Mixing
How to reconcile these two tensor notations?
$begingroup$
How can I connect the symbols, i.e. the notation, preferably in English or with a 2 x 2 (or 3 x 3) matrix example, between an order 2 tensor expressed as:
A $(p,q)$ tensor, $T$ is a MULTILINEAR MAP that takes $p$ copies of $V^*$ and $q$ copies of $V$ and maps multilinearly (linear in each entry) to $k:$
$$T: underset{p}{underbrace{V^*times cdots times V^*}}times underset{q}{underbrace{Vtimes cdots times Vtimes V}} overset{sim}rightarrow Ktag 1$$
and
$$large mathbf{T}= T_{ij};mathbf{hat e_i}otimesmathbf{hat e_j}tag 2$$
?
Would $large T_{ij}$ in Eq.2, which I guess can be interpreted as coefficients or entries in a matrix) be the $V^*$ elements of the dual space (functionals), while the $mathbf{hat e_i}$ and $mathbf{hat e_j}$ are the vectors $V$? Are the $times$ in Eq.1 Cartesian products (presumably they can't be cross-products...)? Are the $V$'s in Eq. 1 just vectors, or are they elements of the double dual? Are the indices $(p,q)$ in Eq.1 the equivalent of $(i,j)$ in Eq.2?
I realize Eq. 1 is probably more general, but it should be possible to reduce it to the more simple case of Eq.2, again just to be able to enunciate what the symbols are. Do both equations produce a field element?
linear-algebra tensors
edited Jan 15 at 1:44
paulellis
134
asked Feb 12 '17 at 17:32
Antoni ParelladaAntoni Parellada
3,04721341
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How can I connect the symbols, i.e. the notation, preferably in English or with a 2 x 2 (or 3 x 3) matrix example, between an order 2 tensor expressed as:
A $(p,q)$ tensor, $T$ is a MULTILINEAR MAP that takes $p$ copies of $V^*$ and $q$ copies of $V$ and maps multilinearly (linear in each entry) to $k:$
$$T: underset{p}{underbrace{V^*times cdots times V^*}}times underset{q}{underbrace{Vtimes cdots times Vtimes V}} overset{sim}rightarrow Ktag 1$$
and
$$large mathbf{T}= T_{ij};mathbf{hat e_i}otimesmathbf{hat e_j}tag 2$$
?
Would $large T_{ij}$ in Eq.2, which I guess can be interpreted as coefficients or entries in a matrix) be the $V^*$ elements of the dual space (functionals), while the $mathbf{hat e_i}$ and $mathbf{hat e_j}$ are the vectors $V$? Are the $times$ in Eq.1 Cartesian products (presumably they can't be cross-products...)? Are the $V$'s in Eq. 1 just vectors, or are they elements of the double dual? Are the indices $(p,q)$ in Eq.1 the equivalent of $(i,j)$ in Eq.2?
I realize Eq. 1 is probably more general, but it should be possible to reduce it to the more simple case of Eq.2, again just to be able to enunciate what the symbols are. Do both equations produce a field element?
linear-algebra tensors
edited Jan 15 at 1:44
paulellis
134
asked Feb 12 '17 at 17:32
Antoni ParelladaAntoni Parellada
3,04721341
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I realize that I am asking about the same issue from different perspectives, and that I haven't accepted any answers so far. It is extremely rare for me not to "accept", but I am hoping to get an answer that at least anchors the problem, and charts the road ahead in the understanding of this issue. After that, I will go back and accept the previous answers.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:35
$begingroup$
In case it's helpful, the first time I understood tensors (including the issues that seem to be puzzling you) was while working through Chapter 4 of Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. Hwang
Feb 12 '17 at 17:55
$begingroup$
@AndrewD.Hwang I have posted 3 questions on this topic over the weekend. Your answer and follow-up have been great, so I would like to bring to your attention a bounty of hard-earned 100 point I just posted on my original question on this topic.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 20:21
1
$begingroup$
see a version math.stackexchange.com/questions/1545870/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Or this another math.stackexchange.com/questions/1750015/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 22:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How can I connect the symbols, i.e. the notation, preferably in English or with a 2 x 2 (or 3 x 3) matrix example, between an order 2 tensor expressed as:
A $(p,q)$ tensor, $T$ is a MULTILINEAR MAP that takes $p$ copies of $V^*$ and $q$ copies of $V$ and maps multilinearly (linear in each entry) to $k:$
$$T: underset{p}{underbrace{V^*times cdots times V^*}}times underset{q}{underbrace{Vtimes cdots times Vtimes V}} overset{sim}rightarrow Ktag 1$$
and
$$large mathbf{T}= T_{ij};mathbf{hat e_i}otimesmathbf{hat e_j}tag 2$$
?
