- #1

- 5,830

- 550

*directly*shows that ##\omega \wedge d\omega = 0 \Rightarrow \omega = \alpha d\beta## i.e. ##\omega_{[a}\nabla_{b}\omega_{c]} = 0 \Rightarrow \omega_{a} = \alpha \nabla_{a} \beta##?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

In summary, the conversation was about the proof of Frobenius' theorem, which is a theorem in differential geometry that states that if a certain condition is satisfied, then a one-form can be written in a specific form. The conversation included discussions about how this condition is locally and globally applied, and different interpretations of the theorem.

- #1

- 5,830

- 550

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

- 1,460

- 175

Hello, I found this very old post. I believe we have the solution you were looking for (thanks also to @PeterDonis).WannabeNewton said:Most of my texts have the standard proof of Frobenius' theorem (both the vector field and differential forms versions) and through multiple indirect equivalences conclude that ##\omega \wedge d\omega = 0## implies (locally) that ##\omega = \alpha d\beta## where ##\omega## is a 1-form and ##\alpha,\beta## are scalar fields. Does anyone know of a proof wherein onedirectlyshows that ##\omega \wedge d\omega = 0 \Rightarrow \omega = \alpha d\beta## i.e. ##\omega_{[a}\nabla_{b}\omega_{c]} = 0 \Rightarrow \omega_{a} = \alpha \nabla_{a} \beta##?

First of all ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0 \Leftrightarrow d\omega = \alpha \wedge \omega## for some function ##\alpha##. From the latter immediately follows ##d\alpha \wedge \omega=0##. Then as shown here Global simultaneity surfaces - how to adjust proper time - #78 it must be ##d\alpha=0##.

From Poincarè lemma there exist locally a function ##h## such that ##\alpha=dh##, so we get locally ##d\omega= dh \wedge \omega## for some function ##h##.

Whatever the function ##h## is there is a 1-form ##\beta## such that ##e^h\beta=\omega## (just pick ##\beta = \omega / e^h##).

From ##d\omega= d(e^h\beta) = e^hdh \wedge \beta + e^h d\beta = dh \wedge e^h \beta + e^h d\beta## it follows ##d \beta=0## i.e. the one-form ##\beta## is closed hence locally ##\beta = dg## for some function ##g## (thanks to Poincarè lemma again).

But from ##\beta = \omega / e^h = dg## we get ##\omega = e^h dg##. Hence locally (i.e. in a open neighborhood around the point where ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0##) we get the expected result.

- #3

- 1,460

- 175

I was wondering about the following: Frobenius' theorem claims that ##\omega \wedge d\omega = 0## implies *locally* ##\omega = \alpha d\beta## for some ##\alpha, \beta## scalar fields.

Suppose the condition ##\omega \wedge d\omega = 0## holds at each point inside an open set ##A##. Then the following are true:

*locally* actually extend to all points in the open region. So if the condition ##\omega \wedge d\omega = 0## holds everywhere in spacetime (by definition the spacetime as set is open) then the above two properties extend entirely to it.

Suppose the condition ##\omega \wedge d\omega = 0## holds at each point inside an open set ##A##. Then the following are true:

- There exist a scalar function ##\beta## defined inside ##A## such that its level sets are hypersurfaces that match up with the distribution defined by the one-form ##\omega## at each point inside A
- By definition of level set, the above hypersurfaces do not intersect each other and foliate the entire open region A

Last edited:

- #4

Mentor

- 43,868

- 21,282

Not necessarily. If ##\omega \wedge d \omega = 0## holds for every point in an open set A, then at each point of A we have ##\omega = \alpha d \beta## forcianfa72 said:Suppose the condition ##\omega \wedge d\omega = 0## holds at each point inside an open set ##A##. Then the following are true:

- #5

- 1,460

- 175

Just to be clear: consider ##\mathbb R^3## as smooth manifold equipped with the standard topology (no metric involved at all). Suppose ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0## holds at point p. Frobenius claims there is an open ball ##B(p,\epsilon)## at p and scalar smooth functions ##\alpha, \beta## defined on all points inside it such that ##\omega = \alpha d \beta## is the local expression of ##\omega## at each point inside the open neighborhood ##B(p,\epsilon)##.PeterDonis said:But this doesnotguarantee that ##\omega = \alpha d \beta## holds at each point of A for thesame##\alpha## and ##\beta##. The Frobenius theorem does not imply that.

