When can one continuously prescribe a unit vector orthogonal to a given orthonormal system?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












Let $1 leq k < n$ be natural numbers. Given orthonormal vectors $u_1,dots,u_k$ in $bf R^n$, one can always find an additional unit vector $v in bf R^n$ that is orthogonal to the preceding $k$. My question is: under what conditions on $k,n$ is it possible to make $v$ depend continuously on $u_1,dots,u_k$, as the tuple $(u_1,dots,u_k)$ ranges over all possible orthonormal systems? (For my application I actually want smooth dependence, but I think that a continuous map can be averaged out to be smooth without difficulty.)



When $k=n-1$ then one can just pick the unique unit normal to the span of the $u_1,dots,u_k$ that is consistent with a chosen orientation on $bf R^n$ (i.e., take wedge product and then Hodge dual, or just cross product in the $(k,n)=(2,3)$ case). But I don't know what is going on in lower dimension. Intuitively it seems to me that if $n$ is much larger than $k$ then the problem is so underdetermined that there should be no topological obstructions (such as that provided by the Borsuk-Ulam theorem), but I don't have the experience in algebraic topology to make this intuition precise.



It would suffice to exhibit a global section of the normal bundle of the (oriented) Grassmannian $Gr(k,n)$, though I don't know how to calculate the space of such sections.










share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    6
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $1 leq k < n$ be natural numbers. Given orthonormal vectors $u_1,dots,u_k$ in $bf R^n$, one can always find an additional unit vector $v in bf R^n$ that is orthogonal to the preceding $k$. My question is: under what conditions on $k,n$ is it possible to make $v$ depend continuously on $u_1,dots,u_k$, as the tuple $(u_1,dots,u_k)$ ranges over all possible orthonormal systems? (For my application I actually want smooth dependence, but I think that a continuous map can be averaged out to be smooth without difficulty.)



    When $k=n-1$ then one can just pick the unique unit normal to the span of the $u_1,dots,u_k$ that is consistent with a chosen orientation on $bf R^n$ (i.e., take wedge product and then Hodge dual, or just cross product in the $(k,n)=(2,3)$ case). But I don't know what is going on in lower dimension. Intuitively it seems to me that if $n$ is much larger than $k$ then the problem is so underdetermined that there should be no topological obstructions (such as that provided by the Borsuk-Ulam theorem), but I don't have the experience in algebraic topology to make this intuition precise.



    It would suffice to exhibit a global section of the normal bundle of the (oriented) Grassmannian $Gr(k,n)$, though I don't know how to calculate the space of such sections.










    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      6
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $1 leq k < n$ be natural numbers. Given orthonormal vectors $u_1,dots,u_k$ in $bf R^n$, one can always find an additional unit vector $v in bf R^n$ that is orthogonal to the preceding $k$. My question is: under what conditions on $k,n$ is it possible to make $v$ depend continuously on $u_1,dots,u_k$, as the tuple $(u_1,dots,u_k)$ ranges over all possible orthonormal systems? (For my application I actually want smooth dependence, but I think that a continuous map can be averaged out to be smooth without difficulty.)



      When $k=n-1$ then one can just pick the unique unit normal to the span of the $u_1,dots,u_k$ that is consistent with a chosen orientation on $bf R^n$ (i.e., take wedge product and then Hodge dual, or just cross product in the $(k,n)=(2,3)$ case). But I don't know what is going on in lower dimension. Intuitively it seems to me that if $n$ is much larger than $k$ then the problem is so underdetermined that there should be no topological obstructions (such as that provided by the Borsuk-Ulam theorem), but I don't have the experience in algebraic topology to make this intuition precise.



      It would suffice to exhibit a global section of the normal bundle of the (oriented) Grassmannian $Gr(k,n)$, though I don't know how to calculate the space of such sections.










      share|cite|improve this question













      Let $1 leq k < n$ be natural numbers. Given orthonormal vectors $u_1,dots,u_k$ in $bf R^n$, one can always find an additional unit vector $v in bf R^n$ that is orthogonal to the preceding $k$. My question is: under what conditions on $k,n$ is it possible to make $v$ depend continuously on $u_1,dots,u_k$, as the tuple $(u_1,dots,u_k)$ ranges over all possible orthonormal systems? (For my application I actually want smooth dependence, but I think that a continuous map can be averaged out to be smooth without difficulty.)



      When $k=n-1$ then one can just pick the unique unit normal to the span of the $u_1,dots,u_k$ that is consistent with a chosen orientation on $bf R^n$ (i.e., take wedge product and then Hodge dual, or just cross product in the $(k,n)=(2,3)$ case). But I don't know what is going on in lower dimension. Intuitively it seems to me that if $n$ is much larger than $k$ then the problem is so underdetermined that there should be no topological obstructions (such as that provided by the Borsuk-Ulam theorem), but I don't have the experience in algebraic topology to make this intuition precise.



