7

This question arose while I was reading Helgason's book on symmetric spaces. In chapter IV section 5, one can read the following:

Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold, $p$ a point in $M$. In general it is impossible to find any neighborhood $N$ of $p$ which can be extended to a complete Riemannian manifold $\tilde{M}$.

To me this is very surprising. This means that there are local "obstructions" to the existence of a complete extension, so the completeness of a manifold $M$ impacts its local geometry.

My first thought was that locally, say in a chart $B(0,\varepsilon)\subset \mathbf{R}^n\to M$, the metric doesn't vary to much from its value at $p$. So maybe we can extend it to a metric on $\mathbf{R}^n$ using partitions of unity and we should be able to ask that the metric is the standard metric outside a ball $B(0,\varepsilon+r)$. If this is possible I guess it would give a complete metric on $\mathbf{R}^n$ (here I'm probably wrong).

But apparently this is not going to work. Hence my question is:

What are some examples of manifolds $M$ and point $p$ of $M$ such that no neighborhood of $p$ can extend to a complete manifold ?

From Helgason's book I know that locally symmetric spaces have these neighborhoods that extend to a complete manifold.

Any kind of help will be greatly appreciated.

EDIT : In fact the argument of partition of unity works in the $C^\infty$ category. However it doesn't work if everything is assumed to be real-analytic, which seems to be the what Helgason does implicitly. So I am still interested in a detailed example in the case where everything is real analytic.

  • 2
    I don't think what they write is correct. Indeed a partition of unity argument like you described gives a complete metric on $\mathbb R^n$. – Arctic Char Dec 23 '20 at 22:57
  • 1
    Unfortunately, I no longer have my copy of Helgason's book. I would like to see a more complete extract from the book to understand what he's talking about. The first thing I thought of is the proof of Hopf-Rinow: Knowing the point on the $\epsilon$-sphere centered at $p$ closest to $q$ tells you what geodesic to take to get from $p$ to $q$. I always found this an astonishing local/global play. – Ted Shifrin Dec 23 '20 at 23:05
  • Adam: I think our discussion at your earlier question may lead to some understanding here. – Ted Shifrin Dec 23 '20 at 23:31
  • 1
    Maybe the missing assumption is that the metrics are real-analytic? – Moishe Kohan Dec 24 '20 at 14:04
  • 2
    There should probably be a "real analytic" in the statement. I think Helgason is making the point that locally symmetric spaces are special even within the category of real analytic Riemannian manifolds, because they have some local extension property. For an example without this extension property, consider $g=(1-x^2)dx^2$ on $(-1,1)$. This is incomplete and by the analyticity assumption, any extension of a subset of it must just give back $g$. – Ryan Unger Dec 24 '20 at 20:46
  • Ok most probably everything is assumed real-analytic implicitly. I will edit the question. – Adam Chalumeau Dec 27 '20 at 14:12

1 Answers1

2

One can take any real-analytic Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ such that for each point $p\in M$ there is a geodesic path $c: [0, 1)\to M$ (of finite length), satisfying

  1. $c(0)=p$.

  2. The absolute value of scalar curvature $|S(c(t))|$ of $(M,g)$ diverges to infinity as $t\to 1-$.

For instance, one can take the surface of revolution in ${\mathbb R}^3$ obtained by rotating the graph $$ y= x^{1/2}, 0<x<\infty $$ around the $y$-axis. Then for a point $p=(x,y,z)$ in this surface $S$ the curve $c$ is obtained by intersecting $S$ with a half-plane passing through $p$ and the $y$-axis; the curve $c$ is chosen so that $\lim_{t\to 1} c(t)=(0,0,0)$. (One uses, of course a suitable constant speed parameterization to ensure that the curve is indeed geodesic.)

To check both (1) and (2) it suffices to consider points $p$ in the $xy$-plane. The finiteness of the length of $c$ is, hopefully clear.

Then the lines of curvature of $S$ through the point $c(t)$ are:

(a) the curve $y= x^{1/2}$ itself.

(b) the circle obtained by rotating $c(t)$ around the $y$-axis.

The curvature of the circle, of course, diverges to $\infty$ as $x\to 0$, while the curvature of the curve $x=y^2$ converges (as $x\to 0$) to the curvature of this parabola at $(0,0)$, which equals $2$.

Hence, the product of principal curvatures, which is the value of the Gaussian curvature of $S$, diverges (in absolute value) to infinity as $x\to 0$.

I claim that properties (1) and (2) imply that $(M,g)$ does not locally isometrically embed in a complete real-analytic Riemannian manifold $(N,h)$ of the same dimension.

Indeed, suppose there is such an isometric embedding $\iota: U\to N$, $U$ is an open disk in $M$ centered at a point $q$. Let $p=\iota(q)$, $c$ is a geodesic as above through $q$, $c(0)=q$, $c([0,T])\subset U$, $T>0$, $b=\iota\circ c$. By the completeness of $(N,h)$, the geodesic $b$ extends to $[0,\infty)$.

Since $g, h$ are real-analytic, the scalar curvatures of $g, h$ along $c, b$ are real-analytic functions of the parameter $t$. They agree on the interval $[0,T)$, hence, agree on the interval $[0,1)$. Thus, the scalar curvature of $(N,h)$ blows-up at $b(t)$ as $t\to 1$. A contradiction.

Edit. Geodesics in real-analytic Riemannian manifolds are real-analytic curves. Indeed, the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ of a real-analytic Riemannian metric is also real analytic (since Christoffel symbols are expressed in terms of partial derivatives of the tensor metric). Geodesics themselves are then solutions of the ODE $\nabla_{c'}c'=0$ with real-analytic coefficients. Therefore, by the Cauchy–Kovalevskaya theorem, geodesics are also real-analytic.


Lastly, the example given by Ryan does not work since it embeds isometrically in the real line (just the isometric embedding is not given by the identity map). It is the fact that we do not know what an isometric embedding might look like forces one to consider the behavior of some intrinsic invariants such as the scalar curvature.

Moishe Kohan
  • 111,854
  • Thanks for your answer, this is very convincing. I just don't fully understand the final argument : how do we know that the scalar curvature is an analytic function along the geodesics ? I understand that in coordinates the scalar curvature is analytic (because its can be expressed nicely in terms of the coefficients of the metric), but I don't see why geodesics would have analytic coordinates (if that is even true). Or maybe this is not needed here ? – Adam Chalumeau Dec 29 '20 at 18:37
  • It is needed: Geodesics are solutions of 2nd order ODEs with analytic coefficients, hence, are real-analytic (Cauchy-Kovalevsky theorem). – Moishe Kohan Dec 29 '20 at 18:44
  • Oh I wasn't aware of that theorem... Thanks again for the details ! – Adam Chalumeau Dec 29 '20 at 21:52