Vanishing measure of a set with codimenon 2

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cduston
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Set
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept that the measure of a set with codimension 2 in a 4-manifold, specifically CP_2, vanishes. Participants clarify that a line in R^3, which has codimension 2, has a Lebesgue measure of zero, illustrating that locally 1-dimensional objects do not occupy volume in higher dimensions. The integration of such sets results in zero when using volume integrals, confirming the initial assertion regarding the vanishing measure.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of measure theory
  • Familiarity with codimension concepts in topology
  • Basic knowledge of Lebesgue measure
  • Concepts of integration in multiple dimensions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Lebesgue measure in higher dimensions
  • Explore codimension and its implications in topology
  • Learn about integration techniques for manifolds
  • Investigate the relationship between exterior products and measures
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those focused on measure theory, topology, and differential geometry, will benefit from this discussion.

cduston
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hey everyone,
I am integrating something (specifically 2-forms, but I think this is a general statement) over a set B of (real) codimension 2 in a 4-manifold (CP_2). I've been told that the measure of a set of codimension 2 will vanish, but I don't really understand why. I've been thinking about exterior products and hodge duals but I can't seem to understand it from that direction. Does anyone have any insights?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This isn't a statement about differential manifolds or anything like it - it's just measure theory.

I'm not going to attempt a rigorous proof, but explain by example/analogy. Think of a line in R^3, which has codimension 2. The lebesgue measure of that is zero. This you can prove rigorously, but non-rigorously something that is locally 1-dimensional has no (3-dimensional) volume.
 
Ok I see that's actually pretty simple. I guess I was thinking that integrating something like a line in R^3 should be dl (like a 1D integral), which isn't generally zero but if you took the volume integral dV=dxdydz (or whatever) over the line you would get zero. Ok, thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K