Maximal principles in discrete conformal geometry with application to the rigidity of infinite triangulations

Yanwen Luo, Xu Xu and Chao Zheng

arXiv: 2208.04502v2 · PDF · 18 June 2025
Categories: math.MG
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

In this paper, maximum principles for Euclidean and hyperbolic discrete conformal structures on polyhedral surfaces are established. These maximum principles unify and generalize the maximum principles for vertex scalings and different types of circle packings in the literature. As an application of the hyperbolic discrete maximum principle, a discrete Schwarz-Ahlfors lemma is established. As another application, an infinite rigidity theorem for small Delaunay triangulations of the hyperbolic plane is proved.

Items 55

Definition

Definition 1.1

0O70

Let (S, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta) be a weighted triangulated surface with the weights \varepsilon: V \rightarrow \{-1,0,1\} and \eta: E \rightarrow \mathbb{R} satisfying \eta_{ij}=\eta_{ji}. A Euclidean discrete conformal structure on (S, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta) is defined by a map f: V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}, such that a PL metric l: E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{>0} assigns the edge length l_{ij} for each edge v_iv_j \in E by

l_{ij}=\sqrt{\varepsilon_ie^{2f_i}+\varepsilon_je^{2f_j} +2\eta_{ij}e^{f_i+f_j}}.

The function f: V \to \mathbb{R} is referred to as a Euclidean label, and \eta is the Euclidean weight on (S, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta). Two PL metrics (\varepsilon, \eta, l) and (\bar{\varepsilon}, \bar{\eta}, \bar{l}) on (S, \mathcal{T}) are said to be Euclidean discrete conformal equivalent if \varepsilon=\bar{\varepsilon} and \eta=\bar{\eta}. In this case, we define w^e=\bar{f}-f and denote this relationship by \bar{l}=w^e*l, where w^e is called a Euclidean discrete conformal factor.

Used by Lemma 2.1

Theorem

Theorem 1.2

BC17

Let l,\bar{l} be two weighted Delaunay PL metrics on (P_n,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) with a regular weight pair (\varepsilon,\eta), namely, \bar{l}=w^e*l.

If K_0(l)\leq K_0(\bar{l}), then

\begin{gathered} w^e_0\leq \max_{j \in\{ 1, 2, \cdots, n\}}w^e_j. \end{gathered}

Furthermore, if w^e_0 = \max_{j \in\{ 1, 2, \cdots, n\}}w^e_j, then w^e is a constant on P_n.

Definition

Definition 1.3

WTIB

A hyperbolic discrete conformal structure on (S, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta) is defined by a map f: V\rightarrow \mathbb{R} such that a PH metric l:E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{>0} assigns the edge length l_{ij} for each edge v_iv_j \in E by

\cosh l_{ij} =\sqrt{1+\varepsilon_ie^{2f_i}} \sqrt{1+\varepsilon_je^{2f_j}} +\eta_{ij}e^{f_i+f_j}.

The function f: V \to \mathbb{R} is referred to as the hyperbolic label, and \eta is the hyperbolic weight on (S, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta).

Used by Proof

Theorem

Theorem 1.4

9AXZ

Let l,\bar{l} be two weighted Delaunay PH metrics on (P_n,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) with a regular weight pair (\varepsilon,\eta), namely, \bar{l}=w^h*l. All circles or points with respect to f,\bar f are contained in \mathbb{D}.

(a) If K_0(l)\geq K_0(\bar{l}) and w^h_0=\bar{u}_0-u_0>0, then
w^h_0<\max_{j\in \{1, 2, \cdots, n\}}w^h_j.
(b) If K_0(l)\leq K_0(\bar{l}) and w_0^h=\bar{u}_0-u_0<0, then
w^h_0>\min_{j\in \{1, 2, \cdots, n\}}w^h_j.

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof

Theorem

Theorem 1.5 (Discrete Schwarz-Ahlfors lemma)

NY4U

Let (\varepsilon,\eta) be a regular pair of weights on (M,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta), where M\subseteq\mathbb{D} is a compact set with non-empty boundary. Suppose l and \bar{l} are two weighted Delaunay PH metrics with hyperbolic labels f and \bar{f}, respectively, satisfying all circles and points with respect to f,\bar f are contained in \mathbb{D}.

(a) If the combinatorial curvatures K(l)\geq K(\bar{l}) for all interior vertices, and f \geq \bar{f} holds for every boundary vertex, then f \geq \bar{f} holds for all vertices.
(b) If K(l)\leq K(\bar{l}) for all interior vertices, and f \leq \bar{f} holds for every boundary vertex, then f \leq \bar{f} holds for all vertices.

Theorem

Theorem 1.6

P8HD

Let l and \bar{l} be two discrete conformal equivalent Delaunay PH metrics on (\mathbb{D}, \mathcal{T}), i.e., they are related by (?). If there exists a constant \delta>0 such that

(a) all inner angles of all triangles in l and \bar{l} are at least \delta,
(b) all edge lengths of all triangles in l and \bar{l} are less than \delta^3/8192,
(c) the combinatorial curvatures K(l)\equiv K(\bar{l})\equiv0 for all vertices,

then l=\bar{l}, i.e., they are isometric in \mathbb{D}.

Used by Proof

Conjecture

Conjecture 1.7

TOLA

Let (\mathbb{C}, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta) be a triangulated plane with a regular weight pair (\varepsilon, \eta). If l and \bar{l} are two flat weighted Delaunay PL metrics on (\mathbb{C}, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta), i.e., \bar l=w^e*l, then w^e \equiv C for some constant C.

Conjecture

Conjecture 1.8

HZY0

Let (\mathbb{D}, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta) be a triangulated plane with a regular weight pair (\varepsilon, \eta). If l and \bar{l} are two flat weighted Delaunay PH metrics on (\mathbb{D}, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta), i.e., \bar{l}=w^h*l, then w^h \equiv 0, i.e., they are isometric.

Lemma

Lemma 2.1

X61Y

Suppose (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) is a weighted triangulated surface with \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} satisfying the structure condition (?). Let \triangle v_1v_2v_3 be a generalized triangle with edge lengths defined by (1.1) or (?) on (S, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta).

