Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FLOW
Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Existence y uniqueness 12
3. Evolution of the Geometry by the Mean Curvature Flow 18
4. A comparison principle for parabolic PDE’s 31
5. Graphical submanifolds. Comparison Principle and
Consequences 34
6. Area Estimates and Monotonicity Formulas 52
7. Some Remarks About Singularities 72
References 74
1. Introduction
In other words, we get that the mean curvature flow is the correspond-
ing gradient flow for the area functional:
and the equality holds if and only if the manifold is isometric to the
canonical slice of the Schwarzschild spacetime. Note that this charac-
terizes the canonical slice of Schwarzschild as the unique minimizer of
m among all such 3-manifolds admitting an outermost horizon of area
A.
For a more precise explanation about the physical interpretation of
the inequality we recommend [MS13]. In these notes, we will focus on
the mathematical aspects of the Riemannian Penrose inequality and
how the ICMF has been a key tool in their demonstration.
Consider (N 3 , g = (gij )) a Riemannian 3-manifold. Assume N is
asymptotically flat which means that:
Then r
Area(M )
m≥ ,
16π
where M is any connected component of ∂N . Moreover, equality holds
iff N is isometric to one-half of the spatial Schwarzschild manifold.
Dφ
(1.6) divN = |Dφ|
|Dφ|
They were able to overcome the problem that the evolving surface can
become singular before reaching infinity by formulating and analysing a
suitable weak notion of the solution of (1.6). These weak solutions are
locally Lipschitz continuous functions and the treatment was inspired
in a work of Evans and Spruck on the MCF [ES91].
It appears that neither (1.5) is a gradient flow nor (1.6) is an Euler-
Langrange equation. The idea of these two authors consists of freezing
|Dφ| in the right-hand side of (1.6) and consider (1.6) as the Euler-
Lagrange equation of the functional:
Z
K
Jφ (ψ) = Jφ (ψ) := (|Dψ| + ψ|Dφ|) d µ,
K
where K is a compact subset of N .
Definition 1.3 (Weak solution). Let φ a locally Lipschitz function on
the open set Ω ⊆ N . Then we say that φ is a weakk solution of (1.6)
on Ω provided
JφK (φ) ≤ JφK (ψ),
for all ψ locally Lipschitz and such that {ψ 6= φ} ⊂⊂ Ω, where we are
integrating over any compact {ψ 6= φ} ⊆ K ⊂ Ω.
Hawking already noticed that mH approaches the ADM mass for large
coordinate spheres.
r
Area(M )
If M is minimal then mH (M ) is precisely . Moreover, the
16π
Hawking mass has an especially nice behavior respect to the inverse
MCF:
Taking these properties into account the proof of the case of a connected
horizon (M = ∂N connected) works as follows. We move M by the
IMCF, obtaining a family of compact surfaces Mt which collapses at
the point of infinity. By the monotonicity formula, we know that
r
Area(M )
mH (Mt ) ≥ mH (M ) = ,
16π
(recall that M is minimal.) For t big enough, we have that mh (Mt )
approximates the ADM mass m, so
r
Area(M )
m ≈ mH (Mt ) ≥ .
16π
Moreover, the equality holds iff mH (Mt ) is constant along the flow, i.e.
its derivative vanishes. According to Property III, this only happens
for standard expanding spheres in Schwarzschild’s example.
Finally, we would like to mention that the inequality was proven in full
generality (non-connected horizon) by Bray [Bra01] using a conformal
flow of the initial Riemannian metric, and the positive mass theorem
[SY79].
2. Existence y uniqueness
associated to the smooth family of immersions {Ft }t∈[0,T ) like, for in-
stance Mt := F (M, t), the mean curvature vector H ~ t (p) := H(p,
~ t), etc.
For simplicity in the computations, we will often suppress the subscript
t when no confusion is possible.
where the second equality has taken into account the identification
between the fields ∂x∂ i and ∂x
∂F
i
given by F . We have also used that
¯
∇X̄ Ȳ = DX̄ Ȳ where D means the standard directional derivative in
Rn+c .
Recall that the mean curvature vector can be computed in terms of
the connection as follows3:
⊥
~ = g ∇
ij ¯ ∂F ∂F
H .
∂xi ∂x
j
2We
are considering dF as a map fromn+c
∂
X(U ) into X(F (U )), in such a way that
dF ∂xican be seen as a local field on R .
3Given a vector v ∈ Rn+c and p ∈ M we can decompose v = v> + v⊥ where
⊥
v> ∈ Tp M and v⊥ ∈ (Tp M )
14 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
∂ ij ¯ ∂F ij ¯ ∂F ∂F ∂F
F (p) = g ∇ ∂F − g ∇ ∂F , g kl ,
∂t ∂xi ∂x
j ∂xi ∂x
j ∂xk ∂xl
taking into account that ∇ ¯ ∂F ∂F = ∂ 2 F we obtain
∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj
2 2
∂ ij ∂ F ij ∂ F ∂F ∂F
F (p) = g − g , g kl .
∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xk ∂xl
If we express the previous equation in coordinates we get:
2 α n+k
∂ α ij ∂ F ij kl
X ∂ 2 F β ∂F β ∂F α
F (p) = g −g g ,
∂t ∂xi ∂xj β=1
∂xi ∂xj ∂xk ∂xl
Notice that the map F : M n → Rn+c does not have a well defined
Laplacian. However, it makes sense to define the laplacian of each com-
ponent F α . So, we define the laplacian of F as ∆F := (∆F 1 , ∆F 2 , . . . , ∆F n+c ).
Analogously, we can define also the hessian of F .
Bearing this in mind, we have that
2 ∂F ∂F ∂F ∂F ∂F
∇F , = (F ) − ∇ ∂F (F ) =
∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂x
j
∂ ∂ ∂F
= (F ) − ∇ ∂F (F ) =
∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂x
j
∂ 2F
∂F
= − ∇ ∂F (F )
∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂x
j
Using this expression we will prove the existence of the mean curva-
ture flow for a small time period in the case of compact manifolds. In
the demonstration, we will use a technique known as “de Turck trick”.
As we shall see, this trick consists of reducing the original problem to
a strictly parabolic quasilinear problem.
solution of (2.3) (for now, we are assuming that such a solution exists.)
Using the chain rule and (2.3) we compute ∂F ∂t
t
(p):
∂ϕt
= −V,
∂t
ϕ0 = id .
This is a initial value problem for a system of ODE’s and so we can find
a solution. Moreover, taking T > 0 small enough we can assume that
ϕt is a diffeomorphism, for any t ∈ [0, T ]. This is due to the fact that
the initial data is a diffeomorphism (the identity) and the fact that the
diffeomorphisms from a compact manifold into itself form a stable class
(see again [GP74, p. 35].)
Hence, Ft (p) = F̃ (ϕt (p), t) verifies:
∂Ft
(p) = ∆g(t) F̃ (ϕt (p), t) = ∆g(t) Ft (p),
∂t
∂p ~ 2 det g,
p
(3.2) det g = −|H|
∂t
∂ ∂
where Aij := II ∂xi , ∂xj and II(·, ·) denotes the second fundamental
form of the corresponding immersion.
Proof. As all the computations are local, then we can assume that F
is an embedding.
Given a vector field X̄ in Rn+c we shall write:
¯ i X̄ := ∇
∇ ¯ ∂F X̄, ¯ t X̄ := ∇
∇ ¯ ∂F X̄.
∂xi ∂t
Using Schwarz’s formula, the MCF equation and the symmetry of the
Levi-Civita connection, one has
∂ ∂ ∂F ∂F ¯t ∂F ∂F ∂F ¯t ∂F
gij = , = ∇ , + ,∇ =
∂t ∂t ∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj
¯ ∂F ∂F ∂F ¯ ∂F
= ∇i , + , ∇j =
∂t ∂xj ∂xi ∂t
¯ ~ ∂F ∂F ¯ ~
= ∇i (H), + , ∇j (H) .
∂xj ∂xi
∂F
As ∂x ~ is normal to M , then H,
is tangent to M and H ~ ∂F = 0. In
j ∂xj
particular,
∂ ~ ∂F ¯ ~ ∂F ~ ¯ ∂F
0= H, = ∇i (H), + H, ∇i =
∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xj
¯ i (H),
~ ∂F ~ ∇
¯ ∂F ∂F
= ∇ + H, .
∂xj ∂xi ∂x
j
Therefore
¯ ~ ∂F ~ ¯ ∂F
∇i (H), = − H, ∇ ∂F .
∂xj ∂xi ∂x
j
20 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
~ 2,
= −2(det g)|H|
~ in local coordinates.
where we have used the expression of H
Therefore,
∂p 1 ∂ 1 ~ 2 = −|H|
~ 2 det g.
p
det g = √ det g = √ (−2)(det g)|H|
∂t 2 det g ∂t 2 det g
5This
p
is a simplified notation, we should write det gij (p, t).
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 21
6To get the existence of a set of normal coordinates we only need that the con-
nection is symmetric, not necessarily torsion free.
22 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
Recall that h2ij = hil g lm hmj , h3uv = huk g ki hil g lm hmv , and |h| =
(g ij g kl hik hjl )1/2 is the norm of the tensor h with respect to the metric
g.
First we prove ∆hij = ∇2ij H + Hh2ij − |h|2 hij .
As we are working in normal coordinates around p,
∆hij = g kl (∇Ek ∇El hij − ∇∇Ek El hij ) = δkl ∇Ek ∇El hij = ∇Ek ∇Ek hij .
In the abbreviated form we write ∆hij = ∇k ∇k hij .
On the other hand, from the Codazzi equation, we have
(3.5) ∇k hij = ∇i hkj .
Thus, we get ∆hij = ∇k ∇i hkj .
It is not hard to check that ∇k ∇i hkj = ∇i ∇k hkj + Rikjα hαk + Rikkβ hβj ,
where R(Ei , Ek , Ej , Eα ) = Rikjα and similarly for R̄. Taking into ac-
count that the ambience space is Euclidean, the Gauß equation gives:
0 − Rikjα = hAij , Akα i − hAiα , Akj i,
that is,
Rikjα = hAiα , Akj i − hAij , Akα i.
By definition, we have Aij = hij ν and taking into account that hν, νi =
1, then we obtain
Rikjα = hAiα , Akj i − hAij , Akα i =
= hiα hkj hν, νi − hij hkα hν, νi = hiα hkj − hij hkα .
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 23
Analogously,
Rikkβ = hiβ hkk − hik hkβ .
Therefore
∆hij = ∇i ∇k hkj + Rikjα hαk + Rikkβ hβj =
= ∇i ∇k hkj + (hiα hkj − hij hkα )hαk + (hiβ hkk − hik hkβ )hβj =
= ∇i ∇j hkk + hiα hkj hαk − hij hkα hαk + hiβ hkk hβj − hik hkβ hβj .
In the last equality we have used the symmetry of h and (3.5):
∇k hkj = ∇k hjk = ∇j hkk .
Recalling that we are using normal coordinates around p, we deduce
H = g ij hij = δij hij = hii ,
|h|2 = g ij g kl hik hjl = δij δkl hik hjl = hik hik ,
h2ij = hil g lm hmj = hil δlm hmj = hil hlj ,
including all this facts in our previous computations, we get
∆hij = ∇i ∇j hkk + hiα h2αj − hij |h|2 + Hh2ij − hik h2kj =
= ∇i ∇j H + Hh2ij − |h|2 hij =
= ∇2ij H + Hh2ij − |h|2 hij ,
this concludes the proof of the first identity.
Now we want to prove that
1 2
∆|h|2 = hij ∇2ij H + ∇h + H Trace(h3 ) − |h|4 .
2
2
X
∇h = |∇hij |2
i,j
X X
= h∇hij , Er iEr , h∇hkl , Es iEs
i,j k,l
X X
= h∇hij , Er i h∇hkl , Es i hEr , Es i
i,j,r k,l,s
X X
= h∇hij , Er i h∇hij , Es i δrs
i,j,r i,j,s
X 2
= h∇hij , Er i
i,j,r
X 2
= Er (hij )
i,j,r
X 2
= ∇r hij ,
i,j,r
Therefore,
1 2
∆|h|2 = hij ∇2ij H + ∇h + H Trace(h3 ) − |h|4 ,
2
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 25
as we wanted to prove.
Theorem 3.5 (Evolution of the extrinsic geometry). In our set-
ting we have:
∂ ∂H ∂F ij
(3.6) ν=− g = −∇H
∂t ∂xi ∂xj
∂
(3.7) hij = ∆hij − 2Hh2ij + |h|2 hij
∂t
∂
(3.8) H = ∆H + |h|2 H
∂t
∂ 2 2
(3.9) |h| = ∆|h|2 − 2 ∇h + 2|h|4 .
∂t
∂F
Proof. Along this proof, we will denote Ei = ∂xi
.
∂ ∂H ∂F ij
i) Let us prove that ∂t ν = − ∂x i ∂xj
g .
∂
We start by decomposing the vector ∂t ν in the base {Ei },
∂ ij ∂ ij ¯
ν=g ν, Ei Ej = g ∇t ν, Ei Ej =
∂t ∂t
ij ∂ ¯
=g hν, Ei i − ν, ∇t Ei Ej =
∂t
∂
ν ⊥ Ei , implies ∂t ¯ t Ei =
hν, Ei i = 0. Moreover, we know that ∇
¯t
∇ ∂F
=∇¯i = ∇
∂F ¯ iH~ =∇ ¯ i H,
~ which implies
∂xi ∂t
¯ i HiE
= −g ij hν, ∇ ~ j=
ij ∂ ~ − h∇ ¯ i ν, Hi
~ Ej =
= −g hν, Hi
∂xi
At this point, we use that hν, Hi~ = hν, Hνi = Hhν, νi = H ·1 = H,
¯ ~ ¯
and h∇i ν, Hi = h∇i ν, Hνi = Hh∇ ¯ i ν, νi = H · 0 = 0 and so:
∂H ∂F
= −g ij .
∂xi ∂xj
∂
In order to prove that ∂t ν = −∇H we only have to remember
∂f ∂
that, given a smooth function f then ∇f = g ij ∂x i ∂xj
. Applying
26 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
¯ t∇
∇ ¯ i Ej = ∇
¯ i∇
¯ t Ej = ∇ ¯ t ∂F = ∇
¯ i∇ ¯ j ∂F = ∇
¯ i∇ ¯ i∇
¯ jH
~ =
∂xj ∂t
=∇¯ i∇
¯ j (Hν).
¯ t ν = ∂ ν = −g rs ∂H Es ,
∇
∂t ∂xr
which gives
∂ ¯ ¯ t∇
¯ i Ej , νi + h∇
¯ i Ej , ∇
¯ t νi =
h∇i Ej , νi = h∇
∂t
¯ i∇
= h∇ ¯ j (Hν), νi + h∇ ¯ i Ej , −g rs ∂H Es i.
∂xr
Summarizing, we have
∂ ∂ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ rs ∂H
hij = h∇ i Ej , νi = h∇i ∇j (Hν), νi + h∇i Ej , −g Es i.
∂t ∂t ∂xr
Moreover,
¯ i Ej , −g rs ∂H Es i = −g rs ∂H h∇
h∇ ¯ i Ej , Es i = −g rs ∂H h(∇ ¯ i Ej )> , Es i =
∂xr ∂xr ∂xr
∂H ∂H k
= −g rs h∇i Ej , Es i = −g rs hΓ Ek , Es i =
∂xr ∂xr ij
∂H k ∂H
= −g rs Γij gks = −Γkij g rs gsk =
∂xr ∂xr
∂H ∂H
= −Γkij δrk = −Γkij .
∂xr ∂xk
Therefore,
¯ i∇
h∇ ¯ j (Hν), νi + h∇ ¯ i Ej , −g rs ∂H Es i =
∂xr
¯ i (∇¯ j H)ν − Hg lk hjl Ek , νi − Γkij ∂H .
= h∇
∂xk
At this point, we have that:
∂ ¯ i (∇ ¯ j H)ν − Hg lk hjl Ek , νi − Γkij ∂H .
hij = h∇
∂t ∂xk
Notice that one has
¯ i (∇ ¯ j H)ν − (Hg lk hjl )Ek = ∇ ¯ i (∇ ¯ j H)ν − ∇ ¯ i (Hg lk hjl )Ek =
∇
¯ i (∇
¯ j H) ν + (∇ ¯ j H)∇ ¯ iν − ∇ ¯ i (Hg lk hjl ) Ek − (Hg lk hjl )∇ ¯ i Ek .
= ∇
We make the scalar product with ν, taking into account that
¯ ¯ ⊥ ∂ ∂
h∇i Ek , νi = h(∇i Ek ) , νi = II , , ν = hik ,
∂xi ∂xk
and we get
¯ i (∇
¯ j H)ν − Hg lk hjl Ek , νi = ∇
¯ i (∇
¯ j H) − Hg lk hjl hik .
h∇
In short, we proved that
∂ ¯ j H) − Hg lk hjl hik − Γk ∂H .
¯ i (∇
hij = ∇ ij
∂t ∂xk
Now observe that by definition of Hessian of a differentiable func-
tion we have:∇2 f (X, Y ) = X Y (f ) − (∇X Y )(f ). In particu-
lar, for f = H, X = ∂x∂ i , Y = ∂x∂ j , and taking into account
∂f
∇ ∂ ∂x∂ j = Γkij and using the notation ∂xi
= ∇i f , one obtains
∂xi
that
¯ ¯ k 2 ∂ ∂
∇i ∇j H − Γij ∇k H = ∇ H , = ∇2ij H.
∂xi ∂xj
28 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
Therefore,
∂ ∂ ij ij ∂
H= g hij + g hij =
∂t ∂t ∂t
= 2Hhij hij + g ij (∆hij − 2Hh2ij + |h|2 hij ).
Simons’ identity (3.3) implies ∆hij = ∇2ij H + Hh2ij − |h|2 hij , land
so ∆hij − 2Hh2ij + |h|2 hij = ∇2ij H − |h|2 hij . Then,
∂
H = 2Hhij hij + g ij (∇2ij H − |h|2 hij )
∂t
= 2Hhij hij + g ij ∇2ij H − |h|2 g ij hij
= 2Hhij hij + Trace(∇2 H) − |h|2 H
= ∆H + H(2hij hij − |h|2 ).
Note that
|h|2 = g ij g kl hik hjl = g ij g lk hki hjl = g ji hli hjl = hlj hjl = hjl hjl = hij hij ,
therefore
2hij hij − |h|2 = 2|h|2 − |h|2 = |h|2 .
In short
∂
H = ∆H + |h|2 H.
∂t
∂ 2
iv) Finally, we will prove ∂t |h|2 = ∆|h|2 − 2 ∇|h| + 2|h|4 .
By definition, we have
∂ ij
g = 2Hhij ,
∂t
∂
hij = ∆hij − 2Hh2ij + |h|2 hij (it is precisely (3.7)).
∂t
30 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
Then
∂ 2 ∂
|h| = (g ij g kl hik hjl ) =
∂t ∂t
∂ ij kl ij ∂ kl
= g g hik hjl + g g hik hjl +
∂t ∂t
ij kl ∂ ij kl ∂
g g hik hjl + g g hik hjl =
∂t ∂t
= 2Hhij g kl hik hjl + g ij 2Hhkl hik hjl +
g ij g kl (∆hik − 2Hh2ik + |h|2 hik )hjl +
g ij g kl hik (∆hjl − 2Hh2jl + |h|2 hjl ).
If in this last expression we rename the indices of the second term
by changing i for k, j for l, k for i and l for j, and in the fourth
addend changing i to j, j for i, k for l and l for k, then you get
∂ 2
|h| = 4Hhij g kl hik hjl + 2g ij g kl (∆hik − 2Hh2ik + |h|2 hik )hjl .
