Wald Theorem 2.2.1 Problem on p.15

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter syhpehtam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of Theorem 2.2.1 from Wald's General Relativity book, specifically on page 15. The user initially struggles with the validity of formula 2.2.5 derived from 2.2.4, questioning the expression of the map ##f:M\rightarrow\mathbb R## outside the domain ##O\subseteq M##. The confusion arises from the relationship between the maps ##v(f)## and ##v(x^{\mu}\circ\psi)##, which do not seem to align with the definitions in the context of the theorem. Ultimately, the user resolves their issue by referencing a theorem from another General Relativity text that clarifies the conditions under which the expressions become meaningful.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity concepts, specifically Wald's Theorem 2.2.1.
  • Familiarity with the notation and terminology used in differential geometry.
  • Knowledge of the properties of maps and neighborhoods in mathematical analysis.
  • Experience with the concept of equivalence of functions in local neighborhoods.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Wald's Theorem 2.2.1 in the context of General Relativity.
  • Explore the definitions and properties of maps in differential geometry.
  • Learn about the equivalence of functions in neighborhoods and its applications in GR.
  • Review additional resources on the derivation of formulas in General Relativity, focusing on Wald's work.
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in theoretical physics, particularly those focusing on General Relativity, as well as mathematicians interested in the application of differential geometry in physical theories.

syhpehtam
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hi, I have some trouble with Theorem 2.2.1 in Wald's GR book p.15.

He derived formula 2.2.5 by using 2.2.4. Here, the ##f## in ##v(f)## is a map ##f:M\rightarrow\mathbb R##, but 2.2.4 is the expression for ##f## only in the domain ##O\subseteq M## and we don't know the expression for ##f## outside ##O##. So how can 2.2.5 be valid. ##v## is a map ##v:\mathcal F\rightarrow\mathbb R##, but ##x^{\mu}\circ\psi## is a map:##O\rightarrow\mathbb R## which doesn't belong to##\mathcal F##, so ##v(x^{\mu}\circ\psi)## in 2.2.5 & 2.2.7 doesn't make sense.

Is there anything assumed in advance by the author that make these wrong expressions in the formulas become meaningful?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've found a theorem in another GR book which says:
If ##f_1,f_2\in\mathcal F##,and there exists a neighborhood ##N## of ##p\in M## such that ##f_1|_N=f_2|_N##, then ##v(f_1)=v(f_2)## for ##v\in V_p##.

So my trouble is solved.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
12K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 83 ·
3
Replies
83
Views
7K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K