Gradient as vector vs differential one-form

In summary: Someone says gradient is the vector ##\nabla f## defined at each point, whilst others say it is the differential one-form ##df## (i.e. the differential of ##f##).##\nabla f## isn't a vector. It's a 1-form. If you consult a source that uses index notation, you will find that the "natural" index position for the ##\nabla## operator is the same as for the partial derivative operator, namely a lower index. A lower index indicates a 1-form. So, for example, we would write ##\nabla_\alpha f## for this form of
  • #36
jbergman said:
That was the whole point of the post, that the definition that is often presented to students in multivariable calculus is not coordinate free.
Just to emphasize the obvious, it is not coordinate free, but it is a perfectly valid and correct definition.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
PeterDonis said:
And @jbergman explicitly said that this only works in ##\mathbb{R}^n## and does not work in the absence of coordinates.And that part of @jbergman's post, as he explicitly said, was restricted to this case. He then went on, in the latter part of his post, to give a better formulation that is not dependent on any particular choice of coordinates. So he already gave the clarification that you are trying to give here. You're just repeating what he said in different words.
It works only with Cartesian bases, not for general bases, even not in ##\mathbb{R}^n##.
 
  • #38
vanhees71 said:
It works only with Cartesian bases
Yes, in other words, with a particular choice of coordinates. @jbergman even gave an example of how it does not work in polar coordinates. Did you actually read what he wrote?
 
  • #39
Maybe I misunderstood the notation. I think we all agree finally.
 

Similar threads

Replies
62
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
839
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
990
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Back
Top