map)
Let be
finite-dimensional, and , and let
be
. Then . In particular, with a basis
and its dual
basis, and .
Proof. The first claim was proved
inside Theorem 15.4.1. For the
second, sends to ,
so it is (Theorem 2.1.5);
applying gives
.
Second, the promise made in §03: the trace of a
tensor product of maps multiplies, and now we can see
why. The key is that a functional on is built from
one on each factor.
Proposition
15.4.3 (The Dual of a Tensor Product)
Let and be finite-dimensional
over . There is a
unique linear map and it is an isomorphism.
Proof. For fixed , the map
is bilinear, so
Definition 15.2.1 produces
a unique functional with the
stated values. The assignment is itself bilinear, since two
functionals agreeing on all simple tensors are equal (Lemma 15.3.2), so Definition 15.2.1 gives
the unique linear .
Let and be bases with dual bases and . Then , so carries the basis
of (Theorem 15.2.5) to the
dual basis of (Theorem 5.1.3 (a), which
characterizes it by these values). A linear map carrying
a basis to a basis is an isomorphism, by Theorem 2.2.4 and Theorem 2.3.1.
Corollary
15.4.4 (Why the Trace Multiplies)
Let be
finite-dimensional over , and . Then .
Proof. Both and are bilinear on , by
Proposition 15.3.3 (a),
(b), and Theorem 4.5.3.
The maps of rank at most one span , since is surjective and
simple tensors span (Proposition 15.2.4);
likewise for . So it suffices to
check the identity when and .
For such and
and any , so by Lemma 15.3.2. By Theorem 15.4.1 and Proposition 15.4.3, which is by Corollary 15.4.2.
So the trace multiplies because evaluation
multiplies: a functional on a tensor product is a
product of functionals, and contraction is evaluation.
Chapter 8 proved this by summing over all
pairs (Theorem 8.4.3 (b)),
which is the same fact with the sum written out.
Tensors
with many slots
Contraction is not confined to one upper and one
lower slot; it can be applied to a chosen pair inside a
tensor with any number of them. First we name those
tensors. Write which is unambiguous by Proposition 15.3.5.
Definition
15.4.2 (Tensor of type )
Let be a
vector space over
and . A
tensor of type on is an element of The
copies of are the
contravariant slots and the copies of the
covariant slots. The number is the
rank or order of the
tensor.
If ,
then by Theorem 15.2.5 and Corollary 5.1.4. The small
cases are all things we have met:
Warning. The word “rank” is
overloaded here. The rank of a tensor in the
sense of Definition 15.4.2 is the
number of slots, ; it has nothing to do with for a linear map,
nor with the smallest number of simple tensors needed to
write an element. A type tensor always has
rank in this
sense, whatever the rank of the corresponding operator.
Where confusion is possible we say
order.
Now the general contraction. Contracting slot against slot means feeding the -th functional the -th vector and keeping
everything else.
Definition
15.4.3 (Contraction on a pair of slots)
Let be a
vector space over , let , and fix and . The
contraction on slots and is the unique
linear map with, for all and , where a hat means that the factor is
omitted.
Well-definedness. The right-hand
side is multilinear in the arguments: each argument appears exactly
once, either inside the scalar or
as one factor of a tensor product, and both are linear
in it. By Lemma 15.3.4 there is
exactly one linear map on with these
values. For it lands in and sends
to : it is
Definition 15.4.1 read on
instead of , that is, composed with the swap
of Exercise (C3: Reproving the swap).
We use that identification silently from here on, and Theorem 15.4.1 applies to
either reading.
Warning. Which slots you
contract matters. Let with basis
and dual basis ,
and take the type tensor Then , while . The two contractions of the same tensor
differ, one of them being zero. There is no “the”
contraction of a tensor of order : the slots must be
named.
Quick check. Let with basis
and dual basis , and let Compute , and say which
operator
corresponds to.
Solution. . The corresponding operator sends , , , so its matrix in is , of trace , in agreement with Theorem 15.4.1.
Index notation, in the next section, makes
contraction visibly what it looks like in physics: set
an upper index equal to a lower one and sum.
Exercises
A. Check your
understanding
Exercise
(A1)
- (a) Define the
contraction , and say what makes it well
defined.
