Resources on the Derivation of generalized Stokes' theorem

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding resources for the derivation of the generalized Stokes' theorem, particularly in the context of preparing a seminar presentation. Participants express challenges in locating suitable materials that focus on derivations rather than proofs, and they share recommendations for literature and online resources.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks resources for the generalized Stokes' theorem, noting a lack of available derivations online and high costs for recommended literature.
  • Another participant questions the distinction between a proof and a derivation, suggesting that a proof starts with a theorem while a derivation starts from assumptions to reach the theorem.
  • Some participants clarify their understanding of proofs and derivations, with one suggesting that a proof is a logical argument confirming the truth of a statement.
  • A participant recommends Lee's "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds," indicating that a chapter on integration of forms may be helpful and is available for free as a PDF.
  • Another participant mentions DoCarmo's book on differential forms as a potential resource.
  • Links to online resources are shared, including a non-proof version of Stokes' theorem and a PDF on differential forms.
  • One participant expresses appreciation for a resource that includes discussions relevant to the Hodge-Star operator, indicating its usefulness for their presentation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the difficulty of finding derivations specifically, and multiple recommendations for resources are provided. However, there is no consensus on the definitions of proofs versus derivations, as participants express differing views on this distinction.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the availability of specific literature and the definitions of proofs and derivations, which may depend on personal interpretations and academic contexts.

PhysicsRock
Messages
121
Reaction score
19
Hello everyone,
as part of my bachelor studies, I need to attend a seminar with the aim to prepare a presentation of about an hour on a certain topic. I have chosen the presentation about the generalized Stokes theorem, i.e.

$$
\int_M d\omega = \int_{\partial M} \omega.
$$

After hours of searching, I unfortunately haven't found any resources on the internet. It seems like all there is is proofs, not derivations. My professor has given us some literature recommendations, however, they're not available in our library and certainly not free, costing about 150€ each.
Perhaps one of you has encountered a similar issue and can tell me where to look. Of course, both the internet and literature are fine, maybe one of your recommendations is available in the library or on the second hand market, which is a lot cheaper typically.
Just to be avoid pointless efforts, here's the list from my professor:
Altland, von Delft: "Mathematics for Physicists: Introductory Concepts and Methods"
Thirring: "A Course in Mathematical Physics 2"
Lechner: "Classical Electrodynamics: A Modern Perspective"
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Exactly what do you consider to be the difference between a proof and a derivation?
 
Orodruin said:
Exactly what do you consider to be the difference between a proof and a derivation?
To me, a proof means starting with the theorem and ending somewhere else, a true statement would be good.

A derivation would do the same, but the other way around. Start somewhere, do some math-magic and finish off with the theorem.
 
PhysicsRock said:
To me, a proof means starting with the theorem and ending somewhere else, a true statement would be good.

A derivation would do the same, but the other way around. Start somewhere, do some math-magic and finish off with the theorem.
Then you need to revise what you think a proof is. A proof is a logical argument for why a statement must be true. Showing that A implies B, where B is true, does not make A true.
 
Orodruin said:
A proof is a logical argument for why a statement must be true. Showing that A implies B, where B is true, does not make A true.
True, my mistake. I guess I'll ask my professor if a proof would do the job, assuming we already know the theorem and just wanted to confirm it's true, not build it from scratch / a certain point we can assume to be true.
 
PhysicsRock said:
Hello everyone,
as part of my bachelor studies, I need to attend a seminar with the aim to prepare a presentation of about an hour on a certain topic. I have chosen the presentation about the generalized Stokes theorem, i.e.

$$
\int_M d\omega = \int_{\partial M} \omega.
$$

After hours of searching, I unfortunately haven't found any resources on the internet. It seems like all there is is proofs, not derivations. My professor has given us some literature recommendations, however, they're not available in our library and certainly not free, costing about 150€ each.
Perhaps one of you has encountered a similar issue and can tell me where to look. Of course, both the internet and literature are fine, maybe one of your recommendations is available in the library or on the second hand market, which is a lot cheaper typically.
Just to be avoid pointless efforts, here's the list from my professor:
Altland, von Delft: "Mathematics for Physicists: Introductory Concepts and Methods"
Thirring: "A Course in Mathematical Physics 2"
Lechner: "Classical Electrodynamics: A Modern Perspective"
Not sure what you are looking for but Lee's Introduction to smooth manifolds chapter in Integration of forms is a great source. I believe the first edition is freely available as a pdf.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhysicsRock
jbergman said:
Not sure what you are looking for but Lee's Introduction to smooth manifolds chapter in Integration of forms is a great source. I believe the first edition is freely available as a pdf.
Thank you. I'll check that out.
 
I suspect DoCarmo's book on differential forms may have something on it too.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhysicsRock
WWGD said:
I suspect DoCarmo's book on differential forms may have something on it too.
Great, thank you!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
  • #12
romsofia said:
https://sites.science.oregonstate.edu/physics/coursewikis/GDF/book/gdf/stokes.html is a non "proof" version, but if you're giving an hour-long talk, probably going to need to throw some proofs in there for filler.
This is actually brilliant, because Stokes by itself works without a metric, but I'm still supposed to cover how one may appear when considering the Hodge-Star, which is included here. Amazing, thank you!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: romsofia and jim mcnamara

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
923
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
7K