This paper establishes an upper bound on the area of complete surfaces immersed in certain Riemannian manifolds, linking it to the integral of their extrinsic curvature, specifically the squared norm of the second fundamental form.
Contribution
It provides a new area bound for surfaces in Riemannian manifolds based on extrinsic curvature energy, under the condition that the manifold contains no totally geodesic surfaces.
Findings
01
Area of immersed surfaces is bounded by extrinsic curvature energy.
02
Bound applies to surfaces in manifolds without totally geodesic surfaces.
03
Results connect geometric energy to surface area in Riemannian geometry.
Abstract
Let M be a compact Riemannian manifold not containing any totally geodesic surface. Our main result shows that then the area of any complete surface immersed into M is bounded by a multiple of its extrinsic curvature energy, i.e. by a multiple of the integral of the squared norm of its second fundamental form.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows · Analytic and geometric function theory · 3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Full text
**An area bound for surfaces
in Riemannian manifolds**
Victor Bangert
Mathematisches Institut der
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg,
**Abstract: ** Let M be a compact Riemannian manifold not containing any totally geodesic surface. Our main result shows that then the area of any complete surface immersed into M is bounded by a multiple of its extrinsic curvature energy, i. e. by a multiple of the integral of the squared norm of its second fundamental form.
Let M be a compact differentiable manifold of dimension n≥3, with a smooth Riemannian metric gˉ. For a smooth immersion f:F→M of a surface F into M we consider its extrinsic curvature energy
[TABLE]
Here vol2=vol2f is the measure associated to the Riemannian metric g=f∗gˉ induced on F, A is the normal-valued second fundamental
form of f, and ∣A∣ denotes the euclidean norm of the tensor field A. Clearly, E(f)≥0 with equality if and only if f is a totally geodesic immersion.
By the Gauß equation we have
[TABLE]
where Kg is the Gaussian curvature of g, and Kgˉf denotes the sectional curvature of gˉ on the tangent planes of f. The second fundamental form is decomposed as A=A∘+21g⊗H,
where A∘ is trace-free and H=trace(A) is the mean curvature vector of f. If f is an immersion of a closed surface F into
euclidean En, the functional E(f) reduces essentially to twice the Willmore energy,
more precisely by the Gauß-Bonnet theorem
[TABLE]
In general, the area of an immersed surface is not bounded in terms of its energy. For example, consider the sequence
fi of immersions into the flat torus M=En/Zn given by projecting λif, where f is a fixed immersion into En and
λi>0 goes to infinity. The scale invariance of E implies that E(fi)=E(f)<∞ for all i∈N,
while the surface areas go to infinity. However, we prove as a main result that this behavior is rather special.
In the following, an immersion f:F→M is called complete if the Riemannian metric f∗gˉ is complete.
Theorem 1.1** **(Area bound)
Let (M,gˉ) be a compact Riemannian manifold of dimension n≥3. Assume that (M,gˉ) does not admit any complete,
totally geodesic surface immersions. Then there is a constant C=C(M,gˉ)<∞ such that
vol2f(F)≤CE(f) for every complete, immersed surface f:F→M.
For a generic metric gˉ on M there are no totally geodesic submanifolds of
dimension 1<k<dimM at all in (M,gˉ).
This was proved recently by Murphy & Wilhelm [23] for n≥4, for n=3
there is a sketch by Bryant [4]. See also [19] where
Lytchak and Petrunin give a short proof valid for all n in the appendix.
In the more general context of m-varifolds in an n-dimensional
Riemannian manifold, a related mass bound in terms of curvature
energies was proved by A. Mondino [20]. Assuming that the
bound fails, he applies a compactness argument to construct a nonzero
m-varifold with vanishing generalized second fundamental form,
see Theorem 4.1 in [20]. However, it is not clear how
that (a priori non-rectifiable) varifold relates to totally geodesic
immersions, and the above generic nonexistence is not immediate
for such a varifold.
Our paper deals with the scale-invariant L2 integral of the second
fundamental form. The analysis would be simpler in the case of
the Lp integral with p>2, employing Langer’s local graph
representations [17], see also Breuning [3].
In the critical case p=2 there is an almost graphical
description due to Simon [28], and there are also local
bilipschitz parametrizations by Toro [30], Hélein
[13], and Müller & Šverák [22].
However, it remains unclear how to apply these results to
a seqeunce with mass going to infinity.
Here we prove the following local version of Theorem 1.1
that is an important step in the proofs of Theorem 1.1 and
Theorem 1.3.
Theorem 1.2
Let (M,gˉ) be a compact Riemannian manifold of dimension n≥3. Assume that (M,gˉ) does not
contain any totally geodesic surface. Then for every r>0 there exists a constant c(r)=c(r,M,gˉ)>0 such that
E(f∣B(p,r))≥c(r) holds for every complete surface immersion f:F→M and every intrinsic metric ball B(p,r) of radius r on F.
In particular, if E(f)<∞, then F is compact.
If we relax the condition on (M,gˉ) in Theorem 1.1 by allowing totally geodesic immersions of S2,
we obtain the following slightly weaker consequence.
Theorem 1.3
Let (M,gˉ) be a compact Riemannian manifold of dimension n≥3. Assume that (M,gˉ) does not admit any
complete, totally geodesic immersions of connected surfaces other than S2 or RP2. Then, for every constant D,
there exists a constant C=C(M,gˉ,D) such that E(f)<D implies vol2f(F)<C for every complete, connected, immersed
surface f:F→M.
Our work is partly motivated by the joint paper [16] of Mondino, Schygulla and the second author.
For a compact, three-dimensional Riemannian manifold (M,gˉ), they consider the problem
of minimizing E(f) in the class [S2,M] of immersions f:S2→M. They prove existence under the two assumptions:
[TABLE]
The approach in [16] follows L. Simon [28]. In recent work by Guodong Wei [31] the result is reproved employing results
from [22, 13, 15, 21] on conformal parametrizations. Combining the result from [16] with Theorem 1.3 we obtain
Corollary 1.4
Let (M,gˉ) be a three-dimensional, compact Riemannian manifold that admits no complete, totally geodesic immersions
of connected surfaces other than S2 or RP2. If (1.4) is satisfied, there exists f∈[S2,M] minimizing E on [S2,M].
Condition (1.4) holds if Scalgˉ(x)>0 for some x∈M. Condition (1.5) is an easy consequence
of the Gauß equations when (M,gˉ) has positive sectional curvature. In particular, [16] proves the existence of a minimizer in
[S2,M], if M is compact and has positive sectional curvature. We recover this result, since, by the Bonnet-Myers and the Gauß-Bonnet theorems,
a complete, connected, totally geodesic immersed surface in a compact manifold of positive sectional curvature is of type S2 or RP2.
Next we shortly outline the proofs of Theorems 1.1–1.3. These proofs are by contradiction.
To prove Theorem 1.2 we assume that there exists a sequence fi:Fi→M of complete surface immersions and a sequence of intrinsic metric balls
B(pi,r)⊆Fi of fixed radius r>0 such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,r))=0. Then we prove that the set of limit points of sequences fi(xi)
with xi∈B(pi,r) contains a totally geodesic surface, see Theorem 9.4, and Theorem 13.1 for a statement concerning Hausdorff convergence.
This proof relies on the results of Sections 2–8 that will be reviewed below. We will also consider the following stronger assumption:
[TABLE]
Under assumption (1.6) we can prove that M admits a complete, totally geodesic surface immersion, see Corollary 10.5.
To derive Theorem 1.1 from this last result we use a Voronoi type covering argument to verify assumption (1.6). Here we need to
generalize the well-known Bol-Fiala type area estimates from parallel sets to weakly starshaped sets, cf. Section 11. In Section 13 we prove
Theorem 1.3 by contradiction. Here assumption (1.6) is easily seen to be satisfied, so that we obtain a complete, totally geodesic surface immersion
f:N→M. Then we show that N is not diffeomorphic to S2 or RP2. This is inspired by G. Reeb’s stability theorem [25] from the theory of foliations.
Now we review the contents of Sections 2–8 on which the proofs of Theorems 1.1–1.3 are based. In Section 2 we use
Gronwall’s inequality to conclude that arclength-parametrized curves γ:[a,b]→M with small total absolute geodesic curvature are C1-close to geodesics.
In Section 3 we consider a complete immersion f:F→M such that E(f)/volkf(F) is small where k=dimF. We use the invariance of the
Liouville measure under the geodesic flow to find a subset of the unit tangent bundle SF of large Liouville measure such that the f-images of geodesics in F
with initial vectors in this subset are C1-close to geodesics in M. More generally, we prove a similar statement for configurations (c1,c2,t) where
c1,c2 are geodesics in F with c2(0)=c1(t). To relate the estimates on the Liouville measure to the geometry of F, we need lower estimates on the volume of intrinsic metric balls in F, see Sections 6 and 8. While the results in Sections 2 and 3 are true for manifolds F of arbitrary dimension we can prove these volume estimates and much of the following only if dimF=2. This involves some new results on the geometry of surfaces in euclidean space En that depend on bounds on their energy, see Sections 4 and 5. In Section 7 we consider a sequence of complete surface immersions fi:Fi→M, and assume the existence of a sequence of balls B(pi,Ri)⊆Fi such that
Ri→∞ and liminfi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,Ri))<4π. Relying on ideas by T. Shioya [27] we prove that a subsequence of the sequence
(Fi,pi) converges to a proper, pointed length space (Y,y0) with respect to pointed Gromov-Hausdorff convergence and that Y has locally finite 2-dimensional Hausdorff measure. Moreover, we can assume that the immersions fi converge to a 1-Lipschitz map f:Y→M. On the other hand, the results of Section 3 can be used to see that the Hausdorff dimension of f(Y) is at least three, unless f(Y)⊆M contains a totally geodesic surface, see Section 9.
Notation. Here we collect some of the notation used throughout the paper. The unit sphere of a euclidean vector space E is denoted by SE.
If dimE=k then αk−1 is the (k−1)-volume of SE. If M is a manifold and 2≤k≤dimM then πG:GkM→M denotes the Grassmann bundle of k-dimensional linear subspaces in TM. For Riemannian manifolds (M,g), we let π:SM→M denote the unit sphere bundle. The intrinsic metric ball in M with center p∈M and radius r>0 is denoted by B(p,r). If dimM=m then volm is the Riemannian volume on M, and Hk, 1≤k≤dimM, denotes k-dimensional Hausdorff measure on M. Geodesics will always be parametrized by arclength, and cv will denote the geodesic with initial vector v∈SM. If γ is a curve in M then Ptγ:Tγ(0)M→Tγ(t)M denotes parallel translation along
γ from γ(0) to γ(t). The injectivity radius of M will be denoted by injrad(M).
**Acknowledgements: **We thank C. Debin for communication concerning [8]. We thank
the referee for his/her careful reading.
2 L1-almost geodesics
Let (M,g) denote a compact Riemannian manifold with Levi-Cività connection ∇. In this section we consider arclength-parametrized curves
in M for which the L1-norm of the covariant derivative of γ˙ is small. Using Gronwall’s inequality we will easily see that such
curves are C1-close to geodesics. This will be applied to geodesics of submanifolds of M along which the norm of the second fundamental form has small integral.
On the unit tangent bundle SM we consider the Sasaki metric gˉ induced by g, see [26], and the distance function dSM induced by gˉ.
Lemma 2.1
There exist constants B>0, C>0, such that the following holds for all arclength-parametrized C2-curves
γ:[a,b]→M. If c:[a,b]→M is the geodesic with initial vector c˙(a)=γ˙(a) and t∈[a,b], then
[TABLE]
Proof.
We recall the following qualitative version of Gronwall’s inequality. Let (N,h) be a compact Riemannian manifold with induced distance dN,
and let X be a C1-vector field on N with flow Φ:N×R→N. Then there exist constants B>0, C>0 such that the following holds
for all C1-curves β:[a,b]→N and all t∈[a,b]:
[TABLE]
We apply this to the case N=SM, h=gˉ, and to the vector field X on SM whose flow Φ is the geodesic flow on SM.
Given an arclength-parametrized C2-curve γ:[a,b]→M, we consider β:[a,b]→SM, β(t)=γ˙(t).
By the definition of the Killing metric gˉ, we have
The following statement is a simple consequence of the dependence of solutions of linear ODEs on the equation.
Lemma 2.2
Suppose γi:[−R,R]→M is a sequence of C1-curves that converge to γ:[−R,R]→M uniformly in the C1-topology.
Let Wi be parallel vector fields along γi such that limi→∞Wi(0)=w∈Tγ(0)M.
Then the Wi converge uniformly to the parallel vector field W along γ with W(0)=w.
These lemmas will be applied in the following situation. We consider a sequence of complete immersions fi:Fi→M of k-dimensional manifolds Fi into M.
The second fundamental forms of the fi will be denoted by Ai.
Proposition 2.3
Let vi∈SFi be a sequence such that limi→∞dfi(vi)=v∈SM exists. Assume that R>0 and
limi→∞∫−RR∣Ai∣∘cvi(t)dt=0. Then the following statements (a)–(c) are true.
(a)
The curves fi∘cvi∣[−R,R] converge to the geodesic cv∣[−R,R] uniformly in the C1-topology.
(b)
If Wi:[−R,R]→TFi are parallel vector fields along cvi∣[−R,R] and limi→∞dfi(Wi(0))=w∈TM exists,
then the vector fields dfi∘Wi along fi∘cvi∣[−R,R] converge uniformly to the parallel vector field W along cv∣[−R,R] with W(0)=w.
(c)
If limi→∞dfi(Tcvi(0)Fi)=Lˉ∈GkM exists, then the curves Li:[−R,R]→GkM, Li(t)=dfi(Tcvi(t)Fi),
converge uniformly to the curve L:[−R,R]→GkM, where L(t)=Ptcv(Lˉ) is the parallel translate of Lˉ along cv.
