Can someone explain why p terms are not canceling in this Diffeomorphisms proof?

They represent the components of vectors and commute. Look at the derivation of (130), the 2nd line follows from the first by commuting the components of X and Y. In (220) we're doing the same thing.
  • #36


fzero said:
If you get the sign of [tex]\tau[/tex] wrong, you'll find that r increases as you travel backwards in coordinate time on the outgoing geodesics.
I'm still confused as to what's going on here...

fzero said:
In Schwarzschild coordinates you find

[tex] - \frac{2M}{2M-r}[/tex]

so there's probably something wrong with your derivation above.

Here's what I did:

[itex]v=t+r+2M \log{1-\frac{r}{2M}}[/itex]
[itex]\frac{\partial v}{\partial r} = 1 + \frac{2M}{1-\frac{r}{2M}} ( - \frac{1}{2M}) = 1 - \frac{1}{1-\frac{r}{2M}} = 1 - \frac{2M}{2M-r}[/itex]
so [itex]X'^\mu=(1 - \frac{2M}{2M-r},1,0,0)[/itex]

so [itex]g(X,X)=\begin{pmatrix} 1-\frac{2M}{2M-r} & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} - (1-\frac{2M}{r}) & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 - \frac{2M}{2M-r} \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}[/itex]
[itex]=\begin{pmatrix} 1-\frac{2M}{2M-r} & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} - ( 1 - \frac{2M}{r} )( 1 - \frac{2M}{2M-r} ) + 1 \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}[/itex]
[itex]=\begin{pmatrix} 1-\frac{2M}{2M-r} & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \frac{2M}{2M-r}+\frac{2M}{r} - \frac{4M^2}{(2M-r)r} \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}[/itex]
[itex] = (1-\frac{2M}{2M-r} ) ( \frac{2M}{2M-r}+\frac{2M}{r} - \frac{4M^2}{(2M-r)r})+1[/itex]
[itex]=\frac{2M}{2M-r} + \frac{2M}{r} - \frac{4M^2}{(2M-r)r} - \frac{4M^2}{(2M-r)^2} - \frac{4M^2}{(2M-r)r} + \frac{8M^3}{(2M-r)^2r}+1[/itex]

This is slightly different from what I got last time (I realized I made a mistake) but it still isn't right...

Also, I tried to show (399):

[itex]g_{ab}u^au^b = - \left( \frac{dt}{d \tau} \right)^2 + L^2 \cosh^2{\frac{t}{L}} \left( \frac{\partial \chi}{\partial t} \right)^2[/itex]
[itex]=-\left( \frac{\partial t}{\partial \tau} \right)^2 + L^2 \cosh^2{\frac{t}{L}} \left( \frac{1}{1-e^{2t}} e^t \left( \frac{dt}{d \tau} \right)^2[/itex]
[itex]=-\left( \frac{dt}{d \tau} \right)^2 + \frac{L^2}{2} \left( e^{t/L} + e^{-t/L} \right) \frac{2 e^{-t}e^t}{e^{-t}-e^t} \left( \frac{dt}{d \tau} \right)^2[/itex]

but that second term gives a cosh/sinh and also the arguments are different: one is t/L and the other is just t so I don't see how I'm going to get them to cancel?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37


I had a small mistake, the Schwarzschild coordinate result is

[tex] \frac{1}{1-\frac{2M}{r}} = -\frac{r}{2M-r} .[/tex]

There are some simplifications that make your calculation simpler:

[tex]X'^\mu=(- \frac{r}{2M-r},1,0,0)[/tex]

[tex]g(X,X)=\begin{pmatrix} -\frac{r}{2M-r} & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \frac{2M-r}{r} & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{r}{2M-r} \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

If you expand the above out, you should find

[tex]g(X,X)=- \frac{r}{2M-r} .[/tex]
 
  • #38


fzero said:
I had a small mistake, the Schwarzschild coordinate result is

[tex] \frac{1}{1-\frac{2M}{r}} = -\frac{r}{2M-r} .[/tex]

There are some simplifications that make your calculation simpler:

[tex]X'^\mu=(- \frac{r}{2M-r},1,0,0)[/tex]

[tex]g(X,X)=\begin{pmatrix} -\frac{r}{2M-r} & 1 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \frac{2M-r}{r} & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} - \frac{r}{2M-r} \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}[/tex]

If you expand the above out, you should find

[tex]g(X,X)=- \frac{r}{2M-r} .[/tex]

Great! So if you were asked to show this result (that r behaves as the time coordiante), you would just say that all we need to do is demonstrate d/dr is timelike. It's then easiest to show this in Schwarzschild cooridnates isn't it as we just take the components of X as (0,1,0,0) and use the Schwarzschild metric to get your quoted result.

I think I have figured everything else out except the changing the tau thing on the outgoing geodesic in the r<2M region.

Thans.
 
  • #39


latentcorpse said:
Great! So if you were asked to show this result (that r behaves as the time coordiante), you would just say that all we need to do is demonstrate d/dr is timelike. It's then easiest to show this in Schwarzschild cooridnates isn't it as we just take the components of X as (0,1,0,0) and use the Schwarzschild metric to get your quoted result.

I was saying that the Schwarzschild calculation was easiest all along. I just canceled off the wrong bit when I wrote the answer down.

I think I have figured everything else out except the changing the tau thing on the outgoing geodesic in the r<2M region.

Thans.

The way to think of it is the following. We know that geodesics satisfy

[tex]\frac{dt}{d\tau} = \frac{r}{r-2M} , ~~ \frac{dr}{d\tau} = \pm 1,[/tex]

but it's up to us to figure out which of [tex]\pm[/tex] is ingoing or outgoing.

For [tex]r>2M[/tex], [tex] dt/d\tau >0[/tex], so increasing [tex]\tau[/tex] means advancing into the future coordinate time. Then [tex]dr/d\tau <0[/tex] is ingoing.

For [tex]r<2M[/tex], [tex] dt/d\tau <0[/tex], so decreasing [tex]\tau[/tex] means advancing into the future coordinate time and [tex]dr/d\tau >0[/tex] is ingoing. It's better to send [tex]\tau \rightarrow -\tau[/tex] in this region so that we have the same inequalities as for [tex]r>2M[/tex], but it's not necessary if you study the behavior along geodesics. It also makes sense to compare the conclusions with the actual solutions for geodesics.
 
  • #40


fzero said:
I was saying that the Schwarzschild calculation was easiest all along. I just canceled off the wrong bit when I wrote the answer down.



The way to think of it is the following. We know that geodesics satisfy

[tex]\frac{dt}{d\tau} = \frac{r}{r-2M} , ~~ \frac{dr}{d\tau} = \pm 1,[/tex]

but it's up to us to figure out which of [tex]\pm[/tex] is ingoing or outgoing.

For [tex]r>2M[/tex], [tex] dt/d\tau >0[/tex], so increasing [tex]\tau[/tex] means advancing into the future coordinate time. Then [tex]dr/d\tau <0[/tex] is ingoing.

For [tex]r<2M[/tex], [tex] dt/d\tau <0[/tex], so decreasing [tex]\tau[/tex] means advancing into the future coordinate time and [tex]dr/d\tau >0[/tex] is ingoing. It's better to send [tex]\tau \rightarrow -\tau[/tex] in this region so that we have the same inequalities as for [tex]r>2M[/tex], but it's not necessary if you study the behavior along geodesics. It also makes sense to compare the conclusions with the actual solutions for geodesics.

Thanks. At the bottom of p119, he says that de Sitter spacetime has constant curvature 1/L^2. How do we work this out? Do we have to go to (382) and work out a component of the riemann tensor. that seems quite a lot of work.
 
  • #41


latentcorpse said:
Thanks. At the bottom of p119, he says that de Sitter spacetime has constant curvature 1/L^2. How do we work this out? Do we have to go to (382) and work out a component of the riemann tensor. that seems quite a lot of work.

It's enough in this case to show that the Ricci tensor satisfies [tex]R_{\mu\nu} = c g_{\mu\nu}[/tex] for some constant [tex]c[/tex].
 
  • #42


fzero said:
It's enough in this case to show that the Ricci tensor satisfies [tex]R_{\mu\nu} = c g_{\mu\nu}[/tex] for some constant [tex]c[/tex].

but to work out the ricci tensor won't i have to work out the riemann tensor anyway?

also if [itex]R_{abcd}=Kg_{a[c}g_{b]d}[/itex] then [itex] R_{ab}=3Kg_{ab}[/itex] so I'd have to divide that value by 3.
 
