arXiv:2106.02101v1 [math.DG] 3 Jun 2021
THE WEYL PROBLEM FOR UNBOUNDED CONVEX DOMAINS IN H
JEAN-MARC SCHLENKER
Abstract. Let K ⊂ H3
be a convex subset in H3
with smooth, strictly convex boundary. The induced metric on ∂K then has curvature K > −1. It was proved by Alexandrov that if K is bounded, then it is uniquely determined by the induced metric on the boundary, and any smooth metric with curvature K > −1 can be obtained.
We propose here an extension of the existence part of this result to unbounded convex domains in H3
. The induced metric on ∂K is then clearly not sufficient to determine K. However one can consider a richer data on the boundary including the ideal boundary of K. Specifically, we consider the data composed of the conformal structure on the boundary of K in the Poincar´e model of H3
, together with the induced metric on ∂K. We show that a wide range of “reasonable” data of this type, satisfying mild curvature conditions, can be realized on the boundary of a convex subset in H3
.
We do not consider here the uniqueness of a convex subset with given boundary data. Keywords: Weyl problem, hyperbolic geometry, convex domain, isometric embedding.
Contents
1. Introduction and main results 1
1.1. The classical Weyl problem in Euclidean and hyperbolic space 1
1.2. The boundary data on unbounded convex subsets 2
1.3. A dual question 3
1.4. Related results 3
1.5. Questions not considered here 4
1.6. Outline of the proofs and content of the paper 5
Acknowledgements 5
2. Background 5
2.1. Conformal metrics on surfaces 5
2.2. Surfaces in H3 5
3. Approximation by metrics on the sphere 6
3.1. Bounds on conformal factors 6
3.2. Construction of approximating metrics 8
3.3. A lower bound on the injectivity radius 9
3.4. A sequence of convex subsets 10
4. Bounds on principal curvatures 10
4.1. Principal curvature bounds for convex surfaces 10
4.2. Curvature bounds in the almost-flat regions 11
5. Proofs of the main results 11
5.1. Convergence of the Gauss maps 11
5.2. Convergence of boundary data 12
References 13
1. Introduction and main results
1.1. The classical Weyl problem in Euclidean and hyperbolic space. The study of smooth or polyhedral convex surfaces in the 3-dimensional Euclidean space R3 has a long history. One of the first “modern” results on this theme was the proof by Legendre [LegII] and Cauchy [Cau13] of the rigidity of
Date: v0, June 7, 2021.
Partially supported by FNR projects INTER/ANR/15/11211745, OPEN/16/11405402 and O20/14766753. The au-thor also acknowledges support from U.S. National Science Foundation grants DMS-1107452, 1107263, 1107367 “RNMS: GEometric structures And Representation varieties” (the GEAR Network).
convex polyhedra: if two polyhedra have the same combinatorics and corresponding faces are isometric, then they are congruent.
Alexandrov [Ale05] later realized that Cauchy’s rigidity result is related to a much deeper statement. The induced metric on the boundary of a convex polyhedron in R3 is an Euclidean metric with cone singularities with cone angle less than 2π at the vertices, and Alexandrov proved that each metric of this type on the sphere can be realized as the induced metric on the boundary of a unique polyhedron. This result was later extended by Alexandrov [Ale05] to bounded convex subset of R3, thus solving the “Weyl problem”, proposed by H. Weyl in 1915 and for which substantial progress had already been made by H. Lewy [Lew35] and others.
Theorem 1.1(Lewy, Alexandrov). Any smooth metric of positive curvature on the sphere is induced on the boundary of a unique smooth strictly convex subset of R3.
Alexandrov and Pogorelov also extended Theorem 1.1 to hyperbolic space.
Theorem 1.2 (Alexandrov, Pogorelov). Any smooth metric of curvature K > −1 on the sphere is induced on the boundary of a unique convex subset of H3 with smooth boundary.
Versions of Theorem 1.2 also hold for ideal polyhedra [Riv92] and for hyperideal polyhedra [Sch98a] (see also [Sch98b] for a result on convex domains bounded by disks). The existence of those results hints at the possibility of a wider extension to more general unbounded convex domains in H3 as considered here.
1.2. The boundary data on unbounded convex subsets. Before stating our main result, we define a notion of “boundary data” that is adapted to complete convex subsets of H3. In the special case of bounded convex subsets, it coincides with the induced metric in the usual sense.
We consider a convex subsets Ω ⊂ H3, which a priori is unbounded. Let ∂
0Ω = ∂ρ(Ω), where ρ : H3→ R3is the Poincar´e model of H3, equipped with the conformal class c
0of the induced metric. So ∂0Ω is the “full” boundary of Ω, including its metric boundary in H3but also its ideal boundary.
We now define a notion of boundary data for a convex subset of H3. When this subset is bounded, it’s just the induced metric on the boundary. For an unbounded convex domain Ω, however, a boundary data records both the induced metric on the metric boundary of Ω and the conformal structure on the “full” boundary ∂0Ω, coming from the induced metric on the metric boundary but also from the conformal structure at infinity on the ideal boundary.
Definition 1.3. Let Ω ⊂ H3be a convex subset. A boundary data for Ω is a pair (U, h), where U ⊂ CP1 is an open subset and h is a complete, conformal metric on U , such that there exists a homeomorphism γ : (∂0Ω, c0) → CP1 such that:
• γ is conformal on the interior of ∂∞Ω,
• γ ◦ ρ is isometric from ∂Ω equipped with its induced metric to (U, h).
By construction, h has curvature K ≥ −1 by the Gauss formula. Note that ∂0Ω = ∂Ω ∪ ∂∞Ω, and another way to define c0 is as the conformal structure of CP1 on ∂∞Ω, and the conformal structure of the induced metric on ∂Ω.
We do not consider here whether a boundary data is always unique. We note however that one always exists under conditions that cover the hypothesis of Theorem 1.6 below.
Lemma 1.4. Let Ω ⊂ H3 be a convex subset such that the induced metric on ∂Ω has (1) curvature K ∈ [−1 + ǫ, 1/ǫ], for some ǫ > 0, and
(2) injectivity radius bounded from below by ǫ. Then there exists a boundary data for Ω.
Proof. Let δ : ∂∞H3 → ∂0Ω be the closest-point projection – in other terms, δ is the identity on ∂∞Ω, while it projects each point of ∂∞H3\ ∂∞Ω to a point of ∂Ω.
It is proved in Lemma 4.1 that, under the hypothesis considered here, ∂Ω has principal curvatures in [1/k0, k0, for some k0> 1.
As a consequence, δ is K-quasi-conformal, for a constant K depending only on k0. Applying the measurable Riemann mapping theorem [AB60] to the Beltrami differential of δ on ∂∞H3\ ∂∞Ω, we obtain a quasi-conformal homeomorphism q : ∂∞H3 → CP1 which is conformal on ∂∞Ω, and has the same Beltrami differential as δ on ∂∞H3\ ∂∞Ω.
