First proof of Poincaré Lemma












7












$begingroup$


I know that a way of proving Poincare lemma is to use the homotopy invariance and contractibility of the Euclidean space. Is there is a way of doing it directly (without using the contractibility of $mathbb{R}^n$)?
What was the first proof of this statement ? I wish to know all the different ways of proving this lemma. Please provide references. Thanks !










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I know a proof which uses a linear operator $t$ on smooth forms s.t. $dt+td=id$: so, if $omega$ is closed, then $dtomega=omega$ and $theta:=tomega$ gives the solution (i.e. proves that $omega$ is exact). Would you like it in an answer?
    $endgroup$
    – Avitus
    Nov 10 '13 at 21:03








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Avitus May be you mean $dt+td=i$. I think it would definitely be helpful if you could outline this or give a reference.
    $endgroup$
    – user90041
    Nov 11 '13 at 2:06










  • $begingroup$
    @Avitus The original reason why I asked this question was that if I expand the given form as linear combination of wedge product of the coordinate 1-forms, I can see that Poincare lemma is a statement about existence of a solution to a set of partial differential equations. If there is another proof of this lemma using the theory of PDEs, I would like to learn that as well.
    $endgroup$
    – user90041
    Nov 11 '13 at 2:13






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    According to Dieudonné's book on the history of algebraic and differential topology, it appears in Volterra, Opere mathematiche vol. I pp. 407-422 for the first time, but "in a different language" (whatever that's ought to mean) and the next appearance is E. Cartan's book Leçons sur le Invariants Intégraux 1922. I don't know these books, but I expect that at least the latter is readable and can easily be turned into a rigorous proof in modern language.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben
    Nov 11 '13 at 22:52
















7












$begingroup$


I know that a way of proving Poincare lemma is to use the homotopy invariance and contractibility of the Euclidean space. Is there is a way of doing it directly (without using the contractibility of $mathbb{R}^n$)?
What was the first proof of this statement ? I wish to know all the different ways of proving this lemma. Please provide references. Thanks !










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I know a proof which uses a linear operator $t$ on smooth forms s.t. $dt+td=id$: so, if $omega$ is closed, then $dtomega=omega$ and $theta:=tomega$ gives the solution (i.e. proves that $omega$ is exact). Would you like it in an answer?
    $endgroup$
    – Avitus
    Nov 10 '13 at 21:03








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Avitus May be you mean $dt+td=i$. I think it would definitely be helpful if you could outline this or give a reference.
    $endgroup$
    – user90041
    Nov 11 '13 at 2:06










  • $begingroup$
    @Avitus The original reason why I asked this question was that if I expand the given form as linear combination of wedge product of the coordinate 1-forms, I can see that Poincare lemma is a statement about existence of a solution to a set of partial differential equations. If there is another proof of this lemma using the theory of PDEs, I would like to learn that as well.
    $endgroup$
    – user90041
    Nov 11 '13 at 2:13






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    According to Dieudonné's book on the history of algebraic and differential topology, it appears in Volterra, Opere mathematiche vol. I pp. 407-422 for the first time, but "in a different language" (whatever that's ought to mean) and the next appearance is E. Cartan's book Leçons sur le Invariants Intégraux 1922. I don't know these books, but I expect that at least the latter is readable and can easily be turned into a rigorous proof in modern language.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben
    Nov 11 '13 at 22:52














7












7








7


6



$begingroup$


I know that a way of proving Poincare lemma is to use the homotopy invariance and contractibility of the Euclidean space. Is there is a way of doing it directly (without using the contractibility of $mathbb{R}^n$)?
What was the first proof of this statement ? I wish to know all the different ways of proving this lemma. Please provide references. Thanks !










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I know that a way of proving Poincare lemma is to use the homotopy invariance and contractibility of the Euclidean space. Is there is a way of doing it directly (without using the contractibility of $mathbb{R}^n$)?
What was the first proof of this statement ? I wish to know all the different ways of proving this lemma. Please provide references. Thanks !







reference-request differential-geometry manifolds homology-cohomology






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 7 '13 at 16:30









user90041user90041

1,7791233




1,7791233








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I know a proof which uses a linear operator $t$ on smooth forms s.t. $dt+td=id$: so, if $omega$ is closed, then $dtomega=omega$ and $theta:=tomega$ gives the solution (i.e. proves that $omega$ is exact). Would you like it in an answer?
    $endgroup$
    – Avitus
    Nov 10 '13 at 21:03








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Avitus May be you mean $dt+td=i$. I think it would definitely be helpful if you could outline this or give a reference.
    $endgroup$
    – user90041
    Nov 11 '13 at 2:06










