A question about Jacobian when doing coordinates transformation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Jacobian of the transformation defined by \(X_1 = x_1 + x_2\) and \(X_2 = x_2\), where the Jacobian determinant \(\partial (X_1,X_2)/\partial (x_1,x_2)\) equals 1. The confusion arises from the term \(dx_1dx_1\), which is interpreted as zero due to the nature of differentials in this context. The participants clarify that \(dx_1dx_1\) has no meaningful interpretation and is a result of treating differentials as Grassmann variables, which leads to the conclusion that the area represented by \(dx_1dx_1\) is indeed zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Jacobian matrices and determinants
  • Familiarity with differential calculus and transformations
  • Knowledge of Grassmann variables and their properties
  • Basic concepts of differential geometry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Jacobians in coordinate transformations
  • Explore the application of Grassmann algebra in differential geometry
  • Learn about differential forms and their geometric interpretations
  • Investigate the implications of zero-area differentials in calculus
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying advanced calculus, particularly those interested in differential geometry and transformations involving Jacobians.

xuphys
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi,

When I do the following transformation:

$$
X_1=x_1+x_2 \\
X_2=x_2
$$

It turns out that the Jacobian ##\partial (X_1,X_2)/\partial (x_1,x_2)## is 1. But we have:

$$
dx_1dx_1+dx_1dx_2=d(x_1+x_2)dx_2=dX_1dX_2=|\partial (X_1,X_2)/\partial (x_1,x_2)|dx_1dx_2=dx_1dx_2
$$

So we have ##dx_1dx_1=0##. Is this kind of weird? Why does ##(dx_1)^2## have to be 0?

Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It represents the differential area for the parallelogram formed by varying by dx1 and then dx1. Since both sides are the same direction, the area is zero.

At a higher level the differentials are treated as Grassmann variables (like cross product but yielding tensor instead of vector). Then the Jacobian is built into the algebra.
 
Strictly speaking "[itex]dx_1dx_1[/itex]" has no meaning! How did it get in that problem?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K