Navigation: 1. Exact, conservative and closed forms | **2. Locally exact forms and singular homology** | 3. Applications to complex analysis

As in part 1, \(E,F\) are Banach spaces and \(U\subseteq E\) is an open set. Recall that a form \(\omega:U\to L(E,F)\) is **exact** if \(\omega=Df\) for some \(f:U\to F\), **closed** if it is differentiable and \(D\omega(x)\in L(E,E;F)\) is symmetric for every \(x\in U\), and **locally exact** if it is closed and for every \(x\in U\) there is a neighborhood \(V\subseteq U\) of \(x\) on which \(\omega\) is exact. Last time we showed that every closed \(C^1\) form is locally exact, and that every closed form on an open subset of \(\mathbb{R}^2\) is locally exact (even if is differentiable but not \(C^1\)).

So far, we have only defined line integrals along \(C^1\) paths and curves. It turns out that for locally exact forms, we can extend the definition to paths that are merely continuous (and not necessarily differentiable).

Let \(\omega\) be a locally exact form on \(U\) and let \(\gamma:[a,b]\to U\) be a path. Since \(\gamma([a,b])\) is compact, there exists a partition \(P=\{a_0,\dots,a_k\}\) of \([a,b]\) and open balls \(B_1,\dots,B_k\) such that \(\omega\) is exact on \(B_i\) and \(\gamma([a_{i-1},a_i])\subseteq B_i\) for each \(i=1,\dots,k\). We define the **integral of \(\omega\) along \(\gamma\)** by $$

\int_\gamma \omega = \sum_{i=1}^k [g_i(\gamma(a_i))-g_i(\gamma(a_{i-1}))],

$$ where \(g_i\) is any potential for \(\omega\) on \(B_i\).

**Lemma 9.** *The above integral is well-defined.*

*Proof.* Suppose we are given different open balls \(\widetilde{B}_1,\dots,\widetilde{B}_k\) with the above properties, as well as corresponding potential functions \(\widetilde{g}_i\). For each \(i\) the functions \(g_i\) and \(\widetilde{g}_i\) are both potentials for \(\omega\) on the connected set \(B_i\cap \widetilde{B}_i\), so \(g_i-\widetilde{g}_i\) is constant and $$

g_i(\gamma(a_i))-g_i(\gamma(a_{i-1})) = \widetilde{g}_i(\gamma(a_i))-\widetilde{g}_i(\gamma(a_{i-1})).

$$ Next, we show that choosing a refinement of \(P\) does not change the value of the integral. Since any refinement of \(P\) can be obtained by adding finitely many points to \(P\), it suffices to show that adding a single point \(c\) to \(P\) does not change the value of the integral. Let $$

P=\{a_0,\dots,a_{j-1},c,a_j,\dots,a_k\}

$$ where \(a_{j-1} < c < a_j\). We can use the same open balls and potential functions as before, with \(B_j\) being used for the intervals \([a_{j-1},c]\) and \([c,a_j]\). Then the term $$
g_j(\gamma(a_j))-g_j(\gamma(a_{j-1}))
$$ is replaced by $$
g_j(\gamma(a_j))-g_j(\gamma(c))+g_j(\gamma(c))-g_j(\gamma(a_{j-1})),
$$ which does not change the value of the integral. This completes the proof, for if \(Q\) is another partition of \([a,b]\) then taking the common refinement \(P\cup Q\) does not change the value of the integral. \(\square\)
It is easy to check that the fundamental theorem for line integrals (Theorem 2) still holds when \(\gamma\) is a path.

Let \(X,Y\) be topological spaces and let \(f,g:X\to Y\) be continuous maps. A **homotopy** from \(f\) to \(g\) is a continuous map \(H:X\times[0,1]\to Y\) such that \(H(s,0)=f(s)\) and \(H(s,1)=g(s)\) for all \(s\in[a,b]\). Let \(\gamma_1,\gamma_2:[a,b]\to X\) be paths (i.e. continuous maps). If \(t\mapsto H(0,t)\) and \(t\mapsto H(1,t)\) are constant, we say that \(H\) is a **path homotopy**. If there is a *path* homotopy from \(\gamma_1\) to \(\gamma_2\), we say that \(\gamma_1\) is **homotopic** to \(\gamma_2\).

**Theorem 10** (Line integrals along homotopic paths). *Let \(\omega\) be a locally exact form on \(U\). If \(\gamma_1,\gamma_2\) are paths in \(U\) that are homotopic, then $$\int_{\gamma_1} \omega = \int_{\gamma_2} \omega.$$*

*Proof.* Let \(H:[a,b]\times[0,1]\to U\) be a path homotopy from \(\gamma_1\) to \(\gamma_2\). Since \([a,b]\times[0,1]\) is compact, there are partitions \begin{align}

a&=s_0\le\cdots\le s_m=b, \\

0&=t_0\le\cdots\le t_n=1

\end{align} such that for each rectangle \(R_{ij}=[s_{i-1},s_i]\times[t_{j-1},t_j]\) there is an open ball \(B_{ij}\subseteq U\) with \(H(R_{ij})\subseteq B_{ij}\) on which \(\omega\) is exact. For each \(j=0,\dots,n\), let \(\gamma^{(j)}(s)=H(s,t_j)\). Since \(\gamma^{(0)}=\gamma_1\) and \(\gamma^{(n)}=\gamma_2\), it suffices to show that $$

\int_{\gamma^{(j)}} \omega = \int_{\gamma^{(j-1)}} \omega

$$ for each \(j=1,\dots,n\). Fix some \(j\). For each \(i=1,\dots,m\), let \(g_i\) be a potential for \(\omega\) on \(B_{ij}\). Since \(g_i\) and \(g_{i-1}\) are both potentials for \(\omega\) on \(B_{ij}\cap B_{(i-1)j}\), they differ by a constant on \(B_{ij}\cap B_{(i-1)j}\). Therefore $$

g_i(\gamma^{(j)}(s_{i-1}))-g_i(\gamma^{(j-1)}(s_{i-1}))=g_{i-1}(\gamma^{(j)}(s_{i-1}))-g_{i-1}(\gamma^{(j-1)}(s_{i-1}))

$$ for each \(i=1,\dots,m\). We have \begin{align}

& \int_{\gamma^{(j)}} \omega – \int_{\gamma^{(j-1)}} \omega \\

&= \sum_{i=1}^m [g_i(\gamma^{(j)}(s_{i}))-g_i(\gamma^{(j)}(s_{i-1}))-g_i(\gamma^{(j-1)}(s_{i}))-g_i(\gamma^{(j-1)}(s_{i-1}))] \\

&= \sum_{i=1}^m [g_i(\gamma^{(j)}(s_{i}))-g_i(\gamma^{(j-1)}(s_{i}))-(g_{i-1}(\gamma^{(j)}(s_{i-1}))-g_{i-1}(\gamma^{(j-1)}(s_{i-1})))] \\

&= g_m(\gamma^{(j)}(b))-g_m(\gamma^{(j-1)}(b))-(g_0(\gamma^{(j)}(a))-g_0(\gamma^{(j-1)}(a))) \\

&= 0

\end{align} since \(\gamma^{(j)}\) and \(\gamma^{(j-1)}\) have the same starting and ending points. \(\square\)

An open set \(U\) is said to be **simply connected** if it is connected and every closed path in \(U\) is homotopic to a point (i.e. homotopic to a constant path).

**Corollary 11.** *Every locally exact form on a simply connected open set is exact.*

*Proof.* Apply Theorem 10 and Theorem 3. \(\square\)

The next theorem will be used in part 3.

**Theorem 12.** *Every path in \(U\) is homotopic to a curve in \(U\).*

*Proof.* Let \(\gamma:[a,b]\to U\) be a path. Since \(\gamma([a,b])\) is compact, there exists a partition \(P=\{a_0,\dots,a_k\}\) of \([a,b]\) and open balls \(B_1,\dots,B_k\subseteq U\) such that \(\gamma([a_{i-1},a_i])\subseteq B_i\) for each \(i=1,\dots,k\). Define \(\gamma_i:[0,1]\to B_i\) by \(\gamma_i(s)=\gamma(a_{i-1}+s(a_i-a_{i-1}))\); then $$

\gamma|_{[a_{i-1},a_i]}(s)=\gamma_i\left(\frac{s-a_{i-1}}{a_i-a_{i-1}}\right).

$$ For each \(i\) there is a path homotopy \(H_i:[0,1]\times[0,1]\to B_i\) from \(\gamma_i\) to the straight line segment \(\eta_i\) from \(\gamma(a_{i-1})\) to \(\gamma(a_i)\), so we can define a path homotopy \(H:[a,b]\times[0,1]\to U\) by setting $$

H|_{[a_{i-1},a_i]\times[0,1]}(s,t)=H_i\left(\frac{s-a_{i-1}}{a_i-a_{i-1}},t\right).

$$ Therefore \(\gamma\) is homotopic to the curve \(s\mapsto H(s,1)\). \(\square\)

## Singular homology

We now turn to singular homology, and extend the line integral to singular 1-chains.

Given \(p+1\) affinely independent points \(\{v_0,\dots,v_p\}\) in \(\mathbb{R}^n\), the **geometric \(p\)-simplex** with **vertices** \(v_0,\dots,v_p\) is the subset of \(\mathbb{R}^n\) defined by $$

[v_0,\dots,v_p]=\left\{\sum_{i=0}^p t_i v_i : 0\le t_1\le 1\:\mathrm{and}\:\sum_{i=0}^p t_i=1\right\}.

$$ The integer \(p\) is called the **dimension** of the simplex. The simplices whose vertices are nonempty subsets of \(\{v_0,\dots,v_p\}\) are called the **faces** of the simplex. The \((p-1)\)-dimensional faces are the **boundary faces** of the simplex. The **standard \(p\)-simplex** is $$

\triangle_p=[e_0,\dots,e_p]\subseteq\mathbb{R}^p,

$$ where \(e_0=0\) and \(e_i\) is the \(i\)th standard basis vector. For each \(i=0,\dots,p\), we define the **\(i\)th face map in \(\triangle_p\)** to be the unique affine map \(F_{i,p}:\triangle_{p-1}\to\triangle_p\) satisfying $$

F_{i,p}(e_0)=e_0,\dots,\quad F_{i-p}(e_{i-1})=e_{i-1},\quad F_{i,p}(e_i)=e_{i+1},\dots,\quad F_{i,p}(e_{p-1})=e_p.

$$ Let \(U\subseteq E\) be an open set. A continuous map \(\sigma:\triangle_p\to U\) is called a **singular \(p\)-simplex in \(U\)**. The **singular chain group of \(U\) in degree \(p\)**, denoted by \(C_p(U)\), is the free abelian group generated by all singular \(p\)-simplices in \(U\). An element of \(C_p(U)\) is called a **singular \(p\)-chain**. The **boundary** of a singular \(p\)-simplex \(\sigma\) is the singular \((p-1)\)-chain defined by $$

\partial\sigma=\sum_{i=0}^p (-1)^i \sigma\circ F_{i,p}.

$$ For example, if \(\sigma\) is the identity map on \(\triangle_2\) then \(\partial\sigma=\sigma\circ F_{0,2}-\sigma\circ F_{1,2}+\sigma\circ F_{2,2}\) where \begin{align}

(\sigma\circ F_{0,2})(e_0)=e_1,\quad & (\sigma\circ F_{0,2})(e_1)=e_2, \\

(\sigma\circ F_{1,2})(e_0)=e_0,\quad & (\sigma\circ F_{1,2})(e_1)=e_2, \\

(\sigma\circ F_{2,2})(e_0)=e_0,\quad & (\sigma\circ F_{2,2})(e_1)=e_1.

\end{align} The map \(\partial\) extends uniquely to a group homomorphism \(\partial_p:C_p(U)\to C_{p-1}(U)\), called the **singular boundary operator**. We write \(\partial=\partial_p\) when the dimension \(p\) is clear.

**Theorem 13.** *For any \(c\in C_p(U)\) we have \(\partial(\partial c)=0\).*

We say that a singular \(p\)-chain is a **cycle** if \(\partial c=0\), and we say that \(c\) is a **boundary** if \(c=\partial b\) for some \(b\in C_{p+1}(U)\). Let \(Z_p(U)\) be the set of all singular \(p\)-cycles, and let \(B_p(U)\) be the set of all singular \(p\)-boundaries. Then \(Z_p(U)=\ker\partial_p\), and \(B_p(U)=\operatorname{im}\partial_{p-1}\). Since \(\partial_{p-1}\circ\partial_p=0\), we have \(B_p(U)\subseteq Z_p(U)\). The **\(p\)th singular homology group** of \(U\) is the quotient group $$

H_p(U)=Z_p(U)/B_p(U).

$$ The equivalence class in \(H_p(U)\) of a singular \(p\)-cycle \(c\) is called its **homology class**, and is denoted by \([c]\). If \([c]=[c’]\), then we say that \(c\) and \(c’\) are **homologous**.

Since \(\triangle_1=[0,1]\), any singular 1-simplex \(\gamma\) is a path in \(U\). Conversely, any path \(\gamma:[a,b]\to U\) can be considered as a singular 1-simplex in \(U\) since we have the reparametrization \(\widehat{\gamma}:[0,1]\to U\) given by \(\widehat{\gamma}(t)=\gamma(a+t(b-a))\).

**Lemma 14.**

*If \(\gamma\) is a singular 1-simplex then \([-\gamma]=-[\gamma]\), where \(-\gamma\) is the singular 1-simplex defined by $$(-\gamma)(t)+\gamma(1-t).$$**If \(\gamma_1,\gamma_2\) are singular 1-simplices with \(\gamma_1(1)=\gamma_2(0)\), then \([\gamma_1+\gamma_2]=[\gamma_1\cdot\gamma_2]\), where \(\gamma_1\cdot\gamma_2\) is the singular 1-simplex defined by $$*

\gamma(t)=\begin{cases}

\gamma_1(2t), & 0\le t\le 1, \\

\gamma_2(2t-1), & 1 < t \le 2. \end{cases}$$*If \(\gamma,\eta\) are singular 1-simplices that are (path) homotopic, then \([\gamma]=[\eta]\).*

Let us denote a singular 0-simplex \(\sigma\) with \(\sigma(0)=x\) by \(P(x)\). If \(c\) is a singular 1-simplex in \(U\) and \(\partial c=0\) then by definition we have \(P(c(1))-P(c(0))=0\), i.e. \(c\) is a closed path.

**Theorem 15.** *Every 1-cycle \(c\in Z_1(U)\) can be written in the form $$
[c]=\sum_{i=1}^k c_i[\gamma_i],
$$ where each \(\gamma_i:\triangle_1\to U\) is a closed path.*

*Proof.* Suppose not; then we can write $$

c=\partial b+\sum_{i=1}^k c_i\gamma_i+\sum_{i=1}^j \sigma_i \tag{*}

$$ where \(b\) is a singular 2-chain, \(c_i,c’_i\ne 0\) for all \(i\), each \(\gamma_i\) is a closed path, and each \(\sigma_i\) is a path that is not closed. We can assume that \((j,k)\) is the smallest pair for which \(c\) can be written in this form (where we take \((j,k) < (j',k')\) if \(j < j'\), or \(j=j'\) and \(k < k'\)), and that \(j\ge 1\). Then $$
0=\partial c=\sum_{i=1}^j [P(\sigma_i(1))-P(\sigma_i(0))].
$$ Suppose \(P(\sigma_i(1))=P(\sigma_1(0))\) for some \(i\ne 1\); then \([\sigma_i]+[\sigma_1]=[\sigma_i\cdot\sigma_1]\), so we can reduce either \(j\) or \(k\) in (*). Similarly, if \(P(\sigma_i(0))=P(\sigma_1(0))\) for some \(i\ne 1\), then \([\sigma_i]+[\sigma_1]=[(-\sigma_i)\cdot\sigma_1]\) and we can reduce \(j\) or \(k\). Both of these cases contradict the minimality of \((j,k)\), so we must have \(P(\sigma_1(0))=P(\sigma_1(1))\) since the coefficient of \(P(\sigma_1(0))\) in the above sum is \(0\). This contradicts the fact that \(\sigma_i\) is not closed. \(\square\)
Let \(\omega\) be a locally exact form on \(U\) and let \(c\in C_1(U)\) be a 1-chain in \(U\). Write \(c=\sum_{i=1}^k c_i\sigma_i\) where \(c_i\in\mathbb{Z}\) and each \(\sigma_i\) is a 1-simplex in \(U\). We define the **integral of \(\omega\) over \(c\)** by $$

\int_c \omega = \sum_{i=1}^k c_i \int_{\sigma_i} \omega.

$$

**Lemma 16.** *Let \(\sigma:\triangle_2\to U\) be a 2-simplex. Then $$\int_{\partial\sigma} \omega=0$$ for every locally exact form \(\omega\) on \(U\).*

*Proof.* It is clear that $$

\int_{\partial\sigma} \omega=\int_{\sigma\circ\gamma} \omega

$$ where \(\gamma:[a,b]\to\triangle_2\) is a path traversing the boundary of \(\triangle_2\) counterclockwise. Since \(\triangle_2\) is convex, there is a path homotopy \(H:[a,b]\times[0,1]\to\triangle_2\) from \(\gamma\) to a point in \(\triangle_2\), so \(\sigma\circ H\) is a path homotopy from \(\sigma\circ\gamma\) to a point in \(\sigma(\triangle_2)\). Therefore $$\int_{\sigma\circ\gamma} \omega=0$$ by Theorem 10. \(\square\)

**Theorem 17.** *If \(c\) and \(c’\) are homologous 1-cycles in \(U\), then $$\int_c \omega=\int_{c’} \omega$$ for every locally exact form \(\omega\) on \(U\). If \(\omega\) and \(\widetilde{\omega}\) are locally exact forms on \(U\) that differ by an exact form, then $$\int_c \omega=\int_c \widetilde{\omega}$$ for every 1-cycle \(c\) in \(U\).*

*Proof.* If \(c\) and \(c’\) are homologous, then \(c-c’=\partial b\) for some 2-chain \(b\). Write \(b=\sum_{i=1}^k b_i\sigma_i\) where each \(\sigma_i\) is a 2-simplex. Then $$

\int_c \omega – \int_{c’} \omega = \int_{\partial b} \omega = \sum_{i=1}^k b_i \int_{\partial\sigma_i} \omega = 0

$$ by Lemma 16. Suppose \(\omega\) and \(\widetilde{\omega}\) are locally exact forms with \(\omega-\widetilde{\omega}=Df\) for some function \(f:U\to F\), and let \(c\) be a 1-cycle. By Theorem 15, \(c\) is homologous to \(\sum_{i=1}^k c_i\gamma_i\) where each \(\gamma_i\) is a closed path. Then $$

\int_c \omega – \int_c \widetilde{\omega} = \int_c Df = \sum_{i=1}^k c_i \int_{\gamma_i} Df = 0.

$$ \(\square\)

Next, time we will look at how the line integral, in this general formulation, is used in complex analysis.

