A doubt in differential geometry











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












In multi-variable calculus we have the Change of Variables formula but it holds under certain assumptions: $f$ needs to be compactly supported continuous, then the map $T$ (the change of variable map) needs to be $C^1$ diffeomorphism of an open set. But suppose $T:[0,1]times [0,2pi]to mathbb R^2$ given by $T(r,theta)=(rcostheta,rsintheta)$. In such a case $T$ is NOT defined on an open set.



How does one handle such situations where the conditions like $f$ being compactly supported, with support contained in range($T$). $T$ being defined on an open set, are not satisfied?



For concreteness, let $f(x,y)=dfrac{x^2}{a^2}+dfrac{y^2}{b^2}$ then suppose I want to find $int_{x^2+y^2leq1} f(x,y)dxdy$. Please clarify how the change of variables can be used.










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    In multi-variable calculus we have the Change of Variables formula but it holds under certain assumptions: $f$ needs to be compactly supported continuous, then the map $T$ (the change of variable map) needs to be $C^1$ diffeomorphism of an open set. But suppose $T:[0,1]times [0,2pi]to mathbb R^2$ given by $T(r,theta)=(rcostheta,rsintheta)$. In such a case $T$ is NOT defined on an open set.



    How does one handle such situations where the conditions like $f$ being compactly supported, with support contained in range($T$). $T$ being defined on an open set, are not satisfied?



    For concreteness, let $f(x,y)=dfrac{x^2}{a^2}+dfrac{y^2}{b^2}$ then suppose I want to find $int_{x^2+y^2leq1} f(x,y)dxdy$. Please clarify how the change of variables can be used.










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      In multi-variable calculus we have the Change of Variables formula but it holds under certain assumptions: $f$ needs to be compactly supported continuous, then the map $T$ (the change of variable map) needs to be $C^1$ diffeomorphism of an open set. But suppose $T:[0,1]times [0,2pi]to mathbb R^2$ given by $T(r,theta)=(rcostheta,rsintheta)$. In such a case $T$ is NOT defined on an open set.



      How does one handle such situations where the conditions like $f$ being compactly supported, with support contained in range($T$). $T$ being defined on an open set, are not satisfied?



      For concreteness, let $f(x,y)=dfrac{x^2}{a^2}+dfrac{y^2}{b^2}$ then suppose I want to find $int_{x^2+y^2leq1} f(x,y)dxdy$. Please clarify how the change of variables can be used.










      share|cite|improve this question













      In multi-variable calculus we have the Change of Variables formula but it holds under certain assumptions: $f$ needs to be compactly supported continuous, then the map $T$ (the change of variable map) needs to be $C^1$ diffeomorphism of an open set. But suppose $T:[0,1]times [0,2pi]to mathbb R^2$ given by $T(r,theta)=(rcostheta,rsintheta)$. In such a case $T$ is NOT defined on an open set.



      How does one handle such situations where the conditions like $f$ being compactly supported, with support contained in range($T$). $T$ being defined on an open set, are not satisfied?



      For concreteness, let $f(x,y)=dfrac{x^2}{a^2}+dfrac{y^2}{b^2}$ then suppose I want to find $int_{x^2+y^2leq1} f(x,y)dxdy$. Please clarify how the change of variables can be used.







      multivariable-calculus differential-geometry






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 14 at 8:45









      Landon Carter

      7,34211542




      7,34211542






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          When the transformation formula is applied in a concrete situation one usually sets up an equality of the form
          $$int_B f(x,y)>{rm d}(x,y)=int_{hat B}fbigl(T(r,theta)bigr)J_T(r,theta)>{rm d}(r,theta) ,tag{1}$$
          whereby $T$ maps the compact parameter domain $hat B$ "essentially bijectively" onto the given domain $B$. The functions appearing in the integrals $(1)$ are assumed to be so nice, that both integrals are well defined by themselves. The essential point is that they are equal. For the proof it is then sufficient to approximate $hat B$ and $B$ by smaller domains $hat B_epsilon$ and $B_epsilon$, whereby one then can make strict assumptions about bijectivity, nonvanishing of the Jacobian, etc., for the restriction $Trestrictionhat B_epsilon$. Such arguments then allow to prove that the integrals $(1)$ are equal with an error $<epsilon$; and as $epsilon>0$ was arbitrary we are done. Note that a full proof of $(1)$ that really takes care of everything is indeed a very lengthy matter.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            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',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            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/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997996%2fa-doubt-in-differential-geometry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            0
            down vote













