Talk:Isotropic quadratic form

Simplicity

I'm a dilettante at math. As I understand it, a quadratic form is a polynomial. Can somebody contribute a plainly-worded explanation of "isotropic" in "isotropic quadratic form"? Also, can somebody explain how this is connected to analytic geometry, if at all, in two or three dimensions? Unfree (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even Characteristic?

Typically in the literature I've seen isotropic refers to the properties of a bilinear form.

a vector w is isotropic if b(w,w)=0.
a subspace W is totally isotropic if b(u,w)=0 for all u,w in W

I've seen

a vector w is singular if q(w)=0
a subspace W is totally singualar if q(w)=0 for all w in W

In odd characteristic singular=isotropic and totally singular = totally isotropic. However, in even-characteristic they are distinct concepts. Unfortunately, there are many books and articles that are a little careless with these definitions because they are only concerned with the odd-characteristic case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingcompletelydifferent (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Field theory

The examples 3, 4, and 5 are in fact results in comparative field theory. In the case of the real number field, example 1 is significant as pseudo-Euclidean space used to discuss special relativity. An expansion of example 1 would provide an existence proof for isotropic quadratic forms.Rgdboer (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After 6 months the "examples 3, 4, 5" have been moved to a section "Field theory". No references are given, perhaps the demonstrations are not hard. For now, a new section, Hyperbolic plane, has been introduced. Anisotropic details have been moved to lede, out of "examples".Rgdboer (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Euclidean space #Subspaces and orthogonality

Possibly, it is excessively detailed for “pseudo-Euclidean space”, but for this article the subsection is rather topical. Can it be integrated here? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicts with page on definite quadratic forms

In the page of Definite quadratic form, it's stated that "a definite quadratic form is a quadratic form over some real vector space V that has the same sign (always positive or always negative) for every non-zero vector of V", but this page on isotropic quadratic forms purports in the opening and other places that "definite" amounts to "not isotropic". I am just leaving a note here about this inconsistency since it should be resolved, hopefully with some references.

The opposite of isotropic is usually called "non-degenerate" in the literature that I have read, but I also haven't seen it commonly used that the entire quadratic form is called "isotropic" if it is degenerate on some subspace. I think this page might need a makeover... Evenodd (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quadratic forms and bilinear forms are related by polarization. See Degenerate bilinear form of a discussion of various cases. — Rgdboer (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]