Timeline for An Stokes type theorem for some operations other than integral
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 30, 2016 at 9:57 | vote | accept | Ali Taghavi | ||
| Nov 30, 2016 at 9:02 | comment | added | Andreas Cap | I have added more details to the answer. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 9:02 | history | edited | Andreas Cap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added more detail
|
| Nov 29, 2016 at 21:22 | comment | added | Ali Taghavi | May I am missing some thing but assume that B1 and B2 are two forms on M which agree on the boundary this does not imply that dB1 and dB2 agree on the boundary. So if I am not mistaken, some thing is missing in your answer. | |
| Nov 29, 2016 at 9:20 | comment | added | Andreas Cap | Any form on the boundary extends to a form on $M$, and the exterior derivative commutes with restriction to the boundary (which is a pullback). Hence any exact form on the boundary is the restriction of an exact form on $M$. | |
| Nov 29, 2016 at 8:34 | comment | added | Ali Taghavi | but your argument shows that $I_{2}$ is zero on the restriction of every exact form to the boundary. But this does not imply that $I_{21}$ vanishs at exact forms on the boundary which are not necessarily restriction of an exact form from $M$ to $\partial M$? Am I mistaken? | |
| Nov 29, 2016 at 8:20 | vote | accept | Ali Taghavi | ||
| Nov 29, 2016 at 8:34 | |||||
| Nov 29, 2016 at 8:11 | history | answered | Andreas Cap | CC BY-SA 3.0 |