Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2020 Apr 28;210(1):27–42. doi: 10.1007/s10711-020-00532-8

On the quasi-isometric and bi-Lipschitz classification of 3D Riemannian Lie groups

Katrin Fässler 1,2,, Enrico Le Donne 2
PMCID: PMC7810620  PMID: 33505086

Abstract

This note is concerned with the geometric classification of connected Lie groups of dimension three or less, endowed with left-invariant Riemannian metrics. On the one hand, assembling results from the literature, we give a review of the complete classification of such groups up to quasi-isometries and we compare the quasi-isometric classification with the bi-Lipschitz classification. On the other hand, we study the problem whether two quasi-isometrically equivalent Lie groups may be made isometric if equipped with suitable left-invariant Riemannian metrics. We show that this is the case for three-dimensional simply connected groups, but it is not true in general for multiply connected groups. The counterexample also demonstrates that ‘may be made isometric’ is not a transitive relation.

Keywords: Lie groups, Quasi-isometric, Bi-Lipschitz, Isometric, Riemannian manifold, Classification

Introduction

List of groups of dimension at most three

Following the Bianchi classification (see e.g. Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 in [12, Chapter 7]), we start by listing the connected real Lie groups of dimension at most three:

  • Lie groups of dimension one R, T1.

  • Lie groups of dimension two R2, R×T1, T2, Aff+(R).

  • Lie groups of dimension three R3, R2×T1, R×T2, T3, N3(R), N3(R), SU(2), SO(3), SL~(2), {PSL(2)k:kN}, SE~(2), {SE(2)k:kN}, J, {Dλ:0<|λ|1}, {Cλ:λ>0}, Aff+(R)×R, Aff+(R)×T1.

Many of these groups are well known: the k-dimensional Euclidean group Rk, the k-dimensional torus Tk=(R/Z)k and direct products of these groups. Nilpotent but non-Abelian groups are the Heisenberg group N3(R) and its quotient N3(R) modulo the group of integer points in the center, when N3(R) is seen as upper triangular matrix group. Among the solvable but not nilpotent groups there are Aff+(R) (the group of orientation-preserving affine maps of the real line) and products thereof with R and T1, as well as SE~(2) [the universal cover of the group SE(2) of orientation preserving isometries of the Euclidean plane] and SE(2)k [the k-fold cover of SE(2)]. Well-known simple groups are SU(2) (the special unitary group), SO(3) (the special orthogonal group), SL~(2) (the universal cover of the special linear group), and PSL(2)k [the k-fold cover of the projective special linear group PSL(2)].

Apart from SL~(2) and SU(2), all the simply connected groups listed in the previous paragraph are isomorphic to semidirect products R2AR, where R acts on R2 by a matrix AMat(2×2,R) such that the Lie group product is given by the following expression:

(x,y,z)A(x,y,z):=xy+ezAxy,z+z. 1.1

One can find a basis {E1,E2,E3} for the Lie algebra of R2AR whose structure constants are given by

A=c131c231c132c232, 1.2

and cijk=0 for all other cases where ij and k{1,2,3}, see for instance [26, §2.2]. The connected 3-dimensional Lie groups which we have not yet introduced are all solvable and also of the form R2AR. For A=1101 [respectively 100λ, respectively λ1-1λ], we obtain J (respectively Dλ, respectively Cλ).

Classification results

Standing assumption. All distances considered are left-invariant Riemannian distances.

A (not necessarily continuous) map Ψ:(X,d)(X,d) between metric spaces is a quasi-isometry if there exist constants 0C< and 1L< such that

  • (i)

    L-1d(x,y)-Cd(Ψ(x),Ψ(y))Ld(x,y)+C for all x,yX,

  • (ii)

    for all xX there is xX such that d(Ψ(x),x)C.

If (i) and (ii) hold with C=0, the map Ψ is said to be bi-Lipschitz, and if moreover L=1, then Ψ is an isometry. If X and X are manifolds and if the distances d and d are induced by Riemannian metrics g and g, respectively, then according to a well-known result by Myers and Steenrod [28], the map Ψ is an isometry exactly if it is a diffeomorphism such that Ψg=g, see also [32, Theorem 5.6.15]. Since any two left-invariant Riemannian distances on a Lie group are bi-Lipschitz equivalent, we can discuss the quasi-isometric and bi-Lipschitz classification of such groups without specifying a metric. On the other hand, the existence of isometries between two groups depends on the choice of metrics. As we are interested in the geometric classification of groups, rather than the classification of groups endowed with a specific metric, we study the following property.

Definition 1.1

We say that two connected Lie groups G and H may be made isometric if there exist left-invariant Riemannian distances dG and dH on G and H, respectively, such that (G,dG) and (H,dH) are isometric.

Definition 1.1 goes back to [5, §1.2], but differs slightly from the original definition, which was formulated for arbitrary topological groups and which required only the existence of left-invariant distances that induce the manifold topology. By [23, Proposition 2.4] isometries between connected Lie groups endowed with such distances are actually isometries for some left-invariant Riemannian distances, and hence Definition 1.1 agrees with the definition of [5] in the case of connected Lie groups.

It is easy to show that two Lie groups G and H may be made isometric if and only if there exists a Riemannian manifold M on which both G and H act simply transitively by isometries, see Proposition 2.1.

If X is a fixed model space with a standard distance dX, for instance Euclidean space or the hyperbolic plane, we will also say that “G may be made isometric to X” if there exists a left-invariant Riemannian distance dG on G such that (G,dG) and (X,dX) are isometric.

In Sect. 2, we discuss relations between connected Lie groups of dimension at most three in descending order of strength, that is, we list pairs consisting of groups that

  1. may be made isometric (Proposition 2.2)

  2. are bi-Lipschitz (Proposition 2.11)

  3. are quasi-isometrically homeomorphic (Proposition 2.14)

  4. are quasi-isometric (Proposition 2.15).

To conclude the quasi-isometric classification given in Theorem 1.2 below, we show that the pairs not appearing in the list (a)–(d) consist of groups that are not quasi-isometrically equivalent.

Classification problems for Lie groups have a long history that dates back to Bianchi’s [2] isomorphic classification of 3-dimensional Lie algebras. This note is concerned with the geometric classification of Lie groups that are additionally equipped with left-invariant Riemannian distances. Gromov [14] in his address to the ICM in 1983 promoted a program to study finitely generated groups with word metrics up to quasi-isometries. This classification problem is related to the quasi-isometric classification of Riemannian manifolds, as the fundamental group of a compact connected Riemannian manifold M is a finitely generated group quasi-isometrically equivalent to the universal Riemannian cover M~ according to the Švarc-Milnor lemma.

In the first part of this note, we recall the quasi-isometric classification of connected Lie groups up to dimension three. This is the work of several authors who have studied various aspects of the quasi-isometric classification, for instance for solvable groups of a specific form, or under curvature constraints. We list some of these results: Guivarc’h and Jenkins’ [17, 19] characterization of connected Lie groups with polynomial growth, Heintze’s [18] work on solvable Lie groups and homogeneous manifolds of negative curvature, Milnor’s [27] study of the curvature properties of left-invariant Riemannian metrics on Lie groups, the study of 3-dimensional model geometries and Dehn functions in the work of Epstein et al. [8] on automatic group, Pansu’s [30, 31] work on Lp cohomology, de Cornulier’s [6] computation of the covering dimension of asymptotic cones of connected Lie groups, the study of quasi-isometries of certain solvable Lie groups by Eskin et al. [9], and Xie’s [36] quasi-isometric classification of negatively curved solvable Lie groups of the form RnR. Depending on the case to be treated, different tools are used in the classification problem, such as volume growth, Dehn functions, curvature and asymptotic cones of Riemannian manifolds.

Theorem 1.2

(Various authors) All connected real Lie groups of dimension at most three are classified up to quasi-isometries according to the following table:

Class Representatives
(1) T1, T2, T3, SU(2), SO(3)
(2) R, R×T1, R×T2
(3) R2, R2×T1, N3(R), {SE(2)k:kN}
(4) R3, SE~(2)
(5) N3(R)
(6) SL~(2), Aff+(R)×R
(7λ) for λ[-1,0) Dλ
(8) Aff+(R), Aff+(R)×T1, {PSL(2)k:kN}
(9) J
(10) D1, {Cλ:λ>0}
(11λ) for λ(0,1) Dλ

We stress that the classes (7λ) are distinct for different values of λ, and the same holds for (11λ). In Sect. 3 we will explain how the above mentioned results by various authors can be combined to prove Theorem 1.2.

According to Theorem 1.2, two simply connected 3-dimensional Lie groups G and H (that are not isomorphic) are quasi-isometric to each other if and only if one of the following holds:

  1. G,H{R3,SE~(2)}

  2. G,H{SL~(2),Aff+(R)×R}

  3. G,H{D1}{Cλ:λ>0}.

In Proposition 2.2 we shall show that in all these cases, the two groups G and H may in fact be made isometric. By Proposition 2.1, this means that there exists a Riemannian manifold M on which both G and H act simply transitively by isometries. In fact, M may be taken equal to a Riemannian manifold that corresponds to one of the eight 3-dimensional model geometries by Thurston [35]:

  • the Euclidean geometry in (1),

  • the geometry of SL~(2) in (2),

  • the hyperbolic geometry in (3),

see the discussion in Sect. 2.1, and in particular Remark 2.8 for (2). Thus we obtain the following result.

Theorem 1.3

If two non-isomorphic simply connected 3-dimensional Lie groups are quasi-isometric, then they may be made isometric to one of the eight Thurston geometries.

In Proposition 2.11 we shall show that without the assumption “simply connected”, it is not true in general that two connected, quasi-isometric Lie groups may be made isometric. Moreover, since the groups PSL(2)k, for different values of kN, may all be made isometric to Aff+(R)×T1, but cannot be made isometric to each other, we have the following consequence.

Proposition 1.4

The relation “may be made isometric” is not transitive.

Relations between groups

Groups that may be made isometric

We begin the section with a basic observation about Lie groups that may be made isometric and carry on with a list of 3-dimensional Lie groups that may be made isometric.

Proposition 2.1

Two Lie groups G and H may be made isometric if and only if there exists a Riemannian manifold M on which both G and H act simply transitively by isometries.

Proof

Assume first that G and H possess Riemannian distances dG and dH, respectively, for which there exists an isometry Ψ:(G,dG)(H,dH). Take M=H equipped with the Riemannian metric g that induces dH. Clearly, H acts on M simply transitively by isometries, and the same is true for G with the action given by

G×MM,(g,m)ΨLgΨ-1(m),

where Lg denotes left translation by gG.

Conversely, assume that G and H act simply transitively on a manifold M with Riemannian distance d. Fix x0M and define

dG(g,g):=d(g.x0,g.x0),g,gG

and

dH(h,h):=d(h.x0,h.x0),h,hH.

Since by assumption the actions of G and H on M are free, the above definition yields distance functions on G and H. From the compatibility of group actions and the fact that G and H act by isometries, we easily deduce that dG and dH are left-invariant. For instance, for G, we find for

dG(g0g,g0g)=d(g0.(gx0),g0.(gx0))=d(g.x0,g.x0)=dG(g,g).

Since the given actions by G and H on M are also transitive, for every gG we find h(g)H such that g.x0=h(g).x0. This defines a map (G,dG)(H,dH), gh(g), which is easily seen to be an isometry.

Proposition 2.2

Each of the following pairs consists of groups that may be made isometric:

  1. (R3,SE~(2))

  2. (R2×T1,SE(2)k) for every kN

  3. (SE(2)k,SE(2)k) for all k,kN

  4. (SL~(2),Aff+(R)×R)

  5. (Aff+(R)×T1,PSL(2)k) for every kN

  6. (D1,Cλ) for every λ>0

  7. (Cλ,Cλ) for all λ,λ>0.

Proof

It is well known that R3 and SE~(2) may be made isometric, see for instance [27, Corollary 4.8], [26, Theorem 2.14, (1-b)], and [23, §4]; or read the discussion later in this section. The statement that SE(2)k may be made isometric to R2×T1 is Proposition 2.3. As a corollary, the groups SE(2)k and SE(2)k for arbitrary k,kN may be made isometric. Proposition 2.5 shows that SL~(2) and Aff+(R)×R may be made isometric. By Proposition 2.10, Aff+(R)×T1 may be made isometric to PSL(2)k for every value of kN.

The items (6) and (7) in Proposition 2.2 follow by curvature considerations. On the (simply connected) groups D1 and on Cλ, λ>0, one can find a left-invariant Riemannian distance with constant negative sectional curvature: for D1, this follows from Special Example 1.7 in Milnor’s article [27], for Cλ, λ>0, it is a consequence of [27, Theorem 4.11]; see also [26, Lemma 2.13 and Theorem 2.14, (1-a)] and [36, Introduction]. It is well known that every simply connected and complete Riemannian manifold with negative constant sectional curvature K is isometric to hyperbolic space in the respective dimension with sectional curvature K, hence all the groups D1 and Cλ, λ>0 may be made isometric to hyperbolic 3-space, and thus also to each other.

We now provide the details for the results that have been used in the proof of Proposition 2.2 and for which no other reference has been given. The groups to be considered are SE~(2), SL~(2), and quotients thereof. The simply connected Lie group SE~(2) is isomorphic to (R3,), where

(x,y,θ)(x,y,θ)=xy+cosθ-sinθsinθcosθxy,θ+θ=(x+xcosθ-ysinθ,y+xsinθ+ycosθ,θ+θ).

A direct computation shows that the Euclidean distance dE on R3 is left-invariant with respect to , and hence R3 and SE~(2) may be made isometric. It is easy to verify that the sets (Nk,), kN, given by

Nk={(0,0,2πkm):mZ},

are exactly the discrete normal subgroups of SE~(2). Every kN gives thus rise to a multiply connected Lie group

SE(2)k:=SE~(2)/Nk.

The center of SE(2)k contains exactly k elements, which shows that SE(2)k is not isomorphic to SE(2)l for kl. Moreover, SE(2)k is isomorphic to (R2×(R/2πkZ),k), where

(x,y,θ)k(x,y,θ)=(x+xcosθ-ysinθ,y+xsinθ+ycosθ,θ+θ).

Proposition 2.3

For every kN, the group SE(2)k may be made isometric to the standard round cylinder R2×R/Z.

Proof

We construct a left-invariant distance on SE(2)k, by setting

dSE(2)k((x,y,θ),(x,y,θ)):=(x,y)-(x,y)2+((2πk)-1dR/2πkZ(θ,θ))2 2.1

for (x,y,θ) and (x,y,θ) in R2×(R/2πkZ). Here

dR/2πkZ(θ,θ):=minmZ{|2πkm-(θ-θ)|},

Then the map Ψ:R2×R/ZR2×(R/2πkZ) given by

Ψ(x,y,θ)=(x,y,2πkθ)

provides an isometry between R2×R/Z and SE(2)k.

We now turn our attention to SL~(2) and its quotients. Since SL~(2) is a simple Lie group, [5, Corollary 3.11] is useful.

Theorem 2.4

(Cowling et al.) Let G be a connected semisimple Lie group and let G=ANK be its Iwasawa decomposition. Write K as V×K, where V is a vector group and K is compact. Then G may be made isometric to the direct product AN×V×K.

If K is compact, then G may be made isometric to AN×K. A condition which ensures the compactness of K for a given semisimple Lie group is that G has finite center, see [12, p.160 in Chapter 4]. A connected semisimple Lie group that is linear has finite center, see for instance [12, Chapter 1, §5].

The Iwasawa decomposition of SL~(2) is ANK, where A and N are the following matrix groups

A=et00e-t:tR,N=1x01:xR,

and K is isomorphic to R. More precisely, the Iwasawa decomposition is given by the diffeomorphism

ϕ:R3SL~(2)

so that ϕ(0,0,0)=I and

(πϕ)(t,x,θ)=et00e-t1x01cosθsinθ-sinθcosθ,

where π:SL~(2)SL(2) is the universal covering projection. Note that AN is isomorphic to the orientation-preserving affine maps of the real line, that is, to Aff+(R).

Theorem 2.4 applied to the Iwasawa decomposition of SL~(2) yields the following statement.

Proposition 2.5

The groups SL~(2) and Aff+(R)×R may be made isometric.

Remark 2.6

The group Aff+(R) admits a left-invariant metric of constant negative sectional curvature (see for instance [27, Special Example 1.7]) and hence, by the same reasoning as in the proof of Proposition 2.2, it may be made isometric to the hyperbolic plane H2. The quasi-isometric, or even bi-Lipschitz, equivalence of H2×R and SL~(2) was proved earlier by Rieffel [33] in her Ph.D. thesis. The idea of the construction is explained in [22, §2]. To set the stage, we follow [34, p. 462] and observe that the standard Riemannian metric on H2 induces a natural Riemannian metric on TH2 in such a way that for every isometry f:H2H2, the differential df:TH2TH2 is an isometry as well. Since the unit tangent bundle UTH2 is a submanifold of TH2, it inherits a Riemannian metric from TH2, and as UT(H2) may be identified with PSL(2), this metric lifts to SL(2)~. One can show that the thus obtained Riemannian metric on SL(2)~ is left-invariant, see [34, p. 464].

To prove the bi-Lipschitz equivalence of H2×R and SL~(2), one constructs a map

f:UT(H2)H2×S1,f(v):=(x,ϕ(v)),

as follows: first, one fixes a point p0H2, then, for vUTx(H2), the vector ϕ(v)UTp0(H2) is obtained by parallel transporting v along the geodesic segment [xp0]. One then proves that f is bi-Lipschitz; see [21, Proposition 3.10], and [7, IV.48] for more details. Since f lifts to a bi-Lipschitz map between universal covers, see Proposition 2.13, this reasoning shows that H2×R and SL~(2) are bi-Lipschitz equivalent, and in particular quasi-isometrically equivalent.

Remark 2.7

By Proposition 2.5, the group SL~(2) may be made isometric to Aff+(R)×R. Moreover, according to Remark 2.6, the group Aff+(R)×R may be made isometric to H2×R with the standard metric. However, this does not imply that SL~(2) can be made isometric to the standard H2×R, and indeed this is not the case: An isometry between the H2×R and SL~(2) with a left-invariant distance would induce a free transitive isometric action of SL~(2) on H2×R. Notice that every isometry f of H2×R sends a set of the form H2×{p} to the set H2×{f(p)}, since these sets are the leaves of the foliation integrating the planes of sectional curvature -1. Thus, if SL~(2) acts by isometry on H2×R, then the induced action on R would be by translations, since SL~(2) is connected. At the same time, the action would have to be trivial since the Lie algebra of SL~(2) is simple, so it could not act transitively on H2×R. See also [34, Section 5].

Since the groups SL~(2) and Aff+(R)×R may be made isometric, one might wonder if there is a “standard” Riemannian manifold to which they may both be made isometric. According to Remark 2.7, this manifold cannot be the standard H2×R, but it turns out that SL~(2) endowed with the metric corresponding to one of the Thurston geometries has the desired property; see Remark 2.8 below.

Consider the left-invariant Riemannian metric gSL~(2) on X:=SL~(2) that arises from the identification of PSL(2) with the unit tangent bundle UT(H2) as described in Remark 2.6 and let G:=Isome(SL~(2)) be the corresponding isometry group. Then (XG) is one of the eight three-dimensional model geometries of Thurston [35, Theorem 3.8.4]. Clearly, SL~(2) acts transitively by isometries on (X,gSL~(2)). The following remark shows that the same is true for Aff+(R)×R. According to Proposition 2.1, this also provides another proof for Proposition 2.5.

Remark 2.8

The group Aff+(R)×R acts simply transitively by isometries on X endowed with the Riemannian metric that corresponds to Thurston’s model geometry on SL~(2). To see this, consider the group G:=Isome(SL~(2)), which has been discussed in [34, p. 464 ff]. It has been shown that G consists of two components, say Γ and Γ. The identity component Γ is a 4-dimensional Lie group generated by the actions of R and SL~(2) on X. The action of SL(2)~ is immediate, and according to the Iwasawa decomposition, it yields in particular an action of Aff+(R) on X. To explain the action of R, it is useful to see X as a line bundle over H2. The center of SL~(2), which is isomorphic to the additive group Z, acts on X by preserving the line bundle structure and covering the identity map of H2. This action extends to an action of R on X by translation of the vertical fibers [this action arises as an action of S1 on UT(H2) which covers the identity of H2 and rotates each fibre by the same angle]. Since the action of R commutes with the action of SL~(2) [and thus of Aff+(R)], we obtain that Aff+(R)×R acts by isometries on X. Moreover, since Aff+(R)×R acts transitively on the base manifold H2 of X, and R acts by translation on the vertical fibers, we see that Aff+(R)×R acts transitively on X. Finally, we argue that the action is free. Assume that (g,s).x=x for some gAff+(R), sR and xX. Then, since the action of R covers the identity map of H2, it follows that g.x and x must lie in the same vertical fibre of X. As the action of Aff+(R) on X is induced by a free action of Aff+(R) on H2, it follows that g=e, as desired. Moreover, s=0 since the action of R is free. This shows that Aff+(R)×R acts simply transitively by isometries on (X,gSL~(2)).

Remark 2.9

As the classification in Theorem 1.2 shows, already in dimension 3 the property of admitting a lattice (i.e., a discrete subgroup of cofinite volume) is not a quasi-isometric invariant. For example, the group Aff+(R)×T1 is not unimodular by [27, Lemma 6.3] and hence cannot have lattices (see [27, Section 6] or [1, Proposition 2.4.2]), yet it is quasi-isometrically equivalent to SL(2)=SL(2,R), which admits the lattice SL(2,Z).

For kN, the Iwasawa decomposition of PSL(2)k is

PSL(2)k=ANKk,

where Kk is the k-fold cover of the projective special orthogonal group PSO(2).

Theorem 2.4 applied to the Iwasawa decomposition of PSL(2)k yields the following result.

Proposition 2.10

For every kN, the group PSL(2)k may be made isometric to Aff+(R)×T1.

Bi-Lipschitz groups

Proposition 2.11

The groups PSL(2)k and PSL(2)k for different values of k,kN are bi-Lipschitz equivalent, but cannot be made isometric.

The bi-Lipschitz equivalence of PSL(2)k and PSL(2)k follows easily from Proposition 2.10, but to show that these groups cannot be made isometric, we use [13, Theorem 2.2] by Gordon, which we restate here for the reader’s convenience.

