text:
# SEARCHING FOR SPACE-TIME ASYMMETRIES IN PARTICLE PRODUCTION

## 1 Introduction

The correlations of particles at small relative velocities are widely used to study space-time characteristics of the production processes. Particularly, for non-interacting identical particles, like photons, this technique is called intensity or particle interferometry. In this case the correlations appear solely due to the effect of quantum statistics (QS).$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ Similar effect was first used in astronomy to measure the angular radii of stars by studying the dependence of the two-photon coincidence rate on the distance between the detectors (HBT effect $`^\mathrm{?}`$). In particle physics the QS interference was first observed as an enhanced production of the pairs of identical pions with small opening angles (GGLP effect $`^\mathrm{?}`$). Later on, similar to astronomy, Kopylov and Podgoretsky $`^\mathrm{?}`$ suggested to study the interference effect in terms of the correlation function.aaaNote that though both the KP and HBT methods are based on the QS interference, they represent just orthogonal measurements.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ The former, being the momentum-energy measurement, yields the space-time picture of the source, while the latter does the opposite. In particular, the HBT method provides the information about the angular size of a star but, of course, - no information about the star radius or its lifetime.

The effect of QS is usually considered in the limit of a low phase-space density such that the possible multi-particle effects can be neglected. This approximation seems to be justified by present experimental data which does not point to any spectacular multi-boson effects neither in single-boson spectra nor in two-boson correlations. These effects can be however of some importance for realistic simulations of heavy ion collisions.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ They can also clearly manifest themselves in some rare events (e.g., those with large pion multiplicities) or in the eventually overpopulated regions of momentum space (see, e.g.,$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and references therein).bbb It was shown,$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ using the analytically solvable model with the Gaussian distribution of the emission points characterized by the dispersions $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ and $`r_0^2`$ in the momentum and ordinary space respectively, that a pion condensate of a small momentum dispersion of $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }/2r_0\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ gradually develops with the increasing phase-space density.

The particle correlations are also influenced by the effect of particle interaction in the final state (FSI).$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ Thus the effect of the Coulomb interaction dominates the correlations of charged particles at very small relative momenta (of the order of the inverse Bohr radius of the two-particle system), respectively suppressing or enhancing the production of particles with like or unlike charges. Regarding the effect of the strong FSI, it is quite small for pions, while for nucleons it is often a dominant one due to the very large magnitude of the s-wave singlet scattering length of about 20 fm.

Though the FSI effect complicates the correlation analysis, it is an important source of information allowing one to measure the space-time characteristics of the production process even with the help of non-identical particles.$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ Moreover, the unlike particle correlations, contrary to those of identical particles, are sensitive to the relative space-time asymmetries in their production, e.g. \- to the relative time delays, thus giving an important complementary information not accessible to the standard interferometry measurements.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ In the following we will briefly formulate the theory of these correlations and demonstrate the possibilities of the corresponding correlation technique.

## 2 Formalism

As usual, we will assume sufficiently small phase-space density of the produced multi-particle system, such that the correlation of two particles emitted with a small relative velocity in nearby space-time points is influenced by the effects of their mutual QS and FSI only.ccc This assumption may be not valid in the case of low energy heavy ion reactions when the particles are produced in a strong Coulomb field of residual nuclei. To deal with this field a quantum $`adiabatic`$ approach can be used.$`^\mathrm{?}`$  We define the ideal two-particle correlation function $`R(p_1,p_2)`$ as a ratio of the differential two-particle production cross section to the reference one which would be observed in the absence of the effects of QS and FSI. In heavy ion or high energy hadronic collisions we can neglect kinematic constraints and most of the dynamical correlations and construct the reference distribution by mixing the particles from different events.

Assuming the momentum dependence of the one-particle emission probabilities inessential when varying the particle 4-momenta $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ by the amount characteristic for the correlation due to QS and FSI (smoothness assumption), i.e. assuming that the components of the mean space-time distance between particle emitters are much larger than those of the space-time extent of the emitters, we get the well-known result of Kopylov and Podgoretsky for identical particles, modified by the substitution of the plane wave $`e^{ip_1x_1+ip_2x_2}`$ by the nonsymmetrized Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes in the continuous spectrum of the two-particle states $`\psi _{p_1p_2}^{S(+)}(x_1,x_2)`$, where $`x_i=\{t_i,𝐫_i\}`$ are the 4-coordinates of the emission points of the two particles and $`S`$ is their total spin.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ At equal emission times in the two-particle c.m.s. ($`t^{}=t_1^{}t_2^{}=0`$) this amplitude coincides (up to an unimportant phase factor due to the c.m.s. motion) with a stationary solution of the scattering problem $`\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})`$, where $`𝐤^{}=𝐩_1^{}=𝐩_2^{}`$ and $`𝐫^{}=𝐫_1^{}𝐫_2^{}`$ (the minus sign of the vector $`𝐤^{}`$ corresponds to the reverse in time direction of the emission process). The Bethe-Salpeter amplitude can be usually substituted by this solution (equal time approximation).dddThe equal time approximation is valid on condition $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`|t^{}|m_{2,1}r^2`$ for $`\mathrm{sign}(t^{})=\pm 1`$ respectively. This condition is usually satisfied for heavy particles like kaons or nucleons. But even for pions, the $`t^{}=0`$ approximation merely leads to a slight overestimation (typically $`<5\%`$) of the strong FSI effect and, it doesn’t influence the leading zero–distance ($`r^{}|a|`$) effect of the Coulomb FSI. Then, for nonidentical particles,

$$R(p_1,p_2)=\underset{S}{}\rho _S|\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})|^2_S.$$
(1)
Here the averaging is done over the emission points of the two particles in a state with total spin $`S`$ populated with the probability $`\rho _S`$, $`_S\rho _S=1`$.eee For unpolarized particles with spins $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ the probability $`\rho _S=(2S+1)/[(2s_1+1)(2s_2+1)]`$. Generally, the correlation function is sensitive to particle polarization. For example, if two spin-1/2 particles are emitted with polarizations $`𝐏_1`$ and $`𝐏_2`$ then $`^\mathrm{?}`$ $`\rho _0=(1𝐏_1𝐏_2)/4`$ and $`\rho _1=(3+𝐏_1𝐏_2)/4`$.  For identical particles, the amplitude in Eq. (1) should be properly symmetrized:

$$\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})[\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})+(1)^S\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})]/\sqrt{2}.$$
(2)
## 3 Measuring the relative space-time asymmetries

The correlation function of two nonidentical particles, compared with the identical ones, contains a principally new piece of information on the relative space-time asymmetries in particle emission.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ This is clearly seen in the case of neutral particles when the two-particle amplitude $`\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})`$ takes on the form

$$\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})=e^{i𝐤^{}𝐫^{}}+\varphi _k^{}^S(r^{}),$$
(3)
where the scattered wave $`\varphi _k^{}^S(r^{})`$, in the considered region of small relative momenta, is independent of the directions of the vectors $`𝐤^{}`$ and $`𝐫^{}`$. Inserting Eq. (3) into the formula (1) for the correlation function, we can see that the latter is sensitive to the relative space-time asymmetry due to the odd term $`\mathrm{sin}𝐤^{}𝐫^{}`$. Particularly, it allows for a measurement of the mean relative delays $`tt_1t_2`$ in particle emission. To see this, let us make the Lorentz transformation from the rest frame of the source to the c.m.s. of the two particles: $`r_L^{}=\gamma (r_Lvt)`$, $`r_T^{}=r_T`$. Considering, for simplicity, the behavior of the vector $`𝐫^{}`$ in the limit $`|vt|r`$, we see that this vector is only slightly affected by averaging over the spatial distance $`r|vt|`$ of the emission points in the rest frame of the source so that $`𝐫^{}\gamma 𝐯t`$. Therefore, the vector $`𝐫^{}`$ is nearly parallel or antiparallel to the velocity vector $`𝐯`$ of the pair, depending on the sign of the time difference $`t\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_1t_2`$. The sensitivity to this sign is transferred to the correlation function through the odd in $`𝐤^{}𝐫^{}\gamma 𝐤^{}𝐯t`$ term provided the sign of the scalar product $`𝐤^{}𝐯`$ is fixed.

For charged particles there arise additional odd terms due to the confluent hypergeometrical function $`F(\alpha ,1,z)=1+\alpha z/1!^2+\alpha (\alpha +1)z^2/2!^2+\mathrm{}`$, modifying the plane wave in Eq. (3):

$$\psi _𝐤^{}^{S(+)}(𝐫^{})=\mathrm{e}^{i\delta }\sqrt{A_c(\eta )}\left[\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤^{}𝐫^{}}F(i\eta ,1,i\rho )+\varphi _{ck^{}}^S(r^{})\right],$$
(4)
where $`\rho =𝐤^{}𝐫^{}+\mathrm{k}^{}r^{}`$, $`\eta =(k^{}a)^1`$, $`a=(\mu z_1z_2e^2)^1`$ is the Bohr radius of the two-particle system taking into account the sign of the interaction ($`z_ie`$ are the particle electric charges, $`\mu `$ is their reduced mass), $`\delta =\text{arg}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+i\eta )`$ is the Coulomb s-wave shift and $`A_c(\eta )=2\pi \eta /[\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \eta )1]`$ is the Coulomb penetration factor.fffThis factor substantially deviates from unity only at $`k^{}<2\pi /|a|`$ (e.g., at $`k^{}<22`$ MeV/c for two protons). Note that for the distances $`r^{}>|a|`$ the confluent hypergeometrical function becomes important and compensates the deviation of the Coulomb factor from unity except for the classically forbidden region of $`k^{}<(|a|r^{}/2)^{1/2}`$, narrowing with the increasing $`r^{}`$. Thus the FSI practically vanishes if at least one of the two particles comes from a long lived source ($`\eta ,\eta ^{},\mathrm{\Lambda },K_s^0,\mathrm{}`$).  Clearly, at a given distance $`r^{}`$, the effect of the odd component in the Coulomb wave function is of increasing importance with a decreasing Bohr radius of the particle pair, i.e. for particles of greater masses or electric charges. At low energies, the sensitivity of the correlation to the odd component can be somewhat modified due to Coulomb interaction with the residual charge.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

It is clear that in the case of a dominant time asymmetry, $`v|t||r_L|`$, a straightforward way to determine the mean time delay $`t`$ is to measure the correlation functions $`R_+(𝐤^{}𝐯0)`$ and $`R_{}(𝐤^{}𝐯<0)`$. Depending on the sign of $`t`$, their ratio $`R_+/R_{}`$ should show a peak or a dip in the region of small $`k^{}`$ and approach 1 at large values of $`k^{}`$. As the sign of the scalar product $`𝐤^{}𝐯`$ is practically equal to that of the difference of particle velocities $`v_1v_2`$ (this equality is always valid for particles of equal masses), the sensitivity of the correlation functions $`R_+`$ and $`R_{}`$ to the sign of the difference of particle emission times has a simple classical explanation. Clearly, the interaction between the particles in the case of an earlier emission of the faster particle will be weaker compared with the case of its later emission (the interaction time being longer in the latter case leading to a stronger correlation). This expectation is in accordance with Eqs. (1) and (4) at $`k^{}0`$, $`r^{}|a|`$ and $`|\varphi _{ck^{}}^S(r^{})|1`$, when (the arrow indicates the limit $`v|t||r_L|`$):

$$R_+/R_{}1+2\frac{r_L^{}}{a}12\frac{\gamma v(t_1t_2)}{a}.$$
(5)
The sensitivity of the $`R_+/R_{}`$ correlation method to the mean relative time shifts (introduced ad hoc) was studied$`^\mathrm{?}`$ for various two-particle systems simulated in $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions at SPS energy using the event generator VENUS 5.14.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ The scaling of the effect with the space-time asymmetry and with the inverse Bohr radius $`a`$, indicated by Eq. (5), was clearly illustrated for the $`K^+K^{}`$ system ($`a=110`$ fm) and for the like- and unlike-sign $`\pi K`$, $`\pi p`$ and $`Kp`$ systems ($`a=\pm 249`$, $`\pm 226`$ and $`\pm 84`$ fm respectively). It was concluded that for sufficiently relativistic pairs ($`\gamma v>0.5`$) the $`R_+/R_{}`$ ratio can be sensitive to the shifts in the particle emission times of the order of a few fm/c. Motivated by this result the $`R_+/R_{}`$ method was recently applied to the $`K^+K^{}`$ system simulated in a two-phase thermodynamical evolution model and the sensitivity was demonstrated to the production of the transient strange quark matter state even if it decays on strong interaction time scales.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

