What is the Factor of F in the Differential Forms Problem on Smooth Manifolds?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the factor of F in the context of differential forms on smooth manifolds, specifically addressing a calculation involving the pullback of forms as presented in John Lee's text. Participants explore the implications of this factor in their calculations and reasoning related to differential forms, pullbacks, and the properties of smooth manifolds.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the presence of the factor F in the expression \(\omega_I \circ F\) when calculating the pullback of a differential form, suggesting that their repeated calculations yield only \(\omega_I\).
  • Another participant provides a proof that involves the properties of pullbacks, stating that the pullback commutes with the exterior derivative and that the pullback of a 0-form is simply the composition with F.
  • A third participant expresses gratitude for the clarification provided, while simultaneously reflecting on their own failed attempt to understand the discrepancy in their calculations, indicating uncertainty about where they went wrong.
  • One participant points out a potential misunderstanding regarding the evaluation of forms, emphasizing the importance of tracking the point in the manifold where the evaluation occurs and correcting the notation used in the original expression.
  • A final participant acknowledges the clarification and expresses understanding of the discussed concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express differing views on the role of the factor F in their calculations, with some agreeing on the properties of pullbacks while others remain uncertain about their interpretations and calculations. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the initial question regarding the necessity of the factor F.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions and definitions related to the pullback of differential forms, including the need for careful evaluation at specific points in the manifold. There are unresolved aspects regarding the participants' individual calculations and interpretations of the definitions provided in the text.

Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
10,876
Reaction score
423
Introduction to smooth manifolds, by John Lee, page 304. The right-hand side of (c) near the top of the page has a factor \omega_I\circ F. I've been doing the calculation over and over for hours now and I keep getting just \omega_I. Is that F supposed to be there?

Edit: I should add that \omega_I=\omega(\partial_{i_1},\dots,\partial_{i_k}), so the left-hand side is just F^*\omega.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, mmh... (3) can be proven from (1) and (2) and the facts that
(a) the pullback commutes with the exterior derivative
(b) the pullback of a 0-form f is f o F.

Granted this,
F^*\left(\sum'_I\omega_Idy^I\right)=\sum'F^*\omega_{i_1,...,i_k}F^*dy^{i_1}\wedge ...\wedge F^*dy^{i_k}=\sum'(\omega_{i_1,...,i_k}\circ F) d(y^{i_1}\circ F)\wedge ...\wedge d(y^{i_k}\circ F)
 
Thank you. That solved the problem for me. After a few minutes of verifying the relavant identities, I understand your solution perfectly. But I still don't see what's wrong with my failed attempt. Experience tells me that I'll see it just before I'm done typing this, but if you're reading this I guess it didn't work out that way.

F^*\omega(X_1,\dots,X_k)=\omega(F_*X_1,\dots,F_*X_k)=\sum_I{}^{'} \omega_I\ dy^{i_1}\wedge\dots\wedge dy^{i_k}(F_*X_1,\dots,F_*X_k)

=\sum_I{}^{'} \omega_I\ \sum_J(F_*X_1)(y^{j_1})\cdots (F_*X_1)(y^{j_k})\ dy^{i_1}\wedge\dots\wedge dy^{i_k}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{j_1}},\dots,\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{j_k}}\right)

Note that

(F_*X_1)(y^{j_1})=X_1(y^{j_1}\circ F)

and that this is a component of X_1 in the coordinate system y\circ F. We also have

dy^{i_1}\wedge\dots\wedge dy^{i_k}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{j_1}},\dots,\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{j_k}}\right)=\delta^I_J

where the delta is =0 unless there's exactly one permutation P that takes I to J, and =sgn P if there is. Since y\circ F is a coordinate system too, we can also write

d(y^{i_1}\circ F)\wedge\dots\wedge d(y^{i_k}\circ F)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial (y\circ F)^{j_1}},\dots,\frac{\partial}{\partial (y\circ F)^{j_k}}\right)=\delta^I_J

So the original expression can be written as

\sum_I{}^{'} \omega_I\ \sum_J X_1(y^{j_1}\circ F)\cdots X_1(y^{j_k}\circ F)\ d(y^{i_1}\circ F)\wedge\dots\wedge d(y^{i_k}\circ F)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial (y\circ F)^{j_1}},\dots,\frac{\partial}{\partial (y\circ F)^{j_k}}\right)

=\sum_I{}^{'} \omega_I\ \sum_J d(y^{i_1}\circ F)\wedge\dots\wedge d(y^{i_k}\circ F)(X_1,\dots,X_k)

which is everything we want, except that \omega_I hasn't changed. I still don't see what I've done wrong, so I'll post this so you can point and laugh.
 
Fredrik said:
F^*\omega(X_1,\dots,X_k)=\omega(F_*X_1,\dots,F_*X_k)=[...]

You can't really write this because if F:M-->N, then F*w is a k-form on M, while w is a k-form on N. So the LHS is a map M-->R and the RHS is a map N-->R. So it is important to keep track of the point p in M at which the map of the LHS is evaluated. If you follow the definition of F*w given by Lee on page 303, you will agree that when evaluated at p in M, the equation you meant to write is actually

(F^*\omega)_p(X_1|_p,\dots,X_k|_p)=\omega_{F(p)}(F_*(X_1|_p),\dots,F_*(X_k|_p))

and then when you expand the RHS, you will have

\sum_I \omega_I(F(p))\ dy^{i_1}|_{F(p))}\wedge\dots\wedge dy^{i_k}|_{F(p))}(F_*(X_1|_p),\dots,F_*(X_k|_p))<br />

etc.
 
Thank you again. I understand now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
3K