(a) The triangle \triangle v_1v_2v_3 is non-degenerate if and only if Q>0, where
Q=\kappa_1^2(\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3-\eta^2_{23}) +\kappa_2^2(\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_3-\eta^2_{13}) +\kappa_3^2(\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2-\eta^2_{12}) +2\kappa_1\kappa_2\gamma_{3} +2\kappa_1\kappa_3\gamma_{2} +2\kappa_2\kappa_3\gamma_{1}
with \gamma_{i}:=\varepsilon_i\eta_{jk}+\eta_{ij}\eta_{ik}\geq 0 and \kappa_i:=r_i^{-1} for \{i,j,k\}=\{1,2,3\}. As a result, \triangle v_1v_2v_3 is degenerate if and only if Q=0.
(b) Let \theta_i be the inner angle at vertex v_i. If \triangle v_1v_2v_3 is non-degenerate, then
\frac{\partial \theta_i}{\partial u_j} =\frac{\partial \theta_j}{\partial u_i} =\frac{h_{ij,k}}{l_{ij}},\ \frac{\partial \theta_i}{\partial u_i} =-\frac{\partial \theta_i}{\partial u_j} -\frac{\partial \theta_i}{\partial u_k} <0,
where
h_{ij,k} =\frac{r_1^2r_2^2r_3^2}{A_{123}l_{ij}} [\kappa_k^2(\varepsilon_i\varepsilon_j-\eta_{ij}^2) +\kappa_j\kappa_k\gamma_{i}+\kappa_i\kappa_k\gamma_{j}] =\frac{r_1^2r_2^2r_3^2}{A_{123}l_{ij}}\kappa_kh_k,
with A_{123}=l_{12}l_{23}\sin \theta_2, and
h_k=\kappa_k(\varepsilon_i\varepsilon_j-\eta_{ij}^2) +\kappa_j\gamma_i+\kappa_i\gamma_j.
Furthermore, the Jacobian \Lambda_{ijk}:=\frac{\partial (\theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3)}{\partial (u_1, u_2, u_3)} is symmetric and negative semi-definite with rank 2 and kernel \{c(1,1,1)^T|c\in \mathbb{R} \} on \Omega_{123}(\eta).
(c) If \triangle v_1v_2v_3 induced by (r_1, r_2, r_3) via (?) is degenerate, then one of h_1, h_2, and h_3 is negative, while the other two are positive. Specially, if v_3 is the flat vertex of \triangle v_1v_2v_3, then h_1>0, h_2>0, and h_3<0. This implies that \eta^2_{12}>\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2 due to h_3<0, equivalently \eta_{12}>\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2 by (?). Furthermore, if v_3 is the flat vertex of \triangle v_1v_2v_3 induced by (r_1, r_2, r_3), as (\tilde{r}_1, \tilde{r}_2, \tilde{r}_3) \in \Omega_{123}(\eta) tends to (r_1, r_2, r_3) \in \partial \Omega_{123}(\eta), we have
h_{12,3} \rightarrow -\infty, \quad h_{13,2} \rightarrow +\infty, \quad h_{23,1} \rightarrow +\infty.
(d) Define
\Delta_{ijk} =\varepsilon_i\eta_{jk}^2+\varepsilon_j\eta_{ik}^2 +\varepsilon_k\eta_{ij}^2+2\eta_{ij}\eta_{ik}\eta_{jk} -\varepsilon_i\varepsilon_j\varepsilon_k.
If at least one of the inequalities \eta_{12}>\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2, \eta_{13}>\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_3, or \eta_{23}>\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3 holds, then \Delta_{123}>0. Consequently, if \Delta_{123}\leq 0, then \eta_{12}\leq\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2, \eta_{13}\leq\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_3, and \eta_{23}\leq\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3. This implies that \varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_3=1 by (?). Furthermore, in the case \Delta_{123}\leq 0, it follows from (2.1) that Q(r)>0 for any r\in\mathbb{R}_{>0}^3.

Uses Definition 1.1 · Used by Proof, Proof, Proof, Proof

Lemma

Lemma 2.2

K97G

Suppose (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) is a weighted triangulated surface with \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} satisfying the structure conditions (?). Let \triangle v_1v_2v_3 be a generalized triangle induced by (r_1,r_2,r_3)\in\mathbb{R}^3_{>0} via (?) on (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta).

(a) The admissible space \Omega_{123}(\eta) of admissible labels (r_1, r_2, r_3) \in \mathbb{R}^3_{>0} is a non-empty, simply connected open subset of \mathbb{R}^3_{>0} with analytic boundary components. Furthermore,
\Omega_{123}(\eta)=\mathbb{R}^3_{>0}\setminus \bigsqcup_{\alpha \in \Lambda} V_\alpha,
where \Lambda=\{i \mid A_i=\eta^2_{jk}-\varepsilon_j \varepsilon_k>0, \ \{i,j,k\}=\{1,2,3\}\}, and \sqcup_{\alpha \in \Lambda} V_\alpha is a disjoint union of
V_i = \left\{(r_1, r_2, r_3) \in \mathbb{R}^3_{>0} \mid \kappa_i \geq \frac{-B_i + \sqrt{\Delta_i}}{2A_i}\right\}
with
\begin{aligned} B_i&=-2(\kappa_j\gamma_{k}+\kappa_{k}\gamma_j)\leq0,\\ \Delta_i&=4(\varepsilon_k\kappa_j^2 +\varepsilon_j\kappa_{k}^2+2\kappa_j\kappa_{k}\eta_{jk}) \cdot\Delta_{ijk}\\ &=4(\varepsilon_k\kappa_j^2 +\varepsilon_j\kappa_{k}^2+2\kappa_j\kappa_{k}\eta_{jk})\cdot (\varepsilon_i\eta_{jk}^2+\varepsilon_j\eta_{ik}^2 +\varepsilon_k\eta_{ij}^2+2\eta_{ij}\eta_{ik}\eta_{jk} -\varepsilon_i\varepsilon_j\varepsilon_k). \end{aligned}
(b) The inner angles of \triangle v_1v_2v_3 could be uniquely continuously extended by constants as follows
\begin{aligned} \tilde{\theta}_i(r_1, r_2, r_3) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \theta_i, & \text{if } (r_1, r_2, r_3) \in \Omega_{123}(\eta), \\ \pi, & \text{if } (r_1, r_2, r_3) \in V_i, \\ 0, & \text{otherwise}. \end{array} \right. \end{aligned}
(c) If \triangle v_1v_2v_3 induced by (r_1, r_2, r_3) is degenerate with v_i as the flat vertex, then (r_1, r_2, r_3) \in \partial V_i, i.e., (r_1, r_2, r_3) satisfies
\kappa_i = \frac{-B_i + \sqrt{\Delta_i}}{2A_i}.
Furthermore, as a function of \kappa_j and \kappa_k, \kappa_i := f(\kappa_j, \kappa_k) is strictly increasing with respect to both \kappa_j and \kappa_k.

Proof of Lemma 2.2

Parts (a) and (b) have been proved in [Xu, 1], it remains to prove part (c). Part (a) shows that \partial\Omega_{123}(\eta) = \partial V_1 \sqcup \partial V_2 \sqcup \partial V_3. The assumption of part (c) implies that the inner angle at v_i is \pi. By part (b), we have (r_1,r_2,r_3)\in\partial V_i, which yields (?). Note that (?) can be explicitly rewritten as

\begin{gathered} f(\kappa_j, \kappa_k) := \kappa_i = \frac{1}{\eta^2_{jk} - \varepsilon_j \varepsilon_k} \left[(\kappa_j \gamma_{k} + \kappa_{k} \gamma_j) + \sqrt{(\varepsilon_k \kappa_j^2 + \varepsilon_j \kappa_{k}^2 + 2\kappa_j \kappa_{k} \eta_{jk}) \cdot \Delta_{ijk}}\right]. \end{gathered}

Combining the assumption with Lemma 2.1 (c), we obtain \eta_{jk}>\varepsilon_j\varepsilon_k. From Lemma 2.1 (d), it follows that \Delta_{ijk}>0. Since \varepsilon_k\kappa_j^2 +\varepsilon_j\kappa_{k}^2+2\kappa_j\kappa_{k}\eta_{jk} \geq2(\varepsilon_j\varepsilon_k+\eta_{jk})\kappa_j\kappa_{k} >0 by (?), it follows that f(\kappa_j,\kappa_k)>0 for any (\kappa_j,\kappa_k)\in\mathbb{R}^2_{>0}. It is straightforward to check that f(\kappa_j,\kappa_k) is strictly increasing with respect to both \kappa_j and \kappa_k by the structure condition (?). Q.E.D.

Uses Lemma 2.1

Remark

Remark 2.3

20AG

Note that Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 hold for \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R} satisfying the structure conditions (?) and

\gamma_{i}\geq 0, \quad \gamma_j\geq 0, \quad \gamma_k\geq 0

for any triangle \triangle v_iv_jv_k\in F. In particular, if \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}, then (2.3) is automatically satisfied.

Lemma

Lemma 2.4

WNVM

Suppose (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) is a weighted triangulated surface with \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} satisfying the structure condition (?). Let \triangle v_1v_2v_3 be a generalized triangle induced by (r_1,r_2,r_3)\in\mathbb{R}^3_{>0} via (?) on (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta).

