Differential geometry of surfaces

In mathematics, the differential geometry of surfaces deals with

the differential geometry of smooth surfaces with various additional
structures, most often, a Riemannian metric. Surfaces have been
extensively studied from various perspectives: extrinsically, relating
to their embedding in Euclidean space and intrinsically, reflecting
their properties determined solely by the distance within the surface
as measured along curves on the surface. One of the fundamental
concepts investigated is the Gaussian curvature, first studied in depth
by Carl Friedrich Gauss,[1] who showed that curvature was an
intrinsic property of a surface, independent of its isometric
embedding in Euclidean space.

Surfaces naturally arise as graphs of functions of a pair of variables,

and sometimes appear in parametric form or as loci associated to
space curves. An important role in their study has been played by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1828
Lie groups (in the spirit of the Erlangen program), namely the
symmetry groups of the Euclidean plane, the sphere and the
hyperbolic plane. These Lie groups can be used to describe surfaces of constant Gaussian curvature; they
also provide an essential ingredient in the modern approach to intrinsic differential geometry through
connections. On the other hand, extrinsic properties relying on an embedding of a surface in Euclidean space
have also been extensively studied. This is well illustrated by the non-linear Euler–Lagrange equations in
the calculus of variations: although Euler developed the one variable equations to understand geodesics,
defined independently of an embedding, one of Lagrange's main applications of the two variable equations
was to minimal surfaces, a concept that can only be defined in terms of an embedding.

Contents
Overview
History of surfaces
Curvature of surfaces in Euclidean space
Examples
Surfaces of revolution
Quadric surfaces
Ruled surfaces
Minimal surfaces
Surfaces of constant Gaussian curvature
Local metric structure
Line and area elements
Second fundamental form
Shape operator
Geodesic curves on a surface
Geodesics
Geodesic curvature
 Isometric embedding problem
Orthogonal coordinates
Geodesic polar coordinates
Exponential map
Computation of normal coordinates
Gauss's lemma
Theorema Egregium
Gauss–Jacobi equation
Laplace–Beltrami operator
Gauss–Bonnet theorem
Geodesic triangles
Gauss–Bonnet theorem
Curvature and embeddings
Surfaces of constant curvature
Euclidean geometry
Spherical geometry
Hyperbolic geometry
Uniformization
Surfaces of non-positive curvature
Alexandrov's comparison inequality
Existence of geodesics
Von Mangoldt–Hadamard theorem
Riemannian connection and parallel transport
Covariant derivative
Parallel transport
Connection 1-form
Global differential geometry of surfaces
Reading guide
See also
Notes
References

Overview
Polyhedra in the Euclidean space, such as the boundary of a cube, are among the first surfaces encountered
in geometry. It is also possible to define smooth surfaces, in which each point has a neighborhood
diffeomorphic to some open set in E2, the Euclidean plane. This elaboration allows calculus to be applied to
surfaces to prove many results.

Two smooth surfaces are diffeomorphic if and only if they are homeomorphic. (The analogous result does
not hold for manifolds of dimension greater than three.) It follows that closed surfaces are classified up to
diffeomorphism by their Euler characteristic and orientability.
Smooth surfaces equipped with Riemannian metrics are of foundational importance in differential geometry.
A Riemannian metric endows a surface with notions of geodesic, distance, angle, and area. An important
class of such surfaces are the developable surfaces: surfaces that can be flattened to a plane without
stretching; examples include the cylinder and the cone.

In addition, there are properties of surfaces which depend on an embedding of the surface into Euclidean
space. These surfaces are the subject of extrinsic geometry. They include

Minimal surfaces are surfaces that minimize the surface area for given boundary conditions;
examples include soap films stretched across a wire frame, catenoids and helicoids.
Ruled surfaces are surfaces that have at least one straight line running through every point;
examples include the cylinder and the hyperboloid of one sheet.

Any n-dimensional complex manifold is, at the same time, a 2n-dimensional real manifold. Thus any
complex one-manifold (also called a Riemann surface) is a smooth oriented surface with an associated
complex structure. Every closed surface admits complex structures. Any complex algebraic curve or real
algebraic surface is also a smooth surface, possibly with singularities.

Complex structures on a closed oriented surface correspond to conformal equivalence classes of Riemannian
metrics on the surface. One version of the uniformization theorem (due to Poincaré) states that any
Riemannian metric on an oriented, closed surface is conformally equivalent to an essentially unique metric
of constant curvature. This provides a starting point for one of the approaches to Teichmüller theory, which
provides a finer classification of Riemann surfaces than the topological one by Euler characteristic alone.

The uniformization theorem states that every smooth Riemann surface S is conformally equivalent to a
surface having constant curvature, and the constant may be taken to be 1, 0, or −1. A surface of constant
curvature 1 is locally isometric to the sphere, which means that every point on the surface has an open
neighborhood that is isometric to an open set on the unit sphere in E3 with its intrinsic Riemannian metric.
Likewise, a surface of constant curvature 0 is locally isometric to the Euclidean plane, and a surface of
constant curvature −1 is locally isometric to the hyperbolic plane.

Constant curvature surfaces are the two-dimensional realization of what are

known as space forms. These are often studied from the point of view of
Felix Klein's Erlangen programme, by means of smooth transformation
groups. Any connected surface with a three-dimensional group of isometries
is a surface of constant curvature.

A complex surface is a complex two-manifold and thus a real four-manifold;

it is not a surface in the sense of this article. Neither are algebraic curves or
surfaces defined over fields other than the complex numbers.

History of surfaces Felix Klein (1849-1925)

Isolated properties of surfaces of revolution were known already to

Archimedes. The development of calculus in the seventeenth century provided a more systematic way of
proving them. Curvature of general surfaces was first studied by Euler. In 1760[2] he proved a formula for
the curvature of a plane section of a surface and in 1771[3] he considered surfaces represented in a
parametric form. Monge laid down the foundations of their theory in his classical memoir L'application de
l'analyse à la géometrie which appeared in 1795. The defining contribution to the theory of surfaces was
made by Gauss in two remarkable papers written in 1825 and 1827.[1] This marked a new departure from
tradition because for the first time Gauss considered the intrinsic geometry of a surface, the properties which
are determined only by the geodesic distances between points on the surface independently of the particular
way in which the surface is located in the ambient Euclidean space. The crowning result, the Theorema
Egregium of Gauss, established that the Gaussian curvature is an intrinsic invariant, i.e. invariant under local
isometries. This point of view was extended to higher-dimensional spaces by Riemann and led to what is
known today as Riemannian geometry. The nineteenth century was the golden age for the theory of surfaces,
from both the topological and the differential-geometric point of view, with most leading geometers
devoting themselves to their study. Darboux collected many results in his four-volume treatise Théorie des
surfaces (1887–1896).

The presentation below largely follows Gauss, but with important later contributions from other geometers.
For a time Gauss was Cartographer to George III of Great Britain and Hanover; this royal patronage could
explain why these papers contain practical calculations of the curvature of the earth based purely on
measurements on the surface of the planet.

Curvature of surfaces in Euclidean space

Informally Gauss defined the curvature of a surface in terms of the
curvatures of certain plane curves connected with the surface. He
later found a series of equivalent definitions. One of the first was in
terms of the area-expanding properties of the Gauss map, a map
from the surface to a 2-dimensional sphere. However, before
obtaining a more intrinsic definition in terms of the area and angles
of small triangles, Gauss needed to make an in-depth investigation
of the properties of geodesics on the surface, i.e. paths of shortest
length between two fixed points on the surface (see below).[a] The principal curvatures at a point on
a surface
The Gaussian curvature at a point on an embedded smooth surface
given locally by the equation

z = F(x,y)

in Euclidean space (E3), is defined to be the product of the principal

curvatures at the point;[4] the mean curvature is defined to be their
average. The principal curvatures are the maximum and minimum
curvatures of the plane curves obtained by intersecting the surface The Gauss map sends a point on the
with planes normal to the tangent plane at the point. If the point is surface to the outward pointing unit
(0, 0, 0) with tangent plane z = 0, then, after a rotation about the z- normal vector, a point on S2
axis setting the coefficient on xy to zero, F will have the Taylor
series expansion

The principal curvatures are k1 and k2. In this case, the Gaussian curvature is given by

and the mean curvature by

Since K and Km are invariant under isometries of E3, in general

and

where the derivatives at the point are given by[5]

For every oriented embedded surface the Gauss map is the map into the unit sphere sending each point to
the (outward pointing) unit normal vector to the oriented tangent plane at the point. In coordinates the map
sends (x,y,z) to

Direct computation shows that: the Gaussian curvature is the Jacobian of the Gauss map.[6]

Examples

Surfaces of revolution

A surface of revolution can be obtained by rotating a curve in the

xz-plane about the z-axis, assuming the curve does not intersect the
z-axis. Suppose that the curve is given by

with t lies in (a, b), and is parametrized by arclength, so that

Then the surface of revolution is the point set

The surface of revolution obtained by

rotating the curve x = 2 + cos z
about the z-axis.

