Summation Convention in Einstein Notation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the summation convention in Einstein notation, particularly regarding how summations should be applied to indices in tensor equations. Participants explore the implications of different interpretations of summation in the context of a specific equation from Wikipedia.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether summation in Einstein notation should start from the first occurrence of an index or from the beginning of the equation.
  • Another participant asserts that each term in an expression is summed individually, providing examples to illustrate this point.
  • There is a discussion about whether certain expressions can be combined under a single summation, with some participants agreeing that it works in simple cases but not in more complex ones.
  • A participant attempts to clarify the meaning of a specific equation by proposing a reformulation involving summations, which is met with skepticism regarding its correctness.
  • Concerns are raised about the readability of the proposed reformulation, with one participant expressing a desire for clarity and correctness.
  • A final comment emphasizes the importance of adhering to standard notation in physics, suggesting that deviations may lead to misunderstandings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to interpret summation in Einstein notation, with no consensus reached on the correct approach. Some agree on the individual summation of terms, while others challenge the validity of combining terms under a single summation.

Contextual Notes

Participants do not fully resolve the mathematical implications of their claims, and there are indications of missing assumptions regarding the structure of the equations discussed.

olgerm
Gold Member
Messages
536
Reaction score
37
I got another basic question: should the summation in einstein notation start from first occurrence of index or in beginning of equation?
For eampledoes this equation ##R_{\alpha \beta }={R^{\rho }}_{\alpha \rho \beta }=\partial _{\rho }{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\beta\alpha }-\partial _{\beta }{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\rho \alpha }+{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\rho \lambda }{\Gamma ^{\lambda }}_{\beta \alpha }-{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\beta \lambda }{\Gamma ^{\lambda }}_{\rho \alpha }## from wikipedia mean:
## \sum_{j_1=0}^D(\sum_{j_2=0}^D(\frac{\partial{\Gamma ^{j_1}}_{\beta \alpha }}{\partial x^{j_1}}-\frac{{\Gamma^{j_1}}_{j_1 \alpha}}{\partial x^{\beta}}+{\Gamma^{j_1}}_{j_1 j_2}{\Gamma ^{j_2}}_{\beta \alpha }-{\Gamma ^{j_1}}_{\beta j_2 }{\Gamma^{j_2}}_{j_1 \alpha }))##
or
##\sum_{j_1=0}^D(\frac{\partial{\Gamma ^{j_1}}_{\beta \alpha }}{\partial x^{j_1}}-\frac{{\Gamma^{j_1}}_{j_1 \alpha}}{\partial x^{\beta}}+\sum_{j_2=0}^D({\Gamma^{j_1}}_{j_1 j_2}{\Gamma ^{j_2}}_{\beta \alpha }-{\Gamma ^{j_1}}_{\beta j_2 }{\Gamma^{j_2}}_{j_1 \alpha }))##?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
olgerm said:
I got another basic question: should the summation in einstein notation start from first occurrence of index or in beginning of equation?
Neither. Each individual term is summed by itself: ##A^iB_i+P^kQ_k## is to be read as##\sum_iA^iB_i+\sum_kP^kQ_k##
 
Nugatory said:
Neither. Each individual term is summed by itself: ##A^iB_i+P^kQ_k## is to be read as##\sum_iA^iB_i+\sum_kP^kQ_k##
so it is same as last one beacuse ##\sum_i(A^iB_i)+\sum_k(P^kQ_k)=\sum_i(A^iB_i+P^iQ_i)##?
 
olgerm said:
so it is same as last one beacuse ##\sum_i(A^iB_i)+\sum_k(P^kQ_k)=\sum_i(A^iB_i+P^iQ_i)##?
In this particular case, yes, that just happens to work. In more complex expressions you won't be able to combine terms under one summation the way you're trying to do. Consider, for example, ##A^iB_i+P^{ij}Q_{ij}## - the first term is a four-element summation and the second is a sixteen-element summation.
 
Nugatory said:
Consider, for example, ##A^iB_i+P^{ij}Q_{ij}##
if every term has its own summation it is ##\sum_{i=0}^D(A^iB_i)+\sum_{i=0}^D(\sum_{j=0}^D(P^{ij}Q_{ij}))=\sum_{i=0}^D(A^iB_i+\sum_{j=0}^D(P^{ij}Q_{ij}))##?

Can you say clearly whether it is true that the equation ##R_{\alpha \beta }={R^{\rho }}_{\alpha \rho \beta }=\partial _{\rho }{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\beta\alpha }-\partial _{\beta }{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\rho \alpha }+{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\rho \lambda }{\Gamma ^{\lambda }}_{\beta \alpha }-{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\beta \lambda }{\Gamma ^{\lambda }}_{\rho \alpha }## from wikipedia means:
##\sum_{j_1=0}^D(\frac{\partial{\Gamma ^{j_1}}_{\beta \alpha }}{\partial x^{j_1}}-\frac{{\Gamma^{j_1}}_{j_1 \alpha}}{\partial x^{\beta}}+\sum_{j_2=0}^D({\Gamma^{j_1}}_{j_1 j_2}{\Gamma ^{j_2}}_{\beta \alpha }-{\Gamma ^{j_1}}_{\beta j_2 }{\Gamma^{j_2}}_{j_1 \alpha }))##?
 
Last edited:
olgerm said:
Can you say clearly whether it is true that the equation ##R_{\alpha \beta }={R^{\rho }}_{\alpha \rho \beta }=\partial _{\rho }{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\beta\alpha }-\partial _{\beta }{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\rho \alpha }+{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\rho \lambda }{\Gamma ^{\lambda }}_{\beta \alpha }-{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\beta \lambda }{\Gamma ^{\lambda }}_{\rho \alpha }## from wikipedia means:
##\sum_{j_1=0}^D(\frac{\partial{\Gamma ^{j_1}}_{\beta \alpha }}{\partial x^{j_1}}-\frac{{\Gamma^{j_1}}_{j_1 \alpha}}{\partial x^{\beta}}+\sum_{j_2=0}^D({\Gamma^{j_1}}_{j_1 j_2}{\Gamma ^{j_2}}_{\beta \alpha }-{\Gamma ^{j_1}}_{\beta j_2 }{\Gamma^{j_2}}_{j_1 \alpha }))##?
I can say clearly that it means$$R_{\alpha \beta }={R^{\rho }}_{\alpha \rho \beta }=\sum_\rho\partial _{\rho }{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\beta\alpha }-\sum_\rho\partial _{\beta }{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\rho \alpha }+\sum_{\rho,\lambda}{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\rho \lambda }{\Gamma ^{\lambda }}_{\beta \alpha }-\sum_{\lambda,\rho}{\Gamma ^{\rho }}_{\beta \lambda }{\Gamma ^{\lambda }}_{\rho \alpha }$$I haven't checked your algebra, but it is plausible that you've found a valid way of obscuring manipulating the formula.
 
Nugatory said:
obscuring
more easily readable for me. waiting foranswer whether it's correct or not.
 
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
olgerm said:
more easily readable for me. waiting foranswer whether it's correct or not.

If you insist on writing things differently from the way everybody else writes them, you can't expect everybody else to check your work. We have standard ways of writing things in physics for a reason.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and weirdoguy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
943
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K