Extending a volume form on $S^k$ to $mathbb R^{k+1}$ such that the exterior derivative is zero.












1












$begingroup$


As we know that $S^k$ is a properly embedded submanifold of $R^{k+1}$. Let $w$ be a volume for of $S^k$(a non vanishing top form). Then $dw = 0$ on $S^k$. Is it possible to extend $w$ to $R^{k+1}$ such that $dw = 0$? We can extend the form for sure by first extending it locally then patch it together. But it does not seem to be the case that the extension should always have exterior differentiation equal to zero.






differential-geometry differential-topology







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    As we know that $S^k$ is a properly embedded submanifold of $R^{k+1}$. Let $w$ be a volume for of $S^k$(a non vanishing top form). Then $dw = 0$ on $S^k$. Is it possible to extend $w$ to $R^{k+1}$ such that $dw = 0$? We can extend the form for sure by first extending it locally then patch it together. But it does not seem to be the case that the extension should always have exterior differentiation equal to zero.






    differential-geometry differential-topology







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      As we know that $S^k$ is a properly embedded submanifold of $R^{k+1}$. Let $w$ be a volume for of $S^k$(a non vanishing top form). Then $dw = 0$ on $S^k$. Is it possible to extend $w$ to $R^{k+1}$ such that $dw = 0$? We can extend the form for sure by first extending it locally then patch it together. But it does not seem to be the case that the extension should always have exterior differentiation equal to zero.






      differential-geometry differential-topology







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      As we know that $S^k$ is a properly embedded submanifold of $R^{k+1}$. Let $w$ be a volume for of $S^k$(a non vanishing top form). Then $dw = 0$ on $S^k$. Is it possible to extend $w$ to $R^{k+1}$ such that $dw = 0$? We can extend the form for sure by first extending it locally then patch it together. But it does not seem to be the case that the extension should always have exterior differentiation equal to zero.






      differential-geometry differential-topology




      differential-geometry differential-topology






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 12 '18 at 6:02









      kochkoch

      18418




      18418






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          If that were possible, then by Stokes,
          $$int_{B^{k+1}}dw=int_{S^{k}}w$$
          where $B^{k+1}$ is the unit ball in $Bbb R^{k+1}$. But the LHS is zero, and the RHS is positive.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Let $dtheta$ be the $1-$form corresponding to the polar coordinate on $S^1$, why dont we have $dtheta$ on the whole $mathbb R^2$?
            $endgroup$
            – koch
            Dec 12 '18 at 13:52










          • $begingroup$
            $dtheta$ is not defined at the origin. @koch
            $endgroup$
            – Lord Shark the Unknown
            Dec 12 '18 at 18:19



















          1












          $begingroup$

          I would say no, because then, from Stokes’ theorem,
          $$0 = int_{B^{k+1}}{dw}=int_{S^k}{w},$$ whoch is clearly false.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            1












            $begingroup$

            Using Stokes' theorem is probably the best argument. But here is another perspective, using de Rham cohomology: The inclusion $iota: S^krightarrow mathbb{R}^{k+1}$ induces a map $$
            iota^*: H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) rightarrow H_{dR}^k(S^k) .
            $$
            Since the space on the right hand side is spanned by the cohomology class $[w]$, being able to find a closed extension of $w$ would imply surjectivity of $iota^*$. But this is impossible since $H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) = 0$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036294%2fextending-a-volume-form-on-sk-to-mathbb-rk1-such-that-the-exterior-der%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              2












              $begingroup$

              If that were possible, then by Stokes,
              $$int_{B^{k+1}}dw=int_{S^{k}}w$$
              where $B^{k+1}$ is the unit ball in $Bbb R^{k+1}$. But the LHS is zero, and the RHS is positive.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Let $dtheta$ be the $1-$form corresponding to the polar coordinate on $S^1$, why dont we have $dtheta$ on the whole $mathbb R^2$?
                $endgroup$
                – koch
                Dec 12 '18 at 13:52










              • $begingroup$
                $dtheta$ is not defined at the origin. @koch
                $endgroup$
                – Lord Shark the Unknown
                Dec 12 '18 at 18:19
















              2












              $begingroup$

              If that were possible, then by Stokes,
              $$int_{B^{k+1}}dw=int_{S^{k}}w$$
              where $B^{k+1}$ is the unit ball in $Bbb R^{k+1}$. But the LHS is zero, and the RHS is positive.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$













              • $begingroup$
                Let $dtheta$ be the $1-$form corresponding to the polar coordinate on $S^1$, why dont we have $dtheta$ on the whole $mathbb R^2$?
                $endgroup$
                – koch
                Dec 12 '18 at 13:52










              • $begingroup$
                $dtheta$ is not defined at the origin. @koch
                $endgroup$
                – Lord Shark the Unknown
                Dec 12 '18 at 18:19














              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              If that were possible, then by Stokes,
              $$int_{B^{k+1}}dw=int_{S^{k}}w$$
              where $B^{k+1}$ is the unit ball in $Bbb R^{k+1}$. But the LHS is zero, and the RHS is positive.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              If that were possible, then by Stokes,
              $$int_{B^{k+1}}dw=int_{S^{k}}w$$
              where $B^{k+1}$ is the unit ball in $Bbb R^{k+1}$. But the LHS is zero, and the RHS is positive.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Dec 12 '18 at 7:02









