##\epsilon_{ijk}## in terms of ##\delta's##

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between two definitions of the Levi-Civita symbol ##\epsilon_{ijk}##: its conventional definition based on permutations of indices and an identity involving a determinant of Kronecker delta symbols. Participants explore how the determinant identity can be shown to reduce to the permutation-based definition.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants present the conventional definition of the Levi-Civita symbol, noting its values based on the permutation of indices.
  • Others introduce the identity involving the determinant of Kronecker delta symbols, questioning how it relates to the conventional definition.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about proving that the determinant identity reduces to the conventional definition, despite testing specific index values.
  • Another participant suggests that the identity is not a definition but rather an identity that follows from the conventional definition.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of switching indices and the conditions under which both sides of the identity yield zero or change sign.
  • There is mention of an outline for a proof provided in external references, but participants express a desire for clarity on how to apply it specifically.
  • One participant proposes an alternative expression for the Levi-Civita symbol in terms of a determinant, suggesting it as an equivalent definition.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on how to prove the relationship between the two definitions, with multiple competing views on the nature of the identity and its derivation from the conventional definition.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the proof may depend on specific assumptions about the indices and the properties of determinants, which are not fully resolved in the discussion.

brotherbobby
Messages
764
Reaction score
170
TL;DR
The Levi-Civita symbol in three dimensions ##\epsilon_{ijk}## is sometimes defined as a determinant of various kronecker symbols as under :
$$\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{pqr}=\begin{vmatrix}\delta_{ip} & \delta_{iq} & \delta_{ir}\\ \delta_{jp} & \delta_{jq} & \delta_{jr}\\ \delta_{kp} & \delta_{kq} & \delta_{kr}\\ \end{vmatrix}.
$$ Can this be shown to reduce to its more usual definition where its value is ##+1,\,-1,\,0## according to whether the indices are cyclic or repeat? [equation (1) below]
1750871464920.webp


The two definitions :



The Levi Civita Alternating Symbol is defined as below, taken from here. I put the relevant image above to the right to save you the trouble of having to look through the wikipage.
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{ijk} = \begin{cases}+1, & \text{if } (i,j,k) \text{ is an even permutation of } (1,2,3) \\-1, & \text{if } (i,j,k) \text{ is an odd permutation of } (1,2,3) \\ 0, & \text{otherwise}\end{cases}
\label{usual}
\end{equation}

But here's my problem.


1750871615076.webp
It is also defined via a product of itself, using a ##3\times 3## determinant of the kronecker symbols as shown to the right (same wikipage).

\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{ijk}\;\epsilon_{lmn}=\begin{vmatrix}\delta_{il} & \delta_{im} & \delta_{in}\\ \delta_{jl} & \delta_{jm} & \delta_{jn}\\ \delta_{kl} & \delta_{km} & \delta_{kn}\\ \end{vmatrix}
\label{kronecker}
\end{equation}

The issue :

I have been through the referred text on the wikipage, marked in the image as ##{\color{blue}{^{[4]}}}##.

Nowhere does it say how does ##\ref{kronecker}## follow from ##\ref{usual}##.

I am at a loss to prove myself, where I have tried taken values like ##i=1, j=2, k=1\quad l=1, m=2, n=3##. The answers came to 1 on both sides alright, but that is not a proof. I admit I could go on and take all values from ##1,2,3## and indeed show that the second reduces to the first definition in each case. Still, won't make it a proof.

Does a proof exist whereby ##\ref{kronecker}## can be shown to reduce to ##\ref{usual}##?

Request : A hint or clue would be of immense help.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
brotherbobby said:
TL;DR Summary: The Levi-Civita symbol in three dimensions ##\epsilon_{ijk}## is sometimes defined as a determinant of various kronecker symbols as under :
$$\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{pqr}=\begin{vmatrix}\delta_{ip} & \delta_{iq} & \delta_{ir}\\ \delta_{jp} & \delta_{jq} & \delta_{jr}\\ \delta_{kp} & \delta_{kq} & \delta_{kr}\\ \end{vmatrix}.
$$ Can this be shown to reduce to its more usual definition where its value is ##+1,\,-1,\,0## according to whether the indices are cyclic or repeat? [equation (1) below]

View attachment 362540

The two definitions :



The Levi Civita Alternating Symbol is defined as below, taken from here. I put the relevant image above to the right to save you the trouble of having to look through the wikipage.
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{ijk} = \begin{cases}+1, & \text{if } (i,j,k) \text{ is an even permutation of } (1,2,3) \\-1, & \text{if } (i,j,k) \text{ is an odd permutation of } (1,2,3) \\ 0, & \text{otherwise}\end{cases}
\label{usual}
\end{equation}

But here's my problem.


View attachment 362541It is also defined via a product of itself, using a ##3\times 3## determinant of the kronecker symbols as shown to the right (same wikipage).

\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{ijk}\;\epsilon_{lmn}=\begin{vmatrix}\delta_{il} & \delta_{im} & \delta_{in}\\ \delta_{jl} & \delta_{jm} & \delta_{jn}\\ \delta_{kl} & \delta_{km} & \delta_{kn}\\ \end{vmatrix}
\label{kronecker}
\end{equation}

The issue :

I have been through the referred text on the wikipage, marked in the image as ##{\color{blue}{^{[4]}}}##.

Nowhere does it say how does ##\ref{kronecker}## follow from ##\ref{usual}##.

I am at a loss to prove myself, where I have tried taken values like ##i=1, j=2, k=1\quad l=1, m=2, n=3##. The answers came to 1 on both sides alright, but that is not a proof. I admit I could go on and take all values from ##1,2,3## and indeed show that the second reduces to the first definition in each case. Still, won't make it a proof.