Assume that A is a connected Lie group with a connected subgroup G. Choose Levi factors Gs and As of G and A, respectively, such that GsAs, and denote by gs and as the Lie algebras of Gs and As. By definition, the Lie algebras gs and as are semisimple and thus a direct sum of simple Lie algebras, some of which may be compact and others not. This leads to the direct sum decomposition

gs=gncgc,

where gc is the direct sum of all compact simple ideals of gs and gnc is the direct sum of the remaining simple ideals. In the same way, one decomposes as=ancac. By Gnc and Anc we denote the connected subgroups of A with Lie algebras gnc and anc, respectively.

Theorem 2.12

(Gordon) Assume that A is a connected Lie group with a connected subgroup G whose radical is nilpotent. Suppose further that there exists a compact subgroup K of A such that A=GK. Then Anc=Gnc.

With this theorem at hand, we can prove Proposition 2.11.

Proof of Proposition 2.11

By Proposition 2.10, both PSL(2)k and PSL(2)k may be made isometric to Aff+(R)×T1. Thus there exist left-invariant Riemannian distances, say dk and dk on Aff+(R)×T1, as well as d on PSL(2)k and d on PSL(2)k such that (PSL(2)k,d) is isometric to (Aff+(R)×T1,dk) and (PSL(2)k,d) is isometric to (Aff+(R)×T1,dk). Since dk and dk are bi-Lipschitz equivalent, it follows that PSL(2)k and PSL(2)k are bi-Lipschitz equivalent.

Next we show that PSL(2)k and PSL(2)k cannot be made isometric. For kN, we fix a left-invariant Riemannian distance dG on G:=PSL(2)k and we let A be the isometry group of (G,dG). Then A=GK as in Theorem 2.12, with K=Stab(e)A, where Stab(e) denotes the stabilizer of the identity in G. Since G is simple, its radical is trivial and hence nilpotent and moreover, Gnc=G. It follows by Theorem 2.12 that G=Gnc=Anc. The same reasoning applies for k instead of k, so that we obtain G=Anc for G=PSL(2)k and A the isometry group of (G,dG). Now if (G,dG) and (G,dG) were isometric, then A would be isomorphic to A with an isomorphism given by conjugation via the isometry between (G,dG) and (G,dG). This would imply that PSL(2)k=Anc is isomorphic to Anc=PSL(2)k, which is possible only if k=k [otherwise the centers of PSL(2)k and PSL(2)k have different cardinality and hence the groups cannot be isomorphic].

Quasi-isometrically homeomorphic groups

We now consider multiply connected groups that are homeomorphic via a quasi-isometry but not bi-Lipschitz equivalent. The latter fact will be proved by contradiction: if there existed a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism between the groups it would lift to a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism of the universal covers according to Proposition 2.13. We first recall some basics from covering theory.

Assume that G is a simply connected Lie group equipped with a left-invariant Riemannian metric g. If N is a discrete normal subgroup of G, then G/N is a connected Lie group which admits a unique left-invariant Riemannian metric gG/N so that π:(G,g)(G/N,gG/N) becomes a Riemannian covering, that is, a covering map which is locally isometric.

Proposition 2.13

For i{1,2}, let Gi be a simply connected Lie group endowed with a left-invariant Riemannian distance and let πi:(Gi,gi)(Gi/Ni,gGi/Ni) be a Riemannian covering as above. Then every bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism f:G1/N1G2/N2 lifts to a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism f~:G1G2, where ‘bi-Lipschitz’ refers to the Riemannian distances induced by the respective Riemannian metrics.

Proof

Let f:G1/N1G2/N2 be bi-Lipschitz. Since f is a homeomorphism and G1 is simply connected, the composition fπ1:G1G2/N2 is a universal cover of G2/N2, as is the map π2:G2G2/N2. It follows from the uniqueness theorem for universal covers, see for instance [10, Corollary 13.6] or [24, I, §11], that there exists a homeomorphism f~:G1G2 with π2f~=fπ1. Since f is bi-Lipschitz and π1, π2 are local isometries, the map f~ is uniformly locally bi-Lipschitz, as is its inverse. Finally, since G1 and G2 are geodesic, f~ is bi-Lipschitz as claimed.

Proposition 2.14

Each of the following pairs consists of quasi-isometrically homeomorphic groups that are not bi-Lipschitz equivalent:

  1. (R2×T1,N3(R))

  2. (SE(2)k,N3(R)), for every kN.

Proof

Once we know that R2×T1 and N3(R) are equivalent via a quasi-isometric but not a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism, the same statements follow for SE(2)k and N3(R) by Proposition 2.2, (2). Thus it suffices to prove Part (1) of Proposition 2.14.

In order to show that the groups N3(R) and R2×T1 are quasi-isometric via a homeomorphism, it is convenient to choose, as we may, coordinates (xyz) on N3(R) so that for all (xyz) and (x,y,z), we have

(x,y,z)·(x,y,z)=(x+x,y+y,z+z+2yx-2xy).

Without loss of generality we may assume that N3(R) is the quotient of N3(R) by the cyclic group generated by the element Z=(0,0,1). The Lie group N3(R)/Z is diffeomorphic to R2×T1. We see that Z2 can be identified with a subgroup of the groups N3(R)/Z and R2×T1, respectively, which in both cases acts co-compactly. Moreover, for these particular models, the identity map of R2×T1 provides a quasi-isometric homeomorphism between N3(R) and R2×T1.

Assume towards a contradiction that there exists a biLipschitz map f:R2×T1N3(R). It follows from Proposition 2.13 that there would exists a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism f~:R3N3(R). This is known to be false, for instance because R3 has volume growth of order 3, whereas the volume of balls in N3(R) grows with order 4 at large. We have thus proven that N3(R) is not bi-Lipschitz equivalent to R2×T1.

