--- abstract: 'Let $\kappa$ be a real number. Gromov (2001) introduced the $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ conditions for all integers $n\geq 4$, each of which is a necessary condition for a metric space to admit an isometric embedding into a $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space. We prove an analogue of Reshetnyak's majorization theorem for (possibly non-geodesic) metric spaces that satisfy the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$ condition. It follows from our result that for general metric spaces, the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$ condition implies the $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ conditions for all integers $n\geq 5$.' address: 'Kogakuin University, 2665-1, Nakano, Hachioji, Tokyo, 192-0015 Japan' author: - Tetsu Toyoda title: | A non-geodesic analogue of\ Reshetnyak's majorization theorem --- [^1] Introduction {#intro-sec} ============ Let $\kappa$ be a real number. There are no known explicit criteria for deciding whether a metric space admits an isometric embedding into a $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space (see @ANN [Section 1.4], @Gr2 [§15] and @Gr1 [Section 1.19+]). On the other hand, among all geodesic metric spaces, $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ spaces can be characterized by various simple conditions. The $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$ condition defined by Gromov @Gr2 is one of such conditions (see @Gr2 [§15] and Remark \[cycl4-remark\] in Section \[quadruple-Cycln-sec\]). In this paper, we prove an analogue of Reshetnyak's majorization theorem @R for (possibly non-geodesic) metric spaces that satisfy the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$ condition. In @Gr2, Gromov introduced the $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ conditions for all integers $n\geq 4$, each of which is a necessary condition for a metric space to admit an isometric embedding into a $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space (see @Gr2 [§25]). Because the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$ condition characterizes $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ spaces among all geodesic metric spaces, the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$ condition implies the $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ conditions for all integers $n\geq 5$ under the assumption that the metric space is geodesic. It is natural to ask whether this implication is true without assuming that the metric space is geodesic. Concerning this question, Gromov @Gr2 [§15, Remarks.(b)] stated "We shall see later on that $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 \Rightarrow \mathrm{Cycl}_k$ for all $k\geq 5$ in the geodesic case but this is apparently not so in general." However, it follows from our result that the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$ condition actually implies the $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ conditions for all integers $n\geq 5$ without assuming that the metric space is geodesic. For a real number $\kappa$, we denote by $M_{\kappa}^{2}$ the complete, simply-connected, two-dimensional Riemannian manifold of constant Gaussian curvature $\kappa$, and by $d_{\kappa}$ the distance function on $M_{\kappa}^2$. Let $D_{\kappa}$ be the diameter of $M_{\kappa}^2$. Thus we have $$D_{\kappa} = \begin{cases} \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{\kappa}}\quad &\textrm{if }\kappa >0,\\ \infty\quad &\textrm{if }\kappa\leq 0. \end{cases}$$ For a positive integer $n$ and an integer $m$, we denote by $\lbrack m\rbrack_n$ the element of $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ represented by $m$. We recall the definition of the $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ condition introduced in @Gr2. \[Cycl-def\] Fix $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$ and an integer $n \ge 4$. Let $(X,d_X )$ be a metric space. We say that $X$ is a <span>*$\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ space*</span> or that $X$ satisfies the <span>*$\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ condition*</span> if for any map $f:\mathbb Z / n\mathbb Z\to X$ with $$\label{Cycl-def-diameter-restriction-ineq} \sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}d_X \left(f(i),f(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )\right) <2 D_{\kappa},$$ there exists a map $g:\mathbb Z / n\mathbb Z\to M_{\kappa}^2$ such that $$d_{\kappa}(g(i),g(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n ))\leq d_X (f(i),f(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )),\quad d_{\kappa}(g(i),g(j))\geq d_X (f(i),f(j))$$ for any $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ with $j\neq i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n$ and $i\neq j+\lbrack1\rbrack_n$. The original definition of $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ spaces in @Gr2 [§7] requires the existence of a map $g':\mathbb Z / n\mathbb Z\to M_{\kappa '}^2$ for some $\kappa' \leq\kappa$ such that $$d_{\kappa'}(g'(i),g'(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n ))\leq d_X (f(i),f(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )),\quad d_{\kappa'}(g'(i),g'(j))\geq d_X (f(i),f(j))$$ for any $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ with $j\neq i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n$ and $i\neq j+\lbrack1\rbrack_n$, instead of the existence of a map $g$ as in Definition \[Cycl-def\]. As was mentioned in @Gr2, this definition is equivalent to Definition \[Cycl-def\]. In fact, the existence of such a map $g'$ implies the existence of a map $g$ as in Definition \[Cycl-def\] by Reshetnyak's majorization theorem. In @Gr2 [§7], the assumption was not stated explicitly. It was just remarked that we have to consider only maps $f: \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\to X$ with"small" images $f(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})$ when $\kappa >0$. The following theorem is our main result, which can be viewed as a non-geodesic analogue of Reshetnyak's majorization theorem. \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. If $X$ is a $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$ space, then for any integer $n\geq 3$, and for any map $f:\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\to X$ that satisfies $$\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}d_X \left( f(i),f(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )\right)<2 D_{\kappa},\quad f(j)\neq f(j+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )$$ for every $j\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$, there exists a map $g:\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\to M_{\kappa}^2$ that satisfies the following two conditions: 1. For any $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$, we have $$d_{\kappa}(g(i),g(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )) =d_X (f(i),f(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )),\quad d_{\kappa}(g(i),g(j))\geq d_X (f(i),f(j)).$$ 2. For any $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ with $i\neq j$, we have $\lbrack g(i),g(j)\rbrack\cap\lbrack g(i-\lbrack 1\rbrack_n ),g(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )\rbrack\neq\emptyset$, where we denote by $\lbrack a,b\rbrack$ the line segment in $M_{\kappa}^2$ with endpoints $a$ and $b$. When the polygon with vertices $g(i)$, $i\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ is non-degenerate, the condition $(2)$ in Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\] means that this polygon is convex. Because we have $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )\Leftrightarrow\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ for geodesic metric spaces, if we add the hypothesis that $X$ is geodesic, Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\] becomes an immediate consequence of Reshetnyak's majorization theorem. We use Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\] to prove the following theorem. \[Cycl-th\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. If a metric space is $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$, then it is $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ for every integer $n\geq 4$. The Wirtinger inequalities -------------------------- In this subsection, we explain that Theorem \[Cycl-th\] strengthens the result of Kondo, Toyoda and Uehara @KTU, which states that every $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$ space satisfies the $\mathrm{Wir}_n$ inequalities for every integer $n\geq 4$. The following is the definition of the $\mathrm{Wir}_n$ inequalities introduced by Gromov @Gr2 [§6]. Fix an integer $n\geq 4$. We say that a metric space $(X,d_{X})$ satisfies the <span>*$\mathrm{Wir}_n$ inequalities*</span> if any map $f: \mathbb Z / n\mathbb Z \to X$ satisfies $$\label{W_nj} 0\leq \sin^2 \frac{j \pi}{n}\sum_{i \in \mathbb Z / n\mathbb Z} d_X (f(i), f(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n ))^2 -\sin^2 \frac{\pi}{n}\sum_{i \in \mathbb Z / n\mathbb Z} d_X (f(i), f(i+\lbrack j\rbrack_n ))^2$$ for every $j\in\mathbb{Z}\cap\lbrack 2,n-2\rbrack$. The $\mathrm{Wir}_n$ inequalities can be thought of as a discrete and nonlinear analogue of classical Wirtinger's inequality for functions on $S^1$. The Euclidean plane satisfies the $\mathrm{Wir}_n$ inequalities for every integer $n\geq 4$ (see @Pe and @Gr2 [§6]). Therefore, it follows immediately from the definition of $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (0)$ spaces that every $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (0)$ space satisfies the $\mathrm{Wir}_n$ inequalities. Thus, for general metric spaces, the following implications are true for every integer $n\geq 4$: $$\label{CAT-Cycl-Wir-implications} \mathrm{CAT}(0) \Longrightarrow \mathrm{Cycl}_n (0) \Longrightarrow \mathrm{Wir}_n .