In Dusa McDuff and Dietmar Salamon's book Introduction to Symplectic Topology, lemma 6.1.3(page 253) states that:

Let $π\colon M\to B$ be a locally trivial fibration with connected base and $\omega \in \Omega^2(M)$ be a symplectic form such that the fibres are all symplectic submanifolds of M. Then $π\colon M\to B$ admits the structure of a symplectic fibration which is compatible with $\omega$.

Here we assume that $M$ is closed and connected, and the fibre $(F,\sigma)$ is itself a symplectic manifold. By compatible with $\omega$ we mean the restriction of $\omega$ to each fibre agrees with the pullback form of $\sigma$ along local trivializations. We use $l_b$ to denote the inclusion of the fibre $F_b$ at $b\in B$ into $M$.

Now the proof starts from an exercise:

First use Stokes’ theorem to prove that the symplectic forms $\sigma_b=l_b^*(\sigma)$ all represent the same cohomology class in $H^2(F)$ under the local trivializations ${\phi_{\alpha}}(b)\colon F_b\to F$.

My question is, how could we do this? I'm a beginner in studying symplectic topology. I feel (vaguely) this should be true because for any two points in $B$ we can connect them by a sequence of local charts. But how does Stoke's theorem come into play? Thanks.


Let $(U_i,f_i)$ be a trivialization of the fibration, where $f_i:U_i\times F\rightarrow M$. Consider $(u_0,b_0); (u_1,b_1)\in U_i\times F, u_0,u_1\in U_i, b_0,b_1\in F$. We suppose that there exists a path $p_t:[0,1]\rightarrow U_i\times F$ such that $p_0=(u_0,b_0)$ and $p_1=(u_1,b_1)$. This defines a map $P:[0,1]\times F\rightarrow M$ by $P(t,f)=f_i(p_t,f)$

Let $[c]\in H_2(F)$, it can be represented by a map $c:S\rightarrow F$ where $F$ is a surface. Consider $C:[0,1]\times S\rightarrow [0,1]\times F$ defined by $C(t,s)=(t,c(s))$, the $2$-form $\omega_S=C^*P^*\omega$ is closed, we deduce that $d\omega_S=0$, this implies that $\int_{[0,1]\times S}d\omega_S=\int_{0\times S}i_{u_0}^*\omega-\int_{S_1}i_{u_1}\omega=0$. This implies that $[\omega_{u_0}]=[\omega_{u_1}]$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Could you elaborate a bit? I think you mean $S$ is a surface? Also, in the last implication, we use the Poincare duality, right? $\endgroup$
    – W NIU
    Jul 1 '21 at 12:15
  • $\begingroup$ A surface here is a 2-dimensional manifold. $\endgroup$ Jul 1 '21 at 12:16

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.