Non-negative Curvature and Conullity of the Curvature Tensor
Thomas G. Brooks

TL;DR
This paper investigates the geometric implications of curvature tensors with specific conullity conditions, showing they impose strong topological and geometric restrictions, especially under non-negative curvature assumptions.
Contribution
It characterizes manifolds with conullity two and three under non-negative curvature, revealing they are either Euclidean or locally product spaces.
Findings
Manifolds with conullity 2 and non-negative curvature are diffeomorphic to Euclidean space or products.
Finite volume manifolds with conullity 3 are locally products.
Conditions restrict the topology and geometry of the manifolds significantly.
Abstract
The conullity of a curvature tensor is the codimension of its kernel. We consider the cases of conullity two in any dimension and conullity three in dimension four. We show that these conditions are compatible with non-negative sectional curvature only if either the manifold is diffeomorphic to or the universal cover is an isometric product with a Euclidean factor. Moreover, we show that finite volume manifolds with conullity 3 are locally products.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Non-negative Curvature and Conullity of the Curvature Tensor
Thomas Brooks
Abstract.
The conullity of a curvature tensor is the codimension of its kernel. We consider the cases of conullity two in any dimension and conullity three in dimension four. We show that these conditions are compatible with non-negative sectional curvature only if either the manifold is diffeomorphic to or the universal cover is an isometric product with a Euclidean factor. Moreover, we show that finite volume manifolds with conullity 3 are locally products.
Let be a Riemannian manifold with curvature tensor . Define the distribution
[TABLE]
We say that has nullity k if at every point , has dimension . We will study manifolds with conullity 2 or 3. The simplest example is with the product metric and any surface. This manifold has conullity 2 if has nowhere zero Gaussian curvature. There are many other examples with conullity two which are locally irreducible, see [1] and refrences therein.
Our two main results concern such manifolds under the assumption of non-negative sectional curvature.
Theorem 1**.**
Suppose that , , is complete, has conullity 2 and . If its universal cover is irreducible, then is diffeomorphic to .
Theorem 2**.**
Suppose that is a complete 4-dimensional Riemannian manifold that has nullity one and . If its universal cover is irreducible, then is diffeomorphic to .
Additionally, we prove the following, without any curvature assumption.
Theorem 3**.**
Assume that is a complete, finite volume Riemannian manifold with positive nullity. If has everywhere, then the universal cover of splits isometrically as for some 3-manifold .
See also Theorem 13 for a local version of this result.
In [2], the authors found a homogenous (and hence complete) example with conullity 3 and . We give an example with but we do not know of any which are complete.
In Section 1, we give basic definitions and properties of manifolds of positive nullity. In Section 2, we prove Theorem 1, and in Section 3, we prove Theorems 2 and 3. In Section 4, we give an example of a locally irreducible conullity 3 metric on .
The results in this paper are part of the author’s Ph.D. thesis [3] under the direction of Dr. Wolfgang Ziller. The author is deeply grateful to Dr. Ziller for his invaluable guidance throughout the development and writing of these results.
1. Preliminaries
It is well known that has complete, totally geodesic leaves on the open subset where is minimal [4]. Moreover, these leaves are flat their tangent space is in . Any geodesic contained in a leaf of is called a nullity geodesic, and all geodesics starting at with tangent vector are nullity geodesics. Since has totally geodesic leaves, the orthogonal distribution is parallel along the leaves of .
Following the conventions of [5, 6], define the splitting tensor for any by
[TABLE]
where denotes the orthogonal projection onto . Notice that if for all , then the metric splits locally.
Moreover, from [5], for vector fields ,
[TABLE]
Hence, we obtain a Ricatti-type equation,
[TABLE]
Along a nullity geodesic with tangent vector , we can choose a parallel basis of . Then written in this basis is a matrix along satisfying
[TABLE]
and hence has solutions for some matrix . Hence all real eigenvalues of must be zero.
