Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
on
Proceedings of the
International Workshop
on
Quasiconformal Mappings And Their Applications
(IWQCMA05)
December 27, 2005 - January 01, 2006
Edited by
S. Ponnusamy
T. Sugawa
M. Vuorinen
Co-organized by
Sponsored mainly by
S. Ponnusamy
IIT Madras
T. Sugawa
Hiroshima University
M. Vuorinen
University of Turku
Preface
Contents
Roger W. Barnard, Clint Richardson, 1
Alex Yu. Solynin
A note on a minimum area problem for
non-vanishing functions
Peter Hästö 57
Isometries of relative metrics
David A Herron 79
Uniform spaces and Gromov hyperbolicity
Abstract. We find the minimal area covered by the image of the unit disk
for nonvanishing univalent functions normalized by the conditions f (0) =
1, f ′ (0) = α. We discuss two different approaches, each of which contributes
to the complete solution of the problem. The first approach reduces the prob-
lem, via symmetrization, to the class of typically real functions, where we can
employ the well known integral representation to obtain the solution upon
prior knowledge about the extremal function. The second approach, requiring
smoothness assumptions, leads, via some variational formulas, to a boundary
value problem for analytic functions, which admits an explicit solution.
Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Outline of Our Method 4
3. The Iceberg Problem 6
References 8
1. Introduction
Z
p p p
Let D = {z : |z| < 1} and A = f analytic in D : |f (z)| dA = ||f ||Ap < ∞ ,
D
the Bergman space of analytic functions in D.
Recently, Aharanov, Beneteau, Khavinson, and Shapiro [2] considered a gen-
eral minimization problem on Ap
inf{||f ||Ap : f ∈ Ap , ℓi (f ) = ci , i = 1, . . . , n}
where ℓi are bounded linear functionals on Ap , p > 1. They proved several general
results about this problem.
Version October 19, 2006.
Supported by NSF grant DMS-0412908.
2 Roger W. Barnard, Clint Richardson, Alex Yu. Solynin IWQCMA05
100
2
80
πα
60
AHΑL
40
Α(α)
20
1 2 3 4
Α
Α=3
-4 4 8
-4
ia 1−z
√
with ξ = 2
√
z
and β = αa2 a + a2 + 1 .
denote the minimal area covered by the images of functions in the class Nα . Note
A(α) is convex and increasing. This can be proven from the formulas, geometry,
and variational arguments. See Figure 1.
4 Roger W. Barnard, Clint Richardson, Alex Yu. Solynin IWQCMA05
f Α=3
α
L fr
4
1 -4 4 8
L nf
-4
Figure 3. The free (Lf r ) and non-free (Lnf ) portions of the boundary.
Now combine Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 to see that if fα is extremal in Nα ,
then since fα ∈ Tα , Theorem 2.1 implies Theorem 1.1.
Next we show how the extremal fα in Nα can be recovered from its boundary
values.
Lemma 2.5. Let fα be extremal for Nα . Then f ′ is continuous on D and |f ′ | ≡
β ≥ α ∀ z ∈ ℓf r . See Figure 2.
Proof. Apply the deep “two point variation techniques” from [5] twice giving
f ′ these properties on ℓf r . Then use the Julia-Wolff Theorem and boundary
behavior properties from Pommerenke [6], giving f ′ these properties everywhere.
Long computations are used to show monotonicity, then we use line integral
formulae to compute the area as in [4].
−1
0 τ α = log |f ’(1)|
q
1 ϕ
2
UHP
h?
References
[1] D. Aharonov, H. S. Shapiro, and A. Yu. Solynin, Minimal area problems for functions with
integral representation, J. Analyse Math., to appear.
[2] Dov Aharonov, Catherine Bénéteau, Dmitry Khavinson, and Harold Shapiro, Extremal
problems for nonvanishing functions in Bergman spaces, Selected topics in complex analysis,
Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., vol. 158, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2005, pp. 59–86.
[3] R. W. Barnard, C. Richardson, and A.Yu Solynin, A minimal area problem for non-
vanishing functions, Analysis and Algebra, accepted.
[4] R.W. Barnard, C. Richardson, and A.Yu Solynin, Concentration of area in half planes,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133 (2005), no. 7, 2091–99.
[5] R.W. Barnard and A.Yu Solynin, Local variations and minimal area problems, Indiana
Univ. Math. J. 53 (2004), no. 1, 135–167.
[6] Ch. Pommerenke, Boundary behavior of conformal maps, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
[7] Alex Schuster and Peter Duren, Bergman spaces of analytic function, Mathematical Surveys
and Monographs, no. 100, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004.
Contents
1. Introduction 10
2. The unit disk as the hyperbolic plane 11
3. The Schwarz-Pick Lemma 16
4. An extension of the Schwarz-Pick Lemma 19
5. Hyperbolic derivatives 21
6. The hyperbolic metric on simply connected regions 24
7. Examples of the hyperbolic metric 28
8. The Comparison Principle 33
9. Curvature and the Ahlfors Lemma 36
10. The hyperbolic metric on a hyperbolic region 41
11. Hyperbolic distortion 45
12. The hyperbolic metric on a doubly connected region 47
12.1. Hyperbolic metric on the punctured unit disk 47
12.2. Hyperbolic metric on an annulus 49
13. Rigidity theorems 51
14. Further reading 54
References 55
1. Introduction
The authors are writing a book, The hyperbolic metric in complex analysis,
that will include all of the material in this article and much more. The ma-
terial presented here is a selection of topics from the book that relate to the
Schwarz-Pick Lemma. Our goal is to develop the main parts of geometric func-
tion theory by using the hyperbolic metric and other conformal metrics. This
paper is intended to be both an introduction to the hyperbolic metric and a con-
cise treatment of a few recent applications of the hyperbolic metric to geometric
function theory. There is no attempt to present a comprehensive presentation of
the material here; rather we present a selection of several topics and then offer
suggestions for further reading.
The first part of the paper (Sections 2-5) studies holomorphic self-maps of
the unit disk D by using the hyperbolic metric. The unit disk with the hyper-
bolic metric and hyperbolic distance is presented as a model of the hyperbolic
plane. Then Pick’s fundamental invariant formulation of the Schwarz Lemma is
presented. This is followed by various extensions of the Schwarz-Pick Lemma
for holomorphic self-maps of D, including a Schwarz-Pick Lemma for hyperbolic
derivatives. The second part of the paper (Sections 6-9) is concerned with the
investigation of holomorphic maps between simply connected proper subregions
of the complex plane C using the hyperbolic metric, as well as a study of neg-
atively curved metrics on simply connected regions. Here ‘negatively curved’
means metrics with curvature at most −1. The Riemann Mapping Theorem is
used to transfer the hyperbolic metric to any simply connected region that is
conformally equivalent to the unit disk. A version of the Schwarz-Pick Lemma is
valid for holomorphic maps between simply connected proper subregions of the
complex plane C. The hyperbolic metric is explicitly determined for a number
of special simply connected regions and estimates are provided for general sim-
ply connected regions. Then the important Ahlfors Lemma, which asserts the
maximality of the hyperbolic metric among the family of metrics with curvature
at most −1, is established; it provides a vast generalization of the Schwarz-Pick
Lemma. The representation of metrics with constant curvature −1 by bounded
holomorphic functions is briefly mentioned. The third part (Sections 10-13) deals
with holomorphic maps between hyperbolic regions; that is, regions whose com-
plement in the extended complex plane C∞ contains at least three points, and
negatively curved metrics on such regions. The Planar Uniformization Theorem
is utilized to transfer the hyperbolic metric from the unit disk to hyperbolic
regions. The Schwarz-Pick and Ahlfors Lemmas extend to this context. The
hyperbolic metric for punctured disks and annuli are explicitly calculated. A
new phenomenon, rigidity theorems, occurs for multiply connected regions; sev-
eral examples of rigidity theorems are presented. The final section offers some
suggestions for further reading on topics not included in this article.
The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory 11
We need to identify the isometries of both the hyperbolic metric and the
hyperbolic distance. A holomorphic function f : D → D is an isometry of the
metric λD (z) |dz| if for all z in D,
(2.3) λD f (z) |f ′ (z)| = λD (z),
and it is an isometry of the distance dD if, for all z and w in D,
(2.4) dD f (z), f (w) = dD (z, w).
In fact, the two classes of isometries coincide, and each isometry is a Möbius
transformation of D onto itself.
12 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
Theorem 2.1. For any holomorphic map f : D → D the following are equivalent:
(a) f is a conformal automorphism of D;
(b) f is an isometry of the metric λD ;
(c) f is an isometry of the distance dD .
Proof. First, (a) implies (b). Indeed, if (a) holds, then f is of the form (2.1),
and a calculation shows that
|f ′ (z)| 1
= ,
1 − |f (z)| 2 1 − |z|2
so (b) holds. Next, (b) implies (a). Suppose that (b) holds; that is, f is an
isometry of the hyperbolic metric. Then for any conformal automorphism g of
D, h = g ◦ f is again an isometry of the hyperbolic metric. If we choose g so that
h(0) = g(f (0)) = 0, then
2|h′ (0)| = λD (h(0)|h′ (0)| = λD (0) = 2.
Thus, h is a holomorphic self-map of D that fixes the origin and |h′ (0)| = 1, so
Schwarz’s Lemma implies h ∈ A(D, 0). Then f = g −1 ◦ h is in A(D). We have
now shown that (a) and (b) are equivalent.
Second, we prove (a) and (c) are equivalent. If f ∈ A(D), then f is an isometry
of the metric λD . Hence, for any smooth curve γ in D,
Z Z
ℓD f ◦ γ = λD (w) |dw| = λD f (z) |f ′ (z)| |dz| = ℓD (γ).
f ◦γ γ
This implies that for all z, w ∈ D, dD (f (z), f (w)) ≤ dD (z, w). Because f ∈ A(D),
the same argument applies to f −1 , and hence we may conclude that f is a dD –
isometry. Finally, we show that (c) implies (a). Take any f : D → D that is
holomorphic and a dD –isometry. Choose any g of the form (2.1) that maps f (0)
to 0 and put h = g ◦ f . Then his holomorphic, a dD –isometry, and h(0) = 0.
Thus dD 0, h(z) = dD h(0), h(z) = dD (0, z). This implies that |h(z)| = |z| and
hence, that h(z) = eiθ z for some θ ∈ R. Thus h ∈ A(D, 0) and, as f = g −1 ◦ h,
f is also in A(D).
because |γ(t)|2 ≥ |u(t)|2 = u(t)2 and |γ ′ (t)| ≥ |u′ (t)| ≥ u′ (t). The second integral
can be evaluated directly and gives
y−x
!
1+y 1−x 1 + 1−xy
ℓD (γ) ≥ log = log y−x .
1−y 1+x 1 − 1−xy
Because equality holds here when γ(t) = x + t(y − x), 0 ≤ t ≤ 1, we see that
(2.7) holds, so (2.5) is valid for −1 < x < y < 1.
Now we have to extend (2.5) to any pair of points z and w in D. Theorem
2.1 shows that each Euclidean rotation about the origin is a hyperbolic isometry
and this implies that, for all z, dD (0, z) = dD (0, |z|). Now take any z and w in
D, and let f (z) = (z − w)/(1 − z w̄). Then f is a conformal automorphism of D,
and so is a hyperbolic isometry. Thus
dD (z, w) = dD (w, z)
= dD f (w), f (z)
= dD 0, f (z)
= dD 0, |f (z)|
= dD 0, pD (z, w) ,
which, from (2.7) with x = 0 and y = pD (z, w), gives (2.5).
Definition 2.3. Suppose that z and w are in D. Then the (hyperbolic) geodesic
through z and w is C ∩ D, where C is the unique Euclidean circle (or straight
line) that passes through z and w and is orthogonal to the unit circle ∂D. If γ is
any smooth curve joining z to w in D, then the hyperbolic length of γ is dD (z, w)
if and only if γ is the simple arc of C in D that joins z and w.
The unit disk D together with the hyperbolic metric is called the Poincaré
model of the hyperbolic plane. The “lines” in the hyperbolic plane are the hyper-
bolic geodesics and the angle between two intersecting lines is the Euclidean angle
between the Euclidean tangent lines at the point of intersection. The hyperbolic
plane satisfies all of the axioms for Euclidean geometry with the exception of the
Parallel Postulate. It is easy to see that if γ is a hyperbolic geodesic in D and
a ∈ D is a point not on γ, then there are infinitely many geodesics through a
that do not intersect γ and so are parallel to γ.
We shall now show that the hyperbolic distance dD is additive along geodesics.
By contrast, the pseudo-hyperbolic distance pD is never additive along geodesics.
Theorem 2.4. If u, v and w are three distinct points in D that lie, in this order,
along a geodesic, then dD (u, w) = dD (u, v) + dD (v, w). For any three distinct
points u, v and w in D, pD (u, w) < pD (u, v) + pD (v, w).
Proof. Suppose that u, v and w lie in this order, along a geodesic. Then there
is an isometry f that maps this geodesic to the real diameter (−1, 1) of D, with
f (v) = 0. Let x = f (u) and y = f (w), so that −1 < x < 0 < y < 1. It is
sufficient to show that dD (x, 0) + dD (0, y) = dD (x, y); this is a direct consequence
of (2.7).
It is easy to verify that pD a distance function on D, except possibly for the
verification of the triangle inequality. This holds because, for any distinct u, v
and w,
1
pD (u, w) = tanh dD (u, w)
2
1
≤ tanh [dD (u, v) + dD (v, w)]
2
tanh 21 dD (u, v) + tanh 12 dD (v, w)
=
1 + tanh 12 dD (u, v) tanh 21 dD (v, w)
1 1
< tanh dD (u, v) + tanh dD (v, w)
2 2
= pD (u, v) + pD (v, w).
This also shows that there is always a strict inequality in the triangle inequality
for pD for any three distinct points.
The following example illustrates how the hyperbolic distance compares with
the Euclidean distance in D.
The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory 15
Example 2.5. The Poincaré model of the hyperbolic plane does not accurately
reflect all of the properties of the hyperbolic plane. For example, the hyperbolic
plane is homogeneous; this means that for any pair of points a and b in D there
is an isometry f with f (a) = b. Intuitively this means that the hyperbolic plane
looks the same at each point just as the Euclidean plane does. However, with
our Euclidean eyes, the origin seems to occupy a special place in the hyperbolic
plane. In fact, in the hyperbolic plane the origin is no more special than any
point a 6= 0.
Here is another way in which the Poincaré model deceives our Euclidean eyes.
Let x0 , x1 , x2 , . . . be the sequence 0, 21 , 34 , 87 , . . ., so that xn = (2n − 1)/2n , and
xn+1 is halfway between xn and 1 in the Euclidean sense. A computation using
(2.5) shows that dD (0, xn ) = log(2n+1 − 1). We conclude that dD (xn , xn+1 ) →
log 2 as n → ∞; thus the points xn are, for large n, essentially equally spaced
in the hyperbolic sense along the real diameter of D. Moreover, in any figure
representing the Poincaré model the points xn , for n ≥ 30, are indistinguishable
from the point 1 which does not lie in the hyperbolic plane. In brief, although the
hyperbolic plane contains arbitrarily large hyperbolic disks about the origin, our
Euclidean eyes can only see hyperbolic disks about the origin with a moderate
sized hyperbolic radius.
Let us comment now on the various formulae that are available for dD (z, w).
It is often tempting to use the pseudohyperbolic distance pD rather than the
hyperbolic distance dD (and many authors do) because the expression for pD is
algebraic whereas the expression for dD is not. However, this temptation should
be resisted. The distance pD is not additive along geodesics, and it does not
arise from a Riemannian metric. Usually, the solution is to use the following
functions of dD , for it is these that tend to arise naturally and more frequently
in hyperbolic trigonometry:
2 1 |z − w|2 1
(2.8) sinh dD (z, w) = = |z − w|2 λD (z)λD (w),
2 (1 − |z|) (1 − |w| )
2 2 4
and
1 |1 − z w̄|2 1
cosh2 dD (z, w) = = |1 − z w̄|2 λD (z)λD (w).
2 (1 − |z| )(1 − |w| )
2 2 4
These can be proved directly from (2.5), and together they give the familiar
formula
1 z−w
tanh dD (z, w) = = pD (z, w).
2 1 − z w̄
We investigate the topology defined on the unit disk by the hyperbolic dis-
tance. For this we study hyperbolic disks since they determine the topology. The
hyperbolic circle Cr given by {z ∈ D : dD (0, z) = r} is a Euclidean circle with
Euclidean center 0 and Euclidean radius tanh 12 r. Now let C be any hyperbolic
circle, say of hyperbolic radius r and hyperbolic center w. Then there is a hyper-
bolic isometry f with f (w) = 0, so that f (C) = Cr . As Cr is a Euclidean circle,
so is f −1 (Cr ), which is C. Conversely, suppose that C is a Euclidean circle in D.
16 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
Then there is a hyperbolic isometry f such that f (C) is a Euclidean circle with
center 0, so that f (C) = Cr for some r. Thus, as f is a hyperbolic isometry,
f −1 (Cr ) = C, is also a hyperbolic circle. This shows that the set of hyperbolic
circles coincides with the set of Euclidean circles in D. As the same is obviously
true for open disks (providing that the closed disks lie in D), we see that the
topology induced by the hyperbolic distance on D coincides with the Euclidean
topology on the unit disk.
Theorem 2.6. The topology induced by dD on D coincides with the Euclidean
topology. The space D with the distance dD is a complete metric space.
Proof. We have already proved the first statement. Suppose, then, that (zn )
is a Cauchy sequence with respect to the distance dD . Then (zn ) is a bounded
sequence with respect to dD and, as we have seen above, this means that the
(zn ) lie in a compact disk K that is contained in D. As λD ≥ 2 on D, we
see immediately from (2.8) that (zn ) is a Cauchy sequence with respect to the
Euclidean metric, so that zn → z ∗ , say, where z ∗ ∈ K ⊂ D. It is now clear that
dD (zn , z ∗ ) → 0 so that D with the distance dD is complete.
The Euclidean metric on D arises from the fact that D is embedded in the
larger space C and is not complete on D. By contrast, an important property of
the distance dD is that dD (0, |z|) → +∞ as |z| → 1; informally, the boundary ∂D
of D is ‘infinitely far away’ from each point in D. This is a consequence of the
fact that D equipped with the hyperbolic distance dD is a complete metric space
and is another reason why dD should be preferred to the Euclidean metric on D.
Exercises.
1. Verify that (2.1) and (2.2) determine the same subgroup of Möbius trans-
formations.
2. Suppose equality holds in the triangle inequality for the hyperbolic distance;
that is, suppose u, v, w in D and dD (u, w) = dD (u, v) + dD (v, w). Prove
that u, v and w lie on a hyperbolic geodesic in this order.
3. Verify that the hyperbolic disk DD (a, r) is the Euclidean disk with center
c and radius R, where
a 1 − tanh2 (r/2) (1 − |a|2 ) tanh(r/2)
c= and R = .
1 − |a|2 tanh2 (r/2) 1 − |a|2 tanh2 (r/2)
4. (a) Prove that the hyperbolic area of a hyperbolic disk of radius r is
4π sinh2 (r/2).
(b) Show that the hyperbolic length of a hyperbolic circle with radius r is
2π sinh r.
Proof. By Theorem 2.1, f is an isometry if and only if one, and hence both,
of the conditions in (3.2) hold. Suppose now that f : D → D is holomorphic
but not an isometry. Select any two points z1 and z2 in D. Here is the intuitive
idea behind the proof. Because the hyperbolic plane is homogeneous, we may
assume without loss of generality that both z1 and f (z1 ) are at the origin. In
this special situation (3.1) follows directly from part (b) of Theorem 3.1. Now
we write out a formal argument. Let g and h be conformal automorphisms (and
hence isometries) of D such that g(z1 ) = 0 and h f (z1 ) = 0. Let F = hf g −1 ;
then F is a holomorphic self-map of D that fixes 0. As g and h are isometries,
F is not an isometry or else f would be too. Therefore, by Schwarz’s Lemma,
′
for all z, dD 0, F (z) < dD (0, z) and |F (0)| < 1. Thus, as F g = hf and g, h are
hyperbolic isometries,
dD f (z1 ), f (z2 ) = dD hf (z1 ), hf (z2 )
= dD F g(z1 ), F g(z2 )
= dD 0, F g(z2 )
< dD 0, g(z2 )
= dD g(z1 ), g(z2 )
= dD (z1 , z2 ).
18 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
This is the first inequality in (3.1). To obtain the second inequality, we apply
the Chain Rule to each side of F g = hf and obtain
|f ′ (z1 )|(1 − |z1 |2 )
|F ′ (0)| = < 1.
1 − |f (z1 )|2
This gives the second inequality in (3.1) at an arbitrary point z1 .
Often the Schwarz-Pick Lemma is stated in the following form: Every holo-
morphic self-map of the unit disk is a contraction relative to the hyperbolic
metric. That is, if f is a holomorphic self-map of D, then
(3.3) dD f (z), f (w) ≤ dD (z, w), λD f (z) |f ′ (z)| ≤ λD (z).
If equality holds in either inequality, then f is a conformal automorphism of D.
One should note that the two inequalities in (3.3) are equivalent. If the first
inequality holds, then
dD (f (z), f (w)) |f (z) − f (w)| dD (z, w)
λD f (z) |f ′ (z)| = lim ≤ lim = λD (z).
w→z |f (z) − f (w)| |z − w| w→z |z − w|
On the other hand, if the second inequality holds, then integration over any path
γ in D gives ℓD (f ◦ γ) ≤ ℓD (γ). This implies the first inequality in (3.3).
Hyperbolic geometry had been used in complex analysis by Poincaré in his
proof of the Uniformization Theorem for Riemann surfaces. The work of Pick is
a milestone in geometric function theory, it shows that the hyperbolic metric, not
the Euclidean metric, is the natural metric for much of the subject. The definition
of the hyperbolic metric might seem arbitrary. In fact, up to multiplication by a
positive scalar it is the only metric on the unit disk that makes every holomorphic
self-map a contraction, or every conformal automorphism an isometry.
Theorem 3.3. For a metric ρ(z)|dz| on the unit disk the following are equivalent:
(a) For any holomorphic self-map of D and all z ∈ D, ρ(f (z))|f ′ (z)| ≤ ρ(z);
(b) For any f ∈ A(D) and all z ∈ D, ρ(f (z))|f ′ (z)| = ρ(z);
(c) ρ(z) = cλD for some c > 0.
Proof. (a)⇒(b) Suppose f ∈ A(D). Then the inequality in (a) holds for f . The
inequality in (a) also holds for f −1 ; this gives ρ(z) ≤ ρ(f (z))|f ′ (z)|. Hence, every
conformal automorphism of D is an isometry relative to ρ(z)|dz|.
(b)⇒(c) Define c > 0 by ρ(0) = cλD (0). Now, consider any a ∈ D. Let f be
a conformal automorphism of D with f (0) = a. Then because f is an isometry
relative to both ρ(z)|dz| and the hyperbolic metric,
ρ(a)|f ′ (0)| = ρ(0)
= cλD (0)
= cλD (a)|f ′ (0)|.
Hence, ρ(a) = cλD (a) for all a ∈ D.
(c)⇒(a) This is an immediate consequence of the Schwarz-Pick Lemma.
The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory 19
Exercises.
1. Suppose f is a holomorphic self-map of the unit disk. Prove |f ′ (0)| ≤ 1.
Determine a necessary and sufficient condition for equality.
2. If a holomorphic self-map of the unit disk fixes two points, prove it is the
identity.
3. Let a and b be distinct points in D.
(a) Show that there exists a conformal automorphism f of D that inter-
changes a and b; that is, f (a) = b and f (b) = a.
(b) Suppose a holomorphic self-map f of D interchanges a and b; that is,
f (a) = b and f (b) = a. Prove f is a conformal automorphism with order
2, or f ◦ f is the identity.
following theorem has extra flexibility and it includes all variations and extensions
of the Schwarz-Pick Lemma that are known to the authors. We stress, though,
that this theorem contains much more than simply the union of all such known
results. Although several Euclidean variations of the Schwarz-Pick Lemma are
known, in our view much greater clarity is obtained by a strict adherence to hy-
perbolic geometry. This and other stronger versions of the Schwarz-Pick Lemma
appear in [8].
Theorem 4.4 (Three-point Schwarz-Pick Lemma). Suppose that f is holomor-
phic self-map of D, but not an automorphism of D. Then, for any z, w and v in
D,
(4.1) dD f ∗ (z, v), f ∗ (w, v) ≤ dD (z, w).
Further, equality holds in (4.1) for some choice of z, w and v if and only if f is
a Blaschke product of degree two.
5. Hyperbolic derivatives
Since the hyperbolic metric is the natural metric to study holomorphic self-
maps of the unit disk, one should also use derivatives that are compatible with
this metric. We begin with the definition of a hyperbolic derivative; just as
the Euclidean difference quotient leads to the usual Euclidean derivative, the
hyperbolic difference quotient results in the hyperbolic derivative.
22 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
By Theorem 4.3, |f h (z)| ≤ 1, and equality holds for some z if and only if
equality holds for all z, and then f is a conformal automorphism of D. Theorem
4.4 leads to the following upper bound on the magnitude of the hyperbolic dif-
ference quotient in terms of dD (z, w) and the derivative at any point v between
z and w.
Theorem 5.2. Suppose that f : D → D is holomorphic. Then, for all z and w
in D, and for all v on the closed geodesic arc joining z and w,
(5.1) dD 0, f ∗ (z, w) ≤ dD 0, f h (v) + dD (z, w).
Proof. First, it is clear that for any z and w, |f ∗ (z, w)| = |f ∗ (w, z)|. Thus
dD 0, f ∗ (z, w) = dD 0, f ∗ (w, z) .
Next, Theorem 4.4 (applied twice) gives
dD 0, f ∗ (z, w) ≤ dD 0, f ∗ (v, w) + dD f ∗ (v, w), f ∗ (z, w)
≤ dD 0, f ∗ (v, w) + dD (z, v)
= dD 0, f ∗ (w, v) + dD (z, v)
≤ dD 0, f ∗ (u, v) + dD (w, u) + dD (z, v).
We now let u → v, where v lies on the geodesic between z and w, and as
dD (z, v) + dD (v, w) = dD (z, w), we obtain (5.1).
Our next task is to transform (5.1) into a more transparent inequality about
f . This is the next result which we may interpret as a Hyperbolic Mean Value
Inequality, a result from [7].
Theorem 5.3 (Hyperbolic Mean Value Inequality). Suppose that f : D → D is
holomorphic. Then, for all z and w in D, and for all v on the closed geodesic
arc joining z and w,
(5.2) dD f (z), f (w) ≤ log cosh dD (z, w) + |f h (v)| sinh dD (z, w) .
the reader to [8] for a proof of this, and for the fact that a Blaschke product of
degree two has exactly one critical point in D.
Proof. First, we note that, for all u and v,
1
tanh dD (0, u) = |u|,
2
1 1
tanh dD (u, v) = pD (u, v) = tanh dD (0, [u, v]).
2 2
∗
Next, using the definition of f (z, w), the inequality in Theorem 5.2, and the
addition formula for tanh(s + t), we have
1
tanh dD (f (z), f (w)) = pD (f (z), f (w))
2
= pD (z, w)|f ∗ (z, w)|
1
= pD (z, w) tanh dD 0, f ∗ (z, w)
2
h1 1 i
h
≤ pD (z, w) tanh dD 0, f (v) + dD (z, w)
2 2
pD (z, w) + |f h (v)|
= pD (z, w) .
1 + pD (z, w)|f h (v)|
Now the increasing function x 7→ tanh( 12 x) has inverse x 7→ log(1 + x)/(1 − x),
so we conclude that, with p = pD (z, w) and d = |f h (v)|,
1 + pd + p(d + p) 1 + p2 2p
dD (f (z), f (w)) ≤ log = log +d ,
1 + pd − p(d + p) 1 − p2 1 − p2
which is (5.2).
Next, we provide a Schwarz-Pick type of inequality for hyperbolic derivatives;
recall that the hyperbolic derivative is not holomorphic. This result is based
on the observation that if f : D → D is holomorphic, but not a conformal
automorphism of D, then f h (z) and f h (w) lie in D so that we can measure the
hyperbolic distance between these two hyperbolic derivatives.
Theorem 5.4. Suppose that f : D → D is holomorphic but not a conformal
automorphism of D. Then, for all z and w in D,
(5.3) dD f h (z), f h (w) ≤ 2dD (z, w) + dD f ∗ (z, w), f ∗ (w, z) .
Proof. Theorem 4.4 implies that for all z, w and v,
dD f ∗ (z, w), f ∗ (v, w) ≤ dD (z, v).
We let v → w and obtain
dD f ∗ (z, w), f h (w) ≤ dD (z, w)
and (by interchanging z and w),
dD f ∗ (w, z), f h (z) ≤ dD (z, w).
These last two inequalities and the triangle inequality yields (5.3).
24 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
mapping onto the unit disk. Alternatively, the hyperbolic length of a path γ in
Ω is Z
ℓΩ (γ) = λΩ (z)|dz|,
γ
and one can define
dΩ (z, w) = inf ℓΩ (γ),
where the infimum is taken over all piecewise smooth curves γ in Ω that join
z and w. These two definitions of the hyperbolic distance are equivalent. The
hyperbolic distance dΩ on Ω is complete. Moreover, a path γ in Ω connecting z
and w is a hyperbolic geodesic in Ω if and only if f ◦ γ is a hyperbolic geodesic
in D. Also, for any a ∈ Ω and r > 0, f (DΩ (a, r)) = DD (f (a), r).
In fact, the essence of Definition 6.2 is that the entire body of geometric
facts about the Poincaré model D of the hyperbolic plane transfers, without any
essential change, to an arbitrary simply connected proper subregion of C with
its own hyperbolic metric. If f : Ω → D is any conformal mapping, then f is an
isometry relative to the hyperbolic metrics and hyperbolic distances on Ω and
D. The next result is an immediate consequence of Definition 6.2 and we omit
its proof; it asserts that all conformal maps of simply connected proper regions
are isometries relative to the hyperbolic metrics and hyperbolic distances of the
regions.
Theorem 6.3 (Conformal Invariance). Suppose that Ω1 and Ω2 are simply con-
nected proper subregions of C, and that f is a conformal map of Ω1 onto Ω2 .
Then f is a hyperbolic isometry, so that for any z in Ω1 ,
(6.2) λΩ2 f (z) |f ′ (z)| = λΩ1 (z),
and for all z, w ∈ Ω1
dΩ2 (f (z), f (w)) = dΩ1 (z, w).
Proof. Because of Theorem 6.3 we only need verify (a) when the holomorphic
map f : Ω1 → Ω2 is not a holomorphic bijection. Choose any point z0 in
Ω1 , and let w0 = f (z0 ). Next, construct a holomorphic bijection h of D, and a
holomorphic bijection g of Ω1 onto Ω2 ; these can be constructed so that h(0) = z0
and g(z0 ) = w0 = f (z0 ). Now let k = (gh)−1 f h. Then k is a holomorphic map
of D into itself and k(0) = 0. Moreover, k is not a conformal automorphism of
D or else f would be a holomorphic bijection. Thus |k ′ (0)| < 1 and, using the
Chain Rule, this gives |f ′ (z0 )| < |g ′ (z0 )|. With this,
λΩ2 f (z0 ) |f ′ (z0 )| < λΩ1 (z0 )
follows as (6.2) holds (with f replaced by g).
This establishes the second strict inequality in (a); the first strict inequality
for hyperbolic distances follows by integrating the strict inequality for hyperbolic
metrics.
This version of the Schwarz-Pick Lemma can be stated in the following equiv-
alent form. If f : Ω1 → Ω2 is holomorphic, then for all z and w in Ω1 ,
(6.3) dΩ2 (f (z), f (w)) ≤ dΩ1 (z, w),
and
(6.4) λΩ2 f (z) |f ′ (z)| ≤ λΩ1 (z).
Further, if either equality holds in (6.3) for a pair of distinct points or at one
point z in (6.4) , then f is a conformal bijection of Ω1 onto Ω2 .
Corollary 6.5 (Schwarz’s Lemma for Simply Connected Regions). Suppose Ω
is a simply connected proper subregion of Ω and a ∈ Ω. If f is a holomorphic
self-map of Ω that fixes a, then |f ′ (a)| ≤ 1 and equality holds if and only if
f ∈ A(Ω, a), the group of conformal automorphisms of Ω that fix a. Moreover,
f ′ (a) = 1 if and only if f is the identity.
Theorem 6.4 is the fundamental reason for the existence of many distortion
theorems in complex analysis. Consider the class of holomorphic maps of Ω1 into
Ω2 . Then any such map f will have to satisfy the universal constraints (6.3) and
(6.4) where the metrics λΩ1 and λΩ2 are uniquely determined (albeit implicitly)
by the regions Ω1 and Ω2 . Thus (6.3) and (6.4) are, in some sense, the generic
distortion theorems for holomorphic maps.
This is the appropriate place to point out that neither the complex plane C
nor the extended complex plane C∞ has a metric analogous to the hyperbolic
metric in the sense that the metric is invariant under the group of conformal
automorphisms. Recall that A(C) is the set of all maps z 7→ az + b, a, b ∈ C and
a 6= 0, and A(C∞ ) is the group M of Möbius transformations. The group A(C)
acts doubly transitively on C; that is, given two pairs z1 , z2 and w1 , w2 of distinct
points in C there is a conformal automorphism f of C with f (zj ) = wj , j = 1, 2.
Similarly, M acts triply transitively on C∞ . If there were a conformal metric
on either C or C∞ invariant under the full conformal automorphism group, then
28 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
the distance function induced from this metric would also be invariant under the
action of the full group of conformal automorphisms. The following result shows
that only trivial distance functions are invariant under A(C) or A(C∞ ).
Theorem 6.6. If d is a distance function on C or C∞ that is invariant under
the full group of conformal automorphisms, then there exists t > 0 such that
d(z, w) = 0 if z = w and d(z, w) = t otherwise.
Ω2 whose metric is known. Then (6.2) enables one to find an explicit expression
for λΩ1 (z) for z in Ω1 . We omit almost all of the computations.
The simplest instance of the Riemann Mapping Theorem is the fact that
any disk or half-plane is Möbius equivalent to the unit disk. Because hyperbolic
circles (disks) in D are Euclidean circle (disks) in D, we deduce that an analogous
result holds for any disk or half-plane. Also, in any disk or half-plane hyperbolic
geodesics are arcs of circles orthogonal to the boundary; in the case of a half-
planes we allow half-lines orthogonal to the edge of the half-plane.
Example 7.1 (disk). As f (z) = (z − z0 )/R is a conformal map of the disk
D = {z : |z − z0 | < R} onto D, we find
2R |dz|
λD (z)|dz| = .
R2 − |z − z0 |2
In particular,
2
λD (z0 ) = .
R
Example 7.2 (half-plane). Let H be the upper half-plane {x+iy : y > 0}. Then
g(H) = D, where g(z) = (z − i)/(z + i), so H = {x + iy : y > 0} has hyperbolic
metric
|dz| |dz|
λH (z)|dz| = = .
y Im z
Similarly, the hyperbolic metric of the right half-plane K = {x + iy : x > 0} is
|dz|/x. More generally, if H is any open half-plane, then
|dz|
λH (z)|dz| = ,
d(z, ∂H)
where d(z, ∂H) denotes the Euclidean distance from z to ∂H.
Theorem 7.3. If f : D → K is holomorphic and f (0) = 1, then
1 − |z| 1 + |z|
(7.1) ≤ Re f (z) ≤
1 + |z| 1 − |z|
and
2|z|
(7.2) |Im f (z)| ≤
1 − |z|2
see the exercises. Therefore, f (z) lies in the closed Euclidean square {z = x+iy :
e−r ≤ x ≤ er , |y| ≤ sinh r}. Since
1 − |z| 1 + |z|
e−r = and er = ,
1 + |z| 1 − |z|
(7.1) is established. Finally,
2|z|
sinh r =
1 − |z|2
demonstrates (7.2).
Theorem 7.4. Suppose that H is any disk or half-plane. Then for all z and w
in H,
1
sinh2 dH (z, w) = 41 |z − w|2 λH (z)λH (w).
2
Proof. It is easy to verify that for any Möbius map g we have
2
(7.3) g(z) − g(w) = (z − w)2 g ′ (z) g ′ (w).
Now take any Möbius map g that maps H onto D, and recall that g is an isometry
from H to D if both are given their hyperbolic metrics. Then, using (2.8) and
(7.3)
1 ′
1
4
|z − w|2
λ H z λ H w = 4
|z − w|2
λ D g(z) λ D g(w) |g (z)| |g ′ (w)|
= 41 |g(z) − g(w)|2 λD (g(z))λD (g(w))
1
= sinh2 dD (g(z), g(w))
2
1
= sinh2 dH z, w
2
There is another, less well known, version of the Schwarz-Pick Theorem avail-
able which is an immediate consequence of Theorem 7.4, and which we state in
a form that is valid for all disks and half-planes.
Theorem 7.5 (Modified Schwarz-Pick Lemma for Disks and Half-Planes). Sup-
pose that Hj is any disk or half-plane, j = 1, 2, and that f : H1 → H2 is
holomorphic. Then, for all z and w in H1 ,
|f (z) − f (w)|2 λH1 (z)λH1 (w)
≤ .
|z − w| 2
λH2 f (z) λH2 f (w)
Proof. By Theorem 7.4 and the Schwarz-Pick Lemma
1
1
4
|f (z) − f (w)|2 λH2 (f (z))λH2 (f (w)) = sinh2 dH2 (f (z), f (w))
2
1
≤ sinh2 dH1 (z, w)
2
= 4 |z − w)|2 λH1 z λH1 w .
1
The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory 31
Observe that if w → z in Theorem 7.5, then we obtain (6.4) in the special case
of disks and half-planes. We give an application of Theorem 7.5 to holomorphic
functions.
Example 7.6. Suppose that f is holomorphic in the open unit disk and that f
has positive real part. Then f maps D into K, and we have
|f (z) − f (w)|2 4 Re [f (z)] Re [f (w)]
≤ .
|z − w| 2 (1 − |z|2 )(1 − |w|2 )
This implies, for example, that if we also have f (0) = 1 then |f ′ (0)| ≤ 2.
√
Example 7.7 (slit plane). Since f (z) = z maps P = C\{x ∈ R : x ≤ 0} onto
K = {x + iy : x > 0}, the hyperbolic metric on P is
|dz|
λP (z) |dz| = √ √ .
2| z| Re [ z]
This gives
1 1
λP (z) = ≥ ,
2r cos(θ/2) 2|z|
where z = reiθ .
Example 7.8 (sector). Let S(α) = {z : 0 < arg(z) < απ}, where 0 < α ≤ 2.
Here, f (z) = z 1/α = exp α−1 log z is a conformal map of S(α) onto H, so S(α)
has hyperbolic metric
|z|1/α
λS(α) (z) |dz| = |dz|.
α|z| Im[z 1/α ]
Note that this formula for the hyperbolic metric agrees (as it must) with the
formula for λH in Example 7.2 (which is the case α = 1). The special case α = 2
is the preceding example.
Example 7.9 (doubly infinite strip). S = {x + iy : |y| < π/2} has hyperbolic
metric
|dz|
λS (z) |dz| = .
cos y
In this case we use the fact that ez maps S conformally onto K = {x + iy : x >
0}. Notice that λS (z) ≥ 1 with equality if and only if z lies on the real axis.
In particular, the hyperbolic distance between points on R is the same as the
Euclidean distance between the points.
Theorem 7.10. Let S = {z : |Im(z)| < π/2}. Then for any a ∈ R and any
holomorphic self-map f of S, |f ′ (a)| ≤ 1. Moreover, f ′ (a) = 1 if and only if
f (z) = z + c for some c ∈ R and f ′ (a) = −1 if and only if f (z) = −z + c for
some c ∈ R. In particular, for any interval [a, b] in R, the Euclidean length of
the image f ([a, b]) is at most b − a.
32 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
This result is effectively due to Study who proved that if f is convex univalent
in D, then for any Euclidean disk D contained in D, f (D) is Euclidean convex,
see [13]. The converse of Theorem 7.11 is elementary: If Ω is a simply connected
proper subregion of C and there exists a ∈ Ω such that every hyperbolic disk
DΩ (a, r) is Euclidean convex, then Ω is Euclidean convex since Ω = ∪{DΩ (a, r) :
r > 0}, an increasing union of Euclidean
√ convex sets. The radius of convexity
for a univalent function on D is 2 − 3; see [13]. This implies that if Ω is simply
The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory 33
connected, then for each a ∈ Ω and 0 < r < (1/2) log 3 the hyperbolic disk
DΩ (a, r) is Euclidean convex.
In a general simply connected region hyperbolic geodesics are no longer arcs
of circles or segments of lines. It is possible to give a simple geometric property
of hyperbolic geodesics in Euclidean convex regions that characterize convex
regions, see [19] and [20].
Exercises.
1. Let K = {z = x + iy : x > 0}. For a > 0 and r > 0 verify that the
closed hyperbolic disk D̄K (1, r) is the Euclidean disk with Euclidean center
c = cosh r and Euclidean radius R = sinh r. This Euclidean disk meets the
real axis at e−r and er .
2. Suppose f : D → K is holomorphic. Prove that
(1 − |z|2 )|f ′ (z)| ≤ 2 Re f (z)
for all z ∈ D. When does equality hold?
3. Suppose f : K → D is holomorphic. Prove that
2|f ′ (z)|Re z ≤ 1 − |f (z)|2
for all z ∈ K. When does equality hold?
4. Suppose Ω is a simply connected proper subregion of C that is (Euclidean)
starlike with respect to a ∈ Ω. This means that for each z ∈ Ω the
Euclidean segment [a, z] is contained in Ω. For any r > 0 prove that the
hyperbolic disk DΩ (a, r) is starlike with respect to a.
Proof. Let f (z) = z be the inclusion map of Ω1 into Ω2 . Then the Schwarz-Pick
Lemma gives λΩ2 (z) ≤ λΩ1 (z). If equality holds at a point, then f is a conformal
bijection of Ω1 onto Ω2 , that is, Ω1 = Ω2 .
In other words, the Comparison Principle asserts that the hyperbolic metric
on a simply connected region decreases as the region increases. The hyperbolic
metric on the disk Dr = {z : |z| < r} is 2r|dz|/(r2 − |z|2 ) which decreases to zero
as r increases to +∞.
34 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
The Comparison Principle is used in the following way. Suppose that we want
to estimate the hyperbolic metric λΩ of a region Ω. We attempt to find regions
Ωj with known hyperbolic metrics (or metrics that can be easily estimated) such
that Ω1 ⊆ Ω ⊆ Ω2 ; then λΩ2 ≤ λΩ ≤ λΩ1 . The next result is probably the
simplest application of the Comparison Principle, and it gives an upper bound
of the hyperbolic metric λΩ of a region Ω in terms of the Euclidean distance
d(z, ∂Ω) = inf{|z − w| : w ∈ ∂Ω}
of z to the boundary of Ω. The geometric significance of this quantity is that
d(z, ∂Ω) is the radius of the largest open disk with center z that lies in Ω. Note,
however, that d(z, ∂Ω) (which is sometimes denoted by δΩ (z) in the literature)
is not conformally invariant. The metric
|dz| |dz|
=
d(z, ∂Ω) δΩ (z)
is called the quasihyperbolic metric on Ω. Example 7.2 shows that the quasihy-
perbolic metric for a half-plane is the hyperbolic metric.
Theorem 8.2. Suppose that Ω is a simply connected proper subregion of C.
Then for all z ∈ Ω
2
(8.1) λΩ (z) ≤ ,
d(z, ∂Ω)
and equality holds if and only if Ω is a disk with center z.
Proof. Take any z0 in Ω, and let R = d(z0 , ∂Ω) and D = {z : |z − z0 | < R}. As
D ⊆ Ω the Comparison Principle and Example 7.1 yield
2 2
λΩ (z0 ) ≤ λD (z0 ) = = ,
R d(z0 , ∂Ω)
which is (8.1). If λΩ (z0 ) = 2/d(z0 , ∂Ω) then λΩ (z0 ) = λD (z0 ) so, by the Compar-
ison Principle, Ω = D. The converse is trivial.
Proof. We suppose that Ω is convex. Take any z in Ω and let ζ be one of the
points on ∂Ω that is nearest to z. Let H be the supporting half-plane of Ω at ζ;
The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory 35
thus Ω ⊆ H, and the Euclidean line that bounds H is orthogonal to the segment
from z to ζ. Thus, from the Comparison Principle, for any z ∈ Ω
1 1
λΩ (z) ≥ λH (z) = =
|z − ζ| d(z, ∂Ω)
which is (8.2). The equality statement follows from the Comparison Principle
and Example 7.2.
Theorems 8.2 and 8.3 show that the hyperbolic and quasihyperbolic metrics
are bi-Lipschitz equivalent on convex regions:
1 2
≤ λΩ (z) ≤ .
d(z, ∂Ω) d(z, ∂Ω)
Lower bounds for the hyperbolic metric in terms of the quasihyperbolic metric
are equivalent to covering theorems for univalent functions.
Theorem 8.4. Suppose that f is holomorphic and univalent in D, and that f (D)
is a convex region. Then f (D) contains the Euclidean disk with center f (0) and
radius |f ′ (0)|/2.
Theorems 8.2 and 8.6 show that the hyperbolic and quasihyperbolic metrics
are bi-Lipschitz equivalent on simply connected regions:
1 2
(8.4) ≤ λΩ (z) ≤ .
2d(z, ∂Ω) d(z, ∂Ω)
Exercises.
1. (a) Suppose Ω is a simply connected proper subregion of C. Prove that
limz→ζ λΩ (z) = +∞ for each boundary point ζ of Ω that lies in C.
(b) Given an example of a simply connected proper subregion Ω of C that
has ∞ as a boundary point and λΩ (z) does not tend to infinity as z → ∞.
2. Suppose Ω is starlike with respect to the origin; that is, for each z ∈ Ω the
Euclidean segment [0, z] is contained in Ω. Use the Comparison Theorem
to prove that (8.3) holds; do not use Theorem 8.6.
Then
∂2 ∂ 2 log ρ
log (ρ(f (z))|f ′ (z)|) = (f (z))f ′ (z)f ′ (z)
∂ z̄∂z ∂ w̄∂w
∂ 2 log ρ
= (f (z))|f ′ (z)|2
∂ w̄∂w
gives
△z [log (ρ(f (z))|f ′ (z)|)] = (△w log ρ) (f (z))|f ′ (z)|2 .
This is the transformation law for the Laplacian under a holomorphic function.
Consequently,
△z log(ρ(f (a))|f ′ (a)|)
Kf ∗ (ρ) (a) = −
ρ2 (f (a))|f ′ (a)|2
(△w log ρ) (f (a))|f ′ (a)|2
=−
ρ2 (f (a))|f ′ (a)|2
= Kρ (f (a)).
Proof. First, we establish the result for the unit disk. From
2 2
λD (z) = =
1 − |z|2 1 − z z̄
we obtain
∂2 2 ∂2
log =− log(1 − z z̄)
∂ z̄∂z 1 − z z̄ ∂ z̄∂z
∂ z̄
=
∂ z̄ 1 − z z̄
1
= .
(1 − z z̄)2
Consequently, KλD (z) = −1.
The general case of the hyperbolic metric on a simply connected proper sub-
region Ω of C follows from Theorem 9.3 since f ∗ (λD (w)|dw|) = λΩ (z)|dz| for any
conformal map f : Ω → D.
In fact, Ahlfors actually established a more general result (see [1] and [2]). The
stronger conclusion that either ρ < λΩ or else ρ = λΩ is valid but less elementary.
This sharp result was established by Heins [15]. Simpler proofs of the stronger
conclusion are due to Chen [12], Minda [28] and Royden [32].
The Schwarz-Pick Lemma is a special case of Theorem 9.5. If f : Ω1 → Ω2
is a nonconstant holomorphic function, then f ∗ (λΩ2 (w)|dw|) is a semimetric on
Ω1 with curvature −1 at each point where f ′ is nonvanishing, so is dominated
by the hyperbolic metric λΩ1 (z)|dz|, or equivalently, (6.4) holds. The equality
statement associated with (6.4) follows from the sharp version of Theorem 9.5.
40 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
Theorem 9.6. There does not exist a C2 semimetric ρ(z)|dz| on C such that
Kρ (z) ≤ −1 whenever ρ(z) > 0.
Proof. Suppose there existed a semimetric ρ(z)|dz| on C such that Kρ (z) ≤ −1
whenever ρ(z) > 0. Theorem 9.5 applied to the restriction of this metric to the
disk {z : |z| < r} gives
2r
(9.3) ρ(z) ≤ λr (z) = 2
r − |z|2
for |z| < r. If we fix z and let r → +∞, (9.3) gives ρ(z) = 0 for all z ∈ C. This
contradicts the fact that a semimetric vanishes only on a discrete set.
Corollary 9.7 (Liouville’s Theorem). A bounded entire function is constant.
Proof. Suppose f is a bounded entire function. There is no harm in assuming
that |f (z)| < 1 for all z ∈ C. If f were nonconstant, then f ∗ (λD (z)|dz|) would
be a semimetric on C with curvature at most −1, a contradiction.
Theorem 9.3 provides a method to produce metrics with constant curvature
−1. Loosely speaking, bounded holomorphic functions correspond to metrics
with curvature −1. If f : Ω → D is holomorphic and locally univalent (f ′ does
not vanish), then f ∗ (λD (z)|dz|) has curvature −1 on Ω. In fact, on a simply
connected proper subregion of C every metric with curvature −1 has this form;
see [36]. This reference also contains a stronger result that represents certain
semimetrics with curvature −1 at points where the semimetric is nonvanishing
by holomorphic (not necessarily locally univalent) maps of Ω into D.
Theorem 9.8 (Representation of Negatively Curved Metrics). Let ρ(z)|dz| be a
C3 conformal metric on a simply connected proper subregion Ω of C with constant
curvature −1. Then ρ(z)|dz| = f ∗ (λD (w)|dw|) for some locally univalent holo-
morphic function f : Ω → D. The function f is unique up to post-composition
with an isometry of the hyperbolic metric. Given a ∈ Ω the function f represent-
ing the metric is unique if f is normalized by f (a) = 0 and f ′ (a) > 0.
Moreover, ρ(z)|dz| = f ∗ (λD (w)|dw|) is complete if and only if f is a conformal
bijection; that is, the hyperbolic metric is the only conformal metric on Ω that
has curvature −1 and is complete.
Exercises.
1. Determine the curvature of the Euclidean metric |dz| and of the spherical
metric σ(z)|dz| = 2|dz|/(1 + |z|2 ).
2. Show that (1 + |z|2 )|dz| has negative curvature on C.
3. Determine the curvature of ex |dz| on C.
4. Determine the curvature of |dz|/|z| on C \ {0}.
5. Prove there does not exist a semimetric on C \ {0} with curvature at most
−1.
6. Prove the following extension of Liouville’s Theorem: If f is an entire
function and f (C) ⊆ Ω, where Ω is a simply connected proper subregion
of C, then f is constant.
The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory 41
Proof. The Schwarz-Pick Lemma implies |f ′ (a)| ≤ 1 with equality if and only if
f is a self-covering of Ω that fixes a. Each f ∈ A(Ω, a) is a covering, so |f ′ (a)| = 1.
If f is a self-covering of Ω that fixes a, then f ∈ A(Ω, a) by Theorem 10.6. We
use the proof of Theorem 10.6 to verify that f ′ (a) = 1 implies f is the identity.
Let f˜ be the lift of f ◦ h as in the proof of Theorem 10.6. Then h ◦ f = f ◦ h
gives 1 = f ′ (a) = f˜′ (0), so f˜ is the identity. This implies f is the identity.
Theorem 10.9 (Picard’s Small Theorem). If an entire function omits two finite
complex values, then f is constant.
Proof. Suppose f is an entire function and f (C) ⊆ C\{a, b} := Ca,b , where a and
b are distinct complex numbers. We derive a contradiction if f were nonconstant.
The region Ca,b is hyperbolic; let λa,b (z)|dz| denote the hyperbolic metric on Ca,b .
If f were nonconstant, then f ∗ (λa,b (z)|dz|) would be a semi-metric on C with
curvature at most −1; this contradicts Theorem 9.6.
Exercises.
1. Verify that f (z) = exp(iz) is a covering of the upper half-plane H onto the
punctured disk D \ {0}.
2. Verify that for each nonzero integer n the function pn (z) = z n defines a
holomorphic covering of the punctured plane C \ {0} onto itself.
3. Verify that for each positive integer n the function pn (z) = z n defines a
holomorphic covering of the punctured disk D \ {0} onto itself.
4. Suppose Ω is a hyperbolic region and a ∈ Ω. Let F denote the family of
all holomorphic functions f : D → Ω such that f (0) = a and set M =
sup{|f ′ (0)| : f ∈ F}. Prove M is finite and for f ∈ F, |f ′ (0)| = M
if and only if f is a holomorphic covering of D onto Ω. Conclude that
M = 2/λΩ (a).
