There are some more useful facts about isometries that I want to gather together in this post.
Isometries are determined by one tangent space
Unlike smooth maps, isometries have to be much more rigid:
Proposition 1 Let
be isometries such that
and
. Then
.
(Recall that we’re assuming all manifolds to be connected.)
The idea is that we can take local “exponential coordinates” around ,
respectively. Then as I showed yesterday,
and
are necessarily given by a linear map in these coordinates. Since
on
, this means the two linear maps coincide, so
and
are locally equal. So we can let
be the set of
with
on
.
is evidently closed, and it is open by the argument just given, so by connectedness we get the result.
Continuation of isometries
Because of the previous result, it is possible to talk about “analytic continuation” of an isometry. So let be a curve, and let
be an isometry of a neighborhood
of
into
(i.e. onto a submanifold thereof). Suppose we have a family of isometries
,
, of isometries of neighborhoods
into
, with
, satisfying the following condition: Whenever
are close enough,
and
. This is exactly analogous to the treatment of analytic continuation of holomorphic functions, and I have to wonder if there is a general framework using fancy techniques in category theory or something like that.
The first basic result is that this is unique:
Proposition 2 If
are continuations of
along the curve
, then for all
,
in some neighborhood of
.
Indeed, the proof is now a direct corollary of the previous result: take the set of where the statement of the proposition is true, and it follows that said set is open, closed, and nonempty.
Existence of continuations
As in complex analysis, it is possible to perform a continuation, but one needs the assumptions of completeness and analyticity:
Proposition 3 If
is a complete Riemannian manifold, then any (analytic) isometry
can be continued along the curve
.
The curve doesn’t have to be analytic.
The idea is that we only need to do this one small piece at a time. The small pieces rely on the following lemma, which allows us to extend on normal neighborhoods:
Lemma 4 Let
be a disk around
with respect to the metric on
, and let
. Suppose
is the diffeomorphic image of an open subset of
under the exponential map (which is true for
small enough). Then an (analytic) isometry
of
into
can be extended to an isometry
of
into
.
Such a is called a normal neighborhood of
. The normal neighborhood theorem, which I have not yet proven, states that there is a basis consisting open sets which are normal neighborhoods of each of their points.
Since the map is an isometry, it sends geodesics to geodesics (cf. yesterday’s post). Now let
be the linear transformation
. The map
can be described as follows: it maps
to
. This follows from the previous discussions. Moreover, by the description it offers a way of defining
on
since each element of
can be written as
for a unique
. The fact that this is an isometry follows because everything here (especially
if
are the metrics on
) is real-analytic, and
is an isometry on an open subset of
.
Now let’s prove the existence proposition.
Consider the set of
such that an analytic continuation of
on
exists. It is open and nonempty. I claim it is closed.
Let , and suppose
. There is a curve
defined on
, well-defined by uniqueness. It tends to a limit
as
by completeness and since
is an isometry.
Let be a neighborhood of
which is a normal neighborhood of each of its points. Then there is
very close to
with
and a normal neighborhood
of
with an isometry into
via continuation. This extends to
by the lemma, which gives the continuation to a neighborhood of
. This is a contradiction since
was assumed to be the supremum.
Independence up to homotopy
Proposition 5 Let
be homotopic paths (i.e. with
, and the homotopy respecting endpoints). Then the continuations of
along
agree in a neighborhood of
.
The proof is similar to the one for analytic continuation.
The Myers-Rinow Theorem
The following theorem—and its proof—are strikingly analogous to the monodromy theorem:
Theorem 6 (Myers-Rinow) Let
be analytic, simply connected, complete manifolds and
an (analytic) isometry between an open subset of
and an open subset of
. Then
can be extended to an isometry
of
onto
.
The idea is the same as the monodromy theorem: to define the extension on
by starting with a
with
defined, drawing a curve
from
to
, and continuing
along
; this can be used to define
in a neighborhood of
. Simple connectivity shows that the choice of
is irrelevant. It is easy to check that
is smooth locally by comparing paths
with
catenated with a small arc between
and, say,
close to
.
We can do the same for and get an isometry
. Now
on open subsets of
; thus this is true everywhere, and the extensions are diffeomorphisms. We already know they preserve the inner product.
Leave a Reply