Skip to main content
in which I learn the importance of placement of punctuation...
Source Link
Akela
  • 3.7k
  • 3
  • 34
  • 41

Let a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ of $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ act on the hyperbolic plane by Möbius transformations. Is there a "best" or "most canonical" fundamental domain for this action?

Some (mostly unhelpful) observations:

  • For the action of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ the usually taken fundamental domain is this one. Any particular reason?

  • Unfortunately the hyperbolic triangle with vertices $0, 1, \infty$ also won't do for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, as it is not (not quitequite) a fundamental domain.

  • If we are considering a finite-index sugroup of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, then we can form the fundamental domain as a finite union of the fundamental domain of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$. This is not very nice-looking, but it can be determined effectively given a description of $\Gamma$.

  • Let the action be specified for $\Gamma$. Then, for any point $z_0 \in \mathbb H$, there is the standard polygon around it. This was pointed out to me by sigfpe. Thanks a lot, sigfpe. This is a very nice and very canonical construction, once you have a starting point $z_0$. But this is very theoretical. We do not know what are the vertices, in a computable way. We just know that they exist. And then again, what would be a canonical choice for the point $z_0$? If any point inside the hyperbolic plane is canonical, it is $i$. But the two examples considered above for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ does not arise as a fundamental polygon or standard polygon for $i$. In fact $i$ is on the edge of both of these fundamental domains.

Background: The help of Emerton and sigfpe for this question are gratefully acknowledged. Their responses in comments helped a lot. I would also like to ask permission of Emerton and sigfpe if I may delete that question now, since it does not seem to be worthy keeping there.

Let a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ of $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ act on the hyperbolic plane by Möbius transformations. Is there a "best" or "most canonical" fundamental domain for this action?

Some (mostly unhelpful) observations:

  • For the action of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ the usually taken fundamental domain is this one. Any particular reason?

  • Unfortunately the hyperbolic triangle with vertices $0, 1, \infty$ also won't do for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, as it is (not quite) a fundamental domain.

  • If we are considering a finite-index sugroup of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, then we can form the fundamental domain as a finite union of the fundamental domain of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$. This is not very nice-looking, but it can be determined effectively given a description of $\Gamma$.

  • Let the action be specified for $\Gamma$. Then, for any point $z_0 \in \mathbb H$, there is the standard polygon around it. This was pointed out to me by sigfpe. Thanks a lot, sigfpe. This is a very nice and very canonical construction, once you have a starting point $z_0$. But this is very theoretical. We do not know what are the vertices, in a computable way. We just know that they exist. And then again, what would be a canonical choice for the point $z_0$? If any point inside the hyperbolic plane is canonical, it is $i$. But the two examples considered above for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ does not arise as a fundamental polygon or standard polygon for $i$. In fact $i$ is on the edge of both of these fundamental domains.

Background: The help of Emerton and sigfpe for this question are gratefully acknowledged. Their responses in comments helped a lot. I would also like to ask permission of Emerton and sigfpe if I may delete that question now, since it does not seem to be worthy keeping there.

Let a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ of $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ act on the hyperbolic plane by Möbius transformations. Is there a "best" or "most canonical" fundamental domain for this action?

Some (mostly unhelpful) observations:

  • For the action of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ the usually taken fundamental domain is this one. Any particular reason?

  • Unfortunately the hyperbolic triangle with vertices $0, 1, \infty$ also won't do for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, as it is not (quite) a fundamental domain.

  • If we are considering a finite-index sugroup of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, then we can form the fundamental domain as a finite union of the fundamental domain of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$. This is not very nice-looking, but it can be determined effectively given a description of $\Gamma$.

  • Let the action be specified for $\Gamma$. Then, for any point $z_0 \in \mathbb H$, there is the standard polygon around it. This was pointed out to me by sigfpe. Thanks a lot, sigfpe. This is a very nice and very canonical construction, once you have a starting point $z_0$. But this is very theoretical. We do not know what are the vertices, in a computable way. We just know that they exist. And then again, what would be a canonical choice for the point $z_0$? If any point inside the hyperbolic plane is canonical, it is $i$. But the two examples considered above for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ does not arise as a fundamental polygon or standard polygon for $i$. In fact $i$ is on the edge of both of these fundamental domains.

added 4 characters in body
Source Link
Akela
  • 3.7k
  • 3
  • 34
  • 41

Let a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ of $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ act on the hyperbolic plane by Möbius transformations. Is there a "best" or "most canonical" fundamental domain for this action?

Some (mostly unhelpful) observations:

  • For the action of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ the usually taken fundamental domain is this one. Any particular reason?

  • Unfortunately the hyperbolic triangle with vertices $0, 1, \infty$ also won't do for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, as it is (not quite) a fundamental domain.

  • If we are considering a finite-index sugroup of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, then we can form the fundamental domain as a finite union of the fundamental domain of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$. This is not very nice-looking, but it can be determined effectively given a description of $\Gamma$.

