Tensor Rank vs Type: Explained

Click For Summary
Tensors are classified by type (n, m), indicating covariant and contravariant indices, while rank refers to the number of simple terms needed to express a tensor. The metric tensor is often described as a rank 2 tensor, which actually means it is a tensor field of type (0,2). In general relativity, the rank of a tensor field can vary at different points, contradicting the notion that rank remains constant. The confusion arises from differing definitions of rank, with some sources using it in a way that aligns with matrix rank, while others do not. Ultimately, the terminology surrounding tensor rank and type can lead to misunderstandings in discussions.
ddesai
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Tensors can be of type (n, m), denoting n covariant and m contravariant indicies. Rank is a concept that comes from matrix rank and is basically the number of "simple" terms it takes to write out a tensor. Sometimes, however, I recall seeing or hearing things like "the metric tensor is a rank 2 tensor" and also "the metric is a covariant 2-tensor or type 2 tensor" I assume the two concepts, that of "type" and "rank" are unrelated, but I want another perspective.

Also, in GR mostly we deal with tensor fields as well as tensors. At different points the rank (as in matrix rank) may be different. Is this true?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
When books say "the metric tensor is a rank 2 tensor" they really mean it's a tensor field of type (0,2). In this context rank doesn't mean the dimension of the image of a linear operator acting on a vector space.
 
Rank = n+m. The tensors of a tensor field will always be of the same type. For example you wouldn't have field that was vector-valued at some points and scalar-valued at others.
 
@jcsd. That's clear. But you use the term "Rank" in a different way than for example, this paper: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~matilde/WeitzMa10Abstract.pdf. If we assume that rank is defined as it is in this paper, then can you still say it doesn't change as you move from point to point?

@Newton. So then folks mix the terminology.
 
ddesai said:
@jcsd. That's clear. But you use the term "Rank" in a different way than for example, this paper: http://www.its.caltech.edu/~matilde/WeitzMa10Abstract.pdf. If we assume that rank is defined as it is in this paper, then can you still say it doesn't change as you move from point to point?

@Newton. So then folks mix the terminology.

I completely missed the analogy with matrix rank. I suppose the metric must always be rank 4 for this meaning of rank as it has a non-zero determinant. I also would guess that the rank of a tensor field could change from point to point, for example in any tensor field that was zero at some point, but wasn't a zero tensor field.
 
MOVING CLOCKS In this section, we show that clocks moving at high speeds run slowly. We construct a clock, called a light clock, using a stick of proper lenght ##L_0##, and two mirrors. The two mirrors face each other, and a pulse of light bounces back and forth betweem them. Each time the light pulse strikes one of the mirrors, say the lower mirror, the clock is said to tick. Between successive ticks the light pulse travels a distance ##2L_0## in the proper reference of frame of the clock...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K