5
$\begingroup$

So I have the following problem:

Suppose $\omega=\phi \wedge \theta$ is a closed decomposable 2-form on $M$ a manifold (decomposable just means it can be written as a wedge of 1-forms). Suppose $p\in M$ is a point such that $\omega\neq 0$.

Use the Frobenius Theorem to prove that $\omega=dx^{1}\wedge dx^{2}$ in some coordinate system in a neighborhood around $p$.

So the formulation of the Frobenius theorem that I now is the one about completely integrable and involutive distributions being equivalent. Even if I show that $\omega$ somehow defines an involutive distribution, I don't know how to use the flat chart to get $\omega$ into the desired form.

Thanks for any help!

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

First of all, the Frobenius Theorem is about a system of differential equations given by $1$-forms. (The Cartan-Kähler Theorem addresses the general case.)

Note here that near $p$, $\phi$ and $\theta$ are linearly independent $1$-forms, and the fact that $\omega$ is closed tells us that $d\phi\wedge\theta=\phi\wedge d\theta$. It follows (make sure you work out why) that $d\phi\wedge\theta\wedge\phi = d\theta\wedge\theta\wedge\phi = 0$, and so the ideal $\langle \phi,\theta\rangle$ is a differential ideal, hence defines an involutive distribution. This means that there are local coordinates $(x^1,\dots,x^n)$ on $M$ near $p$ so that $\phi = f_1 dx^1 + f_2 dx^2$ and $\theta = g_1 dx^1+ g_2 dx^2$ for some functions $f_i,g_i$. Can you finish the argument?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So I wrote down what I think is my solution below, but I thin I made a mistake. I'm not quite sure how $d\theta \wedge \theta \wedge \phi$ implies $d\theta$ and similarly $d\phi$ are in the Ideal. I tried to say something about linear dependence, but that is a pointwise statement... any more hints? $\endgroup$ – TheManWhoNeverSleeps Jan 2 '15 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ I made some edits to rectify my error. $\endgroup$ – TheManWhoNeverSleeps Jan 2 '15 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ We're only working locally. Since $\phi$, $\theta$ are linearly independent, we can extend them (on a neighborhood of $p$) to a basis for the $1$-forms. From that you can certainly prove that if $\omega\wedge\phi\wedge\theta = 0$, then $\omega\in\langle \phi,\theta\rangle$. You cannot assert that $\omega\in\langle \phi\wedge\theta\rangle$. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Jan 2 '15 at 19:17
  • $\begingroup$ Yup, I think I fixed it below in my answer. Mind taking a look? Though I see what you mean, I could have proven it more nicely without the slightly round about way I did it below. $\endgroup$ – TheManWhoNeverSleeps Jan 2 '15 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ No need to hurry, thanks :) $\endgroup$ – TheManWhoNeverSleeps Jan 2 '15 at 21:29
4
$\begingroup$

So with some guidance from @TedShifrin I think I got it.

First since $\omega$ is decomposable and closed taking the exterior derivative, $0=d\phi \wedge \theta -(1) \phi \wedge d\theta$. Hence, $d\phi \wedge \theta = \phi \wedge d\theta$. Wedging the expression with $\phi$ gives $d\phi \wedge \theta \wedge \phi=0$, since the right side has $\phi \wedge \phi$ in there. Similarly, $d\theta \wedge \theta \wedge \phi =0 $.

Hence, $d\theta$ and $d\phi$ are linearly dependent on $\theta \wedge \phi$, hence $d\theta, d\phi \in \langle \theta, \phi \rangle $.

The above sentence is incorrect (I have not figured out how to cross it out. I would like to leave it there for instructional purposes).

Rather, I need to prove the following general identity: Let $\omega^1, ... \omega^k$ be locally defining independent one forms for a $n-k$ rank distribution $D$. Then $D$ is involutive iff $d\omega^i \wedge \omega^1 \wedge ... \wedge \omega^k =0$ for all $1\leq i \leq k$. One direction is standard by the $1$-form criterion for involutivity, which says that $D$ is involutive iff for any 1-form $\eta$ annihilating $D$, $d\eta$ annihilates $D$.

