5
$\begingroup$

During this question a manifold $M$ is meant to be a smooth connected (second countable, finite dimensional) manifold.

A Riemannian metric on a manifold $M$ is called complete if every geodesic is defined for all times. It is well-known that this is equivalent to completeness of the metric space $(M,d)$ where $d$ is the geodesic distance.

I want to show the following equivalence: A manifold $M$ is compact if and only if every Riemannian metric on $M$ is complete. (keep in mind that $M$ is connected)

It is easy to show the implication from left to right, but I have no clue for the reverse implication.

I tried the following argument: Every smooth manifold $M$ can be embedded as a bounded submanifold of $\mathbf R^n$. Assume that $M$ is not compact, then $M$ is not closed in $\mathbf R^n$. So, as a metric space $M$ is not complete when given the metric of the surrounding space $\mathbf R^n$. Then I realized that this does not imply that $M$ with the induced Riemannian metric is not complete since the geodesic distance on $M$ may be totally different from the induced distance function.

So my question is: If $M$ is non-compact, does there exist an incomplete Riemannian metric on $M$?

| cite | improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As you said, in the Riemannian case it can be proved that a compact manifold is complete, invoking the fact that a vector field on a compact manifold is complete. However, one needs to mention that this argument brakes down in the (generic) pseudo-Riemannian case. In the same case, compactness does not guarantee completeness either. For example, the so-called Clifton-Pohl torus is a compact, geodesically incomplete Lorentz manifold. $\endgroup$ – 314159. Nov 1 '16 at 16:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If $M$ is non-compact, then there exists a sequence of points with no convergent subsequence. Fix a curve passing through all of the points. It suffices to construct a Riemannian metric such that this curve has finite length. $\endgroup$ – Deane Yang Nov 1 '16 at 17:29
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @DeaneYang You should wrtie it as an answer. $\endgroup$ – Anton Petrunin Nov 1 '16 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ Anton, with your endorsement, I will. I don't trust any of my answers these days, so I always post them as comments. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – Deane Yang Nov 1 '16 at 19:04
9
$\begingroup$

If $M$ is non-compact, then there exists a sequence of points with no convergent subsequence. Fix a curve passing through all of the points. It suffices to construct a Riemannian metric such that this curve has finite length.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer, but unfortunately, I dont quite understand that approach. Do you mean that the curve should be a geodesic or just a curve with finite length? And how do I construct the Riemannian metric such that this curve has finite length? If the curve is a closed 1-dimensional submanifold, then I just pick a metric on it and extend it using a partition of unity argument, but what if this curve looks somehow ugly? $\endgroup$ – Tom Nov 2 '16 at 7:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is a standard exercise to show the existence of a "ray" e.g. Exercise 3 mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~rschmidt/riemgeometry/…. So you can take the points of Dean Yang answer on the ray. Then just re-scale the metric by a suitable conformal multiple to make the ray to have finite length as suggested by Dean Yang. $\endgroup$ – Holonomia Nov 2 '16 at 11:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ First, note that the curve does not have to be a geodesic. A length-minimizing geodesic joining two points in the sequence will only be shorter. To get a curve of finite length, rescale the metric inside a tubular neighborhood of the curve such that the scale factor is 1 on the boundary and a function decreasing to 0 fast enough along the curve. This is probably most easily done, with a minimum of machinery and theorems, using a partition of unity subordinate to a covering of the curve by open balls. $\endgroup$ – Deane Yang Nov 2 '16 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer! I think I understand the construction now! $\endgroup$ – Tom Nov 7 '16 at 10:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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