Shrinkwrapping and the taming of hyperbolic 3-manifolds

By Danny Calegari and David Gabai

Abstract

We introduce a new technique for finding CAT surfaces in hyperbolic 3-manifolds. We use this to show that a complete hyperbolic 3-manifold with finitely generated fundamental group is geometrically and topologically tame.

0. Introduction

During the period 1960–1980, Ahlfors, Bers, Kra, Marden, Maskit, Sullivan, Thurston and many others developed the theory of geometrically finite ends of hyperbolic -manifolds. It remained to understand those ends which are not geometrically finite; such ends are called geometrically infinite.

Around 1978 William Thurston gave a conjectural description of geometrically infinite ends of complete hyperbolic -manifolds. An example of a geometrically infinite end is given by an infinite cyclic covering space of a closed hyperbolic 3-manifold which fibers over the circle. Such an end has cross sections of uniformly bounded area. By contrast, the area of sections of geometrically finite ends grows exponentially in the distance from the convex core.

For the sake of clarity we will assume throughout this introduction that where is parabolic free. Precise statements of the parabolic case will be given in §7.

Thurston’s idea was formalized by Bonahon Reference Bo and Canary Reference Ca with the following.

Definition 0.1.

An end of a hyperbolic -manifold is simply degenerate if it has a closed neighborhood of the form where is a closed surface, and there exists a sequence of surfaces exiting which are homotopic to in . This means that there exists a sequence of maps such that the induced path metrics induce structures on the ’s, and is homotopic to a homeomorphism onto via a homotopy supported in .

Here by , we mean as usual a geodesic metric space for which geodesic triangles are “thinner” than comparison triangles in hyperbolic space. If the metrics pulled back by the are smooth, this is equivalent to the condition that the Riemannian curvature is bounded above by . See Reference BH for a reference. Note that by Gauss–Bonnet, the area of a surface can be estimated from its Euler characteristic; it follows that a simply degenerate end has cross sections of uniformly bounded area, just like the end of a cyclic cover of a manifold fibering over the circle.

Francis Bonahon Reference Bo observed that geometrically infinite ends are exactly those ends possessing an exiting sequence of closed geodesics. This will be our working definition of such ends throughout this paper.

The following is our main result.

Theorem 0.2.

An end of a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group is simply degenerate if there exists a sequence of closed geodesics exiting .

Consequently we have:

Theorem 0.3.

Let be a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. Then every end of is geometrically tame; i.e., it is either geometrically finite or simply degenerate.

In 1974 Marden Reference Ma showed that a geometrically finite hyperbolic 3-manifold is topologically tame, i.e., is the interior of a compact -manifold. He asked whether all complete hyperbolic 3-manifolds with finitely generated fundamental group are topologically tame. This question is now known as the Tame Ends Conjecture or Marden Conjecture.

Theorem 0.4.

If is a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then is topologically tame.

Ian Agol Reference Ag has independently proven Theorem 0.4.

There have been many important steps towards Theorem 0.2. The seminal result was obtained by Thurston (Reference T, Theorem 9.2) who proved Theorems 0.3 and 0.4 for certain algebraic limits of quasi-Fuchsian groups. Bonahon Reference Bo established Theorems 0.2 and 0.4 when is freely indecomposable, and Canary Reference Ca proved that topological tameness implies geometrical tameness. Results in the direction of 0.4 were also obtained by Canary–Minsky Reference CaM, Kleineidam–Souto Reference KS, Evans Reference Ev, Brock–Bromberg–Evans–Souto Reference BBES, Ohshika Reference Oh, Brock–Souto Reference BS and Souto Reference So.

Thurston first discovered how to obtain analytic conclusions from the existence of exiting sequences of surfaces. Thurston’s work as generalized by Bonahon Reference Bo and Canary Reference Ca combined with Theorem 0.2 yields a positive proof of the Ahlfors’ Measure Conjecture Reference A2.

Theorem 0.5.

If is a finitely generated Kleinian group, then the limit set is either or has Lebesgue measure zero. If , then acts ergodically on .

Theorem 0.5 is one of the many analytical consequences of our main result. Indeed, Theorem 0.2 implies that a complete hyperbolic 3-manifold with finitely generated fundamental group is analytically tame as defined by Canary Reference Ca. It follows from Canary that the various results of Reference Ca, §9 hold for .

Our main result is the last step needed to prove the following monumental result, the other parts being established by Alhfors, Bers, Kra, Marden, Maskit, Mostow, Prasad, Sullivan, Thurston, Minsky, Masur–Minsky, Brock–Canary–Minsky, Ohshika, Kleineidam–Souto, Lecuire, Kim–Lecuire–Ohshika, Hossein–Souto and Rees. See Reference Mi and Reference BCM.

Theorem 0.6 (Classification Theorem).

If is a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then is determined up to isometry by its topological type, the conformal boundary of its geometrically finite ends and the ending laminations of its geometrically infinite ends.

The following result was conjectured by Bers, Sullivan and Thurston. Theorem 0.4 is one of many results, many of them recent, needed to build a proof. Major contributions were made by Alhfors, Bers, Kra, Marden, Maskit, Mostow, Prasad, Sullivan, Thurston, Minsky, Masur–Minsky, Brock–Canary–Minsky, Ohshika, Kleineidam–Souto, Lecuire, Kim–Lecuire–Ohshika, Hossein–Souto, Rees, Bromberg and Brock–Bromberg.

Theorem 0.7 (Density Theorem).

If is a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then is the algebraic limit of geometrically finite Kleinian groups.

The main technical innovation of this paper is a new technique called shrinkwrapping for producing surfaces in hyperbolic 3-manifolds. Historically, such surfaces have been immensely important in the study of hyperbolic 3-manifolds; e.g., see Reference T, Reference Bo, Reference Ca and Reference CaM.

Given a locally finite set of pairwise disjoint simple closed curves in the 3-manifold , we say that the embedded surface is -incompressible rel. if every compressing disc for meets at least twice. Here is a sample theorem.

Theorem 0.8 (Existence of shrinkwrapped surface).

Let be a complete, orientable, parabolic free hyperbolic -manifold, and let be a finite collection of pairwise disjoint simple closed geodesics in . Furthermore, let be a closed embedded -incompressible surface rel. which is either nonseparating in or separates some component of from another. Then is homotopic to a surface via a homotopy

such that

(1)

,

(2)

is an embedding disjoint from for ,

(3)

,

(4)

If is any other surface with these properties, then .

We say that is obtained from by shrinkwrapping rel. , or if is understood, is obtained from by shrinkwrapping.

In fact, we prove the stronger result that is -minimal (to be defined in §1), which implies in particular that it is intrinsically .

Here is the main technical result of this paper.

Theorem 0.9.

Let be an end of the complete orientable hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. Let be a -dimensional compact core of , the component of facing and . If there exists a sequence of closed geodesics exiting , then there exists a sequence of surfaces of genus exiting such that each is homologically separating in . That is, each homologically separates from .

Theorem 0.4 can now be deduced from Theorem 0.9 and Souto Reference So; however, we prove that Theorem 0.9 implies Theorem 0.4 using only 3-manifold topology and elementary hyperbolic geometry.

The proof of Theorem 0.9 blends elementary aspects of minimal surface theory, hyperbolic geometry, and 3-manifold topology. The method will be demonstrated in §4 where we give a proof of Canary’s theorem. The first-time reader is urged to begin with that section.

This paper is organized as follows. In §1 and §2 we establish the shrinkwrapping technique for finding surfaces in hyperbolic 3-manifolds. In §3 we prove the existence of -separated simple geodesics exiting the end of parabolic free manifolds. In §4 we prove Canary’s theorem. This proof will model the proof of the general case. The general strategy will be outlined at the end of that section. In §5 we develop the topological theory of end reductions in 3-manifolds. In §6 we give the proofs of our main results. In §7 we give the necessary embellishments of our methods to state and prove our results in the case of manifolds with parabolic cusps.

Notation 0.10.

If , then denotes a regular neighborhood of in and denotes the interior of . If is a topological space, then denotes the number of components of . If are topological subspaces of a third space, then denotes the intersection of with the complement of .

1. Shrinkwrapping

In this section, we introduce a new technical tool for finding surfaces in hyperbolic -manifolds, called shrinkwrapping. Roughly speaking, given a collection of simple closed geodesics in a hyperbolic -manifold and an embedded surface , a surface is obtained from by shrinkwrapping rel. if it is homotopic to , can be approximated by an isotopy from supported in , and is the least area subject to these constraints.

Given mild topological conditions on (namely -incompressibility, to be defined below) the shrinkwrapped surface exists, and is with respect to the path metric induced by the Riemannian metric on .

We use some basic analytical tools throughout this section, including the Gauss–Bonnet formula, the coarea formula, and the Arzela–Ascoli theorem. At a number of points we must invoke results from the literature to establish existence of minimal surfaces (Reference MSY), existence of limits with area and curvature control (Reference CiSc), and regularity of the shrinkwrapped surfaces along (Reference Ri, Reference Fre). General references are Reference CM, Reference Js, Reference Fed and Reference B.

1.1. Geometry of surfaces

For convenience, we state some elementary but fundamental lemmas concerning curvature of (smooth) surfaces in Riemannian -manifolds.

We use the following standard terms to refer to different kinds of minimal surfaces:

Definition 1.1.

A smooth surface in a Riemannian -manifold is minimal if it is a critical point for area with respect to all smooth compactly supported variations. It is locally least area (also called stable) if it is a local minimum for area with respect to all smooth, compactly supported variations. A closed, embedded surface is globally least area if it is an absolute minimum for area amongst all smooth surfaces in its isotopy class.

Note that we do not require that our minimal or locally least area surfaces are complete.

Any subsurface of a globally least area surface is locally least area, and a locally least area surface is minimal. A smooth surface is minimal iff its mean curvature vector field vanishes identically. For more details, consult Reference CM, especially chapter 5.

The intrinsic curvature of a minimal surface is controlled by the geometry of the ambient manifold. The following lemma is formula 5.6 on page 100 of Reference CM.

Lemma 1.2 (Monotonicity of curvature).

Let be a minimal surface in a Riemannian manifold . Let denote the curvature of , and the sectional curvature of . Then restricted to the tangent space ,

where denotes the second fundamental form of .

In particular, if the Riemannian curvature on is bounded from above by some constant , then the curvature of a minimal surface in is also bounded above by .

The following lemma is just the usual Gauss–Bonnet formula:

Lemma 1.3 (Gauss–Bonnet formula).

Let be a Riemannian surface with (possibly empty) boundary . Let denote the Gauss curvature of , and the geodesic curvature along . Then

Many simple proofs exist in the literature. For example, see Reference Js.

If is merely piecewise , with finitely many corners and external angles , the Gauss–Bonnet formula must be modified as follows:

Lemma 1.4 (Gauss–Bonnet with corners).

Let be a Riemannian surface with boundary which is piecewise and has external angles at finitely many points . Let and be as above. Then

Observe for a geodesic triangle with external angles that Lemma 1.4 implies

Notice that the geodesic curvature vanishes precisely when is a geodesic, that is, a critical point for the length functional. More generally, let be the normal bundle of in , oriented so that the inward unit normal is a positive section. The exponential map restricted to defines a map

for small , where , and for small is the boundary in of the tubular neighborhood of . Then

Note that if is a surface with sectional curvature bounded above by , then by integrating this formula we see that the ball of radius in about a point satisfies

for small .

1.2. Comparison geometry

For basic elements of the theory of comparison geometry, see Reference BH.

Definition 1.5 (Comparison triangle).

Let be a geodesic triangle in a geodesic metric space . Let be given. A -comparison triangle is a geodesic triangle in the complete simply-connected Riemannian -manifold of constant sectional curvature , where the edges and satisfy

Given a point on one of the edges of , there is a corresponding point on one of the edges of the comparison triangle, satisfying

and

Remark 1.6.

Note that if , the comparison triangle might not exist if the edge lengths are too big, but if the comparison triangle always exists and is unique up to isometry.

There is a slight issue of terminology to be aware of here. In a surface, a triangle is a polygonal disk with geodesic edges. In a path metric space, a triangle is just a union of geodesic segments with common endpoints.

Definition 1.7 (CAT()).

Let be a closed surface with a path metric . Let denote the universal cover of , with path metric induced by the pullback of the path metric . Let be given. is said to be if for every geodesic triangle in , and every point on the edge , the distance in from to is no more than the distance from to in a -comparison triangle.

By Lemma 1.4 applied to geodesic triangles, one can show that a surface with sectional curvature satisfying everywhere is with respect to the Riemannian path metric. This fact is essentially due to Alexandrov; see Reference B for a proof.

More generally, suppose is a surface which is outside a closed, nowhere dense subset . Furthermore, suppose that holds in , and suppose that the formula from Lemma 1.4 holds for every geodesic triangle with vertices in (which is a dense set of geodesic triangles). Then the same argument shows that is . See, e.g., Reference Re, §8, pp. 135–140 for more details and a general discussion of metric surfaces with (integral) curvature bounds.

Definition 1.8 (-minimal surfaces).

Let be given. Let be a complete Riemannian -manifold with sectional curvature bounded above by , and let be an embedded collection of simple closed geodesics in . An immersion

is -minimal if it is smooth with mean curvature in and is metrically with respect to the path metric induced by from the Riemannian metric on .

Notice by Lemma 1.2 that a smooth surface with mean curvature in is , so a minimal surface (in the usual sense) is an example of a -minimal surface.

1.3. Statement of shrinkwrapping theorem

Definition 1.9 (-incompressibility).

An embedded surface in a -manifold disjoint from a collection of simple closed curves is said to be -incompressible rel. if any essential compressing disk for must intersect in at least two points. If is understood, we say is -incompressible.

Theorem 1.10 (Existence of shrinkwrapped surface).

Let be a complete, orientable, parabolic free hyperbolic -manifold, and let be a finite collection of pairwise disjoint simple closed geodesics in . Furthermore, let be a closed embedded -incompressible surface rel. which is either nonseparating in or separates some component of from another. Then is homotopic to a -minimal surface via a homotopy

such that

(1)

,

(2)

is an embedding disjoint from for ,

(3)

,

(4)

if is any other surface with these properties, then .

We say that is obtained from by shrinkwrapping rel. , or if is understood, is obtained from by shrinkwrapping.

The remainder of this section will be taken up with the proof of Theorem 1.10.

Remark 1.11.

In fact, for our applications, the property we want to use of our surface is that we can estimate its diameter (rel. the thin part of ) from its Euler characteristic. This follows from a Gauss–Bonnet estimate and the bounded diameter lemma (Lemma 1.15, to be proved below). In fact, our argument will show directly that the surface satisfies Gauss–Bonnet; the fact that it is is logically superfluous for the purposes of this paper.

1.4. Deforming metrics along geodesics

Definition 1.12 (-separation).

Let be a collection of disjoint simple geodesics in a Riemannian manifold . The collection is -separated if any path with endpoints on and satisfying

is homotopic rel. endpoints into . The supremum of such is called the separation constant of . The collection is weakly -separated if

whenever are distinct components of . The supremum of such is called the weak separation constant of .

Definition 1.13 (Neighborhood and tube neighborhood).

Let be given. For a point , we let denote the closed ball of radius about , and let denote, respectively, the interior and the boundary of . For a closed geodesic in , we let denote the closed tube of radius about , and let denote, respectively, the interior and the boundary of . If denotes a union of geodesics , then we use the shorthand notation

Remark 1.14.

Topologically, is a sphere and is a torus, for sufficiently small . Similarly, is a closed ball, and is a closed solid torus. If is -separated, then is a union of solid tori.

Lemma 1.15 (Bounded Diameter Lemma).

Let be a complete hyperbolic -manifold. Let be a disjoint collection of -separated embedded geodesics. Let be a Margulis constant for dimension , and let denote the subset of where the injectivity radius is at most . If is a -incompressible -minimal surface, then there is a constant and such that for each component of , we have

Furthermore, can only intersect at most components of .

Proof.

Since is -incompressible, any point either lies in or is the center of an embedded -disk in , where

Since is , Gauss–Bonnet implies that the area of an embedded -disk in has area at least .

This implies that if , then

The proof now follows by a standard covering argument.

A surface satisfying the conclusion of the Bounded Diameter Lemma is sometimes said to have diameter bounded by modulo .

Remark 1.16.

Note that if is a Margulis constant, then consists of Margulis tubes and cusps. Note that the same argument shows that, away from the thin part of and an -neighborhood of , the diameter of can be bounded by a constant depending only on and .

The basic idea in the proof of Theorem 1.10 is to search for a least area representative of the isotopy class of the surface , subject to the constraint that the track of this isotopy does not cross . Unfortunately, is not complete, so the prospects for doing minimal surface theory in this manifold are remote. To remedy this, we deform the metric on in a neighborhood of in such a way that we can guarantee the existence of a least area surface representative with respect to the deformed metric and then take a limit of such surfaces under a sequence of smaller and smaller such metric deformations. We describe the deformations of interest below.

In fact, for technical reasons which will become apparent in §1.8, the deformations described below are not quite adequate for our purposes, and we must consider metrics which are deformed twice — firstly, a mild deformation which satisfies curvature pinching , and which is totally Euclidean in a neighborhood of , and secondly a deformation analogous to the kind described below in Definition 1.17, which is supported in this totally Euclidean neighborhood. Since the reason for this “double perturbation” will not be apparent until §1.8, we postpone discussion of such deformations until that time.

Definition 1.17 (Deforming metrics).

Let be such that is -separated. Choose some small with . For we define a family of Riemannian metrics on in the following manner. The metrics agree with the hyperbolic metric away from some fixed tubular neighborhood .

Let

be the function whose value at a point is the hyperbolic distance from to . We define a metric on which agrees with the hyperbolic metric outside , and on is conformally equivalent to the hyperbolic metric, as follows. Let be a bump function, which is equal to on the interval , which is equal to on the intervals and , and which is strictly increasing on and strictly decreasing on . Then define the ratio

We are really only interested in the behaviour of the metrics as . As such, the choice of is irrelevant. However, for convenience, we will fix some small throughout the remainder of §1.

The deformed metrics have the following properties:

Lemma 1.18 (Metric properties).

The metric satisfies the following properties:

(1)

For each there is an satisfying such that the union of the tori is totally geodesic for the metric.

(2)

For each component and each , the metric restricted to admits a family of isometries which preserve and acts transitively on the unit normal bundle (in ) to .

(3)

The area of a disk cross section on is .

(4)

The metric dominates the hyperbolic metric on -planes. That is, for all -vectors , the area of is at least as large as the hyperbolic area of .

Proof.

Statement (2) follows from the fact that the definition of has the desired symmetries. Statements (3) and (4) follow from the fact that the ratio of the metric to the hyperbolic metric is pinched between and . Now, a radially symmetric circle linking of radius has length in the hyperbolic metric, and therefore has length

in the metric. For sufficiently small (but fixed) , this function of has a local minimum on the interval . It follows that the family of radially symmetric tori linking a component of has a local minimum for area in the interval . By property (2), such a torus must be totally geodesic for the metric.

Notation 1.19.

We denote length of an arc with respect to the metric as , and area of a surface with respect to the metric as .

1.5. Constructing the homotopy

As a first approximation, we wish to construct surfaces in which are globally least area with respect to the metric. There are various tools for constructing least area surfaces in Riemannian -manifolds under various conditions, and subject to various constraints. Typically one works in closed -manifolds, but if one wants to work in -manifolds with boundary, the “correct” boundary condition to impose is mean convexity. A co-oriented surface in a Riemannian -manifold is said to be mean convex if the mean curvature vector of the surface always points to the negative side of the surface, where it does not vanish. Totally geodesic surfaces and other minimal surfaces are examples of mean convex surfaces, with respect to any co-orientation. Such surfaces act as barriers for minimal surfaces, in the following sense: suppose that is a mean convex surface and is a minimal surface. Suppose furthermore that is on the negative side of . Then if and are tangent, they are equal. One should stress that this barrier property is local. See Reference MSY for a more thorough discussion of barrier surfaces.

Lemma 1.20 (Minimal surface exists).

Let be as in the statement of Theorem 1.10. Let be as in Lemma 1.18, so that is totally geodesic with respect to the metric. Then for each , there exists an embedded surface isotopic in to , and which is globally -least area among all such surfaces.

Proof.

Note that with respect to the metrics, the surfaces described in Lemma 1.18 are totally geodesic and therefore act as barrier surfaces. We remove the tubular neighborhoods of bounded by these totally geodesic surfaces and denote the result by throughout the remainder of this proof. We assume, after a small isotopy if necessary, that does not intersect for any , and therefore we can (and do) think of as a surface in . Notice that is a complete Riemannian manifold with totally geodesic boundary. We will construct the surface in , in the same isotopy class as (also in ).

If there exists a lower bound on the injectivity radius in with respect to the metric, then the main theorem of Reference MSY implies that either such a globally least area surface can be found, or is the boundary of a twisted -bundle over a closed surface in , or else can be homotoped off every compact set in .

First we show that these last two possibilities cannot occur. If is nonseparating in , then it intersects some essential loop with algebraic intersection number . It follows that cannot be homotoped off and does not bound an -bundle. Similarly, if are distinct geodesics of separated from each other by , then the ’s can be joined by an arc which has algebraic intersection number with the surface . The same is true of any homotopic to ; it follows that cannot be homotoped off the arc , nor does it bound an -bundle disjoint from , and therefore does not bound an -bundle in .

Now suppose that the injectivity radius on is not bounded below. We use the following trick. Let be obtained from the metric by perturbing it on the complement of some enormous compact region so that it has a flaring end there, and such that there is a barrier -minimal surface close to , separating the complement of in from . Then by Reference MSY there is a globally least area surface , contained in the compact subset of bounded by this barrier surface. Since must either intersect or , by the Bounded Diameter Lemma 1.15, unless the hyperbolic area of is very large, the diameter of in is much smaller than the distance from or to . Since by hypothesis, is the least area for the metric, its restriction to has hyperbolic area less than the hyperbolic area of , and therefore there is an a priori upper bound on its diameter in . By choosing large enough, we see that is contained in the interior of , where and agree. Thus is the globally least area for the metric in , and therefore exists for any .

The bounded diameter lemma easily implies the following:

Lemma 1.21 (Compact set).

There is a fixed compact set such that the surfaces constructed in Lemma 1.20 are all contained in .

Proof.

Since the hyperbolic areas of the are all uniformly bounded (by e.g. the hyperbolic area of ) and are -incompressible rel. , they have uniformly bounded diameter away from outside of Margulis tubes. Since for homological reasons they must intersect the compact sets or , they can intersect at most finitely many Margulis tubes. It follows that they are all contained in a fixed bounded neighborhood of or , containing .

To extract good limits of sequences of minimal surfaces, one generally needs a priori bounds on the area and the total curvature of the limiting surfaces. Here for a surface , the total curvature of is just the integral of the absolute value of the (Gauss) curvature over . For minimal surfaces of a fixed topological type in a manifold with sectional curvature bounded above, a curvature bound follows from an area bound by Gauss–Bonnet. However, our surfaces are minimal with respect to the metrics, which have no uniform upper bound on their sectional curvature, so we must work slightly harder to show that the have uniformly bounded total curvature. More precisely, we show that their restrictions to the complement of any fixed tubular neighborhood have uniformly bounded total curvature.

Lemma 1.22 (Finite total curvature).

Let be the surfaces constructed in Lemma 1.20. Fix some small, positive . Then the subsurfaces

have uniformly bounded total curvature.

Proof.

Having chosen , we choose large enough so that .

Observe firstly that each has area less than the area of , and therefore hyperbolic area less than the hyperbolic area of for sufficiently large .

Let for small . By the coarea formula (see Reference Fed, Reference CM, p. 8) we can estimate

If the integral of geodesic curvature along a component of is large, then the length of the curves obtained by isotoping into grows very rapidly, by the definition of geodesic curvature.

Since there is an a priori bound on the hyperbolic area of , it follows that there cannot be any long components of with big integral geodesic curvature. More precisely, consider a long component of . For the boundary of the -neighborhood of in is contained in . If the integral of the geodesic curvature along were sufficiently large for every , then the derivative of the length of the would be large for every , and therefore the lengths of the would be large for all . It follows that the hyperbolic area of the collar neighborhood of in would be very large, contrary to existence of an a priori upper bound on the total hyperbolic area of .

This contradiction implies that for some , the integral of the geodesic curvature along can be bounded from above. To summarize, for each constant there is a constant , such that for each component of which has length there is a loop

isotopic to by a short isotopy, satisfying

On the other hand, since is minimal, there is a constant such that each component of which has length bounds a hyperbolic globally least area disk which is contained in . For sufficiently close to , such a disk is contained in and therefore must actually be a subdisk of .

By the coarea formula above, we can choose so that is a priori bounded. It follows that if is the subsurface of bounded by the components of of length , then we have a priori upper bounds on the area of , on , and on . Moreover, is contained in , where the metric agrees with the hyperbolic metric, so the curvature of is bounded above by pointwise, by Lemma 1.2. By the Gauss–Bonnet formula, this gives an a priori upper bound on the total curvature of and therefore on .

Remark 1.23.

A more highbrow proof of Lemma 1.22 follows from Theorem 1 of Reference S, using the fact that the surfaces are locally least area for the hyperbolic metric, for sufficiently close to (depending on ).

Lemma 1.24 (Limit exists).

Let be the surfaces constructed in Lemma 1.20. Then there is an increasing sequence

such that , and the converge on compact subsets of in the topology to some with closure in .

Proof.

By definition, the surfaces have area bounded above by the area of . Moreover, since is disjoint from , for sufficiently large , the area of is equal to the hyperbolic area of . Since the area dominates the hyperbolic area, it follows that the have hyperbolic area bounded above, and by Lemma 1.22, for any , the restrictions of to have uniformly bounded finite total curvature.

Moreover, by Lemma 1.21, each is contained in a fixed compact subset of . By standard compactness theorems (see, e.g., Reference CiSc) any infinite sequence contains a subsequence which converges on compact subsets of , away from finitely many points where some subsurface with nontrivial topology might collapse. That is, there might be isolated points such that for any neighborhood of , the intersection of with contains loops which are essential in for all sufficiently large .

But is -incompressible rel. , so in particular it is incompressible in , and no such collapse can take place. So after passing to a subsequence, a limit exists (compare Reference MSY). Since each is a globally least area surface in with respect to the metric, it is a locally least area surface with respect to the hyperbolic metric on . It follows that is locally least area in the hyperbolic metric, properly embedded in , and we can define to be the closure of in .

Lemma 1.25 (Interpolating isotopy).

Let be the sequence as in Lemma 1.24. Then after possibly passing to a subsequence, there is an isotopy such that

and such that for each the track of the isotopy either converges to some well-defined limit or else it is eventually contained in for any .

Proof.

Fix some small . Outside , the surfaces converge uniformly in the topology to . It follows that for any , and for sufficiently large (depending on ), the restrictions of and to the complement of are both sections of the exponentiated unit normal bundle of , and therefore we can isotope these subsets of to along the fibers of the normal bundle. We wish to patch this partial isotopy together with a partial isotopy supported in a small neighborhood of to define the correct isotopy from to .

Let be obtained from by isotoping it slightly into so that it is transverse to , and therefore also to for sufficiently large. For each , we consider the intersection

and observe that the limit satisfies

Let be a component of which is inessential in . Then for large , can be approximated by which are inessential in . Since the are -incompressible rel. , the loops must bound subdisks of . Since is a convex surface with respect to the hyperbolic metric, and the metric agrees with the hyperbolic metric outside for large , it follows that the disks are actually contained in for large . It follows that and are isotopic by an isotopy supported in , which restricts to a very small isotopy of to in .

Let be a component of which is essential in . Then so is for large . Again, since , and therefore is -incompressible rel. , it follows that cannot be a meridian of and must actually be a longitude. It follows that there is another essential curve in each , such that the essential curves and cobound a subsurface in . After passing to a diagonal subsequence, we can assume that the converge to some component of .

By -incompressibility, the surfaces are annuli. Note that there are two relative isotopy classes of such annuli. By passing to a further diagonal subsequence, we can assume and are isotopic in by an isotopy which restricts to a very small isotopy of to in .

We have shown that for any small and any sequence , there is an arbitrarily large index and infinitely many indices with so that the surfaces and are isotopic, and the isotopy can be chosen to have the following properties:

(1)

The isotopy takes to by an isotopy supported in .

(2)

Outside , the tracks of the isotopy are contained in fibers of the exponentiated normal bundle of .

Choose a sequence , and pick a subsequence of the ’s and relabel so that satisfy the properties above with respect to . Then the composition of this infinite sequence of isotopies is .

Remark 1.26.

The reason for the circumlocutions in the statement of Lemma 1.25 is that we have not yet proved that is a limit of the as maps from to . This will follow in §1.6, where we analyze the structure of near a point and show it has a well-defined tangent cone.

1.6. Existence of tangent cone

We have constructed as a subset of and have observed that away from , is a minimal surface for the hyperbolic metric. We refer to the intersection as the coincidence set. In general, one cannot expect to be smooth along the coincidence set. However, we show that it does have a well defined tangent cone in the sense of Gromov, and this tangent cone is in fact of a very special form. In particular, this is enough to imply that exists as the image of a map from to , and we may extend the isotopy to a homotopy with .

By a tangent cone we mean the following: at each point , consider the pair of metric spaces where is the intersection . We rescale the metric on this pair by the factor . Then we claim that this sequence of (rescaled) pairs of metric spaces converges in the Gromov–Hausdorff sense to a limit where is the unit ball in Euclidean -space, and is the cone (to the origin) over a great bigon in the unit sphere. Here by a great bigon we mean the union of two spherical geodesics joining antipodal points in the sphere. In fact we do not quite show that has this structure, but rather that each local branch of has this structure. Here we are thinking of the map whose image is , and by “local branch” we mean the image of a regular neigborhood of a point preimage.

Lemma 1.27 (Tangent cone).

Let be as constructed in Lemma 1.24. Let . Then near , is a (topologically immersed) surface, each local branch of which has a well-defined tangent cone, which is the cone on a great bigon.

Proof.

We use what is essentially a curve-shortening argument. For each small , define

For each point , we define to be the angle between the tangent space to at and the radial geodesic through emanating from . By the coarea formula, we can calculate

where denotes the length element in each . Note that this estimate implies that is rectifiable for a.e. . We choose to be such a rectifiable value.

Now, each component of is a limit of components of for large . By -incompressibility of the , each is a loop bounding a subdisk of for large .

Now, is convex in the hyperbolic metric, though not necessarily in the metric. By cutting out the disks and replacing them with the disks orthogonal to which are totally geodesic in both the and the hyperbolic metrics, we can approximate by a surface bounding a ball which is convex in the metric for all . The ball is illustrated in Figure 1.

Note that after lifting to the universal cover, there is a retraction onto which is length nonincreasing, in both the and the hyperbolic metric. This retraction projects along the fibers of the product structure on to , and outside , it is the nearest point projection to .

Let be the component of approximating , and let be the subdisk of which it bounds.

Then the disk must be contained in , or else we could decrease its and hyperbolic area by the retraction described above. The disks converge to the component bounded by , and the hyperbolic areas of the converge to the hyperbolic area of .

Note that as above is really shorthand for , since it depends on a choice of . Similarly we have and . Since the component bounded by is contained in for all , the component bounded by is contained in , since as . So we can, and do, work with instead of in the sequel.

Now, let be the cone on to the point . can be perturbed an arbitrarily small amount to an embedded disk , and therefore by comparing with the , we see that the hyperbolic area of must be at least as large as that of . Note that this perturbation can be taken to move off and can be approximated by perturbations which miss . Similar facts are true for all the perturbations we consider in the sequel.

Since this is true for each component of , by abuse of notation we can replace by the component of bounded by a single mapped in circle . This will be the local “branch” of the topologically immersed surface . We use this notational convention for the remainder of the proof of the lemma. Note that the inequality above still holds. It follows that we must have

Now, for each sphere , we let be the projection, along hyperbolic geodesics, to the unit sphere in the tangent space at . For each , define

It follows from the inequalities above that for some intermediate we must have

with equality iff is equal to the cone on .

Now, the cone on is not locally least area for the hyperbolic metric in unless is a great circle or geodesic bigon in (with endpoints on ), in which case the lemma is proved. To see this, just observe that a cone has vanishing principal curvature in the radial direction, so its mean curvature vanishes iff it is totally geodesic away from .

So we may suppose that for any there is some such that . Therefore we choose a sequence of values with such that , such that converges to the infimal value of with , and such that is the minimal value of on the interval . Note that for any small , the cone on has area

The set of loops in the sphere with length bounded above by some constant, parameterized by arclength, is compact, by the Arzela–Ascoli theorem, and so we can suppose that the converge in the Hausdorff sense to a loop .

Claim.

is a geodesic bigon.

Proof.

We suppose not and will obtain a contradiction.

We fix notation: for each , let denote the inverse image under . So is a curve in . By the cone on we mean the union of the hyperbolic geodesic segments in from to . By the cone on we mean the union of the geodesic segments in the unit ball in Euclidean -space from to the origin. For each , we have an estimate

For each , let denote the surface obtained from by rescaling metrically by . Then is a surface with boundary contained in a ball of radius in a space of constant curvature . Moreover, it enjoys the same least area properties as .

By the monotonicity property of the and the coarea formula, we have an inequality

On the other hand, since each is least area, we have an estimate

It follows that the limit of the area of the is actually equal to the area of the cone on .

On the other hand, since the converge to , for sufficiently large we can find an immersed annulus in with area for any positive , which is the track of a homotopy (in ) from to . We let denote the corresponding annulus in .

We can build a new immersed surface bounded by which is the union of this annulus with the cone on . This surface can be perturbed an arbitrarily small amount, away from , to an embedded surface . After rescaling by , we get a surface with the same boundary as of area equal to

Since is locally least area, it follows that for any , for sufficiently large (depending on ),

The surface contains a subsurface which is the cone on . Since by hypothesis, is not a geodesic bigon, the cone on can be perturbed by a compactly supported perturbation to a surface whose area is smaller than that of the cone on by some definite amount . Similarly, the cone on can be perturbed by a compactly supported perturbation to a surface whose area is smaller than the cone on by where is independent of . After rescaling by , it follows that can be perturbed by a compactly supported perturbation to with the same boundary as and , for which

where is independent of . Since may be chosen as small as we like, we choose . Then for sufficiently large we get

which contradicts the least area property of . This contradiction shows that is actually a geodesic bigon and completes the proof of the claim.

We now complete the proof of Lemma 1.27.

Let be this geodesic bigon. Then inside an -neighborhood of in , we can find a pair of curves , where is convex, and is convex except for two acute angles on . For each , let be the inverse image of under .

The cone on is a pair of barrier surfaces in . In particular, once and are both trapped between and , the same is true of for all . This is enough to establish the existence of the tangent cone.

Notice that Lemma 1.27 actually implies that is a rectifiable surface in , which is a local (topological) embedding. In particular, this shows that the isotopy constructed in Lemma 1.25 can be chosen to limit to a homotopy such that .

1.7. The thin obstacle problem

From the proof of Lemma 1.27, we see that exists as a map, which by abuse of notation we denote . One may immediately improve the regularity of . From the construction of , it is standard to show that is actually in the Sobolev space — that is, the derivative is defined, and is , in the sense of distribution; see Reference Mor for a rigorous definition of Sobolev spaces and basic properties.

To see this, observe that is a limit of maps which are minimal for the metric and therefore are energy minimizers for the conformal structure on pulled back by . If the set of conformal structures obtained in this way is precompact, one may extract a limit and therefore bound the norm of in terms of the norms of the derivatives of any . How can the sequence of conformal structures fail to be precompact? This happens if and only if the conformal structures degenerate by a neck pinch. But the -incompressibility of rel. implies that there is a lower bound on the length of the image of any essential curve in . It follows that the norm of the derivative blows up along such a pinching neck, contrary to the energy minimizing property. So no such degeneration can occur, and is in as claimed. This argument is essentially contained in Reference SY (see e.g. Lemma 3.1, p. 134), and one may consult this paper for details.

We need to establish further regularity of along in the following sense. Recall that we are calling the coincidence set. For each local sheet of , we want to be along the interior of from either side, and at a noninterior point of , we want to be on the nose.

Now, if is an interval, then the reflection principle (see Reference Oss) implies that each local sheet of with can be analytically continued to a minimal surface across , by taking another copy of , rotating it through angle along the axis and gluing it to the original along . It follows that is real analytic from either side along the interior of . Note that if the tangent cone at a point is not literally a tangent plane, then an easy comparison argument implies that is an interior point of the coincidence set. See Reference N, p. 90 for a fuller discussion.

Noninterior points of are more difficult to deal with, and we actually want to conclude that is continuous at such points. Fortunately, this is a well-known problem in the theory of variational problems, known as the Signorini problem, or the (two-dimensional) thin obstacle problem.

In the literature, this problem is usually formulated in the following terms:

Thin Obstacle Problem.

Let be a bounded open subset of , and an oriented line contained in . Let and be given, with on . Define

Minimize

over .

Here denotes the usual Sobolev space over for the norm, with zero boundary conditions.

The main conditions typically imposed on are sufficient regularity of and its partial derivatives (Lipschitz is usually enough) and ellipticity, meaning that the matrix of the second partial derivatives of with respect to is uniformly positive definite on compact subsets of (see Reference Fre, p. 281 for details). Roughly speaking, is elliptic if the critical functions of the functional satisfy a “mean value property”; i.e., the value at each point is a weighted average of the value at nearby points.

For example, if we want the graph of to be a (Euclidean) minimal surface away from , then the formula for is , which is real analytic and elliptic. The definition of for a nonparametric minimal surface in exponential coordinates on hyperbolic space is more complicated, but certainly is real analytic and elliptic in the sense of Frehse.

