What is the meaning of \textbf{nn} in matrix multiplication?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
5 replies · 4K views
rsq_a
Messages
103
Reaction score
1
I can't figure out what an author means by this expression:

[tex] \textbf{n} \cdot \textbf{e} \cdot (\textbf{I} - \textbf{nn})[/tex]

and

[tex] \left(\textbf{u} - \textbf{U}\right) \cdot (\textbf{I} - \textbf{nn})[/tex]

Here, all I know is that [itex]\textbf{u}[/itex] and [itex]\textbf{U}[/itex] are vectors of length 3. [itex]\textbf{n}[/itex] is a unit normal, so also a vector of length 3. [itex]\textbf{I}[/itex] I'm assuming is a 3x3 identity matrix. The author has also written that [itex]\textbf{e} = 1/2 (\nabla \textbf{u} + (\nabla \textbf{u})^T)[/itex], so I guess that's a 3x3 matrix.

But that what does [itex]\textbf{nn}[/itex] even mean? [itex]\textbf{n}n^T[/itex] makes sense to me (giving a 3x3 matrix).

But then what does it mean to take the dot product of a 3x3 matrix with a 3x3 matrix? Is the author simply referring to matrix multiplication in
[tex] \left(\textbf{u} - \textbf{U}\right) \cdot (\textbf{I} - \textbf{nn}) = \left(\textbf{u} - \textbf{U}\right)(\textbf{I} - \textbf{nn}^T)[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why are you so cryptic about "an author"? Telling us what is the exact context of all this may save our time.
 
arkajad said:
Why are you so cryptic about "an author"? Telling us what is the exact context of all this may save our time.

I didn't see it as relevant. The equation(s) can be found on p.5 http://www.maths.nottingham.ac.uk/personal/pmzjb1/ejam_new.pdf.
 
From other formulas in thise paper lot can be guessed. The dot means simply multiplication of one matrix by another matrix, for instance vector.matrix=vector. I am not sure whether there is a difference between row and columns vectors, but I guess there is one.

I could not decode

[tex]\textbf{e} = 1/2 (\nabla \textbf{u} + (\nabla \textbf{u})^T)[/tex]

but that can be decoded looking somewhere else for "rate of strain tensor".
 
arkajad said:
From other formulas in thise paper lot can be guessed.

Where? In (2.4) and (2.6), for example, dot is used consistently to mean the inner product (i.e. vector and vector).

[tex]\textbf{e} = 1/2 (\nabla \textbf{u} + (\nabla \textbf{u})^T)[/tex]

This is easy. It's a 3x3 vector. The gradient of a vector is the transpose of the jacobian.

What about [itex]\textbf{nn}[/itex]? I asked before how it makes sense to put two 3x1 (or 1x3) vectors together. Moreover, if you are correct, and
 
I guess [itex]\mathbf{nn}[/itex] is the 3x3 matrix [itex]n_in_j[/itex]. So, for instance, [itex]\mathbf{u}\cdot\mathbf{nn}[/itex] would be

[tex]\Sigma_i u_in_in_j[/tex]