## Distributions

A vector field defines a one-dimensional subspace of at any point with : the subspace spanned by . If is everywhere nonzero, then it defines a one-dimensional subspace of each tangent space. A distribution generalizes this sort of thing to higher dimensions.

To this end, we define a -dimensional distribution on an -dimensional manifold to be a map , where is a -dimensional subspace of . Further, we require that this map be “smooth”, in the sense that for any there exists some neighborhood of and vector fields such that the vectors span for each .

Notice here that the don’t have to work for the whole manifold . Indeed, we will see that in many cases there are *no* everywhere-nonzero vector fields on a manifold . But over a small patch we might more easily find vector fields that are linearly independent at each point, and thus define a smooth -dimensional distribution over . Then more general smooth distributions come from patching these sorts of smooth distributions together.

A vector field on “belongs to” a distribution — which we write — if for all . We say that is “integrable” if for all and belonging to .

Every one-dimensional manifold is integrable. To see this, we note that if and belong to then for some constant , at least at those points where . Thus we see that

and so is proportional to , and thus belongs to . To handle points where , we can put the scalar multiplier on the other side.

I’m not understanding the last equation [fY,Y] = f[Y,Y] – (Y f)Y — could you elaborate?

Thanks!

Comment by Joe English | June 29, 2011 |

Well, let’s work it out:

Now just use for both and .

Comment by John Armstrong | June 29, 2011 |

OK, I get it now, thanks.

I think my difficulty comes from confusion over when juxtaposition denotes multiplication in the ring, multiplication of the ring over the module, function application, function composition, or even something else. (I had similar difficulties with representation theory đź™‚ In a term like “fXYg”, the empty spaces between the letters can mean different things depending on how it’s parenthesized; I still haven’t wrapped my head around whether all the different ways make sense and that (among the ones that do make sense — all of them?) they all mean the same thing.

Comment by Joe English | June 30, 2011 |

[…] a -dimensional distribution on an -dimensional manifold , we say that a -dimensional submanifold is an “integral […]

Pingback by Integral Submanifolds « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 30, 2011 |

It’s possible to fully-parenthesize these sorts of expressions, but then they get confusing for a different reason. In general, I try to write things out so they associate to the right, because of function application, and use parentheses for particularly ambiguous setups.

In , we could write , but we’ll conventionally drop the parens and write for the application of the vector field to the function. There’s no way of “multiplying” vector fields, so has to be interpreted as . And it doesn’t matter whether we multiply by before applying it to or after, since and give the same result.

Comment by John Armstrong | June 30, 2011 |

[…] say that we have a one-dimensional distribution on a manifold . Around any point we can find a patch and an everywhere-nonzero vector field on […]

Pingback by Integrable Distributions Have Integral Submanifolds « The Unapologetic Mathematician | June 30, 2011 |

[…] of the foliation. We also ask that the tangent spaces to the leaves define a -dimensional distribution on , which we say is “induced” by , and that any connected integral submanifold of […]

Pingback by Foliations « The Unapologetic Mathematician | July 1, 2011 |