Why is the metric on a hyperboloid different than the metric on a sphere?
$begingroup$
I am talking about the unit sphere and unit hyperboloid in $mathbb{R}^3$. To get a metric you might use the riemann metric and the length of a curve. To calculate the length of a curve $gamma$ from $a$ to $b$ we have $$l_{g}(gamma) = int_{a}^{b} sqrt{g_{gamma(t)}(gamma^{'}(t),gamma^{'}(t))} dt$$ with a dot product $g$.
Somehow in the spherical case this dot product is induced by the standard dot product from $mathbb{R}^3 : langle x,yrangle = x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3$ while in the hyperbolic case we use the Minkowski dot product from the Minkwoski space $langle x,yrangle_{rm Minkowski} = x_1y_1+x_2y_2-x_3y_3$
Although the euclidean, spherical und hyperbolic surface do not share any curves, the same curve $gamma$ would have the same length in euclidean and spherical geometry and a different length in hyperbolic geometry.
This makes us especially bad in guessing hyperbolic distances while we are okay in the spherical case.
But why is this the case? I cannot think of a difference of the hyperbolic surface and spherical surface that would justify the different dot products. They are both quadrics. One has positive curvature the other has negative. Does this make a difference?
geometry differential-geometry riemannian-geometry
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am talking about the unit sphere and unit hyperboloid in $mathbb{R}^3$. To get a metric you might use the riemann metric and the length of a curve. To calculate the length of a curve $gamma$ from $a$ to $b$ we have $$l_{g}(gamma) = int_{a}^{b} sqrt{g_{gamma(t)}(gamma^{'}(t),gamma^{'}(t))} dt$$ with a dot product $g$.
Somehow in the spherical case this dot product is induced by the standard dot product from $mathbb{R}^3 : langle x,yrangle = x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3$ while in the hyperbolic case we use the Minkowski dot product from the Minkwoski space $langle x,yrangle_{rm Minkowski} = x_1y_1+x_2y_2-x_3y_3$
Although the euclidean, spherical und hyperbolic surface do not share any curves, the same curve $gamma$ would have the same length in euclidean and spherical geometry and a different length in hyperbolic geometry.
This makes us especially bad in guessing hyperbolic distances while we are okay in the spherical case.
But why is this the case? I cannot think of a difference of the hyperbolic surface and spherical surface that would justify the different dot products. They are both quadrics. One has positive curvature the other has negative. Does this make a difference?
geometry differential-geometry riemannian-geometry
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In the hyperbolic plane the area and circumference of a circle grows exponentially with the radius, so it is quite clear that you could not embed it in into $mathbb{R}^3$ in any "nice" way without changing the distances.
$endgroup$
– Zeno Rogue
Dec 4 '18 at 11:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am talking about the unit sphere and unit hyperboloid in $mathbb{R}^3$. To get a metric you might use the riemann metric and the length of a curve. To calculate the length of a curve $gamma$ from $a$ to $b$ we have $$l_{g}(gamma) = int_{a}^{b} sqrt{g_{gamma(t)}(gamma^{'}(t),gamma^{'}(t))} dt$$ with a dot product $g$.
Somehow in the spherical case this dot product is induced by the standard dot product from $mathbb{R}^3 : langle x,yrangle = x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3$ while in the hyperbolic case we use the Minkowski dot product from the Minkwoski space $langle x,yrangle_{rm Minkowski} = x_1y_1+x_2y_2-x_3y_3$
Although the euclidean, spherical und hyperbolic surface do not share any curves, the same curve $gamma$ would have the same length in euclidean and spherical geometry and a different length in hyperbolic geometry.
This makes us especially bad in guessing hyperbolic distances while we are okay in the spherical case.
But why is this the case? I cannot think of a difference of the hyperbolic surface and spherical surface that would justify the different dot products. They are both quadrics. One has positive curvature the other has negative. Does this make a difference?
geometry differential-geometry riemannian-geometry
$endgroup$
I am talking about the unit sphere and unit hyperboloid in $mathbb{R}^3$. To get a metric you might use the riemann metric and the length of a curve. To calculate the length of a curve $gamma$ from $a$ to $b$ we have $$l_{g}(gamma) = int_{a}^{b} sqrt{g_{gamma(t)}(gamma^{'}(t),gamma^{'}(t))} dt$$ with a dot product $g$.
