12

I'm an electrical engineer, and thus don't often interact with the types of mathematics that involve tensors. But when I try to get a deeper understanding of certain things that I do interact with, I keep running into the concept of a tensor, and I just can't seem to wrap my head around what that is.

Every definition I can find on the internet--including other questions here on math.SE--immediately dives into a sea of mathematical jargon that's well outside my understanding, and trying to find definitions of those terms only gets more and more distant from anything familiar.

The basic idea I have from reading what I can understand is that it's some sort of generalization of a vector to have two (or more) dimensions of coordinates, but I can't seem to understand it in any sort of physical analogy (which are very helpful to understanding, at least to me personally), nor can I tell how that materially differs from a matrix. Except some people say they're operators or functions and not objects in their own right? And then there's this whole thing with two whole types of dimensions, whatever that means, which are apparently the same thing but written in different ways, for some reason.

My mathematical background is about what you would expect from an engineer: strong in more concrete things like algebra, differential equations, and control theory; weak to nonexistent in more abstract topics like topology and group theory. An explanation that takes that into consideration would be greatly appreciated.

Hearth
  • 673
  • 5
  • 11
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Shaun Dec 10 '24 at 10:29

3 Answers3

7

On a very basic level one can say that tensors are generalizations of scalars, vectors and matrices.

An element in a matrix has 2 indices; we can call that a 2-tensor. An element in a vector (a coefficient relative to some basis) has 1 index; we can call that a 1-tensor. A scalar is a 0-tensor. Generally, the elements in an $n$-tensor have $n$ indices.

md2perpe
  • 30,042
  • 1
    The true nature of tensors is revealed in their algebraic behaviour, not in how many (dimensions of) parameters are needed to describe them. It is indeed a challenging task to explain it without the "mathematical jargon" that the OP finds unintelligible, but I would expect any answer to at least try. – Adayah Dec 09 '24 at 13:12
  • @Adayah. You are free to make an attempt. – md2perpe Dec 09 '24 at 20:13
  • I don't think I have to write my own answer to have the right to criticize yours. :] – Adayah Dec 10 '24 at 07:35
  • @Adayah. I haven't claimed that. – md2perpe Dec 10 '24 at 17:22
1

$ \newcommand\F{\mathbb F} $We assume that all vector spaces are over a field $\F$, which is typically $\mathbb R$ or $\mathbb C$ in practical applications.

Linear algebra is nice. We like to transform problems into linear algebra problems, because linear algebra is (relavively) easy and tractable.

A problem in multilinear algebra is a problem involving multilinear functions $V_1\times\dotsb\times V_k\to W$, i.e. these sets are vector spaces and the function is linear in each argument independently. It'd be nice if we could turn a multilinear algebra problem into just a linear algebra problem.

This is exactly what tensors do; in fact, this is the only thing that tensors do! Associated to $V_1,\dotsb,V_k$ is an "essentially unique"${}^1$ vector space which we'll call${}^2$ $T$ together with a multilinear map $\otimes : V_1\times\dotsb\times V_k\to T$ called the ($k$-ary) tensor product. Instead of writing $\otimes(v_1,\dotsc,v_k)$ we usually write $v_1\otimes\dotsb\otimes v_k$. We can call $T$ the tensor product space of $V_1,\dotsc,V_k$, but often just say "the tensor product" of $V_1,\dotsc,V_k$. This is not strictly the same thing as the tensor product of vectors $v_1\otimes\dotsb\otimes v_k$, just overloaded terminology you have to live with.

The way $T$ turns multilinear algebra into linear algebra is the following: for every multilinear $f : V_1\times\dotsb\times V_k\to W$ there is a unique linear $f' : T\to W$ such that $$f'(v_1\otimes\dotsb\otimes v_k) = f(v_1,\dotsc,v_k).$$ You can think of $f'$ as the same thing as $f$, just expressed differently.

We call the elements of $T$ tensors. A tensor of the form $v_1\otimes\dotsb\otimes v_k$ is called simple, and all tensors are sums of simple tensors. The above says, then, that a tensor is just "the thing you input into a multilinear map."

