Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Simple matrix expressions for the curvatures of Grassmannian

Zehua Lai Department of Mathematics, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 zehua.lai@austin.utexas.edu Lek-Heng Lim Computational and Applied Mathematics Initiative, Department of Statistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637-1514 lekheng@uchicago.edu  and  Ke Ye KLMM, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China keyk@amss.ac.cn
Abstract.

We show that modeling a Grassmannian as symmetric orthogonal matrices Gr(k,n){Qn×n:Q𝖳Q=I,Q𝖳=Q,tr(Q)=2kn}Gr𝑘superscript𝑛conditional-set𝑄superscript𝑛𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑄𝖳𝑄𝐼formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑄𝖳𝑄tr𝑄2𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})\cong\{Q\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}:Q^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Q=I,\;Q^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}=Q,\;% \operatorname{tr}(Q)=2k-n\}roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≅ { italic_Q ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q = italic_I , italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q , roman_tr ( italic_Q ) = 2 italic_k - italic_n } yields exceedingly simple matrix formulas for various curvatures and curvature-related quantities, both intrinsic and extrinsic. These include Riemann, Ricci, Jacobi, sectional, scalar, mean, principal, and Gaussian curvatures; Schouten, Weyl, Cotton, Bach, Plebański, cocurvature, nonmetricity, and torsion tensors; first, second, and third fundamental forms; Gauss and Weingarten maps; and upper and lower delta invariants. We will derive explicit, simple expressions for the aforementioned quantities in terms of standard matrix operations that are stably computable with numerical linear algebra. Many of these aforementioned quantities have never before been presented for the Grassmannian.

1. Introduction

While pure mathematicians typically abhor picking coordinates for manifolds, this is all but inevitable in applied mathematics. A good choice of extrinsic coordinates facilitates computations for the applied mathematician and, as we will see in this article, provides transparent, easy-to-calculate expressions that are useful even for investigations in pure mathematics.

For the Grassmannian of k𝑘kitalic_k-planes in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we showed in [27] that points on the manifold may be represented by matrices Qn×n𝑄superscript𝑛𝑛Q\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}italic_Q ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that are (i) symmetric Q𝖳=Qsuperscript𝑄𝖳𝑄Q^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}=Qitalic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q, (ii) orthogonal Q𝖳Q=Isuperscript𝑄𝖳𝑄𝐼Q^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Q=Iitalic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q = italic_I, (iii) involutive Q2=Isuperscript𝑄2𝐼Q^{2}=Iitalic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_I. Clearly any two of these conditions imply the third and thus

(1) Gr(k,n){Q𝕊n:Q2=I,tr(Q)=2kn}Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛conditional-set𝑄superscript𝕊𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑄2𝐼tr𝑄2𝑘𝑛Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})\cong\{Q\in\mathbb{S}^{n}:Q^{2}=I,\;% \operatorname{tr}(Q)=2k-n\}\eqqcolon\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≅ { italic_Q ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_I , roman_tr ( italic_Q ) = 2 italic_k - italic_n } ≕ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n )

where 𝕊nsuperscript𝕊𝑛\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes the Euclidean space of n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n symmetric matrices. Our motivation in [27] was largely computational — such a coordinate representation of points in Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) by orthogonal matrices gives immeasurably stabler numerical algorithms compared to other models of the Grassmannian as projection matrices or equivalence classes of matrices.

The goal of this article is to show that, even for calculations by hand, the involution model (1) provides a significant advantage over, say, expressions in [43], which are supposedly simple and already given in terms of linear algebra. Henceforth we define Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) to be the set of matrices on the right of (1) to distinguish it from Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), the Grassmannian as an abstract manifold. In our earlier work [27], we derived expressions for basic quantities related to optimization: tangent vector, normal vector, metric, exponential map, geodesic, parallel transport, gradient, Hessian, etc, and showed that they all have simple, easily computable expressions in the involution model. Here we will do the same for various types of curvatures, some of which are notoriously difficult to calculate, but it is nevertheless rewarding as curvatures are likely the most important geometric objects of a Riemannian manifold. One might even argue that Riemannian geometry was created to provide a rigorous platform for studying curvatures.

A secondary goal is to illustrate the ease of using the involution model (1). We believe that many of the expressions derived in this article would be more difficult, some nearing impossible, to derive in other common models of the Grassmannian — as submanifolds of projective spaces, as various homogeneous spaces, or as a manifold of orthogonal projectors, all discussed in Section 7. Moreover, the expressions that we obtained are also more user-friendly, as we will elaborate below after presenting them in Table 1.

Table 1. The point QGr(k,n)𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛Q\in\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_Q ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ), tangent vectors X,Y,Z,W𝕋QGr(k,n)𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛X,Y,Z,W\in\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ), and normal vector HQGr(k,n)𝐻subscript𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛H\in\mathbb{N}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_H ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) are parameterized as in (11).
\tabulinesep

=0.75ex {tabu}@lll curvature & expression result
\tabucline[1pt ] - first fundamental form I(X,Y)=2tr(X0𝖳Y0)𝐼𝑋𝑌2trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0\fff(X,Y)=2\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0})italic_I ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = 2 roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) Proposition 4.1
second fundamental form II(X,Y)=12V[X0Y0𝖳+Y0X0𝖳00(X0𝖳Y0+Y0𝖳X0)]V𝖳II𝑋𝑌12𝑉matrixsubscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳00superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscript𝑉𝖳\operatorname{\fff\fff}(X,Y)=\dfrac{1}{2}V\begin{bmatrix}X_{0}Y_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\\ 0&-(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}+Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf% {T}}X_{0})\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Theorem 4.3
third fundamental form III(X,Y)=12(n2k(nk)+n24)tr(XY)III𝑋𝑌12𝑛2𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛24tr𝑋𝑌\operatorname{\fff\fff\fff}(X,Y)=-\dfrac{1}{2}\left(\dfrac{n}{2k(n-k)}+\dfrac{% n-2}{4}\right)\operatorname{tr}(XY)start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ) roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) Corollary 4.8
Gauss map Γ(Q)={V[H100H2]V𝖳:H1𝕊k,H2𝕊nk}sans-serif-Γ𝑄conditional-set𝑉matrixsubscript𝐻100subscript𝐻2superscript𝑉𝖳formulae-sequencesubscript𝐻1superscript𝕊𝑘subscript𝐻2superscript𝕊𝑛𝑘\mathsf{\Gamma}(Q)=\biggl{\{}V\begin{bmatrix}H_{1}&0\\ 0&H_{2}\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}:H_{1}\in\mathbb{S}^{k},\;% H_{2}\in\mathbb{S}^{n-k}\biggr{\}}sansserif_Γ ( italic_Q ) = { italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } Proposition 4.2
Weingarten map 𝖲(H)(X)=12V[0H1X0X0H2(H1X0X0H2)𝖳0]V𝖳𝖲𝐻𝑋12𝑉matrix0subscript𝐻1subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋0subscript𝐻2superscriptsubscript𝐻1subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋0subscript𝐻2𝖳0superscript𝑉𝖳\mathsf{S}(H)(X)=\dfrac{1}{2}V\begin{bmatrix}0&H_{1}X_{0}-X_{0}H_{2}\\ (H_{1}X_{0}-X_{0}H_{2})^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}V^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}sansserif_S ( italic_H ) ( italic_X ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Corollary 4.5
mean curvature vector 𝖧=12k(nk)V[(nk)Ik00kInk]V𝖳𝖧12𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑉matrix𝑛𝑘subscript𝐼𝑘00𝑘subscript𝐼𝑛𝑘superscript𝑉𝖳\mathsf{H}=\dfrac{1}{2k(n-k)}V\begin{bmatrix}-(n-k)I_{k}&0\\ 0&kI_{n-k}\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}sansserif_H = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - ( italic_n - italic_k ) italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_k italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT Corollary 4.6
mean curvature 𝖧(H)=(kn)trH1+ktrH22k(nk)𝖧𝐻𝑘𝑛trsubscript𝐻1𝑘trsubscript𝐻22𝑘𝑛𝑘\mathsf{H}(H)=\dfrac{(k-n)\operatorname{tr}H_{1}+k\operatorname{tr}H_{2}}{2k(n% -k)}sansserif_H ( italic_H ) = divide start_ARG ( italic_k - italic_n ) roman_tr italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_k roman_tr italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG Corollary 4.6
Gaussian curvature 𝖦(H)=12k(nk)i=1kj=1nk(λk+jλi)𝖦𝐻1superscript2𝑘𝑛𝑘superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑛𝑘subscript𝜆𝑘𝑗subscript𝜆𝑖\mathsf{G}(H)=\dfrac{1}{2^{k(n-k)}}\prod_{i=1}^{k}\prod_{j=1}^{n-k}(\lambda_{k% +j}-\lambda_{i})sansserif_G ( italic_H ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) Corollary 4.7
principal curvature κij(H)=12(λk+jλi)subscriptκ𝑖𝑗𝐻12subscript𝜆𝑘𝑗subscript𝜆𝑖\upkappa_{ij}(H)=\dfrac{1}{2}(\lambda_{k+j}-\lambda_{i})roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), i=1,,k𝑖1𝑘i=1,\dots,kitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_k, j=1,,nk𝑗1𝑛𝑘j=1,\dots,n-kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_n - italic_k Corollary 4.7
Riemann curvature 𝖱𝗂𝖾(X,Y,Z,W)=12tr((XYYX)ZW)𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊12tr𝑋𝑌𝑌𝑋𝑍𝑊\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}(X,Y,Z,W)=\dfrac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(XY-% YX)ZW\bigr{)}sansserif_Rie ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_tr ( ( italic_X italic_Y - italic_Y italic_X ) italic_Z italic_W ) Proposition 5.1
Jacobi curvature 𝖩(X,Y,Z,W)=tr(XYZW)tr(Y(XZ+ZX2)W)𝖩𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊tr𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊tr𝑌𝑋𝑍𝑍𝑋2𝑊\mathsf{J}(X,Y,Z,W)=\operatorname{tr}(XYZW)-\operatorname{tr}\Bigl{(}Y\Bigl{(}% \dfrac{XZ+ZX}{2}\Bigr{)}W\Bigr{)}sansserif_J ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ) = roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y italic_Z italic_W ) - roman_tr ( italic_Y ( divide start_ARG italic_X italic_Z + italic_Z italic_X end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) italic_W ) Corollary 5.2
sectional curvature κ(X,Y)=14[X,Y]2X2Y2tr(XY)2\upkappa(X,Y)=\dfrac{1}{4}\dfrac{\|[X,Y]\|^{2}}{\lVert X\rVert^{2}\lVert Y% \rVert^{2}-\operatorname{tr}(XY)^{2}}roman_κ ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_X , italic_Y ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_X ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_Y ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG Corollary 5.3
Ricci curvature 𝖱𝗂𝖼(X,Y)=n28tr(XY)𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑋𝑌𝑛28tr𝑋𝑌\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}(X,Y)=\dfrac{n-2}{8}\operatorname{tr}(XY)sansserif_Ric ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) Corollary 5.4
scalar curvature 𝖲𝖼𝖺=k(nk)(n2)8𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛28\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}=\dfrac{k(n-k)(n-2)}{8}sansserif_Sca = divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG Corollary 5.4
traceless Ricci curvature 𝖹(X,Y)=0𝖹𝑋𝑌0\mathsf{Z}(X,Y)=0sansserif_Z ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = 0 Corollary 5.4
upper delta invariant δ¯2,r=k(nk)(n2)8subscript¯δ2𝑟𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛28\overline{\updelta}_{2,r}=\dfrac{k(n-k)(n-2)}{8}over¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG Theorem 5.5
lower delta invariant δ¯2,r=k(nk)(n2)8r4subscript¯δ2𝑟𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛28𝑟4\underline{\updelta}_{2,r}=\dfrac{k(n-k)(n-2)}{8}-\dfrac{r}{4}under¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG Theorem 5.5
Schouten curvature 𝖯(X,Y)=n216(k(nk)1)tr(XY)𝖯𝑋𝑌𝑛216𝑘𝑛𝑘1tr𝑋𝑌\mathsf{P}(X,Y)=\dfrac{n-2}{16(k(n-k)-1)}\operatorname{tr}(XY)sansserif_P ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 1 ) end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) Corollary 5.6
Cotton curvature 𝖢(X,Y,Z)=0𝖢𝑋𝑌𝑍0\mathsf{C}(X,Y,Z)=0sansserif_C ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z ) = 0 Corollary 5.7
Bach curvature 𝖡(X,Y)=(n2)232(k(nk)2)tr(XY)𝖡𝑋𝑌superscript𝑛2232𝑘𝑛𝑘2tr𝑋𝑌\mathsf{B}(X,Y)=\dfrac{(n-2)^{2}}{32(k(n-k)-2)}\operatorname{tr}(XY)sansserif_B ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 32 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 2 ) end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) Corollary 5.9
Weyl curvature 𝖶(X,Y,Z,W)=12tr((XYYX)ZW)𝖶𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊12tr𝑋𝑌𝑌𝑋𝑍𝑊\mathsf{W}(X,Y,Z,W)=\dfrac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(XY-YX)ZW\bigr{)}sansserif_W ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_tr ( ( italic_X italic_Y - italic_Y italic_X ) italic_Z italic_W ) Corollary 5.8
(n2)8(k(nk)1)(tr(XZ)tr(YW)tr(XW)tr(YZ))𝑛28𝑘𝑛𝑘1tr𝑋𝑍tr𝑌𝑊tr𝑋𝑊tr𝑌𝑍-\dfrac{(n-2)}{8(k(n-k)-1)}\bigl{(}\operatorname{tr}(XZ)\operatorname{tr}(YW)-% \operatorname{tr}(XW)\operatorname{tr}(YZ)\bigr{)}- divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 1 ) end_ARG ( roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Z ) roman_tr ( italic_Y italic_W ) - roman_tr ( italic_X italic_W ) roman_tr ( italic_Y italic_Z ) )

A few of the curvatures in Table 1 are extrinsic, i.e., they depend specifically on our model (1). These include the second and third fundamental forms; the Gauss and Weingarten maps; mean, Gaussian, and principal curvatures. They help us better understand the embedded geometry of Grassmannian given by (1) but they also expedite our calculations of the intrinsic curvatures. These include the Riemann, Ricci, sectional, and scalar curvatures; the Schouten, Cotton, Weyl, and Bach tensors; and the upper and lower delta invariants.

While the value of an intrinsic curvature is independent of our choice of models, the expression or formula that gives this value is not. As is evident from Table 1, the involution model yields simple, stably computable formulas for extrinsic and intrinsic curvatures alike, essentially reducing curvatures of the Grassmannian to matrix analysis and their computations to numerical linear algebra. For example, computing the value of the Riemann curvature, a daunting order-4444 tensor, is a trivial one-line calculation using our formula (and the proof of this formula is notably also a one-liner). For contrast, we will show in Section 7.2 what the corresponding calculation would entail if we use the most common Grassmannian model O(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))O𝑛O𝑘O𝑛𝑘\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)\times% \operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ).

What’s new

For the intrinsic curvatures, the Schouten, Cotton, Weyl, Bach curvature tensors, the upper and lower delta invariants have never been explicitly calculated for a Grassmannian to the best of our knowledge. The formulas for Riemann, Ricci, sectional, and scalar curvatures of the Grassmannian modeled as various quotient spaces (see Section 7.2) are well-known and classical [9, 16, 40, 49] and they have also been calculated in [3, 32] for the projection model (see Section 7.3). The novelty of our calculations for these is that we derived intrinsic curvatures from extrinsic curvatures. This is why we will calculate extrinsic curvatures first.

The formulas for the extrinsic curvatures — second and third fundamental forms; Gauss and Weingarten maps; mean, Gaussian, and principal curvatures — are all new. Of course this is just a consequence of the relative obscurity of the involution model (1). Unlike intrinsic invariants, extrinsic ones are model-dependent, and it is expected that these have never been calculated for a new model. Also, extrinsic curvatures do not apply to the quotient models in Section 7.2 as they are only defined for embedded manifolds.

We emphasize that by ‘formula’ we mean an explicit expression like those in Table 1, involving actual matrices, and has no undetermined quantities. These curvatures may of course be expressed in terms of local coordinates or equivalence classes or horizontal spaces, but these invariably require additional computational overhead, which we will discuss in Section 7. Our formulas do not contain ambiguities that require further choices and effort to resolve.

In addition to the curvatures in Table 1, we will also discuss the cocurvature, nonmetricity, torsion, and Plebański tensors. We will see in Proposition 3.1 and Corollary 6.1 that they are trivially zero. We also proved in Corollary 4.4 that the index of relative nullity vanishes; in Corollary 6.2 that the third fundamental form, the Ricci curvature, the Schouten and Bach tensors are all Codazzi tensors; and in Corollary 6.4 that the Riemann and Weyl curvatures are divergence-free.

2. Notations and conventions

In this article, we use blackboard bold fonts for vector spaces (e.g., tangent and normal spaces, space of n×n𝑛𝑛n\times nitalic_n × italic_n symmetric matrices, etc.) and san serif fonts for all curvatures and curvature-related quantities (e.g., Table 1). The Riemann, Ricci, and scalar curvatures, arguably the three most important quantities, are given three-letter notations 𝖱𝗂𝖾,𝖱𝗂𝖼,𝖲𝖼𝖺𝖱𝗂𝖾𝖱𝗂𝖼𝖲𝖼𝖺\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}},\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}},\operatorname{\mathsf{% Sca}}sansserif_Rie , sansserif_Ric , sansserif_Sca for emphasis.

We write 𝔼msuperscript𝔼𝑚\mathbb{E}^{m}blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for a Euclidean space of dimension m𝑚mitalic_m equipped with its Euclidean inner product ,\langle\,\cdot,\cdot\,\rangle⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩. For concreteness, one may assume that this Euclidean space is nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with x,y=x𝖳y𝑥𝑦superscript𝑥𝖳𝑦\langle x,y\rangle=x^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}y⟨ italic_x , italic_y ⟩ = italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_y, or 𝕊nsuperscript𝕊𝑛\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with X,Y=tr(XY)𝑋𝑌tr𝑋𝑌\langle X,Y\rangle=\operatorname{tr}(XY)⟨ italic_X , italic_Y ⟩ = roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ), or m×nsuperscript𝑚𝑛\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with X,Y=tr(X𝖳Y)𝑋𝑌trsuperscript𝑋𝖳𝑌\langle X,Y\rangle=\operatorname{tr}(X^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y)⟨ italic_X , italic_Y ⟩ = roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y ). We write proj𝕎:𝔼m𝔼m:subscriptproj𝕎superscript𝔼𝑚superscript𝔼𝑚\operatorname{proj}_{\mathbb{W}}:\mathbb{E}^{m}\to\mathbb{E}^{m}roman_proj start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT → blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for the orthogonal projection onto a subspace 𝕎𝔼m𝕎superscript𝔼𝑚\mathbb{W}\subseteq\mathbb{E}^{m}blackboard_W ⊆ blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The space of all linear maps between vector spaces 𝕍𝕍\mathbb{V}blackboard_V and 𝕎𝕎\mathbb{W}blackboard_W will be denoted Hom(𝕍,𝕎)Hom𝕍𝕎\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{V},\mathbb{W})roman_Hom ( blackboard_V , blackboard_W ) with Hom(𝕍,𝕍)Hom𝕍𝕍\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{V},\mathbb{V})roman_Hom ( blackboard_V , blackboard_V ) denoted specially as End(𝕍)End𝕍\operatorname{End}(\mathbb{V})roman_End ( blackboard_V ). We write idid\operatorname{id}roman_id for the identity map on any set.

For X,Yn×n𝑋𝑌superscript𝑛𝑛X,Y\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}italic_X , italic_Y ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we write [X,Y]=XYYX𝑋𝑌𝑋𝑌𝑌𝑋[X,Y]=XY-YX[ italic_X , italic_Y ] = italic_X italic_Y - italic_Y italic_X for the commutator. We write 𝔰𝔬(n)={Xn×n:X𝖳=X}𝔰𝔬𝑛conditional-set𝑋superscript𝑛𝑛superscript𝑋𝖳𝑋\mathfrak{so}(n)=\{X\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}:X^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}% =-X\}fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n ) = { italic_X ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = - italic_X } for the special orthogonal Lie algebra, i.e., the set of skew-symmetric matrices with [,][\,\cdot,\cdot\,][ ⋅ , ⋅ ] as its Lie bracket.

We write \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M for a smooth manifold, C()superscript𝐶C^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) for its ring of smooth real-valued functions, 𝕋xsubscript𝕋𝑥\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M and xsubscript𝑥\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M for its tangent and normal spaces at x𝑥x\in\mathcal{M}italic_x ∈ caligraphic_M respectively, and 𝒳()𝒳\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) for its C()superscript𝐶C^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M )-module of smooth vector fields. We denote vector fields with an arrow like v𝑣\vec{v}over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG. The word tensor in this article will always mean a tensor over a C()superscript𝐶C^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M )-module, i.e., a smooth tensor field on \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M, and will be cast in the form of multilinear maps between tangent and normal spaces. With few exceptions, all multilinear maps in this article are defined at a specific point x𝑥x\in\mathcal{M}italic_x ∈ caligraphic_M. So as not to be overly verbose, we write “on/of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M” when we mean “on/of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M at x𝑥xitalic_x” and we sometimes drop the subscript x𝑥xitalic_x like in Table 1 when there is no cause for confusion.

We write Gr(k,𝕍)Gr𝑘𝕍\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{V})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_V ) for the Grassmannian of k𝑘kitalic_k-dimensional subspaces in the vector space 𝕍𝕍\mathbb{V}blackboard_V. We emphasize that in this article,

(2) Gr(k,n){Q𝕊n:Q2=I,tr(Q)=2kn},Gr𝑘𝑛conditional-set𝑄superscript𝕊𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑄2𝐼tr𝑄2𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\coloneqq\{Q\in\mathbb{S}^{n}:Q^{2}=I,\;\operatorname{tr% }(Q)=2k-n\},roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) ≔ { italic_Q ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_I , roman_tr ( italic_Q ) = 2 italic_k - italic_n } ,

i.e., Gr(k,n)𝕊nGr𝑘𝑛superscript𝕊𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\subseteq\mathbb{S}^{n}roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) ⊆ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the image of the embedding

(3) ε:Gr(k,n)𝕊n,𝕎P𝕎P𝕎Q𝕎,:𝜀formulae-sequenceGr𝑘superscript𝑛superscript𝕊𝑛maps-to𝕎subscript𝑃𝕎subscript𝑃superscript𝕎perpendicular-tosubscript𝑄𝕎\varepsilon:\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})\to\mathbb{S}^{n},\quad\mathbb{% W}\mapsto P_{\mathbb{W}}-P_{\mathbb{W}^{\perp}}\eqqcolon Q_{\mathbb{W}},italic_ε : roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) → blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , blackboard_W ↦ italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_W start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≕ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where P𝕎𝕊nsubscript𝑃𝕎superscript𝕊𝑛P_{\mathbb{W}}\in\mathbb{S}^{n}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the orthogonal projection matrix with image 𝕎𝕎\mathbb{W}blackboard_W. So ε𝜀\varepsilonitalic_ε sends a k𝑘kitalic_k-dimensional subspace 𝕎n𝕎superscript𝑛\mathbb{W}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_W ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to a matrix Q𝕎𝕊nsubscript𝑄𝕎superscript𝕊𝑛Q_{\mathbb{W}}\in\mathbb{S}^{n}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. It is easy to verify [27] that Q𝕎subscript𝑄𝕎Q_{\mathbb{W}}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has the properties in (2), ε𝜀\varepsilonitalic_ε gives an embedding of Riemannian manifolds, and

Gr(k,n)=ε(Gr(k,n)).Gr𝑘𝑛𝜀Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)=\varepsilon\bigl{(}\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})% \bigr{)}.roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) = italic_ε ( roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) .

3. Curvature zoo

We will review the definitions of various curvatures and curvature-related quantities. This section is not intended to be pedagogical, and only contains minimal commentaries. The goal is just to collect definitions scattered across standard references [5, 16, 24, 25, 26, 30, 38] and some slightly less standard ones [10, 11, 15, 22, 37] and present them in a unified set of notations (see Section 2) for the reader’s easy reference.

All discussions below assume that \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is a Riemannian manifold with Riemannian metric 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g, i.e., 𝗀x:𝕋x×𝕋x:subscript𝗀𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥\mathsf{g}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to% \mathbb{R}sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R defines an inner product at x𝑥x\in\mathcal{M}italic_x ∈ caligraphic_M. Section 3.2 applies to \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M intrinsically. Section 3.1 applies when \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M embedded in an Euclidean space 𝔼msuperscript𝔼𝑚\mathbb{E}^{m}blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. More precisely by embedding we always mean an isometric embedding ε:𝔼m:𝜀superscript𝔼𝑚\varepsilon:\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{E}^{m}italic_ε : caligraphic_M → blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT preserving Riemannian metric, i.e., 𝗀x(v,w)=dxε(v),dxε(w)subscript𝗀𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝑑𝑥𝜀𝑣subscript𝑑𝑥𝜀𝑤\mathsf{g}_{x}(v,w)=\langle d_{x}\varepsilon(v),d_{x}\varepsilon(w)\ranglesansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) = ⟨ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε ( italic_v ) , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ε ( italic_w ) ⟩ for all x𝑥x\in\mathcal{M}italic_x ∈ caligraphic_M, v,w𝕋x𝑣𝑤subscript𝕋𝑥v,w\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_v , italic_w ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M. Henceforth, we will identify \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M with its image under the embedding ε𝜀\varepsilonitalic_ε so that we have 𝔼msuperscript𝔼𝑚\mathcal{M}\subseteq\mathbb{E}^{m}caligraphic_M ⊆ blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 𝗀x(v,w)=v,wsubscript𝗀𝑥𝑣𝑤𝑣𝑤\mathsf{g}_{x}(v,w)=\langle v,w\ranglesansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) = ⟨ italic_v , italic_w ⟩.