See Figure 2 for an example of the graph of a function solving the Dirichlet thin obstacle problem, where is constant. This surface is visually indistinguishable from the graph of the function solving the unparameterized minimal surface thin obstacle problem with the same boundary and obstacle data, but for computer implementation, the Dirichlet problem is less computationally costly.

The next theorem establishes not only the desired continuity of , but actually gives an estimate for the modulus of continuity. The following is a restatement of Theorem 1.3 on page 26 of Reference Ri in our context:

Theorem 1.28 (Richardson Reference Ri regularity of thin obstacle).

Let be a solution to the thin obstacle problem for elliptic in the sense of Frehse and , and suppose that are smooth. Then is continuous along in the tangent direction, one-sided continuous in the normal direction on either side, and continuous in the normal direction at a noninterior point. Furthermore, is Hölder continuous, with exponent ; i.e., the modulus of continuity of is .

Remark 1.29.

Note that is actually best possible. Consider the function for slit along the positive real axis, where we take the branch which is negative sufficiently close to the slit. This solves a thin obstacle problem for the Dirichlet integral and is only at .

Remark 1.30.

For our applications, the fact that is is more than necessary. In fact, all we use is that is . This is proved (with a logarithmic modulus of continuity for ) by Reference Fre, and (with a Hölder modulus of continuity for ) in arbitrary dimension by Reference K.

We apply this theorem to our context:

Lemma 1.31 (Regularity along coincidence set).

For defined as above, the derivative along local sheets of is continuous from each side along the coincidence set , and continuous at noninterior points.

Proof.

If is an interior point of , this follows by the reflection principle. Otherwise, by Lemma 1.27 and the discussion above, the tangent cone is a plane in the tangent space at .

We show how to choose local coordinates in a ball near each point such that is the -axis, each local sheet of is the graph of a function , and is nonnegative along the -axis. Let , and let be another geodesic through orthogonal to and tangent to . Let and be foliations of by totally geodesic planes orthogonal to and respectively. Then each leaf of is totally geodesic for both the hyperbolic and the metric for all , and each leaf of is totally geodesic for the metric for sufficiently large . It follows that has no source or sink singularities with respect to either foliation. Since is a (topological) disk, by reasons of Euler characteristic it can have no saddle singularities either, and therefore no singularities at all. We let and be level sets of two coordinate functions on . Define a third coordinate function to be (signed) hyperbolic distance to the plane containing and and observe that is a graph in these coordinates.

It follows that solves an instance of the thin obstacle problem, and by Theorem 1.28 or by Reference Fre or Reference K the desired regularity of follows.

Remark 1.32.

The structure of the coincidence set is important to understand, and it has been studied by various authors. Hans Lewy Reference Lew showed that for the Dirichlet integral and analytic, the coincidence set is a finite union of points and intervals. Athanasopoulos Reference Ath proved the same result for the minimal surface question, for symmetric domain and obstacle , but his (very short and elegant) proof relies fundamentally on the symmetry of the problem, and we do not see how it applies in our context.

Note that if the Hausdorff dimension of the coincidence set is strictly , then since is (and therefore Lipschitz) along this coincidence set, the theory of removable singularities implies that is actually real analytic along . It follows in this case that the coincidence set consists of a finite union of isolated points, and that is actually a minimal surface. See, e.g., Reference Car for details.

Remark 1.33.

Existence results for the thin obstacle problem for minimal surfaces with analytic obstacles (see, e.g., Reference Ri, Reference K, Reference N) give an alternative proof of the existence of the limit . Given , we can shrinkwrap near in small balls by using existence for the thin obstacle problem, and away from by replacing small disks with least area embedded disks with the same boundary. The argument of Reference HS implies that for -incompressible, this converges to a surface .

1.8. CAT property

We have shown that satisfies all the properties of the conclusion of Theorem 1.10, except that we have not yet shown that it is intrinsically . In this subsection we show that after possibly replacing by a new surface with the same properties, we can insist that is with respect to the path metric induced from .

Lemma 1.34 (CAT property).

After possibly replacing by a new immersed surface with the same properties, is with respect to the path metric induced from .

Proof.

To show that is we will show that there is no distributional positive curvature concentrated along the coincidence set . Since is a minimal surface, the curvature of is bounded above by on this subset. It will follow by Gauss–Bonnet that is .

We first treat a simpler problem in Euclidean -space, which we denote by . Let be an embedded surface in which is outside a subset which is contained in a geodesic in , and which is along from either side along the interior of , and at noninterior points of . Then we claim, for each subsurface with boundary , that

Compare Lemma 1.3.

In other words, we want to show that is a “removable singularity” for , at least with respect to the Gauss–Bonnet formula.

Let denote the Gauss map, which takes each point to its unit normal, in the unit sphere of . Then is the pullback of the area form by . Let denote the completion of with respect to the path metric. Then is obtained from by cutting it open along each interval in and sewing in two copies of the interval thereby removed. Notice that there is a natural forgetful map .

By the assumptions about the regularity of , the Gauss map actually extends to a continuous map . Moreover, since is contained in a geodesic of , the image is contained in a great circle in .

For each boundary component of , we claim that the map has degree zero. For, otherwise, by a degree argument, there are points which map to the same point in , for which , and the graphs of and locally have a nonzero algebraic intersection number. It follows that the local sheets of from either side must actually intersect along , contrary to the fact that is embedded. It follows that we can sew in a disk to along each boundary component to get a surface homeomorphic to , with , and extend to by mapping each such disk into .

Now, the surface can be perturbed slightly in a neighborhood of to a new surface which is in , in such a way that the Gauss map of is a perturbation of . So the usual Gauss–Bonnet formula (Lemma 1.3) shows that

But is just the integral of the area form on pulled back by the Gauss map; it follows that

and

since one map is obtained from the other by a small perturbation supported away from the boundary. Since the measure of is zero, this last integral is just equal to

and the claim is proved.

Now we show how to apply this to our shrinkwrapped surface . We use the following trick. Let with be a family of metrics on , conformally equivalent to the hyperbolic metric, which agree with the hyperbolic metric outside , which are Euclidean on , and which have curvature pinched between and , and are rotationally and translationally symmetric along the core geodesic. Then we let be the surface obtained by shrinkwrapping with respect to the metric. That is, we let be a family of metrics as in Definition 1.17 which agree with the metric outside , construct minimal surfaces as in Lemma 1.20, and so on, limiting to the immersed surface which is minimal for the metric on , and along . Arguing locally as above, we see that small subsurfaces of contained in the Euclidean tubes satisfy Gauss–Bonnet in the complement of the coincidence set. By Lemma 1.2, the surfaces all have curvature bounded above by , and bounded above by outside . By Gauss–Bonnet for geodesic triangles, is , and actually outside .

Now take the limit as . Some subsequence of the surfaces converges to a limit which by abuse of notation we denote . Note that this is not necessarily the same as the surface constructed in previous sections, but it enjoys the same properties. Again, by Gauss–Bonnet for geodesic triangles, the limit is actually , and the lemma is proved.

This completes the proof of Theorem 1.10.

Problem 1.35.

Develop a simplicial or PL theory of shrinkwrapping.

Remark 1.36.

Since this paper appeared in preprint form, Soma has developed some elements of a PL theory of shrinkwrapping; see Reference Som. This theory proves a PL analogue of Theorem 1.10.

2. The main construction lemma

The purpose of this section is to state the main construction Lemma 2.3 and show how it follows easily from Theorem 1.10.

2.1. Shrinkwrapping in covers

Let be a complete, orientable, parabolic free hyperbolic -manifold, and let be a finite collection of pairwise disjoint simple closed geodesics in , just as in the statement of Theorem 1.10. For the purposes of introducing the Main Construction Lemma, we will assume that has a single end . We consider the family of and metrics, as in Definition 1.17 and Lemma 1.34.

Suppose there is an embedded surface in which separates off the end of from a compact submanifold . Let be a covering space of (possibly infinite). The preimage of the geodesics are a collection of locally finite geodesics , some of which might be finite, and some infinite. Let be some nonempty collection, consisting entirely of simple closed geodesics. Then we can consider a second surface and can ask whether it is possible to shrinkwrap rel. . Notice that we cannot directly apply Theorem 1.10 because the hyperbolic manifold is not complete, and therefore a shrinkwrap representative of might not exist. However, we note that for each metric on , we get a locally least area representative isotopic to . The submanifold of bounded by lifts to a covering space which is homeomorphic to . The metric pulls back to a metric on , which by abuse of notation we also refer to as . Then , which is a lift of , is locally least area and therefore acts as a barrier surface. It follows that we can find, for each , a surface in the isotopy class of in which is globally least area among all such surfaces (compare with the statement of Lemma 1.20).

The theory of shrinkwrapping developed in §1 goes through almost identically for the surfaces with one important exception: the metric on does not agree with the hyperbolic metric away from and , but rather is deformed along the other geodesics . It follows that we should take care to analyze the quality of the surfaces and their limit near components of .

Fortunately the situation is as simple as it could be:

Lemma 2.1 (Superfluous geodesics invisible).

With notation and definitions as above, in a neighborhood of a point on , the surface is a locally least area surface for the hyperbolic metric.

Proof.

Suppose not. Then there is a compactly supported perturbation of which agrees with outside a fixed neighborhood of , and which has strictly less hyperbolic area than , so that

for some positive constant . After another small perturbation of to , which can be taken to increase the hyperbolic area as little as required, we can assume that is transverse to near , intersecting it in points for some finite and satisfying

By property (3) of the metric (see Lemma 1.18) the area of is at most equal to the hyperbolic area plus , for some constant independent of . For sufficiently small ,

and therefore the area of is less than the hyperbolic area of , which is less than the area of , thereby contradicting the global minimality of in its isotopy class in .

This contradiction proves the lemma.

A similar argument holds for the metric in place of the metric, and therefore by means of Lemma 2.1 we can shrinkwrap in covers, obtaining surfaces in the limit.

Remark 2.2.

One should think of Lemma 2.1 as a kind of “removable singularity” theorem for transverse obstacles. Compare with the following physical experiment: one knows from experience that very thin needles can be pushed through soap bubbles without popping them or distorting their geometry. (Try it!)

2.2. The main construction lemma

We now state and prove the main construction lemma. The context of this lemma is the same as that of §2.1: we want to shrinkwrap a certain surface in a cover, using the boundary of that cover as a barrier surface. See Figure 3 for an idealized depiction of and in and in the case that is a handlebody.

Lemma 2.3 (Main construction lemma).

Let be an end of the complete open orientable parabolic free hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. Let be a submanifold such that separates from . Let be a finite collection of simple closed geodesics with a nonempty proper subset of . Suppose further that is -incompressible rel. .

Let be a finitely generated subgroup of , and let be the covering space of corresponding to . Let be the preimage of in , and a subset which maps homeomorphically onto under the covering projection, and let be a nonempty union of geodesics. Suppose there exists an embedded closed surface that is -incompressible rel. in , which separates every component of from .

Then can be homotoped to a -minimal surface which, by abuse of notation, we call , and the map of into given by the covering projection is homotopic to a map whose image is -minimal. Also, (resp. ) can be perturbed by an arbitrarily small perturbation to be an embedded (resp. smoothly immersed) surface (resp. ) bounding with the following properties:

(1)

There exists an isotopy from to which never crosses , and which induces an isotopy from to , and a corresponding deformation of hyperbolic manifolds to which fixes pointwise.

(2)

There exists an isotopy from to which never crosses , such that is the projection of to .

Proof.

The proof is reasonably straightforward, given the work in §1 and §2.1. First, we obtain from by shrinkwrapping rel. . Since is a nonempty and proper subset of , satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 1.10, and therefore exists and satisfies the desired properties.

For each in our approximating sequence, the metric on lifts to a metric on which, by abuse of notation, we also call .

Then with respect to the metric, acts as a barrier surface, and we can find a locally least area surface which is globally least area in the isotopy class of in , by Reference MSY, just as in the proof of Lemma 1.20. Note that is necessarily homologically essential in , since it separates each component of from by hypothesis, and therefore any surface isotopic to in must intersect a fixed compact arc from to .

The immersed surfaces are obtained by mapping to by the covering projection. After passing to a further subsequence of values , the limit of the surfaces exists as a map from to , with image , by the argument of Lemma 1.24 applied locally. The regularity of locally along follows from the argument of Lemma 1.31, since that argument is completely local.

As in Lemma 1.34, we can repeat the construction above with the metrics and obtain a limit with the desired regularity.

It follows that is -minimal. Notice that some local sheets of are actually minimal (in the hyperbolic metric) near geodesics in , corresponding to subsets of in crossing components of , by Lemma 2.1. In any case, is intrinsically , and the theorem is proved.

2.3. Nonsimple geodesics

When we come to consider hyperbolic manifolds with parabolics, we need to treat the case that the geodesics might not be simple. But there is a standard trick to reduce this case to the simple case, at the cost of slightly perturbing the hyperbolic metric.

Explicitly, suppose is as in the statement of Theorem 1.10 except that some of the components are possibly not simple. Then for every there exists a perturbation of the hyperbolic metric on in a neighborhood of with the following properties:

(1)

The new metric agrees with the hyperbolic metric outside .

(2)

With respect to the metric , the curves in are homotopic to a collection of simple geodesics .

(3)

The metric is hyperbolic (i.e. has constant curvature ) on .

(4)

The metric is –bilipschitz equivalent to the hyperbolic metric, and the sectional curvature of the metric is pinched between and .

The existence of such a metric follows from Lemma 5.5 of Reference Ca. To make an orthopedic comparison: think of the nonsimple geodesics as a collection of unnaturally fused bones in ; the bones are broken, reset, and heal as simple geodesics in the new metric.

It is clear that the methods of §1 apply equally well to the metric , and therefore shrinkwrapping can be done with respect to the metric , producing a surface which is intrinsically .

In fact, since such a metric exists for each , we can take a sequence of such metrics for each small , produce a shrinkwrapped surface for each such , and take a limit as which is intrinsically , and which can be approximated by embedded surfaces, isotopic to , in the complement of , where is a finite subset of geodesics whose cardinality can be a priori bounded above in terms of the genus of . We will not be using this stronger fact in the sequel, since the existence of a surface is quite enough for our purposes.

3. Asymptotic tube radius and length

By Reference Bo an end of a complete hyperbolic -manifold is geometrically infinite if and only if there exists an exiting sequence of closed geodesics. In this chapter we show that if is parabolic free, then the geodesics can be chosen to be -separated for some ; in particular, all are simple.

Definition 3.1.

Let be a complete hyperbolic 3-manifold with geometrically infinite end . Define the -asymptotic tube radius to be the supremum over all sequences of closed geodesics exiting , of

Similarly define the -asymptotic length to be the infimum over all sequences as before of

We will drop the prefix when the end in question is understood.

Proposition 3.2.

If is a geometrically infinite end of the complete hyperbolic -manifold without parabolics, then the asymptotic tube radius asymptotic length. If asymptotic length = , then the asymptotic tube radius = . There exists a uniform lower bound to the asymptotic tube radius of a geometrically infinite end of a complete parabolic free hyperbolic -manifold.

Proof.

Meyerhoff Reference Me defines a monotonically decreasing function such that if is a closed geodesic in and , then tube radius. Furthermore, lim. Therefore, the second statement of Proposition 3.2 follows from Reference Me and the third follows from the first statement and Reference Me. (Actually, Proposition 3.3 will show that is a lower bound.)

Now suppose that the asymptotic length = . Then there exists a sequence exiting such that length. As in Reference G2, §5, if tube radius, then there exists a geodesic homotopic to a curve which is a union of a segment of and an orthogonal arc from to itself, and each of these segments has length . By straightening these segments and using the law of cosines, we see that if length, then . Thus if tube radius , there exists a sequence such that where is as above. Since , must exit the same end as , which is a contradiction.

Now suppose that the asymptotic length is infinite and is an exiting sequence such that length. Given we produce a new exiting sequence with tube radius for all . If possible let be a smallest segment of such that there is a geodesic path connecting , and is not homotopic to rel endpoints. If does not exist, then tube radius. So let us assume that for all , exists. Note that or else the concatenations are homotopic to an exiting sequence of bounded length geodesics. Also, asymptotic length infinite implies that as , the injectivity radius of points of (and hence ) . Therefore for sufficiently large we can assume that , , and both of the angles between and are at least . The geodesic homotopic to the curve obtained by concatenating and lies within distance 2 of and for the most part lies extremely close. Indeed, if is an immersed least area annulus in with , then the Gauss–Bonnet formula (Lemma 1.4) implies that area. Since the intrinsic curvature of is , it follows that for sufficiently large, no point of can be at distance from and distance at least from , for the area of the disc of radius 1 about would be .

If tube radius, then there would be an arc connecting points of such that and cannot be homotoped rel endpoints into . Thus, for sufficiently large one finds new essential geodesic paths of length with endpoints in . This contradicts the minimality property of .

Proposition 3.3.

If is an end of the complete, orientable, hyperbolic -manifold and has no parabolic elements, then the -asymptotic tube radius .

Remark 3.4.

We will not be using Proposition 3.3 in this paper.

Proof.

Let be a sequence of geodesics exiting such that

If is small, i.e. , then for sufficiently large, tube radius by Reference Me as explained in Reference GMT, Proposition 1.11. If is large, then for sufficiently large, tube radius by Proposition 3.2. A hyperbolic geometry argument, slightly more sophisticated than the one cited above shows that suffices. Indeed, the proof of Proposition 1.11 in Reference GMT shows that there exists such that if , then either tube radius or there exists an essential closed curve such that length and . If denotes the geodesic homotopic to , then exits andlim inf length, which contradicts the fact that is asymptotic length.

It follows from Reference GMT, Reference JR, Reference Li and Reference CLLM that if is a shortest geodesic in a complete hyperbolic 3-manifold , then either tube radius or is a closed hyperbolic 3-manifold. (See Conjecture 1.31 in Reference GMT.) Therefore, if each is a shortest length geodesic in , then the proof of Proposition 3.3 follows.

Assuming that asymptotic tube radius , we will derive a contradiction using techniques which require an understanding of Reference GMT, §1. Nevertheless, the punch line follows exactly as in two paragraphs above. Here is the idea. Associated to each there is a 2-generator subgroup of defined as follows. When viewed as acting on , one generator is a shortest translation along a lift of and the other generator takes that lift to a nearest translate. After passing to a subsequence, there exists , such that for each , there exists a closed curve such that and length. Here represents an element in the group generated by and .

Here are the details. Given there exist sequences where is a lift of to and is a nearest translate of , where . By Definition 1.8 in Reference GMT associated to and there is a triple of complex numbers where and . By compactness, after passing to a subsequence, converges to , where . Again by Definition 1.8, gives rise to a marked 2-generator group where and . By Lemma 1.13 in Reference GMT we can assume that and the various lie in the parameter space defined in Reference GMT, 1.11. It cannot lie in one of the 7 exceptional regions given in Table 1.2 of Reference GMT, or else by Reference GMT, Chapter 3, Reference JR, Reference Li and Reference CLLM, it and correspond to a closed hyperbolic 3-manifold for sufficiently large, for it is shown in these papers that a neighborhood of each exceptional region corresponds to a unique closed hyperbolic 3-manifold as conjectured in Reference GMT, 1.31. This implies that is covered by a closed 3-manifold, which is a contradiction.

