Carroll's interpretation of 1-formsHow are the comoving coordinates NOT a prefered reference frame?Physical and Geometrical interpretation of Differential FormsFirst and second fundamental formsIn relativity, can/should every measurement be reduced to measuring a scalar?Riemann Tensor and Covariant Derivative in Carroll's SpacetimeWhy is there an emphasis on tensor equations in GR?Quadrupole moment tensor definitionIs there a good treatment of “familiar” physics using exterior calculus, AKA differential forms?

What happens when I use Drawmij's Instant Summons on Dimensional Shackles?

Is it safe to unplug a blinking USB drive after 'safely' ejecting it?

What's the benefit of prohibiting the use of techniques/language constructs that have not been taught?

With a 500GB SSD and a 250GB SSD is it possible to mirror a 250GB partition on the 500GB with the 250GB SSD using ZFS?

Tips for remembering the order of parameters for ln?

What the did the controller say during my approach to land (audio clip)?

Why would a fighter use the afterburner and air brakes at the same time?

Secondary characters in character-study fiction

When would open interest equal trading volume?

merging certain list elements

Can I separate garlic into cloves for storage?

Delete empty subfolders, keep parent folder

Why are two-stroke engines nearly unheard of in aviation?

What is the maximum viable speed for a projectile within earth's atmosphere?

Could the Orion project pusher plate model be used for asteroid deflection?

Statistical tests for benchmark comparison

Compare FEM mesh with the mesh created within Mathematica

Can one guy with a duplicator trigger a nuclear apocalypse?

Cemented carbide swords - worth it?

How to convey to the people around me that I want to disengage myself from constant giving?

Abilities interrupting effects on a cast card

Madrid to London w/ Expired 90/180 days stay as US citizen

Unpredictability of Stock Market

Is there any actual security benefit to restricting foreign IPs?



Carroll's interpretation of 1-forms


How are the comoving coordinates NOT a prefered reference frame?Physical and Geometrical interpretation of Differential FormsFirst and second fundamental formsIn relativity, can/should every measurement be reduced to measuring a scalar?Riemann Tensor and Covariant Derivative in Carroll's SpacetimeWhy is there an emphasis on tensor equations in GR?Quadrupole moment tensor definitionIs there a good treatment of “familiar” physics using exterior calculus, AKA differential forms?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








5












$begingroup$


Carroll writes in his Spacetime and Geometry book on page 68 that




"[...] in fact, however, we could just as well have begun with an intrinsic definition of one-forms and used that to define vectors as the dual space. Roughly speaking, the space of one-forms at $p$ is equivalent to the space of all functions that vanish at $p$ and have the same second partial derivatives. In fact, doing it that way is more fundamental, if anything, since we can provide intrinsic definitions of all $q$-forms (totally antisymmetric tensors with $q$ lower indices), etc."




Could somebody explain this equivalency in a bit more detail?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    What is p element of? A vector space or an abstract point set?
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Assuming $p$ is a point in the tangent plane to the manifold $M$, then a function $f_p$ is $0$-form, $df_p$ is a $1$-form, and $ddf_p=0$ (or $d^2f_p=0$) - where $d$ is the exterior derivative and $d^2=0$ is the closure property. And not to go off the deep end, but the space of differential forms is determined by the topological properties of the manifold. See De Rham cohomology.
    $endgroup$
    – Cinaed Simson
    3 hours ago


















5












$begingroup$


Carroll writes in his Spacetime and Geometry book on page 68 that




"[...] in fact, however, we could just as well have begun with an intrinsic definition of one-forms and used that to define vectors as the dual space. Roughly speaking, the space of one-forms at $p$ is equivalent to the space of all functions that vanish at $p$ and have the same second partial derivatives. In fact, doing it that way is more fundamental, if anything, since we can provide intrinsic definitions of all $q$-forms (totally antisymmetric tensors with $q$ lower indices), etc."




Could somebody explain this equivalency in a bit more detail?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    What is p element of? A vector space or an abstract point set?
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Assuming $p$ is a point in the tangent plane to the manifold $M$, then a function $f_p$ is $0$-form, $df_p$ is a $1$-form, and $ddf_p=0$ (or $d^2f_p=0$) - where $d$ is the exterior derivative and $d^2=0$ is the closure property. And not to go off the deep end, but the space of differential forms is determined by the topological properties of the manifold. See De Rham cohomology.
    $endgroup$
    – Cinaed Simson
    3 hours ago














5












5








5





$begingroup$


Carroll writes in his Spacetime and Geometry book on page 68 that




"[...] in fact, however, we could just as well have begun with an intrinsic definition of one-forms and used that to define vectors as the dual space. Roughly speaking, the space of one-forms at $p$ is equivalent to the space of all functions that vanish at $p$ and have the same second partial derivatives. In fact, doing it that way is more fundamental, if anything, since we can provide intrinsic definitions of all $q$-forms (totally antisymmetric tensors with $q$ lower indices), etc."




Could somebody explain this equivalency in a bit more detail?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Carroll writes in his Spacetime and Geometry book on page 68 that




"[...] in fact, however, we could just as well have begun with an intrinsic definition of one-forms and used that to define vectors as the dual space. Roughly speaking, the space of one-forms at $p$ is equivalent to the space of all functions that vanish at $p$ and have the same second partial derivatives. In fact, doing it that way is more fundamental, if anything, since we can provide intrinsic definitions of all $q$-forms (totally antisymmetric tensors with $q$ lower indices), etc."




Could somebody explain this equivalency in a bit more detail?







general-relativity differential-geometry






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago









Qmechanic

114k13 gold badges225 silver badges1352 bronze badges




114k13 gold badges225 silver badges1352 bronze badges










asked 11 hours ago









hyportnexhyportnex

4,9691 gold badge9 silver badges26 bronze badges




4,9691 gold badge9 silver badges26 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    What is p element of? A vector space or an abstract point set?
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Assuming $p$ is a point in the tangent plane to the manifold $M$, then a function $f_p$ is $0$-form, $df_p$ is a $1$-form, and $ddf_p=0$ (or $d^2f_p=0$) - where $d$ is the exterior derivative and $d^2=0$ is the closure property. And not to go off the deep end, but the space of differential forms is determined by the topological properties of the manifold. See De Rham cohomology.
    $endgroup$
    – Cinaed Simson
    3 hours ago

















  • $begingroup$
    What is p element of? A vector space or an abstract point set?
    $endgroup$
    – lalala
    10 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Assuming $p$ is a point in the tangent plane to the manifold $M$, then a function $f_p$ is $0$-form, $df_p$ is a $1$-form, and $ddf_p=0$ (or $d^2f_p=0$) - where $d$ is the exterior derivative and $d^2=0$ is the closure property. And not to go off the deep end, but the space of differential forms is determined by the topological properties of the manifold. See De Rham cohomology.
    $endgroup$
    – Cinaed Simson
    3 hours ago
















$begingroup$
What is p element of? A vector space or an abstract point set?
$endgroup$
– lalala
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
What is p element of? A vector space or an abstract point set?
$endgroup$
– lalala
10 hours ago












$begingroup$
Assuming $p$ is a point in the tangent plane to the manifold $M$, then a function $f_p$ is $0$-form, $df_p$ is a $1$-form, and $ddf_p=0$ (or $d^2f_p=0$) - where $d$ is the exterior derivative and $d^2=0$ is the closure property. And not to go off the deep end, but the space of differential forms is determined by the topological properties of the manifold. See De Rham cohomology.
$endgroup$
– Cinaed Simson
3 hours ago





$begingroup$
Assuming $p$ is a point in the tangent plane to the manifold $M$, then a function $f_p$ is $0$-form, $df_p$ is a $1$-form, and $ddf_p=0$ (or $d^2f_p=0$) - where $d$ is the exterior derivative and $d^2=0$ is the closure property. And not to go off the deep end, but the space of differential forms is determined by the topological properties of the manifold. See De Rham cohomology.
$endgroup$
– Cinaed Simson
3 hours ago











4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















3














$begingroup$

If $fin C(M)$ is a smooth function on $M$ (I am dropping the "$infty$" sign, since all functions shall be smooth), and $vin T_xM$ is a tangent vector then the assignment $vmapsto v(f)$ is a linear operation $T_xMrightarrowmathbb R$, so in some sense, a smooth function is also a linear functional on $T_xM$, thus is an element of the dual space $T^ast_x M$.



