1. PF Contest - Win "Conquering the Physics GRE" book! Click Here to Enter
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Tensor contraction proof

  1. Feb 3, 2010 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Show that the definition [of tensor contraction]

    [tex] A^{ae}{}_{cde} = u^a \nu^e \sigma_c \tau_d \omega_e + w^a x^e \zeta_c \eta_d \xi_e + ... [/tex]


    [tex] A^{im}{}_{klm} \equiv \sum_{m=0}^{n-1} A^{im}{}_{klm} [/tex]

    first by looking at tensors of the form [tex] u^a \sigma_b [/tex], then of the form [tex] u^a...\nu^b \sigma_c... \tau_d [/tex], and finally of linear combinations of these.

    2. Relevant equations

    We're working in Minkowski space, so we have n basis vectors.

    3. The attempt at a solution
    I guess I've been thinking I'll just expand into a basis. Does that make sense for this? Here's what happens (if I'm getting notation correctly):

    [tex] A^a_b = u^a \sigma_b = a^a_i e^i a_b^j e_j [/tex]

    so if a = b = m, then

    [tex] A^m_m = a^m_i e^i a^j_m e_j = a^m_i a^j_m \delta^i_j [/tex]

    and then (this is the part I'm not sure about...)

    [tex] A^m_m \equiv \sum_m a^m_i a^j_m \delta^i_j = \sum_m A^m_m [/tex]

    If that is correct I have no problems generalizing to higher rank tensors, just wasn't sure if the sum was introduced correctly. I guess I'm thinking that this is only non-zero for i = j, and then we can sum over m to get all the components... is that right?
  2. jcsd
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?
Draft saved Draft deleted