In "Real and complex analysis" a chain is defined as "a sort of formal sum of paths". Given a family $\lbrace\gamma_1,\ldots,\gamma_n\rbrace$ of paths, the chain $\Gamma$ corresponding to these paths is "a sort of formal sum $\Gamma=\gamma_1\dot+\cdots\dot+\,\gamma_n$" and the line integral of this is defined as follows: $$ \int_\Gamma{f\,\mathrm{d}z}:=\int_{\gamma_1}{f\,\mathrm{d}z}\,+\cdots+\int_{\gamma_n}{f\,\mathrm{d}z} $$ I don't like such pseudo definitions since they tell me what I can do with an object, but not what it actually is. So what is a chain really? Thanks

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's an element of the free abelian group whose basis is the set of all paths. $\endgroup$ – PersonX Apr 11 '13 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Chris: I am not convinced that it should be the free abelian group as opposed to just the free monoid over the set of all paths. :-) $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Apr 11 '13 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong Don't we want to take orientation into account, which is where the inverse structure comes in? $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 11 '13 at 14:20
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexYoucis: yes and no, depending on how we look at it; in any rate, I don't think it's good to see it as a free abelian group. I'm writing an answer to reflect on that right now. $\endgroup$ – tomasz Apr 11 '13 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Alex: I was being partly facetious. But the phrase "a sort of formal sum..." does not necessarily suggest an orientation. For example, a very similar definition can be made about the line integral in the real case, where the integral is not direction dependent. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Apr 11 '13 at 14:25

This is more in the abstract-algebra territory rather than complex-analysis (especially not the complex part; the definition of path integral does not really depend on complex structure), but I see two (or three) ways of properly formalizing that.

One way is to follow Willie Wong's suggestion, and take for chains the free monoid with a basis of (sufficiently well-behaved, for instance $C^1$) paths, that is, a $\Gamma$ is a chain if it is a finite sequence of paths, and we add chains by appending one at the end of another; for the remainder of this post, call this monoid $Ch_1$

Another, closely related, is to take it to be instead the free commutative monoid defined by the nice paths -- this is the same as above, except we forget the ordering of the sequence. This is the most literal reading of the statement "formal sum" -- a formal sum of things is, to me anyway, the commutative monoid generated by them. If we call it $Ch_2$ we can see that this is just $Ch_1$ divided by the relation $\Gamma_1\Gamma_2=\Gamma_2\Gamma_1$.

A third, quite a bit more complicated way to interpret it is to take into account what we actually do with the chains: we integrate along them. Furthermore, if we restrict ourselves to nice functions (for instance, globally continuous), we can see that for two very different chains $\Gamma,\Gamma'$ we have $\int_\Gamma$ being the same thing as $\int_{\Gamma'}$ (as linear functionals on the space of continuous functions), for example if $\Gamma'$ is just a subdivision of $\Gamma$.

One way to formalize it is to just equate a chain $\Gamma$ with the integration operator $\int_\Gamma$, effectively seeing the chains just a subgroup $Ch_3$ of the additive group of the dual of the space of continuous functions, $C({\bf R}^n)^*$ (or $C({\bf C}^n)^*$). This means that in particular, we see that the chain consisting of a path $\gamma$ and the path $-\gamma$ obtained by reversing the orientation on $\gamma$ is equated to an empty path – that is because for a continuous function $f$ we have that $\int_\gamma f+\int_{-\gamma} f=0$.

While the reference to the dual of continuous functions may seem rather technical, this is, I believe, the intuitive way to see chains. I think that's where the convention to write $-\gamma$ for an inverted path comes from in the first place.

There is a minor gripe for it: if we integrate functions that are not globally continuous, for example ones that have singularities, such as $z^{-1}$ on ${\bf C}$, we will have pairs of chains that are equivalent, but such that we can integrate along one, but not the other, for example if we take $\gamma$ to be the interval from $-1$ to $1$ on the complex plane, then the equation $\int_\gamma z^{-1}+\int_{-\gamma} z^{-1}=0$ doesn't make sense. This wasn't a problem at all in case of $Ch_1,Ch_2$, since in those ones we never really cancelled any terms.

But it's not that much of a problem in this case, as equivalent chains for which the integral is well defined will integrate a continuous function consistently, even if it is not globally defined.


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.