6
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ be a compact, connected, oriented smooth Riemannian manifold with non-empty boudary.

Let $f:M \to M$ be a smooth orientation preserving isometric immersion.

Is it true that $f$ is locally distance preserving?

(in the sense that around every $p \in M$ there exist a neighbourhood $U$ s.t $d(f(x),f(y))=d(x,y)$ for all $x,y \in U$)

This question is really about the boundary points of $M$.

In the interior this holds: Since $f(M^o) \subseteq M^o$ we can consider it as a map $M^o \to M^o$, and as such it is an arcwise isometry which is also a local homeomorphism, hence a local isometry w.r.t the intrinsic distance on $M^o$, hence also w.r.t the Riemannian distance on $M$.

A positive answer to this question, will settle these two questions.

Edit 1-Generalization:

Perhaps to better understand the question, let's see what happens when we broaden it a little.

Suppose $F:M \to N$ is an isometric immersion between two equidimensional Riemannian manifolds. Is it necessarily locally distance preserving?

(I do not assume here that $M,N$ are compact,connected,or oriented. In this more general case $F$ does not need to be a local diffeomorphism since it doesn't have to be open; Take e.g $M=N=[0,\infty),F(x)=x+1$).

Edit 2 - A proposed solution:

Let $p \in \partial M$. The idea is to use the inverse function theorem for points in $M^o$ which are close to $p$: Around each point of $M^o$, we can find a neighbourhood where $f$ is invertible, hence an isometry (since $f$ and its inverse are arcwise isometries, hence $1$-Lipschitz).

If we could obtain some lower bound on the size of these neighbourhoods*, then perhaps we can "push them" to the boundary, and deduce local distance preservation around it (via a continuity argument).

Details:

*By looking at the standard proof of the inverse function theorem, it turns out that in the Euclidean case, when $M=\mathbb{R}^d$, if

$$ B_r(p) \subseteq \{x \in \mathbb{R}^d \, | \, \|df_x-df_p\| \le \frac{1}{2}\|(df_p)^{-1} \|\} \tag{1}$$ then $$f \text{ is invertible at } B_r(p).$$

Moreover, in this case, $df_x \in O(n)$ for all $x$ implies $f$ is affine, i.e $df$ is a constant orthogonal matrix (A corollary of Liouville's theorem). Hence the premise in $(1)$ holds vacuously for every $r$.

Even when $M$ is flat (i.e only localy Euclidean), one can use this approach as follows:

Given $p \in \partial M$ we can take a sequence $p_n \to p, p_n \in M^o$. Then, around each $p_n$ there is a ball where $M$ is isometric to Euclidean space. Then, Liouville's theorem imply $df$ is locally constant around each $p_n$, hence (by connectivity) it is in fact a constant matrix. (Here there is a subtlety, I am identifying all the tangent spaces near $p$, with $\mathbb{R}^d$, since I am implicitly assuming that there is a neighbourhood of $p$ isometric to an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$ together with smooth parts of its boundary. Unfortunately, It is not clear I can asume this...).

Now for the general case, we can use normal coordinates around the point $p \in \partial M$, and hopefully obtain some estimate on the neighbourhoods size. ("Every metric is locally approximately Euclidean").

$\endgroup$
3
+50
$\begingroup$

I believe the answer is, yes, $f$ is locally distance preserving when $M$ is compact and, no, when $M$ is not compact.

Let me start with the noncompact case. Consider the example $$ M = \{ (x,y) \in \mathbb R^2 \,:\, y \leq x^2 \} \,$$ and define $$ f(x,y) = (x,y-1)\,. $$ Then $f$ is an isometric immersion, but it is not locally distance preserving for points along the boundary, because the boundary is concave. For $p_1, p_2 \in \partial M$ close enough together we have $$ d(f(p_1),f(p_2)) = |p_1 - p_2| < d(p_1,p_2)\,.$$ The problem is that $f$ maps points from the boundary into the interiour.

Now assume $M$ is compact. The claim is that if $f : M \to M$ is an isometric immersion, then $f(\partial M) \subseteq \partial M$. I do not have a fully worked out proof for this, but the idea is that compactness implies that $M$ has finite volume and an isometric immersion cannot "lose" volume. However, if $f(p) \in M^\circ$ for some $p \in \partial M$, then there would be half of the space, that is locally not reached.

If you know that $f$ maps the boundary to the boundary then it should be possible to show that $f$ is a local diffeomorphism and hence locally distance preserving.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks! Your counter-example for the non-compact case is great! However, the compact case is more subtle. First, a manifold can be isometrically immersed in a manifold with less volume (wrap a circle with radius $2$ onto a circle with radius $1$). So, the "volume loss" argument is a little problematic. Secondly, you are right that the whole point is whether or not $f$ maps boundary to boundary. Indeed, in that case it would be a local diffeomorphism (see here math.stackexchange.com/questions/1984346/…) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Mar 14 '17 at 17:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ..Also, if $f(\partial M) \subseteq \partial M$, then it must be a Riemannian isometry! This is explained, in a short argument here: mathoverflow.net/questions/253930/… , below the "Remarks" section. Finally, I am not convined by your argument "that we would indeed lose half of the space"... Again, I think you are in the right direction, and again all these properties (isometry, boundary preserrvation, local diffoemorphism) are related\equivalent, but the problem is giving a rigorous arguemt for the validity of any of them... $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Mar 14 '17 at 17:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You are right, this is more subtle than it appears at first sight. My latest guess is that $f:M^\circ \to f(M^\circ)$ is a covering map and by connectedness every point has the same number of preimages. Can one use topology to show that $f|_{M^\circ}$ is surjective? $\endgroup$ – Martins Bruveris Mar 15 '17 at 7:47

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.