Vector Product and dot product identity: Levi-Civita symbols












0












$begingroup$


I want to prove that $vec{a}cdot(vec{b}timesvec{c}) = (vec{c} times vec{a})cdotvec{b}$ using the Levi-Civita symbols, however, I am not $100$% sure if my proof is correct.



Please see attached my proof, see the image Proof



Or see the (using MathJax) equations below



$$vec{a}cdot(vec{b}times vec{c}) = a_i(vec{b}timesvec{c})_i = a_iepsilon_{ijk}b_jc_ke_i = -epsilon_{jik}a_ib_jc_ke_i = -(vec{a}timesvec{c})cdotvec{b} = (vec{c}timesvec{a})cdotvec{b}$$



My main concern is that when I change the indices for epsilon from $(i,j,k)$ to $(j,i,k)$, should I also change the index for $e$ vector from $i$ to $j$ as well? It's just in my proof I assume that $b_je_i$ gives vector $b$ and I do not know if I can state that given the different indices.



Thank you in advance and I hope this all does not sound too confusing.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Well one issue I see is too many of the index i, there are three which makes the product ambiguous as which pair are summed over (since summing happens in pairs). You can fix this by omitting the unit vector as this is how the dot product works
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:13












  • $begingroup$
    Or you can represent the dot product part as a tensor operation through use of the Kronecker Delta, that is $acdot b = a_i b_j delta_{ij}$
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:16










  • $begingroup$
    Then you can write your product as $a cdot (btimes c) = a_i (b times c)_j delta_{ij} = a_i (epsilon_{jkl}hat{e}_j b_k c_l) delta_{ij}$
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:22












  • $begingroup$
    you should look at the problem of calculate the det[a.(bxc)] and compare
    $endgroup$
    – janmarqz
    Oct 20 '16 at 20:31


















0












$begingroup$


I want to prove that $vec{a}cdot(vec{b}timesvec{c}) = (vec{c} times vec{a})cdotvec{b}$ using the Levi-Civita symbols, however, I am not $100$% sure if my proof is correct.



Please see attached my proof, see the image Proof



Or see the (using MathJax) equations below



$$vec{a}cdot(vec{b}times vec{c}) = a_i(vec{b}timesvec{c})_i = a_iepsilon_{ijk}b_jc_ke_i = -epsilon_{jik}a_ib_jc_ke_i = -(vec{a}timesvec{c})cdotvec{b} = (vec{c}timesvec{a})cdotvec{b}$$



My main concern is that when I change the indices for epsilon from $(i,j,k)$ to $(j,i,k)$, should I also change the index for $e$ vector from $i$ to $j$ as well? It's just in my proof I assume that $b_je_i$ gives vector $b$ and I do not know if I can state that given the different indices.



Thank you in advance and I hope this all does not sound too confusing.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Well one issue I see is too many of the index i, there are three which makes the product ambiguous as which pair are summed over (since summing happens in pairs). You can fix this by omitting the unit vector as this is how the dot product works
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:13












  • $begingroup$
    Or you can represent the dot product part as a tensor operation through use of the Kronecker Delta, that is $acdot b = a_i b_j delta_{ij}$
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:16










  • $begingroup$
    Then you can write your product as $a cdot (btimes c) = a_i (b times c)_j delta_{ij} = a_i (epsilon_{jkl}hat{e}_j b_k c_l) delta_{ij}$
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:22












  • $begingroup$
    you should look at the problem of calculate the det[a.(bxc)] and compare
    $endgroup$
    – janmarqz
    Oct 20 '16 at 20:31
















0












0








0


1



$begingroup$


I want to prove that $vec{a}cdot(vec{b}timesvec{c}) = (vec{c} times vec{a})cdotvec{b}$ using the Levi-Civita symbols, however, I am not $100$% sure if my proof is correct.



Please see attached my proof, see the image Proof



Or see the (using MathJax) equations below



$$vec{a}cdot(vec{b}times vec{c}) = a_i(vec{b}timesvec{c})_i = a_iepsilon_{ijk}b_jc_ke_i = -epsilon_{jik}a_ib_jc_ke_i = -(vec{a}timesvec{c})cdotvec{b} = (vec{c}timesvec{a})cdotvec{b}$$



My main concern is that when I change the indices for epsilon from $(i,j,k)$ to $(j,i,k)$, should I also change the index for $e$ vector from $i$ to $j$ as well? It's just in my proof I assume that $b_je_i$ gives vector $b$ and I do not know if I can state that given the different indices.



