MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

we know Darboux theorem for higher-symplectic geometry is not correct in general, but is there any Darboux like theorem for non-degenerate 3-forms in 6-manifolds?

share|cite|improve this question
What is nondegenerate? aa – Alexander Chervov Apr 1 '13 at 20:23
Dear@ Alexander Chervov you can find this definition here… – baba ab dad Apr 1 '13 at 20:30
up vote 13 down vote accepted

This depends on what you mean by 'Darboux-like'. It is certainly not true that a closed nondegenerate 3-form on a 6-manifold is necessarily locally equivalent to one of the 'flat' models, so there is no direct analog of the Darboux' theorem in this case.

As I remark in my article "Remarks on the geometry of almost complex $6$-manifolds" (Asian Journal of Mathematics 10 (2006), 561–606, also available on the arXiv as arXiv:math/0508428), the closed $3$-forms of elliptic type in dimension $6$ essentially depend on 4 arbitrary functions of 6 variables (modulo diffeomorphism).

However, there is an analog if you are willing to consider something stronger: If $\phi\in\mathcal{A}^3_+(M^6)$ is a $3$-form of elliptic type on an oriented $6$-manifold $M$, then there is a unique $J(\phi)\in\mathcal{A}^3_+(M^6)$ with the property that the complex $3$-form $\Upsilon = \phi+i \ J(\phi)$ is decomposable and hence of type $(3,0)$ with respect to an almost complex structure $J_\phi$ on $M$ that induces the given orientation of $M$. All this is algebra. However, now, if one adds the hypothesis that $d\Upsilon = 0$, which is, of course, the same as $d\phi = d\bigl(J(\phi)\bigr)=0$, then one has that there always exist local complex functions $z^1,z^2,z^3$ such that $\Upsilon = dz^1\wedge dz^2\wedge dz^3$. In particular, $\phi = \mathrm{Re}(dz^1\wedge dz^2\wedge dz^3)$, so this is a sort of Darboux-like theorem; it's just that you need more hypothesis than the closure of the original form.

There is a similar result for nondegenerate $3$-forms of hyperbolic type. This is the case in which the form $\phi$ can be written locally as $\phi = \phi_+ + \phi_-$ where each of $\phi_\pm$ is decomposable while $\phi_+\wedge\phi_-\not=0$. (These two summands are unique up to permutation.) In this case, the 'Darboux-like' theorem is that $\phi$ can be put in normal form if and only if $d\phi_+=d\phi_-=0$, which is stronger than $d\phi=0$ (which is not sufficient by itself).

Finally, there is the case of nondegenerate $3$-forms of what might be called 'nilpotent type' (which is not a stable type in Hitchin's sense, but is nondegenerate in the sense described by the OP). A $3$-form $\phi$ on $M^6$ is nondegenerate of nilpotent type if and only if each point lies in some open set $U$ on which there exists a coframing $\omega^1,\ldots,\omega^6$ for which $$ \phi = \omega^4\wedge\omega^2\wedge\omega^3 +\omega^5\wedge\omega^3\wedge\omega^1 +\omega^6\wedge\omega^1\wedge\omega^2. $$ For such a $\phi$, the conditions that it can locally be put in this form with $\omega^i = dx^i$ for some coordinates $x = (x^1,\ldots,x^6)$ consist of two things: First, the condition $d\phi=0$, which is clearly necessary; second, the condition that $3$-plane field $D\subset TM$ defined by $\omega^1=\omega^2=\omega^3=0$ (which is well-defined by $\phi$) should be Frobenius. It is not hard to show that these necessary conditions are also sufficient, so this is the 'Darboux-like' normal form theorem in this case.

Note the interesting fact that, in each of these three cases, the 'Darboux-like' conditions are all first order equations on $\phi$. This does not continue in higher dimensions. In dimension $7$, the two stable types of $3$-forms each have examples that are flat to first order but not flat to second order, so the 'Darboux-like' theorems in this case turn out to involve a mixture of first and second order conditions.

share|cite|improve this answer
Is there a characterization of types of forms for which a Darboux-type theorem holds? (I don't know how to make this precise...) – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Apr 2 '13 at 4:57
@Mariano: I don't know how you want to make your question precise. Here's a precise problem, is it one you want solved? Determine the algebraic types of exterior forms $\tau$ with the property that an exterior differential form $\phi$ that is everywhere of algebraic type $\tau$ is flat if and only if $\phi$ is flat to first order at every point. Some alternative endings to the sentence: "is closed.", "is flat to order $k$ at every point" (where $k$ is fixed and may depend on $\tau$), or "is flat to all orders $k\ge 1$ at every point". – Robert Bryant Apr 3 '13 at 0:48
That looks like what I had in mind (adding the "is closed" for good measure) :-) – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Apr 3 '13 at 2:00
@Mariano: If $\phi$ is flat to first order at every point, then it is closed. The converse is not generally true, though, of course, it is true for $2$-forms of constant rank (as Darboux' Theorem shows) and for nonvanishing decomposable forms of any degree in any dimension. – Robert Bryant Apr 3 '13 at 4:09
@Mariano: (Part 2) The first case in which 'closed' is not the same as 'flat to first order' is the case of a closed, nondecomposable $3$-form in dimension $5$. In the 1980s, F. J. Turiel wrote a series of papers on the geometry of such $3$-forms, noting that there were several different homogeneous models and providing a classification. Of course, only one of those models is flat to first order, namely, the one that can be written locally with constant coefficients in some coordinate system. – Robert Bryant Apr 3 '13 at 13:06

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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