DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY

MARC BURGER
STEPHAN TORNIER

Abstract. These are notes of the course Differential Geometry I held at ETH
Zurich in 2015.

Disclaimer. This is a preliminary version. Please report any typos, mistakes,

comments etc. to [email protected].

Acknowledgements. Thanks to those who pointed out typos and mistakes

as these notes were written, in particular J. Allemann, H. Benner, P. Gantner,
A. Hauswirth, S. Imfeld, C. Macho, P. Poklukar and H. Wu.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. Differential Manifolds and Differentiable Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Tangent spaces, Differential and Whitney’s Embedding Theorem . . . 21
3. Differential Forms and Integration on Manifolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4. De Rham Cohomology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5. De Rham’s Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Introduction
Differential geometry is a synthesis of three different subjects: Analysis in Rn ,
topology and multilinear algebra. It precisely defines a class of “spaces” on which one
can do analysis, termed differential manifolds. These spaces as well as the associated
notion of differentiable functions are the central concept of this course. Differential
manifolds look locally like Rn but are globally much less boring. Examples are the
sphere as well as surfaces with holes:

Sphere Torus Surface with two holes

An example of what we mean by “do analysis” is the following: If D is a region in

R2 contoured by a curve σ : [0, 1] → R2 and L, M : R2 → R are reasonably smooth
functions, then by Green’s formula:
I ZZ  
∂M ∂L
L(x, y) dx + M (x, y) dy = − dx dy.
c D ∂x ∂y
Note that whereas the left-hand side of the equation only takes into account the
values of L and M on c it yet remembers something about D, namely the right-hand
side. Green’s formula, the divergence theorem and other well-known formulas are

Date: June 3, 2016.

1
2 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

all incarnations of Stokes’ Theorem which is best understood in the framework of

manifolds. In this context we will have to make precise what object makes sense to
be integrated over a manifold: differential forms. Stokes’ Theorem will also be used
to define invariants that can e.g. tell the above surfaces apart in the sense that one
cannot be deformed into the other without tearing it apart.
Differential geometry forms a basis for many other subjects. Clearly Riemannian
geometry is one of them. However, so are Lie groups and physics. The relationship
between differential geometry in algebraic geometry is a special one. In a way,
notions of one of the two fields echo in the other. For instance, highly abstract
algebraic geometric concepts are often easier to visualize in differential geometry.
References for this course include Boothby’s [Boo03] which is readable by stu-
dents, Barden’s and Thomas’ [BT03] which will in particular be used for differential
forms and Milnor’s classic [Mil97] on which our section on Brouwer’s fixed theorem
will be based.

1. Differential Manifolds and Differentiable Maps

1.1. Differential Manifolds: Definitions and Examples. Differential mani-
folds were first studied by Riemann in 1854 and later on by Poincaré. However,
they were still thinking about manifolds being imbedded in some euclidean space
and lacked a precise definition. Nevertheless, Stokes’ theorem and notions like cur-
vature were already around. The first precise definition, however, was given in 1913
by Weyl at ETH, see [RW13].
1.2. Differential Manifolds: Definitions and Examples. The first step to-
wards defining differential manifolds is to introduce topological manifolds.
Definition 1.1. An n-dimensional topological manifold is a topological space which is
(i) Hausdorff (T2 ),
(ii) second countable, and
(iii) locally homeomorphic to Rn .
Clearly, the last condition of 1.1 is the crucial one. Recall that a topological
space X is Hausdorff if for every pair of points x, y ∈ X with x 6= y there are open
sets U, V ⊆ X containing x and y respectively such that U ∩ V = ∅. Moreover, X
is second countable if it its topology admits a countable
S basis B = {Un | n ∈ N},
i.e. any open set U ⊆ X can be written as U = Un ⊆U Un . Eventually, X is locally
homeomorphic to Rn if every point in M admits an open neighbourhood which is
homeomorphic to an open subset of Rn .
We are going to discuss many examples and non-examples of differential mani-
folds. Therefore our list of examples and non-examples of topological manifolds is
rather short.
Example 1.2.
(i) Let M be a countable discrete space. Then M is a zero-dimensional topo-
logical manifold. The converse is true as well. However, the classification of
n-dimensional manifolds is much harder in larger n.
(ii) The circle S 1 ⊆ R2 with the induced topology is clearly a topological mani-
fold of dimension one. Every point p admits a neighbourhood that is home-
omorphic to an interval:
b

p
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 3

(iii) The real line R is a one-dimensional topological manifold as well. This is

tautological.

If one restricts oneself to connected, one-dimensional topological manifolds then S 1

and R are in fact the only examples up to homeomorphism.

(iv) In dimension two, the situation is already so rich that it defies any reason-
able classification. Examples are, as before, the family of surfaces with g
holes (g ∈ N0 ): These surfaces are all compact and connected and in fact
a classification of compact, connected, two-dimensional topological mani-
folds is managable. To this end we will later on introduce the notion of
orientability to distinguish between orientable examples as above and non-
orientable examples like projective space. To get an idea of the wealth of
general (connected) two-dimensional topological manifolds, note that the
complement in R2 of a Cantor set is an example.

Non-Example 1.3.

(i) Consider M := [0, 1] ⊂ R with the induced topology. Every interior point
of M satisfies the third requirement of the definition of a topological man-
ifold for n = 1 but the points 0, 1 ∈ M do not. For instance, a typical
neighbourhood of 0 ∈ M is given by U = [0, ε) for some 0 < ε < 1. Sup-
pose ϕ : U → V ⊆ R is a homeomorphism onto an open subset V of R.
Note U \{0} is connected, but V \{ϕ(0)} is not. This contradicts ϕ being
continuous.
(ii) The set M := [0, 1]2 is not a (two-dimensional) topological manifold either.
Here one may argue using the fundamental group instead of connectedness.

Both non-examples above are manifolds with boundary though, as defined later.

(iii) Let M = Q ⊂ R with the induced topology. Then every open set of Q is
countable and hence cannot be in bijection with an open subset of any Rn .

Remark 1.4. In order to show that the dimension of a topological manifold is

well-defined one has to show that if U ⊆ Rn and V ⊆ Rm are non-empty and
homeomorphic then n = m. If n = 1 or m = 1 one may argue in the above fashion
using connectedness. The other cases require e.g. some basic homology theory. If,
however, one asks for U and V to be C 1 -diffeomorphic then basic linear algebra
applied to the derivative readily implies n = m. This argument is going to apply in
the context of differential manifolds.

The next definition constitutes the next important step towards the definition
of differential manifolds.

Definition 1.5. Let M be an n-dimensional topological manifold. A chart on M

is a pair (U, ϕ) consisting of an open subset U ⊆ M and a homoeomorphism ϕ :
U → ϕ(U ) =: V ⊆ Rn . The subset U is the coordinate neighbourhood and V is the
coordinate space.

We are now going to examine the case in which two charts intersect, see below.
4 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Uα Uβ

ϕα ϕβ

ϕα (Uα ) θβα ϕβ (Uβ )

θαβ

The maps
θβα := ϕβ ◦ (ϕα |Uα ∩Uβ )−1 : ϕα (Uα ∩ Uβ ) → ϕβ (Uα ∩ Uβ ),

θαβ := ϕα ◦ (ϕβ |Uβ ∩Uα )−1 : ϕβ (Uα ∩ Uβ ) → ϕα (Uα ∩ Uβ ),

are coordinate transformations or change of charts. They are homeomorphisms
−1
between open subsets of Rn as θβα = θαβ .

Definition 1.6. Let M be a topological manifold. A C 0 -atlas

S A on M is a collection
of charts A = {(Uα , ϕα ) chart on M | α ∈ A} such that α∈A Uα = M .

Note that our definition perfectly resembles real-life atlases, introduced by Mer-
cator in 1585. By Definition 1.1, every topological manifold admits a C 0 -atlas. As a
next step towards the definition of differential manifolds we now introduce smooth
atlases.

Definition 1.7. Let A be a C 0 -atlas. Then A is a C k -atlas if all coordinate trans-

formations between members of A are C k -maps. A C ∞ -atlas is smooth.

Recall that a map f : U → Rm from an open subset U ⊆ Rn to Rm given by

x 7→ (f1 (x), . . . , fm (x)) where fi := πi ◦ f for all i ∈ {1, . . . , m} is C k if all partial
derivatives of fi (i ∈ {1, . . . , m}) up to order k exist and are continuous. Also, note
that in a C k -atlas all coordinate transformations are in fact C k -diffeomorphisms by
the above, in contrast to the fact that there is a smooth homeomorphism f : R → R
which is not a diffeomorphism, for instance f : x 7→ x3 . In particular, this map
cannot occur as a coordinate transformation in any smooth atlas.

Example 1.8. We now give examples of topological manifolds with smooth atlases.
(i) Let M := U be an open subset of Rn and A = {(U, id)}. This example may
seem rather trivial but nevertheless includes an important example of a Lie 2
group, namely GL(n, R) := {A ∈ Mn,n (R) | det A 6= 0} ⊆ Mn,n (R) ∼ = Rn .
n n+1
(ii) Let M := S ⊆ R with the induced topology. If n ≥ 1 then an atlas of
M requires at least two charts since M is compact whereas an open subset
of Rn is not. Now, there are in fact many choices for an atlas with two
elements one of which may be constructed using stereographic Pn+1 2 projection
n+1
as follows: Let S = {x = (x1 , . . . , xn+1 ) ∈ R
n
| i=1 xi = 1}, N :=
(0, . . . , 0, 1) ∈ S n and S := (0, . . . , 0, −1). Further, set UN := S n \{N } and
US := S n \{S}. Then the pairs (UN , ϕN ) and (US , ϕS ), where
(x1 , . . . , xn )
ϕN,S : S n → Rn , x 7→
1 ∓ xn+1
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 5

are given by stereographic projection, are charts for M .

N
b

x
ϕN (x)
b

One checks that the associated coordinate transformation is given by

y
θSN : Rn \{0} → Rn \{0}, y 7→ .
kyk2
Observe that θSN exchanges the inside and the outside of the unit sphere
in Rn . For n = 2 this is an example of a Möbius transformation.
Now, the first attempt to define a smooth manifold would be to say that a
smooth manifold is a topological manifold together with a smooth atlas. In this
case however, there would be as many smooth manifolds associated to e.g. the
sphere as there are atlases on it, which is impractical. We therefore introcoduce the
following definitions to talk about maximal atlases only.
Definition 1.9. Let M be a topological manifold. Two charts (Uα , ϕα ) and (Uβ , ϕβ )
on M are C k -compatible if both coordinate transformations are C k . A C k -atlas A
on M is maximal if each chart which is compatible with every chart in A is in A.
Retain the notation of Definition 1.9. If (U, ϕ) ∈ A and A is maximal then every
(V, ϕ|V ) where V ⊆ U is open is contained in A as well. The following lemma is
going to come in very handy when defining manifolds. Its proof is left as an exercise.
Lemma 1.10. Let M be a topological manifold. Every C k -atlas A on M is contained
in a unique maximal atlas.
Sketch of Proof. If a maximal atlas M containing A exists it contains the charts of
S := {(U, ϕ) | (U, ϕ) is a chart on M compatible with every chart in A} ⊇ A .
Conversely, if the above set is an atlas it is maximal among those containing A and
necessarily unique with this property since any other maximal atlas containing A
consists of charts which are (in particular) compatible with all the charts of A and
is thus contained in S. By maximality it then equals S. Therefore it only remains
to show that S is an atlas. Since A ⊆ S and A is an atlas of M we have
[
M= U.
(U,ϕ)∈S

As to coordinate transformations, let (Uα , ϕα ), (Uβ , ϕβ ) ∈ S. We show that the

coordinate transformation θβα : ϕα (Uα ∩ Uβ ) → ϕβ (Uα ∩ Uβ ) is C k on a neigh-
bourhood of every point ϕα (x) (x ∈ Uα ∩ Uβ ) of its domain. Since A is an atlas
there is a chart (V, ψ) ∈ A with x ∈ V . Since further both (Uα , ϕα ) and (Uβ , ϕβ )
are compatible with (V, ψ) the coordinate transformations θβψ and θψα are smooth
and hence so is θβα at ϕα (x) which agrees with θβψ ◦ θψα on Uα ∩ Uβ ∩ V ∋ x.
Finally, we are in a position to define the central concept of this course.
Definition 1.11. A C k -differential manifold is a topological manifold with a maxi-
mal C k -atlas. A C ∞ -differential manifold is smooth.
6 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

We shall only concern ourselves with smooth manifolds in this course and not
discuss subtleties arising from the exact value of k. One may wonder whether any
topological manifold admits a smooth atlas. The following remark answers this
question in the negative.

Remark 1.12. There is a compact topological manifold that does not admit a
smooth atlas. However it does admit a system of pairwise compatible charts that
cover all but one point. See [Ker60].

As to uniqueness of maximal atlases, we remark the following.

Remark 1.13. Let M be a smooth manifold with maximal atlas A. If F : M → M is

a homeomorphism then A′ := {(F (U ), ϕ ◦ F −1 ) | (U, ϕ) ∈ A} is a maximal smooth
atlas as well. This is readily checked by examining the coordinate transformations.
They do not notice the changed point of view at all!

Even more remarkable is the fact that there are topological manifolds which
admit incompatible maximal atlases that do not even arise from each other in the
above fashion.

Remark 1.14. The topological manifold S 7 admits a maximal atlas which is not
compatible with the one defined in Example 1.8 and can even be given by polyno-
mial equations. See [Mil56].

Example 1.15. We now describe three standard ways of producing new manifolds
out of old ones.
(i) (Regular value) Let f : Rn → Rm be a smooth map and let a ∈ Rm be
a regular value, i.e. for every x ∈ f −1 (a) the derivative Dx f : Rn → Rm
has maximal rank m. Then f −1 (a) = {x ∈ Rn | f (x) = a} is a smooth
manifold in a natural way. Note that all manifolds produced in this way are
naturally subsets of Rn . Later on we give the details of this construction in
much greater generality.
(ii) (Open subset) Let M be a smooth manifold with atlas A and let U ⊆ M be
open. Then A |U := {(U ∩ V, ϕU∩V ) | (V, ϕ) ∈ A} is a smooth atlas on U .
Note that A |U need not be maximal. However, it is contained in a unique
maximal smooth atlas by Lemma 1.10.
(iii) (Products) Let M, N be smooth manifolds with atlases A = {(Uα , ϕα | α ∈
A} and B = {(Vβ , ψβ ) | β ∈ B}. Then P := {(Uα × Vβ , ϕα × ψβ | (α, β) ∈
A × B} is a smooth atlas on M × N . We recall the definition of ϕα × ψβ
((α, β) ∈ A × B): Let ϕα : Uα → Rm and ψβ : Vβ → Rn where m = dim M
and n = dim N . Then

ϕα × ψβ : Uα × Vβ → Rm × Rn , (x, y) 7→ (ϕα (x), ψβ (x))

and Rm × Rn is identified with Rm+n . Note that P is rarely going to be

maximal as Uα ∩ Vβ typically has many open subsets that do not have a
product structure. Again, Lemma 1.10 turns P into a maximal atlas.

Next, we describe a construction which does not yield smooth manifolds that are
naturally subsets of some euclidean space, namely quotients. As a matter of fact,
the construction need not even begin with a smooth manifold. For instance consider
a square and glue two opposite sides together. The result is a cylinder. Continuing
by gluing together its ends yields a torus which is a smooth manifold.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 7

The reader is invited to think about what the following identification produces.
For i ∈ {1, 2}, the edge labelled ai (bi ) is identified with the edge labelled a−1
i (b−1
i )
in the direction shown.
a2 b−1
1

b2 a−1
1

a−1
2
b1

b−1 a1
2

The above construction can be generalized to every regular polygon whose num-
ber of sides is divisible by four. Anyway, some work is needed to make the above
constructions precise. We begin by reviewing the quotient topology: Let X be a
topological space and let ∼ be an equivalence relation on X. Further, let X/ ∼
denote the set of equivalence classes, termed the quotient of X by ∼, and let
π : X → X/ ∼ be the map which to every x ∈ X associates its equivalence
class. We turn X/ ∼ into a topological space as follows: A set U ⊆ X/ ∼ is open if
π −1 (U ) is open. Using the fact that π respects all Boolean operations one verifies
that this definition does indeed turn X/ ∼ into a topological space. Furthermore,
π is continuous.
Example 1.16. (Torus). Let X := R2 . For all x, y ∈ X, set x ∼ y if and only
if x − y ∈ Z2 . Since (Z2 , +) is a group, this is indeed an equivalence relation.
We are going to argue that X/ ∼ is homeomorphic to the torus. First of all we
determine a suitable piece of X which meets every equivalence class. The unit square
S := [0, 1]2 ⊂ R2 will serve. Indeed, let π : X → X/ ∼ denote the quotient map.
Then π([0, 1]2 ) = X/ ∼. To see this, just floor the components of a vector x ∈ X
and subtract the resulting vector from x. However, it remains to be understood
which points of S are identified under the equivalence relation. Clearly, if x ∈ S is
in the interior of S, no other point in S is equivalent to x. However, (x1 , 0)T ∈ S is
identified with (x1 , 1)T ∈ S for all x1 ∈ [0, 1] and, similarly, (0, x2 )T ∈ S is identified
with (1, x2 )T ∈ S for all x2 ∈ [0, 1]. As observed above, these identifications yield a
torus. The details of a homeomorphism are to be worked out.
The following example observes that not all equivalence relations yield reasonable
quotient spaces.
Example 1.17. (A pathology). Let X := R. For all x, y ∈ X, set x ∼ y if and only
if x − y ∈ Q. We show that X/ ∼ is an uncountable space whose quotient topology
has only the trivial open sets. Hence the topology is not suited at all to study
the quotient in this case, it does not give any shape. First of all, X/ ∼ is in fact
uncountable since otherwise R would be a countable union of countable equivalence
classes and thus countable. Now, let U ⊆ X/ ∼ be open, i.e. π −1 (U ) is open. Hence
π −1 (U ) contains a non-empty open interval (a, b). As a result, (a, b) + Q = R ⊆
π −1 (U ) since any real number can be approximated arbitrarily well by rationals.
Hence the assertion.
The last example shows that in order to obtain quotient topologies with good
properties one has to impose some conditions on the equivalence relation.
8 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Definition 1.18. Let X be a topological space. An equivalence relation ∼ on X is

open if for every open set U ⊆ X, the image π(U ) ⊆ X/ ∼ is open.

Retain the notation of Definition 1.18. The statement is equivalent to demanding

that the quotient map be open, or, by definition of the quotient topology, that
π −1 (π(U )) = {y ∈ X | ∃x ∈ U : y ∼ x} be open in X for all open U ⊆ X.
Reviewing Example 1.16 in this regard we indeed see that the associated
S equiv-
alence relation is open: Let U ⊆ R2 be open. Then π −1 (π(U )) = γ∈Z2 (γ + U ) is
open as a union of open sets.
However, note that non-open equivalence relations need not exclusively yield
bad quotient spaces. In fact, consider S = [0, 1]2 ⊆ R2 with the induced topology
and identify opposite sides via ∼ as in Example 1.16. Then ∼ is not open but the
quotient space is the same as above: The image of the following open set U ⊆ S is
not open. In a sense, one half of it is missing in the quotient.

In any case, open equivalence relations yield quotients which potentially sat-
isfy the first two requirements on topological manifolds as follows. Recall that an
equivalence relation ∼ on a set X is the subset R := {(x, y) ∈ X × X | x ∼ y}.

Proposition 1.19. Let X be topological space and let ∼ be an open equivalence

relation on X.
(i) If X is second-countable then so is X/ ∼.
(ii) The quotient X/ ∼ is Hausdorff if and only if R ⊆ X 2 is closed.

Proof. As to (i), let B be a basis of open subsets of X and set B ′ := {π(U ) | U ∈ B}.
Since ∼ is open, B ′ consists of open sets. S
In addition, if V ⊆ X/ ∼ is open then by
definition so is π −1 (V ), hence π −1 (V ) = U∈B, U⊆π−1 (V ) U . Therefore
[
V = π(π −1 (V )) = π(U )
U ∈B
U ⊆ π −1 (V )

and hence B ′ is a basis as well.

Regarding (ii), first suppose that X/ ∼ is Hausdorff. We show that X × X\R is
open. To this end, let (x, y) ∈ X × X\R, i.e. π(x) 6= π(y). By assumption, there
are open subsets Ux , Uy in X/ ∼ containing π(x) and π(y) respectively such that
Ux ∩ Uy = ∅. Then π −1 (Ux ) and π −1 (Uy ) are open subsets of X containing x and
y respectively. Hence π −1 (Ux ) × π −1 (Uy ) is an open subset of X × X containing
(x, y). Finally, we observe that π −1 (Ux ) × π −1 (Uy ) does not intersect R. Indeed,
suppose (z1 , z2 ) ∈ R ∩ π −1 (Ux ) × π −1 (Uy ). Then π(z1 ) = π(z2 ) on the one hand
and π(z1 ) ∈ Ux and π(z2 ) ∈ Uy on the other hand which contradicts Ux ∩ Uy = ∅.
Conversely, assume that R ⊆ X × X is closed and let x, y ∈ X such that π(x) 6=
π(y). Then (x, y) ∈ / R. Since R is closed there are open sets Vy and Vy containing x
and y respectively such that (Vx × Vy ) ∩ R = ∅. In other words, π(Vx ) ∩ π(Vy ) = ∅.
Conclude by recalling that ∼ is open and hence so are π(Vx ) and π(Vy ). 
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 9

The second part of Proposition 1.19 can be applied to Example 1.16. Indeed, the
equivalence relation
R = {(x, y) ∈ R2 × R2 | x − y ∈ Z2 }
= {(x, y) ∈ R2 × R2 | (e2πi(x1 −x2 ) , e2πi(y1 −y2 ) ) = (1, 1)}
is a level set of a continuous function and as such closed.
Example 1.20. (Real projective space). In linear algebra, Pn R is defined as the
quotient of Rn+1 \{0} by the equivalence relation x ∼ y if and only if x = λy for
some λ ∈ R∗ . In fact, we could replace R with any other field. In this case, the
equivalence relation is open and its graph R is closed. Hence Pn R = Rn+1 \{0}/ ∼
is second-countable and Hausdorff. S
To see that ∼ is open, let A ⊆ Rn+1 \{0} be open, then π −1 (π(A)) = λ∈R∗ λA
is open as well since multiplication by λ is a homeomorphism of Rn+1 \{0}.
Now we show that R is closed. As before, we identify it as the level set of a
continuous function. Define
n+1
X
n+1 n+1
f :R ×R → R, (x, y) 7→ (xi yj − xj yi )2 .
i,j=1

If y = λx then yi = λxi for all i ∈ {1, . . . , n + 1} and hence xi yj − xj yi = xi (λxj ) −

xj (λxi ) = 0. Conversely, assume that x, y ∈ Rn+1 \{0} and f (x, y) = 0. Then
xi yj −xj yi = 0 for all i, j ∈ {1, . . . , n+1}. Without loss of generality we may assume
that x1 6= 0. Then x1 yj − xj y1 = 0 implies yj = (y1 /x1 )xj for all j ∈ {1, . . . , n + 1},
i.e. y = λx where λ = y1 /x1 . Since y 6= 0 we conclude that λ 6= 0.
We now equip Pn R with charts: Set U ei := {x = (x1 , . . . , xn+1 ) ∈ Rn+1 | xi = 1}.

e3 ⊆ R3
U
b

Then π −1 (π(U ei )) = {(x1 , . . . , xn+1 ) | xi 6= 0} is open and hence by definition so is

Ui := π(U ei ) ⊆ Pn R. Since π| e : U ei → Ui is continuous by definition of the quotient
Ui
topology, as well as injective and open, it is a homeomorphism. To build a chart,
ei → Rn
let pri : Rn+1 → Rn , x 7→ (x1 , . . . , x̂i , . . . , xn+1 ) and observe that pri |Uei : U
n
is a homeomorphism. Hence ϕi : Ui → R , y 7→ pri ◦(π|Uei )−1 (y) is a homeomor-
Sn+1
phism as well. Combining this with the fact that i=1 Ui = Pn R shows that
n
(Ui , ϕi )i∈{1,...,n+1} is an atlas on P R.
Next up, we compute the coordinate transformations. Let 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n+1. Then
ϕi (Ui ∩ Uj ) = {y = (y1 , . . . , yn ) | yj−1 6= 0} and ϕj (Ui ∩ Uj ) = {y = (y1 , . . . , yn ) |
yi 6= 0}. One then checks that θji : ϕi (Ui ∩ Uj ) → ϕj (Ui ∩ Uj ) is given by
1
(y1 , . . . , yn ) 7→ (y1 , . . . , yi−1 , 1, yi , . . . , ybj−1 , . . . , yn )
yj−1
and hence is smooth. Overall, we have shown that Pn R admits the structure of a
smooth n-manifold. Furthermore, it is compact: Simply note that π|Sn : S n → Pn R
10 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

is surjective. (It is not injective, however; in fact every point in Pn R has two pre-
images.
Example 1.21. (Grassmann manifolds). Grassmann manifolds generalize projective
space and play a major role in the theory of vector bundles which we study later
on. Let 1 ≤ k ≤ n and let G(k, n) be the set of all subspaces of Rn of dimension k.
First of all, we describe a topology on G(k, n) utilizing linear algebra: Let
F (k, n) := {(v1 , . . . , vk ) ∈ (Rn )k | v1 , . . . , vk linearly independent}. Since every
vector space admits a basis, we have a surjective map π : F (k, n) → G(k, n) given
by (v1 , . . . , vk ) 7→ R v1 + · · ·+ R vk . This already puts us in a good position to define
a topology: To k vectors w1 , . . . , wk of Rn we associate the k × n-matrix
 
w1
 .. 
M (w1 , . . . , wk ) :=  .  .
wk
Then w1 , . . . , wk are linearly independent if and only if rankM (w1 , . . . , wk ) = k. In
this way, F (k, n) is identified with {A ∈ Mk,n (R) | rankA = k}, that is
   

 A1j1 · · · A1jk 

 .. . 
..  6= 0
A ∈ Mk,n (R) ∃1 ≤ j1 < · · · < jk ≤ n : det  .

 

Akj1 · · · Akjk
which is union over multi-indices of open subsets of Mk,n (R) and hence open. Fur-
thermore, given w1 , . . . , wk and w1′ , . . . , wk′ one verifies that R w1 + · · · + R wk =
R w1′ + · · · R wk′ if and only if there is B ∈ GL(k, R) such that M (w1 , . . . , wk ) =
BM (w1′ , . . . , wk′ ). Using this, one can show that (w1 , . . . , wk ) ∼ (w1′ , . . . , wk′ ) if
and only if R w1 + · · · R wk = R w1′ + · · · R wk′ is an open equivalence relation:
Indeed, given B ∈ GL(k, R), the map LB : Mk,n (R) → Mk,n (R), A 7→ BA is
an invertible linear map with inverse LB −1 . In particular, LB is a homeomor-
phism. It preserves
S the open subset F (k, n) and if Ω ⊆ Fk,n is open then so is
π −1 (π(Ω)) = B∈GL(k,R) LB (Ω). One may also show that the graph of ∼ is a closed
subset of F (k, n)× F (k, n). We have thus equipped G(k, n) with a second-countable
Hausdorff topology.
We now define charts on G(k, n) which turn it into a smooth manifold. Notice the
analogy to the construction of Example 1.20. For any multi-index J = (j1 , . . . , jk )
where 1 ≤ j1 ≤ · · · ≤ jk ≤ n, set
    
 w1
 w1j1 · · · w1jk 

eJ =  .   . ..  = Id ∈ M (R) .
U  ..  ∈ Mk,n (R)  .. .  k,k

 

wk wkj1 · · · wkjk
eJ → G(k, n) is injective and
Then π|UeJ : U
    
 v1
 v1j1 ··· v1jk 

−1 e  ..   .. ..  6= 0 .
π (π(UJ )) =  .  det  . . 

