13
$\begingroup$

In Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds, he defines the integral of a $k$-form over a $k$-chain, and proves a version of Stokes' theorem for this situation, before moving on to discuss the integral of a differential form over a manifold. Other books, such as Introduction to Smooth Manifolds by Lee and Analysis on Manifolds by Munkres, seem to skip this step. They define the integral of a $k$-form over a $k$-manifold without mentioning or proving theorems about $k$-chains. (Am I correct about that?)

What is the advantage (if any) of Spivak's approach? To me, $k$-chains appear to be an unnecessary weird definition in a subject that already has too many unfamiliar definitions.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Most likely, for the same reason I explained here. $\endgroup$ Jun 16 '20 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ @MoisheKohan Thanks for that explanation, that was enlightening. $\endgroup$ Aug 29 '20 at 19:36
1
$\begingroup$

In Lee the integral is only defined for an n-form on an n-manifold. If you want to integrate a lower dimensional k-form (k < n), you need to use a submanifold of dimension k and pull the form back with inclusion. I believe one purpose of chains is to avoid talking about submanifolds and orientations of manifold boundaries. Instead We can integrate lower dimensional forms in a higher dimensional space using singular chains.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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