I'm reading Geometric Inequalities of Yu. D. Burago and V. A. Zalgaller. I don't understand why $E_1$ is closed in the proof of the following lemma.

Several definition.

Suppose $ \Omega $ is a compact $ m $-dimensional submanifold with non-empty boundary $ \Gamma $ in an $ m $-dimensional ($m \geqslant 2$) Riemannian manifold $ M $, where $ \Gamma $ is a $ C^{1} $-smooth $ (m-1) $-dimensional submanifold. We shall say that $ \Omega $ has a boundary $ \Gamma $ starlike with respect to the point $ q \in \Omega $ if in the metric $ \rho $ induced in $ \Omega $ by the inclusion $ \Omega \subset M $, each point $ x \in \Gamma $ can be joined to $ q $ by at least one shortest arc $ q x $, and each such shortest arc lies in $ \{x\} \cup {\rm int} ~\Omega $ and is transversal to $ \Gamma $ at the point $ x $. The point $ x \in \Gamma $ is called non-singular if the shortest arc $ q x $ is unique and on it $ q $ and $ x $ are not conjugate. The other points of $ \Gamma $ are considered singular.

Lemma. The set of singular points of a smooth starlike boundary $ \Gamma $ of a domain $ \Omega $ is closed and possesses a zero $ (m-1) $-dimensional measure on $ \Gamma $.

Partial proof. Suppose $ E_{1} $ is the set of those singular points of $ \Gamma $ for which $ \Omega $ possesses at least one shortest arc $ q x $ along which $ x $ is conjugate to $ q $; $E_{2} $ is the set of all the other singular points.

Suppose $ Q_{0} $ is the set of unit vectors in $ T_{q} M $ tangent to those lines $ q x $ for which $ x \in E_{1} $ and $ x $ is conjugate to $ q $. Since $ x q $ is transversal to $ \Gamma $, according to the implicit function theorem, we can find open sets $ Q \supset Q_{0}$, $Q \subset S^{m-1}(0,1) \subset T_{q} M $ and a smooth function $ l: Q \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{+}^{1} $ such that for $ y \in Q $, the geodesic line $ \exp _{q} t y $ intersects $ \Gamma $ at the point $ \exp _{q} l(y) y $ and if $ y \in Q_{0} $, then $ \exp _{q} t y $ is the shortest line joining $ q $ to $ x=\exp _{q} l(y) y \in E_{1} $. Since $ E_{1} $ is contained in the image of the critical points of the map $ f: Q \rightarrow \Gamma $ defined by the relation $ f(y)=\exp _{q} l(y) y $, it follows from Sard's theorem that $ \operatorname{mes}_{m-1}\left(E_{1}\right)=0 $. Since all the $ q x $ are transversal to $ \Gamma $, the set $ E_{1} $ is closed.

The last sentence states that "Since all the $ q x $ are transversal to $ \Gamma $, the set $ E_{1} $ is closed." This makes me very confused. I've been thinking for a long time, but I don't know why. Any help would be appreciated!


1 Answer 1


I agree with you, the sentence looks a bit strange. In fact, the conclusion that $E_1$ is closed is true without the assumption of transversality. Here is how I would prove it.

Let $(x_j \mid j \geq 1)$ be a sequence of points in $E_1$, converging to some point $x \in \Gamma$. Write $\gamma_j$ for the minimizing geodesic from $q$ to $x_j$, each of which has a non-zero Jacobi field by assumption.

We can extract a subsequence in order to guarantee that $\gamma_j \to \gamma$, a minimizing geodesic from $q$ to $x$. Let $v \in T_q M$ be so that $\gamma = t \in [0,1] \mapsto \exp_q(tv)$, and likewise define $v_j \in T_q M$ corresponding to $\gamma_j$. Then $v_j \to v$.

Then we can argue by contradiction: if $x$ were not conjugate to $q$ along $\gamma$, then $(\mathrm{d} \exp_q)(v): T_v( T_q M) \to T_x M$ would be invertible. But then $(\mathrm{d} \exp_q)(v_j)$ would also be invertible, once $j$ is large enough that $v_j$ lies close to $v$, and this would contradict our assumption about the $x_j$.


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.