5. Suppose Ω is a hyperbolic region in C and a, b ∈ Ω are distinct points. If
f is a holomorphic self-map of Ω that fixes a and b, prove f is a conformal
automorphism of Ω with finite order. Give an example to show that f need
not be the identity when Ω is not simply connected.
The hyperbolic distortion factor defines a mapping of ∆ into the closed unit
disk by the Schwarz-Pick Lemma. If f is not a covering, then the hyperbolic
distortion factor gives a map of ∆ into the unit disk. There is a Schwarz-Pick
type of result for the hyperbolic distortion factor which extends Corollary 5.7 to
holomorphic maps between hyperbolic regions.
46 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
Corollary 11.3. Suppose ∆ and Ω are hyperbolic regions. Then for any holo-
morphic function f : ∆ → Ω,
f ∆,Ω (w) + tanh d∆ (z, w)
(11.2) f ∆,Ω (z) ≤ .
1 + f ∆,Ω (w) tanh d∆ (z, w)
for all z, w ∈ ∆.
Proof. Inequality (11.2) is trivial when f is a covering since both sides are
identically one, Thus, it suffices to establish the inequality when f is not a
covering of ∆ onto Ω. Then
dD (0, f ∆,Ω (z)) ≤ dD (0, f ∆,Ω (w)) + dD (f ∆,Ω (z), f ∆,Ω (w))
≤ dD (0, f ∆,Ω (w)) + 2d∆ (z, w)
The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory 47
gives
∆,Ω 1 ∆,Ω
f (z) = tanh dD (0, f (z))
2
1 ∆,Ω
≤ tanh dD (0, f (w)) + d∆ (z, w)
2
f ∆,Ω (w) + tanh d∆ (z, w)
= .
1 + f ∆,Ω (w) tanh d∆ (z, w)
Exercises.
1. For a holomorphic function f : D → K, explicitly calculate f D,K (z).
2. Suppose Ω is a simply connected proper subregion of C and a ∈ Ω. Let
H(Ω, a) denote the set of holomorphic self-maps of Ω that fix a. Prove that
{f Ω (a) : f ∈ H(Ω, a)} is the closed unit interval [0, 1].
The symmetry of AR about the unit circle is reflected by the fact that two
circles symmetric about the unit circle have the same hyperbolic length. Also,
the hyperbolic length of Cr increases from π 2 / log R = 2π 2 /mod AR to ∞ as r
increases from 1 to R. Hence, the hyperbolic lengths of the Euclidean circles Cr
in AR have a positive minimum hyperbolic length. The Euclidean circle C1 is a
hyperbolic geodesic; Cr is not a hyperbolic geodesic when r 6= 1.
that f˜ maps h−1 (a) into k −1 (b). In particular, |f˜(ã)| ≤ s = t|ã|, where ã = ã1
and t = s/r < 1. Lemma 13.1 gives
(s/r) + |ã| (s/r) + r
|f˜′ (0)| ≤ = = α < 1.
1 + (s/r)|ã| 1+s
Since |f˜′ (0)| = f ∆,Ω (a), this establishes (13.2). Inequality (13.3) follows imme-
diately from Corollary 11.3.
The pointwise result (13.2) is due to Minda [24] and was motivated by the
Aumann-Carathéodory Rigidity Theorem [4] which is the special case when
Ω = ∆ and a = b. The global result (13.3) is due to the authors [9]. The Aumann-
Carathéodory Rigidity Theorem asserts there is a constant α = α(a, Ω) ∈ [0, 1)
such that |f ′ (a)| ≤ α for all holomorphic self-maps of Ω that fix a and are not
conformal automorphisms. The exact value of the Aumann-Carathéodory rigid-
ity constant for an annulus was determined in [23]. The following extension of
the Aumann-Carathéodory Rigidity Theorem to a local result is due to the au-
thors [9]. The corollary is given in Euclidean terms and asserts that holomorphic
self-maps with a fixed point are locally strict Euclidean contractions if they are
not conformal automorphisms.
Corollary 13.3 (Aumann-Carathéodory Rigidity Theorem - Local Version).
Suppose Ω is a hyperbolic region, a ∈ Ω and Ω is not simply connected. There
is a constant β = β(a, Ω) ∈ [0, 1) and a neighborhood N of a such that if f is a
holomorphic self-map of Ω that fixes a and is not a conformal automorphism of
Ω, then |f ′ (z)| ≤ β for all z ∈ N .
Our final topic is a rigidity theorem for holomorphic maps between annuli.
The original results of this type are due to Huber [17]. Marden, Richards and
Rodin [21] presented an extensive generalization of Huber’s work to holomorphic
self-maps of hyperbolic Riemann surfaces.
The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory 53
f with a rotation about the origin, we may assume that f fixes 1. Equality
in (13.4) implies S = R|n| , where n = deg f . The covering f lifts relative to
pn (z) = z n to a holomorphic self-covering f˜ of AR that fixes 1. Theorem 10.6
implies that f˜ is the identity and so f (z) = z n .
Corollary 13.7 (Annulus Theorem). Suppose f is a holomorphic self-map of
AR . Then | deg f | ≤ 1 and equality holds if and only if f ∈ A(AR ).
Proof. The inequality follows immediately from Theorem 13.6. If f ∈ A(AR ),
then | deg f | = 1 since this holds for any homeomorphism. It remains to show
that if | deg f | = 1, then f ∈ A(AR ). Equality implies f maps the unit circle into
itself. By post-composing f with a rotation about the origin, we may assume
f fixes 1. By Theorem 10.6 if a self-covering of a hyperbolic region has a fixed
point, it is a conformal automorphism.
Note that if f is any holomorphic self-map of AR that is not a conformal
automorphism, then deg f = 0. A result analogous to Corollary 13.7 is not
valid for a punctured disk. For each integer n ≥ 0 the function z 7→ z n is a
holomoprhic self-map of D∗ with degree n.
Exercises.
1. Show that Theorem 13.2 is false when ∆ is simply connected. Hint: Sup-
pose ∆ = D and a = 0. For any number r ∈ [0, 1) show there exists a
holomorphic function f : D → Ω that is not a covering and f D,Ω (0) = r.
2. Suppose f is a holomorphic self-map of C \ {0}. Prove that deg f = 0 if
and only if f = exp ◦g for some holomorphic function g defined on C \ {0}.
this type follow immediately from the existence of the hyperbolic metric on C∞
punctured at three points. Interestingly, only a metric with curvature at most −1
on a thrice punctured sphere is needed to establish these results. An elementary
construction of such a metric, based on earlier work of R. M. Robinson [31], is
given in [30].
Hejhal [16] obtained a Carathéodory kernel-type of theorem for coverings of
the unit disk onto hyperbolic regions. This result implies that the hyperbolic
metric depends continuously on the region.
The method of polarization was extended by Solynin to apply to the hyperbolic
metric, see [10]. It include earlier work of Weitsman [35] on symmetrization and
Minda [29] on a reflection principle for the hyperbolic metric.
For the role of hyperbolic geometry in the study of discrete groups of Möbius
transformations, see [5]. This reference includes a brief treatment of hyperbolic
trigonometry.
References
1. Ahlfors, L.V., An extension of Schwarz’s Lemma, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 43 (1938),
259-264.
2. Ahlfors, L.V., Conformal invariants, McGraw-Hill, 1973.
3. Anderson, J.W., Hyperbolic geometry, 2nd. ed., Springer Undergraduate Mathematics
Series, Springer, 2005.
4. Aumann, G. and Carathéodory, C., Ein Satz über die konforme Abbildung mehrfach
zusammenhängender Gebiete, Math. Ann., 109 (1934), 756-763.
5. Beardon, A.F., The geometry of discrete groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 91,
Springer-Verlag, New York 1983.
6. Beardon, A.F., The Schwarz-Pick Lemma for derivatives, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 125
(1997), 3255-3256.
7. Beardon, A.F. and Carne, T.K., A strengthening of the Schwarz-Pick Inequality, Amer.
Math. Monthly, 99 (1992), 216-217.
8. Beardon, A.F. and Minda, D., A multi-point Schwarz-Pick Lemma, J. d’Analyse Math.,
92 (2004), 81-104.
9. Beardon, A.F. and Minda, D., Holomorphic self-maps and contractions, submitted.
10. Brock, F. and Solynin, A.Yu., An approach to symmetrization via polarization, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc., 352 (2000), 1759-1796.
11. Carathéodory, C., Theory of functions of a complex variable, Vol. II, Chelsea, 1960.
12. Chen, Huaihui, On the Bloch constant, Approximation, complex analysis and potential
theory (Montreal, QC 2000), NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem., 37, Kluwer Acad.
Publ., Dordrecht, 2001.
13. Duren, P.L., Univalent functions, Springer-Verlag, New York 1983.
14. Goluzin, G.M., Geometric theory of functions of a complex variable, Amer. Math. Soc.,
1969.
15. Heins, M., On a class of conformal metrics, Nagoya Math. J., 21 (1962), 1-60.
16. Hejhal, D., Universal covering maps for variable regions, Math. Z., 137 (1974), 7-20.
17. Huber, H., Über analytische Abbildungen von Ringgebieten in Ringgebiete, Compositio
Math., 9 (1951), 161-168.
18. Krantz, S.G., Complex analysis: the geometric viewpoint, 2nd. ed., Carus Mathematical
Monograph 23, Mathematical Association of America, 2003.
56 Beardon and Minda IWQCMA05
19. Ma, W. and Minda, D., Geometric properties of hyperbolic geodesics, Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Quasiconformal Mappings and their Applications, pp ??.
20. Ma, W. and Minda, D., Euclidean properties of hyperbolic polar coordinates, submitted
21. Marden, A., Richards, I. and Rodin, B., Analytic self-mappings of Riemann surfaces, J.
Analyse Math., 18 (1967), 197-225.
22. Massey, W.S., Algebraic topology: an introduction, Springer-Verlag, 1977.
23. Minda, C.D., The Aumann-Carathéodory rigidity constant for doubly connected regions,
Kodai Math. J. 2 (1979), 420-426.
24. Minda, C.D., The hyperbolic metric and coverings of Riemann surfaces, Pacific J. Math.
84 (1979), 171-182.
25. Minda, C.D., Bloch constants, J. Analyse Math. 41 (1982), 54-84.
26. Minda, C.D., Lower bounds for the hyperbolic metric in convex regions, Rocky Mtn. J.
Math. 13 (1983), 61-69.
27. Minda, C.D., The hyperbolic metric and Bloch constants for spherically-convex regions,
Complex Variables Theory Appl. 5 (1986), 127-140.
28. Minda, C.D., The strong form of Ahlfors’ Lemma, Rocky Mtn. J. Math. 17 (1987), 457-461.
29. Minda, C.D., A reflection principle for the hyperbolic metric and applications to geometric
function theory, Complex Variables Theory Appl. 8 (1987), 129-144.
30. Minda, D. and Schober, G., Another elementary approach to the theorems of Landau,
Montel, Picard, and Schottky, Complex Variables Theory Appl. 2 (1983), 157-164.
31. Robinson, R.M, A generalization of Picard’s and related theorems, Duke Math. J. 5
(1939), 118-132.
32. Royden, H., The Ahlfors-Schwarz Lemma: the case of equality, J. Analyse Math. 46
(1986), 261-270.
33. Pick, G., Über eine Eigenschaft der konformen Abbildung kreisförmiger Bereiche, Math.
Ann. 77 (1915), 1-6.
34. Veech, W.A., A second course in complex analysis, W.A. Benjamin, 1967.
35. Weitsman, A., Symmetrization and the Poincaré metric, Ann. of Math.(2) 124 (1986),
159-169.
36. Yamada, A., Bounded analytic functions and metrics of constant curvature, Kodai Math.
J. 11 (1988), 317-324.
Peter Hästö
Contents
1. Overview 57
2. Möbius mappings 58
3. The jG metric 61
3.1. Isometries of j-type metrics 63
3.2. Other properties of j-type metrics 66
4. The quasihyperbolic metric 66
Additional notation 68
4.1. Isometries which are Möbius 68
4.2. Curvature of the quasihyperbolic metric 71
4.3. Isometries of the quasihyperbolic metric 73
References 76
1. Overview
These lecture notes consist of three parts: In the first part the basic theory
of Möbius mappings is reviewed. Particular emphasis will be given to concrete
calculations within the context of a single mapping in Euclidean space. Although
this presentation is perhaps not the most elegant one possible, it has the advan-
tage that it does a good job in preparing us for the isometry questions that come
up later. For a more detailed exposition of the basics of Möbius mappings see
e.g. [2, 31].
Supported by the Academy of Finland.
58 Peter Hästö IWQCMA05
The latter two parts deal with the problem of characterizing isometries of two
metrics which have turned out to be very important in the theory of quasicon-
formal mappings, namely, the jG and the quasihyperbolic metric. Specifically, in
the second part we deal with the jG metric — this part is based on joint work
with Z. Ibragimov and H. Lindén [18] in Computational Methods and Function
Theory. The third part reproduces parts of my recent manuscript [15], which
deals with isometries of the quasihyperbolic metric.
Characterizing isometries of a metric can in some sense be thought of as solving
a (system of) functional equation(s): we know that
df (G) (f (x), f (y)) = dG (x, y)
for all x, y ∈ G and we want to determine f . However, the fact that we have at
our disposal a continuum of functional equations implies that the methods used
to approach this problem are somewhat different than those usually found when
dealing with functional equations. Thus our methods will often be based on
some geometric considerations: we will employ geodesics (locally and globally),
intrinsic curvature, as well as limiting behavior of the metric in infinitesimal
regions more generally.
Many other properties of these and related metrics have also been studied. A
review of some of these results is presented in the chapter by H. Lindén in these
notes.
2. Möbius mappings
We denote by Rn = Rn ∪{∞} the one-point compactification of Rn , so its open
balls are the open balls of Rn , complements of closed balls in Rn and half-spaces.
If D ⊂ Rn we denote by ∂D and D its boundary and closure, respectively, all
with respect to Rn . By B n (x, r) and S n−1 (x, r) we denote the open ball centered
at x ∈ Rn with radius r > 0, and its boundary, respectively. For x ∈ D ( Rn we
denote δ(x) = d(x, ∂D) = min{|x − z| : z ∈ ∂D}. By [x, y], (x, y] we denote the
closed and half-open segment between x and y, respectively.
The (absolute) cross-ratio of four distinct points is defined by
|a − c| |b − d|
|a, b, c, d| = ,
|a − b| |c − d|
with the understanding that |∞−x|
|∞−y|
= 1 for all x, y ∈ Rn . A homeomorphism
f : Rn → Rn is a Möbius mapping if
|f (a), f (b), f (c), f (d)| = |a, b, c, d|
for every quadruple of distinct points a, b, c, d ∈ Rn . A mapping of a subdomain
of Rn is Möbius, if it is a restriction of a Möbius mapping defined on Rn .
Although the previous definition is very compact and brings out one important
aspect of Möbius mappings, it does not tell us what the behavior of a Möbius
mapping is in terms of geometry. However, it is not so difficult to get some
Isometries of relative metrics 59
results in this direction: Let us regard three points a, b, c as fixed and a fourth
point x as variable. Then the cross-ratio equation reads
|a − c| |b − x| |a′ − c′ | |b′ − x′ |
= ′ ,
|a − b| |c − x| |a − b′ | |c′ − x′ |
where a′ is the image of a under the Möbius mapping. We can rewrite this as
|b − x| |b′ − x′ |
=C ′ ,
|c − x| |c − x′ |
where C is a constant not depending on x. However, for fixed b, c and C > 0
the set
n |b − x| o
x ∈ Rn : =C
|c − x|
is a sphere. Thus the previous equation implies that the Möbius mapping maps
spheres to spheres. The converse of this statement is also true, see [4].
It is also possible to take a more constructive approach to Möbius mappings.
Let us first of all make the trivial observation that a mapping which preserves
Euclidean distances is Möbius. Second, we note that mappings preserving ra-
tios of Euclidean distances (so-called similarity mappings) are Möbius. These
mappings are:
• translations;
• reflections;
• rotations; and
• dilatations.
Are there any other Möbius mappings?
From the definition it is clear that the set of Möbius mappings is closed under
composition (in fact, the set is a group under composition). Thus we may employ
a very useful trick in trying to identify any other Möbius mappings, namely, we
normalize by mappings that we already know are Möbius. This means that we
consider the mapping g = s1 ◦ f ◦ s2 , where f is our original Möbius mapping and
s1 and s2 are similarities. Suppose first that f is such that f (∞) = ∞. Inserting
d = ∞ in the definition implies that
|a − c| |f (a) − f (c)|
= |a, b, c, ∞| = |f (a), f (b), f (c), ∞| = ,
|a − b| |f (a) − f (b)|
so f is a similarity. Otherwise there exists a finite point a such that f (a) = ∞.
By an auxiliary similarity we may assume that a = 0 (i.e. we choose s2 (x) = x+a
above). Similarly, f (∞) = b 6= ∞, and if we choose s1 (x) = x − b, then g is a
Möbius mapping which swaps 0 and ∞. Using this in the equation gives
|b| |g(c)|
= |∞, b, c, 0| = |0, g(b), g(c), ∞| = .
|c| |g(b)|
From this we see that |x| |g(x)| is a constant. By another similarity we may
assume that this constant equals 1, so that |g(x)| = |x|−1 for every x ∈ Rn . To
60 Peter Hästö IWQCMA05
get a grip of the non-radial action of g we use the equation inserting 0 and ∞ in
other places:
|b − d| |g(b) − g(d)|
= |∞, b, 0, d| = |0, g(b), ∞, g(d)| =
|d| |g(b)|
. Using the previous formula for |g(b)| this gives
|b − d|
(2.1) |g(b) − g(d)| = ,
|b| |d|
which is a central formula for calculating how a Möbius mapping affects distances.
We can rewrite (2.1) as
|g(b) − g(d)|2 |b − d|2
= .
|g(b)| |g(d)| |b| |d|
Using the cosine formula
c ,
|b − d|2 = |b|2 + |d|2 − 2|b| |d| cos b0d
c stands for the angle between the vectors b − 0 and d − 0, and similarly
where b0d
for |g(b)−g(d)|2 we see that g preserves angles at the origin and lines through the
origin. Thus, up to additional normalization by a reflection and/or a rotation,
we see that g(x) = x |x|−2 .
A Möbius mapping which swaps ∞ and with a point of Rn and which maps
every line through this point to itself is called an inversion. Note that every
inversion is an involution, i.e. it is its own inverse. The point which is mapped to
∞ is called the center of inversion. We have shown that every inversion equals
x 7→ x |x|−2 , up to similarity. In particular, every Möbius mapping can be written
as s ◦ i, where s is a similarity and i is an inversion or the identity.
Now that we have identified the Möbius mappings we can proceed to show
the following basic property: given two ordered triples of distinct points in Rn ,
(a, b, c) and (a′ , b′ , c′ ), there exists a Möbius map f with f (a) = a′ , f (b) = b′ and
f (c) = c′ . It is clearly sufficient to show this claim in the case when a′ , b′ and c′
are the vertices of an equilateral triangle. Let us first find a point x such that
|a − c| |b − x| |b − c| |a − x|
= = 1.
|a − b| |c − x| |a − b| |c − x|
The easiest way to see that such a point x exists is to use an inversion i with
center a. Then the equations to satisfy become
|i(b) − z| |i(b) − i(c)|
= = 1.
|i(c) − z| |i(c) − z|
We see that the first fraction describes a hyperplane which is the perpendicular
bisector of the segment [i(b), i(c)] and the second fraction the sphere with center
i(c) and radius |i(b) − i(c)|. Since these objects clearly intersect, we can find a
Isometries of relative metrics 61
suitable z, and then our x is given by i(z). Let ı̃ be an inversion with center x.
The choice of x implies that
|ı̃(a) − ı̃(c)| |ı̃(b) − ı̃(c)|
= = 1,
|ı̃(a) − ı̃(b)| |ı̃(a) − ı̃(b)|
so ı̃(a), ı̃(b), ı̃(c) are the vertices of an equilateral triangle. These can be
mapped to the given points (a′ , b′ , c′ ) by a similarity transform s, so our final
Möbius map is then s ◦ ı̃.
3. The jG metric
This section reproduces parts of the article [18] on isometries of some relative
metrics. The term “relative metric” implies that the metric is evaluated in
a proper subdomain of Rn relative to its boundary. More precisely, we want
the metric to blow up towards the boundary of the domain, i.e., we want the
boundary to be at infinity intrinsically.
Let D ( Rn be a domain containing the points x and y. The well-known
distance ratio metric is defined by
|x − y|
jD (x, y) = log 1 + ,
min{δ(x), δ(y)}
where δ(·) = dist( · , ∂D) denotes distance to the boundary. It was used, for in-
stance, by Gehring and Osgood [11] to characterize uniform domains (namely, in
such domains the jD metric is quasiconvex). Note that this metric has sometimes
been called simply “the relative metric”, and will be used in this meaning.
To see how these metrics fit into a larger framework we recall the concept of
an inner metric. Let d be a metric in D and γ be a path in D (i.e. a continuous
mapping from an interval I to D). The length (or, more explicitly, d-length) of
γ is defined as
k−1
X
d(γ) = sup d γ(ti ), γ(ti+1 ) ,
i=1
where the supremum is taken over k and all increasing sequences (ti )ki=1 of points
in I. Then the inner or intrinsic metric of d is defined by
˜ y) = inf d(γ),
d(x,
γ
where the infimum is taken over all paths γ connecting x and y in D (note
that this need not be finite, unless D is rectifiably connected). It is clear that
˜ y) and that d(γ) = d(γ)
d(x, y) ≤ d(x, ˜ for any metric and path. The theory of
length-metrics, including in particular intrinsic metrics, is presented e.g. in [5, 6].
Suppose now that D ⊂ Rn and d is a metric in D. If
¯ = lim d(x, y)
d(x)
y→x |x − y|
62 Peter Hästö IWQCMA05
exists for all x ∈ D and is continuous, then we can express the inner metric of d
by Z
˜ ¯ |dz|,
d(x, y) = inf d(z)
γ γ
where |dz| represents integration with respect to d-arclength, and the infimum
is taken over rectifiable curves with end points x and y. In this case d˜ is called a
conformal metric. We easily see that the inner metric of jD is the quasihyperbolic
metric, Z
|dz|
j̃D (x, y) = kD (x, y) = inf .
γ γ d(z, ∂D)
Length-metrics are interesting from a geometric point of view, but for getting
explicit estimates they are often of little use. The role of point-distance functions,
like the jD metric, is that they share features with their inner metrics, but are
much more explicit.
In this paper we want to consider not only the jD metric, but all metrics
which resemble them in the very small and very large scale. The small scale
equivalence implies that the metrics have the same inner metrics, whereas the
large scale equivalence allows us to get a hold of the boundary behavior and thus
start unraveling the isometry story.
Remark 3.1. Note that jD is really families of metrics, namely for every domain
D we have one metric. We will continue to use this convention when talking about
this and other metrics in this paper.
Definition 3.2. We say that d is a j-type metric if the following three conditions
hold on every domain D ( Rn :
1. dD is a metric on D.
2. For each y ∈ D and for each sequence (xi ) with jD (xi , y) → 0 we have
dD (xi , y)
lim = 1.
i→∞ jD (xi , y)
3. For each y ∈ D and for each sequence (xi ) with jD (xi , y) → ∞ we have
lim dD (xi , y) − jD (xi , y) = 0.
i→∞
The fact that y can be any interior point in (2) means that being a j-type
metric is quite a strong condition; for instance, if d and f ◦ d are j-type metrics,
then f = id (Corollary 3.12).
It seems to be quite difficult to construct other natural metrics of j-type. The
main purpose of our more abstract treatment is to highlight the features that
are crucial, which in turn indicates that these techniques might be relevant also
for handling the isometries of the corresponding inner metrics.
In this part we characterize the isometries of j-type metrics. We start by
collecting some basic properties of these metrics. In Section 3.1 we solve the
Isometries of relative metrics 63
isometry problem for j-type metrics using a boundary rigidity result, and in
Section 3.2 we list some additional properties whose proofs can be found in [18].
The following result is more or less restatements of the definition. However,
it directly implies that we may restrict our focus very much without losing any
isometries.
Proposition 3.3. If d is a j-type, then
|x − y| dD (x, y) 1
lim dD (x, y) − log =0 and lim =
y→∂D\{∞} δ(y) y→x |x − y| δ(x)
for every x ∈ D. The inner metric of a j-type metrics is the quasihyperbolic
metric kD . In particular, every isometry of a j-type metric is an isometry of kD .
We plunge right into the main result of this section, a characterization of the
isometries of j-type metrics. In Section 3.2 we derive some miscellaneous results,
which give a clearer picture of j-type metrics.
Proof. Denote D′ = f (D) and δ ′ (x) = d(x, ∂f (D)). Fix z ∈ ∂D \ {∞} and let
(zi ) be a sequence of points in D tending to z. We first assume
that there exists
a subsequence, which we also denote by (zi ), such that f (zi ) converges to some
64 Peter Hästö IWQCMA05
point w1 ∈ Rn . Since d is a j-type metric we see, using Proposition 3.3 for the
third equality, that for every x ∈ D we have that
0 = lim dD′ (f (x), f (zi )) − dD (x, zi )
i→∞
1 1
= lim dD′ (f (x), f (zi )) − log ′ − lim dD (x, zi ) − log +
i→∞ δ (f (zi )) i→∞ δ(zi )
δ(zi )
+ lim log ′
i→∞ δ (f (zi ))
|f (x) − w1 | δ(zi )
= log + lim log ′ .
|x − z| i→∞ δ (f (zi ))
Taking exponentials gives
δ ′ (f (zi )) |f (x) − w1 |
(3.6) lim = < ∞.
i→∞ δ(zi ) |x − z|
conclude that
0 = lim dD′ (f (x), f (zi )) − dD (x, zi )
i→∞
= lim jD′ (f (x), f (zi )) − jD (x, zi )
i→∞
|f (x) − f (zi )| δ(zi )
= lim log .
i→∞ min{δ ′ (f (zi )), δ ′ (f (x))} |x − z|
So it follows that
|f (x) − f (zi )|δ(zi )
lim = |x − z|.
i→∞ min{δ ′ (f (zi )), δ ′ (f (x))}
Since f (zi ) → ∞, we see that we can replace |f (x)−f (zi )| by |f (zi )| in the above
formula. Since the right-hand-side depends on x (which lies in an open set) we
see that the left-hand-side must do so, too, hence we have to choose the second
term in the minimum. Taking this into account we have
gf (z) = lim |f (zi )| δ(zi ) = |x − z| δ ′ (f (x)),
i→∞
where gf : ∂D → (0, ∞). Suppose that D has at least two finite boundary points,
and let a, b ∈ ∂D be such that the open segment (a, b) is contained in D. Now
if we first consider x (in the previous equation) to be the mid-point x of (a, b),
then we conclude that
gf (a) = |x − a| δ ′ (f (x)) = |x − b| δ ′ (f (x)) = gf (b).
But if we take some other point on the segment, then we get gf (a) 6= gf (b), a
contradiction. So only the case when D has a single boundary point remains to
consider. Then we have
lim |f (zi )| |zi − a| = |x − a| |f (x) − b|
i→∞
Proof. The previous proposition established that every d-isometry is of the given
kind. If f is a similarity, then it is an isometry by assumption. So it remains
(after normalization) to consider the case D = Rn \ {0}. In thiscase we see that
similarity invariance implies that dD (x, y) depends only on max |x| , |y| and the
|y| |x|
d On the other hand, an inversion in a sphere about the origin swaps
angle x0y.
d invariant, so we see that it is an isometry.
|x|/|y| and |y|/|x| and leaves x0y
66 Peter Hästö IWQCMA05
3.2. Other properties of j-type metrics. We said before that every j-type
metric has an upper bound in terms of the quasihyperbolic metric. Surprisingly,
it is also possible to get a universal lower bound by a metric, the so-called half-
apollonian metric [19]. For a domain D ( Rn this metric is defined by
|x − z|
ηD (x, y) = sup log .
z∈∂D |y − z|
The metric ηD is similarity invariant, and every Möbius mapping is bilipschitz.
The proofs of the following results can be found in [18].
Proposition 3.9. For every j-type metric d and every D ( Rn we have dD ≥ ηD .
Using the previous proposition and the quasihyperbolic upper bound we can
squeeze in j-type metrics to get the exact value on some subset of the domain:
Corollary 3.10. Let w ∈ D and z ∈ ∂D ∩ S n−1 (w, δ(w)). Then dD (x, y) =
jD (x, y) for every x, y ∈ [w, z).
The quasihyperbolic metric was first introduced in the seventies, and since
then it has found innumerable applications, especially in the theory of quasicon-
formal mappings, see, e.g. [11, 12, 22, 28, 29]; new connections are still being
made, for instance P. Jones and S. Smirnov [24] recently gave a criterion for re-
movability of a set in the domain of definition of a Sobolev space in terms of the
integrability of the quasihyperbolic metric, see also [25], and Z. Balogh and S.
Buckley [1] used the metric in a geometric characterization of Gromov hyperbolic
spaces.
Despite the prominence of the quasihyperbolic metric, there have been almost
no investigations of its geometry. Three exceptions are the papers by G. Martin
[28] and Martin and B. Osgood [29], the second of which was the main motivation
for the approach presented in this paper, and the thesis by H. Lindén [27]. Part of
the reason for this lack of geometrical investigations is probably that the density
of the quasihyperbolic metric is not differentiable in the entire domain, which
places the metric outside the standard framework of Riemanian metrics.
At least two modifications of the quasihyperbolic metric have been proposed
which do not suffer from this problem. J. Ferrand [10] suggested replacing the
density δ −1 by
|a − b|
σD (x) = sup .
a,b∈∂D |a − x| |b − x|
Note that δ(x)−1 ≤ σD (x) ≤ 2δ(x)−1 , so the Ferrand metric and the quasihyper-
bolic metric are bilipschitz equivalent. Moreover, the Ferrand metric is Möbius
invariant, whereas the quasihyperbolic metric is only Möbius quasi-invariant. A
second variant was proposed more recently by R. Kulkarni and U. Pinkall [26],
see also [23]. The K–P metric is defined by the density
n 2r o
µD (x) = inf : x ∈ B(z, r) ⊂ D .
(r − |x − z|)2
Equivalently, the infimum is taken over the hyperbolic densities of x in balls
contained in D. This density satisfies the same estimate as Ferrand’s density,
i.e. δ(x)−1 ≤ µD (x) ≤ 2δ(x)−1 , and the K–P metric is also Möbius invariant.
Although the Ferrand and K–P metrics are in some sense better behaved than
the quasihyperbolic metric, they suffer from the short-coming that it is very
difficult to get a grip even of the density, even in simple domains.
Despite this, D. Herron, Z. Ibragimov and D. Minda [21] recently managed to
solve the isometry problem of the K–P metric in most cases. By the isometry
problem of the metric d we mean characterizing mappings f : D → R2 with
dD (x, y) = df (D) (f (x), f (y))
for all x, y ∈ D. Notice that in some sense we are here dealing with two dif-
ferent metrics, due to the dependence on the domain. Hence the usual way of
approaching the isometry problem is by looking at some intrinsic features of the
metric which are then preserved under the isometry. Since irregularities (e.g.
cusps) in the domain often lead to more distinctive features, this implies that
the problem is often easier for more complicated domains.
68 Peter Hästö IWQCMA05
The work by Herron, Ibragimov and Minda [21] bears out this heuristic – they
were able to show that all isometries of the K–P metric are Möbius mappings
except in simply and doubly connected domains. Their proof is based on studying
the curvature of the metric. For the quasihyperbolic metric, formulae for the
curvature were worked out already in [29] (see Section 4.2, below), and were
used in that paper to prove that all the isometries of the disc are similarity
mappings. These will be our main tool in this paper. The other source of the
ideas used below are the papers [16, 17, 18, 19] on isometries of some other
similarity and Möbius invariant metrics.
There are three steps in characterizing quasihyperbolic isometries:
1. show that they are conformal;
2. show that they are Möbius; and
3. show that they are similarities.
The first step has been carried out by Martin and Osgood [29, Theorem 2.6] for
completely arbitrary domains, so there is no more work to do there. In Section 4.3
we will use the results from [29] on the curvature of the quasihyperbolic metric,
and some new ideas to prove that the conformal isometries are Möbius (second
step). For this we need to assume that the boundary of the domain is at least
C 3 -smooth. In Section 4.1 we will work on the third step – we show that Möbius
isometries are similarities provided the boundary is C 1 . In Section 4.2 we study
the Gaussian curvature of the quasihyperbolic metric, and the gradient of the
curvature.
4.1. Isometries which are Möbius. Let D be a domain and ζ ∈ ∂D. We say
that ζ is circularly accessible, if there exists a disc B ⊂ D such that ζ ∈ ∂B.
Lemma 4.1. Let D ( R2 be a Jordan domain with circularly accessible bound-
ary, and let f : D → R2 be a quasihyperbolic isometry which is also Möbius.
Then, up to composition by similarity mappings, f is the identity or the inver-
sion in a circle centered at a boundary point.
z has to lie on the positive real axis, as well. Let x and y be points satisfying
ζ < x < y ≤ ζ(ζ+2r)
ζ+r
. The right-hand inequality ensures that ζ is the closest
boundary point to [x, y], and that ζ ′ is the closest boundary point to [x′ , y ′ ].
Thus we find that
|x − ζ| |x′ − ζ ′ |
kD (x, y) = log and kD′ (x′ , y ′ ) = log ′ .
|y − ζ| |y − ζ ′ |
Since f is the inversion in the unit sphere, we have
|x − ζ|
|x′ − ζ ′ | = ,
|x| |ζ|
and similarly for y. Then the equation exp kD (x, y) = exp kD′ (x′ , y ′ ) gives us
|x − ζ| |x − ζ| |y| |ζ|
= ,
|y − ζ| |x| |ζ| |y − ζ|
i.e. |x| = |y|. This contradiction shows that w ∈ D. Since f maps D into R2 , it
is clear that w 6∈ D, so it follows that w is a boundary point.
for the length distortion of an inversion. Using these facts and the estimate
δ ′ (x′ ) ≤ |x′ − ζ ′ |, we derive the inequality
|x′ − y ′ |
kD′ (x′ , y ′ ) ≥ log 1 +
min{δ ′ (x′ ), δ ′ (y ′ )}
|x − y|/(|x| |y|)
≥ log 1 +
min{|x′ − ζ ′ |, |y ′ − ζ ′ |}
|x − y| |ζ|
= log 1 +
|x| |y| min{|x − ζ|/|x|, |y − ζ|/|y|}
|x − y| |ζ|
= log 1 + .
min{|y| |x − ζ|, |x| |y − ζ|}
Applying this inequality to the points xt and xs as defined before, we have
(t − s) |ζ|
kD′ (x′t , x′s ) ≥ log 1 + .
min{t |xs |, s |xt |}
Let us choose t = 2s. Since |x2s | and |xs | both tend to |ζ| as s → 0, we see that
the second term in the minimum is smaller. Since the inversion is supposed to be
an isometry, we can use the formula for kD (xt , xs ) from before with the previous
inequality to conclude that
2s (2s − s) |ζ|
log ≥ log 1 + .
s s |x2s |
Taking the exponential function gives |x2s | ≥ |ζ|. Since xs = ζ + su, this implies
that hζ − 0, ui ≥ 0 as s → 0, where h, i denotes the scalar product.
Applying the same argument, but starting with points on the image side, we
conclude that the opposite inequality is also valid. (There is actually a slight
asymmetry here: the domain D′ need not have circularly accessible boundary
at the origin. However, it is clear that this does not affect the argument so
far.) Thus it follows that hζ − 0, ui = 0 for all boundary points. But since the
boundary is assumed to be C 1 , this implies that the domain is a half-plane.
Using this lemma we can derive the following very plausible statement, which
says that the Gaussian curvature of the quasihyperbolic metric depends only on
the curvature of the boundary at the closest boundary point. We sill need some
more notation.
Let B be a disc with ζ ∈ (∂B) ∩ (∂D). Then we call B the osculating disc at
ζ if ∂B and ∂D have second order contact at ζ. Let D be at least a C 2 domain.
Then there exists an osculating disc at every boundary point ζ. If this disc has
radius r, then we define Rζ to be r if the disc lies in the direction of the interior of
D, and −r otherwise. Note that the function ζ 7→ 1/Rζ is C k−2 in a C k domain,
k ≥ 2.
Proposition 4.6. Let D ( R2 be a C 2 domain and z ∈ D \ MA(D) have closest
boundary point ζ ∈ ∂D. Then
Rζ 1
KD (z) = − =− .
Rζ − δ(z) 1 − δ(z)/Rζ
If z lies on the medial axis, then KD (z) = −∞.
Proof. The medial axis consists of points equidistant to two or more nearest
boundary points, and of centers of osculating circles. For the former, the claim
72 Peter Hästö IWQCMA05
that KD (z) = −∞ follows from [29, Corollary 3.12]. So we assume that z has a
unique nearest boundary point, ζ.
We suppose further that Rζ > 0, the other case begin similar. Let B(w, Rζ )
be the osculating disc at ζ. We define
w−ζ
Bt = B(w + Rζ
t, Rζ + t),
and note that ∂Bt contains ζ for all t > −Rζ . We have the formula
r r
KB(0,r) (x) = − =−
|x| r − d(x, ∂B(0, r))
for the curvature of the quasihyperbolic metric in a ball [29, Lemma 3.7], so we
can calculate KBt (z) explicitly.
Using the previous lemma with G = D and G̃ = Bt for t > 0 gives KD (z) ≤
KBt (z). If z is the center of B0 , then right-hand-side of this inequality tends
to −∞ as t → 0, which completes the proof of the claim regarding the medial
axis. So we assume that z is not the center of B0 , and then we can apply the
Lemma 4.5 with G = Bt for t < 0 (sufficiently close to 0) and G̃ = D to get
KBt (z) ≤ KD (z). Thus we have
KB−t (z) ≤ KD (z) ≤ KBt (z)
for small t > 0. Since KBt is continuous in t, we get KD (z) = KB0 (z) as we let
t → 0. The proof is completed by applying the aforementioned formula for the
curvature to the ball B0 = B(w, Rζ ).
so that the ∇˜ operator is more natural in the setting where the quasihyperbolic
but not the Euclidean distance is preserved (see (4.9), below).
˜ D . For this need a mapping which
We next present an explicit formula for ∇K
associates to every point in D \ MA(D) its closest boundary point. We call this
mapping ζ = ζ(z).
Lemma 4.7. Let D ( R2 be a C 3 domain. Then
˜ D (z) = (KD (z) + 1) KD (z)∇δ(z) − (KD (z) + 1)∇Rζ(z)
∇K
for every z off the medial axis, where all differentiation is with respect to the
variable z.
˜
Kf (D) (f (z) + εf ′ (z)u) − Kf (D) (f (z))
∇KD (z), u = lim
ε→0 kf (D) (f (z) + εf ′ (z)u, f (z))
ε|f ′ (z)|h∇Kf (D) (f (z)), ũi
= lim
ε→0 ε|f ′ (z)|δ ′ (f (z))−1
= ∇K˜ f (D) (f (z)), ũ .
˜ D (z)| = |∇K
Since u was an arbitrary unit vector, we see that |∇K ˜ f (D) (f (z))|.
|y−ξ| |y −ξ |
where ξ is the closest boundary point to the every point on γ ′ . But this easily
′
Proof. In view of Corollary 4.11, we may restrict ourselves to the case when
KD (z) 6= −1 for all z ∈ D. Let z ∈ D \ MA(D) and ζ be its nearest boundary
point. We note that ∇δ(z) and ∇Rζ are perpendicular – first of all, ∇δ(z) is
parallel to z − ζ; second, Rζ is a constant in the direction of z − ζ, since ζ is the
closest boundary point to all points on this line (near z).
If D is bounded, then it is clear that Rζ has a critical point. If D is unbounded,
then we note that 1/Rζ cannot have any other limit than 0 at ∞ (although a
limit need not exist, of course). Thus we see that Rζ has a critical point in the
unbounded case as well. Let ζ be a critical point of ξ 7→ Rξ and fix a point z ∈ D
with KD (z) 6= −∞ whose nearest boundary point is ζ. Of course, ∇Rζ = 0 at
the critical point ζ. Then it follows from Lemma 4.7 that
˜ D (z) = (KD (z) + 1)KD (z)∇δ(z).
∇K
Since the curvature is intrinsic to the metric, we have KD′ (z ′ ) = KD (z). Also,
˜ D′ (z ′ )| = |∇K
|∇K ˜ D (z)| by Lemma 4.8, so we have
(KD (z) + 1)KD (z)∇δ(z) = (KD (z) + 1) KD (z)∇δ ′ (z ′ ) − (KD (z) + 1)∇Rζ′ ′ (z′ ) .
We know that KD (z) 6= −1 and that ∇δ ′ (z ′ ) and ∇Rζ′ ′ (z′ ) are orthogonal. Thus
the previous equation simplifies to
2 2 2
KD (z)|∇δ(z)| = KD (z)|∇δ ′ (z ′ )| + (KD (z) + 1)∇Rζ′ ′ (z′ ) .
Since |∇δ| = 1 off the medial axis for every domain, this equation implies that
∇Rζ ′ = 0.
So for our point z, ∇KD (z) and ∇KD′ (z ′ ) point to the nearest boundary
point of z and z ′ , respectively. Let γ = [z, ζ). Note that γ is a geodesic of the
quasihyperbolic metric. Also, ∇KD (z) and γ are parallel at z. Now γ is mapped
to some geodesic ray γ ′ , and since f is a conformal mapping, γ ′ is parallel to
∇KD′ (z ′ ) at z ′ . But [z ′ , ζ ′ ) is a geodesic parallel to ∇KD′ (z ′ ) at z ′ , and since
geodesics are unique (when the density is C 2 , i.e. except possibly on the medial
axis) we see that γ ′ = [z ′ , ζ ′ ).
So we have shown that f ([z, ζ)) = [z ′ , ζ ′ ). Moreover, we have
|x−ζ| ′ ′ |x′ −ζ ′ |
kD (x, y) = log |y−ζ| and kD′ (x , y ) = log |y′ −ζ ′ |
for x, y ∈ [z, ζ). Thus we see that f is just a similarity on [z, ζ). But f is a
conformal map, so this implies that f is a similarity in all of D.
Acknowledgment. I would like to thank Zair Ibragmov for several discussions
about the isometries of this and related metrics and Swadesh Sahoo for some
comments on this manuscript.
76 Peter Hästö IWQCMA05
References
[1] Z. Balogh and S. Buckley: Geometric characterizations of Gromov hyperbolicity, Invent.
Math. 153 (2003), no. 2, 261–301.
[2] A. Beardon: Geometry of Discrete Groups, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983; corrected
reprint, 1995.
[3] : The Apollonian metric of a domain in Rn , pp. 91–108 in Quasiconformal mappings
and analysis (P. Duren, J. Heinonen, B. Osgood and B. Palka (eds.)), Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1998.
[4] A. Beardon and D. Minda: Sphere-preserving maps in inversive geometry, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 130 (2002), 987–998.
[5] L. Blumenthal: Distance Geometry. A study of the development of abstract metrics. With
an introduction by Karl Menger, Univ. of Missouri Studies Vol. 13, No. 2, Univ. of Missouri,
Columbia, 1938.
[6] D. Burago, Yu. Burago and S. Ivanov: A course in metric geometry, Graduate Studies in
Mathematics, 33, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001.
[7] L. Cafarelli and A. Friedman: The free boundary for elastic-plastic torsion problems,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 252 (1979), 65–97.
[8] H. I. Choi, S. W. Choi and H. P. Moon: Mathematical theory of medial axis transform,
Pacific J. Math. 181 (1997), no. 1, 57–88.
[9] J. Damon: Smoothness and geometry of boundaries associated to skeletal structures.
I. Sufficient conditions for smoothness, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 53 (2003), no. 6,
1941–1985.
[10] J. Ferrand: A characterization of quasiconformal mappings by the behavior of a function of
three points, pp. 110–123 in Proceedings of the 13th Rolf Nevalinna Colloquium (Joensuu,
1987; I. Laine, S. Rickman and T. Sorvali (eds.)), Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 1351,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988.
[11] F. Gehring and B. Osgood: Uniform domains and the quasihyperbolic metric, J. Anal.
Math. 36 (1979), 50–74.
[12] F. Gehring and B. Palka: Quasiconformally homogeneous domains, J. Anal. Math. 30
(1976), 172–199.
[13] P. Hästö: A new weighted metric: the relative metric II, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 301 (2005),
no. 2, 336–353.
[14] : Gromov hyperbolicity of the jG and ̃G metrics, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 134 (2006),
1137–1142.
[15] : Isometries of the quasihyperbolic metric, submitted.
[16] P. Hästö and Z. Ibragimov: Apollonian isometries of planar domains are Möbius mappings,
J. Geom. Anal. 15 (2005), no. 2, 229–237.
[17] : Apollonian isometries of regular domains are Möbius mappings, Ann. Acad. Sci.
Fenn. Math., to appear.
[18] P. Hästö, Z. Ibragimov and H. Lindén: Isometries of relative metrics, Comput. Methods
Funct. Theory 6 (2006), no. 1, 15–28.
[19] P. Hästö and H. Lindén: Isometries of the half-apollonian metric, Complex Var. Theory
Appl. 49 (2004), 405–415.
[20] M. Heins: On a class of conformal metrics, Nagoya Math. J. 21 (1962), 1–60.
[21] David Herron, Zair Ibragimov and David Minda: Geometry of the K-P metric, preprint
(2005).
[22] D. Herron and P. Koskela: Conformal capacity and the quasihyperbolic metric, Indiana
Univ. Math. J. 45 (1996), no. 2, 333–359.
[23] D. Herron, W. Ma and D. Minda: A Möbius invariant metric for regions on the Riemann
sphere, pp. 101–118 in Future Trends in Geometric Function Theory (RNC Workshop,
Jyväskylä 2003; D. Herron (ed.)), Rep. Univ. Jyväskylä Dept. Math. Stat. 92 (2003).
Isometries of relative metrics 77
[24] P. Jones and S. Smirnov: Removability theorems for Sobolev functions and QC maps,
Ark. Mat. 38 (2000), no. 2, 263–279.
[25] P. Koskela and T. Nieminen: Quasiconformal removability and the quasihyperbolic metric,
Indiana Univ. Math. J. 54 (2005), no. 1, 143–151.
[26] R. Kulkarni and U. Pinkall: A canonical metric for Möbius structures and its applications,
Math. Z. 216 (1994), 89–129.
[27] H. Lindén: Quasihyperbolic Geodesics and Uniformity in Elementary Domains, Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Helsinki, 2005.
[28] G. Martin: Quasiconformal and bilipschitz mappings, uniform domains and the quasihy-
perbolic metric, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 292 (1985), 169–191.
[29] G. Martin and B. Osgood: The quasihyperbolic metric and associated estimates on the
hyperbolic metric, J. Anal. Math. 47 (1986), 37–53.
[30] P. Seittenranta: Möbius-invariant metrics, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 125
(1999), 511–533.
[31] M. Vuorinen: Conformal Geometry and Quasiregular Mappings, Lecture Notes in Math.,
Vol. 1319, Springer, Berlin, 1988.
David A Herron
Contents
1. Introduction 80
2. Metric Space Background 84
2.A. General Information 85
2.B. Abstract Domains 86
2.C. Maps and Gauges 87
2.D. Length and Geodesics 88
2.E. Connectivity Conditions 89
2.F. Doubling and Dimensions 90
2.G. Quasiconformal Deformations 92
2.H. Quasihyperbolic Distance and Geodesics 96
2.I. Modulus and Capacity 97
2.J. Ahlfors Regular and Loewner Spaces 99
2.K. Slice Conditions 101
3. Uniform Spaces 102
3.A. Euclidean Setting 102
3.B. Measure Metric Space Setting 102
3.C. Basic Information 103
4. Gromov Hyperbolicity 103
4.A. Thin Triangles Definition 104
Version October 19, 2006.
The author was supported by the NSF and the Charles Phelps Taft Research Center.
80 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
1. Introduction
This survey is meant to supplement the talks I presented at the International
Workshop on Quasiconformal Mappings and their Applications and at the Interna-
tional Conference on Geometric Function Theory, Special Functions and their Appli-
cations. Primarily, I provide here basic background material including definitions,
terminology, and fundamental facts. I also list a few references, many of which
themselves contain additional references to this material. I have made no at-
tempt to render a complete list of references and apologize to all those whose
work I have neglected to mention. The reader is absolutely encouraged to consult
the many works referred to by the authors I do mention.
The goal of these notes is to provide the reader with a foundation enabling
them to understand the meaning and relevance of the recent work [BHK01],
[BHR01], [BKR98] of Bonk, Heinonen, Koskela and Rohde along with [Her04]
and [Her06]. I am delighted to thank Mario Bonk, Juha Heinonen and Pekka
Koskela for numerous helpful discussions and hours of blackboard sessions re-
garding these topics.
By now Euclidean uniform spaces (domains in Euclidean space in which points
can be joined by short twisted double cone arcs) are well recognized as being the
‘nice’ spaces for quasiconformal function theory as well as many other areas of
analysis (e.g., potential theory); see [Geh87], [Väi88] for Euclidean space and
[Gre01], [CGN00], [CT95] for the Carnot-Carathéodory setting. In [BHK01]
Bonk, Heinonen, and Koskela develop a uniformization theory which provides a
Uniformity and Hyperbolicity 81
two way correspondence between uniform spaces and Gromov hyperbolic spaces.
In particular, they prove the following fundamental result; see [BHK01, Theorem
1.1].
There is a one-to-one (conformal) correspondence between quasiisom-
etry classes of proper geodesic roughly starlike Gromov hyperbolic spaces
and quasisimilarity classes of bounded locally compact uniform spaces.
A simple, yet beautiful, example is the open unit disk in the plane. In terms of
its Euclidean geometry, each pair of points can be joined by a twisted double cone
which stays away from the boundary and is not much bigger than the distance
between the given points (it is a uniform space). On the other hand, the disk
also admits a non-euclidean geometry, in terms of its Poincaré hyperbolic metric,
and as such the disk is a Gromov hyperbolic space.
The Bonk, Heinonen, Koskela theory asserts that this phenomenon holds in a
very general setting. The complete proof of their result is presented in Chapters
2-5 of [BHK01] and beyond the scope of our discussion. However, there are two
basic results involved which are central to my workshop lectures: Fact 4.1 says
that every locally compact uniform space has a Gromov hyperbolic quasihyper-
bolization; Fact 5.1 says that every (proper geodesic) Gromov hyperbolic space
can be uniformized. I will describe what uniform spaces are, what their con-
nection is with Gromov hyperbolicity, and explain some of the ideas behind the
proofs. Time permitting, I will also look at the related question of when there
exists a uniformization with the property that the associated measure (see (2.7))
has regular volume growth. My conference lecture will focus on §6.D and §6.E.
For the remainder of this introduction, I advertise results from [Her04] and
[Her06] hoping to wet the reader’s appetite for this flavor of metric measure space
geometric function theory. See §2-§5 for precise definitions.
In [BHR01] and [BKR98] the authors investigate conformal deformations of
the unit ball in Euclidean space. The primary object of study in these notes
is the geometry of quasiconformal deformations of an abstract metric measure
space (Ω, d, µ). Following BHKR, we consider a metric-density ρ on Ω and Ωρ =
(Ω, dρ , µρ ) denotes the deformed space (see subsection 2.G). We are interested
in the situation when this new space Ωρ is uniform (see Section 3) and describe
this by calling such a ρ a uniformizing density. Every proper geodesic Gromov
hyperbolic space can be uniformized, and, there is a natural canonical proper
geodesic space associated with any locally compact abstract domain, namely, its
quasihyperbolization; see Facts 4.1 and 5.1. However, in general the associated
measure (see (2.7)) may fail to have Ahlfors regular volume growth. For example,
applying the BHK uniformization to the quasihyperbolized Euclidean unit ball
we obtain a new metric measure space which has exponential volume growth.
The theory developed in [BHK01] is exploited in [Her06] to extend some results
of [BHR01] to the setting of abstract metric measure spaces (Ω, d, µ). More
importantly, we establish the result given below which provides an answer to the
82 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
The above result is quantitative: the asserted constants depend only on the data
associated with Ω and the density.
In what follows we consider metric measure spaces (Ω, d, µ) which satisfy the
following basic minimal hypotheses:
Ω is an abstract domain having bounded Q-geometry and a
Gromov hyperbolic roughly starlike quasihyperbolization.
Precise definitions are stated in subsections 2.B, 2.D, 2.H, 5.C; roughly, these
hypotheses ensure that Ω has ‘enough’ of the local properties enjoyed by domains
in Euclidean space. The data associated with these basic hypotheses consists of
six parameters: Q (the ‘dimension’), M , m, λ (the bounded geometry constants),
δ (the Gromov hyperbolicity constant) and κ (the rough starlike constant).
There are a number of auxiliary results (namely, Theorems B-F) needed for
the proof of Theorem A; all of these can be found in [Her04] or [Her06]. First
we have the so-called Gehring-Hayman Inequality (cf. [GH62]); it is an essential
tool for most of what follows. This was proved in [BKR98, Theorem 3.1] for
deformations of the Euclidean unit ball and in [HR93] for quasiconformal images
of uniform domains in Euclidean space; see also [BB03, Theorem 2.3], [BHK01,
Chpt. 5] and [HN94]. Our proof of the following (see [Her04, Theorem A]) utilizes
ideas from both [BKR98, Theorem 3.1] and [HR93, Theorem 1.1].
Theorem B. Let ρ be an Ahlfors Harnack density on a uniform Loewner met-
ric measure space (Ω, d, µ). Then there exists a constant Λ such that for all
quasihyperbolic geodesics [x, y]k with endpoints in Ω̄,
ℓρ ([x, y]k ) ≤ Λ dρ (x, y).
ℓρ (α) < ∞, then ℓρ (γ) < ∞ for every quasihyperbolic geodesic ray going to ζ. In
fact, there is even a ‘radial limit theorem’ [Her04, Theorem B] which says that
this is true for modQ -a.e. point of ∂Ω.
Next we communicate the primary tool employed in our proof of Theorem A.
It is based on a lifting procedure discussed in [BKR98, 2.7] and established for
the Euclidean unit ball as [BHR01, Proposition 1.25]. See (5.9) and (2.5) for the
definitions of ρν (the lift of ν) and δν,1/P (the quasimetric determined by ν). See
§5.D for a discussion of the proof of the following.
Theorem C. Assume the basic minimal hypotheses, that the Gromov boundary
of Ω is uniformly perfect, and that P < Q. Suppose ν is a P -dimensional metric
doubling measure on ∂G Ω. Then the lift ρ = ρν of ν is a doubling conformal
density on Ω and the natural map (∂ρ Ω, dρ ) → (∂G Ω, δν,1/P ) is bilipschitz.
Again, this result is quantitative: the asserted constants depend only on the data
associated with Ω and ρ, and the related data. Also, we point out that the proof
of (b) shows that the quasihyperbolic geodesics in Ω will be uniform arcs in Ωρ .
A crucial component of the proof of Theorem C is the following result which
permits us to estimate dρ (x) = distρ (x, ∂ρ Ω) in terms of ρ(x)d(x). More precisely,
it tells us that Ahlfors Harnack metric-densities are Koebe under the right condi-
tions. The lower bound is immediate via the Harnack inequality. To obtain any
upper bound, we at least need ∂ρ Ω 6= ∅. In fact, we require a condition which
ensures that Ω has a uniformly thick boundary as seen from each point. With
this in mind, we introduce the following notion: we say that (Ω, d, µ) satisfies a
Whitney ball modulus property if there exists a constant m > 0 such that
modQ (B̄(x; λ d(x)), ∂Ω; Ω) ≥ m for all x ∈ Ω.
84 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
In contrast to the Euclidean case, the converse to the above is false; see
[Her04, Example 3.2] which furnishes a space with an isolated boundary point
which nonetheless satisfies a Whitney ball modulus property.
Our notation is relatively standard and, for the most part, conforms with that
of [BHK01]. We write C = C(a, . . .) to indicate a constant C which depends only
on the parameters a, . . .; the notation A . B means there exists a finite constant
c with A ≤ cB, and A ≃ B means that both A . B and B . A hold. Typically
a, b, c, C, K, . . . will be constants that depend on various parameters, and we try
to make this as clear as possible often giving explicit values, however, at times
C will denote some constant whose value depends only on the data present but
may differ even on the same line of inequalities.
2.A. General Information. In what follows (X, d) will always denote a generic
metric space possessing no additional presumed properties. For the record, this
means that d is a distance function; that is, d : X × X → R is positive semi-
definite, symmetric, and satisfies the triangle inequality. We often write the
distance between x and y as d(x, y) = |x − y|. The open ball (sphere) of radius r
centered at the point x is B(x; r) := {y : |x−y| < r} (S(x; r) := {y : |x−y| = r}).
When B = B(x; r) and λ > 0, λB := B(x; λ r). We say that X is a proper met-
ric space if it has the Heine-Borel property that every closed ball is compact (or
equivalently, the compact sets are exactly the closed and bounded sets).
In general, we work in the setting of a metric measure space (X, d, µ) with
X a non-complete locally complete (often locally compact) rectifiably connected
metric space and µ a Borel regular measure satisfying µ[B(x; r)] > 0 for each
ball.
Recall that every metric space can be isometrically embedded into a complete
metric space. We let X̄ denote the metric completion of a metric space X and
we call ∂X = X̄ \ X the metric boundary of X. Then d(x) = dist(x, ∂X) is the
distance from a point x ∈ X to the boundary ∂X of X; note that when ∂X is
closed in X̄, we have d(x) > 0 for all x ∈ X. For example, this holds when X
is locally compact. Of course, if X is complete to begin with, then ∂X = ∅ and
d(x) = ∞ for all x ∈ X. We call X locally complete provided d(x) > 0 for all
x ∈ X.
In a locally complete metric space we make extensive use of the notation
B(x) := B(x; d(x)).
In this setting, we call λB(x) = B(x; λ d(x)) a Whitney ball in X with associated
Whitney ball constant λ ∈ (0, 1).
It is convenient, at times, to consider quasimetric spaces (X, q). We call q a
quasimetric on X if q : X × X → R is symmetric and positive definite but only
satisfies
q(x, y) ≤ K (q(x, z) + q(y, z)) for all x, y, z ∈ X
in place of the triangle inequality. See [Hei01, 14.1], [Sem01] and [DS97].
Starting with a quasimetric q, there is a standard way to define a pseudometric
d with d ≤ q (cf. [BH99, 1.24, p.14]), but it may happen that d(x, y) = 0 for
some x 6= y. However, by first ‘snowflaking’ q and then applying this procedure
we can arrive at an honest distance function; see [Hei01, Proposition 14.5] or
[BH99, Proposition 3.21, p.435].
2.1. Fact. Let q be a quasimetric on X. There is an ε0 > 0 depending only on
the quasimetric constant K for q such that for all ε ∈ (0, ε0 ), the quasimetric
qε (x, y) = q(x, y)ε is bilipschitz equivalent to an honest distance function d on
X; in fact there is a constant L = L(ε, K) such that
L−1 qε (x, y) ≤ d(x, y) ≤ qε (x, y) for all x, y ∈ X.
86 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
The above result can be used in conjunction with Theorem F to see that the
Whitney ball modulus property holds.
group setting and there is still much research underway there. Heinonen and
Koskela strongly advanced the theory in the general metric space setting; see
[HK95] and [HK98]. See Koskela’s notes [Kos07] for a ‘modern’ approach to QC
maps in the Euclidean setting.
There are three so-called definitions for QC maps: the metric definition, the
geometric definition, and the analytic definition. We present the first two. A
homeomorphism f : X → Y is (metrically) quasiconformal provided there is a
constant H < ∞ such that for all x ∈ X,
L(x, f, r)
lim sup H(x, f, r) ≤ H where H(x, f, r) = ,
rց0 l(x, f, r)
L(x, f, r) = sup{|f (y) − f (x)| : |x − y| ≤ r} ,
l(x, f, r) = inf{|f (y) − f (x)| : |x − y| ≥ r} .
A homeomorphism f : X → Y is (geometrically) quasiconformal provided there
is a constant K < ∞ such that for all curve families Γ in X,
K −1 mod(Γ) ≤ mod(f Γ) ≤ K mod(Γ).
Notice that unlike the metric definition, which makes sense for any pair of met-
ric spaces, the geometric definition requires measure metric spaces. These are
generally assumed to be Ahlfors Q-regular spaces (see §2.J) in which case mod(·)
denotes the Q-modulus.
We call γ rectifiable when ℓ(γ) < ∞. We let Γ(x, y) = Γ(x, y; X) denote the
collection of all rectifiable paths joining x and y in X; in general we should
also indicate the metric in this notation, but it will always be understood from
context. Väisälä’s notes [Väi71, §1-§5] provide an excellent reference for studying
properties of curves, and the results are valid in the general metric space setting.
Each rectifiable path γ : [0, 1] → X has an associated arclength function s :
[0, 1] → [0, ℓ(γ)], given by s(t) = ℓ(γ[0, t]), which is of bounded variation. Given
a Borel measurable function ρ : X → [0, ∞], we define
Z Z 1
ρ ds := ρ(γ(t)) ds(t).
γ 0
and
There is one final comment we wish to point out regarding the quasimetrics
δν,α . As above, suppose ν is a doubling measure on a metric space (X, d), and
suppose X has another metric, say, ∂ which is QS equivalent to d. Then by
using the doubling property of ν in conjunction with quasisymmetry we see that
ν[Bd (xy)] ≃ ν[B∂ (xy)] (where these sets are defined as above using balls centered
at x and y in the appropriate metrics); here the constant depends only on the
doubling constant and the quasisymmetry data. It therefore follows that the
quasimetric δd (defined as in (2.5) via Bd (xy)) is bilipschitz equivalent to δ∂
(defined via B∂ (xy)).
We note the important fact that quasisymmetric homeomorphisms preserve
these doubling conditions; cf. [Hei01, Theorem 10.18] or [DS97, Lemma 16.4].
In particular, the notions of doubling measure, the quasimetrics δν,α , and metric
doubling measures do not depend on the given distance function per se; they all
make sense for a conformal gauge.
The ρ-balls (etc.) are written as Bρ (x; r); these are the metric balls in Ωρ , so
Bρ (x; r) = {y ∈ Ω : dρ (x, y) < r}. We define a new measure µρ by
Z
(2.7) µρ (E) := ρQ dµ.
E
in particular,
1 diamρ [ηB(z)]
≤ ≤ 2aH.
H ηρ(z)d(z)
If ρ is also a Koebe density, then for all 0 ≤ ϑ ≤ λ/2C and all x ∈ Ω,
C −1 ϑB(x) ⊂ ϑBρ (x) ⊂ CϑB(x),
where C = aHK. Here H = Hρ , K = Kρ and λ is the Whitney ball constant.
where the infimum is taken over all rectifiable curves γ which join x, y in Ω.
The quasihyperbolization of an abstract domain (Ω, d) is the metric space (Ω, k)
obtained by using quasihyperbolic distance. It is not hard to see that (Ω, k)
is complete, provided the identity map (Ω, ℓ) → (Ω, d) is a homeomorphism;
see [BHK01, Proposition 2.8]. Thus by the Hopf-Rinow theorem ([Gro99, p.9],
[BBI01, p.51], [BH99, p.35]), every locally compact abstract domain has a proper
(hence geodesic) quasihyperbolization.
We call the geodesics in (Ω, k) quasihyperbolic geodesics; see §2.D. Note that
when ρ is a Koebe density on Ω, the identity map (Ω, k) → (Ωρ , kρ ) is bilips-
chitz and we find that quasihyperbolic geodesics in Ω are quasihyperbolic quasi-
geodesics in Ωρ ; that is, a geodesic in (Ω, k) will be a quasigeodesic in (Ωρ , kρ )
(the quasihyperbolization of Ωρ ).
We remind the reader of the following basic estimates for quasihyperbolic
distance, first established by Gehring and Palka [GP76, Lemma 2.1]:
ℓ(x, y) |x − y| d(x)
k(x, y) ≥ log 1 + ≥ j(x, y) = log 1 + ≥ log .
d(x) ∧ d(y) d(x) ∧ d(y) d(y)
See also [BHK01, (2.3),(2.4)]. The first inequality above is a special case of the
more general (and easily proved) inequality,
ℓ(γ)
ℓk (γ) ≥ log 1 +
d(x) ∧ d(y)
which holds for any rectifiable curve γ with endpoints x, y.
An immediate consequence of the above inequalities is that the identity map
(Ω, k) → (Ω, d) is continuous; indeed,
Bk (x; R) ⊂ (eR − 1)B(x) for all x ∈ Ω and all R > 0,
where Bk (x; R) denotes the R-ball centered at x in (Ω, k). It is important to
know when this map will be a homeomorphism (which, according to [BHK01,
Lemma A.4, p.92], will be the case if and only if the identity map (Ω, ℓ) → (Ω, d)
is a homeomorphism). The following provides quantitative information concern-
ing this question; it is easy to verify via simple estimates for the quasihyperbolic
lengths of the ‘promised short arcs’.
Uniformity and Hyperbolicity 97
where
R the infimum is taken over all Borel functions ρ : X → [0, ∞] satisfying
γ
ρ ds ≥ 1 for all locally rectifiable curves γ ∈ Γ. Then the p-modulus of a pair
of disjoint compact sets E, F ⊂ X is
modp (E, F ; X) := modp Γ(E, F ; X)
where Γ(E, F ; X) is the family of all curves joining the sets E, F in X. We also
let Γr (E, F ; X) be the subfamily of Γ(E, F ; X) consisting of the rectifiable paths
joining E, F .
An important property is that under fairly general circumstances, modp (E, F ; X)
agrees with the p-capacity of the pair E, F . There is extensive literature regard-
ing these “capacity equals modulus” results; for a start, see [HK98, Proposi-
tion 2.17].
For the reader’s convenience, we cite the following modulus estimates. First
we have the standard Long Curves Estimate; see [HK98, 3.15].
2.15. Fact. Let x ∈ X and suppose that the upper mass condition µ[B(x; R)] ≤
M Rp holds for some R > 0. Let Γ be a family of curves in B(x; R) and suppose
that each γ ∈ Γ has arclength ℓ(γ) ≥ L > 0. Then
modp Γ ≤ L−p µ[B(x; R)] ≤ M (R/L)p .
98 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
Next we record the Spherical Ring Estimate; see [HK98, 3.14, p.17].
2.16. Fact. Let x ∈ X, 0 < 2r ≤ R, and suppose that the upper mass condition
µ[B(x; t)] ≤ M tp holds for all 0 < t < r + R. Then
modp (B̄(x; r), X \ B(x; R); X) ≤ C (log(R/r))1−p ,
where C = 2p+1 M/ log 2.
Finally, we require the following Basic Modulus Estimate; see [BKR98, Lemma
3.2].
2.17. Fact. Let (X, d, µ) be a metric measure space. Assume that ρ is a metric-
density on X whose associated measure (2.7) satisfies the Ahlfors volume growth
condition (A) at some point x ∈ E ⊂ X. Suppose that L > λ ≥ diamρ E,
and that Γ is some family of curves γ in X each having one endpoint in E and
satisfying ℓρ (γ) ≥ L. Then
modQ Γ ≤ C (log (1 + L/λ))1−Q ,
where C = 2Q+1 A/ log 2.
2.18. Corollary. Let (X, d, µ) be a metric measure space. Assume that for
some point x ∈ E ⊂ X, the upper mass condition µ[B(x; r)] ≤ M rQ holds for
all r > 0. Suppose that Γ is a family of curves γ in X each having one endpoint
in E and satisfying ℓ(γ) ≥ L > diam E. Then
modQ Γ ≤ C (log (1 + L/ diam E))1−Q ,
where C = 2Q+1 M/ log 2.
In Euclidean space Rn , the n-modulus is also called the conformal modulus and
simply denoted by mod(·). Below we state some well-known geometric estimates
for the conformal modulus mod(E, F ; Ω). Here and elsewhere in these notes,
∆(E, F ) := dist(E, F )/ min{diam(E), diam(F )}
is the relative distance between the pair E, F of nondegenerate disjoint continua.
2.19. Facts. Let E, F be disjoint compact sets in Rn .
(a) If E, F are separated by the spherical ring B(x; s) \ B̄(x; t), then
mod(E, F ; Rn ) ≤ ωn−1 (log(s/t))1−n .
(b) If E ∩ S(x; r) 6= ∅ 6= F ∩ S(x; r) for all t < r < s, then
mod(E, F ) ≥ σn log(s/t).
(c) If both E and F are connected, then
σn log(1 + 1/∆(E, F )) ≤ mod(E, F ; Rn ) ≤ Ωn (1 + 1/∆(E, F ))n .
(d) (Comparison Principle) If A, B, E, F ⊂ Ω with A, B also compacta, then
mod(E, F ; Ω) ≥ 3−n min{mod(E, A; Ω), mod(F, B; Ω), I},
where I = inf{mod(α, β; Ω) | α ∈ Γr (E, A; Ω), β ∈ Γr (F, B; Ω)}.
Uniformity and Hyperbolicity 99
2.J. Ahlfors Regular and Loewner Spaces. A metric measure space (X, d, µ)
is Ahlfors Q-regular provided there exists a finite constant M = Mµ such that
for all x ∈ X and all 0 < r ≤ diam Ω,
M −1 rQ ≤ µ[B(x; r)] ≤ M rQ .
The positive real number Q will then be the Hausdorff dimension of (X, d),
and the Q-dimensional Hausdorff measure HQ on X will also satisfy the above
inequalities (possibly with a change in the constant M ). A metric space (X, d)
is Ahlfors Q-regular if (X, d, HQ ) is Ahlfors Q-regular. We use the adjectives
upper or lower to indicate that only one of these inequalities is in force, and—in
the abstract domain setting—add the adjective locally to mean that the required
inequality holds (or, inequalities hold) for Whitney balls (i.e., for radii 0 < r ≤
λd(x)).
There is an interesting result which gives upper estimates for the Assouad
dimension of subsets of Ahlfors regular spaces. See [BHR01, 3.12], [DS97, 5.8],
[Luu98, 5.2].
2.20. Fact. Suppose X is an Ahlfors Q-regular space and let M ⊂ X. Then
dimA M < Q if and only if M is porous in X; the constants depend only on each
other and the HQ -regularity constant.
where the last condition means that the Loewner condition is assumed only
for Whitney balls. Examples 4.2 and 4.3 in [BH06] illustrate that in general
the converses of the middle two implications fail to hold. The first equivalence
is established in [BH06, Theorem 1.3]. It remains open as to whether or not
Loewner domains (i.e. ψ-QED domains) are always QED.
2.K. Slice Conditions. There are various so-called slice conditions each de-
signed to handle their own specific problem. The ideas here are due to Buckley
et al. and his exposition [Buc03] is the place to begin reading about this topic.
He and his many co-authors have utilized an assortment of slice conditions to
investigate all kinds of different problems.
A non-empty bounded open set S ⊂ X is called a C-slice separating x, y
provided
∀ α ∈ Γ(x, y) : ℓ(α ∩ S) ≥ diam(S)/C
and
C −1 B(x) ∩ S = ∅ = S ∩ C −1 B(y) .
A set of C-slices for x, y ∈ X is a collection S of pairwise disjoint C-slices
separating x, y in X. One can show (see [BS03, (2.1)]) that the cardinality of
any such set S of C-slices separating x, y is always bounded by #S ≤ C 2 k(x, y).
We are interested in knowing when we can reverse this inequality. Since there
may be no C-slices separating x, y, we consider the quantity
dws (x, y) = dws (x, y; C) = dX
ws (x, y; C) := 1 + sup #S
where the supremum is taken over all S which are sets of C-slices in X separating
x, y, and #S denotes the cardinality of S.
We call (X, d) a weak C-slice space provided for all x, y ∈ X,
k(x, y) ≤ C dws (x, y; C),
Thus in these spaces dws (x, y) ≃ k(x, y), at least when k(x, y) ≥ 2. The weak
slice condition was introduced in [BO99, Section 5]; see also [BS03], [Buc03],
[Buc04]. When the weak C-slice space (X, d) is a domain Ω ( Rn , we call Ω a
weak C-slice domain.
The following rather technical lemma is quite useful for obtaining an up-
per bound for the cardinality of a set of slices; in weak slice spaces it provides
an upper bound for quasihyperbolic distances. It is the case α = 0 of [BS03,
Lemma 2.17].
2.21. Lemma. Let Γ be a 1-rectifiable subset of a rectifiably connected metric
space (X, d). Suppose ϕ : Γ → [ε, ∞) (with ε > 0) and S is a collection of
disjoint non-empty bounded subsets of X. Suppose also that there exist positive
constants b, c such that
(a) ∀S ∈ S : ℓ(S ∩ Γ) ≥ c diam(S) ,
(b) ∀S ∈ S , ∀z ∈ S ∩ Γ : ϕ(z) ≤ diam(S) ,
102 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
3. Uniform Spaces
Roughly speaking, a space is uniform provided points in it can be joined by so-
called bounded turning twisted double cone arcs, i.e. paths which are not too long
and which stay away from the regions boundary. Uniform domains in Euclidean
space were first studied by John [Joh61] and Martio and Sarvas [MS79] who
proved injectivity and approximation results for them. They are well recognized
as being the ‘nice’ domains for quasiconformal function theory as well as many
other areas of geometric analysis (e.g., potential theory); see [Geh87] and [Väi88].
Every (bounded) Lipschitz domain is uniform, but generic uniform domains may
very well have fractal boundary. Recently, uniform subdomains of the Heisenberg
groups, as well as more general Carnot groups, have become a focus of study;
see [CT95], [CGN00], [Gre01].
3.A. Euclidean Setting. When our uniform space (see the definition given
below in §3.B) (Ω, d) is a domain Ω ⊂ Rn with Euclidean distance, we simply
call Ω a uniform domain. Every plane uniform domain is a quasicircle domain
(each of its boundary components is either a point or a quasicircle), and a finitely
connected plane domain is uniform if and only if it is a quasicircle domain. How-
ever, the plane punctured at the integers is not uniform. Such nice topological
information is not true for uniform domains in higher dimensions. For example,
a ball with a radius removed is uniform; this is not true when n = 2.
For domains in Rn we can consider uniformity both with respect to the Eu-
clidean distance and with respect to the induced length metric also. The latter
class of domains are usually called inner uniform; cf. [Väi98]. For example, a slit
disk in the plane is not uniform (with respect to Euclidean distance) but it is an
inner uniform domain. On the other hand, an infinite strip, or the inside of an
infinite cylinder in space, is not uniform nor inner uniform. The region between
two parallel planes is not uniform nor inner uniform. Every quasiball is uniform.
the first inequality asserts that this twisted double cone is not too ‘crooked’.
Consequently, we call γ a double a-cone arc if it satisfies the second inequality
above (the phrases cigar arc and corkscrew are also used).
In general, quasihyperbolic geodesics may not exist; see [Väi99, 3.5] for an
example due to P. Alestalo. However, one can still show that quasihyperbolically
short arcs are uniform arcs. One can prove that boundary points in a locally
compact uniform space can be joined by quasihyperbolic geodesics, and these
geodesics are still uniform arcs.
Another crucial piece of information is a characterization of uniformity due
to Gehring and Osgood [GO79, Theorems 1,2]; Bonk, Heinonen, and Koskela
[BHK01, Lemma 2.13] verified the necessity of this condition for the metric space
setting, while the Gehring-Osgood argument can be modified to establish the
sufficiency. Recalling the basic estimates for quasihyperbolic distance, we see that
uniform spaces are precisely those abstract domains in which the quasihyperbolic
distance is bilipschitz equivalent to the j distance. See also Theorem 6.1.
3.2. Fact. An abstract domain is a-uniform if and only if k(x, y) ≤ b j(x, y) for
all points x, y. The constants a and b depend only on each other.
4. Gromov Hyperbolicity
Good sources for information concerning Gromov hyperbolicity include [BHK01],
[BBI01], [BS00], [BH99], [Bon96] and especially the references mentioned in these
works. Väisälä has an especially nice treatment [Väi05a] of Gromov hyperbolicity
for spaces which are not assumed to be geodesic nor proper. Note however that
Bonk and Schramm have demonstrated that every Gromov δ-hyperbolic metric
104 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
4.C. Connection with Uniform Spaces. Bonk, Heinonen and Koskela estab-
lished the following fundamental connection between uniform spaces and Gromov
hyperbolicity; see [BHK01, Proposition 2.8, Theorem 3.6]
4.1. Fact. The quasihyperbolization (Ω, k) of a locally compact a-uniform space
(Ω, d) is proper, geodesic and δ-hyperbolic where δ = δ(a) = 10000a8 . When
(Ω, d) is bounded, (Ω, k) is roughly κ-starlike with κ = 5000a8 .
˙ of
In fact they also prove that the Gromov boundary ∂G Ω ‘is’ the boundary ∂Ω
Ω in the one-point extension Ω̇ of Ω; see [BHK01, Proposition 3.12]. Moreover, in
the bounded case, the canonical gauge on ∂G Ω is naturally quasisymmetrically
equivalent to the conformal gauge determined by d on ∂Ω. See [Väi05b] for
similar results in the Banach space setting.
5. Uniformization
The celebrated Riemann Mapping Theorem asserts that every simply con-
nected proper subdomain of the plane can be mapped conformally onto the
unit disk, and hence supports a bounded conformal uniformizing metric-density,
namely, ρ = |f ′ | where f is the Riemann map. Koebe proved a similar result for
finitely connected plane domains: any one of these can always be conformally
mapped onto a circle domain (meaning that each boundary component is either
a point or a circle).
In space, every conformal map is (the restriction of) a Möbius transformation,
and thus the only space regions conformally equivalent to a ball are balls and
half-spaces. The problem of determining which space domains are QC equivalent
to a ball has been investigated for more than four decades by now (see [GV65]),
and the most significant result (that I know of) is Väisälä’s characterization in
[Väi89] describing the cylindrical domains (Ω = D × R ⊂ R3 ) which are QC
equivalent to B3 .
(a) The geodesics in H are double a-cone arcs in Hε with a = a(ε, δ) = e1+8εδ .
(b) There is a constant ε0 = ε0 (δ) such that for all ε ∈ (0, ε0 ],
∀x, y ∈ H , ∀ geodesics [x, y] : ℓε [x, y] ≤ 20 dε (x, y);
here ℓε = ℓρε .
In fact, Hε is always bounded, and thus when ε ≤ ε0 we see that (H, h) has
been deformed, or dampened, (via the natural metric-density ρε ) to a bounded
20-uniform space Hε .
We briefly describe their theory in the special case which concerns us.
We consider a locally compact abstract domain (Ω, d) with the property that
the identity map (Ω, ℓ) → (Ω, d) is a homeomorphism (so the identity (Ω, k) →
(Ω, d) is also a homeomorphism) and such that its quasihyperbolization (Ω, k)
is a Gromov hyperbolic space. According to Fact 5.1, the space (Ω, k) admits a
uniformizing density of the form
ρε (x) := exp[−εk(x, w)];
here w ∈ Ω is a fixed base point and ε > 0 a sufficiently small parameter. More
precisely, when (Ω, k) is δ-hyperbolic and 0 < ε < ε(δ), the quasihyperbolic
geodesics in Ω are 20-uniform arcs in (Ω, dε ). (A careful check of BHK shows
that ε(δ) = [42(5 + 192δ + 1920δ 2 )]−1 ≤ (300 max{1, δ})−2 . :-) Here dε stands
for the distance function obtained by conformally deforming k via the metric-
density ρε . Since k was obtained from the original distance function d via the
quasihyperbolic density 1/d, Ωε = (Ω, dε ) is a conformal deformation of (Ω, d)
via the metric-density
πε (x) := ρε (x)/d(x) = d(x)−1 exp(−εk(x, w)) ;
again, πε will be a uniformizing density when 0 < ε < ε(δ) = (300 max{1, δ})−2 .
In order to determine when πε will be a Harnack or Koebe density, we need
the following information concerning ρε (see [BHK01, (4.4),(4.6),(4.17)]):
ρε (x)
(5.2) e−εk(x,y) ≤ ≤ eεk(x,y) ,
ρε (y)
ρε (x) ρε (x)
(5.3) ≤ dε (x) ≤ (2eεκ − 1) .
eε ε
The first set of inequalities (5.2) hold for all points x, y ∈ Ω and all ε > 0. They
guarantee that the identity map (Ω, k) → (Ω, dε ) is locally bilipschitz, so (Ω, dε )
is locally compact and rectifiably connected. On the other hand, Ωε = (Ω, dε ) is
non-complete, so we can form Ω̄ε , put ∂ε Ω = Ω̄ε \ Ω and let dε (x) = distε (x, ∂ε Ω).
(See [BHK01, pp.27-28]). We find that the leftmost inequality in (5.3) holds for
all x ∈ Ω and any ε > 0. However, in order to obtain the rightmost inequality
in (5.3), we must further require that (Ω, k) be roughly κ-starlike.
Now using (5.2), and obvious inequalities for 1/d, we deduce that
πε (y)
e−2R ≤ e−(ε+1)R ≤ ≤ e(ε+1)R ≤ e2R
πε (x)
Uniformity and Hyperbolicity 107
for all points x, y with k(x, y) ≤ R. According to Lemma 2.12, when (Ω, d) is
locally a-quasiconvex we have
τ B(x) ⊂ Bk (x; R) provided 0 < τ ≤ min{λ, R/[a(1 + R)]}.
Taking R = a (say) and τ = min{λ, 1/2a} we find that for all x ∈ Ω and all
y ∈ τ B(x),
πε (y)
e−2a ≤ e−(ε+1)a ≤ ≤ e(ε+1)a ≤ e2a ;
πε (x)
that is, πε is a Harnack density with constants H = e2a and τ which are inde-
pendent of ε.
Finally, since Ωε is non-complete, we can ask whether or not πε is a Koebe
density. Since πε (x) = ρε (x)/d(x), we see from (5.3) that πε will be a Koebe
density, with constant K = (2eεκ − 1)/ε (assuming εe ≤ 1), provided (Ω, k) is
roughly κ-starlike (and (Ω, d) uniformly locally quasiconvex).
These conditions describing when πε will be a Harnack or Koebe density do
not require that (Ω, k) be Gromov hyperbolic. We record the above information
for later reference; see also Lemma 2.8 and Corollary 5.8. Note too that (Ω, dε )
is bounded with diamε Ωε ≤ 2/ε.
5.4. Lemma. Let (Ω, d) be a locally a-quasiconvex abstract domain and fix a
base point w ∈ Ω. Then for any ε > 0,
πε (x) = ρε (x)/d(x) = d(x)−1 exp(−εk(x, w))
is a Harnack density with constant H = e2a . If in addition (Ω, k) is roughly κ-
starlike, then πε is also a Koebe density, with constant K = max{εe, (2eεκ −1)/ε}.
The above, in conjunction with Lemma 2.11 and Proposition 5.6(b), provides
a one-to-one correspondence between conformal metric-densities on Ω and the
same on Ωε . Here is a precise statement of this.
5.5. Corollary. Suppose (Ω, d, µ) is an abstract domain having bounded geom-
etry and a Gromov hyperbolic roughly starlike quasihyperbolization (Ω, k). Let
Ωε = (Ω, dε , µε ) be the deformation of Ω via the density πε defined just above.
If σ is a conformal density on Ωε , then its pull-back ρ = σ πε is a conformal
density on Ω, and conversely if ρ is a conformal density on Ω, then its push-
forward σ = ρ πε−1 is a conformal density on Ωε . In both cases Ωρ = (Ωε )σ , and
the metric-density parameters depend only on each other and the data associated
with Ω.
5.C. Bounded Geometry and its Consequences. Recall our definition that
an abstract domain (Ω, d, µ) is a locally complete, rectifiably connected, non-
complete metric measure space; these are our standing metric hypotheses. We
say that (Ω, d, µ) has bounded Q-geometry, Q > 1, provided it is both locally
upper Ahlfors Q-regular (see §2.J) and weakly locally Q-Loewner ; this latter
condition means that there exists a positive constant m such that for all x ∈ Ω,
and all non-degenerate disjoint continua E, F in λB(x),
∆(E, F ) ≤ 16 =⇒ mod Q (E, F ; Ω) ≥ m.
108 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
Any space Ω with the property that Whitney balls λB(x) (with a fixed parame-
ter) are uniformly bilipschitz equivalent to Euclidean balls (in a fixed dimension)
is easily seen to have bounded geometry. Other examples include Riemann-
ian manifolds with Ricci bounded geometry as well as the exotic examples of
Bourdon-Pajot and Laakso for any Q > 1; see [BHK01, Exs.9.7, p.86] and the
references mentioned there. (Note that by Proposition 5.6, (Ω, d, µ) has bounded
geometry if and only if its quasihyperbolization satisfies the condition studied in
[BHK01, Chpt.9].)
The first part of bounded Q-geometry is a necessary condition for Ω to support
any conformal density (at least when Ω is locally quasiconvex). The second part
of bounded Q-geometry, the weak local Loewner criterion, can also be described
in terms of Poincaré inequalities as explained in [BHK01, Proposition 9.4] and
[HK98, §5]; it ensures that there are plenty of curves available (e.g., it gives local
quasiconvexity). However, to substantiate this existence of many curves requires
the use of certain modulus estimates (see Facts 2.15,2.16), and these estimates
in turn require an upper mass condition.
The Loewner part of bounded Q-geometry also performs an essential role in
two other places. First, it is a key player in the proof of Proposition 2.9, which
is the crucial ingredient in the proof of (d) implies (e) in Theorem D. Second,
for uniform Loewner spaces with appropriately ‘thick’ boundaries, the Koebe
condition for a metric-density follows from the Harnack and Ahlfors condition;
this fact is utilized in the proof of Theorem C.
Bounded geometry provides a number of essential properties for our underlying
space.
5.6. Proposition. Let (Ω, d, µ) be an abstract domain having bounded Q-
geometry (with constants M, m, λ). Then:
(a) µ is locally Ahlfors Q-regular.
(b) Ω is locally quasiconvex with constants which depend only on Q, M, m, λ.
(c) Ω is locally Q-Loewner with a control function ψ and parameters κ, ε0 which
depend only on the data Q, M, m, λ associated with Ω.
5.D. Lifts and Metric Doubling Measures. Here we discuss the ideas be-
hind Theorem C and briefly outline the proof. Recall the notion of a metric
doubling measure discussed near the end of §2.F.
We define the lift ρν of ν via the formula
ν(Σx )1/P
(5.9) ρν (x) := ;
d(x)
here ν is a P -dimensional metric doubling measure on ∂G Ω and, for some fixed
base point w ∈ Ω, the shadow of a point x ∈ Ω is
Σx := {ζ ∈ ∂G Ω : k(x, [w, ζ)) ≤ R}.
It is not hard to see that there are constants R = R(δ, κ, ε) and C = C(δ, κ, ε)
such that
(5.10) Sx := ∂ε Ω ∩ 2Bε (x) ⊂ Σx ⊂ ∂ε Ω ∩ CBε (x);
of course we are using the natural identification of ∂G Ω with ∂ε Ω. Employing
(5.10), the doubling property of ν, and the fact that πε is Koebe, it is straight-
forward to verify that the push-forward of ρν (as defined in (5.9)) via the uni-
formizing density πε gives a density on Ωε which is bilipschitz equivalent to the
density defined via the formula
ν(Sx )1/P
ρ(x) := where Sx := ∂ε Ω ∩ 2Bε (x).
dε (x)
Theorem C now follows from Corollary 5.5 once we verify that ρ is a Borel
Harnack Ahlfors Koebe doubling metric-density on Ωε . (⌣)¨ The first two of
these are easy. The Koebe property follows from Theorem E once we know the
Ahlfors volume growth property. To see that Theorem E can be applied, we
first use Fact 2.2 along with Theorem F to see that the Whitney ball modulus
property holds.
To establish the Ahlfors property we need the doubling property. This in turn
requires the following ‘quasihyperbolic doubling’ result.
5.11. Proposition. Let (Ω, d, µ) be a locally a-quasiconvex locally Ahlfors Q-
regular abstract domain. Then its quasihyperbolization (Ω, k) is locally doubling
in the sense that if Σ ⊂ Ω is a set of points satisfying
0 < t ≤ k(x, y) ≤ T < ∞ for all x, y ∈ Σ, x 6= y,
then the cardinality of Σ is bounded by
#Σ ≤ 2M 2 8Q (2M 2 24Q )8aT /λt .
Here M is the local regularity constant and λ the Whitney ball constant.
110 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
5.E. Volume Growth Problem. Here we briefly outline the proof of Theo-
rem A. Recall that this result provides our answer to the problem of deciding
when there exists a uniformizing conformal density (so, in particular, the asso-
ciated measure (2.7) should have Ahlfors regular volume growth). The necessity
in this result follows from Fact 4.1 along with Fact 2.20. The real work involved
is in establishing the sufficiency.
The first major step is to prove Theorem D. Following [BHR01], we say that
a metric-density ρ, on a uniform space (Ω, d, µ), is doubling provided µρ is a
doubling measure on (Ω, d); i.e., there exists a constant D = Dρ such that for all
x ∈ Ω,
(D) µρ [B(x; 2r)] ≤ D µρ [B(x; r)] for all r > 0.
When Ω is not uniform, the above doubling condition may fail to hold even if ρ
is ‘nice’; e.g., consider ρ = |f ′ | on Ω = {x + iy : |y| < 1} in the complex plane,
where f is a conformal homeomorphism of Ω onto the unit disk. To compensate
for this we employ the following definition: a conformal density ρ, on an abstract
domain (Ω, d, µ) with Gromov hyperbolic quasihyperbolization, is doubling if its
push-forward is doubling on some BHK-uniformization Ωε of Ω. (Since all such
spaces Ωε are QS equivalent, and doubling measures can be defined for conformal
gauges, there is no ambiguity here. See §2.C for a discussion of conformal gauges,
and also the very last paragraph of §2.F.)
Notice that the doubling condition (D) uses d-balls but µρ -measure and thus
interweaves the measure properties of the deformed space with the metric prop-
erties of the original (or uniformized) space.
Our proof of Theorem D requires the Gehring-Hayman Inequality (Theo-
rem B), Corollary 2.10, and the following two results. First we give a necessary
condition for a metric-density to be doubling.
5.13. Proposition. Let ρ be a Harnack density on an a-uniform locally Ahlfors
Q-regular space (Ω, d, µ) (with constants H, M, λ). Suppose that ρ is also doubling
on Ω (with constant D). Then quasihyperbolic geodesics in Ω are double c-cone
arcs in Ωρ where c = c(D, H, M, Q, a, λ). If in addition Ω is bounded, then so is
Ωρ and ∂Ω ⊂ ∂ρ Ω, with equality holding when Ω is also locally Q-Loewner.
They utilized the above to establish the following [BHK01, Theorem 7.11].
112 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
The careful reader will recognize that the Bonk-Heinonen-Koskela results were
established for regions on the sphere (i.e., using the spherical metric). Results
of Balogh and Buckley [BB06] are useful in this regard.
Väisälä has recently proven a Banach space analog of the above result; see
[Väi05b]. Along with providing a dimension free version of this result, he also
considers arbitrary domains (not just bounded) and replaces QS equivalence with
QM equivalence. In addition, he provides an example of a Gromov hyperbolic
domain which is LLC but not uniform.
6.D. Capacity Conditions. It is known that given 0 < λ ≤ 1/2, there exists
a constant c = c(λ, n) > 0 such that
∀ x, y ∈ Ω : k(x, y) ≥ 2 =⇒ mod(λB̄(x), λB̄(y); D) ≥ c/k(x, y)n−1 ;
this is valid for any proper subdomain Ω of Rn . To prove it, one starts by us-
ing Lemma 2.14 to select an appropriate cover of any quasihyperbolic geodesic
joining x, y, and then a standard application of the Poincaré inequality applied
to adjacent balls leads to the asserted inequality. See the proof of [HK96, Theo-
rem 6.1].
Let C > 0 and 0 < λ ≤ 1/2. A proper subdomain Ω of Rn is a (C, λ)-k-cap
domain provided
∀ x, y ∈ D : k(x, y) ≥ 2 =⇒ mod(λB̄(x), λB̄(y); D) ≤ C/k(x, y)n−1 .
Thus in a k-cap domain D, we have mod(λB̄(x), λB̄(y); D) ≃ k(x, y)1−n for
points with k(x, y) ≥ 2, with constants of comparison dependent only on λ, n,
and the k-cap parameter.
This is the two-sided version of a condition introduced by Buckley in [Buc04] to
study quasiconformal images of domains which satisfy a quasihyperbolic bound-
ary condition. As explained on p.26 of that paper, a (C, λ)-k-cap condition
implies a (C ′ , λ′ )-k-cap condition for some C ′ = C ′ (C, λ, λ′ , n). We mainly con-
sider the case λ = 1/2, and refer to a (C, 1/2)-k-cap domain simply as a C-k-cap
domain.
Uniformity and Hyperbolicity 113
Every uniform domain in Rn is a k-cap domain, and the class of k-cap do-
mains is invariant under quasiconformal mappings (with a quantitative change
of parameter C). For proofs of these statements see [Buc04].
Recently we established the following characterization for uniform domains in
Euclidean space; see [BH06, Theorem 3.5].
6.4. Theorem. A proper subdomain of Rn is uniform if and only if it is both
QEDwb and a k-cap domain.
6.E. LLC and Slice Conditions. By utilizing certain slice conditions, Balogh
and Buckley [BB03] established a number of geometric characterizations for Gro-
mov hyperbolic spaces. Here we mention the following new characterization of
uniform spaces; see [BH07]
6.5. Theorem. An abstract domain is uniform and LEC if and only if it is
quasiconvex, LLC2 with respect to arcs, and satisfies a weak slice condition.
References
[BB00] Z.M. Balogh and M. Bonk, Gromov hyperbolicty and the Kobayashi metric on strictly
pseudoconvex domains, Commet. Math. Helv. 75 (2000), no. 3, 504–533.
[BB03] Z.M. Balogh and S.M. Buckley, Geometric characterizations of Gromov hyperbolicty,
Invent. Math. 153 (2003), 261–301.
[BB06] , Sphericalization and flattening, Conform. Geom. Dyn, to appear (2006) .
[Bon96] M. Bonk, Quasi-geodesic segments and Gromov hyperbolic spaces, Geometriae Dedi-
cata 62 (1996), 281–298.
[BHK01] M. Bonk, J. Heinonen, and P. Koskela, Uniformizing Gromov hyperbolic spaces,
Astérisque. 270 (2001), 1–99.
[BHR01] M. Bonk, J. Heinonen, and S. Rohde, Doubling conformal densities, J. reine angew.
Math. 541 (2001), 117–141.
[BKR98] M. Bonk, P. Koskela, and S. Rohde, Conformal metrics on the unit ball in Euclidean
space, Proc. London Math. Soc. 77 (1998), no. 3, 635–664.
[BS00] M. Bonk and O. Schramm, Embeddings of Gromov hyperbolic spaces, Geom. Funct.
Anal. 10 (2000), 266–306.
[BH99] M.R. Bridson and A. Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
114 D.A.Herron IWQCMA05
[Buc03] S. Buckley, Slice conditions and their applications, Future Trends In Geometric Func-
tion Theory (Univ. Jyväskylä), vol. 92, Rep. Univ. Jyväskylä Dept. Math. Stat., 2003,
RNC Workshop held in Jyväskylä, June 15-18, 2003, pp. 63–76.
[Buc04] S.M. Buckley, Quasiconfomal images of Hölder domains, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser.
Math. 29 (2004), 21–42.
[BH06] S. Buckley and D.A. Herron, Uniform domains and capacity, Israel J. Math, to
appear (2006).
[BH07] , Uniform and weak slice spaces, in preparation (2007).
[BO99] S.M. Buckley and J. O’Shea, Weighted Trudinger-type inequalities, Indiana Univ.
Math. J. 48 (1999), 85–114.
[BS03] S.M. Buckley and A. Stanoyevitch, Distinguishing properties of weak slice conditions,
Conform. Geom. Dyn. 7 (2003), 49–75.
[BBI01] D. Burago, Y. Burago, and S. Ivanov, A course in metric geometry, American Math-
ematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.
[CGN00] L. Capogna, N. Garofalo, and D-M Nhieu, Examples of uniform and NTA domains
in Carnot groups, Proceedings on Analysis and Geometry (Novosibirsk), Izdat. Ross.
Akad. Nauk Sib. Otd. Inst. Mat., 2000, (Novosibirsk Akad., 1999), pp. 103–121.
[CT95] L. Capogna and P. Tang, Uniform domains and quasiconformal mappings on the
Heisenberg group, Manuscripta Math. 86 (1995), no. 3, 267–281.
[DS97] G. David and S. Semmes, Fractured fractals and broken dreams:self-similar geometry
through metric and measure, Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applica-
tions, vol. 7, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997.
[Geh82] F.W. Gehring, Characteristic properties of quasidisks, Les Presses de l’Université de
Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, 1982.
[Geh87] , Uniform domains and the ubiquitous quasidisk, Jahresber. Deutsch. Math.-
Verein 89 (1987), 88–103.
[GH62] F.W. Gehring and W.K. Hayman, An inequality in the theory of conformal mapping,
J. Math. Pures Appl. 41 (1962), no. 9, 353–361.
[GM85] F.W. Gehring and O. Martio, Quasiextremal distance domains and extension of qua-
siconformal mappings, J. Analyse Math. 45 (1985), 181–206.
[GO79] F.W. Gehring and B.G. Osgood, Uniform domains and the quasi-hyperbolic metric,
J. Analyse Math. 36 (1979), 50–74.
[GP76] F.W. Gehring and B.P. Palka, Quasiconformally homogeneous domains, J. Analyse
Math. 30 (1976), 172–199.
[GV65] F.W. Gehring and J. Väisälä, The coefficients of quasiconformality of domains in
space, Acta Math. 114 (1965), 1–70.
[Gre01] A.V. Greshnov, On uniform and NTA-domains on Carnot groups, Sibirsk. Mat. Zh.
42 (2001), no. 5, 1018–1035.
[Gro99] M. Gromov, Metric structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces, Metric
structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces, Progress in Mathematics,
vol. 152, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1999.
[Häs06] P. Hästö, Gromov hyperbolicity of the jG and j̃G metrics, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
134 (2006), 1137–1142.
[Hei01] J. Heinonen, Lectures on analysis on metric spaces, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001.
[HK95] J. Heinonen and P. Koskela, Definitions of quasiconformality, Invent. Math. 120
(1995), 61–79.
[HK98] J. Heinonen and P. Koskela, Quasiconformal maps in metric spaces with controlled
geometry, Acta. Math. 181 (1998), 1–61.
[HN94] J. Heinonen and R. Nakki, Quasiconformal distortion on arcs, J. d’Analyse Math.
63 (1994), 19–53.
[HR93] J. Heinonen and S. Rohde, The Gehring-Hayman inequality for quasihyperbolic
geodesics, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 114 (1993), 393–405.
Uniformity and Hyperbolicity 115
[Her04] D.A. Herron, Conformal deformations of uniform Loewner spaces, Math. Proc.
Camb. Phil. Soc. 136 (2004), 325–360.
[Her06] , Quasiconformal deformations and volume growth, Proc. London Math. Soc.
92 (2006), 161–199.
[HK96] D.A. Herron and P. Koskela, Conformal capacity and the quasihyperbolic metric,
Indiana Univ. Math. J. 45 (1996), no. 2, 333–359.
[Joh61] F. John, Rotation and strain, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 14 (1961), 391–413.
[Jon81] P.W. Jones, Quasiconformal mappings and extendability of functions in Sobolev
spaces, Acta Math. 147 (1981), 71–88.
[Kos07] P. Koskela, Lectures on quasiconformal mappings, Rep. Univ. Jyväskylä Dept. Math.
Stat., in preparation (2007).
[Luu98] J. Luukkainen, Assouad dimension: antifractal metrization, porous sets, and homo-
geneous measures, J. Korean Math. Soc. 35 (1998), no. 1, 23–76.
[Mar80] O. Martio, Definitions for uniform domains, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math.
5 (1980), no. 1, 197–205.
[MS79] O. Martio and J. Sarvas, Injectivity theorems in plane and space, Ann. Acad. Sci.
Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 4 (1978/79), no. 2, 383–401.
[NV91] R. Näkki and J. Väisälä, John disks, Exposition. Math. 9 (1991), 3–43.
[Sem99] S. Semmes, Metric spaces and mappings seen at many scales (Appendix B), Metric
Structures in Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces, Progress in Mathematics, vol.
152, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1999, pp. 401–518.
[Sem01] , Some novel types of fractal geometry, Oxford Mathematical Monographs,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
[TV80] P. Tukia and J. Väisälä, Quasymmetric embeddings of metric spaces, Ann. Acad. Sci.
Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 5 (1980), 97–114.
[Tys03] J. Tyson, Quasiconformal maps on metric spaces: Questions and conjectures, Future
Trends in Geometric Function Theory (Jyväskylä, Finland), no. 92, Dept. Math.
Stat., Univ. Jyväskylä, 2003, RNC Workshop held in Jyväskylä, June 15-18, 2003,
pp. 249–262.
[Väi71] J. Väisälä, Lectures on n-dimensional quasiconformal mappings, Lecture Notes in
Math., No. 229 (Berlin), Springer-Verlag, 1971.
[Väi85] , Quasimöbius maps, J. Analyse Math. 44 (1984/85), 218–234.
[Väi88] , Uniform domains, Tôhoku Math. J. 40 (1988), 101–118.
[Väi89] , Quasiconformal maps of cylindrical domains, Acta Math. 162 (1989), 201–
225.
[Väi91] , Free quasiconformality in Banach spaces II, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math.
16 (1991), 255–310.
[Väi98] , Relatively and inner uniform domains, Conformal Geometry and Dynamics
2 (1998), 56–88.
[Väi99] , The free quasiworld. Freely quasiconformal and related maps in Banach
spaces., Quasiconformal Geometry and Dynamics (Lublin, 1996) (Warsaw), vol. 48,
Inst. Math., Polish of Academy Sciences, Banach Center Publ., 1999, pp. 55–118.
[Väi05a] , Gromov hyperbolic spaces, Exposition. Math. 23 (2005), 187–231.
[Väi05b] , Hyperbolic and uniform domains in Banach spaces, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn.
Math. 30 (2005), 261–302.
[Vuo88] M. Vuorinen, Conformal geometry and quasiregular mappings, Lecture Notes in
Math., No. 1319 (Berlin), Springer Verlag, 1988.
Contents
1. Introduction 117
2. A-harmonic functions 120
3. Morphism property and its consequences 123
3.1. Sketch of the proof of Reshetnyak’s theorem 125
Further properties of f 127
4. Modulus and capacity inequalities 128
5. Liouville-type results for A-harmonic functions 130
6. Liouville-type results for quasiregular mappings 136
7. Picard-type theorems 137
8. Quasiregular mappings, p-harmonic forms, and de Rham cohomology 145
References 148
1. Introduction
In this survey we emphasize the importance of the p-Laplace operator as a
tool to prove basic properties of quasiregular mappings, as well as Liouville-
and Picard-type results for quasiregular mappings between given Riemannian
manifolds. Quasiregular mappings were introduced by Reshetnyak in the mid
sixties in a series of papers; see e.g. [36], [37], and [38]. An interest in studying
these mappings arises from a question about the existence of a geometric function
theory in real dimensions n ≥ 3 generalizing the theory of holomorphic functions
C → C.
118 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
The condition (1) means that the coordinate functions of f belong to the
1,n
local Sobolev space Wloc (U ) consisting of locally n-integrable functions whose
distributional (first) partial derivatives are also locally n-integrable. In Condi-
tion (2) f ′ (x) denotes the formal derivative of f at x, i.e. the n × n matrix
Dj fi (x) defined by the partial derivatives of the coordinate functions fi of f .
Furthermore,
|f ′ (x)| = max|f ′ (x)h|
|h|=1
is the operator norm of f (x) and Jf (x) = det f ′ (x) is the Jacobian determinant
′
f
y
D
f ∂D
fD
M N
2. A-harmonic functions
It is well-known that the composition u◦f of a holomorphic function f : U → C
and a harmonic function u : f U → R is a harmonic function in U . In other words,
holomorphic functions are harmonic morphisms. Quasiregular mappings have a
somewhat similar morphism property: If f : U → Rn is quasiregular and u is an
n-harmonic function in a neighborhood of f U , then u◦f is a so-called A-harmonic
p-Laplace operator, quasiregular mappings, and Picard-type theorems 121
αt (x)
x α = flow of V
for a.e. x ∈ G and for all h ∈ Tx M. In addition, we assume that for a.e. x ∈ G
hAx (h) − Ax (k), h − ki > 0
whenever h 6= k, and
Ax (λh) = λ|λ|p−2 Ax (h)
whenever λ ∈ R \ {0}.
1,p
A function u ∈ Wloc (G) is called a (weak) solution of the equation
(2.2) − div Ax (∇u) = 0
in G if Z
hAx (∇u), ∇ϕi = 0
G
for all ϕ ∈ C0∞ (G). Continuous solutions of (2.2) are called A-harmonic functions
(of type p). By the fundamental work of Serrin [43], every solution of (2.2) has
a continuous representative. In the special case Ax (h) = |h|p−2 h, A-harmonic
functions are called p-harmonic and, in particular, if p = 2, we obtain the usual
harmonic functions. The conformally invariant case p = n = the dimension of
M is important in the sequel. In this case p-harmonic functions are called, of
course, n-harmonic functions.
