4
$\begingroup$

Let $U\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ be an open neighborhood of the origin and let $f_n:U\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{>0}$, $n\in \mathbb{N}$ be a sequence of differentiable functions which uniformly converges on $U$ to an integrable function $f:U\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{>0}$.

Fix two point $p_1,p_2\in U$ and call $\Gamma= \Gamma_{p_1}^{p_2}$ the set of differentiable paths $\gamma:I\rightarrow U$, $\gamma(t)=(\gamma_1(t),\gamma_2(t))$, such that $\gamma(0)=p_1$, $\gamma(1)=p_2$ and $\gamma(I)\subset U$.

For every $\gamma\in \Gamma$ I'm quite sure it's true: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\int_0^1\sqrt{f_n(\gamma(t))(\dot\gamma_1^2+\dot\gamma_2^2)}dt=\int_0^1\sqrt{f(\gamma(t))(\dot\gamma_1^2+\dot\gamma_2^2)}dt,$$ since the functions $f_n$ converge uniformly.

I'm not sure if it's also true $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\inf_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\int_0^1\sqrt{f_n(\gamma(t))(\dot\gamma_1^2+\dot\gamma_2^2)}dt = \inf_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\int_0^1\sqrt{f(\gamma(t))(\dot\gamma_1^2+\dot\gamma_2^2)}dt $$

Is this equality true or is it only verified under additional hypothesis?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

This equality is true. For each $\epsilon>0$ we can choose a path $\gamma$ between $p_1$ and $p_2$ such that $l_g(\gamma)< d_g(p_1,p_2)+\epsilon$. Since $f_n$ converges to $f$ uniformly, we can pick an $N>0$ such that for each $n>N$ we have also $l_{g_n}(\gamma)<l_g(\gamma)+\epsilon$. Therefore $d_{g_n}(p_1,p_2)\leq l_{g_n}(\gamma)<d_g(p_1,p_2)+2\epsilon$. Since $\epsilon$ is arbitary, we obtain $\lim_{n\to\infty} d_{g_n}(p_1,p_2)\leq g(p_1,p_2)$.

Since the path $\gamma$ is compact, $\frac{f_n}{f}$ converges to $1$ uniformly along $\gamma$. Therefore $l_{g_n}(\gamma)$ converges to $l_g(\gamma)$, proving the opposite inequality.

In more detail, given points $p,q$, the sequence $d_{g_n}(p,q)$ converges to some limit $L>0$. For small $\epsilon>0$ negligible compared to $L$ choose $n$ large enough so that $d_{g_n}(p,q)>L-\epsilon$. Then for each curve $\gamma$ between $p$ and $q$ we have $l_{g_n}(\gamma)>L-\epsilon$. In particular if $\gamma$ is a minimizing curve for $g$ we argue as above to get that $L=d_g(p,q)$. If $\gamma$ is not minimizing choose a sufficiently good approximation and argue as before.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It is not clear to me how to prove the opposite inequality. You have $\ell_{g_n}(\gamma) \to \ell_g(\gamma)$, but the RHS is not $d_g(p_1, p_2)$ . Even if $d_g(p_1, p_2) = \ell_g(\gamma)$, it seems you can at best get again $\le $ but not the opposite one. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Oct 27 '16 at 3:24
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnMa, I tried to clarify this point. Do you have a more elegant argument? $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Katz Oct 27 '16 at 8:18
1
$\begingroup$

I want to add more in opposite direction-proof of Mikhail Katz's answer

(1) If $d_g(p,q) >\delta+d_n(p,q)$ for all $n$, there is $N_1$ s.t. $n>N_1\Rightarrow |f_n-f|<\varepsilon_1$

If $c_n$ is a geodesic from $p$ to $q$ wrt $g_n$ then \begin{align*} d_g (p,q) &\leq \int g(c_n',c_n')^\frac{1}{2} \\&\leq \int \sqrt{ g_n(c_n',c_n') +\varepsilon_1 h(c_n',c_n')} \\&\leq d_n(p,q) +\sqrt{\varepsilon_1} {\rm length}_h\ (c_n) \end{align*} where $h=dx^2+dy^2$

Hence $$ \delta <\sqrt{\varepsilon_1} {\rm length}_h\ (c_n) $$

That is $\lim_n\ {\rm length}_h \ (c_n) =\infty$ Then $$ d(p,q) > d_n(p,q)=\int_0^{L_n} \sqrt{f_n(t)} dt $$ where $c_n(t)$ has unit speed wrt $h$ and ${\rm length}_h \ c_n=L_n$

Hence if all $c_n$ is in $B^{h}(p,R)$ for some $R>0$, we have a point $p_n$ in $c_n$ s.t. $f_n(p_n)\rightarrow 0$ This contradicts uniform convergence

So there is $p_n$ in $c_n$ s.t. $d_h(p,p_n)\rightarrow \infty\ \ast$

(2) Consider a sequence of ball : For $q_n\in B_{r_n}^{g_n} (p)$ there is a unique geodesic from $p$ to $q_n$ We have a claim that $\bigcap_n B_{r_n}^{g_n} (p)\supseteq B_r^h(p) $ : If we choose $q\in B_r^h(p) $, then $\ast$ is impossible

Proof of claim : If not there is $q_n$ s.t. $d_h(p,q_n)\rightarrow 0$ and there are two geodesics from $p$ to $q_n$ wrt $g_n$ This means that ${\rm Rm}\ (g_n,s_n)\rightarrow \infty $ for some point $s_n$ around $p$ Since curvature of $g$ around $p$ is bounded above so this is impossible.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the effort. Somehow it would be nice to have a completely transparent proof :-) $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Katz Oct 28 '16 at 8:52
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your comment $\endgroup$ – HK Lee Oct 28 '16 at 9:09

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.