Journal of Mathematical Sciences

, Volume 153, Issue 6, pp 869–898 | Cite as

On unique determination of domains in Euclidean spaces

Article

Abstract

The paper is devoted to two new directions in developing the classical geometric subjects related to studying the problem of unique determination of closed convex surfaces by their intrinsic metrics. The first of these directions is the study of unique determination of domains (i.e., open connected sets) in Euclidean spaces by relative metrics of the boundaries of these domains. It appeared about 25–30 years ago and was developed owing to the efforts of Russian scientists. The first part of the paper (Secs. 3–7) contains an overview of the results referring to this direction.

The foundations of the second direction are presented in the second part of the paper, i.e., in Sec. 8, for the first time. This direction is closely related with the first one and consists of studying the problem of unique determination of conformal type. The main result of the section is the theorem on the unique determination of bounded convex domains by relative conformal moduli of their boundary conductors.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. D. Aleksandrov, Intrinsic Geometry of Convex Surfaces [in Russian], Gostekhizdat, Moscow-Leningrad (1948).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. A. Aleksandrov, “Isometry of domains in ℝn and the relative isometry of their boundaries,” Sib. Mat. Zh., 25, No. 3, 3–13 (1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    V. A. Aleksandrov, “Isometry of domains in ℝn and the relative isometry of their boundaries, II,” Sib. Mat. Zh., 26, No. 6, 3–8 (1985).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. A. Aleksandrov, “On domains uniquely determined by the relative metrics of their boundaries,” in: Studies in Geometry and Mathematical Analysis, Proceedings of the Institute of Mathematics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch [in Russian], 7, 5–19 (1987).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. A. Aleksandrov, “Unique determination of domains with non-Jordan boundaries,” Sib. Mat. Zh., 30, No. 1, 3–12 (1989).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. A. Aleksandrov, “Estimate of deformation of a strictly convex domain depending on the relative metric of its boundary,” Sib. Math. Zh., 31, No. 5, 3–9 (1990).MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. A. Aleksandrov, “On isometry of polyhedral domains whose boundaries are locally isometric in the relative metrics,” Sib. Mat. Zh., 33, No. 2, 3–9 (1992).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. K. Borovikova, “On isometry of polygonal domains whose boundaries are locally isometric in relative metrics,” Sib. Mat. Zh., 33, No. 4, 30–41 (1992).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. W. Gehring and J. Vaisala, “The coefficients of quasiconformality of domains in space,” Acta Math., 114, Nos. 1–2, 1–70 (1965).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. P. Kopylov, “On boundary values of mappings close to isometric mappings,” Sib. Mat. Zh., 25, No. 3, 120–131 (1984).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. V. Kuz’minykh, “On isometry of domains whose boundaries are isometric in relative metrics,” Sib. Mat. Zh., 26, No. 3, 91–99 (1985).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. V. Pogorelov, Extrinsic Geometry of Convex Surfaces [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1969).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. V. Pogorelov, Unique Determination of General Convex Surfaces [in Russian], Akad. Nauk USSR (1951).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Pólya and G. Szegő, Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics, Ann. Math. Stud., 27, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton (1951).MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu. G. Reshetnyak, Spatial Mapping with Bounded Distortion [in Russian], Nauka, Novosibirsk (1982).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yu. G. Reshetnyak, Stability Theorems in Geometry and Analysis [in Russian], S. L. Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk (1996).MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Saks, Theory of Integrals [Russian translation], Moscow (1949).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Schwartz, Analysis [Russian translation], Vol. 2, Mir, Moscow (1972).MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. P. Sen’kin, “Non-flexibility of convex surfaces,” Ukr. Geom. Sb., 12, 131–152 (1972).MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. A. Trotsenko, “Unique determination of bounded domains by the metric of the boundary induced by the metric of the domain,” in: All-Union Conference on Geometry “in the Large,” Abstracts of Reports [in Russian], Institute of Mathematics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk (1987), p. 122.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Väisälä, Lectures on n-Dimensional Quasiconformal Mappings, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York (1971).MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Väisälä, “On quasiconformal mappings in space,” Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. A I, 298, 1–36 (1961).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu. A. Volkov, “Estimate of the deformation of a convex surface depending on the variation of its intrinsic metric,” Ukr. Geom. Sb., Nos. 5/6, 44–69 (1968).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. Whitney, Geometric Integration Theory [Russian translation], IL, Moscow (1960).MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of MathematicsSiberian Branch of the Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations