I Quotient law and the curl in index notation

SiennaTheGr8
Messages
512
Reaction score
207
TL;DR
In index notation, the curl can be expressed in a way where the quotient law would seem to "fail." There must be a subtlety that I'm missing.
If I'm not mistaken, the curl can be expressed like this in index notation:

##(\nabla \times \vec v)^i = \epsilon^{i j k} \nabla_j v_k = \epsilon^{i j k} (\partial_j v_k - \Gamma^m_{j k} v_m) = \epsilon^{i j k} \partial_j v_k ##

(where the last equality is because ##\epsilon^{i j k}\Gamma^m_{j k}## is both symmetric and anti-symmetric in ##j## and ##k##). But now with ##(\nabla \times \vec v)^i = \epsilon^{i j k} \partial_j v_k##, doesn't the quotient law say that ##\partial_j v_k## is a tensor, even though it obviously isn't? Clearly I'm wrong. Is there a subtlety to the quotient law that I'm missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Quotient law is not applicable here because ##\epsilon## is not an arbitrary tensor.
 
  • Like
Likes SiennaTheGr8 and renormalize
Here is a sketch of deduction of the Lagrange equations by means of the covariance argument. I believe that it is a suitable substitute for the archaic terminology that is employed in most textbooks. Assume we have ##\nu## particles with masses ##m_1,\ldots,m_\nu## and with position vectors $$\boldsymbol r_i=(x^{3(i-1)+1},x^{3(i-1)+2},x^{3(i-1)+3})\in\mathbb{R}^3,\quad i=1,\ldots,\nu.$$ Thus the position of the system is characterized by a vector...