Would $large T_{ij}$ in Eq.2, which I guess can be interpreted as coefficients or entries in a matrix) be the $V^*$ elements of the dual space (functionals), while the $mathbf{hat e_i}$ and $mathbf{hat e_j}$ are the vectors $V$? Are the $times$ in Eq.1 Cartesian products (presumably they can't be cross-products...)? Are the $V$'s in Eq. 1 just vectors, or are they elements of the double dual? Are the indices $(p,q)$ in Eq.1 the equivalent of $(i,j)$ in Eq.2?
I realize Eq. 1 is probably more general, but it should be possible to reduce it to the more simple case of Eq.2, again just to be able to enunciate what the symbols are. Do both equations produce a field element?
linear-algebra tensors
edited Jan 15 at 1:44
paulellis
134
asked Feb 12 '17 at 17:32
Antoni ParelladaAntoni Parellada
3,04721341
$endgroup$
How can I connect the symbols, i.e. the notation, preferably in English or with a 2 x 2 (or 3 x 3) matrix example, between an order 2 tensor expressed as:
A $(p,q)$ tensor, $T$ is a MULTILINEAR MAP that takes $p$ copies of $V^*$ and $q$ copies of $V$ and maps multilinearly (linear in each entry) to $k:$
$$T: underset{p}{underbrace{V^*times cdots times V^*}}times underset{q}{underbrace{Vtimes cdots times Vtimes V}} overset{sim}rightarrow Ktag 1$$
and
$$large mathbf{T}= T_{ij};mathbf{hat e_i}otimesmathbf{hat e_j}tag 2$$
?
Would $large T_{ij}$ in Eq.2, which I guess can be interpreted as coefficients or entries in a matrix) be the $V^*$ elements of the dual space (functionals), while the $mathbf{hat e_i}$ and $mathbf{hat e_j}$ are the vectors $V$? Are the $times$ in Eq.1 Cartesian products (presumably they can't be cross-products...)? Are the $V$'s in Eq. 1 just vectors, or are they elements of the double dual? Are the indices $(p,q)$ in Eq.1 the equivalent of $(i,j)$ in Eq.2?
I realize Eq. 1 is probably more general, but it should be possible to reduce it to the more simple case of Eq.2, again just to be able to enunciate what the symbols are. Do both equations produce a field element?
