I'm looking for a definition of “ends” of a metric space that is well-defined even for non geodesic or locally finite metric spaces, invariant under quasi-isometries (or more generally coarse isometries), and that subsumes the usual definition for graphs. A good “test” for such a definition would be whether it satisfies the Hopf-Freudenthal result that the number of ends of a transitive graph is either of $0,1,2,\infty$. I would like such a definition to be as “native” to coarse geometry as possible: reducing to graphs feels a bit cheaty.
A typical procedure would be to look at the ends of increasing Rips complexes on the space, but I'm not sure this is well-defined (or rather, behaves well), since the Rips complexes wouldn't necessarily yield connected graphs, and the path metric on the Rips complex wouldn't have much similarity with the original metric on the space.
So, let me propose the following, until a better definition comes along:
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. A subset $A$ of $X$ is $r$-connected ($r>0$) if any two points $x,y \in A$ of this subset can be connected by a sequence $x=z_0,\dots,z_n=y$ with $z_i \in A$ and $d(z_i,z_{i+1}) \leq r$.
The $r$-ends of $X$ are constructed as the limit of the $r$-connected components of infinite diameter of $X-K$, for $K$ ranging over all subsets of $X$ of finite diameter. If I'm not mistaken, there is a way to map the $r$-ends of $X$ to its $s$-ends, for $r<s$, and one could define the “coarse ends” of $X$ as the appropriate limit.
Note that I think we shouldn't let $K$ up there range over all subsets of $X$ that are of finite diameter and $r$-connected, since this doesn't give us a directed system anymore.
Note also that the $r$-ends themselves don't necessarily satisfy Hopf-Freudental, again because of this possible non-$r$-connectedness.
The main thing I'm queasy about in this construction is the fact that it mixes two metrics essentially: the original one on $X$ and the one defined by $r$-connectedness… this looks fishy.
That's it: I believe there should be a “clearly correct” definition, but I'm not sure which it is. Thanks!