739:
723:
95:
85:
64:
856:
the existing diagram, then an additional one might be merited in this article, though your first one above should then be sufficient. The idea of density of planes giving the magnitude of the one-form should of course be made clear in this article if even the existing picture in the article is to be understood. The wording would have to be tweaked to give the idea of contour planes rather than actual surfaces constituting the one-form, but that is a detail. —
489:) at the point in question." (Actually, as you hinted at before, it seems that the latter usage is obtained from the former by means of the same abuse of language that permits some people to say "tensor" when they mean "tensor field".) If this were used as the first two sentences of the article, it might be followed by: "A 1-form on a manifold may thus be viewed as a linear functional that varies from point to point, in the same way that a
33:
802:), as well as potentially confusing the reader because of the coincidence of the factor 2 for both the vector and the one-form. I would also not like to see a proliferation of diagrams trying to explain minutae that are probably obvious to someone who can read beyond the lead, even if this is simplified. (And what a mouthful the lead is; completely unnecessarily so IMO.) —
350:, Academic Press, 1978, p. 17): "...it is clear that we have been exploring a blind alley. If we are to proceed any further, we must find another approach..." True, the assumption of continuity is usually made explicit in some form or another, but there is a point at which constant repetition turns into pedantry. It's also worth noting that Halmos had a pedagogic goal in
177:"; the only difference is in the notation and terminology, which results from the fact that the respective authors of the two articles have arrived at the concept from the points of view of different areas of mathematics. Hence, the two articles should be merged. At the very least, they should be cross-referenced so that readers are made aware of the connection.
554:, if it belongs anywhere at all. The subject of that last section on differential forms should be the subject of this entire article--otherwise this article is 100% redundant. So the obvious solution seems to be to write an article on differential 1-forms and put it here, while transferring the rest to
368:
of "continuous linear functional" (in contexts where the latter are of primary interest) makes any difference here. Abuse of language is common in all areas of mathematics, as you surely realize. Nor do I see the relevance of Halmos's "pedagogic agenda"; every author has one. (If you don't accept the
432:
insight. Of course, given a pair of charts, the coordinates have to transform in some way. Maybe if formulas seemed more intuitive to me, I would have studied physics. But I see that, in one sense at least, I'm really arguing your point. It's important to try and indicate why a vector space V is not
277:
the same thing. One concept is local, the other global. The difference is similiar to that between a vector (and element of a vector space) and a vector field (a section of the tangent bundle). In fact, that's what 1-forms are: sections of the cotangent bundle of a manifold. Even when the bundle is
212:
1-form is also used to mean differential 1-form, so it is not completely clear that a merger is the best way forward: I guess most of the article can be merged into "linear functional" and cross-referenced, and the rest can be rewritten into a short note to reflect the application of the notion of a
855:
I was thinking of the one one-form in the existing diagram sort of giving that for "free", say by having α being substantially (say 2×) more dense than β, even though the one is not a scalar multiple of the other, though some words in the caption might do it. If that it trying to milk too much from
644:
because I wanted to learn what covectors are. However, the term is not even mentioned. It seems like it should be a basic ground rule that if someone creates a redirect, they should be careful to make sure that people looking for the redirected term can actually find the information they're looking
532:
It seems to me like there's a lot of discussion here, and it's just the two of us. I don't want to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Hmm...maybe a new article discussing "globalization" in general would be helpful. I just don't see merging this article, but I'm sympathetic with your desire to be
427:
Here, we certainly agree. But how to draw the connection? Vector bundles globalize vector spaces, and (differential) 1-forms globalize the concept of the dual concept. If I am a little over-emphatic on this point, it's because this concept is an important one. I still remember picking up a book on
567:
I made some concrete proposals for carrying out this project above, which you unfortunately did not specifically address. I will now make another; unless you or someone else has a specific objection (which will necessarily lead to a discussion), I will proceed with this plan and begin editing the
437:
you are trying to motivate the concept of 1-forms on manifolds. From an algebraic point of view, both articles are essentially about the same thing, but the language employed points in very different directions. Maybe a single article, say on vector spaces, could make the two different lines of
262:
Reading the two articles, one has the impression that they were written by two groups of mathematicians who are simply unaware of each other, and in particular of the fact that they are both using the exact same concept. This is exactly the sort of annoying situation that an encyclopedia should
543:
