Let $N$ be a Riemannian 3-Manifold with and $M \subset N$ an embedded, oriented codimension $0$ submanifold-with-boundary, bounded by a non-empty smooth subsurface $S := \partial M$. Now, with $M$ and therefore $S$ being oriented, the latter has a tubular neighborhood $T \cong S\times(-1,1)$ via some diffeomorphism $\phi$, such that under the same $\phi$, $T \cap M \cong S\times(-1,0]$. We call this the inward normal section of $T$ and, for $s \in S$, its intersection with the fiber $F_s \subset T$ the inward normal at $s$.

Further, we say that $M$ has almost convex boundary if for any $s \in S$ there exists an $\epsilon > 0$ such that for all $0 < \delta < \epsilon$, the cut-off ball $B(\delta,s) \cap M$ is a convex subset of $N$ (any two points in this set can be connected by a minimal geodesic which lies completely inside the set). In contrast, $M$ is said to have sufficiently convex boundary if $S$ has nonnegative mean curvature with respect to the inward normal section. Now I want to prove that \begin{equation} \mbox{M has almost convex boundary} \implies\mbox{M has sufficiently convex boundary}. \end{equation} As it is natural (for me at least) with these kinds of problems, I first tried to solve this problem in eucledian space $\mathbb R^3$ and then look at what needs to be changed and generalized for arbitrary 3-manifolds. Here is what I came up with so far:

If $M \subset \mathbb R^3$ and $s \in S$, there is a small neighborhood $U \ni s$ and a smooth function $f: U \to \mathbb R$ that describes $U$ in terms of its level sets, i.e we have $U \cap M = f^{-1}[0,\infty)$ and $U \cap S = f^{-1}(0)$. This implies that the inward unit normal field of $S$ restricted to $U$ can be expressed by \begin{equation} \frac{\nabla f}{|\nabla f|}, \end{equation} with the corresponding mean curvature just being the negative divergence of the above vectorfield.

Now assuming $M$ has almost convex boundary and $U$ has been chosen sufficiently small, the unique line segment $(1-t)x + ty, t \in [0,1]$ connecting any two given points $x,y \in S \cap U$ lies completley in $M \cap U$, which is equivalent to $g_y(t) := f((1-t)x + ty) \geq 0$. Since $g_y(0) = f(x) = 0$, we must have $0 \leq g'_y(0) = \nabla f|_x * (y-x)$ by the chain rule.

This nicely illustrates an intuitive property for manifolds with almost convex boundary: The angle between the inward normal at $x$ and any vector emanating from $x$, pointing in the direction of $y$, should be at most $90$ degrees for any $y$ on $S$ sufficiently close to $x$. Moreover, it seems to me that this "angle condition" should also suffice to prove the nonnegativity of mean curvature. Does anyone have an idea how to proceed from here?


I think I have found an answer, but I believe it needs some more improvement, as there are things I am not completely sure about. Any help would be appreciated.

So suppose that $M$ has almost convex boundary and there exists some $x \in S$ with the above mean curvature $H(x) < 0$. This implies that there exists a small neighborhood $U \ni x$ in $S$ with $H|_U < 0$. By the tubular neighborhood theorem, a small neighborhood $V \ni X$ in $N$ can be identified with $U \times (-\epsilon,\epsilon)$ under a diffeomorphism $\psi: U \times (-\epsilon,\epsilon) \to V$ with $V \cap M = \psi(U \times (-\epsilon,0))$ and $V \cap S = \psi(U \times \{0\})$. Moreover, the pullback-metric $\psi^*g$ takes the form $g_{y,t} \oplus dt^2$ for $y \in U$, $t \in (-\epsilon, \epsilon)$.

By choosing sufficiently small $\epsilon$, this means that the negativity of $H$ on $U \cong U \times \{0\}$ translates to the following: \begin{equation} \forall y \in U, \forall t_0 \in (-\epsilon,\epsilon), \forall X \in T_yU, X \neq 0: \frac{d}{dt}g_{y,t}(X,X)|_{t=t_0} =:\frac{d}{dt}||X||^2_{g(y,t)}|_{t=t_0} < 0 \end{equation}.

From this, we can firstly deduce the following intermediate result:

For any curve $c:[0,1] \to U \times (-\epsilon,\epsilon), c(t)=(c_1(t),c_2(t))$ with $c_2(t) \leq 0$, the 'flat' curve $\tilde{c}(t)=(c_1(t),0)$ satisfies $L(\tilde{c}) \leq L(c)$.

Proof: Since $c_2(t) \leq 0$ by assumption, we have $||\dot{c}_1(t)||_{g(c_1(t),c_2(t))} \geq ||\dot{c}_1(t)||_{g(c_1(t),0)}$ and hence \begin{equation} L(c) = \int_0^1 \sqrt{||\dot{c}_1(t)||^2_{g(c_1(t),c_2(t))}+||\dot{c}_2(t)||^2}dt \geq \int_0^1 ||\dot{c}_1(t)||_{g(c_1(t),c_2(t))}dt \geq \int_0^1||\dot{c}_1(t)||_{g(c_1(t),0)}dt = L(\tilde{c}) \end{equation}

Now recall that $U \times (-\epsilon,0]$ corrensponds to $V \cap U$, which is by our assumption a convex set (for small $\epsilon$). This means that, for two points $(x,0),(y,0) \in U \times \{0\}$, there exists a minimal geodesic segment $\gamma: [0,1] \to U \times (-\epsilon,0]$ between them. By the above observation, we can assume that $\Gamma := \gamma([0,1]) \subset U \times \{0\}$. We show that this cannot be true, by considering a one-parameter variation of $\gamma$ with fixed boundary and monotone decreasing energy. Such a variation is, for example, given by $C:[0,1] \times (-\epsilon,\epsilon) \to U \times (-\epsilon,\epsilon)$ with $C(s,t) := (\gamma_1(s),(s-s^2)t)$. Then $C(s,0) = \gamma(s)$, $C(0,t)=(x,0)$, $C(1,t)=(y,0)$, and we have \begin{equation} \frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0} E(C(s,t))= \int_0^1 \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|_{t=0} [||\dot{\gamma}_1(s)||^2_{g(\gamma_1(s),(s-s^2)t)} + ((2s-1)t)^2]ds = \int_0^1 (s-s^2)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}||\dot{\gamma}(s)||^2_{g(\gamma(s),t)}|_{t=0} ds < 0.\end{equation}

However, I am not so sure about the last equality, I simply used the chain rule by intuition, which is a valid step whenever $g_{y,t}$ can be factorized in $f(t)g$. Is it also true for the general case ?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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