Proof.
(a)
By the definition of the second fundamental form Ai, we have
[TABLE]
Hence (a) is a consequence of Lemma 2.1 and the convergence of the (M,g)-geodesics cdfi(vi)∣[−R,R] to cv∣[−R,R].
(b)
Let Zi:[−R,R]→TM denote the parallel vector fields along fi∘cvi∣[−R,R] with Zi(0)=dfi(Wi(0)). Then we have
[TABLE]
Hence our assumption limi→∞∫−RR∣Ai∣∘cvi(t)dt=0 implies that ⟨dfi∘Wi,Zi⟩ converges uniformly on [−R,R]
to the constant ∣Zi(0)∣2=∣Wi(0)∣2. Since ∣(dfi∘Wi)(t)∣=∣Wi(0)∣=∣Zi(t)∣, this implies limi→∞∣dfi∘Wi−Zi∣=0
uniformly on [−R,R]. Using (a), our assumption limi→∞dfi(Wi(0))=w=W(0), and Lemma 2.2, we see that the Zi, and hence
dfi∘Wi, converge uniformly to W.
(c)
This is a direct consequence of (b).
Remark 2.4
In the applications of Proposition 2.3 in Sections 7, 9, 10 and 13, the hypothesis
limi→∞∫−RR∣Ai∣2∘cvi(t)dt=0 will hold. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality this implies
limi→∞∫−RR∣Ai∣∘cvi(t)dt=0.**
3 Estimates arising from integral geometry
We consider a k-dimensional, complete Riemannian manifold (F,g). The unit tangent bundle of F will be denoted by π:SF→F
with fibers SpF=π−1(p) for p∈F. Our estimates will follow from the invariance of the Liouville measure L on SF
under the geodesic flow Φ:SF×R→SF. We recall that locally the Liouville measure L is the product of the Riemannian volume volk
on F and the standard (k−1)-volume volSpF on the euclidean spheres SpF. For v∈SF, we let cv:R→F
denote the geodesic with initial vector c˙v(0)=v, i. e. cv(t)=π∘Φ(v,t). “Measurability” will be understood with respect to the Borel σ-algebra.
Lebesgue measure on R will be denoted by λ.
Lemma 3.1
Let h:F→[0,∞] be measurable. For arbitrary ε>0, R>0 consider the set
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
where αk−1 denotes the (k−1)-volume of the unit sphere in euclidean k-space.
Proof.
The invariance of L under Φ implies that the integral
[TABLE]
is independent of t∈R. From the definition of L we obtain
[TABLE]
This implies
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.2
If B⊆F is a Borel set and R>0, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
As in the preceding proof we see that L({v∈SF∣cv(t)∈B}) is independent of t∈R.
We will apply Lemma 3.1 in the following situation.
We will consider an isometric immersion f:F→M of F into a Riemannian manifold M,
and let h be the squared norm ∣A∣2 of the second fundamental form of f.
Under appropriate conditions on E(f)=21∫F∣A∣2dvolk, we can use Lemma 3.1 to find a large set of vectors
v∈SF\Vε,R(∣A∣2), i. e. vectors v∈SF for which ∫−RR∣A∣2∘cv(t)dt<ε.
If additionally 2Rε is small, then Proposition 2.3 shows that for these vectors v∈SF the curve
f∘cv∣[−R,R] is C1-close to a geodesic in M.
In the proof of the existence of totally geodesic surfaces in Section 9 we will need pairs of geodesics c,c~
in F such that c~(0)=c(t) for some t∈R and such that both f∘c and f∘c~ are C1-close to geodesics in M on appropriate intervals [−R,R] resp. [−r,r]. We will encode such pairs of geodesics as follows. We consider SF2=⋃p∈F(SpF×SpF) and the bundle
π~:SF2×R→F, π~(v,w,t)=π(v)=π(w). L2 will denote the measure on SF2 that is the product of volk with two factors volSpF. A tuple (v,w,t)∈SF2×R encodes the pair of geodesics c=cv and c~ with c~˙(0)=Ptcv(w), where
Ptcv:Scv(0)F→Scv(t)F denotes parallel transport along cv.
Given ε>0, R>0, r>0, we set
[TABLE]
So (v,w,t)∈(SF2×[−R,R])\Vε,R,r2(h) implies ∫−RR∣A∣2∘cv(t)dt<ε and
∫−rr∣A∣2∘cw~(t)dt<ε, where w~=Ptcv(w).
Lemma 3.3
(L2×λ)(Vε,R,r2(h))≤αk−12ε4R(R+r)∫Fhdvolk.
Proof.
We will prove that
[TABLE]
and that
[TABLE]
Then our claim will follow by combining (3.2), (3.3) with Lemma 3.1.
Equation (3.2) is a direct consequence of Fubini’s theorem. To prove equation (3.3) note that the orthogonality of
Ptcv:Tπ(v)F→Tcv(t)F and the invariance of L under the geodesic flow imply that, for every t∈R, we have
[TABLE]
Integrating this equation over t∈[−R,R] we obtain (3.3).
We will also need the following localized version of Lemma 3.3.
We consider h~=h⋅χB(p,R+2r), and show that
\big{(}{\cal{V}}_{\varepsilon,R,r}^{2}(h)\cap\tilde{\pi}^{-1}(B(p,r))\big{)}\subseteq{\cal{V}}_{\varepsilon,R,r}^{2}(\tilde{h}).
Indeed, if (v,w,t)∈Vε,R,r2(h)∩π~−1(B(p,r)) and v∈Vε,R(h), then
cv(t)∈B(p,R+r) for all ∣t∣≤R, hence h∘cv(t)=h~∘cv(t) for ∣t∣≤R, so that v∈Vε,R(h~).
If (v,w,t)∈Vε,R,r2(h)∩π~−1(B(p,r)) and Ptcv(w)∈Vε,r(h), then cv(t)∈B(p,R+r)
and, as above, we see that Ptcv(w)∈Vε,r(h~).
We define the measurable function H=Hε,R,r(h):F→[0,αk−122R] as the fibrewise
volume of Vε,R,r2(h), i. e.
The set Gε,R,r(h) of “(h,ε,R,r)-good points” consists of all p∈F such that
H(p)<ε, i. e. Gε,R,r(h)=H−1([0,ε)).
Note that p∈Gε,R,r(h) iff – up to a set of measure smaller than ε – the tuples (v,w,t)∈SpF×SpF×[−R,R]
encode geodesics c=cv and c~, c~˙(0)=Ptcv(w), such that
∫−RRh∘c(t)dt<ε and ∫−rrh∘c~(t)dt<ε. In particular, if r≤r~ and R≤R~, then
Gε,R~,r~(h)⊆Gε,R,r(h). This obvious inclusion will be used at various instances without further notice.
The following proposition is a consequence of inequalities (3.5) and (3.6).
The following estimates hold for all p∈F, all ε>0, R>0, r>0, and all measurable functions h:F→[0,∞].
Since F\Gε,R,r(h))=H−1([ε,∞)) we have εvolk(F\Gε,R,r(h))≤∫FHdvolk.
Hence (a) is a consequence of (3.5). Similarly (b) follows from (3.6).
Assuming that ∫Fhdvolk is small we want to use Proposition 3.6 to conclude that Gε,R,r(h) is almost dense in F. For this
we need a lower bound on the volume of metric balls. For k=2 and under appropriate assumptions on (F,g), such a lower bound will be proved in Section 6,
see Proposition 6.3.
While Proposition 3.6 suffices for the proof of the existence of (pieces of) totally geodesic surfaces, a slightly different estimate will be useful in the
proof of the existence of complete totally geodesic surfaces in Section 10. Here we need not only “good” points p, but points such that additionally
cv(t) is “good” for most (v,t)∈SpF×[−R,R]. In this application it will not be necessary to discriminate between the roles of R and r.
So we will set R=r, and abbreviate
[TABLE]
For fixed ε>0, R>0, and h, we define l:SF→[0,2R] by
[TABLE]
Finally we set
[TABLE]
Note that q∈Gε,R(h) is in G~ε,R(h) iff – up to a set of volSqF-measure smaller than ε – the vectors v∈SqF satisfy
[TABLE]
As a consequence of Proposition 3.6 and Lemma 3.2 we obtain:
Applying Lemma 3.2 to the right hand side of this inclusion and using the definitions of l and
G~ε,R(h)), we obtain
[TABLE]
Now we apply Proposition 3.6(b) to the first term in this chain of inequalities and obtain (3.10).
4 A lower bound for the total absolute geodesic curvature of simple closed curves on surfaces in euclidean spaces
From now on F will denote a 2-dimensional manifold, in contrast to
the preceding section where dimF=k was arbitrary. In this
section we consider a complete, connected surface F immersed into
euclidean space En and a smooth simple closed curve Γ on F.
The total absolute geodesic curvature ∣K∣(Γ) of Γ is defined by ∣K∣(Γ)=∫Γ∣κg(q)∣ds(q),
where ∣κg(q)∣ denotes the absolute value of the geodesic curvature of Γ at q∈Γ.
The second fundamental form of the immersion of F into En will be denoted by A. The tubular neighborhood Γt of Γ of radius t>0
is the set of points x∈F that can be joined to Γ by a curve on F of length at most t, i. e. Γt={x∈F∣dF(x,Γ)≤t}.
Proposition 4.1
Given c∈(0,34π) there exists δ=δ(c)>0 and β=β(c)≥1 such that the following holds for every n∈N,
every complete surface immersion f:F→En, and every smooth, simple closed curve Γ on F of length l. If ∫Γβl∣A∣2dvol2≤c,
then ∣K∣(Γ)≥δ.
Remark 4.2
More precisely, we will prove the following inequality for Γ⊆F as above and for all t>0:
[TABLE]
From (4.1) one easily concludes that Proposition 4.1 holds, e. g. for δ(c)=51(34π−c) and
β(c)=34π−c4. From the proof of (4.1) it is clear that (4.1) is not sharp.**
The proof of Proposition 4.1 is based on Fenchel’s inequality for the total curvature of closed curves in En, the Gauß-Bonnet formula, and the Bol-Fiala technique that provides area bounds for Γt depending on integral bounds on the Gaussian curvature K. In the smooth case the ideas by G. Bol [2] and Fiala [10] were developed and extended by
P. Hartman [12], see also chapter 4 of the book [29] and chapter 2 of the book [6]. We use Hartman’s results to treat the difficulties arising from the non-differentiability of the distance function dF(⋅,Γ) from Γ.
Since the proof of inequality (4.1) is a combination of several estimates we first give a rough outline. The starting point is Fenchel’s inequality that implies
[TABLE]
provided ∂Γt=∅. Now one would like to compare ∣K∣(∂Γτ) to ∣K∣(Γ), using the Gauss-Bonnet formula and the fact that
∫Γτ∣K∣dvol2≤21∫Γτ∣A∣2dvol2 can be assumed to be small. Here one encounters two problems. The first problem is that the Euler characteristic of Γτ might be negative. The second problem is that the boundary terms in the Gauß-Bonnet formula involve the geodesic curvature, and not its absolute value. To overcome these problems we treat separately the signed total curvature K(∂Γτ) and its positive part K+(∂Γτ). Since, for most
τ∈(0,t), dτd(length(∂Γτ))=K(∂Γτ), Hartman’s results imply
[TABLE]
see Lemma 4.4. On the other hand, K+(∂Γτ) can be bounded above by ∣K∣(Γ) and 21∫Γτ∣A∣2dvol2,
see Lemma 4.3. This is a consequence of the Gauß-Bonnet formula and the fact that ∂Γτ has constant distance from Γ. Since
∣K∣(∂Γτ)=2K+(∂Γτ)−K(∂Γτ), the preceding inequalities combine to the inequality
[TABLE]
Finally, we use ∫Γt∣A∣dvol2≤(∫Γt∣A∣2dvol2)21vol2(Γt)21, and the Bol-Fiala type estimate
Now we give the details of the proof of (4.1). Let Rˉ=supx∈FdF(x,Γ)∈(0,∞]. Then ∂Γt=∅ for t∈(0,Rˉ). P. Hartman [12] introduced the set NE=NE(Γ)⊆(0,Rˉ) of non-exeptional values of the distance function from Γ, and proved that NE is open
and of full measure in (0,Rˉ). Note that if t∈NE then ∂Γt is free of focal points of Γ, and for every q∈∂Γt there exist at most two geodesics of length t joining q to Γ. Moreover, if there are two such geodesics they intersect at q at an angle smaller than π. This implies that ∂Γt is a piecewise smooth submanifold of F, and that the set Qt⊆∂Γt of points in the neighborhood of which ∂Γt is not smooth, is finite. Moreover, Γt has a concave angle at each q∈Qt. For t∈NE we let κgt:∂Γt\Qt→R denote the geodesic cuvature of ∂Γt\Qt
with respect to the normal pointing out of Γt, and (κgt)+ its positive part.
Lemma 4.3
If t∈NE then ∫∂Γt\Qt(κgt)+ds≤∣K∣(Γ)+∫ΓtK−dvol2.
Proof.
Let J⊆∂Γt\Qt be a compact interval on which κgt is positive. The shortest connections to Γ from the end-points of J,
together with J and the nearest point projection pr(J)⊆Γ of J to Γ bound a rectangle RJ in Γt. We choose an arclength-parametrization γ of Γ, and we let nJ denote the unit normal along pr(J) pointing into RJ. Then the Gauß-Bonnet formula yields
[TABLE]
If J,J′ are two such intervals and J∩J′=∅, then vol2(RJ∩RJ′)=0 and nJ∣pr(J)∩pr(J′)=−nJ′∣pr(J)∩pr(J′). Hence we have
[TABLE]
So, if we let B⊆Γ denote the set of points x∈Γ such that there exists precisely one q∈∂Γt\Qt with κgt(x)>0 and
pr(q)=x, then (4.2) and (4.3) imply
[TABLE]
If t∈NE(Γ)=NE and q∈Qt⊆∂Γt, we let θq∈(0,π) denote the angle at q between the two shortest connections from q to Γ.
Then π+θq∈(π,2π) is the inner angle of Γt at q. The total curvature K(t) of ∂Γt as the boundary of Γt is defined by
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.4
If t∈NE⊆(0,Rˉ), then ∫0tK(τ)dτ>−2l, where l=length(Γ).
Note. Since NE has full measure in (0,Rˉ), K(τ) is defined for almost all τ∈(0,Rˉ).
Proof.
For τ∈NE we let l(τ) denote the length of ∂Γτ. Note that limτ↓0l(τ)=2l.
A standard calculation shows that l∣NE is smooth and that
[TABLE]
see e. g. [29], Theorem 4.1. Applying Hartman’s Corollary 6.1 in [12] we obtain
[TABLE]
Since 2tan2x≥x for x≥0, we conclude from (4.4) that
l′(τ)≤K(τ) for τ∈NE.
Hence (4.5) implies that
[TABLE]
This proves our claim since l(t)>0 for t∈NE.
Lemma 4.5
If t∈(0,∞) and ∫Γt∣A∣2dvol2<8π, then t<Rˉ and ∂Γt=∅.
Proof.
If t≥Rˉ, then Γt=ΓRˉ=F, since Rˉ=supx∈FdF(x,Γ). In particular, F is compact.
Then the well-known results by Chern-Lashoff [7] imply that
[TABLE]
Proof of inequality (4.1): Since (4.1) is trivially true if ∫Γt∣A∣2dvol2≥8π, we may assume that
∫Γt∣A∣2dvol2<8π, so that t<Rˉ by Lemma 4.5. For τ∈NE∩(0,t) we use Lemma 4.3 to estimate
[TABLE]
For q∈∂Γτ\Qτ we let κτ(q)≥0 denote the curvature at q of the curve f∣∂Γτ\Qτ in En.
Note that κτ(q)≤∣κgτ(q)∣+∣A(q)∣. Hence Fenchel’s inequality yields
[TABLE]
where n(τ)≥1 denotes the number of connected components of ∂Γτ.
Combining inequalities (4.6), (4.7) and n(τ)≥1 we obtain
[TABLE]
Integrating this inequality over NE∩(0,t), and using Lemma 4.4, and K−≤21∣A∣2, and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality on
∫Γt∣A∣dvol2, we obtain
[TABLE]
To estimate vol2(Γt)21 we recall that, by (4.4) and Lemma 4.3,
5 Contractibility of intrinsic metric balls on surfaces in euclidean spaces
Using Proposition 4.1 we will prove the following result that is the key to obtain a lower bound on the area of balls on surfaces in a compact Riemannian manifold, see Section 6.
Proposition 5.1
Given c∈(0,34π) there exists α=α(c)∈(0,1) such that the following holds for every n∈N, every complete surface immersion f:F→En, every p∈F and every R>0. If ∫B(p,R)∣A∣2dvol2≤c, then the intrinsic metric ball B(p,αR)⊆F is simply connected.
Remark 5.2
We do not know the supremum c0 of all constants c for which the statement in Proposition 5.1 holds. By Proposition 5.1 we have
c0≥34π, while the example of the catenoid shows that c0≤8π.**
Remark 5.3
Our proof provides an explicit value for α(c), namely**
[TABLE]
where* δ(c)=51(34π−c) and β(c)=34π−c4.*
The proof of Proposition 5.1 depends crucially on Proposition 4.1. We will assume that B(p,r) is not simply connected. Then we will prove in a series of lemmas that in some larger ball B(p,R) we can find a simple geodesic loop Γ that has an angle smaller than δ(c) at its base point, i. e.
∣K∣(Γ)<δ(c). This will contradict
Proposition 4.1. Here, the main idea is that the angle of a geodesic loop determines the speed at which it can be shortened by letting its base point vary. This is a purely intrinsic argument that does not depend on the assumption that dimF=2. In the final step, however, we use the Gauß-Bonnet formula to see that
B(p,r) is not contractible in B(p,R). Here and in the sequel a geodesic loop in a
Riemannian manifold M means a geodesic γ:[0,L]→M such that γ(0)=γ(L),
and γ(0) is called the base point of the loop. The loop will be called simple
if γ∣[0,L) is injective.
Lemma 5.4
Let γ:[0,l]→M be a geodesic loop in a Riemannian manifold M that is shortest among all non-contractible loops based at γ(0).
Then γ is simple.
Proof.
Otherwise there exist 0≤s1<s2<l such that γ(s1)=γ(s2). Reversing the orientation of γ, if necessary, we may assume that s1≤l−s2.
Note that the loop γ∣[s1,s2] is non-contractible since otherwise the loop (γ∣[0,s1])∗(γ∣[s2,l]) were non-contractible, based at γ(0), and shorter than γ. Hence the loop γ~=(γ∣[0,s2])∗(γ∣[0,s1])−1 is non-contractible, based at γ(0), and has length s2+s1≤l. In particular, γ~ is geodesic, in contradiction to the fact that γ˙(s2)=−γ˙(s1).
Lemma 5.5
Let B(p,r) be a metric ball in a complete Riemannian manifold, and suppose B(p,r) is not simply connected. Then, among the arclength-parametrized loops in B(p,r) with base point p
that are non-contractible in B(p,r), there exists a shortest one, and every such shortest loop is a simple geodesic loop of length smaller than 2r.
Proof.
The existence of a geodesic loop γ:[0,l]→B(p,r) that is shortest among all non-contractible loops in B(p,r) based at p, and of length l<2r, is proved in [27], Lemma 3.1. Lemma 5.4, applied to M=B(p,r), shows that every such loop is simple.
Lemma 5.6
Suppose δ∈(0,π), r>0, and R≥(1−cosδ2+1)r. Let B(p,R) be a metric ball of radius R in a complete
Riemannian manifold, and assume that there exists a loop γ0 based at p
of length smaller than 2r that is not contractible in B(p,R). Then there exists a simple geodesic loop
γ:[0,l]→B(p,R) of length l<2r such that the angle ∢(γ˙(0),γ˙(l)) that γ makes at γ(0)=γ(l) is smaller than δ.
Proof.
For ρ∈[0,R−r) we let l(ρ) denote the infimum of the lengths of loops in B(p,R) with base-points in B(p,ρ) that are not contractible in B(p,R). Note that l(ρ) is non-increasing and 2-Lipschitz. Since l(0)<2r by assumption, the infimum l(ρ) is achieved by a geodesic loop
γρ:[0,l(ρ)]→B(p,ρ+r)⊆B(p,R). Lemma 5.4 implies that γρ is simple. Whenever l′(ρ) exists, the first variation formula implies that l′(ρ)≤−1+cosδρ, where δρ=∢(γ˙ρ(0),γ˙ρ(l(ρ))). If, contrary to our claim, we had δρ≥δ for all ρ∈[0,R−r], we would have 0≤l(R−r)<2r−(1−cosδ)(R−r), in contradiction to our assumption
R≥(1−cosδ2+1)r.
Proof of Proposition 5.1: Contrary to the claims of Proposition 5.1 and Remark 5.3 we assume that there exist c∈(0,34π), a complete surface immersion f:F→En, p∈F and R>0, such that ∫B(p,R)∣A∣2dvol2≤c, while B(p,αR) is not simply connected where
α=(1−cosδ(c)2+2β(c)+1)−1. We set r=αR and apply Lemma 5.5 to obtain a simple geodesic loop
γ0:[0,l0]→B(p,r) of length l0<2r that is based at p and not contractible in B(p,r). Next we show that neither γ0 is contractible in
B(p,R). Otherwise γ0 would bound a topological disk D⊆B(p,R). Then, by the Gauß-Bonnet formula, we would have
∫DKdvol2=2π−∢(γ˙0(0),γ˙0(l0))>π, in contradiction to
∫DKdvol2≤21∫B(p,R)∣A∣2dvol2≤21c<π. Now we can apply Lemma 5.6 to δ(c), r and
R~=(1−cosδ(c)2+1)r<R to obtain a simple geodesic loop γ:[0,l~]→B(p,R~) of length l~<2r such that
∢(γ˙(0),γ˙(l~))<δ(c). Smoothing the possible corner of γ at γ(0)=γ(l~), we obtain a smooth, simple closed curve Γ⊆B(p,R~) of total absolute geodesic curvature ∣K∣(Γ)<δ(c) and of length l~<2r. Note that, by the choice of r=αR and R~, the tubular neighborhood Γβ(c)l of Γ is contained in B(p,R) so that the assumption
∫Γβ(c)l∣A∣2dvol2≤c in Proposition 4.1 is satisfied. Hence the inequality ∣K∣(Γ)<δ(c) contradicts Proposition 4.1.
6 Area of intrinsic metric balls on surfaces in Riemannian manifolds
We consider a complete surface immersion f:F→M into a Riemannian manifold M. We assume that the sectional curvature of M is bounded below by some negative number k<0.
We will derive upper and lower estimates for the area of metric balls on F, that depend on assumptions on the energy. The upper estimate is standard, and has its origin in an idea that goes back to work by G. Bol [2] and by F. Fiala [10]:
Proposition 6.1
Let F be a complete Riemannian surface, and let K denote its Gaussian curvature. Then the following holds for every number k<0, for every p∈F and every r>0:
[TABLE]
Proof.
This follows easily from case 1) of Theorem 2.4.2 in [6]. Note also that Corollary 11.5 will generalize Proposition 6.1.
Corollary 6.2
Let f:F→M be a complete surface immersion into a Riemannian manifold M with sectional curvature bounded below by k<0.
Then the following holds for every p∈F and every r>0:
[TABLE]
Proof.
By the Gauß equations we have K≥k−21∣A∣2, cf. (1.2). Hence we have (K−k)−≤21∣A∣2 and
∫B(p,r)(K−k)−dvol2≤E(f∣B(p,r)). So our claim is reduced to Proposition 6.1.
Our lower area estimate depends on the result of Section 5.
Proposition 6.3
Let M be a compact Riemannian manifold. Then there exist r0>0 and β≥1 such that the following holds for every complete surface immersion f:F→M and every p∈F.
If r∈(0,r0) and E(f∣B(p,βr))≤4π, then B(p,r) is simply connected, and vol2(B(p,r))≥2πr2.
Proof.
Let i:M→En be an isometric immersion of M into some euclidean space, and let C>0 be an upper bound for the norm of the second fundamental form
A~ of i. Then the second fundamental form Aˉ of fˉ=i∘f can be orthogonally decomposed as Aˉ=A+f∗A~,
where A denotes the second fundamental form of f. This implies ∣Aˉ∣2≤∣A∣2+C2. Hence, using Corollary 6.2 we obtain
[TABLE]
where k<0 denotes a lower bound for the sectional curvature of M. According to the Gauß equations we can take k=−C2, so that the preceding inequality reduces to
[TABLE]
Hence we can find r1>0 so that r∈(0,r1) and E(f∣B(p,r))≤4π imply
[TABLE]
namely r1=C1\mboxarcosh(911). Now we can apply Proposition 5.1 to find α=α(π) so that B(p,αr) is simply connected whenever r∈(0,r1) and E(f∣B(p,r))≤4π. We set β=α−1 and r0=αr1, and conclude that B(p,r) is simply connected whenever r∈(0,r0) and E(f∣B(p,βr))≤4π. This proves our first claim. For these r we can apply Proposition 3.2(3) in [27], and obtain
[TABLE]
If r∈(0,r0) and E(f∣B(p,βr))≤4π, we use K+≤21∣Aˉ∣2 and (6.1) to see that
∫B(p,r)K+dvol2≤E(fˉ∣B(p,r))≤2π. Hence (6.2) implies
vol2(B(p,r))≥2πr2.
7 Gromov-Hausdorff convergence
We consider a sequence of complete surface immersions fi:Fi→M into a compact Riemannian manifold (M,g).
We assume that the Fi and M are connected, and let di resp. dM denote the distance functions induced by fi∗g resp. by g.
Under appropriate assumptions on the energy of the fi we will study pointed Gromov-Hausdorff convergence, abbreviated as GH-convergence,
of the metric spaces (Fi,di) to a limit metric space. We will rely on the concept of GH-convergence as explained by M. Gromov in [11], Section 6.
Except for some technical details much of the material in this section is a special case of [27], Section 3. Here, we present complete details since, on the one hand, the results from Section 6 make the proofs in our special case considerably simpler than the ones given in [27], while, on the other hand,
the results in [27] do not apply directly in our situation.
We start by recalling some notions from metric geometry. A metric space X is proper if the compact subsets of X are precisely the closed and bounded subsets of X. X is a length space if any two points x,y∈X can be joined by a curve in X of length d(x,y). A sequence of compact metric spaces Xi is
uniformly compact if the diameters of the Xi are uniformly bounded, and if, for every ε>0, there exists N∈N such that each Xi has an
ε-dense subset with at most N elements. We recall Gromov’s compactness criterion [11], p. 64:
*Let (Xi,xi)i∈N be a sequence of proper, pointed metric spaces. If for each r>0 the sequence of balls (B(xi,r))i∈N is uniformly compact, then a subsequence of the sequence (Xi,xi)i∈N GH-converges to a proper, pointed metric space.
Finally, we note the following well-known fact, see e. g. [5], Theorem 7.5.1:
Remark 7.1
If the sequence (Xi,xi)i∈N GH-converges to a complete, pointed metric space Y, and if all the Xi are length spaces, then so is Y.**
If X is a metric space and ε>0, we define αX(ε)∈N∪{∞} by
[TABLE]
If A is a subset of X, we consider A with the metric induced from X. This defines αA(ε) for subsets A of X.
The following lemma relies on the area estimates obtained in Section 6. In particular, the statement involves the constants r0>0 and β≥1 from
Proposition 6.3. As in Section 6, we let k<0 denote a lower bound for the sectional curvature of M.
Lemma 7.2
Let f:F→M be a complete surface immersion, and suppose p∈F and R~>0 are such that E(f∣B(p,R~))≤4π. If 0<R<R~
and 0<ε<2min{r0,βR~−R}, then
If D⊆B(p,R) is ε-dense in B(p,R) and #D=αB(p,R)(ε), then
B(x,2ε)∩B(y,2ε)=∅ for x=y in D. Since 2ε<R~−R we have
B(x,2ε)⊆B(p,R~) for all x∈D. This implies
[TABLE]
Finally, we have 2ε<r0 and E(f∣B(x,β2ε))≤4π for x∈D, since
B(x,β2ε)⊆B(p,R+β2ε)⊆B(p,R~).
So we can apply Proposition 6.3 to obtain
Using Gromov’s compactness criterion and Lemma 7.2 we obtain:
Proposition 7.3
(a)
Suppose 0<R<R~ and pi∈Fi is a sequence such that liminfi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,R~))<4π. Then a subsequence of the sequence
(B(pi,R),pi)i∈N GH-converges to a connected, compact, pointed metric space (YR,y0) of finite 2-dimensional Hausdorff measure.
(b)
Suppose pi∈Fi is a sequence such that liminfi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,R))<4π holds for all R>0. Then a subsequence of the sequence
(Fi,pi)i∈N GH-converges to a proper, pointed length space (Y,y0) of locally finite 2-dimensional Hausdorff measure.
Proof.
Lemma 7.2 shows that the sequence (B(pi,R))i∈N is uniformly compact, in case (a) for R<R~, and in case (b) for all R>0.
So the statements concerning GH-convergence follow from Gromov’s compactness criterion. The estimate αB(pi,R)(ε)≤c(k,R)ε−2 from Lemma 7.2
implies a similar estimate for the limit spaces YR resp. Y. This proves the
statements about the 2-dimensional Hausdorff measure, see Section 2.3 and
the proof of Theorem 3.1 in [27]. Remark 7.1 shows that Y
is a length space.
Remark 7.4
In [27] T. Shioya studies the topological structure of
GH-limit spaces of sequences of compact Riemannian surfaces with bounds
on the total absolute curvature and the diameter. These results do not
apply directly in the situation of Proposition 7.3, since the
assumptions are not satisfied. In Section 13 we will prove that, under
the conditions (13.1)-(13.3), the limit space Y in
Proposition 7.3(b) admits a locally isometric map onto a complete,
totally geodesic surface in M, see Proposition 13.3.**
To define a notion of convergence for the sequence of maps fi we resort to definite GH-convergence, as defined in [11], p. 66. If (Xi,xi)i∈N
GH-converges to (Y,y0) we can choose and will fix a sequence of metrics δi on the disjoint unions Xi∪Y with the following properties:
(a)
The inclusions (Xi,di)→(Xi∪Y,δi) and (Y,dY)→(Xi∪Y,δi) are isometric.
(b)
For every r>0 and every ε>0 the following holds for almost all i∈N:
δi(xi,y0)<ε, and B(xi,r) is contained in the ε-neighborhood of Y, and B(y0,r) is contained in the ε-neighborhood of Xi
(both neighborhoods with respect to δi).
Definition 7.5
Suppose (Xi,xˉi)i∈N→(Y,y0) with respect to definite GH-convergence. Then we define:
(a)
A sequence xi∈Xi converges to y∈Y, i. e. limi→∞xi=y, if limi→∞δi(xi,y)=0.
(b)
Let fi:Xi→Z be a sequence of maps into a metric space Z. Then the fi converge to a map f:Y→Z if limi→∞fi(xi)=f(y),
whenever the sequence xi∈Xi converges to y∈Y.
Slightly generalizing the usual proof of the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem, we obtain:
Proposition 7.6
(a)* Suppose the sequence (B(pi,R),pi) converges to (YR,y0) with respect to definite GH-convergence. Then a subsequence of the sequence
(fi∣B(pi,R))i∈N converges to a distance-nonincreasing map f:YR→M.
(b) Suppose the sequence (Fi,pi)i∈N converges to (Y,y0) with respect to definite GH-convergence. Then a subsequence of the sequence
(fi)i∈N converges to a distance-nonincreasing map f:Y→M.
Similarly, the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem implies:
Proposition 7.7
Suppose the sequence (B(pi,R),pi)i∈N converges to (YR,y0) and limi→∞(fi∣B(pi,R))=f:YR→M.
Let L>0, and let wi∈SFi be a sequence such that cwi([−L,L])⊆B(pi,R) for all i∈N, and
limi→∞∫−LL∣Ai∣2∘cwi(t)dt=0, and limi→∞dfi(wi)=w∈SM. Then a subsequence of the
(cwi∣[−L,L])i∈N converges to a curve in YR, and every limit curve c:[−L,L]→YR satisfies f∘c=cw∣[−L,L]
and dYR(c(s),c(t))=∣t−s∣ for all s,t∈[−L,L] with ∣t−s∣≤injrad(M). In particular, we have cw([−L,L])⊆f(YR).
Proof.
Since the GH-convergence of (B(pi,R),pi)i∈N to (YR,y0) can be realized by Hausdorff convergence within some fixed compact metric space, cf. [11], p. 65, the usual Arzelà-Ascoli theorem implies the existence of a limit curve c:[−L,L]→YR, say
limi→∞cwi∣[−L,L]=c. So, if ti∈[−L,L] and limi→∞ti=t, then limi→∞cwi(ti)=c(t), while
limi→∞fi∘cwi(ti)=cw(t) by Proposition 2.3. From Definition 7.5(b) we see that this implies fi∘c(t)=cw(t).
Since c and f are 1-Lipschitz we conclude that dYR(c(s),c(t))=∣t−s∣ if s,t∈[−L,L] and ∣t−s∣≤injrad(M).
8 Asymptotic density of good points
We continue to consider a sequence of complete surface immersions fi:Fi→M into a compact Riemannian manifold M. We assume that there exist R~>0 and a sequence pi∈Fi such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,R~))=0. Relying on the volume estimate from Proposition 3.6 and the lower estimate for the area of balls from Proposition 6.3, we will prove that there exists a sequence εi↓0 such that the sets of “(∣Ai∣2,εi,R,r)-good points” Gεi,R,r(∣Ai∣2), cf. Definition 3.5, are asymptotically dense in B(pi,r), whenever R>0, r>0 and R+2r<R~. In combination with the results from Section 7 this will be used to prove the existence of a totally geodesic surface in M. As a prerequisite for the proof of a complete totally geodesic surface in M, we will then assume the existence of a sequence R~i→∞ such that E(fi∣B(pi,R~i))→0 and prove the existence of sequences εi↓0, Ri→∞ such that the sets G~εi,Ri(∣Ai∣2), cf. (3.7), are asymptotically dense in
B(pi,Ri).
Definition 8.1
Let (Xi,di) be a sequence of metric spaces, and, for each i∈N, let Bi and Gi be subsets of Xi. Then the sequence Gi is called asymptotically dense in the sequence
Bi if
[TABLE]
Put differently, this condition says that there is a sequence δi↓0 such that each Bi is contained in the δi-neighborhood of Gi. In the following we will depend on the constants r0>0, β≥1 from Proposition 6.3.
Lemma 8.2
Assume there exist R~>0 and a sequence pi∈Fi such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,R~))=0. Then there exists a sequence εi↓0 such that the sequence Gεi,R,r(∣Ai∣2) is asymptotically dense in the sequence B(pi,r), whenever R>0, r>0 and R+2r<R~.
Proof.
We choose a sequence εi↓0 such that limi→∞(εi−4E(fi∣B(pi,R~)))=0. Since R+2r<R~ we can use Proposition 3.6(b) to find r~>r such that
[TABLE]
If our claim were not true we could find ε>0 and an infinite set I⊆N such that, for each i∈I, there exists qi∈B(pi,r) with
B(qi,ε)∩Gεi,R,r(∣Ai∣2)=∅. We may assume that ε<min{r0,r~−r} and r+βε<R~.
Then B(qi,βε)⊆B(pi,R~) and, hence, E(fi∣B(qi,βε))≤4π for almost all i∈I. For these infinitely many i∈I
Proposition 6.3 implies vol2(B(qi,ε))≥2πε2. On the other hand, since ε<r~−r, we have
B(qi,ε)⊆B(pi,r~)\Gεi,R,r(∣Ai∣2), in contradiction to (8.1).
Similarly, we can prove:
Lemma 8.3
Assume there exist sequences R~i→∞ and pi∈Fi such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,R~i))=0.
Then there exist sequences εi↓0, Ri→∞ such that the sequence G~εi,Ri(∣Ai∣2) is asymptotically dense in the sequence B(pi,Ri).
Proof.
We can find sequences εi↓0 and Ri→∞ such that 5Ri<R~i for all i∈N and
limi→∞(εi4Ri3E(fi∣B(pi,R~i)))=0. Then we can use Corollary 3.7 to conclude that
[TABLE]
This implies the asymptotic density of G~εi,Ri(∣Ai∣2) in B(pi,Ri) as in the proof of Lemma 8.2.
9 Existence of totally geodesic surfaces and proof of Theorem 1.2
In this section we prove Theorem 1.2. We assume that there exists a sequence of complete surface immersions fi:Fi→M with points pi∈Fi and R~>0 such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,R~))=0, and prove that M contains (a piece of) totally geodesic surface.
We start with a rough outline of the proof. According to Lemma 8.2 we may assume that pi∈Gεi,R,r(∣Ai∣2), where
εi↓0 and R+2r<R~. Since M is compact we may assume that the sequence (dfi(TpiFi))i∈N converges in the Grassmann bundle
πG:G2M→M of 2-dimensional linear subspaces in TM, say
limi→∞dfi(TpiFi))=P∈(G2M)p, where p=limi→∞fi(pi).
We intend to prove that NP(R)=N={cv(t)∣v∈SP,∣t∣<R}⊆M is a totally geodesic, embedded surface if R is smaller than the injectivity radius of M at p.
According to Propositions 7.3 and 7.6 we may assume that the sequence of compact metric spaces (B(pi,R+r),pi)i∈N converges to a compact metric space
(Y,y0), and that the maps fi∣B(pi,R+r) converge to a 1-Lipschitz map f:Y→M. Since Y has finite 2-dimensional Hausdorff measure, the same is true for f(Y).
Now, for fixed w∈SP, we define maps w~:SP×(0,R)→SM, w~(v,t)=Ptcv(w), and
ψw=ψ:SP×(0,R)×(−r,r)→M, ψ(v,t,s)=cw~(v,t)(s).
Then ψ(SP×(0,R)×{0})=N\{p}. Using our assumption pi∈Gεi,R,r(∣Ai∣2) and Proposition 7.7 we prove that
ψ(SP×(0,R)×(−r,r))⊆f(Y). In particular, we see that rk(dψ)=2 in a neighborhood of SP×(0,R)×{0}. Then standard calculus implies that
ψ(v,t,s)=cw~(v,t)(s)∈ψ(SP×(0,R)×{0})⊆N for small enough ∣s∣ and w~(v,t)∈Scv(t)N. Since w~(v,t) is an arbitrary
vector in Scv(t)N, this proves that N is totally geodesic.
Here are the precise formulation and the proof.
Proposition 9.1
Let fi:Fi→M be a sequence of complete surface immersions into a compact Riemannian manifold. Suppose εi↓0, R>0, r>0, and
pi∈Gεi,R,r(∣Ai∣2) is a sequence such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,R+2r))=0 and limi→∞dfi(TpiFi)=P∈(G2M)p.
If R is smaller than the injectivity radius of M at p, then NP(R)=N={cv(t)∣v∈SP,∣t∣<R}⊆M is a totally geodesic, embedded surface.
Remark 9.2
The condition “R smaller than the injectivity radius of M at p” is imposed in order to have a convenient description of the totally geodesic surface N. The methods used in Section 10 indicate that without this condition one should be able to find a complete surface immersion f:F→M and q∈F such that f∣B(q,R) is totally geodesic.**
Proof.
According to Propositions 7.3 and 7.6 we can find a subsequence such that the sequence (B(pi,R+r),pi)i∈N converges to a compact, pointed metric space
(Y,y0) with respect to definite GH-convergence and such that the sequence (fi∣B(pi,R+r))i∈N converges to a 1-Lipschitz map f:Y→M. We fix an arbitrary w∈SP and define maps w~:SP×(0,R)→TM,
w~(v,t)=Ptcv(w), and ψ:SP×(0,R)×(−r,r)→M, ψ(v,t,s)=cw~(v,t)(s), as above.
Since R is smaller than the injectivity radius of M at p, we know that N is an embedded submanifold and ψ∣SP×(0,R)×{0} is a diffeomorphism onto N\{p}.
We want to prove that w~(v,t)∈Scv(t)N and that ψ(SP×(0,R)×(−r,r))⊆f(Y). Since pi∈Gεi,R,r(∣Ai∣2) we know that the sets
(SpiFi×SpiFi×[−R,R])\Vεi,R,r2(∣Ai∣2) are asymptotically dense in SpiFi×SpiFi×[−R,R], cf. (3.4)
and Definition 3.5. Hence, given (v,w,t)∈SP×SP×(0,R), we can find a sequence (vi,wi,ti)∈SpiFi×SpiFi×(0,R) such that
[TABLE]
and such that ∫−RR∣Ai∣2∘cvi(t)dt<εi and ∫−rr∣Ai∣2∘cw~i(s)ds<εi, where w~i=Pticvi(wi), cf. (3.1).