 

vk vkj1 ··· vkjk
S
Therefore, π(UeJ ) ⊆ G(k, n) is open and we have e
J π(UJ ) = G(k, n). As a con-
sequence π|UeJ : UeJ → π(U eJ ) is bijective, continuous and open, that is, a home-
∼
=
omorphism. In addition, we have the projection maps pJ : U eJ −
→ Mk,n−k (R) and
one verifies that (π(UeJ ), pJ ◦ (π| e ) )J is a smooth atlas on G(k, n). We have
−1
UJ
dim G(k, n) = k(n − k).
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 11

1.3. Differentiable Maps: Definition and Examples. From the categorical

viewpoint, we have so far introduced the objects. Morphisms, however, are still
missing. In other words, without the means to compare smooth manifolds, nothing
is going to happen.
Pk
Recall that in Rk we measure the length of vectors by kvk = i=1 vi2 . This is
used in the definition of differentiability of a map defined on an open subset of Rn .
Definition 1.22. Let U ⊆ Rn be open and let p ∈ U . A map f : U → Rm is
differentiable at p ∈ U if there exists a linear map L : Rn → Rm such that f (p+v) =
f (p) + L(v) + R(p, v) for all v ∈ Rn such that p + v ∈ U with
kR(p, v)k
lim = 0.
v→0 kvk
In the situation of Definition 1.22, we write Dp f = L. One of the most useful
criteria for differentiability in Rn is the following.
Theorem 1.23. Let U ⊆ Rn be open. Further, let f : U → Rm , x 7→ (f1 (x), . . . , fm (x))
be C 1 on U . Then f is differentiable at every point p ∈ U and the matrix of Dp f
with respect to the standard bases on Rn and Rm is given by
 ∂f1 ∂f1 
∂x1 · · · ∂x n
 .. .. 
 . . 
∂fm ∂fm
∂xn ··· ∂xn

Recall that in fact the existence of partial derivatives alone does not imply dif-
ferentiability. For instance, the function
(
xy
2 2 2 (x, y) 6= (0, 0)
f : R → R, (x, y) 7→ x +y
0 (x, y) = (0, 0)
has partial derivatives everywhere but is not differentiable at (x, y) = (0, 0). In fact,
it is not even continuous at this point.
We now define smooth functions on manifolds.
Definition 1.24. Let M be a smooth manifold and p ∈ M . A function f : M → R
is differentiable at p if for some chart (U, ϕ) at p, the function ϕ(U ) → R, x →
7
f ◦ ϕ−1 (x) is differentiable at ϕ(p).
Definition 1.24 is in fact independent of the chart chosen. The argument which
shows this is an important and much used one: Let (U, ϕ) and (V, ψ) be charts
including p ∈ M . For x ∈ ψ(U ∩ V ) we compute f ◦ ψ −1 (x) = f ◦ ϕ−1 ◦ (ϕ ◦ ψ −1 )(x)
which is a composition of the smooth map ϕ ◦ ψ −1 defined on ψ(U ∩ V ) and f ◦
ϕ−1 which is differentiable at ϕ(p). The same argument shows that the following
definitions make sense.
Definition 1.25. Let M and N be smooth manifolds. Then
(i) f ∈ C k (M, R) if for every chart (U, ϕ) of M the function f ◦ϕ−1 : ϕ(U ) → R
is C k ,
(ii) f : M → N is differentiable at p ∈ M if there are charts (U, ϕ) at p and
(W, ψ) at f (p) such that (1) f (U ) ⊆ W and (2) ψ ◦ f ◦ ϕ−1 : ϕ(U ) → ψ(W )
is differentiable at ϕ(p),
(iii) f ∈ C k (M, N ) if f : M → N is continuous and for every pair (U, ϕ),
(W, ψ) of charts respectively on M and N such that f (U ) ⊆ W the map
ϕ(U ) → ψ(W ), x 7→ ψ ◦ f ◦ ϕ−1 (x) is C k , and
(iv) f : M → N is a C k -diffeomorphism if f is a homeomorphism and both f
and f −1 are C k -maps.
12 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Retain Definition 1.25. Note that in (ii) we do not simply require (2) because
without (1) it might be satisfied automatically for rather bad choices of f . Also,
the reader is invited to check that Definition 1.25 is consistent, i.e. for instance that
part (iii) for N = R yields the same notion as part (i). The following is an example
of how results of calculus, namely Theorem 1.23 generalize to manifolds.
Theorem 1.26. Let M and N be manifolds and let f : M → N be a C 1 -map. Then
f is differentiable at every point p ∈ M .
Remark 1.27. We now collect several examples to illustrate Definition 1.25.
(i) Given a manifold M , the set C k (M, R) of C k -functions on M is an R-
algebra for pointwise addition and multiplication of functions. This follows
from the according statement for M = R.
(ii) Let M, N and R be manifolds and let f ∈ C k (M, N ) as well as g ∈ C k (N, R)
be given. Then g ◦ f ∈ C k (M, R) by the chainS rule.
(iii) Let M and N be a manifolds and let M = α∈A Uα be an open covering
of M . Then f ∈ C k (M, N ) if and only if f |Uα ∈ C k (Uα , N ) for all α ∈ A,
i.e. being C k is a local condition.
(iv) Let M = R and N = S 1 = {z ∈ C | |z| = 1}. Then exp : R → S 1 , t 7→ e2πit
is smooth.
(v) Consider GL(n, R) with its smooth structure defined in Example 1.8. Then
the map GL(n, R) × GL(n, R) → GL(n, R), (A, B) 7→ AB is smooth. As
a consequence, given g ∈ GL(n, R) the map Lg : GL(n, R) → GL(n, R),
a 7→ ga is a diffeomorphism. In fact, a two-sided inverse of Lg is Lg−1 .
Remark 1.28. We remark further that any homeomorphism of a manifold can be
turned into a smooth map: Let M be a smooth manifold with maximal atlas A and
let F : M → M be a homeomorphism. Set A′ = {(F (U ), ϕ ◦ F −1 ) | (U, ϕ) ∈ A}.
Then A′ is a (maximal) smooth atlas on M and F : (M, A) → (M, A′ ) is a smooth
diffeomorphism.
We are now working towards the rank theorem for which we recall that the rank
of a linear map T : Rn → Rm is given by the dimension of its image which equals
the row and column rank of any coordinate matrix of T .
Definition 1.29. Let M and N be manifolds, p ∈ M and let f : M → N be
differentiable at p. Further, let (U, ϕ) be a chart of M at p and (W, ψ) a chart of N
at f (p). The rank of f at p is the rank at ϕ(p) of the linear map Dϕ(p) (ψ ◦ f ◦ ϕ−1 ) :
Rn → Rm .
The notion of rank of a map will be exploited a lot in the sequel. It leads to
the concept of immersion, submersion, immersed manifolds etc. The key ingredient
comes from the rank theorem of calculus to which we now turn.
1.4. The Rank Theorem. First of all, we recall the inverse function theorem.
Theorem 1.30. Let W ⊆ Rn be open and let F : W → Rn be a C r -map (r ≥ 1) such
that at a ∈ W , the derivative Da F : Rn → Rn is invertible. Then there are open
subsets U and V of Rn containing a and F (a) respectively such that F |U : U → V
is a C r -diffeomorphism.
This theorem is adaptable to the setting of smooth manifolds. However, for
now we apply it to the following calculus result which says that up to smooth
change of coordinates a map with constant rank k is the projection onto the first
k components. To this end, recall the following fact from linear algebra: Let L :
Rn → Rm be a linear map of rank k. Note that necessarily k ≤ min(m, n). Then
there are invertible linear maps G : Rn → Rn and H : Rm → Rm such that
(H ◦ L ◦ G−1 )(x1 , . . . , xn ) = (x1 , . . . , xk , 0, . . . , 0).
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 13

Theorem 1.31. Let A0 ⊆ Rn and B0 ⊆ Rm be open and let F : A0 → B0 be a

C r -map (r ≥ 1). Assume that F has constant rank k on A0 . Then given a0 ∈ A0
there are open subsets A and B of A0 and B0 respectively, containing a0 and F (a0 )
respectively as well as C r -diffeomorphisms G : A → U ⊆ Rn and H : B → V ⊆
Rm to open subsets U and V of Rn and Rm respectively such that G(a0 ) = 0,
H(F (a0 )) = 0 and HF G−1 (x1 , . . . , xn ) = (x1 , . . . , xk , 0, . . . , 0).
The assertion of Theorem 1.31 may be visualized as follows.
A0 B0
b F B
b

G H
U
V
HF G−1
0 b b
0

We state that the change of variable maps G and H of Theorem 1.31 are not
generally defined on the whole of A0 and B0 .

Proof. Altering G and H with translations if necessary we may without loss of

generality assume that a0 = 0 as well as F (a0 ) = 0. Now D0 F = (∂Fj /∂xi )i,j
where 1 ≤ j ≤ m and 1 ≤ i ≤ n has rank k. Modulo permuting coordinates in Rn
and Rm we may assume that the first principal k × k-minor of D0 F has non-zero
determinant, that is
 
∂Fj
det 6= 0.
∂xi 1≤i≤k
1≤j≤k

Define G(x) := (F1 (x), . . . , Fk (x), xk+1 , . . . , xn ) where F (x) = (F1 (x), . . . , Fm (x)).
Observe that G(0) = 0 Furthermore, we have x ∈ A0 :
 ∂F ∂F1 ∂F1 ∂F1

∂x1
1
· · · ∂x k ∂x k+1
· · · ∂x n
 . .. .. .. 
 . 
 . . . .    !
 ∂Fk ∂Fk  ∂Fi
 ∂x1 · · · ∂F k ∂Fk
· · ·  ∂xj ∗
Dx G =  ∂xk ∂xk+1 ∂xn  = .
 0 ··· 0 1  0 Idn−k
 
 .. .. .. 
 . . . 
0 ··· 0 1
That is, det Dx G = det(∂Fi /∂xj ) 6= 0. Hence we may apply the Inverse Function
Theorem to G. There are open subsets A1 ⊂ A and U1 ⊆ Rn , containing 0 respec-
tively such that G : A1 → U1 is a C r -diffeomorphism. Now, let us compute F ◦ G−1
on U1 : Let y ∈ U1 and write y = G(x) with x ∈ A1 . Then
F ◦ G−1 (y) = F ◦ G−1 (F1 (x), . . . , Fk (x), xk+1 , . . . , xn ) = F (x1 , . . . , xn )
= (F1 (x), . . . , Fk (x), Fk+1 (x), . . . , Fm (x))
= (y1 , . . . , yk , fk+1 (y), . . . , fm (y))

for some fl (y) = Fl (x) with l ≥ k + 1. Now observe that F ◦ G−1 has constant rank
k on U1 and that for y ∈ U1 we have Dy (F ◦ G−1 ) = DG−1 (y) F ◦ Dy G. Hence the
14 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

lower right block in the matrix

 
Idk 0 ··· 0
 ∗ ∂fk+1
···
∂fk+1 
 ∂yk+1 ∂yn 
Dy (F ◦ G−1 ) = 
 .. .. .. 

 . . . 
∂fm ∂fm
∗ ∂yk+1 ··· ∂yn

vanishes. Modulo replacing U1 with a smaller connected ε-ball we may thus assume
that the functions fk+1 , . . . , fm only depend on y1 , . . . , yk . Thus
F ◦ G−1 (y1 , . . . , yn ) = (y1 , . . . , yk , fk+1 (y1 , . . . , yk ), . . . , fm (y1 , . . . , yk ))
Now define T (z) := (z1 , . . . , zk , zk+1 + fk+1 (z1 , . . . , zk ), . . . , zm + fm (z1 , . . . , zk )) for
z ∈ Rm with (z1 , . . . , zk ) ∈ prk1 (U1 ) where prk1 projects onto the first k coordinates.
Then T (0) = 0 and
 
Idk 0
∗ Idn−k
is invertible. By the Inverse Function Theorem there is an open set B1 ⊆ Rm
containing 0 such that T : B1 → T (B1 ) ⊆ Rm is a C r -diffeomorphism onto its open
image. Furthermore,
T (z1 , . . . , zk , 0, . . . , 0) = (z1 , . . . , zk , fk+1 (z1 , . . . , zk ), . . . , fm (z1 , . . . , zk ))
which implies the assertion: T −1 F G−1 (y1 , . . . , yn ) = (y1 , . . . , yk , 0, . . . , 0). Now set
H = T −1 . 
We remark that in Mm,n (R) the condition of being of rank k is neither open
nor closed and hence constitutes a strong assumption in the above theorem which
utterly fails without it. As an immediate corollary of Theorem 1.31, we record
that for a smooth map between manifolds there are always charts “adapted” to
it. To this end we introduce the following notation: Given a ∈ Rn and ε > 0 set
Cεn (a) := {x ∈ Rn | ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , n} : |xi − ai | < ε}. The sets Cεn (a) are hypercubes,
for instance Cεn (0) = (−ε, ε)n .
Corollary 1.32. Let N and M be manifolds of dimension n and m respectively and
p ∈ M . Further, let F : M → N be a smooth map of constant rank k. Then there
are charts (U, ϕ) at p and (W, ψ) at F (p) such that ϕ(p) = 0, ϕ(U ) = Cεn (0) ⊆ Rn
as well as ψ(F (p)) = 0, ψ(W ) = Cεm (0) and
ψF ϕ−1 (x1 , . . . , xn ) = (x1 , . . . , xk , 0, . . . , 0)
for some ε > 0. 
1.5. Submanifolds, Immersions, Embeddings etc. We have defined the cat-
egory of smooth manifolds and smooth maps. In some categories the image and
kernel of a morphism are naturally identified as subobjects of the codomain and
domain of the morphism. For instance, if L : V → W is a linear map between
vector spaces then L(V ) is a subspace of W and L−1 (0) ⊆ V is subspace of V . An
analogous statement holds true in the category of groups. For smooth manifolds,
however, images and level sets of smooth maps can be pretty bad. In the sequel
we address both of these problems. First we establish conditions under which level
sets of smooth maps are “nice”. This leads us to introduce the notion of a subman-
ifold. For instance, S 1 is a submanifold of the torus in e.g. the way depicted below.
However, a real line wrapped around the torus at an irrational angle α ∈ R \ Q as
in ι : R → S 1 × S 1 , t 7→ (e2πit , e2πiαt ) is not going to be a submanifold because a
neighbourhood of a point in the image contains a dense set of image points. In fact,
the image of ι is dense in S 1 × S 1 .
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 15

Definition 1.33. Let M be an m-manifold. A subset N ⊆ M is an n-submanifold

if for any p ∈ N there is a chart (U, ϕ) at p such that ϕ(p) = 0, ϕ(U ) = Cεm (0) =
(−ε, ε)m and ϕ(U ∩ N ) = {x ∈ Cεm (0) | xn+1 = · · · = xm = 0}.
We remark that in the literature, Definition 1.33 often defines a regular subman-
ifold. Also, one verifies easily that the restriction to N of all charts as in Definition
1.33 gives a smooth atlas on N and hence a structure of smooth n-manifold. Strictly
speaking, we have the charts
prk
ϕ|U∩N : U ∩ N → {x ∈ Cεm (0) | xn+1 = · · · = xm = 0} −−→
1
Cεn (0) ⊆ Rn
Showing that the associated coordinate transformations are smooth amounts to
saying that the restriction of a smooth map defined on Rn remains smooth when
restricted to a coordinate plane.
Our results enable us to introduce the following mechanism to construct smooth
manifolds.
Theorem 1.34. Let N and M be manifolds of dimension n and m respectively.
Further, let F : N → M be a smooth map of constant rank k and let q ∈ F (N ).
Then F −1 (q) ⊆ N is a submanifold of N of dimension n − k.
Proof. Let p ∈ F −1 (q) = {x ∈ N | F (x) = q}. By Corollary 1.32 there are charts
(U, ϕ) and (W, ψ) at p and F (p) respectively such that ϕ(p) = 0, ϕ(U ) = Cεn (0),
ψ(W ) = Cεm (0) and ψ(q) = 0 as well as ψF ϕ−1 (x1 , . . . , xn ) = (x1 , . . . , xk , 0, . . . , 0):
F |U
U /W

ϕ ψ
 
Cεn (0) / C m (0)
ε
prk
1

In particular, (F |U )−1 (q) = U ∩ F −1 (q) and ϕ(U ∩ F −1 (q)) = (prk1 )−1 (0) = {x ∈
Cεn (0) | x1 = · · · = xk = 0} which is a hypercube. Up to swapping coordinates this
shows that F −1 (q) is a submanifold in the sense of Definition 1.33. 

Using the following definitions we broaden the applicability of Theorem 1.34. In

the sequel, N n and M m denote manifolds of dimension n and m respectively.
Definition 1.35. Let N n and M m be smooth manifolds and let f : N → M be a
smooth map.
(i) A point x ∈ N n is a critical point if the rank of f at x is strictly less than
m. The corresponding value f (x) is critical.
(ii) A value y ∈ M is regular if f has rank m at every point of f −1 (y)
Retain the notation of Definition 1.35. Notice that if m n then every x ∈ N is
a critical point. We now have the following.
Theorem 1.36. Let N n and M m be smooth manifolds and let f : N → M be a
smooth map. Further, let y ∈ M be a regular value of f . Then f −1 (y) is a regular
(n − m)-dimensional submanifold of N .
16 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Note that in Theorem 1.36, the set f −1 (y) on which f has constant rank is a
closed subset of N . Therefore, a priori, Theorem 1.34 is useless. However, we will
exploit the fact that the rank at any point in f −1 (y) is the maximal possible one
using the following lemma.
Lemma 1.37. Let n ≥ m be integers. Then the set Rm := {A ∈ Mm,n (R) | rank A =
m} is open in Mm,n (R).
Proof. For every A ∈ Rm we construct an open neighbourhood of A contained in
Rm . Let 1 ≤ j1 < · · · < jm ≤ n be a multi-index such that the associated minor of
A has non-zero determinant:
 
A1j1 · · · A1jm
det  ... ..  6= 0.

. 
Amj1 ··· Amjm
Then ( )
VA := B ∈ Mm,n (R) det(Bijl ) 1≤l≤m 6= 0
1≤i≤m

is an open subset of Mm,n (R) containing A which is in fact contained in Rm by

maximality of m since rank B ≥ m for all B ∈ VA . 

We now prove Theorem 1.36.

Proof. Consider the subset R := {x ∈ N | rankx f = m} of N . By hypothesis,

R contains f −1 (y). Furthermore, R is open in N by Lemma 1.37: Let x ∈ R and
let (U, ϕ) and (W, ψ) be charts at x and f (x) respectively such that f (U ) ⊆ W .
Consider ϕ(U ) → ψ(W ), z 7→ ψf ϕ−1 (z). We know that rank Dϕ(x) (ψf ϕ−1 ) = m.
In addition, the map ϕ(U ) → Mn,n (R) which to z ∈ ϕ(U ) associates Dz (ψf ϕ−1 )
is continuous. Hence, by Lemma 1.37, the set {z ∈ ϕ(U ) | rank Dz (ψf ϕ−1 ) = m}
is open and contains ϕ(x). Therefore, there is an open subset of U containing
x on which f has constant rank m which implies that R is open. Thus R is a
smooth n-manifold on which f has constant rank. Applying Theorem 1.34 yields
the assertion. 

Given that individual level sets of a smooth function f : Rn → R may be

arbitrary closed subsets of Rn , one would not expect regular values to be abundant.
However, we shall see in Theorem 1.43 that in fact they are in a very precise sense.
First of all, though, we give a sample application of Theorem 1.36.
Theorem 1.38. The orthogonal group O(n) := {X ∈ GL(n, R) | X T X = Id} is a
regular submanifold of GL(n, R) of dimension n(n − 1)/2: To see this, consider the
map F : Mn,n (R) → Mn,n (R) given by X 7→ X T X. We show that F has constant
rank n(n − 1)/2 on GL(n, R). We compute
F (X + hY ) − F (X)
DX F (Y ) = lim = Y T X + XT Y
h→0 h
and note that the map
DX F : Mn,n (R) → Mn,n (R), Y 7→ Y T X + X T Y
ranges in symmetric matrices. We therfore reconsider
DX F : Mn,n (R) → Symn (R), Y 7→ Y T X + X T Y
and note that if X is invertible then the image of DX F is Symn (R). Hence F has
constant rank n(n + 1)/2 on GL(n, R) which implies the assertion.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 17

Having discussed level sets of smooth functions we now turn to the question
under which circumstances the image of a smooth map between manifolds is a
manifold.

Definition 1.39. Let N n and M m be smooth manifolds and let f : N → M be a

smooth map. Then f is an immersion if the rank of f at every point is n.

Observe that an immersion f : N n → M m is only possible for n ≤ m. In local

coordinates, an immersion looks nice by Theorem 1.34. Also, the inverse image of
a point under f is a 0-dimensional submanifold of N and hence discrete.

Example 1.40. We give two examples of an immersion.

(i) Let f : R → R2 , t 7→ (2 cos t, sin 2t). Since f˙(t) = (−2 sin t, 2 cos 2t) 6= 0 for
all t ∈ R this map is in fact an immersion, of constant rank one. Its graph
looks as follows:

Notice that f (π/2) = (0, 0)T = f (3π/2). In particular, immersions need not
be injective. However, the tangent vectors of f at these two points differ.
(ii) As before, consider the irrationally imbedded real line into the torus given
by f : R → S 1 × S 1 , t 7→ (e2πit , e2πiαt ) where α ∈ R \ Q. Whereas f is
injective, its image is dense which is considered bad for reasons that will
become clear later.

The following is a stronger notion than immersion.

Definition 1.41. Let N n and M m be smooth manifolds and let f : N → M be a

smooth map. Then f is an embedding if f (N ) ⊆ M is a regular submanifold and if
f : N → f (N ) is a diffeomorphism.

Proposition 1.42. Let N n and M m be smooth manifolds and let f : N → M be a

smooth map. If f is an immersion and a homeomorphism onto its image then f is
an embedding.

This follows essentially from Theorem 1.34.

Proof. Since f : N → M is a homeomorphism onto its image we know that for

every open subset V ⊆ N there is an open subset W ⊆ M with f (V ) ⊆ W ∩ f (N ).
Now choose charts (V, ϕ) and (W, ψ) at p and f (p) respectively such that f (V ) ⊆
W ∩ f (N ) and ϕ(V ) = Cεn (0), ϕ(p) = 0 as well as ψ(W ) = Cεm (0), ψ(f (p)) = 0 and

ψf ϕ−1 : Cεn (0) → Cεm (0), x 7→ (x, 0).

ψ(W ∩ f (N )) = {y ∈ Cεm (0) | yn+1 = · · · = ym = 0}

which shows that f (N ) is a regular submanifold of M . 
18 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

1.6. Sard’s Theorem. We now turn to the arguably most important theorem in
Differential Topology. While individual level sets of smooth maps can be very bad,
there are quite general situations in which a smooth map has lots of regular values;
this follows from Sard’s Theorem which says that in any case the image of the set
of critical points is always small.
Theorem 1.43 (Sard, 1942). Let U ⊆ Rn be open and let f : U → Rm be smooth.
Let C := {x ∈ U | rank Dx f < m} be the set of critical points of f . Then f (C) ⊆
Rm has Lebesgue measure zero.
A few remarks about this theorem are in order. First of all, recall that S∞a subset
E ⊆ Rm has measure zero if for everyP ε > 0 there is a covering E ⊆ i=1 Ci by
∞
countably many hypercubes such that i=1 vol(Ci ) < ε. We will use several times
the fact that a countable union of sets of measure zero has measure zero. This
follows from the above definition by choosing geometrically decaying values for the
respective ε.
For instance, this implies the disturbing fact that Q ⊆ R has measure zero:
Indeed, let f : N → Q be a bijection. Then f (n) ∈ (f (n) − ε/2n , f (n) + ε/2n ) and
the sum of the volumes of these intervals is 2ε.
Also, note the following: Let f : [0, 1] → R be monotonically increasing, i.e.
f (t1 ) ≤ f (t2 ) whenever t1 ≤ t2 . Then the set of points at which f is not differen-
tiable is of measure zero. It therefore seems like one could deduce a lot of information
about f using its derivative; however, there is a monotonically increasing f whose
derivative is zero whenever it exists. See [RSN72] for a nice introduction to examples
of this sort.
Remark 1.44. We now discuss Theorem 1.43 in the two cases n < m and n ≥ m
because the flavour is somewhat different.
(i) (n < m). In this case, C = U and hence the statement is that f (U ) is of
measure zero in Rm . As a warm-up to this, we prove that if U ⊆ R is open
and f : U → Rm for m ≥ 2 is C 1 then f (U ) has measure zero. First of all,
note that the C 1 assumption is indeed necessary as there is a continuous
surjective map f : [0, 1] → [0, 1]2 . By reparameterization, assume that
[0, 1] ⊆ U . Then there is a constant C > 0 such that kf (x) − f (y)k ≤
C|x − y| for all x, y ∈ [0, 1]. Given k ∈ N, subdivide the interval [0, 1]
into the subintervals [j/k, (j + 1)/k]. Then f ([j/k, (j + 1)/k]) is contained
in a hypercube of side length at most C/k and f (C) can be covered by
k hypercubes of this side length. The volume of each such hypercube is
(C/k)m and hence the sum of their volumes is at most k(C/k)m = C m k 1−m .
Since m ≥ 2, this tends to zero as k tends to infinity.
(ii) (n ≥ m). Assume that f : U → Rm is defined on an open subset U ⊆ Rn .
Also, let us assume that C 6= U , that is, there is a regular point x ∈ U .
Then there is an open subset V in U containing x on which f has maximal
rank. Hence f (V ) ⊆ Rm is open and as a consequence cannot have measure
zero. Hence f (U )\f (C) is non-empty. In particular, there are tons of regular
values! In fact, Sard’s Theorem 1.43 is often applied by stating the existence
of a regular value.
(iii) We remark that Sard’s Theorem remains true under the weaker assumption
that f be C k for some k ≥ max{1, n − m + 1}. Thus for n = 1 it suffices in
fact to ask for f to be C 1 whereas when m = 1 the function f needs to be
C n . For instance, there is an example of a C 1 -function f : R2 → R whose
image contains an interval of singular values.
We now turn to the proof of Theorem 1.43. It contains two major ideas.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 19

Proof. The proof proceeds by induction on n. Note that the statement makes sense
for n ≥ 0 and m ≥ 1. For n = 0 and m ≥ 1 the theorem is true since the image
of the one-point space R0 has measure zero in Rm for m ≥ 1. Now, let n ≥ 1 and
write f = (f1 , . . . , fm ). Recall that C = {x ∈ U | rank Dx f < n}. Set
 
∂fr
C1 := {x ∈ U | Dx f ≡ 0} = x ∈ U (x) = 0 ∀r ∈ {1, . . . , m} ∀i ∈ {1, . . . , n} .
∂xi
More generally, for i ≥ 1, let Ci denote the set of all x ∈ U for which all partial
derivatives of f up to order i vanish at x. Then
· · · ⊆ Ci+1 ⊆ Ci ⊆ · · · ⊆ C1 ⊆ C.
The proof is now divided into the follwing three steps.
(i) Show that f (C\C1 ) has measure zero.
(ii) Show that f (Ci \Ci+1 ) has measure zero for all i ≥ 1.
These two steps are not
T yet enough to conclude the assertion as we do not know
about the measure of i≥1 Ci . We therefore end with the following step.
(iii) Show that f (Ck ) has measure zero for large enough k. In fact, k > n/m − 1.
The first two steps are based on the same idea whereas the third one introduces a
new one.
Step (i). We consider C\C1 . Observe that for m = 1 we have C = C1 . Indeed, for a
function f : U → R the condition that rank Dx f < 1 is equivalent to the vanishing
of all first partial derivative at x. Hence f (C\C1 ) is empty. We may thus assume
m ≥ 2. In this situation, let x ∈ C\C1 . By definition and without loss of generality
we may thus assume (∂f1 /∂x1 )(x) 6= 0. Define a change of variables h : U → Rn
by x 7→ (f1 (x), x2 , . . . , xn ) and observe that
 ∂f1 ∂f1 
∂x1 · · · · · · ∂x m
 1 
 
Dx h =  .. 
 . 
1
which has non-zero determinant. Hence, by the Inverse Function Theorem, there is
an open subset V of U containing x and an open subset V ′ ⊆ Rn containing h(x)
such that h|V : V → V ′ is a diffeomorphism. Now define g := f ◦(h|V )−1 : V ′ → Rm .
Let C ′ ⊆ V ′ be the set of critical points of g. Then the chain rule implies that
h(V ∩ C) = C ′ . Hence f (V ∩ C) = g(C ′ ). It now suffices to show that g(C ′ ) has
measure zero since we can cover U \C1 with countably many such V ’s and deduce
that f (C\C1 ) has measure zero.
As in Theorem 1.34, we show that g has a special form. Let (t, x2 , . . . , xn ) =
(f1 (x), x2 , . . . , xn ) = h(x) ∈ V ′ . Then
g(t, x2 , . . . , xn ) = gh(x) = f (x)
= (f1 (x), . . . , fm (x))
= (t, f2 h−1 (t, x2 , . . . , xn ), . . . , fm h−1 (t, x2 , . . . , xn ))
= (t, g t (x2 , . . . , xn )
where g t : Rn−1 → Rm−1 is given by
g t (x2 , . . . , xn ) := (f2 h−1 (t, x2 , . . . , xn ), . . . , fm h−1 (t, x2 , . . . , xn ).
Observe that n − 1 ≥ 0 and m − 1 ≥ 1 which is covered by the induction hypothesis.
Compute  
1 0
D(t,x2 ,...,xn ) g = .
∗ D(x2 ,...,xn ) g t
20 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Therefore, (t, x2 , . . . , xn ) is critical for g if and only if (x2 , . . . , xn ) is critical for g t .

