Abstract
We study the geometric structures associated with curvature radii of curves with values on a Riemannian manifold (M, g). We show the existence of sub-Riemannian manifolds naturally associated with the curvature radii and we investigate their properties. In the particular case of surfaces these sub-Riemannian structures are of Engel type. The main character of our construction is a pair of global vector fields \(f_1,f_2\), which encodes intrinsic information on the geometry of (M, g).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
1.1 From Contact Elements to Curvature Radii
The space of contact elements, first introduced by S. Lie (see [3] pages 6–11, or [2] pages 78–80) as a geometric tool for studying differential equations, marks the birth of contact geometry. Let us recall that given a 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold (M, g), the space of (oriented) contact elements of M is the unit tangent bundle UM, i.e. the set of couples (x, v) where \(x\in M\), \(v\in T_xM\) and \(|v|=1\). Any regular M-valued curve can be lifted to a UM-valued one through the maps
There exists a contact distribution \(\Delta \) over UM naturally associated to the lifts Eq. 1.1. At a point \((x,v)\in UM\) such distribution is defined as
where we have denoted \(U_xM=\{v\in T_xM\,:\,|v|=1\}\). This distribution characterizes the images of Eq. 1.1, in the sense that a curve \((\gamma ,v):[0,1]\rightarrow UM\) is in the image of one of such lifts if and only if it is tangent to \(\Delta \) and \(\gamma \) is a regular curve. In this paper we study a second order generalization of the space of contact elements, in particular, given a Riemannian manifold (M, g), we study the geometric structures associated to the lifts
where \(R_g(\gamma )\) is the radius of curvature of \(\gamma \) (the definition is recalled below Eq. 1.4). Such second order construction has affinities with Cartan’s prolongation of contact structures (see 6.3 of [2]). Recall that, given a Riemannian manifold (M, g) (throughout the whole paper we assume \(\dim (M)>1\)), the geodesic curvature of a regular curve \(\gamma :[0,T]\rightarrow M\) is defined as
where \(D_t\) denotes the covariant derivative along \(\gamma \), and \(\pi _{\dot{\gamma }^\perp }:T_{\gamma (t)}M\rightarrow T_{\gamma (t)}M\) denotes the orthogonal projection to \(\{\dot{\gamma }(t)\}^\perp \). If the geodesic curvature is never vanishing, we can define the radius of curvature of \(\gamma \), computed with respect to g, as
With the sole purpose of simplifying the exposition and the expression of certain equations, we study the following modified versions of Eq. 1.2
We define the manifold of curvature radii of (M, g), denoted with \(\mathcal R(M,g)\), as the space of triples (x, V, R) such that \(x\in M\), \(R\in T_x M\setminus \{0\}\) and \(V \in \{R\}^\perp \), \(|V|=|R|\). The map Eq. 1.5 lifts regular M-valued curves with never vanishing geodesic curvature to \(\mathcal R(M,g)\)-valued ones. The first central result of this work is the following theorem.
Theorem 1.1
Let (M, g) be a smooth n-dimensional Riemannian manifold, and let \(\mathcal R(M,g)\) be the corresponding manifold of curvature radii. There exists a smooth, rank-n distribution, \(\mathcal D(M,g)\), over \(\mathcal R(M,g)\) with the property that a smooth curve \((\gamma ,V,R):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M,g)\) is in the image of one of the lifts Eq. 1.5 if and only if it is tangent to \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) and \(\gamma \) is a regular curve. A local basis for \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) is given by n local vector fields \(\{f_1,\dots ,f_n\}\), which can be characterized in terms of the ODEs satisfied by their integral curves:
\(j=3,\dots ,n\), where \(\left\{ b_3(x,V,R),\dots ,b_n(x,V,R)\right\} \) is a norm-|R| local orthogonal basis of \(\{R,V\}^{\perp }\). The distribution \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) is bracket generating of step 3, it holds:
The fields \(f_1,f_2\) described in Eq. 1.6 are closely related to the geometry of (M, g). Indeed, as shown in Section 4, many geometric features of the original Riemannian manifold can be recovered considering their Lie brackets. The first bracket \([f_1,f_2]\) gives us back the geodesic flow of (M, g) (see Proposition 4.1); in a way these fields factorize the geodesic flow. Moreover we can read the Riemann curvature tensor in the structure constant of the frame Eq. 1.6 (see Proposition 4.3).
1.2 Metric Structures
The knowledge of the curvature radii of curves of a Riemannian manifold (M, g), is enough to characterize the metric g up to a homothetic transformation, indeed, as shown in Section 3, two Riemannian manifolds having the same curvature radii are homothetic (see Definition 3.2 for the precise statement).
Theorem 1.2
Two Riemannian manifolds (M, g) and \((N,\eta )\) have the same curvature radii if and only if they are homothetic .
It is then natural to endow the distribution \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) with a metric which is invariant under the action of the homothety group of (M, g). In Section 3 we show the existence of a family of metrics \(\eta _{a,b}\) on \(\mathcal D(M,g)\), parametrized by two real numbers a and b, having this invariance property. The triple \((\mathcal R(M,g), \mathcal D(M,g),\eta _{a,b})\) is a sub-Riemannian manifold ([2, 8]), which we denote with \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(M,g)\). For any \((\gamma , R, V)\) in the image of the lift Eq. 1.5 the metric \(\eta _{a,b}\) satisfies the following equation
The central result regarding these metrics is stated in the following theorem.
Theorem 1.3
Let (M, g) be a Riemannian manifold, let \(a,b\in \mathbf {\mathbb {R}},b>0\), and let \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(M,g)\) be the corresponding sub-Riemannian manifold of curvature radii. The following map is a group isomorphism
In particular, if \((N,\eta )\) is another Riemannian manifold, \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(M,\eta )\) is isometric to \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(M,g)\) if and only \((N,\eta )\) and (M, g) have the same curvature radii.
In Section 5 we show that the sub-Riemannian manifolds \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(\mathbb {R}^2,g_e)\), where \(g_e\) is the standard Euclidean metric, are all isometric to left-invariant sub-Riemannian structures on the group orientation preserving homothetic transformations of \((\mathbb R^2,g_e)\), and we give a characterization of their geodesics. These geometries are related to the left-invariant sub-Riemannian structure on the group of rigid motions of \(\mathbb R^2\) ([4, 5, 7, 9]).