When has conullity at most , then is a matrix and hence either is nilpotent or has two non-zero complex eigenvalues. When has conullity at most , then is matrix and hence always has a zero eigenvalues. Moreover, is again either nilpotent or has two non-zero complex eigenvalues. These two cases lead to qualitatively different behavior.
We will make use of the following de Rham-type splitting result, see [5].
Proposition 7**.**
Let be a complete Riemannian manifold, and a connected open subset on which the parallel rank distribution has leaves that are complete. Then, the universal cover of is isometric to , where is the universal cover of a maximal leaf of . Furthermore, the normal exponential map is an isometric covering map if is equipped with the induced connection metric.
2. Conullity 2
We now assume throughout this section that, for , has conullity exactly 2 and . We work towards the proof of Theorem 1. Since , has a soul , see [7, 8].
The following proposition from [5] covers the finite-volume case without a curvature assumption.
Proposition 8**.**
If a complete manifold has conullity at most 2 and has finite volume, then its universal cover splits isometrically as for some complete surface .
We will use this result by applying it to a soul of in the case where is orthogonal to .
The following lemma will apply for the opposite case, where and will also be used in the proof of Theorem 2.
Lemma 9**.**
Suppose that has a soul of dimension at least one. If is flat, splits isometrically with a Euclidean factor.
Proof.
In this case, since is flat, we know that its universal cover is flat .
Let be the normal bundle of in . If is the universal covering of , then is diffeomorphic to the pullback bundle
[TABLE]
This follows from the covering map to the normal bundle of , which is diffeomorphic to . Specifically, this map is . Moreover is simply connected since . Hence is the universal cover of . So is diffeomorphic to , a vector bundle over Euclidean space . Hence is diffeomorphic to .
Suppose that so that the soul is not just a point. The fact that implies that embeds in , since distinct homotopy classes of paths in are still distinct in . Since is totally geodesic and totally convex in , so is in .
Now take a line in and any two points on the line . Then any minimizing geodesic in from to must lie in , since is totally convex, and the only such geodesic is the line itself. Hence, by the splitting theorem, splits isometrically as [9]. Here has a soul with dimension at most . This process can be repeated until isometrically with flat for some manifold with soul a point In particular, is diffeomorphic to . ∎
Since has conullity 2, at each point there is an orthonormal basis of the form of with and . Now we consider how relates to the soul of .
Lemma 10**.**
If at a point , then the orthogonal projections and are also in .
Proof.
First observe that since , that
[TABLE]
for any . Take a unit vector orthogonal to and write and as its projections. Then
[TABLE]
This last term is 0 since it is the sectional curvature of one of the flat strips from the proof of the Soul Conjecture [8]. The first term can be written using (11) as
[TABLE]
which is again the curvature of a flat strip and hence zero.
For , we use the fact that the flat strip spanned by and is totally geodesic, and so is in the span of and hence .
This shows that has . Using 11 twice then also gives that .
This is sufficient to show that and are in , as any has for some .
∎
Our next lemma tells us how to choose a basis of the tangent space at a point of the soul that fits nicely with both the soul structure and the conullity 2 structure. The result is illustrated in the case of four dimensional manifolds in Figure 1.
Lemma 12**.**
For , there exists an orthonormal basis of so that each basis vector is either in or in and satisfies the relations
[TABLE]
Moreover, and are either both in or both in .
Proof.
Pick any basis of . Then also spans by Lemma 10, so take a subset which is a basis and call it . Now chose perpendicular to the span of with each either in or . Then span and is our desired basis.
Moreover, note that if and , then there is a flat strip spanned by and , so , which is a contradiction with the assumption that everywhere. So and must both be in or both be in . ∎
We now prove Theorem 1.
Proof.
Let be a soul of . If has dimension zero, then and we are done. Since Proposition 7 covers the case where is compact, we may also assume that does not have dimension .
Using Lemma 12, if and are in at one point of , they must be so at every point of . So there are now two cases: the case where for all and the case where for all .
In the first case, the soul of is flat. We apply Lemma 9 to conclude that splits isometrically.