As usual, we will use the Levi-Civita connection throughout. We will say a few words about this choice in Section 3.3

3.1. Extrinsic curvatures

In this section, 𝔼msuperscript𝔼𝑚\mathcal{M}\subseteq\mathbb{E}^{m}caligraphic_M ⊆ blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional submanifold of an m𝑚mitalic_m-dimensional Euclidean space. For any x𝑥x\in\mathcal{M}italic_x ∈ caligraphic_M, we have the canonical identification

𝔼m𝕋x𝔼m=𝕋xxsuperscript𝔼𝑚subscript𝕋𝑥superscript𝔼𝑚direct-sumsubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝑥\mathbb{E}^{m}\cong\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathbb{E}^{m}=\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}% \oplus\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≅ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ⊕ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M

and the corresponding orthogonal projections proj𝕋xsubscriptprojsubscript𝕋𝑥\operatorname{proj}_{\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}}roman_proj start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and projxsubscriptprojsubscript𝑥\operatorname{proj}_{\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}}roman_proj start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

The first fundamental form is

Ix:𝕋x×𝕋x,Ix(v,w)v,w.:subscript𝐼𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝐼𝑥𝑣𝑤𝑣𝑤\fff_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R}% ,\quad\fff_{x}(v,w)\coloneqq\langle v,w\rangle.italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ ⟨ italic_v , italic_w ⟩ .

This is nothing more than the Riemannian metric 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g on \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M expressed in terms of the inner product ,\langle\,\cdot,\cdot\,\rangle⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ on 𝔼msuperscript𝔼𝑚\mathbb{E}^{m}blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

The Gauss map is defined by

Γ:Gr(mn,𝔼m),Γ(x)x.:sans-serif-Γformulae-sequenceGr𝑚𝑛superscript𝔼𝑚sans-serif-Γ𝑥subscript𝑥\mathsf{\Gamma}:\mathcal{M}\to\operatorname{Gr}(m-n,\mathbb{E}^{m}),\quad% \mathsf{\Gamma}(x)\coloneqq\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}.sansserif_Γ : caligraphic_M → roman_Gr ( italic_m - italic_n , blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , sansserif_Γ ( italic_x ) ≔ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M .

Take any 𝕍Gr(mn,𝔼m)𝕍Gr𝑚𝑛superscript𝔼𝑚\mathbb{V}\in\operatorname{Gr}(m-n,\mathbb{E}^{m})blackboard_V ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_m - italic_n , blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), note that this is an (mn)𝑚𝑛(m-n)( italic_m - italic_n )-dimensional subspace of 𝔼msuperscript𝔼𝑚\mathbb{E}^{m}blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and we have

𝕋𝕍Gr(mn,𝔼m)Hom(𝕍,𝕍).subscript𝕋𝕍Gr𝑚𝑛superscript𝔼𝑚Hom𝕍superscript𝕍perpendicular-to\mathbb{T}_{\mathbb{V}}\operatorname{Gr}(m-n,\mathbb{E}^{m})\cong\operatorname% {Hom}(\mathbb{V},\mathbb{V}^{\perp}).blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_m - italic_n , blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≅ roman_Hom ( blackboard_V , blackboard_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

In particular, 𝕋xGr(mn,𝔼m)Hom(𝕋x,x)subscript𝕋subscript𝑥Gr𝑚𝑛superscript𝔼𝑚Homsubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝑥\mathbb{T}_{\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}}\operatorname{Gr}(m-n,\mathbb{E}^{m})% \cong\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M},\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M})blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_m - italic_n , blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≅ roman_Hom ( blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M , blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ) and we may also regard the Gauss map as

(4) Γ:Hom(𝕋x,x).:sans-serif-ΓHomsubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝑥\mathsf{\Gamma}:\mathcal{M}\to\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M},% \mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}).sansserif_Γ : caligraphic_M → roman_Hom ( blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M , blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ) .

The second fundamental form IIxsubscriptII𝑥\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{x}start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is given by the derivative of the Gauss map in the form of (4), i.e.,

IIx:𝕋x×𝕋xx,IIx(v,w)dxΓ(v)(w).:subscriptII𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝑥subscriptII𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝑑𝑥sans-serif-Γ𝑣𝑤\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}% \mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M},\quad\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{x}(v,w)% \coloneqq d_{x}\mathsf{\Gamma}(v)(w).start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M , start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_Γ ( italic_v ) ( italic_w ) .

This is likely the most important extrinsic differential geometric invariant of an embedded manifold. Indeed many of our curvatures, including intrinsic ones, will be derived from the second fundamental form. We define the index of relative nullity [15] of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M as

νxdim{v𝕋x:IIx(v,w)=0 for all w𝕋x},subscriptν𝑥dimensionconditional-set𝑣subscript𝕋𝑥subscriptII𝑥𝑣𝑤0 for all 𝑤subscript𝕋𝑥\upnu_{x}\coloneqq\dim\{v\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}:\operatorname{\fff\fff}_% {x}(v,w)=0\text{~{}for all~{}}w\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\},roman_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ roman_dim { italic_v ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M : start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) = 0 for all italic_w ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M } ,

noting that IIx(v,w)=IIx(w,v)subscriptII𝑥𝑣𝑤subscriptII𝑥𝑤𝑣\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{x}(v,w)=\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{x}(w,v)start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) = start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w , italic_v ). For each ηx𝜂subscript𝑥\eta\in\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_η ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M, we may regard IIx,ηsubscriptII𝑥𝜂\langle\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{x},\eta\rangle⟨ start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_η ⟩ as an endomorphism on 𝕋xsubscript𝕋𝑥\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M and this is called the Weingarten map or shape operator,

𝖲x(η):𝕋x𝕋x,𝖲x(η)(v),wIIx(v,w),η.:subscript𝖲𝑥𝜂formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖲𝑥𝜂𝑣𝑤subscriptII𝑥𝑣𝑤𝜂\mathsf{S}_{x}(\eta):\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M},% \quad\langle\mathsf{S}_{x}(\eta)(v),w\rangle\coloneqq\langle\operatorname{\fff% \fff}_{x}(v,w),\eta\rangle.sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η ) : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M , ⟨ sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η ) ( italic_v ) , italic_w ⟩ ≔ ⟨ start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) , italic_η ⟩ .

This operator is self-adjoint as the second fundamental form is symmetric. The eigenvalues (necessarily real)

λ1(η),,λn(η),subscript𝜆1𝜂subscript𝜆𝑛𝜂\lambda_{1}(\eta),\dots,\lambda_{n}(\eta)\in\mathbb{R},italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η ) , … , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η ) ∈ blackboard_R ,

are called the principal curvatures of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M along η𝜂\etaitalic_η. Their product is called the Gaussian curvature of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M along η𝜂\etaitalic_η

𝖦x(η)det𝖲x(η),subscript𝖦𝑥𝜂subscript𝖲𝑥𝜂\mathsf{G}_{x}(\eta)\coloneqq\det\mathsf{S}_{x}(\eta)\in\mathbb{R},sansserif_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η ) ≔ roman_det sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η ) ∈ blackboard_R ,

and their sum is called the mean curvature of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M along η𝜂\etaitalic_η

𝖧x(η)tr𝖲x(η).subscript𝖧𝑥𝜂trsubscript𝖲𝑥𝜂\mathsf{H}_{x}(\eta)\coloneqq\operatorname{tr}\mathsf{S}_{x}(\eta)\in\mathbb{R}.sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η ) ≔ roman_tr sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η ) ∈ blackboard_R .

For any orthonormal basis η1,,ηmnxsubscript𝜂1subscript𝜂𝑚𝑛subscript𝑥\eta_{1},\dots,\eta_{m-n}\in\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m - italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M, the mean curvature vector of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖧xi=1mn𝖧x(ηi)ηixsubscript𝖧𝑥superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚𝑛subscript𝖧𝑥subscript𝜂𝑖subscript𝜂𝑖subscript𝑥\mathsf{H}_{x}\coloneqq\sum_{i=1}^{m-n}\mathsf{H}_{x}(\eta_{i})\eta_{i}\in% \mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M

and its value is independent of the choice of orthonormal basis. Clearly, 𝖧x(η)=𝖧x,ηsubscript𝖧𝑥𝜂subscript𝖧𝑥𝜂\mathsf{H}_{x}(\eta)=\langle\mathsf{H}_{x},\eta\ranglesansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η ) = ⟨ sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_η ⟩.

The Gauss–Obata map [37] of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖰x:𝕋x𝕋x,𝖰x(v)j=1mn𝖲x(ηj)2(v).:subscript𝖰𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖰𝑥𝑣superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑚𝑛subscript𝖲𝑥superscriptsubscript𝜂𝑗2𝑣\mathsf{Q}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M},\quad% \mathsf{Q}_{x}(v)\coloneqq\sum_{j=1}^{m-n}\mathsf{S}_{x}(\eta_{j})^{2}(v).sansserif_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M , sansserif_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) ≔ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_v ) .

and the third fundamental form is

IIIx:𝕋x×𝕋x,IIIx(v,w)𝖰x(v),w.:subscriptIII𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscriptIII𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝖰𝑥𝑣𝑤\operatorname{\fff\fff\fff}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}% \mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R},\quad\operatorname{\fff\fff\fff}_{x}(v,w)\coloneqq% \langle\mathsf{Q}_{x}(v),w\rangle.start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ ⟨ sansserif_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v ) , italic_w ⟩ .

The version defined here differs from an alternative version defined in classical differential [14, Equation 21] and algebraic [20, Equations 1.45 and 1.46] geometry. The latter allows for k𝑘kitalic_kth fundamental forms for all k4𝑘4k\geq 4italic_k ≥ 4. Nevertheless the important thing is that both versions agree with the classical third fundamental form for a surface 3superscript3\mathcal{M}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{3}caligraphic_M ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Getting slightly ahead of ourselves, the second fundamental form may also be expressed using the Levi-Civita connection \nabla in (6):

(5) IIx(v,w)=vwvw=projx(vw)subscriptII𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝑣𝑤subscript𝑣𝑤subscriptprojsubscript𝑥subscript𝑣𝑤\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{x}(v,w)=\partial_{v}\vec{w}-\nabla_{\!v}\vec{w}=% \operatorname{proj}_{\mathbb{N}_{x}\mathcal{M}}(\partial_{v}\vec{w})start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) = ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG - ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG = roman_proj start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG )

for any v,w𝕋x𝑣𝑤subscript𝕋𝑥v,w\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_v , italic_w ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M and where w𝒳()𝑤𝒳\vec{w}\in\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ∈ caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) is any vector field with w(x)=w𝑤𝑥𝑤\vec{w}(x)=wover→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ( italic_x ) = italic_w [30, Theorem 8.2]. The value of IIx(v,w)subscriptII𝑥𝑣𝑤\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{x}(v,w)start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) is independent of the choice of w𝑤\vec{w}over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG [30, Proposition 8.1].

3.2. Intrinsic curvatures

In this section \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is a Riemannian manifold with metric tensor 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g. One feature of our approach is that we will calculate intrinsic curvatures in extrinsic coordinates given by our involution model, vastly simplifying the work involved. As such it suffices to define the Levi-Civita connection \nabla of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M as an embedded manifold:

(6) :𝒳()×𝒳()𝒳(),((v,w))(x)proj𝕋x(vw),:formulae-sequence𝒳𝒳𝒳𝑣𝑤𝑥subscriptprojsubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝑣𝑤\nabla:\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})\times\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})\to\mathcal{X}(% \mathcal{M}),\quad(\nabla(\vec{v},\vec{w}))(x)\coloneqq\operatorname{proj}_{% \mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}}(\partial_{v}\vec{w}),∇ : caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) × caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) → caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) , ( ∇ ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ) ( italic_x ) ≔ roman_proj start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ,

where vv(x)𝕋x𝑣𝑣𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥v\coloneqq\vec{v}(x)\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_v ≔ over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG ( italic_x ) ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M and vwsubscript𝑣𝑤\partial_{v}\vec{w}∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG is the standard directional derivative of the vector field, i.e., derivative of the vector-valued function w:𝔼m:𝑤superscript𝔼𝑚\vec{w}:\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{E}^{m}over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG : caligraphic_M → blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT along the direction v𝕋x𝔼m𝑣subscript𝕋𝑥superscript𝔼𝑚v\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\subseteq\mathbb{E}^{m}italic_v ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ⊆ blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Note that this simple definition is possible only because both \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M and 𝕋xsubscript𝕋𝑥\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M are regarded as subsets of 𝔼msuperscript𝔼𝑚\mathbb{E}^{m}blackboard_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. It is also common to write, for a fixed v𝕋x𝑣subscript𝕋𝑥v\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_v ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M,

vw:𝒳()𝒳(),(vw)(x)((v,w))(x),:subscript𝑣𝑤formulae-sequence𝒳𝒳subscript𝑣𝑤𝑥𝑣𝑤𝑥\nabla_{\!v}\vec{w}:\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})\to\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M}),\quad(% \nabla_{\!v}\vec{w})(x)\coloneqq(\nabla(\vec{v},\vec{w}))(x),∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG : caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) → caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) , ( ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ( italic_x ) ≔ ( ∇ ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ) ( italic_x ) ,

as it behaves like a directional derivative. A slight variation of this notation makes v𝕋x𝑣subscript𝕋𝑥v\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_v ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M the variable and fixes x𝑥x\in\mathcal{M}italic_x ∈ caligraphic_M, giving

\leftidxxw:𝕋x𝕋x,(\leftidxxw)(v):=(vw)(x).\leftidx{{}_{x}\!}{\nabla}\vec{w}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{T}_{x}% \mathcal{M},\quad(\leftidx{{}_{x}\!}{\nabla}\vec{w})(v):=(\nabla_{\!v}\vec{w})% (x).start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ∇ over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M , ( start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ∇ over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ( italic_v ) := ( ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ( italic_x ) .

Since \leftidxxw\leftidx{{}_{x}\!}{\nabla}\vec{w}start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ∇ over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG is a linear operator, it has a trace, which defines the divergence for a vector field w𝑤\vec{w}over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG,

div:𝒳()C(),div(w)(x)tr(\leftidxxw).\operatorname{div}:\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})\to C^{\infty}(\mathcal{M}),\quad% \operatorname{div}(\vec{w})(x)\coloneqq\operatorname{tr}(\leftidx{{}_{x}\!}{% \nabla}\vec{w}).roman_div : caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) → italic_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_M ) , roman_div ( over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ( italic_x ) ≔ roman_tr ( start_FLOATSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_FLOATSUBSCRIPT ∇ over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) .

For higher-order tensor fields, the convention is to apply divergence to the last argument: If w1,,wk𝒳()subscript𝑤1subscript𝑤𝑘𝒳\vec{w}_{1},\dots,\vec{w}_{k}\in\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ), then

div(w1wk1wk)div(wk)w1wk1,divtensor-productsubscript𝑤1subscript𝑤𝑘1subscript𝑤𝑘tensor-productdivsubscript𝑤𝑘subscript𝑤1subscript𝑤𝑘1\operatorname{div}(\vec{w}_{1}\otimes\cdots\otimes\vec{w}_{k-1}\otimes\vec{w}_% {k})\coloneqq\operatorname{div}(\vec{w}_{k})\vec{w}_{1}\otimes\cdots\otimes% \vec{w}_{k-1},roman_div ( over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≔ roman_div ( over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊗ ⋯ ⊗ over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

and extended linearly to all k𝑘kitalic_k-tensor fields [38].

We will need two common notions [5] defined for any symmetric bilinear forms on 𝕋xsubscript𝕋𝑥\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M. Let α,β:𝕋x×𝕋x:𝛼𝛽subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥\alpha,\beta:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to% \mathbb{R}italic_α , italic_β : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R be symmetric and bilinear, their Kulkarni–Nomizu product α∧⃝β∧⃝𝛼𝛽\alpha\varowedge\betaitalic_α ∧⃝ italic_β is the symmetric quadrilinear form

(7) α∧⃝β:𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x,α∧⃝β(u,v,w,z)α(u,w)β(v,z)α(u,z)β(v,w)α(v,w)β(u,z)+α(v,z)β(u,w).:∧⃝𝛼𝛽formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥∧⃝𝛼𝛽𝑢𝑣𝑤𝑧𝛼𝑢𝑤𝛽𝑣𝑧𝛼𝑢𝑧𝛽𝑣𝑤𝛼𝑣𝑤𝛽𝑢𝑧𝛼𝑣𝑧𝛽𝑢𝑤\begin{gathered}\alpha\varowedge\beta:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T% }_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}% \to\mathbb{R},\\ \alpha\varowedge\beta(u,v,w,z)\coloneqq\alpha(u,w)\beta(v,z)-\alpha(u,z)\beta(% v,w)-\alpha(v,w)\beta(u,z)+\alpha(v,z)\beta(u,w).\end{gathered}start_ROW start_CELL italic_α ∧⃝ italic_β : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_α ∧⃝ italic_β ( italic_u , italic_v , italic_w , italic_z ) ≔ italic_α ( italic_u , italic_w ) italic_β ( italic_v , italic_z ) - italic_α ( italic_u , italic_z ) italic_β ( italic_v , italic_w ) - italic_α ( italic_v , italic_w ) italic_β ( italic_u , italic_z ) + italic_α ( italic_v , italic_z ) italic_β ( italic_u , italic_w ) . end_CELL end_ROW

If a symmetric bilinear form β:𝕋x×𝕋x:𝛽subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥\beta:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R}italic_β : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R satisfies

(uβ)(v,w)=(vβ)(u,w)subscript𝑢𝛽𝑣𝑤subscript𝑣𝛽𝑢𝑤(\nabla_{\!u}\beta)(v,w)=(\nabla_{\!v}\beta)(u,w)( ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β ) ( italic_v , italic_w ) = ( ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_β ) ( italic_u , italic_w )

for all u,v,w𝕋x𝑢𝑣𝑤subscript𝕋𝑥u,v,w\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_u , italic_v , italic_w ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M, then it is called a Codazzi tensor.

The Riemann curvature or curvature tensor of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖱𝗂𝖾x:𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x,𝖱𝗂𝖾x(u,v,w,z)uvwvuw[u,v]w,z.:subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥𝑢𝑣𝑤𝑧subscript𝑢subscript𝑣𝑤subscript𝑣subscript𝑢𝑤subscript𝑢𝑣𝑤𝑧\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}% \mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to% \mathbb{R},\quad\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x}(u,v,w,z)\coloneqq\langle\nabla% _{\!u}\nabla_{\!v}w-\nabla_{\!v}\nabla_{\!u}w-\nabla_{\![u,v]}w,z\rangle.sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v , italic_w , italic_z ) ≔ ⟨ ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w - ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w - ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_u , italic_v ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w , italic_z ⟩ .

There is a common variant known by the same name:

𝖱x:𝕋x×𝕋xEnd(𝕋x),𝖱x(u,v)wuvwvuw[u,v]w.:subscript𝖱𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥Endsubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖱𝑥𝑢𝑣𝑤subscript𝑢subscript𝑣𝑤subscript𝑣subscript𝑢𝑤subscript𝑢𝑣𝑤\mathsf{R}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to% \operatorname{End}(\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}),\quad\mathsf{R}_{x}(u,v)w% \coloneqq\nabla_{\!u}\nabla_{\!v}w-\nabla_{\!v}\nabla_{\!u}w-\nabla_{\![u,v]}w.sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → roman_End ( blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ) , sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v ) italic_w ≔ ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w - ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w - ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_u , italic_v ] end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w .

Note that 𝖱𝗂𝖾x(u,v,w,z)=𝖱x(u,v)w,zsubscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥𝑢𝑣𝑤𝑧subscript𝖱𝑥𝑢𝑣𝑤𝑧\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x}(u,v,w,z)=\langle\mathsf{R}_{x}(u,v)w,z\ranglesansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v , italic_w , italic_z ) = ⟨ sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v ) italic_w , italic_z ⟩ with the slight difference being that 𝖱xsubscript𝖱𝑥\mathsf{R}_{x}sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a bilinear map and 𝖱𝗂𝖾xsubscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x}sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a quadrilinear form. There is also a symmetric variant called the Jacobi tensor of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M,

𝖩x:𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x,𝖩x(u,v,w,z)12(𝖱𝗂𝖾x(u,v,w,z)+𝖱𝗂𝖾x(w,v,u,z)).:subscript𝖩𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖩𝑥𝑢𝑣𝑤𝑧12subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥𝑢𝑣𝑤𝑧subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥𝑤𝑣𝑢𝑧\mathsf{J}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times% \mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R},\quad% \mathsf{J}_{x}(u,v,w,z)\coloneqq\frac{1}{2}\left(\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{% x}(u,v,w,z)+\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x}(w,v,u,z)\right).sansserif_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , sansserif_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v , italic_w , italic_z ) ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v , italic_w , italic_z ) + sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_w , italic_v , italic_u , italic_z ) ) .

If v,w𝕋x𝑣𝑤subscript𝕋𝑥v,w\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_v , italic_w ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M are linearly independent, then the sectional curvature of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

κx:𝕋x×𝕋x,κx(v,w)𝖱𝗂𝖾x(v,w,w,v)vw2=𝖱𝗂𝖾x(v,w,w,v)v2w2v,w2.:subscriptκ𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscriptκ𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥𝑣𝑤𝑤𝑣superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑣𝑤2subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥𝑣𝑤𝑤𝑣superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑣2superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑤2superscript𝑣𝑤2\upkappa_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to% \mathbb{R},\quad\upkappa_{x}(v,w)\coloneqq\frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x% }(v,w,w,v)}{\lVert v\wedge w\rVert^{2}}=\frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x}(% v,w,w,v)}{\lVert v\rVert^{2}\lVert w\rVert^{2}-\langle v,w\rangle^{2}}.roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ divide start_ARG sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w , italic_w , italic_v ) end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_v ∧ italic_w ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w , italic_w , italic_v ) end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_v ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_w ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ⟨ italic_v , italic_w ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG .

Let v1,,vn𝕋xsubscript𝑣1subscript𝑣𝑛subscript𝕋𝑥v_{1},\dots,v_{n}\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M be an orthonormal basis. The Ricci curvature of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖱𝗂𝖼x:𝕋x×𝕋x,𝖱𝗂𝖼x(v,w)j=1n𝖱𝗂𝖾x(v,vj,vj,w).:subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑥𝑣𝑤superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑛subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥𝑣subscript𝑣𝑗subscript𝑣𝑗𝑤\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}% \mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R},\quad\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{x}(v,w)\coloneqq% \sum_{j=1}^{n}\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x}(v,v_{j},v_{j},w).sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w ) .

The scalar curvature of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖲𝖼𝖺xtr(𝖱𝗂𝖼x)=1j<knκx(vj,vk)=1j<kn𝖱𝗂𝖾x(vj,vk,vk,vj).subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥trsubscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑥subscript1𝑗𝑘𝑛subscriptκ𝑥subscript𝑣𝑗subscript𝑣𝑘subscript1𝑗𝑘𝑛subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥subscript𝑣𝑗subscript𝑣𝑘subscript𝑣𝑘subscript𝑣𝑗\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}\coloneqq\operatorname{tr}(\operatorname{% \mathsf{Ric}}_{x})=\sum_{1\leq j<k\leq n}\upkappa_{x}(v_{j},v_{k})=\sum_{1\leq j% <k\leq n}\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x}(v_{j},v_{k},v_{k},v_{j}).sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ roman_tr ( sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

The last two curvatures gives us the traceless Ricci curvature,

𝖹x:𝕋x×𝕋x,𝖹x(v,w)𝖱𝗂𝖼x(v,w)𝖲𝖼𝖺xn𝗀x(v,w),:subscript𝖹𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖹𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥𝑛subscript𝗀𝑥𝑣𝑤\mathsf{Z}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to% \mathbb{R},\quad\mathsf{Z}_{x}(v,w)\coloneqq\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{x}(v,% w)-\frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}}{n}\mathsf{g}_{x}(v,w),sansserif_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , sansserif_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) - divide start_ARG sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n end_ARG sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ,

important as it gives a 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g-orthogonal decomposition of Ricci curvature. A manifold with 𝖹=0𝖹0\mathsf{Z}=0sansserif_Z = 0 is called an Einstein manifold [5].

The scalar curvature allows a generalization to any d𝑑ditalic_d-dimensional subspace 𝕍𝕋x𝕍subscript𝕋𝑥\mathbb{V}\subseteq\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}blackboard_V ⊆ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M,

𝖲𝖼𝖺x(𝕍)1j<kdκx(vj,vk),subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥𝕍subscript1𝑗𝑘𝑑subscriptκ𝑥subscript𝑣𝑗subscript𝑣𝑘\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}(\mathbb{V})\coloneqq\sum_{1\leq j<k\leq d}% \upkappa_{x}(v_{j},v_{k}),sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_V ) ≔ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≤ italic_j < italic_k ≤ italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,

where v1,,vd𝕍subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣𝑑𝕍v_{1},\dots,v_{d}\in\mathbb{V}italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_V is any orthonormal basis. Clearly 𝖲𝖼𝖺x(𝕋x)=𝖲𝖼𝖺xsubscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}(\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M})=\operatorname{% \mathsf{Sca}}_{x}sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M ) = sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. From these one may construct the upper and lower delta invariants [10, 11], given respectively by

δ¯x(d1,,dr)subscript¯δ𝑥subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑𝑟\displaystyle\overline{\updelta}_{x}(d_{1},\dots,d_{r})over¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) 𝖲𝖼𝖺xinfdim𝕍j=dj𝕍j𝕍k,j<k[j=1r𝖲𝖼𝖺x(𝕍j)],absentsubscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥subscriptinfimumdimensionsubscript𝕍𝑗subscript𝑑𝑗formulae-sequenceperpendicular-tosubscript𝕍𝑗subscript𝕍𝑘𝑗𝑘delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑟subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥subscript𝕍𝑗\displaystyle\coloneqq\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}-\inf_{\begin{subarray}{c% }\dim\mathbb{V}_{j}=d_{j}\\ \mathbb{V}_{j}\perp\mathbb{V}_{k},\;j<k\end{subarray}}\biggl{[}\sum_{j=1}^{r}% \operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}(\mathbb{V}_{j})\biggr{]},≔ sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL roman_dim blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟂ blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j < italic_k end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] ,
δ¯x(d1,,dr)subscript¯δ𝑥subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑𝑟\displaystyle\underline{\updelta}_{x}(d_{1},\dots,d_{r})under¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) 𝖲𝖼𝖺xsupdim𝕍j=dj𝕍j𝕍k,j<k[j=1r𝖲𝖼𝖺x(𝕍j)],absentsubscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥subscriptsupremumdimensionsubscript𝕍𝑗subscript𝑑𝑗formulae-sequenceperpendicular-tosubscript𝕍𝑗subscript𝕍𝑘𝑗𝑘delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑟subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥subscript𝕍𝑗\displaystyle\coloneqq\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}-\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c% }\dim\mathbb{V}_{j}=d_{j}\\ \mathbb{V}_{j}\perp\mathbb{V}_{k},\;j<k\end{subarray}}\biggl{[}\sum_{j=1}^{r}% \operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}(\mathbb{V}_{j})\biggr{]},≔ sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL roman_dim blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟂ blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j < italic_k end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] ,

where d1,,drsubscript𝑑1subscript𝑑𝑟d_{1},\dots,d_{r}\in\mathbb{Z}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z are such that 2d1dr2subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑𝑟2\leq d_{1}\leq\cdots\leq d_{r}2 ≤ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ ⋯ ≤ italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and d1++drdimsubscript𝑑1subscript𝑑𝑟dimensiond_{1}+\dots+d_{r}\leq\dim\mathcal{M}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ⋯ + italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≤ roman_dim caligraphic_M.

