Integral Definition of Exterior Derivative?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the existence of a rigorous integral definition of the exterior derivative, drawing parallels to the integral definitions of gradient, divergence, and curl in vector analysis. Participants explore whether such a definition can be established prior to Stokes' theorem and discuss the rigor of the limiting process involved in defining the exterior derivative.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions if there is a rigorous integral definition of the exterior derivative similar to those in vector analysis, and whether it can be formulated before proving Stokes' theorem.
  • Another participant asserts that the integral definition is analogous, but notes that the proofs are not shorter, suggesting that the complexity is shifted to the definition itself.
  • A mathematical expression is proposed to define the exterior derivative in terms of limits and integrals, but its validity is challenged by others.
  • Some participants express concerns about the interpretation of the exterior derivative as a scalar and the implications of moving it out of the integral.
  • There are repeated assertions that the proposed definitions and manipulations may not hold under scrutiny, particularly regarding the nature of differential forms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity of the proposed integral definition of the exterior derivative and the manipulation of differential forms. No consensus is reached on the correctness of the definitions or the interpretations presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in the proposed definitions, including issues with the treatment of differential forms and the mathematical rigor of the limiting process. There are unresolved questions about the implications of integrating over manifolds of varying degrees.

bolbteppa
Messages
300
Reaction score
41
Is there a rigorous integral definition of the exterior derivative analogous to the way the gradient, divergence & curl in vector analysis can be defined in integral form?

Furthermore can it be formulated before stating & proving Stokes theorem?

Finally, a beautiful classical argument for the integral definition of the divergence intuitively existing is given in Purcell (page 78), & it leads to the quickest (one line, coordinate independent!) proof of the Divergence theorem I've ever seen. How does one make the limiting process rigorous, & will making the limiting process rigorous justify that one-line proof?

Really appreciate any help with this - thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes it is the same. The proofs are not really shorter though. It just moves the hard work into the definition. Be careful learning math from intro physics books, they are not written for that purpose.

$$\mathrm{d}\omega=\lim_{\Omega\rightarrow\Omega_0}\left[ \int_{\partial\Omega}\! \omega \right]/ \left[\int_{\Omega}\! 1\right]$$

In the limit we shrink the region to a single point. Informally we can imagine the Stokes formula

$$\left[ \int_\Omega \! \mathrm{d}\omega \right]=\left[ \int_{\partial\Omega} \! \omega \right]$$

If the region is small (in the limit) the exterior derivative is constant and can factor out.

$$\left[ \int_\Omega \! 1 \right]\mathrm{d}\omega=\left[ \int_{\partial\Omega} \! \omega \right]$$
 
lurflurf said:
Yes it is the same. The proofs are not really shorter though. It just moves the hard work into the definition. Be careful learning math from intro physics books, they are not written for that purpose.

$$\mathrm{d}\omega=\lim_{\Omega\rightarrow\Omega_0}\left[ \int_{\partial\Omega}\! \omega \right]/ \left[\int_{\Omega}\! 1\right]$$

In the limit we shrink the region to a single point. Informally we can imagine the Stokes formula

$$\left[ \int_\Omega \! \mathrm{d}\omega \right]=\left[ \int_{\partial\Omega} \! \omega \right]$$

If the region is small (in the limit) the exterior derivative is constant and can factor out.

$$\left[ \int_\Omega \! 1 \right]\mathrm{d}\omega=\left[ \int_{\partial\Omega} \! \omega \right]$$

This reply makes no sense. The exterior derivative ##d\omega## is a differential form, and not (in general) a scalar. Your definition of
$$\mathrm{d}\omega=\lim_{\Omega\rightarrow\Omega_0}\left[ \int_{\partial\Omega}\! \omega \right]/ \left[\int_{\Omega}\! 1\right]$$
implies that it's a scalar.

Also, moving ##d\omega## out of the integral is very bad.
 
lurflurf said:
Yes it is the same. The proofs are not really shorter though. It just moves the hard work into the definition. Be careful learning math from intro physics books, they are not written for that purpose.

$$\mathrm{d}\omega=\lim_{\Omega\rightarrow\Omega_0}\left[ \int_{\partial\Omega}\! \omega \right]/ \left[\int_{\Omega}\! 1\right]$$
lurflurf, I'm not sure if your RHS actually means anything. In your denominator, it looks like you're attempting to integrate a 0-form on a manifold of degree greater than 0. Plus, your RHS looks like it isn't a differential form of degree greater than 0.

R136a1 said:
Also, moving ##d\omega## out of the integral is very bad.
I second this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
21K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K