1

There is a bijection $f$ between $PSL(2,\mathbb{R})$ and $T^1\mathbb{H}$, which sends a matrix $M$ to a vector with base point $\frac{M_{11}i+M_{12}}{M_{21}i+M_{22}}$. In particular, the identity matrix $I$ is sent to a vector with base point which is the imaginary unit $i$, and points upwards.

Let $\pi$ be the projectuon from $T^1\mathbb{H}$ to $\mathbb{H}$ sending a vector to its basepoint.

I was wondering if given the hyperbolic distance between $\pi f(M)$ and $i$, one could deduce the distance between $M$ and $I$. I am most interested in being able to bound from above the entries of $M$.

First, it makes sense that if $\pi f(M)$ is in some neighborhood of $i$ then $M$ is in some neighborhood of $I$ and in particular $M_{ij}$ is bounded.

Quantitatively, my intuition says that $|M_{ij}-\delta_{ij}|<const\cdot\exp({d(\pi f(M),i)})$ should hold, giving a nice correspondence between the maximum norm on $PSL(2,\mathbb{R})$ and the hyperbolic metric (namely $\|M-I\|_{max}<C\cdot\exp(d(\pi f(M),\pi f(I)))$. Is it true?

Evidence for that is the easy to calculate case of a diagonal $M$ with $x,\frac{1}{x}$ on the diagonal (for $x>1$), which correspondes to a vector with basepoint $x^2i$ for which $d(x^2i,i)=log(x^2)$. Yet, calculation with more complicated matrices (using the Iwasawa decomposition for instance) has not fully worked for me. I tried using the hyperbolic metric explicitly, obtaining some equality that does not seem to hold if the entries of $M$ are indeed too large, but it is "messy" and I wonder if there is some easier argument (or if my way can be finished without too many technical difficulties).

  • As you say in your first sentence, a matrix $M$ is sent to a vector with a certain base point as written. You have not said which vector that is, though. And your second sentence is wrong, you seem to have focussed on the base point and forgotten the vector: the identity matrix $I$ is not sent to the imaginary unit $i$; instead it is sent to a vector with base point $i$. – Lee Mosher Feb 13 '19 at 03:46
  • @LeeMosher thanks for the comment. I have noticed this inaccuracy, but left it as I thought it is not important for two reasons. first, we may replace $d(f(M),f(I))$ with $d(\pi f(M),\pi f(I))$ and so on, for the projection $\pi$. And it should not matter, because as far as I am aware the metric on the hyperbolic plane and the metric on the unit tangent bundle differ only by up to an additive fixed constant. Secondly, I thought that one might be able to apply some rotation matrix to make all the vectors point the same way and so give the simpler case, but I am still trying to figure that out. – The way of life Feb 13 '19 at 08:12
  • Nevertheless, I will fix the notations as soon as I will be near a computer rather thab my phone. Thanks! @LeeMosher – The way of life Feb 13 '19 at 08:14

0 Answers0