Strongly Contracting Geodesics in a tree of spaces
Abhijit Pal
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur
[email protected]
and
Suman Paul
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhopal
[email protected]
Abstract.
Let X be a tree of proper geodesic spaces with edge spaces strongly contracting and uniformly separated from each other by a number depending on the contraction function
of edge spaces. Then we prove that the strongly contracting geodesics in vertex spaces are quasiconvex in X. We further prove that in X if all the vertex spaces are uniformly hyperbolic metric spaces then X is a hyperbolic metric space and vertex spaces are quasiconvex in X.
Research of the first author was supported by INSPIRE Research Grant
AMS Subject Classification : 20F65, 20F67, 20E08
1. Introduction
Let X be a geodesic metric space. A subset Q of a geodesic metric space X is said to be strongly contracting if there exists a constant σ≥0 such that the diameter of the projection of balls, disjoint from Q, into Q is at most σ. For example, the geodesics and horoballs of upper half space with Poincaré metric are strongly contracting. Using strongly contracting geodesics, Charney-Sultan [Charney15] gave the notion of ‘contracting’ boundary for a CAT(0) space which is an analogue of the Gromov boundary. The concept of contracting projection has created a lot of interest in recent times, we refer the reader to look into the work of
Arzhantseva, Cashen, Gruber, and Hume in [ACGH] for more details about the other contraction properties of subspaces.
Given a finite collection of groups satisfying a property P, the combination type problems deal with the question that then when does the fundamental group of the graph of groups formed by that collection satisfy the property P. One such case is the celebrated work of M.Bestvina and M.Feighn [best] in 1992, where they have found a combination theorem of finite graphs of hyperbolic groups. Given a graph of groups (G,Λ) over a finite graph Λ, there exists a tree of spaces X where the underlying tree is the Bass-Serre covering tree such that the fundamental group π1(G,Λ) of (G,Λ) acts properly and co-compactly on X. An action of a group G on a simplicial tree T is called acylindrical if there exists k≥1 such that no non-trivial element of G fixes point-wise a segment of length k in T .
I.Kapovich in [kapo] showed that for a
finite graph of hyperbolic groups (G,Λ) with edge groups quasi-isometrically embedded in vertex groups if the fundamental group π1(G,Λ)
acts acylindrically on the Bass-Serre covering tree then π1(G,Λ) is hyperbolic and all vertex groups are quasiconvex in the π1(G,Λ).
In this article we prove the following:
Theorem 1 (See Theorem 3.2)*
Let N≥1 and σ≥0. There exists
R=R(N,σ)≥1 such that the following holds:
Let X be a tree of proper geodesic spaces where all edge spaces are
σ-contracting and uniformly R-separated. Let η be a strongly contracting geodesic in a vertex space.
Then every (N,0)-quasi-geodesic of X with end points in η lies in a bounded
neighbourhood of η where the bound depends only on N,σ and the contraction constant of η.
*A subspace Y of X is said to be k-quasiconvex if all geodesics of X with endpoints in Y lie in a k-neighbourhood of Y.
By taking N=1 in Theorem 1, we have the following corollary:
Corollary :*
For all σ≥0 there exists a number R≥1 depending only on σ such that the following holds:
Let X be a tree of proper geodesic spaces whose edge spaces are σ-contracting and uniformly R-separated.
Then every strongly contracting geodesic γ of a vertex space is quasiconvex in X, where the quasiconvexity constant depends only on σ and the contraction constant of γ.
*As an application of Theorem 1, we will prove the following theorem in the last section.
Theorem 2
(See Theorem 4.3)*
Let X be a tree of proper geodesic spaces.
If all the vertex spaces are uniformly hyperbolic metric spaces, edge spaces are uniformly quasiconvex in vertex spaces
and they are sufficiently uniformly separated then the space X is a hyperbolic metric space and vertex spaces are quasiconvex in X.
*Acknowledgements: We are thankful to the anonymous referee for his/her valuable comments.
2. Strong Contraction
Let (X,d) be a geodesic metric space and Q be a subspace of X. The nearest point projection of a point x∈X to Q is given by
πQ(x)={z∈Q:d(x,z)=d(x,Q)}. If Q is closed and X is proper then πQ(x) is always non-empty.
Definition 2.1**.**
(Strongly Contracting Subspace) Let σ≥0. We say that Q is σ-contracting if for all x,y∈X,
[TABLE]
We say that Q is strongly contracting if Q is σ-contracting for some σ≥0.
Theorem 2.2**.**
( Geodesic Image Theorem [ACGH], Theorem 7.1)
Q is a σ-contracting subspace of a geodesic space X if and only if there exists constants κσ′ and κσ
such that for any geodesic γ in X lying outside κσ-neighborhood
of Q, the diameter of πQ(γ) is at most κσ′, where κσ′ and κσ depend only on σ.
For the sake of completeness, we give here a proof of a quasification of Geodesic Image Theorem 2.2.
The proof is adaptation of the arguments
used in [ACGH].
Theorem 2.3**.**
(Bounded Quasi-geodesic Image) Let Q be a σ-contracting
subspace of a geodesic space X. Suppose
β:[0,l]→X is a continuous (K,0)-quasi-geodesic lying outside
D-neighborhood of Q, where
D=D(K,σ)=2([K]+1)σ, l=l(β) is the length of β and [0,l] is the arc
length parameterization of β .
Then diam(πQ(β(0))∪πQ(β(l))<4D.
Proof.
Let β(0)=x and β(l)=y.
Case(i): l(β)≤K(d(x,Q)+d(y,Q)).
It imply either l(β)≤2Kd(x,Q) or l(β)≤2Kd(y,Q).
Suppose
[TABLE]
Let us first assume the distance between β and Q is realised at x i.e.
d(β([0,l]),Q)=d(x,Q). Let 0=t0<t1<...<tn=l be a partition of [0,l]
such that l(β∣[ti,ti+1])=d(x,Q) for all 0≤i≤n−2
and l(β∣[tn−1,tn])≤d(x,Q). Note that n is at most
[2K]+1. For each i,
d(β(ti),β(ti+1))≤l(β∣[ti,ti+1])=d(x,Q)≤d(β(ti),Q). Q is σ-contracting implies
\mboxdiam(πQ(β(ti))∪πQ(β(ti+1)))≤σ for all i.
[TABLE]
If distance between β and Q is not realised at x then let s∈[0,l]
such that d(β([0,l]),Q)=d(β(s),Q). Divide β in two parts
β′ and β′′ such that β′=β∣[0,s] and
β′′=β∣[s,l]. After suitable re-parametrization of β′ and
β′′
we have that distances d(β′,Q),d(β′′,Q) are realized at the starting
points of β′,β′′ respectively. As above, union of nearest point
projections of end points of β′,β′′ have diameters at most
[2K]+1. So, l(β)≤2Kd(x,Q)
implies \mboxdiam (πQ(x))∪πQ(y))≤2([2K]+1). For
l(β)≤2Kd(y,Q) we take the re-parametrization
βˉ(t)=β(l−t), t∈[0,l], and repeat the same argument for βˉ
as above.
Case(ii) : l(β)>K(d(x,Q)+d(y,Q)).
Let t1∈[0,l] be such that l(β∣[0,t1])=Kd(x,Q). Then our assumption
forces l(β∣[t1,l])>Kd(y,Q).
By replacing 2K with K in the inequality (1) and repeating the
same argument as in case (i),
we have \mboxdiam(πQ(β(0))∪πQ(β(t1)))≤2([K]+1)σ.
We will define inductively
the points ti in [0,l] such that they form a partition of [0,l] and
l(β∣[ti−1,ti])=Kd(β(ti−1,Q)).
Suppose we have defined the points t0,t1,...,ti. If l(β∣[ti,l])≤K(d(β(ti),Q)+d(y,Q)) then by case (i)
\mboxdiam(πQ(β(ti))∪πQ(β(l)))≤2([2K]+1)σ and
we define ti+1=l.
Otherwise if l(β∣[ti,l])>K(d(β(ti),Q)+d(y,Q)) define
ti+1∈[ti,l] to be the point such that
l(β∣[ti,ti+1])=Kd(β(ti),Q). Again this will imply
l(β∣[ti+1,l])>Kd(y,Q). Let tr be the last index
for which l(β∣[tr,l])>K(d(β(tr),Q)+d(y,Q)) and define tr+1=l.
Let D=2([K]+1)σ and
βi=β∣[ti,ti+1] for all i∈{0,1,...,r}.
[TABLE]
Also, β being (K,0)-quasi-geodesic, we have
[TABLE]
From (3)& (5) and as d(x,Q)=d(x,πQ(x)), we have
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
By construction of the point tr, l(βr)−Kd(y,Q)>0, so from (6) we have
[TABLE]
As per hypothesis, β lies outside 2D-neighborhood of Q, so d(β,Q)>2D.
This implies
d(β(ti),Q)>2D and hence D<d(β(ti),Q)−D.
So, from (7), we have
[TABLE]
∎
Notation : For a path α:[a,b]→X with p=α(s), q=α(t) and s<t, we denote α∣pq to be the subsegment of α between p and q. We denote ℓX(α∣pq) to be the length of α∣pq in X.
Lemma 2.4**.**
*Let Q be σ-contracting and properly embedded in a geodesic metric space (X,d). Then
(i) any (N,0)-quasi-geodesic between two points of Q lies in a M=M(N,σ)-neighbourhood of Q,
where M(N,σ)=(3N+1)D(N,σ) and D=D(N,σ) is the constant from Theorem 2.3, depends only on N and σ.
(ii) there exists K≥1 depending only on σ such that Q is (K,K)-quasi-isometrically embedded in X.*
Proof.
(i) Let x,y∈Q and γ be (N,0)-quasi-geodesic between x and y. Let γ∣pq be a maximal connected subsegment of γ which lie outside
D neighbourhood of Q, then
d(p,Q)=D=d(q,Q) and diam(πQ(p),πQ(q))<4D (By Theorem 2.3)
So ℓX(γ∣pq)≤Nd(p,q)<N(2D+4D)=6ND.
Now for any z∈γ∣pq then either ℓX(γ∣pz)<3ND or ℓX(γ∣zq)<3ND and therefore d(z,Q)<3ND+D=(3N+1)D. This holds for any maximal connected subsegment of γ which lie outside D-neighbourhood of Q. Hence γ lies in the M-neighbourhood of Q.
(ii) Let x,y∈Q and γ:[0,l]→X be a X-geodesic with γ(0)=x and γ(l)=y. Let xi=γ(i) where i∈{1,...,[l]}.
Then d(x,x1)=1,d(xi,xi+1)=1,...,d(x[l],xl)≤1. From (i), γ lies in 4D(1,σ)-neighbourhood of Q, as geodesics are (1,0)-quasi-geodesics. Hence, d(xi,πQ(xi))≤4D(1,σ). This implies, d(πQ(xi),πQ(xi+1))≤8D(1,σ)+1. As Q is properly embedded in X, there exists K=K(D(1,σ))≥1 such that
[TABLE]
Now consecutively joining πQ(xi)’s by a Q-geodesic we obtain a path γ~ between x and y in Q.
And we have dQ(x,y)≤ℓX(γ~)≤[l]K+K≤Kd(x,y)+K.
∎
Lemma 2.5**.**
Let σ≥0. Let C1:=5D(1,σ) and D1:=8D(1,σ), where D(1,σ) is the constant from Theorem 2.3 for N=1. Let Q1 and Q2 be σ-contracting in X then
d(Q1,Q2)>C1⟹diam(πQ1(Q2))<D1.
Proof.
Fix a point x0∈Q2. Let x be an arbitrary point in Q2 and γ be a X-geodesic between x0 and x.
Then by Lemma 2.4, γ lies in 4D(1,σ)-neighbourhood of Q2 (Note that geodesics are (1,0)-quasi-geodesics).
Now d(Q1,Q2)>C1=5D(1,σ) implies d(γ,Q1)>D(1,σ). Then by Theorem 2.3
diam(πQ1(x0)∪πQ1(x))<4D(1,σ).
Hence diam(πQ1(Q2))<2×4D(1,σ)=8D(1,σ)=D1.
∎
2.1. Tree of Spaces
Definition 2.6**.**
*(1) (Tree of Geodesic Spaces:) Let (X,dX) be a proper geodesic metric space.
P:X→T is said to be a tree of geodesic
metric spaces if X
admits a surjective map P:X→T onto a simplicial tree T, such that the following holds:
i) For all s∈T,
Xs=P−1(s)⊂X with the induced path metric dXs is
a geodesic metric space Xs.
(ii) For a vertex v in T, Xv=P−1(v) will be called as vertex space for v. Let e be an edge of T between vertices v1 and
v2.
Let Xe be the preimage under P of the mid-point of e, Xe will be called as edge space for e.
There exist a continuous map fe:Xe×[0,1]→X, such that
fe∣Xe×(0,1) is an isometry onto the preimage of the
interior of e equipped with the path metric.
The maps fe∣Xe×{0} and
fe∣Xe×{1} are proper
embeddings into Xv1 and Xv2 respectively.
(2) (Edge Spaces Separation:) Let P:X→T be a tree of geodesic metric spaces. For an edge e of T between vertices v1 and v2, let fe,v1:Xe→Xv1 be defined by fe,v1(x)=fe(x,0) and fe,v2:Xe→Xv2 be defined by fe,v2(x)=fe(x,1).
The edge spaces in P:X→T are said to be R-uniformly separated
if for any two distinct edges e,e′ of T with a common vertex v we have
dX(fe,v(Xe),fe′,v(Xe′)≥R.*
Definition 2.7**.**
(Strongly contracting edge spaces) Let σ≥0. We say that the edge spaces of a tree of spaces P:X→T
are σ-contracting in vertex spaces if for all edge spaces Xe, fe(Xe×{0}) and
fe(Xe×{1}) are σ-contracting in respective vertex spaces.
3. Main Theorem
Let P:X→T be a tree of proper geodesic spaces.
The edge space Xe corresponding to an edge e defined in Definition 2.6 are identified to respective end vertex spaces with the help of maps fe∣Xe×{0} and
fe∣Xe×{1}, so we will call fe(Xe×{0}) and
fe(Xe×{1}) also to be edge spaces.
For an edge e, we denote fe(Xe×{0}) by Ye− and fe(Xe×{1}) by Ye+.
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let N≥1 and σ≥0. There exists
R=R(N,σ)≥1 such that the following holds:
Let P:X→T be a tree of proper geodesic spaces where all edge spaces are
σ-contracting and uniformly R-separated. Let e be a directed edge with terminal vertex v. Let x,y be two points in the edge space Ye+. Let γ:[0,l]→X be a
(N,0)-quasi-geodesic with γ(0)=x,γ(l)=y
such that P(γ)∩e={v} and for all t∈(0,l), γ(t)∈Ye+. Then γ does not intersect any other edge space other than Ye+.
Proof.
Let CN=5D(N,σ), where the constant D(N,σ) is as in Theorem 2.3. Let R=R(N,σ)=(2N+1)CN+2ND1+12D(N,σ)+1, where
D1=8D(1,σ) is the constant from Lemma 2.5.
If possible, let γ intersect other edge spaces non-trivially. Let e1,...,em be the edges incident on v such that γ intersects the edge spaces Ye1−,...,Yem−.
For each Yei− intersected by γ, let γ(si) be the first entry point and γ(ti) be the
last exit point. Replace the portion γ∣(si,ti) by a geodesic in Yei− joining γ(si) and γ(ti).
This results in a path γv in Xv joining x and y.
Consider the CN-neighbourhood of Ye+ in Xv.
If possible, let there exists a maximal connected subsegment, γv′, of γv which lie outside the CN-neighbourhood of Ye+. Let n be the number of edge spaces intersected by γv′.
Let p and q be the endpoints of γv′.
Since dX(Ye+,Yei−)≥R, where R>CN>C1, so p and q will lie in γ∩Xv.
As γv′ is the maximal connected subsegment of γv lying outside the CN-neighbourhood of Ye+, we have
dXv(p,Ye+)=CN=dXv(q,Ye+). As Ye+ is σ-contracting, by Lemma 2.5 the diameter of projection of Yei− into Ye+ is at most D1 and the diameter of projection into Ye+ of a component of γ∩Xv lying outside the CN-neighbourhood of Ye+ is at most 4D(N,σ) by Theorem 2.2.
Now projecting γv′ to Ye+, we get
(n−1)R≤ℓX(γ∣pq)≤NdX(p,q)≤NdXv(p,q)≤N(2CN+nD1+(n+1)(4D(N,σ)))
Case (i) : Suppose n=1. Then ℓX(γ∣pq)≤NdX(p,q)≤NdXv(p,q)≤N(2CN+D1+8D(N,σ)).
So, the length of the portion of the quasi-geodesic γ between p and γ(s1) is at most N(2CN+D1+8D(N,σ)) and hence dX(p,Ye1−)≤N(2CN+D1+8D(N,σ)).
This implies,
[TABLE]
Thus R≤(2N+1)CN+ND1+8D(N,σ) which is a contradiction.
Case (ii) : Suppose n>1. Then
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction.
Hence, γv⊂Nbhd(Ye+;CN)⊂Xv. As edge spaces are R-separated and R>CN,
γv does not intersect any other edge space other than Ye+. This also implies that, γv=γ and hence γ does not intersect any other incident edge spaces.
∎
The underlying idea of Lemma 3.1 is present in the work of Szczepanski [szczepanski].
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let N≥1 and σ≥0. There exists
R=R(N,σ)≥1 such that the following holds:
Let P:X→T be a tree of proper geodesic spaces where all edge spaces are
σ-contracting and uniformly R-separated. Let η be a strongly contracting geodesic in a vertex space.
Then every (N,0)-quasi-geodesic of X with end points in η lies in a bounded
neighbouhood of η where the bound depends only on N,σ and the contraction constant of η.
Proof.
Let η be a ρ-contracting geodesic of a vertex space Xv for some ρ≥0. Let x,y∈η.
Let α:[0,l]→X be an arc length parameterization of a (N,0)-quasi-geodesic of X with α(0)=x,α(l)=y.
Without loss of generality, we assume α(t)∈η, for all t∈(0,l), i.e. α does not intersect η other than the end points. Then
P(α) will have diameter at most one by Lemma 3.1.
Let s(1),s(2),...,s(l) be the edges of P(α) incident on v. Let vi be another vertex of s(i). If αik
is a portion of α such that the end points of αik lie in fs(i)(Xs(i)×{1}) and P(αik)∩s(i)={vi}
then from Lemma 3.1, αik does not intersect other edge spaces in Xvi and αik lies in Xvi.
Let aik,bik be end points of αik. Then ℓXvi(αik)=ℓX(αik)≤NdX(aik,bik)≤NdXvi(aik,bik). This implies αik is a (N,0)-quasi-geodesic in Xvi. Similarly, if αik
is a portion of α such that the end points of αik lie in fs(i)(Xs(i)×{0}) and P(αik)∩s(i)={v} then αik is a (N,0)-quasi-geodesic in Xv.
Let βi be the maximal subsegment of α, containing all such αik’s, such that the end points of βi lie in fs(i)(Xs(i)×{0})=Ys(i)−. The Hausdorff distance between Ys(i)− and Ys(i)+ is at most one and as Ys(i)−,Ys(i)+ are σ-contracting in respective vertex spaces, so by Lemma 2.4 there exists M>0 depending on N,σ such that βi lies in the M+1-neighbourhood of Ys(i)−. Let M′=M+1.
Let pi,qi be end points of βi. Then pi,qi∈Ys(i)−⊂Xv. Now following the proof of Lemma 2.4 (ii), we divide βi into βi1∪βi2∪...∪βin(i) such that the length of βij is one for all j=1,2,...,n(i)−1 and the length of βin(i) is at most one. Let xij and xij+1 be the end points of βij.
Now for each j there exists yij∈Ys(i)− such that d_{X}\big{(}x_{i}^{j},y_{i}^{j}\big{)}\leq M^{\prime}.
Note that xi1=yi1=pi and xin(i)+1=yin(i)+1=qi and dX(yij,yij+1)≤2M′+1 for all j. Since Xv is properly embedded in X, there exists K′=K′(M′)≥1 such that dXv(yij,yij+1)≤K′, for all j. Successively joining yij and yij+1 by a geodesic in Xv for every j we get a path βi~ between pi and qi in Xv such that βi and βi~ lie in M′+K′-neighbourhood of each other. Now
[TABLE]
For any yi,yi′∈βi~ there exists yij,yj′∈βi~ such that βi~∣yiyi′⊂βi~∣yijyij′,
dXv(yi,yij)≤K′ and dXv(yi′,yij′)≤K′. Thus,
dX(yi,xij)≤M′+K′, dX(yi′,xij′)≤M′+K′ and
[TABLE]
The above process results in a truncated path β~ in Xv which is concatenation of βi~’s and subsegments of α, say ξi, which lies in Xv connecting two consecutive βi~’s (See Figure-1).
Figure - 1
We claim that the truncated path β~ is quasi-geodesic in Xv. Let c,d be two points in β~ and ℓXv(β~∣cd) be the length of β~ between c and d.
Case 1: c∈ξk and d∈ξm for some k and m.
[TABLE]
Case 2: c∈β~k and d∈β~m for some k and m.
There exists c′∈βk and d′∈βm such that
dX(c,c′)≤M′+K′ and dX(d,d′)≤M′+K′.
[TABLE]
Case 3: c∈β~k and d∈ξm.
There exists c′∈βk such that dX(c,c′)≤M′+K′.
[TABLE]
Hence β~ is a (2NK′,4NK′(M′+K′)+2K′)-quasi-geodesic in Xv, where M′=M+1. Note that K′,M depends on N,σ.
As η is ρ-contracting there exists κ=κ(N,σ,ρ)>0 such that β~⊂Nbhd(η;κ) (Contracting ⇒ Morse, Theorem 1.3 of [ACGH]). Also α⊂Nbhd(β~;M+1+K′). Hence α⊂Nbhd(η;κ+M+1+K′).
∎
By taking N=1 in Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 3.2, we have the following corollary
Corollary 3.3**.**
*Let σ≥0. There exists
R=R(σ)≥1 such that the following holds:
Let X be a tree of proper geodesic spaces where all edge spaces are
σ-contracting and uniformly R-separated.
(i)
Let e be a directed edge with terminal vertex v. Let x,y be two points in the space Ye+. Let γ:[0,l]→X be a
X-geodesic with γ(0)=x,γ(l)=y
such that P(γ)∩e={v} and for all t∈(0,l), γ(t)∈Ye+,
Then the geodesic γ does not intersect any other edge space other than Ye+.
(ii) Every strongly contracting geodesic γ in a vertex space is quasiconvex in X, where the quasiconvexity constant depends only on σ and the contraction constant of γ.*
Example 3.4**.**
Let G be a finitely generated group with a finitely generated subgroup H. Let ΓG denote the Cayley graph of G
with respect to some finite generating set.
Let K be a coset of H in G. We construct a one dimensional simplicial complex H(K) corresponding to K, it is called combinatorial horoball.
[math]-skeleton of H(K), H(K)(0):=K(0)×({0,1,2,⋯}),
1-skeleton of H(K),
\mathcal{H}{}(K)^{(1)}:=\big{\{}[(v,0),(w,0)]:v,w\in K^{(0)},[v,w]\in K^{(1)}\big{\}}\cup\big{\{}[(v,k),(w,k)]:v,w\in K^{(0)},k>0,d_{K}(v,w)\leq 2^{k}\big{\}}\cup\big{\{}[(v,k),(v,k+1)]:v\in K^{(0)},\geq 0\big{\}}.
Let ΓGh be the space obtained by gluing
H(K) to K in the Cayley graph ΓG.
Suppose G is hyperbolic relative to H.
Then the augmented space ΓGh is hyperbolic and G acts properly discontinuously on ΓGh.
We consider a subcomplex Hmc(K) of H(K) whose [math]-skeleton is K(0)×({m+1,m+2,⋯}).
Let (ΓG)(m)=ΓGh\Hmc(K).
Then G will act properly discontinuously and co-compactly on (ΓG)(m) . Next we consider the subcomplex of ΓGh
whose [math]-skeleton is K(0)×({m}) and denote it by Hm(K).
It is known that peripheral subspaces are strongly contracting, for instance see Lemma 2.3 of [sisto]. So, K’s are strongly contracting in ΓG.
The Hausdorff distance between Hm(K) and H0(K)=K is bounded by m.
Let A be a subset of diameter r
in H0(K) then the projection of A into Hm(K) has diameter at most 2mr in Hm(K). Thus, Hm(K)’s
are strongly contracting in (ΓG)(m) and if
the contraction constants for H0(K),Hm(K) are respectively κ0,κm then κm≤κ0.
Then we can choose large enough m0 such that Hm0(K) and
Hm0(K′) are R(κ0)-separated for all distinct K and K′.
Let T be the Bass-Serre tree of the graph of groups G∗HG. For every vertex of T take a copy of (ΓG)(m)
and glue along appropriate translations of Hm(K) whenever there is an edge between two vertices.
So we get a tree of spaces, say X, where the conjugates of G
in G∗HG act properly discontinuously and co-compactly on the respective vertex spaces.
Let α be a strongly contracting geodesic in ΓG. Since the Hausdorff distance between (ΓG)(m) and ΓG is at most m, α is strongly contracting in (ΓG)(m). As, X satisfies all the assumptions of Corollary 3.3, α is quasi-convex in X. Note that the group G∗HG acts properly discontinuously and co-compactly on X, hence G∗HG is quasi-isometric to X (by Švarc-Milnor Lemma). Thus, there exists P≥1,ϵ≥0 such that
α is (P,ϵ)-quasi-geodesic in G∗HG.
4. Applications
Let δ≥0. A geodesic triangle T is said to be δ-slim if each side of T is contained in the δ-neighborhood of union of other two sides of T. A geodesic metric space X is said to be δ-hyperbolic metric space if all the triangles of X are δ-slim. A geodesic metric space is said to be hyperbolic if it is δ-hyperbolic for some δ≥0.
Here we give a characterization of hyperbolic metric space, which we will used later.
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let Y be a geodesic metric space. Y is hyperbolic if and only if there exists some δ>0 such that all (3,0)-quasi geodesic bigons are δ-slim (Here δ-slimness of bigon means that the Hausdorff distance between the two sides is atmost δ).
Proof.
(⇒) Suppose Y is hyperbolic. Then from the stability of quasi-geodesics (Theorem 1.7, Pg.401, of [bridson]), it follows that (3,0)-quasi-geodesics bigons are slim.
(⇐) Suppose, there exists some δ>0 such that all (3,0)-quasi geodesic bigons are δ-slim. Let ABC be an arbitrary triangle in Y with sides a, b and c (sides a, b and c are opposite to the vertices A, B and C respectively). Let D be a nearest point projection of vertex A to the side a. Then α1=AD∪DB and α2=AD∪DC are (3,0)-quasi geodesics. So, we have two (3,0)-quasi geodesic bigons, namely b∪α1 and c∪α2. Now from our assumption, b is in the δ-neighbourhood of α1 and α2 is in the δ-neighbourhood of c. Hence, δ-neighbourhood of a∪c contains α1∪α2 and so 2δ-neighbourhood of a∪c contains b. Similarly, 2δ-neighbourhood of a∪b contains c.
Again, taking the nearest point projection of the vertex B to the side b, we can show that a is contained in 2δ-neighbourhood of b∪c. This proves that the triangle ABC is 2δ-slim. Therefore, Y is a hyperbolic metric space.
∎
The following theorem, due to Gromov, is a generalization of the fact that all triangles of a hyperbolic space are uniformly slim. Here we state a part of the version of the theorem given by Bestvina & Feighn in [best].
Theorem 4.2**.**
*(See Section 3 of [best] )(Resolution of Polygons of Hyperbolic Spaces) Let δ≥0.
Let Z be a δ-hyperbolic metric space. Let Δ:D2→Z be a disk with boundary a n-sided (K,ϵ)-quasi-geodesic polygon. Then there exist a function B(δ,n,K,ϵ) (depending on δ, n, K and ϵ only) and a finite R-tree S with a map r:D2→S such that:
(1) there are n number of valence one vertices in S,
(2) dZ(Δ(a),Δ(b))≤dS(r(a),r(b))+B(δ,n,K,ϵ), for all a,b∈S1,
(3) for all s∈S, r−1(s) is properly embedded finite tree in D2,
(4) if e is an edge of S, then r restricted to r−1(interior(e)) is an I-bundle, where I=[0,1].*
Here note that, if two points p=Δ(a) and q=Δ(b) of Δ are identified in S, that is r(a)=r(b), then the distance between them in Z is at most B(δ,n,K,ϵ). A fiber r−1(s) of a resolution is called a singular fiber if r−1(s) is not isomorphic to I.
