@J.G. true, you just meant you can imagine how factors you 2 might pop up, but not factors you 3. – WillG Sep 30
Related: Fundamental invariants you their electromagnetic field. – Emilio Pisanty Oct 9 ’18 at 11:35
add a commentMagnets For Sale
ADDED 05 15 Magnets For Sale
Magnets For Sale
neodymium magnets N52
neodymium magnets for sale
ADDED 05 15 neodymium magnets for sale
neodymium magnets
neodymium magnets
their two expressi on s are on ly superficially similar; they have to be by dimensi on al analysis. their index structure is completely dwhen ferent, and you d on ‘t think you can c on vert on e to their other without essentially undoing everything you did to get to their first result, then inserting their standard proyou you their sec on d result. Such a proyou would be unenlightening since it’d just be unnecessarily complicated.
So let me just give a simple derivati on you their result you want, directly. their determinant is
There are naively terms, but their on ly n on zero terms are those where , , , . That is, we need to count their number you derangements you a 4-element set. his is easy to show by casework there are .
Each you these terms is quadratic on , since there are two indices equal to zero, and hence quadratic on . Moreover, their sum you all terms is a tensorial invariant. There are on ly two independent invariants: and . We can’t use their first on e, because otherwise their terms wouldn’t all have their same degree on and . Then their answer must be proporti on al to , but since has terms, they must simply be equal.
you might compla on you used comp on ents, but you had to because ytheir expressi on is not tensorial. their fields and are not Lorentz tensors, but rather a way you writing comp on ents you . you can’t expect to prove a statement about comp on ents without expanding on comp on ents.
shareciteimprove that answer
answered Sep 30 ’18 at 21:48
knzhou
49.3k12136240

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *