Condition on a differential form arising from the theory of elasticity

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
1












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.







share|cite|improve this question
























    up vote
    8
    down vote

    favorite
    1












    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.







    share|cite|improve this question






















      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      1









      up vote
      8
      down vote

      favorite
      1






      1





      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.







      share|cite|improve this question












      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.









      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Aug 14 at 11:49









      Raz Kupferman

      963




      963




















          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.)






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • 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).
            – 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.
            – Robert Bryant
            20 hours ago










          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );








           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          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






























          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.)






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • 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).
            – 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.
            – Robert Bryant
            20 hours ago














          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.)






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • 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).
            – 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.
            – Robert Bryant
            20 hours ago












          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.)






          share|cite|improve this answer














          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.)







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          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).
            – 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.
            – 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).
            – 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.
            – 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).
          – 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).
          – 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.
          – 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.
          – Robert Bryant
          20 hours ago












           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          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













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Mutual Information Always Non-negative

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?