      It would suffice to exhibit a global section of the normal bundle of the (oriented) Grassmannian $Gr(k,n)$, though I don't know how to calculate the space of such sections.







      at.algebraic-topology grassmannians orthogonal-matrices






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 1 hour ago









      Terry Tao

      56.5k17245335




      56.5k17245335




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          5
          down vote













          Unless I'm missing something, I think that the harry ball theorem states precisely that you cannot do this when $n = 3$ and $k = 1$. I'm not sure what happens for other values of $n$ and $k$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • The hairy ball theorem actually applies to any even-dimensional sphere, so this would also settle the case $n > 1$ odd and $k = 1$.
            – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
            50 mins ago











          • Maybe I am misunderstanding, but if $u_1$ is a radial vector field, then what does it do at the origin?
            – David Hughes
            40 mins ago










          • Wow, I can't believe I had forgotten about this theorem. So my intuition that the problem is too underdetermined to have an obstruction in high dimension is wrong, apparently.
            – Terry Tao
            29 mins ago










          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f314613%2fwhen-can-one-continuously-prescribe-a-unit-vector-orthogonal-to-a-given-orthonor%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest






























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          5
          down vote













          Unless I'm missing something, I think that the harry ball theorem states precisely that you cannot do this when $n = 3$ and $k = 1$. I'm not sure what happens for other values of $n$ and $k$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • The hairy ball theorem actually applies to any even-dimensional sphere, so this would also settle the case $n > 1$ odd and $k = 1$.
            – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
            50 mins ago











          • Maybe I am misunderstanding, but if $u_1$ is a radial vector field, then what does it do at the origin?
            – David Hughes
            40 mins ago










          • Wow, I can't believe I had forgotten about this theorem. So my intuition that the problem is too underdetermined to have an obstruction in high dimension is wrong, apparently.
            – Terry Tao
            29 mins ago














          up vote
          5
          down vote













          Unless I'm missing something, I think that the harry ball theorem states precisely that you cannot do this when $n = 3$ and $k = 1$. I'm not sure what happens for other values of $n$ and $k$.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • The hairy ball theorem actually applies to any even-dimensional sphere, so this would also settle the case $n > 1$ odd and $k = 1$.
            – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
            50 mins ago











          • Maybe I am misunderstanding, but if $u_1$ is a radial vector field, then what does it do at the origin?
            – David Hughes
            40 mins ago










          • Wow, I can't believe I had forgotten about this theorem. So my intuition that the problem is too underdetermined to have an obstruction in high dimension is wrong, apparently.
            – Terry Tao
            29 mins ago












          up vote
          5
          down vote










          up vote
          5
          down vote









          Unless I'm missing something, I think that the harry ball theorem states precisely that you cannot do this when $n = 3$ and $k = 1$. I'm not sure what happens for other values of $n$ and $k$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Unless I'm missing something, I think that the harry ball theorem states precisely that you cannot do this when $n = 3$ and $k = 1$. I'm not sure what happens for other values of $n$ and $k$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 1 hour ago









          Will Brian

          8,02423652




          8,02423652











          • The hairy ball theorem actually applies to any even-dimensional sphere, so this would also settle the case $n > 1$ odd and $k = 1$.
            – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
            50 mins ago











          • Maybe I am misunderstanding, but if $u_1$ is a radial vector field, then what does it do at the origin?
            – David Hughes
            40 mins ago










          • Wow, I can't believe I had forgotten about this theorem. So my intuition that the problem is too underdetermined to have an obstruction in high dimension is wrong, apparently.
            – Terry Tao
            29 mins ago
















          • The hairy ball theorem actually applies to any even-dimensional sphere, so this would also settle the case $n > 1$ odd and $k = 1$.
            – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
            50 mins ago











          • Maybe I am misunderstanding, but if $u_1$ is a radial vector field, then what does it do at the origin?
            – David Hughes
            40 mins ago










          • Wow, I can't believe I had forgotten about this theorem. So my intuition that the problem is too underdetermined to have an obstruction in high dimension is wrong, apparently.
            – Terry Tao
            29 mins ago















          The hairy ball theorem actually applies to any even-dimensional sphere, so this would also settle the case $n > 1$ odd and $k = 1$.
          – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
          50 mins ago





          The hairy ball theorem actually applies to any even-dimensional sphere, so this would also settle the case $n > 1$ odd and $k = 1$.
          – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
          50 mins ago













          Maybe I am misunderstanding, but if $u_1$ is a radial vector field, then what does it do at the origin?
          – David Hughes
          40 mins ago




          Maybe I am misunderstanding, but if $u_1$ is a radial vector field, then what does it do at the origin?
          – David Hughes
          40 mins ago












          Wow, I can't believe I had forgotten about this theorem. So my intuition that the problem is too underdetermined to have an obstruction in high dimension is wrong, apparently.
          – Terry Tao
          29 mins ago




          Wow, I can't believe I had forgotten about this theorem. So my intuition that the problem is too underdetermined to have an obstruction in high dimension is wrong, apparently.
          – Terry Tao
          29 mins ago

















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f314613%2fwhen-can-one-continuously-prescribe-a-unit-vector-orthogonal-to-a-given-orthonor%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          Comments

          Popular posts from this blog

          Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

          Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

          Confectionery