3

Note that for a Riemannian manifold the minimal geodesics may not be unique, for example, there are infinitely many minimal geodesics connecting antipodal points in sphere.

However, I hope the following thing is true, since I do need it.

Let $(M,g)$ be a complete Riemannian manifold, $p,q\in M$ and $\gamma:[0,b]\to M$ is a unit-speed minimal geodesic connecting $p,q$. Then for any $0<\varepsilon<b$, $\gamma|_{[\varepsilon,b]}$ is the unique minimal geodesic connecting $\gamma(\varepsilon)$ and $q$.

Is there anyone can provide a proof? Thanks in advance!

2 Answers2

3

Given a curve $c :(\alpha,\beta)\to M$, its arc-length from $p$ to $q$ is given by $$\ell(c):=\int_\alpha^\beta\sqrt{g(c’(t),c’(t)}\, dt. $$ Since $\gamma$ is unit speed and minimises the length between $p$ and $q$, $$ \inf \{ \ell(c) \text{ s.t. } c\in C^1([0,b]; M), c(0)=p,c(b)=q\}= \ell(\gamma)=b.$$ Suppose that $\gamma \vert_{[\varepsilon,b]}$ does not minimise the length between $\gamma(\varepsilon)$ and $b$. Then there exists a competitor $\tilde \gamma \in C^1([\varepsilon,b];M)$ with $\tilde \gamma (\varepsilon)=\gamma(\varepsilon)$ and $\tilde \gamma(b) =q$ such that $\ell(\tilde \gamma)<\ell (\gamma \vert_{[\varepsilon,b]})$. Now define $$\bar \gamma (t) = \begin{cases} \gamma(t), &\text{if } t\in [0,\varepsilon)\\ \tilde \gamma(t), &\text{if } t\in [\varepsilon,b]. \end{cases} $$ Formally, the arc-length from $p$ to $q$ of $\bar \gamma$ is \begin{align*}\ell (\bar \gamma) &= \int_0^\varepsilon\sqrt{g(\bar \gamma’(t),\bar \gamma’(t)}\, dt + \int_\varepsilon^b\sqrt{g(\bar \gamma’(t),\bar \gamma’(t)}\, dt \\ &< \int_0^\varepsilon\sqrt{g(\bar \gamma’(t),\bar \gamma’(t)}\, dt + \int_\varepsilon^b\sqrt{g(\tilde \gamma’(t),\tilde \gamma’(t)}\, dt \\ &=\ell(\gamma), \end{align*} which contradicts minimality of $\gamma$ from $p$ to $q$. The small technical issue I have with this argument is that $\bar \gamma$ may not longer by $C^1$, so is no longer admissible; however, taking a $C^1$ approximation, I would expect that you can fix this.

JackT
  • 6,854
  • This does not treat the unicity statement of the question. Anyway, there is no difficulty with regularity if you define the distance as the infimum over all piecewise $C^1$ curves joining any two points: your $\bar{\gamma}$ is indeed piecewise $C^1$. – Didier Nov 25 '22 at 11:00
  • @Didier Thanks for the comments. I completely agree about just defining the infimum over piecewise $C^1$ functions. I updated my answer with my thoughts about uniqueness – JackT Nov 25 '22 at 13:47
  • 1
    Your "counter-example" is not complete, and I'm not really sure about it. The statement that OP is trying to show is true by the way – Didier Nov 25 '22 at 13:51
  • Ok, I can't immediately see an issue with my counter-example - I'd have to think about it more - but in the meantime, I won't leave it up – JackT Nov 25 '22 at 14:17
  • I added another answer addressing the uniqueness. Anyway, if OP reads this, I think @JackT's answer should be the accepted one. – Didier Nov 25 '22 at 15:34
3

I will address the uniqueness statement in your question: the fact that $\gamma|_{[\varepsilon,b]}$ is minimizing has already been shown by @JackT. It will rely on the following facts:

  • any two distinct points can be joined by a minimizing geodesic (from Hopf-Rinow's Theorem).
  • geodesics are smooth, which implies that if $\varphi\colon I \to M$ is a rectifiable curve joining two points that is not smooth, there exists a geodesic joining its endpoints with length strictly less.

