format: text

text:
# The Palais-Smale condition on contact type energy levels for convex lagrangian systems

## 1. Introduction

In this paper we continue the study of the Morse theory of the free time action functional for convex lagrangian systems that we begun in . This time we try to include the case of low energy levels, where very little is known. The main problem with the free time action functional is that it may fail to satisfy the Palais-Smale condition, usually required for variational methods. Here we prove that if an energy level is of contact type and the configuration space $`M𝕋^2`$ is not the 2-torus, then it satisfies the Palais-Smale condition. We also prove that when an energy level projects onto the whole configuration space $`M`$, the set of closed loops has a mountain pass geometry. An adaptation of an argument by Struwe to the mountain pass geometry shows the existence of convergent Palais-Smale sequences for almost all energy levels. This implies that for almost all energy levels which project onto $`M`$ the Euler-Lagrange flow has a periodic orbit, has closed orbit loops starting at any $`xM`$, and has conjugate points if the energy is below Mañé’s critical value of the universal cover. The same holds for an energy level which satisfies the Palais-Smale condition, and hence in particular for contact type energy levels.

In  we proved that high energy levels have a periodic orbit. Very low energy levels which do not project onto $`M`$ are displaceable, and then, by results of Frauenfelder and Schlenk , , they have finite Hofer-Zehnder capacity. Combining these results we get that almost all energy levels have a periodic orbit. Our class of Lagrangian systems include exact magnetic flows on compact manifolds.

### 1.1. Critical energy values

Let $`M`$ be a closed Riemannian manifold with $`dimM2`$. Let $`\pi :TMM`$ be the projection. A lagrangian on $`M`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function $`L:TM`$. We shall assume that $`L`$ is (uniformly) convex: there is $`a>0`$ such that

$$w^{}\frac{^2L}{vv}|_{(x,v)}w>a\left|w\right|_x^2\text{ for all }xM,v,wT_xM.$$

This uniform convexity and the compactness of $`M`$ imply (see e.g. Lemma 3.1 below) that $`L`$ is superlinear:

$$\underset{|v|_x+\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{L(x,v)}{|v|_x}=+\mathrm{}\text{ uniformly on }TM.$$

Since $`M`$ is compact and $`L`$ is autonomous, the Euler-Lagrange equation

(E-L)
$$\frac{d}{dt}\frac{L}{v}(x,\dot{x})=\frac{L}{x}(x,\dot{x})$$

defines a complete flow $`\phi _t`$ on $`TM`$ called the Euler-Lagrange flow of $`L`$. The energy function $`E:TM`$,

$$E(x,v):=\frac{L}{v}(x,v)vL(x,v),$$

is invariant under the Euler-Lagrange flow.

The action of an absolutely continuous curve $`\gamma C^{ac}([a,b],M)`$ is defined by

$$A_L(\gamma )=_a^bL(\gamma (s),\dot{\gamma }(s))𝑑s.$$

As noticed by Dias Carneiro  and Mañé , critical points for the action of $`L+k`$ among curves with free time interval are solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equation which have energy $`Ek`$. The most direct way to obtain critical points is to look for minima. It turns out that if $`k`$ is low enough there are no minima because then the action of $`L+k`$ is not bounded from below. The exact threshold is given by Mañé’s critical value:

$$c(L)=\mathrm{min}\{k|A_{L+k}(\gamma )0\text{ for all closed curves }\gamma \text{ on }M\}.$$

The action functional $`A_{L+k}`$ is bounded from below on the space of curves with fixed endpoints and on the space of closed curves if and only if $`kc(L)`$. It is also known  that

$$c(L)e_0(L):=\mathrm{min}\{k|\pi (E^1\{k\})=M\}.$$

If $`p:NM`$ is a covering map and $`L_1=Ldp`$ is the lift of the lagrangian, it is easy to check that $`c(L_1)c(L)`$. Thus we have that

$$e_0(L)c_u(L)c_0(L)c(L),$$

where $`c_u`$ and $`c_a=c_0`$ are the critical values of the lifts of $`L`$ to the universal cover and the abelian cover. The number $`c_0(L)`$ is also called the strict critical value and has the following characterization :

$`c_0(L)`$ $`=\mathrm{min}\left\{{\displaystyle L𝑑\mu }|\mu \text{ is a }\phi _t\text{-invariant probability with homology }\rho (\mu )=0\right\}`$
(1) $`=\mathrm{min}\{c(L\omega )|[\omega ]H^1(M,)\},`$
where the homology $`\rho (\mu )H_1(M,)H^1(M,)^{}`$ of an invariant measure with compact support $`\mu `$ is defined by

$$[\omega ],\rho (\mu )=_{TM}\omega _x(v)𝑑\mu (x,v)$$

for any closed 1-form $`\omega `$ on $`M`$. Here $`[\omega ]H^1(M,)`$ is the cohomology class of $`\omega `$.

Given a covering map $`p:NM`$ let $`L_1=Ldp`$ be the lift of the Lagrangian $`L`$ to $`TN`$ and $`c_1=c(L_1)`$ its critical value. The Peierls barrier $`h_{c_1}:N\times N`$ is defined by

$`h_{c_1}(q_0,q_1):`$ $`=\underset{T+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\mathrm{\Phi }_{c_1}(q_0,q_1;T),`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{c_1}(q_0,q_1;T):`$ $`=inf\{A_{L_1+c_1}(\gamma )|\gamma C^{ac}([0,T],N),\gamma (0)=q_0,\gamma (T)=q_1\}.`$
### 1.2. The Palais-Smale condition

We describe now our setting for the Morse theory of the free time action functional. Let $`^1(M)`$ be the set of absolutely continuous curves $`x:[0,1]M`$ such that

$$_0^1\left|\dot{x}(s)\right|_{x(s)}^2𝑑s<\mathrm{}.$$

Then $`^1(M)`$ is a Hilbert manifold and its tangent space at $`x`$ consists of weakly differentiable vector fields along $`x`$ whose covariant derivative is bounded in $`^2`$. We shall use the Hilbert manifold $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ with the Riemannian metric

(2)
$$(\xi ,\alpha ),(\eta ,\beta )_{(x,T)}=\alpha \beta +f(T)\xi (0),\eta (0)_{x(s)}+g(T)_0^1\frac{D}{ds}\xi (s),\frac{D}{ds}\eta (s)_{x(s)}𝑑s,$$

where $`\frac{D}{ds}`$ is the covariant derivative along $`x(s)`$ and $`f`$, $`g:^+^+`$ are smooth positive functions such that $`\mathrm{max}\{f,g\}2`$,

$$f(T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}T^2\hfill & \text{ if }T1,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }T10.\hfill \end{array}\text{ and }g(T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}T^2\hfill & \text{ if }T1,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{T}e^{4T^2}\hfill & \text{ if }T10.\hfill \end{array}$$

We shall discuss this choice of metric in more detail later on. Observe that this metric is locally equivalent to the metric obtained when $`fg1`$. In particular, the set of differentiable functions on $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ is the same for this metric and for the one with $`fg1`$.

Given $`k`$ define the free time action functional $`𝒜_k:^1(M)\times ^+`$ by

$$𝒜_k(x,T)=_0^1\left[L(x(s),\frac{\dot{x}(s)}{T})+k\right]T𝑑s.$$

Observe that if $`y(t):=x(t/T)`$ then

$$𝒜_k(x,T)=A_{L+k}(y).$$

We say that $`L`$ is Riemannian at infinity if there exists $`R>0`$ such that $`L(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}|v|_x^2`$ if $`|v|_x>R`$. In \[6, prop. 18\] it is proven that given a uniformly convex lagrangian $`L`$ and $`k`$, there exists a convex lagrangian $`L_0`$ such that $`L=L_0`$ on $`[Ek+1]`$ and $`L_0`$ is Riemannian at infinity. In \[6, Lemma 19\] it is proven that if $`L=L_0`$ on $`[Ec(L)+1]`$ then $`c(L)=c(L_0)`$. Thus if our objective is to find solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equation with prescribed energy, we can assume that $`L`$ is Riemannian at infinity.

Given $`q_0,q_1M`$ let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ be the set of curves $`(x,T)^1(M)\times ^+`$ with endpoints $`x(0)=q_0`$ and $`x(1)=q_1`$. Also, let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ be the set of closed curves in $`^1(M)\times ^+`$. The sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ are Hilbert submanifolds of $`^1(M)\times ^+`$. A connected component of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$) consists of closed curves in the same homotopy class with fixed endpoints (resp. in the same free homotopy class).

A theorem of Smale  implies that $`𝒜_k`$ is $`C^2`$ on $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ for the metric with $`fg1`$, and hence also for the metric (2). We show in Lemma 2.1 that a critical point of $`𝒜_k`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ or to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ is a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation with energy $`Ek`$.

We say that $`𝒜_k`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ \[resp. on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$\] or that the energy level $`k`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ \[resp. on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$\] if every sequence $`(x_n,T_n)`$ in the same connected component of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ \[resp. on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$\] such that $`\left|𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)\right|`$ is bounded and $`lim_nd_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k_{(x_n,T_n)}=0`$ has a convergent subsequence.

We shall prove

###### Theorem A.

If $`L`$ is Riemannian at infinity and $`𝒜_k`$ does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$, or on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, then there exists a Borel probability measure $`\mu `$, invariant under the Euler-Lagrange flow, supported in a connected component of the energy level $`Ek`$, which has homology $`\rho (\mu )=0`$ and whose $`(L+k)`$-action is zero:

$$A_{L+k}(\mu )=\left[L+k\right]𝑑\mu =0.$$

In appendix A we give an example in which the measure obtained in Theorem A can not be ergodic. In \[6, th. C\] we found counterexamples to the Palais-Smale condition at $`k=c(L)`$, but in  we didn’t require the Palais-Smale sequences to be in the same connected component of the space of curves. Combining the arguments in  with those of Theorem A we get the following Corollary B. The novelty is that it allows curves with trivial homotopy class.

###### Corollary B.

If $`L`$ is Riemannian at infinity then $`𝒜_k`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition for all $`k>c_u(L)`$. On $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$, $`𝒜_{c_u}`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition if and only if the Peierls barrier on the universal cover is $`h_{c_u}+\mathrm{}`$.

Another example is the lagrangian $`𝕃:T𝔻`$ on the hyperbolic disc $`𝔻`$, where $`𝕃(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}|v|_x^2+\eta _x(v)`$, $`||_x`$ is the hyperbolic metric and $`\eta `$ is a 1-form on $`𝔻`$ whose differential $`d\eta `$ is the hyperbolic area form. In this case the Peierls barrier at $`k=c(𝕃)=c_u(𝕃)`$ is finite (cf. \[2, ex. 6.2\]) and $`𝒜_{c_u}`$ does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition. If $`M`$ is a compact surface with constant curvature $`K1`$, the Euler-Lagrange flow of $`𝕃`$ projects to a (non-exact) magnetic flow on $`TM`$. At the energy level $`k=c_u(𝕃)`$ the projection of the Euler-Lagrange flow of $`𝕃`$ is the horocycle flow111When $`k>c_u(L)`$ the flow is Anosov on $`d\pi (𝔼^1\{k\})`$ and for $`k<c_u`$ the energy level $`d\pi (𝔼^1\{k\})`$ is foliated by contractible periodic orbits. for $`M`$ which has no closed orbits.

The idea of the proof of Theorem A is the following. Let $`(x_n,T_n)`$ be a Palais-Smale sequence in the same connected component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$. We first prove in Proposition 3.12, similar to , that if the times $`T_n`$ are bounded away from $`0`$ and $`+\mathrm{}`$ then there is a convergent subsequence. In Corollary 3.6 we prove that if $`q_0q_1`$ and $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ then $`T_n`$ is bounded away from zero. In Proposition 3.8 we prove that if $`lim\; inf_nT_n=0`$ and $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ or $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$ then $`x_n`$ converges to a singularity $`(q_0,0)TM`$ of the Euler-Lagrange flow with zero action $`L(q_0,0)+k=0`$ and energy $`k`$. In this case the measure $`\mu `$ is the Dirac probability supported at the point $`(q_0,0)`$.

The most delicate case is when $`lim_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$. Since the gradient of $`𝒜_k`$ at $`(x_n,T_n)`$ converges to zero one expects that the curves $`y_n(sT_n):=x_n(s)`$ are approximate solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equation with average energy $`k`$. If $`\mu _n`$ is the probability measure on $`TM`$ defined by

$$_{TM}f𝑑\mu _n=_0^1f(x_n,\frac{\dot{x}_n}{T_n})𝑑s=\frac{1}{T_n}_0^{T_n}f(y_n,\dot{y}_n)𝑑t,\left[y_n(sT_n):=x_n(s)\right],$$

we prove that $`\mu _n`$ converges to an invariant probability for the Euler-Lagrange flow with support in the energy level $`k`$. Since the $`L+k`$ action of the curves $`y_n`$ is bounded and $`lim_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$ their average action converges to zero. Since their homotopy class is fixed, and $`lim_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$, their average homology class tends to zero.

We use the functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ in the definition of the metric (2) to deal with the cases $`lim_nT_n=0`$ and $`lim_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$. In order to justify their choice observe that by suitably expanding the metric near the endpoints any bounded function on the open interval $`]1,1[`$ can be made not to satisfy the Palais-Smale condition. For example let $`\psi (x)=x^2`$ on $`|x|<1`$. Let $`h:]1,1[`$ be a diffeomorphism. Then $`\psi h`$ does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition because $`lim_{x\pm \mathrm{}}d_x(\psi h)=0`$. So, if one is going to obtain any conclusion from the fact that the Palais-Smale condition does not hold, one needs to use an appropriate metric. Since our metric is locally equivalent to the usual one with $`f=g1`$, the critical points are still solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equation and also the change of metric does not prevent finding Palais-Smale sequences by, say, a minimax argument.

### 1.3. The mountain pass geometry.

We show that for low energy levels $`e_0(L)<k<c_u(L)`$, the action functional $`𝒜_k`$ exhibits a mountain pass geometry on the space of loops $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$ and closed curves $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$. This result is suggested by Taĭmanov in \[32, p. 362\] for a different action functional for magnetic flows saying that “one-point curves form the manifold of local minima of the functional $`\mathrm{}`$”. S. Bolotin (cf.\[32, p. 362\]) observed that the results of the papers , , , , ,  may not be valid because the Palais-Smale condition could fail. The approach in this paper recovers the (a.e.)–validity of some of those results.

Let $`k<c_u(L)`$. By the definition of $`c_u(L)`$, there are a closed curve $`(x_1,T_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and for any $`q_0\pi (E^1\{k\})`$ a loop $`(x_2,T_2)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$, both with trivial homotopy class and negative $`(L+k)`$-action.

###### Proposition C.

1. Let $`q_0M`$ and $`k>E(q_0,0)`$. Then there exists $`c>0`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:[0,1]\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$ is a continuous path joining a constant loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)=q_0:[0,T]\{q_0\}M`$ (with any $`T>0`$) to any closed loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$ with negative $`(L+k)`$-action, $`A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1))<0`$, then

$$\underset{s[0,1]}{sup}A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s))>c>0.$$
2. Let $`k>e_0(L)`$. Then there exists $`c>0`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:[0,1]\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ is a continuous path joining any constant curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)=q_0:[0,T]\{q_0\}M`$ to any closed curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ with negative $`(L+k)`$-action, $`A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1))<0`$, then

$$\underset{s[0,1]}{sup}A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s))>c>0.$$

Standard critical point theory gives contractible periodic orbits on any energy level $`e_0(L)<k<c_u(L)`$ where the Palais-Smale condition holds. Since the failure of the Palais-Smale condition can only be due to one direction of non-compactness, namely the time parameter $`T`$ on $`^1(M)\times ^+`$, an argument originally due to Struwe in  (see also Struwe , Jeanjean  and Jeanjean, Toland ) can be applied to the mountain pass geometry of Proposition B to overcome the Palais-Smale condition for almost every $`k`$.

Previous results on higher energy levels (cf. , , ) give that $`E^1\{k\}`$ has a periodic orbit for every $`k>c_u(L)`$. When the energy level does not project onto the whole configuration space $`M`$ (i.e. $`k<e_0(L)`$) we show that the displacement energy of $`[Ek]`$ is finite. Then by results of U. Frauenfelder and F. Schlenk , , the $`\pi _1`$-sensitive Hofer-Zehnder capacity of $`[Ek]`$ is finite and so standard arguments (cf. ) show that almost any energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$, $`k<e_0(L)`$ has a contractible periodic orbit. We summarize this in the following:

###### Theorem D.

1. There is a total Lebesgue measure set $`A`$ such that for all $`kA`$ either the energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ is empty or it contains a periodic orbit.

Moreover,

* The set $`A`$ contains $`]c_u(L),+\mathrm{}[`$.
    * If $`k<c_u(L)`$ and $`kA`$ this periodic orbit is contractible.
    * If $`e_0(L)<k<c_u(L)`$ and $`kA`$ it has positive $`(L+k)`$-action.
2. For any $`q_0M`$, there is a total Lebesgue measure subset $`]c_u(L),+\mathrm{}[B]E(q_0,0),+\mathrm{}[`$ such that for all $`kB`$ there is a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$ with energy $`k`$.
3. The above items hold for a specific $`k]e_0(L),c_u(L)[`$ (resp. $`k]E(q_0,0),c_u(L)[`$) if the energy level $`k`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition.

As an example in appendix C we prove that a lagrangian with no magnetic term has a closed orbit on every energy level.

Two points $`\theta _0,\theta _1TM`$, are said to be conjugate if there is $`\tau `$ such that $`\theta _1=\phi _\tau (\theta _0)`$ and $`𝕍(\theta _1)d_{\theta _0}\phi _\tau (𝕍(\theta _0))\{0\}`$, where $`𝕍T(TM)`$ is the vertical sub-bundle $`𝕍(\theta )=\mathrm{ker}d_\theta \pi `$. R. Mañé asked whether if $`k<c_0(L)`$ there is always an orbit with energy $`k`$ and conjugate points. G. Paternain and M. Paternain in  showed examples of magnetic flows with Anosov energy levels without conjugate points with energy $`k]c_u(L),c_0(L)[`$. At $`k=c_u(L)`$ these examples do not have conjugate points. The question remains open for $`k<c_u(L)`$.

In \[6, p. 663\] we gave an example of an orbit segment without conjugate points which is not a local minimizer of the free time action functional. In Proposition 9.1 we prove that in an energy level without conjugate points every orbit segment is a strict local minimizer of the action functional. Since a mountain pass critical point can not be a strict local minimizer we get

###### Theorem E.

Let $`e_m(L)=inf_{(x,v)TM}E(x,v)`$.

There is an open subset with total Lebesgue measure $`A[e_m(L),c_u(L)[`$ such that if $`kA`$ then there is an orbit with energy $`k`$ and conjugate points.

If $`e_m(L)<k<c_u(L)`$ and $`𝒜_k`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition, then the energy level $`k`$ has conjugate points.

In \[5, prop. 8\] and in \[4, cor. 1.13\] we proved that if $`k`$ is a regular value of the energy function $`E`$ and $`k<e_0(L)`$ then $`E^1\{k\}`$ has conjugate points.

We don’t know if the following holds:

Question: Is it true that for the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$,

$$c_u(L)=inf\{k|x,y\stackrel{~}{M}\text{ orbit }\gamma \mathrm{\Omega }_M(x,y),E(\gamma ,\dot{\gamma })=k\}\mathrm{?}$$

An exact magnetic flow is the lagrangian flow of

$$L(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}|v|_x^2\eta _x(v),$$

where $`||_x`$ is the Riemannian metric of $`M`$ and $`\eta _x`$ is a non-closed 1-form on $`M`$. Thus for exact magnetic flows we get periodic orbits for almost all energy levels and in particular for contact type energy levels, as seen below.

### 1.4. Contact type energy levels.

We now concentrate on a property that ensures the Palais-Smale condition. Let $`H:T^{}M`$ be the hamiltonian associated to $`L`$:

(3)
$$H(x,p)=\underset{vT_xM}{\mathrm{max}}\left[p(v)L(x,v)\right],$$

and let $`\omega =dpdx`$ be the canonical symplectic form on $`T^{}M`$. The hamiltonian vector field $`X`$ on $`T^{}M`$ is defined by $`i_X\omega =dH`$. The induced hamiltonian flow is conjugate to the lagrangian flow of $`L`$ by the Legendre transform $`:TMT^{}M`$, $`(x,v)=L_v(x,v)`$. The energy function satisfies $`E=H`$, so that energy levels for $`L`$ are sent to level sets of $`H`$.

An energy level $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=H^1\{k\}`$ is said to be of contact type if there exists a 1-form $`\lambda `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`d\lambda =\omega |_{T\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\lambda (X)0`$. We call such a form $`\lambda `$ a contact-type form for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Proposition F.

If $`[H=k]`$ is of contact type, $`dimM2`$ and

* $`M𝕋^2`$ or
* $`M=𝕋^2`$ and $`k[e_0,c_0]`$,

then $`𝒜_k`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition.

In Section 2 we introduce the space of curves with free time interval and the action functional and compare various metrics on the space of curves. In Section 3 we prove Theorem A. In Section 4 we prove Corollary B. In Section 5 we prove Proposition C on the mountain pass geometry. In Section 6 we prove some results in Morse theory that we need and the relative completeness of the gradient flow of the action functional. In Section 7 we give the argument to overcome the Palais-Smale condition in a mountain pass geometry for the action functional. In Section 9 we prove Theorems D and E and in Section 10 we prove Proposition F. In Appendix A we give an example in which the measure of Theorem A can not be ergodic. In Appendix B we show energy levels of non-contact type. In Appendix C we prove that non-magnetic lagrangians have periodic orbits on every energy level.

The author wishes to thank Patrick Bernard that suggested the possibility of using Struwe’s argument in our situation.

## 2. The action functional and the space of curves.

Given a Riemannian metric on $`M`$, by Nash’s Theorem there exists an isometric embedding of $`M`$ into some $`^N`$. Let

$$^1:=^1(^N):=\{\xi :[0,1]^N\text{ absolutely continuous }|_0^1|\dot{\xi }(s)|^2ds<+\mathrm{}\}$$

be endowed with the metric

$$\xi ,\eta _^1:=\xi (0),\eta (0)+_0^1\dot{\xi }(s),\dot{\eta }(s)𝑑s.$$

The corresponding norm is given by

$$\xi _^1^2:=\left|\xi (0)\right|^2+_0^1|\dot{\xi }(s)|^2𝑑s.$$

On $`^1\times ^+`$ we shall use the Riemannian metric

(4)
$$(\xi ,\alpha ),(\eta ,\beta )_{(x,T)}=\alpha \beta +f(T)\xi (0),\eta (0)+g(T)_0^1\dot{\xi }(s),\dot{\eta }(s)𝑑s,$$

where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are smooth positive functions such that $`\mathrm{max}\{f,g\}2`$,

$$f(T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}T^2\hfill & \text{ if }T1,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }T10.\hfill \end{array}\text{ and }g(T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}T^2\hfill & \text{ if }T1,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{T}e^{4T^2}\hfill & \text{ if }T10.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\zeta (t):=\xi (t/T)`$, $`0tT`$. Then $`\dot{\xi }(t/T)=T\dot{\zeta }(t)`$ and

$$_0^1|\dot{\xi }(s)|^2𝑑s=T_0^T|\dot{\zeta }(t)|^2𝑑t.$$

In the variables $`(\zeta ,\alpha )`$ the Riemannian metric above is written as

(5) $`(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^2`$ $`=\alpha ^2+T^2|\zeta (0)|^2+T^3{\displaystyle _0^T}|\dot{\zeta }|^2𝑑t`$ $`\text{if }T1,`$
$`(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^2`$ $`=\alpha ^2+|\zeta (0)|^2+e^{4T^2}{\displaystyle _0^T}|\dot{\zeta }|^2𝑑t`$ $`\text{if }T10.`$
This metric is locally equivalent to the metric of the product Hilbert space $`^1\times `$.

Given $`q_0,q_1M`$, let

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(q_0,q_1):`$ $`=\left\{(x,T)^1\times ^+\right|x(0)=q_0,x(1)=q_1\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }:`$ $`=\left\{(x,T)^1\times ^+\right|x(0)=x(1)\}.`$
Their tangent spaces at $`(x,T)`$ are given by

$`T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Omega }(q_0,q_1)`$ $`=\left\{(\xi ,\alpha )^1\times \right|\xi (0)=\xi (1)=0\},`$
$`T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=\left\{(\xi ,\alpha )^1\times \right|\xi (0)=\xi (1)\}.`$
Endow $`\mathrm{\Omega }(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the Riemannian metric (4).

Let

$$^1(M):=\left\{x^1(^N)\right|x([0,1])M\},$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1):=\mathrm{\Omega }(q_0,q_1)^1(M)\times ^+,$$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_M:=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(M)\times ^+.$$

Then $`^1(M)\times ^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ are Hilbert submanifolds of $`^1(^N)\times ^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ respectively. A connected component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ is given by closed curves in the same free homotopy class. A connected component of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ is given by the curves $`(x,T)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ which have a given homotopy class with fixed endpoints.

On $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ we shall use the intrinsic Riemannian metric defined by

(6)
$$(\xi ,\alpha ),(\eta ,\beta )_{(x,T)}:=\alpha \beta +f(T)\xi (0),\eta (0)_{x(0)}+g(T)_0^1\frac{D}{ds}\xi (s),\frac{D}{ds}\eta (s)_{x(s)}𝑑s$$

where $`,_x`$ is the Riemannian metric on $`M`$ and $`\frac{D}{ds}`$ are covariant derivatives. Since $`M`$ is isometrically embedded into $`^N`$, the covariant derivative $`\frac{D}{ds}\xi (s)=\left(\dot{\xi }(s)\right)`$ is the orthogonal projection $`:T_x^NT_xM`$ of the derivative $`\dot{\xi }(s)`$ taken in $`^N`$. Thus the norm in $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ is smaller than the induced norm from $`^1(^N)\times ^+`$. Formulas analogous to (5) hold for the norm on $`^1(M)\times ^+`$. We also want to compare the metric on $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ with the metric induced by $`^1(^m)\times ^+`$ on a local chart $`^mUM`$. In Lemma 2.2 below we shall prove that the three norms are locally equivalent.

Given $`k`$, define the action functionals $`𝒜_k:\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`𝒜_k:\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ of $`L+k`$ by

$$𝒜_k(x,T)=_0^1T\left[L(x(s),\frac{\dot{x}(s)}{T})+k\right]𝑑s.$$

Writing $`y(t):=x\left(\frac{t}{T}\right)`$, $`0tT`$, we have that

$$𝒜_k(x,T)=_0^T[L(y,\dot{y})+k]dt=:A_{L+k}(y).$$

We say that a lagrangian $`L`$ is quadratic at infinity  if there is $`R>0`$, a 1-form $`\theta _x`$ on $`M`$ and $`a,\psi C^{\mathrm{}}(M,)`$, $`a>0`$, such that $`L(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}a(x)|v|_x^2+\theta _x(v)+\psi (x)`$ for all $`|v|_xR`$, where $`|v|_x`$ is the Riemannian norm of $`v`$ in $`TM`$.

We say that $`L`$ is Riemannian at infinity if there exists $`R>0`$ such that $`L(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}|v|_x^2`$ for all $`|v|_x>R`$. Since we are assuming that $`M`$ is isometrically embedded in $`^N`$, this is equivalent to $`L(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}|v|^2`$ for $`|v|>R`$, where $`|v|`$ is the euclidean norm of $`v`$ and $`(x,v)TM^N\times ^N`$. In a coordinate chart such a lagrangian is given as $`L(x,v)=\frac{1}{2}v^{}G(x)v`$, when $`|v|`$ is large enough, where $`G(x)`$ is the matrix of the Riemannian metric in the chart. Then in coordinate charts $`L`$ is quadratic at infinity.

It follows from a result of Smale  that if $`L`$ is Riemannian at infinity then the action functional $`𝒜_k`$ is $`C^2`$ on $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ with the metrics with $`fg1`$. Since the Riemannian metrics (4), (6) are locally equivalent to the metrics with $`fg1`$, then $`𝒜_k`$ is $`C^2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ and on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, with respect to all three Riemannian metrics.