(a) For any fixed r_i, r_j\in \mathbb{R}^2_{>0}, the set of r_k\in (0, +\infty) such that the label (r_1,r_2,r_3) is admissible is an open interval. As a result, if (r_i, r_j,\hat{r}_k) and (r_i, r_j,\bar{r}_k) are two generalized labels on \triangle v_1v_2v_3 with \hat{r}_k<\bar{r}_k, then for any r_k\in (\hat{r}_k,\bar{r}_k), the triangle \triangle v_1v_2v_3 induced by (r_i, r_j, r_k) is non-degenerate.
(b) If \triangle v_1v_2v_3 induced by (r_1,r_2,r_3) is degenerate, and v_3 is the flat vertex of \triangle v_1v_2v_3, then there exists \epsilon>0 such that (r_1,r_2,r_3+t)\in \Omega_{123}(\eta), and
\frac{\partial h_{12,3}}{\partial r_3}(r_1, r_2, r_3+t)>0
for t\in (0, \epsilon).

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 2.4

(a) Without loss of generality, let \{i,j\}=\{2,3\} and k=1. The quantity Q in (2.1) can be expressed as a quadratic function of \kappa_1

g(\kappa_1) =(\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3-\eta^2_{23})\kappa_1^2 +2(\kappa_2\gamma_{3}+\kappa_3\gamma_{2})\kappa_1 +\kappa_2^2(\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_3-\eta^2_{13}) +\kappa_3^2(\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2-\eta^2_{12}) +2\kappa_2\kappa_3\gamma_{1}.

By Lemma 2.1 (a), it suffices to show that the solution set of g(\kappa_1)>0 for \kappa_1\in (0, +\infty) is an open interval. It is necessary to consider the following three cases \eta^2_{23}=\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3, \eta^2_{23}<\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3 and \eta^2_{23}>\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3.

Assume that \eta^2_{23}=\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3, i.e., (\eta_{23}-\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3)(\eta_{23}+\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3)=0. From (?), it follows that \eta_{23}=\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_3=1. Consequently, g(\kappa_1)>0 is equivalent to

g(\kappa_1)= 2(\kappa_2\gamma_{3}+\kappa_3\gamma_{2})\kappa_1 +\kappa_2^2(\varepsilon_1-\eta^2_{13}) +\kappa_3^2(\varepsilon_1-\eta^2_{12}) +2\kappa_2\kappa_3\gamma_{1}>0.

If \gamma_{2}=\gamma_{3}=0, then \gamma_{2}+\gamma_{3}=(\eta_{12}+\eta_{13})(\eta_{23}+1)=0, and thus \eta_{12}=\eta_{13}=0 by \eta\in \mathbb{R}^E_{\geq 0}. From (?), it follows that \varepsilon_1=1. Consequently, (?) reduces to

g(\kappa_1)= \kappa_2^2+\kappa_3^2+2\kappa_2\kappa_3 =(\kappa_2+\kappa_3)^2>0.

Therefore, the solution set of g(\kappa_1)>0 is \mathbb{R}_{>0} in this case. If at least one of \gamma_{2} and \gamma_{3} is positive, then \kappa_2\gamma_{3}+\kappa_3\gamma_{2}>0. Therefore, the solution of (?) is

\kappa_1>-\frac{\kappa_2^2(\varepsilon_1-\eta^2_{13}) +\kappa_3^2(\varepsilon_1-\eta^2_{12}) +2\kappa_2\kappa_3\gamma_{1}} {2(\kappa_2\gamma_{3}+\kappa_3\gamma_{2})}.

This implies that the solution set of g(\kappa_1)>0 for \kappa_1\in (0, +\infty) is an open interval in this case.

Assume that \eta^2_{23}<\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3. Then g(\kappa_1) is a quadratic function opening upward with respect to \kappa_1. Note that the axis of symmetry of the quadratic function g(\kappa_1) is given by -\frac{\kappa_2\gamma_{3}+\kappa_3\gamma_{2}}{\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3-\eta^2_{23}}\leq0. Therefore, the solution set of g(\kappa_1)>0 for \kappa_1\in (0, +\infty) is an open interval in this case.

Assume that \eta^2_{23}>\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3. Then g(\kappa_1) is a quadratic function opening downward with respect to \kappa_1. Note that the axis of symmetry of the quadratic function g(\kappa_1) is given by -\frac{\kappa_2\gamma_{3}+\kappa_3\gamma_{2}}{\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3-\eta^2_{23}}\geq0, and the discriminant of g(\kappa_1) is

\Delta=4(\varepsilon_2\kappa_3^2 +\varepsilon_3\kappa_2^2+2\kappa_2\kappa_3\eta_{23}) \cdot\Delta_{123}.

Since \eta^2_{23}>\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3, it follows from (?) that \eta_{23}>\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3. From Lemma 2.1 (d), we have \Delta_{123}>0. Furthermore, \varepsilon_2\kappa_3^2+\varepsilon_3\kappa_2^2+2\kappa_2\kappa_3\eta_{23}\geq 2(\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3+\eta_{23})\kappa_2\kappa_3>0 by (?). Therefore, \Delta>0. Consequently, the solution set of g(\kappa_1)>0 for \kappa_1\in (0, +\infty) is an open interval in this case.

(b) From Lemma 2.1 (a), it follows that \triangle v_1v_2v_3 is degenerate if and only if Q=0. Direct calculations yield

\frac{\partial Q}{\partial r_3}=\frac{\partial Q}{\partial \kappa_3}\frac{\partial \kappa_3}{\partial r_3}=-2\kappa^2_3 h_3,

where h_3 is defined by (?). Since v_3 is the flat vertex of \triangle v_1v_2v_3, it follows from Lemma 2.1 (c) that h_3<0 at (r_1,r_2,r_3). This implies that \frac{\partial Q}{\partial r_3}>0 in a neighborhood of (r_1, r_2, r_3). Therefore, for sufficiently small t>0, Q(r_1,r_2,r_3+t)>0 and (r_1,r_2,r_3+t) induces a non-degenerate triangle.

Direct calculations yield

A_{123}^2=r_1^2r_2^2r_3^2Q.

For a detailed derivation of (?), please refer to the arguments above Lemma 2.1 in [Xu, 1]. Consequently,

\frac{\partial A_{123}}{\partial r_{3}} =\frac{A_{123}}{r_{3}}-\frac{r_{1}^{2} r_{2}^{2}}{A_{123}} \cdot h_{3}.

By differentiating (?, ?) with respect to r_3 and combining the result with (?), we derive

\frac{\partial h_{12,3}}{\partial r_{3}} =\frac{r_1^4r_2^4r_3}{A_{123}^3l_{12}}\Delta_{123} (\varepsilon_2\kappa_1^2+\varepsilon_1\kappa_2^2 +2\kappa_1\kappa_2\eta_{12}).

In fact,

\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial h_{12,3}}{\partial r_{3}} & =\frac{r_{1}^{2} r_{2}^{2}}{l_{12}} \frac{\partial}{\partial r_{3}}\left(\frac{r_{3} h_{3}}{A_{123}}\right)\\ &=\frac{r_{1}^{2} r_{2}^{2}}{l_{12}} \cdot \frac{1}{A_{123}^{2}}\left[\left(h_{3}+r_{3} \cdot \frac{\partial h_{3}}{\partial r_{3}}\right) \cdot A_{123}-r_{3} h_{3} \cdot \frac{\partial A_{123}}{\partial r_{3}}\right] \\ & =\frac{r_{1}^{2} r_{2}^{2}}{l_{12} \cdot A_{123}^{2}}\left[h_{3} A_{123}+r_{3} A_{123} \cdot\left(-\frac{1}{r_{3}^{2}}\right)\left(\varepsilon_{1} \varepsilon_{2}-\eta_{12}^{2}\right)-r_{3} h_{3} \cdot\left(\frac{A_{123}}{r_{3}}-\frac{r_{1}^{2} r_{2}^{2}}{A_{123}} \cdot h_{3}\right)\right] \\ & =\frac{r_{1}^{2} r_{2}^{2}}{l_{12} A_{123}^{2}}\left[-A_{123} \kappa_{3}\left(\varepsilon_{1} \varepsilon_{2}-\eta_{12}^{2}\right)+\frac{r_{1}^{2} r_{2}^{2} r_{3}}{A_{123}} \cdot h_{3}^{2}\right] \\ & =\frac{r_{1}^4 r_{2}^4r_3}{l_{12} A_{123}^3}\left[-\left(\varepsilon_{1} \varepsilon_{2}-\eta_{12}^{2}\right)Q+h_{3}^{2}\right] \\ &=\frac{r_1^4r_2^4r_3}{A_{123}^3l_{12}}\Delta_{123} (\varepsilon_2\kappa_1^2+\varepsilon_1\kappa_2^2 +2\kappa_1\kappa_2\eta_{12}). \end{aligned}

In the fifth line, substituting the explicit expressions of Q in (2.1) and h_3 in (?) and then simplifying yields the last line.

Since \triangle v_1v_2v_3 induced by (r_1,r_2,r_3) is degenerate with v_3 as the flat vertex, it follows from Lemma 2.1 (c) that \eta_{12}>\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2. From Lemma 2.1 (d), we have \Delta_{123}>0. Furthermore, \varepsilon_2\kappa_1^2+\varepsilon_1\kappa_2^2 +2\kappa_1\kappa_2\eta_{12}>0. Note that h_{12,3} is only defined for admissible labels. Therefore, these inequalities hold in a neighborhood of (r_1, r_2, r_3). Consequently, there exists \epsilon>0 such that \frac{\partial h_{12,3}}{\partial r_3}(r_1, r_2, r_3+t)>0 for t\in (0, \epsilon). Q.E.D.

Uses Lemma 2.1

Definition

Definition 2.5

C5OF

Suppose (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) is a weighted triangulated surface with \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} satisfying the structure condition (?). Let \triangle v_1v_2v_3\in \mathcal{T} be a generalized triangle induced by a generalized label. If \triangle v_1v_2v_3 is non-degenerate, we define

\theta_{ij,k}=\arctan\frac{h_{ij,k}}{d_{ij}}.

If \triangle v_1v_2v_3 is degenerate, we define

\theta_{ij,k}= \begin{cases} +\frac{\pi}{2}, & \text{if $v_i$ or $v_{j}$ is the flat vertex}, \\ -\frac{\pi}{2}, & \text{if $v_k$ is the flat vertex}. \end{cases}

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof, Proof

Lemma

Lemma 2.6

CGG2

Suppose (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) is a weighted triangulated surface with \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} satisfying the structure condition (?). Let \triangle v_1v_2v_3 be a generalized triangle induced by a generalized label (r_1, r_2, r_3) on (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta). Then \theta_{ij,k}(r_1, r_2, r_3) is a continuous function defined on \overline{\Omega}_{123}(\eta), and satisfies

\theta_{ij,k}+\theta_{ik,j}=\theta_i.

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 2.6

The proof is nearly identical to that of Lemma 2.8 in [LXZ], and we provide a proof here for completeness. It suffices to show that as (r_1,r_2,r_3)\in \Omega_{123}(\eta) tends to (\bar{r}_1,\bar{r}_2,\bar{r}_3)\in \partial\Omega_{123}(\eta), \theta_{ij,k}(r_1,r_2,r_3)\rightarrow \theta_{ij,k}(\bar{r}_1,\bar{r}_2,\bar{r}_3). Assume that v_k is the flat vertex of the degenerate triangle \triangle v_1v_2v_3 induced by (\bar{r}_1,\bar{r}_2,\bar{r}_3). As (r_1,r_2,r_3)\rightarrow(\bar{r}_1,\bar{r}_2,\bar{r}_3), it follows from Lemma 2.1 (c) that h_{ij,k}(r_1,r_2,r_3)\rightarrow -\infty. This implies that \theta_{ij,k}(r_1,r_2,r_3)=\arctan\frac{h_{ij,k}}{d_{ij}}\rightarrow -\frac{\pi}{2}=\theta_{ij,k}(\bar{r}_1,\bar{r}_2,\bar{r}_3) by Definition 2.5. Assume that v_i is the flat vertex of the degenerate triangle \triangle v_1v_2v_3 induced by (\bar{r}_1,\bar{r}_2,\bar{r}_3). Similarly, as (r_1,r_2,r_3)\rightarrow(\bar{r}_1,\bar{r}_2,\bar{r}_3), it follows that h_{ij,k}(r_1,r_2,r_3)\rightarrow +\infty. This implies that \theta_{ij,k}(r_1,r_2,r_3)\rightarrow \frac{\pi}{2}=\theta_{ij,k}(\bar{r}_1,\bar{r}_2,\bar{r}_3) by Definition 2.5. The same argument holds for the case that v_j is the flat vertex. Q.E.D.

Uses Lemma 2.1, Definition 2.5

Corollary

Corollary 2.7

JW14

Suppose (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) is a weighted triangulated surface with \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} satisfying the structure condition (?). Let r\in \mathbb{R}^V_{>0} be an admissible label on (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta). For any two adjacent non-degenerate triangles \triangle v_iv_jv_k and \triangle v_iv_jv_l sharing the common edge v_iv_j, the edge v_iv_j is weighted Delaunay in r if and only if

\theta_{ij,k}+\theta_{ij,l}\ge0.

Proof of Corollary 2.7

From Definition 2.5, it follows that

\frac{h_{ij,k}+h_{ij,l}}{d_{ij}} =\tan\theta_{ij,k}+\tan\theta_{ij,l} =\frac{\sin(\theta_{ij,k}+\theta_{ij,l})} {\cos\theta_{ij,k}\cos\theta_{ij,l}}.

Note that d_{ij}>0 and \theta_{ij,k}, \theta_{ij,l}\in (-\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}) for non-degenerate triangles \triangle v_iv_jv_k and \triangle v_iv_jv_l, we have h_{ij,k}+h_{ij,l}\ge0 is equivalent to \theta_{ij,k}+\theta_{ij,l}\ge0. Q.E.D.

Uses Definition 2.5

Definition

Definition 2.8

W2DD

Suppose (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) is a weighted triangulated surface with \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} satisfying the structure condition (?). Let r\in \mathbb{R}^V_{>0} be a generalized label on (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta). For any two adjacent generalized triangles \triangle v_iv_jv_k and \triangle v_iv_jv_l sharing the common edge v_iv_j, the edge v_iv_j is weighted Delaunay in r if

\theta_{ij,k}+\theta_{ij,l}\ge0.

The triangulation \mathcal{T} is weighted Delaunay in r if (2.8) holds for every interior edge in \mathcal{T}.

Lemma

Lemma 2.9

HK00

Suppose (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) is a weighted triangulated surface with \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} satisfying the structure condition (?). Let (r_1, r_2, \hat{r}_3) and (r_1, r_2, \bar{r}_3) be two generalized labels on \triangle v_1v_2v_3 with \hat{r}_3<\bar{r}_3. If \Delta_{123}>0, then for fixed r_1 and r_2, \theta_{12,3} is strictly increasing with respect to r_3\in [\hat{r}_3,\bar{r}_3].

Proof of Lemma 2.9

From Lemma 2.4 (a), it follows that for r_3\in (\hat{r}_3,\bar{r}_3), the triangle \triangle v_1v_2v_3 induced by (r_1, r_2, r_3) is non-degenerate. From (?), it follows that \varepsilon_2\kappa_1^2+\varepsilon_1\kappa_2^2 +2\kappa_1\kappa_2\eta_{12} \geq 2(\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2+\eta_{12})\kappa_1\kappa_2 >0. Combining the assumption \Delta_{123}>0 with (?) yields \frac{\partial{h_{12,3}}}{\partial{r_3}}>0. By (?), d_{12} is independent of r_3, and d_{12}>0. Differentiating (2.5) with respect to r_3 gives

\frac{\partial{\theta_{12,3}}}{\partial r_3} =\frac{d_{12}}{d_{12}^2+(h_{12,3})^2} \cdot\frac{\partial{h_{12,3}}}{\partial{r_3}}>0.

