Surfaces with central cross-sections

We may parametrize any origin-centered ellipse by

for some symmetric invertible matrix \,A_{2\times2}\,. In that case, (?) computes its support function as

This supremum here clearly occurs when

which instantly yields \,h(\theta) = \left|Ae^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\right|\,. Familiar trig identities then make it easy to deduce

for some constants \,a,b\, and \,c\,, with \,|a|<c\,, and the positive solutions of \,f'''+4f'=0\, are precisely the functions given by (Proof).

The defining condition for the support parametrization (?) puts the endpoints of each \theta-diameter on \,\mathcal{O}\, at \,\gamma(\theta)\, and \,\gamma(\theta+\pi)\,. It follows immediately that the even part of \,\gamma\, parametrizes the centrix\,\mathbf{c}\,.

When \,\mathbf{c}(\theta)\equiv \mathbf{c}_{0}\in\mathbf{R}^{2}\,, reflection through \,\mathbf{c}_{0}\, clearly preserves \,\mathcal{O}\,.

Conversely, if reflection through some point \,\mathbf{c}_{0}\, preserves \,\mathcal{O}\,, it—like any affine isomorphism—must preserve pairs of parallel lines. In particular, it will swap the endpoints of each \theta-diameter, preserving their midpoints. But reflection through \,\mathbf{c}_{0}\, preserves no other point. So central symmetry means \,\mathbf{c}(\theta)\equiv \mathbf{c}_{0}\,.

The even and odd parts of \,\gamma\, always add back to \,\gamma\,. So when \,\mathcal{O}\, is central, the odd part \,\gamma^{*}\, clearly parametrizes \,\mathcal{O}-\mathbf{c}\,, whose center of symmetry obviously lies at the origin. In this case, we also have \,(\gamma^{*})'(\theta) = \gamma'(\theta)\,, a multiple of \,\mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\,. It follows that (?) must hold for \,\gamma^{*}\,, which makes it a support parametrization.

The existence of \,\theta_{\varepsilon}\, is routine. For, \,\Gamma\left(\theta,\zeta(\varepsilon,\theta)\right)\, parametrizes \,\mathcal{O}(b,\varepsilon)\,, and is \,C^{2}\, in both \,\theta\, and \,\varepsilon\,. This makes the unit outer normal \,\nu_{\varepsilon}(\theta)\, on \,\mathcal{O}(b,\varepsilon)\, continuously differentiable in both variables, while the strict convexity of \,\mathcal{O}(b,\varepsilon)\, ensures that \,\nu_{\varepsilon}\, induces a diffeomorphism \,\mathbf{S}^{1}\to\mathbf{S}^{1}\, that varies smoothly with \,\varepsilon\in(-\delta,\delta)\,. By the Inverse Function Theorem, the inverse of this map varies smoothly in \,\varepsilon\, too. As noted after Definition 2.1, however, the inverse of the outer normal on an oval gives its support parametrization. We therefore get the desired family of reparametrizing maps by setting \,\theta_{\varepsilon}:=(\nu_{\varepsilon})^{-1}\, for each \,|\varepsilon|<\delta\,.

Note too that by (?), setting \,\varepsilon =0\, reduces \,\Gamma\left(\theta,\zeta(\varepsilon,\theta)\right)\, to \,\Gamma(\theta,b)\,, which already support-parametrizes \,\mathcal{O}(b)\,, by definition of \,\Gamma\,. So \,\theta_{0}\, is the trivial reparametrization—the identity map—as claimed.

It remains to verify the stated formula for \,\partial\theta_{\varepsilon}/\partial\varepsilon\, at \,\varepsilon=0\,. This requires some careful calculations.

Start by observing that since \,\Gamma_{\varepsilon}\circ\theta_{\varepsilon}\, support-parametrizes \,\mathcal{O}(b,\varepsilon)\, when \,|\varepsilon|<\delta\,. By (?), this makes its velocity at any input \,\theta\, a multiple of \,\mathbf{i} e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\,. Hence

Use the chain rule to expand the derivative, abbreviating \,\theta_{\varepsilon}(\theta)\, as simply \,\theta_{\varepsilon}\,, to rewrite this condition as

Since \,\theta_{\varepsilon}\, is a diffeomorphism of \,\mathbf{S}^{1}\,, its derivative along the circle never vanishes. So we can divide out the final factor above and conclude that for all \,|\varepsilon|<\delta\,, we have

Regarding this as a characterization of \,\theta_{\varepsilon}\,, we will differentiate implicitly with respect to \,\varepsilon\,, then set \,\varepsilon=0\, to verify the Proposition’s final claim. To manage the task, we differentiate the two sides of (?) separately before equating them to get our final conclusion.

