cathalcummins
- 43
- 0
Thanks for the help on the other questions.
I am having trouble with another derivation. Unlike the others, it's not abstract whatsoever.
Okay I wish to find the transformation Law for the components of a rank 2 tensor.
Easy, I know: [tex]T: V^* \times V \mapsto \mathbb{R}[/tex]
So
[itex]T = T^i_{\phantom{i} j} e_i \otimes e^j[/itex]
I wish to find
[itex]T^i'_{\phantom{i'} j'}[/itex]
Where the following hold:
[tex]e_{i'}=a^{J}_{\phantom{J} i'} e_J[/tex]
and
[tex]e^{i'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} e^J[/tex]
where, the coefficients are just real numbers. Now [itex]T^i_{\phantom{i} j}=T(e^i, e_j)[/itex] so that:
[itex]T^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} j'}=T(e^{i'}, e_{j'})[/itex]
[itex]=T(b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} e^J, a^{L}_{\phantom{L} j'} e_L)[/itex]
By linearity of [itex]\otimes[/itex] we have:
[itex]=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} a^{L}_{\phantom{L} j'} T( e^J, e_L)[/itex]
[itex]=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} a^{L}_{\phantom{L} j'} T^{J}_{\phantom{J} L}[/itex]
Now my lecturer done a funny thing and said,
"it may be shown that [itex]b=a[/itex]"
which confuses the hell outta me because,
[tex]e_{i'}=a^{J}_{\phantom{J} i'} e_J[/tex]
[tex]e^{i'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} e^J[/tex]
abide by the duality relation so that:
[tex]e^{i'} e_{j'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} e^J a^{K}_{\phantom{K} j'} e_K=\delta^{i'}_{j'}[/tex]
So do the original bases obey their own set of duality relations so that:
[tex]e^{i'} e_{j'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} a^{K}_{\phantom{K} j'} \delta^J_K=\delta^{i'}_{j'}[/tex]
So
[tex]e^{i'} e_{j'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} K} a^{K}_{\phantom{K} j'} =\delta^{i'}_{j'}[/tex]
Is this not the definition of [itex]a[/itex] being the inverse of [itex]b[/itex]. Of course, I know a priori I am wrong as this would give [itex]T^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} j'}=T^{i}_{\phantom{i} j}[/itex] regardless of transformation.
In my definition of [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex], the superindex refers to row and the lower index refers to column.
My gut feeling is that I am using the matrix notation all wrong.
Any takers?
I am having trouble with another derivation. Unlike the others, it's not abstract whatsoever.
Okay I wish to find the transformation Law for the components of a rank 2 tensor.
Easy, I know: [tex]T: V^* \times V \mapsto \mathbb{R}[/tex]
So
[itex]T = T^i_{\phantom{i} j} e_i \otimes e^j[/itex]
I wish to find
[itex]T^i'_{\phantom{i'} j'}[/itex]
Where the following hold:
[tex]e_{i'}=a^{J}_{\phantom{J} i'} e_J[/tex]
and
[tex]e^{i'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} e^J[/tex]
where, the coefficients are just real numbers. Now [itex]T^i_{\phantom{i} j}=T(e^i, e_j)[/itex] so that:
[itex]T^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} j'}=T(e^{i'}, e_{j'})[/itex]
[itex]=T(b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} e^J, a^{L}_{\phantom{L} j'} e_L)[/itex]
By linearity of [itex]\otimes[/itex] we have:
[itex]=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} a^{L}_{\phantom{L} j'} T( e^J, e_L)[/itex]
[itex]=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} a^{L}_{\phantom{L} j'} T^{J}_{\phantom{J} L}[/itex]
Now my lecturer done a funny thing and said,
"it may be shown that [itex]b=a[/itex]"
which confuses the hell outta me because,
[tex]e_{i'}=a^{J}_{\phantom{J} i'} e_J[/tex]
[tex]e^{i'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} e^J[/tex]
abide by the duality relation so that:
[tex]e^{i'} e_{j'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} e^J a^{K}_{\phantom{K} j'} e_K=\delta^{i'}_{j'}[/tex]
So do the original bases obey their own set of duality relations so that:
[tex]e^{i'} e_{j'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} J} a^{K}_{\phantom{K} j'} \delta^J_K=\delta^{i'}_{j'}[/tex]
So
[tex]e^{i'} e_{j'}=b^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} K} a^{K}_{\phantom{K} j'} =\delta^{i'}_{j'}[/tex]
Is this not the definition of [itex]a[/itex] being the inverse of [itex]b[/itex]. Of course, I know a priori I am wrong as this would give [itex]T^{i'}_{\phantom{i'} j'}=T^{i}_{\phantom{i} j}[/itex] regardless of transformation.
In my definition of [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex], the superindex refers to row and the lower index refers to column.
My gut feeling is that I am using the matrix notation all wrong.
Any takers?