Pullback of diffrential forms in surjective submersions












2












$begingroup$


I am trying to solve the following problem:




Let $M$ and $N$ be smooth manifolds, and suppose $P:Mto N$ is a surjective smooth submersion with connected fibers. Show that given $alpha in Omega^k(M)$ there exists $betain Omega^k(N)$ such that $alpha=P^*beta$ if and only if $iota_X alpha=0$ and $L_X alpha =0$ for every $X in ker(dP)$.




Solution



Let $alpha=P^*beta$, so by definition of pullback we have that:
begin{align}
alpha_x(X)=beta_{P(x)}(dP(X))
end{align}
for $x in M$ and $Xin T_xM$
If we take $X$ such that $Xin ker(dP)$, then $iota_X alpha = 0$.



To prove that $L_X alpha =0$, we will use Cartan's magic formula:
begin{align}
L_Xalpha= iota_X dalpha +d(iota_X alpha)
end{align}

We already have that the second term is zero for $Xin ker(dP)$.
Using the fact that $d(P^*beta)=P^*dbeta$, and the definition of pullback we get that the first term in Cartan's formula becomes $dbeta_{P(x)}(dP(X))=0$ if $Xin ker(dP)$.



Thus we have that $L_X alpha =0$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$.



Conversely, let us define the pullback in terms of local coordinates with $P:Mto N$ as $P(x_1,...,x_n,...,x_m)=(x_1,...,x_n)$.



Given $alpha in Omega^k(M)$, we can write it as
begin{align}
alpha = sum_{1}^{m}f_I(x_1,...,x_m) dx_I
end{align}

for $I=(x_1,...,x_m)$. By hypothesis, $iota_X alpha =0$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$. By the way we defined the pullback, the expression $Xin ker(dP)$ means that $X=c_iX_i$, where $X_i=0$ for $n<ileq m$.



The second condition $L_X alpha =0$, with cartan's formula and the first condition means that $iota_X dalpha=0$. Replacing we get:
begin{align}
dalpha = sum_{I,j}^{m}dfrac{f_I(x_1,...,x_n)}{partial(x_i)}dx_jwedge dx_I
end{align}

Evaluating on $Xin ker(dP)$, we get that the change of $f_I$ in the direction of $x_i$ is zero for $n<ileq m$. Then our conditions on alpha means that $f_I(x_1, ...,x_m)= f_I(x_1,...,x_n,0,...,0)$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$.



Let $g_J= f_Icirc P$, so we have that:
begin{align}
P^*alpha = sum_{I}^{m} f_Icirc P(x_1,...,x_m) dx_I=sum_{J}^{n} g_J(x_1,...,x_n) dx_J=beta
end{align}


Thus completing the proof.



I want to check this proof as I am not confident on the second part. I think I am missing something on how the $dx_i$ with $n<ileq m$ dissappear. Also I think I am messing something up with the indices but I can't say what exactly.
My professor explained me the main idea of the second part of the proof. I think I understand the general idea, but not enough to put it in rigorous terms.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This result is false. Here's a counterexample. Let $Pcolon mathbb R^2to mathbb S^1$ be the map $P(x,y) = (cos x, sin x)$, and let $alpha=x, dx$ on $mathbb R^2$. A vector field on $mathbb R^2$ is in the kernel of $dP$ at each point if and only if it is of the form $X = f(x,y) partial/partial y$ for some function $f$. For any such $X$, we have $i_Xalpha = 0$ and $mathscr L_Xalpha = d(i_Xalpha) + i_X(dalpha) = 0$. However, there is no $1$-form on $mathbb S^1$ whose pullback is equal to $alpha$. You need to add the additional hypothesis that the fibers of $P$ are connected.
    $endgroup$
    – Jack Lee
    Dec 30 '18 at 17:27










  • $begingroup$
    You are right. That hypothesis is missing
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:01










  • $begingroup$
    What are $iota_X$ and $L_X$?
    $endgroup$
    – D_S
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:06










  • $begingroup$
    $i_x omega$ is the contraction of $omega$ with respect to the vector field $X$. And $L_X$ is the lie derivative with respect to $X$
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:12
















2












$begingroup$


I am trying to solve the following problem:




Let $M$ and $N$ be smooth manifolds, and suppose $P:Mto N$ is a surjective smooth submersion with connected fibers. Show that given $alpha in Omega^k(M)$ there exists $betain Omega^k(N)$ such that $alpha=P^*beta$ if and only if $iota_X alpha=0$ and $L_X alpha =0$ for every $X in ker(dP)$.




Solution



Let $alpha=P^*beta$, so by definition of pullback we have that:
begin{align}
alpha_x(X)=beta_{P(x)}(dP(X))
end{align}
for $x in M$ and $Xin T_xM$
If we take $X$ such that $Xin ker(dP)$, then $iota_X alpha = 0$.



To prove that $L_X alpha =0$, we will use Cartan's magic formula:
begin{align}
L_Xalpha= iota_X dalpha +d(iota_X alpha)
end{align}

We already have that the second term is zero for $Xin ker(dP)$.
Using the fact that $d(P^*beta)=P^*dbeta$, and the definition of pullback we get that the first term in Cartan's formula becomes $dbeta_{P(x)}(dP(X))=0$ if $Xin ker(dP)$.



Thus we have that $L_X alpha =0$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$.