- (b) State the
relation between the trace and the contraction, with its
hypothesis.
- (c) Explain why
there is no canonical linear map .
- (d) For , what is ?
- (e) True or false:
for ,
the four contractions all agree.
Justify your answer.
Solution.
(a) is the unique linear
map with (Definition 15.4.1). It is
well defined because is bilinear, so Definition 15.2.1 produces
exactly one such linear map.
(b) If is
finite-dimensional, then
for all , where is the isomorphism
of Theorem 15.3.9 (Theorem 15.4.1).
(c) Such a map is
the same thing as a bilinear form on , and a vector space has
many bilinear forms with none distinguished; each basis
produces a different one. Contraction works only because
comes with
the evaluation pairing built in.
(d) .
(e) False. Definition 15.4.3’s
warning gives with and .
B. Practice
Exercise
(B1: Contracting a mixed tensor)
Let
with basis and dual
basis . Let
- (a) Write the matrix
of the operator
corresponding to ,
in the basis .
- (b) Compute from Definition 15.4.3, and
check it against .
- (c) Compute without
writing down a matrix.
Solution.
(a) The tensor
corresponds to the operator , whose matrix is
the matrix unit (Theorem 15.3.9). Adding
up,
(b) Here and the diagonal of the matrix in (a) sums to
.
(c) By Corollary 15.4.4, .
Exercise
(B2: Two contractions of one tensor)
Let
with basis and dual basis ,
and let Compute and , and state which
space each lies in.
Solution. Both lie in .
Contracting the single upper slot against the
first lower slot, Against the second lower
slot, the remaining factor is the first functional:
So .
Exercise
(B3: Which statements hold?)
Let be
finite-dimensional over . Determine which of the
following hold. Justify your answer.
- (a) implies .
- (b) for all , .
- (c) Every element of
is a
bilinear form on ,
and conversely.
- (d) for , .
- (e) is surjective whenever .
Solution.
(a) Fails for
. With
a basis and its dual, (Proposition 15.2.8) but
. Contraction is a
functional, not an injection; its kernel has dimension
.
(b) Holds: Corollary 15.4.2.
(c) Holds. By Proposition 15.4.3, , and by Definition 15.2.1 the
linear maps correspond exactly to the bilinear maps , which
are the bilinear forms of Definition 14.1.1.
(d) Holds: both
equal by Corollary 15.4.4, the two
products of scalars being equal.
(e) Holds. Take
; by Theorem 5.1.5 there is
with , so
for every .
C. Going deeper
Exercise
(C1: Composition, in tensor language)
Let be
finite-dimensional over and the isomorphism of Theorem 15.3.9.
- (a) Prove that for all
and . Recall that means first , then .
- (b) Hence compute
, and observe that the answer is
unchanged when and are
exchanged.
- (c) Deduce that
for all .
Solution.
(a) Both sides
are operators on ,
so evaluate at an arbitrary . Applying
first gives ,
and then using linearity of . The right side gives ,
the same scalar times the same vector. Hence the two
operators agree at every .
(b) By (a) and Corollary 15.4.2, Exchanging with
turns this into ,
which is the same product of scalars.
(c) The maps
and are bilinear on , and
the rank-one maps span (as is surjective and
simple tensors span, by Proposition 15.2.4). By
(b) the two maps agree on such pairs, hence
everywhere.
Exercise
(C2: The contraction of the identity, over any
field)
Let be
finite-dimensional over , , and let
be the tensor with .
- (a) Prove that for every
basis of with dual basis . (This tensor is
basis-free, though each expression for it is not.)
- (b) Prove that in
.
- (c) Over with , find a tensor
in
with , and relate this to Chapter 4’s
observation that the trace does not determine the rank
of a projection over .
Solution.
(a) By Corollary 15.4.2, for any basis and its dual
basis. Since
is injective (Theorem 15.3.9), all these
tensors are equal, and each equals .
(b) by
Definition 5.1.3.
(c) Take . Then in , while because
. Under these are the
identity and the zero operator, both projections, of
ranks and ; this is exactly Theorem 4.5.4’s
warning that over a field of characteristic the integer cannot be
recovered from . The contraction is faithful to the tensor,
but the field can be too small for the resulting scalar
to distinguish them.