Integration on chains in Spivak's calculus on manifolds


by quasar987
Tags: calculus, chains, integration, manifolds, spivak
quasar987
quasar987 is offline
#1
Aug17-08, 11:58 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
quasar987's Avatar
P: 4,768
I would like to discuss this chapter with someone who has read the book.

From looking at other books, I realize that Spivak does things a little differently. He seems to be putting less structure on his chains (for instance, no mention of orientation, no 1-1 requirement and so on), and as a result, I find that things get a little weird.

For instance, the first thing I asked myself after reading the definition of the integral of a k-form over a k-chain is whether or not the result is independent of the chain. More precisely, if c and d are two k-chains with identical images, does

[tex]\int_c\omega=\int_d\omega[/tex]

as intuition demands??

I found a little guidance in answering this in the person of problem 4-25 (Independence of parametrization), but that's not entirely satisfying, because after all, coudn't it be that there is no 1-1 p such that c o p = d? If c and d are not injective for instance, the obvious p(t) := c^-1(d(t)) fails. And that det p'(x) >= 0 condition... what does it say about p? What characterize reparametrizations p with det p'(x) >= 0? (Does injectivity implies that the determinant does not chance sign? locally okay, but globally?!)
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Cougars' diverse diet helped them survive the Pleistocene mass extinction
Cyber risks can cause disruption on scale of 2008 crisis, study says
Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes
Hurkyl
Hurkyl is offline
#2
Aug18-08, 12:14 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101
Quote Quote by quasar987 View Post
From looking at other books, I realize that Spivak does things a little differently. He seems to be putting less structure on his chains (for instance, no mention of orientation, no 1-1 requirement and so on), and as a result, I find that things get a little weird.
Isn't a chain a formal linear combination of parametrized regions? The parametrization on a region gives it an orientation.

More precisely, if c and d are two k-chains with identical images, does

[tex]\int_c\omega=\int_d\omega[/tex]

as intuition demands??
If we set d = 2c, then wouldn't they have the same image and different integrals?
quasar987
quasar987 is offline
#3
Aug18-08, 01:37 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
quasar987's Avatar
P: 4,768
Oops, I wrote k-chain everywhere where I should have written k-cube.

His k-cube on A (subset of R^n) is a smooth map c:[0,1]^k-->A.

Hurkyl
Hurkyl is offline
#4
Aug18-08, 02:37 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,101

Integration on chains in Spivak's calculus on manifolds


Well, it's easy enough to construct counterexamples in the same spirit. For example, c could be a curve tracing out a circle on the Euclidean plane, and d could be another curve that traces out the same circle twice.

(Of course, I doubt your intuition ever really demanded that these be the same....)
quasar987
quasar987 is offline
#5
Aug18-08, 11:09 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
quasar987's Avatar
P: 4,768
Mmmh, true.

And about problem 4-25? It reads,

"Let c be a k-cube and p:[0,1]^k-->[0,1]^k a bijection with det p'(x) >= 0 everywhere. If w is a k-form, then

[tex]\int_c\omega=\int_{c\circ p}\omega[/tex]"

The proof is direct... what I'm wondering is say I want to reparametrize c with a p as in the exercise. What does a p with det p'(x) >= 0 looks like? What does det p'(x) >= 0 says about p geometrically or otherwise?
alexn49
alexn49 is offline
#6
Nov23-09, 03:34 PM
P: 1
Hello everybody!
I am an exchange student in Canada and one of the course I choose is Calculus on Manifolds. This is a intersting as it is difficult but I deal with it! Anyway, I try to compute an aera over the chain but I can't find the right chain!

I have to compute the area on R2 of a square with a semi-circle on its top (I hope it is easy to understand). If you could give me any to start with or hint, I'd be glad because for now I don't even have an idea.

Hope to hear from you,
Alex


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Definition of cross product in Spivak's 'Calculus on Manifolds' Calculus & Beyond Homework 11
typo in spivak's calculus on manifolds? Calculus 2
spivak's calculus on manifolds chapter 1 Calculus & Beyond Homework 0
Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds problem (I). Integration. Calculus & Beyond Homework 1
spivak's textbook: calculus on manifolds Calculus 0