Conversely, suppose the above holds. Take the independent $\omega^1, ...\omega^k$ and extend to a smooth local coframe $\{ \omega^1, ...\omega^k, \alpha^{k+1}, ... \alpha^n \}$ with a dual frame $\{ E_1, ... E_k, A_{k+1},...A_n \}$. Note the $A_j$'s span $D$ Then $d\omega^{i}=\Sigma b_{ij}\omega^{i}\wedge \omega^{j} + \Sigma c_{kl} \omega^{k} \wedge \alpha^{l} + \Sigma d_{xy}\alpha^{x}\wedge \alpha^{y}$ with sums over appropriate increasing indices.

Now, wedge this with $\omega^1 \wedge ... \wedge \omega^k$ and evaluate at $(A_x, A_y, E_1, ..., E_k)$. This then shows $d_{xy}=0$. Hence in fact $d\omega^{i}=\Sigma b_{ij}\omega^{i}\wedge \omega^{j} + \Sigma c_{kl} \omega^{k} \wedge \alpha^{l}$ which when evaluated at any $(A_x, A_y)$ is equal to zero. Hence by the 1-form criterion $D$ is involutive.

Now the next paragraph can in fact be skipped.

Thus, if $\lambda=\alpha \wedge \theta + \beta \wedge \phi$, we have $d\lambda=d\alpha \wedge \theta - \alpha \wedge d\theta + d\beta \wedge \phi - \beta \wedge d\phi \in \langle \theta, \phi \rangle$, hence the ideal is a differential ideal.

Thus $D$ defines and involutive distribution, which is integrable by the Frobenius theorem.

Thus there is a flat chart where the distribution, call it $D$ is spanned by $\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{3}}, ... , \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{n}}$ and annihilated by the defining $1$-forms $\theta, \phi$. The only way for this to happen is for $\theta = f_{1}dx^1 + f_{2}dx^2$ and $\phi = g_{1}dx^1 + g_{2}dx^2$ Taking the wedge, we get $\omega =(g_{1}f_{2}-g_{2}f_{1})dx^1 \wedge dx^2=F(x^1, ..., x^n)dx^1\wedge dx^2$.

Now let us take the exterior derivative of $\omega.$ $d\omega=\Sigma \frac{\partial F}{\partial x^k}dx^k \wedge dx^1 \wedge dx^2=0$ implying the partial derivatives vanish. Hence $F=F(x^1, x^2)$

Now define a new coordinate system by $y^1=\int_{0}^{x^1}F(t, x^2)dt, y^2=x^2, ... , y^n=x^n$. The Jacobian of this transform is non-zero. Further $dy^1=Fdx^1+ \frac{\partial}{\partial x^2}(y^1=\int_{0}^{x^1}F(t, x^2)dt)dx^2.$ Hence in this coordinate system $\omega=Fdx^1 \wedge dx^2=dy^1 \wedge dy^2$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ OK, typographical issue: You have a few $w^i$ that should be $\omega^i$. I think you can make the argument clearer by treating any $k$-form, rather than $d\omega^i$ with all the product rule stuff. More serious point: You do not know that $f_i,g_i$ are functions of $(x^1,x^2)$ only. So you need to repair the end ... $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Jan 2 '15 at 22:01
  • $\begingroup$ Ah yes, I see. Thank you for all the help! $\endgroup$ – TheManWhoNeverSleeps Jan 2 '15 at 22:07
  • $\begingroup$ You've messed up your product rule, now :( But the end is still no good. If I have $\omega = x^3 dx^1\wedge dx^2$, I'm never going to change coordinates to make $\omega = dy^1\wedge dy^2$. Sorry to be a pain :P $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Jan 2 '15 at 23:08
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, not product rule. The point is that $d\omega^i$ shouldn't have any $d$'s on the right-hand-side. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Jan 2 '15 at 23:22
  • $\begingroup$ No, it's all right. I will think about this a bit more. $\endgroup$ – TheManWhoNeverSleeps Jan 2 '15 at 23:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.