curvaturedifferential-geometry
I was reading about Gauss Egregium Theorem but I'm not sure if I understand it well. Intuitively, what does it mean? It is true that if two objects have the same Gaussian curvature, then they are the same, OR is true that if two objects have an isometry, then they have the same curvature?
The statement says that Gaussian curvature is preserved under isometries, but the trouble starts with the word preserves.
Any hint would be appreciated.
In general, the notion of isometries for Riemannian manifolds is an infinitesimal one. A smooth map $\varphi \colon (M,g) \rightarrow (N,h)$ between smooth Riemannian manifolds is called a local isometry if for each $p \in M$ the differential $d\varphi_p \colon (T_pM, g_p) \rightarrow (T_{\varphi(p)}N, h_{\varphi(p)})$ is an isometry of inner-product spaces. A local isometry is a local diffeomorphism - if it is also a global diffeomorphism then it is called an isometry.
Given this definition, the answer to your question is yes - local isometries preserve the Riemann curvature tensor and since the curvature tensor for $\mathbb{R}^n$ is identically zero the curvature tensor of $M$ vanishes identically.
Note that the relevant term is "the Riemann curvatures" and not "Gaussian curvature" as the Gaussian curvature is usually a scalar that is associated to a surface embedded in $\mathbb{R}^m$ and you are asking about a general $n$-dimensional Riemannian manifold.
Regarding your other questions - local isometries of Riemannian manifolds preserve the length of paths and preserve the distance induced by the Riemannian metrics (the infimum of the length of all paths connecting two points). The definition of a local isometry presented above requires the map $\varphi$ to be at least differentiable. You can also define an isometry as a map that preserves the distances in the sense of metric spaces. Such a map will be continuous but a priori doesn't have to be differentiable. It turns outs that a map that preserves the distances in the sense of metric spaces will automatically be an isometry in the sense defined above and in particular, smooth. This result is called Myers-Steenrod theorem.
In retrospect, this post got quite long. Also, the level varies greatly - sorry! Feel free to ask any questions. I guess I am quite fond of this topic, even though I am not as knowledgeable on it as other people on here. Anyway, hopefully this is helpful to someone :-)
In my opinion this theorem is one of the crown jewels of mathematics.
There are a number of ways to interpret or generalize this statement. For instance, since $2\pi \chi(M)$ is a purely topological quantity, this tells us that stretching or deforming $M$ through smooth isotopies will not change the integral of the Gaussian curvature. So, we could take a sphere $S^2(r)$ of radius $r$ in $\Bbb{R}^3$. Then the Gaussian curvature is everywhere $\frac{1}{r^2}$. The integral is $$ \int_{S^2(r)}\frac{1}{r^2}\mathrm{vol}=\frac{4\pi r^2}{r^2}=4\pi=2\pi\chi(S^2(r)). $$ Now, we can deform this sphere $S^2(r)$ as we wish through isotopies and we see that the Gauss-Bonnet theorem gives us a "conservation law":
if we deform our surface $M$ in a volume-preserving manner such a way that the curvature in one region becomes greater, then the curvature in another region must become smaller.
Drawing a picture illustrates this idea: 
This is a nice intuition for at least some of what the theorem is saying. However, there is another interpretation. Indeed, we have a classical topological invariant $\chi(M)$, and with some work we were able to find a "geometric quantity" to integrate to return $\chi(M)$, establishing a connection between a global geometric quantity and a topological quantity. This can be interpreted as $$ \int_M\frac{K}{2\pi}\mathrm{vol}=\chi(M). $$ Now, the natural objects of integration on manifolds are differential forms and indeed we have integrated a $2-$form $\frac{K}{2\pi}\mathrm{vol}$ to return $\chi(M)$. This is a closed $2-$form and defines a cohomology class $\omega\in H^2(M,\Bbb{R})$. So, we arrive at a natural question:
Given a compact $n-$manifold $M$, can we find a cohomology class $\omega \in H^n(M,\Bbb{R})$ so that $\int_M\omega=\chi(M)$?
For $n=2$, the result is Gauss-Bonnet. If $n$ is odd, it is an easy consequence of Poincaré Duality that $\chi(M)=0$, so the answer is yes but for stupid reasons: simply take $0\in H^n(M,\Bbb{R})$. For $n$ even, the question is more interesting. We next note that we had more structure in the case of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem. Indeed, we were using the Riemannian structure coming from our manifold being in $\Bbb{R}^3$. So, we can equip $M$ with a Riemannian structure $(M,g)$. Now that we have done that, we would like to introduce a notion of curvature. Curvature is - in some sense - a second order phenomenon, so we need to introduce a notion of a second derivative. The method of doing this is to introduce an affine connection on $TM$. This is an operator $$\nabla:\mathfrak{X}(M)\times \mathfrak{X}(M)\to \mathfrak{X}(M)$$ written as $\nabla(X,Y)=\nabla_XY$. This has some natural properties:
The standard example of this is the directional derivative of a vector field $Y\in \mathfrak{X}(\Bbb{R}^3)$ with respect to another vector field $X$, written in multivariable calculus by $D_XY$. Anyway, associated to this $\nabla$ are a pair of tensors: $$ T(X,Y)=\nabla_X Y-\nabla_YX -[X,Y] $$ called the torsion and $$ R(X,Y)Z=\nabla_X\nabla_YZ-\nabla_Y\nabla_X Z-\nabla_{[X,Y]}Z $$ called the curvature. There is a theorem which says that on a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$, there is a unique connection $\nabla$ satisfying $T(X,Y)\equiv 0$ and $\nabla_Xg(Y,Z)=g(\nabla_X Y,Z)+g(Y,\nabla_X Z)$. This connection is called the Levi-Civita connection. The virtue of this is that there is a canonical connection associated to a Riemannian manifold, which will turn out to be quite important.