Quasi-isometric groups

Proposition 2.15

Each of the following pairs consists of quasi-isometrically equivalent groups that are not equivalent via a quasi-isometric homeomorphism:

  1. (GH) for distinct G,H{T1,T2,T3,SU(2),SO(3)}

  2. (GH) for distinct G,H{R,R×T1,R×T2}

  3. (R2,R2×T1)

  4. (Aff+(R),Aff+(R)×T1)

  5. (R2,N3(R))

  6. (R2,SE(2)k), for every kN

  7. (Aff+(R),PSL(2)k), for every kN.

Proof

The groups appearing on the same line in Proposition 2.15 are topologically distinct and hence cannot be equivalent via a quasi-isometric homeomorphism. Indeed, denoting by “” equivalence via a diffeomorphism of manifolds, we have:

  1. T1S1, T2S1×S1, T3S1×S1×S1, SU(2)S3, SO(3)PR3

  2. R, R×T1R×S1, R×T2R×S1×S1

  3. R2 and R2×T1R2×S1

  4. Aff+(R)R2 and Aff+(R)×T1R2×S1

  5. R2 and N3(R)R2×S1

  6. R2 and SE(2)kR2×S1

  7. Aff+(R)R2 and PSL(2)kR2×S1.

It remains to show that groups appearing on the same line are quasi-isometrically equivalent, even if they are not homeomorphic. First, the groups T1, T2, T3, SU(2), and SO(3) are trivially quasi-isometrically equivalent because they are compact.

Second, the groups R, R×T1, and R×T2 are clearly quasi-isometrically equivalent. More generally, R×K is quasi-isometric to R×K for arbitrary compact Lie groups K and K, as one can see by arguing componentwise. For the same reason, R2 and R2×T1 are quasi-isometrically equivalent, and so are Aff+(R) and Aff+(R)×T1. Having established the quasi-isometric equivalence in the cases (1)–(4), the remaining cases follow by transitivity. Indeed, the information from Propositions 2.14, 2.2, and 2.10 can be used to deduce that the groups in (5), (6), and (7) are quasi-isometrically equivalent, once this has been established for the groups in (3) and (4).

Conclusion of the quasi-isometric classification

In Sect. 2 we have identified pairs of Riemannian Lie groups that are quasi-isometrically equivalent. In this section we show that all remaining pairs of at most three-dimensional connected Lie groups are quasi-isometrically distinct, thus establishing Theorem 1.2. The proof uses the following quasi-isometric invariants of connected Riemannian Lie groups:

  • degree of polynomial volume growth

  • polynomial volume growth (or equivalently by [17, 19]: type R)

  • Gromov hyperbolicity [15], see also e.g. [29, Theorem 3.1.11]

  • covering dimension of asymptotic cones [6].

Besides these general quasi-isometry invariants, we also rely on quasi-isometric classification results for connected Riemannian Lie groups of a specific form:

  • for Gromov hyperbolic connected Riemannian Lie groups (which are proper metric spaces): topology of the boundary [15], see also e.g. [20, Proposition 2.20]

  • for simply connected Riemannian manifolds of negative or zero curvature: Lp cohomology [16]

  • [30, Corollaire 1] and [36, Corollary 1.3] for RnAR with AMat(n×n) having only eigenvalues with positive real parts

    (in our notation this applies to: J, Dλ for 0<λ1, Cλ for λ>0)

  • [9, Theorem 1.3] for Sol(m,n), the solvable Lie groups R2R, where R acts by z·(x,y)=(emzx,e-nzy), for m>n>0 using coarse differentiation

    (in our notation: Sol(1,-λ)=Dλ for -1<λ<0)

Proof of Theorem 1.2

We first discuss why the listed classes are quasi-isometrically distinct.

The groups in classes (1)–(5) are the only groups of type R, as can be seen from an explicit description of the Bianchi classification of Lie algebras, as given for instance in [12, Chapter 7, §1.1]. The individual classes are divided according to the degree d{0,1,2,3,4} of polynomial volume growth.

The groups in classes (6) and (7λ) have exponential growth but are not Gromov hyperbolic: for the groups in class (6) this is easy to see since Aff+(R)×R can be endowed with a left-invariant Riemannian metric such that it contains an isometrically embedded copy of R2. The proof that Dλ is not hyperbolic for λ<0 is given below in Proposition 3.1.

We now show that (6) and (7λ) are distinct classes. The group Aff+(R)×R is not quasi-isometrically equivalent to any Dλ since the covering dimension of the asymptotic cone of Dλ is 1 for every λ, while Aff+(R)×R has cone dimension 2 by [6, Theorem 1.1].

To distinguish the classes (7λ) for different values of λ[-1,0), take -1λ1<λ2<0. If λ1-1, then Dλ1 is not quasi-isometric to Dλ2 by [9, Theorem 1.3]. If λ1=-1, then Dλ1=D-1 is the Lie group of the Solv geometry, which by [25, Section 2] and [3, Section 3] admits a cocompact lattice of the form ZZ2, while there does not exist any finitely generated group quasi-isometric to Dλ2 by [9, Theorem 1.2].

The groups in classes (8)(11λ) are Gromov hyperbolic: since Aff+(R), J, and Dλ for λ(0,1] are all of the form RnAR for a matrix A whose eigenvalues all have positive real parts, it follows from [18, Theorem 3] that each of these groups admits a left-invariant Riemannian metric with negative sectional curvature bounded away from zero. Finally, a simply connected complete Riemannian manifold with negative curvature bounded away from zero is Gromov hyperbolic, see for instance [11, p. 52, Corollaire 10]. While the groups in (8) have S1 as visual boundary, the groups in (9)-(11λ) have S2.

