{"title":"拟等距不需要在Gromov积拓扑下导出收缩边界的同胚","authors":"Christopher H. Cashen","doi":"10.1515/agms-2016-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We consider a ‘contracting boundary’ of a proper geodesic metric space consisting of equivalence classes of geodesic rays that behave like geodesics in a hyperbolic space.We topologize this set via the Gromov product, in analogy to the topology of the boundary of a hyperbolic space. We show that when the space is not hyperbolic, quasi-isometries do not necessarily give homeomorphisms of this boundary. Continuity can fail even when the spaces are required to be CAT(0). We show this by constructing an explicit example.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quasi-Isometries Need Not Induce Homeomorphisms of Contracting Boundaries with the Gromov Product Topology\",\"authors\":\"Christopher H. Cashen\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/agms-2016-0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract We consider a ‘contracting boundary’ of a proper geodesic metric space consisting of equivalence classes of geodesic rays that behave like geodesics in a hyperbolic space.We topologize this set via the Gromov product, in analogy to the topology of the boundary of a hyperbolic space. We show that when the space is not hyperbolic, quasi-isometries do not necessarily give homeomorphisms of this boundary. Continuity can fail even when the spaces are required to be CAT(0). We show this by constructing an explicit example.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"100\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/agms-2016-0011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"100","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agms-2016-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Quasi-Isometries Need Not Induce Homeomorphisms of Contracting Boundaries with the Gromov Product Topology
Abstract We consider a ‘contracting boundary’ of a proper geodesic metric space consisting of equivalence classes of geodesic rays that behave like geodesics in a hyperbolic space.We topologize this set via the Gromov product, in analogy to the topology of the boundary of a hyperbolic space. We show that when the space is not hyperbolic, quasi-isometries do not necessarily give homeomorphisms of this boundary. Continuity can fail even when the spaces are required to be CAT(0). We show this by constructing an explicit example.