1.3 Structure of the Paper
In Section 2 we describe the sub-Riemannian manifold of curvature radii in the 2-dimensional case. In Section 3 we generalize the constructions of Section 2 to an arbitrary Riemannian manifold (M, g) and we prove Theorems 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. In Section 4 we show that taking Lie brackets of the fields \(f_1,f_2\), mentioned in the abstract, we can reconstruct the geodesic flow of the original Riemannian manifold and its Riemann curvature tensor. Finally in Section 5 we study the manifold of curvature radii of \(\mathbb R^2\) endowed with an homothetic invariant metric.
2 Curvature Radii on Surfaces
Let (M, g) be a 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold, which for simplicity we assume to be oriented. Let \(\gamma :[0,1]\rightarrow M\) be an arc-length parametrized curve, then its curvature can be computed as
and, provided that \(k_g(\gamma )\) is never vanishing, its radius of curvature is
For every \(t\in [0,1]\), the curvature radius of \(\gamma \) at the point \(\gamma (t)\) is a non-zero tangent vector, for this reason we define the manifold of curvature radii of (M, g) as \(\mathcal R(M)=TM\setminus s_o\), where \(s_o\) is the zero-section of TM. Every regular curve with non-vanishing curvature can be lifted to a \(\mathcal R(M)\)-valued curve through the radius of curvature map
We would like to find a distribution \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) over \(\mathcal R(M)\) characterizing the image of such lift, in the sense that a curve \((\gamma , R):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M)\) is in the image of Eq. 2.3 if and only if it is tangent to \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) and \(\gamma \) is regular. To build such a distribution at a point \((x_0,R_0)\in \mathcal R(M)\) we collect all the velocities of all radii of curvature going through this point, and we take the vector space generated by them
Since M is oriented we have a complex strcuture
where \(R^{\perp _g}\) is the unique vector orthogonal to R, positively oriented with it, satisfying \(|R|_g=|R^{\perp _g}|_g\).
Proposition 2.1
The collection of vector spaces defined in Eq. 2.4 is a smooth Engel distribution over \(\mathcal R(M)\) (for basic facts on Engel distributions see for instance [1], chapter 2). Moreover a curve \((\gamma ,R):[0,T]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M)\) is in the image of the lift Eq. 2.3 if and only if it is tangent to \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) and \(\gamma \) is a regular curve. A basis for \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) is given by two vector fields \(f^g_1,f^g_2\), which are characterized in terms of the ODEs satisfied by their integral curves as
where \(D_tR\) denotes the covariant derivative of R(t) along the curve x(t).
Proof
It is a special case of Theorem 1.1, which is proved in Section 3. \(\square \)
What is the geometric significance of the fields \(f_1^g,f_2^g\)? It is quite explicit that the integral curves of \(f_2^g\) are dialation of R in a fixed fiber, i.e. curves of the kind \(t\mapsto (x_0,e^tR_0)\), whereas if \((\gamma ,R):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M)\) is an integral curve of \(f_1^g\), as a consequence of Proposition 2.1, R is the radius of curvature of \(\gamma \), and hence \(\kappa _g(\gamma )=1/|R|_g\). On the other hand according to Eq. 2.6\(D_tR=-R^{\perp _g}\), therefore
hence \(\kappa _g(\gamma )\) is constant. Thus the integral curves of \(f_1^g\) are exactly lifts of curves with constant geodesic curvature. Homothetic transformations preserve the curvature radius map. It is then natural to endow \(\mathcal D(M,g) \) with a metric which is invariant under the action of the homothety group of (M, g). For every \(a,b\in \mathbb R\), \(b\ne 0\), we define a metric \(\eta ^g_{a,b}\) on \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) by declaring the fields
an orthonormal frame. A simple computation, which is a particular case of Eq. 3.47, shows that if \((\gamma ,R)\) is an admissible curve, then the metric \(\eta _{a,b}^g\) satisfies the following equation
The homogeneity of the right hand side shows the homothetic invariant nature of the metric \(\eta ^g_{a,b}\). The triple \((\mathcal R(M), \mathcal D(M,g), \eta _{a,b}^g)\) defines a sub-Riemannian manifold, which we denote with \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(M,g)\).
3 The Sub-Riemannian Manifold of Curvature Radii
We would like to extend the construction of \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(M,g)\), presented for surfaces in Section 2, to an arbitrary Riemannian manifold. One of the advantages of working with surfaces is that, given a regular curve \(\gamma \) with never vanishing geodesic curvature, the direction of \(\dot{\gamma }\) is uniquely determined by the radius of curvature. This is no more true when \(\dim (M)\ge 3\), and we need to keep track of the velocity’s direction in some way. For this reason we cannot define the manifold of curvature radii as \(TM\setminus s_o\) anymore. Instead we define it as a subset of \(TM\oplus TM\).
Definition 3.1
Let (M, g) be a Riemannian manifold. The manifold of curvature radii of (M, g), denoted by \(\mathcal R(M,g)\), is defined by
From now on, when the metric g we are referring to is clear from the context, we drop the g subscript, for instance we denote \(|\cdot |=|\cdot |_g\), \(\perp =\perp _g\) and so on. One can check that, if M is an n-dimensional manifold, then \(\mathcal R(M,g)\) is a smooth embedded sub-manifold of \(TM\oplus TM\) of dimension \(3n-2\). Moreover \(\mathcal R(M,g)\) has the structure of a \(\mathbb S^{n-2}\) bundle over \(TM\setminus s_o\), where the fiber at \((x,R)\in TM\setminus s_o \) is the sphere of radius |R| contained in the plane \(R^{\perp }\),
As expected, if \(n=2\) these spheres have dimension 0, and \(\mathcal R(M,g)\) reduces to a 0-dimensional fibration over \(TM{\setminus } s_o\). If M is a surface, oriented for simplicity, we have
![figure a](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10883-023-09664-y/MediaObjects/10883_2023_9664_Figa_HTML.png)
In general \(\mathcal R(M,g)\) has also the structure of a fiber bundle over M, whose fibers are
There exist two lifts which allows us to map regular curves \(\gamma :[0,1]\rightarrow M\) with never vanishing geodesic curvature, to \(\mathcal R(M,g)\)-valued curves
where \(R_g\) is the map defined in Eq. 1.4. We would like to find a distribution characterizing the image of the lift Eq. 3.3, i.e. a distribution \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) such that \((\gamma ,V,R):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M,g)\) is the lift of some curve \(\gamma \) if and only if it is tangent to \(\mathcal D(M,g)\), and \(\gamma \) is regular. To construct this distribution at \(q_0:=(x_0,V_0,R_0)\in \mathcal R(M,g)\) we collect the velocities of all such curves going through this point, and we take the vector space generated by them:
Before moving to the proof of Theorem 1.1, let us fix the notation
to indicate the iterated brackets of the fields \(f_1,\dots ,f_n\). Moreover we will often make use of the abbreviation
where \((x^1,\dots ,x^n)\) are local coordinates and \(X\in \mathbb {R}^n\) is the vector \(X=(X^1,\dots ,X^n)\).