We will next define a well-known quartet of closely related curvature tensors [5]. The Schouten tensor of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖯x:𝕋x×𝕋x,𝖯x(v,w)1n2(𝖱𝗂𝖼x(v,w)𝖲𝖼𝖺x2(n1)𝗀x(v,w)).:subscript𝖯𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖯𝑥𝑣𝑤1𝑛2subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥2𝑛1subscript𝗀𝑥𝑣𝑤\mathsf{P}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to% \mathbb{R},\quad\mathsf{P}_{x}(v,w)\coloneqq\frac{1}{n-2}\Bigl{(}\operatorname% {\mathsf{Ric}}_{x}(v,w)-\frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}}{2(n-1)}\mathsf{% g}_{x}(v,w)\Bigr{)}.sansserif_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , sansserif_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG ( sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) - divide start_ARG sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ) .

The Cotton tensor of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖢x:𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x,𝖢x(u,v,w)(u𝖯x)(v,w)(v𝖯x)(u,w).:subscript𝖢𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖢𝑥𝑢𝑣𝑤subscript𝑢subscript𝖯𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝑣subscript𝖯𝑥𝑢𝑤\mathsf{C}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times% \mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R},\quad\mathsf{C}_{x}(u,v,w)\coloneqq(% \nabla_{\!u}\mathsf{P}_{x})(v,w)-(\nabla_{\!v}\mathsf{P}_{x})(u,w).sansserif_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , sansserif_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ ( ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_v , italic_w ) - ( ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_u , italic_w ) .

The Weyl tensor of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖶x:𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x,𝖶x𝖱𝗂𝖾x1n2𝖹x∧⃝𝗀x𝖲𝖼𝖺x2n(n1)𝗀x∧⃝𝗀x.:subscript𝖶𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖶𝑥subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑥1𝑛2subscript𝖹𝑥∧⃝subscript𝗀𝑥subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑥2𝑛𝑛1subscript𝗀𝑥∧⃝subscript𝗀𝑥\mathsf{W}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times% \mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R},\quad% \mathsf{W}_{x}\coloneqq\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{x}-\frac{1}{n-2}\mathsf{Z}% _{x}\varowedge\mathsf{g}_{x}-\frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{x}}{2n(n-1)}% \mathsf{g}_{x}\varowedge\mathsf{g}_{x}.sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG sansserif_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧⃝ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧⃝ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

The Bach tensor of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖡x:𝕋x×𝕋x,:subscript𝖡𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥\displaystyle\mathsf{B}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}% \mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R},sansserif_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R ,
𝖡x(u,w)1n3i,j=1nvi,vj2𝖶x(u,vi,vj,w)+1n2i,j=1n𝖱𝗂𝖼x(vi,vj)𝖶x(u,vi,vj,w),subscript𝖡𝑥𝑢𝑤1𝑛3superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑛subscriptsuperscript2subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑗subscript𝖶𝑥𝑢subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑗𝑤1𝑛2superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑛subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑥subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑗subscript𝖶𝑥𝑢subscript𝑣𝑖subscript𝑣𝑗𝑤\displaystyle\mathsf{B}_{x}(u,w)\coloneqq\frac{1}{n-3}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\nabla^{% 2}_{v_{i},v_{j}}\mathsf{W}_{x}(u,v_{i},v_{j},w)+\frac{1}{n-2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}% \operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{x}(v_{i},v_{j})\mathsf{W}_{x}(u,v_{i},v_{j},w),sansserif_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_w ) ≔ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n - 3 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∇ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_w ) ,

We will also describe some intrinsic curvatures that are more typically studied in non-Riemannian geometry, i.e., for a connection \nabla other than the Levi-Civita connection (see Section 3.3).

The torsion tensor [24, Chapter III, Section 5] of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖳x:𝕋x×𝕋x,𝖳x(v,w)vwwv[v,w].:subscript𝖳𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖳𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝑣𝑤subscript𝑤𝑣𝑣𝑤\mathsf{T}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to% \mathbb{R},\quad\mathsf{T}_{x}(v,w)\coloneqq\nabla_{\!v}w-\nabla_{\!w}v-[v,w].sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w - ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v - [ italic_v , italic_w ] .

The nonmetricity tensor [22] of \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is

𝖰x:𝕋x×𝕋x×𝕋x,𝖰x(u,v,w)u𝗀x(v,w)+𝗀x(uv,w)+𝗀x(v,uw).:subscript𝖰𝑥formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝕋𝑥subscript𝖰𝑥𝑢𝑣𝑤subscript𝑢subscript𝗀𝑥𝑣𝑤subscript𝗀𝑥subscript𝑢𝑣𝑤subscript𝗀𝑥𝑣subscript𝑢𝑤\mathsf{Q}_{x}:\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\times% \mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{R},\quad\mathsf{Q}_{x}(u,v,w)\coloneqq-% \nabla_{\!u}\mathsf{g}_{x}(v,w)+\mathsf{g}_{x}(\nabla_{\!u}v,w)+\mathsf{g}_{x}% (v,\nabla_{\!u}w).sansserif_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M → blackboard_R , sansserif_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v , italic_w ) ≔ - ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) + sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v , italic_w ) + sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w ) .

For any vector subbundle 𝕍𝕍\mathbb{V}\mathcal{M}blackboard_V caligraphic_M of 𝕋𝕋\mathbb{T}\mathcal{M}blackboard_T caligraphic_M with projection π:𝕋𝕍:𝜋𝕋𝕍\pi:\mathbb{T}\mathcal{M}\to\mathbb{V}\mathcal{M}italic_π : blackboard_T caligraphic_M → blackboard_V caligraphic_M, its cocurvature [35, 26] is

𝖱π:𝕏()×𝒳()𝒳(),𝖱π(v,w)(idπ)([π(v),π(w)]).:subscriptsuperscript𝖱𝜋formulae-sequence𝕏𝒳𝒳subscriptsuperscript𝖱𝜋𝑣𝑤id𝜋𝜋𝑣𝜋𝑤\mathsf{R}^{*}_{\pi}:\mathbb{X}(\mathcal{M})\times\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})\to% \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M}),\quad\mathsf{R}^{*}_{\pi}(\vec{v},\vec{w})\coloneqq(% \operatorname{id}-\pi)\bigl{(}[\pi(\vec{v}),\pi(\vec{w})]\bigr{)}.sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_X ( caligraphic_M ) × caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) → caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) , sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ≔ ( roman_id - italic_π ) ( [ italic_π ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG ) , italic_π ( over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ] ) .

In general 𝖱πsubscriptsuperscript𝖱𝜋\mathsf{R}^{*}_{\pi}sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π end_POSTSUBSCRIPT measures the failure of integrability of 𝕍𝕍\mathbb{V}\mathcal{M}blackboard_V caligraphic_M. To put the cocurvature in perspective, the curvature in this context is

𝖱π:𝒳()×𝒳()𝒳(),𝖱π(v,w)π([(idπ)(v),(idπ)(w)]).:subscript𝖱𝜋formulae-sequence𝒳𝒳𝒳subscript𝖱𝜋𝑣𝑤𝜋id𝜋𝑣id𝜋𝑤\mathsf{R}_{\pi}:\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})\times\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})\to% \mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M}),\quad\mathsf{R}_{\pi}(\vec{v},\vec{w})\coloneqq\pi% \bigl{(}[(\operatorname{id}-\pi)(\vec{v}),(\operatorname{id}-\pi)(\vec{w})]% \bigr{)}.sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) × caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) → caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) , sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ≔ italic_π ( [ ( roman_id - italic_π ) ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG ) , ( roman_id - italic_π ) ( over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ] ) .

Evidently, this is a more general notion than the Riemann curvature 𝖱𝖱\mathsf{R}sansserif_R but we will see how they are related in Proposition 3.1.

3.3. Connections

Our choice of Levi-Civita connection is all but preordained by the Fundamental Theorem of Riemannian Geometry [16, Chapter 2, Theorem 3.6], namely, it is the unique affine connection that is torsion-free and metric-compatible. To reassure the readers, we will add a few more words to justify this choice.

In manifold optimization, one needs a metric to identify tangent space with cotangent space, and the Levi-Civita connection is the most natural one (i.e., torsion free) compatible with our Riemannian metric 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g. While the goal of our article is not optimization per se, there are not many options among other common connections either: (i) The Weyl connection is a generalization of Levi-Civita connection to conformal metrics and for our choice of 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g the two are identical. (ii) The affine, Cartan, Ehresmann, and Koszul connections are unnatural in our context. (iii) The Gauss–Manin and Grothendieck connections are intended for schemes and incompatible with our consideration of the Grassmannian as a manifold. (iv) Other connections like those of Connes and Weitzenböck are even further removed from our treatment in this article.

Unsurprisingly the non-Riemannian curvatures all turn out to be trivial for a Riemannian manifold. The statement (a) below is just stated for ease of referencing.

Proposition 3.1.

Let \nabla be the Levi-Civita connection on \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M.

  1. (a)

    The torsion tensor and the nonmetricity tensor vanishes identically, i.e.,

    𝖳x(v,w)=0,𝖰x(u,v,w)=0formulae-sequencesubscript𝖳𝑥𝑣𝑤0subscript𝖰𝑥𝑢𝑣𝑤0\mathsf{T}_{x}(v,w)=0,\qquad\mathsf{Q}_{x}(u,v,w)=0sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_v , italic_w ) = 0 , sansserif_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u , italic_v , italic_w ) = 0

    for all x𝑥x\in\mathcal{M}italic_x ∈ caligraphic_M and all u,v,w𝕋x𝑢𝑣𝑤subscript𝕋𝑥u,v,w\in\mathbb{T}_{x}\mathcal{M}italic_u , italic_v , italic_w ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT caligraphic_M.

  2. (b)

    Let π:O():𝜋O\pi:\operatorname{O}(\mathcal{M})\to\mathcal{M}italic_π : roman_O ( caligraphic_M ) → caligraphic_M be the orthonormal frame bundle on \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M, 𝕍ker(dπ)𝕍kernel𝑑𝜋\mathbb{V}\mathcal{M}\coloneqq\ker(d\pi)blackboard_V caligraphic_M ≔ roman_ker ( italic_d italic_π ), and π^:𝕋O()𝕍:^𝜋𝕋O𝕍\widehat{\pi}:\mathbb{T}\operatorname{O}(\mathcal{M})\to\mathbb{V}\mathcal{M}over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG : blackboard_T roman_O ( caligraphic_M ) → blackboard_V caligraphic_M the projection induced by \nabla. Then the cocurvature vanishes and the curvature equals the Riemann curvature up to sign, i.e.,

    𝖱π^(v,w)=0,𝖱π^(v,w)=𝖱(v,w)formulae-sequencesubscriptsuperscript𝖱^𝜋𝑣𝑤0subscript𝖱^𝜋𝑣𝑤𝖱𝑣𝑤\mathsf{R}^{*}_{\widehat{\pi}}(\vec{v},\vec{w})=0,\qquad\mathsf{R}_{\widehat{% \pi}}(\vec{v},\vec{w})=-\mathsf{R}(\vec{v},\vec{w})sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) = 0 , sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) = - sansserif_R ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG )

    where the first equality holds for all v,w𝒳(O())𝑣𝑤𝒳O\vec{v},\vec{w}\in\mathcal{X}(\operatorname{O}(\mathcal{M}))over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ∈ caligraphic_X ( roman_O ( caligraphic_M ) ), the second for all v,w𝒳()𝒳(O())𝑣𝑤𝒳𝒳O\vec{v},\vec{w}\in\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})\subseteq\mathcal{X}(\operatorname{O% }(\mathcal{M}))over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ∈ caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) ⊆ caligraphic_X ( roman_O ( caligraphic_M ) ).

Proof.

Since the Levi-Civita connection on \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M is, by definition, the unique connection that is torsion free and compatible with the metric 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g, both 𝖳𝖳\mathsf{T}sansserif_T and 𝖰𝖰\mathsf{Q}sansserif_Q vanish.

The horizontal bundle kerπ^kernel^𝜋\ker\widehat{\pi}roman_ker over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG is 𝕋𝕋\mathbb{T}\mathcal{M}blackboard_T caligraphic_M, whose integral manifold is \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M. So the cocurvature 𝖱π^subscriptsuperscript𝖱^𝜋\mathsf{R}^{*}_{\widehat{\pi}}sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT must vanish identically. Since O()O\operatorname{O}(\mathcal{M})roman_O ( caligraphic_M ) consists of orthonormal frames on \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M, the typical fiber of 𝕍()=ker(dπ)𝕍kernel𝑑𝜋\mathbb{V}(\mathcal{M})=\ker(d\pi)blackboard_V ( caligraphic_M ) = roman_ker ( italic_d italic_π ) is 𝔰𝔬(n)𝔰𝔬𝑛\mathfrak{so}(n)fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n ), where n=dim𝑛dimensionn=\dim\mathcal{M}italic_n = roman_dim caligraphic_M. As π^^𝜋\widehat{\pi}over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG is induced by \nabla, it can be regarded as an 𝔰𝔬(n)𝔰𝔬𝑛\mathfrak{so}(n)fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n )-valued differential 1111-form ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω on O()O\operatorname{O}(\mathcal{M})roman_O ( caligraphic_M ). The projection map π^^𝜋\widehat{\pi}over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG gives a decomposition

𝕋O()𝕍𝕋.similar-to-or-equals𝕋Odirect-sum𝕍𝕋\mathbb{T}\operatorname{O}(\mathcal{M})\simeq\mathbb{V}\mathcal{M}\oplus% \mathbb{T}\mathcal{M}.blackboard_T roman_O ( caligraphic_M ) ≃ blackboard_V caligraphic_M ⊕ blackboard_T caligraphic_M .

Thus for any v,w𝒳(O())𝑣𝑤𝒳O\vec{v},\vec{w}\in\mathcal{X}(\operatorname{O}(\mathcal{M}))over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ∈ caligraphic_X ( roman_O ( caligraphic_M ) ), we may identify (idπ^)(v)id^𝜋𝑣(\operatorname{id}-\widehat{\pi})(\vec{v})( roman_id - over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG ) and (idπ^)(w)id^𝜋𝑤(\operatorname{id}-\widehat{\pi})(\vec{w})( roman_id - over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) ( over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) with elements in 𝒳()𝒳\mathcal{X}(\mathcal{M})caligraphic_X ( caligraphic_M ) and

𝖱π^(v,w)=ω([(idπ^)(v),(idπ^)(w)])=dω((idπ^)(v),(idπ^)(w)).subscript𝖱^𝜋𝑣𝑤𝜔id^𝜋𝑣id^𝜋𝑤𝑑𝜔id^𝜋𝑣id^𝜋𝑤-\mathsf{R}_{\widehat{\pi}}(\vec{v},\vec{w})=-\omega([(\operatorname{id}-% \widehat{\pi})(\vec{v}),(\operatorname{id}-\widehat{\pi})(\vec{w})])=d\omega% \bigl{(}(\operatorname{id}-\widehat{\pi})(\vec{v}),(\operatorname{id}-\widehat% {\pi})(\vec{w})\bigr{)}.- sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG , over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) = - italic_ω ( [ ( roman_id - over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG ) , ( roman_id - over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) ( over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ] ) = italic_d italic_ω ( ( roman_id - over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) ( over→ start_ARG italic_v end_ARG ) , ( roman_id - over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG ) ( over→ start_ARG italic_w end_ARG ) ) .

In other words, 𝖱π^subscript𝖱^𝜋-\mathsf{R}_{\widehat{\pi}}- sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_π end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT turns out to be the curvature 2222-form of ω𝜔\omegaitalic_ω, which by [24, Section III.5] is equal to the Riemann curvature 𝖱𝖱\mathsf{R}sansserif_R. ∎

4. Extrinsic curvatures of the Grassmannian

We are now in a position to calculate various curvatures of the Grassmannian modeled as Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) and express them as simple matrix formulas. Our strategy is first calculate the extrinsic curvatures in this section, notably the second fundamental form, and then use it as the basis for our calculation of intrinsic curvatures in Section 5.

Our ambient Euclidean space of choice is 𝕊nsuperscript𝕊𝑛\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT equipped with the standard (also called trace or Frobenius) inner product on m×nsuperscript𝑚𝑛\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT given by

X,Ytr(X𝖳Y)=i=1nj=1nxijyij.𝑋𝑌trsuperscript𝑋𝖳𝑌superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑛subscript𝑥𝑖𝑗subscript𝑦𝑖𝑗\langle X,Y\rangle\coloneqq\operatorname{tr}(X^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y% )=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}x_{ij}y_{ij}.⟨ italic_X , italic_Y ⟩ ≔ roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

When restricted to Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ), it gives us our Riemannian metric

(8) 𝗀Q:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n),𝗀Q(X,Y)=tr(X𝖳Y):subscript𝗀𝑄formulae-sequencesubscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑌trsuperscript𝑋𝖳𝑌\mathsf{g}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}% \operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R},\quad\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Y)=\operatorname{tr}% (X^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y)sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R , sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y )

for all QGr(k,n)𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛Q\in\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_Q ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ). Of course, we have X𝖳=Xsuperscript𝑋𝖳𝑋X^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}=Xitalic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_X as X𝕊n𝑋superscript𝕊𝑛X\in\mathbb{S}^{n}italic_X ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT but we choose to keep the transpose in our notation to remind ourselves that this is the trace inner product.

Given QGr(k,n)𝕊n𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛superscript𝕊𝑛Q\in\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\subseteq\mathbb{S}^{n}italic_Q ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) ⊆ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we have an eigenvalue decomposition Q=VIk,nkV𝖳𝑄𝑉subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘superscript𝑉𝖳Q=VI_{k,n-k}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}italic_Q = italic_V italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some VO(n)𝑉O𝑛V\in\operatorname{O}(n)italic_V ∈ roman_O ( italic_n ) and Ik,nkdiag(Ik,Ink)=diag(1,,1,1,,1)subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘diagsubscript𝐼𝑘subscript𝐼𝑛𝑘diag1111I_{k,n-k}\coloneqq\operatorname{diag}(I_{k},-I_{n-k})=\operatorname{diag}(1,% \dots,1,-1,\dots,-1)italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ roman_diag ( italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , - italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_diag ( 1 , … , 1 , - 1 , … , - 1 ). The tangent and normal spaces of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) at Q𝑄Qitalic_Q are

(9) 𝕋QGr(k,n)subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) ={V[0X0X0𝖳0]V𝖳𝕊n:X0k×(nk)},absentconditional-set𝑉matrix0subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳0superscript𝑉𝖳superscript𝕊𝑛subscript𝑋0superscript𝑘𝑛𝑘\displaystyle=\biggl{\{}V\begin{bmatrix}0&X_{0}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}\in\mathbb{S}^{n}:X_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times(n-k)}\biggr{\}},= { italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k × ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } ,
(10) QGr(k,n)subscript𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\displaystyle\mathbb{N}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) ={V[H100H2]V𝖳𝕊n:H1𝕊k,H2𝕊nk}.absentconditional-set𝑉matrixsubscript𝐻100subscript𝐻2superscript𝑉𝖳superscript𝕊𝑛formulae-sequencesubscript𝐻1superscript𝕊𝑘subscript𝐻2superscript𝕊𝑛𝑘\displaystyle=\biggl{\{}V\begin{bmatrix}H_{1}&0\\ 0&H_{2}\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\in\mathbb{S}^{n}:H_{1}\in% \mathbb{S}^{k},\;H_{2}\in\mathbb{S}^{n-k}\biggr{\}}.= { italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } .

Henceforth we will consistently write any point QGr(k,n)𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛Q\in\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_Q ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ), tangent vector X𝕋QGr(k,n)𝑋subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛X\in\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_X ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) and normal vector HQGr(k,n)𝐻subscript𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛H\in\mathbb{N}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_H ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) as

(11) Q=V[Ik00Ink]V𝖳,X=V[0X0X0𝖳0]V𝖳,H=V[H100H2]V𝖳.formulae-sequence𝑄𝑉matrixsubscript𝐼𝑘00subscript𝐼𝑛𝑘superscript𝑉𝖳formulae-sequence𝑋𝑉matrix0subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳0superscript𝑉𝖳𝐻𝑉matrixsubscript𝐻100subscript𝐻2superscript𝑉𝖳Q=V\begin{bmatrix}I_{k}&0\\ 0&-I_{n-k}\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},\quad X=V\begin{% bmatrix}0&X_{0}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}},\quad H=V\begin{bmatrix}H_{1}&0\\ 0&H_{2}\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}.italic_Q = italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_X = italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_H = italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The simple parameterization of these three basic objects in the involution model is a key to the simplicity of our calculations. A convenient orthonormal basis of 𝕋Ik,nkGr(k,n)subscript𝕋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛\mathbb{T}_{I_{k,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) is given by

(12) {22[0EijEij𝖳0]𝕊n:i=1,,k,j=1,,nk}conditional-set22matrix0subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳0superscript𝕊𝑛formulae-sequence𝑖1𝑘𝑗1𝑛𝑘\biggl{\{}\dfrac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&E_{ij}\\ E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\in\mathbb{S}^{n}:i=1,% \dots,k,\;j=1,\dots,n-k\biggr{\}}{ divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_i = 1 , … , italic_k , italic_j = 1 , … , italic_n - italic_k }

where Eijsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗E_{ij}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the k×(nk)𝑘𝑛𝑘k\times(n-k)italic_k × ( italic_n - italic_k ) matrix with one in the (i,j)𝑖𝑗(i,j)( italic_i , italic_j )th entry and zero everywhere else. We refer readers to [27, Section 3] for the proofs of statements in this and the last paragraph.

The next two results require no calculation and are just stated for completeness.

Proposition 4.1 (First fundamental form).

The first fundamental form IQ:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscript𝐼𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\fff_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname% {Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is given by

IQ(X,Y)=2tr(X0𝖳Y0)subscript𝐼𝑄𝑋𝑌2trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0\fff_{Q}(X,Y)=2\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0})italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = 2 roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, Y𝑌Yitalic_Y parameterized as in (11).

Proposition 4.2 (Gauss map).

The Gauss map of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) in 𝕊nsuperscript𝕊𝑛\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is given by

Γ:Gr(k,n):sans-serif-ΓGr𝑘𝑛\displaystyle\mathsf{\Gamma}:\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)sansserif_Γ : roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) Gr((n+12)k(nk),𝕊n),absentGrbinomial𝑛12𝑘𝑛𝑘superscript𝕊𝑛\displaystyle\to\operatorname{Gr}\bigl{(}\tbinom{n+1}{2}-k(n-k),\mathbb{S}^{n}% \bigr{)},→ roman_Gr ( ( FRACOP start_ARG italic_n + 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) - italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) , blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,
Γ(Q)sans-serif-Γ𝑄\displaystyle\mathsf{\Gamma}(Q)sansserif_Γ ( italic_Q ) =Q(Gr(k,n))=V{[H100H2]:H1𝕊k,H2𝕊nk}V𝖳,absentsubscript𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛𝑉conditional-setmatrixsubscript𝐻100subscript𝐻2formulae-sequencesubscript𝐻1superscript𝕊𝑘subscript𝐻2superscript𝕊𝑛𝑘superscript𝑉𝖳\displaystyle=\mathbb{N}_{Q}(\operatorname{Gr}(k,n))=V\left\{\begin{bmatrix}H_% {1}&0\\ 0&H_{2}\end{bmatrix}:H_{1}\in\mathbb{S}^{k},H_{2}\in\mathbb{S}^{n-k}\right\}V^% {\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},= blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) ) = italic_V { [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] : italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q parameterized as in (11).

The next calculation is our key to unlocking other calculations in this article.

Theorem 4.3 (Second fundamental form).

The second fundamental form IIQ:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n)QGr(k,n):subscriptII𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{% T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{N}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) is given by

IIQ(X,Y)=12V[X0Y0𝖳+Y0X0𝖳00X0𝖳Y0Y0𝖳X0]V𝖳,subscriptII𝑄𝑋𝑌12𝑉matrixsubscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳00superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscript𝑉𝖳\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{Q}(X,Y)=\frac{1}{2}V\begin{bmatrix}X_{0}Y_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\\ 0&-X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}-Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{% T}}X_{0}\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, Y𝑌Yitalic_Y parameterized as in (11).

Proof.

