Using diagonality in Einstein notation











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Given a diagonal matrix $D$, with diagonal elements given by vector $mathbf{d}$. Representing this in Einstein notation gives



$$
D_{ij} = delta_{ijk} d_k
$$



where



$$
delta_{ijk} =
begin{cases}
1 & text{if } i = j = k \
0 & text{ otherwise}
end{cases}
$$



If I now apply this in a matrix multiplication, e.g.



$$
(AD)_{lj} = A_{li} D_{ij} = A_{li} delta_{ijk} d_k = A_{li} d_i
$$

or
$$
(ADA)_{ml} = A_{mi} D_{ij} A_{jl} = A_{mi} delta_{ijk} d_k A_{jl} = A_{mi} d_i A_{il}
$$



The first example makes sense entry-wise, but only if there is no summation over $i$. Also, the indices on the LHS and RHS do not match anymore. The same is true for the second example, but only if there is summation over all three $i$'s.



This obviously violates Einstein notation, but I don't see in which step a false assumption is made. My questions are therefore:




  1. Where do I go wrong in my reasoning?

  2. Is there some other way to exploit the fact that $D$ is diagonal (in index notation)?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Given a diagonal matrix $D$, with diagonal elements given by vector $mathbf{d}$. Representing this in Einstein notation gives



    $$
    D_{ij} = delta_{ijk} d_k
    $$



    where



    $$
    delta_{ijk} =
    begin{cases}
    1 & text{if } i = j = k \
    0 & text{ otherwise}
    end{cases}
    $$



    If I now apply this in a matrix multiplication, e.g.



    $$
    (AD)_{lj} = A_{li} D_{ij} = A_{li} delta_{ijk} d_k = A_{li} d_i
    $$

    or
    $$
    (ADA)_{ml} = A_{mi} D_{ij} A_{jl} = A_{mi} delta_{ijk} d_k A_{jl} = A_{mi} d_i A_{il}
    $$



    The first example makes sense entry-wise, but only if there is no summation over $i$. Also, the indices on the LHS and RHS do not match anymore. The same is true for the second example, but only if there is summation over all three $i$'s.



    This obviously violates Einstein notation, but I don't see in which step a false assumption is made. My questions are therefore:




    1. Where do I go wrong in my reasoning?

    2. Is there some other way to exploit the fact that $D$ is diagonal (in index notation)?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Given a diagonal matrix $D$, with diagonal elements given by vector $mathbf{d}$. Representing this in Einstein notation gives



      $$
      D_{ij} = delta_{ijk} d_k
      $$



      where



      $$
      delta_{ijk} =
      begin{cases}
      1 & text{if } i = j = k \
      0 & text{ otherwise}
      end{cases}
      $$



      If I now apply this in a matrix multiplication, e.g.



      $$
      (AD)_{lj} = A_{li} D_{ij} = A_{li} delta_{ijk} d_k = A_{li} d_i
      $$

      or
      $$
      (ADA)_{ml} = A_{mi} D_{ij} A_{jl} = A_{mi} delta_{ijk} d_k A_{jl} = A_{mi} d_i A_{il}
      $$



      The first example makes sense entry-wise, but only if there is no summation over $i$. Also, the indices on the LHS and RHS do not match anymore. The same is true for the second example, but only if there is summation over all three $i$'s.



      This obviously violates Einstein notation, but I don't see in which step a false assumption is made. My questions are therefore:




      1. Where do I go wrong in my reasoning?

      2. Is there some other way to exploit the fact that $D$ is diagonal (in index notation)?










      share|cite|improve this question













      Given a diagonal matrix $D$, with diagonal elements given by vector $mathbf{d}$. Representing this in Einstein notation gives



      $$
      D_{ij} = delta_{ijk} d_k
      $$



      where



      $$
      delta_{ijk} =
      begin{cases}
      1 & text{if } i = j = k \
      0 & text{ otherwise}
      end{cases}
      $$



      If I now apply this in a matrix multiplication, e.g.



      $$
      (AD)_{lj} = A_{li} D_{ij} = A_{li} delta_{ijk} d_k = A_{li} d_i
      $$

      or
      $$
      (ADA)_{ml} = A_{mi} D_{ij} A_{jl} = A_{mi} delta_{ijk} d_k A_{jl} = A_{mi} d_i A_{il}
      $$



      The first example makes sense entry-wise, but only if there is no summation over $i$. Also, the indices on the LHS and RHS do not match anymore. The same is true for the second example, but only if there is summation over all three $i$'s.