Somehow in the spherical case this dot product is induced by the standard dot product from $mathbb{R}^3 : langle x,yrangle = x_1y_1+x_2y_2+x_3y_3$ while in the hyperbolic case we use the Minkowski dot product from the Minkwoski space $langle x,yrangle_{rm Minkowski} = x_1y_1+x_2y_2-x_3y_3$
Although the euclidean, spherical und hyperbolic surface do not share any curves, the same curve $gamma$ would have the same length in euclidean and spherical geometry and a different length in hyperbolic geometry.
This makes us especially bad in guessing hyperbolic distances while we are okay in the spherical case.
But why is this the case? I cannot think of a difference of the hyperbolic surface and spherical surface that would justify the different dot products. They are both quadrics. One has positive curvature the other has negative. Does this make a difference?
geometry differential-geometry riemannian-geometry
geometry differential-geometry riemannian-geometry
edited Dec 4 '18 at 3:44
Ivo Terek
45.4k952141
45.4k952141
asked Dec 4 '18 at 1:45
Erdbeer0815Erdbeer0815
1887
1887
$begingroup$
In the hyperbolic plane the area and circumference of a circle grows exponentially with the radius, so it is quite clear that you could not embed it in into $mathbb{R}^3$ in any "nice" way without changing the distances.
$endgroup$
– Zeno Rogue
Dec 4 '18 at 11:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the hyperbolic plane the area and circumference of a circle grows exponentially with the radius, so it is quite clear that you could not embed it in into $mathbb{R}^3$ in any "nice" way without changing the distances.
$endgroup$
– Zeno Rogue
Dec 4 '18 at 11:21
$begingroup$
In the hyperbolic plane the area and circumference of a circle grows exponentially with the radius, so it is quite clear that you could not embed it in into $mathbb{R}^3$ in any "nice" way without changing the distances.
$endgroup$
– Zeno Rogue
Dec 4 '18 at 11:21
$begingroup$
In the hyperbolic plane the area and circumference of a circle grows exponentially with the radius, so it is quite clear that you could not embed it in into $mathbb{R}^3$ in any "nice" way without changing the distances.
$endgroup$
– Zeno Rogue
Dec 4 '18 at 11:21
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here you need to think of the pair (surface, metric) as the geometric object, not only of the surface. The upshot here is that the pairs (hyperboloid, euclidean metric) and (hyperboloid, Minkowski metric) are distinct geometric objects. The way to measure lengths and areas is not the same in these two "worlds". The first one has non-constant positive curvature, and the second one has constant negative curvature $-1$.
The reason is that the hyperboloid plays the role of a sphere with respect to the Minkowski metric, since it can be written as the solution set of $langle p,prangle_L=-1$. Compare that with the sphere equation $langle p,p rangle_E=1$. If by now you're wondering whether the one-sheeted hyperboloid defined by $langle p,prangle_L=1$ has something special about it, I'll tell you it does: it has constant curvature $1$ when equipped with the Minkowski metric (the one who correctly expresses it as a sphere).
In fact, here's an exercise for you to understand what happens: define $$g((x_1,y_1,z_1),(x_2,y_2,z_2))= 3x_1x_2+5y_1y_2+2z_1z_2$$and show that $M={(x,y,z)in Bbb R^3mid 3x^2+5y^2+2z^2=1}$ has constant curvature when equipped with $g$.
Solution for suggested exercise. Note that $M = { p in Bbb R^3mid g(p,p)=1}$. If $F(p) = g(p,p)$, then $M = F^{-1}(1)$, meaning that the $g$-gradient of $F$ is always $g$-normal to $M$. Since $${rm d}F_p(v) = 2g(p.v) = g(2p,v),$$we get ${rm grad}_gF(p)=2p$, and so $N(p)=p$ is an $g$-unit $g$-normal vector along $M$, just like for spheres in Euclidean space. Indeed, $M$ is a $g$-sphere. Note that the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of $g$ in $Bbb R^3$ is zero (indeed, all the Christoffel symbols w.r.t. the usual rectangular coordinates are zero -- this actually says that the Levi-Civita connection is the usual one). So, Gauss' Formula says that $$K(v,w) = frac{g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,v))g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(w,w)) - g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w),Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w))}{g(v,v)g(v,w)-g(v,w)^2}.$$Just in the same way we do it for the sphere, you can check (or see e.g. page 101 in Chapter 4 in O'Neill's Semi-Riemannian Geometry with Applications to Relativity) that $Ihspace{-.1cm}I_p(v,w) = -g(v,w)N(p)$. Taking $(v,w)$ to be an orthonormal basis for the tangent plane $T_pM$, plugging in above gives $K(p)=1$ as expected.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am not familar with curvature but I found the formula for mean and gaussian curvature for an ellipsoid here. It might be sufficient to say that the ellipsoid surface is biholomorphic to the sphere surface. Thanks for your answer.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 4 '18 at 9:34
$begingroup$
I think you're missing the point: these formulas in the link are for the curvature of the ellipsoid equipped with the Euclidean metric only, so they don't apply. We are using a different metric. Also, biholomorphisms are not related to curvature (not here at least).
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 4 '18 at 13:39
$begingroup$
Then I have no idea how to caluclate the curvature of the given surface.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 5 '18 at 0:51
$begingroup$
@Erdbeer0815 I added some things in my answer. You learn to do these calculations is in a Riemannian Geometry course.
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 5 '18 at 22:08
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025016%2fwhy-is-the-metric-on-a-hyperboloid-different-than-the-metric-on-a-sphere%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Here you need to think of the pair (surface, metric) as the geometric object, not only of the surface. The upshot here is that the pairs (hyperboloid, euclidean metric) and (hyperboloid, Minkowski metric) are distinct geometric objects. The way to measure lengths and areas is not the same in these two "worlds". The first one has non-constant positive curvature, and the second one has constant negative curvature $-1$.
The reason is that the hyperboloid plays the role of a sphere with respect to the Minkowski metric, since it can be written as the solution set of $langle p,prangle_L=-1$. Compare that with the sphere equation $langle p,p rangle_E=1$. If by now you're wondering whether the one-sheeted hyperboloid defined by $langle p,prangle_L=1$ has something special about it, I'll tell you it does: it has constant curvature $1$ when equipped with the Minkowski metric (the one who correctly expresses it as a sphere).
In fact, here's an exercise for you to understand what happens: define $$g((x_1,y_1,z_1),(x_2,y_2,z_2))= 3x_1x_2+5y_1y_2+2z_1z_2$$and show that $M={(x,y,z)in Bbb R^3mid 3x^2+5y^2+2z^2=1}$ has constant curvature when equipped with $g$.
Solution for suggested exercise. Note that $M = { p in Bbb R^3mid g(p,p)=1}$. If $F(p) = g(p,p)$, then $M = F^{-1}(1)$, meaning that the $g$-gradient of $F$ is always $g$-normal to $M$. Since $${rm d}F_p(v) = 2g(p.v) = g(2p,v),$$we get ${rm grad}_gF(p)=2p$, and so $N(p)=p$ is an $g$-unit $g$-normal vector along $M$, just like for spheres in Euclidean space. Indeed, $M$ is a $g$-sphere. Note that the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of $g$ in $Bbb R^3$ is zero (indeed, all the Christoffel symbols w.r.t. the usual rectangular coordinates are zero -- this actually says that the Levi-Civita connection is the usual one). So, Gauss' Formula says that $$K(v,w) = frac{g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,v))g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(w,w)) - g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w),Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w))}{g(v,v)g(v,w)-g(v,w)^2}.$$Just in the same way we do it for the sphere, you can check (or see e.g. page 101 in Chapter 4 in O'Neill's Semi-Riemannian Geometry with Applications to Relativity) that $Ihspace{-.1cm}I_p(v,w) = -g(v,w)N(p)$. Taking $(v,w)$ to be an orthonormal basis for the tangent plane $T_pM$, plugging in above gives $K(p)=1$ as expected.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am not familar with curvature but I found the formula for mean and gaussian curvature for an ellipsoid here. It might be sufficient to say that the ellipsoid surface is biholomorphic to the sphere surface. Thanks for your answer.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 4 '18 at 9:34
$begingroup$
I think you're missing the point: these formulas in the link are for the curvature of the ellipsoid equipped with the Euclidean metric only, so they don't apply. We are using a different metric. Also, biholomorphisms are not related to curvature (not here at least).
