This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

ABELIAN SUBGROUPS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL GROUP OF A SPACE WITH NO CONJUGATE POINTS

JAMES DIBBLE Department of Mathematics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 james-dibble@uiowa.edu
Abstract.

Each Abelian subgroup of the fundamental group of a compact and locally simply connected dd-dimensional length space with no conjugate points is isomorphic to k\mathbb{Z}^{k} for some 0kd0\leq k\leq d. It follows from this and previously known results that each solvable subgroup of the fundamental group is a Bieberbach group. In the Riemannian setting, this may be proved using a novel property of the asymptotic norm of each Abelian subgroup.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 20F65 and 53C20; Secondary 53C22
I’m grateful to Vitali Kapovitch, Michael Kapovich, and Christopher Croke for helpful discussions. This topic arose during a conversation with Vitali Kapovitch, who showed using Corollary 4.3 of [4] that, for a sufficiently regular Riemannian manifold, the center of its fundamental group must be finitely generated. The proof of Theorem 1 in the second section contains a simplification of my original argument due to an anonymous referee, whose improvement works without any regularity assumptions.

1. Introduction

A locally simply connected length space XX with universal cover π:X^X\pi:\hat{X}\to X has no conjugate points if any two points in X^\hat{X} can be joined by a unique geodesic. Let XX be a compact and locally simply connected length space with no conjugate points and finite Hausdorff dimension dd. In the Riemannian case, it has been believed for some time that Abelian subgroups of π1(X)\pi_{1}(X) must be finitely generated; for example, this is stated in [2], although the argument there contains a gap. It will be shown here that each Abelian subgroup is isomorphic to k\mathbb{Z}^{k} for some 0kd0\leq k\leq d.

Theorem 1.

Each Abelian subgroup of π1(X)\pi_{1}(X) is isomorphic to k\mathbb{Z}^{k} for some 0kd0\leq k\leq d.

For nonpositively curved manifolds, this is a consequence of the flat torus theorem of Gromoll–Wolf [3] and Lawson–Yau [6], which was generalized to manifolds with no focal points by O’Sullivan [10].

It was proved by Yau [11] in the case of nonpositive curvature, and O’Sullivan [10] for no focal points, that every solvable subgroup of the fundamental group is a Bieberbach group. Croke–Schroeder [2] mapped out a way to generalize this to spaces with no conjugate points: If a torsion-free solvable group has the property that its Abelian subgroups are all finitely generated and straight, then it must be a Bieberbach group. Lebedeva [7] showed that finitely generated Abelian subgroups of the fundamental group of a compact and locally simply connected length space with no conjugate points must be straight. Combining this with Theorem 1 completes the argument set out by Croke–Schroeder.

Theorem 2.

Each solvable subgroup of π1(X)\pi_{1}(X) is a Bieberbach group.

This continues the theme, developed in [2], [7], [4], and unpublished work of Kleiner that, at the level of fundamental group, spaces with no conjugate points resemble those with nonpositive curvature.

Since the exponential map at each point of its universal cover is a diffeomorphism, a Riemannian manifold with no conjugate points must be aspherical. It’s worth pointing out that this condition isn’t enough to guarantee the conclusion of Theorem 1, as Mess [9, 8] showed that for each n4n\geq 4 there exists a compact manifold with universal cover n\mathbb{R}^{n} whose fundamental group contains a divisible Abelian subgroup, which cannot be finitely generated.

The second section contains a short proof of Theorem 1. The third section gives a different proof in the Riemannian setting, based on a property of Riemannian norms satisfied by the asymptotic norm of each Abelian subgroup of the fundamental group.