In the second case, the soul of is a compact manifold with conullity 2 at each point. So we may apply Proposition 8 to the soul to get that is isometric to where is the dimension of . Here is a simply connected surface with positive Guassian curvature. The curvature on is bounded away from zero since is compact, and hence is compact and therefore diffeomorphic to .
Now we examine the splitting tensor of at . If and , then by the splitting of . Otherwise, assume that is perpendicular to . For , the flat strip spanned by and is totally geodesic. Since is a tensor, we can choose to consider extensions of and to vector fields contained in that flat strip. For these extensions, is in the span of and . Since , it must be perpendicular to and hence is an eigenvector of with a real eigenvalue. The only possible such eigenvalue is [math]. So as well.
So all splitting tensors are zero on . For any other point , for some and . Since , we know that . By (5), along since at . For any , we know that at . By (5) extending parallel along , we get that
[TABLE]
Hence, along and in particular at . Since is parallel along , at for all .
So all splitting tensors are identically zero on . By Proposition 7, we conclude that splits isometrically as with the Euclidean metric on for some surface . ∎
3. Conullity 3
We will first prove Theorem 3 and then use it to prove Theorem 2.
Recall that in conullity at most 3, any splitting tensor is a matrix in a parallel basis along . Hence has at least one real eigenvalue. Recall that the real eigenvalues of are all zero, and hence has 0 as an eigenvalue. The two possibilities are then that either has two complex eigenvalues and one 0 eigenvalue or that is nilpotent.
3.1. Finite Volume
We now prove a more general version of Theorem 3, following closely the strategy in [5] for the proof of Proposition 8.
Theorem 13**.**
Assume that is a complete, finite volume Riemannian manifold with positive nullity. Let be a connected open subset of on which the nullity leaves are complete and . Then the universal cover of splits isometrically as where is a maximal leaf of in .
Proof.
Define on . We will show that and hence Proposition 7 finishes the proof. Fix a nullity geodesic and define to be at the point .
First, we look at the case where has two non-zero complex eigenvalues and one zero eigenvalue. Then in an appropriate choice of parallel basis along ,
[TABLE]
where is a matrix with 2 complex eigenvalues. The differential equation (6) then easily implies that
[TABLE]
Take a small compact neighborhood. Since , there is some time so that for all . In the second case, where is nilpotent, then . In either case, for for some .
Note that
[TABLE]
Now define where is the flow along . Then
[TABLE]
for all . Hence, the flow of is volume non-decreasing and we get, by weak recurrence, a sequence of compact neighborhoods , with an increasing sequence, so that . This gives a sequence of points, , with , with an accumulation point .
First consider , the open subset on which has non-zero complex eigenvalues. By (5), is invariant under the flow of . The sequence of points and (15) give
[TABLE]
where again is the block of with two non-zero complex eigenvalues. Therefore and so .
For the above, note that and are both independent of the choice of coordinates. Indeed, and if are the eigenvalues of , then
[TABLE]
Consider next the other case and define to be the open subset of on which is nilpotent and non-zero. The previous case differs only slightly from the argument in conullity 2, but the nilpotent case requires significantly more computations than in the case of conullity 2.
First, we find vector fields on giving a canonical orthonormal basis. Observe that
[TABLE]
since is , nilpotent, and non-zero. Define to be a unit vector field spanning on , passing to a double cover of if necessary. Then let be a unit vector field parallel to and a unit vector field perpendicular to and , passing to a cover of if necessary. This gives an orthonormal basis of vector fields on which we can write as
[TABLE]
Note that by this construction, is non-zero at every point on , though and possibly could be zero. Moreover, (6) shows that and are parallel along nullity geodesics, and hence are as well.
Then (6) gives
[TABLE]
where are independent of .
Since the flow of is volume preserving (), the Poincaré recurrence theorem says that for almost all , there exists a sequence with . Hence must be constant, not linear, and hence since has finite volume. Thus is 2 dimensional. This allows us to choose a better basis (again, in a cover of , if necessary). Let be perpendicular to , parallel to and perpendicular to . Then is an orthonormal basis so that
[TABLE]
and is constant in the direction.