Conversely, let us define the pullback in terms of local coordinates with $P:Mto N$ as $P(x_1,...,x_n,...,x_m)=(x_1,...,x_n)$.



Given $alpha in Omega^k(M)$, we can write it as
begin{align}
alpha = sum_{1}^{m}f_I(x_1,...,x_m) dx_I
end{align}

for $I=(x_1,...,x_m)$. By hypothesis, $iota_X alpha =0$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$. By the way we defined the pullback, the expression $Xin ker(dP)$ means that $X=c_iX_i$, where $X_i=0$ for $n<ileq m$.



The second condition $L_X alpha =0$, with cartan's formula and the first condition means that $iota_X dalpha=0$. Replacing we get:
begin{align}
dalpha = sum_{I,j}^{m}dfrac{f_I(x_1,...,x_n)}{partial(x_i)}dx_jwedge dx_I
end{align}

Evaluating on $Xin ker(dP)$, we get that the change of $f_I$ in the direction of $x_i$ is zero for $n<ileq m$. Then our conditions on alpha means that $f_I(x_1, ...,x_m)= f_I(x_1,...,x_n,0,...,0)$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$.



Let $g_J= f_Icirc P$, so we have that:
begin{align}
P^*alpha = sum_{I}^{m} f_Icirc P(x_1,...,x_m) dx_I=sum_{J}^{n} g_J(x_1,...,x_n) dx_J=beta
end{align}


Thus completing the proof.



I want to check this proof as I am not confident on the second part. I think I am missing something on how the $dx_i$ with $n<ileq m$ dissappear. Also I think I am messing something up with the indices but I can't say what exactly.
My professor explained me the main idea of the second part of the proof. I think I understand the general idea, but not enough to put it in rigorous terms.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This result is false. Here's a counterexample. Let $Pcolon mathbb R^2to mathbb S^1$ be the map $P(x,y) = (cos x, sin x)$, and let $alpha=x, dx$ on $mathbb R^2$. A vector field on $mathbb R^2$ is in the kernel of $dP$ at each point if and only if it is of the form $X = f(x,y) partial/partial y$ for some function $f$. For any such $X$, we have $i_Xalpha = 0$ and $mathscr L_Xalpha = d(i_Xalpha) + i_X(dalpha) = 0$. However, there is no $1$-form on $mathbb S^1$ whose pullback is equal to $alpha$. You need to add the additional hypothesis that the fibers of $P$ are connected.
    $endgroup$
    – Jack Lee
    Dec 30 '18 at 17:27










  • $begingroup$
    You are right. That hypothesis is missing
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:01










  • $begingroup$
    What are $iota_X$ and $L_X$?
    $endgroup$
    – D_S
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:06










  • $begingroup$
    $i_x omega$ is the contraction of $omega$ with respect to the vector field $X$. And $L_X$ is the lie derivative with respect to $X$
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:12














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


I am trying to solve the following problem:




Let $M$ and $N$ be smooth manifolds, and suppose $P:Mto N$ is a surjective smooth submersion with connected fibers. Show that given $alpha in Omega^k(M)$ there exists $betain Omega^k(N)$ such that $alpha=P^*beta$ if and only if $iota_X alpha=0$ and $L_X alpha =0$ for every $X in ker(dP)$.




Solution



Let $alpha=P^*beta$, so by definition of pullback we have that:
begin{align}
alpha_x(X)=beta_{P(x)}(dP(X))
end{align}
for $x in M$ and $Xin T_xM$
If we take $X$ such that $Xin ker(dP)$, then $iota_X alpha = 0$.



To prove that $L_X alpha =0$, we will use Cartan's magic formula:
begin{align}
L_Xalpha= iota_X dalpha +d(iota_X alpha)
end{align}

We already have that the second term is zero for $Xin ker(dP)$.
Using the fact that $d(P^*beta)=P^*dbeta$, and the definition of pullback we get that the first term in Cartan's formula becomes $dbeta_{P(x)}(dP(X))=0$ if $Xin ker(dP)$.



Thus we have that $L_X alpha =0$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$.



Conversely, let us define the pullback in terms of local coordinates with $P:Mto N$ as $P(x_1,...,x_n,...,x_m)=(x_1,...,x_n)$.



Given $alpha in Omega^k(M)$, we can write it as
begin{align}
alpha = sum_{1}^{m}f_I(x_1,...,x_m) dx_I
end{align}

for $I=(x_1,...,x_m)$. By hypothesis, $iota_X alpha =0$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$. By the way we defined the pullback, the expression $Xin ker(dP)$ means that $X=c_iX_i$, where $X_i=0$ for $n<ileq m$.



The second condition $L_X alpha =0$, with cartan's formula and the first condition means that $iota_X dalpha=0$. Replacing we get:
begin{align}
dalpha = sum_{I,j}^{m}dfrac{f_I(x_1,...,x_n)}{partial(x_i)}dx_jwedge dx_I
end{align}

Evaluating on $Xin ker(dP)$, we get that the change of $f_I$ in the direction of $x_i$ is zero for $n<ileq m$. Then our conditions on alpha means that $f_I(x_1, ...,x_m)= f_I(x_1,...,x_n,0,...,0)$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$.



Let $g_J= f_Icirc P$, so we have that:
begin{align}
P^*alpha = sum_{I}^{m} f_Icirc P(x_1,...,x_m) dx_I=sum_{J}^{n} g_J(x_1,...,x_n) dx_J=beta
end{align}


Thus completing the proof.