There is a problem with this interpretation however, is that dual spaces are required to be separating. Eg., if $V$ is a vector space, and $V^ast$ is its (algebraic) dual, we demand that for any $omega,omega^primein V^ast$ can be told apart by how they act on elements of $V$. In other words, if $omega(v)=omega^prime(v)$ for all $vin V$, then we must have $omega=omega^prime$.



There are however functions $f,f^primein C(M)$ (prime is not a derivative here) such that $v(f)=v(f^prime)$ for all $vin T_xM$. The prudent thing to do then is to identify the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ consisting of functions $f$ that satisfy $v(f)=0$ for all $vin T_xM$. Then we clearly have $T^ast_xM=C(M)/T^0_xM$.



This procedure is best carried out in two steps. First one should note that all tangent vectors have the following two properties:



  • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $fequiv c$ is a constant function, then $v(f)=0$.

  • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $f=gh$, where $g(x)=h(x)=0$ (but only necessarily for the specific point $x$, they do not have to vanish identically), then $v(f)=0$.

One may then define the space $mathcal I_xsubset C(M)=fin C(M): f(x)=0$ consisting of functions that vanish at $x$. This a subring of $C(M)$ and is also a two-sided ideal, since it is stable under multipliction from outside of $mathcal I_x$.



We have for any $vin T_xM$ the relation $v(f)=v(f-f(x))$, since $f(x)$ is just a constant (the value of $f$ at $x$), and the map $fmapsto f-f(x)$ is a projection from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, so the action of $T_xM$ on $C(M)$ descends to an action on $mathcal I_x$ without any loss of information. Thus, we succeeded in "quotienting out" a portion of the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ without actually taking a quotient, since the only constant function remaining in $mathcal I_x$ is the one that is identically zero.



There is still the issue of an arbitrary tangent vector $v$ being zero on products of the form $f=gh$ with $g,hinmathcal I_x$. We first note that ideals can be multiplied, eg. $mathcal I_x^2$ is the ideal in $C(M)$ generated by expressions of the form $fg$ where $f,ginmathcal I_x$. The "second" property of tangent vectors corresponds precisely to the statement
$$textAll tangent vectors annihilate mathcal I_x^2.$$



Thus we can get rid of this subspace by taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$. The action of an arbitrary $vin T_xM$ tangent vector factors through the quotient. In fact, let $[cdot]$ denote the quotient projection $mathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, then we define the differential of a function $fin C(M)$ at $xin M$ as $$ mathrm df_x=[f-f(x)]inmathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2, $$ then if we define $$ mathrm df_x(v)=v(f),$$ this doesn't depend on which $f$ we choose from the same class.



At this point, we cannot be sure that we cannot quotient out any more subspaces from $C(M)$, however one can prove that the space $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is finite $n$ dimensional (and it is only a linear space, the algebra structure is lost during the quotient, since products of functions are quotiented into the zero element).



The standard proof involves a Taylor expansion with remainder. Heuristically, without using the precise form of the remainder term, we can write $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+mathcal I_x^2, $$ where the last expression means that the remainder is of the form $(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))g$, so it is in $mathcal I_x^2$. Applying the differential $mathrm d_x$ into this expression gives $$ mathrm df_x=mathrm d(f(x))_x+partial_mu f(x)mathrm d(x^mu-x^mu(x))_x+mathrm d(mathcal I_x^2)_x=partial_mu f(x)mathrm dx^mu_x, $$ and since $mathrm d_x$ is the composition of two projections it is necessarily surjective. Thus we see that for any local chart, the elements $mathrm dx^mu_x$ span $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, and linear independence can also be easily established, thus $dim T_xM=dim(mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2)$. This however implies that $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is the dual space of $T_xM$, since there are no subspaces left to quotient out anymore.



Interpretation:



The procedure $$ C(M)rightarrowmathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$$ involves gradually removing all elements from the space of functions $C(M)$ which indiscriminately annihilate all tangent vectors, thus in this way we arrive at the "true" dual space of $T_xM$ where each element can be told apart by how they act on tangent vectors (or how tangent vectors act on them).



If wer use a generalized Taylor expansion in a chart $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+frac12partial_mupartial_nu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))+O((x-x(x))^3), $$ we see that the first, constant term $f(x)$ gets cut off when we move from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, and we also see that the secomnd, third and all higher order terms contain factors of the form $(x-x(x))^2$, thus they belong to $mathcal I_x^2$. Taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ essentially involves getting rid of every term in the Taylor expansion aside from the first order term, and what we remain with is $ partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))$.



Now, we know that covectors on a manifold are essentially first-order partial derivatives of functions. What we did by this quotienting procedure (by moving $f$ to $mathrm df_x$) was essentially that we differentiated the function $f$ in a purely algebraic manner. Thus, we constructed the space of first-order partial derivatives of functions, eg. the cotangent space.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$






















    3














    $begingroup$

    EDIT: I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo in Carroll's book, and that the equality of first (not second) derivatives is what's required. I haven't thought about this for long, though, so it's possible I'm mistaken here.




    Let the set of all smooth functions from a manifold $M$ to $mathbb R$ be denoted $C^infty(M)$. As you know, a tangent vector $mathbf X_p$ at a point $pin M$ is a linear map which eats functions $fin C^infty(M)$ and spits out real numbers, interpreted as their directional derivatives along $mathbf X_p$.



    In a particular coordinate chart with coordinates $y^a$, we can associate $mathbf X_p$ to the differential operator
    $$mathbf X_p = X^afracpartialpartial y^a$$
    where $X^a$ are called the components of $mathbf X_p$ (in the chart). The action of $mathbf X_p$ on a function $f$ is then



    $$mathbf X_p (f) = X^a fracpartial fpartial y^a$$




    The set of $1-$forms $T_p^*M$ is the set of linear maps from $T_pM$ to $mathbb R$; in other words, the linear maps which eat vectors and spit out real numbers. Given some smooth function $fin C^infty(M)$, we can define a one form $df:T_pM rightarrow mathbb R$ as follows:



    $$df(mathbf X_p) := mathbf X_p(f)$$



    This might seem trivial, but the idea is that we can construct one forms from smooth functions. This leads us to the question of whether $C^infty(M)$ and $T^*_pM$ are essentially the same space wearing different hats.



    The answer to that is no, not quite, because $C^infty(M)$ is too big. Working in an arbitrary coordinate system, we can equate a one-form $df$ with its components



    $$df = left(fracpartial fpartial y^aright)_p dy^a$$



    Clearly two functions which differ by an additive constant would produce the same directional derivative. We can solve this by shifting our focus from $C^infty(M)$ to $C^infty_0(M)$ - the set of smooth functions $f$ such that $f(p)=0$.



    $C^infty_0(M)$ is still too big, because two different smooth functions can have the same first derivatives at $p$. This leads us to the definition of the following equivalence relation.



    Define the equivalence relation $sim$ on the set $C^infty_0(M)$ such that $fsim g$ if $fracpartial fpartial y^a = fracpartial gpartial y^a$. This carves up $C^infty_0(M)$ into equivalence classes of smooth functions which all share the same first derivatives at $p$. The set of all such equivalence classes is called the quotient set $Qequiv C^infty_0(M) / sim$, and it is this set which is isomorphic to the set of one forms at $p$.