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 4 '18 at 13:39
$begingroup$
Then I have no idea how to caluclate the curvature of the given surface.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 5 '18 at 0:51
$begingroup$
@Erdbeer0815 I added some things in my answer. You learn to do these calculations is in a Riemannian Geometry course.
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 5 '18 at 22:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here you need to think of the pair (surface, metric) as the geometric object, not only of the surface. The upshot here is that the pairs (hyperboloid, euclidean metric) and (hyperboloid, Minkowski metric) are distinct geometric objects. The way to measure lengths and areas is not the same in these two "worlds". The first one has non-constant positive curvature, and the second one has constant negative curvature $-1$.
The reason is that the hyperboloid plays the role of a sphere with respect to the Minkowski metric, since it can be written as the solution set of $langle p,prangle_L=-1$. Compare that with the sphere equation $langle p,p rangle_E=1$. If by now you're wondering whether the one-sheeted hyperboloid defined by $langle p,prangle_L=1$ has something special about it, I'll tell you it does: it has constant curvature $1$ when equipped with the Minkowski metric (the one who correctly expresses it as a sphere).
In fact, here's an exercise for you to understand what happens: define $$g((x_1,y_1,z_1),(x_2,y_2,z_2))= 3x_1x_2+5y_1y_2+2z_1z_2$$and show that $M={(x,y,z)in Bbb R^3mid 3x^2+5y^2+2z^2=1}$ has constant curvature when equipped with $g$.
Solution for suggested exercise. Note that $M = { p in Bbb R^3mid g(p,p)=1}$. If $F(p) = g(p,p)$, then $M = F^{-1}(1)$, meaning that the $g$-gradient of $F$ is always $g$-normal to $M$. Since $${rm d}F_p(v) = 2g(p.v) = g(2p,v),$$we get ${rm grad}_gF(p)=2p$, and so $N(p)=p$ is an $g$-unit $g$-normal vector along $M$, just like for spheres in Euclidean space. Indeed, $M$ is a $g$-sphere. Note that the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of $g$ in $Bbb R^3$ is zero (indeed, all the Christoffel symbols w.r.t. the usual rectangular coordinates are zero -- this actually says that the Levi-Civita connection is the usual one). So, Gauss' Formula says that $$K(v,w) = frac{g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,v))g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(w,w)) - g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w),Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w))}{g(v,v)g(v,w)-g(v,w)^2}.$$Just in the same way we do it for the sphere, you can check (or see e.g. page 101 in Chapter 4 in O'Neill's Semi-Riemannian Geometry with Applications to Relativity) that $Ihspace{-.1cm}I_p(v,w) = -g(v,w)N(p)$. Taking $(v,w)$ to be an orthonormal basis for the tangent plane $T_pM$, plugging in above gives $K(p)=1$ as expected.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am not familar with curvature but I found the formula for mean and gaussian curvature for an ellipsoid here. It might be sufficient to say that the ellipsoid surface is biholomorphic to the sphere surface. Thanks for your answer.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 4 '18 at 9:34
$begingroup$
I think you're missing the point: these formulas in the link are for the curvature of the ellipsoid equipped with the Euclidean metric only, so they don't apply. We are using a different metric. Also, biholomorphisms are not related to curvature (not here at least).
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 4 '18 at 13:39
$begingroup$
Then I have no idea how to caluclate the curvature of the given surface.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 5 '18 at 0:51
$begingroup$
@Erdbeer0815 I added some things in my answer. You learn to do these calculations is in a Riemannian Geometry course.
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 5 '18 at 22:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here you need to think of the pair (surface, metric) as the geometric object, not only of the surface. The upshot here is that the pairs (hyperboloid, euclidean metric) and (hyperboloid, Minkowski metric) are distinct geometric objects. The way to measure lengths and areas is not the same in these two "worlds". The first one has non-constant positive curvature, and the second one has constant negative curvature $-1$.
