The Levi-Civita Symbol and its Applications in Vector Operations

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Levi-Civita symbol and its applications in vector operations, particularly in relation to the cross product of basis vectors in an orthonormal coordinate system. Participants explore the implications of the summation convention and clarify the conditions under which the Levi-Civita symbol is used.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant introduces the Levi-Civita symbol and its representation of the cross product, questioning the validity of the relationship for cases where indices are not unique.
  • Another participant clarifies that the expression assumes a summation convention, indicating that the cross product can be expressed as a sum over the Levi-Civita symbol.
  • Subsequent replies acknowledge the clarification and emphasize the importance of the double index indicating summation, leading to a correction in the interpretation of the indices.
  • Participants express their ongoing struggles with the summation convention and share resources for better understanding.
  • One participant lists various equations involving the Levi-Civita symbol, indicating common operations and identities related to vector calculus.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for clarification regarding the summation convention and the use of the Levi-Civita symbol, but there is no consensus on the initial misunderstanding of the indices involved in the cross product representation.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the potential confusion arising from the notation and assumptions related to the Levi-Civita symbol, particularly in the context of the summation convention. Specific limitations regarding the interpretation of indices and the conditions for their uniqueness are noted but not resolved.

rudy
Messages
45
Reaction score
9
TL;DR
Trying to check that: [itex]e_i \times e_j = ε_{ijk}e_k[/itex]

I appear to have an inconsistency (or an error)
Hello all,

I was just introduced the Levi-Civita symbol and its utility in vector operations. The textbook I am following claims that, for basis vectors e_1, e_2, e_3 in an orthonormal coordinate system, the symbol can be used to represent the cross product as follows:

e_i \times e_j = ε_{ijk}e_k

So, as a check (and because I have too much time on my hands) I plugged in numbers for i, j, k starting with [1 1 1], [1 1 2] ...

[1 1 1]: e_1 \times e_1 = ε_{111}e_1; correct because ε_{111} = 0
[1 1 2]: e_1 \times e_1 = ε_{112}e_2; correct because ε_{112} = 0
[1 1 3]: e_1 \times e_1 = ε_{113}e_3; correct because ε_{113} = 0

however:

[1 2 1]: e_1 \times e_2 = ε_{121}e_1; incorrect because ε_{121} = 0 and e_1 \times e_2 = e_3

Does anyone know what I am doing wrong? I suppose everyone knows that the cross product must be orthogonal to both vectors, and that this will void any combination of i, j, k where k is equal to either i or j. However that would mean that this relationship is not valid for all cases of i, j, k. In other words there would need to be a subscript saying that "i and j can repeat but k must be unique" or something like that. If anyone can help explain this I'd appreciate it.

-DR
 
Physics news on Phys.org
rudy said:
Summary:: Trying to check that: e_i \times e_j = ε_{ijk}e_k
This assumes the "summation convention" where sums are suppressed. It means:
$$e_i \times e_j = \sum_{k = 1}^{3} ε_{ijk}e_k$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: rudy, troglodyte and etotheipi
Brilliant! Thanks for clearing that up
 
rudy said:
Brilliant! Thanks for clearing that up
PS it's the double ##k## index that tells you there's a sum involved.
 
I see, thanks. So my terms in brackets should really read [1 1 k]; [1 2 k]; etc
 
rudy said:
I see, thanks. So my terms in brackets should really read [1 1 k]; [1 2 k]; etc
It's actually only ##9## equations, not ##27##. What it really, really means is:
$$e_i \times e_j = \sum_{k = 1}^{3} ε_{ijk}e_k \ \ (i, j = 1, 2, 3)$$
 
Appreciate your patience! Still practicing this summation convention notation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
rudy said:
Appreciate your patience! Still practicing this summation convention notation.

I feel your pain, I've been trying to grok this recently also. This page has some good examples.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: rudy
Glad I'm not the only one struggling lol. Thanks for the reference.
 
  • #10
A lot of the questions I've been doing only require a few different tricks. The most common ones I've come across are $$[\vec{u} \times \vec{v}]_i = \epsilon_{ijk} u_j v_k$$ $$\vec u \times \vec v = \epsilon_{ijk} u_j v_k \vec e_i$$ $$\nabla \times \vec v = \epsilon_{ijk} \vec e_i \nabla_j v_k$$ and then some Delta function ones like $$\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{lmk} = \delta_{il}\delta_{jm} - \delta_{im}\delta_{jl}$$ $$\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{ljk} = 2\delta_{il}$$ $$\epsilon_{ijk}\epsilon_{ijk} = 6$$And finally some that that are much more easily remembered, like ##\vec u \cdot \vec v = u_i v_i##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K