            When the transformation formula is applied in a concrete situation one usually sets up an equality of the form
            $$int_B f(x,y)>{rm d}(x,y)=int_{hat B}fbigl(T(r,theta)bigr)J_T(r,theta)>{rm d}(r,theta) ,tag{1}$$
            whereby $T$ maps the compact parameter domain $hat B$ "essentially bijectively" onto the given domain $B$. The functions appearing in the integrals $(1)$ are assumed to be so nice, that both integrals are well defined by themselves. The essential point is that they are equal. For the proof it is then sufficient to approximate $hat B$ and $B$ by smaller domains $hat B_epsilon$ and $B_epsilon$, whereby one then can make strict assumptions about bijectivity, nonvanishing of the Jacobian, etc., for the restriction $Trestrictionhat B_epsilon$. Such arguments then allow to prove that the integrals $(1)$ are equal with an error $<epsilon$; and as $epsilon>0$ was arbitrary we are done. Note that a full proof of $(1)$ that really takes care of everything is indeed a very lengthy matter.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              When the transformation formula is applied in a concrete situation one usually sets up an equality of the form
              $$int_B f(x,y)>{rm d}(x,y)=int_{hat B}fbigl(T(r,theta)bigr)J_T(r,theta)>{rm d}(r,theta) ,tag{1}$$
              whereby $T$ maps the compact parameter domain $hat B$ "essentially bijectively" onto the given domain $B$. The functions appearing in the integrals $(1)$ are assumed to be so nice, that both integrals are well defined by themselves. The essential point is that they are equal. For the proof it is then sufficient to approximate $hat B$ and $B$ by smaller domains $hat B_epsilon$ and $B_epsilon$, whereby one then can make strict assumptions about bijectivity, nonvanishing of the Jacobian, etc., for the restriction $Trestrictionhat B_epsilon$. Such arguments then allow to prove that the integrals $(1)$ are equal with an error $<epsilon$; and as $epsilon>0$ was arbitrary we are done. Note that a full proof of $(1)$ that really takes care of everything is indeed a very lengthy matter.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                When the transformation formula is applied in a concrete situation one usually sets up an equality of the form
                $$int_B f(x,y)>{rm d}(x,y)=int_{hat B}fbigl(T(r,theta)bigr)J_T(r,theta)>{rm d}(r,theta) ,tag{1}$$
                whereby $T$ maps the compact parameter domain $hat B$ "essentially bijectively" onto the given domain $B$. The functions appearing in the integrals $(1)$ are assumed to be so nice, that both integrals are well defined by themselves. The essential point is that they are equal. For the proof it is then sufficient to approximate $hat B$ and $B$ by smaller domains $hat B_epsilon$ and $B_epsilon$, whereby one then can make strict assumptions about bijectivity, nonvanishing of the Jacobian, etc., for the restriction $Trestrictionhat B_epsilon$. Such arguments then allow to prove that the integrals $(1)$ are equal with an error $<epsilon$; and as $epsilon>0$ was arbitrary we are done. Note that a full proof of $(1)$ that really takes care of everything is indeed a very lengthy matter.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                When the transformation formula is applied in a concrete situation one usually sets up an equality of the form
                $$int_B f(x,y)>{rm d}(x,y)=int_{hat B}fbigl(T(r,theta)bigr)J_T(r,theta)>{rm d}(r,theta) ,tag{1}$$
                whereby $T$ maps the compact parameter domain $hat B$ "essentially bijectively" onto the given domain $B$. The functions appearing in the integrals $(1)$ are assumed to be so nice, that both integrals are well defined by themselves. The essential point is that they are equal. For the proof it is then sufficient to approximate $hat B$ and $B$ by smaller domains $hat B_epsilon$ and $B_epsilon$, whereby one then can make strict assumptions about bijectivity, nonvanishing of the Jacobian, etc., for the restriction $Trestrictionhat B_epsilon$. Such arguments then allow to prove that the integrals $(1)$ are equal with an error $<epsilon$; and as $epsilon>0$ was arbitrary we are done. Note that a full proof of $(1)$ that really takes care of everything is indeed a very lengthy matter.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 14 at 9:33









                Christian Blatter

                170k7111324




                170k7111324






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997996%2fa-doubt-in-differential-geometry%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

                    Plaza Victoria

                    Puebla de Zaragoza

                    Musa