The derivative of $`𝒜_k`$ is given by

(7) $`d_{(x,T)}𝒜_k(\xi ,\alpha )`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^1}T\left[L_x(x,\frac{\dot{x}}{T})\xi +L_v(x,\frac{\dot{x}}{T})\frac{\dot{\xi }}{T}\right]𝑑s+\alpha {\displaystyle _0^1}\left[kE(x,\frac{\dot{x}}{T})\right]𝑑s`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^T}\left[L_x(y,\dot{y})\zeta +L_v(y,\dot{y})\dot{\zeta }\right]𝑑t+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{T}}{\displaystyle _0^T}\left[kE(y,\dot{y})\right]𝑑t,`$
where $`y(t)=x\left(\frac{t}{T}\right)`$, $`\zeta (t)=\xi \left(\frac{t}{T}\right)`$, for $`0tT`$ and $`E:TM`$,

$$E(x,v)=vL_v(x,v)L(x,v)$$

is the energy function. The formulas (7) can be interpreted either in local charts with usual derivatives or in covariant derivatives. In the former case,

$`L_x\xi =_xL,\xi _{x(s)}\text{ and }L_v\dot{\xi }=_vL,\frac{D}{ds}\xi _{x(s)},`$
where $`_xL`$ and $`_vL`$ are the projections of the gradient of $`L`$ to the splitting $`T_{(x,\dot{x})}TM=HV`$ and $`\frac{D}{ds}\xi `$ is the covariant derivative of $`\xi `$. The splitting $`T_\theta TM=H(\theta )V(\theta )`$ is described on page 3.2.

Fix $`C_1>0`$ we say that $`f:U^mM`$ is a bounded chart if $`f`$ is an embedding such that the pull-back $`f^{}g`$ of the Riemannian metric has matrix $`G(x)`$ such that $`G`$ and $`G^1`$ have $`C^1`$ norm bounded by $`C_1>0`$. Fix a finite atlas of bounded charts $`𝒰=\{U_i\}_{iI}`$ such that each $`U_i^m`$ is a convex set.

We fix some constants used repeatedly. Observe that the property of being quadratic at infinity is invariant under transformations by bounded charts. The following constants are taken to hold in any bounded chart of our finite atlas, i.e. in equations (8)–(11) below the same constants are assumed to hold when the norm $`||_x`$ is interpreted as either the riemannian metric on $`M`$, the euclidean norm on $`^NM`$ or the euclidean norm on any bounded chart $`U_i^m`$ of our atlas. The norms $`|L_x|`$, $`|L_{xv}|`$ are interpreted as the euclidean norm in any bounded chart $`U_i𝒰`$.

Since $`L`$ is convex,

(8)
$$a_0:=\underset{(x,v)TM}{inf}\frac{vL_{vv}(x,v)v}{|v|_x^2}>0.$$

Since $`L`$ is quadratic at infinity there are $`a_1,a_2>0`$ such that

(9)
$$L(x,v)a_1|v|_x^2a_2,\text{ for all }(x,v)TM.$$

(10)
$$A_0:=\underset{(x,v)}{sup}L_{vv}(x,v)_x<+\mathrm{},$$

(11)
$$b_1:=\underset{xM}{sup}d_x\psi _x,\text{ where }\psi (x):=L(x,0),$$

Since $`L`$ is quadratic at infinity,
(12)
$$b_2:=\underset{(x,v)TM}{sup}\frac{\left|L_x(x,v)\right|}{1+|v|_x^2}<+\mathrm{},$$

(13)
$$b_3:=\underset{(x,v)TM}{sup}\frac{\left|L_{xv}(x,v)\right|}{1+|v|_x}<+\mathrm{}.$$

###### 2.1 Lemma.

If $`(x,T)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ \[resp. $`(x,T)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$\] is a critical point of the action functional $`𝒜_k:\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ \[resp. $`𝒜_k:\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$\] then the curve $`y:[0,T]M`$, $`y(t):=x(t/T)`$ is a differentiable solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation $`\frac{d}{dt}L_v(y,\dot{y})=L_x(y,\dot{y})`$ with $`y(0)=q_0`$, $`y(T)=q_1`$, \[resp. $`(y,\dot{y})`$ is a closed orbit of the Euler-Lagrange flow\] with energy $`E(y,\dot{y})k`$.

###### Proof:.

Cover the image $`y([0,T])`$ by images $`\stackrel{~}{U}_iM`$ of charts $`U_i𝒰`$, $`U_i^m`$. It is enough to prove that $`y`$ is a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation on each intersection $`y([0,T])\stackrel{~}{U}_i`$. Assume for a while that $`y([0,T])U_i^m`$. Using the same notation as in (7), we have that

(14) $`d_{(x,T)}𝒜_k(\xi ,0)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^T}[L_x(y,\dot{y})\zeta +L_v(y,\dot{y})\dot{\zeta }]𝑑t`$
$`=𝕃_x\zeta |_0^T+{\displaystyle _0^T}[L_v(y,\dot{y})𝕃_x(t)]\dot{\zeta }𝑑t`$
$`=0,`$
where $`𝕃_x(t):=_0^tL_x(y(s),\dot{y}(s))𝑑s.`$ Since $`L_x(y,\dot{y})b_2(1+|\dot{y}|_x^2)`$ and $`x^1(M)`$, we have that $`L_x(y,\dot{y})^1([0,T],^m)`$ and that $`𝕃_x`$ is continuous in view of Lebesgue’s theorem.

Since for both $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ we can choose $`\zeta (0)=\zeta (T)=0`$,

$$_0^T[L_v(y,\dot{y})𝕃_x(t)]\dot{\zeta }𝑑t=0$$

for all $`\dot{\zeta }^2([0,T],^m)`$ with $`_0^T\dot{\zeta }𝑑t=0`$.

This implies that $`L_v(y,\dot{y})𝕃_x`$ is constant a.e. in $`[0,T]`$. Since $`𝕃_x(t)`$ is continuous, it is bounded on $`[0,T]`$. Since $`L`$ is superlinear and $`𝕃_x`$ is bounded, $`\dot{y}`$ is bounded by a constant almost everywhere. Since $`L`$ is convex, $`vL_v(y,v)`$ is a continuous bijection. Hence we can uniquely extend $`\dot{y}`$ to $`[0,T]`$ so that $`L_v(y,\dot{y})𝕃_x`$ is constant on all $`t[0,T]`$. Since $`𝕃_x(t)`$ is continuous, $`L_v(y,\dot{y})`$ is also continuous and hence $`\dot{y}(t)`$ is continuous.

We have that

(15)
$$L_v(y(t),\dot{y}(t))=A+_0^tL_x(y,\dot{y})𝑑t$$

for some constant $`A^m`$. Since $`\dot{y}(t)`$ is continuous, the right hand side of (15) is differentiable and

$$\frac{d}{dt}L_v(y,\dot{y})=L_x(y,\dot{y}).$$

Hence $`y(t)`$ is a differentiable solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation. The theory of ordinary differential equations implies that $`y`$ is $`C^r`$ if $`L`$ is $`C^{r+2}`$.

Since $`y(t)`$ is a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation, its energy $`E(y(t),\dot{y}(t))`$ is constant. Since

$$\frac{𝒜_k}{T}|_{(x,T)}=\frac{1}{T}_0^T\left[kE(y,\dot{y})\right]𝑑t=0,$$

$`E(y,\dot{y})k`$. This completes the case of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$.

For the case of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ it remains to prove that $`\dot{y}(0)=\dot{y}(T)`$. Choose a chart $`U_i𝒰`$ whose image contains $`y(0)=y(T)`$ and restrict ourselves to vector fields $`\zeta `$ over $`y`$ with support in the connected component of $`y([0,T])\stackrel{~}{U}_i`$ containing $`y(0)`$. Since we already know that $`(y,\dot{y})`$ is a differentiable solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation, integrating by parts in (14) we have that

$`d_{(x,T)}𝒜_k(\xi ,0)`$ $`=L_v\zeta |_0^T+{\displaystyle _0^T}\left(L_x\frac{d}{dt}L_v\right)\zeta 𝑑t`$
$`=\left[L_v(y(T),\dot{y}(T))L_v(y(0),\dot{y}(0))\right]\zeta (0)+0`$
whenever $`\zeta (0)=\zeta (T)^m`$. Then $`L_v(y(T),\dot{y}(T))=L_v(y(0),\dot{y}(0))`$. Since $`y(T)=y(0)`$ and $`vL_v(y(0),v)`$ is injective, $`\dot{y}(T)=\dot{y}(0)`$.

The following lemma shows that the intrinsic Riemannian metric $`_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}`$ given by (6) on $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ and the induced metric from $`^1(^N)\times ^+`$ are locally equivalent. Also the metric on $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ and the metric on $`^1(^m)\times ^+`$, $`m=dimM`$ on a bounded coordinate chart are locally equivalent.

###### 2.2 Lemma.

1. Given $`A_1,T_1>10`$, there exists $`B=B(A_1,T_1,k,\{f,g\})>0`$ such that

if $`(x,T)^1(M)\times ^+`$, $`\left|𝒜_k(x,T)\right|<A_1`$ and $`T<T_1`$, then

for all $`(\xi ,\alpha )T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$,

(16)
$$\frac{1}{B}(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(^N)\times ^+}(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(^N)\times ^+}.$$
2. Let $`\psi :U^mM`$ be an immersion such that the pull-back $`\psi ^{}g_M(v,w)=v^{}G(x)w`$ of the Riemannian metric on $`M`$ has matrix $`G(x)`$ which is bounded in the $`C^1`$-norm:

$$\mathrm{max}\{G_{C^1(U,^{m\times m})},G^1_{C^1(U,^{m\times m})}\}<C_1.$$

For all $`A_1,T_1>10`$ there exist $`B=B(A_1,T_1,C_1,k,\{f,g\})>0`$ such that

if $`(x,T)^1(^m)\times ^+`$, $`\left|𝒜_k(\psi x,T)\right|<A_1`$ and $`T<T_1`$, then

for all $`(d_x\psi \xi ,\alpha )T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$,

$$\frac{1}{B}(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(^m)\times ^+}(d_x\psi \xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}B(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(^m)\times ^+}.$$

Proof: (1). Let $`y(sT):=x(s)`$. Then

$$A_1>A_{L+k}(y)_0^T\left(a_1|\dot{y}|_y^2a_2+k\right)𝑑t=a_1_0^T|\dot{y}|_y^2𝑑t(a_2k)T,$$

(17)
$$_0^T|\dot{y}(t)|_y^2𝑑t\frac{A_1+(a_2k)T}{a_1},$$

(18)
$$_0^1\left|\dot{x}(s)\right|_x^2𝑑s=T_0^T\left|\dot{y}(t)\right|_y^2𝑑tT\left[\frac{A_1+(a_2k)T}{a_1}\right].$$

Let $`𝕋(s,r):T_{x(r)}MT_{x(s)}M`$ be the parallel transport along $`x(s)`$. Then

$$\xi (s)=𝕋(s,0)\xi (0)+_0^s𝕋(s,r)\frac{D}{dr}\xi (r)𝑑r.$$

Thus

$`\left|\xi (s)\right|_{x(s)}`$ $`\left|\xi (0)\right|_{x(0)}+\frac{D}{ds}\xi _{^1([0,1])}\left|\xi (0)\right|_{x(0)}+\frac{D}{ds}\xi _{^2([0,1])}`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{\frac{1}{\sqrt{f(T)}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{g(T)}}\}\sqrt{2}(\xi ,0)_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}`$
(19) $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{max}\{T^1,\alpha ^{\frac{1}{2}},T_1^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{2T_1^2}\}(\xi ,0)_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}`$
where

$$\alpha :=\underset{1t10}{\mathrm{min}}\{f(t),g(t)\}.$$

Observe that for $`\xi ,\eta T_xM`$ the first and second terms in (4), (6) are equal, so we only have to bound the $`^2`$ norm of the derivatives $`\dot{\xi }`$ and $`\frac{D}{ds}\xi `$.

Let $`U`$ be a small tubular neighbourhood of $`M`$ in $`^N`$ and let $`F:UM`$ be the orthogonal projection onto $`M`$. Since $`\xi (s)T_{x(s)}M`$, we have that $`d_{x(s)}F\xi (s)=\xi (s)`$. Differentiating this equation with respect to $`s`$ we get that

$$d_{x(s)}^2F(\dot{x}(s),\xi (s))+d_{x(s)}F\dot{\xi }(s)=\dot{\xi }(s).$$

The second term is the projection of $`\dot{\xi }`$ to $`T_xM`$:

$$d_{x(s)}F\dot{\xi }(s)=\dot{\xi }(s)=\frac{D}{ds}\xi (s);$$

and the first term is the projection of $`\dot{\xi }`$ to the orthogonal complement $`T_xM^{}`$ of $`T_xM`$:

$$\dot{\xi }^{}(s):=d_{x(s)}^2F(\dot{x}(s),\xi (s)).$$

Let $`c_1:=sup_{xM}d_x^2F^2`$, then using (18) and (19) we have that

$`g(T)`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}|\dot{\xi }^{}(s)|^2𝑑sg(T){\displaystyle _0^1}c_1|\dot{x}(s)|^2|\xi (s)|^2𝑑sc_1g(T)\xi _{\mathrm{}}^2{\displaystyle _0^1}|\dot{x}(s)|^2𝑑s`$
$`c_1\mathrm{min}\{2T^2,2\}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\mathrm{max}\{T^2,\alpha ^1,T_1e^{4T_1^2}\}\left[(\xi ,0)_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}\right]^2T\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A_1+(a_2k)T}{a_1}}\right]`$
(20) $`c_1B_1\left[(\xi ,0)_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}\right]^2,`$
where

$$B_1=B_1(A_1,a_1,a_2,T_1,k,\{f,g\}):=4T_1\left[\frac{A_1+(a_2+|k|)T_1}{a_1}\right]\mathrm{max}\{\alpha ^1,T_1e^{4T_1^2}\}.$$

Observe that the bound $`c_1B_1`$ above holds for all $`0<T<T_1`$.

Since $`\dot{\xi }=\dot{\xi }+\dot{\xi }^{}`$, we have that

$`g(T)\dot{\xi }_^2^2`$ $`g(T)\left[\dot{\xi }_^2^2+\dot{\xi }^{}_^2^2\right]`$
$`g(T)\frac{D}{ds}\xi _^2^2+c_1B_1\left[(\xi ,0)_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}\right]^2.`$
Then, for all $`0<T<T_1`$,

$$\left[(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(^N)\times ^+}\right]^2\left[1+c_1B_1\right]\left[(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}\right]^2.$$

Since $`\left|\frac{D}{ds}\xi \right|=\left|\dot{\xi }\right|\left|\dot{\xi }\right|`$, then $`\frac{D}{ds}\xi _^2\dot{\xi }_^2`$. This implies the second inequality in (16).

(2). We have that

$$\frac{D}{ds}\xi =\dot{\xi }(s)+\underset{ijk}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k(x(s))\dot{x}_i(s)\xi _j(s)e_k,$$

where the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k(x)`$ are the Christoffel symbols for the Riemannian metric of $`M`$ in the coordinate chart $`\psi ^1`$ and $`e_k`$ is the $`k`$-th vector of the canonical basis of $`^m`$. Our hypothesis on $`\psi `$ implies that $`c_2=c_2(C_1):=m^2sup_{ijk,xU}\left|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k(x)\right|^2`$ is finite. Then

$$\left|\frac{D}{ds}\xi \right|\left|\dot{\xi }(s)\right|+\sqrt{c_2}\xi _{\mathrm{}}\left|\dot{x}(s)\right|.$$

Similar calculations as in (19) and (20) using $`\dot{\xi }`$ in (19) instead of the covariant derivative show that if $`0<T<T_1`$, then

$$g(T)\frac{D}{ds}\xi _^2^22g(T)\dot{\xi }_^2^2+2c_2B_2\left((\xi ,0)_{(x,T)}^{^1(^m)\times ^+}\right)^2,$$

where $`B_2:=B_1(A_1,\overline{a}_1,\overline{a}_2,T_1,k,\{f,g\})`$ and $`\overline{a}_1`$, $`\overline{a}_2`$ are constants such that the inequality (9) holds in our coordinate system $`\psi `$ for the euclidean metric in $`U^m`$ instead of the riemannian metric $`||_x`$ on $`M`$. Then, if $`0<T<T_1`$, we have that

$$(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}\sqrt{2}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+c_2B_2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(^m)\times ^+}.$$

Now write

$$\dot{\xi }(s)=\frac{D}{ds}\xi \underset{ijk}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k(x(s))\dot{x}_i(s)\xi _j(s)e_k,$$

$$\left|\dot{\xi }(s)\right|\left|\frac{D}{ds}\xi \right|+\sqrt{c_2}\xi _{\mathrm{}}\left|\dot{x}(s)\right|.$$

The same calculations as in (19) and (20) give

$$g(T)\dot{\xi }_^2^22g(T)\frac{D}{ds}\xi _^2^2+2c_2B_2\left((\xi ,0)_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}\right)^2.$$

And then

$$(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(^m)\times ^+}\sqrt{2}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+c_2B_2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}(\xi ,\alpha )_{(x,T)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}.\mathit{}$$

In the next lemma, we write $`d`$ for the distance $`d_{^1(M)\times ^+}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ or on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$.

###### 2.3 Lemma.

Given $`T_0>0`$ there exists $`C=C(T_0)>0`$ and $`\epsilon =\epsilon (T_0)>0`$ such that if $`T[\frac{1}{T_0},T_0]`$, $`(x,T),(y,S)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and $`d((x,T),(y,S))<\epsilon `$ then for the Hausdorff distance $`d_H`$ induced by the Riemannian metric, we have that

$$d_H(x([0,1],y([0,1]))<Cd((x,T),(y,S)).$$

###### Proof:.

Let

$$A_3:=4\mathrm{max}\{\frac{1}{f(t)},\frac{1}{g(t)}|t[\frac{1}{2T_0},2T_0]\},$$

where $`f(t)`$ and $`g(t)`$ are as given in the definition of the Riemannian metric on $`^1(M)`$. Let $`0<\epsilon _0<1`$ be such that

$$\frac{1}{T_0}2\epsilon _0>\frac{1}{2T_0}\text{ and }T_0+2\epsilon _0<2T_0.$$

Let $`0<\epsilon =\epsilon (T_0)<\epsilon _0`$ and write $`\delta :=d((x,T),(y,S))<\epsilon `$. There is a curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )=(z_\lambda ,T_\lambda )`$, $`\lambda [0,1]`$, from $`(x,T)`$ to $`(y,S)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ or in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ such that

$$\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=_0^1\frac{d}{d\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )𝑑\lambda <2\delta .$$

We can reparametrize $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ so that the norm of its tangent vector is constant:

$$\frac{d}{d\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda )^2=\left|\frac{dT_\lambda }{d\lambda }\right|^2+f(T_\lambda )\left|\frac{z_\lambda (0)}{\lambda }\right|_{z_\lambda (0)}^2+g(T_\lambda )_0^1\left|\frac{D}{d\lambda }\dot{z}_\lambda \right|_{z_\lambda (s)}^2𝑑s<4\delta ^2.$$

Since $`|T_\lambda T|d(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\lambda ),(x,T))2\delta <2\epsilon _0`$ then $`S=T_{\lambda =1},T_\lambda ,T[\frac{1}{2T_0},2T_0]`$. Hence

(21) $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{z_\lambda (0)}{\lambda }}\right|_{z_\lambda (0)}^2`$ $`<A_3\delta ^2\text{ for }\lambda [0,1],`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|\frac{D}{d\lambda }\dot{z}_\lambda \right|_{z_\lambda (s)}^2𝑑s`$ $`<A_3\delta ^2\text{ for }\lambda [0,1].`$
Let

$$F(s):=\frac{1}{2}_0^1\left|\frac{z_\lambda (s)}{\lambda }\right|_{z_\lambda (s)}^2𝑑\lambda .$$

From (21), $`|F(0)|<A_3\delta ^2`$. We have that

$`F(s)F(0)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^s}\frac{d}{ds}F(s)𝑑s`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^s}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}z_\lambda (s),{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}z_\lambda (s)_{z_\lambda (s)}𝑑\lambda 𝑑s`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^s}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{d\lambda }}\dot{z}_\lambda (s),{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda }}z_\lambda (s)_{z_\lambda (s)}𝑑\lambda 𝑑s,`$
$`\left|F(s)F(0)\right|`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{D}{d\lambda }}\dot{z}_\lambda (s)\right|^2𝑑s𝑑\lambda \right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^s}{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{z_\lambda (s)}{\lambda }}\right|_{z_\lambda (s)}^2𝑑\lambda 𝑑s\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`\sqrt{A_3\delta ^2}\left[2{\displaystyle _0^s}F(s)𝑑s\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
$`F(s)`$ $`A_3\delta ^2+\sqrt{2A_3}\delta \left[{\displaystyle _0^s}F(s)𝑑s\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Write

$$u(s):=\left[_0^sF(s)𝑑s\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

Then

$$\frac{d}{ds}u(s)^2A_3\delta ^2+\delta \sqrt{2A_3}u(s).$$

Let $`t_0:=sup\{t[0,1]|u(s)\sqrt{2A_3}\delta (s+\frac{1}{2}),s[0,t]\}`$. Then

$`\frac{d}{ds}u(s)^2`$ $`A_3\delta ^2+2A_3\delta ^2(s+\frac{1}{2})\text{ if }s[0,t_0],`$
$`2A_3\delta ^2(s+1)\text{ if }s[0,t_0].`$
$`u(s)^2`$ $`2A_3\delta ^2(\frac{1}{2}s^2+s),`$
$`u(s)`$ $`\sqrt{2A_3}\delta \sqrt{\frac{1}{2}s^2+s}\text{ if }s[0,t_0].`$
Since $`\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}s^2+s}<s+\frac{1}{2}`$ for all $`s>0`$, we have that $`t_0=1`$. Hence, for all $`s[0,1]`$,

$`F(s)`$ $`A_3\delta ^2+\sqrt{2A_3}\delta u(s)`$
$`A_3\delta ^2+2A_3\delta ^2\sqrt{\frac{3}{2}}`$
$`\frac{1}{2}C^2\delta ^2.`$
We have that

$`d_M(y(s),x(s))=d_M(z_1(s),z_0(s)){\displaystyle _0^1}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{z_\lambda (s)}{\lambda }}\right|𝑑\lambda \sqrt{2F(s)}C\delta .`$
for all $`s[0,1]`$. This implies the lemma. ∎

## 3. The Palais-Smale condition.

In this section we are interested in the validity of the Palais-Smale condition for the action functional $`𝒜_k`$ on a connected component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$) of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$).

###### Theorem A.

If $`L`$ is Riemannian at infinity and $`𝒜_k`$ does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$, or on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, then there exists a Borel probability measure $`\mu `$, invariant under the Euler-Lagrange flow, supported in a connected component of the energy level $`Ek`$, which has homology $`\rho (\mu )=0`$ and whose $`(L+k)`$-action is zero:

$$A_{L+k}(\mu )=\left[L+k\right]𝑑\mu =0.$$

###### Proof of Theorem A:.

Let $`(x_n,T_n)`$ be a sequence in a connected component $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$) such that

$$\left|𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)\right|<A_1\text{and}d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k<\frac{1}{n}.$$

Assume that $`(x_n,T_n)`$ does not have an accumulation point in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$). Then Proposition 3.12 implies that either $`lim\; inf_nT_n=0`$ or $`lim\; sup_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$.

If $`lim\; sup_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$, Proposition 3.13 implies the thesis of the theorem. So assume that $`lim\; inf_nT_n=0`$.

If $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ with $`q_1q_0`$ then Corollary 3.6 shows that $`lim\; inf_nT_n>0`$. This contradicts our assumption. Hence $`q_0=q_1`$. If either $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ with $`q_0=q_1`$ or $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, then Proposition 3.8 and Remark 3.9 imply the thesis of the theorem.

### 3.1. Preliminary lemmas

###### 3.1 Lemma.

If $`L`$ is convex and quadratic at infinity, then

$$\frac{1}{2}a_0|v|_x^2+\theta _x(v)+\psi (x)L(x,v)\frac{1}{2}A_0|v|_x^2+\theta _x(v)+\psi (x),$$

$$\psi (x)+\frac{1}{2}a_0|v|_x^2E(x,v)\psi (x)+\frac{1}{2}A_0|v|_x^2,$$

where $`\theta _x(v):=L_v(x,0)v`$ and $`\psi (x):=L(x,0)`$.

###### Proof:.

Let $`L_0(x,v):=L(x,v)\theta _x(v)\psi (x)`$. Let $`f(t):=L_0(x,tv)`$. Then $`f(0)=0`$, $`f^{}(0)=0`$ and $`f^{\prime \prime }(t)=v\frac{L}{v^2}(x,tv)v`$, so that $`a_0|v|_x^2f^{\prime \prime }(t)A_0|v|_x^2`$. Hence

$`L_0(x,v)={\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^t}f^{\prime \prime }(s)𝑑s𝑑t`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^t}a_0|v|_x^2𝑑s𝑑t\frac{1}{2}a_0|v|_x^2`$
$`\frac{1}{2}A_0|v|_x^2.`$
Now let $`g(t):=E(x,tv)=tvL_v(x,tv)L(x,tv)`$. Then $`g(0)=\psi (x)`$ and $`g^{}(t)=tvL_{vv}(x,tv)v`$, so that $`ta_0|v|_x^2g^{}(t)tA_0|v|_x^2`$. Therefore,

$`E(x,v)=g(1)=g(0)+{\displaystyle _0^1}g^{}(t)𝑑t`$ $`\psi (x)+\frac{1}{2}a_0|v|_x^2`$
$`\psi (x)+\frac{1}{2}A_0|v|_x^2.`$
Let $`\lambda >0`$ be a Lebesgue number for our finite atlas $`𝒰=\{U_i\}`$ of bounded charts.

###### 3.2 Lemma.

Suppose that $`L`$ is quadratic at infinity.

If $`U_i𝒰`$, $`x,yU_i`$ and $`d_M(x,y)<\lambda `$ then in the chart $`U_i`$ we have:

(i)
$$\left[L_v(x,v)L_v(y,w)\right]\zeta +b_3\left(|v|+|w|+1\right)|\zeta ||xy|+A_0|\zeta ||vw|0.$$

(ii)
$$a_0|vw|^2\left[L_v(x,v)L_v(y,w)\right](vw)+b_3\left(|v|+|w|+1\right)|vw||xy|.$$

###### Proof:.

Recall that the domains $`U_i^m`$ are convex. We work in local coordinates as if $`L`$ were defined in $`TU_i^{2n}`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}_0^1\zeta L_{vv}\left(t(x,v)+(1t)(y,w)\right)(vw)𝑑t=\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(L_v(x,v)L_v(y,w)\right)\zeta \\ \hfill _0^1\zeta L_{xv}\left(t(x,v)+(1t)(y,w)\right)(xy)𝑑t.\end{array}$$

This implies (i). Using $`\zeta =vw`$ one gets (ii).

###### 3.3 Lemma.

Let $`𝒞:=C^{\mathrm{}}([0,1],M)\times ^+`$.

The subsets $`𝒞\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`𝒞\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ are dense in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ respectively.

###### Proof:.

We prove the lemma for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$. The proof for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ is similar. Let $`\lambda >0`$ be a Lebesgue number for our finite atlas $`𝒰`$.

Suppose first that $`\mathrm{length}(x)<\lambda `$. Then the image of $`x`$ lies inside of a domain of a chart $`U_i𝒰`$ and by lemma 2.2 we can assume that $`M=U_i^n`$. Extend $`x:[0,1]M`$ to $``$ by setting $`x(t)=x(0)`$ for $`t<0`$ and $`x(t)=x(1)`$ for $`t>1`$. Then the extension is also in the Sobolev space $`W_{\text{loc}}^{1,2}(,^m)`$, see \[8, §4.1\]. Let $`\eta C^{\mathrm{}}(,)`$ be

$$\eta (t):=\{\begin{array}{cc}C\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{t^21})\hfill & \text{if }|t|1,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }|t|1,\hfill \end{array}$$

where the constant $`C`$ is chosen such that $`_{}\eta 𝑑t=1`$. For $`\epsilon >0`$ let $`\eta _\epsilon (t):=\frac{1}{\epsilon }\eta (\frac{t}{\epsilon }).`$ Define

$$x^\epsilon (t):=_{}\eta _\epsilon (st)x(s)𝑑s.$$

Then \[8, §4.2.1\], $`x^\epsilon C^{\mathrm{}}(,^m)`$, $`x^\epsilon x`$ uniformly on compact subsets and $`\dot{x}^\epsilon \dot{x}`$ in $`^2([0,1],^m)`$. Let

$$y^\epsilon (s):=x^\epsilon (s)+(1s)\left(x(0)x^\epsilon (0)\right)+s\left(x(1)x^\epsilon (1)\right).$$

Then $`(y^\epsilon ,T)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)𝒞`$. Since $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}x^\epsilon (0)=x(0)`$, $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}x^\epsilon (1)=x(1)`$ and $`\dot{x}^\epsilon \dot{x}`$ in $`^2([0,1],^m)`$ we have that $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}(y^\epsilon ,T)=(x,T)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$.

