2

I know that compact set has maximum.

My advisor said that solve this proposition by using the compactness property. I can't understand what he said at all.

Can anyone verify this proposition?

Please teach me as easy as every undergraduate can understand.

1 Answers1

5

Let $O \in \mathbb{R^3}$ be any point of the space and call $S$ your closed surface of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Consider the function $f:S \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $f(x) = \|x - O \|^2$. Since $S$ is compact there is an absolute maximum $x_0 \in S$ for $f$. Let $\gamma(t)$ be any curve of $S$ through $x_0$ i.e. $\gamma(0)=x_0$. Then

$$\begin{cases} \frac{d f(\gamma(t))}{d t}|_{t=0} = 0\\ \frac{d^2f(\gamma(t))}{d t^2}|_{t=0} \leq 0 \end{cases}$$

Computing explicitly in $\mathbb{R}^3$ the above conditions implies $$\begin{cases} \gamma'(0)\cdot(\gamma(0)-O) = 0 \\ \gamma''(0)\cdot(\gamma(0) - O) + \gamma'(0)\cdot\gamma'(0) \leq 0\end{cases}$$

The first one tells to you that the non-zero vector $N := \gamma(0) - O$ is normal to $S$ at $x_0$ (due to the fact that $\gamma(t)$ is any curve through $x_0$). The second one is related to the shape operator $A_{\mathbf{n}}$ of $S$ at $x_0$, where $\mathbf{n}$ is a unit normal vector of $S$ at $x_0$ such that $N = \| N\| \mathbf{n}$. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned} \gamma''(0)\cdot(\gamma(0) - O) + \gamma'(0)\cdot\gamma'(0) &= \gamma''(0). N + \gamma'(0)\cdot\gamma'(0) \\ &= \gamma''(0). \|N \| \mathbf{n} + \gamma'(0)\cdot\gamma'(0) \\ &= \|N \| \gamma''(0). \mathbf{n} + \gamma'(0)\cdot\gamma'(0) \\ &= \|N \| \gamma'(0). (-\frac{d \mathbf{n}}{ds}) + \gamma'(0)\cdot\gamma'(0) \\ &= \|N \| \gamma'(0). dG (\gamma'(0)) + \gamma'(0)\cdot\gamma'(0) \\ &= \|N\| \gamma'(0) \cdot A_{\mathbf{n}}(\gamma'(0)) + \gamma'(0)\cdot\gamma'(0) \leq 0 \, . \end{aligned}$$

Then both eigenvalues of $A_{\mathbf{n}}$ are negative hence $x_0$ is an elliptic point of $S$. Indeed, let $k_1,k_2$ be the two eigenvalues of $A_{\mathbf{n}}$ and let $\gamma_1(t),\gamma_2(t)$ be two curves (through $x_0$) whose tangent vectors are the respective eigenvectors. Then for $i=1,2$: $$ \|N\| \gamma_{i}'(0) \cdot A_{\mathbf{n}}(\gamma_{i}'(0)) + \gamma_{i}'(0)\cdot\gamma_{i}'(0) \leq 0$$ so $$ \|N\| \gamma_{i}'(0) \cdot k_i \gamma_{i}'(0) + \gamma_{i}'(0)\cdot\gamma_{i}'(0) \leq 0$$ then $$\|N\|k_i + 1 \leq 0$$ which shows that $k_i \leq -\frac{1}{\|N\|} < 0$ for $i=1,2$.

Some comments about the shaper operator. The shape operator $A_{\mathbb{n}}$ is a linear map from the tangent space $T_pS \to T_pS$ defined as the derivative of the unit normal vector field $\mathbb{n}$. It was defined by Gauss in his famous work about the geometry of surfaces. Gauss defined it as follows: consider the map $G : S \to \mathbb{S}(1)$, where $\mathbb{S}(1) \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ is the unit sphere defined as: $$ G(p) := \mathbf{n}(p) $$ where $\mathbf{n}(p)$ is a unit normal vector field of $S$. Then the shape operator is defined as $$A_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{v}_p) := -(d G)(\mathbf{v}_p) \, \,$$ Observe that the vector $-(d G)(\mathbf{v}_p)$ is perpendicular to $\mathbf{n}$ hence $$A_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{v}_p) \in T_pS \, .$$ That is to say, $A_{\mathbf{n}}$ is a linear map of $T_pS$. Moreover, it is not difficult to see that it is symmetric w.r.t. the inner product of $T_pS$. So as we learn in linear algebra the 'symmetric matrix' $A_{\mathbf{n}}$ can be diagonalized. The two eigenvalues are since Gauss, classically denoted by $k_1,k_2$ and called principal curvatures. Their product $$ \kappa := k_1 k_2 = \det(A_{\mathbf{n}})$$ is the so called Gauss curvature of $S$. Finally, a point $p \in S$ is called elliptic point if $\kappa(p) > 0$.

Holonomia
  • 2,543
  • It seems that you only showed $A_n \le 0$ instead of $A_n <0$. –  Jun 24 '15 at 10:06
  • No, you miss the term $\gamma'(0).\gamma'(0)$. I think it is better I edit my answer and add more details. – Holonomia Jun 24 '15 at 10:21
  • you are welcome. Let me know if you need more details. If so I will edit my answer and add them. But I have to said that is not my proof in the sense that it is what your advisor had in mind. Namely, what I wrote is just the standard proof of this fact. – Holonomia Jun 24 '15 at 14:55
  • I don't know what the shape operator is...search its word but can't understand clearly – I am confused Jun 25 '15 at 13:54
  • OK. I will edit my answer and add an explanation about the shape operator. – Holonomia Jun 25 '15 at 21:51
  • Thank you!! I would be able to understand^^(not clearly understand in detail, but it would be solved in days ) Next Tuesday, I have a opportunity to do this proof to my advisor, so I will try hard to inform you a good news^^ – I am confused Jun 26 '15 at 17:33
  • Excuse me, I can't understand this transformation γ″(0)⋅(γ(0)−O)=||N||An(γ′(0))⋅γ′(0). – I am confused Jun 26 '15 at 17:45
  • 1
    OK, as I promise I am going to edit my answer and explain to you this identity. – Holonomia Jun 26 '15 at 21:23