## Integrals are Independent of Parameterization

If is a singular -cube and is a -form on the image of , then we know how to define the integral of over :

On its face, this formula depends on the function used to parameterize the region of integration. But does it really? What if we have a different function with the same image? For convenience we’ll only consider singular -cubes that are diffeomorphisms onto their images — any singular -cube can be broken into pieces for which this is true, and we’ll soon deal with how to put these together.

Anyway, if , then given our assumptions there is some diffeomorphism such that . If is everywhere positive, then we say that is an “orientation-preserving reparameterization” of . And I say that the integrals of over and are the same. Indeed, we calculate:

where we use our expression for the integral of over the image in passing from the third to the fourth line. Thus the integral is a geometric quantity, depending only on the image and the -form rather than on any detail of the parameterization itself.

[…] it all works out for the same reason parameterization invariance and the change of variables formula do. Passing from the boundary of the singular cube back to the […]

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

[…] we use to reparameterize our integral. Of course, this function may not be defined on all of , but it’s defined on , […]

Pingback by Integrals over Manifolds (part 1) « The Unapologetic Mathematician | September 5, 2011 |