The method sensitivity was also studied for AGS and SPS energies using the transport code RQMD v2.3.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ Thus at SPS energy the central $`Pb+Pb`$ collisions have been simulated and the $`\pi ^+K^+`$, $`\pi ^+p`$ and $`K^+p`$ correlations have been studied.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ To get rid of the effect of a fast longitudinal motion, the study was done in the longitudinally co-moving system (LCMS) in which the pair is emitted transverse to the reaction axis so that $`v=v_{}`$, $`r_L=\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}=\gamma _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }xv_{}\mathrm{\Delta }t),\mathrm{\Delta }y^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }y,\mathrm{\Delta }z^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }z.$$
(6)
The simulated correlation functions $`R_+`$, $`R_{}`$ and their ratios are plotted in Fig. 1. We can see that for $`\pi ^+p`$ and $`\pi ^+K^+`$ systems these ratios are less than unity at small values of $`qk^{}`$, while for $`K^+p`$ system the ratio $`R_+/R_{}`$ practically coincides with unity. These results well agree with the mean values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}`$ presented in Table 1 ($`\mathrm{\Delta }y\mathrm{\Delta }z0`$). It can be seen from Eqs. (5) and (6) that the absence of the effect in the $`R_+/R_{}`$ ratio for the $`K^+p`$ system is due to practically the complete compensation of the space and time asymmetries leading to $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}0`$. For $`\pi ^+p`$ system the effect is determined mainly by the x-asymmetry. For $`\pi ^+K^+`$ system both the x- and time-asymmetries contribute in the same direction, the latter contribution being somewhat larger. The separation of the relative time delays from the spatial asymmetry is, in principle, possible (see Eq. (6)) by studying the ratio $`R_+/R_{}`$ in different intervals of the pair velocity.

At AGS energy the $`Au+Au`$ collisions have been simulated and the $`\pi ^+p`$ correlations have been studied in the projectile fragmentation region where proton directed flow is most pronounced and where the proton and pion sources are expected to be shifted relative to each other both in the longitudinal and in the transverse (flow) directions in the reaction plane. It was demonstrated that a modification of the $`R_+/R_{}`$ method ($`\pm `$ corresponding now to the signs of the respective components $`k_i^{}`$) is sufficiently sensitive to reveal these shifts.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

At low energies, the particles in heavy ion collisions are emitted with the characteristic emission times of tens to hundreds fm/c so that the observable time shifts should be of the same order.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ In fact the $`R_+/R_{}`$ method has already been successfully applied to study proton-deuteron correlations in several heavy ion experiments at GANIL.$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ It was observed, in agreement with the coalescence model, that deuterons are on average emitted earlier than protons.

## 4 Conclusion

We have shown that unlike particle correlations, compared with those of identical particles, contain a principally new piece of information on the relative space-time asymmetries in particle emission, thus allowing, in particular, a measurement of the mean relative delays in particle emission at time scales as small as $`10^{23}`$ s. To determine these asymmetries, the unlike particle correlation functions $`R_+`$ and $`R_{}`$ have to be studied separately for positive and negative values of the projection of the relative momentum vector in pair c.m.s. on the pair velocity vector or, generally, - on any direction of interest. We have presented here the results of recent studies of these correlation functions for a number of two-particle systems simulated with various event generators. It was shown that the $`R_+/R_{}`$ ratio is sufficiently sensitive to the relative space-time asymmetries arising due to the formation of the quark-gluon plasma and strangeness distillation and even to those expected in the usual dynamical scenarios at AGS and SPS energies. As to the detection of the unlike particles with close velocities ($`p_1/m_1p_2/m_2`$), there is no problem with the two-track resolution since these particles, having either different momenta or different charge-to mass ratios, have well separated trajectories in the detector magnetic field. For the same reason, however, a large momentum acceptance of the detector is required.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by GA AV Czech Republic, Grant No. A1010601 and by GA Czech Republic, Grant No. 202/98/1283.

## References


format: text

text:
# Some results on infinite dimensional Riemannian geometry

## 1. Introduction

In infinite dimensional geometry, the most of the local results follow from general arguments analogous to those in the finite dimensional case (see  or ). The investigate of global properties is quite hard as finite dimensional case and the theorem of Hopf-Rinow is generic satisfy on complete Hilbert manifolds (see ). Moreover, the exponential map may not be surjective also when the manifold is a complete Hilbert manifold. In section 1 we briefly discuss the relationship between completeness and geodesically completeness (at some point) and we note that this facts are equivalent either when a manifold has constant sectional curvature or no positive sectional curvature. We conclude this section to prove that a group of bijective isometry coincide with the set of the maps that preserve the distance.

The fundamental tools to studying the geometry and topology of the finite dimensional manifolds are the Rauch and Berger theorems. These theorems allow us to understand the distribution of conjugate and focal points along geodesic and the geometry of the complete Hilbert manifolds with bounded sectional curvature. We recall briefly the notion of focal point: let $`N`$ be a submanifold of a riemannian manifold $`M.`$ The exponential map of $`M`$ is defined on an open subset $`WTM`$ and we restrict its on $`WT^{}N,`$ that we will denote by $`\mathrm{Exp}^{}.`$ A focal point is a singularity of $`\mathrm{Exp}^{}:WT^{}NM.`$ In the infinite dimensional manifolds two species of singularity can be appear: when the differential of $`\mathrm{Exp}^{}`$ fails to be injective (monofocal) or when the differential of $`\mathrm{Exp}^{}`$ fails to be surjective (epifocal). Clearly, when $`N=p`$ we have exactly the notion of conjugate points. In section $`2`$, we shall study the singularity of the exponential map of differential point of view, as in , and we shall prove that always monofocal point implies epifocal but not conversely and the distribution of epifocal points and monofocal points can have cluster points. Moreover we will deduce a weak form of the Rauch theorem.

In section $`4`$ we prove the fundamental tool to prove the main results: the Focal Index lemma. Firstly, we will prove the same version of the finite dimensional theory; then we note that we shall prove its in the case when we have only a finite number of epifocal points which are not monofocal (pathological points). Using the above results we will prove the Rauch and Berger theorems in infinite dimensional geometry, when we have at most a finite number of pathological points along a finite geodesic. The main applications will appear in the last section and the main result is the Topogonov Theorem in the class of the complete Hilbert manifolds on which the Hopf-Rinow theorem holds. The prove is almost the same as in  because Rauch, Berger and Hopf-Rinow theorems hold. Moreover, we shall prove the Maximal Diameter Theorem. and two version of sphere theorems, with the strong assumption on injectivity radius, with pinching $`\frac{3}{4}`$ and $`\frac{4}{9},`$ in the class of Hopf-Rinow manifolds. Other simple applications are two results like Berger-Topogonov theorem, one using Rauch Theorem and one using Topogonov Theorem, and a results about the image of the exponential map of a complete manifold with upper bounded sectional curvature. Some basic references for infinite dimensional geometry are  and .

## 2. Preliminaries

In this section we give some general results of infinite dimensional Riemannian geometry and we briefly discuss some of the differences from the finite dimensional case. We begin recalling some basic facts and establishing our notation.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be an Hilbert manifold modeled on a infinite dimensional Hilbert space $`.`$ Throughout this paper we shall assume that $`M`$ is a connected, paracompact and Hausdorff space. Any tangent space $`T_pM`$ has a scalar product $`g(p),`$ depending smoothly on $`p,`$ and defining on $`T_pM`$ a norm equivalent to the original norm on $`.`$ Using $`g,`$ we can define the length of piecewise differential curve and it easy to check that for any two points of $`M`$ there exists a piecewise differential curve joining them . Hence, we can introduce a metric $`d,`$ defining $`d(x,y)`$ the infimum of the lengths of all differential paths joining $`x,y`$ and one can prove that $`(M,d)`$ is a metric space (see  ) and $`d`$ induces the same topology of $`M.`$ As in the finite dimensional case, $`M`$ admits a unique Levi Civita connection $``$ (see ) defined by the Koszul’s formula. We recall that the criterion of tensoriality in infinite dimensional geometry doesn’t hold (see ) so we must deduce all properties of $``$ by its local expression.

Let $`c:[a,b]M`$ be a smooth curve. For any $`vT_{c(a)}M`$ there exists a unique vector field $`V(t)`$ along $`c`$ such that $`_{\dot{c}(t)}V(t)=0.`$ Moreover, the Levi Civita connection satisfies $`_XY(p)=\frac{d}{dt}_{t=0}\tau _t^0(Y),`$ where $`\tau _t^0`$ is a parallel transport along any curve $`\gamma `$ such that $`\gamma (0)=p`$ and $`\dot{\gamma }(0)=X(p).`$

A geodesic in $`M`$ is a smooth curve $`\gamma `$ which satisfies $`_{\dot{\gamma }}\dot{\gamma }=0.`$ Using the theorems of existence, uniqueness and smooth dependence on the initial data, we may prove the existence, at any point $`p,`$ of the exponential map $`\mathrm{exp}_p,`$ that is defined in a neighborhood of the origin in $`T_pM`$ by setting $`\mathrm{exp}_p(v)=\gamma (1),`$ where $`\gamma `$ is the geodesic in $`M`$ such that $`\gamma (0)=p`$ and $`\dot{\gamma }(0)=v.`$ This map is smooth and is a local diffeomorphism, $`d(\mathrm{exp}_p)_0=id,`$ in a neighborhood of the origin in $`T_pM`$ by the inverse function theorem. Moreover, there exists an open neighborhood $`W`$ of $`\{0_pT_pM:pM\}`$ in the tangent bundle $`TM,`$ such that the application $`\mathrm{exp}(X_p)=\mathrm{exp}_p(X)`$ is defined and differentiable.

Generally, the local theory works as in finite dimensional geometry and results as the Gauss lemma and existence of convex neighborhoods hold in infinite dimensional Riemannian geometry and the curvature tensor is defined as follows: let $`x,y,zT_pM,`$ we extend them to vector fields $`X,Y,Z`$ and define $`R(x,y)z=_X_YZ_Y_XZ_{[X,Y]}Z.`$ It is easy to check that $`R`$ doesn’t depend on the extension and it is antisymmetric in $`x,y`$ and satisfies the first Bianchi identity $`R(x,y)z+R(z,x)y+R(y,z)x=0.`$ Given any plane $`\sigma `$ in $`T_pM`$ and let $`v,w\sigma `$ be linearly independent. We define the sectional curvature $`K(\sigma )`$ to be

$$\frac{g(R(v,w)w,v)}{g(v,v)g(w,w)g(v,w)^2}.$$

It is easy to check that $`K`$ doesn’t depends on the choice of the spanning vectors and the curvature tensor $`R`$ is completely determined by the sectional curvature. Moreover, as in the finite dimensional case, we shall prove the Cartan theorem, see  page 114, in which the existence of a local isometry is characterized by a certain property of the tensor curvature.

