I have some questions about the proof of the residue theorem in Lectures on Riemann Surfaces by Otto Forster.

The Residue Theorem. Suppose $X$ is a compact Riemann surface and $a_1,\cdots,a_n$ are distinct points in $X$. Let $X':= X \setminus \{a_1, \cdots,a_n\}$. Then for every holomorphic 1-form $\omega \in \Omega(X')$, one has $$ \sum_{k=1}^n {\rm Res}_{a_k}(\omega) = 0. $$

In the proof, $(U_k, z_k)$ are coordinate neighbourhoods of $a_k$. For every $k$, $f_k$ is a function with compact support ${\rm Supp}(f_k) \subset U_k$ such that there exists an open neighbourhood $U'_k \subset U_k$ of $a_k$ with $f_k|U'_k = 1$. Set $g:=1-(f_1+\cdots+f_n)$. Then, $$ \int\int_X d(g\omega) =0. $$

I have difficulty following the argument from the next sentence.

Now $d(g\omega) = - \sum d(f_k \omega)$ implies $$ \sum_{k=1}^n \int\int_X d(f_k \omega) = 0. $$

Does this mean $d\omega =0$ on $X$? I know $d\omega=0$ on $X'$ since $\omega$ is holomorphic on $X'$. But, $\omega$ is not defined at $a_k$.

I have one more question probably related to this one.

Using the coordinates $z_k$ we may identify $U_k$ with the unit disk. There exists $0 < \epsilon < R <1$ such that $$ {\rm Supp(f_k)} \subset \{ |z_k| < R \} \; \text{and} \; f_k | \{|z_k| \leq \epsilon\}=1. $$ But then $$ \int\int_X d(f_k\omega) = \int\int_{\epsilon \leq |z_k| \leq R} d(f_k\omega) = \int_{|z_k|=R} f_k \omega - \int_{|z_k|=\epsilon} f_k \omega $$

Does the first equality mean that $d\omega=0$ in $\{|z_k| < \epsilon\}$ ? I cannot understand this by the same reason as my first answer.

I would be really grateful, if someone could help me understand this proof.


Since $\omega$ is a meromorphic form on $X$, on each $(U_k,z_k)$ it has an expression of the form $$ \omega = f(z)dz $$ for $f$ a meromorphic function having possibly a pole at $0$. This means that on $U_k\backslash \{a_k\}$, $d\omega = \frac{\partial f}{\partial \overline{z}}(z)d\overline{z}\wedge dz$. Since $\omega$ is holomorphic on $X'$, we see from this expression that $d\omega = 0$ on $X'$.

Now since $\omega$ is not defined at the $a_k$'s, he introduces a function $g$ which is identically $0$ in a neighborhood of the $a_k$'s so that $g\omega$ can be extended by $0$ on the $a_k$'s to a smooth 1-form $\eta$ over all of $X$ (note that it is not necessarily holomorphic anymore). When he writes $\int_X d(g\omega) = 0$, he really means $\int_X d\eta = 0$.

Since $d\omega = 0$ on $X'$, we indeed get $d(g\omega) = -\sum d(f_k\omega)$ on $X'$ and then once again we can extend the RHS (by $0$ on the $a_k$'s) to a smooth 1-form $\xi$ on all of $X$. The reason we can do this is that $d(f_k\omega) = df_k \wedge \omega + f_k d\omega = df_k \wedge \omega$ on $X'$ but $df_k$ is identically $0$ in a neighborhood of the $a_k$'s since $f$ is constant there.

So what we get is two 1-forms $\eta$ and $\xi$ defined on all of $X$ which we know agree on $X'$ and are both $0$ on the $a_k$'s so they agree on all of $X$. So when he writes $$ \sum_{k=1}^n \int_X d(f_k\omega) = 0, $$ it is understood that he means $\int_X \xi = \int_X d\eta = 0$, which is the same thing.

The reason it is the same thing is exactly because of what you wrote in your second question. Since $\xi$ and $d(f_k\omega) = df_k \wedge \omega$ are identically zero in a neighborhood of the $a_k$'s, we can write (using your notations) $$ \int_X \xi = \sum_{k=1}^n\int_{X'}d(f_k\omega) = \int_{\epsilon \leq |z_k| \leq R} d(f_k\omega). $$

To get the statement for the residues, we take $\epsilon$ small enough and $R$ big enough so that $$ 0 = \sum_{k=1}^n\int_{X'}d(f_k \omega) = \sum_{k=1}^n\left(\int_{|z_k| = R}f_k \omega - \int_{|z_k| = \epsilon}f_k \omega \right) = -\sum_{k=1}^n \int_{|z_k|=\epsilon}\omega, $$ and we let $\epsilon \to 0$, which gives $$ 0 = 2\pi i \sum_{k=1}^n\text{Res}_{a_k}\omega. $$

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your detailed explanation. I forgot to write that the $U_k$'s are chosen so that $U_j \cap U_k = \emptyset$ for $j\neq k$. From this I think that $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$ is not necessary in the last equality because $a_k$ is the only singular point in $U_k$. Am I wrong ? $\endgroup$ – Aki Jul 30 '14 at 6:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes I think you're right. Since $d\omega = 0$ in an annulus centered at some $a_k$, integrating over any circle small enough around $a_k$ would give the same result. $\endgroup$ – jef808 Jul 30 '14 at 16:53

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.