Kronecker delta as tensor proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the Kronecker delta is a tensor of type (1,1) and that it maintains the same components across all coordinate systems. Participants clarify that the Kronecker delta transforms according to the defined tensor transformation rules, specifically using the equations for contravariant and covariant tensors. The proof hinges on demonstrating that the transformation yields the same Kronecker delta, confirming its tensor character. A key takeaway is that if an entity behaves like a tensor under transformation, it qualifies as a tensor.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tensor definitions, including contravariant and covariant tensors.
  • Familiarity with coordinate transformation equations in tensor analysis.
  • Knowledge of the Kronecker delta and its mathematical properties.
  • Basic principles of calculus, particularly the chain rule for derivatives.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Kronecker delta in various coordinate systems.
  • Learn about tensor transformation laws for both contravariant and covariant tensors.
  • Explore the implications of tensor rank and type in physics and engineering applications.
  • Investigate the relationship between tensors and linear algebra, focusing on matrix representations.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who are looking to deepen their understanding of tensor analysis and its applications in various fields.

faklif
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The problem straight out of the book reads:
Prove that the Kronecker delta has the tensor character indicated.
Prove also that it is a constant or numerical tensor, that is, it has
the same components in all coordinate systems.

Without a context the first sentence might be a bit weird but to me it is still weird with a context because I can't figure out what it means. In the passage that the question is related to I find no clues so any help is appreciated.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Since I don't even really understand the first part I can'r really do much about that. As for the second part I really don't know much about tensors yet and I can't fit the Kronecker delta with transformations properly so I'm at a loss. Hope someone can help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What is the definition ("character") of a tensor stated in your book?
 
EnumaElish said:
What is the definition ("character") of a tensor stated in your book?

Thanks for your reply! What looks most like a definition to me is:

A contravariant tensor of rank 1 is a set of quantities, written X^a in the x^a coordinate system, associated with a point P, which transforms under a change of coordinates according to
<br /> X&#039;^a=\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x^b}X^b<br />
where the transformation matrix is evaluated at P.

Then a covariant tensor is defined in a similar way but with
<br /> X&#039;_a=\frac{{\partial}x^b}{{\partial}x&#039;^a}X_b<br />

Mixed tensors are also presented and I'm thinking that maybe I'm supposed to show that the delta is a (1,1) tensor which it looks like it would be according to it's indices? Don't really know how to do that though.
 
faklif said:
Mixed tensors are also presented and I'm thinking that maybe I'm supposed to show that the delta is a (1,1) tensor which it looks like it would be according to it's indices?
Yes, that's what you're supposed to do. So make the appropriate transformation on each index. Then you should see a nice way to make use of the chain rule for derivatives.
 
Avodyne said:
Yes, that's what you're supposed to do. So make the appropriate transformation on each index. Then you should see a nice way to make use of the chain rule for derivatives.

Thank you!

<br /> \delta&#039;^a_b=\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x^c}\frac{{\partial}x^d}{{\partial}x&#039;^b}\delta^c_d=\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x^c}\frac{{\partial}x^c}{{\partial}x&#039;^b}=\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x&#039;^b}=\delta^a_b<br />

So that would do it?

Two main things get me here. I have a very poor understanding of what a tensor is. Especially that I don't know much of the difference between a contravariant and covariant one, except how they transform. Then there's my lack of understanding when it comes to proofs. My background being in engineering I'm mostly just used to understanding theorems so that I can use them. So with this as an example what is it that proves that it is a (1,1) tensor? Is it the fact that in the transformation I get back the same thing I started out with? Something like, since it behaves like a tensor it is a tensor? And is what I wrote down above a definition of a tensor?
 
Yes, that's exactly correct. That proves it's a (1,1) tensor. It has the correct coordinate transformation. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. If it behaves like a tensor, it is a tensor.
 
faklif said:
Thank you!

<br /> \delta&#039;^a_b=\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x^c}\frac{{\partial}x^d}{{\partial}x&#039;^b}\delta^c_d=\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x^c}\frac{{\partial}x^c}{{\partial}x&#039;^b}=\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x&#039;^b}=\delta^a_b<br />

the last step -

\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x^c}\frac{{\partial}x^c}{{\partial}x&#039;^b}=\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x&#039;^b}=\delta^a_b<br />

seems quite incorrect to me. Since 'c' is a dummy variable here, over which the expression is summed, hence shouldn't it be :

\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x^c}\frac{{\partial}x^c}{{\partial}x&#039;^b}=\frac{{\partial}x&#039;^a}{{\partial}x&#039;^b} \times D<br />

where D is the Dimension number of tensor space.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
14K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
12K
Replies
2
Views
2K