format: text

text:
# Thickness Formula and C1-Compactness for C1,1 Riemannian Submanifolds

## 1. Introduction

Let $`M^n`$ denote a complete connected $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold. For a compact $`k`$-dimensional $`C^1`$ submanifold $`K^k`$ $`(K=\mathrm{})`$ of $`M^n`$, the normal exponential map, $`\mathrm{exp}^N`$ on the normal bundle of $`K`$ in $`M`$ and its normal injectivity radius $`i(K,M)`$ are well defined. If $`K`$ is $`C^{1,1}`$, then $`i(K,M)>0.`$ We will introduce the notion of ”Geometric Focal Distance” by using metric balls, which naturally extends the notion of the focal distance of smooth category to $`C^1`$ category in Riemannian manifolds. We prove a formula for $`i(K,M)`$ in terms of geometric focal distance and double critical points for $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifolds, and that the set of all submanifolds $`K`$ of a fixed manifold $`M`$ contained in a compact subset $`DM`$ and $`i(K,M)`$ bounded away from zero is $`C^1`$compact. These results are essential to the study of the maximization of $`i(K,M)`$. The motivation for the maximization of $`i(K,M)`$ comes from two directions- the ideal knots and the history of maximization of the intrinsic injectivity radius.

The thickness of a knotted curve is the radius of the largest tubular neighborhood around the curve without intersections of normal discs, that is $`i(K,M).`$ The ideal knots are the embeddings of $`S^1`$ into $`𝐑^3,`$ maximizing $`i(K,M)`$ in a fixed isotopy (knot) class of fixed length. As noted in \[Ka\], ”…the average shape of knotted polymeric chains in thermal equilibrium is closely related to the ideal representation of the corresponding knot type”. ”Knotted DNA molecules placed in certain solutions follow paths of random closed walks and the ideal trajectories are good predictors of time averaged properties of knotted polymers” as a biologist referee pointed out to the author. The analytical properties ideal knots will be tools in the research on the physics of knotted polymers. Theorem I and the methods developed in this article are used extensively in \[D6\] where we study the local structure ideal knots in $`𝐑^3.`$

Studying ideal knots in $`𝐑^3`$ corresponds to placing molecules in homogenous solutions with uniform conditions. Studying ideal knots in Riemannian manifolds, i.e. varying metrics, may bring new possibilities with varying conditions, such as inhomogeneous solutions.

For a compact Riemannian manifold $`M`$, let $`d(M)`$, $`v(M)`$ and $`i(M)`$ denote its (intrinsic) diameter, volume, and injectivity radius of its exponential map, respectively. Maximization of $`i(M)`$ for fixed $`d(M)`$ or $`v(M)`$ has a long history. $`i(M)d(M)`$ and equality holds if and only if $`M`$ is a Blaschke manifold, Warner \[Wa\], Besse \[Be\]. It is conjectured that a Blaschke manifold is isometric to a sphere or a projective space with the standard metrics up to rescaling of the metric. Berger proved that $`v(M)/i(M)^nv(S^n(1))/i(S^n(1))^n,`$ and equality holds if and only if $`M^n`$ is isometric to a standard sphere $`S^n(r)`$, by using an inequality proved by Kazdan. This resolves the $`S^n`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^n`$ cases of the Blaschke conjecture. See Besse \[Be\] and Berger \[B\] for the literature on Blaschke manifolds as well as proofs by Berger and Kazdan.

As well as finding these ideal metrics, we examine the topological restrictions imposed by large injectivity radii. The class defined by $`i(M)^n/v(M)c_1>0`$ is Hausdorff-Gromov precompact, see \[Gr, Prop 5.2\], \[GWY\] and \[Cr, prop 14\]. However, the condition $`i(M)/d(M)c_2>0`$ does not provide precompactness without curvature restrictions. By the author’s work \[D4\], and \[Y\], one can estimate a priori upper bounds for the number of possible homotopy types for $`M`$ and Betti numbers \[D4\], and fundamental group \[D5\] in terms of $`c_1.`$ The author also studied manifolds with large injectivity radii: $`c_21`$ in \[D1, D2, D3\].

In this article, we approach the normal injectivity radius $`i(K,M)`$ from a more general point of view. Let $`𝒟^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ $`=\{(K,M):KC^{\mathrm{}},`$ $`dimK=k,`$ $`KD,`$ and $`i(K,M)\epsilon \}`$ where $`D`$ is a compact subset of $`M`$. The behavior of focal points and $`i(K,M)`$ are better understood in the smooth category, but $`𝒟^{\mathrm{}}`$ is not complete under $`C^1`$ topology. Since $`i(K,M)\epsilon `$ restricts curvature in a sense, the completion must include $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifolds. By Proposition 2, $`i(K,M)`$ is an upper semi-continuous function of $`K`$ in $`C^1`$ topology: $`limsup_m`$ $`i(K_m,M)i(K_{\mathrm{}},M).`$ The extremal cases are more likely not to occur in $`𝒟^{\mathrm{}}`$. Very few ideal knots in $`𝐑^3`$ are expected to be $`C^2`$, and possibly the unknotted standard circles are the only ones. This requires the study of $`i(K,M)`$ in $`C^{1,1}`$ category.

The formal definitions will be given in section 2. $`F_g(K)`$ is the geometric focal distance defined in terms of local intersections with metric balls, $`MDC(K)`$ is the length of the shortest geodesic normal to $`K`$ at both of its endpoints on $`K,`$ and the ”rolling bead/ball radius, $`R_O(K,M)`$” is the largest radius of open metric balls which are tangent to $`K`$ without intersecting $`K`$ elsewhere. We prove the following expected formula for $`i(K,M)`$.

###### Theorem 1.

For every complete connected smooth Riemannian manifold $`M`$ and every compact $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifold $`K`$ $`(K=\mathrm{})`$ of $`M,`$

$$i(K,M)=R_O(K,M)=\mathrm{min}\{F_g(K),\frac{1}{2}MDC(K)\}.$$

For a $`C^{1,1}`$ curve $`\gamma ,`$ $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$ and the curvature $`\kappa \gamma `$ of $`\gamma `$ exist almost everywhere by Rademacher’s Theorem. The supremum of $`\kappa \gamma `$ is taken on the set of all points where $`\kappa \gamma `$ exists. See \[D6\], Lemma 2 for a proof of $`F_k(\gamma )=F_g(K^1)`$ in $`𝐑^n`$. We prove the following corollary for any dimensions $`n>k1,`$ for $`K^k𝐑^n`$ in Proposition 12.

###### Corollary 1.

(Thickness Formula for Curves in $`𝐑^n`$) For every simple, $`C^{1,1}`$closed curve $`\gamma `$ in $`𝐑^n`$ and $`K=image(\gamma )`$,

$$i(K,M)=R_O(K,M)=\mathrm{min}\{F_k(\gamma ),\frac{1}{2}MDC(K)\},$$

where $`F_k(\gamma )=\left(sup\kappa \gamma \right)^1`$.

The formula $`i(K,M)=\mathrm{min}\{F_g(K),MDC(K)/2\}`$ was proved for $`C^2`$knots in $`𝐑^3`$ in \[LSDR\], and for $`C^{1,1}`$-knots in $`𝐑^3`$ by Litherland in \[L\]. Nabutovsky \[N\] extensively studied $`C^{1,1}`$ hypersurfaces $`K^{n1}`$ in $`𝐑^n`$ and their injectivity radii. Some of our results overlap with \[N\] in this special case. \[N\] proves the upper semicontinuity of $`i(K^{n1},𝐑^n)`$, the lower semicontinuity of $`v(K)/i(K,𝐑^n)^{n1}`$ in $`C^1`$ topology, and the compactness of the class of hypersurfaces with $`i(K,𝐑^n)`$ bounded from below. The analogous (codimension 2) results were obtained by Litherland in \[L\] for $`C^{1,1}`$ knots in $`𝐑^3`$. Their proofs use $`\epsilon `$approximations or curvature, while ours use intersections with metric balls. The relations between curvature and $`F_g(K)`$ are simple in all spaces of constant curvature. The equality $`i(K,M)=R_O(K,M),`$ a rolling ball/bead description of the injectivity radius in $`𝐑^n`$, was known by Nabutowsky for hypersurfaces, and by Buck and Simon for $`C^2`$ curves, \[BS\]. The notion of the global radius of curvature developed by Gonzales and Maddocks for smooth curves in $`𝐑^3`$ defined by using circles passing through 3 points of the curve in \[GM\] is a different characterization of $`i(K,𝐑^3)`$ from $`R_O`$ due to positioning of the circles and metric balls.

Gromov’s Compactness Theorem was first stated in \[Gr\] and some of its details were clarified by Katsuda in \[K\]. The $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ estimates of the metrics of bounded curvature in harmonic coordinates by Jost and Karcher \[JK\] were used to complete the proof by Peters \[P\] and Greene and Wu \[GW\]. \[P\] and \[GW\] proved the optimal a priori $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ regularity of the limit metric and obtained the Lipschitz convergence intrinsically by studying the transition functions. Gromov’s proof, the clarifications by Katsuda, and the version by Pugh \[Pu\] rely on Whitney type, non-isometric embeddings into $`𝐑^N`$ (large $`N`$) to show Lipschitz closeness of manifolds.

Let $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)=\{(K,M):KC^{1,1},`$ $`dimK=k,`$ $`K`$ is connected, $`KD,`$ and $`i(K,M)\epsilon \},`$ where $`(K,M)`$ denotes an embedding $`e:K(M,g_0)`$ with the induced submanifold metric $`e^{}g_0`$ on $`K.`$

###### Theorem 2.

For every complete connected Riemannian manifold $`(M^n,g_0)`$, every compact subset $`DM`$, $`1kn1,`$ and $`\epsilon >0,`$ the following holds.

i. $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ has finitely many diffeomorphism and isotopy classes.

ii. $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ is sequentially compact in $`C^1`$-topology, i.e. every sequence $`\{(K_m,M)\}_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ has $`C^1`$-convergent subsequence whose limit $`(K_0,M)`$ is in $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M).`$

iii. For every $`(K,M)𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M),`$ the induced submanifold metric $`e^{}g_0`$ is a priori $`C^{0,1}`$. However, there exists an isometric $`C^{1,1}`$ embedding of $`(K,g_{\mathrm{}})`$ onto $`(K,e^{}g_0)`$ in $`M`$ such that $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ $`(\alpha <1)`$ in harmonic coordinates of $`K`$ where $`(K,g_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a limit of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian metrics of bounded curvature and injectivity radii with respect to Lipschitz distance and it is a $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ Alexandrov space with a well defined exponential map.

In *Theorem 1* and *Section 3*, $`K`$ is not assumed to be connected. However, *Theorem 2* is proved for connected $`K`$, and the general case is discussed as *Corollary 3* of *Section 4.2*. Theorem 2 is an extrinsic and isometric embedding type Gromov compactness theorem, but it differs from the versions above in several aspects. Its proof uses the intrinsic versions \[P\] and \[GW\], and the harmonic coordinates of \[JK\] to secure the isometric embedding of the intrinsic limit. We will also show that there exists $`\rho _0(k,\epsilon ,D,M)>0`$ such that for all $`K,L𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ satisfying $`LB(K,\rho _0;M)`$ there exists a continuous isotopy between $`K`$ and $`L`$ through $`C^{1,1}`$ embeddings of $`L`$. Thus, if the submanifolds are close in the Hausdorff topology in $`M`$, then they are isotopic and close in $`C^1`$-topology. By Theorems 1 and 2, and Proposition 2, every isotopy class must have a thickest-$`i(K,M)`$ maximizing submanifold.

The method using the embeddings into $`𝐑^N`$ could only obtain a priori $`C^{0,1}`$ regularity of the limit metric, see \[Pu\], in contrast to $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ $`(\alpha <1)`$ regularity obtained by the intrinsic proofs of \[P\] and \[GW\]. Any $`C^1`$ simple closed curve $`\gamma `$ of length $`2\pi `$ in a Riemannian manifold has a $`C^0`$ metric induced by the embedding, while $`\gamma `$ is intrinsically isometric to standard smooth $`S^1`$, and the regularity is lost in the embedding. Part (iii) of Theorem 2 emphasizes the recovery the possible loss of regularity coming from the embedding. We know more about the geometry of $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ Alexandrov spaces \[Ni\] than $`C^{0,1}`$ metrics which do not even admit an exponential map a priori. Note that not all $`C^{0,1}`$ Riemannian metrics can be $`C^{1,1}`$ embeddable into some smooth $`M`$ with positive thickness.

Section 3 contains the proof of Theorem 1. For a $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifold $`K,`$ the normal exponential map $`\mathrm{exp}^N`$ of $`K`$ is of class $`C^{0,1},`$ a priori differentiable almost everywhere. Hence, the Inverse Function Theorem can not be used to obtain local diffeomorphisms around regular points, and the property that the focal points being the singular points of $`\mathrm{exp}^N`$ fails. In general, the set of focal points may not be closed, and $`F_g`$ is not semi-continuous, see Example 1. We prove a lower-semicontinuity of the normal cut value in a certain case in Proposition 7 which is sufficient for Theorem 1. Our main tool is the distance functions from the submanifolds. Despite the similarities of the main theme to the smooth case, our proof contains many technical details which are not derivable from the classical lemmas of the smooth cases.

The compactness is discussed in Section 4. The technical details differ from the previous section. The thickness controls the directional derivatives $`f_{\mathrm{u}\mathrm{u}}`$ a priori for a graph of a function $`f`$ locally representing $`K.`$ For smooth $`f`$, the Hessian is symmetric and one can control $`f_{uv}`$ by the polarization identities. For a $`C^{1,1}`$ function $`f`$, $`f_{uv}`$ are defined a.e., and $`f_{uv}=f_{vu}`$ a.e. $`f_{uv}`$ are not necessarily uniformly bounded in terms of $`f_{\mathrm{u}\mathrm{u}}`$ at a point, see Example 1. To apply Arzela-Ascoli Theorem to a family of such graphs requires equicontinuity of $`f_u,`$ for which one may wish to use uniform boundedness of $`f_{uv}`$ on the family. Hence, using mollifiers is a good way to proceed, and one can obtain that smooth $`𝒟^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;𝐑^n)`$ is ”almost” dense in $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;𝐑^n).`$ For a Riemannian manifold $`M`$, $`F_g(p,K)`$ depends on the behavior of the metric of $`M`$ in the given normal direction as well as the normal curvature. If *codimension(*$`K)2`$, it is possible to have high normal curvatures (if defined) in low ambient curvature directions and low normal curvatures in high ambient curvature directions at a given point achieving high $`F_g(p,K).`$ For $`C^{1,1}`$ $`K`$ in general, the ”second fundamental form” $`II_w^K(v)`$ is not defined everywhere, not a quadratic form (Example 1), and not continuous in $`v`$ even at a point. Normal curvatures do not satisfy Euler’s formula. An averaging procedure in small neighborhoods with a $`C^1`$ convergence may not be able to control the change of normal curvatures in different directions, especially if the limit is discontinuous. We were able to show the existence of $`\delta (\epsilon )>0`$ for which $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ is in the closure of $`𝒟^{\mathrm{}}(k,\delta ,D_\epsilon ;M)`$.

The remaining parts of the proof of Theorem 2 are straightforward. We show that the collection of the submanifolds in $`𝒟^{\mathrm{}}(k,\delta ,D;M)`$ as a collection of manifolds satisfy the conditions of Gromov’s Compactness Theorem. By following Peter’s version \[P\], every subsequence has a convergent subsequence whose limit is an (intrinsic) $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ Riemannian manifold. We use the harmonic coordinates of \[JK\] to apply Arzela-Ascoli Theorem and positive thickness $`\delta (\epsilon )`$ to secure the isometric embedding of the (intrinsic) limit into $`M.`$ All constants introduced are constructible in terms of $`n,k,\epsilon ,D,`$ and $`M.`$ In the last section, we calculate some estimates for upper bounds of isotopy and diffeomorphism types for submanifolds of $`𝐑^n`$ with thickness bounded away from $`0.`$

## 2. Basic Definitions

In this section $`M^n`$ always denotes a complete and smooth Riemannian manifold, and $`K^k`$ denotes a $`C^1`$ submanifold of $`M^n.`$ We refer to \[CE\], \[GKM\] and \[DoC\] for basic Riemannian geometry. $`TK`$, $`UTK`$, $`NK`$ and $`UNK`$ denote the tangent, unit tangent, normal and unit normal bundle to $`K`$ in $`M`$. $`\mathrm{exp}^N:NKM`$ denotes the normal exponential map.

###### Definition 1.

i. For any metric space $`X`$ with a distance function $`d`$, $`B(p,r)=\{xX:d(x,p)<r\}`$ and $`\overline{B}(p,r)=\{xX:d(x,p)r\}.`$ For $`AX`$ and $`xX`$ define $`d(x,A)=inf\{d(x,a):aA\}`$ and $`B(A,r)=\{xX:d(x,A)<r\}.`$ The diameter $`d(X)`$ of $`X`$ is defined to be $`sup\{d(x,y):x,yX\}.`$ If there is ambiguity, we will use $`d_X`$ and $`B(p,r;X).`$

ii. For $`AM^n`$ and any curve $`\gamma `$ in $`A,`$ the length $`\mathrm{}(\gamma )`$ is defined with respect to the metric space structure of $`M^n.`$ For any one-to-one curve $`\gamma ,\mathrm{}_{ab}(\gamma )`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{pq}(\gamma )`$ both denote the length of $`\gamma `$ between $`\gamma (a)=p`$ and $`\gamma (b)=q.`$

iii. $`v(M)`$ denotes the volume of a $`C^1`$ Riemannian manifold $`M.`$

###### Definition 2.

Let $`K`$ be a $`C^1`$ submanifold of $`M`$.

i. Define the thickness of $`K`$ in $`M`$ or the normal injectivity radius of $`\mathrm{exp}^N`$ to be

$$i(K,M)=sup(\left\{0\right\}\{r>0:\mathrm{exp}^N:\{vNK:v<r\}M\text{ is one-to-one}\}).$$

ii. For any $`wUNK_p,`$ define the normal cut value in the direction $`w`$ with respect to $`K`$ to be $`r_w=sup\{r:d(\mathrm{exp}^Nrw,K)=r\}.`$

###### Definition 3.

For a smooth and complete Riemannian manifold $`M`$ and $`pM,`$ define pointwise injectivity radius

$$i(p,M)=sup\{r>0:\mathrm{exp}:\{vTK_p:v<r\}M\text{ is one-to-one}\}.$$

For a compact subset $`D`$ of $`M,`$ define $`i(D)=\underset{pD}{\mathrm{min}\text{ }}i(p,M)>0.`$

###### Definition 4.

Let $`K`$ be a $`C^1`$ submanifold of $`M.`$ $`K`$ and $`M`$ will be suppressed, if there is no ambiguity. For any $`vUNK_p`$ and any $`r,`$ define

i. $`O_p(v,r;M)={\displaystyle \underset{wv^{}(1)}{}}B(\mathrm{exp}_prw,r)`$, where $`v^{}(1)=\{wUTM_p:v,w=0\}`$

ii. $`O_p(r;K)={\displaystyle \underset{vUTK_p}{}}O(v,r;K)={\displaystyle \underset{wUNK_p}{}}B(\mathrm{exp}_prw,r)`$

iii. $`O(r;K)={\displaystyle \underset{pK}{}}O_p(r;K)`$

iv. $`O_p^c(v,r;K)=𝐌O_p(v,r;K).`$

###### Definition 5.

Let $`K`$ be a $`C^1`$ submanifold of $`M.`$ Define

i. The ball radius of $`K`$ in $`M`$ to be $`R_O(K,M)=inf\{r>0:O(r;K)K\mathrm{}\}`$

ii. The pointwise geometric focal distance $`F_g(p)=inf\{r>0:p\overline{O_p(r;K)K}\}`$ for any $`pK`$ and the geometric focal distance $`F_g(K)=inf_{pK}F_g(p).`$

###### Definition 6.

Let $`K`$ be a $`C^1`$ submanifold of $`M.`$ A pair of points $`p`$ and $`q`$ in $`K`$ are called a double critical pair for $`K,`$ if there is a geodesic $`\gamma _{pq}`$ of positive length from $`p`$ to $`q`$, normal to $`K`$ at both $`p`$ and $`q,`$ and minimal up to its midpoint from both $`p`$ and $`q.`$ Define the minimal double critical distance

$`MDC(K)=inf\{\mathrm{}(\gamma _{pq}):\{p,q\}`$ is a double critical pair for $`K\}.`$

###### Definition 7.

By furnishing the Grassmanian bundle $`G_{n,k}(TM)`$ with a fixed Riemannian metric, for $`C^1`$diffeomorphic compact k-dimensional submanifolds $`K`$ and $`L`$ of $`M,`$ one defines $`d_{C^1}(K,L)`$ to be

$`inf\{sup_{xK}(d_M(x,\psi (x))+d_G(TK_x,TL_{\psi (x)})):C^1`$diffeomorphisms $`\psi :KL\}.`$

## 3. Thickness Formula

Throughout this section, we assume that $`K`$ is a compact $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifold of a complete connected smooth Riemannian manifold $`M`$ and $`K=\mathrm{}`$, unless stated otherwise. $`K`$ is not assumed to be connected.

###### Proposition 1.

$`i(K,M)=R_O(K,M).`$

###### Proof.

i. Choose any $`R>i(K,M).`$ There exists $`p_iK`$ and $`v_iNK_{p_i}`$ for $`i=1,2`$ such that $`v_1v_2,`$ $`q=\mathrm{exp}_{p_1}^Nv_1=\mathrm{exp}_{p_2}^Nv_2,`$ and $`v_1v_2<R,`$ by definition of $`i(K,M).`$ Let $`q_2=\mathrm{exp}_{p_2}^Nv_2R/v_2.`$ Since $`\gamma _1(t)=\mathrm{exp}_{p_1}^Ntv_1`$ and $`\gamma _2(t)=\mathrm{exp}_{p_2}^Ntv_2`$ are distinct geodesics, $`\pi >\mathrm{}(\gamma _1^{}(q),\gamma _2^{}(q)).`$ By First Variation, \[CE, GKM\], $`d(q_2,p_1)<d(q_2,q)+d(q,p_1)Rv_2+v_1R.`$ Thus, $`p_1B(q_2,R)O_{q_2}(R;K)`$, $`O(R)K\mathrm{}`$ and this concludes $`RR_O(K,M).`$ We have shown that $`R>i(K,M),`$ $`RR_O(K,M).`$ This proves that $`i(K,M)R_O(K,M).`$

ii. Choose any $`R>R_O(K,M)`$ so that $`O(R)K\mathrm{}`$. There exists $`pK`$, $`vUNK_p,`$ $`q=\mathrm{exp}_p^NvR`$ such that $`B(q,R)K\mathrm{}`$. Let $`p_1B(q,R)K`$ be any point and $`d(q,p_1)=R\delta ,`$ for some $`\delta >0.`$ Let $`q_1=\mathrm{exp}_p^Nv(R\frac{\delta }{3}),`$ and $`p_2`$ be any closest point of $`K`$ to $`q_1.`$

$$R^{}=d(q_1,p_2)d(q_1,p_1)d(q_1,q)+d(q,p_1)\frac{\delta }{3}+R\delta =R\frac{2\delta }{3}$$

For any normal minimal geodesic $`\gamma `$ from $`p_2`$ to $`q_1`$, $`w=\gamma ^{}(p_2)UNK_{p_2}.`$ So, $`q_1=\mathrm{exp}_p^Nv(R\frac{\delta }{3})=\mathrm{exp}_{p_2}^NwR^{},`$ but $`v(R\frac{\delta }{3})wR^{}`$ since $`w=v=1.`$ Consequently, $`\mathrm{exp}^N|\{vNK:v<R\}`$ is not injective and $`Ri(K,M).`$ We have shown that $`R>R_O(K,M),`$ $`Ri(K,M).`$ This proves that $`i(K,M)R_O(K,M).`$

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`K,K_j,j𝐍,`$ be compact $`C^1`$ submanifolds of a complete Riemannian manifold $`M,`$ such that $`K_jK`$ in $`C^1`$ sense. Then $`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{limsup}R_O(K_j,M)R_O(K,M).`$

###### Proof.

Choose arbitrary $`R>R_O(K,M),`$ that is $`O(R;K)K\mathrm{}.`$

$`p`$ $`K\text{ }vUNK_p\text{ }\epsilon >0\text{ }qB(\mathrm{exp}_p^NRv,R\epsilon )K\mathrm{}`$
$`j\text{ }p_j`$ $`K_j\text{ }v_jUN(K_j)_{p_j}\text{ such that }(p_j,v_j)(p,v),\text{ as }j\mathrm{}`$
$`j_0j`$ $`j_0\text{}d(\mathrm{exp}_{p_j}^NRv_j,\mathrm{exp}_p^NRv)<{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}\text{ and }q_jK_j\text{ with }d(q,q_j)<{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2}}`$
$`j`$ $`j_0,\text{ }d(\mathrm{exp}_{p_j}^NRv_j,q_j)d(\mathrm{exp}_{p_j}^NRv_j,\mathrm{exp}_p^NRv)+d(\mathrm{exp}_p^NRv,q)+d(q,q_j)<R`$
$`j`$ $`j_0,\text{ }O(R;K_j)K_j\mathrm{},\text{that is: }R_O(K_j,M)R`$
$`R`$ $`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{limsup}R_O(K_j,M)`$
We have shown that if $`R>R_O(K,M)`$ then $`R\underset{j\mathrm{}}{limsup}R_O(K_j,M).`$ Hence, $`R_O(K,M)\underset{j\mathrm{}}{limsup}R_O(K_j,M).`$

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`K_j,j𝐍,`$ be a sequence of $`C^1`$ k-dimensional submanifolds of a complete Riemannian manifold $`M^n`$, such that $`K_jK`$ in $`C^1`$ sense, where $`K`$ is compact. If $`liminf_jMDC(K_j)>0`$ then $`liminf_jMDC(K_j)MDC(K).`$

###### Proof.

We will use the same indices for subsequences. Let $`a=liminf_jMDC(K_j),`$ and choose a subsequence with $`a=lim_jMDC(K_j)`$ and $`j,MDC(K_j)>0.`$ By compactness of $`K_j`$ and positivity of $`MDC(K_j)`$, there exists a minimal double critical pair $`\{p_j,q_j\}`$ for $`K_j`$, $`\mathrm{}(\gamma _{p_jq_j})=MDC(K_j).`$ Since $`K`$ is compact and $`a>0,`$ there exist subsequences $`p_jp_0K`$, $`q_jq_0K,`$ and $`\gamma _{p_jq_j}\gamma _{p_0q_0}`$ in $`C^1`$ sense. Geodesics converge to geodesics, and normality to submanifolds is preserved under $`C^1`$ limits. $`\{p_j,q_j\}`$ is a double critical pair for $`K.`$

$$MDC(K)\mathrm{}(\gamma _{p_0q_0})=\underset{j}{lim}\mathrm{}(\gamma _{p_jq_j})=\underset{j}{lim}MDC(K_j)=a$$

###### Proposition 4.

$`R_O(K,M)\mathrm{min}\{F_g(K),\frac{1}{2}MDC(K)\}.`$

###### Proof.

This is am immediate consequence of definitions of $`F_g(K)`$ and $`MDC(K).`$

###### Proposition 5.

Let $`vUNK_p`$ be such that $`0r_v<F_g(K)`$. Then there are finitely many and at least two minimal geodesics between $`q=\mathrm{exp}_p^Nr_vv`$ and $`K.`$ Hence, $`r_v>0.`$

###### Proof.

Any geodesic that is a shortest curve between a point of $`MK`$ and $`K`$ is normal to $`K.`$ We assume that all geodesics are unit speed and start at $`K`$ when $`s=0.`$ Let $`\gamma _0(s)=\mathrm{exp}_p^Nsv.`$ $`j𝐍^+,`$ there exists a minimal geodesic $`\gamma _j`$ between $`q_j=\mathrm{exp}_p^N(r_v+\frac{1}{j})v`$ and $`K.`$ Since $`\gamma _j`$ is not minimal between $`p`$ and $`q_j`$, $`\gamma _0\gamma _j,j`$. By compactness, and taking a subsequence and using the same subindices, we can assume that $`\gamma _j\gamma _{\mathrm{}},`$ a minimal geodesic between $`q`$ and $`K.`$

Suppose that $`\gamma _0=\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ or $`r_v=0.`$ Choose $`j_0`$ sufficiently large such that $`a=r_v+\frac{1}{j_0}<F_g(K).`$ $`j>j_0,`$ $`d(q_{j_0},\gamma _j(0))<d(q_{j_0},q_j)+d(q_j,\gamma _j(0))a,`$ since $`\gamma _j^{}(q_j)\gamma _0^{}(q_j)`$ and First Variation. $`\gamma _j(0)B_a(q_{j_0})K.`$ $`\gamma _j(0)p,j,`$ but $`\gamma _j(0)p`$. Hence, $`p\overline{KO_p(a)}`$ which contradicts $`a<F_g(K).`$ This shows that $`r_v>0`$ and $`\gamma _0\gamma _{\mathrm{}},`$ that is there are at least two geodesics between $`q`$ and $`K.`$

Suppose that there are infinitely many minimal geodesics $`\theta _j`$ between $`K`$ and $`q.`$ By compactness, there exists a convergent subsequence of distinct geodesics $`\theta _j\theta _0`$ which is also minimal between $`K`$ and $`q.`$ Then one uses a proof similar to above, with $`\theta _j(0)\theta _0(0)=p^{},`$ to show $`p^{}\overline{KO_p^{}(a^{})}`$ where $`a^{}`$ is chosen similar to above $`a^{}=r_{\theta _0^{}(0)}+\frac{1}{j_0}<F_g(K).`$ Hence, there are finitely such geodesics. ∎

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`pK`$ be such that $`F_g(p)>0.`$ $`vUNK_p,r<F_g(p),`$ $`q=\mathrm{exp}_p^Nrv,`$ there exists an open disc $`D`$ of $`K,`$ such that $`pD`$ and $`xD\{p\},`$ $`d(x,q)>r.`$

###### Proof.

Choose $`a`$ such that $`r<a<F_g(p).`$ Let $`\gamma (s)=\mathrm{exp}_p^Nsv,`$ and $`q=\gamma (a).`$ $`p`$ $`\overline{KO_p(a)},`$ since $`a<F_g(p).`$ Hence, there exists an open disc $`D`$ of $`K`$ such that $`pD`$ and $`DO_p(a)=\mathrm{}.`$ $`B(q,r)B(q^{},a)`$ and $`xD,`$ $`d(x,q)r`$ and $`d(x,q^{})a.`$ Let $`xD`$ be such that $`d(x,q)=r.`$ If $`\gamma _x`$ is any normal minimal geodesic from $`x`$ to $`q`$, distinct from $`\gamma `$, that is $`\gamma ^{}(q)\gamma _x^{}(q)`$, then by First Variation, $`d(x,q^{})<d(x,q)+d(q,q^{})a.`$ This contradicts $`DO_p(a)=\mathrm{}.`$ Finally, $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _x`$ must follow the same minimal geodesic and $`x=p.`$

###### Proposition 6.

Let $`vUNK_p`$ be such that $`r_v<F_g(K)`$ and there are two distinct minimal geodesics $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ between $`q=\mathrm{exp}_p^Nr_vv`$ and $`K.`$ Then either $`\mathrm{}(\gamma _1^{}(q),\gamma _2^{}(q))=\pi `$ or $`R_O(K,M)<r_v.`$

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\mathrm{}(\gamma _1^{}(q),\gamma _2^{}(q))<\pi ,`$ to show that $`R_O(K,M)<r_v.`$ Let $`\gamma _j(0)=p_jK,`$ for $`j=1,2`$. $`\gamma _j(r_v)=q,`$ $`d(q,p_j)=d(q,p)=r_v,`$ for $`j=1,2`$. Choose $`\epsilon >0`$ small enough that

1. $`D_j=B(p_j,\epsilon )K`$ is a small open disc in $`K`$ and $`\overline{D_j}`$ is compact, for $`j=1,2`$,

2. $`\overline{D_1}\overline{D_2}=\mathrm{},`$ and

3. $`x\overline{D_1}\overline{D_2}\{p_1,p_2\},`$ $`d(x,q)>r_v`$ by the previous lemma.

