2
$\begingroup$

a) Prove that nondegenerate zeros are isolated.

b) Furthermore, show that at a nondegenrate zero $x$, $ind_x (\vec v)=+1$ if the isomorphism $d(\vec v_x )$ preserve orientation, and $ind_x (\vec v)=-1$ if the isomorphism $d(\vec v_x )$ reserve orientation

For part a)

I know that a zero $x$ is nondegenerate if $d(\vec v_x )$ is isomorphism. So this guantee on part b), $\vec v_x:X\to X$ is diffeomorphism.

Let $f_t:X\to X$ be defined as $f_t(x)=\pi(x+t\vec v_x)$. From one of my theorem, at a zero $x$ of $\vec v$, $d(f_t)=I-td(\vec v_x)$ as a linear map $T_x (X)$ to itself

At a nondegenerate zero, $d(\vec v_x ):T_x (X)\to T_x (X)$ is isomorphism. I'm trying to find the connection between this and the above statement, but I can't see any. How can I show that in a very small neighbor hood $U$ of $x$, I can't find any other zero?

From one of my previous exercise, I have shown that for $f:X \to Y$ is diffeomorphism where $X$ is compact manifold and $Y$ is connected manifold, then $deg(f)=+1$ if $f$ preserve the orientation and $deg(f)=-1$ if $f$ reserve the orientation. Can I use any of this result for part b)?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I believe Guillemin & Pollack has a typo, where "$d(f_t)_x=I-t \, d \vec v_x$" should be "$d(f_t)_x=I + t \, d \vec v_x$". $\endgroup$ – Kyle Dec 2 '14 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ @TedShifrin The above comment may be an addition to your list of errata (this exercise is on p.139). $\endgroup$ – user500094 Apr 9 '18 at 23:44
3
+50
$\begingroup$

Please note: It sounds like you're reading Guillemin and Pollack ("G&P"), so I'll reference it when convenient. However, since this is such a standard text, so I'm not going to write out all the details in the proofs. There's a lot to be learned by struggling with these exercises and forcing yourself to identify and overcome the parts where you get stuck.

Background: A zero $x$ of a vector field $\vec v$ on a smooth manifold $X \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is called nondegenerate if $d\vec v_x : T_x X \to T_x X$ is an isomorphism. By the $\epsilon$-Neighborhood Theorem, there's a neighborhood $X^\epsilon$ of $X$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and a "nearest point" projection $\pi: X^\epsilon \to X$. As you wrote, for sufficiently small $t$, we can define maps $f_t: X\to X$ by $f_t(x)=\pi(x + t \vec v(x))$.

Lemma (G&P 3.5.4). At a zero $x$ of $\vec v$, we have \begin{equation}d(f_t)_x=I + t \, d\vec v_x.\tag{$*$}\end{equation}

Proof. Consider a curve $\gamma: \mathbb{R} \to X$ satisfying $\gamma(0)=x$. Then \begin{align} d(f_t)_x( \gamma'(0))&= d\pi_{x+t \cdot \vec v(x)} \left(\frac{d}{ds} \big( \gamma(s)+ t \vec v(\gamma(s)) \big)\bigg|_{s=0}\right) = d\pi_x \left( \gamma'(0) +t \, d\vec v_x (\gamma'(0)) \right). \end{align} Since $x$ is a zero of $\vec v$, the derivative $d \vec v_x: T_x X \to \mathbb{R}^n$ sends $T_X X$ to itself; see 3.5.3 in G&P if this is unclear. It follows that $\gamma'(0)+t \, d \vec v_x (\gamma'(0))$ lies in $T_x X$, which is fixed by $d\pi_x$ because $X$ is fixed by $\pi$. The claim follows. $\blacksquare$

Proof that nondegenerate zeroes are isolated: Lefschetz fixed points of diffeomorphisms $X \to X$ are isolated, so it suffices to show that nondegenerate zeroes of $\vec v$ are Lefschetz fixed points of $f_t$; this is the hint provided in G&P. If $x$ is a nondegenerate zero of $\vec v$, then $d \vec v_x (\xi)\neq 0$ for all $\xi \neq 0\in T_x X$. Thus, using ($*$), we see that $d(f_t)_x(\xi)\neq \xi \, \text{ for } t \neq 0.$ It follows that $x$ is a Lefschetz fixed point of $f_t$ (for nonzero $t$). $\blacksquare$

Note: The above argument easily extends to show that the nondegenerate zeroes of $\vec v$ are precisely the Lefschetz fixed points of $f_t$ (for $t \neq 0$).

Proof that $\boldsymbol{\operatorname{ind}_x(\vec v)=+1}$ (resp., $\boldsymbol{-1}$) if $\boldsymbol{d\vec v_x}$ preserves (resp., reverses) orientation: We know that nondegenerate zeroes are Lefschetz fixed points of $f_t$ (for $t\neq 0$), so we have $L_x(f_t)=\operatorname{ind}_x (\vec v)$, where $L_x(f_t)$ is the local Lefschetz number of $f_t$ at $x$; see the Proposition in $\S$3.5 of G&P. We know that $L_x(f_t)=\pm 1$ depending on whether $d(f_t)_x-I$ (an isomorphism because $x$ is a Lefschetz fixed point) preserves ($+1$) or reverses ($-1$) the orientation of $T_x X$; see the Proposition on p121 $\S$3.4 of G&P. Since ($*$) implies that $d(f_t)_x - I= d\vec v_x$, the claim follows. $\blacksquare$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the very last line: the lemma says that $d(f_t)_x-I=tdv_x$, why do you say that $d(f_t)_x-I=dv_x$? $\endgroup$ – user500094 Apr 9 '18 at 22:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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