Index notation/ Tensors, basic algebra questions.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the manipulation of tensor equations, specifically the expression T_{ij} = μS_{ij} + λδ_{ij}δS_{kk} in R^3. The key conclusion is that the choice of dummy indices in tensor notation does not affect the validity of the equations, as demonstrated by the derivation leading to T_{kk} = (μ + 3λ)S_{jj}. The factor of three arises from the summation of the Kronecker delta, δ_{ii}, which equals three in three-dimensional space. Consistency in dummy indices is recommended for clarity, but not strictly necessary.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tensor notation and operations
  • Familiarity with Kronecker delta properties
  • Basic knowledge of linear algebra in R^3
  • Experience with implicit summation conventions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Kronecker delta in tensor calculus
  • Learn about implicit summation conventions in linear algebra
  • Explore tensor manipulation techniques in R^n spaces
  • Investigate the implications of dummy indices in mathematical expressions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers working with tensor algebra, particularly those involved in theoretical physics or continuum mechanics.

binbagsss
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
12
Ok I have T_{ij}=μS_{ij} + λ δ_{ij}δS_{kk}.
I am working in R^3.

(I am after S in terms of T) . I multiply by δ_{ij} to attain:

δ_{ij}T_{ij}=δ_{ij}μS_{ij} + δ_{ij} λ δ_{ij}δT_{kk}

=> T_{jj}=δ_{jj}λS_{kk}+μS_{jj} *

My question is , for the LH term of * I choose T_{jj} rathen than T_{ii}. I then get the same decision for μS_{jj} or μS _{ii} on the last term on the RHS. Does this decision need to be consistent with each other?

Next/Main question...
The solution then continues to attain
T_{kk}=(μ+3λ)S_{jj}

Which I can not see how we have got to. δ_{jj}=3, so for RHS of * I get : 3λS_{kk}+μS_{jj} .

I then rename j and k, to get T_{kk} = 3λS_{jj}+μS_{kk}.
My 'S's' do not have the same dummy indice?

Many Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
looks like you're having problems with the implicit sums. when in
doubt write it out.

T_{ij}=\mu S_{ij} + \lambda \delta_{ij} \sum_k \delta S_{kk}

You then hit by a \delta_{ij} and sum over both i and j

\sum_{ij} \delta_{ij} T_{ij}=\mu \sum_{ij} \delta_{ij} S_{ij} + \lambda \sum_{ij} \delta_{ij} \delta_{ij} \sum_k \delta S_{kk},

Using the property that \delta_{ij} = 0 unless i = j, and is 1 if i=j, we have

\sum_{i} T_{ii}=\mu \sum_{i} S_{ii} + \lambda \sum_{i} \delta_{ii} \sum_k \delta S_{kk},

Answer 1. it doesn't matter what your dummy index is i, j, k. it's a dummy index. however if you
want to be kind to somebody reading you should make the indices match on both sides of an equation.

Answer 2. the factor of three comes from
\sum_{i} \delta_{ii} = \delta_{11} + \delta_{22} + \delta_{33}= 1+1+1 = 3

This leaves
\sum_{i} T_{ii}=\mu \sum_{i} S_{ii} + 3 \lambda \sum_k \delta S_{kk},

Does it matter that the summation indices are different? not really but it is ugly. So use
a different letter!
\sum_{i} T_{ii}=\mu \sum_{i} S_{ii} + 3 \lambda \sum_i \delta S_{ii},
\sum_{i} T_{ii}= \sum_{i} (\mu + 3 \lambda) S_{ii},

revert to the summation convention
T_{ii}= (\mu + 3 \lambda) S_{ii}.
 
Thanks a lot I see now - I thought the rules were that if i rename Skk to Sii, I must also change Tii to Tkk.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
906
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K