The homeomorphism δ ◦ q−1 : CP1 → ∂
0Ω then is conformal by construction. The pair ((δ ◦ q−1)−1(∂Ω), (δ ◦ q−1)∗I) is therefore a boundary data for Ω, where I denotes the induced metric on
∂Ω.
Our main motivation is the following question, appearing as Question WHgen3 in [Sch20], reformulated
here in line with Definition 1.3.
Question 1.5. Let U ⊂ CP1 be an open subset, and let h be a complete metric of curvature K ≥ −1 on U . Is there a unique convex subset Ω ⊂ H3 such that (U, h) is a boundary data for Ω?
As pointed out in [Sch20], the answer to this question in such a general setting might be negative, and additional assumptions might be necessary. We provide here an existence result under stronger curvature conditions, and under a mild regularity asumption on the boundary of U together with a topological hypothesis on U .
Theorem 1.6. Let k0 > 0, U ⊂ CP1 be an open subset which is a disjoint union of k0-quasidisks, let ǫ > 0, and let h be a smooth, complete metric or curvature K ∈ [−1 + ǫ, −ǫ] on U . There exists a convex subset Ω ⊂ H3 such that the boundary data of Ω is (U, h).
A quasidisk in CP1 is the image of a disk by a quasiconformal map from CP1 to CP1.
1.3. A dual question. Specifically in H3, there is also a dual Weyl problem, concerning the third fundamental form on the boundary of convex bodies, rather than their induced metrics. This third fundamental form is in fact the induced metric on the boundary of a dual convex body in the de Sitter space.
For ideal polyhedra, the third fundamental form is encoded in the (exterior) dihedral angles, so that the dual Weyl problem corresponds to determining which families of dihedral angles can be obtained, see [And71,Riv96]. For bounded polyhedron, it corresponds to the “dual metric” considered by Hodgson and Rivin [HR93], while a result is also known for smooth metrics [Sch96].
Question 1.5 has an analog concerning the extension of this “dual” Weyl problem to unbounded convex domains with a prescribed data at infinity that includes the third fundamental form, rather than the induced metric, on ∂Ω, see [Sch20]. We do not consider this dual problem here. It appears plausible that the methods developed here to prove Theorem 1.6 could also apply, in some form, to prove a dual statement, but a different regularization procedure appears to be needed to obtain the necessary estimates.
1.4. Related results. A list of related results as well as some background information can be found [Sch20], we only list here a few results and conjectures in direct relation with Theorem 1.6.
Convex subsets with a quasicircle at infinity. One of the simplest cases that can be considered is when U is the complement of a quasi-circle in CP1, and h is a complete metric of constant curvature K ∈ (−1, 0) on U . The corresponding special cases of Theorem 1.6 (together with a dual result with the induced metric replaced by the third fundamental form) is the main result of [BDMS19]. (Note that the result of [BDMS19] on the induced metrics also covers the case K = −1, where the convex subset Ω is the convex hull of its ideal boundary.)
The statements of Theorem A and Theorem B in [BDMS19] superficially appear quite different from the statement of Theorem 1.6, since it concerns the possibility to prescribe the “gluing map” at infinity between the induced metrics on the two connected components of the boundary of a domain, with induced metric of constant curvature, which has as boundary at infinity a quasicircle. A moment of reflection shows however that Theorem B of [BDMS19] is the special case of Theorem 1.6 when U is the complement of a quasicircle in CP1 and h has constant curvature K ∈ (−1, 0).
The main motivation for this result from [BDMS19] is a conjecture made by Thurston concerning the induced metric and the measured bending lamination on the convex cores of geometrically finite hyperbolic manifolds. We recall those conjectures in the quasifuchsian case for simplicity. A quasifuchsian manifold is a complete hyperbolic manifold, homeomorphic to S × R, where S is a closed surface of genus at least 2, containing a compact, non-empty, geodesically convex subset. A quasifuchsian manifold M contains a smallest non-empty convex subset, its convex core C(M ), which is either a totally geodesic surface (in the “Fuchsian” case) or a closed domain with boundary the disjoint union of two surfaces, each homeomorphic to S, with an induced metric of constant curvature −1, pleated along a measured laminations. Thurston thus stated two conjectures:
(1) any pair of hyperbolic metrics on S, considered up to isotopy, can be uniquely realized as the induced metrics on the boundary of a quasifuchsian manifold,
(2) any pair of measured laminations on S that fill together, such that no leaf has weight larger than π, can be realized uniquely as the measured bending lamination on the convex core of a quasifuchsian manifold.
The existence part of both statements is known, for (1) it is a consequence of results of Labourie [Lab92] or of Epstein–Marden [EM86], while for (2) it is proved (for geometrically finite hyperbolic manifolds) by Bonahon–Otal [BO04].
Existence and uniqueness results are known, however, for larger geodesically convex subsets with smooth boundary. The induced metric then has curvature K > −1, while the measured bending lamina-tion is replaced by the third fundamental form of the boundary, which has curvature K < 1 and closed, contractible geodesics of length L > 2π. It is proved in [Lab92] (for the existence) and [Sch06] (for the uniqueness) that, if h−, h+are two smooth metrics of curvature K > −1 on a closed surface S of genus at least 2, there exists a unique hyperbolic metric with convex boundary on S × [0, 1] such that the induced metrics on the two connected components of the boundary are h− and h+.
Convex domains in convex co-compact hyperbolic manifolds. The two Thurston conjectures above are in fact considered for convex co-compact hyperbolic manifolds, and in this more general setting the existence has been proved for both conjecture, and are due to the authors mentioned above in the quasifuchsian setting.
Moreover, if M is a closed manifold with non-empty boundary which admits a convex co-compact hyperbolic manifold on its interior, then, again by [Lab92, Sch06], any metric of curvature K > −1 on the boundary of M can be uniquely realized as the induced metric of a convex hyperbolic metric g on M . Theorem 1.6 can be seen as a generalization of the existence part of this result. Indeed, given such a hyperbolic metric g on M , the universal cover ˜M of M , equipped with the lifted metric ˜g, is isometric to the interior of a convex domain Ω ⊂ H3, with ∂
∞Ω equal to the limit set Λ of M . Ω is then invariant under the action of a representation ρ : π1M → P SL(2, C). The existence result from [Lab92] then implies the existence of a convex domain Ω ⊂ H3 with a prescribed metric of curvature K > −1 on each boundary component (equal to the lift of a metric on the corresponding boundary component of ∂M ). Moreover, in ∂0Ω equipped with the underlying conformal structure, each connected component of ∂Ω corresponds to a quasidisk. So this result from [Lab92] implies a special case of Theorem 1.6, which moreover is invariant under the representation ρ. Theorem 1.6 can be considered as extending the existence result of [Lab92] without the need for a group action. However Theorem 1.6 is more general since it allows for situations where U is not dense in CP1.