Firstly, I don't think the number of people taking part in this discussion has the slightest bearing on the substantive issues involved here. Anyone is free to participate. It is in the nature of things (and justly, I believe) that the future of an article will be decided by those who care the
243:
But the definition of "one-form" given at the beginning of this article is: " a linear function which maps each vector in a vector space to a real number, such that the mapping is invariant with respect to coordinate transformations of the vector space." If this is the case, then a one-form is
820:
I don't see why the coincidence of factors would be confusing. The motivation behind these recent diagrams of forms is that (at least to me) it isn't immediately obvious what the scalar multiple of a 1-form looks like, so explicitly drawing what a 1-form and a scalar multiple (factor of 2 for
549:
Secondly, regarding the course of action to take, this seems to me like a no-brainer. The situation as it stands is unacceptable (and that is a point on which I will insist). All the material in the present article, save the last stub-of-a-section ("Differential one-forms") belongs at
401:
Returning to the previous discussion for a moment, I think this whole presentation is heavily biased towards the coordinate point of view, where it is a common shorthand to blur the distinction between tensors and tensor fields. That's fine so long as the reader appreciates that there
428:
general relativity and reading that contravariant vectors are quantities that transform in such and such a way, and covariant vectors are quantities that transform in such and such a way. My reaction was essentially, Huh? That presentation provided (me, at least) with essentially
582:
I may have misunderstood what you intend to do. I agree that the topics need to be seperated. Surely, I could not object to moving the linear algebra material to a seperate article and focusing on 1-forms as differential forms (I thought you had intended the reverse). Go for it.
384:
Even if, as you say, the present article should really be about a related but distinct concept (sections of the cotangent bundle of a manifold), it doesn't appear that way at the moment. And even once this is corrected, the relation between the two concepts should still be
378:
But matters of terminology are a secondary issue anyway. The main point is that there are two different articles that purport to be about linear transformations from a vector space to the set of scalars. Each of them reads as if the other did not exist. I regard this as a
793:
Couldn't you work the idea of the effect of increasing plane density into the existing diagram? Probably all it would take is changing the density of one of the initial stacks. The idea of showing multiplication with different co-directional vectors does not help much
688:
Then a covector will be a row matrix: a 1 by n matrix. Another way to define a covector is that it's a linear function that takes each vector to a number: in other words, you can multiply a covector by any vector and get a number. You could write that as c(v) = a
416:
I agree with you here. In fact, a greater emphasis on the coordinate-free approach would probably help to clarify the relationship between "one-forms" and linear functionals. My desire is simply that this relationship, whatever it is, be explicitly acknowledged.
438:
investigation explicit. I should apologize for being so cranky. I guess it's Friday, and I felt a bit like I was being talked down to. BTW, this is neither here nor there, but if you want a reference on infinite dimensional manifolds, you might consider Lang's
925:
That section is wrong. 1) In no standard textbook is df a function of dx, and 2) the comment "the meaning of the symbol dx is thus revealed: it is simply an argument, or independent variable, of the function df" is wrong as sin. Someone should fix that.
390:
Finally, let me point out that finite-dimensionality is no more intrinsic to the concept of a differential manifold (and its tangent and cotangent bundles) than it is to that of a Banach space. I trust I don't need to cite a reference for this statement.
310:, not finite dimensional vector spaces. The concepts are not equivalent, either, because if you drop the requirement that the space be finite dimensional, linear maps are no longer automaticaly continuous. That's where boundedness comes in.
605:
They bear the same relationship as do a (real-valued) function and a number. A function is a number for each point of its domain. But a number much simpler than a function defined over an entire domain, which is quite a subtle
328:" linear functional in cases where it is). It is perfectly legitimate (and common) to use the term in the context of finite-dimensional vector spaces (which are in particular Banach spaces). Reference: Paul Halmos,
256:
in that context. At the moment, there is no indication in either article that it does (with the possible exception of differential 1-forms, in which case I would readily go along with the suggestion of
Geometry guy
452:(Indeed--the Lang book is the one I had in mind). Rereading the present article, I have noticed that the word "manifold" does not appear even once! So I think one of the first steps should be to correct this.
184:" be the foundation of the new single article, since that article treats the concept more "in its own right", whereas the present article seems to have arisen in the context of a particular application.--
151:
433:
the same as its dual V., and all this talk of 1-forms vs. dual vectors just seems to cloud the issue. I see no good reason to talk about 1-forms in the conttext of a single vector space
817:
I'll try your idea in time, but I was aiming to produce something that would transfer the idea quicker than the MTW and include a picture of scalar multiplication as an extra.
