Inverting a Tensor - How to Find Out?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tulip
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tensor
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the invertibility of a tensor defined by the equation X_{mikl}=(R^{-1})_{mi}R_{kl}-(S^{-1})_{mi}S_{kl}, where R and S are invertible matrices. It is established that X is generally non-invertible, particularly in cases where R equals S or R is the inverse of S, leading to X being the null tensor. The participants clarify that the existence of an inverse for X cannot be determined universally and depends on the specific values of R and S. Therefore, while there are special cases where X is not invertible, the overall conclusion is that the invertibility of X must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In summary, the general statement is that X is not invertible without additional constraints.
tulip
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Thank you for reading.

If I have an object (is it correct to call it a tensor?) whose components are defined by:

X_{mikl}=(R^{-1})_{mi}R_{kl}-(S^{-1})_{mi}S_{kl},

where R and S are invertible matrices. I want to find the "inverse" of X, i.e. to find (X^{-1}) such that,

(X^{-1})_{qkpm}X_{mikl}=\delta_{lq}\delta_{pi}.

Is there a way to find out whether (X^{-1}) exists? A matrix doesn't have an inverse if its determinant is zero - is there a similar rule here? I've tried some trial functions for X^{-1} but nothing works, and I want to know whether there's a better way of tackling this problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
With no further constraints the tensor you have proposed is, in general, not invertible.

Consider for example the case R=S. Then X will be the null tensor. Or even the less trivial case R=S^{-1} will lead also to X=0 if R^2=1 (idempotent).

Therefore, in general, it is not invertible.
 
Last edited:
R is not equal to S, or to the inverse of S. It is clearly true that for special cases where X=0 there is no inverse, but I don't see how this tells us that X is generally non-invertible. Can you explain?
 
If for the problem stated there are cases where X is not invertible (even if there is just one of such cases) then it can not exist a theorem, a result, or an algorithm which allows us to invert the given expression with generelity, i.e. regardless of the values of R and S, (i.e., operating with "letters" in full generality insted of with "numbers"). Hence, the invertibility or not of X will depend on the particular values of R and S, and so we say that "in general" X is not invertible.

So, the meaning of "in general X is not invertible" is not "X is non-invertible more often than not"; the meaning is actually "the invertibility of X has to be determined on a particular case basis, it can not be determined generally (no matter the values of R and S)"
 
Last edited:
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
559
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
816
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K