  • $begingroup$
    @Avitus The original reason why I asked this question was that if I expand the given form as linear combination of wedge product of the coordinate 1-forms, I can see that Poincare lemma is a statement about existence of a solution to a set of partial differential equations. If there is another proof of this lemma using the theory of PDEs, I would like to learn that as well.
    $endgroup$
    – user90041
    Nov 11 '13 at 2:13






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    According to Dieudonné's book on the history of algebraic and differential topology, it appears in Volterra, Opere mathematiche vol. I pp. 407-422 for the first time, but "in a different language" (whatever that's ought to mean) and the next appearance is E. Cartan's book Leçons sur le Invariants Intégraux 1922. I don't know these books, but I expect that at least the latter is readable and can easily be turned into a rigorous proof in modern language.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben
    Nov 11 '13 at 22:52














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    I know a proof which uses a linear operator $t$ on smooth forms s.t. $dt+td=id$: so, if $omega$ is closed, then $dtomega=omega$ and $theta:=tomega$ gives the solution (i.e. proves that $omega$ is exact). Would you like it in an answer?
    $endgroup$
    – Avitus
    Nov 10 '13 at 21:03








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Avitus May be you mean $dt+td=i$. I think it would definitely be helpful if you could outline this or give a reference.
    $endgroup$
    – user90041
    Nov 11 '13 at 2:06










  • $begingroup$
    @Avitus The original reason why I asked this question was that if I expand the given form as linear combination of wedge product of the coordinate 1-forms, I can see that Poincare lemma is a statement about existence of a solution to a set of partial differential equations. If there is another proof of this lemma using the theory of PDEs, I would like to learn that as well.
    $endgroup$
    – user90041
    Nov 11 '13 at 2:13






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    According to Dieudonné's book on the history of algebraic and differential topology, it appears in Volterra, Opere mathematiche vol. I pp. 407-422 for the first time, but "in a different language" (whatever that's ought to mean) and the next appearance is E. Cartan's book Leçons sur le Invariants Intégraux 1922. I don't know these books, but I expect that at least the latter is readable and can easily be turned into a rigorous proof in modern language.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben
    Nov 11 '13 at 22:52








2




2




$begingroup$
I know a proof which uses a linear operator $t$ on smooth forms s.t. $dt+td=id$: so, if $omega$ is closed, then $dtomega=omega$ and $theta:=tomega$ gives the solution (i.e. proves that $omega$ is exact). Would you like it in an answer?
$endgroup$
– Avitus
Nov 10 '13 at 21:03






$begingroup$
I know a proof which uses a linear operator $t$ on smooth forms s.t. $dt+td=id$: so, if $omega$ is closed, then $dtomega=omega$ and $theta:=tomega$ gives the solution (i.e. proves that $omega$ is exact). Would you like it in an answer?
$endgroup$
– Avitus
Nov 10 '13 at 21:03






1




1




$begingroup$
@Avitus May be you mean $dt+td=i$. I think it would definitely be helpful if you could outline this or give a reference.
$endgroup$
– user90041
Nov 11 '13 at 2:06




$begingroup$
@Avitus May be you mean $dt+td=i$. I think it would definitely be helpful if you could outline this or give a reference.
$endgroup$
– user90041
Nov 11 '13 at 2:06












$begingroup$
@Avitus The original reason why I asked this question was that if I expand the given form as linear combination of wedge product of the coordinate 1-forms, I can see that Poincare lemma is a statement about existence of a solution to a set of partial differential equations. If there is another proof of this lemma using the theory of PDEs, I would like to learn that as well.
$endgroup$
– user90041
Nov 11 '13 at 2:13




$begingroup$
@Avitus The original reason why I asked this question was that if I expand the given form as linear combination of wedge product of the coordinate 1-forms, I can see that Poincare lemma is a statement about existence of a solution to a set of partial differential equations. If there is another proof of this lemma using the theory of PDEs, I would like to learn that as well.
$endgroup$
– user90041
Nov 11 '13 at 2:13




2




2




$begingroup$
According to Dieudonné's book on the history of algebraic and differential topology, it appears in Volterra, Opere mathematiche vol. I pp. 407-422 for the first time, but "in a different language" (whatever that's ought to mean) and the next appearance is E. Cartan's book Leçons sur le Invariants Intégraux 1922. I don't know these books, but I expect that at least the latter is readable and can easily be turned into a rigorous proof in modern language.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Nov 11 '13 at 22:52




$begingroup$
According to Dieudonné's book on the history of algebraic and differential topology, it appears in Volterra, Opere mathematiche vol. I pp. 407-422 for the first time, but "in a different language" (whatever that's ought to mean) and the next appearance is E. Cartan's book Leçons sur le Invariants Intégraux 1922. I don't know these books, but I expect that at least the latter is readable and can easily be turned into a rigorous proof in modern language.
$endgroup$
– Ben
Nov 11 '13 at 22:52










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

We want to show that on $mathbb R^n$, all closed forms of degree $pgeq 1$ are exact. To do so we construct a linear operator



$$alpha:Omega^p(mathbb R^n) rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb R^n) $$



s.t. $$dalpha+alpha d=1.$$



Let $omega$ be a closed $p$-form. Then, for any $xinmathbb R^n$ we define



$$(alpha omega)(x):=int_0^1 t^{p-1}i_xomega(tx)dt, $$



where $i_x$ is the interior product operator.
Then (by Cartan's magic formula)



$$begin{aligned}
((dalpha + alpha d)omega)(x) & = int_0^1 t^pmathcal L_xomega(tx)dt \
& =(text{use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative}) \
& = int_0^1frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))dt=omega(x) end{aligned} $$



and we are done. The diff. form $theta:=t(omega)$ is the exact form we need.



edit: For the chain rule step one wants to consider the pull-back $M_t^* omega$ where $M_t : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^n$ is scalar multiplication by $t$. i.e. $t^p omega(tx) = M_t^* omega (x)$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I am having trouble following your last chain of equalities. I do not quite see how you "use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative," nor how you get $t^p$ instead of $t^{p-1}$ in the first equality.
    $endgroup$
    – Lucky
    Feb 4 '18 at 17:41



















3












$begingroup$

We describe a linear functional $alpha : Omega^p mathbb R^n to Omega^{p-1} mathbb R^n$. The space alternating $p$-linear functions on $mathbb R^n$ has dimension $n choose p$, and you can write the basis as $dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ where $1 leq i_1 < i_2 < cdots < i_p leq n$.
If $I = (i_1, i_2, cdots, i_p)$ is such a multi-index let $dx_I = dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$. Let $I_1$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1=1$ and let $I_2$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1 > 1$.



Given a $p$-form $f dx_I$ with $f: mathbb R^n to mathbb R$ we define $alpha$ linearly, by $alpha (f dx_I) = 0$ if $I in I_2$. $alpha (fdx_I) = left(int_0^{x_1} f dx_1right) dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ if $I in I_1$. You can think of $alpha$ is a type of `total contraction' of the form in the coordinate $x_1$-direction.



It's fairly direct to check that
$$ d(alpha(omega)) + alpha(d omega) = omega - pi^*(i^* omega)$$
for every $p$-form $omega$. Here $i : mathbb R^{n-1} to mathbb R^n$ is
the inclusion $i(x_2,cdots,x_n) = (0,x_2,cdots,x_n)$ and $pi : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^{n-1}$ is projection $pi(x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n) = (x_2,cdots,x_n)$.



So this is a less technically-sophisticated argument than Avitus's but it might be a little simpler to follow conceptually. In the end you reduce showing a closed $p$-form on $mathbb R^n$ is exact to solving the problem for one smaller $n$. Dimension $p=n$ is the base case, where the above formula starts the induction.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This looks very similar to Bott&Tu's proof!
    $endgroup$
    – Bombyx mori
    May 22 '16 at 5:13



















1












$begingroup$

The above calculation in more detail. Define $h_k:Omega^p(mathbb{R}^n)rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb{R}^n)$ by,
begin{eqnarray}
h_k(omega)(x)=int_0^1t^{p-1}i_Xomega(tx)dt
end{eqnarray}

where $X=sum_ix^ipartial_i$, this generates the one parameter group of diffeomorphisms $Phi_s:x^imapsto e^sx^i=:y^i$. To see this note that $X^i(t)=frac{dx^i(t)}{dt}=x^i(t)$, hence we solve this ODE to find the stated solution. Now,
begin{eqnarray}
((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)&=&int_0^1t^{p-1}Big(d(i_Xomega)+i_X(domega)Big)(tx)dt\
&=&int_0^1t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)(tx)dt
end{eqnarray}

Then from the definition of the Lie derivative in terms of the pullback,
begin{eqnarray}
(mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x
end{eqnarray}

Now we can compute the pullback explicitly,
begin{eqnarray}
[((Phi_s)^*omega)_x]_{k_1...k_p}=frac{partial y^{i_1}}{partial x^{k_1}}...frac{partial y^{i_p}}{partial x^{k_p}}[omega_{Phi_s(x)}]_{i_1...i_p}=e^{ps}[omega_{e^sx}]_{k_1...k_p}
end{eqnarray}

Due to linearity we can restrict to the simple case where $omega(x)=f(x)dx^I$. Therefore,
begin{eqnarray}
(mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x=pomega_x+x^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(x)dx^I
end{eqnarray}

Therefore,
begin{eqnarray}
t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)_{tx}&=&t^{p-1}Big(pomega_{tx}+tx^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(tx)dx^IBig)\
&=&frac{d}{dt}Big(t^pf(tx)dx^IBig)=frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))
end{eqnarray}

