tensor rank of an element in a tensor product












0














Let $V$ and $W$ be finite-dimensional vector spaces over $k$ with $text{dim}(V)=n$ and $text{dim}(W)=m$.



How can I see that every element $t in V otimes_k W$ has tensor rank at most $text{min}{m,n}$.






abstract-algebra commutative-algebra tensor-products tensor-rank







share|cite|improve this question



























    0














    Let $V$ and $W$ be finite-dimensional vector spaces over $k$ with $text{dim}(V)=n$ and $text{dim}(W)=m$.



    How can I see that every element $t in V otimes_k W$ has tensor rank at most $text{min}{m,n}$.






    abstract-algebra commutative-algebra tensor-products tensor-rank







    share|cite|improve this question

























      0












      0








      0







      Let $V$ and $W$ be finite-dimensional vector spaces over $k$ with $text{dim}(V)=n$ and $text{dim}(W)=m$.



      How can I see that every element $t in V otimes_k W$ has tensor rank at most $text{min}{m,n}$.






      abstract-algebra commutative-algebra tensor-products tensor-rank







      share|cite|improve this question













      Let $V$ and $W$ be finite-dimensional vector spaces over $k$ with $text{dim}(V)=n$ and $text{dim}(W)=m$.



      How can I see that every element $t in V otimes_k W$ has tensor rank at most $text{min}{m,n}$.






      abstract-algebra commutative-algebra tensor-products tensor-rank




      abstract-algebra commutative-algebra tensor-products tensor-rank






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 22 at 14:38









      idriskameni

      769




      769






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          Suppose rank $t=r$ and write
          $$
          t = sum_{i=1}^r v_i otimes w_i
          $$
          where $w_i in W$ and $v_i in V$. I claim that ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ and ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$ must be linearly independent sets.



          Assume toward I contradiction that ${v_i}$ is not a linearly independent set. WLOG we can write $v_r=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_i$. Observe that
          $$
          v_r otimes w_r = left(sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_iright) otimes w_i=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} left( v_i otimes lambda_i w_r right)
          $$
          Then we have
          $$
          t = v_r otimes w_r +sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i= sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes lambda_i w_r+sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i = sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes (w_i +lambda_i w_r),
          $$
          contradicting the fact that $t$ has rank $r$. So we must have ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ is a linearly independent set. A near identical argument works for ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$. It follows that $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Should I fix the basis ${v_i}_{i=1}^n$, and ${w_i}_{i=1}^m$ before? I mean, the elements of the sets $v_i$ that you have described are elements of the basis, right?
            – idriskameni
            Dec 4 at 12:04






          • 1




            Fixing this as a basis before hand would be implicitly assuming that the sets are linearly independent. We can show the sets are linearly independent without having set bases for V and W as linear independence is not something that depends on a basis. Once we get that they are linearly independent sets, the claim $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$ are following from the fact that any linearly independent set can be extended to a basis. Nothing up til that point needs a basis, and bases are only used in a small way at the end.
            – Eric
            Dec 4 at 13:01



















          1














          Fix a basis $v_1, ldots, v_n$ of $V$. Then any tensor $t in V otimes W$ can be written $t = v_1 otimes w_1 + cdots + v_n otimes w_n$ for some vectors $w_i$ depending on $t$. This shows the tensor rank is at most $n$, and the argument to show that it is at most $m$ is identical.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009216%2ftensor-rank-of-an-element-in-a-tensor-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            Suppose rank $t=r$ and write
            $$
            t = sum_{i=1}^r v_i otimes w_i
            $$
            where $w_i in W$ and $v_i in V$. I claim that ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ and ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$ must be linearly independent sets.



