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

This problem seeks a relationship between the lengths of geodesics which emanate from a point on a surface in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and then come together again, and the bounds on the lengths of centred normal fibres through them in a maximal tubular neighbourhood of the surface.

Let $S \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a smooth closed (compact without boundary) surface. The local reach is a function $\rho: S \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $\rho(x)$ is the radius of the smaller of the two maximal empty tangential balls on either side of $S$ at $x$. An empty tangential ball at $x$ is an open Euclidean ball in $B \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ that does not intersect $S$, and whose boundary sphere is tangent to $S$ at $x$. It is maximal if it is not contained in any other such ball.

Let $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ be two geodesics which emanate from $p \in S$ in distinct directions and then meet again at $q \in S$.

I wish to show that there exists some point $z$ on either $\alpha$ or $\gamma$ such that $$ > \rho(z) \leq \frac{\ell(\alpha) + \ell(\gamma)}{2\pi}, > $$ where $\ell(\alpha)$ is the length of $\alpha$.

If for example $\alpha$ were the shorter geodesic and it contained a point conjugate to $p$, then our bound would follow from a standard result that relates the length of $\alpha$ to a bound on the square root of the sectional curvature it sees (the local reach is bounded by the radii of the osculating balls).

Also, if $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ together form a geodesic loop, then the result follows by considering the curvature of that loop as a space curve ( ... I asked for help with that too).

These two observations allow us to show that at least somewhere within a geodesic disk centred at $p$ and of radius bounded by the injectivity radius at $p$, we can find a $z$ satisfying the inequality, but I want more. I want to find such a $z$ on one of these two arbitrary geodesics.

This question came up within the context of surface sampling, where a popular means of defining the sampling density is through a function that is bounded by the local reach. We worked around it, but I'm still curious, and hope it might provide insight.

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.