Hence,
begin{eqnarray}
((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)=t^pomega(tx)|_{t=0}^1=omega(x)
end{eqnarray}

Therefore since $omega$ is closed, $domega=0$ so $mathcal{L}_Xomega=d(i_Xomega)$ and hence $d_{k-1}h_komega=omega$, i.e. $omega$ is exact.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f555783%2ffirst-proof-of-poincar%25c3%25a9-lemma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    11












    $begingroup$

    We want to show that on $mathbb R^n$, all closed forms of degree $pgeq 1$ are exact. To do so we construct a linear operator



    $$alpha:Omega^p(mathbb R^n) rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb R^n) $$



    s.t. $$dalpha+alpha d=1.$$



    Let $omega$ be a closed $p$-form. Then, for any $xinmathbb R^n$ we define



    $$(alpha omega)(x):=int_0^1 t^{p-1}i_xomega(tx)dt, $$



    where $i_x$ is the interior product operator.
    Then (by Cartan's magic formula)



    $$begin{aligned}
    ((dalpha + alpha d)omega)(x) & = int_0^1 t^pmathcal L_xomega(tx)dt \
    & =(text{use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative}) \
    & = int_0^1frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))dt=omega(x) end{aligned} $$



    and we are done. The diff. form $theta:=t(omega)$ is the exact form we need.



    edit: For the chain rule step one wants to consider the pull-back $M_t^* omega$ where $M_t : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^n$ is scalar multiplication by $t$. i.e. $t^p omega(tx) = M_t^* omega (x)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I am having trouble following your last chain of equalities. I do not quite see how you "use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative," nor how you get $t^p$ instead of $t^{p-1}$ in the first equality.
      $endgroup$
      – Lucky
      Feb 4 '18 at 17:41
















    11












    $begingroup$

    We want to show that on $mathbb R^n$, all closed forms of degree $pgeq 1$ are exact. To do so we construct a linear operator



    $$alpha:Omega^p(mathbb R^n) rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb R^n) $$



    s.t. $$dalpha+alpha d=1.$$



    Let $omega$ be a closed $p$-form. Then, for any $xinmathbb R^n$ we define



    $$(alpha omega)(x):=int_0^1 t^{p-1}i_xomega(tx)dt, $$



    where $i_x$ is the interior product operator.
    Then (by Cartan's magic formula)



    $$begin{aligned}
    ((dalpha + alpha d)omega)(x) & = int_0^1 t^pmathcal L_xomega(tx)dt \
    & =(text{use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative}) \
    & = int_0^1frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))dt=omega(x) end{aligned} $$



    and we are done. The diff. form $theta:=t(omega)$ is the exact form we need.



    edit: For the chain rule step one wants to consider the pull-back $M_t^* omega$ where $M_t : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^n$ is scalar multiplication by $t$. i.e. $t^p omega(tx) = M_t^* omega (x)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I am having trouble following your last chain of equalities. I do not quite see how you "use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative," nor how you get $t^p$ instead of $t^{p-1}$ in the first equality.
      $endgroup$
      – Lucky
      Feb 4 '18 at 17:41














    11












    11








    11





    $begingroup$

    We want to show that on $mathbb R^n$, all closed forms of degree $pgeq 1$ are exact. To do so we construct a linear operator



    $$alpha:Omega^p(mathbb R^n) rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb R^n) $$



    s.t. $$dalpha+alpha d=1.$$



    Let $omega$ be a closed $p$-form. Then, for any $xinmathbb R^n$ we define



    $$(alpha omega)(x):=int_0^1 t^{p-1}i_xomega(tx)dt, $$



    where $i_x$ is the interior product operator.
    Then (by Cartan's magic formula)



    $$begin{aligned}
    ((dalpha + alpha d)omega)(x) & = int_0^1 t^pmathcal L_xomega(tx)dt \
    & =(text{use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative}) \
    & = int_0^1frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))dt=omega(x) end{aligned} $$



    and we are done. The diff. form $theta:=t(omega)$ is the exact form we need.



    edit: For the chain rule step one wants to consider the pull-back $M_t^* omega$ where $M_t : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^n$ is scalar multiplication by $t$. i.e. $t^p omega(tx) = M_t^* omega (x)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    We want to show that on $mathbb R^n$, all closed forms of degree $pgeq 1$ are exact. To do so we construct a linear operator



    $$alpha:Omega^p(mathbb R^n) rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb R^n) $$



    s.t. $$dalpha+alpha d=1.$$



    Let $omega$ be a closed $p$-form. Then, for any $xinmathbb R^n$ we define



    $$(alpha omega)(x):=int_0^1 t^{p-1}i_xomega(tx)dt, $$



    where $i_x$ is the interior product operator.
    Then (by Cartan's magic formula)



    $$begin{aligned}
    ((dalpha + alpha d)omega)(x) & = int_0^1 t^pmathcal L_xomega(tx)dt \
    & =(text{use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative}) \
    & = int_0^1frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))dt=omega(x) end{aligned} $$



    and we are done. The diff. form $theta:=t(omega)$ is the exact form we need.