linear-algebra tensors
linear-algebra tensors
edited Jan 15 at 1:44
paulellis
134
asked Feb 12 '17 at 17:32
Antoni ParelladaAntoni Parellada
3,04721341
edited Jan 15 at 1:44
paulellis
134
asked Feb 12 '17 at 17:32
Antoni ParelladaAntoni Parellada
3,04721341
edited Jan 15 at 1:44
paulellis
134
edited Jan 15 at 1:44
paulellis
134
edited Jan 15 at 1:44
paulellis
134
134
asked Feb 12 '17 at 17:32
Antoni ParelladaAntoni Parellada
3,04721341
asked Feb 12 '17 at 17:32
Antoni ParelladaAntoni Parellada
3,04721341
asked Feb 12 '17 at 17:32
Antoni ParelladaAntoni Parellada
3,04721341
3,04721341
$begingroup$
I realize that I am asking about the same issue from different perspectives, and that I haven't accepted any answers so far. It is extremely rare for me not to "accept", but I am hoping to get an answer that at least anchors the problem, and charts the road ahead in the understanding of this issue. After that, I will go back and accept the previous answers.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:35
$begingroup$
In case it's helpful, the first time I understood tensors (including the issues that seem to be puzzling you) was while working through Chapter 4 of Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. Hwang
Feb 12 '17 at 17:55
$begingroup$
@AndrewD.Hwang I have posted 3 questions on this topic over the weekend. Your answer and follow-up have been great, so I would like to bring to your attention a bounty of hard-earned 100 point I just posted on my original question on this topic.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 20:21
1
$begingroup$
see a version math.stackexchange.com/questions/1545870/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Or this another math.stackexchange.com/questions/1750015/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 22:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I realize that I am asking about the same issue from different perspectives, and that I haven't accepted any answers so far. It is extremely rare for me not to "accept", but I am hoping to get an answer that at least anchors the problem, and charts the road ahead in the understanding of this issue. After that, I will go back and accept the previous answers.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:35
$begingroup$
In case it's helpful, the first time I understood tensors (including the issues that seem to be puzzling you) was while working through Chapter 4 of Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. Hwang
Feb 12 '17 at 17:55
$begingroup$
@AndrewD.Hwang I have posted 3 questions on this topic over the weekend. Your answer and follow-up have been great, so I would like to bring to your attention a bounty of hard-earned 100 point I just posted on my original question on this topic.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 20:21
1
$begingroup$
see a version math.stackexchange.com/questions/1545870/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Or this another math.stackexchange.com/questions/1750015/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 22:37
$begingroup$
I realize that I am asking about the same issue from different perspectives, and that I haven't accepted any answers so far. It is extremely rare for me not to "accept", but I am hoping to get an answer that at least anchors the problem, and charts the road ahead in the understanding of this issue. After that, I will go back and accept the previous answers.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:35
$begingroup$
I realize that I am asking about the same issue from different perspectives, and that I haven't accepted any answers so far. It is extremely rare for me not to "accept", but I am hoping to get an answer that at least anchors the problem, and charts the road ahead in the understanding of this issue. After that, I will go back and accept the previous answers.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:35
$begingroup$
In case it's helpful, the first time I understood tensors (including the issues that seem to be puzzling you) was while working through Chapter 4 of Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. Hwang
Feb 12 '17 at 17:55
$begingroup$
In case it's helpful, the first time I understood tensors (including the issues that seem to be puzzling you) was while working through Chapter 4 of Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. Hwang
Feb 12 '17 at 17:55
$begingroup$
@AndrewD.Hwang I have posted 3 questions on this topic over the weekend. Your answer and follow-up have been great, so I would like to bring to your attention a bounty of hard-earned 100 point I just posted on my original question on this topic.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 20:21
$begingroup$
@AndrewD.Hwang I have posted 3 questions on this topic over the weekend. Your answer and follow-up have been great, so I would like to bring to your attention a bounty of hard-earned 100 point I just posted on my original question on this topic.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 20:21
1
1
$begingroup$
see a version math.stackexchange.com/questions/1545870/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 21:22
$begingroup$
see a version math.stackexchange.com/questions/1545870/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Or this another math.stackexchange.com/questions/1750015/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 22:37
$begingroup$
Or this another math.stackexchange.com/questions/1750015/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 22:37
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The $times$ in eq. 1 are Cartesian products. Note that, in finite dimensions, $V^{**}=V$, so vectors can be seen as elements of the double dual.
Now, if $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ denotes the space of $(p,q)$ tensors over a vector space $V$, $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ is a vector space, and if we pick ${e_1, cdots, e_n}$ a basis for $V$, and ${omega_1, cdots, omega_n}$ the dual basis, we can construct a basis for $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ with the elements:
$$e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q}$$
with ${i_1, ..., i_p, j_1, ..., j_q}in{1,...,n}$.
So if $Tin mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$, then it would be
begin{equation} T=sum lambda_{i_1, cdots, i_p}^{j_1, cdots, j_q} e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q} end{equation}
Equation 2 is the particular case of the previous equation for $mathcal T^{(0,2)}(V)$ (we will write, instead of $i_1,i_2$, $i,j$):
$$T=lambda_{ij} omega^i otimes omega^j$$
As you only have two indices, you can form a matrix with the numbers $(lambda_{ij})$.
answered Feb 12 '17 at 17:46
A. Salguero-AlarcónA. Salguero-Alarcón
3,277319
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is the $0$ in $mathcal T^{(2,0)}(V)$? And the $w$'s in the final expression have supraindices, as opposed to subindices in Eq.2...
