Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was studying Theorem 4.4.1 from John H. Hubbard's Teichmuller Theory, vol I, Theorem 4.4.1 ( P. 129 ) which states :

Let $X,Y$ be two hyperbolic Riemann surfaces with hyperbolic metrics $d_X,d_Y$ respectively and let $K\geq 1 $.Then there exists a function ( homeomorphism of positive real numbers) $\delta_K:(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)$ such that $\lim_{\eta\to 0}\delta_K(\eta)=0$ such that for all $K$-q.c maps $f:X\to Y$, we have $dist_Y(f(x),f(y))\leq \delta_K(dist_X(x,y))$.

The way he proves it is the following : 1) It is enough to prove the statement for the universal cover ,i.e. the Poincare disk $D$, since a $K$-q.c. map lifts to a $K$-q.c map.

2) He defines $\delta_K(\eta)= M^{-1}(\frac{1}{K}M(\eta) )$, where $M$ is the modulus of the branched/ramified cover with ramification locus being the two-point set $P={z_1,z_2}$, which ( modulus ) he proves depends only on the hyperbolic distance $dist_D(z_1,z_2)$ . ( Lemma 4.4.2) and is a strictly decreasing homeomorphim of the positive real numbers.

My questions are :

  1. Hubbard proves that the branched/ramified double cover of $D$ with ramification locus a two-point set is topologically a cylinder. But then how do we know that this cylinder has a finite modulus , i.e. the cylinder is not conformally equivalent to $C-{0},D-0 $ ? Well, in proposition 4.4.6 ( P. 132 ),he proves it, but that is only after proving Thm 4.4.1.

  2. I am unable to follow the lines 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, in the proof of lemma 4.4.2 ? What does he mean exactly by his notation $ (D~_r)_ {0,z} $ ?

    Is he scaling the standard hyperbolic metric on $D$ ? And why exactly the inclusion of the cylinders ( ramified covers ) in the line 4.4.3 true ? Please explain , thanks !

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

1) As you said the first point is covered in prop. 4.4.6. anyway.

2) Concerning the second point, you can actually use that same proposition 4.4.6:

first the notation $d_{D_{r}}(0,z)$ means that you are considering the distance between $0$ and $z$ in the hyperbolic metric associated to the disk $D_{r}$ centered at the origin with radius $r$ (so if you consider two such disks, $D_{r_{1}}$, $D_{r_{2}}$ you will work with two different metrics). Now you can normalize the situation so that your two points $z_{1}, z_{2}$ are $\pm a$ and use the double cover of $\mathbb{C}$ (ramified above $\pm a$) given by $$ \phi_{a}(z)=(a/2)(z+1/z).$$ The preimage by $\phi_{a}$ of a disk $D$ containing $\pm a$ will give you $\tilde{D}$ (because you obtain a double cover branched exactly where it should be). But since you have two such nested disks $D_{r_{2}} \subset D_{r_{1}}$ you will obtain an inclusion for their preimages as well $\tilde{D_{2}} \subset \tilde{D_{1}}$, as you wanted.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.