            Assume toward I contradiction that ${v_i}$ is not a linearly independent set. WLOG we can write $v_r=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_i$. Observe that
            $$
            v_r otimes w_r = left(sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_iright) otimes w_i=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} left( v_i otimes lambda_i w_r right)
            $$
            Then we have
            $$
            t = v_r otimes w_r +sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i= sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes lambda_i w_r+sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i = sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes (w_i +lambda_i w_r),
            $$
            contradicting the fact that $t$ has rank $r$. So we must have ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ is a linearly independent set. A near identical argument works for ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$. It follows that $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Should I fix the basis ${v_i}_{i=1}^n$, and ${w_i}_{i=1}^m$ before? I mean, the elements of the sets $v_i$ that you have described are elements of the basis, right?
              – idriskameni
              Dec 4 at 12:04






            • 1




              Fixing this as a basis before hand would be implicitly assuming that the sets are linearly independent. We can show the sets are linearly independent without having set bases for V and W as linear independence is not something that depends on a basis. Once we get that they are linearly independent sets, the claim $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$ are following from the fact that any linearly independent set can be extended to a basis. Nothing up til that point needs a basis, and bases are only used in a small way at the end.
              – Eric
              Dec 4 at 13:01
















            2














            Suppose rank $t=r$ and write
            $$
            t = sum_{i=1}^r v_i otimes w_i
            $$
            where $w_i in W$ and $v_i in V$. I claim that ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ and ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$ must be linearly independent sets.



            Assume toward I contradiction that ${v_i}$ is not a linearly independent set. WLOG we can write $v_r=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_i$. Observe that
            $$
            v_r otimes w_r = left(sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_iright) otimes w_i=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} left( v_i otimes lambda_i w_r right)
            $$
            Then we have
            $$
            t = v_r otimes w_r +sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i= sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes lambda_i w_r+sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i = sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes (w_i +lambda_i w_r),
            $$
            contradicting the fact that $t$ has rank $r$. So we must have ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ is a linearly independent set. A near identical argument works for ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$. It follows that $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Should I fix the basis ${v_i}_{i=1}^n$, and ${w_i}_{i=1}^m$ before? I mean, the elements of the sets $v_i$ that you have described are elements of the basis, right?
              – idriskameni
              Dec 4 at 12:04






            • 1




              Fixing this as a basis before hand would be implicitly assuming that the sets are linearly independent. We can show the sets are linearly independent without having set bases for V and W as linear independence is not something that depends on a basis. Once we get that they are linearly independent sets, the claim $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$ are following from the fact that any linearly independent set can be extended to a basis. Nothing up til that point needs a basis, and bases are only used in a small way at the end.
              – Eric
              Dec 4 at 13:01














            2












            2








            2






            Suppose rank $t=r$ and write
            $$
            t = sum_{i=1}^r v_i otimes w_i
            $$
            where $w_i in W$ and $v_i in V$. I claim that ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ and ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$ must be linearly independent sets.



            Assume toward I contradiction that ${v_i}$ is not a linearly independent set. WLOG we can write $v_r=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_i$. Observe that
            $$
            v_r otimes w_r = left(sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_iright) otimes w_i=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} left( v_i otimes lambda_i w_r right)
            $$
            Then we have
            $$
            t = v_r otimes w_r +sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i= sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes lambda_i w_r+sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i = sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes (w_i +lambda_i w_r),
            $$
            contradicting the fact that $t$ has rank $r$. So we must have ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ is a linearly independent set. A near identical argument works for ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$. It follows that $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Suppose rank $t=r$ and write
            $$
            t = sum_{i=1}^r v_i otimes w_i
            $$
            where $w_i in W$ and $v_i in V$. I claim that ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ and ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$ must be linearly independent sets.



