Let $M,N$ be smooth compact oriented Riemannian manifolds with boundary. Suppose that both $M,N$ can be isometrically immersed in each other.

Must $M,N$ be isometric?

Does anything change if we also assume $\operatorname{Vol}(M)=\operatorname{Vol}(N)$?

Note: I assume $M,N$ are connected (Otherwise, as mentioned by Del, we can take $N$ to be two disjoint copies of $M$).

Of course, if both manifolds can be isometrically embedded in each other, then they are isometric.

This follows from volume considerations:

Suppose $i:M \to N,j:N \to M$ are isometric embeddings. Then, $i(M),M$ are isometric, hence $\operatorname{Vol}(M)=\operatorname{Vol}(i(M))\le \operatorname{Vol}(N)$. Similarly, $\operatorname{Vol}(N)\le \operatorname{Vol}(M)$. Thus, $\operatorname{Vol}(i(M))=\operatorname{Vol}(N)$. Since $i(M)$ is compact, it is a closed subset of $N$. Thus, if $i(M) \neq N$, then $N\setminus i(M)$ is open, and so has a positive volume, contradicting $\operatorname{Vol}(i(M))=\operatorname{Vol}(N)$. This shows $i,j$ are surjective, thus isometries.

Updades and Remarks:

$(1) \,$ If $M$, $N$ have no boundaries, the answer is positive. This follows easily from a metric argument.

Let $i:M \to N, j:N \to M$ be the given isometric immersions. Then $i(M)$ is clopen in $N$, hence $i$ is surjective. Similarly, $j$ is surjective.

A possible generalization to the case with boundaries:

Assuming that every smooth orientation preserving isometric immersion maps boundary into boundary (see this question), we know that $j \circ i(\partial M) \subseteq \partial M$, so we can imitate the above argument to this case:

First, we note $i(\partial M) \subseteq \partial N$ (since $j(N^0) \subseteq M^0$). It follows $i(M^o)$ is clopen in $N^o$, hence $i(M^o)=N^o$. Since $i(M)$ is closed in $N$, and contains the dense subset $N^o$, $i$ is surjective, and moreover $i(\partial M) = \partial N , i(M^o)= N^o$.

By symmetry, $j$ is surjective, and the same argument in the previous case imply $j \circ i:M \to M $ is a surjective nonexpanding map, hence a metric isometry. Then, the $1$-Lipschitzity of $i,j$ implies $i$ is a metric isometry. So, by the positive answer to this question $i$ is a smooth Riemannian isometry.

$(2)$ It is enough to prove that an orientation-preserving isometric immersion $M \to M$ is a Riemannian isometry. (and in particular maps $\partial M$ onto $\partial M$).

Indeed, let $i:M \to N, j:N \to M$ be the given immersions and assume the above statement holds. Then $j \circ i:M \to M$ is an isometry, and so $j \circ i(\partial M) = \partial M$. This implies that $i(\partial M) \subseteq \partial N$ (since $j(N^0) \subseteq M^0$).

Also, $j \circ i:M \to M$ is an isometry $\Rightarrow$ $i$ is injective and $j$ is surjective. By symmetry, $i,j$ are bijections.

Since we know that $i(\partial M) \subseteq \partial N , i(M^o)\subseteq N^o$, and $i$ is surjective it follows that $i(\partial M) = \partial N , i(M^o)= N^o$. Since $i$ is in particular a metric isometry, the positive answer to this question, shows $i^{-1}$ is smooth, hence $i$ is a Riemannian isometry.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Are they connected? Otherwise you can take one of them equal to two copies of the other $\endgroup$
    – Del
    Nov 2, 2016 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ It would suffice to find two hyperbolic manifolds that cover each other. I suspect this has already been done in the context of 3-manifolds before. $\endgroup$
    – user98602
    Nov 2, 2016 at 4:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Del you are right of course, I will edit the question to address this point. $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2016 at 7:32
  • $\begingroup$ Considering the composition of the two immersions, the question will be solved if you show the following: every isometric immersion of $M$ into itself is an isometry. Now, I don't know if this statement is true or not. However, in the case $M$ has no boundary, you have the following topological claim, which is stronger: Let $\varphi:M\to M$ be a local diffeomorphism of degree $\pm1$. Then $\varphi$ is a diffeomorphism. $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2016 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ @AmitaiYuval Yes, I agree with this observation. Can you elaborate on the topological argument you are referring to? (Actually when there is no boundary, then I know $\varphi$ is surjective, since $\varphi(M)$ is clopen in $M$. Then a metric argument shows $\phi$ is injective, hence an isometry. So the only truly interesting case is when there is a non-empty boundary). Even so, I am still intereseted in your "pure" topological reasoning. $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2016 at 19:24