Now assume that $`\mathrm{length}(x)>\lambda `$. Let $`0=s_0<s_1<\mathrm{}<s_N=1`$ be such that $`\mathrm{length}(x|_{[s_{i1},s_i]})<\frac{\lambda }{8}`$. Let $`x_i(t)=x\left(s_i+t(s_{i+1}s_i)\right)`$, $`t[0,1]`$. For each $`i`$ do the construction above and obtain a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ curve $`y_i`$ with the same endpoints as $`x_i`$ and which is near $`x_i`$ in $`^1(M)`$. The curve $`y=y_1\mathrm{}y_N`$, appropriately defined in $`[0,1]`$, is piecewise $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ and is near $`x`$ in $`^1(M)`$. Let $`0=s_0<t_1<s_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_N<s_N=1`$ be such that $`\mathrm{length}(y|_{[t_j,t_{j+1}]})<\frac{\lambda }{4}`$. Then $`y|_{[t_j,t_{j+1}]}`$ is in the domain of a chart $`U_j^m`$ and it is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ in neighbourhoods of $`t_j`$ and $`t_{j+1}`$. Let $`z_j(s)=y\left(t_j+s(t_{j+1}t_j)\right)`$, $`s[0,1]`$. Let $`c_j:[0,1]U_j`$ be a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ curve such that $`c_j=z_j`$ in neighbourhoods of $`0`$ and $`1`$. Extend $`(z_jc_j)`$ to $``$ by setting $`(z_jc_j)(s)=0`$ if $`s[0,1]`$. Then $`(z_jc_j)`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`\eta _\epsilon `$ be as above and let

$`w_j^\epsilon (t):={\displaystyle _{}}\eta _\epsilon (st)(z_jc_j)(s)𝑑s.`$
Then $`w^\epsilon C^{\mathrm{}}(,^m)`$ and $`w^\epsilon `$ is near $`(z_jc_j)`$ in $`^1(^m)`$. Since $`(z_jc_j)0`$ in neighbourhoods of $`0`$ and $`1`$ and $`\mathrm{supp}(\eta _\epsilon )[\epsilon ,\epsilon ]`$, if $`\epsilon `$ is small enough then $`w^\epsilon =0`$ in neighbourhoods of $`0`$ and $`1`$. Let

$$z_j^\epsilon (t):=c_j(t)+w^\epsilon (t),t[0,1].$$

Then $`z_j^\epsilon `$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$, it is near $`z_j`$ in $`^1(^m)`$ and coincides with $`z_j`$ in neighbourhoods of $`0`$ and $`1`$. Let $`z^\epsilon :=y|_{[0,t_1]}z_1\mathrm{}z_{N1}y|_{[t_N,1]}`$ appropriately defined on $`[0,1]`$. Then $`z^\epsilon `$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`(z^\epsilon ,T)`$ is near $`(x,T)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$.

###### 3.4 Lemma.

Suppose that the injectivity radius of $`M`$ is larger than $`2`$. There is $`K>0`$ such that if $`\gamma :[0,1]M`$ is a geodesic with $`\left|\dot{\gamma }\right|1`$ and $`J`$ is a Jacobi field along $`\gamma `$ then

$`\underset{s[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}\{|J(s)|,|J^{}(s)|,|J^{\prime \prime }(s)|\}K\left[|J(0)|+|J(1)|\right]`$
###### Proof:.

We first prove that there is $`K_0>0`$ such that if $`J`$ is a Jacobi field along $`\gamma `$ and $`J(0)=0`$ then

$$|J(s)|K_0|J(1)|.$$

Suppose that $`K_0`$ does not exist. Then for all $`N^+`$ there is a geodesic $`\gamma _N:[0,1]M`$ with $`|\dot{\gamma }_N|1`$, a Jacobi field $`J_N`$ along $`\gamma _N`$ with $`J_N(0)=0`$, and $`s_N[0,1]`$ such that $`\left|J_N(s_N)\right|>N\left|J_N(1)\right|`$. Since $`M`$ is compact, taking a subsequence of $`s_N`$ we can assume that the limits $`s_0=lim_Ns_N[0,1]`$, $`(\overline{x},\overline{v})=lim_N(\gamma _N(0),\dot{\gamma }_N(0))TM`$ and $`lim_N{\displaystyle \frac{J_N(s_N)}{\left|J_N(s_N)\right|}}TM`$ exist. Since Jacobi fields are the projection of the derivative of the geodesic flow, which is $`C^1`$, the map $`u{\displaystyle \frac{J_N(u)}{\left|J_N(s_N)\right|}}`$ converges to a Jacobi field $`I(u)`$ along the geodesic $`\delta (u)`$ with $`(\delta (0),\delta ^{}(0))=(\overline{x},\overline{v})`$ such that $`I(0)=0`$ and

$$\left|I(1)\right|=\underset{N}{lim}\frac{\left|J_N(1)\right|}{\left|J_N(s_N)\right|}\underset{N}{lim}\frac{\left|J_N(1)\right|}{N\left|J_N(1)\right|}=0.$$

Also,

$$\left|I(s_0)\right|=\underset{N}{lim}\frac{\left|J_N(s_N)\right|}{\left|J_N(s_N)\right|}=1.$$

Then $`I`$ is a non-trivial Jacobi field along a geodesic $`\delta `$ of length $`|\overline{v}|1`$, which is zero at the endpoints. Therefore the geodesic $`\delta `$ has conjugate points. This contradicts222When $`\overline{v}=0`$ and $`\delta `$ is a constant geodesic, the Jacobi equation along $`\delta `$ is $`J^{\prime \prime }=0`$, which has no conjugate points. the hypothesis that the injectivity radius of $`M`$ is larger than 2.

Now let $`J`$ be any Jacobi field along $`\gamma `$. Let $`A(s)`$, $`B(s)`$ be the Jacobi fields along $`\gamma `$ satisfying $`A(0)=0`$, $`A(1)=J(1)`$ and $`B(0)=J(0)`$, $`B(1)=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{length}(\gamma )1`$ and the injectivity radius of $`M`$ is larger than 2, the geodesic $`\gamma `$ has no conjugate points. This implies that such Jacobi fields $`A`$ and $`B`$ exist.

By the estimate above $`\left|A(s)\right|K_0\left|J(1)\right|`$. Considering the Jacobi field $`\stackrel{~}{B}(s):=B(s)`$ along the geodesic $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(s):=\gamma (s)`$ we get that $`\left|B(s)\right|K_0\left|J(0)\right|`$. Since $`J(s)=A(s)+B(s)`$, we get that

$`|J(s)|K_0\left[|J(0)|+|J(1)|\right]\text{ for all }s[0,1].`$
Since $`|\dot{\gamma }|1`$, from the Jacobi equation $`J^{\prime \prime }+R(\dot{\gamma },J)\dot{\gamma }=0`$, we get that

$$|J^{\prime \prime }(s)|b|J(s)|bK_0\left(|J(0)|+|J(1)|\right),$$

for some $`b=b(M)>0`$.

We have that

$$J(1)T_1J(0)=_0^1T_sJ^{}(s)𝑑s,$$

where $`T_s:T_{\gamma (0)}MT_{\gamma (s)}M`$ is the parallel transport along $`\gamma `$. Then there is $`s_0[0,1]`$ such that $`|J^{}(s_0)||J(0)|+|J(1)|`$. Therefore

$`|J^{}(s)|`$ $`|J^{}(s_0)|+|{\displaystyle _{s_0}^s}|J^{\prime \prime }(u)|du|`$
$`|J(0)|+|J(1)|+bK_0\left(|J(0)|+|J(1)|\right),`$
Now take $`K=\mathrm{max}\{K_0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+bK_0\}`$.

### 3.2. Palais-Smale sequences

During the rest of this section $`(x_n,T_n)`$ will be a Palais-Smale sequence. This is, $`(x_n,T_n)`$ will be a sequence in a fixed connected component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ such that

$$\left|𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)\right|<A_1\text{ and }d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k_{(x_n,T_n)}^{^1(M)\times ^+}<\frac{1}{n}.$$

Also, $`L`$ will be a convex lagrangian on a compact manifold $`M`$, Riemannian at infinity.

Write $`y_n(t):=x_n(t/T_n)`$, $`0tT_n`$. As in (7) we compute

$`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k(\xi ,\alpha )`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^1}\left[L_x(x_n,\frac{\dot{x}_n}{T_n})\xi +L_v(x,\frac{\dot{x}_n}{T_n})\frac{\dot{\xi }}{T_n}\right]T_n𝑑s+\alpha {\displaystyle _0^1}\left[kE(x_n,\frac{\dot{x}_n}{T_n})\right]𝑑s`$
(22) $`={\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}\left[L_x(y_n,\dot{y}_n)\zeta +L_v(y_n,\dot{y}_n)\dot{\zeta }\right]𝑑t+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{T_n}}{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}\left[kE(y_n,\dot{y}_n)\right]𝑑t,`$
where $`\zeta (t):=\xi (t/T_n)`$.

###### 3.5 Lemma.

There exists $`B=B(k,A_1,A_2)>0`$ such that if $`x_n^1(M)`$, $`𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)A_1`$ and $`T_nA_2`$, then

$$\frac{\mathrm{}_n^2}{T_n}_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t=\frac{1}{T_n}_0^1|\dot{x}_n|^2𝑑s<B,$$

where $`\mathrm{}_n:=\mathrm{length}(x_n)`$ and $`y_n(t)=x_n(t/T_n)`$. In particular if $`T_n0`$, then $`lim_n\mathrm{}_n=0`$.

###### Proof:.

Using (9),

$`A_1`$ $`𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)=A_{L+k}(y_n)`$ $`a_1{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}\left|\dot{y}_n\right|^2𝑑s(a_2+|k|)T_n,`$
Let $`\mathrm{}_n:=\mathrm{length}(y_n)`$. By the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality,

$$\mathrm{}_n^2=\left(_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|𝑑t\right)^2T_n_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t.$$

The inequalities above imply the lemma with $`B=1+\frac{1}{a_1}\left[A_1+(a_2+|k|)A_2\right]`$.

###### 3.6 Corollary.

If $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$, $`q_0q_1`$ and $`𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)<A_1`$, then $`T_n`$ is bounded away from zero.

###### 3.7 Corollary.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is a connected component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ with a non-trivial free homotopy class, then for all $`A_1>0`$,

$$inf\left\{T>0\right|(x,T)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,𝒜_k(x,T)<A_1\}>0.$$

###### Proof:.

Since $`M`$ is compact, $`inf\{\mathrm{length}(x)|(x,T)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\}`$ is positive. Now use Lemma 3.5.

###### 3.8 Proposition.

If a sequence $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ satisfies $`𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)<A_1`$, $`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k<\frac{1}{n}`$ and $`T_n0`$, then there is $`q_0M`$ and a subsequence $`x_{n_i}`$ such that $`q_0=lim_ix_{n_i}(s)`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$ and

1. $`lim_i𝒜_k(x_{n_i},T_{n_i})=0`$.
2. $`(q_0,0)`$ is a singularity of the Euler-Lagrange flow.
3. $`E(q_0,0)=k`$. In particular $`ke_0(L)`$.
4. $`\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{n_i}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|\dot{x}_{n_i}(s)\right|^2𝑑s=0.`$

In particular, the Dirac probability measure supported on $`(q_0,0)`$ is an invariant measure, supported on the energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$, whose $`(L+k)`$-action is zero and has trivial homology.

Also, the (singular) energy level $`E=k`$ does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition.

###### 3.9 Remark.

Proposition 3.8 will be applied to sequences in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and also to sequences in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ with $`q_1=q_0`$. This means that $`d𝒜_k`$ is to be understood as the norm of the derivative $`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k`$ restricted to the subspace $`T_{(x_n,T_n)}\mathrm{\Omega }(x_n(0),x_n(1))T_{(x_n,T_n)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ given by variational vector fields which are zero at the endpoints.

###### Proof:.

Assume that $`1T_n0`$. Let $`\mathrm{}_n:=\mathrm{length}(y_n)`$. By Lemma 3.5, we have that $`lim_n\mathrm{}_n=0`$. Since $`M`$ is compact, taking a subsequence, we can assume that $`lim_ny_n(0)=q_0M`$.

Since $`lim_n\mathrm{}_n=0`$ and $`lim_ny_n(0)=q_0`$, we can assume that all the curves $`y_n`$ are in the domain $`U_i^m`$, $`m=dimM`$ of a bounded chart $`U_i𝒰`$. By lemma 2.2 we can assume that on the chart $`U_i`$ we have $`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k_{^1(^m)\times ^+}<\frac{1}{n}`$ for all $`n`$. From now on we work on the chart $`U_i`$ as if $`M=^m`$.

Let $`\xi (s):=x_n(s)x_n(0)`$. Then $`\xi (0)=\xi (1)=0`$. Observe that333Since $`\xi (0)=\xi (1)=0`$ this tangent vector is also in $`T_{(x_n,T_n)}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q,q)`$, where $`q=x_n(0)=x_n(1)`$. $`(\xi ,0)T_{(x_n,T_n)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$. Let $`\zeta (t):=\xi (t/T_n)`$, $`t[0,T_n]`$. Then $`\zeta (0)=\zeta (T_n)=0`$, $`\dot{\zeta }(t)=\dot{y}_n(t)`$. Using (5), we have that

$`\left|d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k(\xi ,0)\right|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left[T_n^3{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{\zeta }|^2𝑑t\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_n}{n}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Using Lemma 3.2.(ii) with $`w=0`$, we get that

(23)
$$L_v(x,v)vL_v(y,0)vb_3|v||xy|b_3|v|^2|xy|+a_0|v|^2,$$

for all $`(x,v)TU_i`$. Using inequality (23) with $`(x,v)=(y_n,\dot{y}_n)`$ and $`y=y_n(0)`$, we get

$`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k`$ $`(\xi ,0)={\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}[L_x(y_n,\dot{y}_n)\zeta +L_v(y_n,\dot{y}_n)\dot{\zeta }]dt,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_n}{n}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`b_2`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}\left[1+|\dot{y}_n|^2\right]|y_ny_n(0)|𝑑t+\theta _{y_n(0)}\left({\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}\dot{y}_n𝑑t\right)+`$
$`b_3{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n||y_ny_n(0)|𝑑tb_3{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2|y_ny_n(0)|𝑑t+`$
$`+a_0{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t,`$
$`b_2`$ $`\mathrm{}_nT_n+0b_3\mathrm{}_n^2(b_3+b_2)\mathrm{}_n{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t+a_0{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t,`$
where $`\theta _x:=L_v(x,0)`$ and $`b_2`$ is from (12).

Dividing the last inequality by $`T_n`$ we have that

(24) $`b_2\mathrm{}_nb_3{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_n^2}{T_n}}+\left[a_0(b_3+b_2)\mathrm{}_n\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_n}}{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t\right]`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Since $`𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)<A_1`$, from lemma 3.5 in the chart $`U_i`$ we get

$$\underset{n}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{}_n^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{T_n}\underset{n}{lim\; sup}_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t<+\mathrm{}.$$

From (24) and lemma 3.5 we get that

(25)
$$\underset{n}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{}_n^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{T_n^2}\underset{n}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{T_n}_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t<+\mathrm{}.$$

Since $`lim_nT_n=0`$, we get that

$$\underset{n}{lim}\mathrm{}_n=0,\underset{n}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{}_n^2}{T_n}=0,\underset{n}{lim}_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t=0\text{ and }\frac{1}{T_n}_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t\text{ is bounded.}$$

Hence, from inequalities (25) and (24), we get that

(26)
$$\underset{n}{lim\; sup}\left[\frac{1}{T_n}_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|𝑑t\right]^2=\underset{n}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{}_n^2}{T_n^2}\underset{n}{lim}\frac{1}{T_n}_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t=0.$$

Changing variables in the integral, this proves item (iv).

(i). By lemma 3.1, for all $`(x,v)TM`$

$$\left|L(x,v)+k\right|\frac{1}{2}A_0|v|_x^2+\left|\theta _x(v)\right|+\left|\psi (x)\right|+|k|.$$

Then

$$\left|𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)\right|\frac{1}{2}A_0_0^{T_n}\left|\dot{y}_n\right|_{y_n}^2𝑑t+\mathrm{}_n\underset{xM}{sup}\theta _x+T_n\left[|k|+\underset{xM}{sup}\left|\psi (x)\right|\right].$$

Hence $`lim_n𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)=0`$.

(ii). Let $`h:[0,1][0,2]`$ be a smooth function such that $`h(0)=h(1)=0`$ and $`_0^1h(s)𝑑s=1`$. Let $`\xi (s):=h(s)d\psi (x_n(0))^m`$, $`s[0,1]`$ and $`\zeta (t):=\xi (t/T_n)`$. We have that

(27) $`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k`$ $`(\xi ,0)={\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}[L_x(y_n,\dot{y}_n)\zeta +L_v(y_n,\dot{y}_n)\dot{\zeta }]dt\frac{1}{n}\xi _{(x_n,T_n)}.`$
Using (13),

$`L_x(x,v)`$ $`=L_x(x,0)+{\displaystyle _0^1}\frac{d}{ds}L_x(x,sv)𝑑s`$
(28) $`L_x(x,v)\zeta `$ $`d\psi (x)\zeta b_3\left(1+|v|_x\right)|v|_x|\zeta |.`$
Write $`\theta _{q_0}=L_v(q_0,0)`$. Using (28) and Lemma 3.2.(i) with $`(x,v)=(y_n,\dot{y}_n)`$, $`(y,w)=(q_0,0)`$ in inequality in (27), we get that

$$T_n_0^1𝑑\psi (x_n(s))h(s)𝑑\psi (x_n(0))𝑑sb_3\zeta _{\mathrm{}}_0^{T_n}(\left|\dot{y}_n\right|+\left|\dot{y}_n\right|^2)𝑑t$$

$$+\theta _{q_0}\left(_0^{T_n}\dot{\zeta }𝑑t\right)b_3\dot{\zeta }_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}_n_0^{T_n}\left(1+\left|\dot{y}_n\right|\right)𝑑tA_0\dot{\zeta }_{\mathrm{}}_0^{T_n}\left|\dot{y}_n\right|𝑑t$$

$$\frac{T_n}{n}\left|d\psi (q_0)\right|\dot{h}_^2.$$

In the inequality above the third term is zero. Dividing by $`T_n`$, letting $`n+\mathrm{}`$ and using (26), we get

$$0\left|d\psi (q_0)\right|^2=\underset{n+\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^1𝑑\psi (x_n(s))h(s)𝑑\psi (x_n(0))𝑑s0.$$

Hence $`(q_0,0)`$ is a singularity of the Euler-Lagrange flow.

(iii). We now see that $`E(q_0,0)=k`$. From (11),

$$\left|\psi \left(y_n(t)\right)\psi \left(y_n(0)\right)\right|b_1\mathrm{}_n\text{for all }t[0,T_n].$$

The hypothesis $`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k<\frac{1}{n}`$ implies that

(29) $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_k}{T}}|_{(x_n,T_n)}\right|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_n}}\left|{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}[E(y_n,\dot{y}_n)k]dt\right|.`$
Using Lemma 3.1 we get that

$`\left[\psi \left(y_n(0)\right)+k\right]b_1\mathrm{}_n+{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{2T_n}}{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}`$ $`\left[\psi \left(y_n(0)\right)+k\right]+b_1\mathrm{}_n+{\displaystyle \frac{A_0}{2T_n}}{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t.`$
Then from inequality (26), we get

$$E(q_0,0)=\psi (q_0)=\underset{n}{lim}\psi \left(y_n(0)\right)=k.$$

We have that $`E(q_0,0)=k=\psi (q_0)`$ and $`d\psi (q_0)=0`$, hence the point $`(q_0,0)TM`$ is a singularity of the Euler-Lagrange flow in the energy level $`E=k`$. The Dirac measure supported on $`(q_0,0)`$ is an invariant measure whose $`(L+k)`$-action is zero and has trivial homology.

This (singular) energy level $`E=k`$ does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition because the curves $`(x_n,T_n)`$, where $`x_n(t)q_0`$, $`T_n=n`$, are in the same connected component in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ of closed curves with trivial homotopy class, they satisfy $`𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)0`$ and $`d𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)0`$ but they do not have an accumulation point in the topology of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$.

In the case $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$, the same choice $`x_n(s)q_0`$, $`T_n=n`$ is an unbounded Palais-Smale sequence in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$.

###### 3.10 Corollary.

If $`(q_0,0)T_{q_0}M`$ is not a singularity of the Euler-Lagrange flow and a sequence $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$ satisfies $`𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)<A_1`$ and $`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k<\frac{1}{n}`$, then $`lim\; inf_nT_n>0`$.

###### 3.11 Remark.

Observe that the Hilbert manifolds $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ are not complete with our riemannian metric (4) because they do not contain the points $`(x,0)^1(M)\times \{0\}`$ that would be at finite distance from $`(x,1)`$. The discussion above shows that in order to prevent a Palais-Smale sequence $`(x_n,T_n)`$ from leaving the space at $`^1(M)\times \{0\}`$ we can either

* work on a connected component $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ with a non-trivial homotopy class.
* work on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ with $`q_0q_1`$.
* work on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$ where $`(q_0,0)`$ is not a fixed point of the Euler-Lagrange flow.
* ask that $`E^1\{k\}`$ is not a singular energy level.
* ask that $`lim_n𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)0`$.

On a given connected component $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ a singular energy level may not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition with a counter-example made with sequences of curves $`(x_n,T_n)`$ with $`lim_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$ which spend long time near the singularity. For example in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ when the singularity is hyperbolic and $`q_0`$ and $`q_1`$ are respectively in the projections of the unstable and stable manifolds of the singularity. In such an example theorem A says that the measure $`\mu _n`$ defined in page 1.2 converges to the Dirac measure at the singularity.

###### 3.12 Proposition.

If a sequence $`\{(x_n,T_n)\}_n\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ or $`\{(x_n,T_n)\}_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ satisfies

$$𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)<A_1,d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k<\frac{1}{n}\text{ and }\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}<\underset{n}{lim\; inf}T_n<+\mathrm{};$$

then there exists a convergent subsequence.

###### Proof:.

Since $`M`$ is compact, if $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, taking a subsequence, we can assume that $`q_0:=lim_nx_n(0)=lim_nx_n(1)`$ exists. In this case write $`q_1:=q_0`$. Thus in both cases, in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$, we have that $`q_0=lim_nx_n(0)`$ and $`q_1=lim_nx_n(1)`$.

Taking a subsequence we can assume that $`T=lim_nT_n^+`$ exists. We will extract a Cauchy sequence from $`\{(x_n,T_n)\}_n`$. Since $`T>0`$, such Cauchy sequence has a limit in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ (resp. in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$). By Lemma 3.3, there are smooth curves $`\stackrel{~}{x}_n`$ such that $`d[(x_n,T_n),(\stackrel{~}{x}_n,T_n)]<\frac{1}{n}`$. Hence we can assume that the curves $`x_n`$ are $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$, for if $`\{(\stackrel{~}{x}_n,T_n)\}_n`$ is a Cauchy sequence, so is $`\{(x_n,T_n)\}_n`$ and since $`𝒜_k`$ is $`C^1`$, also $`lim_nd𝒜_k(\stackrel{~}{x}_n,T_n)=0`$. Similarly, since $`d[(x_n,T_n),(x_n,T)]|T_nT|\stackrel{𝑛}{}0`$, we can assume that $`T_n=T`$ for all $`n`$. Also, since we are assuming that $`T_n=T`$ is fixed, it is equivalent to use the metric (6) with $`f(T)=g(T)=1`$.

Let $`y_n(t):=x_n(t/T)`$ and let $`\alpha _n:[0,1]M`$ and $`\beta _n:[T+1,T+2]M`$ be minimal geodesics joining $`\alpha _n(0)=q_0`$, $`\alpha _n(1)=y_n(0)`$; $`\beta _n(T+1)=y_n(T)`$, $`\beta _n(T+2)=q_1`$. Taking a subsequence we can assume that $`d(x_n(0),q_0)<1`$ and $`d(x_n(1),q_1)<1`$. Then $`|\dot{\alpha }_n|1`$ and $`|\dot{\beta }_n|1`$. Define

$$w_n(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _n(t)\hfill & \text{ if}0t1,\hfill \\ y_n(t1)\hfill & \text{ if}1tT+1,\hfill \\ \beta _n(t)\hfill & \text{ if}T+1tT+2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then all the curves $`w_n:[0,T+2]M`$ join $`q_0`$ to $`q_1`$. Their action is uniformly bounded because

$`A_{L+k}(w_n)`$ $`=𝒜_k(x_n,T)+A_{L+k}(\alpha _n)+A_{L+k}(\beta _n)`$
$`A_1+2\underset{\left|v\right|1}{sup}[L(x,v)+k]=:A_2.`$
By Cauchy-Schwartz inequality and Lemma 3.5,

$`d(w_n(t_1),w_n(t_2))`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_1}^{t_2}}\left|\dot{w}_n(s)\right|𝑑s\sqrt{|t_2t_1|}\left[{\displaystyle _0^T}\left|\dot{w}_n\right|^2𝑑s\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`B(k,A_2,T+2)^{\frac{1}{2}}|t_2t_1|^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Then the family $`\{w_n\}`$ is equicontinuous. By Arzelá-Ascoli Theorem there is a convergent subsequence of $`\{w_n\}`$ in the $`C^0`$ topology. This implies that also $`\{x_n\}`$ has a convergent subsequence in the $`C^0`$ topology. For the sequel we work with a convergent subsequence of $`\{x_n\}`$.

