Simple/Basic Example on Wedge Products

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example Wedge
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the computations involved in wedge products of differential forms, specifically as presented in Barrett O'Neil's book, "Elementary Differential Geometry." Participants seek clarification on the example provided in the text, focusing on the application of definitions and the justification of various steps in the calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the justification for the equation d(fg ∧ dx ∧ dy) = d(fg) ∧ dx ∧ dy, seeking a clearer explanation of the steps involved.
  • Another participant provides a breakdown of the exterior derivative and its application to the example, referencing definitions from O'Neil's text, but acknowledges uncertainty about the relevance of certain definitions.
  • A later reply questions how to apply Definition 6.3 regarding 1-forms to the situation involving wedge products of two forms, indicating a need for further clarification on the transition between different forms.
  • One participant introduces the general definition of the exterior derivative of a wedge product, explaining the relationship between forms and the operations involved, while noting that the wedge is omitted for zero forms.
  • Another participant seeks clarification on the notation and the transition from scalar multiplication to wedge products, emphasizing the notational convenience in omitting the wedge for zero forms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the application of definitions and the steps in the example. There is no consensus on the clarity of the justification for specific equations, indicating that multiple competing views and uncertainties remain in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific definitions and theorems from O'Neil's text, but there are indications of missing assumptions and unresolved steps in the mathematical reasoning. The discussion highlights the complexity of applying theoretical definitions to practical examples.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Barrett O'Neil's book: Elementary Differential Geometry ...

I need help with fully understanding the example on wedge products of differential forms in O'Neill's text on page 31 in Section 1.6 ..The example reads as follows:
?temp_hash=61bf9d43e782a3c8ffa0ec43c4bd722e.png
I do not follow the computations in this example ... can someone please explain (in very simple terms) how the example "works" ... essentially how do we justify each step in the reasoning ...Particularly puzzling for me is the following ... ...... in the first equation (equation *) we find

d(fg \ dx \ dy ) = \partial (fg) / \partial z \ dz \ dx \ dy

How is this step justified?... then I find all the steps in the second and third equations puzzling as well ...

Can someone explain and justify the steps in the example in terms of O'Neill's Definitions, Theorems and Lemma's ... ...To give readers of this post the context, notation and necessary Definitions, Theorems and Lemma's, I am providing the text of Section 1.6: Differential Forms ... ... as follows ... ...
?temp_hash=61bf9d43e782a3c8ffa0ec43c4bd722e.png

?temp_hash=61bf9d43e782a3c8ffa0ec43c4bd722e.png

?temp_hash=61bf9d43e782a3c8ffa0ec43c4bd722e.png

?temp_hash=61bf9d43e782a3c8ffa0ec43c4bd722e.png
 

Attachments

  • O'Neill - EXAMPLE on page 31 - Wedge Products of Differential Forms.png
    O'Neill - EXAMPLE on page 31 - Wedge Products of Differential Forms.png
    28.7 KB · Views: 1,087
  • O'Neill - 1 - Section 1.6 - page 28 - Differential Forms - PART 1     .png
    O'Neill - 1 - Section 1.6 - page 28 - Differential Forms - PART 1 .png
    41.9 KB · Views: 989
  • O'Neill - 2 - Section 1.6 - page 29 - Differential Forms - PART 2     .png
    O'Neill - 2 - Section 1.6 - page 29 - Differential Forms - PART 2 .png
    49.1 KB · Views: 970
  • O'Neill - 3 - Section 1.6 - page 30 - Differential Forms - PART 3     .png
    O'Neill - 3 - Section 1.6 - page 30 - Differential Forms - PART 3 .png
    33 KB · Views: 867
  • O'Neill - 4 - Section 1.6 - page 31 - Differential Forms - PART 4      .png
    O'Neill - 4 - Section 1.6 - page 31 - Differential Forms - PART 4 .png
    42.7 KB · Views: 1,031
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for the interesting post. I have never worked with wedge products before, but I think I can help you tear this one apart.
Using the definition of the exterior derivative see 6.3 and definition 5.2 (not included):
##d(fg \partial x \partial y ) = d(fg) \wedge \partial x \partial y##
and
##d(fg) = \frac{\partial (fg)}{\partial x } \partial x + \frac{\partial (fg)}{\partial y } \partial y+ \frac{\partial (fg)}{\partial z} \partial z.##
Using the rule about repeats being zero, you can drop the ##\partial x## and ## \partial y## terms.
This gives you:
##d(fg \partial x \partial y ) = \frac{\partial (fg)}{\partial z} \partial z \wedge \partial x \partial y.##

