Radiocarbon ages must be calibrated due to the remarkable fluctuations of the atmospheric radiocarbon level. The traditional method (e.g., Calib) does not make use of any constraint such as the temporal/stratigraphical ordering of the ages, thereby resulting in one or several large age ranges. Bayesian age modeling is advantageous over the traditional method in several aspects. First, it can provide precise age estimates by applying some constraints known a priori. Second, it may provide a timing of an archaeological feature or a geological event that is unable to be dated directly. Although several Bayesian age modeling frameworks have been developed, inexperienced users may need not only a more user-friendly environment for data entry and definition of their project-specific problem, but also a powerful post-processing tool for analyzing and visualizing the results. Here a hierarchical Bayesian model with a minimum level of structural complexity is presented. It provides users with a flexible and powerful framework to incorporate radiocarbon ages into a sequence along a one-dimensional continuum so that it best reveals their temporal order, thereby yielding a more precise timing. The accompanying Matlab software package not only complements the existing MatCal package designed to calibrate radiocarbon ages individually, but also serves as an alternative to the online tools of Bayesian radiocarbon age modeling such as OxCal and BCal.
Citation: Shiyong Yu. MatCalib: a Matlab software package for Bayesian modeling of radiocarbon ages subject to temporal order constraints[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(1): 16-32. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022002
[1] | Haiming Liu, Jiajing Miao . Gauss-Bonnet theorem in Lorentzian Sasakian space forms. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 8772-8791. doi: 10.3934/math.2021509 |
[2] | Haiming Liu, Xiawei Chen, Jianyun Guan, Peifu Zu . Lorentzian approximations for a Lorentzian α-Sasakian manifold and Gauss-Bonnet theorems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 501-528. doi: 10.3934/math.2023024 |
[3] | Lizhen Huang, Qunying Wu . Precise asymptotics for complete integral convergence in the law of the logarithm under the sub-linear expectations. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 8964-8984. doi: 10.3934/math.2023449 |
[4] | Xhevat Z. Krasniqi . Approximation of functions in a certain Banach space by some generalized singular integrals. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 3386-3398. doi: 10.3934/math.2024166 |
[5] | Shuyan Li, Qunying Wu . Complete integration convergence for arrays of rowwise extended negatively dependent random variables under the sub-linear expectations. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 12166-12181. doi: 10.3934/math.2021706 |
[6] | Najmeddine Attia, Rim Amami . On linear transformation of generalized affine fractal interpolation function. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 16848-16862. doi: 10.3934/math.2024817 |
[7] | Franka Baaske, Romaric Kana Nguedia, Hans-Jürgen Schmeißer . Smoothing properties of the fractional Gauss-Weierstrass semi-group in Morrey smoothness spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 31962-31984. doi: 10.3934/math.20241536 |
[8] | Qiujin He, Chunxia Bu, Rongling Yang . A Generalization of Lieb concavity theorem. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 12305-12314. doi: 10.3934/math.2024601 |
[9] | Fethi Bouzeffour . Inversion formulas for space-fractional Bessel heat diffusion through Tikhonov regularization. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20826-20842. doi: 10.3934/math.20241013 |
[10] | Iqra Shamas, Saif Ur Rehman, Thabet Abdeljawad, Mariyam Sattar, Sami Ullah Khan, Nabil Mlaiki . Generalized contraction theorems approach to fuzzy differential equations in fuzzy metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 11243-11275. doi: 10.3934/math.2022628 |
Radiocarbon ages must be calibrated due to the remarkable fluctuations of the atmospheric radiocarbon level. The traditional method (e.g., Calib) does not make use of any constraint such as the temporal/stratigraphical ordering of the ages, thereby resulting in one or several large age ranges. Bayesian age modeling is advantageous over the traditional method in several aspects. First, it can provide precise age estimates by applying some constraints known a priori. Second, it may provide a timing of an archaeological feature or a geological event that is unable to be dated directly. Although several Bayesian age modeling frameworks have been developed, inexperienced users may need not only a more user-friendly environment for data entry and definition of their project-specific problem, but also a powerful post-processing tool for analyzing and visualizing the results. Here a hierarchical Bayesian model with a minimum level of structural complexity is presented. It provides users with a flexible and powerful framework to incorporate radiocarbon ages into a sequence along a one-dimensional continuum so that it best reveals their temporal order, thereby yielding a more precise timing. The accompanying Matlab software package not only complements the existing MatCal package designed to calibrate radiocarbon ages individually, but also serves as an alternative to the online tools of Bayesian radiocarbon age modeling such as OxCal and BCal.
In [4], Diniz and Veloso gave the definition of Gaussian curvature for non-horizontal surfaces in sub-Riemannian Heisenberg space H1 and the proof of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem. In [1], intrinsic Gaussian curvature for a Euclidean C2-smooth surface in the Heisenberg group H1 away from characteristic points and intrinsic signed geodesic curvature for Euclidean C2-smooth curves on surfaces are defined by using a Riemannian approximation scheme. These results were then used to prove a Heisenberg version of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem. In [5], Veloso verified that Gaussian curvature of surfaces and normal curvature of curves in surfaces introduced by [4] and by [1] to prove Gauss-Bonnet theorems in Heisenberg space H1 were unequal and he applied the same formalism of [4] to get the curvatures of [1]. With the obtained formulas, the Gauss-Bonnet theorem can be proved as a straightforward application of Stokes theorem in [5].
In [1] and [2], Balogh-Tyson-Vecchi used that the Riemannian approximation scheme may depend upon the choice of the complement to the horizontal distribution in general. In the context of H1 the choice which they have adopted is rather natural. The existence of the limit defining the intrinsic curvature of a surface depends crucially on the cancellation of certain divergent quantities in the limit. Such cancellation stems from the specific choice of the adapted frame bundle on the surface, and on symmetries of the underlying left-invariant group structure on the Heisenberg group. In [1], they proposed an interesting question to understand to what extent similar phenomena hold in other sub-Riemannian geometric structures. In [6], Wang and Wei gave sub-Riemannian limits of Gaussian curvature for a Euclidean C2-smooth surface in the affine group and the group of rigid motions of the Minkowski plane away from characteristic points and signed geodesic curvature for Euclidean C2-smooth curves on surfaces. And they got Gauss-Bonnet theorems in the affine group and the group of rigid motions of the Minkowski plane. In [7], Wang and Wei gave sub-Riemannian limits of Gaussian curvature for a Euclidean C2-smooth surface in the BCV spaces and the twisted Heisenberg group away from characteristic points and signed geodesic curvature for Euclidean C2-smooth curves on surfaces. And they got Gauss-Bonnet theorems in the BCV spaces and the twisted Heisenberg group.
In this paper, we solve this problem for the generalized affine group and the generalized BCV spaces. In the case of the generalized affine group, the cancellation of certain divergent quantities in the limit happens and the limit of the Riemannian Gaussian curvature exists. In the case of the generalized BCV spaces, the result is the same as the generalized affine group. We also get Gauss-Bonnet theorems in the generalized affine group and the generalized BCV spaces.
In Section 2, we compute the sub-Riemannian limit of curvature of curves in the generalized affine group. In Section 3, we compute sub-Riemannian limits of geodesic curvature of curves on surfaces and the Riemannian Gaussian curvature of surfaces in the generalized affine group. In Section 4, we prove the Gauss-Bonnet theorem in the generalized affine group. In Section 5, we compute the sub-Riemannian limit of curvature of curves in the generalized BCV spaces. In Section 6, we compute sub-Riemannian limits of geodesic curvature of curves on surfaces and the Riemannian Gaussian curvature of surfaces in the generalized BCV spaces and get a Gauss-Bonnet theorem in the generalized BCV spaces.
When TM=H⨁H⊥ and gTM=gH⨁gH⊥, we may consider the rescaled metric gL=gH⨁LgH⊥, then we may consider the sub-Riemannian limit of some geometric objects like the Gauss curvature and the mean curvature ⋅⋅⋅, when L goes to the infinity. In this case, we call the (M,gTM) as the manifold with the splitting tangent bundle. In this paper, our main objects: the generalized affine group and the generalized BCV spaces are not sub-Riemannian manifolds (groups) in general. But they are manifolds with the splitting tangent bundle. So we can use the Riemannian approximation scheme to get the Gauss-Bonnet theorems in these spaces.
Firstly we give some notations on the generalized affine group. Let G be the generalized affine group and choose the underlying manifold G={(x1,x2,x3)∈R3∣f(x1,x2,x3)>0}. On G, we let
X1=f∂x1,X2=f∂x2+∂x3,X3=f∂x2. | (2.1) |
where f be a smooth function with respect to x1,x2,x3. Then
∂x1=1fX1,∂x2=1fX3,∂x3=X2−X3, | (2.2) |
and span{X1,X2,X3}=TG. Let H=span{X1,X2} be the horizontal distribution on G. Let ω1=1fdx1,ω2=dx3,ω=1fdx2−dx3. Then H=Kerω. For the constant L>0, let gL=ω1⊗ω1+ω2⊗ω2+Lω⊗ω,g=g1 be the Riemannian metric on G. Then X1,X2,~X3:=L−12X3 are orthonormal basis on TG with respect to gL. We have
[X1,X2]=−(f2+f3f)X1+f1X3,[X1,X3]=−f2X1+f1X3,[X2,X3]=f3fX3. | (2.3) |
where fi=∂f∂xi, for 1≤i≤3.