568:
article(s). My next proposal is a section on the construction of the canonical 1-form on the cotangent bundle, and its relation to the canonical 2-form (reference: Lang,
320:
The term "linear functional" means precisely "linear map from a vector space to its scalars"; no more, no less. Continuity is not invloved (hence the term "
306:
There is another reason not to merge the articles: In mathematics, the term linear functional is normally used on the context of function spaces, which are
734:(arrow). Above, the length of a vector, and the number density of surfaces of a 1-form, are doubled. The factor of two can be replaced by any real number.
1063:
141:
1058:
354:, namely using a setting familiar from introductory courses in linear algebra to set the stage for introducing more advanced concepts from analysis.
954:
it is either completely wrong, or else it is so confusing and misleading that this encyclopedia would be greatly improved by its removal — or both.
510:
What I suggest is creating some material on sections of cotangent bundles for this article, and moving most or all of the current material over to
292:
from points on a manifold to linear functionals on appropriate spaces), the article should point this out, with an explicit cross-reference to the
117:
933:
616:
Differential one-forms are a very important class of mathematical objects, which by all means deserves its own article. It deserves a
755:
558:
where it belongs. Note that this would no longer technically be a merger, but merely a rewrite of the present article (and possibly
533:
clear about the relationship between the global concept (differential 1-forms) and the algebraic concept (the dual space/covecors).
108:
69:
738:
882:
A better priority would be to fix the lead and any other needed rewrites to the article, but I don't have much time right now.
698:
346:
I can play the reference game, too. After an initial chapter that does not make any continuity assumptions, DeVito writes (in
406:
a distinction. I favor a more balanced approach, giving equal wait to the coordinate based and coordinate free approaches.
891:
833:
770:
442:. He goes to some not inconsiderable pains to state and prove fresults for Banach spaces and manifolds wherever possible.
44:
879:
Neither of these are essential, let's leave them here (if other people comment that may determine how useful they are).
750:, each scalar multiplied by 1 and 2. The number of 1-form surfaces pierced by the vector equals the inner product.
722:
252:. The fact that the term "one-form" is traditional in the context of manifolds is not relevant unless it actually
213:
linear functional to differential 1-forms, with the alternative notion and terminology that goes along with this.
999:? I suspect that it doesn't, but I don't feel strongly enough about it justify opening a merge request. The page
199:
1024:
694:
Nice and simple, but I bet the whole truth is more complicated and involves lots of incompehensible maths. ;-)
32:
937:
671:
Same here (came looking for covector). Can someone who knows their onions please add something suitable.
717:
474:
50:
94:
929:
195:
1020:
702:
663:
116:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1039:
974:
662:
Agreed. It probably makes more sense for covector to redirect to vector (or something useful)...
584:
534:
443:
407:
355:
311:
279:
234:
100:
1008:
611:
The merger can only be suggested by someone who does not understand what a differential form is.
84:
63:
1043:
1028:
978:
964:
941:
908:
862:
850:
808:
787:
706:
666:
657:
629:
587:
576:
537:
526:
446:
421:
410:
395:
358:
340:
314:
300:
282:
267:
237:
217:
203:
188:
1004:
996:
988:
900:
857:
842:
803:
779:
559:
555:
551:
517:
511:
466:
333:
293:
249:
214:
181:
174:
1016:
478:
685:
You know what a vector is. Let's think of that as being a column matrix: an n by 1 matrix.
649:
573:
523:
482:
418:
392:
337:
297:
264:
185:
960:
625:
194:
Merging would require a lot of very careful work, if anybody is willing to work on it.
675:
1052:
1035:
970:
486:
883:
825:
762:
494:
490:
481:--in other words, a map that sends each point of the manifold to an element of the
462:
307:
952:
is typical of the worst writing in
Knowledge: Depending on what the writer meant,
516:
This article deals with 1-forms on manifolds. For 1-forms on vector spaces, see
113:
90:
17:
956:
621:
296:
article. The first sentence would be particularly misleading as it stands.
