Show that Area form is independent of parameterization?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on demonstrating that the area form √(EG-F²)du∧dv in differential geometry is independent of local parameterization. Participants suggest that understanding the coefficients E, F, and G of the first fundamental form is crucial for this proof. There is a query about why this independence does not apply to standard integrals in ℝn, where the area is affected by the Jacobian determinant during variable changes. A method is proposed to verify the area form's consistency by comparing results from different parameterizations using Jacobians. The overall goal is to establish that the area remains invariant despite changes in parameterization.
phyalan
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
In differential geometry, how can one show that the area form: √(EG-F2)du\wedgedv is independent of the choice of local parameterization?
Here E,F,G are the coefficients of first fundamental form. Please someone gives me some ideas.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
phyalan said:
In differential geometry, how can one show that the area form: √(EG-F2)du\wedgedv is independent of the choice of local parameterization?
Here E,F,G are the coefficients of first fundamental form. Please someone gives me some ideas.

Maybe if you give us the definition of E, G, F and/or how they are calculated, that
would help.

And, BTW : why doesn't the independence of parametrization hold for standard
integrals in standard integration in ℝn , where the area is scaled by
the determinant of the Jacobian J(f) of the change of variables?
 
Actually, what I am trying to do is to change from one parameterization to another and calculate the formula by definition to see if they give the same result under different parameterization, but I am not sure I am doing something valid. For instance, E=\phi_{u}\cdot\phi_{u} where\phi is a local parameterization from a open set in R^2 to the surface concerned and \phi_{u}=\partial \phi / \partial u\circ\phi^{-1} so can I write \phi_{u}=\phi_{v}\partial v/\partial ufor another parameterization? In that case I can express the thing with determinants of Jacobian and they eventually cancel out to give same result.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
973
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K