We can assume that the injectivity radius of $`M`$ is larger than 2. For $`n`$, $`m`$ large enough $`d(x_n(s),x_m(s))<1`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$. Let $`\gamma _s:[0,1]M`$ be the minimizing geodesic joining $`\gamma _s(0)=x_n(s)`$ to $`\gamma _s(1)=x_m(s)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:[0,1]\times [0,1]M`$ be defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s,r):=\gamma _s(r)`$. Then

(30)
$$\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}(s,r)\right|=\left|\dot{\gamma }_s(r)\right|=d_M(x_n(s),x_m(s))d_{n,m},$$

where $`d_{n,m}=sup_{s[0,1]}d(x_n(s),x_m(s))`$. Observe that $`J(r):=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s}(s,r)`$ is a Jacobi field along $`\gamma _s`$ with $`J(0)=\dot{x}_n(s)`$ and $`J(1)=\dot{x}_m(s)`$. Since $`|\dot{\gamma }_s|1`$, by Lemma 3.4,

(31) $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s}}(s,r)\right|`$ $`=|J(r)|K\left[|\dot{x}_n(s)|+|\dot{x}_m(s)|\right],`$
(32) $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{D}{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}}(s,r)\right|`$ $`=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{D}{dr}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s}}(s,r)\right|=|J^{}(r)|K\left[|\dot{x}_n(s)|+|\dot{x}_m(s)|\right],`$
By Lemma 3.5,

(33)
$$\dot{x}_n_^1\dot{x}_n_^2TB(k,A_1,T)=:B_1,$$

$$\frac{\dot{x}_n}{T}_^2=\dot{y}_n_^2B(k,A_1,T)=:B_2.$$

Let $`\eta _{n,m}(s):=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}(s,1)T_{x_m(s)}M`$ and $`\xi _{n,m}(s):=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}(s,0)T_{x_n(s)}M`$. We have that

$`\eta _{n,m}_{^1(M)}^2`$ $`=|\eta _{n,m}(0)|^2+{\displaystyle _0^1}|\dot{\eta }(s)|^2𝑑s`$
$`=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}}(0,1)\right|^2+{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{D}{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}}(s,1)\right|^2𝑑s.`$
From (30), (32) and (33),

$`\eta _{n,m}_{^1(M)}^2`$ $`d(x_n(0),x_m(0))+K\left(2x_n_{^1(M)}^2+2x_m_{^1(M)}^2\right)`$
$`1+4KB_1=:K_1.`$
Similarly,

$$\xi _{n,m}_{^1(M)}^2K_1.$$

Also

$$\eta _{n,m}_{\mathrm{}}<d_{n,m}\text{ and }\xi _{n,m}_{\mathrm{}}<d_{n,m}.$$

Since $`lim_nd_{(x_n,T)}𝒜_k_{(x_n,T)}=0,`$ for the product norm $`_{^1(M)\times }`$, with $`f(T)g(T)1`$, we also have that

(34)
$$\underset{n}{lim}d_{(x_n,T)}𝒜_k_{^1(M)\times }=0,$$

where the derivative is restricted to the tangent space $`T_{(x_n,T_n)}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ \[resp. $`T_{(x_n,T_n)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$\]. Therefore given $`\epsilon >0`$ there is $`N>0`$ such that

$$_{x_n}𝒜_k|_{(x_n,T)}\eta _{^1(M)}<\frac{1}{2}\epsilon $$

for every $`nN`$ and $`\eta _{^1(M)}K_1`$ with $`\eta (0)=\eta (1)=0`$ when $`(x_n,T)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`\eta (0)=\eta (1)`$ when $`(x_n,T)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$. We can take $`\eta =\eta _{n,m}`$ and $`\eta =\xi _{n,m}`$ defined above over $`(x_m,T)`$ and $`(x_n,T)`$ respectively. Therefore

$$_{x_m}𝒜_k|_{(x_m,T)}\eta _{n,m}_{x_n}𝒜_k|_{(x_n,T)}\xi _{n,m}_{^1(M)}<\epsilon $$

From formula (7) for $`_x𝒜_k`$, we have that

$`|{\displaystyle _0^1}T[_xL`$ $`(x_m,\frac{\dot{x}_m}{T}),\eta _{n,m}_xL(x_n,\frac{\dot{x}_n}{T}),\xi _{n,m}]ds+`$
(35) $`+{\displaystyle _0^1}[_vL(x_m,\frac{\dot{x}_m}{T}),\dot{\eta }_{n,m}_vL(x_n,\frac{\dot{x}_n}{T}),\dot{\xi }_{n,m}]ds|<\epsilon `$
for $`m`$, $`n`$ $`>N`$. Since $`L`$ is quadratic at infinity,

$$b_2:=\underset{(x,v)TM}{sup}\frac{\left|_xL(x,v)\right|_x}{1+|v|_x^2}<+\mathrm{}.$$

The first term in (35) is bounded by $`2Tb_2(1+B_2^2)d_{n,m}`$. Consequently the second integral in (35) is small for big $`m`$, $`n`$.

Observe that the integrand in the second term of (35) is

$``$ $`_vL(x_m,\frac{\dot{x}_m}{T}),\dot{\eta }_{n,m}_vL(x_n,\frac{\dot{x}_n}{T}),\dot{\xi }_{n,m}`$
$`=_vL(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s,r),\frac{1}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s}(s,r)),\frac{D}{ds}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}(s,r)|_{r=0}^{r=1}`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{dr}}_vL(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s,r),\frac{1}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s}(s,r)),\frac{D}{ds}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}(s,r)𝑑r`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^1}_x_vL(\mathrm{\Gamma },\frac{1}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s})\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}+_v_vL(\mathrm{\Gamma },\frac{1}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s})\frac{1}{T}\frac{D}{dr}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s},\frac{D}{ds}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}𝑑r`$
(36) $`={\displaystyle _0^1}_x_vL(\mathrm{\Gamma },\frac{1}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s})\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r},\frac{D}{ds}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}𝑑r+{\displaystyle _0^1}_v_vL(\mathrm{\Gamma },\frac{1}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s})\frac{1}{T}\frac{D}{dr}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s},\frac{D}{ds}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}𝑑r,`$
here $`_x_vL`$ and $`_v_vL`$ are the partial derivatives of the second component of $`TM(x,v)(x,_vL(x,v))TM`$ with respect to the splitting $`T_{(x,v)}TM=HV`$ described in page 3.2. The partial derivative $`_v_vL(x,v)`$ coincides with the second derivative of $`vL(x,v)T_xM`$ in the vector space $`T_xM`$.

Since $`L`$ is quadratic at infinity,

$$b_3:=\underset{(x,v)TM}{sup}\frac{_x_vL(x,v)}{1+|v|_x}<+\mathrm{}.$$

Then, by (31), (30) and (32),

$`|\text{ first term in (}\text{36}\text{}|`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}b_3\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\left|\frac{1}{T}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s}\right|\right]\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}\right|\left|\frac{D}{ds}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}\right|𝑑r`$
$`b_3\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\frac{1}{T}K\left(|\dot{x}_n(s)|+|\dot{x}_m(s)|\right)\right]d_{n,m}K\left(|\dot{x}_n(s)|+|\dot{x}_m(s)|\right).`$
By (33) and Cauchy-Schwartz inequality,

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}|\text{ first term in (}\text{36}\text{}|𝑑s`$ $`b_3(2KB_1+\frac{1}{T}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}K^2B_1^2)d_{n,m}\stackrel{n,m}{}0.`$
Since $`\frac{D}{dr}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{s}=\frac{D}{ds}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}`$, from (8) we have that

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}|\text{ second term in (}\text{36}\text{}|𝑑s`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^1}a_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{D}{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}}\right|^2𝑑r𝑑s.`$
The integral of (36) corresponds to the second term in the left of (35). Since the first term in (35) is small, we get that

(37)
$$\underset{n,m+\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^1_0^1\left|\frac{D}{ds}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}\right|^2𝑑r𝑑s=0.$$

Using (30), in $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ we have that

$`d[(x_n,T),(x_m,T)]^2`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}}_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }(,r),T)}^2𝑑r`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^1}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}}(0,r)\right|^2𝑑r+{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{D}{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}}\right|^2𝑑s𝑑r`$
$`d_{n,m}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}+{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{D}{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{r}}\right|^2𝑑s𝑑r.`$
By (37), $`\{(x_n,T)\}`$ is a Cauchy sequence.

###### 3.13 Proposition.

Suppose that $`L`$ is Riemannian at infinity. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ be a connected component of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$. If a sequence $`\{(x_n,T_n)\}_n\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ satisfies

$$\left|𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)\right|<A_1,d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k<\frac{1}{n}\text{ and }\underset{n}{lim\; sup}T_n=+\mathrm{},$$

then there exists a Borel probability measure $`\mu `$, invariant under the Euler-Lagrange flow, supported on a connected component of the energy level $`Ek`$, which has homology $`\rho (\mu )=0`$ and whose $`(L+k)`$-action is zero.

In the proof of this proposition we can not use Lemma 2.2.(2) on the equivalence of the metric of $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ to the metric of $`^1(^m)\times ^+`$ on local charts because the times $`T_n`$ are not bounded. Here we shall use strongly that the lagrangian is Riemannian at infinity and not only quadratic at infinity.

We first fix the notation used in the proof of Proposition 3.13. There is a canonical splitting of the tangent space

$$T_\theta TM=H(\theta )V(\theta )$$

where the vertical subspace $`V(\theta )`$ is the kernel of the derivative $`d_\theta \pi `$ of the projection $`\pi :TMM`$ and the horizontal subspace $`H(\theta )`$ is the kernel of the connection map $`K:T_\theta TMT_\theta M`$. Both subspaces are naturally identified with $`T_{\pi (\theta )}MH(\theta )V(\theta )`$ in the following way: a tangent vector $`\zeta =(h,v)HV`$ has horizontal and vertical components given by $`h=d_\theta \pi (\zeta )T_\theta MH(\theta )`$ and $`v=K(\zeta )T_\theta MV(\theta )`$.

The Sasaki metric on $`TM`$ is given by

$`\zeta _1,\zeta _2_\theta :`$ $`=d_\theta \pi (\zeta _1),d_\theta \pi (\zeta _1)_{\pi (\theta )}+K(\zeta _1),K(\zeta _2)_{\pi (\theta )}`$
$`=h_1,h_2_{\pi (\theta )}+v_1,v_2_{\pi (\theta )},`$
where $`\zeta _i=(h_i,v_i)H(\theta )V(\theta )`$, $`i=1,2`$.

The identification $`TMT^{}M`$ induced by the Riemannian metric $`(x,v)v,_x=p`$ preserves the norm on each fiber and the canonical symplectic form $`\omega =dpdx`$ on $`T^{}M`$ is sent to the form

$`\omega _\theta (\zeta _1,\zeta _2)`$ $`=K(\zeta _1),d\pi (\zeta _2)_xK(\zeta _2),d\pi (\zeta _1)_x`$
$`=v_1,h_2_{\pi (\theta )}v_2,h_1_{\pi (\theta )}.`$
We shall ambiguously use this identification along the rest of this section.

Let $`H:TM`$ be the hamiltonian associated to $`L`$:

$`H(x,p):`$ $`=\underset{vT_xM}{\mathrm{max}}p,v_xL(x,v),pT_xM.`$
The hamiltonian vector field $`X`$ on $`TM`$ is given by $`i_X\omega =dH`$. Its flow lines solve the hamiltonian equations

$$\dot{x}=_pH(x,p),\frac{D}{dt}p=_xH(x,p).$$

When seen in $`TM`$, $`_xH`$ and $`_pH`$ are the projections in the horizontal and vertical subspaces of the gradient of the hamiltonian $`H`$ with respect to the Sasaki metric. The hamiltonian flow of $`H`$ is conjugated to the Euler-Lagrange flow of $`L`$ by the Legendre transform $`(x,v)=(x,_vL(x,v))=(x,p)`$. This is, $`p,_x=\frac{}{v}L(x,v)`$, in the vector space $`T_xM`$.

Observe that

$$_xL(x,v)=_xH(x,p),\text{ if }p=_vL(x,v).$$

If $`(x,T)^1(M)\times ^+`$, $`xC^{\mathrm{}}([0,1],M)`$ and $`\xi T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(x(0),x(1))`$, the partial derivative of the action functional is given by

(38)
$$d_{(x,T)}𝒜_k(\xi ,0)=_0^Tp,\frac{D}{dt}\zeta _y_xH(y,p),\zeta _ydt,$$

where $`y(sT):=x(s)`$, $`\zeta (sT):=\xi (s)`$ and $`p(t)=_vL(y(t),\dot{y}(t))`$. Let $`𝒯(t,s):T_{y(s)}MT_{y(t)}M`$ be the parallel transport along $`y(t)`$. For $`t[0,T]`$ let

$$_x(t):=𝒯(t,0)a+_0^t𝒯(t,s)_xH(y(s),p(s))𝑑s,$$

where the constant $`aT_{y(0)}M`$ is chosen such that

(39)
$$_0^T𝒯(T,t)\left[p(t)+_x(t)\right]𝑑t=0.$$

Let

(40)
$$\rho (t):=p(t)+_x(t).$$

Integrating by parts in (38) we have that

(41)
$$d_{(x,T)}𝒜_k(\xi ,0)=_x,\zeta _y|_0^T+_0^Tp(t)+_x(t),\frac{D}{dt}\zeta (t)_{y(s)}𝑑t.$$

Define $`\zeta _1(t)`$ by

$$\zeta _1(t):=_0^t𝒯(t,s)\left[p(s)+_x(s)\right]𝑑s.$$

By (39), $`\zeta _1(0)=\zeta _1(T)=0`$. Then if $`\xi _1(s):=\zeta _1(sT)`$ we have that $`(\xi _1,0)T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(x(0),x(1))`$ and also $`(\xi _1,0)T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ if $`x(0)=x(1)`$. Observe that

$$\frac{D}{dt}\zeta _1(t)=\rho (t)=p(t)+_x(t).$$

Applying (41), we get

$`d_{(x,T)}𝒜_k(\xi _1,0)={\displaystyle _0^T}\left|\rho (t)\right|_{y(t)}^2𝑑t`$ $`d_{(x,T)}𝒜_k\xi _1_{(x,T)}`$
$`d_{(x,T)}𝒜_ke^{2T^2}\left[{\displaystyle _0^T}\left|\frac{D}{dt}\zeta _1\right|_{y(t)}^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`\text{if }T10,`$
$`d_{(x,T)}𝒜_ke^{2T^2}\left[{\displaystyle _0^T}\left|\rho (t)\right|_{y(t)}^2\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`\text{if }T10.`$
Therefore 444 Inequality (42) is our fundamental estimate for the rest of the section. Observe that since, by definition, $`p(t)=_vL(y,\dot{y})`$, the first hamiltonian equation $`\dot{y}=_pH(y,p)`$ follows from the Legendre transform of $`H`$. Thus the quantity $`\rho (t)=p(t)+_x(t)`$ measures the deviation of $`(y(t),p(t))`$ from being a solution of the second hamiltonian equation $`\dot{p}=_xH(x,p)`$. Our problem now is to obtain a true invariant measure from this $`^2`$ estimate.

(42)
$$\rho _{^2([0,T])}e^{2T^2}d_{(x,T)}𝒜_k,\text{ if }T10.$$

###### Proof of Proposition 3.13:.

We can assume that $`T_n+\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, we can assume that

$$T_nn10.$$

Since $`𝒜_k`$ and $`d𝒜_k`$ are continuous on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, by Lemma 3.3 we can assume that $`x_n:[0,1]M`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`n`$. Observe that if $`q_0=q_1`$, $`T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$. In the sequel we shall only use tangent vectors in $`T_{(x,T)}\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$, so that the arguments apply for both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$.

Let $`y_n(t):=x_n(t/T_n)`$, $`t[0,T_n]`$ and

$$p_n(t):=_vL(y_n(t),\dot{y}_n(t))T_{y_n}M.$$

Let $`\rho _n(t)`$ be defined as in (40) for the path $`(y_n(t),p_n(t))`$:

$$\rho _n(t):=p_n(t)+_x(t).$$

In particular

(43)
$$\frac{D}{dt}\rho _n=\frac{D}{dt}p_n+_xH(y_n,p_n).$$

From (42) we have that

(44)
$$\rho _n_{^2([0,T_n])}=\left[_0^{T_n}\left|\rho _n(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}^2𝑑t\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{e^{2T_n^2}}{n}.$$

Let

$$A_n:=\left\{t[0,T_n]\right|\left|\rho _n(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}<e^{\frac{3}{2}T_n^2}\}.$$

If $`m`$ is the Lebesgue measure on $`[0,T_n]`$, we have that

$`e^{3T_n^2}m(A_n^c){\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}\left|\rho _n(t)\right|^2𝑑t<\frac{1}{n^2}e^{4T_n^2}.`$
Thus $`m(A_n^c)<\frac{1}{n^2}e^{T_n^2}`$ and hence

(45)
$$m(A_n)>T_n\frac{1}{n^2}e^{T_n^2}.$$

We assume that the Riemannian metric on $`M`$ has injectivity radius larger than 2. Since the lagrangian is Riemannian at infinity then the hamiltonian is also Riemannian at infinity: $`H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|_x^2`$ when $`|p|_xR`$. Define $`R_1R`$ by

$$\frac{1}{2}R_1^2=sup\{H(x,p),\frac{1}{2}|_pH(x,p)|_x^2||p|_xR\}\frac{1}{2}R^2.$$

Let $`d_1>|k|`$ be such that

(46)
$$H(x,p)>\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|_x^2d_1,\text{for all }(x,p)TM.$$

Choose $`R_0>0`$ such that

(47)
$$R_0\mathrm{max}\{R_1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}\left(|k|+d_1+1\right)\}.$$

In particular

$$H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|_x^2\text{ if}\left|p\right|_x>R_0.$$

Also

$$_pH(x,p)=p\text{ and }_xH(x,p)=0\text{ if }|p|_x>R_0.$$

###### 3.14 Lemma.

$$|p|_x<R_0H(x,p)<\frac{1}{2}R_0^2|v|_x<R_0,\text{ where }v=_pH(x,p).$$

###### Proof:.

If $`H(x,p)\frac{1}{2}R_0^2>\frac{1}{2}R_1^2`$ then $`|p|_x>R`$, $`v=_pH(x,p)=p`$ and $`H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}|p|_x^2`$. Hence $`|v|_x=|p|_xR_0`$. If $`|p|_xR_0>R`$ then $`H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}|p|_x^2\frac{1}{2}R_0^2`$. If $`|v|_x=|_pH(x,p)|_xR_0>R_1`$ then $`|p|_x>R`$, $`v=_pH(x,p)=p`$ and $`H(x,p)=\frac{1}{2}|p|_x^2=\frac{1}{2}|v|_x^2\frac{1}{2}R_0^2`$. ∎

We start by estimating the difference between $`(y_n,p_n)`$ and an orbit of the hamiltonian flow.

###### 3.15 Lemma.

Given $`t_0[0,T_n]`$, let $`(x(t),q(t))`$ be the solution of the hamiltonian equations

$$\dot{x}=_pH(x,q),\dot{q}=_xH(x,q),$$

with initial conditions $`x(t_0)=y_n(t_0)`$, $`q(t_0)=p_n(t_0)`$.

There is $`n_0>0`$ such that if $`n>n_0`$, $`t_0A_n`$ and $`\left|p_n(t_0)\right|R_0`$, then for all $`t[0,T_n]`$,

$$d_M(x(t),y_n(t))<1,$$

(48)
$$d_{TM}[(x(t),q(t)),(y_n(t),p_n(t))]\left|\rho _n(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}+e^{T_n^2}.$$

###### 3.16 Remark.

The bounds in Lemma 3.15 are actually made for $`z_t`$ defined in (50) instead of the distance between $`(x(t),q(t))`$ and $`(y_n(t),p_n(t))`$.

###### Proof:.

We only prove the estimates for $`t>t_0`$. The case $`t<t_0`$ is similar.

Recall that using Lemma 3.3, we are assuming that $`y_n`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`\gamma _t:[0,1]M`$ be a geodesic joining $`x(t)`$ to $`y_n(t)`$ such that $`\gamma _{t_0}(s)y_n(t_0)`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$ and that $`f(s,t):=\gamma _t(s)`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$. Let

$`e_t:`$ $`=\left|\dot{\gamma }_t\right|=\mathrm{length}(\gamma _t)d_M(x(t),y_n(t)).`$
Let $`I_n`$ be the maximal interval in $`[0,T_n]`$ containing $`t_0`$ such that $`|e_t|<1`$ for all $`tI_n`$.

We first prove that there is $`B=B(L,R_0)>0`$ such that for all $`n`$, if $`|p_n(t_0)|R_0`$ and $`tI_n`$ then

$`d_{TM}[(x(t),q(t)),(y_n(t),p_n(t))]|\rho _n(t)|_{y_n(t)}+(1`$ $`+e^{B(tt_0)}\left)\right|\rho _n(t_0)|_{y_n(t_0)}`$
(49) $`+Be^{B(tt_0)}\rho _n_{^2([0,T_n])}.`$
Let $`A_t(s_2,s_1):T_{\gamma _t(s_1)}MT_{\gamma _t(s_2)}M`$ be the parallel transport along $`\gamma _t`$. Let

(50)
$$z_t:=\mathrm{length}(\gamma _t)+\left|p_n(t)A_t(1,0)q(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t:[0,2]TM`$ be the curve defined by

(51)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(s)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\gamma _t(s),A_t(s,0)q(t))\hfill & \text{ if }0s1,\hfill \\ (y_n(t),(s1)p_n(t)+(2s)A_t(1,0)q(t))\hfill & \text{ if }1s2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then

$`d_{TM}((x(t),q(t))`$ $`,(y_n(t),p_n(t)))\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t)`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|\dot{\gamma }_t\right|𝑑s+{\displaystyle _1^2}\left|p_n(t)A_t(1,0)q(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}𝑑s`$
$`z_t.`$
Recall that $`f(s,t)=\gamma _t(s)`$. Then

$`e_t^2={\displaystyle _0^1}e_t^2𝑑s={\displaystyle _0^1}\left|\dot{\gamma }_t\right|^2𝑑s={\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{s}},{\displaystyle \frac{f}{s}}_{f(s,t)}𝑑s.`$
Since $`\frac{D}{ds}\frac{f}{s}=\frac{D}{ds}\dot{\gamma }_t=0`$, we have that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{de_t^2}{dt}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{s}},{\displaystyle \frac{f}{s}}_{f(s,t)}𝑑s={\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{ds}}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}},{\displaystyle \frac{f}{s}}_{f(s,t)}𝑑s`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}(1,t),{\displaystyle \frac{f}{s}}(1,t)_{y_n(t)}{\displaystyle \frac{f}{t}}(0,t),{\displaystyle \frac{f}{s}}(0,t)_{x(t)}`$
$`=\dot{y}_n(t),\dot{\gamma }_t(1)_{y_n(t)}A_t(1,0)\dot{x}(t),A_t(1,0)\dot{\gamma }_t(0)_{y_n(t)}`$
$`=\dot{y}_n(t)A_t(1,0)\dot{x}(t),\dot{\gamma }_t(1)_{y_n(t)}`$
(52) $`\left|\dot{y}_n(t)A_t(1,0)\dot{x}(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}e_t.`$
Since $`p_n=_vL(y_n,\dot{y}_n)`$, $`\dot{y}_n=_pH(y_n,p_n)`$. Since $`_pH(y,p)=p`$ when $`|p|_y>R_0`$, $`(x,p)_pH(x,p)`$ has bounded derivative on $`TM`$. Let $`K_1>1`$ be a bound for its derivative. Then

(53) $`\left|\dot{y}_nA_t(1,0)\dot{x}\right|`$ $`=\left|_pH(y_n,p_n)A_t(1,0)_pH(x,q)\right|`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|\frac{D}{ds}\left[A_t(1,\mathrm{min}\{2s,1\})_pH\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(2s)\right)\right]\right|𝑑s`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^1}\left|\frac{D}{ds}_pH\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(2s)\right)\right|𝑑s`$
$`K_1\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t)=K_1z_t.`$
Thus, from (52),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{de_t^2}{dt}}`$ $`K_1z_te_t.`$
Since $`e_{t_0}=0`$,

(54)
$$e_t=_{t_0}^t\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{e_t}\frac{de_t^2}{dt}𝑑t_{t_0}^tK_1z_t𝑑t.$$

Let $`T(t_2,t_1):T_{y_n(t_1)}MT_{y_n(t_2)}M`$ be the parallel transport along $`y_n(t)`$. Since $`p_n(t_0)=q(t_0)`$, we have that

$`p_n(\tau )`$ $`A_\tau (1,0)q`$ $`(\tau )=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }T(\tau ,t)\left[\frac{D}{dt}p_n(t)\frac{D}{dt}A_t(1,0)q(t)\right]𝑑t,`$
$`={\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }T(\tau ,t)`$ $`[\frac{D}{dt}p_n+`$ $`_xH(y_n,p_n)]dt`$
(55) $`+{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }`$ $`T(\tau ,t)\left[A_t(1,0)_xH(x,q)_xH(y_n,p_n)\right]dt`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }T(\tau ,t)\left[A_t(1,0)_xH(x,q)\frac{D}{dt}A_t(1,0)q(t)\right]𝑑t.`$
Since $`_xH(x,p)=0`$ if $`|p|_x>R_0`$, the function $`_xH`$ has bounded derivative on $`TM`$. Then, as in (53),

$$\text{the norm of the second term in (}\text{55}\text{}_{t_0}^\tau K_2z_t𝑑t,$$

where $`K_2`$ is a bound for the derivative of $`_xH`$. We estimate the third term. Since $`(x,q)`$ is a solution of the hamiltonian equations, then

$$\frac{D}{dt}q=_xH(x,q).$$

Let $`F(s,t):=A_t(s,0)\frac{D}{dt}q(t)\frac{D}{dt}A_t(s,0)q(t)T_{f(s,t)}M`$, then $`F(0,t)0`$ and

$`\frac{D}{ds}F(s,t)`$ $`=\frac{D}{ds}\left[A_t(s,0)\frac{D}{dt}q(t)\frac{D}{dt}A_t(s,0)q(t)\right]`$
$`=0\frac{D}{ds}\frac{D}{dt}A_t(s,0)q(t)`$
$`=\frac{D}{dt}\frac{D}{ds}\left[A_t(s,0)q(t)\right]+R(\frac{f}{s},\frac{f}{t})\left[A_t(s,0)q(t)\right]`$
$`=R(\dot{\gamma }_t(s),\frac{f}{t})\left[A_t(s,0)q(t)\right],`$
where $`R`$ is the curvature tensor. Let $`K_3>1`$ be such that $`\left|R(u,v)w\right|_xK_3|u|_x|v|_x|w|_x`$ for all $`xM`$, $`u,v,wT_xM`$.

Observe that $`J(s)=\frac{f}{t}(s,t)`$ is a Jacobi field along the geodesic $`\gamma _t`$ with $`J(0)=\dot{x}(t)`$, $`J(1)=\dot{y}_n(t)`$ and that if $`tI_n`$ then $`|\dot{\gamma }_t|<1`$. By Lemma 3.4 there is $`K_4>1`$ such that

$$\left|\frac{f}{t}\right|_{f(s,t)}K_4\left[\left|\dot{x}(t)\right|+\left|\dot{y}_n(t)\right|\right]\text{ for all }(s,t)[0,1]\times I_n.$$

Then, using (53),

$`\left|\frac{D}{ds}F(s,t)\right|`$ $`K_3e_tK_4\left[\left|\dot{x}(t)\right|+\left|\dot{y}_n(t)\right|\right]\left|q(t)\right|`$
$`K_3e_tK_4\left[\left|\dot{x}(t)\right|+\left|\dot{y}_n(t)A_t(1,0)\dot{x}(t)\right|+\left|\dot{x}(t)\right|\right]\left|q(t)\right|`$
$`K_3K_4e_t\left[2\left|\dot{x}(t)\right|+K_1z_t\right]\left|q(t)\right|.`$
Since, by hypothesis, $`\left|q(0)\right|R_0`$, by Lemma 3.14, $`E(x,\dot{x})=H(x,q)\frac{1}{2}R_0^2`$ and hence, by Lemma 3.14, $`\left|\dot{x}(t)\right|R_0`$ and $`\left|q(t)\right|R_0`$ for all $`t`$. Let $`K_5:=2K_1K_3K_4`$. If $`tI_n`$ then $`|e_t|1`$ and hence

$`\left|F(1,t)\right|_{y_n(t)}`$ $`=\left|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}+{\displaystyle _0^1}A_t(1,s)\frac{D}{ds}F(s,t)𝑑s\right|_{y_n(t)}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^1}\left[K_5R_0^2e_t+K_5R_0z_t\right]𝑑s`$
$`2K_5R_0^2z_t\text{ for all }tI_n.`$
Thus, when $`\tau I_n`$,

$`\left|\text{third term in (}\text{55}\text{)}\right|{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }\left|F(1,t)\right|_{y_n(t)}𝑑t2K_5R_0^2{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }z_t𝑑t.`$
From (50), (54), (55) and (43) when $`\tau I_n`$, we get that

$$z_\tau K_1_{t_0}^\tau z_t𝑑t+\left|_{t_0}^\tau \left[T(\tau ,t)\frac{D}{dt}\rho _n(t)\right]𝑑t\right|_{y_n(\tau )}+K_2_{t_0}^\tau z_t𝑑t+2K_5R_0^2_{t_0}^\tau z_t𝑑t$$

$`z_\tau `$ $`\left|\rho _n(\tau )T(\tau ,t_0)\rho _n(t_0)\right|_{y_n(\tau )}+B{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }z_t𝑑t`$
(56) $`z_\tau `$ $`\left|\rho _n(\tau )\right|_{y_n(\tau )}+\left|\rho _n(t_0)\right|_{y_n(t_0)}+B{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }z_t𝑑t\text{ when }\tau I_n.`$
where $`B:=\mathrm{max}\{1,K_1+K_2+2K_5R_0^2\}`$. Let $`u(\tau ):=_{t_0}^\tau z_t𝑑t`$. Then, using (56), we have that

$`\frac{d}{dt}\left(e^{B(tt_0)}u(t)\right)`$ $`=e^{B(tt_0)}\left(z_tBu(t)\right)`$
$`e^{B(tt_0)}\left(\left|\rho _n(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}+\left|\rho _n(t_0)\right|_{y_n(t_0)}\right)\text{ for }tI_n.`$
Since $`u(t_0)=0`$,

$`u(\tau )`$ $`e^{B(\tau t_0)}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }e^{B(tt_0)}\left|\rho _n(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}𝑑t+e^{B(\tau t_0)}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }e^{B(tt_0)}\left|\rho _n(t_0)\right|_{y_n(t_0)}𝑑t`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{B(\tau t_0)}}{\sqrt{2B}}}\rho _n_{^2([0,T_n])}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{B(\tau t_0)}}{B}}\left|\rho _n(t_0)\right|_{y_n(t_0)}\text{ when }\tau I_n.`$
Then from (56), if $`\tau I_n`$,

$`z_\tau `$ $`\left|\rho _n(\tau )\right|_{y_n(\tau )}+\left|\rho _n(t_0)\right|_{y_n(t_0)}+Bu(\tau )`$
$`\left|\rho _n(\tau )\right|_{y_n(\tau )}+\left|\rho _n(t_0)\right|_{y_n(t_0)}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}}e^{B(\tau t_0)}\rho _n_{^2([0,T_n])}+e^{B(\tau t_0)}\left|\rho _n(t_0)\right|_{y_n(t_0)}.`$
Since $`B>1`$, $`\sqrt{\frac{B}{2}}<B`$. This completes the proof of (49).