Thank you in advance and I hope this all does not sound too confusing.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I want to prove that $vec{a}cdot(vec{b}timesvec{c}) = (vec{c} times vec{a})cdotvec{b}$ using the Levi-Civita symbols, however, I am not $100$% sure if my proof is correct.



Please see attached my proof, see the image Proof



Or see the (using MathJax) equations below



$$vec{a}cdot(vec{b}times vec{c}) = a_i(vec{b}timesvec{c})_i = a_iepsilon_{ijk}b_jc_ke_i = -epsilon_{jik}a_ib_jc_ke_i = -(vec{a}timesvec{c})cdotvec{b} = (vec{c}timesvec{a})cdotvec{b}$$



My main concern is that when I change the indices for epsilon from $(i,j,k)$ to $(j,i,k)$, should I also change the index for $e$ vector from $i$ to $j$ as well? It's just in my proof I assume that $b_je_i$ gives vector $b$ and I do not know if I can state that given the different indices.



Thank you in advance and I hope this all does not sound too confusing.







proof-verification vectors tensors






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Feb 20 '17 at 2:19









Rafael Wagner

1,8332923




1,8332923










asked Oct 20 '16 at 17:05









LiNXOLiNXO

958




958












  • $begingroup$
    Well one issue I see is too many of the index i, there are three which makes the product ambiguous as which pair are summed over (since summing happens in pairs). You can fix this by omitting the unit vector as this is how the dot product works
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:13












  • $begingroup$
    Or you can represent the dot product part as a tensor operation through use of the Kronecker Delta, that is $acdot b = a_i b_j delta_{ij}$
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:16










  • $begingroup$
    Then you can write your product as $a cdot (btimes c) = a_i (b times c)_j delta_{ij} = a_i (epsilon_{jkl}hat{e}_j b_k c_l) delta_{ij}$
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:22












  • $begingroup$
    you should look at the problem of calculate the det[a.(bxc)] and compare
    $endgroup$
    – janmarqz
    Oct 20 '16 at 20:31




















  • $begingroup$
    Well one issue I see is too many of the index i, there are three which makes the product ambiguous as which pair are summed over (since summing happens in pairs). You can fix this by omitting the unit vector as this is how the dot product works
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:13












  • $begingroup$
    Or you can represent the dot product part as a tensor operation through use of the Kronecker Delta, that is $acdot b = a_i b_j delta_{ij}$
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:16










  • $begingroup$
    Then you can write your product as $a cdot (btimes c) = a_i (b times c)_j delta_{ij} = a_i (epsilon_{jkl}hat{e}_j b_k c_l) delta_{ij}$
    $endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Oct 20 '16 at 17:22












  • $begingroup$
    you should look at the problem of calculate the det[a.(bxc)] and compare
    $endgroup$
    – janmarqz
    Oct 20 '16 at 20:31


















$begingroup$
Well one issue I see is too many of the index i, there are three which makes the product ambiguous as which pair are summed over (since summing happens in pairs). You can fix this by omitting the unit vector as this is how the dot product works
$endgroup$
– Triatticus
Oct 20 '16 at 17:13






$begingroup$
Well one issue I see is too many of the index i, there are three which makes the product ambiguous as which pair are summed over (since summing happens in pairs). You can fix this by omitting the unit vector as this is how the dot product works
$endgroup$
– Triatticus
Oct 20 '16 at 17:13














$begingroup$
Or you can represent the dot product part as a tensor operation through use of the Kronecker Delta, that is $acdot b = a_i b_j delta_{ij}$
$endgroup$
– Triatticus
Oct 20 '16 at 17:16




$begingroup$
Or you can represent the dot product part as a tensor operation through use of the Kronecker Delta, that is $acdot b = a_i b_j delta_{ij}$
$endgroup$
– Triatticus
Oct 20 '16 at 17:16












$begingroup$
Then you can write your product as $a cdot (btimes c) = a_i (b times c)_j delta_{ij} = a_i (epsilon_{jkl}hat{e}_j b_k c_l) delta_{ij}$
$endgroup$
– Triatticus
Oct 20 '16 at 17:22






$begingroup$
Then you can write your product as $a cdot (btimes c) = a_i (b times c)_j delta_{ij} = a_i (epsilon_{jkl}hat{e}_j b_k c_l) delta_{ij}$
$endgroup$
– Triatticus
Oct 20 '16 at 17:22














$begingroup$
you should look at the problem of calculate the det[a.(bxc)] and compare
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Oct 20 '16 at 20:31






$begingroup$
you should look at the problem of calculate the det[a.(bxc)] and compare
$endgroup$
– janmarqz
Oct 20 '16 at 20:31












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0












$begingroup$

For the Levi-Civita symbols we have that, for two vectors $vec{a}$ and $vec{b}$,




$vec{a}cdotvec{b} = sum_ia_ib_i$




and using Einstein notation convention we can just wright $vec{a}cdotvec{b} = a_ib^i$, or, we can just use that $(vec{a}cdotvec{b} )_i = a_ib_i$. We also have that




$(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = sum_j sum_k epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$




Or just $(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$. So using that you can prove the relation as you did:



$$(vec{a}cdot(vec{b}timesvec{c})) = sum_ia_i(vec{b}timesvec{c})_i = sum_isum_jsum_ka_iepsilon_{ijk}b_jc_k = sum_isum_jsum_kepsilon_{jki}c_ka_ib_j = sum_j(vec{c}timesvec{a})_jb_j = (vec{b}cdot(vec{c}timesvec{a}))$$



Then this is what I think was your doubt.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    That's almost right, but there are some inconsistencies in your notation.




    1. In the first step $acdot(btimes c)$, you have a scalar. Nothing wrong here. But note that since you begin with a scalar, you should have scalars in all the next steps.

    2. In the second step $a_{i}cdot(btimes c)_{i}$ you use a dot ($cdot$) between components. That is illegal. Components are numbers, and you can only use dot product between vectors. Hence, the second step should read just $a_{i}(btimes c)_{i}$

    3. Since $(btimes c)_{i} = epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, in step three you should have just $a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, without the vectors $e_{i}$. This resonates with the note in (1), where I remarked you should have just scalars and not vector expressions. Also note that this goes against the summation convention, where it is only valid to sum over pairs of indices.

    4. The switch of indices and switch of sign is correct. Since, as mentioned in (3), you shouldn't write the vectors $e_i$, your concern about the index $i$ is just out of the question.


    Steps 5 and 6 are indeed correct.



    So, the correct derivation (with a pair of extra steps) is



    $$acdot(btimes c) = a_{i}(btimes c)_{i} = a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k} = -a_{i}epsilon_{jik}b_{j}c_{k} \= -epsilon_{jik}a_{i}c_{k}b_{j} = -(atimes c)_{j}b_{j} = -(atimes c)cdot b = (ctimes a)cdot b$$






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      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',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      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%2f1977486%2fvector-product-and-dot-product-identity-levi-civita-symbols%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      0












      $begingroup$

      For the Levi-Civita symbols we have that, for two vectors $vec{a}$ and $vec{b}$,




      $vec{a}cdotvec{b} = sum_ia_ib_i$




      and using Einstein notation convention we can just wright $vec{a}cdotvec{b} = a_ib^i$, or, we can just use that $(vec{a}cdotvec{b} )_i = a_ib_i$. We also have that




      $(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = sum_j sum_k epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$




      Or just $(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$. So using that you can prove the relation as you did:



      $$(vec{a}cdot(vec{b}timesvec{c})) = sum_ia_i(vec{b}timesvec{c})_i = sum_isum_jsum_ka_iepsilon_{ijk}b_jc_k = sum_isum_jsum_kepsilon_{jki}c_ka_ib_j = sum_j(vec{c}timesvec{a})_jb_j = (vec{b}cdot(vec{c}timesvec{a}))$$



      Then this is what I think was your doubt.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        0












        $begingroup$

        For the Levi-Civita symbols we have that, for two vectors $vec{a}$ and $vec{b}$,




        $vec{a}cdotvec{b} = sum_ia_ib_i$




        and using Einstein notation convention we can just wright $vec{a}cdotvec{b} = a_ib^i$, or, we can just use that $(vec{a}cdotvec{b} )_i = a_ib_i$. We also have that




