Understanding Einstein Notation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the conventions used in Einstein notation, particularly regarding the indexing of variables in tensor equations. Participants explore the implications of starting indices at 0 versus 1 and the distinction between Latin and Greek indices in various texts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that in their understanding, using a Roman letter such as v implies starting at 1, citing an example from Schutz's book where v = 0 is used.
  • Another participant questions whether the letter in question is actually a Greek letter \nu instead of a Roman v, indicating potential confusion.
  • It is proposed by a participant that many notations typically represent a 4-vector, which often starts indexing at 0, and that pairs of indices imply a summation.
  • One participant acknowledges the similarity in appearance between the letters, suggesting it can lead to confusion.
  • Another participant notes that Latin indices usually start with i, j, k, and that conventions may vary between authors regarding the use of Latin and Greek indices.
  • A participant mentions that older texts often use Latin and Greek indices to denote spacelike indices versus those that encompass all four dimensions, while newer texts may adopt abstract index notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the starting index conventions and the interpretation of Latin versus Greek indices. There is no consensus on a single convention, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various texts and conventions, indicating that the discussion is influenced by the specific notations used in different sources. The assumptions underlying these conventions are not fully explored.

schwarzschild
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
I thought that when you used a roman letter such as v that you started at 1 instead of 0. For instance if you had:
[tex]A^v C_{\mu v}[/tex]

Wouldn't that just be: [tex]A^1C_{\mu 1} + A^2C_{\mu 2} + A^3C_{\mu 3}[/tex] ?

(this is one of the problems with a solution from Schutz's book and the solution starts with [tex]v = 0[/tex] )
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure its not a [tex]\nu[/tex] instead of a [tex]v[/tex]?
 
I think in many notations the index normally represents a 4-vector(though it doesn't HAVE to be 4 dimensions), which in some(most?) notations start with 0. Any pairs of indices just implies a sum. I think for everything I've ever done the first index is 0 rather than 1.
 
Wow! Thanks for pointing that out - the two are confusingly similar in appearance :biggrin:.
 
schwarzschild said:
Wow! Thanks for pointing that out - the two are confusingly similar in appearance :biggrin:.

Usually Latin indicies start i,j,k ... if the author has indicated a different convention between Latin and Greek indecies.
 
A lot of older books use the convention that Latin versus Greek indices indicates spacelike indices versus ones that range over all four dimensions. The convention you'll see more commonly in newer books is to use abstract index notation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_index_notation , with Latin indices indicating that they're abstract indices, Greek meaning that they refer to a particular basis.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: cianfa72

Similar threads

  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K