1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Expression with levi-civita symbol

  1. Feb 17, 2010 #1
    Hello,
    during a calculation I got the following term:

    [tex]\varepsilon^{i_1 \ldots i_n}\varepsilon_{j_1 \ldots j_n} (a_{i_1}^{j_1}\ldots a_{i_n}^{j_n})[/tex]

    where [tex]\varepsilon[/tex] is the levi-civita symbol and [tex]a_i^j[/tex] are real numbers.

    Is it possible to simplify that expression?
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 17, 2010 #2

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hi mnb96! :wink:

    I think you can write it [tex]{a_{[i_1 \ldots i_n]}}^{[j_1 \ldots j_n]}[/tex] :smile:

    (or maybe that's out by a factor of 1/n!2 ? :redface:)
     
  4. Feb 17, 2010 #3
    ?? is that the solution ??

    ...I was wondering if that expression might perhaps be equivalent to the determinant of something. Any ideas?
     
  5. Feb 17, 2010 #4

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    waa! I didn't notice that you changed the question a minute before I posted my answer. :cry:
     
  6. Feb 17, 2010 #5
    ...sorry :) :P
    I realized of the mistake later, after re-reading my post :(
     
  7. Feb 18, 2010 #6
    I thought about the following: since we have that,

    [tex]
    \varepsilon_{j_1 \ldots j_n} a_{1}^{j_1}\ldots a_{n}^{j_n} = det(A)
    [/tex]

    then,

    [tex]
    \varepsilon^{i_1 \ldots i_n}\varepsilon_{j_1 \ldots j_n} (a_{i_1}^{j_1}\ldots a_{i_n}^{j_n}) =
    [/tex]


    [tex]
    =\sum_{k=1}^{n!}sgn(\sigma_k(n))\cdot \varepsilon_{j_1 \ldots j_n} a_{1}^{j_1}\ldots a_{n}^{j_n} =
    [/tex]


    [tex]
    =\sum_{k=1}^{n!}sgn(\sigma_k(n))\cdot det(A)
    [/tex]

    where [tex]\sigma_k(n)[/tex] is the k-th permutation on the sequence [itex](1,\ldots,n)[/itex].
    Is that correct?
    Isn't that supposed to be zero?!
     
  8. Feb 18, 2010 #7

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hi mnb9! :smile:

    (just got up :zzz: …)

    I think it's clearer (and better, because it's accurate :wink:) to write it …

    [tex]
    \varepsilon_{j_1 \ldots j_n} a_{1}^{j_1}\ldots a_{n}^{j_n} = det((a_1,\cdots a_n))
    [/tex]

    then you get

    [tex]
    \varepsilon^{i_1 \ldots i_n}\varepsilon_{j_1 \ldots j_n} (a_{i_1}^{j_1}\ldots a_{i_n}^{j_n}) =
    [/tex]


    [tex]
    \varepsilon^{i_1 \ldots i_n}det((a_i_1,\cdots a_i_n))
    [/tex]


    which is … ? :smile:
     
  9. Feb 18, 2010 #8
    if it is true that given (1,...,n) there are always as many odd-permutations as even-permutations, then we get...zero! :) right?

    BTW, I have some troubles with your notation [tex]det((a_1,\cdots a_n))[/tex]. What are those [tex]a_i[/tex] ?
    I assume they are vectors.
    I also assume those [tex]a_{i1}[/tex] and [tex]a_{in}[/tex] are instead the vectors [tex]\mathbf{a}_{i_1}[/tex] and [tex]\mathbf{a}_{i_n}[/tex]
    Did I get it right?

    Finally, do you know a good source in which I can find useful exercises and tricks about manipulations with this notation?
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2010
  10. Feb 18, 2010 #9

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hi mnb96! :smile:
    I don't think so … doesn't interchanging two indices multiply both the epsilon and the determinant by -1 ?
    Yup! :biggrin:

    (I couldn't be bothered to write it properly :rolleyes:)
    Sorry, no idea. :redface:
     
  11. Feb 18, 2010 #10
    Damn! that's true, whenever we have an odd permutation the determinant should change its sign, but also the epsilon will be -1, so we finally have (crossing fingers):


    [tex]
    \varepsilon^{i_1 \ldots i_n}\varepsilon_{j_1 \ldots j_n} (a_{i_1}^{j_1}\ldots a_{i_n}^{j_n}) = n!\cdot det((\mathbf{a}_1, \ldots, \mathbf{a}_n))
    [/tex]

    ...Oh, BTW is it true that "given (1,...,n) there are always as many odd-permutations as even-permutations"? :redface:
     
  12. Feb 18, 2010 #11

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    (btw, i think we usually use small letter for "btw" :wink:)

    Only for n > 1 …

    try starting the proof with "if there exists an odd permutation π, then … " :smile:
     
  13. Feb 18, 2010 #12
    Ah...why?
    if n=1 we have:

    [tex]
    \varepsilon^{i_1}\varepsilon_{j_1}a_{i_1}^{j_1} = \varepsilon^{1}\varepsilon_{1}a_{1}^{1} = a_{1}^{1} = det(\mathbf{a}) = 1!det(\mathbf{a}) = n!\cdot det(\mathbf{a})
    [/tex]

    I assumed that permuting (1) zero times, means even permutation so that [tex]\varepsilon^{1}=+1[/tex]
     
  14. Feb 18, 2010 #13

    tiny-tim

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    That's a different question. :redface:

    (and there are no odd permuatations for n = 1 :wink:)
     
  15. Feb 18, 2010 #14
    Uhm...I am just wondering if we can just define the levi-civita symbol being equal to 1 in case the sequence has just one element, but that's not terribly important in any case :smile:

    This reinforces the fact that the levi-civita symbol cannot be -1 for n=1, but there is no repetition of indices, so it should not even be 0.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Expression with levi-civita symbol
Loading...