Since O(n)O𝑛\operatorname{O}(n)roman_O ( italic_n ) acts on Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) transitively and isometrically, it suffices to calculate IIII\operatorname{\fff\fff}roman_I roman_I at Ik,nkGr(k,n)subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛I_{k,n-k}\in\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ). In this case X,Y𝕋Ik,nkGr(k,n)𝑋𝑌subscript𝕋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛X,Y\in\mathbb{T}_{I_{k,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_X , italic_Y ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) may be written as

X=[0X0X0𝖳0],Y=[0Y0Y0𝖳0]formulae-sequence𝑋matrix0subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳0𝑌matrix0subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳0X=\begin{bmatrix}0&X_{0}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix},\quad Y=\begin{bmatrix}0&Y% _{0}\\ Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}italic_X = [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] , italic_Y = [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

for some X0,Y0k×(nk)subscript𝑋0subscript𝑌0superscript𝑘𝑛𝑘X_{0},Y_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times(n-k)}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k × ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Points near Ik,nksubscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘I_{k,n-k}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be parametrized as

φ(B,H1,H2)=exp([0BB𝖳0])(Ik,nk+[H100H2])exp([0BB𝖳0]𝖳),𝜑𝐵subscript𝐻1subscript𝐻2matrix0𝐵superscript𝐵𝖳0subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘matrixsubscript𝐻100subscript𝐻2superscriptmatrix0𝐵superscript𝐵𝖳0𝖳\varphi(B,H_{1},H_{2})=\exp\biggl{(}\begin{bmatrix}0&-B\\ B^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\biggr{)}\biggl{(}I_{k,n-k}+% \begin{bmatrix}H_{1}&0\\ 0&H_{2}\end{bmatrix}\biggr{)}\exp\biggl{(}\begin{bmatrix}0&-B\\ B^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}% \biggr{)},italic_φ ( italic_B , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_exp ( [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - italic_B end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) ( italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) roman_exp ( [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - italic_B end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

where Bk×(nk)𝐵superscript𝑘𝑛𝑘B\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times(n-k)}italic_B ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k × ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, H1𝕊ksubscript𝐻1superscript𝕊𝑘H_{1}\in\mathbb{S}^{k}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and H2𝕊nksubscript𝐻2superscript𝕊𝑛𝑘H_{2}\in\mathbb{S}^{n-k}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT have sufficiently small norms. Clearly, we have φ(B,H1,H2)Gr(k,n)𝜑𝐵subscript𝐻1subscript𝐻2Gr𝑘𝑛\varphi(B,H_{1},H_{2})\in\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_φ ( italic_B , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) if and only if H1=0subscript𝐻10H_{1}=0italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 and H2=0subscript𝐻20H_{2}=0italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0. Thus we may extend X𝑋Xitalic_X by

X~(φ(B,H1,H2))=exp([0BB𝖳0])[H1X0X0𝖳H2]exp([0BB𝖳0])𝖳.\widetilde{X}\bigl{(}\varphi(B,H_{1},H_{2})\bigr{)}=\exp\biggl{(}\begin{% bmatrix}0&-B\\ B^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\biggr{)}\begin{bmatrix}H_{1}&X% _{0}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&H_{2}\end{bmatrix}\exp\biggl{(}\begin{% bmatrix}0&-B\\ B^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\biggr{)}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}.over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_φ ( italic_B , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = roman_exp ( [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - italic_B end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] roman_exp ( [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - italic_B end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Such an X~~𝑋\widetilde{X}over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG is an extension of a local vector field around Ik,nksubscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘I_{k,n-k}italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT on Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ). By (5),

IIIk,nk(X,Y)=projIk,nkGr(k,n)(~X~(Ik,nk),Y)subscriptIIsubscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑋𝑌subscriptprojsubscriptsubscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛~~𝑋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑌\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{I_{k,n-k}}(X,Y)=\operatorname{proj}_{\mathbb{N}_{I_{k% ,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)}\bigl{(}\langle\widetilde{\nabla}\widetilde{X}(I_% {k,n-k}),Y\rangle\bigr{)}start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = roman_proj start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ⟨ over~ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Y ⟩ )

where ~~\widetilde{\nabla}over~ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG denotes the covariant derivative in the Euclidean space 𝕊nsuperscript𝕊𝑛\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, i.e.,

~X~=(BX~,H1X~,H2X~)~~𝑋subscript𝐵~𝑋subscriptsubscript𝐻1~𝑋subscriptsubscript𝐻2~𝑋\widetilde{\nabla}\widetilde{X}=\bigl{(}\partial_{B}\widetilde{X},\partial_{H_% {1}}\widetilde{X},\partial_{H_{2}}\widetilde{X}\bigr{)}over~ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG = ( ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , ∂ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG )

Since Y𝑌Yitalic_Y is a tangent vector, we obtain

~X~(Ik,nk),Y=i=1kj=1nkX~bij(Ik,nk)y0ij,~~𝑋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑌superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑛𝑘~𝑋subscript𝑏𝑖𝑗subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘subscript𝑦0𝑖𝑗\bigl{\langle}\widetilde{\nabla}\widetilde{X}(I_{k,n-k}),Y\bigr{\rangle}=\sum_% {i=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{n-k}\frac{\partial\widetilde{X}}{\partial b_{ij}}(I_{k,n-% k})y_{0ij},⟨ over~ start_ARG ∇ end_ARG over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Y ⟩ = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where we have written B=(bij)𝐵subscript𝑏𝑖𝑗B=(b_{ij})italic_B = ( italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and Y0=(y0ij)subscript𝑌0subscript𝑦0𝑖𝑗Y_{0}=(y_{0ij})italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Observe that

X~bij(Ik,nk)~𝑋subscript𝑏𝑖𝑗subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘\displaystyle\frac{\partial\widetilde{X}}{\partial b_{ij}}(I_{k,n-k})divide start_ARG ∂ over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =12[0EijEij𝖳0][0X0X0𝖳0]+12[0X0X0𝖳0][0EijEij𝖳0]absent12matrix0subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳0matrix0subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳012matrix0subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳0matrix0subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳0\displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&E_{ij}\\ -E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0&X_{0}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}+\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}% 0&X_{0}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0&E_{ij}\\ -E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}= - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]
=12[EijX0𝖳X0Eij𝖳00Eij𝖳X0+X0𝖳Eij]absent12matrixsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳00superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}-E_{ij}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}-X_{0}E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\\ 0&E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}+X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{% T}}E_{ij}\end{bmatrix}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

where the factor 1212\frac{1}{2}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG is a result of our choice of Riemannian metric on 𝕊nsuperscript𝕊𝑛\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Therefore we have

i=1kj=1nkX~bij(Ik,nk)y0ijsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑛𝑘~𝑋subscript𝑏𝑖𝑗subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘subscript𝑦0𝑖𝑗\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{n-k}\frac{\partial\widetilde{X}}{% \partial b_{ij}}(I_{k,n-k})y_{0ij}∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG ∂ over~ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =12i=1kj=1nk[(EijX0𝖳+X0Eij𝖳)y0ij00(Eij𝖳X0+X0𝖳Eij)y0ij]absent12superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑛𝑘matrixsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳subscript𝑦0𝑖𝑗00superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗subscript𝑦0𝑖𝑗\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{n-k}\begin{bmatrix}-(E_{ij}% X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+X_{0}E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}% })y_{0ij}&0\\ 0&(E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}+X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf% {T}}E_{ij})y_{0ij}\end{bmatrix}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - ( italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ( italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]
=12[X0Y0𝖳Y0X0𝖳00X0𝖳Y0+Y0𝖳X0],absent12matrixsubscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳00superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}-X_{0}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf% {T}}-Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\\ 0&X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}+Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T% }}X_{0}\end{bmatrix},= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ,

where the last expression is our required IIIk,nk(X,Y)subscriptIIsubscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑋𝑌\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{I_{k,n-k}}(X,Y)start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ). ∎

We record an observation that follows from an additional step of singular value decomposition.

Corollary 4.4 (Index of relative nullity).

The index of relative nullity νQsubscriptν𝑄\upnu_{Q}roman_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) is zero.

Proof.

Let X𝕋QGr(k,n)𝑋subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛X\in\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_X ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) be such that IIQ(X,Y)=0subscriptII𝑄𝑋𝑌0\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{Q}(X,Y)=0start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = 0 for all Y𝕋QGr(k,n)𝑌subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛Y\in\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_Y ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ), with Q,X,Y𝑄𝑋𝑌Q,X,Yitalic_Q , italic_X , italic_Y parametrized as in (11). We claim that X=0𝑋0X=0italic_X = 0. By Theorem 4.3, we must have

(13) X0Y0𝖳+Y0X0𝖳=0,X0𝖳Y0+Y0𝖳X0=0formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋00X_{0}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}=0,\quad X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}+Y_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}=0italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 0 , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0

for any Y0k×(nk)subscript𝑌0superscript𝑘𝑛𝑘Y_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times(n-k)}italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k × ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let X0=UΣV𝖳subscript𝑋0𝑈Σsuperscript𝑉𝖳X_{0}=U\Sigma V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_U roman_Σ italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a singular value decomposition with UO(k)𝑈O𝑘U\in\operatorname{O}(k)italic_U ∈ roman_O ( italic_k ) and VO(nk)𝑉O𝑛𝑘V\in\operatorname{O}(n-k)italic_V ∈ roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ). Then (13) becomes

Σ(U𝖳Y0V)𝖳+(U𝖳Y0V)Σ=0,Σ(U𝖳Y0V)+(U𝖳Y0V)𝖳Σ=0.formulae-sequenceΣsuperscriptsuperscript𝑈𝖳subscript𝑌0𝑉𝖳superscript𝑈𝖳subscript𝑌0𝑉Σ0Σsuperscript𝑈𝖳subscript𝑌0𝑉superscriptsuperscript𝑈𝖳subscript𝑌0𝑉𝖳Σ0\Sigma(U^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}V)^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+% (U^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}V)\Sigma=0,\quad\Sigma(U^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}V)+(U^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}V)^% {\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\Sigma=0.roman_Σ ( italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V ) roman_Σ = 0 , roman_Σ ( italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V ) + ( italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Σ = 0 .

Since Y0subscript𝑌0Y_{0}italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is arbitrary, we may set X0=Σsubscript𝑋0ΣX_{0}=\Sigmaitalic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Σ in (13). Now by taking Y0subscript𝑌0Y_{0}italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be an arbitrary diagonal k×(nk)𝑘𝑛𝑘k\times(n-k)italic_k × ( italic_n - italic_k ) matrix, we see that Σ=0Σ0\Sigma=0roman_Σ = 0. Hence X0=0subscript𝑋00X_{0}=0italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 and X=0𝑋0X=0italic_X = 0. ∎

The Weingarten map is an alternative way to express the second fundamental form and thus follows easily from Theorem 4.3.

Corollary 4.5 (Weingarten map).

The Weingarten map 𝖲Q(H):𝕋QGr(k,n)𝕋QGr(k,n):subscript𝖲𝑄𝐻subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\mathsf{S}_{Q}(H):\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{T}_{Q}% \operatorname{Gr}(k,n)sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) along the normal direction HQGr(k,n)𝐻subscript𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛H\in\mathbb{N}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_H ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) is given by

(14) 𝖲Q(H)(X)=12V[0H1X0X0H2(H1X0X0H2)𝖳0]V𝖳subscript𝖲𝑄𝐻𝑋12𝑉matrix0subscript𝐻1subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋0subscript𝐻2superscriptsubscript𝐻1subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋0subscript𝐻2𝖳0superscript𝑉𝖳\mathsf{S}_{Q}(H)(X)=\frac{1}{2}V\begin{bmatrix}0&H_{1}X_{0}-X_{0}H_{2}\\ (H_{1}X_{0}-X_{0}H_{2})^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}V^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) ( italic_X ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, H𝐻Hitalic_H parameterized as in (11).

Proof.

We plug in the expressions from (11) into 𝖲Q(H)(X),Y=IIQ(X,Y),Hsubscript𝖲𝑄𝐻𝑋𝑌subscriptII𝑄𝑋𝑌𝐻\langle\mathsf{S}_{Q}(H)(X),Y\rangle=\langle\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{Q}(X,Y),H\rangle⟨ sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) ( italic_X ) , italic_Y ⟩ = ⟨ start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) , italic_H ⟩ and use standard properties of trace to get

𝖲Q(H)(X),Ysubscript𝖲𝑄𝐻𝑋𝑌\displaystyle\langle\mathsf{S}_{Q}(H)(X),Y\rangle⟨ sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) ( italic_X ) , italic_Y ⟩ =12[tr((X0Y0𝖳+Y0X0𝖳)H1)tr((X0𝖳Y0+Y0𝖳X0)H2)]absent12delimited-[]trsubscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝐻1trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0subscript𝐻2\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\bigl{[}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(X_{0}Y_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})H_{1}% \bigr{)}-\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}+Y% _{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0})H_{2}\bigr{)}\bigr{]}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ roman_tr ( ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - roman_tr ( ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ]
=12[tr((H1X0X0H2))Y0𝖳)+tr((X0𝖳H1H2X0𝖳)Y0)]\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\bigl{[}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(H_{1}X_{0}-X_{0}H_{% 2})\bigr{)}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})+\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(X_{% 0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}H_{1}-H_{2}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T% }})Y_{0}\bigr{)}\bigr{]}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ roman_tr ( ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + roman_tr ( ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ]
=tr(12[0H1X0X0H2X0𝖳H1H2X0𝖳0]𝖳[0Y0Y0𝖳0]),absenttr12superscriptmatrix0subscript𝐻1subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋0subscript𝐻2superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝐻1subscript𝐻2superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳0𝖳matrix0subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳0\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}\biggl{(}\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&H_{1}X_{0}% -X_{0}H_{2}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}H_{1}-H_{2}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\begin{bmatrix}0&Y_{0% }\\ Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\biggr{)},= roman_tr ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) ,

and thereby deducing (14). ∎

The calculation of mean curvature is also straightforward.

Corollary 4.6 (Mean curvature).

The mean curvature vector of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) is given by

𝖧Q=1k(nk)tr(IIQ)=12k(nk)V[(nk)Ik00kInk]V𝖳subscript𝖧𝑄1𝑘𝑛𝑘trsubscriptII𝑄12𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑉matrix𝑛𝑘subscript𝐼𝑘00𝑘subscript𝐼𝑛𝑘superscript𝑉𝖳\mathsf{H}_{Q}=\frac{1}{k(n-k)}\operatorname{tr}(\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{Q})=% \frac{1}{2k(n-k)}V\begin{bmatrix}-(n-k)I_{k}&0\\ 0&kI_{n-k}\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG roman_tr ( start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - ( italic_n - italic_k ) italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_k italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

and the mean curvature of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) along HQGr(k,n)𝐻subscript𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛H\in\mathbb{N}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_H ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) is given by

𝖧Q(H)=(kn)trH1+ktrH22k(nk)subscript𝖧𝑄𝐻𝑘𝑛trsubscript𝐻1𝑘trsubscript𝐻22𝑘𝑛𝑘\mathsf{H}_{Q}(H)=\frac{(k-n)\operatorname{tr}H_{1}+k\operatorname{tr}H_{2}}{2% k(n-k)}sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) = divide start_ARG ( italic_k - italic_n ) roman_tr italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_k roman_tr italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, H𝐻Hitalic_H parameterized as in (11).

Proof.

We use the orthonormal basis of 𝕋Ik,nkGr(k,n)subscript𝕋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛\mathbb{T}_{I_{k,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) in (12). A straightforward but slightly messy calculation gives

(EijEij𝖳)pqsubscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝐸superscript𝑖superscript𝑗𝖳𝑝𝑞\displaystyle(E_{ij}E_{i^{\prime}j^{\prime}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})_{pq}( italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ={1if j=j and (p,q)=(i,i),0otherwise,absentcases1if 𝑗superscript𝑗 and 𝑝𝑞𝑖superscript𝑖0otherwise\displaystyle=\begin{cases}1&\text{if }j=j^{\prime}\text{ and }(p,q)=(i,i^{% \prime}),\\ 0&\text{otherwise},\end{cases}= { start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL if italic_j = italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ( italic_p , italic_q ) = ( italic_i , italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL otherwise , end_CELL end_ROW
for any p,q{1,,k}𝑝𝑞1𝑘p,q\in\{1,\dots,k\}italic_p , italic_q ∈ { 1 , … , italic_k }; and
(Eij𝖳Eij)pqsubscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳subscript𝐸superscript𝑖superscript𝑗𝑝𝑞\displaystyle(E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}E_{i^{\prime}j^{\prime}})_{pq}( italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ={1if i=i and (p,q)=(j,j)0otherwiseabsentcases1if 𝑖superscript𝑖 and 𝑝𝑞𝑗superscript𝑗0otherwise\displaystyle=\begin{cases}1&\text{if }i=i^{\prime}\text{ and }(p,q)=(j,j^{% \prime})\\ 0&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}= { start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL if italic_i = italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ( italic_p , italic_q ) = ( italic_j , italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL otherwise end_CELL end_ROW

for any p,q{1,,nk}𝑝𝑞1𝑛𝑘p,q\in\{1,\dots,n-k\}italic_p , italic_q ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n - italic_k }. Using these, we may evaluate

IIIk,nk([0EijEij𝖳0],[0EijEij𝖳0])=12[δjj(Eii+Eii)00δii(Ejj+Ejj)]subscriptIIsubscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘matrix0subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳0matrix0subscript𝐸superscript𝑖superscript𝑗superscriptsubscript𝐸superscript𝑖superscript𝑗𝖳012matrixsubscript𝛿𝑗superscript𝑗subscript𝐸𝑖superscript𝑖subscript𝐸superscript𝑖𝑖00subscript𝛿𝑖superscript𝑖subscript𝐸𝑗superscript𝑗subscript𝐸superscript𝑗𝑗\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{I_{k,n-k}}\biggl{(}\begin{bmatrix}0&E_{ij}\\ E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix},\begin{bmatrix}0&E_{i^{% \prime}j^{\prime}}\\ E_{i^{\prime}j^{\prime}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\biggr{)% }=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}-\delta_{jj^{\prime}}(E_{ii^{\prime}}+E_{i^{\prime% }i})&0\\ 0&\delta_{ii^{\prime}}(E_{jj^{\prime}}+E_{j^{\prime}j})\end{bmatrix}start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] , [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL - italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

and obtain the required expression by summing over the basis. The mean curvature along H𝐻Hitalic_H is then calculated from 𝖧Q(H)=𝖧Q,Hsubscript𝖧𝑄𝐻subscript𝖧𝑄𝐻\mathsf{H}_{Q}(H)=\langle\mathsf{H}_{Q},H\ranglesansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) = ⟨ sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_H ⟩. ∎

Corollary 4.7 (Principal and Gaussian curvatures).

Let QGr(k,n)𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛Q\in\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_Q ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) and HQGr(k,n)𝐻subscript𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛H\in\mathbb{N}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_H ∈ blackboard_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) be parameterized as in (11). Then the Weingarten map 𝖲Q(H)subscript𝖲𝑄𝐻\mathsf{S}_{Q}(H)sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) has eigenpairs given by

(12(λk+jλi),V[0Q1EijQ2𝖳Q2Eij𝖳Q1𝖳0]V𝖳),i=1,,k,j=1,,nk,formulae-sequence12subscript𝜆𝑘𝑗subscript𝜆𝑖𝑉matrix0subscript𝑄1subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝑄2𝖳subscript𝑄2superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳superscriptsubscript𝑄1𝖳0superscript𝑉𝖳𝑖1𝑘𝑗1𝑛𝑘\left(\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_{k+j}-\lambda_{i}),V\begin{bmatrix}0&Q_{1}E_{ij}Q_{2% }^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\\ Q_{2}E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Q_{1}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}% &0\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\right),\quad i=1,\dots,k,\;j=1% ,\dots,n-k,( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , italic_i = 1 , … , italic_k , italic_j = 1 , … , italic_n - italic_k ,

where H1=Q1Λ1Q1𝖳subscript𝐻1subscript𝑄1subscriptΛ1superscriptsubscript𝑄1𝖳H_{1}=Q_{1}\Lambda_{1}Q_{1}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and H2=Q2Λ2Q2𝖳subscript𝐻2subscript𝑄2subscriptΛ2superscriptsubscript𝑄2𝖳H_{2}=Q_{2}\Lambda_{2}Q_{2}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are eigenvalue decompositions with Λ1=diag(λ1,,λk)subscriptΛ1diagsubscript𝜆1subscript𝜆𝑘\Lambda_{1}=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{k})roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_diag ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and Λ2=diag(λk+1,,λn)subscriptΛ2diagsubscript𝜆𝑘1subscript𝜆𝑛\Lambda_{2}=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda_{k+1},\dots,\lambda_{n})roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_diag ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

  1. (a)

    The principal curvatures of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) along H𝐻Hitalic_H are

    κij=12(λk+jλi),i=1,,k,j=1,,nk.formulae-sequencesubscriptκ𝑖𝑗12subscript𝜆𝑘𝑗subscript𝜆𝑖formulae-sequence𝑖1𝑘𝑗1𝑛𝑘\upkappa_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(\lambda_{k+j}-\lambda_{i}),\quad i=1,\dots,k,\;j=1,% \dots,n-k.roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_i = 1 , … , italic_k , italic_j = 1 , … , italic_n - italic_k .
  2. (b)

    The Gaussian curvature of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) along H𝐻Hitalic_H is

    𝖦Q(H)=12k(nk)i=1kj=1nk(λk+jλi).subscript𝖦𝑄𝐻1superscript2𝑘𝑛𝑘superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑖1𝑘superscriptsubscriptproduct𝑗1𝑛𝑘subscript𝜆𝑘𝑗subscript𝜆𝑖\mathsf{G}_{Q}(H)=\frac{1}{2^{k(n-k)}}\prod_{i=1}^{k}\prod_{j=1}^{n-k}(\lambda% _{k+j}-\lambda_{i}).sansserif_G start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
Proof.

By (14), we have

𝖲Q(H)(V[0X0X0𝖳0]V𝖳)=V𝖲Ik,nk(H0)([0X0X0𝖳0])V𝖳,H0[H100H2].formulae-sequencesubscript𝖲𝑄𝐻𝑉matrix0subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳0superscript𝑉𝖳𝑉subscript𝖲subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘subscript𝐻0matrix0subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳0superscript𝑉𝖳subscript𝐻0matrixsubscript𝐻100subscript𝐻2\mathsf{S}_{Q}(H)\left(V\begin{bmatrix}0&X_{0}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}\right)=V\mathsf{S}_{I_{k,n-k}}\left(H_{0}\right)\left(\begin{% bmatrix}0&X_{0}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\right)V^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},\quad H_{0}\coloneqq\begin{bmatrix}H_{1}&0\\ 0&H_{2}\end{bmatrix}.sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H ) ( italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = italic_V sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] .

Write Λdiag(Λ1,Λ2)=diag(λ1,,λn)ΛdiagsubscriptΛ1subscriptΛ2diagsubscript𝜆1subscript𝜆𝑛\Lambda\coloneqq\operatorname{diag}(\Lambda_{1},\Lambda_{2})=\operatorname{% diag}(\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{n})roman_Λ ≔ roman_diag ( roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_diag ( italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Then

𝖲Ik,nk(H0)([0X0X0𝖳0])subscript𝖲subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘subscript𝐻0matrix0subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳0\displaystyle\mathsf{S}_{I_{k,n-k}}(H_{0})\left(\begin{bmatrix}0&X_{0}\\ X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\right)sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) =12[0H1X0X0H2(H1X0X0H2)𝖳0]absent12matrix0subscript𝐻1subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋0subscript𝐻2superscriptsubscript𝐻1subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋0subscript𝐻2𝖳0\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&H_{1}X_{0}-X_{0}H_{2}\\ (H_{1}X_{0}-X_{0}H_{2})^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]
=12[0Q1Λ1Q1𝖳X0X0Q2Λ2Q2𝖳(Q1Λ1Q1𝖳X0X0Q2Λ2Q2𝖳)𝖳0]absent12matrix0subscript𝑄1subscriptΛ1superscriptsubscript𝑄1𝖳subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋0subscript𝑄2subscriptΛ2superscriptsubscript𝑄2𝖳superscriptsubscript𝑄1subscriptΛ1superscriptsubscript𝑄1𝖳subscript𝑋0subscript𝑋0subscript𝑄2subscriptΛ2superscriptsubscript𝑄2𝖳𝖳0\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&Q_{1}\Lambda_{1}Q_{1}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}-X_{0}Q_{2}\Lambda_{2}Q_{2}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\\ (Q_{1}\Lambda_{1}Q_{1}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}-X_{0}Q_{2}\Lambda_{% 2}Q_{2}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]
=12[Q100Q2][0Y0Y0𝖳0][Q100Q2]𝖳absent12matrixsubscript𝑄100subscript𝑄2matrix0subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳0superscriptmatrixsubscript𝑄100subscript𝑄2𝖳\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}Q_{1}&0\\ 0&Q_{2}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}0&Y_{0}\\ Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}Q_{1}&0\\ 0&Q_{2}\end{bmatrix}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
=[Q100Q2]𝖲Ik,nk(Λ)[Q100Q2]𝖳,absentmatrixsubscript𝑄100subscript𝑄2subscript𝖲subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Λsuperscriptmatrixsubscript𝑄100subscript𝑄2𝖳\displaystyle=\begin{bmatrix}Q_{1}&0\\ 0&Q_{2}\end{bmatrix}\mathsf{S}_{I_{k,n-k}}(\Lambda)\begin{bmatrix}Q_{1}&0\\ 0&Q_{2}\end{bmatrix}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},= [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Λ ) [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where Y0Λ1(Q1𝖳X0Q2)(Q1𝖳X0Q2)Λ2subscript𝑌0subscriptΛ1superscriptsubscript𝑄1𝖳subscript𝑋0subscript𝑄2superscriptsubscript𝑄1𝖳subscript𝑋0subscript𝑄2subscriptΛ2Y_{0}\coloneqq\Lambda_{1}(Q_{1}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}Q_{2})-(Q_{% 1}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}Q_{2})\Lambda_{2}italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_Λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. So it suffices to diagonalize the linear operator 𝖲Ik,nk(Λ):𝕋Ik,nkGr(k,n)𝕋Ik,nkGr(k,n):subscript𝖲subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Λsubscript𝕋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛\mathsf{S}_{I_{k,n-k}}(\Lambda):\mathbb{T}_{I_{k,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)% \to\mathbb{T}_{I_{k,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Λ ) : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ). Now observe that

𝖲Ik,nk(Λ)(22[0EijEij𝖳0])=δipδjqλk+jλi2(22[0EpqEpq𝖳0])subscript𝖲subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Λ22matrix0subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳0subscript𝛿𝑖𝑝subscript𝛿𝑗𝑞subscript𝜆𝑘𝑗subscript𝜆𝑖222matrix0subscript𝐸𝑝𝑞superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑝𝑞𝖳0\mathsf{S}_{I_{k,n-k}}(\Lambda)\biggl{(}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&E_{% ij}\\ E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\biggr{)}=\delta_{ip}% \delta_{jq}\frac{\lambda_{k+j}-\lambda_{i}}{2}\biggl{(}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}% \begin{bmatrix}0&E_{pq}\\ E_{pq}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}\biggr{)}sansserif_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( roman_Λ ) ( divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) = italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] )

for i=1,,k𝑖1𝑘i=1,\dots,kitalic_i = 1 , … , italic_k and j=1,,nk𝑗1𝑛𝑘j=1,\dots,n-kitalic_j = 1 , … , italic_n - italic_k, gives us the required diagonalization, which is an eigenvalue decomposition as (12) is an orthonormal basis. The values of the principal and Gaussian curvatures follow. ∎

The easiest way to calculate the third fundamental form is to get slightly ahead of our discussion and use the expression for Ricci curvature in Corollary 5.4 together with a result of Obata [37, Theorem 1]. Otherwise we would have to start from the definition in Section 3.1.

Corollary 4.8 (Third fundamental form).

