Is Kronecker Delta a Coordinate-Independent Identity Operator?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jdstokes
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition Delta
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of the Kronecker delta, \(\delta^a_b\), in the context of curved manifolds and its coordinate independence. Participants explore various definitions and implications of the Kronecker delta, particularly in relation to the metric tensor and abstract index notation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose defining \(\delta^a_b\) as \(g^{ac}g_{bc}\) using abstract index notation.
  • Others argue that this definition could also apply to the inverse metric \(g^{ab}\), leading to confusion about the coordinate dependence of the Kronecker delta.
  • A participant mentions the traditional interpretation of the Kronecker delta as being 1 when indices are equal and 0 otherwise, which introduces coordinate dependence.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about proving the relationship \(g_b^a = g^{an}g_{nb} = \delta_b^a\).
  • Another participant suggests that a coordinate-independent definition of the Kronecker delta can be derived from the "musical isomorphism" between tangent and cotangent spaces.
  • It is noted that the Kronecker delta can be viewed as the identity operator acting on tangent or cotangent spaces, as expressed by \(\delta^a_b X^b = X^a\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on a single definition of the Kronecker delta that is coordinate-independent. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the dependence on definitions of the metric tensor and the Kronecker delta, as well as unresolved mathematical relationships among the discussed concepts.

jdstokes
Messages
520
Reaction score
1
Can anyone give me a coordinate-independent definition of [itex]\delta^a_b[/itex] on curved manifolds?

Should it be defined as [itex]\delta^a_b = g^{ac}g_{bc}[/itex] where abstract index notation has been used?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You could define it that way. Then again, you could take that as the definition for [itex]g^{ab}[/itex] (the inverse metric) :smile:
One problem, is that we are used to thinking of the Kronecker delta as "the thing which is 1 iff the indices are equal, and 0 otherwise" which of course, introduces coordinates right away. I am wondering if "the unit tensor" (e.g. dxd unit matrix) is a coordinate independent statement... :smile:
 
I find that,

[tex]g_b^a = g^{an}g_{nb} = \delta_b^a[/tex]

but I can't prove it.
 
I though that was the definition of the inverse metric. Basically you have written down that
[tex]g^{-1} g = I[/tex]
 
Yep. Going round in cicles. Break the circle at any point and select a definition.

M
 
jdstokes said:
Can anyone give me a coordinate-independent definition of [itex]\delta^a_b[/itex] on curved manifolds?

Should it be defined as [itex]\delta^a_b = g^{ac}g_{bc}[/itex] where abstract index notation has been used?

If your manifold has a metric, you can give a perfectly good coordinate-independent definition of the Kronecker tensor (and, indeed, its generalizations) in terms of the so-called "musical isomorphism" between the tangent space and cotangent space.

This is pretty basic stuff, but beyond a yearning for strict coordinate-independence, I can't see any actual advantage in using such a definition.
 
CompuChip said:
I am wondering if "the unit tensor" (e.g. dxd unit matrix) is a coordinate independent statement... :smile:
You are nearly there. The coordinate-free version of a matrix is a linear operator, a function that maps vectors to vectors (or covectors to covectors).

So the Kronecker delta is just the identity operator [itex]\delta (\textbf{X}) = \textbf{X}[/itex] acting on any tangent space (or cotangent space).

This follows from the coordinate expression [itex]\delta^a_b X^b = X^a[/itex] which is true in every coordinate system.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K