The reason is that the hyperboloid plays the role of a sphere with respect to the Minkowski metric, since it can be written as the solution set of $langle p,prangle_L=-1$. Compare that with the sphere equation $langle p,p rangle_E=1$. If by now you're wondering whether the one-sheeted hyperboloid defined by $langle p,prangle_L=1$ has something special about it, I'll tell you it does: it has constant curvature $1$ when equipped with the Minkowski metric (the one who correctly expresses it as a sphere).
In fact, here's an exercise for you to understand what happens: define $$g((x_1,y_1,z_1),(x_2,y_2,z_2))= 3x_1x_2+5y_1y_2+2z_1z_2$$and show that $M={(x,y,z)in Bbb R^3mid 3x^2+5y^2+2z^2=1}$ has constant curvature when equipped with $g$.
Solution for suggested exercise. Note that $M = { p in Bbb R^3mid g(p,p)=1}$. If $F(p) = g(p,p)$, then $M = F^{-1}(1)$, meaning that the $g$-gradient of $F$ is always $g$-normal to $M$. Since $${rm d}F_p(v) = 2g(p.v) = g(2p,v),$$we get ${rm grad}_gF(p)=2p$, and so $N(p)=p$ is an $g$-unit $g$-normal vector along $M$, just like for spheres in Euclidean space. Indeed, $M$ is a $g$-sphere. Note that the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of $g$ in $Bbb R^3$ is zero (indeed, all the Christoffel symbols w.r.t. the usual rectangular coordinates are zero -- this actually says that the Levi-Civita connection is the usual one). So, Gauss' Formula says that $$K(v,w) = frac{g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,v))g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(w,w)) - g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w),Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w))}{g(v,v)g(v,w)-g(v,w)^2}.$$Just in the same way we do it for the sphere, you can check (or see e.g. page 101 in Chapter 4 in O'Neill's Semi-Riemannian Geometry with Applications to Relativity) that $Ihspace{-.1cm}I_p(v,w) = -g(v,w)N(p)$. Taking $(v,w)$ to be an orthonormal basis for the tangent plane $T_pM$, plugging in above gives $K(p)=1$ as expected.
$endgroup$
Here you need to think of the pair (surface, metric) as the geometric object, not only of the surface. The upshot here is that the pairs (hyperboloid, euclidean metric) and (hyperboloid, Minkowski metric) are distinct geometric objects. The way to measure lengths and areas is not the same in these two "worlds". The first one has non-constant positive curvature, and the second one has constant negative curvature $-1$.
The reason is that the hyperboloid plays the role of a sphere with respect to the Minkowski metric, since it can be written as the solution set of $langle p,prangle_L=-1$. Compare that with the sphere equation $langle p,p rangle_E=1$. If by now you're wondering whether the one-sheeted hyperboloid defined by $langle p,prangle_L=1$ has something special about it, I'll tell you it does: it has constant curvature $1$ when equipped with the Minkowski metric (the one who correctly expresses it as a sphere).
In fact, here's an exercise for you to understand what happens: define $$g((x_1,y_1,z_1),(x_2,y_2,z_2))= 3x_1x_2+5y_1y_2+2z_1z_2$$and show that $M={(x,y,z)in Bbb R^3mid 3x^2+5y^2+2z^2=1}$ has constant curvature when equipped with $g$.
Solution for suggested exercise. Note that $M = { p in Bbb R^3mid g(p,p)=1}$. If $F(p) = g(p,p)$, then $M = F^{-1}(1)$, meaning that the $g$-gradient of $F$ is always $g$-normal to $M$. Since $${rm d}F_p(v) = 2g(p.v) = g(2p,v),$$we get ${rm grad}_gF(p)=2p$, and so $N(p)=p$ is an $g$-unit $g$-normal vector along $M$, just like for spheres in Euclidean space. Indeed, $M$ is a $g$-sphere. Note that the curvature of the Levi-Civita connection of $g$ in $Bbb R^3$ is zero (indeed, all the Christoffel symbols w.r.t. the usual rectangular coordinates are zero -- this actually says that the Levi-Civita connection is the usual one). So, Gauss' Formula says that $$K(v,w) = frac{g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,v))g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(w,w)) - g(Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w),Ihspace{-.1cm}I(v,w))}{g(v,v)g(v,w)-g(v,w)^2}.$$Just in the same way we do it for the sphere, you can check (or see e.g. page 101 in Chapter 4 in O'Neill's Semi-Riemannian Geometry with Applications to Relativity) that $Ihspace{-.1cm}I_p(v,w) = -g(v,w)N(p)$. Taking $(v,w)$ to be an orthonormal basis for the tangent plane $T_pM$, plugging in above gives $K(p)=1$ as expected.
