3
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a smooth manifold. We can get a Riemannian metric on $M$ by at least two methods: first by partitions of unity and second by the Whitney embedding theorem: we can embed $M$ into a Euclidean space of sufficiently large dimension, and we thus get a Riemannian metric on $M$ by restricting the Euclidean metric on the ambient space.

Can all Riemannian metrics on $M$ be constructed in the second way above?

[Edited for for punctuation, grammar and clarity -- PLC]

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Always check the Wikipedia article! The Nash embedding theorem is cited in the very first section ("Overview") on Riemannian manifolds. $\endgroup$
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    Commented Mar 7, 2010 at 3:31

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
12
$\begingroup$

Yes, see e,g, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorem

Briefly, every $C^1$--metric on a $C^1$-manifold is induced by a $C^1$-embedding $M^n\to\mathbf{R}^{2n+1}$; every $C^\infty$ metric on a $C^{\infty}$ manifold is induced by $C^\infty$-embedding $M^n\to\mathbf{R}^{n^2+5n+3}$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
11
$\begingroup$

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorem

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, any Riemannian manifold can be realized as a submanifold of Euclidean space, but in practice you never want to study a Riemannian manifold that way. The Nash isometric embedding theorem is actually rarely used by Riemannian geometers. Its impact in mathematics has been primarily the analytic ideas introduced by Nash in the proof. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Mar 7, 2010 at 3:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Deane. It is true, BUT there are some theorems which were first proved for embeddable manifolds and generalized later (it was before Nash). Say presentation of Euler characteristic through the curvature tensor. $\endgroup$
    – Anton Petrunin
    Commented Mar 7, 2010 at 3:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Anton: Historically, you're right. Back then people were a lot more comfortable working with first and second fundamental forms than with the Riemann curvature tensor. But by now we've all become much more comfortable working intrinsically. If anything, today it seems cleaner and simpler to working with a Riemannian manifold than a submanifold of Euclidean space. $\endgroup$
    – Deane Yang
    Commented Mar 7, 2010 at 3:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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