I have not found any reference among the well-known books about the existence of a geometric tubular neighborhood in the Finsler spaces. I am wondering if there exists such a neighborhood for any closed submanifold of a Fisnler Manifold $M$ (maybe with some extra hypothesis on $M$ ,like compactness ....).

FYI: by a geometric tubular neighborhood, of a pre-compact submanifold of a manifold $M$, I mean: $Tub(P)_r:=\{\gamma(1)|\gamma:[0,1]\longrightarrow M $ is a minimizing geodesic with $\gamma'(0)\in\mathfrak{C}_{\gamma(0)}(P)\cap B(r)\}$. where $B(r)$ is the ball of radius $r$ and by $\mathfrak{C}_x$ we mean the subset of vectors that each one is orthogonal to $T_xP$ at the direction of itself.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What's your definition of a tubular neighborhood? $\endgroup$ – Deane Yang May 22 '17 at 16:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The tubular neighborhood theorem holds quite generally in the category of smooth manifolds. Unless you want special compatibility conditions with the Finsler structure, the result is the same. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong May 22 '17 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ In which case, Willie's answer applies. The definition does not depend on any metric or other geometric structure in addition to the manifold structure itself. $\endgroup$ – Deane Yang May 23 '17 at 1:31
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong Notice that in Finsler spaces we always should be careful with the direction. It meansif a vector $v$ is orthogonal to a submanifold in some direction, $-v$ may not be orthogonal to that submanifold. So for a submanifold $L$ of $M$, the subset $\mathfrak{C}_x\subset T_xM$ that contains the vectors orthogonal to $L$ at point $x$, may not be a vector space (We say that a vector $v$ is orthogonal to $L$ if it is orthogonal at the direction of itelf.). As a result we may not have any decomposition as $T_xM=T_xL\bigoplus \mathfrak{C}_x$ and so any normal bundle. $\endgroup$ – Majid May 23 '17 at 1:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The definition in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tubular_neighborhood makes no reference to and does not need orthogonality. A submanifold in a Finsler manifold $M$ has a tubular neighborhood, because $M$ is a smooth manifold. The Finsler metric isn't needed at all. If a manifold has a distance function defined on it, then you can define a tubular neighborhood as the set of all points within distance $\delta$ of the submanifold. That works for a Finsler manifold, because the Finsler metric defines a distance function. $\endgroup$ – Deane Yang May 23 '17 at 3:02

Here's a possible approach that goes backwards, where we define the tubular neighborhood first and the normal bundle second.

Let $M$ be a Finsler manifold and $S \subset M$ a smooth submanifold. Given any $x \in M$, we can define the distance $d(x,S)$ from $x$ to $S$ to be the shortest length of curves from $x$ to $S$. We'll call a curve segment $S$-minimizing if one endpoint lies in $S$ and the length of the curve equals the distance from the other endpoint to $S$.

Then one can define a tubular neighborhood of $S$ of radius $r$ to be the set of all possible endpoints of $S$-minimizing geodesics. However, this is simply the set of all points within distance $r$ from $S$.

We can now define a subset $N_*S \subset T_*M$ with respect to the Finsler metric as follows: $v \in T_pM$ lies in $N_pS$ if there exists an $S$-minimizing curve starting at $p$ such that $v$ is tangent to the curve at $p$.

Using the existence and uniqueness of a geodesic with given starting point and velocity, we can define the exponential map $e: N_*S \rightarrow M$.. Moreover, this should show that $N_*S$ is in fact a vector bundle over $S$ and the exponential map defines a diffeomorphism from a neighborhood of the zero section of $N_*S$ onto a neighborhood of $S$ in $M$. In particular, given any precompact subset of $S$, there exists $r>0$ such that the exponential map is a diffeomorphism onto the tubular neighborhood of radius $r$ from its preimage.

  • $\begingroup$ As I already mentioned, $N_pS$ is not necessarily a vector space and so $N_* S$ is not a vector bundle. Moreover, the exponential map in the case of Finsler is not smooth at zero. $\endgroup$ – Majid May 23 '17 at 21:55
  • $\begingroup$ As far I know, the exponential map is not smooth only along $S$ itself, and this is due to the geodesics coming in on opposite directions not meeting at $S$ smoothly. It will, however, be $C^1$. That's also presumably why $N_*S$ is not a vector bundle. It's really a "ray" bundle, where there is scalar multiplication but not vector adition. $\endgroup$ – Deane Yang May 23 '17 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ As you mentioned the exponential map is not a diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of the zero section and so we cannot accept this as an answer. $\endgroup$ – Majid Jun 22 '17 at 23:56

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.