Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorEric
   • CommentTimeJan 3rd 2010
   • (edited Jan 3rd 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Eric
   Format: MarkdownI am pretty happy with what I just wrote at [[ericforgy:Modified Wedge Product]] I proposed the idea years ago, but only now found a voice to express it in way that I think might resonate with others. Basically, we have differential forms <latex>\Omega(M)</latex> and cochains <latex>C^*(S)</latex> and maps: <latex>deRham (R): \Omega(M)\to C^*(S)</latex> and <latex>Whitney (W): C^*(S)\to\Omega(M)</latex> that satisfy <latex>R\circ W = 1,</latex><br/> <latex>W\circ R \sim 1,</latex><br/> <latex>d\circ W = W\circ d</latex>, and <latex>d\circ R = R\circ d.</latex> However, one thing that has always bugged me is that these maps do not behave well with products. The wedge product in <latex>\Omega(M)</latex> is graded commutative "on the nose" and the cup product in <latex>C^*(S)</latex> is not graded commutative "on the nose", but is graded commutative when you pass to cohomology. The image of <latex>W</latex> is called the space of "Whitney forms" and has been used for decades by engineers in computational physics due to the fact that Whitney forms provide a robust numerical approximation to smooth forms since the exterior derivative commutes with the Whitney map and we get exact conservation laws (cohomology is related to conserved quantities in physics). One thing that always bugged me about Whitney forms is that they are not closed as an algebra under the ordinary wedge product, i.e. the wedge product of two Whitney forms is not a Whitney form. Motivated by this I proposed a new "modified wedge product" that turned Whitney forms into a graded differential algebra. Now although in grade 0, Whitney forms commute, Whitney 0-forms and Whitney 1-forms do not commute except in the continuum limit where the modified wedge product converges to the ordinary wedge product and Whitney forms converge to smooth forms. I think this might be a basis for examining the "cochain problem" John talked about in TWFs <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week288.html">Week 288</a>. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time a closed algebra of Whitney forms has been written down, although I would not be completely surprised if it is written down in some tome from 100 years ago (which I guess would be hard since it would predate Whitney). Another nice thing about the differential graded noncommutative algebra of Whitney forms is that they are known to converge to smooth forms with sufficiently nice simplicial refinements (a kind of nice continuum limit) and you have true morphisms from the category of Whitney forms to the category of cochains (or however you want to say it). In other words, I believe the arrow theoretic properties of Whitney forms will be nicer than those of smooth forms.

   I am pretty happy with what I just wrote at

   Modified Wedge Product (ericforgy)

   I proposed the idea years ago, but only now found a voice to express it in way that I think might resonate with others.

   Basically, we have differential forms and cochains and maps:

   

   and

   

   that satisfy

   <br/>

   <br/>

   , and

   

   However, one thing that has always bugged me is that these maps do not behave well with products. The wedge product in is graded commutative "on the nose" and the cup product in is not graded commutative "on the nose", but is graded commutative when you pass to cohomology.

   The image of is called the space of "Whitney forms" and has been used for decades by engineers in computational physics due to the fact that Whitney forms provide a robust numerical approximation to smooth forms since the exterior derivative commutes with the Whitney map and we get exact conservation laws (cohomology is related to conserved quantities in physics).

   One thing that always bugged me about Whitney forms is that they are not closed as an algebra under the ordinary wedge product, i.e. the wedge product of two Whitney forms is not a Whitney form. Motivated by this I proposed a new "modified wedge product" that turned Whitney forms into a graded differential algebra.

   Now although in grade 0, Whitney forms commute, Whitney 0-forms and Whitney 1-forms do not commute except in the continuum limit where the modified wedge product converges to the ordinary wedge product and Whitney forms converge to smooth forms.

   I think this might be a basis for examining the "cochain problem" John talked about in TWFs Week 288.

   To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time a closed algebra of Whitney forms has been written down, although I would not be completely surprised if it is written down in some tome from 100 years ago (which I guess would be hard since it would predate Whitney).

   Another nice thing about the differential graded noncommutative algebra of Whitney forms is that they are known to converge to smooth forms with sufficiently nice simplicial refinements (a kind of nice continuum limit) and you have true morphisms from the category of Whitney forms to the category of cochains (or however you want to say it). In other words, I believe the arrow theoretic properties of Whitney forms will be nicer than those of smooth forms.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 4th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownIt should be true that <latex> \Omega(X) </latex> (the [[deRham dg-algebra]]) And <latex>C^*(Sing(x)) </latex> (the dg-algebra of [[cochains on simplicial sets]])are, while not equivalent as dg-algebras, equivalent as [[E-infinity algebra]]s. Possibly what you describe gives a way to see that the functor <latex> Whitney </latex> exhibits that equivalence. But I haven't looked at the details.

   It should be true that (the deRham dg-algebra) And (the dg-algebra of cochains on simplicial sets)are, while not equivalent as dg-algebras, equivalent as E-infinity algebras.

   Possibly what you describe gives a way to see that the functor exhibits that equivalence. But I haven't looked at the details.