Left side of (?): Differentiate the left-hand side of (?). Because \,\zeta(0,\theta)\equiv b\,, all pure \theta-derivatives of \,\zeta\, vanish at \,\varepsilon=0\,, and we can rewrite the sole surviving summand using Observation 3.3:

Right side of (?): Now differentiate the right side of (?). Again, the constancy of \,\zeta(\varepsilon,\theta)\, at \,\varepsilon=0\, eliminates most summands, so that

We can now simplify this further, because \,\Gamma(\,\cdot, b)\, support-parametrizes \,\mathcal{O}(b)\,. This implies, via (?), that at the preimage \,(\theta,b)\, of any point in that oval, we have two identities:

The first of these lets us deduce

3pt

which eliminates the final term on the right in (?).

Alternatively, if we differentiate the first of the two identities above with respect to \,\theta\,, and then use the second, we get

This lets us rewrite the first term on the right in (?), collapsing the whole equation to

We now finish by setting (?) equal to (?). This exhibits the initial \varepsilon-derivative of equation (?) as

Since this holds at the preimage \,(\theta,b)\, of any point in \,\mathcal{O}(b,\varepsilon)\,, and since, by (?) again, \,\partial\Gamma/\partial\theta\, normalizes to \,\mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\,, this proves the last conclusion of our Proposition.

With (?) in view, we first compute the initial \varepsilon-derivative of \,\Gamma(\theta_{\varepsilon},\,\zeta(\varepsilon,\theta_{\varepsilon})). Recall that by Proposition 3.5, \,\theta_{0}(\theta) = \theta\,, and abbreviate

A routine application of the chain rule then gives

where we have used equation (?) and Observation 3.3 to evaluate the derivatives of \,\zeta\,.

We must average (?) over \,\{\theta,\bar\theta\}\, to get the initial \varepsilon-derivative of \,\mathbf{c}_{\varepsilon}\, via (?). We assume \,\Gamma(\theta,z)\, support-parametrizes an oval \,\mathcal{O}(z)\, having central symmetry about \,\mathbf{c}(z)\, for each \,-1<z<1\,, so we have

as in Observation 2.6. Here \,\Gamma^{*}\, and all its \theta-derivatives are odd, so that for instance

All \theta-derivatives of \,\mathbf{c}(z)\,, on the other hand, clearly vanish. If we average (?) over \,\{\theta,\bar\theta\}\, with all these facts in mind, we get

where we now evaluate \,\Gamma^{*}\, and its derivatives at \,(\theta,z)\, throughout. To simplify further, note that the four mixed products involving \,\mathbf{c} and \,\Gamma^{*}-terms cancel in pairs, so that

This will give the formula we seek—we just need to prove

For that, we invoke Proposition 3.5. Since \,\Gamma^{*}\, and \,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\, are both odd, that Proposition yields

Subtract the second line from the first to get (?), and the desired formula follows.

We get \,\mathbf{c}_{\varepsilon}\, by symmetrizing each member in a smooth family of support parametrizations:

Indeed, our formula (?) expresses \,\mathbf{c}_{\varepsilon}\, in this way. It then follows from the defining condition (?) for support parametrizations, that

Differentiation with respect to \,\varepsilon\, affects only the scalar coefficient of \,\mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\, here, making the desired fact obvious.