The proof of Proposition 1.28 in Reference GMT shows that if does not lie in an exceptional region, then there exists a killer word in and as defined in Reference GMT, 1.18. This means that or if , then . Therefore, for sufficiently large, either or . The latter cannot happen since was chosen to take to a nearest translate.

Since the nonexceptional points of are covered by finitely many compact regions and each region has a killer word, it follows that for a correct choice of killer words, reduction of length is uniformly bounded below by some constant .

Since has no parabolics, corresponds to a hyperbolic element and hence a geodesic . If is loxodromic, then the corresponding geodesic is of bounded distance from . Therefore, for all , is uniformly bounded and hence exits . Thus, asymptotic length , which is a contradiction. If is parabolic, then , exits the same end as and hence asymptotic length equals zero. To see that exits , note that in takes a point to where and hence, for sufficiently large, there are essential closed curves of length passing within from .

Question 3.5.

What is the maximal lower bound for the asymptotic tube radius of a geometrically infinite end of a complete, orientable, hyperbolic manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, both in the cases that is parabolic free or not?

Question 3.6.

What is the upper bound for asymptotic length of a geometrically infinite end ? It follows from Theorem 0.9 that there is an upper bound which is a function of rank.

4. Canary’s Theorem

In this section we give a proof of Canary’s theorem (Theorem 4.1) when is parabolic free. Our proof of Theorem 0.9 will closely parallel this argument.

Theorem 4.1 (Canary).

If is a topologically tame end of the complete, orientable, hyperbolic -manifold , where has no parabolic elements, then either is geometrically finite or there exists a sequence of surfaces exiting the end. If is parametrized by , then these surfaces are homotopic to surfaces of the form , via a homotopy supported in .

Proof. It suffices to consider the case that is geometrically infinite. By Proposition 3.2 there exists a sequence of pairwise disjoint -separated simple closed geodesics exiting . Assume that and the parametrization of are chosen so that for all . Let = genus, and let be a locally finite collection of embedded proper rays in such that .

An idea used repeatedly, in various guises, throughout this paper is the following. If is a closed oriented surface and is obtained by shrinkwrapping rel the geodesics , then is homotopic to via a homotopy which does not meet , except possibly at the last instant. Therefore, if and , then and if , then . Here denotes the algebraic intersection number.

Warm-up Case

Each is 2-incompressible in . (E.g. .)

Proof.

Apply Theorem 0.8 to shrinkwrap rel to a surface . Since , . Since is locally finite, the Bounded Diameter Lemma implies that the ’s must exit . Therefore for sufficiently large, and ; hence the projection of into (given by the product structure on ) is a degree-1 map between surfaces of the same genus. Since such maps are homotopic to homeomorphisms, we see that can be homotoped within to a homeomorphism onto . See Figure 4 for a schematic view.

General Case

(E.g. is an open handlebody.)

Proof.

Without loss of generality we can assume that every closed orientable surface separates (see Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.6). We use a purely combinatorial/topological argument to find a particular sequence of smooth surfaces exiting . We then shrinkwrap these surfaces and show that they have the desired escaping and homological properties.

Fix . If possible, compress via a compression which either misses or crosses once say at . If possible, compress again via a compression meeting at most once say at . After at most such operations and deleting 2-spheres we obtain embedded connected surfaces , none of which is a 2-sphere and each of which is 2-incompressible rel . For each fixed , each with at most exceptions is separated from by exactly one surface . Call Bag the region separated from by . Note that all compressions in the passage of to are on the non--side.

Since each , we can find a and for each , a reordering of the ’s (and their bags) so that for infinitely many , ; furthermore, if for each such that , we denote by the maximal index such that , then the set is unbounded. By Theorem 0.8, is homotopic rel to a surface . Since the collection is infinite and locally finite, the Bounded Diameter Lemma implies that a subsequence of these ’s must exit . Call this subsequence , where is the shrinkwrapped . Therefore, for sufficiently large, must lie in and . Therefore, projection of to is degree 1. This in turn implies that genus and can be homotoped within to a homeomorphism onto . See Figure 5 for another schematic view.

Remark 4.2.

This argument shows that for sufficiently large, is already 2-incompressible in . Also, given any -separated collection of exiting geodesics a sufficiently large finite subset is 2-disc busting. Actually, using the technology of the last chapter, this statement holds for any sequence of exiting closed geodesics.

The proof of Theorem 0.9 follows a similar strategy. Here is the outline in the case that has a single end and no parabolics. Given a sequence of -separated exiting simple closed geodesics we pass to a subsequence (and possibly choose to have finitely many components) and find a sequence of connected embedded surfaces denoted such that for each separates from and is 2-incompressible rel . It is a priori possible that the ’s do not exit . If denotes the compact region split off by , then after possibly deleting an initial finite set of ’s (and adding the associated ’s to ) we find a compact 3-manifold which is a core for .

We next find an immersed genus surface , which homologically separates off a subset of from . For infinitely many , includes a fixed and for these ’s the set is unbounded, where is the largest index of a . The surface separates from the rest in the sense that lifts to an embedded surface in the -cover of and in that cover separates a lift from , the preimage of . The argument to this point is purely topological and applies to any 3-manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. In the general case, will not be an exiting sequence.

Next we shrinkwrap rel to a surface which we continue to call . Then we homotope rel to a surface in the induced and let denote the projection of to . The point of shrinkwrapping is that is now a barrier which prevents from popping out of during the subsequent shrinkwrapping (compare with §2). We use the ’s to show that, after passing to a subsequence, the ’s exit . We use to show that for sufficiently large, homologically separates from a Scott core of .

We have outlined the strategy. For purposes of exposition, the above sketch of the construction of the ’s is slightly different from that given in §6.

In §7 we make the necessary embellishments to handle the parabolic case.

The next chapter develops the theory of end reductions which enables us to define the submanifolds .

5. End manifolds and end reductions

In this section, we prove a structure theorem for the topology of an end of a -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. A reference for basic -manifold topology is Reference He.

The first step is to replace our original manifold with a –ended manifold with the homotopy type of a bouquet of circles and closed orientable surfaces. We then prove Theorem 5.21, the infinite end engulfing theorem, which says that given an exiting sequence of homotopically nontrivial simple closed curves we can pass to a subsequence and find a submanifold , with finitely generated fundamental group containing , which has the following properties:

(1)

can be exhausted by codimension-0 compact submanifolds whose boundaries are -incompressible rel .

(2)

has a core which lies in .

This completes the preliminary step in the proof of Theorem 0.9, as explained at the end of §4. The proof of Theorem 0.9 itself is in §6.

In what follows we will assume that all 3-manifolds are orientable and irreducible.

Lemma 5.1.

If is an end of an open Riemannian -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then is isometric to the end of a -ended -manifold whose (possibly empty) boundary is a finite union of closed orientable surfaces. A core of is obtained by attaching -handles to the components of , unless , in which case a core is a -complex and = .

Proof.

A thickened Scott core Reference Sc of is a union of 1-handles (possibly empty) attached to a compact 3-manifold with incompressible boundary. Split along all the boundary components of and let be the component which contains .

Remark 5.2.

is a submanifold of . is isometric to a submanifold of the covering of corresponding to the inclusion , and the inclusion is a homotopy equivalence.

Definition 5.3.

Call a finitely generated group a free/surface group if it is a free product of orientable surface groups and a free group. Call a 1-ended, irreducible, orientable, 3-manifold an end-manifold if it has a compact (possibly empty) boundary and a compact core of the form -handles if or a handlebody if .

Note that is a free/surface group for an end-manifold.

Lemma 5.4.

If is a subgroup of a free/surface group, then its -rank equals its -rank, both in and -coefficients.

Proof.

A finitely generated subgroup of a free/surface group is a free/surface group, and equality holds in that case. An infinitely generated subgroup of a free/surface group contains an infinitely generated free summand. Consequently, both the -rank and the -rank are infinite for such subgroups.

Lemma 5.5.

An -injective subgroup of a free/surface group is finitely generated.

Proof.

Rank .

Lemma 5.6.

A -ended, orientable, irreducible -manifold with compact boundary is an end-manifold if and only if is a free/surface group, and is -injective.

Every closed embedded -injective surface in an end-manifold is boundary parallel.

Proof.

Let be an end-manifold with core of the form -handles or handlebody if . Since the inclusion is a homotopy equivalence, is incompressible and is a free/surface group. If is a compact properly embedded -injective surface, then can be homotoped rel into . The cocores of the -handles are properly embedded disks whose boundary misses . Since is homotopically essential, it follows that each intersection is homotopically inessential in , and therefore can be homotoped off the cocores of the -handles. Once this is done, can be further homotoped rel. boundary into , since deformation retracts to in the complement of the cocores of the -handles. This implies that .

If and has incompressible boundary, a connected, closed orientable incompressible surface must separate off a connected, compact Haken manifold with incompressible boundary. If is also a free/surface group, then is a closed orientable surface group and using Reference St we conclude that for some component of , so is boundary parallel. Therefore, if , then any core is a handlebody. If , then has a core which contains Reference Mc. If is obtained by maximally compressing , then each component of is boundary parallel and hence -handles.

Corollary 5.7.

If is a -ended, -injective submanifold of the end-manifold such that is finitely generated and is a union of components of , then is an end-manifold.

Definition 5.8.

Given a connected compact subset of an open irreducible 3-manifold , the end-reduction of to is to first approximation the smallest open submanifold of which can engulf, up to isotopy, any closed surface in which is incompressible in . End-reductions were introduced by Brin and Thickstun Reference BT1Reference BT2. Their basic properties were developed by Brin and Thickstun Reference BT1Reference BT2 and Myers Reference My. In particular Reference BT1 shows that can be created via the following procedure. If is an exhaustion of by compact connected codimension-0 submanifolds such that , then one inductively obtains an exhaustion of by compact sets as follows. Transform to through a maximal series of intermediate manifolds where is obtained from by one of the following 3 operations.

(1)

Compress along a disc disjoint from .

(2)

Attach a 2-handle to which lies in , and whose attaching core circle is essential in .

(3)

Delete a component of disjoint from .

Having constructed , pass to a subsequence of the ’s and reorder so that . Finally pass from to via a maximal sequence of the above operations. Since is incompressible in , an essential compression of can be isotoped rel boundary to one missing . Therefore, we will assume such operations miss and hence . Brin and Thickstun Reference BT1 show that is up to isotopy independent of all choices.

We say that is a standard exhaustion of if and , where for each , arises from via a sequence of the three end-reduction operations and is an exhaustion of by compact submanifolds.

Remark 5.9.

Note that operations (1) and (2) reduce the sum of the ranks of of the boundary components. It follows that the transition from to is obtained by a finite sequence of operations.

Remark 5.10.

(Historical Note) Brin and Thickstun Reference BT1, Reference BT2 study end reductions to develop a necessary and a sufficient condition, end -movability, for taming an end of a 3-manifold. More recently, Myers Reference My has promoted the use of end reductions to address both the -covering space conjecture and the Marden conjecture.

Lemma 5.11.

The inclusion induces and -injections, the latter in both and homology.

Proof.

The -injectivity was first proven in Reference BT2 and rediscovered in Reference My. Our proof of -injectivity mimics the proof of -injectivity in Reference My. Suppose is a union of oriented simple closed curves bounding the surface . Note that by elementary -manifold topology, we can assume is embedded.

By choosing sufficiently large we can assume that . If is obtained by adding a 2-handle to , then . If is obtained by compressing , via a compression missing , then by modifying near the compressing disc we obtain a surface spanning (orientably, if need be) with . If is obtained by deleting components of which miss , then still spans . Since is obtained from by a finite sequence of such operations it follows that bounds in and hence in .

-injectivity of in gives us the following crucial corollary:

Corollary 5.12.

An end-reduction in an end-manifold has finitely generated fundamental group.

Proof.

Combine Lemma 5.11 with Lemma 5.5.

Definition 5.13.

If is an end-reduction of the codimension-0 submanifold in , then we say that is trivial if is isotopic to an open regular neighborhood of or equivalently is isotopic to . is eventually trivial if it has an exhaustion such that is parallel to for all .

We now study end-reductions of disconnected spaces . While the following technology and definitions can be given for more general objects we restrict our attention to finite unions of pairwise disjoint closed (possibly nonsimple) curves none of which lie in a 3-cell. Ultimately we will address end-reductions of infinite sequences of exiting curves.

Definition 5.14.

If is a finite union of pairwise disjoint closed curves in an open irreducible 3-manifold , we say that is end-nonseparable if there is a compact connected submanifold such that and is incompressible in . Such an is called a house of . If is end-nonseparable, then define to be an end-reduction of , and call the end-reduction of .

Lemma 5.15.

The end-reduction of an end-nonseparable union of closed curves is well defined up to isotopy.

Proof.

Let and be two houses for . We want to show that if is an end-reduction of , then there is an isotopy of to fixing , so that the end-reduction of is equal to . By the definition of a house for , both and satisfy the property that they are connected submanifolds of whose boundaries are incompressible in .

Let be a standard exhaustion of arising from the exhaustion of . By passing to a subsequence we can assume that . By considering the passage of to , we observe that can be isotoped to rel to lie in and that is incompressible in . Thus is also an end-reduction of . Since end-reductions are unique up to isotopy the result follows, and we may unambiguously denote by .

Lemma 5.16.

Let be a finite union of pairwise disjoint closed curves in the open irreducible -manifold . Then canonically decomposes into finitely many maximal pairwise disjoint end-nonseparable subsets . Indeed, if is a maximal end-nonseparable subset of , then for some .

Proof.

Since each element of is end-nonseparable, it suffices to show that if and are end-nonseparable subsets of , then either is end-nonseparable or . Let and be houses for and respectively. Let be a compact submanifold containing . By considering the passage of to by a maximal sequence of compressions, 2-handle additions, and deletions which are taken with respect to , one sees that (resp. ) can be isotoped to lie in via an isotopy fixing (resp. ). If , then is connected and hence is a house for .

Lemma 5.17.

If are the maximal end-nonseparable components of a finite set of pairwise disjoint closed curves in an open irreducible -manifold , then they have pairwise disjoint end-reductions. In particular they have pairwise disjoint houses.

Proof.

Let be the maximal end-nonseparable subsets of . Let be an exhaustion of with . Consider a sequence where the passage from one to the next is isotopy, compression, 2-handle addition or deletion, where the compressions or deletions are taken with respect to . By passing to a subsequence of the exhaustion we can assume that , and in the above manner pass from to . In like manner construct . By deleting finitely many of the first ’s from the sequence and reindexing, we can assume that all the ’s have the same number of components.

It suffices to show that if is a component of , then contains a unique and that is incompressible in . Indeed, it suffices to prove incompressibility of in , for then is a house and can only contain one by maximality. If is compressible in it must compress to the outside via some compressing disc . Consider a term in the exhausting sequence with . By considering the passage of to we can rechoose the disc spanning to obtain a new compressing disc . Since is incompressible in , it follows that must hit a component of distinct from . This imples that contains fewer components than , which is a contradiction.

Lemma 5.18.

If are as in Lemma 5.17, with pairwise disjoint end-reductions , then is -injective in , in both and coefficients.

Proof.

Repeat the proof of Lemma 5.11.

Corollary 5.19.

Let be a union of finitely many pairwise disjoint closed curves in the end-manifold . If each component of is homotopically nontrivial, then breaks up into at most rank maximal nonseparable subsets.

Proof.

If partitions into maximal nonseparable subsets , then the -rank of is nontrivial, since is a nontrivial subgroup of a free/surface group. Now apply the previous lemma.

Lemma 5.20.

Let be a sequence of homotopically nontrivial, pairwise disjoint closed curves in the end-manifold . Then we can group together finitely many of the curves into and pass to a subsequence so that

(1)

Any finite subset of which contains is end-nonseparable.

(2)

Each component of , and each , represent the same element of

Proof.

By passing to a subsequence we can assume that each represents the same element of . By Lemma 5.16, if is a finite subset of , then canonically partitions into finitely many end-nonseparable subsets with corresponding pairwise disjoint end-reductions . Define

where the last inequality follows from Lemma 5.18. Define

Now pass to an infinite subset of with minimal. By Lemma 5.18, if with , then adding a new element to the does not increase the number of end-nonseparable subsets in its canonical partition. Since is minimal, we can enlarge by adding finitely many elements so that the enlarged , which by abuse of notation we still call , is end-nonseparable. Again by maximality of together with any finite subset of is still end-nonseparable. Now express as with .

Theorem 5.21 (Infinite end-engulfing theorem).

If is a locally finite sequence of pairwise disjoint, homotopically nontrivial, closed curves in the end-manifold , then after passing to a subsequence, allowing to have multiple components and fixing a base point , there exist compact submanifolds of such that

(1)

is a union of components of and is connected.

(2)

If , then , and can be homotoped into via a homotopy supported in .

(3)

is -incompressible rel .

(4)

If , then is and -injective in both and coefficients.

(5)

is a core of and is of the form -handles.

The conclusion of this theorem is schematically depicted in Figure 6.

Proof.

By passing to a subsequence and allowing to have multiple components we can assume that satisfies the conclusions of Lemma 5.20. Assume that has at least two elements.

Let be an end-reduction to with standard exhaustion . Let be a core for with . Since is -injective in , by passing to a subsequence we can choose so that each component of can be homotoped into via a homotopy in . Furthermore, -injectivity allows us to assume that within each is -homologous to a component of with . If represents the trivial class, it should be homologically trivial in . Finally should be sufficiently large so that is a union of components of and a single component disjoint from . Note that is 2-incompressible rel . Indeed, by construction is incompressible in ; hence is incompressible to the outside and any essential compressing disc for must intersect at least once. If meets the component of , then since is either -homologically trivial in or -homologous to a it follows that .

By passing to a subsequence of we can assume that . By Lemma 5.20, is end-nonseparable. Let be an end-reduction for with standard exhaustion where . As above let be a core for with and by choosing sufficiently large we can assume that it supports a homotopy of into as well as homologies between elements of . Finally, is a union of components of and a single component disjoint from . As above, is 2-incompressible rel .

Having inductively constructed and , pass to a subsequence of so that with . Let be an end-reduction of with standard exhaustion , where . Let be a core of , but if possible let . Finally should be chosen sufficiently large to support homotopies of into and homologies as described in the previous paragraphs and so that is a union of components of and a single other component. As above is 2-incompressible rel .

Let . The proof of Lemma 5.11 shows that is and -injective in in and coefficients. By Lemma 5.5, has a finitely generated fundamental group and hence for some , the inclusion is -surjective. Since and have the same -image in and hence in , they have the same image in and hence is -surjective. Since the inclusions are -injective it follows that is also -injective in and hence is a core of . Therefore, if , then and have the same -image in and hence in . Since the is -injective in , it follows that and have the same image in and hence is a core of for all .

