Integrable vs. Completely Integrable Distributions

In summary, Frobenius' theorem states that integrability and complete integrability are equivalent, and that the distinction between the two is only useful up to the point where Frobenius' theorem is proved.
  • #1
center o bass
560
2
I am a bit puzzled about the distinction between integrable, and completely integrable distributions. Before I pose my question, let me first define the terms:

A distribution ##D## of dimension ##k## on ##M## is a smooth collection of ##k##-dimensional subspaces ##D_p \subset T_pM## with ##D = \cup_{p\in M}D_p##. Consider ##D##.

##D## is said to be integrable if one can find an (immersed) submanifold ##S## for every point ##p \in M## such that ##D_p = T_pS##.

##D## is said to be completely integrable if one can find a neighbourhood ##U## about every point, and a corresponding coordinate chart ##(U,\phi)## with the property that the coordinate basis vectors ##\partial_1, \ldots, \partial_k## spans ##D_p##.

Question: Why is this distinction necessary? Suppose we have an integrable ##k##-distribution ##D## in an ##n##-manifold. It seems to be that if one can find a submanifold about every point #p#, then per definition of a(n embedded) submanifold ##S##, one has a chart ##(U,\phi)## about every point ##p## such that ##U\cap S## is defined by ##x^{k+1}=\ldots= x^n=0##. The first ##k## coordinate basis vectors are tangent to ##S## for ##p \in S\cap U##, so does not this imply that ##D## is also integrable.

However, there is the word immersed: is it not possible to find a chart ##(U,\phi)## about every point ##p## for an such that ##U\cap S## is defined by ##x^{k+1}=\ldots= x^n=0## for an immersed submanifold ##S##?

If not, why? And is this the point of the distinction? Or are there more points?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
center o bass said:
I am a bit puzzled about the distinction between integrable, and completely integrable distributions. Before I pose my question, let me first define the terms:

A distribution ##D## of dimension ##k## on ##M## is a smooth collection of ##k##-dimensional subspaces ##D_p \subset T_pM## with ##D = \cup_{p\in M}D_p##. Consider ##D##.

##D## is said to be integrable if one can find an (immersed) submanifold ##S## for every point ##p \in M## such that ##D_p = T_pS##.

##D## is said to be completely integrable if one can find a neighbourhood ##U## about every point, and a corresponding coordinate chart ##(U,\phi)## with the property that the coordinate basis vectors ##\partial_1, \ldots, \partial_k## spans ##D_p##.

Question: Why is this distinction necessary? Suppose we have an integrable ##k##-distribution ##D## in an ##n##-manifold. It seems to be that if one can find a submanifold about every point #p#, then per definition of a(n embedded) submanifold ##S##, one has a chart ##(U,\phi)## about every point ##p## such that ##U\cap S## is defined by ##x^{k+1}=\ldots= x^n=0##. The first ##k## coordinate basis vectors are tangent to ##S## for ##p \in S\cap U##, so does not this imply that ##D## is also integrable.

Note that in the definition of completely integrable, the coordinate vectors span D at every point of U, whereas for the chart corresponding to an immersed submanifold, the coordinate vectors only span D along the submanifold.


center o bass said:
However, there is the word immersed: is it not possible to find a chart ##(U,\phi)## about every point ##p## for an such that ##U\cap S## is defined by ##x^{k+1}=\ldots= x^n=0## for an immersed submanifold ##S##?

No, that is precisely the difference between and immersed and embedded submanifold. You should read the chapter on submanifolds in the book by John Lee.

center o bass said:
If not, why? And is this the point of the distinction? Or are there more points?
As it turns out, integrability and complete integrability are equivalent (Frobenius' theorem), so the distinction is only useful up to the point where Frobenius' thm is proved...
 
  • #3
One of the issues that may be at play here, I think, is that there may or may not be a global basis for the subspaces in a distribution. I only know that for the case n=2 , i.e., for plane distributions ( actually, this is for the case of 3-manifolds ) there is a global basis of vector fields iff the Euler class is zero, so that, e.g., all plane distributions in ## \mathbb R^n ## have global bases of vector fields. I cannot think at this point of some manifold whose Euler class is not trivial, nor , of course of an example of a 2-distribution that does not have a global basis.
 
  • #4
quasar987 said:
No, that is precisely the difference between and immersed and embedded submanifold. You should read the chapter on submanifolds in the book by John Lee.
Does he proves that this is the case? If so at what page in the second (or first) edition?
 
  • #5
He proves that immersed (resp. embedded) submanifolds are precisely the images of immersions (resp. embeddings). He also proves that an immersion is locally an embedding.

So what is the obstruction for an immersion to be an embedding? It is that globally, an immersed manifold may have "intersections" in the sense of points that do not verify the defining property of an embedded submanifold in terms of charts (ex: the figure 8 in the plane).

That is what I meant.
 
  • #6
quasar987 said:
He proves that immersed (resp. embedded) submanifolds are precisely the images of immersions (resp. embeddings). He also proves that an immersion is locally an embedding.

So what is the obstruction for an immersion to be an embedding? It is that globally, an immersed manifold may have "intersections" in the sense of points that do not verify the defining property of an embedded submanifold in terms of charts (ex: the figure 8 in the plane).
That is what I meant.


Come to think of it.. How is the distribution well defined at a point ##p## in ##M## when foliated with immersed submanifolds? Generally a point ##p## is associated with more than one tangent space (ex:center point of the figure 8 in the plane).

(Never mind. I found out; I was just confused about the cross which seem to indicate two slopes. The whole point about immersions is that the tangent spaces are in bijectively related to each other.)
 
Last edited:

1. What is the difference between integrable and completely integrable distributions?

Integrable distributions are those that can be locally spanned by smooth vector fields, while completely integrable distributions are those that can be globally spanned by smooth vector fields. In other words, integrable distributions can be integrated over a small region, while completely integrable distributions can be integrated over the entire manifold.

2. How do you determine if a distribution is integrable or completely integrable?

A distribution is integrable if the Lie bracket of any two vector fields in the distribution is also in the distribution. A distribution is completely integrable if it is integrable and if the rank of the distribution is equal to the dimension of the manifold.

3. What are some examples of integrable distributions?

Some examples of integrable distributions include distributions that are tangent to a foliation, such as the tangent space to a submanifold or the kernel of a differential form. Another example is the distribution spanned by the gradient of a smooth function.

4. Can a completely integrable distribution be non-integrable?

No, a completely integrable distribution must also be integrable. This is because the rank of the distribution, which is equal to the dimension of the manifold, must be satisfied for a distribution to be completely integrable.

5. What is the significance of integrable and completely integrable distributions?

Integrable and completely integrable distributions play a crucial role in the study of differential geometry and Lie groups. They allow us to understand the structure of manifolds and their symmetries, and are important in many areas of mathematics and physics, such as differential equations, control theory, and geometric mechanics.

Similar threads

  • Differential Geometry
Replies
2
Views
511
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
286
Back
Top