1
$\begingroup$

Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. $X$ is said to be a Busemann $G$-space provided it satisfies the following axioms:

(1) Menger Convexity: Given distinct points $x,y\in X$, there is a point $z\in X-\{x,y\}$, so that $d(x,z)+d(z,y)=d(x,y)$.

(2) Finite Compactness: Every $d$-bounded infinite set has at least one accumulation point.

(3) Local Extendibility: For each point $p\in X$, there is a positive radius $\delta$, such that for any pair of distinct points $x,y\in B_p(\delta)$, there is a point $z\in \operatorname{Int}B_p(\delta)-\{x,y\}$ such that $d(x,y)+d(y,z)=d(x,z)$, where $B_p(\delta)$ denotes a closed metric ball centered at $p$ with radius $\delta$ and $\operatorname{Int}B_p(\delta)$ denotes its interior.

(4) Uniqueness of the Extension: Given distinct points $x,y\in X$, if there are points $z_1,z_2\in X$ for which both $$d(x,y)+d(y,z_i)=d(x,z_i) \text{ for }i=1,2$$ and $$d(y,z_1)=d(y,z_2)$$ hold, then $z_1=z_2$.

Question: Is sufficiently small (closed) codimension 1 metric ball on $\operatorname{Bd}B_p(\delta)$ with induced metric from $X$ also a Busemann $G$-space? If not, how about with intrinsic metric?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The ball with induced metric generally will not be a G-space. Take $R^2$ with the Euclidean metric, and consider the unit ball $S^1$ with the induced metric. Let $x=(0,1)$ and $y=(1,0)$; then $d(x,y)=\sqrt{2}$ in that metric, but there is no $z$ in $S^1$ with $d(x,z)+d(z,y)=d(x,y)$. So Menger convexity fails and that ball is not a G-space.

The ball with intrinsic metric generally will be a G-space of one lower dimension, but I think that is the most we can say. Proving that this always happens would probably be enough to establish the open conjectures that all G-spaces are manifolds, and that all G-spaces have finite dimension.

You can see the difficulty of the question in Busemann's Geometry of Geodesics, where he posed as his fourth open problem: "is a circle in a 2-dimensional G-space rectifiable"? So even though he could establish that 2-dimensional G-spaces are manifolds, he was unable to answer this question, which would be needed even to show that these "intrinsic metrics" are well-defined.

$\endgroup$

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.