Rigidity of Polyhedral Surfaces, III

Feng Luo

arXiv: 1010.3284v1 · PDF · 15 October 2010
Categories: math.GT, math.DG
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

This paper investigates several global rigidity issues for polyhedral surfaces including inversive distance circle packings. Inversive distance circle packings are polyhedral surfaces introduced by P. Bowers and K. Stephenson as a generalization of Andreev-Thurston’s circle packing. They conjectured that inversive distance circle packings are rigid. Using a recent work of R. Guo on variational principle associated to the inversive distance circle packing, we prove rigidity conjecture of Bowers-Stephenson in this paper. We also show that each polyhedral metric on a triangulated surface is determined by various discrete curvatures introduced in our previous work, verifying a conjecture in [Lu1]. As a consequence, we show that the discrete Laplacian operator determines a Euclidean polyhedral metric up to scaling.

Items 22

Definition

Definition 1.1

ILXU

([Lu1]) Let h \in \bold R. Given a K^2 polyhedral metric on (S, T) where K^2 =\bold E^2, or \bold S^2 or \bold H^2, the \phi_{ h } curvature of a polyhedral metric is the function \phi_{ h }: E \to \bold R sending an edge e to:

\phi_{ h }(e) = \int_{\pi/2}^{a} \sin^{ h }(t) dt + \int_{\pi/2}^{a'} \sin^{ h }(t) dt

where a, a' are the inner angles facing the edge e. See figure 1.

The \psi_{ h } curvature of the metric l is the function \psi_{ h }: E \to \bold R sending an edge e to

\psi_{ h }(e) =\int^{\frac{b+c-a}{2}}_0 \cos^{ h }(t) dt + \int^{\frac{b'+c'-a'}{2}}_0 \cos^{ h }(t) dt

where b,b',c,c' are inner angles adjacent to the edge e and a,a' are the angles facing the edge e. See figure 1.

Theorem

Theorem 1.2

8LZM

Let (S, T) be a closed triangulated connected surface. Then for any h \in \bold R,

(1) a Euclidean polyhedral metric on (S, T) is determined up to isometry and scaling by its \phi_{ h } curvature.

(2) a spherical polyhedral metric on (S, T) is determined up to isometry by its \phi_{ h } curvature.

(3) a hyperbolic polyhedral surface is determined up to isometry by its \psi_{ h } curvature.

Corollary

Corollary 1.3

76GB

(1) A connected Euclidean polyhedral surface is determined up to scaling by its discrete Laplacian operator.

(2) A spherical polyhedral surface is determined by its discrete Laplacian operator.

Theorem

Theorem 1.4

WGOS

Given a closed triangulated connected surface (S, T) with the set of edges E and I \in \bold R_{\geq 0}^E considered as the inversive distance,

(1) a hyperbolic inversive distance circle packing metric on (S,T) of inversive distance I is determined by its discrete curvature k: V \to \bold R.

(2) an Euclidean inversive distance circle packing metric on (S,T) of inversive distance I is determined by its discrete curvature k: V \to \bold R up to scaling.

Definition

Definition 2.1

QX39

Suppose A is a subspace of a topological space X and f:A \to Y is continuous. If there exists a continuous function F: X \to Y so that F|_A =f and F is a constant function on each connected component of X-A, then we say f can be extended continuously by constant functions to X.

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 2.2

RCM9

Suppose \Delta is a triangle in the Euclidean plane \bold E^2, or the hyperbolic plane \bold H^2, or the 2-sphere \bold S^2 so that its edge lengths are l_1, l_2, l_3 and its inner angles are \theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3. Assume that \theta_i’s angle is opposite to the edge of length l_i for each i. Consider \theta_i =\theta_i(l) as a function of l=(l_1, l_2, l_3).

If \Delta is Euclidean or hyperbolic, the angle function \theta_i defined on \Omega =\{ (l_1, l_2, l_3) \in \bold R^3 | l_1+l_2 > l_3, l_2+l_3 > l_1, l_3+l_1>l_2\} can be extended continuously by constant functions to a function \tilde{\theta_i} on \bold R^3_{>0}.
If \Delta is spherical, the angle function \theta_i defined on \Omega =\{ (l_1, l_2, l_3) \in \bold R^3 | l_1+l_2 > l_3, l_2+l_3 > l_1, l_3+l_1>l_2, l_1+l_2+l_3 < 2\pi\} can be extended continuously by constant functions to a function \tilde{\theta_i} on \bold (0, \pi)^3.

Proof

FAC7

In the case (1), the extension function \tilde{\theta_i} of \theta_i is given by \tilde{\theta_i} = \pi when l_i \geq l_j+l_k, and \tilde{\theta_i} =0 when l_j \geq l_i+l_k. It remains to verify the continuity of \tilde{\theta_i} on \bold R_{>0}^3. It is based on the cosine law. Given a point L =(L_1, L_2, L_3) in the boundary \bar{\Omega} -\Omega of \Omega inside \bold R^3_{>0}, we may assume without loss of generality that L_1=L_2+L_3. The continuity of \tilde{\theta_i} follows from

\lim_{ l \to L} \theta_1(l) =\pi, \quad \lim_{l \to L} \theta_j(l) =0, \quad j=2,3.

Indeed, the cosine law says, in the case of \Delta \subset \bold E^2, that

\cos(\theta_i) =\frac{ l_j^2 + l_k^2 -l_i^2}{ 2 l_j l_k}.

One sees easily that when l tends to L, then the right-hand-side of (2.1) tends to 1 if i=2,3 and -1 if i=1. This verifies the continuity in the Euclidean case. In the hyperbolic case, the cosine law says

\cos(\theta_i) =\frac{ \cosh(l_j)\cosh(l_k) -\cosh(l_i)}{\sinh(l_j)\sinh(l_k)}.

Thus one sees that as l tends to L=(L_1, L_2, L_3) with L_j >0, the right-hand-side of (2.2) tends to 1 if i=2,3 and to -1 if i=1. Thus \tilde{\theta_i} is continuous.

To see (2), recall that the cosine law for spherical triangle says

\cos(\theta_i) =\frac{\cos(l_i) - \cos(l_j)\cos(l_k) }{\sin(l_j)\sin(l_k)}.

If l tends to L where L_1=L_2+L_3 with L_i \in (0,\pi), then \lim_{l \to L} \cos(\theta_1) =-1 and \lim_{l \to L} \cos(\theta_i) =1 when i=2,3. On the other hand, if L_1+L_2+L_3 =2\pi for L_i \in (0, \pi), then the cosine law implies that \lim_{l \to L} \cos(\theta_i) =-1 for all i, i.e., all inner angles are \pi in this case. Thus by setting the extended function \tilde{\theta_i} in (0, \pi)^3 to be \tilde{\theta_i}(l) = \pi if l_i \geq l_j + l_k, \tilde{\theta_i}(l) = 0 if l_j \geq l_i + l_k, and \tilde{\theta_i}(l) = \pi if l_i + l_j + l_k \geq \pi, ( \{i,j,k\}=\{1,2,3\}), we see that \tilde{\theta_i} is continuous.

Definition

Definition 2.3

TLZZ

A differential 1-form w =\sum_{i=1}^n a_i(x) dx_i in an open set U \subset \bold R^n is said to be continuous if each a_i(x) is a continuous function on U. A continuous 1-form w is called closed if \int_{\partial \tau} w=0 for each Euclidean triangle \tau in U.

Proposition

Proposition 2.4

CI95

Suppose X is an open set in \bold R^n and A \subset X is an open subset bounded by a smooth (n-1)-dimensional submanifold in X. If w=\sum_{i=1}^n a_i(x) dx_i is a continuous 1-form on X so that w|_A and w|_{X -\bar{A}} are closed where \overline{A} is the closure of A in X, then w is closed in X.

Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 2.4

Since closedness is a local property and is invariant under smooth change of coordinates in X, we may assume that X=\bold R^n and A =\{ (x_1, ..., x_n) \in \bold R^n | x_n >0\}. Take a Euclidean triangle \tau \subset X. To verify \int_{\partial \tau } w=0, we may assume that \tau is not in \overline{A} or X-A since otherwise \int_{\partial \tau} w=0 follows from the assumption and the standard approximation theorem. In the remaining case, \tau intersects both A and X-A. The plane x_n=0 cuts the triangle \tau into a triangle \gamma_1 and a quadrilateral \gamma_2 so that \gamma_1 and \gamma_2 are in the closure of A and X-A. We can express, in the singular chain level, \partial \tau = \partial \gamma_1 + \partial \gamma_2. By definition, \int_{\partial \gamma_i} w=0 for each i. Thus \int_{\partial \tau} w = \int_{\partial \gamma_1} w + \int_{\partial \gamma_2} w =0.

Proposition

Proposition 2.5

C4RD

Suppose X \subset \bold R^n is an open convex set and A \subset X is an open subset of X bounded by a codimension-1 real analytic submanifold in X. If w=\sum_{i=1}^n a_i(x) dx_i is a continuous closed 1-form on X so that F(x) =\int^x_a w is locally convex in A and in X -\overline{A}, then F(x) is convex in X.

Proof of Proposition 2.5

Since X is simply connected, the function F is well defined. To verify convexity, take p, q \in X and consider f(t) = F(tp+(1-t)q) for t \in [0,1]. It suffices to show that f(t) is convex in t. Since F is C^1-smooth, f is C^1-smooth. Let \partial A =\bar{A} -A and L be the line segment from p to q. Since \partial A is real analytic, either L intersects \partial A in a finite set of points, or L is in \partial A. In the first case, let 0=t_0< t_1 < ..., t_n =1 be the partition of [0,1] so that the line segment tp + (1-t)q for t \in (t_i, t_{i+1}) is either in A or in X-\overline{A}. By definition, f(t) is convex in [t_i, t_{i+1}], i.e., f'(t) is increasing in [t_i, t_{i+1}] for i=0,..., n-1. Since f'(t) is continuous in [0,1], this implies that f'(t) is increasing in [0,1], i.e., f(t) is convex in [0,1]. In the second case that L \subset \partial A, we take two sequences of points p_m and q_m converging to p and q respectively in X so that p_m, q_m are not in \partial A. Then by the case just proved, the functions f_m (t) = F( tp_m + (1-t) q_m) are convex in t. Furthermore, f_m converges to f. Thus f is convex.

Corollary

Corollary 2.6

PHDU

Suppose X \subset \bold R^n is an open convex set and A \subset X is an open subset of X bounded by a real analytic codimension-1 submanifold in X. If w=\sum_{i=1}^n a_i(x) dx_i is a continuous closed 1-form on A so that F(x) =\int^x_a w is locally convex on A and each a_i can be extended continuously to X by constant functions to a function \tilde{a_i} on X, then \tilde{F}(x) = \int^x_a \sum_{i=1}^n \tilde{a_i} dx_i is a C^1-smooth convex function on X extending F.

Used by Proof

Theorem

Theorem 3.1

HZIY

(Guo [Guo]) Fix any (I_{12}, I_{23}, I_{31}) \in [0, \infty)^3.

(1) For Euclidean triangles, let u_i=\ln r_i, then the differential 1-form w=\sum_{i=1}^3 \theta_i d u_i is closed in the open subset of \bold R^3 where it is defined. The integral F(u)=\int_0^u w is a locally concave function in u=(u_1, u_2, u_3) and is strictly locally concave in u_1+u_2+u_3=0. Furthermore, if c \in \bold R and F(u) is defined, then F(u+(c,c,c))=F(u).

(2) For hyperbolic triangles, let u_i=\ln (\tanh(r_i/2)), then the differential 1-form w=\sum_{i=1}^3 \theta_i d u_i is closed in the open subset of \bold R_{<0}^3 where it is defined. Furthermore, the integral F(u)=\int_{-(1,1,1)}^u w is a strictly locally concave function in u=(u_1, u_2, u_3).

Proposition

Proposition 3.2

NJW1

Let w be the 1-forms defined in theorem 3.1.

(a) In the case of Euclidean triangles, the 1-form w can be extended to a continuous closed 1-form \tilde{w} on \bold R^3 so that the integration \tilde{F}(u) = \int^u_0 \tilde{w} is a C^1-smooth concave function.

(b) In the case of hyperbolic triangles, the 1-form w can be extended to a continuous closed 1-form \tilde{w} on \bold R_{<0}^3 so that the integration \tilde{F}(u) = \int^u_{-(1,1,1)} \tilde{w} is a C^1-smooth concave function.

Lemma

Lemma 3.3

X95B

Let \bar{U} be the closure of U in \bold R_{>0}^3. Then,

(1) \theta_i is a constant function on each connected component of \bar{ U} - U, and

(2) for each connected component V of \bold R_{>0}^3-U, the intersection V \cap \bar{U} is a connected component of \bar{U} -U.

Proof of Lemma 3.3

By (3.3), the boundary \partial U =\bar{ U} - U is given by \cup_{i=1}^3 \partial_i U where \partial_i U =\{(r_1, r_2, r_3) \in \bold R_{>0}^3 | l_i=l_j+l_k, \{j,k\}=\{1,2,3\}-\{i\} \}. Furthermore, \bold R_{>0}^3 -U =\cup_{i=1}^3 V_i where V_i = \{(r_1, r_2, r_3) \in \bold R_{>0}^3 | l_i \geq l_j+l_k, \{j,k\}=\{1,2,3\}-\{i\} \}.

First, we note that if I_{ij} \leq 1, then \partial_k U = \emptyset and V_k =\emptyset. Indeed, if I_{ij} \leq 1, then by (3.1) and (3.2),

l_k \leq r_i + r_j.

But due to I_{ab} \geq 0, (3.1) and (3.2), r_j < l_i and r_i < l_j. Therefore, l_k < l_i +l_j. This implies that \partial_k U = \emptyset and V_k = \emptyset.

Next \partial_i U \cap \partial_j U = \emptyset and V_i \cap V_j =\emptyset for i \neq j. Indeed, if r \in \partial_i U \cap \partial_j U or r \in V_i \cap V_j, then l_i \geq l_j+l_k and l_j \geq l_i+l_k. Thus l_k=0. But l_k > r_i >0.

We claim that if I_{ij} > 1, then both V_k and \partial_k U are non-empty and connected. Assume the claim, then the lemma follows. Indeed, since l_s>0 for all indices s, it follows, by lemma 2.1, that \theta_i is either 0 or \pi in \partial_s U, i.e., (1) holds. Next, V_s’s are the connected components of \bold R_{>0}^3-U so that V_s \cap \bar{U} = \partial_s U. Thus (2) holds.

To see the claim, it suffices to show that there is a smooth function f(r_i, r_j) defined on \bold R_{>0}^3 so that its graph is \partial_k U and V_k=\{ (r_1, r_2, r_3) \in \bold R_{>0}^3 | 0 < r_3 \leq f(r_1, r_2)\}.

To this end, consider the equation

l_k = l_i + l_j,

and let the right-hand-side of (3.4) be g(r_k, r_i, r_j). We will deal with the Euclidean and hyperbolic geometry separately.

CASE 1 Euclidean triangles. In this case, the function g(r_k,r_i, r_j) is given by

g(r_k, r_i, r_j) = \sqrt{ r_k^2 + r_j^2 + 2I_{kj} r_kr_j }+ \sqrt{ r_i^2 + r_k^2 + 2I_{ik} r_ir_k }

Evidently, for a fixed (r_i, r_j) \in \bold R^2_{>0}, g(r_k, r_i, r_j) is a strictly increasing function of r_k \in \bold R_{>0} so that g(0, r_i, r_j) =r_i+r_j < \sqrt{ r_i^2 + r_j^2 + 2I_{ij} r_ir_j } (due to I_{ij} > 1) and \lim_{ r_k \to \infty} g(r_k, r_i, r_k) = \infty. By the mean-value theorem, there exists a unique positive number f(r_i, r_j) so that g(f(r_i, r_j), r_i, r_j)= \sqrt{ r_i^2 + r_j^2 + 2 r_i r_j I_{ij}} =l_k. The smoothness of f(r_i, r_j) follows from the implicit function theorem applied to (3.4). Indeed,

\frac{\partial g}{\partial r_k} = \frac{ r_k + 2 I_{kj}r_j}{l_i} + \frac{r_k+ 2 I_{ik} r_i}{l_j} >0.

Thus, f(r_i, r_j) is smooth.

This shows \partial_k U is the graph of the smooth function f defined on \bold R_{>0}^2, i.e.,

\partial_k U =\{(r_1, r_2, r_3) \in \bold R_{>0}^3 | r_k = f(r_i, r_j)\}.

Thus it is connected. Since g(r_k,r_i, r_j) is an increasing function of r_k, V_k =\{ r \in R_{>0}^3 | 0<r_k \leq f(r_i, r_j), \{i,j\}=\{1,2,3\}-\{k\} \}. Thus V_k is connected.

CASE 2 hyperbolic triangles. By the same argument as in case 1, it suffices to show the same properties established in case 1 hold for g(r_k, r_i, r_j) given by

\cosh^{-1} ( \cosh(r_i) \cosh(r_k) + I_{ik} \sinh(r_i) \sinh(r_k))+\cosh^{-1} ( \cosh(r_k) \cosh(r_j) + I_{kj} \sinh(r_k) \sinh(r_j)).

Fix (r_i, r_j) \in \bold R^2_{>0}. Then the function g(r_k, r_i, r_j) is clearly strictly increasing in r_k \in \bold R_{>0} so that \lim_{r_k \to \infty} g(r_k, r_i, r_j) =\infty and due to I_{ij} >1,

g(0, r_i,r_j) =r_i + r_j

=\cosh^{-1}( \cosh(r_i+r_j))

= \cosh^{-1}( \cosh(r_i)\cosh(r_j) + \sinh(r_i) \sinh(r_j))

< \cosh^{-1}( \cosh(r_i) \cosh(r_j) + I_{ij} \sinh(r_i) \sinh(r_j)) =l_k.

By the mean value theorem, there exists a unique positive number f(r_i, r_j) so that g(f(r_i, r_j), r_i, r_j)=l_k. The smoothness of f(r_i, r_j) follows form the implicit function theorem that

\frac{\partial g}{\partial r_k} = \frac{ \cosh(r_i)\sinh(r_k) + I_{ik}\sinh(r_i)\cosh(r_k)}{\sqrt{(\cosh(r_i)\cosh(r_k) + I_{ik}\sinh(r_i)\sinh(r_k))^2-1}}

+ \frac{ \cosh(r_j)\sinh(r_k)+ I_{jk}\sinh(r_j)\cosh(r_k)}{\sqrt{(\cosh(r_j)\cosh(r_k)+ I_{jk}\sinh(r_j)\sinh(r_k))^2-1}}

>0.

By the same argument as in case 1, we see that \partial_k U, being the graph of the smooth function f, is connected and V_k, being the region below the positive function f over \bold R^2_{>0}, is also connected.

Uses Definition 2.1

Theorem

Theorem 4.1

SRGL

Suppose \Delta is a triangle in the Euclidean plane \bold E^2, or the hyperbolic plane \bold H^2, or the 2-sphere \bold S^2 so that its edge lengths are l_1, l_2, l_3 and its inner angles are \theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3 where \theta_i’s angle is opposite to the edge of length l_i. Let h \in \bold R and let \Omega be the natural domain for length vectors appeared in lemma 2.2.

For a Euclidean triangle,
w_{ h } = \sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{\int^{\theta_i}_{\pi/2} \sin^{ h }(t) dt}{l_{i}^{h +1}} dl_i
is a closed 1-form on \Omega. The integral \int^u_{-(h,h,h)} w_{ h } is locally convex in variable u=(u_1, u_2, u_3) where u_i=\ln l_i for h=0 and u_i=-\frac{l_i^{-h}}{h} for h \neq 0. Furthermore, \int^u_{-(h,h,h)} w_h is locally strictly convex in hypersurface u_1+u_2+u_3 =0.
For a spherical triangle,
w_{ h } = \sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{\int^{\theta_i}_{\pi/2} \sin^{ h }(t) dt}{\sin^{ h +1}(l_i)} dl_i
is a closed 1-form on \Omega. The integral \int^u_0 w_{ h } is locally strictly convex in u=(u_1, u_2, u_3) where u_i =\int^{l_i}_{\pi/2} \sin^{- h -1}(t) dt.
For a hyperbolic triangle,
w_{ h } = \sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{\int^{\theta_i}_{\pi/2} \sin^{ h }(t) dt}{\sinh^{ h +1}(l_i)} dl_i
is a closed 1-form.
For a hyperbolic triangle,
w_{ h } = \sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{\int^{\frac{1}{2} (\theta_i -\theta_j -\theta_k) }_0 \cos^{ h }(t) dt}{\coth^{ h +1}(l_i/2)} dl_i
is a closed 1-form. The integral \int^u_0 w_{ h } is locally strictly convex in u=(u_1, u_2, u_3) where u_i =\int^{l_i}_{1} \coth^{- h -1}(t/2) dt.

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 4.2

8Y7H

The continuous differential 1-form \tilde{w_h} is closed in J^3.

Proof of Lemma 4.2

By proposition 2.4 where we take X =J^3 and A=\Omega, it suffices to show that \tilde{w_h} is closed in each connected component U of J^3 -\overline{\Omega}. By theorem 4.1 \tilde{w}|_A is closed, the restriction of \tilde{w_h} to U is of the form \sum_{i=1}^3 c_i du_i where u_i = g(l_i) and c_i is a constant. Thus \tilde{w_h}|_U is closed.

Uses Proposition 2.4, Theorem 4.1

Proposition

Proposition 4.3

ZK0C

The pull back 1-form (u^{-1})^* (\tilde{w_h}) on g(J)^3 is a closed 1-form. Furthermore, if F(u) = \int^u w_h is locally convex in u(\Omega) (i.e, in the case (1),(2), (4) of theorem 4.1), then \tilde{F}(u) = \int^u (u^{-1})^* (\tilde{w_h}) is convex in u in g(J)^3.

Proof

52S7

By corollary 2.6 where we take X = g(J)^3 and A= u(\Omega), it suffices to show that u(\Omega) is bounded by a real analytic surface in X and \tilde{F}(u) is convex in u(\Omega) and in each component of g(J)^3 - \overline{u(\Omega)}.

Since \Omega in J^3 is bounded by hyperplanes and u(l) =(g(l_1), g(l_2), g(l_3)) is a real analytic diffeomorphism, it follows that u(\Omega) is bounded by a real analytic surface in g(J)^3.

By the assumption \tilde{F}(u) is convex in u(\Omega). If U is a connected component of g(J)^3 - \overline{u(\Omega)}, then \tilde{F}(u) is linear on U since its partial derivatives are constants on U by the construction. Thus by corollary 2.6, the result follows.

Uses Corollary 2.6

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:1010.3284v1 by Feng Luo, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/1010/1010.3284.jsonl.