I'm having trouble proving $$\nabla\times(\nabla f)=0$$ using index notation. I have started with: $$(\hat{e_i}\partial_i)\times(\hat{e_j}\partial_j f)=\partial_i\partial_jf(\hat{e_i}\times\hat{e_j})=\epsilon_{ijk}(\partial_i\partial_j f)\hat{e_k}$$ I know I have to use the fact that $\partial_i\partial_j=\partial_j\partial_i$ but I'm not sure how to proceed.


The point is that the quantity $M_{ijk}=\epsilon_{ijk}\partial_i\partial_j$ is antisymmetric in the indices $ij$, $$M_{ijk}=-M_{jik}$$

So when you sum over $i$ and $j$, you will get zero because $M_{ijk}$ will cancel $M_{jik}$ for every triple $ijk$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would specify, to avoid confusion, that you don't use the summation convention in the definition of $M_{ijk}$ (note that OP uses this in his/her expression). $\endgroup$ – Winther Oct 10 '17 at 22:05

You have that $\nabla f = (\partial_x f, \partial_y f, \partial_z f)$

and $curl f = (\partial_y f_3 - \partial_z f_2, \partial_z f_1 - \partial_x f_3, \partial_x f_2 - \partial_y f_1) $. Where $f_i =$ i:th element in the vector.

So $curl \nabla f = (\partial_{yz} f - \partial_{zy} f, \partial_{zx} - \partial_{xz}, \partial_{xy} - \partial_{yx} )$.


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.