Hi all,

I am postponing problems 4(c) and 4(d) until HW2, since we haven’t defined the necessary concepts yet.

In problem 3, all you need to know about is that we defined by setting for , and then extending linearly.

In problem 5, just as is decomposed as a direct sum of (tensors of order k) for each k, there is a similar decomposition for and . The Hilbert series for these other two algebras is defined analogously. (You can start with a basis , find a basis of each of these three spaces. In each case, count how many basis vectors are order k tensors for each k, and then find the resulting generating function.)

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

In problem 5a, should be ?

yes, thanks!

Question: Are we allowed to assume that vector spaces (that are not algebras) have finite dimension? So, for example, are the -vector spaces in Problem 1 finite dimensional?

no, and my feeling is that if you have a proof in the finite-dimensional case, it won’t be difficult to extend it to the general case.

(keep in mind that many fundamental algebras (and even many combinatorial ones) are infinite-dimensional, such as the tensor algebra, the symmetric algebra, the exterior algebra, the algebra of shuffles…)

For problems b) and c) are the relations we’re modding out by only involving ?

For example, is the relation in c) saying in general or only with two components ?

For b), is the relation saying

I feel like the Hilbert series for b) and c) make more sense if the relations includes all , right?

I thought it was for any …So like for 2c, in , , not just ?

Hey Katrina,

Did you mean 5c? Also, the relationship stated says , so I think it means the same component.

Since , then I think that it follows that .

In problem 5, keep in mind that we are modding out by ideals (not just subspace). So, for example, every multiple of is in the ideal we mod out by to define the exterior algebra . You can think of this as Katrina and Steven (duquec) did: in , always feel free to plug in . Similarly, in the symmetric algebra, always feel free to plug in .

While I am at it, let me warn you of an easy thing to miss about the exterior algebra: if you choose a basis of , then you are not only setting for the elements of the basis, but also for any other . For instance, for all ; what does that imply?

Hmm . . . I missed that while counting the dimension of the algebra to get a closed form for the generating function.

implies that because

I remember, in my past life as a physics major, that the vector cross product had something to do with exterior algebras. I also remember that the term “anti-commutative” came up along the way. I have the feeling that the cross product is an example of an exterior algebra of . This would be nice because it would be the first example, to my knowledge, of an algebra where a tensor symbol “does something” –in other words, putting an “” between two things actually yields something other than an “” between two things.

(Finally, another interesting “fact” (?) about the cross product is that it only exists in three dimensions and seven dimensions, whatever that means.)

Two new things: (1) I take back my comment saying that cross product is an instance where the “” symbol does something. This is actually inaccurate because I feel that we can think of this symbol as doing something in several of the examples that have been covered in class.

(2) As a complement to my somewhat shallow observation concerning what is: Notice how similar this relation is to the one we are modding out by in part (b) –in this case we have sum instead of a subtraction. In any case, we should “get rid of” these sums in the tensor algebra