Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In an intro to GR book the Ricci tensor is given as:

$$R_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\lambda}\Gamma_{\mu \nu}^{\lambda}-\Gamma_{\lambda \sigma}^{\lambda}\Gamma_{\mu \nu}^{\sigma}-[\partial_{\nu}\Gamma_{\mu \lambda}^{\lambda}+\Gamma_{\nu \sigma}^{\lambda}\Gamma_{\mu \lambda}^{\sigma}]$$

I have gotten to the point where I can work out a given Christoffel symbol, but I am still having trouble working out the above tensor as a whole (just algebraically speaking). If I'm not mistaken, $R_{\mu\nu}$ should end up a $\mu$x$\nu$ (i.e. 4x4) matrix just like the energy-momentum tensor on the other side of the field equations. In the above rendering $\sigma$ is clearly a dummy index to be summed over, and I can see how $\lambda$ is also a dummy index in the first term. But the $\lambda$s in the other terms seem to be free indices, which would then introduce incompatible dimensions in the matrix operations. I appreciate it if someone can point out the error of my ways.

share|cite|improve this question
Why did you think that the $\lambda$s are free? – Ron Maimon Jul 24 '12 at 2:17
Because I thought dummy indices had to be repeated in separate symbols. Now it's clear. – ben Jul 24 '12 at 4:18
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Every term contains one $\lambda$ in the superscript and one in the subscript, so you sum over those. The only indices which don't appear in both superscript and subscript in the same term are $\mu$ and $\nu$.


$$\Gamma_{\lambda\sigma}^\lambda\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^\sigma = \Gamma_{00}^0\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^0 + \Gamma_{01}^0\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^1 + \cdots + \Gamma_{10}^1\Gamma_{\mu\nu}^0 + \cdots$$

share|cite|improve this answer
Note, all contraviariant/covariant indices should be written using LaTeX '\phantom' keyword $\Gamma^{\xi}_{\phantom{\lambda}\lambda\sigma}$; they should not be directly over eachother strictly speaking. Although it is a pain to write in this context... :] – Killercam Jul 24 '12 at 17:42
Yep, given that the point I want to make is clear without explicit positioning of the indices, I didn't bother with that. It's unfortunate that we don't have a tensor notation package for MathJax. – David Z Jul 24 '12 at 19:08
@Killercam +1 Thanks. That's good to know because the books I have looked at all position the Christoffel indices on top of each other, and I was wondering if they shouldn't rather be spaced in their own columns in keeping with the logic of, for eg., the Riemann tensor indices. – ben Jul 25 '12 at 0:41
@Killercam It's worth noting that plenty of authors do not offset the indices in the Christoffel symbols, as they are not actually tensors but rather just collections of coefficients. Any ambiguity in the lowered forms can be easily defined away, e.g. $\Gamma_{\lambda\mu\nu} = g_{\lambda\sigma} \Gamma^\sigma_{\mu\nu}$. In any event, the much more convenient way to TeX offset indices is to attach the offset ones to blank structures, as in \Gamma^\lambda{}_{\mu\nu}. Typesetting GR became significantly easier once I stopped using \phantom. ;) – Chris White Jul 31 '12 at 10:20

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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