Let $`\delta =\mathrm{min}\{d(x,q)r_v:xD_1D_2\}>0.`$ Choose $`wUTM_q`$ such that $`\mathrm{}(w,\gamma _j^{}(q))>\frac{\pi }{2},`$ for $`j=1,2`$. By the First Variation, $`d(p_j,\mathrm{exp}_qtw)`$ decreases strictly, for small $`t>0`$ and for $`j=1,2`$. If $`q`$ is on $`cutlocus(p_j)`$, then one can use Toponogov’s Theorem, see \[CE\], \[GKM\]. There exists $`t_0(0,\frac{\delta }{3})`$ and $`q_0=\mathrm{exp}_qt_0w`$ such that $`r_v\frac{\delta }{3}<d(p_j,q_0)<d(p_j,q)=r_v,`$ for $`j=1,2.`$ Let $`m_j`$ be the closest point of $`\overline{D_j}`$ to $`q_0`$, for $`j=1,2.`$

Suppose that $`m_jD_j`$, for $`j=1`$ or $`2.`$ Then, we obtain a contradiction as follows:

$`d(m_j,q_0)`$ $`d(m_j,q)d(q,q_0)r_v+\delta {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{3}}=r_v+{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta }{3}}`$
$`d(m_j,q_0)`$ $`d(p_j,q_0)d(p_j,q)+d(q,q_0)r_v+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{3}}`$
Hence, $`m_j`$ are interior points of $`D_j`$, for $`j=1`$ and $`2`$. The minimal geodesics from $`m_j`$ to $`q_0`$ are normal to $`K`$ at $`m_j.`$ $`m_1m_2,`$ since $`\overline{D_1}\overline{D_2}=\mathrm{}.`$ Finally, $`\mathrm{exp}_K^N`$ fails to be injective on the closed disc bundle of radius $`\mathrm{max}(d(p_1,q_0),d(p_2,q_0))<r_v.`$ $`R_O(K,M)=i(K,M)<r_v.`$

###### Proposition 7.

If $`r_v<F_g(K),`$ then $`\underset{wv}{liminf}r_wr_v.`$ That is, $`r_v`$ is lower semi-continuous in $`v`$ on $`UNK`$ when $`r_v<F_g(K).`$

###### Proof.

Suppose not, and choose $`v_jv`$ such that $`\underset{v_jv}{lim}r_{v_j}=L<r_v<F_g(K),`$ where $`vUNK_p`$ and $`v_jUNK_{p_j},j𝐍,`$ and $`p_jp.`$ We will obtain a contradiction in both cases below.

Case 1. $`L>0.`$ By Proposition 6, $`j𝐍,`$ there exists $`p_j^{}K,`$ $`u_jUNK_{p_j^{}},`$ $`q_jM`$ such that $`u_jv_j`$, $`r_{u_j}=r_{v_j}`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}_{p_j}^Nv_jr_{v_j}=\mathrm{exp}_{p_j^{}}^Nu_jr_{u_j}:=q_j.`$ By taking subsequences and using same indices, we may assume that $`p_j^{}p^{}`$, $`u_ju`$ and $`q_jq=\mathrm{exp}_p^NLv=\mathrm{exp}_p^{}^NLu.`$ The case of $`uv`$ cannot occur, since $`L<r_v.`$ Hence, we need to study the case of $`p=p^{}`$ and $`v=u.`$ Let $`c_v=sup\{t:d(p,\mathrm{exp}_ptv)=t\}`$ be the cut value of the exponential map $`\mathrm{exp}:TMM`$ in the direction of $`v`$ from $`p`$. Obviously, $`c_vr_v>L=d(p,q),`$ from the definition of the normal cut value.

See \[CE, p.93, 95\] or \[DoC, p267-276\], for the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian manifolds $`M,`$ to conclude that

i. $`q`$ is not conjugate to $`p`$ along the unique minimal geodesic $`\mathrm{exp}_ptv,`$ and $`qcutlocus(p)`$ and hence,

ii. $`p`$ is not conjugate to $`q`$ along the unique minimal geodesic $`\mathrm{exp}_p(Lt)v=\mathrm{exp}_qtw,`$ $`pcutlocus(q)`$ and $`c_w>L.`$ By \[DoC, p276 or CE p.94\], the cut value function $`c_{(.)}:UM[0,\mathrm{}]`$ is continuous and the tangential cutlocus is a closed subset of $`UM`$.

Hence, there exists $`\epsilon >0`$ satisfying:

1. $`0<\epsilon <\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{min}(F_g(K)L,L),`$ and

2. $`p`$ is the unique closest point of $`K`$ to $`q`$ in $`KB(p,2\epsilon ),`$ by Lemma 1, and

3. $`xB(p,\epsilon ),yB(q,\epsilon ),`$ $`xcutlocus(y)`$ and unique minimal geodesics $`\gamma _{xy}`$ vary continuously on $`B(p,\epsilon )\times B(q,\epsilon ).`$

Let $`K^{}=KB(p,\epsilon ),`$ and consider $`K^{}`$ with respect to the topology of $`K`$. Define $`\delta :=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{min}\{d_M(x,q)L:xK^{}\}.`$ Observe that $`0<\delta \frac{\epsilon }{4},`$ since $`p`$ is the unique closest point of $`\overline{K^{}}`$ to $`q`$ and triangle inequality. Choose and fix sufficiently large $`j_0`$ with $`q_{j_0}B(q,\delta ;M),`$ $`p_{j_0},p_{j_0}^{}B(p,\frac{\delta }{2};K)`$ and $`r_{u_{j_0}}=r_{v_{j_0}}<F_g(K).`$ There exists a curve $`\gamma `$ of length $`\delta `$ in $`K`$ between $`p_{j_0}`$ and $`p_{j_0}^{}.`$ Define $`f(x)=d_M(x,q_{j_0}):K^{}𝐑`$ and set $`m=\mathrm{min}f=d_M(p_{j_0},q_{j_0})=d_M(p_{j_0}^{},q_{j_0}).`$ By triangle inequality, we have:

$`0`$ $`<L2\delta mf(x)L+\delta +\epsilon <F_g(K),xK^{}`$
$`m`$ $`f(\gamma (t))m+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}L+{\displaystyle \frac{5\delta }{2}}<F_g(K)\text{ and}`$
$`\underset{xK^{}}{\mathrm{min}}f(x)`$ $`\underset{xK^{}}{\mathrm{min}}d(x,q)\delta =L+3\delta `$
$`fC^1`$, since $`K^{}(\{q_{j_0}\}cutlocus(q_{j_0}))=\mathrm{}`$ and $`K`$ is $`C^{1,1}.`$ A point $`xK^{}`$ is a critical point of $`f`$ if and only if the minimal geodesic from $`q_{j_0}`$ to $`x`$ is normal to $`K.`$ All of the critical points of $`f`$ are isolated strict local minima by $`f(x)<F_g(K)`$ and Lemma 1. For an isolated local strict minimum point $`x_0`$, $`x_0\overline{f^1((0,f(x_0))}.`$ As $`b`$ increases, $`f^1((0,b))`$ will gain new components at each critical point $`x_0.`$ Away from critical points $`f^1(b)`$ is a codimension 1 submanifold with a normal $`f`$ pointing away from $`f^1((0,b))`$. Hence, as $`b`$ increases, the number of components of $`f^1((0,b))`$ will not decrease at regular points. By Milnor \[M, p.12\], for $`m<b<L+3\delta `$, $`f^1((0,b))`$ is a disjoint union of open sets where each component is away from $`K^{}`$ and contains exactly one local minimum. However, $`\gamma f^1((0,L+\frac{11\delta }{4}))int(K^{})`$ and the end points of $`\gamma `$, $`p_{j_0}`$ and $`p_{j_0}^{}`$ are the absolute minima of $`f.`$ This gives a contradiction. Consequently, the case of $`p=p^{}`$ and $`v=u`$ can’t occur either.

Case 2. $`L=0.`$ Let $`\eta >0`$ be the infimum of the pointwise injectivity radius of $`\mathrm{exp}_p:TM_pM`$ where $`p`$ ranges over $`d(K)`$ neighborhood of $`K`$ in $`M.`$ Let $`p_jp`$, $`p_j^{}p^{}`$ and $`q_jq`$ be chosen as in $`L>0`$ case. $`p=p^{}=q`$ since $`L=0.`$ Choose $`j`$ sufficiently large so that $`max(d(p_j,q_j),d(p_j^{},q_j))<\frac{\eta }{4}.`$ Suppose that there exists a curve $`\gamma `$ in $`K`$ between $`p_j`$ and $`p_j^{}`$ of length $`\frac{\eta }{2}.`$ Apply the method of in Case 1 to the critical points of $`C^1`$-function $`f(x)=d(x,q_j):KB(q_j,\eta )(0,\eta )`$, which are strict local minima to obtain a contradiction. Hence, all curves in $`K`$ between $`p_j`$ and $`p_j^{}`$ have length $`>\frac{\eta }{2}`$, and hence $`d_K(p_j,p_j^{})\frac{\eta }{2}`$ for sufficiently large $`j.`$ That is not possible since $`p_jp`$ and $`p_j^{}p^{}=p.`$

Finally, we obtained contradictions in both cases. We can conclude that there exists no subsequence $`v_jv`$ such that $`\underset{v_jv}{lim}r_{v_j}=L<r_v.`$

### 3.1. Proof of Theorem 1

###### Proof.

By Propositions 1 and 4: $`i(K,M)=R_O(K,M)\mathrm{min}\{F_g(K),\frac{1}{2}MDC(K)\}.`$

Claim.$`\underset{vUNK}{inf}r_v=i(K,M)`$.

Let$`\underset{vUNK}{inf}r_v=r.`$ Choose any $`\rho >r`$ and let $`x=\frac{\rho +r}{2}`$. There exists $`v_0UNK_{p_0}`$ such that $`d(\mathrm{exp}_{p_0}^Nxv_0,K)<x`$, hence $`\mathrm{exp}_{p_0}^Ntv_0`$ and any minimal geodesic $`(\mathrm{exp}_{p_0}^Ntv_0)`$ between $`\mathrm{exp}_{p_0}^Nxv_0`$ and $`K`$will have a common point, $`\mathrm{exp}_{p_0}^Nxv_0.`$ Hence, injectivity of $`\mathrm{exp}^N`$ fails in $`\rho `$neighborhood and $`\rho >i(K,M).`$ Thus, $`ri(K,M).`$

Choose any $`\rho >i(K,M)`$ and let $`x=\frac{\rho +i(K,M)}{2}`$. $`\mathrm{exp}^N`$ fails to be injective in the $`x`$neighborhood. $`\mathrm{exp}_{p_1}^Nt_1v_1=\mathrm{exp}_{p_2}^Nt_2v_2`$ for $`t_j<x`$ and $`v_1v_2.`$ Then $`\mathrm{exp}_{p_2}^Ntv_1`$ is not minimal to $`K`$ for $`t>t_1,`$ by First Variation. Hence, $`r_{v_1}t_1<x<\rho .`$ Thus $`r<\rho `$, to conclude $`ri(K,M).`$ This proves the claim.

If $`i(K,M)=F_g(K),`$ then there is nothing to prove. Hence, assume that $`\underset{vUNK}{inf}r_v=i(K,M)<F_g(K).`$ Choose $`v_jUNK_{p_j},j𝐍,`$ and $`\underset{𝑗}{lim}r_{v_j}=\underset{vUNK}{inf}r_v.`$ By compactness of $`K,`$ there exists $`v_{\mathrm{}}UNK_p_{\mathrm{}}`$ and a subsequence which we will denote with the same indices such that $`v_jv_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`p_jp_{\mathrm{}}.`$ By Proposition 7, $`\underset{𝑗}{lim}r_{v_j}r_v_{\mathrm{}}\underset{vUNK}{inf}r_v.`$ Hence $`R_O(K,M)=i(K,M)=\underset{vUNK}{inf}r_v=r_v_{\mathrm{}}<F_g(K).`$ By Propositions 5 and 6, there are two distinct minimal geodesics $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ between $`q=\mathrm{exp}_p_{\mathrm{}}^Nr_v_{\mathrm{}}v_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`K`$with $`\mathrm{}(\gamma _1^{}(q),\gamma _2^{}(q))=\pi `$. This means that $`\frac{1}{2}MDC(K)=i(K,M)`$. ∎

###### Example 1.

Let $`h(\theta ):𝐑𝐑`$ be smooth with $`h(\theta +\pi )=h(\theta ),\theta .`$ Consider the graph $`K`$ of $`z=f(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}r^2h(\theta )`$ in $`𝐑^3`$ where $`(r,\theta )`$ is the polar coordinates. $`fC^{1,1}.`$ Obviously, $`f_{\mathrm{u}\mathrm{u}}(0,0)=h(\theta )`$, if $`u=(\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\theta ),`$ and $`f_{yx}(0,0)=\frac{1}{2}h^{}(0).`$ Away from $`(0,0),`$ $`f`$ is smooth and

$$f_{xx}(x,y)=h(\theta )\frac{xy}{x^2+y^2}h^{}(\theta )+\frac{y^2}{2(x^2+y^2)}h^{\prime \prime }(\theta ).$$

a) Choose $`h`$ such that $`h`$ is identically $`0`$ on an open subset of $`𝐑`$ near $`\theta =0,`$ $`h_{\mathrm{}}=1,`$ and $`h^{\prime \prime }(\frac{\pi }{2})n,`$ large $`n.`$ $`F_g(\mathrm{𝟎},K)=1,`$ and every neighborhood of $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ contains planar points $`𝐚`$ with $`F_g(𝐚,K)=\mathrm{},`$ as well as points $`𝐛`$ with $`F_g(𝐛,K)\frac{2}{n}.`$ Hence, $`F_g`$ is not a semicontinuous function into $`[0,\mathrm{}].`$ Same is true for the normal cutvalue if $`F_g`$ is the controlling factor.

b) Choose $`h`$ such that $`h_{\mathrm{}}=1,`$ and $`h^{}(0)n,`$ large $`n,`$ to observe that $`u,f_{\mathrm{u}\mathrm{u}}(0,0)1,`$ and $`F_g(\mathrm{𝟎},K)=1`$ does not control $`f_{yx}(0,0).`$

## 4. Compactness

Throughout this section we will assume the following. $`M`$ denotes a smooth connected complete $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold, $`DM`$ denotes a compact subset, and $`K`$ denotes a $`k`$-dimensional compact connected (except in Section 4.2) $`C^{1,1}`$ manifold. $`(K,M)`$ denotes that $`K`$ is a Riemannian submanifold with a particular embedding and furnished with the induced submanifold metric. $`(K,g)`$ denotes a manifold with a metric $`g`$ without any indication of any embedding. We refer to DoCarmo \[DoC\], for basic submanifold theory for Riemannian manifolds.