All groups J, Dλ (λ(0,1]) are of the form R2AR with A equal to 1101 or 100λ, λ(0,1]. It is a special case of [30, Corollaire 1], proved by means of Lp cohomology, that two groups in the family Dλ, Dλ, λ,λ(0,1] are quasi-isometrically equivalent if and only if they are isomorphic, that is, if and only if λ=λ. The quasi-isometric classification of all negatively curved RnR has been completed in [36]. As a special case of [36, Corollary 1.3], if A and B are 2×2 matrices whose eigenvalues all have positive real parts, then the two groups R2AR and R2BR are quasi-isometric if and only if there exists s>0 such that A and sB have same real part Jordan form. This shows in particular that J cannot be quasi-isometric to any Dλ, λ(0,1], and Dλ is quasi-isometric to Dλ only if λ=λ. The previous discussion also covers the groups {Cλ:λ>0}, which are quasi-isometric to D1.

Except for (7λ) and (11λ), which represent uncountably many different classes, all the groups listed on one line in the table in Theorem 1.2 are quasi-isometrically equivalent: this follows from Propositions 2.2, 2.11, 2.14, and 2.15.

We now discuss the proof of one result which has been used in the quasi-isometric classification.

Proposition 3.1

The Lie groups Dλ, λ[-1,0), are not Gromov hyperbolic.

There are different proofs available for this fact. One can show for instance that the Dehn function of Dλ, λ[-1,0), is exponential (the argument for D-1 is outlined in [37]), and then use a result by Gromov [15] to deduce that Dλ, λ[-1,0) is not Gromov-hyperbolic since the Dehn function is not linear. Another possibility would be to consider the asymptotic cone of Dλ, λ[-1,0); see [4] and references therein. A proof for Proposition 3.1 is also contained in [9, §3.1], where it was observed that points in Dλ, λ[-1,0), which are not contained in the same hyperbolic plane can be joined by quasi-geodesics that do not lie close to each other. We recall the argument below. It is convenient to think of the hyperbolic plane H2 not as the upper half plane {(u,v):v>0} with the metric given by

ds2=1v2(du2+dv2),

but rather to apply a coordinate transform (x,z)=(u,logv). Then H2 can be seen as R2 equipped with the metric given by ds2=e-2zdx2+dz2. It turns out that the groups Dλ, λ[-1,0), are all foliated by isometrically embedded copies of H2. Perpendicular to these planes, there is another family of homothetically embedded ‘upside down’ versions of H2.

Proof of Proposition 3.1 following [9]

Recall that Dλ is R3 with the group law

(x,y,z)(x,y,z)=(x+ezx,y+eλzy,z+z).

Let gλ be the metric on Dλ which makes the following left-invariant frame orthonormal:

E1=ezx,E2=eλzy,E3=-z.

[Note that {E1,E2,E3} has structure constants as described in (1.2).] The associated length element is given by

ds2=e-2zdx2+e-2λzdy2+dz2.

It follows that the planes {y=const} are isometrically embedded copies of H2, whereas the planes {x=const} are homothetically embedded copies of the reflected hyperbolic plane.

Consider two points p1=(x1,y1,z1) and p2=(x2,y2,z2) in Dλ with x1x2 and y1y2. We will construct two quasi-geodesics γa and γb which connect p1 and p2 but do not lie close to each other. First, we let γa,1 be the geodesic segment between p1 and (x2,y1,z2) inside the hyperbolic plane {y=y1}. Then we let γa,2 be the geodesic segment in {x=x2} connecting the endpoint of γa,1 to p2, and we denote by γa the concatenation of γa,1 and γa,2. The curve γb is obtained in an analogous way, by first connecting p1 to (x1,y2,z2) by a geodesic segment in the plane {x=x1}, and then connecting the point (x1,y2,z2) to p2 by a geodesic in the hyperbolic plane {y=y2}. Observe that the map

DλH2×H2,(x,y,z)((x,z),(y,z))

is a quasi-isometric embedding with constants depending only on the parameter λ if Dλ is endowed with the distance induced by gλ and H2×H2 is equipped with a product metric of dH2, where dH2 is induced by a metric of constant sectional curvature equal to -1. It follows that both γa and γb are (LC)-quasi-geodesics, for constants L=L(λ)1 and C=C(λ)0 independent of a and b. By applying this construction to a sequence of points p1,n=(x1,n,y1,n,z) and p2,n=(x2,n,y2,n,z), with zR, |x1,n-x2,n| and |y1,n-y2,n| as n, we see that there does not exist a constant δ>0 such that for every n, the curve γa connecting p1,n to p2,n is contained in the δ-neighborhood of γb. This proves that (Dλ,gλ) is not Gromov hyperbolic.

Acknowledgements

Open access funding provided by University of Jyväskylä (JYU). We are grateful to Yves de Cornulier for numerous helpful comments, additions, and suggestions. In particular we thank him for encouraging us to discuss geometric models, for bringing the reference [13] to our attention and for explaining how it can be used to show that the groups PSL(2)k for different values of k cannot be made isometric. We also wish to thank Bruce Kleiner and Ville Kivioja for useful discussions.

Footnotes

Katrin Fässler was partially supported by the Academy of Finland (Grant 285159 ‘Sub-Riemannian manifolds from a quasiconformal viewpoint’) and by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 161299 ‘Intrinsic rectifiability and mapping theory on the Heisenberg group’).

Enrico Le Donne was partially supported by the Academy of Finland (Grant 288501 ‘Geometry of subRiemannian groups’) and by the European Research Council (ERC Starting Grant 713998 GeoMeG ‘Geometry of Metric Groups’).

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Katrin Fässler, Email: katrin.s.fassler@jyu.fi.

Enrico Le Donne, Email: enrico.e.ledonne@jyu.fi.

References

  • 1.Abbaspour H, Moskowitz M. Basic Lie Theory. Hackensack: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bianchi, L.: Sugli spazí a tre dimensioni che ammettono un gruppo continuo di movimenti: memoria. (1897)
  • 3.Brady N. Sol geometry groups are not asynchronously automatic. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 2001;83(1):93–119. doi: 10.1112/plms/83.1.93. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Burillo J. Dimension and fundamental groups of asymptotic cones. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 1999;59(2):557–572. doi: 10.1112/S0024610799007127. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cowling, M.G., Kivioja, V., Le Donne, E., Nicolussi Golo, S., Ottazzi, A.: From homogeneous metric spaces to Lie groups. ArXiv e-prints (2017)
  • 6.de Cornulier Y. Dimension of asymptotic cones of Lie groups. J. Topol. 2008;1(2):342–361. doi: 10.1112/jtopol/jtm013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.de la Harpe P. Topics in Geometric Group Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Epstein DBA, et al. Word Processing in Groups. Boston: Jones and Barlett; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Eskin A, Fisher D, Whyte K. Coarse differentiation of quasi-isometries I: spaces not quasi-isometric to Cayley graphs. Ann. Math. (2) 2012;176(1):221–260. doi: 10.4007/annals.2012.176.1.3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fulton W. Algebraic Topology: a First Course. New York: Springer; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ghys, E., de la Harpe, P., Eds. Sur les groupes hyperboliques d’après Mikhael Gromov, Vol. 83 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1990. Papers from the Swiss Seminar on Hyperbolic Groups held in Bern (1988)
  • 12.Gorbatsevich V, Onishchik A, Minachin V, Vinberg E. Lie Groups and Lie Algebras III: Structure of Lie Groups and Lie Algebras. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gordon, C.: Transitive Riemannian isometry groups with nilpotent radicals. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 31, 2, vi, 193–204 (1981)
  • 14.Gromov, M.: Infinite groups as geometric objects. In: Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. 1 (1984)
  • 15.Gromov, M.: Hyperbolic groups. In: Essays in Group Theory, Vol. 8 of Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ. Springer, New York, pp. 75–263 (1987)
  • 16.Gromov, M.: Asymptotic invariants of infinite groups. In:: Geometric Group Theory, Vol. 2 (Sussex, 1991), Vol. 182 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–295 (1993)
  • 17.Guivarc’h Y. Croissance polynomiale et périodes des fonctions harmoniques. Bull. Soc. Math. France. 1973;101:333–379. doi: 10.24033/bsmf.1764. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Heintze E. On homogeneous manifolds of negative curvature. Math. Ann. 1974;211:23–34. doi: 10.1007/BF01344139. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jenkins JW. A characterization of growth in locally compact groups. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 1973;79:103–106. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9904-1973-13113-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kapovich, I., Benakli, N.: Boundaries of hyperbolic groups. In: Combinatorial and Geometric Group Theory (New York, 2000/Hoboken, NJ, 2001), Vol. 296 of Contemp. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, pp. 39–93 (2002)
  • 21.Kapovich, M.: Lectures on quasi-isometric rigidity of 3-manifold groups (2004). https://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/sites/ifmaquette.ujf-grenoble.fr/files/Kapovich.pdf
  • 22.Kapovich M, Leeb B. 3-manifold groups and nonpositive curvature. Geom. Funct. Anal. 1998;8(5):841–852. doi: 10.1007/s000390050076. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kivioja V, Le Donne E. Isometries of nilpotent metric groups. J. Éc. polytech. Math. 2017;4:473–482. doi: 10.5802/jep.48. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Knapp, A.W.: Lie Groups Beyond an Introduction, 2nd edn., Vol. 140 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA (2002)
  • 25.Lee JB, Zhao X. Nielsen type numbers and homotopy minimal periods for maps on the 3-nilmanifolds. Sci. China Ser. A Math. 2008;51(3):351. doi: 10.1007/s11425-008-0003-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Meeks, III, W.H., Pérez, J.N.: Constant mean curvature surfaces in metric Lie groups. In: Geometric Analysis: Partial Differential Equations and Surfaces, Vol. 570 of Contemp. Math. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, pp. 25–110 (2012)
  • 27.Milnor J. Curvatures of left invariant metrics on lie groups. Adv. Math. 1976;21(3):293–329. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8708(76)80002-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Myers SB, Steenrod NE. The group of isometries of a Riemannian manifold. Ann. Math. (2) 1939;40(2):400–416. doi: 10.2307/1968928. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Pajot H. Gromov Hyperbolic Spaces and Applications to Complex Analysis. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. pp. 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pansu, P.: Cohomologie lp, espaces homogenes et pincement. https://www.math.u-psud.fr/~pansu/pincement19juil01.pdf
  • 31.Pansu P. Cohomologie Lp et pincement. Comment. Math. Helv. 2008;83(2):327–357. doi: 10.4171/CMH/126. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Petersen, P.: Riemannian Geometry, 3rd edn., Vol. 171 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Cham (2016)
  • 33.Rieffel E. Groups Coarse Quasi-isometric to the Hyperbolic Plane Cross the Real Line. Los Angeles: University of California; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Scott P. The geometries of 3-manifolds. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 1983;15(5):401–487. doi: 10.1112/blms/15.5.401. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Thurston, W., Levy, S.: Three-Dimensional Geometry and Topology. No. Bd. 1 in Luis A.Caffarelli. Princeton University Press (1997)
  • 36.Xie X. Large scale geometry of negatively curved RnR. Geom. Topol. 2014;18(2):831–872. doi: 10.2140/gt.2014.18.831. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Young R. The Dehn function of SL(n;Z) Ann. Math. (2) 2013;177(3):969–1027. doi: 10.4007/annals.2013.177.3.4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Geometriae Dedicata are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES