Evaluate Levi-civita expression

Meggle
Messages
16
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Evaluate the expression \epsilon_{ijk} \epsilon_{jmn} \epsilon_{nkp}

Homework Equations


\epsilon_{ijk} \epsilon_{ilj} = \delta_{jl}\delta_{km} - \delta_{jm}\delta_{kl}


The Attempt at a Solution



Let \epsilon_{ijk} = \epsilon_{jki} by permutation of Levi-civita

\epsilon_{jki} \epsilon_{jmn} \epsilon_{nkp} = (\delta_{km}\delta_{in} - \delta_{kn}\delta_{im})\epsilon_{nkp}

\epsilon_{nkp}=0 if n=k, however \delta_{kn}=0 if n \neq k

(\delta_{km}\delta_{in} - \delta_{kn}\delta_{im})\epsilon_{nkp} = (\delta_{km}\delta_{in})\epsilon_{nkp}

At this point, can I just go through the possible values for each of the indicies and add it up?

(\delta_{km}\delta_{in})\epsilon_{nkp} = (\delta_{22}\delta_{11})\epsilon_{123} + (\delta_{33}\delta_{22})\epsilon_{231} + (\delta_{22}\delta_{33})\epsilon_{321} + (\delta_{11}\delta_{22})\epsilon_{213} + (\delta_{33}\delta_{11})\epsilon_{132}
As all other combinations result in zeros.

(\delta_{km}\delta_{in})\epsilon_{nkp} = 1+1+1-1-1-1 = 0 = \epsilon_{ijk} \epsilon_{jmn} \epsilon_{nkp}
Is that right?

I'm doing this paper extramurally and really struggling with it. My previous assignments are taking ages to come back to me, so I'm shaky about what I know and where I'm going wrong. Could someone have a look at this and tell me if it looks ok?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi Meggle! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(have a delta: δ and an epsilon: ε and try using the X2 tag just above the Reply box :wink:)
Meggle said:
(\delta_{km}\delta_{in} - \delta_{kn}\delta_{im})\epsilon_{nkp} = (\delta_{km}\delta_{in})\epsilon_{nkp}

At this point, can I just go through the possible values for each of the indicies and add it up?

No, just use the deltas to change the indices …

for example, δkmδinεnkp = εimp :wink:
 


tiny-tim said:
Hi Meggle! Welcome to PF! :smile:

(have a delta: δ and an epsilon: ε and try using the X2 tag just above the Reply box :wink:)


No, just use the deltas to change the indices …

for example, δkmδinεnkp = εimp :wink:


Oh! Ok, thanks!
Now if I assign all the possible values to i, m, and p, I think I end up with 0 still?
εimp = ε123 + ε231...
εimp = 1 + 1 + 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 + (a whole bunch of zeros where i = m etc)
εimp = 0

Sorry, I know this point should be really obvious. My course readings seem to operate on the "state nothing explicitly" style of teaching, which I'm having trouble adapting to!
 
Meggle said:
εimp = ε123 + ε231...

Noooo! :redface:

In εimp, i m and p are fixed.

εijkεjmnεnkp is a function of i m and p (after you sum all the others, i m and p are still there) …

i m and p have to be in the answer! :wink:

ok … what's the other half, δknδimεnkp ? :smile:
 
tiny-tim said:
Noooo! :redface:

In εimp, i m and p are fixed.

εijkεjmnεnkp is a function of i m and p (after you sum all the others, i m and p are still there) …

i m and p have to be in the answer! :wink:

ok … what's the other half, δknδimεnkp ? :smile:

Soooooo, instead of what I had done:
(\deltakm \deltain - \deltakn\deltaim)\epsilonnkp = \deltakm \deltain\epsilonnkp - \deltakn\deltaim\epsilonnkp

\deltakm \deltain \epsilonnkp - \deltakn\deltaim \epsilonnkp = \epsilonimp - \deltaim\epsilonnnp

That looks like I've done something wrong. What can I do with this? The indicies are different in \deltakn\deltaim , so I can't use one to alter the other, but I can't use \deltaim on \epsilonnnp either. If I don't do anything to it, \epsilonnnp will be zero.
It's like there's a giant penny hanging over my head, and if I just keep banging it, it'll drop... :blushing: Sorry I'm being so dense. Do appreciate the help though.
 
Meggle said:
… \deltaim\epsilonnnp

If I don't do anything to it, \epsilonnnp will be zero.

Important life lesson …

sometimes you have to be able to tell the difference between a problem and a solution!

In this case, yes, εnnp (btw, you could equally well have written it εkkp :wink:) is zero.

So εnnp = 0. o:)
It's like there's a giant penny hanging over my head, and if I just keep banging it, it'll drop... :blushing: Sorry I'm being so dense.

don't want to worry you, but :rolleyes:

it's actually a great sharp sword! :biggrin:
 
tiny-tim said:
Important life lesson …

sometimes you have to be able to tell the difference between a problem and a solution!

In this case, yes, εnnp (btw, you could equally well have written it εkkp :wink:) is zero.

So εnnp = 0. o:)

don't want to worry you, but :rolleyes:

it's actually a great sharp sword! :biggrin:


Hang on, so that's actually the solution?
\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{jmn}\epsilon_{nkp} = \epsilon_{imp}
OoooOooo. I was on the wrong track! Yeepers. Thanks for all your help! :cool:
(I'll be minding out for that sword now...)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top