∂t
In the proof of Lemma 3.3 we got
h2ij = g kl hik hjl ,
hij h2ij = Trace(h3 ),
therefore
4Hhij g kl hik hjl = 4H Trace(h3 ).
Using (3.3),
∆hik − 2Hh2ik + |h|2 hik = ∇2ik H − Hh2ik .
So we get
∂ 2
|h| = 4H Trace(h3 ) + 2g ij g kl (∇2ik H − Hh2ik )hjl .
∂t
It is sufficient to check the equality at a point p in which it can
be assumed that are considered normal coordinates (in particular,
g ij (p) = δij and g kl (p) = δkl ), thus the last addend of the above
expression can be simplified as follows
2g ij g kl (∇2ik H − Hh2ik )hjl = 2hik (∇2ik H − Hh2ik ) =
= 2hik ∇2ik H − 2Hhik h2ik = 2hik ∇2ik H − 2H Trace h3 .
So far, we have proven
∂ 2
(3.10) |h| = 2H Trace(h3 ) + 2hik ∇2ik H.
∂t
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 31
Theorem 4.3 (Lieberman, Comparison Principle). Let P be a
quasi-linear operator like in (4.1). Suppose aij (X, z, p) dos not depend
on z and that there exists a positive increasing function K(L) such that
a(X, z, p) − K(L) · z is decreasing in z on Ω × [−L, L] × Rn for L > 0.
If u and v are functions in C 2,1 (Ω \ ∂P Ω) ∩ C(Ω) such P is parabolic
at either u or v, P u ≥ P v on Ω \ ∂P Ω and u ≤ v on ∂P Ω, then u ≤ v
on Ω.
Proof. First, we fix L in such a way that [−L, L] contains the range of
u and v , i.e., L := max{supΩ |u|, supΩ |v|}.
8Notice that B = P > A1/2 BA1/2 P ; where P = (A1/2 )−1 .
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 33
aij does not depend on the second argument and because, by(4.2),
Du(X0 ) = Dv(X0 ). Using the above fact and (4.3) we have:
= aij (R)Dij (u − v)(X0 ) + a(R) − a(S) + λ(u − v)(X0 ) ≤
Applying Lemma 4.2 to the matrices A := (aij (R))i,j=1,...,n and B :=
(Dji (u − v)(X0 ))i,j=1,...,n , we get aij (R)Dij (u − v)(X0 ) ≤ 0, and so
≤ a(R) − a(S) + λ(u − v)(X0 ) ≤
At this point, recall that w(X0 ) > 0 , i.e., u(X0 ) > v(X0 ). As
a(x, z, p) − K(L)z is a decreasing function of z in Ω × [−L, L] × Rn ,
then a(R) − K(L)u(X0 ) ≤ a(S) − K(L)v(X0 ), or in other words,
a(R) − a(S) ≤ K(L)(u − v)(X0 ),
≤ K(L)(u − v)(X0 ) + λ(u − v)(X0 ) ≤ [K(L) + λ](u − v)(X0 ).
Now, It suffices to take λ < −K(L) to get that (u − v)(X0 ) ≤ 0, that
is, w(X0 ) ≤ 0, which is contrary to w(X0 ) > 0. This contradiction
proves the theorem.
The mean curvature flow has been extensively studied in some families
which have specific geometric conditions, as is the case of hypersurfaces,
Lagrangian submanifolds, graphs, etc. In this section we will focus on
the study of smooth graphs.
Let u : Rn → R be a smooth function. It is well known that the graph
of u, Graph(u) = {(x, u(x)) : x ∈ Rn } is a hypersurface Rn+1 . Then,
we can study how it evolves under mean curvature flow. The first goal
of this section will be to deduce the evolution equation for ut . Next,
we will see that we can apply a comparison principle to obtain a result
known as avoidance principle.
Proof.
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 37
Then,
Pn 2
D2 u Di uDj uDij u
Du
div p = p i=1 ii − 2 3/2
=
1 + |Du|2 1 + |Du|2 (1 + |Du| )
2
Di uDji uDj u
1 2
=p δij Dij u − =
1 + |Du|2 1 + |Du|2
1 Di uDj u 2
=p δij − 2
Dij u.
1 + |Du|2 1 + |Du|
Substituting in (5.6),
D2 u(Du, Du)
∂u Di uDj u 2
(5.7) = δij − Dij u = ∆u − ,
∂t 1 + |Du|2 1 + |Du|2
where recall that D2 u means the Hessian operator associated to u.
With all we have seen so far we can prove the following well-known
result for mean curvature flow of a sphere.
therefore
p
ρ2 − |x|2 δij xi xj 1 xi xj
hij = − p + = − δij + 2 .
ρ ρ2 − |x|2 (ρ2 − |x|2 )3/2 ρ ρ − |x|2
Taking into account the previous computations the PDE (5.4) leads
to a partial differential equation that we
qsolve(notice that we do not
2 2
work now with u(x) but with u(x, t) = ρ(t) − x(t) ) :
∂u p n ρ(t) n
= H 1 + |Du|2 = − q = −q ,
∂t ρ(t) 2 2 2 2
ρ(t) − x(t) ρ(t) − x(t)
40 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
in other words,
∂u n
=− ,
∂t u(x, t)
which is an ODE that we can integrate:
u2 p
udu = −ndt ⇒ = −nt + C ⇒ u(x, t) = K(x) − 2nt,
2
where K(x) is a “constant”p (which depends on x but not on t). As the
initial data is u(x, 0) = ρ2 − |x|2 , then we deduce
q
ρ2 − 2nt − |x|2 , x ∈ B(0, ρ2 − 2nt).
u(x, t) =
Finally, notice that:
ρ2
(5.8) ρ2 − 2nt ≥ 0 ⇔ ≥ t,
2n
ρ2
then, if the starting sphere is Sρ (0), the collapse occurs at time t = 2n
(see Figure 2.)
As the reader can see, the idea in the proof of the above theorem is
very simple. However, we may get a better result if we work a little
more on the techniques to compare solutions of a partial differential
equation of parabolic type. For this purpose we are going to follow
Mantegazza’s monograph [Man11]. But first recall the concept of lo-
cally Lipschitz function, then we will use it in a previous result known
as Hamilton’s Trick.
as we wanted to prove.
Let us see that umax is locally Lipschitz in (0, T ). Take t0 in (0, T )
joint with δ and K provided by the hypotheses of the lemma. Consider
0 < < δ. Taking into account that u|K×(t0 −δ,t0 +δ) is Lipschitz with
respect to t, we have
umax (t0 + ) = u(q, t0 + ) ≤ u(q, t0 ) + C ≤ umax (t0 ) + C,
for some q ∈ K (this point q exists by hypothesis). So
umax (t0 + ) − umax (t0 )
≤ C.
Analogously,
umax (t0 ) = u(p, t0 ) ≤ u(p, t0 + ) + C ≤ umax (t0 + ) + C,
for a certain p ∈ K. Therefore
umax (t0 ) − umax (t0 + )
≤ C.
Summarizing, we have showed that 0 < < δ,
|umax (t0 ) − umax (t0 + )| ≤ C|(t0 + ) − t0 |.
If we consider −δ < < 0, then we can prove in a similar way that:
|umax (t0 ) − umax (t0 + )| ≤ C|(t0 + ) − t0 |.
Thus, we have got that umax is locally Lipschitz in (0, T ), which implies
that it is differentiable a.e. in t ∈ (0, T ).
Finally, take a point t0 ∈ (0, T ) where umax is differentiable. From
our assumptions, there exists p ∈ M \ ∂M so that umax (t0 ) = u(p, t0 ).
By the Mean Value Theorem, for each 0 < < δ there exists ξ ∈
(t0 , t0 + ) such that u(p, t0 + ) = u(p, t0 ) + ∂u(p,ξ)
∂t
. Therefore
∂u(p, ξ) ∂u(p, ξ)
umax (t0 + ) ≥ u(p, t0 + ) = u(p, t0 ) + = umax (t0 ) + ,
∂t ∂t
from which, as > 0, we can deduce
umax (t0 + ) − umax (t0 ) ∂u(p, ξ)
≥ .
∂t
Taking limit, as → 0 we get
∂u(p, ξ)
u0max (t0 ) ≥ .
∂t
Applying just the same argument for −δ < < 0 we conclude
umax (t0 + ) − umax (t0 ) ∂u(p, ξ)
≤ ,
∂t
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 45
We want to apply Lemma 5.6, but the problem is that the Euclidean
norm has differentiability problems at the origin. So we are going to
consider M := M1 × M2 and the function u : M × (0, T ) → R given
by u(p, q, t) := |ϕ(p, t) − ψ(q, t)|2 = hϕ(p, t) − ψ(q, t), ϕ(p, t) − ψ(q, t)i
Notice that
umin (t) := min |ϕ(p, t) − ψ(q, t)|2 = d(t))2 .
(p,q)∈M
Let us define:
K := u−1 [0, β]) ∩ (M1 × M2 × [t0 − δ, t0 + δ]) .
Hence,
(5.10) hH ϕ (p0 , t0 )ν ϕ (p0 , t0 ) − H ψ (q0 , t0 )ν ψ (q0 , t0 ), en+1 i =
= ∆f (0, t0 ) − ∆h(0, t0 ) ≥ 0.
∂
Now, we can compute ∂t u(p0 , q0 , t0 ), taking into account that ϕ and
ψ are solutions of the MCF equation:
∂ ∂
u(p0 , q0 , t) = hϕ(p0 , t) − ψ(q0 , t), ϕ(p0 , t) − ψ(q0 , t)i =
∂t ∂t
∂ϕ(p0 , t) ∂ψ(q0 , t)
=2 − , ϕ(p0 , t) − ψ(q0 , t) =
∂t ∂t
= 2hH ϕ (p0 , t)ν ϕ (p0 , t) − H ψ (q0 , t)ν ψ (q0 , t), ϕ(p0 , t) − ψ(q0 , t)i =
= 2 H ϕ (p0 , t)ν ϕ (p0 , t) − H ψ (q0 , t)ν ψ (q0 , t), en+1 |ϕ(p0 , t0 ) − ψ(q0 , t0 )|,
ϕ(p0 ,t0 )−ψ(q0 ,t0 )
where we have used that en+1 = |ϕ(p 0 ,t0 )−ψ(q0 ,t0 ))|
.
Evaluating the last equality at t = t0 and taking (5.10) into account,
∂
we obtain that ∂t u(p0 , q0 , t0 ) ≥ 0.
As we noted at the beginning of the proof, the second step proves
that d(t) is non-decreasing, which completes the demonstration.
Remark 5.9 ([MSHS14]). We would like to point out that the proper-
ness assumption cannot be relaxed with that of completeness. Indeed,
take as f : M1 → R3 be the unit euclidean sphere and as g : M2 → R3
a complete minimal surface lying inside the unit ball. Such examples
were first constructed by Nadirashvili [Nad96]. Obviously f and g do
not have intersection points. However, under the mean curvature flow,
f shrinks to a point in finite time while g remains stationary.
flow; the existence of singularities in finite time for the flow of a com-
pact hypersurface.
Corollary 5.11 (Existence of singularities in finite time). Let M
be a compact hypersurface in Rn+1 . If Mt represents its evolution by
the mean curvature flow, then Mt must develop singularities in finite
time. Moreover, if we denote this maximal time as Tmax , then we have
that:
2 n Tmax ≤ (diamRn+1 (M ))2 .
The ideas introduced in the proof of Theorem 5.8 can be used to get
a very interesting result.
Theorem 5.13 (Embeddedness principle). Let F : M × [0, T ) → Rn+1
a MCF, with M compact. If F0 : M → Rn+1 is an embedding, then Ft
is an embedding for any t ∈ [0, T ).
50 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
Note that so far we have not used that F : M × [0, T ) → Rn+1 moves
by its mean curvature.
Finally, we are going to prove that A is closed, or equivalently that
sup A = T. We proceed again by contradiction. Suppose t0 = sup A <
T.
So, we consider W ⊂ M × M ,
W := {(p, q) ∈ M × M : F (p, t0 ) = F (q, t0 ), p 6= q}.
Then, W is a closed subset disjoint from the diagonal ∆ = {(p, p) :
p ∈ M }. Indeed, if (p, q) is a point in W , we only have to check that
p 6= q to guarantee that (p, q) ∈ W (the other condition is closed.) Let
{(p, qn )} ⊂ W such that {(p, qn )} → (p, q). If p = q, then take a chart
(V, φ) around p in M . There exists n0 ∈ N such that, for any n ≥ n0 ,
one has pn , qn ∈ V . Up to a subsequence, we have that
φ(pn ) − φ(qn )
vn :=
|φ(pn ) − φ(qn )|
converges to some unitary vector v ∈ Sn .. Then
F (pn , t0 ) − F (qn , t0 )
d Ft0 ◦ φ−1
φ(p)
(v) = lim = 0,
n→∞ |φ(pn ) − φ(qn )|
which is contrary to the assumption that Ft0 is an immersion. So p 6= q
and W is closed and, from its own definition, W ∩ ∆ = ∅.
Hence, we can take a regular domain Ω ⊂ M × M such that
W ⊂ Ω ⊂ Ω ⊂ M × M \ ∆.