Does a proof exist whereby ##\ref{kronecker}## can be shown to reduce to ##\ref{usual}##?

Request : A hint or clue would be of immense help.
(2) is not a definition, and is not the same as (1). It is an identity that follows from (1).

(1) is a function of 3 variables while (2) is a function of 6. How can they be identical?

A proof of (2), given (1), is outlined for n dimensions on the wikipage.


Edit:

With ##i=1, j=2, k=1\quad l=1, m=2, n=3## you should expect a zero.
Setting ## l=1, m=2, n=3## , there are 27 different inputs and by using the properties of the determinant you can show reduction to (1).
 
Last edited:
Thank you @JimWhoKnew. I prefer the solution on wikipage to the one you provided in your edit above, because that was what I had in mind to do. Trying out various indices. But that is not the smarter way to it.

For reasons of completeness, I want to try out the wikipage proof for the ##3\times 3## determinant here. But let me pose the issue here again to refresh the mind.

The definition and the identity : The Levi Civita Alternating Symbol is defined as below :

\begin{equation}

\epsilon_{ijk} = \begin{cases}+1, & \text{if } (i,j,k) \text{ is an even permutation of } (1,2,3) \\-1, & \text{if } (i,j,k) \text{ is an odd permutation of } (1,2,3) \\ 0, & \text{otherwise}\end{cases}

\end{equation}

However, one can find references to an identity for the same symbol, where it appears as a product of itself and is equal to a ##3\times 3## determinant of the kronecker delta symbol as shown below :

\begin{equation}

\epsilon_{ijk}\;\epsilon_{lmn}=\begin{vmatrix}\delta_{il} & \delta_{im} & \delta_{in}\\ \delta_{jl} & \delta_{jm} & \delta_{jn}\\ \delta_{kl} & \delta_{km} & \delta_{kn}\\ \end{vmatrix}

\end{equation}

The question : How to show that equation ##(4)## above follows from ##(3)##?

Attempt : Let us have ##(4)## again.

\begin{equation*}

\epsilon_{ijk}\;\epsilon_{lmn}=\begin{vmatrix}\delta_{il} & \delta_{im} & \delta_{in}\\ \delta_{jl} & \delta_{jm} & \delta_{jn}\\ \delta_{kl} & \delta_{km} & \delta_{kn}\\ \end{vmatrix}

\end{equation*}
  1. Switching indices ##i\leftrightarrow j##, both sides change sign.
  2. If some ##i=j##, both sides become 0. Same for some ##p=q##.
  3. Let's assume, without loss of generality, that ##i<j<k\quad ,\quad p<q<r##. For all such cases, both sides are ##\pm 1##.

Does this complete the proof? It looks ok to me.
 
Last edited:
brotherbobby said:
Thank you @JimWhoKnew. I prefer the solution on wikipage to the one you provided in your edit above, because that was what I had in mind to do. Trying out various indices. But that is not the smarter way to it.

For reasons of completeness, I want to try out the wikipage proof for the ##3\times 3## determinant here. But let me pose the issue here again to refresh the mind.

The definition and the identity : The Levi Civita Alternating Symbol is defined as below :

\begin{equation}

\epsilon_{ijk} = \begin{cases}+1, & \text{if } (i,j,k) \text{ is an even permutation of } (1,2,3) \\-1, & \text{if } (i,j,k) \text{ is an odd permutation of } (1,2,3) \\ 0, & \text{otherwise}\end{cases}

\end{equation}

However, one can find references to an identity for the same symbol, where it appears as a product of itself and is equal to a ##3\times 3## determinant of the kronecker delta symbol as shown below :

\begin{equation}

\epsilon_{ijk}\;\epsilon_{lmn}=\begin{vmatrix}\delta_{il} & \delta_{im} & \delta_{in}\\ \delta_{jl} & \delta_{jm} & \delta_{jn}\\ \delta_{kl} & \delta_{km} & \delta_{kn}\\ \end{vmatrix}

\end{equation}

The question : How to show that equation ##(4)## above follows from ##(3)##?

Attempt : Let us have ##(4)## again.

\begin{equation*}

\epsilon_{ijk}\;\epsilon_{lmn}=\begin{vmatrix}\delta_{il} & \delta_{im} & \delta_{in}\\ \delta_{jl} & \delta_{jm} & \delta_{jn}\\ \delta_{kl} & \delta_{km} & \delta_{kn}\\ \end{vmatrix}

\end{equation*}
  1. Switching indices ##i\leftrightarrow j##, both sides change sign.
  2. If some ##i=j##, both sides become 0. Same for some ##p=q##.
  3. Let's assume, without loss of generality, that ##i<j<k\quad ,\quad p<q<r##. For all such cases, both sides are ##\pm 1##.

Does this complete the proof? It looks ok to me.
Note that
\begin{equation*}

\epsilon_{ijk}=\begin{vmatrix}\delta_{i1} & \delta_{i2} & \delta_{i3}\\ \delta_{j1} & \delta_{j2} & \delta_{j3}\\ \delta_{k1} & \delta_{k2} & \delta_{k3}\\ \end{vmatrix}

\end{equation*}
and this can be used as an alternative (equivalent) definition for ##\epsilon_{ijk}## , expressing it in terms of ##\delta##'s as you wanted. The generalization to n dimensions is trivial. I would have expected the wikipage to mention it.

I wrote in #2 that the proof for the product identity is "outlined", because it claims "without loss of generality". To be rigor, you have to argue that this form can always be reached by permutations of lines and rows, and that the introduced sign changes are compatible.

In the third line of your proof, if you assume ##i<j<k\quad ,\quad p<q<r## , then (4) is +1 . If I had to submit the proof as a homework assignment, I would have tidied it up.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
14K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K