Suppose $M$ is a hyperbolic $3$-manifold whose fundamental group has rank $r.$ What is the best (lower) bound on the volume of $M?$ Similar question for rank of $H_1.$ There is a bunch of papers of Culler and Shalen on related subjects, but they seem to care about "small" manifolds, whereas this question is more on the asymptotic dependence.

  • $\begingroup$ Is there an opposite inequality, i.e. a bound on the volume in terms of the rank (minimal number of generators)? I am a total novice in this field so perhaps I am unaware of some canonical counterexample. $\endgroup$ – NWMT Jun 27 '16 at 19:31

In Counting arithmetic lattices and surfaces, Mikhail Belolipetsky, Tsachik Gelander, Alex Lubotzky and Aner Shalev prove the following Theorem.

Let $H$ be a connected simple Lie group of real rank one. Then there is an effective computable constant $C=C(H)$ such that for any lattice $\Gamma < H$ we have $r(\Gamma)\le C\cdot \mathrm{vol}(\Gamma\backslash H)$, where $r(\Gamma)$ is the minimal number of generators of $\Gamma$.

Applying this to $SO(1,3)$ gives $\mathrm{vol}(M) \ge 1/C\cdot r(\pi_1(M))$ in your case.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I interpreted "rank" as "minimal number of generators", I hope this is what you meant. $\endgroup$ – Aurel Jan 26 '14 at 18:55
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! This is obviously sharp (in terms of growth rate) in dimension $2,$ but less obviously so in dimension $3...$ $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Jan 26 '14 at 19:03
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The growth rate is sharp in dimension 3 as well. For example, take cyclic covers over one component of the Whitehead link complement. The rank (of $H_1$) and the volume both grow linearly. $\endgroup$ – Ian Agol Jan 26 '14 at 19:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that on 2204 of the published paper, a fairly explicit estimate is given in terms of the Margulis constant. The Margulis constant is estimated in a paper of Meyerhoff. However, when the rank of $H_1$ is at least $3$, one may assume the Margulis constant is $\geq \log(3)/2$. So this should give an improvement in this case. $\endgroup$ – Ian Agol Jan 26 '14 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ @IanAgol Ah, OK. I will need to ponder what this means in the grand scheme of things... $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Jan 27 '14 at 3:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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