MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Integration on an orientable differentiable n-manifold is defined using a partition of unity and a global nowhere vanishing n-form called volume form. If the manifold is not orientable, no such form exists and the concept of a density is introduced, with which we can integrate both on orientable and non-orientable manifolds. My question is: On a non-orientable n-manifold, every n-form vanishes somewhere, but shouldn't I be able to chose an n-form with say a countable number of zeros, which would then constitute a set of measure zero and thus allow me to use n-forms (with zeros) for global integration also on non-orientable n-manifolds?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 20 down vote accepted

The problem is that there is no way to figure out signs - It would be like trying to integrate a function from $\mathbb{R}$ to $\mathbb{R}$ without knowing whether you were moving forward or backward.

What you CAN actually integrate are pseudo-differential forms. The whole point of choosing an orientation is to turn a differential form into a psuedo-differential form. For those, I recommend the wonderful short story by John Baez found here:

share|cite|improve this answer
Some of us find scrolling down more of a chore than (not) clicking ;) – Yemon Choi Mar 9 '12 at 16:36
But only those who would not have clicked - exactly the audience I was trying to reach! – Steven Gubkin Mar 10 '12 at 1:19
Steven, I did click, I was mildly amused though not fired with the zeal of the convert, and now I have to scroll down ever tabernac time I want to read the answer below yours :( – Yemon Choi Mar 10 '12 at 19:45
Is it really too much to ask that you could editorialize? – Yemon Choi Mar 10 '12 at 19:47
Since you seem to feel quite strongly about it, I guess I will roll it back out of respect (I really have enjoyed a lot of your answers on this site!). Hopefully this comment thread doesn't obstruct your scrolling pleasures when we are done with it - maybe we should delete all these comments too. – Steven Gubkin Mar 12 '12 at 6:12

This is not an answer, but on reading the discussion I thought that it would be nice if someone gave the definition of a density so that no one would think that it is a complicated object. I learned the following (somewhat more general definition) from I.M. Gelfand:

Definition. A $k$-density on a manifold $M$ is a continuous real-valued function defined on the cone of simple (a.k.a. decomposable) tangent $k$-vectors on $M$ that is homogeneous of degree one. A $k$-density $\varphi$ is said to be smooth if for every $k$-tuple of smooth linearly independent vector fields $X_i$ $(1 \leq i \leq k)$ defined in some open set $U \subset M$, we have that the function $$ y \mapsto \varphi(X_1(y)\wedge \cdots \wedge X_k(y)) $$
is smooth in $U$.

A densitiy is called even if $\varphi(-v) = \varphi(v)$ for every simple tangent $k$-vector $v$. Likewise, we have odd $k$-densities that generalize differential $k$-forms

Examples and context

If $\Omega$ is a volume form on a manifold of dimension $n$, then both $\Omega$ and $|\Omega|$ are $n$-densities. The arc-length element of a Riemannian or Finsler metric is a $1$-density. The $k$-area integrand of a Riemannian or Finsler manifold is a $k$-density.

Parametric integrands (in the sense of Federer-Fleming) define $k$-densities when restricted to the cone of simple vectors, but densities are way more general.

Varifolds of dimension $k$ are elements of the dual to the space of even $k$-densities. This is basically their definition: because of their homogeneity even $k$-densities can be seen as continuous functions on the bundle of tangent $k$-planes.

A message from our sponsor

For more examples and for neat applications to integral geometry (if I may say so myself ...), which becomes much easier if differential forms are replaced by densities, see the paper Gelfand transforms and Crofton formulas.

share|cite|improve this answer
I would just like to add a word of endorsement for anything written by Juan Carlo Alvarez-Paiva. – Deane Yang Mar 9 '12 at 16:12
Your terminology of "k-densities" nicely clashes with 1/2-densities used in geometric quantization. There are really two indices attached to densities: one is the number of vectors they eat. The other deals with how they transform, that is, a character of GL(n), which can be identified with a nonzero complex number. – Eugene Lerman Feb 12 '13 at 18:00
It's not my terminology. It is Gelfand and Gindikin's, I believe, and I think they introduced it before Guillemin and Sternberg used 1/2 densities. – alvarezpaiva Feb 14 '13 at 20:57
A curious fact is that Guillemin and Sternberg dedicate their book to Gelfand (from whose work they learned integral geometry, I assume) and then they define $\alpha$-densities without saying their notation "nicely clashes" with Gelfand's ;-) – alvarezpaiva Mar 5 '13 at 10:06
For the benefit of people who might want to find the Gelfand and Gindikin reference, I believe it is “Nonlocal inversion formulas in real integral geometry”, Funct. Anal. Its Appl. (1977) 11, 173–179, originally in Russian in Функц. анализ и его прил. (1977) 11(3), 12–19. – Alex Shpilkin Jul 10 at 2:51

First of all, the things that you actually integrate are densities, which are the differential geometric counterparts of measures. No orientation is needed.