    edit: For the chain rule step one wants to consider the pull-back $M_t^* omega$ where $M_t : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^n$ is scalar multiplication by $t$. i.e. $t^p omega(tx) = M_t^* omega (x)$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Mar 4 '15 at 6:02









    Ryan Budney

    19.9k35496




    19.9k35496










    answered Nov 11 '13 at 21:28









    AvitusAvitus

    11.7k11841




    11.7k11841












    • $begingroup$
      I am having trouble following your last chain of equalities. I do not quite see how you "use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative," nor how you get $t^p$ instead of $t^{p-1}$ in the first equality.
      $endgroup$
      – Lucky
      Feb 4 '18 at 17:41


















    • $begingroup$
      I am having trouble following your last chain of equalities. I do not quite see how you "use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative," nor how you get $t^p$ instead of $t^{p-1}$ in the first equality.
      $endgroup$
      – Lucky
      Feb 4 '18 at 17:41
















    $begingroup$
    I am having trouble following your last chain of equalities. I do not quite see how you "use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative," nor how you get $t^p$ instead of $t^{p-1}$ in the first equality.
    $endgroup$
    – Lucky
    Feb 4 '18 at 17:41




    $begingroup$
    I am having trouble following your last chain of equalities. I do not quite see how you "use chain rule and pull-back definition of Lie derivative," nor how you get $t^p$ instead of $t^{p-1}$ in the first equality.
    $endgroup$
    – Lucky
    Feb 4 '18 at 17:41











    3












    $begingroup$

    We describe a linear functional $alpha : Omega^p mathbb R^n to Omega^{p-1} mathbb R^n$. The space alternating $p$-linear functions on $mathbb R^n$ has dimension $n choose p$, and you can write the basis as $dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ where $1 leq i_1 < i_2 < cdots < i_p leq n$.
    If $I = (i_1, i_2, cdots, i_p)$ is such a multi-index let $dx_I = dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$. Let $I_1$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1=1$ and let $I_2$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1 > 1$.



    Given a $p$-form $f dx_I$ with $f: mathbb R^n to mathbb R$ we define $alpha$ linearly, by $alpha (f dx_I) = 0$ if $I in I_2$. $alpha (fdx_I) = left(int_0^{x_1} f dx_1right) dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ if $I in I_1$. You can think of $alpha$ is a type of `total contraction' of the form in the coordinate $x_1$-direction.



    It's fairly direct to check that
    $$ d(alpha(omega)) + alpha(d omega) = omega - pi^*(i^* omega)$$
    for every $p$-form $omega$. Here $i : mathbb R^{n-1} to mathbb R^n$ is
    the inclusion $i(x_2,cdots,x_n) = (0,x_2,cdots,x_n)$ and $pi : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^{n-1}$ is projection $pi(x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n) = (x_2,cdots,x_n)$.



    So this is a less technically-sophisticated argument than Avitus's but it might be a little simpler to follow conceptually. In the end you reduce showing a closed $p$-form on $mathbb R^n$ is exact to solving the problem for one smaller $n$. Dimension $p=n$ is the base case, where the above formula starts the induction.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This looks very similar to Bott&Tu's proof!
      $endgroup$
      – Bombyx mori
      May 22 '16 at 5:13
















    3












    $begingroup$

    We describe a linear functional $alpha : Omega^p mathbb R^n to Omega^{p-1} mathbb R^n$. The space alternating $p$-linear functions on $mathbb R^n$ has dimension $n choose p$, and you can write the basis as $dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ where $1 leq i_1 < i_2 < cdots < i_p leq n$.
    If $I = (i_1, i_2, cdots, i_p)$ is such a multi-index let $dx_I = dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$. Let $I_1$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1=1$ and let $I_2$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1 > 1$.



    Given a $p$-form $f dx_I$ with $f: mathbb R^n to mathbb R$ we define $alpha$ linearly, by $alpha (f dx_I) = 0$ if $I in I_2$. $alpha (fdx_I) = left(int_0^{x_1} f dx_1right) dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ if $I in I_1$. You can think of $alpha$ is a type of `total contraction' of the form in the coordinate $x_1$-direction.