For the second equation:
##d(f \partial x ) =df \wedge \partial x\\
\quad = \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial x } \partial x + \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial y } \partial y+ \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial z} \partial z \wedge \partial x \\
\quad =\frac{\partial (f)}{\partial y } \partial y \partial x+ \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial z} \partial z \partial x ##
Then looking at
##d(f \partial x )\wedge g\partial y ##
gives you:
##d(f \partial x )\wedge g\partial y = \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial y } \partial y \partial x+ \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial z} \partial z \partial x \wedge g\partial y\\
\quad = \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial y } g \partial y \partial x \partial y + \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial z} g \partial z \partial x \partial y ##
Eliminating the duplicate partial y, you get:
##d(f \partial x )\wedge g\partial y= \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial z} g \partial z \partial x \partial y\\
\quad = - \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial z} g \partial x \partial z \partial y\\
\quad = \frac{\partial (f)}{\partial z} g \partial x \partial y\partial z##

For the third equation, the process is about the same.
 
Hi RUber ... thanks for the help ... appreciate it ...

Just a question about the justification for

d(fg \ \partial x \partial y ) = d(fg) \ \wedge \ \partial x \partial y

or, in the notation of O'Neil ... ...

d(fg \ dx dy ) = d(fg) \ \wedge \ dx dy

Now you quote Definition 6.3 ( I cannot see the relevance of Definition 5.2 ? maybe you can help ...)

Definition 6.3 says that if we have a 1-form \phi = \sum f_i \ dx_i then d \phi = \sum df_i \ \wedge dx_i

Now how do we get 6.3 about 1-forms to apply to a situation about 1-forms ... I'm not sure ...

It does not solve my problem ... but to get closer to apply 6.3 we can put fg = F and then try to apply 6.3 ...but how do we deal with the fact that we are dealing with dx \ dy and not just dx ... I guess we could write dX = dx \ dy ... but could we then legitimately use 6.3 ...

Can you help?

Peter
 
The general definition of the exterior derivative of a wedge product of two differential forms is

##d(α∧β) = dα∧β =
+ (-1)^{p}α∧dβ## where ##α## is a ##p##-form.

For a zero form - i.e. a function - the wedge is omitted since it is just scalar multiplication for zero forms.

##dxdy## is really ##dx∧dy## so

##d(fdxdy) = d(f∧(dx∧dy)) = df∧(dx∧dy) + (-1)^{0}f∧d(dx∧dy) =df∧(dx∧dy) + f(d^{2}x∧dy - x∧d^{2}y)##
## = df∧(dx∧dy) = df∧dxdy##

since ##d^2## is zero always.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: RUber and Math Amateur
Thanks for you help, Lavinia ... most helpful ...

... BUT ... just a clarification ... (perhaps just a detail. but anyway ...)

How exactly do you get d(f \ dx \ dy ) = d ( f \ \wedge \ (dx \ \wedge \ dy ) ... ... ?

I can see that if dx \ dy = dx \ \wedge \ dy that we would have

d ( f \ dx \ dy ) = d ( f \ dx \ \wedge \ dy ) ... ...
 
Wedge product with a zero form is just scalar multiplication - by definition. The wedge is usually left out for zero forms but this is just a notational convenience.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K