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

I want to use a version of Stokes theorem for integration along the fiber and I need some help in proving a general statement.

Let $F$ be a $k$-manifold with boundary and let $E \to M$ be a smooth fiber bundle with fiber $F$. Let $\omega$ be a differential form on $E$, let $\int_F: \Omega^*(E) \to \Omega^{*-k}(E)$ denote integration along the fiber and $i: \partial F \to F$ the inclusion map. Can I have some help in formalizing and proving a statement of the following form:

$d \int_F \omega=\int_F d\omega \pm \int_{\partial F}i^*\omega$


share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Choose some open $U\subset M$ such that $\pi^{-1}(U) \cong U\times F$, where $\pi: E\to M$ is the projection.

Let us assume first, that $\omega$ is compactly supported in some chart, so that we can work in local coordinates. By shrinking $U$ we can assume that this chart is of the form $\phi: U\times V \to \mathbb R^m\times \mathbb R^k$, with $ U\subset M$ and $V\subset F$. In this case we can write $\omega$ as

$$\omega = \sum_{I} f_I(x,y) \, dx^I \wedge dy^1 \wedge \ldots \wedge dy^k$$

where summation is over all multiindices $I = (i_1, \ldots, i_s)$. (Here $x^1, \ldots, x^m$ are the coordinates on $U$, $y^1, \ldots, y^k$ those on $V$.)

Integration along the fiber is now simply given by

$$\int_F \omega = \sum_{I} \left(\int_{\mathbb X} f(x,y) \; dy^1 \dots dy^k\right) \, dx^I$$

where $\mathbb X = \mathbb R^k$ or $\mathbb R^{k-1}\times \mathbb R_{\ge 0}$, depending on $V$ (the first case corresponding to $V \cap \partial F = \varnothing$, the second to $V \cap \partial F \ne \varnothing$). By an argument analogous to that in the proof of Stokes' theorem, we find $d\int_F \omega = \int_F d\omega + (-1)^{q-k}\int_{\partial F} \omega$ in this special case. (Where $\omega$ is supposed to be a $q$-form.)

In general, we can cover $E$ by charts of the form $\phi: U\times V \to \mathbb R^m\times \mathbb R^k$ as above and take a partition of unity $(\psi_i)_{i\in I}$ subordinate to this cover to conclude

$$ \begin{align} d\int_F \omega &= \sum_{i\in I}\; d\left( \int_F \psi_i \omega \right) \\ &= \sum_{i\in I}\; \int_F d \psi_i\omega + (-1)^{q-k} \sum_{i\in I}\; \int_{\partial F} \psi_i \omega \\ &= \int_F d\left( \sum_{i\in I} \psi_i\omega \right)+ (-1)^{q-k} \sum_{i\in I}\; \int_{\partial F} \psi_i \omega \\ &= \int_F d\omega + (-1)^{q-k} \int_{\partial F} \omega \end{align} $$

for arbitrary $\omega$.

Edit: The $(-1)^{q-k}$ comes from the fact that we need $\int_{\partial F}$ only for the case that the chart is a boundary chart and $$\omega = f(x,y) \, dx^I \wedge dy^1\wedge \ldots \wedge dy^{k-1}$$

Otherwise this integral vanishes. Then

$$\begin{align} \int_{F} d\omega &= (-1)^{q}\left( \int_{\mathbb R^{k-1}\times \mathbb R_{\ge 0}} \frac{\partial f}{\partial y_k}(x,y) \, dy^1 \dots dy^k\right)\, dx^I \\ &\quad + \sum_{i = 1}^n\, \int_{F} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(x,y) \, dx^i \wedge dx^I \wedge dy^1\wedge \ldots \wedge dy^{k-1} \\ &= (-1)^{q+1}\left(\int_{\mathbb R^{k-1}} f(x,y^1, \dots,y^{k-1}, 0) \, dy^1 \dots dy^{k-1}\right)\, dx^I \\ \end{align}$$

whereas $\int_{\partial F} \omega = \left[(-1)^{k}\int_{\mathbb R^{k-1}} f(x,y^1, \dots,y^{k-1}, 0) \, dy^1 \dots dy^{k-1}\right] \, dx^I = (-1)^{q-k+1} \int_F d\omega$. So

$$d\int_F \omega = 0 = \int_{\partial F} \omega + (-1)^{q-k}\int_F d\omega$$

Note that in particular, for $\omega = f(x,y) \, dy^{1} \wedge \ldots \wedge dy^{{k-1}}$, we get $\int_{\partial F}\omega = \int_F d\omega$, which is just Stokes' theorem.

share|cite|improve this answer
I guess, you meant $d \int_F \omega= d(\sum_{i\in I} \int_F \phi_i \omega)=...$ – Ehsan M. Kermani Dec 30 '11 at 21:50
and where does $\pm$ come from as OP has written? – Ehsan M. Kermani Dec 30 '11 at 21:52
@ehsanmo: Yes, you're right. Thanks. I thought about the $\pm$ issue briefly (and not properly it seems...). I will fix it! Sorry. – Sam Dec 30 '11 at 22:43

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.