  • #43


latentcorpse said:
but to work out the ricci tensor won't i have to work out the riemann tensor anyway?

also if [itex]R_{abcd}=Kg_{a[c}g_{b]d}[/itex] then [itex] R_{ab}=3Kg_{ab}[/itex] so I'd have to divide that value by 3.

I forgot that the Riemann tensor has that form, which makes it easier. There is a lot that ends up requiring computing the Riemann tensor and there's not much that you can do about it other than learn how to use Mathematica, Maple or something else.
 
  • #44


fzero said:
I forgot that the Riemann tensor has that form, which makes it easier. There is a lot that ends up requiring computing the Riemann tensor and there's not much that you can do about it other than learn how to use Mathematica, Maple or something else.

I'm not sure what you mean there. You say this form makes it easier but then also that it's a hard enough calculation to merit maple or the likes! is this dooable by picking a particular component and trying and working it out or is it something that would take so long that they would never be able to ask it in an exam?
 
  • #45


latentcorpse said:
I'm not sure what you mean there. You say this form makes it easier but then also that it's a hard enough calculation to merit maple or the likes! is this dooable by picking a particular component and trying and working it out or is it something that would take so long that they would never be able to ask it in an exam?

If you wanted to prove that the Riemann tensor was proportional to that combination of metric components, you'd need to compute all independent components. When I said easier, I mean recognizing that saves having to compute the trace that gives the Ricci tensor. It doesn't sound like a useful exercise to ask on an exam, since it only tests grunt work and not concepts.
 
  • #46


fzero said:
If you wanted to prove that the Riemann tensor was proportional to that combination of metric components, you'd need to compute all independent components. When I said easier, I mean recognizing that saves having to compute the trace that gives the Ricci tensor. It doesn't sound like a useful exercise to ask on an exam, since it only tests grunt work and not concepts.

Hmm. But how could working out the Ricci tensor be easier than getting the riemann tensor? surely we'd have to get riemann tensor first and then contract? I might be missing what you're saying here.

Then on p114, he has an example where he says the metric [itex]ds^2=dx^2+d \theta^2[/itex] is flat and hence constant curvature. Well it's clearly a cylinder which we know to be flat but how do you actually show this? Would you pull back the euclidean metric?
 
  • #47


latentcorpse said:
Hmm. But how could working out the Ricci tensor be easier than getting the riemann tensor? surely we'd have to get riemann tensor first and then contract? I might be missing what you're saying here.

I'm saying that if you compute the Riemann tensor and noticed that symmetry, then you wouldn't have to compute the Ricci tensor. Remember that constant curvature means that the curvature scalar is a constant, so in general we need to compute two traces of the Riemann tensor.

Then on p114, he has an example where he says the metric [itex]ds^2=dx^2+d \theta^2[/itex] is flat and hence constant curvature. Well it's clearly a cylinder which we know to be flat but how do you actually show this? Would you pull back the euclidean metric?

It's easiest just to note that since the metric is constant in these coordinates, the Christoffel symbols vanish and so does the Riemann tensor. Hence the scalar curvature vanishes in these coordinates and, since it is an invariant, must vanish in any coordinates.
 
  • #48


fzero said:
I'm saying that if you compute the Riemann tensor and noticed that symmetry, then you wouldn't have to compute the Ricci tensor. Remember that constant curvature means that the curvature scalar is a constant, so in general we need to compute two traces of the Riemann tensor.



It's easiest just to note that since the metric is constant in these coordinates, the Christoffel symbols vanish and so does the Riemann tensor. Hence the scalar curvature vanishes in these coordinates and, since it is an invariant, must vanish in any coordinates.

Great. I am trying this question (question 2) though:
http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/postgrad/mathiii/pastpapers/2009/Paper54.pdf [Broken]

So the first two bits are easy enough. Now for the angular momentum bit.

I didn't really get the whole point of taking two separate surfaces - why do we do that?