Convex domains complete on one side in quasifuchsian manifolds. One such example can be found by considering a closed, geodesically convex, subset Ω in a quasifuchsian manifold M , assuming that Ω is complete “on one side”, that is, Ω is homeomorphic to S × [0, ∞), where S is again a closed surface of genus at least 2 and Ω is complete on the side corresponding to ∞, while its metric boundary corresponds to S × {0}, which is a smooth, locally strictly convex surface ∂Ω in M . The induced metric on ∂Ω then has curvature K > −1.
One can then ask whether given any conformal structure c on S, and any metric h of curvature K > −1 on S (both considered up to isotopy) there is a unique quasifuchsian metric on S × R, containing a unique geodesically convex subset Ω complete on one side, such that the conformal structure on the complete boundary is c, while the induced metric on the other boundary is h.
Lifting to the universal cover of Ω, this translates as another instance of Theorem 1.6, where U is now a disk in CP1 (corresponding to the universal cover of ∂Ω) while the interior of the complement of U corresponds to the universal cover of ∂∞Ω.
1.5. Questions not considered here. The Weyl problem described in Section 1.1 can also be stated in terms of isometric immersions of locally convex surfaces in R3or H3. This point of view leads to different extensions to unbounded locally convex surfaces in H3, see [Sch20, Section 6]. We not not consider questions arising from this other point of view here.
It should be noted that the curvature hypothesis in Theorem 1.6 are quite restrictive. On one hand, one could consider metrics of curvature K ≥ −1, including the special case of K = −1, corresponding to the case where ∂Ω is a locally convex pleated surface, and Ω is the convex hull of its asymptotic boundary ∂∞Ω. On the other hand, one could consider metrics with positive curvature at some points – this is excluded here for “technical” reasons.
We also do not consider here the uniqueness in Theorem 1.6, since different methods and tools are necessary.
1.6. Outline of the proofs and content of the paper. Section 2 contains a number of well-known constructions and results that are needed at various places in the paper. Section 3 shows how a given boundary data (U, h) can be “approximated”, in a suitable sense, by a sequence (hn)n∈N of Riemannian metrics on S2 which are equal to h on increasing domains in U , and have constant positive curvature (going to 0 as n → ∞) on open subsets containing the complement of U . The Alexandrov theorem can be applied to those metrics, yielding a sequence (Ωn)n∈Nof convex subsets of H3, and the remaining part of the paper is focused on proving that Ωn→ Ω, where Ω satisfies the conditions of Theorem 1.6.
Section 4 provides a key estimate on the principal curvatures of surfaces under bounds on the curvature of the induced metrics, following well-understoods arguments that need to be adapted to our context.
Section 5 then contains the proof of the main results. One key idea of the proof of Theorem 1.6 is that, thanks to the bounds on the principal curvatures in Section 4, the Gauss maps of the surfaces ∂Ωn can be considered as uniformly quasi-conformal diffeomorphisms from CP1to CP1. This sequence therefore has a subsequence converging to a quasiconformal homeomorphism, while, for each connected component of U , the corresponding sequence of surfaces in H3(suitably normalized by isometries) has a subsequence converging on compact subsets of H3 to a limit surface. The relative positions of those limit surfaces is controlled by the Gauss maps of the ∂Ωn, leading to the proof of Theorem 1.6.
Acknowledgements. The author is very grateful to Francesco Bonsante, Qiyu Chen, Jeff Danciger, Sara Maloni and Andrea Seppi for many discussions related more or less closely to the result presented here.
2. Background
This section contains two elementary results, used below, recalled here for the reader’s convenience and to avoid ambiguities in notations.
2.1. Conformal metrics on surfaces. Consider a surface S equipped with a smooth Riemannian metric h. The following lemma indicates how the curvature changes under a conformal change of metrics. Lemma 2.1. Let (S, h) be a surface equipped with a Riemannian metric, let u : S → R be a smooth surface, and let ¯h = e2uh. The curvature of ¯h is equal to
¯
K = e−2u(∆hu + K) , where K is the curvature of h.
Note that in this formula and elsewhere, the Laplacian of h is defined as ∆hu = −tr(Ddu) ,
where D is the Levi-Civita connection of h. In other terms, ∆h is a positive operator on closed surfaces. We refer to [Bes87, Theorem 1.159] for a proof.
2.2. Surfaces in H3. Let S ⊂ H3be a smooth, oriented surface. We define its shape operator B as Bx = ∇xn ,
where ∇ denotes the Levi-Civita connection of H3, n is the unit oriented normal to S, and x is any tangent vector to S. We then define the second fundamental form of S as
II(x, y) = I(Bx, y) ,
where I denotes the induced metric on S (also classically known as the first fundamental form) and x, y are two tangent vectors at the same point, and the third fundamental form of S as
III(x, y) = I(Bx, By) .
The second fundamental form II is a symmetric bilinear form on T S, and it is positive semi-definite when S is locally convex, with unit normal oriented towards the concave side. We will say that S is strictly convex if II is positive definite.
3. Approximation by metrics on the sphere
In this section we define a sequence of conformal metrics on CP1, that “approximate” in a suitable sense a metric h defined on an open subset U , as seen in the statement of Theorem 1.6. We then show that this sequence of approximating metrics has suitable bounds on curvatures. This will allow us in Section 5 to prove that one can apply the Alexandrov theorem to those metrics and obtain a sequence of convex surfaces converging (after extraction of a subsequence) to a non-compact domain having the required boundary data.
3.1. Bounds on conformal factors. The main goal of this section is to obtain a bound on the gradient of the conformal factor on each connected component of U . We consider a fixed spherical metric c1 on CP1, and a connected component U0of U ⊂ CP1, equipped with a complete Riemannian metric h which can be written as
h = e2uc 1,
where u : U0→ R. Since c1 is a spherical metric on ∂∞H3, it is the visual metric associated to a point m1∈ H3. Recall that given a point m ∈ H3, the visual metric cmon ∂∞H3associated to m is the spherical metric such that the distance between to ideal points ξ, η ∈ ∂∞H3is the angle between the geodesic rays from m to ξ and η. To simplify a bit the argument, we will assume that m1⊂ CH(CP1\ U0), where CH denotes the hyperbolic convex hull.
Lemma 3.1. Assume that h has curvature K ∈ [−1 + ǫ, −ǫ], where ǫ > 0. Assume moreover that U0 is a k-quasi-disk. Then there exists a constant C > 0, depending only on k, such that for all m ∈ U0, kdu(m)kh≤ C.
The proof is based on comparisons between four conformal metrics on U0. In addition to h and c1, we will consider the hyperbolic metric h−1 (conformal to h) on U0, and the Thurston metric hT hon U0.
