4
$\begingroup$

Let $U$ be an open subset of $\Bbb{R}^n$ and take $\omega$ to be a nowhere-vanishing smooth $1$-form on $U$. The Frobenius Theorem implies that, near each point of $U$, $\omega$ may be written as $g\,{\rm{d}}f$ for suitable locally defined smooth functions $f$ and $g$ iff $\omega\wedge{\rm{d}}\omega=0$. Here is my question(s): For such a $1$-form $\omega$ on $U$ (never vanishing and $\omega\wedge{\rm{d}}\omega=0$) what is the obstruction to the existence of global smooth functions $f$ and $g$ on $U$ with $\omega=g\,{\rm{d}}f$? Can that be formulated as the vanishing of any homotopical invariant of $U$? What is a good non-example in which such a global presentation of $\omega$ fails to exist?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For non-examples, just take any closed but non-exact $\omega$ on $U$ that fails to be simply connected? $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 19 at 3:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WillieWong Well, in that case $\omega$ is not in the form of ${\rm{d}}f$, but why not a multiple of such a thing? For instance, $\omega:=-\frac{y}{x^2+y^2}{\rm{d}}x+\frac{x}{x^2+y^2}{\rm{d}}y$ is famously closed but not exact on $U:=\Bbb{R}^2-\{(0,0)\}$. But it is a multiple of ${\rm{d}}\left(\frac{y^2}{x^2+y^2}\right)$. $\endgroup$ – KhashF Mar 19 at 3:22
  • $\begingroup$ In your "counter example", your function $g$ is not smooth. (It is singular whenever $x = 0$ or $y = 0$.) $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 20 at 18:29
  • $\begingroup$ (More precisely, your function $g = \frac{x^2 + y^2}{2xy}$.) $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 20 at 18:34
1
$\begingroup$

To expand on my comment: suppose you have $U$ not simply connected, and $\omega$ closed but not exact, and suppose there exists a closed loop $\gamma: [0,1]\to U$ such that $\omega(\dot{\gamma})$ is signed. (This is in particular the case with the "example" in your comment, where you can take $\gamma$ to be any circle centered at the origin.)

Suppose $\omega= g df$ for smooth $g$ and $f$, then you must have

$$ g \nabla_{\dot\gamma} f $$

is signed. This implies both $g$ and $\nabla_{\dot\gamma} f$ are signed along $\gamma$, but this is absurd, since integrating from $0$ to $1$ you have

$$ \int_0^1 \nabla_{\dot\gamma(s)} f(\gamma(s)) ~ds = f(\gamma(1)) - f(\gamma(0)) = 0 $$

since $\gamma$ is a closed curve.


Simply-connectedness is not enough, however, to ensure that the integrating factor can be globalized. To see this, recall that Frobenius theorem states that the nonvanishing one-form $\omega$ satisfies $\omega\wedge d\omega = 0$ IFF its kernel is the tangent bundle of a regular foliation.

If $\omega = g ~df$ for some function $f$, then necessarily $f$ will be constant on the leaves of this foliation. Hence a counterexample will be found if you have a regular foliation of a simply connected compact manifold. (As on a compact manifold the function $f$ must attain a maximum and $df = 0$ there, contradicting the assumption that $\omega$ is non-vanishing.)

One such example is given by the Reeb foliation of the 3-sphere.

If we want to examine domains in Euclidean space: embed $\mathbb{S}^3 \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^4$ and slightly thicken it radially by $\epsilon$. Define a foliation on this 4 dimensional (simply-connected) domain by extending the Reeb foliation trivially in the radial direction. The lifted one-form $\tilde{\omega}$ is the pull-back of the Reeb $\omega$ from $\mathbb{S}^3$ by radial projection, and hence $\tilde{\omega} \wedge d \tilde{\omega} = 0$. Any $\tilde{f}$ that realizes $\tilde{\omega} = \tilde{g} d\tilde{f}$ will be constant on the foliation, and hence factors through some $f$ on $\mathbb{S}^3$, and the argument above shows that this contradicts the fact that $\omega$ is non-vanishing.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You seem to be saying that if the vector field corresponding to $\omega$ has a closed integral curve $\gamma(t)$, then $\omega$ cannot be written as $g\,{\rm{d}f}$: Since $\omega$ is non-zero everywhere, $g$ should be either always positive or always negative. Now $f$ is strictly monotonic along $\gamma(t)$ (a Lyapunov function) due to the fact that $\frac{\rm{d}}{\rm{d}t}f(\gamma(t))=g(\gamma(t))\,\big|\nabla f(\gamma(t))\big|^2$ does not change sign. This cannot be the case since $\gamma$ is closed. $\endgroup$ – KhashF Mar 23 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, it works. But here we assume something extra about the $1$-form $\omega$: There is a closed integral curve which of course prevents $\omega$ from being exact. I was looking for a topological property of the domain $U$. For instance, if $U$ is simply connected can we always write a non-vanishing $\omega$ with $\omega\wedge{\rm{d}}\omega=0$ as $g\,{\rm{d}}f$? $\endgroup$ – KhashF Mar 23 at 18:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Closed integral curve" is not a requirement; that $\omega(\dot{\gamma})$ is signed is a weaker condition. // I don't think simply connected is enough; the Reeb foliation of $\mathbb{S}^3$ should be a counterexample. (The three-sphere is compact so there cannot be global $f$ with non-vanshing $df$.) $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 24 at 4:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\dot\gamma$ is a vector field along $\gamma$. You pair it against $\omega$. You get a scalar. Nothing about this requires $\omega$ having a vector field corresponding to it (not using any Riemannian structures at all). In the case where you do have a Riemannian structure, you can imagine the corresponding vector field being perturbed to be spiralling (ever so slightly) instead of having closed integral curves.The circles are no longer integral curves but $\omega(\dot{\gamma})$ can still be signed. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 24 at 12:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What if you take a slightly thickened copy of $\mathbb{S}^3 \subset \mathbb{R}^4$ and extend the Reeb foliation trivially in the radial direction? If the leaves were defined as level sets of a function the function projects to a function on $\mathbb{S}^3$ and the same argument goes through, no? $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 25 at 19:35

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.