Anyway I find (taking [itex]F^{ab}=\xi^{a;b}[/itex]

[itex]J_S=-\frac{1}{8 \pi} \int_\Omega \xi^{a;b}{}_{;b} d^3 \Sigma_a[/itex]
But from the previous part we have [itex]\xi^{a;b}{}_{;b}=-R^{ab}\xi_b[/itex]
Now it says we have to use the Einstein equations.
Seeing as we are in an asymptotically flat region of spacetime, I took this to mean that [itex]T_{ab}=0[/itex] as we are far away from matter.
So the einstein eqns give [itex]\xi^{a;b}{}_{;b}=-\frac{1}{2} R g^{ab} \xi_b[/itex]
So we get
[itex]J_S = \frac{1}{16 \pi} \int_\Omega R \xi^a d^3 \Sigma_a[/itex]
So if we use the other identity given with [itex]X^a=R \xi^a[/itex] we get
[itex]J_S=\frac{1}{16 \pi} \int_V (R \xi^a)_{;a} d^4 \Sigma[/itex]

Is this going right? Presumably I now need to use the fact that [itex]\xi=\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}[/itex]?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49


latentcorpse said:
Great. I am trying this question (question 2) though:
http://www.maths.cam.ac.uk/postgrad/mathiii/pastpapers/2009/Paper54.pdf [Broken]

So the first two bits are easy enough. Now for the angular momentum bit.

I didn't really get the whole point of taking two separate surfaces - why do we do that?

I don't think that you can guarantee that the boundary of a generic 3-manifold [tex]\Omega[/tex] is a single spacelike hypersurface. Just consider the case where some of [tex]\Omega[/tex] is in the casual past of another part.

Anyway I find (taking [itex]F^{ab}=\xi^{a;b}[/itex]

[itex]J_S=-\frac{1}{8 \pi} \int_\Omega \xi^{a;b}{}_{;b} d^3 \Sigma_a[/itex]
But from the previous part we have [itex]\xi^{a;b}{}_{;b}=-R^{ab}\xi_b[/itex]
Now it says we have to use the Einstein equations.
Seeing as we are in an asymptotically flat region of spacetime, I took this to mean that [itex]T_{ab}=0[/itex] as we are far away from matter.
So the einstein eqns give [itex]\xi^{a;b}{}_{;b}=-\frac{1}{2} R g^{ab} \xi_b[/itex]
So we get
[itex]J_S = \frac{1}{16 \pi} \int_\Omega R \xi^a d^3 \Sigma_a[/itex]
So if we use the other identity given with [itex]X^a=R \xi^a[/itex] we get
[itex]J_S=\frac{1}{16 \pi} \int_V (R \xi^a)_{;a} d^4 \Sigma[/itex]

Is this going right? Presumably I now need to use the fact that [itex]\xi=\frac{\partial}{\partial \phi}[/itex]?

If [itex]T_{ab}=0[/itex], you can use the trace of the Einstein equation to show that [tex]R=0[/tex].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50


fzero said:
I don't think that you can guarantee that the boundary of a generic 3-manifold [tex]\Omega[/tex] is a single spacelike hypersurface. Just consider the case where some of [tex]\Omega[/tex] is in the casual past of another part.

So will this mean that all the rest of my work is wrong?

fzero said:
If [itex]T_{ab}=0[/itex], you can use the trace of the Einstein equation to show that [tex]R=0[/tex].

I thought about this but surely it can't be that easy. We haven't made use of the fact that [itex]\xi=\partial_\phi[/itex] which seemed to be central to the question!Also, in the notes, could you give me some advice on how to derive 415?

And on p128 he says that the universe will expand forever even though the rate of expansion is decreasing ([itex]\ddot{a}<0[/itex]). But surely if [itex]\ddot{a}<0[/itex] then at some point [itex]\dot{a}[/itex] will change from being positive and become negative and then we will have a contracting universe?

And is there a difference between "the past light cone at p" and the "particle horizon at p"?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #51


latentcorpse said:
So will this mean that all the rest of my work is wrong?

Not necessarily, though you should be a bit more careful about setting things up. For example [tex] \xi^{a;b}[/tex] is not itself an antisymmetric 2-form.

I thought about this but surely it can't be that easy. We haven't made use of the fact that [itex]\xi=\partial_\phi[/itex] which seemed to be central to the question!

Well you do use the fact that it's a Killing vector. The fact that it's spacelike should also be tied to the fact that you're using a spacelike hypersurface.

Also, in the notes, could you give me some advice on how to derive 415?

The stress tensor for a perfect fluid is (175).

And on p128 he says that the universe will expand forever even though the rate of expansion is decreasing ([itex]\ddot{a}<0[/itex]). But surely if [itex]\ddot{a}<0[/itex] then at some point [itex]\dot{a}[/itex] will change from being positive and become negative and then we will have a contracting universe?

The solutions for [tex]a(\eta)[/tex] are (427). What you claim clearly doesn't happen for [tex]\eta>0[/tex] in the flat and open universes.


And is there a difference between "the past light cone at p" and the "particle horizon at p"?

Thanks.

Yes, the horizon is composed of the boundary of the present positions of particles which were in casual contact with us at some time in the past. Again, I don't have the figures, but the one on p. 130 is probably relevant.
 
  • #52


fzero said:
Not necessarily, though you should be a bit more careful about setting things up. For example [tex] \xi^{a;b}[/tex] is not itself an antisymmetric 2-form.
Well you do use the fact that it's a Killing vector. The fact that it's spacelike should also be tied to the fact that you're using a spacelike hypersurface.
Surely from Killing's equation, [itex]\nabla_a \xi_b = - \nabla_b \xi_a[/itex] will be antisymmetric? Do I need to do anything about the two surfaces then?

fzero said:
The stress tensor for a perfect fluid is (175).
I have been trying to take the [itex]\nu=0[/itex] component of [itex]T^{\mu \nu}{}_{; \mu}=0[/itex] but it simply will not work! Is this the way I should go about it?

fzero said:
The solutions for [tex]a(\eta)[/tex] are (427). What you claim clearly doesn't happen for [tex]\eta>0[/tex] in the flat and open universes.
But just from a plot of sinh, it looks like a smiley face (i.e. positive second derivatie), no?
fzero said:
Yes, the horizon is composed of the boundary of the present positions of particles which were in casual contact with us at some time in the past. Again, I don't have the figures, but the one on p. 130 is probably relevant.
So the particle horizon is the boundary of the past light cone?
 
  • #53


latentcorpse said:
Surely from Killing's equation, [itex]\nabla_a \xi_b = - \nabla_b \xi_a[/itex] will be antisymmetric? Do I need to do anything about the two surfaces then?

OK that'll do. As for the two surfaces, you need to figure out what your surface [tex]\Omega[/tex] is. Is [tex]\partial \Omega[/tex] necessarily connected?

I have been trying to take the [itex]\nu=0[/itex] component of [itex]T^{\mu \nu}{}_{; \mu}=0[/itex] but it simply will not work! Is this the way I should go about it?

It looks like you need to compute a trace of one of the Christoffel symbols.

But just from a plot of sinh, it looks like a smiley face (i.e. positive second derivatie), no?

[tex]\ddot{a}[/tex] is the 2nd derivative w.r.t. coordinate time, not [tex]\eta[/tex]. I can't see the figures, so I don't know if they should be helpful to you.

So the particle horizon is the boundary of the past light cone?

The figure is probably clearer than I would put into words. The horizon is a boundary on spacetime at our present expansion parameter. To determine the points that make up the horizon, you need to follow the worldlines of the particles that crossed our past light cone at some earlier time.
 
  • #54


fzero said:
OK that'll do. As for the two surfaces, you need to figure out what your surface [tex]\Omega[/tex] is. Is [tex]\partial \Omega[/tex] necessarily connected?
I thought S is the surface given in the formula for J_S. Then [itex]\partial \Omega=S[/itex] and [itex]\Omega[/itex] would just be the enclosed 3-sphere?
fzero said:
The figure is probably clearer than I would put into words. The horizon is a boundary on spacetime at our present expansion parameter. To determine the points that make up the horizon, you need to follow the worldlines of the particles that crossed our past light cone at some earlier time.

Well from the figure, it appears to me that the particle horizon actually is the boundary of the past light cone. But if this is so, why don't they just define it as this? This is why I'm having doubts about my interpretation. But I can't think of an example where they wouldn't be equal.

Also, for the [itex]\nabla_\mu T^{\mu \nu}[/itex] question, can I take [itex]u^\mu=(1,0,0,0)[/itex] as we are assuming a comoving observer. And apparently they have [itex]u^\alpha=\delta^\alpha{}_0[/itex].
However, even though our notes say we can do this for a comoving observer, I find that
[itex]\nabla_\mu T^{\mu \nu}=0[/itex]
[itex]\nabla_\mu ( \rho u^\mu u^\nu ) + \nabla_\mu ( p u^\mu u^\nu) - \nabla_\mu (pg^{\mu \nu})=0[/itex]
Taking [itex]\nu=0[/itex] we get
[itex]\nabla_0 ( \rho u^0) + \nabla_i ( \rho u^i) + \nabla_0 ( pu^0) + \nabla_i ( p u^i) - \nabla_0p[/itex]
[itex]\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}=0[/itex]
which is clearly incomplete so something isn't right...