Let us define u : Ω × (0, t0 ) −→ R
u(p, q, t) := |F (p, t) − F (q, t)|2 .
As u| ∂Ω × (0, t0 ) > σ > 0, for some12 σ, then we can guarantee the
existence of t1 ∈ (0, t0 ) such that u : Ω × (t1 , t0 ) −→ R satisfies the
hypotheses of Hamilton’s trick (Lemma 5.6). So, we have that
umin : (t1 , t0 ) −→ R
is locally Lipschitz and
d ∂
umin (t) = u(p0 , q0 , t), t ∈ (t1 , t0 ),
dt ∂t
12recall that ∂Ω is compact
52 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
where (p0 , q0 ) is any point where u(·, t) reaches its minimum. But
reasoning as in the proof of Theorem 5.8, we deduce that
∂
u(p0 , q0 , t) ≥ 0, t ∈ (t1 , t0 ).
∂t
This is absurd because umin (t0 ) = 0 and umin (t) > 0, for any t ∈ (t1 , t0 ).
This contradiction proves that t0 = T and concludes the proof.
13Theorem
5.13 precisely says that if the initial hypersurface is compact and
embedded, then they remain embedded along the flow.
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 53
The evolution of the area element under the mean curvature flow was
already computed in (3.2), when we were considering the evolution of
the intrinsic geometry
∂ ~ 2 dµt
(6.2) dµt = −|H|
∂t
for all t ∈ I.
If we consider a domain Ω ⊂ Rn+1 and f ∈ C01 (Ω) (i.e., f is a C 1
function with compact support), then
∂ ∂ ∂
(f (F (p, t))dµt ) = hD f, F (p, t)idµt + f (F (p, t)) dµt =
∂t ∂t ∂t
using that F is a solution of (6.1) and (6.2), we deduce
~
= hD f, Hidµ ~ 2
t − f (F (p, t))|H| dµt .
solution”. Brakke defined the mean curvature flow for generalized hy-
persurfaces (called integral varifolds in the language of Geometric Mea-
sure Theory.)
Following the ideas of K. Ecker [Eck04], we will derive all the results
of this section by substituting appropriate test functions in identity
(6.3).
Definition 6.4 (Time-dependent test function). Let Ω be an open
set in Rn+1 , I an interval in R and φ ∈ C 1 (Ω × I). We say that φ
is a time-dependent test function if it satisfies φ(·, t) ∈ C02 (Ω) and
∂
∂t
φ(·, t) ∈ C00 (Ω) for all t ∈ I.
Hence, combining (6.1), (6.4) and (6.5) we immediately obtain the fol-
lowing result.
Corollary 6.6 (Local area decay, [Bra78, Eck04]). If the test func-
tion φ verifies
d ∂φ
(6.9) − ∆Mt φ = − divMt Dφ ≤ 0,
dt ∂t
then we have:
Z Z
d ~ 2φ
(6.10) φ≤− |H|
dt Mt Mt
for each t ∈ I.
p
(i) spt(ϕ(x0 ,t0 ),ρ (·, t)) ⊂ B(x0 , ρ2 − 2n(t0 − t)).
(ii) The maximum of ϕ(x0 ,t0 ),ρ (·, t) is reached at x = x0 , where
ρ2 − 2n(t − t0 )
ϕ(x0 ,t0 ),ρ (x0 , t) = .
ρ2
(iii) Moreover, the following inequality holds:
d
(6.11) − ∆Mt ϕ(x0 ,t0 ),ρ ≤ 0.
dt
Proof. The first two properties are trivial. Regarding item (iii), we are
going to write ϕ(x0 ,t0 ),ρ = g ◦ u, where g : R −→ R is given by
3
r
g(r) = 1 − 2 ,
ρ +
u(x, t) = |x − x0 |2 + 2n(t − t0 ).
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 57
Using these test functions, the following local estimate of the area is
obtained:
ρ2
for all t ∈ [t0 − , t ].
8n 0
Proof. Take φ = ϕ(x0 ,t0 −ρ2 /(8n)),ρ . So, we integrate over the interval
ρ2
(t0 − 8n , t) the inequality given by Corollary 6.6 and obtain
Z Z Z t Z
φ− φ≤− ~ 2 φ,
|H|
2 ρ
Mt M ρ2 t0 − 8n Mt ∩B(x0 , ρ2 )
t0 − 8n
or equivalently,
Z Z t Z Z
φ+ ~ 2 φ, ≤
|H| φ
2
ρ
Mt t0 − 8n Mt ∩B(x0 , ρ2 ) M ρ2
t0 − 8n
We would like to point out that, using Corollary 6.6, we can deduce
a “comparison principle” with the sphere.
Proposition 6.10. If we have a mean curvature flow Mt , t ∈ [0, T ),
satisfying
Area(M0 ∩ B(0, ρ)) = 0,
then
p ρ2
Area(Mt ∩ B(0, ρ2 − 2nt)) = 0, for all t < .
2n
One can check that the area estimate provided by Proposition 6.9 can
not be used to bound the ratio
Area(Mt ∩ B(x0 , ρ))
ρn
independently of ρ in a time interval of length proportional to ρ2 ; to
establish such an estimate valid in a longer time interval an more accu-
rate result is needed (see [Eck04, p. 75].) In order to do this we need
the following definition:
Definition 6.12 (Backward Heat Kernels). Given x ∈ Rn+1 y
t < 0,
1 |x|2
Φ(x, t) = n e
4t
(−4πt) 2
and its translations
1 |x−x0 |2
− 4(t −t)
Φ(x0 ,t0 ) (x, t) = Φ(x − x0 , t − t0 ) = n e 0
4π(t0 − t) 2
where x0 ∈ Rn+1 and t < t0 .
1
Remark 6.13. Note that Φ(x, t) = √−4πt Ψ(x, t), where Ψ is the stan-
dard heat kernel in Euclidean space. Then, we have that:
∂ 1
(6.13) + ∆Rn+1 Φ(x0 ,t0 ) = Φ(x ,t ) .
∂t 2 (t − t0 ) 0 0
Bearing in mind the similarities of (2.2) with the standard heat equa-
tion, it makes sense that the function Φ can be useful to study the
mean curvature flow.
Lemma 6.14. In the previous setting, the following equality holds:
∂Φ |∇⊥ Φ|2
+ divMt DΦ + = 0.
∂t Φ
So, using 6.13 and (6.15) (for t0 = 0 and x0 = 0), we deduce that
∂Φ |∇⊥ Φ|2
(6.16) + divMt DΦ + =
∂t Φ
∂Φ hx, νi2
+ ∆Rn+1 Φ − D2 Φ(ν, ν) + Φ=
∂t 4t2
1 hx, νi2
Φ − D2 Φ(ν, ν) + Φ.
