Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. 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

Thanks for reading my question. I'm wonder why a symplectic form should be closed. I found many different answers in the internet, but it sounds like a technical requirement (if we omit this requisit, we obtain almost symplectic structures, insteresting as well). Why do yo think? I just want to have a fresh perspective. Thank you in advance.

share|cite|improve this question
This has been discussed on MathsOverflow. It seems that things such as conservation of energy and momentum would not be true if the two form were not closed.… – Fly by Night Jan 29 '13 at 22:01
Thank you very much! I'll check that post. – math_failure Jan 31 '13 at 16:42
up vote 8 down vote accepted

There are many reasons why we might want a symplectic form to be closed by definition. Here are a few:

  • A closed $2$-form represents a cohomology class in $H^2(M; \Bbb R)$.

  • When $\omega$ is closed, we get a one-to-one correspondence between $1$-parameter groups of symplectomorphisms and symplectic vector fields. We also get Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms from this, which turn out to be interesting for symplectic geometers.

  • The local rigidity theorems for symplectic manifolds, such as Darboux's theorem, Moser's stability theorem, Weinstein's tubular neighborhood theorem, and so on rely on the closedness of the symplectic form. I think some such results hold more generally, for example Gotay's coisotropic neighborhood theorem holds for presymplectic manifolds if I recall correctly. In any case, these results are what give symplectic geometry its global nature.

There's other reasons based on physical considerations as well. In short, closedness of a symplectic form is a rather mild condition that gives rise to a lot of nice structure we wouldn't otherwise have.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! It's a very clear explanation :D – math_failure Jan 31 '13 at 16:43

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.