Deformation of hyperbolic manifolds in PGL(n,C)\mathrm {PGL}(n,\mathbf {C}) and discreteness of the peripheral representations

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Abstract

Let M M be a cusped hyperbolic 3 3-manifold, e.g. a knot complement. Thurston showed that the space of deformations of its fundamental group in PGL(2,C) \mathrm {PGL}(2,\mathbf {C}) (up to conjugation) is of complex dimension the number ν ν of cusps near the hyperbolic representation. It seems natural to ask whether some representations remain discrete after deformation. The answer is generically not. A simple reason for it lies inside the cusps: the degeneracy of the peripheral representation (i.e. representations of fundamental groups of the ν ν peripheral tori). They indeed generically become non-discrete, except for a countable set. This last set corresponds to hyperbolic Dehn surgeries on M M, for which the peripheral representation is no more faithful.We work here in the framework of PGL(n,C) \mathrm {PGL}(n,\mathbf {C}). The hyperbolic structure lifts, via the n n-dimensional irreducible representation, to a representation ρ_geom ρ\_{\mathrm {geom}}. We know from the work of Menal-Ferrer and Porti that the space of deformations of ρ_geom ρ\_{\textrm {geom}} has complex dimension (n−1)ν (n-1)ν.We prove here that, unlike the PGL(2) \mathrm {PGL}(2)-case, the generic behaviour becomes the discreteness (and faithfulness) of the peripheral representation: in a neighbourhood of the geometric representation, the non-discrete peripheral representations are contained in a real analytic subvariety of codimension ≥1 \geq 1.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.