Definition of arc length on manifolds without parametrization

In summary, the arc length of a curve on a manifold can be defined without using any parametrization by taking the limit of the length of approximating polygons. However, this method only works for certain manifolds that have a fixed metric and for which it is relatively easy to calculate the distance between two points, such as the hyperbolic plane. In general, there is no canonical method for defining arc length on a curve on a manifold as the local coordinate systems of the manifold are related by diffeomorphisms which do not preserve a distance-function or arc length function.
  • #36
mma said:
I suspect that [tex]\mathrm{grad}(a_x) = \dot{\gamma}[/tex].

Here [tex]a_x(y) := d(x,y)[/tex], the distance between x and y (I forgot to mention this in my previous post), and [tex]\gamma[/tex] is a geodesic through x, parametrized by its arc length)

So, my question is: how can I prove this?

Because the level sets of the distance function are perpedicular to the gradient vector of it, and these level sets are n-1-dimensional submanifolds, it would be enough to prove that the geodesics passing through x are always perpedicular to the level sets of the [tex]d(x,y)[/tex] distance function. Could anybody prove this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
mma said:
it would be enough to prove that the geodesics passing through x are always perpedicular to the level sets of the [tex]d(x,y)[/tex] distance function.

Bingo! It's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_lemma_(Riemannian_geometry)"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • Differential Geometry
Replies
2
Views
600
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
840
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top