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!

Definition of a one-form

  1. Nov 8, 2008 #1
    A one-form is something of the form

    [tex]\omega=\omega_\mu dx^\mu[/tex]

    But is it necessary that the components [tex]\omega_\mu[/tex] be components of a type (0,1) tensor?

    For instance, the connection one-form is defined to be

    [tex]{\omega^{\alpha}}_\beta = {\Gamma^\alpha}_{\gamma\beta} \hat{\theta}^\gamma[/tex]

    where [tex]\hat{\theta}^\gamma[/tex] is a basis of the dual tangent space, though not necessarily a coordinate basis. Here the components [tex]{\Gamma^\alpha}_{\gamma\beta} [/tex]--the connection coefficients, i.e., Christoffel symbols-- not only are not those of a type (0,1) tensor, they are not even those of a tensor.

    So is this legitimately a one-form?
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2008
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 8, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think with any vector bundle E over your manifold M, it's fair to call any (bundle) mapping TM-->E a "one-form". (i.e. a function that takes tangent vectors and maps them to E-vectors)

    For the usual one-forms, E is just the trivial line bundle MxR-->M -- that is, the one in which scalar fields live. Each (usual) one-form takes a tangent vector field on M and maps it to a scalar field on M. T*M is the bundle in which all such one-forms live.
  4. Nov 8, 2008 #3
    Thank you, Hurkyl. I'm getting there, I really am. But I am in chap 7 of Nakahara's Geometry, Topology, and Physics and fibre bundles and such are in chap 9. I think you are saying that the answer to "is it necessary that the components [tex]\omega_\mu[/tex] be components of a type (0,1) tensor? " is "No". Is that right?

    Then again, maybe this means "Yes, it is necessary"? The elements of T*M are identical with the (0,1) tensors, aren't they?
  5. Nov 10, 2008 #4
    I heared "connection one-form" but i see 2 componants "two indices" !!!! [tex]{{\omega^{\alpha}}_\beta}'s[/tex] are not one-forms and are not expressed in the natural basis (dx) they are the componants of a 1-1 tensor and a form has never been a 1-1 tensor ! I think :biggrin:
  6. Nov 10, 2008 #5
    I think maybe it is just sloppy use of the term "one-form". Though I think it is standard. The wikipedia entry just calls it "connection form" instead of "connection one form" But it is linear in the one-form basis elements [tex]\hat{\theta}^\alpha[/tex]. It is not a k-form where k>1.

    On the other hand, maybe any linear combination of the [tex]\hat{\theta}^\alpha[/tex] is a one form, even though the coefficients are the not components of a (0,1) tensor. I'm not able to glean how strict the definition of a one-form is from the sources I have checked.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Definition of a one-form
  1. Normal one-forms (Replies: 1)

  2. Confused about one forms (Replies: 15)