How to Write (a_1+...+a_n)(b_1+...+b_n) in Einstein Notation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on expressing the product of two sums, (a_1+\ldots+a_n)(b_1+\ldots+b_n), in Einstein notation. Participants explore various approaches and notations, including the use of the Kronecker delta and the Levi-Civita symbol, while considering the implications of index placement and summation conventions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests writing the expression as a_ib_jI^{ij}, questioning if there is a more convenient form.
  • Another participant explains the Einstein summation convention and proposes using a^i * b_i for all values of i, questioning the necessity of the I^{ij} term.
  • It is noted that a^i b_i does not account for all combinations of the sums, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the original expression.
  • A participant raises the possibility of using the Kronecker delta or Levi-Civita symbol instead of the I^{ij} term, while discussing the implications of rotational invariance in the constructed expression.
  • There is a correction regarding the notation of indices, emphasizing the distinction between superscripts and subscripts in the context of the sums.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate notation and whether the I^{ij} term is necessary. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing approaches and interpretations presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of index placement and the implications of using certain symbols, such as the Kronecker delta and Levi-Civita symbol, which may affect the rotational invariance of the expression. The discussion also reflects on the need for clarity in notation to avoid misunderstandings.

mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hi!
I want to write the following expression in Einstein notation:

(a_1+\ldots+a_n)(b_1+\ldots+b_n)

I tried it by introducing the term I^{ij}=1 and writing:

a_ib_jI^{ij}

Are you aware of another, more convenient form for this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
According to the Einstein summation convention, when ever a expression contains one index as a superscript and the same index as a subscript a summation is implied over all values that the index can take. (As defined in Schutz "A First Course in General Relativity")

So what do you need the I super ij for?

I would just write it as

a (superscript i) * b (subscript i) for all values that i can take.

(My LaTex usage is horrible that is why I typed it out.)

Thanks
Matt
 
CFDFEAGURU said:
So what do you need the I super ij for?

I would just write it as

a (superscript i) * b (subscript i) for all values that i can take.

In general

(a_1+\ldots+a_n)(b_1+\ldots+b_n) \neq \sum_{i=1}^{n}a_i\,b_i
 
You probably read too fast: a^ib_i=a_1b_1+\ldots+ a_nb_n and that clearly does not produce all the combinations.
I'm trying to figure out if I really need to introduce that I^{ij}=1 term, or if I can express that by using the kronecker delta or the levi-civita symbol.
 
Yes, that is correct, but I said one is a superscript and one is a subscript. You have them written as both subscripts.

Yes, I did overlook the parenthesis.

Would it not then just be

a (superscript i) a (subscript i) * b (superscript 1) b (subscript i)

?

Thanks
Matt
 
Yes, thanks torquil.

Matt
 
mnb96 said:
You probably read too fast: a^ib_i=a_1b_1+\ldots+ a_nb_n and that clearly does not produce all the combinations.
I'm trying to figure out if I really need to introduce that I^{ij}=1 term, or if I can express that by using the kronecker delta or the levi-civita symbol.

The problem with this is that if you construct an expression out of a, b, the kronecker delta and/or the levi civita symbol, and it has no free indices, it will be rotationally invariant. Your original expression is not rotationally invariant, so you need something else, e.g. your matrix of 1's.

Torquil
 

Similar threads

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