Navigation: 1. Exact, conservative and closed forms | **2. Locally exact forms and singular homology** | 3. Applications to complex analysis

indeed these are used in more situations as say prof dr mircea orasanu and prof horia orasanu

also we see that these appear as say prof dr mircea orasanu and prof horia orasanu as followed

MITTAG LEFFLER THEOREM AND FUNCTION AND LAGRANGIAN

Author Horia Orasanu

ABSTRACT

We use cookies to enhance your experience on our website. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any timeIn the context gravity, this may seem a somewhat academic question since nobody has ever experimentally observed a scalar term in the Schrödinger equation of gravitating matter, for a point particle in a curved space, even if torsion is neglected, and it is not even clear, whether gravity will generate torsion outside spinning matter. In other contexts, however, the problem is not so far from physical reality.

INTRODUCTION

. There exist a number of systems which can be described in different ways, often gaining enormously in simplicity by such redescriptions. A common example is the Hamilton operator of a free particle in euclidean space parametrized in terms of spherical coordinates. The operator turns into the Laplace-Beltrami operator.

Unfortunately, the use such reparametrizations is limited. Since they do not change the geometry of the system, they are incapble of teaching us what physics to expect in a space with more complicated geometries.

There exists, however, an important field in physics where relations between different geomentries have been established successfully for a long time. and here we consider parts of THESIS ( TEZA ) Author Horia Orasanu

CAP. 1. Introducere În mecanică, prin ecuațiile lui Hamilton, sau simplu prin Hamiltonian, se înțelege o reformulare a mecanicii clasice, introdusă în 1833 de matematicianul irlandez William Rowan Hamilton, care la rândul său provine din ecuațiile lui Lagrange, o reformulare anterioară a mecanicii clasice introdusă de Joseph Louis Lagrange în 1788. Metoda lui Hamilton diferă de metoda lui Lagrange prin faptul că în loc să exprime ecuațiile diferențiale de ordinul doi pe un spațiu n-dimensional (n fiind numărul gradelor de libertate ale sistemului), le exprimă prin ecuații de ordinul întâi pe un spațiu 2n-dimensional, numit spațiul fazelor

Orice funcție reală netedă H pe o mulțime simplectică poate fi folosită pentru definirea unui sistem Hamiltonian.

Cap. 2. Fondul problemei. LAGRANGIAN si DEFINIREA CONSTRANGERILOR

Aici noi consideram ca

Astfel ca problema de mai sus se reduce la o problema importanta avalorilor proprii de

forma

/t = [p ( x) u]-q ( x ) u

cand sunt indeplinite conditiile la limita si initiale de forma

u( )=

aici conditiile initiale si la limita reprezinta legaturile cinematice ale vitezei care sunt ec

hivalente cu legaturile neolonome ale miscarilor enuntate mai sus ,deci cele care fac part

e din dinamica sistemelor de puncte materiale ,sau sisteme de particule fluide.

This is the physics of plasticity and defects [8]. Defects are described mathematically by means of what are called nonholonomic coordinate transformations. In Fig. 1 we show two typical elementary defects in two dimensions which can be generated by such transformations. It has been understood a long time ago that, geometrically, crystals with defects correspond to spaces with curvature and torsion

In the presence of torsion, the quantum equivalence principle predicts a simple Schrödinger equation. No other approach has done this before

References

1. Bar-Yam, Y. Dynamics of Complex Systems; Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: Reading, MA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]

2. Mitchell, M. Complexity: A Guided Tour; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]

3. Bennett, C.H. How to define complexity in physics, and why. Complex. Entropy Phys. Inf. 1990, 8, 137–148. [Google Scholar]

4. Winfree, A.T. The Geometry of Biological Time, 2nd ed.; Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics (Book 12); Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]

5. Badii, R.; Politi, A. Complexity: Hierarchical Structure and Scaling in Physics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]

6. Nottale, L. Fractal Space-Time and Microphysics: Towards A Theory of Scale Relativity; World Scientific: Singapore, Singapore, 1993. [Google Scholar]

7. Nottale, L. Scale Relativity and Fractal Space-Time: A New Approach to Unifying Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; Imperial College Press: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]