###### Definition 8.

$`𝒜(k,\epsilon ,D;M)=\{(K,M):KC^{1,1},`$ $`dimK=k,`$ $`KD,`$ and $`i(K,M)>\epsilon \}`$

$`𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)=\{(K,M):KC^{\mathrm{}},`$ $`dimK=k,`$ $`KD,`$ and $`i(K,M)>\epsilon \}`$

$`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)=\{(K,M):KC^{1,1},`$ $`dimK=k,`$ $`KD,`$ and $`i(K,M)\epsilon \}`$

$`𝒟^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)=\{(K,M):KC^{\mathrm{}},`$ $`dimK=k,`$ $`KD,`$ and $`i(K,M)\epsilon \}`$

###### Definition 9.

For $`K𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M),`$

i. $`Sect(K)`$ denotes the sectional curvatures of $`K`$ and

ii. $`II_w^K`$ denotes the second fundamental form of $`K`$ with respect to a normal vector $`w`$ in $`M.`$

Define $`II^K(p)=\mathrm{max}\{II_w^K(v):wUNK_p`$ and $`vUTK_p\}`$ and $`II^K=sup_{pK}II^K(p).`$

###### Proposition 8.

Let $`𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ be given and $`g_0`$ be the Riemannian metric of $`M`$. There exists positive constants $`C_0,C_1,d_0,v_0,i_0`$ depending on $`n,k,\epsilon ,D`$ and $`M`$ such that $`K𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M),`$ $`e:KM,`$ the Riemannian manifold $`(K,e^{}g_0)`$ satisfies the following intrinsically:

i. $`II^KC_0`$ and $`\left|Sect(K)\right|C_1,`$

ii. $`v(K)v_0,`$

iii. $`d(K)d_0`$, and

iv. consequently, $`i(K)i_0`$ by Cheeger \[Ch\], \[CE\].

###### Proof.

Let $`D=\overline{B}(D,\epsilon )`$ and $`\epsilon _0=\mathrm{min}(\epsilon ,\frac{1}{2}i(D^{})).`$

i. $`qD^{},`$ $`B(q,\epsilon _0)`$ are smooth submanifolds of $`M`$, which are diffeomorphic to $`S^{n1}.`$ By compactness, there exists $`C_0>0`$ such that $`II^{B(q,\epsilon _0)}C_0`$, for all $`qD^{}.`$

Let $`K𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ be arbitrarily chosen. Choose any $`pK,`$ $`vUK_p,`$ and $`wUNK_p.`$ Let $`q=\mathrm{exp}_p^M\epsilon _0w.`$ Since $`\epsilon _0\epsilon <R_O(K,M),`$ $`B(q,\epsilon _0)K=\mathrm{}.`$ Let $`S`$ denote $`B(q,\epsilon _0)`$ below in this proof. $`S`$ is smooth and $`vUTS_p.`$ Define $`\alpha _1(s)=\mathrm{exp}_p^Ksv`$ and $`\alpha _2(s)=\mathrm{exp}_p^Ssv,`$ $`f_j(s)=d_M(\alpha _j(s),q),`$ for $`j=1,2`$, and $`W=grad`$ $`d_M(.,q).`$ $`f_1`$ has a local minimum at $`s=0,`$ hence $`f_1^{\prime \prime }(0)0=`$ $`f_2^{\prime \prime }(0).`$

$`f_j^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ $`=\left(_{\alpha _j^{}}^M\alpha _j^{},w+_v^MW,v\right)`$
$`_{\alpha _1^{}}^M\alpha _1^{},w`$ $`_{\alpha _2^{}}^M\alpha _2^{},w`$
$`II_w^K(v)`$ $`II_w^S(v)`$
$`II_w^K(v)`$ $`=II_w^K(v)II_w^S^{}(v)`$
where $`S^{}=B(\mathrm{exp}_p^M\left(\epsilon _0w\right),\epsilon _0).`$ Hence, $`II^KC_0.`$ By Gauss’s Theorem \[DoC, p130\] relating the second fundamental form and the sectional curvatures of $`K`$ and $`M,`$ and the polarization identities, there exists $`C_1(C_0,\left|Sect(M)\right|)`$ such that $`\left|Sect(K)\right|C_1.`$

ii. There exists $`v_1>0`$ such that $`pD^{},vol_n(B(q,\epsilon ;M))v_1`$ by compactness of $`D^{}.`$ Furthermore, $`v_1`$ can be chosen only depending on the dimension $`n,\epsilon `$ and $`i(D^{})`$ but not on $`M,`$ by using the estimates of the lower bounds for the volumes of the balls of radius less than $`i(D^{})/2`$ by Croke \[Cr, Prop.14\]. Let $`K𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ and $`pK`$ be arbitrarily chosen. By *Theorem 2.1* and *Remark 2*, page 453 of Heintze & Karcher \[HK\]:

$$0<v_1vol_n(B(p,\epsilon ;M))vol_n(B(K,\epsilon ;M))v(K)C(k,n,C_0,C_1,\epsilon )$$

where $`v(K)`$ is the k-dimensional volume of the $`K`$ with the induced submanifold metric.

iii. Choose $`d_2=\mathrm{min}(\epsilon _0,d_1)`$ with $`d_1`$ of Lemma 2 below. There exists $`v_2>0`$ such that $`pD^{},vol_n(B(q,\frac{1}{4}d_2;M))v_2`$ as in part (ii). Let $`K𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ be arbitrarily chosen. Since all geodesics $`\gamma `$ of $`K`$ satisfy $`_\gamma ^{}^M\gamma ^{}C_0`$ by part (i), one can conclude that

$$pK,\text{ }B(p,\frac{1}{2}d_2;M)KB(p,d_2;K)$$

by using the Lemma 2(i) and $`d_2i(K,M).`$ Let $`p`$ and $`q`$ be a pair of intrinsically furthest apart points in $`K,`$ that $`d_K(p,q)=d(K,e^{}g_0).`$ Choose a normal minimal geodesic $`\gamma `$ of $`K`$ form $`p`$ to $`q,`$ $`\gamma (0)=p,\gamma (d(K))=q,`$ and $`\gamma ^{}=1.`$ Suppose that $`B(\gamma (ad_2),\frac{1}{4}d_2;M)B(\gamma (bd_2),\frac{1}{4}d_2;M)\mathrm{},`$ for some integers $`a,b𝐍[0,\frac{d(K)}{d_2}].`$ Then $`d_M(\gamma (ad_2),\gamma (bd_2))<\frac{1}{2}d_2`$ which implies $`d_K(\gamma (ad_2),\gamma (bd_2))<d_2.`$ Thus, $`a=b.`$ Hence, the balls $`B(\gamma (ad_2),\frac{1}{4}d_2;M),`$ for $`a𝐍[0,\frac{d(K)}{d_2}],`$ are disjoint in $`D^{}.`$

$$v_2\frac{d(K)}{d_2}vol_n(D^{}).$$

iv. This follows Cheeger \[Ch\] and parts (i-iii). ∎

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`D^{}`$ be a compact subset of $`M`$. Given $`C_0,`$ there exist $`0<d_1\frac{1}{2}i(D^{})`$ such that any $`C^2`$ curve $`\alpha :[0,d_1]D^{}`$ with $`\alpha ^{}(s)=1`$ and $`_\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{}C_0,`$ must satisfy

i. $`d_M(\alpha (0),\alpha (s))\frac{3s}{4},s[0,d_1]`$ and

ii. $`d_M(\gamma (s),\alpha (s))\frac{s}{4},s[0,d_1]`$ where $`\gamma (s)=\mathrm{exp}_{\alpha (0)}s\alpha ^{}(0)`$ .

###### Proof.

i. Suppose that such $`d_1>0`$ does not exist. Then, $`m𝐍^+,\alpha _m:[0,1]D^{}`$ with $`d(\alpha _m(0),\alpha _m(s_m))<\frac{3s_m}{4}`$ for some $`s_m(0,\frac{1}{m}],`$ $`\alpha _m^{}(s)=1`$ and $`_{\alpha _m^{}}\alpha _m^{}C_0.`$ Then by compactness of $`D^{}`$, there exists a subsequence which we denote with the same subindices, $`\alpha _m(0)p_0`$ and $`\alpha _m^{}(0)v_0UTM_{p_0}.`$ Since $`d\mathrm{exp}_{p_0}(0)=Id`$, for a given $`\delta >0,`$ there are sufficiently small $`\eta >0`$, $`\sigma >0`$ and sufficiently large $`m`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m(s)=\left(\mathrm{exp}_{p_0}|B(0,\eta ,TM_p)\right)^1\alpha _m(s)`$ are defined for $`0s\sigma `$, $`\left|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^{}(s)1\right|<\delta ,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m(0)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m(s_m)<\frac{3s_m}{4}(1+\delta ),`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^{\prime \prime }(s)C_2`$. $`\eta ,\sigma `$ and $`C_2`$ depend on $`\delta ,C_0`$, the metric $`g_0`$ locally and the derivatives of $`\mathrm{exp}_{p_0}`$ near $`0,`$ but not on $`m.`$ This contradicts Schur’s Theorem in $`𝐑^n`$, \[Cn\] or the fact that all $`C^2`$ curves $`\gamma `$ in $`𝐑^n`$, with $`\gamma ^{}(s)=1`$ and $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(s)C_2`$ satisfy $`\gamma (s)\gamma (0)\frac{\mathrm{sin}sC_2}{C_2}`$ for $`s(0,\frac{\pi }{2C_2}]`$, (see \[D6, proof of Proposition 2a\] for a proof). Consequently, $`d_1>0`$ as indicated.

ii. This is an immediate consequence of (i) since $`\gamma (0)=\alpha (0)`$ and $`d(\gamma (s),\gamma (0))=s`$ for $`0sd_1i(D^{}).`$

###### Proposition 9.

Let $`𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ be given and $`g_0`$ be the Riemannian metric of $`M`$. Consider

$$𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)=\{(K,e^{}g_0):K𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M),e:KDM\}$$

as a collection of Riemannian manifolds, not as submanifolds of $`M.`$ By Gromov’s (pre)Compactness Theorem, $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ has finitely many diffeomorphism types, and any sequence $`(K_m,g_m)`$ in $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ has a Cauchy subsequence $`(K_{m_j},g_{m_j})`$ in $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ with respect to Lipschitz distance. As it was stated in \[Pe\], all $`K_{m_j}`$ are diffeomorphic to a fixed $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold $`K,`$ and $`g_{m_j}g_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`C^1`$ sense on $`K`$ with respect to some harmonic coordinates, in which $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ Riemannian metric of $`K.`$ $`(K,g_{\mathrm{}})`$ is an Alexandrov space of bounded curvature by \[Ni\].

###### Proof.

In Proposition 8, we proved all necessary conditions for hypothesis of Gromov’s Compactness Theorem, see \[Gr\], \[Ni\], \[Pe\], \[GW\] and \[D3\]. ∎

###### Remark 1.

A priori, $`(K,g_{\mathrm{}})`$ is not a Riemannian submanifold of $`(M,g_0).`$ We will prove in Theorem 2 that there exists an isometric embedding $`(K,g_{\mathrm{}})(M,g_0).`$ If one starts with an arbitrary $`C^{1,1}`$ $`K𝒜(k,\epsilon ,D;M),`$ $`e:KDM,`$ then $`e^{}g_0`$ is a priori $`C^{0,1}`$, which is of too low regularity to have any sense of curvature. It is not a priori necessary that smooth approximations of $`e^{}g_0`$ are of uniformly bounded curvature or smooth approximations of the embedding $`e:KDM`$ have thickness close to $`\epsilon .`$

###### Notation 1.

For $`C^1`$ $`f:𝐑^k𝐑^m,vU𝐑^k`$ the directional derivative of $`f`$ in the direction $`v`$ is $`f_v(p)=\frac{d}{dt}f(p+tv)|_{t=0}.`$ The Jacobian $`f^{}(p)`$ is an $`m\times k`$ matrix and $`f^{}(p)`$ is its norm in $`𝐑^{km}`$, and $`f^{}=\underset{𝑝}{sup}f^{}(p).`$ For $`p𝐑^k`$, $`vU𝐑_p^k`$, $`f_{vv}(p)=\frac{d^2}{dt^2}f(p+tv)|_{t=0}`$ which is defined almost everywhere in $`p`$, when $`fC^{1,1}.`$

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`f:𝐑^k𝐑^m`$ be $`C^{1,1}`$, $`p𝐑^k`$, $`vU𝐑_p^k`$ and let $`G`$ be the graph of $`f`$ in $`𝐑^{k+m}`$. Define

$`I(f,p,v,w)`$ $`=\left(1+f_v(p)^2\right)\left(1+(fw)(p)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}1,`$
$`x`$ $`𝐑^k,vU𝐑^k,wU𝐑^{nk}.`$
If $`F_g((p,f(p)),G)R`$ and $`f_{vv}(p)`$ exists, then

$$wU𝐑^m,f_{vv}(p)w\frac{1}{R}I(f,p,v,w).$$

Conversely, if $`f_{vv}(p)`$ exists and $`wU𝐑^m`$ such that $`f_{vv}(p)w>\frac{1}{R}I(f,p,v,w),`$ then $`F_g((p,f(p)),G)<R`$ and particularly, $`B((p,f(p))+Rn,R)G\mathrm{}`$ where $`n=((fw)(p),w)\left(1+(fw)(p)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$

###### Proof.

Let $`\varphi (u)=(u,f(u))=(x,y)𝐑^k\times 𝐑^m`$ be a parametrization of $`G.`$ For $`(w_1,w)𝐑^k\times 𝐑^m`$ to be normal to $`G`$ at $`p,`$ $`(u,f_u(p))(w_1,w)=0`$ should be true for all $`uU𝐑_p^k`$, that is $`(w_1,w)nullspace([I_k`$ $`|f^{}(p)^T]).`$

$$(w_1,w)=_{j=1}^m(f_j(p),e_j)w_j=((fw)(p),w)$$

Let $`n=(w_1,w)(w_1,w)^1=(w_1,w)\left(w^2+(fw)(p)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$

and define $`\sigma (t)=\frac{1}{2}\varphi (p)+Rn\varphi (p+tv)^2.`$

$`\sigma ^{}(0)`$ $`=(v,f_v(p))Rn=0`$
$`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ $`=(0,f_{vv}(p))Rn+(v,f_v(p))^2`$
$`\text{ }f_{vv}(p)w`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\left(1+f_v(p)^2\sigma ^{\prime \prime }(0)\right)\left(1+(fw)(p)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},wU𝐑^m`$
If $`F_g(p,G)R`$, then $`B(\varphi (p)+Rn,R)G=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\sigma (t)`$ has a local minimum at $`t=0,`$that is $`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }(0)0,`$ since it exists.

$$\text{ }f_{vv}(p)w\frac{1}{R}\left(1+f_v(p)^2\right)\left(1+(fw)(p)^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},wU𝐑^m$$

Using $`w`$ gives the inequality with the absolute value. For the converse, choose $`w`$ or $`w`$ for positive $`f_{vv}(p)w.`$ $`\sigma ^{\prime \prime }(0)<0`$ implies $`\sigma (t)<\sigma (0)`$ for small $`t0,`$ even for a $`C^{1,1}`$ function. Hence, $`B(\varphi (p)+Rn,R)G\mathrm{}`$ and $`F_g(p,G)<R.`$

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`f:𝐑^k𝐑^m`$ be $`C^{1,1}`$ and satisfy

a. $`f^{}A,`$

b. $`f^{}(x)f^{}(y)Bxy,x,y𝐑^k,`$ and

c.$`f_{vv}(x)wC`$ for a.e. $`x𝐑^k,`$ for fixed $`vU𝐑^k`$ and $`wU𝐑^m.`$

Then $`\delta ,\rho >0,`$ a $`C^{1,1}`$ function $`h:𝐑^k𝐑^m`$ such that

i. $`h`$ is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`B(0,\rho )`$ and $`h=f`$ outside $`B(0,2\rho ),`$

ii. $`hfA\delta ,`$

iii. $`h^{}f^{}(aA+B)\delta ,`$

iv. $`h^{}(x)h^{}(y)xy(B+\delta (2aB+bA)),`$ and

v. $`h_{vv}(x)wC+\delta (2aB+bA)).`$

where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are constants depending on $`\frac{1}{\rho }`$ but not on $`f.`$

###### Proof.

Choose $`\eta :[0,\mathrm{})[0,1]`$ smooth with $`supp(\eta )[0,1],\eta ^1(1)=[0,\frac{1}{2}],`$

$`2.25\eta ^{}0,`$ and $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }10.`$

Define $`g:𝐑^k𝐑^m`$ and $`h:𝐑^k𝐑^m`$ by

$`g(x)`$ $`=c_\delta {\displaystyle _{u\delta }}f(x+u)\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\delta }}\right)𝑑u\text{ where }c_\delta ^1={\displaystyle _{u\delta }}\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\delta }}\right)𝑑u`$
$`h(x)`$ $`=(1\eta (2\rho x))f+\eta (2\rho x)g.`$
Set $`a=sup\left(\eta (2\rho x)\right)^{}`$ and $`b=sup\left(\eta (2\rho x)\right)^{\prime \prime }.`$

The proofs of (i-iv) are elementary and will be left to the reader. We will only give a proof of (v). Let $`\lambda (t)=f(x+tv)w.`$ Then $`\lambda ^{}(t)=f_v(x+tv)w`$ which is lipschitz and hence absolutely continuous, and $`\lambda ^{\prime \prime }(t)=f_{vv}(x+tv)w`$ which is defined almost everywhere.

$`\left(f_v(x+tv)f_v(x)\right)w`$ $`=\lambda ^{}(t)\lambda ^{}(0)={\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}\lambda ^{\prime \prime }(u)𝑑uCt,x`$
$`\left(g_v(x+tv)g_v(x)\right)w`$ $`c_\delta {\displaystyle _{u\delta }}\left(f_v(x+tv+u)f_v(x+u)\right)w\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\delta }}\right)𝑑u`$
$`Ct,x`$
$`g_{vv}(x)w`$ $`C,x\text{ a.e.}`$
$`(gf)(x)w`$ $`c_\delta {\displaystyle _{u\delta }}\left(f(x+u)f(x)\right)w\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\delta }}\right)𝑑u`$
$`A\delta ,x,`$
$`(g_vf_v)(x)w`$ $`c_\delta {\displaystyle _{u\delta }}\left(f_v(x+u)f_v(x)\right)w\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{\delta }}\right)𝑑u`$
$`B\delta ,x`$
$`x\text{ a.e.},h_{vv}(x)w`$ $`(1\eta (2\rho x))f_{vv}w+\eta (2\rho x)g_{vv}w+`$
$`2\eta (2\rho x)_v(gf)_vw+\eta (2\rho x)_{vv}(gf)w`$
$`C+2aB\delta +bA\delta `$
###### Proposition 10.

i. Let $`K`$ be a compact $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifold of $`𝐑^n`$ such that $`F_g(K)R_1.`$ Then $`R_2<R_1,\sigma >0,`$ there exists a smooth approximation $`K^\delta `$ of $`K`$ in $`M`$ such that $`d_{C^1}(K,K^\delta )<\sigma `$ and $`F_g(K^\delta )R_2.`$

ii. Hence, $`\sigma >0,`$ $`𝒜(k,\epsilon ,D;𝐑^n)\overline{𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D_\sigma ;𝐑^n)}`$ with respect to $`C^1`$ topology, where $`D_\sigma `$ is the closure of the $`\sigma `$neighborhood of $`D.`$

###### Proof.

i. Let $`pK`$ be any point. Rotate and translate $`K`$ in $`𝐑^k\times 𝐑^{nk}`$ so that $`p=0`$ and $`TK_p=𝐑^k\times \{\mathrm{𝟎}\}.`$ $`r_p>0,f_p:B(0,3r,𝐑^k)𝐑^{nk}`$ such that $`U=\{(x,f_p(x)):x<3r_p\}`$ is an open neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`K,`$ and $`f_p^{}(x)1`$ for $`x<3r.`$ Set $`V(p)=\{(x,f_p(x)):x<r_p\}.`$ By the compactness of $`K,`$ there are finitely many $`V(p_j)`$ covering $`K.`$ Let $`r_j,f_j,U_j,V_j`$ be defined as above associated to $`p_j.`$ Choose $`k_j`$ and $`A_j`$ so that

$$\frac{1}{R_1}=k_1<k_2<\mathrm{}<k_{j_0+1}=\frac{1}{R_2}\text{ and }1=A_1<A_2<\mathrm{}<A_{j_0+1}=2.$$

Rotate $`K`$ so that $`p_1=0`$ and $`TK_{p_1}=𝐑^k\times \{\mathrm{𝟎}\}.`$ $`F_g(U_1)R_1`$ by the hypothesis. By Lemma 3:

$$f_{1,vv}(x)wk_1I(f_1,x,v,w),xB(0,3r_1),vU𝐑^k,wU𝐑^{nk},a.e.$$

By Lemma 4, for a given $`\delta >0,`$ there exists a $`C^{1,1}`$ approximation $`h_1^\delta `$ of $`f_1`$ which is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`x<r_1`$ and coincides with $`f_1`$ for $`x2r_1.`$ Let $`K_1^\delta `$ be the submanifold of $`𝐑^n`$ obtained from $`K`$ by replacing $`U_1`$ with the graph $`U_1^\delta `$ of $`h_1^\delta .`$

$`f_1h_1^\delta `$ $`A_1\delta `$
$`\left(f_1\right)^{}\left(h_1^\delta \right)^{}`$ $`\delta c_3(A_1,R_1,f_1^{})`$
$`\text{and }x`$ $`B(0,3r_1),vU𝐑^k,wU𝐑^{nk},a.e.,`$
$`h_{1,vv}^\delta (x)w`$ $`k_1I(f_1,x,v,w)+\delta c_4(A_1,R_1,f_1^{})`$
Choose $`\delta _1>0`$ small enough so that $`\delta `$ with $`0<\delta \delta _1,`$

a. $`(1+\delta )A_1A_2,`$ and

b. $`xB(0,3r_1),vU𝐑^k,wU𝐑^{nk},a.e.,`$

$$\frac{h_{1,vv}^\delta (x)w}{I(h_1^\delta ,x,v,w)}\frac{k_1I(f_1,x,v,w)+\delta c_4(A_1,R_1,f_1^{})}{I(h_1^\delta ,x,v,w)}k_2,\text{ and }$$

c. the adjustment of $`f_1`$ by $`h_1^\delta `$ does not change $`f_j`$ being graphs and keeps $`f_j^{^{}}A_2,`$ for $`j2.`$

Consequently, $`F_g(K_1^\delta )\frac{1}{k_2}`$ and $`K_1^\delta `$ is smooth on $`U_1^\delta `$. One proceeds inductively to obtain a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ approximation $`K^\delta `$ of $`K,`$ for all $`0<\delta \delta _{j_0}`$ for some $`\delta _{j_0}>0.`$ Then,

a. $`F_g(K^\delta )R_2,0<\delta \delta _{j_0},`$ and

b. $`lim_{\delta 0}d_{C^1}(K,K^\delta )=0,`$ that is $`\sigma >0,K^\delta `$ such that $`d_{C^1}(K,K^\delta )<\sigma .`$

ii. Let $`\sigma >0`$ and $`K𝒜(k,\epsilon ,D;𝐑^n)`$ be given, that is $`F_g(K)i(K,𝐑^n)=R_O(K,𝐑^n)>\epsilon .`$ Then, $`m𝐍^+`$ with $`m>\frac{1}{\sigma },K_m,`$ a smooth approximation of $`K`$ in $`𝐑^n`$ such that $`F_g(K)\frac{1}{m}F_g(K_m)`$ and $`d_{C^1}(K,K_m)\frac{1}{m}.`$

Claim 1. $`liminf_mMDC(K_m)>0`$. Suppose that $`liminf_mMDC(K_m)=0`$ and follow the proof of Proposition 3, to obtain $`p_0=q_0.`$ If $`\eta _{p_mq_m}`$ denotes a minimal geodesic of $`K_m`$ between $`p_m`$ and $`q_m,`$ then $`\eta _{p_mq_m}`$ is normal to the segment $`\gamma _{p_mq_m}`$ at $`p_m`$ and $`q_m.`$ Since $`p_mq_m0,`$ the maximum of the ambient curvature of $`\eta _{p_mq_m}`$ in $`𝐑^n`$ becomes arbitrarily large as $`m\mathrm{}.`$ But, the sectional curvatures of $`K_m`$ are bounded by $`\frac{2}{\epsilon }`$ for large $`m`$ by Proposition 8(i). Thus, Claim 1 holds.

By Propositions 2 and 3:

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{limsup}R_O(K_m,𝐑^n)R_O(K,𝐑^n)\frac{1}{2}MDC(K,𝐑^n)\underset{m\mathrm{}}{liminf}\frac{1}{2}MDC(K_m,𝐑^n).$$

Claim 2. $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{limsup}R_O(K_m,𝐑^n)=R_O(K,𝐑^n).`$

Suppose that $`\underset{}{\underset{m\mathrm{}}{limsup}}R_O(K_m,𝐑^n)<R_O(K,𝐑^n).`$ Then for sufficiently large $`m,`$

$$R_O(K_m,𝐑^n)<\frac{1}{2}MDC(K_m,𝐑^n),\text{i.e. }R_O(K_m,𝐑^n)=F_g(K_m,𝐑^n).$$

However, this brings all to a contradiction:

$$R_O(K,𝐑^n)F_g(K,𝐑^n)\underset{}{\underset{m\mathrm{}}{limsup}F_g(K_m,𝐑^n)=\underset{m\mathrm{}}{limsup}}R_O(K_m,𝐑^n)<R_O(K,𝐑^n)$$

Hence, $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{limsup}R_O(K_m,𝐑^n)=R_O(K,𝐑^n)>\epsilon ,`$ where the smooth submanifolds $`K_mD_\sigma `$ and $`K_mK`$ in $`C^1`$ sense. In other words, $`K\overline{𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D_\sigma ;𝐑^n)}.`$

###### Proposition 11.

i. For any given $`\epsilon >0,`$ a complete Riemannian manifold $`M`$ and a compact subset $`DM,`$ there exists $`\epsilon ^{}(\epsilon ,D_\epsilon ,M)>0`$ with $`\epsilon ^{}<\epsilon `$ satisfying that

$`\sigma >0`$ and for any given compact $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifold $`K`$ of $`M`$ with $`KD`$ and $`F_g(K)>\epsilon `$, there exists a smooth approximation $`K^{}`$ of $`K`$ in $`M`$ with $`d_{C^1}(K,K^{})<\sigma `$ and $`F_g(K^{})>\epsilon ^{}`$”.

ii. Hence, $`\sigma >0,`$ $`𝒜(k,\epsilon ,D;M)\overline{𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ^{},D_\sigma ;M)}`$ with respect to $`C^1`$ topology, where $`D_\sigma `$ is the closure of the $`\sigma `$neighborhood of $`D.`$

###### Proof.

i. Let $`D^{}=\overline{B}(D,\epsilon )`$ and $`r_0=\frac{1}{4}i(D^{})>0.`$ Choose a finite collection of points $`p_\alpha `$ such that $`\{B(p_\alpha ,r_0;M):\alpha =1,\mathrm{},\alpha _0\}`$ covers $`D^{}`$ and let $`\phi _\alpha :=\left(\mathrm{exp}_{p_\alpha }^M|B(0,3r_0;TM_{p_\alpha })\right)^1.`$

Define $`\epsilon _0=\mathrm{min}(\epsilon ,\frac{1}{2}i(D^{}))`$ and $`S(p,\alpha ,\epsilon _0)=\phi _\alpha (B(p_\alpha ,2r_0;M)B(p,\epsilon _0;M))`$ which are smooth since $`\epsilon _0\frac{1}{2}i(D^{}).`$ In all of the second fundamental form assertions below, $`B(p,\epsilon _0;M)`$ are codimension 1 smooth submanifolds of $`(M,g_0),`$ and $`S(p,\alpha ,\epsilon _0)`$ are codimension 1 smooth submanifolds of $`𝐑^n`$ with the flat metric.

$`c_5,p`$ $`D^{},II^{B(p,\epsilon _0;M)}c_5`$
$`c_6,p`$ $`D^{},\alpha ,II^{S(p,\alpha ,\epsilon _0)}c_6\text{ whenever }S(p,\alpha ,\epsilon _0)\mathrm{}`$
The first assertion follows the smoothness of the metric $`g_0`$ of $`M,`$ $`\epsilon _0\frac{1}{2}i(D^{}),`$ and compactness of $`D^{}.`$ The second assertion follows the facts that there are finitely many $`\alpha ,`$ and $`\left(\phi _\alpha \right)_{}g_0`$ are uniformly $`C^i`$bounded for $`i=0,1,2,`$ as well as quasi-isometric to the Euclidean metric: $`\mathrm{}>a\frac{\left(\phi _\alpha \right)_{}g_0(v)}{v}b>0,`$uniformly. $`\tau >0,`$ define

$`\underset{p,v,w}{\mathrm{min}}II_w^{B(p,\tau ;M)}(v)`$ $`=\lambda (\tau ,D^{})0`$
$`\underset{p,\alpha ,v^{},w^{}}{\mathrm{min}}II_w^{S(p,\alpha ,\tau )}(v)`$ $`=\mu (\tau ,D^{})0`$
where $`pD^{},qB(p,\tau ;M),`$ $`vUTB(p,\tau ;M)_q`$, $`wUNB(p,\tau ;M)_q`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},\alpha _0,`$ $`q^{}S(p,\alpha ,\tau )\mathrm{}`$, $`v^{}UTB(p,\tau ;M)_q^{}`$, and $`w^{}UNB(p,\tau ;M)_q^{}.`$ Then $`lim_{\tau 0^+}\lambda (\tau ,D^{})=\mathrm{},`$ since $`D^{}`$ is compact. By the reasons stated above, also $`\mu (\tau ,D^{})\mathrm{}`$, as $`\tau 0^+.`$

Choose any $`c_7>c_6`$, $`\epsilon _1>0`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}(\epsilon ,D^{},M)>0`$ such that $`\mu (\epsilon _1,D^{})>c_7`$ and $`\epsilon _1>\epsilon ^{}.`$

Let $`K`$ be any given compact $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifold of $`M`$ with $`KD`$ and $`F_g(K)>\epsilon .`$ Then, $`K`$ avoids tangential balls $`B(p,\epsilon _0,M)`$ in an open neighborhood $`W`$ of the point of tangency $`qB(p,\epsilon _0,M)`$. Then any nonempty $`\phi _\alpha (K)`$ avoids the open set $`\phi _\alpha (B(p,\epsilon _0,M))`$ in an open neighborhood $`W^{}`$ of the point of tangency $`\phi _\alpha (q)S(p,\alpha ,\epsilon _0)\phi _\alpha (B(p,\epsilon _0,M)).`$ Let $`n`$ be the unit normal to $`S(p,\alpha ,\epsilon _0)`$ at $`\phi _\alpha (q)`$ towards $`\phi _\alpha (B(p,\epsilon _0,M)).`$ Then for any $`r<\frac{1}{c_6},`$ $`W^{}B(\phi _\alpha (q),r,𝐑^n)W^{}\phi _\alpha (B(p,\epsilon _0,M))`$ and $`W^{}\phi _\alpha (K)B(\phi _\alpha (q),r,𝐑^n)=\mathrm{}`$. Hence,

$$F_g(\phi _\alpha (KB(p_\alpha ,2r_0;M)),𝐑^n)\frac{1}{c_6},\alpha .$$

By applying the method of Proposition 10 to $`\phi _\alpha (K\overline{B(p_\alpha ,2r_0;M)}),`$ for any $`c`$ with $`c_6<c<c_7,`$ there exists a $`C^{1,1}`$ approximation $`K_\alpha `$ of $`K`$ such that $`\phi _\alpha (K_\alpha B(p_\alpha ,r_0;M))`$ is a smooth submanifold of $`𝐑^n`$, $`F_g(\phi _\alpha (K_\alpha B(p_\alpha ,2r_0;M)),𝐑^n)\frac{1}{c},`$ $`K`$ coincides with $`K_\alpha `$ outside $`B(p_\alpha ,3r_0;M)`$ and $`d_{C^1}(K,K_\alpha )<\frac{\sigma }{\alpha _0}.`$ One proceeds inductively on finitely many $`\alpha `$ to obtain a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ submanifold $`K^{}`$ of $`M`$ satisfying

$`d_{C^1}(K,K^{})`$ $`<\sigma \text{,}`$
$`F_g(\phi _\alpha (K^{}B(p_\alpha ,2r_0;M)),𝐑^n)`$ $`>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c_7}},\alpha ,\text{ and}`$
$`II^{\phi _\alpha (K^{}B(p_\alpha ,2r_0;M)}`$ $`<c_7`$
$`\phi _\alpha (K^{}B(p_\alpha ,2r_0;M))`$ avoids tangential submanifolds $`S(p,\alpha ,\epsilon _1)`$ in a deleted open neighborhood of $`\phi _\alpha (q)`$ since $`II_w^{S(p,\alpha ,\epsilon _1)}(v)>c_7`$ for all possible choices of $`p,v`$ and $`w.`$ Hence, $`F_g(K^{},M)\epsilon _1>\epsilon ^{}.`$

ii. Let $`\sigma >0`$ and $`K𝒜(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ be given: $`F_g(K)i(K,M)=R_O(K,M)>\epsilon .`$ Then, $`m𝐍^+`$ with $`m>\frac{1}{\sigma },K_m,`$ a smooth approximation of $`K`$ in $`M`$ such that $`\epsilon _1F_g(K_m,M)`$ and $`d_{C^1}(K,K_m)\frac{1}{m}<\sigma .`$

As in Proposition 10, $`liminf_mMDC(K_m)>0`$.

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{limsup}R_O(K_m,M)R_O(K,M)\frac{1}{2}MDC(K,M)\underset{m\mathrm{}}{liminf}\frac{1}{2}MDC(K_m,M)$$

If $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{limsup}R_O(K_m,M)=R_O(K,M)>\epsilon ,`$ where the smooth submanifolds $`K_mD_\sigma `$ and $`K_mK`$ in $`C^1`$ sense, then,

$$K\overline{𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D_\sigma ;M)}\overline{𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ^{},D_\sigma ;M)}.$$

If $`\underset{}{\underset{m\mathrm{}}{limsup}}R_O(K_m,M)<R_O(K,M),`$ then for sufficiently large $`m`$ of the last subsequence,

$`R_O(K_m,M)`$ $`<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}MDC(K_m,M)`$
$`R_O(K_m,M)`$ $`=F_g(K_m,M)\epsilon _1>\epsilon ^{}`$
$`K`$ $`\overline{𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ^{},D_\sigma ;M)}.`$
###### Remark 2.

Different versions of the following lemma have been used by Whitney \[W\], Cheeger and Gromov \[CG\], Gromov \[Gr\], Pugh \[P\] and others. Especially, the proof of ”Hausdorff convergence implies Lipschitz convergence” is along the same lines. All versions known to the author are done in $`𝐑^N`$ to find a diffeomorphism between two Whitney embeddings. We include the following version since it is in Riemannian manifolds with a uniform choice of radius and an isotopy conclusion.

###### Lemma 5.

i. There exists $`\rho (k,\epsilon ,D_\epsilon ,M)>0`$ such that for all $`K,L𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ satisfying $`LB(K,\rho ;M)`$ there exists a smooth isotopy between $`K`$ and $`L`$ in $`B(K,\rho ;M).`$

ii. There exists $`\rho ^{}(k,\epsilon ,D_\epsilon ,M)>0`$ such that for all $`K,L𝒜(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ satisfying $`LB(K,\rho ^{};M)`$ there exists a continuous isotopy between $`K`$ and $`L`$ in $`B(K,\rho ^{};M)`$ through $`C^{1,1}`$ embeddings of $`L`$.

###### Proof.

i. Let $`D^{}=\overline{B}(D,\epsilon )`$ and $`\epsilon _0=\mathrm{min}(\epsilon ,\frac{1}{2}i(D^{}))`$. By Proposition 8(i), $`K𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M),`$ $`II^KC_0`$ and $`\left|Sect(K)\right|C_1.`$ By Lemma 2, $`d_2=\mathrm{min}(d_1,\epsilon _0)>0`$ such that and any $`C^2`$ curve $`\alpha :[0,d_2]D^{}`$ with $`\alpha ^{}(s)=1`$ and $`_\alpha ^{}\alpha ^{}C_0`$ must satisfy $`d_M(\gamma (s),\alpha (s))\frac{s}{4},s[0,d_2]`$ where $`\gamma (s)=\mathrm{exp}_{\alpha (0)}s\alpha ^{}(0)`$. Given $`pD^{}`$ and $`vTM_p`$, one can naturally identify $`T(TM_p)_vTM_p.`$ The vector in $`UT(TM_p)_v`$ corresponding to $`uUTM_p`$ under this identification will be denoted by $`u^{},`$ and let $`u^{\prime \prime }=(d`$ $`\mathrm{exp}_p)_v(u^{}).`$

Claim 1: $`d_3>0`$ such that $`d_3d_2`$ and $`pD^{},uUTM_p,vTM_p,vd_3,`$ one must have $`d(\mathrm{exp}_pd_2u,\mathrm{exp}_q\frac{d_2u^{\prime \prime }}{u^{\prime \prime }})\frac{d_2}{4}`$ where $`q=\mathrm{exp}_pv,`$ and $`u^{},u^{\prime \prime }`$ are defined as above. Suppose that such $`d_3`$ does not exist, then by using compactness, extract a subsequence $`p_mp_0,`$ $`v_m0,`$ $`q_mq_0,`$ $`u_mu_0,`$ $`u_m^{\prime \prime }u_0^{\prime \prime },`$ with $`d(\mathrm{exp}_{p_m}d_2u_m,\mathrm{exp}_{q_m}\frac{d_2u_m^{\prime \prime }}{u_m^{\prime \prime }})>\frac{d_2}{4}`$. By continuity and $`d(\mathrm{exp}_p)_0=Id,`$ one obtains $`p_0=q_0`$ and $`u_0^{\prime \prime }=u_0.`$ Then $`d(\mathrm{exp}_{p_m}d_2u_m,\mathrm{exp}_{q_m}\frac{d_2u_m^{\prime \prime }}{u_m^{\prime \prime }})0`$ which leads to a contradiction. Thus, Claim 1 holds.

Set $`\rho =\mathrm{min}(\frac{d_2}{3},\frac{i_0}{4},d_3)`$ where $`0<i_0i(K),K𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ,D;M),`$ by Proposition 8(iv). Obviously, $`\rho <\epsilon _0<i(K,M).`$

Let $`K`$ and $`L`$ be given as in the hypothesis. Define $`E_p=\mathrm{exp}_p^N(B(0,\rho ;NK_p)),pK,`$ which are $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`(nk)`$ dimensional submanifolds of $`M.`$ $`K^k`$ is obviously transversal to all $`E_p.`$

Claim 2. If $`E_pL\mathrm{},`$ then $`E_p`$ intersects $`L`$ transversally at finitely many points. Suppose not: $`u^{\prime \prime }T(E_p)_qTL_q\{0\}`$ for some $`pK`$ and $`qE_pL,`$ since $`dimL+dimE_p=dimM.`$ $`vNK_pTM_p`$ such that $`v<\rho d_3`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}_pv=q.`$ Let $`u^{}=(d(\mathrm{exp}_p)_v)^1(u^{\prime \prime })`$ and adjust the length of $`u^{\prime \prime }`$ so that $`u^{}=1.`$ Find $`uUTM_pUT(TM_p)_v`$ corresponding to $`u^{}.`$ Then one has $`uUNK_p`$, since $`u^{\prime \prime }T(E_p)_q`$ and $`E_p\mathrm{exp}_p(UNK_p).`$ Set $`a_0=\mathrm{exp}_pud_2.`$

$`d_2`$ $`\epsilon _0<i(K,M)`$
$`B(a_0,d_2;M)K`$ $`=\mathrm{}`$
$`d_M(a_0,K)`$ $`=d_2`$
$`d_M(a_0,\mathrm{exp}_q{\displaystyle \frac{d_2u^{\prime \prime }}{u^{\prime \prime }}})`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{4}}\text{ by choice of }d_3v=d(p,q)`$
$`d_M(\mathrm{exp}_q{\displaystyle \frac{d_2u^{\prime \prime }}{u^{\prime \prime }}},\mathrm{exp}_q^𝐋{\displaystyle \frac{d_2u^{\prime \prime }}{u^{\prime \prime }}})`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{4}}\text{ by choice of }d_2\text{, Lemma 2 and }II^LC_0`$
$`d_M(\mathrm{exp}_q^𝐋{\displaystyle \frac{d_2u^{\prime \prime }}{u^{\prime \prime }}},K)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{2}}>\rho `$
The last assertion contradicts with $`LB(K,\rho ;M).`$ Hence, $`qE_pL,`$ $`T(E_p)_qTL_q=\{0\}`$ and Claim 2 holds.

Since $`K`$ is smooth and $`\rho <i(K,M),`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(exp^N|B(0,\rho ,NK)\right)`$ is a diffeomorphism of $`B(0,\rho ,NK)`$ onto $`B(K,\rho ,M).`$ Define $`\mathrm{\Pi }:B(K,\rho ,M)K`$ by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^1(p)=E_p.`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a smooth submersion onto $`K.`$ By Claim 2, $`\mathrm{\Pi }|L:LK`$ is a maximal rank map. Since $`L`$ is compact, $`K`$ is connected, and $`dimL=dimK,`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }|L`$ must be onto and a covering map. Let $`q_1,q_2L`$ be such that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q_1)=\mathrm{\Pi }(q_2)=p.`$

$`p`$ $`B(q_1,\rho ,M)B(q_2,\rho ,M)`$
$`q_1`$ $`LB(q_2,2\rho ,M)B(q_2,3\rho ,L)`$
by $`3\rho \mathrm{min}(d_2,i_0)`$, Lemma 2(i) and $`II^LC_0.`$ Let $`\gamma `$ be a normal minimal geodesic of $`L`$ from $`q_1`$ and $`q_2.`$ The loop $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\gamma )`$ is contractible in $`K,`$ since

$`d_M(\mathrm{\Pi }(\gamma (t)),p)`$ $`d_M(\mathrm{\Pi }(\gamma (t)),\gamma (t))+d_M(\gamma (t),q_j)+d_M(p,q_j){\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\rho <i_0i(K)`$
$`\text{where }j`$ $`=1\text{ for }t{\displaystyle \frac{3\rho }{2}},\text{ and }j=2\text{ otherwise.}`$
By the homotopy lifting property, $`q_1=q_2.`$ Consequently, $`\mathrm{\Pi }|L`$ is a diffeomorphism of $`L`$ onto $`K,`$ and $`pK,E_pL`$ consists only one point. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Psi }^1(L)`$ is a smooth section of the normal bundle $`B(0,\rho ,NK)`$ transverse to the fibers $`NK_p`$.The same is true for $`t_0\mathrm{\Psi }^1(L),`$ $`t_0[0,1].`$ Define $`\mathrm{\Omega }:L\times [0,1]M`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(q,t)=\mathrm{\Psi }(t\mathrm{\Psi }^1(q)).`$ Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a smooth map, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(q_0,t)`$ is the minimal geodesic between $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q_0)`$ and $`q_0,`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(.,t_0)`$ is a smooth embedding of $`L`$ into $`M,`$ for all $`t_0[0,1].`$

ii. Choose $`\epsilon ^{}`$ with $`𝒜(k,\epsilon ,D;M)\overline{𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\epsilon ^{},D_\sigma ;M)}`$ and $`\rho ^{}(k,\epsilon ,D_\epsilon ,M)=\rho (k,\epsilon ^{},D_\epsilon ,M).`$ Consider any $`K,L𝒜(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ satisfying $`LB(K,\rho ^{};M).`$ By using Proposition 11, find smooth approximations $`K^{}`$ and $`L^{}`$ with $`d_{C^1}(K,K^{})<\sigma `$ and $`d_{C^1}(L,L^{})<\sigma `$ for sufficiently small $`\sigma `$ to secure $`L^{}B(K^{},\rho ^{};M).`$ Recall that we constructed the smooth approximations $`K^{}`$ by using mollifiers locally in coordinate systems. One can construct the obvious ”vertical” isotopies between the graphs: $`(1t)f(x)+th^\delta (x)`$ for each local smoothing and then push them forward into $`M`$ by the coordinate maps. By applying these finitely many isotopies successively, one can construct an isotopy between $`K`$ and $`K^{}.`$ Similarly, one constructs an isotopy between $`L`$ and $`L^{},`$ and combining all one obtains an isotopy between $`K`$ and $`L.`$ Other than the times of attachment of successive isotopies constructed by using different local graphs or part (i), the isotopy is $`C^{1,1},`$ and at any fixed time $`t_0`$ the embedding of $`L`$ is $`C^{1,1}.`$

### 4.1. Proof of Theorem 2

###### Proof.

We will take subsequences for several times, to simplify the notation all subsequences will be denoted by the same index $`m`$, and $`m`$ means within the last chosen subsequence. The letter ”i” appearing as a subindex such as in $`g_{ij}`$ never means injectivity radius as in $`i(K,M),`$ $`i(D^{})`$ or $`i_0.`$

i. By Proposition 11, $`\delta >0`$ such that $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)\overline{𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\delta ,D_\epsilon ;M)}`$ in $`C^1`$ topology. By Proposition 9, $`𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\delta ,D_\epsilon ;M)`$ has finitely many diffeomorphism types, and hence, the same is true for $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$. The finiteness of isotopy classes will follow (ii) and Lemma 5(ii).

ii. Let a sequence $`\{(K_m,M)\}_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ be given. By Proposition 11, $`m𝐍^+`$, choose smooth submanifolds $`(L_m,M)𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\delta ,D_\epsilon ;M)`$ such that $`d_{C^1}(K_m,L_m)<\frac{1}{m}`$. Choose a subsequence so that all $`L_m`$ are diffeomorphic to a fixed $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold $`L,`$ by the finiteness of diffeomorphism types. Hence, $`m𝐍^+,`$ there are $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ embeddings $`e_m:L(M,g_0)`$ such that $`L_m=e_m(L)`$ and Riemannian metrics $`g_m=e_m^{}g_0`$ are $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`L.`$ By the intrinsic form of Gromov’s Compactness Theorem, as it was stated in \[Pe, Thm. 4.4\], there exists a subsequence $`g_mg_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`C^1`$ sense on $`L`$ with respect to harmonic coordinates, where $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ Riemannian metric on $`L.`$

We will show below that there exists an isometric embedding $`e_{\mathrm{}}:(L,g_{\mathrm{}})(M,g_0)`$ such that $`e_me_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`C^1`$ sense. Let $`D^{}=\overline{B}(D,\epsilon )`$ and $`\delta _0=\mathrm{min}(\delta ,\frac{1}{2}i(D^{}))`$. Choose a finite collection of points $`p_\alpha `$ such that $`\{B(p_\alpha ,\delta _0;M):\alpha =1,\mathrm{},\alpha _0\}`$ covers $`D^{}`$ and define $`\phi _\alpha :=\left(\mathrm{exp}_{p_\alpha }^M|\overline{B(0,\delta _0;TM_{p_\alpha })}\right)^1.`$ There exists a Lebesgue number $`c_9>0`$ for the covering $`\{B(p_\alpha ,\delta _0;M):\alpha =1,\mathrm{},\alpha _0\},`$ that is$`:`$ $`qD^{},\alpha (q)`$ such that $`B(q,c_9;D^{})B(p_{\alpha (q)},\delta _0;M).`$ Let $`r_1=\mathrm{min}(\frac{i_0}{4},\frac{c_9}{2})`$ where $`i(L,g_m)i_0>0,m,`$ by Proposition 8(iv).

By following \[Pe, Thm. 4.4\], for sufficiently large $`m𝐍^+\{\mathrm{}\},`$ choose a finite open cover of $`L`$ by balls $`\{B(q_s,r;(L,g_m)):s=1,\mathrm{},s_0(n,d_0,v_0,C_1)\}`$ such that the harmonic coordinates of \[JK\] exist on $`B(q_s,2r;(L,g_m))`$ for some $`r=r(n,d_0,v_0,C_1))(0,r_1].`$ By \[JH\] and \[Pe\], the components of the metrics in the harmonic coordinates satisfy

$$\left(g_m\right)_{ij}\left(g_{\mathrm{}}\right)_{ij}\text{ in }C^1\text{ sense as }m\mathrm{}.\text{ }(2.1)$$

$`s=1,\mathrm{},s_0,`$ the sequence $`\{e_m(q_s)\}_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is in compact $`D^{}.`$ By taking a subsequence, assume that $`s=1,\mathrm{},s_0,`$ $`e_m(q_s)z_s`$, as $`m\mathrm{}`$ for some $`z_sD^{}.`$

Fix $`s=1`$. Set $`\psi _m:B(q_1,2r;(L,g_m))𝐑^k`$ to be the harmonic coordinates and $`V=\overline{B(q_s,r;(L,g_{\mathrm{}}))}.`$ By the construction of harmonic coordinates \[JH\], $`(2.1)`$, and $`e_m`$ being isometric embeddings, there exists a compact $`W𝐑^k`$ such that for sufficiently large $`m,`$ all of the following holds.

$`V`$ $`B(q_1,2r;(L,g_m))`$
$`\psi _m\left(V\right)`$ $`int(W)W\psi _m\left(B(q_1,2r;(L,g_m))\right)`$
$`e_m(B(q_1,2r;(L,g_m)))`$ $`B(z_1,2r;D^{})B(p_{\alpha (1)},\delta _0;M)`$
Define the following $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions and vector fields for the last subsequence:

$`h_m(y_1,y_2,..,y_k)`$ $`=\phi _{\alpha (1)}e_m\psi _m^1:W𝐑^kTM_{p_{\alpha (1)}}𝐑^n`$
$`Y_i^m`$ $`=\left(\psi _m^1\right)_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{y_i}}\right)\text{ and }Z_i^m=\left(e_m\right)_{}Y_i^m`$
All of the estimates below are uniformly on $`W`$, or the corresponding domains by $`\psi _m^1`$ and $`e_m`$, for all present indices $`i,j,l,`$ and $`m`$ of the last chosen subsequence when limit is not taken.

$$Y_i^m,Y_j^m_{g_m}=\left(g_m\right)_{ij}\left(g_{\mathrm{}}\right)_{ij}\text{ as }m\mathrm{}\text{ }(2.2)$$

Since $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a non-degenerate metric and $`e_m`$ are isometric embeddings, there exists constants $`c_{10}`$, $`c_{11}`$and $`c_{12}`$ such that

$`0`$ $`<c_{10}Z_j^m_{g_0}=Y_j^m_{g_m}c_{11}<\mathrm{}\text{ }(2.3)`$
$`Z_l^mZ_i^m,Z_j^m_{g_0}`$ $`=Y_l^mY_i^m,Y_j^m_{g_m}={\displaystyle \frac{\left(g_m\right)_{ij}}{y_l}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(g_{\mathrm{}}\right)_{ij}}{y_l}}\text{ as }m\mathrm{}\text{ }(2.4)`$
$`Z_l^mZ_i^m,Z_j^m_{g_0}`$ $`=Y_l^mY_i^m,Y_j^m_{g_m}c_{12}<\mathrm{}\text{ }(2.5)`$
$`_{Y_l^m}^mY_i^m,Y_j^m_{g_m}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Y_l^mY_i^m,Y_j^m_{g_m}Y_i^mY_l^m,Y_j^m_{g_m}+Y_j^mY_i^m,Y_l^m_{g_m}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}c_{12}\text{ }(2.6)`$
where $`^m`$ denotes the connection of $`(K,g_m).`$ Let $`^M`$ denote the connection of $`(M,g_0).`$ Since $`e_m`$ are isometric embeddings, $`L_m`$ are $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ submanifolds and $`R_O(L_m,M)\delta ,c_{13},c_{14}`$ such that

$`_{Z_l^m}^MZ_i^m,Z_j^m_{g_o}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}c_{12}\text{ }(2.6^{})`$
$`_{Z_j^m}^MZ_j^m,\stackrel{}{n}_{g_o}`$ $`C_0(\delta )Z_j^m_{g_0}^2c_{13},\text{ }\stackrel{}{n}UNL_m\text{ }(2.7)`$
$`_{Z_l^m}^MZ_j^m,\stackrel{}{n}_{g_o}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}c_{13},\stackrel{}{n}UNL_m\text{ }(2.8)`$
$`_{Z_l^m}^MZ_j^m_{g_o}`$ $`c_{14},\stackrel{}{n}UNL_m\text{ }(2.9)`$
There exists $`c_{15},c_{16}`$ depending on $`M,`$ $`p_{\alpha (1)},`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}_{p_{\alpha (1)}}^M`$such that

$$vUTM|\overline{B(p_{\alpha (1)},\delta _0;M)},\text{ }0<c_{15}\left(\phi _{\alpha (1)}\right)_{}(v)_{𝐑^n}c_{16}<\mathrm{}.$$

$$\frac{h_m}{y_j}_{𝐑^n}=\left(h_m\right)_{}\left(\frac{}{y_j}\right)_{𝐑^n}=\left(\phi _{\alpha (1)}\right)_{}(Z_j^m)_{𝐑^n}c_{16}c_{11}\text{ }(2.10)$$

$$\left(\phi _{\alpha (1)}\right)_{}\left(_{Z_l^m}^MZ_j^m\right)=\underset{\gamma }{}\left(\underset{\beta ,\eta }{}\left(\frac{h_m}{y_l}\right)_\beta \left(\frac{h_m}{y_j}\right)_\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \eta }^\gamma +\left(\frac{^2h_m}{y_ly_j}\right)_\gamma \right)\frac{}{x_\gamma }$$

in the local coordinates $`\phi _{\alpha (1)},`$ where $`()_\beta `$ denotes the $`\beta `$th component in $`𝐑^n.`$ Hence, $`c_{17}(k,n,c_{11},c_{16},g_0,\phi _{\alpha (1)})<\mathrm{}`$ such that

$$\frac{^2h_m}{y_ly_j}_{𝐑^n}c_{17}.\text{ }(2.11)$$

Since $`W`$ is compact, $`e_m(q_1)z_1`$ as $`m\mathrm{}`$, $`(2.10)`$ and $`(2.11),`$ there exists a subsequence of $`h_m`$ converging in $`C^1`$ topology to a $`C^{1,1}`$ function $`h_{\mathrm{}}`$ over $`W,`$ by Arzela-Ascoli Theorem. Hence, there exists a subsequence of $`e_m`$ converging to a $`C^{1,1}`$ function over $`B(q_1,r;(L,g_{\mathrm{}})).`$ By applying this process on all finitely many $`B(q_s,r;(L,g_{\mathrm{}})),`$ there exists a subsequence $`e_me_{\mathrm{}}C^{1,1}`$ on $`L`$ in $`C^1`$ topology.

$`e_{\mathrm{}}`$ is an immersion since $`h_{\mathrm{}}`$ is non-singular: $`v𝐑^n\{0\},`$ and sufficiently large $`m,`$

$`\left(h_m\right)_{}(v)_{𝐑^n}`$ $`=\left(\phi _{\alpha (1)}\right)_{}\left(e_m\right)_{}\left(\psi _m^1\right)_{}(v)_{𝐑^n}`$
$`c_{15}\left(\psi _m^1\right)_{}(v)_{g_m}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{15}}{2}}\left(\psi _m^1\right)_{}(v)_g_{\mathrm{}}>0.`$
Suppose that $`e_{\mathrm{}}`$ is not one-to-one, $`e_{\mathrm{}}(a)=e_{\mathrm{}}(b)`$ for some $`a,bL.`$ Let $`A=\frac{1}{5}\mathrm{min}(d_2,d(a,b;(L,g_{\mathrm{}})))`$ with $`d_2`$ of Proposition 8(iii). For sufficiently large $`m,`$ $`d(a,b;(L,g_m))\frac{5}{4}d(a,b;(L,g_{\mathrm{}})).`$ As in the proof of Proposition 8(iii),

$$B(e_m(a),A;M)B(e_m(b),A;M)=\mathrm{}.$$

This contradicts with $`e_m(a)e_{\mathrm{}}(a)`$ and $`e_m(b)e_{\mathrm{}}(b)=e_{\mathrm{}}(a).`$ Hence, $`e_{\mathrm{}}`$ is one-to-one.

$`g_m=e_m^{}g_0e_{\mathrm{}}^{}g_0`$ in $`C^0`$ topology, since $`e_me_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`C^1`$ topology. However, $`g_mg_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`C^1`$ topology on $`L`$ in harmonic coordinates. Consequently, $`e_{\mathrm{}}^{}g_0=g_{\mathrm{}},`$ i.e., $`e_{\mathrm{}}:(L,g_{\mathrm{}})(M,g_0)`$ is an isometric embedding.

Since we have chosen $`d_{C^1}(K_m,L_m)<\frac{1}{m}`$ in the beginning of the proof, the initial sequence $`\{(K_m,M)\}_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ has a $`C^1`$-convergent subsequence $`\{(K_{m_j},M)\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ whose limit is $`(e_{\mathrm{}}(L),M):=(K_0,M).`$

$`(K_0,M)`$ belongs to $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ by $`K_{m_j}D`$ and Propositions 1 and 2:

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{\epsilon limsup\text{ }}i(K_{m_j},M)i(K_0,M).$$

iii. Given For every $`(K,M)𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ with the given embedding $`e:K(M,g_0),`$ find smooth approximations $`(L_m,M)`$ of $`(K,M)`$ in $`𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\delta ,D_\epsilon ;M)`$ such that $`d_{C^1}(K,L_m)<\frac{1}{m}`$, repeat (ii) to show that $`e(K)=e_{\mathrm{}}(L)`$ by uniqueness of limits. Of course, $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ $`(\alpha <1)`$ by \[Pe\] in harmonic coordinates \[JK\] and it is a limit of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ Riemannian metrics of bounded curvature and injectivity radius with respect to Lipschitz distance, \[Ni\], \[Pe\], \[GW\]. $`(K,g_{\mathrm{}})`$ is a $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ Alexandrov space \[Ni\] with a well defined exponential map, \[D3\], \[Pu\]. ∎

###### Corollary 2.

By Proposition 2 and Theorem 2, there exists thickest submanifolds in every nonempty diffeomorphism or isotopy class $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$:

$$(K_0,M)\text{ such that }(K,M),\text{ }i(K_0,M)i(K,M)$$

The same conclusion holds for any nonempty closed subset $``$ of $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M).`$ For example, subsets with fixed volume or diameter.

### 4.2. $`C^1`$Compactness for $`K`$ with many components

Define $`𝒟^{}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)=\{(K,M):KC^{1,1},`$ $`dimK=k,`$ $`KD,`$ and $`i(K,M)\epsilon \}`$ where $`K`$ is not necessarily connected.

###### Corollary 3.

i. The number of components of $`K`$ in $`𝒟^{}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ are uniformly bounded.

ii. $`𝒟^{}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ is sequentially compact in $`C^1`$-topology, and it has finitely many isotopy and diffeomorphism types.

iii. There exists a thickest submanifold in each nonempty isotopy class of $`𝒟^{}(k,\epsilon ,D;M).`$

###### Proof.

i. Let $`\epsilon _0=\mathrm{min}(\epsilon ,\frac{1}{2}i(D_\epsilon )).`$ For each component $`K^\alpha `$ of $`K,`$ choose $`p_\alpha K^\alpha .`$ $`B(K^\alpha ,\epsilon ;M)B(K^\beta ,\epsilon ;M)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`\alpha \beta ,`$ since $`i(K,M)\epsilon .`$ Hence, $`B(p_\alpha ,\epsilon _0;M)B(p_\beta ,\epsilon _0;M)=\mathrm{}`$. By Croke \[Cr, Prop. 14\], $`v_1(n,\epsilon _0)>0`$ such that $`v_1vol_n(B(p_\alpha ,\epsilon _0;M)),\alpha `$. Hence, $`K`$ has at most $`vol_n(D_\epsilon )/v_1`$ components.

ii. Given any sequence $`\{(K_j,M)\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`𝒟^{}(k,\epsilon ,D;M),`$ choose a subsequence (by using same index $`j`$) where the number of components of $`K_j`$ is constant, and enumerate the components $`K_j^\alpha .`$ $`\alpha ,`$ $`\epsilon i(K_j,M)i(K_j^\alpha ,M).`$ By Theorem 2, choose a subsequence where $`K_j^1`$ converges in $`C^1`$ topology, and choose its subsequence where $`K_j^2`$ converges in $`C^1`$ topology and so on. Hence, $`𝒟^{}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ is sequentially compact in $`C^1`$-topology and a subsequence $`(K_j,M)(K_{\mathrm{}},M)𝒟^{}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$, by Proposition 2. $`j_0jj_0\alpha ,`$ $`K_j^\alpha B(K_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha ,\rho ^{};M)`$, for $`\rho ^{}`$ of Lemma 5 and hence $`K_j^\alpha `$ is isotopic to $`K_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha `$ in $`B(K_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha ,\epsilon ;M).`$ These isotopies can be combined to give an isotopy of $`K_j`$ to $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$ without any self intersections $`jj_0,`$ since $`B(K_{\mathrm{}}^\alpha ,\epsilon ;M)`$ are mutually disjoint.

iii. This is an immediate consequence of (ii) and Proposition 2. ∎

### 4.3. Normal curvatures and Thickness Formula in Euclidean Spaces

$`\mathrm{exp}_p:T(K,g_{\mathrm{}})_p(K,g_{\mathrm{}})`$ is of class $`C^{0,1},`$ see \[D3\] and \[Pu\]. Even though the geodesics $`\mathrm{exp}_psv`$ of $`(K,g_{\mathrm{}})`$ are $`C^2`$ in limit harmonic coordinates, \[D3, 5.10.3\], the corresponding geodesics $`e_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{exp}_psv)`$ in $`(K,M)`$ are $`C^{1,1}.`$ Hence $`_\gamma ^{}^M\gamma ^{}`$ is defined almost everywhere in $`s.`$

###### Definition 10.

We define the supremum of the ”absolute normal curvatures” $`sup\kappa _N(K)`$ for a $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifold $`K`$ to be

$`sup\{_\gamma ^{}^M\gamma ^{}(s):\gamma :𝐑K\text{ is a geodesic of }K\text{ with }\gamma ^{}=1\text{ and }_\gamma ^{}^M\gamma ^{}(s)\text{ exists}\}.`$

###### Proposition 12.

For a $`C^{1,1}`$ submanifold $`K^k`$ of $`𝐑^n,`$ $`F_g(K,𝐑^n)=\frac{1}{sup\kappa _N(K)}.`$ Hence,

$$i(K,M)=\mathrm{min}\{\frac{1}{sup\kappa _N(K)},\frac{1}{2}MDC(K)\}.$$

###### Proof.

The following is a basic result in $`𝐑^n,`$ we refer to \[D6, Proposition 2\] for an elementary proof.

Let $`\gamma :I=(\frac{\pi }{2\kappa },\frac{\pi }{2\kappa })𝐑^n`$ be with $`\gamma ^{}1,`$ $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\kappa 0`$ a.e. Then,

i. $`\gamma O_{\gamma (0)}(\gamma ^{}(0),\frac{1}{\kappa };𝐑^n)=\mathrm{},`$ and

ii. if $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ exists and $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)=\kappa ,`$ then $`R>\frac{1}{\kappa },\delta >0`$ such that $`\gamma ((0,\delta ))B(\gamma (0)+R\frac{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)}{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)},R).`$

Let $`\kappa _0=sup\kappa _N(K)`$ and $`\epsilon =\frac{\pi }{2\kappa _0}.`$ By (i), for any $`pK,`$ $`vUTK_p,`$

$`\mathrm{exp}_p^K((\epsilon ,\epsilon )v)O_p(v,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}},𝐑^n)`$ $`=\mathrm{}`$
$`B(p,\epsilon ;K)O_p({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}},K;𝐑^n)`$ $`=\mathrm{}`$
$`F_g(p,K;𝐑^n)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}}`$
$`F_g(K;𝐑^n)`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa _0}}=\underset{\gamma \text{ geodesic}}{inf}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }}}`$
Suppose that $`F_g(K;𝐑^n)>\underset{𝛾}{inf}\frac{1}{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }}.`$ Then, there exists a geodesic $`\gamma `$ and $`R`$ such that $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)`$ exists and $`F_g(K;𝐑^n)>R>\frac{1}{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)}.`$ Then by (ii) above,

$`\gamma ((0,\delta ))B(\gamma (0)+R\frac{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)}{\gamma ^{\prime \prime }(0)},R)`$ which implies that $`RF_g(\gamma (0),K;𝐑^n)F_g(K;𝐑^n)`$ by the definition of $`F_g.`$ Hence, one obtains a contradiction. Consequently, $`F_g(K,𝐑^n)=\frac{1}{sup\kappa _N(K)}.`$ The rest follows Theorem 1. ∎

## 5. Estimates on the number of Isotopy and Diffeomorphism types

The number $`\mathrm{\#}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ of the different diffeomorphism classes and isotopy classes of $`C^{1,1}`$ manifolds of $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ is bounded above by a constructible constant in terms $`n,k,\delta (\epsilon )`$ and $`D_\epsilon `$ where $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)\overline{𝒜^{\mathrm{}}(k,\delta ,D_\epsilon ;M)}`$ in $`C^1`$ topology. It is clear from the proofs of Propositions 8 and 11, and Lemmas 2 and 5 that $`\rho =\rho (n,k,\delta (\epsilon ),C_0,\left|Sect(M)\right|,i(D_\epsilon )).`$ The dependence of $`\delta `$ on $`\epsilon `$ relies on a finite number of fixed coordinate charts of $`M,`$ in fact on their derivatives up to second order. Using normal coordinates may bring in $`R,`$ but in harmonic coordinates, one can control them with only $`\left|Sect(M)\right|`$ and $`i(D_\epsilon ).`$

The number of different diffeomorphism classes and isotopy classes in $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ can be bounded in terms of $`\rho (\delta (\epsilon ))`$ as follows. Take a minimal cover $`=\{B(p_\alpha ,\rho /2):\alpha =1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\}`$ of $`D_\epsilon `$ by open discs: $`B(p_\alpha ,\rho /4)B(p_\beta ,\rho /4)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`\alpha \beta .`$ Then, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0vol(D_\epsilon )/\mathrm{min}(vol(B(p_\alpha ,\rho /4)))c(n)vol(D_\epsilon )\rho ^n`$ by volume estimates of \[Cr\]. Define $`\mathrm{\Phi }(K)=\{\alpha :KB(p_\alpha ,\rho /2)\mathrm{}\}.`$ Any $`K,L𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(K)=\mathrm{\Phi }(L)`$ must satisfy $`LB(K,\rho ;M),`$ and hence, $`K`$ and $`L`$ are isotopic and diffeomorphic. Consequently, there are at most $`2^{c(n)vol(D_\epsilon )\rho ^n}`$ distinct diffeomorphism classes and isotopy classes of $`C^{1,1}`$ manifolds in $`𝒟(k,\epsilon ,D;M).`$

We calculate these estimates in $`𝐑^n`$ below. Let $`D=\overline{B(0,r,𝐑^n)}`$ and $`i(K,𝐑^n)\epsilon .`$ Rescale the metric so that $`R=\frac{r}{\epsilon },D=\overline{B(0,R,𝐑^n)}`$ and $`i(K,𝐑^n)1.`$ Let $`\alpha _n=vol(S^n(1)).`$

$`i(𝐑^n)`$ $`=\mathrm{},\text{ }Sect(𝐑^n)=0,\text{ and }C_0=C_1=1`$
$`1`$ $`=\epsilon \mathrm{min}(\epsilon ^{},\delta ,\delta _0)1`$
$`d_1`$ $`=d_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{ and }d_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}`$
$`d_0`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(8R)^n`$
$`v_0`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)\alpha _n}{n\alpha _{nk1}}}e^{1n}`$
$`i_0`$ $`\mathrm{min}(\pi ,{\displaystyle \frac{\pi v_0}{\alpha _n}}\mathrm{sinh}^{1n}d_0)\text{ by [HK]}`$
$`e^{\frac{n}{2}(8R)^n},\text{ for }k2,`$
$`i_0`$ $`\pi ,\text{ for }k=1`$
$`\rho `$ $`=\mathrm{min}({\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{i_0}{4}},d_3)={\displaystyle \frac{i_0}{4}}\text{ for }k2`$
$`\rho `$ $`=\mathrm{min}({\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{3}},{\displaystyle \frac{i_0}{4}},d_3)=d_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}},\text{ for }k=1`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4R}{\rho }}\right)^n=\left({\displaystyle \frac{16R}{i_0}}\right)^n`$
$`\mathrm{\#}(k,\epsilon ,D;M)`$ $`2^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}`$
Almost all of the estimates are reasonable, except for $`i_0`$ and $`v_0`$ for $`k2.`$

## 6. References

\[B\] M. Berger, Une borne inferieure pour le volume dune variete Riemannienne en fonction du rayon dinjectivite, Ann. Inst. Fourier, Grenoble, 30 (1980), 259-265.

\[Be\] A. L. Besse, Manifolds all of whose geodesics are closed, Ergebnisse Math. Grenzgebiete, vol 93, Springer, Berlin 1978.

\[BS\] G. Buck and J. Simon, Energy and lengths of knots, Lectures at Knots 96, 219-234.

\[Ch\] J. Cheeger, Finiteness theorems for Riemannian manifolds, American Jour. of Math. 92 (1970) 61-74.

\[CE\] J. Cheeger and D. G. Ebin, Comparison theorems in Riemannian geometry, Vol 9, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975.

\[CG\] J. Cheeger and M. Gromov, On characteristic numbers of complete manifolds of bounded curvature and finite volume, in Differential Geometry and Complex Analysis, editors I. Chavel and H. M. Farkas, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.

\[Cn\] S. S. Chern, Curves and surfaces in Euclidean space, in Studies in Global Geometry and Analysis, Math. Assoc. Amer., Prentice Hall, 1967, 16-56.

\[Cr\] C. Croke, Some isoperimetric inequalities and eigenvalue estimates, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup., 13 (1980) 419-435.

\[DoC\] M. P. DoCarmo, Riemannian geometry, Birkhauser, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992.

\[D1\] O. C. Durumeric, Manifolds with almost equal diameter and injectivity radius, Jour. of Diff. Geom., 19 (1984) 453-474.

\[D2\] O. C. Durumeric, A generalization of Berger’s almost 1/4 pinched manifolds theorem I, Bull. Am. Math. Soc., 12 (1985) 260-264.

\[D3\] O. C. Durumeric, A generalization of Berger’s theorem on almost 1/4 pinched manifolds II, Jour. Diff. Geom., 26 (1987) 101-139.

\[D4\] O. C. Durumeric, Finiteness theorems, average volume and curvature, Am. Jour. of Math., 111 (1989) 973-990.

\[D5\] O. C. Durumeric, Growth of fundamental groups and isoembolic volume and diameter, Proc. Am. Math. Soc.,130 (2002), no. 2, 585-590.

\[D6\] O. C. Durumeric, Local structure of ideal knots, preprint.

\[GM\] O. Gonzales and H. Maddocks, Global curvature, thickness and the ideal shapes of knots, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 96 (1999) 4769-4773.

\[GWY\] K. Grove, P. Petersen and J.-Y. Wu, Geometric finiteness theorems via controlled geometry, Invent. Math., 99 (1990), 205-213; Erratum, 104 (1991) 221-222.

\[GW\] R. E. Greene and H. Wu, Lipschitz convergence of Riemannian manifolds, Pacific Jour. of Math., 131 (1988), 119-141

\[GKM\] D. Gromoll, W. Klingenberg and W. Meyer, Riemannsche Geometrie im Grossen, Lecture notes in Mathematics No. 55, Springer-Verlag, 2nd Edition, 1975.

\[Gr\] M. Gromov redige par J. LaFontaine and P. Pansu, Structures metriques pour les varietes Riemaniennes, Cedic/Ferdnan Nathan, 1981.

\[HK\] E. Heintze and H. Karcher, A general comparison theorem with applications to volume estimates for submanifolds, Ann. scient. Ec. Norm. Sup. 4e serie, 11 (1978),451-470.

\[JK\] J. Jost and H. Karcher, Geometrische Methoden zur Gewinnung von a-priori-schranken fur Harmonische Abbildingen, Manuscripta Math., 40 (1982), 27-77.

\[Ka\] V. Katrich, J. Bendar, D. Michoud, R.G. Scharein, J. Dubochet and A. Stasiak, Geometry and physics of knots, Nature, 384 (1996) 142-145.

\[K\] A. Katsuda, Gromov’s convergence theorem and its application, Nagoya Math. Jour., 100 (1985), 11-48.

\[L\] Litherland, Unbearable thickness of knots, preprint.

\[LSDR\] A. Litherland, J Simon, O. Durumeric and E. Rawdon, Thickness of knots, Topology and its Applications, 91(1999) 233-244.

\[M\] J. Milnor, Morse theory, Annals of Math. Studies vol. 51, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1973.

\[N\] A. Nabutovsky, Non-recursive functions, knots ”with thick ropes” and self-clenching ”thick” hyperspheres, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 48 (1995) 381-428.

\[Ni\] I. G. Nikolaev, Bounded curvature closure of the set of compact Riemannian manifolds, Bulletin of A.M.S.,24 (1) 171-176.

\[Pe\] S. Peters, Convergence of Riemannian manifolds, Compositio Math., 62 (1987), 3-16.

\[Pu\] C. C. Pugh, C<sup>1,1</sup> conclusions in Gromov’s theory, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 7 (1987), no. 1, 133-147.

\[Wa\] F. W. Warner, Conjugate loci of constant order, Annals of Math., 86 (1967), 192-212.

\[W\] H. Whitney, Geometric integration theory, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1957.

\[Y\] T. Yamaguchi, Homotopy type finiteness theorems for certain precompact families of Riemannian manifolds, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 102, No. 3 (1988) 660-666.