My point is that since the above expression of ##\omega## holds for all points inside ##B## then the two functions ##\alpha, \beta##

See also here http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~wangzuoq/Courses/21F-Manifolds/Notes/Lec16.pdf

- #6

Science Advisor

- 3,430

- 1,721

Take for example a closed form i.e. ##d\omega=0##, then the condition ##\omega \wedge d\omega = 0## is satisfied. By Poincare's lemma it is locally (every point has an open neighborhood) exact so ##\omega = d\theta## (##\alpha=1## and ##\beta = \theta##). But it need not be globally exact, so the ##\theta## is not the same in all neighborhoods.cianfa72 said:Just to be clear: consider ##\mathbb R^3## as smooth manifold equipped with the standard topology (no metric involved at all). Suppose ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0## holds at point p. Frobenius claims there is an open ball ##B(p,\epsilon)## at p and scalar smooth functions ##\alpha, \beta## defined on all points inside it such that ##\omega = \alpha d \beta## is the local expression of ##\omega## at each point inside the open neighborhood ##B(p,\epsilon)##.

My point is that since the above expression of ##\omega## holds for all points inside ##B## then the two functions ##\alpha, \beta##mustbe the same for all points in ##B(p,\epsilon)##.

See also here http://staff.ustc.edu.cn/~wangzuoq/Courses/21F-Manifolds/Notes/Lec16.pdf

- #7

- 1,460

- 175

Yes, it is not the same inmartinbn said:But it need not be globally exact, so the ##\theta## is not the same in all neighborhoods.

- #8

Science Advisor

- 3,430

- 1,721

That is not what you said and he replied to what you had said.cianfa72 said:Yes, it is not the same inallneighborhoods. However if we consider another point inside that particular open neighborhood (where ##\theta## above is defined) then we continue to get ##\omega = d\theta## for that 'specific' ##\theta## scalar function, I believe.

- #9

- 1,460

- 175

Ok sorry (maybe I was unclear ). Yet can you confirm my claim in post #7 ? Thanks.martinbn said:That is not what you said and he replied to what you had said.

Edit: in you example take a closed form ##\omega## (i.e. ##d\omega=0##) in the open neighborhood A of point p. By Poincare's lemma there is a scalar function ##\theta## defined in an open neighborhood B of p (possibly a proper open subset of the open set A) such that ##\omega=d\theta## holds not

That was my point so far...

Last edited:

- #10

Mentor

- 43,868

- 21,282

Yes.cianfa72 said:Suppose ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0## holds at point p. Frobenius claims there is an open ball ##B(p,\epsilon)## at p and scalar smooth functions ##\alpha, \beta## defined on all points inside it such that ##\omega = \alpha d \beta## is the local expression of ##\omega## at each point inside the open neighborhood ##B(p,\epsilon)##.

This does not follow from the above.cianfa72 said:My point is that since the above expression of ##\omega## holds for all points inside ##B## then the two functions ##\alpha, \beta##mustbe the same for all points in ##B(p,\epsilon)##.

What in particular in these notes are you referring to, and what do you think it shows?cianfa72 said:

- #11

Mentor

- 43,868

- 21,282

Exactly.cianfa72 said:Yes, it is not the same inallneighborhoods.

Inside that particular open neighborhood, yes. But that particular open neighborhood does not have to be the entire manifold. Inside a different open neighborhood you could have a different ##\theta##.cianfa72 said:However if we consider another point inside that particular open neighborhood (where ##\theta## above is defined) then we continue to get ##\omega = d\theta## for that 'specific' ##\theta## scalar function, I believe.

- #12

- 1,460

- 175

Maybe I was unclear: I assumed ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0## holds not only at point p but at all points within ##B(p,\epsilon)##.PeterDonis said:This does not follow from the above.

Yes, of course.PeterDonis said:Inside that particular open neighborhood, yes. But that particular open neighborhood does not have to be the entire manifold.

Yes, definitely.PeterDonis said:Inside a different open neighborhood you could have a different ##\theta##.

- #13

Mentor

- 43,868

- 21,282

You don't have to assume that; the Frobenius theorem establishes it forcianfa72 said:Maybe I was unclear: I assumed ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0## holds not only at point p but at all points within ##B(p,\epsilon)##.

