Tensors are sums of “products” of vectors. There are different kinds of vector products. The one used to build tensors is, naturally, the tensor product. In the Cartesian product of vector spaces \(V\times W\), the set elements are tuples like \((v,w)\) where \(v\in V, w\in W\). A tensor product \(v\otimes w\) is obtained by tupling the component bases rather than the component elements. If \(V\) has basis \(\{e_i\}_{i\in\{1,…,M\}}\) and \(W\) has basis \(\{f_j\}_{j\in\{1,…,N\}}\), then take \(\{(e_i,f_j)\}_{i\in\{1,…,M\},j\in\{1,…,N\}}\) as the basis of the tensor product space \(V\otimes W\). Then define the tensor product \(v\otimes w\) as

(1) \(\sum_{i,j} v_i w_j (e_i,f_j) \in V\otimes W\),

if \(v=\sum_i v_i e_i\) and \(w=\sum_j w_j f_j\). The entire tensor product space \(V\otimes W\) is defined as sums of these tensor products

(2) \(\{\sum_k v_k\otimes w_k | v_k\in V, w_k\in W\}\).

So tensors in a given basis can be represented as multidimensional arrays.

\(V\otimes W\) is also a vector space, with \(MN\) basis dimensions (c.f. \(V\times W\) with \(M+N\) basis dimensions). But additionally, it has internal multilinear structure due to the fact that it is made of component vector spaces, namely:

\((v_1+v_2)\otimes w = v_1\otimes w + v_2\otimes w\)
\(v\otimes (w_1+w_2) = v\otimes w_1 + v\otimes w_2\)
\(\alpha (v\otimes w) = (\alpha v)\otimes w = v\otimes (\alpha w)\)

Higher-order (n-th order) tensor products \(v_1\otimes v_2\otimes \cdots \otimes v_n\) are obtained by chaining in the obvious way, likewise for higher-order tensor product spaces \(V_1\otimes V_2\otimes \cdots \otimes V_n\). With this, concatenation of tensors are also defined, i.e. \(S_{i_1,…i_m} \in V_1\otimes \cdots \otimes V_m\) and \(T_{i_{m+1},…,i_n} \in V_{m+1}\otimes \cdots \otimes V_n\), then \(S_{i_1,…,i_m}\otimes T_{i_{m+1},…,i_n} = Z_{i_1,…,i_n} \in V_1\otimes \cdots \otimes V_n\). In other words, the indices are appended. This is essentially the Kronecker product, which generalizes the outer product.

However, usually when tensors are mentioned, the tensor product spaces under discussion are already specialized to those generated from a single base vector space \(V\) and its dual space \(V^*\), rather than from a collection of arbitrary vector spaces. In such a space \(P(m,n) = \overbrace{V\otimes \cdots \otimes V}^{m} \otimes \overbrace{V^*\otimes \cdots \otimes V^*}^{n}\), the component spaces (and their bases, indices, etc.) naturally belong to two groups, those from \(V\) are called contravariant, those from \(V^*\) are called covariant, and an (m,n)-tensor from \(P(m,n)\) is written \(T^{i_1,…,i_m}_{j_1,…,j_n}\).

This specialization allows the contraction of tensors to be defined. A contraction basically chooses one covariant vector component and one contravariant vector component from a tensor and applies the former as a functional on the latter, e.g., contracting \(T^{i_1,…,i_m}_{j_1,…,j_n} = v_{i_1}\otimes \cdots \otimes v_{i_m} \otimes v^*_{j_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v^*_{j_n}\) on the pair of indices \(i_1\) and \(j_1\) gives \(Z^{i_2,…,i_m}_{j_2,…,j_n} = v^*_{j_1}(v_{i_1}) (v_{i_2}\otimes \cdots \otimes v_{i_m} \otimes v^*_{j_2} \otimes \cdots \otimes v^*_{j_n})\). \(v^*_{j_1}(v_{i_1})\) of course is an inner product that sums over the dimensions of the paired components. Contraction generalizes the trace operator. Combined with concatenation, this defines a tensor multiplication, such that if \(S^{r,i_2,…,i_m}_{s,j_2,…,j_n}\in P(m,n)\) and \(T^{s,k_2,…,k_p}_{r,l_2,…,l_q}\in P(p,q)\), then \(S^{r,i_2,…,i_m}_{s,j_2,…,j_n}T^{s,k_2,…,k_p}_{r,l_2,…,l_q}\) is the contraction of \(S^{r,i_2,…,i_m}_{s,j_2,…,j_n}\otimes T^{s,k_2,…,k_p}_{r,l_2,…,l_q}\) on all common indices that can be paired, e.g. \(r,s\). This is the so-called Einstein notation, and generalizes matrix multiplication.

