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

I'm trying to understand the relationship between geodesics and lines of principal curvature (to keep things simple, let's say Riemannian 2-manifolds embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$). In my reading, I came across the following discussion in Cartan, Riemannian Geometry in an Orthogonal Frame (pp. 231-232):

  1. Parallel transport preserves the principal directions, the principal curvature, the asymptotic tangents and the geodesic curvatures.

  2. Let $M$ and $M^\prime$ be two neighboring points of a curvature line. Under parallel transport, the principal directions at the point $M$ are transferred into the principal directions at the point $M^\prime$. Therefore, the curvature lines are geodesic lines. The latter have zero torsion and constant curvature.

However, I must not be understanding the context here. For instance, consider Monge's ellipsoid (an illustration can be found on page 3 of this paper). It seems to me (and in fact, I can confirm via numerical integration) that if I construct a geodesic starting with a tangent to a line of curvature (say, one near an umbilical point), the geodesic will look nothing like the line of curvature. What gives?

More generally, I am interested in the following question. For an embedded sphere $S$, consider a connection whose holonomy around any loop equals $2\pi$ times the sum of the indices of the umbilical points enclosed by that loop. (Here I mean indices in the sense of the principal foliation.) Are the geodesics defined by this connection lines of principal curvature? Again, numerical experiments say "yes," but Cartan says "no" --- according to the above statements, it would seem that curvature lines are simply geodesic with respect to the Levi-Civita connection.

share|cite|improve this question
This is indeed strange, of course curvature lines are almost never geodesics. As for the second question, defining holonomy does not seem to define a connection uniquely. Do you mean any connection with this holonomy or some specific one? – Sergei Ivanov Apr 29 '10 at 19:05
Ah, yes, sorry --- uniqueness is given by the fact that the connection I'm considering is also closest to the Levi-Civita connection in the sense of the norm induced by the Hodge inner product. – TerronaBell Apr 29 '10 at 19:32
In which chapter and section of Cartan's is this discussion found? I only have a Russian translation here - page numbers are different. – Sergei Ivanov Apr 29 '10 at 20:39
In my copy it's in Chapter 24 (Forms of Laguerre and Darboux), Section 152 (Invariance of normal curvature under parallel transport of a vector). – TerronaBell Apr 29 '10 at 21:28
Russian translation has a sentence "We require that the normal curvature does not change [under parallel transport]" at the beginning of section 152. It is the 3rd sentence after the section title. The rest of the section is about what follows from this assumption. – Sergei Ivanov Apr 30 '10 at 4:17

Your Answer


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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.