    To see this, simply note that an element of $Q$ can be uniquely specified by a list of numbers which correspond to its partial derivatives at $p$ (note that this is not true of $C^infty_0(M)$), and that a one-form can be uniquely specified by its components. These lists can then be put into one-to-one correspondence.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      While all you wrote is true, where does the condituon that the second partial derivates agree come in?
      $endgroup$
      – lalala
      7 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @lalala I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo there. It is not listed among the errata for the book, though, so I may be crazy.
      $endgroup$
      – J. Murray
      6 hours ago



















    2














    $begingroup$


    Could somebody explain this equivalency in a bit more detail?




    The fundamental mathematical notion here is the idea of "equivalence class". If you have a set of things (in your case it is the set of functions on a manifold) and you have some equivalence relation between these things (in your case two functions are equivalent if they vanish at a given point and their derivatives are the same). Then your set will be broken into a number of non-overlapping subsets - the elements in each subset are all equivalent to each other. The conceptual jump is then to forget about the fact that each equivalence class is a (sub)set and just manipulate them as individual elements -- e.g. in your case, you can define addition/subtraction/constant multiplication on the equivalence classes of your functions.



    What your quote says is that, mathematically, it is very convenient to define 1-forms as equivalence classes of functions at a given point. Although, it seems like this is a mistake:





    ...have the same second partial derivatives...





    I think it should be "first" derivatives instead -- check this definition on Wikipedia.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$






















      2














      $begingroup$

      The tangent and cotangent spaces to a finite-dimensional manifold at a point $p$ are finite dimensional vector spaces and hence canonically isomorphic to their own double duals. So you can either a) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the tangent space and then define the cotangent space to be the dual of the tangent space, or b) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the cotangent space and then define the tangent space to be the dual of the cotangent space --- and up to canonical isomorphism, it doesn't matter whether you follow strategy a) or strategy b).



      The quote suggests that it's often most natural to follow strategy b), using this defintion of the cotangent space: First define a germ at $p$ to be an equivalence class of differentiable functions under the equivalence relation that sets two functions to be equivalent if they agree in some neighborhood of $p$. Then let $M$ be the set of all germs represented by functions that vanish at $p$, let $M^2$ be the subset of $M$ spanned by germs represented by products $fg$ with $f,g$ both in $M$, and define the cotangent space to be the vector space $M/M^2$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "151"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );














        draft saved

        draft discarded
















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f503102%2fcarrolls-interpretation-of-1-forms%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        3














        $begingroup$

        If $fin C(M)$ is a smooth function on $M$ (I am dropping the "$infty$" sign, since all functions shall be smooth), and $vin T_xM$ is a tangent vector then the assignment $vmapsto v(f)$ is a linear operation $T_xMrightarrowmathbb R$, so in some sense, a smooth function is also a linear functional on $T_xM$, thus is an element of the dual space $T^ast_x M$.



        There is a problem with this interpretation however, is that dual spaces are required to be separating. Eg., if $V$ is a vector space, and $V^ast$ is its (algebraic) dual, we demand that for any $omega,omega^primein V^ast$ can be told apart by how they act on elements of $V$. In other words, if $omega(v)=omega^prime(v)$ for all $vin V$, then we must have $omega=omega^prime$.



        There are however functions $f,f^primein C(M)$ (prime is not a derivative here) such that $v(f)=v(f^prime)$ for all $vin T_xM$. The prudent thing to do then is to identify the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ consisting of functions $f$ that satisfy $v(f)=0$ for all $vin T_xM$. Then we clearly have $T^ast_xM=C(M)/T^0_xM$.



        This procedure is best carried out in two steps. First one should note that all tangent vectors have the following two properties:



        • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $fequiv c$ is a constant function, then $v(f)=0$.

        • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $f=gh$, where $g(x)=h(x)=0$ (but only necessarily for the specific point $x$, they do not have to vanish identically), then $v(f)=0$.

        One may then define the space $mathcal I_xsubset C(M)=fin C(M): f(x)=0$ consisting of functions that vanish at $x$. This a subring of $C(M)$ and is also a two-sided ideal, since it is stable under multipliction from outside of $mathcal I_x$.



        We have for any $vin T_xM$ the relation $v(f)=v(f-f(x))$, since $f(x)$ is just a constant (the value of $f$ at $x$), and the map $fmapsto f-f(x)$ is a projection from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, so the action of $T_xM$ on $C(M)$ descends to an action on $mathcal I_x$ without any loss of information. Thus, we succeeded in "quotienting out" a portion of the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ without actually taking a quotient, since the only constant function remaining in $mathcal I_x$ is the one that is identically zero.



        There is still the issue of an arbitrary tangent vector $v$ being zero on products of the form $f=gh$ with $g,hinmathcal I_x$. We first note that ideals can be multiplied, eg. $mathcal I_x^2$ is the ideal in $C(M)$ generated by expressions of the form $fg$ where $f,ginmathcal I_x$. The "second" property of tangent vectors corresponds precisely to the statement
        $$textAll tangent vectors annihilate mathcal I_x^2.$$



        Thus we can get rid of this subspace by taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$. The action of an arbitrary $vin T_xM$ tangent vector factors through the quotient. In fact, let $[cdot]$ denote the quotient projection $mathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, then we define the differential of a function $fin C(M)$ at $xin M$ as $$ mathrm df_x=[f-f(x)]inmathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2, $$ then if we define $$ mathrm df_x(v)=v(f),$$ this doesn't depend on which $f$ we choose from the same class.



        At this point, we cannot be sure that we cannot quotient out any more subspaces from $C(M)$, however one can prove that the space $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is finite $n$ dimensional (and it is only a linear space, the algebra structure is lost during the quotient, since products of functions are quotiented into the zero element).



        The standard proof involves a Taylor expansion with remainder. Heuristically, without using the precise form of the remainder term, we can write $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+mathcal I_x^2, $$ where the last expression means that the remainder is of the form $(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))g$, so it is in $mathcal I_x^2$. Applying the differential $mathrm d_x$ into this expression gives $$ mathrm df_x=mathrm d(f(x))_x+partial_mu f(x)mathrm d(x^mu-x^mu(x))_x+mathrm d(mathcal I_x^2)_x=partial_mu f(x)mathrm dx^mu_x, $$ and since $mathrm d_x$ is the composition of two projections it is necessarily surjective. Thus we see that for any local chart, the elements $mathrm dx^mu_x$ span $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, and linear independence can also be easily established, thus $dim T_xM=dim(mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2)$. This however implies that $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is the dual space of $T_xM$, since there are no subspaces left to quotient out anymore.



        Interpretation:



        The procedure $$ C(M)rightarrowmathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$$ involves gradually removing all elements from the space of functions $C(M)$ which indiscriminately annihilate all tangent vectors, thus in this way we arrive at the "true" dual space of $T_xM$ where each element can be told apart by how they act on tangent vectors (or how tangent vectors act on them).



        If wer use a generalized Taylor expansion in a chart $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+frac12partial_mupartial_nu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))+O((x-x(x))^3), $$ we see that the first, constant term $f(x)$ gets cut off when we move from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, and we also see that the secomnd, third and all higher order terms contain factors of the form $(x-x(x))^2$, thus they belong to $mathcal I_x^2$. Taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ essentially involves getting rid of every term in the Taylor expansion aside from the first order term, and what we remain with is $ partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))$.



        Now, we know that covectors on a manifold are essentially first-order partial derivatives of functions. What we did by this quotienting procedure (by moving $f$ to $mathrm df_x$) was essentially that we differentiated the function $f$ in a purely algebraic manner. Thus, we constructed the space of first-order partial derivatives of functions, eg. the cotangent space.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



















          3














          $begingroup$

          If $fin C(M)$ is a smooth function on $M$ (I am dropping the "$infty$" sign, since all functions shall be smooth), and $vin T_xM$ is a tangent vector then the assignment $vmapsto v(f)$ is a linear operation $T_xMrightarrowmathbb R$, so in some sense, a smooth function is also a linear functional on $T_xM$, thus is an element of the dual space $T^ast_x M$.



