Undergrad Wedge product of a 2-form with a 1-form

  • Thread starter Thread starter GR191511
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Product Wedge
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on finding a formula for the wedge product of a 2-form and a 1-form in terms of vector fields on R^3. Participants clarify that the wedge product results in a 3-form, which requires three vector arguments. A proposed formula is discussed, but concerns about its anti-symmetry arise, indicating a potential misunderstanding of the properties of n-forms. The conversation highlights the need for a deeper understanding of alternating n-linear functions and their implications in the context of differential forms. Overall, the participants emphasize the importance of grasping the fundamental concepts of forms and tensors in manifold theory.
GR191511
Messages
76
Reaction score
6
Let ##\omega## be 2-form and ##\tau## 1-form on ##R^3## If X,Y,Z are vector fields on a manifold,find a formula for ##(\omega\bigwedge\tau)(X,Y,Z)## in terms of the values of ##\omega## and ##\tau ## on the vector fields X,Y,Z.
I have known how to deal with only one vector field.But there are three vector fields,I have no idea.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
GR191511 said:
I have known how to deal with only one vector field.
Please expand on what you mean by this. The wedge product of a 2-form and a 1-form is a 3-form and so must take 3 vector arguments.
 
Orodruin said:
Please expand on what you mean by this. The wedge product of a 2-form and a 1-form is a 3-form and so must take 3 vector arguments.
Thank you.
I know ##\omega (X) = (a_idx^i)(b^j\frac{\partial }{\partial x^j})=a_ib^i## but ##(\omega\bigwedge\tau)(X,Y,Z)=?##
 
GR191511 said:
Thank you.
I know ##\omega (X) = (a_idx^i)(b^j\frac{\partial }{\partial x^j})=a_ib^i##
In the case you have presented in the OP, ##\omega## is a 2-form so this is not true. What you have written here is true if it is a 1-form. It feels like you may have skipped some reading regarding how to go from 1-forms to higher order (0,n) tensors in general and n-forms in particular?
 
Orodruin said:
In the case you have presented in the OP, ##\omega## is a 2-form so this is not true. What you have written here is true if it is a 1-form. It feels like you may have skipped some reading regarding how to go from 1-forms to higher order (0,n) tensors in general and n-forms in particular?
Thank you!I'm learning from 《An introduction to manifolds》Loring W.Tu...All I know now is that:
##\omega\bigwedge\tau = a_Ib_Jdx^I\bigwedge dx^J## and ##(f\bigwedge g)(v_1,v_2,v_3)=f(v_1,v_2)g(v_3)-f(v_1,v_3)g(v_2)+f(v_2,v_3)g(v_1)## ...I don't know what I should do next.
 
GR191511 said:
Thank you!I'm learning from 《An introduction to manifolds》Loring W.Tu...All I know now is that:
##\omega\bigwedge\tau = a_Ib_Jdx^I\bigwedge dx^J## and ##(f\bigwedge g)(v_1,v_2,v_3)=f(v_1,v_2)g(v_3)-f(v_1,v_3)g(v_2)+f(v_2,v_3)g(v_1)## ...I don't know what I should do next.
The first of those relations is the wedge between two 1-forms. The second describes a two-form ##f## with a one-form ##g## - which also happens to be the case you are asked about.
 
Orodruin said:
The first of those relations is the wedge between two 1-forms. The second describes a two-form ##f## with a one-form ##g## - which also happens to be the case you are asked about.
Thanks.But ##v_1,v_2,v_3## is vector from ##R^1## while X,Y,Z are three vector fields
Maybe the answer is##(\omega\bigwedge\tau)(X,Y,Z)=\omega(X,Y)\tau(Z)-\omega(X,Z)\tau(Y)+\omega(Y,Z)\tau(X)##But It always feels like something is wrong.
 
GR191511 said:
But v1,v2,v3 is vector from
No, they are not.
 
GR191511 said:
Maybe the answer is(ω⋀τ)(X,Y,Z)=ω(X,Y)τ(Z)−ω(X,Z)τ(Y)+ω(Y,Z)τ(X)But It always feels like something is wrong.
Is your result fully anti-symmetric?
 
  • #10
Orodruin said:
Is your result fully anti-symmetric?
The question don't mention that. I'm not sure about it either.
 
  • #11
GR191511 said:
The question don't mention that. I'm not sure about it either.
Again, this seems to imply that you are missing information fundamental to n-forms (namely that they are fully anti-symmetric (0,n) tensors). If this is not covered by your textbook, I would suggest looking up another textbook that does.
 
  • #12
Orodruin said:
Again, this seems to imply that you are missing information fundamental to n-forms (namely that they are fully anti-symmetric (0,n) tensors). If this is not covered by your textbook, I would suggest looking up another textbook that does.
Is that "alternating n-linear function on a vector space"? I have seen it...it confused me
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K