Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is the any difference between shape operator and second fundamental form for surfaces?

share|improve this question

migrated from mathematica.stackexchange.com Mar 6 '12 at 22:07

This question came from our site for users of Mathematica.

1 Answer 1

For the sake of clarity I will restrict my answer to the special case of (regular, embedded) surfaces in $\mathbb R^3$. The difference between shape operator and second fundamental form is that the first is an operator, while the second is a bilinear form. Specifically, if $n$ is the outward normal to your surface $S \subset \mathbb R^3$, we may define the shape operator $S$ by the rule $$S(X) = D_X n$$ while the second fundamental form is given by $$II(X,Y) = D_X n \cdot Y$$ Here $D_x n$ is the directional derivative of $n$ in the direction $X$. Note that some authors use a negative sign in the definition of shape operator, and may also use the same name for both objects. If you know about tensors and type change, then the second fundamental form is what you get when you change the type of the shape operator from $(1,1)$ to $(0,2)$.

If you are interested in coordinate formulas and/or other applications, I would recommend Ted Shifrin's book, available on his website: "Differential Geometry: A first Course in Curves and Surfaces".

share|improve this answer
I think you left out a - in the shape operator. Shape operator is negative of the derivative of the normal. –  thang Apr 7 at 10:36
@thang It is a matter of convention, as I mentioned in my answer. –  treble Apr 7 at 18:18
oh sorry. i didn't see that part of the text. I have a bad habit of just looking at formulas and numbers... and ignoring everything else. –  thang Apr 7 at 23:35

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.