Are complete minimal submanifolds closed?












1












$begingroup$


Is it true that any complete minimal submanifold of some Riemannian manifold is closed as a subset?
What about the case in which the ambient manifold is an euclidean space?






riemannian-geometry smooth-manifolds minimal-surfaces







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    1












    $begingroup$


    Is it true that any complete minimal submanifold of some Riemannian manifold is closed as a subset?
    What about the case in which the ambient manifold is an euclidean space?






    riemannian-geometry smooth-manifolds minimal-surfaces







    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      Is it true that any complete minimal submanifold of some Riemannian manifold is closed as a subset?
      What about the case in which the ambient manifold is an euclidean space?






      riemannian-geometry smooth-manifolds minimal-surfaces







      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Is it true that any complete minimal submanifold of some Riemannian manifold is closed as a subset?
      What about the case in which the ambient manifold is an euclidean space?






      riemannian-geometry smooth-manifolds minimal-surfaces




      riemannian-geometry smooth-manifolds minimal-surfaces






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 5 hours ago









      ValentinoValentino

      1275




      1275






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          It depends on what you mean by submanifold (at least for surfaces in three dimensional ambient spaces).



          Nadirashvilli constructed an example of a complete minimal immersion into the unit ball in $mathbb{R}^3$. In particular, this immersion is not proper and so the image is not a closed subset of $mathbb{R}^3$. In contrast, Colding-Minicozzi showed that any complete embedded minimal surface in $mathbb{R}^3$ (i.e. a two dimensional submanifold of $mathbb{R}^3$ in the usual sense) that has finite topology must be properly embedded and hence be a closed subset. This has been extended in various ways by Meeks-Perez-Ros. There are still a number of difficult open problems about exactly how general this phenomena is -- e.g. is it true for surfaces of finite genus? Any complete embedded minimal surface?






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f323476%2fare-complete-minimal-submanifolds-closed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4












            $begingroup$

            It depends on what you mean by submanifold (at least for surfaces in three dimensional ambient spaces).



            Nadirashvilli constructed an example of a complete minimal immersion into the unit ball in $mathbb{R}^3$. In particular, this immersion is not proper and so the image is not a closed subset of $mathbb{R}^3$. In contrast, Colding-Minicozzi showed that any complete embedded minimal surface in $mathbb{R}^3$ (i.e. a two dimensional submanifold of $mathbb{R}^3$ in the usual sense) that has finite topology must be properly embedded and hence be a closed subset. This has been extended in various ways by Meeks-Perez-Ros. There are still a number of difficult open problems about exactly how general this phenomena is -- e.g. is it true for surfaces of finite genus? Any complete embedded minimal surface?






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              4












              $begingroup$

              It depends on what you mean by submanifold (at least for surfaces in three dimensional ambient spaces).



              Nadirashvilli constructed an example of a complete minimal immersion into the unit ball in $mathbb{R}^3$. In particular, this immersion is not proper and so the image is not a closed subset of $mathbb{R}^3$. In contrast, Colding-Minicozzi showed that any complete embedded minimal surface in $mathbb{R}^3$ (i.e. a two dimensional submanifold of $mathbb{R}^3$ in the usual sense) that has finite topology must be properly embedded and hence be a closed subset. This has been extended in various ways by Meeks-Perez-Ros. There are still a number of difficult open problems about exactly how general this phenomena is -- e.g. is it true for surfaces of finite genus? Any complete embedded minimal surface?






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                4












                4








                4





                $begingroup$

                It depends on what you mean by submanifold (at least for surfaces in three dimensional ambient spaces).



                Nadirashvilli constructed an example of a complete minimal immersion into the unit ball in $mathbb{R}^3$. In particular, this immersion is not proper and so the image is not a closed subset of $mathbb{R}^3$. In contrast, Colding-Minicozzi showed that any complete embedded minimal surface in $mathbb{R}^3$ (i.e. a two dimensional submanifold of $mathbb{R}^3$ in the usual sense) that has finite topology must be properly embedded and hence be a closed subset. This has been extended in various ways by Meeks-Perez-Ros. There are still a number of difficult open problems about exactly how general this phenomena is -- e.g. is it true for surfaces of finite genus? Any complete embedded minimal surface?






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                It depends on what you mean by submanifold (at least for surfaces in three dimensional ambient spaces).



                Nadirashvilli constructed an example of a complete minimal immersion into the unit ball in $mathbb{R}^3$. In particular, this immersion is not proper and so the image is not a closed subset of $mathbb{R}^3$. In contrast, Colding-Minicozzi showed that any complete embedded minimal surface in $mathbb{R}^3$ (i.e. a two dimensional submanifold of $mathbb{R}^3$ in the usual sense) that has finite topology must be properly embedded and hence be a closed subset. This has been extended in various ways by Meeks-Perez-Ros. There are still a number of difficult open problems about exactly how general this phenomena is -- e.g. is it true for surfaces of finite genus? Any complete embedded minimal surface?







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 3 hours ago

























                answered 5 hours ago









                RBega2RBega2

                52629




                52629






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f323476%2fare-complete-minimal-submanifolds-closed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

                    Image
                    5 This question already has an answer here: How do you calculate the likelihood of drawing certain cards in your opening hand? 3 answers There is a funny modern deck where you play Treasure Hunt, but you really need to have it on the starting hand. How many mulligans should I take, if my deck contains 60 cards and contains 4 copies of Treasure Hunt? magic-the-gathering probability share | improve this question asked Nov 23 '18 at 12:12 dan dan 152 4
                    Read more

                    Alcedinidae

                    Image
                    Alcedinidae Martin-pêcheur à dos bleu ( Alcedo azurea ) Classification (COI) Règne Animalia Embranchement Chordata Sous-embr. Vertebrata Classe Aves Ordre Coraciiformes Famille Alcedinidae Rafinesque, 1815 Les Alcédinidés ou Alcedinidae forment une famille d'oiseaux plus connus sous les noms de martins-pêcheurs et martins-chasseurs. Sommaire 1 Description 2 Répartition et habitat 3 Systématique 3.1 Liste alphabétique des genres 3.2 Liste des espèces 4 Chez les Anciens : l'alcyon 4.1 Étymologie (Littré) 4.2 Oiseau « fabuleux » ? 5 Notes 6 Articles connexes 7 Liens externes 7.1 Bibliographie Description | Ce sont des oiseaux compacts de taille petite à moyenne (10 à 46 cm), au bec droit et long, en forme de poignard. Leurs pattes sont courtes, et ils portent un plumage aux couleurs vives. Répartition et habitat | Cosmopolites, ils fréquentent surtout
                    Read more

                    Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]

                    Image
                    9 $begingroup$ This question already has an answer here: What happens if we put together a proton and an antineutron? 2 answers Is it theoretically possible to make a "deuterium" atom containing a proton and an antineutron in its nucleus? Would the strong nuclear force cause attraction between a proton and an antineutron? Would such a nucleus be stable, or would the proton somehow annihilate the antineutron when close enough? nuclear-physics antimatter share | cite | improve this question asked yesterday
                    Read more