edited Dec 5 '18 at 22:07
answered Dec 4 '18 at 3:42
Ivo TerekIvo Terek
45.4k952141
45.4k952141
$begingroup$
I am not familar with curvature but I found the formula for mean and gaussian curvature for an ellipsoid here. It might be sufficient to say that the ellipsoid surface is biholomorphic to the sphere surface. Thanks for your answer.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 4 '18 at 9:34
$begingroup$
I think you're missing the point: these formulas in the link are for the curvature of the ellipsoid equipped with the Euclidean metric only, so they don't apply. We are using a different metric. Also, biholomorphisms are not related to curvature (not here at least).
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 4 '18 at 13:39
$begingroup$
Then I have no idea how to caluclate the curvature of the given surface.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 5 '18 at 0:51
$begingroup$
@Erdbeer0815 I added some things in my answer. You learn to do these calculations is in a Riemannian Geometry course.
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 5 '18 at 22:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am not familar with curvature but I found the formula for mean and gaussian curvature for an ellipsoid here. It might be sufficient to say that the ellipsoid surface is biholomorphic to the sphere surface. Thanks for your answer.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 4 '18 at 9:34
$begingroup$
I think you're missing the point: these formulas in the link are for the curvature of the ellipsoid equipped with the Euclidean metric only, so they don't apply. We are using a different metric. Also, biholomorphisms are not related to curvature (not here at least).
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 4 '18 at 13:39
$begingroup$
Then I have no idea how to caluclate the curvature of the given surface.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 5 '18 at 0:51
$begingroup$
@Erdbeer0815 I added some things in my answer. You learn to do these calculations is in a Riemannian Geometry course.
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 5 '18 at 22:08
$begingroup$
I am not familar with curvature but I found the formula for mean and gaussian curvature for an ellipsoid here. It might be sufficient to say that the ellipsoid surface is biholomorphic to the sphere surface. Thanks for your answer.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 4 '18 at 9:34
$begingroup$
I am not familar with curvature but I found the formula for mean and gaussian curvature for an ellipsoid here. It might be sufficient to say that the ellipsoid surface is biholomorphic to the sphere surface. Thanks for your answer.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 4 '18 at 9:34
$begingroup$
I think you're missing the point: these formulas in the link are for the curvature of the ellipsoid equipped with the Euclidean metric only, so they don't apply. We are using a different metric. Also, biholomorphisms are not related to curvature (not here at least).
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 4 '18 at 13:39
$begingroup$
I think you're missing the point: these formulas in the link are for the curvature of the ellipsoid equipped with the Euclidean metric only, so they don't apply. We are using a different metric. Also, biholomorphisms are not related to curvature (not here at least).
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 4 '18 at 13:39
$begingroup$
Then I have no idea how to caluclate the curvature of the given surface.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 5 '18 at 0:51
$begingroup$
Then I have no idea how to caluclate the curvature of the given surface.
$endgroup$
– Erdbeer0815
Dec 5 '18 at 0:51
$begingroup$
@Erdbeer0815 I added some things in my answer. You learn to do these calculations is in a Riemannian Geometry course.
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 5 '18 at 22:08
$begingroup$
@Erdbeer0815 I added some things in my answer. You learn to do these calculations is in a Riemannian Geometry course.
$endgroup$
– Ivo Terek
Dec 5 '18 at 22:08
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3025016%2fwhy-is-the-metric-on-a-hyperboloid-different-than-the-metric-on-a-sphere%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
In the hyperbolic plane the area and circumference of a circle grows exponentially with the radius, so it is quite clear that you could not embed it in into $mathbb{R}^3$ in any "nice" way without changing the distances.
$endgroup$
– Zeno Rogue
Dec 4 '18 at 11:21