Recall that the Thurston metric is defined as follows: for all m ∈ U0, we let D be a maximal disk containing m and contained in U0, and let hT hat m be equal to the complete hyperbolic metric on D at m. This metric hT hthen has curvature in [−1, 0], see e.g. [KP94].
We will denote by v, w, x : U0→ R the functions such that
h = e2vh−1 , h−1= e2whT h , hT h= e2xc1 . The proof of Lemma 3.1 clearly follows from the following three lemmas.
Lemma 3.2. Let h−1 be the complete hyperbolic metric in the conformal class of h on U0. Suppose that h = e2vh
−1, and that h is complete and has curvature in [−1 + ǫ, −ǫ]. There exists a constant Cv > 0, depending only on ǫ, such that, on U0, v ∈ [−Cv, 0] and kdvkh−1 ≤ Cv.
Lemma 3.3. Suppose that U0 is a k-quasidisk. Then there exists a constant Cw> 0, depending only on k, such that, on U0, w ∈ [−Cw, 0] and kdwkh−1 ≤ Cw.
Lemma 3.4. There exists a constant Cx> 0 such that for all m ∈ U0, kdxkhT h ≤ Cx.
Proof of Lemma 3.1. The lemma clearly follows from Lemma 3.2, Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.4, since by construction u = v + w + x and all three functions have bounded derivative (measured with respect to h) and v and w are bounded, so that h, h−1and hT hare within bounded multiplicative constant of each
other.
Proof of Lemma 3.2. The upper bound on v follows from the main result in [Ahl38]. The lower bound on v is a consequence of [Mat03, Theorem 6].
To obtain the bound on dv, we recall the equation satisfied by v coming from the fact that h−1= e−2vh, see e.g. [Bes87, §1.159]:
∆hv = K + e−2v ,
where K is the curvature of h. Since both K and v are bounded, ∆hv is bounded, and it then follows from standard arguments and from the bounds on v and ∆hv that kdvkhis bounded. Since v is bounded, kdvkh−1 is also bounded.
(We outline this estimate of kdvkh for completeness. Let x ∈ U0, let r > 0, and let B(x, r) be the ball of center x and radius r in (U0, h). We can decompose the restriction of v on B(x, r) as
where v0 is the harmonic function on B(x, r) with the same boundary function as v on ∂B(x, r), while v1 is the solution of
∆hv1= ∆hv
on B(x, r) with Dirichlet boundary conditions. Then kdv0(x)kh is bounded by a fixed constant by the gradient estimate for harmonic functions (because the boundary values of v0 are bounded), while kdv1(x)khis bounded by a fixed constant, because |∆hv| is bounded on B(x, r) and v1 can be expressed
from ∆hv in terms of Green functions of ∆h on B(x, r).)
Proof of Lemma 3.3. We denote by D the unit disk in C. We first show that for all k > 1, there exists a constant cw such that if D is a k-quasidisk containing D as a maximal disk, if h−1 and hT h are the hyperbolic metric and Thurston metrics on D, respectively, with h−1 = e2 ¯whT h, then | ¯w| ≤ cw and kd ¯wkh≤ cwat 0. This follows from a simple compactness argument. Assume on the contrary that there exists a sequence Dnof k-quasicircles such that | ¯wn| ≥ n or kd ¯wnkhn≥ n (where the notations with index
n are attached to the quasidisk Dn). Then by the compactness property of k-quasidisks (see e.g. [Ahl66]) there exists a subsequence of (Dn)n∈N which converges in the Hausdorff topology to a k-quasidisk D∞ containing D as a maximal disk. Then | ¯w∞| or kd ¯w∞kh∞ would need to be infinite, a contradiction.
Now let m ∈ U0, and let Dm be a maximal disk in U0 containing m. There exists an element of P SL(2, C) sending Dmto D and m to 0. Both h−1and hT hare preserved under M¨obius transformation, and the lemma therefore follows from the estimate obtained at 0 for quasidisks containing D as a maximal
disk.
The proof of Lemma 3.4 requires a simple proposition concerning the comparison between visual metrics at two different points in H3.
Proposition 3.5. Let m0, m1 ∈ H3 be at distance δ > 0, and let y : ∂∞H3 → R be such that cm1 =
e2yc
m0. Let ξ ∈ ∂∞H
3 be such that the angle at m
0 between the segment ending at m1 and the geodesic ray ending at ξ is θ. Then
(1) y(ξ) = − log(cosh(δ) − cos(θ) sinh(δ)) .
As a consequence, if ∂θ is the vector at ξ corresponding to varying θ while keeping m0, m1 and the plane containing m0, m1 and ξ fixed, then
(2) dy(∂θ) = −
sin(θ)
cotanh(δ) − cos(θ) .
Proof. The first point is a consequence of a standard hyperbolic geometry formula relating the values at m0and m1of the Busemann function associated to ξ. Namely, if m(t) is the point at distance t from m0 along the ray [m0, ξ), and if l(t) = d(m1, m(t)) then the triangle formula can be written as:
cosh(l(t)) = cosh(t) cosh(δ) − cos(θ) sinh(t) sinh(δ) . As t → ∞, it follows that
el(t)−t∼ cosh(δ) − cos(θ) sinh(δ) , and the first point follows.
The second point follows from the first by a direct computation.
The Thurston metric has a simple relation to the visual metric, stated for the reader’s convenience in the next proposition. We denote by Σ0 the pleated locally convex surface facing U0, defined as:
Σ0= ∂CH(CP1\ U0) , where CH denotes the hyperbolic convex hull.
Proposition 3.6. Let ξ ∈ U0, and let m be the closest-point projection of ξ on Σ0. Then hT h(ξ) = cm(ξ) .
Proof. Let P be the support plane of CH(CP1\ U0) at m orthogonal to the direction of the geodesic ray from m to ξ. This plane P faces a disk in CP1 (with the same boundary) which is maximal disk contained in U0 and containing ξ. By construction, hT his equal at ξ to the push-forward of the induced metric on P by the normal exponential map, considered as a map from P to U0.
However a simple computation (for instance done in the Poincar´e model of H3 with m at the center) shows that this push-forward metric coincides at ξ with the visual metric cm, and the proposition follows.
Proof of Lemma 3.4. To obtain the required comparison, we choose a point ξ ∈ U0 and let m be the closest-point projection of ξ on Σ0, as above. We first compare hT h to cm at first-order at ξ, and then compare cmto c1. Both comparisons will be based on (1).
