What is the New Definition of Conformal Transformations?

gentsagree
Messages
93
Reaction score
1
Conformal transformations as far as I knew are defined as g_{mn}\rightarrow g'_{mn}=\Omega g_{mn}.

Now I come across a new definition, such that a smooth mapping \phi:U\rightarrow V is called a conformal transformation if there exist a smooth function \Omega:U\rightarrow R_{+} such that \phi^{*}g'=\Omega^{2}g where \phi^{*}g'(X,Y):=g'(T\phi(X),T\phi(Y)) and T\phi :TU\rightarrow TV denotes the tangent map of \phi.

I can't really make sense of this. Why do we need the derivative of the map to define the transformation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can only compare objects that exist on the same space (or region U in this case). So the pullback is needed to accomplish that.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top