          There is a problem with this interpretation however, is that dual spaces are required to be separating. Eg., if $V$ is a vector space, and $V^ast$ is its (algebraic) dual, we demand that for any $omega,omega^primein V^ast$ can be told apart by how they act on elements of $V$. In other words, if $omega(v)=omega^prime(v)$ for all $vin V$, then we must have $omega=omega^prime$.



          There are however functions $f,f^primein C(M)$ (prime is not a derivative here) such that $v(f)=v(f^prime)$ for all $vin T_xM$. The prudent thing to do then is to identify the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ consisting of functions $f$ that satisfy $v(f)=0$ for all $vin T_xM$. Then we clearly have $T^ast_xM=C(M)/T^0_xM$.



          This procedure is best carried out in two steps. First one should note that all tangent vectors have the following two properties:



          • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $fequiv c$ is a constant function, then $v(f)=0$.

          • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $f=gh$, where $g(x)=h(x)=0$ (but only necessarily for the specific point $x$, they do not have to vanish identically), then $v(f)=0$.

          One may then define the space $mathcal I_xsubset C(M)=fin C(M): f(x)=0$ consisting of functions that vanish at $x$. This a subring of $C(M)$ and is also a two-sided ideal, since it is stable under multipliction from outside of $mathcal I_x$.



          We have for any $vin T_xM$ the relation $v(f)=v(f-f(x))$, since $f(x)$ is just a constant (the value of $f$ at $x$), and the map $fmapsto f-f(x)$ is a projection from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, so the action of $T_xM$ on $C(M)$ descends to an action on $mathcal I_x$ without any loss of information. Thus, we succeeded in "quotienting out" a portion of the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ without actually taking a quotient, since the only constant function remaining in $mathcal I_x$ is the one that is identically zero.



          There is still the issue of an arbitrary tangent vector $v$ being zero on products of the form $f=gh$ with $g,hinmathcal I_x$. We first note that ideals can be multiplied, eg. $mathcal I_x^2$ is the ideal in $C(M)$ generated by expressions of the form $fg$ where $f,ginmathcal I_x$. The "second" property of tangent vectors corresponds precisely to the statement
          $$textAll tangent vectors annihilate mathcal I_x^2.$$



          Thus we can get rid of this subspace by taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$. The action of an arbitrary $vin T_xM$ tangent vector factors through the quotient. In fact, let $[cdot]$ denote the quotient projection $mathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, then we define the differential of a function $fin C(M)$ at $xin M$ as $$ mathrm df_x=[f-f(x)]inmathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2, $$ then if we define $$ mathrm df_x(v)=v(f),$$ this doesn't depend on which $f$ we choose from the same class.



          At this point, we cannot be sure that we cannot quotient out any more subspaces from $C(M)$, however one can prove that the space $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is finite $n$ dimensional (and it is only a linear space, the algebra structure is lost during the quotient, since products of functions are quotiented into the zero element).



          The standard proof involves a Taylor expansion with remainder. Heuristically, without using the precise form of the remainder term, we can write $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+mathcal I_x^2, $$ where the last expression means that the remainder is of the form $(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))g$, so it is in $mathcal I_x^2$. Applying the differential $mathrm d_x$ into this expression gives $$ mathrm df_x=mathrm d(f(x))_x+partial_mu f(x)mathrm d(x^mu-x^mu(x))_x+mathrm d(mathcal I_x^2)_x=partial_mu f(x)mathrm dx^mu_x, $$ and since $mathrm d_x$ is the composition of two projections it is necessarily surjective. Thus we see that for any local chart, the elements $mathrm dx^mu_x$ span $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, and linear independence can also be easily established, thus $dim T_xM=dim(mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2)$. This however implies that $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is the dual space of $T_xM$, since there are no subspaces left to quotient out anymore.



          Interpretation:



          The procedure $$ C(M)rightarrowmathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$$ involves gradually removing all elements from the space of functions $C(M)$ which indiscriminately annihilate all tangent vectors, thus in this way we arrive at the "true" dual space of $T_xM$ where each element can be told apart by how they act on tangent vectors (or how tangent vectors act on them).



          If wer use a generalized Taylor expansion in a chart $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+frac12partial_mupartial_nu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))+O((x-x(x))^3), $$ we see that the first, constant term $f(x)$ gets cut off when we move from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, and we also see that the secomnd, third and all higher order terms contain factors of the form $(x-x(x))^2$, thus they belong to $mathcal I_x^2$. Taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ essentially involves getting rid of every term in the Taylor expansion aside from the first order term, and what we remain with is $ partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))$.



          Now, we know that covectors on a manifold are essentially first-order partial derivatives of functions. What we did by this quotienting procedure (by moving $f$ to $mathrm df_x$) was essentially that we differentiated the function $f$ in a purely algebraic manner. Thus, we constructed the space of first-order partial derivatives of functions, eg. the cotangent space.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$

















            3














            3










            3







            $begingroup$

            If $fin C(M)$ is a smooth function on $M$ (I am dropping the "$infty$" sign, since all functions shall be smooth), and $vin T_xM$ is a tangent vector then the assignment $vmapsto v(f)$ is a linear operation $T_xMrightarrowmathbb R$, so in some sense, a smooth function is also a linear functional on $T_xM$, thus is an element of the dual space $T^ast_x M$.



            There is a problem with this interpretation however, is that dual spaces are required to be separating. Eg., if $V$ is a vector space, and $V^ast$ is its (algebraic) dual, we demand that for any $omega,omega^primein V^ast$ can be told apart by how they act on elements of $V$. In other words, if $omega(v)=omega^prime(v)$ for all $vin V$, then we must have $omega=omega^prime$.



            There are however functions $f,f^primein C(M)$ (prime is not a derivative here) such that $v(f)=v(f^prime)$ for all $vin T_xM$. The prudent thing to do then is to identify the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ consisting of functions $f$ that satisfy $v(f)=0$ for all $vin T_xM$. Then we clearly have $T^ast_xM=C(M)/T^0_xM$.



            This procedure is best carried out in two steps. First one should note that all tangent vectors have the following two properties:



            • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $fequiv c$ is a constant function, then $v(f)=0$.

            • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $f=gh$, where $g(x)=h(x)=0$ (but only necessarily for the specific point $x$, they do not have to vanish identically), then $v(f)=0$.

            One may then define the space $mathcal I_xsubset C(M)=fin C(M): f(x)=0$ consisting of functions that vanish at $x$. This a subring of $C(M)$ and is also a two-sided ideal, since it is stable under multipliction from outside of $mathcal I_x$.



            We have for any $vin T_xM$ the relation $v(f)=v(f-f(x))$, since $f(x)$ is just a constant (the value of $f$ at $x$), and the map $fmapsto f-f(x)$ is a projection from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, so the action of $T_xM$ on $C(M)$ descends to an action on $mathcal I_x$ without any loss of information. Thus, we succeeded in "quotienting out" a portion of the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ without actually taking a quotient, since the only constant function remaining in $mathcal I_x$ is the one that is identically zero.



            There is still the issue of an arbitrary tangent vector $v$ being zero on products of the form $f=gh$ with $g,hinmathcal I_x$. We first note that ideals can be multiplied, eg. $mathcal I_x^2$ is the ideal in $C(M)$ generated by expressions of the form $fg$ where $f,ginmathcal I_x$. The "second" property of tangent vectors corresponds precisely to the statement
            $$textAll tangent vectors annihilate mathcal I_x^2.$$



            Thus we can get rid of this subspace by taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$. The action of an arbitrary $vin T_xM$ tangent vector factors through the quotient. In fact, let $[cdot]$ denote the quotient projection $mathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, then we define the differential of a function $fin C(M)$ at $xin M$ as $$ mathrm df_x=[f-f(x)]inmathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2, $$ then if we define $$ mathrm df_x(v)=v(f),$$ this doesn't depend on which $f$ we choose from the same class.