By contradiction, let $t_0 \in (0,b)$ be such that $\gamma|_{[t_0,b]}$ is not the unique length minimizing geodesic from $\gamma(t_0)$ to $\gamma(b)$. Let $\tilde{\gamma}\colon [t_0,b] \to M$ be a distinct minimizing geodesic, (arc-length parametrized). Consider the path $$ \varphi(t) = \begin{cases} \gamma(t) & \text{if} \quad t\in [0,t_0],\\ \tilde{\gamma}(t) & \text{if} \quad t\in [t_0,b]. \end{cases} $$ Then $\varphi$ is not smooth at $t_0$, and is therefore not a geodesic. Since $M$ is complete, by the Hopf-Rinow Theorem, there exists a minimizing geodesic $c\colon I\to M$ joining $\varphi(0)$ to $\varphi(b)$, which has length strictly less than that of $\varphi$. Finally, $$ \ell(c) < \ell(\varphi) = \ell(\varphi|_{[0,t_0]}) + \ell(\varphi|_{[t_0,b]}) = \ell(\gamma|_{[0,t_0]}) + \ell(\tilde{\gamma}|_{[t_0,b]}) = \ell(\gamma|_{[0,t_0]}) + \ell(\gamma|_{[t_0,b]}) = \ell(\gamma). $$ But $c$ joints $\varphi(0) = \gamma(0)$ to $\varphi(b)=\tilde{\gamma}(b) = \gamma(b)$. This contradicts the fact that $\gamma$ is a minimizing geodesic.

Didier
  • 19,132
  • Can you elaborate on where completeness comes in? Isn't $\gamma$ a minimizing geodesic from $\phi(0)$ to $\phi(b)$ already? – Jason DeVito - on hiatus Nov 25 '22 at 16:17
  • @JasonDeVito It is used when invoking Hopf-Rinow's Theorem (any two distinct point can be joined by a minimizing geodesic). The fact that $\gamma$ is already minimizing but that we have built $c$ is the contradiction! – Didier Nov 25 '22 at 16:18
  • 1
    I feel like I am missing something stupid. You use Hopf-Rinow (which requires completeness) to say there is a length minimizing geodesic from $\varphi(0)$ to $\varphi(b)$. But we already know that $\gamma$ is such a geodesic, so why do we need Hopf-Rinow? Why not just take $c = \gamma$? – Jason DeVito - on hiatus Nov 25 '22 at 16:21
  • @JasonDeVito I see your point. What is really used is the second point of the introduction, which also relies on Hopf-Rinow's Theorem: given two points $x$ and $y$ and a non-smooth rectifiable curve $\varphi$ joining them, there exists a minimizing geodesic joining $x$ and $y$ with length strictly less than that of $\varphi$. Here comes the contradiction: a minimizing geodesic should have length strictly less than that of $\varphi$, this latter length being that of $\gamma$... which is suposed minimizing. – Didier Nov 25 '22 at 16:26
  • 1
    I see, that makes more sense. In this case, I think that (with a bit of work), one can still avoid completeness. In a sufficiently tiny neighborhood of the corner point, the manifold is "almost" isometric to Euclidean space. Thus, one can smooth the corner to create a strictly shorter path from $\phi(0)$ to $\phi(b)$. This path doesn't have to be a geodesic, but I think this is still enough to get a contradiction. In any event, you've aleady got the $+1$ from me. Thanks for putting up with my questions! – Jason DeVito - on hiatus Nov 25 '22 at 16:40
  • @JasonDeVito You are perfectly right. The thing is that the notion of "minimizing geodesic" becomes ambiguous: is it a geodesic minimizing length among all geodesics, or among all paths? The first case can occur without existence of the second in a non-complete setting (remove a point from the sphere or the plane). Since the question assumes completeness, I did'nt refrain from using it – Didier Nov 25 '22 at 16:48
  • That's a good point. I was thinking about the non-complete case due to the other answerer's (now removed) example. – Jason DeVito - on hiatus Nov 25 '22 at 16:49