2

In A Geometric Approach to Differential Forms by David Bachman you can find the passage:

... a 1-form is a linear function which acts on vectors and returns numbers. For the moment let's just look at 1-forms on $T_p\mathbb R^2$ for some fixed point, $p.$ Recall that a linear function $\omega,$ is just one whose graph is a plane through the origin. Hence, we want to write down an equation of a plane through the origin in $T_p\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R,$ where one axis is labelled $dx,$ another $dy,$ and the third $\omega.$ This is easy: $\omega=a\; dx + b \;dy.$ Hence, to specify a 1-form on $T_p\mathbb R^2$ we only need to know two numbers: $a$ and $b.$

enter image description here

I am aiming at an intuitive idea of what he is referring to. So far this would be my summary:

1-forms are elements of $V^*$ that "eat" a vector to produce a scalar. In general I picture them as row vectors, but in the particular case of differentiable equations, it may work like this: the equations are elements of a vector space. In this case, then, the $dx$ in the integral $\int f(x) dx$ would be the 1-form. This becomes more intuitive when including a Jacobian transformation.

With this sketchy idea as background, I don't understand what $\omega,$ the plane through the origin, is; or why it has to go through the origin.

Perhaps I have problems understanding $\mathbb R^2$ in $T_p \mathbb R^2$ among other concepts. I see that this is the tangent plane at point $p.$ Here is a relevant passage:

Let’s look at the tangent line to the graph of $y = x^2$ at the point $(1, 1).$ We are no longer thinking of this tangent line as lying in the same plane that the graph does. Rather, it lies in $T_{(1,1)}\mathbb R^2.$ The horizontal axis for $T_{(1,1)}\mathbb R^2$ is the “dx” axis and the vertical axis is the “dy” axis. Hence, we can write the equation of the tangent line as $dy = 2dx.$

sputnik
  • 151

2 Answers2

4

Maybe the story from a generic curved space perspective will give you a better understanding of the notation (the $\mathbb R^n$ case is somewhat special).

1-forms on a Sphere

Suppose you are in $\mathbb R^3$. The two dimensional sphere $S$ in $\mathbb R^3$ is a two dimensional manifold (manifold = generic curved space). At any point $p\in S$ the sphere has a tangent plane which we denote with $T_pS$. The subset $T_pS\subset \mathbb R^3$ is a two dimensional affine subspace of $\mathbb R^3$ and can be given the structure of a vector space in a canonical way by $q\mapsto q-p$ (i.e. identifying it with the two dimensional vector subspace of $\mathbb R^3$ that is parallel to $T_pS$). The disjoint union of the $T_pS$ is the tangent bundle of $S$, i.e. $TS := \{(p, v):\ p\in S, v\in T_pS\}$.

Now that you have a vector space for every point of $S$ you can go crazy with your linear algebra and build all sorts of other vector spaces attached to every point of $S$. One such is to consider the dual $T_pS^*$ for every $p\in S$. Once you have applied your construction at every point you take the disjoint union and get the "bundle", for example the cotangent bundle $TS^* = \{(p, a):\ p\in S, a\in T_pS^*\}$.

Every time you have a bundle like $TS^*$ you also have its projection $\pi: TS^*\to S$ that projects the elements of the bundle to the base point $p$ on $S$ that they are attached to, i.e. $\pi: (p, a)\mapsto p$. The counter image $\pi^{-1}(p) = \{p\}\times T_pS^*$ is also called the fiber of $TS^*$ at $p$.

A $1$-form on $S$ is a so called section of $\pi:TS^*\to S$, meaning a function $\alpha: S\to TS^*$ such that $\alpha(p) = (p, a_p)$ for some $a_p\in T_pS^*$, or in other words a function $S\to TS^*$ that attaches to every point $p\in S$ an element of the fiber at $p$.

1-forms on a plane

If instead of a sphere $S$ we take the plane $P = \mathbb R^2$, then for any $p\in P=\mathbb R^2$ the tangent space at $p$, $T_pP$, is the plane $P$ itself (that is why I started with the sphere, because there you can imagine a clear distinction between the tangent space and the manifold itself, unlike in this case), but with a different vector space structure (i.e. the one given by the translation $q \mapsto q - p$ where $p$ plays the role of $0$).