The global theory on Hilbert manifolds is more difficult: for example the Hopf-Rinow theorem fails. We recall that a Hilbert manifold is called complete if $`(M,d)`$ is complete as a metric space. On the other hand, we say that a manifold $`M`$ is geodesically complete at a point $`p`$ if the exponential map is defined in $`T_pM`$ and $`M`$ is geodesically complete if it is geodesically complete for all point $`qM.`$ It is easy to check the following implication:

$`M`$ complete $``$ $`M`$ is geodesically complete $``$ $`M`$ is geodesically complete at some point.

If $`M`$ is a finite dimensional manifold, the above sentences are equivalent, thanks to the Hopf-Rinow theorem. Grossman, see  constructs a simply connected complete Hilbert manifold on which there exist two points which cannot be connected with a minimal geodesic but the exponential map is surjective. On the other hand Ekeland () proved that the Hopf-Rinow theorem is generically satisfied, i.e. if one takes a point $`pM,`$ in a complete Hilbert manifold $`M,`$ the set of points $`qM`$ such that there exists a unique minimal geodesic joining $`p`$ and $`q`$ is a $`G_\delta `$ set and in particular it is a dense subset of $`M.`$ The Hopf-Rinow theorem implies also that the exponential map must be surjective on complete finite dimensional Riemannian manifolds. Atkin (see ) showed that there exists a complete Hilbert manifold $`M`$ on which, at some point $`pM,`$ $`\mathrm{exp}_p(T_pM)`$ is not surjective. Let $`qM(\mathrm{exp}_p(T_pM)).`$ Then $`M\{q\}`$ is not complete as metric space, but, clearly, is geodesically complete at $`p.`$ In particular: in infinite dimensional Riemannian geometry, geodesically complete at some point doesn’t imply completeness. Moreover, Atkin (see ) constructed some infinite dimensional Hilbert manifolds in which the induced metric is incomplete, but geodesically complete and any two point may be joined by minimizing geodesic. The above discussion justify the following definition.

###### Definition 1.

A complete Hilbert manifold $`M`$ is called Hopf-Rinow if for every $`p,qM`$ there exists at least a minimal geodesic joining $`p`$ and $`q.`$

In  Elíason showed that the Sobolev manifolds, i.e. the spaces of the Sobolev sections of a vector bundle on a compact manifold, are Hopf-Rinow. Other class of manifolds which are Hopf-Rinow are the simply connected complete Hilbert manifolds such that their sectional curvature is non positive; indeed the Cartan-Hadamard theorem holds, see  and . Furthermore, see , we may prove that an Hilbert manifold $`M`$ with non positive sectional curvature is a complete Hilbert manifold if and only if $`M`$ is geodesically complete at some point. It is easy to check that the same holds for a manifolds with constant sectional curvature: indeed, using the same arguments used in the classification of the simply connected complete Hilbert manifolds with constant sectional curvature, we may prove our claim.

The Bonnet theorem was proved by Anderson, see ; however we cannot conclude any information about fundamental group since we may prove, see , that there exist infinite groups acting isometrically and properly discontinuously on the infinite unit sphere. In particular, Weinstein theorem fails: the following example gives an isometry of the unit sphere of a separable Hilbert space $`S(l_2)`$ without fixed points, such that $`inf\{d(x,f(x)):xS(l_2)\}=0.`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}f(_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}x_ie_i)\hfill & =& _{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{i})x_{2i1}+\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{i})x_{2i})e_{2i1}\hfill \\ & +& _{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{i})x_{2i})\mathrm{sin}(\frac{1}{i})x_{2i1})e_{2i}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We conclude this section proving that the group of bijective isometry coincide with the set of applications that preserve the distance.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`F:(M,g)(N,h)`$ be a surjective map. Then $`F`$ is an isometry if and only if $`F`$ preserves the distance, i.e. if and only if $`d(F(x),F(y))=d(x,y).`$

The same proof of the finite dimensional case holds, () once we prove the following result

$$\underset{s0}{lim}\frac{d(\mathrm{exp}_p(sX),\mathrm{exp}_p(sY)}{sXsY}=1.$$

Proof:  let $`r>0`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}_p:B_r(0_p)_r(p),`$ between the balls with their respectively metrics, is a onto diffeomorphism. Now recall that $`d(\mathrm{exp}_p)_0=id,`$ hence there exists $`ϵ>0`$ and $`0<\eta r`$ such that

$$1ϵd(\mathrm{exp}_p)_q1+ϵ,$$

for every $`qB_\eta (0_p)`$. Let $`m,a_{\frac{\eta }{4}}(p)`$. By assumption, we shall calculate the distance from $`m`$ to $`a,`$ restricting ourself to the curve $`c`$ on $`_\eta (p)`$. Then $`c(t)=\mathrm{exp}_p(\xi (t))`$ and

$$(1ϵ)_0^1\dot{\xi }(t)_p𝑑t_0^1\dot{c}(t)𝑑t(1+ϵ)_0^1\dot{\xi }(t)_p𝑑t.$$

That is: for every $`ϵ>0`$ there exists $`s_o=\frac{\eta }{4}`$ such that, for every $`s<s_o`$ we have

$$\left(1ϵ\right)\left(sXsY_p\right)d(\mathrm{exp}_p\left(sX\right),\mathrm{exp}_p\left(sY\right))\left(1+ϵ\right)\left(sXsY\right),$$

that implies our result. QED

## 3. Jacobi Flow

The linearized version of the geodesic equation is the famous Jacobi equation. In this section, we shall study the Jacobi field from the differential point of view getting some informations of the distribution of singular points of exponential map. Throughout this section, all estimates are formulated in terms of unit speed geodesics because one can easily reparametrize: if $`J`$ is a Jacobi fields along $`c,`$ then

$`J_r(t)=J(rt)`$ is a Jacobi field along $`c_r(t)=c(rt)`$;

with $`J_r(0)=J(0)`$ and $`J_{}^{}{}_{r}{}^{}(0)=rJ^{}(0),c_{}^{}{}_{r}{}^{}(0)=rc^{}(0)`$

###### Definition 3.

Let $`c:[0.a]M`$ be a geodesic. A vector field along $`c`$ is called Jacobi field if it satisfies the Jacobi differential equation

$$_\frac{}{t}_\frac{}{t}J(t)+R(J(t),\dot{c}(t))\dot{c}(t)=0,$$

where $`_\frac{}{t}`$ denotes the covariant derivation along $`c.`$

The Jacobi equation is a second order differential equation and, by theorems of differential equation in Banach space, see , the solutions are defined in the whole domain of definition and the set of Jacobi fields along $`c`$ is a vector space isomorphic to $`T_{c(0)}M\times T_{c(0)}M`$ under the map $`J(J(0),_\frac{}{t}J(0)).`$ We recall also that the Jacobi fields are characterized as infinitesimal variation of $`c`$ by geodesic. We first give a lemma due to Ambrose (see  page 243).

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`c:[0,a]M`$ be a geodesic and let $`J`$ and $`Y`$ be two Jacobi vector fields along $`c.`$ Then

$$_\frac{}{t}J(t),Y(t)_\frac{}{t}Y(t),J(t)=\mathrm{constant}C.$$

Now, let $`c:[0,b]M`$ be a geodesic. We will denote by $`p=c(0)`$ and by $`\tau _s^t`$ the parallel transport along $`c`$ between the points $`c(s)`$ and $`c(t)`$. We define

$$R_s:T_{c(0)}MT_{c(0)}M,R_s(X)=\tau _s^0(R(\tau _0^s(X),\dot{c}(s))\dot{c}(s))$$

that is a family of symmetric operators in $`T_pM`$. Take $`_o`$ a closed subspace of $`T_pM`$ and let $`A:_o_o`$ be a continuous and symmetric linear operator. Clearly $`T_pM=_o_o^{}`$ and we will study the solutions of the following linear differential equation

$$\{\begin{array}{c}T^{\prime \prime }(s)+R_s(T(s))=0;\hfill \\ T(0)(v,w)=(v,0),T^{}(0)(v,w)=(A(v),w),\hfill \end{array}$$

that we call Jacobi flow  of $`c.`$ Firstly, note that the family of bilinear applications

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& T_pM\times T_pM\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}{}& \\ & (u,v)T(t)(u),T^{}(t)(v)& \end{array}$$

is symmetric; indeed is symmetric in $`t=0,`$ because $`A`$ is a symmetric operator, and

$$(T(t)(u),T^{}(t)(w)T(t)(w),T^{}(t)(u))^{}$$

is zero. The solutions of the Jacobi flow are exactly the Jacobi fields.

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`(v,w)T_pM=_o_o^{}.`$ Then the Jacobi field with $`J(0)=v_o`$ and $`_\frac{}{t}J(0)+A(J(0))=w_{o}^{}{}_{}{}^{},`$ is given by $`\tau _0^t(T(t)(v,w))`$.

Proof:  Let $`Z(t)`$ be a parallel transport of $`uT_pM`$ along $`c.`$ We indicate by $`Y(t)=\tau _0^t(T(t)(v,w))`$. Hence

$`_\frac{}{t}_\frac{}{t}Y(t),Z(t)`$ $`=`$ $`Y(t),Z(t)^{\prime \prime }`$
$`=`$ $`T(t)(v,w),u^{\prime \prime }`$
$`=`$ $`R(Y(t),\dot{c}(t))\dot{c}(t),Z(t).\mathrm{QED}`$
Our aim is to study the distribution of singular points of the exponential map along a geodesic $`c:`$ then it is very useful compute the adjoint operator of $`T(b).`$ Let $`uT_pM`$ and let $`J`$ be the Jacobi field along the geodesic $`c`$ such that $`J(b)=0,_\frac{}{t}J(b)=\tau _0^b(u).`$ By the Ambrose lemma we have

$$(1)T(b)(v,w),u=T(0)(v,w),_\frac{}{t}J(0)T^{}(0)(v,w),J(0).$$

We denote by $`\overline{c}(t)=c(bt)`$ and let

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{T}^{\prime \prime }(s)+R_s(\stackrel{~}{T}(s))=0;\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{T}(0)=0,\stackrel{~}{T}^{}(0)=id,\hfill \end{array}$$

be the Jacobi flow of $`\overline{c}:[0,b]M`$. It is easy to check that $`J`$ is a vector field along $`c,`$ then $`\overline{J}(t)=J(bt)`$ is the Jacobi filed along $`\overline{c}`$ such that $`_\frac{}{t}\overline{J}(b)=_\frac{}{t}J(0)`$. Then $`(1)`$ becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T(b)(v,w),u\hfill & =& (v,o),\tau _b^0(\stackrel{~}{T}^{}(b)(\tau _0^b(u)))\hfill \\ & & (A(v),w),\tau _b^0(\stackrel{~}{T}(b)(\tau _0^b(u))\hfill \end{array}$$

and the adjoint operator is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}T^{}\left(b\right)\left(u\right),(v,0)=\tau _b^0\left(\stackrel{~}{T}^{}\left(b\right)\left(\tau _0^b\left(u\right)\right)\right))+A\left(p_t\left(\tau _b^0\left(\stackrel{~}{T}\left(b\right)\left(\tau _0^b\left(u\right)\right)\right)\right)\right),(v,0),\hfill \\ T^{}\left(b\right)\left(u\right),(0,w)=\tau _b^0\left(\stackrel{~}{T}\left(b\right)\left(\tau _0^b\left(u\right)\right)\right),(0,w).\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`p_t`$ is the component along $`_o.`$

###### Proposition 6.

There exists a bijective correspondence between the kernel of $`T(b)`$ and the kernel of $`T^{}(b).`$

Proof:  let $`wT_pM`$ such that $`T(b)(w)=0.`$ Then the Jacobi field

$$Y(t)=\tau _0^t(T(t)(w))=\tau _b^t(\stackrel{~}{T}(t)(\overline{w}))$$

and $`\overline{w}T_{c(b)}M`$ is unique. Using the boundary condition on $`Y(t)`$ we have $`T^{}(b)(\tau _b^0(\overline{w}))=0.`$ Vice-versa, if $`T^{}(b)(w)=0`$ it is easy to check that $`\tau _b^t\stackrel{~}{T}(t)(\tau _0^b(w))=\tau _0^t(T(t)(\overline{w})`$ for some $`\overline{w}T_pM.`$ Clearly $`T(b)(\overline{w})=0`$ and $`w`$ can be obtained, starting from $`\overline{w}`$, with the above arguments. QED

We recall that $`KerT^{}(b)=\overline{ImT}^{},`$ hence we have proved also the following result

###### Proposition 7.

If $`T(b)`$ is injective then $`ImT(b)`$ is a dense subspace.