2t 4t2
If we compute the Hessian term, we get:
1 1
D2 Φ(ν, ν) = 2 hx, νi2 Φ + hν, νiΦ.
4t 2t
Using that ν is unitary and substituting in (6.16), we conclude the
proof.
Proof. From now on, and for simplicity, we will write Φ0 instead of
Φ(x0 ,t0 ) .
So, with this notation, we have:
d ∂Φ0 ~ DΦ0 i + divMt DΦ0 + hH,
~ DΦ0 i =
+ ∆Mt Φ0 = + hH,
dt ∂t
(recall that, using Gauß equation, we have divMt DΦ0 = ∆Mt Φ0 −
~ DΦ0 i)
hH,
∂Φ0 ~ DΦ0 i.
= + divMt DΦ0 + 2 hH,
∂t
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 61
~ DΦ0 i = hH,
Now we use that hH, ~ ∇⊥ Φ0 i and so,
d ∂Φ0 ~ ∇⊥ Φ0 i−
+ ∆Mt Φ0 = + divMt DΦ0 + 2 hH,
dt ∂t
⊥ 2 ⊥ 2
~ − ∇ Φ0
H ~ − ∇ Φ0
Φ0 + H Φ0 =
Φ0 Φ0
2
∂Φ0 |∇⊥ Φ0 |2 ⊥
~ − ∇ Φ0 Φ0 + |H| ~ 2 Φ0 .
= + divMt DΦ0 + − H
∂t Φ0 Φ0
Using Lemma 6.14, we substitute to obtain that
2
∇ ⊥ Φ0
d ~ ~ 2 Φ0 .
(6.17) + ∆Mt Φ0 = − H − Φ0 + |H|
dt Φ0
If Mt is compact, we use (6.8) to finish.
In the general case, we are going to use a test function φ, whose
properties will be determined later.
Z Z
d dφ dΦ0 ~ 2
(6.18) φ · Φ0 = Φ0 + φ − |H| · φ · Φ0
dt Mt Mt dt dt
Now, we use that
divMt (φ∇Φ0 − Φ0 ∇φ) = φ∆Mt Φ0 − Φ0 ∆Mt φ.
Integrating over Mt , and using that φ has compact support, we obtain
(applying the divergence theorem)
Z
(6.19) φ∆Mt Φ0 − Φ0 ∆Mt φ = 0.
Mt
For the existence of such a function see [Ilm95]. Hence, for this partic-
ular φ, we have:
d κ
− ∆Mt φ ≤ 2 ,
dt R
for κ a constant depending on n and C0 . At this point, we can apply
the theorems of convergence under the integral sign and take limit, as
R → +∞. The first integral of the right-hand side goes to zero. Taking
into account that limR→∞ φ ≡ 1, we conclude the proof.
implies that Mt has locally finite H n -measure, which is all we need for
the integral formulation of the mean curvature flow (6.3). A solution
(Mt )t∈I of the mean curvature flow (6.1) satisfies this assumption for
any t ∈ I if we require that the flow has polynomial area-growth when
you intersect the flow with sufficiently large balls, that is to say
Area(Mt ∩ B(x0 , R)) ≤ ARp , for all t ∈ I and R >> 0,
(see [Eck04, Lemma C.3].)
This inequality can be obtained due to an appropriate condition on
initial hypersurface. Indeed, if for instance I = (0, T ) and M0 satisfies
Area(M0 ∩ B(x0 , R)) ≤ ARp
for all R ≥ R0 , for certain R0 big enough, then the local estimation of
Proposition 6.9 implies
Area(Mt ∩ B(x0 , R)) ≤ 2p+3 ARp
√
for each t ∈ (0, T ) as long as R ≥ max{ 2nT , R0 /2}.
∇⊥ Φ(x0 ,t0 ) R= 0.
Therefore Rn f (x, t)Φ(x0 ,t0 ) (x, t)dx does not depend on t for t < t0 . On
the other hand, as f is continuous, we have that
Z
lim f (x, t)Φ(x0 ,t0 ) (x, t)dx = f (x0 , t0 ),
t%t0 Rn
For the left-hand side we use that, for r ∈ (0, a r0 ), one has:
1
ϕ(x0 ,t0 −a2 r02 ),r0 ≥
8
and
1
Φ(x0 ,t0 +r2 ) ≥
e1/4 (8π)n/2 rn
on B(x0 , r) × (t0 − r2 , t0 ). This completes the proof.
~ (x − x0 )⊥
H(x) =
2(t − t0 )
for all x ∈ Mt y t < t0 , can be also characterized by the property:
Z
(6.22) Θ(M , x0 , t0 ) = Φ(x0 ,t0 )
Mt
for all t < t0 .
Remark 6.21. It is clear from its definition that, for any t ∈ (t1 , t0 ),
Z
Θ(M , x0 , t0 ) ≤ Φ(x0 ,t0 ) .
Mt
6.1. Parabolic rescaling. In the general case, the density value can
be calculated using parabolic scale changes of the solution M = (Mt )t∈I
in the way we are going to describe in this subsection. We consider
x ∈ Mt and make the following change of variable:
x = λy + x0
t = λ2 s + t0
where λ > 0 and s < 0. Then
1
y ∈ (Mλ2 s+t0 − x0 ) ≡ Ms(x0 ,t0 ),λ
λ
and for a fix λ > 0
(Ms(x0 ,t0 ),λ )s<0
is solution of the MCF equation.This will show at the end of this section
for not diverting our attention from the main objective of studying the
Gaussian density following a parabolic scaling.
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 67
for all s < 0 (smoothly on compact sets). Taking this into account and
using (6.25) and (6.24), we get
Z
(6.26) Θ(M , x0 , t0 ) = Φ(y, s)dH n (y) = 1.
Tx0 Mt0
(x ,t ),λ
Finally, as we promised, we want to see that (Ms 0 0 )s<0 is a solu-
tion of the MCF equation. Indeed, we know that Mt moves by the mean
curvature, that is, the re exits a smooth embedding Ft = F (·, t) : M →
Rn+1 with Mt = Ft (M ) and such that ∂F ~
(x, t) = H(x, t) ∀t ∈ I.
∂t
(x0 ,t0 ),λ
To check that (Ms )s∈J is also solution it suffices to prove that
n+1
Gs = G(·, s) : M → R given by
1
G(p, s) = F (p, λ2 s + t0 )
λ
verifies:
∂
G(p, s) = H~G (p, s),
∂s
where H~ G is the mean curvature of G, which is H ~ G = λ · H.
~ Hence,
the equality we are looking for is just an easy consequence of the chain
rule.
Proof. In order to get 6.28 we only have to apply (6.20) for φ = ϕ(x0 ,t0 ),ρ ,
taking into account that ϕ(x0 ,t0 ),ρ satisfies (6.11).