That's it. That is the entirety of what tensors are. All the different "definitions" of tensors are mostly${}^3$ different ways of constructing $T$, but the construction doesn't matter. What matters is that $T$ gives us a way to turn multilinear algebra into linear algebra.


From here it will be useful to use the notation from Footnote (2).

Forming tensor product spaces is associative in a natural way (similar to the use of "natural" in Footnotes (1)) $$ (U\otimes V)\otimes W \cong U\otimes(V\otimes W) $$ as well as commutative $$ U\otimes V \cong V\otimes U. $$ (The tensor product map is not commutative in any sense.) We also have a fundamental duality: every linear map $U\otimes V\to W$ can be uniquely identified with a linear map${}^4$ $V\to U^*\otimes W$ and vice versa. In this way, a linear map is a tensor because $V\to W$ is "the same thing" $\F\to V^*\otimes W$ which is "the same thing" as just $V^*\otimes W$. Because matrices represent linear maps, this is what the sentence "matrices are tensors" means.

Notice that $V^*$ is the "input" space and $W$ is the "output". The same tricks above generalize this idea to all multilinear maps $V_1\times\dotsb\times V_k\to W$: such a map is "the same thing" as an element of $V_1^*\otimes\dotsb\otimes V_k^*\otimes W$.

A very common case is with $V_i=V$ or $V_i=V^*$ for all $i$; the above properties mean the associated tensor product space can be written in the form $$ (V^*)^{\otimes r}\otimes V^{\otimes s}. $$ A tensor power $V^{\otimes k}$is just the tensor product space of $V_1=\dotsb=V_k=V$. The above space represents all $r$-multilinear functions that return $s$-tensors $$ \underbrace{V\times\dotsb\times V}_{r\text{ times}}\to V^{\otimes s} $$ as tensors themselves.

Footnotes

  1. The specific jargon here is "unique up to unique natural isomorphism": for any two possible tensor product spaces $T,T'$ there is a unique isomorphism (bijective linear map) $\varphi : T\to T'$ which is "natural", meaning that the associated tensor products coincide: $\varphi(v_1\otimes\dotsb\otimes v_k) = v_2\otimes'\dotsb\otimes'v_k$.

  2. This $T$ is usually denoted $V_1\otimes\dotsb\otimes V_k$. This is just notation; you are not supposed to "know" what $\otimes$ means beforehand, and this is not the same thing as the tensor product map, just overloaded notation!

  3. In the context of manifolds and/or differential geometry, "tensor" usually means tensor field, i.e. a sufficiently smooth function $F$ on a manifold with values that are tensor products of copies of the tangent spaces.

  4. $U^*$ is the dual space of the vector space $U$: it is the set of all linear maps $U\to\mathbb F$.