        $(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = sum_j sum_k epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$




        Or just $(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$. So using that you can prove the relation as you did:



        $$(vec{a}cdot(vec{b}timesvec{c})) = sum_ia_i(vec{b}timesvec{c})_i = sum_isum_jsum_ka_iepsilon_{ijk}b_jc_k = sum_isum_jsum_kepsilon_{jki}c_ka_ib_j = sum_j(vec{c}timesvec{a})_jb_j = (vec{b}cdot(vec{c}timesvec{a}))$$



        Then this is what I think was your doubt.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          For the Levi-Civita symbols we have that, for two vectors $vec{a}$ and $vec{b}$,




          $vec{a}cdotvec{b} = sum_ia_ib_i$




          and using Einstein notation convention we can just wright $vec{a}cdotvec{b} = a_ib^i$, or, we can just use that $(vec{a}cdotvec{b} )_i = a_ib_i$. We also have that




          $(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = sum_j sum_k epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$




          Or just $(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$. So using that you can prove the relation as you did:



          $$(vec{a}cdot(vec{b}timesvec{c})) = sum_ia_i(vec{b}timesvec{c})_i = sum_isum_jsum_ka_iepsilon_{ijk}b_jc_k = sum_isum_jsum_kepsilon_{jki}c_ka_ib_j = sum_j(vec{c}timesvec{a})_jb_j = (vec{b}cdot(vec{c}timesvec{a}))$$



          Then this is what I think was your doubt.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          For the Levi-Civita symbols we have that, for two vectors $vec{a}$ and $vec{b}$,




          $vec{a}cdotvec{b} = sum_ia_ib_i$




          and using Einstein notation convention we can just wright $vec{a}cdotvec{b} = a_ib^i$, or, we can just use that $(vec{a}cdotvec{b} )_i = a_ib_i$. We also have that




          $(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = sum_j sum_k epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$




          Or just $(vec{a}timesvec{b})_i = epsilon_{ijk}a_jb_k$. So using that you can prove the relation as you did:



          $$(vec{a}cdot(vec{b}timesvec{c})) = sum_ia_i(vec{b}timesvec{c})_i = sum_isum_jsum_ka_iepsilon_{ijk}b_jc_k = sum_isum_jsum_kepsilon_{jki}c_ka_ib_j = sum_j(vec{c}timesvec{a})_jb_j = (vec{b}cdot(vec{c}timesvec{a}))$$



          Then this is what I think was your doubt.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Feb 20 '17 at 2:29









          Rafael WagnerRafael Wagner

          1,8332923




          1,8332923























              0












              $begingroup$

              That's almost right, but there are some inconsistencies in your notation.




              1. In the first step $acdot(btimes c)$, you have a scalar. Nothing wrong here. But note that since you begin with a scalar, you should have scalars in all the next steps.

              2. In the second step $a_{i}cdot(btimes c)_{i}$ you use a dot ($cdot$) between components. That is illegal. Components are numbers, and you can only use dot product between vectors. Hence, the second step should read just $a_{i}(btimes c)_{i}$

              3. Since $(btimes c)_{i} = epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, in step three you should have just $a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, without the vectors $e_{i}$. This resonates with the note in (1), where I remarked you should have just scalars and not vector expressions. Also note that this goes against the summation convention, where it is only valid to sum over pairs of indices.

              4. The switch of indices and switch of sign is correct. Since, as mentioned in (3), you shouldn't write the vectors $e_i$, your concern about the index $i$ is just out of the question.


              Steps 5 and 6 are indeed correct.



              So, the correct derivation (with a pair of extra steps) is



              $$acdot(btimes c) = a_{i}(btimes c)_{i} = a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k} = -a_{i}epsilon_{jik}b_{j}c_{k} \= -epsilon_{jik}a_{i}c_{k}b_{j} = -(atimes c)_{j}b_{j} = -(atimes c)cdot b = (ctimes a)cdot b$$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                That's almost right, but there are some inconsistencies in your notation.




