Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

As part of a course I'm taking this semester, I am studying surfaces from this book http://www.math.brown.edu/~res/Papers/surfacebook.pdf.

On page 142, the author presents a proof of the fact that every compact hyperbolic surface has a geodesic triangulation. The second sentence of the proof says that

"By compactness, there is some $d \in (0,1)$ such that every disk of radius $d$ on the surface is isometric to a disk of radius $d$ in $\mathbb{H}^2$."

I don't understand how compactness implies the existence of such a $d$. Could someone please explain how the author arrived at the conclusion.

Also, in the very next sentence, the author speaks about disks of radius $D/K$. I understand that $K$ is a constant which is specified later on in the proof, but what is $D$ here? I thought it may have been a typo (and in fact $d/K$ was intended) seeing as this pdf is only a draft copy of the book, but I went to Amazon and had a look at a preview of the book here http://www.amazon.com/Mostly-Surfaces-Student-Mathematical-Library/dp/0821853686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351257505&sr=8-1&keywords=mostly+surfaces, and there the $D$ is unchanged. So now I'm left confused.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Your first question is answered by a general fact from Riemannian geometry. If $M$ is a closed (complete by compactness) Riemannian manifold, then the injectivity radius is bounded away from zero.

Proof: If the injectivity radius weren't bounded away from zero, there would exist a sequence $x_k$ with injectivity radius at each point limiting to $0$ as $k\to\infty$. By compactness, pass to a convergent subequence. Examine $x=\lim x_k$. The exponential map at $x$ is a diffeomorphism of a small ball about zero in $T_xM$ onto its image in $M$. This image contains all but finitely many $x_k$. Connect each $x_k$ to $x$ by a geodesic; then extend the geodesic beyond $x$ by some fixed amount less than the radius at $x$. This geodesic is less than the injectivity radius at each $x_k$ and has strictly positive length so the injectivity radii of the $x_k$ could not have gone to $0$ after all.

So, on your surface $S$, there is a positive infimal geodesic length. That's $2d$. In this case, let's now move to the universal cover $\mathbb{H}^2$. Take any $p$ and identify it with some point in $\mathbb{H}^2$. Since geodesics on $S$ are exactly projections of geodesics in $\mathbb{H}^2$, we see that we can travel at least $d/2$ away from $p$ in $\mathbb{H}^2$ before the restriction of the projection becomes noninjective. Since the projection is a local isometry, we have the desired isometry between a disc of radius $d$ in $\mathbb{H}^2$ and a disc of radius $d$ around $p$ in $S$.

Here are two more perspectives.

  1. This is a more concrete way of seeing the previous argument. Lift $p$ to $\mathbb{H}^2$ and take a fundamental domain for the action of $\pi_1$ on $\mathbb{H}^2$ centered at $p$. This fundamental domain is a compact polygon. The previous discussion on injectivity radius shows that the boundary of the polygon is at least $d$ away from $p$, so the disc of radius $d$ about $p$ in $\mathbb{H}^2$ projects isometrically to the disc of radius $d$ about $p$ in $S$.
  2. On negatively curved closed manifolds, each free homotopy class of curves has a minimal geodesic representative. It's a fact that on closed hyperbolic surfaces, there is a shortest nontrivial geodesic; the length of this geodesic is twice the radius $d$.

The Amazon link doesn't let me look at page 142, but it seems to me that $D$ should in fact be $d$. Here's my informal interpretation, for what it's worth. The point of choosing $K$ is to make $X_p$ "dense enough" in $S$ so that every $N_p$ is contained in a disk of radius at most $d/2$. This gives that each $N_p\cup X_p$ is contained in a disk of radius $d$ that is isometric to a disk in $\mathbb{H}^2$, so that previous results about polygons in $\mathbb{H}^2$ apply.

But let's make sure that the argument works if we were to replace $D$ by $d$. Then if we were to we pick that $K$ is greater than, say, $6$, we'd be able to fit $3$ disjoint disks of radius $d/6$ in a circle of radius $d$ about $p\in X$. The triangle inequality would then force $X_p$, hence $N_p$, to be contained in $B_d(p)$, so unless I'm extra-flawed today, the argument would carry.

share|improve this answer
1  
Sorry but I don't see how this implies what I need about $d$. From the definition of $d$ you've given, why must now every disk of radius $d$ on the surface be isometric to some disk of radius $d$ in the hyperbolic plane? –  HJSprime Oct 26 '12 at 14:11
    
I'll rework the answer to better answer your question in a few hours. –  Neal Oct 26 '12 at 16:12
    
@HJSprime I've reworked the answer. I think it should do better than my first one :) –  Neal Oct 26 '12 at 19:35
    
Finally makes sense to me, thanks for the help. –  HJSprime Oct 27 '12 at 7:57
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.