Lower and Upper Bound for Ricci Curvature

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











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












As mentioned in first chapter of John M. Lee: Riemannian Geometry, one of our goal in differential geometry is connecting geometry and topology. For this reason it is natural to compare curvature quantities with its correspondence in model spaces; e.g. $Ric geq k g, Ricgeq0$. But I never seen any result about $Ricleq kg$ or $Ric geq -k g$ for some positive constance $k$.




Does this conditions deduced from earlier one? or topology of this manifolds are so complicated to handle?











share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    As mentioned in first chapter of John M. Lee: Riemannian Geometry, one of our goal in differential geometry is connecting geometry and topology. For this reason it is natural to compare curvature quantities with its correspondence in model spaces; e.g. $Ric geq k g, Ricgeq0$. But I never seen any result about $Ricleq kg$ or $Ric geq -k g$ for some positive constance $k$.




    Does this conditions deduced from earlier one? or topology of this manifolds are so complicated to handle?











    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      As mentioned in first chapter of John M. Lee: Riemannian Geometry, one of our goal in differential geometry is connecting geometry and topology. For this reason it is natural to compare curvature quantities with its correspondence in model spaces; e.g. $Ric geq k g, Ricgeq0$. But I never seen any result about $Ricleq kg$ or $Ric geq -k g$ for some positive constance $k$.




      Does this conditions deduced from earlier one? or topology of this manifolds are so complicated to handle?











      share|cite|improve this question













      As mentioned in first chapter of John M. Lee: Riemannian Geometry, one of our goal in differential geometry is connecting geometry and topology. For this reason it is natural to compare curvature quantities with its correspondence in model spaces; e.g. $Ric geq k g, Ricgeq0$. But I never seen any result about $Ricleq kg$ or $Ric geq -k g$ for some positive constance $k$.




      Does this conditions deduced from earlier one? or topology of this manifolds are so complicated to handle?








      differential-geometry differential-topology riemannian-geometry curvature






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Sep 2 at 5:37









      C.F.G

      1,3151521




      1,3151521




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          There can be no topological consequences of estimates of the form $Ric le k g$ or $Ric ge -k g$ (at least in dimensions greater that $2$), because this paper by Joachim Lohkamp shows that every smooth manifold of dimension at least $3$ admits a complete metric whose Ricci curvature is bounded between two negative constants.



          Addition:



          Your comments suggest that you may have some misunderstanding about what these inequalities mean. Here are some remarks that might help to clarify what's going on.



          • First, an equality like $Ricle k$ or $Ric ge k$ is really shorthand for $Ricle kg$ or $Ric ge kg$. Equivalent statements are that $Ric(v,v)le k$ (resp. $ge k$) for every unit vector $v$; or $Ric(v,v) le k|v|^2$ (resp. $ge k|v|^2$) for every tangent vector $v$. For example, if an $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold has sectional curvatures bounded above by a constant $c$, then its Ricci curvature is bounded above by $(n-1)c$.

          • Second, note that the metrics whose existence is guaranteed by Lohkamp satisfy $Ric le -k_2g$ for some positive constant $k_2$. By transitivity, such a metric therefore also satisfies $Ric le k g$ for every positive constant $k$, so there is no topological consequence that can be deduced from any upper bound on Ricci curvature.

          • Next, it certainly does not follow from Lohkamp's theorem (and it's not true) that no manifold admits a metric whose Ricci curvature is positive somewhere and negative somewhere else, as you seemed to suggest in a comment. In fact, every manifold admits such a metric -- you can just use a bump function to "paste in" a positively curved metric in one open set, and paste in a negatively curved metric in a different open set.

          • Finally you asked what topological consequences can be deduced from estimates of the form $Kle k$ or $Kge -k$ (where $K$ represents sectional curvature). The answer is none -- this paper by R. E. Greene showed that every manifold admits a complete metric satisfying both of these inequalities.

          Hope this helps.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Do you mean that all manifolds admit a metric with $Ricleq k$ or $Ric geq -k$? what we can say about topological properties of manifolds with $Kleq k$ or $Kgeq -k$?
            – C.F.G
            Sep 3 at 5:40











          • @C.F.G: Lohkamp's theorem says that every manifold admits a metric with $-k_1gle Ric le -k_2g < 0$ for positive constants $k_1,k_2$. Any such metric satisfies both of the hypotheses you asked about: $Ric le -k_2g$ and $Ric ge -k_1g$.
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38










          • @C.F.G.: What do you mean by $K$?
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38











          • Dear Prof. Jack Lee, note that one of my hypotheses is $Ric le k_2g$ and not $Ric le -k_2g$. $K$ denotes sectional curvature.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:21










          • Is the hypotheses $Ric geq -k_2$ equivalent to negative Ricci curvature as you mentioned above? i.e. No manifolds admit some positive somewhere and negative Ricci curvature somewhere.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:27










          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%2f2902375%2flower-and-upper-bound-for-ricci-curvature%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
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          There can be no topological consequences of estimates of the form $Ric le k g$ or $Ric ge -k g$ (at least in dimensions greater that $2$), because this paper by Joachim Lohkamp shows that every smooth manifold of dimension at least $3$ admits a complete metric whose Ricci curvature is bounded between two negative constants.



          Addition:



          Your comments suggest that you may have some misunderstanding about what these inequalities mean. Here are some remarks that might help to clarify what's going on.



          • First, an equality like $Ricle k$ or $Ric ge k$ is really shorthand for $Ricle kg$ or $Ric ge kg$. Equivalent statements are that $Ric(v,v)le k$ (resp. $ge k$) for every unit vector $v$; or $Ric(v,v) le k|v|^2$ (resp. $ge k|v|^2$) for every tangent vector $v$. For example, if an $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold has sectional curvatures bounded above by a constant $c$, then its Ricci curvature is bounded above by $(n-1)c$.

          • Second, note that the metrics whose existence is guaranteed by Lohkamp satisfy $Ric le -k_2g$ for some positive constant $k_2$. By transitivity, such a metric therefore also satisfies $Ric le k g$ for every positive constant $k$, so there is no topological consequence that can be deduced from any upper bound on Ricci curvature.

          • Next, it certainly does not follow from Lohkamp's theorem (and it's not true) that no manifold admits a metric whose Ricci curvature is positive somewhere and negative somewhere else, as you seemed to suggest in a comment. In fact, every manifold admits such a metric -- you can just use a bump function to "paste in" a positively curved metric in one open set, and paste in a negatively curved metric in a different open set.

          • Finally you asked what topological consequences can be deduced from estimates of the form $Kle k$ or $Kge -k$ (where $K$ represents sectional curvature). The answer is none -- this paper by R. E. Greene showed that every manifold admits a complete metric satisfying both of these inequalities.

          Hope this helps.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Do you mean that all manifolds admit a metric with $Ricleq k$ or $Ric geq -k$? what we can say about topological properties of manifolds with $Kleq k$ or $Kgeq -k$?
            – C.F.G
            Sep 3 at 5:40











          • @C.F.G: Lohkamp's theorem says that every manifold admits a metric with $-k_1gle Ric le -k_2g < 0$ for positive constants $k_1,k_2$. Any such metric satisfies both of the hypotheses you asked about: $Ric le -k_2g$ and $Ric ge -k_1g$.
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38










          • @C.F.G.: What do you mean by $K$?
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38











          • Dear Prof. Jack Lee, note that one of my hypotheses is $Ric le k_2g$ and not $Ric le -k_2g$. $K$ denotes sectional curvature.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:21










          • Is the hypotheses $Ric geq -k_2$ equivalent to negative Ricci curvature as you mentioned above? i.e. No manifolds admit some positive somewhere and negative Ricci curvature somewhere.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:27














          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted










          There can be no topological consequences of estimates of the form $Ric le k g$ or $Ric ge -k g$ (at least in dimensions greater that $2$), because this paper by Joachim Lohkamp shows that every smooth manifold of dimension at least $3$ admits a complete metric whose Ricci curvature is bounded between two negative constants.



          Addition:



          Your comments suggest that you may have some misunderstanding about what these inequalities mean. Here are some remarks that might help to clarify what's going on.



          • First, an equality like $Ricle k$ or $Ric ge k$ is really shorthand for $Ricle kg$ or $Ric ge kg$. Equivalent statements are that $Ric(v,v)le k$ (resp. $ge k$) for every unit vector $v$; or $Ric(v,v) le k|v|^2$ (resp. $ge k|v|^2$) for every tangent vector $v$. For example, if an $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold has sectional curvatures bounded above by a constant $c$, then its Ricci curvature is bounded above by $(n-1)c$.

          • Second, note that the metrics whose existence is guaranteed by Lohkamp satisfy $Ric le -k_2g$ for some positive constant $k_2$. By transitivity, such a metric therefore also satisfies $Ric le k g$ for every positive constant $k$, so there is no topological consequence that can be deduced from any upper bound on Ricci curvature.

          • Next, it certainly does not follow from Lohkamp's theorem (and it's not true) that no manifold admits a metric whose Ricci curvature is positive somewhere and negative somewhere else, as you seemed to suggest in a comment. In fact, every manifold admits such a metric -- you can just use a bump function to "paste in" a positively curved metric in one open set, and paste in a negatively curved metric in a different open set.

