Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

Fix a smooth map $f : \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$. Clearly this induces a pullback $f^\ast : C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n) \rightarrow C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^m)$. Since $C^\infty(\mathbb{R}^n) = \Omega^0(\mathbb{R}^n)$ (the space of zero-forms) by definition, we consider this as a map $f^\ast : \Omega^0(\mathbb{R}^n) \rightarrow \Omega^0(\mathbb{R}^m)$. We want to extend $f^\ast$ to the rest of the de Rham complex in such a way that $d f^\ast = f^\ast d$.

Bott and Tu claim (Section I.2, right before Prop 2.1), without elaboration, that this is enough to determine $f^\ast$ . I can see why this forces e.g.

$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^n f^\ast \left[ \frac{\partial g}{\partial y_i} d y_i \right] = \sum_{i=1}^n f^* \left[ \frac{\partial g}{\partial y_i}\right] d(y_i \circ f)$,

but I don't see why this forces each term of the LHS to agree with each term of the RHS -- it's not like you can just pick some $g$ where $\partial g/\partial y_i$ is some given function and the other partials are zero.

share|cite|improve this question
I claim that the function $y_j$ has the property that $\partial y_j / \partial y_i$ is the constant $1$ if $i = j$ and is the constant $0$ otherwise. – Zhen Lin Dec 28 '11 at 15:09
Right, but you can't get a function with the property that $\partial g / \partial y_i$ is an arbitrary smooth function and the other partials are zero, because this forces $\partial(\partial g/\partial y_i)/\partial y_j = \partial^2 g / \partial y_i \partial y_j = \partial(\partial g / \partial y_j)/\partial y_i = 0$ for all $i \neq j$. (I was trying to do this without the assumption that $f^\ast$ preserved multiplication, which is apparently a mistake.) – Daniel McLaury Dec 28 '11 at 15:47
up vote 9 down vote accepted

$\newcommand\RR{\mathbb{R}}$I don't have the book here, but it seems you are asking why there is a unique extension of $f^*:\Omega^0(\RR^n)\to\Omega^0(\RR^m)$ to an appropriate $\overline f^*:\Omega^\bullet(\RR^n)\to\Omega^\bullet(\RR^m)$ such that $f^*d=df^*$. Here appropriate should probably mean that the map $\overline f^*$ be a morphism of graded algebras.

Now notice that the since $f^*$ is fixed on $\Omega^0(\RR^n)$ and the commutation relation with $d$ tells us that it is also fixed on the subspace $d(\Omega^0(\RR^n))\subseteq\Omega^1(\RR^n)$. The uniqueness follows from the fact that the subspace $\Omega^0(\RR^n)\oplus d(\Omega^0(\RR^n))$ of $\Omega^\bullet(\RR^n)$ generates the latter as an algebra.

share|cite|improve this answer
Dear Mariano: You wrote "morphism of graded algebras", but I think you meant "morphism of differential graded algebras". – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Dec 28 '11 at 15:36
Actually, I separated the 'differential' part because it was singled out in the question itself, leaving for 'appropriate' simply the graded-algebra part :) Of course, the resulting map will be a morphism of differential graded algebras. – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Dec 28 '11 at 15:37
Yes, you're right! I hadn't read your answer carefully enough... Sorry! +1 – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Dec 28 '11 at 15:39
Ah, so $f^\ast$ should not only be $\mathbb{R}$-linear, but should preserve multiplication as well -- that's what I was missing. For some reason it didn't occur to me that the original pullback function preserved multiplication, so I never considered that I should want such a property for the extension. – Daniel McLaury Dec 28 '11 at 15:41
(There was supposed to be a "Thanks!" at the end of the previous comment.) – Daniel McLaury Dec 28 '11 at 15:50

Consider $h = g \circ Q_{i}$ where $Q_{i}$ sends $(a_1,...,a_n)$ to $(0,\dotsc, a_i, \dotsc, 0)$. Apply your observation to $h$.

share|cite|improve this answer
This seems to establish the desired result for functions with a rank-one Jacobian. I tried this before, but I couldn't see a useful way to extend that to all functions. – Daniel McLaury Dec 28 '11 at 17:35

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.