MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

Let $\hat{M}$ be a branched double cover of $M$. Is there a way to lift a Riemannian metric $g$ on $M$ to get a smooth Riemannian metric $\hat{g}$ on $\hat{M}$. Moreover, if $g$ has nonnegative sectional curvature, does $\hat{g}$ also have nonnegative sectional curvature provided that such a lift $\hat{g}$ exists?

share|cite|improve this question

Basically, the answer is 'no'. Consider the case of a compact Riemann surface $M$ of genus $g>1$ branched over the Riemann sphere $\mathbb{CP}^1$ (which has genus $g=0$) by a nonconstant holomorphic map $h:M\to \mathbb{CP}^1$. This doesn't induce a canonical smooth metric on $M$, even if you start with a constant positive curvature metric on $\mathbb{CP}^1$. Moreover, it is known that there is no metric on $M$ of nonnegative sectional curvature, let alone a natural one.

share|cite|improve this answer

In this setting, the "natural" thing to do is to pull-back your metric of choice on the base $M,$ obtaining a metric on $\hat{M}$ which will have singularities (i.e. failure of positive definiteness) along the branching locus. On the complement of these singularities the covering projection is (by definition) a local isometry, and thus curvature properties of the base metric will remain on that part of $\hat{M}.$ In the case of Riemann surfaces presented as branched covers over $\mathbb{CP}^1,$ these pulled back "metrics" will have conical singularities at the ramification points of the covering map. I don't know the history at all, but I would be interested to know if the original interest in metrics with conical singularities arose from these examples; it seems feasible.

share|cite|improve this answer
I think it more likely that the interest in conical singularities arose by going in the other direction: passing to some kind of orbifold quotient space $M \to Q$. Under such a quotient, the cone singularities have angle $<2\pi$ and therefore have infinitesmal negative curvature, which is good; under a covering the cone singularities have angle $>2 \pi$ and therefore have infinitesmal positive curvature, which is not so good. – Lee Mosher Apr 21 '14 at 20:42
This kind of distinction can be seen in Thurston's orbifold theorem, for example. – Lee Mosher Apr 21 '14 at 20:44

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.