A cogerm differential form is a vast generalization of the usual exterior differential forms, which includes also absolute differential forms, as well as “higher” differential forms such as and a commutative differential operator (at least in the case of 1-forms).
Let be a set. Usually, will be a manifold or a generalized smooth space, but the definition does not require this.
By a curve in we mean a function for some real number . Two curves and have the same germ (at 0) if there exists such that and agree when restricted to . Let denote the set of germs of curves in , i.e. the quotient of the set of curves in by the equivalence relation “has the same germ as”.
A (partial) cogerm differential 1-form on is a partial function . We write the action of on a curve (or germ thereof) as .
If is a function, then it defines a cogerm differential 1-form, also denoted , by evaluation at :
This is defined on all germs.
We also have the differential of , denoted , defined by
which is defined on all germs having the property that is differentiable at . In particular, if is smooth (for a smooth space), then is defined on all smooth germs.
When is a differentiable manifold, depends only on the tangent vector of at .
More generally, any real-valued function on the tangent bundle of can be regarded as a cogerm differential 1-form; this includes in particular all exterior differential 1-forms.
We also have the second differential , defined by
which depends only on the 2-jet of at . We can similarly consider higher differentials which depend on higher jets. A cogerm differential 1-form which depends only on the jet of may be called a cojet differential 1-form.
For an example of a cogerm differential form that is not a cojet differential form, let be or according as is or is not analytic (say for the real line). We do not know any more interesting examples.
We can also apply arbitrary real functions: if is a function (or even a partial function) and are cogerm differential 1-forms, then we have defined by
For instance, any has an absolute value .
And if , then we have the “length element” .
Generalizing , any absolute differential 1-form can be regarded as a cogerm differential 1-form.
Any symmetric bilinear form on tangent vectors can also be regarded as a quadratic covector form and therefore a quadratic cogerm form. In particular, this applies to the metric on any (pseudo)-Riemannian manifold. We then have in the algebra of cogerm forms on a Riemannian manifold.
For any function , we have a cogerm differential form , defined by . When is the Heaviside function, is a candidate for the Dirac delta function.
A somewhat better way to represent the Dirac delta function as a cogerm differential form is
In the section on integration below we will see why this deserves the name “delta function”.
For any curve and real number , let be the curve defined by . If is any cogerm differential 1-form, then we define its differential by
Note that while the fraction on the right-hand side only makes sense for a specific representative curve and a sufficiently small , the limit depends only on the germ of .
Of course, in general, may not be defined on as many curves as is.
If is a smooth space, so that we have a notion of smooth curve, then we say that a cogerm differential 1-form is smooth if
For example, if is a smooth function, then it is also a smooth cogerm differential 1-form, and its differentials are those mentioned above. By stopping the coinduction at an appropriate point and requiring only continuity, we obtain an analogous definition of -times continuously differentiable function ; for example, is if , , and are defined on all smooth curves and the last of these is continuous. (But the obvious definition of differentiable function without continuity is too weak, even if we require to be defined on all differentiable germs, as the classic example of shows; extended continuously to the origin, this and its differential are defined on all smooth curves, although the differential is not continuous, but this function is not differentiable, which we know because its differential is not linear as a covector form.)
Note that the cogerm differential is not the same as the exterior differential, except when applied to -forms. In particular, .
We have the expected multivariable chain rule:
If is a differentiable function and are cogerm differential 1-forms, then
where denotes the partial derivative with respect to the variable.
In particular, taking , we have the product rule:
This also enables us to calculate the iterated cogerm differentials of functions. If is a “coordinate” and is a function, so that is a function of that coordinate, then by the theorem we have
Thus, by the product rule, we have
and so on. Note that the first formula justifies the common notation for the derivative , while the second almost justifies the common notation for the second derivative — it would be correct only if , which is not generally the case. Instead it would be better to write , indicating that is the coefficient of in a canonical expansion of .
Let be a curve and a cogerm differential 1-form; we would like to integrate over . There are at least two possible definitions.
The naive integral of over is defined to be
if this exists. If is an exterior differential -form or an absolute differential -form, then this agrees with its usual line integral over .