$$ For each integer $2\leq m\leq n/2$, the inequality for $j=m$ coincides with that for $j=n-m$. Thus the family of $\mathrm{Wir}_n$ inequalities consists of $\lfloor n/2\rfloor -1$ distinct inequalities, where $\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ is the greatest integer at most $n/2$. In particular, the family of $\mathrm{Wir}_4$ inequalities consists of the single inequality $$\begin{gathered} \label{sdi} 0 \leq d_X (f(\lbrack 0\rbrack_4 ),f(\lbrack 1\rbrack_4 ))^2 +d_X (f(\lbrack 1\rbrack_4 ),f(\lbrack 2\rbrack_4 ))^2 \\ +d_X (f(\lbrack 2\rbrack_4 ),f(\lbrack 3\rbrack_4 ))^2 +d_X (f(\lbrack 3\rbrack_4 ),f(\lbrack 0\rbrack_4 ))^2\\ -d_X (f(\lbrack 0\rbrack_4 ),f(\lbrack 2\rbrack_4 ))^2 -d_X (f(\lbrack 1\rbrack_4 ),f(\lbrack 3\rbrack_4 ))^2 .\end{gathered}$$ Berg and Nikolaev @BN proved that the validity of the $\mathrm{Wir}_4$ inequality characterizes $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ spaces among all geodesic metric spaces (see also Sato @Sa). However, for general metric spaces, the validity of the $\mathrm{Wir}_4$ inequality does not imply the $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (0)$ condition for any integer $n\geq 4$ (see @toyoda-five [Example 1.2]). Furthermore, the validity of the $\mathrm{Wir}_4$ inequality even does not imply the validity of the $\mathrm{Wir}_5$ inequalities (see @KTU [Proposition 3.3]). In @Gr2 [p.133, §25, Question], Gromov posed the question of whether the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$ condition implies the validity of the $\mathrm{Wir}_n$ inequalities for every integer $n\geq 4$. Kondo, Toyoda and Uehara @KTU answered this question affirmatively. Because Theorem \[Cycl-th\] states that the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$ condition implies the $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (0)$ condition for every integer $n\geq 4$, this result of Kondo, Toyoda and Uehara follows immediately from Theorem \[Cycl-th\] and the latter implication in . Thus our result strengthens the following theorem, and gives another proof of it. \[@KTU\]\[KTU-th\] Every $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$ space satisfies the $\mathrm{Wir}_n$ inequalities for every integer $n\geq 4$. Coarse embeddability into a $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ space --------------------------------------------------- As we described above, $\mathrm{Cycl}_{4}(\kappa )$ spaces share many properties with subsets of $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ spaces. If every $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa )$ space admitted an isometric embedding into a $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space, Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\] would become a corollary of Reshetnyak's majorization theorem. However, there exist $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$ spaces that do not admit even a coarse embedding into any $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ space. Recently, Eskenazis, Mendel and Naor @EMN proved that there exists a metric space that does not admit a coarse embedding into any $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ space. On the other hand, it was proved in @KTU [Proposition 3.1] that for any $0<\alpha\leq 1/2$ and any metric space $(X,d_X )$, the metric space $(X,d^{\alpha}_X )$ is $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$. Therefore, if we choose a metric space $(Y,d_Y )$ that does not admit a coarse embedding into any $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ space and a constant $0<\alpha\leq 1/2$, then the metric space $(Y,d^{\alpha}_Y )$ becomes $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$, but does not admit a coarse embedding into any $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ space because $(Y,d^{\alpha}_Y )$ is coarsely equivalent to $(Y,d_Y )$. The $\boxtimes$-inequalities ---------------------------- It was remarked in @Gr2 [§7] that the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$ condition is equivalent to the validity of a certain family of inequalities, defined as follows. We say that a metric space $(X,d_X )$ satisfies the <span>*$\boxtimes$-inequalities*</span> if for any $t, s \in\lbrack0,1\rbrack$ and any $x,y,z,w\in X$, we have $$\begin{gathered} 0 \leq (1-t)(1-s) d_X (x,y)^2 +t(1-s) d_X (y,z)^2 +ts d_X (z,w)^2 \\ +(1-t)s d_X (w,x)^2 -t(1-t) d_X (x,z)^2 -s(1-s) d_X (y,w)^2.\end{gathered}$$ Gromov @Gr2 and Sturm @St proved that every $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ space satisfies the $\boxtimes$-inequalities. The name "$\boxtimes$-inequalities" is based on a notation used by Gromov @Gr2, and was used in @KTU and @toyoda-five. Sturm @St called these inequalities the <span>*weighted quadruple inequalities*</span>. When $s=t=1/2$, the $\boxtimes$-inequality becomes the $\mathrm{Wir}_4$ inequality . Gromov stated the following fact in @Gr2 [§7]. \[@Gr2\]\[Cycl4-boxtimes-th\] A metric space is $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$ if and only if it satisfies the $\boxtimes$-inequalities. For a proof of Theorem \[Cycl4-boxtimes-th\], see Section \[boxtimes-sec\] of this paper. Together with Theorem \[Cycl4-boxtimes-th\], Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\] and Theorem \[Cycl-th\] immediately imply the following two corollaries. \[boxtimes-nongeodesic-majorization-coro\] If a metric space $X$ satisfies the $\boxtimes$-inequalities, then for any integer $n\geq 3$, and for any map $f:\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\to X$ that satisfies $f(j)\neq f(j+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )$ for every $j\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$, there exists a map $g:\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{R}^2$ that satisfies the following two conditions: 1. For any $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$, we have $$\| g(i)-g(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )\| =d_X (f(i),f(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )),\quad \| g(i)-g(j)\|\geq d_X (f(i),f(j)).$$ 2. For any $i,j\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ with $i\neq j$, we have $\lbrack g(i),g(j)\rbrack\cap\lbrack g(i-\lbrack 1\rbrack_n ),g(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n )\rbrack\neq\emptyset$, where we denote by $\lbrack a,b\rbrack$ the line segment in $\mathbb{R}^2$ with endpoints $a$ and $b$. \[boxtimes-main-coro\] If a metric space satisfies the $\boxtimes$-inequalitieis, then it is $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (0)$ for every integer $n\geq 4$. Graph comparison ---------------- The $\mathrm{Cycl}_n (\kappa )$ condition is defined by comparing embeddings of a cycle graph into a given metric space with embeddings of the same graph into $M_{\kappa}^2$ (see Definition 1.4 in @toyoda-five). By replacing the cycle graph with another graph, and $M_{\kappa}^2$ with another space, we can define a large number of new conditions. The present author @toyoda-five defined the "$G(0)$ condition" by replacing the cycle graph with a general graph $G$ and the model space $M_{\kappa}^2$ with a $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ space. In @toyoda-five, he proved that the $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$ condition implies the $G(0)$ conditions for many graphs $G$ including all graphs $G$ with at most five vertices, and used this to prove that a metric space containing at most five points admits an isometric embedding into a $\mathrm{CAT}(0)$ space if and only if it is $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (0)$. Lebedeva, Petrunin and Zolotov @LPZ also introduced analogous graph comparison conditions, and characterized complete Riemannian manifolds of nonnegative sectional curvature by using those conditions. They also proved that such conditions have strong connections to continuity of optimal transport between regular measures on a Riemannian manifold. Outline of the proof of Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\] --------------------------------------------------------------- To prove Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\], we define the following condition. \[quadruple-def\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. We say that a metric space $(X,d_X )$ satisfies the <span>*$\kappa$-quadruple condition*</span> if we have $d_X (y,w)\leq d_{\kappa}(y' ,w' )$ for any $x,y,z,w\in X$ and any $x' ,y',z' ,w'\in M_{\kappa}^2$ such that $$\begin{aligned} &d_{X}(x,y)+d_{X}(y,z)+d_{X}(z,w)+d_{X}(w,x)<2D_{\kappa},\quad \lbrack x' ,z' \rbrack\cap\lbrack y' ,w' \rbrack\neq\emptyset ,\\ &d_X (x,y)=d_{\kappa}(x' ,y' ),\quad d_X (y,z)=d_{\kappa}(y' ,z' ),\quad d_X (z,w)= d_{\kappa}(z' ,w' ),\\ &d_X (w,x)=d_{\kappa}(w' ,x' ),\quad d_{X}(x,z)=d_{\kappa}(x',z').