MHB Indicial notation - Levi-Cevita and Tensor

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasonmcc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation Tensor
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on using indicial notation to demonstrate the equation involving the Levi-Civita symbol and a tensor. The initial approach involves rearranging and expanding terms, but the author suspects a simpler method exists. By expanding the first term, they find that it results in zero, suggesting a potential error in their reasoning. The conversation shifts to a more efficient method using indicial notation and applying the Kronecker delta rules for simplification. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes finding a more straightforward approach to the problem at hand.
jasonmcc
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Use indicial notation to show that:
$$
\mathcal{A}_{mi}\varepsilon_{mjk} + \mathcal{A}_{mj}\varepsilon_{imk} + \mathcal{A}_{mk}\varepsilon_{ijm} = \mathcal{A}_{mm}\varepsilon_{ijk}
$$
I'm probably missing an easier way, but my approach is to rearrange and expand on the terms:
$$
\mathcal{A}_{mi}\varepsilon_{mjk} + \mathcal{A}_{mj}\varepsilon_{mki} + \mathcal{A}_{mk}\varepsilon_{mij} = \mathcal{A}_{mm}\varepsilon_{ijk}
$$
Expanding the first term
$$
\mathcal{A}_{mi}\varepsilon_{mjk} = \varepsilon_{1jk}\mathcal{A}_{1i} + \varepsilon_{2jk}\mathcal{A}_{2i} + \varepsilon_{3jk}\mathcal{A}_{3i} =\\

\varepsilon_{123}\mathcal{A}_{11} + \varepsilon_{132}\mathcal{A}_{11} + \varepsilon_{231}\mathcal{A}_{22} + \varepsilon_{213}\mathcal{A}_{22} + \varepsilon_{312}\mathcal{A}_{33} + \varepsilon_{321}\mathcal{A}_{33} = \\

\mathcal{A}_{11} - \mathcal{A}_{11} + \mathcal{A}_{22} - \mathcal{A}_{22} + \mathcal{A}_{33} - \mathcal{A}_{33} = 0
$$
If this were correct I believe the pattern would hold for the other two terms, and the equation would equal zero...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
there is an easier way, of course, using indicial.
$$
\mathcal{A}_{mi}\varepsilon_{mjk} + \mathcal{A}_{mj}\varepsilon_{imk} + \mathcal{A}_{mj}\varepsilon_{ikm} = \mathcal{A}_{mk}\varepsilon_{ijk}\\
$$
multiplying all by $\varepsilon_{ijk}$ leads to kroniker delta rules, whereupon the expression can be quickly simplified...
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
29K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
14K