  • Let the action be specified for $\Gamma$. Then, for any point $z_0 \in \mathbb H$, there is the standard polygon around it. This was pointed out to me by sigfpe. Thanks a lot, sigfpe. This is a very nice and very canonical construction, once you have a starting point $z_0$. But this is very theoretical. We do not know what are the vertices, in a computable way. We just know that they exist. And then again, what would be a canonical choice for the point $z_0$? If any point inside the hyperbolic plane is canonical, it is $i$. But the two examples considered above for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ does not arise as a fundamental polygon or standard polygon for $i$. In fact $i$ is on the edge of both of these fundamental domains.

Background: The help of Emerton and sigfpe for this question are gratefully acknowledged. Their responses in comments helped a lot. I would also like to ask permission of Emerton and sigfpe if I may delete that question now, since it does not seem to be worthy keeping there.

Let a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ of $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ act on the hyperbolic plane by Möbius transformations. Is there a "best" or "most canonical" fundamental domain for this action?

Some (mostly unhelpful) observations:

  • For the action of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ the usually taken fundamental domain is this one. Any particular reason?

  • Unfortunately the hyperbolic triangle with vertices $0, 1, \infty$ also won't do for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, as it is (not quite) a fundamental domain.

  • If we are considering a finite-index sugroup of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, then we can form the fundamental domain as a finite union of the fundamental domain of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$. This is very nice-looking, but it can be determined effectively given a description of $\Gamma$.

  • Let the action be specified for $\Gamma$. Then, for any point $z_0 \in \mathbb H$, there is the standard polygon around it. This was pointed out to me by sigfpe. Thanks a lot, sigfpe. This is a very nice and very canonical construction, once you have a starting point $z_0$. But this is very theoretical. We do not know what are the vertices, in a computable way. We just know that they exist. And then again, what would be a canonical choice for the point $z_0$? If any point inside the hyperbolic plane is canonical, it is $i$. But the two examples considered above for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ does not arise as a fundamental polygon or standard polygon for $i$. In fact $i$ is on the edge of both of these fundamental domains.

Background: The help of Emerton and sigfpe for this question are gratefully acknowledged. Their responses in comments helped a lot. I would also like to ask permission of Emerton and sigfpe if I may delete that question now, since it does not seem to be worthy keeping there.

Let a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ of $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ act on the hyperbolic plane by Möbius transformations. Is there a "best" or "most canonical" fundamental domain for this action?

Some (mostly unhelpful) observations:

  • For the action of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ the usually taken fundamental domain is this one. Any particular reason?

  • Unfortunately the hyperbolic triangle with vertices $0, 1, \infty$ also won't do for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, as it is (not quite) a fundamental domain.

  • If we are considering a finite-index sugroup of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, then we can form the fundamental domain as a finite union of the fundamental domain of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$. This is not very nice-looking, but it can be determined effectively given a description of $\Gamma$.

  • Let the action be specified for $\Gamma$. Then, for any point $z_0 \in \mathbb H$, there is the standard polygon around it. This was pointed out to me by sigfpe. Thanks a lot, sigfpe. This is a very nice and very canonical construction, once you have a starting point $z_0$. But this is very theoretical. We do not know what are the vertices, in a computable way. We just know that they exist. And then again, what would be a canonical choice for the point $z_0$? If any point inside the hyperbolic plane is canonical, it is $i$. But the two examples considered above for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ does not arise as a fundamental polygon or standard polygon for $i$. In fact $i$ is on the edge of both of these fundamental domains.

Background: The help of Emerton and sigfpe for this question are gratefully acknowledged. Their responses in comments helped a lot. I would also like to ask permission of Emerton and sigfpe if I may delete that question now, since it does not seem to be worthy keeping there.

Source Link
Akela
  • 3.7k
  • 3
  • 34
  • 41

Canonical fundamental domain for a discrete subgroup Γ of SL₂(R) acting on hyperbolic plane

Let a discrete subgroup $\Gamma$ of $SL_2(\mathbb R)$ act on the hyperbolic plane by Möbius transformations. Is there a "best" or "most canonical" fundamental domain for this action?

Some (mostly unhelpful) observations:

  • For the action of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ the usually taken fundamental domain is this one. Any particular reason?

  • Unfortunately the hyperbolic triangle with vertices $0, 1, \infty$ also won't do for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, as it is (not quite) a fundamental domain.

  • If we are considering a finite-index sugroup of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$, then we can form the fundamental domain as a finite union of the fundamental domain of $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$. This is very nice-looking, but it can be determined effectively given a description of $\Gamma$.

  • Let the action be specified for $\Gamma$. Then, for any point $z_0 \in \mathbb H$, there is the standard polygon around it. This was pointed out to me by sigfpe. Thanks a lot, sigfpe. This is a very nice and very canonical construction, once you have a starting point $z_0$. But this is very theoretical. We do not know what are the vertices, in a computable way. We just know that they exist. And then again, what would be a canonical choice for the point $z_0$? If any point inside the hyperbolic plane is canonical, it is $i$. But the two examples considered above for $SL_2(\mathbb Z)$ does not arise as a fundamental polygon or standard polygon for $i$. In fact $i$ is on the edge of both of these fundamental domains.

Background: The help of Emerton and sigfpe for this question are gratefully acknowledged. Their responses in comments helped a lot. I would also like to ask permission of Emerton and sigfpe if I may delete that question now, since it does not seem to be worthy keeping there.