By Lemma 2.6, \theta_{12,3} is a continuous function of r_3\in [\hat{r}_3,\bar{r}_3]. Therefore, \theta_{12,3} is strictly increasing with respect to r_3\in [\hat{r}_3,\bar{r}_3]. Q.E.D.

Uses Lemma 2.4, Proof, Definition 2.5, Lemma 2.6

Lemma

Lemma 2.10

CFJP

Suppose (S,\mathcal{T},\varepsilon,\eta) is a triangulated surface with a regular weight pair (\varepsilon,\eta). For any two adjacent generalized triangles \triangle v_1v_2v_3 and \triangle v_1v_2v_4 induced by a generalized label, if \Delta_{123}\leq 0,

then \theta_{12,3}+\theta_{12,4}>0.

Proof of Lemma 2.10

Since \Delta_{123}\leq 0, it follows from Lemma 2.1 (d) that \eta_{12}\leq\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2, \eta_{13}\leq\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_3, \eta_{23}\leq\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3, \varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_3=1, and \triangle v_1v_2v_3 is non-degenerate. Therefore, \eta_{12}\leq 1.

If \eta_{12}<1, then h_3>0 by (?), and h_{12,3}>0 by (?, ?). Consequently, \theta_{12,3}>0 by (2.5). Now we consider \triangle v_1v_2v_4. Assume that \triangle v_1v_2v_4 is non-degenerate. By similar arguments, we derive h_{12,4}>0, and then \theta_{12,4}>0 by (2.5). Assume that \triangle v_1v_2v_4 is degenerate. If v_4 is the flat vertex, it follows from Lemma 2.1 (c) that \eta_{12}>\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2=1. This leads to a contradiction. Hence, the flat vertex of \triangle v_1v_2v_4 is v_1 or v_2. From (2.5), regardless of whether the flat vertex is v_1 or v_2, we have \theta_{12,4}=\frac{\pi}{2}. Therefore, \theta_{12,3}+\theta_{12,4}>0.

If \eta_{12}=1, then by the definition of \Delta_{123} in (?), we derive

0\geq \Delta_{123} =\eta_{12}^2+\eta_{13}^2+\eta_{23}^2 +2\eta_{12}\eta_{13}\eta_{23}-1 =(\eta_{13}+\eta_{23})^2\geq 0.

This implies that \eta_{13}=\eta_{23}=0, and hence \gamma_1=\gamma_2=0 in \triangle v_1v_2v_3. Consequently, h_{12,3}=0 by (?, ?) and \theta_{12,3}=0 by (2.5). Now we consider \triangle v_1v_2v_4. Assume that \triangle v_1v_2v_4 is non-degenerate. Then h_{12,4}\geq0 by (?, ?). If h_{12,4}=0, it follows that \gamma_1=\gamma_2=0 in \triangle v_1v_2v_4, and hence \eta_{14}=\eta_{24}=0. From (?), it follows that \varepsilon_1\varepsilon_4+\eta_{14}>0 and \varepsilon_2\varepsilon_4+\eta_{24}>0. Summing these two inequalities yields \varepsilon_4>0, and so \varepsilon_4=1. This contradicts the assumption that the pair (\varepsilon,\eta) is regular. Hence, h_{12,4}>0 and \theta_{12,4}>0 by (2.5). Assume that \triangle v_1v_2v_4 is degenerate. By arguments analogous to those for the case \eta_{12}<1, the flat vertex of \triangle v_1v_2v_4 is v_1 or v_2, which implies that \theta_{12,4}=\frac{\pi}{2} by (2.5). Therefore, \theta_{12,3}+\theta_{12,4}>0. Q.E.D.

Uses Lemma 2.1, Definition 2.5

Theorem

Theorem 3.1

XM0P

Let (\varepsilon, \eta) be a regular weight pair on (P_n, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta). If r and \bar{r} are two generalized labels on (P_n, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta) satisfying

(a) both r and \bar{r} are weighted Delaunay,
(b) the combinatorial curvatures K_0(r) and K_0(\bar{r}) at the vertex v_0 satisfy K_0(r) \leq K_0(\bar{r}),
(c) \max \left\{\frac{r_i}{\bar{r}_i} \mid i = 1, 2, \dots, n\right\} \leq \frac{r_0}{\bar{r}_0},

then there exists a constant c>0 such that r=c\bar{r}.

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof

Lemma

Lemma 3.2

XQNZ

If r, \bar{r}: \{v_0, v_1, \dots, v_n\} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{>0} satisfies conditions (a), (b), and (c) in Theorem 3.1, and there exists j \in \{1, 2, \dots, n\} such that \frac{r_j}{\bar{r}_j} < \frac{r_0}{\bar{r}_0}, then there exists \hat{r} \in \mathbb{R}_{>0}^{n+1} such that

(a) \hat{r}_i \geq r_i for i \in \{1, \dots, n\},
(b) \frac{\hat{r}_i}{\bar{r}_i} \leq \frac{\hat{r}_0}{\bar{r}_0} = \frac{r_0}{\bar{r}_0} for all i = 1, 2, \dots, n,
(c) \hat{r} is a weighted Delaunay generalized label on (P_n, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta),
(d) if \alpha(r) denotes the cone angle of r at v_0, then
\alpha(\hat{r}) > \alpha(r).

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.2

We begin by introducing some notation. Consider two adjacent triangles \triangle v_0v_jv_{j\pm1} in \mathcal{T}, let \theta_0^{j,j\pm 1} be the inner angle at the vertex v_0 in the triangle \triangle v_0v_jv_{j\pm 1}. Set

\begin{gathered} h_j^-=h_{0j,j-1},\ h_j^+=h_{0j,j+1},\\ \theta_j^-=\theta_{0j,j-1},\ \theta_j^+=\theta_{0j,j+1},\\ \Delta_j^-=\Delta_{0j(j-1)},\ \Delta_j^+=\Delta_{0j(j+1)}. \end{gathered}

Without loss of generality, we may assume r_0=\bar{r}_0 after an appropriate scaling. By the condition (c) in Theorem 3.1, it follows that r_i\le{\bar{r}_i} for all i\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}. Define

\begin{gathered} J=\{j\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}\mid r_j<{\bar{r}_j}\},\ K=\{k\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}\mid r_k={\bar{r}_k}\},\\ \gamma(r)=\sum_{j\in{J}}(\theta_j^++\theta_j^-),\ \beta(r)=\sum_{k\in{K}}(\theta_k^++\theta_k^-). \end{gathered}

By the assumption, J\neq\emptyset. By (2.6), we have \alpha(r)=\beta(r)+\gamma(r) and \alpha(\bar{r})=\beta(\bar{r})+\gamma(\bar{r}). By the condition (b) in Theorem 3.1, it follows that \alpha(r) \geq \alpha(\bar{r}). Thus

\beta(r)+\gamma(r)\geq\beta(\bar{r})+\gamma(\bar{r}).

Uses Theorem 3.1, Lemma 2.6

Claim

Claim 1

MTJE

For any j\in J, we have \theta_{0}^{j-1,j}(r)<\pi and \theta_{0}^{j,j+1}(r)<\pi.

Claim

Claim 2

22D5

There exists j\in J such that \theta_j^+(r)+\theta_j^-(r)>0.

Claim

Claim 3

JZF2

Assume that \triangle v_0v_jv_{j-1} is degenerate. Then the flat vertex must be v_j.

Proof

Proof (Theorem : MP-E2)

C4Y0

The proof is similar to that of Theorem 3.1 in [LSW]. Without loss of generality, we perform a scaling transformation to assume that r_0=\bar{r}_0 and r_i\le\bar{r}_i for all i=1,2,\dots,n. We proceed by contradiction. Suppose Theorem 3.1 does not hold. Then there exists a vector r satisfying r_0=\bar{r}_0 and r_i\le\bar{r}_i for all i=1,2,\dots,n, with at least one index i_0 such that r_{i_0}<\bar{r}_{i_0} and \alpha(\bar{r})\leq\alpha(r). By Lemma 3.2, after replacing r with \hat{r}, we can further deduce that

\alpha(\bar{r})<\alpha(r).

Define the set

X:=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\mid r\le x\le \bar{r}, \text{$x$ is a weighted Delaunay generalized label on $(P_n, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta)$}\}.

Clearly, r\in X, and X is bounded. By Lemma 2.6, the set X is closed in \mathbb{R}^{n+1}. Therefore, X is compact, and the function \alpha(x) attains its maximum on X. Let t\in X be a point where the continuous function \alpha(x) achieves its maximum on X. If t\neq\bar{r}, then by Lemma 3.2, there exists a weighted Delaunay generalized label \hat{t} on (P_n, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta) such that \hat{t}\ge t, \hat{t}_0=\bar{r}_0, \hat{t}\le\bar{r}, and \alpha(\hat{t})>\alpha(t). This contradicts the assumption that t is the maximum point of \alpha(x). Therefore, t=\bar{r}, and

\alpha(\bar{r})=\alpha(t)\ge\alpha(r)>\alpha(\bar{r}).

This leads to a contradiction. Q.E.D.

Uses Theorem 3.1, Lemma 3.2, Lemma 2.6

Remark

Remark 3.3

1FOG

The maximum principle in Theorem 3.1 unifies and generalizes a wide range of discrete maximum principles on surfaces. Specifically, when \varepsilon\equiv0 and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{>0}, Theorem 3.1 reduces to the maximum principle for Luo’s vertex scalings established by Luo-Sun-Wu [LSW] and Dai-Ge-Ma [DGM]. When \varepsilon\equiv1 and \eta: E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq0}, Theorem 3.1 reduces to the maximum principle for inversive distance circle packing established by Luo-Xu-Zhang [LXZ]. Note that the maximal principle for the case \varepsilon\equiv1 and \eta: E\rightarrow (-1,1] has been established in [LXZ].

Remark

Remark 3.4

34IY

In the case where \varepsilon\equiv1, Luo-Xu-Zhang [LXZ] provided a counterexample demonstrating that the discrete maximum principle fails when the weight \eta simultaneously takes values in both (-1,0) and (1,+\infty) on a triangulated surface. For further details, see Remark 3.3 in [LXZ]. We now investigate the remaining case where \varepsilon: V\rightarrow \{0,1\} (with \varepsilon\not\equiv0 and \varepsilon\not\equiv1) and \eta: E\rightarrow (-1,1] satisfy the structure conditions (?) and (2.3). In the following, we present a counterexample to demonstrate that Theorem 3.1 does not hold in this case. Consider a polygon disk P_4 with four boundary vertices v_1, v_2, v_3, v_4 and a unique interior vertex v_0. Define \varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_1=\varepsilon_3=1, \varepsilon_2=\varepsilon_4=0, \eta_{01}=\eta_{03}=-\frac{1}{2}, \eta_{02}=\eta_{04}=\frac{1}{2}, and \eta_{12}=\eta_{23}=\eta_{34}=\eta_{14}=\frac{1}{4}. It is straightforward to check that the pair (\eta,\varepsilon) is regular and satisfies the structure conditions (?) and (2.3). We further define r_0=1, r_1=r_3=2, and r_2=r_4=c^{-1} for c>0. For the triangle \triangle v_0v_1v_2, we have Q=\frac{3}{4}c(c+1)>0, which implies that \triangle v_0v_1v_2 is non-degenerate. Direct calculations yield \gamma_0=\varepsilon_0\eta_{12}+\eta_{01}\eta_{02}=0, \gamma_1=\varepsilon_1\eta_{02}+\eta_{01}\eta_{12}=\frac{3}{8}, and \gamma_2=\varepsilon_2\eta_{01}+\eta_{02}\eta_{12}=\frac{1}{8}. Furthermore, h_{01,2}>0 and h_{02,1}=0. Moreover, l_{01}^2+l_{02}^2=l_{12}^2, which implies that \triangle v_0v_1v_2 is a right triangle with \angle v_1v_0v_2=\frac{\pi}{2}. It is straightforward to verify that all triangles are congruent. Therefore, h_{01,2}=h_{01,4}=h_{03,2}=h_{03,4}>0 and h_{02,1}=h_{02,3}=h_{04,1}=h_{04,3}=0. Thus, r=(1,2,c^{-1},2,c^{-1})\in \mathbb{R}^5_{>0} is a weighted Delaunay admissible label on P_4 for any c>0. The cone angle \alpha(r) at the vertex v_0 is 2\pi for any c>0. This implies that the discrete maximum principle does not hold in this case.

Convention

Convention 4.1

LRHP

Let e=v_iv_j denote a geodesic segment in \mathbb{D} with v_i=O.

(a) If \varepsilon_i=0, then we set u_i=U_i+\ln 2;
(b) If \varepsilon_i=1, then we set u_i=U_i;
(c) If \varepsilon_j=0, then we set u_j=U_j+\ln\frac{2}{1-|z_j|^2}, where z_j is a point representing v_j;
(d) If \varepsilon_j=1, then we set u_j=U_j+\ln \frac{2}{1-xy+\sqrt{(1-x^2)(1-y^2)}}, where x and y denote the real numbers representing the minimal and maximal Euclidean distances, respectively, from the points of C_j (with hyperbolic center v_j) to the origin O.

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 4.2

JPEQ

(a) if u and U satisfy Convention 4.1, then \eta^h=\eta^e;
(b) the interior angle \angle v_iv_0v_{i+1} in the PL metric L is the same as that in the PH metric l for all i=1,\dots,n;
(c) if \eta^h=\eta^e, then l is weighted Delaunay if and only if L is weighted Delaunay.

Used by Proof, Proof

Lemma

Lemma 4.3

3DNS

Let l be the PH metric with hyperbolic label u defined on (P_n, \mathcal{T}, \varepsilon, \eta) with the interior vertex v_0 located at the origin O. Let L be the induced PL metric with Euclidean label U. Under the similarity transformation z \to e^{\mu} z in the plane, L induces a PL metric \tilde{L} with Euclidean label \tilde{U}, which in turn induces a PH metric \tilde{l} with hyperbolic label \tilde{u}. If both u,U and \tilde{u},\tilde{U} satisfy Convention 4.1, then l and \tilde{l} are hyperbolic discrete conformal equivalent. Moreover,

w^h_0=w_0^e\equiv\mu,

and

w^h_j=\mu+\ln \frac{1-|z_j|^2}{1-e^{2\mu}|z_j|^2}

for \varepsilon_j=0, and

w^h_j=\mu+\ln \frac{1-xy+\sqrt{(1-x^2)(1-y^2)}}{1-e^{2\mu}xy +\sqrt{(1-e^{2\mu}x^2)(1-e^{2\mu}y^2)}}

for \varepsilon_j=1. Here v_j is adjacent to v_0, and x and y denote the minimal and maximal Euclidean distances, respectively, from the points of the circle C_j (with hyperbolic center v_j) to the origin O.

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 4.3

By Lemma 4.2 (a), we have \eta^e=\eta^h and \tilde{\eta}^e=\tilde{\eta}^h. Note that under a similarity transformation in the plane, the PL metrics L and \tilde{L} are Euclidean discrete conformal equivalent, i.e., \eta^e=\tilde{\eta}^e. Hence, \eta^h=\tilde{\eta}^h. This implies that l and \tilde{l} are hyperbolic discrete conformal equivalent. Furthermore, the similarity transformation of the PL metrics L and \tilde{L} implies that w^e\equiv\mu. Consequently, w_0^h=w_0^e\equiv\mu follows from (?) and (?). The formulas (4.3) and (4.3) are derived from (?) and (?), respectively. Q.E.D.

Uses Lemma 4.2

Corollary

Corollary 4.4

BW4N

Under the same assumptions as in Lemma 4.3, if \mu<0, then

w_0^h>w_j^h,\ \forall j\sim 0.

Used by Proof

Proof of Corollary 4.4

If \mu<0, then

\ln \frac{1-|z_j|^2}{1-e^{2\mu}|z_j|^2}<0 \quad \text{and} \quad \ln \frac{1-xy+\sqrt{(1-x^2)(1-y^2)}}{1-e^{2\mu}xy +\sqrt{(1-e^{2\mu}x^2)(1-e^{2\mu}y^2)}}<0.

Therefore, by (4.3) and (4.3), it follows that w_j^h<\mu=w_0^h. Q.E.D.

Uses Lemma 4.3

Theorem

Theorem 4.5

5Q5B

Let (\varepsilon,\eta) be a pair of regular weights on (P_n,\mathcal{T}). Suppose two PH metrics l and \bar{l} are hyperbolic discrete conformal equivalent, i.e., \bar{l}=w^h\ast l, and satisfy

(a) both l and \bar{l} are weighted Delaunay,
(b) the combinatorial curvatures K_0(l) and K_0(\bar{l}) at the vertex v_0 satisfy K_0(l) \geq K_0(\bar{l}),
(c) all circles and points associated with hyperbolic labels f and \bar{f} of l and \bar{l} are contained in \mathbb{D}.

Then the maximum of w^h, i.e. \max_{j\in \{0, 1, \cdots, n\}}w^h_j=\max_{j\in \{0, 1, \cdots, n\}}(\bar{u}_j-u_j), if >0, is never achieved at v_0.

Used by Proof

Proof

X0RA

We prove this theorem by contradiction. Assume that

w^h_0=\bar{u}_0-u_0 =\max_{j\in \{0, 1, \cdots, n\}}[\bar{u}_j-u_j]>0.

By Möbius transformations, we can assume that v_0=O. Then l and \bar{l} with hyperbolic labels u and \bar{u} induce two PL metrics L and \bar{L}, respectively. We choose the Euclidean labels U and \bar{U} of L and \bar{L} such that both u,U and \bar{u},\bar{U} satisfy Convention 4.1. From Lemma 4.2 (a), it follows that \eta^h=\eta^e and \bar{\eta}^h=\bar{\eta}^e. Since \eta^h=\bar{\eta}^h by assumption, we have \eta^e=\bar{\eta}^e. Therefore, L and \bar{L} are Euclidean discrete conformal equivalent. Moreover, L and \bar{L} are weighted Delaunay by Lemma 4.2 (c). Set \lambda=\frac{e^{u_0}}{e^{\bar{u}_0}}. From (Proof), it follows that

\lambda=\frac{e^{u_0}}{e^{\bar{u}_0}}<1.

Applying a similarity transformation z \to \lambda z to \bar{L} in the plane, a PL metric \bar{L}^\lambda with Euclidean label \bar{U}^\lambda and the corresponding PH metric \bar{l}^\lambda are obtained. Note that \bar{U}^\lambda is determined by \bar{U}. Since the similarity transformation preserves the weighted Delaunay condition, \bar{L}^\lambda is weighted Delaunay. Choose the hyperbolic label \bar{u}^\lambda of \bar{l}^\lambda such that \bar{u}^\lambda,\bar{U}^\lambda satisfy Convention 4.1. By Lemma 4.2 (a) (c), \bar{l}^{\lambda} is weighted Delaunay. By Lemma 4.3, \bar{l}^{\lambda} is hyperbolic discrete conformal equivalent to \bar{l}. Hence, l and \bar{l}^{\lambda} are hyperbolic discrete conformal equivalent, and L and \bar L^\lambda are Euclidean discrete conformal equivalent.

Applying Corollary 4.4 to \bar{l} and \bar{l}^\lambda, for j\sim 0, yields

\bar u^\lambda_j-\bar u_j<\bar u_0^\lambda-\bar u_0 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \bar u_0-\bar u_j<\bar u_0^\lambda-\bar u_j^\lambda.

Combining this result with the assumption that \bar u_0-u_0\geq\bar u_j-u_j in (Proof), we obtain

u_0-u_j\leq \bar u_0-\bar u_j<\bar u_0^\lambda-\bar u_j^\lambda.

Since \bar u_0^\lambda-\bar u_0=\ln \lambda by Lemma 4.3, it follows that e^{\bar u_0^\lambda}=\lambda e^{\bar u_0}=e^{u_0} by (Proof). Consequently, \bar u_0^\lambda=u_0 and \bar{f}_0^\lambda=f_0. From (?), it follows that u_j>\bar u_j^\lambda and f_j>\bar f_j^\lambda. Let l_{0j} and \bar l^\lambda_{0j} be the hyperbolic lengths of the edges from v_j to the origin. From (?) and (1.3), it follows that l_{0j}>\bar l^\lambda_{0j} (here we use \eta_{0j}=\bar{\eta}^{\lambda}_{0j}). Let L_{0j} and \bar L^\lambda_{0j} be the Euclidean lengths of the edges from v_j to the origin. Then

L^2_{0j} =\varepsilon_0e^{2U_0}+\varepsilon_je^{2U_j} +2\eta^e_{0j}e^{U_0+U_j} \quad \text{and} \quad (\bar L^\lambda_{0j})^2 =\varepsilon_0e^{2\bar{U}_0^\lambda}+ \varepsilon_je^{2\bar{U}_j^\lambda}+ 2\eta^e_{0j}e^{\bar{U}_0^\lambda+\bar{U}_j^\lambda}.

Since \bar u_0^\lambda-u_0=\bar U_0^\lambda-U_0 by Lemma 4.3, it follows that \bar u_0^\lambda=u_0 implies \bar U_0^\lambda=U_0. If \varepsilon_j=0, using the relation L=\tanh \frac{l}{2} between the Euclidean and hyperbolic lengths, then l_{0j}>\bar l^\lambda_{0j} implies L_{0j}>\bar L^\lambda_{0j}. Consequently, U_j>\bar{U}_j^\lambda by (?). If \varepsilon_j=1, then from (1.3), it follows that

\cosh l_{0j}=\sqrt{1+\varepsilon_0e^{2f_0}} \cosh r_j+\eta^h_{0j}e^{f_0}\sinh r_j.

Therefore,

\begin{aligned} e^{U_j} &=\frac{1}{2}(\tanh \frac{l_{0j}+r_j}{2}-\tanh \frac{l_{0j}-r_j}{2})\\ &=\frac{\sinh r_j}{\cosh l_{0j}+\cosh r_j}\\ &=\frac{1}{(\sqrt{1+\varepsilon_0e^{2f_0}}+1) \coth r_j+\eta^h_{0j}e^{f_0}}. \end{aligned}

Similarly,

e^{\bar U_j^\lambda} =\frac{1}{(\sqrt{1+\varepsilon_0e^{2\bar{f}^\lambda_0}}+1) \coth \bar{r}^\lambda_j+\eta^h_{0j}e^{\bar{f}^\lambda_0}}.

Note that u_j>\bar{u}^\lambda_j implies r_j>\bar{r}^\lambda_j. Combining this with f_0=\bar{f}_0^\lambda yields U_j>\bar U_j^\lambda.

In a 1-ring neighborhood of v_0=O, it holds that U_0=\bar U_0^\lambda and U_j>\bar{U}_j^\lambda for all j\sim 0. This implies that the maximum of e^{\bar{U}_j^\lambda}/e^{U_j} is attained at the interior vertex v_0. Note that by Lemma 4.2 (b), the hyperbolic angle at O of a hyperbolic triangle coincides with the Euclidean angle at O of the corresponding Euclidean triangle. Consequently, the hyperbolic combinatorial curvature at v_0 equals the Euclidean combinatorial curvature at v_0. By the assumption, it follows that K_0(L)\geq K_0(\bar{L}). Since Euclidean angles remain invariant under a similarity transformation, it follows that K_0(\bar{L})=K_0(\bar{L}^\lambda). Therefore, K_0(L)\geq K_0(\bar{L}^\lambda). By Theorem 3.1, e^{\bar{U}_j^\lambda}/e^{U_j}=e^{\bar{U}_0^\lambda}/e^{U_0} for all j\sim 0. Hence, U_j=\bar U_j^\lambda. This leads to a contradiction. Q.E.D.

