A contradiction in Spivak's Calculus on manifold?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a potential contradiction in Spivak's treatment of integrating k-forms over k-chains in the context of manifold theory. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the definitions and properties of k-chains and their relationship to k-cubes, particularly questioning the validity of the equality between the pullbacks of sums of chains and the sums of pullbacks.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to reconcile two definitions of integrals involving k-chains and k-cubes, questioning whether the equality of pullbacks holds. Some participants explore the nature of chains as geometric entities rather than functions, suggesting that the notation may be purely formal.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the original poster's concerns, with some offering insights into the geometric interpretation of chains. There is a recognition that the discussion may not lead to a definitive resolution, but it is fostering exploration of the underlying concepts.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the extension of the concepts discussed to the broader setting of manifolds, highlighting the lack of algebraic structure on manifolds that complicates the addition and scalar multiplication of chains.

quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32

Homework Statement


I don't have great expectation that this will get a reply but here goes, because 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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This will not do. Math is obviously far too easy to be left to the mathematicians.
 
Better than nothing. :p

(Where have the smiley faces gone?)
 
quasar987 said:
Better than nothing. :p

(Where have the smiley faces gone?)

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

:biggrin:
 
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.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K