We now carry out some computations in this basis. We have connection coefficients which satisfy the following.
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
We know that all of these must be [math] since , and hence are all constant in . Moreover, , and show that all grow linearly in . By Poincaré recurrence they actually are constant, hence and are constant in . In particular, all of the connection coefficients are constant along nullity geodesics.
Since is constant along nullity geodesics we get that so is also constant along nullity geodesics. Furthermore,
[TABLE]
and hence grows linearly along nullity geodesics. Poincaré recurrence again shows that , so . Note that this argument shows that for any that is constant along nullity geodesics.
We also have
[TABLE]
and since , it follows that .
The second Bianchi identity gives
[TABLE]
In particular, . Since , and so is constant along nullity geodesics. By the argument above that if , we get that . The second Bianchi identity then shows that , and in particular .
In summary, all of are zero and as well. We use these to show that , which is a contradiction with the assumption that has conullity exactly 3. Direct computation shows that, that is determined by:
[TABLE]
Note that all the terms involving an derivative are zero since for all constant along nullity geodesics. All terms involving or derivatives are zero since the connection coefficients they differentiate is zero. All other terms involve a connection coefficient which has been shown to be zero. Hence, is identically zero, which is a contradiction.
This shows that the splitting tensor is identically zero on . So Theorem 3 follows from Proposition 7. ∎
Note that the hypothesis that is 4-dimensional is used only to get the vector field . In the case of -manifolds that have conullity 2, was constructed in [5] for any by noting that is zero if self-adjoint and therefore the image of is a one-dimensional subspace of matrices. Hence may be taken to be a vector field perpendicular to the kernel of . Such a strategy fails for conullity 3 manifolds, since the space of self-adjoint matrices is only 6 dimensional for matrices.
3.2. Nonnegative Curvature
We will now prove Theorem 2 using a similar strategy. The assumption that implies that has a compact, totally geodesic soul . We start with a lemma anologous to Lemma 10
Lemma 24**.**
If at a point , then the orthogonal projections and are also in .
Proof.
This is similar to the proof in the conullity 2 case. We write and for the orthogonal projections onto and for any .
Suppose for contradiction that is not in . We may rescale to make unit length for simplicity. Recall that (11) gives that , and hence if we prove this result for , it will follow for as well. We choose vectors so that are orthonormal, are each in either or and they are not in . In particular, to see that , it suffices to see that
[TABLE]
for all . We now proceed through the possibilities for .
By the symmetries of , we have three cases to examine:
[TABLE]
where .
Case (a) is just . Either or . If , then since this is the curvature of a flat strip. If , by (11), which is again the curvature of a flat strip.
For case (b), we similarly first consider . Then is a vector in the span of and since the flat strips are totally geodesic, and hence the innder product with is zero. For the other case , we apply (11) again and see that
[TABLE]
for the same reason.
Case (c) follows as in (b). ∎
This shows that there is an orthonormal basis of , for each , with in and in and so that each and is in either or in . Hence we have the cases that either zero, one, two, or three of are in , and whichever of these holds at one point on must hold for all points of .
Proof of Theorem 2.
First consider the cases where either none or exactly one of the lie in , which then implies that is flat. By Lemma 9, either splits with a Euclidean factor, or is a point.
Next, consider the case where all three of the lie in . If lies in as well, is four dimensional, so . Then is compact and so splits by Theorem 3. If instead, lies in , then is a codimension 1 soul and so splits isometrically as [7].
Finally, consider the case where but . If , then is codimension 1 and again splits isometrically as . So assume that . For , observe that, since is totally geodesic,
[TABLE]
and also
[TABLE]
Since span a flat totally geodesic strip,
[TABLE]
and so we get . Similarly, . These show that and are parallel vector fields normal to , though they may be defined only locally. Suppose that is simply connected. Then and are globally-defined parallel normal vector fields on . And hence is isometric to the space of all souls and hence splits isometrically as [10, 11, 12]. This completes the proof for the case that is simply connected.
For this last case with not simply connected, we then know that the universal cover either splits isometrically or is diffeomorphic to . In the first case, we are done, so we assume that . In the current case, itself has and . So, has a 2 dimensional soul . Either is flat or there is at least one point on where . In the first case, Lemma 9 shows that must split.
So suppose that has a point where . Then by Gauss-Bonnet, must be a sphere. Since is diffeomorphic to the normal bundle , then is diffeomorphic to the universal cover of , which is the pullback bundle by . This pullback bundle is a vector bundle over , a sphere. This contradicts the fact that is diffeomorphic to .
Hence the only case when does not split when the soul of is a point. ∎
A similar splitting result to Theorem 2 was proved for arbitrary odd conullity under the assumption that the sectional curvature of all planes orthogonal to are non-zero in [13, 14].
4. Examples
A class of 3 dimensional examples of conullity at most 2, originating in [15], are metrics of the form
[TABLE]
Such manifolds have conullity exactly 2 and . However , and hence , cannot hold for a complete manifold of this type. Indeed, the integral curves of are geodesics along which would vanish in finite time.
We now provide a modification to this which gives examples with conullity 3. Let be with coordinates and define the metric on by
[TABLE]
with . Then has conullity at most 3. To see this, define
[TABLE]
This gives an orthonormal basis with the nullity direction and the splitting tensor acting on is
[TABLE]
The and vector fields integrate to geodesics, as do the vector fields. The hyperplanes given by integrate to flat, totally geodesic submanifolds. The scalar curvature is
[TABLE]
Moreover, if and only if , so everywhere implies that the conullity is 3.
Note that this family of examples does not include a complete manifold with for defined on any subset of . To see this, observe that fixing any gives a totally geodesic submanifold where the induced metric is , a flat plane. Hence the lines in the planes with fixed are geodesics in and for to be complete, must be non-singular along any of these. However, considering as a function just of on this plane, everywhere, so must have a zero for some finite point and hence is singular along one of the geodesics in . Furthemore, these examples are locally irreducible since the splitting tensor does not vanish.
Finally, the result in [13] gives a splitting theorem for manifolds with odd conullity under the curvature assumption that all planes orthogonal to have non-zero sectional curvature. They also prove the result for the case where is a positive or negative definite bilinear form when restricted to the space of bivectors orthogonal to . We note that in our family of examples, the plane spanned by has and so does not satisfy either of these curvature assumptions at any point.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Eric Boeckx, Oldřich Kowalski and Lieven Vanhecke “Riemannian manifolds of conullity two” World Scientific Publishing Co., 1996, pp. xviii+300 DOI: 10.1142/9789812819970 · doi ↗
- 2[2] Francisco Vittone Antonio J. Di Scala “Homogeneous Riemannian manifolds with non-trivial nullity” In Ar Xiv e-prints , 2018 ar Xiv: ar Xiv:1802.02642 [math.DG]
- 3[3] Thomas G. Brooks “Riemannian Geometry of the Curvature Tensor”, 2018 URL: https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI 10788551
- 4[4] Robert Maltz “The nullity spaces of curvature-like tensors” In J. Differential Geometry 7 , 1972, pp. 519–523 URL: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.jdg/1214431169
- 5[5] Luis Florit and Wolfgang Ziller “Manifolds with conullity at most two as graph manifolds” In Ar Xiv e-prints , 2016 ar Xiv: ar Xiv:1611.06572 [math.DG]
- 6[6] Marcos Dajczer and Detlef Gromoll “Rigidity of complete Euclidean hypersurfaces” In J. Differential Geom. 31.2 , 1990, pp. 401–416 URL: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.jdg/1214444321
- 7[7] Jeff Cheeger and Detlef Gromoll “On the structure of complete manifolds of nonnegative curvature” In Ann. of Math. (2) 96 , 1972, pp. 413–443 DOI: 10.2307/1970819 · doi ↗
- 8[8] G. Perelman “Proof of the soul conjecture of Cheeger and Gromoll” In J. Differential Geom. 40.1 , 1994, pp. 209–212 URL: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.jdg/1214455292