Let C t denote the critical points of g t . Then g(C ′ ) = {(t, z) | z ∈ g t (Ct } and hence
g(C ′ ) ∩ ({t} × Rm−1 ) = {t} × g t (Ct ). By the induction hypothesis, the Lebesgue
measure of g t (Ct ) is zero for all t and hence by Fubini’s Theorem g(C ′ ) has measure
zero as well. For an efficient introduction to measure theory, see [Rud87].

This completes step one.

Step (ii). Let i ≥ 1 and x ∈ Ci \Ci+1 . Then for some 1 ≤ r ≤ m and some multi-
index 1 ≤ j1 ≤ · · · ≤ ji+1 ≤ n we have

∂ i fr (x)
w(x) := =0
∂xj2 · · · ∂xji+1

but ∂x
∂w
j1
6= 0. Without loss of generality, assume j1 = 1, that is ∂x ∂w
1
6= 0. Again,
n
consider the map h : U → R given by x 7→ (w(x), x2 , . . . , xn ) which is a diffeomor-
phism from some open set V ⊆ U containing x onto some open set V ′ ⊆ Rn . By
definition, h(Ci ∩ V ) ⊆ ({0} × Rn−1 ). Now, consider again the map g := f ◦ h−1 :
V ′ → Rm . Then gh(Ci ∩ V ) = f (Ci ∩ V ) but since h(Ci ∩ V ) ⊆ {0} × Rn−1 we may
consider g := g|{0}×Rn−1 . Observe that any point in h(Ci ∩ V ) is certainly a critical
point of g. Hence we are done by recurrence.
Step (iii). We now show for large enough k, the set f (Ck ) has measure zero. To this
end, let I δ ⊆ U be a closed hypercube whose edges have length δ. We show that
f (Ck ∩ I δ ) has measure zero for k > n/m − 1. By Taylor, we have for all x ∈ Ck ∩ I δ
and h with x + h ∈ I δ that

f (x + h) = f (x) + R(x, h)

where kR(x, h)k ≤ Ckhkk+1 and C only depends on f and I δ . More precisely, this
is a consequence of the integral form of the remainder. Now, pick N to subdivide
I δ into cubes of side length δ/N . Let I be one of these small cubes containing a
point x ∈ Ck ∩ I.
Ck
b

Iδ

Then for all h such that x + h ∈ I we have

 
k+1
√ δ k+1
kf (x + h) − f (x)k ≤ Ckhk ≤C n .
N

Hence f (I) is contained in a hypercube with edges of the above length. There are
at most N n such little cubes and hence f (Ck ∩ I δ ) is contained in a union of hyper-
√ √
cubes whose sum of volumes is less than N n (C nδ/N )(k+1)m = (C nδ)(k+1)m ·
N n−(k+1)m . For k > n/m − 1 we can make this sum arbitrarily small by choosing
N large enough. Hence the assertion. 
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 21

2. Tangent spaces, Differential and Whitney’s Embedding Theorem

2.1. Tangent Spaces. The naive idea of a tangent “plane” approximating a surface
up to order one cannot be implemented in general for lack of an ambient space.
However, there are at least two ways to define a tangent space and recover the above
intuition. We will start from the following viewpoint: Let M and N be manifolds
and p ∈ M . The tangent space Tp M should be equal to Rm if M = Rm , and such
that the construction is functorial, meaning that the derivative Dp f is a linear map
from Tp N → Tf (p) M .

Rn

b
⇀ p b

v
b

⇀
The mental picture of course is that a tangent vector v at a point p is attached
to p as it represents a small increment of the position vector of p. Now, let A be an
atlas on M and define
Ap := {(U, ϕ, ξ) | (U, ϕ) is a chart at p, ξ ∈ Rm }
On Ap we define a relation ∼p as follows. Set (U, ϕ, ξ) ∼p (V, ψ, η) if and only if
Dϕ(p) (ψ ◦ ϕ−1 )ξ = η.

U V

ϕ ψ

ϕ(U ) ψ ◦ ϕ−1 η ψ(V )

b b

Lemma 2.1. Retain the above notation. The relation ∼p is an equivalence relation.
Proof. Clearly, ∼p is reflexive. As to symmetry, suppose (U, ϕ, ξ) ∼ = (V, ψ, η), that
is Dϕ(p) (ψϕ−1 )ξ = η. Hence ξ = (Dϕ(p) (ψϕ−1 ))−1 (η). However, by the chain
rule, (Dϕ(p) (ψϕ−1 ))−1 = Dψ(p) (ϕψ −1 ) and hence ξ = Dψ(p) (ϕψ −1 )η which is the
= (U2 , ϕ2 , ξ2 ) and (U2 , ϕ2 , ξ2 ) ∼
assertion. For transitivity, suppose (U1 , ϕ1 , ξ1 ) ∼ =
−1
(U3 , ϕ3 , ξ3 ). Then Dϕ1 (p) (ϕ2 ϕ1 )ξ1 = ξ2 and Dϕ2 (p) (ϕ3 ϕ−1
2 )ξ2 = ξ3 . Now observe
that on ϕ1 (U1 ∩ U2 ∩ U3 ), which contains ϕ1 (p) we have (ϕ3 ϕ−1 −1
2 )(ϕ2 ϕ1 ) = ϕ3 ϕ1 .
−1

Hence the chain rule implies that

Dϕ1 (p) (ϕ3 ϕ−1 −1 −1
1 ) = Dϕ2 (p) (ϕ3 ϕ2 ) ◦ Dϕ1 (p) (ϕ3 ϕ1 )
maps ξ1 to ξ3 which is the assertion. 
22 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Given the above lemma, we now define Tp M := Ap / ∼p . Hence a tangent vector

at p is a consistent choice of tangent vectors in the charts. Next, we record that
Tp M does indeed admit a natural vector space structure.

Lemma 2.2. Let M be a manifold and let (U, ϕ) be a chart at p ∈ M . Then the
map Rm → Tp M, ξ 7→ [(U, ϕ, ξ)] is a bijection. The resulting vector space structure
on Tp M is independent of the choice of the chart (U, ϕ).

Proof. First, we show injectivity: Let ξ1 , ξ2 ∈ Rm and suppose that (U, ϕ, ξ1 ) ∼p

(U, ϕ, ξ2 ), i.e. Dϕ(p) (ϕ ◦ ϕ−1 )ξ1 = ξ2 which implies ξ1 = ξ2 . As to surjectivity: Let
v = [(V, ψ, η)] ∈ Tp M . Then (U, ϕ, Dψ(p) (ϕ ◦ ψ −1 )η) is equivalent to v.
Regarding the vector space structure, we need to show that addition and scalar
multiplication defined with respect to different choices of (U, ϕ) coincide. To this
end, let v1 , v2 ∈ Tp M . Assume that vi (i ∈ {1, 2}) is represented by both (U, ϕ, ξi )
and (V, ψ, ηi ). We need to show that (U, ϕ, ξ1 + ξ2 ) ∼p (V, ψ, η1 + η2 ). Indeed, we
have Dϕ(p) (ψϕ−1 )ξ1 = η1 and Dϕ(p) (ψϕ−1 )ξ2 = η2 and therefore Dϕ(p) (ψϕ−1 )(ξ1 +
ξ2 ) = η1 + η2 which amounts to the assertion. A similar argument works for scalar
multiplication. 

Remark 2.3. With this definition of tangent space we indeed recover the following:
Let U ⊆ Rm be an open subset, considered as a smooth m-manifold. Then using
the chart (U, Id) at any point p ∈ U leads to the identification Tp U = Rm .

Now, let f : N → M be a map which is differentiable at p. We define the

differential Dp f : Tp N → Tf (p) M of f at p in the following way: Pick local charts
(U, ϕ) at p and (V, ψ) at f (p) such that f (U ) ⊆ V . Given v := [(U, ϕ, ξ)] ∈ Tp N we
define Dp f (v) := [(V, ψ, Dϕ(p) (ψf ϕ−1 )ξ)]. Recall that by definition of smoothness
of f at p the map ψf ϕ−1 is indeed smooth at ϕ(p). The proof of the following
lemma is now left as an exercise.

Lemma 2.4. Retain the above notation. The map Dp f : Tp N → Tf (p) M is a

well-defined linear map. Further, the rank of f at p equals dim Dp f (Tp N ).

Also, the chain rule is generalized to the setting of manifolds.

Lemma 2.5. Let N, M and R be manifolds and f : N → M as well as g : M → R

be smooth maps. If f is differentiable at p ∈ N and g is differentiable at f (p) ∈ M
then gf : M → R is differentiable at p ∈ N and Dp gf = Df (p) g ◦ Dp f .

The following proposition underlines once more that our definition captures the
intuition: Let N, M be manifolds and f : N → M a smooth map of constant rank
k. Then for y ∈ f (N ), the set f −1 (y) ⊆ N is a regular (n − k)-submanifold. Let us
consider f −1 (y) as an (n− k)-manifold and the injection i : f −1 (y) ֒→ N which is of
rank n − k. Then for all x ∈ f −1 (y) we have the map Dx i : Tx (f −1 (y)) → Ti(x) N .

Proposition 2.6. Retain the above notation. For every x ∈ f −1 (y) we have

Dx i(Tx f −1 (y)) = ker Dx f.

The reader is encouraged to verify that this captures the intuition from above in
the case N = R3 \{0}, M = (0, ∞), f (x) = kxk2 , y = 1 and f −1 (y) = S 2 :
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 23

Proof. This can be proven directly by unravelling the definitions but there is also
a way to avoid that. Consider the constant map f ◦ i : f −1 (y) → M, x 7→ y. Then
Dx (f ◦ i) = 0. Using the chain rule we deduce Di(x) f ◦ Dx i = 0. In particular,
Dx i(Tx f −1 (y)) ⊆ ker(Di(x) f ). For the other inclusion, observe that rank of i at
any point x ∈ f −1 (y) is n − k. Hence dim Dx i(Tx f −1 (y)) = n − k. Since the
rank of f at any point is k we conclude that dim ker Di(x) f = n − k because
dim Ti(x) N − dim ker Di(x) f = dim Di(x) f = k and dim Ti(x) N = n. This implies
the converse inclusion. 
2.2. Tangent Vectors and Derivations. In this section, we discuss an equiva-
lent, more algebraic definition of the tangent space which is particularly useful e.g.
in the setting of Lie groups. Let N be an n-manifold and let p ∈ N . Recall that
C ∞ (N ) := C ∞ (N, R) is an R-algebra.
Definition 2.7. Let N be a manifold and p ∈ N . A derivation of C ∞ (N ) at p is a
map δ : C ∞ (N ) → R such that
(i) δ is an R-linear map, and
(ii) (Leibniz rule) for all f, g ∈ C ∞ (N ) we have δ(f g) = δ(f )g(p) + f (p)δ(g).
Let Derp C ∞ (N ) be the vector space of derivations at p
Theorem 2.8. Let N be a manifold and p ∈ N . The map
Tp N → Derp C ∞ (N ), v 7→ (δv : f 7→ Dp f (v))
is an isomorphism of vector spaces.
Note that Definition 2.7 is much easier to write down as a definition of the
tangent space but is also a lot less transparent. Nevertheless, as noted above, it is
an important description of the tangent space. We remark that the C ∞ -assumption
in Definition 2.7 is crucial. There are much more derivations of C k (N ) than those
which come from tangent vectors.
The strategy of proof of Theorem 2.8 is to translate the problem to Rn using
charts, solve it there and translate back the solution. The following lemmas are
concerned with the Euclidean setting.
In particular, the following function is needed in
the proof: Let σ : R → R be defined by
( 1
e − x2 x > 0
σ(x) := .
0 x≤0 b

Then σ ∈ C (R).
∞ 0

Lemma 2.9. Let K ⊆ Rn be compact and let F ⊆ Rn be closed with K ∩ F = ∅.

Then there is f ∈ C ∞ (Rn ) such that 0 ≤ f (x) ≤ 1 for all x ∈ Rn , f |K ≡ 1 and
f |F ≡ 0.
24 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Proof. We utilize the following more precise statement which will also be used in
the proof of Whitney’s embedding theorem: Let a ∈ Rn and ε > 0. Then there is
f ∈ C ∞ (Rn ) such that 0 ≤ f (x) ≤ 1 for all x ∈ Rn as well as f −1 (1) = Cε/2
n (a)
n
and f (0) = R \Cε (a).
−1 n

First, recall the function σ from above and consider the map R → R which sends
t to σ(t)σ(1/2 − t) and whose graph looks as follows:

b b

0 1
2
Rx
Next, consider the map R → R, x 7→ −∞ σ(t)σ(1/2 − t) dt. One easily determines
that its graph looks as follows:

b b

0 1
2
Finally, normalize the above function so that the constant value which it assumes
on [1/2, ∞) is one, i.e. define g : R → R by
Rx
σ(t)σ( 12 − t) dt
g(x) := R−∞
∞ 1
−∞ σ(t)σ( 2 − t) dt

Now, set β(x) := g(1 + x)g(1 − x) whose graph is

b b b b b

−1 − 21 0 1 1
2

This essentially solves the problem: It only remains to set

Yn  
xi − ai
f (x) := β .
i=1
ε

We are now in a position to prove the actual statement of the Lemma: Let
Sl Sl
ε > 0 and a1 , . . . , al ∈ K such that K ⊆ i=1 Cε/2 n
(ai ) ⊆ i=1 Cεn (ai ) ⊆ Rn \F .
For each ai (i ∈ {1, . . . , l}) pick βi as above for the hypercube Cε/2 n
(ai ) and set
Ql
f (x) = 1 − i=1 (1 − βi (x)). This function has all the right properties: Firstly, it
ranges betweeen zero and one because the βi do. Secondly, for x ∈ K there is some
i0 ∈ {1, . . . , l} such that x ∈ Cε/2
n
(ai0 ); hence βi0 (x) = 1 whence f (x) = 1. Thirdly,
if x ∈ F then x ∈ / Cε (ai ) and hence βi (x) = 0 for all i ∈ {1, . . . , l} and therefore
n

f (x) = 0. This proves the assertion. 

A good account for analytical aspects of the theory as the one above is [dR56].
The next lemma states that the image of a derivation on a function is determined
by the local behaviour of that function.
Lemma 2.10. Let N be a manifold and p ∈ N . Further, let δ ∈ Derp (C ∞ (N )) and
g ∈ C ∞ (N ) such that g ≡ 1 in a neighbourhood of p. Then δ(f ) = δ(f g) for all
f ∈ C ∞ (N ).
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 25

Proof. By linearity of δ it suffices to show that δ(h) = 0 where h := f − f g. Since h

vanishes in a neighbourhood V of p ∈ N there is some ψ ∈ C ∞ (N ) whose support
is contained in V and which satisfies ψ(p) 6= 0: Indeed, let (U, ϕ) be a chart at p
whose domain is contained in V . Let C be a hypercube centered at ϕ(p) contained
in ϕ(U ) and let β ∈ C ∞ (Rn ) be a function adapted to C as in the previous lemma.
Then set ψ := β ◦ ϕ, naturally extended to the whole of N .
Then h · ψ = 0 and hence 0 = δ(h · ψ) = h(p)δ(ψ) + δ(h)ψ(p). Since h(p) = 0
and ψ(p) 6= 0 this implies δ(h) = 0 and hence δ(f ) = δ(f g). 

We now get to the C ∞ -part of the argument without which Theorem 2.8 fails.
Lemma 2.11. Let a ∈ Rn and U ⊆ Rn a star-shaped neighbourhood of a. Further,
let f ∈ C ∞ (U ). Then there are g1 , . . . , gn ∈ C ∞ (U ) with
 
∂f ∂f
(i) (g1 (a), . . . , gn (a)) = ∂x (a), . . . , ∂x (a) , and
P 1 n

(ii) f (x) = f (a) + ni=1 (xi − ai )gi (x)

In a way, the above lemma formulates a factorization property: For instance, if
n = 1, it asserts f (x) − f (a) = (x − a)g(x) where g is again a C ∞ -function. If f
was only C k for finite k then g would be at most C k−1 .

Proof. Since U is star-shaped with respect to a, we may write

Z 1
∂f
f (x) = f (a) + (a + t(x − a)) dt
0 ∂t
Furthermore, by the chain rule
X n
∂f ∂f
(a + t(x − a)) = (xi − ai ) (a + t(x − a))
∂t i=1
∂xi
and hence
n
X Z 1
∂f
f (x) = f (a) + (xi − ai ) (a + t(x − a)) dt.
∂xi
i=1 |0 {z }
=:gi (x)
R1
In particular, gi (a) = 0 (∂f /∂xi )(a) dt = (∂f /∂xi )(a). 

Despite this factorization property, C ∞ -functions can be pretty “bad”. In fact it

is a result of Borel that given a sequence (an )n of real numbers there is a function
f ∈ C ∞ (R) with f (n) (0) = an . This, however, is far from true for real analytic
functions.
We are now in a position to prove Theorem 2.8. As announced, we translate the
problem to one in Rn and solve it there.

Proof. (Theorem 2.8). Let (U, ϕ) be a chart at p. Pick ε > 0 such that C2ε
n
(ϕ(p)) ⊆
n
ϕ(U ). Now let g ∈ C (R ) be as f in the proof of Lemma 2.9, i.e. g equals one on
∞
n
Cε/2 (ϕ(p)) and g equals zero outside Cεn (ϕ(p)).
For f ∈ C ∞ (N ), we have δ(f ) = δ(f · (g ◦ ϕ)) by Lemma 2.10 where we agree
that g ◦ ϕ is extended to N \U by zero. This in turn equals δ(((f ◦ ϕ−1 ) · g) ◦ ϕ)
where now (f ◦ ϕ−1 ) · g is a smooth function on Rn with support in Cεn (ϕ(p)).
Now, for every F ∈ C ∞ (C2ε n
(ϕ(p))) define α(F ) := δ((F · g) ◦ ϕ) which is a
derivation of C (C2ε (ϕ(p))) at ϕ(p). For ease of notation, set a := ϕ(p). Apply
∞ n

Lemma 2.11 to F to get functions Gi ∈ C ∞ (C2ε n

(a)) such that
n
X
F (x) = F (a) + (xi − ai )Gi (x).
i=1
26 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Applying α yields
n
X n
X
α(F ) = α(F (a) · 1) + α(x 7→ (xi − ai ))Gi (a) + 0 · α(Gi )
i=1 i=1
n
X ∂F
= α(x 7→ (xi − ai )) (a).
| {z } ∂xi
i=1
ci

We therefore have
n
X ∂(f ◦ ϕ−1 )
δ(f ) = α(f ◦ ϕ−1 ) = ci ϕ(p)
i=1
∂xi
= Dϕ(p) (f ◦ ϕ−1 )(v) = (Dp f )(Dϕ(p) ϕ−1 )(v)
which is the assertion. 
Now, let N and M be manifolds and let f : N → M be a smooth map. Define
f ∗ : C ∞ (M ) → C ∞ (N ) by g 7→ g ◦ f . This is an R-algebra homomorphism. Given
p ∈ N we further define
f∗ : Derp (C ∞ (N )) → Derf (p) (C ∞ (M )), δ 7→ δ ◦ f ∗ .
The map f∗ does indeed range in Derp (C ∞ (M )): Given δ ∈ Derp (C ∞ (N )) and
g1 , g2 ∈ C ∞ (M ), we have
f∗ δ(g1 g2 ) = δ(f ∗ (g1 g2 )) = δ((f ∗ g1 )(f ∗ g2 )) = δ((g1 ◦ f )(g2 ◦ f ))
= (g1 ◦ f )(p)δ(g2 ◦ f ) + (g2 ◦ f )(p)δ(g1 ◦ f )
= g1 (f (p))f∗ (δ)(g2 ) + g2 (f (p))f∗ (δ)(g1 ).
Also, the following diagram commutes:
Dp f
Tp N / Tf (p) M

∼
= ∼
=
 
Derp C ∞ (N ) / Derf (p) C ∞ (M )
f∗

In particular, the derivative of f can be defined without ever writing down an actual
derivative in Rn . This algebraization of the derivative is used a lot in algebraic
geometry. It is also very useful when working with vector fields as we shall see later.
However, both versions of the tangent space and the derivative are important.

2.3. The Tangent Bundle. In this section, we want to show how one can organize
the set of tangent vectors of a manifold M into a manifold TM on its own. For
instance, this is essential to define smooth vector fields and plays a major rule in
Whitney’s embedding theorem which we will see later. As a set, we have
[
TM = {x} × Tx M = {(x, v) | x ∈ M, v ∈ Tx M }.
x∈M

The tangent bundle TM of a manifold M comes with the natural projection map
π : TM → M, (x, v) 7→ x. For any subset U ⊆ M we define
TU := π −1 (U ) = {(x, v) | x ∈ U, v ∈ Tx M }
and use these subsets of TM to define a topology as follows: Let (U, ϕ) be any chart
of M . Then Dϕ : TU → ϕ(U ) × Rm given by (x, v) 7→ (ϕ(x), Dx ϕ(v)) is a bijection.
We now declare a subset E ⊆ TM to be open if and only if for every chart (U, ϕ)
of M the set Dϕ(E ∩ TU ) ⊆ ϕ(U ) × Rm is open.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 27

Lemma 2.12. Retain the above notation. Then TM is a Hausdorff and second
countable topological space. Also, given a chart (U, ϕ) of M the map Dϕ from TU
to ϕ(U ) × Rm is a homeomorphism, and π : TM → M is continuous and open.
Proof. First of all, we show that the set
{E ⊆ TM | ∀(U, ϕ) chart of M : Dϕ(E ∩ TU ) ⊆ ϕ(U ) × Rm is open}
defines a topology on TM . Note that for a chart (U, ϕ) of M the subset TU ⊆ TM
is open. Hence so is TM since TM ∩ TU = TU . Also, the empty set is open. As to
finite intersections, suppose that E1 , . . . , En are open subsets of TM . Then
n
\ n
\
Ei ∩ TU = (Ei ∩ TU )
i=1 i=1

is open. Also, if (Eα )α∈A is a family of open subsets of TM then

[ [
Eα ∩ TU = (Eα ∩ TU )
α∈A α∈A

is open. The definition also readily implies that Dϕ : TU → ϕ(U ) × Rm is a

homeomorphism for every chart (U, ϕ) of M .
With the above topology, TM is a Hausdorff space: Indeed, let (p1 , v1 ) 6= (p2 , v2 )
be distinct points in TM . If p1 6= p2 , choose charts (U1 , ϕ1 ) and (U2 , ϕ2 ) at p1 and
p2 respectively such that U1 ∩U2 = ∅. Then TU1 and TU2 are non-intersecting open
neighbourhoods of (p1 , v1 ) and (p2 , v2 ) respectively. If p1 = p2 then v1 6= v2 . Hence,
if (U, ϕ) is a chart at p := p1 = p2 then (p, v1 ), (p, v2 ) ∈ TU ∼ = ϕ(U ) × Rm and
m
we may use the fact that R is a Hausdorff space to separate (p1 , v1 ) and (p2 , v2 ).
Second countability is left to the reader as an exercise.
It remains to show that π : TM → M is S continuous and open. Given an atlas
A = {(Uα , ϕα | α ∈ A} of M we have M = α∈A Uα and it suffices to show that
π|Uα : TUα → Uα is continuous and open for every α ∈ A. This follows from the
fact the map pr1 in the following diagram is continous and open,
Dϕα
TUα / ϕα (Uα ) × Rm
∼
=
π pr1
 ∼ 
=
Uα ϕα
/ ϕα (Uα ),

because Dϕα and ϕα are homeomorphisms. 

The proof of Lemma 2.12 in fact shows that if A = {(Uα , ϕα | α ∈ A} is an

atlas on M then {(TUα , Dϕα ) | α ∈ A} is a C 0 -atlas on TM . This atlas is in fact
smooth.
Lemma 2.13. Retain the above notation. The atlas {(TUα , Dϕα ) | α ∈ A} on TM
is smooth.
Proof. We determine the coordinate transformations. Let α, β ∈ A. Then we have
TUα ∩ TUβ = T (Uα ∩ Uβ ) and
T (Uα ∩ Uβ )
❧❧ ❘❘❘
Dϕα❧❧❧ ❘❘❘Dϕβ
❧ ❘❘❘
❧❧❧❧❧ ❘❘❘
v❧❧ ❘(
ϕα (Uα ∩ Uβ ) × Rm −1 −1
/ ϕβ (Uα ∩ Uβ ) × Rm .
(ϕβ ◦ϕα ,D(ϕβ ◦ϕα ))

In particular, the coordinate transformations are smooth. 

28 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

As a consequence of the proof of Lemma 2.12 we also record that π : TM → M

has constant rank m as in local coordinates it is given by a projection in Euclidean
space.
The smooth structure on TM allows to define smooth vector fields.
Definition 2.14. Let M be a manifold. A (continuous, C k , smooth) tangent vector
field on M is a (continuous, C k , smooth) map X : M → TM with π ◦ X = idM .
It is an important question whether or not a manifold admits a nowhere vanishing
continuous or smooth vector field as this potentially allows us to distinguish between
given manifolds. For instance, S 1 clearly admits such a vector field. We shall see
later that in fact any smooth vector field on S 2 has to have a zero somewhere. As
a third example, note that SO(3) admits a nowhere vanishing smooth vector field:
Simply choose a non-zero tangent vector v at Id ∈ SO(3) and translate it around
using the derivatives of the smooth maps Lg : SO(3) → SO(3), x 7→ gx where
g ∈ SO(3). The reader is invited to think about the case of S 3 .

