4
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have a semi-Riemannian manifold $(M^n,g)$ with metric signature $(n-k,k)$. By definition, each $p \in M$ the map $g_p : T_pM \times T_pM \to \Bbb{R}$ is a non-degenerate, symmetric, bilinear form.

How to find a local orthonormal frame on a neighbourhood $U \subseteq M$ of a point $p \in M$ ? That is $n$-tuple of local vector fields $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ defined on a neighbourhood of a point such that for any $p \in M$, $(X_1|_p,\dots,X_n|_p)$ is linearly independent, $\text{span }(X_1|_p,\dots,X_n|_p) = T_pM$ and $g_p(X_i|_p,X_j|_p) = \pm \delta_{ij}$. I've seen such construction for Riemannian manifold in Lee's smooth manifolds which using Gram-Schmidt procedure. Using similar idea as in Lee's, i came up with this following construction. The problem with using the same strategy (Gram-Schimdt) is that since $g_p$ is indefinite, the normalizing function $1/|\cdot| = 1/\sqrt{|g(\cdot,\cdot)|}$ is not automatically smooth function since $g(\cdot,\cdot)$ can vanish somewhere. However, i may get a way with this issue but not really sure. I need some opinion and justification for this.

$\textbf{Choosing a local frame}$

Let $p \in M$ be arbitrary point and $\{v_1,\dots,v_n\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $T_pM$. Having this, we can find a smooth local frame $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ on some neighbourhood $U\subseteq M$ of $p$ such that $X_i|_p=v_i$ for all $i =1,\dots,n$ (See John Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds 2nd Ed, Proposition 8.11).

$\textbf{Normalizing}$

We normalize them as follows: Since $g(X_1,X_1): U \to \Bbb{R}$ is a smooth function with $g(X_1,X_1)(p) = g_p(X_1|_p,X_1|_p) =g_p(v_1,v_1)= \pm 1$, then by continuity we have a smaller neighbourhood $U_1 \subseteq U$ of $p$ such that $g(X_1,X_1)$ is strictly positive or strictly negative in this region, depends on the sign $g_p(v_1,v_1)=\pm 1$. Because of this $|X_1| = \sqrt{|g(X_1,X_1)|}$ is a non-vanishing smooth vector field on $U_1$, then we can normalize $X_1$, by setting $$ E_1 = \frac{X_1}{|X_1|}. $$ Similarly, the vector $V_2 = X_2 - \varepsilon_1 g(X_2,E_1)E_1$ is a smooth vector field with $g(V_2,V_2)(p) = g_p(V_2|_p,V_2|_p) = g_p(v_2,v_2) = \pm 1$. So $g(V_2,V_2) $ has a neighbourhood $U_2 \subseteq U$ of $p$ such that it has only positive or negative values. So we have normalized smooth vector field $$ E_2 = \frac{X_2 - \varepsilon_1 g(X_2,E_1)E_1}{|X_2 - \varepsilon_1 g(X_2,E_1)E_1|}, \quad \varepsilon_1=g(E_1,E_1)=\pm1 $$ defined on $U_1 \cap U_2$ and with $g(E_2,E_1) = 0$.

Working inductively, we have $n$-tuple of smooth vector fields $(E_1,\dots,E_n)$ defined on $W = U_1 \cap \cdots \cap U_n$ given by $$ E_j = \frac{X_j - \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \varepsilon_i \, g(X_j,E_i)E_i}{|X_j - \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} \varepsilon_i \, g(X_j,E_i)E_i|} $$ with $\varepsilon_i=g(E_i,E_i)=\pm1$. By construction $g(E_i,E_j) = 0$ for $i \neq j$ and $g(E_i,E_i) = \pm 1$, and $\text{span}(X_1,\dots,X_n) = \text{span}(E_,\dots,E_n)$.

Is this correct ? Is there any simpler approach ? Any help will be appreciated. Thank you.

$\textbf{EDIT}$

I just want to tell that i've found a similar construction using GS method in Darling's Differential Form and Connection section 7.7

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Yes, this is basically fine. One small correction: You wrote

Because of this $|X_1| = \sqrt{|g(X_1,X_1)|}$ is a non-vanishing smooth vector field on $U_1$, ...

