I try to wrap my head around the idea of integrating a k-form over a manifold. Loosely speaking, my intuition is, that for each point of the manifold, we do a projection onto the tangent space and get the "area". For example the 3 dimensional unit-sphere is a 2-dimensional manifold, consequently the tanget space is also 2-dimensional. To this point my intuition was that, we do an integral over 2-dimensial-volumes that were measured in the tanget space. This also fits together with the idea that a k-form spits out the volume of the parallelepiped, that was spanned by its k-input vectors. In case of two dimensions, this would be a plane. This idea leads me to choosing the following 2-form to measure the surface of the unitball in 3 dimensions:

$$\omega = dx_1\wedge dx_2 + dx_1\wedge dx_3 + dx_3\wedge dx_2$$

Each 2-form in the sum can measure a surface. For the innocent purpose of just measuring the surface, all the coefficients are set to 1. The integral would look like this:

$$\int_{S} \omega= \int_{S}dx_1\wedge dx_2 + dx_1\wedge dx_3 + dx_3\wedge dx_2$$

But this makes no sense to me, because those 2-forms are the derivatives of the canonical projections that are wedged together. When I plugin a point $p\in S $ into $\omega$, all I get is a sum of functionals that still need an input: $$\omega(p) = x_1\wedge x_2 + x_1\wedge dx_3 + x_3\wedge x_2$$

Where does it take the additional input from? Propably from the vectors that span the tangent space. I could do a parametrization of the manifold to get them as the columns in the jacobian-matrix.

  • $\begingroup$ As an aside, integrating a form over a manifold is not a well-defined operation; a surface consists of more information than simply a two-dimensional manifold. A parametrization is (more than) sufficient to provide that information. While this comment is a bit nit-picky, I felt it's worth posting in case the difference actually relates to your difficulties. $\endgroup$ – user14972 Oct 14 '17 at 19:37
  • $\begingroup$ As a second aside, I prefer to completely ignore tangent spaces; IMO they add needless complication to the notion of integration. When given a parametrized surface, I prefer to pull the differential form back to Euclidean space, since we already know how to integrate there from multivariable calculus. $\endgroup$ – user14972 Oct 14 '17 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl: I'm not sure I understand your comment. How does a surface consist of more information than simply a two-dimensional manifold? Most definitions of "surface" I've seen boil down to defining it as a two-dimensional manifold. It's true that integration of a $k$-form over a $k$-manifold is not defined until you choose an orientation for the manifold (and so it's never defined for nonorientable manifolds). But the idea of a surface does not include orientation. Integration of 2-forms is well-defined over every oriented smooth surface, without a specific choice of parametrization. $\endgroup$ – Jack Lee Oct 14 '17 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ Be careful with the order of factors when you're dealing with outer products: $$\omega = dx_1 \wedge dx_2 + dx_2 \wedge dx_3 + dx_3 \wedge dx_1$$ $\endgroup$ – md2perpe Oct 14 '17 at 22:10
  • $\begingroup$ Let $\omega$ be a $1$-form and $\alpha: [a,b] \to \mathbb R^n$ a continuously differentiable curve. If I integrate $\omega$ along $\alpha$, I compute the scalar product of the vector (given by $\omega$) on $\alpha$ and the tangential vector that spans the local tangential space of $\alpha$. As this gets more complicated for higher-dimensional undermanifolds, it should be still clear the the 'differentiability' of undermanifolds provides us a natural integrator. $\endgroup$ – Pazu Oct 14 '17 at 22:28

A more natural form for the calculation of the area of the unit sphere is $$\omega = \sin\varphi \, d\varphi \wedge d\theta$$ where $\varphi \in [0, \pi]$ and $\theta \in [0, 2\pi)$ are the angles shown here.

To transform this into Cartesian coordinates we start from $$\begin{cases} x = \sin\varphi \, \cos\theta \\ y = \sin\varphi \, \sin\theta \\ z = \cos\varphi \end{cases}$$ which gives $$\begin{cases} dx = \cos\varphi \, \cos\theta \, d\varphi - \sin\varphi \, \sin\theta \, d\theta \\ dy = \cos\varphi \, \sin\theta \, d\varphi + \sin\varphi \, \cos\theta \, d\theta \\ dz = -\sin\varphi \, d\varphi \end{cases}$$ or $$\begin{cases} d\varphi = \frac{1}{z} \left( \frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}} dx + \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}} dy \right) \\ d\theta = \frac{x}{x^2+y^2} dy - \frac{y}{x^2+y^2} dx \end{cases}$$

Thus, $$\omega = \sqrt{x^2+y^2} \, \frac{1}{z} \left( \frac{x}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}} dx + \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}} dy \right) \wedge \left( \frac{x}{x^2+y^2} dy - \frac{y}{x^2+y^2} dx \right) \\ = \frac{1}{z} \left( \frac{x^2}{x^2+y^2} dx \wedge dy - \frac{y^2}{x^2+y^2} dy \wedge dx \right) \\ = \frac{1}{z} dx \wedge dy $$


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.