\end{aligned}$$ We prove the following lemma in Section \[quadruple-sec\], which plays a key role in the proof of Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\]. \[key-lemma\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Every $\mathrm{Cycl}_4 (\kappa)$ space satisfies the $\kappa$-quadruple condition. For $\kappa\leq 0$, Lemma \[key-lemma\] follows from a straightforward computation (see Remark \[key-lemma-for-nonpositive\]). In order to prove Lemma \[key-lemma\] for general $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$, we generalize Alexandrov's lemma @BH [p.25] in Section \[alexandrov-sec\]. Since this requires a delicate treatment of angle measure in $M_{\kappa}^2$, we recall some facts about angle measure in $M_{\kappa}^2$ in Section \[angle-sec\]. In Section \[quadruple-Cycln-sec\], we prove that if a metric space $X$ satisfies the $\kappa$-quadruple condition, then $X$ satisfies the conclusion of Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\]. Together with Lemma \[key-lemma\], this proves Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\]. Organization of the paper ------------------------- The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[preliminaries-sec\], we recall some definitions and results from metric geometry and the geometry of $M_{\kappa}^2$. In Section \[angle-sec\], we recall some facts about angle measure in $M_{\kappa}^2$. In Section \[alexandrov-sec\], we prove a generalized Alexandrov's lemma. In Section \[quadruple-sec\], we prove Lemma \[key-lemma\] and some facts about metric spaces satisfying the $\kappa$-quadruple condition. In Section \[quadruple-Cycln-sec\], we prove Theorem \[nongeodesic-majorization-th\] and Theorem \[Cycl-th\]. In Section \[boxtimes-sec\], we present a proof of Theorem \[Cycl4-boxtimes-th\] for completeness. Preliminaries {#preliminaries-sec} ============= In this section, we recall some definitions and results from metric geometry and the geometry of $M_{\kappa}^2$. Let $(X,d_X )$ be a metric space. A <span>*geodesic*</span> in $X$ is an isometric embedding of an interval of the real line into $X$. For $x,y\in X$, a <span>*geodesic segment with endpoints $x$ and $y$*</span> is the image of a geodesic $\gamma :\lbrack 0,d_X (x,y)\rbrack\to X$ with $\gamma (0)=x$, $\gamma (d_X (x,y))=y$. If there exists a unique geodesic segment with endpoints $x$ and $y$, we denote it by $\lbrack x,y\rbrack$. We also denote the sets $\lbrack x,y\rbrack\setminus\{ x,y\}$, $\lbrack x,y\rbrack\setminus\{ x\}$ and $\lbrack x,y\rbrack\setminus\{ y\}$ by $(x,y)$, $(x,y\rbrack$ and $\lbrack x,y)$, respectively. A metric space $X$ is called <span>*geodesic*</span> if for any $x,y\in X$, there exists a geodesic segment with endpoints $x$ and $y$. Let $D\in (0,\infty )$. We say that $X$ is <span>*$D$-geodesic*</span> if for any $x,y\in X$ with $d_{X}(x,y)<D$, there exists a geodesic segment with endpoints $x$ and $y$. A subset $S$ of $X$ is called <span>*convex*</span> if for any $x,y\in S$, every geodesic segment in $X$ with endpoints $x$ and $y$ is contained in $S$. If this condition holds for any $x,y\in S$ with $d_{X}(x,y)<D$, then $S$ is called <span>*$D$-convex*</span>. The geometry of $M_{\kappa}^2$ ------------------------------ Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. For any $x,y\in M_{\kappa}^2$ with $d_{\kappa}(x,y)<D_{\kappa}$, there exists a unique geodesic segment $\lbrack x,y\rbrack$ with endpoints $x$ and $y$. We mean by a <span>*line*</span> in $M_{\kappa}^2$ the image of an isometric embedding of $\mathbb{R}$ into $M_{\kappa}^2$ if $\kappa\leq 0$, and a great circle in $M_{\kappa}^2$ if $\kappa >0$. Then for any two distinct points $x,y\in M_{\kappa}^2$ with $d_{\kappa}(x,y)<D_{\kappa}$, there exits a unique line through $x$ and $y$, which we denote by $\ell (x,y)$. For any line $\ell$ in $M_{\kappa}^2$, $M_{\kappa}^2 \setminus\ell$ consists of exactly two connected components. We call each connected component of $M_{\kappa}^2 \setminus\ell$ a <span>*side*</span> of $\ell$. One side of $\ell$ is called the <span>*opposite*</span> side of the other. If $x,y\in M_{\kappa}^2$ lie on the same side of a line, then $d_{\kappa}(x,y)<D_{\kappa}$. Each side of a line is a convex subset of $M_{\kappa}^2$, and the union of a line and any one of its side is a $D_{\kappa}$-convex subset of $M_{\kappa}^2$. For $x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ with $0<d_{\kappa}(x,y)<D_{\kappa}$ and $0<d_{\kappa}(y,z)<D_{\kappa}$, we denote by $\angle xyz\in\lbrack 0,\pi\rbrack$ the interior angle measure at $y$ of the (possibly degenerate) triangle with vertices $x$, $y$ and $z$. By the law of cosines for $M_{\kappa}^2$ (see @BH [p.24]), $\angle xyz\in\lbrack 0,\pi\rbrack$ satisfies the following formula: $$\cos\angle xyz = \begin{cases} \dfrac{d_{\kappa}(x,y)^2+d_{\kappa}(y,z)^2-d_{\kappa}(z,x)^2}{2d_{\kappa}(x,y) d_{\kappa}(y,z)},\quad &\textrm{if }\kappa =0,\vspace{1mm}\\ \dfrac{\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right) -\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(z,x)\right)}{ \sinh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\sinh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right)},\quad &\textrm{if }\kappa <0,\vspace{1mm}\\ \dfrac{\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(z,x)\right) -\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right)}{ \sin\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\sin\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right)} ,\quad &\textrm{if }\kappa >0. \end{cases}$$ For $x\in M_{\kappa}^2$, a <span>*ray from $x$*</span> is the image of a geodesic $\gamma :\lbrack 0,D_{\kappa})\to M_{\kappa}^2$ with $\gamma (0)=x$. Two rays from the same point $x$ are said to be <span>*opposite*</span> if they are contained in the same line, and their intersection is $\{ x\}$. For any two distinct points $x,y\in M_{\kappa}^2$ with $d_{\kappa}(x,y)<D_{\kappa}$, there exists a unique ray from $x$ through $y$, and we denote it by $R_{xy}$. For any ray $R$, there exists a unique ray opposite $R$, and we denote it by $\overline{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,x)<D_{\kappa}$ and $0<d_{\kappa}(o,y)<D_{\kappa}$. Then we have $\angle xoy=\angle x'oy'$ for any $x'\in R_{ox}\setminus\{ o\}$ and any $y' \in R_{oy}\setminus\{ o\}$. We have $\angle xoy=0$ (resp. $\angle xoy=\pi$) if and only if $y\in R_{ox}$ (resp. $y\in\overline{R_{ox}}$). If $\ell (o,x)\neq\ell (o,y)$, then we have $R_{ox}\setminus\{ o\} =\ell (o,x)\cap S$, where $S$ is the side of $\ell (o,y)$ containing $x$. Let $p\in R_{ox}$ and $q\in\overline{R_{ox}}$. If $d_{\kappa}(p,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,q)<D_{\kappa}$, then $o\in\lbrack p,q\rbrack$, and $d_{\kappa}(p,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,q)=d_{\kappa}(p,q)$. If $D_{\kappa}\leq d_{\kappa}(p,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,q)$, then $\kappa >0$, and $d_{\kappa}(p,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,q)+d_{\kappa}(q,p)=2D_{\kappa}$. The following lemma follows immediately from the law of cosines. \[law-of-cos-lemma\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $x,y,z,x',y',z'\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $$0<d_{\kappa}(x,y)=d_{\kappa}(x' ,y')<D_{\kappa},\quad 0<d_{\kappa}(y,z)=d_{\kappa}(y' ,z')<D_{\kappa} .$$ Then $d_{\kappa}(x,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(x' ,z' )$ if and only if $\angle xyz\leq\angle x'y'z'$. Moreover, $d_{\kappa} (x,z)=d_{\kappa}(x' ,z' )$ if and only if $\angle xyz=\angle x'y'z'$. The following lemma also follows from the law of cosines. \[from-law-of-cos-lemma\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are three distinct points such that $$d_{\kappa} (x,y)+d_{\kappa} (y,z)<D_{\kappa},\quad d_{\kappa}(x,y)\leq d_{\kappa}(y,z).$$ Suppose $x',y',z'\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $$d_{\kappa} (x,y)=d_{\kappa}(x',y'),\quad d_{\kappa} (y,z)=d_{\kappa} (y',z'),\quad d_{\kappa}(z,x)\leq d_{\kappa}(z',x' ).$$ Then $\angle y'x'z' \leq\angle yxz$. We consider three cases. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Case 1</span>: <span>*$\kappa =0$.*</span> In this case, we have $\angle yzx\leq\angle yxz$ and $\angle y'z'x'\leq\angle y'x'z'$ by hypothesis, and therefore $\angle yzx\leq\pi /2$ and $\angle y'z'x'\leq \pi /2$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned} 0&\leq d_{\kappa}(x,z)^2+d_{\kappa}(y,z)^2-d_{\kappa}(x,y)^2,\\ 0&\leq d_{\kappa}(x',z')^2+d_{\kappa}(y',z')^2-d_{\kappa}(x',y')^2 =d_{\kappa}(x',z')^2+d_{\kappa}(y,z)^2-d_{\kappa}(x,y)^2 ,\end{aligned}$$ and therefore we have $$\label{from-law-phthagoas-ineq} 0\leq\alpha^2+d_{\kappa}(y,z)^2-d_{\kappa}(x,y)^2$$ for any $\alpha\in\lbrack d_{\kappa}(x,z),d_{\kappa}(x',z')\rbrack$. Define a function $f_1 :(0,\infty )\to\mathbb{R}$ by $$f_1 (\alpha ) = \frac{d_{\kappa}(x,y)^2+\alpha^2-d_{\kappa}(y,z)^2}{2 d_{\kappa}(x,y)\alpha} .$$ Then we have $$\frac{d}{d\alpha}f_1 (\alpha ) = \frac{1}{2d_{\kappa}(x,y)\alpha^2} \left( \alpha^2 +d_{\kappa}(y,z)^2 -d_{\kappa}(x,y)^2 \right) \geq 0$$ for any $\alpha\in\lbrack d_{\kappa}(x,z),d_{\kappa}(x',z')\rbrack$ by , which implies that $\angle y'x'z' \leq\angle yxz$ because $$f_1 (d_{\kappa}(x,z)) = \cos\angle yxz,\quad f_1 (d_{\kappa}(x',z')) = \cos\angle y'x'z'$$ by the law of cosines. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Case 2</span>: <span>*$\kappa <0$.*</span> In this case, we define a function $f_2 :(0,\infty )\to\mathbb{R}$ by $$f_2 (\alpha ) = \frac{\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}\alpha\right) -\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right)}{ \sinh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\sinh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}\alpha\right)}.$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{d\alpha}f_2 (\alpha ) &= \frac{\sqrt{-\kappa}\left( \cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right) \cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}\alpha\right) -\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) \right)}{\sinh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\sinh^2 \left(\sqrt{-\kappa}\alpha\right)}\\ &\geq \frac{\sqrt{-\kappa}\left( \cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right) -\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) \right)}{\sinh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\sinh^2 \left(\sqrt{-\kappa}\alpha\right)} \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ for any $\alpha\in (0,\infty )$ by hypothesis. This implies that $\angle y'x'z' \leq\angle yxz$ because $$f_2 (d_{\kappa}(x,z)) = \cos\angle yxz,\quad f_2 (d_{\kappa}(x',z')) = \cos\angle y'x'z'$$ by the law of cosines. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Case 3</span>: <span>*$\kappa >0$.*</span> In this case, we define a function $f_3 :(0,D_{\kappa})\to\mathbb{R}$ by $$f_3 (\alpha ) = \frac{\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right) -\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}\alpha\right)}{ \sin\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\sin\left(\sqrt{\kappa}\alpha\right)}.$$ Then $$\frac{d}{d\alpha}f_3 (\alpha ) = \frac{\sqrt{\kappa}\left( \cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) -\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right)\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}\alpha\right) \right)}{\sin\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\sin^2 \left(\sqrt{\kappa}\alpha\right)}.$$ If $d_{\kappa}(y,z)\leq D_{\kappa}/2$, then $$0<\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\leq\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\leq\frac{\pi}{2}$$ by hypothesis, and therefore $$\begin{aligned} \cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) &-\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right)\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}\alpha\right) \\ &\geq \cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) - \cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right) \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ for any $\alpha\in (0,D_{\kappa})$. If $d_{\kappa}(y,z)>D_{\kappa}/2$, then $$0<\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)<\frac{\pi}{2}<\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)<\pi ,\quad \sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)<\pi-\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)$$ by hypothesis, and therefore $$\begin{aligned} \cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) &-\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right)\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}\alpha\right) \\ &\geq \cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) +\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right) \\ &= \cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) -\cos\left(\pi-\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right) \\ &> \cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) -\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) =0\end{aligned}$$ for any $\alpha\in (0,D_{\kappa})$. Thus we always have $$0\leq \frac{d}{d\alpha}f_3 (\alpha )$$ for any $\alpha\in (0,D_{\kappa})$. This implies that $\angle y'x'z' \leq\angle yxz$ because $$f_3 (d_{\kappa}(x,z)) = \cos\angle yxz,\quad f_3 (d_{\kappa}(x',z')) = \cos\angle y'x'z'$$ by the law of cosines. The above three cases exhaust all possibilities. The following formulas follow from straightforward computation. See @BH [Chapter I.2] for a guide to such computations concerning the distance function on $M_{\kappa}^2$. \[naibunten-lem\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $x\neq z$ and $d_{\kappa}(a,b)<D_{\kappa}$ for any $a,b\in\{ x,y,z\}$. Suppose $\gamma :\lbrack 0,d_{\kappa}(x,z)\rbrack\to M_{\kappa}^2$ is the geodesic such that $\gamma (0)=x$ and $\gamma (d_{\kappa}(x,z))=z$. Let $t\in\lbrack 0,1\rbrack$, and let $p=\gamma\left( td_{\kappa}(x,z)\right)$. If $\kappa =0$, then $$d_{\kappa}(y,p)^2 = (1-t)d_{\kappa}(x,y)^2 +td_{\kappa}(y,z)^2 -t(1-t)d_{\kappa}(x,z)^2 .$$ If $\kappa <0$, then $$\begin{gathered} \cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,p)\right)\\ = \frac{1}{\sinh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa} (x,z)\right)} \bigg(\sinh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}(1-t)d_{\kappa}(x,z)\right)\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right)\\ +\sinh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}td_{\kappa}(x,z)\right)\cosh\left(\sqrt{-\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right)\bigg) .\end{gathered}$$ If $\kappa >0$, then $$\begin{gathered} \cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,p)\right)\\ = \frac{\sin\left(\sqrt{\kappa}(1-t)d_{\kappa}(x,z)\right)\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,y)\right) +\sin\left(\sqrt{\kappa}td_{\kappa}(x,z)\right)\cos\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(y,z)\right)}{\sin\left(\sqrt{\kappa}d_{\kappa}(x,z)\right)}.\end{gathered}$$ The next corollary follows immediately from Lemma \[naibunten-lem\] \[naibunten-coro\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $x,y,z,\tilde{y}\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $$d_{\kappa} (x,y)\leq d_{\kappa}(x,\tilde{y})<D_{\kappa},\quad d_{\kappa} (y,z)\leq d_{\kappa} (\tilde{y},z)<D_{\kappa},\quad 0<d_{\kappa}(x,z)<D_{\kappa}.$$ Then we have $d_{\kappa} (y,p)\leq d_{\kappa}(\tilde{y},p)$ for any $p\in\lbrack x,z\rbrack$. Although it is not necessary for our purpose, it is worth noting that for $\kappa\in (-\infty ,0\rbrack$, Lemma \[naibunten-lem\] also implies the following corollary immediately (see Remark \[key-lemma-for-nonpositive\]). \[naibunten-coro2\] Let $\kappa\in (-\infty ,0\rbrack$. Suppose $x,y,z,\tilde{x},\tilde{y},\tilde{z}\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $$d_{\kappa}(x,y)\leq d_{\kappa}(\tilde{x},\tilde{y})<D_{\kappa},\quad d_{\kappa}(y,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(\tilde{y},\tilde{z})<D_{\kappa},\quad 0<d_{\kappa}(\tilde{x},\tilde{z})\leq d_{\kappa}(x,z)<D_{\kappa}.$$ Let $\gamma :\lbrack 0,d_{\kappa}(x,z)\rbrack\to M_{\kappa}^2$ and $\tilde{\gamma}:\lbrack 0,d_{\kappa}(\tilde{x},\tilde{z})\rbrack\to M_{\kappa}^2$ be the geodesics such that $$\gamma (0)=x,\quad\gamma (d_{\kappa}(x,z))=z,\quad \tilde{\gamma}(0)=\tilde{x},\quad\tilde{\gamma}(d_{\kappa}(\tilde{x},\tilde{z}))=\tilde{z}.$$ Fix $t\in\lbrack 0,1\rbrack$, and set $p=\gamma (td_{\kappa}(x,z))$, $\tilde{p}=\tilde{\gamma}(td_{\kappa}(\tilde{x},\tilde{z}))$. Then $d_{\kappa} (y,p)\leq d_{\kappa}(\tilde{y},\tilde{p})$. \[key-lemma-for-nonpositive\] For the case in which $\kappa\in (-\infty ,0\rbrack$, we can prove Lemma \[key-lemma\] easily by using Corollary \[naibunten-coro2\]. To prove Lemma \[key-lemma\] for general $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$, we will develop another method in Section \[angle-sec\], \[alexandrov-sec\] and \[quadruple-sec\] Polygons in $M_{\kappa}^2$ -------------------------- Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. For a subset $S$ of $M_{\kappa}^2$, the <span>*convex hull of $S$*</span> is the intersection of all convex subsets of $M_{\kappa}^2$ containing $S$, or equivalently, the minimal convex subset of $M_{\kappa}^2$ containing $S$. We denote the convex hull of $S$ by $\mathrm{conv}(S)$. We recall the following well-known fact, which is trivial when $\kappa\leq 0$. \[hemisphere-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$, and let $n\geq 3$ be an integer. Suppose $f:\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\to M_{\kappa}^2$ is a map such that $\sum_{i\in\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}d_{\kappa}(f(i),f(i+\lbrack 1\rbrack_n ))<2D_{\kappa}$. Then there exists a line $L$ in $M_{\kappa}^2$ such that $\mathrm{conv}(f(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}))$ is contained in one side of $L$. In particular, any $p,q\in\mathrm{conv}(f(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}))$ satisfy $d_{\kappa}(p,q)<D_{\kappa}$. $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ spaces ------------------------------ A *geodesic triangle* in a metric space $X$ is a triple $\triangle =(\gamma_1 ,\gamma_2 ,\gamma_3 )$ of geodesics $\gamma_i :\lbrack a_i,b_i \rbrack\to X$ such that $\gamma_1 (b_1)=\gamma_2 (a_2)$, $\gamma_2 (b_2)=\gamma_3 (a_3)$ and $\gamma_3 (b_3)=\gamma_1 (a_1)$. Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. If the perimeter $\sum_{i=1}^3 |b_i -a_i |$ of the geodesic triangle $\triangle$ is less than $2 D_{\kappa}$, then there exists a geodesic triangle $\triangle^{\kappa}= (\gamma^{\kappa}_1 ,\gamma^{\kappa}_2 , \gamma^{\kappa}_3 )$, $\gamma^{\kappa}_i :\lbrack a_i,b_i \rbrack\to M_{\kappa}^2$ in $M_{\kappa}^2$. Such a geodesic triangle $\triangle^{\kappa}$ is unique up to isometry of $M_{\kappa}^2$. The geodesic triangle $\triangle$ is said to be <span>*$\kappa$-thin*</span> if $d_X (\gamma_i (s),\gamma_j (t))\leq d_{\kappa}(\gamma^{\kappa}_i (s),\gamma^{\kappa}_j (t))$ for any $i,j\in\{ 1,2,3\}$, any $s\in\lbrack a_i ,b_i \rbrack$, and any $t\in\lbrack a_j ,b_j \rbrack$. Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. A metric space $X$ is called a <span>*$\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space*</span> if $X$ is $D_{\kappa}$-geodesic, and any geodesic triangle in $X$ with perimeter$< 2D_{\kappa}$ is $\kappa$-thin. By definition, $M_{\kappa}^2$ is a $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space. It is easily observed that if $(X,d_X )$ is a $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space, then for any $x,y\in X$ with $d_{X}(x,y)<D_{\kappa}$, there exists the unique geodesic segment with endpoints $x$ and $y$. Every $D_{\kappa}$-convex subset of a $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space equipped with the induced metric is a $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space. Suppose that $(X_1 ,d_1 )$ and $(X_2 ,d_2 )$ are metric spaces, and that $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are closed subsets of $X_1$ and $X_2$, respectively. Suppose further that $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are isometric via an isometry $f:Z_1 \to Z_2$. We denote by $X_1 \sqcup X_2$ the disjoint union of $X_1$ and $X_2$. For $x,y\in X_1 \sqcup X_2$, define $d_0 (x,y)\in\lbrack 0,\infty )$ by $$d_0 (x,y) = \begin{cases} &d_1 (x,y),\quad\textrm{if }x,y\in X_1 ,\\ &d_2 (x,y),\quad\textrm{if }x,y\in X_2 ,\\ &\min_{z\in Z_1}\{ d_1 (x ,z)+d_2 (f(z),y)\} ,\quad\textrm{if }x\in X_1 , y\in X_2 ,\\ &\min_{z\in Z_1}\{ d_1 (y ,z)+d_2 (f(z),x)\} ,\quad\textrm{if }x\in X_2 , y\in X_1 . \end{cases}$$ Then $d_0$ is a semi-metric on $X_1 \sqcup X_2$. In other words, $d_0$ satisfies the axioms for a metric except the requirement that $d_0 (x,y)=0$ implies $x=y$. Define a relation $\sim$ on $X_1 \sqcup X_2$ by declaring $x\sim y$ if and only if $d_0 (x,y)=0$. Then $\sim$ is an equivalence relation on $X_1 \sqcup X_2$, and the projection $\overline{d}_0$ of $d_0$ onto the quotient space $X_0 =(X_1 \sqcup X_2 )/\sim$ is well defined. It is easily observed that $(X_0 ,\overline{d}_0 )$ is a metric space, which is called the <span>*gluing of $X_1$ and $X_2$ along $f$*</span>. When two geodesic segments $\lbrack a,b\rbrack\subseteq X_1$ and $\lbrack c,d\rbrack\subseteq X_2$ are isometric, we mean by "the metric space obtained by gluing $X_1$ and $X_2$ <span>*by identifying $\lbrack a,b\rbrack$ with $\lbrack c,d\rbrack$*</span>" the gluing of $X_1$ and $X_2$ along the isometry $f:\lbrack a,b\rbrack\to\lbrack c,d\rbrack$ with $f(a)=c$ and $f(b)=d$. If $X_1$ and $X_2$ are complete locally compact $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ spaces, $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are closed $D_{\kappa}$-convex subsets of $X_1$ and $X_2$, respectively, and $f:Z_1 \to Z_2$ is an isometry, then by Reshetnyak's gluing theorem, the gluing of $X_1$ and $X_2$ along $f$ becomes a $\mathrm{CAT}(\kappa )$ space. For a proof of this fact, see @R, @BBI [Theorem 9.1.21] or @BH [ChapterII, Theorem 11.1]. Angle measure in $M_{\kappa}^2$ {#angle-sec} =============================== In this section, we recall several facts concerning angle measure in $M_{\kappa}^2$. We will use these facts mainly in the next section to prove a generalization of Alexandrov's lemma. We start with the following three propositions, which are all well-known. \[angle-triangle-inequality-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z \in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$. Then $\angle xoz\leq\angle xoy +\angle yoz$. \[angle-equality-necessary-conditions-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z \in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$. Assume that $\angle xoz =\angle xoy +\angle yoz$. Then all of the following conditions are true: - $y$ and $z$ do not lie on opposite sides of $\ell (o,x)$. - $x$ and $y$ do not lie on opposite sides of $\ell (o,z)$. - $x$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,y)$. \[angle-equality-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$. Then the equality $\angle xoz=\angle xoy+\angle yoz$ holds if and only if $y$ and $z$ do not lie on opposite sides of $\ell (o,x)$, and $\angle xoy\leq\angle xoz$. Assume in addition that $0<\angle xoz$. Then the equality $\angle xoz=\angle xoy+\angle yoz$ holds if and only if $y$ is neither on the opposite side of $\ell (o,z)$ from $x$, nor on the opposite side of $\ell (o,x)$ from $z$. The following corollary follows immediately from the first part of Proposition \[angle-equality-prop\]. \[angle-equality-coro\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$. If $\angle xoy =0$ or $\angle xoz=\pi$, then $\angle xoz=\angle xoy +\angle yoz$. In the rest of this section, we recall several more facts about angle measure in $M_{\kappa}^2$. Although all of them are also well-known, we will prove them by using the above three propositions for completeness. \[diagonal-angle-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$, and $d_{\kappa}(x,z)<D_{\kappa}$. If $\lbrack x,z\rbrack\cap\lbrack o,y\rbrack\neq\emptyset$, then $$\angle xoz = \angle xoy +\angle yoz.$$ \[scale=0.4\] (-2,5.2) – (4,-1.8); (1,-1) – (10,5); (0,3) – (7,3); (2.5,0) – (4.5,6); at (7.1,2.9) <span>$x$</span>; at (4.5,6) <span>$y$</span>; at (2.4,-0.1) <span>$o$</span>; at (-0.1,2.9) <span>$z$</span>; (3.5,3) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (0,3) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (7,3) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (2.5,0) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (4.5,6) circle \[radius=0.15\]; at (3.5,3) <span>$p$</span>; If $o\in\lbrack x,z\rbrack$, then $\angle xoz=\pi$, and therefore we have $\angle xoz = \angle xoy +\angle yoz$ by Corollary \[angle-equality-coro\]. So henceforth we assume that $o\not\in\lbrack x,z\rbrack$. Then there exists a point $p\in\lbrack x,z\rbrack\cap (o,y\rbrack$ by hypothesis. Because the union of $\ell (o,z)$ and any one of its sides is $D_{\kappa}$-convex, the fact that $p\in\lbrack x,z\rbrack$ implies that $p$ is not on the opposite side of $\ell (o,z)$ from $x$. Similarly, $p$ is not on the opposite side of $\ell (o,x)$ from $z$. Therefore, if $0<\angle xoz$, then Proposition \[angle-equality-prop\] implies that $$\angle xoz =\angle xop +\angle poz =\angle xoy +\angle yoz.$$ So we assume in addition that $\angle xoz= 0$. Then $x,z\in R_{ox}\setminus\{ o\}$. Therefore, the hypothesis that $\lbrack x,z\rbrack\cap\lbrack o,y\rbrack\neq\emptyset$ implies $y\in R_{ox}\setminus\{ o\}$ clearly. It follows that $\angle xoy=\angle yoz=0$, and thus $\angle xoz=\angle xoy +\angle yoz$, which completes the proof. The following corollary is an immediate consequence of Proposition \[diagonal-angle-prop\]. \[diagonal-angle-coro\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$, and $d_{\kappa}(x,z)<D_{\kappa}$. If $\lbrack x,z\rbrack\cap\lbrack o,y\rbrack\neq\emptyset$, then $\angle xoy +\angle yoz\leq\pi$. We will continue to prove facts about angle measure in $M_{\kappa}^2$. \[angle-betweenness-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z,w\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z,w\}$. If we have $$\begin{aligned} \angle xoz&=\angle xoy+\angle yoz,\label{angle-betweeness-xoz-hyp}\\ \angle xow&=\angle xoz +\angle zow,\label{angle-betweeness-xow-hyp}\end{aligned}$$ then we have $$\angle yow=\angle yoz +\angle zow,\quad \angle xow=\angle xoy+\angle yow.$$ \[scale=0.4\] (-2,0) – (12,0); (9,2) – (0,3); (3.8,-1) – (5.4,7); (4,0) – (10,0); (4,0) – (9,2); (4,0) – (5,5); (4,0) – (0,3); at (4,0) <span>$o$</span>; at (10,0) <span>$x$</span>; at (9,2) <span>$y$</span>; at (5,5) <span>$z$</span>; at (0,3) <span>$w$</span>; (4.5,2.5) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (4,0) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (10,0) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (9,2) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (5,5) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (0,3) circle \[radius=0.15\]; at (4.5,2.5) <span>$p$</span>; First, assume that one of the angle measures $\angle xoy$, $\angle xoz$ or $\angle xow$ is $0$ or $\pi$. Then $\angle xoy=0$ or $\angle xow=\pi$ because and imply $\angle xoy\leq\angle xoz\leq\angle xow$. Therefore, we have $\angle xow=\angle xoy+\angle yow$ by Corollary \[angle-equality-coro\]. Together with and , this implies that $$\angle yow = \angle xow-\angle xoy = \angle xoz+\angle zow-\angle xoy = \angle yoz+\angle zow.$$ So henceforth we assume that $$\label{angle-betweenness-prop-0pi-assumption} \{\angle xoy,\angle xoz,\angle xow\}\cap\{ 0,\pi\} =\emptyset .$$ Then neither $y$, $z$ nor $w$ is on $\ell (o,x)$. We denote by $S$ the side of $\ell (o,x)$ containing $z$. By Proposition \[angle-equality-necessary-conditions-prop\], and imply that neither $y$ nor $w$ is on the opposite side of $\ell (o,x)$ from $z$, and therefore $y\in S$ and $w\in S$. In particular, it follows that $d_{\kappa}(y,w)<D_{\kappa}$. By Proposition \[angle-equality-necessary-conditions-prop\], implies that $y$ is not on the opposite side of $\ell (o,z)$ from $x$, and implies that $w$ is not on the same side of $\ell (o,z)$ as $x$. Because $x\not\in\ell (o,z)$ by , it follows that $y$ and $w$ are not on the same side of $\ell (o,z)$. Therefore, there exits a point $p\in\lbrack y,w\rbrack\cap\ell (o,z)$. Because $R_{oz}\setminus\{ o\}=\ell (o,z)\cap S$, and $\lbrack y,w\rbrack\subseteq S$ by the convexity of $S$, we have $p\in R_{oz}\setminus\{ o\}$. Therefore, $\angle yop=\angle yoz$ and $\angle pow=\angle zow$. Because $\lbrack y,w\rbrack\cap\lbrack o,p\rbrack\neq\emptyset$, Propsition \[diagonal-angle-prop\] implies that $$\label{angle-betweenness-prop-yoz-zow-eq} \angle yow=\angle yop+\angle pow=\angle yoz+\angle zow.$$ Combining , and , we obtain $$\angle xow = \angle xoz+\angle zow = \angle xoy+\angle yoz+\angle zow = \angle xoy+\angle yow,$$ which completes the proof. \[triangle-convexhull-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$, and $d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)<D_{\kappa}$. If $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, then $d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(y,x)+d_{\kappa}(x,z)$. \[scale=0.5\] (0,0) – (6,2); (0,0) – (2,4); (2,4) – (6,0); (3,1) – (6,0); at (2,4) <span>$x$</span>; at (0,0) <span>$y$</span>; at (3,1) <span>$o$</span>; at (6,0) <span>$z$</span>; at (6,2) <span>$\tilde{z}$</span>; Let $\tilde{z}\in M_{\kappa}^2$ be the unique point such that $d_{\kappa}(o,\tilde{z})=d_{\kappa}(o,z)$ and $\angle yo\tilde{z}=\pi$. Then $$\angle yox +\angle xo\tilde{z}=\angle yo\tilde{z}=\pi$$ by Corollary \[angle-equality-coro\]. Combining this with the hypothesis that $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$ yields $$\angle xo\tilde{z}\leq\angle xoz,$$ which implies $$\label{alexandrov-lemma-xtildez-xz-ineq} d_{\kappa}(x,\tilde{z})\leq d_{\kappa}(x,z)$$ by Lemma \[law-of-cos-lemma\]. Because $$d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,\tilde{z})=d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)<D_{\kappa}$$ by hypothesis, it follows from the definition of $\tilde{z}$ that $o\in\lbrack y,\tilde{z}\rbrack$, and therefore $$\label{alexandrov-lemma-o-in-ytildez} d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,\tilde{z})=d_{\kappa}(y,\tilde{z}).$$ Using , , the definition of $\tilde{z}$, and the triangle inequality for $d_{\kappa}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z) &= d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,\tilde{z}) = d_{\kappa}(y,\tilde{z})\\ &\leq d_{\kappa}(y,x)+d_{\kappa}(x,\tilde{z}) \leq d_{\kappa}(y,x)+d_{\kappa}(x,z),\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof. \[triangle-convexhull-coro-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $o\not\in\{ x,y,z\}$, and $d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,x)<2D_{\kappa}$. If $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, then we have $d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(y,p)+d_{\kappa}(p,z)$ for any $p\in\lbrack o,x\rbrack$. Let $\tilde{z}\in M_{\kappa}^2$ be the point as in the proof of Proposition \[triangle-convexhull-prop\]. Then the inequality in the proof of Proposition \[triangle-convexhull-prop\] holds by the same argument as in the proof of Proposition \[triangle-convexhull-prop\]. By definition of $\tilde{z}$, we have $\tilde{z}\in\overline{R_{oy}}\setminus\{ o\}$. It follows that $$\label{alexandrov-lemma-yo-otildez-ineq} d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,\tilde{z})<D_{\kappa}$$ because otherwise $\kappa$ would be greater than $0$, and $d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,\tilde{z})+d_{\kappa}(\tilde{z},y)$ would be equal to $2D_{\kappa}$, which would imply that $$\begin{aligned} d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,x) &\geq d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,\tilde{z})+d_{\kappa}(\tilde{z},x) \\ &\geq d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,\tilde{z})+d_{\kappa}(\tilde{z},y) = 2 D_{\kappa},\end{aligned}$$ contradicting the hypothesis. It follows from and the definition of $\tilde{z}$ that $$\label{triangle-convexhull-coro-yo-oz-ineq} d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)<D_{\kappa}.$$ If $p=o$, then the desired inequality holds trivially, so assume that $p\neq o$. Then it follows from the hypothesis and Proposition \[hemisphere-prop\] that $$\label{triangle-convexhull-coro-eda-ineq} 0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$$ for every $a\in\{ p,y,z\}$. Furthermore, we have $$\label{triangle-convexhull-coro-yoppoz-ineq} \angle yop+\angle poz=\angle yox+xoz\geq\pi$$ by hypothesis. It follows from , , and Proposition \[triangle-convexhull-prop\] that $$d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(y,p)+d_{\kappa}(p,z),$$ which completes the proof. \[ray-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$, and $d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)<D_{\kappa}$. If $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, and $y$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$, then $\lbrack y,z\rbrack\cap\overline{R_{ox}}\neq\emptyset$. By hypothesis, we have $d_{\kappa}(y,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)<D_{\kappa}$, and therefore there exists a unique geodesic segment $\lbrack y,z\rbrack$ with endpoints $y$ and $z$. If both $y$ and $z$ lie on $\ell (o,x)$, then $y\in\overline{R_{ox}}$ or $z\in\overline{R_{ox}}$ because otherwise both $y$ and $z$ would lie in $R_{ox}\setminus\{ o\}$, which would imply $\angle yox+\angle xoz=0$, contradicting the hypothesis. So henceforth we assume that $y\not\in\ell (o,x)$ or $z\not\in\ell (o,x)$. Then there exists a unique point $p\in\ell (o,x)\cap\lbrack y,z\rbrack$ because $y$ and $z$ are not on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$ by hypothesis. The point $p$ satisfies $p\in\overline{R_{ox}}$ because otherwise $p$ would lie in $R_{ox}\setminus\{ o\}$, and therefore $\angle yop+\angle poz$ would be equal to $\angle yox +\angle xoz\geq\pi$, which would imply $d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(y,p)+d_{\kappa}(p,z)$ by Proposition \[triangle-convexhull-prop\], contradicting the uniqueness of the geodesic segment with endpoints $y$ and $z$. Thus we have $p\in\lbrack y,z\rbrack\cap\overline{R_{ox}}$, which completes the proof. \[ray-coro\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $o\not\in\{ x,y,z\}$, and $d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,x)<2D_{\kappa}$. If $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, and $y$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$, then $\lbrack y,z\rbrack\cap\overline{R_{ox}}\neq\emptyset$. By the same argument as in the proof of Proposition \[triangle-convexhull-coro-prop\], the hypothesis implies that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$, and $d_{\kappa}(y,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)<D_{\kappa}$. Therefore, we have $\lbrack y,z\rbrack\cap\overline{R_{ox}}\neq\emptyset$ by Proposition \[ray-prop\]. \[convex-quadrilateral-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $x,y,z,w\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $$\begin{aligned} &d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,w)+d_{\kappa}(w,x)<2D_{\kappa},\\ &x\neq y,\quad x\neq z,\quad x\neq w,\quad y\neq z, \quad z\neq w.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\lbrack x,z\rbrack\cap\lbrack y,w\rbrack\neq\emptyset$ if and only if $\angle yxz+\angle zxw\leq\pi$, $\angle yzx+\angle xzw\leq\pi$, and $y$ and $w$ are not on the same side of $\ell (x,z)$. \[scale=0.5\] (3,-1.5) – (3,4.5); (0,1) – (3,3); (3,3) – (5,1.67); (5,1.67) – (3,0); (3,0) – (0,1); at (3,3) <span>$x$</span>; at (0,1) <span>$y$</span>; at (3,0) <span>$z$</span>; at (5,1.67) <span>$w$</span>; It follows from the hypothesis and Proposition \[hemisphere-prop\] that $\{ x,y,z,w\}$ is contained in a side $S$ of some line, and that we have $$d_{\kappa}(y,w)<D_{\kappa},\quad 0<d_{\kappa}(x,a)<D_{\kappa},\quad 0<d_{\kappa}(z,b)<D_{\kappa}$$ for any $a\in\{ y,z,w\}$ and any $b\in\{ x,y,w\}$. First assume that $\lbrack x,z\rbrack\cap\lbrack y,w\rbrack\neq\emptyset$. Then $\angle yxz+\angle zxw\leq\pi$ and $\angle yzx+\angle xzw\leq\pi$ by Corollary \[diagonal-angle-coro\]. Furthermore, $y$ and $w$ are not on the same side of $\ell (x,z)$ because otherwise $\lbrack y,w\rbrack$ would be contained in one side of $\ell (x,z)$ by the convexity of the side, which would imply $\ell (x,z)\cap\lbrack y,w\rbrack =\emptyset$, contradicting the assumption that $\lbrack x,z\rbrack\cap\lbrack y,w\rbrack\neq\emptyset$. Conversely, assume that $\angle yxz+\angle zxw\leq\pi$, $\angle yzx+\angle xzw\leq\pi$, and $y$ and $w$ are not on the same side of $\ell (x,z)$. We consider two cases. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Case 1</span>: <span>*$y\not\in\ell (x,z)$ or $w\not\in\ell (x,z)$.*</span> In this case, there exists a unique point $p$ that lies in $\lbrack y,w\rbrack\cap\ell (x,z)$, and we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{convex-quadrilateral-perimeter-ineq} d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,p)+d_{\kappa}(p,&w)+d_{\kappa}(w,x) = d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,w)+d_{\kappa}(w,x)\\ &\leq d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,w)+d_{\kappa}(w,x)<2D_{\kappa}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ by hypothesis. Since $\lbrack x,z\rbrack =R_{xz}\cap R_{zx}$, it suffices to prove that $p\in R_{xz}$ and $p\in R_{zx}$. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that $p\not\in R_{xz}$. Then $p\in\overline{R_{xz}}\setminus\{ x\}$ and $\angle pxz=\pi$. Therefore, we have $\angle pxy+\angle yxz=\angle pxz=\pi$ and $\angle pxw+\angle wxz=\angle pxz=\pi$ by Corollary \[angle-equality-coro\]. Combining these with the assumption that $\angle yxz+\angle zxw\leq\pi$, we obtain $$\label{convex-quadrilateral-yxp-pxw} \angle yxp+\angle pxw=(\pi -\angle yxz)+(\pi -\angle wxz)\geq\pi .$$ Because $y$ and $w$ are not on the same side of the line $\ell (x,p)=\ell (x,z)$, and imply $\lbrack y,w\rbrack\cap\overline{R_{xp}}\neq\emptyset$ by Corollary \[ray-coro\]. Because $\overline{R_{xp}}=R_{xz}$ and $\lbrack y,w\rbrack\cap\ell (x,z)=\{ p\}$, it follows that $p\in R_{xz}$, contradicting the assumption that $p\not\in R_{xz}$. Thus we have $p\in R_{xz}$. Exactly the same argument shows that $p\in R_{zx}$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Case 2</span>: <span>*$y\in\ell (x,z)$ and $w\in\ell (x,z)$.*</span> If $y\in\lbrack x,z\rbrack$, then $\lbrack x,z\rbrack\cap\lbrack y,w\rbrack\neq\emptyset$ clearly. So we assume that $y\not\in\lbrack x,z\rbrack$. Then $y\not\in R_{xz}$ or $y\not\in R_{zx}$. We may assume without loss of generality that $y\not\in R_{xz}$. Then $w\in R_{xz}$ because otherwise both $\angle yxz$ and $\angle zxw$ would be equal to $\pi$, contradicting the assumption that $\angle yxz+\angle zxw\leq \pi$. Thus we have $$\label{convex-quadrilateral-yw-Rxz} y\in\overline{R_{xz}},\quad w\in R_{xz}.$$ If $\kappa\leq 0$, then clearly implies $x\in\lbrack y,w\rbrack$, and thus $\lbrack x,z\rbrack\cap\lbrack y,w\rbrack\neq\emptyset$. If $\kappa >0$, then $\lbrack y,w\rbrack$ contains either $x$ or the antipode of $x$ by . On the other hand, the antipode of $x$ cannot lie in $\lbrack y,w\rbrack$ because $\lbrack y,w\rbrack\subseteq S$ by the convexity of $S$. Therefore, we have $x\in\lbrack y,w\rbrack$ in the case in which $\kappa >0$ as well, which completes the proof. \[plane-angle-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z \in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$. If $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, and $y$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$, then $\angle xoy+\angle yoz+\angle zox=2\pi$. \[scale=0.4\] (2,5) – (6,4.5); (0,4) – (4,6); (4,6) – (8,3); (4,6) – (5,10); (4,6) – (2.5,0); (0,4) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (4,6) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (5,10) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (8,3) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (2,5) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (3,2) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (3,2) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (6,4.5) circle \[radius=0.15\]; (3.697,4.785) circle \[radius=0.15\]; at (5,10) <span>$x$</span>; at (0,4) <span>$y$</span>; at (8,3) <span>$z$</span>; at (4,6) <span>$o$</span>; at (2,5) <span>$y'$</span>; at (3,2) <span>$x'$</span>; at (6,4.5) <span>$z'$</span>; at (3.697,4.785) <span>$p$</span>; Choose a point $x'\in\overline{R_{ox}}\setminus\{ o\}$. Choose two points $y'\in (o,y\rbrack$ and $z'\in (o,z\rbrack$ such that $d_{\kappa}(y' ,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z')<D_{\kappa}$. If $o\in\lbrack y',z' \rbrack$, then $\angle zoy=\angle z'oy' =\pi$, and therefore it follows from Corollary \[angle-equality-coro\] that $$\angle xoy+\angle yoz+\angle zox=\pi +(\angle zox+\angle xoy)=\pi +\angle zoy=2\pi .$$ So henceforth we assume that $o\not\in\lbrack y' ,z' \rbrack$. The hypothesis that $y$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$ implies that $y'$ and $z'$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$ because the union of $\ell (o,x)$ and any one of its sides is a $D_{\kappa}$-convex subset of $M_{\kappa}^2$. We also have $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz=\angle y'ox+\angle xoz'$ by hypothesis. Therefore, there exists a point $p\in(\overline{R_{ox}}\setminus\{ o\} )\cap\lbrack y',z'\rbrack$ by Proposition \[ray-prop\]. Since $\lbrack y',z'\rbrack\cap\lbrack o,p\rbrack\neq\emptyset$, we have $\angle y'oz' =\angle y'op+\angle poz'$ by Proposition \[diagonal-angle-prop\], and therefore $$\label{plane-angle-ydashozdash} \angle yoz =\angle y'oz' =\angle y'op+\angle poz' =\angle yox' +\angle x'oz.$$ On the other hand, since $\angle xox'=\pi$, we have $$\label{plane-angle-xoxdash} \angle xoy+\angle yox'=\angle xox' =\pi ,\quad \angle x'oz +\angle zox=\angle x'ox =\pi$$ by Corollary \[angle-equality-coro\]. Combining and , we obtain $$\angle xoy+\angle yoz+\angle zox = \angle xoy +\angle yox' +\angle x'oz +\angle zox=2\pi ,$$ which completes the proof. Proposition \[plane-angle-prop\] implies the following corollary. \[plane-angle-coro\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z \in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $0<d_{\kappa}(o,a)<D_{\kappa}$ for every $a\in\{ x,y,z\}$. Then the following are equivalent: 1. $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, and $y$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$. 2. $\pi\leq\angle zoy+\angle yox$, and $z$ and $x$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,y)$. 3. $\pi\leq\angle xoz+\angle zoy$, and $x$ and $y$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,z)$. It suffices to prove that $(1)$ implies $(2)$. Assume that $(1)$ is true. Then Proposition \[plane-angle-prop\] implies that $$\label{convexhull-separation-2pi} \angle xoy+\angle yoz+\angle zox=2\pi ,$$ and therefore $$\angle zoy+\angle yox =2\pi -\angle zox\geq \pi .$$ Assume for the sake of contradiction that $z$ and $x$ lie on the same side of $\ell (o,y)$. Then neither $z$ nor $x$ is on $\ell (o,y)$, and therefore $\angle yoz<\pi$ and $\angle yox<\pi$. If $\angle yoz\leq\angle yox$, then $\angle yoz +\angle zox =\angle yox$ by Proposition \[angle-equality-prop\], and therefore $$\angle xoy+\angle yoz+\angle zox = 2\angle xoy < 2\pi .$$ Similarly, if $\angle yox\leq\angle yoz$, then $\angle yox +\angle xoz =\angle yoz$ by Proposition \[angle-equality-prop\], and therefore $$\angle xoy+\angle yoz+\angle zox = 2\angle yoz < 2\pi .$$ Thus we always have $\angle xoy+\angle yoz+\angle zox <2\pi$, contradicting . Thus $(2)$ is true. \[interior-of-triangle-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z \in M_{\kappa}^2$ are four distinct points such that $\{ o,x,y,z\}$ is contained in a side of some line. Assume that $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, and that $y$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$. Then all of the following conditions are true: 1. $o$ and $x$ do not lie on opposite sides of $\ell (y,z)$. 2. $o$ and $y$ do not lie on opposite sides of $\ell (z,x)$. 3. $o$ and $z$ do not lie on opposite sides of $\ell (x,y)$. By Corollary \[plane-angle-coro\], it suffices to prove that $(1)$ is true. If $o\in\ell (y,z)$, then $o$ and $x$ do not lie on opposite sides of $\ell (y,z)$ clearly, so assume that $o\not\in\ell (y,z)$. Then we have $\angle yoz<\pi$ and $\ell (o,x)\neq\ell (y,z)$. Because $y$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$ by hypothesis, there exists a point $p\in\ell (o,x)\cap\lbrack y,z\rbrack$. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that $o$ and $x$ lie on opposite sides of $\ell (y,z)$. Then there exists a point $q\in\lbrack o,x\rbrack\cap\ell (y,z)$. By hypothesis, $\{ o,x,y,z\}$ is contained in a side $S$ of some line, and both $p$ and $q$ lie in $S$ by the convexity of $S$. It follows that $p=q$ because otherwise the two distinct lines $\ell (o,x)$ and $\ell (y,z)$ would share the two distinct points $p$ and $q$, and therefore $\kappa$ would be greater than $0$, and $q$ would be the antipode of $p$, contradicting the fact that $\{ p,q\}\subseteq S$. Therefore, we have $\lbrack o,x\rbrack\cap\lbrack y,z\rbrack\neq\emptyset$, which implies $\angle yox+\angle xoz=\angle yoz<\pi$ by Proposition \[diagonal-angle-prop\], contradicting the hypothesis. \[triangle-boundary-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are four distinct points such that $\{ o,x,y,z\}$ is contained in a side of some line. Assume that $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, and that $y$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$. If $o\in\ell (x,y)\cup\ell (y,z)\cup\ell (z,x)$, then $o\in\lbrack x,y\rbrack\cup\lbrack y,z\rbrack\cup\lbrack z,x\rbrack$. By hypothesis, $\{ o,x,y,z\}$ is contained in a side $S$ of some line. By Corollary \[plane-angle-coro\], we may assume without loss of generality that $o\in\ell (x,y)$. Because $\lbrack x,o\rbrack\cup\lbrack o,y\rbrack\subseteq S$ by the convexity of $S$, if $y\in\overline{R_{ox}}$, then we have $d_{\kappa}(x,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,y)\leq D_{\kappa}$, and thus $o\in\lbrack x,y\rbrack$. So assume that $y\not\in\overline{R_{ox}}$. Then $y\in R_{ox}\setminus\{ o\}$, and thus $\angle yox=0$. Combining this with the hypothesis that $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, we obtain $\angle xoz=\pi$, and therefore $z\in\overline{R_{ox}}$. Because $\lbrack x,o\rbrack\cup\lbrack o,z\rbrack\subseteq S$ by the convexity of $S$, it follows that $d_{\kappa}(x,o)+d_{\kappa}(o,z)<D_{\kappa}$, and thus $o\in\lbrack z,x\rbrack$, which completes the proof. The following proposition follows from Proposition \[interior-of-triangle-prop\] and Proposition \[triangle-boundary-prop\]. \[interior-of-triangle-angle-prop\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $o,x,y,z \in M_{\kappa}^2$ are four distinct points such that $\{ o,x,y,z\}$ is contained in a side of some line. Assume that $\pi\leq\angle yox+\angle xoz$, and that $y$ and $z$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$. Then $$\angle zxo+\angle oxy=\angle zxy,\quad\angle xyo+\angle oyz=\angle xyz ,\quad\angle yzo+\angle ozx=\angle yzx.