            Assume toward I contradiction that ${v_i}$ is not a linearly independent set. WLOG we can write $v_r=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_i$. Observe that
            $$
            v_r otimes w_r = left(sum_{i=1}^{r-1} lambda_i v_iright) otimes w_i=sum_{i=1}^{r-1} left( v_i otimes lambda_i w_r right)
            $$
            Then we have
            $$
            t = v_r otimes w_r +sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i= sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes lambda_i w_r+sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes w_i = sum_{i=1}^{r-1} v_i otimes (w_i +lambda_i w_r),
            $$
            contradicting the fact that $t$ has rank $r$. So we must have ${v_i}_{i=1}^r$ is a linearly independent set. A near identical argument works for ${w_i}_{i=1}^r$. It follows that $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 22 at 14:53









            Eric

            2088




            2088












            • Should I fix the basis ${v_i}_{i=1}^n$, and ${w_i}_{i=1}^m$ before? I mean, the elements of the sets $v_i$ that you have described are elements of the basis, right?
              – idriskameni
              Dec 4 at 12:04






            • 1




              Fixing this as a basis before hand would be implicitly assuming that the sets are linearly independent. We can show the sets are linearly independent without having set bases for V and W as linear independence is not something that depends on a basis. Once we get that they are linearly independent sets, the claim $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$ are following from the fact that any linearly independent set can be extended to a basis. Nothing up til that point needs a basis, and bases are only used in a small way at the end.
              – Eric
              Dec 4 at 13:01


















            • Should I fix the basis ${v_i}_{i=1}^n$, and ${w_i}_{i=1}^m$ before? I mean, the elements of the sets $v_i$ that you have described are elements of the basis, right?
              – idriskameni
              Dec 4 at 12:04






            • 1




              Fixing this as a basis before hand would be implicitly assuming that the sets are linearly independent. We can show the sets are linearly independent without having set bases for V and W as linear independence is not something that depends on a basis. Once we get that they are linearly independent sets, the claim $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$ are following from the fact that any linearly independent set can be extended to a basis. Nothing up til that point needs a basis, and bases are only used in a small way at the end.
              – Eric
              Dec 4 at 13:01
















            Should I fix the basis ${v_i}_{i=1}^n$, and ${w_i}_{i=1}^m$ before? I mean, the elements of the sets $v_i$ that you have described are elements of the basis, right?
            – idriskameni
            Dec 4 at 12:04




            Should I fix the basis ${v_i}_{i=1}^n$, and ${w_i}_{i=1}^m$ before? I mean, the elements of the sets $v_i$ that you have described are elements of the basis, right?
            – idriskameni
            Dec 4 at 12:04




            1




            1




            Fixing this as a basis before hand would be implicitly assuming that the sets are linearly independent. We can show the sets are linearly independent without having set bases for V and W as linear independence is not something that depends on a basis. Once we get that they are linearly independent sets, the claim $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$ are following from the fact that any linearly independent set can be extended to a basis. Nothing up til that point needs a basis, and bases are only used in a small way at the end.
            – Eric
            Dec 4 at 13:01




            Fixing this as a basis before hand would be implicitly assuming that the sets are linearly independent. We can show the sets are linearly independent without having set bases for V and W as linear independence is not something that depends on a basis. Once we get that they are linearly independent sets, the claim $dim V geq r$ and $dim W geq r$ are following from the fact that any linearly independent set can be extended to a basis. Nothing up til that point needs a basis, and bases are only used in a small way at the end.
            – Eric
            Dec 4 at 13:01











            1














            Fix a basis $v_1, ldots, v_n$ of $V$. Then any tensor $t in V otimes W$ can be written $t = v_1 otimes w_1 + cdots + v_n otimes w_n$ for some vectors $w_i$ depending on $t$. This shows the tensor rank is at most $n$, and the argument to show that it is at most $m$ is identical.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              1