I want to check this proof as I am not confident on the second part. I think I am missing something on how the $dx_i$ with $n<ileq m$ dissappear. Also I think I am messing something up with the indices but I can't say what exactly.
My professor explained me the main idea of the second part of the proof. I think I understand the general idea, but not enough to put it in rigorous terms.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am trying to solve the following problem:




Let $M$ and $N$ be smooth manifolds, and suppose $P:Mto N$ is a surjective smooth submersion with connected fibers. Show that given $alpha in Omega^k(M)$ there exists $betain Omega^k(N)$ such that $alpha=P^*beta$ if and only if $iota_X alpha=0$ and $L_X alpha =0$ for every $X in ker(dP)$.




Solution



Let $alpha=P^*beta$, so by definition of pullback we have that:
begin{align}
alpha_x(X)=beta_{P(x)}(dP(X))
end{align}
for $x in M$ and $Xin T_xM$
If we take $X$ such that $Xin ker(dP)$, then $iota_X alpha = 0$.



To prove that $L_X alpha =0$, we will use Cartan's magic formula:
begin{align}
L_Xalpha= iota_X dalpha +d(iota_X alpha)
end{align}

We already have that the second term is zero for $Xin ker(dP)$.
Using the fact that $d(P^*beta)=P^*dbeta$, and the definition of pullback we get that the first term in Cartan's formula becomes $dbeta_{P(x)}(dP(X))=0$ if $Xin ker(dP)$.



Thus we have that $L_X alpha =0$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$.



Conversely, let us define the pullback in terms of local coordinates with $P:Mto N$ as $P(x_1,...,x_n,...,x_m)=(x_1,...,x_n)$.



Given $alpha in Omega^k(M)$, we can write it as
begin{align}
alpha = sum_{1}^{m}f_I(x_1,...,x_m) dx_I
end{align}

for $I=(x_1,...,x_m)$. By hypothesis, $iota_X alpha =0$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$. By the way we defined the pullback, the expression $Xin ker(dP)$ means that $X=c_iX_i$, where $X_i=0$ for $n<ileq m$.



The second condition $L_X alpha =0$, with cartan's formula and the first condition means that $iota_X dalpha=0$. Replacing we get:
begin{align}
dalpha = sum_{I,j}^{m}dfrac{f_I(x_1,...,x_n)}{partial(x_i)}dx_jwedge dx_I
end{align}

Evaluating on $Xin ker(dP)$, we get that the change of $f_I$ in the direction of $x_i$ is zero for $n<ileq m$. Then our conditions on alpha means that $f_I(x_1, ...,x_m)= f_I(x_1,...,x_n,0,...,0)$ for all $Xin ker(dP)$.



Let $g_J= f_Icirc P$, so we have that:
begin{align}
P^*alpha = sum_{I}^{m} f_Icirc P(x_1,...,x_m) dx_I=sum_{J}^{n} g_J(x_1,...,x_n) dx_J=beta
end{align}


Thus completing the proof.



I want to check this proof as I am not confident on the second part. I think I am missing something on how the $dx_i$ with $n<ileq m$ dissappear. Also I think I am messing something up with the indices but I can't say what exactly.
My professor explained me the main idea of the second part of the proof. I think I understand the general idea, but not enough to put it in rigorous terms.







proof-verification differential-geometry differential-forms






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 30 '18 at 18:01







Amphiaraos

















asked Dec 30 '18 at 0:07









AmphiaraosAmphiaraos

301211




301211








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This result is false. Here's a counterexample. Let $Pcolon mathbb R^2to mathbb S^1$ be the map $P(x,y) = (cos x, sin x)$, and let $alpha=x, dx$ on $mathbb R^2$. A vector field on $mathbb R^2$ is in the kernel of $dP$ at each point if and only if it is of the form $X = f(x,y) partial/partial y$ for some function $f$. For any such $X$, we have $i_Xalpha = 0$ and $mathscr L_Xalpha = d(i_Xalpha) + i_X(dalpha) = 0$. However, there is no $1$-form on $mathbb S^1$ whose pullback is equal to $alpha$. You need to add the additional hypothesis that the fibers of $P$ are connected.
    $endgroup$
    – Jack Lee
    Dec 30 '18 at 17:27










  • $begingroup$
    You are right. That hypothesis is missing
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:01










  • $begingroup$
    What are $iota_X$ and $L_X$?
    $endgroup$
    – D_S
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:06










  • $begingroup$
    $i_x omega$ is the contraction of $omega$ with respect to the vector field $X$. And $L_X$ is the lie derivative with respect to $X$
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:12














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This result is false. Here's a counterexample. Let $Pcolon mathbb R^2to mathbb S^1$ be the map $P(x,y) = (cos x, sin x)$, and let $alpha=x, dx$ on $mathbb R^2$. A vector field on $mathbb R^2$ is in the kernel of $dP$ at each point if and only if it is of the form $X = f(x,y) partial/partial y$ for some function $f$. For any such $X$, we have $i_Xalpha = 0$ and $mathscr L_Xalpha = d(i_Xalpha) + i_X(dalpha) = 0$. However, there is no $1$-form on $mathbb S^1$ whose pullback is equal to $alpha$. You need to add the additional hypothesis that the fibers of $P$ are connected.
    $endgroup$
    – Jack Lee
    Dec 30 '18 at 17:27










  • $begingroup$
    You are right. That hypothesis is missing
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:01










  • $begingroup$
    What are $iota_X$ and $L_X$?
    $endgroup$
    – D_S
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:06










  • $begingroup$
    $i_x omega$ is the contraction of $omega$ with respect to the vector field $X$. And $L_X$ is the lie derivative with respect to $X$
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 18:12








1




1




$begingroup$
This result is false. Here's a counterexample. Let $Pcolon mathbb R^2to mathbb S^1$ be the map $P(x,y) = (cos x, sin x)$, and let $alpha=x, dx$ on $mathbb R^2$. A vector field on $mathbb R^2$ is in the kernel of $dP$ at each point if and only if it is of the form $X = f(x,y) partial/partial y$ for some function $f$. For any such $X$, we have $i_Xalpha = 0$ and $mathscr L_Xalpha = d(i_Xalpha) + i_X(dalpha) = 0$. However, there is no $1$-form on $mathbb S^1$ whose pullback is equal to $alpha$. You need to add the additional hypothesis that the fibers of $P$ are connected.
$endgroup$
– Jack Lee
Dec 30 '18 at 17:27




$begingroup$
This result is false. Here's a counterexample. Let $Pcolon mathbb R^2to mathbb S^1$ be the map $P(x,y) = (cos x, sin x)$, and let $alpha=x, dx$ on $mathbb R^2$. A vector field on $mathbb R^2$ is in the kernel of $dP$ at each point if and only if it is of the form $X = f(x,y) partial/partial y$ for some function $f$. For any such $X$, we have $i_Xalpha = 0$ and $mathscr L_Xalpha = d(i_Xalpha) + i_X(dalpha) = 0$. However, there is no $1$-form on $mathbb S^1$ whose pullback is equal to $alpha$. You need to add the additional hypothesis that the fibers of $P$ are connected.
$endgroup$
– Jack Lee
Dec 30 '18 at 17:27












$begingroup$
You are right. That hypothesis is missing
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Dec 30 '18 at 18:01




$begingroup$
You are right. That hypothesis is missing
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Dec 30 '18 at 18:01












$begingroup$
What are $iota_X$ and $L_X$?
$endgroup$
– D_S
Dec 30 '18 at 18:06




$begingroup$
What are $iota_X$ and $L_X$?
$endgroup$
– D_S
Dec 30 '18 at 18:06












$begingroup$
$i_x omega$ is the contraction of $omega$ with respect to the vector field $X$. And $L_X$ is the lie derivative with respect to $X$
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Dec 30 '18 at 18:12




$begingroup$
$i_x omega$ is the contraction of $omega$ with respect to the vector field $X$. And $L_X$ is the lie derivative with respect to $X$
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Dec 30 '18 at 18:12










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

It doesn't look so good to me. We don't necessarily have $k=1$. Let's organize ourselves:




  • If $alpha = P^*beta$, then $X in ker {rm d}P require{cancel}$ says that $$iota_Xalpha(X_1,ldots, X_{k-1}) = alpha(X,X_1,ldots,X_k) = beta(cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_{k-1})) = 0,$$so $iota_Xalpha=0$. Also, we have that $$begin{align} mathcal{L}_Xalpha(X_1,ldots,X_k) &= X(alpha(X_1,ldots,X_k)) - sum_{i=1}^n alpha(X_1,ldots,[X,X_i],ldots, X_k) \ &= X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))) - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,{rm d}P([X,X_i]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)) \ &= cancelto{0}{X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)))} - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,[cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_i)]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))\ &= 0.end{align}$$

  • Assume $iota_Xalpha=0$ and $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ for all $X in ker {rm d}P$. I don't have much time to go over all details now, but here's the idea: define $beta$ locally using the charts given by the constant rank theorem -- $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ will allow us to define $beta$ along the whole chart around $P(x)$ in $N$ via the flows of the vector fields $partial_i$, with $n+1 leq i leq m$, since $(mathcal{L}_{partial_i}alpha)_{i_1cdots i_k} = partial alpha_{i_1 cdots i_k}/partial x^i$ (which you seem to have done, when writing $g_{i_1 cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots, x_n) = f_{i_1cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots,x_n,0ldots,0)$), and the condition $iota_Xalpha=0$ will say that the resulting $beta$ is well-defined (it is not clear to me what you mean by $c_iX_i$, are you missing a sum?).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot. I have been going through your answer carefully. On the first part of the proof I don't understand why is $X(beta(dP(X_1),...,dP(X_k)))=0$ I am still going through the second part. You are right I am missing a sum. By $c_iX_i$, I meant $X = sum^n X_i partial_i$. I don't understand how the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ makes $beta$ well defined
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 2:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Recall that if $Fcolon M to N$ is smooth, then ${rm d}F_p(X_p)(g) = X_p(gcirc F)$, and then $X in ker {rm d}P$ means that ${rm d}P(X)(g) = X(gcirc P)=0$, with $g$ being the map $pmapsto beta_{P(p)}({rm d}P_p(X_1(p)),ldots, {rm d}P_p(X_k(p)))$. About $iota_Xalpha=0$, roughly the idea is that given $q in N$, you could have $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$. If $p_1$ and $p_2$ are in the same chart, you could map one point to the other with the flow of some field in $ker {rm d}P$ (some combination of the last coordinate vector fields).
    $endgroup$
    – Ivo Terek
    Jan 2 at 16:51












