Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

For convenience we'll work in the hyperbolic upper half plane $H$. We are given a hyperbolic quadrilateral $Q$ with vertices $a,b,c,d$ and geodesic segment edges $[ a,b ]$ $[ b,c ]$ $[ c,d ]$ $[ d,a ]$. We are also given that $\angle abc=\angle bad=\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\rho_H([a,d])=\rho_H([b,c])$ where $\rho_H([x,y])$ is the hyperbolic length of the geodesic segment from $x$ to $y$. Can we conclude that $\rho_H([a,b])<\rho_H([c,d])$?

It's clear that by a transformation by an isometry, we can put the segment $[a,b]$ on the imaginary axis and then the segments $[a,d]$ and $[b,c]$ will be segments of half circles with centre at $0$ and of equal length, so the points $c$ and $d$ lie on the same 'ray' extending from the origin. This clearly implies that $\alpha=\angle bcd=\angle cda$ and, by the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem, we may also deduce that $0<Area_H(Q)=2\pi-(\frac{pi}{2}+\frac{pi}{2}+\alpha+\alpha)$ and so conclude that $\alpha<\frac{\pi}{2}$ (although this can be fairly easily seen graphically).

I feel like the proof that $\rho_H([a,b])<\rho_H([c,d])$ should be obvious and hinges on the fact that $0<\alpha<\frac{\pi}{2}$, but playing around with hyperbolic trigonometric identities has just led to a rather large mess.

I should point out that this was the beginning of an attempt to prove something which I have now proved using a different method. I am, however, curious to see if this method would have worked.

share|cite|improve this question
Don't you mean "$\rho_H([c,d]) > \rho_H([a,b])$"? – Blue Apr 21 '13 at 17:48
I do indeed. Thanks. – Dan Rust Apr 21 '13 at 17:51
up vote 1 down vote accepted

I'll use upper-case letters for points, and lower-case letters for distances.

Edit. As @Daniel mentions in his own answer, the $|AD|=|BC|$ condition is unnecessary. I've revised my answer to be more general.

We have quadrilateral $\square ABCD$ with right angles at $A$ and $B$. Write $p :=|AB|$, $q =|CD|$, $r = |AD|$, $s=|BC|$ for the edge lengths; finally, let $t=|BD|$ be the length of a diagonal.

In right triangle $\triangle ABD$, the Law of Cosines and Law of Sines give us $$\cosh t = \cosh p \cosh r \qquad\qquad \sinh r = \sinh t \sin \angle ABD$$ In $\triangle CBD$, we have $$\begin{align} \cosh q &= \cosh s \cosh t - \sinh s \sinh t \cos \angle CBD \\ &= \cosh s (\cosh p \cosh r) - \sinh s ( \sinh t \sin \angle ABD ) \\ &= \cosh p \cosh r \cosh s - \sinh r \sinh s\\ &= ( 2 \sinh^2 \frac{p}{2}+1) \cosh r \cosh s - \sinh r \sinh s \\ &= 2 \sinh^2\frac{p}{2} \cosh r \cosh s + \cosh(r-s) \end{align}$$ so that $$\begin{align} 2\sinh^2 \frac{q}{2} + 1 &= 2 \sinh^2\frac{p}{2} \cosh r \cosh s + \cosh(r-s) \\[6pt] 2\sinh^2 \frac{q}{2} &= 2 \sinh^2\frac{p}{2} \cosh r \cosh s + \cosh(r-s) - 1 \\[6pt] 2\sinh^2 \frac{q}{2} &= 2 \sinh^2\frac{p}{2} \cosh r \cosh s + 2\sinh^2\frac{r-s}{2} \\[6pt] \sinh^2 \frac{q}{2} &= \sinh^2\frac{p}{2} \cosh r \cosh s + \sinh^2\frac{r-s}{2} \end{align}$$

Clearly, then, $\sinh\frac{q}{2} \ge \sinh\frac{p}{2}$, so that $q\ge p$, with equality if and only if $r=s=0$.

share|cite|improve this answer
This is great. Thanks. Didn't even need to use $\alpha <\frac{\pi}{2}$. – Dan Rust Apr 21 '13 at 18:02

I'll add an answer to my own question in case anyone would like to see an alternative proof. This is based on the method I eventually ended up using, which I alluded to in the question. It has the disadvantage of not being as elementary as Blue's proof as it makes use of a rather general lemma about pairs of non-intersecting geodesics. The lemma is stated by the following:

Lemma If $l_1$ and $l_2$ are two geodesics in $H$ which do not intersect, then there exists a unique pair $z\in l_1$ and $w\in l_2$ such that $\rho_H(z,w)=\min\{\rho_H(x,y)|\:x\in l_1, y\in l_2\}$ and further, the unique geodesic $l$ passing through $z$ and $w$ is the unique geodesic which meets both $l_1$ and $l_2$ at right angle

Using the construction mentioned in the question, $Q$ can be moved isometrically so that $a$ and $b$ lie on the imaginary axis and and the segments $[a,d]$ and $[b,c]$ are segments of semicircles $l_1$ and $l_2$ centered at the origin.

Given that $l_1$ and $l_2$ do not intersect, we may use the above lemma and, given that the imaginary axis intersects $l_1$ and $l_2$ at right angles at $a$ and $b$, it follows that $a$ and $b$ must be the unique minimising pair of elements. We also know that $c\in l_2$ and $d\in l_1$ and $c\neq b$, $d\neq a$ and so can conclude that $\rho_H(a,b)<\rho_H(c,d)$.

This has the added bonus that we do not need the hypothesis that $\rho_H(a,d)=\rho_H(b,c)$, only that one is non-zero.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.