Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We can express every k-form in the form $ \omega(x) = \sum_Id_Idx_I $ where $ I$ is k-tuple and $ d_I$ is just some scalar function of x. That's entirely understandable for me. But while reading Munkres "Analysis on manifolds" I stumbled upon something quite confusing. In the discussion of the pullback function $ \alpha^*$, there is the following part: The form $ \alpha_*(dy_I)$ is a k-form defined on an open set of $ R^k$, so it has the form $ h dx_1\wedge dx_2 \wedge ... \wedge dx_k$ for some scalar function $ h $.

I completely don't see where that comes from. Can somebody clear this up for me?

Here are 2 pages of the book, puttin the problem in context: http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/5096/outfp.pngenter image description here

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The key thing here is that it's specifically a $k$-form on $\Bbb{R}^k$. Since $dx^i \wedge dx^i=0$ for all $i$, this means there's only one possible term in the sum: you need to use all the different coordinates or you won't have enough.

share|improve this answer
    
Oh, that was really simple, shame on me for not noticing :( Thanks a lot! –  Ormi Dec 1 '12 at 15:40
    
Also, any other presentation of $dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge \cdots \wedge dx^k$ can be permuted to go back to the $1,2, \dots , 3$ order due to the algebra of the wedge product. It suffices to consider just scalar function multiples of the cannonical volume form $dx^1 \wedge dx^2 \wedge \cdots \wedge dx^k$ for this reason. –  James S. Cook Dec 1 '12 at 15:41
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.