229:, but the term one-form is normally used in the context of manifolds. I do
1000:
641:
288:
Again: if the term "one-form" is really only used in this sense (i.e. a
364:
I fail to see how the fact that "linear functional" is often used as a
1012:
502:
498:
824:
Or not. Anyway the new ones will not be added. Thanks for feedback,
754:
These may be more illustrative than the current one taken from MTW (
596:
A differential one-form — which is the subject of this article — is
995:
Does it really make sense to have this be a separate article from
969:
I've tried to fix it up a little, I think it is a bit better now.
620:
article than this one is at the time of this writing. But still.
332:, 2nd ed. Springer. (Also see the italic text at the top of the
173:
This subject of this article is precisely the same as that of "
26:
948:
This article has much room for improvement. But the section
718:
talk:Exterior algebra § New images for scalar multiplication
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
761:If there are no objections I'll add them in time.
457:Tell me if you would agree with the following: "A
821:concreteness and simplicity) may help the reader.
514:. We can then put a note at the top saying: "
8:
594:The suggestion to merge is absolutely wrong.
485:(i.e. a continuous linear functional on the
30:
726:Comparison of scalar-multiplying a 1-form
58:
737:
721:
640:I came to this page via a redirect from
1034:I agree, it should probably be merged.
60:
600:the same thing as a linear functional.
225:I agree. The concepts may coincide in
570:Differential and Riemannian Manifolds
278:trivial, they're not the same thing.
7:
106:This article is within the scope of
505:) that varies from point to point."
49:It is of interest to the following
369:"authority" of Halmos, try Lang's
25:
1064:Mid-priority mathematics articles
756:File:1-form linear functional.svg
730:(stack of surfaces) and 1-vector
126:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
1059:Start-Class mathematics articles
352:Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces
330:Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces
129:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
93:
83:
62:
31:
233:believe they should be merged.
146:This article has been rated as
942:16:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
667:16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
965:20:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
630:20:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
218:13:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
120:and see a list of open tasks.
1015:is apparently a redirect to
169:Merge to "linear functional"
987:Should this be merged into
909:10:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
863:00:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
851:19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
809:18:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
788:10:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
742:Inner products of a 1-form
707:12:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
658:21:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
1080:
950:Differential of a function
921:Differential of a function
715:
588:12:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
577:02:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
538:12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
527:05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
447:01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
422:21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
411:12:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
396:23:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
359:22:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
341:21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
315:12:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
301:21:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
283:12:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
268:06:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
238:03:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
1044:16:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
1029:13:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
1003:is already a redirect to
979:16:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
497:) may be thought of as a
254:means something different
204:02:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
189:19:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
145:
78:
57:
440:Differentiable Manifolds
152:project's priority scale
180:My preference is that "
109:WikiProject Mathematics
751:
735:
712:Possibly better images
692:
39:This article is rated
1019:, which seems wrong.
741:
725:
680:
475:differential manifold
263:endeavor to correct.
477:is a section of the
132:mathematics articles
348:Functional Analysis
752:
736:
645:for., doesn't it?
101:Mathematics portal
45:content assessment
1005:differential form
997:differential form
989:differential form
932:comment added by
560:linear functional
556:linear functional
552:linear functional
518:linear functional
512:linear functional
467:linear functional
334:linear functional
294:linear functional
250:linear functional
182:linear functional
175:linear functional
166:
165:
162:
161:
158:
157:
16:(Redirected from
1071:
1017:Multilinear form
1011:does not exist.
944:
655:
652:
479:cotangent bundle
134:
133:
130:
127:
124:
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
1079:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1049:
1048:
993:
927:
923:
905:
847:
784:
720:
714:
650:
647:
638:
572:, pp 146-147).
