7
$\begingroup$

Let $p,q\in M$, $p\neq q$, where $M$ is a Riemannian manifold. We will let the bisector of $p,q$ be $\mathcal{B}(p,q)=\{x\in M;d(p,x)=d(q,x)\}$. Does $\mathcal{B}(p,q)$ have measure $0$?

I was thinking about this problem with a colleague and we believe we can prove it when $M$ is a closed manifold, but even in that case the proof was much more complicated than expected. I encountered this problem while thinking about this question.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ It looks as a quite local problem and the general case should follow from the closed case given $p,q$ and $r\in B(p,q)$, choose open subsets $U\subset V$ diffeomorphic to $\mathbf{R}^d$ containing $p,q,r$ with $U$ included in a compact subset of $V$, and use it to construct a closed manifold (diffeomorphic to the $d$-sphere) that contains an isometric copy of $V$. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Jan 3, 2023 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor How can we make sure that the closed manifold contains an isometric copy of $U$? (I see how to make the Riemannian metric coincide with that of $U$, but not the distance) $\endgroup$
    – Saúl RM
    Jan 3, 2023 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ I don't have a full argument in mind. The idea would be to arranges things so that distances outside the given ball are large enough to avoid distort the distance in the smaller ball. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Jan 3, 2023 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ I see. Thanks, if I see how to make something like that work I will add it. To be honest I am more interested in a reference/short proof when $M$ is closed (I asked the question more generally because it is probably still true). Maybe if I find nothing after some time I will try to write more in detail the proof sketch that I mention in the question $\endgroup$
    – Saúl RM
    Jan 3, 2023 at 15:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Neal As a length space, that is, $d(x,y)$ is the infimum of lengths of curves from $x$ to $y$. To be honest I didn't know if there was other "natural metric" we could give to a Riemannian manifold $\endgroup$
    – Saúl RM
    Jan 3, 2023 at 23:15

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

Here is my attempt: it is incomplete, because it's missing the proof that the function defined in \eqref{1} below indeed fails to be differentiable on $\partial \mathcal{B}(p,q)$. Perhaps it's useful regardless of this gap.

The function \begin{equation} \tag{1}\label{1} x \in M \mapsto \lvert d(x,p) - d(x,q) \rvert \end{equation} is Lipschitz, with zero set $\mathcal{B}(p,q)$. I think this is not differentiable on $\partial \mathcal{B}(p,q)$—except perhaps where one of $x \mapsto d(x,p)$ or $d(x,q)$ are not differentiable. By Rademacher's theorem, one would therefore have \begin{equation} \mathcal{H}^n(\partial \mathcal{B}(p,q)) = 0. \end{equation} Next we prove that $\mathcal{B}(p,q)$ has empty interior, whence $\mathcal{B}(p,q) = \partial \mathcal{B}(p,q)$ and the proof would be concluded.

Suppose otherwise, and let $U \subset \mathcal{B}(p,q)$ be an open set. As the cut locus of both $p$ and $q$ has Hausdorff dimension $n-1$, there is a point $z \in U$ that does not belong to either. There are two minimizing geodesics $\gamma_p$ and $\gamma_q$ connecting $z$ to $p$ and $q$ respectively. As $z$ is not in the cut locus of either $p$ or $q$, we can continue both geodesics a small amount beyond $z$, while retaining their minimizing properties. Denote these extensions still by $\gamma_p$ and $\gamma_q$, parametrized so that $\gamma_p(0) = p$, $\gamma_q(0) = q$.

Assume in what follows that $\gamma_p$ and $\gamma_q$ intersect transversely at $z$—otherwise the argument is similar, but a bit easier.

Let $D = d(z,p) = d(z,q)$. Then $\gamma_p(D + \epsilon) \in U$, and by assumption \begin{equation} D + \epsilon = d(\gamma_p(D + \epsilon),p) = d(\gamma_p(D + \epsilon),q). \end{equation} The curve obtained by concatenating $\gamma_q$ from time $0$ to $D$ with $\gamma_p$ from time $D$ to $D+\epsilon$ is a path from $q$ to $\gamma_p(D+\epsilon)$ with length $D+\epsilon$. As $d(\gamma_p(D+\epsilon),q) = D+\epsilon$, it would therefore be a minimizing geodesic. However, it is not even smooth!

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Cool! I had not thought of using Rademacher's theorem. $\endgroup$
    – Saúl RM
    Jan 3, 2023 at 23:33
1
$\begingroup$

Here is a short proof supposing that $M$ is complete (if not the statement is false, see the last paragraph) using the idea from Leo Moos' answer of using Rademacher's theorem.

Suppose $\mathcal{B}(p,q)$ has measure $>0$. By Lebesgue's density theorem, almost all points $a\in\mathcal{B}(p,q)$ satisfy that $\mathcal{B}(p,q)$ has density $1$ at $a$. Fix such a point $a$, and by Rademacher's theorem suppose that $d_p:y\mapsto d(p,y)$ and $d_q:y\mapsto d(q,y)$ are smooth at $a$. Let $\gamma_p,\gamma_q$ be minimizing geodesics from $p$ and $q$ to $a$, so that $\gamma_p(0)=p,\gamma_q(0)=q$ and letting $k=d(p,a)=d(q,a)$, we have that $\gamma_p(k)=\gamma_q(k)=a$.

Let $v_p, v_q$ be the gradients of $d_p,d_q$ at $a$. Then $\lvert v_p\rvert,\lvert v_q\rvert\leq1$ due to $d_p,d_q$ being $1$-Lipschitz. Also note that $d_p(\gamma_p(t))=t$ and $d_q(\gamma_q(t))=t$ for all $t\in[0,k]$, so $\langle v_p,\gamma_p'(k)\rangle=\langle v_q,\gamma_q'(k)\rangle=1$, so $v_p=\gamma_p'(k),v_q=\gamma_q'(k)$. Moreover we cannot have $\gamma_p'(k)=\gamma_q'(k)$, because then by uniqueness of geodesics we would have $p=q$. So $v_p\neq v_q$.

Let $S_aM=\{v\in T_aM;|v|=1\}$. Then for any vector $v\in S_aM$ with $\langle v_p,v\rangle\neq\langle v_q,v\rangle$ we have $\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}d(p,exp_a(tv))=\langle v_p,v\rangle\neq\langle v_q,v\rangle=\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}d(q,exp_a(tv))$. So if we define $\varepsilon_v:=\inf\{t>0;\text{exp}_a(tv)\in\mathcal{B}(p,q)\}$, then $\varepsilon_v>0$ for almost all $v\in S_aM$, and the function $v\mapsto\varepsilon_v$ is measurable (because $\{v\in T_aM;\text{exp}_a(v)\in\mathcal{B}(p,q)\}$ is closed), so there is some $\varepsilon>0$ and some set $X$ of positive measure in $S_aM$ such that exp$(tv)\not\in\mathcal{B}(p,q)$ $\forall v\in X,\forall t\in(0,\varepsilon)$. This contradicts the fact that $\mathcal{B}(p,q)$ has density $1$ at $a$.

If $M$ is not complete, the statement is false: consider the manifold $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{(x,0);x\geq0\}$ with the usual metric of $\mathbb{R}^2$ and let $p=(1,-2), q=(2,-1)$. Then all points $(x,y)$ with $x,y>0$ are at the same distance of $p$ and $q$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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