Proving (A_{ik}B_{kj})_{mm} = (A_{ki}B_{jk})_{mm}: Index Notation Question

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving the equality (A_{ik}B_{kj})_{mm} = (A_{ki}B_{jk})_{mm} using index notation. Participants clarify that both sides represent the trace of the product of matrices A and B, which is invariant under cyclic permutations. The conversation also touches on the decomposition of matrices into symmetric and anti-symmetric parts, confirming that the equality holds for both cases. Notation and the use of Einstein summation convention are emphasized for clarity. Ultimately, it is established that the two expressions are indeed equal due to the properties of the trace operation.
hellomrrobot
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I am having trouble showing that ##(A_{ik}B_{kj})_{mm} = (A_{ki}B_{jk})_{mm}## Wouldn't the right side end up having a different outcome? Or can we assume its symmetric?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hellomrrobot said:
I am having trouble showing that ##(A_{ik}B_{kj})_{mm} = (A_{ki}B_{jk})_{mm}##Wouldn't the right side end up having a different outcome? Or can we assume its symmetric?
It is true for the anti-symmetric part also because the sign change cancels.
 
Mentz114 said:
It is true for the anti-symmetric part also because the sign change cancels.

anti-symmetric?
 
hellomrrobot said:
anti-symmetric?
Yes, I think so. A and B can be decomposed into symmetric and anti-symmetric parts.
For the antisymmetric part
##A_{ik}B_{kj}=(-A_{ki})(-B_{jk})##

[Edit]

Is there a 'raised' index here ?

##{A_i}^k B_{kj}##
 
hellomrrobot said:
I am having trouble showing that ##(A_{ik}B_{kj})_{mm} = (A_{ki}B_{jk})_{mm}##Wouldn't the right side end up having a different outcome? Or can we assume its symmetric?
It would help if you would explain your notation.

I suppose that you are using Einstein summation convention. And that when you write (A_{ik}B_{kj}) you mean, the matrix whose i,j element is sum_k (A_{ik}B_{kj}). In other words, the ij element of the matrix AB. Now you want to sum over m the m,m elements of that matrix, so you are talking about trace(AB).

Similarly on the right hand side, replace i and j both by m and m, sum over m and sum over k, and you see that what you have written is just trace(AB).
 
gill1109 said:
It would help if you would explain your notation.

I suppose that you are using Einstein summation convention. And that when you write (A_{ik}B_{kj}) you mean, the matrix whose i,j element is sum_k (A_{ik}B_{kj}). In other words, the ij element of the matrix AB. Now you want to sum over m the m,m elements of that matrix, so you are talking about trace(AB).

Similarly on the right hand side, replace i and j both by m and m, sum over m and sum over k, and you see that what you have written is just trace(AB).

Well, I would say that the right hand side is trace(BA), but that is always equal to trace(AB).
 
stevendaryl said:
Well, I would say that the right hand side is trace(BA), but that is always equal to trace(AB).
Thank you! You are right.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
11K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K