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

Let $X_1,\dots,X_n$ be complete vector fields on $\mathbb R^n$ and suppose that $(X_1(p),\dots,X_n(p))$ is a basis for all $p \in \mathbb R^n$.

Question: Is it possible to choose a cube $C$ around the origin of $\mathbb R^n$ such that there is for every $p \in C$ a piecewise smooth curve $\alpha \subset C$ which connects $p$ with $0$ where the smooth parts of the curve are given by the flows of the vector fields $\pm X_1,\dots,\pm X_n$? (With other words: is it possible to travel from $0$ to $p$ following only the integral curves of the given vector fields in a bounded domain?)

For $n=2$ this is pretty clear; w.l.o.g. $X_1=\partial/\partial x_1$ and the image of $x_1=0$ under the flow $X_2$ fills all of $\mathbb R^2$, since the flow lines of $X_2$ intersect $x_1=0$ transversally. Now it is easy to find a $C$ and $\alpha$ for a $p \in C$. But I can not generalize this for $n$ arbitrary.

Edit: Instead of demanding $C$ to be a cube, one could also ask if there is a open neighbourhood of the origin with the desired properties.

share|improve this question
1  
Maybe looking for the keyword "control theory" might be useful. –  Qfwfq Feb 18 '12 at 9:12
    
You cannot assume that $X_1 = \partial/\partial x_1$, because it might be nonconstant. –  Kofi Feb 18 '12 at 11:38
    
Since $X_1$ has no zeros, I can assume after a change of the coordinate system, that $X_1$ is constant. –  James Feb 18 '12 at 12:38
    
(Title re-edited. "Linear*ly* independent[...]" is the right spelling) –  Qfwfq Feb 18 '12 at 23:02
    
Thanks Qfwfq! Excuse me for my bad english. –  James Feb 19 '12 at 1:00
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

For a suitable nbd of the origin $U$, yes, even following the $n$ flows in a prescribed order. Assuming $X_1,\dots,X_n$ locally Lipschitz continuous, the corresponding flows $\phi_1(t,x),\dots, \phi_n(t,x)$ are $C^1$ maps (in the pair) so the map $\Phi$ $$(t _ 1,\dots,t_ n)\mapsto \phi _ n (t _ n, \phi_{n-1}( t _ {n-1}, \dots \phi _1 (t_1, 0))\dots)$$ is of class $C^1$ on a nbd of $0\in\mathbb{R}^n$. Since for $(t,x)\to 0$ in $ \mathbb{R} \times\mathbb{R}^n$, $$ \phi_j(t,x)= x + tX_j(0) + o\big((t,x) \big) $$ it follows that the differential of $\Phi$ at $0\in\mathbb{R}^n$ is the linear map $$(t _ 1,\dots,t_ n)\mapsto t_1X_1(0)+\dots t_n X_n(0)$$ which is invertible because by assumption $X_1(0),\dots, X_n(0)$ is a base. By the implicit function theorem, $\Phi$ is a local diffeo between a cube $Q$ and a nbd $U$ of $0$. The images of the broken lines in $Q$ with edges parallel to the axes is what you want and reach any point of $U$.

(edit) Also, given any connected open subset $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^n$, any two points $p$ and $q$ of $\Omega$ can be joined by a continuous curve made by finitely many flow-lines of the fields $X_1,\dots,X_n$, just because the set of points that may be reached this way starting from $p$ is a non-empty open and closed subset of $\Omega$, thanks to the preceding local fact.

However, there could be problems to reach some point if $\Omega$ is not open, e.g a closed cube. Take e.g. in $n=2$ and two constant fields $X_1:=(2,1)$, $X_2:=(1,2)$. Then, the vertex $(r,r)$ of the square $Q:=[−r,r]\times[−r,r]$ is easily joined to the origin by a two-edges broken flow-line, but the vertex $(r,−r)$ can't be reached by any such broken line in $Q,$ in any finite number of steps.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks! That is a nice answer! Though I think it is nevertheless true for the cube-version. –  James Feb 18 '12 at 19:01
    
I've added some hints for the case of nbd's of prescribed shape. –  Pietro Majer Feb 18 '12 at 22:28
    
Thanks again, I had only open nbd's in mind and indeed there could be some problem with closed ones... –  James Feb 19 '12 at 0:59
add comment

Let my first vector field just be $(1,0,0)$. The second is $(0,1,e^x)$. The third can be anything, say $(0,0,1)$.

I claim that one cannot make a square with the first two fields, a necessary component of a cube. Obviously two of the edges will be straight lines that keep $y$ and $z$ fixed and vary $x$. The other edges will also be straight lines, but tilted at different angles in a way that cannot form a square.

More rigorously, since the other flow does not change $x$, $x$ will go between two values, say $x_1$ and $x_2$. $y$ and $z$ similarly go between two values, say $y_a,y_b$ and $z_a,z_b$.

On the first edge of flow two, we must have $(z_a-z_b)=e^{x_1}(y_a-y_b)$. On the second, $(z_a-z_b)=e^{x_2}(y_a-y_b)$. This is impossible.

share|improve this answer
    
Sorry, I don't understand your answer. Please correct me, if I'm wrong: The flow for $(0,1,e^x)$ starting from the origin is given by $t\mapsto(0,t,t)$. Choose for $C$ the unit cube around the origin. Then for an arbitrary $(x,y,z) \in C$ first I would flow along the flow of $(0,1,e^x)$ ending at $(0,y,y)$, then I would adjust the other coordinates by flowing along the other vector fields, which will not change the y--coordinate. I'm always staying in the the unit cube. What is my mistake? –  James Feb 18 '12 at 9:48
2  
Ah. I misunderstood your question to imply something very different. Pietro's answer is correct, mine is not. –  Will Sawin Feb 18 '12 at 18:38
add comment

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.