Hadamard theorem about embedding











up vote
11
down vote

favorite
1












The following theorem is commonly attributed to Hadamard.




Assume $Sigma$ is a smooth locally convex immersed surface in the Euclidean space. Then $Sigma$ is embedded and bounds a convex set.




Many authors refer to Hadamard's Sur certaines propriétés des trajectoires en Dynamique (1897)
(for example, J.J.Stoker in his Über die Gestalt der positiv... (1936)).



Likely the statement is there, but the paper is long, it is in French and often the statements are not clearly marked; I was searching for it for several days. I asked a friend and she said that it was there 20 years ago, but she could not find it; she also said that it was not easy to extract it from what is written ( = one has to think). [For sure the word immersion is not there.]



I hope someone here knows this paper and can help me.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
    – Sylvain JULIEN
    9 hours ago















up vote
11
down vote

favorite
1












The following theorem is commonly attributed to Hadamard.




Assume $Sigma$ is a smooth locally convex immersed surface in the Euclidean space. Then $Sigma$ is embedded and bounds a convex set.




Many authors refer to Hadamard's Sur certaines propriétés des trajectoires en Dynamique (1897)
(for example, J.J.Stoker in his Über die Gestalt der positiv... (1936)).



Likely the statement is there, but the paper is long, it is in French and often the statements are not clearly marked; I was searching for it for several days. I asked a friend and she said that it was there 20 years ago, but she could not find it; she also said that it was not easy to extract it from what is written ( = one has to think). [For sure the word immersion is not there.]



I hope someone here knows this paper and can help me.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
    – Sylvain JULIEN
    9 hours ago













up vote
11
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
11
down vote

favorite
1






1





The following theorem is commonly attributed to Hadamard.




Assume $Sigma$ is a smooth locally convex immersed surface in the Euclidean space. Then $Sigma$ is embedded and bounds a convex set.




Many authors refer to Hadamard's Sur certaines propriétés des trajectoires en Dynamique (1897)
(for example, J.J.Stoker in his Über die Gestalt der positiv... (1936)).



Likely the statement is there, but the paper is long, it is in French and often the statements are not clearly marked; I was searching for it for several days. I asked a friend and she said that it was there 20 years ago, but she could not find it; she also said that it was not easy to extract it from what is written ( = one has to think). [For sure the word immersion is not there.]



I hope someone here knows this paper and can help me.










share|cite|improve this question















The following theorem is commonly attributed to Hadamard.




Assume $Sigma$ is a smooth locally convex immersed surface in the Euclidean space. Then $Sigma$ is embedded and bounds a convex set.




Many authors refer to Hadamard's Sur certaines propriétés des trajectoires en Dynamique (1897)
(for example, J.J.Stoker in his Über die Gestalt der positiv... (1936)).



Likely the statement is there, but the paper is long, it is in French and often the statements are not clearly marked; I was searching for it for several days. I asked a friend and she said that it was there 20 years ago, but she could not find it; she also said that it was not easy to extract it from what is written ( = one has to think). [For sure the word immersion is not there.]



I hope someone here knows this paper and can help me.







reference-request dg.differential-geometry curves-and-surfaces surfaces






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago

























asked 10 hours ago









Anton Petrunin

26.1k578196




26.1k578196








  • 1




    To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
    – Sylvain JULIEN
    9 hours ago














  • 1




    To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
    – Sylvain JULIEN
    9 hours ago








1




1




To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
– Sylvain JULIEN
9 hours ago




To remain in the spirit of this site, a present-day referee would probably tell Hadamard : "unclear what you're claiming" !
– Sylvain JULIEN
9 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
7
down vote













I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere. It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    2 hours ago













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f315987%2fhadamard-theorem-about-embedding%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
7
down vote













I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere. It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    2 hours ago

















up vote
7
down vote













I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere. It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    2 hours ago















up vote
7
down vote










up vote
7
down vote









I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere. It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated.






share|cite|improve this answer












I think the relevant location is item 23, page 352, but what Hadamard aims to is stated as follows:




A smooth, co-orientable surface of $mathbb{R}^3$ with Gauss curvature bounded below by some $kappa >0$ is simply connected. (implicitly, the surface is compact without boundary)




("Or une surface à deux côtés et sans points singuliers, à courbure partout positive (la valeur zéro et les valeurs infiniment petites étant exclues) est toujours simplement connexe.")



The goal is to use the Gauss-Bonnet Formula to deduce that when curvature is positive, any two closed geodesics must meet (otherwise they would together bound a total curvature 0 region of the surface).



What is not clear from the text of item 23 is whether the surface assumed to be immersed or embedded. He basically says that the normal map is a global diffeomorphism, because positive curvature makes it a covering of the sphere. It seems the argument does provide the statement attributed to this paper, although it seems not explicitly stated.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 9 hours ago









Benoît Kloeckner

10.8k14382




10.8k14382












  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    2 hours ago




















  • The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
    – Anton Petrunin
    2 hours ago


















The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
– Anton Petrunin
2 hours ago






The arguments in 23 do not seem to show that immersed sphere is embedded, even informally; am I wrong? [I see also pictures on page 379 which are relevant to a proof I know, but the words around these pictures seem to be irrelevant.]
– Anton Petrunin
2 hours ago




















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f315987%2fhadamard-theorem-about-embedding%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Costa Masnaga

Fotorealismo

Sidney Franklin