3
$\begingroup$

I found several answers on the following question :

Does there exists a no where vanishing exact $1$-form on a compact manifold without boundary?

All answer says that certainly not. But I cannot understand use of the fact that Boundary of manifold is empty . These answers emphasis on the fact that manifold is compact.

Is it still true that for a compact manifold with boundary there does not exist a no where vanishing exact $1$-form?

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

The other two examples provide examples showing that you need to assume your manifold is boundaryless. I want to show where the "usual" proof in the boundaryless case breaks down. So, here is the usual proof.

Exactness means $\omega = df$ for some smooth $f:M\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Because $M$ is compact, there is a $p\in M$ for which $f(p)$ is an absolute maximum.

We claim that $d_p f = 0$, so that $\omega = df$ is not non-vanishing. To show this, we pick $v\in T_p M$ and want to show that $(d_p f) v = 0$. To that end, let $\gamma:(-\epsilon, \epsilon)\rightarrow M$ be a smooth curve with $\gamma(0) = p$ and $\gamma'(0) = v$.

We want to show that $(d_p f) v = 0$, or, said another way, that $\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} f(\gamma(t)) = 0$. By definition of derivative, we need to show that $$\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{f(\gamma(h)) - f(\gamma(0))}{h} = 0.$$

First, the numerator is $f(\gamma(h) - f(p) \leq 0$ since $f(p)$ is a maximum of $f$. It follows that $\lim_{h\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{f(\gamma(h))- f(p)}{h} \leq 0$ and that $\lim_{h\rightarrow 0^-} \frac{ f(\gamma(h)) - f(p)}{h} \geq 0$.

By assumption, $\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{f(\gamma(h)) - f(p)}{h}$ exists, so the left and right hand limits must match. Since one is non-negative and the other is non-positive, the conclusion is that $\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{f(\gamma(h)) - f(p)}{h} = d_p f v = 0$. $\square$

$ \ $

So, where does this break down if $p\in \partial M$? Well, tangent vectors on the boundary are defined differently: you only need $\gamma$ to have a domain which is $(-\epsilon, 0]$ or $[0,\epsilon)$.

If we're in the case that the domain of $\gamma$ is $[0,\infty)$, then the one sided limit $\lim_{h\rightarrow 0^-} \frac{f(\gamma(h)) - f(p)}{h}$ no longer makes sense: $\gamma(h)$ doesn't make sense for negative $h$, so $f(\gamma(h))$ is meaningless.

Likewise, if the domain of $\gamma$ is $(-\epsilon, 0]$, then $\lim_{h\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{f(\gamma(h)) - f(p)}{h}$ no longer makes sense.

Thus, in either case, we lose one of the two inequalities. Without both, the proof no longer works to force $(d_p f) v = 0$. (And the other two answers show there is no way to "fix" the proof to handle the case where $p$ is a boundary point.)

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

On the compact manifold with boundary $[0,1]$, the differential $1$-form $dx$ is nowhere vanishing and exact. It is the exterior derivative of $x$.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Consider the cylinder, $S^1 \times [0, 1]$, parameterized by $\theta, t$.

The everywhere nonzero form $dt$ is exact (it's the differential of the function $t$ that gives the "height" coordinate).

So the answer is "no".

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ See @JasonDeVito's answer. $\endgroup$ – John Hughes Nov 15 '18 at 2:47

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.