1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A contradiction in Spivak's Calculus on manifold?

  1. Aug 24, 2007 #1

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    I don't have great expectation that this will get a reply but here goes, cuz this is bugging me.

    I will assume that you are familiar with the notation used by Spivak.

    In the last section of chapter 4, he shows how to integrate a k-form on R^m over a singular k-cube in R^m, namely,

    [tex]\int_c \omega = \int_{[0,1]^k}c^{*}\omega[/tex]

    He then goes on to define the integral of a k-form over a k-chain [itex]c=\sum a_i c_i[/itex] in R^m by

    [tex]\int_c \omega = \sum a_i\int_{c_i} \omega=\sum a_i\int_{[0,1]^k}c_{i}^{*}\omega[/tex]

    But actually, a k-chain in R^m is a k-cube in R^m, so in principle, the integral of a k-chain is already defined, namely by

    [tex]\int_c \omega =\int_{[0,1]^k}(\sum a_i c_i)^{*}\omega[/tex]

    and this will be consistent with the above definition if [itex](\sum a_i c_i)^{*}=\sum a_ic_i^{*}[/itex]. But is this so? Taking the case where w is a 1-form for simplicity,

    [tex](\sum a_i c_i)^{*}\omega (p)(v_p)=\omega (\sum a_i c_i(p))((\sum a_i c_i)_{*}(v_p))=\omega (\sum a_i c_i(p))(\sum a_i (Dc_i(p)(v))_{c(p)})=\sum a_i \omega (\sum a_i c_i(p))((Dc_i(p)(v))_{c(p)})[/tex]

    On the other hand, supposing we define "+" and multiplication by a scalar in the natural way on the f* operators,

    [tex](\sum a_ic_i^{*})\omega(p)(v_p)=\sum a_ic_i^{*}\omega(p)(v_p) = \sum a_i \omega(c_i(p))(c_{i*}(v_p))=\sum a_i \omega(c_i(p))(Dc_{i}(v))_{c_i(p)})[/tex]

    They are not at all the same.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 24, 2007 #2

    olgranpappy

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    This will not do. Math is obviously far too easy to be left to the mathematicians.
     
  4. Aug 24, 2007 #3

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Better than nothing. :p

    (Where have the smiley faces gone?)
     
  5. Aug 24, 2007 #4

    olgranpappy

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    up in the toolbar-thing (look for the smileyface with a down-arrow next to it).

    :biggrin:
     
  6. Aug 25, 2007 #5

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Could it be that chains are not really functions, and when we write [itex]c=\sum a_i c_i[/itex], it is purely notational?

    Because I happen to be reading at the moment that this whole cube & chains business can be extended to the general setting of manifold. Namely, if M is a manifold, a singular k-cube in M is a map c:[0,1]^k --> M. But since there is a priori no algebra on manifolds, it does not make sense to add and multiply cubes by constants, such that [itex]c=\sum a_i c_i[/itex] is only a formal sum.
     
  7. Aug 25, 2007 #6

    Dick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think you have it. A chain is a piece of geometry. It's not the coordinate map, since the integration is independent of the coordinates. So, yes, it's a formal sum. Probably best to think of it as a 'weight' on the chain.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: A contradiction in Spivak's Calculus on manifold?
Loading...