Now Proposition 2.3 implies that
if s∈(−r,r). Since f(Y) has finite 2-dimensional Hausdorff measure we conclude that
rk(dψ)≤2. Since rk(dψ(v,t,0))≥2 for
(v,t)∈SP×(0,R), we can find a neighborhood of SP×(0,R)×{0} in SP×R2 on which dψ has constant rank 2.
Using the local normal form of maps of constant rank we find, for every (v,t)∈SP×(0,R), some δ>0 such that
ψ(v,t,s)∈ψ(SP×(0,R)×{0})=N\{p} for ∣s∣<δ. Since N is an embedded submanifold this implies that
w~(v,t)=∂s∂ψ(v,t,0)∈Scv(t)N. Hence Ptcv(SP)=Scv(t)N, and the preceding argument shows that every geodesic
with initial vector in Scv(t)N lies locally in N. This proves that N is totally geodesic.
Remark 9.3
The preceding proof shows additionally that under the assumptions of Proposition 9.1 every q∈N is the limit of a sequence (fi(qi))i∈N
with qi∈B(pi,R)⊆Fi.
Theorem 1.2 is a consequence of the following slightly stronger result.**
Theorem 9.4
Let fi:Fi→M be a sequence of complete surface immersions into a compact Riemannian manifold. Assume the existence of a sequence pi∈Fi and of R~>0 such that
limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,R~))=0. Then there exists a 2-plane P∈G2M such that NP(R)={cv(t)∣v∈SP,∣t∣<R} is a totally geodesic, embedded surface in M, whenever R>0 is smaller than the minimum of R~ and the injectivity radius of M at the foot point πG(P) of P.
Proof.
Since R<R~ we may choose r>0 such that R+2r<R~. Now Lemma 8.2 provides sequences εi↓0 and qi∈Gεi,R,r(∣Ai∣2)
such that limi→∞di(qi,pi)=0. Hence we have limi→∞E(fi∣B(qi,R+2r))=0. Since G2M is compact there exists a subsequence of dfi(TqiFi)∈G2M converging to some P∈G2M. So our claim follows from Proposition 9.1.
Remark 9.5
If we consider the case of k-dimensional immersions with k>2, our proof will go through under the following additional assumptions:
The following proposition will be used to prove the existence of complete, totally geodesic surfaces, see Proposition 10.4.
Proposition 9.6
Suppose there are sequences εi↓0, Ri→∞, and pi∈G~εi,Ri(∣Ai∣2)⊆Fi such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,Ri))=0 and such that
limi→∞dfi(TpiFi)=P∈G2M exists. Given (v,t)∈SP×R set P~=P~(v,t)=Ptcv(P). Then
NP~(R)={cw(s)∣w∈SP~,∣s∣<R} is a totally geodesic, embedded surface in M, provided R>0 is smaller than the injectivity radius of M at cv(t).
Proof.
Since pi∈G~εi,Ri(∣Ai∣2) we can find sequences vi∈SpiFi, ti∈R such that limi→∞(dfi(vi),ti)=(v,t) and
∫−RiRi∣Ai∣2∘cvi(s)ds<εi and cvi(ti)∈Gεi,Ri(∣Ai∣2), cf. (3.7) and (3.8). Now Proposition 2.3(c) implies that
limi→∞dfi(Tcvi(ti)Fi)=Ptcv(P)=P~. Since cvi(ti)∈Gεi,Ri(∣Ai∣2)=Gεi,Ri,Ri(∣Ai∣2),
we see that the assumptions of Proposition 9.1 are satisfied for the sequence cvi(ti) and every choice of R>0, r>0. So Proposition 9.1 implies our claim.
10 Existence of complete, totally geodesic surfaces
We continue to consider a sequence of complete surface immersions fi:Fi→M into a compact Riemannian manifold (M,g). In this section we prove a global version of Proposition 9.1. Under the assumption that there exist sequences pi∈Fi, Ri→∞, such that
limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,Ri))=0, we prove the existence of a complete, totally geodesic surface immersion into M. In view of Proposition 9.6
this amounts to piecing together local totally geodesic surfaces. This is reminiscent of the construction of the leaves of a foliation. Indeed, for general Riemannian manifolds
(M,g), there exists a distribution Dk=Dk(M,g) in the tangent bundle of the Grassmann bundle πG:GkM→M such that the integral manifolds
L of Dk correspond to totally geodesic immersions πG∣L:L→M. Under our assumptions we will prove that there exists a complete leaf L⊆G2M of
D2(M,g) , i. e. a leaf L such that (πG∣L)∗g is a complete Riemannian metric. Then πG∣L:L→M is a complete, totally geodesic surface immersion.
We start by collecting some facts concerning integral manifolds of a general distribution D of fiber dimension k in the tangent bundle of a general manifold M.
We assume that all considered objects are smooth (=C∞). So, D:M→GkM is a section of the Grassmann bundle πG:GkM→M. An *integral manifold of *
D is an immersion j:L→M of a connected manifold L such that dj(TxL)=Dj(x) for all x∈L. Although we will not use this in our proofs, we note the following important property of integral manifolds.
Remark 10.1
Let j:L→M be an injective integral manifold of D. Suppose P is a manifold and h∈C∞(P,M) satisfies h(P)⊆j(L).
Then j−1∘h∈C∞(P,L).
An integral manifold j:L→M of D is called maximal if j is injective and if the following is true: If j~:L~→M is an integral manifold
of D and j(L)∩j~(L~)=∅, then j~(L~)⊆j(L). If j:L→M is a maximal integral manifold of D, then
j(L)⊆M is called a *leaf of * D.
One defines a manifold structure on j(L) by declaring j a diffeomorphism. The topology of this manifold structure is finer, and often strictly finer,
than the topology of j(L) as a subspace of M. Remark 10.1 shows that this manifold structure of a leaf is in fact independent of the parametrization j.
Proposition 10.2
Suppose p∈M lies in the image of some integral manifold of D. Then there exists a maximal integral manifold j:L→M such that
p∈j(L).
If D is completely integrable, i. e. if D satisfies the Frobenius condition, then this is proved in textbooks treating foliations.
The more general version stated here admits a similar proof.
In particular, if j0:L0→M is an integral manifold of D, then there exists a leaf L of D
containing j0(L0). Indeed, q∈L iff there exists a finite sequence j1:L1→M,…,jn:Ln→M of integral manifolds of D such that
ji−1(Li−1)∩ji(Li)=∅ for 1≤i≤n and q∈jn(Ln).
Next we briefly recall how k-dimensional, totally geodesic immersions into an m-dimensional Riemannian manifold (M,g) are related to a k-dimensional distribution
Dk=Dk(M,g) in the tangent bundle of the Grassmann bundle GkM. So, from now on, GkM will play the role of the manifold M in the preceding paragraph.
Since the bundle πG:GkM→M is associated to the principal O(m)-bundle of orthonormal frames there is a natural horizontal distribution H⊆T(GkM) induced by the Levi-Civita connection of g, cf. [14], Chapter II, pp. 87–88. Explicitly H is given as follows. If P∈GkM and v∈TπG(P)M, choose a C1-curve
γ:R→M such that γ˙(0)=v, and let Pγ(t)=Ptγ(P) denote the parallel transport of P=Pγ(0) along γ.
Then P˙γ(0)∈TP(GkM) is independent of the choice of γ with γ˙(0)=v, and defines a linear map
HP:TπG(P)M→TP(GkM), HP(v)=P˙γ(0), satisfying dπG∘HP(v)=v for all v∈TπG(P)M. Then the (m-dimensional) horizontal distribution
H⊆T(GkM) is given by HP=HP(TπG(P)M) for all P∈GkM. Note that a C1-curve P:I→GkM is horizontal, i. e. P˙(t)∈HP(t) for all t∈I, if and only if P(t) is parallel along (πG∘P)(t). Now we consider the k-dimensional distribution Dk=Dk(M,g)⊆H defined by
[TABLE]
for all P∈GkM.
Note: We have V∈DP if and only if V∈HP and dπG(V)∈P.
Lemma 10.3
Let j:N→M be a totally geodesic immersion of a connected, k-dimensional manifold N, and define J:N→GkM by J(p)=dj(TpN). Then πG∘J=j and J is an integral manifold of D, i. e. dJ(TpN)=DJ(p) for all p∈N. Conversely, if J:N→GkM is an integral manifold of D,
then πG∘J:N→M is a totally geodesic immersion and J(p)=d(πG∘J)(TpN) for all p∈N.
Proof.
Suppose first that j:N→M is a totally geodesic immersion and define J:N→GkM by J(p)=dj(TpN). Let γ~ be a C1-curve in N and γ=j∘γ~. Since j is a totally geodesic immersion we see that J(γ~(t))=dj(Tγ~(t)M) is parallel along γ. By the definition of Hγ(t) this implies that
(J∘γ~)⋅(t)∈HJ(γ(t)). This proves that dJ(TpN)⊆HJ(p) for all p∈N. Additionally we have dπG∘dJ=dj, so that the note preceding Lemma 10.3 shows that dJ(TpN)=DJ(p) for all p∈N. Conversely, suppose that J:N→GkM satisfies dJ(TpN)=DJ(p) for all p∈N, and set
j=πG∘J. Then we have for all p∈N:
[TABLE]
In particular, j is an immersion. To see that j is totally geodesic note that, for every C1-curve γ~ in N, the curve
[TABLE]
is horizontal, i. e. parallel along γ=j∘γ~. This proves that j is totally geodesic.
Using Proposition 9.6 and the preceding discussion we will prove:
Proposition 10.4
Suppose εi↓0, ρi→∞ and pi∈G~εi,ρi(∣Ai∣2) are sequences such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,ρi))=0 and such that
limi→∞dfi(TpiFi)=P∈G2M exists. Then there exists a leaf L of D2(M,g) such that P∈L and such that (πG∣L)∗g is
a complete Riemannian metric on L. In particular, πG∣L:L→M is a complete, totally geodesic surface immersion. Moreover, for every P~∈L there exists
a sequence qi∈Gεi,ρi(∣A∣2) such that limi→∞dfi(TqiFi)=P~ and di(pi,qi)≤dL(P,P~),
where dL denotes the distance on L induced by (πG∣L)∗g.
Corollary 10.5
Suppose pi∈Fi, Ri→∞ are sequences such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,Ri))=0. Then there exists a complete, totally geodesic surface immersion into M.
Proof of Corollary 10.5 assuming Proposition 10.4:
According to Lemma 8.3 we can find sequences εi↓0, ρi→∞ and ρi<Ri−1, and qi∈G~εi,ρi(∣Ai∣2) such that
limi→∞di(qi,pi)=0. Then Proposition 10.4 applies to a subsequence of the sequence qi.
Proof of Proposition 10.4: From Proposition 9.6 together with Lemma 10.3 we conclude the following. For every (v,t)∈SP×R there exists an integral manifold of D2(M,g) containing Pv(t)=Ptcv(P). Hence, by Proposition 10.2, there exists a leaf L of D2(M,g) containing Pv(R).
Moreover, the way L is constructed (resp. Remark 10.1) implies that for all v∈SP the curve Pv is a smooth curve in L. Since πG∘Pv is the g-geodesic cv, we see that Pv:R→L is a geodesic with respect to (πG∣L)∗g. Hence every geodesic of (L,(πG∣L)∗g) through P is defined on all of R. So, by the Hopf-Rinow theorem,
(L,(πG∣L)∗g) is a complete Riemannian manifold. Lemma 10.3 implies that πG∣L is a totally geodesic immersion. Finally, using the Hopf-Rinow theorem again, we obtain, for every P~∈L, a geodesic Pv, v∈SP, such that Pv(t)=P~, where t=dL(P,P~). Since pi∈G~εi,ρi(∣Ai∣2), we can find a sequence
(vi,ti)∈SpiFi×R such that cvi(ti)∈Gεi,ρi(∣Ai∣2), limi→∞dfi(vi)=v, ti↑t, and ∫−ρiρi∣Ai∣2∘cvi(s)ds<εi. Using Proposition 2.3(c) we see that limi→∞dfi(Tcvi(ti)Fi)=Pv(t)=P~. We set qi=cvi(ti). Then qi∈Gεi,ρi∣A∣2) and di(pi,qi)≤ti≤t=dL(P,P~), and limi→∞dfi(TqiFi)=P~.
If L is a non-compact leaf of Dk(M,g) such that (πG∣L)∗g is complete, one can prove the existence of additional complete leaves in the closure of L. In this context the notions
“lamination” and “lamination structure” from [1], Section 2 (D1), seem appropriate.
Proposition 10.6
Let (M,g) be a compact Riemannian manifold, and suppose L0⊆GkM is a leaf of Dk(M,g) such that (πG∣L)∗g is complete. Let S denote the closure of L0 in GkM. Then there exists a unique C∞-lamination structure L on S with tangent distribution Dk(M,g)∣S. If L is a leaf of L, then πG∣L is a
complete, totally geodesic immersion.
Remark 10.7
Since Dk(M,g)∣S is the tangent distribution of L, the leaves of L are precisely the leaves of Dk(M,g) that are contained in S.**
Remark 10.8
If L0 is compact, then L0=S is the only leaf of L. If all leaves of L are noncompact, then L will have uncountably many leaves.**
Proof of Proposition 10.6: The lamination structure L on S will be provided by [1], Proposition 2.7, once we know that conditions (a) and (b) in this
proposition hold in our situation. First note that, since L0 is assumed complete, there exists an integral manifold of Dk(M,g) through every P∈S. This, together with the fact that S is closed, implies conditions (a) and (b). If L is a leaf of L, then L is a leaf of Dk(M,g), see Remark 10.7, and hence
πG∣L is a totally geodesic immersion by Lemma 10.3. It is a general fact that the leaves of a lamination (in the sense of [1]) in a complete Riemannian manifold are complete. In our situation we can also argue that for every leaf L of L, every P∈L and every v∈SP, we have Pv(t)=Ptcv(P)∈L for ∣t∣<injrad(M,g).
This implies that actually Pv(R)⊆L. Since the Pv, v∈SP, are the geodesics of (L,(πG∣L)∗g) through P, we see that (L,(πG∣L)∗g) is complete.
11 An upper area estimate for weakly starshaped domains
Upper estimates for the area of parallel sets of curves on surfaces under assumptions on the integrated Gaussian curvature go back to work by G. Bol [2] and F. Fiala [10].
Rigorous proofs for smooth surfaces were given by P. Hartman [12], see also [6], Chapter 2, and [29], Chapter 4. We will slightly extend these results from parallel sets to sets that will be called weakly starshaped. This generalization to weakly starshaped sets is used in the proof of Theorem 1.1. For a proof of Theorem 1.3
the known estimate for the area of metric balls is sufficient, see Sections 6 and 13.
In this section we will consider a domain S with smooth, compact and connected boundary ∂S⊆S on a complete Riemannian surface (F,g). So, the boundary ∂S of S is a simple closed curve that will be denoted by Γ. We introduce the following notation that will be used throughout this section. The geodesic curvature of Γ with respect to the normal pointing into S will be denoted by κ:Γ→R. We set L=length(Γ), K(Γ)=∫Γκ(q)ds(q),
∣K∣(Γ)=∫Γ∣κ(q)∣ds(q), and K+(Γ)=∫Γκ+(q)ds(q), where s denotes arclength on Γ.
The distance function dΓ:S→[0,∞) from Γ=∂S is defined by
[TABLE]
where d denotes the distance on F induced by g. For t>0 we set
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Obviously, we have ∂Γt⊆Γ∪PΓt, where strict inclusion may hold for exceptional t.
Definition 11.1
A subset C⊆S is weakly Γ-starshaped, if C is closed, Γ⊆C, and the following holds for every p∈C and every geodesic c:[0,dΓ(p)]→S that is a shortest connection from p to Γ:
[TABLE]
Remark 11.2
We do not assume that shortest connections from points in C to Γ are unique. So, Γ may not be a retract of C. This is the reason for the attribute “weakly”.**
Remark 11.3
If C1 and C2 are weakly Γ-starshaped, then so is C1∩C2. The collars Γt of Γ are weakly Γ-starshaped.**
As in [6], Theorem 2.4.2, the area estimate depends on an arbitrary chosen number k∈R. In our application, k will be a negative lower bound for the sectional curvature of the ambient manifold M. So we present the estimate only in the case k<0, although the cases k=0 and k>0 can be treated similarly, see [6], Theorem 2.4.2, for the corresponding formulae. If B⊆F is measurable we set
[TABLE]
where K denotes the Gaussian curvature of F. For C⊆S and t>0 we set
[TABLE]
The aim of this section is to prove:
Proposition 11.4
Suppose t>0, k<0, and C⊆S is weakly Γ-starshaped. Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note: In the case C=Γt and κ≥0, the first estimate reduces to [6], Theorem 2.4.2, case k<0.
If κ≥0 is not assumed, it is weaker, since the estimate in [6], Theorem 2.4.2, contains the term K(Γ) instead of K+(Γ).
Specializing Definition 11.1 we say that a closed subset C⊆F is *weakly * p-starshaped, if p∈Int(C) and every shortest geodesic
c:[0,d(p,q)]→F from a point q=c(0)∈C to p satisfies c(t)∈Int(C) for all t∈(0,d(p,q)]. Then C is weakly Γ-starshaped, where
S=F\B(p,ε), Γ=∂S=∂B(p,ε), provided B(p,ε)⊆Int(C) and ε is smaller than the injectivity radius at p. So, in the limit
ε↓0 Proposition 11.4 implies:
Corollary 11.5
If C⊆F is weakly p-starshaped, and C⊆B(p,r) for some r>0, then the following holds for every k<0:
[TABLE]
Next we assume that f:F→M is a complete surface immersion into a Riemannian manifold with sectional curvature bounded below by k<0. Then the Gauß equation implies
K≥k−21∣A∣2, cf. (1.2), and hence
[TABLE]
for every measurable subset B⊆F. So, in this situation, the inequality in Corollary 11.5 says:
[TABLE]
Finally, we note that C=B(p,r) is weakly p-starshaped and ∂B(p,r)⊆PCr. Hence Proposition 11.4 together with (11.1) imply:
[TABLE]
At first sight one may have the impression that the proof given in [12] covers the more general case of a weakly Γ-starshaped set C. However, there are some technical problems
concerning the analytical properties of the function t→H1(PCt). To circumvent these problems we first approximate C by a weakly Γ-starshaped subset of C that does not intersect the cut locus of Γ, and that has a smooth and generic boundary. For such sets the original ideas from [2] and [10] apply directly, and Proposition 11.4 will follow from this by approximation.
In order to describe this approximation process we introduce the following tools that are taken from [29], Chapter 4. We let N denote the unit normal field along Γ that points into S and define
[TABLE]
The distance function ρ to the cut locus of Γ,
[TABLE]
is continuous. The set
[TABLE]
is the cut locus of Γ (in S). If we restrict Z to the set D={(p,t)∣p∈Γ,0≤t<ρ(p)}, then Z∣D is a diffeomorphism onto S\CL(Γ).
It obviously suffices to prove Proposition 11.4 for compact weakly Γ-starshaped sets C, since we can replace C by C∩Γr for r>t.
So, in the sequel we will assume that C⊆Γr for some r>0. We then define a function g=gC:Γ→(0,r] by
[TABLE]
Remark 11.6
Since C is weakly Γ-starshaped, Z maps the set {(p,t)∣p∈Γ,0<t<g(p)}⊆D diffeomorphically onto Int(C)\CL(Γ), while
Z(graph(g))=(∂C\Γ)∪(C∩CL(Γ)).**
Suppose the sequence pi∈Γ converges to p∈Γ. Since C is closed and Z(pi,g(si))∈C for all i∈N, we have Z(p,t)∈C for every limit point t of the sequence g(pi)∈(0,r]. Since g(pi)≤ρ(pi) we conclude that t≤limi→∞ρ(pi)=ρ(p). Hence the definition of g implies t≤g(p). So, to prove continuity of g, it suffices to show that the assumption t<g(p) leads to a contradiction. Indeed, if t<τ<g(p) then Z(p,τ)∈Int(C), and hence Z(pi,τ)∈C for almost all i∈N.
Since τ<g(p)≤ρ(p)=limi→∞ρ(pi), this implies τ≤g(pi) for almost all i∈N. Since t is a limit point of the g(pi), this contradicts our assumption t<τ.
Given t>0 we let D1Z(p,t) denote the derivative of the curve p∈Γ→Z(p,t) with respect to arclength on Γ. Then, if A⊆Γ is measurable, we have
[TABLE]
cf. [9], Corollary 3.2.20. Using Remark 11.6 we see that PCt=Z(ACt×{t}), where ACt={p∈Γ∣gC(p)≥t}. We set
*Let C⊆Γr be weakly Γ-starshaped, and δ>0. Then there exists a weakly Γ-starshaped set
C~⊆C\CL(Γ) with the following properties:
(i)
gC(p)−δ<gC~(p)* for all p∈Γ.*
(ii)
gC~:Γ→(0,r)* is a smooth Morse function.*
(iii)
vol2(C\C~)≤l2Lδ, where l denotes a common Lipschitz constant for Z∣Γ×[0,r] and D1Z∣Γ×[0,r].
(iv)
LC(t)≤LC~(t−δ)+lLδ, whenever t>δ.
Proof.
Since, by Lemma 11.7, gC is continuous, it is a standard result from Morse theory that there exists a smooth Morse function g~:Γ→(0,r) such that
gC(p)−δ<g~(p)<gC(p) for all p∈Γ. Then we set
[TABLE]
Since g~<gC≤ρ we have C~⊆C\CL(Γ). Moreover, C~ is weakly Γ-starshaped and gC~=g~.
This takes care of properties (i) and (ii). To prove (iii) note that C\C~={Z(p,t)∣g~(p)<t≤gC(p)}, cf. Remark 11.6.
Since Z∣Γ×[0,r] is L-Lipschitz we obtain (iii). Finally note that gC−δ<g~ implies that ACt⊆AC~t−δ for all t>δ.
Hence, if t>δ then
[TABLE]
Note that PΓt\CL(Γ) is a smooth 1-dimensional submanifold of F, if PΓt\CL(Γ)=∅.
We let κt:PΓt\CL(Γ)→R denote the geodesic curvature of PΓt\CL(Γ) with respect to the outward pointing unit normal
grad(dΓ).
Lemma 11.9
Let C⊆Γr\CL(Γ) be weakly Γ-starshaped, and assume that g=gC is a smooth Morse function. Then the function
v:(0,∞)→(0,∞), v(t)=vol2(Ct) is C1 with derivative v′=LC, and v is smooth on the set of regular values of g. If t>0 is a regular value of g,
then v′′(t)≤∫PCtκt(q)ds(q).
Proof.
We fix a maximal interval (t−,t+)⊆(0,∞) of regular values of g. First we prove that LC∣(t−,t+) is smooth. For every t∈(t−,t+)
the set ACt=g−1([t,∞))⊆Γ is a finite union of disjoint intervals Ii(t), 1≤i≤l, and
[TABLE]
Moreover, l is independent of t∈(t−,t+), and the endpoints of the intervals Ii(t)⊆Γ depend smoothly on t∈(t−,t+).
Since C∩CL(Γ)=∅, the map Z is diffeomorphic when restricted to the set {(p,t)∣p∈Γ, 0≤t≤g(p)}. In particular, for
t∈(t−,t+), Z maps Ii(t)×{t}, 1≤i≤l, diffeomorphically onto disjoint arcsPCit⊆Γt\CL(Γ) and
⋃i=1lPCit=PCt by (11.7). So, for t∈(t−,t+), we have
[TABLE]
Since D1Z(p,t)=0 for p∈Ii(t), we conclude that LC∣(t−,t+) is smooth. Next we estimate LC′. Since h→Z(p,t+h) parametrizes geodesics orthogonal to PCt,
standard differential geometry shows that
[TABLE]
Now suppose h>0 and [t,t+h]⊆(t−,t+). Then ACt+h=g−1([t+h,∞))⊆g−1([t,∞))=ACt, and hence Ii(t+h)⊆Ii(t) for
1≤i≤l. Using (11.8) we obtain
[TABLE]
Next we show that v is C1, and v′=LC. Since g′′(p)=0 at every singular point p∈Γ of g, one easily concludes that LC is continuous on all of (0,∞).
Moreover, PCt=C∩PΓt are the level sets of the distance function dΓ restricted to C. Hence the coarea formula, see e. g. [9], Theorem 3.2.22, implies that v(t)=∫0tLC(τ)dτ. Since LC is continuous we see that v is C1 and v′=LC. Since LC is smooth on the set of regular values of g, the same holds for v.
Moreover, (11) implies that v′′(t)≤∫PCtκt(q)ds(q) for every regular value t of g.
Proof of Proposition 11.4: First we treat the case that C satisfies the assumptions in Lemma 11.9. Then the general case will easily follow from Lemma 11.8. We intend to use the Gauß-Bonnet formula to prove that the following differential inequality for the function v(t)=vol2(Ct) is valid for regular values t of g=gC.
[TABLE]
As in the proof of Lemma 11.9 we consider a maximal interval (t−,t+) of regular values of g, and find l∈N and disjoint intervals Ii(t), 1≤i≤l,
in Γ such that g−1([t,∞))=⋃i=1lIi(t). Then the sets Cit=Z(Ii(t)×[0,t]), 1≤i≤l, are disjoint subsets of Ct. Each Cit is a simply connected domain with piecewise smooth boundary consisting of PCit=Z(Ii(t)×{t}), Ii(t), and the two geodesic arcs Z(∂Ii(t)×[0,t]).
Since ∂Cit has right angles at its four corners, the Gauß-Bonnet formula applied to Cit and summation over i imply
[TABLE]
Now the preceding equality, Lemma 11.9, and the obvious inequality
Next we show that the differential inequality (11.10) implies the estimates claimed in Proposition 11.4.
We fix t>0. The function v∣[0,t] is C1 and smooth except at the finitely many critical points of the Morse function gC.
For every a≥K+(Γ)+ωk−(Ct) and every regular value τ∈[0,t] of gC, v satisfies the differential inequality
[TABLE]
cf. (11.10). This allows us to compare v∣[0,t] and v′∣[0,t]=LC∣[0,t] to the solution
w(τ)=wk,a,L(τ)=−ka(cosh(−kτ)−1)+−kLsinh(−kτ) of the initial value problem w′′+kw=a, w(0)=0, w′(0)=L.
So, if a≥K+(Γ)+ωk−(Ct), we obtain
[TABLE]
Finally, if C is only weakly Γ-starshaped and t>0 and δ∈(0,t), we use Lemma 11.8 to approximate
Ct by a set C~=C~δ⊆Ct that satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 11.9. We set a=K+(Γ)+ωk−(Ct). Then
a≥K+(Γ)+ωk−(C~) and C~=C~t, so that (11.11) implies vol2(C~)≤wk,a,L(t) and
LC~(τ)≤wk,a,L′(τ) for τ∈[0,t]. Letting δ↓0 and using Lemma 11.8 (iii) and (iv), we see that
vol2(Ct)≤wk,a,L(t) and LC(t)≤wk,a,L′(t). Since H1(PCt)≤LC(t) by (11.6), the preceding inequalities prove Proposition 11.4.