- #14

- 1,460

- 175

Ah ok, I take it as follows: start with the one-form field ##\omega## defined at each point in the manifold M such that ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0## holds at aPeterDonis said:You don't have to assume that; the Frobenius theorem establishes it forsomeopen ball ##B(p, \epsilon)##. The theorem just does not establish that ##B## is the entire manifold.

Since local Frobenius theorem establishes that there exist smooth functions ##\alpha,\beta## defined in

Last edited:

- #15

Mentor

- 43,868

- 21,282

Yes, forcianfa72 said:start with the one-form field ##\omega## defined at each point in the manifold M such that ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0## holds at agivenpoint p in the manifold.

Since local Frobenius theorem establishes that there exist smooth functions ##\alpha,\beta## defined insomeopen ball ##B(p, \epsilon)## such that ##\omega = \alpha d \beta## atallpoints within it, it follows that ##\omega \wedge d\omega = \alpha d \beta \wedge d(\alpha d \beta) = 0## at all points within ##B(p, \epsilon)##.

- #16

- 1,460

- 175

At the end of pag 4 thePeterDonis said:What in particular in these notes are you referring to, and what do you think it shows?

Now, as far as I can understand, each of these leaves (i.e. connected immersed submanifolds) can be given as the level set of a scalar function defined on the

- #17

Mentor

- 43,868

- 21,282

Note that the reference you give isn't even using the language of differential forms. It's talking about distributions, which are generalizations of vector fields.cianfa72 said:an involutive distribution (i.e. the kernel of ##\omega## such that ##\omega \wedge d\omega=0## on the entire manifold M)

Yes.cianfa72 said:the collection of (unique) maximal connected integral (sub)manifolds form a foliation on the entire manifold (leaves of the foliation).

Not necessarily, no. It might take more than one scalar function to fully parameterize the leaves.cianfa72 said:Now, as far as I can understand, each of these leaves (i.e. connected immersed submanifolds) can be given as the level set of a scalar function defined on theentiremanifold.

- #18

- 1,460

- 175

Do you mean more than one scalar function, for instance 2 scalar functions to fully parameterize an ##(n-2)## dimensional submanifold in an n-dimensional manifold ?PeterDonis said:Not necessarily, no. It might take more than one scalar function to fully parameterize the leaves.

Last edited:

- #19

Mentor

- 43,868

- 21,282

Yes.cianfa72 said:Do you mean more than one scalar function, for instance 2 scalar functions to fully parameterize an ##(n-2)## dimensional submanifold in an n-dimensional manifold ?

- #20

- 1,460

- 175

The curve above is a Lemniscate and it is an

My point is: we can define of a smooth vector field ##X## on the entire ##\mathbb R^2## such that the (unique) maximal connected integral submanifold passing for ##(0,0)## is the Lemniscate above. Since the global Frobenius theorem guarantees that a foliation of the entire ##\mathbb R^2## does exist, the Leminscate above basically defines 3 regions: the region within the right lobe, the region within the left lobe and the region outside of it.

Hence the maximal connected integral sumbanifolds (i.e. the integral curves) for the points in each of those 3 regions

Does it make sense ? Thank you.

- #21

Science Advisor

- 3,430

- 1,721

Not sure if this makes sense, but may be I missunderstood you. The curve has two different tangent vectors at the origin, and there is no vector field in the plane that has two values at a point! (The tangent vector field along the curve is not the restriction of a vector field in the plane.)cianfa72 said:My point is: we can define of a smooth vector field ##X## on the entire ##\mathbb R^2## such that the (unique) maximal connected integral submanifold passing for ##(0,0)## is the Lemniscate above.

- #22

- 1,460

- 175

The curve above is anmartinbn said:Not sure if this makes sense, but may be I missunderstood you. The curve has two different tangent vectors at the origin, and there is no vector field in the plane that has two values at a point! (The tangent vector field along the curve is not the restriction of a vector field in the plane.)

Last edited:

- #23

- 1,460

- 175

- #24

Science Advisor

- 3,430

- 1,721

##x(t)={a\sqrt{2}\cos t\over 1+\sin^2 t},\quad y(t)={a\sqrt{2}\cos t\sin t\over 1+\sin^2 t},\quad t\in [0, 2\pi]##

For ##t=\frac\pi2## and ##t=\frac{3\pi}2## you get ##(x,y)=(0,0)##.

