Timeline for Clarifying a result of Klingenberg
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 19 at 4:03 | vote | accept | E G | ||
| Jan 19 at 4:03 | history | edited | E G | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jan 19 at 4:02 | comment | added | E G | @MikhailKatz Fixed the name, thanks | |
| Jan 18 at 10:54 | answer | added | Mikhail Katz | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jan 18 at 10:48 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | There does not seem to be a book "Pedersen, Riemannian geometry". You are probably referring to the book by Peter Petersen. | |
| Jan 18 at 6:29 | comment | added | Ramiro Lafuente | A reference for a proof without the assumption of compactness is the book of Cheeger and Ebin, "Comparison Theorems in Riemannian Geometry". | |
| Jan 18 at 4:29 | history | edited | Michael Hardy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jan 18 at 1:23 | comment | added | Deane Yang | It is easily checked that the proof of Klingenberg's lemma also proves the statement for a complete Riemannian manifold. It is a common situation where an author states a theorem and provides a proof that implies a stronger theorem. This is an example of that. | |
| Jan 17 at 18:18 | comment | added | Daniel Asimov | Of course, a simply connected noncompact riemannian manifold might have no geodesic loops at all. | |
| S Jan 17 at 17:15 | review | First questions | |||
| Jan 17 at 17:29 | |||||
| S Jan 17 at 17:15 | history | asked | E G | CC BY-SA 4.0 |