3 Answers 3


$\DeclareMathOperator{\vol}{vol}\newcommand{\Bar}[1]{\overline{#1}}$tl; dr: Yes, $M$, and $N$ are isometric, assuming only that each is connected, complete, and of finite volume.

Lemma 1: If $(M, g)$ is a complete Riemannian manifold, $(N, h)$ is a connected Riemannian manifold, and $\dim M = \dim N$, then an isometric immersion $i:(M, g) \to (N, h)$ is a surjective covering map.

Proof: The image $i(M)$ is open (because $i$ is an isometric immersion, hence a local diffeomorphism) and closed (because $(M, g)$ is complete) and non-empty, hence equal to $N$ (since $N$ is connected).

Let $(\Bar{M}, \Bar{g}) = (M, g)/i$ denote the Riemannian quotient. That is, define an equivalence relation on $M$ by $p \sim p'$ if and only if $i(p) = i(p')$. Since $i$ is an isometric immersion and $\dim M = \dim N$, the quotient acquires the structure of a smooth Riemannian manifold isometric to $(N, h)$. Let $\pi:M \to \Bar{M}$ denote the quotient map.

Let $q$ be an arbitrary point of $\Bar{M}$, and $V_{r} = V_{r}(q) \subset (\Bar{M}, \Bar{g})$ the geodesic ball of radius $r$ about $q$. Fix a point $p \in \pi^{-1}(q)$ arbitrarily, and choose $r > 0$ small enough that $U_{r}(p) \subset (M, g)$, the geodesic ball of radius $r$ about $p$, is mapped isometrically to $V_{r}$ by $\pi$.

To complete the proof, it suffices to show that $\pi^{-1}(V_{r})$ is a disjoint union of geodesic balls, each mapped isometrically to $V_{r}$ by $\pi$. With the notation of the preceding paragraph, $U_{r}(p) \subset \pi^{-1}(V_{r})$. Conversely, if $x$ is a point of $\pi^{-1}(V_{r})$, so that $\Bar{x} = \pi(x) \in V_{r}$, there is a minimal geodesic $\Bar{\gamma}$ joining $\Bar{x}$ to $q$. Since $\pi$ is a local isometry, the geodesic $\gamma$ that starts at $x$ and satisfies $\pi_{*}\gamma'(0) = \Bar{\gamma}'(0)$ is a lift: $\Bar{\gamma} = \pi \circ \gamma$. Consequently, $\gamma$ joins $x$ to some point $p$ in $\pi^{-1}(q)$. Since $d(x, p) = d(\Bar{x}, q) < r$, we have $x \in U_{r}(p)$.

Lemma 2: If $(M, g)$ and $(N, h)$ are Riemannian manifolds with $(M, g)$ connected, complete, and of finite volume, and if there exist isometric immersions $i:M \to N$ and $j:N \to M$, then $j \circ i:M \to M$ is an isometry

Proof: Suppose $i:M \to N$ and $j:N \to M$ are isometric immersions. (Particularly, $\dim M = \dim N$.) The composition $j \circ i:M \to M$ is an isometric immersion, hence by Lemma 1 a covering map, say with $d$ sheets, so that $\vol(M) = d\vol(M)$. Since $\vol(M)$ is finite, $d = 1$. That is, $j \circ i$ is a diffeomorphism as well as a local isometry, hence an isometry.

Corollary: If $(M, g)$ and $(N, h)$ are complete, connected, finite-volume Riemannian manifolds, and if there exist isometric immersions $i:(M, g) \to (N, h)$ and $j:(N, h) \to (M, g)$, then $i$ and $j$ are isometries.

Proof: By Lemma 2, $j \circ i$ is bijective, so $j$ is surjective and $i$ is injective. Reversing roles, $i \circ j$ is bijective, so $i$ is surjective and $j$ is injective. That is, each of $i$ and $j$ is a bijective isometric immersion, hence an isometry.