From the picture it is even obvious, that the curve selfintersect, and is not empbedded in the plane. It is just immersed, but not injectively.

- #25

Science Advisor

- 3,430

- 1,721

One of the suggested links below leads me to think that you pobably meant this curve?

- #26

- 1,460

- 175

Ah yes, you are right.martinbn said:One of the suggested links below leads me to think that you probably meant this curve?

The above is actually the flipped version of the curve in #20. Here the immersion is ##(-\pi,\pi) \mapsto \mathbb R^2##.

As you can check it is an

However, as said in #23, does exist a

Last edited:

- #27

Mentor

- 43,868

- 21,282

The Frobenius theorem does not say that any such thing must exist. The Frobenius theorem does not say anything aboutcianfa72 said:does exist asmoothvector field ##X## defined on ##\mathbb R^2## such that its restriction to the above Lemniscate curve gives its tangent vector at each point ?

- #28

- 1,460

- 175

Yes, that was actually my point. So we are basically saying that the Leminscate curve cannot be a leaf of a foliation associated with a possible 1-dimensional smooth distribution (i.e. of a smooth vector field ##X## defined on ##\mathbb R^2##).PeterDonis said:It only says thatifyou already have a smooth vector field on the entire manifold that meets the Frobenius condition,thenthere will be a corresponding foliation.

Last edited:

- #29

Science Advisor

- 3,430

- 1,721

I don't think so. The value at the origin needs to be the tangent vector to the right sloping part of the curve (the one that contains the point at the origin). On the other hand since it is smooth (or just continuous) it will be the limit of the tangent vectors to the left part of the curve (the one with the arrows). And those are not the same.cianfa72 said:Ah yes, you are right.

View attachment 298394

The above is actually the flipped version of the curve in #20. Here the immersion is ##(-\pi,\pi) \mapsto \mathbb R^2##.

As you can check it is aninjectiveimmersion and the tangent vector at the origin ##(0,0)## is unique.

However, as said in #23, does exist asmoothvector field ##X## defined on ##\mathbb R^2## such that its restriction to the above Lemniscate curve gives its tangent vector at each point ?

- #30

Science Advisor

- 3,430

- 1,721

It is not a submanifold, so it cannot be an integral manifold of a vector field. On the other hand Frobenius is trivial for 1-dimensional distributions. By trivial I mean that the condition is always true in the 1D case.cianfa72 said:Yes, that was actually my point. So we are basically saying that the Leminscate curve cannot be a leaf of a foliation associated with a possible 1-dimensional smooth distribution (i.e. of a smooth vector field ##X## defined on ##\mathbb R^2##).

- #31

Mentor

- 43,868

- 21,282

I'm not saying itcianfa72 said:we are basically saying that the Leminscate curve cannot be a leaf of a foliation associated with a possible 1-dimensional smooth distribution

- #32

- #33

Science Advisor

- 3,430

- 1,721

I see, I still think it is not possible, because there isn't a smooth vector field that restricts to the tangent field along the curve.cianfa72 said:My concern is that Frobenius theorem (as stated here) involvesimmersed submanifoldsand the Lemniscate curve is an immersed submanifold in ##\mathbb R^2##.

- #34

- 1,460

- 175

Yes of course, for example in an 'ambient' 2D manifold whatever 1-dimensional smooth distribution given as the kernel of the one-form ##\omega## is such that ##\omega \wedge d\omega## vanishes identically.martinbn said:On the other hand Frobenius is trivial for 1-dimensional distributions. By trivial I mean that the condition is always true in the 1D case.

Yes, that's my point too. The tangent vector at each point along the Lemniscate exists and is unique however, as you pointed out, there is not amartinbn said:I see, I still think it is not possible, because there isn't a smooth vector field that restricts to the tangent field along the curve.

Anyway, I believe there should be some example of

Last edited:

- #35

- 1,460

- 175

Suppose there was some smooth vector field ##X## defined on ##\mathbb R^2## such that the Lemniscate curve was an integral manifold. Then if we restricted such vector field ##X## on that curve we would get the tangent vectors at each point along it. However it cannot be the case since there is not any smooth vector field that restricted to the Lemniscate gives the tangent vector at each point along it.PeterDonis said:I'm not saying itcannotbe, and you certainly have not proved it.

Last edited:

Share:

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 319

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 750

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 716

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K