The Gaussian curvature and mean curvature are given by[7]

Geodesics on a surface of revolution are governed by Clairaut's
relation.

Quadric surfaces

Consider the quadric surface defined by[8]

This surface admits a parametrization

A quadric ellipsoid

The Gaussian curvature and mean curvature are given by

Ruled surfaces

A ruled surface is one which can be generated by the motion of a

straight line in E3.[9] Choosing a directrix on the surface, i.e. a
smooth unit speed curve c(t) orthogonal to the straight lines, and
then choosing u(t) to be unit vectors along the curve in the direction
of the lines, the velocity vector v = ct and u satisfy

The surface consists of points

as s and t vary.

Then, if

A single-sheeted quadric hyperboloid

which is a ruled surface in two
the Gaussian and mean curvature are given by
different ways.
The Gaussian curvature of the ruled surface vanishes if and only if ut and v are proportional,[10] This
condition is equivalent to the surface being the envelope of the planes along the curve containing the tangent
vector v and the orthogonal vector u, i.e. to the surface being developable along the curve.[11] More
generally a surface in E3 has vanishing Gaussian curvature near a point if and only if it is developable near
that point.[12] (An equivalent condition is given below in terms of the metric.)

Minimal surfaces

In 1760 Lagrange extended Euler's results on the calculus of variations involving integrals in one variable to
two variables.[13] He had in mind the following problem:

Given a closed curve in E3, find a surface having the curve as boundary with minimal area.

Such a surface is called a minimal surface.

In 1776 Jean Baptiste Meusnier showed that the differential equation derived by Lagrange was equivalent to
the vanishing of the mean curvature of the surface:

A surface is minimal if and only if its mean curvature vanishes.

Minimal surfaces have a simple interpretation in real life: they are the shape a soap film will assume if a
wire frame shaped like the curve is dipped into a soap solution and then carefully lifted out. The question as
to whether a minimal surface with given boundary exists is called Plateau's problem after the Belgian
physicist Joseph Plateau who carried out experiments on soap films in the mid-nineteenth century. In 1930
Jesse Douglas and Tibor Radó gave an affirmative answer to Plateau's problem (Douglas was awarded one
of the first Fields medals for this work in 1936).[14]

Many explicit examples of minimal surface are known explicitly, such as the catenoid, the helicoid, the
Scherk surface and the Enneper surface. There has been extensive research in this area, summarised in
Osserman (2002). In particular a result of Osserman shows that if a minimal surface is non-planar, then its
image under the Gauss map is dense in S2.

Surfaces of constant Gaussian curvature

If a surface has constant Gaussian curvature, it is called a surface of constant curvature.[15]

The unit sphere in E3 has constant Gaussian curvature +1.

The Euclidean plane and the cylinder both have constant Gaussian curvature 0.
 The surfaces of revolution with φtt = φ have constant
Gaussian curvature –1. Particular cases are obtained by
taking φ(t) =C cosh t, C sinh t and C et.[16] The latter
case is the classical pseudosphere generated by rotating a
tractrix around a central axis. In 1868 Eugenio Beltrami
showed that the geometry of the pseudosphere was
directly related to that of the hyperbolic plane, discovered
independently by Lobachevsky (1830) and Bolyai (1832).
Already in 1840, F. Minding, a student of Gauss, had
obtained trigonometric formulas for the pseudosphere
identical to those for the hyperbolic plane.[17] This surface
of constant curvature is now better understood in terms of
the Poincaré metric on the upper half plane or the unit Surfaces with (from l. to r.) constant
disc, and has been described by other models such as the negative, zero and positive Gaussian
Klein model or the hyperboloid model, obtained by curvature
considering the two-sheeted hyperboloid q(x, y, z) = −1 in
three-dimensional Minkowski space, where
q(x, y, z) = x2 + y2 – z2.[18]
Each of these surfaces of constant curvature has a transitive Lie group of
symmetries. This group theoretic fact has far-reaching consequences, all the
more remarkable because of the central role these special surfaces play in
the geometry of surfaces, due to Poincaré's uniformization theorem (see
below).

Other examples of surfaces with Gaussian curvature 0 include cones,

tangent developables, and more generally any developable surface.

Local metric structure

For any surface embedded in Euclidean space of dimension 3 or higher, it is
possible to measure the length of a curve on the surface, the angle between
two curves and the area of a region on the surface. This structure is encoded Eugenio Beltrami (1835-
infinitesimally in a Riemannian metric on the surface through line elements 1899)
and area elements. Classically in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries only surfaces embedded in R3 were considered and the metric was
given as a 2×2 positive definite matrix varying smoothly from point to point in a local parametrization of the
surface. The idea of local parametrization and change of coordinate was later formalized through the current
abstract notion of a manifold, a topological space where the smooth structure is given by local charts on the
manifold, exactly as the planet Earth is mapped by atlases today. Changes of coordinates between different
charts of the same region are required to be smooth. Just as contour lines on real-life maps encode changes
in elevation, taking into account local distortions of the Earth's surface to calculate true distances, so the
Riemannian metric describes distances and areas "in the small" in each local chart. In each local chart a
Riemannian metric is given by smoothly assigning a 2×2 positive definite matrix to each point; when a
different chart is taken, the matrix is transformed according to the Jacobian matrix of the coordinate change.
The manifold then has the structure of a 2-dimensional Riemannian manifold.

Line and area elements

Taking a local chart, for example by projecting onto the xy-plane (z = 0), the line element ds and the area
element dA can be written in terms of local coordinates as
 ds2 = E dx2 + 2F dx dy + G dy2
and
1
dA = (EG − F2) ⁄2 dx dy.

The expression E dx2 + 2F dx dy + G dy2 is called the first

fundamental form.[19]

The matrix

is required to be positive-definite and to depend smoothly on x and y.

A chart for the upper
In a similar way line and area elements can be associated to any abstract hemisphere of the 2-sphere
Riemannian 2-manifold in a local chart. obtained by projecting onto
the xy-plane

Second fundamental form

The extrinsic geometry of surfaces studies the properties of surfaces

embedded into a Euclidean space, typically E3. In intrinsic
geometry, two surfaces are "the same" if it is possible to unfold one
surface onto the other without stretching it, i.e. a map of one surface
onto the other preserving distance. Thus a cylinder is locally "the
same" as the plane. In extrinsic geometry, two surfaces are "the
same" if they are congruent in the ambient Euclidean space, i.e.
Coordinate changes between
there is an isometry of E3 carrying one surface onto the other. With different local charts must be smooth
this more rigid definition of similitude, the cylinder and the plane are
obviously no longer the same.

Although the primary invariant in the study of the intrinsic geometry

of surfaces is the metric (the first fundamental form) and the
Gaussian curvature, certain properties of surfaces also depend on an
embedding into E3 (or a higher dimensional Euclidean space). The
most important example is the second fundamental form, defined
classically as follows.[20]

Take a point (x, y) on the surface in a local chart. The Euclidean

Definition of second fundamental
distance from a nearby point (x + dx, y + dy) to the tangent plane
form
at (x, y), i.e. the length of the perpendicular dropped from the nearby
point to the tangent plane, has the form

e dx2 + 2f dx dy + g dy2
plus third and higher order corrections. The above expression, a symmetric bilinear form at each point, is the
second fundamental form. It is described by a 2 × 2 symmetric matrix
which depends smoothly on x and y. The Gaussian curvature can be calculated as the ratio of the
determinants of the second and first fundamental forms:

Remarkably Gauss proved that it is an intrinsic invariant (see his Theorema Egregium below).

One of the other extrinsic numerical invariants of a surface is the mean curvature Km defined as the sum of
the principal curvatures. It is given by the formula[19]

The coefficients of the first and second fundamental forms satisfy certain compatibility conditions known as
k
the Gauss-Codazzi equations; they involve the Christoffel symbols Γij associated with the first fundamental
form:[21]

These equations can also be succinctly expressed and derived in the language of connection forms due to
Élie Cartan.[22] Pierre Bonnet proved that two quadratic forms satisfying the Gauss-Codazzi equations
always uniquely determine an embedded surface locally.[23] For this reason the Gauss-Codazzi equations are
often called the fundamental equations for embedded surfaces, precisely identifying where the intrinsic and
extrinsic curvatures come from. They admit generalizations to surfaces embedded in more general
Riemannian manifolds.

