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.

I want to show that conformally immersed Riemann surfaces in $\mathbb{R}^4$ are leaves of a 2-foliation $\mathcal{F}$. I start with the generalized Weierstrass representation of the surfaces: take 4 holomorphic functions $ \{\phi(z)_\alpha, \psi(z)_\alpha\},~\alpha=1,2$ that satisfy a Dirac equation

$\partial_z \phi_\alpha=p\psi_\alpha,~\partial_{\bar{z}}\psi_\alpha=-p\phi_\alpha$

with real-valued $p(z,\bar{z})$. These define a conformal immersion into $\mathbb{R}^4$ with coordinates $X_a(z,\bar{z}), a=1,2,3,4$ that satisfy

$dX_1=\frac{i}{2}(\bar\phi_1\bar\phi_2+\psi_1\psi_2)dz+c.c.$

$dX_2=\frac{1}{2}(\bar\phi_1\bar\phi_2-\psi_1\psi_2)dz+c.c.$

$dX_3=-\frac{1}{2}(\bar\phi_1\psi_2+\bar\phi_1\psi_2)dz+c.c.$

$dX_4=\frac{i}{2}(\bar\phi_1\psi_2-\bar\phi_1\psi_2)dz+c.c.$

(for details on this "generalized Weierstrass representation", see Konopelchenko & Landolfi). Call this "immersed submanifold" $\Sigma$. Now I want to show these surfaces define a foliation, so I want to show the field of tangent planes is integrable. In these local coordinates I can write a vector field as

$ V=V^a \frac{\partial}{\partial X^a}=V^a(\frac{\partial z}{\partial X^a}\frac{\partial }{\partial z}+\frac{\partial \bar{z}}{\partial X^a}\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}})$

It seems pretty obvious to me then that $[V,W]$ is a vector field on $\Sigma$ if $V,W$ are, and by Frobenius' Theorem this defines a 2-foliation. On the other hand, I know that any old surface in a smooth manifold does not necessarily define a 2-foliation and it didn't look like I did anything special except use coordinates which depend smoothly on the complex coordinate $z$. So am I right about this or did I do something strange?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted
+50

I believe you did something strange.

Any single independent pair of solutions $((\phi_1, \psi_1),(\phi_2,\psi_2))$ yields a single immersion $X: \mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{R}^4$ according to the paper you have cited. I'm guessing that this immersion is intended to be a covering map (otherwise, the image might not be a manifold) of a single differentiable surface $\Sigma$. Then you get a plane field $\tau$ (in fact, you get a 2-frame) as the span of the image of $\frac{\partial}{\partial z}$ and $\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}}$ under $X'$.

The problem is that $\tau$ is only defined on $\Sigma$, and not on all of $\mathbb{R}^4$. Frobenius's theorem would yield a 2-foliation only given a plane field on all of $\mathbb{R}^4$. As it is, we only have a plane field on $\Sigma$. So a 2-foliation of $\mathbb{R}^4$ including $\Sigma$ as a leaf exists only if (and if) we can extend $\tau$ to a plane field on all of $\mathbb{R}^4$.

EDIT:

Let me put your comments this way. By the tubular neighborhood theorem, there is an embedding $i:(N\Sigma,\Sigma) \hookrightarrow (\mathbb{R}^4,\Sigma)$ of the normal bundle into $\mathbb{R}^4$ as a tubular, regular neighborhood $\mathcal{N}$ of $\Sigma$ in $\mathbb{R}^4$. We can get a plane field on $\mathcal{N}$ by pushing forward the obvious plane field $\tau$ on $\Sigma \times \mathbb{R}^2$, given by translations of the tangent plane field on $\Sigma$ in $\Sigma \times \mathbb{R}^2$. The pushforward $i_\ast(\tau)$ is a plane field on $\Sigma$ that restricts to the tangent plane field on $\Sigma$, and we get a 2-foliation on $\mathcal{N}$.

The problem is that $i:\mathcal{N} \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}^4$ is not necessarily surjective. The points missed by $i$ don't get 2-plane elements assigned to them by $i$. To get a 2-foliation on all of $\mathbb{R}^4$, one must assign 2-plane elements to these missed points in a way that's consistent with $i_\ast(\tau)$. This may or may not be possible.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes! Ok so what I'm thinking is that given the 2-frame, one should be able to push the surface $\Sigma$ locally a distance $\epsilon$ along the frome. If this new surface is also an immersed surface, then it can be represented by Weierstrass. Continue this until one gets a foliation. So I'm looking for the obstruction to doing that. And what if we restrict to embeddings, does anything change? –  levitopher Mar 14 '13 at 23:06
    
What exactly do you mean by pushing $\Sigma$ along the frame? –  Robert Haraway Mar 15 '13 at 14:30
    
sorry, my mistake; using the spinors we can also find local normal vectors (equation 3.7 in the paper I cite). I meant push $\Sigma$ along those normal vectors to find another immersed surface $\Sigma'$. I think my question comes down to conditions on the local splitting $T\mathbb{R}^4=TN\oplus T\Sigma$. –  levitopher Mar 15 '13 at 14:47

Your Answer

 
discard

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.