Maps B2->S2 Define F+ & F-: Show Int w S2 = Int F+*(w) B2 - Int F-*(w)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter huyichen
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical justification for an integral identity involving two mappings, F+ and F-, from the 2-dimensional ball B2 to the 2-sphere S2. Participants explore the conditions under which the integral of a differential form w on S2 can be expressed in terms of pullbacks of w via F+ and F- over B2, particularly focusing on the limits as R approaches 1.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines F+ and F- and poses a question about justifying the limits in the integral identity.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on what is meant by "justify the limits."
  • A response clarifies that justification involves showing that the integral of the pullback of w can indeed be replaced by the limit integral as R approaches 1.
  • One participant asserts that the integral identity holds, noting that the equator has measure zero, which may not affect the outcome.
  • A later reply specifies that the problem is from Lee's book and emphasizes that F+ and F- are continuous but not smooth at the equator, complicating the boundary discussion.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of a neighborhood around the equator and the need to show that the limit of the integrals converges appropriately.
  • A question arises about whether the limit holds since F+ and F- agree on the equator.
  • One participant argues that the form is bounded in the neighborhood and that the area of this neighborhood converges to zero as R approaches 1.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the justification of the limits and the implications of the continuity and smoothness of F+ and F-. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of the justification and the treatment of the equator.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the integrand is unbounded and that the mappings F+ and F- are continuous but not smooth at the equator, which introduces complexity in the analysis.

huyichen
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Define F+:B2->S2 by
F+=(u,v)=(u,v,sqrt(1-u^2-v^2))
and F-:B2->S2 by
F-=(u,v)=(u,v,-sqrt(1-u^2-v^2))

Then to show that Integral of w on S2=Integral of F+^*(w) on B2-Integral of F-^*(w), why do we need to justify the limits(As the integral on the right hand side are defined as limits as R->1 of the integrals over B_R(0))
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What do you mean by "justify the limits"?
 
Justify means that we can indeed replace Integral F^*w with the limit integral as R--> 1
 
To my mind,

\int_{S^2}\omega=\int_{B_1(0)}F_+^*\omega - \int_{B_1(0)}F_-^*\omega

and that's all there is to it. We're missing the equator but this has measure 0 so nobody's going to complain.

Again, I guess I just don't understand the nature of your question. You'll have to provide a lot more information on the context behind where this question is coming from.
 
Actually, this is problem 14-6 from Introduction to Smooth Manifolds, Lee's book, we can not directly talk about the boundary because F+, F- is continuous but not smooth up to the equator. And the integrand is unbounded, but if we interpret in an appropriate limiting sense, then we can show Integral w on S^2=Integral F+^*w on B^2-Integral F-^*w.
 
Ok, I see.

So what you have is for every R<1,

<br /> \int_{S^2-\rho(R)}\omega=\int_{B_R(0)}F_+^*\omega - \int_{B_R(0)}F_-^*\omega<br />

You must show that

<br /> \lim_{R\rightarrow 1^-}\int_{S^2-\rho(R)}\omega=\int_{S^2}\omega<br />

Where \rho(R)=S^2 - F_-(B_R(0)) - F_+(B_R(0)) is some band\ring\cylinder nbhd of the equator.
 
But as F- and F+ agrees on equator, then the limit indeed hold, right?
 
I argue that the form in bounded in the band, and the band has area converging to 0 as R-->1.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K