Shape operator

The differential df of the Gauss map f can be used to define a type of

extrinsic curvature, known as the shape operator[24] or Weingarten map.
This operator first appeared implicitly in the work of Wilhelm Blaschke and
later explicitly in a treatise by Burali-Forti and Burgati.[25] Since at each
point x of the surface, the tangent space is an inner product space, the shape
operator Sx can be defined as a linear operator on this space by the formula

for tangent vectors v, w (the inner product makes sense because df(v) and
w both lie in E3).[b] The right hand side is symmetric in v and w, so the
shape operator is self-adjoint on the tangent space. The eigenvalues of Sx
are just the principal curvatures k1 and k2 at x. In particular the determinant Wilhelm Blaschke (1885-
of the shape operator at a point is the Gaussian curvature, but it also contains 1962)
other information, since the mean curvature is half the trace of the shape
operator. The mean curvature is an extrinsic invariant. In intrinsic geometry,
a cylinder is developable, meaning that every piece of it is intrinsically indistinguishable from a piece of a
plane since its Gauss curvature vanishes identically. Its mean curvature is not zero, though; hence
extrinsically it is different from a plane.
In general, the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the shape operator at each point determine the directions in
which the surface bends at each point. The eigenvalues correspond to the principal curvatures of the surface
and the eigenvectors are the corresponding principal directions. The principal directions specify the
directions that a curve embedded in the surface must travel to have maximum and minimum curvature, these
being given by the principal curvatures.

The shape operator is given in terms of the components of the first and second fundamental forms by the
Weingarten equations:[26]

Geodesic curves on a surface

Curves on a surface which minimize length between the endpoints are called geodesics; they are the shape
that an elastic band stretched between the two points would take. Mathematically they are described using
partial differential equations from the calculus of variations. The differential geometry of surfaces revolves
around the study of geodesics. It is still an open question whether every Riemannian metric on a 2-
dimensional local chart arises from an embedding in 3-dimensional Euclidean space: the theory of geodesics
has been used to show this is true in the important case when the components of the metric are analytic.

Geodesics

Given a piecewise smooth path c(t) = (x(t), y(t)) in the chart for t in
[a, b], its length is defined by

and energy by

A geodesic triangle on the

sphere. The geodesics are
great circle arcs.
The length is independent of the parametrization of a path. By the Euler–
Lagrange equations, if c(t) is a path minimising length, parametrized by
arclength, it must satisfy the Euler equations

k
where the Christoffel symbols Γij are given by

where g11 = E, g12 = F, g22 = G and gij is the inverse matrix to gij. A path satisfying the Euler equations
is called a geodesic. By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality a path minimising energy is just a geodesic
parametrised by arc length; and, for any geodesic, the parameter t is proportional to arclength.[27]
Geodesic curvature

The geodesic curvature kg at a point of a curve c(t), parametrised by arc length, on an oriented surface is
defined to be[28]

where n(t) is the "principal" unit normal to the curve in the surface, constructed by rotating the unit tangent
vector ċ(t) through an angle of +90°.

The geodesic curvature at a point is an intrinsic invariant depending only on the metric near
the point.
A unit speed curve on a surface is a geodesic if and only if its geodesic curvature vanishes at
all points on the curve.
A unit speed curve c(t) in an embedded surface is a geodesic if and only if its acceleration
vector c̈(t) is normal to the surface.

The geodesic curvature measures in a precise way how far a curve on the surface is from being a geodesic.

Isometric embedding problem

A result of Jacobowitz (1972) and Poznjak (1973) shows that every metric structure on a surface arises from
a local embedding in E4. Apart from some special cases, whether this is possible in E3 remains an open
question, the so-called "Weyl problem".[29] In 1926 Maurice Janet proved that it is always possible locally if
E, F and G are analytic; soon afterwards Élie Cartan generalised this to local embeddings of Riemannian n-
1
manifolds in Em where m = (n2 + n). To prove Janet's theorem near (0,0), the Cauchy–Kowalevski
2
theorem is used twice to produce analytic geodesics orthogonal to the y-axis and then the x-axis to make an
analytic change of coordinate so that E = 1 and F = 0. An isometric embedding u must satisfy

ux ⋅ ux = 1, ux ⋅ uy = 0, uy ⋅ uy = G.

Differentiating gives the three additional equations

uxx ⋅ uy = 0, uxx ⋅ ux = 0, uxx ⋅ uyy = uxy ⋅ uxy − 12 Gxx.

with u(0,y) and ux(0,y) prescribed. These equations can be solved near (0,0) using the Cauchy–
Kowalevski theorem and yield a solution of the original embedding equations.

Orthogonal coordinates

When F = 0 in the metric, lines parallel to the x- and y-axes are orthogonal and provide orthogonal
1
coordinates. If H = (EG) ⁄2, then the Gaussian curvature is given by[30]

1
If in addition E = 1, so that H = G ⁄2, then the angle φ at the intersection between geodesic (x(t),y(t)) and
the line y = constant is given by the equation
The derivative of φ is given by a classical derivative formula of
Gauss:[31]

Geodesic polar coordinates

In orthogonal coordinates φ is the
Once a metric is given on a surface and a base point is fixed, there is angle the tangent L to the geodesic
a unique geodesic connecting the base point to each sufficiently C makes with the x-axis
nearby point. The direction of the geodesic at the base point and the
distance uniquely determine the other endpoint. These two bits of
data, a direction and a magnitude, thus determine a tangent vector at
the base point. The map from tangent vectors to endpoints smoothly
sweeps out a neighbourhood of the base point and defines what is
called the "exponential map", defining a local coordinate chart at
that base point. The neighbourhood swept out has similar properties
to balls in Euclidean space, namely any two points in it are joined by
a unique geodesic. This property is called "geodesic convexity" and
the coordinates are called "normal coordinates". The explicit
calculation of normal coordinates can be accomplished by
considering the differential equation satisfied by geodesics. The
convexity properties are consequences of Gauss's lemma and its
generalisations. Roughly speaking this lemma states that geodesics
starting at the base point must cut the spheres of fixed radius centred
on the base point at right angles. Geodesic polar coordinates are Carl Jacobi (1804–1851)
obtained by combining the exponential map with polar coordinates
on tangent vectors at the base point. The Gaussian curvature of the
surface is then given by the second order deviation of the metric at
the point from the Euclidean metric. In particular the Gaussian
curvature is an invariant of the metric, Gauss's celebrated Theorema
Egregium. A convenient way to understand the curvature comes
from an ordinary differential equation, first considered by Gauss and
later generalized by Jacobi, arising from the change of normal
coordinates about two different points. The Gauss–Jacobi equation
provides another way of computing the Gaussian curvature.
Geometrically it explains what happens to geodesics from a fixed
base point as the endpoint varies along a small curve segment
through data recorded in the Jacobi field, a vector field along the Contour lines tracking the motion of
points on a fixed curve moving along
geodesic.[32] One and a quarter centuries after Gauss and Jacobi,
geodesics towards a basepoint
Marston Morse gave a more conceptual interpretation of the Jacobi
field in terms of second derivatives of the energy function on the
infinite-dimensional Hilbert manifold of paths.[33]

Exponential map
The theory of ordinary differential equations shows that if f(t, v) is smooth then the differential equation
dv
dt = f(t,v) with initial condition v(0) = v0 has a unique solution for |t| sufficiently small and the solution
depends smoothly on t and v0. This implies that for sufficiently small tangent vectors v at a given point
p = (x0,y0), there is a geodesic cv(t) defined on (−2,2) with cv(0) = (x0,y0) and ċv(0) = v. Moreover, if
|s| ≤ 1, then csv = cv(st). The exponential map is defined by

expp(v) = cv (1)

and gives a diffeomorphism between a disc ‖v‖ < δ and a neighbourhood of p; more generally the map
sending (p,v) to expp(v) gives a local diffeomorphism onto a neighbourhood of (p,p). The exponential
map gives geodesic normal coordinates near p.[34]

Computation of normal coordinates

There is a standard technique (see for example Berger (2004)) for computing the change of variables to
normal coordinates u, v at a point as a formal Taylor series expansion. If the coordinates x, y at (0,0) are
locally orthogonal, write

x(u,v) = αu + L(u,v) + λ(u,v) + …

y(u,v) = βv + M(u,v) + μ(u,v) + …
where L, M are quadratic and λ, μ cubic homogeneous polynomials in u and v. If u and v are fixed,
x(t) = x(tu,tv) and y(t) = y(tu, tv) can be considered as formal power series solutions of the Euler
equations: this uniquely determines α, β, L, M, λ and μ.