2. Proof of Theorem 1

Fix p^X^\hat{p}\in\hat{X} and a basepoint p=π(p^)p=\pi(\hat{p}) for π1(X)\pi_{1}(X). Overloading notation, each γπ1(X)\gamma\in\pi_{1}(X) will be identified with the corresponding deck transformation of X^\hat{X}. Let Γ\Gamma be an Abelian subgroup of π1(X)\pi_{1}(X), in which the group operation is written additively, and suppose σ1,,σkΓ\sigma_{1},\ldots,\sigma_{k}\in\Gamma are linearly independent. Denote by GG the subgroup generated by the σi\sigma_{i}. The following are proved in [7]: On π1(X)\pi_{1}(X), the function

|γ|=limmd^(mγ(p^),p^)m|\gamma|_{\infty}=\lim_{m\to\infty}\frac{\hat{d}(m\gamma(\hat{p}),\hat{p})}{m}

is positively homogeneous over \mathbb{Z}. It is bounded below on π1(X){e}\pi_{1}(X)\setminus\{e\} by sys(X)\mathrm{sys}(X), the length of the shortest nontrivial geodesic loop in XX, so π1(X)\pi_{1}(X) is torsion free. Its restriction to Γ\Gamma satisfies the triangle inequality, and, with respect to the isomorphism GkG\cong\mathbb{Z}^{k} that takes each σi\sigma_{i} to the ii-th standard basis vector, |||\cdot|_{\infty} extends to a norm \|\cdot\|_{\infty} on k\mathbb{R}^{k}.

Denote by \|\cdot\| the Euclidean norm on k\mathbb{R}^{k}. From the identifications G(p^)GkG(\hat{p})\cong G\cong\mathbb{Z}^{k}, G(p^)G(\hat{p}) inherits the coordinate functions ρ1,,ρk\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{k} on k\mathbb{Z}^{k}. Since \|\cdot\|_{\infty} is a norm on k\mathbb{R}^{k}, there exists C>0C>0 such that

1CuuCu\frac{1}{C}\|u\|_{\infty}\leq\|u\|\leq C\|u\|_{\infty}

for all uku\in\mathbb{R}^{k}. The number CC is a Lipschitz constant for the ρi\rho_{i} on G(p^)G(\hat{p}), and, as in the proof of Kirszbraun’s theorem [5], the functions

fi(x^)=minγG[ρi(γ(p^))+Cd^(x^,γ(p^))]f_{i}(\hat{x})=\min_{\gamma\in G}[\rho_{i}(\gamma(\hat{p}))+C\hat{d}(\hat{x},\gamma(\hat{p}))]

are Lipschitz extensions of the ρi\rho_{i} to N^\hat{N}. Each fif_{i} is (G,)(G,\mathbb{Z})-equivariant, in the sense that fi(γ(x^))fi(x^)f_{i}(\gamma(\hat{x}))-f_{i}(\hat{x})\in\mathbb{Z} for all x^N^\hat{x}\in\hat{N} and all γG\gamma\in G.

The map f=(f1,,fk):N^kf=(f_{1},\ldots,f_{k}):\hat{N}\to\mathbb{R}^{k} is Lipschitz, and f(γ(x^))f(x^)kf(\gamma(\hat{x}))-f(\hat{x})\in\mathbb{Z}^{k} for all x^N^\hat{x}\in\hat{N} and all γG\gamma\in G. By construction, f(G(p^))=kf(G(\hat{p}))=\mathbb{Z}^{k}. Since GG is Abelian, there exists a map ϕ:𝕋kX\phi:\mathbb{T}^{k}\to X such that ϕ(π1(𝕋k))G\phi_{*}(\pi_{1}(\mathbb{T}^{k}))\cong G. Lift ϕ\phi to a map ϕ^:kN^\hat{\phi}:\mathbb{R}^{k}\to\hat{N}. The composition fϕ^:kkf\circ\hat{\phi}:\mathbb{R}^{k}\to\mathbb{R}^{k} descends to a map 𝕋k𝕋k\mathbb{T}^{k}\to\mathbb{T}^{k} with surjective induced homomorphism, so by degree theory it must be surjective. Thus ff is surjective. Since a Lipschitz map cannot increase Hausdorff dimension, kdk\leq d.

