1
$\begingroup$

I am interested in the following situation: Given any $n>1$ suppose I have a codimension-1 foliation of $R^n_{++}$ (i.e. the subset of strictly positive $n$-vectors) arising from an $(n-1)$-dimensional, involutive, plane field $F$. Further, suppose that the normal to the subspace spanned by the vectors of each $F_p$ is either strictly positive for all $p \in R^n_{++}$ or strictly negative for all $p \in R^n_{++}$ (so I take it to be the former).

My understanding is that this situation can arise from considering the inverse images of $f(p),p \in R$, where f is a smooth real-valued function on $R^n_{++}$ (with surjective differential everywhere). My question is: Does such a foliation have to arise in this manner? Does there always exist such an $f$? The reason I ask is because I would like to be able to construct a complete ordering of the leaves of this type of foliation; if my question has an answer in the affirmative then I can do it by means of $f$. Otherwise, I would have to find a different way (say by considering "positive" line segments going from one leaf to another). I've looked at a paper by Novikov dealing with partial orderings of codimension-1 foliations but the foliation itself is too general for my needs.

Any references to material dealing with such a question would be welcome (as would any corrections to my understanding of the subject matter).

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ what do you mean by the normal to $F_p$ being positive? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 16, 2022 at 3:28
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I should have said the normal to the $n-1$ dimensional space spanned by the vectors of $F_p$, for every $p \in R^n$, is non-zero and has components all of the same sign, which I took to be positive. I believe that's what you're asking, if it's not (and I've left some technical ambiguity hanging) please let me know. $\endgroup$
    – user167131
    Commented Feb 16, 2022 at 13:34

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I believe the answer is yes. It's enough to assume that the last coordinate of each normal is positive. Then each leaf is a graph $x_n=x_n(x_1,\ldots, x_{n-1})$ on some domain (depending on the leaf) in $\mathbb R^{n-1}$. This function must go to infinity at the boundary of the domain (if the boundary is nonempty) which implies that all leaves are proper. If they are proper then each leaf separates $\mathbb R^n$. This seems clear but there is also a reference (see section 2 in this paper). This allows you to get a linear ordering on the space of leaves given your condition on the normals.

Edit: sorry my example claiming that the leaf space might be non Hausdorff was wrong so I removed it. You always get that in this situation the leaf space is Hausdorff. Given any two leaves $F_1<F_2$ the space of leaves between them $\{F_1<F<F_2\}$ is open and such sets can separate any two leaves. Then the space of leaves in $\mathbb R$ and the projection from $\mathbb R^n$ to that $\mathbb R$ is the desired function $f$. I am not sure what can be said about the regularity of this function however.

Edit: The question was changed to a foliation on the first quadrant $\mathbb R^n_{++}$. This case easily reduces to the case of a foliation on $\mathbb R^n$ considered above. Take a increasing diffeomorphism $\phi: (0,\infty)\to \mathbb R$. Then use $\Phi:\mathbb R^n_{++}\to\mathbb R^n$ given by $\Phi(x_1,\ldots, x_n)=(\phi(x_1),\ldots, \phi(x_n))$. Push forward the hyperplane field to $\mathbb R^n$ using this map. The assumption on the normals is preserved.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ahh, I see, thanks for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive response. I will need to "digest" it a bit and I may (almost certainly will) have some questions. In that case I will post them in an additional comment. $\endgroup$
    – user167131
    Commented Feb 16, 2022 at 22:30
  • $\begingroup$ My apologies, I had to edit the original question because (and I knew this would happen) I forgot the important detail that the plane field is only defined on $R^n_{++}$. Leaving this aside, I am very much interested in understanding your original analysis. I believe I understand why it's enough to assume that the last coordinate of each normal is positive (because you can change the coordinates near each point to "straighten" things out). While I'm not entirely clear why the value of the function on $R^{n-1}$ must go to infinity at the boundary... $\endgroup$
    – user167131
    Commented Feb 18, 2022 at 0:42
  • $\begingroup$ (I think it's similar to the situation with the solution path of an IVP) I would like to understand why it implies that all leaves are proper. I would guess that this behavior insures each leaf is closed, thus making it proper. I still need to figure out why that would mean the leaf separates $R^n$. The paper you cited, which I have, deals only with foliations by {\it minimal} hypersurfaces and, while I'm sure you cited it for a reason, I need to convince myself it applies. I see the "big picture", I am now going to hunt down a definition for "the space of leaves between two given leaves". $\endgroup$
    – user167131
    Commented Feb 18, 2022 at 0:50
  • $\begingroup$ @user167131 the result about foliations of $R^n$ by proper leaves that paper cites is general and does not require minimality. as to why the leaves are proper, if a function in question doesn't go to infinity at a point on the boundary of maximal domain where it's defined then it's not hard to see that the domain is not maximal and can be extended beyond that point. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2022 at 1:04
  • $\begingroup$ @user167131 I modified the answer to take care of the change in your question about the foliation being only defined on the first quadrant. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 18, 2022 at 1:16

You must log in to answer this question.

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