Let ∇L be the Levi-Civita connection on G with respect to gL. Then we have the following lemma,
Lemma 2.1. Let G be the generalized affine group, then
∇LX1X1=(f2+f3f)X2+f3L,∇LX1X2=−(f2+f3f)X1+f12X3,∇LX2X1=−f12X3,∇LX2X2=0,∇LX1X3=−f2X1−f1L2X2,∇LX3X1=−f1L2X2−f1X3,∇LX2X3=f1L2X1,∇LX3X2=f1L2X1−f3fX3,∇LX3X3=f1LX1+f3LfX2. | (2.4) |
Proof. By the Koszul formula, we have
2⟨∇LXiXj,Xk⟩L=⟨[Xi,Xj],Xk⟩L−⟨[Xj,Xk],Xi⟩L+⟨[Xk,Xi],Xj⟩L, | (2.5) |
where i,j,k=1,2,3. So lemma 2.1 holds.
Definition 2.2. Let γ:[a,b]→(G,gL) be a Euclidean C1-smooth curve. We say that γ is regular if ˙γ≠0 for every t∈[a,b]. Moreover we say that γ(t) is a horizontal point of γ if
ω(˙γ(t))=˙γ2(t)f−˙γ3(t)=0, |
where γ(t)=(γ1(t),γ2(t),γ3(t)) and ˙γi(t)=∂γi(t)∂t.
Definition 2.3. Let γ:[a,b]→(G,gL) be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve in the Riemannian manifold (G,gL). The curvature kLγ of γ at γ(t) is defined as
kLγ:=√||∇L˙γ˙γ||2L||˙γ||4L−⟨∇L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩2L||˙γ||6L. | (2.6) |
Lemma 2.4. Let γ:[a,b]→(G,gL) be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve in the Riemannian manifold (G,gL). Then,
kLγ={{{[¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2]+[f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))}2+{[¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3]+[f3Lω(˙γ(t))f−f1L˙γ1f]ω(˙γ(t))}2+L{f2˙γ21f2L−[f1˙γ1f+f3˙γ3f]ω(˙γ(t))+ddtω(˙γ(t))}2}⋅[(˙γ1f)2+˙γ23+L(ω(˙γ(t)))2]−2−{[˙γ1¨γ1f2−f′˙γ21f3+˙γ3¨γ3]+Ldω(˙γ(t))dtω(˙γ(t))}2⋅[(˙γ1f)2+˙γ23+L(ω(˙γ(t)))2]−3}12 | (2.7) |
In particular, if γ(t) is a horizontal point of γ,
kLγ={{[¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2]2+[¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3]2+L[f2˙γ21f2L+ddtω(˙γ(t))]2}⋅[(˙γ1f)2+˙γ23]−2−[˙γ1¨γ1f2−f′˙γ21f3+˙γ3¨γ3]2⋅[(˙γ1f)2+˙γ23]−3}12 | (2.8) |
where f′=˙γ(f)=ddtf(γ(t)).
Proof. By (2.2), we have
˙γ(t)=˙γ1fX1+˙γ3X2+ω(˙γ(t))X3. | (2.9) |
By Lemma 2.1 and (2.9), we have
∇L˙γX1=[ff2˙γ1(t)+f3˙γ1(t)f2−f1Lω(˙γ(t))2]X2+[f2˙γ1(t)fL−f1˙γ3(t)2−f1ω(˙γ(t))]X3,∇L˙γX2=[−ff2˙γ1(t)+f3˙γ1(t)f2+f1Lω(˙γ(t))2]X1+[−f3ω(˙γ(t))f+f1˙γ(t)2f]X3,∇L˙γX3=[−f2˙γ1(t)f+Lf1˙γ3(t)2+f1Lω(˙γ(t))]X1+[−f1L˙γ(t)2f+f3Lω(˙γ(t))f]X2. | (2.10) |
By (2.9) and (2.10), we have
∇L˙γ˙γ={[¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2]+[f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))}X1+{[¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3]+[f3Lω(˙γ(t))f−f1L˙γ1f]ω(˙γ(t))}X2+{f2˙γ21f2L−(f1˙γ1f+f3˙γ3f)ω(˙γ(t))+dω(˙γ(t))dt}X3 | (2.11) |
By (2.6), (2.9) and (2.11), we get Lemma 2.4.
Definition 2.5. Let γ:[a,b]→(G,gL) be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve in the Riemannian manifold (G,gL). We define the intrinsic curvature k∞γ of γ at γ(t) to be
k∞γ:=limL→+∞kLγ, |
if the limit exists.
We introduce the following notation: for continuous functions f1,f2:(0,+∞)→R,
f1(L)∼f2(L),asL→+∞⇔limL→+∞f1(L)f2(L)=1. | (2.12) |
Lemma 2.6. Let γ:[a,b]→(G,gL) be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve in the Riemannian manifold (G,gL). Then
k∞γ=√[f1˙γ1−f3˙γ2f+f3˙γ3]2+(f1˙γ2)2|f||ω(˙γ(t))|,ifω(˙γ(t))≠0, | (2.13) |
k∞γ={{[¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2]2+[¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3]2+(f2˙γ21f2)2}⋅[(˙γ1f)2+˙γ23]−2−[˙γ1¨γ1f2−f′˙γ21f3+˙γ3¨γ3]2⋅[(˙γ1f)2+˙γ23]−3}12ifω(˙γ(t))=0andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0, | (2.14) |
limL→+∞kLγ√L=|ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))|(˙γ1f)2+˙γ23,ifω(˙γ(t))=0andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0. | (2.15) |
Proof. Using the notation introduced in (2.12), when ω(˙γ(t))≠0, we have
||∇L˙γ˙γ||2L∼(ω(˙γ(t))f)2{[f1˙γ1−f3˙γ2f+f3˙γ3]2+(f1˙γ2)2}L2,asL→+∞, |
||˙γ||2L∼Lω(˙γ(t))2,asL→+∞, |
⟨∇L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩2L∼O(L2)asL→+∞. |
Therefore
||∇L˙γ˙γ||2L||˙γ||4L→{[f1˙γ1−f3˙γ2f+f3˙γ3)]2+(f1˙γ2)2}f2ω(˙γ(t))2,asL→+∞, |
⟨∇L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩2L||˙γ||6L→0,asL→+∞. |
So by (2.6), we have (2.13). (2.14) comes from (2.8) and
ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0. |
When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0,
we have
||∇L˙γ˙γ||2L∼L[ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]2,asL→+∞, |
||˙γ||2L=(˙γ1f)2+˙γ23, |
⟨∇L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩2L=O(1)asL→+∞. |
By (2.6), we get (2.15).
We will say that a surface Σ⊂(G,gL) is regular if Σ is a Euclidean C2-smooth compact and oriented surface. In particular we will assume that there exists a Euclidean C2-smooth function u:G→R such that
Σ={(x1,x2,x3)∈G:u(x1,x2,x3)=0} |
and ux1∂x1+ux2∂x2+ux3∂x3≠0. Let ∇Hu=X1(u)X1+X2(u)X2. A point x∈Σ is called characteristic if ∇Hu(x)=0. We define the characteristic set C(Σ):={x∈Σ|∇Hu(x)=0}. Our computations will be local and away from characteristic points of Σ. Let us define first
p:=X1u,q:=X2u,andr:=˜X3u. |
We then define
l:=√p2+q2,lL:=√p2+q2+r2,¯p:=pl,¯q:=ql,¯pL:=plL,¯qL:=qlL,¯rL:=rlL. | (3.1) |
In particular, ¯p2+¯q2=1. These functions are well defined at every non-characteristic point. Let
vL=¯pLX1+¯qLX2+¯rL~X3,e1=¯qX1−¯pX2,e2=¯rL¯pX1+¯rL¯qX2−llL~X3, | (3.2) |
then vL is the Riemannian unit normal vector to Σ and e1,e2 are the orthonormal basis of Σ. On TΣ we define a linear transformation JL:TΣ→TΣ such that
JL(e1):=e2;JL(e2):=−e1. | (3.3) |
For every U,V∈TΣ, we define ∇Σ,LUV=π∇LUV where π:TG→TΣ is the projection. Then ∇Σ,L is the Levi-Civita connection on Σ with respect to the metric gL. By (2.11), (3.2) and
∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ=⟨∇L˙γ˙γ,e1⟩Le1+⟨∇L˙γ˙γ,e2⟩Le2, | (3.4) |
we have
∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ={¯q[(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+(f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t)))ω(˙γ(t))]−¯p[(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−(f1L˙γ1−f3Lω(˙γ(t))f)ω(˙γ(t))]}e1+{¯rL¯p[(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+(f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t)))ω(˙γ(t))]+¯rL¯q[(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−(f1L˙γ1f−f3Lω(˙γ(t))f)ω(˙γ(t))]−llLL12[f2˙γ21f2L−(f1˙γ1f+f3˙γ3f)ω(˙γ(t))+ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]}e2. | (3.5) |
Moreover if ω(˙γ(t))=0, then
∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ={¯q[¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2]−¯p[¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3]}e1+{¯rL¯p[¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2]+¯rL¯q[¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3]−llLL12[f2˙γ21f2L−ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]}e2. | (3.6) |
Definition 3.1. Let Σ⊂(G,gL) be a regular surface. Let γ:[a,b]→Σ be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve. The geodesic curvature kLγ,Σ of γ at γ(t) is defined as
kLγ,Σ:=√||∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ||2Σ,L||˙γ||4Σ,L−⟨∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩2Σ,L||˙γ||6Σ,L. | (3.7) |
Definition 3.2. Let Σ⊂(G,gL) be a regular surface. Let γ:[a,b]→Σ be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve. We define the intrinsic geodesic curvature k∞γ,Σ of γ at γ(t) to be
k∞γ,Σ:=limL→+∞kLγ,Σ, |
if the limit exists.
Lemma 3.3. Let Σ⊂(G,gL) be a regular surface. Let γ:[a,b]→Σ be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve. Then
k∞γ,Σ=|¯p(f1˙γ1−f3˙γ2f+f3˙γ3)+¯qf1˙γ2||f||ω(˙γ(t))|,ifω(˙γ(t))≠0, | (3.8) |
k∞γ,Σ=0,ifω(˙γ(t))=0,andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0, |
limL→+∞kLγ,Σ√L=|ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))|(¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3)2,ifω(˙γ(t))=0andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0. | (3.9) |
Proof. we know ˙γ(t)=˙γ1(t)∂x1+˙γ2(t)∂x2+˙γ3(t)∂x3, then by (2.2), ˙γ(t)=˙γ1(t)γ1(t)X1+γ3(t)X2+ω(˙γ(t))X3.
Let
˙γ(t)=λ1e1+λ2e2. |
Then
{˙γ1(t)γ1(t)=λ1¯q+λ2¯rL¯p˙γ3(t)=−λ1¯p+λ2¯rL¯qω(˙γ(t))=−λ2llLL−12 | (3.10) |
We have
{λ1=¯q˙γ1(t)γ1(t)−¯p˙γ3(t)λ2=−λ2lLlL12ω(˙γ(t)) | (3.11) |
Thus ˙γ∈TΣ, we have
˙γ=(¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3)e1−lLlL12ω(˙γ(t))e2. | (3.12) |
By (3.6), we have
||∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ||2L,Σ={¯q[(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+(f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t)))ω(˙γ(t))]−¯p[(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−(f1L˙γ1−f3Lω(˙γ(t))f)ω(˙γ(t))]}2+{¯rL¯p[(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+(f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t)))ω(˙γ(t))]+¯rL¯q[(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−(f1L˙γ1f−f3Lω(˙γ(t))f)ω(˙γ(t))]−llLL12[f2˙γ21f2L−(f1˙γ1f+f3˙γ3f)ω(˙γ(t))+ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]}2∼L2[¯p(f1˙γ1−f3˙γ2f+f3˙γ3)+¯qf1˙γ2]2ω(˙γ(t))2f2,asL→+∞. | (3.13) |
Similarly, we have that when ω(˙γ(t))≠0,
||˙γ||Σ,L=√(¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3)2+(lLl)2Lω(˙γ(t))2∼L12|ω(˙γ(t))|,asL→+∞. | (3.14) |
By (3.6) and (3.12), we have
⟨∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩Σ,L=(¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3)⋅{¯q[(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+(f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t)))ω(˙γ(t))]−¯p[(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−(f1L˙γ1−f3Lω(˙γ(t))f)ω(˙γ(t))]}−lLlL12ω(˙γ(t))⋅{¯rL¯p[(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+(f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t)))ω(˙γ(t))]+¯rL¯q[(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−(f1L˙γ1f−f3Lω(˙γ(t))f)ω(˙γ(t))]−llLL12[f2˙γ21f2L−(f1˙γ1f+f3˙γ3f)ω(˙γ(t))+ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]}∼M0L, | (3.15) |
where M0 does not depend on L. By (3.7), (3.13)–(3.15), we get (3.8). When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0,
we have
||∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ||2L,Σ=[¯q(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)−¯p(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)]2+[¯rL¯p(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+¯rL¯q(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−llLL12f2˙γ21f2L]2∼[¯q(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)−¯p(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)]2 | (3.16) |
and
||˙γ||Σ,L=|¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3|, | (3.17) |
⟨∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩Σ,L=(¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3)⋅[¯q(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)−¯p(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)] | (3.18) |
By (3.16)–(3.18) and (3.7), we get k∞γ,Σ=0. When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0,
we have
||∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ||2L,Σ∼L[ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]2, |
⟨∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩Σ,L=O(1), |
so we get (3.9).
Definition 3.4. Let Σ⊂(G,gL) be a regular surface. Let γ:[a,b]→Σ be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve. The signed geodesic curvature kL,sγ,Σ of γ at γ(t) is defined as
kL,sγ,Σ:=⟨∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ,JL(˙γ)⟩Σ,L||˙γ||3Σ,L, | (3.19) |
where JL is defined by (3.3).
Definition 3.5. Let Σ⊂(G,gL) be a regular surface. Let γ:[a,b]→Σ be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve. We define the intrinsic geodesic curvature k∞γ,Σ of γ at the non-characteristic point γ(t) to be
k∞,sγ,Σ:=limL→+∞kL,sγ,Σ, |
if the limit exists.
Lemma 3.6. Let Σ⊂(G,gL) be a regular surface. Let γ:[a,b]→Σ be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve. Then
k∞,sγ,Σ=¯p(f1˙γ1−f3˙γ2f+f3˙γ3)+¯qf1˙γ2|fω(˙γ(t))|,ifω(˙γ(t))≠0, | (3.20) |
k∞,sγ,Σ=0,ifω(˙γ(t))=0,andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0, |
limL→+∞kL,sγ,Σ√L=(−¯q˙γ1f+¯p˙γ3)ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))|¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3|3,ifω(˙γ(t))=0andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0. | (3.21) |
Proof. By (3.3) and (3.12), we have
JL(˙γ)=lLlL12ω(˙γ(t))e1+(¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3)e2. | (3.22) |
By (3.5) and (3.22), we have
⟨∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ,JL(˙γ)⟩L,Σ=lLlL12ω(˙γ(t)){¯q[(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+(f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t)))ω(˙γ(t))]−¯p[(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−(f1L˙γ1−f3Lω(˙γ(t))f)ω(˙γ(t))]}+(¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3)⋅{¯rL¯p[(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+(f1L˙γ3−f2˙γ1f+f1Lω(˙γ(t)))ω(˙γ(t))]+¯rL¯q[(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−(f1L˙γ1f−f3Lω(˙γ(t))f)ω(˙γ(t))]−llLL12[f2˙γ21f2L−(f1˙γ1f+f3˙γ3f)ω(˙γ(t))+ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]},∼L32ω(˙γ(t))2¯p(f1˙γ1−f3˙γ2f+f3˙γ3)+¯qf1˙γ2fasL→+∞. | (3.23) |
So we get (3.20). When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0, we get
⟨∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ,JL(˙γ)⟩L,Σ=(¯q˙γ1f−¯p˙γ3)⋅[¯rL¯p(¨γ1−f2˙γ1˙γ3f−f′˙γ1+f3˙γ1˙γ3f2)+¯rL¯q(¨γ3+f2˙γ21f2+f3˙γ21f3)−llLL−12f2˙γ21f2]∼M0L−12asL→+∞. | (3.24) |
So k∞,sγ,Σ=0. When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0,
we have
⟨∇Σ,L˙γ˙γ,JL(˙γ)⟩L,Σ∼L12(−¯q˙γ1f+¯p˙γ3)ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))asL→+∞. | (3.25) |
So we get (3.21).
In the following, we compute the sub-Riemannian limit of the Riemannian Gaussian curvature of surfaces in the generalized affine group. We define the second fundamental form IIL of the embedding of Σ into (G,gL):
IIL=(⟨∇Le1vL,e1⟩L,⟨∇Le1vL,e2⟩L⟨∇Le2vL,e1⟩L,⟨∇Le2vL,e2⟩L). | (3.26) |
Similarly to Theorem 4.3 in [3], we have
Theorem 3.7. The second fundamental form IIL of the embedding of Σ into (G,gL) is given by
IIL=(h11,h12h21,h22). | (3.27) |
where
h11=llL[X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)]−¯qL(f2+f3f)−¯q2f2¯rLL−12, |
h12=h21=−lLl⟨e1,∇H(¯rL)⟩L−f1√L2−¯p¯qf2L−12, |
h22=−l2l2L⟨e2,∇H(rl)⟩L+~X3(¯rL)−f1¯pL−¯qLf3f−¯rL¯P2f2L−12. |
Proof. By ei⟨VL,ej⟩L−⟨∇LeiVL,ej⟩L−⟨∇Leiej,VL⟩L=0 and ei⟨VL,ej⟩L=0, we have ⟨∇LeiVL,ej⟩L=−⟨∇Leiej,VL⟩L, i,j=1,2.