The (genuine) integral of over is defined as follows. Given a tagged partition with tags , we define the corresponding Riemann sum? to be
Here , and for a curve and a number the curve is defined by . Now we take the limit as the tagged partitions shrink.
It is convenient to do this in the manner of the Henstock integral. That is, we consider gauges and say that a tagged partition is -fine if for all . Then we say that a number is the integral if for all there exists a gauge such that the Riemann sum of any -fine tagged partition is within of .
The genuine integral also agrees with the usual integral for exterior 1-forms, and probably also for absolute differential forms. However, in other cases it disagrees with the naive integral. In particular, it “detects only the degree-1 part” of a form, in a way that we can make precise as follows.
Let us say that is if for any curve . Some examples of forms that are are and .
If is , then for any curve .
Suppose ; then for any there is a such that for any . This defines a gauge on . Now suppose we have a -fine tagged partition with tags , so that . Then the corresponding Riemann sum is, by definition, . Since , each . Thus, when we sum them up, we get something less than . Thus, for any there is a gauge such that the Riemann sum over any -fine tagged partition is ; so the integral is zero.
Thus, for instance, according to the genuine integral, while according to the naive integral it would be (by the fundamental theorem of calculus) .
The answer given by the genuine integral is preferable if we regard as a “first-order change in ”, so that or are “second-order” quantities and hence ought to be negligible. For instance, we usually compute the area under a curve between and by dividing the interval into subintervals of width and approximating the area for each subinterval using a rectangle, obtaining . This leads us to integrate the differential form .
However, a better approximation would be to replace the rectangle with a trapezoid, having an area of . At least if is differentiable, we can approximate by , and thus approximate the area by
This would lead us to integrate the form . Since this is based on a better approximation, we should expect it to give at least as good an answer. And with the genuine integral it does give the same answer, since the additional term is and hence has vanishing integral. But with the naive integral, it does not.
The naive integral satisfies a fundamental theorem of calculus for all cogerm forms: for any we have
This follows directly from the definition of the naive integral and the cogerm differential .
The genuine integral does not satisfy as general a fundamental theorem of calculus as the naive integral. It does, however, satisfy FTC for differentials of functions:
This can be proven in exactly the same way as the usual FTC for (line) integrals.
The restriction of FTC to differentials of functions is fairly natural if we recognize that FTC is a special case of the generalized Stokes' theorem, which is about exterior differentials of forms, not the commutative cogerm differential. It just so happens that if is a function, then the exterior differential of regarded as a 0-form agrees with the cogerm differential of regarded as a cogerm 1-form.
The existence of naive integrals is fairly easy to verify, since they are just defined in terms of ordinary 1-variable integrals. But the existence of genuine integrals is rather less obvious. Here we prove that they exist for at least one reasonably general class of forms.
Recall that a 1-cojet differential 1-form is a cogerm 1-form that depends only on the 1-jet of a curve, i.e. its value and its tangent vector. A 1-cojet form is equivalently just a function (not necessarily linear) on the tangent bundle ; we may write it as , where is a point of (with coordinates , , , …) and a tangent vector at (with coordinates , , , …).
Suppose is a 1-cojet differential form and that
for all .
For each and the function is differentiable from the right at , and the derivative of the above function is continuous as a function on .
Then the genuine integral of over any differentiable curve exists.
The Riemann sums in the definition of the genuine integral simplify in the case of a 1-cojet form to
Note that is always positive. By the assumptions, for any positive we can write
where is continuous and . Therefore the Riemann sum is
Now, essentially the same argument as in the proof that forms have zero integral shows that the second term can be neglected; thus we may as well consider only
However, this is just an ordinary Riemann sum for computing the integral
Since is assumed continuous, this integral exists.
The hypotheses of this theorem are a bit restrictive, but they include both the usual exterior 1-forms and absolute differential forms such as and . The latter are not differentiable at , but they do have one-sided derivatives along any line approaching the origin. It is also necessary to exclude forms such as the following:
A function on , regarded as a cogerm differential form. If such a function is nonzero on any region, then its genuine integral will diverge. These are excluded by requirement (1).