For the first comparison, we again denote by u : U0 → R the function such that hT h = e2ucm, and will show that du = 0 at ξ. Consider first a first-order variation of ξ obtained by varying m along a flat direction of Σ0while keeping parallel the diction at m of the closest-point projection line. Let ∂δ be such a unit (for cm) tangent vector to CP1 at ξ. Then taking the derivative of (1) with respect to δ at δ = 0 and θ = π/2 shows that dy(∂δ) = 0. Now if m is located on a pleating line of Σ0 and ∂θ is a vector corresponding to varying θ while the projection to m remains constant, then taking the derivative of (1) with respect to θ with δ = 0 and θ = π/2 also shows that dy(∂θ) = 0. So we can conclude that dy = 0 at ξ, so that hT hcoincides with cmat ξ at first order.
The second step is to compare at ξ the metric cm– which as we have seen is equal to hT hat first order – to the spherical metric c1, which as any spherical metric on ∂∞H3 is the visual metric of some fixed point m1∈ H3. Specifically, if we denote (again) by y : ∂∞H3→ R the function such that cm= e2ycm1,
Proposition 3.5 shows that the derivative of y at ξ is bounded by the right-hand side of (2), with m0= m. However a look at this second term shows that it is bounded from above in absolute value as soon as θ is bounded from below, because cotanh(δ) − cos(θ) is then bounded from below since cotanh(δ) > 1.
But since we have assumed that m1∈ CH(CP1\ U0), for all ξ ∈ U0, if m again denotes the closest-point projection of ξ on Σ0, m1 is on the negative side of the support plane to CH(CP1\ U0) at m orthogonal to the geodesic ray from m to ξ. (That is, m1 is on the side of this plane not containing ξ.) It follows that the angle θ occuring in (2) is larger than π/2. This concludes the proof. 3.2. Construction of approximating metrics. We can now define rather explicitly the sequence of approximating metrics that will be used in the proof. The construction uses the choice of a “cut-off” function.
Lemma 3.7. There exists a smooth function φ : R → R such that: (1) φ(x) = x for x ≤ 0,
(2) φ(x) = 1 for x ≥ 2,
(3) φ′(x) ∈ [0, 1] and φ′′(x) ≤ 0 for all x ∈ [0, 2], (4) φ′(x) ≤ e2(φ(x)−x)for all x ∈ [0, 2].
Proof. Note first that f (x) = x is a solution of the differential equation f′(x) ≤ e2(f (x)−x)
over [0, 1]. As a consequence, one can find a function φ satisfying the conditions above over (−∞, 1 − ǫ) and arbitrarily close to f (x) = x, for any ǫ > 0. Taking ǫ small enough, one can then “bridge” this function to f (x) = 1 for x ≥ 1 + ǫ while still satisfying the conditions of the lemma. Definition 3.8. We choose a function φ satisfying the conditions of Lemma 3.7. For all n ∈ N, we define φn: R → R by
φn(x) = n + φ(x − n) .
For the next definition, we need to remark that CP1\ U has at least 2 points, because U admits a complete, conformal metric of negative curvature. Therefore the convex hull of CP1\ U contains a point m1.
Definition 3.9. Let (U, h) be a boundary data on CP1, let c1 = cm1 be the visual metric of a point
m1 ∈ CH(CP1\ U ), and let u : U → R be such that h = e2uc1. We define a sequence of conformal metrics (hn)n∈N on CP1 by
hn= e2φn(u)c1 on U
hn= e2(n+1)c1 on CP1\ U .
Note that hn is a smooth metric on CP1 since, by definition of φ, φn(u) is equal to n + 1 in a neighborhood of the boundary of U . (It follows from the fact that h is complete on U together with Lemma 3.1 that u → ∞ on ∂U .)
Lemma 3.10. Assume that K ∈ [−1 + ǫ, −ǫ], that u is bounded from below, and that kdukh is bounded from above, on U . There exists a constant Kmax> 0 (depending on those bounds) such that the curvature Kn of hn is:
• equal to K on the set of points x ∈ U where u(x) ≤ n,
• in the interval [−1 + ǫ, Kmax] on the set of points x ∈ U where n ≤ u(x) ≤ n + 2,
• equal to e−2(n+1) on the set of points x ∈ U where u(x) ≥ n + 2 and on the complement of U . Proof. In the region of U where u(x) ≤ n, hn = h, and therefore Kn = K, the curvature of h. On the region of U where u(x) ≥ n + 2, and on the complement of U , hn= e2(n+1)c1, and it follows from Lemma 2.1 that Kn = e−2(n+1).
We now focus on the region where n ≤ u(x) ≤ n + 2. The conformal transformation of curvature (Lemma 2.1) also shows that
Kn= e−2φn(u)(∆c1φn(u)) + 1) . However d(φn(u)) = φ′n(u)du , so that Dd(φn◦ u) = φ′n(u)Ddu + (φ ′′ n◦ u)du ⊗ du , and therefore ∆c1(φn◦ u) = (φ ′ n◦ u)∆c1u − (φ ′′ n◦ u)kduk2c1 .
As a consequence, and since kduk2 c1= e 2ukduk2 h: Kn = e−2φn◦u((φ′n◦ u)∆c1u − (φ ′′ n◦ u)kduk2c1+ 1) = (φ′ n◦ u)e
2(u−φn◦u)e−2u(∆
c1u + 1) + e −2φn◦u(1 − (φ′ n◦ u)) − e 2(u−φn◦u)(φ′′ n◦ u)kduk 2 h = (φ′ n◦ u)e2(u−φ n◦u) K + e−2φn◦u (1 − (φ′ n◦ u)) − e2(u−φ n◦u) (φ′′ n◦ u)kduk2h . By the hypothesis, K ∈ [−1 + ǫ, −ǫ], and by point (4) in the choice of φ, 0 ≤ (φ′
n◦ u)e2(u−φ
n◦u)≤ 1, so
the first term is in [−1 + ǫ, 0]. By point (3) in the choice of φ, the second term is non-negative, and it is uniformly bounded because by construction, e−2φn◦u is bounded from above. Finally, the third point is
also non-negative by point (3) in the choice of φ and uniformly bounded by the fact that u − φn◦ u is
bounded from above and the uniform bound on kdukh. The result follows.
3.3. A lower bound on the injectivity radius. In addition to the upper bound on the curvature, the next section will make an essential use of a lower bound on the injectivity radius of the metrics hn, as stated in the next lemma.
Lemma 3.11. There exists l0> 0 such that the injectivity radius of hn is bounded below by l0. We introduce additional notations for the proof, namely a decomposition of CP1in three subsets:
• Uu≤n is the set of points x ∈ U where u(x) ≤ n,
• Un<u≤n+1 is the set of points x ∈ U where n < u(x) ≤ n + 1, • Uu≤n+1= Uu≤n∪ Un<u≤n+1,
• Un+1<uis the union of CP1\ U with the set of points x ∈ U where n + 1 < u(x).
Proof of Lemma 3.11. We consider a short geodesic γ of length l for the metric hn, and will show that l cannot be smaller than l0, for a value of l0that will be determined.
