I read some older posts about this question, but I don't know if I'm getting it. I'm working with a Lagrangian involving some Levi Civita symbols, and when I calculate a term containing $\epsilon^{ijk}$ I obtain the contrary sign using $\epsilon_{ijk}$. I always apply the normal rules: $\epsilon_ {ijk}=\epsilon^{ijk}=1$; $\epsilon_ {jik}=\epsilon^{jik}=-1$ etc. I believed that there is no difference between covariant and contravariant Levi-Civita symbol. What do you know about this?


Comment to the question (v2): Apart from the issue of various overall sign conventions found in the literature, note that:

  1. On one hand, there is the Levi-Civita symbol with upper (lower) indices, whose entries are only $0$s and $\pm 1$s; it is a contravariant (covariant) pseudotensor density, respectively.

  2. On the other hand, there is the Levi-Civita tensor with upper (lower) indices, whose definition differs from the Levi-Civita symbol by a factor of $\sqrt{|\det(g_{\mu\nu})|}$; it is a contravariant (covariant) pseudotensor, respectively.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the most common trend in the literature I see is for the lower-indexed symbol defined with signs given by the parity of the index permutation in the normal way, while the upper-indexed symbol differs from the lower-indexed one by $\mathrm{sgn}(\det g)$. But the OP seems to be in Euclidean $\mathbb{R}^3$ anyway. $\endgroup$ – user10851 Jul 5 '14 at 12:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Chris White: Possibly. Sean Carroll's GR notes agree with your sign convention, cf. Trimok's comment above. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Jul 5 '14 at 12:29

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.