            At this point, we cannot be sure that we cannot quotient out any more subspaces from $C(M)$, however one can prove that the space $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is finite $n$ dimensional (and it is only a linear space, the algebra structure is lost during the quotient, since products of functions are quotiented into the zero element).



            The standard proof involves a Taylor expansion with remainder. Heuristically, without using the precise form of the remainder term, we can write $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+mathcal I_x^2, $$ where the last expression means that the remainder is of the form $(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))g$, so it is in $mathcal I_x^2$. Applying the differential $mathrm d_x$ into this expression gives $$ mathrm df_x=mathrm d(f(x))_x+partial_mu f(x)mathrm d(x^mu-x^mu(x))_x+mathrm d(mathcal I_x^2)_x=partial_mu f(x)mathrm dx^mu_x, $$ and since $mathrm d_x$ is the composition of two projections it is necessarily surjective. Thus we see that for any local chart, the elements $mathrm dx^mu_x$ span $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, and linear independence can also be easily established, thus $dim T_xM=dim(mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2)$. This however implies that $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is the dual space of $T_xM$, since there are no subspaces left to quotient out anymore.



            Interpretation:



            The procedure $$ C(M)rightarrowmathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$$ involves gradually removing all elements from the space of functions $C(M)$ which indiscriminately annihilate all tangent vectors, thus in this way we arrive at the "true" dual space of $T_xM$ where each element can be told apart by how they act on tangent vectors (or how tangent vectors act on them).



            If wer use a generalized Taylor expansion in a chart $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+frac12partial_mupartial_nu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))+O((x-x(x))^3), $$ we see that the first, constant term $f(x)$ gets cut off when we move from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, and we also see that the secomnd, third and all higher order terms contain factors of the form $(x-x(x))^2$, thus they belong to $mathcal I_x^2$. Taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ essentially involves getting rid of every term in the Taylor expansion aside from the first order term, and what we remain with is $ partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))$.



            Now, we know that covectors on a manifold are essentially first-order partial derivatives of functions. What we did by this quotienting procedure (by moving $f$ to $mathrm df_x$) was essentially that we differentiated the function $f$ in a purely algebraic manner. Thus, we constructed the space of first-order partial derivatives of functions, eg. the cotangent space.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            If $fin C(M)$ is a smooth function on $M$ (I am dropping the "$infty$" sign, since all functions shall be smooth), and $vin T_xM$ is a tangent vector then the assignment $vmapsto v(f)$ is a linear operation $T_xMrightarrowmathbb R$, so in some sense, a smooth function is also a linear functional on $T_xM$, thus is an element of the dual space $T^ast_x M$.



            There is a problem with this interpretation however, is that dual spaces are required to be separating. Eg., if $V$ is a vector space, and $V^ast$ is its (algebraic) dual, we demand that for any $omega,omega^primein V^ast$ can be told apart by how they act on elements of $V$. In other words, if $omega(v)=omega^prime(v)$ for all $vin V$, then we must have $omega=omega^prime$.



            There are however functions $f,f^primein C(M)$ (prime is not a derivative here) such that $v(f)=v(f^prime)$ for all $vin T_xM$. The prudent thing to do then is to identify the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ consisting of functions $f$ that satisfy $v(f)=0$ for all $vin T_xM$. Then we clearly have $T^ast_xM=C(M)/T^0_xM$.



            This procedure is best carried out in two steps. First one should note that all tangent vectors have the following two properties:



            • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $fequiv c$ is a constant function, then $v(f)=0$.

            • If $vin T_xM$ is an arbitrary vector and $f=gh$, where $g(x)=h(x)=0$ (but only necessarily for the specific point $x$, they do not have to vanish identically), then $v(f)=0$.

            One may then define the space $mathcal I_xsubset C(M)=fin C(M): f(x)=0$ consisting of functions that vanish at $x$. This a subring of $C(M)$ and is also a two-sided ideal, since it is stable under multipliction from outside of $mathcal I_x$.



            We have for any $vin T_xM$ the relation $v(f)=v(f-f(x))$, since $f(x)$ is just a constant (the value of $f$ at $x$), and the map $fmapsto f-f(x)$ is a projection from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, so the action of $T_xM$ on $C(M)$ descends to an action on $mathcal I_x$ without any loss of information. Thus, we succeeded in "quotienting out" a portion of the annihilator $T^0_xMsubset C(M)$ without actually taking a quotient, since the only constant function remaining in $mathcal I_x$ is the one that is identically zero.



            There is still the issue of an arbitrary tangent vector $v$ being zero on products of the form $f=gh$ with $g,hinmathcal I_x$. We first note that ideals can be multiplied, eg. $mathcal I_x^2$ is the ideal in $C(M)$ generated by expressions of the form $fg$ where $f,ginmathcal I_x$. The "second" property of tangent vectors corresponds precisely to the statement
            $$textAll tangent vectors annihilate mathcal I_x^2.$$



            Thus we can get rid of this subspace by taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$. The action of an arbitrary $vin T_xM$ tangent vector factors through the quotient. In fact, let $[cdot]$ denote the quotient projection $mathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, then we define the differential of a function $fin C(M)$ at $xin M$ as $$ mathrm df_x=[f-f(x)]inmathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2, $$ then if we define $$ mathrm df_x(v)=v(f),$$ this doesn't depend on which $f$ we choose from the same class.



            At this point, we cannot be sure that we cannot quotient out any more subspaces from $C(M)$, however one can prove that the space $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is finite $n$ dimensional (and it is only a linear space, the algebra structure is lost during the quotient, since products of functions are quotiented into the zero element).



            The standard proof involves a Taylor expansion with remainder. Heuristically, without using the precise form of the remainder term, we can write $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+mathcal I_x^2, $$ where the last expression means that the remainder is of the form $(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))g$, so it is in $mathcal I_x^2$. Applying the differential $mathrm d_x$ into this expression gives $$ mathrm df_x=mathrm d(f(x))_x+partial_mu f(x)mathrm d(x^mu-x^mu(x))_x+mathrm d(mathcal I_x^2)_x=partial_mu f(x)mathrm dx^mu_x, $$ and since $mathrm d_x$ is the composition of two projections it is necessarily surjective. Thus we see that for any local chart, the elements $mathrm dx^mu_x$ span $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$, and linear independence can also be easily established, thus $dim T_xM=dim(mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2)$. This however implies that $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ is the dual space of $T_xM$, since there are no subspaces left to quotient out anymore.



            Interpretation:



            The procedure $$ C(M)rightarrowmathcal I_xrightarrow mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$$ involves gradually removing all elements from the space of functions $C(M)$ which indiscriminately annihilate all tangent vectors, thus in this way we arrive at the "true" dual space of $T_xM$ where each element can be told apart by how they act on tangent vectors (or how tangent vectors act on them).



            If wer use a generalized Taylor expansion in a chart $$ f=f(x)+partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))+frac12partial_mupartial_nu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))(x^nu-x^nu(x))+O((x-x(x))^3), $$ we see that the first, constant term $f(x)$ gets cut off when we move from $C(M)$ to $mathcal I_x$, and we also see that the secomnd, third and all higher order terms contain factors of the form $(x-x(x))^2$, thus they belong to $mathcal I_x^2$. Taking the quotient $mathcal I_x/mathcal I_x^2$ essentially involves getting rid of every term in the Taylor expansion aside from the first order term, and what we remain with is $ partial_mu f(x)(x^mu-x^mu(x))$.



            Now, we know that covectors on a manifold are essentially first-order partial derivatives of functions. What we did by this quotienting procedure (by moving $f$ to $mathrm df_x$) was essentially that we differentiated the function $f$ in a purely algebraic manner. Thus, we constructed the space of first-order partial derivatives of functions, eg. the cotangent space.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 8 hours ago

























            answered 8 hours ago









            Bence RacskóBence Racskó

            5,0747 silver badges19 bronze badges




            5,0747 silver badges19 bronze badges


























                3














                $begingroup$

                EDIT: I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo in Carroll's book, and that the equality of first (not second) derivatives is what's required. I haven't thought about this for long, though, so it's possible I'm mistaken here.