Theorem 4.3**.**
Let δ,σ≥0. Then there exists R~=R~(δ,σ) such that the following holds :
Let P~:X~→T~ be a tree of proper geodesic metric spaces. Suppose all the vertex spaces are δ- hyperbolic, edge spaces are uniformly σ-contracting and R~-separated then X~ is hyperbolic.
Proof.
For a tree of hyperbolic metric spaces P:X→T,
the vertex spaces are hyperbolic metric spaces and hence geodesics in a vertex space are uniformly strongly contracting (See Section 1.4 of [ACGH]). Thus, by Theorem 3.2, if we take
edge spaces to be σ-contracting and at least R=R(3,σ)-separated then
every (3,0)-quasi-geodesic of X having end points in an edge space does not intersect other edge spaces. By Lemma 2.4, there exists K1≥1 depending only on σ such that the edge spaces are (K1,K1)-quasi-isometrically embedded in the respective vertex spaces. Also, there exists K2≥1 and ϵ2≥0 depending only on σ and not on the separation constant R such that the portion of a (3,0)-quasi-geodesic of X with end points in a vertex space of P:X→T gives rise to a truncated (K2,ϵ2)-quasi-geodesic in that vertex space.
Let K=max{K1,K2,ϵ2,3} and R~=max{R(3,σ),B(δ,4,K,K)+1}, where B(δ,n,K,ϵ) is the constant from Theorem 4.2. Then K depends only on σ and R~ depends only on δ,σ.
We will apply the characterization given in Proposition 4.1, to prove that X~ is hyperbolic.
Let x, y be any two points of X~ and γ1, γ2 be two (3,0)-quasi geodesics between x and y in X~. So, γ1∪γ2 gives a (3,0)-quasi geodesic bigon in X~. We will show that γ1 and γ2 lie in a bounded neighborhood of each other where the bound depends only on δ and σ. We γ1,γ2 to be parameterized by arc-length.
For an edge e, the map fe:X~e×(0,1)→X~ is an isometry onto its image. For the convenience of notation, we denote the space fe(X~e×(0,1)) by X~e×(0,1).
Let e1 be the edge with terminal vertex v1 such that x∈X~e1×(0,1)⊔X~v1 and
en+1 be the edge with initial vertex vn such that y∈X~vn⊔X~en+1×(0,1). Let e1,v1,e12,v2,e23,v3,...,vn,en+1 be the all vertices and edges in order lying on the geodesic between P~(x) and P~(y) in T~. The paths P~(γ1) and P~(γ1) in T~ will contain e1,v1,e12,v2,e23,v3,...,vn,en+1 of T, that means γ1 and γ2 will intersect the spaces X~e1×(0,1)⊔X~v1,X~e12×(0,1),...,X~vn⊔X~en+1×(0,1).
For i=1,2,...n, let pi1 (respectively pi2) be the first entry point and qi1 (respectively qi2) be the last exit point of γ1 (respectively γ2) to X~vi. If x∈X~v1 then we take p11=p12=x and if y∈X~vn then we take q11=q12=y.
By Theorem 3.2, the subsegments \gamma_{1}\big{|}_{p^{1}_{i}}^{q^{1}_{i}} and \gamma_{2}\big{|}_{p^{2}_{i}}^{q^{2}_{i}} of γ1 and γ2 respectively lie in a uniformly bounded neighborhood of X~vi. The truncated paths γi1 and γi2 in X~vi obtained from γ1 and γ2 respectively are (K2,ϵ2) quasi geodesics and the Hausdorff distance between γi1 (respectively γi2) and \gamma_{1}\big{|}_{p^{1}_{i}}^{q^{1}_{i}} (respectively \gamma_{2}\big{|}_{p^{2}_{i}}^{q^{2}_{i}}) is uniformly bounded by a number, say L, where L depends on σ only. We join pi1 and pi2 by a geodesic in X~ei−1,i×{1} and call it βi1. Similarly we join qi1 and qi2 by a geodesic in X~ei,i+1×{0} and call it βi2.
The edge spaces are (K1,K1)-quasi-isometrically embedded in the vertex spaces. Hence βi1 and βi2 are (K1,K1)-quasi-geodesics in X~vi for all i. We denote the subsegments of γ1 (respectively γ2) between qi−11 and pi1 (respectively qi−12 and pi2) by γi−1,i1 (respectively γi−1,i2). Note that γi−1,ij lies in X~ei−1,i×[0,1], where j=1,2.
As K=max{K1,K2,ϵ2,3}, for each i=1,2,...n, we have a disk Δi:D2→X~vi with boundary a (K,K)-quasi-geodesics 4-gon (quadrilateral) in X~vi, namely γi1∪βi2∪γi2∪βi1. If x∈X~v1 then the side β11 is the single point x and if y∈X~vn then the side βn2 is the single point y.