To complete the proof of the theorem reorganize so that is now the old , and for all old . Let . Finally, for , let .

By Corollary 5.6 each is an end-manifold and hence could have been taken to be of the form -handles if and a handlebody otherwise.

Definition 5.22.

Call the constructed in Theorem 5.21 an end-engulfing of .

The material in the rest of this chapter will not be used elsewhere in this paper; in particular, it is not used to prove any of the results of §0.

Lemma 5.23.

If are finite, end nonseparable unions of homotopically essential, pairwise disjoint, closed curves with end-reductions and , then is isotopic rel to , where

Proof.

Let be a standard exhaustion of . Let be a standard exhaustion of arising from the exhaustion of . By passing to a subsequence we can assume that . By considering the passage of to we can isotope rel to lie in . Proceeding by induction and passing to a subsequence, we can assume that and . By considering the passage of to (which fixes ) we can isotope rel to lie in . The isotoped ’s give rise to an isotopy of to with .

Remark 5.24.

Given with end-reductions and one can isotope to so that (Lemma 5.23). On the other hand one cannot in general isotope to contain . One need only look at the case of being nested balls in the Whitehead manifold to find examples. Such considerations make it challenging to find nested end-reductions .

Theorem 5.25 (Finite end-reduction theorem).

Let be an end-manifold. If is an end-nonseparable union of finitely many homotopically essential, pairwise disjoint, closed curves, then an end-reduction of has finitely generated fundamental group and given a standard exhaustion , by passing to a subsequence, for all

and the map restricted to induces an isomorphism onto . Here in denotes the map induced by inclusion.

We first prove a topological lemma.

Lemma 5.26.

If is an end-manifold, then has an exhaustion by compact manifolds , such that for each either is a handlebody, in which case , or is obtained by attaching -handles to an .

Proof.

If , then is free and this result follows directly from Reference FF. If , it suffices to show that if is any compact submanifold of , then , where is obtained by thickening and attaching 1-handles. We use the standard argument; e.g., see Reference BF, Reference BT2 or Reference FF. Using the loop theorem we can pass from to a submanifold , with incompressible boundary via a sequence of compressions and external 2-handle additions. By appropriately enlarging to , so as to contain these 2-handles, we can pass from to by only compressions. By enlarging , and hence , we can assume that and no component of is compact. By Lemma 5.6 each component of is boundary parallel and hence is of the form -handles.

Proof of Theorem 5.25.

Let be an exhaustion of as in Lemma 5.26 so that . Let be a standard exhaustion of arising from the exhaustion of .

By Definition 5.14 and Lemma 5.12, is finitely generated, so we can pass to a subsequence and assume that the induced map is surjective.

Let , where is inclusion. We now show that after passing to a subsequence of the the induced maps

are all isomorphisms.

For , let , where is inclusion. Each is a finitely generated subgroup of and hence is a free product of finitely many closed orientable surface groups and a finitely generated free group. Since for all , rank, there are only finitely many possibilities for such groups, and hence by passing to a subsequence we can assume that for , the groups and are abstractly isomorphic. Free/surface groups are obviously linear, hence residually finite by Malcev Reference Mv. Furthermore, Malcev Reference Mv went on to show that finitely generated residually finite groups are Hopfian; i.e., surjective self maps are isomorphisms. This implies that the induced maps are all isomorphisms. If

then

We now show that . One readily checks that if and , and is obtained from by compression, 2-handle addition or deletion, where these operations are performed in the complement of , then . This implies that if , then . On the other hand since . Therefore, the induced maps are isomorphisms.

Apply the argument of the previous paragraph to obtain a subsequence of which starts with and such that the -image of in , maps isomorphically to , via the map induced by inclusion. Continue in this manner to construct .

Addendum to Theorem 5.21

We can obtain the following additional property. If , then

where in denotes inclusion. The map restricted to induces an isomorphism onto .

Proof.

Apply Theorem 5.21 to produce the space as well as the sets , which we now relabel as . Define , , and . Let be a standard exhaustion of an end-reduction of , which we can assume satisfies the conclusions of Theorem 5.25. Defining , we see that the restriction of to in is an isomorphism. Choose so that and define . Let be a standard exhaustion of an end-reduction of which satisfies the conclusions of Theorem 5.25 and has . Defining , we see that the restriction of to in is an isomorphism. Now define and . In a similar manner construct and finally define .

Remarks 5.27.

If one allows each to be a finite set of elements, then we can obtain the conclusion (in Theorem 5.21 and its addendum) that each is -homologically trivial.

Question 5.28.

Let be a connected, compact, orientable, irreducible 3-manifold such that and let be a subgroup of . If the induced map is injective, is finitely generated?

Question 5.29.

Let be a locally finite collection of pairwise disjoint homotopically essential closed curves such that for any infinite subset of . Is it true, that given , there exists an end-engulfing of of such that for all , for all essential compressing discs of ?

6. Proof of Theorems 0.9, 0.4 and 0.2: Parabolic free case

Proof of Theorem 0.9.

By Lemma 5.1 and Remark 5.2 it suffices to consider the case that is the end of an end-manifold such that the inclusion is a homotopy equivalence. By Lemma 3.2 there exists an -separated collection of closed geodesics which exit . We let denote the union . Apply Theorem 5.21 to and to pass to a subsequence, also called , where we allow to have finitely many components. Theorem 5.21 also produces a manifold open in and exhausted by compact manifolds having the following properties.

(1)

is and -injective (in and coefficients) in and hence is a free/surface group.

(2)

is a closed connected surface which separates from and is 2-incompressible in rel. .

(3)

There exists a compact submanifold core of such that for each can be homotoped into via a homotopy supported in . is either of the form with 1-handles attached to the 1-side, if or a handlebody, otherwise.

Let denote in. Let denote . Let denote the covering space of with group and let denote the lift of . Pick a homotopy of into supported in . This homotopy lifts to a homotopy of into , thereby picking out the closed preimages of which are in 1-1 correspondence with . Let denote these elements.

Claim.

Each is a compact atoroidal Haken manifold and contains a surface of genus .

Proof of Claim.

Each embedded torus in is compressible, since is parabolic free. A compressible torus in an irreducible 3-manifold is either a tube, i.e. bounds a solid torus, or a convolutube, i.e. bounds a cube with knotted hole , which is a 3-ball with an open regular neighborhood of a properly embedded arc removed. Furthermore, lies in a 3-ball. Therefore, if some component of is a torus, is either a solid torus or a cube with knotted hole. The former can contain at most one closed geodesic and the latter none. Since contains at least two closed geodesics cannot contain a torus.

If contained an embedded incompressible torus , then the compact region bounded by would lie in . This implies that is a convolutube. In , the universal covering of , let denote the preimage of and the preimage of . Since lies in a 3-cell in , lifts to a torus isometric to . Using the loop theorem, it follows that is incompressible in and is incompressible in . We will show that after an isotopy of supported in , there exists an embedded 3-ball such that and . This implies that is compressible in , via a compressing disc disjoint from . Since is incompressible in it follows that can be isotoped rel so that . This contradicts the fact that is incompressible in .

Here is how to find . Let be a large round ball transverse to which contains in its interior. is a finite union of unknotted arc; i.e., there exist pairwise disjoint embedded discs such that for each and consists of together with an arc lying in . For each , either or . Since is incompressible in , and the ’s can be isotoped, via an isotopy which fixes pointwise, to and ’s so that is a 3-ball containing , the ’s are unknotting discs for the ’s and for each , either or . After an isotopy of supported in , for each , . Finally let equal , where is a very small regular neighborhood of .

It now follows from Thurston (see Proposition 3.2 in Reference Ca or Reference Mo) that is topologically tame. Let denote its manifold compactification. Since is a union of components of and is the cover, there is a canonical identification of with some set of components of . Let denote these components. Having the same homotopy type as , it follows by the usual group-theoretic reasons that either compresses down to a -ball, or to a possibly disconnected (closed orientable surface). In the former case is a handlebody which, for reasons of Euler characteristic, is of the same genus as . In the latter case, since is an incompressible surface, is topologically with 1-handles attached to the 1-side. Let denote . Again by reason of the Euler characteristic, , where .

Define . We show that , where is the original core of . By construction is a union of components of ; therefore it suffices to show that the number of 1-handles attached to is not more than the number of 1-handles attached to in the constructions of and respectively. If , then this follows immediately from the fact that and are cores respectively of and and the -injectivity of in . Let . The -injectivity of in implies that the inclusion is injective. The -injectivity of in and the -injectivity of in implies that is -injective in . If the kernel of is nontrivial, then a nontrivial homology between and would lie in some , where and is a term in the exhausting sequence of used for constructing . Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 5.11, contains a nontrivial homology between and and hence, . This contradicts the fact that . Therefore

Isotope to an embedded surface via an isotopy which does not cross . Next, if possible, compress via a compression either disjoint from or crossing once, say at . If possible, compress the resulting surface via a compression crossing at most once and so on. Since , there is an a priori upper bound on the number of compressions we need to do. In the end we obtain connected surfaces in which are 2-incompressible rel where , and both and are . Since is irreducible, we can assume that no is a 2-sphere. These ’s create a partition of , where is the subset of separated from by . Each is incompressible to the side, since the component of split along which contains is homeomorphic to -handles. Therefore, each is 2-incompressible rel .

As in the proof of Canary’s theorem, after appropriately reordering the ’s we can find a and a sequence such that and if denotes the largest index of a , then . In general reorder the ’s so that, if possible, .

Fix . Let be the union of together with the components of which nontrivially intersect . Let denote the covering of with fundamental group . View , and the ’s etc. as sitting naturally in . Let be disjoint from . Apply Lemma 2.3 to and .

We have the following dictionary between terms appearing in our current setup (on the left) and the terms appearing in the hypothesis of Lemma 2.3 (on the right):

Then Lemma 2.3 constructs surfaces and where the correspondence is

In more detail: is isotopic to a manifold , via an isotopy fixing pointwise. This isotopy induces a homotopy of the covering projection to a covering projection . Our is isotopic to a surface via an isotopy avoiding , and the projection of into is a surface which is homotopic to a surface . Furthermore, and are at Hausdorff distance and the homotopy from to is supported within the 1-neighborhood of .

We relabel superscripts, and by abuse of notation we let the sequence stand for the old subsequence , with being denoted by , etc. We also drop the superscript new so that in particular the projection now refers to .

We use the ’s to show that exits . Let be a locally finite collection of properly embedded rays from to . For each , intersects some component of with algebraic intersection number 1, so . Therefore for all , we have an inequality . Our assertion now follows from the Bounded Diameter Lemma.

Lemma 6.1.

Let be an end of , an orientable, irreducible -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. If is a -manifold compact core of and is the component of which contains , then generates and is Thurston norm minimizing. Here is the component of which faces .

Proof.

First, is connected, or else there exists a closed curve in intersecting a component of once; hence is not homologous to a cycle in , contradicting the fact that is a core. That generates follows from the fact that any 2-cycle in is homologous to one in , so the restriction of that homology to gives a homology of to for some . Equivalently, observe that the inclusion is a homotopy equivalence, and use excision for homology.

Let be a Thurston norm-minimizing surface representing . We can choose to be connected since . Let be the submanifold between and . If , then there exists a nonzero in the kernel of in. This follows from the well-known fact that for any compact orientable 3-manifold , the rank of the kernel of the map in is . Since is a core, is in the kernel of the map in. This gives rise to a class and dual class with , which is again a contradiction.

Using this lemma, we now complete the proof of Theorem 0.9.

Let denote the component of split open along which contains . By Lemma 6.1, generates . Next, observe that if is any ray in from to and is any immersed closed orientable surface in , then where . To see this, note that by considering copies of slightly pushed into and whose algebraic intersection number is independent of the representative of the homology class.

We now use to show that for sufficiently large is homologous in to ; see Figure 7. Let be the ray where is a path from to . In what follows assume that is sufficiently large so that

where denotes the -neighborhood of , and hence

We now compute this value. By perturbing , if necessary, we can assume that is transverse to and no intersections occur at double points of . There is a correspondence of sets

Let denote the component of split along which is disjoint from . Note that . If is a component of , then if no endpoints lie in while if exactly one endpoint lies in . To see this, orient so that the positive end escapes to . Then the positive end of each lift is in , which is outside Bag. It follows that if is an endpoint of in , then is the negative end of , and . Since lies in , there is at least component of with such an endpoint in , and therefore

and hence

for some .

Therefore

and hence and . Here (resp. ) denotes the Thurston (resp. singular Thurston) norm on . The first inequality follows by construction, the second by definition, the third since (Reference G1), the fourth since is linear on rays Reference T2 and the fifth by Lemma 6.1. This completes the proof of Theorem 0.9.

Remark 6.2.

Since for sufficiently large, , it follows that for such , no compressions occur in the passage from to . This mirrors the similar phenomenon seen in the proof of Canary’s theorem. If the shrinkwrapped is actually a -minimal surface disjoint from , then is a least area minimal surface for the hyperbolic metric, and we can pass directly from to a -minimal surface by shrinkwrapping in . Our is then the projection of to .

If the shrinkwrapped touches , then we can still shrinkwrap in . In this case is bent and possibly squeezed along parts of and it is cumbersome to discuss the geometry and topology of . Therefore we choose for the purposes of exposition to express as a limit of surfaces. These surfaces are projections of -minimal surfaces in the smooth Riemannian manifolds with Riemannian metrics . As metric spaces, the converge to the bent and squeezed hyperbolic “metric” on .

Tameness Criteria

Let be an end of the complete hyperbolic 3-manifold with finitely generated fundamental group and compact core . Let be the component of containing with denoting . Let be a sequence of surfaces mapped into . Consider the following properties.

(1)

.

(2)

and exit .

(3)

Each homologically separates from (i.e., .

(4)

Each is CAT.

Theorem 6.3 (Souto Reference So).

If is a sequence of mapped surfaces in the complete hyperbolic -manifold with core and end which satisfies Criteria (1), (2) and (3), then is topologically tame.

Theorem 6.3 follows directly from the proof of Theorem 2, Reference So. That proof makes essential use of the work of Bonahon Reference Bo and Canary Reference Ca. We now show how Criterion (4) enables us to establish tameness without invoking the impressive technology of Reference Bo and Reference Ca. Our argument, inspired in part by Souto’s work, requires only elementary hyperbolic geometry and basic 3-manifold topology.

A topological argument that criteria (1)–(4) imply tameness

It suffices to consider the case that is the end of an end-manifold which includes by a homotopy equivalence into , and that is of the form -handles, where the 1-handles attach to and .

Using standard arguments, we can replace the ’s by simplicial hyperbolic surfaces as defined in Reference Ca. The idea of how to do this is simple: the property implies that each has an essential simple closed curve of length uniformly bounded above. If denotes the geodesic in homotopic to , then either the have length bounded below by some constant, and are therefore contained within a bounded neighborhood of , or else the lengths of the get arbitrarily short, and therefore they escape to infinity. In either case, the sequence exits . Then we can triangulate by a -vertex triangulation with a vertex on and pull the simplices tight to geodesic triangles. This produces a simplicial hyperbolic surface, homotopic to , which is contained in a bounded neighborhood of rel. the thin part of , and therefore these surfaces also exit . From now on we assume that each is a simplicial hyperbolic surface.

Note that either is incompressible in and hence is homotopy equivalent to or each is compressible in ; i.e., there exists an essential simple closed curve in that is homotopically trivial in . Indeed, using the -surjectivity of and the irreducibility of can be homotoped into . If is incompressible in , then can be homotoped off the 1-handles and then homotoped into a component of . Using Criterion (3), the degree of this map is one, which implies that is homotopic to a homeomorphism onto a component of . Since , it follows that and hence is incompressible in .

Since either is homotopy equivalent to or each is compressible, it follows by Canary Reference Ca and Canary–Minsky Reference CaM (see also Proposition 3 in Reference So) that there exists a compact set such that each can be homotoped within to a simplicial hyperbolic surface which nontrivially intersects . Here is the closure of . By the Bounded Diameter Lemma, there exists a compact set such that for each , .

Since Reference G1, there exists a sequence of embedded genus- surfaces such that for each , lies in a small neighborhood of and . By passing to subsequence we can assume that the ’s are pairwise disjoint and each is disjoint from and separates from . Let denote the compact region between and . Since , it follows by Lemma 6.1 that is Thurston norm-minimizing in and hence is -injective in and in .

To establish tameness it suffices to show that each is a product. Fix . Let be sufficiently large so that separates from . Let be a surface of genus . Using Reference Ca, Reference CaM, let be a homotopy such that and . By Stallings and Waldhausen, after a homotopy of rel we can assume that are -injective surfaces in . See Reference Wa, p. 60. Since , these surfaces are disjoint from , and by arguing as in Reference Wa, §3, they are isotopic to surfaces of the form , . Therefore, after a further homotopy we can assume that , where is a finite set of points. Since each homologically separates from , each is a degree-1 map onto either or and hence after another homotopy we can assume that for each , is a homeomorphism onto its image. Therefore there exists such that maps degree-1 onto and the restriction of to is a homeomorphism. Therefore is a -injective, degree-1 map whose restriction to is a homeomorphism onto . Since both the domain and range are irreducible, such a map is homotopic rel boundary to a homeomorphism, by Waldhausen Reference Wa.

Remarks 6.4.
(1)

In the presence of an escaping sequence of CAT surfaces, hyperbolic surface interpolation and the bounded diameter lemma is all the hyperbolic geometry needed to establish tameness.

(2)

This argument makes crucial use of the fact that the homotopy is supported in and each is incompressible in .

Proof of Theorem 0.4.

It suffices to consider the case that is orientable, since it readily follows using Reference Tu, that is tame if and only if its orientable cover is tame. If is geometrically finite, then by Reference EM is tame. Now assume that is geometrically infinite. Theorem 0.9 provides us with a collection which satisfies the Tameness Criteria (1)–(4). Now apply Theorem 6.3.

Proof of Theorem 0.2.

It suffices to prove Theorem 0.2 for the geometrically infinite ends of orientable manifolds. It follows from Theorems 0.9 and 0.4 that is topologically of the form , where is a surface of genus . Theorem 0.9 provides for us a sequence of surfaces satisfying the Tameness Criteria (1)–(4). Since for sufficiently large and homologically separates from , it follows that the projection to is a degree 1 map of a genus surface to itself and hence is homotopic to a homeomorphism.

7. The parabolic case

Thanks to the careful expositions in Reference Bo, Reference Ca and Reference So it is now routine to obtain general theorems in the presence of parabolics from the corresponding results in the parabolic free case.

We now give the basic definitions and provide statements of our results in the parabolic setting.

The following is well known; e.g., see Reference Ca for an expanded version of more or less the following discussion. Let be a complete hyperbolic 3-manifold. Then for sufficiently small , the -thin part, of is a union of solid tori (Margulis tubes), rank-1 cusps and rank-2 cusps. Let denote . The space Margulis tubes is called the neutered space of , though we often drop the . The parabolic locus (usually just denoted ) is a finite union of tori and open annuli . Each annulus is of the form such that for , each bounds a standard 2-dimensional cusp in . Let denote the cusp components of . By Reference Mc, has a compact core which is also a core of and the restriction to each component of is a core of . Such a core for is called a relative core. In particular if is an annulus, then we can assume that By Bonahon Reference Bo, the ends of are in 1-1 correspondence with components of . If , then an end of is geometrically finite if it has a neighborhood disjoint from , the convex core of . Such an end has an exponentially flaring geometry similar to that of a geometrically finite end of a parabolic free manifold. The end of is topologically tame if it is a relative product, i.e., if there is a compact surface and an embedding which parametrizes . If is a neighborhood of , then by passing to a smaller neighborhood we can assume that is either or of the form or . Adding the corresponding 2-dimensional cusps to pts., we obtain , the of . So if is topologically tame, is topologically , where is topologically and geometrically with cusps added.

Following Reference Bo and Reference Ca we say that the end of is simply degenerate if it is topologically tame, has a neighborhood with a sequence such that induces a structure on , the ’s eventually miss given compact sets and each is properly homotopic in to a homeomorphism of onto . We say that is geometrically tame if it is simply degenerate or geometrically finite. The manifold is geometrically tame if each end of is geometrically tame.

Francis Bonahon showed that if is sufficiently small, then an end of is geometrically infinite if and only if there exists a sequence of closed geodesics lying in and exiting .

We can now state the general version of the results stated in the introduction.

Theorem 7.1.

Let be a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group with neutered space . The end of is simply degenerate if there exists a sequence of closed geodesics exiting the end.

Theorem 7.2.

A complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group is geometrically tame.

Theorem 7.3.

If is a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then each end of is topologically tame. In particular, each end of is topologically tame.

Theorem 7.4.

If is a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then the limit set of is either or has Lebesgue measure zero. If , then acts ergodically on .

Theorem 7.5 (Classification Theorem).

If is a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then is determined up to isometry by its topological type, its parabolic structure, the conformal boundary of ’s geometrically finite ends and the ending laminations of ’s geometrically infinite ends.

Theorem 7.6 (Density Theorem).

If is a complete finitely generated -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then is the algebraic limit of geometrically finite Kleinian groups.

Theorem 7.7.

Let be a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group and with associated neutered space . Let be an end of with relative compact core . Let be a compact surface with the topological type of , the component of the frontier of which faces . Let denote a parabolic extension of a neighborhood of . If there exists a sequence of closed geodesics exiting , then there exists a sequence of proper surfaces in homeomorphic to which eventually miss every compact set and such that each homologically separates from . Furthermore, if lies to the -side of , then no accidental parabolic can be homotoped into a cusp via a homotopy disjoint from .

Remarks 7.8.
(1)

Theorem 7.3 has been independently proven by Agol Reference Ag.

(2)

Theorem 7.7 is the main technical result of this section and at the end of this section we will deduce from it Theorems 7.1 and 7.3.

(3)

Theorem 7.1 implies Theorem 7.2 as follows. A complete hyperbolic 3-manifold is geometrically tame if each end of is either geometrically finite or simply degenerate. By definition, ends of are either geometrically finite or geometrically infinite. Using Bonahon’s characterization of geometrically infinite ends and Theorem 7.1 it follows that geometrically infinite ends are simply degenerate.

(4)

Theorem 7.4 immediately follows from Theorem 7.2 by the work of Thurston Reference T and Canary Reference Ca. It also follows from Reference Ca that the various results of Reference Ca, §9 hold for .

(5)

Theorem 7.3 is the last step needed to prove the monumental classification theorem, the other parts being established by Alhfors, Bers, Kra, Marden, Maskit, Mostow, Prasad, Sullivan, Thurston, Minsky, Masur–Minsky, Brock–Canary–Minsky, Ohshika, Kelineidam–Souto, Lecuire, Kim–Lecuire–Ohshika, Hossein–Souto and Rees. See Reference Mi and Reference BCM.

(6)

The Density Theorem was conjectured by Bers, Sullivan and Thurston. Theorem 7.3 is one of very many results, many of them recent, needed to build a proof. Major contributions were made by Alhfors, Bers, Kra, Marden, Maskit, Mostow, Prasad, Sullivan, Thurston, Minsky, Masur–Minsky, Brock–Canary–Minsky, Ohshika, Kelineidam–Souto, Lecuire, Kim–Lecuire–Ohshika, Hossein–Souto, Rees, Bromberg and Brock–Bromberg.

(7)

The rest of this section is devoted to proving Theorems 7.7, 7.1 and 7.3.

Given the manifold with neutering and end of we explain how to find a relative end-manifold containing .

Definition 7.9.

If is a cod-0 submanifold of a manifold with boundary, then the frontier of is the closure of . If is a mapped surface (resp. is a properly mapped surface in whose ends exit the cusps), then a -essential annulus for is annulus (resp. half-open annulus) with one component mapped to an essential simple curve of which cannot be homotoped within into (resp. an end of ) and another component (resp. the end of ) mapped into (resp. properly mapped into a cusp). Let be a 3-manifold relative core of . Using Reference Mc we can assume that is of the form 1-handles where is a core of consisting of annuli and tori and is a compact 3-manifold with incompressible frontier. Furthermore, has no -essential annuli disjoint from . Define to be the component of which faces and to be the components of which face . Define to be the closure of the component of split along which contains . Define and . We call a relative end-manifold. By construction has no -essential annuli lying in . By slightly thickening and retaining the 1-handles of we obtain a core of . If is a codimension-0 submanifold of , then (resp. ) denotes (resp. ).

By passing to the cover of we reduce to the case that is a homotopy equivalence; furthermore, for each component of , the inclusion of into the corresponding component of is a homotopy equivalence.

By passing to a subsequence we can assume that is a collection of geodesics escaping and is weakly 1000-separating. As in Lemma 5.5 in Reference Ca we slightly perturb the hyperbolic metric in the -neighborhood of to a metric such that for each , is -homotopic to a simple geodesic and has pinched negative curvature in and is -bilipshitz equivalent to the hyperbolic metric. Let be the resulting collection of simple closed curves.

Lemma 7.10.

Let be a relative end-manifold in the complete hyperbolic -manifold . Given a sequence of homotopically essential closed curves we can pass to an infinite subsequence also called which is the disjoint union where has finitely many components and the other ’s have one component. If denotes , then there exists a manifold open in , exhausted by a sequence of compact manifolds with the following properties.

(1)

is and -injective (in and coefficients) in and hence in .

(2)

For all and is a union of components of . At most one component of can lie in a component of . For all is a union of essential annuli, each of which contains a component of . The frontier is connected, separates from and is -incompressible rel .

(3)

There exists a compact submanifold core of such that each can be homotoped into via a homotopy supported in . is of the form with -handles attached to the -side. Finally .

Proof.

Except for the last inequality, this lemma is just the relative form of that part of Theorem 5.21 which was used to prove Theorem 0.9. Let be a connected compact set and an exhaustion of such that and the are the tori of and essential annuli which meet each annular component of in exactly one component. Define the relative end-reduction of to be the manifold exhausted by submanifolds where passes to via the operations of compression, 2-handle addition, deletion and isotopy, where the compressions and 2-handle additions are done only to and its successors. The same arguments as before show that is both and -injective and as before we can define relative notions of end-nonseparable and end-engulfing respectively for finite and locally finite infinite collections of homotopy essential pairwise disjoint closed curves. Similarly, since is a relative end-manifold, its core can be taken to be of the form stated in §3. The last inequality is the relative version of inequality from the proof of Theorem 0.9.

We now show that each is an atoroidal Haken manifold with negative Euler characteristic by showing that every embedded torus incompressible in is boundary parallel and some component of is not a 2-sphere. If is an embedded torus in , then either cuts off a rank-2 cusp or is compressible. Therefore, if each component of is a torus incompressible in , then has finite volume and Theorem 7.7 holds. The proof of the Claim of §6 shows that no component of is a torus compressible in . Therefore, some component of has genus . Since tori incompressible in cut off rank-2 cusps, any nonboundary parallel torus in must be compressible in . To show that is compressible in , it suffices to show that it is compressible in , the parabolic extension of in . Now is a finite union of properly embedded surfaces in which are incompressible in and has pinched negative sectional curvature. The proof of the Claim now applies to show that every embedded torus in which is compressible in is also compressible in .

Lemma 7.11.

If is a compact -minimal surface (possibly nonembedded), then cannot be homotoped rel into .

Suppose is a properly mapped -minimal surface such that for each is compact and has no -essential annuli disjoint from . If is transverse to , then each component of is either a compact disc or a half-open annulus.

Proof.

If such a homotopy exists, then the lift of to has the property that there exists a closed horoball with and . This violates the maximum principle.

Therefore if is a component of which bounds a disc in , then . If is essential in , then can be homotoped into an end of , since there are no -essential annuli for disjoint from . Again the maximum principle implies that the entire annular region bounded by is mapped into a component of .

If is a codimension- submanifold, we say that has standardly embedded cusps if the restriction of to each Margulis tube neighborhood of a cusp of is either the entire cusp, or is a finite union of products of the form where the product structure is compatible with the product structure on the cusp. If is obtained from a complete hyperbolic manifold by neutering, then this neutering should restrict to a neutering of .

Here is the parabolic version of Lemma 2.3. The reader may want to refresh their memory by first rereading Lemma 2.3:

Lemma 7.12 (Parabolic construction lemma).

Let be an end of the complete open orientable irreducible Riemannian -manifold with metric , with finitely generated fundamental group, and neutering with parabolic locus . Let be a submanifold such that separates from , and whose ends are standardly embedded cusps in the cusps of . Let be a finite collection of simple closed geodesics with a nonempty proper subset of . Suppose furthermore that is -incompressible rel. and has no -essential annuli disjoint from .

Let the Riemannian metric on agree with a hyperbolic metric outside tubular neighborhoods and inside tubular neighborhoods , having as core geodesics, and such that is a metric with sectional curvature pinched between and .

Let be a finitely generated subgroup of , and let be the covering space of corresponding to . Let be the preimage of in with a subset which maps homeomorphically onto under the covering projection, and let be a nonempty union of geodesics. Suppose there exists a properly embedded surface of finite topological type, whose ends are standard cusps in the cusps of such that is -incompressible rel. in and has no -essential annuli disjoint from , and which separates every component of from .

Then can be properly homotoped to a -minimal surface which, by abuse of notation, we call , and the map of into given by the covering projection is properly homotopic to a map whose image is -minimal and whose ends exit the cusps of .

Also, (resp. ) can be perturbed by an arbitrarily small perturbation to be an embedded (resp. smoothly immersed) surface (resp. ) bounding with the following properties:

(1)

There exists a proper isotopy from to which never crosses , and which induces a proper isotopy from to , and a corresponding deformation of pinched negatively curved manifolds to which fixes pointwise.

(2)

There exists a proper isotopy from to which never crosses , such that is the projection of to .

(3)

Each of the limit surfaces relatively exits the manifold as its restriction exits the neutered part. That is, if is a rank cusp foliated by totally geodesic -dimensional cusps perpendicular to the boundary annulus , then if the intersection of with is contained in the region , the intersection of with is contained in the region , and similarly if the intersection is contained in .

Proof.

The essential differences between the statements of Lemma 2.3 and Lemma7.12 are firstly that the metric in the parabolic case is pinched, so that the geodesics can be chosen to be simple; secondly that the surfaces in question are all properly embedded, and the isotopies and homotopies are all proper; and thirdly that the limit surfaces relatively exit the manifold as their restriction exits the neutered part.

These issues are all minor and do not introduce any real complications in the proof. The only question whose answer might not be immediately apparent is how to perturb the metric to the metrics near cusps; it turns out that this is straightforward to do, and technically easier than deformations along geodesics, since the perturbed metrics actually have curvature bounded above by .

We will find an exhaustion of by increasingly larger neutered spaces , each endowed with a metric , which is obtained from the -metric by deforming it along the geodesics and along . Our will restrict to -area minimizing representatives of the isotopy class of . The convergence and regularity of the limit surface near the geodesics will proceed exactly as in §1 and §2. The convergence and regularity in the cusps will follow from §1 using the absence of -essential annuli disjoint from .

To describe the deformed geometry along the cusps, we first recall the usual hyperbolic geometry of the (rank 1) cusps. We parameterize a rank cusp as , where the initial factor is a –dimensional cusp . With the hyperbolic metric, the three coordinate vector fields are orthogonal; we denote these by and respectively, so that , and . An orthonormal basis in the hyperbolic metric is . Let be a monotone increasing function with for , and for . Then let

and define on to be the metric with orthonormal basis . Notice that the group of Euclidean symmetries of the boundary extends to an isometry of for the metric, for all . In particular, the surface

is totally geodesic for the metric and therefore acts as a barrier surface for all .

Moreover, as , the metrics converge to the hyperbolic metrics on compact subsets, and in fact for every compact , there is an such that the and the hyperbolic metrics agree for . Finally, for each , the subset is isometric to a Euclidean product, for the metric, and therefore the surface

is totally geodesic for the metric and also acts as a barrier surface.

Finally, notice that the metrics lift to a family of isometric metrics on and, by the symmetries above, therefore have uniformly pinched sectional curvatures, and are uniformly bilipschitz to the hyperbolic metric in the region bounded away from the cusps by .

Let be the neutered space whose boundary consists of the surfaces of type constructed above. Endow with the metric. Now apply Reference MSY, as in Lemma 2.3, to the surface to obtain the surface which is least area among all surfaces properly isotopic to . By extending vertically we obtain the surface which is properly isotopic to . As in Lemma 2.3 these surfaces weakly converge geometrically to a surface . We will show that there is a proper isotopy of to .

Let denote a fixed neutered space transverse to and countably many ’s which converge to . Define to be together with the disc components of . Since is uniformly bounded, and the hyperbolic area form is dominated on all -planes by , the hyperbolic area of is uniformly bounded. We show that a disc of cannot stray too far into the cusp and hence for all , for some sufficiently small . Indeed, the lift to the universal cover of is an embedded disc of uniformly bounded area. If is very close to 1, then . If and , then . Therefore, for sufficiently large, and hence has uniformly bounded -diameter.

Therefore, if , then the ’s converge weakly to the surface , which we define to be . For sufficiently large, and are of the same topological type and very close geometrically. By Lemma 7.11, has no components which can be homotoped rel boundary into ; hence shares the similar property. Since has no -essential annuli disjoint from it follows that each component of can be properly homotoped in into an end of that surface. Therefore, if some nondisc component of was not a half-open annulus, then one can find a component of which can be homotoped rel into , which is a contradiction. Note that is of the same topological type as and and that the ’s form an exhaustion of . By arguing as in the proof of Lemma 1.25, there exists a homotopy with the property that , for infinitely many , and .

If intersects in the subset for some , then for sufficiently large must intersect in the subset . Since projection to the barrier surface along horoannuli and horotori is area reducing, this implies that is contained in , which in turn implies that . As in Lemma 2.3, the surfaces converge on compact subsets to . The main results of §1 imply that is -minimal.

A similar argument proves similar facts about , and .

Let denote in. Fix a basepoint . Let denote the covering space of (based at ) with group . The homotopy of into supported in lifts to , hence provides us with a canonical of closed lifts of in 1-1 correspondence with . Since is an atoroidal Haken manifold with nonzero Euler characteristic, it follows by Thurston that is topologically tame (see Proposition 3.2 in Reference Ca). By Reference Tu2 a compactification of extends , where is the lift of to . Since is a core of it follows that is a union of a closed (possibly disconnected or empty) orientable with 1-handles attached to the side. Let denote the unique boundary component of which is not a closed component of . Push slightly to obtain a properly embedded surface with via a homotopy disjoint from . Being connected with the same Euler characteristic and the same number of boundary components, is of the same topological type as . Let be the compact region with frontier . Let . Define and to be the respective preimages of and .

Let denote together with the components of which hit . Let be the cover of with . As in the parabolic free case, naturally embeds in and the inclusion is a homotopy equivalence. Define to be the preimage of . Note that , the frontier of , equals , the frontier of in .

If possible compress along via compressions that hit at most once. Continue in this manner to obtain the region whose frontier is 2-incompressible rel , where both and . Since is irreducible, we can assume that no component of is a 2-sphere.

Before we shrinkwrap and we need to annulate them, i.e., compress them along essential annuli into and . Geometrically we are eliminating accidental parabolics so that we can invoke Lemma 7.12.

Let be a maximal collection of pairwise disjoint, embedded, essential annuli in disjoint from such that for each , has one component on and one component on . Furthermore assume that . Now annulate along each to obtain the surface . So if lies to the outside of , then the effect on is to add . If and is a product neighborhood, then this annulation deletes from . There are no -essential annuli for disjoint from , and is 2-incompressible rel . Indeed, since is embedded and 2-incompressible, we need only consider embedded -essential annuli, by the generalized loop theorem. The modification induces a modification of as follows. If annulates to the outside, then enlarge in the natural way. This will enlarge the parabolic boundary . If gets annulated to the inside, then do not change . By abuse of notation, we relabel the space obtained from as . Let denote modified only along outer -essential annuli. Note that is a covering space of . In like manner, annulate along a maximal collection of pairwise disjoint annuli which are disjoint from . Let denote the result of annulating . Note that can be constructed so that there are no -essential annuli for disjoint from .

Now fix . Let . Apply Lemma 7.12 using the following dictionary between our setting and the setting of Lemma 7.12: corresponds to the surface , corresponds to corresponds to , corresponds to , corresponds to , and corresponds to . We conclude that if denotes the projection of into , then is homotopic to a surface with the following properties. The surface is homotopic to a surface , where is isotopic to and lifts to an embedded surface , where is the corresponding cover of . The isotopy of to induces a deformation of spaces to which fixes pointwise. Futhermore, is isotopic to the corresponding via an isotopy disjoint from . Given , the can be chosen so that the homotopy of to restricted to lies in an -neighborhood of . By abuse of notation we will view as bounding the region and we will drop the superscripts “new”, etc.

Let be a locally finite collection of embedded proper rays in to emanating from .

Let be the composition of the covering map to and inclusion. Let . If and is disjoint from , then some component of homologically separates from . Indeed if is the ray from to , then is a finite union of compact segments. If both endpoints lie in , then it contributes nothing to the algebraic intersection number . Otherwise it has one endpoint in and one in and hence contributes +1. Therefore

Since , the ’s are weakly 1000 separating and the ’s have uniformly bounded area, it follows that for sufficiently large, some is disjoint from , where and lim. Therefore some subsequence of components of exits .

By reducing , if necessary, we can assume that is transverse to all the ’s. By Lemma 7.11, for each , each component of is either a disc or a half-open annulus. Therefore, the restriction of each component of to is a connected surface.

Lemma 7.13.

Let be a relative end-manifold with core of the form -handles. Let denote the closure of with and .

(1)

is Thurston norm-minimizing in .

(2)

If is a Thurston norm-minimizing surface (in either the singular or embedded norms), representing , then for each component of we have . In particular, has no -essential annuli in .

Corollary 7.14.

Let be a complete hyperbolic -manifold with neutering and relative core for . Let be a primitive Thurston norm-minimizing surface representing an element of . Then every homotopy of an accidental parabolic of into must cross .

Proof of Lemma.

The proof of (1) is similar to that of Lemma 6.1. Recall that since is a core, the inclusion is an isomorphism.

Now let be a possibly singular Thurston norm-minimizing surface representing . By Reference G1, , so if hits in extra components, then . Let be an embedded surface representing such that lies in , where is the compact submanifold cut off by . If is a basis of cycles in which are disjoint from , then there exist surfaces with and where . For each , let . Since the subgroup of which restricts trivially to is of rank , it follows that are linearly dependent. This implies that the inclusion is not -injective, a contradiction. If had a -essential annulus, then we can construct a norm-minimizing surface with .

We next show that if some component of has the property that homologically separates from , then is homeomorphic to and represents the class . Suppose that . By Lemma 7.11, after a homotopy supported in a small neighborhood of the cusps we can push the disc components of into and get . By Lemma 7.10, . On the other hand,

where the and respectively denote the Thurston and singular Thurston norms and the inequality is, by definition, the first equality by Reference G1, the second by Reference T2 and the third by Lemma 7.13. The only possibility is that and and hence . By Lemma 7.13, and have the same number of boundary components and hence is homeomorphic to . In particular no compressions or annulations occurred to .

We claim that the sequence exits . Otherwise, there exists an with , a subsequence and a compact connected submanifold such that and for each , components of nontrivially intersect and if are the components of which miss , then is an exiting sequence. Since each component of has connected, it follows from the bounded diameter lemma that there exists a compact set such that for all , if is a component of with , then . Let be so large that and for infinitely many values of . Let be a path from to . Since exits it follows that for sufficiently large . This implies that some component of homologically separates and hence from . Therefore . Since , this implies that and hence , which is a contradiction.

Since the sequence exits it follows from the previous paragraphs that for sufficiently large, is homeomorphic to , and represents the class . Since exits , if is a cusp of parametrized by , then by Proposition 7.12, given .

Remark 7.15.

Since for sufficiently large, is of topological type of , it follows a posteriori that no compressions or annulations occurred in the passage from to . This mirrors the similar phenomena seen in the proofs of Canary’s theorem and Theorem 0.9.

Proof of Theorem 7.3.

Tameness of the ends of follows as in the proof of Theorem 0.4. In particular, if the end of is not geometrically finite, then by applying the proof of Reference So, Theorem 2 to (with the disc components of (cusps) pushed into ) it follows that is tame. Alternatively, as in the proof that Criteria (1)-(4) imply tameness, we can use the hyperbolic surface interpolation technique and basic -manifold topology to prove that is tame. Finally, tameness of implies tameness of .

Proof of Theorem 7.1.

It suffices to prove Theorem 7.1 for orientable manifolds which have the homotopy type of a relative end-manifold. It follows from Theorems 7.7 and 7.3 that a parabolic extension of a neighborhood of is topologically of the form , where is a surface homeomorphic to and is a core of . By Proposition 7.12, if , then . Therefore exits compact sets in . Since for sufficiently large, is properly immersed in and homologically separates from , it follows that the projection to is a proper degree-1 map of a surface of finite type to itself and hence is properly homotopic to a homeomorphism.

Acknowledgements

The first author is grateful to Nick Makarov for some useful analytic discussions. The second author is grateful to Michael Freedman for many long conversations in Fall 1996 which introduced him to the Tame Ends conjecture. He thanks Francis Bonahon, Yair Minsky and Jeff Brock for their interest and helpful comments. Part of this research was carried out while he was visiting Nara Women’s University, the Technion and the Institute for Advanced Study. He thanks them for their hospitality. We thank the referees for their many thoughtful suggestions and comments.

Table of Contents

  1. Abstract
  2. 0. Introduction
    1. Definition 0.1.
    2. Theorem 0.2.
    3. Theorem 0.3.
    4. Theorem 0.4.
    5. Theorem 0.5.
    6. Theorem 0.6 (Classification Theorem).
    7. Theorem 0.7 (Density Theorem).
    8. Theorem 0.8 (Existence of shrinkwrapped surface).
    9. Theorem 0.9.
  3. 1. Shrinkwrapping
    1. 1.1. Geometry of surfaces
    2. Definition 1.1.
    3. Lemma 1.2 (Monotonicity of curvature).
    4. Lemma 1.3 (Gauss–Bonnet formula).
    5. Lemma 1.4 (Gauss–Bonnet with corners).
    6. 1.2. Comparison geometry
    7. Definition 1.5 (Comparison triangle).
    8. Definition 1.7 (CAT()).
    9. Definition 1.8 (-minimal surfaces).
    10. 1.3. Statement of shrinkwrapping theorem
    11. Definition 1.9 (-incompressibility).
    12. Theorem 1.10 (Existence of shrinkwrapped surface).
    13. 1.4. Deforming metrics along geodesics
    14. Definition 1.12 (-separation).
    15. Definition 1.13 (Neighborhood and tube neighborhood).
    16. Lemma 1.15 (Bounded Diameter Lemma).
    17. Definition 1.17 (Deforming metrics).
    18. Lemma 1.18 (Metric properties).
    19. 1.5. Constructing the homotopy
    20. Lemma 1.20 (Minimal surface exists).
    21. Lemma 1.21 (Compact set).
    22. Lemma 1.22 (Finite total curvature).
    23. Lemma 1.24 (Limit exists).
    24. Lemma 1.25 (Interpolating isotopy).
    25. 1.6. Existence of tangent cone
    26. Lemma 1.27 (Tangent cone).
    27. 1.7. The thin obstacle problem
    28. Thin Obstacle Problem.
    29. Theorem 1.28 (Richardson Ri regularity of thin obstacle).
    30. Lemma 1.31 (Regularity along coincidence set).
    31. 1.8. CAT property
    32. Lemma 1.34 (CAT property).
    33. Problem 1.35.
  4. 2. The main construction lemma
    1. 2.1. Shrinkwrapping in covers
    2. Lemma 2.1 (Superfluous geodesics invisible).
    3. 2.2. The main construction lemma
    4. Lemma 2.3 (Main construction lemma).
    5. 2.3. Nonsimple geodesics
  5. 3. Asymptotic tube radius and length
    1. Definition 3.1.
    2. Proposition 3.2.
    3. Proposition 3.3.
  6. 4. Canary’s Theorem
    1. Theorem 4.1 (Canary).
    2. Warm-up Case
    3. General Case
  7. 5. End manifolds and end reductions
    1. Lemma 5.1.
    2. Definition 5.3.
    3. Lemma 5.4.
    4. Lemma 5.5.
    5. Lemma 5.6.
    6. Corollary 5.7.
    7. Definition 5.8.
    8. Lemma 5.11.
    9. Corollary 5.12.
    10. Definition 5.13.
    11. Definition 5.14.
    12. Lemma 5.15.
    13. Lemma 5.16.
    14. Lemma 5.17.
    15. Lemma 5.18.
    16. Corollary 5.19.
    17. Lemma 5.20.
    18. Theorem 5.21 (Infinite end-engulfing theorem).
    19. Definition 5.22.
    20. Lemma 5.23.
    21. Theorem 5.25 (Finite end-reduction theorem).
    22. Lemma 5.26.
  8. Addendum to Theorem 5.21
  9. 6. Proof of Theorems 0.9, 0.4 and 0.2: Parabolic free case
    1. Lemma 6.1.
    2. Tameness Criteria
    3. Theorem 6.3 (Souto So).
    4. A topological argument that criteria (1)–(4) imply tameness
  10. 7. The parabolic case
    1. Theorem 7.1.
    2. Theorem 7.2.
    3. Theorem 7.3.
    4. Theorem 7.4.
    5. Theorem 7.5 (Classification Theorem).
    6. Theorem 7.6 (Density Theorem).
    7. Theorem 7.7.
    8. Definition 7.9.
    9. Lemma 7.10.
    10. Lemma 7.11.
    11. Lemma 7.12 (Parabolic construction lemma).
    12. Lemma 7.13.
    13. Corollary 7.14.
  11. Acknowledgements

Figures

Figure 1.

The ball has boundary which is convex in both the hyperbolic and the metrics for all .

Graphic without alt text
Figure 2.

The graph of a function solving the thin obstacle problem

Graphic without alt text
Figure 3.

The surfaces and in and respectively

Graphic without alt text
Figure 4.

A schematic depiction of shrinkwrapping in action

Graphic without alt text
Figure 5.

The Bounded Diameter Lemma and the intersection number argument show that for sufficiently large, undergoes no compression, and actually separates all of from .

Graphic without alt text
Figure 6.

A schematic view of , and .

Graphic without alt text
Figure 7.
Graphic without alt text

Mathematical Fragments

Theorem 0.2.

An end of a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group is simply degenerate if there exists a sequence of closed geodesics exiting .

Theorem 0.3.

Let be a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. Then every end of is geometrically tame; i.e., it is either geometrically finite or simply degenerate.

Theorem 0.4.

If is a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then is topologically tame.

Theorem 0.5.

If is a finitely generated Kleinian group, then the limit set is either or has Lebesgue measure zero. If , then acts ergodically on .

Theorem 0.8 (Existence of shrinkwrapped surface).

Let be a complete, orientable, parabolic free hyperbolic -manifold, and let be a finite collection of pairwise disjoint simple closed geodesics in . Furthermore, let be a closed embedded -incompressible surface rel. which is either nonseparating in or separates some component of from another. Then is homotopic to a surface via a homotopy

such that

(1)

,

(2)

is an embedding disjoint from for ,

(3)

,

(4)

If is any other surface with these properties, then .

We say that is obtained from by shrinkwrapping rel. , or if is understood, is obtained from by shrinkwrapping.

Theorem 0.9.

Let be an end of the complete orientable hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. Let be a -dimensional compact core of , the component of facing and . If there exists a sequence of closed geodesics exiting , then there exists a sequence of surfaces of genus exiting such that each is homologically separating in . That is, each homologically separates from .

Lemma 1.2 (Monotonicity of curvature).

Let be a minimal surface in a Riemannian manifold . Let denote the curvature of , and the sectional curvature of . Then restricted to the tangent space ,

where denotes the second fundamental form of .

Lemma 1.3 (Gauss–Bonnet formula).

Let be a Riemannian surface with (possibly empty) boundary . Let denote the Gauss curvature of , and the geodesic curvature along . Then

Lemma 1.4 (Gauss–Bonnet with corners).

Let be a Riemannian surface with boundary which is piecewise and has external angles at finitely many points . Let and be as above. Then

Theorem 1.10 (Existence of shrinkwrapped surface).

Let be a complete, orientable, parabolic free hyperbolic -manifold, and let be a finite collection of pairwise disjoint simple closed geodesics in . Furthermore, let be a closed embedded -incompressible surface rel. which is either nonseparating in or separates some component of from another. Then is homotopic to a -minimal surface via a homotopy

such that

(1)

,

(2)

is an embedding disjoint from for ,

(3)

,

(4)

if is any other surface with these properties, then .

We say that is obtained from by shrinkwrapping rel. , or if is understood, is obtained from by shrinkwrapping.

Lemma 1.15 (Bounded Diameter Lemma).

Let be a complete hyperbolic -manifold. Let be a disjoint collection of -separated embedded geodesics. Let be a Margulis constant for dimension , and let denote the subset of where the injectivity radius is at most . If is a -incompressible -minimal surface, then there is a constant and such that for each component of , we have

Furthermore, can only intersect at most components of .

Definition 1.17 (Deforming metrics).

Let be such that is -separated. Choose some small with . For we define a family of Riemannian metrics on in the following manner. The metrics agree with the hyperbolic metric away from some fixed tubular neighborhood .

Let

be the function whose value at a point is the hyperbolic distance from to . We define a metric on which agrees with the hyperbolic metric outside , and on is conformally equivalent to the hyperbolic metric, as follows. Let be a bump function, which is equal to on the interval , which is equal to on the intervals and , and which is strictly increasing on and strictly decreasing on . Then define the ratio

Lemma 1.18 (Metric properties).

The metric satisfies the following properties:

(1)

For each there is an satisfying such that the union of the tori is totally geodesic for the metric.

(2)

For each component and each , the metric restricted to admits a family of isometries which preserve and acts transitively on the unit normal bundle (in ) to .

(3)

The area of a disk cross section on is .

(4)

The metric dominates the hyperbolic metric on -planes. That is, for all -vectors , the area of is at least as large as the hyperbolic area of .

Lemma 1.20 (Minimal surface exists).

Let be as in the statement of Theorem 1.10. Let be as in Lemma 1.18, so that is totally geodesic with respect to the metric. Then for each , there exists an embedded surface isotopic in to , and which is globally -least area among all such surfaces.

Lemma 1.21 (Compact set).

There is a fixed compact set such that the surfaces constructed in Lemma 1.20 are all contained in .

Lemma 1.22 (Finite total curvature).

Let be the surfaces constructed in Lemma 1.20. Fix some small, positive . Then the subsurfaces

have uniformly bounded total curvature.

Lemma 1.24 (Limit exists).

Let be the surfaces constructed in Lemma 1.20. Then there is an increasing sequence

such that , and the converge on compact subsets of in the topology to some with closure in .

Lemma 1.25 (Interpolating isotopy).

Let be the sequence as in Lemma 1.24. Then after possibly passing to a subsequence, there is an isotopy such that

and such that for each the track of the isotopy either converges to some well-defined limit or else it is eventually contained in for any .

Lemma 1.27 (Tangent cone).

Let be as constructed in Lemma 1.24. Let . Then near , is a (topologically immersed) surface, each local branch of which has a well-defined tangent cone, which is the cone on a great bigon.

Theorem 1.28 (Richardson Reference Ri regularity of thin obstacle).

Let be a solution to the thin obstacle problem for elliptic in the sense of Frehse and , and suppose that are smooth. Then is continuous along in the tangent direction, one-sided continuous in the normal direction on either side, and continuous in the normal direction at a noninterior point. Furthermore, is Hölder continuous, with exponent ; i.e., the modulus of continuity of is .

Lemma 1.31 (Regularity along coincidence set).

For defined as above, the derivative along local sheets of is continuous from each side along the coincidence set , and continuous at noninterior points.

Lemma 1.34 (CAT property).

After possibly replacing by a new immersed surface with the same properties, is with respect to the path metric induced from .

Lemma 2.1 (Superfluous geodesics invisible).

With notation and definitions as above, in a neighborhood of a point on , the surface is a locally least area surface for the hyperbolic metric.

Lemma 2.3 (Main construction lemma).

Let be an end of the complete open orientable parabolic free hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. Let be a submanifold such that separates from . Let be a finite collection of simple closed geodesics with a nonempty proper subset of . Suppose further that is -incompressible rel. .

Let be a finitely generated subgroup of , and let be the covering space of corresponding to . Let be the preimage of in , and a subset which maps homeomorphically onto under the covering projection, and let be a nonempty union of geodesics. Suppose there exists an embedded closed surface that is -incompressible rel. in , which separates every component of from .

Then can be homotoped to a -minimal surface which, by abuse of notation, we call , and the map of into given by the covering projection is homotopic to a map whose image is -minimal. Also, (resp. ) can be perturbed by an arbitrarily small perturbation to be an embedded (resp. smoothly immersed) surface (resp. ) bounding with the following properties:

(1)

There exists an isotopy from to which never crosses , and which induces an isotopy from to , and a corresponding deformation of hyperbolic manifolds to which fixes pointwise.

(2)

There exists an isotopy from to which never crosses , such that is the projection of to .

Proposition 3.2.

If is a geometrically infinite end of the complete hyperbolic -manifold without parabolics, then the asymptotic tube radius asymptotic length. If asymptotic length = , then the asymptotic tube radius = . There exists a uniform lower bound to the asymptotic tube radius of a geometrically infinite end of a complete parabolic free hyperbolic -manifold.

Proposition 3.3.

If is an end of the complete, orientable, hyperbolic -manifold and has no parabolic elements, then the -asymptotic tube radius .

Theorem 4.1 (Canary).

If is a topologically tame end of the complete, orientable, hyperbolic -manifold , where has no parabolic elements, then either is geometrically finite or there exists a sequence of surfaces exiting the end. If is parametrized by , then these surfaces are homotopic to surfaces of the form , via a homotopy supported in .

Lemma 5.1.

If is an end of an open Riemannian -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then is isometric to the end of a -ended -manifold whose (possibly empty) boundary is a finite union of closed orientable surfaces. A core of is obtained by attaching -handles to the components of , unless , in which case a core is a -complex and = .

Remark 5.2.

is a submanifold of . is isometric to a submanifold of the covering of corresponding to the inclusion , and the inclusion is a homotopy equivalence.

Lemma 5.5.

An -injective subgroup of a free/surface group is finitely generated.

Lemma 5.6.

A -ended, orientable, irreducible -manifold with compact boundary is an end-manifold if and only if is a free/surface group, and is -injective.

Every closed embedded -injective surface in an end-manifold is boundary parallel.

Lemma 5.11.

The inclusion induces and -injections, the latter in both and homology.

Corollary 5.12.

An end-reduction in an end-manifold has finitely generated fundamental group.

Definition 5.14.

If is a finite union of pairwise disjoint closed curves in an open irreducible 3-manifold , we say that is end-nonseparable if there is a compact connected submanifold such that and is incompressible in . Such an is called a house of . If is end-nonseparable, then define to be an end-reduction of , and call the end-reduction of .

Lemma 5.16.

Let be a finite union of pairwise disjoint closed curves in the open irreducible -manifold . Then canonically decomposes into finitely many maximal pairwise disjoint end-nonseparable subsets . Indeed, if is a maximal end-nonseparable subset of , then for some .

Lemma 5.17.

If are the maximal end-nonseparable components of a finite set of pairwise disjoint closed curves in an open irreducible -manifold , then they have pairwise disjoint end-reductions. In particular they have pairwise disjoint houses.

Lemma 5.18.

If are as in Lemma 5.17, with pairwise disjoint end-reductions , then is -injective in , in both and coefficients.

Lemma 5.20.

Let be a sequence of homotopically nontrivial, pairwise disjoint closed curves in the end-manifold . Then we can group together finitely many of the curves into and pass to a subsequence so that

(1)

Any finite subset of which contains is end-nonseparable.

(2)

Each component of , and each , represent the same element of

Theorem 5.21 (Infinite end-engulfing theorem).

If is a locally finite sequence of pairwise disjoint, homotopically nontrivial, closed curves in the end-manifold , then after passing to a subsequence, allowing to have multiple components and fixing a base point , there exist compact submanifolds of such that

(1)

is a union of components of and is connected.

(2)

If , then , and can be homotoped into via a homotopy supported in .

(3)

is -incompressible rel .

(4)

If , then is and -injective in both and coefficients.

(5)

is a core of and is of the form -handles.

Lemma 5.23.

If are finite, end nonseparable unions of homotopically essential, pairwise disjoint, closed curves with end-reductions and , then is isotopic rel to , where

Theorem 5.25 (Finite end-reduction theorem).