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
  • #55


latentcorpse said:
Also, for the [itex]\nabla_\mu T^{\mu \nu}[/itex] question, can I take [itex]u^\mu=(1,0,0,0)[/itex] as we are assuming a comoving observer. And apparently they have [itex]u^\alpha=\delta^\alpha{}_0[/itex].
However, even though our notes say we can do this for a comoving observer, I find that
[itex]\nabla_\mu T^{\mu \nu}=0[/itex]
[itex]\nabla_\mu ( \rho u^\mu u^\nu ) + \nabla_\mu ( p u^\mu u^\nu) - \nabla_\mu (pg^{\mu \nu})=0[/itex]
Taking [itex]\nu=0[/itex] we get
[itex]\nabla_0 ( \rho u^0) + \nabla_i ( \rho u^i) + \nabla_0 ( pu^0) + \nabla_i ( p u^i) - \nabla_0p[/itex]
[itex]\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}=0[/itex]
which is clearly incomplete so something isn't right...

Thanks.

If you take the calculation another line you should find something like [tex]\dot{\rho} + (\rho +p){\Gamma^0}_{00}=0[/tex].
 
  • #56


fzero said:
If you take the calculation another line you should find something like [tex]\dot{\rho} + (\rho +p){\Gamma^0}_{00}=0[/tex].

How did you manage to get any [itex]p[/itex] terms surviving? All of mine cancel.
 
<h2>1. Why do p terms not cancel in this Diffeomorphisms proof?</h2><p>The reason why p terms do not cancel in this Diffeomorphisms proof is because they represent different variables or parameters. In mathematical proofs, it is important to keep track of all variables and not assume that they will cancel out.</p><h2>2. Can you provide an example of p terms not canceling in a Diffeomorphisms proof?</h2><p>One example is in the proof of the inverse function theorem, where the p terms represent the partial derivatives of the functions involved. These terms do not cancel because they are different derivatives and cannot be simplified.</p><h2>3. How does the failure of p terms to cancel affect the overall proof?</h2><p>The failure of p terms to cancel does not affect the validity of the proof. It simply means that the variables involved cannot be simplified or canceled out, and they must be considered separately in the proof.</p><h2>4. Is it common for p terms to not cancel in mathematical proofs?</h2><p>Yes, it is common for p terms to not cancel in mathematical proofs. In fact, it is often a key part of the proof to show that these terms cannot be simplified or canceled out in order to arrive at the desired conclusion.</p><h2>5. How can one ensure that p terms do not cancel in a proof?</h2><p>To ensure that p terms do not cancel in a proof, it is important to carefully track all variables and not assume that they will cancel out. Additionally, it may be helpful to double check the calculations and equations to make sure that all terms are accounted for and cannot be simplified further.</p>

1. Why do p terms not cancel in this Diffeomorphisms proof?

The reason why p terms do not cancel in this Diffeomorphisms proof is because they represent different variables or parameters. In mathematical proofs, it is important to keep track of all variables and not assume that they will cancel out.

2. Can you provide an example of p terms not canceling in a Diffeomorphisms proof?

One example is in the proof of the inverse function theorem, where the p terms represent the partial derivatives of the functions involved. These terms do not cancel because they are different derivatives and cannot be simplified.

3. How does the failure of p terms to cancel affect the overall proof?

The failure of p terms to cancel does not affect the validity of the proof. It simply means that the variables involved cannot be simplified or canceled out, and they must be considered separately in the proof.

4. Is it common for p terms to not cancel in mathematical proofs?

Yes, it is common for p terms to not cancel in mathematical proofs. In fact, it is often a key part of the proof to show that these terms cannot be simplified or canceled out in order to arrive at the desired conclusion.

5. How can one ensure that p terms do not cancel in a proof?

To ensure that p terms do not cancel in a proof, it is important to carefully track all variables and not assume that they will cancel out. Additionally, it may be helpful to double check the calculations and equations to make sure that all terms are accounted for and cannot be simplified further.

Similar threads

  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
6
Replies
175
Views
20K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
3
Views
226
  • General Math
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top