A contradiction in Spivak's Calculus on manifold?

In summary, the conversation discusses the integration of k-forms over singular k-cubes and k-chains in R^m, as well as the definition and consistency of these integrals. It also touches on the concept of chains in the setting of manifolds and the idea that they are not functions, but rather a formal sum or weight.
  • #1
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
4,807
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
  • #2
This will not do. Math is obviously far too easy to be left to the mathematicians.
 
  • #3
Better than nothing. :p

(Where have the smiley faces gone?)
 
  • #4
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:
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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.
 

1. What is a contradiction in Spivak's Calculus on manifold?

A contradiction in Spivak's Calculus on manifold refers to an inconsistency or logical error found in the mathematical proofs presented in the textbook "Calculus on Manifolds" written by Michael Spivak. This contradiction undermines the validity and reliability of the mathematical concepts and results presented in the book.

2. How was the contradiction discovered?

The contradiction in Spivak's Calculus on manifold was first discovered by mathematician and physicist John Baez in the 1980s. Baez noticed a discrepancy between the proof of the inverse function theorem presented in the book and the accepted proof used in the mathematical community. This led to further investigations and the eventual discovery of the contradiction.

3. What is the impact of the contradiction on the field of mathematics?

The contradiction in Spivak's Calculus on manifold has sparked discussions and debates among mathematicians and has led to a reassessment of the mathematical concepts and proofs used in the book. While it does not invalidate the entire field of mathematics, it highlights the importance of rigor and careful scrutiny in mathematical research and publications.

4. Has the contradiction been resolved?

Yes, the contradiction in Spivak's Calculus on manifold has been resolved through the efforts of mathematicians such as John Baez, David Bleecker, and David Stewart. They have identified the error in the proof and provided a corrected version, known as the "corrected Spivak proof," which is now widely accepted and used in the mathematical community.

5. Is Spivak's Calculus on manifold still a reliable source for learning mathematics?

Despite the contradiction, Spivak's Calculus on manifold remains a highly respected and valuable textbook for learning mathematics. The book covers a wide range of advanced mathematical topics and provides a comprehensive introduction to the subject. However, it is important to note the existence of the contradiction and to use other sources for verifying the accuracy of the proofs presented in the book.

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
929
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
723
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top