The third fundamental form IIIQ:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscriptIII𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{\fff\fff\fff}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times% \mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is given by

IIIQ(X,Y)=12(n2k(nk)+n24)tr(XY)=(n2k(nk)+n24)tr(X0𝖳Y0),subscriptIII𝑄𝑋𝑌12𝑛2𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛24tr𝑋𝑌𝑛2𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛24trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0\operatorname{\fff\fff\fff}_{Q}(X,Y)=-\frac{1}{2}\Bigl{(}\frac{n}{2k(n-k)}+% \frac{n-2}{4}\Bigr{)}\operatorname{tr}(XY)=-\Bigl{(}\frac{n}{2k(n-k)}+\frac{n-% 2}{4}\Bigr{)}\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}),start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ) roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) = - ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ) roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, Y𝑌Yitalic_Y parameterized as in (11).

Proof.

By [37, Theorem 1], we have

IIIQ(X,Y)=IIQ(X,Y),𝖧Q𝖱𝗂𝖼(X,Y).subscriptIII𝑄𝑋𝑌subscriptII𝑄𝑋𝑌subscript𝖧𝑄𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑋𝑌\operatorname{\fff\fff\fff}_{Q}(X,Y)=\langle\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{Q}(X,Y),% \mathsf{H}_{Q}\rangle-\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}(X,Y).start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = ⟨ start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) , sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ - sansserif_Ric ( italic_X , italic_Y ) .

By Theorem 4.3, Corollaries 4.6 and 5.4, we have

IIIQ(X,Y)subscriptIII𝑄𝑋𝑌\displaystyle\operatorname{\fff\fff\fff}_{Q}(X,Y)start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) =14k(nk)((nk)tr(X0Y0𝖳+Y0X0𝖳)ktr(X0𝖳Y0+Y0𝖳X0))n24tr(X0𝖳Y0)absent14𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛𝑘trsubscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳𝑘trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0𝑛24trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0\displaystyle=\frac{1}{4k(n-k)}\bigl{(}-(n-k)\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}Y_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})-k% \operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}+Y_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0})\bigr{)}-\frac{n-2}{4}\operatorname{tr}(X_{% 0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0})= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG ( - ( italic_n - italic_k ) roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - italic_k roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) - divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
=(n2k(nk)+n24)tr(X0𝖳Y0).absent𝑛2𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛24trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0\displaystyle=-\Bigl{(}\frac{n}{2k(n-k)}+\frac{n-2}{4}\Bigr{)}\operatorname{tr% }(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}).\qed= - ( divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG + divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ) roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . italic_∎

5. Intrinsic curvatures of the Grassmannian

As we will see in Section 7.2, calculating intrinsic curvatures of Grassmannian with intrinsic geometry can get fairly involved. This is particularly striking for the Riemann curvature tensor — our calculation below is essentially one-line using the embedded geometry of the involution model.

Proposition 5.1 (Riemmanian curvature).

The Riemann tensor 𝖱𝗂𝖾Q:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times% \mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)% \times\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is given by

𝖱𝗂𝖾Q(X,Y,Z,W)subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑄𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊\displaystyle\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{Q}(X,Y,Z,W)sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ) =12tr((XYYX)ZW)absent12tr𝑋𝑌𝑌𝑋𝑍𝑊\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(XY-YX)ZW\bigr{)}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_tr ( ( italic_X italic_Y - italic_Y italic_X ) italic_Z italic_W )
=12tr((X0𝖳Y0Z0𝖳+Z0𝖳Y0X0𝖳Y0𝖳X0Z0𝖳Z0𝖳X0Y0𝖳)W0)absent12trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑊0\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}Y_{0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}-Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}X_{0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}-Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}X_{0}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})W_{0}\bigr{)}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_tr ( ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X,Y,Z,W𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊X,Y,Z,Witalic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W parameterized as in (11).

Proof.

Using the expression for IIQsubscriptII𝑄\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{Q}start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT,

𝖱𝗂𝖾Q(X,Y,Z,W)subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑄𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊\displaystyle\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{Q}(X,Y,Z,W)sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ) =IIQ(Y,Z),IIQ(X,W)IIQ(X,Z),IIQ(Y,W)absentsubscriptII𝑄𝑌𝑍subscriptII𝑄𝑋𝑊subscriptII𝑄𝑋𝑍subscriptII𝑄𝑌𝑊\displaystyle=\langle\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{Q}(Y,Z),\operatorname{\fff\fff}_% {Q}(X,W)\rangle-\langle\operatorname{\fff\fff}_{Q}(X,Z),\operatorname{\fff\fff% }_{Q}(Y,W)\rangle= ⟨ start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Y , italic_Z ) , start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_W ) ⟩ - ⟨ start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Z ) , start_OPFUNCTION roman_I roman_I end_OPFUNCTION start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Y , italic_W ) ⟩
=14Y0Z0𝖳+Z0Y0𝖳,X0W0𝖳+W0X0𝖳+14Y0𝖳Z0+Z0𝖳Y0,X0𝖳W0+W0𝖳X014X0Z0𝖳+Z0X0𝖳,Y0W0𝖳+W0Y0𝖳14X0𝖳Z0+Z0𝖳X0,Y0𝖳W0+W0𝖳Y0absent14subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑍0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑊0𝖳subscript𝑊0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳14superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑍0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑊0superscriptsubscript𝑊0𝖳subscript𝑋014subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑍0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑊0𝖳subscript𝑊0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳14superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑍0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑊0superscriptsubscript𝑊0𝖳subscript𝑌0\displaystyle=\begin{multlined}\frac{1}{4}\langle Y_{0}Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},X_{0}W% _{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+W_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}% \rangle+\frac{1}{4}\langle Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z_{0}+Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0},X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0}+W% _{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}\rangle\\ -\frac{1}{4}\langle X_{0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}X_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},Y_{0}W_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+W_{0}Y% _{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\rangle-\frac{1}{4}\langle X_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z_{0}+Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0},Y% _{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0}+W_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y% _{0}\rangle\end{multlined}\frac{1}{4}\langle Y_{0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},X_{0}W_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+W_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\rangle% +\frac{1}{4}\langle Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z_{0}+Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0},X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0}+W% _{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}\rangle\\ -\frac{1}{4}\langle X_{0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}X_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},Y_{0}W_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+W_{0}Y% _{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\rangle-\frac{1}{4}\langle X_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z_{0}+Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0},Y% _{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0}+W_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y% _{0}\rangle= start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ⟨ italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ⟨ italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ⟨ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟩ - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ⟨ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ end_CELL end_ROW
=14[[X,Y],Z],Wabsent14𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊\displaystyle=\frac{1}{4}\langle[[X,Y],Z],W\rangle= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ⟨ [ [ italic_X , italic_Y ] , italic_Z ] , italic_W ⟩
=12tr((XYYX)ZW),absent12tr𝑋𝑌𝑌𝑋𝑍𝑊\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(XY-YX)ZW\bigr{)},= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_tr ( ( italic_X italic_Y - italic_Y italic_X ) italic_Z italic_W ) ,

where the last equality is obtained by observing that X,Y,Z,W𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊X,Y,Z,Witalic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W are symmetric matrices. ∎

Corollary 5.2 (Jacobi curvature).

The Jacobi tensor 𝖩Q:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscript𝖩𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\mathsf{J}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}% \operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{% T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}sansserif_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is

𝖩Q(X,Y,Z,W)subscript𝖩𝑄𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊\displaystyle\mathsf{J}_{Q}(X,Y,Z,W)sansserif_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ) =tr(XYZW)tr(Y(XZ+ZX2)W)absenttr𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊tr𝑌𝑋𝑍𝑍𝑋2𝑊\displaystyle=\operatorname{tr}(XYZW)-\operatorname{tr}\Bigl{(}Y\Bigl{(}\frac{% XZ+ZX}{2}\Bigr{)}W\Bigr{)}= roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y italic_Z italic_W ) - roman_tr ( italic_Y ( divide start_ARG italic_X italic_Z + italic_Z italic_X end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) italic_W )
=tr((X0𝖳Y0Z0𝖳+Z0𝖳Y0X0𝖳)W0)tr(Y0𝖳(X0Z0𝖳+Z0X0𝖳2)W0)tr((Z0𝖳X0+X0𝖳Z02)Y0𝖳W0),absenttrsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑊0trsuperscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑍0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳2subscript𝑊0trsuperscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑍02superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑊0\displaystyle=\begin{multlined}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(X_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})W_{0}% \bigr{)}\\ -\operatorname{tr}\Bigl{(}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\Bigl{(}\frac{X_% {0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{% T}}}{2}\Bigr{)}W_{0}\Bigr{)}-\operatorname{tr}\Bigl{(}\Bigl{(}\frac{Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}+X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z_{0}}{% 2}\Bigr{)}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0}\bigr{)},\end{multlined}% \operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}X_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})W_{0}\bigr{)}\\ -\operatorname{tr}\Bigl{(}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\Bigl{(}\frac{X_% {0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{% T}}}{2}\Bigr{)}W_{0}\Bigr{)}-\operatorname{tr}\Bigl{(}\Bigl{(}\frac{Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}+X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z_{0}}{% 2}\Bigr{)}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0}\bigr{)},= start_ROW start_CELL roman_tr ( ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - roman_tr ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - roman_tr ( ( divide start_ARG italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ) italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , end_CELL end_ROW

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X,Y,Z,W𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊X,Y,Z,Witalic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W parameterized as in (11).

Proof.

The expression in Proposition 5.1 and the fact that X,Y,Z,W𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊X,Y,Z,Witalic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W are symmetric matrices yield

𝖩Q(X,Y,Z,W)=12tr((2XYZY(XZ+ZX)W)\mathsf{J}_{Q}(X,Y,Z,W)=\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(2XYZ-Y(XZ+ZX)W% \bigr{)}sansserif_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_tr ( ( 2 italic_X italic_Y italic_Z - italic_Y ( italic_X italic_Z + italic_Z italic_X ) italic_W )

and thus the first expression. Plugging in the parameterizations in (11) for X,Y,Z,W𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊X,Y,Z,Witalic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W gives the second expression. ∎

Corollary 5.3 (Sectional curvature).

The sectional curvature κQ:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscriptκ𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\upkappa_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}% \operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is given by

κQ(X,Y)=[X,Y]24(X2Y2X,Y2)=[X0,Y0𝖳]2+[X0𝖳,Y0]216(X02Y02X0,Y02)14,subscriptκ𝑄𝑋𝑌superscriptnorm𝑋𝑌24superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑋2superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑌2superscript𝑋𝑌2superscriptdelimited-∥∥subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳2superscriptdelimited-∥∥superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0216superscriptdelimited-∥∥subscript𝑋02superscriptdelimited-∥∥subscript𝑌02superscriptsubscript𝑋0subscript𝑌0214\upkappa_{Q}(X,Y)=\frac{\|[X,Y]\|^{2}}{4(\lVert X\rVert^{2}\lVert Y\rVert^{2}-% \langle X,Y\rangle^{2})}=\frac{\lVert[X_{0},Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T% }}]\rVert^{2}+\lVert[X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},Y_{0}]\rVert^{2}}{16% (\lVert X_{0}\rVert^{2}\lVert Y_{0}\rVert^{2}-\langle X_{0},Y_{0}\rangle^{2})}% \leq\frac{1}{4},roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_X , italic_Y ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 4 ( ∥ italic_X ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_Y ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ⟨ italic_X , italic_Y ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∥ [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( ∥ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ⟨ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ,

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, Y𝑌Yitalic_Y parameterized as in (11). If X,Y𝑋𝑌X,Yitalic_X , italic_Y are orthonormal, i.e., X0=Y0=2/2delimited-∥∥subscript𝑋0delimited-∥∥subscript𝑌022\lVert X_{0}\rVert=\lVert Y_{0}\rVert=\sqrt{2}/2∥ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ = ∥ italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ = square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG / 2 and X0,Y0=0subscript𝑋0subscript𝑌00\langle X_{0},Y_{0}\rangle=0⟨ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ = 0, then

κQ(X,Y)=[X,Y]24=14([X0,Y0𝖳]2+[X0𝖳,Y0]2).subscriptκ𝑄𝑋𝑌superscriptnorm𝑋𝑌2414superscriptdelimited-∥∥subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳2superscriptdelimited-∥∥superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌02\upkappa_{Q}(X,Y)=\frac{\|[X,Y]\|^{2}}{4}=\frac{1}{4}(\lVert[X_{0},Y_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}]\rVert^{2}+\lVert[X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}},Y_{0}]\rVert^{2}).roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_X , italic_Y ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ( ∥ [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∥ [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
Proof.

This is a straightforward calculation by

κQ(X,Y)=𝖱𝗂𝖾Q(X,Y,Y,X)X2Y2X,Y2=14[[X,Y],Y],XX2Y2X,Y2=[X,Y]24(X2Y2X,Y2)subscriptκ𝑄𝑋𝑌subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑄𝑋𝑌𝑌𝑋superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑋2superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑌2superscript𝑋𝑌214𝑋𝑌𝑌𝑋superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑋2superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑌2superscript𝑋𝑌2superscriptnorm𝑋𝑌24superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑋2superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑌2superscript𝑋𝑌2\upkappa_{Q}(X,Y)=\frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{Q}(X,Y,Y,X)}{\lVert X% \rVert^{2}\lVert Y\rVert^{2}-\langle X,Y\rangle^{2}}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\langle[% [X,Y],Y],X\rangle}{\lVert X\rVert^{2}\lVert Y\rVert^{2}-\langle X,Y\rangle^{2}% }=\frac{\|[X,Y]\|^{2}}{4(\lVert X\rVert^{2}\lVert Y\rVert^{2}-\langle X,Y% \rangle^{2})}roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Y , italic_X ) end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_X ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_Y ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ⟨ italic_X , italic_Y ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG divide start_ARG ⟨ [ [ italic_X , italic_Y ] , italic_Y ] , italic_X ⟩ end_ARG start_ARG ∥ italic_X ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_Y ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ⟨ italic_X , italic_Y ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG ∥ [ italic_X , italic_Y ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 4 ( ∥ italic_X ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_Y ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ⟨ italic_X , italic_Y ⟩ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG

and the observations that

[X,Y]=V([X0Y0𝖳Y0X0𝖳00X0𝖳Y0Y0𝖳X0])V𝖳,𝑋𝑌𝑉matrixsubscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳00superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscript𝑉𝖳\displaystyle[X,Y]=V\left(\begin{bmatrix}X_{0}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf% {T}}-Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\\ 0&X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}-Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T% }}X_{0}\end{bmatrix}\right)V^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}},[ italic_X , italic_Y ] = italic_V ( [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ) italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
X2=2X02,Y2=2Y02,X,Y2=2X0,Y0.formulae-sequencesuperscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑋22superscriptdelimited-∥∥subscript𝑋02formulae-sequencesuperscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑌22superscriptdelimited-∥∥subscript𝑌02superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝑋𝑌22subscript𝑋0subscript𝑌0\displaystyle\lVert X\rVert^{2}=2\lVert X_{0}\rVert^{2},\quad\lVert Y\rVert^{2% }=2\lVert Y_{0}\rVert^{2},\quad\lVert\langle X,Y\rangle\rVert^{2}=2\langle X_{% 0},Y_{0}\rangle.∥ italic_X ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 ∥ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ∥ italic_Y ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 ∥ italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ∥ ⟨ italic_X , italic_Y ⟩ ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 2 ⟨ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ .

Since κQ(X,Y)subscriptκ𝑄𝑋𝑌\upkappa_{Q}(X,Y)roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) only depends on the two-dimensional subspace of 𝕋QGr(k,n)subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) spanned by X𝑋Xitalic_X and Y𝑌Yitalic_Y, it suffices to assume that X,Y𝑋𝑌X,Yitalic_X , italic_Y are orthonormal. The upper bound κQ(X,Y)1/4subscriptκ𝑄𝑋𝑌14\upkappa_{Q}(X,Y)\leq 1/4roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) ≤ 1 / 4 then follows from the inequality [A,B]22A2B2superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝐴𝐵22superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝐴2superscriptdelimited-∥∥𝐵2\lVert[A,B]\rVert^{2}\leq 2\lVert A\rVert^{2}\lVert B\rVert^{2}∥ [ italic_A , italic_B ] ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 2 ∥ italic_A ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∥ italic_B ∥ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for any A,Bn×n𝐴𝐵superscript𝑛𝑛A,B\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}italic_A , italic_B ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. ∎

It is known that the Grassmannian manifolds are Einstein [5, Paragraphs 0.25 and 0.26]. Our calculations below confirm the fact.

Corollary 5.4 (Ricci and scalar curvatures).

Let Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, Y𝑌Yitalic_Y be parameterized as in (11). The Ricci tensor 𝖱𝗂𝖼Q:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times% \mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is given by

𝖱𝗂𝖼Q(X,Y)=(n2)8tr(XY)=(n2)4tr(X0𝖳Y0).subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑄𝑋𝑌𝑛28tr𝑋𝑌𝑛24trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{Q}(X,Y)=\frac{(n-2)}{8}\operatorname{tr}(XY)=% \frac{(n-2)}{4}\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}).sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

The scalar curvature 𝖲𝖼𝖺Qsubscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑄\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{Q}\in\mathbb{R}sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R is given by

𝖲𝖼𝖺Q=k(nk)(n2)8.subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑄𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛28\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{Q}=\frac{k(n-k)(n-2)}{8}.sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG .

The traceless Ricci curvature 𝖹Q:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscript𝖹𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\mathsf{Z}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}% \operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}sansserif_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is given by

𝖹Q(X,Y)=0,subscript𝖹𝑄𝑋𝑌0\mathsf{Z}_{Q}(X,Y)=0,sansserif_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = 0 ,

which shows that the Grassmannian is an Einstein manifold.

Proof.

We write

Xij22V[0EijEij𝖳0]V𝖳subscript𝑋𝑖𝑗22𝑉matrix0subscript𝐸𝑖𝑗superscriptsubscript𝐸𝑖𝑗𝖳0superscript𝑉𝖳X_{ij}\coloneqq\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}V\begin{bmatrix}0&E_{ij}\\ E_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}V^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_V [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

for the elements of the orthonormal basis in (12). Then

𝖱𝗂𝖼Q(X,Y)subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑄𝑋𝑌\displaystyle\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{Q}(X,Y)sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) =i=1kj=1nk𝖱𝗂𝖾Q(Xij,X,Y,Xij)=i=1kj=1nk14[[Xij,X],Y],Xij\displaystyle=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{n-k}\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{Q}(X_% {ij},X,Y,X_{ij})=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{n-k}\frac{1}{4}\langle[[X_{ij},X],Y% ],X_{ij}\rangle\rangle= ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X , italic_Y , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ⟨ [ [ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X ] , italic_Y ] , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ ⟩
=12i=1kj=1nktr(Xij2XYXXijYXij)absent12superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑘superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑛𝑘trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋𝑖𝑗2𝑋𝑌𝑋subscript𝑋𝑖𝑗𝑌subscript𝑋𝑖𝑗\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\sum_{j=1}^{n-k}\operatorname{tr}(X_{ij% }^{2}XY-XX_{ij}YX_{ij})= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X italic_Y - italic_X italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
=n28tr(XY)=𝖲𝖼𝖺Qk(nk)𝗀Qabsent𝑛28tr𝑋𝑌subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑄𝑘𝑛𝑘subscript𝗀𝑄\displaystyle=\frac{n-2}{8}\operatorname{tr}(XY)=\frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{% Sca}}_{Q}}{k(n-k)}\mathsf{g}_{Q}= divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_ARG sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

where the last equality shows that 𝖹Qsubscript𝖹𝑄\mathsf{Z}_{Q}sansserif_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT vanishes identically. ∎

For a homogeneous space like Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ), the upper and lower delta invariants δ¯Q(d1,,dr)subscript¯δ𝑄subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑𝑟\overline{\updelta}_{Q}(d_{1},\dots,d_{r})over¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and δ¯Q(d1,,dr)subscript¯δ𝑄subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑𝑟\underline{\updelta}_{Q}(d_{1},\dots,d_{r})under¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) are independent of the choice of QGr(k,n)𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛Q\in\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_Q ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ). We also restrict our attention to d1==dr=2subscript𝑑1subscript𝑑𝑟2d_{1}=\cdots=d_{r}=2italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ⋯ = italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2. So for notational simplicity, we just write

δ¯2,rδ¯Q(2,,2r times),δ¯2,rδ¯Q(2,,2r times).formulae-sequencesubscript¯δ2𝑟subscript¯δ𝑄subscript22r timessubscript¯δ2𝑟subscript¯δ𝑄subscript22r times\overline{\updelta}_{2,r}\coloneqq\overline{\updelta}_{Q}(\underbrace{2,\dots,% 2}_{\text{$r$ times}}),\quad\underline{\updelta}_{2,r}\coloneqq\underline{% \updelta}_{Q}(\underbrace{2,\dots,2}_{\text{$r$ times}}).over¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ over¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( under⏟ start_ARG 2 , … , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r times end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , under¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ under¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( under⏟ start_ARG 2 , … , 2 end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r times end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
Theorem 5.5 (Delta invariants).

Let r2k/2(nk)/2𝑟2𝑘2𝑛𝑘2r\leq 2\lfloor k/2\rfloor\lfloor(n-k)/2\rflooritalic_r ≤ 2 ⌊ italic_k / 2 ⌋ ⌊ ( italic_n - italic_k ) / 2 ⌋. Then the upper and lower delta invariants of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) are given by

δ¯2,r=k(nk)(n2)8,δ¯2,r=k(nk)(n2)8r4.formulae-sequencesubscript¯δ2𝑟𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛28subscript¯δ2𝑟𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛28𝑟4\overline{\updelta}_{2,r}=\frac{k(n-k)(n-2)}{8},\qquad\underline{\updelta}_{2,% r}=\frac{k(n-k)(n-2)}{8}-\frac{r}{4}.over¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG , under¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG - divide start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG .
Proof.

We will write κ=κQκsubscriptκ𝑄\upkappa=\upkappa_{Q}roman_κ = roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT below and take Q=Ik,nk𝑄subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Q=I_{k,n-k}italic_Q = italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. By Corollary 5.4, we have

δ¯2,rsubscript¯δ2𝑟\displaystyle\overline{\updelta}_{2,r}over¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =k(nk)(n2)8infdim𝕍j=2,𝕍j𝕍k,j<k[j=1rκ(Xj,Yj)],absent𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛28subscriptinfimumdimensionsubscript𝕍𝑗2formulae-sequenceperpendicular-tosubscript𝕍𝑗subscript𝕍𝑘𝑗𝑘delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑟κsubscript𝑋𝑗subscript𝑌𝑗\displaystyle=\frac{k(n-k)(n-2)}{8}-\inf_{\begin{subarray}{c}\dim\mathbb{V}_{j% }=2,\\ \mathbb{V}_{j}\perp\mathbb{V}_{k},j<k\end{subarray}}\biggl{[}\sum_{j=1}^{r}% \upkappa(X_{j},Y_{j})\biggr{]},= divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG - roman_inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL roman_dim blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟂ blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j < italic_k end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_κ ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] ,
δ¯2,rsubscript¯δ2𝑟\displaystyle\underline{\updelta}_{2,r}under¯ start_ARG roman_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =k(nk)(n2)8supdim𝕍j=2,𝕍j𝕍k,j<k[j=1rκ(Xj,Yj)],absent𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑛28subscriptsupremumdimensionsubscript𝕍𝑗2formulae-sequenceperpendicular-tosubscript𝕍𝑗subscript𝕍𝑘𝑗𝑘delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑟κsubscript𝑋𝑗subscript𝑌𝑗\displaystyle=\frac{k(n-k)(n-2)}{8}-\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}\dim\mathbb{V}_{j% }=2,\\ \mathbb{V}_{j}\perp\mathbb{V}_{k},j<k\end{subarray}}\biggl{[}\sum_{j=1}^{r}% \upkappa(X_{j},Y_{j})\biggr{]},= divide start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG - roman_sup start_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL roman_dim blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 , end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟂ blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_j < italic_k end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_κ ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] ,

where {Xj,Yj}subscript𝑋𝑗subscript𝑌𝑗\{X_{j},Y_{j}\}{ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is an orthonormal basis of the two-dimensional subspace 𝕍j𝕋Ik,nkGr(k,n)subscript𝕍𝑗subscript𝕋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛\mathbb{V}_{j}\subseteq\mathbb{T}_{I_{k,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ), j=1,,r𝑗1𝑟j=1,\dots,ritalic_j = 1 , … , italic_r. By Corollary 5.3, we have

(15) 0j=1rκ(Xj,Yj)r4.0superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑟κsubscript𝑋𝑗subscript𝑌𝑗𝑟40\leq\sum_{j=1}^{r}\upkappa(X_{j},Y_{j})\leq\frac{r}{4}.0 ≤ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_κ ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≤ divide start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG .

It remains to show that upper and lower bounds in (15) are attained by some 𝕍1,,𝕍rsubscript𝕍1subscript𝕍𝑟\mathbb{V}_{1},\dots,\mathbb{V}_{r}blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Set k1k/2subscript𝑘1𝑘2k_{1}\coloneqq\lfloor k/2\rflooritalic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ⌊ italic_k / 2 ⌋ and k2(nk)/2subscript𝑘2𝑛𝑘2k_{2}\coloneqq\lfloor(n-k)/2\rflooritalic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ⌊ ( italic_n - italic_k ) / 2 ⌋. We may partition any X𝕋Ik,nkGr(k,n)𝑋subscript𝕋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛X\in\mathbb{T}_{I_{k,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_X ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) into a block matrix with 2×2222\times 22 × 2 blocks Bpq2×2subscript𝐵𝑝𝑞superscript22B_{pq}\in\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 × 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT:

X=[00B1,1B1,k2+100Bk1+1,1Bk1+1,k2+1B1,1𝖳Bk1+1,1𝖳00B1,k2+1𝖳Bk1+1,k2+1𝖳00]𝑋matrix00subscript𝐵11subscript𝐵1subscript𝑘2100subscript𝐵subscript𝑘111subscript𝐵subscript𝑘11subscript𝑘21superscriptsubscript𝐵11𝖳superscriptsubscript𝐵subscript𝑘111𝖳00superscriptsubscript𝐵1subscript𝑘21𝖳superscriptsubscript𝐵subscript𝑘11subscript𝑘21𝖳00X=\begin{bmatrix}0&\cdots&0&B_{1,1}&\cdots&B_{1,k_{2}+1}\\ \vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&\cdots&0&B_{k_{1}+1,1}&\cdots&B_{k_{1}+1,k_{2}+1}\\ B_{1,1}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&\cdots&B_{k_{1}+1,1}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0&\cdots&0\\ \vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ B_{1,k_{2}+1}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&\cdots&B_{k_{1}+1,k_{2}+1}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0&\cdots&0\end{bmatrix}italic_X = [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

except in the last row and column where we are required to have

Bp,k2+12×(nk2k2),Bk1+1,q(k2k1)×2,Bk1+1,k2+1(k2k1)×(nk2k2)formulae-sequencesubscript𝐵𝑝subscript𝑘21superscript2𝑛𝑘2subscript𝑘2formulae-sequencesubscript𝐵subscript𝑘11𝑞superscript𝑘2subscript𝑘12subscript𝐵subscript𝑘11subscript𝑘21superscript𝑘2subscript𝑘1𝑛𝑘2subscript𝑘2B_{p,k_{2}+1}\in\mathbb{R}^{2\times(n-k-2k_{2})},\quad B_{k_{1}+1,q}\in\mathbb% {R}^{(k-2k_{1})\times 2},\quad B_{k_{1}+1,k_{2}+1}\in\mathbb{R}^{(k-2k_{1})% \times(n-k-2k_{2})}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 × ( italic_n - italic_k - 2 italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k - 2 italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) × 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_k - 2 italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) × ( italic_n - italic_k - 2 italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

for p=1,,k1𝑝1subscript𝑘1p=1,\dots,k_{1}italic_p = 1 , … , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and q=1,,k2𝑞1subscript𝑘2q=1,\dots,k_{2}italic_q = 1 , … , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Let X^ij𝕋Ik,nkGr(k,n)subscript^𝑋𝑖𝑗subscript𝕋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛\widehat{X}_{ij}\in\mathbb{T}_{I_{k,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) be the tangent vector obtained from X𝑋Xitalic_X by setting Bpq=0subscript𝐵𝑝𝑞0B_{pq}=0italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 whenever (p,q)(i,j)𝑝𝑞𝑖𝑗(p,q)\neq(i,j)( italic_p , italic_q ) ≠ ( italic_i , italic_j ). Then clearly we have tr(X^ij𝖳X^ij)=0trsuperscriptsubscript^𝑋𝑖𝑗𝖳subscript^𝑋superscript𝑖superscript𝑗0\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}\widehat{X}_{ij}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}% \widehat{X}_{i^{\prime}j^{\prime}}\bigr{)}=0roman_tr ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 whenever (i,j)(i,j)𝑖𝑗superscript𝑖superscript𝑗(i,j)\neq(i^{\prime},j^{\prime})( italic_i , italic_j ) ≠ ( italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Since r2k1k2𝑟2subscript𝑘1subscript𝑘2r\leq 2k_{1}k_{2}italic_r ≤ 2 italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the problem further reduces to attaining the upper and lower bounds in (15) for r=2𝑟2r=2italic_r = 2 on Gr(2,4)Gr24\operatorname{Gr}(2,4)roman_Gr ( 2 , 4 ). This is a vast simplification as X𝕋I2,2Gr(2,4)𝑋subscript𝕋subscript𝐼22Gr24X\in\mathbb{T}_{I_{2,2}}\operatorname{Gr}(2,4)italic_X ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( 2 , 4 ) is just X=[0BB𝖳0]𝑋matrix0𝐵superscript𝐵𝖳0X=\begin{bmatrix}0&B\\ B^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}italic_X = [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_B end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] with B2×2𝐵superscript22B\in\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}italic_B ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 × 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. It remains to exhibit an orthonormal basis X1,Y1,X2,Y2TI2,2Gr(2,4)subscript𝑋1subscript𝑌1subscript𝑋2subscript𝑌2subscript𝑇subscript𝐼22Gr24X_{1},Y_{1},X_{2},Y_{2}\in T_{I_{2,2}}\operatorname{Gr}(2,4)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( 2 , 4 ) that gives the upper and lower bounds in (15). Using the formula for sectional curvature in Corollary 5.3, we check that

X1=22[0010000010000000],Y1=12[0001001001001000],X2=22[0000000100000100],Y2=12[0001001001001000]formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋122matrix0010000010000000formulae-sequencesubscript𝑌112matrix0001001001001000formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋222matrix0000000100000100subscript𝑌212matrix0001001001001000X_{1}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&0&1&0\\ 0&0&0&0\\ 1&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0\end{bmatrix},\quad Y_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&0&0&1\\ 0&0&1&0\\ 0&1&0&0\\ 1&0&0&0\end{bmatrix},\quad X_{2}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&1\\ 0&0&0&0\\ 0&1&0&0\end{bmatrix},\quad Y_{2}=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&0&0&1\\ 0&0&-1&0\\ 0&-1&0&0\\ 1&0&0&0\end{bmatrix}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG 2 end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

give the required upper bound κ(X1,Y1)+κ(X2,Y2)=12κsubscript𝑋1subscript𝑌1κsubscript𝑋2subscript𝑌212\upkappa(X_{1},Y_{1})+\upkappa(X_{2},Y_{2})=\frac{1}{2}roman_κ ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + roman_κ ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG, whereas

X1=12[0010000110000100],Y1=12[0010000110000100],X2=12[0001001001001000],Y2=12[0001001001001000]formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋112matrix0010000110000100formulae-sequencesubscript𝑌112matrix0010000110000100formulae-sequencesubscript𝑋212matrix0001001001001000subscript𝑌212matrix0001001001001000X_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&0&1&0\\ 0&0&0&1\\ 1&0&0&0\\ 0&1&0&0\end{bmatrix},\quad Y_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&0&1&0\\ 0&0&0&-1\\ 1&0&0&0\\ 0&-1&0&0\end{bmatrix},\quad X_{2}=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&0&0&1\\ 0&0&1&0\\ 0&1&0&0\\ 1&0&0&0\end{bmatrix},\quad Y_{2}=\frac{1}{2}\begin{bmatrix}0&0&0&1\\ 0&0&-1&0\\ 0&-1&0&0\\ 1&0&0&0\end{bmatrix}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 1 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL - 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 1 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

give the required lower bound κ(X1,Y1)+κ(X2,Y2)=0κsubscript𝑋1subscript𝑌1κsubscript𝑋2subscript𝑌20\upkappa(X_{1},Y_{1})+\upkappa(X_{2},Y_{2})=0roman_κ ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + roman_κ ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0. ∎

We next compute the quartet of tensors named after Schouten, Cotton, Weyl, and Bach.

Corollary 5.6 (Schouten curvature).

The Schouten tensor 𝖯Q:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscript𝖯𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\mathsf{P}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}% \operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}sansserif_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is given by

𝖯Q(X,Y)=(n2)16(k(nk)1)tr(XY)=2(n2)16(k(nk)1)tr(X0𝖳Y0)subscript𝖯𝑄𝑋𝑌𝑛216𝑘𝑛𝑘1tr𝑋𝑌2𝑛216𝑘𝑛𝑘1trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0\mathsf{P}_{Q}(X,Y)=\frac{(n-2)}{16(k(n-k)-1)}\operatorname{tr}(XY)=\frac{2(n-% 2)}{16(k(n-k)-1)}\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0})sansserif_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 1 ) end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG 2 ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 1 ) end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, Y𝑌Yitalic_Y parameterized as in (11).

Proof.

This is a straightforward calculation from definition:

𝖯Q(X,Y)subscript𝖯𝑄𝑋𝑌\displaystyle\mathsf{P}_{Q}(X,Y)sansserif_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) =1k(nk)2[𝖱𝗂𝖼Q(X,Y)𝖲𝖼𝖺Q2(k(nk)1)𝗀Q(X,Y)]absent1𝑘𝑛𝑘2delimited-[]subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑄𝑋𝑌subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑄2𝑘𝑛𝑘1subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑌\displaystyle=\frac{1}{k(n-k)-2}\biggl{[}\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{Q}(X,Y)-% \frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{Q}}{2(k(n-k)-1)}\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Y)\biggr{]}= divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 2 end_ARG [ sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) - divide start_ARG sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 1 ) end_ARG sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) ]
=n216(k(nk)1)tr(XY).absent𝑛216𝑘𝑛𝑘1tr𝑋𝑌\displaystyle=\frac{n-2}{16(k(n-k)-1)}\operatorname{tr}(XY).\qed= divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 1 ) end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) . italic_∎
Corollary 5.7 (Cotton curvature).

The Cotton tensor of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) is zero.

Proof.

By Corollary 5.6, 𝖯𝖯\mathsf{P}sansserif_P is a constant multiple of 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g. So 𝖯=0𝖯0\nabla\mathsf{P}=0∇ sansserif_P = 0, and so 𝖢𝖢\mathsf{C}sansserif_C is identically zero. ∎

Corollary 5.8 (Weyl curvature).

The Weyl tensor 𝖶Q:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscript𝖶𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\mathsf{W}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}% \operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{% T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is given by

𝖶Q(X,Y,Z,W)subscript𝖶𝑄𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊\displaystyle\mathsf{W}_{Q}(X,Y,Z,W)sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ) =12tr((XYYX)ZW)(n2)8(k(nk)1)(tr(XZ)tr(YW)tr(XW)tr(YZ))absent12tr𝑋𝑌𝑌𝑋𝑍𝑊𝑛28𝑘𝑛𝑘1tr𝑋𝑍tr𝑌𝑊tr𝑋𝑊tr𝑌𝑍\displaystyle=\begin{multlined}\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(XY-YX)ZW% \bigr{)}\\ -\frac{(n-2)}{8(k(n-k)-1)}\bigl{(}\operatorname{tr}(XZ)\operatorname{tr}(YW)-% \operatorname{tr}(XW)\operatorname{tr}(YZ)\bigr{)}\end{multlined}\frac{1}{2}% \operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(XY-YX)ZW\bigr{)}\\ -\frac{(n-2)}{8(k(n-k)-1)}\bigl{(}\operatorname{tr}(XZ)\operatorname{tr}(YW)-% \operatorname{tr}(XW)\operatorname{tr}(YZ)\bigr{)}= start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_tr ( ( italic_X italic_Y - italic_Y italic_X ) italic_Z italic_W ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 8 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 1 ) end_ARG ( roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Z ) roman_tr ( italic_Y italic_W ) - roman_tr ( italic_X italic_W ) roman_tr ( italic_Y italic_Z ) ) end_CELL end_ROW
=12tr((X0𝖳Y0Z0𝖳+Z0𝖳Y0X0𝖳Y0𝖳X0Z0𝖳Z0𝖳X0Y0𝖳)W0)n22(k(nk)1)(tr(X0𝖳Z0)tr(Y0𝖳W0)tr(X0𝖳W0)tr(Y0𝖳Z0))absent12trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑌0superscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳superscriptsubscript𝑍0𝖳subscript𝑋0superscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑊0𝑛22𝑘𝑛𝑘1trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑍0trsuperscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑊0trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑊0trsuperscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑍0\displaystyle=\begin{multlined}\frac{1}{2}\operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(X_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}-Y_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}-Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})W_{0}% \bigr{)}\\ -\frac{n-2}{2(k(n-k)-1)}\bigl{(}\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}Z_{0})\operatorname{tr}(Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0})-% \operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0})\operatorname{tr}(% Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z_{0})\bigr{)}\end{multlined}\frac{1}{2}% \operatorname{tr}\bigl{(}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}+Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y_{0}X_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}-Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}Z_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}-Z_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}X_{0}Y_{0}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}})W_{0}\bigr{)}\\ -\frac{n-2}{2(k(n-k)-1)}\bigl{(}\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle% \mathsf{T}}Z_{0})\operatorname{tr}(Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0})-% \operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0})\operatorname{tr}(% Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z_{0})\bigr{)}= start_ROW start_CELL divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_tr ( ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 2 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 1 ) end_ARG ( roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_tr ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_tr ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) end_CELL end_ROW

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, Y𝑌Yitalic_Y, Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, W𝑊Witalic_W parameterized as in (11).

Proof.

Let mk(nk)𝑚𝑘𝑛𝑘m\coloneqq k(n-k)italic_m ≔ italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ). It follows from the vanishing of 𝖹Qsubscript𝖹𝑄\mathsf{Z}_{Q}sansserif_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the expression for 𝖲𝖼𝖺Qsubscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑄\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{Q}sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in Corollary 5.4 that

𝖶Q=𝖱𝗂𝖾Q1m2𝖹Q∧⃝𝗀Q𝖲𝖼𝖺Q2m(m1)𝗀Q∧⃝𝗀Q=𝖱𝗂𝖾Qn216(m1)𝗀Q∧⃝𝗀Q.subscript𝖶𝑄subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑄1𝑚2subscript𝖹𝑄∧⃝subscript𝗀𝑄subscript𝖲𝖼𝖺𝑄2𝑚𝑚1subscript𝗀𝑄∧⃝subscript𝗀𝑄subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑄𝑛216𝑚1subscript𝗀𝑄∧⃝subscript𝗀𝑄\mathsf{W}_{Q}=\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{Q}-\frac{1}{m-2}\mathsf{Z}_{Q}% \varowedge\mathsf{g}_{Q}-\frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}_{Q}}{2m(m-1)}% \mathsf{g}_{Q}\varowedge\mathsf{g}_{Q}=\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{Q}-\frac{n% -2}{16(m-1)}\mathsf{g}_{Q}\varowedge\mathsf{g}_{Q}.sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m - 2 end_ARG sansserif_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧⃝ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG sansserif_Sca start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_m ( italic_m - 1 ) end_ARG sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧⃝ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( italic_m - 1 ) end_ARG sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧⃝ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Next use the two expressions of 𝖱𝗂𝖾Qsubscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑄\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}_{Q}sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in Proposition 5.1 and expand the Kulkarni–Nomizu product

𝗀Q∧⃝𝗀Q(X,Y,Z,W)∧⃝subscript𝗀𝑄subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊\displaystyle\mathsf{g}_{Q}\varowedge\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Y,Z,W)sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧⃝ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ) =𝗀Q(X,Z)𝗀Q(Y,W)𝗀Q(X,W)𝗀Q(Y,Z)𝗀Q(Y,Z)𝗀Q(X,W)+𝗀Q(Y,W)𝗀Q(X,Z)absentsubscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑍subscript𝗀𝑄𝑌𝑊subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑊subscript𝗀𝑄𝑌𝑍subscript𝗀𝑄𝑌𝑍subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑊subscript𝗀𝑄𝑌𝑊subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑍\displaystyle=\begin{multlined}\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Z)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,W)-\mathsf{% g}_{Q}(X,W)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,Z)\\ -\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,Z)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,W)+\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,W)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Z)% \end{multlined}\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Z)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,W)-\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,W)% \mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,Z)\\ -\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,Z)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,W)+\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,W)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Z)= start_ROW start_CELL sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Z ) sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Y , italic_W ) - sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_W ) sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Y , italic_Z ) end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Y , italic_Z ) sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_W ) + sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Y , italic_W ) sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Z ) end_CELL end_ROW
=2(𝗀Q(X,Z)𝗀Q(Y,W)𝗀Q(X,W)𝗀Q(Y,Z))absent2subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑍subscript𝗀𝑄𝑌𝑊subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑊subscript𝗀𝑄𝑌𝑍\displaystyle=2\bigl{(}\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Z)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,W)-\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X% ,W)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,Z)\bigr{)}= 2 ( sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Z ) sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Y , italic_W ) - sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_W ) sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Y , italic_Z ) )
=8(tr(X0𝖳Z0)tr(Y0𝖳W0)tr(X0𝖳W0)tr(Y0𝖳Z0)),absent8trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑍0trsuperscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑊0trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑊0trsuperscriptsubscript𝑌0𝖳subscript𝑍0\displaystyle=8\bigl{(}\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z% _{0})\operatorname{tr}(Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0})-% \operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}W_{0})\operatorname{tr}(% Y_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Z_{0})\bigr{)},= 8 ( roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_tr ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) roman_tr ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ,

to get the two required expressions for 𝖶Q(X,Y,Z,W)subscript𝖶𝑄𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊\mathsf{W}_{Q}(X,Y,Z,W)sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ). ∎

Corollary 5.9 (Bach curvature).

The Bach tensor 𝖡Q:𝕋QGr(k,n)×𝕋QGr(k,n):subscript𝖡𝑄subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\mathsf{B}_{Q}:\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\times\mathbb{T}_{Q}% \operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\to\mathbb{R}sansserif_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) × blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) → blackboard_R is given by

𝖡Q(X,Y)=(n2)232(k(nk)2)tr(XY)=(n2)216(k(nk)2)tr(X0𝖳Y0)subscript𝖡𝑄𝑋𝑌superscript𝑛2232𝑘𝑛𝑘2tr𝑋𝑌superscript𝑛2216𝑘𝑛𝑘2trsuperscriptsubscript𝑋0𝖳subscript𝑌0\mathsf{B}_{Q}(X,Y)=\frac{(n-2)^{2}}{32(k(n-k)-2)}\operatorname{tr}(XY)=\frac{% (n-2)^{2}}{16(k(n-k)-2)}\operatorname{tr}(X_{0}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}% Y_{0})sansserif_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 32 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 2 ) end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 2 ) end_ARG roman_tr ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

with Q𝑄Qitalic_Q, X𝑋Xitalic_X, Y𝑌Yitalic_Y parameterized as in (11).

Proof.

Let mk(nk)𝑚𝑘𝑛𝑘m\coloneqq k(n-k)italic_m ≔ italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ). Using [12, Equation (2-4)], we relate 𝖡𝖡\mathsf{B}sansserif_B to the Cotton tensor 𝖢𝖢\mathsf{C}sansserif_C as

𝖡Q(X,Y)=1m2[i=1m(Xi𝖢Q)(Xi,X,Y)+i=1mj=1m𝖱𝗂𝖼Q(Xi,Xj)𝖶Q(X,Xi,Xj,Y)],subscript𝖡𝑄𝑋𝑌1𝑚2delimited-[]superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscriptsubscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝖢𝑄subscript𝑋𝑖𝑋𝑌superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚superscriptsubscript𝑗1𝑚subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑄subscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝑋𝑗subscript𝖶𝑄𝑋subscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝑋𝑗𝑌\mathsf{B}_{Q}(X,Y)=\frac{1}{m-2}\biggl{[}\sum_{i=1}^{m}(\nabla_{\!X_{i}}% \mathsf{C}_{Q})(X_{i},X,Y)+\sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{j=1}^{m}\operatorname{\mathsf{% Ric}}_{Q}(X_{i},X_{j})\mathsf{W}_{Q}(X,X_{i},X_{j},Y)\biggr{]},sansserif_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_m - 2 end_ARG [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ∇ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_C start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X , italic_Y ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y ) ] ,

where X1,,Xm𝕋QGr(k,n)subscript𝑋1subscript𝑋𝑚subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛X_{1},\dots,X_{m}\in\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) is any orthonormal basis. It follows from the vanishing of 𝖢𝖢\mathsf{C}sansserif_C in Corollary 5.7 that

𝖡Q(X,Y)subscript𝖡𝑄𝑋𝑌\displaystyle\mathsf{B}_{Q}(X,Y)sansserif_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) =n28(m2)i=1m𝖶Q(X,Xi,Xi,Y)absent𝑛28𝑚2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝖶𝑄𝑋subscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝑋𝑖𝑌\displaystyle=\frac{n-2}{8(m-2)}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\mathsf{W}_{Q}(X,X_{i},X_{i},Y)= divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 8 ( italic_m - 2 ) end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y )
=n28(m2)[i=1m𝖱𝗂𝖾Q(X,Xi,Xi,Y)i=1mn216(m1)𝗀Q∧⃝𝗀Q(X,Xi,Xi,Y)]absent𝑛28𝑚2delimited-[]∧⃝superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝖱𝗂𝖾𝑄𝑋subscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝑋𝑖𝑌superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚𝑛216𝑚1subscript𝗀𝑄subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋subscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝑋𝑖𝑌\displaystyle=\frac{n-2}{8(m-2)}\biggl{[}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\operatorname{\mathsf{% Rie}}_{Q}(X,X_{i},X_{i},Y)-\sum_{i=1}^{m}\frac{n-2}{16(m-1)}\mathsf{g}_{Q}% \varowedge\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,X_{i},X_{i},Y)\biggr{]}= divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 8 ( italic_m - 2 ) end_ARG [ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_Rie start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y ) - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( italic_m - 1 ) end_ARG sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧⃝ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y ) ]
=n28(m2)[𝖱𝗂𝖼Q(X,Y)2(n2)16(m1)i=1m(𝗀Q(X,Xi)𝗀Q(Y,Xi)𝗀Q(X,Y)𝗀Q(Xi,Xi))]absent𝑛28𝑚2delimited-[]subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑄𝑋𝑌2𝑛216𝑚1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑚subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋subscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝗀𝑄𝑌subscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑌subscript𝗀𝑄subscript𝑋𝑖subscript𝑋𝑖\displaystyle=\frac{n-2}{8(m-2)}\biggl{[}\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{Q}(X,Y)-% \frac{2(n-2)}{16(m-1)}\sum_{i=1}^{m}(\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,X_{i})\mathsf{g}_{Q}(Y,X% _{i})-\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Y)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X_{i},X_{i}))\biggr{]}= divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 8 ( italic_m - 2 ) end_ARG [ sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) - divide start_ARG 2 ( italic_n - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 16 ( italic_m - 1 ) end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Y , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ]
=n28(m2)𝖱𝗂𝖼Q(X,Y)(n2)264(m1)(m2)(1m)𝗀Q(X,Y)absent𝑛28𝑚2subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑄𝑋𝑌superscript𝑛2264𝑚1𝑚21𝑚subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑌\displaystyle=\frac{n-2}{8(m-2)}\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}_{Q}(X,Y)-\frac{(n-% 2)^{2}}{64(m-1)(m-2)}(1-m)\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Y)= divide start_ARG italic_n - 2 end_ARG start_ARG 8 ( italic_m - 2 ) end_ARG sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) - divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 64 ( italic_m - 1 ) ( italic_m - 2 ) end_ARG ( 1 - italic_m ) sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y )
=(n2)232(m2)𝗀Q(X,Y).absentsuperscript𝑛2232𝑚2subscript𝗀𝑄𝑋𝑌\displaystyle=\frac{(n-2)^{2}}{32(m-2)}\mathsf{g}_{Q}(X,Y).= divide start_ARG ( italic_n - 2 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 32 ( italic_m - 2 ) end_ARG sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) .

Here the first and the second equalities follow from Corollaries 5.4 and 5.8 respectively. The third uses the definition of Ricci curvature and the value 𝗀Q∧⃝𝗀Q∧⃝subscript𝗀𝑄subscript𝗀𝑄\mathsf{g}_{Q}\varowedge\mathsf{g}_{Q}sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧⃝ sansserif_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT calculated in the proof of Corollary 5.8. The penultimate equality is a result of X1,,Xmsubscript𝑋1subscript𝑋𝑚X_{1},\dots,X_{m}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT being an orthonormal basis. ∎

6. Geometric insights from these expressions

The intrinsic curvatures in Section 5 are, by definition, independent of the model we choose and apply to Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) as an abstract manifold. Indeed, the results in this section will all be stated for the Grassmannian Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), as opposed to its involution model Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ). The expressions we found in Section 5 by way of the involution model Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) permit us to concretely study the geometry of the abstract manifold Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), and thereby obtaining new geometric insights. Even without going out of our way to search for such insights, we can already see a few that, as far as we know, have never been observed before for the Grassmannian.

For example, we may deduce the following, which is mildly surprising because we do not even know how to define a Plebański tensor [39].

Corollary 6.1 (Plebański curvature).

The Plebański tensor of the Grassmannian is zero.

An observant reader might have noticed that this is the only tensor mentioned in Section 1 whose definition did not appear in Section 3. The reason is that we do not know how to define the Plebański tensor in the coordinate-free manner adopted in modern mathematics. Every definition in the literature only gives its coordinates in terms of the coordinates of 𝖹𝖹\mathsf{Z}sansserif_Z, the traceless Ricci curvature. But as we do know from Corollary 5.4 that 𝖹=0𝖹0\mathsf{Z}=0sansserif_Z = 0 for the Grassmannian, its Plebański tensor must be zero as well.

An observant reader might also have noticed that several of the expressions in Table 1 are constant multiples of tr(XY)tr𝑋𝑌\operatorname{tr}(XY)roman_tr ( italic_X italic_Y ). Therein lies two small results:

Corollary 6.2 (Codazzi tensors I).

The Ricci, Schouten, and Bach curvatures of the Grassmannian are Codazzi.

Proof.

Corollaries 5.4, 5.6, and 5.9 show that the tensors in question are all constant multiples of 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g and therefore Codazzi since 𝗀=0𝗀0\nabla\mathsf{g}=0∇ sansserif_g = 0. ∎

Corollary 6.3 (Codazzi tensors II).

A symmetric bilinear form β𝛽\betaitalic_β on the Grassmannian with constant trace is Codazzi if and only if β=0𝛽0\nabla\beta=0∇ italic_β = 0

Proof.

If β=0𝛽0\nabla\beta=0∇ italic_β = 0, then it is Codazzi by definition. For the converse, we invoke the result [4] that any Codazzi tensor with constant trace on a compact Riemannian manifold must have β=0𝛽0\nabla\beta=0∇ italic_β = 0 if the sectional curvature κ0κ0\upkappa\geq 0roman_κ ≥ 0 everywhere. By Corollary 5.3, the Grassmannian has κ0κ0\upkappa\geq 0roman_κ ≥ 0. ∎

The proof of Corollary 6.2 throws up another observation.

Corollary 6.4 (Divergence-free tensors).

The Riemann and Weyl curvatures of the Grassmannian are divergence-free.

Proof.

By Corollary 5.4, 𝖱𝗂𝖼𝖱𝗂𝖼\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}sansserif_Ric is a constant multiple of 𝗀𝗀\mathsf{g}sansserif_g and so 𝖱𝗂𝖼=0𝖱𝗂𝖼0\nabla\mathsf{\operatorname{\mathsf{Ric}}}=0∇ sansserif_Ric = 0. Since the Riemann curvature is divergence-free if and only if the Ricci tensor is divergence-free and Codazzi [38, Corollary 9.4.5], it follows from Corollary 6.2 that div𝖱=0div𝖱0\operatorname{div}\mathsf{R}=0roman_div sansserif_R = 0 for the Grassmannian. The relation [12, Equation 2-3] between Weyl and Cotton tensors

div𝖶=dim2dim3𝖢div𝖶dimension2dimension3𝖢\operatorname{div}\mathsf{W}=\frac{\dim\mathcal{M}-2}{\dim\mathcal{M}-3}% \mathsf{C}roman_div sansserif_W = divide start_ARG roman_dim caligraphic_M - 2 end_ARG start_ARG roman_dim caligraphic_M - 3 end_ARG sansserif_C

for any manifold \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M of dimension at least four, taken together with Corollary 5.7 that 𝖢=0𝖢0\mathsf{C}=0sansserif_C = 0, yields div𝖶=0div𝖶0\operatorname{div}\mathsf{W}=0roman_div sansserif_W = 0. For dim<4dimension4\dim\mathcal{M}<4roman_dim caligraphic_M < 4, 𝖶𝖶\mathsf{W}sansserif_W is identically zero [12, Remark 2.3]. ∎

The delta invariants obtained in Theorem 5.5 have never before been calculated for a manifold as complex as the Grassmannian. These values may look quotidian to the uninitiated, but they are not. We give an example to show how the value of δ¯2,rsubscript¯𝛿2𝑟\underline{\delta}_{2,r}under¯ start_ARG italic_δ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 , italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT found in Theorem 5.5 vastly improves a classical result.