    It's fairly direct to check that
    $$ d(alpha(omega)) + alpha(d omega) = omega - pi^*(i^* omega)$$
    for every $p$-form $omega$. Here $i : mathbb R^{n-1} to mathbb R^n$ is
    the inclusion $i(x_2,cdots,x_n) = (0,x_2,cdots,x_n)$ and $pi : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^{n-1}$ is projection $pi(x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n) = (x_2,cdots,x_n)$.



    So this is a less technically-sophisticated argument than Avitus's but it might be a little simpler to follow conceptually. In the end you reduce showing a closed $p$-form on $mathbb R^n$ is exact to solving the problem for one smaller $n$. Dimension $p=n$ is the base case, where the above formula starts the induction.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      This looks very similar to Bott&Tu's proof!
      $endgroup$
      – Bombyx mori
      May 22 '16 at 5:13














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    We describe a linear functional $alpha : Omega^p mathbb R^n to Omega^{p-1} mathbb R^n$. The space alternating $p$-linear functions on $mathbb R^n$ has dimension $n choose p$, and you can write the basis as $dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ where $1 leq i_1 < i_2 < cdots < i_p leq n$.
    If $I = (i_1, i_2, cdots, i_p)$ is such a multi-index let $dx_I = dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$. Let $I_1$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1=1$ and let $I_2$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1 > 1$.



    Given a $p$-form $f dx_I$ with $f: mathbb R^n to mathbb R$ we define $alpha$ linearly, by $alpha (f dx_I) = 0$ if $I in I_2$. $alpha (fdx_I) = left(int_0^{x_1} f dx_1right) dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ if $I in I_1$. You can think of $alpha$ is a type of `total contraction' of the form in the coordinate $x_1$-direction.



    It's fairly direct to check that
    $$ d(alpha(omega)) + alpha(d omega) = omega - pi^*(i^* omega)$$
    for every $p$-form $omega$. Here $i : mathbb R^{n-1} to mathbb R^n$ is
    the inclusion $i(x_2,cdots,x_n) = (0,x_2,cdots,x_n)$ and $pi : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^{n-1}$ is projection $pi(x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n) = (x_2,cdots,x_n)$.



    So this is a less technically-sophisticated argument than Avitus's but it might be a little simpler to follow conceptually. In the end you reduce showing a closed $p$-form on $mathbb R^n$ is exact to solving the problem for one smaller $n$. Dimension $p=n$ is the base case, where the above formula starts the induction.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    We describe a linear functional $alpha : Omega^p mathbb R^n to Omega^{p-1} mathbb R^n$. The space alternating $p$-linear functions on $mathbb R^n$ has dimension $n choose p$, and you can write the basis as $dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ where $1 leq i_1 < i_2 < cdots < i_p leq n$.
    If $I = (i_1, i_2, cdots, i_p)$ is such a multi-index let $dx_I = dx_{i_1} wedge dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$. Let $I_1$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1=1$ and let $I_2$ be the collection of multi-indices with $i_1 > 1$.



    Given a $p$-form $f dx_I$ with $f: mathbb R^n to mathbb R$ we define $alpha$ linearly, by $alpha (f dx_I) = 0$ if $I in I_2$. $alpha (fdx_I) = left(int_0^{x_1} f dx_1right) dx_{i_2} wedge cdots wedge dx_{i_p}$ if $I in I_1$. You can think of $alpha$ is a type of `total contraction' of the form in the coordinate $x_1$-direction.



    It's fairly direct to check that
    $$ d(alpha(omega)) + alpha(d omega) = omega - pi^*(i^* omega)$$
    for every $p$-form $omega$. Here $i : mathbb R^{n-1} to mathbb R^n$ is
    the inclusion $i(x_2,cdots,x_n) = (0,x_2,cdots,x_n)$ and $pi : mathbb R^n to mathbb R^{n-1}$ is projection $pi(x_1,x_2,cdots,x_n) = (x_2,cdots,x_n)$.



    So this is a less technically-sophisticated argument than Avitus's but it might be a little simpler to follow conceptually. In the end you reduce showing a closed $p$-form on $mathbb R^n$ is exact to solving the problem for one smaller $n$. Dimension $p=n$ is the base case, where the above formula starts the induction.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Mar 25 '15 at 7:46









    Ryan BudneyRyan Budney

    19.9k35496




    19.9k35496












    • $begingroup$
      This looks very similar to Bott&Tu's proof!
      $endgroup$
      – Bombyx mori
      May 22 '16 at 5:13


















    • $begingroup$
      This looks very similar to Bott&Tu's proof!
      $endgroup$
      – Bombyx mori
      May 22 '16 at 5:13
















    $begingroup$
    This looks very similar to Bott&Tu's proof!
    $endgroup$
    – Bombyx mori
    May 22 '16 at 5:13




    $begingroup$
    This looks very similar to Bott&Tu's proof!
    $endgroup$
    – Bombyx mori
    May 22 '16 at 5:13











