3

In the text I'm using, the support of $\phi$ (an n-form on an open $U \subset \mathbb{R}^n$) is defined as the closure of the values of $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $\phi$ is nonzero, and $\phi$ is said to have compact support if its support is compact.

Letting $\phi = gdx_1 \wedge\cdots\wedge dx_n$, we define $\int_{U}\phi$ as $\int_{U}g$, if it exists. I can't really understand why we need compact support to do this. What is the issue if the n-form does not have compact support, but $U$ is bounded? And, if this is an issue, does this mean that we need to have supp$(\phi)\subset U$ in all cases for the integral to be well-defined?

i like math
  • 1,043
  • 4
    How would you define $$\int\limits_{-\infty}^\infty xdx$$ – Rushabh Mehta Mar 13 '22 at 22:20
  • I'm having a hard time understanding how that relates back to my question. In order for a n-form to be compactly supported, don't we need it to map to the zero alternating form everywhere but on a bounded region (as we are in R^n)? Would it not then follow that the integral of dx on any region is undefined, as dx is not compactly supported? – i like math Mar 13 '22 at 22:22
  • 2
    To expand on the previous comment: $\phi = x , dx$ is a 1-form defined on the open set $U = \mathbb R$, and $\phi$ is not compactly supported. So whatever method you come up with for integrating forms that are not compactly support, your method should be able to integrate $\int_U \phi = \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} x , dx$. So, how would you define that integral? – Lee Mosher Mar 13 '22 at 22:26
  • 2
    Making $U$ bounded is irrelevant, if the form blows up as you approach the boundary. – Ted Shifrin Mar 13 '22 at 22:34
  • I'm sorry; I still can't wrap my mind around what is happening here. Does $\phi$ need to be compactly supported with respect to the set we are trying to integrate over in some way? I might be having some confusion with definitions here. – i like math Mar 13 '22 at 23:47
  • It may help you to thoroughly understand the definition of integral. For example, you can take a look at Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds, or Vol I of his Differential Geometry. I will spoil for you that the standard definition uses partitions of unity, and it would be a bad definition if depended on the partition of unity you chose. In particular, if the form has compact support, the you need not worry about that. – Laz Mar 14 '22 at 00:31
  • In this case, essentially the only way you can guarantee that any smooth function $f$ will have a well defined integral over an open set, is if you can cover its support by finitely many bounded domains over which $f$ is bounded. – Laz Mar 14 '22 at 00:46
  • I don't really understand all the comments here. As far as I can tell, the OP is not asking whether all smooth $n$-forms can be integrated over a bounded open $U \subset\mathbb{R}^n$. They're asking whether there are weaker sufficient conditions than compact support. I think this is a reasonable question. My answer would be that the integral is well defined if we assume only that $g$ is bounded. However, the integral of a bounded $n$-form on an arbitrary bounded open set is not easily defined directly. It is easier initially to define the integral only for compactly supported $n$_forms. – Deane Mar 14 '22 at 14:29
  • The OP never asked whether there are weaker sufficient conditions. They asked why do we need compact support, and in the case of an open Euclidean subset, counterexamples were given above that the integral may not even exist if we remove the condition on the support. In my case, seeing the labels "manifolds", "smooth manifolds", I inferred that the OP wasn't still familiar with the standard way to define integrals, with which desirable objects can be obtained like Stokes' Theorem and the de Rham cohomologies. I am not sure if these even exist for weaker definitions. – Laz Mar 14 '22 at 18:17

1 Answers1

7

Compact support of differential forms is not a necessary condition for the integrals to make sense; but it is definitely a sufficient condition. If you want to be fully general, then the condition is that the differential form be in $L^1$ (one has to define this carefully). To make sense of any type of integral (Lebesgue, or Riemann, or improper Riemann) there's two things to keep track of: regularity of the objects involved (functions/forms/scalar densities you wish to integrate and the sets over which you want to integrate) and the finiteness of stuff involved.

As a special case, let $U\subset\Bbb{R}^n$ be an open set and $\omega$ an $n$-form on $U$ (a-priori, we don't have to make any continuity/smoothness assumptions). Then, we can write $\omega=g\,dx^1\wedge\cdots\wedge dx^n$ for some unique function $g:U\to\Bbb{R}$, where $(x^1,\dots, x^n)$ are the standard cartesian coordinates on $U$. We say that the $n$-form $\omega$ is (Lebesgue) integrable over $U$ if $g\in L^1(U)$, and in this case, we define $\int_U\omega:=\int_Ug\,d\lambda\equiv \int_Ug$, where the integral on the right is the standard Lebesgue integral of $g$ over the open set $U$.

If you only want to consider Riemann integrals then the definition becomes slightly tricky to state, because first of all Riemann integrals are only properly defined for closed rectangles and bounded functions. Then, one has to jump through several hoops to define, say, integrals of locally bounded, a.e continuous functions (which is certainly the case for continuous or smooth functions/forms) on an arbitrary open set $U$ (possibly unbounded). These details can be found in Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds, in the section on partitions of unity (which is somewhere in Chapter 3- Integration). Note that in the sense that Spivak defines things, we still have that $g$ is (Riemann) integrable over $U$ (in the extended sense) if and only if $|g|$ is; so this is very much analogous to the Lebesgue theory.