Proof
(Theorem 1.1) The vectorfields in Eq. 1.6 are, by definition, local sections of \(T(TM\oplus TM)\). We need to show that they are actually tangent to \(\mathcal R(M,g)\subset TM\oplus TM\). Let \((x_0,V_0,R_0)\in \mathcal R(M,g)\) and let (x, V, R)(t) be an integral curve of \(f_i\) with initial point \((x_0,V_0,R_0)\). We have to show that \(\langle V(t), R(t)\rangle = 0\) and that \(|V(t)|=|R(t)|\) for each t such that the flow of \(f_i\) is defined. Let us start with \(f_1\), any of its integral curves satisfies
Therefore we have
but \(|R(0)|^2-|V(0)|^2=0=\langle R(0), V(0)\rangle \), because \((x,V,R)(0)\in \mathcal R(M,g)\), then from uniqueness of ODEs solutions we obtain \(|V(t)|-|R(t)|\equiv \langle V(t), R(t)\rangle \equiv 0\). Let (x, R, V)(t) be an integral curve of \(f_2\) with initial point in \(\mathcal R(M,g)\), then from Eq. 1.6 we compute
Since \((\gamma ,V,R)(0)\in \mathcal R(M,g)\), we deduce \(|V(t)|-|R(t)|=\langle V(t), R(t)\rangle \equiv 0\). Let \((\gamma , R, V)(t)\) be an integral curve of \(f_j\), \(j=3,\dots , n\), then from Eq. 1.6 we have
hence \(f_j\) is tangent to \(\mathcal R(M,g)\).
Now we claim that a curve \((\gamma ,V,R):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M,g)\) is in the image of one of the lifts Eq. 3.3 if and only if it is tangent to \(\langle \{ f_1,\dots ,f_n\}\rangle \), and \(\gamma \) is regular. Notice that, by definition of \(\mathcal D(M,g)\), this would imply \(\mathcal D(M,g)=\langle \{ f_1,\dots ,f_n\}\rangle \). To prove our claim we have to show that \((\gamma ,V,R)\) is in the image of one of the lifts Eq. 3.3 if an only if there exist n smooth functions, \(u_1,\dots ,u_n:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb R\) , with \(u_1\ne 0\), such that \(\frac{d}{dt}(\gamma , R,V)=u_1f_1+\dots +u_nf_n\), or in other words, according to Eq. 1.6
Assume that \(\sigma :=(\gamma ,V,R):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M,g)\) is in the image of Eq. 3.3, then, by definition \(R=R_g(\gamma )\) and \(\dot{\gamma }=u_1 V\), for some never vanishing smooth function \(u_1:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb R\). Since the condition \(\dot{\sigma }\in \langle \{f_1,\dots ,f_n\}\rangle \) is independent of the parametrization, without loss of generality we may assume \(|\dot{\gamma }|=1\), i.e. \(u_1=1/|R|\). Since \(\gamma \) is arc-length parametrized, as a consequence of formulae Eqs. 1.4 and 1.3, we have
On the other hand, since \(\dot{\gamma }=1/|R|V\), we have
therefore
where we have denoted \(u_2:=-|R|\frac{d}{dt}1/|R|=\frac{d}{dt}\log {|R|}\). It remains to compute the covariant derivative of R along \(\gamma \). Notice that \(\{V(t),R(t),b_3(t),\dots ,b_n(t)\}\) is a basis for \(T_{\gamma (t)}M\) for every \(t\in [0,1]\), therefore there exist \(\lambda _1,\dots ,\lambda _n:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb R\) smooth functions such that
To prove that Eq. 3.6 holds we just have to show that \(\lambda _1=-u_1\), \(\lambda _2=u_2\). We begin with \(\lambda _1\):
Concerning the second coefficient \(\lambda _2\) we have
Conversely let \(\sigma =(\gamma ,V,R)\) be a curve satisfying Eq. 3.6, with \(u_1\ne 0\). We want to show that \(R=R_g(\gamma )\), i.e. that R is the radius of curvature of \(\gamma \). Exploiting Eq. 3.6 we compute
then, by definition Eq. 1.4, the radius of curvature of \(\gamma \) satisfies
On the other hand combining Eq. 1.3 with 3.8, and considering that \(|R|=|V|\), we deduce
Substituting Eq. 3.10 into 3.9 we obtain \(R_g(\gamma )=R\), as requested.
