- #1
Rasalhague
- 1,387
- 2
Lee 2003: Introduction to Smooth Manifolds ( http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eqfgZtjQceYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false ) (search eg. for "computational"), Lemma 12.10 (b), p. 304:
where [itex]I[/itex] is an increasing multi-index: [itex](i_1,...i_k)[/itex] with each value less than or equal to all those to the right of it. This PDF of lecture notes gives the following chain rule for exterior differentiation of differential 0-forms:
[itex]d(h \circ f) = h' \circ f \; df.[/tex]
But that implies
[tex]d(y^{i_\alpha} \circ F) = (y^{i_\alpha})' \circ F \; dF[/tex]
and however we interpret the primed expression, more than one [itex]dF[/itex] wedged together equals 0. I assume this is not the case, as the lemma is supposed to give "a computational rule for pullbacks of differential forms". Where have I made a mistake?
In any coordinate chart
[tex]F^*\left ( \sum_I \omega_I \; dy^{i_1} \wedge ... \wedge dy^{i_k} \right )[/tex]
[tex] = F^*\left ( \sum_I \omega_I \circ F \; d(y^{i_1} \circ F) \wedge ... \wedge d(y^{i_k} \circ F) \right )[/tex]
where [itex]I[/itex] is an increasing multi-index: [itex](i_1,...i_k)[/itex] with each value less than or equal to all those to the right of it. This PDF of lecture notes gives the following chain rule for exterior differentiation of differential 0-forms:
[itex]d(h \circ f) = h' \circ f \; df.[/tex]
But that implies
[tex]d(y^{i_\alpha} \circ F) = (y^{i_\alpha})' \circ F \; dF[/tex]
and however we interpret the primed expression, more than one [itex]dF[/itex] wedged together equals 0. I assume this is not the case, as the lemma is supposed to give "a computational rule for pullbacks of differential forms". Where have I made a mistake?
Last edited: