An isometry between two Riemannian manifolds is a diffeomorphism
such that
. In other words,
respects the Riemannian structure as well as the differentiable structure.
It follows that if are the metrics on
induced by the Riemannian metrics
, then
for
—that is,
is distance-preserving. Interestingly, a version of the converse is true:
Theorem 1 (Myers-Steenrod) If
is distance-preserving and surjective, then it is an isometry (in particular, it is smooth).
I should observe that the proof applies to the case of a map of Riemannian manifolds ! I don’t know why Helgason states it with the extra hypotheses. Initially I wrote this post with this question unresolved under the goal of figuring out what I had missed and why this hypothesis was necessary by blogging, but I was unable to do so. With that complete, however, a search reveals that it’s stated in the additional generality in Petersen’s book (the relevant parts of which can be viewed at Google Books). However, it’s easier to do the notations in the case of one manifold.
is evidently a homeomorphism. Now pick
and a neighborhood
such that for any
, there is a unique geodesic in that neighborhood connecting
. Call it
. I claim that
is a geodesic in
. The geodesic
can be assumed to be parametrized by unit length. We have for all
,
Thus
In other words, we have strict equality in the triangle inequality.
Geodesic preservation
I will state a small but useful fact: in a Riemannian manifold , if
lie in a small neighborhood of
and
then lies on a geodesic betwen
. Indeed, draw a geodesic
from
to
and a geodesic
from
to
that travel at unit speed and minimze the distances; we can do this locally even without the assumption of completeness. The catenation
minimizes the length from
to
, so it is an unbroken geodesic. Thus
lies on the geodesic.
So, returning to the discussion above, we see that by (*) sends geodesics to geodesics.
Exponential coordinates
Now fix open containing the origin such that
takes
diffeomorphically to a neighborhood
, and
takes
diffeomorphically to
. There is an expression for
as a map
in these exponential coordinates. It is obtained as follows: if
, take a geodesic
with
and consider
. In fact this induces more generally a map
Since moves at constant speed
and
moves at the same speed, it follows that
is norm-preserving. Also
. If we can show that
is linear, then we’ll get smoothness in this exponential coordinate system—hence smoothness in general.
is an isometry
It can be checked that
I will postpone this for now.
This is what I will use to show that is an isometry, where each tangent space is given the norm from the Riemannian metric. Pick
and consider the geodesics
at
and
where
. Then
. So
Isometries are linear maps
To show that is linear, we appeal to a general fact:
Theorem 2 Let
be normed linear spaces and
a map such that
for
. Then
is linear if
.
This is a very interesting theorem, but it is easier to leave it for a later post.
Conclusion of the proof
Now we have seen that is smooth, and that for
,
, i.e.
preserves lengths on tangent vectors. By the polarization identity,
preserves the inner product, and is thus an isometry.
A lemma
I never proved a fact I stated about the exponential map—the equality
I will briefly sketch the idea here. is the length of the linear path from
to
in
, so it will be sufficient to show:
Lemma 3
Ifis a path in
, then as
with the derivative
staying bounded,
![]()
I’m abusing notation quite a bit here, but I do not think this should cause confusion.
Basically, the reason is that
while
where in the second equation I am referring to the norms induced by the metric on the various tangent spaces of . The difference between these two is
, because
has derivative the identity at
, and the metric on
is very close (say by a factor of
) to that of
if we work in local coordinates and agree to identify the tangent spaces.
November 29, 2009 at 1:45 am
this is a problem in lee’s riemannian manifolds book. i went back to it tonight after about three months, and i still could not prove the key first step – metric isometries preserve geodesics. thanks for posting this.