Understanding the proof of a lemma concerning Stokes Theorem

In summary, the proof shows that the function $\lambda$ is increasing on the set $C$ which is a closed subset of $N$.
  • #1
HughBennet
2
0
I have problems understanding the proof of this lemma:

$$\lambda \in \Lambda (m, n), \ \ \text{this means that it is an increasing function} \ \ \lambda: \{1,2,...,m\} \rightarrow \{1,...,n\}, \ \ \text{so} \ \ \lambda(1) < ... < \lambda(m)$$

$$p_{\lambda} : \mathbb{R}^m \ni (x_1, ..., x_m) \rightarrow (x_{\lambda(1)}, ..., x_{\lambda(m)}) \in \mathbb{R}^n$$

Assumptions:

$N$ is an $n-$ dimensional, orientable $C^1$ subvariety of $\mathbb{R}^m$, $1 \le n \le m$, $\lambda \in \Lambda(m,n)$, $h: \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous, $\omega = hd_{\lambda}$ is summable on
$N$, $Z$ is a closed subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\mathcal{L}^n(Z)=0$ (Lebesgue measure)

Then $$\int_{N \setminus p_{\lambda}^{-1}(Z)} \omega = \int_N \omega$$ with the induced orientation on $N \setminus p_{\lambda}^{-1}(Z)$Proof:First, without loss of generality, we assume that $\lambda(i) =i$, so $p_{\lambda} : \mathbb{R}^m = \mathbb{R}^{n} \times \mathbb{R}^{m-n} \ni (x_1, ..., x_m) \rightarrow (x_1, ..., x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n$.

Why can we do that?

Now we note that $p^{-1} _{\lambda} (Z)$ is closed but doesn't necessarily have measure $0$.

(I see that this set is closed due to continuity of $p_{\lambda}$.)We define $A = N \cap (p^{-1}_{\lambda}(Z)) = N \cap (Z \times \mathbb{R}^{m-n})$

and $C = \{x \in A \ : \ T_xN \cap (\{0\} \times \mathbb{R}^{m-n}) \neq 0\}$

in other words,

$C=\{x \in A \ : \ \xi(x) \wedge e_{n+1} \wedge ... \wedge e_m = 0\}$

where $$\xi : N \rightarrow \xi (x) \in \Lambda_n \mathbb{R}^m$$ is such that $$1) \forall x \in N : \xi (x) \ \ \text{is simple and } \ \ T_{\xi (x)} (def= \{ v \in \mathbb{R}^m \ | \ v \wedge \xi (x) =0\}) = T_xN$$
$$2) \forall x \in N : \ || \xi (x) || = 1 \ \ \text{inner product on the exterior power is induced by the inner product on } \ \mathbb{R}^m$$

$$3) \xi \text{is continuous}$$Now, we continue with the proof:

We note that $C$ is closed - is it because $\xi$ is continuous, the vectors of the canonical basis "don't move" and $\{0\}$ is a closed set?

We then define $B:= A \setminus C$

and note that :

$$1) \mathcal{H}^n (B)=0 $$

(Hausdorff measure) I do not see why that measure is zero


$$2) \omega(x; \xi (x)) = 0 \ \ \text{for } \ x \in C$$

The space of $p$-linear antisymmetric maps $f: V^p \rightarrow W$ is identified with $(\Lambda_pV)^* = \Lambda_pV^* $, but why is this value zero?

So $$\int_A \omega(x; \ \xi (x)) d \mathcal{H}^n(x)=0$$

The integrated function has vale\ue zero on the set $C$. So we can narrow down the integration to $A \setminus C$ which has measure zero, and so the integral is zero. Is that correct?

Could you explain to me the things that I do not understand?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I've already managed to understand this proof!

So as far as I'm concerned the subject is closed :)
 

FAQ: Understanding the proof of a lemma concerning Stokes Theorem

What is Stokes Theorem?

Stokes Theorem is a fundamental theorem in multivariable calculus that relates the line integral of a vector field over a closed curve to the surface integral of the curl of the vector field over the surface enclosed by the curve.

What is a lemma in the context of Stokes Theorem?

In mathematical terms, a lemma is a proven statement or proposition that is used as a stepping stone to prove a larger theorem. In the context of Stokes Theorem, a lemma is a smaller, simpler theorem that is used to help prove the larger and more complex Stokes Theorem.

How does understanding the proof of a lemma help in understanding Stokes Theorem?

Understanding the proof of a lemma helps in understanding Stokes Theorem because it provides the necessary background and logic behind the theorem. By breaking down the theorem into smaller, more manageable pieces, understanding the proof of a lemma can help make the overall concept of Stokes Theorem easier to grasp.

What are the key components of a proof of a lemma concerning Stokes Theorem?

The key components of a proof of a lemma concerning Stokes Theorem include stating the lemma, providing a clear and logical proof, using mathematical concepts and equations, and connecting the lemma to the larger theorem of Stokes Theorem.

Why is it important to understand the proof of a lemma concerning Stokes Theorem?

Understanding the proof of a lemma concerning Stokes Theorem is important because it helps to solidify the understanding of the larger theorem and its applications. It also helps to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills that can be applied to other mathematical concepts.

Similar threads

Back
Top