Let be an end-manifold. If is an end-nonseparable union of finitely many homotopically essential, pairwise disjoint, closed curves, then an end-reduction of has finitely generated fundamental group and given a standard exhaustion , by passing to a subsequence, for all

and the map restricted to induces an isomorphism onto . Here in denotes the map induced by inclusion.

Lemma 5.26.

If is an end-manifold, then has an exhaustion by compact manifolds , such that for each either is a handlebody, in which case , or is obtained by attaching -handles to an .

Lemma 6.1.

Let be an end of , an orientable, irreducible -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group. If is a -manifold compact core of and is the component of which contains , then generates and is Thurston norm minimizing. Here is the component of which faces .

Theorem 6.3 (Souto Reference So).

If is a sequence of mapped surfaces in the complete hyperbolic -manifold with core and end which satisfies Criteria (1), (2) and (3), then is topologically tame.

Theorem 7.1.

Let be a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group with neutered space . The end of is simply degenerate if there exists a sequence of closed geodesics exiting the end.

Theorem 7.2.

A complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group is geometrically tame.

Theorem 7.3.

If is a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then each end of is topologically tame. In particular, each end of is topologically tame.

Theorem 7.4.

If is a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group, then the limit set of is either or has Lebesgue measure zero. If , then acts ergodically on .

Theorem 7.7.

Let be a complete hyperbolic -manifold with finitely generated fundamental group and with associated neutered space . Let be an end of with relative compact core . Let be a compact surface with the topological type of , the component of the frontier of which faces . Let denote a parabolic extension of a neighborhood of . If there exists a sequence of closed geodesics exiting , then there exists a sequence of proper surfaces in homeomorphic to which eventually miss every compact set and such that each homologically separates from . Furthermore, if lies to the -side of , then no accidental parabolic can be homotoped into a cusp via a homotopy disjoint from .

Lemma 7.10.

Let be a relative end-manifold in the complete hyperbolic -manifold . Given a sequence of homotopically essential closed curves we can pass to an infinite subsequence also called which is the disjoint union where has finitely many components and the other ’s have one component. If denotes , then there exists a manifold open in , exhausted by a sequence of compact manifolds with the following properties.

(1)

is and -injective (in and coefficients) in and hence in .

(2)

For all and is a union of components of . At most one component of can lie in a component of . For all is a union of essential annuli, each of which contains a component of . The frontier is connected, separates from and is -incompressible rel .

(3)

There exists a compact submanifold core of such that each can be homotoped into via a homotopy supported in . is of the form with -handles attached to the -side. Finally .

Lemma 7.11.

If is a compact -minimal surface (possibly nonembedded), then cannot be homotoped rel into .

Suppose is a properly mapped -minimal surface such that for each is compact and has no -essential annuli disjoint from . If is transverse to , then each component of is either a compact disc or a half-open annulus.

Lemma 7.12 (Parabolic construction lemma).

Let be an end of the complete open orientable irreducible Riemannian -manifold with metric , with finitely generated fundamental group, and neutering with parabolic locus . Let be a submanifold such that separates from , and whose ends are standardly embedded cusps in the cusps of . Let be a finite collection of simple closed geodesics with a nonempty proper subset of . Suppose furthermore that is -incompressible rel. and has no -essential annuli disjoint from .

Let the Riemannian metric on agree with a hyperbolic metric outside tubular neighborhoods and inside tubular neighborhoods , having as core geodesics, and such that is a metric with sectional curvature pinched between and .

Let be a finitely generated subgroup of , and let be the covering space of corresponding to . Let be the preimage of in with a subset which maps homeomorphically onto under the covering projection, and let be a nonempty union of geodesics. Suppose there exists a properly embedded surface of finite topological type, whose ends are standard cusps in the cusps of such that is -incompressible rel. in and has no -essential annuli disjoint from , and which separates every component of from .

Then can be properly homotoped to a -minimal surface which, by abuse of notation, we call , and the map of into given by the covering projection is properly homotopic to a map whose image is -minimal and whose ends exit the cusps of .

Also, (resp. ) can be perturbed by an arbitrarily small perturbation to be an embedded (resp. smoothly immersed) surface (resp. ) bounding with the following properties:

(1)

There exists a proper isotopy from to which never crosses , and which induces a proper isotopy from to , and a corresponding deformation of pinched negatively curved manifolds to which fixes pointwise.

(2)

There exists a proper isotopy from to which never crosses , such that is the projection of to .

(3)

Each of the limit surfaces relatively exits the manifold as its restriction exits the neutered part. That is, if is a rank cusp foliated by totally geodesic -dimensional cusps perpendicular to the boundary annulus , then if the intersection of with is contained in the region , the intersection of with is contained in the region , and similarly if the intersection is contained in .

Lemma 7.13.

Let be a relative end-manifold with core of the form -handles. Let denote the closure of with and .

(1)

is Thurston norm-minimizing in .

(2)

If is a Thurston norm-minimizing surface (in either the singular or embedded norms), representing , then for each component of we have . In particular, has no -essential annuli in .

References

Reference [Ag]
I. Agol, Tameness of hyperbolic –manifolds, eprint math.GT/0405568.
[A1]
L. Ahlfors, Finitely generated Kleinian groups, Amer. J. Math. 86 (1964), 413–429. MR 0167618 (29:4890)
Reference [A2]
—, Fundamental polygons and limit point sets of Kleinian groups, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 55 (1966), 251–254. MR 0194970 (33:3175)
Reference [Ath]
I. Athanasopoulos, Coincidence set of minimal surfaces for the thin obstacle, Manuscripta Math. 42 (1983), no. 2-3, 199–209. MR 0701203 (85a:49048)
Reference [B]
W. Ballmann, Lectures on spaces of nonpositive curvature, Birkhäuser, DMV seminar 25 (1995). MR 1377265 (97a:53053)
[Be]
L. Bers, Local behavior of solutions of general elliptic equations, Comm. Pure. Appl. Math. 8 (1955), 473–496.MR 0075416 (17:743a)
Reference [Bo]
F. Bonahon, Bouts des variétés de dimension , Annals of Math. 124 (1986), 71–158. MR 0847953 (88c:57013)
Reference [BH]
M. Bridson & A. Haefliger, Metric spaces of non-positive curvature, Springer-Verlag, Grundlehr. der Math. Wiss. 319 (1999).MR 1744486 (2000k:53038)
Reference [BT1]
M. Brin & T. L. Thickstun, Open, irreducible -manifolds which are end -movable, Topology, 26, 211–233.MR 0895574 (89f:57018)
Reference [BT2]
—, -Manifolds which are end -movable, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 81 (1989), No. 411. MR 0992161 (90g:57015)
[BB]
J. Brock & K. Bromberg, On the density of geometrically finite Kleinian groups, Acta Math. 192 (2004), no. 1, 33–93. MR 2079598 (2005e:57046)
Reference [BBES]
J. Brock, K. Bromberg, R. Evans & J. Souto, Tameness on the boundary and Ahlfors’ measure conjecture, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. No. 98 (2003), 145–166. MR 2031201 (2004k:30105)
Reference [BCM]
J. Brock, R. Canary & Y. Minsky, The classification of Kleinian surface groups II: The ending lamination conjecture, eprint math.GT/0412006.
Reference [BS]
J. Brock & J. Souto, Algebraic limits of geometrically finite manifolds are tame, preprint.
Reference [BF]
E. Brown & C. D. Feustel, On properly embedding planes in arbitrary -manifolds, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 94, 173–178. MR 0781077 (86e:57011)
[Caf]
L. Caffarelli, Further regularity in the Signorini problem, Comm. in PDE 4 (1979), 1067–1076. MR 0542512 (80i:35058)
Reference [Ca]
R. Canary, Ends of hyperbolic -manifolds, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1993), 1–35. MR 1166330 (93e:57019)
[Ca2]
—, A covering theorem for hyperbolic -manifolds and its applications, Topology, 35 (1996), 751–778.MR 1396777 (97e:57012)
Reference [CaM]
R. Canary & Y. N. Minsky, On limits of tame hyperbolic -manifolds and deformation theory of Kleinian groups, J. Diff. Geom. 43 (1996), 1–41. MR 1424418 (98f:57021)
Reference [Car]
L. Carleson, Selected problems on exceptional sets, Van Nostrand Mathematical Studies, 13, Princeton (1967).MR 0225986 (37:1576)
Reference [CLLM]
A. Champanerkar, J. Lewis, M. Lipyanskiy & S. Meltzer, Exceptional regions and associated exceptional hyperbolic -manifolds, preprint.
Reference [CiSc]
H. Choi & R. Schoen, The space of minimal embeddings of a surface into a three-dimensional manifold of positive Ricci curvature, Invent. Math. 81 (1985), 387–394. MR 0807063 (87a:58040)
Reference [CM]
T. Colding & W. Minicozzi II, Minimal Surfaces, CIMS Lecture Notes 4 (1999). MR 1683966 (2002b:49072)
Reference [EM]
D. Epstein & A. Marden, Convex hulls in hyperbolic space, a theorem of Sullivan, and measured pleated surfaces, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes, 111 (1986), 113–254. MR 0903852 (89c:52014)
Reference [Ev]
R. Evans, Tameness persists in weakly type-preserving limits, Amer. J. Math. 126 (2004), no. 4, 713–737. MR 2075479 (2005d:57023)
Reference [Fed]
H. Federer, Geometric measure theory, Springer–Verlag, Die Grundlehr. der math. Wiss. 153 (1969). MR 0257325 (41:1976)
Reference [FF]
B. Freedman & M. Freedman, Kneser-Haken finiteness for bounded -manifolds, locally free groups, and cyclic covers, Topology 37, (1998), 133–147. MR 1480882 (99h:57036)
[FHS]
M. Freedman, J. Hass & P. Scott, Least area incompressible surfaces in -manifolds, Invent. Math. 71 (1983), no. 3, 609–642. MR 0695910 (85e:57012)
Reference [Fre]
J. Frehse, Two dimensional variational problems with thin obstacles, Math. Z. 143 (1975), 279–288. MR 0380550 (52:1450)
Reference [G1]
D. Gabai, Foliations and the topology of -manifolds, J. Diff. Geom. 18 (1983), 445–503. MR 0723813 (86a:57009)
Reference [G2]
D. Gabai, On the geometric and topological rigidity of hyperbolic -manifolds, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1997), 37–74. MR 1354958 (97h:57028)
Reference [GMT]
D. Gabai, R. Meyerhoff & N. Thurston, Homotopy hyperbolic -manifolds are hyperbolic, Annals of Math. 157 (2003), 335–431. MR 1973051 (2004d:57020)
[Gr]
M. Gromov, Metric structures for Riemannian and non–Riemannian spaces, Birkhäuser, Progress in Mathematics 152 (1999). MR 1699320 (2000d:53065)
Reference [HS]
J. Hass & P. Scott, The existence of least area surfaces in -manifolds, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 310 (1988), 87–114. MR 0965747 (90c:53022)
[Ha1]
A. Hatcher, Homeomorphisms of sufficiently large -irreducible -manifolds, Topology 15 (1976), 343–347. MR 0420620 (54:8633)
Reference [He]
J. Hempel, –Manifolds Ann. of Math. Studies 86, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.MR 0415619 (54:3702)
[Jo]
K. Johannson, Homotopy equivalences of -manifolds with boundaries, Springer LNM 761 (1979). MR 0551744 (82c:57005)
Reference [JR]
K. N. Jones & A. Reid, Vol3 and other exceptional hyperbolic -manifolds, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129 (2001), 2175-2185. MR 1825931 (2002e:57024)
Reference [Js]
J. Jost, Riemannian Geometry and Geometric Analysis, Springer–Verlag, Berlin; 3rd edition (2002) MR 1871261 (2002i:53001)
Reference [K]
D. Kinderlehrer, The smoothness of the solution of the boundary obstacle problem, J. Math. Pures et Appl. 60 (1981), 193–212. MR 0620584 (84j:49011)
Reference [KS]
G. Kleineidam & J. Souto, Ending laminations in the Masur domain, Kleinian Groups and Hyperbolic Manifolds, Proceedings, Cambridge University Press, 2003.MR 2044547 (2005e:57048)
Reference [Lew]
H. Lewy, On the coincidence set in variational inequalities, J. Diff. Geom. 6 (1972) 497–501.MR 0320343 (47:8882)
Reference [Li]
M. Lipyanskiy, A computer assisted application of Poincaré’s fundamental polyhedron theorem, preprint.
Reference [Ma]
A. Marden, The geometry of finitely generated Kleinian groups, Annals of Math. 99 (1974), 383–462.MR 0349992 (50:2485)
Reference [Mv]
A.I. Malcev, On isomorphic matrix representations of infinite groups, Mat. Sb. (N. S.), 8 (50), (1940), 405–421.MR 0003420 (2:216d)
Reference [Mc]
D. McCullough, Compact submanifolds of -manifolds with boundary, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2), 37 (1986), 299–307. MR 0854628 (88d:57012)
[MMS]
D. McCullough, A. Miller & G. A. Swarup, Uniqueness of cores of noncompact -manifolds, J. London Math. Soc., 32 (1985), 548–556. MR 0825931 (87e:57018)
Reference [MSY]
W. Meeks, L. Simon & S.–T. Yau, Embedded minimal surfaces, exotic spheres, and manifolds with positive Ricci curvature, Annals of Math. (2) 116 (1982), no. 3, 621–659. MR 0678484 (84f:53053)
[MY]
W. Meeks & S.–T. Yau, The classical Plateau problem and the topology of three-dimensional manifolds, Topology 21 (1982), 409–442. MR 0670745 (84g:53016)
Reference [Me]
G. R. Meyerhoff, A lower bound for the volume of hyperbolic -manifolds, Canadian J. of Math., 39 (1987), 1038–1056. MR 0918586 (88k:57049)
Reference [Mi]
Y. Minsky, The classification of Kleinian surface groups I: Models and bounds, eprint math.GT/0302208.
Reference [Mo]
J. Morgan, On Thurston’s uniformization for three-dimensional manifolds, The Smith Conjecture (New York 1979), Academic Press, Mathematics 112, 37–138. page 71.MR 0758464
Reference [Mor]
C. B. Morrey Jr., Multiple integrals in the calculus of variations, Springer, (1966).MR 0202511 (34:2380)
[Mw]
G. Mostow, Quasiconformal mappings in -space and the rigidity of hyperbolic space, Pubs. IHES 34 (1968), 53–104.MR 0236383 (38:4679)
Reference [My]
R. Myers, End reductions, fundamental groups, and covering spaces of irreducible open -manifolds, Geom. Topol. 9 (2005), 971–990.MR 2140996
Reference [N]
J. Nitsche, Variational problems with inequalities as boundary conditions or How to Fashion a Cheap Hat for Giacometti’s Brother, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 35 (1969), 83–113. MR 0248585 (40:1837)
Reference [Oh]
K. Ohshika, Kleinian groups which are limits of geometrically finite groups, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 177 (2005), no. 834. MR 2154090
Reference [Oss]
R. Osserman, A survey of minimal surfaces, Second edition. Dover Publications (1986).MR 0852409 (87j:53012)
Reference [Re]
Yu. Reshetnyak, Two-dimensional manifolds of bounded curvature, in Geometry IV, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 70, Springer-Verlag (1989), 3–165.MR 1263964
Reference [Ri]
D. Richardson, Variational problems with thin obstacles, Thesis, UBC (1978).
Reference [S]
R. Schoen, Estimates for stable minimal surfaces in three dimensional manifolds, Annals of Math. Stud. 103, (1983), 111–126. MR 0795231 (86j:53094)
Reference [SY]
R. Schoen and S.-T. Yau, Existence of incompressible minimal surfaces and the topology of three-dimensional manifolds with nonnegative scalar curvature, Ann. of Math. (2) 110, no. 1, (1979), 127–142. MR 0541332 (81k:58029)
Reference [Sc]
G. P. Scott, Compact submanifolds of -manifolds, J. London Math. Soc. 7 (1973), 246–250. MR 0326737 (48:5080)
Reference [Som]
T. Soma, Existence of polygonal wrappings in hyperbolic -manifolds, preprint.
Reference [So]
J. Souto, A note on the tameness of hyperbolic -manifolds, Topology, 44 (2005), no. 2, 459–474. MR 2114957 (2005m:57032)
Reference [St]
J. Stallings, On fibering certain -manifolds, Topology of 3-manifolds and related topics, Prentice-Hall, (1962), 95–100.MR 0158375 (28:1600)
Reference [T]
W. P. Thurston, Geometry and topology of -manifolds, 1978, Princeton Math. Dept. Lecture Notes.
Reference [T2]
—, A norm for the homology of -manifolds, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 59 (1986), no. 339, 99–130. MR 0823443 (88h:57014)
Reference [Tu]
T. Tucker, Non-compact -manifolds and the missing boundary problem, Topology, 13 (1974), 267–273.MR 0353317 (50:5801)
Reference [Tu2]
—, On the Fox-Artin sphere and surfaces in noncompact -manifolds, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2), 28 (1977), 243–253.MR 0448355 (56:6662)
[Ve]
I. N. Vekua, Systems of differential equations of the first order of elliptic type and boundary value problems, with an application to the theory of shells (Russian) Mat. Sbornik N. S. 31 (73) (1952), 217–314. MR 0057444 (15:230a)
Reference [Wa]
F. Waldhausen, On irreducible -manifolds which are sufficiently large, Annals of Math. (2) 103 (1968), 56–88. MR 0224099 (36:7146)

Article Information

MSC 2000
Primary: 57M50 (Geometric structures on low-dimensional manifolds), 57N10 (Topology of general -manifolds)
Secondary: 30F40 (Kleinian groups)
Author Information
Danny Calegari
Department of Mathematics, Caltech, Pasadena, California 91125
MathSciNet
David Gabai
Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544
MathSciNet
Additional Notes

The first author was partially supported by Therese Calegari and NSF grant DMS-0405491.

The second author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-0071852.

Journal Information
Journal of the American Mathematical Society, Volume 19, Issue 2, ISSN 1088-6834, published by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.
Publication History
This article was received on and published on .
Copyright Information
Copyright 2005 by Danny Calegari and David Gabai
Article References
  • Permalink
  • Permalink (PDF)
  • DOI 10.1090/S0894-0347-05-00513-8
  • MathSciNet Review: 2188131
  • Show rawAMSref \bib{2188131}{article}{ author={Calegari, Danny}, author={Gabai, David}, title={Shrinkwrapping and the taming of hyperbolic 3-manifolds}, journal={J. Amer. Math. Soc.}, volume={19}, number={2}, date={2006-04}, pages={385-446}, issn={0894-0347}, review={2188131}, doi={10.1090/S0894-0347-05-00513-8}, }

Settings

Change font size
Resize article panel
Enable equation enrichment

Note. To explore an equation, focus it (e.g., by clicking on it) and use the arrow keys to navigate its structure. Screenreader users should be advised that enabling speech synthesis will lead to duplicate aural rendering.

For more information please visit the AMS MathViewer documentation.