1,p
A function u ∈ Wloc (G) is a subsolution of (2.2) in G if
− div Ax (∇u) ≤ 0
weakly in G, that is Z
hAx (∇u), ∇ϕi ≤ 0
G
for all non-negative ϕ ∈ C0∞ (G). A function v is called supersolution of (2.2) if
−v is a subsolution. The proofs of the following two basic estimates are straight-
forward once the appropriate test function is found. Therefore we just give the
test function and leave the details to readers.
Lemma 2.1 (Caccioppoli inequality). Let u be a positive solution of (2.2) (for
a given fixed p) in G and let v = uq/p , where q ∈ R \ {0, p − 1}. Then
Z p Z
p p β|q|
(2.3) η |∇v| ≤ v p |∇η|p
G α|q − p + 1| G
These two lemmas together with the Sobolev and Poincaré inequalities are
used in proving Harnack’s inequality for non-negative A-harmonic functions by
the familiar Moser iteration scheme. In the following |A| denotes the volume of
a measurable set A ⊂ M.
Theorem 2.4 (Harnack’s inequality). Let M be a complete Riemannian mani-
fold and suppose that there are positive constants R0 , C, and τ ≥ 1 such that a
volume doubling property
(2.5) |B(x, 2r)| ≤ C |B(x, r)|
holds for all x ∈ M and 0 < r ≤ R0 , and that M admits a weak (1, p)-Poincaré
inequality
1/p
Z Z
(2.6) |v − vB | ≤ C r |∇v|p
B τB
for all balls B = B(x, r) ⊂ M, with τ B = B(x, τ r) and 0 < r ≤ R0 , and for all
functions v ∈ C ∞ (B). Then there is a constant c such that
(2.7) sup u ≤ c inf u
B(x,r) B(x,r)
In particular, if the volume doubling condition (2.5) and the Poincaré inequal-
ity (2.6) hold globally, that is, without any bound on the radius r, we obtain a
global Harnack inequality. We refer to [18], [9], and [16] for proofs of the Harnack
inequality.
where Gx : Tx M → Tx M is given by
(
Jf (x)2/n Tx f −1 (Tx f −1 )T h, if Jf (x) exists and is positive,
Gx h =
h, otherwise.
The constants α and β for A depend only on n and K.
Proof. Let us first write the proof formally and then discuss the steps in more
detail. In the sequel ω stands for the volume forms in M and N. Let V ∈ C 1 (M )
be the vector field V = |∇u|n−2 ∇u. Since u is n-harmonic and C 2 -smooth, we
have div V = 0. By Cartan’s formula we obtain
d(V y ω) = d(V y ω) + V y (dω) = LV ω = (div V ) ω = 0
since dω = 0. Here Xy η is the contraction of a differential form η by a vector
field X. Thus, for instance, V y ω is the (n − 1)-form
V y ω(·, . . . , ·) = ω(V, ·, . . . , ·).
| {z } | {z }
n−1 n−1
Hence
a.e.
(3.2) df ∗ (V y ω) = f ∗ d(V y ω) = 0.
On the other hand, we have a.e. in M
(3.3) f ∗ (V y ω) = W y f ∗ ω = W y (Jf ω) = Jf W y ω,
where W is a vector field that will be specified later (roughly speaking, f∗ W =
V ). We obtain
(3.4) d(Jf W y ω) = 0,
or equivalently
(3.5) div(Jf W ) = 0
which can be written as
(3.6) div Ax (∇v) = 0,
where A is as in the claim.
Some explanations are in order. When writing
a.e.
f ∗ d(V y ω) = 0,
we mean that for a.e. x ∈ U and for all vectors v1 , v2 , . . . , vn ∈ Tx M
f ∗ d(V y ω)(v1 , v2 , . . . , vn ) = d(V y ω)(f∗ v1 , f∗ v2 , . . . , f∗ vn ) = 0,
where f∗ = f∗,x = Tx f is the tangent mapping of f at x. The equality on the
1,n
left-hand side of (3.2) holds in a weak sense since f ∈ Wloc (M ); see [39, p. 136].
∞
This means that, for all n-forms η ∈ C0 (M ),
Z Z
∗
(3.7) hf d(V y ω), ηi = hf ∗ (V y ω), δηi,
M M
p-Laplace operator, quasiregular mappings, and Picard-type theorems 125
f ∗ (V y ω) = 0 = W y f ∗ ω
where the infimum is taken over all functions ϕ ∈ C0∞ (Ω), with ϕ|C ≥ 1. A
compact set C ⊂ M is of p-capacity zero, denoted by capp C = 0, if capp (Ω, C) =
0 for all open sets Ω ⊃ C. Finally, a closed set F is of p-capacity zero, denoted
by capp F = 0, if capp C = 0 for all compact sets C ⊂ F. It is a well-known fact
that a closed set F ⊂ Rn containing a continuum C cannot be of n-capacity zero.
This can be seen by taking an open ball B containing C and any test function
ϕ ∈ C0∞ (B), with ϕ|C = 1, and using a potential estimate
Z Z
|∇ϕ| |∇ϕ|
|ϕ(x) − ϕ(y)| ≤ c dz + dz , x, y ∈ B,
B |x − z| B |y − z|
n−1 n−1
the infimum being taken over all functions ϕ ∈ C ∞ (Ω), with ϕ|C = 1 and
ϕ|B̄ = 0.
126 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
f is discrete and open. This part of the proof is purely topological. A sense-
preserving light mapping is discrete and open by Titus and Young; see e.g. [41].
The ingredients of the proof of Theorem 3.3 include, for instance, the locality
of A-harmonicity, Theorem 3.2, and a method to ”push-forward” (test) functions;
see e.g. [16] and [41].
Thus we are minimizing the volume of M under the constraint that paths in Γ
have length at least 1.
The importance of the conformal modulus for quasiregular mappings lies in
the following invariance properties; see [41, II.2.4, II.8.1]
p-Laplace operator, quasiregular mappings, and Picard-type theorems 129
The proof of (4.2) is based on the change of variable formula for integrals
(Theorem 3.2 3.) and on Fuglede’s theorem. The estimate (4.3) in the converse
direction is more useful than (4.2) but also much harder to prove; see [41, p.
39–50].
As an application of the use of p-modulus and p-capacity, we prove a Harnack’s
inequality for positive A-harmonic functions of type p > n − 1. Assume that
Ω ⊂ M is a domain, D ⋐ Ω another domain, and C ⊂ D is compact. For
p > n − 1, we set
λp (C, D) = inf Mp (Γ(E, F ; D)),
E,F
where E and F are continua joining C and Ω \ D, and Γ(E, F ; D) is the family
of all paths joining E and F in D.
Theorem 4.3 (Harnack’s inequality, p > n − 1). Let Ω, D, and C be as above.
Let u be a positive A-harmonic function in Ω of type p > n − 1. Then
1/p
MC capp (Ω, D̄)
(4.4) log ≤ c0 ,
mC λp (C, D)
where
MC = max u(x), mC = min u(x),
x∈C x∈C
and c0 = c0 (p, β/α).
E Ω
γ C
F D
Proof. We may assume that MC > mC . Let ε > 0 be so small that MC − ε >
mC + ε. Then the sets {x : u(x) ≥ MC − ε} and {x : u(x) ≤ mC + ε} contain
continua E and F , respectively, that join C and Ω \ D. Write
log u − log(mC + ε)
w=
log(MC − ε) − log(mC + ε)
130 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
Here γ(t) → ∞ means that γ(t) eventually leaves any compact set. For the
proof of Theorem 5.4 as well as for the discussion below we refer to [17].
Let us explain what is Green’s function for (5.1). We define it first in a
”regular” domain Ω ⋐ M, where regular means that the Dirichlet problem for
A-harmonic equation is solvable with continuous boundary data. For this notion,
see [16]. We need a concept of A-capacity. Let C ⊂ Ω be compact, and assume
for simplicity that Ω \ C is regular. Thus there exists a unique A-harmonic
function in Ω \ C with continuous boundary values u = 0 on ∂Ω and u = 1 in C.
Call u the A-potential of (Ω, C). We define
Z
capA (Ω, C) = hAx (∇u), ∇ui.
Ω
Then
capA (Ω, C) ≈ capp (Ω, C)
p-Laplace operator, quasiregular mappings, and Picard-type theorems 133
and furthermore,
(5.2) capA (Ω1 , C1 ) ≥ capA (Ω2 , C2 )
if C2 ⊂ C1 and/or Ω1 ⊂ Ω2 . Note that this property is obvious for variational
capacities but capA is not necessary a variational capacity.
The definition of Green’s function, and in particular its uniqueness when p =
n, relies on the following observation.
Lemma 5.5. Let Ω ⋐ M be a domain and let C ⊂ Ω be compact such that Ω \ C
is regular. Let u be the A-potential of (Ω, C). Then, for every 0 ≤ a < b ≤ 1,
capA (Ω, C)
capA ({u > a}, {u ≥ b}) = .
(b − a)p−1
Definition 5.6. Suppose that Ω ⋐ M is a regular domain and let y ∈ Ω. A
function g = g(·, y) is called a Green’s function for (5.1) in Ω if
1. g is positive and A-harmonic in Ω \ {y},
2. limx→z g(x) = 0 for all z ∈ ∂Ω,
3.
lim g(x) = capA (Ω, {y})1/(1−p) ,
x→y
which we interpret to mean limx→y g(x) = ∞ if p ≤ n,
4. for all 0 ≤ a < b < capA (Ω, {y})1/(1−p) ,
capA ({g > a}, {g ≥ b}) = (b − a)1/(1−p) .
Theorem 5.7. Let Ω ⋐ M be a regular domain and y ∈ Ω. Then there exists a
Green’s function for (5.1) in Ω. Furthermore, it is unique at least if p ≥ n.
is a positive A-harmonic function on M \ {y}. In the latter case we call the limit
function g(·, y) a Green’s function for (5.1) on M.
We have the following list of Liouville-type properties of M (which may or
may not hold for M ):
(1) M is p-parabolic.
(2) Every non-negative A-harmonic function on M is constant for every A of
type p. (Strong p-Liouville.)
134 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
as k → ∞. We obtain an estimate
Z R 1−p
dt
Mp Γ S(r), S(R); B̄(R) ≤ ′
.
r V (t)
1/(p−1)
p-Laplace operator, quasiregular mappings, and Picard-type theorems 135
In particular, if Z ∞
dt
=∞
r V ′ (t)1/(p−1)
for some r > 0, then M is p-parabolic.
The converse is not true in general. That is, M can be p-parabolic even if
Z ∞ 1/(p−1)
t
dt < ∞
V (t)
or Z ∞
dt
< ∞;
V ′ (t)1/(p−1)
see [44].
It is interesting to study when the converse is true. We refer to [19] for the
proofs of the following two theorems.
Theorem 5.10. Suppose that M is complete and admits a global doubling prop-
erty and global (1, p)-Poincaré inequality for 1 < p < ∞. Then
Z ∞ 1/(p−1)
t
(5.4) M is p-hyperbolic if and only if dt < ∞.
V (t)
Theorem 5.10 follows also from the following sharper result; see [21].
Theorem 5.12. Suppose that M is complete and that there exists a geodesic ray
γ : [0, ∞) → M such that for all t > 0,
|B(γ(t), 2s)| ≤ c|B(γ(t), s)|,
whenever 0 < s ≤ t/4, and that
1/p
Z Z
|u − uBγ (t) |dm ≤ c |∇u|p dm
Bγ (t) 2Bγ (t)
136 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
for all u ∈ C ∞ 2Bγ (t) , where Bγ (t) = B(γ(t), t/8). Then M is p-hyperbolic if
Z ∞ 1/(p−1)
t
dt < ∞.
|B(γ(t), t/4)|
Proof. We give here a very rough idea of the proof. First one observes that
f M is n-parabolic (see Theorem 6.2 below), and so N \ f M is of n-capacity
zero. Then one shows, again by using the n-parabolicity of M, that the set E
of all asymptotic limits of f is of zero capacity. Consequently, E is of Hausdorff
zero. Recall that an asymptotic limit of f is a point y ∈ N such that
dimension
f γ(t) → y as t → ∞ for some path γ ∈ Γ∞ in M. Removing E ∪ (N \ F M )
from N has no effect on the simply connectivity for dimensions n ≥ 3. That is,
f M \ E remains simply connected. Thus one can extend uniquely any branch of
local inverses of f and obtain a homeomorphism g : f M \ E → g(f M \ E) such
that f ◦ g = id |(f M \ E). Finally, g can be extended to E to obtain the inverse
of f.
7. Picard-type theorems
The classical big Picard theorem states that a holomorphic mapping of the
punctured unit disc {z ∈ C : 0 < |z| < 1} into the complex plane omitting two
138 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
values has a meromorphic extension to the whole disc; see e.g. [1, Theorem 1-
14]. In [40] Rickman proved a counterpart of Picard’s theorem for quasiregular
mappings (Theorem 7.1) and its local version (Theorem 7.2) corresponding to
the big Picard theorem.
Theorem 7.1 ([40]). For each integer n ≥ 2 and each K ≥ 1 there exists
a positive integer q = q(n, K) such that if f : Rn → Rn \ {a1 , . . . , aq } is K-
quasiregular and a1 , . . . , aq are distinct points in Rn , then f is constant.
Theorem 7.2 ([40]). Let G = {x ∈ Rn : |x| > s} and let f : G → Rn \
{a1 , . . . , aq } be a K-quasiregular mapping, where a1 , . . . , aq are distinct points in
Rn and q = q(n, K) is the integer in Theorem 7.1. Then the limit lim|x|→∞ f (x)
exists.
In this section we consider corollaries and extensions of the big Picard theorem
for quasiregular mappings.
Although the short argument yielding Theorem 7.1 from Theorem 7.2 is well-
known, it seems that the following corollary employing the same argument has
gone unnoticed in the literature.
Corollary 7.3. Let K ≥ 1 and R > 0. Let f : Rn → Rn be a continuous mapping
omitting at least q = q(n, K) points, where q(n, K) is as in Theorem 7.1. Then
at least one of the following conditions fails:
(i) f |Rn \ B̄ n (R) is K-quasiregular,
(ii) f B n (r) is open for some r > R.
Proof. Suppose towards a contradiction that both conditions (i) and (ii) hold.
By Theorem 7.2, the mapping f has a limit at the infinity. Hence we may
extend f to a continuous mapping R̄n → R̄n . Moreover, f is K-quasiregular
in R̄n \ B̄ n (R). By composing f with a Möbius mapping if necessary, we may
assume that f (∞) = ∞. Since f is a non-constant quasiregular mapping on
R̄n \ B̄ n (R), f |R̄n \ B̄ n (R) is an open mapping. Hence f R̄n is open in R̄n , by (ii).
Since f R̄n is both open and closed, f R̄n = R̄n and f Rn = Rn . This contradicts
the assumption that f omits q points. The claim follows.
In [23] the authors consider quasiregular mappings of the punctured unit ball
into a Riemannian manifold N . We say that N has at least q ends, if there exists
a compact set C ⊂ N such that N \ C has at least q components which are not
relatively compact. Such a component of N \C is called an end of M with respect
to C. Let E be the set of ends of N , that is, E ∈ E is an end of N with respect to
some compact set C ⊂ N . We compactify N with respect to its ends as follows.
There is a natural partial order in E induced by inclusion. We call a maximal
totally ordered subset of E an asymptotic end of N . The set of asymptotic ends
of N is denoted by ∂N and N̂ = N ∪ ∂N . We endow N̂ with a topology such
that the inclusion N ⊂ N̂ is an embedding and for every e ∈ ∂N sets E ∈ e
form a neighborhood basis at e. The main result is the following version of the
big Picard theorem.
p-Laplace operator, quasiregular mappings, and Picard-type theorems 139
Theorem 7.4 ([23, Theorem 1.3]). For every K ≥ 1 there exists q = q(K, n)
such that every K-quasiregular mapping f : B n \{0} → N has a limit limx→0 f (x)
in N̂ if N has at least q ends.
In the spirit of Corollary 7.3 we formulate the following consequence Theorem
7.4.
Corollary 7.5. Given n ≥ 2 and K ≥ 1 there exists q̃ = q̃(n, K) such that the
following holds. Suppose that M is compact, {z1 , . . . , zk } ⊂ M , where 1 ≤ k < q̃,
and that N has at least q̃ ends. Let f : M \ {z1 , . . . , zk } → N be a continuous
mapping and let Ωi be a neighborhood of zi for every 1 ≤ i ≤ k. Then at least
one of the following conditions fails:
(i) f is K-quasiregular in Ωi \ {zi } for every i,
(ii) there exists a neighborhood Ω of M \ (Ω1 ∪ · · · ∪ Ωk ) such that f Ω is open.
Proof. Suppose that both conditions are satisfied. For every 1 ≤ i ≤ k we
fix a 2-bilipschitz chart ϕi : Ui → ϕi Ui at zi . We may assume that Ui ⊂ Ωi .
Every mapping f ◦ ϕ−1 n
i |ϕi (Ui \ zi ) is 2 K-quasiregular, and therefore it has a
limit at ϕi (zi ) by Theorem 7.4 if N has at least q(n, 2n K) ends. Hence f has
a limit at every point zi . We extend f to a continuous mapping fˆ: M → N̂ .
Denote M ′ = M \ {z1 , . . . , zk }. Since f is an open mapping, ∂f M ′ ∩ f M ′ = ∅.
Furthermore, since M is compact,
f M ′ ⊂ fˆM = fˆM.
Hence ∂f M ′ ⊂ fˆM \ f M ′ . Thus card(∂f M ′ ) ≤ card(fˆM \ f M ′ ) ≤ k and
N̂ = N = f M ′ = fˆM.
This is a contradiction, since
card(fˆM \ f M ′ ) ≤ k < q ≤ card(N̂ \ f M ′ ) = card(fˆM \ f M ′ ).
In [26] Holopainen and Rickman applied a method of Lewis ([33]) that relies on
Harnack’s inequality to prove the following general version of Picard’s theorem on
the number of omitted values of a quasiregular mapping. We say that a complete
Riemannian n-manifold M belongs to the class M(m, ϑ), where m : (0, 1) → N
and ϑ : (0, ∞) → (0, ∞) are given functions, if following two conditions hold:
(m) for each 0 < λ < 1 every ball of radius r in M can contain at most m(λ)
disjoint balls of radius λr, and
(ϑ) M admits a global Harnack’s inequality for non-negative A-harmonic func-
tions of type n with Harnack-constant ϑ(β/α), where α and β are the
constants of A.
Theorem 7.6 ([26]). Given n ≥ 2, K ≥ 1, m : (0, 1) → N, and ϑ : (0, ∞) →
(0, ∞) there exists q = q(n, K, m, ϑ) ≥ 2 such that the following holds. Suppose
that M belongs to the class M(m, ϑ) and that N has at least q ends. Then every
K-quasiregular mapping f : M → N is constant.
140 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
Next we show that this theorem admits a local version. Suppose that M is
complete. We say that an asymptotic end e of M is of type E(m, ϑ) if there
exists E ∈ e such that
(Em) for each 0 < λ < 1 every ball of radius r in E can contain at most m(λ)
disjoint balls of radius λr, and
(Eϑ) E admits a uniform Harnack inequality for non-negative A-harmonic func-
tions of E of type n for balls B ⊂ E satisfying 4B ⊂ E. We also assume
that the Harnack constant ϑ depends only on β/α, where α and β are the
constants of A.
We also say that an asymptotic end e of M is p-parabolic (with p ≥ 1) if there
exists E ∈ e such that for every ε > 0 there exists E ′ ∈ e such that
Mp (Γ(E ′ , M \ E; M )) < ε.
Furthermore, we say that an asymptotic end e of M is locally C-quasiconvex
if for every E ∈ e there exists E ′ ∈ e, E ′ ⊂ E, such that each pair of points
x, y ∈ E ′ can be joint by a path in E ′ of length at most Cd(x, y), where d is the
Riemannian distance of M .
Theorem 7.7. Let n ≥ 2, K ≥ 1, m : (0, 1) → N, and ϑ : (0, ∞) → (0, ∞).
Then there exists q = q(n, K, m, ϑ) such that the following holds. Suppose that
M is complete and e is an n-parabolic locally C-quasiconvex asymptotic end of
M of type E(m, ϑ), and that N has at least q ends. Let E ∈ e and f : E → N be
a K-quasiregular mapping. Then f has a limit at e.
Corollary 7.8. Let n ≥ 2, K ≥ 1, m : (0, 1) → N, and ϑ : (0, ∞) → (0, ∞).
Then there exists q = q(n, K, m, ϑ) such that the following holds. Suppose that
a complete Riemannian n-manifold M has asymptotic ends {e1 , . . . , ek }, k < q,
of type E(m, ϑ) which are all n-parabolic and locally C-quasiconvex, and that N
has at least q ends. Let f : M → N be a continuous mapping and Ei ∈ ei for
every 1 ≤ i ≤ k. Then at least one of the following conditions fails:
(i) f is K-quasiregular in Ei for every i,
(ii) there exists a neighborhood Ω of M \ (E1 ∪ · · · ∪ Ek ) such that f Ω is open.
Proof. Suppose that both conditions hold. By Theorem 7.7, we may extend f
to a continuous mapping fˆ: M̂ → N̂ . Since M̂ is compact, we may follow the
proof of Corollary 7.5.
We need several lemmas in order to prove Theorem 7.7. Let us first recall
the definition of a Harnack function. Let M be a Riemannian manifold. A
continuous function u : M → R is called a Harnack function with constant θ if
M (h, x, r) := sup h ≤ θ inf h
B(x,r) B(x,r)
holds in each ball B(x, r) whenever the function h is nonnegative in B(x, 2r),
has the form h = ±u + a for some a ∈ R, and B̄(x, 2r) ⊂ M is compact. The
original version of Lewis’ lemma is stated for Harnack functions. It is well known
p-Laplace operator, quasiregular mappings, and Picard-type theorems 141
(see [16, 6.2]) that A-harmonic functions in the Euclidean setting are Harnack
functions with some θ depending only on n and on the constants p, α, and β of
A. In that case θ is called the Harnack constant of A.
Lemma 7.9. Let e be an n-parabolic locally C-quasiconvex asymptotic end of a
complete Riemannian n-manifold M . Suppose u : E → R, where E ∈ e, is a Har-
nack function with constant θ such that lim supx→e u(x) = ∞ and lim inf x→e u(x) <
0. Then for every C0 > 0 there exists a ball B = B(x0 , r0 ) ⊂ E such that
(1) B(x0 , 100Cr0 ) ⊂ E,
(2) u(x0 ) = 0, and
(3) maxB u ≥ C0 .
Proof. It is sufficient to modify the proof of [23, Lemma 2.1] as follows. Let
E ′ ∈ e be such that E ′ ⊂ E and E ′ is C-quasiconvex. Let F ′ ⊂ M be a compact
set such that E ′ is a component of M \ F ′ , fix o ∈ M , and let R0 > 0 be such
that F ′ ⊂ B̄(o, R0 /2).
Fix k ∈ N such that given r > R0 and x, y ∈ ∂B(o, r) ∩ E ′ there exists k balls
Bi = B(xi , r/1000), 1 ≤ i ≤ k, in E such that
(1) x ∈ B1 ,
(2) y ∈ Bk ,
(3) xi ∈ E ′ for every i, and
(4) Bi ∩ Bi+1 6= ∅ for every i ∈ {1, . . . , k − 1}.
Indeed, since Bi ∩B(o, R0 /2) = ∅, we have Bi ⊂ E, and since E ′ is C-quasiconvex,
we may choose any k > 2000C. We may now apply the proof of [23, Lemma 5]
almost verbatim.
Lemma 7.10. Let e be an n-parabolic locally C-quasiconvex asymptotic end of a
complete Riemannian n-manifold M and E ∈ e. If f : E → N is a quasiregular
mapping such that f E is n-hyperbolic, then f has a limit in N̂ at e.
d(f (αk (0)), f (αk (1))) ≥ δ/2 for large k, we have, by the n-hyperbolicity of f E,
that
capn (f E, f |αk |) ≥ ε > 0.
for every k. This is a contradiction.
if u is negative on |α|.
Proof. Since |α| is connected, every non-vanishing function on |α| has constant
sign. We may assume without loss of generality that u is positive on |α|. Let
a = a0 < a1 < . . . < ak = b be a partition of [a, b] such that ℓ(α|[ai , ai+1 ]) =
ℓ(α)/k for every i = 0, 1, . . . , k − 1. For every i fix xi ∈ α([ai , ai+1 ]) such that
ℓ(α|[ai , xi ]) = ℓ(α|[xi , ai+1 ]). Then α([ai , ai+1 ]) ⊂ B̄(xi , ℓ(α)/(2k)). Further-
more, B(xi , ℓ(α)/k) ⊂ E and B(xi , ℓ(α)/k) ∩ u−1 (0) = ∅. Since α(ai+1 ) ∈
B̄(xi , ℓ(α)/(2k)) ∩ B̄(xi+1 , ℓ(α)/(2k)) for every i = 1, . . . , k − 1, a repeated use
of Harnack’s inequality yields max|α| u ≤ θk min|α| u.
Lemma 7.12 (Lewis’ lemma). Let M , e, E, and u be as in Theorem 7.7. Then
for every C0 > 0 there exists a ball B = B(x0 , r0 ) ⊂ E such that
(1) 6B ⊂ E,
(2) u(x0 ) = 0, and
(3) C0 ≤ max6B u ≤ θ6 maxB u.
Proof. Let C0 > 0 and B(x0 , R) be as in Lemma 7.9. Let Z = u−1 (0) and
ZR = Z ∩ B̄(x0 , 41R). For
S each x ∈ ZR we set rx = R − d(x, x0 )/41 and
Bx = B(x, rx ). Then F = x∈ZR B̄x is compact and x 7→ maxB̄x u is continuous.
Let a ∈ ZR be a point of maximum for this function. Thus
max u ≥ max u ≥ C0 .
B̄(a,ra ) B̄(x0 ,R)
and hence they satisfy the assumptions of Lemma 7.9. This can be seen by
observing that the sets {x ∈ N : vj (x) > c} and {x ∈ N : vj (x) < −c} are non-
empty and open for every c > 0 and j = 2, . . . , q. By Lemma 7.10, f (E \ F )
intersects these sets for every compact F ⊂ M , and therefore (7.8) follows. By
144 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
Lemma 7.12 there are sequences xi ∈ E and ri ∈ (0, ∞), i ∈ N, such that
u2 (xi ) = 0, B(xi , 3ri ) ⊂ E,
M (u2 , xi , 3ri ) ≤ θ6 M (u2 , xi , ri /2),
and M (u2 , xi , ri /2) → ∞ as i → ∞. Let us fix an index i such that M (u2 , xi , ri /2) ≥
4θκ, where θ > 1 is the Harnack constant of A and κ is the constant in Lemma
7.13. We write x = xi and r = ri . By (7.6), f B(x, r/2) ∩ V1 6= ∅. Thus, by
(7.2), we have
(7.9) M (u2 , x, s) − 2κ ≤ M (uj , x, s) ≤ M (u2 , x, s) + 2κ
whenever s ≥ r/2. Next we conclude by using Harnack’s inequality that
(7.10) M (uj , x, r) ≤ (θ − 1)M (−uj , x, 2r)
for all j. Let us first show that uj (z) = 0 for some z ∈ B(x, r). Suppose on
the contrary, that uj > 0 in B(x, r). Then uj (y) ≤ θuj (x) for all y ∈ B(x, r/2)
by Harnack’s inequality. Since M (u2 , x, r/2) ≥ 4θκ, there exists y ∈ B(x, r/2)
such that uj (y) > 2θκ by (7.9). Thus uj (x) > 2κ, and so x ∈ V1 . By (7.2),
u2 (x) ≥ uj (x) − 2κ > 0 contradicting the assumption u2 (x) = 0. Therefore there
exists z ∈ B(x, r) such that uj (z) = 0. Thus inf B(x,r) uj ≤ 0. Inequality (7.10)
follows now from the calculation
M (uj , x, r) = sup uj = sup uj − inf uj + inf uj
B(x,r) B(x,r) B(x,2r) B(x,2r)
≤ θ inf uj − inf uj + inf uj
B(x,r) B(x,2r) B(x,2r)
= θ inf uj + (1 − θ) inf uj
B(x,r) B(x,2r)
Vℓ The
∗
Riemannian metric of M induces an inner product to the exterior bundle
T M for every ℓ ∈ {1, . . . , n}, see e.g. [29, 9.6] for details. We denote this
inner product by h·, ·i and the corresponding norm by | · |. As usual, sections of
V
the bundle ℓ T ∗ M are called ℓ-forms. The Lp -space of measurable ℓ-forms is
V
denoted by Lp ( ℓ M ) and the Lp -norm is defined by
Z 1/p
p
kξkp = |ξ| dx .
M
V
The local Lp -spaces of ℓ-forms are denoted by Lploc ( ℓ M ). The space of C ∞ -
V
smooth ℓ-forms on M is denoted by C ∞ ( ℓ M ), and the space of compactly
V
supported C ∞ -smooth ℓ-forms by C0∞ ( ℓ M ).
146 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
V V
Let ℓ ∈ {1, . . . , n−1} and p > 1. Let A : ℓ T ∗ M → ℓ T ∗ M be a measurable
bundle map such that there exists positive constants a and b satisfying
(8.1) hA(ξ) − A(ζ), ξ − ζi ≥ a(|ξ| + |ζ|)p−2 |ξ − ζ|2 ,
(8.2) |A(ξ) − A(ζ)| ≤ b(|ξ| + |ζ|)p−2 |ξ − ζ|, and
(8.3) A(tξ) = t|t|p−2 A(ξ)
V
for all ξ, ζ ∈ ℓ Tx∗ M , t ∈ R, and for almost every x ∈ M . We also assume that
V
x 7→ Ax (ω) is a measurable ℓ-form for every measurable ℓ-form ω : M → ℓ T ∗ M .
We say that an ℓ-form ξ is A-harmonic (of type p) on M if ξ is a weakly closed
d,p Vℓ
continuous form in Wloc ( M ) and satisfies equality
δ(A(ξ)) = 0
weakly, that is, Z
hA(ξ), dϕi = 0
M
V d,p Vℓ
for all ϕ ∈ C0∞ ( ℓ−1 M ). Here Wloc ( M ) is the partial Sobolev space of
p Vℓ d,p Vℓ
ℓ-forms. A form ω ∈ Lloc ( M ) is in the space Wloc ( M ) if the distribu-
p Vℓ+1
tional exterior derivative dω exists and dω ∈ Lloc ( M ). The global space
d,p
Vℓ d,p Vℓ
W ( M ) is defined similarly. A form ω ∈ Wloc ( M ) is weakly closed if
d,p Vℓ−1
dω = 0 and weakly exact if ω = dτ for some τ ∈ Wloc ( M ).
Apart from minor differences between conditions (8.1)-(8.3) and the corre-
sponding conditions in Section 2, we can say that A-harmonic functions corre-
spond to A-harmonic weakly exact 1-forms.
Let f : M → N be a quasiregular mapping. Since f is almost everywhere
n/ℓ V
differentiable, we may define the pull-back f ∗ ξ of the form ξ ∈ Lloc ( ℓ N ) by
(f ∗ ξ)x = (Tx f )∗ ξf (x) .
n/ℓ V
By the quasiregularity of f , f ∗ ξ ∈ Lloc ( ℓ M ). Furthermore, d(f ∗ ξ) = f ∗ (dξ)
1,n/ℓ V 1,n/ℓ V 1,n/ℓ V
if ξ ∈ Wloc ( ℓ N ). Hence f ∗ ξ ∈ Wloc ( ℓ M ) for ξ ∈ Wloc ( ℓ M ). The
quasiregularity of f also yields that the pull-back f ∗ ξ of an (n/ℓ)-harmonic ℓ-form
V
is A-harmonic. Similarly to the case of A-harmonic functions, A : ℓ T ∗ M →
Vℓ ∗
T M is defined by
A(η) = hG∗ η, ηi(n/ℓ)−2 G∗ η,
where T
Gx = Jf (x)2/n (Tx f )−1 (Tx f )−1 a.e. .
Recently in [4] Bonk and Heinonen studied cohomology of quasiregularly el-
liptic manifolds using p-harmonic forms. A connected Riemannian manifold is
called K-quasiregularly elliptic if it receives a non-constant K-quasiregular map-
ping from Rn . The main result of [4] is the following theorem.
Theorem 8.1 ([4, Theorem 1.1]). Given n ≥ 2 and K ≥ 1 there exists a constant
C = C(n, K) > 1 such that dim H ∗ (N ) ≤ C for every K-quasiregularly elliptic
closed n-manifold N .
p-Laplace operator, quasiregular mappings, and Picard-type theorems 147
As the Picard-type theorem 7.6, also this theorem has a local counterpart.
Theorem 8.2 ([34, Theorem 2]). Given n ≥ 2 and K ≥ 1 there exists a constant
C ′ = C ′ (n, K) > 1 such that every K-quasiregular mapping f : B n \{0} → N has
a limit at origin if N is closed, connected, and oriented Riemannian n-manifold
with dim H ∗ (N ) ≥ C ′ .
We close this section with a sketch of the proof of Theorem 8.2. The following
theorem on exact A-harmonic forms is essential in the proof. For details, see
[34].
Theorem 8.3. Let n ≥ 3 and let η be a weakly exact A-harmonic ℓ-form, ℓ ∈
{2, . . . , n − 1}, on Rn \ B̄ n such that
Z
(8.4) |η|n/ℓ = ∞.
Rn \B̄ n (2)
Sketch of the proof of Theorem 8.2. Let us first consider some exceptions.
For Riemannian surfaces the result is classical and follows from the uniformiza-
tion theorem and the measurable Riemann mapping theorem, see [34, Theorem
3]. For n ≥ 3 we may give a bound for the first cohomology using a well-known
result of Varopoulos on the fundamental group and n-hyperbolicity. For details,
see [34, Theorem 4]. Hence we may restrict our discussion to dimensions n ≥ 3
and to cohomology dimensions ℓ ≥ 2.
Let n ≥ 3 and 2 ≤ ℓ ≤ n − 1, and suppose that f : B n \ {0} → N does not
have a limit at the origin. Without changing the notation we precompose f with
a sense-preserving Möbius mapping σ such that σ(Rn \ B̄ n ) = B n \ {0}. Let us
now show that dim H ℓ (N ) is bounded from above by a constant depending only
on n and K. We fix p-harmonic ℓ-forms ξi generating H ℓ (N ), with p = n/ℓ. This
can be done by a result of Scott [42]. Furthermore, we may assume that forms
ξi are uniformly separated and uniformly bounded in Lp , that is, kξi − ξj kp ≥ 1
and kξi kp = 1 for every i and j.
A local version [34, Theorem 6] of the value distribution result of Mattila and
Rickman yields that
Z Z
∗ n/ℓ
(8.6) |f ξ| ∼ Jf
B n (r)\B n (2) B n (r)\B n (2)
for large radii r. Using Theorem 8.3 and a decomposition technique due to
Rickman, we find a radius R and a decomposition of the annulus B n (R) \ B n (2)
148 Ilkka Holopainen and Pekka Pankka IWQCMA05
and
Z Z
(8.8) Jf . Jf .
ψB n B n (R)\B n (2)
Combining (8.6) with (8.7) and (8.8), we have that forms ϕ∗ f ∗ ξi are uniformly
bounded in Lp (B n ) and uniformly separated in Lp (B n (1/2)). By compactness,
the number of forms is bounded by a constant depending on data.
Remark 8.4. The use of A-harmonic forms in the proof of Theorem 8.2 is very
similar to their use in the proof of Theorem 8.1. Also Theorem 8.3 corresponds
to a theorem of Bonk and Heinonen ([4, Theorem 1.11]).
References
[1] L. V. Ahlfors, Conformal invariants: topics in geometric function theory, McGraw-Hill
Series in Higher Mathematics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1973.
[2] R. Bishop and R. Crittenden, Geometry of manifolds, Pure Appl. Math. 15, Academic
Press, New York, 1964.
[3] B, Bojarski and T. Iwaniec, Analytical foundations of the theory of quasiconformal map-
pings in Rn , Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 8 (1983), 257–324.
[4] M. Bonk and J. Heinonen, Quasiregular mappings and cohomology, Acta Math. 186
(2001), 219–238.
[5] M. Bonk and J. Heinonen, Smooth quasiregular mappings with branching, Publ. Math.
Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 100 (2004), 153–170.
[6] P. Buser, A note on the isoperimetric constant, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 15 (1982),
213–230.
[7] I. Chavel, Riemannian geometry: A modern introduction, Cambridge University Press,
1993.
[8] J. Cheeger, M. Gromov, and M. Taylor, Finite propagation speed, kernel estimates for
functions of the Laplace operator, and the geometry of complete Riemannian manifolds,
J. Differential Geom. 17 (1982), 15–53.
[9] T. Coulhon, I. Holopainen, and L. Saloff-Coste, Harnack inequality and hyperbolicity for
subelliptic p-Laplacian with applications to Picard type theorems, Geom. Funct. Anal. 11
(2001), 1139– 1191.
[10] A. Eremenko and J. L. Lewis, Uniform limits of certain A-harmonic functions with
applications to quasiregular mappings, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 16 (1991),
361–375.
[11] I. Fonseca and W. Gangbo, Degree theory in analysis and applications, Oxford Lecture
Series in Mathematics and its Applications, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
[12] F. W. Gehring, Rings and quasiconformal mappings in space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
103 (1962), 353–393.
[13] S. Granlund, Harnack’s inequality in the borderline case, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I
Math. 5 (1980), 159–163.
[14] M. Gromov, Metric structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces, Progress in
Mathematics 152, Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, 1999; Structures métriques pour les
p-Laplace operator, quasiregular mappings, and Picard-type theorems 149
[38] Yu. G. Reshetnyak, Liouville’s conformal mapping theorem under minimal regularity
hypotheses, Sibirsk. Mat. Z. 8 (1967), 835–840.
[39] Yu. G. Reshetnyak, Space mappings with bounded distortion, Translations of Mathemat-
ical Monographs 73, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989.
[40] S. Rickman, On the number of omitted values of entire quasiregular mappings, J. Analyse
Math. 37 (1980), 100-117.
[41] S. Rickman, Quasiregular mappings, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete
26, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1993.
[42] C. Scott, Lp theory of differential forms on manifolds, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 347
(1995), 2075–2096.
[43] J. Serrin, Local behavior of solutions of quasi-linear equations, Acta Math. 111 (1964),
247–302.
[44] N. Varopoulos, Potential theory and diffusion on Riemannian manifolds in Conference
on Harmonic Analysis in Honor of Antoni Zygmund, Vol. 2, Wadsworth Math. Ser.,
Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif., 1983, 821–837.
[45] J. Väisälä, Discrete open mappings on manifolds, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math.
392 (1966), 1–10.
[46] S. T. Yau, Isoperimetric constants and the first eigenvalue of a compact manifold, Ann.
Sci. École Norm. Sup. 8 (1975), 159–171.
[47] V. A. Zorich, The theorem of M. A. Lavrent’ev on quasiconformal mappings in space,
Mat. Sb. 74 (1967) 417–433.
[48] V.A. Zorich, Quasiconformal immersions of Riemannian manifolds and a Picard type
theorem, Functional Analysis and Its Appl. 34 (2000), 188-196.
[49] V.A. Zorich, Asymptotics of the admissible growth of the coefficient of quasiconformality
at infinity and injectivity of immersions of Riemannian manifolds, Publ. Inst. Math.
(Beograd) (N.S.) 75(89) (2004), 53–57.
Ilkka Holopainen Address: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 68,
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
E-mail: ilkka.holopainen@helsinki.fi
Pekka Pankka Address: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, P.O. Box 68,
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland
E-mail: pekka.pankka@helsinki.fi
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Quasiconformal
Mappings and their Applications (IWQCMA05)
Hyperbolic-type metrics
Henri Lindén
Contents
1. Introduction 151
2. The metrics 152
3. Isometries and bilipschitz-mappings 157
4. Gromov hyperbolicity 160
References 163
1. Introduction
In geometric function theory there are many different distance functions around,
which — to a greater or lesser degree — resemble the classical hyperbolic metric.
Some of these are defined by geometric means, some by implicit formulas, and
many by integrating over certain weight functions.
What all these metrics have in common, is that they are defined in some
proper subdomain D ( Rn , and are strongly affected by the geometry of the do-
main boundary. Thus we should actually speak of families of metrics {dD }D(Rn ,
since the metric looks different in each domain, even though the defining formula
might be the same. In the literature, however, one usually abuses notation and
speaks only of “the metric d”, which we will do here also. The metrics typically
have negative curvature, ie. the geodesics, if they exist, avoid the boundary.
Most of the metrics described here also have an invariance property in the sense
that
(1.1) dD (x, y) = df (D) (f (x), f (y)),
152 H. Lindén IWQCMA05
for mappings f belonging to some fixed class, say similarities, Möbius transfor-
mations, or conformal mappings.
Many of the metrics, especially those with simple explicit formulas, have been
developed as tools for estimating other, more hard-to-handle metrics, such as the
quasihyperbolic metric, which is probably the one most commonly used metric
presented in this text. It has found applications in many branches of analysis,
and is a very natural generalization of the classical hyperbolic metric to any
domain D and dimension n ≥ 2. It has some flaws though, in most cases one
cannot compute it, and actually very little is known about the metric itself. The
difficulty of explicit computation is typical also for some other metrics, and for
this reason we have a lot of “similar” metrics around, which in many cases are
equivalent to each other; a handy feature, if one metric is suited for your study,
but the other is not. Here we will try to give a survey on some of these metrics.
2. The metrics
The classical starting point is the hyperbolic geometry developed by Poincaré
and Lobachevsky in the early 19:th century. Poincaré used the unit ball as
domain for his model, and Lobachevsky used the half space. These models
turned out to be equivalent in the sense that Möbius transformations between
them are isometries.
2.1. Definition. Let D ∈ {Hn , Bn }, and define a weight (or density) function
w : D → R by
1 2
w(z) = , for D = Hn and w(z) = , for D = Bn .
dist(z, ∂D) 1 − |z|2
Then the hyperbolic length ℓρ (γ) of a curve γ is defined by
Z
(2.2) ℓρ (γ) = ℓρ,D (γ) = w(z) |dz|,
γ
where |dz| denotes the length element. After this, the hyperbolic distance ρD is
defined for all x, y ∈ D by
Z
(2.3) ρD (x, y) = inf ℓρ,D (γ) = inf w(z) |dz|,
γ∈Γxy γ∈Γxy γ
where Γxy is the family of all rectifiable curves joining x and y within D.
2.5. Geodesics. When a metric is defined in the way described above, one
might ask how to find the curve γ ∈ Γxy giving the desired infimum (which —
if it is found — is in fact a minimum). In general, this can be far from trivial,
even if such a curve exists. Curves minimizing the distance in this way are
called geodesics or geodesic segments. Another way of characterizing a geodesic,
is that it satisfies the triangle inequality with equality, ie. the curve γ ∈ Γxy is a
geodesic, if for all u, v, w ∈ |γ| properly ordered, we have
We denote by JdD [x, y] the geodesic segment between x and y in (D, d). This
segment may, however, not be unique, and no particular choice is made here. A
metric space in which geodesic segments exist between any two given points, is
called a geodesic metric space. If, in addition, the geodesic is unique, the space
is totally geodesic. Naturally a geodesic metric is always intrinsic.
The hyperbolic metric is well understood, and the geodesic flow is known. In
fact, in the classical models Bn and Hn the geodesics are known to be circular
arcs orthogonal to the boundary, and in other domains the geodesics simply are
induced by the conformal mapping. Moreover, for the classical cases there are
explicit formulas to calculate the value of the hyperbolic metrics in terms of
euclidean distances. For a comprehensive study on the classical cases, see the
book by Beardon [Be1]. The hyperbolic metric in an arbitrary domain has been
studied by F. Gehring, K. Hag and A. Beardon, see eg. the articles [Be3] and
[GeHa1].
154 H. Lindén IWQCMA05
Bn
n
y* H
y
x
y
x
x* x* y*
One way to calculate the hyperbolic distance, is to use the absolute cross-ratio
defined by
|a − c||b − d|
|a, b, c, d| = , a, b, c, d ∈ Rn .
|a − b||c − d|
One can prove that, if C is the circle containing JρBn [x, y] or JρHn [x, y] and
{x∗ , y ∗ } = C ∩ ∂Bn or {x∗ , y ∗ } = C ∩ ∂Hn in the same order as in Figure 1, then
(2.7) ρBn (x, y) = log |x∗ , x, y, y ∗ | = ρHn (x, y).
Other explicit formulas have also been derived, see the book [Be1].
2.8. The Apollonian metric. The formula in (2.7) makes one wonder whether
a similar approach could be generalized to any domain D ( Rn . It turns out
that this is very much possible; the Apollonian distance in a domain D is defined
by
|z − x| |w − y|
(2.9) αD (x, y) = sup log ,
z,w∈∂D |z − y| |w − x|
for all x, y ∈ D. This is a metric, unless the boundary is the subset of a circle
or a line, in which case it is only a pseudo-metric, ie. the metric axiom d(x, y) =
0 ⇒ x = y need not hold.
Geometrically the Apollonian metric can be thought of in the following way:
an Apollonian circle (or sphere, when n ≥ 3) with respect to the pair (x, y), is a
set
n |z − x|
Bx,y,q = z ∈ R =q .
|z − y|
Then the Apollonian metric is
αD (x, y) = log qx qy ,
where qx and qy are the ratios of the largest possible balls Bx,y,qx and By,x,qy still
contained in D.
Hyperbolic-type metrics 155
D
w
Bx
x
z y
By
The two metrics have much in common, but also important differences, which
will be discussed further in Sections 2 and 3. Both are similarity invariant, and
can be used to estimate the quasihyperbolic metric. The metrics satisfy the
relation
jD (x, y) ≤ e
jD (x, y) ≤ 2 jD (x, y), x, y ∈ D.
The lower bound for the quasihyperbolic metric is given by the inequality
jD (x, y) ≤ kD (x, y)
proved in [GePa], which holds for points x, y in any proper subdomain D. The
upper bound holds for so called uniform domains, which is a wide class of domains
introduced in [MaSa].
2.15. Definition. A domain D ( Rn is called uniform or A-uniform, if there
exists a number A ≥ 1 such that the inequality
kD (x, y) ≤ A jD (x, y)
holds for all x, y ∈ D.
There are many definitions for uniform domains around, see eg. [Ge], so often
many “nice” domains can be shown to be uniform by other means, and so one
has access to the inequality in 2.15. However, typically very little can be said
about the constant A. These matters have been studied in [Li1].
Hyperbolic-type metrics 157
The j-metric defined in (2.14) has another important connection to the quasi-
hyperbolic metric. The quasihyperbolic metric is namely the inner metric of the
j-metric, in the sense of (2.4). In other words
kD (x, y) = inf ℓj,D (γ).
γ∈Γxy
This metric is Möbius invariant and coincides with the hyperbolic metric on Hn
and Bn . Moreover, it is bilipschitz equivalent to the quasihyperbolic metric by
the inequality
(3.3) kD (x, y) ≤ σD (x, y) ≤ 2 kD (x, y), x, y ∈ D.
For the j-metric there are still many open problems regarding the bilipschitz
question. It is well known (see [Vu]), that an Euclidean L-bilipschitz mapping is
L2 -bilipschitz with respect to the j (and k) metric.
For the Apollonian metric the isometry and bilipschitz questions have been
studied by several authors. The work was started by Beardon in [Be2], and con-
tinued by Gehring and Hag in [GeHa2] where they studied Apollonian bilipschitz
mappings. They proved the following theorem.
3.6. Theorem. Let D ( R2 be a quasidisk and f : D → D′ be an Apollonian
bilipschitz mapping.
(1) If D′ is a quasidisk, then f is quasiconformal in D and f = g|D , where
2 2
g : R → R is quasiconformal.
(2) If f is quasiconformal in D, then D′ is a quasidisk and f = g|D , where
2 2
g : R → R is quasiconformal.
In [Hä2] the above property (1) was generalized to hold also for n ≥ 3. In the
same article also a condition was introduced which determines when a Euclidean
bilipschitz mapping is also Apollonian bilipschitz. In the article [HäIb] it is
shown that for n = 2 the Apollonian isometries are exactly restrictions of Möbius
mappings.
For the quasihyperbolic metric the question regarding the isometries has long
been open. In [MaOs] it was shown that every kD -isometry is a conformal map-
ping. A similar proof gives the same result for Ferrand’s metric σD . However, in
[Hä3] it is shown that if the boundary of the domain is regular enough (C 3 , or C 2
unless the domain is either strictly convex or has strictly convex complement),
then the quasihyperbolic isometries are exactly the similarity mappings.
3.7. Conformal modulus. We conclude by introducing two new metrics which
are particularly interesting regarding the question of bilipschitz mappings. Let Γ
n
be a family of curves in R . By F(Γ) we denote the family of admissible functions,
n
that is, non-negative Borel-measurable functions ρ : R → R such that
Z
ρ ds ≥ 1
γ
for each locally rectifiable curve γ ∈ Γ. The n-modulus or the conformal modulus
of Γ is defined by Z
M(Γ) = Mn (Γ) = inf ρn dm,
ρ∈F (Γ) Rn
where m is the n-dimensional Lebesgue measure. It is a conformal invariant,
i.e. if f : G → G′ is a conformal mapping and Γ is a curve family in G, then
M(Γ) = M(f Γ).
n
For E, F, G ⊂ R we denote by ∆(E, F ; D) the family of all closed non-
n
constant curves joining E and F in D, that is, γ : [a, b] → R belongs to
∆(E, F ; D) if one of γ(a), γ(b) belongs to E and the other to F , and furthermore
γ(t) ∈ D for all a < t < b.
160 H. Lindén IWQCMA05
Now we will define two new conformal invariants in the following way. For
n
x, y ∈ D ( R λD is defined by
λD (x, y) = inf M ∆(Cx , Cy ; D) ,
Cx ,Cy
where Cz = γz [0, 1) and γz : [0, 1] → D is a curve such that z ∈ |γz | and γz (t) →
∂D when t → 1 and z = x, y. Correspondingly,
µD (x, y) = inf M ∆(Cxy , ∂D; D) ,
Cxy
where Cxy is such that Cxy = γ[0, 1] and γ is a curve with γ(0) = x and γ(1) = y.
It is not difficult to show that both quantities µD and λD are conformal invari-
ants, and that µD is a metric (often called the modulus metric) when cap ∂D > 0,
1/(1−n)
see [Gá]. λD is not a metric, but λ∗D = λD introduced in [Fe2] is, as long as
the boundary of the domain has more then two points.
One of the interesting feature regarding these metrics is that both are easily
seen — by their definitions — to be conformal invariants. Moreover, the following
can be shown (see [Vu, 10.19]);
3.8. Theorem. If f : D → D′ = f D is a quasiconformal mapping, then
(1) µD (x, y)/L ≤ µf D (f (x), f (y) ≤ L µD (x, y),
(2) λ∗D (x, y)/L1/(n−1) ≤ λ∗f D (f (x), f (y)) ≤ L1/(n−1) λ∗D (x, y)
hold for all x, y ∈ D, where L = max{KI (f ), KO (f )} is the maximal dilatation
of f .
4. Gromov hyperbolicity
One way of telling “how hyperbolic” a metric in fact is, is to study whether
it satisfies hyperbolicity in the sense of M. Gromov. Classically such spaces
have been studied in the geodesic case, and then a space is said to be Gromov
δ-hyperbolic if for all triples of geodesics Jd [x, y], Jd [y, z] and Jd [x, z] we have
that
dist(w, Jd [y, z] ∪ Jd [z, x]) ≤ δ
for all w ∈ Jd [x, y], i.e. if all geodesic triangles are δ-thin.
4.1. The Gromov product. In non-geodesic spaces, however, we are con-
strained to use the definition involving the Gromov product. This can be defined
for two points x, y ∈ D with respect to a base point w by setting
1
(x|y)w = d(x, w) + d(y, w) − d(x, y) .
2
Hyperbolic-type metrics 161
Recently the study of Gromov hyperbolicity has become quite popular, and
even hyperbolicity results on particular metrics in geometric function theory
have been developed by a number of authors. A systematic study of the different
metrics is made easier by the fact that Gromov hyperbolicity is preserved by
certain classes of mappings, so called rough isometries. We say that two metrics
d and d′ are roughly isometric if there exists a positive constant C such that
d(x, y) − C ≤ d′ (x, y) ≤ d(x, y) + C.
It is immediately clear from the definition (4.2) that roughly isometric metrics
are Gromov hyperbolic in the same domains. Moreover, we say that two metrics
are (A, C)-quasi-isometric if there is A ≥ 1, C ≥ 0 such that
A−1 d(x, y) − C ≤ d′ (x, y) ≤ A d(x, y) + C.
Also quasi-isometries (and thus bilipschitz mappings) are known to preserve Gro-
mov hyperbolicity, provided that the spaces are geodesic.
Naturally we would want the hyperbolic metric itself to be Gromov hyperbolic
also, and in fact it is, with constant δ = log 3, as is shown in [CoDePa]. One of
the more interesting and general results is one from the comprehensive study of
M. Bonk, J. Heinonen and P. Koskela [BoHeKo], where it is shown that for a
uniform domain D the space (D, kD ) is always Gromov hyperbolic.
For many of the other metrics Gromov hyperbolicity is easily proved or dis-
proved using the results from [Hä4]. Namely, it turns out that the e
j-metric is
Gromov hyperbolic in every proper subdomain of Rn , whereas the j-metric is
Gromov hyperbolic only in Rn \ {a}. Then, using inequalities
jD (x, y) − log 3 ≤ ηD (x, y) ≤ jD (x, y),
j̃D (x, y) − log 9 ≤ αD (x, y) ≤ j̃D (x, y),
and
αD (x, y) ≤ δD (x, y) ≤ αD (x, y) + log 3
we immediately get some results by rough isometry, that is, the results in Table
1 regarding the Apollonian, half-Apollonian and Seittenranta metrics. For prov-
ing Gromov hyperbolicity of the Ferrand metric one can use geodesity, Gromov
hyperbolicity of the quasihyperbolic metric, and the bilipschitz equivalence in
(3.3).
Finally, for the µ and λ∗ metrics positive results regarding Gromov hyperbol-
icity are shown in [Li2].
162 H. Lindén IWQCMA05
4.3. Theorem. The metric space (Bn , λ∗Bn ) is Gromov δ-hyperbolic, with Gro-
mov constant
1−n
1 1 ωn−1 1−n
1
δ ≤ 21 ωn−1
2
log 64
3
+ 4 log λ n ≤ 2 2
log 64
3
+ 4(log 2 + n − 1) ,
where ωn−1 denotes the (n − 1)-dimensional surface area of S n−1 and λn is the
Grötzsch constant. Also, any simply connected proper subdomain D ( R2 is
Gromov δ-hyperbolic with respect to the metric λ∗G , where
log 5462
δ≤ ≈ 1.3696.
2π
4.4. Theorem. The metric space (Bn , µBn ) is Gromov δ-hyperbolic, with Gro-
mov constant
δ ≤ 2n−1 cn log 12,
where cn is the spherical cap inequality constant, see [Vu]. Especially, every
simply connected domain D ( R2 is Gromov hyperbolic with
2 log 12
δ≤ ≈ 1.5819.
π
4.5. Theorem. The metric space (Rn \ {z}, λ∗Rn \{z} ) is Gromov hyperbolic, with
1 1
δ ≤ 2ωn−1
n−1
log 18λ2n ≤ 2ωn−1
n−1
log 72 + 2n − 2 .
As the below table indicates, the j-metric and the half-Apollonian metric are
the only metrics of the ones discussed here which fail to be Gromov hyperbolic
in most cases. These results indicate that these metrics are in a way “too easy”,
or have too little structure for satisfying Gromov hyperbolicity. On the other
hand, in other contexts that is one of their strongest features, as has been seen
in earlier sections.
kD D uniform [BoHeKo]
hD n = 2 all domains defined, n ≥ 3, D = Bn , Hn [CoDePa] and conf. invariance
αD All domains D ( Rn [Hä4] and rough isometry
ηD Only D = Rn \ {z}, δ = log 9 [Hä4],[HäLi]
jD Only D = Rn \ {z}, δ = log 9 [Hä4]
j̃D All domains D ( Rn [Hä4]
δD All domains D ( Rn [Hä4],[Se]
σD D uniform, for D = Bn δ = log 3 [Fe1],[BoHeKo]
λ∗D D = Bn , Rn∗ , n = 2 simply conn. domains [Li2]
µD D = Bn , n = 2 simply conn. domains [Li2]
References
[Be1] A. F. Beardon: The geometry of discrete groups. Graduate Texts in Mathe-
matics, Vol. 91, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1982.
[Be2] A. F. Beardon: The Apollonian metric of a domain in Rn . Quasiconformal
mappings and analysis (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1995), Springer-Verlag, New
York, (1998), 91–108.
[Be3] A. F. Beardon: The hyperbolic metric in a rectangle II. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn.
Math., 28, (2003), 143–152.
[BoHeKo] M. Bonk, J. Heinonen and P. Koskela: Uniformizing Gromov hyperbolic
spaces. Astérisque 270, 2001, 1–99.
[CoDePa] M. Coornaert, T. Delzant and A. Papadopoulos: Géométrie et théorie
des groupes. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1441 Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1990. (French, english summary).
[Fe1] J. Ferrand: A characterization of quasiconformal mappings by the behavior of
a function of three points. Proceedings of the 13th Rolf Nevanlinna Colloquium
(Joensuu, 1987; I. Laine, S. Rickman and T. Sorvali (eds.)), Lecture Notes in
Mathematics Vol. 1351, Springer-Verlag, New York, (1988), 110–123.
[Fe2] J. Ferrand: Conformal capacity and extremal metrics. Pacific J. Math. 180,
no. 1, (1997), 41–49.
[Gá] I. S. Gál: Conformally invariant metrics and uniform structures. Indag. Math.
22, (1960), 218–244.
[Ge] F. W. Gehring: Characteristic properties of quasidisks. Les Presses de
l’Universite de Montreal, Montreal, 1982.
[GeHa1] F. W. Gehring and K. Hag: A bound for hyperbolic distance in a quasidisk.
Computational methods and function theory (Nicosia, 1997), 233–240, Ser. Ap-
prox. Decompos. 11, World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, 1999.
[GeHa2] F. W. Gehring and K. Hag: The Apollonian metric and quasiconformal
mappings. In the tradition of Ahlfors and Bers (Stony Brook, NY, 1998), 143–
163, Contemp. Math. 256, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000.
[GeOs] F. W. Gehring and B. G. Osgood: Uniform domains and the quasi-
hyperbolic metric. J. Anal. Math. 36 (1979), 50–74.
[GePa] F. W. Gehring and B. Palka: Quasiconformally homogeneous domains. J.
Anal. Math. 30 (1976), 172–199.
[Hä1] P. Hästö: The Apollonian metric: uniformity and quasiconvexity. Ann. Acad.
Sci. Fenn. Math., 28, (2003), 385–414.
[Hä2] P. Hästö: The Apollonian metric: limits of the approximation and bilipschitz
properties. Abstr. Appl. Anal., 20, (2003), 1141–1158.
[Hä3] P. Hästö: Isometries of the quasihyperbolic metric. In preparation (2005).
Available at http://www.helsinki.fi/˜hasto/pp/
[Hä4] P. Hästö: Gromov hyperbolicity of the jG and e jG metrics. Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 134, (2006), 1137–1142.
[HäIb] P. Hästö and Z. Ibragimov: Apollonian isometries of planar domains are
Möbius mappings. J. Geom. Anal. 15, no. 2, (2005), 229–237.
[HäIbLi] P. Hästö, Z. Ibragimov and H. Lindén: Isometries of relative metrics. In
preparation (2004). Available at http://www.helsinki.fi/˜hlinden/pp.html
[HäLi] P. Hästö and H. Lindén: Isometries of the half-Apollonian metric. Compl.
Var. Theory Appl. 49, no. 6 (2004), 405–415.
n
[Ib] Z. Ibragimov: On the Apollonian metric of domains in R Compl. Var. Theory
Appl. 48, no. 10, (2003), 837–855.
[Li1] H. Lindén: Quasihyperbolic geodesics and uniformity in elementary domains.
Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. Diss. 146, (2005), 1–52.
164 H. Lindén IWQCMA05
W. Ma and D. Minda
Abstract. In the unit disk D hyperbolic geodesic rays emanating from the
origin and hyperbolic disks centered at the origin exhibit simple geometric
properties. The goal is to determine whether analogs of these geometric prop-
erties remain valid for hyperbolic geodesic rays and hyperbolic disks in a simply
connected region Ω. According to whether the simply connected region Ω is a
subset of the unit disk D, the complex plane C or the extended complex plane
(Riemann sphere) C∞ = C ∪ {∞}, the geometric properties are measured rel-
ative to the background geometry on Ω inherited as a subset of one of these
classical geometries, hyperbolic, Euclidean and spherical. In a simply con-
nected hyperbolic region Ω ⊂ C hyperbolic polar coordinates possess global
Euclidean properties similar to those of hyperbolic polar coordinates about
the origin in the unit disk if and only if the region is Euclidean convex. For
example, the Euclidean distance between travelers moving at unit hyperbolic
speed along distinct hyperbolic geodesic rays emanating from an arbitrary
common initial point is increasing if and only if the region is convex. A simple
consequence of this is the fact that the two ends of a hyperbolic geodesic in a
convex region cannot be too close. Exact analogs of this Euclidean separating
property of hyperbolic geodesic rays hold when Ω lies in either the hyperbolic
plane D or the spherical plane C∞ .
Contents
1. Introduction 166
2. Hyperbolic polar coordinates in the unit disk 167
3. Hyperbolic polar coordinates in a disk or half-plane 169
4. Hyperbolic polar coordinates in simply connected regions 172
5. Euclidean convex univalent functions 173
6. Euclidean convex regions 175
7. Spherical geometry 177
8. Spherically convex univalent functions 179
9. Spherically convex regions 182
Version October 19, 2006.
The second author was supported by a Taft Faculty Fellowship.
166 Ma and Minda IWQCMA05
1. Introduction
The results in this expository paper are adapted from [16] and [17] and concern
geometric properties of hyperbolic geodesics in a simply connected hyperbolic
region Ω and, to a lesser extent, geometric properties of hyperbolic disks. These
two references contain many results not mentioned here and as well as the details
that are not presented in this largely expository article. In particular, proofs not
given in this article can be found in these two references. There are three different
cases to consider according to whether the region Ω is a subset of the hyperbolic
plane D, the Euclidean plane C, or the spherical plane C∞ = C ∪ {∞}. Two
geometries on the region Ω will be considered. First, the intrinsic hyperbolic
geometry on Ω and, second, the geometry that Ω inherits as a subset of the
hyperbolic, Euclidean or spherical plane.
Here is a rough description of the types of behavior of hyperbolic geodesics
that we will consider. Fix a point w0 ∈ Ω. For θ ∈ R, let ρ(w0 , Ω) denote the
hyperbolic geodesic ray emanating from w0 that has unit Euclidean tangent eiθ
at w0 and let w0 (s, θ) be the hyperbolic arc length parametrization of this geo-
desic. Under what conditions does the point w0 (s, θ) move monotonically away
from w0 when s increases? Here motion away from w0 is measured relative to
the background distance. For example, if Ω lies in the Euclidean plane, this
means the Euclidean distance |w0 (s, θ) − w0 | should increase with s. The second
type of behavior we consider is whether the background distance between dis-
tinct geodesic rays increases as points move along these rays. In the Euclidean
case we inquire whether the Euclidean distance |w0 (s, θ1 ) − w0 (s, θ2 )| increases
with s when eiθ1 6= eiθ2 . Intuitively, one can think of two travelers departing
from w0 at the same time along different hyperbolic geodesic rays and traveling
at unit hyperbolic speed along the geodesics and asking whether the travelers
separate monotonically in the Euclidean sense. Finally, we investigate the shape
of hyperbolic circles relative to the background geometry. The main concern is
whether hyperbolic circles are convex curves relative to the background geome-
try. Hyperbolic rays emanating from a point w0 together with hyperbolic circles
centered at w0 form the coordinate grid for hyperbolic polar coordinates in Ω, so
our work can be interpreted as studying geometric properties of the hyperbolic
polar coordinate grid relative to the background geometry.
A descriptive outline of the paper follows. Hyperbolic polar coordinates in
the unit disk are defined in Section 2, while Section 3 extends hyperbolic polar
coordinates to any Euclidean disk or half-plane. Simple Euclidean properties of
the hyperbolic polar coordinate grid in any disk or half-plane are established as
the model for future investigations. Hyperbolic polar coordinates for a simply
Geometric properties of hyperbolic geodesics 167
denotes the usual Laplacian. For any piecewise smooth curve γ in D the hyper-
bolic length of γ is given by
Z
ℓD (γ) = λD (z)|dz|.
γ
there exist unique s > 0 and θ in [0, 2π) with za (s, θ) = z. The hyperbolic polar
coordinates of the point z relative to the center or pole at a are the ordered pair
(s, θ), where za (s, θ) = z. The first coordinate, s = dD (a, z), is the hyperbolic
distance from a to z and the second polar coordinate, θ, is the angle between the
horizontal hyperbolic geodesic ray ρ0 (a) and the ray ρθ (a) that contains z at the
pole a. The hyperbolic circle with hyperbolic center a and hyperbolic radius s is
cD (a, s) = {z : dD (a, z) = s}. Note that each geodesic ray ρθ (a) is orthogonal to
every hyperbolic circle cΩ (a, s). Thus, the coordinate grid for hyperbolic polar
coordinates based at a consists of hyperbolic geodesics emanating from a and
hyperbolic circles centered at a. In terms of hyperbolic polar coordinates
λ2D (z)(dx2 + dy 2 ) = ds2 + sinh2 (s)dθ2 .
For a = 0, ρθ (0) is the radial segment [0, eiθ ) with hyperbolic arc length parametriza-
tion z0 (s, θ) = tanh(s/2)eiθ and
∂z0 (s, θ) eiθ 1 − |z0 (s, θ)|2
(2.2) = = z0 (s, θ).
∂s λD (z0 (s, θ)) 2|z0 (s, θ)|
Hyperbolic polar coordinates about the origin can be transported to any other
center in the unit disk by a hyperbolic isometry. Recall that each conformal
automorphism of D is an isometry of the hyperbolic metric and the hyperbolic
distance. For a ∈ D the Möbius transformation f (z) = (z + a)/(1 + āz) is a
conformal automorphism of D that sends the origin to a and f ′ (0) = (1−|a|2 ) > 0.
The fact that f ′ (0) > 0 insures that f (ρθ (0)) = ρθ (a) for all θ ∈ R and so
za (s, θ) = f (z0 (s, θ)) provides an explicit hyperbolic arc length parametrization
of ρa (θ):
tanh(s/2)eiθ + a
za (s, θ) = .
1 + ā tanh(s/2)eiθ
This defines the hyperbolic density λ∆ independent of the Möbius map of ∆ onto
the unit disk. If D = {z : |z − a| < r}, then
2r|dz|
λD (z)|dz| = .
r2 − |z − a|2
If H is any half-plane, then
|dz|
λH (z)|dz| = ,
d(z, ∂H)
where d(z, ∂H) denotes the Euclidean distance from z to the boundary of H. In
particular, for the upper half-plane H = {z : Im (z) > 0},
|dz|
λH (z)|dz| = .
Im (z)
Because Möbius transformations map circles onto circles, hyperbolic geodesics
in a disk or half-plane are arcs of circles orthogonal to the boundary. Also,
hyperbolic disks are Euclidean disks with closure contained in the disk or half-
plane. Any Möbius map from ∆ onto D is an isometry from ∆ with the hyperbolic
metric to D with the hyperbolic metric. See [1] for details.
Hyperbolic polar coordinates are defined on ∆ analogous to the definition
for the unit disk. Fix a point w0 in ∆. For θ in R let ρθ (w0 , ∆) denote the
unique hyperbolic geodesic ray emanating from w0 that is tangent to eiθ at w0 .
ρ0 (w0 , ∆) is called the horizontal hyperbolic geodesic emanating from w0 since its
unit tangent vector at w0 is horizontal. When w0 and ∆ are fixed, we often write
ρθ in place of ρθ (w0 , ∆). Of course, ρθ+2nπ = ρθ for all n in Z. Let s 7→ w0 (s, θ),
0 ≤ s < +∞, be the hyperbolic arc length parametrization of ρθ . This means
∂w0 (s, θ) eiΘ(s,θ)
(3.1) = ,
∂s λ∆ (w0 (s, θ))
where eiΘ(s,θ) is a Euclidean unit tangent to ρθ at the point w0 (s, θ). Because
∆ = ∪{ρθ : 0 ≤ θ < 2π}, for each w in ∆ \ {w0 } there is a unique geodesic ray ρθ ,
0 ≤ θ < 2π, that contains w. Hence, there exist unique s > 0 and θ in [0, 2π) with
w0 (s, θ) = w. The hyperbolic polar coordinates for the point w relative to the
center or pole at w0 are (s, θ). The coordinate s = d∆ (w0 , w) is the hyperbolic
distance from w0 to w and θ is the angle between the horizontal hyperbolic
geodesic ray ρ0 and the ray ρθ at w0 . The hyperbolic circle with hyperbolic
center w0 and hyperbolic radius s is c∆ (w0 , s) = {w : d∆ (w0 , w) = s}. The
coordinate grid for hyperbolic polar coordinates consists of hyperbolic geodesics
emanating from w0 and hyperbolic circles centered at w0 . If f : D → ∆ is the
Möbius transformation with f (0) = w0 and f ′ (0) > 0, then w0 (s, θ) = f (z0 (s, θ)).
As we noted in the preceding section when a point in the unit disk moves
away from the origin along a hyperbolic geodesic, the Euclidean distance from
the origin increases and points along distinct geodesics separate monotonically
in the Euclidean sense. In fact these properties hold for any disk or half-plane
and for any center of hyperbolic polar coordinates.
Geometric properties of hyperbolic geodesics 171
A hyperbolic geodesic always exists, but need not be unique when Ω is multiply
connected. Given a ∈ Ω and r > 0, DΩ (a, r) = {z ∈ Ω : dΩ (a, z) < r} is the
hyperbolic disk with hyperbolic center a and hyperbolic radius r.
When Ω is simply connected, any conformal mapping f : D → Ω is an isometry
from the hyperbolic metric on D to the hyperbolic metric on Ω. In this case f
maps hyperbolic geodesics onto hyperbolic geodesics and hyperbolic disks onto
hyperbolic disks. If Ω is multiply connected, then a covering f is only a local
isometry, not an isometry.
Geometric properties of hyperbolic geodesics 173
Proof. We sketch the idea of the proof. Fix θ in (0, π/2] and consider the
function
f (eiθ z) − f (e−iθ z) f (eiθ z) − f (e−iθ z)
g(z) = = .
eiθ − e−iθ 2i sin θ
From
zg ′ (z) eiθ zf ′ (eiθ z) − e−iθ zf ′ (e−iθ z)
= ,
g(z) f (eiθ z) − f (e−iθ z)
Theorem 5.1 implies that g is starlike with respect to the origin on D because
(5.2) holds with w0 = 0. If
X ∞
f (z) = z + an z n ,
n=2
then ∞
X sin nθ
g(z) = z + an z n .
n=2
sin θ
Geometric properties of hyperbolic geodesics 175
then f ({z : |z| < r}) is Euclidean convex for 0 < r < 1. Conversely, if every
hyperbolic circle is Euclidean convex, then Ω is an increasing union of Euclidean
convex regions and so is Euclidean convex.
Theorem 6.1. Let Ω be a simply connected hyperbolic region in C.
(a) If Ω is Euclidean convex and w0 ∈ Ω, then for each θ in R, |w0 (s, θ) − w0 | is
an increasing function of s and
1 − e−s es − 1
(6.1) ≤ |w0 (s, θ) − w0 | ≤ .
λΩ (w0 ) λΩ (w0 )
These bounds are best possible.
(b) Suppose that for every w0 in Ω and for each θ in R, |w0 (s, θ) − w0 | is an
increasing function of s. Then Ω is Euclidean convex.
Euclidean convex univalent function so (5.5) with r = tanh(s/2) gives the bounds
(6.2) for θ2 = θ and θ1 = −θ since f ′ (0) = 2/λΩ (a).
Corollary 6.4. Suppose Ω 6= C is a Euclidean convex region and w0 is a point
of Ω. Then |w0 (s, θ) − w0 (s, θ + π)| is increasing and
λΩ (a)
(6.4) tanh(s) ≤ |w0 (s, θ) − w0 (s, θ + π)| ≤ sinh(s).
2
Both bounds are sharp for a half-plane.
7. Spherical geometry
We discuss the geometry of the spherical plane C∞ with the chordal distance
χ, the spherical metric σ(z) |dz| and the induced spherical distance dσ .
The extended complex plane C∞ is sometimes called the Riemann sphere
because stereographic projection transforms C∞ into the unit sphere. Let S be
the unit sphere {x ∈ R3 : ||x|| = 1} in R3 , and let n = (0, 0, 1) be the ‘north
pole’. The stereographic projection ϕ of C∞ onto S is defined as follows. We
regard the complex plane C as a subset of R3 by identifying z = x + iy with the
point (x, y, 0). For z in C, the line through z = (x, y, 0) and n meets S at n and
at a second point ϕ(z). This defines ϕ on C, and we set ϕ(∞) = n. It is easy to
see that if z = x + iy ∈ C, then
2x 2y |z|2 − 1
ϕ(x + iy) = , , .
|z|2 + 1 |z|2 + 1 |z|2 + 1
Observe that ϕ(0) = (0, 0, −1), the south pole, and that ϕ(z) = z = (x, y, 0) if
and only if |z| = 1.
178 Ma and Minda IWQCMA05
which acts on C∞ ; the four identical groups above are equal to ϕ−1 SO(3)ϕ. For
this reason the isometries of the spherical plane are sometimes called rotations.
For antipodal z, w ∈ C∞ , that is, w = −1/z̄, any of the infinitely many great
circular arcs connecting z and w is a spherical geodesic. If z, w ∈ C∞ are not
antipodal, then the unique spherical geodesic arc is the shorter arc between z
and w of the unique great circle through z and w.
Just as one studies convex regions in the Euclidean plane it is natural to study
convex regions in the spherical plane. A simply connected region Ω on C∞ is
called spherically convex (relative to spherical geometry on C∞ ) if for each pair
of z, w ∈ Ω every spherical geodesic connecting z and w also lies in Ω. If Ω is
spherically convex and contains a pair of antipodal points, then Ω = C∞ . A
meromorphic and univalent function f defined on D is called spherically convex
if its image f (D) is a spherically convex subset of C∞ . A number of authors have
studied spherically convex functions; for example, [6], [8], [11], [15], [19], [21] and
[25].
for all z in D; also see [8]. Sometimes it is difficult to use (8.1) because it con-
tains the nonholomorphic term 2zf ′ (z)f (z)/(1 + |f (z)|2 ). One way to overcome
this difficulty is to establish two-variable characterizations for spherically convex
functions which are holomorphic in one of the two variables and are analogous
to Theorem 5.1
We now state two-variable characterizations for spherically convex functions
that will be applied to investigate properties of hyperbolic polar coordinates
on spherically convex regions and to derive other results for spherically convex
functions.
Theorem 8.1. Let f be meromorphic and locally univalent in D. Then f is
spherically convex if and only if
( )
2zf ′ (z) z+ζ 2zf ′ (z)f (ζ)
(8.2) Re − − >0
f (z) − f (ζ) z − ζ 1 + f (ζ)f (z)
for all z, ζ in D.
180 Ma and Minda IWQCMA05
Proof. Here we prove only the sufficiency. Observe that (8.2) is the spherical
analog of (5.4). Let
2zf ′ (z) z+ζ 2zf ′ (z)f (ζ)
(8.3) p(z, ζ) = − − .
f (z) − f (ζ) z − ζ 1 + f (ζ)f (z)
We show that if f satisfies the inequality (8.2), then (8.1) holds for all z ∈ D,
which characterizes spherically convex functions [19]. The assumption is that
Re {p(z, ζ)} > 0 for z, ζ ∈ D. Since
zf ′′ (z) 2zf ′ (z)f (z)
(8.4) p(z, z) = 1 + − ,
f ′ (z) 1 + |f (z)|2
f is spherically convex.
Corollary 8.2. Suppose f is meromorphic and locally univalent in D. Then f
is spherically convex if and only if
( )
zf ′ (z) − ζf ′ (ζ) zf ′ (z)f (ζ) + ζf ′ (ζ)f (z)
(8.5) Re − >0
f (z) − f (ζ) 1 + f (ζ)f (z)
for all z, ζ in D.
Proof. Note that (8.5) follows from (8.2) in the same manner that (5.3) was
derived from (5.4). Conversely, suppose (8.5) holds for all z, ζ in D. Set
zf ′ (z) − ζf ′ (ζ) zf ′ (z)f (ζ) + ζf ′ (ζ)f (z)
(8.6) q(z, ζ) = − .
f (z) − f (ζ) 1 + f (ζ)f (z)
Then Re {q(z, z)} > 0 for all z in D. As
zf ′′ (z) 2zf ′ (z)f (z)
q(z, z) = 1 + − ,
f ′ (z) 1 + |f (z)|2
the inequality (8.1) holds. Therefore, f is spherically convex.
also characterizes spherically convex functions and implies the inequality (8.1),
see [11].
Geometric properties of hyperbolic geodesics 181
This idea can be used to derive a number of results for spherically convex
functions. First, recall that a holomorphic and univalent function f in D with
f (0) = f ′ (0) − 1 = 0 is called starlike of order β ≥ 0 if Re {zf ′ (z)/f (z)} > β
in D. Using Theorem 8.1, we show that spherically convex functions are closely
related to starlike functions.
Theorem 8.3. If f (z) is spherically convex with f (0) = 0, then for every ζ ∈ D,
zζ f (z) − f (ζ)
Fζ (z) =
f (ζ) (z − ζ) 1 + f (ζ)f (z)
Since Re {F (z)/z} > 1/2 and F (z)2 /z is starlike if F is starlike of order 1/2
(see [26, p. 49]), we get the following results as corollaries of Theorem 8.3.
Corollary 8.4. If f (z) is spherically convex with f (0) = 0, then for every ζ ∈ D,
ζ f (z) − f (ζ) 1
Re >
f (ζ) (z − ζ) 1 + f (ζ)f (z) 2
for all z in D.
Corollary 8.5. If f (z) is spherically convex with f (0) = 0, then for every ζ ∈ D,
Fζ2 (z) zζ 2 (f (z) − f (ζ))2
= 2
z f (ζ)2
(z − ζ) 1 + f (ζ)f (z)
2
is starlike in D.
Mejia and Pommerenke [21] obtained a number of results for spherically con-
vex functions by observing that f (z) is (Euclidean) convex when f (z) is spher-
ically convex and f (0) = 0. We now provide the sharp order of Euclidean
convexity for spherically convex functions that fix the origin.
Corollary 8.6. Let f (z) = αz + a2 z 2 + . . ., 0 < α < 1, be spherically convex.
Then for all z in D
2
zf ′′ (z) α
Re 1 + ′ > √ .
f (z) 1 + 1 − α2
This result is best possible for each α.
182 Ma and Minda IWQCMA05
Example
√8.7. For 0 < α ≤ 1, the spherical half-plane, or hemisphere, Ωα =
w : |w − 1 − α2 /α| < 1/α is spherically convex and
αz
kα (z) = √
1 − 1 − α2 z
maps D conformally onto Ωα . For the function kα ,
2
zkα′′ (z) α
inf Re 1 + ′ :z∈D = √ .
kα (z) 1 + 1 − α2
Next, we give the sharp lower bound on Re {a2 f (z)} for normalized spherically
convex functions f (z) = αz+a2 z 2 +. . . . Similar results hold for Euclidean convex
functions [4] and hyperbolically convex functions [14].
Theorem 8.8. Let f (z) = αz + a2 z 2 + . . . , 0 < α ≤ 1, be spherically convex.
Then for all z in D
√
Re {a2 f (z)} ≥ 1 − α2 − 1 − α2 .
This result is best possible for all α.
The proof of Theorem 10.4 below is analogous to the proof of Theorem 9.3;
the characterization (10.3) for hyperbolically convex functions is used in place of
(8.2).
Theorem 10.4. Suppose Ω ⊂ D.
(a) If Ω is hyperbolically convex and w0 ∈ Ω, then dD (w0 (s, θ1 ), w0 (s, θ2 )) is an
increasing function of s for all eiθ2 6= eiθ1 .
(b) If there exists w0 ∈ Ω such that dD (w0 (s, θ1 ), w0 (s, θ2 )) is an increasing func-
tion of s whenever eiθ2 6= eiθ1 , then Ω is hyperbolically convex.
Kim-Minda [6] for an illustration of the method. In the same manner Euclidean
results can be obtained as the limit of hyperbolic convexity results.
Holomorphic functions defined on the unit disk can be viewed as maps from D
to the Euclidean plane. Bounded holomorphic functions on the unit disk can be
regarded as maps from D to the hyperbolic plane, provided they are scaled to be
bounded by one. Finally, meromorphic functions on D can be considered as maps
into the spherical plane. Sometimes connections between classical results can be
made by adopting this geometric view. This paper showed the close connection
between Euclidean convexity, spherical convexity and hyperbolic convexity. Also,
by adopting this geometric viewpoint it is possible to recognize there should be
analogs of classical results for holomorphic functions for maps into the other two
geometries.
Some other function theory papers that relate to comparisons between hyper-
bolic, Euclidean and spherical geometry are [5], [23], [24], [25].
References
[1] A. F. Beardon and D. Minda, The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory, Pro-
ceedings of the International Workshop on Quasiconformal Mappings and their Applica-
tions, Narosa Publishing House, India, (2006), 159-206.
[2] P. Duren, Univalent functions, Grundlehern Math. Wiss. 259, Springer, New York 1983.
[3] M. Finkelstein, Growth estimates for convex functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (1967),
412-418.
[4] R. Fournier, J. Ma and S. Ruscheweyh, Convex univalent functions and omitted values,
Approximation Theory, 21 (1998), 225-241.
[5] S. Kim and D. Minda, A geometric approach to two-point comparisons for hyperbolic and
euclidean geometry on convex regions, J. Korean Math. Soc., 36 (1999), 1169-1180.
[6] S. Kim and D. Minda, The hyperbolic metric and spherically-convex regions, J. Math.
Kyoto Univ., 41 (2001), 285-302.
[7] S. Kim and T. Sugawa, Characterizations of hyperbolically convex regions, J. Math. Anal.
Appl. 309 (2005), 37-51.
[8] W. Ma, D. Mejia and D. Minda, Distortion theorems for hyperbolically and spherically
k-convex functions, Proc. of an International Conference on New Trends in Geometric
Function Theory and Application, R. Parvathan and S. Ponnusamy (editors), World Sci-
entific, Singapore, 1991, 46-54.
[9] W. Ma, D. Mejia and D. Minda, Hyperbolically 1-convex functions, Ann. Polon. Math.,
84 (2004), 185-202.
[10] W. Ma and D. Minda, Euclidean linear invariance and uniform local convexity, J. Austral.
Math. Soc. 52 (1992), 401-418.
[11] W. Ma and D. Minda, Spherical linear invariance and uniform local spherical convexity,
Current Topics in Geometric Function Theory, H. M. Srivastava and S. Owa (editors),
World Scientific, Singapore, 1993, 148-170.
[12] W. Ma and D. Minda, Hyperbolically convex functions, Ann. Polonici Math. 60 (1994),
81-100.
[13] W. Ma and D. Minda, Hyperbolic linear invariance and hyperbolic k-convexity, J. Aus-
tralian Math. Soc., 58 (1995), 73-93.
[14] W. Ma and D. Minda, Hyperbolically convex functions II, Ann. Polonici Math. 71 (1999),
273-285.
[15] W. Ma and D. Minda, Two-point distortion theorems for spherically-convex functions,
Rocky Mtn. J. Math., 30 (2000), 663-687.
Geometric properties of hyperbolic geodesics 187
W. Ma E-mail: wma@pct.edu
Address: School of Integrated Studies, Pennsylvania College of Technology, Williamsport, PA
17701, USA
Olli Martio
Contents
1. Introduction 189
2. Case n = 1 191
3. Properties of quasiminimizers 193
4. Quasisuperminimizers, Poisson modifications and regularity 194
5. More about n = 1 198
6. Quasisuperharmonic functions 199
7. Appendix 1 200
8. Appendix 2 202
References 205
1. Introduction
Quasiminimizers minimize a variational integral only up to a multiplicative
constant. More precisely, let Ω ⊂ Rn be an open set, K ≥ 1 and 1 ≤ p < ∞. In
the case of the p-Dirichlet integral, a function u belonging to the Sobolev space
1,p
Wloc (Ω) is a (p, K)-quasiminimizer or a K-quasiminimizer, if
Z Z
(1.1) p
|∇u| dx ≤ K |∇v|p dx
Ω′ Ω′
for all functions v ∈ W 1,p (Ω′ ) with v − u ∈ W01,p (Ω′ ) and for all open sets Ω′
with a compact closure in Ω. A 1-quasiminimizer, called a minimizer, is a weak
solution of the corresponding Euler equation
(1.2) div(|∇u|p−2 ∇u) = 0.
Clearly being a weak solution of (1.2) is a local property. However, being a K-
quasiminimizer is not a local property as one-dimensional examples easily show.
This indicates that the theory for quasiminimizers differs from the theory for
minimizers and that there are some unexpected difficulties.
Quasiminimizers have been previously used as tools in studying the regular-
ity of minimizers of variational integrals, see [GG1–2]. The advantage of this
approach is that it covers a wide range of applications and that it is based only
on the minimization of the variational integrals instead of the corresponding Eu-
ler equation. Hence regularity properties as Hölder continuity and Lp -estimates
are consequences of the quasiminimizing property. It is an important fact that
nonnegative quasiminimizers satisfy the Harnack inequality, see [DT].
Instead of using quasiminimizers as tools, the objective of these lectures is to
show that quasiminimizers have a fascinating theory themselves. In particular,
they form a basis for nonlinear potential theoretic model with interesting fea-
tures. From the potential theoretic point of view quasiminimizers have several
drawbacks: They do not provide unique solutions of the Dirichlet problem, they
do not obey the comparison principle, they do not form a sheaf and they do
not have a linear structure even when the corresponding Euler equation is lin-
ear. However, quasiminimizers form a wide and flexible class of functions in the
calculus of variations under very general circumstances. Observe that the quasi-
minimizing condition (1.1) applies not only to one particular variational integral
but the whole class of variational integrals at the same time. For example, if a
variational kernel F (x, ∇u) satisfies
(1.3) α|h|p ≤ F (x, h) ≤ β|h|p
for some 0 < α ≤ β < ∞, then the minimizers of
Z
F (x, ∇u) dx
Hence the potential theory for quasiminimizers includes all minimizers of all
variational integrals similar to (1.4). The essential feature of the theory is the
control provided by the bounds in (1.3).
For example, the coordinate functions of a quasiconformal or, more generally,
quasiregular mapping are quasiminimizers of the n-Dirichlet integral
Z
|∇u|n dx
Quasiminimizers and Potential Theory 191
in all dimensions n = 2, 3, . . . .
Recently quasiminimizers have been considered in metric measure spaces. This
means that a metric space (X, d) is equipped with a Borel measure µ which
satisfies some standard assumptions like the doubling property. The Sobolev
space W 1,p is replaced by the so called Newtonian space N 1,p which for Rn and
the Lebesgue measure reduces to W 1,p . We do not consider metric spaces here
although most of the results hold in this case under appropriate conditions. For
this theory see [KM2].
2. Case n = 1
For n = 1 the definition (1.1) can be written in the following form: Let (a, b)
1,p
be an open interval in R and u ∈ Wloc (a, b). Then u is a (p, K)-quasiminimizer,
or K-quasiminimizer for short, if for all closed intervals [c, d] ⊂ (a, b)
Zd Zd
′ p
(2.1) |u | dx ≤ K |v ′ |p dx
c c
see [GG2]. The inequality (2.2) gives another definition for a K-quasiminimizer
u: the function u is a locally absolutely continuous function in (a, b) that satisfies
(2.2) on each subinterval [c, d] of (a, b).
Observe that u ∈ W 1,p (c, d) in a bounded open interval (c, d) means that u is
absolutely continuous on [c, d] with
Zd
(2.3) |u′ |p dx < ∞.
c
If u ∈ W 1,p (c, d) and u − v ∈ W01,p (c, d), then v ∈ W 1,p (c, d) and v(c) =
1,p
u(c), v(d) = u(d). Functions u ∈ Wloc (a, b) are simply locally absolutely contin-
uous functions on (a, b) such that (2.3) holds in each subinterval [c, d] ⊂ (a, b).
We leave the following lemma as an exercise.
192 O. Martio IWQCMA05
The following lemma is more difficult to prove. It does not hold for p = 1.
Lemma 2.5. Let u be a (p, K)-quasiminimizer, p > 1, in an interval (a, b). If
b < ∞, then u has a continuous extension to b and (2.2) holds in all intervals
[c, d] ⊂ (a, b].
where we have used the Hölder inequality and (2.2). Next we choose c = 1 −
1
(2p K) 1−p . Then 0 < c < 1 and letting t ∈ (c, 1) we obtain
p−1
c p p−1 1
1− < (1 − c) p = 1 .
t 2K p
The above inequalities yield
Zt Zc Zt Zc Zt
1
u′ dx = u′ dx + u′ dx ≤ u′ dx + u′ dx
2
0 0 c 0 0
and hence
Zt Zc
u(t) = u(t) − u(0) = u′ dx ≤ 2 u′ dx = 2u(c).
0 0
Since u is increasing, letting t → 1 we obtain
u(b) = u(1) = lim u(t) ≤ 2u(c) < ∞
t→1
and the last assertion of the lemma now follows from (2.2).
Lemma 2.5 shows that the natural domain of definition for a 1-dimensional
quasiminimizer is the closed interval [a, b].
Example 2.6. The function u(x) = xα , α > 1/2, is a (2, K)-quasiminimizer
in [0, ∞) for K = α2 /(2α − 1). This is a rather easy computation. Note that
u(x) = x1/2 is not a (2, K)-quasiminimizer in [0, ∞) (and in (0, ∞)) since u′ does
not belong to L2 (0, 1).
3. Properties of quasiminimizers
We start with a basic regularity property.
Theorem 3.1. Suppose that u is a (p, K)-quasiminimizer in Ω ⊂ Rn , p > 1. If
0 < r < R are such that the ball B(x, 2R) ⊂ Ω, then
osc(u, B(x, r)) ≤ C(r/R)α osc(u, B(x, R))
where C < ∞ and α ∈ (0, 1] depend on p, n and K only.
for functions u ∈ W01,p (B(x, r)) where t > p. The main difficulty is to prove that
u is locally essentially bounded. For the proof see [GG1], [GG2] and [KS]. In the
paper [KS] metric measure spaces are considered and hence the regularity proof
of [KS] uses minimal assumptions.
In the general case n ≥ 2 the proof for Theorem 3.2 is rather complicated, see
[DT] and [KS]. The proof makes use of the Krylov–Safonov covering argument
[KSa]. Very recently it has turned out that the Moser method can be employed to
prove Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 for quasiminimizers even in metric measure spaces,
see [Ma].
In Potential Theory the Harnack inequality and Harnack’s principle are essen-
tially equivalent. From Theorem 3.1 and 3.2 it easily follows (p > 1): Suppose
that (ui ) is an increasing sequence of K-quasiminimizers in a domain Ω. If
lim ui (x0 ) < ∞ at some point x0 ∈ Ω, then lim ui is a K-quasiminimizer.
We will return to the proof of this fact in the next chapter and in Appendix 2.
194 O. Martio IWQCMA05
Ω′ Ω′
1,p
holds for all open Ω′ ⊂⊂ Ω and all v ∈ Wloc (Ω) such that v ≥ u a.e. in Ω′ and
v − u ∈ W01,p (Ω′ ).
Remarks 4.2. (a) A 1-quasisuperminimizer is called a superminimizer.
(b) A superminimizer is a supersolution of the p-harmonic equation
∇ · (|∇u|p−2 ∇u) = 0,
i.e. u satisfies Z
|∇u|p−2 ∇u · ∇ϕ dx ≥ 0
Ω
for all non–negative ϕ ∈ C0∞ (Ω), see [HKM] for this theory. Observe that for
p = 2 every superharmonic (in the classical sense) function u is a superminimizer
1,2
provided that u belongs to Wloc (Ω), however, a superharmonic function need not
1,2
belong to Wloc (Ω). For n = 2 the classical example is u(x) = − log |x| which is
superharmonic in R2 but does not belong to W 1,2 (B(0, 1)). We return to this
problem in Chapter 6.
(c) The inequality (4.1) can be replaced by several other inequalities, for
example Z Z
p
|∇u| dx ≤ K |∇v|p dx,
Ω′ \E Ω′ \E
′
where E ⊂ Ω \ {u 6= v} is any measurable set. For the list of these conditions
see [B] and [KM2].
Z Z Z
p p
|∇u| dx = |∇u1 | dx + |∇u2 |p dx
Ω′ {u1 ≤u2 }∩Ω′ {u1 >u2 }∩Ω′
Corollary 4.4 implies the necessity part of the following result. The other half
follows from Theorem 4.14 below.
1,p
Lemma 4.6. Suppose that u ∈ Wloc (Ω). Then u is a K-quasisuperminimizer,
p > 1, if and only if min(u, c) is a K-quasisuperminimizer for each c ∈ R.
196 O. Martio IWQCMA05
A similar result holds for the class Ku+ (Ω) and the solution is a superminimizer.
Suppose now that u is a K-quasisuperminimizer in Ω and Ω′ ⊂⊂ Ω is open.
Let u− be the solution to the Ku− (Ω′ )-obstacle problem. Define
−
′ u in Ω′ ,
(4.11) P2 (u, Ω ) =
u in Ω \ Ω′ .
The proof for Theorem 4.13 is based on the De Giorgi method that is used to
prove a weak Harnack inequality
Z !1/σ
− uσ dx ≤ c ess inf u
B(x,3r)
B(x,r)
then u is a K-quasisuperminimizer.
5. More about n = 1
We take a closer look at the case n = 1. Recall that a superminimizer is a
1-quasisuperminimizer. The next result is easy to prove, see [MS].
Lemma 5.1. Suppose that u : [a, b] → R is a superminimizer, p > 1. Then u is
a concave function.
where the supremum is taken over all intervals I ⊂ [a, b]. If Gp (ω) < ∞, then ω
is said to belong to the Gp -class of Gehring.
For a non-constant quasiminimizer u in [a, b] set
Zd
(d − c)p−1
Kp (u) = sup |u′ |p dx
[c,d] |u(d) − u(c)|p
c
where the supremum is taken over all intervals [c, d] ⊂ [a, b]. In other words,
Kp (u) is the least constant in (2.2). The following lemma is immediate.
Lemma 5.2. Let u : [a, b] → R be absolutely continuous and non-constant with
u′ ≥ 0 a.e. Then u is Kp (u)-quasiminimizer with exponent p, p > 1, if and only
1
if u′ belongs to the Gp -class with Gp (u′ ) = Kp (u) p .
Proof. Let first p > 1 and K > 1. We may assume that u is increasing. By
1
Lemma 5.2, Gp (u′ ) = Kp (u) p and from [K, Theorem 2] we conclude that u′ ∈
1
Ls (a, b) for 1 ≤ s < p1 (p, Gp (u′ )) = p1 (p, Kp (u) p ).
If p > 1 and K = 1, then u is affine and hence u′ ∈ L∞ (a, b). For p = 1, u′
trivially belongs to L1 (a, b).
1
To see that the bound α = p1 (p, K p ) is sharp for p > 1 and K > 1 it suffices
to consider the interval [0, 1]. The function
α α−1
u(x) = x α , x ∈ [0, 1],
α−1
1
has the derivative u′ (x) = x− α and a direct computation shows that u′ belongs
1
to the Gehring class with Gp (u′ ) = K p , see [DS, Proposition 2.3]. By Lemma 5.2
u is a K-quasiminimizer. On the other hand, u′ does not belong to Lα (0, 1). This
1
shows that the open ended upper bound p1 (p, K p ) is sharp.
For p = 1 the integrability of u′ cannot be improved since every increasing
absolutely continuous function u is a 1-quasiminimizer. The theorem follows.
Remark 5.4. For p = 2,
1
p1 (2, t) = 1 + t(t2 − 1)− 2 , t > 1,
and hence 1 1 1
p1 (2, K 2 ) = 1 + K 2 (K − 1)− 2 , K > 1.
6. Quasisuperharmonic functions
In the nonlinear potential theory superharmonic functions can be defined in
many ways. The most natural definition uses the comparison principle, see (6.3)
below. Let p > 1 and let Ω be an open set in Rn . A function u : Ω → (−∞, ∞]
is said to be superharmonic, i.e. (p, 1)-superharmonic, if
(6.1) u is lower semicontinuous,
(6.2) u ≡
6 ∞ in any component of Ω,
′
(6.3) for each open set Ω′ ⊂⊂ Ω and each minimizer h ∈ C(Ω ), i.e. (p, 1)-
quasiminimizer, the inequality u ≥ h on ∂Ω′ implies u ≥ h in Ω′ .
For the theory of superharmonic functions in the nonlinear situation see [HKM].
Superharmonic functions can also be defined with the help of minimizers, see
[HKM, Theorem 7.10] and [HKM, Corollary 7.20]. For other definitions see [B].
Lemma 6.4. Suppose that u : Ω → (−∞, ∞] satisfies (6.1) and (6.2). Then
u is (p, 1)-superharmonic if and only if there is an increasing sequence (u∗i ) of
(p, 1)-quasisuperminimizers, i.e. superminimizers, with u = lim u∗i . Here u∗i is
the lower semicontinuous representative of a superminimizer ui .
200 O. Martio IWQCMA05
Note that given a superharmonic function u the sequence u∗i = min(u, i), i =
1, 2, . . ., is the required sequence.
In view of Lemma 6.4 the following definition for (p, K)-quasisuperharmonicity
is natural.
Definition 6.5. Let Ω ⊂ Rn be an open set, p > 1 and K ≥ 1. A function
u : Ω → (−∞, ∞] is said to be (p, K)-quasisuperharmonic if there is an increasing
sequence of K-quasisuperminimizers ui in Ω such that lim u∗i = u and u 6≡ ∞ in
each component of Ω.
Lemma 6.6. Suppose that u is a (p, K)-quasisuperharmonic function in Ω and
locally bounded above. Then u is a (p, K)-quasisuperminimizer.
Proof. By the definition for quasisuperharmonicity there is an increasing se-
quence of quasisuperminimizers u∗i : Ω → (−∞, ∞) such that lim u∗i = u. From
Theorem 4.14 it follows that u is a K-quasisuperminimizer as required.
Note that a (p, K)-quasisuperharmonic function is automatically lower semi-
continuous as a limit of an increasing sequence of lower semicontinuous functions.
Lemma 6.7. Let u be a K-quasisuperharmonic function in Ω and h a (contin-
uous) minimizer in Ω. Then min(u, h) is a K-quasisuperminimizer (and hence
K-quasisuperharmonic) in Ω.
Proof. Let u∗i be an increasing sequence of K-quasisuperminimizers in Ω such
that u∗i → u. Now min(u∗i , h) is lower semicontinuous and by Corollary 4.4,
min(u∗i , h) is a K-quasisuperminimizer. Since min(u∗i , h) ≤ h, it follows that
min(u, h) = lim min(u∗i , h) is a K-quasisuperharmonic function. By Lemma 6.6,
min(u, h) is a K-quasisuperminimizer.
Theorem 6.8. Suppose that u : Ω → (−∞, ∞] satisfies (6.1) and (6.2). Then u
is a K-quasisuperharmonic if and only if min(u, c) is a K-quasisuperminimizer
for each c ∈ R.
Proof. The only if part follows from Lemma 6.7. For the sufficiency choose c =
i, i = 1, 2, . . .. Then min(u, i) is a lower semicontinuous K-quasisuperminimizer
and it follows from Definition 6.5 that u is a K-quasisuperharmonic function.
The theory for K-quasisuperharmonic functions is still in its infancy. However,
the following result was proved in [KM2]: A set C ⊂ Rn is said to be (p, K)-polar,
if there is a neighborhood Ω of C and a (p, K)-quasisuperharmonic function u in
Ω such that u(x) = ∞ for each x ∈ C. Then C is a (p, K)-polar set if and only
if the p-capacity of C is zero. It has been previously known that a set C ⊂ Rn
is a (p, 1)-polar set if and only if the p-capacity of C is zero. Hence allowing the
freedom due to K ≥ 1 adds nothing new to the structure of polar sets.
7. Appendix 1
Proof for Theorem 4.12. That P2 (u, Ω′ ) is a subminimizer in Ω′ follows
from Lemma 4.9. In order to show that w = P2 (u, Ω′ ) is a K-quasisuperminimizer
Quasiminimizers and Potential Theory 201
in Ω let Ω′′ ⊂⊂ Ω be open and v a function such that v − w ∈ W01,p (Ω′′ ) and
v ≥ w in Ω′′ . We set v = w in Ω \ Ω′′ . For the K-quasisuperminimizing property
of w it suffices to show
Z Z
p
(a) |∇w| dx ≤ K |∇v|p dx.
Ω′′ ∩{w<v} Ω′′ ∩{w<v}
Hence we may assume that w < v in Ω′′ although Ω′′ ∩ {w < v} need not be
an open set. Write A = {x ∈ Ω : u(x) < v(x)}. Then A ⊂ Ω′′ because if
x ∈ A \ Ω′′ , then u(x) < v(x) = w(x) which is a contradiction since u ≥ w. The
quasisuperminimizing property of u yields
Z Z
(b) |∇u| dx ≤ K |∇v|p dx,
p
A A
see Remark 4.2 (c). The function min(u, v) satisfies w ≤ min(u, v) ≤ u in Ω and
min(u, v) can be continued as w to Ω′′ \ {w < u}. The resulting function is in
the right Sobolev space. Note also that min(u, v) = w outside Ω′′ ∩ Ω′ and that
min(u, v) and w coincide outside {w < u} ∩ Ω′′ in Ω. Since w is the solution
to the Ku− (Ω′ )-obstacle problem, w ≤ min(u, v) and min(u, v) has the correct
boundary values w in {w < u} ∩ Ω′′ , we obtain
Z Z
p
|∇w| dx ≤ |∇ min(u, v)|p dx
{w<u}∩Ω′′ {w<u}∩Ω
Z′′ Z
(c)
p
= |∇u| dx + |∇v|p dx.
{w<u}∩Ω′′ ∩{u<v} {w<u}∩Ω′′ ∩{u≥v}
Since
(Ω′′ ∩ {w = u}) ∪ ({w < u} ∩ Ω′′ ∩ {u < v}) ⊂ Ω′′ ∩ {u < v},
the inequalities (b) and (c) yield
Z Z Z
p
|∇w| dx = |∇u|p dx + |∇w|p dx
Ω′′ Ω′′ ∩{w=u} Ω′′ ∩{w<u}
Z Z
p
≤ |∇u| dx + |∇u|p dx
Ω′′ ∩{w=u} {w<u}∩Ω′′ ∩{u<v}
Z
+ |∇v|p dx
{w<u}∩Ω′′ ∩{u≥v}
Z Z
p
≤ |∇u| dx + |∇v|p dx
Ω′′ ∩{u<v} {w<u}∩Ω′′ ∩{u≥v}
Z Z Z
p p
≤ K |∇v| dx + |∇v| dx ≤ K |∇v|p dx.
Ω′′ ∩{u<v} {w<u}∩Ω′′ ∩{u≥v} Ω′′
202 O. Martio IWQCMA05
8. Appendix 2
Proof for Theorem 4.14. We show that the quasisuperminimizing property
is preserved under the increasing convergence if the limit is locally bounded above
1,p
or belongs to Wloc (Ω).
The proof of this theorem [KM2, Theorem 6.1] contains a gap which will be
settled here. The argument is quite similar as in [KM2]. The authors would like
to thank professor Fumi–Yuki Maeda for pointing out the error in the original
paper.
We consider the case (i) only. The case (ii) follows from (i) and from an easy
truncation argument, see [KM2, p. 477]. In the case (i) it follows from the De
Giorgi type upper bound
Z Z
p
|∇ui | dx ≤ c(R − ρ) −p
(ui − k)p dx,
B(x,ρ) B(x,R)
where
k < − sup{ess sup ui : i = 1, 2, . . .},
B(x,R)
0 < ρ < R and B(x, R) ⊂⊂ Ω, that the sequence (|∇ui |) is uniformly bounded
1,p
in Lp (Ω′ ) for every Ω′ ⊂⊂ Ω. This implies that u ∈ Wloc (Ω) and we may assume
p ′
that (|∇ui |) converges weakly to ∇u in L (Ω ).
Let C ⊂ Ω be a compact set and for t > 0 write
Lemma 8.1. Let u and ui be as in Theorem 4.12. Then for almost every t ∈
(0, t0 ) we have
Z Z
p
lim sup |∇ui | dx ≤ c |∇u|p dx
i→∞
C(t) C(t)
Proof. Let 0 < t′ < t < t0 and choose a Lipschitz cut-off function η such that
0 ≤ η ≤ 1, η = 0 in Ω \ C(t) and η = 1 in C(t′ ). Let
wi = ui + η(u − ui ), i = 1, 2, . . . .
Quasiminimizers and Potential Theory 203
to the both sides and taking into account that η = 1 in C(t′ ) we obtain
Z Z
p
(1 + αK) |∇ui | dx ≤ αK |∇ui |p dx
C(t′ ) C(t)
Z Z
p p
+αK |∇η| (u − ui ) dx + αK |∇u|p dx.
C(t) C(t)
Set Ψ : (0, t0 ) → R, Z
Ψ(t) = lim sup |∇ui |p dx.
i→∞
C(t)
Now −ui belongs to the De Giorgi class (see [KM2, Lemma 5.1]), and hence Ψ
is a finite valued and increasing function of t. Hence the points of discontinuity
form a countable set. Let t, 0 < t < t0 , be a point of continuity of Ψ. Letting
i → ∞, we obtain from the previous inequality the estimate
Z
′
(1 + αK)Ψ(t ) ≤ αKΨ(t) + αK |∇u|p dx,
C(t)
because Z
|∇η|p (u − ui )p dx → 0
C(t)
or in other words Z
Ψ(t) ≤ αK |∇u|p dx.
C(t)
1,p
Proof of Theorem 4.14, case (i). As noted before u ∈ Wloc (Ω). Let Ω′ ⊂⊂ Ω
be open and v ∈ W (Ω ), v ≥ u almost everywhere and v − u ∈ W01,p (Ω′ ). By
1,p ′
Ω′ Ω′
To this end let ε > 0 and choose open sets Ω′′ and Ω0 such that
Ω′ ⊂⊂ Ω′′ ⊂⊂ Ω0 ⊂⊂ Ω
and
Z
(b) |∇u|p dx < ε.
Ω0 \Ω′
where we also used the convexity of the function t 7→ tp . We estimate the terms
on the right-hand side separately.
Since η = 1 in a neighborhood of Ω′ , there is a compact set C ⊂ Ω′′ such that
C ∩ Ω′ = ∅ and Z Z
(1 − η)|∇ui | dx ≤ |∇ui |p dx.
p
Ω′′ C
Quasiminimizers and Potential Theory 205
We can choose C = Ω′′ \ Ω′ (t) for sufficiently small t > 0. Next choose t > 0
such that Z Z
p
lim sup |∇ui | dx ≤ c |∇u|p dx
i→∞
C(t) C(t)
and C(t) ⊂ Ω0 \ Ω′ .
This is possible by Lemma 8.1. We have
Z Z
lim sup (1 − η)|∇ui | dx ≤ lim sup |∇ui |p dx
p
t→∞ i→∞
Ω′′ C
Z Z
p
≤ lim sup |∇ui | dx ≤ c |∇u|p dx ≤ cε
i→∞
C(t) C(t)
where we used (b) and the fact that ∇u = ∇v in Ω′′ \ Ω′ . Since ε > 0 was
arbitrary and since
Z Z
|∇u| dx ≤ lim inf |∇ui |p dx
p
i→∞
Ω′ Ω′
by the weak convergence ∇ui → ∇u in Lp (Ω′ ), this completes the proof of (a)
and the proof for the case (i) is complete.
References
[B] Björn, A., Characterization of p-superharmonic functions on metric spaces, Studia
Math. 169 (1) (2005), 45-62.
[BB] Björn, A. and J. Björn, Boundary regularity for p-harmonic functions and solutions
of the obstacle problem, preprint, Linköping, 2004.
[BBS] Björn, A., J. Björn and N. Shanmugalingam, The Perron method for p-harmonic
functions, J. Differential Equations 195 (2003), 398-429.
206 O. Martio IWQCMA05
[BJ1] Björn, J., Poincaré inequalities for powers and products of admissible weights, Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 26 (2001), 175-188.
[BJ2] Björn, J., Boundary continuity for quasiminimizers on metric spaces, Illinois J. Math.
46 (2002), 383-403.
[DS] D’Apuzzo, L. and C. Sbordone, Reverse Hölder inequalities. A sharp result, Rend.
Matem. Ser. VII, 10 (1990), 357-366.
[DT] Di Benedetto, E. and N.S. Trudinger, Harnack inequalities for quasi-minima of vari-
ational integrals, Ann. Inst. H. Poincáre Anal. Non Lineáire 1 (1984), 295-308.
[GG1] Giaquinta, M. and E. Giusti, On the regularity of the minima of variational integrals,
Acta Math. 148, (1982), 31-46.
[GG2] Giaquinta, M. and E. Giusti, Qasiminima, Ann. Inst. H. Poincáre Anal. Non Lineáire
1 (1984), 79-104.
[G] Giaquinta, M: Multiple Integrals in the Calculus of Variations and Nonlinear Elliptic
Systems, Ann. of Math. Studies 105, Princeton Univ. Press, 1983.
[HKM] Heinonen, J., T. Kilpeläinen and O. Martio: Nonlinear Potential Theory of Degener-
ate Elliptic Equations, Oxford University Press, 1993.
[KM1] Kinnunen, J. and O. Martio: Nonlinear potential theory on metric spaces, Illinois J.
Math. 46 (2002), 857-883.
[KM2] Kinnunen, J. and O. Martio, Potential theory of quasiminimizers, Ann. Acad. Sci.
Fenn. Math. 28 (2003), 459-490.
[KS1] Kinnunen, J. and N. Shanmugalingam, Regularity of quasi-minimizers on metric
spaces, Manuscripta Math. 105 (2001), 401-423.
[KS2] Kinnunen, J. and N. Shanmugalingam, Polar sets on metric spaces, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 358.1 (2005), 11-37.
[KSa] Krylov, N.V. and M.V. Safalow, Certain properties of solutions of parabolic equations
with measurable coefficients (Russian), Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 40 (1980), 161-175.
[K] Korenovskii, A.A., The exact continuation for a reverse Hölder inequality and Muck-
enhoupt’s conditions, Transl. from Matem. Zametki, 52(6) (1992), 32-44.
[Ma] Marola, N., Moser’s method for minimizers on metric measure spaces, Helsinki Uni-
versity of Technology, Institute of Mathematics, Research Reports A 478, 2004.
[MS] Martio, O. and C. Sbordone, Quasiminimizers in one dimension – Integrability of the
derivative, inverse function and obstacle problems, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl., to appear.
[Sh1] Shanmugalingam, N., Newtonian spaces: An extension of Sobolev spaces to metric
measure spaces, Revista Math. Iberoamericana 16 (2000), 243-279.
[Sh2] Shanmugalingam, N., Harmonic functions on metric spaces, Illinois J. Math. 45
(2001), 1021-1050.
[Sh3] Shanmugalingam, N., Some convergence results for p-harmonic functions on metric
measure spaces, Proc. London Math. Soc. 87 (2003), 226-246.
R. Michael Porter
Contents
1. Introduction 208
2. A Brief History of Mapmaking 208
3. The General Problem of Conformal Mappings 214
4. The Crowding Problem 216
5. Elementary Facts about Analytic Functions 217
6. Osculation Methods 218
6.1. Koebe’s method. 218
6.2. Graphical methods. 219
6.3. Grassmann’s method. 220
6.4. Sinh-log method 220
7. Schwarz-Christoffel Methods 222
8. Rapidly Converging Methods 223
8.1. Theodorsen’s Method. 223
8.2. Fornberg’s method. 225
9. Generalities on Conformal Mapping Methods 226
10. Interpolating Polynomial Method 226
10.1. Some properties of the half-click mapping. 228
10.2. Interpolating polynomial algorithm 229
Research supported by CONACyt grant 46936.
208 R. Michael Porter IWQCMA05
1. Introduction
Although the present meeting is mainly concerned with the study of the the-
ory of quasiconformal mapping, our topic here is to understand some of the basic
principles of the theory of conformal mapping, with emphasis on the computa-
tional perspective.
The history of quasiconformal mappings is usually traced back to the early
1800’s with a solution by C. F. Gauss to a problem which will be briefly mentioned
at the end of Section 2, while conformal mapping goes back to the ideas of G.
Mercator in the 16th century. Since the early work had much to do with the
production of maps of the physical world, we will begin with a brief survey of
how this came about.
A map obviously must contain “known reference points” and somehow show
their relative distances and directions. This is the basis of the humor in the
following lines from “The Hunting of the Snark” by Lewis Carroll,
1
www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/AncientWebPages/100mono.html. As with many of the web
references cited here, the same information may be found on many sites and it is difficult to
pinpoint an original source.
Techniques for Numerical Conformal Mapping 209
“Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we’ve got our brave Captain to thank”
(So the crew would protest) “that he’s bought us the best
A perfect and absolute blank!”
2
http://www.eq5.net/carrol/fit2.html
The picture of a terrain in Figure 2 (left) is likewise not a map. In the map of
Figure 2 (right), the reference points are “subjective,” involving loci of constant
height which need not correspond to any physically noticeable characteristics of
the terrain. Maps may incorporate our preconceptions or prejudices of what the
world looks like.
Of course, in modern mathematics the matter of reference points is resolved
by the precise notion “function,” for which it is postulated that every point of
the surface is made to correspond, albeit theoretically, to a unique point of the
map.
Let us take a quick trip though the history of maps. A nine-foot-long stone
map dating from 6200 B.C., which appears to be a plan of a town predating
Ankara, Turkey3 , is shown in Figure 3. It is said to have served to register
property rights, perhaps for tax purposes.
Moving now to larger-scale maps, we have a map of Africa produced in silk,
in 1389 by the Chinese map Great Ming Empire), measuring 17 square meters
(Figure 4). It is on display in South Africa and is said to be a copy of an earlier
stone one4 . However, it would be a mistake to say that the larger the scale, the
more recent the map. In 1999 there was discovered in Ireland a map dating from
3
John F. Brock, “The Oldest Cadastral Plan Ever Found: the Catalhoyuk town plan of
6200 B.C.,” http://www.mash.org.au/articles/articles2.htm
4
BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2446907.stm
about 3000 B.C. which is claimed to be the oldest known map of the moon.5
Even older are the well-known drawings in from 14,000 B.C the Lascaux Caves,
France, discovered in 1940, with a drawing of the constellation Pleiades and of
the “Summer Triangle,” and a map of the constellation Orion from 30,000 B.C.
found engraved on a 4 cm. ivory tablet in Germany in 1979.6
At the time of this writing, it is being investigated whether or not the Chinese
admiral Zheng He discovered America and circled the globe 80 years before the
voyages of Christopher Columbus; part of the argument is based on a map from
the year 1418.7 At any rate, it is often stated incorrectly that in the epoch of
Columbus, people generally thought that the earth was flat. While the spherical
nature of the earth’s surface was known to the ancient Greeks, and its diameter
was measured by Hipparcus (190–120 A.C.), it is significant that no early map
was produced similar to that of Figure 6.
The principle here is that consciously or not, one tends to look for the simplest
possible answers to mathematical questions. Here it would be the topology which
is unnecessarily complicated. The possibility of closed curves on the earth’s
5
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1205638.stm
6
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/871930.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/
hi/sci/tech/2679675.stm
7
The Sunday Statesman, New Delhi, 15 January, 2006; http://edition.cnn.com/2003
/SHOWBIZ/books/01/13/1421/index.html
Figure 6.
212 R. Michael Porter IWQCMA05
surface which are not contractible to a point would have many consequences,
among them a nonconstant curvature of the surface (at least according to our
intuitive notions of Euclidean space).
So let us return to the idea of a spherical earth. The oldest known maps of the
celestial sphere were not on flat surfaces such as paper, but rather on tortoise
shells. One reason for this may have been that, as Figure 7 shows, there can
be no isometry (that is, a distance-preserving map) from a spherical region to a
planar one.
This statement may sound disappointing, because it would be extremely useful
to be able to determine one’s position on a map using the distance one has
traveled from a previously determined point. However, navigators of the Middle
Ages realized that if distances cannot be preserved on planar maps of spherical
surfaces, then at least it would be useful to conserve angles. When the angles
between curves on the earth are equal to the corresponding angles on the map, the
map is said to be conformal (Figure 8). A navigator on the high seas, orienting
At that time no one knew how to evaluate this integral in elementary terms.
This led to the compilation of numerical tables for navigators, which was carried
out by successively summing small increments of the integrand. After some time,
people compared different tables and observed a curious coincidence: the integral
Z θ
dθ
0 cos θ
(1)-
(2)
?
Knowing that a conformal mapping exists is not the same as knowing how
to solve the numerical problem: given D, to calculate f to a given degree of
accuracy. In some simple cases the conformal mapping can be written as a
composition of elementary functions, such as Möbius transformations, powers
Techniques for Numerical Conformal Mapping 215
and roots, trigonometric functions, elliptic integrals, and the like. These basic
analytic formulas are also useful for reducing general problems to more accessible
ones (see Section 6.2 below). In practice, a mapping problem can be presented in
a variety of ways, partly because a domain can be presented in a variety of ways:
as set of points satisfying a certain condition (such as an inequality F (z) < c), or
a specific list of points (such as a set of pixels in an image). More commonly, a
domain is specified in terms of its boundary, which may be a condition satisfied
by its points (such as an equality F (z) = c), or a parametrization z = γ(t), or
simply a list of points along the boundary.
Furthermore, a map from one domain D1 to D2 is often described as a com-
position of a map from D to D1 composed with the inverse of a map from D to
D2 . Depending on the nature of the numerical description, it may be difficult or
inconvenient to calculate the inverse map.
The following result is also relevant to numerical work.
Theorem 2. (Carathéodory) Every conformal mapping between to Jordan re-
gions extends to a homeomorphism of the closures of the regions.
Given data:
(i) D (or ∂D)
(ii) z0 ∈ D
dimensions to 1, and this is why the vast majority of the numerical methods
which have been developed focus on calculating the boundary mapping f |∂ D . A
numerical scheme for evaluating (1), once the boundary mapping is known, can
be found in [12].
For this reason, we will consider the problem as defined in Figure 11 (except
for Section 6, where the inverse mapping will be sought). The closed curve
t 7→ γ(t) defines the boundary of D. A point z0 fixed inside of γ is to be equal
to f (0). We are interested in the boundary values f (eiθ ) for 0 ≤ θ < 2π. The
mapping θ 7→ eiθ of the interval to the unit circumference is so natural that we
use it in the statement of the problem: to find a function t = b(θ) so that
(2) f (eiθ ) = γ(b(θ)).
γ b eiθ
0 2π 0 2π
t θ
Figure 11. Elements of mapping problem (picture taken from [8])
× ×
1. 2.
×
×
3. 4.
6. Osculation Methods
Most of the “Easy Methods” are classified as osculation methods, which consist
of first mapping D into D, and then mapping the image region to a larger
region inside of D, and so on. The desired approximation to f : D → D is the
composition of these mappings, and f itself is their limit.
6.1. Koebe’s method. The first osculation method ever created is based on
the proof given by P. Koebe in 1905 for Theorem 3, and which is found in many
Complex Variables texts, such as [2], [5]. This procedure is illustrated in Figure
13. The steps are prescribed as follows.
0. Suppose D ⊂ D
the image under each successive iteration is “larger” than the previous one. Note
that if D = D, then step 2 cannot be applied.
The images of a domain under successive iterations of the Koebe method are
shown in Figure 14. The convergence to ∂D can be made slightly faster by using
the cube root instead of the square root in Step 3. If one uses the nth root and
lets n → ∞, one approaches the Koebe logarithm method, in which the logarithm
replaces the nth root and step 4 is modified accordingly.
6.2. Graphical methods. In the 1950’s, people were looking for ways to find a
mapping of a given domain to a domain reasonably close to D, in order to apply
then a fast method (such as Teodorsen’s method below) to the result. Today it
seems incredible that this was done by hand. For example, in [11] a method was
described by which the operator first fits manually the given domain D into a
disk from which a sector bounded by two arcs has been removed (Figure 15). A
conformal mapping from this slightly larger domain D1 ⊃ D to D can be written
in elementary terms,
1/α
c + z1 c+z
(3) =k .
c − z1 c−z
as a composition of a power function with two Möbius transformations. These
Möbius transformations make the points 0, ∞ correspond to key points in the
original figure. An ingenious scheme was presented in which one places the
domain over specially designed “graph paper” showing circles passing through
Figure 14. Iterations of the Koebe method (left) and the loga-
rithmic Koebe method (right)
220 R. Michael Porter IWQCMA05
these two points and circles orthogonal to them. Then, much in the way that
one can magnify a picture by tracing a grid over it and then copying the part of
the picture in each small square in it to the corresponding square in a larger grid,
pieces of the boundary of the domain are copied to corresponding pieces within a
second graph paper. In this way the conformal mapping is approximated without
computing the elements of (3) numerically.
6.4. Sinh-log method. This method is based on the observation [19] that in
the logarithmic Koebe method, at a certain step during each iteration, the log-
arithmic image of the domain generally not only lies in the left half-plane, but
within some horizontal band; that is, the imaginary parts of all its points are
bounded above and below. An appropriate real-affine transformation takes this
half-band to the normalized half-band {−π/2 < Im z < π/2}, which in turn the
hyperbolic sine function sends to the whole left half-plane, as shown in Figure 17.
As a result, a much larger part of the half-plane is covered before the half-plane
is mapped back to the unit disk in the last step of the iterative procedure.
Figure 17. One iteration of the sinh-log method. The lower left
picture shows the half-strip containing the logarithmic image, as
well as the image of this under sinh
222 R. Michael Porter IWQCMA05
It was mentioned that osculations are very “slow” methods. Their great ad-
vantage is that they apply to any domain bounded by a continuous (say piecewise
smooth) closed curve. In general, osculation methods have the following charac-
teristics.
Osculation Methods
GENERALITY: total
7. Schwarz-Christoffel Methods
The Schwarz-Christoffel methods are applicable to the particular case of a
domain with polygonal boundary. Although for numerical work every domain
can be considered in principle “polygonal,” if the number of vertices is extremely
large the advantage of Schwarz-Christoffel methods would be lost. The Schwarz-
Christoffel formula says that the Riemann mapping from the unit disk to a
polygonal domain is equal to the integral
Z z
dz
(4) f (z) = .
0 (z − z1 ) (z − z2 )1−α2 /π · · · (z − zn )1−αn /π
1−α 1 /π
Techniques for Numerical Conformal Mapping 223
α1
w3
w1
w2
Figure 19
For a given polygonal domain, the vertices wj = f (zj ) are known as well as
are the interior angles παj , but the prevertices zj are not known, so formula (4)
is useless until these values are determined. A strategy for a typical Schwarz-
Christoffel method would thus be
• guess approximate values for z1 , z2 , ...,
• evaluate the Schwarz-Christoffel integral,
• compare the results with w1 , w2 , ...,
• apply some type of correction
The difficulty is to make an initial guess sufficiently close for this to work.
A history and detailed explanation of various methods can be found in [6]. An
elegant solution to the Schwarz-Christoffel mapping question was invented by
T. A. Driscoll and S. A. Vavasis [7], which begins by triangulating the polygonal
domain in a special way, and then solving a set of equations for the cross ratios of
all rectangles formed by pairs of adjacent triangles. Not only is there no problem
to find an appropriate initial guess, but also the invariance of the cross ratio
makes it possible to avoid the crowding phenomenon: one can apply a Möbius
transformation of D to bring any part of the domain into focus.
0.5
-1 -0.5 0.5 1
-0.5
-1
Theodorsen’s Method
From what
P we have said γ(b(θ)) is to give the values on ∂D of an analytic function
f (z) = ∞ a
k=0 k z k
, so by (2)
∞
X ∞
X
(9) ak ekiθ = f (eiθ ) = γ(b(θ)) = bk ekiθ
k=0 k=−∞
and therefore
0, k < 0,
bk =
ak , k ≥ 0.
Fornberg’s Method
P 2πk
i
e
2πk
N
i - P (e N )wk
that
(10) Pw~ is a polynomial of degree ≤ N ,
Pw~ (0) = 0,
2πi
Pw~ (e N j ) = wj for 0 ≤ j ≤ N − 1.
Since P is easy to calculate, so are its half-click values
2πi 1
(11) uj = Pw~ e N (j+ 2 ) .
The answer is given by a matrix multiplication,
(12) ~u = C w,
~
where
−1 i π 1
(13) cj = + cot( (j + )),
N N N 2
Cjk = cj−k ).
C is a circulant matrix, and C w
~ can be calculated via Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT) in O(N log N ) operations. This is also a key feature of Fornberg’s method.
wk
uk
wk+1
u∗j
H
Y
C
ρ
?
∗
ρ(u∗j )
wj+1 wj∗
~ 7→ ρ(C(w))
Figure 24. w ~
of ∂D = γ([0, 2π]). This is defined for points sufficiently near to ∂D. Then the
discrepancy can be described by the N -vector
(uj − ρ(uj ))j .
10.3. Numerical example. For the first example, we will calculate the same
Riemann mapping as did Fornberg in 1980. His domain Dα , shown in Figure 25,
is bounded by the curve
(15) ((Re w − .5)2 + (Im w − α)2 )(1 − (Re w − .5)2 − (Im w)2 ) − 1 = 0
1.
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0 0.5 1.
-1.
Figure 25. Domain defined by equation (15) for α = 0.5, 1.0, 2.0
1 1
0.5 0.5
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
True values of w
~ ~∗
Initial test values w
Figure 27.
with a variable parameter α. The high crowding factor for the domain D0.5
mentioned earlier is largely due to the fact that the base point z0 = 0 is near
the left-hand side of the domain. If one starts with evenly spaced points along
the boundary, then probably none of the “fast” methods will converge to the
solution. In fact, one has to be extremely close to the solution for convergence
to be possible. One way to get around this situation is to solve first the mapping
problem for D2.0 , which is nearly circular, and then project the solution points
to say, D1.5 , solve the problem there, and then project to another nearby Dα .
This was done in the same way for the Interpolating Polynomial method in [18],
and the fairly similar results make one wonder whether the two methods in some
sense may be based on essentially the same fundamental ideas.
Now we look at a simpler domain, a unit disk which is centered at α, 0 < α < 1.
The mapping function is
α−z
(16) f (z) = α − .
1 − αz
For illustration we take α = 0.5 and N = 32. Supposing that we don’t know
the formula (16), we will naı̈vely guess that the wj are equally spaced; i.e., we
take wj = ζj as on the right of Figure 27. The resulting P (∂ D) turns out to be
the rather complicated curve shown in Figure 28, a very bad approximation of
the circumference of the disk.
After one iteration of Φ, a most of the wj have moved over to the left closer to
where they belong, and the image curve looks a bit more like ∂ D. At the second
iteration they cannot be distinguished visually from the true positions, and the
half-click images uj appear to lie exactly on ∂ D as well.
Of course, this is only an approximation, and to study its accuracy one may
graph the change in w∗~ from one iteration to the next. For this any convenient
norm will do; in Figure 30 we use log || ||∞ .
In Figure 31 we show the results for 0, 1, and 2 iterations of the method
for an ellipse and a square, starting in each case with equally spaced boundary
points. Note that a polynomial of degree 32 does not give a particularly good
approximation of the Riemann mapping for a square.
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
11.1. Methods using derivatives. Given w ~ on ∂D, we can write the interpo-
lating polynomial P = Pw~ explicitly, and thus can calculate its derivative, giving
an N -vector
2πi
(17) wj′ = Pw~′ (ej N ) = (C ′ w)
~ j
for an appropriate matrix C ′ .
On the other hand, there are many other formulas involving f ′ . For example,
from (2) we have ieiθ f ′ (eiθ ) = γ ′ (b(θ))b′ (θ) so we can write
(18) ~b′ = i ζ~ 1 w ~ ′.
~γ ′
Many ideas present themselves for combining (17) and (18). For example, given
~ and ~γ ′ , and then can obtain ~b′ from which a new value of ~b can
~b one calculates w
be estimated. Alternatively, from an initial ~b written as a deviation ~b = ~b∗ + ∆~b
from the true solution ~b∗ , to obtain an equation for ∆w. ~ However, so far I have
not been able to create an algorithm which converges by using any such idea.
-2.5
-5
-7.5
-10
-12.5
-15
Figure 32.
(a) (b) (
)
i
image under the osculation mapping has the same number M of points (here
around 8000). The “fast” method is applied with a relatively small number N
of points (here 512). This is done because the cost O(N log N ) increases fairly
rapidly with N . Thus when the inverse of the osculation mapping is applied, we
only have N points to describe the domain. When the crowding phenomenon
is present, this may cause part of the figure to be badly represented. On the
other hand, if one is only interested in approximating the conformal mapping
near another part of the boundary (or in the interior), this may be a very useful
aspect of the method.
13. Epilogue
We suggest that the reader interested in knowing more about numerical con-
formal mapping consult the following.
The books [23] and [14] give detailed explanations of a great number of map-
pings with specific formulas. We mention also [3], a much older book, which
gives a general introduction to the theory of functions of a complex variable as
necessary to understand the topic of conformal mapping, as do [13], [16].
Reference [9], a half-century old text in German, is divided into two parts,
covering precisely what we have called the “easy” and “fast” methods for confor-
mal mapping. Bear in mind that the numerical examples were calculated without
computers!
Reference [12] gives a much more modern and very practical treatment, in-
cluding some of the methods we have described here (Koebe and Grassmann
osculation, Theodorsen’s method). In [15] one may find a great variety of other
conformal mapping methods. As to detailed treatiseson specific methods, we rec-
ommend the book [6] on the Schwarz-Christoffel method, and [20] which explains
the method of circle packings.
Techniques for Numerical Conformal Mapping 237
Finally we recommend the survey article [4], which gives a more recent per-
spective of the existing methods.
References
1. W. Abikoff, The uniformization theorem. Amer. Math. Monthly 88 (1981), 574–592.
2. L. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis: An introduction to the theory of analytic functions of one
complex variable, Third edition, International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York 1978.
3. L. Bieberbach, Conformal mapping, Chelsea, New York 1964.
4. T. K. DeLillo, The accuracy of numerical conformal mapping methods: a survey of exam-
ples and results, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 31 (1994) 788–812.
5. John B. Conway, Functions of one complex variable, Second edition, Graduate Texts in
Mathematics 11, Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin 1978.
6. T. A. Driscoll and L. N. Trefethen, Schwarz-Christoffel mapping, Cambridge Monographs
on Applied and Computational Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
2002.
7. T. A. Driscoll and S. A. Vavasis, Numerical conformal mapping using cross-ratios and
Delaunay triangulation, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 19 (1998) 1783-1803.
8. B. A. Fornberg, A numerical method for conformal mapping of doubly connected regions,
SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 5 (1984) 771–783.
9. D. Gaier, Konstruktive Methoden der konformen Abbildung, Springer tracts in natural
philosophy, v. 3, Springer, Berlin 1964.
10. E. Grassmann, Numerical experiments with a method of successive approximation for
conformal mapping. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 30 (1979) 873–884.
11. J. Heinhold, R. Albrecht, Zur Praxis der konformen Abbildung, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo
3 (1954) 130–148.
12. P. Henrici, Applied and computational complex analysis, Vol. 3, Pure and Applied Mathe-
matics (New York). A Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York
1986.
13. E. Hille, Analytic function theory, Chelsea Publishing Company, New York 1959.
14. H. Kober, Dictionary of conformal representations, Dover, New York 1957.
15. P. K. Kythe, Computational conformal mapping, Boston: Birkhüser, Boston 1998.
16. Z. Nehari, Conformal mapping, McGraw-Hill, New York 1952.
17. S. T. O’Donnell and V. Rokhlin, A fast algorithm for the numerical evaluation of conformal
mappings, SIAM J. Sci. Statist. Comput. 10 (1989) 475–487.
18. R. M. Porter, An interpolating polynomial method for numerical conformal mapping. SIAM
J. Sci. Comput. 23 (2001) 1027–1041.
19. R. M. Porter, An accelerated osculation method and its application to numerical conformal
mapping, Complex Var. Theory Appl., 48 (2003) 569–582.
20. K. Stephenson, Introduction to circle packing: The theory of discrete analytic functions,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.
21. L. N. Trefethen and T. A. Driscoll, A. Schwarz-Christoffel mapping in the computer era.
Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. III (Berlin, 1998), Doc.
Math. 1998, Extra Vol. III, 533–542.
22. M. R. Trummer, An efficient implementation of a conformal mapping method based on
the szegö kernel, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 23 (1986) 853–872.
23. W. von Koppenfels, Praxis der konformen Abbildung, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Göttingen-
Heidelberg 1959.
24. R. Wegmann, Discrete Riemann-Hilbert problems, interpolation of simply closed curves,
and numerical conformal mapping, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 23 (1988) 323–352.
238 R. Michael Porter IWQCMA05
25. R. Wegmann, Conformal mapping by the method of alternating projections, Numer. Math.
56 (1989) 291–307.
Antti Rasila
Contents
Figure 1: Gerardus Mercator (source: Wikipedia) and a World map using the
Mercator projection.
The Mercator projection is not without flaws, however. For example, from
the picture above one might conclude that India is approximately twice as large
as Finland. Actually, India’s land area is 3, 287, 590 km2 , almost ten times that
of Finland (338, 145 km2 ). This example also illustrates the reasons why we are
mainly interested in the local distortion of the geometry in this theory.
l
L
3. Preliminaries
We shall follow standard notation and terminology adopted from [21], [22]
and [19]. For x ∈ Rn , n ≥ 2, and r > 0 let Bn (x, r) = {z ∈ Rn : |z − x| < r},
S n−1 (x, r) = ∂Bn (x, r), Bn (r) = Bn (0, r), S n−1 (r) = ∂Bn (r), Bn = Bn (1),
Hn = {x ∈ Rn : xn > 0}, Bn+ = Bn ∩ Hn , and S n−1 = ∂Bn . For t ∈ R
and a ∈ Rn \ {0}, P (a, t) = {x ∈ Rn : x · a = t} ∪ {∞}, is a hyperplane in
n
R = Rn ∪ {∞} perpendicular to the vector a and at distance t/|a| from the
origin. The surface area of S n−1 is denoted by ωn−1 and Ωn is the volume of Bn .
It is well known that ωn−1 = nΩn and that
π n/2
Ωn =
Γ(1 + n/2)
for n = 2, 3, . . ., where Γ is Euler’s gamma function. The standard coordinate
unit vectors are denoted by e1 , . . . , en . The k-dimensional Lebesgue measure
is denoted by mk . For k = n we omit the subscript and denote the Lebesgue
measure on Rn simply by m.
n
For nonempty subsets A and B of R , we let d(A) = sup{|x − y| : x, y ∈ A}
be the diameter of A, d(A, B) = inf{|x − y| : x ∈ A, y ∈ B} the distance between
the sets A and B, and in particular d(x, B) = d({x}, B).
n−1
S n−1
1 r S (a *,r)
0 a a*
for every locally rectifiable path γ ∈ Γ. The functions in F(Γ) are called admis-
sible for Γ. For 1 < p < ∞ we define
Z
(4.2) Mp (Γ) = inf ρp dm
ρ∈F (Γ) Rn
and call Mp (Γ) the p-modulus of Γ. If F(Γ) = ∅, which is true only if Γ contains
constant paths, we set Mp (Γ) = ∞. The n-modulus or conformal modulus is
denoted by M(Γ).
Lemma 4.3. [21, 6.2] The p-modulus is an outer measure in the space of all path
families in Rn . That is,
(1) Mp (∅) = 0,
(2) If Γ1 ⊂ Γ2 then Mp (Γ1 ) ≤ Mp (Γ2 ), and
S P
(3) Mp j Γj ≤ j Mp Γj .
Proof. (1) Since the zero function is admissible for ∅, Mp (∅) = 0.
(2) If Γ1 ⊂ Γ2 then F(Γ2 ) ⊂ F(Γ1 ) and hence Mp (Γ1 ) ≤ Mp (Γ2 ).
(3) We may assume that Mp (Γj ) < ∞ for all j. Let ε > 0. Then we can
choose for each j a function ρj admissible for Γj such that
Z
ρpj dm ≤ Mp (Γj ) + 2−j ε.
Rn
Now let [
ρ = sup ρj , Γ= Γj .
j
j
Then ρ : Rn → [0, ∞] is a Borel function. Moreover, if γ ∈ Γ is locally rectifiable,
then γ ∈ Γj for some j, Z Z
ρ ds ≥ ρj ds ≥ 1,
γ γ
Introduction to quasiconformal mappings in n-space 245
Proof. The claim follows immediately from (4.2) and the fact that the function
ρ = χG /r is admissible for Γ.
Lemma 4.6. Path family Γ has zero p-modulus if and only if there is an admis-
sible function ρ ∈ F(Γ) such that
Z Z
p
ρ dm < ∞ and ρ ds = ∞
Rn γ
Proof. If ρ satisfies the above conditions, clearly ρ/k is admissible for Γ for all
k = 1, 2, . . . . Hence Z
Mp (Γ) ≤ k −p
ρp dm → 0
Rn
as k → ∞, and thus Mp (Γ) = 0.
Now let Mp (Γ) = 0 and choose a sequence of functions ρk ∈ F(Γ) such that
Z
ρpk dm < 4−k , k = 1, 2, . . . .
Rn
Define
X
∞ 1/p
ρ(x) = 2k ρpk (x) ,
k=1
and note that Z
ρp dm < ∞.
Rn
On the other hand,
Z Z
ρ ds ≥ 2k/p ρk ds ≥ 2k/p → ∞
γ γ
The path families Γ1 , Γ2 , . . . are called separate if there exist disjoint Borel
sets Ei such that
Z
(4.8) χRn \Ei ds = 0
γ
for all locally rectifiable γ ∈ Γi , i = 1, 2, . . ..
Lemma 4.9. [19, Proposition II.1.5] Let Γ, Γ1 , Γ2 , . . . be a sequence of path fam-
ilies in Rn . Then
(1) If Γ1 , Γ2 , . . . are separate and Γ < Γj for all j = 1, 2, . . . , then
X
Mp (Γ) ≥ Mp (Γj ).
j
S
Equality holds if Γ = j Γj .
(2) If Γ1 , Γ2 , . . . are separate and Γj < Γ for all j = 1, 2, . . . , then
X
Mp (Γ)1/(1−p) ≥ Mp (Γj )1/(1−p) , p > 1.
j
Proof. (1) Let ρ be admissible for Γ, and let Ej be as in (4.8). Then for all
indices j the function ρj = χEj ρ is admissible for Γj . It follows that
X XZ p
XZ Z
p
Mp (Γj ) ≤ ρj dm = ρ dm ≤ ρp dm.
p j Rn j Ej Rn
S
(2) Let Ej be as in (4.8), and let E = j Ej . Then for all indices j the
P χEj ρ is admissible for Γj . Let (aj ) be a sequence such that aj ∈ [0, 1]
function
and j aj = 1. Let
X∞
ρ= a j χ Ej ρ j .
j=1
Next we show that ρ is admissible for Γ. Fix a locally rectifiable path γ ∈ Γ and
a subpath γj ∈ Γj for each j = 1, 2, . . . . Now
Z Z X X Z
ρ ds = aj χEj ρj ds = aj χEj ρj ds
γ γ j j γ
X Z X
≥ aj χEj ρj ds ≥ aj = 1.
j γj j
We may assume that Mp (Γ) > 0 (if that would not be the case, the left side of
the inequality is ∞ and there is nothing to prove). Hence by Lemma 4.4 we have
Mp (Γj ) ≥ Mp (Γ) > 0. Similarly, we may assume that Mp (Γj ) < ∞.
Let
1
tk = Pk , aj,k = Mp (Γj )1/(1−p) tk ,
j=1 Mp (Γj )1/(1−p)
Pk
for j = 1, . . . , k and k = 1, 2, . . . . Now j=1 aj,k = 1. We choose aj,k = 0 for
j ≥ k + 1, and by (4.10) we have
k
X X
k 1−p
Mp (Γ) ≤ tpk Mp (Γj )p/(1−p) Mp (Γj ) = Mp (Γj )1/(1−p) .
j=1 j=1
Proof. Choose ρ ∈ F(Γ) where Γ = ∆(E, F ; G)) and let γy be the vertical
segment from y ∈ E. Then γy ∈ Γ. We note that 1/p + (p − 1)/p = 1, and hence
by Hölder’s inequality
Z p Z p−1 Z Z
p p−1
1≤ ρ ds ≤ 1 ds ρ ds = h ρp ds.
γy γy γy γy
Remark 4.13. In Example 4.12 the modulus is invariant under similarity map-
pings if and only if p = n. This is the reason why the case p = n is so important
in the theory of quasiconformal mappings. Later in this section we will show
that M(Γ) is a conformal invariant.
n n
Ring domains. A domain G in R is called a ring, if R \ G has exactly two
components. If the components are E and F , we denote the ring by R(E, F ).
In general, it is difficult to calculate the modulus of a given path family. Next
two lemmas give us an important tool, letting us to obtain effective upper and
lower bounds for the modulus in many situations.
n
Lemma 4.14. [21, 7.5] Let 0 < a < b < ∞, A = Bn (b) \ B (a) and
ΓA = ∆ S n−1 (a), S n−1 (b); A .
Then b 1−n
M(ΓA ) = ωn−1 log .
a
Proof. Let ρ ∈ F(ΓA ). For each unit vector y ∈ S n−1 let γy : [a, b] → Rn the
radial line segment defined by γy (s) = sy. As in Example 4.12 by Hölder’s
inequality we obtain
Z n Z b Z b n−1
n n−1 1
1 ≤ ρ ds ≤ ρ(sy) s ds ds
γy a a s
Z
b n−1 b
= log ρ(sy)n sn−1 ds.
a a
By integrating over y ∈ S n−1 , we have
Z
b n−1
(4.15) ωn−1 ≤ log ρn dm.
a R n
n
Lemma 4.16. [21, 7.8] Let x0 ∈ R and let Γ be the family of all nonconstant
paths through x0 . Then M(Γ) = 0.
n n
Modulus in conformal mappings. Let G ⊂ R and f : G → R be a continu-
ous function. Suppose that Γ is a family of paths in G. Then Γ′ = {f ◦γ : γ ∈ Γ}
is a family of paths in f (G). Γ′ is called the image of Γ under f .
Theorem 4.17. [21, 8.1] If f : G → f (G) is conformal, then M(f (Γ)) = M(Γ)
for all path families Γ in G.
Proof. By Lemma 4.16 we may assume that the paths of Γ, f (Γ) do not go
through ∞. Let ρ1 ∈ F(f (Γ)), and define
ρ(x) = ρ1 f (x) |f ′ (x)|
for x ∈ G and ρ(x) = 0 otherwise. Because f is a conformal mapping (see [21,
5.6]), Z Z Z
′
ρ ds = ρ1 f (x) |f (x)| |dx| = ρ1 ds ≥ 1
γ γ f ◦γ
for every locally rectifiable γ ∈ Γ. It follows that ρ ∈ F(Γ), and
Z Z Z Z
n n
n
M(Γ) ≤ ρ dm = ρ1 f (x) |Jf (x)| dm = ρ1 dm = ρn1 dm
Rn G f (G) Rn
for all ρ1 ∈ F(f (Γ)), and thus M(Γ) ≤ M(f (Γ)). The inverse inequality follows
from the fact that f −1 is conformal.
Lemma 4.18. Let A ⊂ Hn , B ⊂ (∁Hn ), Γ = ∆(A, B), and let
Γ1 = ∆(A, ∂Hn ), Γ2 = ∆(B, ∂Hn ).
Then
M(Γ) ≤ 2−n M(Γ1 ) + M(Γ2 ) .
In particular, the equality holds if A = g(B), where g is the reflection in Hn .
It follows that
M(Γ) ≤ 2−n M(Γ1 ) + M(Γ2 ) .
Next we consider the case A = g(B). Let ρ be an admissible function for the
path family Γ and denote ρ ◦ g by ρ̄. Now the function
ρ + ρ̄ on Hn ,
ρ̂ =
0 on ∁Hn ,
is admissible for the path family Γ1 . By the inequality (a + b)n ≤ 2n−1 (an + bn )
(for a, b ≥ 0) and the fact that M(Γ1 ) = M(Γ2 ) it follows that
Z Z
n 1
M(Γ1 ) ≤ ρ̂ dm = (ρ + ρ̄)n dm
Rn 2 Rn
Z Z
n−2 n n n−1
≤ 2 (ρ + ρ̄ )dm = 2 ρn dm.
Rn Rn
Hence, Z
n
M(Γ1 ) + M(Γ2 ) = 2M(Γ1 ) ≤ 2 ρn dm,
Rn
for any ρ admissible for the curve family Γ. By taking infimum over all admissible
ρ, the claim follows.
where the infimum is taken over all nonnegative functions u in ACLp (A) with
compact support in A and u|C ≥ 1. The n-capacity of E is called the conformal
capacity of E and denoted by capE.
n
Spherical symmetrizations. Let L be a ray from x0 to ∞ and E ⊂ R be
a compact set. We define spherical symmetrization of E in L as the set E ∗
satisfying the following conditions:
(1) x0 ∈ E ∗ if and only if x0 ∈ E,
(2) ∞ ∈ E ∗ if and only if ∞ ∈ E,
(3) For r ∈ (0, ∞) the set E ∗ ∩ S n−1 (x0 , r) is a closed spherical cap centered on
L with the same (n − 1)-dimensional Lebesgue measure as E ∩ S n−1 (x0 , r)
for E ∩ S n−1 (x0 , r) 6= ∅ and ∅ otherwise.
We note that E ∗ is always compact and connected if E is.
111
000
000
111
1111
0000
E
000
111
0000
1111 000
111
0000
1111
0000
1111 000
111
0000
1111 000
111
0000
1111
0000
1111 L
*
E
11111111111 L
00000000000
1111111
0000000 00000000000
11111111111
0000000
1111111 00000000000
11111111111
00000000000
11111111111
0000000
1111111 00000000000
11111111111
0000000
1111111
0000000
1111111 00000000000
11111111111
0000000
1111111
0000000
1111111
0000000
1111111
and hence
∗ m(E ∗ (r)) − m(E ∗ )
mn−1 (∂E ) ≤ lim sup
r→0 2r
m(E(r)) − m(E)
≤ lim sup = mn−1 (∂E).
r→0 2r
The result for the general domains is obtained by approximating the boundary
with polyhedrons.
C
1111111
0000000
0
0000000
1111111
0000000
1111111
C1
0000000
1111111 1111111
0000000
0000000
1111111 0000000
1111111
0000000
1111111
0000000
1111111
0000000
1111111 0000000
1111111
0000000
1111111
0000000
1111111 *
C0 C 1*
L0 0 L1 L0
11111111
00000000 0 111111111
000000000
000000000
111111111 L1
00000000
11111111 000000000
111111111
00000000
11111111
00000000
11111111 000000000
111111111
Theorem 4.23. If R = R(C0 , C1 ) is a ring and if C0∗ and C1∗ are the sphrerical
symmetrizations of C0 and C1 in opposite rays L0 , L1 , then R∗ = R(C0∗ , C1∗ ) is a
ring with cap R∗ ≤ cap R.
Proof. (Idea, [7, p.225]) Let u be a locally lipschitz function that is admissible
for R. Choose u∗ such that {x : u∗ (x) ≤ t} = {x : u(x) ≤ t}∗ . Then u∗ is
admissible for R∗ and from Theorem 4.22 we obtain
Z Z
∗ n
∗
cap(R ) ≤ |∇u | dm ≤ |∇u|n dm.
Rn Rn
Γ
∞
se 1
B
n
∞
−e1 0 se 1
Figure 10: Grötzsch ring RG,n (s) (left) and Teichmüller ring RT,n (s) (right).
Proof. Let Γ = ∆(S n−1 (−e1 /2, 1/2), [se1 , ∞]). Then by Lemma 4.24
M(Γ) = γ(1 + 2s) = 2n−1 τ (4s2 + 4s).
By Lemma 4.4 τ (s) ≤ M(Γ).
Lemma 4.26. [3, (8.65),(8.62)] The following estimates hold for τn (t), t > 0:
λ √
1−n n
√ 1−n
τn (t) ≥ 2 ωn−1 log ( 1 + t + t) ,
2
and for γn (1/r), r ∈ (0, 1):
√
λn 1 + 1 − r2 1−n λn 1−n
γn (1/r) ≥ ωn−1 log ≥ ωn−1 log ,
2r r
where λn is the Grötzsch ring constant depending only on n.
We note that
λn log λn 1
log ≤ 1− log ,
r log r0 r
for 0 < r < r0 . Thus
1 1−n
γn (1/r) ≥ C(n, r0 )ωn−1 log
r
= C(n, r0 )M ∆(B (r), S n−1 ) ,
n
with
1−n
log λn
C(n, r0 ) = 1− .
log r0
The second inequality follows immediately from the fact that the line segment
[0, r) is contained in the ball of radius r.
Remark 4.28. Note that C(n, r0 ) → 1 as r0 → 0 in Lemma 4.27.
Lemma 4.29. [22, 7.34] Let R = R(E, F ) be a ring in Rn , and let a, b ∈ E,
c, ∞ ∈ F be distinct points. Then
|a − c|
M(∆(E, F )) ≥ τ .
|a − b|
Equality holds for E = [−e1 , 0], a = 0, b = −e1 , F = [se1 , ∞), c = se1 , d = ∞.
It is not obvious from the definition how M(∆(E, F )), for nonempty E, F ∈
n
R , depends on the geometric setup and the structure of the sets E, F . The
following lemma gives a lower bound for M(∆(E, F )) in the terms of
d(E, F )/ min{d(E), d(F )}.
Lemma 4.30. [22, 7.38] Let E, F be disjoint continua in Rn with d(E), d(F ) > 0.
Then
M(∆(E, F )) ≥ τ (4s2 + 4s) ≥ cn log(1 + 1/s)
where s = d(E, F )/ min{d(E), d(F )} and cn > 0 is a constant depending only on
n.
This result can be improved to the following Lemma, which shows that M(∆(E, F ))
and s = d(E, F )/ min{d(E), d(F )} are simultaneously small or large, provided
that E, F are connected.
Lemma 4.31. [9, 2.30] For n ≥ 2 there are homeomorphisms h1 , h2 of the
positive real axis with the following property. If E, F are the components of the
n
complements of a nondegenerate ring domain in R , then
h1 (s) ≤ M(∆(E, F )) ≤ h2 (s),
where s = d(E, F )/ min{d(E), d(F )}.
256 A. Rasila IWQCMA05
n
Spherical metric. The stereographic projection π : R → S n ( 12 en+1 , 12 ) is de-
fined by
x − en+1
(4.32) π(x) = en+1 + , x ∈ Rn ; π(∞) = en+1 .
|x − en+1 |2
n
Stereographic projection is the restriction to R of the inversion in S n (en+1 , 1)
n+1
in R . Since π −1 = π, it follows that π maps the Riemann sphere S n ( 21 en+1 , 12 )
n n
onto R . The chordal metric q in R is defined by
n
(4.33) q(x, y) = |π(x) − π(y)|; x, y ∈ R .
Lemma 4.34. [22, 7.37] If R = R(E, F ) is a ring, then
1
(4.35) M(∆(E, F )) ≥ τ ,
q(E)q(F )
4q(E, F )
(4.36) M(∆(E, F )) ≥ τ .
q(E)q(F )
5. Quasiconformal mappings
A homeomorphism f : G → Rn , n ≥ 2, of a domain G in Rn is called qua-
siconformal if f is in ACLn , and there exists a constant K, 1 ≤ K < ∞ such
that
|f ′ (x)|n ≤ K|Jf (x)|, |f ′ (x)| = max |f ′ (x)h|,
|h|=1
′
a.e. in G, where f (x) is the formal derivative. The smallest K ≥ 1 for which
this inequality is true is called the outer dilatation of f and denoted by KO (f ).
If f is quasiconformal, then the smallest K ≥ 1 for which the inequality
|Jf (x)| ≤ Kl(f ′ (x))n , l(f ′ (x)) = min |f ′ (x)h|,
|h|=1
whenever Mj < min{w2 , 1/w} by Lemma 6.1. Because M(Γj ) ≤ K(M(f Γj )), the
estimates above yield
n−1
1 1
τ log ≤ 22n−1 Kωn−1 ,
d(Cj ) Mj
proving the first part of the claim.
The estimate (4.26) yields
λ
1−n n √ √ 1−n
τ (t) ≥ 2 ωn−1 log 1+t+ t
2
where t = 1/d(Cj ). It follows that
λ √
n
√ 1−n λ
n
√ 1−n
log 1+t+ t ≥ log (1 + 2 t)
2 2
λ
n 2 1−n
= log 1+ p .
2 d(Cj )
We note that
λ 1−n 1−n
n 2 λn
log 1+ p ≥ 2 log p
2 d(Cj ) d(Cj )
whenever j is large enough. Let v = λn . Now by Lemma 6.1
λ 1−n 1−n
n 1
2 log p ≥ 2 log ,
d(Cj ) d(Cj )
p
for d(Cj ) < min{v 2 , 1/v}. Hence
n−1 1−n n−1
1 1 2−2n 1 1
τ log ≤2 ωn−1 log log ,
d(Cj ) Mj d(Cj ) Mj
which gives the second part of the claim.
References
1. L. V. Ahlfors: Lectures on quasiconformal mappings, Van Nostrand Mathematical Stud-
ies, No. 10 D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Toronto, Ont.-New York-London, 1966.
2. C. Andreian–Cazacu: Foundations of quasiconformal mappings, Handbook of complex
analysis: geometric function theory, Vol. 2, edited by R. Kühnau, 687–753, Elsevier, Am-
sterdam, 2005.
3. G. D. Anderson, M. K. Vamanamurty and M. Vuorinen: Conformal invariants,
inequalities and quasiconformal mappings, Wiley-Interscience, 1997.
4. P. Caraman: n-dimensional quasiconformal (QCf) mappings, Editura Academiei
Române, Bucharest; Abacus Press, Newfoundland, N.J., 1974.
5. F. W. Gehring: Symmetrization of rings in space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 101 (1961)
499–519.
6. F. W. Gehring: The Carathéodory convergence theorem for quasiconformal mappings in
the space, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I 336/11, 1-21, 1963.
7. F. W. Gehring: Quasiconformal mappings, Complex analysis and its applications (Lec-
tures, Internat. Sem., Trieste, 1975), Vol. II, 213–268, IAEA, Vienna, 1976.
260 A. Rasila IWQCMA05
Toshiyuki Sugawa
Contents
1. Preliminary 262
1.1. Quasiconformal mappings 262
1.2. Hyperbolic Riemann surfaces 264
1.3. Quadratic differentials 264
1.4. Univalent functions 266
1.5. Grunsky inequality 266
1.6. Schwarzian derivative 268
2. The universal Teichmüller space 269
2.1. Definition 1: the quotient space of quasiconformal maps 269
2.2. Definition 2: quasisymmetric functions 269
2.3. Definition 3: marked quasidisks 270
2.4. Definition 4: Bers embedding 271
2.5. Equivalence of T1 through T4 271
3. Analytic properties of the Bers embedding 272
3.1. The Teichmüller space of a Riemann surface 272
3.2. Relationship with quasi-Teichmüller spaces 274
3.3. The Bers projection 275
3.4. Convexity 275
3.5. Teichmüller distance and other natural distances (metrics) 276
262 T. Sugawa IWQCMA05
1. Preliminary
In this section, we prepare basic tools to understand the universal Teichmüller space.
The material is more or less standard, but for convenience, an expository account will
be given without proofs. The most convenient reference for overall topics is perhaps the
recently published handbook [61].
fz µg − µf
(1.1.1) (µg◦f −1 ◦ f ) = .
fz 1 − µf · µg
Theorem 1.1.3 (The measurable Riemann mapping theorem). For any measurable
function µ on C with kµk∞ < 1, there exists a unique quasiconformal map f : C → C
such that f (0) = 0, f (1) = 1 and fz̄ = µfz a.e. in C.
For the proof of the theorem and for more information about quasiconformal maps,
the reader should consult the books [3] and [69] as well as the paper [4] by Ahlfors and
Bers. See also the article “Beltrami Equation”, by Srebro and Yakubov, in [61, vol. 2] for
the recent development.
We denote by Belt(D) the open unit ball of the space L∞ (D) for a domain (or, more
generally, a measurable set) D. An element µ of Belt(D) is called a Beltrami coefficient
on D. For a Beltrami coefficient µ on C, the function f given in the measurable Riemann
mapping theorem will be denoted by f µ throughout the present survey.
Let µ be a Beltrami coefficient on the outside D∗ of the unit disk. We extend µ to
µ∗ ∈ Belt(C) by setting µ∗ (z) = µ(1/z̄) for z ∈ D. Let f be a quasiconformal auto-
morphism of C b fixing 1, −1, −i with µf = µ∗ . Since f (z) and 1/f (1/z̄) both have the
same complex dilatation µ∗ and satisfy the same normalization condition, they must be
equal by uniqueness part of the measurable Riemann mapping theorem. In particular,
|f (z)|2 = 1 for z ∈ ∂D, and consequently, f maps D∗ onto itself. We define wµ : Cb→C b
by wµ = f. Recall that wµ fixes 1, −1 and −i.
The following fact was observed by Ahlfors and Bers [4].