Forms such as , whose genuine integral also diverges. These are excluded by requirement (2).
There are, however, some cogerm forms that are not 1-cojet forms, nor are they , yet their geniune integrals exist. An example is , whose genuine integral over a curve is essentially . There is probably a generalization of the above existence theorem to -cojet forms, involving somewhat more complicated vanishing and differentiability conditions.
Since both naive and genuine integrals agree with ordinary line integrals when restricted to exterior 1-forms, such integrals are invariant under orientation-preserving reparametrization. However, for general cogerm 1-forms, neither integral is so invariant. Nevertheless, we may ask for conditions under which they are.
The naive integral is very much not invariant under reparametrization. This is most obvious when is just a function, in which case its integral is just its ordinary integral. Similarly, a naive integral like , which equals by FTC, is not invariant under reparametrization since it involves the derivative of the coordinate function of .
The genuine integral is somewhat more invariant under reparametrization. For instance,
Since the genuine integral whenever is , independently of whatever might be, any such integral is parametrization-independent.
The genuine integral of any form along any curve is invariant under orientation-preserving affine reparametrization. This follows fairly directly from its definition.
There are forms whose genuine integral exists, but is not parametrization-invariant, such as . However, we can isolate a useful class of forms, including both exterior forms and absolute forms, whose genuine integral is so invariant. This is most easily done by reformulating the integral, as follows.
For 1-cojet differential 1-forms satisfying a weak sublinearity condition, there is an equivalent definition of the genuine integral that is more obviously parametrization-invariant.
A 1-cojet form can be considered as a function on tangent vectors where . Let us say that such a form is tangent-Lipschitz if for each there is a constant such that
for all . Here we are using a norm on the tangent space . Since this vector space is finite-dimensional, the notion of tangent-Lipschitz is independent of the norm chosen (although the numerical value of will vary with the norm).
Note that this says nothing at all about the continuity of as a function of . In particular, if each is separately either linear or absolute, then is tangent-Lipschitz. Thus, tangent-Lipschitz is a weak replacement for linearity in the tangent variable.
To define our new version of the integral, suppose first that is a finite-dimensional real affine space, regarded as a smooth manifold. Then we can canonically identify all its tangent spaces with the same vector space .
Let be a curve in such an affine space , and a 1-cojet differential 1-form on some open subset containing the image of . Then we can regard as a function . Now for any tagged partition with tags , we define the corresponding Riemann sum? to be
where , the subtraction being the usual way to subtract points in an affine space and obtain a vector. We then take the limit of such Riemann sums in the Henstock way, as before; let us call this the affine integral.
Note that this Riemann sum manifestly depends only on the points and (and the order in which they occur). Thus, any increasing bijection induces a bijection between tagged partitions which respects their Riemann sums. It also maps intervals to intervals, so any gauge on one interval induces one on the other interval. Thus the limits also coincide (in the strong sense that one exists if and only if the other does, and in that case they are equal), and so the affine integral is completely parametrization-independent.
We now show that the affine integral agrees with the genuine integral.
If is a tangent-Lipschitz 1-cojet form on an open subset of an affine space , then its genuine and affine integrals over any differentiable curve agree, in the strong sense that each exists if and only if the other does and in that case they are equal.
Let be differentiable. Then by definition of differentiability, for any in we can write
where as . Thus, since is tangent-Lipschitz, for any tagged partition we have
Since as , we can choose gauges to make this difference vanish in the limit, just as we did for integrating forms. But and are exactly the terms in the Riemann sums for the affine and genuine integrals.
Finally, a similar argument shows that the affine integral can be extended to all finite-dimensional smooth manifolds by local charts.
Let and be open subsets of affine spaces and be differentiable. Let be a tangent-Lipschitz 1-cojet form on and a differentiable curve. Then for the affine integrals we have
By definition, . Thus, the LHS is a limit of Riemann sums of the form
while the RHS is a limit of sums of the form
Since is differentiable, for any point we have
where as . Since is tangent-Lipschitz, this gives
Now and depend on the point chosen, but nevertheless, we can choose gauges as before to make this term vanish in the limit. Thus, the two integrals agree.
