Tensor Rank vs Type: Explained

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.
 
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
Back
Top