Proving AX(BXC) = B(A(dot)C) - C(A(dot)B)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter starbaj12
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the vector identity AX(BXC) = B(A(dot)C) - C(A(dot)B), focusing on the mathematical manipulation and proof techniques involved. Participants explore different methods for proving this identity, including the use of summation convention and tensor notation.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an expansion of the left-hand side of the identity and seeks confirmation on its correctness.
  • Another suggests expanding the right-hand side to check for equality with the left-hand side.
  • Some participants advocate for learning summation convention as a cleaner method to prove the identity, suggesting that the current approach is messy.
  • There is a counterpoint regarding the necessity of understanding tensors, with one participant asserting that the problem can be solved without tensor knowledge, despite the involvement of tensor-like quantities.
  • A participant shares a resource on summation convention and the three-dimensional cross product, indicating that this method is aesthetically preferable.
  • Another participant discusses the product of Levi-Civita tensors and suggests that this technique can be used to prove vector identities, sharing personal experience with the method.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of tensor knowledge for solving the problem, with some advocating for it while others believe it is not required. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to prove the identity.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the limitations of the current approach, noting that it may be cumbersome without the use of summation convention or tensor notation. There are also unresolved assumptions about the definitions and properties of the vectors involved.

starbaj12
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
AX(BXC) = B(A(dot)C) - C(A(dot)B)

For the left hand side I got

(AyBxCy-AyByCx+AzBxCz-AzBzCx)x(hat) + (-AxBxCy+AxByCx+AzByCz-AzBzCy)y(hat) + (-AxBxCz+AxBzCx-AyByCz+AyBzCy)z(hat)

Is this right?

Where would I go from here to prove the rest?

Thanks for the help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
expand the RHS, and see if they were equal
 
Learn summation convention as that's how you ought to prove this result, otherwise it's just messy.
 
matt grime said:
Learn summation convention as that's how you ought to prove this result, otherwise it's just messy.

Yeah,use cartesian tensors.And Levi-Civita (cartesian) tensor.This is ugly.




Daniel.
 
Not sure about the neccesity to learn about tensors as such since I could do this question, with summation convention, well before I knew what a tensor was. Admittedly the things involved are tensors, but there's no need to know this (I mean, we aren't even transforming anything).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[tex]\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{lmn}= \left[<br /> \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \delta_{il} & \delta_{im} & \delta_{in} \\<br /> \delta_{jl} & \delta_{jm} & \delta_{jn} \\<br /> \delta_{kl} & \delta_{km} & \delta_{kn} \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right][/tex]

is the product of Levi-Civita tensors. Using this and
[tex]\vec{a} \cross \vec{b} = \epsilon_{ijk}a_{i}b_{j}[/tex] and
[tex]\vec{a} \cdot \vec{b} = a_{i}b_{i}[/tex]

you should be able to prove any vector identity. I relearned this technique one week when it was really boring at work a couple of years ago.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
16K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
977
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K