I'm trying to understand proof for the following result:

Let $X$ be a connected, simply connected, non-compact surface. Then, for any compact set $K\subset X$, the complement $X\setminus K$ has exactly one connected component whose closure is not compact.

As a side note I think we can assume that 'surface' means 'Riemann surface' in every occurrence.

So this can be found in Simon Donaldson's Riemann Surfaces on page 141: https://books.google.fi/books?id=3SwSDAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fi#v=onepage&q&f=false

In the fourth paragraph, after construction of compactly supported 2-forms $\sigma_i$ we can find compactly supported 1-form $\alpha$ such that $d\alpha = \sigma_1 - \sigma_0$. The text refers to Proposition 12 but the correct result is Proposition 14 on page 70:

If $S$ is a connected, oriented, smooth surface, then the map $\int_S$ is an isomorphism from $H^{2}_{c} (S)$ to $\mathbb{R}$.

Now we choose a neighbourhood $N$ and the problems start. If $N$ is contained in $K$ then either $N$ is a strict subset of $\text{supp}(\alpha)$ as $\alpha$ must be non constant on the support of $\sigma_i$ or both of the sets $N$ and $\text{supp}(\alpha)$ have points not belonging to other set. Now I don't see why we can find a loop $\gamma$ in $N$ so that $\int_\gamma \alpha=1$, because all that I know is that $\alpha$ is non-zero on the supports of $\sigma_i$. Okay, assume that 'by some magic' we can find said $\gamma$. Towards the end of the proof, the fact that $\gamma$ does not meet the support of $\beta_i$ is used. By construction of $\beta_i$ the supports of $\beta_i$ and $\sigma_i$ intersect. So what I had in mind to fix this does not work. I thought that if we make a union of the supports of $\sigma_i$ and $K$ and make the union into a connected set with the help of paths and covering of path by open sets that have compact closures. That would make the choice of $\gamma$ more plausible, but the arguments at the end of the proof make this enlargement of $K$ unusable.

So what am I missing or is there really something wrong with the proof?


$\renewcommand\supp{\operatorname{supp}}$For the first part about $N$, the point is that we can choose any neighbourhood $N$ of $\supp\theta$ contained in $K$. (I think that for this to exist, we need $f = 0$ on a neighborhood of $\overline{U_0}$, not just in $U_0$, and likewise for $f=1$ and $U_1$.) Then, since $\supp (d\alpha) \subseteq U_0 \cup U_1 \subseteq S \smallsetminus N$, the restriction $d\alpha|_N$ of $d\alpha$ to $N$ is zero. This is what he means by $\alpha$ being a closed form on $N$. (I wonder if this is the point of confusion for you.) The support of $\alpha$ itself is irrelevant.

Now he shows $\alpha|_N$ is not exact, so it represents a nonzero cohomology class in $H^1(N)$. This implies the existence of a loop $\gamma$ in $N$ with $\int_\gamma \alpha \ne 0$, for otherwise if $\int_\gamma \alpha = 0$ for any loop $\gamma$ in $N$, we could construct a $0$-form $u$ on $N$ with $du = \alpha|_N$ by integrating $\alpha$. Whether the integral is $1$ or some other nonzero value doesn't matter in the rest of the proof.

  • $\begingroup$ So now $N$ cannot be simply connected and by simple argument neither can $K$ be simply connected. We wanted to choose any compact set, so this is our desired contradiction. $\endgroup$ – VadaVad Oct 4 '16 at 14:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.