  • $begingroup$
    There is one thing I don't get when using $dP(X)(g)=X(gcirc P)=0$. Shouldn't $g$ be $g:N to mathbb{R}$, so that $g circ P: M to mathbb{R}$ and $X$ could act on it? Because with the map $g$ you wrote that would be $g:M to mathbb{R}$. I tried to fix it by using $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ given by $g(q):= beta_q(dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)), ..., dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)))$ but as $P$ is not a bijection $P^{-1}(q)$ would be a set instead of a point.
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:37












  • $begingroup$
    (cont.) Is there a way to prove there exists $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ such that $gcirc P(p)=beta_{P(p)}(dP_p(X_1(p)),...,dP_p(X_k(p))$
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:42










  • $begingroup$
    For the second part, I thought that the condition $mathcal{L}_Xalpha =0$ meant that $f_I$ did not change in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. And that the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ meant that $f_I=0$ in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. Is this reasoning corect? Also the result that given $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$ , one could map one point to the other,be a result of the connected fibers of P?
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 3 at 0:10












Your Answer








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%2f3056388%2fpullback-of-diffrential-forms-in-surjective-submersions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

It doesn't look so good to me. We don't necessarily have $k=1$. Let's organize ourselves:




  • If $alpha = P^*beta$, then $X in ker {rm d}P require{cancel}$ says that $$iota_Xalpha(X_1,ldots, X_{k-1}) = alpha(X,X_1,ldots,X_k) = beta(cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_{k-1})) = 0,$$so $iota_Xalpha=0$. Also, we have that $$begin{align} mathcal{L}_Xalpha(X_1,ldots,X_k) &= X(alpha(X_1,ldots,X_k)) - sum_{i=1}^n alpha(X_1,ldots,[X,X_i],ldots, X_k) \ &= X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))) - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,{rm d}P([X,X_i]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)) \ &= cancelto{0}{X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)))} - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,[cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_i)]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))\ &= 0.end{align}$$

  • Assume $iota_Xalpha=0$ and $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ for all $X in ker {rm d}P$. I don't have much time to go over all details now, but here's the idea: define $beta$ locally using the charts given by the constant rank theorem -- $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ will allow us to define $beta$ along the whole chart around $P(x)$ in $N$ via the flows of the vector fields $partial_i$, with $n+1 leq i leq m$, since $(mathcal{L}_{partial_i}alpha)_{i_1cdots i_k} = partial alpha_{i_1 cdots i_k}/partial x^i$ (which you seem to have done, when writing $g_{i_1 cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots, x_n) = f_{i_1cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots,x_n,0ldots,0)$), and the condition $iota_Xalpha=0$ will say that the resulting $beta$ is well-defined (it is not clear to me what you mean by $c_iX_i$, are you missing a sum?).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot. I have been going through your answer carefully. On the first part of the proof I don't understand why is $X(beta(dP(X_1),...,dP(X_k)))=0$ I am still going through the second part. You are right I am missing a sum. By $c_iX_i$, I meant $X = sum^n X_i partial_i$. I don't understand how the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ makes $beta$ well defined
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 2:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Recall that if $Fcolon M to N$ is smooth, then ${rm d}F_p(X_p)(g) = X_p(gcirc F)$, and then $X in ker {rm d}P$ means that ${rm d}P(X)(g) = X(gcirc P)=0$, with $g$ being the map $pmapsto beta_{P(p)}({rm d}P_p(X_1(p)),ldots, {rm d}P_p(X_k(p)))$. About $iota_Xalpha=0$, roughly the idea is that given $q in N$, you could have $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$. If $p_1$ and $p_2$ are in the same chart, you could map one point to the other with the flow of some field in $ker {rm d}P$ (some combination of the last coordinate vector fields).
    $endgroup$
    – Ivo Terek
    Jan 2 at 16:51












  • $begingroup$
    There is one thing I don't get when using $dP(X)(g)=X(gcirc P)=0$. Shouldn't $g$ be $g:N to mathbb{R}$, so that $g circ P: M to mathbb{R}$ and $X$ could act on it? Because with the map $g$ you wrote that would be $g:M to mathbb{R}$. I tried to fix it by using $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ given by $g(q):= beta_q(dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)), ..., dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)))$ but as $P$ is not a bijection $P^{-1}(q)$ would be a set instead of a point.
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:37












  • $begingroup$
    (cont.) Is there a way to prove there exists $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ such that $gcirc P(p)=beta_{P(p)}(dP_p(X_1(p)),...,dP_p(X_k(p))$
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:42










  • $begingroup$
    For the second part, I thought that the condition $mathcal{L}_Xalpha =0$ meant that $f_I$ did not change in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. And that the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ meant that $f_I=0$ in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. Is this reasoning corect? Also the result that given $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$ , one could map one point to the other,be a result of the connected fibers of P?
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 3 at 0:10
















1












$begingroup$

It doesn't look so good to me. We don't necessarily have $k=1$. Let's organize ourselves:




