MHB Indicial notation - Levi-Cevita and Tensor

  • Thread starter Thread starter jasonmcc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation Tensor
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...
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
29K
Back
Top