                Let the set of all smooth functions from a manifold $M$ to $mathbb R$ be denoted $C^infty(M)$. As you know, a tangent vector $mathbf X_p$ at a point $pin M$ is a linear map which eats functions $fin C^infty(M)$ and spits out real numbers, interpreted as their directional derivatives along $mathbf X_p$.



                In a particular coordinate chart with coordinates $y^a$, we can associate $mathbf X_p$ to the differential operator
                $$mathbf X_p = X^afracpartialpartial y^a$$
                where $X^a$ are called the components of $mathbf X_p$ (in the chart). The action of $mathbf X_p$ on a function $f$ is then



                $$mathbf X_p (f) = X^a fracpartial fpartial y^a$$




                The set of $1-$forms $T_p^*M$ is the set of linear maps from $T_pM$ to $mathbb R$; in other words, the linear maps which eat vectors and spit out real numbers. Given some smooth function $fin C^infty(M)$, we can define a one form $df:T_pM rightarrow mathbb R$ as follows:



                $$df(mathbf X_p) := mathbf X_p(f)$$



                This might seem trivial, but the idea is that we can construct one forms from smooth functions. This leads us to the question of whether $C^infty(M)$ and $T^*_pM$ are essentially the same space wearing different hats.



                The answer to that is no, not quite, because $C^infty(M)$ is too big. Working in an arbitrary coordinate system, we can equate a one-form $df$ with its components



                $$df = left(fracpartial fpartial y^aright)_p dy^a$$



                Clearly two functions which differ by an additive constant would produce the same directional derivative. We can solve this by shifting our focus from $C^infty(M)$ to $C^infty_0(M)$ - the set of smooth functions $f$ such that $f(p)=0$.



                $C^infty_0(M)$ is still too big, because two different smooth functions can have the same first derivatives at $p$. This leads us to the definition of the following equivalence relation.



                Define the equivalence relation $sim$ on the set $C^infty_0(M)$ such that $fsim g$ if $fracpartial fpartial y^a = fracpartial gpartial y^a$. This carves up $C^infty_0(M)$ into equivalence classes of smooth functions which all share the same first derivatives at $p$. The set of all such equivalence classes is called the quotient set $Qequiv C^infty_0(M) / sim$, and it is this set which is isomorphic to the set of one forms at $p$.



                To see this, simply note that an element of $Q$ can be uniquely specified by a list of numbers which correspond to its partial derivatives at $p$ (note that this is not true of $C^infty_0(M)$), and that a one-form can be uniquely specified by its components. These lists can then be put into one-to-one correspondence.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$














                • $begingroup$
                  While all you wrote is true, where does the condituon that the second partial derivates agree come in?
                  $endgroup$
                  – lalala
                  7 hours ago










                • $begingroup$
                  @lalala I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo there. It is not listed among the errata for the book, though, so I may be crazy.
                  $endgroup$
                  – J. Murray
                  6 hours ago
















                3














                $begingroup$

                EDIT: I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo in Carroll's book, and that the equality of first (not second) derivatives is what's required. I haven't thought about this for long, though, so it's possible I'm mistaken here.




                Let the set of all smooth functions from a manifold $M$ to $mathbb R$ be denoted $C^infty(M)$. As you know, a tangent vector $mathbf X_p$ at a point $pin M$ is a linear map which eats functions $fin C^infty(M)$ and spits out real numbers, interpreted as their directional derivatives along $mathbf X_p$.



                In a particular coordinate chart with coordinates $y^a$, we can associate $mathbf X_p$ to the differential operator
                $$mathbf X_p = X^afracpartialpartial y^a$$
                where $X^a$ are called the components of $mathbf X_p$ (in the chart). The action of $mathbf X_p$ on a function $f$ is then



                $$mathbf X_p (f) = X^a fracpartial fpartial y^a$$




                The set of $1-$forms $T_p^*M$ is the set of linear maps from $T_pM$ to $mathbb R$; in other words, the linear maps which eat vectors and spit out real numbers. Given some smooth function $fin C^infty(M)$, we can define a one form $df:T_pM rightarrow mathbb R$ as follows:



                $$df(mathbf X_p) := mathbf X_p(f)$$



                This might seem trivial, but the idea is that we can construct one forms from smooth functions. This leads us to the question of whether $C^infty(M)$ and $T^*_pM$ are essentially the same space wearing different hats.



                The answer to that is no, not quite, because $C^infty(M)$ is too big. Working in an arbitrary coordinate system, we can equate a one-form $df$ with its components



                $$df = left(fracpartial fpartial y^aright)_p dy^a$$



                Clearly two functions which differ by an additive constant would produce the same directional derivative. We can solve this by shifting our focus from $C^infty(M)$ to $C^infty_0(M)$ - the set of smooth functions $f$ such that $f(p)=0$.



                $C^infty_0(M)$ is still too big, because two different smooth functions can have the same first derivatives at $p$. This leads us to the definition of the following equivalence relation.



                Define the equivalence relation $sim$ on the set $C^infty_0(M)$ such that $fsim g$ if $fracpartial fpartial y^a = fracpartial gpartial y^a$. This carves up $C^infty_0(M)$ into equivalence classes of smooth functions which all share the same first derivatives at $p$. The set of all such equivalence classes is called the quotient set $Qequiv C^infty_0(M) / sim$, and it is this set which is isomorphic to the set of one forms at $p$.



                To see this, simply note that an element of $Q$ can be uniquely specified by a list of numbers which correspond to its partial derivatives at $p$ (note that this is not true of $C^infty_0(M)$), and that a one-form can be uniquely specified by its components. These lists can then be put into one-to-one correspondence.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$














                • $begingroup$
                  While all you wrote is true, where does the condituon that the second partial derivates agree come in?
                  $endgroup$
                  – lalala
                  7 hours ago










                • $begingroup$
                  @lalala I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo there. It is not listed among the errata for the book, though, so I may be crazy.
                  $endgroup$
                  – J. Murray
                  6 hours ago














                3














                3










                3







                $begingroup$

                EDIT: I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo in Carroll's book, and that the equality of first (not second) derivatives is what's required. I haven't thought about this for long, though, so it's possible I'm mistaken here.




                Let the set of all smooth functions from a manifold $M$ to $mathbb R$ be denoted $C^infty(M)$. As you know, a tangent vector $mathbf X_p$ at a point $pin M$ is a linear map which eats functions $fin C^infty(M)$ and spits out real numbers, interpreted as their directional derivatives along $mathbf X_p$.



                In a particular coordinate chart with coordinates $y^a$, we can associate $mathbf X_p$ to the differential operator
                $$mathbf X_p = X^afracpartialpartial y^a$$
                where $X^a$ are called the components of $mathbf X_p$ (in the chart). The action of $mathbf X_p$ on a function $f$ is then



                $$mathbf X_p (f) = X^a fracpartial fpartial y^a$$




                The set of $1-$forms $T_p^*M$ is the set of linear maps from $T_pM$ to $mathbb R$; in other words, the linear maps which eat vectors and spit out real numbers. Given some smooth function $fin C^infty(M)$, we can define a one form $df:T_pM rightarrow mathbb R$ as follows:



                $$df(mathbf X_p) := mathbf X_p(f)$$



                This might seem trivial, but the idea is that we can construct one forms from smooth functions. This leads us to the question of whether $C^infty(M)$ and $T^*_pM$ are essentially the same space wearing different hats.



                The answer to that is no, not quite, because $C^infty(M)$ is too big. Working in an arbitrary coordinate system, we can equate a one-form $df$ with its components



                $$df = left(fracpartial fpartial y^aright)_p dy^a$$



                Clearly two functions which differ by an additive constant would produce the same directional derivative. We can solve this by shifting our focus from $C^infty(M)$ to $C^infty_0(M)$ - the set of smooth functions $f$ such that $f(p)=0$.