  • $\begingroup$ A bit belated, but posting anyway in the hope the slightly weaker hypotheses are useful to posterity. $\endgroup$ Nov 6, 2016 at 14:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1. A geodesically-complete manifold has no boundary. (A geodesic starting at a boundary point does not generally extend to an open interval.) 2. Suppose $q$ is in the closure of $i(M)$. Fix $r > 0$ so that the geodesic ball $V_{r}(q) \subset N$ is a diffeomorphic image under $\exp$, pick a point $y$ in $V_{r}(q) \cap i(M)$ and a point $x \in i^{-1}(y)$; let $\Bar{\gamma}$ be the (minimizing) geodesic joining $y$ to $q$, and $U = U_{r}(x)$ the geodesic ball about $x$. Because $i$ is a local isometry at $x$, there is a geodesic $\gamma$ starting at $x$ with $i \circ \gamma = \Bar{\gamma}$.[...] $\endgroup$ Nov 6, 2016 at 19:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By completeness, $\gamma$ extends; this constructs a point of $M$ that maps to $q$, showing that $q \in i(M)$. That is, the closure of $i(M)$ is contained in $i(M)$, so $i(M)$ is closed. $\endgroup$ Nov 6, 2016 at 19:14
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your great answer and patience. I have two more questions: 1) I am not sure about your claim that the smooth and Riemannian structures descend to the quotient. As far as I can see this is not a standard case of a quotient by a group action. (All the fibers have constant cardinality $k$ indeed, by degree theory, but it does not mean immediately we can construct a corresponding smooth action of $S_k$ on $M$ whose equivalence classes are the pre-images of $i$). $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2016 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ I see here math.stackexchange.com/a/496628/104576 another condition which ensures the quotient is a manifold, but I am not sure it holds here. Your claim sounds plausible to me, but I would like a more rigorous justification. I guess I am supposed to use somewhere the fact $i$ is an isometry. 2) I do not see why $\pi$ is a local isometry. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2016 at 19:42

Here are some observations regarding the question at hand (I guess this would be a comment if I had enough reputation to write a comment, but one has to start somewhere...) :

If the volumes are equal and $f:M\to N$ is surjective, then it is also injective on the interior of $M$. Indeed, by the area formula, $$ \text{Vol}M = \int_M |\det df_x|\,\text{dVol}_g(x) = \int_N |f^{-1}(y)|\,\text{dVol}_h(y) $$ where $g$ is the metric of $M$, $h$ is the metric of $N$ and $\det df$ is the intrinsic determinant (the ratio between the volume forms), which equals to $1$ for an isometric immersion. If $f$ is surjective, then the righthand side is at least $\text{Vol}N$, and therefore the volume equality shows that the set $\{ y\in N: |f^{-1}(y)|>1\}$ is of zero volume. Since $f$ is a local isometry, it follows that $f$ is injective on the interior of $M$ (otherwise if it maps two points to the same point, it would map two of their neighborhoods to the same neighborhood in contradiction). Therefore $f$ isometrically embeds $\text{int}\, M$ into $\text{int}\, N$.

This solves the problem for closed manifolds, since in this case $f(M)$ is clopen, and therefore the whole $N$, as pointed out in the comments above. For the same reason it solves the problem in case you know that $f$ maps boundary to boundary, because that $f(\text{int}\,M)$ is closed at $\text{int}\,N$.

Edit: fixed a small error (before I wrote that sujectivity implies injectivity rather than injectivity on the interior).


Here is an alternative proof, which do not assume the volumes are equal for the case where $M$, $N$ have no boundaries.

Let $i:M \to N, j:N \to M$ be the given isometric immersions. Then $i(M)$ is clopen in $N$, hence $i$ is surjective. Similarly, $j$ is surjective.

$j \circ i$ is then a surjective nonexpanding ($1$-Lipschitz) map from $M$ to itslef. (This follows from the fact that isometric immersion cannot increase distances since it preserves lengths of paths). Thus, $j \circ i$ is a metric isometry*. Thus, $i$ is injective, hence a smooth isometric bijection. By the inverse function theorem, its inverse is also smooth, and we are done.

*Any surjective nonexpanding map from a compact metric space into itself is an isometry (This is a standard fact in "metric geometry").


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.