Differentiation with respect to \,\theta\, annihilates \,\mathbf{c}\, and \,\mathbf{c}'\,, and hence Lemma 3.7 combines with Observation 3.8 to give

Since \,\Gamma^{*}\, support-parametrizes \,\mathcal{O}(z)-\mathbf{c}(z)\, for each \,z\,, however, we have \,\Gamma^{*}_{\theta}=\left|\Gamma^{*}_{\theta}\right|\mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\,. This is perpendicular to \,-e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}=\left(\mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\right)_{\theta}\,, so the product rule lets us rewrite the first term on the right above as

To evaluate the second term, note that \,\Gamma^{*}_{\theta}\cdot\tau = \left|\Gamma^{*}_{\theta}\right|\mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\cdot\tau\,, and

Taking all these facts into account, our expansion of \,f_{\tau}\, becomes

Now separate multiples of \,\tau\cdot\mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\, from those of \,\tau\cdot e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\,, noting that \,\left(\tau\cdot\mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\right)_{\theta}=-\left(\tau\cdot e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\right)\,, and that by orthonormal expansion,

Use these facts to expand \,f_{\tau}\, further, collecting multiples of \,\tau\cdot\mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\, and \,\tau\cdot e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}\,, and noticing that

to get

Now we invoke the central plane oval assumption, observing that when \,\mathcal{T}\, has cpo, we must have \,f_{\tau}\equiv 0\,.

Indeed, cpo endows the tilted ovals \,\bar\mathcal{O}(z,\varepsilon)\, with central symmetry for all \,\tau\in\mathbf{S}^{1}\,, all \,-1<z<1\,, and all sufficiently small \,\varepsilon\,. As noted earlier, the projected ovals \,\mathcal{O}(z,\varepsilon)\, inherit that symmetry too, since the projection \,(x,y,z)\to(x,y)\, induces an affine isomorphism from any non-vertical plane to \,\mathbf{R}^{2}\,.

Observation 2.6 then makes the centrix \,\mathbf{c}_{\varepsilon}\, of \,\mathcal{O}(z,\varepsilon)\, constant (i.e. independent of \,\theta\,) for any tilt-direction \,\tau\,, any \,|z|<1\, and all any sufficiently small \,\varepsilon\,. The vanishing condition (?) therefore obtains. Given Observation 3.8, this forces \,f_{\tau}\equiv 0\, as claimed.

We may consequently set the right-hand side of (?) equal to zero. But the resulting identity holds for any tilt-direction \,\tau=:e^{\mathbf{i}\phi}\in\mathbf{S}^{1}\,, and the coefficients \,\tau\cdot e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}=\cos(\phi-\theta)\, and \,\tau\cdot \mathbf{i}\,e^{\mathbf{i}\theta}=\sin(\phi-\theta)\, appearing there are clearly linearly independent functions of \,\tau\,. The terms they multiply must therefore vanish individually. In short, we now have

For each \,|z|<1\,, the relationship between the support parametrization \,\Gamma^{*}(\,\cdot,z)\, of \,\mathcal{O}(z)\, and its support function \,h(\,\cdot,z)\,, as detailed in §?, now lets us write

from which we can immediately deduce

Substituting these into (?) and (?) instantly gives the differential equations we want.

It will clearly suffice to prove that the transverse support function \,h\, of \,\Gamma^{*}\, factors as \,h(z,\theta)=h(\theta)\,r(z)\,. We know that \,h(z,\theta)\, satisfies the two differential equations of Proposition 3.9, and we start by noticing that the second equation there forms the numerator of a quotient-rule calculation. Specifically, it implies

from which we easily deduce

for some strictly positive, z-independent function \,q\, on \,\mathbf{S}^{1}\,. We can assume positivity of \,q\, because \,\mathcal{O}(z)-\mathbf{c}(z)\, is origin-centered and strictly convex for each \,z\,, properties that, by equations (?) and (?), make both \,h\, and \,h_{\theta\theta}+h\, strictly positive.

In any case, since \,q\, depends only on \,\theta\,, we see that the support functions of the translated ovals \,\mathcal{O}(z)-\mathbf{c}(z)\, all solve the same ordinary differential equation, namely (?). Such equations have independent solutions, of course, so by itself, (?) leaves us short of splitting. But it lets us rewrite the first differential equation of Proposition 3.9 as

Since \,h_{z}h\, and \,h_{\theta}h\, are derivatives of (half) the squared support function

we can the exploit z-independence of \,q\,, and use \,H_{z\theta}=H_{\theta z}\, to rewrite (?) in the form of a first-order equation for \,H_{z}\,:

Now multiply by \,H_{z}\, to recognize that (?) actually reduces to

Evidently, there exists a \theta-independent function \,\phi(z)\, such that

Integrating with respect to \,z\, then yields

Rewrite this as

where

Since \,H=h^{2}\,, and, as the support function of an origin-centered oval, \,h(\theta,z) is always positive, we see that \,1+\alpha\,\Phi>0\, too. Hence

The continuity of \,\alpha\, guarantees it a maximum value \,\bar\alpha\, at some point \,\bar\theta\in\mathbf{S}^{1}\,, and there, (?) yields

These identities show that for any fixed \,z\, with \,|z|<1\,, the functions \,h(\theta,z)\, and \,h(\theta,0)\sqrt{1+\bar\alpha\,\Phi(z)}\, both obey the same initial conditions at \,\theta=\bar\theta\,. Since both also solve (?), Picard’s uniqueness theorem forces them to agree everywhere.

The Lemma consequently holds with

We show that when \,\mathcal{T}\, is a transversely convex tube in standard position, and \,\mathcal{T}^{*}\, is not a cylinder, there exists a single linear isomorphism that fixes the z-axis while making each horizontal cross-section \,\mathcal{O}(z)\, of \,\mathcal{T}^{*}\, simultaneously circular. This clearly implies the desired result.

We start by using the Splitting Lemma to factor the transverse support function \,h\, of \,\mathcal{T}^{*}\, as

Put this factorization back into the first differential equation in Proposition 3.9 and simplify, to find that \,r\, and \,h\, now jointly solve

on \,\mathbf{S}^{1}\times (-1,1)\,. We have assumed that \,\mathcal{T}^{*}\, is not cylindrical, so \,r'(z_{0})\ne 0\, for some \,-1<z_{0}<1\,. Evaluating (?) at that height, we then deduce that the horizontal support function \,h(\theta)\, solves the following ordinary differential equation:

The reader will find it routine to verify what came as a pleasant surprise to us: That this quadratic ODE for \,h\, reduces to a linear equation—one that could hardly be more familiar—for the squared support function \,H(\theta):=h^{2}(\theta)\,:

By Proposition 2.2, this makes \,h(\theta)\, the support function of an origin-centered ellipse \,\mathcal{O}_{0}\,. By (?), every horizontal cross-section of \,\mathcal{T}^{*}\, is then homothetic to \,\mathcal{O}_{0}\,, and since it is origin-centered, \,\mathcal{O}_{0}\, is congruent to the unit circle via some linear mapping \,A\, of \,\mathbf{R}^{2}\,. Extending \,A\, trivially to \,\mathbf{R}^{3}\,, we clearly map \,\mathcal{T}^{*}\, to a surface of revolution, precisely as we sought to prove.

We can assume \,\mathcal{T}\, lies in the standard position described by Definition 1.4, and it clearly suffices to prove that when \,\mathcal{T}^{*}\, is either a cylinder or a surface of revolution, cpo forces the axis of \,\mathcal{T}\, itself to be a straight line. The latter occurs if and only if the tube’s central curve \,\mathbf{c}:(-1,1)\to\mathbf{R}^{2}\, is affine (linear plus constant). We will establish exactly that, using the following

Linearity Criterion: A \,C^{2}\, mapping \,\mathbf{c}:I\to\mathbf{R}\, is affine on an open interval \,I\, if and only if it is locally odd around each input, in the sense that for all \,b\in I\,, we have

for all sufficiently small \,t\,.

When \,\mathbf{c}\, is affine, (?) clearly holds. To prove the converse, it suffices to show that (?) implies \,\mathbf{c}''\equiv 0\,. But that follows instantly if we differentiate it twice, and then let \,t\to 0\,.

With this criterion in hand, we proceed, treating the cylindrical and rotationally symmetric cases separately.

Cylindrical case: When \,\mathcal{T}^{*}\, is a cylinder, its horizontal cross-section \,\mathcal{O}(z) at every height \,z\in (-1,1)\, translates to a fixed central oval \,\mathcal{O}_{0}\in\mathbf{R}^{2}\,. Take \,\mathcal{O}_{0}\, to be centered at the origin and denote its support parametrization by \,\gamma\, to get this parametrization \,X:\mathbf{S}^{1}\times(-1,1)\to\mathcal{T}\,:

Now consider, for any height \,b\in(-1,1)\,, and any angle \,\theta\in\mathbf{R}\,, the \theta-diameter of \,\mathcal{O}(b) (Definition 2.4). Since \,\gamma\, support-parametrizes \,\mathcal{O}_{0}\,, the endpoints of this diameter clearly lie at \,X(\theta,b)\, and \,X(\theta+\pi, b)\,, and the crucial point is that the tangent planes to \,\mathcal{T}\, at these endpoints are parallel. To see that, compute the partial derivatives \,X_{t}\, and \,X_{z}\, at these points. Since \,\mathcal{O}_{0}\, is central, we have \,\gamma'(\theta+\pi)=-\gamma'(\theta)\,, and this makes the tangent planes parallel, since both are spanned by

Now suppose, fixing the \theta-diameter of \,\mathcal{O}(b) as axis, we tilt the plane \,z=b\, away from the horizontal with some small slope \,\varepsilon>0\, to get a new plane \,P_{\varepsilon}(\theta)\,. For sufficiently small \,\varepsilon>0\,, the intersection \,\mathcal{O}(b,\theta,\varepsilon):=\mathcal{T}\cap P_{\varepsilon}(\theta)\, will remain an oval—and a central oval, since \,\mathcal{T}\, has cpo.

Further, since \,P_{\varepsilon}(\theta)\, contains the \theta-diameter of \,\mathcal{O}(b), the endpoints \,X(\theta,b)\, and \,X(\theta+\pi,b)\, of that diameter remain on \,\mathcal{O}(b,\theta,\varepsilon)\, independently of \,\varepsilon\,. And since the tangent planes to \,\mathcal{T}\, at these points are parallel, and their intersections with \,P_{\varepsilon}(\theta)\, clearly form lines tangent to \,\mathcal{O}(b,\theta,\varepsilon)\, at \,X(\theta,b)\, and \,X(\theta+\pi,b)\,, those tangent lines are parallel.

The latter fact shows that the \theta-diameter of \,\mathcal{O}(b)\, remains a diameter of \,\mathcal{O}(b,\theta,\varepsilon)\, independently of \,\varepsilon\,, and hence that \,(\mathbf{c}(b),b) forms the center of \,\mathcal{O}(b,\theta,\varepsilon)\,, for each \,\theta\, and each sufficiently small \,\varepsilon>0\,. The center of \,\mathcal{O}(b,\theta,\varepsilon)\, remains fixed as we vary \,\varepsilon\,.

Now observe that every point sufficiently close to \,\mathcal{O}(b) on \,\mathcal{T}\, belongs \,\mathcal{O}(b,\theta,\varepsilon)\, for some \,\theta\, and some small \,\varepsilon>0\,, so that by cpo, its reflection through \,(\mathbf{c}(b),b)\, also lies on \,\mathcal{T}\,. It follows that an entire neighborhood of \,\mathcal{O}(b) in \,\mathcal{T}\, has reflection symmetry through \,(\mathbf{c}(b),b)\,. In some neighborhood of \,(\mathbf{c}(b),b)\,, the central curve \,\mathbf{c}\, of \,\mathcal{T}\, then inherits that same reflection symmetry. Since \,b\in(-1,1)\, was arbitrary, this clearly means that (?) holds for \,\mathbf{c}\,, and our Linearity Criterion now straightens the central curve, as desired.

Surface-of-revolution case: Here, each horizontal plane \,z\equiv b\, cuts the original tube \,\mathcal{T}\, in a circle centered at \,(\mathbf{c}(b),b)\, for each \,b\in(-1,1)\,. Write \,F(b)>0\, for the squared radius of this circle, and \,(\xi(b),\eta(b)):=\mathbf{c}(b)\, for the horizontal coordinates of its center. Then \,\mathcal{T}\, clearly constitutes the solution set of

The \,C^{2}\, differentiability of \,\mathcal{T}\, ensures that \,F\,, \,\xi\, and \,\eta\, are all \,C^{2}\, on \,(-1,1)\,.

We want to show that cpo forces \,\mathbf{c}\, to be affine. To do so, we study the even and odd components of \,\xi,\,\eta, and \,F\, with respect to reflection through a point, and for that we introduce the following notation.

Suppose \,\beta\in\mathbf{R}\,, and let \,f\, denote any function defined on a neighborhood of \,\beta\,. We define the \,\beta-translate of \,f\, by

We also define the even and odd parts of \,f_{\beta}\, respectively as

As usual, we then have

and

Now fix an arbitrary height \,\beta\in(-1,1)\,. Since \,\mathcal{T}\, is horizontally circular, has cpo, and lies in standard position, we can find a small slope \,m>0\,, and a z-intercept \,b=b(\beta)\, such that the plane \,P\, given by

cuts \,\mathcal{T}\, is a central oval \,\mathcal{O}\,, depending on \,m\, and \,\beta\,, and centered at height \,\beta\,. In the \,(y,z)\, coordinate system on \,P\,, we get the following equation for \,\mathcal{O}\, by restricting (?):

Solve this for \,y\, in terms of the \beta-centered variable \,t:=z-\beta\, to split \,\mathcal{O}\, into a pair of arcs, graphs of functions we shall call \,y_{\pm}(t)\,, over the symmetric interval

Using the notation defined above, we can express these functions as

where \,\bar\beta:=\beta-b\,.

Since the chord joining \,(y_{+}(0),\beta)\, to \,(y_{-}(0),\beta)\, has height \,\beta\,, it clearly passes through the center of \,\mathcal{O}\,. It must therefore be a diameter. But the midpoint of any diameter locates the center of \,\mathcal{O}\,, so using (?) to average \,y_{\pm}(0)\,, we can now deduce that:

The center of \,\mathcal{O}\, has coordinates \,(\eta(\beta),\beta)\, in the \,(y,z)\, coordinate system on \,P\,.

This fact lets us express the central symmetry of \,\mathcal{O}\, as the coordinate swap

When \,t\, is small enough as measured by (?), this swap always exchanges diametrically opposed solutions of (?). Write the resulting two statements in terms of the notation introduced above to get two simultaneous identities:

and

Subtract (?) from (?), factor differences between corresponding squares on the right, and divide by two, to obtain

The strict convexity of \,\mathcal{O}\, now guarantees that the line \,z=\beta+t\, in \,P\, cuts \,\mathcal{O}\, in two distinct points whenever \,t\, is sufficiently small. Call the y-coordinates of these points \,\eta(\beta)+s\, and \,\eta(\beta)+s'\, respectively. Equation (?) clearly remains true if we replace \,s\, by \,s'\,. When we subtract the resulting s'-version of (?) from the s-version and simplify, however, we find that for all sufficiently small \,t\,, we have

Since \,s\, and \,s'\, are distinct for the small \,t\, in question, we evidently must have \,\eta_{\beta}^{+}(t)\equiv \eta(\beta)\, for all sufficiently small \,t\,. By definition of \,\eta_{\beta}^{+}\,, this means

so that (?) holds for \,\eta\,. But by swapping the roles of \,x\, and \,y\, in the argument above, we find that in precisely the same way, it holds for \,\xi\,, and hence for \,\mathbf{c} = (\xi,\eta)\,. Our Linearity Criterion then makes the \,\mathbf{c}\, affine, as desired.

Suppose \,F\, immerses a complete \,C^{2}\, surface \,M^{2}\, into \,\mathbf{R}^{3}\, with cpo. The latter assumption ensures, first of all, that \,F(M)\, crosses some affine plane—we take it to be the \,z=0\, plane—transversally (if not exclusively) along a central oval \,\mathcal{O}\,.

This being the case, define, for any two heights \,a<0<b\,, the open connected component

as the unique component containing \,F^{-1}(\mathcal{O})\,.

Since \,\mathcal{O}\, is strictly convex and \,F(M)\, is transverse to the plane \,z=0\, along \,\mathcal{O}\,, standard arguments from basic differential topology show that for \,a<0<b\, sufficiently near 0\,,

• (i) The pullback \,F^{*}z\, of the height function \,z\, on \,\mathbf{R}^{3}\, has no critical points in \,M_{a,b}\,, and

• (ii) F\, embeds \,M_{a,b}\, in \,\mathbf{R}^{3}\, as a transversely convex tube.

There consequently exist minimal and maximal heights \,-\infty\le A<0<B\le\infty\, such that (i) and (ii) above both hold for every finite \,a<b\, in the closed interval \,[A,B]\,.

Our proof now forks in three directions, depending on whether both, neither, or exactly one of the endpoints \,A\, and \,B\, are finite.

Case \,-\infty<A<B<\infty\, (Ellipsoid). In this case, by (ii), the image of \,M_{a,b}\, under \,F\, is a transversely convex tube for every \,a<b\, in the interval \,(A,B)\,. This trivially extends to \,M_{A,B}\,, and the resulting maximal tube clearly inherits cpo from \,F(M)\,. Our Collar Theorem 5.1 then says that \,F(M_{A,B})\, is either the cylinder on a central oval, or quadric.

We can rule out the first possibility, because on a cylinder, horizontal cross-sections are uniformly convex, and the gradient of \,z\, is bounded away from zero. But these facts, by continuity, would extend slightly beyond \,A\, and \,B\,, contradicting their maximality with respect to (i) and (ii) above.

It follows that when \,-\infty<A<B<\infty\,, \,F(M_{A,B})\, is quadric. By affine invariance, however, we lose no generality by assuming that \,F\, immerses \,M_{A,B}\, as a quadric surface of revolution around the z-axis: a vertical segment of an ellipsoid, cone, elliptic paraboloid, or a hyperboloid. On all these surfaces, horizontal cross-sections in any compact slab are uniformly convex. So the maximality of \,A\, and \,B\, must be dictated by condition (i) above, not (ii). The completeness of \,M\,, then ensures that \,F^{*}z\, must have critical points on both boundaries of \,M_{A,B}\,. But among the quadrics listed above, \,z\, has multiple critical points only on the ellipsoid, where it attains both a max and a min. The closure of \,F(M_{A,B})\, must therefore be a complete ellipsoid, which, by continuity of \,F\, and connectedness of \,M\, must coincide with F(M)\,.

Case \,-A=B = \infty\, (Tube hyperboloid or cylinder). In this case we can immediately from the connectedness of \,M\, that \,M_{A,B}=M\,. Moreover, since (ii) holds for every finite \,a<0<b\,, \,F\, must embed \,M_{-r,r}\, in \,\mathbf{R}^{3}\, as a transversely convex tube \,\mathcal{T}_{r}\, for every \,r>0\,. As above, \,\mathcal{T}_{r}\, inherits cpo from \,F(M)\,, so by the Collar Theorem 5.1, \,F\, maps \,M_{-r,r}\, to a cylinder over some central oval, or to a non-degenerate quadric, for each \,r>0\,. Let \,S\, denote the unique complete unbounded cylinder or quadric that extends \,F(M_{-1,1})\,. We then clearly have \,F(M_{-r,r})=S\, in the slab \,|z|<r\, for all \,r>1\,. But then \,S=F(M)\, in its entirety, for otherwise, \,F(M)\, deviates from \,S\, at some finite height \,\rho\,, a contradition when \,r>|\rho|\,. The only smooth quadric that contains a horizontal oval and extends infinitely far both above and below the plane \,z=0\, is the tube hyperboloid. So in this case, \,M\, is either a tube hyperboloid or a cylinder.

Cases \,|A|<B=\infty\, or \,|B|<|A|=\infty\, (Paraboloid or convex hyperboloid). Since the reflection \,z\to-z\, is affine, these two cases are equivalent. So we assume \,|A|<B=\infty\,, and arguing as in the previous two cases, we now quickly deduce the existence of a quadric surface of revolution \,S\, such that (modulo some fixed affine isomorphism) \,F(M_{A,b})=S\, for all \,b<\infty\,. Further, here as in the doubly-finite case, the maximality of \,A\, must be dictated by a critical point at height \,A\,. No cylinder has such a critical point, and among the quadrics, only the elliptic paraboloid and convex hyperboloid do. Clearly then, \,S\, is one of these two surfaces, and \,F(M)=S\,.

Our hypotheses explicitly guarantee the existence of at least one oval \,\mathcal{O}\, along which \,M\, cuts an affine plane transversally. But they actually ensure that all such ovals are central. For otherwise, Lemma 6.3 puts a skewloop on \,M\,. It follows that \,M\, has cpo, and the desired conclusion then follows from our Main Theorem 5.2

This follows immediately from Theorem 6.5, for among all cylinders and quadrics having a compact cross-section, only the tube hyperboloid has negative curvature.