Proving Exactness of a Differential Form with Poincaré's Lemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeanf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on proving the exactness of a differential form, specifically using Poincaré's Lemma. The user defines a differentiable function f: R^n → R^n and establishes that the closed form ω = ∑_{i=1}^n f_i dx_1 ∧ ... ∧ ȳdx_i ∧ ... ∧ dx_n is exact under the condition that ∑_{i=1}^n (-1)^i ∂f_i/∂x_i = 0. The key conclusion is that since ω is defined on an open, star-shaped set, demonstrating that ω is closed (i.e., dω = 0) is sufficient to prove its exactness.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential forms and their properties
  • Familiarity with Poincaré's Lemma
  • Knowledge of exterior derivatives and the wedge product
  • Basic concepts of multivariable calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of Poincaré's Lemma in detail
  • Learn about the properties of closed and exact forms in differential geometry
  • Explore the implications of the exterior derivative in the context of differential forms
  • Investigate applications of differential forms in physics and engineering
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying differential geometry, particularly those interested in the properties of differential forms and their applications in various fields.

jeanf
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
let [tex]f: R^n \rightarrow R^n[/tex] be differentiable, with [tex]\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i \frac{ \partial{f_i}}{\partial{x_i}} = 0[/tex]. show that [tex]\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i dx_1 \Lambda ... \Lambda \hat{dx_i}\Lambda ... \Lamda dx_n[/tex] is exact


-------------------------------------
here's what i got so far:

[tex]\omega[/tex] is a n-1 form, since the "^" on the [tex]dx_i[/tex] indicates that this term is omitted. f is defined on [tex]R^n[/tex] which is an open, star-shaped set. because of this, we can use poincare's lemma, which states that on an open starshaped set, every closed form is exact. therefore we only need to show that [tex]\omega[/tex] is closed. that is, dw = 0.

when i write out dw, i get

[tex]dw = \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{\alpha = 1}^n \frac{ \partial{f_i}}{\partial{x_\alpha}} dx_\alpha \Lambda dx_1 \Lambda... \Lambda \hat{dx_i}\Lambda ... \Lamda dx_n[/tex]

how do i simplify this? how do i make this equal zero? if [tex]\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i \frac{ \partial{f_i}}{\partial{x_i}} = 0[/tex], does this mean that the expression i wrote for dw equals zero? i don't really see the connection here, since [tex]\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i \frac{ \partial{f_i}}{\partial{x_i}}[/tex] has an extra factor of [tex](-1)^i[/tex]...i'm not sure about the subscripts either. i hope someone can help me with this.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
jeanf said:
let [tex]f: R^n \rightarrow R^n[/tex] be differentiable, with [tex]\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i \frac{ \partial{f_i}}{\partial{x_i}} = 0[/tex]. show that [tex]\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i dx_1 \Lambda ... \Lambda \hat{dx_i}\Lambda ... \Lamda dx_n[/tex]

What is it you want to show? You can't show that [tex]\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i dx_1 \Lambda ... \Lambda \hat{dx_i}\Lambda ... \Lamda dx_n[/tex] without knowing how [tex]\omega[/tex] is defined! You haven't said what [tex]\omega[/tex] is. If, on the other hand, [tex]\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i dx_1 \Lambda ... \Lambda \hat{dx_i}\Lambda ... \Lamda dx_n[/tex] is the definition of [tex]\omega[/tex] then I don't know what it is you want to show. You seem to be saying that you want to prove that [tex]\omega[/tex] is exact.
 
yes, the question was to show that [tex]\omega[/tex] is exact - sorry, i forgot to type that in my original post. i have edited it above. thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
535
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K