2.4. Whitney’s Embedding Theorem. In this section we prove that every (com-
pact) manifold can be embedded into some Euclidean space. The strong version of
this Theorem due to Whitney reads as follows.
Theorem. Let M be an m-manifold. Then M embeds into R2m .
In full generality, the dimension of the Euclidean target space cannot be reduced
any further: For instance, the two-dimensional manifold P2 R cannot be embedded
into R3 for orientability reasons. We shall prove the following version of the above
theorem.
Theorem 2.15. Let M be a compact m-manifold. Then M embeds into R2m+1 .
A byproduct of the proof of Theorem 2.15 is that in fact M can be immersed
into R2m . However, it requires a new idea to get rid of potential double points.
Proof. The first step of the proof constitutes in constructing an embedding of M
into a Euclidean space of some large dimension. To this end, recall Proposition 1.42
by which it suffices to construct an immersion of M into Euclidean space which is
a homeomorphism onto its image. We then work on reducing the dimension using
Sard’s Theorem 1.43.
Given p ∈ M , let (Up , ϕp ) be a chart at p with ϕp (p) = 0 and pick εp > 0 such
that C3ε
m
p
(0) ⊆ ϕp (Up ). Further, given any ε > 0, let ψε : Rm → [0, 1] be a smooth
function with ψε−1 (1) = Cεm (0) and ψε = 0 outside of C2εm
(0). Now define
(
ψεp ◦ ϕp (x) x ∈ Up
fp : M → R, x 7→
0 x 6∈ Up
which is smooth for every p ∈ M . Using fp we further define
(
m fp (x) · ϕp (x) x ∈ Up
Fp : M → R , x 7→ .
0 x 6∈ Up

p (Cεp (0)) ⊆ Up which is open and contains p ∈ M . Since

Let Vp := ϕ−1 m
Sl M is compact,
there are finitely many points p1 , . . . , pl ∈ M such that M = i=1 Vpi . Then the
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 29

following map is the announced injective immersion:

Ψ : M → Rml+l , x 7→ (Fp1 (x), . . . , Fpl (x), fp1 (x), . . . , fpl (x)).
Indeed, Ψ is of rank m everywhere: Let x ∈ M and i ∈ {1, . . . , l} such that x ∈ Vpi .
Consider
Ψ : M → Rml+l = Rm × · · · × Rm × · · · × Rm × R × · · · × R
| {z }
l
ml+l
and denote by pi the projection of R onto the i-th Rm -factor. Then pi ◦ Ψ
agrees with ϕpi on a neighbourhood of x. As a consequence Ψ has (maximal) rank
m at x ∈ M since ϕpi does. Note that in order to get an immersion from M to
a Euclidean space we could have dropped the coordinates fp1 , . . . , fpl from the
definition of Ψ. However, we need them to ensure injectivity: Let x, y ∈ M and
pi (Cεp (0)). First suppose that y ∈ V pi as
i ∈ {1, . . . , l} be such that x ∈ V pi = ϕ−1 m

well and assume that Ψ(x) = Ψ(y). Since Fpi and ϕpi agree on V pi we conclude
that ϕpi (x) = ϕpi (y) and hence x = y. Now suppose that y 6∈ V pi . Then fpi (y) < 1.
But since fpi (x) = 1 this implies that Ψ(x) 6= Ψ(y).
The strong version of Whitney’s embedding theorem requires an additional idea
in this step to deal with non-compactness.
As a second step, we now reduce the dimension of the target Euclidean space
utilizing Sard’s Theorem 1.43. We have an embedding of M into some large Rn and
consider TM as a regular submanifold of T Rn = Rn × Rn , and in fact
σ(M ) = {(p, v) ∈ TM | kvk = 1}
as a (2m−1)-dimensional regular submanifold of Rn × Rn . We now identify Rn−1 as
{x ∈ Rn | xn = 0} and let v ∈ Rn \ Rn−1 with kvk = 1. Further, let pv : Rn → Rn−1
be the projection parallel to v given by the decomposition Rn = Rn−1 ⊕ R v. Now
consider the map f : σ(M ) → Sn−1 given by (p, w) 7→ w and observe that pv |M is
an immersion if and only if v 6∈ f (σM ). If dim(σ(M )) = 2m−1 < n−1 = dim S n−1 ,
then by Sard’s Theorem f (σM ) has measure zero in S n−1 . Hence there is v ∈ S n−1
with v 6∈ f (σM ) for which consequently pv : M → Rn−1 is an immersion. Repeating
the argument, one eventually gets an immersion of M to R2m .

As a third step, we adress the injectivity issue. In doing so, we loose one di-
mension. The strong version of Whitney’s Theorem avoids with using a deeper
understanding about how to get rid of potentially introduced double points. Con-
sider
x−y
g : (M × M )\∆(M ) → S n−1 , (x, y) 7→
kx − yk
which, using the immersion above, is smooth as the restriction of a smooth map
from Rn × Rn . Observe that pv |M is injective if and only if v 6∈ im(g): We are
only intersted in the following direction: Suppose that pv |M is not injective. Then
there are x, y ∈ M with pv (x) = pv (y) and hence pv (x − y) = 0, i.e. x − y ∈ R v.
Therefore g(x, y) ∈ {±v} and hence v ∈ im(g). By Sard’s Theorem, the image of
g has measure zero in S n−1 if 2m < n − 1. Putting everything together, we have
that if 2m < n − 1, the set im(f ) ∪ im(g) has measure zero in S n−1 . Therefore we
can find v 6∈ im(f ) ∪ im(g) for which pv is an injective immersion and hence an
embedding by Proposition 1.42 since M is compact. 
Whitney’s Theorem and Sard’s Theorem can be applied to obtain considerable
information about a given manifold. For instance, suppose that M is a compact
manifold and that f : M → R is a smooth map all of whose values are regular.
Then f −1 (y) for y ∈ im(f ) is a regular submanifold of M of lower dimension and
30 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

in fact M is built up from such lower-dimensional submanifolds in a certain way.

However, a function f : M → R does not exist as for instance a point x ∈ M at
which f assumes its maximum is critical. However, one can still insist on using this
method and try to obtain more precise information about these critical values using
the second-derivative of f . A Morse function is one all of whose second derivatives
are non-degenerate. Combining Whitney’s and Sard’s Theorem one can show the
existence of Morse functions which can be used to analyze the structure of M . For
instance, this yields a classification of all compact surfaces.
As a second remark, we state that although the dimension of the Euclidean
space in the strong version of Whitney’s theorem is optimal for some m, for instance
powers of two, for which projective space realizes the worst case, it is not in general.
However, the general relation is a rather complicated one.
2.5. The Cotangent Bundle. In this section we introduce the cotangent bundle
of a manifold in analogy to its tangent bundle and it turns out to be even more im-
portant. First, we fix some notation. Given an R-vector space V , let V ∗ = Lin(V, R)
denote its dual space. If T : V → W is a linear map of R-vector spaces V and W ,
then T ∗ : W ∗ → V ∗ denotes its adjoint map, given by (T ∗ λ)(v) = λ(T v). Now, let
M be a smooth manifold of dimension m. As in the case S of the tangent bundle,
cf. Section 2.3 we define a smooth structure on T∗ M = x∈M {x} × Tx M ∗ . This
π
leads to the cotangent bundle T∗ M − → M with smooth, submersive π. The topol-
ogy and the smooth structure on T M are defined using charts (U, ϕ) on M : Let
∗

T∗ U = π −1 (U ). Then we have the map

T∗ U → ϕ(U ) × (Rm )∗ , (x, λ) 7→ (ϕ(x), (Dϕ(x) ϕ−1 )∗ (λ)).
From here on, one proceeds as in Section 2.3.
Definition 2.16. Let M be a manifold. A (continuous, C k , smooth) differential 1-
form on M is a (continuous, C k , smooth) map ω : M → T∗ M such that π◦ω = idM .
In a sense, differential 1-forms are more natural then vector fields: Let Ω1 (M )
be the vector space of smooth 1-forms on M . The derivative of smooth functions
gives rise to a natural map
d : C ∞ (M ) → Ω1 (M ), f 7→ (df : x 7→ Dx f )
where by “naturality” we mean the following: Recall that a smooth map ψ : N → M
between manifolds induces an algebra homomorphism ψ ∗ : C ∞ (M ) → C ∞ (N ) and
a map ψ ∗ : Ω1 (M ) → Ω1 (N ) given by (ψ ∗ ω)x (v) = ωψ(x) Dx ψ(v). The construction
d is now a natural transformation between the functors C ∞ (−) and Ω1 (−), i.e. the
following diagram commutes.
dM
C ∞ (M ) / Ω1 (M )

ψ∗ ψ∗
 
C ∞ (N ) / Ω1 (N ).
dN

Also, note that Ω (M ) is not only a vector space but in fact a C ∞ (M )-module with
1

multiplicative structure given by (f ω)x := f (x)ωx .

We now start to generalize calculus on Rm to smooth manifolds. For instance,
what kind of object can be integrated over a manifold? Looking at the case of Rm
it seems like the answer should be “functions” and indeed one could try to define
an integral of a function over a manifold by patching together integrals in chart
codomains but this would not be well-defined as the integral in Rm is not invariant
under diffeomorphisms. The right objects to integrate will turn out to be k-forms.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 31

We can already see that a 1-form ω could be integrated overR a one-dimensional

R1
regular submanifold σ : [0, 1] → M of a manifold by defining σ ω := 0 ωc(t) ċ(t) dt.

2.6. Differential 1-forms in Local Coordinates. In order to give a meaning

to the expressions that occur in e.g. Green’s formula in the introduction we now
express 1-forms in local coordinates. To this end, let M be a smooth m-manifold and
ω ∈ Ω1 (M ) a smooth 1-form. Further, let (U, ϕ) be any coordinate chart of M . On
Rm we have the coordinate functions πi : Rm → R given by x = (x1 , . . . , xm )T 7→ xi .
These functions give rise to the 1-forms dπ1 , . . . , dπm on Rm which at every point
x ∈ Rm give a basis of (Tx Rm )∗ = (Rm )∗ . In fact, for x ∈ Rm and v ∈ Rm we have
(dπi )x v = vi which is essentially due to the fact that the differential of a linear map
is the map itself. Now, since ϕ : U → ϕ(U ) is a diffeomorphism onto its image, the
pullback forms ϕ∗ (dπ1 ), . . . , ϕ∗ (dπm ) form a basis of Tp M ∗ at every point p ∈ U .
To shorten
Pnthe notation, we shall simply write dxi := ϕ (dπi ) ∈ Ω (U ). We then
∗ 1

have ωx = Pi=1 ai (x)(dxi )x and the functions ai : U → R are smooth. We will also
n
write ω = i=1 ai dxi in the C ∞ (U )-module Ω1 (U ). Furthermore, if V ⊆ Rm is
open we will also consider V as a smooth manifold with the single chart (V, id) and
use the notation dxi ∈ Ω1 (V ) for the 1-form obtained by using the chart (V, id).

3. Differential Forms and Integration on Manifolds

We have seen above that 1-forms can be integrated over one-dimensional man-
ifolds in an invariant way. In this section we introduce k-forms which constitute
the natural objects to be integrated over k-dimensional manifolds. As a motivation,
consider again Green’s formula from the introduction:
σ
Z I Z  
∂Q ∂P
D ω= P dx + Q dy = − dx dy.
σ ∂D D ∂x ∂y

If ω ∈ Ω1 (R2 ) then ω = P dx + Q dy for smooth functions P, Q : R2 → R by the

above. Note that the expressions dx and dy now have a precise meaning, namely
they are 1-forms on R2 , which is typically vague in calculus courses. The first two
terms in Green’s formula are now well-defined.
The remainder of this section in particular identifies (∂Q/∂x − ∂P/∂y) dx dy
as a 2-form, the exterior derivative dω of ω, and defines intregration on manifolds
M with boundary of such forms. The pinnacle will be Stokes’ Theorem
Z Z
ω= dω
∂M M
which is arguably one of the most wonderful formulas in mathematics.
3.1. Alternating Forms on Vector Spaces. To implement the above program
we require several multilinear algebra notions. Let V be a finite-dimensional real
vector space (neither finite-dimensionality nor real coefficients are required every-
where but we shall not worry about these things here).
Definition 3.1. Retain the above notation. A multilinear k-form on V is a function
µ : V × · · · × V → R which is linear in each argument.
32 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Lemma 3.2. Retain the above notation and let µ be a multilinear k-form on V .
Then the following are equivalent.
(i) The form µ is zero whenever two arguments coincide.
(ii) The form µ changes its sign whenever two arguments are interchanged.
(iii) For all v1 , . . . , vk ∈ V and σ ∈ Sk : µ(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(k) ) = sign(σ)µ(v1 , . . . , vk ).
Based on Lemma 3.2 we make the following definition.
Definition 3.3. Retain the above notation. A multilinear, alternating k-form on V
is a multilinear form on V satisfying one of the equivalent properties of Lemma 3.2.
Proof. (Lemma 3.2). We show that (i) implies (ii): Let v1 , . . . , vk ∈ V . Then we
have for all 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n:
0 = µ(v1 , . . . , vi−1 , vi + vj , vi+1 , . . . , vj−1 , vi + vj , vj+1 , . . . , vn )
= µ(. . . , vi , . . . , vi , . . .) + µ(. . . , vi , . . . , vj , . . .)+
+ µ(. . . , vj , . . . , vi , . . .) + µ(. . . , vj , . . . , vj , . . .)
= µ(. . . , vi , . . . , vj , . . .) + µ(. . . , vj , . . . , vi , . . .).
Hence the assertion. Also, (ii) implies (iii): Rephrasing (ii), we have
µ(vτ (1) , . . . , vτ (k) ) = (−1) · µ(v1 , . . . , vk )
for every transposition τ ∈ Sk . Now use the fact that every permutation σ ∈ Sk
can be written as a product of transpositions and that sign : Sk → {±1} is a group
homomorphism. The implications (iii)⇒(ii) and (ii)⇒(i) are immediate. 

We now organize the alternating forms on a vector space into a graded algebra:
First of all, given k ∈ N0 , let Λk (V ∗ ) denote the vector space of alternating k-forms
on V where we define Λ0 (V ∗ ) := R. In particular, we have Λ1 (V ∗ ) = V ∗ . Now
consider the graded vector space
M
Λ∗ (V ∗ ) = Λk (V ∗ ),
k≥0

termed the exterior algebra of V because it admits the following multiplication,

∗

termed wedge product : Let α ∈ Λp (V ∗ ) and β ∈ Λq (V ∗ ). Define

1 X
(α ∧ β)(v1 , . . . , vp+q ) := sign(σ)α(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(p) )β(vσ(p+1) , . . . , vσ(p+q) )
p!q!
σ∈Sp+q
X
= sign(σ)α(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(p) )β(vσ(p+1) , . . . , vσ(p+q) )
σ∈Sp+q
σ(1)<···<σ(p)
σ(p+1)<···<σ(p+q)

where equality is left as an exercise. The special kind of permutation of {1, . . . , p+q}
that occurs in the second expression is called (p, q)-shuffle for apparent reasons.
Proposition 3.4. Retain the above notation. Then Λ∗ (V ∗ ) is an associative, graded
commutative R-algebra.
Before we proceed to the proof of Proposition 3.4 several remarks are in order.
Remark 3.5. Let α ∈ Λp (V ∗ ) and β ∈ Λq (V ∗ ).
(i) If p = 0 then α ∧ β = α · β.
(ii) The term graded-commutative means that β∧α = (−1)pq α∧β. In particular,
even order forms commute with any other form.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 33

(iii) The definition of the wedge product may be motivated as follows: Given an
multilinear k-form µ on V there is a natural alternating k-form Aµ on V
associated to µ, namely
1 X
Aµ (v1 , . . . , vk ) := sign(σ)µ(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(k) ).
k!
σ∈Sk

It is immediate that Aµ is multilinear. To see that it is also alternating we

let v1 , . . . , vk ∈ V , τ ∈ Sk and compute
1 X
Aµ (vτ (1) , . . . , vτ (k) ) = sign(σ) sign(σ)µ(vτ σ(1) , . . . , vτ σ(k) )
k! σ
1 X
= sign(τ −1 σ)µ(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(k) )
k!
σ∈Sk
1 X
= sign(τ ) sign(σ)µ(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(k) )
k!
σ∈Sk
= sign(τ )Aµ (v1 , . . . , vk )
Now consider µ(v1 , . . . , vp+a ) := α(v1 , . . . , vp )β(vp+1 , . . . , vp+q ) which is
multilinear. Then α ∧ β = (p + q)!/(p!q!)Aµ .
(iv) So far, we have only defined the multiplication within Λ∗ (V ∗ ) on pairs of p
and q-forms. However, we may simply extend this definition linearly to the
whole ofPΛ∗ (V ∗ ) realizingPdistributivity: Suppose α, β ∈ Λ∗ (V ∗ ) are given
by α = i αi and β = j βj where αi ∈ Λ (V ) and βj ∈ Λj (V ∗ ) then
i ∗
P
α ∧ β = i,j αi ∧ βj . However, mixed products are rare in practice.

Proof. (Proposition 3.4). First consider associativity: Let α ∈ Λp (V ∗ ), β ∈ Λq (V ∗ ),

γ ∈ Λr (V ∗ ) and v1 , . . . , vp+q+r ∈ V . Then ((α ∧ β) ∧ γ)(v1 , . . . , vp+q , . . . , vp+q+r )
equals
1 X
sign(σ)(α ∧ β)(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(p+q) )γ(vσ(p+q+1) , . . . , vσ(p+q+r) )
(p + q)!r!
σ∈Sp+q+r

which in turn equals

1 X X
sign(σ) sign(τ ) α(vστ (1) , . . . , vστ (p) )·
(p + q)!p!q!r!
σ∈Sp+q+r τ ∈Sp+q ·β(vστ (p+1) , . . . , vστ (p+q) )·
·γ(vσ(p+q+1) , . . . , vσ(p+q+r) ).
Now, to every τ ∈ Sp+q we associate τb ∈ Sp+q+r by fixing p + q + 1, . . . , p + q + r:
(
τ (j) j ∈ {1, . . . , p + q}
τb(j) := .
j j ∈ {p + q + 1, . . . , p + q + r}
Then the above expression can be rewritten as
1 X X
sign(στ̂ )α(vστ̂ (1) , . . . , vστ̂ (p) )·
(p + q)!p!q!r!
σ∈Sp+q+r τ ∈Sp+q ·β(vστ̂ (p+1) , . . . , vστ̂ (p+q) )·
·γ(vστ̂ (p+q+1) , . . . , vστ̂ (p+q+r) ).
Since the map Sp+q+r → Sp+q+r , σ 7→ στ̂ is a bijection we may continue with
1 X X
sign(σ)α(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(p) )·
(p + q)!p!q!r!
τ ∈Sp+q σ∈Sp+q+r ·β(vσ(p+1) , . . . , vσ(p+q) )·
·γ(vσ(p+q+1) , . . . , vσ(p+q+r) ).
34 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

which equals
1 X
sign(σ)α(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(p) ) β(vσ(p+1) , . . . , vσ(p+q) )·
p!q!r!
σ∈Sp+q+r ·γ(vσ(p+q+1) , . . . , vσ(p+q+r) ).
Computing α ∧ (β ∧ γ) in a similar way yields the same. This proves associativity.
We now turn to proving that Λ∗ (V ∗ ) is graded commutative: Let α ∈ Λp (V ∗ ),
β ∈ Λq (V ∗ ) and v1 , . . . , vp+q ∈ V . Then
1 X
(α ∧ β)(v1 , . . . , vp+q ) = sign(σ)α(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(p) )β(vσ(p+1) , . . . , vσ(p+q) )
p!q!
σ∈Sp+q

Again, we use that the map Sp+q → Sp+q , σ 7→ στ is a bijection for any τ ∈ Sp+q .
Applying this to
 
1 ··· p p + 1 ··· p + q
τ := ∈ Sp+q
q + 1 ··· q + p 1 ··· q
which has sign (−1)pq yields
1 X
sign(στ )α(vστ (1) , . . . , vστ (p) )β(vστ (p+1) , . . . , vστ (p+q) )
p!q!
σ∈Sp+q
1 X
= (−1)pq sign(σ)β(vσ(1) , . . . , vσ(q) )α(vσ(q+1) , . . . , vσ(q+p) )
p!q!
σ∈Sp+q

which is (−1) (β ∧ α)(v1 , . . . , vp+q ).

pq

In order to get an impression of how to use graded commutativity, consider the
following. Let V be a real three-dimensional vector space with basis (e1 , e2 , e3 )
and let (e∗1 , e∗2 , e∗3 ) be the associated dual basis of V ∗ = Λ1 (V ∗ ). Given ai , bi ∈ R
(i ∈ {1, 2, 3}) we have the 1-forms a1 e∗1 + a2 e∗2 + a3 e∗3 and b1 e∗1 + b2 e∗2 + b3 e∗3 . To
compute their wedge product, which is a 2-form, note that for two f, g ∈ V ∗ we have
f ∧ f = 0 since f ∧ f = (−1)1·1 f ∧ f and f ∧ g = −g ∧ f by graded commutativity.
Therefore (a1 e∗1 + a2 e∗2 + a3 e∗3 ) ∧ (b1 e∗1 + b2 e∗2 + b3 e∗3 ) equals
a1 b2 e∗1 ∧ e∗2 + a1 b3 e∗1 ∧ e∗3 + a2 b1 e∗2 ∧ e∗1 + a2 b3 e∗2 ∧ e∗3 + a3 b1 e∗3 ∧ e∗1 + a3 b2 e∗3 ∧ e∗2
= (a1 b2 − a2 b1 )e∗1 ∧ e∗2 + (a1 b3 − a3 b1 )e∗1 ∧ e∗3 + (a2 b3 − b2 a3 )e∗2 ∧ e∗3 .
In general, the evaluation of a k-form on a k-tuple of vectors is a determinant.
Proposition 3.6. Let V be a finite-dimensional real vector space. Furthermore, let
φ1 , . . . , φk ∈ V ∗ and v1 , . . . , vk ∈ V . Then (φ1 ∧· · ·∧φk )(v1 , . . . , vk ) = det(φi (vj ))i,j .
Proof. We argue by induction on k. If k = 1, then φ(v) = det(φ(v)). Now, assume
k ≥ 2. We expand the determinant det(φi (vj ))ki,j=1 along the last row as
 
k φ1 (v1 ) ··· φ\
1 (vj ) ··· φ1 (vk )
X  .. .. .. 
(−1)k−1 (−1)j−1 φk (vj ) det 
 . . .
.

j=1 \
φk−1 (v1 ) · · · φk−1 (vj ) ··· φk−1 (vk )
By the induction hypothesis, we thus have
k
X
det(φi (vj ))ki,j=1 = (−1)k−j (φ1 ∧ · · · ∧ φk−1 )(v1 , . . . , vbj , . . . , vk )φk (vj )
j=1

which is exactly the definition of ((φ1 ∧ · · · ∧ φk−1 ) ∧ φk )(v1 , . . . , vk ) in terms of

(k − 1, 1)-shuffles. 
We shall now use Proposition 3.6 to determine bases of spaces of k-forms and in
particular the dimensions of the latter.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 35

Corollary 3.7. Let V be an n-dimensional real vector space with basis (e1 , . . . , en )
and let (e∗1 , . . . , e∗n ) denote the dual basis. Then (e∗j1 ∧ · · · ∧ e∗jk )1≤j1 <···<jk ≤n is a
basis of Λk (V ∗ ). In particular
 
k ∗ n
dim Λ (V ) = .
k
Proof. We show that the vectors of said tuple are linearly independent and that
Λk (V ∗ ) has at most the asserted dimension. To this end, let 1 ≤ j1 < · · · < jk ≤ n
and 1 ≤ l1 < · · · < lk ≤ n. Then by Proposition 3.6,
 ∗ 
ej1 (el1 ) · · · e∗j1 (elk )
(e∗j1 ∧ · · · ∧ e∗jk )(el1 , . . . , elk ) = det  ... ..  .

. 
∗ ∗
ejk (el1 ) · · · ejk (elk )
Assume that the above expression is non-zero. Then in particular the first row
is non-zero which implies j1 ∈ {l1 , . . . , lk } by definition of the dual basis. Sim-
ilarly, ji ∈ {l1 , . . . , lk } for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k} and therefore ji = li for all i ∈
{1, . . . , k} by the ordering of the multi-indices. As a consequence, we have (e∗j1 ∧
· · · ∧ e∗jk )(el1 , . . . , elk ) = δj1 l1 · · · δjk lk . Suppose now that there is a linear relation
X
aj1 ···jk e∗j1 ∧ · · · ∧ e∗jk = 0 (aj1 ···jk ∈ R)
j1 <···<jk

among the asserted basis vectors. Then evaluation on (el1 , . . . , elk ) shows al1 ···lk = 0
by the above.
Now we show that Λk (V ∗ ) has at most the asserted dimension. For this, it suffices
to show that the linear map
n
e : Λk (V ∗ ) → R(k ) , ω 7→ (ω(ej1 , . . . , ejk ))1≤j1 <···<jk ≤n
is injective: Suppose e(ω) = 0 and let v1 , . . . , vk ∈ V . It suffices to show that
ω(v1 , . . . , vk ) = 0. Indeed, we compute
 
X X
ω(v1 , . . . , vk ) = ω  v1j ej , . . . , vkj ej 
j j
X X
= v1j1 · · · vkjk ω(ej1 · · · ejk ) = v1j1 · · · vkjk ω(ej1 · · · ejk )
j1 ,...,jk j1 ,...,jk
distinct

The last sum vanishes since for every k-tuple j1 , . . . , jk ∈ {1, . . . , n} of distinct
numbers there is a permutation σ ∈ Sk such that jσ(1) < · · · < jσ(k) and therefore
ω(ej1 , . . . , ejk ) = sign(σ)ω(ejσ(1) , . . . , ejσ(k) ) which vanishes by assumption. 

Recall that binomial coefficients are the entries of Pascal’s triangle. In particular,
Λk (V ∗ ) = 0 for k > dim V and Λk (V ∗ ) = Λdim V −k (V ∗ ) for k ∈ {0, . . . , dim V }.

1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
..
.
Remark 3.8. Before organizing k-forms on a manifold into a bundle we remark on
contravariance and coordinate-free definitions of the determinant of a matrix and
the cross-ratio of four lines.
36 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

(i) Let V, W be vector spaces and let T : V → W be a linear map. Further, let
T ∗ : W ∗ → V ∗ denote the dual map of T . Then there is an induced map
Λk T ∗ : Λk (W ∗ ) → Λk (V ∗ ) defined by
Λk T ∗ (α)(v1 , . . . , vk ) := α(T v1 , . . . , T vk )
where α ∈ Λk (W ∗ ) and v1 , . . . , vk ∈ V .
(ii) Let V be an n-dimensional real vector space and let T ∈ End(V ). Then
Λn T ∗ ∈ End(Λn (V ∗ )). Since Λn (V ∗ ) is one-dimensional, so is its endomor-
phism algebra. Furthermore, the endomorphism algebra of a one-dimensional
real vector space E is, in contrast to the space itself, canonically isomorphic
to R via R → End(E), λ 7→ λ Id. Therefore Λn T ∗ is canonically associated
to a real number. It is an exercise to show that this number is det T .
(iii) To further illustrate the importance of the fact that the endomorphism
algebra of a one-dimensional real vector space is canonically isomorphic to
R consider the following: In geometry, one defines the cross-ratio of four
non-zero complex numbers z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 by
(z1 − z3 )(z2 − z4 )
(z1 , z2 ; z3 , z4 ) :=
(z2 − z3 )(z2 − z4 )
Now, identify C as a two-dimensional real vector space and let l1 , l2 , l3 and
l4 be the lines through the origin associated to z1 , z2 , z3 and z4 respectively.
It is a fact that for a two-dimensional vector space V its general linear group
GL(V ) acts transitively on the set of lines through the origin. It even acts
transitively on the set of triples of lines through the origin. Hence there
is no non-trivial linear invariant of such lines. However, it does not act
transitively on quadruples of lines through the origin and the cross-ratio
provides a linear invariant for such quadruples. Now, consider the map
ϕ3 : l1 → l2 given by moving parallel to l2 towards l3 and then parallel to
l1 towards l2 . Similarly, define ϕ4 : l1 → l2 . Then ϕ−1 ∼ ∗
4 ϕ3 ∈ GL(l1 ) = R is
the cross-ratio.

l2 l3
l4

l1

3.2. Differential Forms on Manifolds. Previously we have introduced the space

of k-forms Λk (V ∗ ) of a real finite-dimensional vector space V . We now apply this
definition in the context of manifolds to organize the k-forms on the tangent spaces
of a manifold M into a bundle: Define
[
Λk (M ) := {x} × Λk (Tx M ∗ ).
x∈M

Let π : Λ (M ) → M , (x, ω) 7→ x denote the projection onto the first factor of

k

Λk (M ). As in the case of the tangent and cotangent bundle we equip Λk (M ) with the
structure of a smooth manifold such that π becomes a smooth map which we outline
now: Given a coordinate chart (U, ϕ) on M and x ∈ M , we have an isomorphism
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 37

of vector spaces Dϕ(x) ϕ−1 : Rm → Tx M which induces an isomorphism

Λk ((Dϕ(x) ϕ−1 )∗ ) : Λk ((Tx M )∗ ) → Λk ((Rm )∗ ).

Define the topology and smooth structure on Λk as before using the bijections

π −1 (U ) → ϕ(U ) × Λk ((Rm )∗ ), (x, ω) 7→ (ϕ(x), Λk (Dϕ(x) ϕ−1 )∗ (ω)).

Definition 3.9. Let M be a manifold. A differential k-form on M is a map ω : M →

Λk (M ) such that π ◦ ω = idM .

