1
$\begingroup$

I'm self study Riemannian Geometry to be able to understand this lecture notes about Mean Curvature Flow. The first chapter is a review of Riemannian Geometry and I'm stuck in the following part:

"Using the isomorphism induced by the metric $g$ we can regard $\nabla f$ also as element of the tangent space, in this case it is called the gradient of $f$. The gradient of $f$ can be identified with a vector in $R^{n+1}$ via the differential $dF$; such a vector is called the tangential gradient of $f$ and is denoted by $\nabla^M f$, given in coordinates by"

$$\nabla^M f = \nabla^i f \frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i} = g^{ij} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j} \frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i}$$

The word ”tangential” comes from the equivalent definition of $\nabla^M f$ in case $f$ is a function defined on the ambient space $R^{n+1}$. It can be checked that $\nabla^M f$ is the projection of the standard Euclidean gradient $DF$ onto the tangent space of $M$, that is,

$$\nabla^M f = Df - \langle Df, \nu \rangle_e \nu,$$

where $\nu$ is a local choice of unit normal to $M$.

A relevant consideration done in the beginning of the chapter is

We restrict ourselves to manifolds of codimension 1 in an Euclidean ambient space, i.e. we consider a n-dimensional smooth manifold $M$, without boundary, either closed or complete and non-compact and an immersion (or embedding)

$$F: M \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$$

[...]We denote by $g_{ij} := \langle \frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i}. \frac{\partial F}{\partial x_j} \rangle_e$ the induced metric on $M$, where $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_e$ is the Euclidean scalar product on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$.

My doubt is what I need to check exactly? I need to show that $g^{ij} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j} \frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i} = Df - \langle Df, \nu \rangle_e$ or I need prove that the $\textit{gradient}$ of $f$ (which is different of the definition of $\textit{tangential gradient}$ of $f$) is equal to $Df - \langle Df, \nu \rangle_e$ identifying $\textit{gradient}$ of $f$ with the $\textit{tangential gradient}$ of $f$? In the first case, I think the argument is just as it is in this topic, but I don't know how to prooced if the case is the second.

Thanks in advance!

$\textbf{P.S.:}$

Other consideration that maybe be relevant: my background are Linear Algebra, Metric Spaces, Analysis on $\mathbb{R^n}$ and Differential Geometry.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The only thing you need to "check" (essentially) is that $$D \widetilde{f} \circ DF=df, $$ which is trivial by the chain rule, where I am denoting by $\widetilde{f}$ the function as defined on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ (so that $\widetilde{f} \circ F=f$). $^{(1)}$

Now the rest is linear algebra (which may also be considered something to "check"), since given $X_p \in T_pM$, \begin{align*} df(X_p)=D\widetilde{f}( DF(X_p))&=\langle \nabla \widetilde{f}, DF(X_p\rangle) \\ &=\langle (\nabla \widetilde{f})^{\perp}+(\nabla \widetilde{f})^{\top}, DF(X_p)\rangle \\ &=\langle (\nabla \widetilde{f})^{\top}, DF( X_p) \rangle \\ &=\langle DF^{-1}(\nabla \widetilde{f}^{\top}), X_p \rangle, \end{align*} so the gradient of $f$ at some $p \in M$ is just the tangential gradient vector of $\widetilde{f}$ (under the identification of $DF$ $^{(2)}$). I am assuming you are giving $M$ the pull-back metric, of course.

$^{(1)}$Just an observation: There may be some identifications here, depending on definitions. If you take $Df$ to mean the usual definition as given in a standard course in analysis, then you must identify $T_p\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathbb{R}^n$ in the usual way. This is also the difference between $df: T_pM \to \mathbb{R}$ or $df: T_pM \to T_p\mathbb{R}$, which you allude to in the comments.

$^{(2)}$This is the identification he mentions at

The gradient of $f$ can be identified with a vector in $R^{n+1}$ via the differential $dF$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I understand the second part assuming the first, but the first part isn't clear for me yet. First, $f$ is a map $f: M \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$, then $df_p: T_pM \longrightarrow T_{f(p)} \mathbb{R}$, right? But $F: M \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, then $DF: T_pM \longrightarrow T_{F(p)} F(M) \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and, consequently, DF|_{T_pM} \neq df, right? I saw that you're brazilian, I'm brazilian too. I'm studying Riemannian geometry by this notes: mat.ufmg.br/~rodney/notas_de_aula/geometria_riemanniana.pdf written in portuguese. $\endgroup$ – George May 23 '18 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ Is your definition of Xf the same as defined in these lecture notes on page $15$? $\endgroup$ – George May 23 '18 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ @George Good to see a fellow brazilian! : ) I will put some more details in the answer. OBS: I thought "F" just referred to the extension of $f$, so there are some clashing notations here. I'll fix them up. $\endgroup$ – Aloizio Macedo May 23 '18 at 21:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @S.Maths it's $\nabla^M f = Df - \langle Df, \nu \rangle_e \nu$. $\endgroup$ – George Jul 19 at 22:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @S.Maths, $\nabla^M f$ is the tangential component of $Df \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, the usual derivative in an Euclidean space. Are you refirring $\nabla f$ as $\nabla^M f$? $\endgroup$ – George Jul 23 at 19:23

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.