I Trouble understanding contravariant transformations for vectors

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding contravariant transformations of vectors under coordinate changes. A specific transformation example is given, where the coordinates change from (x^1, x^2, ..., x^n) to (2x^1, 2x^2, ..., 2x^n). It is clarified that the transformation of contravariant components involves the partial derivatives of the new coordinates with respect to the old ones, leading to a factor of 1/2 for the basis vectors. This means that while the components are multiplied by 2, they transform contravariantly, moving in the opposite direction of the basis vectors. Understanding this relationship is key to grasping the nature of contravariant transformations.
whisperzone
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Don't understand equation of contravariant transformation for vectors
Hey, so I've been studying some math on my own and I'm really confused by this one bit. I understand what contravariant components of a vector are, but I don't understand the ways in which they transform under a change of coordinate system.

For instance, let's say we have two coordinate systems ##(x^1, x^2, ..., x^n)## and ##(\overline{x}^1, \overline{x}^2, ..., \overline{x}^n)## and a coordinate transformation relating the two systems: ##\overline{x}^j = \overline{x}^j (x^1, x^2, ..., x^n)##. Everything I've read says that

$$\overline{a}^j = \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{\partial \overline{x}^j}{\partial x^k} a^k, \text{ where } j = 1, 2, ... n$$

but intuitively this makes no sense to me at all. For instance, consider a coordinate transformation ##(x^1, x^2, ..., x^n) \rightarrow (2x^1, 2x^2, ..., 2x^n)##. Then the partial derivative of ##\overline{x}^j## with respect to ##x^k## should be 2, right (or am I missing something here)? And if the partial derivative is 2, is that really a contravariant transformation, since whatever you're applying the transformation to would also get multiplied by 2?

Apologies if anything was too unclear, I've just been struggling with this for a while.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Contravariant refers to transforming the opposite way of the tangent basis vectors, which are defined as
$$
\vec E_i = \frac{\partial \vec x}{\partial x^i}.
$$
This means that
$$
\vec E_i ' = \frac{\partial \vec x}{\partial x^j} \frac{\partial x^j}{\partial x'^i}.
$$
In the case of your transformation, you therefore have ##\vec E_i' = \vec E_i / 2## so there is a factor of 1/2 in the transformation of the basis vectors. The components therefore (which are multiplied by 2) transform in the opposite fashion, i.e., contravariantly.
 
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top