As before you can build $TP^* = \{(p, a):\ p\in P, a\in T_pP^*\}$. The translation $q\mapsto q - p$ gives you a canonical identification of $T_pP$ with $\mathbb R^2$, so you can use the canonical base $e_x=(1, 0), e_y = (0, 1)$ of $\mathbb R^2$ as a base for all $T_pP$ whatever $p$ is. This, in turn, gives you a base for every dual space $T_pP^*$. The vectors of this dual base are usually denoted by $dx_p, dy_p$, i.e. identifying $T_pP$ with $\mathbb R^2$, $dx_p$ and $dy_p$ are the linear functions $T_pP\to\mathbb R$ such that $dx_p(e_x) = 1, dx_p(e_y) = 0$ and $dy_p(e_x) = 0, dy_p(e_y) = 1$.

A 1 differential form on the plane $P$ is then just a function $\alpha: P\to TP$ of the form $\alpha: p\mapsto f(p) dx_p + g(p) dy_p$ for any two differentiable functions $f,g: \mathbb R^2 \to \mathbb R$ (to be pedantic it should be a function $p\mapsto (p, f(p) dx_p + g(p) dy_p)$, but that is a distinction that is almost never made in practice, as it's clear from the context that $f(p) dx_p + g(p) dy_p$ belongs to the fiber on top of $p$).

1-forms for curves in a plane

If you have a curve $\gamma: \mathbb R\to P$, you can define a differential form on it by choosing at each point $\gamma(t)$ an element of $T_{\gamma(t)}P$, i.e. a 1-form on a curve in a plane is a function of the form $t \mapsto f(t)dx_{\gamma(t)} + g(t)dy_{\gamma(t)}$.

If you fix a time $t_0$, and so a point $p_0 = \gamma(t_0)$ on the curve, the value of the differential form at $t_0$ is $\omega = f(t_0)dx_{p_0} + g(t_0)dy_{p_0}$, which is a linear function $T_{p_0}P\to \mathbb R$, and so the graph of $\omega$ is a plane through the origin in $T_{p_0}P \times \mathbb R\cong \mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R$.

Fra
  • 859
  • Thank you. The exposition if very clear, but my math limitations are huge. I follow to "$T_pS\subset \mathbb R^3$ is a two dimensional affine subspace... by $q\mapsto q-p.$" Should I picture a tangent plane to a point in the sphere and an infinity number of parallel planes to it above and below? – Antoni Parellada Mar 31 '18 at 14:18
  • Ok... This image helps. It's actually the set of ALL tangent planes at each of the infinite point on the sphere... right? – Antoni Parellada Mar 31 '18 at 14:25
  • There are in fact an infinite number of parallel planes to $T_pS$, but only one of them has naturally the structure of a vector space, i.e. the one passing through $0$. You want to identify $T_pS$ with that one by a translation that sends $p$ to $0$, i.e. $q\mapsto q - p$. – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 14:25
  • The set of all tangent spaces to the sphere is $TS$, the subscript $p$ in $T_pS$ is used to pick the particular one at $p$ – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 14:26
  • Did you see my last (practically syn-chronic) comment? ... I see that it has to go through zero because all vector spaces need the zero element in them... – Antoni Parellada Mar 31 '18 at 14:27
  • 1
    I should specify, the translation is only necessary to "know how to sum points in $T_pS$", it is pure algebraic trickery, you should still picture the tangent space passing through $p$, but imagine $p$ to be $0$ – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 14:34
  • In your (really awesome) explanation, what would be the $\omega$ of the original post. – Antoni Parellada Mar 31 '18 at 14:37
  • The differential form in my post is $\alpha$, in the very last paragraph – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 14:42
  • $\alpha\text{ (in your post)}=\omega \text{ (original post})?$ – Antoni Parellada Mar 31 '18 at 14:44
  • Yes $\alpha$ is the same concept as $\omega$ in the original post. Don't despair if you don't get everything now, it takes a few months for this machinery to sink in the first time you encounter it :) – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 14:48
  • I kind of got carried away by the excitement of understanding these concepts a bit more thanks to your answer, but there's a remaining issue: How should one understand $T_p\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R$ in the OP? – Antoni Parellada Mar 31 '18 at 15:34
  • I will add another section that ties the sphere example with the case in the OP this afternoon – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 15:49
  • To give you a quick preview, $T_p\mathbb R^2\times \mathbb R^2$ is analogous to $TS$ – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 15:51
  • 1
    I added the case of differential forms on a plane and differential forms on curves living in a plane that I hope will clarify the connection with what is written in the book – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 16:49
  • My comments on $T_p\mathbb R^2\times\mathbb R$ and $\omega$ where wrong because I hadn't followed the story the book was telling closely enough. So please ignore them. The edit I made to the post should instead put things in the right context – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 17:09
  • Very enlightening! Thank you. For the last part, how can you read $\gamma: \mathbb R\to P=\mathbb R^2$ in English? Is the first $\mathbb R$ the $x$ in $f(x)$? – Antoni Parellada Mar 31 '18 at 18:46
  • 1
    It's $\gamma:\mathbb R\to P$, the $=\mathbb R^2$ was as a remainder that $P = \mathbb R^2$. So the first $\mathbb R$ is the domain where the $x$ of $f(x)$ lives. I'll remove those equalities because they can be confusing – Fra Mar 31 '18 at 18:54
  • In case you are in the mood for a follow-up question, here it is. – Antoni Parellada Apr 01 '18 at 02:46
  • I'll be happy to ask as a separate question if it's too involved, but I was wondering about the reason why you introduced parametrization when you wrote about curves on a plane... – Antoni Parellada Apr 02 '18 at 14:17
  • 1
    The parametrization of the curve is not strictly necessary to write the formula of $\omega$, which is the value of the differential form at a specific point, but it becomes necessary when you want to write the explicit formula of the differential form in a neighborhood of a point. – Fra Apr 02 '18 at 14:35
  • 1
    Also notice that the reason why you can write an explicit formula for a differential form on $\mathbb R^2$ as $(x,y)\mapsto f(x,y)dx_{(x,y)} + g(x,y)dy_{(x,y)}$ is beacuse you are parametrizing $\mathbb R^2$ with the identitiy function $id: \mathbb R^2 \to \mathbb R^2$. – Fra Apr 02 '18 at 14:40
2

If you are able to use concepts like the dual space $V^*$, then the explanation that you refer to is much more elementary than you need it. The whole point in the explanation is that a linear functional on $\mathbb R^2$ can be written as $(x,y)\mapsto ax+by$ for real numbers $a$ and $b$. In the explanation this is done via the graph of this map in $T_p\mathbb R^2\times\mathbb R$ (which indeed is a plane through the origin for a linear map). In $\mathbb R^2$ you can use $dx$ and $dy$ as basis vectors for the dual to each of the tangent spaces. This just means that each tangent space is (canonically) a copy of $\mathbb R^2$ and you take the dual to the standard basis in each copy.

At this point, the notation $dx$ and $dy$ is a bit overcomplicated, but it becomes very useful later. It just means that $dx$ reproduces the first component of each tangent vector while $dy$ reproduces the second component of a tangent vector. The notation also indicates that the basis elements can be written as differentials of the two coordinate functions on $\mathbb R^2$. Also, the distinction between $\mathbb R^2$ and each tangent space is a bit artificial in this example, you can imagine that $T_p\mathbb R^2 $ is "attached" in the point $p$, thus represeneting "possible directions at $p$". The distinction becomes more tansparant and important if you pass to submanifolds or general manifolds.

Andreas Cap
  • 20,577
  • I follow a great deal of your answer, but I'm stuck at the Cartesian product of $T_p\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R.$ So... we have a curve, like $y=x^2,$ living in $\mathbb R^2,$ and at a point in the curve, say $(3,9),$ we have a tangent line $y=6x -9.$ Now, the operation $\times \mathbb R$ turns this construct into a structure living in 3-D Euclidean space? – Antoni Parellada Mar 31 '18 at 13:53
  • The product referes to the first part of the text: Rather than just stating that $\omega$ is a linear map from a two-dimensional vector space to $\mathbb R$, the author describes the graph of $\omega$ in the product of this two-dimensional space with $\mathbb R$. For the last part of your question, I think that picture of a copy of $\mathbb R^2$ attached in the point $p$ (which in the question is $(1,1)$ and in your comment $(3,9)$) should be fine. The line you describe is just $y=6x$ shifted through the point $(3,9)$. – Andreas Cap Mar 31 '18 at 13:56
  • I'm sorry... It is a visual hurdle... I still can't picture the $\omega$ plane... Is it some sort of extension of the derivative / tangent line of a function at a point to the 3D space? Why translated to the origin? And why the non-orthogonal dx and dy coordinates in the drawing? What is he trying to say? – Antoni Parellada Mar 31 '18 at 14:10
  • I think the picture is just the usual perspecitivc drawing of $\mathbb R^3$, so the axes are orthgonal (although this does not mean a lot in the picture). The rest is just like drawing the graph of a function $f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ as a subset of $\mathbb R^2$. And it is difficult to have a good drawing of the graph of a linear map in such a picture. In general I have the improssion that you are trying to pick up more from the explanation than is in there. – Andreas Cap Apr 01 '18 at 08:11