[GiNaC-list] Simplifying indexed expressions not workingonmulti-indices scalar_product

Richard Haney rfhaney at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 28 02:55:40 CEST 2006

--- Chris Dams <Chris.Dams at mi.infn.it> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Alejandro Limache wrote:
> > 1) By definition an inner product must be a scalar so all tensor
> > indices should get contracted.
> Yes, obviously.

Hmmm..., seems to me that in general you would also like to have scalar
products that may be dependent on other variables, including integers.

--- Alejandro Limache <alejandrolimache at hotmail.com> wrote:

> [--- Chris Dams <Chris.Dams at mi.infn.it> wrote:]
> >(1) What if the indices are of different dimension? [[...]]
> > Maybe user-defined inner products should only be used if
> > all dimensions of indices involved are the same. [[...]]
> [...] one might have different dimensions. [...]
> [...] there are times where you can get products M.k.i.j*A.i.j
> of multidimensional arrays M,A where for example i and j have
> dimension of space (3) and k the dimension of the number
> of nodes or elements. [...]

(M.k.i.j*A.i.j){k=1...N} here seems to be such an example of an
*indexed scalar*.

I also vaguely seem to recall seeing some treatments in general
relativity where some indices of indexed quantities run over "space"
dimensions only, whereas other indices run over all four space-time
dimensions.  My memory is hazy here, so I suppose I could be a bit
mistaken on this.  There is also some mumbo-jumbo concerning what
indexed entities constitute a "tensor" -- something about the indices
relating to coordinates and the indexed entities conforming to certain
rules of transformation -- so that, I suppose, the tensors constitute a
kind of equivalence class with such an indexed entity being a
representative of that class.  So it seems that one would like to be
able to distinguish indices in various convenient ways; some indices
would relate to the "tensor" properties and some would (perhaps) be
extraneous to the concept of a tensor -- perhaps relevant to some other
type of algebraic concept.

And then there are some who like to work with "coordinate-free"
representations of tensors.

I'm a bit of a newbie to GiNaC; so I don't know yet how relevant all of
this is to GiNaC.

Richard Haney

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

More information about the GiNaC-list mailing list