5
$\begingroup$

Reeb's global stability theorem requires the foliation to be of codimension 1. As a counterexample, in "Geometric theory of foliations", Camacho and Lins Neto present the following.

Consider the manifold $S^{n-2}\times S^1\times S^1$ with coordinates $(x_1,...,x_{n-1},\varphi,\theta)$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}x_i^2 = 1$ , and two differential one-forms

$$\eta_1 = d\theta \quad\text{ and }\quad\eta_2= ((1-\sin(\theta))^2 + x_1^2) d\varphi + \sin(\theta) dx_1 .$$

Frobenius' integrability condition is satisfied as can be easily checked, so there's an integral manifold of codimension two for these differential forms.

There are some compact leaves homeomorphic to $S^{n-2}$ given by fixing $\theta = 0$ and $\varphi = \mathit{constant}$.

On the other hand, there are leaves of a second kind given by $\theta = \pi/2$ and $\varphi = \mathit{constant} + \frac{1}{x_1}$ and these are said to be non-compact.

Question 1: Is there any simple argument for non-compactness of these leaves?

Intuition: Some sequence in one of these leaves for which the first coordinate converges to zero, cannot converge in the same leaf "because it is not given by the same equation ($\varphi = \frac{1}{x_1}$)". I'm not sure if this is correct, and even if it was, I couldn't find some neat way to explain it.

Question 2: We have that $d\eta_2 = 2x_1 dx_1\wedge d\varphi $ on the leaves of the second kind but is zero when $x_1$ is. Does this give some topological difference for leaves?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

The precise description of the leaves which are not spheres is as follows. The leaves passing through points with $x_1\neq 0, \theta=\pi/2, \theta=constant+1/x_1$ are homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{n-2}$ (you can work out an explicit parametrization). The leaves passing through points with $x_1=0, \theta=\pi/2$ are homeomorphic to $S^{n-3}\times S^1$. When $x_1$ tends to $0$ the non-compact leaves spiral around $S^{n-3}\times S^1$ as in the classical Reeb foliation.

In fact, the example is originally due to Reeb himself [CRAS 226 (1948), 1337-1339], as you can see here (in French): https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k31787/f1338.image (but few details are given). For a more recent exposition (when $n=4$, but the general case is similar) I recommend to have a look at Section 1.6 "Reeb Transition" in the paper by Pablo Lessa [Asian J. Math. 19 (2015), 433-464].

$\endgroup$
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.