By lemma 2.1 and (3.2),
∇Le1e1=∇L(¯qX1−¯pX2)(¯qX1−¯pX2)=[¯qX1(¯q)−¯pX2(¯p)+¯p¯q(f2+f3f)]X1−[¯qX1(¯p)−¯pX2(¯p)−¯q2(f2+f3f)]X2+¯q2f3L−12~X3. | (3.28) |
Then
h11=−⟨∇Le1e1,VL⟩L=−¯pL[¯qX1(¯q)−¯pX2(¯p)]+¯qL[¯qX1(¯p)−¯pX2(¯p)]−¯qL(F2+F3¯fF)−¯pL(F1+F3fF)+¯rLL−12F3F=llL[X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)]−¯qL(F2+F3¯fF)−¯pL(F1+F3fF)+¯rLL−12F3F. | (3.29) |
Similarly,
∇Le1e2=∇L(¯qX1−¯pX2)(¯rL¯pX1+¯rL¯qX2−llL~X3)=[¯qX1(¯rL¯p)−¯pX2(¯rL¯p)+f1¯pL√L2−¯rL¯q2(f2+f3f)+¯qLf2L−12]X1+[¯qX1(¯q)−¯pX2(¯q)+f1¯qL√L2+¯rL¯pq(f2+f3f)]X2+[¯pX2(llL)−¯qX1(llL)+f1¯rL√L2+¯rL¯pqf3L−12]~X3. | (3.30) |
Then
h12=−⟨∇Le1e2,VL⟩L=−llL[¯qX1(¯rL)−¯pX2(¯rL)]+¯rL[¯qX1(llL)−¯pX2(llL)]−12L12(fF2−F1¯f+¯f′F−Ff′)=−lLl⟨e1,∇H(¯rL)⟩L−12L12(fF2−F1¯f+¯f′F−Ff′). | (3.31) |
Since
⟨∇Le2VL,e1⟩L=−⟨∇Le2e1,VL⟩L=−⟨∇Le1e2+[e2,e1],VL⟩L=−⟨∇Le1e2,VL⟩=⟨∇Le1VL,e2⟩L. | (3.32) |
Then,
h21=h12=−lLl⟨e1,∇H(¯rL)⟩L−12L12(fF2−F1¯f+¯f′F−Ff′). | (3.33) |
Since
∇Le2e2=∇L(¯rL¯pX1+¯rL¯qX2−llL~X3)(¯rL¯pX1+¯rL¯qX2−llL~X3)=[¯qX1(¯rL¯p)−¯pX2(¯rL¯p)+f1¯qL√L−¯rL2¯pq(f2+f3f)+¯rL¯pLf2L−12+(llL)2f1]X1+[¯qX1(¯q)−¯pX2(¯q)+f1¯pL√L+¯rL2¯pq(f2+f3f)+(llL)2f3fX2+[¯pX2(llL)−¯qX1(llL)+¯rL2¯pqf3fL−12+¯rL¯pLf1+¯rL¯qLf3f]~X3. | (3.34) |
Then,
h22=−⟨∇Le2e2,VL⟩L=−¯prlX1(¯rL)−¯qrlX2(¯rL)+~X3(¯rL)−¯pLfF3F−¯qL¯fF3F−¯rLF3FL−12=−l2l2L⟨e2,∇H(rl)⟩L+~X3(¯rL)−¯pLfF3F−¯qL¯fF3F−¯rLF3FL−12. | (3.35) |
The Riemannian mean curvature HL of Σ is defined by
HL:=tr(IIL). |
Let
KΣ,L(e1,e2)=−⟨RΣ,L(e1,e2)e1,e2⟩Σ,L,KL(e1,e2)=−⟨RL(e1,e2)e1,e2⟩L. | (3.36) |
By the Gauss equation, we have
KΣ,L(e1,e2)=KL(e1,e2)+det(IIL). | (3.37) |
Proposition 3.8. Away from characteristic points, the horizontal mean curvature H∞ of Σ⊂G is given by
H∞=limL→+∞HL=X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)−f1¯p−¯qf2−2¯qf3f. | (3.38) |
Proof. By
l2l2L⟨e2,∇H(rl)⟩L=¯prlX1(¯rL)+¯qrlX2(¯rL)=O(L−1) |
llL[X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)]→X1(¯p)+X2(¯q),~X3(¯rL)→0, |
¯q2f2¯rLL−12→O(L−1),¯qL→¯q, |
¯rL¯P2f2L−12→O(L−1),¯pL→¯p, |
we get (3.38).
Define the curvature of a connection ∇ by
R(X,Y)Z=∇X∇YZ−∇Y∇XZ−∇[X,Y]Z. | (3.39) |
Then by Lemma 2.1 and (3.39), we have the following lemma,
Lemma 3.9. Let G be the affine group, then
RL(X1,X2)X1=[3Lf214+(f2+f3f)2]X2+[X1(−f12)−X2(f2L)+f21+f22L+f2f3Lf]X3,RL(X1,X2)X2=[−3Lf214+X2(f2+f3f)−(f2+f3f)2]X1+f1f3fX3,RL(X1,X2)X3=[X1(f1L2)+X2(f2)−f21L−f2(f2+f3f)]X1+[X2(f1Lf)−f1f3Lf]X2,RL(X1,X3)X1=−[X1(f1L2)+X3(f2+f3f)+f2f3f−f21L−f2(f2+f3f)]X2+[−f21L4+f21+f22L−X3(f2L)−X1(f1)+f3f(f2+f3f)]X3,RL(X1,X3)X2=[X1(f1L2)−f21L−f2(f2+f3f)+X3(f2+f3f)+f2f3f]X1+[−X1(f3f)+f1f2+f1f3f−f1(f2+f3f)−X3(f12)]X3,RL(X1,X3)X3=[X1(f1L)−f3Lf(f2+f3f)+X3(f2)+f21L24−f21L−f22]X1+[f1L(f2+f3f)+X1(f3Lf)−f1f2L−f1f3Lf+X3(f1L2)]X2,RL(X2,X3)X1=[−X2(f1L2)+f1f3Lf]X2+[X3(f12)−X2(f1)+f1f3f]X3,RL(X2,X3)X2=[X2(f1L2)−f1f3Lf]X1+[f23f2−f21L4−X2(f3f)]X3,RL(X2,X3)X3=[X2(f1L)−X3(f1L2)−f1f3Lf]X1+[X2(f3Lf)−f23Lf2+f21L24]X2. | (3.40) |
Proposition 3.10. Away from characteristic points, we have
KΣ,L(e1,e2)→A0+O(L−12),asL→+∞, | (3.41) |
where
A0:=−f1⟨e1,∇H(X3u|∇Hu|)⟩−f1f2¯p¯q−¯q2f21−34(X3u)2l2f21+¯p2X2(f3f)−¯p[X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)−¯q(f2+f3f)](f1¯p+¯qf3f)+2¯qX3ulf21+2¯qX3uX1(−f12)−2¯pX3ulf1f3f+¯q2X1(f1)−¯q2(f2+f3f)−2¯q¯pX1(f3f)−2¯q¯pX3(f12)−¯p2f23f2. | (3.42) |
Proof. By (3.2), we have
⟨RL(e1,e2)e1,e2⟩L=¯rL2⟨RL(X1,X2)X1,X2⟩L−2llL¯qL−12¯rL⟨RL(X1,X2)X1,X3⟩L+2llL¯pL−12¯rL⟨RL(X1,X2)X2,X3⟩L+(llL¯q)2L−1⟨RL(X1,X3)X1,X3⟩L−2(llL)2¯p¯qL−1⟨RL(X1,X3)X2,X3⟩L+(¯pllL)2L−1⟨RL(X2,X3)X2,X3⟩L. | (3.43) |
By Lemma 3.9, we have
KL(e1,e2)=14l2l2Lf21L−34Lf21¯rL2+2llL¯qL12¯rLf21−¯q2l2l2Lf21−¯rL2(f2+f3f)2+2llL¯qL12¯rLX1(−f12)−2llL¯qL12¯rLX2(−f2L)+2llL¯qL−12¯rLf22+2llL¯qL−12¯rLf2f3f−2¯pL12¯rLf1f3f−¯q2l2l2Lf22L+¯q2l2l2LX3(f2L)+¯q2l2l2LX1(f1)−¯q2l2l2L(f2+f3f)−2¯qpl2l2LX1(f3f)+2¯qpl2l2Lf1f2+2¯qpl2l2Lf1f3f−2¯qpl2l2Lf1(f2+f3f)−2¯qpl2l2LX3(f12)−¯p2l2l2Lf23f2+¯p2l2l2LX2(f3f). | (3.44) |
By (3.35) and
∇H(¯rL)=L−12∇H(X3u|∇Hu|)+O(L−1)asL→+∞ |
we get
det(IIL)=h11h22−h12h21=−f21L4−f1⟨e1,∇H(X3u|∇Hu|)⟩−f1f2¯p¯q−¯p[X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)−¯q(f2+f3f)](f1¯p+¯qf3f)+O(L−12). | (3.45) |
By (3.38), (3.44), (3.45) we get (3.41).
Let us first consider the case of a regular curve γ:[a,b]→(G,gL). We define the Riemannian length measure
dsL=||˙γ||Ldt. |
Lemma 4.1. Let γ:[a,b]→(G,gL) be a Euclidean C2-smooth and regular curve. Let
ds:=|ω(˙γ(t))|dt,d¯s:=121|ω(˙γ(t))|(˙γ21f2+˙γ23)dt. | (4.1) |
Then
limL→+∞1√L∫γdsL=∫bads. | (4.2) |
When ω(˙γ(t))≠0, we have
1√LdsL=ds+d¯sL−1+O(L−2)asL→+∞. | (4.3) |
When ω(˙γ(t))=0, we have
1√LdsL=1√L√˙γ21f2+˙γ23dt. | (4.4) |
Proof. We know that
||˙γ(t)||L=√(˙γ1f)2+˙γ23+Lω(˙γ(t))2, |
similar to the proof of Lemma 6.1 in [1], we can prove (4.2). When ω(˙γ(t))≠0, we have
1√LdsL=√L−1((˙γ1f)2+˙γ23)+ω(˙γ(t))2dt. |
Using the Taylor expansion, we can prove (4.3). From the definition of dsL and ω(˙γ(t))=0, we get (4.4).
Let Σ⊂(G,gL) be a Euclidean C2-smooth surface and Σ={u=0}. Let dσΣ,L denote the surface measure on Σ with respect to the Riemannian metric gL. Then similai to Proposition 4.2 in [7], we have
limL→+∞1√L∫ΣdσΣ,L=dσΣ:=(¯pω2−¯qω1)∧ω. | (4.5) |
Similar to the proof of Theorem 1.1 in $ [1] $, we have
Theorem 4.2. Let Σ⊂(G,gL) be a regular surface with finitely many boundary components (∂Σ)i, i∈{1,⋯,n}, given by Euclidean C2-smooth regular and closed curves γi:[0,2π]→(∂Σ)i. Let A0 be defined by (3.42) and dσΣ,d¯σΣ be defined by (4.5) and d¯s be defined by (4.1) and k∞,sγi,Σ be the sub-Riemannian signed geodesic curvature of γi relative to Σ. Suppose that the characteristic set C(Σ) satisfies H1(C(Σ))=0 where H1(C(Σ)) denotes the Euclidean 1-dimensional Hausdorff measure of C(Σ) and that ||∇Hu||−1H is locally summable with respect to the Euclidean 2-dimensional Hausdorff measure near the characteristic set C(Σ), then
∫ΣKΣ,∞dσΣ+n∑i=1∫γik∞,sγi,Σds=0. | (4.6) |
Example 4.3. Let f=x21+1, then G=R3. Let u=x21+x22+x23−1 and ∑=S2. ∑ is a regular surface. By (2.1), we get
X1(u)=2(x21+1)x1;X2(u)=2(x21+1)x2+2x3. | (4.7) |
Solve the equations X1(u)=X2(u)=0,
then we get
C(Σ)={(0,√22,−√22),(0,−√22,√22)} |
and H1(C(Σ))=0.
A parametrization of Σ is
x1=cos(ϕ)cos(θ),x2=cos(ϕ)sin(θ),x3=sin(ϕ),forϕ∈(−π2,π2),θ∈[0,2π). | (4.8) |
Then
‖∇Hu‖2H=X1(u)2+X2(u)2=4(x21+1)2x21+4(x21+1)2x22+4x23+8(x21+1)x2x3=4(cos(ϕ)2cos(θ)2+1)2cos(ϕ)2+4sin(ϕ)2+8(cos(ϕ)2cos(θ)2+1)sin(ϕ)cos(ϕ)sin(θ). | (4.9) |
By the definitions of wj for 1≤j≤3 and (4.5), we have
dσΣ=1‖∇Hu‖H[(X1(u))dx3−(x21+1)−1(X2(u))dx1]∧((x21+1)−1dx2−dx3)=−1‖∇Hu‖H2cos(ϕ)λ0dθ∧dϕ. | (4.10) |
where
λ0=cos(ϕ)2+2(cos(ϕ)2cos(θ)2+1)−1cos(ϕ)sin(ϕ)sin(θ)+(cos(ϕ)2cos(θ)2+1)−2sin(ϕ)2 |
is a bouned smooth function on Σ. By (4.9) and (4.10), we have ‖∇Hu‖−1H is locally summable around the isolated characteristic points with respect to the measure dσΣ.
We consider some notation on the generalized BCV spaces. Let f(x2), ¯f(x1), F(x1,x2,x3) be smooth functions. The generalized BCV spaces M is the set
{(x1,x2,x3)∈R3∣F(x1,x2,x3)>0} |
Let
X1=F∂x1+f∂x3,X2=F∂x2+¯f∂x3,X3=∂x3. | (5.1) |
Then
∂x1=1F(X1−fX3),∂x2=1F(X2−¯fX3),∂x3=X3, | (5.2) |
and span{X1,X2,X3}=TM. Let H=span{X1,X2} be the horizontal distribution on M. Let ω1=1Fdx1,ω2=1Fdx2,ω=dx3−(fdx1+¯fdx2)F. Then H=Kerω. The generalized BCV spaces have some well-knowed special case. When F=1+λ4(x21+x22),f=−τx2,¯f=τx1, we get the BCV spaces. When F=1,f=f(x2),¯f=¯f(x1), we can the Heisenberg manifolds. When F=1,f=12x22,¯f=0, we get the Martinet distribution. When F=1x1,f=0,¯f=−2, we get the Welyczko's example (see [5]). For the constant L>0, let gL=ω1⊗ω1+ω2⊗ω2+Lω⊗ω,g=g1 be the Riemannian metric on M. Then X1,X2,~X3:=L−12X3 are orthonormal basis on TM with respect to gL. We have
[X1,X2]=−(F2+¯fF3F)X1+(F1+fF3F)X2+(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)X3,[X2,X3]=−F3FX2+¯fF3FX3,[X1,X3]=−F3FX1+fF3FX3. | (5.3) |
where Fi=∂F∂xi, for 1≤i≤3, f′=∂f∂x2, ¯f′=∂¯f∂x1. Let ∇L be the Levi-Civita connection on M with respect to gL. Then we have the following lemma
Lemma 5.1. Let M be the generalized BCV spaces, then
∇LX1X1=(F2+F3¯fF)X2+F3LFX3,∇LX1X2=−(F2+F3¯fF)X1+12(fF2−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)X3,∇LX1X3=−F3FX1−L2(fF2−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)X2,∇LX2X1=−(F1+F3fF)X2−12(fF2−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)X3,∇LX2X2=(F1+F3fF)X1+F3FLX3,∇LX2X3=L2(fF2−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)X1−F3FX2,∇LX3X1=−L2(fF2−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)X2−fF3FX3,∇LX3X2=L2(fF2−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)X1−¯fF3FX3,∇LX3X3=LfF3FX1+L¯fF3FX2. | (5.4) |
Proof. By the Koszul formula, we have
2⟨∇LXiXj,Xk⟩L=⟨[Xi,Xj],Xk⟩L−⟨[Xj,Xk],Xi⟩L+⟨[Xk,Xi],Xj⟩L, | (5.5) |
where i,j,k=1,2,3. So lemma 5.1 holds.
Definition 5.2. Let γ:[a,b]→(M,gL) be a Euclidean C1-smooth curve. We say that γ(t) is a horizontal point of γ if
ω(˙γ(t))=−fF˙γ1(t)−¯fF˙γ2(t)+˙γ3(t)=0. |
where γ(t)=(γ1(t),γ2(t),γ3(t)) and ˙γi(t)=∂γi(t)∂t.
Similar to the definition 2.3 and definition 2.5, we can define kLγ and k∞γ for the generalized BCV spaces, we have
Lemma 5.3. Let γ:[a,b]→(M,gL) be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve in the Riemannian manifold (M,gL). Then
k∞γ={[−˙γ1F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+F3¯fFω(˙γ(t))]2+[˙γ2F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+F3fFω(˙γ(t))]2}12|ω(˙γ(t))|−1,ifω(˙γ(t))≠0. | (5.6) |
k∞γ={{[F′˙γ1−F¨γ1F2−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3¯fF)+˙γ22F2(F1+F3fF)]2+[F′˙γ2−F¨γ2F2+˙γ21F2(F2+F3¯fF)−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F1+F3fF)]2}[(˙γ21+˙γ22)F2]−2+{[F′˙γ21−F˙γ1¨γ1F3+F′˙γ22−F˙γ2¨γ2F3]2}[(˙γ21+˙γ22)F2]−3}−12ifω(˙γ(t))=0andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0, | (5.7) |
where F′=˙γ(F)=ddtF(γ(t)).
limL→+∞kLγ√L=|ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))|˙γ21F2+˙γ22F2,ifω(˙γ(t))=0andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0. | (5.8) |
Proof. By (5.2), we have
˙γ(t)=˙γ1FX1+˙γ2FX2+ω(˙γ(t))X3. | (5.9) |
By Lemma 5.1 and (5.8), we have
∇L˙γX1=[˙γ1F(F2+F3¯fF)−˙γ2F(F1+F3fF)−L2(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)ω(˙γ(t))]X2+[F3˙γ1LF2−˙γ22F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)−F3fF(ω(˙γ(t))]X3,∇L˙γX2=[−˙γ1F+(F2+F3¯fF)+˙γ2F(F1+F3fF)+L2(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)ω(˙γ(t))]X1+[F3˙γ2LF2+˙γ12F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)−F3¯fF(ω(˙γ(t))]X3,∇L˙γX3=[−˙γ1F3F2+˙γ2L2F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+LF3fFω(˙γ(t))]X1+[−˙γ1L2F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)−˙γ2F3F2+LF3¯fFω(˙γ(t))]X2. | (5.10) |
By (5.8) and (5.9), we have
∇L˙γ˙γ={F′˙γ1−F¨γ1F2−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3¯fF)+˙γ22F2(F1+F3fF)+[−F3˙γ1F2+˙γ2LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))}X1+{F′˙γ2−F¨γ2F2+˙γ21F2(F2+F3¯fF)−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3fF)+[−F3˙γ2F2−˙γ1LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+¯fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))}X2+{(˙γ22+˙γ21)F3F3L−(F3f˙γ1+F3¯f˙γ2)F2ω(˙γ(t))+ddtω(˙γ(t))}X3. | (5.11) |
By (5.8) and (5.10), when ω(˙γ(t))≠0, we have
||∇L˙γ˙γ||2L∼{[˙γ2F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+F3fFω(˙γ(t))]2+[−˙γ1F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+F3¯fFω(˙γ(t))]2}ω(˙γ(t))2L2,asL→+∞,||˙γ||2L∼Lω(˙γ(t))2,asL→+∞,⟨∇L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩2L∼O(L2)asL→+∞. | (5.12) |
Therefore
||∇L˙γ˙γ||2L∼[˙γ2F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+F3fFω(˙γ(t))]2ω(˙γ(t))2+[−˙γ1F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+F3¯fFω(˙γ(t))]2ω(˙γ(t))2,asL→+∞, | (5.13) |
⟨∇L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩2L||˙γ||6L→0,asL→+∞. |
So by (2.6), we have (5.5). (5.6) comes from (5.8), (5.10), (2.6) and ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0. When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0, we have
||∇L˙γ˙γ||2L∼L[ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]2,asL→+∞, |
||˙γ||2L=[˙γ21F2+˙γ22F2]2, |
⟨∇L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩2L=O(1)asL→+∞. |
By (2.6), we get (5.7).
We will consider a regular surface Σ1⊂(M,gL) and regular curve γ⊂Σ1. We will assume that there exists a Euclidean C2-smooth function u:M→R such that
Σ1={(x1,x2,x3)∈M:u(x1,x2,x3)=0}. |
Similar to Section 3, we define p,q,r,l,lL,¯p,¯q,¯pL,¯qL,¯rL,vL,e1,e2,JL,kLγ,Σ1,k∞γ,Σ1,kL,sγ,Σ1,k∞,sγ,Σ1. By (3.4) and (5.10), we have
∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ={¯q[F′˙γ1−F¨γ1F2−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3¯fF)+˙γ22F2(F1+F3fF)]+¯q[−F3˙γ1F2+˙γ2LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))−¯p[F′˙γ2−F¨γ2F2+˙γ21F2(F2+F3¯fF)−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3fF)]+¯p[−F3˙γ2F2−˙γ1LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+¯fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))}e1+{¯rL¯p[F′˙γ1−F¨γ1F2−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3¯fF)+˙γ22F2(F1+F3fF)]+¯rL¯p[−F3˙γ1F2+˙γ2LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))+¯rL¯q[F′˙γ2−F¨γ2F2+˙γ21F2(F2+F3¯fF)−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3fF)]+¯rL¯q[−F3˙γ2F2−˙γ1LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+¯fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))−llLL12[(˙γ22+˙γ21)F3F3L−(f˙γ1+¯f˙γ2)F3F2ω(˙γ(t))+ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]}e2=B1e1+B2e2. | (6.1) |
By (5.8) and ˙γ(t)∈TΣ1, we have
˙γ(t)=[¯q˙γ1F−¯p˙γ2F]e1−lLlL12ω(˙γ(t))e2. | (6.2) |
We have
Lemma 6.1. Let Σ1⊂(M,gL) be a regular surface. Let γ:[a,b]→Σ1 be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve. Then
k∞γ,Σ1={[q˙γ2(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+F3f¯qω(˙γ(t))]+[¯P˙γ1(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)−F3f¯Pω(˙γ(t))]}|Fω(˙γ(t))|−1,ifω(˙γ(t))≠0, | (6.3) |
k∞γ,Σ1=0,ifω(˙γ(t))=0,andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0, |
limL→+∞kLγ,Σ1√L=|ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))|[¯q˙γ1F−¯P˙γ2F]2,ifω(˙γ(t))=0andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0. | (6.4) |
Proof. By (6.1), we have
||∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ||2L,Σ1=B21+B22∼L2ω(˙γ(t))2{[¯q˙γ2F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+F3f¯qFω(˙γ(t))]+[¯P˙γ1F(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)−F3¯f¯PFω(˙γ(t))]}2,asL→+∞. | (6.5) |
By (6.2), we have that when ω(˙γ(t))≠0,
||˙γ||Σ1,L∼L12|ω(˙γ(t))|,asL→+∞. | (6.6) |
By (6.1) and (6.2), we have
⟨∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩Σ1,L∼M0L, | (6.7) |
where M0 does not depend on L.
By (3.7), (6.5)–(6.7), we get (6.3). When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0, we have
||∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ||2L,Σ1∼C0:={¯q[F′˙γ1−F¨γ1F2−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3¯fF)+˙γ22F2(F1+F3fF)]−¯p[F′˙γ2−F¨γ2F2+˙γ21F2(F2+F3¯fF)−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3fF)]}2,asL→+∞. | (6.8) |
and
||˙γ||2Σ1,L=[¯q˙γ1F−¯P˙γ2F]2, | (6.9) |
⟨∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩Σ1,L=[¯q˙γ1F−¯P˙γ2F]C0. | (6.10) |
By (6.8)–(6.10) and (3.7), we get k∞γ,Σ1=0. When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0, we have
||∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ||2L,Σ1∼L[ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]2, |
⟨∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ,˙γ⟩Σ1,L=O(1), |
so we get (6.4).
Lemma 6.2. Let Σ1⊂(M,gL) be a regular surface. Let γ:[a,b]→Σ1 be a Euclidean C2-smooth regular curve. Then
k∞,sγ,Σ1={[q˙γ2(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+F3f¯qω(˙γ(t))]+[¯P˙γ1(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)−F3f¯Pω(˙γ(t))]}|Fω(˙γ(t))|−1,ifω(˙γ(t))≠0, | (6.11) |
k∞,sγ,Σ1=0,ifω(˙γ(t))=0,andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0, |
limL→+∞kL,sγ,Σ1√L=|ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))|[¯q˙γ1F−¯P˙γ2F]2,ifω(˙γ(t))=0andddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0. | (6.12) |
Proof. By (3.3) and (6.2), we have
JL(˙γ)=lLlL12ω(˙γ(t))e1+[¯q˙γ1F−¯p˙γ2F]e2. | (6.13) |
By (6.1) and (6.13), we have
⟨∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ,JL(˙γ)⟩L,Σ1=lLLL12ω(˙γ(t)){¯q[F′˙γ1−F¨γ1F2−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3¯fF)+˙γ22F2(F1+F3fF)]+¯q[−F3˙γ1F2+˙γ2LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))−¯p[F′˙γ2−F¨γ2F2+˙γ21F2(F2+F3¯fF)−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3fF)]+¯p[−F3˙γ2F2−˙γ1LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+¯fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))}+[¯q˙γ1F−¯p˙γ2F]{¯rL¯p[F′˙γ1−F¨γ1F2−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3¯fF)+˙γ22F2(F1+F3fF)]+¯rL¯p[−F3˙γ1F2+˙γ2LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))+¯rL¯q[F′˙γ2−F¨γ2F2+˙γ21F2(F2+F3¯fF)−˙γ1˙γ2F2(F2+F3fF)]+¯rL¯q[−F3˙γ2F2−˙γ1LF(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)+¯fLF3Fω(˙γ(t))]ω(˙γ(t))−llLL12[(˙γ22+˙γ21)F3F3L−(f˙γ1+¯f˙γ2)F3F2ω(˙γ(t))+ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))]} | (6.14) |
So by (3.17), (6.6) and (6.14), we get (6.11). When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))=0, we get
⟨∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ,JL(˙γ)⟩L,Σ1∼M0L−12asL→+∞. | (6.15) |
So k∞,sγ,Σ1=0. When ω(˙γ(t))=0 and ddt(ω(˙γ(t)))≠0, we have
⟨∇Σ1,L˙γ˙γ,JL(˙γ)⟩L,Σ1∼L12[¯P˙γ2F−¯q˙γ1F]ddt(ω(˙γ(t))),asL→+∞. | (6.16) |
So we get (6.12).
In the following, we compute the sub-Riemannian limit of the Riemannian Gaussian curvature of surfaces in the generalized BCV spaces. Similarly to Theorem 4.3 in [3], we have
Theorem 6.3. The second fundamental form IIL1 of the embedding of Σ1 into (M,gL) is given by
IIL1=(h11,h12h21,h22), | (6.17) |
where
h11=llL[X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)]−¯qL(F2+F3¯fF)−¯pL(F1+F3fF)+¯rLL−12F3F, |
h12=h21=−lLl⟨e1,∇H(¯rL)⟩L−12L12(fF2−F1¯f+¯f′F−Ff′), |
h22=−l2l2L⟨e2,∇H(rl)⟩L+~X3(¯rL)−¯pLfF3F−¯qL¯fF3F−¯rLF3FL−12. |
Proof. By lemma 5.1 and (3.2),
∇Le1e1=∇L(¯qX1−¯pX2)(¯qX1−¯pX2)=[¯qX1(¯q)−¯pX2(¯p)+¯p¯q(F2+F3¯fF)+¯p2(F1+F3fF)]X1−[¯qX1(¯p)−¯pX2(¯p)−¯q2(F2+F3¯fF)−¯p¯q(F2+F3fF)]X2+F3FL−12~X3. | (6.18) |
Then
h11=−⟨∇Le1e1,VL⟩L=−¯pL[¯qX1(¯q)−¯pX2(¯p)]+¯qL[¯qX1(¯p)−¯pX2(¯p)]−¯qL(F2+F3¯fF)−¯pL(F1+F3fF)+¯rLL−12F3F=llL[X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)]−¯qL(F2+F3¯fF)−¯pL(F1+F3fF)+¯rLL−12F3F. | (6.19) |
Similarly,
∇Le1e2=∇L(¯qX1−¯pX2)(¯rL¯pX1+¯rL¯qX2−llL~X3)=[¯qX1(¯rL¯p)−¯pX2(¯rL¯p)+(fF2−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)¯pL√L2−¯rL¯pq(F1+F3fF)−¯rL¯q2(F2+F3¯fF)+¯qLF3FL−12]X1+[¯qX1(¯q)−¯pX2(¯q)+(fF2−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)¯qL√L2−¯rL¯pq(F2+F3¯fF)+¯rL¯p2(F1+F3fF)+¯pLF3FL−12]X2+[¯pX2(llL)−¯qX1(llL)+(fF2−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)¯rL√L2]~X3. | (6.20) |
Then
h12=−⟨∇Le1e2,VL⟩L=−llL[¯qX1(¯rL)−¯pX2(¯rL)]+¯rL[¯qX1(llL)−¯pX2(llL)]−12L12(fF2−F1¯f+¯f′F−Ff′)=−lLl⟨e1,∇H(¯rL)⟩L−12L12(fF2−F1¯f+¯f′F−Ff′). | (6.21) |
Since
⟨∇Le2VL,e1⟩L=−⟨∇Le2e1,VL⟩L=−⟨∇Le1e2+[e2,e1],VL⟩L=−⟨∇Le1e2,VL⟩=⟨∇Le1VL,e2⟩L. | (6.22) |
Then,
h21=h12=−lLl⟨e1,∇H(¯rL)⟩L−12L12(fF2−F1¯f+¯f′F−Ff′). | (6.23) |
Since
∇Le2e2=∇L(¯rL¯pX1+¯rL¯qX2−llL~X3)(¯rL¯pX1+¯rL¯qX2−llL~X3)=[¯qX1(¯rL¯p)−¯pX2(¯rL¯p)+(fF2−F1¯f+¯f′F−Ff′)¯qL√L−¯rL2¯pq(F2+F3¯fF)+¯rL¯pLF3FL−12+¯rL2¯q2(F1+F3fF)+(llL)2F3fF]X1+[¯qX1(¯q)−¯pX2(¯q)+(fF2−F1¯f+¯f′F−Ff′)¯pL√L+¯rL2¯pq(F2+F3¯fF)−¯rL¯qLF3FL−12−¯rL2¯pq(F1+F3fF)+(llL)2F3¯fFX2+[¯pX2(llL)−¯qX1(llL)+¯rL2¯pqF3fFL−12+¯rL2¯q2F3FL−12+¯rL¯pLfF3F+¯rL¯qL¯fF3F]~X3. | (6.24) |
Then,
h22=−⟨∇Le2e2,VL⟩L=−¯prlX1(¯rL)−¯qrlX2(¯rL)+~X3(¯rL)−¯pLfF3F−¯qL¯fF3F−¯rLF3FL−12=−l2l2L⟨e2,∇H(rl)⟩L+~X3(¯rL)−¯pLfF3F−¯qL¯fF3F−¯rLF3FL−12. | (6.25) |
Similar to Proposition 3.8, we have
Proposition 6.4. Away from characteristic points, the horizontal mean curvature H1∞ of Σ1⊂M is given by
H1∞=−(¯pfF3F+¯q¯fF3F)+X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)−¯q(F2+F3¯fF)−¯p(F1+F3fF). | (6.26) |
By Lemma 5.1, we have
Lemma 6.5. Let M be the the generalized BCV spaces, then
RL(X1,X2)X1=[−X1(A)−X2(B)+3L4C2+F3LF2+A2+B2]X2+[−12X1(C)−X2(F3LF)+F3fCF]X3,RL(X1,X2)X2=[X1(A)+X2(B)−3L4C2−F23LF2−A2−B2]X1+[−12X2(C)+X1(F3LF)+F3¯fCF]X3,RL(X1,X2)X3=[12X2(LC)+X2(F3F)−F3fCLF]X1+[12X2(LC)−X1(F3F)−F3¯fCLF]X2,RL(X1,X3)X1=[−X1(LC2)−X3(B)+BF3F−F23f2F2]X2+[−LC24−X1(F3fF)−X3(F3LF)+F3¯fBF+F23LF2+F3f2F2]X3,RL(X1,X3)X2=[X1(LC2)+X3(B)−CF3fLF+F3¯f2F2+BF3F]X1+[−X1(F3¯fF)−12X3(C)+F3CF−fF3BF+F3f¯fF2]X3,RL(X1,X3)X3=[X1(LF3fF)+X3(F3F)−F3¯fLFB+L2C24−F23F2−LF23f2F2]X1+[X1(LF3¯fF)−LCF3F+X3(LC2)+F3fLFB−LF23f¯fF2]X2,RL(X2,X3)X1=[−X2(LC2)+X3(A)+F3¯fLCF+fF23F2−AF3F]X2+[−X2(fF3F)−CF3F+X3(C2)−F3¯fAF+F23f¯fF2]X3,RL(X2,X3)X2=[X2(LC2)−X3(A)−F3¯fLCF−fF23F2+AF3F]X1+[−X2(¯fF3F)+AfF3F−X3(F3FL)−LC24+F23F2L+F23¯f2F2]X3,RL(X2,X3)X3=[X2(LF3f2)−X3(LC2)+AF3¯fLF−Lf¯fF23F2+LCF3F]X2+[X2(LF3¯f2)+X3(F3F)−AF3fLF+L2C24+LF23¯f2F2−F23F2]X3. | (6.27) |
where
(F1+F3fF)=A,(F2+F3¯fF)=B,(F2f−F1¯f+F¯f′−Ff′)=C. |
Proposition 6.6. Away from characteristic points, we have
KΣ1,∞(e1,e2)=−C⟨e1,∇H(X3u|∇Hu|)⟩+¯N+O(L−12). | (6.28) |
where ¯N=N0+N,
N=−(¯pfF3F+¯q¯fF3F)[X1(¯p)+X2(¯q)−¯q(F2+F3¯fF)−¯p(F1+F3fF)], |
N0=2¯q[−12X1(C)+F3CfF]−2¯p[X1(−12X2(C)+F3C¯fF]+¯p2[X2(F3¯fF)−F3AfF−F23¯f2F2]−2¯p¯q[X1(F3¯fF)−12X3(C)+F3BfF−F3CF]+¯q2[X1(F3fF)−F3B¯fF−F23¯f2F2]. |
Proof. By (3.43) and Lemma 6.5, we have
KM,L(e1,e2)=¯rL2[X1(A)+X2(B)−3LC24−F23F2L−A2−B2]+2llL¯q¯rLL12[−12X1(C)−X2(F3FL)+F3CfF]−2llL¯p¯rLL12[X1(F3FL)−12X2(C)+F3C¯fF]−2l2l2L¯p¯q[X1(F3¯fF)−12X3(C)+F3BfF−F3CF]+l2l2L¯q2[LC24+X1(F3fF)−F3B¯fF+X3(F3FL)−F23F2L−F23¯f2F2]+l2l2L¯p2[LC24+X2(F3¯fF)−F3AfF+X3(F3FL)−F23F2L−F23¯f2F2]∼LC24+N0,asL→+∞. | (6.29) |
Similar to (3.45), we have
det(IIL1)=h11h22−h12h21=−LC24−C⟨e1,∇H(X3u|∇Hu|)⟩+N+O(L−12)asL→+∞. | (6.30) |
By (6.21) and (6.22), we have (6.20).
Similar to (4.2) and (4.5), for the generalized BCV spaces, we have
limL→+∞1√LdsL=ds,limL→+∞1√LdσΣ1,L=dσΣ1. | (6.31) |
By (6.20), (6.23) and Lemma 6.2, similar to the proof of Theorem 1 in [1], we have
Theorem 6.7. Let Σ1⊂(M,gL) be a regular surface with finitely many boundary components (∂Σ1)i, i∈{1,⋯,n}, given by Euclidean C2-smooth regular and closed curves γi:[0,2π]→(∂Σ1)i. Suppose that the characteristic set C(Σ1) satisfies H1(C(Σ1))=0 and that ||∇Hu||−1H is locally summable with respect to the Euclidean 2-dimensional Hausdorff measure near the characteristic set C(Σ1), then
∫Σ1KΣ1,∞dσΣ1+n∑i=1∫γik∞,sγi,Σ1ds=0. | (6.32) |
Example 6.8. Let F=1,f=−x22,¯f=x21. Consider M={(x1,x2,x3)∈R3∣F>0}=R3, let u=x21+x22+x23−1 and ∑1=S2. ∑1 is a regular surface. By (4.1), we get
X1(u)=2x1−2x22x3;X2(u)=2x2+2x21x3. | (6.33) |
Solve the equations X1(u)=X2(u)=0, then we get C(Σ)={(0,0,1),(0,0,−1)} and H1(C(Σ1))=0. A parametrization of Σ is
x1=cos(ϕ)cos(θ),x2=cos(ϕ)sin(θ),x3=sin(ϕ),forϕ∈(−π2,π2),θ∈[0,2π). | (6.34) |
Then
‖∇Hu‖2H=X1(u)2+X2(u)2=4(x21+x22)+4(x41+x42)x23=4cos(ϕ)2+4sin(ϕ)2cos(ϕ)4(cos(θ)4+sin(θ)4). | (6.35) |
By the definitions of wj for 1≤j≤3 and (6.23), we have
dσΣ1=1‖∇Hu‖H[(X1(u))dx2−(X2(u))dx1]∧(dx3+x22dx1−x21dx2)=1‖∇Hu‖H[2cos(ϕ)3+2sin(ϕ)2cos(ϕ)5(cos(θ)4+sin(θ)4)−4cos(ϕ)4sin(θ)2sin(ϕ)cos(θ)+4cos(ϕ)4sin(θ)sin(ϕ)cos(θ)2]dθ∧dϕ. | (6.36) |
By (6.27) and (6.28), we have ‖∇Hu‖−1H is locally summable around the isolated characteristic points with respect to the measure dσΣ1.