With this in hand, we can take our Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ with its LC connection $\nabla$ and study the properties of its curvature. (By the way, you can recover the Gaussian curvature from this mysterious $R$ in the case of a surface, but I won't explain how.) If we take a trivialization of the tangent bundle by a local frame $(e_1,\ldots, e_n)$, we can describe the data of the connection using the equations: $$ \nabla_X e_j=\sum_i \omega^i_j(X)e_i $$ where $\omega_j^i$ are differential $1-$forms. Furthermore, we can describe the data of the curvature using $$ R(X,Y)e_j=\sum_i \Omega^i_j(X,Y)e_i $$ for all $1\le i \le n$, where the $\Omega^i_j$ are $2-$forms. In particular, we get matrices $\omega=(\omega^i_j)$ and $\Omega=(\Omega^i_j)$ describing the connection and the curvature, respectively, in a local trivialization. We would like to assemble from these guys a differential form that we can integrate to get back $\chi(M)$. The bridge is provided by the Chern-Weil homomorphism, which allows us to construct cohomology classes from these matrices of differential forms. The statement is
Theorem (Chern-Weil) Suppose $E$ is a rank $r$ vector bundle with connection $\nabla$. Suppose $P$ is a $\mathrm{GL}(r,\Bbb{R})-$invariant polynomial on $\mathfrak{gl}(r,\Bbb{R})$ of degree $k$. Then, the $2k-$form $P(\Omega)$ on $M$ is globally defined, closed, and $[P(\Omega)]\in H^{2k}(M,\Bbb{R})$ is independent of the connection.
The definition of a connection on $E$ is analogous to the above. A polynomial on $\mathfrak{gl}(r,\Bbb{R})$ means a polynomial that takes an $r\times r$ matrix $X=(x_j^i)$ as its input. Anyway, this theorem tells us that we can construct cohomology classes explicitly from the information of the curvature of a connection on a vector bundle on $M$. Moreover, the cohomology class is independent of the choice of connection. One way to interpret this is that we are getting a way to construct distinguished representatives of our cohomology classes on $M$. This is a motif that appears frequently in geometry. This lets us state our final theorem.
(Chern-Gauss-Bonnet) Let $(M,g)$ denote a compact Riemannian manifold of dimension $2n$. Then $$ \int_M \frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\mathrm{Pf}(\Omega)=\chi(M). $$
Here, $\mathrm{Pf}$ denotes the Pfaffian, which is a certain polynomial defined on $\mathfrak{so}(2n,\Bbb{R})$ characterized (up to a sign) by $\mathrm{Pf}^2=\det$ as polynomial functions. I have swept a lot of details under the rug here - but the moral of the story is that the presence of a Riemannian metric gives a version of the above Chern-Weil theorem for $SO(2n)-$invariant polynomials on $\mathfrak{so}(2n,\Bbb{R})$.
Lastly, here is a high level explanation of what we are doing here. In topology, one associates to a vector bundle $E\to M$ characteristic classes, which are cohomology classes in $H^*(M)$ that are invariants of the bundle. I won't get too much into this, but there is a characteristic class of oriented real vector bundles called the Euler class, $e(E)$. It is suggestively named because in the case where $E=TM$, $e(E)\in H^n(M,\Bbb{R})$ (viewed for instance as a de Rham cohomology class) satisfies $$ \int_M e(E)=\chi(M). $$ So, we have really constructed an explicit form $\mathrm{Pf}(\Omega)$ on $M$ representing this cohomology class $e(E)$, and that is the content of the theorem. It turns out that characteristic classes of oriented bundles rank $r$ can be defined as cohomology classes of the classifying space $BSO(r)$. It can be proven that the cohomology of $BG$ (for $G$ a compact Lie group) is $H^*(BG,\Bbb{R})\cong \Bbb{R}[\mathfrak{g}]^G$, i.e. the invariant polynomials on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$. So, the Chern-Weil homomorphism in its most general form expresses characteristic classes of a (say) oriented real bundle of rank $r$ in terms of polynomials of the curvature. So, in this setup the Gauss-Bonnet theorem is a special case of the fact that the polynomial $\mathrm{Pf}$ computes the Euler class.
If this is of interest to you, I started learning about this in Tu's Differential Geometry: Connections, Curvature, and Characteristic classes, which is a clear and pleasant read for someone with a basic knowledge of manifolds and de Rham cohomology.
Best Answer
If two surfaces have the same Gaussian curvature, it is not true that they are the same up to an isometry.
A counterexample for that is the exponential horn ($X_1(u,v) = (u \cos v, u \sin v, \log u)$) and the cylinder ($X_2(u,v) = (u \cos v, u \sin v, v)$), which have same Gaussian curvature at corresponding points, but are actually not isometric (calculate the first fundamental form and see that they are essentially different).
What the Theorem Egregium actually says is that, if two surfaces are locally isometric, then they MUST have same Gaussian curvature at corresponding points. See it another way: if two surfaces have different Gaussian curvatures at corresponding points under a map, then that map cannot be an isometry since, by the Theorem, the surfaces would have same Gaussian curvature.