I've already known the definition of the tensor that a tensor T of type $(k,l)$ is a multilinear map from a collection of dual vectors and vectors to $\mathbf{R}$: $$ T: \underbrace{T^\ast_p\times\cdots\times{}T^\ast_p}_{k\text{ times}}{\,}\times{\,}\underbrace{T_p\times\cdots\times{}T_p}_{l\text{ times}}\to \mathbf{R}$$ $"\times"$denotes the Cartesian products and $T^\ast_p$ , $T_p$ is respectively cotangent space and tangent space.

A tensor $T$ can be written as $T=T^{\mu_1\cdots\mu_k}_{\phantom{\mu_1\cdots\mu_k}\nu_1\cdots\nu_l} \hat{e}_{(\mu_1)}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{e}_{(\mu_k)}\otimes\hat{\theta}^{(\nu_1)}\otimes\cdots\otimes\hat{\theta}^{(\nu_l)}$.

My problem is how to understand a tensor acts on a tensor to be another tensor explicitly as the multilinear maps. For example, $$U^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}=T^{\mu\rho}_{\phantom{\mu\rho}\sigma}S^{\sigma}_{\phantom{\sigma}\rho\nu}$$ explicitly in $$U^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}\hat{e}_{(\mu)}\otimes\hat{\theta}^{(\nu)}=T^{\mu\rho}_{\phantom{\mu\rho}\sigma}\hat{e}_{(\mu)}\otimes\hat{e}_{(\rho)}\otimes\hat{\theta}^{(\sigma)}S^{\sigma}_{\phantom{\sigma}\rho\nu}\hat{e}_{(\sigma)}\otimes\hat{\theta}^{(\rho)}\otimes\hat{\theta}^{(\nu)}$$ What map does $T^{\mu\rho}_{\phantom{\mu\rho}\sigma}S^{\sigma}_{\phantom{\sigma}\rho\nu}$ precisely mean and why does it equal to the map denoted by $U^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}$ ?


There are two relevant operations you want to be familiar with on tensors.

First, given a $(m,n)$ tensor $T$ and an $(k,l)$ tensor $S$, you can construct their tensor product $T \otimes S$ which will be a $(m + k, n + l)$ tensor. Invariantly,

$$ (T \otimes S)(\varphi^1, \ldots, \varphi^m, \varphi^{m+1}, \ldots, \varphi^{m + k}, v_1, \ldots, v_n, v_{n+1}, \ldots, v_{n+l}) := \\ T(\varphi^1, \ldots, \varphi^m, v_1, \ldots, v_n) \cdot S(\varphi^{m+1}, \ldots, \varphi^{m+k}, v_{n+1}, \ldots, v_{n+l}). $$

If you choose a basis $(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ for $V$ and the corresponding dual basis $(e^1, \ldots, e^n)$ for $V^{*}$ then if

$$ T = T^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_m}_{\phantom{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_m}\nu_1 \ldots \nu_n} e_{\mu_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{\mu_m} \otimes e^{\nu_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e^{\nu_n}, \\ S = S^{\rho_1 \ldots \rho_k}_{\phantom{\rho_1 \ldots \rho_k} \sigma_1 \ldots \sigma_l} e_{\rho_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{\rho_k} \otimes e^{\sigma_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e^{\sigma_l} $$

then $ T \otimes S $ will be represented by

$$ T^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_m}_{\phantom{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_m}\nu_1 \ldots \nu_n} S^{\rho_1 \ldots \rho_k}_{\phantom{\rho_1 \ldots \rho_k} \sigma_1 \ldots \sigma_l} e_{\mu_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{\mu_m} \otimes e_{\rho_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{\rho_k} \otimes e^{\nu_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e^{\nu_n} \otimes e^{\sigma_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e^{\sigma_l}. $$

Second, given an $(m,n)$ tensor $T$ with $m, n \geq 1$ and a choice of indices $1 \leq k \leq m$ and $1 \leq l \leq n$, you can define a $(m-1,n-1)$ tensor called the contraction or trace of $T$ with respect to $(k,l)$. To define it, choose some basis $(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ for $V$ and define

$$ \mathrm{tr}_{(k,l)}(T)(\varphi^1, \ldots, \varphi^{m-1}, v_1, \ldots, v_{n - 1}) := T(\varphi^1, \ldots, \varphi^{k-1}, e^\sigma, \varphi^{k}, \ldots, \varphi^{m-1}, v_1, \ldots, v_{l-1}, e_\sigma, v_{l}, \ldots, v_{n - 1}). $$

