How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Squared distance is strictly convex along geodesics in a hadamard manifold
Statement
Assume the inherited Axiom of Countable Choice . Let be a Hadamard manifold: a complete, connected, boundaryless, finite-dimensional Riemannian manifold that is simply connected and whose sectional curvature satisfies at every tangent two-plane (Sectional curvature). Fix a point and put Then:
- is smooth on all of , its covariant Hessian is a smooth symmetric two-tensor field, and the operator inequality holds, meaning for every and every . At the base point there is equality: .
- For every nonconstant affinely parametrized geodesic — that is, on the open interval — the function is strictly convex in the sense of Convex and strictly convex functions on Euclidean convex sets: for with and every ,
Constant geodesics are excluded from assertion 2, and are the only excluded case: for a constant the restricted function is constant, so it is convex but not strictly convex. Affine parametrization is essential; the assertion need not survive reparametrization. The manifold is not assumed to be noncompact or of dimension : the case is covered by a separate computation inside the proof, and for there is no nonconstant geodesic and assertion 2 is vacuous. The only choice used is the inherited ; no completeness hypothesis is added beyond the one already contained in the word Hadamard.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The inherited of [A1]; a Hadamard manifold ; a point ; the function with ; and a nonconstant affinely parametrized geodesic .
The countable-choice premise is the inherited (The Axiom of Countable Choice ()), carried by the Hopf–Rinow, exponential, cut-locus and geodesic-existence suppliers quoted below; no further selection is made.
Cartan–Hadamard (Cartan hadamard): since is complete, connected, simply connected and has , for every point the exponential map is a diffeomorphism. In particular is bijective and smooth with smooth inverse.
Unique minimizing segments (Simply connected complete nonpositively curved manifolds have unique geodesics between points): every two points are joined by exactly one affinely parametrized geodesic segment sending to and to ; that segment minimizes length and equals its length. Consequently, for every , the affinely parametrized geodesic segment is the unique such segment from to and is minimizing, so where .
No conjugate points under (No conjugate points under nonpositive sectional curvature): no unit-speed geodesic of contains a pair of conjugate points; equivalently, there is no nonzero Jacobi field along a geodesic vanishing at two distinct parameters.
Characterization of cut points (Characterization of a cut point): for with finite cut time , either and are conjugate along the segment, or two distinct minimizing unit-speed geodesics join to . Hence, if neither alternative can occur, the cut time is .
Gradient of distance (Gradient of the distance is the outward unit radial field off the base point and the cut locus): for one has , a unit vector; along the minimizing radial segment the gradient of the distance is the outward unit radial field.
Hessian comparison in the nonpositive direction (Hessian comparison for distance under sectional curvature bounds): let , put , let be the minimizing unit-speed geodesic from to and . Then (a) at , and (b) if for every and every , then for all . Here the sectional curvature of satisfies , so the hypothesis of (b) holds with , where .
Covariant Hessian (Gradient hessian and divergence connection formulas, The riemannian hessian is symmetric, Levi civita connection): for smooth the Hessian is a smooth two-tensor field and is symmetric, , and the Levi–Civita connection is metric compatible, .
Constant speed (Geodesics have constant speed for a metric-compatible connection): along a geodesic of the Levi–Civita connection the speed is constant, so for a nonconstant geodesic is a positive constant independent of .
Strict convexity of quadratic functions (Convex and strictly convex functions on Euclidean convex sets, A twice-differentiable function on an open interval is convex if and only if its second derivative is nonnegative): a twice-differentiable function on an open interval with is convex; and for the function is strictly convex, because for and ,
Proof
The distance formula and the absence of cut points. By [F2], for every the segment , , is the unique affinely parametrized geodesic segment from to , and it minimizes; hence . Suppose now that has finite cut time . By [F4] either and are conjugate along , which [F3] forbids, or two distinct minimizing unit-speed geodesics join to , which contradicts the uniqueness in [F2] (a minimizing unit-speed geodesic on reparametrized affinely to is an affinely parametrized geodesic segment from to the same point, and there is exactly one). Both alternatives are impossible, so for every unit : the cut locus of is empty, and for every .