Gauss's lemma

In these coordinates the matrix g(x) satisfies g(0) = I and the lines
t ↦ tv are geodesics through 0. Euler's equations imply the matrix
equation

g(v)v = v,
a key result, usually called the Gauss lemma. Geometrically it states
that

the geodesics through 0 cut the circles centred at

0 orthogonally.
In geodesic polar coordinates the
geodesics radiating from the origin
Taking polar coordinates (r,θ), it follows that the metric has the cut the circles of constant radius
form orthogonally. The distances along
radii are true distances but on the
ds2 = dr2 + G(r,θ) dθ2. concentric circles small arcs have
1
length H(r,θ) = G(r,θ) ⁄2 times the
In geodesic coordinates, it is easy to check that the geodesics angle they subtend.
through zero minimize length. The topology on the Riemannian
manifold is then given by a distance function d(p,q), namely the
infimum of the lengths of piecewise smooth paths between p and q. This distance is realised locally by
geodesics, so that in normal coordinates d(0,v) = ‖v‖ . If the radius δ is taken small enough, a slight
sharpening of the Gauss lemma shows that the image U of the disc ‖v‖ < δ under the exponential map is
geodesically convex, i.e. any two points in U are joined by a unique geodesic lying entirely inside U.[4][35]

Theorema Egregium

Taking x and y coordinates of a surface in E3 corresponding to F(x,y) = k1x2 + k2y2 + …, the power
series expansion of the metric is given in normal coordinates (u, v) as

ds2 = du2 + dv2 + K(u dv – v du)2 + …

This extraordinary result — Gauss's Theorema Egregium — shows that the Gaussian curvature of a surface
can be computed solely in terms of the metric and is thus an intrinsic invariant of the surface, independent of
any embedding in E3 and unchanged under coordinate transformations. In particular isometries of surfaces
preserve Gaussian curvature.[4]

Gauss–Jacobi equation

Taking a coordinate change from normal coordinates at p to normal coordinates at a nearby point q, yields
1
the Sturm–Liouville equation satisfied by H(r,θ) = G(r,θ) ⁄2, discovered by Gauss and later generalised
by Jacobi,

Hrr = –KH

The Jacobian of this coordinate change at q is equal to Hr. This gives another way of establishing the
intrinsic nature of Gaussian curvature. Because H(r,θ) can be interpreted as the length of the line element
in the θ direction, the Gauss–Jacobi equation shows that the Gaussian curvature measures the spreading of
geodesics on a geometric surface as they move away from a point.[36]

Laplace–Beltrami operator

On a surface with local metric

and Laplace–Beltrami operator

where H2 = EG − F2, the Gaussian curvature at a point is given by the formula[37]

where r is the denotes the geodesic distance from the point. Since Δ is manifestly an intrinsic invariant, this
gives yet another proof that the Gaussian curvature is an intrinsic invariant.

In isothermal coordinates, first considered by Gauss, the metric is required to be of the special form
In this case the Laplace–Beltrami operator is given by

and φ satisfies Liouville's equation[38]

Isothermal coordinates are known to exist in a neighbourhood of any point on the surface, although all
proofs to date rely on non-trivial results on partial differential equations.[39] There is an elementary proof for
minimal surfaces.[40]

Gauss–Bonnet theorem
On a sphere or a hyperboloid, the area of a geodesic triangle, i.e. a triangle all
the sides of which are geodesics, is proportional to the difference of the sum
of the interior angles and π. The constant of proportionality is just the
Gaussian curvature, a constant for these surfaces. For the torus, the difference
is zero, reflecting the fact that its Gaussian curvature is zero. These are
standard results in spherical, hyperbolic and high school trigonometry (see
below). Gauss generalised these results to an arbitrary surface by showing that
the integral of the Gaussian curvature over the interior of a geodesic triangle
is also equal to this angle difference or excess. His formula showed that the
A triangulation of the torus
Gaussian curvature could be calculated near a point as the limit of area over
angle excess for geodesic triangles shrinking to the point. Since any closed
surface can be decomposed up into geodesic triangles, the formula could also
be used to compute the integral of the curvature over the whole surface. As a special case of what is now
called the Gauss–Bonnet theorem, Gauss proved that this integral was remarkably always 2π times an
integer, a topological invariant of the surface called the Euler characteristic. This invariant is easy to
compute combinatorially in terms of the number of vertices, edges, and faces of the triangles in the
decomposition, also called a triangulation. This interaction between analysis and topology was the
forerunner of many later results in geometry, culminating in the Atiyah-Singer index theorem. In particular
properties of the curvature impose restrictions on the topology of the surface.

Geodesic triangles

Gauss proved that, if Δ is a geodesic triangle on a surface with angles α, β and γ at vertices A, B and C,
then

In fact taking geodesic polar coordinates with origin A and AB, AC the radii at polar angles 0 and α:
where the second equality follows from the Gauss–Jacobi equation and the fourth from Gauss' derivative
formula in the orthogonal coordinates (r,θ).

Gauss' formula shows that the curvature at a point can be calculated as the limit of angle excess
α + β + γ − π over area for successively smaller geodesic triangles near the point. Qualitatively a surface
is positively or negatively curved according to the sign of the angle excess for arbitrarily small geodesic
triangles.[19]

Gauss–Bonnet theorem

Since every compact oriented 2-manifold M can be triangulated by

small geodesic triangles, it follows that

where χ(M) denotes the Euler characteristic of the surface.

In fact if there are F faces, E edges and V vertices, then 3F = 2E

and the left hand side equals
2πV – πF = 2π(V – E + F) = 2πχ(M).
The Euler characteristic of a sphere,
This is the celebrated Gauss–Bonnet theorem: it shows that the triangulated like an icosahedron, is
integral of the Gaussian curvature is a topological invariant of the V −- E + F = 12 − 30 + 20 = 2.
manifold, namely the Euler characteristic. This theorem can be
interpreted in many ways; perhaps one of the most far-reaching has
been as the index theorem for an elliptic differential operator on M, one of the simplest cases of the Atiyah-
Singer index theorem. Another related result, which can be proved using the Gauss–Bonnet theorem, is the
Poincaré-Hopf index theorem for vector fields on M which vanish at only a finite number of points: the sum
of the indices at these points equals the Euler characteristic, where the index of a point is defined as follows:
on a small circle round each isolated zero, the vector field defines a map into the unit circle; the index is just
the winding number of this map.)[19]

Curvature and embeddings

If the Gaussian curvature of a surface M is everywhere positive, then the Euler characteristic is positive so
M is homeomorphic (and therefore diffeomorphic) to S2. If in addition the surface is isometrically
embedded in E3, the Gauss map provides an explicit diffeomorphism. As Hadamard observed, in this case
the surface is convex; this criterion for convexity can be viewed as a 2-dimensional generalisation of the
well-known second derivative criterion for convexity of plane curves. Hilbert proved that every
isometrically embedded closed surface must have a point of positive curvature. Thus a closed Riemannian 2-
manifold of non-positive curvature can never be embedded isometrically in E3; however, as Adriano Garsia
showed using the Beltrami equation for quasiconformal mappings, this is always possible for some
conformally equivalent metric.[41]
Surfaces of constant curvature
The simply connected surfaces of constant curvature 0, +1 and –1 are the Euclidean plane, the unit sphere in
E3, and the hyperbolic plane. Each of these has a transitive three-dimensional Lie group of orientation
preserving isometries G, which can be used to study their geometry. Each of the two non-compact surfaces
can be identified with the quotient G / K where K is a maximal compact subgroup of G. Here K is
isomorphic to SO(2). Any other closed Riemannian 2-manifold M of constant Gaussian curvature, after
scaling the metric by a constant factor if necessary, will have one of these three surfaces as its universal
covering space. In the orientable case, the fundamental group Γ of M can be identified with a torsion-free
uniform subgroup of G and M can then be identified with the double coset space Γ \ G / K. In the case of
the sphere and the Euclidean plane, the only possible examples are the sphere itself and tori obtained as
quotients of R2 by discrete rank 2 subgroups. For closed surfaces of genus g ≥ 2, the moduli space of
Riemann surfaces obtained as Γ varies over all such subgroups, has real dimension 6g − 6.[42] By
Poincaré's uniformization theorem, any orientable closed 2-manifold is conformally equivalent to a surface
of constant curvature 0, +1 or –1. In other words, by multiplying the metric by a positive scaling factor, the
Gaussian curvature can be made to take exactly one of these values (the sign of the Euler characteristic of
M).[43]

Euclidean geometry

In the case of the Euclidean plane, the symmetry group is the

Euclidean motion group, the semidirect product of the two
dimensional group of translations by the group of rotations.[44]
Geodesics are straight lines and the geometry is encoded in the
elementary formulas of trigonometry, such as the cosine rule for a
triangle with sides a, b, c and angles α, β, γ:

A triangle in the plane

Flat tori can be obtained by taking the quotient of R2 by a lattice,

i.e. a free Abelian subgroup of rank 2. These closed surfaces have no isometric embeddings in E3. They do
nevertheless admit isometric embeddings in E4; in the easiest case this follows from the fact that the torus is
a product of two circles and each circle can be isometrically embedded in E2.[45]

Spherical geometry

The isometry group of the unit sphere S2 in E3 is the orthogonal group O(3), with the rotation group
SO(3) as the subgroup of isometries preserving orientation. It is the direct product of SO(3) with the
antipodal map, sending x to –x.[46] The group SO(3) acts transitively on S2. The stabilizer subgroup of the
unit vector (0,0,1) can be identified with SO(2), so that S2 = SO(3)/SO(2).

The geodesics between two points on the sphere are the great circle arcs with these given endpoints. If the
points are not antipodal, there is a unique shortest geodesic between the points. The geodesics can also be
described group theoretically: each geodesic through the North pole (0,0,1) is the orbit of the subgroup of
rotations about an axis through antipodal points on the equator.
A spherical triangle is a geodesic triangle on the sphere. It is
defined by points A, B, C on the sphere with sides BC, CA, AB
formed from great circle arcs of length less than π. If the lengths of
the sides are a, b, c and the angles between the sides α, β, γ, then
the spherical cosine law states that

The area of the triangle is given by

Area = α + β + γ − π.
Using stereographic projection from the North pole, the sphere can
be identified with the extended complex plane C ∪ {∞}. The A spherical triangle
explicit map is given by

Under this correspondence every rotation of S2 corresponds to a

Möbius transformation in SU(2), unique up to sign.[47] With
respect to the coordinates (u, v) in the complex plane, the spherical
metric becomes[48]

The unit sphere is the unique closed orientable surface with constant
curvature +1. The quotient SO(3)/O(2) can be identified with the The area of a spherical triangle on
real projective plane. It is non-orientable and can be described as the the unit sphere is α + β + γ − π.

quotient of S2 by the antipodal map (multiplication by −1). The

sphere is simply connected, while the real projective plane has
fundamental group Z2. The finite subgroups of SO(3), corresponding to the finite subgroups of O(2) and
the symmetry groups of the platonic solids, do not act freely on S2, so the corresponding quotients are not 2-
manifolds, just orbifolds.

Hyperbolic geometry

Non-Euclidean geometry[49] was first discussed in letters of Gauss, who made extensive computations at the
turn of the nineteenth century which, although privately circulated, he decided not to put into print. In 1830
Lobachevsky and independently in 1832 Bolyai, the son of one Gauss' correspondents, published synthetic
versions of this new geometry, for which they were severely criticized. However it was not until 1868 that
Beltrami, followed by Klein in 1871 and Poincaré in 1882, gave concrete analytic models for what Klein
dubbed hyperbolic geometry. The four models of 2-dimensional hyperbolic geometry that emerged were:

the Beltrami-Klein model;

the Poincaré disk;
the Poincaré upper half-plane;
the hyperboloid model of Wilhelm Killing in 3-dimensional Minkowski space.
The first model, based on a disk, has the advantage that geodesics are
actually line segments (that is, intersections of Euclidean lines with the open
unit disk). The last model has the advantage that it gives a construction
which is completely parallel to that of the unit sphere in 3-dimensional
Euclidean space. Because of their application in complex analysis and
geometry, however, the models of Poincaré are the most widely used: they
are interchangeable thanks to the Möbius transformations between the disk
and the upper half-plane.

Let

be the Poincaré disk in the complex plane with Poincaré metric Henri Poincaré (1854-1912)

In polar coordinates (r, θ) the metric is given by

The length of a curve γ:[a,b] → D is given by the formula

The group G = SU(1,1) given by

acts transitively by Möbius transformations on D and the stabilizer subgroup of 0 is the rotation group

The quotient group SU(1,1)/±I is the group of orientation-preserving isometries of D. Any two points z, w
in D are joined by a unique geodesic, given by the portion of the circle or straight line passing through z and
w and orthogonal to the boundary circle. The distance between z and w is given by

1
In particular d(0,r) = 2 tanh−1 r and c(t) =
2 tanh t is the geodesic through 0 along the real axis,
parametrized by arclength.

The topology defined by this metric is equivalent to the usual Euclidean topology, although as a metric
space (D,d) is complete.
A hyperbolic triangle is a geodesic triangle for this metric: any three
points in D are vertices of a hyperbolic triangle. If the sides have
length a, b, c with corresponding angles α, β, γ, then the hyperbolic
cosine rule states that

The area of the hyperbolic triangle is given by[50]

Area = π – α – β – γ.
The unit disk and the upper half-plane

A hyperbolic triangle in the Poincaré

disk model
are conformally equivalent by the Möbius transformations

Under this correspondence the action of SL(2,R) by Möbius transformations on H corresponds to that of
SU(1,1) on D. The metric on H becomes

Since lines or circles are preserved under Möbius transformations, geodesics are again described by lines or
circles orthogonal to the real axis.

The unit disk with the Poincaré metric is the unique simply connected oriented 2-dimensional Riemannian
manifold with constant curvature −1. Any oriented closed surface M with this property has D as its
universal covering space. Its fundamental group can be identified with a torsion-free concompact subgroup
Γ of SU(1,1), in such a way that

In this case Γ is a finitely presented group. The generators and relations are encoded in a geodesically
convex fundamental geodesic polygon in D (or H) corresponding geometrically to closed geodesics on M.

Examples.

the Bolza surface of genus 2;

the Klein quartic of genus 3;
the Macbeath surface of genus 7;
the First Hurwitz triplet of genus 14.

Uniformization

Given an oriented closed surface M with Gaussian curvature K, the metric on M can be changed
conformally by scaling it by a factor e2u. The new Gaussian curvature K′ is then given by
where Δ is the Laplacian for the original metric. Thus to show that a given surface is conformally equivalent
to a metric with constant curvature K′ it suffices to solve the following variant of Liouville's equation:

When M has Euler characteristic 0, so is diffeomorphic to a torus, K′ = 0, so this amounts to solving

By standard elliptic theory, this is possible because the integral of K over M is zero, by the Gauss–Bonnet
theorem.[51]

When M has negative Euler characteristic, K′ = −1, so the equation to be solved is:

Using the continuity of the exponential map on Sobolev space due to Neil Trudinger, this non-linear
equation can always be solved.[52]

Finally in the case of the 2-sphere, K′ = 1 and the equation becomes:

So far this non-linear equation has not been analysed directly, although classical results such as the
Riemann-Roch theorem imply that it always has a solution.[53] The method of Ricci flow, developed by
Richard S. Hamilton, gives another proof of existence based on non-linear partial differential equations to
prove existence.[54] In fact the Ricci flow on conformal metrics on S2 is defined on functions u(x, t) by

After finite time, Chow showed that K′ becomes positive; previous results of Hamilton could then be used
to show that K′ converges to +1.[55] Prior to these results on Ricci flow, Osgood, Phillips & Sarnak (1988)
had given an alternative and technically simpler approach to uniformization based on the flow on
Riemannian metrics g defined by log det Δg.

A simple proof using only elliptic operators discovered in 1988 can be found in Ding (2001). Let G be the
Green's function on S2 satisfying ΔG = 1 + 4πδP, where δP is the point measure at a fixed point P of S2.
The equation Δv = 2K – 2, has a smooth solution v, because the right hand side has integral 0 by the
Gauss–Bonnet theorem. Thus φ = 2G + v satisfies Δφ = 2K away from P. It follows that g1 = eφg is a
complete metric of constant curvature 0 on the complement of P, which is therefore isometric to the plane.
Composing with stereographic projection, it follows that there is a smooth function u such that e2ug has
Gaussian curvature +1 on the complement of P. The function u automatically extends to a smooth function
on the whole of S2.[c]

Surfaces of non-positive curvature

In a region where the curvature of the surface satisfies K ≤ 0, geodesic triangles satisfy the CAT(0)
inequalities of comparison geometry, studied by Cartan, Alexandrov and Toponogov, and considered later
from a different point of view by Bruhat and Tits; thanks to the vision of Gromov, this characterisation of
non-positive curvature in terms of the underlying metric space has had a profound impact on modern
geometry and in particular geometric group theory. Many results known for smooth surfaces and their
geodesics, such as Birkhoff's method of constructing geodesics by his curve-shortening process or van
Mangoldt and Hadamard's theorem that a simply connected surface of non-positive curvature is
homeomorphic to the plane, are equally valid in this more general setting.

Alexandrov's comparison inequality

The simplest form of the comparison inequality, first proved for

surfaces by Alexandrov around 1940, states that

The distance between a vertex of a geodesic triangle

and the midpoint of the opposite side is always less than
the corresponding distance in the comparison triangle in
the plane with the same side-lengths.

The inequality follows from the fact that if c(t) describes a geodesic The median in the comparison
parametrized by arclength and a is a fixed point, then triangle is always longer than the
actual median.
f(t) = d(a,c(t))2 − t2
is a convex function, i.e.

Taking geodesic polar coordinates with origin at a so that ‖c(t)‖ = r(t), convexity is equivalent to

Changing to normal coordinates u, v at c(t), this inequality becomes

u2 + H−1Hrv2 ≥ 1,

where (u,v) corresponds to the unit vector ċ(t). This follows from the inequality Hr ≥ H, a consequence of
the non-negativity of the derivative of the Wronskian of H and r from Sturm–Liouville theory.[56]

Existence of geodesics

On a complete curved surface any two points can be joined by a geodesic.

This is a special case of the Hopf–Rinow theorem, which also applies in
higher dimensions. The completeness assumption is automatically fulfilled
for a surface which is embedded as a closed subset of Euclidean space.
However, it is no longer fulfilled if, for example, we remove an isolated
point from a surface. For example, the complement of the origin in the
Euclidean plane is an example of a non-complete surface; in this example
two points which are diametrically opposite across the origin cannot be
joined by a geodesic without leaving the punctured plane).
George Birkhoff (1884–
1944)
Von Mangoldt–Hadamard theorem
For closed surfaces of non-positive curvature, von Mangoldt (1881) and Hadamard (1898) proved that the
exponential map at a point is a covering map, so that the universal covering space of the manifold is E2.
This result was generalised to higher dimensions by Cartan and is usually referred to in this form as the
Cartan–Hadamard theorem. For surfaces, this result follows from three important facts:[57]

The exponential map has non-zero Jacobian everywhere for non-positively curved surfaces, a
consequence of the non-vanishing of Hr.
Every geodesic is infinitely extendible, a result known as the Hopf–Rinow theorem for n-
dimensional manifolds. In two dimensions, if a geodesic tended at infinity towards a point x, a
closed disc D centred on a nearby point y with x removed would be contractible to y along
geodesics, a topological impossibility.
Every two points in a homotopy class are connected by a unique geodesic (see above).

Riemannian connection and parallel transport

The classical approach of Gauss to the differential geometry of surfaces was
the standard elementary approach[58] which predated the emergence of the
concepts of Riemannian manifold initiated by Bernhard Riemann in the mid-
nineteenth century and of connection developed by Tullio Levi-Civita, Élie
Cartan and Hermann Weyl in the early twentieth century. The notion of
connection, covariant derivative and parallel transport gave a more
conceptual and uniform way of understanding curvature, which not only
allowed generalisations to higher dimensional manifolds but also provided
an important tool for defining new geometric invariants, called characteristic
classes.[59] The approach using covariant derivatives and connections is
nowadays the one adopted in more advanced textbooks.[60]

Tullio Levi-Civita (1873-

Covariant derivative 1941)

Connections on a surface can be defined from various equivalent but equally

important points of view. The Riemannian connection or Levi-Civita connection[19] is perhaps most
easily understood in terms of lifting vector fields, considered as first order differential operators acting on
functions on the manifold, to differential operators on the tangent bundle or frame bundle. In the case of an
embedded surface, the lift to an operator on vector fields, called the covariant derivative, is very simply
described in terms of orthogonal projection. Indeed, a vector field on a surface embedded in R3 can be
regarded as a function from the surface into R3. Another vector field acts as a differential operator
component-wise. The resulting vector field will not be tangent to the surface, but this can be corrected
taking its orthogonal projection onto the tangent space at each point of the surface. As Ricci and Levi-Civita
realised at the turn of the twentieth century, this process depends only on the metric and can be locally
expressed in terms of the Christoffel symbols.

Parallel transport

Parallel transport of tangent vectors along a curve in the surface was the next major advance in the subject,
due to Levi-Civita.[19] It is related to the earlier notion of covariant derivative, because it is the monodromy
of the ordinary differential equation on the curve defined by the covariant derivative with respect to the
velocity vector of the curve. Parallel transport along geodesics, the "straight lines" of the surface, can also
easily be described directly. A vector in the tangent plane is transported along a geodesic as the unique
vector field with constant length and making a constant angle with the velocity vector of the geodesic. For a
general curve, this process has to be modified using the geodesic
curvature, which measures how far the curve departs from being a
geodesic.[4]

A vector field v(t) along a unit speed curve c(t), with geodesic
curvature kg(t), is said to be parallel along the curve if

it has constant length

the angle θ(t) that it makes with the velocity vector ċ(t)
satisfies

This recaptures the rule for parallel transport along a geodesic or Parallel transport of a vector around
piecewise geodesic curve, because in that case kg = 0, so that the a geodesic triangle on the sphere.
angle θ(t) should remain constant on any geodesic segment. The The length of the transported vector
existence of parallel transport follows because θ(t) can be computed and the angle it makes with each
as the integral of the geodesic curvature. Since it therefore depends side remain constant.
continuously on the L2 norm of kg, it follows that parallel transport
for an arbitrary curve can be obtained as the limit of the parallel
transport on approximating piecewise geodesic curves.[61]

The connection can thus be described in terms of lifting paths in the manifold to paths in the tangent or
orthonormal frame bundle, thus formalising the classical theory of the "moving frame", favoured by French
authors.[62] Lifts of loops about a point give rise to the holonomy group at that point. The Gaussian
curvature at a point can be recovered from parallel transport around increasingly small loops at the point.
Equivalently curvature can be calculated directly at an infinitesimal level in terms of Lie brackets of lifted
vector fields.

Connection 1-form

The approach of Cartan and Weyl, using connection 1-forms on the frame
bundle of M, gives a third way to understand the Riemannian connection.
They noticed that parallel transport dictates that a path in the surface be
lifted to a path in the frame bundle so that its tangent vectors lie in a special
subspace of codimension one in the three-dimensional tangent space of the
frame bundle. The projection onto this subspace is defined by a differential
1-form on the orthonormal frame bundle, the connection form. This
enabled the curvature properties of the surface to be encoded in differential
forms on the frame bundle and formulas involving their exterior derivatives.

This approach is particularly simple for an embedded surface. Thanks to a

Élie Cartan in 1904
result of Kobayashi (1956), the connection 1-form on a surface embedded in
Euclidean space E3 is just the pullback under the Gauss map of the
connection 1-form on S2.[63] Using the identification of S2 with the homogeneous space SO(3)/SO(2), the
connection 1-form is just a component of the Maurer–Cartan 1-form on SO(3).[64]

Global differential geometry of surfaces

Although the characterisation of curvature involves only the local geometry of a surface, there are important
global aspects such as the Gauss–Bonnet theorem, the uniformization theorem, the von Mangoldt-Hadamard
theorem, and the embeddability theorem. There are other important aspects of the global geometry of
surfaces.[65] These include:

Injectivity radius, defined as the largest r such that two points at a distance less than r are
joined by a unique geodesic. Wilhelm Klingenberg proved in 1959 that the injectivity radius of a
π
closed surface is bounded below by the minimum of δ = √sup K and the length of its smallest
closed geodesic. This improved a theorem of Bonnet who showed in 1855 that the diameter of
a closed surface of positive Gaussian curvature is always bounded above by δ; in other words
a geodesic realising the metric distance between two points cannot have length greater than δ.
Rigidity. In 1927 Cohn-Vossen proved that two ovaloids – closed surfaces with positive
Gaussian curvature – that are isometric are necessarily congruent by an isometry of E3.
Moreover, a closed embedded surface with positive Gaussian curvature and constant mean
curvature is necessarily a sphere; likewise a closed embedded surface of constant Gaussian
curvature must be a sphere (Liebmann 1899). Heinz Hopf showed in 1950 that a closed
embedded surface with constant mean curvature and genus 0, i.e. homeomorphic to a sphere,
is necessarily a sphere; five years later Alexandrov removed the topological assumption. In the
1980s, Wente constructed immersed tori of constant mean curvature in Euclidean 3-space.
Carathéodory conjecture: This conjecture states that a closed convex three times
differentiable surface admits at least two umbilic points. The first work on this conjecture was in
1924 by Hans Hamburger, who noted that it follows from the following stronger claim: the half-
integer valued index of the principal curvature foliation of an isolated umbilic is at most one.
Zero Gaussian curvature: a complete surface in E3 with zero Gaussian curvature must be a
cylinder or a plane.
Hilbert's theorem (1901): no complete surface with constant negative curvature can be
immersed isometrically in E3.
The Willmore conjecture. This conjecture states that the
integral of the square of the mean curvature of a torus
immersed in E3 should be bounded below by 2π2. It is
known that the integral is Moebius invariant. It was solved
in 2012 by Fernando Codá Marques and André Neves.[66]
Isoperimetric inequalities. In 1939 Schmidt proved that
the classical isoperimetric inequality for curves in the
Euclidean plane is also valid on the sphere or in the
hyperbolic plane: namely he showed that among all closed
curves bounding a domain of fixed area, the perimeter is
Shortest loop on a torus
minimized by when the curve is a circle for the metric. In
one dimension higher, it is known that among all closed
surfaces in E3 arising as the boundary of a bounded
domain of unit volume, the surface area is minimized for a Euclidean ball.
Systolic inequalities for curves on surfaces. Given a closed surface, its systole is defined to
be the smallest length of any non-contractible closed curve on the surface. In 1949 Loewner
proved a torus inequality for metrics on the torus, namely that the area of the torus over the
√3
square of its systole is bounded below by
2 , with equality in the flat (constant curvature)
case. A similar result is given by Pu's inequality for the real projective plane from 1952, with a
2
lower bound of also attained in the constant curvature case. For the Klein bottle, Blatter and
π
√8
Bavard later obtained a lower bound of π . For a closed surface of genus g, Hebda and
 1
Burago showed that the ratio is bounded below by 2 . Three years later Mikhail Gromov found
1
a lower bound given by a constant times g ⁄2, although this is not optimal. Asymptotically sharp
g
upper and lower bounds given by constant times
(log g)2 are due to Gromov and Buser-
Sarnak, and can be found in Katz (2007). There is also a version for metrics on the sphere,
taking for the systole the length of the smallest closed geodesic. Gromov conjectured a lower
1 1
bound of
2√3 in 1980: the best result so far is the lower bound of 8 obtained by Regina
Rotman in 2006.[67]

Reading guide
One of the most comprehensive introductory surveys of the subject, charting the historical development
from before Gauss to modern times, is by Berger (2004). Accounts of the classical theory are given in
Eisenhart (2004), Kreyszig (1991) and Struik (1988); the more modern copiously illustrated undergraduate
textbooks by Gray, Abbena & Salamon (2006), Pressley (2001) and Wilson (2008) might be found more
accessible. An accessible account of the classical theory can be found in Hilbert & Cohn-Vossen (1952).
More sophisticated graduate-level treatments using the Riemannian connection on a surface can be found in
Singer & Thorpe (1967), do Carmo (1976) and O'Neill (1997).

See also
Zoll surface

Notes
a. This is the final position into which a rubber band stretched between two fixed points on the
surface would fall.
b. Note that in some more recent texts the symmetric bilinear form on the right hand side is
referred to as the second fundamental form; however, it does not in general correspond to the
classically defined second fundamental form.
c. This follows by an argument involving a theorem of Sacks & Uhlenbeck (1981) on removable
singularities of harmonic maps of finite energy.
1. Gauss 1902.
2. Euler 1760
3. Euler 1771
4. Berger 2004
5. Eisenhart 2004, p. 123
6. Singer & Thorpe 1967, p. 223
7. do Carmo 1976, pp. 161–162
8. Eisenhart 2004, pp. 228–229
9. Eisenhart 2004, pp. 241–250; do Carmo 1976, pp. 188–197.
10. do Carmo 1976, p. 194.
11. Eisenhart 2004, pp. 61–65.
12. Eisenhart 2004
13. Eisenhart 2004, pp. 250–269; do Carmo 1976, pp. 197–213.
14. Douglas' solution is described in Courant (1950).
15. Eisenhart 2004, pp. 270–291; O'Neill, pp. 249–251; Hilbert & Cohn-Vossen 1952.
16. O'Neill, pp. 249–251; do Carmo, pp. 168–170; Gray, Abbena & Salamon 2006.
17. Stillwell 1996, pp. 1–5.
18. Wilson 2008.
19. Levi-Civita 1917.
20. Eisenhart 2004, pp. 114–115; Pressley 2001, pp. 123–124; Wilson 2008, pp. 123–124.
21. Eisenhart 2004, p. 156
22. O'Neill 1997, p. 257
23. do Carmo 1976, pp. 309–314
24. O'Neill 1997, pp. 195–216; do Carmo 1976, pp. 134–153; Singer & Thorpe 1967, pp. 216–224.
25. Gray, Abbena & Salamon 2006, p. 386.
26. Gray, Abbena & Salamon 2006, p. 394.
27. Berger 2004; Wilson 2008; Milnor 1963.
28. Eisenhart 2002, p. 131; Berger 2004, p. 39; do Carmo 1976, p. 248; O'Neill 1997, p. 237
29. Han & Hong 2006
30. Eisenhart 2004; Taylor 1996a, Appendix C.
31. Eisenhart 2004; Berger 2004.
32. doCarmo 1976, p. 357
33. Milnor 1963
34. Wilson 2008
35. do Carmo 1976, pp. 303–305
36. O'Neill 1997, p. 395
37. Helgason 1978, p. 92
38. O'Niell 1997, p. 286
39. do Carmo 1976, p. 227
40. Osserman 2002, pp. 31–32
41. Singer & Thorpe 1967; Garsia, Adriano M. (1961), "An imbedding of closed Riemann surfaces
in Euclidean space", Comment. Math. Helv., 35: 93–110, doi:10.1007/BF02567009 (https://doi.
org/10.1007%2FBF02567009)
42. Imayoshi & Taniguchi 1992, pp. 47–49
43. Berger 1977; Taylor 1996.
44. Wilson 2008, pp. 1–23, Chapter I, Euclidean geometry.
45. do Carmo 1976.
46. Wilson 2008, pp. 25–49, Chapter II, Spherical geometry.
47. Wilson 2008, Chapter 2.
48. Eisenhart 2004, p. 110.
49. Stillwell 1990; Bonola, Carslaw & Enriques 1955.
50. Wilson 2008, Chapter 5.
51. Taylor 1996b, p. 107; Berger 1977, pp. 341–343.
52. Berger 1977, pp. 222–225; Taylor 1996b, pp. 101–108.
53. Taylor 1996b
54. Chow 1991
55. Chen, Lu & Tian (2006) pointed out and corrected a missing step in the approach of Hamilton
and Chow; see also Andrews & Bryan (2009).
56. Berger 2004; Jost, Jürgen (1997), Nonpositive curvature: geometric and analytic aspects,
Lectures in Mathematics, ETH Zurich, Birkhäuser, ISBN 978-0-8176-5736-9
57. do Carmo 1976; Berger 2004.
58. Eisenhart 2004; Kreyszig 1991; Berger 2004; Wilson 2008.
59. Kobayashi & Nomizu 1969, Chapter XII.
60. do Carmo 1976; O'Neill 1997; Singer & Thorpe 1967.
61. Arnold 1989, pp. 301–306, Appendix I.; Berger 2004, pp. 263–264.
62. Darboux.
63. Kobayashi & Nomizu 1969
64. Ivey & Landsberg 2003.
65. Berger 2004, pp. 145–161; do Carmo 1976; Chern 1967; Hopf 1989.
66. Codá Marques, Fernando; Neves, André (2014). "Min-Max theory and the Willmore
conjecture". Annals of Mathematics. 179 (2): 683–782. arXiv:1202.6036 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1
202.6036). doi:10.4007/annals.2014.179.2.6 (https://doi.org/10.4007%2Fannals.2014.179.2.6).
JSTOR 24522767 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24522767).
67. Rotman, R. (2006) "The length of a shortest closed geodesic and the area of a 2-dimensional
sphere", Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 134: 3041-3047. Previous lower bounds had been obtained
by Croke, Rotman-Nabutovsky and Sabourau.