But $|X_1|$ is not a vector field. It should say

Because of this $|X_1| = \sqrt{|g(X_1,X_1)|}$ is a non-vanishing smooth function on $U_1$, ...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much Prof Lee. I've been looking for justification about this for a while. I really appreciate this. $\endgroup$ – kelvinn aja Aug 13 '18 at 1:16
2
$\begingroup$

Let $(M,g)$ be a pseudo-Riemannian $n$-manifold and $p\in M$ be an arbitrary point. Consider a local frame $(\partial_1,\dots,\partial_n)$ in some coordinate neighbourhood $U\ni p$ and an arbitrary orthonormal basis $(V_1,\dots,V_n)$ in $T_pM$. We have $(V_1,\dots,V_n)=((\partial_1)_p,\dots,(\partial_n)_p) A$ for the transition matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, so we can set a new local frame $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ with $((X_1)_q,\dots,(X_n)_q)=((\partial_1)_q,\dots,(\partial_n)_q) A$ for all $q\in U$. Since $g_p((X_i)_p,(X_j)_p)=g_p(V_i,V_j)$ and $g(X_i,X_j)\in\mathfrak{F}(U)$, then by continuity there exists an open neighbourhood $W\subseteq U$ of $p$ such that \begin{equation*} \lvert{g(X_i,X_i)}\rvert >a=\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{3n}<1 \mbox{ and } \lvert{g(X_i,X_j)}\rvert <b=\frac{1}{6n} \mbox{ for all } 1\leq i\neq j\leq n. \end{equation*} Let us apply the Gram-Schmidt process to create an orthogonal local frame $(Y_1,\dots,Y_n)$ on $W$ such that \begin{equation*} \lvert{g(Y_i,Y_i)}\rvert >d=\frac{3}{4} \mbox{ and } \lvert{g(Y_i,X_j)}\rvert <c=\frac{1}{2n} \mbox{ for all } 1\leq i\neq j\leq n. \end{equation*} We start with $Y_1=X_1$. Suppose that we inductively set $(Y_1,\dots,Y_{j-1})$ for some $2\leq j\leq n$ and define \begin{equation*} Y_j=X_j-\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\frac{g(X_j,Y_i)}{g(Y_i,Y_i)}Y_i. \end{equation*} It is clear that $g(Y_j,Y_i)=0$ for $1\leq i\leq j-1$. Additionally we have, \begin{align*} \lvert{g(Y_j,Y_j)}\rvert&=\left\lvert{g(X_j,X_j)-\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\frac{(g(X_j,Y_i))^2}{g(Y_i,Y_i)}}\right\rvert\\ &\geq \lvert{g(X_j,X_j)}\rvert-\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\frac{\lvert{g(X_j,Y_i)}\rvert^2}{\lvert{g(Y_i,Y_i)}\rvert}>a-n\frac{c^2}{d}=d, \end{align*} \begin{align*} \lvert{g(Y_j,X_k)}\rvert&=\left\lvert{g(X_j,X_k)-\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\frac{g(X_j,Y_i)g(Y_i,X_k)}{g(Y_i,Y_i)}}\right\rvert\\ &\leq \lvert{g(X_j,X_k)}\rvert+\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\frac{\lvert{g(X_j,Y_i)\rvert} \lvert{g(Y_i,X_k)}\rvert}{\lvert{g(Y_i,Y_i)}\rvert}<b+n\frac{c^2}{d}=c. \end{align*} Since $\lVert{Y_i}\rVert=\sqrt{\lvert{g(Y_i,Y_i)}\rvert}\in\mathfrak{F}(W)$ is non-vanishing we can set $E_i=Y_i/\lVert{Y_i}\rVert\in\mathfrak{X}(W)$ for each $1\leq i\leq n$, and get a desired orthonormal local frame $(E_1,\dots,E_n)$ on $W\ni p$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your effort. But where is the main difference between our construction ? As far as i can see, its in the choosing the neighbourhood so that the denominator function is not vanish. $\endgroup$ – kelvinn aja Nov 18 '18 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ @KelvinLois Since $g(V_j,V_j)=g(X_j,X_j)-\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\varepsilon_i g(X_j,E_i)^2$ it is not enough to consider just $g_p(v_i,v_i)=\pm 1$, but one should care about $g(v_j,E_i|_p)$ which is near to zero. In that sense, I wrote down how we can prearrange a suitable neighborhood in terms of $X_i$... $\endgroup$ – Arimakat Nov 18 '18 at 21:05
  • $\begingroup$ Should i worry about this in my construction ? I think i have chosen $X_j$ and $E_j$ so that $g(X_j|_p,E_i|_p)=0$ for $i\neq j$ right ? $\endgroup$ – kelvinn aja Nov 18 '18 at 22:04
  • $\begingroup$ Intuitively, your construction is fine. However, some things may deserve better clarification. $\endgroup$ – Arimakat Nov 18 '18 at 23:01

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.