- #1
- 4,807
- 32
I would like to discuss this chapter with someone who has read the book.
From looking at other books, I realize that Spivak does things a little differently. He seems to be putting less structure on his chains (for instance, no mention of orientation, no 1-1 requirement and so on), and as a result, I find that things get a little weird.
For instance, the first thing I asked myself after reading the definition of the integral of a k-form over a k-chain is whether or not the result is independent of the chain. More precisely, if c and d are two k-chains with identical images, does
[tex]\int_c\omega=\int_d\omega[/tex]
as intuition demands??
I found a little guidance in answering this in the person of problem 4-25 (Independence of parametrization), but that's not entirely satisfying, because after all, coudn't it be that there is no 1-1 p such that c o p = d? If c and d are not injective for instance, the obvious p(t) := c^-1(d(t)) fails. And that det p'(x) >= 0 condition... what does it say about p? What characterize reparametrizations p with det p'(x) >= 0? (Does injectivity implies that the determinant does not chance sign? locally okay, but globally?!)
From looking at other books, I realize that Spivak does things a little differently. He seems to be putting less structure on his chains (for instance, no mention of orientation, no 1-1 requirement and so on), and as a result, I find that things get a little weird.
For instance, the first thing I asked myself after reading the definition of the integral of a k-form over a k-chain is whether or not the result is independent of the chain. More precisely, if c and d are two k-chains with identical images, does
[tex]\int_c\omega=\int_d\omega[/tex]
as intuition demands??
I found a little guidance in answering this in the person of problem 4-25 (Independence of parametrization), but that's not entirely satisfying, because after all, coudn't it be that there is no 1-1 p such that c o p = d? If c and d are not injective for instance, the obvious p(t) := c^-1(d(t)) fails. And that det p'(x) >= 0 condition... what does it say about p? What characterize reparametrizations p with det p'(x) >= 0? (Does injectivity implies that the determinant does not chance sign? locally okay, but globally?!)