    1












    $begingroup$

    The above calculation in more detail. Define $h_k:Omega^p(mathbb{R}^n)rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb{R}^n)$ by,
    begin{eqnarray}
    h_k(omega)(x)=int_0^1t^{p-1}i_Xomega(tx)dt
    end{eqnarray}

    where $X=sum_ix^ipartial_i$, this generates the one parameter group of diffeomorphisms $Phi_s:x^imapsto e^sx^i=:y^i$. To see this note that $X^i(t)=frac{dx^i(t)}{dt}=x^i(t)$, hence we solve this ODE to find the stated solution. Now,
    begin{eqnarray}
    ((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)&=&int_0^1t^{p-1}Big(d(i_Xomega)+i_X(domega)Big)(tx)dt\
    &=&int_0^1t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)(tx)dt
    end{eqnarray}

    Then from the definition of the Lie derivative in terms of the pullback,
    begin{eqnarray}
    (mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x
    end{eqnarray}

    Now we can compute the pullback explicitly,
    begin{eqnarray}
    [((Phi_s)^*omega)_x]_{k_1...k_p}=frac{partial y^{i_1}}{partial x^{k_1}}...frac{partial y^{i_p}}{partial x^{k_p}}[omega_{Phi_s(x)}]_{i_1...i_p}=e^{ps}[omega_{e^sx}]_{k_1...k_p}
    end{eqnarray}

    Due to linearity we can restrict to the simple case where $omega(x)=f(x)dx^I$. Therefore,
    begin{eqnarray}
    (mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x=pomega_x+x^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(x)dx^I
    end{eqnarray}

    Therefore,
    begin{eqnarray}
    t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)_{tx}&=&t^{p-1}Big(pomega_{tx}+tx^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(tx)dx^IBig)\
    &=&frac{d}{dt}Big(t^pf(tx)dx^IBig)=frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))
    end{eqnarray}

    Hence,
    begin{eqnarray}
    ((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)=t^pomega(tx)|_{t=0}^1=omega(x)
    end{eqnarray}

    Therefore since $omega$ is closed, $domega=0$ so $mathcal{L}_Xomega=d(i_Xomega)$ and hence $d_{k-1}h_komega=omega$, i.e. $omega$ is exact.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      The above calculation in more detail. Define $h_k:Omega^p(mathbb{R}^n)rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb{R}^n)$ by,
      begin{eqnarray}
      h_k(omega)(x)=int_0^1t^{p-1}i_Xomega(tx)dt
      end{eqnarray}

      where $X=sum_ix^ipartial_i$, this generates the one parameter group of diffeomorphisms $Phi_s:x^imapsto e^sx^i=:y^i$. To see this note that $X^i(t)=frac{dx^i(t)}{dt}=x^i(t)$, hence we solve this ODE to find the stated solution. Now,
      begin{eqnarray}
      ((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)&=&int_0^1t^{p-1}Big(d(i_Xomega)+i_X(domega)Big)(tx)dt\
      &=&int_0^1t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)(tx)dt
      end{eqnarray}

      Then from the definition of the Lie derivative in terms of the pullback,
      begin{eqnarray}
      (mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x
      end{eqnarray}

      Now we can compute the pullback explicitly,
      begin{eqnarray}
      [((Phi_s)^*omega)_x]_{k_1...k_p}=frac{partial y^{i_1}}{partial x^{k_1}}...frac{partial y^{i_p}}{partial x^{k_p}}[omega_{Phi_s(x)}]_{i_1...i_p}=e^{ps}[omega_{e^sx}]_{k_1...k_p}
      end{eqnarray}

      Due to linearity we can restrict to the simple case where $omega(x)=f(x)dx^I$. Therefore,
      begin{eqnarray}
      (mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x=pomega_x+x^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(x)dx^I
      end{eqnarray}

      Therefore,
      begin{eqnarray}
      t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)_{tx}&=&t^{p-1}Big(pomega_{tx}+tx^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(tx)dx^IBig)\
      &=&frac{d}{dt}Big(t^pf(tx)dx^IBig)=frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))
      end{eqnarray}

      Hence,
      begin{eqnarray}
      ((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)=t^pomega(tx)|_{t=0}^1=omega(x)
      end{eqnarray}

