2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00208-020-01954-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Homeomorphic extension of quasi-isometries for convex domains in $${\mathbb {C}}^d$$ and iteration theory

Abstract: We study the homeomorphic extension of biholomorphisms between convex domains in C d without boundary regularity and boundedness assumptions. Our approach relies on methods from coarse geometry, namely the correspondence between the Gromov boundary and the topological boundaries of the domains and the dynamical properties of commuting 1-Lipschitz maps in Gromov hyperbolic spaces. This approach not only allows us to prove extensions for biholomorphisms, but for more general quasi-isometries between the domains … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

2
19
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(46 reference statements)
2
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Theorem 1.2 is a consequence of Corollary 4.5 and Theorem 5.3. We remark that the equivalence between Gromov and euclidean compactifications had already been proven in [10,42] for cases (1) and (3), and in case (2) this equivalence follows immediately from results in [13,45]. Notice also that since the horofunction and the Gromov compactifications are metric invariants, the equivalence between D G and D H also holds for every domain of C q which is biholomorphic to the ones in (1),( 2),(3).…”
supporting
confidence: 52%
“…Theorem 1.2 is a consequence of Corollary 4.5 and Theorem 5.3. We remark that the equivalence between Gromov and euclidean compactifications had already been proven in [10,42] for cases (1) and (3), and in case (2) this equivalence follows immediately from results in [13,45]. Notice also that since the horofunction and the Gromov compactifications are metric invariants, the equivalence between D G and D H also holds for every domain of C q which is biholomorphic to the ones in (1),( 2),(3).…”
supporting
confidence: 52%
“…Thus the visual metric of ∂ G Ω and the Euclidean metric of ∂Ω are bi-Hölder equivalent to each other. On the other hand, Bracci, Gaussier and Zimmer [7] get the following result on convex domains. Theorem 1.10 (Theorem 1.4, [7]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…On the other hand, Bracci, Gaussier and Zimmer [7] get the following result on convex domains. Theorem 1.10 (Theorem 1.4, [7]). Let Ω be a C-proper convex domain on C n .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…In [6,7,8] this point of view has been used to prove extension of biholomorphisms between Gromov hyperbolic convex domains, proving, for instance, that every convex map from the ball whose image is convex extends as a homeomorphism up to the boundary regardless the regularity of the image. In [20,21] it has been proved that Gromov hyperbolicity of convex smooth bounded domains is related to D'Angelo type finiteness of the boundary, while in [15] the same result has been proved in C 2 for pseudoconvex domains.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(1) bounded smooth strongly pseudoconvex domains (see [1]), (2) bounded smooth convex domains of finite D'Angelo type (see [20]), (3) Gromov hyperbolic (with respect to the Kobayashi distance) convex domains (see [8]), (4) bounded smooth pseudoconvex domains of finite D'Angelo type in C 2 (see [15]), (5) bounded Gromov hyperbolic (with respect to the Kobayashi distance) C-convex domains with Lipschitz boundary (see [21] for the C 1 -smooth case and Section 4 for the Lipschitz case) (6) any domain biholomorphic to a Gromov model domain such that the biholomorphism extends as a homeomorphism up to the boundary. Theorem 1.6 allows to "localize" the previous list as follows:…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%