Determinat formula in Einstein notation

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the correctness of determinant formulas in Einstein notation, specifically the expressions involving the Levi-Civita symbol. The first formula presented is confirmed to be valid, and the second formula is noted for its compatibility with Einstein notation. A concern is raised about unmatched indices in the equations, leading to a proposed correction that includes the Levi-Civita symbol on both sides. The final formula is affirmed, and a reference to Wikipedia is made to support the equivalence of the second formula to the first. The conversation emphasizes the importance of proper index matching in tensor calculus.
ianhoolihan
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

I've been looking around at formulae for determinants (using them for tensor densities) and I just want to clarify that the expression below is correct (i.e. formulae are correct):
|M| = \sum^n_{a_1,a_2, \ldots ,a_n = 1} \epsilon_{a_1a_2 \ldots a_n} M_{1a_1}M_{2a_2} \ldots M_{na_n} = \sum^n_{a_1,a_2, \ldots ,a_n = 1} \epsilon_{a_1a_2 \ldots a_n} M_{a_11}M_{a_22} \ldots M_{a_nn}
The reason I ask is that the second formulae lends itself to Einstein notation:
|M| = \epsilon_{a_1a_2 \ldots a_n} M^{a_1}{}_1M^{a_2}{}_2 \ldots M^{a_n}{}_n

As an aside question, is this correct in the sense that there are unmatched indices on each side of the equation? I have found the following formula which seems to correct this:
\epsilon_{b_1b_2 \ldots b_n}|M| = \epsilon_{a_1a_2 \ldots a_n} M^{a_1}{}_{b_1}M^{a_2}{}_{b_2} \ldots M^{a_n}{}_{b_n}
I think they are both correct...?

Cheers
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try

|M| = \frac{1}{n!} \varepsilon^{b_1 \ldots b_n} \varepsilon_{a_1 \ldots a_n} M^{a_1}{}_{b_1} \ldots M^{a_n}{}_{b_n}
 
Ben Niehoff said:
Try

|M| = \frac{1}{n!} \varepsilon^{b_1 \ldots b_n} \varepsilon_{a_1 \ldots a_n} M^{a_1}{}_{b_1} \ldots M^{a_n}{}_{b_n}

OK, that's good. Putting \epsilon_{b_1 \ldots b_n} on both sides gives my final formula.

Also, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi-Civita_symbol#Determinants does this not imply that my second formula is equivalent to yours?
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
15K