      Therefore since $omega$ is closed, $domega=0$ so $mathcal{L}_Xomega=d(i_Xomega)$ and hence $d_{k-1}h_komega=omega$, i.e. $omega$ is exact.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        The above calculation in more detail. Define $h_k:Omega^p(mathbb{R}^n)rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb{R}^n)$ by,
        begin{eqnarray}
        h_k(omega)(x)=int_0^1t^{p-1}i_Xomega(tx)dt
        end{eqnarray}

        where $X=sum_ix^ipartial_i$, this generates the one parameter group of diffeomorphisms $Phi_s:x^imapsto e^sx^i=:y^i$. To see this note that $X^i(t)=frac{dx^i(t)}{dt}=x^i(t)$, hence we solve this ODE to find the stated solution. Now,
        begin{eqnarray}
        ((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)&=&int_0^1t^{p-1}Big(d(i_Xomega)+i_X(domega)Big)(tx)dt\
        &=&int_0^1t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)(tx)dt
        end{eqnarray}

        Then from the definition of the Lie derivative in terms of the pullback,
        begin{eqnarray}
        (mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x
        end{eqnarray}

        Now we can compute the pullback explicitly,
        begin{eqnarray}
        [((Phi_s)^*omega)_x]_{k_1...k_p}=frac{partial y^{i_1}}{partial x^{k_1}}...frac{partial y^{i_p}}{partial x^{k_p}}[omega_{Phi_s(x)}]_{i_1...i_p}=e^{ps}[omega_{e^sx}]_{k_1...k_p}
        end{eqnarray}

        Due to linearity we can restrict to the simple case where $omega(x)=f(x)dx^I$. Therefore,
        begin{eqnarray}
        (mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x=pomega_x+x^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(x)dx^I
        end{eqnarray}

        Therefore,
        begin{eqnarray}
        t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)_{tx}&=&t^{p-1}Big(pomega_{tx}+tx^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(tx)dx^IBig)\
        &=&frac{d}{dt}Big(t^pf(tx)dx^IBig)=frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))
        end{eqnarray}

        Hence,
        begin{eqnarray}
        ((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)=t^pomega(tx)|_{t=0}^1=omega(x)
        end{eqnarray}

        Therefore since $omega$ is closed, $domega=0$ so $mathcal{L}_Xomega=d(i_Xomega)$ and hence $d_{k-1}h_komega=omega$, i.e. $omega$ is exact.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        The above calculation in more detail. Define $h_k:Omega^p(mathbb{R}^n)rightarrow Omega^{p-1}(mathbb{R}^n)$ by,
        begin{eqnarray}
        h_k(omega)(x)=int_0^1t^{p-1}i_Xomega(tx)dt
        end{eqnarray}

        where $X=sum_ix^ipartial_i$, this generates the one parameter group of diffeomorphisms $Phi_s:x^imapsto e^sx^i=:y^i$. To see this note that $X^i(t)=frac{dx^i(t)}{dt}=x^i(t)$, hence we solve this ODE to find the stated solution. Now,
        begin{eqnarray}
        ((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)&=&int_0^1t^{p-1}Big(d(i_Xomega)+i_X(domega)Big)(tx)dt\
        &=&int_0^1t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)(tx)dt
        end{eqnarray}

        Then from the definition of the Lie derivative in terms of the pullback,
        begin{eqnarray}
        (mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x
        end{eqnarray}

        Now we can compute the pullback explicitly,
        begin{eqnarray}
        [((Phi_s)^*omega)_x]_{k_1...k_p}=frac{partial y^{i_1}}{partial x^{k_1}}...frac{partial y^{i_p}}{partial x^{k_p}}[omega_{Phi_s(x)}]_{i_1...i_p}=e^{ps}[omega_{e^sx}]_{k_1...k_p}
        end{eqnarray}

        Due to linearity we can restrict to the simple case where $omega(x)=f(x)dx^I$. Therefore,
        begin{eqnarray}
        (mathcal{L}_Xomega)_x=Big(frac{d}{ds}Big|_{s=0}(Phi_s)^*omegaBig)_x=pomega_x+x^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(x)dx^I
        end{eqnarray}

        Therefore,
        begin{eqnarray}
        t^{p-1}(mathcal{L}_Xomega)_{tx}&=&t^{p-1}Big(pomega_{tx}+tx^ifrac{partial f}{partial x^i}(tx)dx^IBig)\
        &=&frac{d}{dt}Big(t^pf(tx)dx^IBig)=frac{d}{dt}(t^pomega(tx))
        end{eqnarray}

        Hence,
        begin{eqnarray}
        ((h_{k+1}circ d_k+d_{k-1}circ h_k)omega)(x)=t^pomega(tx)|_{t=0}^1=omega(x)
        end{eqnarray}

        Therefore since $omega$ is closed, $domega=0$ so $mathcal{L}_Xomega=d(i_Xomega)$ and hence $d_{k-1}h_komega=omega$, i.e. $omega$ is exact.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 15 '18 at 14:16

























        answered Dec 15 '18 at 3:49









        Sam CollieSam Collie

        507




        507






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f555783%2ffirst-proof-of-poincar%25c3%25a9-lemma%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

            Aardman Animations

            Are they similar matrix