A geodesic 2222-sphere is a 2222-sphere S2superscriptS2\mathrm{S}^{2}roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT embedded in a Riemannian manifold \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M as a totally geodesic submanifold. One fascinating fact about the geometry of the Grassmannian is that it contains a geodesic 2222-sphere [29, 45, 46, 49]. This is a very unique property. For instance, 3superscript3\mathbb{R}^{3}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT contains no geodesic 2222-sphere, even though S2superscriptS2\mathrm{S}^{2}roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is, ironically, the unit sphere of 3superscript3\mathbb{R}^{3}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The reason is that S2superscriptS2\mathrm{S}^{2}roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is only a Riemannian submanifold but not a totally geodesic submanifold of 3superscript3\mathbb{R}^{3}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

A key result in [47] is that Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) contains one geodesic 2222-sphere. We will show below that it in fact contains a product of many geodesic 2222-spheres. To the best of our knowledge, this insight is new. It is also unusual. For instance, while the 3333-sphere S3superscriptS3\mathrm{S}^{3}roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is known to contain a geodesic 2222-sphere, it does not contain a product of more than one copy.

Theorem 6.5 (Embedding products of geodesic 2222-spheres).
  1. (a)

    For any rmin{k/2,n/4}𝑟𝑘2𝑛4r\leq\min\{\lfloor k/2\rfloor,\lfloor n/4\rfloor\}italic_r ≤ roman_min { ⌊ italic_k / 2 ⌋ , ⌊ italic_n / 4 ⌋ }, the product of r𝑟ritalic_r copies of S2superscriptS2\mathrm{S}^{2}roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be embedded as a totally geodesic submanifold of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ).

  2. (b)

    For any r2k/2(nk)/2𝑟2𝑘2𝑛𝑘2r\leq 2\lfloor k/2\rfloor\lfloor(n-k)/2\rflooritalic_r ≤ 2 ⌊ italic_k / 2 ⌋ ⌊ ( italic_n - italic_k ) / 2 ⌋, an open subset of the product of r𝑟ritalic_r copies of S2superscriptS2\mathrm{S}^{2}roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT can be embedded as a totally geodesic submanifold of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ).

Proof.

Let rmin{k/2,n/4}𝑟𝑘2𝑛4r\leq\min\{\lfloor k/2\rfloor,\lfloor n/4\rfloor\}italic_r ≤ roman_min { ⌊ italic_k / 2 ⌋ , ⌊ italic_n / 4 ⌋ } and 𝕍1,,𝕍rnsubscript𝕍1subscript𝕍𝑟superscript𝑛\mathbb{V}_{1},\dots,\mathbb{V}_{r}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be any r𝑟ritalic_r four-dimensional subspaces that are orthogonal to each other, i.e., 𝕍j(ij𝕍i)subscript𝕍𝑗superscriptsubscriptdirect-sum𝑖𝑗subscript𝕍𝑖perpendicular-to\mathbb{V}_{j}\subseteq\bigl{(}\bigoplus_{i\neq j}\mathbb{V}_{i}\bigr{)}^{\perp}blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ ( ⨁ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≠ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for all j=1,,r𝑗1𝑟j=1,\dots,ritalic_j = 1 , … , italic_r. Let 𝕎0(i=1r𝕍i)subscript𝕎0superscriptsuperscriptsubscriptdirect-sum𝑖1𝑟subscript𝕍𝑖perpendicular-to\mathbb{W}_{0}\subseteq\bigl{(}\bigoplus_{i=1}^{r}\mathbb{V}_{i}\bigr{)}^{\perp}blackboard_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊆ ( ⨁ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟂ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a (k2r)𝑘2𝑟(k-2r)( italic_k - 2 italic_r )-dimensional subspace. We define the embedding

ε:Gr(2,𝕍1)××Gr(2,𝕍r)Gr(k,n),(𝕎1,,𝕎r)𝕎0𝕎1𝕎r.:𝜀formulae-sequenceGr2subscript𝕍1Gr2subscript𝕍𝑟Gr𝑘superscript𝑛maps-tosubscript𝕎1subscript𝕎𝑟direct-sumsubscript𝕎0subscript𝕎1subscript𝕎𝑟\varepsilon:\operatorname{Gr}(2,\mathbb{V}_{1})\times\cdots\times\operatorname% {Gr}(2,\mathbb{V}_{r})\to\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n}),\quad(\mathbb{W}_% {1},\dots,\mathbb{W}_{r})\mapsto\mathbb{W}_{0}\oplus\mathbb{W}_{1}\oplus\dots% \oplus\mathbb{W}_{r}.italic_ε : roman_Gr ( 2 , blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) × ⋯ × roman_Gr ( 2 , blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) → roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , ( blackboard_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , blackboard_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ↦ blackboard_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ blackboard_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ blackboard_W start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .

Clearly, the image of ε𝜀\varepsilonitalic_ε is totally geodesic. By [49, Section 4], since 𝕍isubscript𝕍𝑖\mathbb{V}_{i}blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is four-dimensional, Gr(2,𝕍i)Gr2subscript𝕍𝑖\operatorname{Gr}(2,\mathbb{V}_{i})roman_Gr ( 2 , blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) contains a geodesic 2222-sphere111When 𝕍𝕍\mathbb{V}blackboard_V is four-dimensional, any maximal subset of mutually isoclinic 2222-planes in Gr(2,𝕍)Gr2𝕍\operatorname{Gr}(2,\mathbb{V})roman_Gr ( 2 , blackboard_V ) is a geodesic 2222-sphere. Σi2subscriptsuperscriptΣ2𝑖\Sigma^{2}_{i}roman_Σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for each i=1,,r𝑖1𝑟i=1,\dots,ritalic_i = 1 , … , italic_r. The restriction of ε𝜀\varepsilonitalic_ε to Σ12××Σr2S2××S2subscriptsuperscriptΣ21subscriptsuperscriptΣ2𝑟superscriptS2superscriptS2\Sigma^{2}_{1}\times\dots\times\Sigma^{2}_{r}\cong\mathrm{S}^{2}\times\dots% \times\mathrm{S}^{2}roman_Σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT × ⋯ × roman_Σ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≅ roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × ⋯ × roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (r𝑟ritalic_r copies) gives the desired embedding in (a).

For (b), we will need to use the involution model. By Corollary 5.3, κQ(X,Y)14subscriptκ𝑄𝑋𝑌14\upkappa_{Q}(X,Y)\leq\frac{1}{4}roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) ≤ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG for any QGr(k,n)𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛Q\in\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_Q ∈ roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) and orthonormal X,Y𝕋QGr(k,n)𝑋𝑌subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛X,Y\in\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)italic_X , italic_Y ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ). By [49, Theorem 5], κQ(X,Y)=14subscriptκ𝑄𝑋𝑌14\upkappa_{Q}(X,Y)=\frac{1}{4}roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X , italic_Y ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG if and only if X𝑋Xitalic_X and Y𝑌Yitalic_Y are tangent vectors of a geodesic 2222-sphere in Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) passing through Q𝑄Qitalic_Q. Note that X𝑋Xitalic_X and Y𝑌Yitalic_Y must span the tangent space of this geodesic 2222-sphere. We set k1k/2subscript𝑘1𝑘2k_{1}\coloneqq\lfloor k/2\rflooritalic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ⌊ italic_k / 2 ⌋, k2(nk)/2subscript𝑘2𝑛𝑘2k_{2}\coloneqq\lfloor(n-k)/2\rflooritalic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ⌊ ( italic_n - italic_k ) / 2 ⌋ as in the proof of Theorem 5.5, and also r2k1k2𝑟2subscript𝑘1subscript𝑘2r\coloneqq 2k_{1}k_{2}italic_r ≔ 2 italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Consider the commutative diagram

φ1(U)superscript𝜑1𝑈{{\varphi^{-1}(U)}}italic_φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U )2×22×2r/2 copiessuperscriptdirect-sumsuperscript22superscript22𝑟2 copies{{\overbrace{\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}\oplus\cdots\oplus\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}}^{% r/2\text{ copies}}}}over⏞ start_ARG blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 × 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊕ ⋯ ⊕ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 × 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r / 2 copies end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT𝕋Ik,nkGr(k,n)subscript𝕋subscript𝐼𝑘𝑛𝑘Gr𝑘𝑛{{\mathbb{T}_{I_{k,n-k}}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)}}blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k , italic_n - italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n )U𝑈{U}italic_U(S2×S2)××(S2×S2)r/2 copiessubscriptsuperscriptS2superscriptS2superscriptS2superscriptS2𝑟2 copies{{\underbrace{(\mathrm{S}^{2}\times\mathrm{S}^{2})\times\cdots\times(\mathrm{S% }^{2}\times\mathrm{S}^{2})}_{r/2\text{ copies}}}}under⏟ start_ARG ( roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) × ⋯ × ( roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r / 2 copies end_POSTSUBSCRIPTGr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛{{\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)}}roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n )ρ𝜌\scriptstyle{\rho}italic_ρφ𝜑\scriptstyle{\varphi}italic_φψ𝜓\scriptstyle{\psi}italic_ψφ1superscript𝜑1\scriptstyle{\varphi^{-1}}italic_φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPTψρφ1𝜓𝜌superscript𝜑1\scriptstyle{\psi\mathbin{\mathchoice{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\scriptstyle% \circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\scriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$% \scriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle% \scriptscriptstyle\circ$}}}}\rho\mathbin{\mathchoice{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle% \scriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\scriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{% \hbox{$\scriptstyle\scriptscriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle% \scriptscriptstyle\circ$}}}}\varphi^{-1}}italic_ψ ∘ italic_ρ ∘ italic_φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

where φ,ψ𝜑𝜓\varphi,\psiitalic_φ , italic_ψ are the exponential maps on the respective tangent spaces, U𝑈Uitalic_U is an open subset of S2××S2superscriptS2superscriptS2\mathrm{S}^{2}\times\dots\times\mathrm{S}^{2}roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT × ⋯ × roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (r𝑟ritalic_r copies) on which φ1superscript𝜑1\varphi^{-1}italic_φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is well-defined, and ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ is the linear map defined by

(Bij)i,j=1k1,k2[00B1,1B1,k2+100Bk1+1,1Bk1+1,k2+1B1,1𝖳Bk1+1,1𝖳00B1,k2+1𝖳Bk1+1,k2+1𝖳00]maps-tosuperscriptsubscriptsubscript𝐵𝑖𝑗𝑖𝑗1subscript𝑘1subscript𝑘2matrix00subscript𝐵11subscript𝐵1subscript𝑘2100subscript𝐵subscript𝑘111subscript𝐵subscript𝑘11subscript𝑘21superscriptsubscript𝐵11𝖳superscriptsubscript𝐵subscript𝑘111𝖳00superscriptsubscript𝐵1subscript𝑘21𝖳superscriptsubscript𝐵subscript𝑘11subscript𝑘21𝖳00(B_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{k_{1},k_{2}}\mapsto\begin{bmatrix}0&\cdots&0&B_{1,1}&\cdots&% B_{1,k_{2}+1}\\ \vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&\cdots&0&B_{k_{1}+1,1}&\cdots&B_{k_{1}+1,k_{2}+1}\\ B_{1,1}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&\cdots&B_{k_{1}+1,1}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0&\cdots&0\\ \vdots&\ddots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ B_{1,k_{2}+1}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&\cdots&B_{k_{1}+1,k_{2}+1}^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0&\cdots&0\end{bmatrix}( italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ↦ [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL start_CELL ⋱ end_CELL start_CELL ⋮ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 , italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL ⋯ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ]

where we have used the same notation as in the proof of Theorem 5.5 and set Bpqsubscript𝐵𝑝𝑞B_{pq}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be the zero matrix if either p=k1+1𝑝subscript𝑘11p=k_{1}+1italic_p = italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 or q=k2+1𝑞subscript𝑘21q=k_{2}+1italic_q = italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1. As in the proof of Theorem 5.5, we may choose an orthonormal basis X1,Y1,X2,Y2subscript𝑋1subscript𝑌1subscript𝑋2subscript𝑌2X_{1},Y_{1},X_{2},Y_{2}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for each copy of 2×2superscript22\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 × 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that κQ(ρ(X1),ρ(Y1))=κQ(ρ(X2),ρ(Y2))=14subscriptκ𝑄𝜌subscript𝑋1𝜌subscript𝑌1subscriptκ𝑄𝜌subscript𝑋2𝜌subscript𝑌214\upkappa_{Q}(\rho(X_{1}),\rho(Y_{1}))=\upkappa_{Q}(\rho(X_{2}),\rho(Y_{2}))=% \frac{1}{4}roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ρ ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_ρ ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = roman_κ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ρ ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_ρ ( italic_Y start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG. By shrinking U𝑈Uitalic_U if necessary, we may assume that ψ𝜓\psiitalic_ψ is injective on ρ(φ1(U))𝜌superscript𝜑1𝑈\rho(\varphi^{-1}(U))italic_ρ ( italic_φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ) ). Hence ψρφ1(U)𝜓𝜌superscript𝜑1𝑈\psi\mathbin{\mathchoice{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$% \scriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$% \scriptscriptstyle\circ$}}}}\rho\mathbin{\mathchoice{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle% \circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle% \circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\circ$}}}}\varphi^{-1}(U)italic_ψ ∘ italic_ρ ∘ italic_φ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_U ) is the required open subset in (b). ∎

Suppose k𝑘kitalic_k and n𝑛nitalic_n are both even. Then the upper bound in Theorem 6.5(b) is r=k(nk)/2𝑟𝑘𝑛𝑘2r=k(n-k)/2italic_r = italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) / 2. This is sharp as the dimension of the product of r+1𝑟1r+1italic_r + 1 copies of S2superscriptS2\mathrm{S}^{2}roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is k(nk)+2𝑘𝑛𝑘2k(n-k)+2italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) + 2 and it exceeds the dimension of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ); so a product of r+1𝑟1r+1italic_r + 1 copies of S2superscriptS2\mathrm{S}^{2}roman_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cannot be embedded in Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ).

7. Why we favor the involution model

As we alluded to in Section 1, a secondary goal of this article is to demonstrate the advantages of using the involution model (2). Here we will make some comparisons with other common models of the Grassmannian in algebraic geometry (Section 7.1), differential geometry (Section 7.2), and integral geometry (Section 7.3).

To elaborate, as an abstract manifold, the Grassmannian Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is just the set of k𝑘kitalic_k-planes in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. While any manifold, by definition, can be given local coordinates, experience tells us that they are rarely useful beyond basic proofs — nobody really works with charts and atlases outside a first course in differential geometry. Especially in applied mathematics, but also in pure mathematics, the preferred approach is to give Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) a system of global, extrinsic coordinates that are easier to work with — this is what we mean by a model for Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

7.1. Plücker model

The standard model of the Grassmannian in algebraic geometry (see [21, Lecture 6] and [41, Chapter 1, Section 4.1]) is as the set of rank-one alternating tensors in projective space, i.e., the image of the Plücker embedding:

Gr(k,n){[v1vk](Λk(n)):v1,,vkn linearly independent}.Gr𝑘superscript𝑛conditional-setdelimited-[]subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣𝑘superscriptsans-serif-Λ𝑘superscript𝑛subscript𝑣1subscript𝑣𝑘superscript𝑛 linearly independent\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})\cong\bigl{\{}[v_{1}\wedge\dots\wedge v_{k}% ]\in\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{\mathsf{\Lambda}}^{k}(\mathbb{R}^{n})):v_{1},% \dots,v_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\text{ linearly independent}\bigr{\}}.roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≅ { [ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∧ ⋯ ∧ italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ∈ blackboard_P ( sansserif_Λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) : italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_v start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT linearly independent } .

While this has some desirable mathematical properties [31, Section 1], its main issue is that the ambient space (Λk(n))superscriptsans-serif-Λ𝑘superscript𝑛\mathbb{P}(\operatorname{\mathsf{\Lambda}}^{k}(\mathbb{R}^{n}))blackboard_P ( sansserif_Λ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ) is a manifold of exceedingly high dimension (nk)1binomial𝑛𝑘1\binom{n}{k}-1( FRACOP start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG ) - 1. This not only presents a computational conundrum but also results in complex expressions for even relatively basic quantities. For example, the second fundamental form has been derived in [1, Lemma 2.1 and Proposition 2.3] for the Plücker model and both its calculation and the expression are significantly more involved than those appearing in this article. In fact for even moderate values of k𝑘kitalic_k the expressions in [1] are next-to-impossible to use or even compute since they involve lengthy sums of high order tensors.

One observation from the extrinsic curvatures calculated in Section 4 is that the involution model is extremely unlike the Plücker model. For example, the mean curvature of the image of the Plücker embedding is well-known to be zero but it is far from zero in the involution model, as we saw in Corollary 4.6. Given that the mean curvature is determined by the second fundamental form, this shows that the second fundamental forms of both models must be different and therefore so are their Gaussian and principal curvatures.

7.2. Quotient models

The most common models of the Grassmannian in differential geometry (see [25, Chapter VII] and [8, Chapter 9]) are as one of several quotient spaces:

(16) Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\displaystyle\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) O(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))absentO𝑛O𝑘O𝑛𝑘\displaystyle\cong\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(% k)\times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}≅ roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) )
V(k,n)/O(k)absentV𝑘𝑛O𝑘\displaystyle\cong\operatorname{V}(k,n)/\operatorname{O}(k)≅ roman_V ( italic_k , italic_n ) / roman_O ( italic_k )
GL(n)/(GL(k)×GL(nk))absentGL𝑛GL𝑘GL𝑛𝑘\displaystyle\cong\operatorname{GL}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{GL% }(k)\times\operatorname{GL}(n-k)\bigr{)}≅ roman_GL ( italic_n ) / ( roman_GL ( italic_k ) × roman_GL ( italic_n - italic_k ) )
St(k,n)/GL(k),absentSt𝑘𝑛GL𝑘\displaystyle\cong\operatorname{St}(k,n)/\operatorname{GL}(k),≅ roman_St ( italic_k , italic_n ) / roman_GL ( italic_k ) ,

where V(k,n){Vn×k:V𝖳V=I}V𝑘𝑛conditional-set𝑉superscript𝑛𝑘superscript𝑉𝖳𝑉𝐼\operatorname{V}(k,n)\coloneqq\{V\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times k}:V^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}V=I\}roman_V ( italic_k , italic_n ) ≔ { italic_V ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_V = italic_I } and St(k,n){Xn×k:rank(X)=k}St𝑘𝑛conditional-set𝑋superscript𝑛𝑘rank𝑋𝑘\operatorname{St}(k,n)\coloneqq\{X\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times k}:\operatorname{rank% }(X)=k\}roman_St ( italic_k , italic_n ) ≔ { italic_X ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : roman_rank ( italic_X ) = italic_k } are two common models for the Stiefel manifold of k𝑘kitalic_k-frames in nsuperscript𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. As usual O(n)=V(n,n)O𝑛V𝑛𝑛\operatorname{O}(n)=\operatorname{V}(n,n)roman_O ( italic_n ) = roman_V ( italic_n , italic_n ) and GL(n)=St(n,n)GL𝑛St𝑛𝑛\operatorname{GL}(n)=\operatorname{St}(n,n)roman_GL ( italic_n ) = roman_St ( italic_n , italic_n ) denote the orthogonal and general linear groups respectively.

By exploiting their homogeneous space structures, the more basic intrinsic curvatures such as Riemann, Ricci, and sectional curvatures of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) are standard calculations that are classical in differential geometry [9, 16, 40]. However, the use of quotient spaces inevitably gives rise to formulas involving horizontal lifts of tangent vectors and arbitrary representatives of equivalence classes. This introduces layer upon layer of ambiguities requiring multiple arbitrary choices.

We will walk the reader through the calculation of Riemann curvature in O(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))O𝑛O𝑘O𝑛𝑘\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)\times% \operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) to illustrate the case in point. We will delimit equivalence classes in delimited-⟦⟧\llbracket\,\cdot\,\rrbracket⟦ ⋅ ⟧ below. In this model,

  1. (i)

    a point QO(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))\llbracket Q\rrbracket\in\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}% \operatorname{O}(k)\times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}⟦ italic_Q ⟧ ∈ roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) is a coset

    Q={Q[Q100Q2]O(n):(Q1,Q2)O(k)×O(nk)},\llbracket Q\rrbracket=\left\{Q\begin{bmatrix}Q_{1}&0\\ 0&Q_{2}\end{bmatrix}\in\operatorname{O}(n):(Q_{1},Q_{2})\in\operatorname{O}(k)% \times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\right\},⟦ italic_Q ⟧ = { italic_Q [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ∈ roman_O ( italic_n ) : ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) } ,

    for some QO(n)𝑄O𝑛Q\in\operatorname{O}(n)italic_Q ∈ roman_O ( italic_n ) but Q𝑄Qitalic_Q is not canonically given;

  2. (ii)

    a tangent vector XQ𝕋QO(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}\in\mathbb{T}_{\llbracket Q% \rrbracket}\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)% \times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) is an equivalence class of pairs

    XQ={(Q,X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk))O(n)×𝔰𝔬(n)/(𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk))}/\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}=\bigl{\{}\bigl{(}Q,X+\mathfrak% {so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k)\bigr{)}\in\operatorname{O}(n)\times\mathfrak{% so}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\mathfrak{so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k)\bigr{)}% \bigr{\}}\!\!\Bigm{/}\sim⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ( italic_Q , italic_X + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) ∈ roman_O ( italic_n ) × fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n ) / ( fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) } / ∼

    where the equivalence relation is defined by

    (Q,X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk))(Q,X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk))similar-to𝑄direct-sum𝑋𝔰𝔬𝑘𝔰𝔬𝑛𝑘superscript𝑄direct-sumsuperscript𝑋𝔰𝔬𝑘𝔰𝔬𝑛𝑘\bigl{(}Q,X+\mathfrak{so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k)\bigr{)}\sim\bigl{(}Q^{% \prime},X^{\prime}+\mathfrak{so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k)\bigr{)}( italic_Q , italic_X + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) ∼ ( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ) )

    if and only if there is some (Q1,Q2)O(k)×O(nk)subscript𝑄1subscript𝑄2O𝑘O𝑛𝑘(Q_{1},Q_{2})\in\operatorname{O}(k)\times\operatorname{O}(n-k)( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) with

    (17) Qsuperscript𝑄\displaystyle Q^{\prime}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT =Q[Q100Q2],absent𝑄matrixsubscript𝑄100subscript𝑄2\displaystyle=Q\begin{bmatrix}Q_{1}&0\\ 0&Q_{2}\end{bmatrix},= italic_Q [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ,
    X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk)direct-sumsuperscript𝑋𝔰𝔬𝑘𝔰𝔬𝑛𝑘\displaystyle X^{\prime}+\mathfrak{so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k)italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ) =[Q100Q2]𝖳(X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk))[Q100Q2].absentsuperscriptmatrixsubscript𝑄100subscript𝑄2𝖳direct-sum𝑋𝔰𝔬𝑘𝔰𝔬𝑛𝑘matrixsubscript𝑄100subscript𝑄2\displaystyle=\begin{bmatrix}Q_{1}&0\\ 0&Q_{2}\end{bmatrix}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\bigl{(}X+\mathfrak{so}(k)% \oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k)\bigr{)}\begin{bmatrix}Q_{1}&0\\ 0&Q_{2}\end{bmatrix}.= [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] .

Evidently, in this model even an object as basic as a tangent vector is an equivalence class (defined by similar-to\sim) of equivalence classes (the coset X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk)direct-sum𝑋𝔰𝔬𝑘𝔰𝔬𝑛𝑘X+\mathfrak{so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k)italic_X + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k )). Every layer of equivalence relations introduces a layer of ambiguity but more importantly it often takes additional effort in the form extra calculations or computations.

Writing down a tangent vector XQ\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as a pair of actual matrices (Q0,X0)subscript𝑄0subscript𝑋0(Q_{0},X_{0})( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) requires making three arbitrary choices: first a representative Q0subscript𝑄0Q_{0}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Qdelimited-⟦⟧𝑄\llbracket Q\rrbracket⟦ italic_Q ⟧, followed by a representative (Q,X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk))superscript𝑄direct-sumsuperscript𝑋𝔰𝔬𝑘𝔰𝔬𝑛𝑘(Q^{\prime},X^{\prime}+\mathfrak{so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k))( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) of XQ\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and finally a representative X0subscript𝑋0X_{0}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk)direct-sumsuperscript𝑋𝔰𝔬𝑘𝔰𝔬𝑛𝑘X^{\prime}+\mathfrak{so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k)italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ). Note that these cannot be chosen arbitrarily nor a priori but need to satisfy (17). We will give the details below.