The distinction of \(V\) vs. \(V^*\) also manifests in the change-of-basis rules for tensors, which inherit from the change-of-basis rules of the component vector spaces, which are:

• contravariant change-of-basis rule: If \(B = [b_1\ b_2\ \cdots\ b_M]\) is a change-of-basis matrix, with the new basis \(\{b_i\}_{i\in \{1,…,M\}}\) written in the old basis as columns, then for a vector written in the old basis \(v\in V\) and the same vector written in the new basis \(\tilde{v}\in V\), \(v = B\tilde{v}\). Therefore, we have

  (3) \(v \mapsto \tilde{v} = B^{-1}v\).

• covariant change-of-basis rule: If additionally \(a^T\in V^*\) is a functional written in the old basis and \(\tilde{a}^T\in V^*\) is the same functional written in the new basis, then \(\forall v\in V: a^T v = \tilde{a}^T \tilde{v} = \tilde{a}^T B^{-1}v\). Therefore, we have

  (4) \(a^T \mapsto \tilde{a}^T = a^T B\).

Combining (1), it can be shown that, for a change-of-basis tensor \(B = {B^{-1}}^{i_1}_{i_1}\cdots {B^{-1}}^{i_m}_{i_m}B^{j_1}_{j_1}\cdots B^{j_n}_{j_n}\), an (m,n)-tensor \(T^{i_1,…,i_m}_{j_1,…,j_n}\) has the change-of-basis rule \(T^{i_1,…,i_m}_{j_1,…,j_n} \mapsto BT^{i_1,…,i_m}_{j_1,…,j_n}\).

Okay, so what’s the point of these tensors? Basically, an (m,n)-tensor \(T^{i_1,…,i_m}_{j_1,…,j_n}\in P(m,n)\) represents a multilinear input-output relationship that takes \(n\) vectors as input and produces \(m\) vectors as output. If used “canonically” on an input \(X^{j_1,…,j_n}\in P(n,0)\), you get \(T^{i_1,…,i_m}_{j_1,…,j_n}X^{j_1,…,j_n} = Y^{i_1,…,i_m}\in P(m,0)\) as output. The contravariant input gets contracted with the covariant parts of the transformation tensor, and these drive the contravariant parts of the transformation tensor to produce the contravariant output.

(System diagrams: Rank is the minimal number of terms in a tensor. On the left, a rank-1 tensor transformation; on the right, a rank-\(K\) one. )

An example is linear transformations, which are (1,1)-tensors (1 vector in, 1 vector out). In array representation these would just be matrices. Any rank-\(K\) linear transformation \(T^v_a\) is decomposable into a \(K\)-term tensor \(\sum_{k=1}^K v_k\otimes a_k\), but 1-term (1,1)-tensors are outer products, so this is the matrix \(\sum_{k=1}^K v_k a^T_k\), and \(Y^v = T^v_a X^a\) is just \(y = \sum_k v_k (a^T_k x)\).

Most other “multilinear” operations on vectors (inner product, cross product, wedge product, determinant) can be written as tensors. For example, the inner product operation (2 vectors in, “0″ vectors out, i.e. scalar) is the (0,2) \(N\)-term Kronecker tensor \(\delta_{i_1 i_2}=\sum_{k=1}^N e^*_k\otimes e^*_k\) where \(\{e^*_k\}_{k\in\{1,…,N\}}\) are the standard basis of \(V^*\).