We will study the behaviour of the Jacobi flow either when $`_o=0`$ or $`_o=T_pM`$ and $`A=0.`$ We will denote by $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a solution of the differential equation $`f^{\prime \prime }(t)+\mathrm{\Delta }(s)f(s)=0`$ with $`f(0)=0`$, $`f^{}(0)=1`$, when $`_o=0,`$ or with $`f(0)=1`$, $`f^{}(0)=0`$, when $`_o=T_pM`$ and $`A=0`$. Firstly, we note that in  it is proved the following results that holds in our context.

###### Proposition 8.

Let $`\delta (s)R(u,\dot{c}(s))\dot{c}(s),u\mathrm{\Delta }(s)`$ be an upper and lower curvature along $`c`$. Hence

1. if $`T(s)`$ is invertible then

$$(T^{}T^1u,u)^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }(s)+T^{}T^1u,T^{}T^1u^2);$$
2. $`T(s)uf_\mathrm{\Delta }(s)u,u^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }(s)`$ being positive in $`0<ss_o`$;
3. $`T^{}u,Tuf_\mathrm{\Delta }Tu,Tuf_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, $`f_\mathrm{\Delta }(s)`$ being positive in $`0<ss_o`$;
4. $`T^{}u,Tuf_\delta Tu,Tuf_\delta ^{}`$, $`0<ss_o`$ if $`T(s)`$ is invertible in $`0<ss_1`$ $`(s_1s_o)`$;
5. if $`T(s)`$ is invertible in $`0<ss_1`$ then

$$T(s)f_\delta (t)T(t)f_\delta (s),0sts_1;$$
6. $`T(s)f_\delta (s)<u,u>^{\frac{1}{2}},0ss_1`$.

###### Corollary 9.

Let

$$\{\begin{array}{c}T^{\prime \prime }(s)+R_s(T(s))=0;\hfill \\ T(0)(v,w)=(v,o),T^{}(0)(v,w)=(A(v),w),\hfill \end{array}$$

be the Jacobi flow. We suppose that we have a upper bound sectional curvature, i.e. $`KH.`$ Then:

* if $`_o=0`$ then the Jacobi flow is a topological isomorphism for $`t0`$, if $`H0,`$ or for $`0t<\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}},`$ if $`H>0`$;
* if $`_o=T_pM`$ and $`A=0`$ then then Jacobi flow is a topological isomorphism for $`t0`$, if $`H0,`$ or for $`0t<\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{H}},`$ if $`H>0`$.

Proof:  using property $`(2)`$ of proposition 8 and proposition 6 we have our claim.

Another interesting corollary is a weak form of the Rauch theorem.

###### Theorem 10.

(Rauch weak) Let $`c:[0,b]M`$ be a unit speed geodesic. Suppose that we have a lower and upper bound of the sectional curvature, i.e. $`LK(\dot{c}(t),v)H,`$ for any $`t`$ and $`vT_{c(t)}M`$ such that $`v,\dot{c}(t)=0,v,v=1.`$ Then $`d(\mathrm{exp}_p)_{t\dot{c}(0)}`$ is a topological isomorphism for every $`t0`$, if $`H0`$ and for every $`0t<\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}`$ if $`H>0`$. Moreover, in the above neighborhoods, we have

$$\frac{f_H(t)}{t}vd(\mathrm{exp}_p)_{t\dot{c}(0)}(v)\frac{f_L(t)}{t}v.$$

## 4. Focal Index lemma and the Rauch and Berger theorems

Let $`N`$ be a submanifold of an Hilbert manifold $`(M,g),`$ i.e. $`N`$ is an Hilbert manifold and the inclusion $`i:NM`$ is an embedding. Let $`\gamma :[a,b]M`$ be a geodesic such that

1. $`\gamma (a)=pN`$;
2. $`\dot{\gamma }(a)=\xi T_pN^{}`$.

###### Definition 11.

A Jacobi vector field along $`\gamma `$ is called $`N`$-Jacobi if it satisfies the following boundary conditions:

$$Y(a)T_pN,_\frac{}{t}Y(a)+A_\xi (Y(a))T_p^{}N,$$

where $`A_\xi `$ is the operator of Weingarter relative to $`N`$.

The Jacobi flow along $`\gamma `$ on which $`A=A_\xi `$ is called Jacobi flow along $`\gamma `$ of $`N.`$ Let $`W`$ be the open subset of $`TM`$ on which $`\mathrm{exp}`$ is defined. We denote by $`\mathrm{Exp}^{}:T^{}NWM,`$ $`\mathrm{Exp}^{}(X)=\mathrm{exp}^M(X).`$ It is easy to prove that $`\mathrm{K}er(d(\mathrm{Exp}^{})_{t_o\xi })`$ is isomorphic to the subspace of the $`N`$-Jacobi field along the geodesic $`\gamma (t)=\mathrm{Exp}^{}(t\xi ),`$ $`t[0,t_o],`$ which is zero in $`\gamma (t_o).`$ On the other hand, in infinite dimensional manifolds, two species of singular points can appear; so the following definition is justify.

###### Definition 12.

A element $`q=\gamma (t_o)`$ along $`\gamma `$ is called:

1. monofocal if $`\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{Exp}^{})_{t_o\xi }`$ fails to be injective;
2. epifocal if $`\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{Exp}^{})_{t_o\xi }`$ fails to be surjective.

By proposition 6 and by the formula of the adjoint of the Jacobi flow, we have the following results.

###### Proposition 13.

Let $`N`$ be a submanifold of $`M`$ and let $`\gamma :[0,b]M`$ such that $`\gamma (0)=pN`$ and $`\xi =\dot{\gamma }(0)T_pN^{}.`$ Then

1. if $`\gamma (t_o)`$ isn’t monofocal then the image of $`\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{Exp}^{})_{t_o\xi }`$ is a dense subspace;
2. $`\gamma (t_o)`$ is monofocal then $`\gamma (t_o)`$ is epifocal;
3. $`q=\gamma (t_o)`$ is monofocal along $`\gamma `$ if and only if $`p`$ is monofocal along $`\overline{\gamma }(t)=\gamma (t_ot);`$
4. $`q=\gamma (t_o)`$ is epiconjugate and the image of $`\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{Exp}^{})_{t_o\xi }`$ is closed then $`p`$ is monofocal along $`\overline{\gamma }(t)=\gamma (t_ot);`$

In the degenerate case, i.e. $`N=p,`$ then we call $`q=\gamma (t_o)`$ either monoconjugate or epiconjugate along $`\gamma `$. If there exist neither monofocal (monoconjugate) nor epifocal (epiconjugate) points then we will say that there aren’t focal (conjugate) points along $`\gamma `$. The distribution of singular points of the exponential map along a finite geodesic is different from the finite dimensional case. Indeed, Grossman showed how the distribution of monoconjugate points be able to have cluster points. The same pathology appears in the case of focal points and we shall give a pathological example of the distribution of monofocal and epifocal points along a finite geodesic.

###### Example 1.

Let $`M=\{xl_2:x_1^2+x_2^2+_{i=3}^{\mathrm{}}a_ix_i^2=1\}`$, where $`(a_i)_i`$ is a positive sequence of real number. It is easy to check that

$$\gamma (s)=\mathrm{sin}(s)e_1+\mathrm{cos}(s)e_2$$

is a geodesic and $`T_{\gamma (s)}M=<\dot{\gamma }(s),e_3,e_4,\mathrm{}>`$. Let $`N`$ be a geodesic submanifold defined by $`\dot{\gamma }(0).`$ We shall restrict ourself to the normal Jacobi fields. We note that for $`k3`$

$$E_k:=\{x_1^2+x_2^2+a_kx_k^2=1\}M$$

is totally geodesic; then $`K(\dot{\gamma }(s),e_k)=a_k`$ and the Jacobi fields, with boundary conditions $`J_k(0)=e_k`$, $`_\frac{}{t}J_k(0)=0`$, are given by $`J_k(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{a_k}t)e_k`$. Hence

$$d(\mathrm{Exp}^{})_{s\dot{\gamma }(0)}(\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_ke_k)=\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_k\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{a_k}s)e_k.$$

Clearly, the points $`\gamma (r_k^m)`$, $`r_k^m=\frac{m\pi }{2\sqrt{a_k}}`$ are monofocal. Specifically, let $`a_k=(1\frac{1}{k})^2.`$ The points $`\gamma (s_k)`$, $`s_k=\frac{k\pi }{2(1k)}`$ are monofocal, $`s_k\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and

$$d(\mathrm{Exp}^{})_{\dot{\gamma }(\frac{\pi }{2}))}(\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_ke_k)=\underset{k=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_k\mathrm{cos}(\frac{k1}{k}\frac{\pi }{2})e_k.$$

In particular, $`\gamma (\frac{\pi }{2})`$ is not monofocal along $`\gamma .`$ On the other hand if $`_{k=3}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{k}e_k=d(\mathrm{Exp}^{})_{\gamma (\frac{\pi }{2})}(_{k=3}^{\mathrm{}}b_ke_k)`$ then $`\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{2k})b_k=\frac{1}{k}`$ hence

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}b_k=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\pi }{2k}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{2k})}\frac{2}{\pi }=\frac{2}{\pi }.$$

This means that $`\gamma (\frac{\pi }{2})`$ is epifocal.

This example shows that there exist epifocal points which are not monofocal. We call them pathological points. If the exponential map of a Hilbert manifold has only a finite number of phatological points we will say that the exponential map is almost non singular. Clearly, if the exponential map were Fredholm, and this one must be of zero index, monoconjugate points and epiconjugate points along geodesics would coincide. This holds for the Hilbert manifold $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M),`$ the free loop space of a compact manifold (see ). Moreover, any finite geodesic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ contains at most finitely many points which are conjugate.

Now we shall prove the Index lemma. This lemma allows us to extend Rauch and Berger theorems in infinite dimensional context.

Let $`X:[0,1]T_pM`$, such that $`X(0)T_pN.`$ We define the focal index of $`X`$ as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}I^N(X,X)\hfill & =& _0^1(\dot{X}(t),\dot{X}(t)R_t(X(t)),X(t))𝑑t\hfill \\ & & A_\xi (X(0)),X(0).\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`N=p,`$ the Focal Index is called Index and we will denote it as $`I(X,X).`$ We note that any vector fields along $`\gamma `$ is a parallel transport of a unique application $`X:[0,b]T_pM`$; we will denote by $`\overline{X}(t)=\tau _0^t(X)`$ the vector field along $`\gamma `$ starting from $`X`$.