Note that with the correct definitions, you can certainly consider differential forms such as $\omega=\frac{1}{1+t^2}\,dt$ on $\Bbb{R}$, or $\eta=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t}}\,dt$ on $(0,1)$. These forms are smooth, do not have compact support, but they are still integrable in either of the senses described above (and $\int_{\Bbb{R}}\omega=\pi$ and $\int_{(0,1)}\eta=2$). But note that we need some sort of restrictions, because as you're hopefully familiar with from basic calculus, we have $\int_0^1\frac{dt}{t}=\infty$, so even with smooth functions/forms on a bounded open set, the result might still integrate to $\infty$.


Full Definition.

For the sake of completeness, I'll write out the definition in the fully general case. However, there are a few details to be verified to ensure that this stuff is well-defined; I'll omit these details.

Definition.

Let $M$ be a smooth oriented manifold (assumed Hausdorff, second-countable), and $\omega$ a rough-differential form on $M$. We say $\omega$ is (Lebesgue) integrable on $M$ if the following conditions are satisfied:

  • Let $\{(U_i,\phi_i)\}_{i=1}^{N}$, where $1\leq N\leq \infty$, be an at most-countable positively-oriented atlas of $M$, and let $\{\pi_i\}_{i=1}^N$ be a continuous partition of unity of $M$, subordinate to the open cover $\{U_i\}_{i=1}^N$.
  • Suppose $\omega$ is Lebesgue measurable, meaning that for chart $(U_i,\phi_i=(x_i^1\cdots, x_i^n))$, if write $\omega|_{U_i}=g_i\cdot dx_i^1\wedge\cdots \wedge dx_i^n$ for some function $g_i:U_i\to\Bbb{R}$, then we require that $g_i\circ \phi_i^{-1}:\phi_i(U_i)\subset\Bbb{R}^n\to\Bbb{R}$ is Lebesgue measurable.
  • Finally, we require that $\sum_{i=1}^N\int_{\phi_i(U_i)}|\pi_i\cdot g_i|\circ \phi_i^{-1}\,\,d\lambda<\infty$ (these are standard Lebesgue integrals in open subsets of $\Bbb{R}^n$).

In this case we define $\int_M\omega:= \sum_{i=1}^N\int_{\phi_i(U_i)}(\pi_i\cdot g_i)\circ \phi_i^{-1}\,d\lambda$.

Now, one can easily show that Lebesgue measurability doesn't depend on the choice of atlas $\{(U_i,\phi_i)\}$ (or if you wish to ignore these technicalities, you can assume from the beginning that all forms are smooth). The main thing to be checked is that the third bullet point doesn't depend on the choice of positively oriented atlas and partition of unity $\{(U_i,\phi_i,\pi_i)\}$; here you need Tonelli's theorem and also that you're dealing with an oriented manifold, so that the absolute value of the Jacobian from the change-of-variables theorem can be dropped. Finally, one has to show that the definition of $\int_M\omega$ (which doesn't have absolute values in it) also doesn't depend on the choice $\{(U_i,\phi_i,\pi_i)\}$ (follows by Fubini's theorem/dominated convergence which allows us to swap series with integrals and also change of variables theorem).

Note that if $\omega$ has compact support, then the third bullet point is automatically satisfied since all but finitely many summands vanish. Hence, continuous, compactly supported forms are automatically integrable.


Having said all of this, note that unless you really want to go down the integration rabbit hole, compact support is good enough, because one of the most famous theorems, Stokes theorem, fails (unless you make serious modifications) without this hypothesis:

Stokes Theorem.

Let $M$ be a smooth $n$-dimensional oriented manifold with boundary (possibly empty), let $\omega$ be a smooth $(n-1)$-form on $M$ with compact support. Then, $\int_Md\omega=\int_{\partial M}\omega$.

As a counterexample for forms without compact support, consider $M=(0,1)$, and the function $f(t)=t$ (i.e a $0$-form). Then $M$ is a 1-dimensional smooth manifold, with empty boundary, and $f$ is a smooth 0-form without compact support (it's support equals $M$ which is non-compact), even though both $f$ and $df$ are integrable forms (on $\partial M=\emptyset$ and $M=(0,1)$ respectively). Then, \begin{align} \int_Mdf=\int_{(0,1)}dt=1\neq 0=\int_{\emptyset}f=\int_{\partial M}f. \end{align} (keep in mind that $\partial M=\partial ((0,1))=\emptyset$; here $\partial$ is talking about the manifold boundary, which doesn't always coincide with the topological boundary $\text{bd}_{\Bbb{R}}(M)=\{0,1\}$ of $M=(0,1)$ as a subset of $\Bbb{R}$).

peek-a-boo
  • 55,725
  • 2
  • 45
  • 89
  • Your answer is insightful and inspiring! I am interested in the Lesbesgue measurability and integral theory on smooth manifold. Could you list some reference articles or books on the topic? – Z. He Apr 29 '22 at 13:30
  • 2
    @Z.H.He I know Amann and Escher's Analysis III introduces measure theory and Lebesue integration also in the manifold setting (they're very detailed). Loomis and Sternberg's Advanced Calculus doesn't quite treat Lebesgue measure and integrals; they deal with Jordan content, but in your mind you should just replace "content" with "measure", and if you do so you can see the general theory. Also, Dieudonne's Treatise on Analysis Vol. III (a 'harsh' guide) talks about Lebesgue measures and integrals on manifolds. – peek-a-boo Apr 29 '22 at 14:20
  • Thanks very much! – Z. He Apr 29 '22 at 14:49