I think, the answer can depend on how you interpret the question. Let me show that the answer is negative for one of the interpretations already in the case of -dimensional manifolds. We study the question locally in a neighbourhood of a vertex of a triangulation, so the condition on the integral over -simplexes does not play any role. The obstruction for the existence of comes form the local behaviour of curves at a vertex.
Lemma. Let on . For there exist , smooth rays on that meet at with different tangent vectors and such that there is no defined in any neighbourhood of 0 with and vanishing been restricted to .
It is clear that this lemma implies the negative answer to a version of the question, when we are not allowed to deform the triangulation.
Proof of Lemma. Suppose by contradiction that exists. Then is a closed 1-form. So we can write , where is a function defined in a neighbourhood of , . Since the number of the rays is more than , should vanish at zero. Moreover, it is not hard to see, that since the number of rays is more than , the quadratic term of vanishes at zero too.
Now, since vanishes on , the restiction of to equals . So we get the formula for , resticted to
Now, we will chose the rays . Namely , , and take by consecutively rotating by , , .
It is not hard to see, that is cubic modulo higher terms in when it is restricted to . At the same time is positive on and negative restricted to other rays. So it changes its sign at lest times on a little circle surrounding . This is impossible for a cubic Function (in a little neighbourhood the cubic term of should be dominating). Contradiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment