4
$\begingroup$

Let $(X,\omega)$ be a Riemann surface of genus $g$ with holomorphic 1-form $\omega$ (or equivalently a translation structure). Let $\Omega\mathcal{T}_g$ be the space of holomorphic 1-forms over genus $g$ surface. The famous $\mathrm{SL}_2\mathbb{R}$ action on $\Omega\mathcal{T}_g$ is defined by composing each coordinate chart of $(X,\omega)$ with matrices in $\mathrm{SL}_2\mathbb{R}$. It is claimed that by descending to $\mathbb{H}$ and $\mathcal{T}_g$ from their tangent/cotangent bundle, the $\mathrm{SL}_2\mathbb{R}$ action embeds the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H}$ isometrically into Teichmuller space $\mathcal{T}_g$ of genus $g$.

A few things I have learned so far:

  • $\mathrm{PSL}_2\mathbb{R}$ is identified with $T^1\mathbb{H}$ by choosing $(i,i)\in T^1\mathbb{H}$ for identity matrix. For any $g\in \mathrm{PSL}_2\mathbb{R}$ identified with $(x,v)\in T^1\mathbb{H}$, $ga_t$ traces the geodesic in $\mathbb{H}$ passing through $x$ with tangent vector $v$.
  • Let $a_t:=\begin{pmatrix}e^{t/2}&0\\ 0&e^{-t/2} \end{pmatrix}, t\in\mathbb{R}$. The action of $a_t$ streches the horizontal direction and shrinks the vertical direction of $(X,\omega)$. By the Teichmuller theorem, $a_t\cdot (X,\omega)$ traces the geodesic in $\mathcal{T_g}$ passing through $X$ with marking $id_X$ as $t$ varies.

So if the embedding is given by the identification of $T^1\mathbb{H}$ with $\mathrm{PSL}_2\mathbb{R}\cdot (X_0,\omega_0)$ above, the curve $t\mapsto a_tg$ in $T^1\mathbb{H}$ is sent to the geodesic $t\mapsto a_t\cdot (X,\omega)$ in $\mathcal{T}_g$ given that $(X,\omega)=g\cdot (X_0,\omega_0)$. However, the former curve $t\mapsto a_tg$ is NOT the geodesic but a scaling of the complex number $x$ to which $g$ is identified with. The fact that a non-geodesic is sent to a geodesic contradicts the claim that the embedding of $\mathbb{H}$ is isometric. I think the issue here is that the geodesic flow on $\mathrm{PSL}_2\mathbb{R}$ is a RIGHT multiplication by $a_t$ while the $\mathrm{PSL_2}\mathbb{R}$ action on $\Omega\mathcal{T}_g$ is from left.

Where does my argument go wrong? Or do we define the identification of $\mathbb{H}$ with $\mathrm{SO(2)}\backslash \mathrm{SL}_2\mathbb{R}\cdot (X_0,\omega_0)$ differently?

I apologize in advance if this kind of questions don't belong here. The link to the same post on MSE https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2822006/teichmuller-disk-and-mathrmsl-2-mathbbr-action

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What do you call Teichmüller disk? isn't it Teichmüller space vs Poincaré disk? $\endgroup$ – YCor Jun 17 '18 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ @YCor By Teichmueller disk I mean the isometrically embedded Poincare disk in Teichmuller space. $\endgroup$ – Morty Jun 17 '18 at 14:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is now an answer to the stack-exchange version of this question. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Jun 17 '18 at 16:35
  • $\begingroup$ @LeeMosher Thank you for update. I have read the answer given on the other site. It is a good expansion of content of my first item in the list of this post. Like I commented below that answer, it didn't answer my question raised later in the post. $\endgroup$ – Morty Jun 17 '18 at 17:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you post a question on MSE, you should wait a few days without getting answers before reposting it here, and it's common courtesy to include links between the versions of the posts so that there is no duplication of effort. $\endgroup$ – j.c. Jun 17 '18 at 19:47
0
$\begingroup$

I have found an answer to my question with which I am satisfied by studying the original paper of Veech: Teichmuller curves in moduli space, Eisenstein series adn an application to triangular billiards. He considered two actions on $\Omega \mathcal{T}_g$. One is the $PSL_2(\mathbb{R})$ action from left mentioned above, and the other is an action by $Aff^+(X,\omega)$, the group of orientation-preserving affine homeomorphisms from right. Although the Veech group $SL(X,\omega)$ could be defined either as stabilizer of $PSL_2(\mathbb{R})$ action or the image of differential $D:Aff^+(X,\omega)\rightarrow PSL_2(\mathbb{R})$, the geodesic flow on $\Omega\mathcal{T}_g$ should be really defined as the right action of $\phi_t\in Aff^+(X,\omega)$ whose derivative $D\phi_t=a_t$ instead of the left multiplication by $a_t$. The former is exactly what Veech did in his paper. However, the survey I read defined geodesic flow in the latter way and I was confused by this technical point.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Apropos to my comments and the comments of @j.c., please warn readers over on stack exchange about your answer here, so that they don't waste time answering the question over there. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher Jun 19 '18 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I post the same thing over there. Thank you for advices. $\endgroup$ – Morty Jun 19 '18 at 15:13

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.