We now show that \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) is an equiregular bracket generating distribution of step 3. To do this we need to be more precise about the definition of the local fields \(f_3,\dots ,f_n\) in Eq. 1.6, in particular given \((x,V,R)\in \mathcal R(M,g)\) we have to make a choice of a local basis for \(\{R,V\}^\perp \). Let \(\mathcal U\subset M\) be an open subset and let \(E_1,\dots ,E_n\) be a local orthonormal frame for g on \(\mathcal U\). For every \(i\ne j\) we define the following two-form \(\omega _{ij}\in \Omega ^2(\mathcal U)\):
and the following open subset of \(TM\oplus TM\)
By construction, the sets \(\{V_{ij}:=\mathcal U_{ij}\cap \mathcal R(M,g)\}_{i\ne j}\), constitute an open cover for \(\mathcal R(M,g)\cap T\mathcal U\oplus T\mathcal U\). Moreover the vectors
are linearly independent for every \((x,V,R)\in V_{ij}\). We define
to be the norm-|R| basis of \(\{R,V\}^\perp \) obtained by applying the Gram-Schmidt algorithm to the vectors
and, on \(V_{ij}\), we set
Defined in this way, the local fields \(e_k\) satisfy two useful properties :
for every \(\lambda >0\) and
for every \(\theta \in [0,2\pi ]\). Let \((x^\mu )\) be local coordinates on M and let \((x^\mu ,R^\mu ,V^\mu )\) be the local coordinates induced by \((x^\mu )\) on \(TM\oplus TM\). Let \(\Gamma ^{\mu }_{\alpha \beta }\) be the corresponding Christoffel symbols of the metric g. Given \(X,Y\in \mathbb R^n\), we denote with \(\Gamma (X,Y)\) the row vector
then, making use of the notation Eq. 3.5, the vector fields \(f_1,f_2\) read
and their commutator reads
We define the vector field \(X_{12}\) as
We define
and we notice that this vector field satisfies
Finally, to span the whole tangent space, we need the following vector fields from the third layer
We start by calculating the field \(f_{1k}:=[f_1,f_k]\). Let \(e_k(t)=e_k(x(t),R(t),V(t))\), where (x(t), R(t), V(t)) is an integral curve of \(f_1\). Then, according to Eq. 1.6, we have
Therefore
and hence we have
Observe that the field \(f_{1k1}\) satisfies
Now we claim that the following \(3n-2\) vector fields
are linearly independent. Notice that, since \(X_{12}=f_1+f_{12}\), we may equivalently claim that
are linearly independent. Consider a vanishing linear combination, with coefficients in \(\mathcal C^\infty (\mathcal R(M,g))\), of Eq. 3.23:
If we apply \(\pi ^{M}_{\star }\) to both sides of Eq. 3.24, since according to Eqs. 1.6, 3.17, 3.21, the fields \(f_2,\dots ,f_n,X_{12},f_{13},\dots ,f_{1n}\) have x-component equal to zero, we are left with
which thanks to Eqs. 3.15, 3.19 and 3.22 translates to
therefore \(a_1=a_{121}=a_{131}=\dots =a_{1n1}=0\) and Eq. 3.24 becomes
If we compute the V-component of both sides of Eq. 3.26, according to Eqs. 3.15, 3.17, 3.21 we get
thus \(a_2=a_{12}=a_{123}=\dots =a_{12n}=0\), and Eq. 3.26 reads
but \(f_3,\dots ,f_n\) are linearly independent by definition, therefore also \(a_3=\dots =a_n=0\). We have just proved that \(\mathcal D^3(M,g)=T\mathcal R(M,g)\). It remains to show that \(\text {rank}\,\mathcal D^2(M,g)< \text {rank}\,T\mathcal R(M,g)=3n-2\). Notice that
We claim that the distribution \(\langle \{ f_2,\dots ,f_n\}\rangle \) is integrable. If that is the case then \(\langle \{[f_i,f_j]\}_{i,j=2}^n \rangle \) \(\subset \) \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) and as a consequence
therefore, since \(f_1,\dots ,f_n,f_{12},\dots ,f_{1n}\) are linearly independent, we deduce
To prove our claim observe that, for \(j=2,\dots ,n\), \([f_2,f_j]=0\), indeed \(e^{tf_2}(x,V,R)=(x,e^tR,e^tV)\), hence by construction \(e_j(e^{tf_2}(x,V,R))=e^te_j(x,V,R)\), or in other words \(f_2(e_j)=e_j\), but then
Now consider \(f_j,f_i\) with \(i,j\ge 3\), to lighten the notation in the following we have denoted \(e_{ij}(t)=e_j(e^{tf_i}(x_0,V_0,R_0))\), \(V(t)=V(e^{tf_i}(x_0,V_0,R_0))\) and \(R(t)=R(e^{tf_i}(x_0,V_0,R_0))\). Let us compute
and let us denote \(a_{ijk}=\langle \dot{e}_{ij}, e_k\rangle /|R|^2\), then we have
meaning that
and this concludes the proof of the claim. Equation 3.28, together with the fact that the fields \(\{f_j\}_{j=1}^n\),\(\{f_{1k}\}_{k=2}^n\), \(\{f_{1k1}\}_{k=3}^n\) are a basis of \(T\mathcal R(M,g)\), gives us the following local characterization of \(\mathcal D(M,g)\)’s flag:
In particular we have
\(\square \)
We obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 3.1
The following inclusions hold:
Proof
We have already proved the first inclusion of Eq. 3.32 since we have shown that \(\langle \{f_2,\dots ,f_n\}\rangle \) is integrable. To prove the second inclusion observe that the kernel of \(\pi ^M_\star \) has dimension \((3n-2)-n=2n-2\). On the other hand Eqs. 1.6, 3.17, 3.21, imply that the following \(2n-2\) linearly independent local smooth sections of \(\mathcal D^2(M,g)\)
are contained in \(\ker \pi _\star ^M\), and hence they constitute a basis for it:
The distribution \(\ker \pi _\star ^M\) is integrable: if X, Y are sections of \(\ker \pi _\star ^M\), then they are \(\pi ^M\)-related to the zero-section of TM, and therefore also their bracket is so. Thanks to the integrability of \(\ker \pi _\star ^M\), recalling that \(X_{12}=f_1+f_{12}\), we deduce that \(f_{j1k}\in \mathcal D^2(M,g)\), \(j,k=2,\dots ,n\). \(\square \)
If (M, g) is a Riemannian surface, which for simplicity we assume to be orientable, then the fields \(f_1,f_2\) defined in Eq. 1.6 can be related with the fields \(f_1^g\), \(f_2^g\) defined in Eq. 2.6. Indeed, in this case \(\mathcal R(M,g)\) has two connected components:
![figure b](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs10883-023-09664-y/MediaObjects/10883_2023_9664_Figb_HTML.png)
The projection \(p:\mathcal R(M,g)\rightarrow TM\setminus s_o\) restricted to the first of such components is a diffeomorphism satisfying
This fact, combined with Theorem 1.1, constitutes a proof of Proposition 2.1. Focusing back on the general case, we would like to define a metric on \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) that preserves the symmetries of the curvature radii lift
hence before defining such a metric, we need to have a better understanding of how much information is encoded in the mapping Eq. 3.34.
Definition 3.2
Let (M, g) and \((N,\eta )\) be Riemannian manifolds, we say that they have the same curvature radii if and only if there exists a diffeomorphism \(\varphi :(M,g)\rightarrow (N,\eta )\) such that
Remark 3.1
Equality Eq. 3.35 is meant as an equality of maps, therefore the diffeomorphism \(\varphi \) of Definition 3.2 maps the domain of \(R_g\) to the one of \(R_\eta \). This implies that \(\gamma :[0,1]\rightarrow M\) is the reparametrization of a geodesic of (M, g) if and only if \(\varphi \circ \gamma \) is the reparametrization of a geodesic of \((N,\eta )\). In particular
Definition 3.2 gives a precise meaning to the statement of Theorem 1.2, which we now prove.
Proof
(Theorem 1.2) It is sufficient to prove the theorem for two Riemannian metrics \(\eta ,g\) on the same manifold M. Assume firs that (M, g) and \((M,\eta )\) are homothetic manifolds, then \(\eta =\lambda g\) for some \(\lambda >0\). The two metrics have the same Levi-Civita connection \(\nabla \), moreover for every \(X,Y\in TM\), \(X\perp _{g}Y\) if and only if \(X\perp _{\eta }Y\), therefore we simply denote \(\perp =\perp _{g}=\perp _{\eta }\). Let \(\gamma :[0,T]\rightarrow M\) be a regular curve, then the curvature computed with respect to \(\eta \) can be easily related to the curvature computed with respect to g:
Therefore \(k_\eta (\gamma )\) is never vanishing if and only if also \(k_g(\gamma )\) is so, and in that case using Eq. 1.4 we deduce \(R_\eta (\gamma )=R_g(\gamma )\).
Conversely, assume that (M, g) and \((M,\eta )\) have the same curvature radii, i.e. Eq. 3.35 holds and
for any regular curve \(\gamma \) with never vanishing geodesic curvature. Observe that for any \(X,Y\in T_xM\), \(X\perp _g Y\) if and only if there exists \(\gamma :[0,1]\rightarrow M\) such that \(\gamma (0)=x\), \(\dot{\gamma }(0)=X\) and \(R_g(\gamma )(0)=Y\), but then, since \(R_g=R_\eta \), we obtain \(\perp _g=\perp _\eta \). According to Remark 3.1 we have
Hence for any curve \(\gamma :[0,1]\rightarrow M\) the following proportionality relationship holds
and in particular
In light of Eq. 3.39, condition Eq. 3.37 reduces to
which, by definition of geodesic curvature, in turn is equivalent to
For any \(X,Y\in T_xM\), X is perpendicular to Y if and only if there exists \(\gamma :[0,1]\rightarrow M\) satisfying
Hence Eq. 3.40 implies that
which in turn implies that the two metrics are conformally related: there exists a smooth function \(f:M\rightarrow \mathbb R\) such that
Since the metrics are conformal, their Levi-Civita connection difference tensor can be easily computed
On the other hand thanks to Eq. 3.38 we know that
and hence for any \(Y\perp X\) we have
Since X, Y are arbitrary orthogonal vectors, this implies that f is constant. \(\square \)
The curvature radius lift \(R_g\) of a Riemannian manifold (M, g) is a complete homothety invariant of the metric g. It is then natural to define on \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) a metric which is invariant under homothetic transformations. For every \(a,b\in \mathbb R\), \(b\ne 0\), we define a metric \(\eta _{a,b}\) on \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) by declaring the fields
a local orthonormal frame. For any \((\gamma , R, V)\) in the image of the lift Eq. 3.3 the metric \(\eta _{a,b}\) satisfies the following equation
To prove Eq. 3.44 recall that according to Theorem 1.1 there exists \(u_1,\dots ,u_n:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb R\) such that
or equivalently according to Eq. 3.6,
Hence
The sub-Riemannian manifold \((\mathcal R(M,g),\mathcal D(M,g), \eta _{a,b})\) is called the sub-Riemannian manifold of curvature radii of (M, g) and it is denoted with \(\mathcal R_{a,b} (M,g)\). We now prove the main result regarding these metrics, Theorem 1.3.
Proof
(Theorem 1.3) We begin by making sure that the map Eq. 1.9 is well defined. Let \(\varphi :(M,g)\rightarrow (M,g)\) be a homothety of Riemannian manifolds. By construction \(\varphi _\star \oplus \varphi _\star :TM\oplus TM\rightarrow TM\oplus TM\) maps \(\mathcal R(M,g)\) to \(\mathcal R(M,g)\), this is a simple consequence of the fact that \(\varphi _\star \) preserves orthogonality and the ratios between norms of vectors. To prove that \(\Phi :=\varphi _\star \oplus \varphi _\star \) is a sub-Riemannian isometry we show that \(\Phi _\star f_i=f_i\), \(i=1,2\), and that the fields \(\{\Phi _\star f_3,\dots , \Phi _\star f_n\}\) are related to \(\{f_3,\dots ,f_n\}\) by an orthogonal transformation. Let \((\gamma ,V,R):[0,T]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M,g)\) be an integral curve of \(f_1\) then we have
while the image under \(\Phi \) of such curve, \(\Phi (\gamma , R, V)=(\varphi \circ \gamma ,\varphi _\star R, \varphi _\star V)=:(\bar{\gamma },\bar{R} ,\bar{V})\), satisfies
Summarazing we have
hence \(\Phi _\star f_1=f_1\). The case of \(f_2\) is analogous. Since \(\varphi \) is a homothety it sends local orthogonal basis of TM to local orthogonal basis, and if \(X,Y\in T_xM\) have the same norm, then so do \(\varphi _\star X\), \(\varphi _\star Y\). Given \((x,V,R)\in \mathcal R(M,g)\), let \(\{e_3(x,V,R),\dots ,e_n(x,V,R)\}\) be the local orthogonal basis of \(\{R,V\}^\perp \) constructed in the proof of Theorem 1.1, then both \(\{e_j(\varphi (x),\varphi _\star V,\varphi _\star R) \}_{j=3}^n\) and \(\{\varphi _\star e_j(x,V,R)\}_{j=3}^n\) are othogonal basis of \(\{\varphi _\star R,\varphi _\star V\}^{\perp }\), therefore they are related by an orthogonal transformation: there exists \(O\in O(n-2)\) such that
Now let \((\gamma ,V,R):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M,g)\) be an integral curve of \(f_j\), for \(j\ge 3\), we have
Hence the fields \(\{\Phi _\star f_3,\dots , \Phi _\star f_n\}\) are related to \(\{f_3,\dots ,f_n\}\) by an orthogonal transformation.
The map Eq. 1.9 is an injective homomorphism by definition. We need to prove that it is also surjective. Let \(\Phi :\mathcal R_{a,b}(M,g)\rightarrow \mathcal R_{a,b}(M,g)\), given by
be an isometry of sub-Riemannian manifolds, we have to show that there exists \(\varphi :(M,g)\rightarrow (N,\eta )\) homothety of Riemannian manifolds such that
Assume first \(n>2\) and consider the projection to M
Notice that the kernel of \(\pi ^M_\star \) has dimension \((3n-2)-n=2n-2\). On the other hand, as shown in the proof of Theorem 1.1, the Eqs. 1.6, 3.17, 3.21, imply that the following \(2n-2\) linearly independent smooth local sections of \(\mathcal D^2(M,g)\)
are contained in \(\ker \pi _\star ^M\), and hence they constitute a basis for it:
We claim that \(\ker \pi ^M_\star \subset \mathcal D^2(M,g)\) is the unique integrable sub-bundle of \(\mathcal D^2\) having maximal rank \(2n-2\). We have already noticed that \(\ker \pi _\star ^M\) is integrable in the proof of Theorem 1.1. Let \(\mathcal D'\subset \mathcal D^2(M,g)\) be an integrable distribution and let X, Y be smooth sections of \(\mathcal D'\). Then there exists some smooth functions \(\alpha _1,\dots ,\alpha _{2n-1}\), \(\beta _1,\dots ,\beta _{2n-1}\) such that
On the other hand, since \(\mathcal D'\subset \mathcal D^2(M,g)\) is integrable, it holds
which translates to
\(\text {mod}\,\mathcal D^2(M,g)\). Since \([f_1,X_{12}]\), \([f_1,f_{1k}]\), \(k\!=\!3,\dots ,n\), are linearly independent mod\(\,\mathcal D^2(M,\)g), we have
If \(\alpha _1\equiv \beta _1\equiv 0\) then \(X,Y\in \ker \pi ^M_\star \). Otherwise if, for instance, \(\alpha _1\ne 0\), then \(\beta _{n+k-1}=\frac{\beta _1}{\alpha _1}\alpha _{n+k-1}\) for \(k=2,\dots ,n\) and setting
we deduce that
As a consequence
therefore \(\textrm{rank}\mathcal D'\le n+1\). Observe that it is not possible that \(\text {rank}\,\mathcal D'=n+1\), because otherwise \(\mathcal D'\) would contain \(\mathcal D(M,g)\), contradicting the hypothesis of integrability. We deduce that
proving our claim. Since \(\Phi \) is an isometry, it preserves every layer of \(\mathcal D(M,g)\)’s flag, in the sense that
therefore since \(\ker \pi ^M_\star \subset \mathcal D^2(M,g)\) is the unique integrable sub-bundle of \(\mathcal D^2(M,g)\) having maximal rank \(2n-2\), we deduce that
or equivalently
Both \(\ker \pi ^M_\star \) and \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) are invariant under \(\Phi _\star \), therefore also their intersection is so, hence
but then, since \(\Phi _\star \) is a sub-Riemannian isometry preserving \(\langle \{f_2,\dots ,f_n\}\rangle \), it must preserve also its orthonormal complement, namely \(\Phi _\star f_1=\pm f_1\). To show that \(\Phi _\star f_2=\pm f_2\), consider the following linear map
and notice that, according to Eqs. 3.16 and 3.21, \(\ker L=\langle \{f_3,\dots , f_n\}\rangle \). On the other hand, according to Eq. 3.55
which, taking into account the fact that \(\Phi _\star f_1=\pm f_1\), translates to
or more simply to \(\ker L=\Phi _\star \ker L\), thus \(\Phi _\star \langle \{ f_3,\dots , f_n\}\rangle =\langle \{ f_3,\dots , f_n\}\rangle \). So far we have deduced that \(\Phi _\star \langle \{ f_1,f_3,\dots , f_n\}\rangle =\langle \{f_1,f_3,\dots , f_n\}\rangle \), taking the orthonormal complement of this last equation with respect to the sub-Riemannian metric, we deduce that \(\Phi _\star f_2=\pm f_2\). A direct consequence of Eq. 3.55 is that
therefore the following map is well defined diffeomorphism
Let \((\gamma ,V,R)\) be an integral curve of \(f_1\), then, since \(\Phi _\star f_1= \pm f_1\), it holds
but we know that \(\Phi ^x=\varphi \), hence the first equation of Eq. 3.57 reads
consequently \(\Phi ^V=\pm \varphi _\star V\). Now consider the vector field \(f_{21}=[f_1,f_1]\), recall that, according to Eq. 3.16, its integral curves satisfy
on the other hand since \(\Phi _\star f_1= \pm f_1\), \(\Phi _\star f_2=\pm f_2\), it also holds \(\Phi _\star f_{12}=\pm f_{12}\) thus
or equivalently
Exploiting Eq. 3.59 together with the third equation in Eq. 3.57 we deduce
from which we conclude
Substituting Eq. 3.60 in the second equation of Eq. 3.57 we find that we have to discard the minus sign and we are left with
Let \((\gamma ,V,R):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathcal R(M,g)\) be a curve tangent to \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) with \(\gamma \) regular, then according to Theorem 1.1, \(R=R_g(\gamma )\). On the other hand since \(\Phi \) preserves \(\mathcal D(M,g)\), also \((\varphi \circ \gamma ,\varphi _\star R,\varphi _\star V)\) is tangent to \(\mathcal D(M,g)\) and hence, according to Theorem 1.1 we have
On the other hand, since \(\varphi :(M,\varphi ^\star g)\rightarrow (M,g)\) is an isometry, it holds
therefore \(R_g=R_{\varphi ^\star g}\) and, according to Theorem 1.2, \(\varphi :(M,g)\rightarrow (M,g)\) is a homothety.
Assume now that \(n=\dim {M}=2\). Consider the following linear map
Observe that the kernel of Eq. 3.62, is invariant under pushforwards of sub-Riemannian isometries, in the sense that
therefore
and since \(\Phi \) is an isometry we deduce that
We claim that \(\Phi _\star f_2=f_2\). Assume by contradiction that \(\Phi _\star f_2=-f_2\) and consider the following couple of vector fields
Since \([f_2,f_{12}]=f_{12}\), we have
On the other hand since \(\Phi _\star f_1=\pm f_1\), \(\Phi _\star f_2=-f_2\) we find
which is a contradiction. Combining \(\Phi _\star f_2=f_2\) and \(\Phi _\star f_1=\pm f_1\) we deduce that
therefore, since
we obtain
The remaining part of the proof is identical to the one of the case \(n>2\). In particular we can conclude by repeating verbatim what is written between Eq. 3.56 and the discussion of the 2-dimensional case. \(\square \)
4 The Fields \(f_1,f_2\)
Given a Riemannian manifold (M, g), the vector fields \(f_1,f_2\) defined in (1.6) are global sections of \(T(TM\oplus TM)\), which restrict to vector fields on \(\mathcal R(M,g)\). As a consequence of Theorem 1.1 we know that they are metric invariants of (M, g). Actually they are even invariant under homothetic transformation. In the current section we show that some classical metric invariants can be recovered from the iterated Lie brackets of \(f_1,f_2\). Indeed, as the next proposition shows, the field \([f_1,f_2]\) already gives us a complete description of the geodesics of (M, g); in this sense the fields \(f_1,f_2\) give us a factorization of the geodesic flow.
