Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Say a compact n-manifold $\mathcal{M}$ is embedded in $\mathbb{R}^m$, $m > n$. If $d_{\mathcal{M}}$ is the geodesic distance on $\mathcal{M}$, and $d$ the Euclidean distance in $\mathbb{R}^m$, then clearly small $d_{\mathcal{M}}$ implies small $d$.

It seems that small $d$ should imply small $d_{\mathcal{M}}$ (since $\mathcal{M}$ is compact, it should have positive reach $\sigma > 0$). Is this known to be true?

Thank you.

share|improve this question

1 Answer

Welcome to Math.SE! The answer is affirmative. Otherwise you would have two sequences $x_k,y_k$ of points in $\mathcal{M}$ such that $d(x_k,y_k)\to 0$ but $d_\mathcal{M}(x_k,y_k)\ge \epsilon$. Since $\mathcal{M}$ is compact, there is a point $p$ to which these sequences converge in the $d$ metric. The point $p$ has a neighborhood $U$ in $\mathbb R^m$ such that there is a diffeomorphism $\Phi$ of $U$ onto some $V\subset\mathbb R^m$ which straightens $U\cap\mathcal{M}$ into a piece of a hyperplane. Since the geodesic distance between $\Phi(x_k)$ and $\Phi(y_k)$ tends to zero as $k\to\infty$, we have a contradiction.

The argument is nonconstructive, as it has to be. The example of a very flat ellipse $x^2+(y/\epsilon)^2=1$ shows that there is no universal upper estimate on $d_{\mathcal M}$ in terms of $d$. (In contrast to $d\le d_{\mathcal M}$).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.