The proof will consider two cases, with a similar argument used for a different background metric in each case. In each case we will use that any disk Ω with ∂Ω = γ must have total curvature π (by the Gauss-Bonnet Theorem) and thus, since hn has curvature K ≤ Kmax, area bounded from below: Ahn(Ω) ≥ π/Kmax.
First case: γ ∩ Uu≤n= ∅. In this case u ≥ n on γ, and we compare hn to the metric e2nc1. We have hn≥ e2nc1 on γ, so that Lc1(γ) ≤ e
−nl. However we also have h
n≤ e2(n+1)c1on CP1 and therefore, for each of the disks Ω bounded by γ, Ac1(Ω) ≥ e
−2(n+1)π/K
max. For l small enough, this contradicts the spherical isoperimetric inegality.
Second case: γ ∩ Uu≤n 6= ∅. We first notice that there exists a constant l1 > 0 (depending on the constant C in Lemma 3.1) such that, if Lhn(γ) ≤ l1, then Lh(γ) ≤ 2l1 and u ≤ n + 2 on γ. Indeed,
kdukh≤ C, and since
h = e2uc1= e2u−2φn(u)hn≤ e2u−2nhn , we have
kdukhn≤ e
u−nkduk
It follows from this equation, and from the fact that u ≤ n at a point of γ, that if γ is short enough, then eu−n≤ 2 on γ, and therefore L
h(γ) ≤ 2Lhn(γ) ≤ 2l.
It then follows that γ ⊂ U , and in particular γ is contained in a connected component U0of U . Since U is a disjoint union of quasidisks, this connected component is topologically a disk, and therefore γ bounds a topological disk Ω ⊂ U0. Since h ≥ hn on U0, Ah(Ω) ≥ Ahn(Ω) ≥ π/Kmax. So for l small
enough, we again have a contradiction with the isoperimetric inequality, this time for (U0, h). 3.4. A sequence of convex subsets. We can now apply the Alexandrov Theorem to the sequence of metrics constructed in Section 3.2, together with the injectivity radius bounds in Section 3.3, to obtain the following lemma.
Lemma 3.12. Under the hypothesis of Theorem 1.6, there exists a sequence of bounded convex domains Ωn ⊂ H3, together with a sequence of diffeomorphisms φn: CP1→ ∂Ωn, such that for all n ∈ N:
• φn is conformal map from CP1 to ∂Ωn, • φ∗
nI = h on Un, where Un ⊂ U , Un ⊂ Umfor n ≤ m, and ∪n∈NUn= U , • φ∗
nI has constant curvature e−2n on CP1\ U ,
• the induced metric on ∂Ωn has curvature in [−1 + ǫ, Kmax],
• the injectivity radius of (∂Ωn, I) is bounded from below by a constant l0.
4. Bounds on principal curvatures
4.1. Principal curvature bounds for convex surfaces. The first point of this section is to find a uniform bound on the principal curvatures on the boundaries of the domains Ωn constructed in Lemma 3.12.
Lemma 4.1. Let ǫ > 0. There exists a constant k0> 0 such that if Ω ⊂ H3 is a convex subset such that the induced metric on ∂Ω has curvature K ∈ [−1 + ǫ, 1/ǫ] and injectivity radius bounded from below by ǫ, then the principal curvatures of ∂Ω are in [k0, 1/k0].
The proof uses a result of Labourie [Lab89, Th´eor`eme D] which we recall here for the reader’s conve-nience (restricting to the special case where the target space is H3).
Theorem 4.2 (Labourie). Let fn : S → H3 be a sequence of immersions of a surface S such that the pullback f∗
n(h) of the hyperbolic metric h converges smoothly to a metric g0. If the integral of the mean curvature is uniformly bounded, then a subsequence of fn converges smoothly to an isometric immersion f∞ such that f∞∗(h) = g0.
Note that Theorem 4.2 is local: no assumption of compactness of S or completeness of f∗
n(h) is needed. Proof of Lemma 4.1. We proceed by contradiction and assume that there exists ǫ > 0 such that for all n, there exists a convex subset Ωn such that the induced metric on ∂Ωn has curvature K ∈ [−1 + ǫ, 1/ǫ] and injectivity radius bounded from below by ǫ, while the principal curvatures of ∂Ωn at a point xn are not in [1/n, n].
We apply Theorem 4.2 to a sequence of conformal parameterizations φn : D → ∂Ωnof the disk of center xnand radius ǫ/2, which are indeed topological disks by the asumption on the injectivity radius. Since the induced metrics on the φn(D) have curvature K ∈ [−1 + ǫ, 1/ǫ], there exists a subsequence such that the induced metrics converge to a limit g0. Therefore, by Theorem 4.2, after extracting another subsequence, there exists a sequence of isometries (ψn)n∈N of H3 such that, after extracting a sub-sequence:
(1) either the integral mean curvature on φn(D) tends to infinity,
(2) or the ψn◦ φn : D → H3converge smoothly to a smooth limit φ∞: D → H3.
Clearly the second hypothesis is excluded by the hypothesis on the principal curvatures of ∂Ωn at xn, so it is sufficient to exclude also the first case.
Let Ω1
n be the 1-neighborhood of Ωn:
Ω1n= {x ∈ H3 | d(x, Ωn) ≤ 1} , and let ρ : ∂Ω1
n→ ∂Ωnbe the closest-point projection. Since Ωnis convex and smooth, Ω1n is also convex, and ρ is a diffeomorphism. A well-known “tube” formula indicates that ρ contracts the area of ∂Ω1
n at a point x ∈ ∂Ω1
n by a factor cosh(1)2+ cosh(1) sinh(1)tr(B) + sinh(1)2det(B), where B denotes the shape operator of Ωn at ρ(x). As a consequence, the area of ρ−1(φn(D)) is equal to
A(ρ−1(φn(D))) = Z
φn(D)
Let B(xn, 2) be the ball of center xn and radius 1. The projection from (∂B(xn, 2)) ∩ (H3\ Ω1n)
to ∂Ω1
n is contracting, and its image contains φn(D). As a consequence, the area of ρ−1◦ φn(D) is at most equal to the area of ∂B(xn, 2), so that
Z φn(D)
cosh(1)2+ cosh(1) sinh(1)tr(B) + sinh(1)2det(B)daI ≤ 4π sinh(2)2 .
Since all three terms are non-negative, this simplies in particular that the integral of the mean curvature is bounded on φn(D), and the first alternative above is impossible. This concludes the proof of the
lemma.
4.2. Curvature bounds in the almost-flat regions. In the proof of Theorem 1.6 it will be necessary to show that the conformal structure on the boundary at infinity of the convex set Ω∞which is the limit of the Ωn is identified – under the limit map from CP1to H3– with the conformal structure at infinity of CP1. This will be based on the fact that the regions in the ∂Ωn which are the image of the complement of U are (asymptotically) umbilic, with principal curvatures going to 1 as n → ∞. This section is focused on proving this result.