Proposition 4.1
Let (M, g) be a Riemannian manifold, let \(x\in M\) and let \(\exp _x^{(M,g)}\) be the corresponding exponential map at x. Let \(f_{21}=[f_2,f_1]\) and \(f_{121}=[f_1,f_{21}]\), then, for every \((x,V,R)\in TM\oplus TM\), the following formulae hold
for every \(t\in \mathbb R\) such that the flow of the fields is defined.
Proof
According to Eq. 3.16, the vector field \(f_{21}\) reads
where the symbols \(\Gamma \) are the ones defined in Eq. 3.14. Consequently, any integral curve of \(f_{21}\) satisfies
Therefore the curve \(x(t)=\pi ^M\circ e^{t[f_2,f_1]}(x_0,V_0,R_0)\) is the unique geodesic with initial point \(x_0\) and initial velocity \(V_0\).
Recall the vector field \(X_{12}\) defined in Eq. 3.17 and observe that
therefore
Hence any integral curve of \(f_{121}\) satisfies
concluding the proof. \(\square \)
If we consider another layer of the Lie algebra generated by \(f_1,f_2\), the components of Riemann curvature tensor appear.
Proposition 4.2
Let (M, g) be a Riemannian manifold, the integral curves of the vector field \(f_{1121}:=[f_1,f_{121}]\) satisfy
where \(\mathcal {R}^{\nabla }:\mathfrak { X}(M)\times \mathfrak {X}(M)\times \mathfrak {X}(M)\rightarrow \mathfrak {X}(M)\) is the Riemann curvature tensor of (M, g).
Proof
Given a vector field X we denote with \(X^x\) its x-component, with \(X^R\) its R-component and with \(X^V\) its V-component, meaning that \(X=X^x\partial _x+X^R\partial _R+X^V\partial _V\). We compute Eq. 4.4 component by component:
Concerning the R-component we compute
and
therefore
The quantity \(f_1(f_{121}^V)\) can be computed as
whereas \(f_{121}(f_1^V)\) satisfies
hence
Equations 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 together imply that any integral curve of \(f_{1121}\) satisfies the ODEs system Eq. 4.4.\(\square \)
As stated in Theorem 1.1, the fields
constitute a local basis for \(T\mathcal R(M,g)\), therefore there exists some real valued smooth functions \(\{c_1,\dots ,c_{3n-2}\}\) on \(\mathcal R(M,g)\) such that
Proposition 4.3
Let (M, g) be a Riemannian manifold, then the function \(c_1:\mathcal R(M,g)\rightarrow \mathbb R\) defined in Eq. 4.9 is a homothetic invariant of (M, g), which can be expressed in terms of sectional curvatures as
In particular if (M, g) is a Riemannian surface, then
where K is the Gaussian curvature of (M, g).
Proof
From Eqs. 4.4 and 4.2 it follows that
therefore
where \(\{e_3,\dots ,e_n\}\) is the basis of \(\{R,V\}^\perp \) described in the proof of Theorem 1.1 and we have denoted
Observe that
hence
The unique expression of the vector field X in terms of the basis Eq. 4.8 is a linear combination which does not involve \(f_1\), hence we deduce
\(\square \)
The fields \(f_1,f_2\) allow us to characterize the homotheties of Riemannian surfaces with one synthetic equation. Let M be a smooth manifold and let \(X\in \mathfrak X(M)\) be a vector field, which we assume to be complete for simplicity. The family of maps \(\{e^{tX}_\star \}_{t\in \mathbb R}\) constitutes a one-parameter group of diffeomorphisms of TM; we denote its infinitesimal generator with \(\overset{\rightarrow }{X}\).
Proposition 4.4
Let (M, g) be a Riemannian surface and let \(f_1\) be the local vector vield over \(TM\setminus s_o\) defined in Eq. 2.6. A vector field \(X\in \mathfrak X(M)\) is the infinitesimal generator of a one-parameter group of homotheties if and only if
Proof
A vector field \(X\in \mathfrak X(M)\) satisfies Eq. 4.15 if and only if
for every \(t\in \mathbb R\). On the other hand, any vector field \(X\in \mathfrak X(M)\) satisfies
indeed
Therefore X satisfies Eq. 4.15 if and only if \(e^{t\overset{\rightarrow }{X}}\) is an isometry of \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(M,g)\) for each \(t\in \mathbb R\), hence, by Theorem 1.3, X satisfies Eq. 4.15 if and only if \(e^{tX}\) is a one-parameter group of homotheties of (M, g). \(\square \)
The results obtained so far can be used to produce a flatness theorem for Riemannian surfaces having a 4-dimensional Lie algebra of homothetic vector fields.
Theorem 4.1
Let (M, g) be a 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold and let \(L\subset \mathfrak X(M)\) be the corresponding Lie algebra of homothetic vector fields. Then \(\dim (L)\le 4\), and (M, g) is flat if equality is achieved.
