Talk:Pseudoscalar

Canonical bundle
I have just one question: canonical bundle is defined as the n-th exterior power of the contangent space, would it not be more aproppriate to define the pseudoscalar as element of the n-th exterior power of the tangent (vector) space? Probably its the same, I m just confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.34.69 (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I had written a lengthy post about confusion with the "dual" to which the writer refers. It turns out it's the Hodge dual. It's not as simple as popping in a single word, so I'll try to edit it in, adjusting as little as possible, but preserving the mathematical precision, tomorrow afternoon. Warrickball (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Clifford algebra section + request for help
I have removed the given Clifford algebra as the given pseudoscalar element did not commute with the vectors.

Regarding the definition, I must confess that I'm a bit at a loss. The top-grade element of Clifford algebra commutes with all other elements and flips under parity transformations iff the underlying basis is of odd dimension. Otherwise it does neither. And despite having done a fair bit of reading on Clifford algebras, I'm not sure what the accepted definition of a pseudoscalar is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star trooper man (talk • contribs) 12:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to add the Clifford algebra part back in. The article seemed to be correct before.  The properties of commuting with other elements and flipping under a sign change are only mentioned in the physics sections, and this context only deals with 3 dimensions (where these things happen to be true).  The more general math definition as far as I can tell is simply a top-grade element. Could someone who's knowledgeable on the subject weigh in on this?  Rckrone (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/pseudo-quantity
Please consider incorporating any useful material from the above submission into this article. The submission is eligible for deletion in 6 months. ~Kvng (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it has no material suitable for merging here. Despite the similarity of the word, it is to all intents unrelated in meaning. —Quondum 02:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Magnetic flux
As far as I know, a surface normal is defined as a cross product between two linearly independent vectors within the surface, and thus is a pseudovector itself. Accordingly, the dot product between magnetic field and surface normal is a dot product between two pseudovectors and hence a "true" scalar. Or am I missing something out?

The German wikipedia site has this example too, and it too has been questioned on the respective talk page (but not by me, that entry is older). --2003:E7:7707:490:3D96:D6F3:2396:6ED3 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)