Specifically, we will need the following lemma.
Lemma 4.3. For all k0> 0, there exists R > 0 and K0> 0 such that if Ω ⊂ H3 is a convex domain and x ∈ ∂Ω such that the injectivity radius of (∂Ω, I) at x is at least R with curvature in [−K0, K0] on the ball of center x and radius R, then the principal curvatures of ∂Ω at x are in [1 − k0, 1 + k0].
The proof uses the following proposition.
Proposition 4.4. Let Ω ⊂ H3. Assume that (∂Ω, I) is flat, and that its injectivity radius at a point x ∈ ∂Ω is infinite. Then Ω is a horosphere.
Proof. This follows directly from a result of Volkov and Vladimirova [VV71] who proved that an isometric immersion of the Euclidean plane in H3is either a parameterization of a horosphere, or a multiple cover
of a cylinder.
Proof of Lemma 4.3. Assume by contradiction that there exists k0> 0 such that no such R and K0exist. Then for all n ∈ N>0 there exists a convex subset Ωn and a point xn ∈ ∂Ωn such that the injectivity radius of ∂Ωn at xn is at least n, and the curvature of ∂Ωn on the ball of center xn and radius n is in [−1/n, +1/n]. However one of the principal curvatures of ∂Ωn at xn is not in [1 − k0, 1 + k0].
For each n, let φn ∈ Isom(H3) be an isometry sending xn to x0 (a fixed point). We can extract from (φn(Ωn))n∈Na sequence of convex subset Ω′n⊂ H3which converges in the Hausdorff topology on compact subsets of H3 to a limit Ω
∞ (see [NQS79] and references therein for topological properties of the space of convex subsets of a linear space).
Then x0 ∈ ∂Ω∞ by construction. Moreover ∂Ω′n → ∂Ω∞, and the induced metric on ∂Ω′n converges to the induced metric on ∂Ω∞ (see [BBI01, Section 10.2]). As a consequence, ∂Ω∞ is intrisically flat, with infinite injectivity radius since the injectivity radius of ∂Ωn at xn is at least n. It follows from Proposition 4.4 that it is a horosphere. This contradicts the hypothesis that the principal curvature of ∂Ω′
n is not in [1 − k0, 1 + k0] at x0.
5. Proofs of the main results We are now ready to prove Theorem 1.6.
5.1. Convergence of the Gauss maps. We consider the sequence of convex domains Ωnand conformal diffeomorphisms φn: CP1→ ∂Ωn described in Lemma 3.12.
For each n, we denote by Gn : ∂Ωn → ∂∞H3 the hyperbolic Gauss map of ∂Ωn, that is, the map sending x ∈ ∂Ωn to the endpoint at infinity of the geodesic ray starting from x directed by the exterior normal of Ω at x.
Lemma 5.1. There exists a constant KG> 1 such that for all n ∈ N, the map Gn◦ φn: CP1→ ∂∞H3 is KG-quasi-conformal.
Proof. Let x ∈ ∂Ωn, for some n ∈ N. We can identify Tx∂Ωn to TGn(x)∂∞H
3 by the exponential map at x, expx: TxH3→ ∂∞H3, using the natural identification of Tx∂Ωn with the normal in TxH3 of the unit normal to ∂Ωn at x. Under this identification, the differential of Gn at x is equal to Id + B, where Id is the identity, and B the shape operator of ∂Ωn.
Since the principal curvatures of ∂Ωn are uniformly bounded, the Gauss map Gn are uniformly bounded. Since the φnare conformal, it follows that the maps Gn◦ φnare uniformly quasi-conformal. Corollary 5.2. After extracting a subsequence and composing with a sequence of M¨obius transformations un, the sequence (Gn◦ φn)n converges C0 to a KG-quasi-conformal homeomorphism ψ∞: CP1→ ∂∞H3. Proof. This follows from the compactness of the space of K-quasi-conformal homeomorphisms from
CP1→ CP1, see e.g. [Ahl66].
Note that the M¨obius transformations appearing in this corollary are boundary values of hyperbolic isometries. If u ∈ P SL(2, C) is a hyperbolic isometry, and ∂u is its boundary action, considered as a M¨obius transformation, then composing Gn◦ φn on the left by a ∂u is equivalent to composing φn on the left by u and then composing with its Gauss map.
We will assume in the last section below that the φn have already been composed on the left by a sequence of M¨obius transformations, so that Gn◦ φn→ ψ∞.
5.2. Convergence of boundary data. Recall that we denote by ρ : H3→ B(0, 1) the Poincar´e model of hyperbolic space. We consider the sequence of maps (φn)n∈N considered above.
Lemma 5.3. After extracting a subsequence,
(1) the sequence of restrictions of the φn to U converge C∞ to an isometric embedding φ∞ of (U, h) in H3,
(2) the sequence (ρ ◦ φn)n∈N converges to a map Φ∞ : CP1→ B(0, 1) which is conformal on U and on the interior of CP1\ U ,
(3) φ∞(U ) is the boundary in H3 of a convex subset Ω.
Proof. Let U0 be a connected component of U . It follows from the arguments already used in Section 4.1 that there exists a sequence (u0
n)n∈N of hyperbolic isometries such that the sequence of restrictions of the u0
n◦ φn to U0 converges C∞ (after extracting a subsequence) to a limit φ0,∞. It follows that the Gauss maps of the u0
n◦ φn converge to the Gauss map of φ0,∞ on U0, that is, ∂u0n◦ (Gn◦ φn) → G0,∞◦ φ0,∞ ,
where G0,∞ denotes the Gauss map of φ0,∞.
However we already know by Corollary 5.2 that the Gn◦ φn converge to a limit ψ∞, so that lim
n→∞∂u 0
n◦ ψ∞= G0,∞◦ φ0,∞ . As a consequence, (u0
n)n∈Nconverges to a hyperbolic isometry u0. So, to obtain the convergence u0n◦ φn◦ φ0,∞ above, it is sufficient to take u0n constant and equal to u0. This means that after replacing the φn by u0◦ φ
n, the sequence (φn)n∈N converges C∞(without normalization by the sequence (u0n)n∈N). This proves the first point.
The second point is less obvious than it might appear. We already know that on U , φn→ φ∞, where φ∞ is an isometry from (U, h) to H3 and is therefore conformal. However the conformality of the limit map is less clear on CP1\ U . This is because the Poincar´e model of H3 does not preserve convexity, so that the ρ(Ω) are not necessarily convex, and a sequence of conformal embeddings might well converge to a limit which is not conformal. This could conceivably happen at parts of ∂Ωn converging to infinity in H3.