###### Lemma 14.

$`I^N(X,X)=D^2E(\gamma )(\overline{X},\overline{X})`$, where $`D^2E(\gamma )`$ is the index form of $`B=N\times MM\times M.`$

Proof:  we recall that

$`D^2E\left(\gamma \right)(\overline{X},\overline{X})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _a^b}_\frac{}{t}\overline{X}\left(t\right)^2\overline{X}\left(t\right),R(\overline{X}\left(t\right),\dot{c}\left(t\right))\dot{c}\left(t\right)dt`$
$``$ $`<<A_{(\dot{c}\left(a\right),\dot{c}\left(b\right))}(\overline{X}\left(a\right),\overline{X}\left(b\right)),(\overline{X}\left(a\right),\overline{X}\left(b\right)>>,`$
see , where $`A`$ is the Weingarter operator of $`N\times MM\times M.`$ By the above expression, it is enough to prove that $`_\frac{}{t}\overline{X}(t)=\tau _0^t(\dot{X}(t))`$. Let $`Z(t)`$ be a parallel transport of a vector $`ZT_pM.`$ Then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_\frac{}{t}\overline{X}(t),Z(t)& =& \overline{X}(t),Z(t)^{}\hfill \\ & =& \dot{X}(t),Z\hfill \\ & =& \tau _0^t(\dot{X}(t)),Z(t).\mathrm{QED}\hfill \end{array}$$

We here give the Focal Index lemma formulated as in the finite dimensional Riemannian geometry.

###### Lemma 15.

Let $`X:[0,b]T_pM`$ be a piecewise differential application with $`X(0)T_pN`$. Suppose that $`T(t)`$ is invertible in $`(0,a)`$. Hence

$$I^N(X,X)I^N(J,J),$$

where $`J(t)=T(t)(u)`$ with $`X(b)=T(b)u`$. The equality holds if and only if $`X=T(t)(u)`$. Hence, if there aren’t any focal points along $`\gamma `$, the index of a vector fields $`Y`$ along $`\gamma `$ is bigger than the focal index of the $`N`$-Jacobi field $`J`$ along $`\gamma `$ such that $`W(a)=J(a).`$

Proof:  $`T(t)`$ is invertible, then there exists a piecewise differential application $`Y:[0,b]T_pM`$ such that $`Y(0)=X(0)T_pN`$ and $`X(t)=T(t)(Y(t))`$. Hence

$$\dot{X}(t)=T^{}(t)((Y(t))+T(t)(\dot{Y}(t))=A(t)+B(t).$$

The focal index of $`X`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}I(X,X)& =& _0^b(A\left(t\right),A\left(t\right)+2A\left(t\right),B\left(t\right)+B\left(t\right),B\left(t\right)dt\hfill \\ & & _0^bR_t(T\left(t\right)\left(Y\left(t\right)\right),T\left(t\right)\left(Y\left(t\right)\right)dtA_\xi (X\left(0\right),X\left(0\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

A straightforward computation show that

$`A(t),A(t)`$ $`=`$ $`T(t)(Y(t)),T^{}(t)(Y(t)^{}`$
$``$ $`B(t),A(t)`$
$`+`$ $`T(t)(Y(t)),R_t(T(t)(Y(t))`$
$``$ $`T(t)(\dot{Y}(t)),T^{}(t)(Y(t))=(A(t),B(t)),`$
where the last equality depends on the fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$ is a family of symmetric bilinear form. Hence, the focal index of $`X`$ is given by

$$I^N(X,X)=T(1)(u),T^{}(1)(u)+_0^bT(t)(\dot{Y}(t))^2𝑑t.$$

thus proving our lemma. QED

###### Corollary 16.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Riemannian manifold and let $`S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be submanifolds of codimension $`1.`$ We denote by $`N`$ and $`\overline{N}`$ the normal vector fields respectively in $`S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Suppose that in some point $`pS\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we have $`N_p=\overline{N}_p`$ and

$$g(_XN,X)<g(_X\overline{N},X),$$

for every $`XT_p\mathrm{\Sigma }=T_pS`$. Then, if the Jacobi flow $`T`$ of $`S`$ is invertible in $`(0,b)`$ then the Jacobi flow of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ must be injective in $`(0,b).`$ Moreover, if $`A\overline{A}`$ is invertible, where $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ are the Weingarter operators in $`p`$ respectively of $`S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ then the Jacobi flow of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is also invertible in $`(0,b).`$

Proof:  let $`Y(t)`$ be $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-Jacobi field. Since $`T(t)`$ is invertible then there exists a piecewise application $`X:[0,s]T_pM`$ with $`X(0)T_pS`$ such that $`Y(t)=T(t)(X(t)).`$ Hence

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill Y(0)& =& T(0)(X(0))\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{Y}(0)& =& T^{}(0)(X(0))+T(0)(\dot{X}(0))\hfill \\ \hfill (\overline{A}(Y(0)),\dot{Y}(0)^n)& =& (A(X(0))+\dot{X}(0)^t,0)).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence, $`Y(0)=X(0)`$ and the tangent component of $`\dot{X}(0)`$ is given by $`(A\overline{A})(X(0)).`$ Then,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}g(Y\left(s\right),_\frac{}{s}Y\left(s\right))\hfill & =& I^S(Y,Y)\hfill \\ & =& g(\left(A\overline{A}\right)\left(X\left(0\right)\right),X\left(0\right))+_0^sT\left(t\right)\left(\dot{X}\left(t\right)\right)^2𝑑t\hfill \\ & >& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular, the Jacobi flow of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is injective in $`(0,b).`$ Moreover, if $`A\overline{A}`$ is invertible, using the above formula, it is easy to prove that the image of the Jacobi flow relative to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a closed subspace for every $`t(0,b)`$ and using $`(i)`$ of proposition 13 we get our claim. QED

Now, assume that there exists a pathological point on the interior of $`\gamma ;`$ this means that the Jacobi flow is an isomorphism for every $`tt_o`$ in $`(0,b)`$ and in $`t_o,`$ $`T(t_o)`$ is a linear operator whose image is a dense subspace. Let $`X:[0,b]T_pM`$ be a piecewise application with $`X(0)T_pN`$. Given $`ϵ>0`$, there exist $`X_n^ϵ`$, $`n=1,2`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& T(t_o)(X_1^ϵ))X(t_o))\frac{ϵ}{4}& \\ & T(t_o)(X_2^ϵ))\dot{X}(t_o))\frac{ϵ}{4}.& \end{array}$$

Choose $`Y^ϵ`$ such that

$$T(t_o)(Y^ϵ)T^{}(t_o)(X_1^ϵ)\frac{ϵ}{4}.$$

Hence there exists $`\eta (ϵ)\frac{ϵ}{2}`$ such that for $`t(\eta (ϵ)t_o,\eta (ϵ)+t_o)`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(1)& T(t)(X_1^ϵ+(tt_o)(X_2^ϵY^ϵ))X(t)ϵ,& \\ (2)& \frac{d}{dt}(T(t)(X_1^ϵ+(tt_o)(X_2^ϵY^ϵ)))\dot{X}(t)ϵ.& \end{array}$$

We denote by $`X^ϵ`$ the application

$$X^ϵ\left(t\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}X\left(t\right)\hfill & \mathrm{if}0tt_o\eta \left(ϵ\right);\hfill \\ T\left(t\right)\left(X_1^ϵ+\left(tt_o\right)\left(X_2^ϵY^ϵ\right)\right)\hfill & \mathrm{if}t_o\eta \left(ϵ\right)<t<t_o+\eta \left(ϵ\right);\hfill \\ X\left(t\right)\hfill & \mathrm{if}t_o\eta \left(ϵ\right)tb.\hfill \end{array}$$

Clearly, $`X^ϵ=T(t)(Y(t)),`$ where $`Y(t)`$ is again a piecewise application, at less at the points $`t=t_o+(\eta (ϵ)`$ and $`t=t_o\eta (ϵ),`$ and using the same arguments in lemma 15, we shall prove

$$I^N(X^ϵ,X^ϵ)I^N(T(t)(u),T(t)(u)).$$

On the other hand, the Focal Index of $`X`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}I(X,X)\hfill & =& I(X^ϵ,X^ϵ)\hfill \\ & & _{t_o\eta \left(ϵ\right)}^{t_o+\eta \left(ϵ\right)}\dot{X}^ϵ\left(t\right),\dot{X}^ϵ\left(t\right)R(X^ϵ\left(t\right),\dot{c}\left(t\right))\dot{c}\left(t\right),X^ϵ\left(t\right)dt\hfill \\ & +& _{t_o\eta \left(ϵ\right)}^{t_o+\eta \left(ϵ\right)}\dot{X}\left(t\right),\dot{X}\left(t\right)R(X\left(t\right),\dot{c}\left(t\right))\dot{c}\left(t\right),X\left(t\right)dt.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, using $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ it is easy to check that

$$\underset{ϵ0}{lim}I^N(X^ϵ,X^ϵ)=I^N(X,X)I^N(J,J),$$

where $`J(t)=T(t)(u).`$ This proves the Focal Index lemma when there is a pathological point. Clearly, the same proof can be generalized to a finite number of pathological points.

###### Lemma 17.

(Focal Index lemma) Let $`\gamma :[0,b]M`$ be a geodesic with a finite number of pathological points. Then for every vector fields $`X`$ along $`\gamma `$ with $`X(0)T_pN,`$ the index form of $`X`$ relative to the submanifold $`N\times MM\times M`$, satisfies $`D^2E(\gamma )(X,X)D^2E(\gamma )(J,J)`$, where $`J`$ is the $`N`$-Jacobi field such that $`J(b)=X(b)`$.

In particular, if $`\gamma `$ has a finite number of pathological points, then $`\gamma `$ is a local minimum and the Index form $`D^2E(\gamma )`$ is non negative defined.

###### Corollary 18.

Let $`\gamma :[0,\mathrm{})M`$ be a geodesic, and let $`\gamma (t_o)`$ be a monoconjugate point. Then $`\gamma :[0,t]M`$ is not minimal for $`t>t_o.`$

Now, we shall prove the Rauch and Berger theorem and several corollaries. However, the proof are almost the same as the finite dimensional case, since these can be proved using Focal Index lemma: then we will give only a brief proof of the Rauch theorem.

###### Theorem 19.

(Rauch) Let $`(M,,)`$, $`(N,,^{})`$ be Hilbert manifolds modeled on $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ respectively, with $`_1`$ isometric to a closed subspace of $`_2`$. Let

$$c:[0,a]M,c^{}:[0,a]N$$

be two geodesics of same length. We assume that $`c^{}`$ has at most a finite number of pathological points in its interior. Suppose also that for every $`t[0,a]`$ and for every $`XT_{c(t)}M`$, $`X_oT_{c^{}(t)}N`$ we have

$$K^N(X_o,\dot{c}^{}(t))K^M(X,\dot{c}(t)).$$

Let $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ be Jacobi fields along $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ such that $`J(0)`$ and $`J^{}(0)`$ are tangent to $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ respectively and

1. $`J(0)=J^{}(0)`$;
2. $`\dot{c}(0),_\frac{}{t}J(0)=\dot{c}^{}(0),_\frac{}{t}J^{}(0)`$;
3. $`_\frac{}{t}J(0)=_\frac{}{t}J^{}(0)`$.