264 T. Sugawa IWQCMA05
1.3. Quadratic differentials. Let H(D) be the set of analytic functions on the unit
disk D and let n be a non-negative integer. For a Fuchsian group Γ, a function ϕ ∈ H(D)
is said to be automorphic for Γ (with weight −2n) if ϕ satisfies the functional equation
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 265
(ϕ ◦ γ)(γ ′ )n = ϕ for every γ ∈ Γ, that is to say, ϕ(z)dz n is an invariant n-form for Γ. The
set of automorphic functions for Γ with weight −2n will be denoted by Hn (D, Γ).
An element ϕ of Hn (D, Γ) for a torsion-free Fuchsian group Γ projects to a holomorphic
n-form q = q(w)dwn on R = D/Γ so that p∗n q = ϕ(z)dz n , where p∗n q means the pull-back
q(p(w))(p′ (w))n of the n-form q by the canonical projection p : D → D/Γ.
We now define two norms for ϕ ∈ Hn (D, Γ) by
ZZ
kϕkAn (D,Γ) = |ϕ(z)|(1 − |z|2 )n−2 dxdy,
ω
where ω is a fundamental domain for Γ, that is, a subdomain of D such that ω ∩ γ(ω) = ∅
S
for every γ ∈ Γ with γ 6= id, γ∈Γ γ(ω̄) = D and ∂ω is of zero area. We denote by
An (D, Γ) and Bn (D, Γ) the subsets of Hn (D, Γ) consisting of ϕ with finite norm kϕkAn (D,Γ)
and kϕkBn (D,Γ) , respectively. It is easy to see that these become complex Banach spaces.
When Γ is the trivial group 1, we write An (D) and Bn (D) for An (D, 1) and Bn (D, 1),
respectively.
The definition of the spaces An (D) and Bn (D) can be extended for hyperbolic Riemann
surfaces R. Let Hn (R) denote the set of holomorphic n-forms on R and set
ZZ
kϕkAn (R) = |ϕ(w)|ρR (w)2−n dxdy,
R
for ϕ = ϕ(w)dwn in Hn (R). Here, we should note that |ϕ(w)|ρR (w)−n does not depend on
the choice of the local coordinate w, in other words, |ϕ|ρ−n
R can be regarded as a function
on R.
The Banach spaces An (D, Γ) and An (D/Γ) (resp. Bn (D, Γ) and Bn (D/Γ)) are isomet-
rically isomorphic through the pull-back p∗n by the projection p : D → D/Γ. Also, the
following invariance property is convenient to note.
1.4. Univalent functions. In connection with the universal Teichmüller space, the the-
ory of univalent functions is of particular importance. The best textbook in this direction
is [67] by O. Lehto.
We denote by S the set of analytic univalent functions f on the unit disk so normalized
that f (0) = 0 and f ′ (0) = 1. An analytic function f around the origin is said to be
strongly normalized if f (0) = f ′ (0) − 1 = f ′′ (0) = 0. Let S0 be the subset of S consisting
of strongly normalized functions. For f ∈ S , the function g = f /(1 + af ), where
a = f ′′ (0)/2, is strongly normalized but not necessarily analytic in D. It is thus natural
to consider the wider class
than S0 .
The following meromorphic counterpart is also useful in the theory of univalent func-
tions. Let Σ be the set of meromorphic univalent functions F on the exterior D∗ = {ζ ∈
b : |ζ| > 1} of the unit disk so normalized that
C
b1 b2
(1.4.1) F (ζ) = ζ + b0 + + 2 + ...
ζ ζ
in |ζ| > 1.
For f ∈ S , the function F (ζ) = 1/f (1/ζ) belongs to Σ and satisfies the condition
0∈/ F (D∗ ), and vice versa. Let Σ′ denote the set of those functions F ∈ Σ that satisfy
0∈/ F (D∗ ). Moreover, b0 = 0 for a function F (ζ) = ζ + b0 + b1 /ζ + . . . in Σ if and only if
f ∈ S˜0 , where f (z) = 1/F (1/z). Hence, if we set
Σ0 = {F ∈ Σ : F (ζ) − ζ → 0 as ζ → ∞},
the correspondence f (z) 7→ F (ζ) = 1/f (1/ζ) gives bijections of S˜0 onto Σ0 and of S0
onto Σ′0 , where we define Σ′0 = Σ0 ∩ Σ′ .
1.5. Grunsky inequality. For a meromorphic function F near the point at infinity with
an expansion of the form (1.4.1), we take a single-valued branch of log((F (ζ)−F (ω))/(ζ −
ω)) in |ζ| > R and |ω| > R for sufficiently large R > 0 and expand it in the form
X∞ X ∞
F (ζ) − F (ω) bj,k
log =−
ζ −ω j=1 k=1
ζ j ωk
there. The coefficients bj,k are called the Grunsky coefficients of F. It is easy to see that
bj,k = bk,j and b1,k = bk for j, k ≥ 1, where bk is the coefficient in (1.4.1). The last relation
is deduced in the following way. If we write F (ζ) = ζ + b0 + G(ζ), then G(ζ) = O(|ζ|−1 )
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 267
G(ζ) − G(ω)
= − lim ζ
ζ→∞ ζ −ω
= G(ω),
Theorem 1.5.1 (Grunsky). A meromorphic function F (ζ) with expansion of the form
(1.4.1) around ζ = ∞ is analytically continued to a univalent meromorphic function in
|ζ| > 1 if and only if the inequality
∞ 2
X∞ X X∞
|xj |2
(1.5.2) k bj,k xj ≤
j
k=1 j=1 j=1
The inequality in (1.5.2) is known as the strong Grunsky inequality. Noting b1,k = bk ,
we take (x1 , x2 , x3 , . . . ) = (1, 0, 0, . . . ) to obtain
∞
X
(1.5.3) k|bk |2 ≤ 1.
k=1
√
The symmetric matrix ( jkbj,k ) defines a linear operator on ℓ2 , where bj,k are the
Grunsky coefficient of a meromorphic function F (ζ) around ζ = ∞. This is sometimes
called the Grunsky operator and will be denoted by G[F ] in the following. The strong
268 T. Sugawa IWQCMA05
Grunsky inequality says that F ∈ Σ if and only if G[F ] is a bounded linear operator on
ℓ2 with operator norm ≤ 1. Here, the operator norm kG[F ]k of G[F ] is defined by
∞
∞ X
2
X p
2
kG[F ]k = sup jkbj,k yj ,
kyk2 =1
k=1 j=1
P
where kyk2 = ( k |yk |2 )1/2 for y = (y1 , y2 , . . . ). Thus, F ∈ Σ ⇔ kG[F ]k ≤ 1. It is
known (cf. [86]) that F has a quasiconformal extension to C b if and only if kG[F ]k < 1.
See also the article “Univalent holomorphic functions with quasiconformal extensions”, by
Krushkal, in [61, vol. 2].
These are called the pre-Schwarzian derivative and the Schwarzian derivative of f, respec-
tively. Note that Tf is analytic at a finite point z0 if and only if f is analytic and injective
around z0 . Similarly, Sf is analytic at z0 if and only if f is meromorphic and injective
around z0 . The following two lemmas show usefulness of these operations.
Lemma 1.6.2. Let f and g be non-constant meromorphic functions for which the com-
position f ◦ g is defined. Then
Tf ◦g = (Tf ) ◦ g · g ′ + Tg = g1∗ (Tf ) + Tg ,
Sf ◦g = (Sf ) ◦ g · (g ′ )2 + Sg = g2∗ (Sf ) + Sg .
Combining these lemmas, we observe that SL◦f ◦M = M2∗ (Sf ) for Möbius transforma-
tions L and M. Thus the Schwarzian derivative behaves like a quadratic differential.
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 269
We have two choices to develop the theory of the (universal) Teichmüller space; the
unit disk model or the upper half-plane model. Although they can be translated into
each other, in principle, via the Möbius transformation z 7→ (z − i)/(z + i), both models
have their own advantage and thus can be chosen at will according to the purpose. In the
present survey, we will take the unit disk model to connect with the theory of univalent
functions in a direct way.
1
d1 (p, q) = inf log K(g1 ◦ f1−1 ).
f1 ∼f,g1 ∼g 2
T T
Recall here that K(f ) denotes the maximal dilatation of f. By a compactness property
of quasiconformal maps, one can check that d1 (p, q) is indeed a distance on T1 . In this
way, T1 becomes a metric space. It can also be shown that T1 is a complete metric
space with metric d1 by a normality property of the set of normalized K-quasiconformal
automorphisms of C (see [69]).
1 |h(ei(s+t) ) − h(eis )| π
≤ ≤ M, s ∈ R, 0 < t <
M |h(eis ) − h(ei(s−t) )| 2
for a constant M ≥ 1. The set of all quasisymmetric functions on the unit circle will be
denoted by QS(∂D). The main result in [18] can be stated as follows.
270 T. Sugawa IWQCMA05
Two functions h1 and h2 on the unit circle are called Möbius equivalent if there exists
a disk automorphism L ∈ Aut(D) such that h2 = L ◦ h1 . Let T2 denote the quotient space
of QS(∂D) by the Möbius equivalence. By the above theorem of Beurling and Ahlfors,
one readily sees that T1 can be identified with T2 in a natural manner.
In order to get rid of taking quotient, we can define T2 as follows. A (sense-preserving)
homeomorphism h of ∂D is said to be normalized if h fixes the points 1, −1 and −i. Since
every Möbius equivalence class of quasisymmetric functions is represented by a unique
normalized one, one can identify T2 with the set of normalized quasisymmetric functions
on the unit circle.
See [37] for a modern treatment of quasisymmetric functions. The survey article “Uni-
versal Teichmüller space”, by Gardiner and Harvey, in [61, vol. 1] puts emphasis on the
connection with quasisymmetric functions.
for p, q ∈ T3 .
We can again take a suitable normalization to avoid the process of quotient and even
marking. For instance, we may say that a quasidisk D is normalized if its boundary
contains the points 0, 1 and ∞ in positive order along the boundary curve. If we denote
b then T3 can be identified with Q0 naturally,
by Q0 the set of normalized quasidisks in C,
and the restriction of the distance d on Q0 corresponds to the distance d3 on T3 .
In the above, the marking is important. For two simply connected hyperbolic domains
D1 and D2 , we set
d(D, D′ ) = inf kSf kB2 (D) .
f :D→D conformal
′
Thus T4 = T (D∗ ) inherits a complex structure and a metric from B2 (D∗ ). We denote by
d4 the distance, namely, d4 (ϕ, ψ) = kϕ − ψkB2 (D∗ ) for ϕ, ψ ∈ T4 . Since T (D∗ ) is bounded,
the distance d4 is not complete.
2.5. Equivalence of T1 through T4 . We see now that the above definitions of the
universal Teichmüller space are all equivalent. Firstly, consider the restriction map
QC(D) → QS(∂D) defined by f 7→ f |∂D . Then this map yields a bijection of T1 onto
T2 .
Secondly, we see the equivalence of T3 and T4 . For ϕ ∈ T4 = T (D∗ ), by definition,
there exists a quasiconformal map f of Cb fixing 0, 1, ∞ such that f is conformal on D∗
and satisfies Sf = ϕ. Then the image D = f (D∗ ) is a normalized quasidisk. Therefore, the
correspondence ϕ 7→ D gives a map T4 → T3 . We next show that this map is bijective.
272 T. Sugawa IWQCMA05
on ∂D, the map g is continuous on C. b Since C = f (∂D) and g(C) = f1 (∂D) are both
b Since µg = 0 a.e., we conclude
quasicircles, it turns out that g is quasiconformal in C.
that g is conformal, hence, a Möbius map. Because of the relation f1 = g ◦ f on f (D∗ ),
Sf = Sf1 follows as required.
In this way, we obtain the mapping of T1 to T4 : [h] 7→ Sf |∗D . It is not difficult to see
that this mapping is bijective. This map is called the Bers embedding.
Set
QC(D, Γ) = {h ∈ QC(D) : hΓh−1 is Fuchsian}
T
and denote by Teich(Γ) the quotient space QC(D, Γ)/∼. As we have seen, Teich(R) and
Teich(Γ) are canonically isomorphic through the universal covering projection p : D →
D/Γ = R. Also, Teich(Γ) is naturally contained in Teich(1) = T1 . In this sense, the
universal Teichmüller space T (D∗ ) contains all the Teichmüller space of an arbitrary
hyperbolic Riemann surface.
By using (1.1.1), the complex dilatation of f ∈ QC(D, Γ) is seen to be contained in
Furthermore, for h ∈ QC(D, Γ), let f be the function constructed in §2.5 and let γ ∈ Γ.
Since f and γ ◦ f ◦ γ −1 has the same complex dilatation, γ ◦ f ◦ γ −1 = L ◦ f for an
L ∈ Aut(C) b = Möb by Lemma 1.1.2. Lemma 1.6.2 now implies that γ ∗ (Sf ) = Sf .
2
Therefore, Sf is contained in the closed subspace B2 (D∗ , Γ) of B2 (D∗ ) defined in §1.3. As
in the previous section, we see that Sf depends only on the Teichmüller equivalence class
of h in QC(D, Γ) and the corresponding h 7→ Sf is one-to-one, we obtain an embedding
βΓ : Teich(D, Γ) → B2 (D∗ , Γ), which is called the Bers embedding of Teich(D, Γ). We set
T (D∗ , Γ) = βΓ (Teich(D, Γ)).
Bers [15] showed that T (D∗ , Γ) is a bounded domain in B2 (D∗ , Γ). It is obvious that
T (D∗ , Γ) is contained in T (D∗ ) by definition. Indeed, by using the Douady-Earle extension
[28], it can be seen that
T (D∗ , Γ) = T (D∗ ) ∩ B2 (D∗ , Γ)
and that T (D∗ , Γ) is contractible.
274 T. Sugawa IWQCMA05
For a circle domain ∆ and a Fuchsian group Γ acting on ∆, the set S(∆, Γ) sometimes
called the quasi-Teichmüller space of Γ. (But, note that this terminology is not popular.)
Clearly, T (D, G) ⊂ S(D, G). It is easy to see that S(D∗ ) is closed while, as Ahlfors
showed, T (D∗ ) is open in B2 (D∗ ). The boundary of T (∆, Γ) in B2 (∆, Γ) is called the Bers
boundary and is important in relation with the deformation theory of Kleinian groups
(see [16]).
When G is the trivial group 1, we write S(D), T (D) for S(D, 1), T (D, 1), respectively.
Note that under the mapping f 7→ Sf , the sets S˜0 and Σ0 correspond to S(D) and
S(D∗ ), respectively, in one-to-one fashion. It is a challenging problem to characterize
those functions f in S whose Schwarzian derivatives lie on ∂T (D). See [7] and [43] for
some attempts.
In 1970’s, it had been a conjecture of Bers [16] that the closure of T (D∗ ) in B2 (D∗ )
is S(D∗ ). In 1978, Gehring [39] disproved it. Prior to it, Gehring [38] proved the weaker
assertion that the interior of S(D∗ ) in B2 (D∗ ) coincides with T (D∗ ). See [34] for a relevant
result. Thurston [110] proved the more striking result that S(D∗ ) even has an isolated
point in B2 (D∗ ) (see also [5]). After that, the Bers conjecture was reformulated in the form
that the closure of T (D∗ , Γ) is equal to S(D∗ , Γ) for a cofinite Fuchsian group Γ, that is, a
finitely generated Fuchsian group of the first kind. (This is nowadays generalized to the
Bers-Thurston density conjecture.) Shiga [95] proved a weaker version of it: the interior of
S(D∗ , Γ) in B2 (D∗ , Γ) coincides with T (D∗ , Γ) for a cofinite Γ. In the line of these studies,
the author showed that S(D∗ , Γ) \ T (D∗ ) 6= ∅ for a Fuchsian group Γ of the second kind
([99]) and that the interior of S(D∗ , Γ) in B2 (D∗ , Γ) coincides with T (D∗ , Γ) for a finitely
generated, purely hyperbolic Fuchsian group Γ of the second kind ([100]). Matsuzaki [71]
generalized the former to the case of a certain kind of infinitely generated Fuchsian groups
of the first kind. In recent years, a huge amount of progress has been made in the theory
of Kleinian groups, which enabled to prove the Bers-Thurston conjecture partially. See,
for instance, [20] and [80] for partial solutions to the conjecture.
3.3. The Bers projection. Let D be a hyperbolic domain in C b and denote by E its
complement in C. b We define the map Φ : Belt(E) → B2 (D) by Φ(µ) = Sf µ | , where f µ
D
for ν ∈ L∞ (E). Bers [15] strengthened Ahlfors’ theorem (Theorem 2.4.1) to the following
form.
Theorem 3.3.1. The Bers projection Φ : Belt(D) → T (D∗ ) is a holomorphic split
submersion, in other words, the Fréchet derivative of Φ at every point exists and has a
(bounded) left inverse.
Indeed, Bers showed the above theorem for the projection Φ : Belt(D, Γ) → T (D∗ , Γ)
for an arbitrary Fuchsian group Γ. In particular, T (D∗ , Γ) is shown to be an open subset
of B2 (D∗ , Γ).
3.4. Convexity. Krushkal [57] proved that the Bers embedding T (D∗ ) of the universal
Teichmüller space is not starlike with respect to any point, and hence, not convex in
B2 (D∗ ). For non-starlikeness of general Teichmüller spaces, see Krushkal [60] and Toki
[111].
In spite of the above fact, the (Bers embededing of the) Teichmüller spaces enjoy many
kinds of convexity properties. We briefly list some of them in this subsection.
The most useful is perhaps the following “disk convexity” due to Zhuravlev [117], which
is shown as an application of the Grunsky inequality. A weaker version can be proved
also by the λ-lemma (see [102]).
Then α(D) ⊂ S(D∗ , Γ). Furthermore, if α(D)∩T (D∗ ) is non-empty, then α(D) ⊂ T (D∗ , Γ).
Outline of the proof. For each z ∈ D, there exists a unique Fz ∈ Σ0 such that SFz = α(z).
Let B(ℓ2 ) denote the complex Hilbert space consisting of bounded linear operators on ℓ2 .
Then the map β : D → B(ℓ2 ) defined by z 7→ G[Fz ] turns to be holomorphic. Then the
(generalized) maximum principle implies that
sup kβ(z)k = sup kβ(z)k ≤ 1
z∈D z∈∂D
and that either kβ(z)k < 1 for all z ∈ D or else kβ(z)k = 1 for all z ∈ D. Theorem
1.5.1 now yields that α(D) ⊂ S(D∗ ). If we assume that α(z0 ) ∈ T (D∗ ) for some point
z0 ∈ D in addition, then kβ(z0 )k < 1 and thus kβ(z)k < 1 for all z ∈ D. This means that
α(D) ⊂ T (D∗ ) ∩ B2 (D∗ , Γ) = T (D∗ , Γ).
We remark that the above argument is a variant of Lehto’s principle (see [13] or [67]).
A more sophisticated application of Grunsky inequality to Teichmüller spaces can be
found in [96].
Bers and Ehrenpreis [17] proved that finite dimensional Teichmüller spaces are holo-
morphically convex. Krushkal [58] strengthened it by showing that the Teichmüller space
of an arbitrary Riemann surface R is complex hyperconvex, that is to say, there exists a
negative plurisubharmonic function u(x) on Teich(R) such that u(x) → 0 when x tends to
∞. He proved it by pointing out that the function log tanh(d(x, y)) gives the Green func-
tion on Teich(R), where d(x, y) denotes the Teichmüller distance of Teich(R). Krushkal
[59] also proved that finite dimensional Teichmüller spaces are polynomially convex.
3.5. Teichmüller distance and other natural distances (metrics). In §2, we de-
fined two kinds of distances on the universal Teichmüller space; the Teichmüller distance
and the distance induced by the Bers embedding. These distances can be defined for the
Teichmüller space of an arbitrary Riemann surface. On the other hand, since Teichmüller
spaces have complex structure, it carries natural invariant distances for holomorphic maps
(see [46] or [52] as a general reference).
Let X be a complex (Banach) manifold. The Kobayashi pseudo-distance dK (x, y) is
defined as
N
X
inf dD (zj−1 , zj ),
j=1
where the infimum is taken over all finitely many holomorphic maps fj : D → X (j =
1, . . . , N ) which satisfy fj (zj ) = fj+1 (zj )(1 < j < N ), f1 (z0 ) = x, and fN (zN ) = y. Here,
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 277
The following theorem was proved by Royden [91] for finite dimensional case and by
Gardiner (see [35] or [36]) for general case. (For a simple proof using the λ-lemma, see
[32].)
For other invariant metrics on Teichmüller spaces, see [75, Appendix 6].
Earle [31] proved that the Carathéodory (pseudo)distance of the Teichmüller space of
an arbitrary Fuchsian group is complete.
The Weil-Petersson metric is another important (Riemannian) metric on finite dimen-
sional Teichmüller spaces. Since the complex structure of the Teichmüller space of a
general Riemann surface is modelled on a complex Banach space which may not be re-
flexive, this metric cannot be defined on general Teichmüller spaces unless the structure
of the space is changed. However, some attempts were made to construct analogs of the
Weil-Petersson metric on the universal Teichmüller space, see [76], [77], [107], [108].
4. Pre-Schwarzian models
The Schwarzian derivative plays an important role in the definition of the Teichmüller
space. But, it is not easy to treat with Schwarzian derivative, in general, because of its
complicated form. Therefore, some attempts of replacing Schwarzian by pre-Schwarzian
have been made. See [116] and [6]. Though the pre-Schwarzian model is sometimes
called “poor man’s model” (cf. [43]) since it does not have much invariance, this model is
interesting in connection with geometric function theory.
When dealing with pre-Schwarzian derivative, the point at infinity plays a special role.
Therefore, we have to consider the case ∞ ∈ D separately.
4.1. The models T̂ (D) and T̂ (H). Let ∆ be a disk or a half-plane in C. Set
We recall that the pre-Schwarzian derivative vanishes only when the function is affine.
Since each circle domain in C is similar (affinely equivalent) to either the unit disk D or
the half-plane H = {z ∈ C : Im z > 0}. Therefore, we may restrict ourselves on the two
cases ∆ = D and H. First let f ∈ S . By the well-known inequality (cf. [29])
(4.1.1) (1 − |z|2 )Tf (z) − 2z̄ ≤ 4,
we obtain kTf kB1 (D) ≤ 6. In particular, Ŝ(D) ⊂ B1 (D). Note also that the constant 6 is
sharp as the Koebe function K(z) = z/(1 − z)2 shows. It is easy to see that Ŝ(D) is closed
in B1 (D).
Let L(z) = (z − i)/(z + i). Note that kTL kB1 (H) = 4 and hence TL ∈ T̂ (H). Since
L∗1 : B1 (D) → B1 (H) is a linear isometry and Tf ◦L = L∗1 (Tf ) + TL , the space T̂ (H) is
contained in B1 (H) and it is isometrically equivalent to T̂ (D). In this sense, it is enough
to consider only T̂ (D).
Theorem 4.1.2. The interior of Ŝ(D) in B1 (D) is equal to T̂ (D), while the closure of
T̂ (D) in B1 (D) is not equal to Ŝ(D). Moreover, ∂T (D) \ π(∂ T̂ (D)) is not empty.
Theorem 4.1.3 (Zhuravlev). The space T̂ (D) decomposes into the uncountably many
connected components T̂0 and T̂ω , ω ∈ ∂D, where
T̂0 = {Tf ∈ T̂ (D) : f (D) is bounded } and T̂ω = {Tf ∈ T̂ (D) : f (z) → ∞ as z → ω}.
Moreover, {ψ ∈ B1 (D) : kψ − ψω kB1 (D) < 1} ⊂ T̂ω holds for each ω ∈ ∂D, where ψω (z) =
2ω̄/(1 − ω̄z) is the pre-Schwarzian derivative of the function z/(1 − ω̄z).
Note that the map π is not injective even in each connected component of T̂ (D).
Therefore, we should note that this model of the universal Teichmüller space has some
redundancy.
4.2. The model T̂ (D∗ ). There is some subtlety in consideration of the pre-Schwarzian
model of the universal Teichmüller space T̂ (D∗ ) on the exterior D∗ of the unit circle. The
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 279
first thing to note is the fact that the Banach space B1 (D∗ ) is not the right space on which
T̂ (D∗ ) is modeled. We define
Ŝ(D∗ ) = {TF : F ∈ Σ}
and
b
T̂ (D∗ ) = {TF : F ∈ Σ extends to a quasiconformal map of C}.
If F (ζ) = ζ + b0 + b1 /ζ + b2 /ζ 2 + . . . , then TF (ζ) = 2b1 /ζ 3 + · · · = O(ζ −3 ) as ζ → ∞.
Therefore, the norm
(4.2.1) B(ψ) = sup (|ζ|2 − 1)|ζψ(ζ)|
ζ∈D∗
is more natural. Indeed, Becker’s univalence criterion [12] and Avhadiev’s inequality [8]
′′
ζF (ζ)
(4.2.2) (|ζ| − 1) ′
2 ≤6
F (ζ)
imply the following result.
We set
B1′ (D∗ ) = {ψ ∈ B1 (D∗ ) : lim ζ 2 ψ(ζ) = 0}.
ζ→∞
respect to the origin (convex). We denote by S ∗ and K the sets of starlike and convex
functions in A , respectively. A function f ∈ A is called close-to-convex if eiα f ′ /g ′ has
positive real part in D for a convex function g and for a real constant α. Denote by C the
set of close-to-convex functions in A . It is known that C ⊂ S (cf. [29]).
It is interesting to see how pre-Schwarzians of those functions are located in the space
Ŝ(D). The following result gives an answer to this question.
Theorem 4.3.1 ([27], [51]). {Tf : f ∈ K } and {Tf : f ∈ C } are both convex subsets of
Ŝ(D).
Conjecture 4.3.2 ([48]). The subset {Tf : f ∈ S ∗ } of Ŝ(D) is starlike with respect to
the origin.
Note that the vector operations in B1 (D) is translated to the Hornich operations in
the space of uniformly locally univalent functions (see, for example, [48]). Also, see Casey
[22] for relations between subclasses of S and (the closure) of T̂ (D).
5. Univalence criteria
As is well developed in Lehto’s textbook [67], univalence criteria are closely connected
with the universal Teichmüller space. The present section will be devoted to this topic.
5.1. Univalence criteria due to Nehari and Ahlfors-Weill. Nehari [78] proved the
following result, which is fundamental in the Teichmüller spaces.
Theorem 5.1.1. Every meromorphic univalent function f on the unit disk satisfies
the inequality kSf kB2 (D) ≤ 6. Conversely, if a meromorphic function f on the unit disk
satisfies the inequality kSf kB2 (D) ≤ 2, then f must be univalent.
The constants 6 and 2 are sharp since the Koebe function K(z) = z/(1 − z)2 satisfies
kSK kB2 (D) = 6 and since the function f (z) = ((1 + z)/(1 − z))iǫ , ǫ > 0, is never univalent
but kSf kB2 (D) = 2(1 + ε2 ) can approach 2 (Hille [44]). The former assertion was first
proved by Kraus [56] and reproved by Nehari. Therefore, it is called nowadays the Kraus-
Nehari theorem. The Kraus-Nehari theorem is a consequence of the Bieberbach theorem.
By the Möbius invariance of (1 − |z|2 )2 |Sf (z)|, it is enough to show the inequality only at
the origin, namely, |Sf (0)| ≤ 6 for f ∈ S . A straightforward computation gives Sf (0) =
6(a3 − a22 ) for f (z) = z + a2 z 2 + a3 z 3 + . . . . If we set F (ζ) = 1/f (1/ζ) = ζ + b0 + b1 /ζ + . . . ,
then b1 = a22 − a3 , and thus the inequality |b1 | ≤ 1 (see (1.5.3)) implies the required one.
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 281
The class N = {f ∈ A : kSf kB2 (D) ≤ 2} is sometimes called the Nehari class. Gehring
and Pommerenke [41] showed that f ∈ N maps the unit disk conformally onto a Jordan
domain unless f (D) is Möbius equivalent to the parallel strip {z : |Im z| < π/4}. For
further development, see [24], [25] and [26].
In connection with Nehari’s theorem, Ahlfors and Weill established the following quasi-
conformal extension criterion. For ϕ ∈ B2 (D∗ ) with kϕkB2 (D∗ ) < 2, we set α[ϕ] ∈ Belt(D)
by α[ϕ](z) = −ρD (z)−2 ϕ(1/z̄)z̄ −4 /2. Note that the map α is the restriction of a bounded
linear operator which maps B2 (D∗ , Γ)2 = {ϕ ∈ B2 (D∗ , Γ) : kϕkB2 (D) < 2} into Belt(D∗ , Γ)
for every Fuchsian group Γ.
Theorem 5.1.2 (Ahlfors-Weill). The map α : B2 (D∗ )2 → Belt(D) is the local inverse
of the Bers projection Φ : Belt(D) → T (D∗ ), in other words, Φ(α[ϕ]) = ϕ for ϕ ∈ B2 (D∗ )
with kϕkB2 (D∗ ) < 2.
Corollary 5.1.3. The universal Teichmüller space T(D∗ ) contains the open ball centered
at the origin with radius 2 in B2 (D∗ ).
5.2. Inner radius and outer radius. Let D be a hyperbolic domain in C. b The inner
radius σI (D) and the outer radius σO (D) of univalence is defined respectively by
σI (D) = sup{σ ≥ 0 : kSf kB2 (D) ≤ σ ⇒ f is univalent in D},
b is univalent}.
σO (D) = sup{kSf kB2 (D) : f : D → C
We also define the number τ (D) ∈ [0, +∞] as kSp kB2 (D) , where p is a holomorphic universal
covering projection of D onto D. The quantity τ (D) is independent of the choice of p and
thus well defined. Note that τ (D) < ∞ if and only if ∂D is uniformly perfect (cf. [87] or
[103]).
Summarizing theorems of Ahlfors [2], Gehring [38], Nehari [78], we obtain the following.
Theorem 5.2.1. σI (∆) = 2, σO (∆) = 6, τ (∆) = 0 hold for a circle domain ∆. Let D be
a simply connected hyperbolic domain. Then σO (∆) ≤ 12 and τ (D) ≤ 6. Moreover, D is
a quasidisk if and only if σI (D) > 0.
It is a remarkable fact due to Beardon and Gehring [10] that σO (D) ≤ 12 holds even for
an arbitrary hyperbolic domain D.
The inner and outer radii of univalence are better understood in the context of (quasi-)
Teichmüller space.
Theorem 5.2.3. The relation σO (D) = τ (D) + 6 holds for a simply connected hyperbolic
domain D. Furthermore, 2 − τ (D) ≤ σI (R) ≤ min{2, 6 − τ (D)}.
As for the quantity τ (D), the following are known. For a convex domain D, we have
τ (D) ≤ 2. This result is repeatedly re-discovered by many mathematicians; [85], [90],
[112], [79], [65]. Suita [106] refined this result by showing the sharp inequality
(
2, 0 ≤ α ≤ 1/2,
τ (f (D)) ≤
8α(1 − α), 1/2 ≤ α ≤ 1
5.3. Pre-Schwarzian counterpart. One can define quantities similarly as in the pre-
vious section with respect to pre-Schwarzian derivative. We add the symbol ˆ to indicate
it. For instance,
σ̂I (D) = sup{σ ≥ 0 : kTf kB1 (D) ≤ σ ⇒ f is univalent in D}
for a hyperbolic domain D in C. In the case when D = D∗ , we adopt the norm B(ψ) :
σ̂I (D∗ ) = sup{σ ≥ 0 : B(TF ) ≤ σ ⇒ f is univalent in D∗ }.
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 283
√
Duren, Shapiro and Shields [30] proved that σ̂I (D) ≥ 2( 5−2) = 0.472 · · · by observing
that kψ ′ kB2 (D) ≤ 4kψkB1 (D) and thus π(ψ) = ψ ′ − ψ 2 /2 is a continuous map of B1 (D) into
√ √
B2 (D). Note that Wirths [114] found the sharp constant C = (13 3 + 55 11)/64 =
3.20204 . . . for the estimate kψ ′ kB2 (D) ≤ CkψkB1 (D) . Nowadays, the best value for this
univalence criterion is known.
Theorem 5.3.1. σ̂I (∆) = 1 and σ̂O (∆) = 6 for ∆ = D, H and D∗ .
Becker [11], [12] showed that σ̂I (D) ≥ 1 and σ̂I (D∗ ) ≥ 1 and Becker-Pommerenke [14]
showed that equality hold for ∆ = D and that σ̂I (H) = 1. Pommerenke [88] showed the
sharpness for ∆ = D∗ .
By (4.1.1) and the fact that the Koebe function K satisfies kTK kB1 (D) = 6, we see that
σ̂O (D) = 6. σ̂O (H) = 6 can be seen by noting the relation
kψkB1 (H) = lim kψkB1 (∆r )
r→1−
for ψ ∈ B1 (H), where ∆r = {z : |z − i(1 + r2 )/(1 − r2 )| < 2r/(1 − r2 )}. The formula
σ̂O (D∗ ) = 6 follows from the fact that the inequality in (4.2.2) is sharp for each ζ.
For concrete estimates of τ̂ (D) for several geometric classes of domains, see [115], [101],
[81], [49], [50].
In spite of relative simplicity of the operation Tf , very little is known for quantities
σ̂I (D) and σ̂O (D). Stowe [97] gave non-trivial examples of domains D for which σ̂I (D) ≥ 1.
References
1. W. Abikoff, The Real Analytic Theory of Teichmüller Space, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol.
820, Springer-Verlag, 1976.
2. L. V. Ahlfors, Quasiconformal reflections, Acta Math. 109 (1963), 291–301.
3. , Lectures on Quasiconformal Mappings, van Nostrand, 1966.
4. L. V. Ahlfors and L. Bers, Riemann’s mapping theorem for variable metrics, Ann. of Math. (2) 72
(1960), 385–404.
5. K. Astala, Selfsimilar zippers, Holomorphic Functions and Moduli I (D. Drasin, C. J. Earle, F. W.
Gehring, I. Kra, and A. Marden, eds.), Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp. 61–73.
6. K. Astala and F. W. Gehring, Injectivity, the BM O norm and the universal Teichmüller space, J.
Analyse Math. 46 (1986), 16–57.
7. , Crickets, zippers, and the Bers universal Teichmüller space, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 110
(1990), 675–687.
8. F. G. Avhadiev, Conditions for the univalence of analytic functions (Russian), Izv. Vysš. Učebn.
Zaved. Matematika 1970 (1970), no. 11 (102), 3–13.
9. R. W. Barnard, L. Cole, K. Pearce, and G. B. Williams, The sharp bound for deformation of a disk
under a hyperbolically convex map, to appear in Proc. London Math. Soc.
10. A. F. Beardon and F. W. Gehring, Schwarzian derivatives, the Poincaré metric and the kernel
function, Comment. Math. Helv. 55 (1980), 50–64.
11. J. Becker, Löwnersche Differentialgleichung und quasikonform fortsetzbare schlichte Funktionen, J.
Reine Angew. Math. 255 (1972), 23–43.
12. , Löwnersche Differentialgleichung und Schlichtheitskriterien, Math. Ann. 202 (1973), 321–
335.
13. , Conformal mappings with quasiconformal extensions, Aspects of Contemporary Complex
Analysis, Proc. Conf. Durham, 1979, Academic Press, 1980, pp. 37–77.
14. J. Becker and Ch. Pommerenke, Schlichtheitskriterien und Jordangebiete, J. Reine Angew. Math.
354 (1984), 74–94.
15. L. Bers, A non-standard integral equation with applications to quasiconformal mappings, Acta Math.
116 (1966), 113–134.
16. , On boundaries of Teichmüller spaces and on Kleinian groups: I, Ann. of Math. (2) 91
(1970), 570–600.
17. L. Bers and L. Ehrenpreis, Holomorphic convexity of Teichmüller spaces, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.
70 (1964), 761–764.
18. A. Beurling and L. V. Ahlfors, The boundary correspondence for quasiconformal mappings, Acta
Math. 96 (1956), 125–142.
19. V. Božin and V. Marković, Distance between domains in the sense of Lehto is not a metric, Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 24 (1999), 3–10.
20. J. Brock and K. Bromberg, On the density of geometrically finite Kleinian groups, Acta Math. 192
(2004), 33–93.
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 285
21. D. Calvis, The inner radius of univalence of normal circular triangles and regular polygons, Complex
Variables Theory Appl. 4 (1985), 295–304.
22. S. D. Casey, The inclusion of classical families in the closure of the universal Teichmüller space,
Michigan Math. J. 39 (1992), 189–199.
23. Y. M. Chiang, Some remarks on Lehto’s domain constant, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 17
(1992), 285–293.
24. M. Chuaqui and B. Osgood, Sharp distortion theorems associated with the Schwarzian derivative, J.
London Math. Soc. 48 (1993), 289–298.
25. M. Chuaqui, B. Osgood, and Ch. Pommerenke, John domains, quasidisks, and the Nehari class, J.
Reine Angew. Math. 471 (1996), 77–114.
26. M. Chuaqui and Ch. Pommerenke, Characteristic properties of Nehari functions, Pacific J. Math.
188 (1999), 83–94.
27. J. A. Cima and J. A. Pfaltzgraff, A Banach space of locally univalent functions, Michigan Math. J.
17 (1970), 321–334.
28. A. Douady and C. J. Earle, Conformally natural extensions of homeomorphisms of the circle, Acta
Math. 157 (1986), 23–48.
29. P. L. Duren, Univalent Functions, Springer-Verlag, 1983.
30. P. L. Duren, H. S. Shapiro, and A. L. Shields, Singular measures and domains not of Smirnov type,
Duke Math. J. 33 (1966), 247–254.
31. C. J. Earle, On the Carathéodory metric in Teichmüller spaces, Discontinuous groups and Riemann
surfaces (Proc. Conf., Univ. Maryland, College Park, Md., 1973), Princeton Univ. Press, 1974,
pp. 99–103. Ann. of Math. Studies, No. 79.
32. C. J. Earle, I. Kra, and S. L. Krushkal’, Holomorphic motions and Teichmüller spaces, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 343 (1994), 927–948.
33. C. J. Earle and C. McMullen, Quasiconformal isotopies, Holomorphic Functions and Moduli I
(D. Drasin, C. J. Earle, F. W. Gehring, I. Kra, and A. Marden, eds.), Springer-Verlag, 1988,
pp. 143–154.
34. B. Flinn, Jordan domains and the universal Teichmüller space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 282 (1984),
603–610.
35. F. P. Gardiner, Teichmüller Theory and Quadratic Differentials, Wiley-Intersciences, New York,
1987.
36. F. P. Gardiner and N. Lakic, Quasiconformal Teichmüller Theory, Amer. Math. Soc., 2000.
37. F. P. Gardiner and D. Sullivan, Symmetric structures on a closed curve, Amer. J. Math. 114 (1992),
683–736.
38. F. W. Gehring, Univalent functions and the Schwarzian derivative, Comment. Math. Helv. 52
(1977), 561–572.
39. , Spirals and the universal Teichmüller space, Acta Math. 141 (1978), 99–113.
40. , Characteristic Properties of Quasidisks, Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 1982.
41. F. W. Gehring and Ch. Pommerenke, On the Nehari univalence criterion and quasicircles, Comment.
Math. Helv. 1984 (59), 226–242.
42. G. M. Goluzin, Geometric theory of functions of a complex variable, American Mathematical Society,
Providence, R.I., 1969, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 26.
43. D. H. Hamilton, The closure of Teichmüller space, J. Analyse Math. 55 (1990), 40–50.
44. E. Hille, Remarks on a paper by Zeev Nehari, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 55 (1949), 552–553.
45. Y. Imayoshi and M. Taniguchi, An introduction to Teichmüller spaces, Springer-Tokyo, 1992.
286 T. Sugawa IWQCMA05
46. M. Jarnicki and P. Pflug, Invariant Distances and Metrics in Complex Analysis, Walter de Gruyter,
Berlin-New York, 1993.
47. C. I. Kalme, Remarks on a paper by Lipman Bers, Ann. of Math. (2) 91 (1970), 601–606.
48. Y. C. Kim, S. Ponnusamy, and T. Sugawa, Mapping properties of nonlinear integral operators and
pre-Schwarzian derivatives, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 299 (2004), 433–447.
49. Y. C. Kim and T. Sugawa, Growth and coefficient estimates for uniformly locally univalent functions
on the unit disk, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 32 (2002), 179–200.
50. , Norm estimates of the pre-schwarzian derivatives for certain classes of univalent functions,
Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 49 (2006), 1–13.
51. Y. J. Kim and E. P. Merkes, On certain convex sets in the space of locally schlicht functions, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 196 (1974), 217–224.
52. S. Kobayashi, Hyperbolic manifolds and holomorphic mappings, second ed., World Scientific Pub-
lishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2005, An introduction.
53. W. Koepf, Close-to-convex functions, univalence criteria and quasiconformal extensions, Ann. Univ.
Marie Curie-Sklodowska 40 (1986), 97–103.
54. Y. Komori and T. Sugawa, Bers embedding of the Teichmüller space of a once-punctured torus,
Conform. Geom. Dyn. 8 (2004), 115–142.
55. Y. Komori, T. Sugawa, M. Wada, and Y. Yamashita, Drawing Bers embeddings of the Teichmüller
space of once-punctured tori, to appear in Exper. Math.
56. W. Kraus, Über den Zusamenhang einiger Charakteristiken eines einfach zusammenhängenden Bere-
iches mit der Kreisabbildung, Mitt. Math. Sem. Giessen 21 (1932), 1–28.
57. S. L. Krushkal, On the question of the structure of the universal Teichmüller space, Soviet Math.
Dokl. 38 (1989), 435–437.
58. , The Green function of Teichmüller spaces with applications, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.)
27 (1992), 143–147.
59. , Polynomial convexity of Teichmüller spaces, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 52 (1995), 147–156.
60. , Teichmüller spaces are not starlike, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 20 (1995), 167–
173.
61. R. Kühnau (ed.), Handbook of Complex Analysis: Geometric Function Theory, 2 vols., Elsevier
Science B.V., Amsterdam, 2002, 2005.
62. M. Lehtinen, On the inner radius of univalency for non-circular domains, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn.
Ser. A I Math. 5 (1980), 45–47.
63. , Estimates of the inner radius of univalency of domains bounded by conic sections, Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 10 (1985), 349–353.
64. , Angles and the inner radius of univalency, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 11 (1986),
161–165.
65. O. Lehto, Domain constants associated with Schwarzian derivative, Comment. Math. Helv. 52
(1977), 603–610.
66. , Remarks on Nehari’s theorem about the Schwarzian derivative and schlicht functions, J.
Analyse Math. 36 (1979), 184–190.
67. , Univalent Functions and Teichmüller Spaces, Springer-Verlag, 1987.
68. O. Lehto and O. Tammi, Schwarzian derivative in domains of bounded boundary rotation, Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 4 (1978/79), 253–257.
69. O. Lehto and K. I. Virtanen, Quasiconformal Mappings in the Plane, 2nd Ed., Springer-Verlag,
1973.
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 287
70. O. Martio and J. Sarvas, Injectivity theorems in plane and space, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I
Math. 4 (1978/79), 383–401.
71. K. Matsuzaki, Simply connected invariant domains of Kleinian groups not in the closures of Te-
ichmüller spaces, Complex Variables Theory Appl. 22 (1993), 92–100.
72. D. Mejı́a and Ch. Pommerenke, On spherically convex univalent functions, Michigan Math. J. 47
(2000), 163–172.
73. L. Miller-Van Wieren, Univalence criteria for classes of rectangles and equiangular hexagons, Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn. A I Math. 22 (1997), 407–424.
74. , On Nehari disks and the inner radius, Comment. Math. Helv. 76 (2001), 183–199.
75. S. Nag, The Complex Analytic Theory of Teichmüller Spaces, Wiley, New York, 1988.
76. , Diff(S 1 ), Teichmüller space and period matrices: canonical mappings via string theory,
Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 39 (1994), 789–827.
77. S. Nag and D. Sullivan, Teichmüller theory and the universal period mapping via quantum calculus
and the H 1/2 space on the circle, Osaka J. Math. 32 (1995), 1–34.
78. Z. Nehari, The Schwarzian derivative and schlicht functions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 55 (1949),
545–551.
79. , A property of convex conformal maps, J. Analyse Math. 30 (1976), 390–393.
80. K. Ohshika, Realising end invariants by limits of minimally parabolic, geometrically finite groups,
arXive:math. GT/0504546 (2005).
81. Y. Okuyama, The norm estimates of pre-Schwarzian derivatives of spiral-like functions, Complex
Variables Theory Appl. 42 (2000), 225–239.
82. B. Osgood and D. Stowe, The Schwarzian distance between domains: A question of O. Lehto, Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. 12 (1987), 313–318.
83. B. G. Osgood, Univalence criteria in multiply-connected domains, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 260
(1980), 459–473.
84. , Some properties of f ′′ /f ′ and the Poincaré metric, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 31 (1982),
449–461.
85. V. Paatero, Über die konforme Abbildung von Gebieten, deren Ränder von beschränker Drehung
sind, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. A I Math.-Phys. XXXIII:9 (1931), 1–79.
86. Ch. Pommerenke, Univalent Functions, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 1975.
87. Ch. Pommerenke, Uniformly perfect sets and the Poincaré metric, Arch. Math. 32 (1979), 192–199.
88. , On the Becker univalence criterion, Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Sklodowska Sect. A 36/37
(1982/83), 123–124 (1985).
89. R. M. Porter, Computation of a boundary point of Teichmüller space, Bol. Soc. Mat. Mexicana 24
(1979), 15–26.
90. M. S. Robertson, Univalent functions f (z) for which zf ′ (z) is spirallike, Michigan Math. J. 16
(1969), 97–101.
91. H. L. Royden, Automorphisms and isometries of Teichmüller space, Advances in the Theory of
Riemann Surfaces, Ann. of Math. Stud. 66, Princeton Univ. Press, 1971, pp. 369–383.
92. W. C. Royster, On the univalence of a certain integral, Michigan Math. J. 12 (1965), 385–387.
93. E. Schippers, Distortion theorems for higher order Schwarzian derivatives of univalent functions,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 128 (2000), 3241–3249.
94. M. Seppälä and T. Sorvali, Geometry of Riemann Surfaces and Teichmüller Spaces, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, 1992.
288 T. Sugawa IWQCMA05
95. H. Shiga, Characterization of quasi-disks and Teichmüller spaces, Tôhoku Math. J. 37 (1985), 541–
552.
96. H. Shiga and H. Tanigawa, Grunsky’s inequality and its applications to Teichmüller spaces, Kodai
Math. J. 16 (1993), 361–378.
97. D. Stowe, Injectivity and the pre-Schwarzian derivative, Michigan Math. J. 45 (1998), 537–546.
98. T. Sugawa, The Bers projection and the λ-lemma, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 32 (1992), 701–713.
99. , On the Bers conjecture for Fuchsian groups of the second kind, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 32
(1992), 45–52.
100. , On the space of schlicht projective structures on compact Riemann surfaces with boundary,
J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 35 (1995), 697–732.
101. , On the norm of the pre-Schwarzian derivatives of strongly starlike functions, Ann. Univ.
Mariae Curie-Sklodowska, Sectio A 52 (1998), 149–157.
102. , Holomorphic motions and quasiconformal extensions, Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Sklodowska,
Sectio A 53 (1999), 239–252.
103. , Uniformly perfect sets: analytic and geometric aspects (Japanese), Sugaku 53 (2001), 387–
402, English translation in Sugaku Expo. 16 (2003), 225–242.
104. , A remark on the Ahlfors-Lehto univalence criterion, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. A I Math. 27
(2002), 151–161.
105. , Inner radius of univalence for a strongly starlike domain, Monatsh. Math. (2003), 61–68.
106. N. Suita, Schwarzian derivatives of convex functions, J. Hokkaido Univ. Edu. (Sec. IIA) 46 (1996),
113–117.
107. L. A. Takhtajan and L.-P. Teo, Liouville action and Weil-Petersson metric on deformation spaces,
global Kleinian reciprocity and holography, Comm. Math. Phys. 239 (2003), 183–240.
108. , Weil-Petersson geometry of the universal Teichmüller space, Infinite dimensional algebras
and quantum integrable systems (Basel), Progr. Math., vol. 237, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2005, pp. 225–
233.
109. H. Tamanoi, Higher Schwarzian operators and combinatorics of the Schwarzian derivative, Math.
Ann. 305 (1995), 127–181.
110. W. P. Thurston, Zippers and schlicht functions, The Bieberbach conjecture, Proceedings of the
symposium on the occasion of the proof of the Bieberbach conjecture held at Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Ind., March 11–14, 1985 (Providence, RI) (D. Drasin, P. Duren, and A. Marden, eds.),
Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 21, American Mathematical Society, 1986, pp. 185–187.
111. M. Toki, On nonstarlikeness of Teichmüller spaces, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 69 (1993),
58–60.
112. S. Y. Trimble, A coefficient inequality for convex univalent functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 48
(1975), 266–267.
113. A. J. Tromba, Teichmüller Theory in Riemannian Geometry, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1992.
114. K.-J. Wirths, Über holomorphe Funktionen, die einer Wachstumsbeschränkung unterliegen, Arch.
Math. 30 (1978), 606–612.
115. S. Yamashita, Norm estimates for function starlike or convex of order alpha, Hokkaido Math. J. 28
(1999), 217–230.
116. I. V. Zhuravlev, Model of the universal Teichmüller space, Siberian Math. J. 27 (1986), 691–697.
117. I. V. Žuravlev, Univalent functions and Teichmüller spaces, Soviet Math. Dokl. 21 (1980), 252–255.
The universal Teichmüller space and related topics 289
Matti Vuorinen
Contents
1. Introduction 291
2. Möbius transformations 295
3. Hyperbolic geometry 300
4. Quasihyperbolic geometry 305
5. Modulus and capacity 306
6. Conformal invariants 313
7. Distortion theory 319
8. Open problems 322
References 323
1. Introduction
The goal of these lectures is to provide an introduction to some of the main
properties of quasiconformal and quasiregular mappings. One of the central
themes here will be to study how these mappings deform distances and metrics
and therefore it is natural to study our mappings between metric spaces. In most
cases, the metrics will have some useful invariance or quasi-invariance properties
under a set Γ of transformations, called rigid motions. An important example is
the unit ball of Rn equipped with the hyperbolic metric in which case we may
take the set Γ to be the group of the Möbius self-mappings of the ball.
Version October 19, 2006.
292 M. Vuorinen IWQCMA05
The material is largely drawn from [Vu3] and [AVV2]. In order to give the
reader a chance to enter gradually this territory of mathematical research, prob-
lems of varying level are given, from easy exercises to research problems. Many
more can be found in [Vu3] and [AVV2] (the exercises in [AVV2] come with so-
lutions). Some research problems are collected at the end of the paper. Because
of limitations of space, most of the details/proofs are omitted with the general
reference to [V1] and [Vu3].
The idea of using invariance with respect to rigid motion to study function
theory is very old. In fact, it can be traced back to nineteenth century, in
particular, to the work of F. Klein. Perhaps the most natural notion of invariance
is conformal invariance under the group of conformal self-maps of a given simply-
connected domain. Several conformal invariants emerged from the studies of H.
Grötzsch, L. Ahlfors, and A. Beurling.
A pair (X, d) is called a metric space if X 6= ∅ and d : X ×X → [0, ∞) satisfies
the following four conditions
(M1) d(x, y) ≥ 0 for all x, y ∈ X ,
(M2) d(x, y) = 0 iff x = y ,
(1.1)
(M3) d(x, y) = d(y, x) for all x, y ∈ X ,
(M4) d(x, y) ≤ d(x, z) + d(z, y) for all x, y, z ∈ X .
In most examples below, the metric spaces will have some additional structure.
The metrics will often have some quasiinvariance properties. For instance, we
say that a pair of metric spaces (Xj , dj ), j = 1, 2, is quasiinvariant under a set
Γ of mappings f : (X1 , d1 ) → (X2 , d2 ) if there exists C ≥ 1 such that 1/C ≤
d2 (f (x), f (y))/d1 (x, y) ≤ C for all x, y ∈ X1 , x 6= y and all f ∈ Γ . In particular,
Metrics and quasiregular mappings 293
r
Lr
x lr
f(x)
Figure 1. Hf (x, r) .
In the setup presented here, the aforementioned questions (a)-(c) were studied
already in [Vu1] and [Vu3]. But only very few answers are known, see [H1], [H2],
[HI]. These questions could also be investigated for some particular classes of do-
mains, which would bring a very wide spectrum of new questions into play. Some
examples of such classes of domains would be uniform domains and quasiconfor-
mal balls. As we will see, there still are numerous open problems in this area.
It is assumed that the reader is familiar with some basic facts and definitions of
the theory of quasiconformal and quasiregular maps [V1], [Vu3].
2. Möbius transformations
For x ∈ Rn and r > 0 let
B n (x, r) = { z ∈ Rn : |x − z| < r },
S n−1 (x, r) = { z ∈ Rn : |x − z| = r }
denote the ball and sphere, respectively, centered at x with radius r. The abbre-
viations B n (r) = B n (0, r), S n−1 (r) = S n−1 (0, r), Bn = B n (1), S n−1 = S n−1 (1)
will be used frequently. For t ∈ R and a ∈ Rn \ {0} we denote
P (a, t) = { x ∈ Rn : x · a = t } ∪ {∞}.
n
Then P (a, t) is a hyperplane in R = Rn ∪ {∞} perpendicular to the vector a,
at distance t/|a| from the origin.
2.1. Definition. Let D and D′ be domains in Rn and let f : D → D′ be a
homeomorphism. We call f conformal if (1) f ∈ C 1 , (2) Jf (x) 6= 0 for all
x ∈ D, and (3) |f ′ (x)h| = |f ′ (x)||h| for all x ∈ D and all h ∈ Rn . If D and
n
D′ are domains in R , we call a homeomorphism f : D → D′ conformal if the
restriction of f to D \ {∞, f −1 (∞)} is conformal.
2.2. Examples. Some basic examples of conformal mappings are the following
elementary transformations.
(1) A reflection in P (a, t):
a
f1 (x) = x − 2(x · a − t) , f1 (∞) = ∞ .
|a|2
(2) An inversion (reflection) in S n−1 (a, r):
r2 (x − a)
f2 (x) = a + , f2 (a) = ∞ , f2 (∞) = a .
|x − a|2
(3) A translation f3 (x) = x + a , a ∈ Rn , f3 (∞) = ∞.
(4) A stretching by a factor k > 0: f4 (x) = kx , f4 (∞) = ∞.
(5) An orthogonal mapping, i.e. a linear map f5 with
|f5 (x)| = |x| , f5 (∞) = ∞ .
296 M. Vuorinen IWQCMA05
n n
2.4. Definition. A homeomorphism f : R → R is called a Möbius transfor-
mation if f = g1 ◦ · · · ◦ gp where each gj is one of the elementary transformations
in 2.2(1)–(5) and p is a positive integer. Equivalently (see 2.3) f is a Möbius
transformation if f = h1 ◦ · · · ◦ hm where each hj is a reflection in a sphere or in a
n
hyperplane and m is a positive integer. If G ⊂ R the set of all (sense-preserving)
Möbius transformations mapping G onto itself is denoted by GM(G) (M(G)).
n
It will be convenient to identify R with the subset { x ∈ Rn : xn+1 = 0 }∪{∞}
n+1
of R . The identification is given by the embedding
(2.5) x 7→ x̃˜ = (x1 , . . . , xn , 0) ; x = (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Rn .
We are now going to describe a natural two–step way of extending a Möbius
n
transformation of Rn to a Möbius transformation of Rn+1 . First, if f in GM(R )
is a reflection in P (a, t) or in S n−1 (a, r), let f˜˜ be a reflection in P (ã,
˜ t) or S n (ã,
˜ r),
n
respectively. Then if x ∈ R and y = f (x), by 2.2(1)–(2) we get
g
(2.6) f˜˜(x1 , . . . , xn , 0) = (y1 , . . . , yn , 0) = fg
(x) .
By (2.6) we may regard f˜˜ as an extension of f . Note that f˜˜ preserves the plane
xn+1 = 0 and each of the half–spaces xn+1 > 0 and xn+1 < 0. These facts follow
n
from the formulae 2.2(1)–(2). Second, if f is an arbitrary mapping in GM(R )
it has a representation f = f1 ◦ · · · ◦ fm where each fj is a reflection in a plane
or a sphere. Then f˜˜ = f˜˜1 ◦ · · · ◦ f˜˜m is the extension of f , and it preserves the
half–spaces xn+1 > 0, xn+1 < 0, and the plane xn+1 = 0. In conclusion, every
f in GM(R ) has an extension f˜˜ in GM(R ). It follows from [BE, p. 31,
n n+1
Metrics and quasiregular mappings 297
Theorem 3.2.4] that such an extension f˜˜ of f is unique. The mapping f˜˜ is called
˜ f˜˜,
the Poincaré extension of f . In the sequel we shall write x, f instead of x̃,
respectively.
Many properties of plane Möbius transformations hold for n–dimensional
n
Möbius transformations as well. The fundamental property that spheres of R
(which are spheres or planes in Rn , see [Vu1, Exercise 1.26, p.8]) are preserved
under Möbius transformations is proved in [BE, p. 28, Theorem 3.2.1].
n
2.7. Stereographic projection. The stereographic projection π: R →
S n ( 21 en+1 , 21 ) is defined by
x − en+1
(2.8) π(x) = en+1 + , x ∈ Rn ; π(∞) = en+1
|x − en+1 |2
n
Then π is the restriction to R of the inversion in S n (en+1 , 1). In fact, we can
identify π with this inversion. Because f −1 = f for every inversion f , it follows
n
that π maps the “Riemann sphere” S n ( 21 en+1 , 21 ) onto R .
n
The spherical (chordal) metric q in R is defined by
n
(2.9) q(x, y) = |π(x) − π(y)| ; x, y ∈ R ,
where π is the stereographic projection (2.8). From the definition (2.8) by cal-
culating we obtain
|x − y|
q(x, y) = p
p ; x 6= ∞ 6= y,
1 + |x|2 1 + |y|2
(2.10)
1
q(x, ∞) = p .
1 + |x|2
en+1
π(x)
π(y)
y 0
_
n
Either by this formula or more directly by the definition of the spherical metric
(plus the fact that Möbius transformations preserve spheres) we see that in the
euclidean geometry, Q(x, r) is a point set of one of the following three kinds
n
Clearly, ∂Q(x, r) is either a sphere
√ or a hyperplane of R . Formula (2.14)
shows, in particular, that πQ(x, 1/ 2 ) is a half–sphere of the Riemann sphere
S n ( 21 en+1 , 21 ).
2.16. Absolute ratio. For an ordered quadruple a, b, c, d of distinct points in
n
R we define the absolute (cross) ratio by
q(a, c) q(b, d)
(2.17) | a, b, c, d | = .
q(a, b) q(c, d)
It follows from (2.10) that for distinct a, b, c, d in Rn
|a − c| |b − d|
| a, b, c, d | = .
|a − b| |c − d|
One of the most important properties of Möbius transformations is that they
preserve absolute ratios, i.e. if f ∈ GM, then
(2.18) | f (a), f (b), f (c), f (d) | = | a, b, c, d |
n
for all distinct a, b, c, d in R . As a matter of fact, the preservation of absolute
ratios is a characteristic property of Möbius transformations. It is proved in [BE,
n n
p. 72, Theorem 3.2.7] that a mapping f : R → R is a Möbius transformation
if and only if f preserves all absolute ratios.
2.19. Automorphisms in Bn . We shall give a canonical representation for
the maps in M(Bn ). Assume that f is in M(Bn ) and that f (a) = 0 for some
a ∈ Bn . We denote
a
(2.20) a∗ = 2 , a ∈ Rn \ {0}
|a|
and 0 = ∞, ∞ = 0. Fix a ∈ Bn \ {0}. Let
∗ ∗
Let pa denote the reflection in the (n − 1)–dimensional plane P (a, 0) through the
origin and orthogonal to a and define a sense–preserving Möbius transformation
by Ta = pa ◦ σa . Then, by (2.21), Ta Bn = Bn , Ta (a) = 0, and with ea = a/|a| we
have Ta (ea ) = ea , Ta (−ea ) = −ea . For a = 0 we set T0 = id, where id stands for
the identity map. The proof of the following fundamental fact can be found in
[A, p. 21], [BE, p. 40, Theorem 3.5.1].
We now define a spherical isometry tz in M(Rn ) which maps a given point
z ∈ Rn to 0 as follows. For z = 0 let tz = id and for z = ∞ let tz = p ◦ f , where
f is inversion in S n−1 and p is reflection in the (n − 1)–dimensional plane
p x1 = 0.
n n−1 2
For z ∈ R \ {0} let sz be inversion in S (−z/|z| , r), where r = 1 + |z|−2 .
According to [Vu1, (1.45)], the inversion sz is a spherical isometry and it is easy
to show that sz (z) = 0. Let pz be reflection in the plane P (z, 0). Defining
(2.22) tz = pz ◦ sz ,
300 M. Vuorinen IWQCMA05
s
S
1 r
0 a b
where tb √is the spherical isometry defined in (2.22) and f1 is the inversion in
S n−1 (u/ 1 − u2 ) = ∂Q(0, u).
3. Hyperbolic geometry
Hyperbolic geometry can be developed in the context of two spaces or, as they
are sometimes called, models. These two models of the hyperbolic space are the
unit ball Bn and the Poincaré half–space
Hn = Rn+ = { (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Rn : xn > 0 } .
These two models can be equipped with a hyperbolic metric ρ that is unique
up to a multiplicative constant in either model. In either model the metric is
normalized (by giving the element of length of the metric) in such a way that for
all x, y ∈ Bn
ρHn h(x), h(y) = ρBn (x, y)
whenever h ∈ GM and hBn = Hn . Therefore both models are conformally
compatible in the sense that the two metric spaces (Bn , ρ) and (Hn , ρ) can be
identified. This compatibility is very convenient in computations because we may
Metrics and quasiregular mappings 301
where Γab stands for the collection of all rectifiable curves in Rn+ joining a and b.
Sometimes the more complete notation ρRn+ (a, b) or ρHn (a, b) will be employed.
The infimum in (3.4) is in fact attained: for given a, b ∈ Rn+ there exists a
circular arc L perpendicular to ∂Rn+ such that the closed subarc J[a, b] of L with
302 M. Vuorinen IWQCMA05
(cf. [BE, p. 40]). As in the case of Hn , we see by (3.12) that the hyperbolic
distance ρ(x, y) between x and y is completely determined by the euclidean
304 M. Vuorinen IWQCMA05
and
B n x, a(1 − |x|) ⊂ D(x, M ) ⊂ B n x, A(1 − |x|) ,
(3.17)
t(1 + |x|) t(1 + |x|)
a= , A= , t = th 12 M .
1 + |x|t 1 − |x|t
In the next lemma we show that jD yields simple two–sided estimates for ρD
both when D = Bn and when D = Hn .
3.22. Lemma. (1) jBn (x, y) ≤ ρBn (x, y) ≤ 4 jBn (x, y) for x, y ∈ Bn .
(2) jHn (x, y) ≤ ρHn (x, y) ≤ 2 jHn (x, y) for x, y ∈ Hn .
4. Quasihyperbolic geometry
In an arbitrary proper subdomain D of Rn one can define a metric, the quasi-
hyperbolic metric of D, which shares some properties of the hyperbolic metric
of Bn or Hn . We shall now give the definition of the quasihyperbolic metric and
state without proof some of its basic properties which we require later on. The
quasihyperbolic metric has been systematically developed and applied by F. W.
Gehring and his collaborators.
Throughout this section D will denote a proper subdomain of Rn . In D we
define a weight function w : D → R+ by
1
(4.1) w(x) = ; x∈D.
d(x, ∂D)
Using this weight function one defines the quasihyperbolic length ℓq (γ) = ℓD q (γ)
of a rectifiable curve γ by a formula similar to (3.2). The quasihyperbolic distance
between x and y in D is defined by
Z
D
(4.2) kD (x, y) = inf ℓq (α) = inf w(x)|dx| ,
α∈Γxy α∈Γxy α
306 M. Vuorinen IWQCMA05
s t
Bn
se1 ∞ -e1 0 t e1 ∞
z w
-t t 1 f - r r 1
-1 -1
z w
i K '/2
-1 -t t 1 -K K -1 - r r 1
2 i K Log z + K
w = r sn( ,r), = π t
z w
f g
-1 -t t 1 -1 - r r 1 -1 0 a 1
g f
5.13. Elliptic integrals and γ2 (s). In the plane every ring domain can be
conformally mapped onto an annulus {z ∈ C : 1 < |z| < M } for some M . For
the Grötzsch ring this conformal mapping is given by the elliptic sn-function
[AVV2]. For more information on the involved special functions see [QV].
As shown in [LV, II.2]
for 0 < r < 1. The function K(r) is called a complete elliptic integral of the first
kind and its values can be found in tables.
310 M. Vuorinen IWQCMA05
5.5 5.5
5 5
4.5 4.5
4 4
3.5 3.5
3 3
2.5 K’ K 2.5
µ
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1
From (5.15) one can derive several estimates for µ(r) [LV, p. 62]. By [LV, p. 62]
the following inequalities hold
√
1 1 + 3 1 − r2 4
(5.16) log < log < µ(r) < log
r r r
for 0 < r < 1. From (5.16) it follows that limr→0+ µ(r) = ∞ whence, by virtue of
the functional identities (5.15), limr→1− µ(r) = 0. Therefore, µ : (0, 1) → (0, ∞)
is a decreasing homeomorphism. For the sake of completeness we set µ(0) = ∞
and µ(1) = 0. By (5.14) and (5.15) we obtain
4 s − 1
(5.17) γ2 (s) = µ , s>1.
π s+1
5.18. Exercise. In the study of distortion theory of quasiconformal mappings
in Section 7 below the following special function will be useful
1
ϕK,n (r) = −1
γn (Kγn (1/r))
Metrics and quasiregular mappings 311
for 0 < r < 1, K > 0. (Note: [Vu1, Lemma 7.20] shows that γn is strictly
decreasing and hence that γn−1 exists.) Show that ϕAB,n (r) = ϕA,n (ϕB,n (r)) and
ϕ−1
A,n (r) = ϕ1/A,n (r) and that
ϕK,2 (r) = ϕK (r) = µ−1 K1 µ(r) .
Verify also that
√
(1) ϕ2 (r) = 21+rr
√ 2
(2) ϕK (r)2 + ϕ1/K 1 − r2 = 1 .
Exploiting (1) and (2) find ϕ1/2 (r). Show also that
1−r 1−ϕK (r)
(3) ϕ1/K 1+r = 1+ϕ K (r)
,
√ √
2 ϕ (r)
(4) ϕK 21+rr = 1+ϕKK(r) .
for s > 1.
5.21. Theorem. The function gn (t) = (ωn−1 /γn (t))1/(n−1) −log t is an increasing
function on (1, ∞) with limt→∞ gn (t) = log λn where λn ∈ [4, 2en−1 ), λ2 = 4 , is
so-called Grötzsch ring constant.
5.22. Theorem. For s ∈ (1, ∞) and n ≥ 2
√ 1−n
(1) γn (s) ≤ ωn−1 µ(1/s)1−n < ωn−1 log(s + 3 s2 − 1 ) ,
s + 1 s − 1 s + 1
n−1 n−1 n−1
(2) 2 cn log ≤ γn (s) ≤ 2 cn µ <2 cn log 4 .
s−1 s+1 s−1
√
Moreover, if s ∈ (0, ∞) and a = 1 + 2(1 + 1 + s )/s, then
5
G
3 F
2
g
f
1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
It is left as an easy exercise for the reader to derive from (5.19) the following
inequality
(5.26) tα /λn ≤ γn−1 (Kγn (t)) ≤ λαn tα
for all t > 1 and K > 0, where α = K 1/(1−n) . From (5.26) it follows immediately
that
(5.27) rα λn −α ≤ ϕK,n (r) ≤ λn rα
holds for all K > 0 and r ∈ (0, 1). For K ≥ 1 this inequality can be refined if we
use Theorem 5.22 (1).
Metrics and quasiregular mappings 313
6. Conformal invariants
In the preceding sections
we have studied some properties of the conformal
invariant M ∆(E, F ; G) . In this section we shall introduce two other conformal
invariants, the modulus metric µG (x, y) and its ”dual” quantity λG (x, y), where
n
G is a domain in R and x, y ∈ G. The modulus metric µG is functionally related
to the hyperbolic metric ρG if G = Bn , while in the general case µG reflects the
“capacitary geometry” of G in a delicate fashion. The dual quantity λG (x, y)
is also functionally related to ρG if G = Bn . As shown in [Vu3] for a wide
class of domains in Rn , the so–called QED–domains[GM], two–sided estimates
for λG (x, y) in terms of
|x − y|
rG (x, y) = .
min{ d(x, ∂G), d(y, ∂G) }
6.1. The conformal invariants λG and µG . If G is a proper subdomain of
n
R , then for x, y ∈ G with x 6= y we define
(6.2) λG (x, y) = inf M ∆(Cx , Cy ; G)
Cx ,Cy
Cy
G G
• •
y y
Cxy
• Cx • x
x
G (x,y) G(x,y)
2.5
2
F ∞
1.5
1
x
0.5
0 0 1
E
−0.5
−1
−1 0 1 2 3 4
where the infimum is taken over all continua Cxy such that Cxy = γ[0, 1] and γ
is a curve with γ(0) = x and γ(1) = y. It is clear that µG is also a conformal
invariant in the same sense as λG . It is left as an easy exercise for the reader
to verify that µG is a metric if cap∂G > 0. [Hint: Apply 5.3 and 5.29.] If
cap∂G > 0, we call µG the modulus metric or conformal metric of G.
6.7. Remark. Let D be a subdomain of G. It follows from 5.3 and (5.4)
that µG (a, b) ≤ µD (a, b) for all a, b ∈ D and λG (a, b) ≥ λD (a, b) for all dis-
tinct a, b ∈ D. In what follows we are interested only in the non–trivial case
n
card(R \ G) ≥ 2. Moreover, by performing an auxiliary Möbius transformation,
n
we may and shall assume that ∞ ∈ R \ G throughout this section. Hence G
will have at least one finite boundary point.
6.9. Remark. (1) In [Vu3, p. 193] it was stated as an open problem, whether
λD (x, y)1/(1−n) is a metric when D = Rn \ {0} and n = 2 . Subsequently the
problem was solved by A. Solynin [So] and J. Jenkins [J] for n = 2 . J. Ferrand
[F] proved that λD (x, y)1/(1−n) is a metric for all D ⊂ Rn , n ≥ 2.
(2) From 5.22(3) we obtain the following inequality for x, y ∈ Bn (exercise)
1 1 1
τ sh2 ρ(x, y) ≥ −cn log th ρ(x, y)
2 2 4
1 1
= 2cn arth e− 2 ρ(x,y) ≥ 2cn e− 2 ρ(x,y) .
This result was improved by D. Betsakos [B] who proved the next theorem.
The sharp constant in Theorem 6.13 is not known for n > 2 , for n = 2, see [BV].
6.13. Theorem. For x ∈ Rn \ {0, e1 }
(6.14) p(x) ≤ 4τ (min{|x|, |x − e1 |}) .
Metrics and quasiregular mappings 317
Next we deduce the following two–sided inequality for λRn \{0} (x, y).
6.16. Theorem. For distinct x, y ∈ Rn \ {0} the following inequality holds
1 ≤ λRn \{0} (x, y) τ |x − y|/ min{|x|, |y|} ≤ 4 .
6.17. Corollary. Let G be a proper subdomain of Rn , x and y distinct points
in G and m(x, y) = min{d(x), d(y)}. Then
λG (x, y) ≤ inf λRn \{z} (x, y) ≤ 4 τ |x − y|/m(x, y) .
z∈∂G
Proof. The first inequality follows from 6.7. For the second one fix z0 ∈ ∂G with
m(x, y) = d({x, y}, {z0 }). Applying 6.16 to Rn \ {z0 } yields the desired result.
We next show that 6.17 fails to be sharp for a Jordan domain G in Rn . For
t ∈ (0, 15 ) consider the family Gt = B n (−e1 , 1) ∪ B n (e1 , 1) ∪ B n (t) of Jordan
domains. Then by 6.17
λGt (−e1 , e1 ) ≤ 4 τ (2)
for all t ∈ (0, 51 ). But this is far from sharp because in fact
λGt (−e1 , e1 ) ≤ M ∆( [−2e1 , −e1 ] , [e1 , 2e1 ] ; Gt )
1 1−n
≤ ωn−1 log −→ 0
t
as t → 0. However, for a wide class of domains, which we shall now consider,
the upper bound in 6.17 is essentially best possible.
−e1 e1
n
6.18. QED domains. A closed set E in R is called a c–quasiextremal distance
set or c-QED exceptional set or c-QED set, c ∈ (0, 1], if for each pair of disjoint
n
continua F1 , F2 ⊂ R \ E
n
(6.19) M ∆(F1 , F2 ; R \ E) ≥ c M ∆(F1 , F2 ) .
n n
If G is a domain in R such that R \ G is a c-QED set, then we call G a c-QED
domain.
6.20. Examples. (1) The unit ball Bn is a 12 –QED set by [GM1] or by the
above Lemma 5.6.
(2) If E is a compact set of capacity zero, then E is a 1–QED set. For instance
all isolated sets are 1–QED sets. The class of all 1–QED sets contains all closed
sets in Rn of vanishing (n − 1)–dimensional Hausdorff measure (see [V3], [GM1]).
(3) B2 \ [0, e1 ) is not a c-QED set for any c > 0.
6.21. Theorem. Let G be a c-QED domain in Rn . Then
λG (x, y) ≥ c τ (s2 + 2s) ≥ 21−n c τ (s)
where s = |x − y|/ min{d(x), d(y)}.
It should be noted that the lower bound of 6.21 is very close to that of 6.16;
in fact it differs only by a multiplicative constant.
In the next few theorems we shall give some estimates for the conformal
metric µG .
6.22. Lemma. Let G be a proper subdomain of Rn , s ∈ (0, 1), x, y ∈ G. If
kG (x, y) ≤ 2 log(1 + s), then
1
(1) µG (x, y) ≤ γ .
th(kG (x, y)/(1 − s))
Moreover, there exist positive numbers b1 and b2 depending only on n such that
(2) µG (x, y) ≤ b1 kG (x, y) + b2
for all x, y ∈ G.
7. Distortion theory
For the basic properties and definitions of K-quasiconformal and K-quasiregular
mappings we refer the reader to [Vu3] as well as to the other papers in this same
volume. See, in particular, Rasila’s paper. One of the key ideas is that under
a K-quasiconformal mapping, the modulus is changed at most by a constant
c ∈ [1/K, K] . The notions introduced in the previous chapters enable us to for-
mulate this basic property in a more concrete and geometric way, in terms of
metrics.
Theorem 7.1 and Corollary 7.2 are the key results of this paper, and the other
results in this section are just consequences. One should carefully observe that
although the transformation rule in Corollary 7.2 looks like a bilipschitz property;
the mappings need not be bilipschitz in the euclidean metric. This is because the
metric µG behaves in a non-linear fashion. In the euclidean metric quasiconformal
mappings are Hölder-continuous as the results below show.
7.1. Theorem. If f : G → Rn is a non–constant qr mapping, then
(1) µf G (f (a), f (b)) ≤ KI (f ) µG (a, b) ; a, b ∈ G .
In particular, f : (G, µG ) → (f G, µf G ) is Lipschitz continuous. If N (f, G) < ∞,
then
(2) λG (a, b) ≤ KO (f ) N (f, G) λf G (f (a), f (b))
for all a, b ∈ G with f (a) 6= f (b).
7.2. Corollary. If f : G → G′ = f G is a qc mapping, then
(1) µG (a, b) KO (f ) ≤ µf G (f (a), f (b)) ≤ KI (f ) µG (a, b) ,
(2) λG (a, b) KO (f ) ≤ λf G (f (a), f (b)) ≤ KI (f ) λG (a, b)
hold for all distinct a, b ∈ G.
7.3. Theorem. Let f : Bn → Rn be a non–constant K–qr mapping with f Bn ⊂
Bn and let α = KI (f )1/(1−n) . Then
α
(1) th 21 ρ f (x), f (y) ≤ ϕK th 12 ρ(x, y) ≤ λ1−α n th 1
2
ρ(x, y) ,
(2) ρ f (x), f (y) ≤ KI (f ) ρ(x, y) + log 4 ,
hold for all x, y ∈ Bn , where λn is the Grötzsch ring constant.
The next result is a famous theorem of A. Mori from 1956 [LV]. The theorem
has, however, one esthetic flaw: it is not sharp when K = 1 . It was conjectured
in the 1960’s that the constant 16 in the theorem could be replaced by 161−1/K
and also shown in [LV] that this would be sharp. In 1988 it was proven in [FeV]
that we can replace 16 by M (K) → 1 as K → 1 . Perhaps the latest paper
dealing with the problem of reducing the constant M (K) was written by S.-L.
Qiu [Q], but as far as we know it is still an open problem whether the constant
161−1/K could be achieved. Settling this problem would be remarkable progress,
since a lot of work has been done. For the spherical chordal metric this problem
was recently discussed by P. Hästö [H3].
7.12. Theorem. Let f : B2 → B2 be a K–qc mapping with f (0) = 0 and
f B2 = B2 . Then
|f (x) − f (y)| ≤ 16 |x − y|1/K
for all x, y ∈ B2 . Furthermore, the number 16 cannot be replaced by any smaller
absolute constant.
8. Open problems
Assume that G ⊂ Rn is a proper subdomain. For what follows, we will be
interested mainly in the cases when the domain is a member of some well-known
class of domains. Some examples are uniform domains, QED-domains, domains
with uniformly perfect (in the sense of Pommerenke [Su]) boundaries and qua-
siballs, i.e. domains G of the form G = f Bn for quasiconformal f : Rn → Rn .
We denote the class of domains with D . Let us consider collection of metrics
1/(1−n)
M = {αG , hG , jG , kG , λG , µG , q, | · |} where hG refers to the hyperbolic met-
ric when n = 2. Interesting categories of mappings, we denote them by C, are
Hölder, Lipschitz, isometries, quasiisometries and identity mappings.
The problems that we list below are just examples. There are a great many
variations, by letting the domain, mapping and metric independently vary over
the categories D , C , and M .
8.1. Convexity of balls and smoothness of spheres. Fix m ∈ M . Does
there exist constant T0 > 0 such that Dm (x, T ) = {z ∈ G : m(x, z) < T }, is
convex (in euclidean geometry) for all T ∈ (0, T0 )? Is ∂Gm (x, T ) smooth for
T < T0 ?
For instance, in the case m = kG both of these problems seem to be open. In
passing, we remark that it follows from (4.4) and Theorem 4.7 (2) that when
the radius tends to 0, quasihyperbolic balls become more and more round. The
quasihyperbolic metric is used as a tool for many applications, but very little
about the metric itself is known. See the theses [MA] and [L] and also Lindén’s
paper in this volume.
8.2. Lipschitz-constant of identity mapping. For x, y ∈ Bn , x 6= y , the
following inequality holds [Vu3, (2.27)]
ρBn (x, y) ρBn (x, y)
|x − y| ≤ 2 th < .
4 2
We may now regard this result as an inequality for the modulus of continuity of
id : (Bn , ρBn ) → (Bn , | · |) . Instead of considering the identity mapping we could
now take any mapping in our category of mappings and consider the problem
Metrics and quasiregular mappings 323
of estimating the modulus of continuity between any two metric spaces in our
category of metric spaces, see [Vu1], [S]. We list several particular cases of our
problem. For G = Rn \ {0} does there exist constants A or B such that for all
x, y ∈ G
q(x, y) ≤ AkG (x, y),
and
1/(1−n)
q(x, y) ≤ BλG (x, y) ?
For G = C \ {0, 1} does there exist constant C such that for all x, y ∈ G
q(x, y) ≤ ChG (x, y) ,
For G = Rn \ {0} does there exist a constant E such that for all x, y ∈ G
1/(1−n)
λG (x, y) ≤ EjG (x, y) ?
8.3. Characterization of isometries and quasiisometries. Given two met-
ric spaces in our category of spaces, does there exist a quasiisometry, mapping
the one space onto the other space? Again, we could consider, in place of quasi-
isometries, any other map in our category of maps.
1/(1−n)
What is the modulus of continuity of id : (G, µG ) → (G, λG )?
1/(1−n) 1/(1−n)
Is a quasiisometry f : (G, λG →
) (f G, λf G )
quasiconformal? J. Lelong-
Ferrand raised this question in [LF] and the question was answered in the nega-
tive in [FMV] . There it was also shown that the answer is affirmative under the
1/(1−n) 1/(1−n)
stronger requirement that f : (D, λD ) → (f D, λf D ) be uniformly contin-
uous for all subdomains D of G . However, it is not known what the isometries
are.
Are isometries f : (G, αG ) → (f G, αf G ) Möbius transformations? (see Beardon
[BE2], Hästö and Ibragimov [HI] and also Hästö’s paper in this volume).
8.4. Conformal invariants. The conformal invariant p(x) is relatively well-
known. See [HV] for further information. However, much less is known about
the invariants µG and λG . For domains whose boundaries are uniformly perfect
(in the sense of Pommerenke), there are some inequalities for µG in terms of jG ,
see [Vu2] and [JV]. Some results for λG when G = Bn \ {0} , were proved in [H]
and [BV]. But even the basic question of finding a formula for λB2 \{0} (x, y) is
open.
Some of these problems may be hard, some are very easy. Because of the
very general setup, it would require some effort even to single out the interesting
combinations of domains in D , mappings in C , and metrics in M .
References
[A] L. V. Ahlfors: Collected papers. Vol.1 and 2. Edited with the assistance of Rae
Michael Shortt. Contemporary Mathematicians. Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass., 1982.
xix+515 pp., xix+520 pp., ISBN: 3-7643-3076-7, ISBN: 3-7643-3075-9
324 M. Vuorinen IWQCMA05
G. Brock Williams
Contents
1. Introduction 328
2. Quasiconformal Maps 328
2.1. Analytic Definition of Quasiconformality 328
2.2. Geometric Definition of Quasiconformality 329
2.3. An Important Example 330
3. Conformal Welding 331
3.1. Quasisymmetries and Quasicircles 331
3.2. Conformal Welding Theorem 332
4. Circle Packing 333
4.1. Definitions and Examples 333
4.2. Packings and Maps 335
4.3. The Rodin-Sullivan Theorem 335
5. Applications 338
5.1. Image Recognition 338
5.2. Radnell-Schippers Quantum Field Theory 341
5.3. Circle Packing Measurable Riemann Mapping Theorem 342
References 343
1. Introduction
The deep connections between the combinatorial and geometric properties of
circle packings and the analytic properties of the maps they induce have been the
subject of intense study in recent years. In 1985, William Thurston conjectured,
and Burt Rodin and Dennis Sullivan proved, that maps between circle packings
were nearly analytic [Thu85, RS87]. Since then the study of circle packings has
exploded to impact a great many other fields including conformal mapping [HS93,
HS96,Ste05], complex analysis [BS91,DS95a,Ste97,Ste02,Ste03] Teichmüller the-
ory [BS90, Bro96, Wil01b, BW02, Wil03, BS04b], brain mapping [Bea99, Kra99],
random walks [Ste96, Dub97, HS95, McC98, DW05], tilings [BS97, Rep98], mini-
mal surfaces and integrable systems [BS04a], numerical analysis [Moh93, CS99],
metric measure spaces [BK02] and much more.
The fundamental folk theorem of circle packing is that “packings desperately
want to be conformal.” They react to combinatorial or geometric changes in
precisely the same way as conformal maps. Maps between packings seem de-
termined to approximate conformal maps. There is, however, much to be said
about the relationships between circle packings and quasiconformal maps. It is
principally with these connections and the applications arising from them that
we will concern ourselves in this paper.
After some initial background on quasiconformal mappings in Section 2, we
describe the crucial concept of conformal welding in Section 3. We review the
fundamental concepts of circle packing in Section 4, and then describe three
applications of circle packings and quasiconformal maps in Section 5. Namely,
we discuss the use of packings in image recognition, in implementing Radnell-
Schippers quantum field theory, and in constructing quasiconformal maps.
2. Quasiconformal Maps
2.1. Analytic Definition of Quasiconformality. Quasiconformal mappings
form the heart of Teichmüller theory as developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
They are the natural generalization of analytic functions. For more detailed
explanations, a number of excellent resources are available, including [Ahl66,
LV73, Leh87, Nag88, IT92, GL00].
Definition 2.1. A homeomorphism f ∈ L2 is quasiconformal if
(2.1) ∂z f = µ∂z f
for some µ ∈ L∞ , ||µ||∞ < 1. Recall the complex partial derivatives are defined
by
1
∂z f = (∂x f + ∂y f )
2
1
∂z f = (∂x f − ∂y f ) .
2
Circle Packings, QC Maps, and Applications 329
for some number C; that is, f acts like the composition of a scaling, rotation, and
translation. This not only explains the reason analytic maps with non-vanishing
derivative preserve angles, but also implies that they must map infinitesimal cir-
cles to infinitesimal circles. Consequently, the dilatation quotient of a conformal
map is identically 1.
It turns out that the dilatation of a quasiconformal map is nothing more than
the supremum of the dilatation quotient over the domain. Thus we have the
following equivalent definition of quasiconformality.
Definition 2.2. A homeomorphism f is K-quasiconformal if it is absolutely
continuous on lines and
Df (z) ≤ K
for all z in its domain.
2.3. An Important
Example. If we think of the complex plane as R2 and
x
x + iy as , then it is natural to consider the effect of linear and affine
y
transformations. Suppose
a b x e
(2.2) f (x + iy) = + ,
c d y f
where ad − bc 6= 0.
A moment’s linear algebra shows f can be re-written as
ax + by + e
(2.3) f (x + iy) = .
cx + dy + f
Then
1 a −d 1 a+d
(2.4) ∂z f = − =
2 c b 2 c−b
1 a −d 1 a−d
∂z f = + = .
2 c b 2 c+b
only if the new basis vectors a + ic and b + id are perpendicular, and |µ| increases
toward 1 as the angle decreases toward 0.
Notice that affine maps have constant complex dilatation; conversely, if µ is
constant, it is a simple exercise to solve for the affine map whose dilatation is µ.
The importance of this example becomes apparent when we consider the infin-
itesimal behavior of any quasiconformal map. Just as we observed that confor-
mal maps act infinitesimally by rotation, scaling, and translation, quasiconformal
maps act infinitesimally as affine maps.
3. Conformal Welding
3.1. Quasisymmetries and Quasicircles. We continue our exploration of
quasiconformal maps with an investigation of their boundary values [BA56,LV73,
DE86, LP88, GL00]. Note that when maps extend continuously or smoothly to
the boundary, we will use same notation for the extended maps.
Definition 3.1. A homeomorphism ϕ : ∂D → ∂D is quasisymmetric or a
quasisymmetry if it is the boundary function of some quasiconformal map of
D onto itself.
g
Figure 2. If Γ is a Jordan curve, then the Riemann Mapping
Theorem promises the existence of a conformal map f from the
inside of Γ to the inside of the unit disc D. Similarly, there exists
a conformal map g from the outside of Γ to the outside of the unit
disc.
f −1
4. Circle Packing
4.1. Definitions and Examples. Since William Thurston’s work in the mid-
1980’s, the connections between circle packings and analytic functions have been
widely studied. More detailed information is contained in the rapidly expanding
literature, including several recent survey articles [DS95b,Ste97,Ste02,Ste03] and
Ken Stephenson’s excellent new book [Ste05].
Definition 4.1. A CP-complex K is an abstract simplicial 2-complex such
that
1. K is simplicially equivalent to a triangulation of an (orientable) surface.
2. Every boundary vertex of K has an interior neighbor.
3. The collection of interior vertices is nonempty and edge-connected.
4. There is an upper bound on the degree of vertices in K.
The restrictions imposed by conditions 2 through 4 are extremely mild and
are met by most any reasonable triangulation.
Notice that a CP-complex is a purely combinatorial object. It possesses no
geometric structure until it is embedded in a surface by a circle packing. To
emphasize this fact, we will often refer to a CP-complex simply as an abstract
triangulation.
Definition 4.2. A circle packing is a configuration of circles with a specified
pattern of tangencies. In particular, if K is a CP-complex, then a circle packing
P for K is a configuration of circles such that
1. P contains a circle Cv for each vertex v in K,
2. Cv is externally tangent to Cu if [v, u] is an edge of K,
3. hCv , Cu , Cw i forms a positively oriented mutually tangent triple of circles if
hv, u, wi is a positively oriented face of K.
334 G. Brock Williams IWQCMA05
A packing is called univalent if none of its circles overlap, that is, if no pair of
circles intersect in more than one point.
Example 4.4. Another useful infinite packing is the “ball bearing packing”
named by Tomasz Dubejko and Ken Stephenson [DS95b]. The underlying tri-
angulation is created from a lattice, and the original lattice structure is still
apparent in the resulting packing. Consequently, the carrier of the packing can
be decomposed into small squares. Moreover, there is a natural refinement of
the triangulation and carrier created by replacing each square with four copies
of the original. See Figure 6.
4.2. Packings and Maps. The connection between circle packings and func-
tion theory arises from the investigation of maps between the carriers of two
different packings for the same abstract complex. That is, suppose P and P e are
both Euclidean circle packings for the same underlying complex K. Then every
face in K is realized as both a Euclidean triangle T in carr P and a triangle Te
e It is easy now to construct an affine map between triangles T and Te.
in carr P.
If we translate one vertex of each to the origin, then the two edges meeting at
the origin form a basis for R2 and can be mapped one onto the other by a linear
map.
e by a piecewise
Thus the entire carrier of P can be mapped onto the carrier of P
affine map defined triangle by triangle. Notice that the individual triangle maps
agree on adjacent edges, so the complete map is continuous. Circle packing maps
constructed in this way are called discrete conformal maps. See Figure 7.
4.3. The Rodin-Sullivan Theorem. Recall from Section 2.3, that affine maps
are quasiconformal. The dilation on each triangle will be constant and depend
only by the difference between corresponding angles. If there are only finitely
many circles in the packings, the dilatation of a discrete conformal map will
be finite and depend only on the maximal difference in corresponding angles
between triangles in the two carriers.
336 G. Brock Williams IWQCMA05
At this point in our story, we come to Burt Rodin and Dennis Sullivan’s Ring
Lemma, the first connection between the analytic properties of discrete conformal
maps and the combinatorial properties of packings [RS87].
Ring Lemma. In a univalent packing, there is a lower bound Cn on the ratio of
the radius of any interior circle to the radius of any of its neighbors. This bound
depends only on the degree n (the number of neighbors) of the circle.
The sharp value of the bound Cn was determined by Dov Aharonov [Aha97].
Lemma 4.5. If {an } is the Fibonacci sequence, then
1
Cn = 2 .
an−2 + a2n−1 − 1
Cn
Moreover, converges to the square of the golden ratio.
Cn+1
The Ring Lemma thus connects a purely combinatorial property of the packing
(the degree) with a geometric property of the packing (the ratio of the radii of
adjacent circles). This geometric constraint on the circles implies angles in the
carrier must be bounded away from 0 and π. Hence there is a uniform bound
on the difference between corresponding angles in the carriers of two packings
with the same underlying triangulation. Consequently, the associated discrete
conformal map is quasiconformal with a bound on the dilatation determined
only the degree. In this way, a combinatorial property of the triangulation leads
directly to an analytic property of the associated discrete conformal maps.
In 1985, William Thurston conjectured the relationships between the combina-
torics, geometry, and mapping properties of packings run much deeper [Thu85].
Circle Packings, QC Maps, and Applications 337
Various versions of Theorem 4.6 have been proven. Thurston’s original proof
was only for the regular hex packing of Example 4.3 and relied on deep results
from the theory of hyperbolic 3-manifolds [Thu]. Later improvements by Ken
Stephenson [Ste96], Alan Beardon and Ken Stephenson [BS90], Yves Colin de
Verdiére [dV89, dV91], Zheng-Xu He and Burt Rodin [HR93], and Zheng-Xu He
and Oded Schramm [HS96, HS98] utilized probabilistic techniques, variational
principles, the Perron method, or elementary topology.
The effect of Theorem 4.6 is to force the dilation of fn to decrease to 1 as
n → ∞. Consider a circle C “deep inside” Pn , that is, separated from ∂Ω by a
great many generations of other circles. If C is far enough from the boundary,
it can hardly tell if it is part of a finite packing, or the unique infinite one. The
same must be true for the corresponding circle C e in Pen ⊂ D. Thus triangles in
carr Pn and carr P en which are far from the boundary, must be nearly the same
(up to scaling, translation, and rotation). In particular, the corresponding angles
must be nearly the same, and the resulting affine map must be nearly conformal.
This is usually stated as the Packing Lemma [Ste96, Ste05].
Packing Lemma. Suppose Kn is a sequence of simply connected CP-complexes
with uniformly bounded degree and having univalent packings Pn in a bounded
simply connected domain Ω. If P en is any other sequence of univalent packings
for Kn , then the maximum difference between corresponding angles in carr Pn
and carr Pen goes to 0 locally uniformly as n → ∞.
5. Applications
5.1. Image Recognition. In work with Ken Stephenson, we have applied cir-
cle packing techniques to two-dimensional image recognition problems. David
Mumford and Eitan Sharon have recently developed a technique for studying
two-dimensional shapes (Jordan curves) by means of the Weil-Peterson metric on
their associated welding homeomorphisms [MS04]. They restrict their attention
to smooth curves which then produce diffeomorphisms of ∂D. The Weil-Peterson
metric on these diffeomorphisms is invariant under Möbius transformations; thus
shapes which differ only by scaling or rotation are recognized as being the same.
Circle Packings, QC Maps, and Applications 339
(6.283,6.283)
(0.000,0.000)
(6.283,6.283)
(0.000,0.000)
(6.283,6.283)
(0.000,0.000)
Figure 11. A hand-drawn cross (left) and the graph of the re-
sulting quasisymmetry (right). Compare with Figures 9 and 10.
Figure 12. A discrete welding for the map ϕ(eiθ ) = ei(θ+ 3 sin(3θ)) .
1
the Teichmüller spaces of all Riemann surfaces and as such has recently gained
the attention of physicists as a possible setting for string theory computations
[Pek94, Pek95].
Two common models for the Universal Teichmüller space are the space of
normalized quasicircles and the space of normalized quasisymmetries. The pro-
cess of conformal welding described in Section 3.2 provides the mechanism for
switching between the two models [Leh87, Krz95]. Our method of discrete con-
formal welding described above provides the means for actually computing this
correspondence as well [Wil01a, Wil04].
In the Radnell-Schippers model of quantum field theory, the ends of the world
sheets are parametrized (“rigged”) by quasisymmetric maps. The interaction
between two strings then corresponds to the welding of the two worldsheets via
the rigging [RS05]. These operations can be carried out using circle packings to
approximate the world sheets. The packable surfaces are dense [Bro86, Bro92,
Bro96, BS92, BS93, Wil03] in the moduli space of all surfaces, so nothing is lost
in this approach, while much is gained by the ability to actually compute the
new welded surface.
References
[Aha97] Dov Aharonov, The sharp constant in the ring lemma, Complex Variables Theory
Appl. (1997), 27–31.
[Ahl63] Lars Ahlfors, Quasiconformal reflections, Acta Math. 109 (1963), 291–301.
[Ahl66] , Lectures on quasiconformal mappings, D. van Nostrand, Princeton, New
Jersey, 1966.
[And70a] E. M. Andreev, Convex polyhedra in Lobacevskii space, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 10 (1970),
413–440 (English).
[And70b] , Convex polyhedra of finite volume in Lobacevskii space, Math. USSR Sbornik
12 (1970), 255–259 (English).
[BA56] A. Beurling and L. Ahlfors, The boundary correspondence under quasiconformal map-
pings, Acta Mathematica 96 (1956), 125–141.
[Bea99] Phillip L. Bowers and Monica K. Hurdal et al, Quasi-conformally flat mapping the
human cerebellum, Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention
- MICCAI ’99, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1679, Springer-Verlag, 1999,
pp. 279–286.
[BK02] Mario Bonk and Bruce Kleiner, Quasisymmetric parametrizations of two-
dimensional metric spheres, Invent. Math. 150 (2002), no. 1, 127–183. MR
MR1930885 (2004k:53057)
[Bro86] Robert Brooks, Circle packings and co-compact extensions of Kleinian groups, In-
ventiones Mathematicae 86 (1986), 461–469.
[Bro92] , The continued fraction parameter in the deformation theory of classical
Schottky groups, Contemp. Math., vol. 136, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1992,
pp. 41–54.
[Bro96] , Some relations between graph theory and Riemann surfaces, Proceedings
of the Ashkelon Workshop on Complex Function Theory, Israel Math. Conf. Proc.,
vol. 11, Bar-Ilan Univ., Ramat Gan, 1996, pp. 61–73.
[BS90] Alan F. Beardon and Kenneth Stephenson, The uniformization theorem for circle
packings, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 39 (1990), 1383–1425.
[BS91] , Circle packings in different geometries, Tohoku Math. J. 43 (1991), 27–36.
344 G. Brock Williams IWQCMA05
[BS92] Philip L. Bowers and Kenneth Stephenson, The set of circle packing points in the
Teichmüller space of a surface of finite conformal type is dense, Math. Proc. Camb.
Phil. Soc. 111 (1992), 487–513.
[BS93] , Circle packings in surfaces of finite type: An in situ approach with applica-
tion to moduli, Topology 32 (1993), 157–183.
[BS97] , A regular pentagonal tiling of the plane, Conform. Geom. Dyn. 1 (1997),
58–68.
[BS04a] Alexander I. Bobenko and Boris A. Springborn, Variational principles for circle
patterns and Koebe’s theorem, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356 (2004), no. 2, 659–689
(electronic). MR MR2022715
[BS04b] Philip L. Bowers and Kenneth Stephenson, Uniformizing dessins and Belyı̆ maps
via circle packing, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 170 (2004), no. 805, xii+97. MR
MR2053391 (2005a:30068)
[BW02] R.W. Barnard and G. Brock Williams, Combinatorial excursions in moduli space,
Pacific J. Math. 205 (2002), no. 1, 3–30.
[CS99] Charles Collins and Kennneth Stephenson, A circle packing algorithm, preprint.
[DE86] A. Douady and C. Earle, Conformally natural extension of homeomorphisms of the
circle, Acta Math. 157 (1986), 145–149.
[DS95a] Tomasz Dubejko and Kenneth Stephenson, The branched Schwarz lemma: a classical
result via circle packing, Mich. Math. J. 42 (1995), 211–234.
[DS95b] , Circle packing: Experiments in discrete analytic function theory, Experi-
ment. Math. 4 (1995), no. 4, 307–348.
[Dub97] Tomasz Dubejko, Recurrent random walks, Liouville’s theorem, and circle packings,
Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 121 (1997), no. 3, 531–546.
[dV89] Yves Colin de Verdière, Empilements de cercles: Convergence d’une methode de
point fixe, Forum Mathematicum 1 (1989), 395–402.
[dV91] , Une principe variationnel pour les empilements de cercles, Inventiones
Mathematicae 104 (1991), 655–669.
[DW05] David Dennis and G. Brock Williams, Layered circle packings, Int. Jour. Math. Math.
Sci. 15 (2005), 2429–2440.
[Geh82] Frederick W. Gehring, Characteristic properties of quasidisks, Les Presses De
L’Universiteé De Montréal, Montréal, 1982.
[GL00] Frederick P. Gardiner and Nikola Lakic, Quasiconformal Teichmüller theory, Math-
ematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 76, American Mathematical Society, 2000.
[He90] Zheng-Xu He, Solving Beltrami equations by circle packing, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
322 (1990), 657–670.
[HR93] Zheng-Xu He and Burt Rodin, Convergence of circle packings of finite valence to
Riemann mappings, Comm. in Analysis and Geometry 1 (1993), 31–41.
[HS93] Zheng-Xu He and Oded Schramm, Fixed points, Koebe uniformization and circle
packings, Ann. of Math. 137 (1993), 369–406.
[HS95] , Hyperbolic and parabolic packings, Discrete & Computational Geom. 14
(1995), 123–149.
[HS96] , On the convergence of circle packings to the Riemann map, Invent. Math.
125 (1996), 285–305.
[HS98] , The C ∞ -convergence of hexagonal disk packings to the Riemann map, Acta
Mathematica 180 (1998), 219–245.
[IT92] Yoichi Imayoshi and Masahiko Taniguchi, An introduction to Teichmüller spaces,
Springer-Verlag, 1992.
[Koe36] Koebe, Kontaktprobleme der Konformen Abbildung, Ber. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig,
Math.-Phys. Kl. 88 (1936), 141–164.
[Kra99] Steven G. Krantz, Conformal mappings, American Scientist 87 (1999), 436–445.
Circle Packings, QC Maps, and Applications 345
R Balasubramanian Geetha
Department of Mathematics Department of Mathematics
The Institute of Mathematical Sciences Dheivanai Ammal College for Women
C.I.T. Campus, Taramani Villupuram – 605 602
Chennai – 600 113 Tamil Nadu
balu@imsc.res.in
K.R. Karthikeyan
S.S. Bhoosnurmath 24, Dhanalakshmi Ammal Street
Department of Mathematics Reddiar Garden, Kamaraj Nagar
Karnatak University Avadi, Chennai–600 071
Pavate Nagar, Dharwad – 580 003 kr karthikeyan1979@yahoo.com
Karnataka State
S. Karthikeyan
Bappaditya Bhowmik Department of Mathematics
Department of Mathematics Sona College of Technology
IIT Madras Sona Nagar
Chennai - 600 036 Thiagarajar Polytechnic College Road
ditya@iitm.ac.in Salem – 636 005, Tamil Nadu
mrsiva75@yahoo.co.in
Bhuvana
Hindustan Engineering College S.M. Khairnar
Padur, Kanchipuran Dist. Department of Mathematics
mabhuv@yahoo.com Anuradha Engineering College,
Chikhli–443201, Dist. Buldana, (M.S)
K. Chandrasekhran smkhairnar123@rediffmail.com
R-3 Sivakami Apartments
Somasundharam Street Kokila
Muthuvel Nagar, East Tambaram Department of Mathematics
Chennai-59 Dheivanai Ammal College for Women
kchandru1978@hotmail.com Villupuram – 605 602
Tamil Nadu
S.A. Choudum
Department of Mathematics V. Lakshmi
IIT Madras 52, Choolai high road
Chennai - 600 036 choolai, chennai – 600 112
sac@iitm.ac.in Tamil Nadu
lakshmipandian2005@yahoo.co.in
List of Participants 351
S. Nanda S. Ponnusamy
North Orissa University Department of Mathematics
Sriram Chandra Vihar, Takatpur IIT Madras
Mayurbhanj Chennai - 600 036
Baripada – 757003 samy@iitm.ac.in
snanda@maths.iitkgp.ernet.in
Z. Rebekal S. Selvaganesh
Dr. M.G.R. Deemed University 1/D Jawaharlal Street, Madupet
No. 122, Saniyasipuram Gudiyattam – 632602
2nd street, Medawalkam Vellore District, Tamil Nadu
Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010 selva gym2000@yahoo.co.in
Rathiga C. S. Seshadri
Department of Mathematics Chennai Mathematical Institute
Aarupadai Veedu Inst. of Tech. Plot H1, SIPCOT IT Park
Paiyanoor Padur PO, Siruseri – 603 103
mabhuv@yahoo.com css@cmi.ac.in
M. Suganthi
R. Sathya Priya Dept. of Math. and Computer Appl.
R.M.K. Engineering College PSG College of Technology
Kavarai Pattai Coimbatore – 641004
Thiruvalluvar – 601 206 msugan psgtech@yahoo.co.in
List of Participants 353
S. Sundar P. Veeramani
Department of Mathematics Department of Mathematics
IIT Madras IIT Madras
Chennai - 600 036 Chennai - 600 036
slnt@iitm.ac.in pvmani@iitm.ac.in
G. Thirupathi V. Vetrivel
Adhiyamaan College of Engineering Department of Mathematics
Hosur–635109,Tamil Nadu IIT Madras
gt venkat@rediffmail.com Chennai - 600 036
vetri@iitm.ac.in
E. Umamaheswari
Dr. M.G.D. Educational & Research
Inst. Iran:
No. 23, Venkatachala Mudali street R. Aghalary
Vepery – 600 007 Department of Mathematics
University of Urmia
Vanitha Urmia, Iran
Department of Mathematics raghalary@yahoo.com
Dheivanai Ammal College for Women
Villupuram – 605 602 Saeid Shams
Tamil Nadu Department of Mathematics
University of Urmia
Allu Vasudevarao Urmia, Iran
Department of Mathematics sa40shams@yahoo.com
IIT Madras
Chennai - 600 036
alluvasu@iitm.ac.in
P. Vasundhra
Department of Mathematics
IIT Madras
Chennai - 600 036
vasu2kk@yahoo.com
354 List of Participants IWQCMA05
Japan:
Toshiyuki Sugawa C.M. Pokhrel
Department of Mathematics Department of Mathematics
Graduate School of Science Nepal Engineering College
Hiroshima University G.P.O. Box 10210
1-3-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima Kathmandu, Nepal
739-8526 JAPAN cmpokhrel@wlink.com.np
sugawa@math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp
S.S. Miller
Department of Mathematics
State University of New York
Brockport, NY 14420, U.S.A
smiller@brockport.edu
David Minda
Department of Mathematical Sciences
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0025, U.S.A
E-mail: David.Minda@math.uc.edu
Eric Murphy
U.S. Air Force
6611 Comet Circle
Apt no. 302
Springfield, VA 22150, U.S.A
eric.murphy@cox.net
Kent Pearce
Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409, U.S.A
kent.pearce@ttu.edu
356 List of Participants IWQCMA05