Let $M$ be a compact Riemannian manifold.

I want to prove the following statement (with an elementary proof if possible):

For sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$, and for every $p \in M$ $$\mbox{Vol}(B_\epsilon(p))\ge \delta(\epsilon) >0$$ (where $\delta(\epsilon)$ is some positive function).

Equivalently, $\inf_{p \in M} \mbox{Vol}(B_\epsilon(p)) > 0$.

Possible ideas:

$(1)$ Use the relation between scalar curvature and volumes:

$$(*) \, \,\frac{\mbox{Vol}(B_\epsilon(p)\subset M)}{\mbox{Vol}(B_\epsilon(p)\subset\mathbb{R}^n)}=1-\frac{R(p)}{6(n+2)}\epsilon^2+O(\epsilon^4).$$

(The scalar curvature is continuous and $M$ is compact, so it's globally bounded)

The problem here is that relation $(*)$ is supposed to hold only for small $\epsilon$, and I am not sure that this smallness can be made uniform on $M$. (That is, when we let the point $p$ change, we might need to take smaller and smaller $\epsilon$'s).

$(2)$ "Metric approach":

Suppose $\inf_{p \in M} \mbox{Vol}(B_\epsilon(p)) =0$. Take $p_n$ such that $\mbox{Vol}(B_\epsilon(p_n)) \to 0$. By compactness we can assume W.L.O.G that $p_n \to p$. Now combine the following two "facts":

  1. $B_\epsilon(p_n)$ converges to $B_\epsilon(p)$ in the Gromov-Hausdorff sense.
  2. Volume is lowersemicontinuous w.r.t Gromov-Hausdorff convergence.

(I am not sure these two "facts" are true, and do not know how to prove them)

Can any of this approaches be used (to prove the statement)?

I have found a proof, but I feel there is supposed to be something simpler. (Since the injectivity radius $r(p)$ is continuous, it is bounded from below on $M$. Now the result follows from proposition 14 in this paper).


Here's a different approach. Since $(M,g)$ is compact, you can cover it with finitely many coordinate charts, such that:

(i) there exists $c$ small enough such that any ball of radius $<c$ lies in one (or more) of the charts.

(ii) There exists $C>0$ such that in each coordinate chart, the Euclidean distance $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ and the distance induced by $g$, $d_g(\cdot,\cdot)$ are $C$-equivalent, that is $$ \forall x,y \,\,\,\, C^{-1}d(x,y)\le d_g(x,y) \le Cd(x,y). $$ (iii) The volume form in each coordinate chart is equivalent to the Lebesgue measure, that is $$ C^{-1} Leb(A) \le Vol_g (A)\le C\,Leb(A), $$ where $Leb$ is the Lebesgue measure (this probably follows, up to changing the constant, from the previous assumption).

Now, take a small $\epsilon$-ball in $M$, $\epsilon<c$. By (i), it lies in some coordinate chart. By (ii) it includes a coordinate $\epsilon/C$ ball, so its volume is larger than the volume of this coordinate ball. By (iii), the $g$-volume of the coordinate ball is at least $1/C$ the volume of the Lebesgue measure of this set, which depends only on $\epsilon/C$ and the dimension.

Edit -- here's something more in the spirit of the second approach you suggested (with less machinery):

Assume that $Vol_g(B_\epsilon(p_n))\to 0$, and that by moving to a subsequence $p_n\to p$. For every $n$ large enough, $d_g(p_n,p)<\epsilon/2$, where $d_g$ is the distance on $M$ induced by $g$. Therefore, for every $n$ large enough $B_{\epsilon/2}(p)\subset B_\epsilon(p_n)$. Since $Vol_g(B_\epsilon(p_n))\to 0$, we obtain that $Vol_g(B_{\epsilon/2}(p)) =0$, which is a contradiction.


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.