Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    The Geometry of Geodesics
    The Geometry of Geodesics
    The Geometry of Geodesics
    Ebook670 pages9 hours

    The Geometry of Geodesics

    By Herbert Busemann

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    A comprehensive approach to qualitative problems in intrinsic differential geometry, this text for upper-level undergraduates and graduate students emphasizes cases in which geodesics possess only local uniqueness properties--and consequently, the relations to the foundations of geometry are decidedly less relevant, and Finsler spaces become the principal subject.
    This direct approach has produced many new results and has materially generalized many known phenomena. Author Herbert Busemann begins with an explanation of the basic concepts, including compact metric spaces, convergence of point sets, motion and isometry, segments, and geodesics. Subsequent topics include Desarguesian spaces, with discussions of Riemann and Finsler spaces and Beltrami's theorem; perpendiculars and parallels, with examinations of higher-dimensional Minkowskian geometry and the Minkowski plane; and covering spaces, including locally isometric space, the universal covering space, fundamental sets, free homotopy and closed geodesics, and transitive geodesics on surfaces of higher genus. Concluding chapters explore the influence of the sign of the curvature on the geodesics, and homogenous spaces, including those with flat bisectors.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherDover Publications
    Release dateJul 12, 2012
    ISBN9780486154626
    The Geometry of Geodesics

    Read more from Herbert Busemann

    Related to The Geometry of Geodesics

    Titles in the series (100)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Mathematics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      Physicists Attack Math’s $1,000,000 Question

      Apr 4, 2017

      Physicists are attempting to map the distribution of the prime numbers to the energy levels of a particular quantum system.

      4 min read

    • Article

      Why Mathematicians Should Stop Naming Things After Each Other

      Sep 2, 2020

      Any student of modern math must know what it feels like to drown in a well of telescoping terminology. For a high-profile example, let’s take the Calabi-Yau manifold, made famous by string theory. A Calabi-Yau manifold is a compact, complex Kähler ma

      6 min read

    • Article

      The Theory Of Gravity

      Jan 20, 2022

      The Theory Of Gravity
      1 min read

    • Article

      The Math That Takes Newton Into the Quantum World

      Feb 28, 2019

      In my 50s, too old to become a real expert, I have finally fallen in love with algebraic geometry. As the name suggests, this is the study of geometry using algebra. Around 1637, René Descartes laid the groundwork for this subject by taking a plane,

      9 min read

    • Article

      The Twin Prime Hero: Rags, riches, and fame in mathematics.

      Dec 29, 2016

      Yitang “Tom” Zhang spent the seven years following the completion of his Ph.D. in mathematics floating between Kentucky and Queens, working for a chain of Subway restaurants, and doing odd accounting work. Now he is on a lecture tour that includes st

      8 min read

    • Article

      The Sacred, Spherical Cows of Physics: Theoretical physics milks symmetry to power its newest tool.

      May 1, 2014

      Early in their training, many physics students come across the idea of spherical cows. Cows in the real world—even at their most plump and well-fed—are hardly spherical, and this makes it tricky to calculate things like, say, how their volume or surf

      11 min read

    • Article

      How Math’s Most Famous Proof Nearly Broke: Andrew Wiles thought he had a solution to an age-old puzzle. Until it began to unravel.

      May 28, 2015

      Andrew Wiles gave a series of lectures cryptically titled “Modular Forms, Elliptic Curves, and Galois Representations” at a mathematics conference in Cambridge, England, in June 0f 1993. His argument was long and technical. Finally, 20 minutes into t

      8 min read

    • Article

      The Impossible Mathematics of the Real World

      Jun 8, 2017

      Using stiff paper and transparent tape, Craig Kaplan assembles a beautiful roundish shape that looks like a Buckminster Fuller creation or a fancy new kind of soccer ball. It consists of four regular dodecagons (12-sided polygons with all angles and

      6 min read

    • Article

      Math After COVID-19

      Apr 28, 2020

      Math After COVID-19
      4 min read

    • Article

      The Deepest Uncertainty: When a hypothesis is neither true nor false.

      Jun 6, 2013

      Georg Cantor died in 1918 in a sanatorium in Halle, Germany. A pre-eminent mathematician, he had laid the foundation for the theory of infinite numbers in the 1870s. At the time, his ideas received hostile opposition from prominent mathematicians in

      4 min read

    • Article

      Math’s Beautiful Monsters

      Oct 26, 2017

      Much like its creator, Karl Weierstrass’ monster came from nowhere. After four years at university spent drinking and fencing, Weierstrass had left empty handed. He eventually took a teaching course and spent most of the 1850s as a schoolteacher in B

      10 min read

    • Article

      Kolmogorov Complexity and Our Search for Meaning

      Aug 2, 2018

      Was it a chance encounter when you met that special someone or was there some deeper reason for it? What about that strange dream last night—was that just the random ramblings of the synapses of your brain or did it reveal something deep about your u

      8 min read

    • Article

      Impossible Cookware and Other Triumphs of the Penrose Tile

      Feb 7, 2019

      In 1974, Roger Penrose, a British mathematician, created a revolutionary set of tiles that could be used to cover an infinite plane in a pattern that never repeats. In 1982, Daniel Shechtman, an Israeli crystallographer, discovered a metallic alloy w

      7 min read

    • Article

      Euclid as Founding Father: We hold this mathematics to be self evident.

      Oct 13, 2016

      Despite the man’s awkward gestures, unkempt hair, and ill-fitting suit, it was one of the most extraordinary speeches that Reverend John Gulliver had ever heard. It was March 1860, and the venue was Norwich, Connecticut. The following morning Gullive

      8 min read

    • Article

      The Almost-Proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem

      Mar 3, 2017

      19th century mathematicians thought the “roots of unity” were the key to solving Fermat’s Last Theorem. Then they discovered a fatal flaw.

      2 min read

    • Article

      Math’s Beautiful Monsters: How a destructive idea paved the way for modern math.

      Apr 3, 2014

      Much like its creator, Karl Weierstrass’ monster came from nowhere. After four years at university spent drinking and fencing, Weierstrass had left empty handed. He eventually took a teaching course and spent most of the 1850s as a schoolteacher in B

      10 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for The Geometry of Geodesics

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      The Geometry of Geodesics - Herbert Busemann

      INDEX

      CHAPTER I

      THE BASIC CONCEPTS

      1. Introduction

      The spaces occurring in this book are metric and share two essential pro perties with the spaces usually considered in differential geometry: the first guarantees that the space behaves in many respects like a finite-dimensional space which cannot be extended without increasing the dimension ; in differential geometry it is frequently called completeness or normality. It is equivalent to the Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem: a bounded infinite set has an accumulation point. We call a metric space with this property finitely compact ; the term seems to go back to M. Morse. The second property is the arrangement of the points into geodesics, and is obtained here by imposing conditions on the existence and the uniqueness' of solutions of the triangle equality.

      In Sections 2–5 we study the implications of finite compactness alone. For the benefit of those who approach the subject from a background of classical differential geometry we show first that certain standard theorems in coordinate spaces about uniform continuity, extrema, and selection of subsequences follow from finite compactness. For others it will suffice to simply check on the terminology which varies slightly with different authors.

      In Section 3 we define convergence of sets once for ever in terms of Hausdorff’s closed limit. Otherwise convergence would have to be defined in each case as it arises, for instance, for the hyperplanes in En. Nowadays we are not satisfied with the mere definition of a limit, we wish to ascertain the nature of the topology induced by this limit. We show that the closed subsets of a finitely compact space may be metrized such that they become again a finitely compact space and the resulting limit is equivalent to the closed limit. Hausdorff had proved the corresponding result for compact spaces.

      Again, in order to obviate special agreements in individual cases the next Section 4 derives a similar result for motions, i. e., distance preserving mappings of the space on itself. It is shown that the motions of a finitely compact space form with a suitable right-invariant metric themselves a finitely compact space, in which convergence is equivalent to pointwise convergence.

      We then discuss length of curves. The definition arid properties of length are very much the same as in elementary spaces.

      The length of any curve is at least the distance of its endpoints. If the two numbers are equal we call the curve a segment, because it is then isometric to a segment in ordinary space. In the intrinsic differential geometry of surfaces a segment is a geodesic arc which is a shortest connection of its endpoints. A consistent use of segments would shorten many arguments in differential geometry, but as the literature shows, the concept is not indispensable. In the present setup it is basic. It is the subject of Section 6, where Menger’s convexity is introduced as a sufficient condition for the existence of segments.

      A geodesic (Section 7) is a curve which extends indefinitely in both directions and behaves locally like a segment. This definition merely abstracts the process of continuing indefinitely a solution of the differential equations for a geodesic. To guarantee the existence of geodesics it must be postulated that prolongation is locally possible.

      So far questions of uniqueness have been entirely left aside. In differential geometry the assumptions are always such that a line element determines a geodesic, hence continuation of a solution can be effected in one way only. Our final postulate is therefore uniqueness of prolongation. The spaces which satisfy all five postulates, viz., that they are metric, finitely compact, and convex in Menger’s sense and that prolongation is locally possible and unique, will be called G-spaces. They are the primary subject of this book.

      Section 8 discusses the most elementary properties of these spaces. We then (Section 9) define the multiplicity for a point of a geodesic and treat the simplest types of geodesics. In Section 10 we show that a two-dimensional G-space is always a manifold. Whether this is true for higher dimensions is an interesting, but at present quite inaccessible, problem.

      Particularly simple and important are those G-spaces where prolongation is possible in the large. We call such spaces straight, because each geodesic is isometric to an ordinary straight line and is uniquely determined by any two of its points. In the language of the calculus of variations they are the simply connected spaces without conjugate points. A two-dimensional straight space is homeomorphic to the plane. Each geodesic is an open Jordan curve which tends to infinity if traversed in either direction, and there is exactly one curve through two given points. In Section 11 we prove: if a system of Jordan curves in the plane with these two properties is given, then the plane can be metrized as a straight space with the given curves as geodesics. For plane metrics without conjugate points we thus solve the inverse problem of the calculus of variations in the large. This is a first example where the present methods not only reestablish a classical result without differentiability hypotheses, but go far beyond it by providing a solution in the large.

      The result is used for the construction of non-Desarguesian spaces which illustrate Chapter II.

      2. Compact and finitely compact metric spaces

      The basic concept underlying all the investigations of this book is that of the distance between two points of a space. The properties of distance will depend to some extent on the space considered, but we shall always assume that distance satisfies the following conditions:

      (1)  the distance of a point from, itself is zero,

      (2)  the distance of two distinct points is positive, and the distance of the first point from the second is the same as that of the second from the first,

      (3)  distance is shortest distance; if we interpolate a point between two given points, the distance between the given points is less than the sum of their distances to the interpolated point.

      These assumptions can be stated a little more exactly by formulae. We consider a set R of elements a, b, …, y, z; we call the elements, "points", and the set R, a "space"

      Our assumptions are:

      A real valued function xy is defined on all pairs x, y of points in R which has the properties:

      A space with these properties is called "metric".

      As a minor point, we may mention that these conditions can be replaced by

      COMMENTS ON THE AXIOMS

      These properties are too general to serve as a basis for an interesting geometric theory ; for they are satisfied by the following trivial space R1 : Take any set of elements and define xy = 0 when x = y, xy = 1, when x ≠ y.

      Nevertheless the conditions exclude many interesting spaces, for example, spaces which occur in the calculus of variations frequently do not satisfy xy = yx ; for a practical illustration, if the distance between two points x, y on the surface of the earth be measured by the time it takes to walk from one to the other, then xy and yx will differ if one direction is uphill, and the other downhill.

      Much of the early work in this book has been extended to non-symmetric distance¹, but the most interesting later results are often meaningless or have not been carried over. Thus the extension is, at least at present, not justified by the results.

      The condition xy > 0 for x ≠ y fails in the spaces considered in the theory of relativity.

      Finally, if we omit the triangle inequality, distance loses its meaning of shortest distance, and so much of its geometric interest. Investigations based on (1), (2) only have therefore a different aim and trend. Partly they concern spaces in which (3) holds, but is not assumed², because it implies the following very strong continuity property of distance:

      For

      THE BASIC DEFINITIONS

      If A is a non-empty set, the "distance from p to A" is denoted by pA and defined as the greatest lower bound of px as x traverses A :

      For, if x ∈ A then pA ≤ px ≤ pq + qx.

      Hence pA ≤ pq + inf qx = pq + qA. Similarly qA ≤ pq + pA. Hence (2.3).

      If ρ > 0 the "ρ-neighborhood of the set A", denoted by S(A, ρ), consists of all points x for which xA < ρ.

      If A consists of a single point c, we call S(c, ρ) the "(open) sphere with center c and radius ρ".

      Thus S(c, ρ) is the set of all points x such that cx < ρ. If ∪ denotes union of sets, then

      For, if

      hence by (2.3), xA ≤ xq + qA < ρ.

      The space R1 shows us that metric space is far too general to yield an interesting theory. We consider additional assumptions of two different types: the first is essentially topological and centers round the notion of compactness; the second is more geometrical, and concerns the detailed ordering of points on lines. The first type is discussed in sections 2 to 5. Those of the second type are treated in sections 6 to 9.

      Although we assume that the elementary topological properties of metric spaces are known, we discuss those briefly which we need in order to insure agreement on the terminology.

      A subset M of the metric space R is "open" if each point p of M is the center of a sphere contained entirely in M. In symbols: given p ∈ M, there is a positive number δ(p) such that

      The point p is an "accumulation point" of M if, for each positive number ρ, the common part, or intersection M ∩ S(p, ρ) of M and S(p, ρ) contains infinitely many points of M.

      The "closure of M" denoted by M, consists of M and its accumulation points. M is "closed", if it coincides with its closure.

      If {pv} denotes a sequence of points p1, p2 …, not necessarily distinct, then p is an "accumulation point" of the sequence, if S(p, ε), for each ε > 0, contains infinitely many elements of the sequence. It must be noticed that, with these definitions, if M is the set traversed by pv, an accumulation point of {pv} need not be such as point of M ; for, if M is a finite set, it has no accumulation point, but {pv} has at least one.

      When there is a point p such that S(p, ε), for each ε > 0, contains all but a finite number of the points of {pv}, we say that {pv} "converges to p", and that p is its "limit point", we write, p = lim pv, or pv → p. This is equivalent to pv p → 0. A set M is "bounded" if there is a number α such that we have xy < α for any pair of points x, y of M. Then, if p is any point of R, there is a number β such that M ⊂ S(p, β). Conversely, if there is a point p, and a number β such that M ⊂ S(p, β), then M is bounded.

      A sequence {pv} of points is bounded, if the point set which it traverses is bounded; or if p pv < β for some p, β and all v.

      (2.6) A converging sequence is bounded and has just one accumulation point. In a finitely compact space (see below) the converse holds.

      COMPACT AND FINITELY COMPACT SETS

      A set C is "compact" if every infinite subset of C has an accumulation point, and this lies in C.

      Thus in our terminology, a compact set is always closed.

      A compact set C satisfies the Heine-Borel Theorem :

      (2.7) If C is contained in the union of a (not necessarily denumerable²) collection of open sets, then it is contained in the union of a finite subcollection.

      Apply this to the set of all spheres S(p, η) with η fixed, centers p in C and we have

      (2.8) A compact set C contains, for each η > 0, a finite set of points Cη such that C ⊂ S(Cη, η).

      We make an important deduction: Since each S(p, η) is bounded, so is S(Cη, η), hence C is bounded. Take η = 1, 1/2, 1/3, … ; altogether we get a countable set of points which is dense in C. In the usual terminology C is "separable".

      (2.9) A compact set (in a metric space) is bounded, closed, and separable.

      For our geometric investigations it would not suffice to consider only compact spaces, for this would exclude even Euclidean space. But the Bolzano-Weierstrass Theorem holds for that space and for all those which we will consider, namely:

      (2.10) A bounded infinite set has at least one accumulation point.

      If (2.10) holds in a set, with the accumulation point in the set, we call the set "finitely compact"[finitely, because (2.10) makes a statement only for bounded sets].

      (2.11) A closed subset of a finitely compact set is finitely compact. A bounded closed subset of a finitely compact set is compact.

      (2.12) A finitely compact set F is closed and separable.

      To show separability, let Sv = F ∩ S(p, v) then by (is compact, and hence by (2.8), it contains a finite subset Tv Tv is countable and it is dense in F, since ∪ S(p, v) ⊃ F.

      If R, R¹ be two metric spaces, and M ⊂ R, we say M is "mapped in R¹" if there is a correspondence, or function f(p) such that if p ∈ M, then f(p) ∈ R¹.

      If N ⊂ M then f(N) denotes the set of points f(p) in R¹ obtained when p traverses N, and we say f "maps N on f(N)".

      If M′ ⊂ R′ then f–1(M′) is the "original" of M′, consisting of the points p in M for which f(p) ∈ M′. This set may be empty.

      If the mapping p′ = f(p) is one-to-one, then f–1(p′) is a single point for each p′ ∈ f(M), and p = f–1(p′) is a mapping of M′ on M.

      The mapping p′ = f(p) of M in R′ is "continuous", if f(pv) → f(p) whenever pv, p ∈ M and pv → p. Thus if p ∈ M and ε > 0, then a number δ, depending on ε, p exists such that

      (2.13) A continuous mapping of a compact set C is uniformly continuous.

      This means that, given ε > 0, a positive number δ exists such that f(x) f(y) < ε whenever x, y ∈ C and xy < δ ; this follows from the Heine-Borel Theorem. For with the above meaning of δ(ε, p), there is a finite number of spheres S which cover C. Let δ be the least of δ(ε/2, pv)/2 and let xy < δ. Then if x ∈ S , we have

      and by the definition of δ(ε/2, pμ,

      (2.14) If the mapping f(p) = p′ of a compact set C is continuous, then f(C) is compact. If, further, f(p) is one-to-one, then f–1(p′) is continuous.

      = {f{qv)} is any sequence of points in f(C), it has an accumulation point q in C ; hence {qv} has a subsequence {qμ} such that qμ → q. As the mapping is continuous, f(qμ) → f(q) ∈ f(C).

      If f(pthen no subsequence {qμ} of {qv} can converge to a point p ≠ q, because then would f(qμ) → f(p) ≠ f(q) = q′. But as {qv} is bounded, it has an accumulation point; hence by (2.6) qv → q.

      A one-to-one mapping p′ = f(p) of a subset M of R on a subset M′ of R′ for which both f(p) and f–1(p) are continuous is called "topological", and two sets M, M′ for which such a mapping exists are "homeomorphic".

      Thus a one-to-one continuous mapping of a compact set is topological.

      SELECTION THEOREMS

      The reader will have noticed the analogy between (2.13) and an elementary theorem in analysis. Certain standard selection theorems in analysis also hold for finitely compact spaces, and this is one reason for their importance. We first apply Cantor’s diagonal process.

      (2.15) Let the mappings fv(p) (v = 1, 2, …) of the denumerable subset N of R in the finitely compact metric space R′ have the property that {fv(p)} (v = 1, 2, …) is bounded for each p ∈ N. Then a suitable subsequence of {fv(p)} converges for all p of N.

      For let p1, p2, … be the points of N. Since {fv(p1)} is bounded and R′ is finitely compact, some subsequence {fv,1(p1} converges. Similarly the sequence {fv,1 (p2)} has a convergent subsequence {fv,2(p2)}, and of course {fv,2(p1)} converges. So continuing, we find a sequence {fv,x (p)} converging for p = p1, p2, …, px, and we can take x = 1, 2, … indefinitely. The diagonal sequence {fv, v (p)} converges for all px ∈ N, since for v ≥ x it is a subsequence of {fv,x (p)}.

      Various forms of Ascoli’s Theorem are based on this process:

      A sequence of mappings {fv(p)} of M in R′ is "equicontinuous" if, when ε > 0 is given, there is some δ > 0 such that

      (2.16) fv(p) fv(q) < ε for all v, and for any p, q in M with pq < δ.

      This is sometimes called uniform equicontinuity.

      (2.17) If R′ is finitely compact and {fv(p)} is bounded for each p ∈ M, and M contains a countable dense set N, and if the fv(p) are equicontinuous in M, then some subsequence {fμ(p)} of {fv(p)} tends to a uniformly continuous mapping of M in R′.

      Proof : By (2.15) there is a subsequence {μ} of {v} such that {fμ(p))} converges for all p in N. Let ε be any given positive number and choose δ so that, if p, q ∈ M and pq < δ, then fμ(p) fμ(q) < ε/3. Now if p is any point of M choose q in N with pq < δ, then

      Since {fμ(q)} converges there is a positive number β if μ1, μ2 > β. As R′ is finitely compact {fμ(p)} converges. But as β depends on q and thus on p, the convergence need not be uniform in general. Finally, f(p) = lim fμ(p) is uniformly continuous, since, if pq < δ, then fv(p) fv(q) < ε, and f(p) f(q) ≤ ε.

      (2.19) The uniform convergence of a suitable subsequence {fμ(p)} can be proved when M is compact.

      Proof : Let fv(p) be equicontinuous mappings of the compact set C in the finitely compact space R′. As N take the set ∪ C1/v of (2.8), then by (2.17) there is a subsequence {fμ(p)} which tends to a continuous mapping f(p).

      To show that the convergence is uniform, choose δ again so that fμ(p) fμ(q) < ε/3 when pq < δ. Consider a fixed v0 > 1/δ; the set C1/v0 contains a point q with pq < δ. Now β for all q in C1/v0, when μ1, μ2 > β. Thus β is independent of p, and (when μ1, μ2 > β. For μ, when μ1 > β. This shows uniformity of the convergence.

      REAL VALUED FUNCTIONS

      Two special cases of mappings of R in R′ which are of great importance occur when either R or R′ is the real axis T. We now take the second case. We shall always define "distance" on T in the natural way: the distance of the numbers τ1, τ2 shall be |τ1 – τ2|. If R′ = T, then f(p) is a real valued function of p. From (2.14):

      (2.20) A real continuous function f(p) defined on a compact set C attains its maximum and minimum.

      For the image f(C) is a compact, hence closed bounded set on T and includes a greatest and a smallest number.

      An important example of a continuous function in R is the distance pA of a variable point p from a fixed set A (See 2.3). If there is a point f of A such that pf = pA then f is a "foot" of p on A. If A is compact then by (2.20) a foot always exists, but it need not be unique; e. g. in ordinary space, each point of a spherical surface is a foot for its center.

      (2.21) If H is finitely compact (and not empty), then each point p has a foot on H.

      For if

      , where {xv} is a sequence of points on H. Then {xv} is bounded and, since H is finitely compact, contains a subsequence {xμ} which converges to a point f of H. By (2.1), pxμ → pf = α.

      (2.22) If fv is a foot of xv on A and xv → x, fv → f ∈ A, then f is a foot of x on A.

      For if g is any point on A, then

      hence xg ≥ xf.

      (2.23) If H is finitely compact and each point x of M has a unique foot f(x) on H then f(x) depends continuously on x; thus f(x) is a continuous map of M in H.

      For let xv → x, where xv, x ∈ M. By (2.3) {f(xv)} is a bounded sequence; xf(xv) ≤ xxv + xvf(xv) = xxv + xvH ≤ 2 xxv + xH. By (2.22) each accumulation point of {f(xv)} is a foot of x, and hence coincides with f(x); an accumulation point exists on H, since H is finitely compact (compare (2.6)).

      3. Convergence of point sets

      We shall introduce that notion of convergence which Hausdorff called the "closed limit, and as we use no other, we omit the word closed". Since the notion will be applied to unbounded sets, it will be necessary to understand clearly the meaning of statements of which the following is a simple example: in the Cartesian (ξ, η)-plane, the circle

      tends as v → ∞ to the line ξ = 0.

      Now let {Mv} be any sequence of non-empty subsets of a metric space R. We define the upper and lower limits of the sequence as follows:

      The "upper limit", lim sup Mv, consists of all accumulation points of all sequences {pv} when pv ∈ Mv:

      Thus p ∈ lim sup Mv if, and only if, each S(p, ε), ε > 0, contains points of infinitely many Mv.

      The "lower limit", lim inf Mv, consists of all points p such that each S(p, ε) for any ε > 0 contains points of all but a finite number of the Mv. Obviously

      If these limits coincide we say {Mv} converges:

      CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEFINITIONS

      are those of {Mv}. For Mv contains points of Mv.

      Further, the upper and lower limits of {Mv} are closed sets. For if p is the limit of points pv in lim sup Mv, there is a subscript μv > vhence p ∈ lim sup Mv. Similarly for the lower limit.

      Example: Consider the sequence of straight lines ξ = v, v = 0, ± 1, ± 2, … in the (ξ, η) plane. According to the definition given, this converges to the empty set; but if to each line we adjoin a fixed point p to form a new set, these sets have p as limit. The lines, as it were, disappear to infinity. The same may be said of the semicircles, ξ ≥ v in (3.1); the semicircles ξ < v tend in an intuitive fashion to ξ = 0. Those for ξ ≥ v count less and less, so to speak, as we increase v.

      These remarks on convergence of sets suffice for reading this book. The remainder of this section serves to elucidate the notion of convergence, and to make precise the intuitive statements above.

      Our aim is to define a distance δ(M, N) between sets M, N in a metric space R such that when R is finitely compact δ(Mv, M) → 0, if and only if Mv → M. Hausdorff considered this problem for the bounded case only.

      DISTANCE OF SETS

      Guided by our example, we select a point p and define the "distance" of the (non-empty) sets M, N as follows:

      (px is, of course, the distance between p and x). Thus

      This definition diminishes the importance of points x at a large distance from p. The weighting factor e–px is chosen for convenience; many other functions which decrease fast enough would do.

      We note for reference

      The number (3.2) is always finite, since, by (2.3)

      Hence by (3.3):

      We show that with this distance, the closed sets M in R constitute a metric space. Clearly δp(M, N) = δp(N, M) ≥ 0.

      We next prove the triangle inequality: δp(L, M) + δp(M, N) ≥ δp(L, N). If ε > 0 is given, there is a point z such that

      (We cannot expect that δp(M, N) = 0 if, and only if, M = N).

      Proof : δp(M, N) = 0 is equivalent to xM = xN for all x in R. Now for any set L and any point q

      implies xN = xM for all x in R, and δp(M, N) = 0. But if a point y lies in M and not in N, then yN = yN > 0, yM = yM = 0; and hence

      We have shown:

      (3.8) With our distance (3.2) the non-empty closed sets of a metric space themselves form a metric space.

      We next show that the exceptional role of the point p is really immaterial. We introduce a notion of general importance. If δ1(p, q) and δ2(p, q) be two metrics defined for the same set (of points or of any elements), they are "topologically equivalent" if each of the relations δ1(pv, q) → 0, δ2(pv, q) → 0 implies the other. Thus any notions which involve convergence only coincide for the two metrics.

      We easily show that the metrics δp, δq are topologically equivalent. Using (3.4),

      Similarly δp(M, N) ≤ δq(M, N) epq.

      LIMIT AND DISTANCE, FOR SETS

      Proof : Let x ∈ M, then, noting (3.7), xM = xM = 0,

      Hence xMv → 0; in Mv there is a point yv such that xyv → 0. Thus M ⊂ lim inf Mv.

      Next let y ∈ lim sup Mv. Then there is a subsequence {μ} of {v} such that there are points yμ ∈ Mμ with yμ → y and

      Hence yM = 0, lim sup Mv ⊂ M.

      These two conclusions give the result.

      Note: The converse of (3.9) is not true for general metric spaces. Consider as an example a space consisting of a denumerable number of distinct points p1, p2, … with the trivial distance pv pμ = 1 for v ≠ μ. If Mv = R — pv then lim Mv = R, because any S(pv0, ε) contains for arbitrary positive ε the point pv0 of Mv, if v ≠ v0. But

      for v > 1. However for finitely compact spaces, this converse is true.

      (3.10) If the space R is finitely compact, and lim Mv = M = M ≠ 0 then

      Proof: If not, there is a subsequence {μ} of {v} for which δp(Mμ, M) ≥ 4α > 0. Thus there is a sequence {xμ} of points such that, for large μ,

      If z ∈ M, then Mμ contains a point zμ with zμ → z, and

      By (3.11),

      Hence {pxμ} is bounded. By (3.11) there is either a subsequence {λ} of {μ} with

      or a subsequence {θ} of {μ} with

      These cases we treat separately. In the first, choose yλ in M with xλ yλ < xλM + α. Thus {yλ} is bounded and has an accumulation point y. Since M is closed we have y ∈ M. But

      Hence for large λ, yMλ > yλ Mλ – α > α which contradicts y ∈ lim inf Mλ. In the second case (3.13), choose uθ ∈ Mθ with uθ xθ < xθ Mθ + α. Then since {xθ}, {zθ} are bounded so is {uθ}. By (3.13),

      Thus there would be an accumulation-point u of {uθ} which was not in M, contrary to u ∈ lim sup Mv = M.

      This theorem, together with a result of Hausdorff, leads to the following statement which, although not explicitly, underlies many of our arguments.

      (3.14) If R is finitely compact and {Mv} a sequence of non-empty sets for which δp(Mv, Mμ) is bounded then {Mv} contains a subsequence {Mλ} which converges to a non-empty set M.

      For as R is separable, Hausdorff’s result [2, p. 147] assures us that {Mv} contains a subsequence {Mλ} whose limit is a set M in R. By (3. 2)

      Hence {pMλ} is bounded, and Mλ contains a point zλ such that {pzλ} is bounded. {zλ} has an accumulation point z ∈ lim sup Mλ = M. Thus M is not empty and (3.14) follows from (3.10).

      We now can state more than (3.8). By (3. 9, 10, 14):

      (3.15) Theorem: The non-empty closed sets of a finitely compact metric space R form with the metric (3.2) again a finitely compact metric space.

      If the space R is bounded the factor e–px may be omitted in (3.2) and distance then coincides with Hausdorffs distance.¹

      4. Motion and Isometry

      The concept of motion as a transformation of points which preserves distances is of paramount importance in geometry and particularly applicable to metric spaces.

      A mapping p′ = f(p) of the set M in the space R on a set M′ of R′ is "isometric, or an isometry", if it preserves distances:

      The mapping is topological, and it has an inverse which is an isometry, since, if pq > 0 then f(p) f(q) > 0, and so f(p) ≠ f(q).

      Two sets M, M′ of points are "congruent" if they can be related by an isometry.

      A "motion" of a metric space R may be defined as an isometry of R on itself.

      Notice that f(p) must traverse all points of R when p does so. Thus the mapping τ′ = f(τ) = τ + 1 of the non negative real axis τ ≥ 0 is not a motion of τ ≥ 0, since the point f(τ) does not traverse the part 0 ≤ τ < 1.

      In this section we treat properties of motions which hold for general, or at any rate for finitely compact spaces.

      Motions will be denoted by capital Greek letters, usually Φ, Ψ, with or without subscripts. When Φ is the motion p′ = f(p) we write p′ = p Φ, and f(M) = M Φ for sets. If Ψ is the motion p′ = g(p), then the product Φ Ψ is defined by p′ = p Φ Ψ = g(f(p)). Thus products of motions are read from left to right.

      The point p is a "fixed point" of Φ if p = p Φ.

      (4.2) The fixed points of a motion form a closed set.

      For if p1, p2, … are fixed points, and pv → p, then pf(p) = lim pvf(p) = lim f(pv) f(p) = lim pvp = 0.

      The motion Φ "leaves the set M invariant", if M = M Φ, i. e. if Φ maps M on itself; it "leaves M point-wise invariant", or "fixed", if p Φ = p for each point p of M. We have obviously:

      (4.3) The totality of motions which a metric space can carry form a group.

      (4.4) Of this group, the totality of motions which leaves a set M invariant form a subgroup. So do those motions which leave M point-wise invariant.

      (4.5) If a motion Ψ exists which maps M on M′, then the group of motions which leaves M (pointwise) invariant is isomorphic to the group of motions leaving M′ (pointwise) invariant.

      For if M Φ = M then since M Ψ = M′, we have M′ Ψ–1 Φ Ψ = M′. Thus Ψ′ = Ψ–1 Φ Ψ leaves M′ invariant. Conversely if Φ′ is any motion leaving M′ invariant then Ψ Φ′ Ψ–1 leaves M invariant. Thus the groups correspond by an isomorphism. Similarly if the sets are pointwise fixed.

      (4.6) Isometric spaces have isomorphic groups of motions.

      For if Ω is an isometry of space R on R′ and Φ is a motion of R then Φ Ω is a motion of R′, and every motion of R′ can be written in this form. The isomorphism desired is obtained by making Φ, Φ Ω. correspond.

      Isometric spaces have the same geometric properties. For example, if f is a foot of x on a set A in R, then fΩ, is a foot of xΩ in the set AΩ in R′.

      DISTANCE BETWEEN MOTIONS

      In geometric discussions, we often use terms which presuppose that notions of continuity or of limit have been defined for motions: e. g. if we speak of a continuous rotation about a point, or say that the group of covering motions of a space is discrete. In these cases the group is explicitly given and it would be easy to define limits within the group.

      It is not at all obvious, and probably not true, that a general definition of limit could be given which would always coincide with that used in the special cases; but it is feasible for the finitely compact spaces which we treat.

      We have a problem and a difficulty like that encountered when we considered the convergence of sets. If the space R is bounded, then a satisfactory definition for the distance between the motions Φ and Ψ would xΦ xΨ. But this would be infinite even for such simple motions as rotations in a plane. Guided by (3.2) we define for any metric space R, a distance δp(Φ, Ψ) between motions Φ, Ψ, by taking an arbitrary fixed point p and putting

      Now

      Hence by (3.3)

      and thus is finite. Also, δp(Φ, Ψ) is bounded if R is bounded.

      Of the metric axioms, two are obvious: δp(Φ, Ψ) = δp(Ψ, Φ) ≥ 0 and δp(Φ, Ψ) = 0 if, and only if, xΦ xΨ = 0 for all x, i. e. if Φ = Ψ.

