Difficulty in learning tensors

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter grzz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Difficulty Tensors
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
7 replies · 3K views
grzz
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
29
Let r[itex]_{\mu}[/itex] be a tensor in coordinates x[itex]^{c}[/itex] and R[itex]_{b}[/itex] be a tensor in coordinates X[itex]^{c}[/itex].
Then let r[itex]_{\mu}[/itex] = 0.

Then {[itex]\partial[/itex]X[itex]^{\nu}[/itex]/[itex]\partial[/itex]x[itex]^{\mu}[/itex]}R[itex]_{\nu}[/itex] = 0.
I read in a book that one can divide both sides of the last equation by the partial derivative to get R[itex]_{\nu}[/itex] = 0.
I do not understand how this can be done since the partial derivative is summed over together with the R[itex]_{\nu}[/itex].
Can somebody help me!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The way I understand to do it is the following:

{[itex]\partial[/itex]X[itex]^{\nu}[/itex]/[itex]\partial[/itex]x[itex]^{\mu}[/itex]}R[itex]_{\nu}[/itex] = 0

Multiplying both sides by {[itex]\partial[/itex]x[itex]^{\mu}[/itex]/[itex]\partial[/itex]X[itex]^{\lambda}[/itex]} we get

{[itex]\partial[/itex]x[itex]^{\mu}[/itex]/[itex]\partial[/itex]X[itex]^{\lambda}[/itex]} {[itex]\partial[/itex]X[itex]^{\nu}[/itex]/[itex]\partial[/itex]x[itex]^{\mu}[/itex]}R[itex]_{\nu}[/itex] = 0

i.e. {[itex]\partial[/itex]X[itex]^{\nu}[/itex]/[itex]\partial[/itex]X[itex]^{\lambda}[/itex]}R[itex]_{\nu}[/itex] = 0

[itex]\delta[/itex][itex]^{\nu}_{\lambda}[/itex]R[itex]_{\nu}[/itex] = 0

R[itex]_{\lambda}[/itex] = 0.

Is the above method too long?

Thanks for any help.
 
It's a theorem in linear algebra. If A is non-singular, and Ab=0, then b=0. If dX/dx is singular, you have other problems.
 
Thanks K^2.

Is the method I used ok?
 
Is the method above, using Kronecker's delta, considered a long method?
 
Nothing that only covers a few short lines is ever considered a long method. :smile:

The only way to do it shorter is to note that you started with a matrix equation in component form, and if you multiply it with the inverse...but that might require some explanation, and it would look a lot like what you just said.
 
Thanks a lot, Fredrik