However, there is a way to figure this matter of structure from first principles (and perhaps generate a more unique style as a result), albeit with the tradeoff that you cannot be quick, you must be careful.

The first principle for aesthetics is that the character must stand … this is something my old man told me, actually, so I didn’t figure this out myself, but it is very true. If you hold up the piece of paper and look at the strokes as struts of a building, it must look like the character is architecturally sound, i.e. reasonably symmetric if need be, balanced in weight so will not tip over, is not poorly supported with too small a bottom and too big a top, etc. This isn’t too difficult if the character is mechanically drawn, but the trick is to do it even with asymmetric calligraphic strokes and multi-part characters with asymmetric radicals and caps.

The second principle for aesthetics is about spacing, and this is much like optimal typography and typesetting. The strokes should be spread out evenly so that where they appear parallel, they appear to have nearly identical spacing as other such spaces. Otherwise there will be ugly bunching and voids. This is very difficult because the strokes are written in order so there is a pre-commitment issue. Once you commit to a particular stroke, it also commits the spacing requirements for the rest of the character. So one slightly off stroke and you are screwed. This is more a problem for large writing, since bigger mistakes are possible.

Then is the issue of multiple character layout. This wouldn’t be so much of an issue if all characters were the same shape and complexity, but they are not. Some are extremely sparse, and some are very dense. Some are tall and some are fat. They all have to be laid out on paper to look like they take up the same space and also evenly spaced from each other. There is also the compromise of making inter-stroke space appear similar in multiple characters. So one needs to deal with some visual artifacts and vision tricks. As a result, the characters will not all be the same size and will not be spaced evenly, so this is a very tricky thing to get right. You can have perfectly written individual characters but still a terrible collection.

And finally here is a side point: people say Simplified characters are uglier than Traditional characters for calligraphy. In fact this cannot be true. What happens is Simplified characters are sparser and sparser characters writ large are the most difficult to get correctly (not to mention there are no classic master’s character books to trace in Simplified). They are ugly only because (or to the extent that) they are not written well. The bastion of poor practioners (like me) is in small dense characters that distract from scrutiny and generally look pretty good no matter how you write them.

Some music theorists have criticized serialism on the basis that the compositional strategies employed are often incompatible with the way information is extracted by the human mind from a piece of music. Nicolas Ruwet (1959) was one of the first to criticise serialism through a comparison with linguistic structures. Henri Pousseur (1959) questioned the equivalence made by Ruwet between phoneme and the single note, and suggested that analyses of serial compositions that Ruwet names as exceptions to his criticisms might “register the realities of perception more accurately.” Later writers have continued Ruwet’s line of reasoning. Fred Lerdahl, for example, outlines this subject further in his essay “Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems” (Lerdahl 1988). Lehrdahl has in turn been criticized for excluding “the possibility of other, non-hierarchical methods of achieving musical coherence,” and for concentrating on the audibility of tone rows (Grant 2001, 219), and the portion of his essay focussing on Boulez’s “multiplication” technique (exemplified in three movements of Le Marteau sans maître) has been challenged on perceptual grounds by Stephen Heinemann (1998).

Although the above paragraph refers to “the way information is extracted by the human mind,” I think the problem is not that the serialist information is encoded in a way that is difficult for the human mind to extract (it may well be), so much as there is possibly insufficient information encoded to begin with, by any reasonable measure. Certainly, the compositional strategies of serialism call for much randomization and uniform dithering, such that most of what appears to be informative content is in fact common randomness coupled with very very little actual musical idea. I mean that’s how this music gets written right? A tiny bit of innovation, then mechanically amplified by pseudorandomness.

I don’t know enough about this, so just pure speculation here. Note to self, read: Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems

Contemporary Music Review
Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
Issue: Volume 6, Number 2 / 1992
Pages: 97 – 121
URL: Linking Options
DOI: 10.1080/07494469200640161

Cognitive constraints on compositional systems

Fred Lerdahl
Columbia University, New York City