In this section we prove Theorem 1.1 by combining Corollary 10.5 with Corollary 12.3 below.
The main new result is the following Proposition 12.1 that is based on the results of the preceding section.
For k<0 we abbreviate k−1(cosh(−kr)−1) by gk(r).
Proposition 12.1
Let f:F→M be an isometric immersion of a compact Riemannian surface (F,g) into a Riemannian manifold (M,gˉ)
with sectional curvature bounded below by k<0. If R>0 and E(f)gk(R)<vol2(F), then there exists p∈F such that
[TABLE]
Remark 12.2
If (F,g) is noncompact and complete, and if E(f)<∞, then infp∈FE(f∣B(p,R))=0 holds for every R>0.**
Corollary 12.3
Let fi:Fi→M be a sequence of complete surface immersions into a Riemannian manifold (M,gˉ) with sectional curvature bounded below. If E(fi)<∞ for all i∈N
and limi→∞E(fi)/vol2(Fi)=0, then there exist sequences pi∈Fi and Ri→∞ such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,Ri))=0.
Proof of Corollary 12.3 assuming Proposition 12.1:
Since limi→∞E(fi)/vol2(Fi)=0 we can find a sequence Ri→∞ such that
[TABLE]
where k<0 denotes a lower bound for the sectional curvature of (M,gˉ). Then Proposition 12.1 together with Remark 12.2 provide points pi∈Fi such that
limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,Ri))=0.
To prove Proposition 12.1 we use a decomposition of F into Voronoi cells stemming from an R-net on F, and apply Proposition 11.4 to the Voronoi cells.
First we recall some facts concerning these concepts. Given R>0 we consider an R-net N⊆F, i. e. we have ⋃p∈NB(p,R)=F and d(p,q)≥R for all p=q in N. Then the Voronoi cell of p∈N is defined by
[TABLE]
As direct consequences of these definitions we have:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Lemma 12.4
If p∈N then Cp is weakly p-starshaped, and Int(Cp)={x∈F∣d(p,x)<d(q,x) for all q∈N\{p}}.
The proof of Lemma 12.4 relies on the following fact that is a direct consequence of the regularity of arclength-parametrized shortest connections.
**Fact 12.5 ** Let c:[0,r]→F be a shortest geodesic from c(0)=x to c(r)=p, r=d(p,x). If q∈F\{p} and d(q,x)=d(p,x), then
d(p,c(s))<d(q,c(s)) for all s∈(0,r].
Proof.
First, we have d(p,c(s))=r−s=d(q,x)−s≤d(q,c(s)) by the triangle inequality. Now, contrary to our claim, assume that
d(p,c(s))=d(q,c(s)), and let cˉ:[0,r−s]→F be a shortest geodesic from cˉ(0)=c(s) to cˉ(r−s)=q. Joining cˉ to c∣[0,s] we obtain an
arclength-parametrized curve of length r=d(q,x) from x to q. This implies that this curve is a geodesic, in particular
cˉ˙(0)=c˙(s) and c(t)=cˉ(t−s) for all t∈[0,r]. So, p=c(r)=cˉ(r−s)=q, in contradiction to our assumption p=q.
Proof of Lemma 12.4: We start by proving the statement concerning Int(Cp). If x∈F and d(p,x)<d(q,x) for all q∈N\{p},
then there exists ε>0 such that d(p,x)<d(q,x)−ε for all q∈N\{p}, since N is discrete. This implies B(x,ε)⊆Cp, so that x∈Int(Cp).
Conversely, assume that x∈Int(Cp) and d(p,x)=d(q,x) for some q∈N\{p}. Reversing the role of p and q in Fact 12.5 we let c be a shortest geodesic from
x=c(0) to q. Then Fact 12.5 implies that d(q,c(s))<d(p,c(s)) for s∈(0,d(x,q)]. In particular, we have c(s)∈/Cp for small s>0, in contradiction to
c(0)=x∈Int(Cp). Finally, we prove that Cp is weakly p-starshaped. Suppose x∈Cp, r=d(x,p), and c:[0,r]→F is a shortest geodesic from x=c(0) to p=c(r).
We intend to show that, for every q∈N\{p}, we have d(c(s),p)<d(c(s),q) for all s∈(0,r]. This will prove c(s)∈Int(Cp) for all s∈(0,r] by the preceding argument. If q∈N\{p} and r=d(p,x)<d(q,x), then d(p,c(s))=r−s<d(q,x)−s≤d(q,c(s)) for all s∈(0,r]. If q∈N\{p} and d(p,x)=d(q,x),
then Fact 12.5 implies d(c(s),p)<d(c(s),q) for all s∈(0,r].
As a consequence of the characterization of Int(Cp) in Lemma 12.4 we obtain
[TABLE]
We note that (12.1)-(12.2), Lemma 12.4, and Fact 12.5, are true in more general contexts, e. g. in complete, symmetric Finsler manifolds of arbitrary dimension.
From (11.4) and (12.3) we obtain vol2(Cp∩Cq)=0 for all p=q in N, and hence (12.1) implies
[TABLE]
Proof of Proposition 12.1: We set δ=minp∈NE(f∣Cp)/vol2(Cp). Then we use (12.1) and (12.4) to see that E(f)≥δvol2(F),
i. e.
[TABLE]
In particular, our assumption implies δgk(R)<1. Choose p∈N such that E(f∣Cp)=δvol2(Cp). Using Lemma 12.4, (11.2) and (12.2),
we obtain
Proof of Theorem 1.1: We argue by contradiction, and assume that there exists a sequence fi:Fi→M of complete surface immersions into a compact Riemannian
manifold M such that E(fi)<∞ for all i∈N and limi→∞E(fi)/vol2(Fi)=0. Then Corollary 12.3 provides sequences pi∈Fi and Ri→∞
such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(pi,Ri))=0. Now we can use Corollary 10.5 to obtain a complete, totally geodesic surface immersion into M, in contradiction to the
assumption made in Theorem 1.1.
We continue to consider a sequence of complete surface immersions fi:Fi→M into a compact Riemannian manifold (M,g). We will assume that pi∈Fi is a sequence satisfying the assumptions of Proposition 10.4, i. e. there exist sequences εi↓0, ρi→∞ such that
[TABLE]
Then Proposition 10.4 provides a leaf L of D2(M,g) such that P0∈L and πG∣L:L→M is a complete, totally geodesic surface immersion.
Under these assumptions we will prove
Theorem 13.1
For every R>0 the sequence of compact sets fi(B(pi,R))⊆M Hausdorff converges to NP0(R)={cv(t)∣v∈SP0,∣t∣≤R}.
Remark 13.2
If LP0(R) denotes the closed metric ball in (L,(πG∣L)∗g) with center P0∈L and radius R>0, then
πG(LP0(R))=NP0(R).**
For the proof of Theorem 1.3 we rely on the results on pointed Gromov-Hausdorff convergence from Section 7, in particular on Propositions 7.3(b) and
7.6(b). So, we will choose a subsequence, denoted by the same symbols, such that the sequence of pointed metric spaces (Fi,pi)i∈N converges to a proper length space
(Y,y0) with respect to (definite) Gromov-Hausdorff convergence, and such that the immersions fi converge to a 1-Lipschitz map f:(Y,y0)→(M,p0) where p0=πG(P0).
The distance functions on Fi will be denoted by di, and the distance functions on Y resp. M by d resp. dM. The distance functions on Fi∪Y determining the definite convergence
will be denoted by δi.
The following proposition will play a crucial role in the proof of Theorem 1.3. Its proof is given following Corollary 13.12.
Proposition 13.3
There exists a covering map f~:(Y,y0)→(L,P0) such that πG∘f~=f. In fact, f~ is a local isometry from (Y,d) onto L with the distance induced by (πG∣L)∗g.
In this section we will call a sequence qi∈Figood resp. *very good * if there exist sequences εi↓0, ρi→∞ and such that
qi∈Gεi,ρi(∣Ai∣2) resp. qi∈G~εi,ρi(∣Ai∣2), see Definition 3.5, (3.7) and (3.8).
As a consequence of Lemma 8.3 we have:
[TABLE]
In a series of lemmas we will analyse the properties of the limit map f:(Y,y0)→(M,p0). This will lead to a proof of Proposition 13.3 and Theorem 13.1.
Lemma 13.4
Suppose qi∈Fi is a good sequence converging to y∈Y, and P∈G2M is a limit plane of the sequence dfi(TqiFi). If 0<r<injrad(M), then
f(∂B(y,r))⊇SP(r)={cv(r)∣v∈SP}. Moreover, f(B(y,r))⊇NP(r)={cv(t)∣(v,t)∈SP×[0,r)} for all r>0.
Proof.
Since P is a limit plane of the sequence dfi(TqiFi), we can find a subsequence, denoted by the same symbols, and, for every v∈SP, a sequence
wi∈SqiFi such that limi→∞dfi(wi)=v. Since qi is a good sequence we can approximate the wi by vi∈SqiFi such that
limi→∞dfi(vi)=limi→∞dfi(wi)=v and limi→∞∫−RR∣Ai∣2∘cvi(t)dt=0 for every R>0.
We choose R such that r<R<injrad(M). Proposition 2.3 implies that the curves fi∘cvi∣[−R,R]C1-converge to cv∣[−R,R],
while Proposition 7.7 provides a limit curve c:[−R,R]→Y such that f∘c=cv∣[−R,R] and d(y,c(t))=∣t∣ for all t∈[−R,R].
This implies that c(r)∈∂B(y,r) and f∘c(r)=cv(r), hence f(∂B(y,r))⊇SP(r). Similarly, we obtain f(B(y,r))⊇NP(r) for all r>0.
The following lemma is a consequence of Proposition 6.3. In this section we let k>0 denote an upper bound for the absolute values of the sectional curvatures of M.
Lemma 13.5
Let y∈Y and r∈(0,r0), where r0>0 is given by Proposition 6.3. Then there exists a closed, 1-Lipschitz curve γ:[0,l]→Y such that
γ([0,l])⊇∂B(y,r) and l≤2πksinh(kr).
Proof.
We choose a sequence qi∈Fi converging to y. According to [12], Lemma 5.2, we can choose a sequence ri of non-exceptional values of the distance functions
di(qi,⋅) such that limi→∞ri=r. Then [12], Proposition 6.1, see also [29], Theorem 4.4.1, together with Proposition 6.3 imply that
∂B(qi,ri) is a piecewise smooth, simple, closed curve. We let γi:[0,li]→∂B(qi,ri) be a parametrization of ∂B(qi,ri) by arclength,
in particular li=H1(∂B(qi,ri)). Then (13.1) and (11.3) imply
[TABLE]
Choosing a subsequence we may assume that the sequence li converges to l≤2πksinh(kr) and, by the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem, that the γi
converge uniformly to a closed, 1-Lipschitz curve γ:[0,l]→Y. It remains to be shown that ∂B(y,r)⊆γ([0,l]).
To prove this we argue by contradiction, and assume:
[TABLE]
Since z∈∂B(y,r) there exists z′∈Y such that d(y,z′)>r and d(z,z′)<δ/2, in particular d(y,z′)<r+δ/2.
Now we choose a sequence xi′∈Fi converging to z′, and estimate
[TABLE]
where r+δ/2>d(y,z′)>r=limi→∞ri, and limi→∞δi(qi,y)=0=limi→∞δi(z′,xi′). Hence, for almost all i∈N, we have
[TABLE]
For these i∈N we choose a shortest geodesic from qi to xi′ and, on this geodesic, the point xi with di(qi,xi)=ri. Then xi∈∂B(qi,ri), and
[TABLE]
Since di(xi,xi′)=di(qi,xi′)−ri<r−ri+δ/2, limi→∞δi(xi′,z′)=0, and d(z′,z)<δ/2, we obtain δi(xi,z)<δ for almost all
i∈N, in contradiction to (13.5). So, we have limi→∞δi(∂B(qi,ri),z)=0 for all z∈∂B(y,r). Hence, for every z∈∂B(y,r),
we can find a sequence si∈[0,li) such that limi→∞γi(si)=z. Then a subsequence of the si converges to some s∈[0,l] and, by the uniform convergence of γi to γ, we have γ(s)=limi→∞γi(si)=z.
Lemma 13.5 has the following important consequences.
Lemma 13.6
Suppose qi∈Fi is a good sequence converging to y∈Y. Then the sequence dfi(TqiFi) converges in G2M.
Proof.
Since G2M is compact it suffices to show that the sequence dfi(TqiFi) cannot have two different limit planes P=P′. If this were the case we would have
f(∂B(y,r))⊇SP(r)∪SP′(r) for r∈(0,injrad(M)), see Lemma 13.4. Since f is 1-Lipschitz and P=P′ this would imply
According to (13.4) and Lemma 13.6 the following definition makes sense.
Definition 13.7
We define f~:(Y,y0)→(G2M,P0) by f~(y)=P iff limi→∞dfi(TqiFi)=P for every good sequence qi∈Fi with
limi→∞qi=y. In particular, f~ is a lift of f, i. e. πG∘f~=f.
To formulate the next lemma we choose r1>0 such that
[TABLE]
and set
[TABLE]
Lemma 13.8
If y,z∈Y and 0<d(y,z)<r2, then f(y)=f(z).
Remark 13.9
Once Proposition 13.3 will be proven, we will know that f(y)=f(z) under the weaker condition 0<d(y,z)<2injrad(M). **
Proof.
We argue by contradiction and assume that y,z∈Y, 0<d(y,z)<r2, but f(y)=f(z). We set d(y,z)=r and, in a first step, we additionally assume that z∈∂B(y,r). Lemma 13.5 provides a closed, 1-Lipschitz curve γ:[0,l]→Y such that γ([0,l])⊇∂B(y,r) and
l≤2πksinh(kr). From Lemma 13.4 we conclude that (f∘γ)([0,l])⊇SP(r), where P=f~(y). Since f(z)=f(y) we know that dM(f(z),SP(r))=r. Using our assumption z∈∂B(y,r), we obtain
[TABLE]
Since r<min{injrad(M),kπ}, the Rauch comparison theorem implies
[TABLE]
Since 0<r<r1, inequalities (13.8) and (13.9) contradict (13.6). Finally we treat the case that f(y)=f(z), 0<d(y,z)=r<r2, but
z∈/∂B(y,r). Since Y is a length space we can find a shortest connection in Y from y to z, and on this shortest connection, a sequence of points zn=z
converging to z. Then zn∈∂B(y,rn), where rn=d(y,zn), rn↑r, and dM(f(zn),f(z))≤r−rn. Now we repeat the argument used above with
∂B(y,r) replaced by ∂B(y,rn), and note that
[TABLE]
So we obtain
[TABLE]
and, for n→∞, the same contradiction as before.
Our next aim is to prove that, for sufficiently small r>0 and for all y∈Y, P=f~(y), we have
[TABLE]
see Corollary 13.12. We set rc=min{convrad(M),21injrad(M)}, where convrad(M) denotes the convexity radius of M. For every p∈M and every r∈(0,rc) we have a smooth function bp,r, defined on the unit tangent bundle over B(p,r) by
[TABLE]
A totally geodesic disk inB(p,r) is a 2-dimensional, totally geodesic, connected submanifold N of B(p,r) such that Nˉ\N⊂∂B(p,r).
So, if N is a totally geodesic disk in B(p,r) and q∈N then
[TABLE]
If z∈f−1(B(p,r)) and Q=f~(z), then
[TABLE]
is the totally geodesic disk inB(p,r)determined by z. We note the following facts concerning these notions.
[TABLE]
As a consequence of the Rauch comparison theorem, see (13.9), we have:
[TABLE]
From Proposition 7.3 we know that H2(B(y,r))<∞ for every y∈Y, r>0. This implies the following preliminary result:
Lemma 13.10
Suppose y∈Y, f(y)=p, and 0<r<rc. Then there exist n∈N and z1,…,zn∈B(y,r) such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
We will show that {N(z,p,r)∣z∈B(y,r)} is a finite set. This will prove our claim since obviously f(B(y,r))⊆⋃z∈B(y,r)N(z,p,r).
We choose ρ>0 such that r+ρ<rc, and assume that w1,…,wk∈B(y,r) are such that N(w1,p,r),…,N(wk,p,r) are pairwise different.
We set f~(w1)=P1,…,f~(wk)=Pk. From Lemma 13.4 we know that NPj(ρ)⊆f(B(wj,ρ))⊆f(B(y,r+ρ)).
Moreover NPj(ρ)⊆N(wj,p,r+ρ). Using (13.11) we see that also the N(wj,p,r+ρ), 1≤j≤k, are pairwise different.
Hence (13.10) implies H2(NPj(ρ)∩NPj′(ρ))=0 if 1≤j<j′≤k. Using (13.12) we obtain
[TABLE]
Hence we have #{N(z,p,r)∣z∈B(y,r)}≤a(ρ)−1H2(B(y,r+ρ))<∞.
Lemma 13.11
Suppose N is a totally geodesic surface in M, V⊆Y is open and f(Vˉ)⊆N. Then f~(z)=Tf(z)N for all z∈Vˉ.
Proof.
First note that Lemma 13.4 implies that f~(y)=Tf(y)N for all y∈V. If z∈Vˉ we can find r∈(0,r2/2) such that for every q∈N
with dM(q,f(z))<r there exists v∈SqN such that cv(t)=f(z) where t=dM(q,f(z)). Since z∈Vˉ there exists y∈V∩B(z,r). Then f(y)∈N and
dM(f(y),f(z))<r, so that we can find v∈Sf(y)N such that cv(t)=f(z) if t=dM(f(y),f(z)). Now let qi∈Fi be a very good sequence converging to y.
Then there exists a sequence (vi,ti)∈SqiFi×R such that cvi(ti) is a good sequence, and such that limi→∞(dfi(vi),ti)=(v,t) and
limi→∞∫−t−1t+1∣Ai∣2∘cvi(s)ds=0. Then Proposition 2.3 implies that limi→∞fi∘cvi(ti)=cv(t)=f(z), and that
[TABLE]
Choosing a subsequence we may assume that the sequence cvi(ti) converges to some w∈Y. Since d(y,w)≤limi→∞ti=t, we have d(z,w)<r+t<r2.
Moreover f(w)=limi→∞fi(cvi(ti))=f(z), so that w=z by Lemma 13.8. Hence (13.13) implies f~(z)=f~(w)=Tf(z)N.
Corollary 13.12
Suppose y∈Y, P=f~(y), and 0<r<rc. Then f(B(y,r))=NP(r).
Proof.
From Lemma 13.10 we obtain totally geodesic disks N1,…,Nn in B(f(y),r) such that f(B(y,r))⊆⋃j=1nNj. Obviously, we may assume that
Nj=Nk for 1≤j<k≤n. Since the Nj are closed subsets of B(f(y),r), the sets Vj={z∈B(y,r)∣f(z)∈Nj\⋃k=jNk} are open in B(y,r),
and f(B(y,r)\⋃j=1nVj)⊆⋃j<k(Nj∩Nk). Since H2(Nj∩Nk)=0 by (13.10), and H2(f(W))>0 for every open set
∅=W⊆Y by Lemma 13.4, we see that B(y,r)⊆⋃j=1nVjˉ. Since Y is a length space, the metric ball B(y,r) is connected.
Hence, if n>1 there exist 1≤j<k≤n and z∈Vjˉ∩Vkˉ∩B(y,r). Now Lemma 13.11 implies that f~(z)=Tf(z)Nj=Tf(z)Nk,
in contradiction to Nj=Nk and (13.10). Hence we have n=1 and f(B(y,r))⊆N1. Since f(y)∈N1 and P=f~(y), we see that N1=N(P,f(y),r)=NP(r). Finally, Lemma 13.4 implies that NP(r)⊆f(B(y,r)), so that indeed f(B(y,r))=NP(r).
Remark 13.13
It is conceivable that the proof of Corollary 13.12 can be shortened by use of results from the theory of spaces of bounded integral curvature.
In particular, the estimate in [8], Corollary 3.2(1), would easily imply Corollary 13.12. However, due to the global assumptions in [8],
it is not directly applicable in our situation.**
Proof of Proposition 13.3: We will prove that the lift f~:(Y,y0)→(G2M,P0) of f given by Definition 13.7 is a locally isometric covering map onto the leaf L of D2(M,g) through P0. First note that, by Lemma 13.11 and Corollary 13.12, the sets f~−1(L) and
f~−1(G2M\L) are both open in Y. Since Y is connected and y0∈f~−1(L) we see that f~(Y)⊆L.
Let dL denote the distance on L induced by (πG∣L)∗g. We will prove that d(y,z)=dM(f(y),f(z))=dL(f~(y),f~(z)), if y,z∈Y and
d(y,z)<min{r2/2,rc}. We set P=f~(y) and ρ=dM(f(y),f(z)). Then Corollary 13.12 implies that f(z)∈SP(ρ). From Lemma 13.4 we obtain w∈∂B(y,ρ) such that f(w)=f(z). Since d(z,w)≤d(z,y)+ρ≤2d(y,z)<r2, Lemma 13.8 implies z=w, hence d(y,z)=d(y,w)=ρ=dM(f(y),f(z)).
Using this and Lemma 13.4 we see that, for 0<r<21min{r2/2,rc}, and for every y∈Y, f∣B(y,r) is an isometry from B(y,r) onto NP(r) where P=f~(y).
Finally, since r<rc≤injrad(M) we know that πG∣LP(r) is an isometry from the metric ball LP(r) with center P and radius r in L onto NP(r). Hence
f~∣B(y,r)=(πG∣LP(r))−1∘(f∣B(y,r)) is an isometry from B(y,r) onto LP(r) with the distance dL. Since L is connected this implies that f~:Y→L is a covering map.
Proof of Theorem 13.1: In view of Lemma 13.4 it suffices to derive a contradiction from the assumption that there exist R>0 and a sequence
qi∈B(pi,R) such that the sequence fi(qi) has a limit point in M\NP0(R). If this is the case we can choose a subsequence, denoted by the same symbols, such that all of the following statements hold:
(i)
limi→∞fi(qi) exists and limi→∞fi(qi)∈/NP0(R).
(ii)
The sequence (Fi,pi)i∈N converges to (Y,y0) with respect to (definite) pointed Gromov-Hausdorff convergence, and the sequence (fi)i∈N
converges to f:Y→M.
(iii)
The sequence (qi)i∈N converges to some y∈B(y0,R).
Then we have f(y)=limi→∞fi(qi)∈/NP0(R). On the other hand, (Y,d) is a length space and f~:Y→L is locally isometric, so that
f~(B(y0,R))⊆LP0(R). Hence f(y)=πG(f~(y))∈πG(LP0(R))=NP0(R), cf. Remark 13.2.
We mention the following consequence of Proposition 13.3:
Corollary 13.14
Under the assumptions (13.1)–(13.3) we consider the sets
Ωi(R)={(x,x′)∣{x,x′}⊆B(pi,R),di(x,x′)≤injrad(M)}. Then
[TABLE]
for every R>0.
Proof.
Otherwise we can find R>0 and a sequence (xi,xi′)∈Ωi(R) such that limsupi→∞∣di(xi,xi′)−dM(fi(xi),fi(xi′))∣>0.
Choosing a subsequence we may assume that actually limi→∞∣di(xi,xi′)−dM(fi(xi),fi(xi′))∣>0 and, additionally, that the fi:Fi→M converge to f:Y→M,
and that limi→∞xi=y∈Y, limi→∞xi′=y′∈Y. Then we have d(y,y′)=limi→∞di(xi,xi′)≤injrad(M) and
dM(f(y),f(y′))=limi→∞dM(fi(xi),fi(xi′)), and, hence ∣d(y,y′)−dM(f(y),f(y′))∣>0. In contradiction to this inequality we will now show that
d(y,y′)=dM(f(y),f(y′)). Indeed, since Y is a length-space there exists an arclength-parametrized curve c:[0,d(y,y′)]→Y from c(0)=y to c(d(y,y′))=y′.
Then Proposition 13.3 implies that f~∘c is a geodesic in L and, hence, f∘c=πG∘f~∘c is a geodesic in M. This geodesic f∘c
has length d(y,y′)≤injrad(M) and connects f(y) to f(y′). This implies
[TABLE]
Finally, we present a proof for Theorem 1.3. It depends on Proposition 13.3 and on an idea that is originally due to G. Reeb [25], namely Reeb’s stability theorem.
Proof of Theorem 1.3: We argue by contradiction and assume that there exists a sequence of complete, connected surface immersions fi:Fi→M such that
vol2i(Fi)→∞, while the sequence E(fi) is bounded. Under this assumption the well-known Vitali covering argument provides sequences p~i∈Fi and Ri→∞
such that limi→∞E(fi∣B(p~i,Ri))=0. Using Lemma 8.3 we obtain sequences pi∈Fi, εi↓0 and ρi→∞ such that
(13.1) and (13.2) hold. Choosing a subsequence we can assume that limi→∞dfi(TpiFi)=P0 exists, i. e. also (13.3) is satisfied. Now Proposition 13.3 provides a locally isometric covering map f~:(Y,y0)→(L,P0) from a Gromov-Hausdorff limit space Y onto the leaf L of D2(M,g) through P0.
We want to show that L is not homeomorphic to S2 or RP2. Otherwise Y would be compact. Since the Fi are connected this would imply that there exists D>0 such that
diam(Fi)≤D and, by Corollary 6.2, vol2i(Fi)≤k1(2π+E(fi))(cosh(kD)−1)
for infinitely many i∈N, in contradiction to our assumption vol2i(Fi)→∞. Hence πG∣L is a complete, totally geodesic immersion into M, where L is a connected surface different from S2 or RP2. This contradicts our assumption on M.
Remark 13.15
Similarly we see that, under the assumptions made above, the lamination structure L on S=Lˉ from Proposition 10.6 does not have
a leaf homeomorphic to S2 or RP2.**
Bibliography32
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] Bangert, V., Cui, X., Calibrations and laminations, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 162 (2017), pp. 151–171.
2[2] Bol, G., Isoperimetrische Ungleichungen für Bereiche auf Flächen, Jber. Deutsch. Math. Verein. 51 (1941), pp. 219–257.
3[3] Breuning, P., Compactness of immersions with local Lipschitz representation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 29 (2012), pp. 545–572.
4[4] Bryant, R., http://mathoverflow.net/questions/209618/existence-of-totally-geodesic-hypersurfaces, (2015).
5[5] Burago, D., Burago, Y., Ivanov, S.,A course in metric geometry, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 33 , American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.
6[6] Burago, Yu. D., Zalgaller, V. A., Geometric inequalities, Translated from the Russian by A. B. Sosinskiĭ, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], 285 , Springer Series in Soviet Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.
7[7] Chern, S.-S., Lashof, R. K., On the total curvature of immersed manifolds, Am. J. Math. 79 (1957), pp. 306–318.
8[8] Debin, C., A compactness theorem for surfaces with bounded integral curvature. (English summary), J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 19 (2020), no. 2, 597–645.