              Fix a basis $v_1, ldots, v_n$ of $V$. Then any tensor $t in V otimes W$ can be written $t = v_1 otimes w_1 + cdots + v_n otimes w_n$ for some vectors $w_i$ depending on $t$. This shows the tensor rank is at most $n$, and the argument to show that it is at most $m$ is identical.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                Fix a basis $v_1, ldots, v_n$ of $V$. Then any tensor $t in V otimes W$ can be written $t = v_1 otimes w_1 + cdots + v_n otimes w_n$ for some vectors $w_i$ depending on $t$. This shows the tensor rank is at most $n$, and the argument to show that it is at most $m$ is identical.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Fix a basis $v_1, ldots, v_n$ of $V$. Then any tensor $t in V otimes W$ can be written $t = v_1 otimes w_1 + cdots + v_n otimes w_n$ for some vectors $w_i$ depending on $t$. This shows the tensor rank is at most $n$, and the argument to show that it is at most $m$ is identical.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 22 at 15:32









                Joppy

                5,573420




                5,573420






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009216%2ftensor-rank-of-an-element-in-a-tensor-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Plaza Victoria

                    Image
                    Plaza Victoria Plaza Victoria en 2017 Otros nombres Plaza de La Victoria Localización El Almendral, Valparaíso, Chile Vías adyacentes Chacabuco, Molina, Plaza Victoria y Edwards Creación 1841 Metro Bellavista Ubicación 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 Coordenadas: 33°02′46″S 71°37′11″O  /  -33.04624167, -71.61980833 [editar datos en Wikidata] La Plaza Victoria , también llamada Plaza de la Victoria , [ 1 ] ​ es una plaza ubicada en el sector El Almendral del plan de la ciudad de Valparaíso, Chile, de importancia patrimonial, que incluye valiosas estatuas y especies vegetales. [ 2 ] ​ La plaza se creó como tal en la primera mitad del siglo XIX, tomando previamente los nombres de Plaza Nueva y Plaza de Orrego . Si bien desde sus inicios tuvo relevancia histórica, no fue sino a partir de fines de los años 1860 cuando comenzó a cobrar mayor importancia y se convirtió en uno de los principales centros sociales de l...
                    Read more

                    Puebla de Zaragoza

                    Image
                    Para otros usos de este término, véase Puebla (desambiguación). Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localidad De arriba a abajo de izquierda a derecha: Estrella de Puebla, Volcán Popocatépetl, Catedral de Puebla, Monumento a Ignacio Zaragoza, Estadio Cuauhtémoc, Angelópolis y Vista panorámica de la ciudad. Escudo Otros nombres: El relicario de América/ La ciudad de los Ángeles/ La Angelópolis Lema: Muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Puebla de los Ángeles Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en México Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza Localización de Heroica Puebla de Zaragoza en Puebla Mapa interactivo Coordenadas 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Coordenadas: 19°03′05″N 98°13′04″O  /  19.051388888889, -98.217777777778 Idioma oficial Español Entidad Localidad  • País   México  • Estado Puebla  • Municipio Puebla Presidente municipal Claudia Rivera Vivanc...
                    Read more

                    Musa

                    Image
                    Para el género de plantas, véase Musa (planta). Apolo y la Nueve Musas En la mitología griega, las musas (en griego antiguo μοῦσαι « mousai» ) son, según los escritores más antiguos, las divinidades inspiradoras de las Artes: cada una de ellas está relacionada con ramas artísticas y del conocimiento. Son hijas de Zeus y de Mnemósine, compañeras del séquito de Apolo, dios olímpico de la música y patrón de las bellas artes, quien tuvo romances con cada una de ellas, dejando descendientes. Bajaban a la tierra a susurrar ideas e inspirar a aquellos mortales que las invocaran. En la época más arcaica eran las ninfas inspiradoras de las fuentes, en las cuales eran adoradas. Finalmente, alrededor de los siglos VIII-VII a. C. [ 1 ] ​ prevaleció en todo el territorio de la Hélade la adoración de las nueve Musas, que son Calíope, Clío, Erato, Euterpe, Melpómene, Polimnia, Talía, Terpsícore y Urania. El culto a las musas era originalmente de Tracia y Beocia, y fueron de vital impo...
                    Read more