baby rudin, chapter 10, (differential forms) theorem 10.27

1k Views Asked by At

I'm having difficulties with the reasoning in the proof of theorem 10.27 (regarding integration over oriented simplexes).

say $\sigma=[p_0,p_1,\dots,p_j,\dots,p_k],\bar{\sigma}=[p_j,p_1,\dots,p_0,\dots,p_k]$ ($\bar{\sigma}$ is obtained from $\sigma$ by interchanging $p_0,p_j$) and $\omega=f({\bf x}) dx_{i_1} \wedge dx_{i_2} \wedge \dots \wedge dx_{i_k}$ (the proof will then follow from linearity), I want to show that $\int_{\bar{\sigma}} \omega=-\int_{\sigma} \omega$.

I can see why the Jacobians $J_\bar{\sigma},J_\sigma$ have opposite signs (the column argument given in the text), which gives:

$\int_\bar{\sigma} \omega=\int_{Q^k}f(\bar \sigma( {\bf u})) J_\bar{\sigma} d {\bf u}=-\int_{Q^k} f(\bar{\sigma}({\bf u})) J_\sigma d {\bf u}$

I only miss the last part, where in the last expression $f(\bar \sigma({\bf u}))$ becomes $f(\sigma( {\bf u}))$.

if it matters, both Jacobians are constant, and can be moved outside the integrals.

Thanks in advance,

Michael

1

There are 1 best solutions below

3
On BEST ANSWER

For starters, we will solve the equation $\bar{\sigma}(u)=\sigma(v)$.

Say $u=u_1 e_1+\dots+u_k e_k$ and $v=v_1e_1+\dots+v_k e_k$, it follows that $\bar{\sigma}(u)=p_j+u_j(p_0-p_j)+\sum_{1 \le i \le k,i \neq j} u_i(p_i-p_j)$ and $\sigma(v)=p_0+\sum_{1 \le i \le k} v_i (p_i-p_0)$. Equating the two gives:

$(p_j-p_0)+u_j (p_0-p_j)+\sum_{1 \le i \le k,i \neq j} u_i(p_i-p_0+p_0-p_j)-\sum_{1 \le i \le k} v_i (p_i-p_0)=0$

$(1-u_j-\sum_{1 \le i \le k,i \neq j} u_i-v_j)(p_j-p_0)+\sum_{1 \le i \le k,i \neq j} (u_i-v_i)(p_i-p_0)=0$

A possible solution for $v$ is $v=\sum_{1 \le i \le k,i \neq j} u_i e_i+(1-\sum_{1 \le i \le k} u_i)e_j =:G(u)$.

Effectively, we have shown that $\bar{\sigma}=\sigma \circ G$, for a $C^1$-primitive $G$ from the simplex to itself. Theorem 10.9 (change of variables) gives the result for functions with "well behaved" supports (notice that $|J_G|=|-1|=1$). The general case follows by approximating $f$ with such functions (or, equivalently using a stronger version of theorem 10.9).

I hope it's ok.