References
Aleksandrov, A.D.; Zalgaller, V.A. (1967), Instrinsic Geometry of Surfaces, Translations of
Mathematical Monographs, 15, American Mathematical Society
Andrews, Ben; Bryan, Paul (2010), "Curvature bounds by isoperimetric comparison for
normalized Ricci flow on the two-sphere", Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 39 (3–4):
419–428, arXiv:0908.3606 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3606), doi:10.1007/s00526-010-0315-5
(https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00526-010-0315-5)
Arnold, V.I. (1989), Mathematical methods of classical mechanics, Graduate Texts in
Mathematics, 60 (2nd ed.), New York: Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-0-387-90314-9; translated
from the Russian by K. Vogtmann and A. Weinstein.
Berger, Marcel (2004), A Panoramic View of Riemannian Geometry, Springer-Verlag,
ISBN 978-3-540-65317-2
Berger, Melvyn S. (1977), Nonlinearity and Functional Analysis, Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-
12-090350-4
Bonola, Roberto; Carslaw, H. S.; Enriques, F. (1955), Non-Euclidean Geometry: A Critical and
Historical Study of Its Development, Dover, ISBN 978-0-486-60027-7
Brendle, Simon (2010), Ricci flow and the sphere theorem, Graduate Studies in Mathematics,
111, American Mathematical Society, ISBN 978-0-8218-4938-5
Cartan, Élie (1983), Geometry of Riemannian Spaces (https://books.google.com/?id=-YvvVfQ7
xz4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=geometry+of+riemannian+spaces+cartan), Math Sci Press,
ISBN 978-0-915692-34-7; translated from 2nd edition of Leçons sur la géométrie des espaces
de Riemann (1951) by James Glazebrook.
Cartan, Élie (2001), Riemannian Geometry in an Orthogonal Frame (from lectures delivered by
É Cartan at the Sorbonne in 1926-27) (http://ebooks.worldscinet.com/mathematics/978981279
9715/preserved-docs/9789812799715.pdf) (PDF), World Scientific, ISBN 978-981-02-4746-1;
translated from Russian by V. V. Goldberg with a foreword by S. S. Chern.
Chen, Xiuxiong; Lu, Peng; Tian, Gang (2006), "A note on uniformization of Riemann surfaces
by Ricci flow", Proc. AMS, 134 (11): 3391–3393, doi:10.1090/S0002-9939-06-08360-2 (https://
doi.org/10.1090%2FS0002-9939-06-08360-2)
Chern, S. S. (1967), Curves and Surfaces in Euclidean Spaces, MAA Studies in Mathematics,
Mathematical Association of America
Chow, B. (1991), "The Ricci flow on a 2-sphere", J. Diff. Geom., 33 (2): 325–334,
doi:10.4310/jdg/1214446319 (https://doi.org/10.4310%2Fjdg%2F1214446319)
Courant, Richard (1950), Dirichlet's Principle, Conformal Mapping and Minimal Surfaces, John
Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-486-44552-6
Darboux, Gaston, Leçons sur la théorie générale des surfaces, Gauthier-Villars Volume I
(1887) (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=umhistmath;idno=ABV4153.0001.001),
Volume II (1915) [1889] (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=umhistmath;idno=ABV4
153.0002.001), Volume III (1894) (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=umhistmath;id
no=ABV4153.0003.001), Volume IV (1896) (http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=umhi
stmath;idno=ABV4153.0004.001).
Ding, W. (2001), "A proof of the uniformization theorem on S2", J. Partial Differential
Equations, 14: 247–250
do Carmo, Manfredo P. (1976), Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces, Prentice-Hall,
ISBN 978-0-13-212589-5
Eisenhart, Luther P. (2004), A Treatise on the Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces,
Dover, ISBN 978-0-486-43820-7 Full 1909 text (https://archive.org/details/treatonthediffer00eis
erich) (now out of copyright)
Eisenhart, Luther P. (1947), An Introduction to Differential Geometry with Use of the Tensor
Calculus, Princeton Mathematical Series, 3, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-1-4437-
2293-3
Euler, Leonhard (1760), "Recherches sur la courbure des surfaces" (http://math.dartmouth.ed
u/~euler/pages/E333.html), Mémoires de l'Académie des Sciences de Berlin (published 1767),
16: 119–143.
Euler, Leonhard (1771), "De solidis quorum superficiem in planum explicare licet" (http://math.
dartmouth.edu/~euler/pages/E419.html), Novi Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum
Petropolitanae (published 1772), 16: 3–34.
Gauss, Carl Friedrich (1902), General Investigations of Curved Surfaces of 1825 and 1827 (htt
p://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=umhistmath;idno=ABR1255), Princeton University
Library translated by A.M. Hiltebeitel and J.C. Morehead; "Disquisitiones generales circa
superficies curvas" (http://www-gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/cgi-bin/digbib.cgi?PPN35283028X_
0006_2NS), Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingesis Recentiores Vol. VI
(1827), pp. 99–146.
Gauss, Carl Friedrich (1965), General Investigations of Curved Surfaces, translated by
A.M. Hiltebeitel; J.C. Morehead, Hewlett, NY: Raven Press, OCLC 228665499 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/228665499).
Gauss, Carl Friedrich (2005), General Investigations of Curved Surfaces, editted with a
new introduction and notes by Peter Pesic, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, ISBN 978-0-
486-44645-5.
Gray, Alfred; Abbena, Elsa; Salamon, Simon (2006), Modern Differential Geometry of Curves
And Surfaces With Mathematica, CRC Press, ISBN 978-1-58488-448-4
Han, Qing; Hong, Jia-Xing (2006), Isometric Embedding of Riemannian Manifolds in Euclidean
Spaces, American Mathematical Society, ISBN 978-0-8218-4071-9
Helgason, Sigurdur (1978), Differential Geometry，Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces,
Academic Press, New York, ISBN 978-0-12-338460-7
Hilbert, David; Cohn-Vossen, Stephan (1952), Geometry and the Imagination (2nd ed.), New
York: Chelsea, ISBN 978-0-8284-1087-8
Hopf, Heinz (1989), Lectures on Differential Geometry in the Large, Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, 1000, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-540-51497-8
Imayoshi, Y.; Taniguchi, M. (1992), An Introduction to Techmüller spaces, Springer-Verlag,
ISBN 978-0-387-70088-5
Ivey, Thomas A.; Landsberg, J.M. (2003), Cartan for Beginners: Differential Geometry via
Moving Frames and Exterior Systems, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 61, American
Mathematical Society, ISBN 978-0-8218-3375-9
Jacobowitz, Howard (1972), "Local Isometric Embeddings of Surfaces into Euclidean Four
Space" (http://www.iumj.indiana.edu/IUMJ/FULLTEXT/1972/21/21019), Indiana Univ. Math. J.,
21 (3): 249–254, doi:10.1512/iumj.1971.21.21019 (https://doi.org/10.1512%2Fiumj.1971.21.21
019)
Katz, Mikhail G. (2007), Systolic geometry and topology, Mathematical Surveys and
Monographs, 137, American Mathematical Society, ISBN 978-0-8218-4177-8
Kobayashi, Shoshichi (1956), "Induced connections and imbedded Riemannian space",
Nagoya Math. J., 10: 15–25, doi:10.1017/S0027763000000052 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0
027763000000052)
Kobayashi, Shoshichi (1957), "Theory of connections", Annali di Matematica Pura ed
Applicata, Series 4, 43: 119–194, doi:10.1007/BF02411907 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF024
11907),
Kobayashi, Shoshichi; Nomizu, Katsumi (1963), Foundations of Differential Geometry, Vol. I,
Wiley Interscience, ISBN 978-0-470-49648-0
Kobayashi, Shoshichi; Nomizu, Katsumi (1969), Foundations of Differential Geometry, Vol. II,
Wiley Interscience, ISBN 978-0-470-49648-0
Kreyszig, Erwin (1991), Differential Geometry, Dover, ISBN 978-0-486-66721-8
Kühnel, Wolfgang (2006), Differential Geometry: Curves - Surfaces - Manifolds, American
Mathematical Society, ISBN 978-0-8218-3988-1
Levi-Civita, Tullio (1917), "Nozione di parallelismo in una varietà qualunque" (https://zenodo.or
g/record/1428456/files/article.pdf) (PDF), Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, 42: 173–205,
doi:10.1007/BF03014898 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF03014898)
O'Neill, Barrett (1997), Elementary Differential Geometry, Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-12-
526750-2
Osgood, B.; Phillips, R.; Sarnak, P. (1988), "Extremals of determinants of Laplacians", J.
Funct. Anal., 80: 148–211, doi:10.1016/0022-1236(88)90070-5 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F00
22-1236%2888%2990070-5)
Osserman, Robert (2002), A Survey of Minimal Surfaces, Dover, ISBN 978-0-486-49514-9
Ian R. Porteous (2001) Geometric Differentiation: for the intelligence of curves and surfaces,
Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-00264-8.
Poznjak, E.G. (1973), "Isometric imbedding of two-dimensional Riemannian metrics in
Euclidean spaces", Russian Math. Surveys, 28 (4): 47–77,
doi:10.1070/RM1973v028n04ABEH001591 (https://doi.org/10.1070%2FRM1973v028n04ABE
H001591)
Pressley, Andrew (2001), Elementary Differential Geometry, Springer Undergraduate
Mathematics Series, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-1-85233-152-8
Sacks, J.; Uhlenbeck, Karen (1981), "The existence of minimal immersions of 2-spheres", Ann.
of Math., 112 (1): 1–24, doi:10.2307/1971131 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F1971131),
JSTOR 1971131 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1971131)
Singer, Isadore M.; Thorpe, John A. (1967), Lecture Notes on Elementary Topology and
Geometry, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-0-387-90202-9
Stillwell, John (1996), Sources of Hyperbolic Geometry, American Mathematical Society,
ISBN 978-0-8218-0558-9
Struik, Dirk Jan (1988), Lectures on classical differential geometry: Second Edition, Dover,
ISBN 978-0-486-65609-0
Taylor, Michael E. (1996a), Partial Differential Equations II: Qualitative Studies of Linear
Equations, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-1-4419-7051-0
 Taylor, Michael E. (1996b), Partial Differential Equations III: Nonlinear equations, Springer-
Verlag, ISBN 978-1-4419-7048-0
Toponogov, Victor A. (2005), Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces: A Concise Guide,
Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-0-8176-4384-3
Valiron, Georges (1986), The Classical Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces, Math
Sci Press, ISBN 978-0-915692-39-2 Full text of book (https://books.google.com/books?id=IQX
stKvWsHMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=valiron+surfaces&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)
Wilson, Pelham (2008), Curved Space: From Classical Geometries to Elementary Differential
Geometry, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-71390-0

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Differential_geometry_of_surfaces&oldid=953036398"

This page was last edited on 25 April 2020, at 10:49 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.