483:cotangent space
196:Oleg Alexandrov
171:
131:
128:
125:
122:
121:
99:
92:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1077:
1075:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1021:Mathwriter2718
992:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
922:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
903:
880:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
845:
822:
818:
812:
811:
782:
713:
710:
687:
686:
637:
634:
633:
632:
613:
612:
608:
607:
602:
601:
585:Greg Woodhouse
580:
579:
564:
563:
546:
545:
535:Greg Woodhouse
530:
529:
507:
506:
454:
453:
444:Greg Woodhouse
425:
424:
408:Greg Woodhouse
399:
398:
387:
386:
381:
380:
375:
374:
356:Greg Woodhouse
344:
343:
312:Greg Woodhouse
304:
303:
280:Greg Woodhouse
273:But, they are
271:
270:
259:
258:
235:Greg Woodhouse
223:
222:
221:
220:
207:
206:
170:
167:
164:
163:
160:
159:
156:
155:
144:
138:
137:
135:
118:the discussion
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1076:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
990:
986:
980:
976:
972:
968:
967:
966:
962:
958:
955:
951:
947:
946:
945:
943:
939:
935:
934:128.12.244.10
931:
920:
910:
907:
906:
899:
897:
894:
890:
889:
888:
881:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
864:
861:
860:
854:
853:
852:
849:
848:
841:
839:
836:
832:
831:
830:
823:
819:
816:
815:
814:
813:
810:
807:
806:
801:
797:
792:
791:
790:
789:
786:
785:
778:
776:
773:
769:
768:
767:
759:
757:
749:
746:and 1-vector
745:
740:
733:
729:
724:
719:
711:
709:
708:
704:
700:
695:
691:
690:
682:
679:
677:
674:I found this
672:
669:
668:
665:
660:
659:
656:
653:
643:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
610:
609:
604:
603:
599:
595:
592:
591:
590:
589:
586:
578:
575:
571:
566:
565:
561:
557:
553:
548:
547:
542:
541:
540:
539:
536:
528:
525:
521:
519:
513:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:tangent space
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
455:
451:
450:
449:
448:
445:
441:
436:
431:
423:
420:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
405:
397:
394:
389:
388:
383:
382:
377:
376:
372:
367:
363:
362:
361:
360:
357:
353:
349:
342:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
313:
309:
308:Banach spaces
302:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
276:
269:
266:
261:
260:
255:
251:
247:
246:by definition
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
232:
228:
219:
216:
211:
210:
209:
208:
205:
201:
197:
193:
192:
191:
190:
187:
183:
178:
176:
168:
153:
149:
143:
140:
139:
136:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
18:Talk:One-form
994:
953:
949:
928:— Preceding
924:
901:
895:
892:
886:
884:
858:
843:
837:
834:
828:
826:
804:
799:
795:
780:
774:
771:
765:
763:
760:
753:
747:
743:
731:
727:
696:
693:
684:
683:
681:
673:
670:
661:
646:
639:
617:
597:
593:
581:
569:
531:
515:
495:tensor field
491:vector field
470:
463:vector space
458:
439:
434:
429:
426:
403:
400:
370:
366:abbreviation
365:
351:
347:
345:
329:
325:
321:
305:
289:
274:
272:
253:
245:
230:
226:
224:
215:Geometry guy
179:
172:
148:Mid-priority
147:
107:
73:Mid‑priority
51:WikiProjects
1007:. The page
618:much better
123:Mathematics
114:mathematics
70:Mathematics
41:Start-class
1053:Categories
1009:Three-form
716:See also:
574:Komponisto
524:Komponisto
419:Komponisto
393:Komponisto
385:discussed.
338:Komponisto
336:article.)
322:continuous
298:Komponisto
265:Komponisto
186:Komponisto
699:84.9.73.5
636:Covectors
1036:Gumshoe2
1001:Two-form
971:Gumshoe2
930:unsigned
642:covector
379:problem.
859:Quondum
805:Quondum
689:number.
664:GameGod
606:object.
501:(resp.
493:(resp.
371:Algebra
326:bounded
257:above).
150:on the
1013:N-form
651:rodii
503:tensor
499:vector
471:1-form
459:1-form
435:unless
324:" or "
47:scale.
798:and 2
562:too).
544:most.
473:on a
465:is a
461:on a
1040:talk
1025:talk
975:talk
961:talk
957:Daqu
938:talk
703:talk
676:here
626:talk
622:Daqu
469:. A
200:talk
904:τlk
846:τlk
783:τlk
758:).
598:not
522:"
290:map
275:not
231:not
142:Mid
1055::
1042:)
1027:)
977:)
963:)
940:)
885:M∧
827:M∧
764:M∧
705:)
697:--
678::
628:)
430:no
404:is
373:.)
248:a
202:)
1038:(
1023:(
991:?
973:(
959:(
936:(
902:И
898:ε
896:ħ
893:c
887:Ŝ
844:И
840:ε
838:ħ
835:c
829:Ŝ
800:v
796:v
794:(
781:И
777:ε
775:ħ
772:c
766:Ŝ
748:v
744:α
732:v
728:α
701:(
654:·
648:·
624:(
520:.
227:R
198:(
154:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