      For the triangle inequality,

      we need only observe that for a suitable point z

      If we replace the point p by another q we obtain an equivalent distance, since by (3.4)

      Hence and similarly

      The distance δp(Φ, Ψ) is right-invariant, that is, for any three motions Φ, Ψ, Ω

      This is so, since xΦΩ xΨΩ = xΦ xΨ for all x. But distance is, in general, not left-invariant. Nevertheless we have

      For y = xΩ–1 traverses all of R when x does. Hence

      CONVERGENCE OF MOTIONS

      (4.13) If δp(Φv, Φ) → 0, then xΦv → xΦ for each point x of R.

      This follows at once from epx δp(Φv, Φ) ≥ xΦv xΦ. The converse in general, fails. For consider again the space consisting of a denumerable set of distinct points p1, p2, … with distance pvpμ = 1 for v ≠ μ. Let Φv be the motion which interchanges pv, pv+1, and leaves the other points fixed.

      for every μ, but if E is the identity,

      However :

      (4.14) If R is finitely compact, and if xΦv → xΦ for each x in R, then δp(Φv, Φ) → 0.

      For, otherwise there would be a sequence {yμ} of points, and a subsequence {Φμ} of {Φv}, with

      Because R is finitely compact, there is either a subsequence {λ} of {μ} with pyλ → ∞ or a subsequence {θ} of {μ} such the yθ converges to a point y.

      The first case is impossible, since

      The second case is also impossible, since

      We now prove the important fact:

      (4.15) Theorem : The group of all motions which a finitely compact space possesses is a finitely compact space when the metric is defined by (4.7). The group is compact when the space is compact.

      Proof. Let {Φv} be a bounded sequence of motions, that is, we suppose that, for some α, xΦv xΦμ < α epx.

      Hence {xΦv} is bounded for every x, moreover the mappings Φv are equicontinuous, since xy < ε implies

      By (2.17) there is a subsequence {λ} of {μ} such that xΦλ converges to a point xΦ for every x, and

      Hence the correspondence of x to xΦ is an isometric mapping of R in itself, but to show that it is a motion we must also prove that for each point y of R there is a point y′ with y′Φ = y. Hence there is a subsequence {θ} of {λconverge to a point y′. Then y = y′Φ since

      We have shown that xΦλ → xΦ for each x. Hence by (4.14) δp(Φλ, Φ) → 0, as desired. If R is compact then any {Φv} is bounded.

      (4.16) If is a group of motions of a metric space R then its closure (under the metric (4.7)) is a group.

      Proof. We must show that if Φ, Ψ ∈ , then Φ Ψ–1 . Now Φ ∈ means there are motions Φv ∈ with δp(Φv, Φ) → 0. Similarly for Ψ. Then, using (4.10, 11, 12), we have

      where q = p Φ Ψ–1and Φ Ψ–1 .

      5. curves and their lengths

      A continuous mapping x(τ) of a closed interval [α, β], of the real τ-axis, in the metric space R is called a "curve" in R ([α, β] stands for the set of those τ which satisfy α ≤ τ ≤ β). The curve may cross itself, or repeat itself. Thus distinct τ may correspond to points that coincide geometrically.

      The theory of the length of a curve resembles that in ordinary space.

      Let Δ of [α, β] and put

      Define "the length" λ(x) of x(τ), α ≤ τ ≤ β, as the least upper bound of λ(x, Δ) for all possible partitions Δ of [α, β] :

      The curve is "rectifiable" when λ(x) is finite. As a method of evaluating this length, we have the following analogue to the usual procedure. For brevity define for each partition Δ :

      Then

      (5.2) If the curve x(τ) is rectifiable and ε is any positive number, then a number δ exists such that ||Δ|| < δ implies

      But if λ(x) = ∞, then for any γ > 0, a number δ exists such that ||Δ|| ≤ δ implies λ(x, Δ) > γ.

      Proof. We note that in our definition of partition, some partition points may coincide; it will clearly be sufficient to prove (5.2) when they are all distinct. Then by the definition of λ(x), there is a partition

      with

      By (2.13) x(τ) is uniformly continuous. Hence δ′ exists such that

      Define δ(ε) or δ(γ) in the two cases, by

      and let Δ for which ||Δ|| < δ.

      one of the two possible τv .

      , and by (.

      By the triangle inequality,

      (This shows, by the way, that omitting points in a partition does not increase λ(x, Δ)).

      Hence by (5.4, 3)

      The following two statements are corollaries of (5.2) :

      (5.6) If {Δx} is a sequence of partitions with ||Δx|| → 0 then λ(x, Δx) → λ(x).

      (5.7) Additivity of length. If denotes the length of the curve x(τ), γ ≤ τ ≤ δ and if α < γ1 < γ2 < … < γx < β then

      The following is simple but very important:

      (5.8) Semicontinuity of length. If xv(τ) and x(τ), α ≤ τ ≤ β, v = 1, 2, … are curves in R and xv(τ) → x(τ) as v → ∞ for each τ in [α, β], then

      Proof. Given ε > 0 or γ or λ(x, Δ) > γ.

      Then by (5.1)

      As ε, γ were arbitrary, (5.8) follows.

      Note. It is well known that λ(x) = lim λ(xv) need not hold in the Cartesian (x, y) plane even for uniformly converging analytic curves. For example, let

      These curves tend uniformly to the x-axis between 0 and π. But

      ARC LENGTH AS PARAMETER

      For a rectifiable curve it is natural to introduce as a parameter, the arc-length from a fixed point of the curve. We need the lemma:

      (5.9) For a rectifiable curve x(τ), α ≤ τ ≤ β, the arc length is a continous function of γ.

      By the additivity property (5.6) we need only prove:

      (5.10) Given ε > 0, then δ > 0 exists such that whenever 0 < γ2—γ1 < δ.

      For choose δ > 0 so that ||Δ|| < δ implies λ(x) < λ(x, Δ) + ε/2 and so that x(γ1) x(γ2) < ε/2 for 0 < γ2 —γ1 < δ.

      Then choose Δ so that γ1, γ2 occur as successive points of the partition, say γ1 = τμ, γ2 = τμ+1. Then

      Hence

      which proves (5.10).

      The standard representation of a rectifiable curve is now defined as follows:

      y(σ) represents that point x(τ. The point x(τ) is uniquely determined by the arc-length σ, but in general τ is not. Indeed, all the points of an interval of the τis constant as τ describes the interval. But in all cases σ is a non-decreasing function of τ, continuous by (5.10).

      The triangle inequality and the definition of arc-length show

      (5.11) For any curve x(τ), α ≤ τ ≤ β we have x(α) x(β) ≤ λ(x).

      Hence if σ1 < σ2 and y(σ1) = x(τ1), y(σ2) = x(τ2), then

      Thus y(σ), 0 ≤ σ ≤ λ(x), is a curve in accord with our definition.

      We shall show that

      (5.13) On y(σ), the parameter σ is the arc-length.

      . For, if Δv :

      be any sequence of partitions of [τ1, τ2] with ||Δv|| → 0 as v then, by uniform continuity, the partition

      as v → ∞. Then by (5.6)

      as desired.

      We shall say quite generally that σ is the "arc length" on the rectifiable curve x(σ), α ≤ σ ≤ β, or that x(τ) is "represented by x(σ) in terms of arc lengthholds for all σ1 ≤ σ2 in [α, β].

      If a rectifiable curve in ordinary space has no special differentiability properties, then the theorem, arc divided by chord tends to one is only true almost everywhere. Although differentiability is here not defined, the statement is still true for our general rectifiable curves.¹

      (5.14) If σ is the arc-length on y(σ), α ≤ σ ≤ β then for almost all a in [α, β] we have

      Proof. Put

      Since, by (5.12) y(σ1) y(σ2) ≤ σ2 — σ1 the first part will follow if w(σ) = 1 almost everywhere.

      Now w(σ) is measurable, since y(σ1) y(σ2) is a continuous function of σ1, σ2. If w(σ) < 1 on a set of positive measure, there is a set M, of measure 2 θ > 0 and a number η > 0 such that w(σ) ≤ 1 — 2 η on M.

      Choose δ such that for a partition Δ of [α, β] with ||Δ|| ≤ δ we have λ(y, Δ) > λ(y) — η θ/2.

      For each σ in M, there is a pair σ1, σ2 such that σ1 < σ < σ2 and

      exists such that

      . Let Δ be a partition of [0, λ(yoccur as consecutive elements and ||Δ|| < δ apply (then

      a contradiction.

      The second part is a consequence. Let 0 < σ < λ(y). We have

      Since w(σ) = 1 the left-hand side tends to 2 as h → 0. But as both terma on the right hand have values at most unity each tends to one.

      GEOMETRIC CURVES

      Our definition of a curve involved a definite parametrization. This parametrization introduces properties which are not all geometrically significant. The point set carrying the curve is one of the important geometric features of the curve, though it does not in general carry all the important properties, for instance:

      In the Cartesian (x, y)-plane the curves (x, 0), 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 and (sin π x, 0), 0 ≤ x ≤ 1 are carried by the same set of points, namely the segment [0, 1] of the x axis, but the curves differ in the important feature of length ; the second arc covers the segment twice and has length 2.

      Which properties of a parametrization are considered essential depends on the investigation. For our purposes the standard representation expresses all the essential properties, and two rectifiable curves with the same standard representations are called "equivalent". Because of (5.13) any curve x(τ) is equivalent to the curve given by its standard representation y(σ).

      Accordingly, we may define a "rectifiable curve in the geometric sense" as a class c of equivalent curves. Each element of the class is a parametrization of c; the properties common to all parametrizations are the properties of c. Thus the common length of all parametrizations is the length λ(c) of c, their common initial and final points are the initial and final point of c, the common standard representation is the standard representation of c.

      (5.15) If x(τ), α ≤ τ ≤ β, and z(τ′), α′ ≤ τ′ ≤ β′, are rectifiable curves and if there is a topological mapping of [α, β] on [α′, β′] such that α corresponds to α′ and hence β to β′ and x(τ) = z(τ′) then the curves x(τ), z(τ′) are equivalent.

      For let α < γ < β and consider any sequence {Δx} of partitions of [α, γ] with ||Δxof [α′, β, by uniform continuity. Since x(τ) = z(τand x(γ) = z(γ′); the standard representations of the two curves are identical.

      We can now establish some important geometric properties of our geometric curves.

      (5.16) Theorem: If the lengths λ(cv) of a sequence of rectifiable curves cv in a finitely compact set H, are bounded and the initial points av of cv form a bounded set then {cv} contains a subsequence {cμ} which converges uniformly to a curve c in H and

      More precisely: there is a subsequence {cμ} of {cv} and a rectifiable curve c and parametrizations xμ(τ) of cμ and x(τ) of c, 0 ≤ τ ≤ 1, such that xμ(τ) tends uniformly to x(τ).

      Proof. This depends on (5.8) and (2.17). Select a subsequence {aθ} of {av} which converges to a point a. If λ(cv) = 0, then cv is a single point. Hence if λ(cμ) = 0 for a subsequence {cμ} of {cθ}, the theorem is trivial.

      Assume then λ(cθ) > 0 and let yθ(σ) be the standard representation of cθ, then we define a new parametrization of cθ by xθ(τ) = yθ(σ) with τ = σ/λ(cθ), 0 ≤ τ ≤ 1.

      By hypothesis, λ(cθ) < β for a suitable β, hence by (5.11)

      whence {xθ(τ)} is bounded for

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1