                1. In the first step $acdot(btimes c)$, you have a scalar. Nothing wrong here. But note that since you begin with a scalar, you should have scalars in all the next steps.

                2. In the second step $a_{i}cdot(btimes c)_{i}$ you use a dot ($cdot$) between components. That is illegal. Components are numbers, and you can only use dot product between vectors. Hence, the second step should read just $a_{i}(btimes c)_{i}$

                3. Since $(btimes c)_{i} = epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, in step three you should have just $a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, without the vectors $e_{i}$. This resonates with the note in (1), where I remarked you should have just scalars and not vector expressions. Also note that this goes against the summation convention, where it is only valid to sum over pairs of indices.

                4. The switch of indices and switch of sign is correct. Since, as mentioned in (3), you shouldn't write the vectors $e_i$, your concern about the index $i$ is just out of the question.


                Steps 5 and 6 are indeed correct.



                So, the correct derivation (with a pair of extra steps) is



                $$acdot(btimes c) = a_{i}(btimes c)_{i} = a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k} = -a_{i}epsilon_{jik}b_{j}c_{k} \= -epsilon_{jik}a_{i}c_{k}b_{j} = -(atimes c)_{j}b_{j} = -(atimes c)cdot b = (ctimes a)cdot b$$






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  That's almost right, but there are some inconsistencies in your notation.




                  1. In the first step $acdot(btimes c)$, you have a scalar. Nothing wrong here. But note that since you begin with a scalar, you should have scalars in all the next steps.

                  2. In the second step $a_{i}cdot(btimes c)_{i}$ you use a dot ($cdot$) between components. That is illegal. Components are numbers, and you can only use dot product between vectors. Hence, the second step should read just $a_{i}(btimes c)_{i}$

                  3. Since $(btimes c)_{i} = epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, in step three you should have just $a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, without the vectors $e_{i}$. This resonates with the note in (1), where I remarked you should have just scalars and not vector expressions. Also note that this goes against the summation convention, where it is only valid to sum over pairs of indices.

                  4. The switch of indices and switch of sign is correct. Since, as mentioned in (3), you shouldn't write the vectors $e_i$, your concern about the index $i$ is just out of the question.


                  Steps 5 and 6 are indeed correct.



                  So, the correct derivation (with a pair of extra steps) is



                  $$acdot(btimes c) = a_{i}(btimes c)_{i} = a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k} = -a_{i}epsilon_{jik}b_{j}c_{k} \= -epsilon_{jik}a_{i}c_{k}b_{j} = -(atimes c)_{j}b_{j} = -(atimes c)cdot b = (ctimes a)cdot b$$






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  That's almost right, but there are some inconsistencies in your notation.




                  1. In the first step $acdot(btimes c)$, you have a scalar. Nothing wrong here. But note that since you begin with a scalar, you should have scalars in all the next steps.

                  2. In the second step $a_{i}cdot(btimes c)_{i}$ you use a dot ($cdot$) between components. That is illegal. Components are numbers, and you can only use dot product between vectors. Hence, the second step should read just $a_{i}(btimes c)_{i}$

                  3. Since $(btimes c)_{i} = epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, in step three you should have just $a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k}$, without the vectors $e_{i}$. This resonates with the note in (1), where I remarked you should have just scalars and not vector expressions. Also note that this goes against the summation convention, where it is only valid to sum over pairs of indices.

                  4. The switch of indices and switch of sign is correct. Since, as mentioned in (3), you shouldn't write the vectors $e_i$, your concern about the index $i$ is just out of the question.


                  Steps 5 and 6 are indeed correct.



                  So, the correct derivation (with a pair of extra steps) is



                  $$acdot(btimes c) = a_{i}(btimes c)_{i} = a_{i}epsilon_{ijk}b_{j}c_{k} = -a_{i}epsilon_{jik}b_{j}c_{k} \= -epsilon_{jik}a_{i}c_{k}b_{j} = -(atimes c)_{j}b_{j} = -(atimes c)cdot b = (ctimes a)cdot b$$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Jun 2 '18 at 10:17









                  Jackozee HakkiuzJackozee Hakkiuz

                  970417




                  970417






























                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1977486%2fvector-product-and-dot-product-identity-levi-civita-symbols%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

                      Berounka

                      Sphinx de Gizeh

                      Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...