Timeline for Hyperbolic isometries in cocompact Hadamard (i.e. cat(0) proper simply connected) spaces
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5, 2011 at 14:02 | comment | added | Anon | This is because they give the definition in the particular case of discrete groups. The "true" definition" replaces "finite" by "compact". But in general, the topology of the group of isometries is defined in such a way that the action is proper almost by definition. So this is definitely not a problem. | |
| Mar 29, 2011 at 13:44 | comment | added | Aurelien | Are you sure of your lat remark? They do not define proper action in their paper, but Bridson and Haefliger define an action to be proper in for every compact $K$ the number of $g$ in the group that satisfy $g(K)\cap K\neq\void$ is finite. With this definition, the isometry group of a homogeneous manifold is not proper! | |
| Mar 24, 2011 at 17:40 | comment | added | Aurelien | Thanks! Caprace and Monod's article just jumped on the top of my stack of "to be read" articles that take the dust on my desktop. However, the question still holds... And sorry, I don't have enough reputation points to give you a thumbs up... | |
| Mar 24, 2011 at 17:24 | vote | accept | Aurelien | ||
| Mar 24, 2011 at 17:38 | |||||
| Mar 24, 2011 at 15:00 | history | answered | Anon | CC BY-SA 2.5 |