Prove that $Xcdot (nabla times X)=0$, where $X perp T_x$

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











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1













Consider a $C^1$ map $f:R^2to R^3$ such that $df_x:R^2to R^3$ has rank $2$ everywhere. Define the tangent plane $T_x$ as $df_x(R^2)subset R^3$. Suppose a vector field $X$ in $R^3$ is orthogonal to $T_x$ for all $x$, i.e., $X(f(x))cdot Y=0$ for all $xin R^2$ and $Yin T_x$. Show that $Xcdot (nabla times X)=0$ at all points $f(x)$.




My thoughts: any vector field on $R^3$ can be written as $a(p,q,r)partial_p+b(p,q,r)partial q+c(p,q,r)partial _r$ where $p,q,r$ are coordinates in $R^3$. So $$nablatimes X=(partial_qcpartial_r-partial_rbpartial_q,partial_rapartial_p-partial_pcpartial_r,partial_pbpartial_q-partial_qapartial_p)$$ and



$$Xcdot (nabla times X)=apartial_ppartial_qcpartial_r-apartial_ppartial_rbpartial_q+bpartial_qpartial_rapartial_p-bpartial_qpartial_pcpartial_r+cpartial_rpartial_pbpartial_q-cpartial_rpartial_qapartial _p$$
I need to show that the above expression applied to $f(x)$ is zero for all $xin R^2$. Further, $$X(f(x))=(apartial_pf(x),bpartial_qf(x),cpartial_rf(x))\Y=(partial_xf_1u+partial_yf_1 v,partial_xf_2u+partial_yf_2 v,partial_xf_3u+partial_yf_3 v)$$ where $f=(f_1,f_2,f_3), u,v,in R$. And we are given that $X(f(x))cdot Y=0$. Even if I expand this, I don't know what to do next...







share|cite|improve this question






















  • Haven't you forgotten the coefficients $a$, $b$, $c$ when you take the dot product so that the expression for $X cdot (nabla times X)$ should be $a partial_p partial_q c partial_r - a partial_p partial_r b partial_q + cdots$
    – md2perpe
    Aug 9 at 18:06











  • @md2perpe I have, thanks; fixed. But still no idea how to proceed.
    – user557902851
    Aug 9 at 18:16














up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1













Consider a $C^1$ map $f:R^2to R^3$ such that $df_x:R^2to R^3$ has rank $2$ everywhere. Define the tangent plane $T_x$ as $df_x(R^2)subset R^3$. Suppose a vector field $X$ in $R^3$ is orthogonal to $T_x$ for all $x$, i.e., $X(f(x))cdot Y=0$ for all $xin R^2$ and $Yin T_x$. Show that $Xcdot (nabla times X)=0$ at all points $f(x)$.




My thoughts: any vector field on $R^3$ can be written as $a(p,q,r)partial_p+b(p,q,r)partial q+c(p,q,r)partial _r$ where $p,q,r$ are coordinates in $R^3$. So $$nablatimes X=(partial_qcpartial_r-partial_rbpartial_q,partial_rapartial_p-partial_pcpartial_r,partial_pbpartial_q-partial_qapartial_p)$$ and



$$Xcdot (nabla times X)=apartial_ppartial_qcpartial_r-apartial_ppartial_rbpartial_q+bpartial_qpartial_rapartial_p-bpartial_qpartial_pcpartial_r+cpartial_rpartial_pbpartial_q-cpartial_rpartial_qapartial _p$$
I need to show that the above expression applied to $f(x)$ is zero for all $xin R^2$. Further, $$X(f(x))=(apartial_pf(x),bpartial_qf(x),cpartial_rf(x))\Y=(partial_xf_1u+partial_yf_1 v,partial_xf_2u+partial_yf_2 v,partial_xf_3u+partial_yf_3 v)$$ where $f=(f_1,f_2,f_3), u,v,in R$. And we are given that $X(f(x))cdot Y=0$. Even if I expand this, I don't know what to do next...







share|cite|improve this question






















  • Haven't you forgotten the coefficients $a$, $b$, $c$ when you take the dot product so that the expression for $X cdot (nabla times X)$ should be $a partial_p partial_q c partial_r - a partial_p partial_r b partial_q + cdots$
    – md2perpe
    Aug 9 at 18:06











  • @md2perpe I have, thanks; fixed. But still no idea how to proceed.
    – user557902851
    Aug 9 at 18:16












up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1






1






Consider a $C^1$ map $f:R^2to R^3$ such that $df_x:R^2to R^3$ has rank $2$ everywhere. Define the tangent plane $T_x$ as $df_x(R^2)subset R^3$. Suppose a vector field $X$ in $R^3$ is orthogonal to $T_x$ for all $x$, i.e., $X(f(x))cdot Y=0$ for all $xin R^2$ and $Yin T_x$. Show that $Xcdot (nabla times X)=0$ at all points $f(x)$.




My thoughts: any vector field on $R^3$ can be written as $a(p,q,r)partial_p+b(p,q,r)partial q+c(p,q,r)partial _r$ where $p,q,r$ are coordinates in $R^3$. So $$nablatimes X=(partial_qcpartial_r-partial_rbpartial_q,partial_rapartial_p-partial_pcpartial_r,partial_pbpartial_q-partial_qapartial_p)$$ and



$$Xcdot (nabla times X)=apartial_ppartial_qcpartial_r-apartial_ppartial_rbpartial_q+bpartial_qpartial_rapartial_p-bpartial_qpartial_pcpartial_r+cpartial_rpartial_pbpartial_q-cpartial_rpartial_qapartial _p$$
I need to show that the above expression applied to $f(x)$ is zero for all $xin R^2$. Further, $$X(f(x))=(apartial_pf(x),bpartial_qf(x),cpartial_rf(x))\Y=(partial_xf_1u+partial_yf_1 v,partial_xf_2u+partial_yf_2 v,partial_xf_3u+partial_yf_3 v)$$ where $f=(f_1,f_2,f_3), u,v,in R$. And we are given that $X(f(x))cdot Y=0$. Even if I expand this, I don't know what to do next...







share|cite|improve this question















Consider a $C^1$ map $f:R^2to R^3$ such that $df_x:R^2to R^3$ has rank $2$ everywhere. Define the tangent plane $T_x$ as $df_x(R^2)subset R^3$. Suppose a vector field $X$ in $R^3$ is orthogonal to $T_x$ for all $x$, i.e., $X(f(x))cdot Y=0$ for all $xin R^2$ and $Yin T_x$. Show that $Xcdot (nabla times X)=0$ at all points $f(x)$.




My thoughts: any vector field on $R^3$ can be written as $a(p,q,r)partial_p+b(p,q,r)partial q+c(p,q,r)partial _r$ where $p,q,r$ are coordinates in $R^3$. So $$nablatimes X=(partial_qcpartial_r-partial_rbpartial_q,partial_rapartial_p-partial_pcpartial_r,partial_pbpartial_q-partial_qapartial_p)$$ and



$$Xcdot (nabla times X)=apartial_ppartial_qcpartial_r-apartial_ppartial_rbpartial_q+bpartial_qpartial_rapartial_p-bpartial_qpartial_pcpartial_r+cpartial_rpartial_pbpartial_q-cpartial_rpartial_qapartial _p$$
I need to show that the above expression applied to $f(x)$ is zero for all $xin R^2$. Further, $$X(f(x))=(apartial_pf(x),bpartial_qf(x),cpartial_rf(x))\Y=(partial_xf_1u+partial_yf_1 v,partial_xf_2u+partial_yf_2 v,partial_xf_3u+partial_yf_3 v)$$ where $f=(f_1,f_2,f_3), u,v,in R$. And we are given that $X(f(x))cdot Y=0$. Even if I expand this, I don't know what to do next...









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 9 at 18:15

























asked Aug 9 at 16:55









user557902851

407117




407117











  • Haven't you forgotten the coefficients $a$, $b$, $c$ when you take the dot product so that the expression for $X cdot (nabla times X)$ should be $a partial_p partial_q c partial_r - a partial_p partial_r b partial_q + cdots$
    – md2perpe
    Aug 9 at 18:06











  • @md2perpe I have, thanks; fixed. But still no idea how to proceed.
    – user557902851
    Aug 9 at 18:16
















  • Haven't you forgotten the coefficients $a$, $b$, $c$ when you take the dot product so that the expression for $X cdot (nabla times X)$ should be $a partial_p partial_q c partial_r - a partial_p partial_r b partial_q + cdots$
    – md2perpe
    Aug 9 at 18:06











  • @md2perpe I have, thanks; fixed. But still no idea how to proceed.
    – user557902851
    Aug 9 at 18:16















Haven't you forgotten the coefficients $a$, $b$, $c$ when you take the dot product so that the expression for $X cdot (nabla times X)$ should be $a partial_p partial_q c partial_r - a partial_p partial_r b partial_q + cdots$
– md2perpe
Aug 9 at 18:06





Haven't you forgotten the coefficients $a$, $b$, $c$ when you take the dot product so that the expression for $X cdot (nabla times X)$ should be $a partial_p partial_q c partial_r - a partial_p partial_r b partial_q + cdots$
– md2perpe
Aug 9 at 18:06













@md2perpe I have, thanks; fixed. But still no idea how to proceed.
– user557902851
Aug 9 at 18:16




@md2perpe I have, thanks; fixed. But still no idea how to proceed.
– user557902851
Aug 9 at 18:16










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













Differential forms for the win.



Think of the image of $f$ locally as an (embedded) surface $M$. Take a nonzero $1$-form $omega$ on an open subset of $Bbb R^3$ so that $M$ is an integral manifold of $omega=0$. [For example, express $M$ as a level set of a smooth function $g$ and take $omega = dg$.] The fact that $omega=0$ is integrable tells you that $domega wedgeomega = 0$.



Under the usual dictionary between $1$-forms and vector fields in $Bbb R^3$, if $X$ corresponds to $omega$, $textcurl, X = nablatimes X$ corresponds to the $2$-form $domega$, and the dot product $Xcdot(nablatimes X)$ corresponds to the $3$-form $omegawedge domega$. (It is easy to check, in coordinates, that if you have vector fields $X,Y$ corresponding to $1$-forms $omega,psi$, then $Xcdot Y = star(omegawedgestarpsi)$.)



By the way, note that if we replace $X$ by any functional multiple $phi X$, $(phi X)cdot(nablatimes phi X) = phi^2 Xcdot(nablatimes X) + phi Xcdot (nablaphitimes X) = 0$, as well. From the differential forms viewpoint, we're looking at $(phiomega)wedge d(phiomega) = phi^2 omegawedge domega + phiomegawedge dphiwedgeomega$, and $omegawedge dphiwedgeomega = dphiwedgeomegawedgeomega = 0$, since $omega$ is a $1$-form.



EDIT: More interesting, if we replace $X$ by $X+Z$ for any vector field $Z$ vanishing on $M$, why does $(X+Z)cdotnablatimes(X+Z)$ still vanish on $M$? This boils down to seeing that $Xcdotnablatimes Z = 0$ on $M$. This is true the component of the curl orthogonal to $M$ comes only from partial derivatives of components of $Z$ in directions tangent to $M$, and these vanish because $Z=0$ on $M$. [This, too, is easier to see using differential forms, since we don't need to worry about a particular coordinate system. Choose local coordinates $(x,y,z)$ so that $M = z=0$. Taking $omega = dz + eta$, where $eta = P,dx+Q,dy+R,dz$ vanishes identically on $M$, we want to see that $domegawedgeomega$ still vanishes on $M$. Well, $detawedge dz = left(fracpartial Qpartial x-fracpartial Ppartial yright) dxwedge dywedge dz$, and these partials vanish along $z=0$ since the functions are identically $0$ on $z=0$.]



If you are not familiar with differential forms and integrability, I would recommend proceeding as follows. Write $M$ as $g=0$ and take $X = nabla g$. (Recall that gradients are orthogonal to level sets.) Then $nablatimes X = 0$ and we're done. From my earlier comment, rescaling $X$ won't change the result of the computation.



If you want to justify the assertion that $M$ is (locally) a level set of a smooth function, you need something like the implicit function theorem. It is locally a graph over one of the coordinate planes, say $z=psi(x,y)$. Then take $g(x,y,z) = z-psi(x,y)$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I am not very used to differential forms but I would like to understand this reasoning. "The fact that ω=0 is integrable tells you that dω∧ω=0". What do you mean when you say that " ω=0 is integrable ? " and how do you deduce that?. Maybe I am lost in the terminology can you give some link ?
    – Thomas
    Aug 10 at 9:19











  • This is the simplest case of the Frobenius Theorem. You can find this in any first-year graduate text on differentiable manifolds. ... But do note the last two paragraphs of my post give an elementary argument with no reference to differential forms.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 14:05










  • Regarding your second last paragraph, doesn't the reasoning there require that $X = phi , nabla g$ in a neighborhood of $M$? We only know that it's valid on $M,$ don't we?
    – md2perpe
    Aug 10 at 17:24










  • @md2perpe: My apologies. Great call. I will edit.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 18:27











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: "69"
;
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2877446%2fprove-that-x-cdot-nabla-times-x-0-where-x-perp-t-x%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
1
down vote













Differential forms for the win.



Think of the image of $f$ locally as an (embedded) surface $M$. Take a nonzero $1$-form $omega$ on an open subset of $Bbb R^3$ so that $M$ is an integral manifold of $omega=0$. [For example, express $M$ as a level set of a smooth function $g$ and take $omega = dg$.] The fact that $omega=0$ is integrable tells you that $domega wedgeomega = 0$.



Under the usual dictionary between $1$-forms and vector fields in $Bbb R^3$, if $X$ corresponds to $omega$, $textcurl, X = nablatimes X$ corresponds to the $2$-form $domega$, and the dot product $Xcdot(nablatimes X)$ corresponds to the $3$-form $omegawedge domega$. (It is easy to check, in coordinates, that if you have vector fields $X,Y$ corresponding to $1$-forms $omega,psi$, then $Xcdot Y = star(omegawedgestarpsi)$.)



By the way, note that if we replace $X$ by any functional multiple $phi X$, $(phi X)cdot(nablatimes phi X) = phi^2 Xcdot(nablatimes X) + phi Xcdot (nablaphitimes X) = 0$, as well. From the differential forms viewpoint, we're looking at $(phiomega)wedge d(phiomega) = phi^2 omegawedge domega + phiomegawedge dphiwedgeomega$, and $omegawedge dphiwedgeomega = dphiwedgeomegawedgeomega = 0$, since $omega$ is a $1$-form.



EDIT: More interesting, if we replace $X$ by $X+Z$ for any vector field $Z$ vanishing on $M$, why does $(X+Z)cdotnablatimes(X+Z)$ still vanish on $M$? This boils down to seeing that $Xcdotnablatimes Z = 0$ on $M$. This is true the component of the curl orthogonal to $M$ comes only from partial derivatives of components of $Z$ in directions tangent to $M$, and these vanish because $Z=0$ on $M$. [This, too, is easier to see using differential forms, since we don't need to worry about a particular coordinate system. Choose local coordinates $(x,y,z)$ so that $M = z=0$. Taking $omega = dz + eta$, where $eta = P,dx+Q,dy+R,dz$ vanishes identically on $M$, we want to see that $domegawedgeomega$ still vanishes on $M$. Well, $detawedge dz = left(fracpartial Qpartial x-fracpartial Ppartial yright) dxwedge dywedge dz$, and these partials vanish along $z=0$ since the functions are identically $0$ on $z=0$.]



If you are not familiar with differential forms and integrability, I would recommend proceeding as follows. Write $M$ as $g=0$ and take $X = nabla g$. (Recall that gradients are orthogonal to level sets.) Then $nablatimes X = 0$ and we're done. From my earlier comment, rescaling $X$ won't change the result of the computation.



If you want to justify the assertion that $M$ is (locally) a level set of a smooth function, you need something like the implicit function theorem. It is locally a graph over one of the coordinate planes, say $z=psi(x,y)$. Then take $g(x,y,z) = z-psi(x,y)$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I am not very used to differential forms but I would like to understand this reasoning. "The fact that ω=0 is integrable tells you that dω∧ω=0". What do you mean when you say that " ω=0 is integrable ? " and how do you deduce that?. Maybe I am lost in the terminology can you give some link ?
    – Thomas
    Aug 10 at 9:19











  • This is the simplest case of the Frobenius Theorem. You can find this in any first-year graduate text on differentiable manifolds. ... But do note the last two paragraphs of my post give an elementary argument with no reference to differential forms.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 14:05










  • Regarding your second last paragraph, doesn't the reasoning there require that $X = phi , nabla g$ in a neighborhood of $M$? We only know that it's valid on $M,$ don't we?
    – md2perpe
    Aug 10 at 17:24










  • @md2perpe: My apologies. Great call. I will edit.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 18:27















up vote
1
down vote













Differential forms for the win.



Think of the image of $f$ locally as an (embedded) surface $M$. Take a nonzero $1$-form $omega$ on an open subset of $Bbb R^3$ so that $M$ is an integral manifold of $omega=0$. [For example, express $M$ as a level set of a smooth function $g$ and take $omega = dg$.] The fact that $omega=0$ is integrable tells you that $domega wedgeomega = 0$.



Under the usual dictionary between $1$-forms and vector fields in $Bbb R^3$, if $X$ corresponds to $omega$, $textcurl, X = nablatimes X$ corresponds to the $2$-form $domega$, and the dot product $Xcdot(nablatimes X)$ corresponds to the $3$-form $omegawedge domega$. (It is easy to check, in coordinates, that if you have vector fields $X,Y$ corresponding to $1$-forms $omega,psi$, then $Xcdot Y = star(omegawedgestarpsi)$.)



By the way, note that if we replace $X$ by any functional multiple $phi X$, $(phi X)cdot(nablatimes phi X) = phi^2 Xcdot(nablatimes X) + phi Xcdot (nablaphitimes X) = 0$, as well. From the differential forms viewpoint, we're looking at $(phiomega)wedge d(phiomega) = phi^2 omegawedge domega + phiomegawedge dphiwedgeomega$, and $omegawedge dphiwedgeomega = dphiwedgeomegawedgeomega = 0$, since $omega$ is a $1$-form.



EDIT: More interesting, if we replace $X$ by $X+Z$ for any vector field $Z$ vanishing on $M$, why does $(X+Z)cdotnablatimes(X+Z)$ still vanish on $M$? This boils down to seeing that $Xcdotnablatimes Z = 0$ on $M$. This is true the component of the curl orthogonal to $M$ comes only from partial derivatives of components of $Z$ in directions tangent to $M$, and these vanish because $Z=0$ on $M$. [This, too, is easier to see using differential forms, since we don't need to worry about a particular coordinate system. Choose local coordinates $(x,y,z)$ so that $M = z=0$. Taking $omega = dz + eta$, where $eta = P,dx+Q,dy+R,dz$ vanishes identically on $M$, we want to see that $domegawedgeomega$ still vanishes on $M$. Well, $detawedge dz = left(fracpartial Qpartial x-fracpartial Ppartial yright) dxwedge dywedge dz$, and these partials vanish along $z=0$ since the functions are identically $0$ on $z=0$.]



If you are not familiar with differential forms and integrability, I would recommend proceeding as follows. Write $M$ as $g=0$ and take $X = nabla g$. (Recall that gradients are orthogonal to level sets.) Then $nablatimes X = 0$ and we're done. From my earlier comment, rescaling $X$ won't change the result of the computation.



If you want to justify the assertion that $M$ is (locally) a level set of a smooth function, you need something like the implicit function theorem. It is locally a graph over one of the coordinate planes, say $z=psi(x,y)$. Then take $g(x,y,z) = z-psi(x,y)$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • I am not very used to differential forms but I would like to understand this reasoning. "The fact that ω=0 is integrable tells you that dω∧ω=0". What do you mean when you say that " ω=0 is integrable ? " and how do you deduce that?. Maybe I am lost in the terminology can you give some link ?
    – Thomas
    Aug 10 at 9:19











  • This is the simplest case of the Frobenius Theorem. You can find this in any first-year graduate text on differentiable manifolds. ... But do note the last two paragraphs of my post give an elementary argument with no reference to differential forms.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 14:05










  • Regarding your second last paragraph, doesn't the reasoning there require that $X = phi , nabla g$ in a neighborhood of $M$? We only know that it's valid on $M,$ don't we?
    – md2perpe
    Aug 10 at 17:24










  • @md2perpe: My apologies. Great call. I will edit.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 18:27













up vote
1
down vote










up vote
1
down vote









Differential forms for the win.



Think of the image of $f$ locally as an (embedded) surface $M$. Take a nonzero $1$-form $omega$ on an open subset of $Bbb R^3$ so that $M$ is an integral manifold of $omega=0$. [For example, express $M$ as a level set of a smooth function $g$ and take $omega = dg$.] The fact that $omega=0$ is integrable tells you that $domega wedgeomega = 0$.



Under the usual dictionary between $1$-forms and vector fields in $Bbb R^3$, if $X$ corresponds to $omega$, $textcurl, X = nablatimes X$ corresponds to the $2$-form $domega$, and the dot product $Xcdot(nablatimes X)$ corresponds to the $3$-form $omegawedge domega$. (It is easy to check, in coordinates, that if you have vector fields $X,Y$ corresponding to $1$-forms $omega,psi$, then $Xcdot Y = star(omegawedgestarpsi)$.)



By the way, note that if we replace $X$ by any functional multiple $phi X$, $(phi X)cdot(nablatimes phi X) = phi^2 Xcdot(nablatimes X) + phi Xcdot (nablaphitimes X) = 0$, as well. From the differential forms viewpoint, we're looking at $(phiomega)wedge d(phiomega) = phi^2 omegawedge domega + phiomegawedge dphiwedgeomega$, and $omegawedge dphiwedgeomega = dphiwedgeomegawedgeomega = 0$, since $omega$ is a $1$-form.



EDIT: More interesting, if we replace $X$ by $X+Z$ for any vector field $Z$ vanishing on $M$, why does $(X+Z)cdotnablatimes(X+Z)$ still vanish on $M$? This boils down to seeing that $Xcdotnablatimes Z = 0$ on $M$. This is true the component of the curl orthogonal to $M$ comes only from partial derivatives of components of $Z$ in directions tangent to $M$, and these vanish because $Z=0$ on $M$. [This, too, is easier to see using differential forms, since we don't need to worry about a particular coordinate system. Choose local coordinates $(x,y,z)$ so that $M = z=0$. Taking $omega = dz + eta$, where $eta = P,dx+Q,dy+R,dz$ vanishes identically on $M$, we want to see that $domegawedgeomega$ still vanishes on $M$. Well, $detawedge dz = left(fracpartial Qpartial x-fracpartial Ppartial yright) dxwedge dywedge dz$, and these partials vanish along $z=0$ since the functions are identically $0$ on $z=0$.]



If you are not familiar with differential forms and integrability, I would recommend proceeding as follows. Write $M$ as $g=0$ and take $X = nabla g$. (Recall that gradients are orthogonal to level sets.) Then $nablatimes X = 0$ and we're done. From my earlier comment, rescaling $X$ won't change the result of the computation.



If you want to justify the assertion that $M$ is (locally) a level set of a smooth function, you need something like the implicit function theorem. It is locally a graph over one of the coordinate planes, say $z=psi(x,y)$. Then take $g(x,y,z) = z-psi(x,y)$.






share|cite|improve this answer














Differential forms for the win.



Think of the image of $f$ locally as an (embedded) surface $M$. Take a nonzero $1$-form $omega$ on an open subset of $Bbb R^3$ so that $M$ is an integral manifold of $omega=0$. [For example, express $M$ as a level set of a smooth function $g$ and take $omega = dg$.] The fact that $omega=0$ is integrable tells you that $domega wedgeomega = 0$.



Under the usual dictionary between $1$-forms and vector fields in $Bbb R^3$, if $X$ corresponds to $omega$, $textcurl, X = nablatimes X$ corresponds to the $2$-form $domega$, and the dot product $Xcdot(nablatimes X)$ corresponds to the $3$-form $omegawedge domega$. (It is easy to check, in coordinates, that if you have vector fields $X,Y$ corresponding to $1$-forms $omega,psi$, then $Xcdot Y = star(omegawedgestarpsi)$.)



By the way, note that if we replace $X$ by any functional multiple $phi X$, $(phi X)cdot(nablatimes phi X) = phi^2 Xcdot(nablatimes X) + phi Xcdot (nablaphitimes X) = 0$, as well. From the differential forms viewpoint, we're looking at $(phiomega)wedge d(phiomega) = phi^2 omegawedge domega + phiomegawedge dphiwedgeomega$, and $omegawedge dphiwedgeomega = dphiwedgeomegawedgeomega = 0$, since $omega$ is a $1$-form.



EDIT: More interesting, if we replace $X$ by $X+Z$ for any vector field $Z$ vanishing on $M$, why does $(X+Z)cdotnablatimes(X+Z)$ still vanish on $M$? This boils down to seeing that $Xcdotnablatimes Z = 0$ on $M$. This is true the component of the curl orthogonal to $M$ comes only from partial derivatives of components of $Z$ in directions tangent to $M$, and these vanish because $Z=0$ on $M$. [This, too, is easier to see using differential forms, since we don't need to worry about a particular coordinate system. Choose local coordinates $(x,y,z)$ so that $M = z=0$. Taking $omega = dz + eta$, where $eta = P,dx+Q,dy+R,dz$ vanishes identically on $M$, we want to see that $domegawedgeomega$ still vanishes on $M$. Well, $detawedge dz = left(fracpartial Qpartial x-fracpartial Ppartial yright) dxwedge dywedge dz$, and these partials vanish along $z=0$ since the functions are identically $0$ on $z=0$.]



If you are not familiar with differential forms and integrability, I would recommend proceeding as follows. Write $M$ as $g=0$ and take $X = nabla g$. (Recall that gradients are orthogonal to level sets.) Then $nablatimes X = 0$ and we're done. From my earlier comment, rescaling $X$ won't change the result of the computation.



If you want to justify the assertion that $M$ is (locally) a level set of a smooth function, you need something like the implicit function theorem. It is locally a graph over one of the coordinate planes, say $z=psi(x,y)$. Then take $g(x,y,z) = z-psi(x,y)$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 10 at 18:42

























answered Aug 10 at 0:17









Ted Shifrin

59.8k44387




59.8k44387











  • I am not very used to differential forms but I would like to understand this reasoning. "The fact that ω=0 is integrable tells you that dω∧ω=0". What do you mean when you say that " ω=0 is integrable ? " and how do you deduce that?. Maybe I am lost in the terminology can you give some link ?
    – Thomas
    Aug 10 at 9:19











  • This is the simplest case of the Frobenius Theorem. You can find this in any first-year graduate text on differentiable manifolds. ... But do note the last two paragraphs of my post give an elementary argument with no reference to differential forms.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 14:05










  • Regarding your second last paragraph, doesn't the reasoning there require that $X = phi , nabla g$ in a neighborhood of $M$? We only know that it's valid on $M,$ don't we?
    – md2perpe
    Aug 10 at 17:24










  • @md2perpe: My apologies. Great call. I will edit.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 18:27

















  • I am not very used to differential forms but I would like to understand this reasoning. "The fact that ω=0 is integrable tells you that dω∧ω=0". What do you mean when you say that " ω=0 is integrable ? " and how do you deduce that?. Maybe I am lost in the terminology can you give some link ?
    – Thomas
    Aug 10 at 9:19











  • This is the simplest case of the Frobenius Theorem. You can find this in any first-year graduate text on differentiable manifolds. ... But do note the last two paragraphs of my post give an elementary argument with no reference to differential forms.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 14:05










  • Regarding your second last paragraph, doesn't the reasoning there require that $X = phi , nabla g$ in a neighborhood of $M$? We only know that it's valid on $M,$ don't we?
    – md2perpe
    Aug 10 at 17:24










  • @md2perpe: My apologies. Great call. I will edit.
    – Ted Shifrin
    Aug 10 at 18:27
















I am not very used to differential forms but I would like to understand this reasoning. "The fact that ω=0 is integrable tells you that dω∧ω=0". What do you mean when you say that " ω=0 is integrable ? " and how do you deduce that?. Maybe I am lost in the terminology can you give some link ?
– Thomas
Aug 10 at 9:19





I am not very used to differential forms but I would like to understand this reasoning. "The fact that ω=0 is integrable tells you that dω∧ω=0". What do you mean when you say that " ω=0 is integrable ? " and how do you deduce that?. Maybe I am lost in the terminology can you give some link ?
– Thomas
Aug 10 at 9:19













This is the simplest case of the Frobenius Theorem. You can find this in any first-year graduate text on differentiable manifolds. ... But do note the last two paragraphs of my post give an elementary argument with no reference to differential forms.
– Ted Shifrin
Aug 10 at 14:05




This is the simplest case of the Frobenius Theorem. You can find this in any first-year graduate text on differentiable manifolds. ... But do note the last two paragraphs of my post give an elementary argument with no reference to differential forms.
– Ted Shifrin
Aug 10 at 14:05












Regarding your second last paragraph, doesn't the reasoning there require that $X = phi , nabla g$ in a neighborhood of $M$? We only know that it's valid on $M,$ don't we?
– md2perpe
Aug 10 at 17:24




Regarding your second last paragraph, doesn't the reasoning there require that $X = phi , nabla g$ in a neighborhood of $M$? We only know that it's valid on $M,$ don't we?
– md2perpe
Aug 10 at 17:24












@md2perpe: My apologies. Great call. I will edit.
– Ted Shifrin
Aug 10 at 18:27





@md2perpe: My apologies. Great call. I will edit.
– Ted Shifrin
Aug 10 at 18:27













 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2877446%2fprove-that-x-cdot-nabla-times-x-0-where-x-perp-t-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

1st Magritte Awards