          • Finally you asked what topological consequences can be deduced from estimates of the form $Kle k$ or $Kge -k$ (where $K$ represents sectional curvature). The answer is none -- this paper by R. E. Greene showed that every manifold admits a complete metric satisfying both of these inequalities.

          Hope this helps.






          share|cite|improve this answer






















          • Do you mean that all manifolds admit a metric with $Ricleq k$ or $Ric geq -k$? what we can say about topological properties of manifolds with $Kleq k$ or $Kgeq -k$?
            – C.F.G
            Sep 3 at 5:40











          • @C.F.G: Lohkamp's theorem says that every manifold admits a metric with $-k_1gle Ric le -k_2g < 0$ for positive constants $k_1,k_2$. Any such metric satisfies both of the hypotheses you asked about: $Ric le -k_2g$ and $Ric ge -k_1g$.
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38










          • @C.F.G.: What do you mean by $K$?
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38











          • Dear Prof. Jack Lee, note that one of my hypotheses is $Ric le k_2g$ and not $Ric le -k_2g$. $K$ denotes sectional curvature.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:21










          • Is the hypotheses $Ric geq -k_2$ equivalent to negative Ricci curvature as you mentioned above? i.e. No manifolds admit some positive somewhere and negative Ricci curvature somewhere.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:27












          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          2
          down vote



          accepted






          There can be no topological consequences of estimates of the form $Ric le k g$ or $Ric ge -k g$ (at least in dimensions greater that $2$), because this paper by Joachim Lohkamp shows that every smooth manifold of dimension at least $3$ admits a complete metric whose Ricci curvature is bounded between two negative constants.



          Addition:



          Your comments suggest that you may have some misunderstanding about what these inequalities mean. Here are some remarks that might help to clarify what's going on.



          • First, an equality like $Ricle k$ or $Ric ge k$ is really shorthand for $Ricle kg$ or $Ric ge kg$. Equivalent statements are that $Ric(v,v)le k$ (resp. $ge k$) for every unit vector $v$; or $Ric(v,v) le k|v|^2$ (resp. $ge k|v|^2$) for every tangent vector $v$. For example, if an $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold has sectional curvatures bounded above by a constant $c$, then its Ricci curvature is bounded above by $(n-1)c$.

          • Second, note that the metrics whose existence is guaranteed by Lohkamp satisfy $Ric le -k_2g$ for some positive constant $k_2$. By transitivity, such a metric therefore also satisfies $Ric le k g$ for every positive constant $k$, so there is no topological consequence that can be deduced from any upper bound on Ricci curvature.

          • Next, it certainly does not follow from Lohkamp's theorem (and it's not true) that no manifold admits a metric whose Ricci curvature is positive somewhere and negative somewhere else, as you seemed to suggest in a comment. In fact, every manifold admits such a metric -- you can just use a bump function to "paste in" a positively curved metric in one open set, and paste in a negatively curved metric in a different open set.

          • Finally you asked what topological consequences can be deduced from estimates of the form $Kle k$ or $Kge -k$ (where $K$ represents sectional curvature). The answer is none -- this paper by R. E. Greene showed that every manifold admits a complete metric satisfying both of these inequalities.

          Hope this helps.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          There can be no topological consequences of estimates of the form $Ric le k g$ or $Ric ge -k g$ (at least in dimensions greater that $2$), because this paper by Joachim Lohkamp shows that every smooth manifold of dimension at least $3$ admits a complete metric whose Ricci curvature is bounded between two negative constants.



          Addition:



          Your comments suggest that you may have some misunderstanding about what these inequalities mean. Here are some remarks that might help to clarify what's going on.



          • First, an equality like $Ricle k$ or $Ric ge k$ is really shorthand for $Ricle kg$ or $Ric ge kg$. Equivalent statements are that $Ric(v,v)le k$ (resp. $ge k$) for every unit vector $v$; or $Ric(v,v) le k|v|^2$ (resp. $ge k|v|^2$) for every tangent vector $v$. For example, if an $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold has sectional curvatures bounded above by a constant $c$, then its Ricci curvature is bounded above by $(n-1)c$.

          • Second, note that the metrics whose existence is guaranteed by Lohkamp satisfy $Ric le -k_2g$ for some positive constant $k_2$. By transitivity, such a metric therefore also satisfies $Ric le k g$ for every positive constant $k$, so there is no topological consequence that can be deduced from any upper bound on Ricci curvature.

          • Next, it certainly does not follow from Lohkamp's theorem (and it's not true) that no manifold admits a metric whose Ricci curvature is positive somewhere and negative somewhere else, as you seemed to suggest in a comment. In fact, every manifold admits such a metric -- you can just use a bump function to "paste in" a positively curved metric in one open set, and paste in a negatively curved metric in a different open set.

          • Finally you asked what topological consequences can be deduced from estimates of the form $Kle k$ or $Kge -k$ (where $K$ represents sectional curvature). The answer is none -- this paper by R. E. Greene showed that every manifold admits a complete metric satisfying both of these inequalities.

          Hope this helps.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Sep 8 at 18:57

























          answered Sep 2 at 17:49









          Jack Lee

          25.6k44362




          25.6k44362











          • Do you mean that all manifolds admit a metric with $Ricleq k$ or $Ric geq -k$? what we can say about topological properties of manifolds with $Kleq k$ or $Kgeq -k$?
            – C.F.G
            Sep 3 at 5:40











          • @C.F.G: Lohkamp's theorem says that every manifold admits a metric with $-k_1gle Ric le -k_2g < 0$ for positive constants $k_1,k_2$. Any such metric satisfies both of the hypotheses you asked about: $Ric le -k_2g$ and $Ric ge -k_1g$.
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38










          • @C.F.G.: What do you mean by $K$?
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38











          • Dear Prof. Jack Lee, note that one of my hypotheses is $Ric le k_2g$ and not $Ric le -k_2g$. $K$ denotes sectional curvature.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:21










          • Is the hypotheses $Ric geq -k_2$ equivalent to negative Ricci curvature as you mentioned above? i.e. No manifolds admit some positive somewhere and negative Ricci curvature somewhere.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:27
















          • Do you mean that all manifolds admit a metric with $Ricleq k$ or $Ric geq -k$? what we can say about topological properties of manifolds with $Kleq k$ or $Kgeq -k$?
            – C.F.G
            Sep 3 at 5:40











          • @C.F.G: Lohkamp's theorem says that every manifold admits a metric with $-k_1gle Ric le -k_2g < 0$ for positive constants $k_1,k_2$. Any such metric satisfies both of the hypotheses you asked about: $Ric le -k_2g$ and $Ric ge -k_1g$.
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38










          • @C.F.G.: What do you mean by $K$?
            – Jack Lee
            Sep 3 at 15:38











          • Dear Prof. Jack Lee, note that one of my hypotheses is $Ric le k_2g$ and not $Ric le -k_2g$. $K$ denotes sectional curvature.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:21










          • Is the hypotheses $Ric geq -k_2$ equivalent to negative Ricci curvature as you mentioned above? i.e. No manifolds admit some positive somewhere and negative Ricci curvature somewhere.
            – C.F.G
            Sep 4 at 5:27















          Do you mean that all manifolds admit a metric with $Ricleq k$ or $Ric geq -k$? what we can say about topological properties of manifolds with $Kleq k$ or $Kgeq -k$?
          – C.F.G
          Sep 3 at 5:40





          Do you mean that all manifolds admit a metric with $Ricleq k$ or $Ric geq -k$? what we can say about topological properties of manifolds with $Kleq k$ or $Kgeq -k$?
          – C.F.G
          Sep 3 at 5:40













          @C.F.G: Lohkamp's theorem says that every manifold admits a metric with $-k_1gle Ric le -k_2g < 0$ for positive constants $k_1,k_2$. Any such metric satisfies both of the hypotheses you asked about: $Ric le -k_2g$ and $Ric ge -k_1g$.
          – Jack Lee
          Sep 3 at 15:38




          @C.F.G: Lohkamp's theorem says that every manifold admits a metric with $-k_1gle Ric le -k_2g < 0$ for positive constants $k_1,k_2$. Any such metric satisfies both of the hypotheses you asked about: $Ric le -k_2g$ and $Ric ge -k_1g$.
          – Jack Lee
          Sep 3 at 15:38












          @C.F.G.: What do you mean by $K$?
          – Jack Lee
          Sep 3 at 15:38





          @C.F.G.: What do you mean by $K$?
          – Jack Lee
          Sep 3 at 15:38













          Dear Prof. Jack Lee, note that one of my hypotheses is $Ric le k_2g$ and not $Ric le -k_2g$. $K$ denotes sectional curvature.
          – C.F.G
          Sep 4 at 5:21




          Dear Prof. Jack Lee, note that one of my hypotheses is $Ric le k_2g$ and not $Ric le -k_2g$. $K$ denotes sectional curvature.
          – C.F.G
          Sep 4 at 5:21












          Is the hypotheses $Ric geq -k_2$ equivalent to negative Ricci curvature as you mentioned above? i.e. No manifolds admit some positive somewhere and negative Ricci curvature somewhere.
          – C.F.G
          Sep 4 at 5:27




          Is the hypotheses $Ric geq -k_2$ equivalent to negative Ricci curvature as you mentioned above? i.e. No manifolds admit some positive somewhere and negative Ricci curvature somewhere.
          – C.F.G
          Sep 4 at 5:27

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2902375%2flower-and-upper-bound-for-ricci-curvature%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