The product rule for a squared smooth function. Let be smooth near a point and set . Then , so for vector fields , i.e. both sides being smooth and symmetric by [F7].
The second derivative of a smooth function along a geodesic. Let be smooth and let be a geodesic with . Then and differentiating again with metric compatibility and gives The identity is local in the parameter and holds at every time of .
Smoothness of and its Hessian at the base point. By step 1.1, for every , a smooth quadratic form on the vector space ; since is a diffeomorphism by [F1], is smooth on . For the curve is an affinely parametrized geodesic, so step 1.1 and step 1.3 give As is symmetric ([F7]), the polarization identity recovers all mixed values, so .
The lower bound off the base point, in dimension . Fix and let . By step 1.1 the cut locus of is empty, so : is smooth near , and is the terminal velocity of the minimizing geodesic from to ([F5]). By step 1.2 applied to , Write an arbitrary as with and . By F6 , so Since everywhere, the hypothesis of F6 holds with along the minimizing geodesic from to , and F6 yields . Therefore using that is a -orthogonal decomposition.
The lower bound in dimension . If then at every the tangent space is spanned by the unit vector , so and the bound holds with both sides equal to ; the gradient is a unit geodesic field by [F5], so and by [F7]. Hence, by step 1.2, off , and the computation of step 2.2 applies verbatim without invoking the dimension- comparison bound.
The bound on all of . Off the pointwise inequality was proved in step 2.2 for and in step 2.3 for , and at the equality of step 2.1 gives the bound as well. In dimension zero is a point and the tensor inequality is vacuous. In positive dimension the inequality was checked on a decomposition spanning each tangent space, so holds on .
The second-derivative bound along a geodesic. For the nonconstant affinely parametrized geodesic , put . By step 1.3, where is a positive constant by [F8]. In particular is twice differentiable on the open interval with everywhere.
Strict convexity. Define on . Then , so is convex by [F9]; and is strictly convex by [F9], since . For distinct and , put and ; convexity of and strict convexity of give, one of the two summed inequalities being strict, the strict inequality because in [F9]. Multiplying by , the function is strictly convex on , as claimed. A constant geodesic has and constant, so no strict convexity can be asserted there; this is the only case excluded, and the affine parametrization was used only to identify as a positive constant in step 4.1. The proof selects no object of its own: the geodesics and the minimizing segments it uses are those supplied one pair at a time by the cited consequences of completeness, and the inherited of [A1] is consumed exactly through them.
Source locator
Datar §20.1 (printed pp.147–149) contains the Hessian of the squared distance and §24.3 (printed pp.178–179) the Cartan–Hadamard consequences; the proof above realizes the route through the in-run Hessian comparison (Hessian comparison for distance under sectional curvature bounds) in the direction , whose model cotangent is . Eschenburg §5 (printed pp.17–19) uses the same Cartan–Hadamard setup; the pointwise inequality and the resulting strict convexity along nonconstant geodesics are the standard convexity theorem for Hadamard manifolds. The cut-locus emptiness in step 1.1 is proved inside the item from the in-run characterization of cut points and the uniqueness of minimizing segments.
Depends on
- Cartan hadamard
- Simply connected complete nonpositively curved manifolds have unique geodesics between points
- No conjugate points under nonpositive sectional curvature
- Characterization of a cut point
- Hessian comparison for distance under sectional curvature bounds
- Gradient of the distance is the outward unit radial field off the base point and the cut locus
- Gradient hessian and divergence connection formulas
- The riemannian hessian is symmetric
- Levi civita connection
- Geodesics have constant speed for a metric-compatible connection
- Convex and strictly convex functions on Euclidean convex sets
- A twice-differentiable function on an open interval is convex if and only if its second derivative is nonnegative
- Sectional curvature
- The Axiom of Countable Choice ($\mathrm{AC}_\omega$)
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
102 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Ved Datar, Lectures on Riemannian Geometry (2025) (standard reference, not scraped)
- J.-H. Eschenburg, Comparison Theorems in Riemannian Geometry (standard reference, not scraped)