- #1
cin-bura
- 7
- 0
hello!
i am having a hard time understanding this:
contravariance is defined in the textbooks as some entity that transforms like
[tex]\tilde A^{\mu}(u)= \frac{\partial u^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}} A^{\nu}(x)[/tex].
du/dx is not constant in space because the relations between 2 coordinate systems don't have to be linear, but is rather a function of the position. so how can this hold not only infinitesimally but in general? to phrase it in an another way:
why is the first relation sufficient and it is not necessary to write
[tex]\tilde A^{\mu}(u)= u^{\mu}( A^{\nu}(x))[/tex] ?
does anybody have an example of a contravariant field under the transformation between plane polars and caresian coordinates, say? it would help me very much to picture it!
thank you!
i am having a hard time understanding this:
contravariance is defined in the textbooks as some entity that transforms like
[tex]\tilde A^{\mu}(u)= \frac{\partial u^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}} A^{\nu}(x)[/tex].
du/dx is not constant in space because the relations between 2 coordinate systems don't have to be linear, but is rather a function of the position. so how can this hold not only infinitesimally but in general? to phrase it in an another way:
why is the first relation sufficient and it is not necessary to write
[tex]\tilde A^{\mu}(u)= u^{\mu}( A^{\nu}(x))[/tex] ?
does anybody have an example of a contravariant field under the transformation between plane polars and caresian coordinates, say? it would help me very much to picture it!
thank you!