I'm trying to show that a $2$-form on $S^2$ is exact if and only if it integrates to zero, without appealing to de Rham's theorem (basically only using the Poincaré lemma [that every closed form on a contractible manifold is exact]).

One direction is easy, since $\partial S^2=0$, Stokes's theorem shows that if $\omega=d\psi$ for some $(n-1)$-form $\psi$ on $S^2$, then $\int_{S^2}\omega=\int_{S^2}d\psi=\int_{\emptyset}\psi=0$.

I know the usual way to go, to decompose $S^2$ into it's northern and southern hemispheres, each of which is contractible. So if $\int_{S^2}\omega=0$, this gives two $(n-1)$-forms $\psi^+$ and $\psi^-$ on the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively with $d\psi^{\pm}=\omega$ on their domains. Moreover, Stokes's theorem shows again that

$0=\int_{S^2}\omega=\int_{\{x_3\ge 0\}}d\psi^++\int_{\{x_3\le 0\}}d\psi^-=\int_{\{x_3=0\}}\iota_{\{x_3=0\}}^*(\psi^+)-\iota_{\{x_3=0\}}^*(\psi^-)$

But now I have no idea how to proceed. Thanks in advance for your help!

Also, I realize that this question has been answered before, but keep in mind I'm looking for a solution that does not use de Rham's theorem.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps try to deform $\psi ^+$ by a closed form so that it matches up smoothly with $\psi ^-$? $\endgroup$ – Anthony Carapetis Aug 5 '13 at 3:58
  • $\begingroup$ Can't you use the fact that $H^2(S^2)$=$\mathbb Z$ ,which has a single generator, and, I think, $H^2$ is generated by the volume form, which does not integrate to $0$ , nor does any non-zero multiple of it; i.e., the only non-trivial 2-forms on $S^2$ are volume forms, which do not integrate to 0. $\endgroup$ – DBFdalwayse Aug 5 '13 at 5:19
  • $\begingroup$ @DBF: The OP is looking for a proof without using de Rham's theorem; i.e. without knowing that $H^2_{dR}(S^2) = H^2(S^2;\mathbb{R}).$ One would have to prove that $H^2_{dR}(S^2) = \mathbb{R}$ without appealing to de Rham's... $\endgroup$ – Anthony Carapetis Aug 5 '13 at 6:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Anthony; my bad. How about something of this sort: using orientability of $S^2$ so that there is a top nowhere-zero form, which cannot be exact, or it would integrate to zero. And we know the space of top forms is 1-dimensional. Then we must show that it is isomorphic to $\mathbb R$ $\endgroup$ – DBFdalwayse Aug 5 '13 at 6:37
  • $\begingroup$ I think we can show the orientability of $S^2$ by using, say a normal vector field, theorem, and we can show orientability is equivalent to having a nowhere-zero top form, without using DeRham's theorem for neither. In the worse case, I think we may be able to show $H^2_{dR}(S^2)=\mathbb R$ using Mayer-Vietoris. $\endgroup$ – DBFdalwayse Aug 5 '13 at 7:02

I believe I almost have a direct solution starting where your original post left off. I'll write $S^1$ for the equator and leave off all the ugly $\iota^*$s. Since $$\int_{S^1}( \psi^+ - \psi^- )=0,$$ we know by the 1-dimensional analog of the theorem we are trying to prove (thankfully that case is easy) that $\psi^+-\psi^-$ is exact, so denote it by $df$. Smoothly extend the function $f$ to the full top hemisphere while preserving $d\tilde f|_{S^1} = df|_{S^1}$.

Now define a 1-form $\tilde\psi^+$ on the top hemisphere by $$\tilde\psi^+ = \psi^+ - d\tilde f$$ so that $\tilde\psi^+ = \psi^-$ on the equator and $d\tilde\psi^+ = \omega$ on the top hemisphere.

The part I'm not sure about is stitching together $\tilde\psi^+$ and $\psi^-$ along the equator - while their values and their exterior derivatives coincide, as far as I can tell it's possible that the other components of the differentials (i.e. the "divergence" part) would have a discontinuity. If anyone knows how to rule this out please leave a comment!

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Consider open neighborhoods $U_+$, $U_-$ of the closed upper and lower hemisphere, then $\psi^+ -\psi^-$ is a $1$-form defined on $U_+\cap U_-$, satisfying $\int_{S^1}(\psi^+ -\psi^-)=0$. By the Poincare lemma and the $1$-dimensional analog, $\psi^+ -\psi^-=df$ for some smooth $f$ defined on $U_+\cap U_-$. Let $\{\rho_+,-\rho_-\}$ be the partition of unity associated to $\{U_+, U_-\}$, then $f=\rho_+ f-\rho_- f$. Hence $\psi^+ + d(\rho_- f) = \psi^- +d(\rho_+ f)$ on $U_+\cap U_-$, so we glue them together to get $\psi$ s.t. $\omega=d\psi$. QED $\endgroup$ – Yuchen Liu Aug 5 '13 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @YuchenLiu: looks good! Just to confirm I understand: you are taking the same $\psi^\pm$ as before and extending them smoothly to neighbourhoods? And you get $\psi^+ - \psi^-$ exact on the annulus $U_+ \cap U_-$ since the homotopy invariance of $H_{dR}^1$ implies it is generated by the "rotation" form $d\phi$ ($\phi$ the azimuthal angle coordinate) which has non-zero integral on $S^1$, yes? $\endgroup$ – Anthony Carapetis Aug 6 '13 at 4:32
  • $\begingroup$ I am not extending $\phi^\pm$ to $U_\pm$. Instead, I choose $U_\pm$ to be contractible, then choose $\phi^\pm$ directly on $U_\pm$ satisfying $d\phi^\pm=\omega$. $\endgroup$ – Yuchen Liu Aug 9 '13 at 2:49
  • $\begingroup$ If $\omega$ is a $1$-form on $S^1$ then $\int_{S^1} \omega =0$ implies that $\omega$ is exact. If $\omega$ is a $1$-form on a manifold $V$ that is homotopy equivalent to $S^1$ (like $U_+\cap U_i$), and $\int_V \omega=0$, then how do we draw the same conclusion that there exists a function $f$ on $V$ (not on $S^1$) such that $\omega=df$? $\endgroup$ – Dimitris Aug 24 '14 at 0:42

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.