I have been exploring differential geometry slightly... And i'm trying to grasp how to define intrinsic curvature, from a visual/geometric viewpoint...
One formulation I got was that Intrinsic curvature can be thought in terms how the $n$-volume of an $N$-sphere in your particular $n$-dimensional space (example: a the area of a circle drawn on a $2$d space) differs from the $n$-volume of a euclidean N-sphere...
But here is the big problem I found... That definition is all wonderful and whatnot when talking about the curvature of a certain "area" of a surface...
Example, If I had a big sphere in $3$ dimensional space. I can start from a point in the sphere... walk $10$ meters off of the point and draw a circle of radius $10$... then measure the area using tiles and compare its ratio to that of a euclidean circle...
But as I reduce the radius that I'm measuring... The circle I draw out will get increasingly closer to the area of euclidean circle for the same radius...
Clearly the point curvature given this definiton will be $0$... At any given point on a sphere the curvature, by this definition, is equivalent to a flat plane...
I can't seem to find a way to define intrinsic curvature now. Anyone care to help?
If $A(\rho)$ is the area of the circle around the point of interest with geodesic radius $\rho,$ then $$ K = \lim_{\rho \rightarrow 0^+} \frac{12 \left( \pi \rho^2 - A(\rho) \right)}{\pi \rho^4} $$
See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap
The nice thing is that it all comes out the same for the hyperbolic plane, where $\cos$ is replaced by $\cosh.$
This is closely related to the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, as it must be, and was first found in 1848, see BDP