Firstly, We give some basic definitions of two kinds of spaces, such as 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5. By computation, we get sub-Riemannian limits of Gaussian curvature for a Euclidean C2-smooth surface in the generalized affine group and the generalized BCV spaces away from characteristic points and signed geodesic curvature for Euclidean C2-smooth curves on surfaces, respectively. Then, by the second fundamental form IIL and the Gauss equation KΣ,L(e1,e2)=KL(e1,e2)+det(IIL), we find the gauss curvature on the surface is convergent in two cases. Therefore, a good result is obtained. Finally, we give the proof of Gauss-Bonnet theorems in the generalized affine group and the generalized BCV spaces.
The second author was supported in part by NSFC No.11771070. The authors are deeply grateful to the referees for their valuable comments and helpful suggestions.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] |
Bronk Ramsey C (2008) Radiocarbon dating: revolutions in understanding. Archaeometry 50: 249-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00394.x doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4754.2008.00394.x
![]() |
[2] | Libby WF (1961) Radiocarbon dating. Science 133: 621-629. |
[3] |
Heaton T, Bard E, Bronk Ramsey C, et al. (2021) Radiocarbon: A key tracer for studying Earth's dynamo, climate system, carbon cycle, and Sun. Science 374: eabd7096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd7096 doi: 10.1126/science.abd7096
![]() |
[4] |
Siegenthaler U, Heimann M, Oeschger H (1980) 14C variations caused by changes in the global carbon cycle. Radiocarbon 22: 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200009449 doi: 10.1017/S0033822200009449
![]() |
[5] |
Guilderson TP, Reimer PJ, Brown TA (2005) The boon and bane of radiocarbon dating. Science 307: 362-364. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1104164 doi: 10.1126/science.1104164
![]() |
[6] |
Clark RM (1975) A calibration curve for radiocarbon dates. Antiquity 49: 251-266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00070277 doi: 10.1017/S0003598X00070277
![]() |
[7] |
Bronk Ramsey C (1995) Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37: 425-430. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200030903 doi: 10.1017/S0033822200030903
![]() |
[8] |
Buck CE, Kenworthy JB, Litton CD, et al. (1991) Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65: 808-821. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00080534 doi: 10.1017/S0003598X00080534
![]() |
[9] |
Yu SY, Chen X, Fang Z, et al. (2021) Towards a precise timing of groundwater use in the lower Yellow River area during the late Bronze Age: Bayesian inference from the radiocarbon ages of ancient water wells at the Liang'ercun site, North China. Quat Geochronol 66: 101214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2021.101214 doi: 10.1016/j.quageo.2021.101214
![]() |
[10] |
Gómez-Paccard M, Rivero-Montero M, Chauvin A, et al. (2019) Revisiting the chronology of the Early Iron Age in the north-eastern Iberian Peninsula. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 11: 4755-4767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-019-00812-9 doi: 10.1007/s12520-019-00812-9
![]() |
[11] | Bronk Ramsey C (2001) Development of the radiocarbon program OxCal. Radiocarbon 43: 355-363. |
[12] |
Buck CE, Meson B (2015) On being a good Bayesian. World Archaeol 47: 567-584. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2015.1053977 doi: 10.1080/00438243.2015.1053977
![]() |
[13] |
Heaton TJ, Blackwell PG, Buck CE (2009) A Bayesian approach to the estimation of radiocarbon calibration curves: the IntCal09 methodology. Radiocarbon 51: 1151-1164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200034214 doi: 10.1017/S0033822200034214
![]() |
[14] |
Nicholls G, Jones M (2001) Radiocarbon dating with temporal order constraints. J R Stat Soc 50: 503-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9876.00250 doi: 10.1111/1467-9876.00250
![]() |
[15] |
Guntau M (1989) Concepts of natural law and time in the history of geology. Earth Sci Hist 8: 106-110. https://doi.org/10.17704/eshi.8.2.02w88w234323x503 doi: 10.17704/eshi.8.2.02w88w234323x503
![]() |
[16] | Harris EC (1979) The laws of archaeological stratigraphy. World Archaeol 11: 111-117. |
[17] |
Jones M, Nicholls G (2002) New radiocarbon calibration software. Radiocarbon 44: 663-674. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200032112 doi: 10.1017/S0033822200032112
![]() |
[18] |
Buck CE, Christen JA, James GN (1999) BCal: an on-line Bayesian radiocarbon calibration tool. Internet Archaeol 7: 1192-1201. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.7.1 doi: 10.11141/ia.7.1
![]() |
[19] | Yu SY (2021) Bayesian radiocarbon age modeling. Mendeley Data, V1. https://doi.org/10.17632/sfdwkyh848.1 |
[20] |
Reimer P, Baillie M, Bard E, et al. (2004) IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46: 1029-1058. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200032999 doi: 10.1017/S0033822200032999
![]() |
[21] |
Bronk Ramsey C (2009) Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51: 337-360. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200033865 doi: 10.1017/S0033822200033865
![]() |
[22] |
Christen JA, Pérez ES (2009) A new robust statistical model for radiocarbon data. Radiocarbon 51: 1047-1059. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003382220003410X doi: 10.1017/S003382220003410X
![]() |
[23] |
Gilks WR, Best NG, Tan KK (1995) Adaptive rejection Metropolis sampling within Gibbs sampling. J R Stat Soc 44: 455-472. https://doi.org/10.2307/2986138 doi: 10.2307/2986138
![]() |
[24] |
Chib S, Greenberg E (1995) Understanding the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Am Stat 49: 327-335. https://doi.org/10.2307/2684568 doi: 10.2307/2684568
![]() |
[25] |
Reimer PJ, Austin WE, Bard E, et al. (2020) The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0-55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon 62: 725-757. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.41 doi: 10.1017/RDC.2020.41
![]() |
[26] |
Hogg AG, Heaton TJ, Hua Q, et al. (2020) SHCal20 Southern Hemisphere calibration, 0-55,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 62: 759-778. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.59 doi: 10.1017/RDC.2020.59
![]() |
[27] |
Heaton TJ, Köhler P, Butzin M, et al. (2020) Marine20—the marine radiocarbon age calibration curve (0-55,000 cal BP). Radiocarbon 62: 779-820. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.68 doi: 10.1017/RDC.2020.68
![]() |
[28] | Gelman A, Inference and monitoring convergence, In: Gilks WR, Richarson S, Spiegelhalter DJ, editors. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1201/b14835 |
[29] | Yu SY (2021) MatCalib: A Matlab software package for Bayesian calibration of radiocarbon ages subject to temporal order constraints. Mendeley Data, V1. https://doi.org/10.17632/rx478cbpm5.1 |
[30] | Lougheed BC, Obrochta SP (2016) MatCal: Open source Bayesian 14C age calibration in MatLab. J Open Res Softw 4: p.e42. http://doi.org/10.5334/jors.130 |
[31] | The Institute of Archaeology (1992) Radiocarbon Dates in Chinese Archaeology (1965-1991), Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House, 488. |
[32] |
Long T, Wagner M, Tarasov PE (2017) A Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates from prehistoric sites in the Haidai Region, East China, for evaluation of the archaeological chronology. J Archaeol Sci Rep 12: 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.024 doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.01.024
![]() |
[33] |
Yu SY, Berglund BE, Sandgren P, et al. (2005) Holocene palaeoecology along the Blekinge coast, SE Sweden, and implications for climate and sea-level changes. Holocene 15: 278-292. https://doi.org/10.1191/0959683605hl792rp doi: 10.1191/0959683605hl792rp
![]() |
[34] |
Yu SY, Berglund B, Sandgren P, et al. (2007) Evidence for a rapid sea-level rise 7600 yr ago. Geology 35: 891-894. https://doi.org/10.1130/G23859A.1 doi: 10.1130/G23859A.1
![]() |
[35] |
Alves EQ, Macario K, Ascough P, et al. (2018) The worldwide marine radiocarbon reservoir effect: definitions, mechanisms, and prospects. Rev Geophys 56: 278-305. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000588 doi: 10.1002/2017RG000588
![]() |
[36] |
Blaauw M (2010) Methods and code for 'classical' age-modelling of radiocarbon sequences. Quat Geochronol 5: 512-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2010.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.quageo.2010.01.002
![]() |
[37] |
Bronk Ramsey C (2008) Deposition models for chronological records. Quat Sci Rev 27: 42-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.019 doi: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2007.01.019
![]() |
[38] |
Lougheed BC, Obrochta S (2019) A papid, deterministic age-depth modeling routine for geological sequences with inherent depth uncertainty. Paleoceanography Paleoclimatology 34: 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018PA003457 doi: 10.1029/2018PA003457
![]() |
[39] |
Haslett J, Parnell A (2008) A simple monotone process with application to radiocarbon-dated depth chronologies. J R Stat Soc 57: 399-418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9876.2008.00623.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9876.2008.00623.x
![]() |
[40] |
Blaauw M, Christen JA (2011) Flexible paleoclimate age-depth models using an autoregressive gamma process. Bayesian Anal 6: 457-474. https://doi.org/10.1214/11-BA618 doi: 10.1214/11-BA618
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |