I have been trying to express $\eta^{\mu\nu}$ in terms of $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ and I have stumble upon the following relation:
$\eta^{\mu\nu} = \eta^{\mu\alpha}\eta^{\nu\beta}\eta_{\alpha\beta}$
I can see how the indices $\alpha$ and $\beta$ contract to form the contravariant tensor $\eta^{\mu\nu}$, but I do not understand why the ordering of the tensors $\eta^{\mu\alpha}$, $\eta^{\nu\beta}$ and $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ does not matter. If I am correct, only the inner upper and lower indices can contract, so that the ordering $\eta^{\mu\alpha}\eta_{\alpha\beta}\eta^{\nu\beta}$ is more appropriate. So, $\eta^{\mu\alpha}\eta_{\alpha\beta}\eta^{\nu\beta} = \eta^{\mu}_{\beta}\eta^{\nu\beta}$, so that inner upper and lower index $\alpha$ contracts. Then, $\eta^{\mu}_{\beta}\eta^{\nu\beta} = \eta^{\mu}_{\beta}\eta^{\beta\nu}$, because the metric tensor is symmetric. Next, $\eta^{\mu}_{\beta}\eta^{\beta\nu} = \eta^{\mu\nu}$ and we end up with the desired form.
Do you think ordering of the tensors in a tensor product matters? I say this, because matrix multiplication is non-commutative. Therefore, shouldn't tensor multiplication also be non-commutative?
Also, I could simplify the RHS into LHS only because the metric tensor is symmetric? What if the tensor were not symmetric? How could we then have managed to simplify?