10
$\begingroup$

The invention of intrinsic differential geometry is usually attributed to Gauss in the context of his theorema egregium but the notion of the curvature of an embedded surface existed before. Who was the first to discover that the curvature of an embedded surface is the product of the principal curvatures?

In http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.4736 the author states: "In 1763, Euler started a thorough study of curvature of embedded surfaces. In 1767, he found an expression of the curvature in terms of the product of principal curvatures."

This seems to suggest that the curvature Euler is talking about is what is known today as Gaussian curvature, the latter being the product of principal curvatures. However, this comment in 1409.4736 seems to be based on a different comment in the 2008 encyclopedia of scientific biography at http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Johann_Tobias_Mayer.aspx#1-1G2:2830901353-full which states:

"In 1763 Euler made the first substantial advance in the study of the curvature of surfaces; in particular, he expressed the curvature of an arbitrary normal section by principal curvatures (1767)."

This of course does not imply any relation to Gaussian curvature and on the contrary suggests that Euler only dealt with curvatures of curves obtained as cross-sections of the embedded surface. However, it is possible that 1409.4736 has a different source for this claim.

The relevant paper by Euler is apparently http://eulerarchive.maa.org/docs/originals/E333.pdf where on page 143 Euler discusses the two radii of curvature.

$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't it called the Gaussian curvature because Gauss discovered it? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 28, 2015 at 17:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Apparently not. It goes back at least to Euler; perhaps earlier. Seems like the typical situation as far as attributions go :-) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 28, 2015 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ @CarloBeenakker I believe Gauss' contribution is his theorema egregium, i.e., the Gaussian curvature is intrinsic. $\endgroup$
    – Fan Zheng
    Commented Dec 28, 2015 at 19:25
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ There is a special SE site on History of Math and Science. I think this question has a higher chance there. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 28, 2015 at 19:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why would Gauss curvature have any more significance than the principal curvatures or the mean curvature, if it were not known to be intrinsic? $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Dec 28, 2015 at 21:14

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

Let me start with your first quotation:

"In 1763, Euler started a thorough study of curvature of embedded surfaces. In 1767, he found an expression of the curvature in terms of the product of principal curvatures."

Karin Reich's article in Leonhard Euler: Life, Work and Legacy (p. 482 in particular) explains what this is supposed to mean. As you know, Euler attacked the curvature of surfaces at some point P in terms of the curvatures of curves cut out by planes normal to the tangent plane at P. He found that the planes for which the maximal and minimal curvature occurs are orthogonal to each other, and then he developed a formula for the curvature of the curve cut out by any plane normal to the tangent plane in terms of the maximal and minimal curvature and the angle $\phi$ between the plane and the principal section. So "the curvature" here is definitely not Gauss's curvature.

The remark about the years 1763 and 1767 is even "curiouser": Euler presented his article E333 in 1763 to the Berlin Academy and it was published in 1767. So we are dealing with one and the same paper here.

$\endgroup$
0
8
$\begingroup$

I don't know who originally defined Gauss curvature, but here is a long comment about the curvature of a surface. The second fundamental form of a surface is usually defined in terms of the Gauss map. It seems unlikely to me that curvature was originally defined in terms of the Gauss map, and I think Gauss introduced it because it is much easier to do computations using it.

Here is what I consider a more natural and maybe the original way to define the second fundamental form:

Given a point on a smooth surface, you can always move the surface so that the point is at the origin and the tangent plane is the $xy$-plane. The surface is therefore locally the graph of a function $f$ over the $xy$-plane.

The function $f$ is uniquely defined up to sign and a rotation of the $xy$-plane. Therefore, any function of $f$ and its derivatives, evaluated at $0$, that is invariant under sign and rotations defines a pointwise geometric invariant of the surface.

Since $f(0) = \partial_xf(0) = \partial_yf(0) = 0$, the simplest possible geometric invariant, up to a rotation of the $xy$-plane, is the Hessian, $\partial^2f(0)$. This defines the second fundamental form. The eigenvalues of $\partial^2f(0)$ are rotationally invariant and therefore define geometric invariants of $S$ up to sign. This defines the principal curvatures. Any even function of the eigenvalues defines a local geometric invariant, period . In particular, the determinant of $\partial^2f(0)$ is such an invariant and clearly a fundamental one. This defines Gauss curvature.

This provides an easy way to define local extrinsic geometric invariants of a surface. What is not at all obvious is how to identify which are intrinsic. If you try to do any computations using definition above, you get a horrible mess. I speculate that the real contributions of Gauss are introducing the Gauss map, to simplify calculations involving the second fundamental form and identifying Gauss curvature as an intrinsic invariant.

ADDED: The definition above of the second fundamental form can be used to give a straightforward proof for the Theorema Egregium of Gauss. I wrote a short note here: http://www.deaneyang.com/papers/gauss.pdf

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks very much for this. Why in the world is this "community wiki" all of a sudden? This is a specific question with arguably a unique answer, determined chronologically. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 30, 2015 at 16:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Deane, this is exactly how I teach differential geometry in my undergraduate class. See u.math.biu.ac.il/~katzmik/egreglongb.pdf I don't think it is impossible that other mathematicians may have considered the product before Gauss, because as you point out this is a natural invariant to consider, but I don't have any evidence either way. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 30, 2015 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ I believe only my answer is community wiki. I did that, because it's a comment and not an answer. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Dec 30, 2015 at 17:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DeaneYang I would guess this is just an afterthought of how the concept really evolved, as I perceived some Erlangen flavor that only appeared after Klein. $\endgroup$
    – Fan Zheng
    Commented Dec 31, 2015 at 1:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DeaneYang, nice proof. I think mine is even shorter though; see pages 90-91 of the notes linked above. Perhaps we can start a separate thread on the shortest proof of theorema egregium... $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 31, 2015 at 12:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .