Condition on a differential form arising from the theory of elasticity
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
Let $D$ be the unit $n$-ball (for concreteness). Let $betainOmega^1(D;R^n)$ be an $R^n$-valued one-form, having full rank (viewed as a section of $T^*Dotimes R^n$). Under what conditions on $beta$, does there exist a section $Q$ of $SO(n,R)$ (over $D$), such that $Qcircbeta$ is closed (hence exact)?
The question is non-trivial for the following reason: if there exist such $Q$ and an $f:Dto R^n$, such that $df = Qcircbeta$, then $beta^Tcircbeta = df^Tcirc df$, and the latter is (up to a musical isomorphism) a flat metric on $D$, whose Riemann curvature tensor vanishes.
So in a sense, I have an answer to my question. What I am looking for is a more explicit condition; in particular, I wonder whether there exists a condition that is linear in $beta$.
For the curious, this question came up twice in two different contexts in the theory of elasticity.
dg.differential-geometry differential-forms
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
Let $D$ be the unit $n$-ball (for concreteness). Let $betainOmega^1(D;R^n)$ be an $R^n$-valued one-form, having full rank (viewed as a section of $T^*Dotimes R^n$). Under what conditions on $beta$, does there exist a section $Q$ of $SO(n,R)$ (over $D$), such that $Qcircbeta$ is closed (hence exact)?
The question is non-trivial for the following reason: if there exist such $Q$ and an $f:Dto R^n$, such that $df = Qcircbeta$, then $beta^Tcircbeta = df^Tcirc df$, and the latter is (up to a musical isomorphism) a flat metric on $D$, whose Riemann curvature tensor vanishes.
So in a sense, I have an answer to my question. What I am looking for is a more explicit condition; in particular, I wonder whether there exists a condition that is linear in $beta$.
For the curious, this question came up twice in two different contexts in the theory of elasticity.
dg.differential-geometry differential-forms
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
Let $D$ be the unit $n$-ball (for concreteness). Let $betainOmega^1(D;R^n)$ be an $R^n$-valued one-form, having full rank (viewed as a section of $T^*Dotimes R^n$). Under what conditions on $beta$, does there exist a section $Q$ of $SO(n,R)$ (over $D$), such that $Qcircbeta$ is closed (hence exact)?
The question is non-trivial for the following reason: if there exist such $Q$ and an $f:Dto R^n$, such that $df = Qcircbeta$, then $beta^Tcircbeta = df^Tcirc df$, and the latter is (up to a musical isomorphism) a flat metric on $D$, whose Riemann curvature tensor vanishes.
So in a sense, I have an answer to my question. What I am looking for is a more explicit condition; in particular, I wonder whether there exists a condition that is linear in $beta$.
For the curious, this question came up twice in two different contexts in the theory of elasticity.
dg.differential-geometry differential-forms
Let $D$ be the unit $n$-ball (for concreteness). Let $betainOmega^1(D;R^n)$ be an $R^n$-valued one-form, having full rank (viewed as a section of $T^*Dotimes R^n$). Under what conditions on $beta$, does there exist a section $Q$ of $SO(n,R)$ (over $D$), such that $Qcircbeta$ is closed (hence exact)?
The question is non-trivial for the following reason: if there exist such $Q$ and an $f:Dto R^n$, such that $df = Qcircbeta$, then $beta^Tcircbeta = df^Tcirc df$, and the latter is (up to a musical isomorphism) a flat metric on $D$, whose Riemann curvature tensor vanishes.
So in a sense, I have an answer to my question. What I am looking for is a more explicit condition; in particular, I wonder whether there exists a condition that is linear in $beta$.
For the curious, this question came up twice in two different contexts in the theory of elasticity.
dg.differential-geometry differential-forms
asked Aug 14 at 11:49
Raz Kupferman
963
963
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
This is really a question of computing the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of the Riemannian metric $g = beta^Tcircbeta$. Thus, what one needs to do is first solve the equations
$$
mathrmdbeta = -thetawedgebetaqquadtextandqquad theta^T+theta=0
$$
for a $1$-form $theta$ taking values in skew-symmetric $n$-by-$n$ matrices. The Fundamental Lemma of Riemannian geometry guarantees that there is always a unique solution to this system of linear algebraic equations for $theta$. Then one needs to compute the curvature $2$-form
$$
Theta = mathrmdtheta + thetawedgetheta.
$$
Then a necessary and sufficient condition for the stated problem to have a solution $Q$ is that $Theta$ vanish identically.
Necessity follows since, if there exists a $Q$ mapping the ball to $mathrmSO(n)$ such that $Qbeta$ is closed, say, equal to $mathrmdx$ for some $mathbbR^n$-valued function on the ball, then one sees that one must have $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$, which implies $Theta equiv 0$.
Sufficiency follows since, if $Thetaequiv0$, then the overdetermined equation $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$ can be solved for $Q$, uniquely up to left translation by a constant element of $mathrmSO(n)$, and then $Qbeta$ will be closed.
Note however, that, while $theta$ is found by solving a system of linear algebraic equations (whose coefficients depend on $beta$ and $mathrmdbeta$), the expression for $Theta$ is quadratic in the expression for $theta$, at least when $n>2$. Thus, asking for a `linear' condition on $beta$ that detects $Thetaequiv0$ is asking for too much. (By the way, the condition $Thetaequiv0$ is, of course, exactly the condition that the Riemann curvature tensor of the metric $g$ be identically zero.)
Thanks. The only non-trivial part is the sufficiency. I was able to fill in the details using Cartan's theorem (e.g., Theorem 1.6.10 in Cartan for Beginners by Ivey and Landsberg). By the end, it all hinges on the Frobenius theorem. I wondered it there exists a simpler straightforward argument (for n=2, for example, there is a very simple argument).
â Raz Kupferman
22 hours ago
The reason the argument is easy for $n=2$ is that the group $mathrmSO(2)$ is abelian, so that the $thetawedgetheta$ term in $Theta$ disappears, and you are just asking whether $theta$ is closed, so that you can use the Poincaré Lemma to solve the sufficiency question. However, when $n>2$, $mathrmSO(n)$ is not abelian, and the flatness condition is intrinsically more complicated.
â Robert Bryant
20 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
This is really a question of computing the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of the Riemannian metric $g = beta^Tcircbeta$. Thus, what one needs to do is first solve the equations
$$
mathrmdbeta = -thetawedgebetaqquadtextandqquad theta^T+theta=0
$$
for a $1$-form $theta$ taking values in skew-symmetric $n$-by-$n$ matrices. The Fundamental Lemma of Riemannian geometry guarantees that there is always a unique solution to this system of linear algebraic equations for $theta$. Then one needs to compute the curvature $2$-form
$$
Theta = mathrmdtheta + thetawedgetheta.
$$
Then a necessary and sufficient condition for the stated problem to have a solution $Q$ is that $Theta$ vanish identically.
Necessity follows since, if there exists a $Q$ mapping the ball to $mathrmSO(n)$ such that $Qbeta$ is closed, say, equal to $mathrmdx$ for some $mathbbR^n$-valued function on the ball, then one sees that one must have $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$, which implies $Theta equiv 0$.
Sufficiency follows since, if $Thetaequiv0$, then the overdetermined equation $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$ can be solved for $Q$, uniquely up to left translation by a constant element of $mathrmSO(n)$, and then $Qbeta$ will be closed.
Note however, that, while $theta$ is found by solving a system of linear algebraic equations (whose coefficients depend on $beta$ and $mathrmdbeta$), the expression for $Theta$ is quadratic in the expression for $theta$, at least when $n>2$. Thus, asking for a `linear' condition on $beta$ that detects $Thetaequiv0$ is asking for too much. (By the way, the condition $Thetaequiv0$ is, of course, exactly the condition that the Riemann curvature tensor of the metric $g$ be identically zero.)
Thanks. The only non-trivial part is the sufficiency. I was able to fill in the details using Cartan's theorem (e.g., Theorem 1.6.10 in Cartan for Beginners by Ivey and Landsberg). By the end, it all hinges on the Frobenius theorem. I wondered it there exists a simpler straightforward argument (for n=2, for example, there is a very simple argument).
â Raz Kupferman
22 hours ago
The reason the argument is easy for $n=2$ is that the group $mathrmSO(2)$ is abelian, so that the $thetawedgetheta$ term in $Theta$ disappears, and you are just asking whether $theta$ is closed, so that you can use the Poincaré Lemma to solve the sufficiency question. However, when $n>2$, $mathrmSO(n)$ is not abelian, and the flatness condition is intrinsically more complicated.
â Robert Bryant
20 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
This is really a question of computing the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of the Riemannian metric $g = beta^Tcircbeta$. Thus, what one needs to do is first solve the equations
$$
mathrmdbeta = -thetawedgebetaqquadtextandqquad theta^T+theta=0
$$
for a $1$-form $theta$ taking values in skew-symmetric $n$-by-$n$ matrices. The Fundamental Lemma of Riemannian geometry guarantees that there is always a unique solution to this system of linear algebraic equations for $theta$. Then one needs to compute the curvature $2$-form
$$
Theta = mathrmdtheta + thetawedgetheta.
$$
Then a necessary and sufficient condition for the stated problem to have a solution $Q$ is that $Theta$ vanish identically.
Necessity follows since, if there exists a $Q$ mapping the ball to $mathrmSO(n)$ such that $Qbeta$ is closed, say, equal to $mathrmdx$ for some $mathbbR^n$-valued function on the ball, then one sees that one must have $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$, which implies $Theta equiv 0$.
Sufficiency follows since, if $Thetaequiv0$, then the overdetermined equation $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$ can be solved for $Q$, uniquely up to left translation by a constant element of $mathrmSO(n)$, and then $Qbeta$ will be closed.
Note however, that, while $theta$ is found by solving a system of linear algebraic equations (whose coefficients depend on $beta$ and $mathrmdbeta$), the expression for $Theta$ is quadratic in the expression for $theta$, at least when $n>2$. Thus, asking for a `linear' condition on $beta$ that detects $Thetaequiv0$ is asking for too much. (By the way, the condition $Thetaequiv0$ is, of course, exactly the condition that the Riemann curvature tensor of the metric $g$ be identically zero.)
Thanks. The only non-trivial part is the sufficiency. I was able to fill in the details using Cartan's theorem (e.g., Theorem 1.6.10 in Cartan for Beginners by Ivey and Landsberg). By the end, it all hinges on the Frobenius theorem. I wondered it there exists a simpler straightforward argument (for n=2, for example, there is a very simple argument).
â Raz Kupferman
22 hours ago
The reason the argument is easy for $n=2$ is that the group $mathrmSO(2)$ is abelian, so that the $thetawedgetheta$ term in $Theta$ disappears, and you are just asking whether $theta$ is closed, so that you can use the Poincaré Lemma to solve the sufficiency question. However, when $n>2$, $mathrmSO(n)$ is not abelian, and the flatness condition is intrinsically more complicated.
â Robert Bryant
20 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
This is really a question of computing the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of the Riemannian metric $g = beta^Tcircbeta$. Thus, what one needs to do is first solve the equations
$$
mathrmdbeta = -thetawedgebetaqquadtextandqquad theta^T+theta=0
$$
for a $1$-form $theta$ taking values in skew-symmetric $n$-by-$n$ matrices. The Fundamental Lemma of Riemannian geometry guarantees that there is always a unique solution to this system of linear algebraic equations for $theta$. Then one needs to compute the curvature $2$-form
$$
Theta = mathrmdtheta + thetawedgetheta.
$$
Then a necessary and sufficient condition for the stated problem to have a solution $Q$ is that $Theta$ vanish identically.
Necessity follows since, if there exists a $Q$ mapping the ball to $mathrmSO(n)$ such that $Qbeta$ is closed, say, equal to $mathrmdx$ for some $mathbbR^n$-valued function on the ball, then one sees that one must have $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$, which implies $Theta equiv 0$.
Sufficiency follows since, if $Thetaequiv0$, then the overdetermined equation $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$ can be solved for $Q$, uniquely up to left translation by a constant element of $mathrmSO(n)$, and then $Qbeta$ will be closed.
Note however, that, while $theta$ is found by solving a system of linear algebraic equations (whose coefficients depend on $beta$ and $mathrmdbeta$), the expression for $Theta$ is quadratic in the expression for $theta$, at least when $n>2$. Thus, asking for a `linear' condition on $beta$ that detects $Thetaequiv0$ is asking for too much. (By the way, the condition $Thetaequiv0$ is, of course, exactly the condition that the Riemann curvature tensor of the metric $g$ be identically zero.)
This is really a question of computing the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of the Riemannian metric $g = beta^Tcircbeta$. Thus, what one needs to do is first solve the equations
$$
mathrmdbeta = -thetawedgebetaqquadtextandqquad theta^T+theta=0
$$
for a $1$-form $theta$ taking values in skew-symmetric $n$-by-$n$ matrices. The Fundamental Lemma of Riemannian geometry guarantees that there is always a unique solution to this system of linear algebraic equations for $theta$. Then one needs to compute the curvature $2$-form
$$
Theta = mathrmdtheta + thetawedgetheta.
$$
Then a necessary and sufficient condition for the stated problem to have a solution $Q$ is that $Theta$ vanish identically.
Necessity follows since, if there exists a $Q$ mapping the ball to $mathrmSO(n)$ such that $Qbeta$ is closed, say, equal to $mathrmdx$ for some $mathbbR^n$-valued function on the ball, then one sees that one must have $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$, which implies $Theta equiv 0$.
Sufficiency follows since, if $Thetaequiv0$, then the overdetermined equation $theta = Q^-1mathrmdQ$ can be solved for $Q$, uniquely up to left translation by a constant element of $mathrmSO(n)$, and then $Qbeta$ will be closed.
Note however, that, while $theta$ is found by solving a system of linear algebraic equations (whose coefficients depend on $beta$ and $mathrmdbeta$), the expression for $Theta$ is quadratic in the expression for $theta$, at least when $n>2$. Thus, asking for a `linear' condition on $beta$ that detects $Thetaequiv0$ is asking for too much. (By the way, the condition $Thetaequiv0$ is, of course, exactly the condition that the Riemann curvature tensor of the metric $g$ be identically zero.)
edited Aug 14 at 12:54
answered Aug 14 at 12:48
Robert Bryant
70.4k4206305
70.4k4206305
Thanks. The only non-trivial part is the sufficiency. I was able to fill in the details using Cartan's theorem (e.g., Theorem 1.6.10 in Cartan for Beginners by Ivey and Landsberg). By the end, it all hinges on the Frobenius theorem. I wondered it there exists a simpler straightforward argument (for n=2, for example, there is a very simple argument).
â Raz Kupferman
22 hours ago
The reason the argument is easy for $n=2$ is that the group $mathrmSO(2)$ is abelian, so that the $thetawedgetheta$ term in $Theta$ disappears, and you are just asking whether $theta$ is closed, so that you can use the Poincaré Lemma to solve the sufficiency question. However, when $n>2$, $mathrmSO(n)$ is not abelian, and the flatness condition is intrinsically more complicated.
â Robert Bryant
20 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Thanks. The only non-trivial part is the sufficiency. I was able to fill in the details using Cartan's theorem (e.g., Theorem 1.6.10 in Cartan for Beginners by Ivey and Landsberg). By the end, it all hinges on the Frobenius theorem. I wondered it there exists a simpler straightforward argument (for n=2, for example, there is a very simple argument).
â Raz Kupferman
22 hours ago
The reason the argument is easy for $n=2$ is that the group $mathrmSO(2)$ is abelian, so that the $thetawedgetheta$ term in $Theta$ disappears, and you are just asking whether $theta$ is closed, so that you can use the Poincaré Lemma to solve the sufficiency question. However, when $n>2$, $mathrmSO(n)$ is not abelian, and the flatness condition is intrinsically more complicated.
â Robert Bryant
20 hours ago
Thanks. The only non-trivial part is the sufficiency. I was able to fill in the details using Cartan's theorem (e.g., Theorem 1.6.10 in Cartan for Beginners by Ivey and Landsberg). By the end, it all hinges on the Frobenius theorem. I wondered it there exists a simpler straightforward argument (for n=2, for example, there is a very simple argument).
â Raz Kupferman
22 hours ago
Thanks. The only non-trivial part is the sufficiency. I was able to fill in the details using Cartan's theorem (e.g., Theorem 1.6.10 in Cartan for Beginners by Ivey and Landsberg). By the end, it all hinges on the Frobenius theorem. I wondered it there exists a simpler straightforward argument (for n=2, for example, there is a very simple argument).
â Raz Kupferman
22 hours ago
The reason the argument is easy for $n=2$ is that the group $mathrmSO(2)$ is abelian, so that the $thetawedgetheta$ term in $Theta$ disappears, and you are just asking whether $theta$ is closed, so that you can use the Poincaré Lemma to solve the sufficiency question. However, when $n>2$, $mathrmSO(n)$ is not abelian, and the flatness condition is intrinsically more complicated.
â Robert Bryant
20 hours ago
The reason the argument is easy for $n=2$ is that the group $mathrmSO(2)$ is abelian, so that the $thetawedgetheta$ term in $Theta$ disappears, and you are just asking whether $theta$ is closed, so that you can use the Poincaré Lemma to solve the sufficiency question. However, when $n>2$, $mathrmSO(n)$ is not abelian, and the flatness condition is intrinsically more complicated.
â Robert Bryant
20 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f308258%2fcondition-on-a-differential-form-arising-from-the-theory-of-elasticity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password