Ralph Cohen (professor at Stanford) is teaching a class on algebraic topology and moduli spaces this quarter, beginning by reviewing his perspective of Morse theory. He defined "nice" metrics, proved that they are dense in the $L^2$ space of metrics on $\mathbb R^n$, proved one result using that, and doesn't need them anymore. But given the previous assumptions, I and some classmates want to know: are not all metrics "nice"?

The setup: Assume a real-valued $C^\infty$ function $f$ on a closed smooth manifold $M$ of dimension $n$ is Morse: critical points are nondegenerate in the sense of having full-rank Hessians. Given some critical point $p$ of index $k$, find a small neighborhood $U$ and a diffeomorphism $U\cong\mathbb R^n$ such that $f$ becomes a function $\sum_{i=k+1}^nx_i^2-\sum_{i=1}^kx_i^2$.

A "nice" (smooth Riemannian) metric on $M$ is defined to be one that, when restricted to $U\cong\mathbb R^n$, gives $f$ a gradient field that after some diffeomorphism of $\mathbb R^n$ can be written as $\sum c_ix_i\partial_i$ for nonzero constants $c_i$. (Edited to add the missing $x_i$s.)

Can anyone make an illuminating example of a non-nice metric on $\mathbb R^n$? In fact (because $U$ is bounded) I might prefer one in the setting where $U$ is mapped an open ball rather than all of $\mathbb R^n$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Dear Elizabeth S. Q. Goodman, just a silly question, probably I have not correctly undestood, but if $df(0)=0$ then shouldn't be $\nabla f(0)=0$, independently of the metric $g$, and so unequal to $\Sum c_i\partial_i|_0$ independently by the diffeomorphism? Excuse me if I am not correct. $\endgroup$ – agtortorella Oct 2 '11 at 8:02
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Probably it should be $\Sum c_i x_i\partial_i$ instead of $\Sum c_i\partial_i$. $\endgroup$ – agtortorella Oct 2 '11 at 8:15

Assuming Giuseppe's suggested correction is right, here's what you have to worry about: Consider the function $f(x,y) = \tfrac12 x^2 + y^2 + x^2 y$ and the metric $g = (1+2y)\ dx^2 + dy^2$ on the half-plane $y > -\tfrac12$. You can compute that $$ \nabla f = x\ \frac{\partial\ }{\partial x} + (2y+x^2)\ \frac{\partial\ }{\partial y} $$ and this is one of those vector fields that cannot be linearized smoothly near $(x,y) = (0,0)$, i.e., it is not equivalent, under any smooth change of variables near this point, to the vector field $$ x\ \frac{\partial\ }{\partial x} + 2y\ \frac{\partial\ }{\partial y} $$ (There is a large literature about conditions that obstruct or allow a vector field to be linearized near a singular point.)

One way you can see this is that the flow lines of the first vector field are $x=0$ and those of the form $y = (c + \ln |x|)\ x^2$ where $c$ is a constant, while the flow lines of the second vector field are $x=0$ and those of the form $y = c\ x^2$. (Of course, $(x,y) = (0,0)$ is fixed by both vector fields.) Since the flow lines of $\nabla f$ aren't smooth curves, no smooth change of variables will convert them to smooth curves.

  • $\begingroup$ Nice answer! I believe I've now checked it. $\endgroup$ – Elizabeth S. Q. Goodman Oct 2 '11 at 19:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. I probably should have mentioned that it can be linearized by a $C^1$ change of coordinates: If $({\bar x}, {\bar y}) = (x, y - x^2\ \ln|x|)$, then the given vector field~$\nabla f$ is linear in the ${\bar x}{\bar y}$-coordinates. Also, I'm surprised that Prof. Cohen needed to make the argument you mention. Isn't it easier to choose flat metrics in 'Morse coordinates' near each critical point of $f$ and then use a partition of unity to find a metric on $M$ that agrees with these metrics near the critical points? $\endgroup$ – Robert Bryant Oct 2 '11 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure, since he did something quite similar anyway in showing they were L^2 dense. But I have a guess: the point is to redo Morse theory with non-standard arguments that generalize better to infinite dimensions, so that one can do Floer theory for example. In that case I think it makes sense to keep out partitions of unity as much as possible, though I am unused to thinking about how to set up elliptic PDEs. $\endgroup$ – Elizabeth S. Q. Goodman Oct 3 '11 at 3:46

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.