For the second part of the proof we are going to use some ideas due
to B. White [Whi97]. For x0 ∈ U and ρ > 0 such that
ρ2
B(x0 , 2ρ) × (t0 − , t0 ) ⊂ U × (t1 , t0 ).
2n
By Proposition 6.9 we deduce
sup Area (Mt ∩ B(x0 , ρ)) ≤ 8 Area Mt ρ2 ∩ B(x0 , 2 ρ) ≡ k0 .
2 0 − 2n
ρ
(t0 − 2n ,t0 )
Consider ψρ ∈ C02 (B(x0 , ρ)) satisfying: χB(x0 ,ρ/2) ≤ ψρ ≤ χB(x0 ,ρ) and
|D2 ψρ | ≤ k1 , where c1 depends on ρ. Then
d
− ∆Mt ψρ ≤ k2 · χB(x0 ,ρ)−B(x0 ,ρ/2) ,
dt
for a suitable constant k2 depending on n and k1 . On B(x0 , ρ) −
B(x0 , ρ/2) we have Φ(x0 ,t0 ) ≤ k3 , where k3 depends on n and ρ. Then
70 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
(x ,t ),λ
{λj }j∈N & 0 the hypersurfaces (Ms 0 0 j ) in λ−1 −2
j (U −x0 )×(λj (t1 −
t0 ), 0) obtained as in Remark 6.21 converge16, smoothly on compact
sets of Rn+1 , to a properly embedded solution of the MCF equation
M 0 = (Ms0 )s<0 . Then M 0 satisfies
Z
0
(6.33) Θ(M , 0, 0) = Φ = Θ(M , x0 , t0 )
Ms0
~ y⊥
(6.34) H(y) =
2s
for all y ∈ Ms0 and s < 0. Moreover, this means that
√
(6.35) Ms0 = −s · M−1 0
Proposition 7.1. Consider the mean curvature flow for compact ini-
tial hypersurface M . If T is the maximal time of existence, then the
following lower bound holds
1
max |h(p, t)| ≥ p
p∈M 2(T − t)
for all t ∈ [0, T ).
In particular,
lim max |h(p, t)| = +∞.
t→T p∈M
Definition 7.2. When this happens we say that T is singular time for
the mean curvature flow.
74 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
We conclude this brief section by pointing out that there have been
substantial breakthroughs in the study and understanding of the sin-
gularities of type I, whereas type II singularities have been much more
difficult to study. This seems reasonable since, according to the above
definition and the results we have seen, the singularities of type I are
those for which has the best possible control of “blow-up” of the second
fundamental form.
References
[And94] B. Andrews, Contraction of convex hypersurfaces in Riemannian
spaces, Journal of Differential Geometry 39 (1994), 407–431.
[Ber60] M. Berger, Les variétés Riemanniennes 1/4-pincées, Ann. Scuola
Norm. Sup. Pisa 14 (1960), 161–170.
MEAN CURVATURE FLOW 75
[Bra78] K.A. Brakke, The motion of a surface by its mean curvature, Princeton
University Press, 1978.
[Bra01] H. Bray, Proof of the Riemannian Penrose inequality using the positive
mass theorem, Journal of Differential Geometry 59 (2001), 177–267.
[BS09] S. Brendle and R. Schoen, Manifolds with 1/4-pinched curvature are
space forms, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 22 (2009), no. 1, 287–307.
[DC92] M.P. Do Carmo, Riemannian geometry, Springer, 1992.
[Cha93] I. Chavel, Riemannian geometry - A modern introduction, Cambridge
University Press, 1993.
[CDR03] U. Clarenz, G. Dziuk, and M. Rumpf, On generalized mean curvature
flow in surface processing, S. Hildebrandt, H. Karcher (Eds.): Geo-
metric Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations, 217-248,
Springer Verlag, 2003.
[CM11] T.H. Colding and W. Minicozzi, A course on minimal surfaces, Grad-
uate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 121, AMS, 2011.
[DHKW92] U. Dierkes, S. Hildebrandt, A. Küster, and O. Wohlrab, Minimal sur-
faces I, Boundary Value Problems, Grundlehren der mathematischen
Wissenschaften, vol. 295, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
[Eck95] K. Ecker, On regularity for mean curvature flow of hypersurfaces, Cal-
culus of Variations and PDE’s 3 (1995), 107–126.
[Eck01] , A local monotonicity formula for mean curvature flow, Annals
of Mathematics 154 (2001), 503–525.
[Eck04] , Regularity Theory for Mean Curvature Flow, Birkhauser, 2004.
[ES91] L.C. Evans and J. Spruck, Motion of level sets by mean curvature. I,
Journal of Differential Geometry 33 (1991), no. 3, 635–681.
[GH86] M.E. Gage and R. S. Hamilton, The heat equation shrinking convex
plane curves, Journal of Differential Geometry 23 (1986), no. 1.
[Ger73] R. Geroch, Energy Extraction, Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 224 (1973),
108–117.
[Gra87] M. A. Grayson, The heat equation shrinks embedded plane curves to
round points, Journal of Differential Geometry 26 (1987), no. 2.
[GP74] V. Guillemin and A. Pollack, Differential Topology, Prentice Hall, 1974.
[HE73] S. Hawking and G. Ellis, The Large Structure of Space-Time, Cam-
bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University
Press, 1973.
[Hui90] G. Huisken, Asymptotic behaviour for singularities of the mean curva-
ture flow, Journal of Differential Geometry 31 (1990), 285–299.
[HI01] G. Huisken and T. Ilmanen, The Inverse Mean Curvature Flow and the
Riemannian Penrose Inequality, Journal of Differential Geometry 59
(2001), no. 3, 353–437.
[Ilm95] T. Ilmanen, Lectures on Mean Curvature Flow and Related Equations,
Preprint, 1995.
[JW77] P.-S. Jang and R. Wald, The positive energy conjecture and the cosmic
censor hypothesis, J. Math. Phys. 18 (1977), no. 1, 41–44.
[Kli61] W. Klingenberg, Über Riemannsche Mannigfaltigkeiten mit positiver
Krümmung, Comment. Math. Helv. 35 (1961), 47–54.
[Lie96] G.M. Lieberman, Second Order Parabolic Differential Equations, World
Scientific Publishing Company, 1996.
76 FRANCISCO MARTIN AND JESUS PEREZ
Francisco Martı́n
Departmento de Geometrı́a y Topologı́a
Universidad de Granada
18071 Granada, Spain
E-mail address: fmartin@ugr.es
Jesús Pérez
Departmento de Geometrı́a y Topologı́a
Universidad de Granada
18071 Granada, Spain
E-mail address: perez.garcia.jesus@gmail.com