1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Showing a form is exact

  1. Aug 8, 2005 #1
    let [tex]f: R^n \rightarrow R^n [/tex] be differentiable, with [tex]\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i \frac{ \partial{f_i}}{\partial{x_i}} = 0 [/tex]. show that [tex]\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i dx_1 \Lambda ... \Lambda \hat{dx_i}\Lambda ... \Lamda dx_n [/tex] is exact


    -------------------------------------
    here's what i got so far:

    [tex]\omega[/tex] is a n-1 form, since the "^" on the [tex]dx_i[/tex] indicates that this term is omitted. f is defined on [tex]R^n[/tex] which is an open, star-shaped set. because of this, we can use poincare's lemma, which states that on an open starshaped set, every closed form is exact. therefore we only need to show that [tex]\omega [/tex] is closed. that is, dw = 0.

    when i write out dw, i get

    [tex]dw = \sum_{i=1}^n \sum_{\alpha = 1}^n \frac{ \partial{f_i}}{\partial{x_\alpha}} dx_\alpha \Lambda dx_1 \Lambda... \Lambda \hat{dx_i}\Lambda ... \Lamda dx_n [/tex]

    how do i simplify this? how do i make this equal zero? if [tex]\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i \frac{ \partial{f_i}}{\partial{x_i}} = 0 [/tex], does this mean that the expression i wrote for dw equals zero? i don't really see the connection here, since [tex]\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^i \frac{ \partial{f_i}}{\partial{x_i}} [/tex] has an extra factor of [tex](-1)^i[/tex]...i'm not sure about the subscripts either. i hope someone can help me with this.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 9, 2005 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    What is it you want to show? You can't show that [tex]\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i dx_1 \Lambda ... \Lambda \hat{dx_i}\Lambda ... \Lamda dx_n [/tex] without knowing how [tex]\omega[/tex] is defined! You haven't said what [tex]\omega[/tex] is. If, on the other hand, [tex]\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n f_i dx_1 \Lambda ... \Lambda \hat{dx_i}\Lambda ... \Lamda dx_n [/tex] is the definition of [tex]\omega[/tex] then I don't know what it is you want to show. You seem to be saying that you want to prove that [tex]\omega[/tex] is exact.
     
  4. Aug 9, 2005 #3
    yes, the question was to show that [tex]\omega [/tex] is exact - sorry, i forgot to type that in my original post. i have edited it above. thanks.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Showing a form is exact
  1. Closed and exact forms (Replies: 1)

  2. No exactly homework (Replies: 1)

  3. Show that (Replies: 1)

Loading...