Evaluate expression with permutaion symbol and Kronecker delta

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating an expression involving the permutation symbol (Levi-Civita symbol) and the Kronecker delta, specifically the expression: \(\sum_{j}\sum_{k}\epsilon_{ijk}\delta_{jk}\). The problem is situated within the context of tensor calculus and linear algebra.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of the permutation symbol and its relationship with the Kronecker delta. The original poster expresses uncertainty about how to incorporate the permutation symbol into their evaluation. Some participants question the assumptions made regarding the indices and the behavior of the delta function in the context of the summation.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the expression, with some participants suggesting that the expression evaluates to zero based on the properties of the permutation symbol and the Kronecker delta. Others are clarifying the implications of the summation and the conditions under which terms survive.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the indices involved are limited to 1, 2, and 3 due to the nature of the permutation symbol. There is also a mention of potential errors in the original poster's understanding of the Kronecker delta and its implications in the summation process.

xWaffle
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Evaluate the following expression:
\sum_{j}\sum_{k}\epsilon_{ijk}\delta_{jk}

Homework Equations


\delta_{ij} = [i = j]

The Attempt at a Solution


I don't have a solution attempt to this one yet, because somehow I completely missed out on what the permutation thing has to do with anything.
_____________________

This is the second expression given on this homework assigment. The first one was a little easier, which I did work out, and came up with the solution. I'm going to show you guys this first problem so you know I at least know a little of what I'm doing..

Evaluate expression:
\sum_{i}\sum_{k}\delta_{ij}\delta_{ji}

I used my knowledge of the Kronecker delta to say that:
\delta_{ij}\delta_{ji} = \delta_{ii} = \delta_{jj}

Then using my knowledge of the trace of an n x n matrix (since I'm only dealing with square matrices), the trace of an n x n matrix is just n. So the final solution to the expression I found to be:
\sum_{i}\sum_{k}\delta_{ij}\delta_{ji} = \sum_{i}\delta_{ii} = tr(I_{i}) = i
______________________

So I do have some of the knowledge I'm expected to have, but I really have no idea how to progress further, with the \epsilon_{ijk} thrown in there. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks

edit: I should have mentioned that I do at least know what the permutation symbol is.. it is valued at 0 if any of the i,j,k are the same, it is valued at +1 if the indicies are in cyclic order (123,231,312), -1 if they are are not in cyclic order
 
Physics news on Phys.org
xWaffle said:

Homework Statement



Evaluate the following expression:
\sum_{j}\sum_{k}\epsilon_{ijk}\delta_{jk}

Homework Equations


\delta_{ij} = [i = j]


The Attempt at a Solution


I don't have a solution attempt to this one yet, because somehow I completely missed out on what the permutation thing has to do with anything.
_____________________

This is the second expression given on this homework assigment. The first one was a little easier, which I did work out, and came up with the solution. I'm going to show you guys this first problem so you know I at least know a little of what I'm doing..

Evaluate expression:
\sum_{i}\sum_{k}\delta_{ij}\delta_{ji}
Did you mean j instead of k on the second summation?

I used my knowledge of the Kronecker delta to say that:
\delta_{ij}\delta_{ji} = \delta_{ii} = \delta_{jj}
This isn't quite right. If i≠j, the first quantity is 0, but ##\delta_{ii}## is always equal to 1. Without the summations, the best you can say is \delta_{ij}\delta_{ji}=\delta_{ij}. When you do the summation over j, for example, then you get
$$\sum_i \sum_j \delta_{ij} = \sum_i \delta_{ii}.$$ Only the terms where i=j survive.
Then using my knowledge of the trace of an n x n matrix (since I'm only dealing with square matrices), the trace of an n x n matrix is just n. So the final solution to the expression I found to be:
\sum_{i}\sum_{k}\delta_{ij}\delta_{ji} = \sum_{i}\delta_{ii} = tr(I_{i}) = i
You mean tr(In)=n, right?

So I do have some of the knowledge I'm expected to have, but I really have no idea how to progress further, with the \epsilon_{ijk} thrown in there. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks

edit: I should have mentioned that I do at least know what the permutation symbol is.. it is valued at 0 if any of the i,j,k are the same, it is valued at +1 if the indicies are in cyclic order (123,231,312), -1 if they are are not in cyclic order
Perform the summation over k in the expression above. What do you end up with?
 
Pardon my issues with the BB code and Latex, I've pretty much never used it before a week ago. Yes, you were able to pick out my errors quite nicely.

As for my main question, I've tried to invision what is going on. It seems this question is inherently trivial because \epsilon_{ijk}\delta_{jk} appears to always evaluate to be zero..

If j and k are not equal, then the delta expression goes to zero, which brings the entire expression to zero with it. If j and k ARE equal, then the epsilon portion goes to zero, which brings the whole expression to zero with it.

So I guess that expression should be evaluated as zero for all values of i,j, and k between 1 and 3 (since only 1,2,3 are applicable with the permutation symbol)
 
Last edited:
Right. If you perform the summation over k, the delta function picks out terms where k=j, so you end up with ##\sum \epsilon_{ijj}##, which, as you said, is 0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
12K