MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Suppose $n$ is an integer greater than 3. Sometimes ago I heard somewhere that it is still not known if there exist complete finite-volume hyperbolic $n$-manifolds having exactly one cusp.

Could someone either confirm that the problem of finding such examples in every dimension is still open, or, preferably, give me a reference for examples of one-cusped hyperbolic manifolds in arbitrary dimension?

share|cite|improve this question
I think this is still open. This is mentioned as an open problem here: – Ian Agol Sep 7 '10 at 15:31
Dear Ian, thank you very much for your reply. I also checked the papers that cite Long-Reid's work, and it seems that the problem is still open. – Roberto Frigerio Sep 9 '10 at 10:41
There are known 1-cusped hyperbolic orbifolds up to dimension 9, I think. See e.g.: So one could attempt to look for irregular covers of these orbifolds which are manifolds. I don't know what is known about this though. – Ian Agol Sep 10 '10 at 0:24
Dear Ian, thank you again! this reference sounds quite interesting! I will give a look at it soon. – Roberto Frigerio Sep 19 '10 at 20:49

Dear Roberto, to add information of Agol's comment, in Theorem 1.3 of this paper it is proved that there aren't one-cusped arithmetic hyperbolic $n$-orbifolds for $n\geq 30$. Moreover, Stover shows one-cusped arithmetic hyperbolic orbifolds in dimensions 10 and 11.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for your answer. I saw Stover's paper on the arxiv some days ago, I hope I will have time to read it soon! – Roberto Frigerio Dec 27 '11 at 17:52
Are there known non-arithmetic methods for constructing finite-volume hyperbolic manifolds of arbitrary dimension? – Anton Lukyanenko Dec 27 '11 at 20:30
Anton, there are special constructions of non-arithmetic hyperbolic manifolds in small dimensions >3, coming e.g. from reflection groups or certain special moduli spaces. Otherwise, in high dimensions, the only construction of non-arithmetic lattices available seems to be the Gromov-Piatetskii-Shapiro method of interbreeding, or a slight variation I call inbreeding. It may be possible to take a multicusp arithmetic manifold and interbreed it to construct a one cusp manifold. – Ian Agol Dec 27 '11 at 20:47

Dear all, today a paper by Kolpakov and Martelli on the arxiv appeared that shows that there exist lots of 4-dimensional cusped hyperbolic manifolds with one cusp. Here is the reference

The general case is still open, I think.

share|cite|improve this answer

Indeed, the general case is open. In the case of dimension four, we used the Coxeter $24$-cell, which is an ideal right-angled polytope (ideal means that all of its vertices are on $\partial \mathbb{H}^4$). It is know (a little result of mine) that there are now ideal right angled polytopes in dimensions greater than or equal to $7$ (however, I do not know anything about dimensions $5$ and $6$). Thus, there is no hope to use ideal right-angled polytopes in higher dimensions.

share|cite|improve this answer
There are right-angled finite-volume polytopes up to dimension 8: I believe all the vertices are ideal, although I have to double-check. – Ian Agol Sep 2 '13 at 2:22
Dear Ian, thank you for your comment! In Potyagailo-Vinberg's construction, there are both ideal and proper vertices. I think that each polytope $P_n$ they construct in dimension n becomes a facet of the next $P_{n+1}$. E.g., each facet of $P_4$ is isometric to $P_3$, e.t.c. However, $P_3$ has already both ideal and proper vertices, thus all $P_n$, $4\leq n \leq 8$, will have vertices of both types (ideal and proper). – SashaKolpakov Sep 2 '13 at 4:24
However, if you want all the vertices to be ideal, then the dimension is $\leq 6$ ( and I know examples only up to $n=4$. I wonder if there are ``totally ideal'' (all vertices ideal) right-angled polytopes of dimension $n=5,6$ or there is a proof that there are none and $n=4$ is a sharp bound. – SashaKolpakov Sep 2 '13 at 7:30

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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