              Lord Shark the UnknownLord Shark the Unknown

              103k1160132




              103k1160132












              • $begingroup$
                Let $dtheta$ be the $1-$form corresponding to the polar coordinate on $S^1$, why dont we have $dtheta$ on the whole $mathbb R^2$?
                $endgroup$
                – koch
                Dec 12 '18 at 13:52










              • $begingroup$
                $dtheta$ is not defined at the origin. @koch
                $endgroup$
                – Lord Shark the Unknown
                Dec 12 '18 at 18:19


















              • $begingroup$
                Let $dtheta$ be the $1-$form corresponding to the polar coordinate on $S^1$, why dont we have $dtheta$ on the whole $mathbb R^2$?
                $endgroup$
                – koch
                Dec 12 '18 at 13:52










              • $begingroup$
                $dtheta$ is not defined at the origin. @koch
                $endgroup$
                – Lord Shark the Unknown
                Dec 12 '18 at 18:19
















              $begingroup$
              Let $dtheta$ be the $1-$form corresponding to the polar coordinate on $S^1$, why dont we have $dtheta$ on the whole $mathbb R^2$?
              $endgroup$
              – koch
              Dec 12 '18 at 13:52




              $begingroup$
              Let $dtheta$ be the $1-$form corresponding to the polar coordinate on $S^1$, why dont we have $dtheta$ on the whole $mathbb R^2$?
              $endgroup$
              – koch
              Dec 12 '18 at 13:52












              $begingroup$
              $dtheta$ is not defined at the origin. @koch
              $endgroup$
              – Lord Shark the Unknown
              Dec 12 '18 at 18:19




              $begingroup$
              $dtheta$ is not defined at the origin. @koch
              $endgroup$
              – Lord Shark the Unknown
              Dec 12 '18 at 18:19











              1












              $begingroup$

              I would say no, because then, from Stokes’ theorem,
              $$0 = int_{B^{k+1}}{dw}=int_{S^k}{w},$$ whoch is clearly false.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                1












                $begingroup$

                I would say no, because then, from Stokes’ theorem,
                $$0 = int_{B^{k+1}}{dw}=int_{S^k}{w},$$ whoch is clearly false.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  1












                  1








                  1





                  $begingroup$

                  I would say no, because then, from Stokes’ theorem,
                  $$0 = int_{B^{k+1}}{dw}=int_{S^k}{w},$$ whoch is clearly false.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  I would say no, because then, from Stokes’ theorem,
                  $$0 = int_{B^{k+1}}{dw}=int_{S^k}{w},$$ whoch is clearly false.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 12 '18 at 7:03









                  MindlackMindlack

                  3,53717




                  3,53717























                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      Using Stokes' theorem is probably the best argument. But here is another perspective, using de Rham cohomology: The inclusion $iota: S^krightarrow mathbb{R}^{k+1}$ induces a map $$
                      iota^*: H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) rightarrow H_{dR}^k(S^k) .
                      $$
                      Since the space on the right hand side is spanned by the cohomology class $[w]$, being able to find a closed extension of $w$ would imply surjectivity of $iota^*$. But this is impossible since $H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) = 0$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$


















                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        Using Stokes' theorem is probably the best argument. But here is another perspective, using de Rham cohomology: The inclusion $iota: S^krightarrow mathbb{R}^{k+1}$ induces a map $$
                        iota^*: H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) rightarrow H_{dR}^k(S^k) .
                        $$
                        Since the space on the right hand side is spanned by the cohomology class $[w]$, being able to find a closed extension of $w$ would imply surjectivity of $iota^*$. But this is impossible since $H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) = 0$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$
















                          1












                          1








                          1





                          $begingroup$

                          Using Stokes' theorem is probably the best argument. But here is another perspective, using de Rham cohomology: The inclusion $iota: S^krightarrow mathbb{R}^{k+1}$ induces a map $$
                          iota^*: H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) rightarrow H_{dR}^k(S^k) .
                          $$
                          Since the space on the right hand side is spanned by the cohomology class $[w]$, being able to find a closed extension of $w$ would imply surjectivity of $iota^*$. But this is impossible since $H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) = 0$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          Using Stokes' theorem is probably the best argument. But here is another perspective, using de Rham cohomology: The inclusion $iota: S^krightarrow mathbb{R}^{k+1}$ induces a map $$
                          iota^*: H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) rightarrow H_{dR}^k(S^k) .
                          $$
                          Since the space on the right hand side is spanned by the cohomology class $[w]$, being able to find a closed extension of $w$ would imply surjectivity of $iota^*$. But this is impossible since $H^k_{dR}(mathbb{R}^{k+1}) = 0$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 12 '18 at 8:25









                          Jan BohrJan Bohr

                          3,3071421




                          3,3071421






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid …



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036294%2fextending-a-volume-form-on-sk-to-mathbb-rk1-such-that-the-exterior-der%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              -

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Quarter-circle Tiles

                              Image
                              up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
                              Read more

                              build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                              Image
                              0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
                              Read more

                              Mont Emei

                              Image
                              Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
                              Read more