In other words, a differential k-form assigns an alternating k-form ωx on the

tangent space Tx M to every point x ∈ M , denoted by ωx : Tx M × · · · × Tx M → R.
Notice that despite the name, there is no regularity assumption in the definition
of differential k-form. As a map between smooth manifolds, it can be measurable,
continuous, C k , smooth and so on. We denote by Γ(Λk (M )) the set of differential
k-forms on M and by Ωk (M ) the set of smooth k-forms on M . The latter is going
to play a fundamental role in what is to follow. Now, we generalize the structure of
sets of alternating forms to the context of manifolds:
(i) (Vector space). Let α, β ∈ Γ(Λk (M )) and let µ, ν ∈ R. Define µα + νβ ∈
Γ(Λk (M )) by (µα + νβ)x := µαx + νβx for all x ∈ M .
(ii) (Module). Let f : M → R be a function and α ∈ Γ(Λk (M )). We define
f α ∈ Γ(Λk (M )) by (f α)x := f (x)αx .
(iii) (Algebra). Let α ∈ Γ(Λp (M )) and β ∈ Γ(Λq (M )). Then we define α ∧ β ∈
Γ(Λp+q (M )) by
L (α ∧ β)x := αx ∧ βx for all x ∈ M to the effect that
Γ(Λ∗ (M )) := k≥0 Γ(Λk (M )) becomes an associative graded-commutative
R-algebra.
A crucial feature of k-forms on a manifold is that they can be pulled back from
one manifold to another via a smooth map. This is the basis of the “invariant
calculus” on manifolds which is to follow.

Definition 3.10. Let M and N be manifolds and let f : N → M be a smooth map.

Further, let ω ∈ Γ(Λk (M )). Define f ∗ ω ∈ Γ(Λk (N )) by

f ∗ (ω)x (v1 , . . . , vk ) := ωf (x) (Dx f (v1 ), . . . , Dx f (vk ))

for all x ∈ N and v1 , . . . , vk ∈ Tx N .

The pullback operation behaves well with respect to the algebra structures.

Proposition 3.11. Let M, N and P be manifolds and let f : N → M and g : M → P

be smooth maps. Then
(i) f ∗ : Γ(Λk (M )) → Γ(Λk (N )) is R-linear,
(ii) for ω1 ∈ Γ(Λp (M )) and ω2 ∈ Γ(Λq (M )): f ∗ (ω1 ∧ ω2 ) = f ∗ (ω1 ) ∧ f ∗ (ω2 ),
(iii) for g : M → R and ω ∈ Γ(Λk (M )) we have f ∗ (gω) = (g ◦ f )f ∗ ω, and
(iv) (g ◦ f )∗ (ω) = f ∗ g ∗ (ω).

The last part of Proposition 3.11 implies that the functor which to a manifold
associates its space of k-forms is contravariant.
38 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Proof. (Proposition 3.11). We only prove (ii) and (iv). For (ii), let x ∈ N and
v1 , . . . , vp+q ∈ Tx N . Then
f ∗ (ω1 ∧ ω2 )x (v1 , . . . , vp+q ) = (ω1 ∧ ω2 )f (x) (Dx f v1 , . . . , Dx f vp+q )
= (ω1,f (x) ∧ ω2,f (x) )(Dx f v1 , . . . , Dx f vp+q )
1 X
= sign(σ)ω1,f (x) (Dx f vσ(1) , . . . , Dx f vσ(p) )
p!q!
σ∈Sp+q ·ω2,f (x) (Dx f vσ(p+1) , . . . , Dx f vσ(p+q) )
= (f ∗ ω1 )x ∧ (f ∗ ω2 )x (v1 , . . . , vp+q )
= (f ∗ ω1 ∧ f ∗ ω2 )x (v1 , . . . , vp+q )
which is the assertion of part (ii). Part (iv) is yet another incarnation of the chain
rule. Given ω ∈ Γ(Λk (P )) and v1 , . . . , vk ∈ Tx N we compute
(g ◦ f )∗ (ω)x (v1 , . . . , vk ) = ωgf (x) (Dx (gf )v1 , . . . , Dx (gf )vk )
= ωgf (x) (Df (x) gDx f (v1 ), . . . , Df (x) gDx f (vk ))
= g ∗ ωf (x) (Dx f v1 , . . . , Dx f vk )
= f ∗ g ∗ ωx (v1 , . . . , vk )


In order to deal with smooth k-forms we are going to need to express them in local
coordinates. To this end, recall that on Rm we have the global coordinate functions
πi : Rm → R given by x 7→ xi which provide globally defined 1-forms dπ1 , . . . , dπm .
For a coordinate chart (U, ϕ) on a manifold M we define dxi := ϕ∗ (dπi ). Then
for every p ∈ U , the 1-forms (dx1 )p , . . . , (dxm )p form a basis of (Tp M )∗ . Let now
ω ∈ Γ(Λk (M )). Then by Corollary 3.7 we have for every p ∈ U that ωp can be
written as X
ωp = ai1 ,...,ik (p)(dxi1 )p ∧ · · · ∧ (dxik )p
i1 <···<ik
in a unique way. In terms of the algebra structure defined above, this reads
X
ω|U = ai1 ,...,ik dxi1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxik .
i1 <···<ik

One often writes I to refer to a multi-index i1 < · · · < ik and defines aI := ai1 ,...,ik
as well as dxI := dxi1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxik in which case the above is condensed to
X
ω|U = aI dxI
I

This expression of a differential k-form in local coordinates allows one to check

the smoothness of it in the following way.
Lemma 3.12. Let M be a manifold and let ω ∈ Γ(Λk (M )). Then ω is smooth if and
only if in every coordinate chart (U, ϕ) all the functions aI : U → R in the local
coordinate expression of ω with respect to (U, ϕ) are smooth.
The proof of Lemma 3.12 is left as an exercise. It requires unravelling the defi-
nitions of smoothness and smooth structure on Λk (M ); however, once this is done,
the statement is rather tautological. Using Lemma 3.12 we can prove the following.
Proposition 3.13. Let M and N be a manifolds and let f : N → M be a smooth
map. Then the following hold.
(i) The exterior product of smooth k-forms on M is smooth, and
(ii) the pullback via f of a smooth k-form on M is a smooth k-form on N .
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 39

Proof. For (i), let α ∈ Ωp (M ) and β ∈ Ωq (M ). Further, let (U, ϕ) be a coordinate

chartPon M . Writing α P and β in local coordinates with respect to (U, ϕ) we have
α = I aI dxI and β = J bJ dxJ for smooth functions aI , bJ : M → R. Therefore
X X
α∧β = aI bJ dxI ∧ dxJ = aI bJ (±1) dxQ
I,J I∩J6=∅

where Q is the ordered multi-index corresponding to I ∪ J. The claim now follows

from the fact that the functions U → R given by x 7→ aI (x)bJ (x) are smooth.
For part (ii), let ω ∈ Ωk (M ). Further, let (V, ψ) and (U, ϕ) be charts on N and
M respectively such that f (V ) ⊆ U . Then in (U, ϕ)-local coordinates we have
X X
ω|U = aI dxI = ai1 ,...,ik dxi1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxik .
I i1 <···<ik
P
Therefore f ∗ ω = i1 <···<ii (ai1 ,...,ik ◦ f )f ∗ (dxi1 ) ∧ · · · ∧ f ∗ (dxik ). Since the forms
f ∗ (dxi1 ) are smooth as pullbacks of 1-forms, part (i) implies the assertion.
We could also have determined a local coordinate expression for the f ∗ (dxi ).
Namely,

f ∗ (dxi ) = f ∗ (ϕ∗ (dπi )) = (ϕ◦f )∗ (dπi ) = (ϕ◦f ◦ψ −1 ◦ψ)∗ (dπi ) = ψ ∗ (ϕ◦f ◦ψ −1 )∗ (dπi )

Now, let F : ψ(V ) → ϕ(U ) denote the map ϕ ◦ f ◦ ψ −1 . If further we denote by

pj : Rn → R the coordinate functions on Rn and by dp1 , . . . , dpn the associated
1-forms then with dyi := ψ ∗ (dpj ) we have
n
X ∂Fi
F ∗ (dπi )y = (y) dpj
j=1
∂yj

and therefore
n
X ∂Fi
f ∗ (dxi )p = (ψ(p)) dyj
j=1
∂yj

which implies the assertion. 

We now compute the pullback of a differential form in a particularly important

case which will reappear later on: Let U, V ⊆ Rm be open and let f : U → V be
smooth. A top form ω ∈ Ωm (V ) can be written as ω = adx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm where
a : V → R is a smooth function. To compute f ∗ ω, note that for dimension reasons
we already know that f ∗ ω = g dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm for some smooth function g : U → R.
To determine g(p) for p ∈ U we just need to evaluate (f ∗ ω)p on the standard basis
(e1 , . . . , em ) since dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm (e1 , . . . , em ) = 1. By definition:

(f ∗ ω)p (e1 , . . . , em ) = ωf (p) (Dp f (e1 ), . . . , Dp f (em ))

= a(f (p))(dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm )f (p) (Dp f (e1 ), . . . , Dp f (em ))
= a(f (p))((dx1 )f (p) ∧ · · · ∧ (dxm )f (p) )(Dp f (e1 ), . . . , Dp f (em ))
= a(f (p)) det((dxi )f (p) (Dp f (ej )))i,j
= a(f (p)) det(e∗i (Dp f (ej ))i,j
= a(f (p)) det(Dp f ).

Overall, we have (f ∗ ω)p = a(f (p)) det(Dp f ) dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm . This computation
can be generalized to k-forms in which case the coefficients appearing in f ∗ ω are
determinants of minors of Dp f .
40 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

3.3. Partition of Unity. In this section we construct the most powerful tool for
studying smooth manifolds, namely partition of unity. It allows one to construct
various global objects out of locally defined ones, such as a Riemannian R metric
and the integral of a suitable differential form over a manifold, denotes M ω. We
demonstrate the idea in the case of a Riemannian metric which is a smooth choice of
scalar products (h−, −ix )x∈M on the tangent spaces Tx M of a manifold M . Using
these we can define the length of a C 1 -path c : [0, 1] → M by
Z 1 c(t)
b
ċ(t)
l(c) := kċ(t)kc(t) dt b

0 x b

y
This in turn allows us to define the Riemannian distance of points x, y ∈ M
associated to the Riemannian metric by
d(x, y) := inf{l(c) | c : [0, 1] → M C 1 -path with c(0) = x and c(1) = y}.
The problem lies in defining the Riemannian metric in the first place. For instance,
if (U, ϕ) is a chart of M at x ∈ M one could define h−, −ix as the pullback of the
standard scalar product on Rm = Dx ϕTx M . This works well as long as there is
only one chart involved. However, if a point x ∈ M lies in two charts domains U
and V we cannot guarantee that the scalar products so defined on Tx M coincide.

U V
x
b

However, we may take a convex linear combination. For instance, if ϕU : M → R

and ϕV : M → R are functions which vanish outside U and V respectively and
whose sum at x is one, then ϕU (x)h−, −ix,U + ϕV h−, −ix,V is a scalar product on
Tx M . This method works as long as there are only finitely many chart domains
containing x. In the following we make these difficulties precise and resolve them.
Lemma 3.14. Let M be a topological manifold with a maximal atlas. Further, let
{Vα | α ∈ A} be a cover of M by open sets. Then there is an at most countable
family of charts {(Ui , ϕi ) | i ∈ S} with
(i) {Ui | i ∈ S} being a locallySfinite cover of M refining {Vα | α ∈ A}, and
(ii) ϕi (Ui ) ⊆ C3ε
m
(0) as well as i∈S Vi = M where Vi = ϕ−1 m
i (Cε (0)).
If M is a smooth manifold with atlas the then the charts can be chosen to be
diffeomorphisms.
We recall the terminology appearing in Lemma 3.14. A cover {Ui | i ∈ S} of a
topological space M is locally finite if every point in M has a neighbourhood which
intersects only finitely many Ui (i ∈ S). It refines another cover {Vα | α ∈ A} if for
every i ∈ S there is α ∈ A such that Ui ⊆ Vα .
As an example, consider the real line R and the cover {(−∞, n) | n ∈ Z}.
Then {(n − 2, n) | n ∈ Z} is a locally finite subcover refining the former since
(n − 2, n) ⊂ (−∞, n) for all n ∈ Z and every point in R is contained in at most two
elements of {(n − 2, n) | n ∈ Z}. Note, however, that the refining step is necessary:
There is no locally finite subcover of {(−∞, n) | n ∈ Z} itself.
Proof. (Lemma 3.14). We may assume that M is connected and non-compact. Let
{Pi | i ∈ N} be a countable basis of open sets such that P i is compact for every
i ∈ N which exists for the following reason: If B = {Bi | i ∈ N} is a basis then
B c := {B ∈ B | B is compact} works: It is indeed a basis: Since M is locally
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 41

compact Hausdorff, every Bi is a union of open sets with compact closure and
every open set with compact closure is a union of elements of B which hence lie
in B c . Now, we define an exhaustion of M by compact sets (Kn )n∈N with nicely
behaved interiors and closures which will aid in definining the asserted locally finite
refinement of {Vα | α ∈ A}:
Set K1 := P 1 . By compactness and the fact that {Pi | i ∈ N} is a basis there is
j ∈ N such that P1 ∪· · ·∪Pj ⊇ K1 = P 1 . In fact, we must have j ≥ 2 since there are
no non-empty open compact subsets M by the assumption that it be connected and
non-compact. Let r1 := min{P 1 ⊆ P1 ∪ · · · ∪ Pj } ≥ 2 and set K2 := P 1 ∪ · · · ∪ P r1 .
Iterate this process to define Kj := P 1 ∪· · ·∪P rj−1 . Then Kj−1 ⊆ P1 ∪· · ·∪Prj−1 but
Kj−1 6⊆ P1 ∪ · · · ∪ Pl for any l < rj−1 . Also, observe K̊j ⊇ P1 ∪ · · · ∪ Prj−1 ⊇ Kj−1 .
Therefore, K̊i+2 \Ki−1 is an open set which contains the compact set Ki+1 \K̊i .

K̊i+2
Ki+1
K̊i
Ki−1

Now consider K̊i+2 \Ki−1 ∩ Vα : For every p ∈ K̊i+2 \Ki−1 ∩ Vα let (Upi , ϕip ) be a
chart at p contained in K̊i+2 \Ki−1 ∩ Vα and such that ϕip (Upi ) = C3ε m
(0). Then
set Vp := (ϕp ) (Cε (0)). For fixed i ∈ N, consider
i i −1 m
S the set of all charts (Upi , ϕip )
obtained in this way by varying α over A. Since α∈A Vα = M we have in particular
that the sets Vpi so obtained cover Ki+1 \S K̊i . By compactness we can therefore
find a finite set Si ⊂ K̊i+2 \Ki−1 such that p∈Si Vpi ⊇ Ki+1 \K̊i . Now consider the
collection {(Upi , ϕip ) | i ∈ N, p ∈ Si }. First ofSall, the Upi of this collection form a
countable refinement of {Vα | α ∈ A}. Also, i∈N,p∈Si Vpi = M by construction. As
to local finiteness, let p ∈ M and i ∈ N such that p ∈ K̊i−1 . Observe that for all
j ≥ i we have K̊j+2 \Kj−1 ∩ K̊i−1 = ∅ and conclude by noting that for all j ≥ i and
all q ∈ Sj we have Uqj ⊆ K̊j+2 \Kj−1 whence Uqj ∩ K̊i−1 = ∅. That is, only finitely
many domains of {(Upi , ϕip ) | i ∈ N, p ∈ Si } intersect K̊i−1 .
The statement about the smooth case is immediate from the above. 

As a corollary to Lemma 3.14 we have the following.

Theorem 3.15. Let M be a smooth manifold and let {Vα | α ∈ A} be an open cover
of M . Then there is a countable family {fi | i ∈ F } of functions on M such that
(i) fi ≥ 0, fi ∈ C ∞ (M ) for all i ∈ F with compact support,
(ii) {supp
P fi | i ∈ F } is a locally finite cover of M refining {Vα | α ∈ A}, and
(iii) i∈F i (x) = 1 for all x ∈ M .
f

On the real line, a partition of unity may look as follows.

... ...

Proof. (Theorem 3.15). Let {(Ui , ϕ)i | i ∈ I} be a covering as in Lemma 3.14. Now,
let g : Rm → R with 0 ≤ g(x) ≤ 1 for all x ∈ Rm be smooth such that g ≡ 1 on
42 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Cεm (0) and g ≡ 0 outside C2ε

m
(0). Then set
(
g(ϕi (x)) x ∈ Ui
gi (x) :=
0 x 6∈ Ui
P
Then i∈I gi : M → R is P well-defined, smooth and strictly positive everywhere.
We may thus set fi := gi /( j∈I gj ). 
3.4. Orientation. In this R section we the introduce the last notion needed to define
expressions of the form M ω where M is a manifold and ω is a top-dimensional
form on M , i.e. ω ∈ Ωm (M ) where m = dim M . Namely, M has to be orientable.
First of all, we recall the notion of orientation on a finite-dimensional real vec-
tor space V . We remark that interestingly this notion does depend on the field
of scalars. Two bases (e1 , . . . , en ) and (f1 , . . . , fn ) of V are defined to be equiva-
lent if the change of basis matrix A ∈ PGL(n, R) from (e1 , . . . , en ) to (f1 , . . . , fn )
whose coefficients are given by fi = nj=1 aji ei (i ∈ {1, . . . , n}) has positive de-
terminant. This defines an equivalence relation on the set of bases of V since
GL+ (n, R) := {A ∈ GL(n, R) | det A > 0} is a subgroup of GL(n, R). An orienta-
tion on V is a choice of an equivalence class of bases. Hence there are two possible
orientations on a given finite-dimensional real vector space. For instance, on R2 ,
the standard basis (e1 , e2 ) is typically said to define the positive orientation and
(e1 , −e2 ) is said to define the negative orientation. The fact that these bases define
different orientations is also reflected by the fact that they cannot be transformed
into each other continuously while maintaing the property of forming a basis. This
in turn comes from the fact that GL(n, R) has exactly two connected components.
For a smooth manifold M , an orientation would be a consistent, continuous
choice of an orientation on Tp M for every p ∈ M . However, this is not always pos-
sible. The lowest dimension in which it is not is two. Indeed, P2 R is not orientable:
Think of P2 R as the northern hemisphere of a sphere with opposite points on the
equator identified. Then the image in P2 R of the strip depicted in the image below
is diffeomorphic to a Möbius strip within P2 R.

r b

b r

Hence P2 R cannot be orientable. In fact, using the theory to be developed in this

section, it is an exercise to show that Pn R is orientable if and only if n is odd.
Definition 3.16. Let M be a smooth manifold.
(i) An atlas A on M is oriented if for any two overlapping charts (Uα , ϕα )
and (Uβ , ϕβ ) in A the coordinate transformation θβα : ϕα (Uα ∩ Uβ ) →
ϕβ (Uα ∩ Uβ ) has the property that det Dx θβα > 0 for all x ∈ ϕα (Uα ∩ Uβ ).
(ii) The manifold M is orientable if it admits an oriented atlas.
Given an oriented atlas A on a manifold M we obtain for every p ∈ M a well-
defined orientation on Tp M by stipulating that for every (U, ϕ) ∈ A with p ∈ U
the map Dp ϕ : Tp M → Rm is orientation-preserving; here we put the standard
positive orientation on Rm .
There is a characterization of orientability of manifolds in terms of certain dif-
ferential forms which better allows for computations. For this, recall that for an
m-dimensional real vector space V its space of alternating m-forms Λm V ∗ is one-
dimensional. However, the bundle of alternating m-forms over a manifold behaves
very differently from the trivial bundle with fiber R whose smooth sections are just
the smooth functions on M in the sense that the latter admits constants whereas
the first one not necessarily does. Hence the following definition makes sense.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 43

Definition 3.17. Let M be a smooth manifold. A volume form on M is a smooth

differential m-form ω on M which is nowhere vanishing, i.e. ωx 6= 0 for all x ∈ M .
From the remark above it is clear that if ω is a volume form on M then any other
volume form on M is of the form f · ω where f ∈ C ∞ (M ) is nowhere vanishing.
The term volume form is due to the fact that ωx (e1 , . . . , en ) may be interpreted as
the volume of the parallelepiped spanned by the vectors (e1 , . . . , en ).
Proposition 3.18. Let M be a smooth manifold. Then M is orientable if and only
if it admits a volume form.
Proof. Suppose first that M admits a volume form ω. Let A be an atlas of M . We
modify A into a new atlas A′ which is oriented. First of all, passing to connected
components and restricting charts we may assume that all chart domains of A are
connected. Now, given (U, ϕ) ∈ A consider (ϕ−1 )∗ (ω) = a dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm where
a : ϕ(U ) → R is a nowhere vanishing smooth function. Then by connectedness of
U , the function a has constant sign. If it has positive sign we declare (U, ϕ) to be
part of the new atlas A′ . If not, set (U, s1 ◦ ϕ) to be in A′ where s1 : Rm → Rm
is given by (x1 , . . . , xm ) 7→ (−x1 , x2 , . . . , xm ); in fact any function whose derivative
has negative determinant everywhere would do: If we set ϕ′ := s1 ◦ ϕ then
(ϕ′−1 )∗ (ω) = (s−1 ∗
1 ) (ϕ ) (ω) = (s−1
−1 ∗ ∗
1 ) (a dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm ) =
= −a(−y1 , y2 , . . . , ym ) dy1 ∧ · · · ∧ dym = b dy1 ∧ · · · ∧ dym
on s1 (ϕ(U )) where b is of positive sign. We claim that A′ so defined is an oriented
atlas on M . It is an atlas simply because its chart domains cover M . To see that
it is oriented, let (U, ϕ) and (V, ψ) in A′ be overlapping charts. Then (ϕ−1 )∗ (ω) =
a dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm and (ψ −1 )∗ (ω) = b dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm where a and b are strictly
positive functions on ϕ(U ∩ V ) and ψ(U ∩ V ) respectively. Furthermore, since the
triangle
U9 ∩ Ve▲
rr ▲▲ −1
ϕ−1 rrr ▲▲▲ψ
rr ▲▲
rrr ▲▲
ϕ◦ψ −1
ϕ(U ∩ V ) o ψ(U ∩ V )
commutes we have (ϕ ◦ ψ −1 )∗ (ϕ−1 )∗ ω = (ψ −1 )∗ ω and hence
(ϕ ◦ ψ −1 )∗ (a dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm ) = b dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm .
However, we know from before that b(p) = a(ϕ ◦ ψ −1 (p)) det Dp (ϕ ◦ ψ −1 ) for all
p ∈ ψ(U ∩ V ). Hence, since a and b are positive, we deduce that det Dp (ϕ ◦ ψ −1 ) is
positive forall p ∈ ψ(U ∩ V ). That is, A′ is oriented.
Conversely, suppose that A is an oriented atlas on M . The idea on how to
construct a volume form is to pullback volume forms from chart codomains and to
sum the forms so obtained using a partition of unity: Let (Ui , ϕi )i∈I be a locally
finite refinement of A and let {fi | i ∈ I} be a partition P of unity subordinate to it,
i.e. supp fi ⊂ Ui , fi ∈ C ∞ (M ), 0 ≤ fi ≤ 1 and i∈I fi (x) = 1 for all x ∈ M . For
every i ∈ I, define ωi ∈ Ωm (M ) by
(
fi (p)ϕ∗i (dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm ) x ∈ Ui
(ωi )p :=
0 x 6∈ Ui
P
Now define ω := i∈I ωi ∈ Ω (M ). Then ω is a volume form on
m
PM : Given p ∈ M ,
let k ∈ I be such that p ∈ Uk . Then ωp equals the finite sum p∈Ui ∩Uk (ωi )p . On
Ui ∩ Uk we can express ωi in terms of ωk as follows: As before, we have
(ϕi )∗ (dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm )p = (ϕk )∗ ((ϕi ϕ−1 ∗
k ) (dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm ))p =
= det Dϕk (p) (ϕi ϕ−1 ∗
k )(ϕk (dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm ))p .
44 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Therefore we have
X
ωp = fi (p) det Dϕk (p) (ϕi ◦ ϕk−1 )(ϕ∗k (dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm ))p
p∈Ui ∩Uk

Now observe that since ϕ∗k (dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm )p 6= 0 we only need to show that the
coefficients in the above sum are non-zero. Indeed, since A is oriented we have
X X
fi (p) det Dϕk (p) (ϕi ◦ ϕ−1
k )≥ min det Dϕk (p) (ϕi ◦ ϕ−1
k ) fi (p).
p∈Ui ∩Uk
p∈Ui ∩Uk p∈Ui ∩Uk
| {z }
1
Hence the assertion. 
Note that the argument of the second part of the proof of Proposition 3.18 works
for any manifold up to the point of proving that the coefficients do not vanish, but
they will for non-orientable manifolds.
Given a volume form ω on a manifold M , we get a consistent choice of orientation
of each Tp M (p ∈ M ) by saying that a tuple (e1 , . . . , em ) of vectors in Tp M is
positively oriented if ωp (e1 , . . . , em ) > 0.
3.5. Integrating Smooth Compactly Supported Forms And More. Let M
be a smooth manifold with an oriented atlas A and let Ωpc (M ) denote the span
in Ωp (M ) of all smooth p-forms with compact support; recall that for ω ∈ Ωp (M )
we set supp(ω) = {x ∈ M | ωx 6= 0}. Now, let (U, ϕ) ∈ A. We define a linear form
c (U ) → R, where m = dim M , by
I(U,ϕ) : Ωm
Z
I(U,ϕ) (ω) := a(x1 , . . . , xm ) dµ(x1 ) · · · dµ(xm )
Rm
m
using a dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm = (ϕ ) (ω) ∈ Ωm
−1 ∗
c (ϕ(U )), where a ∈ Cc (R ) has compact
∞

support contained in ϕ(U ), and the Lebesgue measure, which can be replaced by
the Jordan content as long as ω is smooth. The orientability on M is key in proving
the following compatibility lemma.
Lemma 3.19. Let M be a manifold with an oriented atlas A. Further, let (U, ϕ)
and (V, ψ) be charts, and ω ∈ Ωm
c (U ∩ V ). Then I(U,ϕ) (ω) = I(V,ψ) (ω).

Proof. Write (ϕ−1 )∗ (ω) = a dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm and (ψ −1 )∗ (ω) = b dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm .
Utilizing that ϕ ◦ ψ −1 : ψ(U ∩ V ) → ϕ(U ∩ V ) is a diffeomorphism between open
subsets of Rm and the calculation at the end of Section 3.2 we conclude b(x) =
a(ϕ ◦ ψ −1 (x)) det Dx (ϕ ◦ ψ −1 ). We therefore have
Z Z
I(V,ψ) (ω) = b(x) dµ(x) = a(ϕ ◦ ψ −1 (x)) det Dx (ϕ ◦ ψ −1 ) dµ(x).
Rm Rm

Since A is oriented we have det Dx (ϕ ◦ ψ −1 ) > 0 and hence, by the classical change
of variables formula with y := ϕ ◦ ψ −1 (x), we may continue the above with
Z
= a(y) dµ(y) = I(U,ϕ) (w).
Rm

We now extend the definition of integral to the whole manifold: Let (Ui , ϕi , fi )i∈N
be such that the (Ui , ϕi ) (i ∈ N) are contained in the oriented atlas A and form
a locally finite covering, and (fi )i∈N is a partition of unity subordinate to (Ui )i∈N .
Now given ω ∈ Ωm c (M ) we set
Z X
ω := I(Ui ,ϕi ) (fi ω).
M i∈N
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 45

Observe that for every i ∈ N the form fi ω lies in Ωm

c (Ui ) and that the above sum
is finite as only finitely many Ui intersect the compact set supp(ω). We proceed by
showing that the above sum is independent of the Pinvolved choices: If (Vj , ψj , gj )j∈N
is another choice as above we may write fi ω = j∈N gj fi ω and therefore
X X
I(Ui ,ϕi ) (fi ω) = I(Ui ,ϕi ) (gj fi ω) = I(Vj ,ψj ) (gj fi ω)
j j∈N

where we have used that supp(gj fi ω) ⊆ Ui ∩ Vj . Consequently, we have

X XX
I(Ui ,ϕi ) (fi ω) = I(Vj ,ψj ) (gj fi ω)
i∈N i∈N j∈N
XX
= I(Vj ,ψj ) (gj fi ω)
j∈N i∈N
!
X X X
= I(Vj ,ψj ) gj fi ω = I(Vj ,ψj ) (gj ω).
j∈N i∈N j∈N
R
Overall, M c (M ) → R is a well-defined linear form.
: Ωm
R
Remark 3.20. Using the Lebesgue integral, the linear form M can be extended
to forms ω which are Borel measurable, have compact support and are bounded.
Here, Borel measurability refers to ω as a map from M to Λk (M ) and boundedness
means the following: Let η ∈ Ωm (M ) be a volume form. A differential m-form α
on M with compact support is bounded if there is a constant c > 0 such that
|αx (v1 , . . . , vm )| ≤ c|ηx (v1 , . . . , vm )| for all x ∈ M and v1 , . . . , vm ∈ Tx M . This
definition is independent R of the chosen volume form.
This extension of M is important for instance to be able to integrate forms of
the type χD · ω where ω is a smooth form on M and D is some domain.

3.6. Exterior Derivative. Having introduced integration of forms we now turn

to a differentiation type operation on forms. We have seen that given a smooth
manifold M one can define a natural derivative d : Ω0 (M ) → Ω1 (M ). We are now
going to construct natural maps Ωk (M ) → Ωk+1 (M ) for every value of k which
play the role of a derivative. First of all, we define these maps in the case where
M = U is an open subset of Rm and then transplant the result back into manifolds.
For f ∈ Ω0 (U ) = C ∞ (U ) we have already defined df ∈ Ω1 (U ); in our case:
Xm
∂f
df = dxi .
i=1
∂xi

Now,
P let k ≥ 1 and ω ∈ Ωk (U ). Then ω can be written in a unique way as ω =
I aI dxI where the sum is taken over all ordered multi-indices of length k ranging
between 1 and n. For I = (i1 , . . . , ik ) recall that dxI := dxi1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxik .

Definition 3.21. Let U ⊆ Rm be open and ω ∈ Ωk (U ). Define the exterior derivative

dω ∈ Ωk+1 (U ) of ω by
X
dω := daI ∧ dxI
I
P
where ω = I aI dxI .

Example 3.22. To illustrate that the above formula is far from arbitrary, consider
an open subset U ⊆ R2 and a 1-form ω = P dx + Q dy where P, Q : U → R are
46 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

smooth functions. Then

   
∂P ∂P ∂Q ∂Q
dω = dP ∧ dx + dQ ∧ dy = dx + dy ∧ dx + dx + dy ∧ dy
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y
∂P ∂P ∂Q ∂Q
= dx ∧ dx + dy ∧ dx + dx ∧ dy + dy ∧ dy
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y
 
∂Q ∂P
= − dx ∧ dy
∂x ∂y
R R
In this case we recover Green’s theorem as ∂D ω = D dω which we later identify
as an incarnation of Stokes’ theorem.
Example 3.23. As a second example, consider an open subset U ⊆ R3 and the
2-form ω := F1 dy ∧ dz − F2 dx ∧ dz + F3 dx ∧ dy. As above, we compute
dω = dF1 ∧ dy ∧ dz − dF2 ∧ dx ∧ dz + F3 ∧ dx ∧ dy
∂F1 ∂F2 ∂F3
= dx ∧ dy ∧ dz + dx ∧ dy ∧ dz + dx ∧ dy ∧ dz
∂x ∂y ∂z
 
∂F1 ∂F2 ∂F3
= + + dx ∧ dy ∧ dz.
∂x ∂y ∂z
This resembles the divergence theorem which is yet another incarnation of Stokes’
theorem: Indeed, if we consider the vector field F (x) := (F1 (x), F2 (x), F3 (x)) on R3
then dω = divF dx ∧ dy ∧ dz.
Next, we collect some fundamental properties of the exterior derivative.
Proposition 3.24. Let d be as in Definition 3.21. Then
(i) d is R-linear,
(ii) d(ω1 ∧ ω2 ) = dω1 ∧ ω2 + (−1)deg ω1 ω1 ∧ dω2 for any two differential forms
ω1 and ω2 on U ,
(iii) d2 = 0, and
(iv) if f : V → U is a smooth map between open subsets V ⊆ Rn and U ⊆ Rm
then df ∗ = f ∗ d.
Note that part (iii) of Proposition 3.24 means that d is not a derivative in the
naive sense. Rather it resembles the geometric intuition that the boundary ∂D of
a region D does not have a boundary itself, i.e. “∂ 2 = 0”.
Proof. Part (i) and (ii) are left as exercises but are used. For (iii), suppose first that
f ∈ Ω0 (U ). We show that d(df ) vanishes and then consider the general case. This
is in fact in incarnation of Schwarz’s Theorem:
 
m   X m   m m
(i) X X X 2
∂f ∂f  ∂ f
d(df ) = d dxi = d ∧ dxi = dxj  ∧ dxi
i=1
∂xi i=1
∂x i i=1 j=1
∂x j ∂x i

m
X X ∂2f
∂2f
= dxj ∧ dxi = dxj ∧ dxi
i,j=1
∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xi
i6=j
X 2
∂ f X ∂2f
= dxj ∧ dxi + dxj ∧ dxi
i<j
∂xj ∂xi i>j
∂xj ∂xi
X ∂ f 2 X
∂2f
= dxj ∧ dxi + dxi ∧ dxj
i<j
∂xj ∂xi j>i
∂xi ∂xj
X ∂2f ∂2f

= − + dxi ∧ dxj = 0.
i<j
∂xj ∂xi ∂xi ∂xj
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 47

P
Now, if ω ∈ Ωk (U ) for k ≥ 1, write ω = I aI dxI . Then
!
X (i) X (ii) X
d(dω) = d daI ∧ dxI = d(daI ∧ dxI ) = d(daI ) ∧ dxI − daI ∧ d(dxI )
| {z } | {z }
I I I
=0 =0

where d(daI ) = 0 by the above and the term d(dxI ) vanishes by recurrence: Recall
(i)
that dxI = dxi1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxik ; therefore d(dxI ) = d(dxi1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxik ) which equals
d(dxi1 ) ∧ (dxi2 ∧ · · · ∧ dxik ) − dxi ∧ d(dxi2 ∧ · · · ∧ dxik ). Here, d(dxi1 ) vanishes by
the discussion for functions and d(dxi2 ∧ · · · ∧ dxik ) by recurrence. Thus d(dω) = 0.
For part (iv) we again first consider the case g ∈ Ω0 (U ). Then
m
! m   X m  
X ∂g X ∂g ∂g
∗ ∗ ∗
f (dg) = f dxi = f dxi = ◦ f f ∗ (dxi ).
i=1
∂x i i=1
∂x i i=1
∂xi
Pn ∂fi
If f = (f1 , . . . , fm ) then we have f (dxi ) = i=1 ∂yj dyj . Therefore:
∗

Xm  X n
∂g ∂fi
f ∗ (dg) = ◦f dyj
i=1
∂x i j=1
∂y j

Now observe that

Xm  
∂g ∂fi
◦f
i=1
∂xi ∂y j

by the chain rule, computing the partial derivative with respect to yj of the function
y 7→ g(f1 (y), . . . , fm (y)). Hence
m
X
∗ ∂g ◦ f
f (dg) = dyj = d(g ◦ f ) = d(f ∗ g)
j=1
∂yj

which proves
P the statement for functions g ∈ Ω (U ). Now, if ω ∈ Ω (U ) and k ≥ 1
0 k

then ω = I aI dxI and we compute

!
X X
∗ ∗ ∗
d(f ω) = d f (aI )f (dxI ) = d(f ∗ (aI ) · f ∗ (dxI ))
I I
(ii) X X
∗ ∗
= d(f (aI )) ∧ f (dxI ) + f ∗ (aI )d(f ∗ (dxI ))
I I
X X
∗ ∗
= f (daI ) ∧ f (dxI ) + f ∗ (aI )d(f ∗ (dxI ))
I I
!
X X
= f∗ daI ∧ dxI + f ∗ (aI )d(f ∗ (dxI ))
I I
X
∗ ∗ ∗
= f (dω) + f (aI )d(f (dxI ))
| {z }
I
=0

where the term d(f ∗ (dxI )) vanishes by recurrence as before: If dxI = dxi1 ∧· · ·∧dxik
then f ∗ (dxI ) = f ∗ dπi1 ∧ · · · ∧ f ∗ dπik and applying d yields
d(f ∗ (dxI )) = d(f ∗ d(πi1 )) ∧ f ∗ (dπi2 ) ∧ · · · ∧ f ∗ (dπik )
− f ∗ (dπi1 ) ∧ d(f ∗ (dπi2 ) ∧ · · · ∧ f ∗ (dπik ))
in which d(f ∗ (dπi1 )) = f ∗ (ddπi1 ) = 0 and d(f ∗ (dπi2 ) ∧ · · · ∧ f ∗ (dπik )) vanishes by
recurrence. This proves the assertion. 
We now have an understanding of how the exterior derivate behaves with respect
to the various operations for forms defined on open subsets of Euclidean space.
Suppose next that M is a manifold and ω ∈ Ωk (M ). We claim that there is a
48 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

P
well-defined (k + 1)-form dω ∈ Ωk+1 (M ) such that if I aI dxI is the P expression
of ω in a chart (U, ϕ) then the expression of dω in the same chart is I daI ∧ dxI .
For this, recall that aI is a smooth function on U and that dxI = ϕ∗ (dπI ) where
dπI = dπi1 ∧ · · · ∧ dπik . To see that dω ∈ Ωk+1 (M ) is well-defined we rewrite
X X X
daI ∧ dxI = d(aI ◦ ϕ−1 ◦ ϕ) ∧ ϕ∗ (dπI ) = d(ϕ∗ (aI ◦ ϕ−1 )) ∧ ϕ∗ (dπI )
I I I
! !
X X
= ϕ∗ d(aI ◦ ϕ−1 ) ∧ dπI = ϕ∗ d aI ◦ ϕ−1 dπI = ϕ∗ d((ϕ−1 )∗ ω)
I I

Note that the exterior derivative d in the last expression is indeed applied to a
form (ϕ−1 )∗ ω defined on Euclidean space. In order to show that d is well-defined
on manifolds we now show that given any two charts (Uα , ϕα ) and (Uβ , ϕβ ) on M
we have
−1 ∗
ϕ∗α (d(ϕ−1 ∗ ∗
α ) (ω)) = ϕβ (d(ϕβ ) (ω)).
Let θαβ : ϕβ (Uα ∩ Uβ ) → ϕα (Uα ∩ Uβ ) denote the coordinate transformation from
α to β and set ωα := (ϕ−1
α ) ω. Then
∗

ϕ∗α (dωα ) = (θαβ ϕβ )∗ (dωα ) = ϕ∗β θαβ

∗
(dωα ) =
= ϕ∗β d(θαβ
∗ ∗
ωα ) = ϕ∗β (d(θαβ ) ω)) = ϕ∗β (d(ϕ−1
−1 ∗
(ϕα ∗
β ) ω)

which is the assertion.

Uα ∩ Uβ
♣♣♣7
ϕ−1
g◆◆◆ −1
◆◆ϕ
♣♣♣♣ α ◆◆β◆
♣ ♣ ◆◆◆
♣♣ θαβ :=ϕα ◦ϕ−1
β
ϕα (Uα ∩ Uβ ) o ϕβ (Uα ∩ Uβ )
Proposition 3.24 now carries over to the setting of manifolds.
Theorem 3.25. Let M be a manifold and let d : Ωk (M ) → Ωk+1 (M ) be defined as
above. Then
(i) d : Ω0 (M ) → Ω1 (M ) is the usual differential,
(ii) d(ω1 ∧ ω2 ) = dω1 ∧ ω2 + (−1)deg ω1 ω1 ∧ dω2 for any two differential forms
ω1 and ω2 on M ,
(iii) d2 = 0, and
(iv) if F : N → M is smooth map between manifolds then dF ∗ ω = F ∗ (dω) for
all ω ∈ Ωk (M ).
It is an exercise to convice oneself that these properties of the exterior deriva-
tive on manifolds do indeed follow from their counterparts in Euclidean spaces. A
more interesting exercise is to show that a collection of maps Ωk (M ) → Ωk+1 (M )
satisfying the above properties is necessarily given by d.
Before finally turning to Stokes’ Theorem we remark on a few invariants of
manifolds related to the exterior derivative. Note that given a manifold M we have
a sequence

0
d−1
/ Ω0 (M ) d0
/ Ω1 (M ) d1
/ ··· / Ωk−1 (M ) dk−1/ Ωk (M ) dk
/ Ωk+1 (M ) / ···

Since dk ◦ dk−1 = 0 we have im dk−1 ⊆ ker dk . We define the k-th de Rham coho-
mology of M as the quotient vector space HkdR (M ) := ker dk / im dk−1 . For instance,
we have H0dR (M ) = ker d0 ∼ = Rπ0 (M) where π0 (M ) is the number of connected
components of M . Thus, in a sense, de Rham cohomology spaces measure higher
connectivity problems. Straight from the definition one may also view them as ob-
structions to solving certain differential equations: Given ω ∈ Ωk (M ), is there a
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 49

form η ∈ Ωk−1 (M ) such that dη = ω? A necessary condition is that dω be zero.

However, this is not sufficient in general.
As another fact we state that if M is compact then all its de Rham cohomol-
ogy spaces are finite-dimensional despite its constituents being uncountable dimen-
sional. For instance, if Sg denotes the surface with g holes then H0dR (Sg ) ∼ = R
since Sg is connected, H2dR (Sg ) ∼
= R by Poincaré duality since S g is orientable and
1 ∼ 2g
HdR (Sg ) = R . In this case, de Rham cohomology detects the number of holes.
If M is a compact manifold and S k (M ) = {σ : ∆k → M smooth} denotes the
set of smooth k-simplicesR in M then integration against a k-form provides a natural
map S k (M ) → R, σ 7→ σ ω. This induces a duality map Hk (M, R) × HkdR (M ) → R
where Hk (M, R) denotes the singular homology of M over R computed with respect
to smooth k-simplices.
3.7. Stokes’ Theorem. The general form of Stokes’ Theorem requires introducing
the concept of smooth manifolds M with boundary ∂M and to develop the concepts
of smoothness for maps, differential forms etc. in this context. Whereas this does
not present any major difficulties, it takes time. A shortcut that we will take is to
prove Stokes’ Theorem so called regular domains in smooth manifold which is less
general only in appearance.
Definition 3.26. Let M be a manifold. A regular domain in M is a subset D ⊆ M
such that
(i) D is closed,
(ii) D̊ is not empty, and
(iii) for every p ∈ ∂D = D\D̊ there is a chart (U, ϕ) of M at p such that
ϕ(U ) = Cεm (0), ϕ(p) = 0 and ϕ(U ∩ D) = {x ∈ Cεm (0) | xm ≥ 0}.

D
ϕ
b b

U ϕ(U )
Note that Definition 3.26 in particular implies that ∂D is a regular (m − 1)-
submanifold of M .
Example 3.27. The reader is invited to convince himself that the following are
examples of regular domains.
(i) D = {x ∈ Rm | kxk ≤ 1}.
(ii) Let N be a smooth manifold and set M := N × R. Then N × [0, 1] is a
regular domain in M with boundary ∂D = N × {0} ∪ N × {1}.

0 1
Theorem 3.28. Let M be an oriented manifold of dimension at least two and let
D be a regular domain in M . Then ∂D is orientable and the orientation of M
canonically determines an orientation on ∂D.
Proof. Let A be the set of all charts as in the definition of a regular domain.
Using a volume form on M we can orient A as in the proof of Proposition 3.18
50 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

without changing property (iii) of Definition 3.26: Indeed, either Dp ϕ : Tp M → Rm

preserves the orientation in which case we leave it or it reverses the orientation in
which case we compose it with the map Rm → Rm which sends (x1 , x2 , . . . , xm )
to (−x1 , x2 , . . . , xm ); observe that this coordinate transformation preserves {x ∈
Cεm (0) | xm ≥ 0}. Now, let p ∈ ∂D, and (U, ϕ) and (V, ψ) in A be charts at p. Then
ψ ◦ ϕ−1 ({x ∈ ϕ(U ∩ V ) | xm ≥ 0}) = {y ∈ ψ(U ∩ V ) | ym ≥ 0}
and
ψ ◦ ϕ−1 ({x ∈ ϕ(U ∩ V ) | xm = 0}) = {y ∈ ψ(U ∩ V ) | ym = 0}.
In particular, D0 (ψ ◦ ϕ−1 (x))(Rm−1 ×{0}) = Rm−1 ×{0}. Writing ψ ◦ ϕ−1 (x) =
(F1 (x), . . . , Fm (x)) for x ∈ ϕ(U ∩ V ) we therefore have
 ∂F1 
∂x1 (0) · · · ∂x∂F1
m−1
(0) ∂F1
∂xm (0)
 .. .. ..   
 
D0 (ψ ◦ ϕ−1 ) =  . . .  = Mm−1 ∂F ∗ .
 ∂Fm−1  0 ∂xm (0)
∂Fm−1 m
 ∂x1 (0) · · · ∂xm−1 (0) ∂Fm−1
∂xm (0)
∂Fm
0 ··· 0 ∂xm (0)

Since A is oriented we have det Mm−1 · ∂F

∂xm (0) = det D0 (ψ ◦ ϕ
m −1
) > 0. From the
fact ψ ◦ ϕ ({x ∈ ϕ(U ∩ V ) | xm > 0}) = {y ∈ ψ(U ∩ V ) | ym > 0} we deduce that
−1

∂xm (0) > 0 which implies det Mm−1 > 0 by the above. Now, for every (U, ϕ) ∈ A
∂Fm

define ϕ e ◦ ψe−1 ) we conclude that {(U ∩ ∂D, ϕ)}

e := ϕ|U∩∂D . Since Mm−1 = D0 (ϕ e
is an oriented atlas of ∂D. 
In other words, we take the following from Theorem 3.28.
Scholium. Retain the notation of the proof of Theorem 3.28. Given p ∈ ∂D and
(U, ϕ) ∈ A the space
Tp M>0 := {v ∈ Tp M | (Dp ϕ(v))m > 0}
is a well-defined half-space, independent of the choice of chart. It contains the
“inward” directions.

Now recall that if M is orientable and A an oriented atlas on M , then an orien-

tation on M is a consistent choice of orientation on Tp M for all p ∈ M . If M is
connected there are two possible orientations: the one for which for every choice of
p ∈ M and (U, ϕ) ∈ A at p the map Dp ϕ : Tp M → Rm is orientation-preserving
and the one for which all these maps are orientation-reversing; here, we equip Rm
with the canonical orientation in which (e1 , . . . , em ) is positively oriented. Given
an orientation on M , the induced orientation on ∂D is defined as follows: Given
p ∈ ∂D, a basis (f1 , . . . , fm−1 ) of Tp ∂D is positively oriented if for all v ∈ Tp M>0
the basis (f1 , . . . , fm−1 , v) of Tp M is positively oriented.
Theorem 3.29. Let M be a smooth oriented manifold and let D ⊆ M be a regular
domain. Further, let ω ∈ Ωm−1 (M ) be a smooth (m − 1)-form. Assume that either
D is compact or that ω has compact support. Then
Z Z
dω = i∗ ω
D g
∂D

where i : ∂D → M denotes the inclusion and ∂D f denotes the boundary of D with

the induced orientation if m is even and the opposite of the induced orientation if
m is odd.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 51

The proof of Theorem 3.29 reduces to the fundamental theorem of calculus. The
reduction however, employs all our knowledge on differential forms.
Proof. Let (Ui , ϕi )i∈I be a countable, locally finite covering of M taken from an
oriented atlas and such that (Ui , ϕi ) is as in Definition 3.26 whenever Ui ∩ ∂D 6= ∅.
Furthermore, let {fi | i ∈ I} be a partition of unity subordinate to (Ui , ϕi )i∈I .
We now give a proof in the case where ω has compact support. P It constitutes in
computing both sides of the stated equality. First of all ω = i∈I fi ω contains only
finitely many non-zero terms since supp ω is compact. Hence
Z XZ Z XZ
dω = d(fj ω) and i∗ ω = i∗ (fj ω)
D D g
∂D g
∂D
j∈I j∈I
R R
It therefore suffices to show D d(fj ω) = g
∂D
i∗ (fj ω) for all j ∈ I which amounts
to showing that Z Z
d(fj ω) = i∗ (fj ω).
D∩Uj ^j
∂D∩U
By definition, the left hand side of the above is computed as follows. Consider
ϕj : Uj → Cεm (0). Then
m
X
(ϕ−1 ∗ cl ∧ · · · ∧ dxm
gl dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx
j ) (fj ω) =
l=1

for smooth functions gj : Rm → R with compact support contained in Cεm (0). Using
the fact that pulling back commutes with taking the exterior derivative we compute
(ϕ−1 ∗ −1 ∗
j ) (dfj ω) = d((ϕj ) (fj ω))
m
X
= cl ∧ · · · ∧ dxm
dgl ∧ dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxl ∧ · · · ∧ dx
l=1
m m
!
X X ∂gl
= dxs cl ∧ · · · ∧ dxm
∧ dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx
s=1
∂xs
l=1
m
X ∂gl cl ∧ · · · ∧ dxm
= dxl ∧ dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx
∂xl
l=1
m
X ∂gl
= (−1)l−1 dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm .
∂xl
l=1
We therefore obtain
Z Z Xm
∂gl
d(fj ω) = (−1)l−1 dx1 · · · dxm
D∩Uj ϕj (D∩Uj ) l=1 ∂x l
Z Z m
!
X
l−1 ∂gl
= dxm dx1 · · · dxm−1 (−1)
xm ≥0 Rm−1 ∂xl
l=1
of which we compute each summand individually: If l = m we have
Z Z
m−1 ∂gm
(−1) dxm dx1 · · · dxm
xm ≥0 R m−1 ∂xm
Z Z
m−1 ∂gm
= (−1) dx1 · · · dxm−1 dxm
R m−1 x ≥0 ∂xm
| m {z }
=−gm (x1 ,...,xm−1 ,0)
Z
= (−1)m gm (x1 , . . . , xm−1 , 0) dx1 · · · dxm−1 .
Rm−1
52 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

On the other hand, for l 6= m we get

Z Z Z
dxm cl · · · dxm−1 dxl ∂gl = 0
dx1 · · · dx
Rm−2 ∂x
xm ≥0
| R {z }l
=0
Overall, we have
Z Z
m
d(fj ω) = (−1) gm (x1 , . . . , xm−1 , 0) dx1 · · · dxm−1 .
D∩Uj Rm−1
R
We now turn to computing ^j
∂D∩U
i∗ (fj ω): Consider the following diagram
ϕj
Uj / Cεm (0)
O O
i I
pm ◦ϕj
∂D ∩ Uj / C m−1 (0)
ε

where pm (x1 , . . . , xm ) := (x1 , . . . , xm−1 ) and I(x1 , . . . , xm−1 ) := (x1 , . . . , xm−1 , 0).
Then ((pm ◦ ϕj )−1 )∗ (i∗ (fj ω)) = I ∗ ((ϕj−1 )∗ (fj ω)). Recall that
m
X
(ϕ−1 ∗ cl ∧ · · · ∧ dxm
gl dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx
j ) (fj ω) =
l=1
and note that
cl ∧ · · · ∧ dxm ) = I ∗ (dx1 ) ∧ · · · ∧ I\
I ∗ (dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx ∗ (dx ) ∧ · · · ∧ I ∗ (dx )
l m

where I ∗ (dxm ) = 0 and I ∗ (dxl ) = dxl for l 6= m. This implies

I ∗ ((ϕ−1 ∗
j ) (fj ω)) = gm (. . . , 0) dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm−1
R
and hence
R the result; note that if ∂D ∩ Uj = ∅ then clearly ∂D∩U ∗
^j i (fj ω) = 0.
Also, D∩Uj d(fj ω) vanishes in this case since integration will be over the whole of
Rm without restriction on the xm -coordinate. 
Corollary 3.30. Let M be an oriented manifold of dimension at least two and let
D be a compact regular domain in M. Further, let Ω ⊇ D be open. Then there is
no smooth map f : Ω → ∂D which is the identity on ∂D.
Proof. Assume that f : DR → ∂D is as asserted. Pick a volume form on ω ∈
Ωm−1 (∂D) on ∂D. Then ∂D ω 6= 0. On the other hand, note that dΩ (f ∗ ω) =
f ∗ (d∂D ω) = 0 since by d∂D ω is an m-form on ∂D and hence identically zero.
Therefore Theorem 3.29 yields a contradiction:
Z Z Z
0= d(f ∗ ω) = i∗ (f ∗ ω) = (f ◦ i)∗ (ω) 6= 0.
D g
∂D g
∂D

Corollary 3.31 (Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem). Let m ≥ 2 and B := {x ∈ Rm |
kxk2 ≤ 1}. Then any continuous map f : B → B has a fixed point.
Proof. As a first step, we prove a slightly different statement in a smooth setting:
Let δ > 0 and G : B1+δ → B a smooth map. We claim that G has a fixed point. If
G(x) 6= x for all x ∈ B(0, 1 + δ) then we may consider the ray G(x) + t(x − G(x))
(t ≥ 0) and define f (x) to be the intersection of this ray with S(0, 1). Then f :
B(0, 1 + δ) → B is smooth and restricts to the identity on ∂B = S(0, 1). This,
however, contradicts Corollary 3.30.
As a second step, we pass from the smooth to the continuous setting using
Weierstrass approximation. Assume that there is a continuos map F : B → B with
F (x) 6= x for all x ∈ B. Then there is ε > 0 such that 0 < 2ε < minx∈B kF (x) − xk.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 53

By Weierstrass approximation there is a polynomial map P : Rm → Rm such that

kF (x) − P (x)k < ε for all x ∈ B. Since kF (x)k ≤ 1 we get maxx∈B kP (x)k < 1 + ε.
Now define G : Rm → Rm by G(x) = P (x)/(1 + ε). Then maxx∈B kG(x)k < 1.
Hence there is δ > 0 such that G(B(0, 1 + δ)) ⊆ B and we claim that G(x) 6= x
for all x ∈ B(0, 1 + δ). This is due to the fact that G approximates F well: If
x ∈ B(0, 1 + δ)\B then G(x) 6= x since G(B(0, 1 + δ)) ⊆ B. For x ∈ B we have
εP (x)
kG(x) − F (x)k ≤ kG(x) − P (x)k + kP (x) − F (x)k < < 2ε
1+ε
and therefore kG(x) − xk ≥ kF (x) − xk − 2ε > 0. 

3.8. De Rham Cohomology in Top Degree. Let M be a smooth manifold. We

have already seen that H0dR (M ) consists of locally constant functions and hence can
be identified with Rπ0 where π0 denotes the number of connected components of M .
In this section, we determine Hm dR (M ) in the case where M is connected, compact
and oriented of dimension m. We will see that integration over M , which can be
viewed as a linear map from Ωm (M ) → R, induces an isomorphism Hm ∼
dR (M ) = R.
The following two lemmas work towards this statement.
Lemma 3.32. Let M be a manifold and let (U, ϕ) be a chart of M . Further,
R suppose
that F ⊆ U is such that ϕ(F ) = [0, 1]m . If ω ∈ Ωm (M ) satisfies M ω = 0 and
supp ω ⊆ F then there is η ∈ Ωm−1 (M ) such that supp η ⊆ F and ω = dη.
Proof. Consider the form (ϕ−1 )∗ ω ∈ Ωm (ϕ(U )) with support in ϕ(F ) = [0, 1]m .
Then we can write (ϕ−1 )∗ ω = f dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxm for some f ∈ C ∞ (Rm ) with
support in ϕ(F ). In this situation, it is an exercise to show that there are fi ∈
Pm ∂fi
C ∞ (Rm ) (i ∈ {1, . . . , m}) with support in ϕ() such that f = i=1 ∂x i
. Now define
α ∈ Ωm−1 (Rm ) by
m
X
α := ci ∧ · · · ∧ dxm
(−1)i−1 fi dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx
i=1

which is supported in ϕ(F ). One readily computes that dα = (ϕ−1 )∗ ω and hence
we may put η := ϕ∗ α. 

