The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Lovelock and Rund: Converse of Poincare's Lemma
Replies: 1   Last Post: Jan 23, 2013 5:01 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
William Elliot

Posts: 2,637
Registered: 1/8/12
Re: Lovelock and Rund: Converse of Poincare's Lemma
Posted: Jan 23, 2013 5:01 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, Hetware wrote:
> On 1/21/2013 1:07 PM, Hetware wrote:

> > My questions pertain to the development beginning on page 142 with the
> > paragraph starting "The main objective of the present section...", and
> > runs through the formal statement of the "Converse of Poincare's
> > Lemma" on page 145.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not getting the significance (or shall I say "spirit") of eq.
> > 3.10.
> > I believe I understand the mechanics of the expression. It is a sum
> > of p (p-1)-forms. Each (p-1)-form in the sum "singles out" a
> > particular x_r and omits the corresponding dx_r basis 1-form.
> >
> > Is there another way of describing what the operator O represents?
> >
> > I believe a function of the form O is sometimes called a "homotopy
> > operator". Is that correct?

> Occasionally, I ask stupid questions. This is not such an occasion.

I don't go chasing through web references hoping to find some equation
somewhere or other.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.