Geodesic implies the well-known identity 0=0

In summary, the conversation discusses the process of trying to solve exercise 4.8 in "Riemannian manifolds" by John Lee, which involves showing that the geodesics of \mathbb R^n are straight lines. The speaker initially encounters a problem with the definition of a geodesic and the Euclidean connection, but eventually discovers their mistake and is able to solve the exercise.
  • #1
Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,877
423
I'm trying to do excercise 4.8 in "Riemannian manifolds" by John Lee. (It's about showing that the geodesics of [itex]\mathbb R^n[/itex] are straight lines).

The result I'm getting is that the definition of a geodesic implies the well-known identity 0=0, which isn't very useful. I must have made a mistake somewhere, but I don't see it. Edit: I do now. See my edit in #3.

Lemma 4.9 defines an operator that Lee writes as Dt, but I don't see the point of that t, so I'll just call it D. Lee defines a geodesic as a curve [itex]\gamma:I\rightarrow M[/itex] (where I is some intervale) such that [itex]D\dot\gamma(t)=0[/itex] for all t. The Euclidean connection is defined by [itex]\nabla_XY=XY^i\partial_i[/itex]. The velocity vector field along [itex]\gamma[/itex] is defined by [itex]\dot\gamma(t)=\gamma_*D_t[/itex], where Dt (not to be confused with the other D) is the operator that takes a function to its derivative at t. So the components of the velocity vector field in a coordinate system x are

[tex]\dot\gamma(t)x^i=\gamma_*Dx^i=D(x^i\circ\gamma)=(x^i\circ\gamma)'(t)[/tex]

Lee writes this as [itex]\dot\gamma^i(t)[/itex], so I will too. Note that since the manifold we're going to be dealing with is [itex]\mathbb R^n[/itex], we can take the coordinate system to be the identity map. The obvious definition [itex]\gamma^i=x^i\circ\gamma[/itex] implies that [itex]\gamma^i'(t)=\dot\gamma(t)[/itex].

Let V be an extension of [itex]\dot\gamma[/itex] to a neigborhood of the image of the curve. This means that we have [itex]V_{\gamma(t)}=\dot\gamma(t)[/itex].

[tex]0=D\dot\gamma(t)=\nabla_{\dot\gamma(t)} V=(\nabla_V V)_{\gamma(t)}=(VV^i\partial_i)_{\gamma(t)}=V_{\gamma(t)}V^i\partial_i|_{\gamma(t)}[/tex]

The vector is only zero if its components are, so this implies

[tex]0=V_{\gamma(t)}V^i=V^j(\gamma(t))\partial_j|_{\gamma(t)}V^i[/tex]

To continue we need to know that

[tex]V^i(\gamma(t))=V_{\gamma(t)}x^i=\dot\gamma(t)x^i=\dot\gamma^i(t)[/tex]

and that this implies that

[tex]V^i=\dot\gamma^i\circ\gamma^{-1}[/tex]

Let's continue with the main calculation. We have

[tex]0=V^j(\gamma(t))\partial_j|_{\gamma(t)}V^i=\dot\gamma^j(t)(V^i\circ x^{-1})_{,j}(x(\gamma(t))[/tex]

where ",j" means the partial derivative with respect to the jth variable. We choose x to be the identity map, so the above is

[tex]=\dot\gamma^j(t)(\dot\gamma^i\circ\gamma^{-1})_{,j}(\gamma(t))=\dot\gamma^j(t)\ddot\gamma^i(t)(\gamma^{-1})_{,j}(\gamma(t))=\ddot\gamma^i(t)(\gamma^{-1}\circ\gamma)'(t)=\ddot\gamma^i(t)\cdot 0=0[/tex]

:confused:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Just a thought: If you work in euclidean n-space the Christoffel symbols are zero and the indicial geodesic equation simplifies to

[tex]\frac{d^2x^m}{ds^2}=0[/tex]

ruling out any change of direction or speed, therefore straight lines.
 
Last edited:
  • #3


Thanks. That inspired me to try to calculate

[tex]\frac{d}{dt}V^i(\gamma(t))[/tex]

to see what I get, and the result is

[tex]=D_t(V^i\circ\gamma)=\gamma_*D_tV^i=\dot\gamma(t)V^i=V_{\gamma(t)}V^i[/tex]

which I know is =0, if the first few steps in my calculation in #1 are correct. And I also showed in #1 that [itex]V^i=\dot\gamma^i\circ\gamma^{-1}[/itex], so

[tex]0=\frac{d}{dt}V^i(\gamma(t))=\frac{d}{dt}\dot\gamma^i(t)[/tex]

which implies constant velocity. I guess that completes the solution of the excercise, but I still don't see what I did wrong in #1. Hm, looks like the mistake has to be in the last line, but I still don't see it.

Edit: Found it. The derivative of the identity map [itex]t\mapsto t[/itex] is 1, not 0. :smile:
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Geodesic implies the well-known identity 0=0

What is a geodesic?

A geodesic is the shortest path between two points on a curved surface.

How does a geodesic relate to the well-known identity 0=0?

The well-known identity 0=0 is a tautology, meaning it is always true. A geodesic can be described as a curve where the tangent vector at any point is parallel to itself. This property is also true for the constant function f(x) = 0, which is why the identity 0=0 is often used to prove the property of geodesics.

Can you provide an example of a geodesic and how it satisfies the identity 0=0?

Yes, imagine a sphere with two points A and B on its surface. The shortest path between these two points is a segment of a great circle, which is a geodesic. At any point on this great circle, the tangent vector will be parallel to itself, satisfying the identity 0=0.

Are there any exceptions to geodesic implying the identity 0=0?

No, the property of geodesics always implies the identity 0=0. It is a fundamental property of geodesics and is true for all surfaces and curves.

How is the concept of geodesic used in practical applications?

Geodesic paths are used in many fields, including mathematics, physics, and computer science. They are used to model and analyze the shortest path between two points on curved surfaces, such as the Earth's surface. They are also used in navigation systems, computer graphics, and optimization algorithms.

Similar threads

Back
Top