1
$\begingroup$

I am reading about calculating the integral of scalar curvature of manifolds which have conical singularities - that is, are locally products $\mathcal{C}_\alpha\times \Sigma$, where $\mathcal{C}_\alpha$ are cones with conical singularities of angle deficit $\alpha$. For example, Fursaev and Soloduhkin (1994) or Troyanov (1991) and I have something which is probably a rather trivial question.

Putting the singularity question aside for a moment, I want to make sure I understand how to calculate something like

$$\int_{M\setminus \Sigma}R,$$

where $\Sigma$ is a 2-dimensional manifold embedded in $M$ (which is higher dimensional, for my purposes we can take this to be a 4-manifold). Certainly, I agree with the statement

$$\int_\Sigma R=0$$

Because $\Sigma$ is a set of measure zero in $M$. And certainly as sets $M$ and $\Sigma$ we could write

$$\int_M R=\int_{M\setminus \Sigma}R + \int_{\Sigma}R$$

So I want to make sure that the following is correct:

$$\int_{M\setminus \Sigma}R=\int_{M} R.$$

Of course, in the context of the singularity papers above, you want to remove the singular set $\Sigma$ and integrate $R$ over only the domain in which it is smoothly defined, $M\setminus \Sigma$. But, if I am doing this on something like a sphere with constant curvature I want to make sure I can write something like

$$\int_{\mathbb{S}^4\setminus \Sigma}R=\int_{\mathbb{S}^4}R(\mathbb{S}^4)=V(\mathbb{S}^4)R(\mathbb{S}^4)$$

Rather than

$$\int_{\mathbb{S}^4\setminus \Sigma}R=R(\mathbb{S}^4)V(\mathbb{S}^4\setminus \Sigma).$$

Again, it seems to me that $V(\mathbb{S}^4)=V(\mathbb{S}^4\setminus \Sigma)$.

  • 1
    If you want to be technical, then as far as I know $\int$ is only defined over manifolds. Hence if $\sum$ is not closed, then $M\setminus \sum$ need not be a manifold, and $\int$ does not make sense (as far as I know). Otherwise the equality you seek is true2017-01-23
  • 0
    I think the statement "$M$ can be locally written as $\mathcal{C}_\alpha \times \Sigma$" ensures that $M\setminus \Sigma$ is a manifold. I guess $M\setminus \Sigma$ looks like a global statement but it's really just a statement about how a bunch of local integrals are calculated.2017-01-23

1 Answers 1

2

Let me offer a way to extend the definition of the integral and answer your question. Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and assume for simplicity it is orientable (otherwise, replace volume forms by densities in what follows). Choose a volume form $\omega \in \Omega^{\text{top}}(M)$ on $M$ (for example, if $M$ comes with a metric this can be the Riemannian volume form). Using $\omega$ and abusing notation a little, we can define the integral of a smooth compactly supported function on $M$ by

$$ \int_{M} f := \int_M f\omega. $$

The map $f \mapsto \int_M f = \int_M f \omega$ gives us a positive linear function from $C^{\infty}_c(M)$ to $\mathbb{R}$ and so, after extending this map to $C_c(M)$, the Riesz representation theorem gives us a unique regular Borel measure $\mu_{\omega}$ such that $$\int_{M} f\omega = \int_M f d\mu_{\omega} $$ for all smooth (or continuous) compactly supported functions. Working with this measure, we can write stuff like

$$ \int_{M} R = \int_{M} R(\chi_{\Sigma} + (1 - \chi_{\Sigma})) d\mu_{\omega} = \int_{\Sigma} R d\mu_{\omega} + \int_{M \setminus \Sigma} R d\mu_{\omega} = \int_{M \setminus \Sigma} R d\mu_{\omega} $$

when $\Sigma$ has zero measure. Note that the notion of a zero measure set can be defined using coordinate charts without constructing any particular measure. If $\Sigma$ is Borel, all the measures $\mu_{\omega}$ that we constructed will satisfy $\mu_{\omega}(\Sigma) = 0$.

  • 0
    Just for clarity, the main property you are going after is the linearity of the measure right? In your explanation, you first specified that this function was linear, then you demonstrated how the representation theorem allowed us to extend this linear map to include a measure. Those are the key properties, right?2017-01-24
  • 1
    @levitopher: What I meant to say is that a volume form induces a Borel measure on your manifold and then you can talk about the Lebesgue integral of functions with respect to this measure. This integral agrees with the integral of $\int_M f \omega$ for smooth compactly supported functions but also allows you to integrate not-neccesarily compactly supported functions and non-smooth ones (such as characteristic functions). In particular, you can do the sort of arguments you are used to from measure theory in this setting. The reason this works is that the map $f \mapsto \int_M f \omega$ is2017-01-24
  • 1
    both positive (in the sense that if $f \geq 0$ then $\int_M f \omega \geq 0$) and linear which are the properties need to extract a measure from it.2017-01-24