Differential K-Forms on Rn: Meaningless w/ k>n?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TranscendArcu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differential
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of differential k-forms in the context of Rn, particularly focusing on the implications when k exceeds n. Participants are exploring the meaning and existence of these forms and questioning the underlying principles that govern their definitions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand why k-forms with k > n are considered meaningless, suggesting that overlapping differentials might lead to a zero form. Others clarify that no k-forms exist in this case and provide examples of existing forms for various dimensions. A request for proof regarding the existence of k-forms is made, along with a question about specific terminology used in a quoted explanation.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants providing clarifications and examples related to the existence of k-forms. There is a request for further proof and understanding of specific terms, indicating ongoing exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating definitions and implications of differential forms, with some expressing uncertainty about specific terminology such as "deg xI." There is an emphasis on understanding the constraints of k-forms in relation to the dimensionality of Rn.

TranscendArcu
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
This is more a concept question than an actual homework problem but why is it more or less meaningless to define differential k-forms on Rn in this case of k > n?

I'm not really sure why this is so, but I might guess that since two dxis are the same in the product of such terms, then that whole term equals 0. If that's the case, is a k-form with k > n just the same as a k-form with k=n?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, that is the case but no, a k-form with k> n is not "just the same as a k-form with k= n". What is true is that there are NO k-forms with k> n. In fact, one can show that in n-dimensional space, there exist [itex]\begin{pmatrix}n \\ k\end{pmatrix}[/itex] k-forms.

For example, if n= 1, there exist one 0-form, the empty form, and 1 1-form, dx. If n= 2, there exist one 0-form, two 1 forms, dx and dy, and one 2 form, dxdy. If n= 3, there exist one 0-form, three 1 forms, dx, dy, and dz, three 2-forms dxdy, dydz, and dzdx, and one 3-form, dxdydz.
 
Okay. Could you please show that there exist [itex]\begin{pmatrix}n \\ k\end{pmatrix}[/itex] k-forms, or otherwise direct me to the proof of this?
 
So I found this quote that seems to explain what I'm asking about:

There are no nonzero differential forms of degree > n on an open subset of Rn. This is because is deg xI > n, then in the expression dxI at least two of the 1-forms dxi must be the same, force dxI = 0.
The only problem is that I don't know what "deg xI > n" means. What, specifically, is "deg"?

Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K