The second lemma deals with adjusting the support of a general m-form to be
contained in a set F as in Lemma 3.32.
Lemma 3.33. Let M be a connected, compact manifold and let (U, ϕ) be a chart of
M such that F ⊂ U satisfies ϕ(F ) = [0, 1]m . If ω ∈ Ωm (M ) there is η ∈ Ωm−1 (M )
such that supp(ω + dη) ⊂ F ,
Proof. The proof proceedes in two steps.
(i) Claim: Let (Vi , ϕi , Fi )ni=0 be such that for every i ∈ {0, . . . , n} the tuple
(Vi , ϕi ) is a chart with Fi ⊂ Vi satisfying ϕi (Fi ) = [0, 1]m . Furthermore,
assume that F̊i−1 ∩ F̊i 6= ∅ for 1 ≤ i ≤ n and let ω0 ∈ Ωm (M ) be supported
in F0 . Then there is η ∈ Ωm−1 (M ) with supp(ω0 + dη) ⊆ Fn .

b b b

V0 , F0 V1 , F1 V2 , F2 Vn , Fn
54 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

R Choose m-forms
R ω1 , . . . , ωn with supp ωi ⊆ F̊i−1 ∩ F̊i and such that
ω
F̊j−1 j
= ω
F̊j−1 j−1
forR all j ∈ {1, . . . , n}. Then supp(ωi+1 − ωi ) ⊆ Fi
for 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 and Vi ωi+1 − ωi = 0. Then by Lemma 3.32 there are
ηi ∈ Ωm−1 (M ) such that dηi = ωi+1 − ωi for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1. Hence
ωn = (ωn − ωn−1 ) + (ωn−1 − ωn−2 ) + · · · + (ω1 − ω0 ) + ω0
n−1
X
= dηi + ω0
i=0
Hence the assertion.
(ii) We now finish the proof of the lemma. Let (U1 , ϕ1 , F1 ), . . . , (Un , ϕn , Fn )
be charts as in step (i) and suppose (U1 , ϕ1 , F1 ) = (U, ϕ, F ). Furthermore,
Sn
assume by compactness that i=1 F̊i = M and let (fi )ni=1 be a partition of
Pn
unity subordinate to (F̊i )ni=1 . Then we may write ω = i=1 fi ω. Now, for
i ≥ 2 there is, by connectedness and step (i),
Pn a form ηi ∈ Ω
m−1
(M ) such
that supp(fi ω + dηi ) ⊆ F1 = F . Then ω + i=1 dηi has support in F .

We are now in a position to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 3.34. Let M be a compact, connected and oriented manifold. Then the
sequence
R
dm−1 M
m−1 / Ωm (M ) /R
Ω (M )
R
is exact, i.e. ker M
= im dm−1 .
R
Proof. First, we show that im dm−1 ⊆ ker M . Let ω ∈ Ωm−1 (M ). Take any chart
(U, ϕ) of M such that the closed unit ball B is contained in ϕ(U ) and define D :=
ϕ−1 (B). Then both D and M \D are regular domains. Furthermore, they share
the same boundary ∂D = ∂(M \D) but induce opposite orientations on it. As a
consequence, Stokes’ Theorem implies
Z Z Z Z Z
dω = dω + dω = ω+ ω = 0.
g ^
M D M\D ∂D ∂(M\D)
R R
We now turn to proving that ker M ⊆ im dm−1 . To this end, let ω ∈ ker M and
let (U, ϕ) be a chart such that F ⊆ U satisfies ϕ(F ) = [0,R1]m . Then by Lemma
3.33 there is η ∈ Ωm−1 (M ) with supp(ω + dη) ⊂ F . Also, M ω + dη = 0 by the
first step. Hence Lemma 3.32 implies that there is α ∈ Ωm−1 (M ) with ω + dη = dα.
Thus ω = d(α − η). 

4. De Rham Cohomology
4.1. Basic Definitions. Let M be a a smooth manifold of dimension m. Recall
the sequence
d0 d1 dm−2 dm−1 0
0 / Ω0 (M ) / Ω1 (M ) / ··· / Ωm−1 (M ) / Ωm (M ) / ··· .

Since d2 = 0, we have im dk−1 ⊆ ker dk for every k ≥ 0 and we may therefore define
HkdR (M ) := ker dk / im dk−1
Elements of im dk−1 are called exact forms and elements of ker dk are called closed
forms. The de Rham cohomology spaces are fundamental invariants of M . So far
we know that
(i) H0dR (M ) ∼
= Rπ0 , and
(ii) HdR (M ) ∼
m
= R via integration if M is compact, connected and oriented.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 55

R
Any differential form ω ∈ Ωm (M ) with M ω = 1 is said to represent the fundamen-
tal class of M . Next, we describe the functorial properties of de Rham cohomology:
Let M, N be manifolds and let f : M → N be smooth. Combining pullback via f
and exterior differentiation we obtain the diagram
d0 d1 dk−1 dk
0 / Ω0 (N ) / Ω1 (N ) / ··· / Ωk (N ) / ···

f∗ f∗ f∗
 d0
 d1 dk−1
 dk
0 / Ω0 (M ) / Ω1 (M ) / ··· / Ωk (M ) / ···

Since pullback and exterior differentiation commute, so does the above diagram.
As a consequence, we have
f ∗ (ker dN M
k ) ⊆ ker dk and f ∗ (im dN M
k−1 ) ⊆ im dk−1 .

Indeed, if for instance ω ∈ ker dN k then dk f ω = f dk ω = 0 and similarly for the

M ∗ ∗ N

assertion about images. Therefore, f induces for every k ≥ 0 a map f ∗ : HkdR (N ) →

HkdR (M ). If the context is clear, we drop the superscript.
4.2. The Degree of a Map. Let M and N be compact, connected and oriented
manifolds of dimension m. Further, let f : M → N be a smooth map. By Theorem
3.34, integration induces isomorphisms
∗
fm
Hm
dR (N )
/ Hm
dR (M )

I I
 
R ❴ ❴ ❴ ❴ ❴ ❴/ R
and hence there is a unique linear map R → R which makes the diagram commute.
Definition 4.1. Let M and N be compact, connected and oriented manifolds of
dimension m. Further, let f : M → N be a smooth map. The degree of f is the
unique real number deg f ∈ R such that the linear map R → R, x 7→ (deg f ) · x
makes the above diagram commute.
In the following, we show that the degree of a smooth map when defined is
actually an integer. First, we record the following lemma which states that f is
close to being a covering map.
Lemma 4.2. Let M and N be compact manifolds of dimension m and let f : M → N
be a smooth map. Let q ∈ f (M ) be a regular value. Then f −1 (q) is finite and there
is an open connected set Vq ⊆ N containing q and for each p ∈ f −1 (q) an open
connected set Up ⊆ M containing p such that f |Up : Up → Vq is a diffeomorphism.
Proof. Since q is regular, for all p ∈ f −1 (q) the differential Dp f : Tp M → Tq N has
full rank and hence, in our case, is an isomorphism. Hence, by the inverse function
theorem, there are open neighbourhoods Up′ of p ∈ M and Vq′ of q ∈ N such that
f |Up′ : Up′ → Vq is a diffeomorphism. In particular, Up′ ∩ f −1 (q) = {p}. Therefore
f −1 (q) is discrete in M and Thence finite by compactness of M . Now set Vq to be
the connected component of p∈f −1 (q) Vq′ and Up := (f |Up′ )−1 (Vq ). 
Retain the situation of Lemma 4.2 and assume in addition that M and N are ori-
ented. For each p ∈ f −1 (q), the differential Dp f : Tp M → Tq N is an isomorphism.
We define the index I(f, p) of f at p by
(
1 if Dp f is orientation-preserving
I(f, p) :=
−1 if Dp f is orientation-reversing
56 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

The degree of f can be expressed in terms of indices:

Proposition 4.3. Let M and N be compact, connected, oriented manifolds of di-
mension m. Further, let f : M → N be a smooth P map. Then either there is no
regular value in which case deg f = 0 or deg f = p∈f −1 (q) I(f, p) for any regular
value q of f .
As an immediate consequence of Proposition 4.3 we record the following.
Corollary 4.4. Let M and N be compact, connected, oriented manifolds of di-
mension m. Further, let f : M → N be a smooth map. Then deg f ∈ Z and
| deg f | ≤ |f −1 (q)|. 
Given a compact, connected, oriented manifold M , it is an interesting question
to determine which integers occur as degrees of smooth maps f : M → M . For
instance, all integers occur as degrees of smooth maps from the torus to itself but
only the degrees −1, 0 and 1 occur for smooth maps from a genus two surface
to itself which is deeply related to the fact that the latter admits non-Euclidean
geometries whereas the torus does not.
Proof. (Proposition 4.3). If there is no regular value then f (M ) has measure zero
in N by Sard’s Theorem 1.43. In addition, f (M ) is compact and hence closed. As
a reslt, f (M ) 6= N and N \f (M ) is non-empty and open. Now, let ω ∈ Ωm (N ) be a
representative of the fundamental class of N such
R that the support of ω is contained
in N \f (M ). Then f ∗ ω = 0 and hence deg f = M f ∗ (ω) = 0.
Now, assume that a regular value q ∈ N of f exists. Choose open connected
neighbourhoods Up for each p ∈ f −1 (q) and Vq of q as in Lemma 4.2. Since the sets
Up are connected, f |Up is either orientation-preserving or orientation-reversing on
the whole of Up . We therefore have
Z X Z X Z X
∗ ∗
deg f = f (ω) = (f |Up ) ω = I(f, p) ω= I(f, p)
M p∈f −1 (q) Up p∈f −1 (q) Vq p∈f −1 (q)

by the change of variables formula. This proves the assertion. 

4.3. Poincaré Lemma. Suppose that M and N are smooth manifolds and that
f : N → M is a smooth map. Then f induces linear maps f ∗ : HkdR (M ) → HkdR (N )
in cohomology in every degree. In this section we work towards the statement that
if one smooth map f can be smoothly deformed into another smooth map g then
the two induce the same maps in cohomology. For instance, if M = Rn and f = id
then f can be smoothly deformed via the family ft := t · id (t ∈ [0, 1]) to the zero
map g = 0. As a consequence, all de Rham cohomology spaces of Rn except the
degree zero one vanish.
The Poincaré lemma will also play a role in proving the fact that the de Rham co-
homology of a manifold can be recovered from combinatorial intersection properties
of the elements of certain open covers of the manifold.
We begin with the following easy fact from linear algebra.
Lemma 4.5. Let V be a real finite-dimensional vector space and let p : R ×V → V
be the projection onto the second factor. Define λ ∈ (R ×V )∗ by λ(t, v) = t. Then
Λk ((R ×V )∗ ) = p∗ (Λk (V ∗ )) ⊕ λ ∧ p∗ (Λk−1 (V ∗ ))
Proof. Let e1 , . . . , em be a basis of V and e∗1 , . . . , e∗m the dual basis. Then the
elements p∗ (e∗1 ), . . . , p∗ (e∗m ), λ is a basis of (R ×V )∗ . Any k-form on R ×V is a sum
over wedge products of length k of these 1-forms. Each such product either contains
λ in which case it is a k-form in the first summand or it does not contain λ in which
case it is a k-form in the second summand. 
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 57

Now, let M be a smooth manifold. Consider R ×M and let π : R ×M → M

denote the projection onto M . Define dt ∈ Ω1 (R ×M ) by (dt)t,m (s, u) = s for all
s ∈ R = Tt R and for all u ∈ Tm M . We want to decompose a k-form on R ×M into
something which genuinely comes from M and something with the dt-part. The
previous lemma implies
Λk ((T(t,m) )∗ ) = (D(t,m) π)∗ (Λk (Tm (M )∗ ) ⊕ dt(t,m) ∧ (D(t,m) π)∗ (Λk−1 (Tm (M )∗ ))
Therefore, every ω ∈ Ωk (R ×M ) can be written as ω = ω1 + dt ∧ ω2 where ω1 ∈
Ωk (R ×M ), ω2 ∈ Ωk−1 (R ×M ) and
(ω1 )(t,m) ∈ (D(t,m) π)∗ (Λk (Tm (M )∗ )) and (ω2 )(t,m) ∈ (D(t,m) π)∗ (Λk−1 (Tm (M )∗ )).
For every t ∈ R let Ω2 (t) ∈ Ωk−1 (M ) be such that
(ω2 )(t,m) = (D(t,m) π)∗ (Ω2 (t)m ).
In this way, we get a well-defined map from R to Ωk−1 (M ) given by t 7→ Ω2 (t). We
define Z 1
I(ω) = Ω2 (t) dt.
0
More precisely, for every m ∈ M and all v1 , . . . , vk−1 ∈ Tm M we have
Z 1
I(ω)m (v1 , . . . , vk−1 ) = Ω2 (t)m (v1 , . . . , vk−1 ) dt.
0
The Poincaré lemma now reads as follows.
Lemma 4.6. Retain the above notation. Let it : M → R ×M, (m 7→ (t, m)). Then
for every ω ∈ Ωk (R ×M ) we have
i∗1 (ω) − i∗0 (ω) = dM (I(ω)) + I(dR ×M ω).
Proof. We compute both sides of the asserted equality in local coordinates. Let
(U, ϕ) be a chart on M . Then (R ×U, id ×ϕ) is a chart on R ×M . Recall that in
such local coordinates we express differential forms on M in terms of dxI where I
is a multi-index and dxI is a form on U . Lifting them to R ×U via π : R ×M → M
we can express a k-form ω ∈ Ωk (R ×M ) on R ×U as follows:
X X
ω= aI (t, x)π ∗ (dxI ) + dt ∧ bJ (t, x)π ∗ (dxJ ).
|I|=k |J|=k−1
| {z } | {z }
ω1 ω2
P
As a consequence, Ω2 (t) = |J|=k−1 bJ (t, x)dxJ . We now look for the ω2 -part in
dω = dω1 − dt ∧ dω2 . To this end, compute
m
!
X ∂aI X ∂aI ∗
dω1 = dt + π (dxi ) ∧ π ∗ (dxI )
∂t i=1
∂xi
|I|=k
X ∂aI
= dt ∧ π ∗ (dxI ) + “stuff not containing dt”
∂t
|I|=k

and
 
X m
X
dω2 =  ∂bJ dt + ∂bJ
π ∗ (dxj ) ∧ π ∗ (dxJ )
∂t j=1
∂xj
|J|=k−1

X Xm
∂bJ ∗
= “stuff containing dt” + π (dxj ∧ dxJ ).
j=1
∂xj
|J|=k−1
58 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

We therefore have
 
X ∂aI X Xn
∂bJ ∗
dω = “terms in dx” + dt ∧  π ∗ (dxI ) − π (dxj ∧ dxJ 
∂t j=1
∂xj
|I|=k |J|=k−1

and
 
Z 1 X ∂aI Z 1 X X m
 ∂b J
I(dω) = dxI dt − dt dxj ∧ dxJ 
0 |I|=k ∂t 0 j=1
∂x j
|J|=k−1

whence
     
Z 1 X Z 1 X X m
 ∂bJ
d(I(ω)) = d bJ (t, x) dxJ  dt =   dxj  ∧ dxJ  dt.
0 0 j=1
∂xj
|J|=k−1 |J|=k−1

Overall, we conclude
X X
I(dω) + d(Iω) = aI (1, x) dxI − aI (0, x) dxI = i∗1 (ω) − i∗0 (ω).
|I|=k |I|=k


As mentioned in the beginning, one important application of Poincaré’s Lemma
is that homotopic maps induce the same map in cohomology. This is made precise
in the following.
Definition 4.7. Let M and N be manifolds and let f0 , f1 : N → M be smooth
maps. A homotopy between f0 and f1 is a smooth map h : R ×N → M such that
h(0, m) = f0 (m) and h(1, m) = f1 (m) for all m ∈ N . In this situation, f0 and f1
are homotopic.
Example 4.8. Let N = M = Rn , f1 = id and f0 = 0. Then h : R ×N → M given
by h(t, x) = t · x is a homotopy between f0 and f1 .
Proposition 4.9. Let M and N be manifolds and let f0 , f1 : N → M be homotopic
maps. Then f0∗ , f1∗ : H∗dR (M ) → H∗dR (N ) coincide.
Proof. Let h : R ×N → M be a homotopy between f0 and f1 and consider the
following diagram
h∗ I
Ωk−1 (M ) / Ωk+1 (R ×N ) / Ωk (N )
O O O
d d d

Ωk (M ) / Ωk (R ×N ) / Ωk−1 (N )
h∗ I

Let α ∈ ker dk . We need to show that f1∗ (α) and f0∗ (α) differ only by an exact form.
To this end, we apply Poincaré’s Lemma 4.6 to ω := h∗ (α):
i∗1 (ω) − i∗0 (ω) = dI(ω) + I(dω).
This reads
f1∗ α−f0∗ α = (h◦i1 )∗ α−(h◦i0 )∗ α = dI(h∗ α)+I(dh∗ α) = dI(h∗ α)+Ih∗ dα = dIh∗ α
which is the assertion. 
Definition 4.10. Let M and N be manifolds. Then M and N are homotopy equiv-
alent if there are smooth maps f : M → N and g : N → M such that g ◦ f is
homotopic to idM and f ◦ g is homotopic to idN .
Corollary 4.11. Let M and N be manifolds. If M and N are homotopy equivalent
then HkdR (M ) ∼
= HkdR (N ) for all degrees k.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 59

Definition 4.12. Let M be a manifold. If M is connected and homotopy equivalent

to a point then M is contractible.
Corollary 4.13.
(i) HkdR (Rn ) = 0 if k ≥ 1 and H0dR (Rn ) = R.
(ii) Let M be a manifold. Then HkdR (Rn ×M ) ∼ = HkdR (M ) for all degrees k.
For later use we also recall the following consequence of the proof of Lemma 4.6.
Corollary 4.14. Let M be contractible to m0 ∈ M . Then there are linear maps
Hk : Ωk (M ) → Ωk−1 (M ) for all degrees k such that
(i) α = dHk (α) + Hk+1 (dα) for all α ∈ Ωk (M ) with k ≥ 1, and
(ii) α − α(m0 ) = H1 (dα) for all α ∈ Ω0 (M ).
Proof. Let h : R ×M → M be a homotopy between f1 = idM and the map f0 with
constant value m0 , and go through the proof of Lemma 4.6. 
Retain the notation of Corollary 4.14. If α ∈ Ωk (M ) is closed, i.e. dα = 0 then
Hk (α) is a primitive for α.
4.4. Mayer-Vietoris Sequence. Let M be a manifold and write M = U ∪ V for
open sets U, V ⊆ M . In this section we develop Mayer-Vietoris sequences which
relate the de Rham cohomologies of M , U , V and U ∩ V . For instance consider the
sphere S 2 and let U and V be small open enlargements of the northern and south-
ern hemisphere respectively. Then both U and V are diffeomorphic to R2 , hence
contractible and therefore cohomologically inexistent. The intersection U ∩V on the
other hand is diffeomorphic to R ×S 1 whence has the same de Rham cohomology
as S 1 . The Mayer-Vietoris sequence will enable us to turn this observation into a
precise induction argument to compute the de Rham cohmology of spheres.

S2 U V U ∩V

Definition 4.15. Let A, B and C be vector spaces and let f : A → B and g : B → C

be linear maps. The sequence
f g
A /B /C
is exact at B if im f = ker g. An infinite sequence
fn−1 fn fn+1
··· / Vn−1 / Vn / Vn+1 / ···

of vector spaces and linear maps is exact if it is exact at every Vn

As an example of exact sequences, we remark that the sequence
f f
0 /V /W (V /W /0)
is exact if and only if f is injective (surjective).
Now, let M be a manifold and write M = U ∪ V for open sets U, V ⊆ M . We
have the canonical injections iU,M of U into M , iV,M of V into M , iU∩V,U of U ∩ V
into U and iU∩V,V of U ∩ V into V . To avoid an overload of notation we often
abbreviate e.g. i∗U,M (ω) =: ω|U for a form on M .
60 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Theorem 4.16. Now, let M be a manifold and write M = U ∪ V for open sets
U, V ⊆ M . For every k ≥ 0, the sequence
i∗
U ⊕V i∗
V ⊖U
0 / Ωk (M ) / Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ) / Ωk (U ∩ V ) / 0,

where i∗U⊕V (ω) := (i∗U,M (ω), i∗V,M (ω)) for all ω ∈ Ωk (M ), and i∗V ⊖U (α, β) :=
i∗U∩V,V (β) − i∗U∩V,U (α) for all α ∈ Ωk (U ) and β ∈ Ωk (V ), is exact.
Proof. We need to show exactness at the three slots Ωk (M ), Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ) and
Ωk (U ∩ V ). As to the first one, it is immediate that i∗U⊕V is injective: If a k-form
on M vanishes on both U and V then it vanishes identically as U and V cover M .
Consider now the slot Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ). It is clear that im i∗U⊕V ⊆ ker i∗V ⊖U . In
order to see the converse inclusion, let (α, β) ∈ Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ) such that (α, β) ∈
ker i∗V ⊖U , i.e. α|U∩V = β|U∩V . Thus we may define ω ∈ Ωk (M ) by setting ω|U = α
and ω|V = β to the effect that i∗U⊕V (ω) = (α, β).
Finally, we show that i∗V ⊖U is surjective: Given ω ∈ Ωk (U ∩ V ), we construct
(ωU , ωV ) ∈ Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ) such that i∗V ⊖U (ωU , ωV ) = ω. Let fU and fV be a
partition of unity subordinate to the cover (U, V ) of M and define ωV ∈ Ωk (V ) by
(
ωV |U∩V := fU · ω
.
ωV |V \(U∩V ) = 0
In order to verify that ωV is smooth, it suffices to cover its domain V by open sets
and show that ωV is smooth on each of these open sets. In this case, we have V =
(U ∩ V ) ∪ (V ∩ (supp fU )c ) and indeed both ωV |U∩V = fU ω and ωV |V ∩(supp fU )c = 0
are smooth. Similarly, we may define a smooth ωU ∈ Ωk (U ) by
(
ωU |U∩V = −fV · ω
.
ωU |U\(U∩V ) = 0
We obtain ωV |U∩V − ωU |U∩V = ω. 
For ease of notation we abbreviate
i∗ p∗
0 / Ωk (M ) / Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ) / Ωk (U ∩ V ) /0

and denote the induced maps in cohomology by

i∗ p∗
HkdR (M ) / HkdR (U ) ⊕ HkdR (V ) / HkdR (U ∩ V )

The reason we do not include the zero maps in the sequence in cohomology is that
i∗ need not be injective and p∗ need not be surjective: For instance, H2dR (S 2 ) = R
but H2dR (U ) and H2dR (V ) = 0. Also, in degree one, we have H1dR (U ) and H1dR (V ) = 0
but H1dR (U ∩ V ) ∼
= H1dR (S 1 ) ∼
= R.
Nonetheless, the sequence in cohomology is exact at the middle slot.
Lemma 4.17. Retain the above notation. Then im i∗ = ker p∗ .
Proof. We know that p∗ ◦i∗ = 0. Hence im i∗ ⊆ ker p∗ . For the opposite inclusion, let
(α, β) ∈ Ωk (U )⊕Ωk (V ) with dα = 0 = dβ. The assumption that the class ([α], [β]) ∈
HkdR (U ) ⊕ HkdR (V ) is in the kernel of p∗ means that β|U∩V − α|U∩V = dγ for some
γ ∈ Ωk−1 (U ∩ V ). Let (α′ , β ′ ) ∈ Ωk−1 (U ) ⊕ Ωk−1 (V ) with β ′ |U∩V − α′ |U∩V = γ.
Hence dβ ′ |U∩V − dα′ |U∩V = dγ = β|U∩V − α|U∩V . Now let ω ∈ Ωk (M ) be such
that ω|U = α − dα′ and ω|V = β − dβ ′ and finish by observing that
(
dω|U = d(α − dα′ ) = dα = 0
dω|V = d(β − dβ ′ ) = dβ = 0
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 61

whence dω = 0. Hence ω defines a cohomology class in degree k which by construc-

tion satisfies i∗ ([ω]) = ([α], [β]). 

We now concern ourselves with the question to which extent the above sequence
in cohomology fails to be exact in the first and the third slot. For instance, let
ω ∈ Ωk (U ∩ V ) represent an element of HkdR (U ∩ V ), i.e. dω = 0. Since the sequence

i∗ p∗
0 / Ωk (M ) / Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ) / Ωk (U ∩ V ) /0

is exact, there is (α, β) ∈ Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ) such that p∗ (α, β) = ω. However, there

is no reason for α and β to be exact which would imply that p∗ is surjective. The
obstruction to this is captured by the following diagram

p∗
Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ) / Ωk (U ∩ V ) /0

(d,d) d
 p∗

i∗
0 / Ωk+1 (M ) / Ωk+1 (U ) ⊕ Ωk+1 (V ) / Ωk+1 (U ∩ V )

We have p∗ ◦ (d, d)(α, β) = d ◦ p∗ (α, β) = dω = 0. Hence there is ω e ∈ Ωk+1 (M )

such that i∗ ωe = (dα, dβ). Note that the choice of the pre-image (α, β) of ω is not
unique. However, once a choice of (α, β) has been made, ω e is determined uniquely
by injectivity of i∗ in the second row.
Furthermore, observe that de ω = 0 since de ω |U ) = d(dα) = 0 and ω
ω |U = d(e e |V =
d(eω |V ) = d(dβ) = 0. This is important as our aim is the construction of a well-
defined map HkdR (U ∩ V ) → Hk+1 dR (M ) that captures the amount to which the
map p∗ : HdR (U ) ⊕ HdR (V ) → HdR (U ∩ V ) fails to be exact. To this end, we
directly analyze what happens in case we pick ω ′ ∈ Ωk (U ∩ V ) representing the
same cohomology class as ω, i.e. assuming that there is η ∈ Ωk−1 (U ∩ V ) with
ω ′ = ω + dη. Thus consider the extended diagram

p∗
Ωk−1 (U ) ⊕ Ωk−1 (V ) / Ωk−1 (U ∩ V ) /0

(d,d) d
 p∗

Ωk (U ) ⊕ Ωk (V ) / Ωk (U ∩ V ) /0

(d,d) d
 p∗

i∗
0 / Ωk+1 (M ) / Ωk+1 (U ) ⊕ Ωk+1 (V ) / Ωk+1 (U ∩ V )

Since its first row is exact there is (a, b) ∈ Ωk−1 (U ) ⊕ Ωk−1 (V ) with p∗ (a, b) = η.
For the same reason, we may choose pre-images (α, β) of ω and (α′ , β ′ ) of ω ′ .
Then (α, β) + (da, db) is a pre-image of ω ′ by commutativity. Therefore, (α′ −
α − da, β ′ − β − db) is in the kernel of p∗ . Hence there is a unique element c ∈
Ωk (M ) such that i∗ c = (α′ − α − da, β ′ − β − db). This implies that dc and ω e′ − ω
e
map to (dα − dα, dβ − dβ). This shows that we obtain a well-defined connecting
′ ′

homomorphism δ : HkdR (U ∩ V ) → Hk+1 dR (M ). Overall, the short exact sequences

62 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

from above now fit into a long Mayer-Vietoris sequence

i∗ p∗
0 / H0dR (M ) / H0dR (U ) ⊕ H0dR (V ) / H0dR (U ∩ V )
54
23 δ
01
76 i∗ p∗
❫❫❫❫❫/ H1 (M ) / H1dR (U ) ⊕ H1dR (V ) / H1dR (U ∩ V )
dR 54
23 δ
−−− −−−
76
01 i∗ p∗
/ HkdR (M ) / HkdR (U ) ⊕ HkdR (V ) / HkdR (U ∩ V )
54
23 δ

,
which is actually exact.
Theorem 4.18. Let M be a manifold and assume that U, V are open subsets of M
such that M = U ∪ V . Then the Mayer-Vietoris sequence above is exact.
The proof of Theorem 4.18 is not difficult but requires to “deconfuse” oneself and
hence constitutes a good exercise which is left to the reader.
Corollary 4.19. Let m ≥ 1 and k ∈ N0 . Then
(
k m R k ∈ {0, m}
HdR (S ) = .
0 otherwise
Proof. Clearly, we have HdR (S m ) = 0 for k ≥ m + 1. For the remainder, we may
assume m ≥ 2 and write S m = U ∪ V where U = S m \{S} and V = S m \{N }.
Then U ∩ V ∼ = R ×S m−1 . Now, consider the first part of the long exact sequence
for M = S . It reads
m

0 / H0dR (S m ) / H0dR (U ) ⊕ H0dR (V ) / H0dR (U ∩ V ) / H1dR (S m ) / H1dR (U ) ⊕ H1dR (V )

∼
= ∼
= ∼
=
 ∗  ∗ 
i p δ
0 /R / R⊕R /R / H1dR (S m ) /0

Indeed, U and V are both contractible, hence the assertion about their cohomology
in degree zero and one. Furthermore, U ∩ V ∼ = R ×S m−1 has the same cohomology
as S m−1
which is connected since m ≥ 2. Now, the image of i∗ equals the kernel
of p which is hence one-dimensional. Therefore, the image of p∗ is of dimension
∗

2 − 1 = 1, i.e. p∗ is surjective. Therefore δ is the zero map. However, δ is also

surjective by exactness. This implies H1dR (S m ) = 0.
Now, for m ≥ 2 and j ≥ 1 we have
δ
HjdR (U ) ⊕ HjdR (V ) / Hj (U ∩ V )
dR
/ Hj+1 (S m )
dR
/ Hj+1 (U ) ⊕ Hj+1 (V )
dR dR

∼
=

/ Hj (S m−1 ) δ / Hj+1 (S m )
0 dR dR
/0

which implies HjdR (S m−1 ) ∼ j+1

= HdR (S m ). We now have all the information we need
to fill in the following tableau by recurrence.
H0dR H1dR H2dR H3dR H4dR ···
1
S R R 0 0 0 ···
S2 R 0 R 0 0 ···
S3 R 0 0 R 0 ···
S4 R 0 0 0 R ···
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . .
Hence the assertion. 
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 63

4.5. De Rham cohomology of T n . In this section we compute the de Rham

cohomology of the T n := (S 1 )n . This can be done using the long exact sequence
introduced in the previous section, see [BT03] for an account of this. We shall
present a different approach pertaining to the geometry and topology of homoge-
neous spaces of Lie groups. These methods could have been applied to compute the
de Rham cohomology of spheres as well.
Theorem 4.20. There is a natural isomorphism of HkdR (T n ) and Λk ((Rn )∗ ).


