How to Derive the Relation Using Inner Products of Vectors?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the relation g_{\mu\nu} g^{\mu\sigma} = \delta_{\nu}^{\hspace{2mm}\sigma} using inner products of vectors. The initial approach involves calculating inner products with both contravariant and covariant components, leading to several derived relations. However, it is pointed out that the calculations do not constitute a proof, as equal sums do not imply equal summands. Additionally, it is clarified that g^{\rho\sigma} is defined as the matrix inverse of g_{\mu\nu}, which is non-singular. The overall consensus is that the result is more of an assumption than something that requires proof.
Burnstryk

Homework Statement


I am trying to derive the following relation using inner products of vectors:

Homework Equations


g_{\mu\nu} g^{\mu\sigma} = \delta_{\nu}^{\hspace{2mm}\sigma}

The Attempt at a Solution


What I have done is take two vectors and find the inner products in different ways with contravariant and covariant components:

\textbf{v}.\textbf{w}

I have obtained the following relations:

g_{\mu\nu} v^{\mu} w^{\nu} = g^{\mu\nu}v_\mu w_\nu = v_\nu w^\nu = v^\nu w_\nu

Using these relations I decided to take a vector with an arbitrary component (sigma) and multiply it by the metric and inverse considering the lowering and operating nature:

g_{\mu\nu} g^{\mu\sigma} v_{\sigma} = g_{\mu\nu} v^{\mu} = v_\nu = \delta_{\nu}^{\hspace{2mm}\sigma}v_\sigma

and hence obtain the original result.

I wanted to see if these arguments and method make sense or if I'm confusing everyone.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your calculations are correct, but they do not constitute a proof that ##g_{\mu\nu}g^{\mu\nu}=\delta_\nu{}^\mu## because it does not follow from the fact that two sums are equal that their individual summands are pairwise equal.

I'm a bit rusty on this but my recollection is that the result you are seeking to prove is an assumption, rather than something to be proved.
 
andrewkirk said:
[...] but my recollection is that the result you are seeking to prove is an assumption, rather than something to be proved.
That's correct.

##g^{\rho\sigma}## is defined to be the (components of) the matrix inverse to ##g_{\mu\nu}##, and it always exists because ##g_{\mu\nu}## is assumed to be non-singular.
 
  • Like
Likes andrewkirk

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K