Index (or signature) of a pseudo-riemannian metric on manifold











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $(M , g)$ a $n$-dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold. As $g(p)$ is a bilinear mapping from $T_pM times T_pM$ to $mathbb{R}$, we can get a basis
$$
{left{{left(frac{partial}{partial x_i}right)}_pright}}_{i = 1}^n
$$
on $T_pM$ such that
$$
g(p)left({left(frac{partial}{partial x_i}right)}_p , {left(frac{partial}{partial x_j}right)}_pright) = 0
$$
for each $i , j in {1 , ldots , n}$ such that $i neq j$. It allows us to define the index (or signature) of $g(p)$ because it is independent of the choice of basis in $T_pM$, a fact known classically as Sylvester's law of inertia.



Well, many texts talk about index of $g$ strightly, and define for instance riemannian metrics as pseudo-riemannian metrics which index coincide with the dimension of the manifold (or signature ($n , 0$) in this case).



How can I show that it is independent of the point $p$ in $M$? As it can be observed, I have not used neither $g(p)$ is non-degenerate or symetric nor the fact $T_pM cong {mathbb{R}}^n cong T_qM$, as isomorphism of vector spaces ($p , q in M$), for defining signature of $g(p)$ (for $p in M$ fixed). Must I use one of these statements to show that the index of $g(p)$ and $g(q)$ coincide for each $p , q in M$?






semi-riemannian-geometry







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $(M , g)$ a $n$-dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold. As $g(p)$ is a bilinear mapping from $T_pM times T_pM$ to $mathbb{R}$, we can get a basis
    $$
    {left{{left(frac{partial}{partial x_i}right)}_pright}}_{i = 1}^n
    $$
    on $T_pM$ such that
    $$
    g(p)left({left(frac{partial}{partial x_i}right)}_p , {left(frac{partial}{partial x_j}right)}_pright) = 0
    $$
    for each $i , j in {1 , ldots , n}$ such that $i neq j$. It allows us to define the index (or signature) of $g(p)$ because it is independent of the choice of basis in $T_pM$, a fact known classically as Sylvester's law of inertia.



    Well, many texts talk about index of $g$ strightly, and define for instance riemannian metrics as pseudo-riemannian metrics which index coincide with the dimension of the manifold (or signature ($n , 0$) in this case).



    How can I show that it is independent of the point $p$ in $M$? As it can be observed, I have not used neither $g(p)$ is non-degenerate or symetric nor the fact $T_pM cong {mathbb{R}}^n cong T_qM$, as isomorphism of vector spaces ($p , q in M$), for defining signature of $g(p)$ (for $p in M$ fixed). Must I use one of these statements to show that the index of $g(p)$ and $g(q)$ coincide for each $p , q in M$?






    semi-riemannian-geometry







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $(M , g)$ a $n$-dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold. As $g(p)$ is a bilinear mapping from $T_pM times T_pM$ to $mathbb{R}$, we can get a basis
      $$
      {left{{left(frac{partial}{partial x_i}right)}_pright}}_{i = 1}^n
      $$
      on $T_pM$ such that
      $$
      g(p)left({left(frac{partial}{partial x_i}right)}_p , {left(frac{partial}{partial x_j}right)}_pright) = 0
      $$
      for each $i , j in {1 , ldots , n}$ such that $i neq j$. It allows us to define the index (or signature) of $g(p)$ because it is independent of the choice of basis in $T_pM$, a fact known classically as Sylvester's law of inertia.



      Well, many texts talk about index of $g$ strightly, and define for instance riemannian metrics as pseudo-riemannian metrics which index coincide with the dimension of the manifold (or signature ($n , 0$) in this case).



      How can I show that it is independent of the point $p$ in $M$? As it can be observed, I have not used neither $g(p)$ is non-degenerate or symetric nor the fact $T_pM cong {mathbb{R}}^n cong T_qM$, as isomorphism of vector spaces ($p , q in M$), for defining signature of $g(p)$ (for $p in M$ fixed). Must I use one of these statements to show that the index of $g(p)$ and $g(q)$ coincide for each $p , q in M$?






      semi-riemannian-geometry







      share|cite|improve this question













      Let $(M , g)$ a $n$-dimensional pseudo-riemannian manifold. As $g(p)$ is a bilinear mapping from $T_pM times T_pM$ to $mathbb{R}$, we can get a basis
      $$
      {left{{left(frac{partial}{partial x_i}right)}_pright}}_{i = 1}^n
      $$
      on $T_pM$ such that
      $$
      g(p)left({left(frac{partial}{partial x_i}right)}_p , {left(frac{partial}{partial x_j}right)}_pright) = 0
      $$
      for each $i , j in {1 , ldots , n}$ such that $i neq j$. It allows us to define the index (or signature) of $g(p)$ because it is independent of the choice of basis in $T_pM$, a fact known classically as Sylvester's law of inertia.



