I Einstein summation convention confusion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the Einstein summation convention, particularly whether xixi is equivalent to xi². While xixi represents the sum of the squares of vector components, xi² refers to the square of a single component, leading to potential misunderstanding. Additionally, the conversation addresses the limitations of the summation convention, noting that certain quantities, like the kinetic energy of multiple particles, may not be expressible in this format due to their complexity. The participants emphasize the importance of context in applying the convention, as clarity can vary based on notation. Overall, the Einstein summation convention is not universally applicable in all scenarios, particularly in classical mechanics.
dyn
Messages
774
Reaction score
63
Hi
If i have a vector r = ( x1 , x2 , x3) then i can write r2 as xixi where the i is summed over because it occurs twice. Now is xixi the same as xi2 ? I have come across an example where they are used as equivalent but i am confused because xi2 seems to be the square of just one component of r but xi2 also seems to be logically the same as xixi

My other question is ; are there some quantities that cannot be written in summation convention ? Such the kinetic energy of many particles . I have seen it written using sigma notation as the sum over k from 1 to N as mkvkvk but obviously k appears 3 times here. This applies to small oscillations where the rk is differentiated with respect to different variables . Are some quantities impossible to write in summation convention ?

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
My understanding of the Einstein convention is that it would be xixi.
 
  • Like
Likes dextercioby
Thanks. My questions are just in reference to classical mechanics so in both questions i have asked all indices are lower indices
 
Use whatever can be read unambiguously without confusing the reader too much. I wouldn't expect the Einstein sum convention in classical mechanics at all, so a footnote or other comment would be useful anyway. Specify how you want to use it there.
 
I think a lot of this depends on context too. If you wrote ##y_i=x_i^2## it's pretty clear you're not summing, and if you write ##y=x_i^2## then you are. Assuming the book doesn't have a typo 😬
 
dyn said:
My other question is ; are there some quantities that cannot be written in summation convention ? Such the kinetic energy of many particles . I have seen it written using sigma notation as the sum over k from 1 to N as mkvkvk but obviously k appears 3 times here. This applies to small oscillations where the rk is differentiated with respect to different variables . Are some quantities impossible to write in summation convention ?
Because the convention assumes the universal quantifier, it can't express the existential quantifier. You can't say: $$\exists i: x_i = y_i$$
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top