Talk:Mostow rigidity theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Mostow rigidity theorem:
  • proper citations! see Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations - here's a copy/paste template. Many fields are optional. Boud (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • <ref name="bourbaki_existence_proof">{{cite journal | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | journal = | volume = | issue = | pages = | publisher = | location = | date = | url = | issn = | doi = | id = | accessdate = | archiveurl= | archivedate= }}</ref>

"Closed"?[edit]

"The theorem was proven for the closed case..." Shouldn't that read "compact" rather than "closed", or are the two equivalent in this case? Boud (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that these are equivalent. A finite-volume, non-compact hyperbolic 3-manifold presumably contains at least one geodesic of infinite length, i.e. a non-closed geodesic in the sense of "closed" = closed loop (not "closed set"). Boud (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't "closed" means compact and without boundary?
 —Preceding undated comment added 09:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC). 

Marden?[edit]

The article says:

The theorem was proven for the closed case by George Mostow in 1968 and extended to the finite volume case by G. Prasad (and independently Marden)

But nothing written by anyone named Marden is cited!

Albert Marden? Morris Marden? Someone else? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


Albert Marden, he of the tameness conjecture. If you type in Marden and Mostow Rigidity into Google Scholar you'll see this kind of reference. According to one of them that I scanned, it seems the cite should be to Marden's 1974 Annals paper, but I didn't look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.160.10 (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Inn(π1(M))={e}?[edit]

The article says:

An important corollary is that a finite volume hyperbolic n-manifold M for n > 2 has no nontrivial inner automorphisms of π1(M). One can conclude that the group of isometries of M is finite and isomorphic to Out(π1(M)).

I think this is obviously wrong since the inner automorphism group of a group is trivial if and only if the group is abelian. But the fundamental group of a finite-volume hyperbolic manifold is never abelian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlreadyDone (talkcontribs) 09:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)