What is the geometry of the pseudo sphere and what dimension does it exist in?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter neginf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Hyperbolic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the geometry of the pseudosphere, its relationship to hyperbolic geometry, and the dimensionality of surfaces with constant negative curvature. Participants explore the derivation of hyperbolic distance elements, the significance of the pseudosphere, and the challenges of realizing certain geometries in three-dimensional space.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about elementary derivations of hyperbolic distance elements using complex analysis, referencing Needham's "Visual Complex Analysis" as a source.
  • Others argue that understanding geodesic distance requires insight into model spaces of constant curvature, including the sphere, plane, and pseudosphere.
  • A participant mentions a book by Ahlfors and Sario that discusses hyperbolic arc length in the unit disk, expressing a desire to understand the details.
  • There is a discussion about the significance of the hyperbolic metric, noting its invariance under linear fractional transformations and its implications for surfaces of higher genus.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the statement that certain metrics cannot be realized in three-dimensional space, seeking clarification on this point.
  • One participant notes that while the pseudosphere can be derived through conformal mappings, it raises questions about its own derivation and existence in higher dimensions.
  • Another participant introduces the concept that surfaces can have geometries not realizable in three-dimensional space, using the flat torus as an example.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the geometry of the pseudosphere and its implications. There is no consensus on the dimensionality of certain geometries or the realizability of these surfaces in three-dimensional space, indicating ongoing debate and exploration.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions reference the need for a deeper understanding of differential geometry and the complexities involved in deriving hyperbolic metrics. Limitations in understanding certain concepts are acknowledged by participants.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying differential geometry, hyperbolic geometry, or complex analysis, as well as individuals curious about the relationships between various geometric models and their realizability in different dimensions.

neginf
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Most books and websites define the hyperbolic distance element and the corresponding shortest paths in the upper half plane with no explanation. I found a derivation for them in a book called Visual Complex Analysis by Needham and it relied on mapping the "pseudosphere" onto the upper half plane.

Is there an elementary derivation that just uses complex analysis ?
If so, where ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, if I was to transform the question into the Euclidean setting, I would ask
why would someone need to bother with what a plane is, in order to define straight lines!
What I mean is that there is a minimum of insight required in order to go into the theory of geodesic distance, and this insight is provided by the three model spaces of constant curvature: The sphere, the plane and the pseudosphere.
 
I hope to know a little differential geometry one day.

There is a book by Ahlfors and Sario that starts off deriving hyperbolic arc length in the unit disk, although I don't understand all the details.
 
neginf said:
Most books and websites define the hyperbolic distance element and the corresponding shortest paths in the upper half plane with no explanation. I found a derivation for them in a book called Visual Complex Analysis by Needham and it relied on mapping the "pseudosphere" onto the upper half plane.

Is there an elementary derivation that just uses complex analysis ?
If so, where ?

One can develop Lobachevskyan geometry axiomatically. perhaps you should look at this,
 
neginf said:
Most books and websites define the hyperbolic distance element and the corresponding shortest paths in the upper half plane with no explanation. I found a derivation for them in a book called Visual Complex Analysis by Needham and it relied on mapping the "pseudosphere" onto the upper half plane.

Is there an elementary derivation that just uses complex analysis ?
If so, where ?

BTW: the importance of the hyperbolic metric is not just that it provides a model for hyperbolic geometry. In the plane of the disc it is invariant under groups of linear fractional transformations whose quotient spaces are all orientable compact surfaces other than the torus and the sphere. This means that any surface of genus greater than 1 has a metric of constant negative curvature. These metrics can not be realized in 3 space and thus are not derivable from surfaces such as the pseudosphere.
 
I don't know what you mean by not "realizable in 3 space" and by "not derivable from surfaces such as the pseudosphere" and would appreciate a layman's level explanation if possible.

In the Needham book, a conformal mapping is set up between the pseudosphere and the upper half plane. It was nice to see how the hyperbolic elements of arc length and area came from this. That's the sense I might use the word "derivable" in.
 
Last edited:
neginf said:
I don't know what you mean by not "realizable in 3 space" and by "not derivable from surfaces such as the pseudosphere" and would appreciate a layman's level explanation if possible.

A compact surface in 3 space must have a point of positive curvature. These metrics have constant negative curvature and so can not be realized in 3 space.

In the Needham book, a conformal mapping is set up between the pseudosphere and the upper half plane. It was nice to see how the hyperbolic elements of arc length and area came from this. That's the sense I might use the word "derivable" in.

yes but then you have to ask how the pseudosphere was derived.
 
I don't understand the first part but hope to one day.
The second part I understand. It's the reason I want to see a derivation that's self contained in complex analysis. The pseudosphere was intoduced almost out of nowhere in the Visual COmplex Analysis book, as the surface of revolution of a tractrix.
 
neginf said:
I don't understand the first part but hope to one day.

Surfaces can have geometries that are not realizable in 3 space. The simplest example is the flat torus which has no curvature but still folds around into a doughnut. However, this surface can be realized 4 space.

Similarly a two holed doughnut can be given a geometry that locally look exactly like the pseudo sphere. with this geometry is can not fit i3 space. i am not what dimension it lives in.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
23K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
24K