Solving Confusion with Summation Convention - Ian

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter iansullivan88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convention Summation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the summation convention in tensor calculus, specifically regarding the Levi-Civita symbol and index notation. Ian presents an expression involving the Levi-Civita symbol, \(\epsilon_{ijk}\), and questions the validity of manipulating indices that appear multiple times. The key conclusion is that an index cannot be repeated more than twice; doing so leads to incorrect interpretations of the expression, as clarified by the responses in the forum.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of tensor calculus and index notation
  • Familiarity with the Levi-Civita symbol (\(\epsilon_{ijk}\))
  • Knowledge of summation convention and its rules
  • Basic principles of linear algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Levi-Civita symbol in detail
  • Learn about the implications of index notation in tensor operations
  • Explore common mistakes in summation convention and how to avoid them
  • Review linear algebra concepts related to vector spaces and transformations
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering who are working with tensor analysis and need clarity on the summation convention and index manipulation.

iansullivan88
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello, I think I am fundamentally confused with summation convention. For example, if I have

[itex] \epsilon_{ijk}x_j\delta_{jk}[/itex]

Can I sift the levi civita and get

[itex] \epsilon_{ijj}x_j=0[/itex]

or sift x and get

[itex] \epsilon_{ijk}x_k\not=0[/itex]

Each gives a different answer. What mistake am I making here?
Thank you,

Ian
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The fundamental confusion is that you've got an index repeated three times. This is incorrect: an index can only appear once or twice, the latter meaning it is summed over.
 
Ah I see - thanks very much

Ian
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
11K