I think I'm missing something in his description. Spivak defines a singular k-cube as a continuous function from the solid paralleletope [0,1](adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); ^{k}into a subset of R^{n}. He also defines the singular 1-cubec:[0,1] -> R_{R,n}^{2}-{0}:t |-> (R cos((2Pi) n t), R sin((2Pi) n t)).

So in one exercise, we have a singular 1-cubecin R^{2}-{0} where c(0)=c(1), and we are asked to show that there is an integernsuch thatc-cis the boundary of some sum of 2-cubes. He later asks to show that_{1,n}nis unique.

Now, c_{1,n}is just the unit circle wound around the origin n times. I don't see the difference between c_{1,1}and c_{1,2}with respect to bounding 2-dimensional regions. What is the right way to look at this ?

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

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

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

# Spivak on 1-cubes

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads for Spivak cubes | Date |
---|---|

I Spivak's Definition of Integrals vs Stewart's | Nov 27, 2016 |

I Spivak - Proof of f(x) = c on [a, b] | Sep 14, 2016 |

I Spivak Limit Theorem 1 | Sep 13, 2016 |

I Spivak calculus, page 123 - if n is odd, then the 'n'th degree polynomial equation f(x) has a root | Apr 3, 2016 |

Expanding a simple cube root | Oct 12, 2014 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**