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

Let $H$ be the upper half-plane in $\mathbb{R}^2$. How does the following expression $$ds^2= \frac{dx^2+dy^2}{y^2}$$ specify a Riemannian metric on $H$?

I don't understand what the expression means. If the $y^2$ wasn't there, then $g=dx^2+dy^2=dx\otimes dx+dy\otimes dy$ is the standard metric. This does make sense to me: at every point it associates the standard inner product. But the above expression is not even symmetric in $x,y$ so it isn't meant to be read the same way, but I don't know how to make sense of it.

share|cite|improve this question
Given a tangent vector based at a point, square the first component of the tangent vector, square the second component of the tangent vector, add them up and then divide by the square of the second coordinate. – Fly by Night Feb 4 '13 at 20:20
@FlybyNight: the square of the second coordinate -of the point-, if I understood the answer below correctly. This was my confusion; I thought I had to divide by the second coordinate -of the vector-. – Bruno Stonek Feb 4 '13 at 20:22
Exactly. That's why I use the words "component" and "coordinate". Components refer to vectors while coordinates refer to points. – Fly by Night Feb 4 '13 at 20:23
Ah! I hadn't noticed the different terminology. I wasn't aware of the distinction. – Bruno Stonek Feb 4 '13 at 20:24
Also, notice that the $x$ and $y$ denote the coordinates of the point $(x,y)$ while the $dx$ and $dy$ are differential forms which give the first and second components of a tangent vector as their output. – Fly by Night Feb 4 '13 at 20:27
up vote 3 down vote accepted

As you note, $dx^2 + dy^2$ means $dx \otimes dx + dy \otimes dy$. The expression means exactly what it says: you divide this tensor by $y^2$. It may help to write it as

$$ \frac{1}{y^2} dx \otimes dx + \frac{1}{y^2} dy \otimes dy $$

While a metric needs to be symmetric, there is no reason it needs to be symmetric under swapping $x$ and $y$. Let me add color to help you through your confusion: the tensor we define is

$$ g = \frac{1}{y^2} \color{blue}{dx} \otimes \color{red}{dx} + \frac{1}{y^2} \color{blue}{dy} \otimes \color{red}{dy} $$

The requirement that $g$ be symmetric means that $g$ needs to be equal to

$$ \frac{1}{y^2} \color{red}{dx} \otimes \color{blue}{dx} + \frac{1}{y^2} \color{red}{dy} \otimes \color{blue}{dy} $$

and it is, because the color is just notation and isn't part of the metric.

An example of a tensor that isn't symmetric is $dx \otimes dy$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Ok, I think I understand. The $\frac{1}{y^2}$ factor is just a constant, in the sense that if $p=(x,y)$, then in the expression for $g_p$ it will be just a constant factor. This makes sense here because we are taking the identity on $H$ as a paremetrization. Am I right? – Bruno Stonek Feb 4 '13 at 20:16
the term $\frac{1}{y^2}$ means that at every point $(x_0,y_0)\in H$ you have to divide the standard (Euclidean) metric by $\frac{1}{y_0^2}$. Then, excpet that for points of kind $(x_0, 1)$ or $(x_0, -1)$, you'll have another scalar product – AX.J Feb 4 '13 at 20:19
@BrunoStonek: at each point, yes, the $\frac{1}{y^2}$ is constant, and this just says that, infinitesimally, the hyperbolic plane is the same as the real plane. But when you actually use this Riemannian metric to measure length, or area, the $\frac{1}{y^2}$ will not be constant, but part of your integral. – user641 Feb 4 '13 at 20:20
@BrunoStonek Intuitively, the $\frac{1}{y^2}$ factor means that distances expand as you get closer and closer to the $x$-axis ($y=0$); the axis is infinitely far away from any point in the upper half-plane! – Steven Stadnicki Feb 4 '13 at 20:22
Why call it "$ds^2$" and not just $g$? – Bruno Stonek Feb 4 '13 at 20:29

A "fundamental form" $$ds^2=E(x,y)\>dx^2+2F(x,y)\>dx\>dy+G(x,y)\>dy^2\ ,$$ in your case $$ds^2={dx^2+dy^2\over y^2}\ ,$$ tells you how to measure the length of a curve $\gamma$ given in the form $$\gamma:\quad t\mapsto\bigl(x(t),y(t)\bigr)\qquad(a\leq t\leq b)\ .$$ The rule is: Write formally $$dx=\dot x(t)\ dt,\quad dy=\dot y(t)\ dt$$ and compute $$L(\gamma)=\int_a^b\sqrt{E\bigl(x(t),y(t)\bigr)\dot x^2(t)+2F\bigl(x(t),y(t)\bigr)\dot x(t)\dot y(t)+G\bigl(x(t),y(t)\bigr)\dot y^2(t)}\ dt\ ,$$ in your case $$L(\gamma)=\int_a^b{\sqrt{\dot x^2(t)+\dot y^2(t)}\over y(t)}\ dt\ .$$ The intuitive idea is the following: For reasons particular to the problem at hand the length of an "infinitesimal segment" connecting the points $(x,y)$ and $(x+dx,y+dy)$ should not be the usual pythagorean $\sqrt{dx^2+dy^2}$; instead it should depend in a still "natural", but more complicated way on the vector $(dx,dy)$. In your case the length of this "infinitesimal segment" should be its euclidean length, divided by the $y$-coordinate of the point where it is located.

share|cite|improve this answer

It can help to fall back on an extrinsic point of view to get some intuition.

Let $S$ be a Riemannian manifold of dimension 2, smoothly embedded in $\mathbb R^n$. We can associate with each point in $S$ a vector in $\mathbb R^n$. Of course, $\mathbb R^n$ has an inner product, but we naturally do not expect the inner product of two points in $S$ to tell us anything about the geometry of $S$.

When you introduce a pair of coordinates to parameterize $S$, you can talk about the tangent space. Let $s$ be the position of some point in $S$, then the vectors in the tangent space taken on the form

$$e_x = \frac{\partial s}{\partial x}, \quad e_y = \frac{\partial s}{\partial y}$$

Again, $s$ is a vector in $\mathbb R^n$, so these expressions have a sensible, concrete meaning.

The metric, then, merely tells us about the vectors in the tangent space and how they are related to each other. You can write it as

$$ds^2 = (e_x \cdot e_x) dx^2 + (e_y \cdot e_y) dy^2 + 2 (e_x \cdot e_y) dx \, dy$$

So the metric tells us whether the tangent space vectors are orthogonal to one another, and about their lengths. This is the basic extrinsic viewpoint; intrinsically, one has to work a little harder, but hopefully this is enough to gain some intuition.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.