You can check that this definition does not depend on the basis $(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$. In particular, if you choose a basis $(e_1, \ldots, e_n)$ for $V$ and represent $T$ as

$$ T = T^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_m}_{\phantom{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_m}\nu_1 \ldots \nu_n} e_{\mu_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e_{\mu_m} \otimes e^{\nu_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e^{\nu_n} $$

then $ \mathrm{tr}_{(k,l)}(T) $ will be represented as

$$ T^{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_{k-1} \sigma \mu_{k+1} \mu_{m}}_{\phantom{\mu_1 \ldots \mu_{k-1} \sigma \mu_{k+1} \mu_{m}}\nu_1 \ldots \nu_{l-1} \sigma \nu_{l+1} \ldots \nu_n} e_{\mu_1} \otimes \ldots e_{\mu_{k-1}} \otimes e_{\mu_{k+1}} \ldots \otimes e_{\mu_m} \otimes e^{\nu_1} \otimes \ldots \otimes e^{\nu_{l-1}} \otimes e^{\nu_{l+1}} \otimes \ldots \otimes e^{\nu_n}. $$

That is, the representation of $\mathrm{tr}_{(k,l)}(T)$ is obtained by choosing a covariant and a contravariant index and "canceling" (contracting) them out using summation.

The name trace is justified by the fact that if $T$ is a $(1,1)$ tensor then you can easily check that the $(1,1)$ trace of $T$ is the same as the trace of $T$ considered as a linear map $V \to V$ (or $V^{*} \to V^{*}$).

Returning to your question, $T$ is a $(2,1)$ tensor and $S$ is a $(1,2)$ tensor. The $(1,1)$ tensor $U$ is obtained by taking the tensor product $T \otimes S$ of $T$ and $S$ (resulting in a $(3,3)$ tensor) and then contracting twice. More explicitly,

$$ U = \mathrm{tr}_{(2,1)} (\mathrm{tr}_{(3,1)} (T \otimes S)) = \mathrm{tr}_{(2,1)} (\mathrm{tr}_{(2,2)} (T \otimes S) ).$$

  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome. The contraction of the product is a different object, not a shorter way of writing something. BTW, Many operations in linear algebra have this form of multiplication and then contraction. For example, if $T$ is a $(1,1)$-tensor and $v$ is a $(1,0)$ tensor, then the contraction of $T \otimes v$ is just $T(v)$ when $T$ is considered as a linear map and $v$ is considered as a vector in $V$. More generally, multiplication of matrices is an example of multiplying and then contracting. $\endgroup$ – levap Nov 7 '15 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ sorry for the wrong clicking on the delete button... I think I've roughly understood the contraction of the tensor. A new question, from the definition of the contraction, $T^\mu$ is the contraction of $T^{\mu\sigma}_{\phantom{\mu\sigma}\sigma}$ means that when $T^{\mu\sigma}_{\phantom{\mu\sigma}\sigma}$ acts on the $(\varphi^{\mu},e^{\sigma},e_{\sigma})$, the result equals to the result of $T^{\mu}$ acting on $(\varphi^{\mu})$, but what if $T^{\mu\sigma}_{\phantom{\mu\sigma}\sigma}$ acts on another $(\varphi^1,\varphi^2,\varphi_3)$, $\endgroup$ – R. Pan Nov 7 '15 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ does $T^{\mu}$ have any connection to the $T^{\mu\sigma}_{\phantom{\mu\sigma}\sigma}$ in this case? Maybe I did't understand the meaning of " this definition does not depend on the basis $(e_1,\cdots,e_n)$". $\endgroup$ – R. Pan Nov 7 '15 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ The tensor $T^{\mu \sigma}_{\phantom{\mu \sigma} \sigma}$ is a $(1,0)$ tensor so it cannot act on a triple, only on a covector. We have: $T^{\mu \sigma}_{\phantom{\mu \sigma} \sigma} (v_i e^i) = T^{i \sigma}_{\phantom{i \sigma} \sigma} v_i$ where we have here two summations both on $\sigma$ and $i$. $\endgroup$ – levap Nov 7 '15 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ Now from my understand, when I write $$U^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}=T^{\mu\rho}_{\phantom{\mu\rho}\sigma}S^{\sigma}_{{}{\,\rho\nu}}$$ it means I define a contraction of the result of the tensor product which is $T^{\mu\rho}_{\phantom{\mu\rho}\sigma}\otimes{}S^{\sigma}_{\phantom{\,}\rho\nu}$ and use $U^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}$ to represent the contraction. The symbol "$=$" just means the definition of $U^{\mu}_{\phantom{\mu}\nu}$, not commonly the meaning "equal to". Am I right? $\endgroup$ – R. Pan Nov 8 '15 at 13:00

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.