An alternative approach to proving FTC would be to observe that essentially by definition of , the form
is . Therefore, if either exists. If the latter integral can be calculated using only partitions tagged by their left endpoint, then it is obviously — but it is not clear that such partitions suffice.
In the list of examples above, we denoted by . More generally, we might expect that integration of (perhaps multiplied by another function ) is a sort of Stieltjes integration?. However, it is again not clear whether left endpoints suffice.
We can, at least, show that the second definition of the Dirac delta function has its expected properties. Recall that this was
For any function , if then we have for the affine integral.
We define a gauge, denoted (since the letter is already in use) as follows:
Then in any -fine tagged partition, must be the tag of the subinterval containing it. Therefore, the Riemann sum of over any such tagged partition is simply
where is the width of the subinterval containing . But this is positive, so the Riemann sum is simply . Thus, the integral equals .
One might instead define to be if , so that we would integrate rather than . Our choice matches more closely the common informal notation “”, although of course here is a function of as well as . Our choice also gives the usual scaling and precomposition properties, usually written as
In our notation, instead of we would write , which is how we precompose a differential form with a function; the above formulas then follow from .
Note that -functions are usually defined as measures or distributions, which are integrated over unoriented regions. Since our integrals are oriented, we have to specify that is traversed left-to-right (as in the notation ) in order to get as the answer; if we integrated instead we would get .
We can, of course, avoid the minus sign by integrating against instead of . (We could also omit the absolute value in the definition of , but this would break the usual scaling properties.)
Since we have successfully represented the -distribution as a cogerm differential form, one may wonder whether other distributions can also be so represented. It is unclear to me whether this is possible. For instance, if are test functions converging to a distribution as , we could consider a differential form such as , but it’s not clear whether this would have the right behavior under integration.
One can define a cogerm differential -form to be a function on germs of -dimensional hypersurfaces in . These include in particular the usual exterior differential -forms as well as absolute differential -forms. And they can be integrated over -dimensional hypersurfaces, by a similar formula as above.
There is a sort of “exterior differential” acting from cogerm -forms to cogerm -forms, which we denote by to avoid confusion with the commutative cogerm differential . When , the definition is
Here the limit is over some neighborhoods of whose areas shrink to zero, and the integral over the boundary is defined as above. The definition for general is similar.
This limit can only exist if the integral is invariant under oriented reparametrization of . Moreover, if is an absolute form, then usually there will not be enough cancellation to make the limit above finite (it would be analogous to defining a 1-dimensional “derivative” as rather than ). Thus, this “exterior differential” seems barely (if at all) more general than the usual one acting on exterior -forms.
It is unclear whether there is a notion of exterior differential which is significantly more general. Similarly, it is unclear whether the wedge product of exterior forms can be sensibly extended to cogerm ones, or whether there is a sensible commutative cogerm differential acting on cogerm -forms for .
More general than cojet forms (but analytic), we have the coflare differential forms, in which there are any number of differentials (or higher differentials) , , , etc. Whereas jets are based on the tangent bundle , flares (of rank, say, ) are based on the iterated tangent bundle . Both cojet forms and exterior differential forms are included in the calculus of coflare forms, as are nonlinear versions of exterior forms such as absolute differential forms. The differentials in cojet forms always have the subscript (which we may take to be the default), while the exterior form is really (possibly divided by , depending on your conventions).
A more abstract version of coflare forms (including both cogerm forms and the coflare forms of the previous paragraph) may be based on germs of maps with domain instead of only curves (with domain ). To fix notation, number the coordinates on from to ; if is a partial function from to and is the subset of on which is (say) -times differentiable, then write for the third partial derivative of with respect to variable , variable , and variable (in any order). Then if is a thrice-differentiable function to from a neighbourhood of the origin in and is a thrice-differentiable function to from a neighbourhood of in , then we have , etc.
Even more abstractly, there is no reason to limit the domain of to , although it's not clear if the forms on more general classes of germs correspond to anything of independent interest.
Historical reference saved for later reading:
Last revised on August 29, 2021 at 17:21:58. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.