      Well, many texts talk about index of $g$ strightly, and define for instance riemannian metrics as pseudo-riemannian metrics which index coincide with the dimension of the manifold (or signature ($n , 0$) in this case).



      How can I show that it is independent of the point $p$ in $M$? As it can be observed, I have not used neither $g(p)$ is non-degenerate or symetric nor the fact $T_pM cong {mathbb{R}}^n cong T_qM$, as isomorphism of vector spaces ($p , q in M$), for defining signature of $g(p)$ (for $p in M$ fixed). Must I use one of these statements to show that the index of $g(p)$ and $g(q)$ coincide for each $p , q in M$?






      semi-riemannian-geometry




      semi-riemannian-geometry






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked yesterday









      joseabp91

      1,233411




      1,233411






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          Let $v_1, dots, v_n$ be a basis for $T_pM$ such that $g(p)(v_i, v_i) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$, and $g(p)(v_i, v_i) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$. We can extend this basis to a basis of local smooth vector fields $V_1, dots, V_n$ for $TM|_U$ where $U$ is an open subset of $p$.



          Now consider the functions $f_i : U to mathbb{R}$ given by $f_i(q) = g(q)(V_i|_q, V_i|_q)$. Note that $f_i$ is smooth and $f_i(p) = g(p)(V_i|_p, V_i|_p) = g(p)(v_i, v_i)$ which has a sign. For $i = 1, dots, k$, let $U_i = f^{-1}((0, infty))$ and for $i = k + 1, dots, n$ let $U_i = f^{-1}((-infty, 0))$. Then on $U' = U_1capdotscap U_kcap U_{k+1}capdotscap U_n$ each $f_i$ has a sign. For any $q in U'$, $f_i(q) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$ and $f_i(q) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$, so $g(q)$ has the same index of $g(p)$. That is, the index of $g$ is a locally constant integer-valued function and is therefore constant on each connected component of $M$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            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: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            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%2f3005092%2findex-or-signature-of-a-pseudo-riemannian-metric-on-manifold%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Let $v_1, dots, v_n$ be a basis for $T_pM$ such that $g(p)(v_i, v_i) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$, and $g(p)(v_i, v_i) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$. We can extend this basis to a basis of local smooth vector fields $V_1, dots, V_n$ for $TM|_U$ where $U$ is an open subset of $p$.



            Now consider the functions $f_i : U to mathbb{R}$ given by $f_i(q) = g(q)(V_i|_q, V_i|_q)$. Note that $f_i$ is smooth and $f_i(p) = g(p)(V_i|_p, V_i|_p) = g(p)(v_i, v_i)$ which has a sign. For $i = 1, dots, k$, let $U_i = f^{-1}((0, infty))$ and for $i = k + 1, dots, n$ let $U_i = f^{-1}((-infty, 0))$. Then on $U' = U_1capdotscap U_kcap U_{k+1}capdotscap U_n$ each $f_i$ has a sign. For any $q in U'$, $f_i(q) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$ and $f_i(q) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$, so $g(q)$ has the same index of $g(p)$. That is, the index of $g$ is a locally constant integer-valued function and is therefore constant on each connected component of $M$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Let $v_1, dots, v_n$ be a basis for $T_pM$ such that $g(p)(v_i, v_i) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$, and $g(p)(v_i, v_i) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$. We can extend this basis to a basis of local smooth vector fields $V_1, dots, V_n$ for $TM|_U$ where $U$ is an open subset of $p$.



              Now consider the functions $f_i : U to mathbb{R}$ given by $f_i(q) = g(q)(V_i|_q, V_i|_q)$. Note that $f_i$ is smooth and $f_i(p) = g(p)(V_i|_p, V_i|_p) = g(p)(v_i, v_i)$ which has a sign. For $i = 1, dots, k$, let $U_i = f^{-1}((0, infty))$ and for $i = k + 1, dots, n$ let $U_i = f^{-1}((-infty, 0))$. Then on $U' = U_1capdotscap U_kcap U_{k+1}capdotscap U_n$ each $f_i$ has a sign. For any $q in U'$, $f_i(q) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$ and $f_i(q) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$, so $g(q)$ has the same index of $g(p)$. That is, the index of $g$ is a locally constant integer-valued function and is therefore constant on each connected component of $M$.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                Let $v_1, dots, v_n$ be a basis for $T_pM$ such that $g(p)(v_i, v_i) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$, and $g(p)(v_i, v_i) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$. We can extend this basis to a basis of local smooth vector fields $V_1, dots, V_n$ for $TM|_U$ where $U$ is an open subset of $p$.



