8
$\begingroup$

Suppose $(M,g)$ is a compact Riemannian manifold with smooth boundary. We call a point $p \in M$ regular if there exists a geodesic of finite arc length passing through $p$ with end points on $\partial M$ (By end points I mean two points on the geodesic which also lie on $\partial M$ and such that the geodesic hits the boundary non-tangentially at these points).

(a) Is it true that the set of points $p \in M$ which are not regular has measure zero?

If the answer to part (a) is affirmative I would also like to pose a second part to question as follows:

Given any regular point $p \in M$, we consider the set of all geodesics of the above type passing through $p$. We say $p$ is optimal if there is no conjugate points to $p$ on at least one of these geodesics.

(b) Is it true that the set of non-optimal points in $M$ have measure zero?

Thanks, Thanks,

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I haven't completely worked it through, but I think I have a counterexample. Start with a $2$-sphere; remove 2 small circles - one at the equator, one at a pole. Attach two more spheres (with one circle removed each). Smooth this a little bit, so the new manifold is Riemannian. Remove a small circle from the third sphere. Then many of the points in the first sphere should not be regular; the geodesics joining points on the first sphere to the third sphere are heavily restricted in what they can do on the second sphere. $\endgroup$
    – user44191
    Feb 27, 2019 at 12:02
  • $\begingroup$ If I understood this correctly then this produces the counter example due to $M$ not being connected? (I actually implicitly was assuming that $M$ is connected although I forgot to state this clearly.) $\endgroup$
    – Ali
    Feb 27, 2019 at 12:19
  • $\begingroup$ This example is connected; it's the connected sum (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected_sum) of three spheres (minus a small disk), and is homeomorphic to a sphere (minus a small disk). $\endgroup$
    – user44191
    Feb 27, 2019 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I see the issue. Maybe if we additionally impose that $p$ is close to $\partial M$ (in terms of some uniform constant depending on $(M,g)$) then at least (a) should hold. $\endgroup$
    – Ali
    Feb 27, 2019 at 13:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Would you mind posting the argument as an answer? I'm quite curious to see it. $\endgroup$
    – user44191
    Apr 16, 2019 at 2:21

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Let us shoot a geodesic from a random point in a random direction. Note that with probability 0 it is one-sides finite + other-side infinite.

However, if you shoot a geodesic from a nonregular point, then with positive probability it is one-sides finite + other-side infinite. It implies that probability to choose a nonregular point has to be zero. In other words, we get "yes" for (a).

For (b), a sphere without a small disc seems to be a counterexample.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

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.