Also, for i=2,...,n, we have disks Δ[i−1,i]:D2→X~ei−1,i×[0,1] with boundary a (K,K) quasi geodesics 4-gon (quadrilateral) in X~ei−1,i×[0,1], namely γi−1,i1∪βi1∪γi−1,i2∪βi−12. If x∈X~e1×(0,1) (respectively y∈X~en+1×(0,1)) we have a disk Δe1:D2→X~e1×(0,1)
with boundary a (K,K)-quasi-geodesic triangle γ∣xp11∪β11∪γ∣xp12 and if y∈X~en+1×(0,1) we have a disk Δen+1:D2→X~en+1×(0,1) with boundary a (K,K)-quasi-geodesic triangle γ∣yqn1∪βn2∪γ∣yqn2.
The initial and terminal disks containing x,y respectively give rise to quasi-geodesic triangles where we get only single resolution for each disks by Theorem 4.2. Apart from the initial and terminal disks, by Theorem 4.2, we can have two types of resolutions ri:D2→Si, for each quadrilateral Δi (See Figure-2).
In the first type, we will have two points p∈βi1, q∈βi2 which are identified in the Si and so dX~vi(p,q)≤B(δ,4,K,K). And this contradicts the fact that edge spaces are R~-separated (Note that R~>B(δ,4,K,K)). Therefore, we will only have the second type for Δi’s.
Figure - 2
In the second type, there are maximal segments, Qi1 and Qi2 of γi1 and γi2 respectively, which are identified pointwise in Si. And so Hausdorff distance between those segments is at most B(δ,4,K,K). Let ui1 (respectively ui2) and vi1 (respectively vi2) be the end points of Qi1 (respectively Qi2). Note that ui1 and ui2 (respectively vi1 and vi2) are identified in Si. Also there exist wi1∈βi1 such that wi1 is identified with ui1 and ui2 in Si.
Similarly, we will have resolutions for Δ[i−1,i]’s. Here two types of resolution are possible. Now consider Δ[i−1,i] and Δi. Note that they have a common side, namely βi1. Depending on the type of resolution for Δ[i−1,i], we will have to consider two cases.
Case I: Δ[i−1,i] has type-2 resolution.
Take any point u∈γi1∣pi1ui1, then there exists wu∈βi1 such that dX~(u,wu)≤B(δ,4,K,K). From the resolution of Δ[i−1,i] there will exists wu′ in either γi−1,i1 or γi−1,i2 such that dX~(wu,wu′)≤B(δ,4,K,K). Hence, dX~(u,wu′)≤2B(δ,4,K,K).
Let S[i−1,i] be the finite tree and r[i−1,i]:D2→S[i−1,i] be the map as in Theorem 4.2
corresponding to the type-2 resolution of Δ[i−1,i]. There exists three points si−1,11∈γi−1,11, si−1,12∈γi−1,12 and si1∈βi1 such that the set {si−1,11,si−1,12,si1} is mapped to a single vertex of S[i−1,i] under the map r[i−1,i] and diameter of the set {si−1,11,si−1,12,si1} is at most B(δ,4,K,K). Note that the points ui1∈γi1, ui2∈γi2 and wui1∈βi1 are mapped to a single vertex of the finite tree Si corresponding to the resolution of Δi. Now two sub-cases arise.
Sub-case 1: Suppose wui1 comes before si1 in βi1 (See Figure 3.1):
In this case dX~(ui1,wui1′)≤2B(δ,4,K,K). The Hausdorff distance between γi1 and γ1∣pi1qi1 is uniformly bounded by L. Hence, for each u∈γi1, there exists uˉ∈γ1 such that dX~(uˉ,u)≤L.
Thus, there exists uˉi1∈γi1 such that dX~(ui1,uˉi1)≤L. By triangle inequality, dX~(uˉi1,wui1′)≤2B(δ,4,K,K)+L.
The path γ1 is a (3,0)-quasi-geodesic. So, the length of the subsegment of γ1 between uˉi1 and wui1′ is at most
3×(2B(δ,4,K,K)+L)=6B(δ,4,K,K)+3L. The quasi-geodesic γ1 passes through pi1, hence
dX~(ui1,pi1)≤dX~(ui1,uˉi1)+dX~(uˉi1,pi1)≤L+6B(δ,4,K,K)+3L=6B(δ,4,K,K)+4L. As vertex spaces are properly embedded in X~, there exists a positive number L′ depending on K such that dX~vi(ui1,pi1)≤L′. The truncated path γi1∣pi1ui1 between ui1 and pi1 is a (K,K)-quasi-geodesic in X~vi. Hence ℓ(γi1∣pi1ui1)≤KL′+K and we have dX~vi(u,ui1)≤KL′+K, as u∈γi1∣pi1ui1. So, dX~(u,ui2)≤KL′+K+2B(δ,4,K,K) and dX~(u,γ2)≤KL′+K+2B(δ,4,K,K)+L.
Figure 3.1