11
$\begingroup$

The Gauss–Bonnet theorem say that: If $\Sigma \subset M =\mathbb{R}^3$ is a compact 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold without boundary, then $$ \int_{\Sigma} K = 2\pi\chi_{\Sigma}$$

where $K$ is the Gaussian curvature of $\Sigma$ and $\chi_{\Sigma}$ is the Euler characteristic of $\Sigma$.

In Proposition 7 of http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1665, $M^3$ is compact (thus $M\ne \mathbb{R}^3$), but they use Gauss-Bonnet. Why?

Moreover, in this case, $K$ is the curvature sectional or the product of principal curvatures of the surface?

Can someone suggest a reference? Thank you!

$\endgroup$
11
$\begingroup$

Good question.

The answer is that Gauss-Bonnet does not actually require the hypothesis that $\Sigma$ is embedded (or even immersed) in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Rather, it is an intrinsic statement about abstract Riemannian 2-manifolds. See Robert Greene's notes here, or the Wikipedia page on Gauss-Bonnet, or perhaps John Lee's Riemannian Manifolds book.

Many texts on elementary differential geometry include the hypothesis that $\Sigma \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ because that is the context they're working in. That is, some books don't define abstract manifolds.

In this case, I would interpret $K$ as the sectional curvature. To be honest, I've never seen a definition of "principal curvature" outside the setting of $\mathbb{R}^N$, though my ignorance shouldn't be taken as definitive proof that the concept doesn't exist in more general settings.

Aside: More interesting to me, by the way, is the fact that $\Sigma$ is non-orientable (it is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{RP}^2$). I don't think I've seen a proof of Gauss-Bonnet for the non-orientable setting, but it's apparently not a difficult modification.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Hi Jesse. Indeed, integration on manifolds can be defined for compactly supported densities without the need of an orientation (but then, without the use of volume forms), cf. Nicolaescu - "Lectures on the Geometry of Manifolds" sec.3.4.1. Then for compact surfaces, since Gauß curvature is locally defined and a scalar field, there can be an analogue of Gauß-Bonnet in the nonorientable case. Nevertheless, it is not then a remarkable corollary to Atiyah-Singer or Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch, and other index results, since they depend on the surface to have a complex structure, thus an orientation. $\endgroup$ – Javier Álvarez Nov 14 '12 at 10:13
2
$\begingroup$

I think a proof of Gauss-Bonnet for non-orientable setting is very simple. Here we follow John Lee's idea in his book (page 169).

Let $M$ be a compact two dimensional non-orientable manifold. Then a double cover of $M$ must a compact, orientable two dimensional manifold. The double cover $\tilde{M}$ should 'lift up' the piece corresponding to the $\mathbb{RP}^{2}$ or $K$ in the classification theorem. Now for $\tilde{M}$ we can endow the push-back metric defined by $$ \tilde{g}=\pi^{*}g $$ such that the projection map is a local isometry. Then it is obvious that $\pi^{*}\tilde{K}=K$ since sectional curvature is only defined locally. Now we have $$ \chi(\tilde{M})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\tilde{M}} \tilde{K}d\tilde{\sigma} $$ But we know that that $\chi(\tilde{M})=2\chi(M)$, and similarly $\tilde{K}=K$'s integral would appear twice when we do the integral on $M$ using a compact-supported density. So dividing by 2 on both sides we get the desired formula for $M$: $$ \chi(M)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{M} Kd\sigma $$ and this finished the proof.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The issue here is that your last formula technically doesn't make sense, assuming by $d\sigma$ you mean the volume form, since the volume form doesn't exist globally on a non-orientable manifold. One can skirt this issue by defining the concept of densities on a manifold. $\endgroup$ – Brian Klatt Nov 16 '17 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ The formula $d\overline{\sigma}$ means densities. $\endgroup$ – Bombyx mori Nov 16 '17 at 20:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Okay. There wasn't any overbar in the formula in the answer. $\endgroup$ – Brian Klatt Nov 16 '17 at 21:03

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.