Since $`lim_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$, by (44), there exists $`n_0>0`$ such that if $`n>n_0`$ then

$$Be^{BT_n}\rho _n_{^2([0,T_n])}Be^{BT_n}\frac{1}{n}e^{2T_n^2}<\frac{1}{2}e^{T_n^2},$$

$$(1+e^{BT_n})e^{\frac{3}{2}T_n^2}<\frac{1}{2}e^{T_n^2}$$

and

$$K_1\left(\frac{1}{n}\sqrt{T_n}e^{2T_n^2}+T_ne^{T_n^2}\right)<1.$$

If $`t_0A_n`$ then $`|\rho _n(t_0)|<e^{\frac{3}{2}T_n^2}`$. Thus if $`n>n_0`$ each of the last two terms in (49) is bounded by $`\frac{1}{2}e^{T_n^2}`$. This validates (48) when $`tI_n`$.

It remains to prove that if $`t_0A_n`$ then $`I_n=[0,T_n]`$. Let $`I_n=[a,b]`$. From (54) and (48) we have that for $`\tau I_n`$,

$`d_M(x(t),y_n(t))e_t`$ $`{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }K_1z_t𝑑tK_1{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }\left|\rho _n(t)\right|𝑑t+K_1{\displaystyle _{t_0}^\tau }e^{T_n^2}𝑑t,`$
$`K_1\rho _n_{^2([0,T_n])}\sqrt{|\tau t_0|}+K_1|\tau t_0|e^{T_n^2}`$
$`K_1\left(\frac{1}{n}e^{2T_n^2}\sqrt{T_n}+T_ne^{T_n^2}\right)`$
$`<1.`$
If $`b<T_n`$, since $`te_t`$ is continuous, $`I_n`$ could be extended. Then $`b=T_n`$. Similarly, $`a=0`$. ∎

###### 3.17 Lemma.

If $`tA_n`$ and $`n`$ is large enough then

$$\left|H(y_n(t),p_n(t))k\right|<\frac{3}{n}\text{ and }\left|p_n(t)\right|R_0.$$

###### Proof:.

Claim 1. $`A_n\left\{t[0,T_n]\right||p_n(t)|<R_0\}\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof:.

Let $`d_1>|k|`$ be from (46). Since $`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k<\frac{1}{n}`$,

$$\frac{𝒜_k}{T}|_{(x_n,T_n)}=\frac{1}{T_n}_0^{T_n}\left[H(y_n,p_n)k\right]𝑑t<\frac{1}{n}.$$

Then

$`\frac{1}{2}R_0^2m\left(\left[|p_n|R_0\right]\right)`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}\frac{1}{2}|p_n(t)|^2𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}\left[H(y_n,p_n)+d_1\right]𝑑t`$
$`\left[k+d_1+\frac{1}{n}\right]T_n.`$
$`m\left(\left[|p_n|R_0\right]\right)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left[k+d_1+\frac{1}{n}\right]}{R_0^2}}T_n`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}T_n,\text{from (}\text{47}\text{).}`$
Therefore, using (45),

$`m(A_n[|p_n|<R_0])`$ $`=T_nm\left(A_n^c[|p_n|R_0]\right)`$
$`T_n\frac{1}{n}\frac{1}{10}T_n`$
$`>0.`$
This proves Claim 1.

Claim 2. There exist $`K=K(R_0)>0`$ and $`n_1>0`$ such that

$$\left|p_n(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}K(R_0)\left[\left|\rho _n(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}+1\right],t[0,T_n],n>n_1.$$

###### Proof:.

By Claim 1 there exists $`t_0A_n`$ such that $`\left|p_n(t_0)\right|<R_0`$. Let $`(x(t),q(t))`$ be the solution of the hamiltonian equations with initial conditions $`x(t_0)=y_n(t_0)`$, $`q(t_0)=p_n(t_0)`$. By Lemma 3.15, $`d_M(x(t),y_n(t))<1`$ for all $`t[0,T_n]`$. Given $`t[0,T_n]`$, let $`\gamma _t:[0,1]M`$ be the minimizing geodesic joining $`x(t)`$ to $`y_n(t)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t:[0,2]TM`$ be defined by (51), let $`e_t:=d_M(x(t),y_n(t))`$ and let $`z_t:=e_t+\left|p_n(t)A_t(1,0)q(t)\right|`$ be as in Lemma 3.15. Then

$`H(y_n(t),p_n(t))H`$ $`(y_n(t_0),p_n(t_0))=H(y_n(t),p_n(t))H(x(t),q(t))`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^1}_xH(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(s)),\dot{\gamma }_t(s)_{\gamma _t(s)}𝑑s`$
$`+{\displaystyle _1^2}_pH(\mathrm{\Lambda }_t(s)),p_n(t)A_t(1,0)q(t)_{y_n(t)}𝑑s.`$
Since $`_xH(x,p)=0`$ when $`|p|_x>R_0`$, there is $`d_2>0`$ such that

$$\left|_xH(x,p)\right|_x<d_2\text{ for all }(x,p)TM.$$

Since $`_pH(x,p)=p`$ when $`|p|_x>R_0`$, there is $`d_3>0`$ such that

$$\left|_pH(x,p)\right|_x|p|_x+d_3\text{ for all }(x,p)TM.$$

Then

$$\left|H(y_n(t),p_n(t))H(y_n(t_0),p_n(t_0))\right|_0^1d_2e_t𝑑s+_1^2\left[|p_n(t)|_{y_n(t)}+|q(t)|_{x(t)}+d_3\right]z_t𝑑s.$$

Since $`|p_n(t_0)|<R_0`$, by Lemma 3.14, $`H(y_n(t_0),p_n(t_0))=H(x(t),q(t))<\frac{1}{2}R_0^2`$ and $`|q(t)|<R_0`$ for all $`t`$. Let $`d_4:=\mathrm{max}\{d_2,d_3\}`$. Then

(57)
$$\left|H(y_n(t),p_n(t))H(y_n(t_0),p_n(t_0))\right|\left[|p_n(t)|+R_0+2d_4\right]z_t.$$

Suppose first that $`|p_n(t)|>R_0`$. Then $`H(y_n(t),p_n(t))=\frac{1}{2}\left|p_n(t)\right|^2`$. In this case we have that

$$\frac{1}{2}\left|p_n(t)\right|^2H_0+\left|p_n(t)\right|z_t+[R_0+2d_4]z_t$$

where $`H_0:=H(y_n(t_0),p_n(t_0))`$. Using that $`H_0<\frac{1}{2}R_0^2`$, we get

$`\frac{1}{2}\left[\left|p_n(t)\right|z_t\right]^2`$ $`H_0+[R_0+2d_4]z_t+\frac{1}{2}z_t^2`$
$`\frac{1}{2}R_0^2+R_0z_t+\frac{1}{2}z_t^2+2d_4z_t`$
$`\frac{1}{2}[R_0+z_t]^2+2d_4z_t.`$
(58)
$$\left|p_n(t)\right|z_t+\sqrt{[R_0+z_t]^2+4d_4z_t}.$$

The other case is when $`\left|p_n(t)\right|R_0`$. Since the right hand side in (58) is $`R_0`$, the inequality (58) is valid for all $`t[0,T_n]`$. Using the identity $`(a+b)^23(a^2+b^2)`$, we have that

$`\left|p_n(t)\right|^2`$ $`3z_t^2+3[R_0+z_t]^2+12d_4z_t`$
$`d_5[z_t^2+R_0^2]`$ $`\text{for some constant }d_5>0,`$
$`d_6(R_0)[z_t+\frac{1}{2}]^2`$ $`\text{for some }d_6(R_0)>0,`$
$`d_6(R_0)\left[|\rho _n(t)|+e^{T_n^2}+\frac{1}{2}\right]^2`$ $`\text{using Remark }\text{3.16}\text{ and (}\text{48}\text{)},`$
$`d_6(R_0)\left[|\rho _n(t)|+1\right]^2`$ $`\text{if }n\text{ is large enough}.`$
Now let $`K(R_0):=\sqrt{d_6(R_0)}`$.

Claim 3. There is $`n_2>0`$ such that if $`n>n_2`$ and $`t_1,t_2A_n`$ then

$$\left|H(y_n(t_1),p_n(t_1))H(y_n(t_2),p_n(t_2))\right|<\frac{1}{n}.$$

###### Proof:.

By Claim 1 and the triangle inequality, it is enough to prove that if $`t_0A_n`$, $`\left|p_n(t_0)\right|<R_0`$ and $`t_1A_n`$ then

$$\left|H(y_n(t_1),p_n(t_1))H(y_n(t_0),p_n(t_0))\right|<\frac{1}{2n}.$$

Let $`(x(t),q(t))`$ be the solution of the hamiltonian equations with initial conditions $`x(t_0)=y_n(t_0)`$, $`q(t_0)=p_n(t_0)`$ and let $`z_t`$ be as in Claim 2.

If $`t_1A_n`$, $`n>n_0`$, then $`\left|\rho _n(t_1)\right|<e^{\frac{3}{2}T_n^2}`$ and by Remark 3.16 and (48),

$$z_{t_1}\left|\rho _n(t_1)\right|+e^{T_n^2}<2e^{T_n^2}.$$

From (57) and Claim 2, we get that

$`|H(y_n(t_1),p_n(t_1))H`$ $`(y_n(t_0),p_n(t_0))|[K(R_0)(|\rho _n(t_1)|+1)+R_0+2d_4]z_{t_1}`$
$`\left[K(R_0)(e^{\frac{3}{2}T_n^2}+1)+R_0+2d_4\right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}e^{T_n^2}`$
$`<\frac{1}{2n}`$
if $`n`$ is large enough. ∎

We now finish the proof of Lemma 3.17. Let $`d_7>0`$ be such that

$$\left|H(x,p)\frac{1}{2}\left|p\right|_x^2\right|d_7\text{for all }(x,p)TM.$$

Then, using Claim 2, and the inequality $`(a+b)^23(a^2+b^2)`$,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{A_n^c}}H\right|`$ $`{\displaystyle _{A_n^c}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left|p_n(t)\right|_{y_n(t)}^2+d_7\right)𝑑t`$
$`\frac{1}{2}K(R_0)^2{\displaystyle _{A_n^c}}\left(\left|\rho _n(t)\right|+1\right)^2𝑑t+d_7m(A_n^c)`$
$`\frac{3}{2}K(R_0)^2\rho _n_^2^2+\left[\frac{3}{2}K(R_0)^2+d_7\right]m(A_n^c)`$
$`\frac{3}{2}K(R_0)^2\frac{1}{n^2}e^{4T_n^2}+\left[\frac{3}{2}K(R_0)^2+d_7\right]\frac{1}{n^2}e^{T_n^2},`$ using (44) and (45),
$`\frac{1}{n},`$ $`\text{if }n\text{ is large enough}.`$
Since $`d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k<\frac{1}{n}`$,

$$\left|\frac{𝒜_k}{T}|_{(x_n,T_n)}\right|=\frac{1}{T_n}\left|_0^{T_n}[H(y_n,p_n)k]dt\right|<\frac{1}{n},$$

$$\left|_0^{T_n}\left[H(y_n,p_n)k\right]𝑑t\right|\frac{T_n}{n}.$$

Therefore

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{A_n}}H𝑑tkm(A_n)\right|`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{A_n^c}}H\right|+\left|k\right|m(A_n^c)+{\displaystyle \frac{T_n}{n}}`$
(59) $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|k|}{n^2}}e^{T_n^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_n}{n}}.`$
Let $`tA_n`$. By Claim 3, we have that

(60)
$$\left|_{A_n}H𝑑tm(A_n)H(y_n(t),p_n(t))\right|\frac{1}{n}m(A_n).$$

Adding (59) and (60) we get that

$`\left|H(y_n(t),p_n(t))k\right|m(A_n){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}m(A_n)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|k|e^{T_n^2}}{n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_n}{n}}`$
$`\left|H(y_n(t),p_n(t))k\right|`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{nm(A_n)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|k|e^{T_n^2}}{n^2m(A_n)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T_n}{n(T_n\frac{1}{n^2}e^{T_n^2})}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{n}}\text{if }n\text{ is large enough.}`$
Since by (47), $`\left|H(y_n(t),p_n(t))\right||k|+1<\frac{1}{2}R_0^2`$, by lemma 3.14, $`|p_n(t)|<R_0`$ if $`tA_n`$ and $`n`$ is large enough. ∎

Let $`\nu _n`$ be the Borel probability measure defined by

$$f𝑑\nu _n=\frac{1}{m(A_n)}_{A_n}f(y_n(t),p_n(t))𝑑t$$

for any continuous function $`f:TM`$. By Lemma 3.17 we have that

$$\mathrm{supp}(\nu _n)H^1\left([k\frac{3}{n},k+\frac{3}{n}]\right)H^1\left([k1,k+1]\right).$$

Since $`H^1\left([k1,k+1]\right)`$ is compact, there exists a convergent subsequence $`\nu _{n_i}`$ in the weak\* topology. Let

$$\nu :=\underset{i}{lim}\nu _{n_i}.$$

Then

$$\mathrm{supp}(\nu )H^1\{k\}.$$

###### 3.18 Lemma.

We can assume that $`\nu `$ is supported on a connected component of $`H^1\{k\}`$.

###### Proof:.

If $`k`$ is a singular value of $`H`$ then $`H^1\{k\}`$ contains a singularity of the Hamiltonian flow. In that case a Dirac measure supported on the corresponding singularity of the Lagrangian flow satisfies the thesis of proposition 3.13.

If $`k`$ is a regular value of $`H`$ then there is $`\epsilon >0`$ such that each of the finitely many connected components of $`H^1(]k\epsilon ,k+\epsilon [)`$ contains exactly one connected component of $`H^1\{k\}`$. Since the measures $`\nu _n`$ are supported on the images of the connected curves $`y_n`$ and $`\mathrm{supp}(\nu )H^1(]k\epsilon ,k+\epsilon [)`$ for $`n`$ large, we can take the convergent subsequence $`\nu _{n_i}`$ in a single connected component of $`H^1(]k\epsilon ,k+\epsilon [)`$.

###### 3.19 Lemma.

The probability $`\nu `$ is invariant under the hamiltonian flow.

###### Proof:.

Given $`0<s<1`$ let

$`D_n(s):`$ $`=\left\{t[0,T_n]\right||\rho _n(t)|<e^{\frac{3}{2}T_n^2},|\rho _n(t+s)|<e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}T_n^2}\},`$
$`=A_n(A_ns).`$
Then $`m(D_n^c[T_ns,T_n])m\left([0,T_ns]\{A_n^c(A_ns)^c\}\right)\frac{2}{n^2}e^{T_n^2}`$, and

$$m(D_n)T_ns\frac{2}{n^2}e^{T_n^2}T_n2.$$

Let $`\psi _t:TM`$ be the hamiltonian flow. Let $`F:TM`$ be a continuous function with compact support.

Given $`tD_nA_n`$, by Lemma 3.17, $`\left|p_n(t)\right|R_0`$. By Lemma 3.15 we have that

$`d_{TM}[\psi _s(y_n(t),p_n(t))`$ $`,(y_n(t+s),p_n(t+s))]|\rho _n(t+s)|+e^{T_n^2}`$
$`e^{\frac{3}{2}T_n^2}+e^{T_n^2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}},\text{if }n\text{ is large.}`$
Since $`F`$ is uniformly continuous then

$$𝒪(F,\frac{1}{n}):=\underset{d(z,w)<\frac{1}{n}}{sup}\left|F(z)F(w)\right|\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{}0.$$

Since by (45) $`m(A_n)T_n1`$, $`m(D_n^c)2`$ and $`\frac{m(D_n)}{m(A_n)}1`$, we have that

$`\left|{\displaystyle Fd(\psi _s^{}\nu _n)}{\displaystyle F𝑑\nu _n}\right|`$ $`2F_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{m(D_n^c)}{m(A_n)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m(A_n)}}{\displaystyle _{D_n}}\left|F\psi _sF\right|_{(y_n,p_n)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4F_{\mathrm{}}}{T_n1}}+𝒪(F,\frac{1}{n})\stackrel{𝑛}{}0.`$
Hence, for all $`0<s<1`$,

$$Fd(\psi _s^{}\nu )=F𝑑\nu .$$

Let $`\mu =𝔏_{}(\nu )`$ be the push forward of $`\nu `$ under the Legendre transform $`𝔏:TMTM`$, $`𝔏(x,p)=_pH(x,p)`$.

###### 3.20 Lemma.

The homology class $`\rho (\mu )H_1(M,)`$ of $`\mu `$ is zero.

###### Proof:.

If we are working on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$, let $`\gamma =\gamma _n`$ be a minimizing joining the two common endpoints $`\gamma (1)=q_0=y_n(0)`$, $`\gamma (0)=q_1=y_n(T_n)`$ of all $`y_n`$. If we are working on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$, let $`\gamma _n`$ be the constant curve $`\gamma _n(t)y_n(0)=y_n(T_n)`$, $`t[0,1]`$.

Let $`\mu _{n_i}`$ be the probability measure defined by

$$_{TM}f𝑑\mu _{n_i}:=\frac{1}{T_{n_i}+1}\left[_0^{T_{n_i}}f(y_{n_i}(s),\dot{y}_{n_i}(s))𝑑s+_0^1f(\gamma _{n_i}(s),\dot{\gamma }_{n_i}(s))𝑑s\right]$$

for any continuous function $`f`$ with quadratic growth:

$$:=\left\{fC^0(TM,)\right|\underset{vTM}{sup}\frac{|f(v)|}{1+|v|^2}<+\mathrm{}\}.$$

We show that for any $`f`$,

(61)
$$\underset{i}{lim}f𝑑\mu _{n_i}=f𝑑\mu =\underset{i}{lim}fd(𝔏_{}\nu _{n_i})=fd(_{}\nu ).$$

We have that

$$f𝑑\mu _{n_i}=\frac{m(A_{n_i})}{T_{n_i}+1}fd(𝔏_{}\nu _{n_i})+\frac{1}{T_{n_i}+1}_{\gamma _{n_i}}f+\frac{1}{T_{n_i}+1}_{A_{n_i}^c}f𝔏.$$

Observe that either $`\gamma _n`$ is a constant curve or $`\gamma _n`$ does not depend on $`n`$. Then

$`\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle f𝑑\mu _{n_i}}`$ $`=\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle fd(𝔏_{}\nu _{n_i})}+0+\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{n_i}+1}}{\displaystyle _{A_{n_i}^c}}f𝔏`$
$`={\displaystyle f𝑑\mu }+\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{n_i}+1}}{\displaystyle _{A_{n_i}^c}}f𝔏.`$
Let $`f_{}:=sup_{vTM}\frac{|f(v)|}{1+|v|^2}`$. Then

$$_{A_n^c}f𝔏f_{}_{A_n^c}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+|v|^2\right]𝔏.$$

Let $`d_3>0`$ be such that

$$\left|𝔏(x,p)\right|_x=\left|_pH(x,p)\right|_x\left|p\right|_x+d_3.$$

Then, using Claim 2 in Lemma 3.17 and the identity $`(a+b)^23(a^2+b^2)`$,

$`{\displaystyle _{A_{n_i}^c}}\left[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+|v|^2\right]𝔏`$ $`{\displaystyle _{A_{n_i}^c}}1+\left[\left|p_{n_i}(t)\right|_{y_{n_i}(t)}+d_3\right]^2`$
$`(1+3d_3^2)m(A_{n_i}^c)+3K(R_0)^2{\displaystyle _{A_{n_i}^c}}\left[\left|\rho _{n_i}(t)\right|+1\right]^2𝑑t`$
$`(1+3d_3^2)m(A_{n_i}^c)+3K(R_0)^2\left[3\rho _{n_i}_^2^2+3m(A_{n_i}^c)\right]`$
$`(1+3d_3^2)2+3K(R_0)^2[3\frac{e^{4T_{n_i}^2}}{n_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+32]\text{ by (}\text{45}\text{) and (}\text{44}\text{).}`$
So that

$$\underset{i}{lim}\frac{1}{T_{n_i}+1}_{A_{n_i}^c}f𝔏=0,$$

and hence (61) holds.

Let $`\eta _n`$ be the closed curve $`\eta _n=y_n\gamma _n`$ and let $`[\eta _n]H_1(M,)`$ be its homology class. Since all the $`y_n`$’s are in the same free homotopy class, $`\alpha =[\eta _n]`$ is constant in $`n`$. Let $`\omega `$ be a closed (bounded) 1-form and $`[\omega ]H^1(M,)`$ its cohomology class. Observe that $`\omega `$ has linear growth, in particular $`\omega `$. Then

$`{\displaystyle _{TM}}\omega 𝑑\mu `$ $`=\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle _{TM}}\omega 𝑑\mu _{n_i}=\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{n_i}}}{\displaystyle _{\eta _{n_i}}}\omega `$
$`=\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{n_i}}}[\omega ],\alpha =0.`$
Finally, we prove that the $`L+k`$ action of $`\mu `$ is zero. Since $`L`$ is quadratic at infinity then $`L`$. By (61), we have that

$`{\displaystyle _{TM}}[L+k]𝑑\mu `$ $`=\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle _{TM}}[L+k]𝑑\mu _{n_i}`$
$`=\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{L+k}(y_{n_i})+A_{L+k}(\gamma _{n_i})}{T_{n_i}+1}}`$
$`=\underset{i}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_k(x_{n_i},T_{n_i})+A_{L+k}(\gamma _{n_i})}{T_{n_i}+1}}=0.`$
This finishes the proof of Proposition 3.13. ∎

## 4. energy levels satisfying the Palais-Smale condition.

In this section we prove corollary B. Let $`\stackrel{~}{L}=L:T\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the lift of $`L`$ to the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of $`M`$.

###### 4.1 Lemma.

Given $`T_0,A_1>0`$ there is $`R=R(k,T_0,A_1)`$ such that if $`0<T<T_0`$ $`yC^{ac}([0,T],\stackrel{~}{M})`$ and $`A_{\stackrel{~}{L}+k}(y)<A_1`$, then $`d(y(0),y(t))R`$ for all $`t[0,T]`$.

###### Proof:.

By the superlinearity there is $`b>0`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{L}(x,v)|v|_xb`$ for all $`(x,v)T\stackrel{~}{M}`$. We have that

$$d(y(0),y(t))_0^t|\dot{y}|𝑑t_0^T\left[\stackrel{~}{L}(y,\dot{y})+b\right]𝑑tA_1+(bk)T_0.$$

###### 4.2 Lemma.

Identify $`S^1=[0,1]/_{0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$.

Let $`\sigma [S^1,M]`$ be a free homotopy class of closed curves in $`M`$. If $`kc_u(L)`$ then

$$inf\{𝒜_k(x,T)|x\sigma ,T>0\}>\mathrm{}.$$

###### Proof:.

Fix $`y\sigma `$. Using the homotopy between $`x`$ and $`y`$, there are points $`py([0,1])`$, $`qx([0,1])`$ and a curve $`z:[0,1]M`$, with $`z(0)=p`$, $`z(1)=q`$ such that $`zxz^1y^1`$ is homotopic to a point. We can assume that $`x(0)=q`$ and $`y(0)=p`$. Then there are lifts $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{z}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{z}_1`$ of $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{z}_0\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{z}_1^1\stackrel{~}{y}^1`$ is a closed curve in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Let $`\phi `$ be the deck transformation of the covering $`\stackrel{~}{M}M`$ such that $`\phi (z_0)=z_1`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{x}_n:=\phi ^n(\stackrel{~}{x})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{y}_n:=\phi ^n(\stackrel{~}{y})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{z}_n:=\phi ^n(\stackrel{~}{z})`$. Since the curves $`\stackrel{~}{z}_n\stackrel{~}{x}_n\stackrel{~}{z}_{n+1}^1\stackrel{~}{y}_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\phi ^n(\stackrel{~}{z}_0\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{z}_1^1\stackrel{~}{y}^1)`$ are closed in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, the curves $`\stackrel{~}{z}_n\stackrel{~}{x}_n\stackrel{~}{z}_{n+1}^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}_n`$ have the same endpoints. Hence the curve $`\stackrel{~}{w}:=\stackrel{~}{z}_0(\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{x}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{x}_n)\stackrel{~}{z}_{n+1}^1(\stackrel{~}{y}_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{y}_1^1\stackrel{~}{y}^1)`$ is closed in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Given $`T>0`$ let $`S:=1+(n+1)T+1+(n+1)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(t):=\stackrel{~}{w}(t/S)`$. Since $`kc_u(L)`$,

$$A_{\stackrel{~}{L}+k}(\stackrel{~}{\eta })=𝒜_k(z,1)+n𝒜_k(x,T)+𝒜_k(z^1,1)+n𝒜_k(y^1,1)0.$$

Dividing by $`n`$,

$$\frac{1}{n}𝒜_k(z,1)+𝒜_k(x,T)+\frac{1}{n}𝒜_k(x^1,1)𝒜_k(y^1,1).$$

Letting $`n+\mathrm{}`$ we get that for all $`T>0`$ and $`x\sigma `$

$$𝒜_k(x,T)𝒜_k(y^1,1).$$

Proof of Corollary B: Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ be a connected component of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$. Let $`(x_n,T_n)`$ be a sequence in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ such that

$$\left|𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)\right|<A_1\text{and}d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k<\frac{1}{n}.$$

###### Claim:

If the energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ does not contain singularities of the Euler-Lagrange flow and $`T_n`$ is bounded from above then there is a convergent subsequence of $`(x_n,T_n)`$.

###### Proof:.

By Lemma 4.1, the curves $`\stackrel{~}{x}_n`$ stay in a compact ball $`\overline{B(\stackrel{~}{q}_0,R)}`$. Hence we can apply propositions 3.8 and 3.12. By Proposition 3.8.(ii), $`lim\; inf_nT_n>0`$. Since $`T_n`$ is bounded, by proposition 3.12, $`(\stackrel{~}{x}_n,T_n)`$ has a convergent subsequence, and so does $`(x_n,T_n)`$.

Suppose that $`k>c_u`$. If $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ let $`(z_n,S_n)=(x_nx_0^1,T_n+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$. If $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ let $`(z_n,S_n)=(x_n,T_n)`$. By Lemma 4.2, $`B:=inf_n𝒜_{c_u}(z_n,S_n)`$ is finite and then

$$A_1𝒜_k(z_n,S_n)𝒜_{c_u}(z_n,S_n)+(kc_u)S_nB+(kc_u)S_n.$$

Hence $`S_n`$ is bounded and then $`T_n`$ is bounded. Since $`k>c_ue_0`$, the energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ does not contain singularities of the Euler-Lagrange flow. By the claim, $`(x_n,T_n)`$ has a convergent subsequence.

Now assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$. Since all the curves $`y_n`$ have the same homotopy class with fixed endpoints there are lifts $`\stackrel{~}{q}_0,\stackrel{~}{q}_1\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of $`q_0`$, $`q_1`$ and lifts $`\stackrel{~}{x}_n`$ of $`x_n`$ such that for all $`n`$, $`(\stackrel{~}{x}_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{M}}(\stackrel{~}{q}_0,\stackrel{~}{q}_1)`$.

Suppose that $`h_{c_u}+\mathrm{}`$. Since

$$A_1𝒜_{c_u}(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Phi }_{c_u}(\stackrel{~}{q}_0,\stackrel{~}{q}_1;T_n)$$

and

$$h_{c_u}(\stackrel{~}{q}_0,\stackrel{~}{q}_1)=\underset{T+\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\mathrm{\Phi }_{c_u}(\stackrel{~}{q}_0,\stackrel{~}{q}_1;T)=+\mathrm{},$$

we have that the sequence $`T_n`$ is bounded. If $`E^1\{c_u\}`$ contains a singularity $`(q_2,0)`$ of the Euler-Lagrange flow then $`L(q_2,0)+c_u=0`$ and

$$h_{c_u}(q_2,q_2)\underset{n}{lim\; inf}_0^n\left[L(q_2,0)+c_u\right]𝑑t=0.$$

This contradicts $`h_{c_u}+\mathrm{}`$. By the claim, $`(x_n,T_n)`$ has a convergent subsequence.