As a consequence of Theorem 4.20 we obtain dim HkdR (T n ) = nk . For the re-
mainder of this section shall think of S 1 as the unit circle S 1 = {z ∈ C | |z| =
1} = {e2πit | t ∈ R}. Then S 1 and T n = (S 1 )n are abelian groups. In addition, for
every ξ ∈ T n the map Lξ : T n → T n , η 7→ ξη is a diffeomorphism. In this context,
a k-form ω ∈ Ωk (T n ) is invariant if L∗ξ ω = ω for all ξ ∈ T n . Let Ωkinv (T n ) denote
the subspace of Ωk (T n ) of invariant forms and let 1 = (1, . . . , 1) ∈ T n denote the
identity element.
Lemma 4.21. The map Ωkinv (T n ) → Λk ((T1 T n )∗ ), ω 7→ ω1 is an isomorphism.
Proof. We construct an inverse to the given map. Let ϕ ∈ Λk ((T1 T n )∗ ) and ξ ∈ T n .
We define ω ∈ Ωkinv (T n ) by ωξ (w1 , . . . , wk ) := ϕ(Dξ Lξ−1 (w1 ), . . . , Dξ Lξ−1 (wk )) for
all w1 , . . . , wk ∈ Tξ T n . One verifies that the k-form ω so defined is invariant and
satisfies ω1 = ϕ. 

As a first step towards Theorem 4.20 we show that invariant forms are closed.
Then can be checked using local coordinates or with the help of the following
trick due to É. Cartan: Consider the exponential map E : Rn → T n given by
x 7→ (e2πix1 , . . . , e2πixn ). This map is a group homomorphism and a local diffeo-
morphism. In fact, it induces an isomorphism Rn / Zn → T n . Furthermore, let
s : T n → T n , ξ 7→ ξ −1 denote the inversion which is a diffeomorphism of T n fixing
1. We have D1 s = − Id: Indeed, note that s(E(x)) = E(x)−1 = E(−x) for all
x ∈ Rn and hence (D0 E)−1 ◦ D1 s ◦ D0 E = − Id which implies D1 s = − Id.
Lemma 4.22. Let ω ∈ Ωkinv (T n ). Then dω = 0.
Proof. First, observe that s∗ preserves Ωkinv (T n ): For all ξ ∈ T n we have s ◦ Lξ =
Lξ−1 ◦ s and therefore
L∗ξ (s∗ ω) = (sLξ )∗ ω = (Lξ−1 s)∗ ω = s∗ L∗ξ−1 ω = s∗ ω.
for all ξ ∈ T n , i.e. s∗ ω is invariant.
Next, we compute s∗ ω. By invariance, it suffices to determine s∗ ω at 1 ∈ T n.
Let v1 , . . . , vk ∈ T1 T n . Then
(s∗ ω)1 (v1 , . . . , vk ) = ω1 (D1 sv1 , . . . , D1 svk ) = (−1)k ω1 (v1 , . . . , vk )
Hence the invariant forms s∗ ω and (−1)k ω conincide everywhere. On the other
hand, dω ∈ Ωk+1
inv (T ) since differential and pullback commute, therefore
n

(−1)k+1 dω = s∗ (dω) = d(s∗ ω) = d((−1)k ω = (−1)k dω

which implies dω = 0. 

We aim to show that the combinded map

Ωkinv (T n ) → ker dk → ker dk / im dk−1 = HkdR (T n )
is an isomorphism. To this end, we introduce an averaging operator in k-forms
which ranges in invariant k-forms: Let L denote the Lebesgue measure on Rn with
64 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

R
L([0, 1]n ) = 1. Given ω ∈ Ωk (T n ), we define Pk ω ∈ Ωk (T n ) by “ [0,1]n L∗E(x) ω d L(x)”,
that is, for ζ ∈ T n and v1 , . . . , vk ∈ Tζ T n we set
Z
(Pk ω)ζ (v1 , . . . , vk ) := (L∗E(x) ω)ζ (v1 , . . . , vk ) d L(x).
[0,1]n

Lemma 4.23. The operator Pk on Ωk (T n ) is a projection ranging in Ωkinv (T n ) and

commutes with the differential.
The proof of Lemma 4.23 is left as an exercise. It readily implies that the map
Ωkinv (T n ) → ker dk → ker dk / im dk−1 = HkdR (T n )
is injective: Assume that ω ∈ Ωkinv (T n ) maps to the trivial class in HkdR (T n ), i.e.
there is η ∈ Ωk−1 (T n ) such that dη = ω. Then
ω = Pk ω = Pk (dη) = dPk−1 η = 0
since Pk−1 η is invariant and hence closed.
In order to see surjectivity, note that Pk ω is defined as a “sum” of pullbacks
via diffeomorphisms that are all homotopic to the identity, hence Pk ω should not
change the cohomology class of ω. To make this precise, let x ∈ Rn and consider
the homotopy Hx : R ×T n → T n given by (t, ξ) 7→ E(tx)ξ. Then LE(x) = Hx ◦ i1
and Id = Hx ◦ i0 where it : T n → R ×T n maps ξ to (t, ξ). Furthermore, let
I : Ωk (R ×T n ) → Ωk−1 (T n ) be the operator that occurs in the Poincaré Lemma.
Then for every α ∈ Ωk (R ×T n ) we have i∗1 α − i∗0 α = dI(α) + I(dα). Applying this
to α = (Hx )∗ ω with ω ∈ Ωk (T n ) we get
i∗1 (H1∗ )ω − i∗0 (Hx )∗ ω = dIHx∗ ω + IdHx∗ ω
and hence L∗E(x) ω − ω = dIHx∗ ω + IHx∗ ω. Integrating over [0, 1]n we finally get
Pk ω − ω = dKω − Kdω
R
where K(ω) := [0,1]n
(IHx∗ )(ω) d(x).
Now, let ω ∈ Ω (T ) be such that dω = 0, i.e. representing a class of HkdR (T n ).
k n

Then
Pk ω − ω = dKω + Kdω = dKω,
that is, Pk ω ∈ Ωinv (T ) and ω represent the same cohomology class. This completes
k n

the proof of Theorem 4.20.

We remark that the methods employed to prove Theorem 4.20 can be vastly
generalized to the setting of smooth actions of compact connected Lie groups on
manifolds: A Lie group G is a smooth manifold G endowed with a group structure
such that the multiplication map G × G → G and the inversion map i : G → G are
smooth. Now, pick any non-zero alternating form λ on Te G where n = dim G and
e ∈ G denotes the identity element. Then ω ∈ Ωn (G) defined by ωg (v1 , . . . , vn ) :=
λ(Dg Lg−1 v1 , . . . , Dg Lg−1 vn ) for all v1 , . . . , vn ∈ Tg G is a nowhere vanishing top-
form, i.e. a volume form. In particular, G is orientable and admits R integration: If
E ⊆ G is any relatively compact Borel set, we define L(E) := G χE ω. Then L
is an invariant regular Borel measure on G, called Haar measure. This measure
facilitates averaging arguments as in the computation of H∗dR (T n ): For instance, if
K is a compact connected Lie group and K × M → M is a smooth action of K on a
manifold M then the set of closed K-invariant k-forms on M surjects onto HkdR (M ),
i.e. the de Rham cohomology of M can be computed using invariant forms only.
For instance, this could have been used to compute H∗dR (S m ) using the action of
SO(m + 1) on S m . As another exercise, the reader is invited to show that for any
smooth manifold M one has
Hk (S 1 × M ) = ∼ Hk (M ) ⊕ Hk−1 (M )
dR dR dR
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 65

using the action of S 1 on S 1 × M which acts from the left on S 1 and fixes M and
the details of the Poincaré Lemma.

5. De Rham’s Theorem
Historically, de Rham’s theorem is the first instance of a comparison of different
cohomology theories. He showed that for a manifold, de Rham cohomology and
singular cohomology, which is defined in the more general context of topological
spaces, coincide. The approach to proving this theorem is via Čech cohomology
which is combinatorial in nature and can be shown to be equal to singular and de
Rham cohomology for any manifold. A classical account of this is [Wei52]. A nice
consequence of this is the finite-dimensionality of the de Rham cohomology of a
compact manifold in every degree which follows easily from Čech cohomology.
5.1. Čech Cohomology. Let X be a set and let U = {Ui | i ∈ I} ⊆ P(X) be
a collection of subsets of X; think of X being a manifold and the Ui being open
and covering
T M . The nerve of U is the set N (U) of subsets J ⊆ I such that
UJ := j∈J Uj 6= ∅. For q ≥ 0, a q-simplex is an ordered (q + 1)-tuple of indices
σ = (i0 , . . . , iq ) such that |σ| := {i0 , . . . , iq } ∈ N (U ). The j-th face of a q-simplex
σ (q ≥ 1) is the q − 1-simplex σ j = (i0 , . . . , îj , . . . , iq ).
The nerve N (U ) is an instance of what is called a simplicial complex, a combi-
natorial object for which there is a topological realization. For instance, consider
the covering {U1 , U2 , U3 } of S 1 indicated below.
{1, 2, 4}
U4
U1
{1} {4}
b b

{1, 3}
{1, 2}
U3 U2
b b

{3} {2, 3} {2}

If the set U4 is added to the covering, then a 2-simplex is introduced in the

simplicial complex. However, note that this simplex does not change the homotopy
type. Now, let S q (U) denote the set of all q-simplices of N (U) and let C q (U , R)
denote the vector space of all functions f : S q (U ) → R, termed q-cochains. We
define the coboundary operator
q+1
X
δq : C q (U, R) → C q+1 (U, R), (δq f )(σ) = (−1)j f (σ j )
j=0

For instance, consider the following simplicial complex.

3b

(1, 3) (2, 3)

b
(1, 2, 3) b

1 (1, 2) 2
66 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Then (δ1 f )((1, 2, 3)) = f ((2, 3)) − f ((1, 3)) + f ((1, 2)). Thus, in a sense, δ1 yields a
combinatorial boundary of the 2-simplex (1, 2, 3) with built-in orientation.
Lemma 5.1. Retain the above notation. The map δq is linear and δq+1 ◦ δq = 0.
As a consequence of the above lemma, we obtain a complex
δ0 δ1 δ2
C 0 (U, R) / C 1 (U, R) / C 2 (U , R) / ···
q
whose cohomology is the Čech cohomology: Ȟ (U, R) := ker δq / im δq−1 . Note that
q
if I is finite then all C q (U, R) and hence all Ȟ (U, R) are finite-dimensional.
5.2. Statements. This section collects the main statements about Čech cohomol-
ogy. They are proven in the next one. First of all we apply the previous section in
the context of manifolds.
Definition 5.2. Let M be a smooth manifold and let U = (Ui )i∈I be a covering of
M by subsets of M . Then U is admissible if
(i) Ui is open for every i ∈ I,
(ii) U is locally finite, and T
(iii) for all J ∈ N (U, M ), the intersection UJ := i∈J Ui is contractible.
De Rham’s Theorem now reads as follows.
Theorem 5.3. Let M be a smooth manifold and let U be an admissible covering of
M . Then for all k ≥ 0:
k
HkdR (M ) ∼
= Ȟ (U, R).
k
Concerning the notation Ȟ (U, R) we remark that instead of taking the real
numbers as the target of functions on simplices we could have taken any abelian
group, e.g. Z. In some cases, this yields more refined invariants. In this case however,
k
it makes sense to compare the R-vector spaces Ȟ (U, R) and HkdR (M ).
Note that the statement of Theorem 5.3 is empty without having proven the
existence of admissible coverings. This is a theorem on its own.
Theorem 5.4. Let M be a smooth manifold. Then M admits an admissible covering.
One strategy to prove the existence of admissible coverings is to apply Whitney’s
Embedding Theorem 2.15 first and then argue within Euclidean space. Another
one is based on Riemannian geometry and the existence of convex neighbourhoods.
Anyway, as a Corollary to Theorem 5.3 we immediately record the following.
Corollary 5.5. Let M be a compact manifold. Then HkdR (M ) is finite-dimensional
for all k ≥ 0.
Proof. Let U be an admissible covering of M and extract a finite subcover. Observe
that since U is finite, so is S q (U) for every q ≥ 0 and hence C q (U, R) is finite-
k
dimensional whence Ȟ (U , R) is finite-dimensional for all k ≥ 0. 
We remark that in the case of compact manifolds, the above implies that de
Rham cohomology can be computed by a machine if an admissible cover and its
intersection pattern are provided. This is in sharp contrast to e.g. the fundamental
group in which case not even triviality can be decided computationally.
For the next statement recall that we computed
   
k n n n n−k
dim HdR (T ) = = = dim HdR (T n ).
k n−k
This can be generalized to the following extent.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 67

Theorem 5.6 (Poincaré Duality). Let M be a compact oriented manifold. Then the
pairing Z
∧ I
Ωk (M ) × Ωn−k (M ) −
→ Ωn (M ) −
→ R, (α, β) 7→ α ∧ β.
M
is non-degenerate and hence HkdR (M ) ∼ n−k
= (HdR (M ))∗ .
Often, dim HkdR (M ) is referred to as the k-th Betti number of M , denoted bk (M ).

5.3. Proofs. We now turn to proving de Rham’s theorem. Throughout, M denotes

a manifold and U = (Ui )i∈I an admissible covering of M . Recall that S p (U ) denotes
the set of all p-simplices, i.e. (p + 1)-tuples σ = (i0 , . . . , ip ) ∈ I p+1 such that
T p
ν=0 Uiν 6= ∅. In this case, |σ| = {i0 , . . . , ip } denotes the set of vertices.

Definition 5.7. A Čech form of bidegree (k, p) (k, p ≥ 0) is an S p (U)-tuple Ω =

(ωσ )σ∈S p (U) with ωσ ∈ Ωk (U|σ| ). We denote by Ω(k,p) the real vector space of Čech
forms of bidegree (k, p).
For example, a Čech form of bidegree (k, 0) is Ω = (ωi )i∈I with ωi ∈ Ωk (Ui ).
Also, a Čech form of bidegree (0, p) is a tuple (fσ )σ∈S p (U ) where fσ : U|σ| → R are
smooth functions. We define
d : Ω(k,p) → Ω(k+1,p) , (dΩ)σ = d(ωσ )
Consider in particular the map d : Ω(0,p) → Ω(1,p) . In the following we identify the
kernel of this map: Suppose Ω = (fσ )σ∈S p (U) ∈ ker d, i.e. dfσ = 0 for all σ ∈ S p (U).
Since U|σ| is connected, this implies that fσ takes a constant value depending only
on σ. Therefore, an element Ω ∈ ker(d) can be viewed as an element of C p (U , R).
In the following we introduce differentials δ : Ω(k,p) → Ω(k,p+1) which together with
the differentials d fit into the following complex
.. .. .. .. .. .
.O .O .O .O .O ..

Ω2 (M ) / Ω(2,0)
O
/ Ω(2,1)
O
/ Ω(2,2)
O
/ Ω(2,3)
O
/ ...
O

Ω1 (M ) / Ω(1,0)
O
/ Ω(1,1)
O
/ Ω(1,2)
O
/ Ω(1,3)
O
/ ...
O

Ω0 (M ) / Ω(0,0)
O
/ Ω(0,1)
O
/ Ω(0,2)
O
/ Ω(0,3)
O
/ ...

C 0 (U, R) / C 1 (U, R) / C 2 (U , R) / C 3 (U , R) / ···

The horizontal differentials δ are defined as follows. First, δ : Ωk (M ) → Ω(k,0) is

defined by ω 7→ (ω|Ui )i∈I . For p > 0 we mimic the boundary operator in the Čech
complex:
δ : Ω(k,p) → Ω(k,p+1) , Ω = (ωσ )σ∈S p (U) 7→ δΩ = (ωη′ )η∈S p+1 (U) ∈ Ω(k,p+1)
P
where η = (i0 , . . . , ip+1 ) ∈ S p+1 (M ) and ωη′ = p+1 ν=0 (−1) ω(i0 ,...,îν ,...,ip+1 ) |U|η| . Re-
ν
Tp+1
call that U|η| = l=1 Uil which is indeed contained in the support of ω(i0 ,...,îν ,...,ip+1 )
for all ν. As an example, consider Ω(k,0) = {Ω = (ωi )i∈I | ωi ∈ Ωk (Ui )} where
I = S 0 (U). Then δΩ = (ωi′0 ,i1 )(i0 ,i1 )∈S 1 (U) where
′
ω(i0 ,i1 )
= ωi1 |Ui0 ∩Ui1 − ωi0 |Ui0 ∩Ui1 .
This resembles the restriction map in the Mayer-Vietoris sequence.
68 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

Lemma 5.8. Retain the above notation. All squares in the above diagram commute.
Proof. Let Ω = (ωσ )σ∈S p (U ) ∈ Ω(k,p) and consider δΩ := (ωη′ )η∈S p+1 (U) . By defini-
tion,
p+1
X
ωη′ = (−1)ν ωην |U|η|
ν=0
where η ν is the ν-th face of η, i.e. η ν = (i0 , . . . , îν , . . . , ip+1 ). Now applying d to δΩ
yields dδΩ = (dωη′ )η∈S p+1 (U) where
p+1
X p+1
X
dωη′ = (−1)ν d(ωην |U|η| ) = (−1)ν (dωην )|U|η|
ν=0 ν=0
On the other hand, δdΩ = δ(dωσ )σ∈S p (U) = (ωη′′ )η∈S p+1 (U) where
p+1
X
ωη′′ = (−1)ν (dωην )|U|η| .
ν=0
Hence the assertion. 
5.3.1. Homotopies. All vertical and horizontal complexes in the above diagram are
in fact exact. This is the content of the two lemmas in this section. Since for every
σ ∈ S p (U) the set U|σ| is contractible, the Poincaré Lemma 4.6 yields a linear
map I|σ| : Ωm (U|σ| ) → Ωm−1 (U|σ| ) (m ≥ 1) such that ω = dI|σ| ω + I|σ| dω for all
ω ∈ Ωm (U|σ| ). Now define
I : Ωm,p → Ωm−1,p , (ωσ )σ∈S p (U) → (I|σ| ωσ )σ∈S p (U ) .
Then the following is immediate.
Lemma 5.9. Retain the above notation. Then Ω = dIΩ + IdΩ for all Ω ∈ Ω(m,p)
with m ≥ 1 and p ≥ 0.
In particular, all vertical complexes are exact.
Now we define maps K : Ω(m,p) → Ω(m,p−1) (p ≥ 1) and K : Ω(m,0) → Ωm (M ),
playing a role analogous to the maps I above for horizontal complexes. To this end,
let (fi )i∈I be a partition
Pof unity subordinate to U. First, we define K : Ω
(m,0)
→
Ω (M ) by (ωi )i∈I 7→
m
i∈I (fi ωi ) where fi ωi is extended to the whole of M by
zero. Similarly, for p ≥ 1 and Ω = (ωσ )σ∈S p (U ) we set KΩ := (ζη )η∈S p−1 (U) where
X
ζi0 ,...,ip−1 = fk ωk,i0 ,...,ip−1
k∈I

in which fk ωk,i0 ,...,ip−1 = 0 if Uk ∩ Ui0 ,...,ip−1 = ∅, and if Uk ∩ Ui0 ,...,ip−1 6= ∅ then

(
fk ωk,i0 ,...,ip−1 on Uk ∩ Ui0 ,...,ip−1
fk ωk,i0 ,...,ip−1 := .
0 on Ui0 ,...,ip−1 \Uk
This is an extension similar to the one in the Mayer-Vietoris sequence.
Lemma 5.10. Retain the above notation. Then Ω = δKΩ + KδΩ for all Ω ∈ Ω(m,p)
with m ≥ 1 and p ≥ 0.
In particular, all horizontal complexes are exact. We are now in a position to
prove Theorem 5.3, i.e. to show that
k
HkdR (M ) ∼
= Ȟ (U , R)
for every k ≥ 0 whenever U is an admissible covering of M . Building on the above,
our strategy is as follows. Let Zm m
dR (M ) = ker(d : Ω (M ) → Ω
m+1
(M )). Given ω ∈
m
ZdR (M ) we have d(δω) = δ(dω) = 0. Hence there is ω1 ∈ Ω (m−1,0)
with dω1 = δω.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 69

Next, since d(δω1 ) = δ(dω1 ) = δ 2 ω = 0, there is ω2 ∈ Ω(m−2,1) with dω2 = δω1 .

Continuing in this fashion we reach δωm ∈ Ω(0,m) which satisfies dδωm = 0 and
hence δωm ∈ C m (U , R). In fact, δ(δωm ) = 0 and hence δωm ∈ Zm (U , R) = ker(δ).
δ
Zm
dR (M )
/ Ω(m,0)
O
d

δ
Ω(m−1,0) / Ω(m−1,1)
O
d

Ω(m−2,1)
This can be made into a well-defined map from Zm
→ Zm (U, R) and we will
dR (M )
show that it induces the sought-after isomorphism in cohomology. To this end,
define for 0 ≤ n ≤ m − 1:
F m,n := {Ω ∈ Ω(m−1−n,n) | dδΩ = 0}
and
Hm,n := {Ω ∈ Ω(m−1−n,n) | Ω = X + Y with dX = 0 and δY = 0}.
Lemma 5.11. Retain the above notation. The map
δ I
Iδ : Zm → Ω(m,0) −
dR (M ) − → Ω(m−1,0)
takes values in F (m,0) and induces an isomorphism
Hm
dR (M ) → F m,0 / Hm,0 .

Proof. For ω ∈ ZmdR (M ) we have d(δω) = δ(dω) = 0 and hence δω = dI(δω). From
this we deduce 0 = δ 2 ω = δd(Iδ(ω)) and hence Iδ(ω) ∈ F m,0 .
Now, let Ω0 ∈ F m,0 . Then δ(dΩ0 ) = 0 and hence dΩ0 ∈ Ω(m,0) is in the image
of δ: Let ω ∈ Ωm (M ) with δω = dΩ0 . Then we have
δ(dω) = dδω = d2 Ω0 = 0
and since δ : Ωm+1 (M ) → Ω(m+1,0) is injective we get dω = 0, that is ω ∈ Zm
dR (M ).
Thus dIδω = dΩ0 and hence Ω0 − Iδω ∈ Hm,0 . This shows that the composition of
Iδ with the projection Zm dR (M ) → F m,0 / Hm,0 is surjective.
Finally, let ω = dα for some α ∈ Ωm−1 (M ). Then δω = δdα = d(δα). Therefore,
d(Iδω) = δω = d(δα) and hence Iδω = δα + β with dβ = 0, i.e. Iδω ∈ Hm,0 .
Conversely, if ω ∈ Zm dR (M ) and Iδω = α + β with dα = 0 and δβ = 0 then
δω = d(Iδω) = dβ. But since δβ = 0 there is β ′ ∈ Ωm−1 (M ) with δβ ′ = β and
hence δω = dδβ ′ = δdβ ′ whence ω = dβ ′ . 
Lemma 5.12. Retain the above notation. The map
δ : F m,m−1 → Ω(0,m)
takes values in Zm (U , R) and induces an isomorphism
m
F m,m−1 / Hm,m−1 → Ȟ (U, R).
Proof. Let Ω ∈ F m,m−1 ⊆ Ω(0,m−1) . Then dδΩ = 0 and δΩ = (fσ )σ∈S m (U) with fσ
constant on U|σ| . Thus δΩ ∈ C m (U, R). In addition δΩ ∈ Zm (U , R) since δ 2 Ω = 0.
Now, let c ∈ Zm (U, R). Then dc = 0 and δc = 0. Hence there is Ω ∈ Ω(0,m−1)
with δΩ = c. Clearly, dδΩ = dc = 0 and hence Ω ∈ F m,m−1 . Therefore the map
δ : F m,m−1 → Zm (U, R) is surjective.
Finally, let Ω ∈ Hm,m−1 , i.e. Ω = α + β with dα = 0 and δβ = 0. Then δΩ = δα
m−1 m
and since dα = 0 we have α ∈ Č (U, R). Hence δΩ = δα ∈ Č (U, R). Conversely,
70 MARC BURGER STEPHAN TORNIER

m−1
assume that δΩ = δγ with γ ∈ Č (U , R). Then dγ = 0 and δ(Ω − γ) = 0 and
therefore Ω ∈ Hm,m−1 . 
Now, for 0 ≤ n ≤ m − 2 consider the following diagram:
δ
Ω(m−1−n,n) / Ω(m−1−n,n+1)
O
d

Ω(m−1−(n+1),n+1) .
Lemma 5.13. Retain the above notation. Then the map
δ : F m,n → Ω(m−1−(n+1)),n+1)
takes values in F m,n+1 and induces an isomorphism
F m,n / Hm,n → F m,n+1 / Hm,n+1 .
The proof of Lemma 5.13 is similar to the proofs of Lemmas 5.11 and 5.12 and
is left to the reader. Overall, this proves Theorem 5.3.
 DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY 71

References
[Boo03] W. M. Boothby, An Introduction to Differentiable Manifolds and Riemannian Geometry,
vol. 120, Gulf Professional Publishing, 2003.
[BT03] D. Barden and Ch. Thomas, An Introduction to Differential Manifolds, vol. 10, AMC,
2003.
[dR56] G. de Rham, Variétés différentiables, 1956.
[Ker60] M. A. Kervaire, A manifold which does not admit any differentiable structure, Commen-
tarii Mathematici Helvetici 34 (1960), no. 1, 257–270.
[Mil56] John Milnor, On manifolds homeomorphic to the 7-sphere, Annals of Mathematics 64
(1956), no. 2, pp. 399–405.
[Mil97] J. W. Milnor, Topology from the Differentiable Viewpoint, Princeton University Press,
1997.
[RSN72] F. Riesz and B. Szökefalvi-Nagy, Leçons d’analyse fonctionnelle, Gauthier-Villars 1
(1972).
[Rud87] W. Rudin, Real and complex analysis, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, 1987.
[RW13] R. Remmert and H. Weyl, Die Idee der Riemannschen Fläche, vol. 5, Springer-Verlag,
2013.
[Wei52] André Weil, Sur les théorèmes de de Rham, Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici 26
(1952), no. 1, 119–145.