                $C^infty_0(M)$ is still too big, because two different smooth functions can have the same first derivatives at $p$. This leads us to the definition of the following equivalence relation.



                Define the equivalence relation $sim$ on the set $C^infty_0(M)$ such that $fsim g$ if $fracpartial fpartial y^a = fracpartial gpartial y^a$. This carves up $C^infty_0(M)$ into equivalence classes of smooth functions which all share the same first derivatives at $p$. The set of all such equivalence classes is called the quotient set $Qequiv C^infty_0(M) / sim$, and it is this set which is isomorphic to the set of one forms at $p$.



                To see this, simply note that an element of $Q$ can be uniquely specified by a list of numbers which correspond to its partial derivatives at $p$ (note that this is not true of $C^infty_0(M)$), and that a one-form can be uniquely specified by its components. These lists can then be put into one-to-one correspondence.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                EDIT: I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo in Carroll's book, and that the equality of first (not second) derivatives is what's required. I haven't thought about this for long, though, so it's possible I'm mistaken here.




                Let the set of all smooth functions from a manifold $M$ to $mathbb R$ be denoted $C^infty(M)$. As you know, a tangent vector $mathbf X_p$ at a point $pin M$ is a linear map which eats functions $fin C^infty(M)$ and spits out real numbers, interpreted as their directional derivatives along $mathbf X_p$.



                In a particular coordinate chart with coordinates $y^a$, we can associate $mathbf X_p$ to the differential operator
                $$mathbf X_p = X^afracpartialpartial y^a$$
                where $X^a$ are called the components of $mathbf X_p$ (in the chart). The action of $mathbf X_p$ on a function $f$ is then



                $$mathbf X_p (f) = X^a fracpartial fpartial y^a$$




                The set of $1-$forms $T_p^*M$ is the set of linear maps from $T_pM$ to $mathbb R$; in other words, the linear maps which eat vectors and spit out real numbers. Given some smooth function $fin C^infty(M)$, we can define a one form $df:T_pM rightarrow mathbb R$ as follows:



                $$df(mathbf X_p) := mathbf X_p(f)$$



                This might seem trivial, but the idea is that we can construct one forms from smooth functions. This leads us to the question of whether $C^infty(M)$ and $T^*_pM$ are essentially the same space wearing different hats.



                The answer to that is no, not quite, because $C^infty(M)$ is too big. Working in an arbitrary coordinate system, we can equate a one-form $df$ with its components



                $$df = left(fracpartial fpartial y^aright)_p dy^a$$



                Clearly two functions which differ by an additive constant would produce the same directional derivative. We can solve this by shifting our focus from $C^infty(M)$ to $C^infty_0(M)$ - the set of smooth functions $f$ such that $f(p)=0$.



                $C^infty_0(M)$ is still too big, because two different smooth functions can have the same first derivatives at $p$. This leads us to the definition of the following equivalence relation.



                Define the equivalence relation $sim$ on the set $C^infty_0(M)$ such that $fsim g$ if $fracpartial fpartial y^a = fracpartial gpartial y^a$. This carves up $C^infty_0(M)$ into equivalence classes of smooth functions which all share the same first derivatives at $p$. The set of all such equivalence classes is called the quotient set $Qequiv C^infty_0(M) / sim$, and it is this set which is isomorphic to the set of one forms at $p$.



                To see this, simply note that an element of $Q$ can be uniquely specified by a list of numbers which correspond to its partial derivatives at $p$ (note that this is not true of $C^infty_0(M)$), and that a one-form can be uniquely specified by its components. These lists can then be put into one-to-one correspondence.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 6 hours ago

























                answered 9 hours ago









                J. MurrayJ. Murray

                9,8092 gold badges13 silver badges27 bronze badges




                9,8092 gold badges13 silver badges27 bronze badges














                • $begingroup$
                  While all you wrote is true, where does the condituon that the second partial derivates agree come in?
                  $endgroup$
                  – lalala
                  7 hours ago










                • $begingroup$
                  @lalala I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo there. It is not listed among the errata for the book, though, so I may be crazy.
                  $endgroup$
                  – J. Murray
                  6 hours ago

















                • $begingroup$
                  While all you wrote is true, where does the condituon that the second partial derivates agree come in?
                  $endgroup$
                  – lalala
                  7 hours ago










                • $begingroup$
                  @lalala I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo there. It is not listed among the errata for the book, though, so I may be crazy.
                  $endgroup$
                  – J. Murray
                  6 hours ago
















                $begingroup$
                While all you wrote is true, where does the condituon that the second partial derivates agree come in?
                $endgroup$
                – lalala
                7 hours ago




                $begingroup$
                While all you wrote is true, where does the condituon that the second partial derivates agree come in?
                $endgroup$
                – lalala
                7 hours ago












                $begingroup$
                @lalala I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo there. It is not listed among the errata for the book, though, so I may be crazy.
                $endgroup$
                – J. Murray
                6 hours ago





                $begingroup$
                @lalala I agree with Kostya that there is likely a typo there. It is not listed among the errata for the book, though, so I may be crazy.
                $endgroup$
                – J. Murray
                6 hours ago












                2














                $begingroup$


                Could somebody explain this equivalency in a bit more detail?




                The fundamental mathematical notion here is the idea of "equivalence class". If you have a set of things (in your case it is the set of functions on a manifold) and you have some equivalence relation between these things (in your case two functions are equivalent if they vanish at a given point and their derivatives are the same). Then your set will be broken into a number of non-overlapping subsets - the elements in each subset are all equivalent to each other. The conceptual jump is then to forget about the fact that each equivalence class is a (sub)set and just manipulate them as individual elements -- e.g. in your case, you can define addition/subtraction/constant multiplication on the equivalence classes of your functions.



                What your quote says is that, mathematically, it is very convenient to define 1-forms as equivalence classes of functions at a given point. Although, it seems like this is a mistake:





                ...have the same second partial derivatives...





                I think it should be "first" derivatives instead -- check this definition on Wikipedia.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



















                  2














                  $begingroup$


                  Could somebody explain this equivalency in a bit more detail?




                  The fundamental mathematical notion here is the idea of "equivalence class". If you have a set of things (in your case it is the set of functions on a manifold) and you have some equivalence relation between these things (in your case two functions are equivalent if they vanish at a given point and their derivatives are the same). Then your set will be broken into a number of non-overlapping subsets - the elements in each subset are all equivalent to each other. The conceptual jump is then to forget about the fact that each equivalence class is a (sub)set and just manipulate them as individual elements -- e.g. in your case, you can define addition/subtraction/constant multiplication on the equivalence classes of your functions.



                  What your quote says is that, mathematically, it is very convenient to define 1-forms as equivalence classes of functions at a given point. Although, it seems like this is a mistake:





                  ...have the same second partial derivatives...





                  I think it should be "first" derivatives instead -- check this definition on Wikipedia.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$

















                    2














                    2










                    2







                    $begingroup$


                    Could somebody explain this equivalency in a bit more detail?




                    The fundamental mathematical notion here is the idea of "equivalence class". If you have a set of things (in your case it is the set of functions on a manifold) and you have some equivalence relation between these things (in your case two functions are equivalent if they vanish at a given point and their derivatives are the same). Then your set will be broken into a number of non-overlapping subsets - the elements in each subset are all equivalent to each other. The conceptual jump is then to forget about the fact that each equivalence class is a (sub)set and just manipulate them as individual elements -- e.g. in your case, you can define addition/subtraction/constant multiplication on the equivalence classes of your functions.



                    What your quote says is that, mathematically, it is very convenient to define 1-forms as equivalence classes of functions at a given point. Although, it seems like this is a mistake:





                    ...have the same second partial derivatives...





                    I think it should be "first" derivatives instead -- check this definition on Wikipedia.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$




                    Could somebody explain this equivalency in a bit more detail?