                Now consider the functions $f_i : U to mathbb{R}$ given by $f_i(q) = g(q)(V_i|_q, V_i|_q)$. Note that $f_i$ is smooth and $f_i(p) = g(p)(V_i|_p, V_i|_p) = g(p)(v_i, v_i)$ which has a sign. For $i = 1, dots, k$, let $U_i = f^{-1}((0, infty))$ and for $i = k + 1, dots, n$ let $U_i = f^{-1}((-infty, 0))$. Then on $U' = U_1capdotscap U_kcap U_{k+1}capdotscap U_n$ each $f_i$ has a sign. For any $q in U'$, $f_i(q) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$ and $f_i(q) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$, so $g(q)$ has the same index of $g(p)$. That is, the index of $g$ is a locally constant integer-valued function and is therefore constant on each connected component of $M$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Let $v_1, dots, v_n$ be a basis for $T_pM$ such that $g(p)(v_i, v_i) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$, and $g(p)(v_i, v_i) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$. We can extend this basis to a basis of local smooth vector fields $V_1, dots, V_n$ for $TM|_U$ where $U$ is an open subset of $p$.



                Now consider the functions $f_i : U to mathbb{R}$ given by $f_i(q) = g(q)(V_i|_q, V_i|_q)$. Note that $f_i$ is smooth and $f_i(p) = g(p)(V_i|_p, V_i|_p) = g(p)(v_i, v_i)$ which has a sign. For $i = 1, dots, k$, let $U_i = f^{-1}((0, infty))$ and for $i = k + 1, dots, n$ let $U_i = f^{-1}((-infty, 0))$. Then on $U' = U_1capdotscap U_kcap U_{k+1}capdotscap U_n$ each $f_i$ has a sign. For any $q in U'$, $f_i(q) > 0$ for $i = 1, dots, k$ and $f_i(q) < 0$ for $i = k + 1, dots, n$, so $g(q)$ has the same index of $g(p)$. That is, the index of $g$ is a locally constant integer-valued function and is therefore constant on each connected component of $M$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered yesterday









                Michael Albanese

                62.5k1598299




                62.5k1598299






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3005092%2findex-or-signature-of-a-pseudo-riemannian-metric-on-manifold%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

                    Image
                    28 6 $begingroup$ Per the Font of Magic feature, sorcerer can use Flexible Casting to create 5th-level spell slots at level 7, even though they are not typically available until level 9. You can transform unexpended sorcery points into one spell slot as a bonus action on your turn. The Creating Spell Slots table shows the cost of creating a spell slot of [5th level is 7] If such a sorcerer levels up while still having this 5th-level spell slot, can they choose a 5th-level spell as the spell they gain upon levelling up? The Spellcasting feature states: Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
                    Read more

                    Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

                    Image
                    up vote 13 down vote favorite 1 After the 2018 errata, the disintegrate spell description now reads: A creature targeted by this spell must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points. If you were to polymorph an enemy into a rat and then disintegrate it, would the enemy be disintegrated or would it just return to its original form? I know that for Druids, it’s not an instant kill anymore, but is this the case for polymorph as well? dnd-5e spells polymorph errata share | improve this question edited 18 hours ago
                    Read more

                    A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$

                    Image
                    3 3 $begingroup$ Recently, I saw a construction of topological invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$ with $ngeq 2$ : $$ N=frac{1}{24pi^2}int_{S^3} d^3x epsilon^{ijk} Tr[(U^{-1}partial_{x_i}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_j}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_k}U)] , $$ where $Uin U(n)$ depends on $boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)in S^3$ , $epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $i,j,k=1,2,3$ , and the duplicated indexes are summed over. It is claimed that $N$ is an integer, but why? Update 02/02/2019 I think I got an argument for $n=2$ . In this case, $U=e^{i varphi} q$ with $qin SU(2)$ . Due to the trace and the Levi-Civita symbol in $N$ , $varphi$ does not contribute to $N$ . As $Tr[q^{dagger}partial_i q]=0$ and $(q^{dagger}partial_i q)^{dagger}=-q^{dagger}partial_i q$ , $q^{dagger}partial_i q$ in geneeral has the form $q^{dagger}partia
                    Read more