8. Agop, M.; Forna, N.; Casian-Botez, I.; Bejinariu, C. New theoretical approach of the physical processes in nanostructures. J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci. 2008, 5, 483–489. [Google Scholar]

9. Agop, M.; Murguleţ, C. El Naschie’s epsilon (infinity) space-time and scale-relativity theory in the topological dimention D = 4. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2008, 32, 1231–1240. [Google Scholar]

10. Agop, M.; Nica, X.; Gîrţu, M. On the vacuum status in Weyl-Dirac theory. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 2008, 40, 35–55. [Google Scholar]

11. Agop, M.; Nica, P.; Niculescu, O.; Dumitru, D.G. Experimental and theoretical investigations of the negative differential resistance in a discharge plasma. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 2012, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

12. Agop, M.; Păun, V.; Harabagiu, A. El Naschie’s epsilon (infinity) theory and effects of nanoparticle clustering on the heat transport in nanofluids. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2008, 37, 1269–1278. [Google Scholar]

13. Casian-Botex, I.; Agop, M.; Nica, P.; Păun, V.; Munceleanu, G.V. Conductive and convective types behaviors at nano-time scales. J. Comput. Theor. Nanosci. 2010, 7, 2271–2280. [Google Scholar]

14. Ciubotariu, C.; Agop, M. Absence of a gravitational analog to the Meissner effect. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 1996, 28, 405–412. [Google Scholar]

15. Colotin, M.; Pompilian, G.O.; Nica, P.; Gurlui, S.; Păun, V.; Agop, M. Fractal transport phenomena through the scale relativity model. Acta Phys. Pol. A 2009, 116, 157–164. [Google Scholar]

16. Gottlieb, I.; Agop, M.; Jarcău, M. El Naschie’s Cantorian space-time and general relativity by means of Barbilian’s group. A Cantorian fractal axiomatic model of space-time. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2004, 19, 705–730. [Google Scholar]

17. Gurlui, S.; Agop, M.; Nica, P.; Ziskind, M.; Focşa, C. Experimental and theoretical investigations of transitory phenomena in high-fluence laser ablation plasma. Phys. Rev. E 2008, 78, 026405. [Google Scholar]

18. Gurlui, S.; Agop, M.; Strat, M.; Băcăiţă, S. Some experimental and theoretical results on the anodic patterns in plasma discharge. Phys. Plasmas 2006, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

19. Nedeff, V.; Bejenariu, C.; Lazăr, G.; Agop, M. Generalized lift force for complex fluid. Powder Technol. 2013, 235, 685–695. [Google Scholar]

20. Nedeff, V.; Moşneguţu, E.; Panainte, M.; Ristea, M.; Lazăr, G.; Scurtu, D.; Ciobanu, B.; Timofte, A.; Toma, S.; Agop, M. Dynamics in the boundary layer of a flat particle. Powder Technol. 2012, 221, 312–317. [Google Scholar]

21. Nica, P.; Agop, M.; Gurlui, S.; Bejinariu, C.; Focşa, C. Characterization of aluminum laser produced plasma by target current measurements. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2012, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

22. Nica, P.; Vizureanu, P.; Agop, M.; Gurlui, S.; Focşa, C.; Forna, N.; Ioannou, P.D.; Borsos, Z. Experimental and theoretical aspects of aluminum expanding laser plasma. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2009, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

23. Mandelbrot, B. The Fractal Geometry of Nature; W. H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar

,

,

in many situations in cases of non holonomic situations can be consideration important aspects of CONSTRAINTS OPTIMIZATIONS

due prof drd horia orasanu when followed the ideas that gives us constraint relations on and of the center of mass of body C: that are confirmed by prof dr Constantin Udriste in many paper accepted

there are many situations for line integrals and observed that these are important approached prof dr mircea orasanu specially followed as prof dr GIGEL MILITARU in case of GALOIS and LEGENDRE Theories