2
$\begingroup$

Reading through Lee's introduction to smooth manifold, I bumped into this result:

$\textbf{Lemma 14.12.}$ Let $\cal F$ be a foliation of a smooth manifold $M$. The collection of tangent spaces to the leaves of $\cal F$ forms an involutive distribution on $M$.

I've tried to prove it, but have gotten stuck. A foliation is basically slicing $M$ into $k$-dimensional submanifolds (immersed submanifolds), called leaves, so that each $p\in M$ has a neighborhood $(U,\phi)$ which intersects each leaf either in the empty set or in a coutable union of "slices", i.e. connected pieces where the final $\dim M-k$ coordinates of $\phi$ are constant. This type of chart is called flat chart. I have to prove the tangent spaces to the foliation give a $k$-dimensional distribution on $M$. A distribution is assigning to each point a linear subspace $\Delta_p$ of dimension the distribution's dimension, in this case $k$, of the tangent space $T_pM$, in such a way that each $p\in M$ has a neighborhood $U$ with $k$ linearly independent fields $X_1,\dotsc,X_k$ on $U$ which are smooth and span $\Delta_q$ for all $q\in U$, i.e. $\Delta_q=\mathrm{span}(X_1(q),\dotsc,X_k(q))$ for all $q\in U$. That we have a subspace of the tangent space per point of $M$ is easy: take the tangent spaces to the leaves. The $k$ fields are the first problem. How do I construct them? I'm sure I must use the flat charts somehow. Perhaps the coordinate fields of the flat chart? Those may not span the subspaces though. So how do I find these fields? Involutiveness means that those $k$ fields have Lie brackets which stay in the distribution. If I can't show the fields exist, I certainly cannot show they fulfill this condition, so I am stuck here. How do I proceed?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

There's no need to actually construct a local frame. To show a distribution is involutive you just need to show that for any two local sections of this distribution $X$ and $Y$, $[X,Y]$ is also a local section.

It might be easier to think in terms of flows instead of vector fields. Let $X$ and $Y$ be local sections of this distribution; that is, let $X$ and $Y$ (locally) be vector fields tangent to the foliation. Let $\phi_t$ be the flow of $X$. Then you know $$\frac{d}{dt}\bigg|_{t=0} \phi_t^* Y = \mathcal L_X Y = [X,Y].$$

Now, by definition of the flow $\phi_t^*$, it preserves the integral submanifolds (since $X$ is tangent to them). Hence it restricts to a diffeomorphism of (each of) the integral submanifolds, and takes tangent vectors in the integral submanifolds to tangent vectors in the integral submanifolds. Hence $\phi_t^*Y$ is tangent to the foliation for all $Y$, and thus $[X,Y]$ is tangent to the foliation as desired.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ One little detail: AFAIK «it preserves the integral submanifolds» at least for small $t$. That is of course sufficient here because we are taking a limit (the derivative), but better note that AFAIK it might not preserve the submanifolds for any $t$. Also, this shows the distribution is involutive, but I think I need to show it is smooth, and that should require a local frame, right? $\endgroup$ – MickG Aug 10 '15 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ According to Lee's definition of distribution, it has to be a smooth vector bundle over the manifold, which is equivalent (Lemma 14.1) to having a smooth local frame. $\endgroup$ – MickG Aug 10 '15 at 9:12
  • $\begingroup$ @MickG If $\phi_t$ exists, then it preserves integral manifolds by definition (you're just following the integral curves). I didn't realize you wanted to show it was a distribution, period, too; use that there is a smooth chart around any point in which the foliation becomes the canonical foliation of $\Bbb R^n$ by $\Bbb R^k$. $\endgroup$ – user98602 Aug 10 '15 at 11:53
  • $\begingroup$ Oh right, it's not just a submanifold tangent to the field. Whoops. THe flat chart (smooth chart making the foliation into the canonical one) takes the tangent space to the foliation into $\mathbb{R}^k$, which is generated by coordinate vectors from 1 to $k$, which give the desired local frame when moved back to the manifold. Right? $\endgroup$ – MickG Aug 10 '15 at 13:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MickG: Precisely. $\endgroup$ – user98602 Aug 10 '15 at 14:14

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.