Understanding the proof of a lemma concerning Stokes Theorem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the proof of a lemma related to Stokes' Theorem, specifically addressing the integral equality $$\int_{N \setminus p_{\lambda}^{-1}(Z)} \omega = \int_N \omega$$ under certain conditions. The proof utilizes the properties of the mapping $$p_{\lambda} : \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$$ and the continuity of the function $$\xi : N \rightarrow \Lambda_n \mathbb{R}^m$$. Key points include the closure of sets involved and the application of Hausdorff measure, leading to the conclusion that the integral over a measure-zero set results in zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Stokes' Theorem and its applications in differential geometry.
  • Familiarity with concepts of measure theory, specifically Lebesgue and Hausdorff measures.
  • Knowledge of continuous mappings and their properties in the context of topology.
  • Proficiency in exterior algebra and the use of antisymmetric maps.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Stokes' Theorem in higher-dimensional calculus.
  • Explore the properties of Hausdorff measure and its applications in geometric measure theory.
  • Learn about the continuity of mappings and their impact on set closure in topology.
  • Investigate the role of exterior algebra in differential forms and their integration.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in differential geometry, topology, and measure theory, will benefit from this discussion. It is also relevant for advanced students seeking to deepen their understanding of Stokes' Theorem and its proofs.

HughBennet
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have problems understanding the proof of this lemma:

$$\lambda \in \Lambda (m, n), \ \ \text{this means that it is an increasing function} \ \ \lambda: \{1,2,...,m\} \rightarrow \{1,...,n\}, \ \ \text{so} \ \ \lambda(1) < ... < \lambda(m)$$

$$p_{\lambda} : \mathbb{R}^m \ni (x_1, ..., x_m) \rightarrow (x_{\lambda(1)}, ..., x_{\lambda(m)}) \in \mathbb{R}^n$$

Assumptions:

$N$ is an $n-$ dimensional, orientable $C^1$ subvariety of $\mathbb{R}^m$, $1 \le n \le m$, $\lambda \in \Lambda(m,n)$, $h: \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous, $\omega = hd_{\lambda}$ is summable on
$N$, $Z$ is a closed subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\mathcal{L}^n(Z)=0$ (Lebesgue measure)

Then $$\int_{N \setminus p_{\lambda}^{-1}(Z)} \omega = \int_N \omega$$ with the induced orientation on $N \setminus p_{\lambda}^{-1}(Z)$Proof:First, without loss of generality, we assume that $\lambda(i) =i$, so $p_{\lambda} : \mathbb{R}^m = \mathbb{R}^{n} \times \mathbb{R}^{m-n} \ni (x_1, ..., x_m) \rightarrow (x_1, ..., x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n$.

Why can we do that?

Now we note that $p^{-1} _{\lambda} (Z)$ is closed but doesn't necessarily have measure $0$.

(I see that this set is closed due to continuity of $p_{\lambda}$.)We define $A = N \cap (p^{-1}_{\lambda}(Z)) = N \cap (Z \times \mathbb{R}^{m-n})$

and $C = \{x \in A \ : \ T_xN \cap (\{0\} \times \mathbb{R}^{m-n}) \neq 0\}$

in other words,

$C=\{x \in A \ : \ \xi(x) \wedge e_{n+1} \wedge ... \wedge e_m = 0\}$

where $$\xi : N \rightarrow \xi (x) \in \Lambda_n \mathbb{R}^m$$ is such that $$1) \forall x \in N : \xi (x) \ \ \text{is simple and } \ \ T_{\xi (x)} (def= \{ v \in \mathbb{R}^m \ | \ v \wedge \xi (x) =0\}) = T_xN$$
$$2) \forall x \in N : \ || \xi (x) || = 1 \ \ \text{inner product on the exterior power is induced by the inner product on } \ \mathbb{R}^m$$

$$3) \xi \text{is continuous}$$Now, we continue with the proof:

We note that $C$ is closed - is it because $\xi$ is continuous, the vectors of the canonical basis "don't move" and $\{0\}$ is a closed set?

We then define $B:= A \setminus C$

and note that :

$$1) \mathcal{H}^n (B)=0 $$

(Hausdorff measure) I do not see why that measure is zero


$$2) \omega(x; \xi (x)) = 0 \ \ \text{for } \ x \in C$$

The space of $p$-linear antisymmetric maps $f: V^p \rightarrow W$ is identified with $(\Lambda_pV)^* = \Lambda_pV^* $, but why is this value zero?

So $$\int_A \omega(x; \ \xi (x)) d \mathcal{H}^n(x)=0$$

The integrated function has vale\ue zero on the set $C$. So we can narrow down the integration to $A \setminus C$ which has measure zero, and so the integral is zero. Is that correct?

Could you explain to me the things that I do not understand?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've already managed to understand this proof!

So as far as I'm concerned the subject is closed :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K