2 Superforms and supercurrents on ℝ r [034Q]
Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.
Complete original source context · Original author HTML
2 Superforms and supercurrents on
In this section, we recall the construction of superforms and supercurrents introduced by Lagerberg (see [La12], §2). They are real analogues of complex -forms or currents on . So let us first recall briefly the definitions in complex analytic geometry. On , we have the holomorphic coordinates . A -form is given by
where (resp. ) ranges over all subsets of of cardinality (resp. ) and where the are smooth functions. Here, use the convenient notation and for the elements of and of . We have linear differential operators , and on differential forms which are determined by the rules
for smooth complex functions on . Very often, these differential operators are denoted by and . A current is a continuous linear functional on the space of differential forms on . Continuity is with respect to uniform convergence of finitely many derivatives on compact subsets. Differential forms may be viewed as currents using integration and the differential operators extend to currents. For details, we refer to [De12], Chapter I, or to [GH78].
The goal of this section is to give a real analogue in the following setting: Let be a free abelian group of rank with dual abelian group . For convenience, we choose a basis of leading to coordinates on . Our constructions will depend only on the underlying real affine structure and the integration at the end will depend on the underlying integral -affine structure, but not on the choice of the coordinates. Here, an integral -affine space is a real affine space whose underlying real vector space has an integral structure, i.e. it comes with a complete lattice. The definition of the integrals in [CD12] does use calibrations which makes the integrals in some sense unnatural. In the case of an underlying canonical integral structure (which is the case for tropicalizations), there is a canonical calibration (as in [CD12], §3.5) and both definitions of the integrals are the same.
2.1
Let be the space of smooth real differential forms on an open subset of , then a superform of bidegree on is an element of
Formally, such a superform may be written as
where (resp. ) consists of (resp. ), and
The wedge product is defined in the usual way on the space of superforms . There is a canonical -linear isomorphism obtained by switching factors in the tensor product. The inverse of is . We call symmetric if .
2.2
There is a differential operator given by
This does not depend on the choice of coordinates as on is an intrinsic characterization using the classical differential on the space of real smooth -forms. Similarly, we define a differential operator by
By linearity, we extend these differential operators to . Moreover, we set .
2.3
If is a free abelian group of rank and if is an affine map with for an open subset of , then we have a well-defined pull-back given as usual. The affine pull-back commutes with the differential operators , and .
2.4
Let denote the space of superforms on with compact support in . For , we define
with and the usual integration of -forms with respect to the orientation induced by the choice of coordinates on the right hand side. If is an affine map as in 2.3 and if , then we have the transformation formula
| (1) |
(see [La12], equation (2.3)). We conclude that the definition of the integral depends only on the underlying integral -affine structure of .
2.5
Now let be a polyhedron of dimension in . By definition, is the intersection of finitely many halfspaces with and . A polytope is a bounded polyhedron. We say that is an integral -affine polyhedron for a subgroup of if we may choose all and all . In this case, we have a canonical integral -affine structure on the affine space generated by . If is the underlying real vector space of , then this integral structure is given by the lattice . Using 2.3 and the above, we get a well-defined integral for any , where is an open neighbourhood of .
2.6
In [CD12], integration is described in terms of a contraction: Similarly as in differential geometry, we may view a superform as a multilinear map
which is alternating in the variables and also in . Let be a subset of cardinality with elements contained in and hence elements in . Given vectors , the contraction is given by inserting for the variables of the above multilinear function.
Using the basis of and assuming , the contraction is a -superform which may be viewed as a classical -form on . Then it is immediately clear from the definitions that we have
where we use the usual integration of -forms on the right. Of course, there is no preference to contract with respect to the last variables. Similarly, may view as a classical -form and we have
Next, we are looking for an analogue of Stokes’ theorem for superforms.
2.7
Let be an integral -affine halfspace in . This means that for some and . Using a translation, we may assume that and hence the boundary is a linear subspace of . Let be the generator of which points outwards, i.e. there is such that and . We choose a representative and we note also that is uniquely determined by the above properties.
2.8
Let be an open subset of and let be an -dimensional integral -affine polyhedron contained in . For any closed face of codimension , let using 2.7 for the affine hyperplane generated by and the corresponding halfspace containing . We note that is determined up to addition with elements in , where is the linear hyperplane parallel to .
For , we have introduced the contraction as an element of which is obtained by inserting the vector for the -th argument of the corresponding multilinear function (see 2.6). Note that the restriction of this contraction to does not depend on the choice of the representative . Then we define
where ranges over all closed faces of of codimension . On the right, we use the integrals of -superforms from 2.4. For , we define similarly
Note that the integrals do depend only on the integral -affine structure of but do not depend on the choice of the orientation of .
If is an integral -affine polyhedron of any dimension and if for an open subset of containing , then we define by applying the above to the affine space generated by and to the pull-back of to . We give now a concrete description of in terms of integrals over classical -forms. For every closed face of , let be the canonical integral structure on the affine space generated by . If is a basis of , then is a basis of . We note that the contraction may be viewed as a classical -form on and hence we get
Proposition 2.9 (Stokes’ formula)
Let be an -dimensional integral -affine polyhedron contained in the open subset of . For any and any , we have
Proof: This is just a reformulation of [La12], Proposition 2.3, in the case of a polyhedron using the formalism introduced above. In the quoted result, the boundary was assumed to be smooth, but as the classical Stokes’ formula holds also for polyhedra (see [Wa83], 4.7), this applies here as well.
Proposition 2.10 (Green’s formula)
We consider a -dimensional integral -affine polyhedron contained in the open subset of . Assume that and are symmetric with and that the intersection of the supports of and is compact. Then we have
Proof: This follows from Stokes’ formula as in [CD12], Lemma 1.3.8.
2.11
A supercurrent on is a continuous linear functional on where the latter is a locally convex vector space in a similar way as in the classical case. We denote the space of such supercurrents by . As usual, we define the linear differential operators , and on by using times the dual of the corresponding differential operator on . The sign is chosen in such a way that the canonical embedding is compatible with the operators , and . Here, is mapped to given by for any .