Help deriving Lagrange's Formula with the levi-civita symbol

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving Lagrange's formula using the Levi-Civita symbol. The initial confusion revolves around manipulating the symbol to express the cross product of vectors. The user successfully derives the formula, showing that the cross product can be expressed as a combination of dot products and cross products of the involved vectors. The final expression confirms that the cross product of vector A with the cross product of vectors B and C equals B times the dot product of A and C minus C times the dot product of A and B. The thread highlights the importance of clarity in notation, particularly in using the dot symbol for dot products.
radonballoon
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Ok, so I'm really at a loss as to how to do this. I can prove the formula by just using determinants, but I don't really know how to do manipulations with the levi-civita symbol.
Here's what I have so far:
<br /> (\vec{B} \times \vec{C})_{i} = \epsilon_{ijk}(B_{j}C_{k})\vec{e_{i}}<br />

And I'm trying to get to:
<br /> \vec{A} \times (\vec{B} \times \vec{C}) = B(A \bullet C) - C(A \bullet B)<br />

Does anyone have any suggestions?
Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Ok So I figured it out, I'll just post the answer for the sake of completeness:

<br /> (\vec{B} \times \vec{C})_{k} = \epsilon_{kmn} (B_{m} C_{n})<br />

<br /> let (\vec{B} \times \vec{C}) = \vec{N} <br />

<br /> \vec{A} \times (\vec{B} \times \vec{C}) = \vec{A} \times \vec{N} <br />
<br /> (\vec{A} \times \vec{N})_{i} = \epsilon_{ijk} A_{j} N_{k}<br />
<br /> = \epsilon_{ijk} A_{j} (\epsilon_{kmn} B_{m} C_{n})
<br /> = \epsilon_{ijk} \epsilon_{kmn} (A_{j} B_{m} C_{n})

<br /> \epsilon_{ijk} \epsilon_{mnk} = \delta_{im} \delta_{jn} - \delta_{in} \delta_{jm} <br />

<br /> \vec{A} \times (\vec{B} \times \vec{C}) = (\delta_{im} \delta_{jn} - \delta_{in} \delta_{jm}) A_{j} B_{m} C_{n} <br />
<br /> = B_{i} A_{j} C_{j} - A_{j} B_{j} C_{i} <br />
<br /> = \vec{B}(\vec{A} \bullet \vec{C}) - \vec{C}(\vec{A} \bullet \vec{B})
 
It's threads like these that seem to be causing PF to accumulate helpful Google searches. :)
 
<br /> <br /> (\vec{B} \times \vec{C})_{i} = \epsilon_{ijk}(B_{j}C_{k})\vec{e_{i}}<br /> <br />

Should be:

<br /> <br /> (\vec{B} \times \vec{C})_{i} = \epsilon_{ijk}(B_{j}C_{k})<br /> <br />

And start using \cdot instead of that big black ball :-D
 
Haha wow this seems like so long ago. I couldn't find the dot for dot product, so thanks for that :D
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top