2
$\begingroup$

I'm aware about the fact stated above, but I'm not able to find some references or proofs besides Gromov's Hyperbolic Groups - Essays in Group Theory. I'll state things precisely. I will consider a complete geodesic metric space $(X,d)$. Given $x,y\in X$, we denote any short geodesic joinning $x$ and $y$ by $[x,y]$.

Definition: a complete geodesic metric space $(X,d)$ is said to be Gromov $\delta$-hyperbolic if every geodesic triangle whose vertices are $x_1,x_2,x_3$ satisfy the following condition: the distance between any $x\in [x_i,x_j]$ and $[x_i,x_j]\cup[x_j,x_k]$ is less than $\delta$, where we take index $i,j,k$ mod.3

Definition: A complete geodesic metric space $(X,d)$ is (A,B)-quasi-convex if any two geodesic segments $\alpha,\beta:[0,1]\rightarrow X$ satisfy the following condition: $$d^H(\alpha([0,1]),\beta([0,1]))\leqslant A\max\{d(\alpha(0),\beta(0)),d(\alpha(1),\beta(1))\}+B$$ where $d^H$ is the Hausdorff distance.

Theorem: If $(X,d)$ is a complete geodesic metric space and is $\delta$-hyperbolic, then $(X,d)$ is $(A,B)$-quasi convex for some $A,B$.

Does anyone know some reference for the proof? It seems to be a well-known fact on the context. Any help will be really appreciated.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Brigson and Haefliger discuss quasiconvexity in their book Metric spaces of nonpositive curvature (pp 460-464), but only in the context of hyperbolic groups. Their definition of quasiconvexity is similar to what you have, but it only has the upper bound. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Aug 7 '14 at 0:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks again for helping. That is what was missing for me to change the statement of the question. $\endgroup$ – matgaio Aug 11 '14 at 1:56
2
$\begingroup$

The upper bound, though I have not seen it written in precisely this form, is a quick consequence of the thinness of triangles. Here is something from A Course in Metric Geometry by Burago, Burago, Ivanov:

Lemma 8.4.2 A shortest path $[ab]$ belongs to the $(d(b,c)+\delta)$-neighborhood of a shortest path $[ac]$.

The authors omit the proof, which is easy: $[ab]$ is in the $\delta$-neighborhood of $[ac]\cup [bc]$, and the latter set is in the $d(b,c)$-neighborhood of $[ac]$.

Applying the above lemma twice (moving endpoints of geodesic one at a time), you'll get $$d^H(\alpha([0,1]),\beta([0,1])) \leqslant d(\alpha(0),\beta(0)) + d(\alpha(1),\beta(1)) +2\delta$$ which gives the right hand side with $A=2$, $B=2\delta$.


The left hand side cannot hold as stated: what if $\alpha,\beta$ are the same long geodesic path traveled in different directions?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps I'm not figuring out what you mean by "moving endpoints of geodesics one at a time". Could you, if it doesn't bother you, perhaps fill out a little bit more details? Thank you very much again. $\endgroup$ – matgaio Aug 5 '14 at 20:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @matgaio Say, your geodesics are $[ab]$ and $[cd]$. Then you first estimate the Hausdorff distance from $[ab]$ to $[ad]$, and then the distance from $[ad]$ to $[cd]$. Then use the triangle inequality. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Aug 5 '14 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ Ok! Now I've figured out! Thank you again! $\endgroup$ – matgaio Aug 5 '14 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ @matgaio But what about the lower bound? Do you have a form of it that works, perhaps as stated in Gromov's paper? $\endgroup$ – user147263 Aug 5 '14 at 20:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @matgaio Sure, if you bring the question to the form that better matches the answer, the whole thing will make more sense to those reading it in the future. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Aug 5 '14 at 21:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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