We begin by picking a representative Q0π1(Q)O(n)Q_{0}\in\pi^{-1}(\llbracket Q\rrbracket)\subseteq\operatorname{O}(n)italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ ) ⊆ roman_O ( italic_n ) where π:O(n)O(n)/(O(k)×O(nk)):𝜋O𝑛O𝑛O𝑘O𝑛𝑘\pi:\operatorname{O}(n)\to\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}% \operatorname{O}(k)\times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}italic_π : roman_O ( italic_n ) → roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) is the quotient map, a Riemannian submersion. To construct the horizontal lift X0𝕋QO(n)subscript𝑋0subscript𝕋𝑄O𝑛X_{0}\in\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{O}(n)italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_O ( italic_n ) of a tangent vector XQ𝕋QO(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}\in\mathbb{T}_{\llbracket Q% \rrbracket}\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)% \times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ), the recommendation in the classic article of Edelman–Arias–Smith [17] is to use the isomorphism

dQπ:{Yn×n:Q𝖳Y=[0BB𝖳0],Bk×(nk)}𝕋QO(n)/(O(k)×O(nk)),:subscript𝑑𝑄𝜋conditional-set𝑌superscript𝑛𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑄𝖳𝑌matrix0𝐵superscript𝐵𝖳0𝐵superscript𝑘𝑛𝑘subscript𝕋delimited-⟦⟧𝑄O𝑛O𝑘O𝑛𝑘d_{Q}\pi:\left\{Y\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}:Q^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}Y=% \begin{bmatrix}0&B\\ -B^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix},\;B\in\mathbb{R}^{k\times(n-k% )}\right\}\to\mathbb{T}_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/% }\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)\times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)},italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π : { italic_Y ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n × italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Y = [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_B end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - italic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] , italic_B ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k × ( italic_n - italic_k ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } → blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) ,

defined for any QO(n)𝑄O𝑛Q\in\operatorname{O}(n)italic_Q ∈ roman_O ( italic_n ) and XQ𝕋QO(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}\in\mathbb{T}_{\llbracket Q% \rrbracket}\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)% \times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ), and then compute the horizontal lift as X0(dQ0π)1(XQ0)X_{0}\coloneqq(d_{Q_{0}}\pi)^{-1}(\llbracket X\rrbracket_{Q_{0}})italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).

To get X0subscript𝑋0X_{0}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT explicitly as a matrix, we will need to pick a representative (Q,X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk))superscript𝑄direct-sumsuperscript𝑋𝔰𝔬𝑘𝔰𝔬𝑛𝑘(Q^{\prime},X^{\prime}+\mathfrak{so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k))( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) for XQ0\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q_{0}\rrbracket}⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT followed by a representative X^^𝑋\widehat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG of X+𝔰𝔬(k)𝔰𝔬(nk))X^{\prime}+\mathfrak{so}(k)\oplus\mathfrak{so}(n-k))italic_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_k ) ⊕ fraktur_s fraktur_o ( italic_n - italic_k ) ). Observe that we cannot simply set Qsuperscript𝑄Q^{\prime}italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT to be Q0subscript𝑄0Q_{0}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT since (Q0,X^)subscript𝑄0^𝑋(Q_{0},\widehat{X})( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ) will not satisfy (17) in general. Indeed, as we require

(Q,X^)(Q0,(Q𝖳Q0)𝖳X^(Q𝖳Q0)),similar-tosuperscript𝑄^𝑋subscript𝑄0superscriptsuperscriptsuperscript𝑄𝖳subscript𝑄0𝖳^𝑋superscriptsuperscript𝑄𝖳subscript𝑄0\bigl{(}Q^{\prime},\widehat{X}\bigr{)}\sim(Q_{0},\bigl{(}{Q^{\prime}}^{{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}}Q_{0})^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\widehat{X}% ({Q^{\prime}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}}Q_{0})\bigr{)},( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ) ∼ ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) ,

we will need to compute X0subscript𝑋0X_{0}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as

X0=Q0(Q𝖳Q0)𝖳[0B^B^𝖳0](Q𝖳Q0)=Q[0B^B^𝖳0]Q𝖳Q0,subscript𝑋0subscript𝑄0superscriptsuperscriptsuperscript𝑄𝖳subscript𝑄0𝖳matrix0^𝐵superscript^𝐵𝖳0superscriptsuperscript𝑄𝖳subscript𝑄0superscript𝑄matrix0^𝐵superscript^𝐵𝖳0superscript𝑄𝖳subscript𝑄0X_{0}=Q_{0}({Q^{\prime}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}}Q_{0})^{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}\begin{bmatrix}0&\widehat{B}\\ -\widehat{B}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}({Q^{\prime}}^{{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}}Q_{0})=Q^{\prime}\begin{bmatrix}0&\widehat{B}\\ -\widehat{B}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}&0\end{bmatrix}Q^{\prime{% \scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}}Q_{0},italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL over^ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - over^ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] ( italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ start_ARG start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL over^ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL - over^ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARG ] italic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

with B^^𝐵\widehat{B}over^ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG the upper right k×(nk)𝑘𝑛𝑘k\times(n-k)italic_k × ( italic_n - italic_k ) submatrix of X^^𝑋\widehat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG.

It might appear that to compute the Riemann curvature222The expression comes from applying the standard method for calculating Riemann curvature on a quotient model of any symmetric space [23, Theorem 4.2]. at QO(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))\llbracket Q\rrbracket\in\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}% \operatorname{O}(k)\times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}⟦ italic_Q ⟧ ∈ roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ), we simply follow the procedure above to compute horizontal lifts X,Y,Z,W𝕋QO(n)𝑋𝑌𝑍𝑊subscript𝕋𝑄O𝑛X,Y,Z,W\in\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{O}(n)italic_X , italic_Y , italic_Z , italic_W ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_O ( italic_n ) of XQ,YQ,ZQ,WQ𝕋QO(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket},\llbracket Y\rrbracket_{% \llbracket Q\rrbracket},\llbracket Z\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket},% \llbracket W\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}\in\mathbb{T}_{\llbracket Q% \rrbracket}\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)% \times\operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⟦ italic_Y ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⟦ italic_Z ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , ⟦ italic_W ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) and evaluate the expression on the right hand-side:

(18) 𝖱𝗂𝖾(X,Y,Z,W)=14[[X,Y],Z],W.\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}(\llbracket X\rrbracket,\llbracket Y\rrbracket,% \llbracket Z\rrbracket,\llbracket W\rrbracket)=-\frac{1}{4}\langle[[X,Y],Z],W\rangle.sansserif_Rie ( ⟦ italic_X ⟧ , ⟦ italic_Y ⟧ , ⟦ italic_Z ⟧ , ⟦ italic_W ⟧ ) = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ⟨ [ [ italic_X , italic_Y ] , italic_Z ] , italic_W ⟩ .

But this is a notational illusion. Even if we start from the same representative Q0π1(Q)O(n)Q_{0}\in\pi^{-1}(\llbracket Q\rrbracket)\subseteq\operatorname{O}(n)italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ ) ⊆ roman_O ( italic_n ), the procedure above will yield horizontal lifts of tangents vectors at different representatives QX,QY,QZ,QWπ1(Q)Q_{X}^{\prime},Q_{Y}^{\prime},Q_{Z}^{\prime},Q_{W}^{\prime}\in\pi^{-1}(% \llbracket Q\rrbracket)italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_π start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ ). There is no guarantee that QX=QY=QZ=QW=Q0superscriptsubscript𝑄𝑋superscriptsubscript𝑄𝑌superscriptsubscript𝑄𝑍superscriptsubscript𝑄𝑊subscript𝑄0Q_{X}^{\prime}=Q_{Y}^{\prime}=Q_{Z}^{\prime}=Q_{W}^{\prime}=Q_{0}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and extra steps are necessary to align these different representatives. To align QXsuperscriptsubscript𝑄𝑋Q_{X}^{\prime}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with Q0subscript𝑄0Q_{0}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we need to compute the horizontal lift of XQ\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at Q0subscript𝑄0Q_{0}italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as

(dQ0π)1(XQ)=Q0PX𝖳QX𝖳(dQXπ)1(XQ)PX=(dQXπ)1(XQ)PX,(d_{Q_{0}}\pi)^{-1}(\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket})=Q_{0}P_{X% }^{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}}{Q_{X}^{\prime}}^{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{% T}}(d_{Q_{X}^{\prime}}\pi)^{-1}(\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket% })P_{X}=(d_{Q_{X}^{\prime}}\pi)^{-1}(\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q% \rrbracket})P_{X},( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,

where PX(QX)𝖳Q0subscript𝑃𝑋superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑄𝑋𝖳subscript𝑄0P_{X}\coloneqq(Q_{X}^{\prime})^{{\scriptscriptstyle\mathsf{T}}}Q_{0}italic_P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≔ ( italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. This process has to be repeated four times to get

(dQ0π)1(XQ),(dQ0π)1(YQ),(dQ0π)1(ZQ),(dQ0π)1(WQ)(d_{Q_{0}}\pi)^{-1}(\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}),\quad(d_{% Q_{0}}\pi)^{-1}(\llbracket Y\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}),\quad(d_{Q_{0% }}\pi)^{-1}(\llbracket Z\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}),\quad(d_{Q_{0}}% \pi)^{-1}(\llbracket W\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket})( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_Y ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_Z ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , ( italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_π ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( ⟦ italic_W ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )

before we may evaluate (18).

Contrast this with Proposition 5.1, where the calculation of Riemann curvature in the involution model avoids all these issues and the derivation of its expression is essentially a one-liner. It is important to point out that although the expression in (18) superficially resembles our expression in Proposition 5.1, this is also a notational illusion — they are completely different. The easiest way to see this is by observing that the matrices in (18) are all skew-symmetric whereas those in Proposition 5.1 are all symmetric.

The goal of Edelman, Arias, and Smith in [17] is to extend line search optimization methods to a function f:O(n)/(O(k)×O(nk)):𝑓O𝑛O𝑘O𝑛𝑘f:\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)\times% \operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}\to\mathbb{R}italic_f : roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ) → blackboard_R. By and large this permits them to work with one search direction, i.e., a single tangent vector XQ\llbracket X\rrbracket_{\llbracket Q\rrbracket}⟦ italic_X ⟧ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟦ italic_Q ⟧ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, at every point Qdelimited-⟦⟧𝑄\llbracket Q\rrbracket⟦ italic_Q ⟧. As a result, one could get around the problem by optimizing fπ:O(n):𝑓𝜋O𝑛f\mathbin{\mathchoice{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$% \scriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\circ$}}}{\vbox{\hbox{$% \scriptscriptstyle\circ$}}}}\pi:\operatorname{O}(n)\to\mathbb{R}italic_f ∘ italic_π : roman_O ( italic_n ) → blackboard_R along horizontal directions. In the calculation of curvatures, we are required to work with four tangent vectors simultaneously and thus the alignment of different representatives of a given pair of equivalence classes cannot be avoided.

Although we have elected to make our point with O(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))O𝑛O𝑘O𝑛𝑘\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)\times% \operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ), the issues identified above apply to every quotient model in (16). The root of these issues is that there is no global way to describe tangent vectors of Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘superscript𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) in any of these quotient models. Indeed, the absence of such a global description is the reason why expressions for various curvatures in [48, 49, 9, 40, 16] can only be given locally. The same reason accounts for the expediency of the involution model — not only does it describe all points on the Grassmannian (2), it describes all tangent vectors at all point in a single unified way (9).

7.3. Projection model

The standard model of the Grassmannian in integral geometry (see [36, Chapter 9] and [34, Chapter 3]) is as the set of projection matrices:

(19) Gr(k,n){P𝕊n:P2=P,tr(P)=k}.Gr𝑘superscript𝑛conditional-set𝑃superscript𝕊𝑛formulae-sequencesuperscript𝑃2𝑃tr𝑃𝑘\operatorname{Gr}(k,\mathbb{R}^{n})\cong\{P\in\mathbb{S}^{n}:P^{2}=P,\;% \operatorname{tr}(P)=k\}.roman_Gr ( italic_k , blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ≅ { italic_P ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_P , roman_tr ( italic_P ) = italic_k } .

This is the model closest to the involution model. Indeed we showed in [31, Theorem 6.1] that they are two instances in an infinite family of such models parameterized by the condition number of matrices used. However they are also on two opposite ends: The projection model is the unique model in this family that represents points as singular matrices (infinitely ill-conditioned) whereas the involution model is the unique model in this family that represents points as orthogonal matrices (perfectly conditioned). Every other model in this family represents points with matrices of condition number strictly between one and infinity.

In numerical computations, methods based on projection matrices [44, Lecture 8] are well-known to be significantly less stable than methods based on orthogonal matrices [44, Lecture 10] — in fact this comparison is famously used to illustrate numerical stability of algorithms.

In hand calculations, the singularity of projection matrices in (19) is a handicap, especially when contrasted against the ease of inverting orthogonal matrices (with a reminder that matrices in (2) are automatically orthogonal).

The equations defining (19) are also less convenient than those defining (2). Any calculations involving tangent vectors in the involution model would require one to differentiate Q2=Isuperscript𝑄2𝐼Q^{2}=Iitalic_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_I to get XQ+QX=0𝑋𝑄𝑄𝑋0XQ+QX=0italic_X italic_Q + italic_Q italic_X = 0. But doing the same in the projection model would require one to differentiate P2=Psuperscript𝑃2𝑃P^{2}=Pitalic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_P to get XP+PX=X𝑋𝑃𝑃𝑋𝑋XP+PX=Xitalic_X italic_P + italic_P italic_X = italic_X. The latter is more difficult to use than the former; indeed any calculation involving the latter would usually involve a change of coordinates P2PImaps-to𝑃2𝑃𝐼P\mapsto 2P-Iitalic_P ↦ 2 italic_P - italic_I to simplify but that yields exactly the involution model since Q=2PI𝑄2𝑃𝐼Q=2P-Iitalic_Q = 2 italic_P - italic_I [27, Proposition 3.5]. Nevertheless, because of this relation between the two models, every expression we derived for the involution model in this article gives one for the projection model, up to a constant factor.

The result [19, Proposition 13] comes close to obtaining the principal curvatures in Corollary 4.7 using the projection model. Nevertheless, while (19) was used to model the manifold, the tangent spaces in [19] were still modeled as horizontal spaces in the quotient model O(n)/(O(k)×O(nk))O𝑛O𝑘O𝑛𝑘\operatorname{O}(n)\!\!\bigm{/}\!\!\bigl{(}\operatorname{O}(k)\times% \operatorname{O}(n-k)\bigr{)}roman_O ( italic_n ) / ( roman_O ( italic_k ) × roman_O ( italic_n - italic_k ) ), making the messy calculations in Section 7.2 all but unavoidable.

8. Conclusion

In studying curvatures, it is helpful to have an illuminating instance of a manifold \mathcal{M}caligraphic_M where all different forms of curvatures can be explicitly calculated and compared side-by-side like in Table 1. We are unaware of any nontrivial examples of this in the literature. The reason is clear in retrospect: For many of these curvatures, their defining equations in terms of local coordinates are near-impossible to calculate for anything more complex than a sphere. But even when embedded in msuperscript𝑚\mathbb{R}^{m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which one may do with Nash embedding, the resulting extrinsic coordinates are still difficult to use. The key to our simple formulas in this article is that we have embedded our manifold in a space of matrices, and matrices are endowed with far richer structures — we may multiply or decompose them; impose orthogonality or symmetry on them; calculate their determinant, norm, or rank; find their eigen- or singular values and vectors; among a myriad of yet other features

Future work

The multitude of curvatures discussed in this article might lead the reader to think that we have exhausted the topic. This is not the case.

Some tensors are beyond our reach. The obstruction tensor [18, Equation 3.25] is a 2222-tensor that equals the Bach tensor in Corollary 5.9 for four-dimensional manifolds but dimGr(k,n)4dimensionGr𝑘𝑛4\dim\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)\neq 4roman_dim roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ) ≠ 4 if (k,n){(1,5),(2,4)}𝑘𝑛1524(k,n)\notin\{(1,5),(2,4)\}( italic_k , italic_n ) ∉ { ( 1 , 5 ) , ( 2 , 4 ) }. The Lanczos tensor [28] is a 3333-tensor that is an antiderivative of the Weyl tensor in Corollary 5.8 and defined as a solution to partial differential equation, which we are not even sure has a solution for Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ). The Bel and Bel–Robinson tensors [7] are 4444-tensors constructed from the Weyl tensor that have never been calculated before for Gr(k,n)Gr𝑘𝑛\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ).

Although we have limited the discussions in this article to the Levi-Civita connection, the natural choice from the perspective of Riemannian geometry, we saw in Section 3.3 that there are other alternatives if we study the Grassmannian in the context of non-Riemannian geometry. In this case the torsion, nonmetricity, and cocurvature tensors discussed at the end of Section 3.2 may no longer be zero. Using a different connection permits us to study yet other curvatures like the contorsion tensor [6, Theorem 6.2.5], a 3333-tensor that quantifies its deviation from Levi-Civita.

When presented with a complicated d𝑑ditalic_d-tensor T𝕍d𝑇superscript𝕍tensor-productabsent𝑑T\in\mathbb{V}^{\otimes d}italic_T ∈ blackboard_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, a common gambit in mathematics and physics [2, 5, 33, 42, 43] is to decompose it by decomposing the space in which it lies. More precisely, for any group GGL(𝕍)𝐺GL𝕍G\subseteq\operatorname{GL}(\mathbb{V})italic_G ⊆ roman_GL ( blackboard_V ), we decompose 𝕍d=λG^𝕍λsuperscript𝕍tensor-productabsent𝑑subscriptdirect-sum𝜆^𝐺subscript𝕍𝜆\mathbb{V}^{\otimes d}=\bigoplus_{\lambda\in\widehat{G}}\mathbb{V}_{\lambda}blackboard_V start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⊗ italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ⨁ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ ∈ over^ start_ARG italic_G end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT into irreducible G𝐺Gitalic_G-submodules, giving a decomposition T=λG^Tλ𝑇subscript𝜆^𝐺subscript𝑇𝜆T=\sum_{\lambda\in\widehat{G}}T_{\lambda}italic_T = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ ∈ over^ start_ARG italic_G end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with Tλ𝕍λsubscript𝑇𝜆subscript𝕍𝜆T_{\lambda}\in\mathbb{V}_{\lambda}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. An example is the Ricci decomposition of the Riemann curvature into the scalar, traceless Ricci, and Weyl curvatures [5, Chapter 1, Section G],

𝖱𝗂𝖾=𝖶+1k(nk)2𝖹∧⃝𝗀+𝖲𝖼𝖺2k(nk)(k(nk)1)𝗀∧⃝𝗀,𝖱𝗂𝖾𝖶1𝑘𝑛𝑘2𝖹∧⃝𝗀𝖲𝖼𝖺2𝑘𝑛𝑘𝑘𝑛𝑘1𝗀∧⃝𝗀\operatorname{\mathsf{Rie}}=\mathsf{W}+\frac{1}{k(n-k)-2}\mathsf{Z}\varowedge% \mathsf{g}+\frac{\operatorname{\mathsf{Sca}}}{2k(n-k)\bigl{(}k(n-k)-1\bigr{)}}% \mathsf{g}\varowedge\mathsf{g},sansserif_Rie = sansserif_W + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 2 end_ARG sansserif_Z ∧⃝ sansserif_g + divide start_ARG sansserif_Sca end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) - 1 ) end_ARG sansserif_g ∧⃝ sansserif_g ,

which we have implicitly used in our definition of 𝖶𝖶\mathsf{W}sansserif_W; here d=4𝑑4d=4italic_d = 4, 𝕍=𝕋QGr(k,n)𝕍subscript𝕋𝑄Gr𝑘𝑛\mathbb{V}=\mathbb{T}_{Q}\operatorname{Gr}(k,n)blackboard_V = blackboard_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Gr ( italic_k , italic_n ), and G=O(k(nk))𝐺O𝑘𝑛𝑘G=\operatorname{O}\bigl{(}k(n-k)\bigr{)}italic_G = roman_O ( italic_k ( italic_n - italic_k ) ). It would be interesting to find similar relations among the curvatures in Table 1.

Last but not least, while manifold optimization is not one of our goals here, it remains at the back of our minds. Existing optimization algorithms almost exclusively rely on two quantities — gradient and Hessian. As shown in [13], it is certainly conceivable to use, say, the second fundamental form to optimize a smooth function. This and other curvatures computed in Table 1 may turn out to be useful in this regard.

References

  • [1] S. Anan’in and C. H. Grossi. Differential geometry of Grassmannians and the Plücker map. Cent. Eur. J. Math., 10(3):873–884, 2012.
  • [2] L. Bel. Définition d’une densité d’énergie et d’un état de radiation totale généralisée. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 246:3015–3018, 1958.
  • [3] T. Bendokat, R. Zimmermann, and P.-A. Absil. A Grassmann manifold handbook: basic geometry and computational aspects. Adv. Comput. Math., 50(1):Paper No. 6, 51, 2024.
  • [4] M. Berger and D. Ebin. Some decompositions of the space of symmetric tensors on a Riemannian manifold. J. Differential Geometry, 3:379–392, 1969.
  • [5] A. L. Besse. Einstein manifolds, volume 10 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
  • [6] D. Bleecker. Gauge theory and variational principles, volume 1 of Global Analysis Pure and Applied: Series A. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, MA, 1981.
  • [7] M. A. G. Bonilla and J. M. M. Senovilla. Some properties of the Bel and Bel-Robinson tensors. Gen. Relativity Gravitation, 29(1):91–116, 1997.
  • [8] W. M. Boothby. An introduction to differentiable manifolds and Riemannian geometry, volume 120 of Pure and Applied Mathematics. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, revised second edition, 2003.
  • [9] E. Cartan. Leçons sur la Géométrie des Espaces de Riemann. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, second edition, 1946.
  • [10] B.-Y. Chen. Some pinching and classification theorems for minimal submanifolds. Arch. Math. (Basel), 60(6):568–578, 1993.
  • [11] B.-Y. Chen. δ𝛿\deltaitalic_δ-invariants, inequalities of submanifolds and their applications. In Topics in differential geometry, pages 29–155. Ed. Acad. Române, Bucharest, 2008.
  • [12] Q. Chen and C. He. On Bach flat warped product Einstein manifolds. Pacific J. Math., 265(2):313–326, 2013.
  • [13] H.-B. Cheng, L.-T. Cheng, and S.-T. Yau. Minimization with the affine normal direction. Commun. Math. Sci., 3(4):561–574, 2005.
  • [14] S. S. Chern. On the minimal immersions of the two-sphere in a space of constant curvature. In Problems in analysis (Sympos. in honor of Salomon Bochner, Princeton Univ., Princeton, N.J., 1969), pages 27–40. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1970.
  • [15] S.-S. Chern and N. H. Kuiper. Some theorems on the isometric imbedding of compact Riemann manifolds in euclidean space. Ann. of Math., 56:422–430, 1952.
  • [16] M. P. do Carmo. Riemannian geometry. Mathematics: Theory & Applications. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, portuguese edition, 1992.
  • [17] A. Edelman, T. A. Arias, and S. T. Smith. The geometry of algorithms with orthogonality constraints. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 20(2):303–353, 1999.
  • [18] C. Fefferman and C. R. Graham. The ambient metric, volume 178 of Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2012.
  • [19] F. Feppon and P. F. J. Lermusiaux. The extrinsic geometry of dynamical systems tracking nonlinear matrix projections. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 40(2):814–844, 2019.
  • [20] P. Griffiths and J. Harris. Algebraic geometry and local differential geometry. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), 12(3):355–452, 1979.
  • [21] J. Harris. Algebraic geometry, volume 133 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.
  • [22] F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke, and Y. Ne’eman. Metric-affine gauge theory of gravity: field equations, Noether identities, world spinors, and breaking of dilation invariance. Phys. Rep., 258(1-2):1–171, 1995.
  • [23] S. Helgason. Differential geometry, Lie groups, and symmetric spaces, volume 34 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001. Corrected reprint of the 1978 original.
  • [24] S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu. Foundations of differential geometry. Vol. I. Wiley Classics Library. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1996.
  • [25] S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu. Foundations of differential geometry. Vol. II. Wiley Classics Library. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1996.
  • [26] I. Kolář, P. W. Michor, and J. Slovák. Natural operations in differential geometry. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993.
  • [27] Z. Lai, L.-H. Lim, and K. Ye. Simpler grassmannian optimization. arXiv:2009.13502, 2020.
  • [28] C. Lanczos. Lagrangian multiplier and Riemannian spaces. Rev. Modern Physics, 21:497–502, 1949.
  • [29] A. J. Ledger. Geodesic spheres on Grassmann manifolds. Yokohama Math. J., 34(1-2):59–71, 1986.
  • [30] J. M. Lee. Introduction to Riemannian manifolds, volume 176 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, second edition, 2018.
  • [31] L.-H. Lim and K. Ye. Degree of the grassmannian as an affine variety. arXiv:2405.05128, 2024.
  • [32] A. Machado and I. Salavessa. Grassman manifolds as subsets of euclidean spaces, 2021.
  • [33] A. Matte. Sur de nouvelles solutions oscillatoires de équations de la gravitation. Canad. J. Math., 5:1–16, 1953.
  • [34] P. Mattila. Geometry of sets and measures in Euclidean spaces, volume 44 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.
  • [35] P. W. Michor. Graded derivations of the algebra of differential forms associated with a connection. In Differential geometry (Peñíscola, 1988), volume 1410 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 249–261. Springer, Berlin, 1989.
  • [36] L. I. Nicolaescu. Lectures on the geometry of manifolds. World Scientific Publishing, Hackensack, NJ, third edition, 2021.
  • [37] M. Obata. The Gauss map of immersions of Riemannian manifolds in spaces of constant curvature. J. Differential Geometry, 2:217–223, 1968.
  • [38] P. Petersen. Riemannian geometry, volume 171 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, third edition, 2016.
  • [39] J. Plebański. The algebraic structure of the tensor of matter. Acta Phys. Polon., 26:963–1020, 1964.
  • [40] H. Samelson. On curvature and characteristic of homogeneous spaces. Michigan Math. J., 5:13–18, 1958.
  • [41] I. R. Shafarevich. Basic algebraic geometry. 1. Springer, Heidelberg, third edition, 2013.
  • [42] I. M. Singer and J. A. Thorpe. The curvature of 4444-dimensional Einstein spaces. In Global Analysis (Papers in Honor of K. Kodaira), pages 355–365. Univ. Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1969.
  • [43] R. S. Strichartz. Linear algebra of curvature tensors and their covariant derivatives. Canad. J. Math., 40(5):1105–1143, 1988.
  • [44] L. N. Trefethen and D. Bau, III. Numerical linear algebra. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, anniversary edition, 2022.
  • [45] Q. M. Wang. On totally geodesic spheres in Grassmannians and O(n)O𝑛{\rm O}(n)roman_O ( italic_n ). Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 108(3):811–815, 1990.
  • [46] J. A. Wolf. Geodesic spheres in Grassmann manifolds. Illinois J. Math., 7:425–446, 1963.
  • [47] Y.-c. Wong. Isoclinic n𝑛nitalic_n-planes in Euclidean 2n2𝑛2n2 italic_n-space, Clifford parallels in elliptic (2n1)2𝑛1(2n-1)( 2 italic_n - 1 )-space, and the Hurwitz matrix equations. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 41:iii+112, 1961.
  • [48] Y.-C. Wong. Differential geometry of Grassmann manifolds. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 57:589–594, 1967.
  • [49] Y.-C. Wong. Sectional curvatures of Grassmann manifolds. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 60:75–79, 1968.