Proof
Let \(\mathcal L\subset \mathfrak X(\mathcal R(M))\) be the Lie algebra of isometric vector fields for the manifold of curvature radii \(\mathcal R(M,g)\). By Theorem 1.3 this Lie algebra is isomorphic to the one of homothetic vector fields of (M, g). Let \(X\in \mathcal L\) be a vector field vanishing at some point \((x, R)\in \mathcal R(M)\). We claim that X is identically zero. Indeed, since X is isometric, by Proposition 4.4, it satisfies \([X,f_1]=[X,f_2]=0\). Since \(\mathcal D=span\{f_1,f_2\}\) is bracket generating, for any \((x',R')\in \mathcal R\) there exist some real numbers \(s_1,\dots ,s_k\) such that
consequently
Let \(X_1,\dots ,X_5\in \mathcal L\) and \((x,R)\in \mathcal R(M)\). The manifold of curvature radii is 4-dimensional, hence there exists a linear combination of \(X_1,\dots ,X_5\) vanishing at (x, R), and thus vanishing everywhere. We deduce that \(\dim \mathcal L\le 4\). Assume now that \(\dim \mathcal L=4\) and let \(X_1,\dots , X_4\) be a basis for \(\mathcal L\). By the above argument \(X_1,\dots ,X_4\) are linearly independent at every point of \(\mathcal R(M)\). Thus they can be used to produce local coordinates in the neighbourhood of every point, by means of the map
This implies that the structure coefficients of the frame \(f_1,f_2,f_{12},f_{121}\) are constants (Theorem 1.1 implies that the latter is a basis for \(T\mathcal R(M)\)). In particular there exist real constants \(c_1,c_2,c_{12},c_{121}\) such that
Now we exploit Proposition 4.3, telling us that \(c_1(x,R)=|R|^2 K(x)\), where K(x) is the Gaussian curvature of (M, g). Such a function is constant on a fixed fiber of the manifold of curvature radii \(\mathcal R(M)=TM\setminus s_0\) if and only if it is identically zero. It follows that \(K=0\). \(\square \)
5 Similarity Transformations of the Plane
In this section we show that the sub-Riemannian manifolds \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(\mathbb R^2,g_e)\), where \(g_e\) is the standard Euclidean metric, are isomorphic to left invariant sub-Riemannian structures on the group of orientation preserving homotheties of \(\mathbb R^2\), which we denote with G. Moreover we give a a characterization of the sub-Riemannian geodesics of \(\mathcal R_{0,1}(\mathbb R^2,g_e)\) in terms of the euclidean curvature of their projections to a plane. Such characterization in terms of curvature is similar to the one of Euler elasticae ([10]), which are projection of normal extremal trajectories of the nilpotent Engel group ([6]). All the results of this section follow from straightforward computations, therefore the proofs are omitted. Let \((y_1,y_2,R_1,R_2)\) be global coordinates for \(T\mathbb R^2\setminus \{0\}=\mathbb R^2\times \mathbb R^2\setminus \{0\}\). It is convenient to define a new set of coordinates \((\theta , r, x_1,x_2)\) as
In coordinates (y, R) a point in \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(\mathbb R^2,g_e)\) is interpreted as the curvature radius of some curve going through y. In the new coordinates \((\theta , r, x_1,x_2)\) we interpret a point in \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(\mathbb R^2,g_e)\) as the osculating circle of such curve, having radius \((r\cos \theta ,r\sin \theta )\) and center \((x_1,x_2)\). Observe that the data of a homothetic transformation, which in the case of \((\mathbb R^2, g_e)\) consists in a composition of rotations, dialations and translation, can be encoded into an osculating circle, i.e. a point of \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(\mathbb R^2,g_e)\): given a circle \((\theta , r, x_1,x_2)\) we can dilate by r, rotate by \(\theta \) and translate by \((x_1,x_2)\). We have a diffeomorphism
which allows us to push forward the sub-Riemannian structure of \(\mathcal R_{a,b}(\mathbb R^2,g_e)\), to G. The resulting sub-Riemannian structure is left invariant.
Proposition 5.1
The frame \((f_1,f_2)\) can be written in coordinates \((\theta , r, x_1,x_2)\) as
Both of these vector fields are pushforwarded to left invariant vector fields by the map Eq. 5.2:
Remark 5.1
The geometry of G is reminiscent of the left invariant sub-Riemannian structure on the group of rigid motions of the plane, related to ‘bicycling mathematics’, which has been studied in [4, 5, 7, 9]. The group of rigid motions of \(\mathbb R^2\) can be described as
In coordinates \((\theta , x_1,x_2)\) we can define a left-invaraint sub-Riemann structure on \(SE_2\) by declaring the fields
an orthonormal generating family. There exists a submersion
satisfying
Let \(h_1,h_2:T^\star \mathcal R(\mathbb R^2)\rightarrow \mathbb R\) be the Hamiltonian functions associated with \(f_1,f_2\) and let \(p_\theta ,p_r,p_{x_1},p_{x_2}\) be the canonical momenta associated with the coordinates \(\theta ,r,x_1,x_2\), then
The sub-Riemannian Hamiltonian of \(\mathcal R_{0,1}(\mathbb R^2,g_e)\) reads
If we make the change of coordinates \(\rho =\log r\) the Hamiltonian becomes
The next proposition characterizes normal extremal trajectories in terms of the euclidean curvature of their projection to the \((\rho ,\theta )\)-plane.
Proposition 5.2
The following quantities
are first integrals of the sub-Riemannian Hamiltonian Eq. 5.9.
A curve \((\rho ,\theta ):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb R^2\) is the projection of a normal extremal trajectory \((\rho ,\theta ,x_1,x_2):[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb R^4\), if and only if its Euclidean curvature \(\kappa \) satisfies
There are no strictly abnormal extremals.
References
Bryant RL, et al Exterior differential systems. Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications. Springer-Verlag, New York; 1991. vol 18.
Montgomery R. A tour of subriemannian geometries, their geodesics and applications. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI; 2002. vol 91.
Geiges H. An introduction to contact topology. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2008. vol 109.
Moiseev I, Sachkov YL. Maxwell strata in sub-Riemannian problem on the group of motions of a plane. In: ESAIM Control Optim Calc Var. 2010;16.2:380–399.
Sachkov YL. Conjugate and cut time in the sub-Riemannian problem on the group of motions of a plane. In: ESAIM Control Optim Calc Var. 2010;16.4:1018–1039.
Ardentov AA, Sachkov YL. Extremal trajectories in the nilpotent sub-Riemannian problem on the Engel group. In: Mat Sb. 2011;202.11:31–54.
Sachkov YL. Cut locus and optimal synthesis in the sub-Riemannian problem on the group of motions of a plane. In: ESAIM Control Optim Calc Var. 2011;17.2:293–321.
Agrachev A, Barilari D, Boscain U. A comprehensive introduction to sub-Riemannian geometry. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. From the Hamiltonian viewpoint, With an appendix by Igor Zelenko. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2020. vol 181.
Ardentov A, et al Bicycle paths, elasticae and sub-Riemannian geometry. In: Nonlinearity 2021;34.7:4661–4683.
Levien R. The elastica: a mathematical history.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors Andrei Agrachev and Luca Rizzi. The main idea of this paper comes from the model space described in Section 5, which was discovered by Andrei Agrachev. Many of the proofs have been substantially improved thanks to the suggestions of Luca Rizzi. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewer for asking the question that led to Theorem 4.1.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Milano - Bicocca within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bellini, E. The Geometry of Riemannian Curvature Radii. J Dyn Control Syst 29, 1829–1853 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10883-023-09664-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10883-023-09664-y