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:50
$begingroup$
That means that your tensor is $T:Vtimes V longrightarrow K$, it is, you won't take any copies of $V^*$. With your notation, it would be $mathcal T^{(0,2)}$. Let me fix it.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:51
$begingroup$
Why is your last expression different from Eq.2 (sub- vs. supra- indices)?
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:53
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter where you put the indices. If you are working with a $(p,q)$ tensor, it's common to write them as I've done: sub for $e$'s, and supra for $omega$'s. But it's just for the sake of clarity. $$T=lambda_{ij} omega_i otimes omega_j$$ is perfect.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, both notations mean the same. No matter where you write the indices.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 18:05
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2141112%2fhow-to-reconcile-these-two-tensor-notations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The $times$ in eq. 1 are Cartesian products. Note that, in finite dimensions, $V^{**}=V$, so vectors can be seen as elements of the double dual.
Now, if $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ denotes the space of $(p,q)$ tensors over a vector space $V$, $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ is a vector space, and if we pick ${e_1, cdots, e_n}$ a basis for $V$, and ${omega_1, cdots, omega_n}$ the dual basis, we can construct a basis for $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ with the elements:
$$e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q}$$
with ${i_1, ..., i_p, j_1, ..., j_q}in{1,...,n}$.
So if $Tin mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$, then it would be
begin{equation} T=sum lambda_{i_1, cdots, i_p}^{j_1, cdots, j_q} e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q} end{equation}
Equation 2 is the particular case of the previous equation for $mathcal T^{(0,2)}(V)$ (we will write, instead of $i_1,i_2$, $i,j$):
$$T=lambda_{ij} omega^i otimes omega^j$$
As you only have two indices, you can form a matrix with the numbers $(lambda_{ij})$.
answered Feb 12 '17 at 17:46
A. Salguero-AlarcónA. Salguero-Alarcón
3,277319
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is the $0$ in $mathcal T^{(2,0)}(V)$? And the $w$'s in the final expression have supraindices, as opposed to subindices in Eq.2...
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:50
$begingroup$
That means that your tensor is $T:Vtimes V longrightarrow K$, it is, you won't take any copies of $V^*$. With your notation, it would be $mathcal T^{(0,2)}$. Let me fix it.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:51
$begingroup$
Why is your last expression different from Eq.2 (sub- vs. supra- indices)?
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:53
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter where you put the indices. If you are working with a $(p,q)$ tensor, it's common to write them as I've done: sub for $e$'s, and supra for $omega$'s. But it's just for the sake of clarity. $$T=lambda_{ij} omega_i otimes omega_j$$ is perfect.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, both notations mean the same. No matter where you write the indices.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 18:05
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The $times$ in eq. 1 are Cartesian products. Note that, in finite dimensions, $V^{**}=V$, so vectors can be seen as elements of the double dual.
Now, if $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ denotes the space of $(p,q)$ tensors over a vector space $V$, $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ is a vector space, and if we pick ${e_1, cdots, e_n}$ a basis for $V$, and ${omega_1, cdots, omega_n}$ the dual basis, we can construct a basis for $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ with the elements:
$$e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q}$$
with ${i_1, ..., i_p, j_1, ..., j_q}in{1,...,n}$.
So if $Tin mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$, then it would be
begin{equation} T=sum lambda_{i_1, cdots, i_p}^{j_1, cdots, j_q} e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q} end{equation}
Equation 2 is the particular case of the previous equation for $mathcal T^{(0,2)}(V)$ (we will write, instead of $i_1,i_2$, $i,j$):
$$T=lambda_{ij} omega^i otimes omega^j$$
As you only have two indices, you can form a matrix with the numbers $(lambda_{ij})$.
answered Feb 12 '17 at 17:46
A. Salguero-AlarcónA. Salguero-Alarcón
3,277319
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What is the $0$ in $mathcal T^{(2,0)}(V)$? And the $w$'s in the final expression have supraindices, as opposed to subindices in Eq.2...
