Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Hi to all!

Let $M$ be a compact smooth manifold without boundary and let $$d:M\times M\rightarrow [0,+\infty)$$ a distance on $M$ compatible with its topology. Suppose there exist $\varepsilon\in (0,+\infty)$ s.t. on the open set $\Delta_{\varepsilon}\subset M\times M$ $$\Delta_{\varepsilon}:=d^{-1}\left([0,\varepsilon)\right)$$ the function $$d^{2}:\Delta_{\varepsilon}\rightarrow [0,+\infty)$$ is smooth. Does a distance like this one come from a riemannian metric on $M$?

Thank you in advance.

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

This is not even true on the circle. In that case, given any metric that comes from a Riemannian metric there is a constant $c>0$ such that there is a diffeomorphism of the circle with itself that carries the metric to $c$ times the standard metric: $$ d\bigl((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2)\bigr) = \cos^{-1}(x_1x_2+y_1y_2). $$ If you now take $d' = h\circ d$ where $h$ is any continuous, strictly increasing subadditive function on $[0,\infty)$ that satisfies $h(0)=0$, then you'll get a new metric $d'$. If $h$ is smooth and satisfies $h(x)^2 = x^2g(x^2)$ where $g$ is a smooth function with $g(0)\not=0$, then the square of $d'$ will be smooth (and nondegenerate) near the diagonal in $S^1\times S^1$, but, in general, $d'$ will not come from a Riemannian metric, for the same reasons that Vladimir gave in his answer. (The main advantage of this counterexample is that it produces examples that do not come from a Riemannian metric in any neighborhood of the diagonal, unlike Vladimir's example. For example, just take $h^{-1}(x) = x+x^3$.)

A second source of examples: Another way to construct examples is to embed $M$ into another Riemannian manifold so that the image is not totally geodesic (for example, any smooth embedding into $\mathbb{E}^m$ will do since you assumed that $M$ is compact). Then the restriction of the ambient Riemannian distance function to $M\times M$ will have the properties that you want, but it won't make $M$ into a length space (since the shortest curves joining to points in $M$ that lies entirely in $M$ won't be a geodesic in the ambient space), so such a distance doesn't come from Riemannian metrics on $M$.

share|improve this answer

The Riemannian distance has the following property: it is the so called length space. I recall (one of) the definitions of the length space. Having a distance function $d$, we can define the length of any curve $c(t)$, $t\in [0,1]$ , as the supremum of the sum $\sum_{i}d(c(t_i), c(t_{i+1}))$ over all $0=t_0\le t_1\le ... \le t_k=1$. Having this definition of the length of the curve, you can construct a new distance $\hat d$ by putting $\hat d(x,y)= $infimum of the lengths of all curves connecting $x$ and $y$. Then, the length spaces are characterized by the property $d=\hat d$.

Riemannian distance is evidently a length space. One could easily construct a distance such that it satisfies your condition but is not a length space and therefore not a Riemannian metric: put $d(x,y)= min(d_{riem}(x,y), 1)$. It still satisfies your property since we changed nothing in a small neightborhood, and is not a length space and hence not a Riemannian metric anymore.

share|improve this answer

As pointed out in other answers, only length metrics can be Riemannian and there are plenty of non-length metrics satisfying your condition.

If your metric is a length metric, then yes, it is Riemannian. Indeed, for every $x\in M$ the function $f_x=d(x,\cdot)^2$ is smooth near $x$. Since it attains its minimum at $x$, its derivative at $x$ is zero. Therefore its second derivative at $x$ is well-defined as a quadratic form on $T_xM$. Define the metric tensor at $x$ as one half of this second derivative. Now from the Taylor expansion it is easy to see that for every $\varepsilon>0$ there is a neighborhood of $x$ where the original distance and the new Riemannian distance are Lipschitz equivalent with Lipschitz constant $1+\varepsilon$. Since both metrics are length metrics, this property implies that they are $(1+\varepsilon)$-Lipschitz equivalent globally. Since $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary, this means that they are equal.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.