Let $M^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ be an isometrically immersed Riemannian hypersurface. The shape operator $s$ is the $(1,1)$ tensor field characterized by $$\langle X, sY \rangle = \langle \text{II}(X,Y), N\rangle,$$ where $X$, $Y$ are vector fields, $\text{II}$ is the second fundamental form, and $N$ is a unit normal vector field. We can then define the mean curvature and Gaussian curvature by $$H = \frac{1}{n}\text{tr}(s), \ \ \ \ \ \ K = \det(s).$$

Gauss' Theorema Egregium is the statement that $K$ is an isometry invariant of $M$ when $\mathbf{n = 2}$. By contrast, $H$ is not. This makes me wonder about the following:

Question: Let $p(\lambda) = \lambda^n + a_{n-1}\lambda^{n-1} + \ldots + a_0$ denote the characteristic polynomial of the shape operator $s$. For $n > 2$, are any of the coefficients $a_i$ (local) isometry invariants of $M$? If so, which?

Again, a previous question of mine was meant to get at this, but my thoughts were not quite so clear.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure that the gaussian curvature is an isometry invariant for an hypersurface of arbitrary dimension $ n $. Are you sure about it? If $ n=2 $ we know that the gaussian curvature is an isometry invariant because it is equal to the sectional curvature of $ M $ (note in this case the sectional curvature is merely a function on $ M $). $\endgroup$ – user55449 Mar 2 '13 at 7:56
  • $\begingroup$ @user55449: Wow, I hadn't realized that at all. Thank you for clarifying; that's a really good point. Hm, I'm not quite sure how to salvage this question. Oh, well. $\endgroup$ – Jesse Madnick Mar 2 '13 at 8:54
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I've edited the question accordingly, though it's somewhat more pessimistic. $\endgroup$ – Jesse Madnick Mar 2 '13 at 9:01

If $n>2$ then all the coefficients $a_m$ are isometry invariants of generic $M$. Say, it sufficient to assume that $M$ has positive curvature, but as you will see much weaker assumptions can be made.

Let $e_i$ be the principle basis and $\kappa_i$ be principle curvatures. The curvature operator of $M$ has eigenvectors $e_i\wedge e_j$ with eigenvalues $K_{ij}=\kappa_i\cdot\kappa_j$. If $K_{ij}>0$ and $n>2$, you can recover $\kappa_i$ from $K_{ij}$, say $$\kappa_i=\sqrt{\frac{K_{ij}\cdot K_{ik}}{K_{jk}}}.$$ Since the values $K_{ij}$ are isometry invariants of $M$ so are all $\kappa_i$ and symmetrizing we get all $a_m$ (up to sign).

About other conditions: say nonzero Gaussian curvature $G=\kappa_1\cdots\kappa_n$ will do as well and the proof is the same. In particular $|G|$ is invariant.

On the other hand for the hyperplane $|H|=\mathrm{const}\cdot |a_1|$ is not invariant, so you should assume something about curvature at the point.

  • $\begingroup$ Interesting. Can you clarify some things for me? Perhaps in an edit? (1) Are you saying that the $\kappa_i$ are intrinsic isometry invariants of generic $M$ when $n > 2$? (2) What specific operator do you mean by "curvature operator of $M$"? (3) I thought negative curvature was in some sense more generic than positive curvature? $\endgroup$ – Jesse Madnick Mar 2 '13 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Jesse: (1) Yes in generic case, say if $G\ne 0$; (2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curvature_of_Riemannian_manifolds (3) Well, if $n>2$, negatively curved mnfld can not be isometric to hypersurface... $\endgroup$ – Anton Petrunin Mar 2 '13 at 23:52
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, that makes sense. Do you have any references for (3)? My differential geometry education has consisted of classical surfaces in $\mathbb{R}^3$, and abstract Riemannian manifolds, with virtually no bridge in between. In particular, I know almost nothing (as you can see) about how the geometry of surfaces in $\mathbb{R}^3$ generalizes (or not) to hypersurfaces in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. $\endgroup$ – Jesse Madnick Mar 3 '13 at 1:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JesseMadnick I don't have a reference for (3), but I think I see the reason: write the 3-dimensional hypersurface locally as$$x_4=\sum_{i,j=1}^3 a_{ij} x_ix_j+o(|x|^2)$$ and observe that whatever signature the form $(a_{ij})$ has, it is either positive semidefinite or negative semidefinite on some two-dimensional subspace. Therefore, a hypersurface cannot have negative sectional curvature. $\endgroup$ – user53153 Mar 3 '13 at 3:04

A reference for a fairly general statement is Spivak's "A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry," Volume IV, Section 7D. I'll just quote the results here.

Let $M^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ be an isometrically immersed hypersurface. Let $\kappa_1, \ldots, \kappa_n$ be the principal curvatures. Define the symmetric curvatures $K_j$ by $$K_j = \binom{n}{j}^{-1}\sigma_j(\kappa_1, \ldots, \kappa_n),$$ where $\sigma_j$ is the $j$th elementary symmetric polynomial. In particular, \begin{align*} H = K_1 & = \textstyle \frac{1}{n}(\kappa_1 + \cdots + \kappa_n) \\ K = K_n & = \kappa_1 \cdots \kappa_n. \end{align*} are the mean and Gauss-Kronecker curvatures, respectively.

Prop: The set of the $\binom{n}{2}$ numbers $\{\kappa_i \kappa_j \colon i < j\}$ is invariant under isometry. In particular, the even symmetric curvatures $K_{2r}$ are invariant under isometry.

According to Spivak, the "in particular" follows from the algebraic fact that the even powers of the characteristic polynomial of a matrix $A$ can be expressed in terms of the determinants of the $2 \times 2$ submatrices of $A$.


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.