                    The fundamental mathematical notion here is the idea of "equivalence class". If you have a set of things (in your case it is the set of functions on a manifold) and you have some equivalence relation between these things (in your case two functions are equivalent if they vanish at a given point and their derivatives are the same). Then your set will be broken into a number of non-overlapping subsets - the elements in each subset are all equivalent to each other. The conceptual jump is then to forget about the fact that each equivalence class is a (sub)set and just manipulate them as individual elements -- e.g. in your case, you can define addition/subtraction/constant multiplication on the equivalence classes of your functions.



                    What your quote says is that, mathematically, it is very convenient to define 1-forms as equivalence classes of functions at a given point. Although, it seems like this is a mistake:





                    ...have the same second partial derivatives...





                    I think it should be "first" derivatives instead -- check this definition on Wikipedia.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 10 hours ago









                    KostyaKostya

                    15k4 gold badges52 silver badges86 bronze badges




                    15k4 gold badges52 silver badges86 bronze badges
























                        2














                        $begingroup$

                        The tangent and cotangent spaces to a finite-dimensional manifold at a point $p$ are finite dimensional vector spaces and hence canonically isomorphic to their own double duals. So you can either a) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the tangent space and then define the cotangent space to be the dual of the tangent space, or b) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the cotangent space and then define the tangent space to be the dual of the cotangent space --- and up to canonical isomorphism, it doesn't matter whether you follow strategy a) or strategy b).



                        The quote suggests that it's often most natural to follow strategy b), using this defintion of the cotangent space: First define a germ at $p$ to be an equivalence class of differentiable functions under the equivalence relation that sets two functions to be equivalent if they agree in some neighborhood of $p$. Then let $M$ be the set of all germs represented by functions that vanish at $p$, let $M^2$ be the subset of $M$ spanned by germs represented by products $fg$ with $f,g$ both in $M$, and define the cotangent space to be the vector space $M/M^2$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$



















                          2














                          $begingroup$

                          The tangent and cotangent spaces to a finite-dimensional manifold at a point $p$ are finite dimensional vector spaces and hence canonically isomorphic to their own double duals. So you can either a) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the tangent space and then define the cotangent space to be the dual of the tangent space, or b) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the cotangent space and then define the tangent space to be the dual of the cotangent space --- and up to canonical isomorphism, it doesn't matter whether you follow strategy a) or strategy b).



                          The quote suggests that it's often most natural to follow strategy b), using this defintion of the cotangent space: First define a germ at $p$ to be an equivalence class of differentiable functions under the equivalence relation that sets two functions to be equivalent if they agree in some neighborhood of $p$. Then let $M$ be the set of all germs represented by functions that vanish at $p$, let $M^2$ be the subset of $M$ spanned by germs represented by products $fg$ with $f,g$ both in $M$, and define the cotangent space to be the vector space $M/M^2$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$

















                            2














                            2










                            2







                            $begingroup$

                            The tangent and cotangent spaces to a finite-dimensional manifold at a point $p$ are finite dimensional vector spaces and hence canonically isomorphic to their own double duals. So you can either a) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the tangent space and then define the cotangent space to be the dual of the tangent space, or b) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the cotangent space and then define the tangent space to be the dual of the cotangent space --- and up to canonical isomorphism, it doesn't matter whether you follow strategy a) or strategy b).



                            The quote suggests that it's often most natural to follow strategy b), using this defintion of the cotangent space: First define a germ at $p$ to be an equivalence class of differentiable functions under the equivalence relation that sets two functions to be equivalent if they agree in some neighborhood of $p$. Then let $M$ be the set of all germs represented by functions that vanish at $p$, let $M^2$ be the subset of $M$ spanned by germs represented by products $fg$ with $f,g$ both in $M$, and define the cotangent space to be the vector space $M/M^2$.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            The tangent and cotangent spaces to a finite-dimensional manifold at a point $p$ are finite dimensional vector spaces and hence canonically isomorphic to their own double duals. So you can either a) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the tangent space and then define the cotangent space to be the dual of the tangent space, or b) start with any of several equivalent definitions of the cotangent space and then define the tangent space to be the dual of the cotangent space --- and up to canonical isomorphism, it doesn't matter whether you follow strategy a) or strategy b).



                            The quote suggests that it's often most natural to follow strategy b), using this defintion of the cotangent space: First define a germ at $p$ to be an equivalence class of differentiable functions under the equivalence relation that sets two functions to be equivalent if they agree in some neighborhood of $p$. Then let $M$ be the set of all germs represented by functions that vanish at $p$, let $M^2$ be the subset of $M$ spanned by germs represented by products $fg$ with $f,g$ both in $M$, and define the cotangent space to be the vector space $M/M^2$.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 9 hours ago









                            WillOWillO

                            8,1682 gold badges26 silver badges37 bronze badges




                            8,1682 gold badges26 silver badges37 bronze badges































                                draft saved

                                draft discarded















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f503102%2fcarrolls-interpretation-of-1-forms%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                                Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                                Tom Holland Mục lục Đầu đời và giáo dục | Sự nghiệp | Cuộc sống cá nhân | Phim tham gia | Giải thưởng và đề cử | Chú thích | Liên kết ngoài | Trình đơn chuyển hướngProfile“Person Details for Thomas Stanley Holland, "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008" — FamilySearch.org”"Meet Tom Holland... the 16-year-old star of The Impossible""Schoolboy actor Tom Holland finds himself in Oscar contention for role in tsunami drama"“Naomi Watts on the Prince William and Harry's reaction to her film about the late Princess Diana”lưu trữ"Holland and Pflueger Are West End's Two New 'Billy Elliots'""I'm so envious of my son, the movie star! British writer Dominic Holland's spent 20 years trying to crack Hollywood - but he's been beaten to it by a very unlikely rival"“Richard and Margaret Povey of Jersey, Channel Islands, UK: Information about Thomas Stanley Holland”"Tom Holland to play Billy Elliot""New Billy Elliot leaving the garage"Billy Elliot the Musical - Tom Holland - Billy"A Tale of four Billys: Tom Holland""The Feel Good Factor""Thames Christian College schoolboys join Myleene Klass for The Feelgood Factor""Government launches £600,000 arts bursaries pilot""BILLY's Chapman, Holland, Gardner & Jackson-Keen Visit Prime Minister""Elton John 'blown away' by Billy Elliot fifth birthday" (video with John's interview and fragments of Holland's performance)"First News interviews Arrietty's Tom Holland"“33rd Critics' Circle Film Awards winners”“National Board of Review Current Awards”Bản gốc"Ron Howard Whaling Tale 'In The Heart Of The Sea' Casts Tom Holland"“'Spider-Man' Finds Tom Holland to Star as New Web-Slinger”lưu trữ“Captain America: Civil War (2016)”“Film Review: ‘Captain America: Civil War’”lưu trữ“‘Captain America: Civil War’ review: Choose your own avenger”lưu trữ“The Lost City of Z reviews”“Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios Find Their 'Spider-Man' Star and Director”“‘Mary Magdalene’, ‘Current War’ & ‘Wind River’ Get 2017 Release Dates From Weinstein”“Lionsgate Unleashing Daisy Ridley & Tom Holland Starrer ‘Chaos Walking’ In Cannes”“PTA's 'Master' Leads Chicago Film Critics Nominations, UPDATED: Houston and Indiana Critics Nominations”“Nominaciones Goya 2013 Telecinco Cinema – ENG”“Jameson Empire Film Awards: Martin Freeman wins best actor for performance in The Hobbit”“34th Annual Young Artist Awards”Bản gốc“Teen Choice Awards 2016—Captain America: Civil War Leads Second Wave of Nominations”“BAFTA Film Award Nominations: ‘La La Land’ Leads Race”“Saturn Awards Nominations 2017: 'Rogue One,' 'Walking Dead' Lead”Tom HollandTom HollandTom HollandTom Hollandmedia.gettyimages.comWorldCat Identities300279794no20130442900000 0004 0355 42791085670554170004732cb16706349t(data)XX5557367