Hence, for every $`t[0,a]`$

$$J(t)J^{}(t).$$

Proof:  It is easy to check that we will restrict ourself to the case in which the Jacobi fields satisfy the following condition:

$$0=J(0)=\dot{c}(0),_\frac{}{t}J(0)=J^{}(0)=\dot{c}(0),_\frac{}{t}J^{}(0).$$

Note, by assumption, $`J^{}(t)0`$. Let $`t_o[0,a]`$ be an isometry

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& F:T_{c(0)}MT_{c^{}(0)}N& \\ & F(\dot{c}(0))=\dot{c}^{}(0)& \\ & F(\tau _{t_o}^0(J(t_o))=\chi _{t_o}^0(J^{}(t_o))\frac{J(t_o)}{J^{}(t_o)}.& \end{array}$$

We denote by

$`i_t:T_{c(t)}MT_{c^{}(t)}N`$
$`i_t=\chi _0^tF\tau _t^0,`$
a family of isometries for $`0tt_o;`$ it is easy to check that $`i_t`$ commute with the Levi Civita connection. Let $`W(t)=i_t(J(t)).`$ Then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}D^2E\left(c^{}\right)(W,W)\hfill & =& _0^{t_o}_\frac{}{t}W\left(t\right)^2R^N(\dot{c}^{}\left(t\right),W\left(t\right))\dot{c}^{}\left(t\right),Wdt\hfill \\ & & _0^{t_o}_\frac{}{t}J\left(t\right)^2R^M(\dot{c}\left(t\right),J\left(t\right))\dot{c}\left(t\right),J\left(t\right)dt\hfill \\ & =& D^2E\left(\gamma \right)(J,J).\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}_{t=t_o}J(t),J(t)`$ $`=`$ $`J(t_o),_\frac{}{t}J(t_o)`$
$`=`$ $`D^2E(\gamma )(J,J)`$
$``$ $`D^2E(c^{})(W,W)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}_{t=t_o}J^{}(t),J^{}(t)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{J(t_o)^2}{J^{}(t_o)^2}}.`$
where the last before inequality follows from the Focal Index lemma. Now, let $`ϵ>0`$. For every $`tϵ`$ we have

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{log}(J(t)^2)\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{log}(J^{}(t)^2),$$

that implies

$$\frac{J(t)^2}{J(ϵ)^2}\frac{J^{}(t)^2}{J^{}(ϵ)^2}.$$

By $`_\frac{}{t}J(0)=_\frac{}{t}J^{}(0),`$ when $`ϵ0`$ we get our claim. QED

Misiolek, see , proved that in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ the index of any finite geodesic if finite. By Rauch theorem, we have that the sectional curvature of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M),`$ with the $`H^1`$ metric, cannot be positive along any geodesic. Indeed, if $`KK_o>0,`$ we are able to compare $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ with the sphere of radius $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{K_o}}`$ and we may prove that the index along any geodesic of length bigger than $`t=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{K_o}}`$ is infinite.

###### Corollary 20.

Let $`M`$, $`N`$ be Hilbert manifolds modeled on $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ where $`_2`$ is isometric to a closed subspace of $`_1`$. Assume that for every $`mM`$ and $`nN`$ and for every $`\eta T_pM`$ e $`\beta T_nN`$ 2-subspaces we have

$$K^M(\eta )K^N(\beta ).$$

Let $`i:T_nNT_pM`$ be an isometry and let $`r>0`$ such that

|  | $`\mathrm{exp}_n:B_r(0_n)B_r(m)`$ | is a diffeomorphism |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\mathrm{exp}_m:B_r(0_m)B_r(n)`$ | is almost non singular. |

Let Let $`c:[a,b]B_r(0_n)`$ be a piecewise curve. Then

$$L(\mathrm{exp}_n(c))L(\mathrm{exp}_m(ic)).$$

###### Theorem 21.

(Berger) Let $`(M,g)`$ and $`(N,h)`$ be an Hilbert manifolds modeled on $`_1`$ e $`_2`$, where $`_1`$ is isometric to a closed subspace of $`_2`$. Let $`\gamma _1:[0,b]M`$ and $`\gamma _2:[0,b]N`$ be two geodesics with the same length. Assume that for every $`X_1T_{\gamma _1(t)}M`$ and $`X_2T_{\gamma _2(t)}N`$ we have

$$K^N(X_2,\dot{\gamma _1}(t))K^M(X_1,\dot{\gamma _2}(t)),X_1,\dot{\gamma _1}(t))=X_2,\dot{\gamma _2}(t)=0.$$

Assume furthermore that $`\gamma _2`$ has at most a finite number of pathological points, on its interior, of the geodesic submanifold $`N`$ defined by $`\dot{\gamma _2}(0)`$. Let $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ Jacobi fields along $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ satisfying $`_\frac{}{t}J(0)`$ and $`_\frac{}{t}J^{}(0)`$ are tangent to $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ and

1. $`_\frac{}{t}J(0)=_\frac{}{t}J^{}(0)`$,
2. $`\dot{\gamma _1}(0),J(0)=\dot{\gamma _2}(0),J^{}(0),J(0)=J^{}(0)`$.

Then

$$J(t)J^{}(t),$$

for every $`t[0,b]`$.

###### Corollary 22.

Let $`(M,g)`$ and $`(N,h)`$ be an Hilbert manifolds modeled on $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ respectively , where $`_1`$ is isometric to a closed subspace of $`_2`$. Let $`\gamma _1:[0,b]M`$ and $`\gamma _2:[0,b]N`$ be two geodesics with the same length. Let $`V_1(t)`$ and $`V_2(t)`$ be parallel unit vectors along $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ which are everywhere perpendicular to the tangent vectors of $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2.`$ Let $`f:I`$ be a positive function and let

$`b(t)=\mathrm{exp}_{\gamma _1(t)}(f(t)V_1(t))`$,

$`b^{}(t)=\mathrm{exp}_{\gamma _2(t)}(f(t)V_2(t))`$,

two curves. Assume that $`K^NK^M`$ and for any $`tI`$ the geodesics

$$\eta _o(s)=\mathrm{exp}_{\gamma _2(t)}(sf(t)V_2(t)),0s1$$

contains no focal points of the geodesic submanifold defined by $`\dot{\eta }(0).`$ Then $`L(b)L(b^{})`$.

###### Corollary 23.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be an Hilbert manifold such that $`HKL,`$ $`H>0`$ and let $`\gamma :[0,b]M`$ be a unit speed geodesic. Then

1. the distance $`d,`$ along $`\gamma ,`$ from $`\gamma (0)`$ to the first monoconjugate or epiconjugate satisfies the following inequality

$$\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}d\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{L}};$$
2. the distance $`d`$, along $`\gamma ,`$ from $`\gamma (0)`$ to first monofocal or epifocal point, of the geodesic submanifold defined by $`\dot{\gamma }(0),`$ satisfies the following inequality

$$\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{H}}d\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{L}}.$$

## 5. Hilbert Manifolds: a global theory

The Rauch and Berger theorems are very important to understand the geometry of the complete manifolds with upper or lower curvature bounded. Indeed, we can compare these manifolds with the complete Hilbert manifolds with constant curvature and the geometry of these is well known. We saw that in a complete Hilbert manifold the exponential map may not be surjective. When the curvature is upper bounded by a constant we have the following result.

###### Proposition 24.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a complete Hilbert manifold such that $`KH`$. If $`c:[0,1]M`$ is a piecewise differential curve, with $`L(c)<\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}`$ if $`H>0`$, then there exists a unique piecewise differential curve $`\overline{c}:[0,1]\overline{B_{L(c)}(0_{c(0)})}`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}_{c(0)}(\overline{c(t)})=c(t)`$. In particular,

$$\mathrm{exp}_p(B_r(0_p))=_r(p)$$

for every $`pM`$ and $`r0`$ if $`H0`$ or $`r<\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}`$ if $`H>0`$.

Proof:  we will give the proof only when $`H>0;`$ the other case is similar. Take

$$t_o=sup\{t[0,1]:!\overline{c}:[0,t]\overline{B_{L\left(c\right)}\left(0_{c\left(0\right)}\right)},\mathrm{w}ith\mathrm{exp}_p\left(\overline{c}\left(t\right)\right)=c\left(t\right)\};$$

$`t_o`$ is positive by Rauch theorem, and we shall prove that $`t_o`$ is in fact $`1.`$ Let

$$\overline{c}:[0,t_o)\overline{B_{L(c)}(0_{c(0)})}$$

the unique lift of $`c`$; using Rauch weak theorem we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \dot{c}(t)& =& d(\mathrm{exp}_{c(o)})_{\overline{c(t)}}(\dot{\overline{c}}(t))\hfill \\ & & \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\overline{c(t)})\sqrt{H})}{\sqrt{H}\overline{c(t)}}\dot{\overline{c}}(t)\hfill \\ & & \frac{\mathrm{sin}(L(c))\sqrt{H})}{\sqrt{H}L(c)}\dot{\overline{c}}(t),\hfill \end{array}$$

so we get

$$\underset{tt_o}{lim}_0^{t_o}\dot{\overline{c}}(t)𝑑t<\mathrm{}.$$

However, $`\overline{B_{L(c)}(0_{c(0)})}`$ is a complete metric space so $`lim_{tt_o}\overline{c}(t)=q`$ and by Gauss lemma and the definition of $`t_o`$ we get $`t_o=1.`$ QED

###### Corollary 25.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a complete Hilbert manifold such $`KH.`$ Let $`p,qM`$, such that $`d(p,q)<\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}`$ if $`H>0`$. Hence, at least one of the following facts holds:

1. there exists a unique minimal geodesic between $`p,q`$;
2. there exists a sequence $`\gamma _n`$ of geodesics from $`p`$ to $`q`$ such that $`L(\gamma _n)>L(\gamma _{n+1})`$ and $`L(\gamma _n)d(p,q)`$.

Next we claim a very useful lemma that we will use in the following proofs.

###### Lemma 26.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be an Hilbert manifold such that $`KL>0.`$ Suppose there exists a point $`pM`$ on which $`\mathrm{exp}_p`$ is almost non singular in $`B_r(0_p)`$. Let $`\delta (s)`$ be a curve joining two antipodal points on the sphere of radius $`s`$ in $`T_pM`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the Image, via $`\mathrm{exp}_p,`$ of the curve $`\delta (s).`$ Then

$$L(\mathrm{\Delta })\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{L}}\mathrm{sin}(s\sqrt{L}),$$

for $`s<r`$.

Proof:  Let $`S_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}}(T_pM\times )`$ be the sphere of radius $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}`$ and let $`N=(0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}})S_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}}(T_pM\times )`$; it is easy to check that

$$\mathrm{exp}_N(v)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}(\mathrm{cos}(v\sqrt{L})N+\mathrm{sin}(v\sqrt{L})\frac{v}{v}).$$

Let $`v,wT_pM`$ be such that $`v,w=0,v,v=w,w=1`$; any meridian on the sphere of radius $`s`$ can be parametrized as follows:

$$c_s(t)=s(\mathrm{cos}(s)v+\mathrm{sin}(s)w)$$

and $`L(\mathrm{exp}_N(c_s))=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{L}}\mathrm{sin}(s\sqrt{L})`$. By corollary 20, we have

$$L(\mathrm{\Delta })\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{L}}\mathrm{sin}(s\sqrt{L}).$$

QED

###### Proposition 27.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be an Hilbert manifold such that $`K1`$. Suppose there exists a point $`pM`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}_p`$ is almost non singular in $`B_\pi (0_p).`$ Then $`M`$ has constant curvature $`K=1`$ and is covered by the unit sphere $`S(T_pM\times )`$. Furthermore, $`M`$ is a complete Hilbert manifold.

Proof:  let $`S_r(T_pM),`$ $`r<\pi `$ be the sphere of radius $`r`$ in $`T_pM`$; using lemma 26 we get that the diameter of $`\mathrm{exp}_p(S_r(T_pM))0`$ when $`r\pi .`$ Hence $`\mathrm{exp}_p(S_\pi (T_pM))=q.`$ Let $`N=(0,1)S(T_pM\times ).`$ We define

$$\varphi (m)=\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{exp}_p(\mathrm{exp}_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(m))\mathrm{se}mN;\hfill \\ q\mathrm{se}m=N.\hfill \end{array}$$

We claim that $`\varphi `$ is a local isometry. Firstly, note that any geodesic which starts at $`p`$ get to $`q.`$ Hence any Jacobi field along a geodesic which starts in $`p`$ is zero in $`q.`$ Moreover the Index form of any geodesic $`\gamma :[0,t]M,`$ $`t\pi `$ and $`\gamma (0)=p,`$ is non negative definite because $`\mathrm{exp}_p`$ is almost non singular in $`B_\pi (0_p).`$ Let $`\gamma :[0,\pi ]M`$ be a geodesic such that $`\gamma (0)=p.`$ Let $`W(t)`$ be a parallel transport along $`\gamma `$ of a unitary and perpendicular vector to $`\dot{\gamma }(0)`$. The index form of $`W`$ along $`\gamma `$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}0& & D^2E\left(\gamma \right)(Y,Y)\hfill \\ & =& _0^\pi Y\left(t\right),Y\left(t\right)R(Y\left(t\right),\dot{\gamma }\left(t\right))\dot{\gamma }\left(t\right),Y\left(t\right)dt\hfill \\ & & _0^\pi \left(\mathrm{cos}^2t\mathrm{sin}^2t\right)𝑑t\hfill \\ & =& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence $`K(W(t),\dot{c}(t))=1`$ and $`Y(t)`$ is a Jabobi field. Now, using Cartan theorem, about local isometry, and proposition 6.9 pag. 222 in , we get our result. QED

Next, we claim the Berger-Topogonov theorem of maximal diameter.

###### Theorem 28.

(Berger-Topogonov) Let $`(M,g)`$ be a complete Hilbert manifold such that $`\delta K1`$. Suppose that there exist two points $`p,q`$ with $`d(p,q)=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{\delta }}`$ and at least a minimal geodesic from $`p`$ to $`q.`$ Then $`M`$ is isometric to a sphere $`S_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta }}}(T_pM\times )`$.

Proof:  By corollary 23, the distance from the first focal point along any geodesic is at least $`\frac{\pi }{2};`$ furthermore by Bonnet theorem, $`d(M)=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{\delta }}`$. Let $`\gamma :[0,\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{\delta }}]M`$ be a minimal geodesic from $`p`$ to $`q`$. Take the following vector field along $`\gamma `$

$$Y(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta }}\mathrm{sin}(t\sqrt{\delta })W(t),$$

where $`W(t)`$ is the parallel transport along $`\gamma `$ perpendicular to $`\dot{\gamma }(t)`$. We define the following variation of $`\gamma `$ to be

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(s,t)=\mathrm{exp}_{\gamma (t)}(sY(t)),0s1,0t\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{\delta }}.$$

Any curve $`\mathrm{\Omega }(s,)`$ joins $`p,q`$ and by corollary 20 we get

$$L[\mathrm{\Omega }(s,)]\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{\delta }}$$

Hence any curve is a minimal geodesic and $`Y(t)`$ is a Jacobi field. Furthermore $`\mathrm{\Omega }(,)`$ is a totally geodesic submanifold. Now, it easy to check that $`\mathrm{exp}_p`$ is non singular and injective in $`B_{\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{\delta }}}(0_p)`$, $`\mathrm{exp}_p(S_{\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{\delta }}}(T_pM))=q`$ and the application

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:S_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta }}}(T_pM\times )M$$

defined by

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }(m)=\mathrm{exp}_p\mathrm{exp}_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(m)\hfill & \mathrm{se}mN;\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }(N)=q\hfill & \mathrm{se}m=N;\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`N=(0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{\delta }})`$, is an isometry. QED

The Sphere theorem is one of the most beautiful theorem in classic Riemannian geometry. Unfortunately, we haven’t found yet a proof in infinite dimensional case. We will show two soft versions of Sphere theorem: one is the Sphere theorem due in finite dimensional Riemannian geometry by Rauch (see ), with the strong assumption on the injectivity radius, with pinching $`\frac{3}{4}`$ and the other is the Sphere theorem in the class of Hopf-Rinow manifolds, on which we shall prove that the Topogonov theorem holds, with pinching $`\frac{4}{9}.`$ In the first case the fundamental lemma is the following.

###### Lemma 29.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be an Hilbert manifold such that $`KH`$, $`H>0.`$ Let $`\varphi :S()M`$, where $`S()`$ is an unit sphere in an Hilbert space, be a local homeomorphism onto the image such that: $`\varphi (N)=p`$ and the image of every meridian is a curve of length $`rr_o<\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}`$ . Then there exists a locally homeomorphism

$$\overline{\varphi }:S()\overline{B_{r_o}(0_p)},$$

such that $`\mathrm{exp}_p\overline{\varphi }=\varphi `$.

Proof:  We apply the proposition 24 to each meridian and we get

$$\overline{\varphi }:S()\{N\}\overline{B_{r_o}(0_p)},$$

with $`\mathrm{exp}_p\overline{\varphi }=\varphi .`$ We claim that we can extend $`\overline{\varphi }`$ to $`N.`$ Let $`\xi (t)=\mathrm{exp}_N(tv)`$ be a meridian starting from $`N.`$ Let $`\gamma (t)=\varphi (\xi (t))`$ and let $`\overline{\gamma }(t)`$ the lift of $`\gamma `$. By assumption, for every $`t[0,\pi ]`$ there exists an open subset $`W(t)`$ of $`\overline{\gamma }(t)`$ and an open subset $`U(t)`$ of $`\gamma (t)`$ such that

$$\mathrm{exp}_p:W(t)U(t)$$

is an onto diffeomorphism. Now, $`\varphi `$ is a local homeorphism then there exists an open subset $`V(t)`$ of $`\xi (t)`$ such that $`\varphi (V(t))U(t)`$ and $`\varphi `$ on $`V(t)`$ is an homeomorphism. The closed interval is compact, then there exits a partition $`0=t_ot_1\mathrm{}t_{n1}t_n=\pi `$ such that

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\xi ([0,\pi ])V(t_o)\mathrm{}V(t_n)=V;\hfill \\ \gamma ([0,\pi ])U(t_o)\mathrm{}U(t_n)=U;\hfill \\ \overline{\gamma }([0,\pi ])W(t_o)\mathrm{}W(t_n)=W;\hfill \end{array}$$

and another partition $`0<s_1<\mathrm{}<s_n<s_{n+1}=\pi `$ such that $`t_i<s_{i+1}<t_{i+1}`$ and $`\xi (s_{i+1})V(t_i)V(t_{i+1})`$ for $`0in1`$. Now it is easy to see that

$$C:=\{wT_NS():\overline{\mathrm{exp}_N(tw)}(\pi )=\overline{\xi }(\pi )\}$$

where $`\overline{\xi }`$ is the unique lift of $`\xi ,`$ is open and closed. Hence $`\overline{\varphi }`$ can be extended in $`N`$ and $`\varphi `$ is a local homeomorphism. QED

Now we claim that a manifold with pinching $`\frac{3}{4}`$ can be covered by two geodesic balls.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a complete Hilbert manifold. Suppose that the sectional curvature satisfies the inequality $`0<hK1,`$ where $`h`$ is a solution of the equation

$$\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{\pi h}=\frac{\sqrt{h}}{2}(h\frac{3}{4}).$$

Let $`pM`$. By Rauch theorem we get that on the geodesic ball of radius $`\pi `$ there aren’t conjugate points. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the meridian of the sphere in $`T_pM`$ of radius $`\pi .`$ Then

$$L[\mathrm{\Delta }]\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{h}}\mathrm{sin}\pi \sqrt{h}\frac{\pi }{2}.$$

In particular, there exists $`ϵ>0`$ such that the image of any meridian in the sphere of radius $`\pi ϵ`$ is a curve with length $`rr_1<r_o<\pi ϵ`$. Furthermore, $`ϵ`$ does not depend from $`p.`$

###### Lemma 30.

Let $`pM`$ and let $`q\mathrm{exp}_p(S_{\pi ϵ}(T_pM))`$. Then

$$M=\overline{_{\pi ϵ}(p)}\overline{_{\pi ϵ}(q)}.$$

Proof:  take $`mM`$ and let $`c:[0,1]M`$ be a piecewise curve joining $`p`$ and $`m`$. Take

$$t_o=sup\{t[0,1]:\overline{c}:[0,t]\overline{B_{\pi ϵ}(0_p)}:\mathrm{exp}_p(\overline{c}(s))=c(s)\}.$$

As in proposition 24, $`\overline{c}`$ is defined in $`t_o`$ and $`L(c_{[0,t_o]})\pi ϵ`$. If $`t_o=1`$ we get our claim; otherwise $`c(t_o)\mathrm{exp}_q(\overline{B_{r_1}(0_q)}).`$ Now, we define

$$t_1=sup\{tt_o:\overline{c}:[t_o,t]\overline{B_{\pi ϵ}(0_q)}.\}$$

Now, $`r_1<\pi ϵ`$ so $`t_1>0`$ and, as before, $`\overline{c}(t_1)`$ is well-defined. If $`t_1=1`$ we get our result. Otherwise $`\overline{c}(t_1)\mathrm{exp}_p(\overline{B_{r_1}(0_p)})`$ and by Gauss lemma we get

$$L[c_{[t_o,t_1]}]r_1r_o.$$

However, the curve $`c`$ has finite length, then after a finite numbers of steps we get that $`m`$ either belongs to $`\overline{_{\pi ϵ}(p)}`$ or to $`\overline{_{\pi ϵ}(q)}.`$ QED

Before proving the Sphere Rauch theorem , we recall that the injectivity radius of a complete Hilbert manifold is defined by

$$i\left(M\right)=sup\{r>0:\mathrm{exp}_p:B_r\left(0_p\right)_r\left(p\right)\mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{diff}.\mathrm{onto}pM\}.$$

###### Theorem 31.

(Sphere Rauch theorem ) Let $`(M,g)`$ be an Hilbert complete manifold modeled on $``$ such that $`0<hK1`$, where $`h`$ is the solution of the equation $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi \sqrt{h})=\frac{\sqrt{h}}{2}`$. Assume also that the injectivity radius $`i(M)\pi .`$ Then $`M`$ is contractible. Furthermore, if $``$ is a separable Hilbert space then $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S(l_2)`$.

Proof:  we recall that an infinite dimensional sphere is a deformation retract of the unit closed disk, because by Bessega theorem, see , there exists a diffeomorphism from $``$ to $`\{0\}`$ which is the identity outside the unit disk. When a infinite dimensional manifold $`M`$ is modeled on Banach space, $`M`$ is contractible if and only if $`\pi _k(M)=0,`$ for every $`k`$ (see ). Let $`f:S^kM`$ be a continuous application and let

$$H:\overline{_{\pi \frac{ϵ}{2}}(p)}\times [0.1]\overline{_{\pi \frac{ϵ}{2}}(p)}$$

be the homotopy from the identity map and the retraction on the boundary. We can extend a map on $`M,`$ that we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, fixing the complementary of $`_{\pi \frac{ϵ}{2}}(p)`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& F:S^k\times [0,1]M,\hfill & \\ & F(x,t)=\stackrel{~}{H}(f(x),t).\hfill & \end{array}$$

is a homotopy between $`f`$ and an application $`\stackrel{~}{f}:S^k\overline{_{\pi ϵ}(q)}`$. Then $`f`$ is nullhomotopic. If $``$ is separable, using the Kuiper-Burghelea theorem (see ), homotopy classifies the Hilbert manifolds, up to a diffeomorphism, so $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to the sphere. QED

Next we claim another version of the Sphere theorem in the class of Hopf-Rinow manifolds. However, the main result in this class of Hilbert manifolds is the Topogonov theorem. From our results appeared in section $`4,`$ we shall prove it using the same idea in  page 42. First of all, we start with the following result that we may prove as in  2.7.11 Proposition page 224.

###### Lemma 32.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Hilbert manifold with bounded sectional curvature $`HK\mathrm{\Delta },`$ where $`H,\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are constant. Let $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\alpha )`$ be a geodesic segment in $`M`$ such that $`\gamma _1(0)=\gamma _2(0)`$ and $`\alpha =(\dot{\gamma _1}(l_1),\dot{\gamma _2}(0)).`$ We call such configuration hinge. Suppose that $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are minimal geodesic with perimeter $`P=l_1+l_2+d(\gamma _1(0),\gamma _2(\overline{l}_2))\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{H}}4ϵ`$, $`ϵ>0`$ if $`H>0.`$ In addition,

* if $`H0`$ then $`l_2\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$;
* if $`H>0`$ then

$$l_2inf(ϵ,\frac{\mathrm{sin}\sqrt{H}ϵ}{\sqrt{H}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi \sqrt{H}}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}},\frac{\pi }{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}).$$

Let $`(\overline{\gamma _1},\overline{\gamma _2},\overline{\alpha })`$ be a hinge $`M^H`$ such that $`L[\gamma _i]=L[\overline{\gamma }_i]`$, i=1,2. Then

$$d(\gamma _1(0),\gamma _2(l_2))d(\overline{\gamma }_1(0),\overline{\gamma }_2(\overline{l}_2)).$$

###### Theorem 33.

(Topogonov) Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Hopf-Rinow manifold such that $`HK\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then

* let $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ be a geodesic triangle in $`M`$. Assume $`\gamma _1,`$ $`\gamma _3`$ are minimal geodesic and if $`H>0`$, $`l_2\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}`$. Then in $`M^H,`$ simply connected $`2`$-dimensional manifold of constant curvature $`H,`$ there exists a geodesic triangle $`(\overline{\gamma _1},\overline{\gamma _2},\overline{\gamma _3})`$ such that $`l_i=\overline{l}_i`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_1\alpha _1`$, $`\overline{\alpha }_2\alpha _2`$. Except in case $`H>0`$ and $`l_2=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}},`$ the triangle is uniquely determined.
* Let $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\alpha )`$ be a hinge in $`M.`$ Let $`\gamma _1`$ be a minimal geodesic, and if $`H>0`$, $`l_2\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}`$. Let $`(\overline{\gamma _1},\overline{\gamma _2},\overline{\alpha })`$ be a hinge in $`M^H`$ such that $`l_i=\overline{l}_i,i=1,2`$ e $`\alpha =\overline{\alpha }`$. Then

$$d(\gamma _1(0),\gamma _2(0))d(\overline{\gamma }_1(0),\overline{\gamma }_2(0)).$$

Proof:  the proof consists of numbers of steps as in  page.43 . First of all, we recall briefly some facts of the proof in . Let $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\alpha )`$ be a hinge. We call this hinge small if $`\frac{1}{2}r=maxL[\gamma _i],i=1,2`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}_{\gamma _2(0)}`$ is an embedding on $`B_r(0_p)`$. Let $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ be a geodesic triangle. We call $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ a small triangle if any hinge of $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ is small. Let $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ as in (A). We say that $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ is thin if $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\alpha _3)`$ and $`(\gamma _3,\gamma _2,\alpha _1)`$ are thin hinges, i.e. thin right hinge or thin obtuse hinge or thin acute hinge. We briefly describe the above terminology.

A thin right hinge is a hinge $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ if the hypothesis of corollary 22 hold.

Let $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\alpha )`$ be a hinge with $`\alpha >\frac{\pi }{2}`$. Let $`(\overline{\gamma }_1,\overline{\gamma }_2,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ be the corresponding hinge in $`M^{Hϵ}`$ with $`L[\overline{\gamma }_i]=L[\gamma _i],i=1,2.`$ Let $`\overline{\gamma }_3`$ be a minimal geodesic from $`\overline{\gamma }_2(l_2)`$ to $`\overline{\gamma }_1(0).`$ Let $`\overline{\sigma }:[0,l]M^{Hϵ}`$ be a geodesic starting from $`\overline{\gamma }_2(0)`$ such that

$$\dot{\overline{\sigma }}(0),\dot{\overline{\gamma }_2}(0)=0,\dot{\overline{\sigma }}(0)=\lambda _1\dot{\overline{\gamma }_1}(l_1)+\lambda _2\dot{\overline{\gamma }_2}(0),\lambda _i>0$$

and let $`\overline{\sigma }(l)`$ be the first point of $`\overline{\sigma }`$ which lies on $`\overline{\gamma }_3.`$ Let $`\sigma `$ be a geodesic in $`M`$ starting from $`\gamma _2(0)`$ with the same properties of $`\overline{\sigma }`$. We call $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\alpha )`$ is a thin obtuse hinge if $`(\gamma _1,\sigma ,\alpha \frac{\pi }{2})`$ is a small hinge and $`(\sigma ,\gamma _2,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ is a thin right hinge.

Let $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\alpha )`$ be a hinge with $`\alpha <\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and let $`\gamma _2(l)`$ be a point closest to $`\gamma _1(0)`$ . Let

$`\tau =\gamma _2:[0,l]M,`$

$`\theta =\gamma _2:[l,l_2]M`$

and let $`\sigma :[0,k]M`$ be a minimal geodesic from $`\gamma _1(0)`$ to $`\gamma _2(l_2)`$. We call $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\alpha )`$ a thin acute hinge if $`(\gamma _1,\tau ,\sigma )`$ is a small triangle and $`(\sigma ,\theta ,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ is a small right hinge.

From step $`(1)`$ to step $`(7),`$ in , they essentially prove that (B) holds for thin right hinges, thin obtuse hinge and thin acute hinge. The same proofs work in our context since in any steps they use Rauch and Berger theorems, and the main corollaries, and the existence of at least a minimal geodesic joining any two points.

Now, we will prove it in general. Given an arbitrary hinge $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\alpha )`$ as in (B), fix $`N`$ and let

$$\tau _{k,l}=\gamma _2:[\frac{kl_2}{N},\frac{(k+l)l_2}{N}]M,$$

where $`k,l`$ are integers with $`0k,lN.`$ Let $`\sigma _k`$ be the minimal geodesic from $`\gamma _1(0)`$ to $`\gamma _2(\frac{kl_2}{N}).`$ As in  page. 48 we shall prove that any triangle $`T_{k,l}=(\sigma _k,\tau _{k,l},\sigma _{k+l})`$ is a geodesic triangle. If we prove that there exists $`N`$ such that any $`T_{k,1}`$ is thin we may continue the proof as in , proving our aim. If both $`H0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are non positive the result follows easily while if $`H0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }>0`$ then it is enough to choose $`N`$ such that $`(i)`$ in lemma 32 holds. Then we shall assume $`H>0`$ and by Berger-Topogonov theorem we may suppose also that $`d(\gamma _1(0),\gamma _2(t))<\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}.`$ Indeed, if $`d(\gamma _(0),\gamma _2(t)=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}`$ for some $`t`$ then the manifold must be isometric to a sphere concluding our proof. Using the compactness of $`\gamma _2`$ there exists $`ϵ_o>0`$ such that for every $`ϵϵ_o`$ there exists $`\eta (ϵ)`$ such that for every $`s,t[0,l_2]`$ we get

$$d(\gamma _1(0),\gamma _2(t))+d(\gamma _1(0),\gamma _2(s))\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{Hϵ}}5\eta (ϵ).$$

Hence, for every $`ϵϵ_o,`$ we choose $`N`$ such that $`L[\tau _{k,1}]\eta (ϵ)`$ and once apply lemma 32, comparing $`M`$ with $`M^{Hϵ},`$ on $`(\sigma _k,\tau _{k,1},\alpha _k)`$ and $`(\sigma _{k+l},\tau _{k,i},\beta _k).`$ Moreover, using again the compactness of $`\gamma _2`$ then there exists $`r_o`$ such that

$$\mathrm{exp}_{\gamma _2(t)}:B_{2r_o}(0_{\gamma _2(t)})B_{2r_o}(\gamma _2(t))$$

is a diffeomorphism onto. Now it is easy to see that any geodesic triangle $`T_{k,l}`$ is thin. QED

###### Corollary 34.

Let $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ be a geodesic triangle in a Hopf-Rinow manifold such that $`0<HK\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then the perimeter of $`(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ is at most $`\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{H}}.`$

###### Corollary 35.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Hopf-Rinow manifold with $`0<HK\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Assume that $`d(M)=\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}`$ and that there exists a point $`p`$ such that the image of the function $`qd(p,q)`$ has $`[0,\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}})`$ as subset. Then $`M`$ is isometric to $`S_{\frac{1}{H}}(T_pM\times ).`$

Proof:  by Ekeland theorem () there exists a sequence $`q_n,`$ in $`M`$ such that

$$d(p,q_n)\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{H}}.$$

and there exists a unique geodesic $`\gamma _n,`$ that we shall assume parameterized in $`[0,1],`$ from $`p`$ to $`q_n`$. Take the hinges $`(\gamma _n,\gamma _m,\alpha _{n,m}).`$ Using Topogonov theorem there exists a hinge $`(\overline{\gamma }_n,\overline{\gamma }_m,\alpha _{n,m})`$ in $`M^H`$ such that

$$d(q_n,q_m)d(\overline{\gamma }_n(1),\overline{\gamma }_m(1)),$$

Now, $`\overline{\gamma }_n(1)`$ converges then $`q_n`$ is a Cauchy sequence in $`M.`$ In particular there exists the limit $`q`$ of the sequence $`q_n`$ that it satisfies $`d(p,q)=d(M).`$ Using Berger-Topogonov theorem, $`M`$ is isometric to the sphere $`S_{\frac{1}{\sqrt{H}}}(T_pM\times )`$. QED

###### Theorem 36.

Sphere theorem Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Hopf-Rinow manifold such that $`\frac{4}{9}<\delta K1`$. Assume that $`i(M)\pi `$. Then $`M`$ is contractible and if $``$ is separable then $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S(l_2)`$.

Proof:  since $`\frac{4}{9}<\delta `$ there exists $`ϵ>0`$ such that

$$\frac{\pi }{\sqrt{\delta }}=\frac{3}{2}(\pi ϵ).$$

Using the fact $`i(M)\pi ,`$ there exist two points $`p,qM`$ such that $`d(p,q)=\pi ϵ`$. We claim that $`M`$ is covered by the following geodesic balls

$$M=\overline{_{\pi ϵ}(p)}\overline{_{\pi ϵ}(q)}.$$

Let $`rM`$ such that $`d(p,r)\pi ϵ`$. Using corollary 34, we have

$$d(q,r)2(\frac{3}{2}(\pi ϵ))2(\pi ϵ)=\pi ϵ.$$

Now, we shall conclude our proof as in the Sphere Rauch theorem. QED

Leonardo Biliotti
Università degli studi di Firenze
Dipartimento di Matematica e delle Applicazioni all’Architettura
Piazza Ghiberti 27 - Via dell’Agnolo 2r - 50132 Firenze (Italy)
e-mail:biliotti@math.unifi.it