The Unapologetic Mathematician

Mathematics for the interested outsider

Integration on the Standard Cube

Sorry for the delay, I’ve had a packed weekend.

Anyway, we’re ready to start getting into integration on manifolds. And we start with a simple case that everything else will be built on top of.

We let [0,1]^k\subseteq\mathbb{R}^k be the “standard k-cube”. We know that the space \Omega^k([0,1]^k) of “top forms” — top because k is the highest degree possible for a differential form on a differential form — has rank 1 over the algebra \mathcal{O}([0,1]^k) of smooth functions. That is, if \omega is a top form then we can always write

\displaystyle\omega=f\,du^1\wedge\dots\wedge du^k

for some smooth function f on the standard cube. Then we write

\displaystyle\int\limits_{[0,1]^k}\omega=\int\limits_{[0,1]^k}f\,du^1\wedge\dots\wedge du^k=\int\limits_{[0,1]^k}f\,d(u^1\dots du^k)

here we sorta pull a fast one, notationally speaking. On the left we’re defining the integral of a k-form \omega. In the middle we rewrite the form as above, in terms of a function and the canonical basis k-form du^1\wedge\dots\wedge du^k made from wedging together the basic 1-forms in order. And then on the right we suddenly switch to a k-dimensional Riemann integral over the standard k-cube. The canonical basis k-form du^1\wedge\dots\wedge du^k corresponds to the volume element d(u^1,\dots,u^k), and top forms are often also called “volume forms” because of this correspondence. In fact, it’s not hard to see that they’re related to signed volumes. This is the starting point from which all integration on manifolds emerges, and everything will ultimately come back to this definition.

About these ads

August 2, 2011 - Posted by | Differential Topology, Topology

7 Comments »

  1. Excuse me, I’ve put your link in the blogroll. can you put my blog link in your blogroll?

    Comment by NICO VENGEANCE | August 2, 2011 | Reply

  2. [...] next step after standard cubes in our integration project is to define integration on “singular [...]

    Pingback by Integration on Singular Cubes « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 3, 2011 | Reply

  3. [...] can integrate on the standard cube, and on singular cubes in arbitrary manifolds. What if it’s not very easy to describe a [...]

    Pingback by Chains « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 5, 2011 | Reply

  4. [...] we get by setting that component to . Explicitly, we’ll define the following faces of the standard cube [...]

    Pingback by Cubic Singular Homology « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 9, 2011 | Reply

  5. [...] start by considering the case where is the standard cube . Whipping out the definition of the boundary operator , the integral on the right proceeds as [...]

    Pingback by Stokes’ Theorem (proof part 1) « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 18, 2011 | Reply

  6. [...] that we’ve proven Stokes’ theorem in the case of the standard cube, we can now tackle the general [...]

    Pingback by Stokes’ Theorem (proof part 2) « The Unapologetic Mathematician | August 20, 2011 | Reply

  7. [...] Armstrong: Integrals are Independent of Parametrization, Integration on Singular Cubes, Integration on the Standard Cube, Stokes’ Theorem [...]

    Pingback by Eleventh Linkfest | August 27, 2011 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 386 other followers

%d bloggers like this: