I can find various derivations of ∫ dθ = 0 which are satisfactory, but none of ∫dθ θ =1.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Cheng and Li says it's just a normalization convention, of course that assumes that the integral is finite.

Is this just a matter of definition, or is there a better reason that that?

And would any of this relate to the exterior calculus, since I believe Grassmann algebra is an example of (or is) exterior albegra.

Thanks very much !

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Question about Grassmann Integral

Loading...

Similar Threads for Question Grassmann Integral |
---|

I Astrodynamics Question: Derivation of Sp. Orbital Energy? |

I Direct Products of Modules ...Another Question ... ... |

I Correspondence Theorem for Groups ... Another Question ... |

I Question about inverse operators differential operators |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**