It follows that Γ\Gamma has rank at most dd. If it has rank zero, then the result is trivial. Without loss of generality, suppose it has rank k>0k>0. For any γΓ\gamma\in\Gamma, there exist n,a1,,akn,a_{1},\ldots,a_{k}\in\mathbb{Z} such that nγ=i=1kaiσin\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^{k}a_{i}\sigma_{i}. It is well known that the function F:ΓkF:\Gamma\to\mathbb{Q}^{k} defined by F(e)=(0,,0)F(e)=(0,\ldots,0) and

F(γ)=(a1/n,,ak/n)F(\gamma)=(a_{1}/n,\ldots,a_{k}/n)

for γe\gamma\neq e is a well-defined and injective homomorphism, so FF is an isomorphism onto its image Γ0\Gamma_{0}. This map satisfies

F(γ)\displaystyle\|F(\gamma)\|_{\infty} =(a1/n,,ak/n)=1|n|(a1,,ak)\displaystyle=\|(a_{1}/n,\ldots,a_{k}/n)\|_{\infty}=\frac{1}{|n|}\big{\|}(a_{1},\ldots,a_{k})\big{\|}_{\infty}
=1|n||i=1kaiσi|=1|n||nγ|=|γ|\displaystyle=\frac{1}{|n|}\big{|}\sum_{i=1}^{k}a_{i}\sigma_{i}\big{|}_{\infty}=\frac{1}{|n|}|n\gamma|_{\infty}=|\gamma|_{\infty}

for any γe\gamma\neq e. For any distinct q0,q1Γ0q_{0},q_{1}\in\Gamma_{0}, there exist distinct γ0,γ1Γ\gamma_{0},\gamma_{1}\in\Gamma such that F(γi)=qiF(\gamma_{i})=q_{i} for each ii. For c=1/Cc=1/C, one has that

q0q1\displaystyle\|q_{0}-q_{1}\| cq0q1=cF(γ0)F(γ1)=cF(γ0γ1)\displaystyle\geq c\|q_{0}-q_{1}\|_{\infty}=c\|F(\gamma_{0})-F(\gamma_{1})\|_{\infty}=c\|F(\gamma_{0}-\gamma_{1})\|_{\infty}
=c|γ0γ1|csys(X)>0.\displaystyle=c|\gamma_{0}-\gamma_{1}|_{\infty}\geq c\cdot\mathrm{sys}(X)>0\textrm{.}

Thus Γ0\Gamma_{0} is a discrete subgroup of k\mathbb{R}^{k}, and, consequently, Γk\Gamma\cong\mathbb{Z}^{k}.

3. Busemann functions in the Riemannian setting

For simplicity, it will be assumed in this section that XX is a smooth dd-dimensional Riemannian manifold, although what follows holds when XX is CrC^{r} for some rr depending on dd. As before, let GG be an Abelian subgroup of π1(X)\pi_{1}(X) generated by linearly independent γ1,,γk\gamma_{1},\ldots,\gamma_{k}. The key step in the proof of Theorem 1 is the construction of a (G,k)(G,\mathbb{Z}^{k})-equivariant map f:X^kf:\hat{X}\to\mathbb{R}^{k} such that f(G(p^))=kf(G(\hat{p}))=\mathbb{Z}^{k}. When XX is Riemannian, another such map may be constructed using a nondegenerate collection of Busemann functions.

An important theorem of Ivanov–Kapovitch [4] states that, whenever α1,α2π1(X)\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}\in\pi_{1}(X) commute, the change in the Busemann functions of axes of α2\alpha_{2} under the action of α1\alpha_{1} is constant on X^\hat{X}. This was previously proved by Croke–Schroeder [2] for analytic XX. Thus one may define a function B:G×GB:G\times G\to\mathbb{R} by setting B(α1,α2)B(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}) equal to that change.

Because B(α,α)=|α|2B(\alpha,\alpha)=|\alpha|_{\infty}^{2} for all αG\alpha\in G, one might hope to show that BB extends to an inner product and, consequently, that \|\cdot\|_{\infty} is Riemannian. In fact, BB satisfies a number of the properties of an inner product: It is linear over \mathbb{Z} in the first slot (see Corollary 4.2 of [4]), B(α1,nα2)=nB(α1,α2)B(\alpha_{1},n\alpha_{2})=nB(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}) for all nn\in\mathbb{Z}, and it satisfies a version of the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality,

(1) |B(α1,α2)||α1||α2|,|B(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2})|\leq|\alpha_{1}|_{\infty}|\alpha_{2}|_{\infty}\textrm{,}

with equality if and only if α1\alpha_{1} and α2\alpha_{2} are rationally related. It follows that BB extends to an inner product if and only if it is symmetric, but it’s far from clear that symmetry holds in general (cf. [1]). Regardless, BB also resembles an inner product in the following way.

Lemma 3.

For each 1mk1\leq m\leq k, there exist α1,,αmspan{γ1,,γm}\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{m}\in\mathrm{span}\,\{\gamma_{1},\ldots,\gamma_{m}\} such that the m×mm\times m matrix [B(αi,αj)][B(\alpha_{i},\alpha_{j})] is nonsingular.

If α1,,αk\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{k} are as in Lemma 3 and b1,,bkb_{1},\ldots,b_{k} are Busemann functions of respective axes, then up to composition with an affine isomorphism the map F=(b1,,bk):X^kF=(b_{1},\ldots,b_{k}):\hat{X}\to\mathbb{R}^{k} is (G,k)(G,\mathbb{Z}^{k})-equivariant and satisfies F(G(p^))=kF(G(\hat{p}))=\mathbb{Z}^{k}. The Riemannian version of Theorem 1 follows.

The proof of Lemma 3 is by induction. When m=1m=1, the conclusion holds with α1=γ1\alpha_{1}=\gamma_{1}. Suppose the conclusion holds for some 1m<k1\leq m<k. If the conclusion fails when αm+1=γm+1\alpha_{m+1}=\gamma_{m+1}, then there exists a nonzero c=(c1,,cm+1)c=(c_{1},\ldots,c_{m+1}) in the null space of the (m+1)×(m+1)(m+1)\times(m+1) matrix [B(αj,αi)][B(\alpha_{j},\alpha_{i})]. The following lemma then completes the inductive step.

Lemma 4.

There exists a solid cone CC centered around the ray {rc|r0}\{rc\,\big{|}\,r\geq 0\} such that, if x=(x1,,xm+1)Cm+1x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{m+1})\in C\cap\mathbb{Z}^{m+1}, α~i=αi\tilde{\alpha}_{i}=\alpha_{i} for 1im1\leq i\leq m, and α~m+1=i=1m+1xiαi\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}=\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}x_{i}\alpha_{i}, then the (m+1)×(m+1)(m+1)\times(m+1) matrix [B(α~i,α~j)][B(\tilde{\alpha}_{i},\tilde{\alpha}_{j})] is nonsingular.

The proof of Lemma 4 uses the following elementary fact.

Lemma 5.

Let A,C>0A,C>0. Suppose MM_{\ell} is a sequence of (p+1)×q(p+1)\times q matrices of the form

[Mb]\left[\begin{array}[]{c}M\\ b_{\ell}\end{array}\right]

for a fixed p×qp\times q matrix MM and a sequence bqb_{\ell}\in\mathbb{R}^{q} such that b0\|b_{\ell}\|\to 0. Suppose also that ww_{\ell} is a sequence of vectors in p+1\mathbb{R}^{p+1} of the form

[aC]\left[\begin{array}[]{c}a_{\ell}\\ C_{\ell}\end{array}\right]

for apa_{\ell}\in\mathbb{R}^{p} satisfying aA\|a_{\ell}\|\leq A and |C|C|C_{\ell}|\geq C. If vqv_{\ell}\in\mathbb{R}^{q} satisfy Mv=wM_{\ell}v_{\ell}=w_{\ell}, then M(v/v)0\|M(v_{\ell}/\|v_{\ell}\|)\|\to 0. Consequently, MM has nontrivial null space.

Proof of Lemma 4.

Without loss of generality, one may suppose that max|ci|=1\max|c_{i}|=1. Assume for the sake of contradiction that the result is false. Then, for each ii and any fixed sequence ε0\varepsilon_{\ell}\searrow 0, there exists a sequence of rational numbers pi/qip_{i}^{\ell}/q_{i}^{\ell} such that |cipi/qi|<ε|c_{i}-p_{i}^{\ell}/q_{i}^{\ell}|<\varepsilon_{\ell} and, when α~i=αi\tilde{\alpha}_{i}^{\ell}=\alpha_{i} for 1im1\leq i\leq m and α~m+1=i=1m+1(jiqj)piαi\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell}=\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}(\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell})p_{i}^{\ell}\alpha_{i}, each (m+1)×(m+1)(m+1)\times(m+1) matrix M=[B(α~i,α~j)]M_{\ell}=[B(\tilde{\alpha}_{i}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{j}^{\ell})] is singular.

Let W=[B(αj,αi)]W=[B(\alpha_{j},\alpha_{i})] for 1i,jm+11\leq i,j\leq m+1, and write

(2) w\displaystyle w_{\ell} =W((j1qj)p1,,(jm+1qj)pm+1)\displaystyle=W\big{(}(\prod_{j\neq 1}q_{j}^{\ell})p_{1}^{\ell},\ldots,(\prod_{j\neq m+1}q_{j}^{\ell})p_{m+1}^{\ell}\big{)}
=(i=1m+1(jiqj)piB(αi,α1),,i=1m+1(jiqj)piB(αi,αm+1))\displaystyle=\big{(}\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}(\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell})p_{i}^{\ell}B(\alpha_{i},\alpha_{1}),\ldots,\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}(\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell})p_{i}^{\ell}B(\alpha_{i},\alpha_{m+1})\big{)}
=(B(α~m+1,α~1),,B(α~m+1,α~m),B(α~m+1,αm+1)).\displaystyle=(B(\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{1}^{\ell}),\ldots,B(\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{m}^{\ell}),B(\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell},\alpha_{m+1}))\textrm{.}

Let K=max1i,jm+1|B(αi,αj)|K=\displaystyle\max_{1\leq i,j\leq m+1}|B(\alpha_{i},\alpha_{j})|. Then

(3) w\displaystyle\|w_{\ell}\| =(jqj)W(p1/q1,,pm+1/qm+1)\displaystyle=\|(\prod_{j}q_{j}^{\ell})W(p_{1}^{\ell}/q_{1}^{\ell},\ldots,p_{m+1}^{\ell}/q_{m+1}^{\ell})\|
|jqj|Kεm+1.\displaystyle\leq|\prod_{j}q_{j}^{\ell}|K\varepsilon_{\ell}\sqrt{m+1}\textrm{.}

The inductive hypothesis and the linearity of BB in the first slot imply that α1,,αm+1\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{m+1} are linearly independent. The word norm of α~m+1\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell} with respect to the subgroup of HH generated by α1,,αm+1\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{m+1} is

|α~m+1|word=i=1m+1|jiqj||pi|.|\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell}|_{\mathrm{word}}=\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}|\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell}||p_{i}^{\ell}|\textrm{.}

Because the corresponding norms on m+1\mathbb{R}^{m+1} are equivalent, there exists D>0D>0, depending only on α1,,αm+1\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{m+1}, such that

1Di=1m+1|jiqj||pi||α~m+1|Di=1m+1|jiqj||pi|.\frac{1}{D}\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}|\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell}||p_{i}^{\ell}|\leq|\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell}|_{\infty}\leq D\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}|\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell}||p_{i}^{\ell}|\textrm{.}

By the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality (1), for each 1im1\leq i\leq m,

(4) |B(α~i,α~m+1)||α~i||α~m+1|DKi=1m+1|jiqj||pi|.|B(\tilde{\alpha}_{i}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell})|\leq|\tilde{\alpha}_{i}^{\ell}|_{\infty}|\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell}|_{\infty}\leq D\sqrt{K}\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}|\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell}||p_{i}^{\ell}|\textrm{.}

Similarly,

(5) B(α~m+1,α~m+1)=|α~m+1|2(1/D2)[i=1m+1|jiqj||pi|]2.B(\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell})=|\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell}|_{\infty}^{2}\geq(1/D^{2})[\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}|\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell}||p_{i}^{\ell}|]^{2}\textrm{.}

