2
$\begingroup$

Let $S$ be a simply connected Riemannan surface . Suppose $\Delta ABC$ is a triangle on $S$. The Area of a triangle is denoted by $\mathcal{A}$. A point $P$ in the interior of $\Delta ABC$ is called "A point of half area" if $\mathcal{A}(\Delta PBC)=\frac{1}{2} \mathcal{A}(\Delta ABC)$. (In planar geometry, $S=\mathbb{R}^{2}$, the points of half area of a triangle is a straight line)

Assume that for every (small) triangle, the points of half area is a geodesic.

What can be said about the geometry of $S$?(Its curvature)

Note By small triangle I mean "each point of $S$ has a neighborhood $U$ such that all triangles in $U$ satify the above property.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What's a triangle on a Riemann surface? What is its area? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2014 at 10:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Three geodesics which intersect mutually in three points $A,B,C$. The area is the integral of volume form of $S$ on the interior of $\Delta ABC$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2014 at 10:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why do you need a Riemann surface? You don't seem to use the complex structure anywhere. $\endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    Commented Jul 8, 2014 at 13:50
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @S.Carnahan: I think the OP means "Riemannian surface" rather than 'Riemann surface'. (Otherwise, 'geodesics' aren't well defined.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2014 at 15:03

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

I believe that the answer is that the curvature of $S$ has to vanish, i.e., the surface is locally isometric to the plane.

I haven't checked all of the details, which are somewhat messy in my analysis, but here is the basic argument: If the Gauss curvature vanishes identically, then, obviously, the local property holds, so assume that the Gauss curvature is not identically zero, and, since everything is local, restrict to an arbitrarily small, strictly geodesically convex neighborhood $S$ of a point $p$ at which the Gauss curvature is not zero. In fact, one can assume that the Gauss curvature is either strictly positive or strictly negative throughout $S$.

First, the desired property does not hold when $S$ has constant nonzero Gauss curvature (either positive or negative), as one can easily check by working out what these curves are on the $2$-sphere or in the Poincaré metric.

Second, note that the desired property has a simpler formulation as follows: For any two distinct points $a,b\in S$, consider the condition on a point $c$ that the (oriented) area of the triangle $\Delta(a,b,c)$ be equal to some constant $t$. The desired property has the consequence that the points $c$ that satisfy the equation $\mathcal{A}\bigl(\Delta(a,b,c)\bigr) = t$ all lie on a curve $C_t(a,b)$ that is, in fact, a geodesic.

However, doing a (rather laborious) expansion about $t=0$ (since the curve $C_0(a,b)$ is always the geodesic passing through $a$ and $b$), one finds that the geodesic curvature of $C_t(a,b)$ has a nonzero coefficient in $t^2$ that is a (nonzero) universal constant times the Gauss curvature along $C_0(a,b)$. In particular, this coefficient is nonzero (since the Gauss curvature does not change sign in $S$), so, for small, nonzero $t$, the curve $C_t(a,b)$ is not a geodesic.

Thus, surfaces with nonzero Gauss curvature do not have the desired property.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Prof. Bryant Thank you very much for your answer and your help on revision of my question. I tried a lot to understand the last paragraph: Can I ask you to say that what is the explicit function which you are expanding about $t=0$? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 10, 2014 at 9:21
  • $\begingroup$ @AliTaghavi: I'm sorry it's not clear. The actual formula for the lowest order term in the curvature of the curve $C_t(a,b)$ is complicated, and I am sure that there is a better way to do this. Right now, I'm at a conference in London that is keeping me very busy, and I don't have time to write out the argument. I'll think about it when I get the chance and see whether I can simplify things. In the meantime, please don't accept my answer as correct, because that might discourage someone else from coming up with an easier and more deserving argument. (Also, I haven't checked everything yet.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 10, 2014 at 21:20
  • $\begingroup$ My deep thanks for you because of your attention on my question. I am always inspired by your beautiful, deep and mysterious arguments in MO. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 11, 2014 at 0:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .