Invitation to Alexandrov geometry: CAT[0] spaces

The idea is to demonstrate the beauty and power of Alexandrov geometry by reaching interesting applications with a minimum of preparation. The topics include 1. Estimates on the number of collisions in billiards. 2. Construction of exotic aspherical manifolds. 3. The geometry of two-convex sets in Euclidean space.


Preface
These notes arise as a coproduct of the book on Alexandrov geometry we have been writing for a number of years. They were shaped in a number of lectures given by the third author to undergraduate students at different occasions at the MASS program at Penn State University and the Summer School "Algebra and Geometry" in Yaroslavl.
The idea is to demonstrate the beauty and power of Alexandrov geometry by reaching interesting applications and theorems with a minimum of preparation.
In Chapter 1, we discuss necessary preliminaries. In Chapter 2, we discuss the Reshetnyak gluing theorem and apply it to a problem in billiards which was solved by Dmitri Burago, Serge Ferleger and Alexey Kononenko.
In Chapter 3, we discuss the Hadamard-Cartan globalization theorem of and apply it to the construction of exotic aspherical manifolds introduced by Michael Davis.
In Chapter 4, we discuss examples of Alexandrov spaces with curvature bounded above. This chapter is based largely on work of Samuel Shefel on nonsmooth saddle surfaces.
Here is a list of some sources providing a good introduction to Alexandrov spaces with curvature bounded above, which we recommend for further information: ⋄ The book by Martin Bridson and André Haefliger [15]; ⋄ Lecture notes of Werner Ballmann [10]; ⋄ Chapter 9 in the book [17] by Dmitri Burago, Yurii Burago and Sergei Ivanov.

Early history of Alexandov geometry
Alexandrov geometry can use "back to Euclid" as a slogan. Alexandrov spaces are defined via axioms similar to those given by Euclid, but certain equalities are changed to inequalities. Depending on the sign of the inequalities we get Alexandrov spaces with curvature bounded above or curvature bounded below ; for more on this see the manifesto below. Despite that the definitions of the two classes of spaces are similar, their properties and known applications are quite different. The first synthetic description of curvature is due to Abraham Wald; it was given in a single publication on "coordinate-free differential geometry" In 1941, similar definitions were rediscovered independently by Alexander Danilovich Alexandrov, see [5]. In Alexandrov's work the first fruitful applications of this approach were given. Mainly: ⋄ Alexandrov's embedding theorem -metrics of non-negative curvature on the sphere, and only they, are isometric to closed convex surfaces in Euclidean 3-space. ⋄ Gluing theorem, which tells when the sphere obtained by gluing of two discs along their boundaries has non-negative curvature in the sense of Alexandrov. These two results together gave a very intuitive geometric tool for studying embeddings and bending of surfaces in Euclidean space, and changed this subject dramatically. They formed the foundation of the branch of geometry now called Alexandrov geometry.
The study of spaces with curvature bounded above started later. The first paper on the subject was written by Alexandrov; it appeared in 1951, see [6]. It was based on work of Herbert Busemann, who studied spaces satisfying a weaker condition [20].
Surfaces with upper curvature bounds were studied extensively in 50-s and 60-s and by now well understood; see the survey [51] and the references there in. One of the key contributions to the subject was made by Yurii Grigorievich Reshetnyak. He also proved few fundamental results about general spaces with curvature bounded above; the most important of which is gluing theorem. An other, equally important result, the globalization theorem or Hadamard-Cartan theorem. These theorems and their history are discussed in the chapters 2 and 3.

Manifesto of Alexandrov geometry
Consider the space M 4 of all isometry classes of 4-point metric spaces. Each element in M 4 can be described by 6 numbers -the distances between all 6 pairs of its points, say ℓ i,j for 1 i < j 4 modulo permutations of the index set (1,2,3,4). These 6 numbers are subject to 12 triangle inequalities; that is, ℓ i,j + ℓ j,k ℓ i,k holds for all i, j and k, where we assume that ℓ j,i = ℓ i,j and ℓ i,i = 0.
Consider the subset E 4 ⊂ ⊂ M 4 of all isometry classes of 4point metric spaces which admit isometric embeddings into Euclidean space. The complement M 4 \E 4 has two connected components.
One of the components will be denoted by P 4 and the other by N 4 . Here P and N stand for positive and negative curvature because spheres have no quadruples of type N 4 and hyperbolic space has no quadruples of type P 4 .
A metric space, with length metric, which has no quadruples of points of type P 4 or N 4 , respectively, is called an Alexandrov space with non-positive or non-negative curvature, respectively.
Here is an exercise, solving which would force the reader to rebuild a considerable part of Alexandrov geometry. 0.0.2. Advanced exercise. Assume X is a complete metric space with length metric, containing only quadruples of type E 4 . Show that X is isometric to a convex set in a Hilbert space.
In fact, it might be helpful to spend some time thinking about this exercise before proceeding.
In the definition above, instead of Euclidean space one can take hyperbolic space of curvature −1. In this case, one obtains the definition of spaces with curvature bounded above or below by −1.
To define spaces with curvature bounded above or below by 1, one has to take the unit 3-sphere and specify that only the quadruples of points such that each of the four triangles has perimeter at most 2·π are checked. The latter condition could be considered as a part of the spherical triangle inequality.
We want to thank the mathematical institutions where we worked on this material, including BIRS, MFO, Henri Poincaré Institute, University of Colone, Max Planck Institute for Mathematics.
The first author was partially supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation #209053. The second author was partially supported by grants from NSERC and the Simons foundation. The third author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS 1309340.

Preliminaries
In this chapter we fix some conventions and recall the main definitions. The chapter may be used as a quick reference when reading the book.
To learn background in metric geometry, the reader may consult the book of Dmitri Burago, Yuri Burago and Sergei Ivanov [17].

Metric spaces
The distance between two points x and y in a metric space X will be denoted by |x − y| or |x − y| X . The latter notation is used if we need to emphasize that the distance is taken in the space X .
The function dist x : y → |x − y| is called the distance function from x. ⋄ The diameter of metric space X is defined as diam X = sup{ |x − y| X | x, y ∈ X } . A metric space X is called proper if all closed bounded sets in X are compact. This condition is equivalent to each of the following statements: 1. For some (and therefore any) point p ∈ X and any R < ∞, the closed ball B[p, R] ⊂ X is compact. 2. The function dist p : X → R is proper for some (and therefore any) point p ∈ X ; that is, for any compact set K ⊂ R, its inverse image { x ∈ X | |p − x| X ∈ K } is compact.
1.1.1. Exercise. Let K be a compact metric space and f : K → K be a non-contracting map. Prove that f is an isometry.

Constructions
Product space. Given two metric spaces U and V, the product space U × V is defined as the set of all pairs (u, v) where u ∈ U and v ∈ V with the metric defined by formula Cone. The cone V = Cone U over a metric space U is defined as the metric space whose underlying set consists of equivalence classes in [0, ∞) × U with the equivalence relation "∼" given by (0, p) ∼ (0, q) for any points p, q ∈ U, and whose metric is given by the cosine rule |(p, s) − (q, t)| V = s 2 + t 2 − 2·s·t· cos α, where α = min{π, |p − q| U }.
The point in the cone V formed by the equivalence class of 0 × U is called the tip of the cone and is denoted by 0 or 0 V . The distance |0 − v| V is called the norm of v and is denoted by |v| or |v| V .
Suspension. The suspension V = Susp U over a metric space U is defined as the metric space whose underlying set consists of equivalence classes in [0, π] × U with the equivalence relation "∼" given by (0, p) ∼ ∼ (0, q) and (π, p) ∼ (π, q) for any points p, q ∈ U, and whose metric is given by the spherical cosine rule cos |(p, s) − (q, t)| Susp U = cos s· cot t − sin s· sin t· cos α, where α = min{π, |p − q| U }.
The points in V formed by the equivalence class of 0 × U and π × U are called the north and the south poles of the suspension.

Geodesics, triangles and hinges
Geodesics. Let X be a metric space and I be a real interval. A globally isometric map γ : I → X is called a geodesic 1 ; in other words, γ : I → X is a geodesic if |γ(s) − γ(t)| X = |s − t| for any pair s, t ∈ I.
We say that γ : I → X is a geodesic from point p to point q if I = [a, b] and p = γ(a), q = γ(b). In this case the image of γ is denoted by [pq] and with an abuse of notations we also call it a geodesic. Given a geodesic [pq] we can parametrize it by distance to p; this parametrization will be denoted as geod [pq] (t).
We may write [pq] X to emphasize that the geodesic [pq] is in the space X . Also we use the following short-cut notation: In general, a geodesic between p and q need not exist and if it exists, it need not be unique. However, once we write [pq] we mean that we made a choice of a geodesic.
A metric space is called geodesic if any pair of its points can be joined by a geodesic.
A curve γ : I → X is called a local geodesic if for any t ∈ I there is a neighborhood U of t in I such that the restriction γ| U is a geodesic. A constant speed parametrization of local geodesic by the unit interval [0, 1] is called a local geodesic path.
Triangles. For a triple of points p, q, r ∈ X , a choice of a triple of geodesics ([qr], [rp], [pq]) will be called a triangle; we will use the short notation [

pqr] = ([qr], [rp], [pq]).
Again, given a triple p, q, r ∈ X there may be no triangle [pqr] simply because one of the pairs of these points can not be joined by a geodesic. Also, many different triangles with these vertices may exist, any of which can be denoted by [pqr]. However, if we write [pqr], it means that we made a choice of such a triangle, that is, we fixed a choice of the geodesics [qr], [rp] and [pq].
The value |p − q| + |q − r| + |r − p| will be called the perimeter of the triangle [pqr].
Hinges. Let p, x, y ∈ X be a triple of points such that p is distinct from x and y. A set A ⊂ X is called locally convex if every point a ∈ A admits an open neighborhood Ω ∋ a such that any geodesic lying in Ω and with ends in A lies completely in A.
Note that any open set is locally convex by the definition.

Length spaces
A curve is defined as a continuous map from a real interval to a space. If the real interval is [0, 1] then curve is called path.
1.4.1. Definition. Let X be a metric space and α : I → X be a curve. We define the length of α as Directly from the definition, it follows that if a path α : [0, 1] → X connects two points x and y (that is, α(0) = x and α(1) = y) then length α |x − y|.
If for any ε > 0 and any pair of points x and y in a metric space X there is a path α connecting x to y such that length α < |x − y| + ε, then X is called a length space.
Note that any geodesic space is a length space. As can be seen from the following example, the converse does not hold.

1.4.2.
Example. Let X be obtained by gluing a countable collection of disjoint intervals {I n } of length 1 + 1 n , where for each I n the left end is glued to p and the right end to q. Then X carries a natural complete length metric with respect to which |p − q| = 1 but there is no geodesic connecting p to q.

Exercise.
Give an example of a complete length space for which no pair of distinct points can be joined by a geodesic.
Let X be a metric space and x, y ∈ X .
(i) A point z ∈ X is called a midpoint between x and y if Note that a 0-midpoint is the same as a midpoint.
1.4.4. Lemma. Let X be a complete metric space. a) Assume that for any pair of points x, y ∈ X and any ε > 0 there is a ε-midpoint z. Then X is a length space. b) Assume that for any pair of points x, y ∈ X there is a midpoint z. Then X is a geodesic space.
To prove (b), one should repeat the same argument taking midpoints instead of ε n -midpoints. In this case ➊ holds for ε n = ε = 0.
Since in a compact space a sequence of 1/n-midpoints z n contains a convergent subsequence, Lemma 1.4.4 immediately implies 1.4.5. Proposition. A proper length space is geodesic.
Proof. Let X be a locally compact length space. Given x ∈ X , denote by ρ(x) the supremum of all R > 0 such that the closed ball B[x, R] is compact. Since X is locally compact It is sufficient to show that ρ(x) = ∞ for some (and therefore any) point x ∈ X . Assume the contrary; that is, ρ(x) < ∞.
Indeed, X is a length space; therefore for any ε > 0, the set B[x, ρ(x) − ε] is a compact ε-net in B. Since B is closed and hence complete, it has to be compact. △ ➍ |ρ(x) − ρ(y)| |x − y| X , in particular ρ : X → R is a continuous function.
Indeed, assume the contrary; that is, Choose a finite ε 10 -net {a 1 , a 2 , . . . , a n } in B. The union W of the 1.4.7. Exercise. Construct a geodesic space that is locally compact, but whose completion is neither geodesic nor locally compact.

Model angles and triangles.
Let X be a metric space and p, q, r ∈ X . Let us define its model triangle [pqr] (briefly, [pqr] =△(pqr) E 2 ) to be a triangle in the plane E 2 with the same sides; that is, In the same way we can define the hyperbolic and the spherical model triangles△(pqr) H 2 ,△(pqr) S 2 in the hyperbolic plane H 2 and the unit sphere S 2 . In the latter case the model triangle is said to be defined if in addition In this case the model triangle again exists and is unique up to an motion of S 2 .
If [pqr] =△(pqr) E 2 and |p−q|, |p−r| > 0, the angle measure of [pqr] atp will be called the model angle of triple p, q, r and it will be denoted by∡(p q r ) E 2 . In the same way we define∡(p q r ) H 2 and∡(p q r ) S 2 ; in the latter case we assume in addition that the model triangle△(pqr) S 2 is defined. We may use the notation∡(p q r ) if it is evident which of the model spaces H 2 , E 2 or S 2 is meant.
x p y z 1.5.1. Alexandrov's lemma. Let p, x, y, z be distinct points in a metric space such that z ∈ ∈ ]xy[. Then the following expressions for the Euclidean model angles have the same sign: The same holds for the hyperbolic and spherical model angles, but in the latter case one has to assume in addition that Proof. Consider the model triangle [xpz] =△(xpz). Take a pointỹ on the extension of [xz] beyondz so that |x −ỹ| = |x − y| (and therefore |x −z| = |x − z|). xp ỹ z Since increasing the opposite side in a plane triangle increases the corresponding angle, the following expressions have the same sign: Equality holds if and only if |x −ỹ ′ | = |x − y|, as required.

Angles and the first variation.
Given a hinge [p x y ], we define its angle as the limit wherex ∈ ]px] andȳ ∈ ]py]. (The angle ∡[p x y ] is defined if the limit exists.) The value under the limit can be calculated from the cosine law: The following lemma implies that in ➊, one can use∡(px y ) S 2 or ∡(px y ) H 2 instead of∡(px y ) E 2 .
1.6.1. Lemma. For any three points p, x, y in a metric space the following inequalities The inequality ➋ follows since x j ] are defined, then they satisfy the triangle inequality: Proof. Since α 13 π, we can assume that α 12 + α 23 < π. Set γ i = = geod [px i ] . Given any ε > 0, for all sufficiently small t, τ, s ∈ R + we have Below we define s(t, τ) so that for s = s(t, τ), this chain of inequalities can be continued as follows: Thus for any ε > 0, Hence the result follows.
1.6.3. Exercise. Prove that the sum of adjacent angles is at least π.
More precisely: let X be a complete length space and p, x, y, z ∈ X . If p ∈ ]xy[ then whenever each angle on the left-hand side is defined.
Proof. Take a sufficiently small ε > 0. For all sufficiently small t > 0, we have t ε − t· cos α + t·ε. Applying the triangle inequality, we get for any fixed ε > 0 and all sufficiently small t. Hence the result.

Space of directions and tangent space
Let X be a metric space with defined angles for all hinges. Fix a point p ∈ X .
Consider the set S p of all nontrivial geodesics which start at p. By 1.6.2, the triangle inequality holds for ∡ on S p , so (S p , ∡) forms a pseudometric space; that is, ∡ satisfies all the conditions of a metric on S p , except that the angle between distinct geodesics might vanish.
The metric space corresponding to (S p , ∡) is called the space of geodesic directions at p, denoted by Σ ′ p or Σ ′ p X . Elements of Σ ′ p are called geodesic directions at p. Each geodesic direction is formed by an equivalence class of geodesics in S p for the equivalence relation The completion of Σ ′ p is called the space of directions at p and is denoted by Σ p or Σ p X . Elements of Σ p are called directions at p.
The Euclidean cone Cone Σ p over the space of directions Σ p is called the tangent space at p and is denoted by T p or T p X .
The tangent space T p could also be defined directly, without introducing the space of directions. To do so, consider the set T p of all geodesics with constant-speed parameterizations starting at p. Given α, β ∈ T p , set Since the angles in X are defined, ➊ defines a pseudometric on T p . The corresponding metric space admits a natural isometric identification with the cone T ′ p = Cone Σ ′ p . The elements of T ′ p are equivalence classes for the relation The completion of T ′ p is therefore naturally isometric to T p . Elements of T p will be called tangent vectors at p, despite that T p is only a metric cone and need not be a vector space. Elements of T ′ p will be called geodesic tangent vectors at p.

Hausdorff convergence
It seems that Hausdorff convergence was first introduced by Felix Hausdorff in [37], and a couple of years later an equivalent definition was given by Wilhelm Blaschke in [13]. A refinement of this definition was introduced by Zdeněk Frolík in [31], and then rediscovered by Robert Wijsman in [60]. However, this refinement takes an intermediate place between the original Hausdorff convergence and closed convergence introduced by Hausdorff in the same book. For this reason we call it Hausdorff convergence instead of Hausdorff-Blascke-Frolík-Wijsman convergence.
Let X be a metric space and A ⊂ X . We will denote by dist A (x) the distance from A to a point x in X ; that is, for any fixed x ∈ X . In this case, the sequence of closed sets (A n ) ∞ n=1 is said to converge in the sense of Hausdorff.
Example. Let D n be the disc in the coordinate plane with center (0, n) and radius n. Then D n converges to the upper half-plane as n → ∞.
1.8.2. Exercise. Let A n → A ∞ as in Definition 1.8.1, then A ∞ is the set of all points p such that p n → p for some sequence of points p n ∈ A n .
Show that the converse fails.
1.8.3. Selection theorem. Let X be a proper metric space and (A n ) ∞ n=1 be a sequence of closed sets in X . Assume that for some (and therefore any) point x ∈ X , the sequence dist An (x) is bounded. Then the sequence (A n ) ∞ n=1 has a convergent subsequence in the sense of Hausdorff.
Proof. Since X is proper, we can choose a countable dense set {x 1 , x 2 , . . . . . . } in X . Note that the sequence a n = dist An (x k ) is bounded for each k. Therefore, passing to a subsequence of (A n ) ∞ n=1 , we can assume that dist An (x k ) converges as n → ∞ for any fixed k.
Note that for each n, the function dist An : X → R is 1-Lipschitz and nonnegative. Therefore the sequence dist An converges pointwise to a 1-Lipschitz nonnegative function f : X → R. Set for any y ∈ X . It remains to show that for any y.
Assume the contrary; that is, for some z ∈ X and R > 0. Then for any sufficiently large n, there is a point z n ∈ A n such that |x − z n | R. Since X is proper, we can pass to a partial limit z ∞ of z n as n → ∞.
It is clear that f (z ∞ ) = 0, that is, z ∞ ∈ A ∞ . On the other hand, a contradiction.
1.9 Gromov-Hausdorff convergence is called a compatible metric if the restriction of ρ to every X α coincides with the original metric on X α .
1.9.2. Definition. Let X 1 , X 2 , . . . and X ∞ be proper metric spaces and ρ be a compatible metric on their disjoint union X. Assume that X n is an open set in (X, ρ) for each n = ∞, and X n → X ∞ in (X, ρ) as n → ∞ in the sense of Hausdorff (see Definition 1.8.1). Then we say ρ defines a convergence 2 in the sense of Gromov-Hausdorff, and write X n → X ∞ or X n ρ − → X ∞ . The space X ∞ is called the limit space of the sequence (X n ) along ρ.
Usually Gromov-Hausdorff convergence is defined differently. We prefer this definition since it induces convergence for a sequence of points x n ∈ X n (Exercise 1.8.2), as well as weak convergence of measures µ n on X n , and so on, corresponding to convergence in the ambient space (X, ρ).
Once we write X n → X ∞ , we mean that we made a choice of convergence. Note that for a fixed sequence of metric spaces X 1 , X 2 , . . . . . . , one may construct different Gromov-Hausdorff convergences, say X n ρ − → X ∞ and X n ρ ′ − → X ′ ∞ , whose limit spaces X ∞ and X ′ ∞ need not be isometric to each other.
For example, for the constant sequence X n iso == R 0 , there is a convergence with limit X ∞ iso == R 0 ; guess the metric ρ from the diagram.
For another metric ρ ′ -also guess it from the diagram -the limit space X ′ ∞ is isometric to the real line.
3. Selection theorem. Let X n be a sequence of proper metric spaces with marked points x n ∈ X n . Assume that for any fixed R, ε > 0, there is N = N (R, ε) ∈ N such that for each n the ball B[x n , R] Xn admits a finite ε-net with at most N points. Then there is a subsequence of X n admitting a Gromov-Hausdorff convergence such that the sequence of marked points x n ∈ X n converges.
Proof. From the main assumption in the theorem, in each space X n there is a sequence of points z i,n ∈ X n such that the following condition holds for a fixed sequence of integers M 1 < M 2 < . . . ⋄ |z i,n − x n | Xn k + 1 if i M k ; ⋄ the points z 1,n , . . . , z M k ,n form an 1 k -net in B[x n , k] Xn . Passing to a subsequence, we can assume that the sequence ℓ n = |z i,n − z j,n | Xn converges for any i and j.
Consider a countable set of points W = {w 1 , w 2 , . . .} equipped with the pseudometric defined as LetŴ be the metric space corresponding to W; that is, points inŴ are equivalence classes in W for the relation ∼, where w i ∼ w j if and only it |w i − w j | W = 0, and where Denote by X ∞ the completion ofŴ.
It remains to show that there is a Gromov-Hausdorff convergence X n → X ∞ such that the sequence x n ∈ X n converges. To prove it, we need to construct a metric ρ on the disjoint union of 1.9.4. Exercise. Let X n be a sequence of metric spaces which admits two convergences X n ρ − → X ∞ and X n proper and there is a sequence of points x n ∈ X n which converges in both convergences, then X ∞ iso == X ′ ∞ .

Gluing theorem and billiards
In this chapter we define CAT[κ] spaces and give the first application, to billiards. Here "CAT" is an acronym for Cartan, Alexandrov and Toponogov. It was was coined by Michael Gromov in 1987. Originally, Alexandrov called these spaces "R κ domain"; this term still in use.

4-point condition
Given a quadruple of points p, q, x, y in a metric space X , consider two model triangles in the plane [ In the proposition above, it does not matter which definition of convergence for metric spaces you use, as long as any quadruple of points in the limit space can be arbitrarily well approximated by quadruples in the sequence of metric spaces.

Exercise. Let V be a metric space and
Analogously, if U = Susp V then U is CAT [1] if and only if V is CAT [1].
The cone and suspension constructions are defined in Section 1.2. The following exercise is bit simpler, but can be proved in essentially the same way.

Thin triangles
The inheritance lemma 2.2.9 proved below plays a central role in the theory. It will lead to two fundamental constructions: patchwork globalization (3.3.2) and Reshetnyak gluing (2.3.1), which in turn are used to prove the globalization theorem (3.3.1).
Recall that a triangle [x 1 x 2 x 3 ] in a space X is a triple of minimizing geodesics [x 1 x 2 ], [x 2 x 3 ] and [x 3 x 1 ]. Consider the model triangle ; that is, z is the point such that |x i −z| = |x i − z| and therefore |x j −z| = |x j − z|.
In the same way, a natural map can be defined by the spherical model triangle△( Analogously, triangle [x 1 x 2 x 3 ] is called spherically thin if the natural map from the spherical model triangle△( if and only if all its triangles are thin (respectively, all its triangles of perimeter < 2·π are spherically thin).
Proof; "If " part. Apply the triangle inequality and thinness of triangles "Only-if " part. Applying CAT[0] comparison to a quadruple p, q, x, y with q ∈ [xy] shows that any triangle satisfies point-side comparison, that is, the distance from a vertex to a point on the opposite side is no greater than the corresponding distance in the Euclidean model triangle.
Now consider triangle [x 1 x 2 x 3 ], with y ∈ [x 1 x 2 ] and z ∈ [x 1 x 3 ]. Letỹ,z be the corresponding points on the sides of the model tri- , and then to triangle [x 1 y x 3 ] with z ∈ [x 1 x 3 ], implies that model angles satisfỹ Therefore |ỹ −z| E 2 |y − z|.
The CAT [1] argument is the same.

Uniqueness of geodesics. In a CAT[0]
proper length space, pairs of points are joined by unique geodesics, and these geodesics depend continuously on their endpoint pairs. Analogously, in a CAT [1] proper length space, pairs of points at distance less than π are joined by unique geodesics, and these geodesics depend continuously on their endpoint pairs. Proof. Given 4 points p 1 , p 2 , q 1 , q 2 in a CAT[0] proper length space U, consider two triangles [p 1 q 1 p 2 ] and [p 2 q 2 q 1 ]. Since both these triangles are thin, we get It follows that Hence continuity and uniqueness in the CAT[0] case. The CAT [1] case is done essentially the same way.
Adding the first two inequalities of the preceding proof gives: 2.2.5. Corollary. Let K be a closed convex subset in a CAT[0] proper length space U. Then dist K is convex on U.
In particular, dist p is convex for any point p in U.
Proof. Let U be a CAT[0] proper length space. Fix a point p ∈ U.
For each point x consider the geodesic path γ x : [0, 1] → U from p to x. Consider the one parameter family of maps h t : It remains to note that h 1 (x) = x and h 0 (x) = p for any x.
The proof of the CAT [1] case is identical.
proper length space. Then any local geodesic in U is a geodesic. Analogously, if U is a CAT [1] proper length space then any local geodesic in U which is shorter than π is a geodesic.
Proof. Suppose γ : [0, ℓ] → U is a local geodesic that is not a geodesic. Choose a to be the maximal value such that γ is a geodesic on [0, a]. Further choose b > a so that γ is a geodesic on [a, b].
Since the triangle [γ(0) γ(a) γ(b)] is thin, we have for all small ε > 0. That is, γ is not length-minimizing on the interval [a − ε, a + ε] for any ε > 0, a contradiction. The spherical case is done in the same way.
proper length space with extendable geodesics; that is, any geodesic in U is an arc in an infinite local geodesic defined on R.
Show that the space of geodesic directions at any point in U is complete.  The spherical case is done along the same lines.

Exercise. Show that any ball in a CAT[0]
proper length space is a convex set. Analogously, show that any ball of radius R < π 2 in a CAT [1] proper length space is a convex set.
Recall that a set A in a metric space U is called locally convex if for any point p ∈ A there is an open neighborhood U ∋ p such that any geodesic in U with ends in A lies in A.

Exercise. Show that in any CAT[0]
proper length space, any closed, connected, locally convex set is convex.
2.2.13. Exercise. Let U be a CAT[0] proper length space and K ⊂ U be a closed convex set. Show that a) For each point p ∈ U there is unique point p * ∈ K that minimizes the distance |p − p * |. b) The closest-point projection p → p * defined by (a) is short.

Reshetnyak's gluing theorem
Suppose U 1 and U 2 are proper length spaces with isometric closed convex sets A i ⊂ U i and ι : A 1 → A 2 be an isometry. Consider the space W of all equivalence classes on U 1 ⊔ U 2 with the equivalence relation given by a ∼ ι(a) for any a ∈ A 1 .
It is straightforward to see that W is a proper length space if equipped with the following metric Abusing notation, we denote by x and y the points in U 1 ⊔ U 2 and their equivalence classes in The space W is called the gluing of U 1 and U 2 along ι. If one applies this construction to two copies of one space U with a set A ⊂ ⊂ U and identity map ι : A → A, then the obtained space is called the doubling of U along A.
We can (and will) identify U i with its image in W; this way both subsets A i ⊂ U i will be identified and denoted further by A. Note that A = U 1 ∩ U 2 ⊂ W, therefore A is also a convex set in W.
The following theorem was proved by Yuri Reshetnyak in [50].
proper length spaces with isometric closed convex sets A i ⊂ U i , and ι : A 1 → → A 2 is an isometry. Then the gluing of U 1 and U 2 along ι is a CAT[0] proper length space.
Proof. By construction of the gluing space, the statement can be reformulated in the following way.

Reformulation of
x 0 It suffices to show that any triangle [x 0 x 1 x 2 ] in W is thin. This is obviously true if all three points x 0 , x 1 , x 2 lie in one of U i . Thus, without loss of generality, we may assume that x 0 ∈ U 1 and x 1 , x 2 ∈ U 2 .
Choose points z 1 , z 2 ∈ A = U 1 ∩U 2 that lie respectively on the sides Applying the inheritance lemma for thin triangles (2.2.9) twice we get that [x 0 x 1 z 2 ] and consequently [x 0 x 1 x 2 ] is thin.

Reshetnyak's puff pastry
In this section we introduce Reshetnyak's puff pastry, a construction which will be used in the next section to prove the collision theorem (2.6.1).
Let A = (A 1 , . . . , A N ) be an array of convex closed sets in the Euclidean space E m . Consider an array of N +1 copies of E m . Assume that the space R is obtained by gluing successive pairs of spaces along A 1 , . . . , A N respectively.
Puff pastry for (A, B, A).
The resulting space R will be called Reshetnyak's puff pastry for the array A. The copies of E m in the puff pastry R will be called levels; they will be denoted by is an isometry.

Observation. Any Reshetnyak's puff pastry is a CAT[0]
proper length space.
Proof. Apply Reshetnyak's gluing theorem (2.3.1) recursively for the convex sets in the array.

Proposition.
Assume (A 1 , . . . , A N ) and (Ǎ 1 , . . . ,Ǎ N ) are two arrays of convex closed sets in E m such that A k ⊂Ǎ k for each k. Let R andŘ be the corresponding Reshetnyak's puff pastries. Then the map R →Ř defined as x k →x k is short.
for some x, y ∈ E m and i, j ∈ {0, . . . , n}, then the unique geodesic Proof. The first statement in the proposition follows from the construction of Reshetnyak's puff pastries. By Observation 2.4.1, R andŘ are CAT[0] proper length spaces, hence [x i y j ] R and [x iyj ]Ř are unique. Since the map R →Ř is short, the image of [x i y j ] R is a geodesic ofŘ joiningx i toy j . Hence the second statement follows.

Definition.
Consider a Reshetnyak's puff pastry R with the levels R 0 , . . . , R N . We say that R is end-to-end convex if R 0 ∪ R N , the union of its lower and upper levels, forms a convex set in R.
If R is the Reshetnyak's puff pastry for an array of convex sets A = (A 1 , . . . , A N ) then R is end-to-end convex if and only if the union of the lower and the upper levels Denote byŘ and R the Reshetnyak's puff pastries forǍ and A respectively.
IfŘ is end-to-end convex then so is R.
Proof. Without loss of generality we can assume that A is obtained by inserting one element inǍ, say at the place number k. Note thatŘ is isometric to the puff pastry for A with A k replaced by E m . It remains to apply Proposition 2.4.2. p X D Let X be a convex set in a Euclidean space. By a dihedral angle we understand an intersection of two half-spaces; the intersection of corresponding hyperplanes is called the edge of the angle. We say that a dihedral angle D is supporting X at a point p ∈ X if D contains X and the edge of D contains p.  is end-to-end convex.
The proof of the lemma is based on a partial case which we formulate as a sublemma.
Proof. Note that the puff pastrÿ R is isometric to the cone over the space glued from the unit circles as shown on the diagram. All the short arcs on the diagram have length α; the long arcs have length π−α, so making a circuit along any path will take 2·π.
Observe that end-to-end convexity ofR is equivalent to the fact that any geodesic shorter than π with the ends on the inner and the outer circles lies completely in the union of these two circles.
The latter holds if the zigzag line has length at least π. This line is formed by ⌈ π α ⌉ arcs with length α each. Hence the sublemma follows.
Proof of 2.4.5. Fix arbitrary x, y ∈ E m . Choose a point z ∈ A ∩ B for which the sum |x − z| + |y − z| is minimal. To show the end-to-end convexity of R, it is sufficient to prove the following: Without loss of generality we can assume that z ∈ ∂A ∩ ∂B. Indeed, since the puff pastry for 1-array (B) is end-to-end convex, Proposition 2.4.2 together with Observation 2.4.4 imply ➊ in case z lies in the interior of A. In the same way we can treat the case when z lies in the interior of B.
Further we will use the following exercise in convex geometry 2.4.7. Exercise. Let A and B be two closed convex sets in E m and Show that there are half-spacesȦ andḂ such thatȦ ⊃ A anḋ B ⊃ B and z 0 is also a point of minimum of the restriction f |Ȧ ∩Ḃ .
Using Exercise 2.4.7 let us replace each A byȦ and each B byḂ in the array, to get the array (Ȧ,Ḃ,Ȧ, . . .
The corresponding puff pastryṘ splits as a product of E m−2 and a puff pastry, call itR, glued from the copies of the plane E 2 for the array (Ä,B,Ä, . . .
Note that the dihedral angleȦ ∩Ḃ is at least α. Therefore the angle measure ofÄ ∩B is also at least α According to Sublemma 2.4.6 and Observation 2.4.4,R is end-to-end convex. SinceṘ iso == E m−2 ×R, the puff pastryṘ is also end-to-end convex. It follows that the geodesic [ẋ 0ẏN ]Ṙ passesż 0 =ż N ∈Ṙ. By Proposition 2.4.2, the image of [ẋ 0ẏN ]Ṙ under the mapẋ k → x k is the geodesic [x 0 y N ] R . Hence Claim ➊ and the lemma follow.

Wide corners
We say that a closed convex set A ⊂ E m has ε-wide corners for given ε > 0 if together with each point p the set A contains a small right circular cone with tip at p and aperture ε; that is, ε is the maximum angle between two generating lines of the cone.
For example, a plane polygon has ε-wide corners if all its interior angles are at least ε.
We will consider finite collections of closed convex sets A 1 , . . . . . . , A n ⊂ E m such that for any subset F ⊂ {1, . . . , n} the intersection i∈F A i has ε-wide corners. In this case we may say briefly all intersections of A i have ε-wide corners.
2.5.1. Exercise. Assume A 1 , . . . , A n ⊂ E m are compact, convex sets with a common interior point. Show that all intersections of A i have ε-wide corners for some positive ε.

Exercise.
Assume A 1 , . . . , A n ⊂ E m are convex sets with nonempty interior which have a common center of symmetry. Show that all intersections of an arbitrary number of sets A i have ε-wide corners for some positive ε.
The proof of the following proposition is based on Lemma 2.4.5; this lemma is essentially the case n = 2 in the proposition.
2.5.3. Proposition. Given ε > 0 and a positive integer n there is an array of integers j ε (n) = (j 1 , . . . , j N ) such that a) For each k we have 1 j k n and each number 1, . . . , n appears in j ε at least once. b) If A 1 , . . . , A n is a collection of closed convex sets in E m with a common point and all their intersections have ε-wide corners then the puff pastry for the array (A j1 , . . . , A jN ) is end-to-end convex. Moreover we can assume that N (⌈ π ε ⌉ + 1) n . Proof. The array j ε (n) = (j 1 , . . . , j N ) is constructed recursively. For n = 1, the array is (1).
Assume that j ε (n) is constructed. Let us exchange each occurrence of n in j ε (n) by the alternating string n, n + 1, n, . . .
Denote the obtained array by j ε (n + 1). By Lemma 2.4.5, end-to-end convexity of the puff pastry for j ε (n+ 1) follows from end-to-end convexity of the puff pastry for the array where each string A n , A n+1 , A n , . . .
The latter follows by assumption on j ε (n), since all the intersections of A 1 , . . . , A n−1 , Q have ε-wide corners. The upper bound on N follows directly from the construction.

Billiards
Let A 1 , A 2 , . . . A n be a finite collection of closed convex sets in E m . Assume that for each i the boundary ∂A i is a smooth hypersurface.
Consider the billiard table formed by the closure of the complement The sets A i will be called walls of the table T and the billiards described above will be called billiards with convex walls.
A billiard trajectory on the table T is a unit-speed broken line γ which follows the standard law of billiards at the break points on ∂A i -in particular, the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence. The break points of the trajectory will be called collisions. We assume the trajectory meets only one wall at a time.
Recall that the definition of sets with ε-wide corners is given on page 31.
2.6.1. Collision theorem. Assume T ⊂ E m is a billiard table with n convex walls. Assume that the walls of T have common interior point and all their intersections have ε-wide corners. Then the number of collisions of any trajectory in T is bounded by a number N which depends only on n and ε.
As we will see from the proof, the value N can be found explicitly; The collision theorem was proved by Dmitri Burago, Serge Ferleger and Alexey Kononenko in [18]; we present their proof with minor improvements.
Let us formulate and prove a corollary of the collision theorem: 2.6.2. Corollary. Consider n homogeneous hard balls moving freely and colliding elastically in R 3 . Every ball moves along a straight line with constant speed until two balls collide, and then the new velocities of the two balls are determined by the laws of classical mechanics. We assume that only two balls can collide at the same time.
Then the total number of collisions cannot exceed some number N which depends on the radii and masses of the balls. If the balls are identical then N depends only on n.
The proof below admits a straightforward generalization to all dimensions.
The i-th and j-th ball intersect if where R i denotes the radius of the i-th ball. These inequalities define The closure of the complement is the configuration space of our system. Its points correspond to valid positions of the system of balls. The evolution of the system of balls is described by the motion of the point a ∈ R 3·n . It moves along a straight line at a constant speed until it hits one of the cylinders C i,j ; this event corresponds to a collision in the system of balls.
Consider the norm of a = (a 1 , . . . , a n ) ∈ R 3·n defined by where |a i | = x 2 i + y 2 i + z 2 i and M i denotes the mass of the i-th ball. In the metric defined by * , the collisions follow the standard law of billiards: the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence.
By construction, the number of collisions of hard balls that we need to estimate is the same as the number of collisions of the corresponding billiard trajectory on the table T with C i,j as the walls.
Note that each cylinder C i,j is a convex set; it has smooth boundary and it is centrally symmetric around the origin. By Exercise 2.5.2, all the intersections of the walls have ε-wide corners for some ε > 0 that depends on the radiuses R i and the masses M i . It remains to apply the collision theorem (2.6.1). Now we present the proof of the collision theorem (2.6.1) based on the results developed in the previous section.
Proof of 2.6.1. Let us apply induction on n.
Base: n = 1. The number of collisions cannot exceed 1. Indeed, by the convexity of A 1 , if the trajectory is reflected once in ∂A 1 , then it cannot return to A 1 .
Step. Assume γ is a trajectory which meets the walls in the order A i1 , . . . , A iN for a large integer N .
Consider the array

The induction hypothesis implies:
➊ There is a positive integer M such that any M consecutive elements of A γ contain each A i at least once.
Let R γ be the Reshetnyak's puff pastry for A γ . Consider the lift of γ to R γ defined asγ(t) = γ k (t) ∈ R γ for any moment of time t between k-th and (k + 1)-th collisions. Since γ follows the standard law of billiards at break points, the liftγ is locally a geodesic in R γ . By Observation 2.4.1, the puff pastry R γ is a CAT[0] proper length space. Thereforeγ is a geodesic.
Since γ does not pass A 1 ∩ . . . ∩ A n , the liftγ does not lie in be the array provided by Proposition 2.5.3; so B contains each A i at least once and the puff pastry R B for B is end-to-end convex. If N is sufficiently large, namely N K ·M , then ➊ implies that A γ can be obtained by inserting a finite number of A i 's in B.
By Observation 2.4.4, R γ is end-to-end convex, a contradiction.

Comments
The gluing theorem ( [4] for details. The idea in the proof of the collision theorem has a number of applications to billiards. In particular, it can be used to bound topological entropy of the billiard flow; see another paper of Dmitri Burago, Serge Ferleger and Alexey Kononenko [19]. The lecture [16] of Dmitri Burago gives a short survey on the subject.
Note that the interior points of the walls play a key role in the proof despite the fact that trajectories never go inside the walls. In a similar fashion, puff pastry was used by the first author and Richard Bishop in [3] to find the upper curvature bound for warped products.
In [36], Joel Hass constructed an example of a Riemannian metric on the 3-ball with negative curvature and concave boundary. This example might decrease your appetite for generalizing the collision theorem -while locally such a 3-ball looks as good as the billiards table in the theorem, the number of collisions is obviously infinite.

Globalization and asphericity
In this chapter we introduce locally CAT[0] spaces and prove the globalization theorem which provides a sufficient condition for locally CAT[0] spaces to be globally CAT[0].
The theorem implies in particular, that the universal cover of a locally CAT[0] proper length space is a CAT[0] proper length space. It follows that any locally CAT[0] proper length space is aspherical; that is, its universal cover is contractible.
This globalization theorem leads to a construction toy set, described by the flag condition (3.5.5). Playing with this toy set, we produce examples of exotic aspherical spaces.

Locally CAT spaces
We say that a space U is locally CAT[0] (or locally CAT [1]) if a small closed ball centered at any point p in U forms a CAT[0] space (or CAT [1] space, respectively).
For example, S 1 is locally isometric to R, and so S 1 is locally CAT[0]. On the other hand, S 1 is not CAT[0], since closed local geodesics in S 1 are not geodesics, so S 1 does not satisfy Proposition 2.2.7.
If U is a proper length space then it is locally CAT[0] (or locally CAT [1]) if and only if each point p ∈ U admits an open neighborhood Ω which is geodesic and any triangle in Ω is thin (or spherically thin, respectively). The proof goes along the same lines as in Exercise 2.2.11.

Space of local geodesic paths
In this section we will study behavior of local geodesics in locally CAT[κ] spaces. The results will be used in the proof of the globalization theorem (3.3.1).
Recall that path is a curve parametrized by [0, 1]. The space of paths in metric space U comes with the natural metric Assume a local geodesic σ is shorter than R/2 and intersects the ball B(γ ∞ (t), R/2). Then σ cannot leave the ball B[γ ∞ (t), R]. Hence, by Proposition 2.2.7, σ is a geodesic. In particular, for all sufficiently large n, any arc of γ n of length R/2 or less is a geodesic. Since proper length space, by Theorem 2.2.3, geodesic segments in B depend uniquely and continuously on their endpoint pairs. Thus there is a subinterval I of [0, 1], which contains a neighborhood of t in [0, 1] and such that the arc γ n | I is minimizing for all large n. It follows that γ ∞ | I is a geodesic, and therefore γ ∞ is a local geodesic.
The CAT [1] case is done the same way, but one has to assume in addition that R < π.
The following lemma and its proof were suggested to us by Alexander Lytchak. This lemma allows a local geodesic path to be moved continuously so that its endpoints follow given trajectories. This statement was originally proved by the first author and Richard Bishop using a different method; see [2]. If length γ < π, then the same holds in CAT [1] case. Namely we assume that U is a CAT [1] proper length space and construct a CAT [1] proper length space N with the same property as above.
Define Φ :Ω → U by sending the equivalence class of (i, x) to x. It is straightforward to check that Φ,γ andΩ ⊂ N satisfy the conclusion of the lemma.
The CAT [1] case is proved the same way.
The following two corollaries follow from: (1) the patchwork (3.2.2); (2) Proposition 2.2.7, which states that local geodesics are geodesics in any CAT space; and (3) Theorem 2.2.3 on uniqueness of geodesics.

Corollary.
If U is a locally CAT[0] proper length space, then for any pair of points p, q ∈ U, the space of all local geodesic paths from p to q is discrete; that is, for any local geodesic path γ connecting p to q, there is ε > 0 such that for any other local geodesic path δ from Analogously, if U is a locally CAT [1] proper length space, then for any pair of points p, q ∈ U, the space of all local geodesic paths from p to q with length less than π is discrete.

Corollary.
If U is a locally CAT[0] proper length space, then for any path α there is a choice of a local geodesic path γ α connecting the ends of α such that the map α → γ α is continuous, and if α is a local geodesic path then γ α = α.
Analogously, if U is a locally CAT [1] proper length space, then for any path α shorter than π, there is a choice of a local geodesic path γ α shorter than π connecting the ends of α such that the map α → γ α is continuous, and if α is a local geodesic path then γ α = α.
Proof of 3.2.4. We do the CAT[0] case; the CAT[1] case is analogous.
By By construction, if α is a local geodesic path, then γ α = α. Moreover, from Corollary 3.2.3, the construction α → γ α produces close results for sufficiently close paths in the metric defined by ➊; that is, the map α → γ α is continuous.
Given a path α : [0, 1] → U, we denote byᾱ the same path traveled in the opposite direction; that is, The product of two paths will be denoted with " * "; if two paths α and β connect the same pair of points then the productᾱ * β is a closed curve.
Assume α and β are two paths connecting the same pair of points in U, where each has length less than π and the productᾱ * β is nullhomotopic in the class of closed curves with length smaller than 2·π. Then γ α = γ β .

Globalization
The original formulation of the globalization theorem, or Hadamard-Cartan theorem, states that if M is a complete Riemannian manifold with sectional curvature 0, then the exponential map at any point p ∈ M is a covering; in particular it implies that the universal cover of M is diffeomorphic to the Euclidean space of the same dimension.
In this generality, this theorem appeared in the lectures of Elie Cartan, see [22]. This theorem was proved for surfaces in Euclidean 3space by Hans von Mangoldt [42], and a few years later independently for 2-dimensional Riemannian manifolds by Jacques Hadamard [34].
Formulations for metric spaces of different generality were proved by Herbert Busemann in [20], Willi Rinow in [53], Mikhael Gromov in [32, p.119]. A detailed proof of Gromov's statement was given by Werner Ballmann in [9] when U is proper, and by the first author and Richard Bishop in [2] in more generality; also see references in our book [4].
For CAT [1] proper spaces, the globalization theorem was proved by Brian Bowditch in [14]. Analogously, assume U is a locally CAT [1] proper length space such that any closed curve γ : S 1 → U with length smaller than 2·π is nullhomotopic in the class of closed curves with length smaller than 2·π. Then U is a CAT [1] space.
The surface of revolution illustrated in the diagram is an example of a simply connected space that is locally CAT [1] but not CAT [1]. To contract the marked curve one has to increase its length to 2·π or more; in particular the surface does not satisfy the assumption of the globalization theorem.
The proof of the globalization theorem relies on the following theorem, which essentially is [7, Satz 9]. Analogously, a locally CAT [1] proper length space U is CAT [1] if and only if all pairs of points in U at distance less than π are joined by unique geodesics, and these geodesics depend continuously on their endpoint pairs.
The proof uses a thin-triangle decomposition with the inheritance lemma (2.2.9) and the following construction: Proof of the patchwork globalization theorem (3.3.2). Note that the implication "only if" is already proved in Theorem 2.2.3; it only remains to prove "if" part.
Fix a triangle [pxy] in U. We need to show that [pxy] is thin. By the assumptions, the line-of-sight map (t, s) → γ t (s) from p to [xy] is uniquely defined and continuous.
and set x i,j = γ t i (t j ). Since the line-of-sight map is continuous and U is locally CAT[0], we may assume that the triangles are thin for each pair i, j. Now we show that the thin property propagates to [pxy] by repeated application of the inheritance lemma (2.2.9): ⋄ For fixed i, sequentially applying the lemma shows that the 3 ], and so on are thin. In particular, for each i, the long triangle [x x i,N x i+1,N ] is thin.
⋄ Applying the same lemma again shows that the triangles Since the map α → γ α is continuous, by Corollary 3.2.3 we have γ α = γ β for any pair of paths α and β homotopic relative to the ends.
Since U is simply connected, any pair of paths with common ends are homotopic. In particular, if α and β are local geodesics from p to q, then α = γ α = γ β = β by Corollary 3.2.4. It follows that any two points p, q ∈ U are joined by a unique local geodesic that depends continuously on (p, q).
Since U is geodesic, it remains to apply the patchwork globalization theorem (3.3.2). CAT [1] case. The proof goes along the same lines, but one needs to use Exercise 3.2.5. Analogously, any compact locally CAT [1] space that contains no closed local geodesics of length smaller than 2·π is CAT [1].
Proof. By the globalization theorem (3.3.1), we need to show that the space is simply connected. Assume the contrary. Fix a nontrivial homotopy class of closed curves.
Denote by ℓ the exact lower bound for the lengths of curves in the class. Note that ℓ > 0; otherwise there would be a closed noncontractible curve in a CAT[0] spherical neighborhood of some point, contradicting Corollary 2.2.6.
Since the space is compact, the class contains a length-minimizing curve, which must be a closed local geodesic.
The CAT [1] case is analogous, one only has to consider a homotopy class of closed curves shorter than 2·π.
3.3.5. Exercise. Prove that any compact locally CAT[0] space that is not CAT[0] contains a geodesic circle, that is, a simple closed curve γ such that for any two points p, q ∈ γ, one of the arcs of γ with endpoints p and q is a geodesic.
Formulate and prove the analogous statement for CAT [1] spaces.

Polyhedral spaces
3.4.1. Definition. A length space P is called a (spherical) polyhedral space if it admits a finite triangulation τ such that every simplex in τ is isometric to a simplex in a Euclidean space (or correspondingly a unit sphere) of appropriate dimension. By a triangulation of a polyhedral space we will always understand the triangulation as above.
Note that according to the above definition, all polyhedral spaces are compact. However, most of the statements below admit straightforward generalizations to locally polyhedral spaces; that is, complete length spaces, any point of which admits a closed neighborhood isometric to a polyhedral space. The latter class of spaces includes in particular infinite covers of polyhedral spaces.
The dimension of a polyhedral space P is defined as the maximal dimension of the simplices in one (and therefore any) triangulation of P.
Links. Let P be a polyhedral space and σ be a simplex in a triangulation τ of P.
The simplices which contain σ form an abstract simplicial complex called the link of σ, denoted by Link σ . If m is the dimension of σ then the set of vertices of Link σ is formed by the (m + 1)-simplices which contain σ; the set of its edges are formed by the (m + 2)-simplices which contain σ; and so on.
The link Link σ can be identified with the subcomplex of τ formed by all the simplices σ ′ such that σ ∩ σ ′ = ∅ but both σ and σ ′ are faces of a simplex of τ.
The points in Link σ can be identified with the normal directions to σ at a point in its interior. The angle metric between directions makes Link σ into a spherical polyhedral space. We will always consider the link with this metric.
Tangent space and space of directions. Let P be a polyhedral space (Euclidean or spherical) and τ be its triangulation. If a point p ∈ P lies in the interior of a k-simplex σ of τ then the tangent space T p = T p P is naturally isometric to Equivalently, the space of directions Σ p = Σ p P can be isometrically identified with the k-times-iterated suspension over Link σ ; that is, If P is an m-dimensional polyhedral space, then for any p ∈ P the space of directions Σ p is a spherical polyhedral space of dimension at most m − 1.
In particular, for any point p in σ, the isometry class of Link σ together with k = dim σ determines the isometry class of Σ p , and the other way around.
A small neighborhood of p is isometric to a neighborhood of the tip of Cone Σ p . (If P is a spherical polyhedral space, then a small neighborhood of p is isometric to a neighborhood of the north pole in Susp Σ p .) In fact, if this property holds at any point of a compact length space P, then P is a polyhedral space, see [39] by Nina Lebedeva and the third author.
The following theorem provides a combinatorial description of polyhedral spaces with curvature bounded above.
3.4.2. Theorem. Let P be a polyhedral space and τ be its triangulation. Then P is locally CAT[0] if and only if the link of each simplex in τ has no closed local geodesic shorter than 2·π.
Analogously, let P be a spherical polyhedral space and τ be its triangulation. Then P is CAT [1] if and only if neither P nor the link of any simplex in τ has a closed local geodesic shorter than 2·π. To prove "if" part, we apply induction on dim P. The base case dim P = 0 is evident. Let us start with the CAT[1] case.
Step. Assume that the theorem is proved in the case dim P < m. Suppose dim P = m.
Fix a point p ∈ P. A neighborhood of p is isometric to a neighborhood of the north pole in the suspension over the space of directions Σ p .
Note that Σ p is a spherical polyhedral space and its links are isometric to links of P. By the induction hypothesis, Σ p is CAT [1].
Thus, by the second part of Exercise 2.

Flag complexes
3.5.1. Definition. A simplicial complex S is called flag if whenever {v 0 , . . . , v k } is a set of distinct vertices of S which are pairwise joined by edges, then the vertices v 0 , . . . , v k span a k-simplex in S.
If the above condition is satisfied for k = 2, then we say S satisfies the no-triangle condition.
Note that every flag complex is determined by its 1-skeleton.
3.5.2. Exercise. Show that the barycentric subdivision of any simplicial complex is a flag complex.
Use the flag condition (see 3.5.5 below) to conclude that any finite simplicial complex is homeomorphic to a CAT [1] proper length space.

Proposition. A simplicial complex S is flag if and only if
S as well as all the links of all its simplices satisfy the no-triangle condition.
From the definition of flag complex we get the following.

Lemma. Any link of any simplex in a flag complex is flag.
Proof of 3.5.3. By Lemma 3.5.4, the no-triangle condition holds for any flag complex and the links of all its simplices. Now assume a complex S and all its links satisfy the no-triangle condition. It follows that S includes a 2-simplex for each triangle. Applying the same observation for each edge we get that S includes a 3-simplex for any complete graph with 4 vertices. Repeating this observation for triangles, 4-simplices, 5-simplices and so on we get that S is flag.
All-right triangulation. A triangulation of a spherical polyhedral space is called an all-right triangulation if each simplex of the triangulation is isometric to a spherical simplex all of whose angles are right. Similarly, we say that a simplicial complex is equipped with an all-right spherical metric if it is a length metric and each simplex is isometric to a spherical simplex all of whose angles are right.
3.5.5. Flag condition. Assume that a spherical polyhedral space P admits an all-right triangulation τ. Then P is a CAT [1] space if and only if τ is flag.
Proof; "Only-if " part. Assume there are three vertices v 1 , v 2 and v 3 of τ that are pairwise joined by edges but do not span a simplex. Note that in this case forms a locally geodesic loop in P. Now assume that P is a CAT [1] space. Then by Theorem 3.4.2, Link σ P is a CAT [1] space for every simplex σ in τ.
Each of these links is an all-right spherical complex and by Theorem 3.4.2, none of these links can contain a geodesic circle of length less than 2·π. Therefore Proposition 3.5.3 and ➊ imply the "only-if" part. Choose a simplex σ which contains a point γ(t 0 ). Let v be a vertex of σ. Consider the maximal arc γ v of γ which contains the point γ(t 0 ) and runs in Star v . Note that the distance |v − γ v (t)| P behaves exactly the same way as the distance from north pole to a geodesic in the north hemisphere; that is, there is a geodesicγ v in the north hemisphere of S 2 such that for any t we have where n denotes the north pole of S 2 . In particular, that is, γ spends time π on every visit to After leaving Star v , the local geodesic γ has to enter another simplex, say σ ′ . Since τ is flag, the simplex σ ′ has a vertex v ′ not joined to v by an edge; that is The same argument as above shows that γ spends time π on every visit to Star v ′ . Therefore the total length of γ is at least 2·π.
3.5.6. Exercise. Assume that a spherical polyhedral space P admits a triangulation τ such that all sides of all simplices are at least π 2 . Show that P is a CAT [1] space if τ is flag.
The space of trees. The following construction is given by Louis Billera, Susan Holmes and Karen Vogtmann in [11].
Let T n be the set of all metric trees with one initial vertex and n end vertices labeled by a 1 , . . . , a n . To describe one tree in T n we may fix a topological trivalent tree t with end vertices a 1 , . . . , a n , initial vertex of degree 2, and all other vertices of degree 3; and prescribe the lengths of 2·n − 3 edges. If the length of an edge is 0, we assume that this edge degenerates; such a tree can be also described using a different topological tree t ′ . The subset of T n corresponding to the given topological tree t can be identified with the octant Equip each such subset with the metric induced from R 2·n−3 and consider the length metric on T n induced by these metrics.

Exercise. Show that T n with the described metric is a CAT[0]
space.

Cubical complexes
The definition of a cubical complex mostly repeats the definition of a simplicial complex, with simplices replaced by cubes. Formally, a cubical complex is defined as a subcomplex of the unit cube in the Euclidean space of large dimension; that is, a collection of faces of the cube such that together with each face it contains all its sub-faces. Each cube face in this collection will be called a cube of the cubical complex.
Note that according to this definition, any cubical complex is finite, that is, contains a finite number of cubes.
The union of all the cubes in a cubical complex Q will be called its underlying space. A homeomorphism from the underlying space of Q to a topological space X is called a cubulation of X .
The underlying space of a cubical complex Q will be always considered with the length metric induced from R N . In particular, with this metric, each cube of Q is isometric to the unit cube of the same dimension.
It is straightforward to construct a triangulation of the underlying space of Q such that each simplex is isometric to a Euclidean simplex. In particular the underlying space of Q is a Euclidean polyhedral space.
The link of each cube in a cubical complex admits a natural allright triangulation; each simplex corresponds to an adjusted cube.
Cubical analog of a simplicial complex. Let S be a finite simplicial complex and {v 1 , . . . , v N } be the set of its vertices.
Consider R N with the standard basis {e 1 , . . . , e N }. Denote by N the standard unit cube in R N ; that is Given a k-dimensional simplex v i0 , . . . , v i k in S, mark the (k +1)dimensional faces in N (there are 2 N −k of them) which are parallel to the coordinate (k + 1)-plane spanned by e i0 , . . . , e i k .
Note that the set of all marked faces of N forms a cubical complex; it will be called the cubical analog of S and will be denoted as S .
3.6.1. Proposition. Let S be a finite connected simplicial complex and Q = S be its cubical analog. Then the underlying space of Q is connected and the link of any vertex of Q is isometric to S equipped with the spherical right-angled metric.
In particular, if S is a flag complex then Q is a locally CAT[0] and therefore its universal coverQ is a CAT[0] space.
Proof. The first part of the proposition follows from the construction of S .
If S is flag, then by the flag condition (3.5.5) the link of any cube in Q is a CAT [1] space. Therefore, by the cone construction (Exercise 2.1.2) Q is a locally CAT[0] space. It remains to apply the globalization theorem (3.3.1).
From Proposition 3.6.1, it follows that the cubical analog of any flag complex is aspherical. The following exercise states that the converse also holds, see [27, 5.4]. Let X be a proper topological space. Recall that X is called simply connected at infinity if for any compact set K ⊂ X there is a bigger compact set K ′ ⊃ K such that X \K ′ is path connected and any loop which lies in X \K ′ is null-homotopic in X \K.

Exotic aspherical manifolds
Recall that path connected spaces are not empty by definition. Therefore compact spaces are not simply connected at infinity.
The following example was constructed by Michael Davis in [26].
3.7.1. Proposition. For any m 4 there is a closed aspherical m-dimensional piecewise linear manifold whose universal cover is not simply connected at infinity.
In particular, the universal cover of this manifold is not homeomorphic to the m-dimensional Euclidean space.
The proof requires the following lemma.

Lemma.
Let S be a finite flag complex, Q = S be its cubical analog andQ be the universal cover of Q.
AssumeQ is simply connected at infinity. Then S is simply connected.
Proof. Assume S is not simply connected. Equip S with an all-right spherical metric. Choose a shortest noncontractible circle γ : S 1 → S formed by the edges of S.
Note that γ forms a 1-dimensional subcomplex of S which is a closed local geodesic. Denote by G the subcomplex of Q which corresponds to γ.
Fix a vertex v ∈ G; let G v be the connected component of G containing v. LetG be a connected component of the inverse image of G v inQ for the universal coverQ → Q. Fix a pointṽ ∈G in the inverse image of v.
Note that ➊G is a convex set inQ.
ξ ζ e Indeed, according to Proposition 3.6.1,Q is CAT[0]. By Exercise 2.2.12, it is sufficient to show thatG is locally convex inQ, or equivalently, G is locally convex in Q.
Note that the latter can only fail if γ passes two vertices, say ξ to ζ in S, which are joined by an edge not in γ; denote this edge by e.
Each edge of S has length π 2 . Therefore each of two circles formed by e and an arc of γ from ξ to ζ is shorter that γ. Moreover, at least one of them is noncontractible since γ is not. That is, γ is not a shortest noncontractible circle -a contradiction. △ Further, note thatG is homeomorphic to the plane, sinceG is a 2dimensional manifold without boundary which by the above is CAT[0] and hence is contractible.
Denote by C R the circle of radius R inG centered atṽ. All C R are homotopic to each other inG\{ṽ} and therefore inQ\{ṽ}.
Note that the mapQ\{ṽ} → S which returns the direction of [ṽx] for any x =ṽ, maps C R to a circle homotopic to γ. Therefore C R is not contractible inQ\{ṽ}.
In particular, C R is not contactable inQ\K if K ⊃ṽ. If R is large, the circle C R lies outside of any compact set K ′ inQ. It follows that Q is not simply connected at infinity, a contradiction.
The proof of the following exercise is analogous. It will be used latter in the proof of Proposition 3.8.1 -a more geometric version of Proposition 3.7.1. For m 5 the existence of such (W, Σ) follows from [38]. For m = 4 it follows from the construction in [41].
Pick any τ of W and let S be the resulting subcomplex that triangulates Σ.
We can assume that S is flag; otherwise pass to the barycentric subdivision of τ and apply Exercise 3.5.2.
Let Q = S be the cubical analog of S. By Proposition 3.6.1, Q is a homology manifold. It follows that Q is a piecewise linear manifold with a finite number of singularities at its vertices.
Removing a small contractible neighborhood V v of each vertex v in Q, we can obtain a piecewise linear manifold N whose boundary is formed by several copies of Σ.
Let us glue a copy of W along its boundary to each copy of Σ in the boundary of N . This results in a closed piecewise linear manifold M which is homotopically equivalent to Q.
Indeed, since both V v and W are contractible, the identity map of their common boundary Σ can be extended to a homotopy equivalence relative to the boundary between V v and W . Therefore the identity map on N extends to homotopy equivalences f : Q → M and g : M → → Q.
Finally, by the Lemma 3.7.2, the universal coverQ of Q is not simply connected at infinity.
The same holds for the universal coverM of M. The latter follows since the constructed homotopy equivalences f : Q → M and g : M → → Q lift to proper mapsf :Q →M andg :M →Q; that is, for any compact sets A ⊂Q and B ⊂M, the inverse imagesg −1 (A) and f −1 (B) are compact.

Comments
In the globalization theorem (3.3.1) properness can be weakened to completeness, see our book [4] and the references therein.
The condition on polyhedral CAT[κ] spaces given in Theorem 3.4.2 might look easy to use, but in fact, it is hard to check even in the very simple cases. For example the description of those coverings of S 3 branching at three great circles which are CAT [1] requires quite a bit of work; see [23] -try to guess the answer before reading.
Another example is the space B 4 which is the universal cover of C 4 infinitely branching in six complex planes z i = z j with the induced length metric. So far it is not known if B 4 is CAT[0]. Understanding this space could be helpful to study the braid group on 4 strings; read [45] by Dmitri Panov and the third author for more on it. This circle of questions is closely related to the generalization of the flag condition (3.5.5) to the spherical simplices with few acute dihedral angles.
The construction used in the proof of Proposition 3.7.1 admits a number of interesting modifications, number of which are discussed in the survey [27] by Michael Davis.
The following Proposition was proved by Fredric Ancel, Michael Davis and Craig Guilbault in [8]; it could be considered as a more geometric version of Proposition 3.7.1.

Proposition. Given m
5, there is a Euclidean polyhedral space P such that: a) P is homeomorphic to a closed m-dimensional manifold. b) P is locally CAT[0]. c) The universal cover of P is not simply connected at infinity.
There are no 3-dimensional examples of that type, see [52] by Dale Rolfsen. In [58], Paul Thurston conjectured that the same holds in the 4-dimensional case.
Proof. Apply Exercise 3.7.3 to the barycentric subdivision of the simplicial complex S provided by Exercise 3.8.2.
3.8.2. Exercise. Given an integer m 5, construct a finite (m − 1)dimensional simplicial complex S such that Cone S is homeomorphic to E m and π 1 (S\{v}) = 0 for some vertex v in S.
A similar construction was used by Michael Davis, Tadeusz Januszkiewicz and Jean-François Lafont in [29] to construct a closed smooth 4-dimensional manifold M with universal coverM diffeomorphic to R 4 such that M admits a polyhedral metric which is locally CAT[0], but does not admit a Riemannian metric with nonpositive sectional curvature. Another example of that type was constructed by Stephan Stadler, see [56].
It is noteworthy that any complete, simply connected Riemannian manifold with nonpositive curvature is homeomorphic to the Euclidean space of the same dimension. In fact, by the globalization theorem (3.3.1) the exponential map at a point of such a manifold is a homeomorphism. In particular, there is no Riemannian analog of Proposition 3.8.1. Moreover, according to Stone's theorem, see [57,28], there is no piecewise linear analog of the proposition; that is the homeomorphism to a manifold in Proposition 3.8.1 can not be made piecewise linear.
The flag condition also leads to the so-called hyperbolization procedure, a flexible tool to construct aspherical spaces; a good survey on the subject is given by Ruth Charney and Michael Davis in [24].
All the topics discussed in this chapter link Alexandrov geometry with the fundamental group. The theory of hyperbolic groups, a branch of geometric group theory, introduced by Mikhael Gromov, could be considered as a further step in this direction, see [32].

Subsets
In this chapter we give a partial answer to the question: Which subsets of Euclidean space, equipped with their induced lengthmetrics, form CAT[0] spaces?

Motivating examples
Consider three subgraphs of different quadric surfaces: The answers are given below, but it is instructive to think about these questions before reading further.
The boundary ∂A is the paraboloid described by z = x 2 + y 2 ; in particular it bounds an open convex set in E 3 whose complement is A. The closest point projection of A → ∂A is short (Exercise 2.2.13). It follows that ∂A is a convex set in A equipped with its induced length metric.
Therefore if A is CAT[0] then so is ∂A. The latter is not true: ∂A is a smooth convex surface, and has strictly positive curvature by the Gauss formula.
Evidently B is a convex closed set in E 3 . Therefore the length metric on B coincides with Euclidean metric and CAT[0] comparison holds.
C. Yes, C is CAT[0], but the proof is not as easy as before. We give a sketch here; a complete proof of a more general statement is given in Section 4.3.
Consider the one-parameter family of sets Each set V t is the subgraph of a paraboloid tangent to ∂C along the curve (t, y, t 2 − y 2 ). Thus V t is closed and convex, and Remark. The set C is not convex, but it is two-convex as defined in the next section. As you will see, two-convexity is closely related to the inheritance of an upper curvature bound by a subset.

Two-convexity
The following definition is closely related to the one given by Mikhael Gromov in [33, §½], see also [44].

Definition.
We say that a subset K ⊂ E m is two-convex if the following condition holds for any plane W ⊂ E m : If γ is a simple closed curve in W ∩ K which is null-homotopic in K, then it is nullhomotopic in W ∩ K, in particular the disc in W bounded by γ lies in K.
Note that two-convex sets do not have to be connected or simply connected. The following two propositions follow immediately from the definition.

Proposition.
Any subset in E 2 is two-convex.

Proposition.
The intersection of an arbitrary collection of two-convex sets in E m is two-convex.

Proposition.
The interior of any two-convex set in E m is a two-convex set.
Proof. Fix a two-convex set K ⊂ E m , a 2-plane W be a 2-plane and a closed simple plane curve γ in W ∩ Int K which is contractible in the interior of K.
Since K is two-convex, the plane disc D bounded by γ lies in K. The same holds for the translations of D by small vectors. Therefore D lies in the interior of K. Hence the statement follows.

Definition.
Given a subset K ⊂ E m , define its two-convex hull (briefly, Conv 2 K) as the intersection of all two-convex subsets containing K.

Note that by Proposition 4.2.3, the two-convex hull of any set is two-convex. Further, by Proposition 4.2.4, the two-convex hull of an open set is open.
The next proposition describes closed two-convex sets with smooth boundary.
4.2.6. Proposition. Let K ⊂ E m be a closed subset.
Assume that the boundary of K is a smooth hypersurface S. Consider the unit normal vector field ν on S that points outside of K. Denote by k 1 . . . k m−1 the scalar fields of principal curvatures on S with respect to ν (by this we mean that if K is convex then k 1 0).
Then K is two-convex if and only if k 2 (p) 0 for any point p ∈ S. Moreover, if k 2 (p) < 0 at some point p, then Definition 4.2.1 fails for some curve γ forming a triangle in an arbitrary neighborhood of p.
The proof is taken from [33, §½], but we added some details.
Proof; "Only-if " part. If k 2 (p) < 0 for some p ∈ S, consider the plane W containing p and spanned by the first two principal directions at p. Choose a small triangle in W which surrounds p and move it slightly in the direction of ν(p). We get a triangle [xyz] which is null-homotopic in K, but the solid triangle ∆ = Conv{x, y, x} bounded by [xyz] does not lie in K completely. Therefore K is not two-convex.
"If " part. Recall that a smooth function f : E m → R is called strongly convex if its Hessian is positive definite at each point.
Suppose f : E m → R is a smooth strongly convex function such that the restriction f | S is a Morse function. Note that a generic smooth strongly convex function f : E m → R has this property.
For a critical point p of f | S , the outer normal vector ν(p) is parallel to the gradient ∇ p f ; we say that p is a positive critical point if ν(p) and ∇ p f point in the same direction, and negative otherwise. If f is generic, then we can assume that the sign is defined for all critical points; that is, ∇ p f = 0 for any critical point p of f | S .
Since k 2 0 and the function f is strongly convex, the negative critical points of f | S have index at most 1.
Given a real value s, set Assume ϕ 0 : D → K is a continuous map of the disc D such that ϕ 0 (∂D) ⊂ K s . Note that by the Morse lemma, there is a homotopy ϕ t : Indeed, we can construct a homotopy ϕ t : D → K which decreases the maximum of f • ϕ on D until the maximum occurs at a critical point p of f | S . This point cannot be negative, otherwise its index would be at least 2. If this critical point is positive then it is easy to decrease the maximum a little by pushing the disc from S into K in the direction of −∇f p .
Consider a closed curve γ : S 1 → K which is null-homotopic in K. Note that the distance function is convex. Therefore f 0 can be approximated by smooth strongly convex functions f in general position. From above, there is a disc in K with boundary γ which lies arbitrary close to Conv γ. Since K is closed, the statement follows.
Note that the "if" part proves a somewhat stronger statement. Namely, any plane curve γ (not necessary simple) which is contractible in K is also contractible in the intersection of K with the plane of γ. The latter condition does not hold for the complement of two planes in E 4 , which is two-convex by

Proposition.
Let Ω ⊂ E 3 be an open two-convex subset. Then for any plane W ⊂ E 3 , any closed curve in W ∩ Ω which is nullhomotopic in Ω is also null-homotopic in W ∩ Ω.
In the proof we use Papakyriakopoulos' loop theorem. It states that for any 3-dimensional manifold M with nonempty boundary ∂M , if f : (D, ∂D) → (M, ∂M ) is a continuous map from disc D such that f |∂D is not null-homotopic in ∂M , then there is an embedding h : (D, ∂D) → (M, ∂M ) with the same property. A proof can be found in [35].
Proof. Fix a closed plane curve γ in W ∩ Ω which is null-homotopic in Ω. Suppose γ is not contractible in W ∩ Ω.
Let ϕ : D → Ω be a map of the disk with boundary curve γ.
Since Ω is open we can first change ϕ slightly so that ϕ(x) / ∈ W for 1 − ε < |x| < 1 for some small ε > 0. By further changing ϕ slightly we can assume that it is transversal to W and agrees with the previous map near ∂D.
This means that ϕ −1 (W ) ∩ Int D consists of finitely many simple closed curves which cut D into several components. Consider one of the "innermost" components c ′ ; that is, c ′ is a boundary curve of a disk D ′ ⊂ D, ϕ(c ′ ) is a closed curve in W and ϕ(D ′ ) completely lies in one of the two half-spaces with boundary W . Denote this half-space by H.
If ϕ(c ′ ) is not contractible in W ∩Ω, then applying the loop theorem to M 3 = H ∩ Ω we conclude that there exists a simple closed curve γ ′ ⊂ Ω ∩ W which is not contractible in Ω ∩ W but is contractible in Ω ∩ H. This contradicts two-convexity of Ω.
Hence ϕ(c ′ ) is contractible in W ∩ Ω. Therefore ϕ can be changed in a small neighborhood U of D ′ so that the new mapφ maps U to one side of W . In particular, the setφ −1 (W ) consists of the same curves as ϕ −1 (W ) with the exception of c ′ .
Repeating this process several times we reduce the problem to the case where ϕ −1 (W ) ∩ Int D = ∅. This means that ϕ(D) lies entirely in one of the half-spaces bounded by W .
Again applying the loop theorem, we obtain a simple closed curve in W ∩ Ω which is not contractible in W ∩ Ω but is contractible in Ω. This again contradicts two-convexity of Ω. Hence γ is contractible in W ∩ Ω as claimed.

Sets with smooth boundary
In this section we characterize the subsets with smooth boundary in E m that form CAT[0] spaces.

4.3.1.
Smooth two-convexity theorem. Let K be a closed, simply connected subset in E m equipped with the induced length metric.

Assume K is bounded by a smooth hypersurface. Then K is CAT[0] if and only if K is two-convex.
This theorem is a baby case of the main result in [1], which is briefly discussed at the end of the chapter. Proof. Denote by S and by Ω the boundary and the interior of K respectively. Since K is connected and S is smooth, Ω is also connected.
Denote by k 1 (p) . . . k m−1 (p) the principle curvatures of S at p ∈ S with respect to the normal vector ν(p) pointing out of K. By Proposition 4.2.6, K is two-convex if and only if k 2 (p) 0 for any p ∈ S. "Only-if " part. Assume K is not two-convex. Then by Proposition 4.2.6, there is a triangle [xyz] in K which is null-homotopic in K, but the solid triangle ∆ = Conv{x, y, z} does not lie in K completely. Evidently the triangle [xyz] is not thin in K. Hence K is not CAT[0]. "If " part. Since K is simply connected, by the globalization theorem (3.3.1) it suffices to show that any point p ∈ K admits a CAT[0] neighborhood.
If p ∈ Int K then it admits a neighborhood isometric to a subset of E m . Hence the statement follows.
Fix p ∈ S. Assume that k 2 (p) > 0. Fix a sufficiently small ε > 0 and set K ′ = K ∩ B[p, ε]. Let us show that Consider the coordinate system with the origin at p and the principle directions and ν(p) as the coordinate directions. For small ε > 0, the set K ′ can be described as a subgraph Since ε is small and k 2 (p) > 0, the function is concave for |x i | < 2·ε for each i Fix a negative real value λ < k 1 (p). Given s ∈ (−ε, ε), consider the set Note that the function is concave near the origin. Since ε is small, we can assume that V s are a convex subsets of E m . Further note that Given an array of values s 1 < . . . < s k in [−ε, ε], set V i = V s i and consider the unions equipped with the induced length metric.
Note that the array (s n ) can be chosen in such a way that W k is arbitrarily Hausdorff close to K ′ . By Proposition 2.1.1, in order to prove ➊, it is sufficient to show the following: This claim is proved by induction. Base: Moreover, this is a convex set in E m and therefore it is a convex set in W i and in V i+1 . By Reshetnyak's gluing theorem, W i+1 is CAT[0]. Hence the claim follows. △ Note that we have proved the following: It remains to show that p admits a CAT[0] neighborhood in the case k 2 (p) = 0. Choose a coordinate system (x 1 , . . . , x m ) as above, so that the (x 1 , . . . , x m−1 )-coordinate hyperplane is the tangent subspace to S at p.
Fix ε > 0 so that a neighborhood of p in S is the graph of a function f defined on the open ball B of radius ε centered at the origin in the (x 1 , . . . , x m−1 )-hyperplane. Fix a smooth positive strongly convex function ϕ : B → R + such that ϕ(x) → ∞ as x approaches the boundary B. Note that for δ > 0, the subgraph K δ defined by the inequality is strongly two-convex. By ➍, K δ is CAT[0]. Finally as δ → 0, the closed ε-neighborhoods of p in K δ converge to the closed ε-neighborhood of p in K. By Proposition 2.1.1, the ε-neighborhood of p are CAT[0].

Open plane sets
In this section we consider inheritance of upper curvature bounds by subsets of the Euclidean plane. Equip Ω with its induced length metric and denote its completion by K.
The assumption that the set Ω is open is not critical; instead one can assume that the induced length metric takes finite values at all points of Ω. We sketch the proof given by Richard Bishop in [12] and leave the details be finished as an exercise. A generalization of this result is proved by Alexander Lytchak and Stefan Wenger [40, Proposition 12.1]; this paper also contains a far reaching application.
Sketch of proof. It is sufficient to show that any triangle in K is thin, as defined in 2.2.1.
Note that K admits a length-preserving map to E 2 which extends the embedding Ω ֒→ E 2 . Therefore each triangle [xyz] in K can be mapped to the plane in a length-preserving way. Since Ω is simply connected, any open region, say ∆, that is surrounded by the image of [xyz] lies completely in Ω.

Note that in each triangle [xyz] in K, the sides [xy], [yz] and [zx]
intersect each other along a geodesic starting at a common vertex, possibly a onepoint geodesic. In other words, every triangle in K looks like the one in the diagram.
Indeed, assuming the contrary, there will be a simple diangle in K, that is, two minimizing geodesics with common ends but no other common points. The image of this diangle in the plane must bound an open region of Ω and both sides of the region must be concave in the plane, since otherwise one could shorten the sides by pushing them into Ω. Evidently, there is no such plane diangle with concave sides, a contradiction.
Note that it is sufficient to consider only simple triangles [xyz], that is, triangles whose sides

Exercise.
Assume S is a closed plane region whose boundary is a triangle T with concave sides in the plane. Equip S with the induced length metric. Show that the triangle T is thin in S.
Here is a spherical analog of Theorem 4.4.1, which can be proved along the same lines. It will be used in the next section.

Exercise. Let
Θ be an open connected subset of the unit sphere S 2 which does not contain a closed hemisphere. Equip Θ with the induced length metric. LetΘ be a metric covering of Θ such that any closed curve inΘ of length smaller than 2·π is contractible.
Show that the completion ofΘ is a CAT[1] space.

Shefel's theorem
In this section we will formulate our version of theorem of Samuel Shefel and prove couple of its corollaries.
It seems that Shefel was very intrigued by the survival of metric properties under affine transformation.
To describe an instance of such phenomena, note that two-convexity survives under affine transformations of a Euclidean space. Therefore, as a consequence of the smooth two-convexity theorem (4.3.1), the following holds. Here is the main theorem of this section.

Two-convexity theorem.
Let Ω be a connected open set in E 3 . Equip Ω with the induced length metric and denote by K the completion of the universal metric cover of Ω. Then K is a CAT[0] space if and only if Ω is two-convex.
The proof of this statement will be given in the following three sections. First we will prove its polyhedral analog, then we prove some properties of two-convex hull in three-dimensional Euclidean space and only then we prove the general statement.
The following exercise shows that the analogous statement does not hold in higher dimensions.

Exercise.
Let Π 1 , Π 2 be two planes in E 4 intersecting at a single point. Consider the universal cover K of the space obtained by infinitely branching E 4 along Π 1 and Π 2 , and equip K with the induced length metric.
Show that K is a CAT[0] space if and only if Π 1 ⊥ Π 2 .
Before coming to the proof of the two-convexity theorem, let us formulate a few corollaries. The following corollary is a generalization of the smooth two-convexity theorem (4.3.1) for three-dimensional Euclidean space.

Corollary.
Let K be a closed subset in E 3 bounded by a Lipschitz hypersurface. Then K with the induced length metric is a CAT[0] space if and only if the interior of K is two-convex and simply connected.
Proof. Set Ω = Int K. Since K is simply connected and bounded by a surface, Ω is also simply connected.
Apply the two-convexity theorem to Ω. Note that the completion of Ω equipped with the induced length metric is isometric to K with the induced length metric. Hence the result follows.
The following corollary is the main statement in Shefel's original paper [55]. In order to formulate it, we need yet one more definition.
Let U be an open set in R 2 . A continuous function f : U → R is called saddle if for any linear function ℓ : R 2 → R, the difference f − ℓ does not have local maxima or local minima in U . Equivalently, the open subgraph and epigraph of f are two-convex.

4.5.5.
Corollary. Let f : D → R be a Lipschitz function which is saddle in the interior of the closed unit disc D. Then the graph Proof.
Since the function f is Lipschitz, its graph Γ with the induced length metric is bi-Lipschitz equivalent to D with the Euclidean metric. Consider the sequence of sets Note that each K n is closed and simply connected. By the definition K is also two-convex. Moreover the boundary of K n is a Lipschitz surface. Equip K n with the induced length metric. By Corollary 4.5.4, K n is a CAT[0] space. It remains to note that as n → ∞ the sequence of space K n converges to Γ in the sense of Gromov-Hausdorff, and apply Proposition 2.1.1.

Polyhedral case
Now we are back to the proof of the two-convexity theorem (4.5.2).
Recall that a subset P of E m is called a polytope if it can be presented as a union of a finite number of simplices. Similarly, a spherical polytope is a union of a finite number of simplices in S m .
Note that any polytope admits a finite triangulation. Therefore any polytope equipped with the induced length metric forms a Euclidean polyhedral space as defined in 3.4.1.
Let P be a polytope and Ω its interior, both considered with the induced length metrics. Typically, the completion K of Ω is isometric to P . However in general we only have a locally distance preserving map K → P ; it does not have to be onto and it may not be injective. An example can be guessed from the picture. Nevertheless, is easy to see that K is always a polyhedral space.
4.6.1. Lemma. The two-convexity theorem (4.5.2) holds if the set Ω is the interior of a polytope.
The statement might look obvious, but there is a hidden obstacle in the proof. The proof uses the following two exercises.

Exercise.
Assume Ω is an open subset in E 3 which is not two-convex. Show that there is a plane W such that the complement W \Ω contains an isolated point.
Proof of 4.6.1. The "only if" part can be proved in the same way as in the smooth two-convexity theorem (4.3.1) with additional use of Exercise 4.6.3.
"If " part. Assume that Ω is two-convex. Denote byΩ the universal metric cover of Ω. LetK and K be the completions ofΩ and Ω correspondingly.
The main step is to show thatK is CAT[0]. Note that K is a polyhedral space and the coveringΩ → Ω extends to a covering mapK → K which might be branching at some vertices. For example, if and p is the origin then Σ p , the space of directions at p, is not simply connected andK → K branches at p. Fix a pointp ∈K\Ω; denote by p the image ofp in K. By the globalization theorem (3.3.1), it is sufficient to show that ➊ a small neighborhood ofp inK is CAT[0].
Recall that Σp = ΣpK denotes the space of directions atp. Note that a small neighborhood ofp inK is isometric to an open set in the cone over ΣpK. By Exercise 2.1.2, ➊ follows once we can show ➋ Σp is CAT [1].
By rescaling, we can assume that every face of K which does not contain p lies at distance at least 2 from p. Denote by S 2 the unit sphere centered at p, set Θ = S 2 ∩ Ω. Note that Σ p K is isometric to the completion of Θ and ΣpK is the completion of the regular metric coveringΘ of Θ induced by the universal metric coverΩ → Ω.
By Exercise 4.4.4, it remains to show the following: ➌ Any closed curve inΘ of length less than 2·π is contractible.
Fix a closed curveγ of length < 2·π inΘ. Its projection γ in Θ ⊂ S 2 has the same length. Therefore, by Exercise 4.6.2, γ lies in an open hemisphere. Then for a plane Π passing close to p, the central projection γ ′ of γ to Π is defined and lies in Ω. By construction ofΘ, the curve γ and therefore γ ′ are contractible in Ω. From two-convexity of Ω and Proposition 4.2.7, the curve γ ′ is contractible in Π ∩ Ω.
It follows that γ is contractible in Θ and thereforeγ is contractible inΘ.

Two-convex hull
The following proposition describes a construction which produces Conv 2 Ω for an open set Ω ⊂ E 3 . This construction is very close to the one given by Samuel Shefel in [55]. Suppose we already know that Conv 2 Ω ⊃ Ω n−1 . Fix a bounded component C of E 3 \(Π n ∪Ω n−1 ). It is sufficient to show that C ⊂ Conv 2 Ω. By Proposition 4.2.4, Conv 2 Ω is open. Therefore, if C ⊂ Conv 2 Ω, then there is a point p ∈ C\ Conv 2 Ω lying at maximal distance from Π n . Denote by W p the plane containing p which is parallel to Π n .
Note that p lies in a bounded component of W p \ Conv 2 Ω. In particular it can be surrounded by a simple closed curve γ in W p ∩Conv 2 Ω. Since p lies at maximal distance from Π n , the curve γ is null-homotopic in Conv 2 Ω. Therefore p ∈ Conv 2 Ω, a contradiction.
It remains to show that Ω ′ is two-convex. Assume the contrary; that is, there is a plane Π and a simple closed curve γ : S 1 → Π ∩ Ω ′ which is null-homotopic in Ω ′ , but not null-homotopic in Π ∩ Ω ′ .
By approximation we can assume that Π = Π n for a large n and that γ lies in Ω n−1 . By the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 4.2.7 using the loop theorem, we can assume that there is an embedding ϕ : D → Ω ′ such that ϕ| ∂D = γ and ϕ(D) lies entirely in one of the half-spaces bounded by Π. By the n-step of the construction, the entire bounded domain U bounded by Π n and ϕ(D) is contained in Ω ′ and hence γ is contractible in Π ∩ Ω ′ , a contradiction.

Key lemma.
The two-convex hull of the interior of a polytope in E 3 is also the interior of a polytope.
Proof. Fix a polytope P in E 3 . Set Ω = Int P . We may assume that Ω is dense in P . Denote by F 1 , . . . , F m the facets (2-faces) of P . By subdividing F i if necessary, we may assume that all F i are convex.
Set Ω ′ = Conv 2 Ω and let P ′ be the closure of Ω ′ . Further, for each i, set F ′ i = F i \Ω ′ . In other words, F ′ i is the subset of the facet F i which remains on the boundary of P ′ .
From the construction of the two-convex hull (4.7.1) we have: since Ω ′ is two-convex we obtain the following: Indeed, assume a connected component A of F i \F ′ i fails to be convex. Then there is a supporting line ℓ to F ′ i touching F ′ i at a single point in the interior of F i . Then one could rotate the plane of F i slightly around ℓ and move it parallel to cut a "cap" from the complement of Ω. The latter means that Ω is not two-convex, a contradiction. △ From ➌ and ➍, we conclude ➎ F ′ i is a convex polygon for each i. Consider the complement E 3 \Ω equipped with the length metric. By construction of the two-convex hull (4.7.1), the complement L = = E 3 \(Ω ′ ∪P ) is locally convex; that is, any point of L admits a convex neighborhood.
Summarizing: (1) Ω ′ is a two-convex open set, (2) the boundary ∂Ω ′ contains a finite number of polygons F ′ i and the remaining part S is locally concave. It remains to show that (1) and (2) imply that S and therefore ∂Ω ′ are piecewise linear.

Proof of Shefel's theorem
Proof of 4.5.2. The "only if" part can be proved the same way as in the smooth two-convexity theorem (4.3.1) with additional use of Exercise 4.6.3. "If "-part. Suppose Ω is two-convex. We need to show that K is Note that it is sufficient to show that CAT[0] comparison holds for any 4 points x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 ∈ Ω.
Fix ε > 0. Choose six broken lines connecting all pairs of points x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 , where the length of each broken line is at most ε bigger than the distance between its ends in the length metric on Ω. Choose a polytope P in Ω such that the interior Int P is simply connected and contains all six broken lines.
Denote by Ω ′ the two-convex hull of the interior of P . According to the key lemma (4.7.2), Ω ′ is the interior of a polytope.
Equip Ω ′ with the induced length metric. Consider the universal metric coverΩ ′ of Ω ′ . (The coveringΩ ′ → Ω ′ might be nontrivialdespite that Int P is simply connected, its two-convex hull Ω ′ might not be simply connected.) Denote byK ′ the completion ofΩ ′ .
The statement follows since the quadruple x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 ∈ Ω is arbitrary.
4.8.1. Exercise. Assume K ⊂ E m is a closed set bounded by a Lipschitz hypersurface. Equip K with the induced length metric. Show that if K is CAT[0] then K is two-convex.
The following exercise is analogous to Exercise 4.5.3. It provides a counterexample to the analog of Corollary 4.5.4 in higher dimensions.
Show that K is always two-convex and one can choose ι so that K with the induced length metric is not CAT[0].

Comments
In [1] the first author, David Berg and Richard Bishop gave the exact upper bound on Alexandrov's curvature for the Riemannian manifolds with boundary. This theorem includes the smooth two-convexity theorem (4.3.1) as a partial case. Namely they show the following. Under the name (n − 2)-convex sets, two-convex sets in E n were introduced by Mikhael Gromov in [33]. In addition to the inheritance of upper curvature bound by two-convex sets discussed in this chapter, these sets appear as the maximal open sets with vanishing curvature in Riemannian manifolds with non-negative or non-positive sectional curvature. This observation was made first by Sergei Buyalo for nonpositive curvature [21,Lemma 5.8], and extended by Dmitri Panov and the third author in [44].
Two-convex sets could be defined using homology instead of homotopy, as in the formulation of the Leftschetz theorem in [33, §½]. Namely, we can say that K is two-convex if the following condition holds: if a 1-dimensional cycle z has support in the intersection of K with a plane W and bounds in K, then it bounds in K ∩ W .
The resulting definition is equivalent to the one used above. But unlike our definition it can be generalized to define k-convex sets in E m for k > 2. With this homological definition one can also avoid the use of Papakyriakopoulos' loop theorem, whose proof is quite involved. Nevertheless, we chose the definition using homotopies since it is easier to visualize.
Both definitions work well for the open sets, for general sets one should be able to give a similar definition using an appropriate homotopy/homology theory.
Let D be an embedded closed disc in E 3 . We say that D is saddle if each connected bounded component which any plane cuts from D contains a point on the boundary ∂D. If D is locally described by a Lipschitz embedding, then this condition is equivalent to saying that D is two-convex. The conjecture is open even for the surfaces described by a bi-Lipschitz embedding of a disc. From another result of Shefel proved in [54], it follows that a saddle surface satisfies the isoperimetric inequality a C ·ℓ 2 where a is the area of a disc bounded by a curve of length ℓ and C = 1 3·π . By a recent result of Alexander Lytchak and Stefan Wenger [40], Shefel's conjecture is equivalent to the isoperimetric inequality with the optimal constant C = 1 4·π . From Corollary 4.5.4, it follows that if there is a counterexample to Shefel's conjecture, then an arbitrary neighborhood of some point on the surface cannot be presented as a graph in any coordinate system. Also note that a counterexample could not admit an approximation by smooth saddle surfaces. Examples of saddle surfaces which do not admit such approximation are not known so far.
Note that from the proof of Let us call a subset K ⊂ E m strongly two-convex if any nullhomotopic circle γ : S 1 → K is also null-homotopic in K ∩Conv[γ(S 1 )].

Introduction
Exercise 0.0.1. Let X be a 4-point metric space.
Fix a tetrahedron △ in R 3 . The vertices of △, say x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , x 3 , can be identified with the points of X .
Note that there is unique quadratic form W on R 3 such that for all i and j. By the triangle inequality, W (v) 0 for any vector v parallel to one of the faces of △.
Note that X is isometric to a 4-point subset in Euclidean space if and only if W (v) 0 for any vector v in R 3 .
Therefore, if X is not of type E 4 then W (v) < 0 for some vector v. From above, the vector v must be transversal to each of the 4 faces of △. Therefore if we project △ along v to a plane transversal to v we see one of these two pictures.
Note that the set of vectors v such that W (v) < 0 has two connected components; the opposite vectors v and −v lie in the different components. If one moves v continuously keeping W (v) < 0, then the corresponding projection moves continuously and the projections of 4 triangles can not degenerate. It follows that the combinatorics of the picture do not depend on the choice of v.
Indeed the set of vectors v such that W (v) < 0 Hence M 4 \E 4 is not connected.
It remains to show that if the combinatorics of the pictures for two spaces are the same then one can continuously deform one space into the other. This can be easily done by deforming W and applying a permutation of x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , x 3 if necessary.
The solution is taken from [47].
Exercise 0.0.2. The simplest proof we know requires the construction of tangent cones for Alexandrov spaces with nonnegative curvature.

Preliminaries
Exercise 1.1.1. This exercise is a basic introductory lemma on Gromov-Hausdorff distance (see for example [17, 7.3.30]). The following proof is not quite standard, it was suggested by Travis Morrison.
Given any pair of points x 0 , y 0 ∈ K, consider two sequences (x n ) and (y n ) such that x n+1 = f (x n ) and y n+1 = f (y n ) for each n.
Since K is compact, we can choose an increasing sequence of integers n i such that both sequences (x ni ) ∞ i=1 and (y ni ) ∞ i=1 converge. In particular, both of these sequences are converging in itself; that is, Since f is non-contracting, we get It follows that there is a sequence m i → ∞ such that ( * ) x mi → x 0 and y mi → y 0 as i → ∞.
Set ℓ n = |x n − y n | K .
Since f is non-contracting, (ℓ n ) is a non-decreasing sequence. By ( * ), ℓ mi → ℓ 0 as m i → ∞. It follows that (ℓ n ) is a constant sequence.
In particular for any pair x 0 and y 0 . That is, f is distance preserving, in particular, injective. From ( * ), we also get that f (K) is everywhere dense. Since K is compact, f : K → K is surjective. Hence the result follows. Exercise 1.2.1. A point in R × Cone U can be described by a triple (x, r, p), where x ∈ R, r ∈ R and p ∈ U. Correspondingly, a point in Cone[Susp U] can be described by a triple (ρ, ϕ, p), where ρ ∈ R , ϕ ∈ [0, π] and p ∈ U.
The following example is due to Fedor Nazarov, see [43].
Consider the unit ball (B, d 0 ) in the space c 0 of all sequences converging to zero equipped with the sup-norm.
Consider another metric d 1 which is different from d 0 by the conformal factor Note that the metric d 1 is bi-Lipschitz to d 0 . Assume x(t) and x ′ (t) are two curves parametrized by d 0 -length which differ only in the m-th coordinate, denoted as x m (t) and x ′ m (t) correspondingly. Note that if x ′ m (t) x m (t) for any t and the function x ′ m (t) is locally 1-Lipschitz at all t such that x ′ m (t) < x m (t) then length 1 x ′ length 1 x.
Moreover this inequality is strict if x ′ m (t) < x m (t) for some t. Fix a curve x(t) parametrized by arc-length t ∈ [0, ℓ] with respect to d 0 . We can choose m large, so that x m (t) is sufficiently close to 0 for any t. In particular, for some values t, we have y m (t) < x m (t), where Note that x ′ (t) and x(t) have the same end points and from above That is, for any curve x(t) in (B, d 1 ), we can find a shorter curve x ′ (t) with the same end points. In particular, (B, d 1 ) has no geodesics. Exercise 1.4.7. The following example is taken from [15].
. . . p q X Consider the following subset of R 2 equipped with the induced length metric Note that X locally compact and geodesic. Its completionX is isometric to the closure of X equipped with the induced length metric;X is obtained from X by adding two points p = (0, 0) and q = (0, 1).
The point p admits no compact neighborhood inX and there is no geodesic connecting p to q inX .
The latter is equivalent to existence of a sequence p n ∈ A n such that |p n − p| → 0 as n → ∞; or equivalently p n → p. Hence the first statement follows.
To show that the contrary does not hold, consider the alternating sequence of two distinct closed sets A, B, A, B, . . .; note that it is not a converging sequence in the sense of Hausdorff. On the other hand, the set of all limit points is well defined and is the intersection A ∩ B.
Remark. The set A ∞ of all limits of sequences p n ∈ A n is called the lower closed limit and the setĀ ∞ of all partial limits of such sequences is called the upper closed limit.
Clearly A ∞ ⊂Ā ∞ . If A ∞ =Ā ∞ then it is called the closed limit of A n .
For the class of closed subsets of a proper metric space, closed limits coincide with limits in the sense of Hausdorff as we defined it.
All these notions were introduced by Felix Hausdorff in [37].
Exercise 1.9.4. Fix a countable dense set of points S ⊂ X ∞ . For each point x ∈ S, choose a sequence of points x n ∈ X n such that Applying the diagonal procedure, we can pass to a subsequence of X n such that each of the constructed sequences ρ ′ -converge; that is, ∞ . This way we get a map S → X ′ ∞ defined as x → x ′ . Note that this map preserves the distances and therefore it can be extended to a distance preserving map X ∞ → X ′ ∞ . Likewise we construct a distance preserving map X ′ ∞ → X ∞ . It remains to apply Exercise 1.1.1.

Gluing theorem and billiards
Exercise 2.1.2. Given a point x ∈ Cone U, denote by x ′ its projection to U and by |x| the distance from x to the tip of the cone; if x is the tip then |x| = 0 and we can take any point of U as x ′ .
Let p, q, x, y be a quadruple in Cone U. Assume that the spherical model triangles [p ′x′ỹ′ ] =△(p ′ x ′ y ′ ) S 2 and [q ′x′ỹ′ ] =△(q ′ x ′ y ′ ) S 2 are defined. Consider the following points in E 3 = Cone S 2 : The converse holds as well. In the proof we need to apply the CAT[0] comparison to a quadruple s = a·p, q, x, y with a 0 chosen so that the corresponding pointss = a·p,q,x,ỹ lie in one plane.
Therefore CAT[0] comparison for the quadruples p 1 , q 1 , x 1 , y 1 in U and p 2 , q 2 , x 2 , y 2 in V implies the CAT[0] comparison for the quadruples p, q, x, y in U × V.
Exercise 2.1.4. According to Lemma 1.4.4, it is sufficient to prove the existence of a midpoint for two given points x and y. For each n choose a 1 n -midpoint z n ; that is, a point such that |x − z n |, |y − z n | 1 2 ·|x − y| + 1 n . From the CAT[0] comparison inequality for the quadruple x, y, z n , z m we have that |z m − z n | → 0 as n, m → ∞; that is, z n is Cauchy and hence converges.
Since the space is complete the sequence z n has a limit, say z, which is clearly a midpoint for the pair x and y. Exercise 2.2.8. Without loss of generality we can assume that κ = 1. Fix a sufficiently small 0 < ε < π.
Recall that by Proposition 2.2.7, any local geodesic shorter than π in U is a geodesic.
Consider a sequence of directions ξ n of geodesics [pq n ]. We can assume that the distances |p − q n | U are equal to ε for all n; here we use that the geodesics are extendable as local geodesics and minimizing up to length π.
Since U is proper, the sequence q n has a partial limit, say q. It remains to note that the direction ξ of [pq] is the limit of directions ξ n , assuming the latter is defined.
Note that the unit disc in the plane with attached half-line to each point is a complete CAT[0] length spaces with extendable geodesics but the space of geodesic directions on the boundary of the disc is not complete.p  For CAT [1] case, the statement follows from thinness of triangles and convexity of balls of radius < π 2 in S 2 . Exercise 2.2.12. Fix a closed, connected, locally convex set K. Note that by Corollary 2.2.5, dist K is convex in a neighborhood Ω ⊃ K; that is, dist K is convex along any geodesic completely contained in Ω.
Since K is locally convex, it is locally path connected. Since K is connected and the latter implies that K is path connected.
Fix two points x, y ∈ K. Let us connect x to y by a path α : . Note that f (x) = f (α(s)) = 0 and f 0, therefore f (x) = 0 for any x ∈ [xα(s)]; that is, x ∈ K, a contradiction.
Exercise 2.2.13. Since U is proper, the set K ∩ B[p, R] is compact for any R < ∞. Hence the existence of at least one point p * that minimizes the distance from p follows.
Suppose z 0 ∈ ∂A ∩ Int B. Then A and C touch at z 0 and we can setȦ to be the uniquely defined supporting half-space to A at z 0 anḋ B to be any half-space containing B. The case z 0 ∈ ∂B ∩ Int A is treated similarly.
Finally, suppose z 0 ∈ ∂A ∩ ∂B. Then the setȦ (Ḃ) is defined as the unique supporting half-space to A (B) at z 0 containing A (B). Suppose Note that all the intersections of the walls have ε-wide corners for ε = 2· arcsin r1 r2 . The proof can be guessed from the diagram.
Exercise 2.5.2. Note that there is R < ∞ such that if X is an intersection of an arbitrary number of walls, then for any point p ∈ X there is an isometry of X which moves p to a point in B(0, R).
The rest of the proof is the same as in Exercise 2.5.1.
The CAT[0] case is done the same way, but we need to consider the homotopy classes of curves shorter than 2·π. Exercise 3.3.6. Consider an ε-neighborhood A of the geodesic. Note that A ε is convex. By Reshetnyak's gluing theorem the doubling W ε of U along A ε is a CAT[0] space.
Next, consider the space W ′ ε obtained by doubly covering U\A ε and gluing back A ε .
Note that W ′ ε is locally isometric to W ε . That is, for any point p ′ ∈ W ′ ε there is a point p ∈ W ε such that the δ-neighborhood of p ′ is isometric to the δ-neighborhood of p for all small δ > 0.
Further note that W ′ ε is simply connected since it admits a deformation retraction onto A ε , which is contractible. By the globalization theorem, W ′ ε is CAT[0]. It remains to note thatŨ can be obtained as a limit of W ′ ε as ε → 0, and apply Proposition 2.1.1. Fix a small δ > 0 and consider two curves in Cone Σ written in polar coordinates as γ i (t) = (α i (tan t δ ), δ 2 + t 2 ). Note that both curves γ 1 and γ 2 are geodesics in Cone Σ and have common ends.
Finally note that a small neighborhood of the tip of Cone Σ admits an isometric embedding into P. Hence the statement follows.
Advanced exercise 3.4.4. Note that it is sufficient to construct a polyhedral space P homeomorphic to the 3-disc such that (1) P is locally CAT[0] in its interior and (2) the boundary of P is locally concave; in particular, each edge on the boundary of P has angle at least π.
Indeed, once P is constructed, taking the double of P along its boundary produces the needed metric on S 3 .
The construction of P goes along the same lines as the construction of a Riemannian metric on the 3-disc with concave boundary and negative sectional curvature. This construction is given by Joel Hass in [36].
It might be worth mentioning that by the globalization theorem (3.3.1) the obtained metric on S 3 is not locally CAT[0]. This problem originated from a discussion in Oberwolfach between Brian Bowditch, Tadeusz Januszkiewicz, Dmitri Panov and the third author.
Exercise 3.5.2. Checking the flag condition is straightforward once we know the following description of the barycentric subdivision.
Each vertex v of the barycentric subdivision corresponds to a simplex △ v of the original triangulation. A set of vertices forms a simplex in the subdivision if it can be ordered, say as v 1 , . . . , v k , so that the corresponding simplices form a nested sequence Exercise 3.5.6. Use induction to prove that if in a spherical simplex △ every edge is at least π 2 then all dihedral angles of △ are at least π 2 . The rest of the proof goes along the same lines as the proof of the flag condition (3.5.5). The only difference is that a geodesic may spends time at least π on each visit in the star.
Note that it is not sufficient to assume only that the all dihedral angles of the simplices are at least π 2 . Indeed, the two-dimensional sphere with removed interior of a small rhombus is a spherical polyhedral space glued from four triangles with all the angles at least π 2 . On the other han the boundary of the rhomus is closed local geodesic in this space. Therefore the space can not be CAT [1].
Exercise 3.5.7. The space T n has a natural cone structure with the vertex formed by the completely degenerate tree -all its edges have zero length. Note that the space Σ, over which the cone is taken comes naturally with a triangulation with all-right spherical simplicies.
Note that link of any simplex of this triangulation satisfies notriangle condition (3.5.1). Indeed, fix a simplex △ of the complex; it can be described by combinatorics of a possibly degenerate tree. A triangle in the link can be described by tree ways to resolve degeneracy of one edge, such that any pair of these resolutions can be done simultaniousely, but all theree can not be done together. Direct inspection shows that the latter is impossible. Therefore, by Proposition 3.5.3 our complex is flag. It remains to apply the flag condition (3.5.5) and then Exercise 2.1.2.
Exercise 3.6.2. If the complex S is flag then its cubical analog S is locally CAT[0] and therefore aspherical.
Assume now that the complex S is not flag. Extend it to a flag complex T by gluing a simplex in every complete subgraph of its 1skeleton.
Note that the cubical analog S is a proper subcomplex in T . Since T is flag,˜ T , the universal cover of T , is CAT[0].
Choose a cube Q with minimal dimension in˜ T which is not present in˜ S . By Exercise 2.2.12, Q is a convex set in˜ T . The closest point projection˜ T → Q is a retraction. It follows that the boundary ∂Q is not contractible in˜ T \ Int Q. Therefore the spheroid ∂Q is not contractible in˜ S . The only difference is that G is not a subcomplex of the cubical analog. It has to be made from the squares parallel to the squares of the cubical complex which meet the edges of the complex orthogonally at their midpoints.
Exercise 3.8.2. In the proof we apply the following lemma; it follows from the disjoint discs property, see [30,25].
Lemma. Let S be a finite simplicial complex which is homeomorphic to an m-dimensional homology manifold for some m 5. Assume that all vertices of S have simply connected links. Then S is a topological manifold.
Note that it is sufficient to construct a simplicial complex S such that ⋄ S is a closed (m − 1)-dimensional homology manifold; ⋄ π 1 (S\{v}) = 0 for some vertex v in S; ⋄ S ∼ S m−1 ; that is, S is homotopy equivalent to S m−1 . Indeed, assume such S is constructed. Then the suspension R = = Susp S is an m-dimensional homology manifold with a natural triangulation coming from S. According to the lemma, R is a topological manifold. According to the generalized Poincaré conjecture, R ≃ S m ; that is R is homeomorphic to S m . Since Cone S ≃ R\{s} where s denotes a south pole of the suspension and E m ≃ S m \{p} for any point p ∈ S m we get Cone S ≃ E m .
It remains to construct S. Fix an (m − 2)-dimensional homology sphere Σ with a triangulation such that π 1 Σ = 0. An example of that type exists for any m 5; a proof is given in [38].
Consider the product Σ ′ × [0, 1]. Attach to it the cone over its boundary ∂(Σ ′ × [0, 1]). Denote by S the resulting simplicial complex and by v the tip of the attached cone.
Note that S is homotopy equivalent to the spherical suspension over Σ, which is a simply connected homology sphere and hence is homotopy equivalent to S m−1 . Hence S ∼ S m−1 .
That is, S satisfies the conditions above.

Subsets
Exercise 4.4.2. Note that triangle [pqx is degenerate, in particular it is thin. It remains to apply the inheritance lemma (2.2.9).
Exercise 4.4.3. By approximation, it is sufficient to consider the case when S has polygonal sides. The latter case can be done by induction on the number of sides. The base case of triangle is evident.
To prove the induction step, apply Alexandrov's lemma (1.5.1) together with the construction in Exercise 2.2.10.
Exercise 4.4.4. Unlike in the plane, the sphere contains diangular and triangular regions whose sides are concave in the sphere. To adapt the proof of Theorem 4.4.1 we will use Exercise 4.6.2.
From Exercise 4.6.2, it follows that if such a concave diangle or triangle has perimeter smaller then 2·π then it contains a closed hemisphere in its interior.
By the assumption, Θ does not contain a closed hemisphere. Therefore the argument in the proof of Theorem 4.4.1 shows that any triangle inΘ with perimeter less than 2·π is spherically thin.
Exercise 4.5.3. The space K is a cone over the branched covering Σ of S 3 infinitely branching along two great circles.
If the planes are not orthogonal then the minimal distance between the circles is less than π 2 . Assume that this distance is realized by a geodesic [ξζ]. The broken line made by four liftings of [ξζ] forms a closed local geodesic in Σ. By Proposition 2.2.7, (or Corollary 3.3.4) Σ is not CAT [1]. Therefore by Exercise 2.1.2, K is not CAT[0].
If the planes are orthogonal then the corresponding great circles in S 3 are subcomplexes of a flag triangulation of S 3 with all-right simplicies. The branching cover is also flag. It remains to apply the flag condition 3.5.5.
Comments. In [23], Ruth Charney and Michael Davis gave a complete answer to the analogous question for three planes. In particular they show that if a covering space of E 4 branching at three planes passing the origin is CAT[0] then these all are complex planes for some complex structure on E 4 . Exercise 4.6.2. Let α be a closed curve in S 2 of length 2·ℓ.
Assume ℓ < π. Letα be a subarc of α of length ℓ, with endpoints p and q. Since |p − q| ℓ < π, there is a unique geodesic [pq] in S 2 . Let z be the midpoint of [pq].
We claim that α lies in the open hemisphere centered at z. Assume contrary, then α intersects the boundary great circle in a point, say r. Without loss of generality we may assume that r ∈α.
The arcα together with its reflection in z form a closed curve of length 2·ℓ which passes r and its antipodal point r ′ . Thus ℓ = lengthα |r − r ′ | = π, a contradiction.
A solution via Crofton formula. Let α be a closed curve in S 2 of length 2·π. We wish to prove α is contained in a hemisphere in S 2 . By approximation it suffices to prove this for smooth curves α of length < 2·π with transverse self-intersections.
Given v ∈ S 2 , denote by v ⊥ the equator in S 2 with the pole at v. Further, #X will denote the number of points in the set X.
Obviously, if #(α ∩ v ⊥ ) = 0 then α is contained in one of the hemispheres determined by v ⊥ . Note that #(α∩v ⊥ ) is even for almost all v.
Therefore, if α does not lie in a hemisphere then #(α ∩ v ⊥ ) 2 for almost all v ∈ S 2 .
By Crofton's formula we have that Exercise 4.6.3.
Since Ω is not two-convex, we can fix a simple closed curve γ which lies in the intersection of a plane W 0 and Ω, and is contractible in Ω but not contractible in Ω ∩ W 0 .
W 0 Γ p R W Let ϕ : D → Ω be a disc which shrinks γ. Applying the loop theorem (arguing as in the proof of Proposition 4.2.7), we can assume that ϕ is an embedding and ϕ(D) lies on one side of W 0 .
Let Q be the bounded domain cut from E 3 by ϕ(D) and W 0 . By assumption it contains a point which is not in Ω. Changing W 0 , γ and ϕ slightly, we can assume that such a point lies in the interior of Q.
Fix a circle Γ in W 0 which surrounds Q ∩ W 0 . Since Q lies in a half-space with boundary W 0 , there is a smallest spherical dome with boundary Γ which includes the set R = Q\Ω. The dome has to touch R at some point p. The plane W tangent to the dome at p has the required property -the point p is an isolated point of the complement W \Ω.
Exercise 4.7.3. Despite that the proof is simple and visual, it is quite hard to write it formally in a nontedious way; by that reason we give only a sketch.
Consider the surfaceS formed by the closure of the remaining part S of the boundary. Note that the boundary ∂S ofS is a collection of closed polygonal lines.
AssumeS is not piecewise linear. Show that there is a line segment [pq] in E 3 tangent toS at p which has no common points withS except p. From the latter statement and local convexity ofS, it follows that the solid triangle [xyz] lies inS. In particular, all points on [pq] sufficiently close to p lie inS, a contradiction. Exercise 4.8.1. Show that if K is not two-convex then there is a plane triangle △ whose sides lie completely in K, but its interior contains some points from the complement E m \K.
It remains to note that △ is not thin in K.