4
$\begingroup$

Here are some notes on hyperbolic manifolds. The aim is to prove that if $M_1$ and $M_2$ are simply connected, complete Riemannian manifolds having constant sectional curvature of $-1$, then $M_1$ and $M_2$ are isometric.

For simplicity, let's consider a Riemann 2-manifold $M$ with constant Gaussian curvature $-1.$ Pick a point $p\in M$ and let $E(s,t)$ be the exponential map, "parameterising" $M$ with two variables $s,t$, in such a way that the curve $\gamma$ below is a geodesic. The author also quotes that "$dE$ is an isometry at $0.$" ($E(0,0) = p.$) Define the vector field $$ J (t) = \frac{dE}{ds}(s=0,t). $$ along the geodesic $\gamma(t)= E(0,t),$ and let $T$ be the unit velocity field of this curve.

The author claims (on page 5) that $(*)$ $DJ/dt$ is orthogonal to $T$ at $t=0,$ "because $dE|_0$ is an isometry." Here $DJ/dt$ is just the covariant derivative (connection) $D_T J.$

The claim is made in the proof of Gauss's Lemma.

I try to interpret what this means, but I am not sure - I only know the standard definition of isometry here, which makes sense locally in an open set or globally, but certainly not "at a point." Saying that $dE|_0$ is an isometry is also a bit unusual - we usually say that a map is an isometry, rather than the derivative of the map at a point is an isometry.

How to interpret the above claim $(*)$ made by the author properly? How can I prove the claim? Is the claim really obvious?

By the way, the "Gauss's lemma" mentioned in the notes is also a bit unusual - it is not about geodesics being perpendicular to a sphere.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Doesn't it just mean that $dE$ is a map of tangent spaces, and, in that capacity, is an isometry? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Jul 26 at 3:09
  • $\begingroup$ Yes this makes sense. But how does this lead to the conclusion that the two vectors mentioned above are perpendicular? $\endgroup$
    – Ma Joad
    Jul 26 at 3:31
  • $\begingroup$ The map $dE$ is a linear isomorphism and an isometry of the inner product on the tangent spaces. $\endgroup$
    – Ben McKay
    Jul 26 at 11:28
  • $\begingroup$ @BenMcKay I see. But how does that lead to the claimed result (*)? $\endgroup$
    – Ma Joad
    Jul 26 at 13:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DeaneYang Yes, thanks. I have changed the title. $\endgroup$
    – Ma Joad
    Aug 4 at 0:26
1
$\begingroup$

(It seems some people find this question too elementary for MO, but I think there is a true difficulty in tracking the different objects in this subject and that answering such questions make MO more useful rather than less.) (Between writing this and finishing my answer, I spent a considerable amount of time, and I think it is far from an obvious question.)

First, there are things to be careful about with these notes. For example, the coordinates $(s,t)$ should be polar coordinates, even though it is not made explicit (otherwise, $t\mapsto E(s_0,t)$ would not usually be a geodesic when $s_0\neq 0$, and $J(0)$ would not be $0$ in general), but it seem at some points that we are assumed to think in Cartesian coordinates.

First, let us discuss the "isometric at a point" part. I like to draw differential geometry with colors. To represent $TM$ in 2D, I represent $M$ in 1D, like this: Picture of M, TM and the exponential map

$E$ is a map from $T_pM$ to $M$, so that $dE$ is a map from $T(T_pM)$ to $TM$. The correct interpretation of "$dE$ is an isometry at zero" seems to be "the evaluation at zero of $dE$ is an isometry", i.e. "$dE_0$ is an isometry" (I do not like the notation $dE_{|0}$, akin to a restriction, while we more usually think $dE$ as a map with two arguments, a point which I put in index and a vector which I put into parentheses).

Now, $dE_0$ is a map from $T_0(T_p M)$ to $T_{E(0)}M = T_pM$. Thing is, $T_pM$ is a affine (even linear) space to begin with, so that each of its tangent spaces (in particular $T_0(T_p M)$) can be canonically identified to $T_pM$ itself, as we often do for calculus in $\mathbb{R}^n$. With this identification, $dE_0$ becomes a (linear) map from $T_pM$ to itself, and it is part of the definition of the exponential that it is an isometry (actually, with this identification $dE_0$ is even the identity).

It is not obvious to me how to interpret the statement (*). We can compare e.g. to Gallot-Hulin-Lafontaine Riemannian Geometry. The Cartan-Hadamard theorem is proven in 3.87, but the proof is slim, most the necessary ingredient having been stated before. The Gauss Lemma is 3.70; it rests on the expression $dE_{(0,t)}(u) = Y(t)$, where $Y$ is the unique Jacobi field along $\gamma$ such that $Y(0)=0$ and $Y'(0)=u/t$. In he current situation, since $J$ is a Jacobi field, this expression simply means that $\frac{D J}{dt}(t=0)=\partial y$ in Cartesian coordinates $(x=\cos(s) t, y=\sin(s) t)$. In particular you get that $\frac{D J}{dt}(t=0)$ is orthogonal to $T(0)=\partial x$.

The mentioned expression is proved in 3.46; basically, it rests on uniqueness of Jacobi fields with specified initial value and derivative (standard second order ODE stuff), and observing that $t\mapsto E(tv)$ is a geodesic, so that varying $v$ makes a geodesic variation, whose derivative must be a Jacobi field.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer! $\endgroup$
    – Ma Joad
    Aug 6 at 1:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ma Joad. You can also find interesting Manfredo do Carmo's book "Riemannian Geometry". In particular, Chapter 5 about Jacobi fields and Chapter 8, section 4 e.g. Theorem 4.1 . Perhaps also this could help you: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3991778/… $\endgroup$
    – Holonomia
    Aug 19 at 9:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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