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:50
$begingroup$
That means that your tensor is $T:Vtimes V longrightarrow K$, it is, you won't take any copies of $V^*$. With your notation, it would be $mathcal T^{(0,2)}$. Let me fix it.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:51
$begingroup$
Why is your last expression different from Eq.2 (sub- vs. supra- indices)?
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:53
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter where you put the indices. If you are working with a $(p,q)$ tensor, it's common to write them as I've done: sub for $e$'s, and supra for $omega$'s. But it's just for the sake of clarity. $$T=lambda_{ij} omega_i otimes omega_j$$ is perfect.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, both notations mean the same. No matter where you write the indices.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 18:05
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The $times$ in eq. 1 are Cartesian products. Note that, in finite dimensions, $V^{**}=V$, so vectors can be seen as elements of the double dual.
Now, if $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ denotes the space of $(p,q)$ tensors over a vector space $V$, $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ is a vector space, and if we pick ${e_1, cdots, e_n}$ a basis for $V$, and ${omega_1, cdots, omega_n}$ the dual basis, we can construct a basis for $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ with the elements:
$$e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q}$$
with ${i_1, ..., i_p, j_1, ..., j_q}in{1,...,n}$.
So if $Tin mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$, then it would be
begin{equation} T=sum lambda_{i_1, cdots, i_p}^{j_1, cdots, j_q} e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q} end{equation}
Equation 2 is the particular case of the previous equation for $mathcal T^{(0,2)}(V)$ (we will write, instead of $i_1,i_2$, $i,j$):
$$T=lambda_{ij} omega^i otimes omega^j$$
As you only have two indices, you can form a matrix with the numbers $(lambda_{ij})$.
answered Feb 12 '17 at 17:46
A. Salguero-AlarcónA. Salguero-Alarcón
3,277319
$endgroup$
The $times$ in eq. 1 are Cartesian products. Note that, in finite dimensions, $V^{**}=V$, so vectors can be seen as elements of the double dual.
Now, if $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ denotes the space of $(p,q)$ tensors over a vector space $V$, $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ is a vector space, and if we pick ${e_1, cdots, e_n}$ a basis for $V$, and ${omega_1, cdots, omega_n}$ the dual basis, we can construct a basis for $mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$ with the elements:
$$e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q}$$
with ${i_1, ..., i_p, j_1, ..., j_q}in{1,...,n}$.
So if $Tin mathcal T^{(p,q)}(V)$, then it would be
begin{equation} T=sum lambda_{i_1, cdots, i_p}^{j_1, cdots, j_q} e_{i_1} otimes cdots otimes e_{i_p} otimes omega^{j_1} otimes cdots otimes omega^{j_q} end{equation}
Equation 2 is the particular case of the previous equation for $mathcal T^{(0,2)}(V)$ (we will write, instead of $i_1,i_2$, $i,j$):
$$T=lambda_{ij} omega^i otimes omega^j$$
As you only have two indices, you can form a matrix with the numbers $(lambda_{ij})$.
answered Feb 12 '17 at 17:46
A. Salguero-AlarcónA. Salguero-Alarcón
3,277319
edited Feb 12 '17 at 17:55
answered Feb 12 '17 at 17:46
A. Salguero-AlarcónA. Salguero-Alarcón
3,277319
answered Feb 12 '17 at 17:46
A. Salguero-AlarcónA. Salguero-Alarcón
3,277319
answered Feb 12 '17 at 17:46
A. Salguero-AlarcónA. Salguero-Alarcón
3,277319
3,277319
$begingroup$
What is the $0$ in $mathcal T^{(2,0)}(V)$? And the $w$'s in the final expression have supraindices, as opposed to subindices in Eq.2...
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:50
$begingroup$
That means that your tensor is $T:Vtimes V longrightarrow K$, it is, you won't take any copies of $V^*$. With your notation, it would be $mathcal T^{(0,2)}$. Let me fix it.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:51
$begingroup$
Why is your last expression different from Eq.2 (sub- vs. supra- indices)?
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:53
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter where you put the indices. If you are working with a $(p,q)$ tensor, it's common to write them as I've done: sub for $e$'s, and supra for $omega$'s. But it's just for the sake of clarity. $$T=lambda_{ij} omega_i otimes omega_j$$ is perfect.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, both notations mean the same. No matter where you write the indices.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 18:05
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
What is the $0$ in $mathcal T^{(2,0)}(V)$? And the $w$'s in the final expression have supraindices, as opposed to subindices in Eq.2...
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:50
$begingroup$
That means that your tensor is $T:Vtimes V longrightarrow K$, it is, you won't take any copies of $V^*$. With your notation, it would be $mathcal T^{(0,2)}$. Let me fix it.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:51
$begingroup$
Why is your last expression different from Eq.2 (sub- vs. supra- indices)?
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:53
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter where you put the indices. If you are working with a $(p,q)$ tensor, it's common to write them as I've done: sub for $e$'s, and supra for $omega$'s. But it's just for the sake of clarity. $$T=lambda_{ij} omega_i otimes omega_j$$ is perfect.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:56
1
$begingroup$
Yes, both notations mean the same. No matter where you write the indices.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 18:05
$begingroup$
What is the $0$ in $mathcal T^{(2,0)}(V)$? And the $w$'s in the final expression have supraindices, as opposed to subindices in Eq.2...
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:50
$begingroup$
What is the $0$ in $mathcal T^{(2,0)}(V)$? And the $w$'s in the final expression have supraindices, as opposed to subindices in Eq.2...
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:50
$begingroup$
That means that your tensor is $T:Vtimes V longrightarrow K$, it is, you won't take any copies of $V^*$. With your notation, it would be $mathcal T^{(0,2)}$. Let me fix it.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:51
$begingroup$
That means that your tensor is $T:Vtimes V longrightarrow K$, it is, you won't take any copies of $V^*$. With your notation, it would be $mathcal T^{(0,2)}$. Let me fix it.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:51
$begingroup$
Why is your last expression different from Eq.2 (sub- vs. supra- indices)?
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:53
$begingroup$
Why is your last expression different from Eq.2 (sub- vs. supra- indices)?
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:53
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter where you put the indices. If you are working with a $(p,q)$ tensor, it's common to write them as I've done: sub for $e$'s, and supra for $omega$'s. But it's just for the sake of clarity. $$T=lambda_{ij} omega_i otimes omega_j$$ is perfect.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:56
$begingroup$
It doesn't matter where you put the indices. If you are working with a $(p,q)$ tensor, it's common to write them as I've done: sub for $e$'s, and supra for $omega$'s. But it's just for the sake of clarity. $$T=lambda_{ij} omega_i otimes omega_j$$ is perfect.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 17:56
1
1
$begingroup$
Yes, both notations mean the same. No matter where you write the indices.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 18:05
$begingroup$
Yes, both notations mean the same. No matter where you write the indices.
$endgroup$
– A. Salguero-Alarcón
Feb 12 '17 at 18:05
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2141112%2fhow-to-reconcile-these-two-tensor-notations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I realize that I am asking about the same issue from different perspectives, and that I haven't accepted any answers so far. It is extremely rare for me not to "accept", but I am hoping to get an answer that at least anchors the problem, and charts the road ahead in the understanding of this issue. After that, I will go back and accept the previous answers.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 17:35
$begingroup$
In case it's helpful, the first time I understood tensors (including the issues that seem to be puzzling you) was while working through Chapter 4 of Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds.
$endgroup$
– Andrew D. Hwang
Feb 12 '17 at 17:55
$begingroup$
@AndrewD.Hwang I have posted 3 questions on this topic over the weekend. Your answer and follow-up have been great, so I would like to bring to your attention a bounty of hard-earned 100 point I just posted on my original question on this topic.
$endgroup$
– Antoni Parellada
Feb 12 '17 at 20:21
1
$begingroup$
see a version math.stackexchange.com/questions/1545870/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 21:22
$begingroup$
Or this another math.stackexchange.com/questions/1750015/…
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Feb 14 '17 at 22:37