  • If $alpha = P^*beta$, then $X in ker {rm d}P require{cancel}$ says that $$iota_Xalpha(X_1,ldots, X_{k-1}) = alpha(X,X_1,ldots,X_k) = beta(cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_{k-1})) = 0,$$so $iota_Xalpha=0$. Also, we have that $$begin{align} mathcal{L}_Xalpha(X_1,ldots,X_k) &= X(alpha(X_1,ldots,X_k)) - sum_{i=1}^n alpha(X_1,ldots,[X,X_i],ldots, X_k) \ &= X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))) - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,{rm d}P([X,X_i]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)) \ &= cancelto{0}{X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)))} - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,[cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_i)]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))\ &= 0.end{align}$$

  • Assume $iota_Xalpha=0$ and $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ for all $X in ker {rm d}P$. I don't have much time to go over all details now, but here's the idea: define $beta$ locally using the charts given by the constant rank theorem -- $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ will allow us to define $beta$ along the whole chart around $P(x)$ in $N$ via the flows of the vector fields $partial_i$, with $n+1 leq i leq m$, since $(mathcal{L}_{partial_i}alpha)_{i_1cdots i_k} = partial alpha_{i_1 cdots i_k}/partial x^i$ (which you seem to have done, when writing $g_{i_1 cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots, x_n) = f_{i_1cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots,x_n,0ldots,0)$), and the condition $iota_Xalpha=0$ will say that the resulting $beta$ is well-defined (it is not clear to me what you mean by $c_iX_i$, are you missing a sum?).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot. I have been going through your answer carefully. On the first part of the proof I don't understand why is $X(beta(dP(X_1),...,dP(X_k)))=0$ I am still going through the second part. You are right I am missing a sum. By $c_iX_i$, I meant $X = sum^n X_i partial_i$. I don't understand how the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ makes $beta$ well defined
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 2:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Recall that if $Fcolon M to N$ is smooth, then ${rm d}F_p(X_p)(g) = X_p(gcirc F)$, and then $X in ker {rm d}P$ means that ${rm d}P(X)(g) = X(gcirc P)=0$, with $g$ being the map $pmapsto beta_{P(p)}({rm d}P_p(X_1(p)),ldots, {rm d}P_p(X_k(p)))$. About $iota_Xalpha=0$, roughly the idea is that given $q in N$, you could have $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$. If $p_1$ and $p_2$ are in the same chart, you could map one point to the other with the flow of some field in $ker {rm d}P$ (some combination of the last coordinate vector fields).
    $endgroup$
    – Ivo Terek
    Jan 2 at 16:51












  • $begingroup$
    There is one thing I don't get when using $dP(X)(g)=X(gcirc P)=0$. Shouldn't $g$ be $g:N to mathbb{R}$, so that $g circ P: M to mathbb{R}$ and $X$ could act on it? Because with the map $g$ you wrote that would be $g:M to mathbb{R}$. I tried to fix it by using $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ given by $g(q):= beta_q(dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)), ..., dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)))$ but as $P$ is not a bijection $P^{-1}(q)$ would be a set instead of a point.
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:37












  • $begingroup$
    (cont.) Is there a way to prove there exists $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ such that $gcirc P(p)=beta_{P(p)}(dP_p(X_1(p)),...,dP_p(X_k(p))$
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:42










  • $begingroup$
    For the second part, I thought that the condition $mathcal{L}_Xalpha =0$ meant that $f_I$ did not change in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. And that the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ meant that $f_I=0$ in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. Is this reasoning corect? Also the result that given $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$ , one could map one point to the other,be a result of the connected fibers of P?
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 3 at 0:10














1












1








1





$begingroup$

It doesn't look so good to me. We don't necessarily have $k=1$. Let's organize ourselves:




  • If $alpha = P^*beta$, then $X in ker {rm d}P require{cancel}$ says that $$iota_Xalpha(X_1,ldots, X_{k-1}) = alpha(X,X_1,ldots,X_k) = beta(cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_{k-1})) = 0,$$so $iota_Xalpha=0$. Also, we have that $$begin{align} mathcal{L}_Xalpha(X_1,ldots,X_k) &= X(alpha(X_1,ldots,X_k)) - sum_{i=1}^n alpha(X_1,ldots,[X,X_i],ldots, X_k) \ &= X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))) - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,{rm d}P([X,X_i]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)) \ &= cancelto{0}{X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)))} - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,[cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_i)]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))\ &= 0.end{align}$$

  • Assume $iota_Xalpha=0$ and $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ for all $X in ker {rm d}P$. I don't have much time to go over all details now, but here's the idea: define $beta$ locally using the charts given by the constant rank theorem -- $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ will allow us to define $beta$ along the whole chart around $P(x)$ in $N$ via the flows of the vector fields $partial_i$, with $n+1 leq i leq m$, since $(mathcal{L}_{partial_i}alpha)_{i_1cdots i_k} = partial alpha_{i_1 cdots i_k}/partial x^i$ (which you seem to have done, when writing $g_{i_1 cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots, x_n) = f_{i_1cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots,x_n,0ldots,0)$), and the condition $iota_Xalpha=0$ will say that the resulting $beta$ is well-defined (it is not clear to me what you mean by $c_iX_i$, are you missing a sum?).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



It doesn't look so good to me. We don't necessarily have $k=1$. Let's organize ourselves:




  • If $alpha = P^*beta$, then $X in ker {rm d}P require{cancel}$ says that $$iota_Xalpha(X_1,ldots, X_{k-1}) = alpha(X,X_1,ldots,X_k) = beta(cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_{k-1})) = 0,$$so $iota_Xalpha=0$. Also, we have that $$begin{align} mathcal{L}_Xalpha(X_1,ldots,X_k) &= X(alpha(X_1,ldots,X_k)) - sum_{i=1}^n alpha(X_1,ldots,[X,X_i],ldots, X_k) \ &= X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))) - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,{rm d}P([X,X_i]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)) \ &= cancelto{0}{X(beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k)))} - sum_{i=1}^n beta({rm d}P(X_1),ldots,[cancelto{0}{{rm d}P(X)},{rm d}P(X_i)]),ldots, {rm d}P(X_k))\ &= 0.end{align}$$

  • Assume $iota_Xalpha=0$ and $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ for all $X in ker {rm d}P$. I don't have much time to go over all details now, but here's the idea: define $beta$ locally using the charts given by the constant rank theorem -- $mathcal{L}_Xalpha=0$ will allow us to define $beta$ along the whole chart around $P(x)$ in $N$ via the flows of the vector fields $partial_i$, with $n+1 leq i leq m$, since $(mathcal{L}_{partial_i}alpha)_{i_1cdots i_k} = partial alpha_{i_1 cdots i_k}/partial x^i$ (which you seem to have done, when writing $g_{i_1 cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots, x_n) = f_{i_1cdots i_k}(x_1,ldots,x_n,0ldots,0)$), and the condition $iota_Xalpha=0$ will say that the resulting $beta$ is well-defined (it is not clear to me what you mean by $c_iX_i$, are you missing a sum?).







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 30 '18 at 1:14









Ivo TerekIvo Terek

46.7k954146




46.7k954146












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot. I have been going through your answer carefully. On the first part of the proof I don't understand why is $X(beta(dP(X_1),...,dP(X_k)))=0$ I am still going through the second part. You are right I am missing a sum. By $c_iX_i$, I meant $X = sum^n X_i partial_i$. I don't understand how the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ makes $beta$ well defined
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 2:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Recall that if $Fcolon M to N$ is smooth, then ${rm d}F_p(X_p)(g) = X_p(gcirc F)$, and then $X in ker {rm d}P$ means that ${rm d}P(X)(g) = X(gcirc P)=0$, with $g$ being the map $pmapsto beta_{P(p)}({rm d}P_p(X_1(p)),ldots, {rm d}P_p(X_k(p)))$. About $iota_Xalpha=0$, roughly the idea is that given $q in N$, you could have $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$. If $p_1$ and $p_2$ are in the same chart, you could map one point to the other with the flow of some field in $ker {rm d}P$ (some combination of the last coordinate vector fields).
    $endgroup$
    – Ivo Terek
    Jan 2 at 16:51












  • $begingroup$
    There is one thing I don't get when using $dP(X)(g)=X(gcirc P)=0$. Shouldn't $g$ be $g:N to mathbb{R}$, so that $g circ P: M to mathbb{R}$ and $X$ could act on it? Because with the map $g$ you wrote that would be $g:M to mathbb{R}$. I tried to fix it by using $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ given by $g(q):= beta_q(dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)), ..., dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)))$ but as $P$ is not a bijection $P^{-1}(q)$ would be a set instead of a point.
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:37












  • $begingroup$
    (cont.) Is there a way to prove there exists $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ such that $gcirc P(p)=beta_{P(p)}(dP_p(X_1(p)),...,dP_p(X_k(p))$
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:42










  • $begingroup$
    For the second part, I thought that the condition $mathcal{L}_Xalpha =0$ meant that $f_I$ did not change in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. And that the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ meant that $f_I=0$ in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. Is this reasoning corect? Also the result that given $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$ , one could map one point to the other,be a result of the connected fibers of P?
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 3 at 0:10


















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks a lot. I have been going through your answer carefully. On the first part of the proof I don't understand why is $X(beta(dP(X_1),...,dP(X_k)))=0$ I am still going through the second part. You are right I am missing a sum. By $c_iX_i$, I meant $X = sum^n X_i partial_i$. I don't understand how the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ makes $beta$ well defined
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Dec 30 '18 at 2:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Recall that if $Fcolon M to N$ is smooth, then ${rm d}F_p(X_p)(g) = X_p(gcirc F)$, and then $X in ker {rm d}P$ means that ${rm d}P(X)(g) = X(gcirc P)=0$, with $g$ being the map $pmapsto beta_{P(p)}({rm d}P_p(X_1(p)),ldots, {rm d}P_p(X_k(p)))$. About $iota_Xalpha=0$, roughly the idea is that given $q in N$, you could have $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$. If $p_1$ and $p_2$ are in the same chart, you could map one point to the other with the flow of some field in $ker {rm d}P$ (some combination of the last coordinate vector fields).
    $endgroup$
    – Ivo Terek
    Jan 2 at 16:51












  • $begingroup$
    There is one thing I don't get when using $dP(X)(g)=X(gcirc P)=0$. Shouldn't $g$ be $g:N to mathbb{R}$, so that $g circ P: M to mathbb{R}$ and $X$ could act on it? Because with the map $g$ you wrote that would be $g:M to mathbb{R}$. I tried to fix it by using $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ given by $g(q):= beta_q(dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)), ..., dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)))$ but as $P$ is not a bijection $P^{-1}(q)$ would be a set instead of a point.
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:37