  • 1
    I wrote this out so I went ahead and posted it, but I feel like it might not help at all. Hopefully it helps a little bit. – Nicholas Todoroff Dec 09 '24 at 00:45
  • 2
    No, this is not the type of tensors that OP wants to understand. – Moishe Kohan Dec 09 '24 at 01:05
  • Apart from being offtopic the content of this is a duplicate of https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/657494/what-exactly-is-a-tensor and others. – Martin Brandenburg Dec 09 '24 at 01:13
  • 1
    @MartinBrandenburg I understand if this isn't likely to help OP in their particular situation/background (I acknowledged that myself), but how is this off topic? And which answer in your link is this a duplicate of? – Nicholas Todoroff Dec 09 '24 at 06:28
  • It's offtopic since you haven't read the second paragraph of the OP's question. It is exactly what the OP had already found but not looking for. The answer is a duplicate since we have multiple mathematical introductions on this site on tensor products. No need to add another one unless you have something new to add - and if so, please use the original questions and post there. The present question by the OP is a duplicate also (see my comment), and duplicates should not be answered anyway. See here. – Martin Brandenburg Dec 09 '24 at 08:37
  • 2
    I'm afraid this answer is also included in the category: "Every definition I can find on the internet-...-immediately dives into a sea of mathematical jargon that's well outside my understanding" :( – Máté Juhász Dec 09 '24 at 12:01
  • @MátéJuhász Can you point to anything in particular in the first half above the break? (The second half I know is bad, which is why I offset it from the rest.) I would really like to figure out how to communicate my understanding of tensors to people without my mathematical background. – Nicholas Todoroff Dec 09 '24 at 18:45
  • I sort of understand some of the concepts you're getting at. The bit about tensors turning multilinear algebra into (non-multi) linear algebra feels important, but I'll need to read through your and other answers here when I have more mental capacity than work left me with today. – Hearth Dec 10 '24 at 01:32
  • @NicholasTodoroff the answer from md2perpe does it pretty well for me: not using mathematics to explain the concept. (However I can't judge whether it's correct) – Máté Juhász Dec 10 '24 at 08:56
  • @MátéJuhász It's not incorrect, but I personally do not see the value in that answer. If someone asked "what are complex numbers" and someone answered simply "they're a generalization of real numbers" and left it at that, would you be satisfied? And why do we care about how many indices we use? If I have entries in a matrix $a_{ij}$ then I can define a vector $b_1=a_{11}$, $b_2=a_{21}$, $b_3=a_{31}$ and so on, going down each column. It's the same data; why does it matter whether or not I use one, two, three, or more indices? – Nicholas Todoroff Dec 10 '24 at 14:42
  • thanks for the explanation @NicholasTodoroff! I've read your answer again and realized you've lost me at "vector space" and "field" as I haven't learned about them in secondary school and although I've met them already, I'm still not familiar with them. Although your answer is indeed more complete, it requires preliminary knowledge which is generally taught in college / university only. – Máté Juhász Dec 11 '24 at 06:51
  • 3
    @MátéJuhász That makes sense, I thought that might be the case. I can definitely do away with the "field" terminology. But if someone's only understanding of "vectors" is "lists of real numbers" and they don't have any sort of notion "vector space" or "linear transformation" then I think "a tensor is like a matrix but with more indices" might be the best you can do. If the notions of "basis" and "change-of-basis matrix" are permissible, then I think we can go a little further, but not much. – Nicholas Todoroff Dec 11 '24 at 17:21
0

Everyone is talking about the local version (i.e. vectorspace), so let me give you the global, differential geometric version (i.e. vector fields) of the tensors.

On a manifold (or simply $\mathbb{R}^n$ if you are unfamiliar), you can think of a plenty of operators that takes $n$ vectors and gives $m$ vectors. It may vary with respect to the point you are evaluating at.

For example,

  • Consider one vector $(y,-x)$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$. This is just a vector field, obtaining a single vector at a point. It takes $0$ vector, and gives 1 vector.

  • Consider a directional derivative of a given scalar function $f:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}$. It takes one vector, and gives $0$ vector.

  • Riemannian metric: It takes two vector field $X$ and $Y$, and gives a real number $\langle X,Y\rangle$. In Euclidean space, $\langle e_i, e_j \rangle = \delta_{ij}$.

  • Lie Derivative: it takes two vector fields $X$ and $Y$, and gives a vector field $[X,Y]=X(Y)-Y(X)$.

Problem is that they are not usually linear with respect to the arguments. In the above examples, first three examples are linear, but the Lie derivative is not linear: that is, $$ [fX,Y] = fX(Y)-Y(f)X-fY(X) \neq fX(Y)-fY(X). $$ We call that an operator is $(n,m)$ tensor (or tensor field) if it is a linear operators that takes $m$ vectors and gives $n$ vectors. Conventionally, $0$-vectors is just a scalar.

For example,

  • A scalar function is (0,0)-tensor.

  • A vector field is (1,0)-tensor.

  • A Riemannian metric is (2,0)-tensor.

  • A collection of matrices $$ \begin{pmatrix} x & y \\ -y & x \end{pmatrix} $$ which varies under the variable in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is a (1,1)-tensor, since it takes a vector and gives a vector.

J1U
  • 1,193