A degree $n$ form on an $n$-dimensional manifold is almost a density, but not quite. We need an orientation to associate to the top degree form a density. This is what you ultimately integrate when you integrate a form. For more details see page 105 of these notes.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for the link. I guess what I am asking is if I could forget about densities and, with my above argument just resort to n-forms also in the non-orientable case. It is just that forms appear all over the place and up to now, I've seen densities used only for integration on non-orientable manifolds. So, is there no way I could get around having to use densities? – ISH Mar 7 '12 at 14:25
If integration is your goal, then you cannot avoid densities. as a matter of fact it is easier to work with densities then with forms. There is a concept of pseudo-form which a bit tricky; see the book The Geometry of Physics by Theodore Frankel. – Liviu Nicolaescu Mar 7 '12 at 14:57
Following up on pseudo-forms: A degree-$n$ pseudo-form on an n-dimensional manifold is the same thing as a density (and hence the same thing as an absolutely continuous Radon measure) so can be integrated directly, while a degree-$k$ pseudo-form for $k < n$ can be integrated only with the help of a pseudo-orientation (on the region of integration). Flux is a good example of the integral of a pseudo-form (of degree $n - 1$); the pseudo-orientation specifies in which direction one is passing through. – Toby Bartels Mar 1 '13 at 22:01

You would expect the zero set of an $n$-form to have codimension 1 rather than being countable. Your suggestion of choosing some $n$-form on a non-orientable manifold $M^n$ and defining integrals relative to that essentially amounts to cutting $M$ into two orientable pieces along a codimension 1 submanifold, choosing an orientation on each, and adding the integrals on the two pieces. You can certainly do that, but since the answer depends on the choice of $n$-form/cutting it is not very natural or interesting (whereas the integral on an oriented manifold only depends on the orientation and not on the choice of orientation form).

share|cite|improve this answer
« whereas the integral on an oriented manifold only depends on the orientation and not on the choice of orientation form ». Maybe you need to normalize the volume to $1$? By linearity, for $\lambda >0$, we have $\int f \cdot\lambda\cdot\mathcal{V}=\lambda\cdot\int f\cdot\mathcal{V}$, so the integral does depend on the volume form. – Qfwfq Mar 7 '12 at 18:40
By integration, I mean (and interpreted the question as referring to) a linear functional on (compactly supported) $n$-forms, rather than on functions. This functional depends only on the orientation. – Johannes Nordström Mar 7 '12 at 19:20
Ok . – Qfwfq Mar 7 '12 at 20:19

I think one reason that integration of forms instead of densities is prefered is that one can use Stokes theorems.

share|cite|improve this answer
Are you sure about that? – Pait Mar 15 '12 at 12:19
I don't know why people voted this down? That is of course the point. However, it is not a matter of "preference" : arc-length or area are not differential forms. Many things are densities in a natural way and cannot be made into differential forms. – alvarezpaiva Jun 13 '12 at 22:38
Stokes's Theorem applies equally well to pseudo-forms, which includes densities. (I mean those densities that ISH was asking about, $n$-densities in the Gelfand–Gindikin sense, $1$-densities in the Guillemin–Sternberg sense, with both senses also allowing more general notions of density that are not pseudo-forms.) – Toby Bartels Mar 1 '13 at 22:10
For example, if $B$ is a ball with boundary sphere $S$, this induces a pseudo-orientation (notion of inside and outside) on $S$, so we can integrate pseudo-forms on it. Let $\omega$ be a density (say the density of some physical substance). If we also have a vector field $v$ (say, a velocity field), then the interior product $\iota_v \omega$ is an $(n-1)$-pseudo-form (where $n$ is the dimension of the ambient manifold). Then $\int_S \iota_v \omega = \int_B \mathrm{d}(\iota_v \omega)$, by Stokes's Theorem. … – Toby Bartels Mar 1 '13 at 22:14
… The integral $\int_S \iota_v \omega$ is the flux of the substance through the surface $S$; if the substance is conserved, then we have $\int_S \iota_v \omega + \int_B \dot\omega = 0$, where the dot indicates differentiation with respect to time. (That is, imagine spacetime as the cartesian product of a space manifold with a time line; our fields are defined on all of spacetime but are thought of as forms only on space.) Since $B$ could be any ball, conclude that $\mathrm{d}(\iota_v \omega) + \dot\omega = 0$, the differential equation of continuity. – Toby Bartels Mar 2 '13 at 20:33

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.