  • $begingroup$
    (cont.) Is there a way to prove there exists $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ such that $gcirc P(p)=beta_{P(p)}(dP_p(X_1(p)),...,dP_p(X_k(p))$
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 2 at 23:42










  • $begingroup$
    For the second part, I thought that the condition $mathcal{L}_Xalpha =0$ meant that $f_I$ did not change in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. And that the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ meant that $f_I=0$ in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. Is this reasoning corect? Also the result that given $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$ , one could map one point to the other,be a result of the connected fibers of P?
    $endgroup$
    – Amphiaraos
    Jan 3 at 0:10
















$begingroup$
Thanks a lot. I have been going through your answer carefully. On the first part of the proof I don't understand why is $X(beta(dP(X_1),...,dP(X_k)))=0$ I am still going through the second part. You are right I am missing a sum. By $c_iX_i$, I meant $X = sum^n X_i partial_i$. I don't understand how the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ makes $beta$ well defined
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Dec 30 '18 at 2:24






$begingroup$
Thanks a lot. I have been going through your answer carefully. On the first part of the proof I don't understand why is $X(beta(dP(X_1),...,dP(X_k)))=0$ I am still going through the second part. You are right I am missing a sum. By $c_iX_i$, I meant $X = sum^n X_i partial_i$. I don't understand how the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ makes $beta$ well defined
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Dec 30 '18 at 2:24






1




1




$begingroup$
Recall that if $Fcolon M to N$ is smooth, then ${rm d}F_p(X_p)(g) = X_p(gcirc F)$, and then $X in ker {rm d}P$ means that ${rm d}P(X)(g) = X(gcirc P)=0$, with $g$ being the map $pmapsto beta_{P(p)}({rm d}P_p(X_1(p)),ldots, {rm d}P_p(X_k(p)))$. About $iota_Xalpha=0$, roughly the idea is that given $q in N$, you could have $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$. If $p_1$ and $p_2$ are in the same chart, you could map one point to the other with the flow of some field in $ker {rm d}P$ (some combination of the last coordinate vector fields).
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Jan 2 at 16:51






$begingroup$
Recall that if $Fcolon M to N$ is smooth, then ${rm d}F_p(X_p)(g) = X_p(gcirc F)$, and then $X in ker {rm d}P$ means that ${rm d}P(X)(g) = X(gcirc P)=0$, with $g$ being the map $pmapsto beta_{P(p)}({rm d}P_p(X_1(p)),ldots, {rm d}P_p(X_k(p)))$. About $iota_Xalpha=0$, roughly the idea is that given $q in N$, you could have $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$. If $p_1$ and $p_2$ are in the same chart, you could map one point to the other with the flow of some field in $ker {rm d}P$ (some combination of the last coordinate vector fields).
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Jan 2 at 16:51














$begingroup$
There is one thing I don't get when using $dP(X)(g)=X(gcirc P)=0$. Shouldn't $g$ be $g:N to mathbb{R}$, so that $g circ P: M to mathbb{R}$ and $X$ could act on it? Because with the map $g$ you wrote that would be $g:M to mathbb{R}$. I tried to fix it by using $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ given by $g(q):= beta_q(dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)), ..., dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)))$ but as $P$ is not a bijection $P^{-1}(q)$ would be a set instead of a point.
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Jan 2 at 23:37






$begingroup$
There is one thing I don't get when using $dP(X)(g)=X(gcirc P)=0$. Shouldn't $g$ be $g:N to mathbb{R}$, so that $g circ P: M to mathbb{R}$ and $X$ could act on it? Because with the map $g$ you wrote that would be $g:M to mathbb{R}$. I tried to fix it by using $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ given by $g(q):= beta_q(dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)), ..., dP_{P^{-1}(q)}(X_1(P^{-1}(q)))$ but as $P$ is not a bijection $P^{-1}(q)$ would be a set instead of a point.
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Jan 2 at 23:37














$begingroup$
(cont.) Is there a way to prove there exists $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ such that $gcirc P(p)=beta_{P(p)}(dP_p(X_1(p)),...,dP_p(X_k(p))$
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Jan 2 at 23:42




$begingroup$
(cont.) Is there a way to prove there exists $g:Nto mathbb{R}$ such that $gcirc P(p)=beta_{P(p)}(dP_p(X_1(p)),...,dP_p(X_k(p))$
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Jan 2 at 23:42












$begingroup$
For the second part, I thought that the condition $mathcal{L}_Xalpha =0$ meant that $f_I$ did not change in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. And that the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ meant that $f_I=0$ in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. Is this reasoning corect? Also the result that given $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$ , one could map one point to the other,be a result of the connected fibers of P?
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Jan 3 at 0:10




$begingroup$
For the second part, I thought that the condition $mathcal{L}_Xalpha =0$ meant that $f_I$ did not change in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. And that the condition $iota_X alpha=0$ meant that $f_I=0$ in the directions $partial_i$ for $n+aleq i leq m$. Is this reasoning corect? Also the result that given $p_1,p_2 in M$ with $P(p_1)=P(p_2)=q$ , one could map one point to the other,be a result of the connected fibers of P?
$endgroup$
– Amphiaraos
Jan 3 at 0:10


















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%2f3056388%2fpullback-of-diffrential-forms-in-surjective-submersions%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

mysqli_query(): Empty query in /home/lucindabrummitt/public_html/blog/wp-includes/wp-db.php on line 1924

How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?