What is the Issue with Tensor Contraction Notation?

In summary, the conversation discussed a minor notational issue about tensor contraction, specifically in the case of an antisymmetric (0,2)-tensor and a symmetric (2,0)-tensor. The total contraction was shown to be zero, and there was some discussion about the relabeling of indices and the use of antisymmetry and symmetry in the proof. It was noted that there is no single "choice" of contraction, and recommendations for further reading on index based tensor algebra and calculus were provided.
  • #1
littleHilbert
56
0
Hi all! I've got a short question concerning a minor notational issue about tensor contraction I've run across recently.

Let A be an antisymmetric (0,2)-tensor and S a symmetric (2,0)-tensor.
Then their total contraction is zero: [itex]C_1^1C_2^2\,A \otimes S=0[/itex].
As a proof one simply computes: [itex]A_{ij}S^{ij}=-A_{ji}S^{ji}=-A_{ij}S^{ij}[/itex]
When I first saw this, I was a bit confused about the second equality. Of course, a scalar is a symmetric tensor…but is it not an abuse of notation? I mean this seems to run into conflict with the way one handles components of antisymmetric tensors…as for me, for someone who's just got accustomed to the components manipulation machinery, I was disturbed when I saw this. Am I alone?

This is not a big deal…but are there alternatives to expressing stuff like that? Any comments?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
No, there is no problem. Remember, i and j are dummy summed-over indices, and thus can be relabeled. Is there a problem with

[tex]-A_{ji}S^{ji}=-A_{\alpha \beta}S^{\alpha \beta}?[/tex]
 
  • #3
George answered your question but I just wanted to add something else. In the abstract index notation, ##S_{ab}## and ##A_{ab}## are actual tensors; the indices are called "abstract" indices because they simply label the rank 2-tensor in index form-they don't refer to components. In that sense, all the usual algebraic operations you know regarding tensors in the usual index-free formalism can be carried over the abstract index formalism in a natural way (so it has nothing to do with components) e.g. the tensor product of ##S## and ##A## can be written as ##A_{ab}S_{cd}## and the contraction as ##A_{ab}S^{ab}##. So if it helps, you can think of things in terms of the abstract index notation instead of coordinate component indices. See here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_index_notation

I hope that helps, cheers!
 
  • #4
To George:
Aha, ok, if you put it this way then I agree that it becomes a bit less controversial…but still I would then feel inclined to relabel the indices on initial step and then it would actually look all the same, but with relabeled indices. Alright, perhaps I just need a bit more practice in order not to see oddity in things like these. Thanks

To WannabeNewton:
OK, thank you for the info, too. I'll keep it mind.
 
  • #5
littleHilbert said:
Alright, perhaps I just need a bit more practice in order not to see oddity in things like these.

You should be able to get ample practice with index gymnastics via say proper general relativity texts. Ask away if you want some recommendations or anything. Have fun and good luck!
 
  • #6
littleHilbert said:
Hi all! I've got a short question concerning a minor notational issue about tensor contraction I've run across recently.

Let A be an antisymmetric (0,2)-tensor and S a symmetric (2,0)-tensor.
Then their total contraction is zero: [itex]C_1^1C_2^2\,A \otimes S=0[/itex].
As a proof one simply computes: [itex]A_{ij}S^{ij}=-A_{ji}S^{ji}=-A_{ij}S^{ij}[/itex]
When I first saw this, I was a bit confused about the second equality. Of course, a scalar is a symmetric tensor…but is it not an abuse of notation? I mean this seems to run into conflict with the way one handles components of antisymmetric tensors…as for me, for someone who's just got accustomed to the components manipulation machinery, I was disturbed when I saw this. Am I alone?

This is not a big deal…but are there alternatives to expressing stuff like that? Any comments?
Your first equality is incorrect. There should be a plus sign rather than a minus sign. The proof should read [itex]A_{ij}S^{ij}=A_{ji}S^{ji}=-A_{ij}S^{ij}[/itex]

Chet
 
  • #7
Chestermiller said:
Your first equality is incorrect. There should be a plus sign rather than a minus sign. The proof should read [itex]A_{ij}S^{ij}=A_{ji}S^{ji}=-A_{ij}S^{ij}[/itex]

Chet
What he had was fine and what you have is fine as well. You relabeled the indices first and then used the antisymmetry and symmetry of the respective tensors. He used the antisymmetry and symmetry of the respective tensors first and then relabeled. Relabeling and antisymmetry/symmetry are commutative operations so there's no issue.
 
