I asked this question on math stackexchange (see here) but didn't get any answer so I thought I post it here too.

We have the following two well-known Theorems:

T1) For all $\delta > 0, \lambda \geq 1, \varepsilon \geq 0$ there exists a constant $R = R(\delta, \lambda, \varepsilon)$ with the following property: If $X$ is a $\delta$-hyperbolic geodesic space, $c$ is a $(\lambda, \varepsilon)$-quasi-geodesic in $X$ and $[p,q]$ is some geodesic segment joining the endpoints of $c$, then the Hausdorff distance between $[p,q]$ and the image of $c$ is less than $R$. (Hence there is some constant such that $[p,q]$ is contained in the neighbourhood of $c$ and vice versa)

T2) Let $X$ be a $\delta$-hyperbolic geodesic space and let $c: [a,b] \to X$ be a $k$-local geodesic, where $k > 8\delta$. Then:

(i) im(c) is contained in the $2 \delta$-neighbourhood of any geodesic segment connecting the endpoints of $c$.

(ii) $[c(a),c(b)]$ is contained the $3 \delta$-neighbourhood of im(c)

(iii) $c$ is a $(\lambda, \varepsilon)$-quasi-geodesic, where $\varepsilon = 2 \delta$ and $\lambda = (k + 4 \delta)/(k - 4 \delta)$.

I am wondering if Theorem 2 (T2) is also true (in an apropriate way) for $k$-local-$(\lambda, \varepsilon)$-quasi-geodesic, i.e. that such local quasi geodesics are actually quasi-geodesics. In the book of Bridson and Haefliger (Metric spaces of non-positive curvature) this should follow in the 'obvious' way of Theorem 1 (T1) and Theorem 2 (T2) above. However I have sme troubles writing this down explicitly.

More precisely in the above mentioned book the following is written:

"By combining (1.7) [our T1] and (1.13) [our T2] in the obvious way one gets a criterion for seeing that paths which are locally quasi-geodesic (with suitable parameters) are actually quasi-geodesics."

Question: This quote is exactly the content of my question, i.e. how to combine these two theorems and in particular what is the exact statement we get (e.g. for the constant $k$ in T2)?

My heuristic would be as follows: A local quasi geodesic is somehow close to a local geodesic by T1 which in turn is a quasi geodesic by T2. Thus the local quasi geodesic we were starting with is close to a quasi geodesic and hence one may deduce that it is itself a quasi geodesic.


I don't have the book in front of me but in the book of Coornaert, Delzant and Papadopoulos you can find the fact that local quasi-geodesics are quasigeodics provided that the locality Parameter is sufficiently large.

PS: I checked, it is Théorème 1.4 of Chapitre 3

  • $\begingroup$ I "know" the book (but my french skills tend rapidly to zero) and this statement, do you know an english translation? $\endgroup$ – M.U. Sep 16 '15 at 9:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think that the book has been translated. I did however write lecture notes a while ago that also treat this theorem. I can send you a copy if you email me. There might be other sources but I am not aware of any. $\endgroup$ – Richard Weidmann Sep 16 '15 at 9:52

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.