0
$\begingroup$

Let G be the fundamental group of a compact 3-manifold which supports on its interior a complete non positively curved Riemannian metric and is a cilinder near de metric. Is G hyperbolic?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is the last part of the first sentence supposed to say? At any rate, the fundamental group of a flat 3-torus is not hyperbolic. $\endgroup$ – Autumn Kent Nov 17 '11 at 14:01
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, then change nonpositively by negatively $\endgroup$ – Luis Jorge Nov 17 '11 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ It is a standard result in Riemannian geometry that the fundamental group of a compact Riemannian manifold with strictly negative curvature has hyperbolic fundamental group since the universal cover is $CAT(k)$ for some $k < 0$. Does that answer your question, or are you asking about something else? $\endgroup$ – Paul Siegel Nov 17 '11 at 14:32
  • $\begingroup$ Actually I want to know if groups of that form (the way I difined in the first question) satisfy the k.theoretic farrell jones conjecture. I have another question. In the case of zero curvature what kind of groups may occur? $\endgroup$ – Luis Jorge Nov 17 '11 at 14:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you only require a negatively curved metric on the interior then $G$ need not be hyperbolic. For example, the figure eight knot complement with the hyperbolic metric (a) has constant negative curvature and (b) is the interior of a compact three-manifold. But $G$ is not hyperbolic because the peripheral group is ${\mathbb{Z}}^2$. $\endgroup$ – Sam Nead Nov 17 '11 at 18:11
2
$\begingroup$

Yes, this follows from the geometrization theorem. A negatively curved complete manifold is atoroidal, and the manifold is irreducible, so there is a complete hyperbolic metric on the interior by geometrization.

In your comments, you ask about zero curvature. Then it is just a Euclidean manifold, with fundamental group a Bieberbach group.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think he means word-hyperbolic (I didn't say the question made any sense...) $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Nov 17 '11 at 17:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see Igor - I always confuse 3-manifolds and their fundamental groups. $\endgroup$ – Ian Agol Nov 17 '11 at 19:34

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.