  • #8
WannabeNewton said:
What he had was fine and what you have is fine as well. You relabeled the indices first and then used the antisymmetry and symmetry of the respective tensors. He used the antisymmetry and symmetry of the respective tensors first and then relabeled. Relabeling and antisymmetry/symmetry are commutative operations so there's no issue.

Thanks WBN. That's interesting. Another question: Shouldn't the (double) contraction of an arbitrary 2nd order tensor A with another arbitrary 2nd order tensor S, in terms of the covariant components of A and the contravariant components of S, be written as AijSji rather than as AijSij?
 
  • #9
So what we have before contracting is the tensor ##A_{ab}S^{cd}##. Your first expression says to contract ##b## with ##c## and ##a## with ##d## whereas your second expression says to contract ##a## with ##c## and ##b## with ##d## i.e. ##A_{ab}S^{ba}## vs. ##A_{ab}S^{ab}##. So there is no single (i.e. unique) "choice" of contraction; you have to pick which indices you want to contract over (this is for the arbitrary case).

EDIT: By the way, the first chapter of the following notes on the foundations of general relativity by David Malament has a very thorough coverage of index based (but entirely coordinate free) tensor algebra and tensor calculus: http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dmalamen/bio/GR.pdf so check them out if you're interested. They are very much in the spirit of Geroch's notes on general relativity. Have fun :)!
 
Last edited:
  • #10
WannabeNewton said:
So what we have before contracting is the tensor ##A_{ab}S^{cd}##. Your first expression says to contract ##b## with ##c## and ##a## with ##d## whereas your second expression says to contract ##a## with ##c## and ##b## with ##d## i.e. ##A_{ab}S^{ba}## vs. ##A_{ab}S^{ab}##. So there is no single (i.e. unique) "choice" of contraction; you have to pick which indices you want to contract over (this is for the arbitrary case).

EDIT: By the way, the first chapter of the following notes on the foundations of general relativity by David Malament has a very thorough coverage of index based (but entirely coordinate free) tensor algebra and tensor calculus: http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~dmalamen/bio/GR.pdf so check them out if you're interested. They are very much in the spirit of Geroch's notes on general relativity. Have fun :)!
Thanks WBN. I guess I'm biased by my fluid mechanics and rheology experience.
 
  • #11
Sounds like fun stuff! I have no experience in that area whatsoever so I can't say I know what you're alluding to but as long as you get the right numbers in the end eh :)
 

What is a tensor?

A tensor is a mathematical object that describes the relationships between different sets of numbers, vectors, or matrices. It is commonly used in the fields of physics, engineering, and mathematics to represent physical quantities and their relationships.

What is the contraction of tensors?

Contraction of tensors is a mathematical operation that involves multiplying and summing components of a tensor in order to obtain a scalar value. It is used to simplify or reduce the complexity of a tensor expression.

What is the difference between tensor contraction and tensor product?

Tensor product is a mathematical operation that combines two tensors to create a new, larger tensor. On the other hand, tensor contraction is the opposite process, where a tensor is reduced to a scalar value by multiplying and summing its components. In other words, tensor product is a way to expand a tensor, while tensor contraction is a way to simplify it.

What is the Einstein summation convention?

The Einstein summation convention is a notational convention used in tensor calculus that simplifies the writing of tensor expressions by omitting explicit summation signs. In this convention, repeated indices in a tensor expression are assumed to be summed over, unless specified otherwise. This helps to reduce the number of symbols needed to represent complex tensor expressions.

What are some real-world applications of tensor contraction?

Tensor contraction has many applications in physics and engineering, such as in the study of stress and strain in materials, fluid dynamics, and electromagnetism. It is also used in machine learning and deep learning algorithms for tasks like image and speech recognition, natural language processing, and data compression.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
973
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
780
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
649
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
926
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
862
Back
Top