Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Well, I have solved myself the problem : every smooth vector field on a compact manifold is complete.

Now I have got this problem which I am not able to progress:

let $X$ is a vector field on $M$, suppose $\exists \epsilon >0\ni (-\epsilon,\epsilon) \subsetneq (a(m),b(m))\forall m\in M$, Then show that $X$ is a complete vector field i.e $(a(m), b(m))=\mathbb{R}$

thank you for any help.

where $(a(m),b(m))$ is the domain of maximal integral curve, for each $m\in M$ we will get this interval $(a(m),b(m))$

here I asked some realted things

A series of Lemmas about $C^{\infty}$ vector fields

share|cite|improve this question

Let $\gamma(t)$ be the maximal integral curve with initial condition $\gamma(0) = m$, and let's suppose $b(m) < \infty$.

If we denote $\gamma'(t)$ the maximal integral curve with initial condition $\gamma'(0) = \gamma(b(m) -\epsilon/2)$ then $$ \gamma''(t) = \begin{cases} \gamma(t) & \text{if } t\in (a(m), b(m) - \epsilon/2)\\ \gamma'(t - b(m) + \epsilon/2)& \text{if } t\in [b(m) - \epsilon/2, b(m) + \epsilon/2) \end{cases} $$ prolongs $\gamma(t)$. That contradicts the assertion that $\gamma(t)$ is maximal.

A similar reasoning can be used to show $a(m) = -\infty$.

Edit - Some clarifications

$\gamma''$ prolongs $\gamma$ means that $\gamma''$ has an interval of existence, $(a(m), b(m) + \epsilon/2)$, that is a proper superset of the interval of existence, $(a(m), b(m))$, of $\gamma$ and the two curves are equal on the common domain, $(a(m), b(m))$.

The "uniformity" of $\epsilon$ ensures that the integral curve with initial condition $$ \gamma'(0) = \gamma(b(m) - \epsilon/2) $$ exists on the interval $[0, \epsilon)$. Without "uniformity" it could happen that the maximal right interval of existence of $\gamma'$ is $[0, \epsilon/2)$. In such a case, a curve $\gamma''$, constructed as above, would coincide with $\gamma$: it would not prolong $\gamma$.

The initial condition of $\gamma'$ is chosen in such a way to allow us to smoothly join $\gamma'$ to $\gamma$ in order to form a new curve, $\gamma''$, that prolongs $\gamma$.

The contradiction arises because we constructed an integral curve that prolongs a maximal integral curve, which, as such, cannot be prolonged by definition.

share|cite|improve this answer
what does it mean by 1)$\gamma^{''}(t)$ prolong $\gamma(t)$ and will you please tell me where you are using the 2)uniformity of given $\epsilon$? and 3) why did you take a new curve with that kind of initial condition? – Un Chien Andalou Jul 5 '12 at 21:37
I dont really understand the contradiction really, you are saying once $\gamma(t)$ is a maximal integral curve and then again some other etc. – Un Chien Andalou Jul 5 '12 at 21:41
thank you :).... – Un Chien Andalou Jul 6 '12 at 7:05

For any $m\in M$, write $\mathrm{Fl}^X_t(m)$ for the maximal integral curve starting at $m$ at $t=0$, so $\mathrm{Fl}^X(m):(a(m),b(m))\rightarrow M,~\mathrm{Fl}^X_0(m)=m$ and $\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{Fl}^X_t(m)=X_{\mathrm{Fl}^X_t(m)}$.

We use the fact that $$\Omega=\lbrace (m,t)\in M\times \mathbb R~|~\mathrm{Fl}^X_t(m)~\mathrm{exists}~\rbrace$$ is an open subset of $M\times \mathbb R$ containing $M\times 0$. Consider an integral curve (not necessarily maximal) of $X$ that starts at $m$ and is defined on $(a,b)$ with $-\infty\leq a<0<b<+\infty$. By compactness of $M$, there is a sequence $t_k\rightarrow b$ with $$\mathrm{Fl}^X_{t_k}(m)\rightarrow m'.$$ By what was said about $\Omega$, there exists $\epsilon>0$ and an open neighborhood $U$ of $m'$ with $U\times (-\epsilon,+\epsilon)\subset \Omega.$ Choose $k$ large enough so that $b-\epsilon/2< t_k <b$ and $\mathrm{Fl}^X_{t_k}(m)\in U$. We set $m_k=\mathrm{Fl}^X_{t_k}(m)$. By construction of $U$ and $\epsilon$, the integral curve starting at $m_k$ is defined on an interval containing $(-\epsilon,+\epsilon)$. Now we define the following curve: $$\gamma:(a,t_k+\epsilon)\rightarrow M,t\mapsto\bigg( \begin{array}{ll} \underline{t\in (a,t_k]:} & \mathrm{Fl}^X_t(m) \\ \underline{t\in [t_k,t_k+\epsilon):} & \mathrm{Fl}^X_{t-t_k}(m_k) \end{array}$$ This curve is smooth, and prolongs the integral curve to $(a,t_k+\epsilon)\supset (a,b+\epsilon/2)$. To check smoothness, you only need to look at the curve around $t_k$. It then follows from the uniqueness of integral curves that $\mathrm{Fl}^X_t(m)$ and $\mathrm{Fl}^X_{t-t_k}(m_k)$ coincide on a neighborhood of $t_k$, which shows that $\gamma$ is smooth at $t_k$.

Thus, the maximal integral curves are defined for all times in both directions (upon switching to $-X$.)

share|cite|improve this answer
@Mex has this been of any help? Do you need clarifications? – Olivier Bégassat Jul 7 '12 at 14:34

Your Answer


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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.