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

brotherbobby
Messages
749
Reaction score
169
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]
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:
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:
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
14K
Replies
6
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
7K
Back
Top