2
$\begingroup$

I want to understand the how to interpret the matrices which are represented by index notation. Here is my matrix

$𝜎_{𝑖𝑗}+𝜎_{𝑖𝑘}𝑤_{𝑘𝑗}−𝑤_{𝑖𝑘} 𝜎_{𝑘𝑗}$

All the matrices in the equation are 3x3 matrices. Is $\sigma_{ik}$ and $\sigma_{kj}$ the same or is one the transpose of the other, and how do you identify that? The same question goes for $𝑤_{𝑘𝑗}$ and $𝑤_{𝑖𝑘}$. This is an equation from hypoelasticity model. I also understand that it is not a good practice to repeat the indices in an equation. Is that the reason they used different indices? I have got to know the basic sense of index notation, and I am in the process of learning more. It would be great if anyone can shed some light on this. Thank you.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I don't know about the specific equation in hand but a common way to represent matrix elements is to using $\sigma_{ij}$ to mean the element of a matrix, say $\Sigma$ at the $i$th row and the $j$th column.

Then $\sigma_{ik}\omega_{kj}$ is the product of the element of $\Sigma$ matrix at the $i$th row and the $k$th column and that of $\Omega$ matrix at the $k$th row and the $j$th column. This is useful because of matrix multiplication:

$(\Sigma \times \Omega)_{ij} = \sum_{k}{\sigma_{ik}\omega_{kj}}$

There's nothing fancy here: this is just the definition of the product of two matrices.

To give you a concrete example, suppose $\Sigma = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & -2 \\ 13 & 9 \end{bmatrix}$, then $\sigma_{11}=1, \sigma_{12}=-2, \sigma_{21}=13$ and $\sigma_{22}=9$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reply. I definitely agree with your reply which address the issue of matrix multiplication. However I would like to understand that if you have two matrix - $w_{kj}$ and $w_{ik}$, is it correct to say that they are transpose of each other? (I say this by seeing that 'k' represents row in one matrix and column in another). Am I seeing it with the correct perspective? $\endgroup$ – Willis Aug 26 '15 at 23:19
  • $\begingroup$ So the transpose is just the rows and columns flipped. If $\Omega^T$ is the transpose of $\Omega$, then we can say $(\Omega^T)_{ij}=(\Omega)_{ji}=\omega_{ji}$. Does that make sense? $\endgroup$ – MahoganyConvergence Aug 26 '15 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ Yes thats true, it does make sense, this is the general definition of a transpose of a matrix. Let me put it this way, in the material I am reading I have one equation which says $C_{ij}=ω_{ij}ω_{ik}$ and they have written down the same thing to be equivalent to $C=ω^Tω$. How do they get that? $\endgroup$ – Willis Aug 27 '15 at 0:34
  • $\begingroup$ What they mean by $C = \Omega^T \times \Omega$ is that $c_{ij}=\sum_{k}{(\Omega^T)_{ik}(\Omega)_{kj}}=\sum_{k}{\omega_{ki}\omega_{kj}}$. I'm careful in using capital letters to denote full matrices and small letters for individual elements to avoid confusion. $\endgroup$ – MahoganyConvergence Aug 27 '15 at 0:39
  • $\begingroup$ Alright. Appreciate for that distinction you made between the full matrices and the elements. I got the picture. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – Willis Aug 27 '15 at 0:45
2
$\begingroup$

It seems that it is Einstein's sum notation. So you have actually $A = (a_{ij})_{1\le i, j \le 3}$ with $$ a_{ij} = \sigma_{ij} + \sum_{k=1}^3 \left( \sigma_{ik} w_{kj} - w_{ik} \sigma_{kj} \right), $$ or $$ A = \Sigma + \Sigma W - W \Sigma, $$ with $\Sigma = (\sigma_{ij})_{1\le i, j \le 3}$ and $W = (w_{ij})_{1\le i, j \le 3}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I was about to question whether the repetition of the extra $ij$ was necessary but I suppose it is, since you've to label the numbers and also to Karl they're position in the matrix. $\endgroup$ – snulty Aug 27 '15 at 9:16
  • $\begingroup$ @snulty where exactly? like $A=(a_{ij})_{ij}$? $\endgroup$ – user251257 Aug 27 '15 at 11:07
  • $\begingroup$ Yes that's it! Would it be better to write however that $(A)_{ij}=a_{ij}$? I just realised that while writing on my phone, my first comment has some typos, like I believe Karl should be label and they're should be their. $\endgroup$ – snulty Aug 27 '15 at 12:33
  • $\begingroup$ @snulty they are the same. Both notations are common. I was too lazy to write $(a_{ij})_{1\le i, j \le 3}$ $\endgroup$ – user251257 Aug 27 '15 at 12:36
  • $\begingroup$ Ah that's fine, I understood the meaning anyway! And yes, there doesn't seem to be much need anyway to write the $(a_{ij})_{1\le i, j \le 3}$ anyway :) $\endgroup$ – snulty Aug 27 '15 at 12:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.