3

Question: Determine whether the following spaces are quasi-isometric: $\mathbb{H}^m$, $\mathbb{H}^n$, trees, $\mathbb{R}^m$, $\mathbb{R}^n$ with $m\neq n$.

What I know: $\mathbb{H}^m$, $\mathbb{H}^n$ and trees are quasi-isometry as they belong to hyperbolic plane but $\mathbb{R}^m$, $\mathbb{R}^n$ are not quasi- isometry with other spaces, am I right? I am not sure.Thanks for your help.

C. Thapa
  • 91
  • 1
  • Finite trees are quasi-isometric to single points (which are not quasi-isometric to any of the other spaces). And you are right that $\mathbb{R}^n$ is not quasi-isometric to the other ones, as they are not hyperbolic spaces. The thing is that $\mathbb{H}^m$ and $\mathbb{H}^n$ are no quasi-isometric for $n\neq m$ and the same for $\mathbb{R}^m$ and $\mathbb{R}^n$. – Javi Jul 30 '18 at 18:49

2 Answers2

5

Among your spaces:

All are Gromov-hyperbolic except $\mathbf{R}^d$ for $d\ge 2$; these are pairwise non-QI since they have growth $\simeq n^d$.

Among the Gromov-hyperbolic ones, $\mathbf{H}^d$ for $d\ge 2$ can be distinguished since their boundary is a $(d-1)$-sphere (while others have a totally disconnected boundary).

Remain trees and $\mathbf{R}^d$ for $d\le 1$; the latter two can be identified to trees (a point and a line). There are plenty of QI-types of trees; for instance for every totally disconnected compact metrizable topological space $Y$ there's a tree of valency $\le 3$ whose boundary is homeomorphic to $Y$ (usually far from unique up to isometry). Among them, of special importance are regular trees of valency $d\ge 3$, which are all quasi-isometric (boundary is then a Cantor space).

YCor
  • 17,878
  • Cool, never heard of the boundaries of tree fact. Is the idea to take a quotient of the cantor set, thought of as the boundary of a 3-regular tree, then extend that to a quotient of the rest of the tree? –  Aug 11 '18 at 02:45
  • Also, this previous answer of yours/asymptotic dimension can be used to say that trees are not qi to the other spaces (outside of some degenerate cases). –  Aug 11 '18 at 03:01
  • @PaulPlummer first use that every such $Y$ embeds as a closed subset of the Cantor set $X$, and view $X$ as boundary of a trivalent tree $T$. Then consider the convex hull of $Y$ in $T$. – YCor Aug 11 '18 at 03:11
  • That does not seem right, the Cantor set does not contain nontrivial connected sets. –  Aug 11 '18 at 03:26
  • Ah, I guess you mean every totally disconnected compact metrizable space. Makes sense why I was having such a hard time thinking of a connected example –  Aug 11 '18 at 03:30
  • @PaulPlummer I forgot to write "totally disconnected" in the post. Now edited (of course it's a necessary condition) – YCor Aug 11 '18 at 03:30
1

One difference between the spaces is their curvature. $\mathbb{H}^n$ is $\delta$-hyerbolic for every $n$. Trees are even $0$-hyperperbolic, where $\mathbb R^n$ is not $\delta$-hyperbolic (for $n \geq 3$). $\delta$-hyperbolicity and $0$-hyperbolicity are quasi-isometrie invariants, so we only have to distinguish $\mathbb H^n$ from $\mathbb H^m$ and $\mathbb R^n$ from $\mathbb R^m$, asides from the trees.

I don't know what knowledge you want to use, but a good way to distinguish the hyperbolic spaces is the boundary. There are some diverse definitions of boundary, one of them is for example the Gromov boundary $\partial X$ for a $\delta$-hyperbolic space $X$. The Gromov boundary is a quasi-isometry-invariant and $\partial \mathbb H^n \cong S^{n-1}$. Since $S^n \ncong S^m$, we can distinguish $\mathbb H^n$ and $\mathbb H^m$.

$\mathbb R^n$ is quasi-isometric to $\mathbb Z^n$ for all $n$. So the question is, is $\mathbb Z^n$ quasi isometric to $\mathbb Z^m$? Consider the growth function of a finitely presented group. It's growth rate is a quasi-invariant. One can calculate that the growth rate of $\mathbb Z^n$ is $n$ (see wikipedia).

Therefore we concluded that all your spaces are not quasi isometric. There could be easier ways to get those results.

Addendum: Forgot to mention trees. All finite trees are qi to a point. For infinite trees, this is much harder. The topology of the boundary is a quasi-invariant, as is the asymptotic growth of the connected components if you take the complement of exhausting compacta. But it won't be good enough.

Addendum2: Forgot that $\mathbb{R}$ is $0$-hyperbolic (or, equivalently, an $\mathbb{R}$-tree). $Cay(\mathbb Z,\{\,1\,\}) \underset{QI}{\cong} \mathbb R$, so $\mathbb R$ is QI to an infinite tree. This is the only example where objects of your list coincide up to QI.

Babelfish
  • 1,842
  • The boundary of an infinite tree is a cantor set, which distinguishes it from the other spaces. – user1729 Aug 10 '18 at 15:00
  • @user1729, Ok, for the question whether trees are different from the other spaces, I already argued (trees are $0$-hyperbolic, the other examples are not). Besides, your argument is not complete, $\mathbb{Z}$ is a tree and the boundary is not a cantor set. I guess you assume that there is a geometric group action on the tree? //// My addendum was about the question whether two infinite trees are QI. This is a hard problem. – Babelfish Aug 10 '18 at 15:05
  • If you assume that the trees are $k$-regular, for $k=2$ we get $\mathbb R$. All $k$-regular trees with $k\geq 2$ are QI (similarly as free groups in at least 2 generators are QI). – Babelfish Aug 10 '18 at 15:19
  • 1
    being $0$-hyperbolic is not a QI invariant - think of an infinite ladder! (Or the Cayley graph of any non-free virtually-free group.) – user1729 Aug 10 '18 at 15:19
  • Oh yeah, you are correct indeed. I guess I will have to rewrite that part. Totally forgot that. – Babelfish Aug 10 '18 at 15:25
  • I agree that my cantor statement is incorrect - from memory, I think it should read "the boundary of a $k$-regular tree is a cantor set" (so, "yes" to the geometric group action). I guess the distinction is "ends": If a tree has $1$ end then it must "look like" (be QI to?) the positive integers (no proof offered), and so trees are distinct from the other spaces in the list (apart from $\mathbb{R}$, as you noted). – user1729 Aug 10 '18 at 15:32
  • 1
    "Is $\delta$-hyperbolic is senseless without specification of $\delta$, and is not a QI-invariant when $\delta$ is fixed; being $\delta$-hyperbolic for some $\delta<\infty$ is a QI-invariant (for geodesic spaces). It is not a curvature condition. – YCor Aug 10 '18 at 21:20