If $`h_{c_u}+\mathrm{}`$, the same proof of Theorem C in  applies to our action functional $`𝒜_{c_u}`$ with our riemannian metric, showing that $`𝒜_{c_u}`$ does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition. Indeed, the Palais-Smale sequence $`(\stackrel{~}{x}_n,T_n)`$ obtained there has $`lim_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$ and is made with solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equation joining any two given points $`\stackrel{~}{q}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{q}_1`$ in the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Take their projections $`x_n:=\pi \stackrel{~}{x}_n`$. Then the curves $`x_n`$ are in the same homotopy class. Also $`\frac{}{x}𝒜_{c_u}(x_n,T_n)=0`$, and the theorem proves that

$$d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_{c_u}=\left|\frac{𝒜_{c_u}}{T}(x_n,T_n)\right|=\left|kE(x_n,\frac{\dot{x}_n}{T_n})\right|\stackrel{𝑛}{}0.\mathit{}$$

## 5. The mountain pass geometry.

In this section we show that a small closed curve of a given length $`\mathrm{}`$ inside the projection of the energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ has positive $`(L+k)`$ action bounded away from zero. This gives a mountain pass geometry when we consider families of curves going from a constant curve, with arbitrarily small action, to a curve with negative action555This resembles the phrase by Taĭmanov in : “constant curves are local minimizers of the action” for magnetic flows. But in our case the constant curves are not critical points for $`𝒜_k`$, because they don’t have energy $`k`$, and also the gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ is not complete on a constant curve $`(x_0,T)`$ because $`T`$ reaches zero at a finite gradient flow time. .

In the case of closed curves in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ without a basepoint, we need that $`k>e_0(L)`$, because otherwise, a family of curves could move by constant curves until it leaves the projection $`\pi (E^1\{k\})`$, where it already becomes negative, without passing through a curve of length $`\mathrm{}`$ inside $`\pi (E^1\{k\})`$.

###### 5.1 Lemma.

Let $`\theta _x`$ be a 1-form in $`M`$. Let $`x_0M`$ and $`x_0VM`$ be a neighbourhood of $`x_0`$. Then there exists an open ball $`UV`$ centered at $`x_0`$ in $`M`$ and $`b>0`$ such that if $`\gamma `$ is a closed curve in $`U`$ then

$$\left|_\gamma \theta _x\right|b\mathrm{length}(\gamma )^2.$$

###### Proof:.

Shrinking $`V`$ if necessary and using a local chart, we can assume that $`V`$ is a closed ball in $`^m`$ with the euclidean metric. Moreover, we can assume that $`\gamma (0)=0V^m`$. Let $`b>0`$ be such that $`|d_x\theta (u,v)|b|u||v|`$ for all $`u,v^m`$, $`xV`$. Let $`\gamma :[0,T]V`$ be a closed curve. Let $`F:[0,1]\times [0,T]V`$ be defined by $`F(s,t):=s\gamma (t)`$. Then

$`\left|{\displaystyle _\gamma }\theta _x\right|`$ $`=\left|{\displaystyle _F}d_x\theta \right|{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^T}b\left|{\displaystyle \frac{F}{s}}\right|\left|{\displaystyle \frac{F}{t}}\right|𝑑t𝑑s`$
$`=b{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^T}\left|\gamma (t)\right|s\left|\dot{\gamma }(t)\right|𝑑t𝑑s`$
$`b{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _0^T}\mathrm{}(\gamma )s\left|\dot{\gamma }(t)\right|𝑑t𝑑s`$
$`b{\displaystyle _0^1}\mathrm{}(\gamma )s\mathrm{}(\gamma )𝑑sb\mathrm{}(\gamma )^2,`$
where $`\mathrm{}(\gamma )`$ is the length of $`\gamma `$. Now let $`U`$ be an open ball for the Riemannian metric centered at $`x_0`$ and contained in $`V`$.

###### Proposition C.

1. Let $`x_0M`$ and $`k>E(x_0,0)`$. Then there exists $`c>0`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:[0,1]\mathrm{\Omega }_M(x_0,x_0)`$ is a path joining a constant loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)=x_0:[0,T]\{x_0\}M`$ (with any $`T>0`$) to any closed loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(x_0,x_0)`$ with negative $`(L+k)`$-action, $`A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1))<0`$, then

$$\underset{s[0,1]}{sup}A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s))>c>0.$$
2. Let $`k>e_0(L)`$. Then there exists $`c>0`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:[0,1]\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ is a path joining any constant curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)=x_0:[0,T]\{x_0\}M`$ to any closed curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ with negative $`(L+k)`$-action, $`A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1))<0`$, then

$$\underset{s[0,1]}{sup}A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s))>c>0.$$

###### Proof:.

(1). Let $`d_1`$ be such that

$$E(x_0,0)=\psi (x_0)<d_1<k.$$

Let $`V`$ be a neighbourhood of $`x_0`$ such that

$$\underset{xV}{inf}\psi (x)d_1.$$

Write, as in Lemma 3.1,

$$L(x,v)\frac{1}{2}a|v|_x^2+\theta _x(v)+\psi (x),$$

where $`\theta _x(v):=L_v(x,0)v`$, $`\psi (x):=L(x,0)`$ and $`a:=inf_v\{vL_{vv}(x,v)v\}/|v|_x^2>0`$.

Let $`UV`$ be an open ball centered at $`x_0`$ given by Lemma 5.1 for $`(x_0,V)`$. Let

(62)
$$0<\mathrm{}_0<\mathrm{min}\{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diam}(U),\sqrt{\frac{a(kd_1)}{2b^2}}\}.$$

###### Claim:

There exists $`0<s_0<1`$ such that $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0))=\mathrm{}_0`$.

###### Proof:.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_1)U`$ for some $`s_1[0,1]`$. Since $`s\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s))`$ is continuous, $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(0))=0`$ and $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_1))d(x_0,U^c)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diam}(U)>\mathrm{}_0`$; then there exists $`0<s_0<s_1`$ such that $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0))=\mathrm{}_0<\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diam}(U)`$.

Now assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)U`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$. Writing $`\gamma _1:=\mathrm{\Gamma }(1):[0,T_1]M`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1=\mathrm{length}(\gamma _1)`$. By lemma 5.1 we have that

$`0>A_{L+k}(\gamma _1)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{T_1}}a|\dot{\gamma }_1|^2𝑑t\left|{\displaystyle _{\gamma _1}}\theta _x\right|+{\displaystyle _0^{T_1}}\psi (\gamma _1(t))𝑑t+kT_1`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{T_1}}\left|\dot{\gamma _1}\right|^2𝑑tb\mathrm{}_1^2+(kd_1)T_1.`$
By the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality,

$$T_1_0^{T_1}\left|\dot{\gamma }_1\right|^2𝑑t\left(_0^{T_1}\left|\dot{\gamma }_1\right|𝑑t\right)^2=\mathrm{}_1^2.$$

Hence

(63)
$$0>A_{L+k}(\gamma _1)\left(\frac{a}{2T_1}b\right)\mathrm{}_1^2+(kd_1)T_1.$$

Since $`(kd_1)>0`$ and $`T_1>0`$, then $`\frac{a}{2T_1}b<0`$, i.e.

$$T_1>\frac{a}{2b}.$$

From (63), we have that

$$\mathrm{}_1^2>\frac{(kd_1)T_1}{b\frac{a}{2T_1}}>\frac{(kd_1)T_1}{b}>\frac{a(kd_1)}{2b^2}>\mathrm{}_0^2.$$

Since $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(0))=0`$, there is $`s_0[0,1]`$ with $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0))=\mathrm{}_0`$. ∎

Since $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0))=\mathrm{}_0<\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{diam}U`$, $`U`$ is an open ball centered at $`x_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(x_0,x_0)`$, we have that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0)U`$. In particular, the right estimate in (63) holds for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0)`$. Let

$$f(t):=\left(\frac{a}{2t}b\right)\mathrm{}_0^2+(kd_1)t.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0):[0,T_0]M`$, then

$$A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0))f(T_0)\underset{t^+}{\mathrm{min}}f(t)=\mathrm{}_0[\sqrt{2a(kd_1)}b\mathrm{}_0]=:c>0,$$

because

$$\mathrm{}_0<\sqrt{\frac{a(kd_1)}{2b^2}}<\frac{\sqrt{2a(kd_1)}}{b}.$$

(2). Since $`k>e_0(L)`$,

(64)
$$k>\underset{xM}{sup}E(x,0)=e_0(L).$$

Let $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_N`$ be a finite cover of $`M`$ by open balls given by Lemma 5.1 with corresponding constants $`b_i=b_i(U_i)>0`$. Let $`r_0>0`$ be such that any ball of radius $`r_0`$ in $`M`$ is contained in one $`U_i`$. Write $`b=\mathrm{max}_{1iN}b_i`$ and let

(65)
$$0<\mathrm{}_0<\mathrm{min}\{r_0,\sqrt{\frac{a(ke_0)}{2b^2}}\}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:[0,1]\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ be a path joining a constant curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)=x_0:[0,T]\{x_0\}M`$ to a closed curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)`$ with negative $`(L+k)`$-action, $`A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1))<0`$.

###### Claim:

There is $`s_0[0,1]`$ such that $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0))=\mathrm{}_0`$.

###### Proof:.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s))<\mathrm{}_0`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$. Since $`\mathrm{}_0<r_0`$, for each $`s[0,1]`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ is contained in some $`U_i`$. From (64) we have that $`\psi (x)=E(x,0)e_0`$ for all $`xM`$. Let $`\mathrm{}_1:=\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(1))`$. Then the same argument as in item (1) proves that

$$\mathrm{}_1^2>\frac{a(ke_0)}{2b^2}>\mathrm{}_0^2.$$

Therefore there is $`s_0[0,1]`$ such that $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0))=\mathrm{}_0`$. ∎

Let

$$g(t):=\left(\frac{a}{2t}b\right)\mathrm{}_0^2+(ke_0)t.$$

Since $`\mathrm{length}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0))=\mathrm{}_0<r_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0)`$ is contained in some $`U_i`$ and we can apply Lemma 5.1. Therefore, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0):[0,T_0]M`$, then

$$A_{L+k}(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0))g(T_0)\underset{t^+}{\mathrm{min}}g(t)=\mathrm{}_0[\sqrt{2a(ke_0)}b\mathrm{}_0]=:c>0,$$

because

$$\mathrm{}_0<\sqrt{\frac{a(ke_0)}{2b^2}}<\frac{\sqrt{2a(ke_0)}}{b}.$$

## 6. Some results on Morse theory

Let $`X`$ be an open set in a Riemannian manifold and $`f:X`$ be a $`C^2`$ map. Observe that if the vector field $`f`$ is not globally Lipschitz, the gradient flow $`\psi _t`$ of $`f`$ is a priori only a local flow. Given $`pX`$, $`t>0`$, define

$`\alpha (p)`$ $`:=sup\{a>0|s\psi _s(p)\text{ is defined on }s[0,a]\}.`$
We say that the flow $`\psi _t`$ of $`f`$ is relatively complete on $`[afb]`$ if for $`af(p)b`$, either $`\alpha (p)=+\mathrm{}`$ or $`f(\psi _\beta (p))a`$ for some $`0\beta <\alpha (p)`$.

We say that a function $`\tau :X[0,+\mathrm{}[`$ is an admissible time if $`\tau `$ is differentiable and $`0\tau (x)<\alpha (x)`$ for all $`xX`$. Given and admissible time $`\tau `$ and a subset $`FX`$, define

$$F_\tau :=\{\psi _{\tau (x)}(x)|xF\}.$$

Given a closed subset $`BX`$, we say that the function $`f`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition restricted to $`B`$ at level $`c`$, $`(PS)_{c,B}`$, if any sequence $`\{x_n\}B`$ with $`lim_ndf(x_n)=0`$ and $`lim_nf(x_n)=c`$ has a convergent subsequence.

Given $`c`$, $`\delta >0`$ and a closed subset $`BX`$, define

$`K_{c,B}:`$ $`=\{xB|f(x)=c,df(x)=0\},`$
$`W_{c,\delta ,B}:`$ $`=\{xB|d(x,K_{c,B})<\delta \},`$
$`V_{c,\delta ,B}:`$ $`=\{xB|df(x)<\delta ,|f(x)c|<\delta \}.`$
###### 6.1 Lemma.

Let $`X`$ be a Riemannian manifold and $`f:X`$ a $`C^1`$ function.

If $`f`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition $`(PS)_{c,B}`$ at level $`c`$ restricted to $`B`$, then

1. $`K_{c,B}`$ is compact.
2. The family $`\{W_{c,\delta ,B}\}_{\delta >0}`$ is a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of $`K_{c,B}`$ relative to $`B`$.
3. The family $`\{V_{c,\delta ,B}\}_{\delta >0}`$ is a fundamental system of neighbourhoods of $`K_{c,B}`$ relative to $`B`$.

###### Proof:.

(i). By $`(PS)_{c,B}`$ any sequence in $`K_{c,B}`$ has a convergent subsequence. Since $`df`$ is continuous and $`B`$ is closed, the limit is also in $`K_{c,B}`$.

(ii). Suppose item (ii) is false. Then there is a relative neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`K_{c,B}`$ with $`K_{c,B}UB`$, and a sequence $`x_nW_{c,1/n,B}U^c`$. Then there is a sequence $`y_nK_{c,B}`$ such that $`d(x_n,y_n)\frac{2}{n}`$. Since $`K_{c,B}`$ is compact there is a convergent subsequence $`z=lim_ky_{n_k}K_{c,B}`$. Also, $`lim_kx_{n_k}=zK_{c,B}`$. This contradicts $`x_nU`$ for all $`n`$.

(iii). Suppose item (iii) is false. Then there is a relative neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`K_{c,B}`$ with $`K_{c,B}UB`$ and a sequence $`x_nV_{c,1/n,B}U^c`$. By $`(PS)_{c,B}`$ there is a convergent subsequence $`z=lim_kx_{n_k}`$. Since $`fC^1`$, $`zK_{c,B}`$. This contradicts $`x_nU`$ for all $`n`$.

###### 6.2 Lemma.

Let $`X`$ be a Riemannian manifold and $`BAX`$ closed subsets such that $`A`$ contains the $`\epsilon _1`$-neighbourhood of B:

$$\{xX|yB,d(x,y)<\epsilon _1\}A.$$

Let $`f:X`$ be a $`C^2`$ function. Let $`c`$ and suppose that

1. $`f`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition $`(PS)_{c,A}`$ at level $`c`$ restricted to $`A`$.
2. The flow of $`f`$ is relatively complete on $`[|fc|\epsilon _2]`$ for some $`\epsilon _2>0`$.

Given any neighbourhood $`N`$ of $`K_{c,A}`$ relative to $`A`$ and $`\epsilon _3>0`$, there are $`0<\epsilon <\delta <\epsilon _3`$, such that for all $`0<\lambda \epsilon `$ there is an admissible time $`\tau (x)`$ such that

$$F_\tau N[fc\lambda ]\text{ and }\tau (x)=0\text{ on }[|fc|\delta ],$$

where $`F=\left([fc+\epsilon ]B\right)[fc\lambda ]`$.

###### Proof:.

By Lemma 6.1, there are $`0<\delta ,\rho ,\eta <\mathrm{min}\{\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3,1\}`$ such that

$$V_{c,\delta ,A}W_{c,\rho ,A}W_{c,2\rho ,A}V_{c,\eta ,A}NA.$$

Let

$$\epsilon :=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{min}\{\frac{\epsilon _1^2}{2},\epsilon _2,\epsilon _3,\frac{\delta ^2}{2},\frac{\rho \delta }{2}\}.$$

Let $`h:X[0,1]`$ be a smooth function such that

$$h(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if}xV_{c,\frac{\delta }{2},A}[|f(x)c|>\delta ],\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if}x(V_{c,\delta ,A})^c[|f(x)c|<\frac{\delta }{2}].\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`f`$ is $`C^2`$, the vector field $`Y(x):=h(x)f(x)`$ is locally Lipschitz. Since $`\delta <\epsilon _2`$, by the hypothesis (ii), the flow $`\eta _s`$ of $`Y`$ is complete.

Let $`\psi _t`$ be the flow of $`f`$. Define $`\tau (x)`$ by $`\psi _{\tau (x)}(x)=\eta _1(x)`$. We show that $`\tau (x)`$ is an admissible time. Write $`\eta _s(x)=\psi _{t(s)}(x)`$, then

$$Y(\eta _s(x))=h(\eta _s(x))f(\eta _s(x))=\frac{dt}{ds}f(\eta _s(x)).$$

So that $`\frac{dt}{ds}=h(\eta _s(x))`$ and

$$\tau (x)=_0^1h(\eta _s(x))𝑑s1.$$

Therefore $`\tau (x)`$ is finite and differentiable.

Let $`xF`$. If $`xB`$ then $`f(x)c\lambda `$ and hence $`f(\eta _1(x))f(x)c\lambda `$.

Let $`xFB`$. We can assume $`|f(\eta _s(x))c|<\frac{\delta }{2}`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$. For, if not, since $`sf(\eta _s(x))`$ is non-increasing and at $`s=0`$, $`f(x)c+\epsilon <c+\frac{\delta }{2}`$, then we already have that

$$f(\psi _{\tau (x)}(x))=f(\eta _1(x))=\underset{s[0,1]}{inf}f(\eta _s(x))c\frac{\delta }{2}c\epsilon .$$

We can also assume that

(66)
$$\eta _s(x)A\text{ for all }s[0,1].$$

For, if not, since $`x=\eta _0(x)FB`$ and $`A`$ contains the $`\epsilon _1`$-neighbourhood of $`B`$,

$`\epsilon _1`$ $`\mathrm{length}\left[\eta _{[0,1]}(x)\right]={\displaystyle _0^1}h(\eta _s(x))f(\eta _s(x))𝑑s`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle _0^1}\left|h\right|^2f^2𝑑s\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^1}hf^2𝑑s\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
And then

$`f(\eta _1(x))`$ $`=f(x){\displaystyle _0^1}f,Y𝑑sc+\epsilon {\displaystyle _0^1}hf^2𝑑s`$
$`c+\epsilon \epsilon _1^2<c\epsilon .`$
Suppose that $`xFB`$ and $`\eta _s(x)V_{c,\delta ,A}`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$. Then $`h(\eta _s(x))=1`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$. By (66), $`\eta _s(x)A(V_{c,\delta ,A})^c`$ for all $`s[0,1]`$, then $`f(\eta _s(x))\delta `$ for all $`s[0,1]`$. Then,

$`f(\eta _1(x))`$ $`c+\epsilon {\displaystyle _0^1}h(f(\eta _t(x)))f(\eta _t(x))^2𝑑t`$
$`c+\epsilon \delta ^2c\epsilon .`$
Now suppose that $`xFB`$, $`\eta _{s_0}(x)V_{c,\delta ,A}`$ for some $`s_0[0,1]`$ and $`\eta _1(x)N`$. Let

$`s_1:`$ $`=inf\{s>s_0|\eta _s(x)V_{c,\delta ,A}\},`$
$`s_2:`$ $`=inf\{s>s_1|\eta _s(x)V_{c,\eta ,A}\}1.`$
By (66), the image of $`[0,1]s\eta _s(x)`$ is in $`A`$. Since the segment $`[s_1,s_2]\eta _s(x)`$ crosses the annulus of width $`\rho `$: $`W_{c,2\rho ,A}W_{c,\rho ,A}`$, inside of $`A`$; we have that

$`\rho \mathrm{length}\left[\eta _{[s_1,s_2]}\right]`$ $`{\displaystyle _{s_1}^{s_2}}h(\eta _s(x))f(\eta _s(x))𝑑s`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta }}{\displaystyle _{s_1}^{s_2}}hf^2𝑑s,\text{because }\eta _{]s_1,s_2[}(x)A(V_{c,\delta ,A})^c.`$
Since $`s_21`$,

$`f(\eta _1(x))`$ $`c+\epsilon {\displaystyle _0^1}hf^2𝑑s`$
$`c+\epsilon \rho \delta c\epsilon .`$
Therefore

$$F_\tau =\eta _1(F)N[fc\epsilon ].$$

Given a function $`f:X`$ on a topological space $`X`$, we say that $`xX`$ is a strict local minimizer of $`f`$ if there is a neighbourhood $`V`$ of $`x`$ in $`X`$ such that $`f(y)>f(x)`$ for all $`yV\{x\}`$.

Let $``$ be a family of subsets $`FX`$. We say that $``$ is forward invariant if $`F_\tau `$ for all $`F`$ and any admissible time $`\tau `$. Define

$$c(f,)=\underset{F}{inf}\underset{xF}{sup}f(x).$$

###### 6.3 Proposition.

Let $`X`$ be a Riemannian manifold and $`f:X`$ a $`C^2`$ function. Let $``$ be a family of subsets of $`X`$. Suppose that

1. The subsets $`F`$ are connected.
2. $``$ is a forward invariant family.
3. $`c:=c(f,)`$.
4. The flow of $`f`$ is relatively complete on $`[c\epsilon _2fc+\epsilon _2]`$ for some $`\epsilon _2>0`$.
5. There is a closed subset $`BX`$ such that:
$`\epsilon >0,\lambda ]0,\epsilon [,F`$ such that $`FB[fc\lambda ]`$ and $`F[fc+\epsilon ]`$.
6. There is $`\epsilon _1>0`$ and a closed subset $`AX`$ which contains the $`\epsilon _1`$-neighbourhood of $`B`$ such that $`f`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition $`(PS)_{c,A}`$, restricted to $`A`$, at level $`c`$.

Then $`K_{c,A}\mathrm{}`$, i.e. $`f`$ has a critical point $`\overline{x}`$ in $`A`$ with $`f(\overline{x})=c`$.

Moreover, if

(67)
$$\underset{F}{sup}\underset{xF}{inf}f(x)<c,$$

then there is a point in $`K_{c,A}`$ which is not a strict local minimizer.

###### 6.4 Remark.

It is enough to consider admissible times $`\tau (x)`$ such that $`\tau (x)=0`$ if $`f(x)c\delta `$ for some $`\delta >0`$. For, the value of $`c(f,)`$ does not change and the proof of Proposition 6.3 only uses that kind of admissible times.

###### Proof:.

Suppose that $`K_{c,A}`$ is empty. Let $`\epsilon ,\delta >0`$ be given by Lemma 6.2 for $`N=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\epsilon _1`$, $`\epsilon _2`$, and $`\epsilon _3=1`$. By the hypothesis (v), there is $`F`$ such that $`FB[fc\lambda ]`$ and $`F[fc+\epsilon ]`$. By Lemma 6.2 there is an admissible time $`\tau `$, with $`\tau =0`$ on $`[fc\delta ]`$, such that $`F_\tau [fc\lambda ]`$. This contradicts the definition of $`c(f,)`$.

Now suppose that $`K_{c,A}`$ consists entirely of strict local minimizers of $`f`$ and that inequality (67) holds. Let $`\epsilon _0>0`$ be such that

(68)
$$\underset{F}{sup}\underset{xF}{inf}f(x)<c2\epsilon _0.$$

For each $`xK_{c,A}`$ let $`N(x)`$ be a neighbourhood of $`x`$ such that $`f(y)>f(x)`$ for all $`yN(x)\{x\}`$. Let

$$N_0:=\underset{xK_{c,A}}{}N(x).$$

Let $`N:=AN_0`$.

Let $`0<\epsilon <\delta <\epsilon _0`$ be given by Lemma 6.2 for $`c`$, $`B`$, $`A`$ and $`N_0`$. By hypothesis (v) there are $`\lambda ]0,\epsilon [`$ and $`F`$ such that $`FB[fc\lambda ]`$ and $`F[fc+\epsilon ]`$. By Lemma 6.2, there is an admissible time $`\tau `$ such that $`\tau |_{[fc\delta ]}0`$ and

$$F_\tau N[fc\lambda ]N_0[fc\lambda ].$$

By definition of $`N_0`$, the sets $`N_0`$ and $`fc\lambda `$ are disjoint, in particular, disconnected. By hypothesis (i) and (ii), $`F_\tau `$ is connected. Then the set $`F_\tau `$ lies either in $`F_\tau N`$ or $`F_\tau [fc\lambda ]`$. Since $`\lambda \epsilon <\epsilon _0`$ and the value of $`f`$ decreases under the flow of $`f`$, by (68), $`F_\tau [fc\lambda ]\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`F_\tau [fc\lambda ]`$. This contradicts the definition of $`c(f,)`$.

We shall use the following “mountain pass” theorem.

###### 6.5 Corollary.

Let $`X`$ be a $`C^2`$ Riemannian manifold and $`f:X`$ a $`C^2`$ function. Let $`p,qX`$ and

$$c:=\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{inf}\underset{s[0,1]}{sup}f(\gamma (s)),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\{\gamma :[0,1]X|\gamma C^0,\gamma (0)=p,\gamma (1)=q\}`$.

Suppose that

1. $`c`$.
2. The flow of $`f`$ is relatively complete on $`[c\epsilon _2fc+\epsilon _2]`$ for some $`\epsilon _2>0`$.
3. $`\mathrm{max}\{f(p),f(q)\}<c`$.
4. There are closed subsets $`BAX`$ such that

1. $`f`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition $`(PS)_{c,A}`$, restricted to $`A`$, at level $`c`$.
    2. For some $`\epsilon _1>0`$, $`A`$ contains the $`\epsilon _1`$-neighbourhood of $`B`$.
    3. For all $`\epsilon >0`$, there are $`\lambda _\epsilon ]0,\epsilon [`$ and $`\gamma _\epsilon \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that

    $$\gamma _\epsilon ([0,1])\left(B[fc\lambda _\epsilon ]\right)[fc+\epsilon ].$$

Then $`c`$ is a critical value of $`f`$. Moreover the set

$$K_{c,A}:=\{xX|xA,df(x)=0,f(x)=c\}$$

contains a point which is not a strict local minimizer.

###### Proof:.

Let $`:=\{\gamma ([0,1])|\gamma C^0([0,1],X),\gamma (0)=p,\gamma (1)=q\}`$. Let $`\delta >0`$ be such that $`\mathrm{max}\{f(p),f(q)\}<c2\delta `$. Then $`c=c(f,,B)`$ and the family $``$ is forward invariant when we consider only admissible times $`\tau (x)`$ such that $`\tau (x)=0`$ when $`f(x)c\delta `$. Then Proposition 6.3 and Remark 6.4 prove that $`K_{c,A}\mathrm{}`$ and that $`K_{c,A}`$ contains a point which is not a strict local minimizer.

Applying Proposition 6.3 to the family of subsets $`F=\{p\}`$, $`pX`$, and $`B=A=X`$, we obtain

###### 6.6 Corollary.

Let $`X`$ be a $`C^2`$ Riemannian manifold and $`f:X`$ a $`C^2`$ function. Suppose that

1. $`c:=inf_{xX}f(x)>\mathrm{}`$.
2. The flow of $`f`$ is relatively complete on $`[c\epsilon fc+\epsilon ]`$ for some $`\epsilon >0`$.
3. $`f`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition $`(PS)_c`$ at level $`c`$.

Then $`c`$ is a critical value of $`f`$.

Now we concentrate on the relative completeness condition for the action functional $`𝒜_k`$. For completeness we present the following statement:

###### 6.7 Lemma.

Suppose that $`f:X`$ is $`C^2`$, $`\psi _t`$ is the gradient flow of $`f`$ and the subset $`[afb]X`$ is complete. Then the flow $`\psi _t`$ is relatively complete on $`[afb]`$.

This lemma can be found in \[6, Lemma 22\], but its proof is similar to the first part of the proof of Lemma 6.9 below. Recall from remark 3.11 that the spaces $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ are not complete with our riemannian metric. Also the gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ is not complete as the following example shows.

###### 6.8 Example.

The gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ is not complete.

Let $`(q_0,0)`$ be a fixed point of the Euler-Lagrange flow, let $`x_0:[0,1]\{q_0\}`$ be the constant curve, let $`T>0`$ and let $`y(t)=x(t/T)`$. Since $`x_0`$ is a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation, from (7), we have that the partial derivative $`(_x𝒜_k)(x,T)=0`$. But

$$\frac{𝒜_k}{T}|_{(x,T)}=_0^1\left[kE(q_0,0)\right]𝑑t=kE(q_0,0).$$

Suppose that $`k>E(q_0,0)`$. Let $`a:=kE(q_0,0)>0`$. Since the metric on the $`^+`$ factor of $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ is the euclidean metric, the gradient flow $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$ of $`𝒜_k`$ on $`(x,T)`$ has differential equations $`\frac{dx}{ds}=0`$ and $`\frac{dT}{ds}=a`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_s(x,T)=(x,Tas),$$

which leaves the space $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ through $`(x,0)`$ in finite time.

One could change the riemannian metric (2) in such a way that $`^1(M)\times \{0\}`$ lies “at infinity”, for example replacing the first term in (2), (4) by $`\alpha \beta /T`$. In that case the Hilbert manifolds $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ become complete and the gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ becomes relatively complete by Lemma 6.7. Indeed, in the example above we would have

$$\frac{𝒜_k}{T}|_{(x,T)}\alpha =a\alpha =\frac{1}{T}(a\alpha T)=aT,\alpha _T.$$

Thus the projection $`_T𝒜_k`$ to the $`^+`$ component of $`^1(M)\times ^+`$ of the gradient of $`𝒜_k`$ is $`aT`$. The differential equations for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$ become $`\frac{dx}{ds}=0`$, $`\frac{dT}{ds}=aT`$ and $`\psi _s(x,T)=(x,Te^{as})`$.

Nevertheless, such a change in the riemannian metric would give a weaker hypothesis in Proposition 3.8: inequality (29) would have a factor $`T_n`$ on the right hand side. Indeed, Proposition 3.8 would be false. Items (i), (ii) and (iv) would still hold but not item (iii). In the example above, the sequence $`(x_n,T_n)=\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x,T)=(x,Te^{an})`$ would satisfy

$$𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)=Te^{an}\left[L(x,0)+k\right]\stackrel{𝑛}{}0,$$

$$d_{(x_n,T_n)}𝒜_k=\frac{\left|_T𝒜_k(x_n,T_n)\alpha \right|}{(0,\alpha )_{(x_n,T_n)}}=\frac{\left|\alpha _0^1[kE(x,0)]𝑑s\right|}{\left|\alpha \right|/T_n}=Te^{an}a\stackrel{𝑛}{}0,$$

so that it is a non-convergent Palais-Smale sequence, but the energy $`E(x,0)a`$ is not converging to $`k`$. In fact the energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ could be a regular energy level, above the critical value, which has no invariant measure as that of theorem A.

###### 6.9 Lemma.

For all $`k`$, if $`0[a,b]`$, then the gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ is relatively complete on $`[a𝒜_kb]`$.

###### Proof:.

Write $`f=𝒜_k:\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ \[resp. $`f=𝒜_k:\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$\] and let $`\psi _t`$ be the flow of $`Y=f`$. Then

(69)
$$f(\psi _{t_1}(p))f(\psi _{t_2}(p))=_{t_1}^{t_2}f(\psi _s(p))Y(\psi _s(p))𝑑s=_{t_1}^{t_2}Y(\psi _s(p))^2𝑑s.$$

Moreover, using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality, we have that

$$d(\psi _{t_1}(p),\psi _{t_2}(p))^2\left[_{t_1}^{t_2}Y(\psi _s(p))𝑑s\right]^2|t_2t_1|_{t_1}^{t_2}Y(\psi _s(p))^2𝑑s.$$

Thus

(70)
$$d(\psi _{t_1}(p),\psi _{t_2}(p))^2|t_2t_1||f(\psi _{t_1}(p))f(\psi _{t_2}(p))|.$$

Let $`I=[0,\alpha [`$ a maximal interval of definition of $`t\psi _t(p)`$. Suppose that $`af(\psi _t(p))b`$ for $`0t<\alpha <\mathrm{}`$. By inequality (70), for any sequence $`s_n\alpha `$ we have that $`n\psi _{s_n}(p)=(x_{s_n},T(s_n))`$ is a Cauchy sequence in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M[afb]`$ (resp. in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)[afb]`$). Then

$$T_0=\underset{s\alpha }{lim}T(s)[0+\mathrm{}[\text{ exists.}$$

If $`0<T_0<+\mathrm{}`$, since all such $`\{\psi _{s_n}(p)\}_n`$ are Cauchy sequences, then $`q=lim_{s\alpha }\psi _s(p)=\psi _\alpha (p)`$ exists. Since $`f`$ is $`C^1`$, we can extend the solution $`t\psi _t(p)`$ at $`t=\alpha `$. This contradicts the definition of $`\alpha `$.

If $`T_0=0`$, then there is a sequence $`s_n\alpha `$ such that

$$\frac{d}{ds}T(s_n)0.$$

Since $`L`$ is quadratic at infinity, there exist constants $`a_0`$$`a_1`$$`b_0`$$`b_1`$$`c_0`$$`c_1>0`$ such that

(71) $`c_0|v|_x^2c_1L(x,v)+k`$ $`b_0|v|_x^2+b_1,`$
$`E(x,v)`$ $`a_0|v|_x^2a_1.`$
Write $`T_n:=T(s_n)`$, $`y_n(t):=x_{s_n}(t/T_n)`$. Then

$`0\frac{d}{ds}T(s_n)={\displaystyle \frac{𝒜_k}{T}}=k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_n}}{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}E(y_n,\dot{y}_n)𝑑tka_1+{\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{T_n}}{\displaystyle _0^{T_n}}\left|\dot{y}_n\right|^2𝑑t.`$
Since $`lim_nT_n=0`$, this implies that

$$\underset{n}{lim}_0^{T_n}\left|\dot{y}_n\right|^2𝑑t=0.$$

Also, from (71)

$$c_0_0^{T_n}\left|\dot{y}_n\right|^2𝑑tc_1T_n𝒜_k(x_{s_n},T_n)b_0_0^{T_n}|\dot{y}_n|^2𝑑t+b_1T_n.$$

Hence $`lim_n𝒜_k(x_{s_n},T_n)=0`$. This contradicts the hypothesis $`𝒜_k(x_{s_n},T_n)[a,b]\ni ̸0`$.

###### 6.10 Corollary.

For all $`k`$, if $`q_0,q_1M`$, $`q_0q_1`$ and $`b`$, then the gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$ is relatively complete on $`[𝒜_kb]`$.

###### Proof:.

By Lemma 3.6, if $`q_0q_1`$ then

$$inf\left\{T>0\right|(x,T)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)[𝒜_kb]\}>0.$$

Therefore the case $`T_0=0`$ in the proof of Lemma 6.9 does not happen.

###### 6.11 Corollary.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ be a connected component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$ with non-trivial homotopy class. For all $`k,b`$, the gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is relatively complete on $`[𝒜_kb]`$.

###### Proof:.

By Lemma 3.7, the case $`T_0=0`$ in the proof of Lemma 6.9 does not happen.

## 7. Generic Palais-Smale condition for the Mountain-Pass geometry.

###### 7.1 Proposition.

Given $`\gamma _0,\gamma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ \[resp. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$\] let

$$𝒞(\gamma _0,\gamma _1):=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }:[0,1]\mathrm{\Lambda }_M[\text{resp. }\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)]|\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ is continuous},\mathrm{\Gamma }(0)=\gamma _0,\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)=\gamma _1\}.$$

For $`k`$, let

$$c(k):=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒞(\gamma _0,\gamma _1)}{inf}\underset{s[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}𝒜_k(\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)).$$

Suppose that for some $`k_0`$ we have that $`c(k_0)0`$ and

$$c(k_0)>\mathrm{max}\{𝒜_{k_0}(\gamma _0),𝒜_{k_0}(\gamma _1)\}$$

Then there exists $`\epsilon >0`$ such that for Lebesgue almost every $`k]k_0,k_0+\epsilon [`$, $`c(k)`$ is a critical value for $`𝒜_k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ \[resp. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$\], with a critical point which is not a strict local minimizer.

###### Proof:.

Observe that for all $`k`$, the number $`c(k)`$ is finite and $`c(k)\mathrm{max}\{𝒜_k(\gamma _0),𝒜_k(\gamma _1)\}`$. Since for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ \[resp. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$\], the function $`k𝒜_k(\gamma )`$ is non-decreasing, then $`kc(k)`$ is non-decreasing. By the continuity of $`𝒜_k`$ on $`k`$, the functions $`k𝒜_k(\gamma _0)`$ and $`k𝒜_k(\gamma _1)`$ are continuous. Let $`\epsilon >0`$ be such that666Observe that the function $`kc(k)`$ may be discontinuous, in particular, we allow $`k_0`$ to be a discontinuity point for $`kc(k)`$.

(72)
$$\mathrm{max}\{𝒜_k(\gamma _0),𝒜_k(\gamma _1)\}<c(k_0)c(k)0\text{ for all }k_0<k<k_0+\epsilon .$$

Write $`I_\epsilon :=]k_0,k_0+\epsilon [`$. Since the function $`c:I_\epsilon `$ is non-decreasing, by Lebesgue’s Theorem there is a total measure subset of $`I_\epsilon `$ where $`c()`$ is locally Lipschitz, i.e. the subset

$$𝒦:=\left\{kI_\epsilon \right|M>0,\delta _0>0,|\delta |<\delta _0:|c(k+\delta )c(k)|<M|\delta |\}$$

has total Lebesgue measure in $`I_\epsilon `$.

Now fix $`\underset{¯}{k}𝒦`$ and a sequence $`k_n\underset{¯}{k}`$ with $`lim_nk_n=\underset{¯}{k}`$. By the definition of $`\epsilon `$ in (72) the functionals $`𝒜_{k_n}`$, $`𝒜_{\underset{¯}{k}}`$ both show a mountain pass geometry with the same set of paths $`𝒞(\gamma _0,\gamma _1)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n𝒞(\gamma _0,\gamma _1)`$ be a path such that

(73)
$$\underset{s[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}𝒜_{k_n}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s))c(k_n)+(k_n\underset{¯}{k}).$$

Let $`M=M(\underset{¯}{k})>0`$ be given by the property $`\underset{¯}{k}𝒦`$. Let $`BA\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ \[resp. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$\] be the closed subsets defined by

$`B:`$ $`=\{(x,T)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M[\text{resp. }\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)]|TM+2\},`$
$`A:`$ $`=\{(x,T)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M[\text{resp. }\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)]|TM+3\}.`$
Then $`A`$ contains the $`\frac{1}{2}`$-neighbourhood of $`A`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ \[resp. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_1)`$\]. Since from (72), $`c(\underset{¯}{k})0`$, by Propositions 3.12 and 3.8.(i), the functional $`𝒜_{\underset{¯}{k}}`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition restricted to $`A`$, at level $`c(\underset{¯}{k})`$.

By the choice $`\underset{¯}{k}𝒦`$, the function $`kc(k)`$ is continuous at $`\underset{¯}{k}`$. Since $`k𝒜_k(\gamma )`$ is increasing,

$$\underset{s[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}𝒜_{\underset{¯}{k}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s))\underset{s[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}𝒜_{k_n}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s))c(k_n)+(k_n\underset{¯}{k})\stackrel{𝑛}{}c(\underset{¯}{k}).$$

If $`s[0,1]`$ is such that

$$𝒜_{\underset{¯}{k}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s))>c(\underset{¯}{k})(k_n\underset{¯}{k}),$$

then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s)=(x,T)`$ with

$$T=\frac{𝒜_{k_n}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s))𝒜_{\underset{¯}{k}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n(s))}{k_n\underset{¯}{k}}\frac{c(k_n)c(\underset{¯}{k})}{k_n\underset{¯}{k}}+2M(\underset{¯}{k})+2,$$

if $`n`$ is large enough.

Given $`\delta >0`$, let $`n`$ be large enough so that

$$c(k_n)c(\underset{¯}{k})+(k_n\underset{¯}{k})<\delta ,$$

$$0<\lambda _n:=(k_nk)<\delta .$$

Then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n([0,1])\left(B[𝒜_{\underset{¯}{k}}c(\underset{¯}{k})\lambda _n]\right)[𝒜_{\underset{¯}{k}}c(\underset{¯}{k})+\delta ].$$

Since $`c(\underset{¯}{k})0`$, by Lemma 6.9 the gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ is relatively complete on $`[c(\underset{¯}{k})\epsilon ,c(\underset{¯}{k})+\epsilon ]`$ for some $`\epsilon >0`$. Now Corollary 6.5 implies that $`𝒜_{\underset{¯}{k}}`$ has a critical point in $`A`$ which is not a strict local minimizer. ∎

## 8. The displacement energy.

Write $`I:=[0,1]`$. Given a subset $`AT^{}M`$ let $`_c(I\times A)`$ be the set of smooth functions $`H:I\times T^{}M`$ whose support is compact and contained in $`I\times A`$. To such $`H_c(I\times A)`$ we associate its Hamiltonian vector field $`X_{H_t}`$, defined by $`\omega (X_{H_t},)=dH_t()`$, where $`\omega =dpdx`$ and its corresponding Hamiltonian flow $`h_t`$. The set of functions in $`_c(I\times A)`$ which do not depend on $`tI`$ is denoted by $`_c(A)`$.

We say that $`F_c(A)`$ is slow if all non-constant contractible (in $`T^{}M`$) periodic orbits of its hamiltonian flow $`f_t`$ have period $`>1`$. Define the $`\pi _1`$-sensitive Hofer-Zehnder capacity of $`A`$ by

$$c_{HZ}^{}(A,T^{}M,\omega ):=sup\{\mathrm{max}F|F_c(\mathrm{int}A)\text{ is slow}\}.$$

The equivalence of this definition of the Hofer-Zehnder capacity with the original definition in  is proven in theorem 2.9 of .

Given $`H_c(I\times A)`$ define its norm $`H`$ as

$$H:=_0^1\left(\underset{zA}{sup}H(t,z)\underset{zA}{inf}H(t,z)\right)𝑑t.$$

The displacement energy $`e(A,T^{}M,\omega )`$ of a compact subset $`AT^{}M`$ is defined as

$$e(A,T^{}M,\omega ):=inf\{H|H_c(I\times T^{}M),h_1(A)A=\mathrm{}\},$$

where $`h_1`$ is the time 1 map of the hamiltonian flow of $`H`$.

###### 8.1 Lemma.

Given an open subset $`UM`$ there is a smooth function $`\varphi :M`$ whose critical points are all in $`U`$.

###### Proof:.

Let $`f:M`$ be a Morse function. Its set of critical points $`C(f)=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_N\}`$ is finite. Let $`\{\gamma _i\}_{i=1}^N`$ be a collection of disjoint smooth curves $`\gamma _i:[0,1]M`$ such that $`\gamma _i(0)=x_i`$ and $`\gamma _i(1)U`$. Let $`\{B_i\}_{i=1}^N`$ be a collection of disjoint tubular neighbourhoods of the curves $`\gamma _i`$. For each $`i`$, let $`h_i`$ be a smooth diffeomorphism of $`M`$ with support in $`B_i`$ such that $`h_i(\gamma _i(1))=x_i`$. Now let $`\varphi =fh_1\mathrm{}h_N`$. ∎

###### 8.2 Proposition.

If $`k<e_0(L)`$ then $`e([Ek],T^{}M,\omega )<+\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof:.

Since $`k<e_0(L)`$ then $`U:=M\pi ([Ek])`$ is a non-empty open subset of $`M`$. Let $`\varphi :M`$ be a smooth function such that all its critical points are in $`U`$. Let $`G:=\varphi `$ be the gradient vector field of $`\varphi `$ and $`g_t`$ its gradient flow. The $`\omega `$-limit of every orbit of $`g_t`$ is a critical point of $`\varphi `$ which is inside $`U`$. Since $`MU`$ is compact, there is a finite time $`T>0`$ such that $`g_T(MU)U`$. Let $`F=TG`$, then its time-1-flow $`f_1=g_T`$ satisfies $`f_1(MU)U`$.

Let $`R:T^{}M`$ be $`R(x,p):=p,F(x)_x`$. The Hamiltonian equations for $`R`$ are

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=_pR(x,p)=F(x),`$
$`\dot{p}`$ $`=_xR(x,p)=pD_xF.`$
In particular, the Hamiltonian flow $`r_t`$ of $`R`$ lifts the flow $`f_t`$. Hence

$$r_1([Ek])r_1(\pi ^1(MU))\pi ^1(U).$$

Let

$$A:=1+sup\{\left|r_t(x,p)\right||H(x,p)k,t[0,1]\}.$$

Let $`\lambda :[0,+\mathrm{}[`$ be a smooth function such that $`\lambda (r)1`$ if $`|r|A`$ and $`\lambda (r)=0`$ if $`|r|A+1`$. Now let $`S:T^{}M`$ be $`S(x,p):=\lambda (|p|_x)p,F(x)_x`$. We have that $`S`$ has compact support and its flow $`s_t`$ satisfies $`s_t(x,p)=r_t(x,p)`$ when $`t[0,1]`$ and $`H(x,p)k`$. In particular $`s_1([Hk])[Hk]=\mathrm{}`$ because $`s_1([Hk])\pi ^1(U)`$. Therefore $`e([Hk],T^{}M,\omega )S<+\mathrm{}`$.

###### 8.3 Corollary.

For Lebesgue almost every $`k<e_0(L)`$ the energy level $`[E=k]`$ has a periodic orbit which is contractible in $`M`$.

###### Proof:.

By theorem 1.3 in  (also ), $`c_{HZ}^{}(A,T^{}M,\omega )4e(A,T^{}M,\omega )`$. From Proposition 8.2, we get that $`c_{HZ}^{}([Ek],T^{}M,\omega )<+\mathrm{}`$ for all $`k<e_0(L)`$. A standard argument using the Hofer-Zehnder capacity \[12, p. 118 –119\] shows that almost all energy levels $`[E=k]`$, $`k<e_0(L)`$ have a periodic orbit which is contractible in $`T^{}M`$ but possibly non-contractible in $`[Ek]`$. Since $`T^{}M`$ retracts to the zero section $`M\times \{0\}`$, the projection of the closed orbit to $`M`$ is contractible in $`M`$. ∎

## 9. Loops, closed orbits and conjugate points.

Proof of Theorem D:

(a). We first prove that for all $`k>c_u(L)`$, $`E^1\{k\}`$ contains a periodic orbit. By Corollary B, $`𝒜_k`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition.

If $`\pi _1(M)0`$, by Lemma 4.2, $`𝒜_k`$ is bounded below on each non-trivial free homotopy class $`\sigma [S^1,M]`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$ be the connected component of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ corresponding to $`\sigma `$. By Corollary 6.11 the gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ is relatively complete on $`[𝒜_kb]\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$ for any $`b`$. By corollary 6.6 there is a minimizer of $`𝒜_k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$.

If $`\pi _1(M)=0`$, then $`c_u(L)=c_0(L)=c(L)`$ and $`k>c(L)`$. Since $`M`$ is closed, there is some non-trivial homotopy group $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}(M)0`$. Choose a non-trivial free homotopy class $`0\sigma [S^{\mathrm{}},M]`$. A map $`f:S^{\mathrm{}}M`$ with homotopy class $`\sigma `$ can be seen as a family $`F`$ of closed curves in $`M`$ (see e.g. \[15, page 37\]). Let $``$ the set of all such families corresponding to the homotopy class $`\sigma `$. Clearly $``$ is a forward invariant family. Since the homotopy class $`\sigma `$ is non-trivial, (c.f. \[15, Th. 2.1.8, page 37\]):

$$\underset{F}{inf}\underset{(x,T)F}{sup}\mathrm{length}(x)=:a>0.$$

By the superlinearity of $`L`$ there is $`b>0`$ such that $`L(x,v)>\left|v\right|_x^22b`$ for all $`(x,v)TM`$. We can assume that $`bk`$. If $`(x,T)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ is a closed curve with length $`\mathrm{}a`$, bounded action $`𝒜_k(x,T)\alpha `$ and speed $`|v|`$, then

$$\mathrm{}^2=\left[_0^T|v|\right]^2T_0^T|v|^2,$$

$$\alpha 𝒜_k(x,T)_0^T|v|^22bT+kT\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{T}(2bk)T.$$

Hence $`(2bk)T^2+\alpha T\mathrm{}^20`$. Since $`T0`$ and $`\mathrm{}^2a^2`$, we have that

$$T\frac{\alpha +\sqrt{\alpha ^2+4(2bk)a^2}}{2(2bk)}=:d>0.$$

And then

$`𝒜_k(x,T)`$ $`𝒜_{c(L)}(x,T)+[kc(L)]T`$
$`0+[kc(L)]d>0.`$
Thus

$$c():=\underset{F}{inf}\underset{(x,T)F}{sup}𝒜_k(x,T)[kc(L)]d>0.$$

Since $`c()0`$, Corollary B, Lemma 6.9 and Proposition 6.3 with $`B=A=X=\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ imply that there is a critical point on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ for $`𝒜_k`$.

By definition of $`c_u(L)`$, if $`e_0(L)<k<c_u(L)`$ then there is a closed curve $`(x_1,T_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ homotopic to a point, such that $`𝒜_k(x_1,T_1)<0`$. Then Proposition C.(2) and Proposition 7.1 imply that for almost every $`k]e_0,c_u[`$ there is a critical point for $`𝒜_k`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ with $`c(k)>0`$: i.e. a periodic orbit with trivial homotopy class and positive $`(L+k)`$-action which is not a strict local minimizer.

The case $`k<e_0(L)`$ is proven in Corollary 8.3. The closed orbit obtained in Corollary 8.3 could be a singularity of the Euler-Lagrange flow. But in that case $`k`$ is a critical value of the energy function. By Sard’s theorem that can only happen on a set of measure zero of values of $`k`$.

(b). For item (b) and $`k>c_u(L)`$ the proofs are similar to those of item (a) working on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$. Namely, if $`\pi _1(M,q_0)0`$ one finds a minimizing loop in a non-trivial homotopy class. If $`\pi _1(M,q_0)=0`$ we decompose a map $`(S^{\mathrm{}},\text{N.Pole})(M,q_0)`$ in a non-trivial homotopy class of $`\pi _{\mathrm{}}(M,q_0)`$ into a family of closed loops in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_0,q_0)`$.

For $`E(q_0,0)<k<c_u(L)`$, item (b) follows from Proposition C.(1), and Proposition 7.1 similarly to item (a).

(c). If $`k<c_u`$ and the Palais-Smale condition holds, the proof is similar to items (a) and (b), but now using Corollary 6.5, with $`B=A=X`$ instead of Proposition 7.1.

Now we will prove Theorem E. Let $`H:T^{}M`$ be the hamiltonian associated to $`L`$ and $`\psi _t`$ its hamiltonian flow. Recall that two points $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ are said conjugate  if there is $`T\{0\}`$ such that

$$\theta _2=\psi _T(\theta _1)\text{ and }d_{\theta _1}\psi _T(V(\theta _1))V(\theta _2)\{0\},$$

where $`V(\theta ):=\mathrm{ker}d_\theta \pi T_\theta (TM)`$ is the vertical subspace  and $`\pi :TMM`$ is the projection. This definition coincides with the one given in page D because the Legendre transform $`(x,v)=(x,L_v)`$ maps the vertical subspace of $`T_{v_x}TM`$ to the vertical subspace of $`T_{(v_x)}T^{}M`$.

###### 9.1 Proposition.

Suppose that the forward orbit of $`(x_0,v_0)`$ has no conjugate points. Let $`\gamma :[\epsilon ,T]M`$ be the solution $`\gamma (t)=\pi (\phi _t(x_0,v_0))`$. Let $`x_{\epsilon ,T}(s):=\gamma \left(\epsilon +s(T\epsilon )\right)`$, $`s[0,1]`$ and $`k:=E(x_0,v_0)`$. Then for all $`T>\epsilon >0`$ the solution $`(x_{\epsilon ,T},T\epsilon )`$, is a strict local minimizer of the free time $`(L+k)`$-action $`𝒜_k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\gamma (\epsilon ),\gamma (T))`$.

In \[6, page 663\] we gave an example of an orbit segment $`(x,T=\pi )`$ which has no conjugate points and which is not a local minimizer of $`𝒜_k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(x(0),x(1))`$. But in that example the forward orbit of $`(x(0),\frac{\dot{x}(0)}{T})`$ has a conjugate point at time $`t=2\pi `$ (cf. it is the same lagrangian as in example A.3, p. 949 in ).

###### Proof:.

Let $`H:T^{}M`$ be the hamiltonian associated to $`L`$, $`\psi _t`$ its hamiltonian flow and $`X`$ its hamiltonian vector field. Let $`\omega =dpdx`$ be the canonical symplectic form on $`T^{}M`$. Given $`\theta H^1\{k\}`$, let

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }:=H^1\{k\},\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi (\theta )}:=T_{\pi (\theta )}^{}M\mathrm{\Sigma },V(\theta ):=\mathrm{ker}d_\theta \pi =T_\theta (T_{\pi (\theta )}^{}M)\text{and}$$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}:=_{t>0}\psi _t(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi (\theta )}).$$

Then $`T_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\pi (\theta )}=V(\theta )T_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and

$$T_\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}=(V(\theta )T_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma })X(\theta )=:W(\theta ),$$

$$T_{\psi _t(\theta )}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}=d\psi _t\left(W(\theta )\right).$$

By definition $`i_X\omega =dH`$, hence $`i_X\omega |_{T\mathrm{\Sigma }}0`$. Since the vertical subspace $`V(\theta )`$ is lagrangian, we get that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}`$ is a invariant lagrangian submanifold of $`T^{}M`$ inside the energy level $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since $`V=\mathrm{ker}d\pi `$, the kernel of the projection $`d\pi |_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}}`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}`$ is

$$\mathrm{ker}d_{\psi _t(\theta )}\pi |_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}}=V(\psi _t(\theta ))d\psi _t\left(W(\theta )\right).$$

By Proposition 1.16 and Remark 1.17 in  if the whole forward orbit of $`\theta `$ has no conjugate points then $`V(\psi _t(\theta ))d\psi _t\left(W(\theta )\right)=\{0\}`$ for $`t>0`$, and hence the derivative of the projection $`d_{\psi _t(\theta )}\pi |_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}}`$ is injective along the forward orbit $`\psi _t(\theta )`$, $`t>0`$. If $`T>\epsilon >0`$, then the projection $`\pi |_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}}`$ is an immersion in a small tubular neighbourhood $`N\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\pi (\theta )}H^1\{k\}`$ of the compact orbit segment $`\psi _{[\epsilon ,T]}(\theta )`$.

Now fix $`\theta _0:=L_v(x_0,v_0)`$. Observe that if the tubular neighbourhood $`N`$ is small enough, then $`N`$ is either contractible or $`N`$ is homeomorphic to a solid torus and the orbit of $`\theta _0`$ is periodic with period smaller than or equal to $`T\epsilon `$.

If $`(x,p)N`$ we have that

$$k=H(x,p)=\underset{vT_xM}{sup}pvL(x,v).$$

Since $`NH^1\{k\}`$, for any curve $`(z(s),q(s))`$ inside $`N`$,

$$q(s)\dot{z}(s)L(z,\dot{z})+k,$$

with strict inequality if $`L_v(z,\dot{z})qN`$.

Now let $`(y,S)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(\gamma (\epsilon ),\gamma (T))`$ be a curve near $`(x_{\epsilon ,T},T\epsilon )`$ in the metric of $`^1(M)\times ^+`$. Since the time parameters $`S`$, $`T\epsilon `$, are bounded, by Lemma 2.3, if $`(y,S)`$ is sufficiently near $`(x_{\epsilon ,T},T\epsilon )`$ then the Hausdorff distance $`d_H(y([0,1]),x_{\epsilon ,T}([0,1]))`$ is small. In particular, $`y`$ is homotopic to $`x_{\epsilon ,T}`$ with fixed endpoints and $`y([0,1])\pi (N)`$. Let $`z(t):=y(tS)`$ and let $`(z(s),q(s))`$ be the lift of $`z`$ to $`N`$ with $`q(0)=\psi _\epsilon (\theta _0)`$. Then $`(z,q)`$ is homotopic in $`N`$ to the orbit segment $`\psi _{[\epsilon ,T]}(\theta _0)`$ with fixed endpoints. Since $`N`$ is a lagrangian submanifold of $`T^{}M`$, the Liouville 1-form $`pdx`$ is closed on $`N`$. Then

(74)
$$𝒜_k(x,T\epsilon )=_\gamma \left(L+k\right)=_{\psi _t(\theta _0)}p𝑑x=_{(z,q)}p𝑑x_z\left(L+k\right)=𝒜_k(y,S),$$

with strict inequality if $`q(s)L_v(z,\dot{z})`$ on a set of positive measure. Thus $`\gamma |_{[\epsilon ,T]}`$ is a local minimum of the $`(L+k)`$-action.

We now see that $`\gamma |_{[\epsilon ,T]}`$ is a strict local minimum of the $`(L+k)`$-action. Let $`:TMT^{}M`$ be the Legendre transform $`(x,v)=L_v(x,v)`$. Observe that the hamiltonian vector field $`X`$ satisfies

$$d\pi X(x,p)=^1(x,p)\text{ for all }(x,p)T^{}M.$$

Suppose that (74) is an equality. Then $`q(s)=L_v(z,\dot{z})N`$ for almost every $`s[0,S]`$. Therefore

(75)
$$\dot{z}=^1(z,q)=d\pi (X(z,q))\text{ for almost every }s[0,S].$$

Since $`z(s)`$ is continuous, its lift $`q(s)`$ is continuous. Hence, from (75), its derivative $`\dot{z}`$ is continuous. Then equation (75) says that the curve $`z`$ is an orbit of the projection of the hamiltonian vector field on $`N`$. Since $`X`$ is tangent to $`N`$, $`N`$ is $`\psi _t`$-invariant and the lift $`(z,q)`$ is unique, we have that $`(z,q)`$ must be an orbit of $`X`$. Since $`z(0)=\gamma (\epsilon )`$ and $`(z(0),q(0))=\psi _\epsilon (\theta _0)`$, we have that $`z(t)=\gamma (t)`$ for all $`t[\epsilon ,T]`$. Since $`z(S)=x_{\epsilon ,T}(1)=\gamma (T)`$, either $`S=T\epsilon `$ or $`\theta _0`$ is a periodic point and $`|S(T\epsilon )|`$ is a multiple of its period. Since we are assuming that $`|S(T\epsilon )|`$ is small, $`S=T\epsilon `$. Therefore (9) is a strict inequality unless $`(z,S)(x_{\epsilon ,T},T\epsilon )`$.

Proof of Theorem E:

Observe that the convexity of $`L`$ implies777e.g. Lemma 3.1. that $`\mathrm{min}_{vT_xM}E(x,v)=E(x,0)`$. If $`k>e_m(L)`$ then there is $`x_0M`$ such that $`k>E(x_0,0)`$. Then Theorem D.(b) says that for almost every $`k]e_m(L),c_u(L)[`$ there is an orbit segment with energy $`k`$ which is not a strict local minimizer of the action functional $`𝒜_k`$. Then Proposition 9.1 implies that the forward orbit of the initial point of such orbit segment must have a conjugate point. From the definition of conjugate point and the continuity of the derivative of the hamiltonian flow, it is easy to see that having a conjugate point is an open condition.

If for a specific $`k]e_m(L),c_u(L)[`$, the energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition then the same argument, now using Theorem D.(c) and Proposition 9.1, implies that the energy level $`k`$ has conjugate points.

## 10. Proof of Proposition F.

Proposition F follows from Corollary B and Lemmas 10.1 and 10.2 below.

Fix $`k`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=H^1\{k\}`$ be the energy level. Let $`X`$ be the hamiltonian vector field for $`H`$ and $`\psi _t`$ be its flow. Let $`\pi :T^{}MM`$ be the projection, $`\omega =dpdx`$ the canonical symplectic form on $`T^{}M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }=pdx`$ the Liouville 1-form on $`T^{}M`$.

Given $`\psi _t`$-invariant Borel probability measure $`\nu `$ supported on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the Schwartzman asymptotic cycle $`𝒮(\nu )H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)^{}`$ of $`\nu `$ is defined by

$$𝒮(\nu ),[\eta ]=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\eta (X)𝑑\nu $$

for every closed 1-form $`\eta `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The map $`(\pi |_\mathrm{\Sigma })_{}:H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)H_1(M,)`$ maps $`𝒮(\nu )`$ to the homology class $`\rho (\nu )`$ of $`\nu `$.

###### 10.1 Lemma.

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is of contact type and $`\pi _{}:H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)H_1(M,)`$ is injective, then $`𝒜_k`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition.

###### Proof:.

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }=pdx`$ be Liouville 1-form. Observe that on the energy level $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(X)=pH_p=vL_v=L+k.$$

Suppose that $`𝒜_k`$ does not satisfy the Palais-Smale condition. Let $`\mu `$ be the measure given by Theorem A and let $`\nu =_{}(\mu )`$ be its push-forward under the Legendre transform $`(x,v)=L_v(x,v)`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be a contact-type form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since $`\lambda (X)0`$, $`\lambda (X)`$ has a single sign on each connected component of $`H^1\{k\}`$, in particular in the support of $`\nu `$. Since $`d\lambda =\omega =d\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the form $`\eta :=\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }`$ is closed on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since $`\pi _{}(𝒮(\nu ))=\rho (\mu )=0`$ and $`\pi _{}`$ is injective, $`𝒮(\nu )=0`$. Then

$`A_{L+k}(\mu )`$ $`={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Theta }(X)𝑑\nu +0={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Theta }(X)𝑑\nu +𝒮(\nu ),[\eta ]`$
(76) $`={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}(\mathrm{\Theta }+\eta )(X)𝑑\nu ={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\lambda (X)𝑑\nu 0.`$
This contradicts Theorem A.

###### 10.2 Lemma.

If $`dimM2`$ and either

* $`M𝕋^2`$ or
* $`M=𝕋^2`$ and $`k<e_0`$,

then $`\pi _{}:H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)H_1(M,)`$ is an isomorphism.

In the following proof we shall use the lagrangian888The hamiltonian version, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=H^1\{k\}`$, may not contain the zero section in its interior version $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=E^1\{k\}`$. Its intersections with the fibers of $`TM`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }T_xM`$ are convex subsets containing $`(x,0)`$ in its interior which are either homeomorphic to a sphere $`S^{n1}`$ or to a point, when $`E(x,0)=k`$.

###### Proof:.

Suppose first that $`k>e_0(L)`$ and $`M𝕋^2`$.

Since $`k>e_0(L)`$, the energy level $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=E^1\{k\}`$ is isomorphic to the unit tangent bundle of $`M`$ with the projection $`\pi :\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$. If $`M`$ is orientable, the Lemma follows from an argument using the Gysin exact sequence, e.g. \[25, Lemma 1.45\].

If $`M`$ is not orientable and $`n=dimM3`$, from the exact homotopy sequence of the fiber bundle $`\pi :\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$:

$$0=\pi _1(S^{n1})\stackrel{i_{}}{}\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })\stackrel{\pi _{}}{}\pi _1(M)\pi _0(S^{n1})=0,$$

we get that $`\pi _{}:\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })\pi _1(M)`$ is an isomorphism. This implies that $`\pi _{}:H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)H_1(M,)`$ is an isomorphism.

If $`M`$ is not orientable and $`dimM=2`$, from the homotopy sequence above we get an isomorphism $`f:\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })/_{\mathrm{im}i_{}}\pi _1(M)`$. Let $`h:\pi _1(M)H_1(M,)`$ and $`k:\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)`$ be the natural homomorphisms. We show that $`\mathrm{im}i_{}\mathrm{ker}k`$ and therefore, $`k`$ induces a homomorphism $`k_1:\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })/_{\mathrm{im}i_{}}H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)`$. Indeed, the fiber $`F=S^1`$ lies inside a Klein bottle $`K`$ inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is $`\pi ^1(\gamma )`$, where $`\gamma `$ is a closed curve containing the base point $`\pi (F)`$ along which $`M`$ is non-orientable. Then if $`1_F`$ is a generator of the fundamental group of the fiber $`1_F\pi _1(F)=`$, its image $`i_{}(1_F)`$ has order at most 2 in $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Hence $`k(i_{}(1_F))=0H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)`$.

The following diagram commutes. There $`k_1`$ and $`h`$ are surjective and $`f`$ is an isomorphism.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })/_{\mathrm{im}i_{}}& \underset{}{\overset{f}{}}& \pi _1(M)\\ k_1& & h& & \\ H_1(\mathrm{\Sigma },)& \stackrel{\pi _{}}{}& H_1(M,)\end{array}$$

Then $`\pi _{}`$ is surjective. Suppose that $`\pi _{}(a)=0`$. Let $`b\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })/_{\mathrm{im}i_{}}`$ be such that $`k_1(b)=a`$ and let $`c=f(b)`$. Then $`h(c)=0`$. Hence $`c`$ is in the commutator subgroup of $`\pi _1(M)`$. Since $`f`$ is an isomorphism, $`b`$ is in the commutator subgroup of $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })/_{\mathrm{im}i_{}}`$. Therefore $`a=k_1(b)=0`$. Thus $`\pi _{}`$ is injective.

Now assume that $`k<e_0(L)`$. Let $`B:=\pi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and let $`E:=T_B^1M`$ be the restriction of the unit tangent bundle to $`B`$. Let $``$ be the equivalence relation on $`E`$ defined by $`(x,v)(y,w)`$ iff either $`(x,v)=(y,w)`$ or $`E(x,0)=k`$ and $`x=y`$. Then the energy level $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is homeomorphic to $`E/_{}`$, i.e. the one point compactification of the fibers over the points $`x`$ with $`E(x,0)=k`$.

We can assume that $`B`$ is connected, for the connected components of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are in 1-1 correspondence with the connected components of $`B`$ under the projection $`\pi `$.

We can also assume that there is $`b_1B`$ such that $`E(b_1,0)k`$. For, if not, then $`E^1\{k\}=\{(x,0)|xB\}`$ and the Lemma becomes trivial.

Let $`p:EB`$ be the restriction of the projection of the unit tangent bundle and $`f:E\mathrm{\Sigma }=E/_{}`$ the canonical projection. Then $`p=\pi f`$. The homotopy exact sequence of the fibering $`S^{n1}EB`$ gives

$$\pi _1(S^{n1})\stackrel{i_{}}{}\pi _1(E,e_1)\stackrel{p_{}}{}\pi _1(B,b_1)\pi _0(S^{n1})=0.$$

Then $`p_{}`$ is an epimorphism and it induces an isomorphism $`g:\pi _1(E)/_{\mathrm{im}i_{}}\pi _1(B)`$. We see that $`\mathrm{im}i_{}\mathrm{ker}f_{}`$, so that $`f_{}`$ induces a homomorphism $`\widehat{f}_{}:\pi _1(E)/_{\mathrm{im}i_{}}\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Indeed, if $`n3`$ then $`\pi _1(S^{n1})=0`$ and then $`\mathrm{im}i_{}=0`$. If $`n=2`$, let $`1_F`$ be a generator of the fundamental group of the fiber $`\pi _1(S^1)=`$. Since $`k<e_0(L)`$ there is a point $`x_1B`$ such that $`E(x_1,0)=k`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be a curve in $`B`$ joining $`b_1`$ to $`x_1`$. The fiber bundle $`E`$ over the interval $`\lambda `$ is trivial $`E|_\lambda S^1\times [0,1]`$. Observe that the inverse image $`\pi ^1(\lambda )\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has the topology of a cylinder with one of its boundary circles compactified to a point. Hence it is homeomorphic to a 2-disc, and the class $`1_F`$ is represented by its boundary circle. Hence $`f_{}(i_{}(1_F))=0\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

We prove that $`\pi _{}:\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })\pi _1(B)`$ is an isomorphism. This implies the Lemma. Since $`g=\pi _{}\widehat{f}_{}`$, it follows that $`\widehat{f}_{}`$ is injective and $`\pi _{}`$ is surjective. In order to prove that $`\pi _{}`$ is injective it is enough to prove that $`\widehat{f}_{}`$ is onto. Since $`f_{}`$ and $`\widehat{f}_{}`$ have the same image, it is enough to prove that $`f_{}`$ is surjective.

Let $`\sigma _1=f(e_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:(S^1,1)(\mathrm{\Sigma },\sigma _1)`$ be a loop in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ based at $`\sigma _1`$. We want a preimage under $`f_{}`$ of the homotopy class of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)0`$ for all $`sS^1`$, such preimage is the homotopy class of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_E(s)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}`$. In general, the problem is that such definition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_E`$ may have no continuous extension to the $`s`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)=0`$. Assume now that there is $`s_0S^1`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(s_0)=0`$.

Let $`\gamma =\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }:(S^1,1)(B,b_1)`$ be the projection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`C:=\{xM|E(x,0)=k\}`$ and $`D:=\{tS^1|\gamma (t)C\}`$. Then $`D`$ is a compact subset of $`S^1`$ and its complement is a union of open intervals $`I_i`$. Choose any continuous loop $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_E:(S^1,1)(E,e_1)`$ such that $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }_E=\gamma `$.

The pullback of the sphere bundle $`E`$ along each segment $`\gamma (I_i)`$ is trivial $`(\gamma |_{I_i})^{}EI_i\times S^{n1}`$. Then the inverse image $`\pi ^1\{\gamma (\overline{I_i})\}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the closed segment $`\gamma (\overline{I_i})`$ has the topology of a cylinder $`S^{n1}\times [0,1]`$ with its boundary spheres $`S^{n1}\times \{0\}`$ and $`S^{n1}\times \{1\}`$ compactified to two points $`\{A,B\}`$ or to a single point $`A=B`$.

Both segments $`f\mathrm{\Lambda }_E|_{\overline{I_i}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{\overline{I_i}}`$ must have the same endpoints $`A`$ and $`B`$. Hence they are homotopic with fixed endpoints inside $`\pi ^1\{\gamma (\overline{I_i})\}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Joint all these homotopies for each interval $`I_i`$, to obtain a homotopy in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ between $`f\mathrm{\Lambda }_E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Therefore $`f_{}([\mathrm{\Lambda }_E])=[\mathrm{\Gamma }]\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

## Appendix A A non ergodic measure in Theorem A.

Consider the flat metric on the 2-torus $`𝕋^2`$. Let $`X`$ be a vector field with norm 1 on $`𝕋^2`$ whose orbits form a Reeb foliation. Let $`L:T𝕋^2`$ be the lagrangian

$$L(x,v):=\frac{1}{2}\left|vX(x)\right|^2.$$

Its Euler-Lagrange flow is the same as the exact magnetic flow with lagrangian

$$L(x,v)\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}|v|^2\eta _x(v),$$

where $`\eta _x(v)=X(x),v`$. It is easy to see from the definition of critical value that $`c(L)=0`$. The vector field $`X`$ has two closed orbits $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ with opposite homology classes. Since $`L0`$ the Euler-Lagrange flow has only two ergodic invariant measures $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$, with zero $`L`$-action, corresponding to the periodic orbits $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i=(\gamma _i,\dot{\gamma }_i)`$. The unique invariant probability $`\mu `$ with $`A_L(\mu )=0`$ and zero homology class is $`\mu =\frac{1}{2}\mu _1+\frac{1}{2}\mu _2`$. It follows that $`c_u(L)=c_0(L)=c(L)=0`$. Let $`𝕃:T^2`$ be the lift of $`L`$ to the universal cover $`^2`$ of $`𝕋^2`$.

Figure A. The left figure shows the flow lines of the vector field $`X`$ in the example. The right figure shows a curve $`(x_n,T_n)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(q_1,q_2)`$ in an unbounded Palais-Smale sequence. The probability measures associated to $`(x_n,T_n)`$ converge to the non-ergodic measure $`\frac{1}{2}\mu _1+\frac{1}{2}\mu _2`$, where $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are the invariant probabilities for the Euler-Lagrange flow corresponding to the periodic solutions $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$.

It is easy to see that the Peierls barrier for $`𝕃`$ is finite, because one can join two points $`q_0,q_1^2`$ by curves with bounded action which spend long time on a lift of $`\gamma _1`$ and come back on a lift of $`\gamma _2`$. Since the action of $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ is zero, the total action spent on them is bounded. By Corollary B, there is an unbounded Palais-Smale sequence $`(x_n,T_n)`$ with $`lim_nT_n=+\mathrm{}`$. Nevertheless, there is no ergodic invariant probability in $`TM`$ with zero action and zero homology class.

## Appendix B Energy levels of non-contact type.

The following theorem is not explicitly stated in .

###### B.1 Theorem (G. Paternain).

Suppose that $`dimM2`$.

If $`k>c_0(L)`$ then $`H^1\{k\}`$ is of contact type.

If $`M𝕋^2`$ and $`c_u(L)<kc_0(L)`$ then $`H^1\{k\}`$ is not of contact type.

There is an example in  of a lagrangian in $`𝕋^2`$ for which the energy level $`E=c_0(L)`$ is of contact type.

As an application (c.f. \[24, Th. 1.1\]), if $`M`$ admits a metric with negative curvature and if the Lagrangian flow on an energy level $`H^1\{k\}`$ with $`c_u(L)<k<c_0(L)`$ is Anosov, then the strong stable and unstable subbundles $`E^{ss}`$, $`E^{uu}`$ can not be $`C^1`$. For if they were $`C^1`$, the form $`\lambda `$ defined by $`\lambda (X)1`$ and $`\lambda |_{E^{ss}E^{uu}}0`$ is a contact form for $`H^1\{k\}`$ (c.f. U. Hamendstädt , G. Paternain \[24, Th. 5.5\]). Examples of such Anosov energy levels appear in G. Paternain & M. Paternain .

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a regular energy level, the Liouville measure $`m`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the smooth measure induced by the volume form $`i_Y\omega ^n`$, where $`Y`$ is a vector field on $`T^{}M`$ such that $`\omega (Y,X)1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It is invariant under the hamiltonian flow because $`L_X(i_Y\omega ^n)=0`$. We choose the orientation on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that makes $`m`$ a positive measure.

###### B.2 Lemma.

If $`\lambda `$ is a 1-form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`d\lambda =\omega `$ and $`\lambda (X)0`$ then $`\lambda (X)>0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Proof:.

Let $`\xi `$ be a 1-form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We have that

$`\xi (X)i_Y\omega ^n`$ $`=i_X\left(\xi i_Y\omega ^n\right)+\xi \left(i_Xi_Y\omega ^n\right)`$
$`=0+\xi i_X\left[n(i_Y\omega )\omega ^{n1}\right]`$ $`\text{because }dim\mathrm{\Sigma }=2n1`$
$`=\xi \left(n\omega (Y,X)\omega ^{n1}0\right)`$ $`\text{because on }\mathrm{\Sigma },i_X\omega =dH0`$
(77) $`=n\xi \omega ^{n1}.`$
We show first that the asymptotic cycle (c.f. page 10) of the Liouville measure $`m`$ is zero. Indeed, let $`\mathrm{\Theta }:=pdx`$ be Liouville 1-form on $`T^{}M`$ and $`\tau :=\mathrm{\Theta }\omega ^{n2}`$. If $`\eta `$ is a closed 1-form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ then $`\eta \omega ^{n1}=\eta d\tau =d(\eta \tau )`$. Hence by (77),

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\eta (X)𝑑m=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\eta (X)i_Y\omega ^n=n_\mathrm{\Sigma }\eta \omega ^{n1}=n_\mathrm{\Sigma }d(\eta \tau )=0.$$

Since $`\lambda (X)0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, it is enough to prove that for any connected component $`𝒩`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we have $`_𝒩\lambda (X)𝑑m>0`$. Since $`d\lambda =\omega =d\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the form $`\eta =\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }`$ is closed on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then

$$_𝒩\lambda (X)𝑑m=𝒮(m),[\eta ]+_𝒩\mathrm{\Theta }(X)𝑑m=_𝒩\mathrm{\Theta }(X)𝑑m.$$

From (77) we have that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(X)i_Y\omega ^n|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=n\mathrm{\Theta }\omega ^{n1}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$

Let $`𝒲`$ be the fiberwise convex hull of $`𝒩`$ in $`T^{}M`$. Then $`𝒲=𝒩`$. By Stokes Theorem,

$$_𝒩\mathrm{\Theta }(X)𝑑m=_𝒲\mathrm{\Theta }(X)i_Y\omega ^n=_𝒲n\mathrm{\Theta }\omega ^{n1}=n_𝒲\omega ^n.$$

We prove that the last integral is positive.999Alternatively, the integral is equal to the $`(L+k)`$ action of the Liouville measure $`m_k`$ on $`E^1\{k\}`$. If $`\mathrm{}>c_0(L)`$ by (1), $`A_{L+\mathrm{}}(m_{\mathrm{}})>0`$, and one can show that the orientation on $`E^1\{\mathrm{}\}`$ defined by the Liouville measure varies continuously with $`\mathrm{}`$. Since $`dH(Y)=i_Y(i_X\omega )=1`$, the convexity of $`H`$ implies that $`Y`$ is an outwards pointing vector in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=𝒲`$. A basis $`(v_1,\mathrm{},v_{2n1})`$ of $`T\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is positively oriented iff $`i_Y\omega ^n(v_1,\mathrm{},v_{2n1})=\omega ^n(Y,v_1,\mathrm{},v_{2n1})>0`$ and Stokes theorem uses $`(Y,v_1,\mathrm{},v_{2n1})`$ as a positively oriented basis for $`T𝒲`$.

###### B.3 Remark.

Lemma B.2 also says that the Liouville measure has always positive $`(L+k)`$-action, for in the energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ we have that $`\mathrm{\Theta }(X)=vL_v=L+k`$.

Proof of Theorem B.1:

From (1), there is a closed 1-form $`\eta `$ on $`M`$ such that $`c_0(L)=c(L\eta )`$. The Hamiltonian of $`L\omega `$ is $`(x,p)=H(x,p+\eta )`$. If $`k>c_0(L)`$, by Theorem A in  there is a smooth function $`u:M`$ such that $`(x,d_xu)<k`$ for all $`xM`$. From the definition (3) of the Hamiltonian $``$ we have that

$$L(x,v)\eta _x(v)d_xu(v)+k>0\text{ for all }(x,v)TM.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }=pdx`$ be the Liouville 1-form on $`T^{}M`$. Let $`\lambda :=\mathrm{\Theta }\eta d\pi dud\pi `$, where $`\pi :T^{}MM`$ is the projection. Since $`\eta `$ is closed, $`d\lambda =d\mathrm{\Theta }=\omega `$. On $`H^1\{k\}`$ we have that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(X)=pH_p=L(x,v)+k,$$

where $`v=H_p(x,p)`$. Since $`X=(H_p,)`$, on $`H^1\{k\}`$ we have that

$$\lambda (X)=L(x,v)+k\eta _x(v)d_xu(v)>0,$$

where $`v=H_p(x,p)`$.

Now assume that $`c_u(L)<k<c_0(L)`$. Let $`\widehat{L}`$ be the lift of $`L`$ to the abelian cover $`\widehat{M}`$. Since $`k<c_0(L)=c(\widehat{L})`$, there exists a closed curve $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ in $`\widehat{M}`$ with negative $`(L+k)`$-action. Observe that the projection $`\gamma `$ of $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ to $`M`$ has trivial homology class. The homotopy class of $`\gamma `$ can not be trivial because if it where, its lift to the universal cover would be closed and since $`k>c_u(L)`$ its $`(L+k)`$-action would be non-negative. Let $`\sigma `$ be the free homotopy class of $`\gamma `$ and let

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma :=\{(x,T)\mathrm{\Lambda }_M|x\sigma ,T>0\}.$$

Since $`k>c_u(L)`$, by lemma 4.2,

$$\mathrm{}<\underset{(x,T)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma }{inf}𝒜_k(x,T)<A_{\widehat{L}+k}(\widehat{\gamma })<0.$$

Since $`k>c_u(L)`$, by Corollary B, $`𝒜_k`$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition. By Corollary 6.11 the gradient flow of $`𝒜_k`$ is relatively complete on $`[𝒜_k0]`$. Then by Corollary 6.6 there is a minimizer $`(x,T)`$ of $`𝒜_k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\sigma `$. The curve $`y(t):=x(t/T)`$ is a periodic orbit of the Euler-Lagrange flow with negative $`(L+k)`$-action and energy $`k`$. Let $`\mu `$ be the invariant probability measure supported on the periodic orbit $`(y,\dot{y})`$ and let $`\nu =_{}(\mu )`$, $`(x,v)=(x,L_v(x,v))`$. Since the homology class corresponding to $`\sigma `$ is trivial, $`\rho (\mu )=0`$. By lemma 10.2, since $`\pi _{}(𝒮(\nu ))=\rho (\mu )=0`$ and $`M𝕋^2`$, $`𝒮(\nu )=0`$. If $`\lambda `$ is a contact-type form, since $`\mathrm{supp}(\mu )E^1\{k\}`$, the same calculation as in (76) gives

(78)
$$\lambda (X)𝑑\nu =A_{L+k}(\mu )<0.$$

This contradicts lemma B.2.

When $`k=c_0(L)`$, by (1) there is an invariant probability $`\mu `$ such that $`\rho (\mu )=0`$ and $`A_{L+c_0}(\mu )=0`$. The same argument as in (78) shows that $`H^1\{c_0\}`$ is not of contact type.

## Appendix C Non-magnetic Lagrangians.

The following result was suggested by R. Mañé in .

###### C.1 Theorem.

If $`L`$ is a convex superlinear lagrangian and the 1-form $`\theta _x:=L_v(x,0)`$ is closed, then every energy level contains a closed orbit.

Since we are looking for closed orbits on specified energy levels, by \[6, prop. 18\] we can assume that $`L`$ is Riemannian at infinity. Since the 1-form $`\theta _x`$ is closed the lagrangian $`𝕃=L\theta _x`$ has the same Euler-Lagrange flow as $`L`$. Replacing $`L`$ by $`𝕃`$ we can also assume that $`\theta _x0`$. If $`ke_0(L)`$, by lemma 3.1,

$$L(x,v)+k\frac{1}{2}a_0|v|_x^2+\left[kE(x,0)\right]0.$$

Therefore $`c(L)=e_0(L)`$. By theorem D, when $`k>e_0=c(L)`$ the energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ has (non-trivial) closed orbits and at $`k=e_0`$ it has a singularity.

By Proposition 8.2 and Frauenfelder-Schlenk theorem  for $`k<e_0`$ the set $`[Ek]`$ has finite Hofer-Zehnder capacity. Then \[12, Th. 5, p.123\] it has a closed orbit on every contact type energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ with $`k<e_0`$.

Singular energy levels have a singularity of the Euler-Lagrange flow. Now we see that the regular energy levels of $`L`$ are of contact type. We use the following

###### C.2 Proposition.

\[McDuff , also \[7, sec. 2 & app. B\]\] Suppose that the flow of a vector field $`X`$ on a compact orientable manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ does not admit a global cross section. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be a smooth 1-form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then the following are equivalent

1. $`\mathrm{\Theta }(X)𝑑\mu 0`$ for every invariant Borel probability with zero asymptotic cycle.
2. There exist a smooth closed 1-form such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }(X)+\phi (X)`$ never vanishes.

Let $`k`$ be a regular value of the energy function. Let $`H`$ be the hamiltonian of $`L`$ and $`X`$ its hamiltonian vector field. Since the Liouville measure has zero asymptotic cycle (inside Lemma B.2) the energy level $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=H^1\{k\}`$ has no global cross section. For, by Poincaré duality such cross section would give a closed 1-form $`\eta `$ such that $`𝒮(\mu ),\eta =_\mathrm{\Sigma }\eta (X)𝑑\mu >0`$ for every invariant probability $`\mu `$. Since $`E^1\{k\}`$ is a regular energy level, if $`(x,v)E^1\{k\}`$ then $`k=E(x,v)>E(x,0)`$. By Lemma 3.1, writing $`\mathrm{\Theta }=pdx`$,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(X)=vL_v(x,v)=L(x,v)+k\frac{1}{2}a_0|v|_x^2+\left[kE(x,0)\right]>0\text{ if }E(x,v)=k.$$

By proposition C.2 there is a closed form $`\phi `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }(X)+\phi (X)0`$. Let $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Theta }+\phi `$. Then $`\lambda (X)0`$ and $`d\lambda =d\mathrm{\Theta }=\omega `$.

Indeed, as above, from Lemma B.2 and proposition C.2 we have

###### C.3 Proposition.

A compact energy level $`E^1\{k\}`$ of a convex lagrangian is of contact type if and only if $`A_{L+k}(\mu )>0`$ for every Borel invariant probability in $`E^1\{k\}`$ with zero asymptotic cycle.