Deformation of hyperbolic manifolds in $\mathrm {PGL}(n,\mathbf {C})$ and discreteness of the peripheral representations
Antonin Guilloux (UPMC, IMJ-PRG)

TL;DR
This paper investigates how deformations of hyperbolic 3-manifolds' fundamental groups in PGL(n,C) affect the discreteness of peripheral representations, showing that generic deformations tend to preserve discreteness unlike in the PGL(2,C) case.
Contribution
It extends the analysis of peripheral representation behavior from PGL(2,C) to PGL(n,C), demonstrating that generic deformations lead to discrete peripheral representations.
Findings
Generic deformations in PGL(n,C) preserve discreteness of peripheral representations.
Non-discrete peripheral representations form a real analytic subvariety of codimension at least 1.
The behavior contrasts with the PGL(2,C) case, where non-discreteness is more prevalent.
Abstract
Let be a cusped hyperbolic -manifold, e.g. a knot complement. Thurston showed that the space of deformations of its fundamental group in (up to conjugation) is of complex dimension the number of cusps near the hyperbolic representation. It seems natural to ask whether some representations remain discrete after deformation. The answer is generically not. A simple reason for it lies inside the cusps: the degeneracy of the peripheral representation (i.e. representations of fundamental groups of the peripheral tori). They indeed generically become non-discrete, except for a countable set. This last set corresponds to hyperbolic Dehn surgeries on , for which the peripheral representation is no more faithful.We work here in the framework of . The hyperbolic structure lifts, via the -dimensional…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
