Differential Forms in General Relativity: Definition & Use

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definitions of differential forms in the context of General Relativity, specifically questioning the consistency of a found definition with those typically presented in textbooks. The scope includes theoretical exploration and conceptual clarification.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the validity of a definition of differential forms they found online compared to one in their textbook.
  • Another participant challenges the initial poster to provide a specific reference for the definition they found, emphasizing the importance of context.
  • A subsequent reply reiterates the need for a reference, questioning the credibility of the definition without it.
  • The original poster admits to forgetting the source of the definition and seeks confirmation on its consistency with common textbook definitions.
  • Another participant suggests that the original poster should compare the definitions directly from their textbook and report any differences observed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus, as there is ongoing debate about the validity and source of the definition of differential forms, with multiple viewpoints on the necessity of references.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of specific references to definitions, potential variations in textbook definitions, and the original poster's inability to recall the source of their found definition.

kent davidge
Messages
931
Reaction score
56
Some time ago I was looking around the web for the use of differential equations in General Relativity. Then I found a definition (below) of differential forms, but I noted that the definition on my book is different from this one. Could someone tell me if it is right?

vyl6if.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kent davidge said:
Then I found a definition (below) of differential forms

Where? You should not post something like this without giving a specific reference for where you got it.

kent davidge said:
the definition on my book

Which book? Same point as above.
 
PeterDonis said:
Where? You should not post something like this without giving a specific reference for where you got it.

Which book? Same point as above.
I forgot where I found it. I just wish to know if this definition is consistent with definitions commonly given in books.
 
kent davidge said:
I just wish to know if this definition is consistent with definitions commonly given in books.

You referred to "the definition in my book". That implies that you have a specific book already, so you should be able to look at the definition in it and compare it to what you posted in the OP. Have you done that? Are they the same? If not, what differences did you see? Can you post them?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K