To avoid this issue for regions converging to ∂∞H3, we note that for all x ∈ CP1\ U , (φn(x))n∈N has the same limit in ∂∞H3 as (Gn◦ φn(x))n∈N. Let x ∈ CP1 be contained in the interior of the complement of U , then Lemma 4.3 shows that the principal curvatures of φn at x converge to 1 as n → ∞. It follows that the pull-back by Gn◦ φn of the conformal metric at infinity is quasi-conformal to hn in the neighborhood of x, with quasiconformal constant going to 1 as n → ∞. So φ∞is conformal on U and on the interior of CP1\ U .
The third point follows from the construction, since φ∞(U ) = ∂Ω∞, where Ω∞ is the Hausdorff limit (on compact subsets of H3) of the Ω
Proof of Theorem 1.6. Let (U, h) be a boundary data, with U ⊂ CP1 a disjoint union of k0-quasidisks, and h a complete metric of curvature K ∈ [−1 + ǫ, −ǫ] on U . We define a sequence (hn)n∈N of approxi-mating metrics following Definition 3.9, and those metrics have curvature Kn∈ [−1 + ǫ, Kmax] by Lemma 3.10. (Note that the constant Kmax does not depend on the connected component of U since each is a k0-quasidisk, and the curvature estimates on hn are valid for all.)
The Alexandrov Theorem (Theorem 1.2) therefore realizes each of the hn as the induced metric on the boundary of a convex subset Ωn⊂ H3, as see in Section 3.4.
Lemma 5.3 then shows that, after normalizing by a sequence of isometries and extracting a subsequence, (Ωn)n∈Nconverges to a convex subset Ω∞realizing the boundary data (U, h).
References
[AB60] Lars Ahlfors and Lipman Bers. Riemann’s mapping theorem for variable metrics. Ann. of Math. (2), 72:385–404, 1960.
[Ahl38] Lars V. Ahlfors. An extension of Schwarz’s lemma. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 43(3):359–364, 1938.
[Ahl66] L. V. Ahlfors. Lectures on quasiconformal mappings. D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Toronto, Ont.-New York-London, 1966. Manuscript prepared with the assistance of Clifford J. Earle, Jr. Van Nostrand Mathematical Studies, No. 10.
[Ale05] Alexander D. Alexandrov. Convex polyhedra. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005. Translated from the 1950 Russian edition by N. S. Dairbekov, S. S. Kutateladze and A. B. Sossinsky, With comments and bibliography by V. A. Zalgaller and appendices by L. A. Shor and Yu. A. Volkov. [And71] E.M. Andreev. On convex polyhedra of finite volume in Lobacevskii space. Math. USSR Sbornik, 12 (3):225–259,
1971.
[BBI01] Dmitri Burago, Yuri Burago, and Sergei Ivanov. A course in metric geometry, volume 33 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.
[BDMS19] Francesco Bonsante, Jeffrey Danciger, Sara Maloni, and Jean-Marc Schlenker. The induced metric on the bound-ary of the convex hull of a quasicircle in hyperbolic and anti de sitter geometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04027, 2019. Geometry & Topology, to appear.
[Bes87] Arthur Besse. Einstein Manifolds. Springer, 1987.
[BO04] Francis Bonahon and Jean-Pierre Otal. Laminations mesur´ees de plissage des vari´et´es hyperboliques de dimension 3. Ann. Math., 160:1013–1055, 2004.
[Cau13] Augustin Louis Cauchy. Sur les polygones et poly`edres, second m´emoire. Journal de l’Ecole Polytechnique, 19:87–98, 1813.
[EM86] D. B. A. Epstein and A. Marden. Convex hulls in hyperbolic spaces, a theorem of Sullivan, and measured pleated surfaces. In D. B. A. Epstein, editor, Analytical and geometric aspects of hyperbolic space, volume 111 of L.M.S. Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, 1986.
[HR93] Craig D. Hodgson and Igor Rivin. A characterization of compact convex polyhedra in hyperbolic 3-space. Invent. Math., 111:77–111, 1993.
[KP94] Ravi S. Kulkarni and Ulrich Pinkall. A canonical metric for M¨obius structures and its applications. Math. Z., 216(1):89–129, 1994.
[Lab89] Fran¸cois Labourie. Immersions isom´etriques elliptiques et courbes pseudo-holomorphes. J. Differential Geom., 30:395–424, 1989.
[Lab92] Fran¸cois Labourie. M´etriques prescrites sur le bord des vari´et´es hyperboliques de dimension 3. J. Differential Geom., 35:609–626, 1992.
[LegII] Adrien-Marie Legendre. El´ements de g´eom´etrie. Paris, 1793 (an II). Premi`ere ´edition, note XII, pp.321-334. [Lew35] Hans Lewy. A priori limitations for solutions of monge-ampere equations. Transactions of the American
Math-ematical Society, 37(3):417–434, 1935.
[Mat03] Miodrag Mateljevi´c. Ahlfors-schwarz lemma and curvature. Kragujevac Journal of Mathematics, 25(25):155–164, 2003.
[NQS79] Sam B. Nadler, Jr., J. Quinn, and Nick M. Stavrakas. Hyperspaces of compact convex sets. Pacific J. Math., 83(2):441–462, 1979.
[Riv92] Igor Rivin. Intrinsic geometry of convex ideal polyhedra in hyperbolic 3-space. In M. Gyllenberg and L. E. Persson, editors, Analysis, Algebra, and Computers in Mathematical Research, pages 275–292. Marcel Dekker, 1992. (Proc. of the 21st Nordic Congress of Mathematicians).
[Riv96] Igor Rivin. A characterization of ideal polyhedra in hyperbolic 3-space. Annals of Math., 143:51–70, 1996. [Sch96] Jean-Marc Schlenker. Surfaces convexes dans des espaces lorentziens `a courbure constante. Comm. Anal. Geom.,
4(1-2):285–331, 1996.
[Sch98a] Jean-Marc Schlenker. M´etriques sur les poly`edres hyperboliques convexes. J. Differential Geom., 48(2):323–405, 1998.
[Sch98b] Jean-Marc Schlenker. R´ealisations de surfaces hyperboliques compl`etes dans H3
. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 48(3):837–860, 1998.
[Sch06] Jean-Marc Schlenker. Hyperbolic manifolds with convex boundary. Invent. Math., 163(1):109–169, 2006. [Sch20] Jean-Marc Schlenker. On the weyl problem for complete surfaces in the hyperbolic and anti-de sitter spaces,
2020.
[VV71] Ju. A. Volkov and S. M. Vladimirova. Isometric immersions of the Euclidean plane in Lobaˇcevski˘ı space. Mat. Zametki, 10:327–332, 1971.
Jean-Marc Schlenker: University of Luxembourg, FSTM, Department of Mathematics, Maison du nombre, 6 avenue de la Fonte, L-4364 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
