Proving the contracted epsilon identity

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter demonelite123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Epsilon Identity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the contracted epsilon identity involving the Levi Civita symbol, specifically the equation ε_{ijk}ε_{lmn} = δ_{il}(δ_{jm}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{km}) - δ_{im}(δ_{jl}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{kl}) + δ_{in}(δ_{jl}δ_{km} - δ_{jm}δ_{kl}). The user encountered an unexpected negative sign in their calculations after contracting the first index, leading to confusion. The resolution highlighted that the Kronecker delta δ_{ii} equals 3, not 1, which corrected the leading factor in the first term of the equation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Levi Civita symbol and its properties
  • Familiarity with Kronecker delta notation and its implications
  • Basic knowledge of tensor algebra
  • Experience with mathematical proofs and identities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Levi Civita symbol in detail
  • Learn about tensor contraction techniques in tensor algebra
  • Explore the implications of the Kronecker delta in multi-index notation
  • Review examples of contracted identities in mathematical physics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying advanced algebra or tensor calculus who are interested in understanding the contracted epsilon identity and its applications.

demonelite123
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
proving the "contracted epsilon" identity

in the wikipedia page for the Levi Civita symbol, they have a definition of the product of 2 permutation symbols as: ε_{ijk}ε_{lmn} = δ_{il}(δ_{jm}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{km}) - δ_{im}(δ_{jl}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{kl}) + δ_{in}(δ_{jl}δ_{km} - δ_{jm}δ_{kl}) and by contracting the first index in the product (so that i = l) it should be the case that i get δ_{jm}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{km}.

however, when i actually replace all the i's with l's i get: ε_{ijk}ε_{imn} = δ_{ii}(δ_{jm}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{km}) - δ_{lm}(δ_{jl}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{kl}) + δ_{ln}(δ_{jl}δ_{km} - δ_{jm}δ_{kl}) and then using the fact that δ will be 0 unless both of its indices match, i get ε_{ijk}ε_{imn} = (δ_{jm}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{km}) - (δ_{jm}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{km}) + (δ_{jn}δ_{km} - δ_{jm}δ_{kn}),

but this turns out to be - (δ_{jm}δ_{kn} - δ_{jn}δ_{km}) which is the negative of the answer that I expected. did i do something wrong? I don't know why i picked up an extra minus sign.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Your problem is that \delta_{ii} = 3, not 1. The first term should have a leading factor of 3.
 


Muphrid said:
Your problem is that \delta_{ii} = 3, not 1. The first term should have a leading factor of 3.

doh! thank you for pointing that out.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
25K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
14K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K