My book is From Calculus to Cohomology by Ib Madsen and Jørgen Tornehave. It seems to be claimed
- In the proof of Lemma 10.17:
For every proper open subset $W$ of $\mathbb R^n$, there is an $\omega \in \Omega_c^{n}(\mathbb R^n)$, namely the "$\omega_1$" in the proof, where $\int_{\mathbb R^n} \omega = 1$ and $\text{supp} \ \omega \subseteq W$.
- In the proof of Theorem 11.9:
For a compact connected oriented smooth n-manifold $M$ and for every open subset $U$ of $M$, there is an $\omega \in \Omega_c^{n}(M) = \Omega^{n}(M)$, where $\int_M \omega = 1$ and $\text{supp} \ \omega \subseteq U$ (I don't believe this is dependent on the particular $U$ from Lemma 11.8).
Question: Why?
Please try to answer using the tools in the book such as Theorem 10.13 (or Corollary 10.14), Lemma 10.15, the last sentence of this or Lemma 10.3(ii).
I think I'm missing something obvious about how such $\omega$ exists because the authors state it so naturally.
Is the fact of the existence of such $\omega$ actually not obvious to the reader at this point in the text? For non-obvious facts, I think authors would usually say something like "First/next, observe that (insert fact), the proof of which is left to the reader/to the exercises".
Here are my thoughts (assuming I understand right):
I think (2) follows from Theorem 10.13 (or Corollary 10.14).
- I get $\tau \in \Omega_c^{n}(M)$ , where $\int_{M} \tau = 1$ and $\text{supp} \ \tau \subseteq M$. Choose $\omega$ to be the zero extension of $\tau|_{U}$ to $\tilde{\tau|_{U}} = \tau|_{U}1_{U} + 0 \ 1_{U^c}$. Similarly, (1) would follow from Lemma 10.15: I get $\tau \in \Omega_c^{n}(\mathbb R^n)$, $\int_{\mathbb R^n} \tau = 1$, $\text{supp} \ \tau \subseteq \mathbb R^n$, and then $\omega = \tilde{\tau|_{W}} = \tau|_{W}1_{W} + 0 \ 1_{W^c}$.
For (2), instead of applying Theorem 10.13 to $M$, I'll apply Theorem 10.13 to $U$, where the proof of Theorem 11.9 says we may actually be assume $U$ to be connected.
We get $\gamma \in \Omega_c^n(U)$, where $\int_{U} \gamma = 1$ and $\text{supp} \ \gamma \subseteq U$. Let $\psi = \gamma|_{\text{supp} \gamma}$, the restriction of $\gamma$ to its support. Denote the zero extensions of $\gamma$ and $\psi$ as $\tilde{\gamma} = \gamma 1_{U} + 0 \ 1_{M \setminus U}$ and $\tilde{\psi} = \psi 1_{\text{supp} \gamma} + 0 \ 1_{M \setminus \text{supp} \gamma}$.
Observe $\tilde{\psi} = \tilde{\gamma}$ (like here), and both are smooth by the last sentence of this.
Choose $\omega = \tilde{\psi} = \tilde{\gamma}$: As $\omega = \tilde{\psi}$, $\omega$ will satisfy $\text{supp} \ \omega \subseteq U$. As $\omega = \tilde{\gamma}$, $\omega$ will satisfy $\int_{M} \omega = 1$ because $\int_{M} \tilde{\gamma} = \int_{U} \gamma$ by Lemma 10.3(ii).
But with this method, how do we argue similarly for (1), where the proof of Lemma 10.17 does not say that we may assume $W$ is connected?