      This obviously violates Einstein notation, but I don't see in which step a false assumption is made. My questions are therefore:




      1. Where do I go wrong in my reasoning?

      2. Is there some other way to exploit the fact that $D$ is diagonal (in index notation)?







      linear-algebra index-notation






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 21 at 11:24









      user495268

      183




      183






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted










          What you're doing when calculating the value of $(AD)_{lj}$ is the equivalent of doing this



          $$
          D_{ij} = delta_{ijk}d_k color{red}{stackrel{!!}{=}} d_i
          $$



          which clearly shows the problem much earlier than you noticed: expanding the symbol $delta_{ijk}$ is the issue here. Einstein's notation is useful, but it doesn't mean you need to use it everywhere, here's an option



          begin{eqnarray}
          (A D)_{lj} &=& sum_{i}A_{li}color{blue}{D_{ij}} = sum_iA_{li}color{blue}{delta_{ij}d_j} = A_{lj}d_j ~~~mbox{(sum not implied)}
          end{eqnarray}






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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',
            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007590%2fusing-diagonality-in-einstein-notation%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








            up vote
            0
            down vote



            accepted










            What you're doing when calculating the value of $(AD)_{lj}$ is the equivalent of doing this



            $$
            D_{ij} = delta_{ijk}d_k color{red}{stackrel{!!}{=}} d_i
            $$



            which clearly shows the problem much earlier than you noticed: expanding the symbol $delta_{ijk}$ is the issue here. Einstein's notation is useful, but it doesn't mean you need to use it everywhere, here's an option



            begin{eqnarray}
            (A D)_{lj} &=& sum_{i}A_{li}color{blue}{D_{ij}} = sum_iA_{li}color{blue}{delta_{ij}d_j} = A_{lj}d_j ~~~mbox{(sum not implied)}
            end{eqnarray}






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              0
              down vote



              accepted










              What you're doing when calculating the value of $(AD)_{lj}$ is the equivalent of doing this



              $$
              D_{ij} = delta_{ijk}d_k color{red}{stackrel{!!}{=}} d_i
              $$



              which clearly shows the problem much earlier than you noticed: expanding the symbol $delta_{ijk}$ is the issue here. Einstein's notation is useful, but it doesn't mean you need to use it everywhere, here's an option



              begin{eqnarray}
              (A D)_{lj} &=& sum_{i}A_{li}color{blue}{D_{ij}} = sum_iA_{li}color{blue}{delta_{ij}d_j} = A_{lj}d_j ~~~mbox{(sum not implied)}
              end{eqnarray}






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                0
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                0
                down vote



                accepted






                What you're doing when calculating the value of $(AD)_{lj}$ is the equivalent of doing this



                $$
                D_{ij} = delta_{ijk}d_k color{red}{stackrel{!!}{=}} d_i
                $$



                which clearly shows the problem much earlier than you noticed: expanding the symbol $delta_{ijk}$ is the issue here. Einstein's notation is useful, but it doesn't mean you need to use it everywhere, here's an option



                begin{eqnarray}
                (A D)_{lj} &=& sum_{i}A_{li}color{blue}{D_{ij}} = sum_iA_{li}color{blue}{delta_{ij}d_j} = A_{lj}d_j ~~~mbox{(sum not implied)}
                end{eqnarray}






                share|cite|improve this answer












                What you're doing when calculating the value of $(AD)_{lj}$ is the equivalent of doing this



                $$
                D_{ij} = delta_{ijk}d_k color{red}{stackrel{!!}{=}} d_i
                $$



                which clearly shows the problem much earlier than you noticed: expanding the symbol $delta_{ijk}$ is the issue here. Einstein's notation is useful, but it doesn't mean you need to use it everywhere, here's an option



                begin{eqnarray}
                (A D)_{lj} &=& sum_{i}A_{li}color{blue}{D_{ij}} = sum_iA_{li}color{blue}{delta_{ij}d_j} = A_{lj}d_j ~~~mbox{(sum not implied)}
                end{eqnarray}







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 21 at 20:40









                caverac

                12.5k21027




                12.5k21027






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007590%2fusing-diagonality-in-einstein-notation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Ellipse (mathématiques)

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    Mont Emei