$$ By Corollary \[plane-angle-coro\], it suffices to prove that $\angle zxo+\angle oxy=\angle zxy$. It follows from the hypothesis and Proposition \[interior-of-triangle-prop\] that $o$ is neither on the opposite side of $\ell (x,z)$ from $y$ nor on the opposite side of $\ell (x,y)$ from $z$. Therefore, Proposition \[angle-equality-prop\] implies that $\angle zxo+\angle oxy=\angle zxy$ whenever $0<\angle zxy$. So assume that $\angle zxy=0$. Then $z\in R_{xy}\setminus\{ x\}$. It follows that $o\in\ell (x,y)$ because otherwise $R_{xy}\setminus\{ x\}$ would coincide with the union of $\ell (x,y)$ and the side of $\ell (o,x)$ containing $y$, and therefore $y$ and $z$ would lie on the same side of $\ell (o,x)$, contradicting the hypothesis. Therefore, we have $o\in\lbrack x,y\rbrack\cup\lbrack y,z\rbrack\cup\lbrack z,x\rbrack$ by Proposition \[triangle-boundary-prop\]. Since $x$, $y$ and $z$ all lie in $R_{xy}$, this implies that $o\in R_{xy}$. It follows that $\angle zxo=\angle oxy=0$, and therefore $\angle zxo+\angle oxy=\angle zxy$, which completes the proof. A generalization of Alexandrov's lemma {#alexandrov-sec} ====================================== In this section, we prove two lemmas, which generalize Alexandrov's lemma @BH [p.25]. The following lemma was proved for $\kappa =0$ in @toyoda-five [Lemma 8.4]. \[larger-larger-lemma\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $x,y,z,w,x',y',z',w'\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $$\begin{aligned} &d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,w)+d_{\kappa}(w,x)<2D_{\kappa},\\ &d_{\kappa} (x,y)=d_{\kappa}(x',y'),\quad d_{\kappa} (y,z)=d_{\kappa} (y',z'),\quad d_{\kappa}(z,w)= d_{\kappa}(z',w'),\\ &d_{\kappa}(w,x)=d_{\kappa}(w',x'),\quad d_{\kappa}(y,w)\leq d_{\kappa}(y',w'). \end{aligned}$$ Whenever $x\neq y$, $x\neq z$, $x\neq w$, $y\neq z$ and $z\neq w$, assume that $\pi\leq\angle yzx+\angle xzw$, and that $y$ and $w$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (x,z)$. Then $$d_{\kappa} (x,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(x',z').$$ \[scale=0.5\] (0,0) – (2,2); (0,0) – (2,5); (2,5) – (6,0); (2,2) – (6,0); (2,2) – (6.47,1.8); at (0,0) <span>$y$</span>; at (6,0) <span>$w$</span>; at (2,2) <span>$z$</span>; at (2,5) <span>$x$</span>; at (6.47,1.8) <span>$\tilde{w}$</span>; (12,0) – (14.46,4.79); (14.46,4.79) – (18.71,0); (12,0) – (14.46,1.39); (14.46,1.39) – (18.71,0); at (12,0) <span>$y'$</span>; at (18.71,0) <span>$w'$</span>; at (14.46,1.39) <span>$z'$</span>; at (14.46,4.79) <span>$x'$</span>; We first consider the case in which $x$, $y$, $z$ and $w$ are not distinct. If $x=y$, then $x'=y'$ since $d_{\kappa}(x,y)=d_{\kappa}(x',y')$, and therefore $$d_{\kappa}(x,z)=d_{\kappa}(y,z)=d_{\kappa}(y',z')=d_{\kappa}(x',z').$$ Similarly, if one of the equalities $x=w$, $y=z$ or $z=w$ holds, then we have $$d_{\kappa}(x,z)=d_{\kappa}(x',z').$$ If $x=z$, then the inequality $d_{\kappa}(x,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(x',z')$ holds clearly. So we may assume that $$x\neq y,\quad x\neq z,\quad x\neq w,\quad y\neq z,\quad z\neq w.$$ Suppose that $y=w$. Then $y\in\ell (x,z)$ because $y$ and $w$ do not lie on the same side of $\ell (x,z)$ by hypothesis, and therefore we have $\angle xzy=\angle xzw=0$ or $\angle xzy=\angle xzw=\pi$. Because $\pi\leq\angle yzx+\angle xzw$ by hypothesis, we have $\angle xzy=\angle xzw=\pi$, and thus $$\label{larger-y-in-ray-zx} y\in\overline{R_{zx}}\backslash\{ z\} .$$ It follows that $$\label{larger-xz-zy-diameter} d_{\kappa}(x,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,y)<D_{\kappa}$$ because otherwise $\kappa$ would be greater than $0$, and $d_{\kappa}(x,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,x)$ would be equal to $2D_{\kappa}$, which would imply that $$d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,w)+d_{\kappa}(w,x) \geq d_{\kappa}(x,y)+d_{\kappa}(y,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,x) =2D_{\kappa},$$ contradicting the hypothesis. It follows from and that $z\in\lbrack x,y\rbrack$, and thus $$d_{\kappa}(x,z)=d_{\kappa}(x,y)-d_{\kappa}(y,z) =d_{\kappa}(x',y')-d_{\kappa}(y',z')\leq d_{\kappa}(x',z').$$ So henceforth we assume that $x$, $y$, $z$ and $w$ are distinct. We consider two cases. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Case 1</span>: <span>*$z\not\in\ell (x,y)\cup\ell (y,w)\cup\ell (w,x)$.*</span> Let $\tilde{w}\in M_{\kappa}^2$ be the point such that $$d_{\kappa}(z,\tilde{w})=d_{\kappa}(z,w),\quad\angle yz\tilde{w} =\angle y'z'w' ,$$ and $\tilde{w}$ is not on the opposite side of $\ell (y,z)$ from $w$, as shown in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Figure</span> \[larger-fig\]. Then $$\label{larger-yzw-cong} d_{\kappa}(y,\tilde{w})=d_{\kappa}(y',w'),\quad \angle \tilde{w}yz=\angle w'y'z'$$ because the triangle with vertices $y$, $z$ and $\tilde{w}$ is congruent to that with vertices $y'$, $z'$ and $w'$. Since $d_{\kappa}(y,w)\leq d_{\kappa}(y',w')$ by hypothesis, Lemma \[law-of-cos-lemma\] implies that $$\angle yzw\leq\angle y'z'w' =\angle yz\tilde{w},$$ and therefore Proposition \[angle-equality-prop\] implies that $$\label{larger-yzw-wztildew-eq} \angle yzw +\angle wz\tilde{w} = \angle yz\tilde{w} \leq\pi .$$ Because $\pi\leq\angle yzx+\angle xzw$, and $y$ and $w$ are not on the same side of $\ell (x,z)$, Corollary \[plane-angle-coro\] implies that $\pi\leq\angle yzw+\angle wzx$. Combining this with yields $\angle wz\tilde{w}\leq\angle wzx$. Furthermore, $\tilde{w}$ and $x$ are not on opposite sides of $\ell (z,w)$ because implies that $\tilde{w}$ is not on the same side of $\ell (z,w)$ as $y$ by Proposition \[angle-equality-necessary-conditions-prop\], the hypothesis implies that $x$ is not on the same side of $\ell (z,w)$ as $y$ by Corollary \[plane-angle-coro\], and $y\not\in\ell (z,w)$ by the assumption of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Case 1</span>. Therefore, Proposition \[angle-equality-prop\] implies that $$\label{larger-wztildew-tildewzx-eq} \angle wzx = \angle wz\tilde{w}+\angle\tilde{w}zx.$$ We have $\angle\tilde{w}zx\leq\angle wzx$ by , and therefore Lemma \[law-of-cos-lemma\] implies that $$d_{\kappa}(\tilde{w},x)\leq d_{\kappa}(w,x)=d_{\kappa}(w' ,x' ).$$ Using Lemma \[law-of-cos-lemma\] again, this implies that $$\label{larger-yxz} \angle \tilde{w}yx\leq\angle w' y' x' .$$ Because the hypothesis implies $\angle yzw +\angle wzx +\angle xzy=2\pi$ by Proposition \[plane-angle-prop\], it follows from and that $$\angle \tilde{w}zx +\angle xzy=2\pi-\angle yz\tilde{w}\geq\pi .$$ Furthermore, $y$ and $\tilde{w}$ are not on the same side of $\ell (x,z)$ because $y$ is not on the same side of $\ell (x,z)$ as $w$ by hypothesis, implies that $\tilde{w}$ is not on the opposite side of $\ell (x,z)$ from $w$ by Proposition \[angle-equality-necessary-conditions-prop\], and $w\not\in\ell (x,z)$ by the assumption of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Case 1</span>. Therefore, Proposition \[interior-of-triangle-angle-prop\] implies that $$\label{larger-tildewyz-zyx} \angle \tilde{w}yx=\angle\tilde{w}yz+\angle zyx.$$ We also have $$\label{larger-wyz-zyx} \angle w'y'x' \leq \angle w' y' z' +\angle z'y'x'$$ by Proposition \[angle-triangle-inequality-prop\]. Combining , , and , we obtain $$\angle zyx = \angle \tilde{w}yx-\angle\tilde{w}yz \leq \angle w' y' x'-\angle\tilde{w}yz = \angle w' y' x' -\angle w' y' z' \leq \angle z'y'x' ,$$ and therefore Lemma \[law-of-cos-lemma\] implies that $d_{\kappa}(x,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(x',z' )$. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Case 2</span>: <span>*$z\in\ell (x,y)\cup\ell (y,w)\cup\ell (w,x)$.*</span> In this case, $z\in\lbrack x,y\rbrack\cup\lbrack y,w\rbrack\cup\lbrack w,x\rbrack$ by Proposition \[triangle-boundary-prop\]. If $z\in\lbrack x,y\rbrack$, then $$d_{\kappa}(x,z) = d_{\kappa}(x,y)-d_{\kappa}(y,z) = d_{\kappa}(x',y')-d_{\kappa}(y',z') \leq d_{\kappa}(x',z').$$ If $z\in\lbrack w,x\rbrack$, then we obtain $d_{\kappa}(x,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(x',z')$ similarly. So assume that $z\in\lbrack y,w\rbrack$. Then $$d_{\kappa}(y,w) \leq d_{\kappa}(y',w') \leq d_{\kappa}(y',z')+d_{\kappa}(z',w') = d_{\kappa}(y,z)+d_{\kappa}(z,w) = d_{\kappa}(y,w),$$ and thus $d_{\kappa}(y,w)=d_{\kappa}(y',w')$. It follows that the triangle with vertices $x$, $y$ and $w$ is congruent to the triangle with vertices $x'$, $y'$ and $w'$, and that $z\in\lbrack y,w\rbrack$ corresponds to $z'\in\lbrack y',w'\rbrack$ under this congruence, which implies $d_{\kappa}(x,z)=d_{\kappa}(x',z')$. Suppose $x,y,z,w,x',y',z',w' \in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points that satisfy the hypothesis of Lemma \[larger-larger-lemma\]. Alexandrov's lemma @BH [p.25] states that if the equality $$d_{\kappa}(y',w')=d_{\kappa}(y',z')+d_{\kappa}(z',w')$$ holds in addition, then we have $d_{\kappa}(x,z)\leq d_{\kappa}(x',z')$. Next we prove the following lemma, which looks similar to the previous one. \[larger-smaller-lemma\] Let $\kappa\in\mathbb{R}$. Suppose $x,y,z,w,x',y',z',w'\in M_{\kappa}^2$ are points such that $$\begin{aligned} &d_{\kappa}(x',y')+d_{\kappa}(y',z')+d_{\kappa}(z',w')+d_{\kappa}(w',x')<2D_{\kappa},\\ &d_{\kappa} (x,y)=d_{\kappa}(x',y'),\quad d_{\kappa} (y,z)=d_{\kappa} (y',z'),\quad d_{\kappa}(z,w)= d_{\kappa}(z',w'),\\ &d_{\kappa}(w,x)=d_{\kappa}(w',x'),\quad d_{\kappa}(x',z')\leq d_{\kappa}(x,z). \end{aligned}$$ If $\lbrack x',z'\rbrack\cap\lbrack y',w' \rbrack\neq\emptyset$, then $$d_{\kappa} (y,w)\leq d_{\kappa}(y',w').$$ \[scale=0.5\] (0,0) – (-1.6,-2.33); (-1.6,-2.33) – (0,-6.5); (0,-6.5) – (4.86,-2.33); (4.86,-2.33) – (0,0); (12,0) – (10,-2); (10,-2) – (12,-6); (12,-6) – (17,-2); (17,-2) – (12,0); (10,-2) – (10.83,-6.39); (0,0) – (0,-6.5); (12,0) – (12,-6); at (0,0) <span>$x$</span>; at (-1.6,-2.33) <span>$y$</span>; at (0,-6.5) <span>$z$</span>; at (4.86,-2.33) <span>$w$</span>; at (12,0) <span>$x'$</span>; at (10,-2) <span>$y'$</span>; at (12,-6) <span>$z'$</span>; at (17,-2) <span>$w'$</span>; at (10.83,-6.39) <span>$\tilde{z}$</span>; We first consider the case in which $x'$, $y'$, $z'$ and $w'$ are not distinct. If $x'=y'$, then $x=y$ since $d_{\kappa}(x,y)=d_{\kappa}(x',y')$, and
{'source': 'arXiv_out/1907'}