What Constitutes something being "coordinate free"by saminator910 Tags: constitutes, coordinate free 

#1
Jan2913, 07:22 PM

P: 78

People say that exterior calculus ie. differentiating and integrating differential forms, can be done without a metric, in without specifying a certain coordinate system. I don't really get what qualifies something to be 'coordinate free', I mean in the differential forms I do, one still references components ie. x_{1},x_{2}, etc., yet I never specified a metric, so is this classified as 'coordinate free'. Also, how does one do differential geometry without a coordinate system, in my mind once you don't specify a coordinate system or a metric, and things become vague, it sort of turns into differential topology, is there a 'middle ground' I am missing, keep in mind I have never taken a coarse in differential geometry. Also, in differential geometry, it has always been pertinent to give specific parametrization in order to find tangent vectors, metrics, etc.




#2
Jan3013, 08:57 AM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 4,301

If you use x_{i}, that (implicitly) means that you have chosen a coordinate system, so it is not coordinate free.
To give a very simple example, consider a linear transformation (e.g. rotation) T on a vector x. You could write this in coordinatefree form as x' = T x This does not depend on which basis you choose for the space that x lives in  it just means: apply this transformation. When you calculate the result on a vector, you usually pick a coordinate system by choosing a set of basis vectors (x, y, zaxis) and write the action of T as a matrix M. You then calculate [tex]\mathbf{x'}_i = \sum_{j = 1}^n M_{ij} x_j [/tex] This is not coordinatefree, because both the components of x and x' as well as the entries of M depend on the coordinate system. The advantage of the coordinatefree form is that it looks the same in any choice of basis. If you and I both chose a different coordinate system and wrote down M, we would get two different bunches of numbers but it would not be immediately clear that we're talking about the same "physical" operation. 



#3
Jan3013, 09:08 AM

Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,881

Another example: Let X be the set of all quadratic polynomials from R to R and define T by T(f)= df/dx+ f. That is a "coordinate free" definition. If I had chosen [itex]\{1, x, x^2\}[/itex] as basis (essentially choosing a "coordinate system" by choosing a basis), say that T(1)= 1, T(x)= x+ 1, T(x^{2})= x^{2}+ 2x, then say T is "extended by linearity", T(af+ bg)= aT(f)+ bT(g), that is not "coordinaate free" because I have used a coordinate system (a basis) to define it. Or course, those are exactly the same definition.




#4
Jan3013, 11:41 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 3,173

What Constitutes something being "coordinate free"
It would be interesting to sort out the distinction between "having a coordinate system" and "having a metric". The two definitions are not identical, but what common situations allow us to proceed from having one to having the other?




#5
Jan3013, 12:27 PM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 4,301

Aren't they two completely different things?
Sure, for a lot of "common" metric spaces the metric is defined in terms of coordinates. But for R^{n}, for example, that's mostly because people usually learn Pythagoras before inner products, so [tex]\sum_i (y_i  x_i)^2[/tex] is a little more intuitive than [tex]\langle \vec y  \vec x, \vec y  \vec x\rangle[/tex] 



#6
Jan3013, 12:39 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 3,173

The pythagorean idea won't necessarily work for a coordinate system where the same thing can have two different coordinates (as is the case in the polar coordinate system). 



#7
Jan3013, 09:07 PM

P: 78

Okay so, your standard differential form, written with coordinates say for example a standard 1 form, [itex]\alpha = \sum^{n}_{i=1}f_{i}du_{i}[/itex], you are still referencing a it's local coordinates, but you don't necessarily need to know what the metric is ie. euclidean space vs. it being embedded in some other manifold, so the coordinates don't necessarily need any intrinsic value. then if you know the [itex]u_{i}[/itex] coordinates in terms of euclidean or other coordinates, you pullback/pushforward the form. Does this count as 'coordinate free' since you don't specify a basis: the coordinates in the form aren't in terms of anything.




#8
Jan3113, 09:42 AM

Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,881

Given a metric space, even finite dimensional [itex]R^n[/itex], we would need a choice of "origin", and n1 "directions" for the coordinate axes (after choosing n1 coordinate directions, the last is fixed) in order to have a coordinate system. So a "coordinate system" is much more restrictive, and stronger, than a "metric space". 



#9
Jan3113, 10:44 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 3,173





#10
Jan3113, 06:31 PM

P: 78

okay, so now can someone give an example of using a differential form without a metric?



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
In binary can we have a value with "deci" "centi" "mili" or more lower valued prefix?  Computers  14  
What Constitutes a "Reputable" Program?  Academic Guidance  15  
What exactly constitutes "math research"?  Academic Guidance  6  
what constitutes a "published" philosopher  Forum Feedback & Announcements  3  
Does "coordinate system" = "gauge"?  General Physics  1 