Let a=(B(α~1,α~m+1),,B(α~m,α~m+1))a_{\ell}=(B(\tilde{\alpha}_{1}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell}),\ldots,B(\tilde{\alpha}_{m}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell})), b=(B(α~m+1,α~1),,B(α~m+1,α~m))b_{\ell}=(B(\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{1}^{\ell}),\ldots,B(\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{m}^{\ell})), c=B(α~m+1,α~m+1)c_{\ell}=B(\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell},\tilde{\alpha}_{m+1}^{\ell}), and M=[B(αi,αj)]M=[B(\alpha_{i},\alpha_{j})] for 1i,jm1\leq i,j\leq m. Write

a~=a/[i=1m+1|jiqj||pi|],\tilde{a}_{\ell}=a_{\ell}/[\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}|\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell}||p_{i}^{\ell}|]\textrm{,}
b~=b/|jqj|,\tilde{b}_{\ell}=b_{\ell}/|\prod_{j}q_{j}^{\ell}|\textrm{,}

and

c~=c/[|jqj|i=1m+1|jiqj||pi|].\tilde{c}_{\ell}=c_{\ell}/[|\prod_{j}q_{j}^{\ell}|\sum_{i=1}^{m+1}|\prod_{j\neq i}q_{j}^{\ell}||p_{i}^{\ell}|]\textrm{.}

By (2) and (3), b~w/|jqj|Kεm+1\|\tilde{b}_{\ell}\|\leq\|w_{\ell}\|/|\prod_{j}q_{j}^{\ell}|\leq K\varepsilon_{\ell}\sqrt{m+1}; by (4), a~DmK\|\tilde{a}_{\ell}\|\leq D\sqrt{mK}; and, by (5), c~1/(2D2)\tilde{c}_{\ell}\geq 1/(2D^{2}) for all sufficiently large \ell. Since MM is nonsingular, it follows from Lemma 5 that the matrices

[Ma~b~c~]\left[\begin{array}[]{cc}M&\tilde{a}_{\ell}\\ \tilde{b}_{\ell}&\tilde{c}_{\ell}\end{array}\right]

are nonsingular for all such \ell. The corresponding MM_{\ell} must also be nonsingular, which is a contradiction. ∎

When m=2m=2 in Lemma 3, inequality (1) implies that one may take α1=γ1\alpha_{1}=\gamma_{1} and α2=γ2\alpha_{2}=\gamma_{2}. When XX has no focal points, one may, by the flat torus theorem, take αi=γi\alpha_{i}=\gamma_{i} for all ii. However, in the general case for m3m\geq 3, there is no apparent local structure that forces the Busemann functions of the axes of the γi\gamma_{i} to have linearly independent gradients, and it is not clear that the conclusion of Lemma 3 holds with αi=γi\alpha_{i}=\gamma_{i} for all ii.

Question 6.

Must the k×kk\times k matrix [B(γi,γj)][B(\gamma_{i},\gamma_{j})] be nonsingular?

References

  • [1] Dmitri Burago and Sergei Ivanov, Riemannian tori without conjugate points are flat, Geom. Funct. Anal. 4 (1994), 259–269.
  • [2] Christopher B. Croke and Viktor Schroeder, The fundamental group of compact manifolds without conjugate points, Comment. Math. Helv. 61 (1986), 161–175.
  • [3] Detlef Gromoll and Joseph A. Wolf, Some relations between the metric structure and the algebraic structure of the fundamental group in manifolds of nonpositive curvature, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 77 (1971), 545–552.
  • [4] Sergei Ivanov and Vitali Kapovitch, Manifolds without conjugate points and their fundamental groups, J. Differential Geom. 96 (2014), 223–240.
  • [5] Mojżesz D. Kirszbraun, Über die zusammenziehende und Lipschitzsche Transformationen, Fund. Math. 22 (1934), 77–108 (German).
  • [6] Blaine H. Lawson and Shing Tung Yau, Compact manifolds of nonpositive curvature, J. Differential Geom. 7 (1972), 211–228.
  • [7] Nina Lebedeva, On the fundamental group of a compact space without conjugate points, PDMI preprint, www.pdmi.ras.ru/preprint/2002/02-05.html (2002).
  • [8] Wolfgang Lück, Aspherical manifolds, Bulletin of the Manifold Atlas (2012), 1–17.
  • [9] Geoffrey Mess, Examples of Poincaré duality groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 110 (1990), 1145–1146.
  • [10] J.J. O’Sullivan, Riemannian manifolds without focal points, J. Differential Geometry 11 (1976), 321–333.
  • [11] Shing Tung Yau, On the fundamental group of compact manifolds of non-positive curvature, Ann. of Math. 93 (1971), 579–585.