20
$\begingroup$

I posted this question in MSE but got no response (even after giving a bounty), so I am trying here.

Let $M,N$ be smooth $d$-dimensional Riemannian manifolds.

Suppose $f:M \to N$ is a differentiable isometry ($df_p$ is an isometry at every $p \in M$). I do not assume $f$ is $C^1$.

Is it true that $f$ must be smooth?

This is false when assuming $f$ is only differentiable almost everywhere.

One counter-example is $f(x)=c(x)+x$ where $c$ is the Cantor function. In this case $M=[0,1],N=[0,2]$, $f'=1$ a.e; $M,N$ are not isometric, but both are flat.

Gromov showed similar examples exist for "many" non-flat $M$ and $N=\mathbb{R}^d$.


Some partial results:

By the inverse function theorem for everywhere differentiable maps, $f$ is a local homeomorphism.

We would like to prove it's a local isometry w.r.t the intrinsic distances, then use the Myers-Steenrod theorem (or use the fact geodesics locally minimize length to deduce $f$ maps geodesics to geodesics, hence it factors through its differential via the exponential maps. this works if $f \in C^1$, see here for details).

The devil is in the details: We need to choose suitable length structures on $M,N$ such that $f$ will become an arcwise isometry. We cannot use the class of $C^1$ paths since $f$ does not necessarily map $C^1$ maps to $C^1$ maps.

Also, nothing promises us that for a differentiable path $\gamma$ such that $\|\dot \gamma(t)\|$ is integrable, $\|\dot {f \circ \gamma}(t)\|$ will be integrable.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I misunderstood the question, and what I wrote wasn't really an answer. $\endgroup$ – Igor Belegradek Feb 14 '17 at 19:58
4
+50
$\begingroup$

By the nontrivial fact that $f$ is a local homeomorphism, we can assume without loss of generality that $f$ is a bijective homeomorphism. The usual textbook proof of the formula for the differential of the inverse map works here, so that $f^{-1}$ is again a differentiable isometry in the sense of the OP.

So it suffices to show that $f$ is 1-Lipschitz (as a map from $M$ to $N$, which are thought as metric spaces), since then $f^{-1}$ will be 1-Lipschitz as well, i.e. $f:M\to N$ will be a metric space isometry and we will be done thanks to the Myers-Steenrod theorem.

Fix $p,q\in M$ and take any $C^1$ curve $\gamma:[0,1]\to M$ with $\gamma(0)=p$ and $\gamma(1)=q$. Call $L$ the length of $\gamma$. It suffices to prove that $d(f(p),f(q))\le L$ (here $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the distance), since then, taking the infimum of $L$ among all curves connecting $p$ to $q$, we get $d(f(p),f(q))\le d(p,q)$.

To this aim, fix any $\epsilon>0$.

Claim: For any $t\in [0,1]$ we can find some $\delta(t)>0$ such that it holds $$d(f\circ\gamma(s),f\circ\gamma(u))\le(1+\epsilon)d(\gamma(s),\gamma(t))+(1+\epsilon)d(\gamma(t),\gamma(u))$$ whenever $t\in[s,u]$ and $u-s\le \delta$.

Indeed, using normal coordinates about $\gamma(t)$ and $f\circ\gamma(t)$, we see that for some $\eta(t)>0$ we have $$d(x,\gamma(t))\le\eta(t)\Rightarrow d(f(x),f\circ\gamma(t))\le(1+\epsilon)d(x,\gamma(t)),$$ so we are done by taking $\delta(t)$ such that $\gamma([0,1]\cap \overline B_{\delta(t)}(t))\subseteq \overline B_{\eta(t)}(\gamma(t))$.

Now, by Cousin's theorem, we can find a partition $0=t_0<\cdots<t_N=1$ and suitable $t_i'\in[t_{i-1},t_i]$ (for $i=1,\dots,N$) such that $t_i-t_{i-1}\le\delta(t_i')$. Thus, $$d(f(p),f(q))\le\sum_{i=1}^N d(f\circ\gamma(t_{i-1}),f\circ\gamma(t_i))$$ $$\le(1+\epsilon)\sum_{i=1}^N (d(\gamma(t_{i-1}),\gamma(t_i'))+d(\gamma(t_i'),\gamma(t_i))).$$ The last sum is bounded by $L$. Letting $\epsilon\to 0$ we obtain the thesis.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks! Your argument is very cool. However, I am having a little trouble completing the details in the "normal coordinates" part of the argument. Can you please elaborate on why there is some $\eta(t)$ such that $d(x,\gamma(t))\le\eta(t)\Rightarrow d(f(x),f\circ\gamma(t))\le(1+\epsilon)d(x,\gamma(t))$? (Of course the dependene on the variable $"t"$ is immaterial here (This is a "pointwise argument"). $\endgroup$ – Asaf Shachar Feb 24 '17 at 16:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Call $z:=\gamma(t)$, $X:=T_zM$ and $Y:=T_{f(z)}N$ ($X$ and $Y$ are endowed with the scalar products given by the Riemannian metrics at $z$ and $f(z)$, respectively). You can find $r,s>0$ small such that $\exp_{z}:B_s(0)\to M$ and $\exp_{f(z)}:B_s(0)\to N$ are diffeomorphisms onto their images (the balls are taken wrt the scalar products on $X$ and $Y$, respectively). As $f$ is continuous, we can assume that $f(\exp_z(B_r(0)))\subseteq\exp_{f(z)}(B_s(0))$. So $\exp_{f(z)}^{-1}\circ f\circ\exp_z$ is defined on $B_r(0)$. Its differential at $0$ is an isometry. $\endgroup$ – Mizar Feb 24 '17 at 17:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (To see this, just recall that, identifying $T_0X\cong X$ and $T_0Y\cong Y$, the differential of $\exp_z$ at $0$ is the identity; the same holds for $\exp_{f(z)}$.) Now, by definition of differentiability, $|\exp_{f(z)}^{-1}\circ f\circ\exp_z(v)|\le(1+\epsilon)|v|$ for any $v\in X$ small enough. This translates to what we wanted. $\endgroup$ – Mizar Feb 24 '17 at 17:39

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.