Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have two regular surfaces in three space, both of which are given by an equation. I would like to measure the contact between the two surfaces using only their equations. Usually, one would find a local parametrisation for one of the surfaces, and then substitute this into the other surface's equation. This would give a function in two variables, and the singularity type of this map would give the contact between the two surfaces. However, as I have mentioned: I only want to use the equations.

Is there a way to do this? For example, by looking at the dimension of some suitable ideal?

share|improve this question
    
What do you mean by contact? Do you already know the surfaces are tangent? –  Igor Rivin Aug 22 '12 at 17:54
    
The definition of contact is given above: it's the singularity type of the contact function, i.e. the composite of a parametrisation with a defining question. Consider for example, the contact between the plane $z=0$ and the surface $f(x,y,z)=0$. The contact function is $f(x,y,0)$. If the resulting contact function is non-zero then the surfaces don't intersect. If it does have a zero then the type of singularity at that zero gives the type of contact. –  Fly by Night Aug 22 '12 at 18:40
    
For example: a smooth surface has contact of type $A_1^+$ with its tangent plane at ordinary elliptic points and type $A_1^-$ at hyperbolic points. This means the contact function is $\mathscr{A}$-equivalent to $x^2 \pm y^2$. At ordinary parabolic points the contact is of type $A_2$, i.e. equivalent to $x^2 + y^3$. At umbilic points, the surface and its tangent plane have type $D_4^{\pm}$ meaning the contact function is $\mathscr{A}$-equivalent to $x^3 \pm xy^2$. –  Fly by Night Aug 22 '12 at 18:50
    
Ah, thanks for the explanation! –  Igor Rivin Aug 22 '12 at 20:01
    
Your claim about the 'type' of umbilic points does not appear to be correct. For example, the surface $z = x^2+y^2$ has an umbilic point at the origin (in the usual sense of differential geometry), but, by your definition of contact type, its contact with the tangent plane is of type $A^+_1$. In general, notions such as 'umbilic' and 'contact with tangent plane' depend on geometric things that are not visible once you localize, and, in particular, are not well-defined under local (analytic) changes of coordinates. Maybe you are regarding these surfaces as lying in projective 3-space? –  Robert Bryant Aug 23 '12 at 12:40
show 3 more comments

1 Answer 1

While I suspect that you are looking for some kind of homological algebra answer, here's a naive algorithm to get what you want:

Suppose that one is trying to determine the 'contact $k$-type' of a pair of algebraic surfaces at a point $p\in\mathbb{R}^3$. One may as well assume that $p$ is the origin and let the surfaces be defined by polynomial equations $f(x,y,z)=0$ and $g(x,y,z)=0$.

Of course, one must have $f(0,0,0)=g(0,0,0)$ or else the surfaces don't both pass through $p$.

Also, you are assuming that the 'surfaces are regular', by which, I am guessing that you want that $\nabla f$ and $\nabla g$ don't vanish at $p$, so I'll assume that. If $\nabla f\wedge\nabla g$ does not vanish at $p$, then the surfaces aren't tangent at $p$, so assume that $\nabla f\wedge\nabla g$ vanishes at $p$. Under these assumptions, you can, by a linear change of coordinates, assume that $f$ has the form $$ f(x,y,z) = z - f_2(x,y,z), $$ where $f_2$ vanishes to order $2$ at $p=(0,0,0)$. Then, of course, one has $$ g(x,y,z) = az + g_2(x,y,z) $$ for some $a\not=0$ and some polynomial $g_2$ that vanishes to order $2$ at $p$.

Now define a sequence of polynomials $h_i(x,y,z)$ as follows: $$ h_2(x,y,z) = g\bigl(x,y,f_2(x,y,z)\bigr) $$ and, for $k\ge 2$, $$ h_{k+1}(x,y,z) = h_k\bigl(x,y,f_2(x,y,z)\bigr). $$ One can now prove, by induction, that, when one writes, for $k\ge 1$, $$ h_{k+1}(x,y,z) = p_k(x,y,z) + R_{k+1}(x,y,z), $$ where $p_k$ has degree at most $k$ and $R_{k+1}$ vanishes to order $k{+}1$ at $p$, then $p_k$ is a polynomial in $x$ and $y$ only, and it defines the $k$-th order contact type between the two surfaces at $p$. (Of course, $p_1=0$.)

There is still the task of determining when two $p_k$'s are equivalent under change of variable in $x$ and $y$, but that's another issue.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks Robert, but how does this relate to the $\mathscr{A}$-equivalence of the contact function? (Usually defined as the composition of a parametrisation and a defining function). –  Fly by Night Aug 24 '12 at 17:11
    
I don't really know, since I don't have a precise definition of '$\mathscr{A}$-equivalence'. I assume that this means 'equivalence up to formal changes of variables that fix the origin', but you should let me know if otherwise. –  Robert Bryant Aug 24 '12 at 17:23
    
If you type "A equivalence" into Google then the first hit is a pretty good definition. As I mentioned: usually, we have two surfaces, one given by a parametrisation and one given by a defining equation. We substitute the parametrisation into the equation to give a function in two variables. $\mathscr{A}$-equivalence means that we allow diffeomorphic changes of variable in both the source and the target. –  Fly by Night Aug 24 '12 at 23:29
    
To bring things back into focus: I would like to know if there is a way to gain information about the singularity type of the contact function (the above composition) from then equations alone. I suspect that some algebraic consideration might suffice. For example, the dimension of a well-chosen ideal could give the Milnor number of the singularity type of the contact function. (The Milnor number of a function germ $f$ being the dimension of the local ring of function germs $\mathscr{O}_{\mathbb{R}^2,0}$, quotient the Jacobian ideal $\mathbb{R}\langle f_x,f_y\rangle$.) –  Fly by Night Aug 24 '12 at 23:39
    
In order to make sense of '$\mathscr{A}$-equivalence' according to the definition on the Wikipedia page, you need to specify a domain and a range. Are you just taking the sequence of polynomials $p_k$, regarding them as pointed maps $p_k:\bigl(\mathbb{R}^2,0\bigr)\to\bigl(\mathbb{R},0\bigr)$, and asking for $\mathscr{A}$-equivalence in that sense? For example, you might want to know that there is a $K>0$ such that all of the $p_k$ with $k\ge K$ are $\mathscr{A}$-equivalent. (This would happen for $K=2$ if $p_2$ were a nondegenerate quadratic polynomial.) –  Robert Bryant Aug 25 '12 at 14:22
show 6 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

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.