Uses Convention 4.1, Lemma 4.2, Lemma 4.3, Corollary 4.4, Definition 1.3, Theorem 3.1

Proof

Proof (Theorem : MP-H)

FNGB

The part (1) follows directly from Theorem 4.5. We derive the part (2) by substituting w^h_0 with -w^h_0 in the part (1). This operation is reasonable by the assumption that K_0(l)\leq K_0(\bar{l}). Q.E.D.

Uses Theorem 1.4, Theorem 4.5

Remark

Remark 4.6

RYKP

Theorem 1.4 generalizes the hyperbolic maximal principles in Lemma 2.2 of He [He] and Theorem 2.7 of Dai-Wu [Dai-Wu]. Notably, our result does not require P_n to be embeddable into the hyperbolic plane \mathbb{D}, i.e., K_0(l)= K_0(\bar{l})= 0.

Theorem

Theorem 4.7 (Discrete Schwarz-Ahlfors lemma)

E803

(a) If the combinatorial curvatures K(l)\geq K(\bar{l}) for all interior vertices, and w^h \leq 0 holds for every boundary vertex, then w^h \leq 0 holds for all vertices.
(b) If K(l)\leq K(\bar{l}) for all interior vertices, and w^h \geq 0 holds for every boundary vertex, then w^h \geq 0 holds for all vertices.

Proof of Theorem 4.7

The first part follows from Theorem 1.4 (a). By contradiction, suppose there exists an interior vertex v_i with w^h_i>0. Then w^h achieve its maximum at some interior vertex. Without loss of generality, we assume w^h_i=\max_{j} w^h_j >0. By applying Theorem 1.4 (a) to the 1-ring neighborhood of v_i, we deduce that there exists a vertex j adjacent to i such that w^h_j>w^h_i. This contradicts the maximality of w^h_i. The second part follows analogously from Theorem 1.4 (b). Q.E.D.

Uses Theorem 1.4

Corollary

Corollary 4.8

W3S5

Under the same conditions as in Theorem 4.7, if K(l)\equiv K(\bar{l}) for all interior vertices, and w^h\equiv 0 holds for every boundary vertex, then w^h\equiv0 holds for all vertices.

Lemma

Lemma 4.9 (Schwarz-Ahlfors Lemma)

VOH7

Let \mathbb{D} be the unit disk in the complex plane, and let \rho(z)|dz| be the Poincaré metric in \mathbb{D}. Suppose ds=\sigma(z)|dz| is a C^2 Riemannian metric on \mathbb{D} with Gaussian curvature K\leq -1. Then \rho(z)\geq \sigma(z) for any z\in \mathbb{D}.

Lemma

Lemma 4.10 (Generalized Schwarz-Ahlfors Lemma)

VG3Q

Let D be a domain in the complex plane, and let ds=\sigma_j|\mathrm{d}z| be the metrics on D for j=1,2, where \sigma_j>0 and \sigma_j \in C^2. Assume that the Gaussian curvatures satisfy K(\sigma_1)\geq K(\sigma_2) and K(\sigma_2)<0, and that for every boundary point \xi \in \partial D, \liminf_{z \to \xi} \frac{\sigma_1(z)}{\sigma_2(z)} \geq 1. Then \sigma_1(z) \geq \sigma_2(z) for all z\in D.

Proof of Lemma 4.10

This should be a well-known result, but we did not find a proof of the result in the literature. A related work on complete Riemannian surfaces is Troyanov [Tr]. For completeness, we give a proof here. The idea of the proof comes from the original work of Ahlfors [Ah].

Set F(z)=\ln\sigma_1(z)-\ln\sigma_2(z). We just need to prove that F(z)\geq 0 in D. By contradiction, suppose that there is a point z_0\in D such that F(z_0)<0. Then \sigma_1(z_0) < \sigma_2(z_0).

By the assumption, we have \liminf_{z\to\xi}F(z)\geq 0 for all \xi\in\partial D. Hence, for any each \xi\in\partial D, there exists an open neighborhood U_\xi of \xi\in\partial D such that F(z)> \frac{1}{2}F(z_0) for all z\in U_\xi\cap D. By finite covering theorem, there exists a finite number of open sets U_1, \ldots, U_n such that K=D \setminus \left(\bigcup_{\alpha=1}^n U_\alpha \right) is a non-empty compact set. As a result, F(z) attains its minimum in D. Without loss of generality, we can assume

F(z_0)=\inf_{z\in D}F(z)<0.

Then \Delta F(z_0)\geq0.

On the other hand, at z_0, we have

\begin{aligned} \Delta F|_{z_0} =&(\Delta\ln\sigma_1-\Delta\ln\sigma_2)|_{z_0}\\ =&[-K(\sigma_1)\sigma^2_1+K(\sigma_2)\sigma^2_2]|_{z_0}\\ \leq& -K(\sigma_2)(\sigma^2_1-\sigma^2_2)|_{z_0}\\ <&0, \end{aligned}

where the formula K(\sigma)=-\sigma^{-2}\Delta \ln \sigma for the Gaussian curvature is used in the second line and the condition K(\sigma_2)<0 is used in the third line. This contradicts \Delta F(z_0)\geq0. Q.E.D.

Lemma

Lemma 5.1

3H0S

Let \mathcal{T}_0=(V_0,E_0,F_0) be a subcomplex of \mathcal{T}. Let z_i be the coordinate of v_i\in V_0 and \tilde z_i be the image of z_i under similarity transformation z\rightarrow e^\mu z in the plane. Let L and \tilde L be the PL metrics on \mathcal{T}_0 determined by \{z_i\} and \{\tilde z_i\}. Let l and \tilde l be the PH metrics on \mathcal{T}_0 determined by \{z_i\} and \{\tilde z_i\}.

Then l and \tilde{l} are discrete conformal equivalent, i.e., \tilde{l}=w^h*l, with

w^h_i=\mu+\ln \frac{1-|z_i|^2}{1-|\tilde{z}_i|^2}.

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 5.2

ER9H

The following statements hold.

(a) For all x\in[0, 1], the inequality \arcsin x\leq 2x holds, and
\frac{x}{2}\leq \sin x \leq x\leq \sinh x\leq e^x - 1\leq 2x.
(b) If the hyperbolic distance d(z_1, z_2)<1, then
\frac{|z_2-z_1|}{1-|z_2|} \leq 2d(z_1, z_2).
(c) If |z_1|\leq |z_2|, then
\frac{1}{2}d(z_1, z_2) \leq \frac{|z_1-z_2|}{1-|z_2|}.

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 5.2

(a): The proof of this part is straightforward and thus omitted here.

(b): Let C\subseteq\mathbb{H}^2 be the hyperbolic circle containing z_1 and z_2 such that the diameter of C is the geodesic segment from z_1 to z_2. Apply a rotational isometry centered at the hyperbolic center of C to map z_1 and z_2 to z_1' and z_2', so that z_1' and z_2' lie on the x-axis with z_1', z_2'\in (-1,1), z_2'>0, and |z_1'|\leq z_2'.

It is straightforward to check that

\frac{|z_2-z_1|}{1-|z_2|} \leq \frac{|z_2'-z_1'|}{1-|z_2'|},

and d(z_1',z_2') = d(z_1, z_2). Hence, it suffices to show the case of z_1 = z_1' and z_2 = z_2'.

The cross-ratio formula for the hyperbolic distance yields

d(z_1,z_2) =\ln \frac{(1-z_1)(1+z_2)}{(1-z_2)(1+z_1)} \geq \ln\frac{1-z_1}{1-z_2} =\ln \left(1 +\frac{|z_2-z_1|}{1-|z_2|}\right).

Furthermore, the inequality e^x-1\leq 2x implies that

\frac{|z_2-z_1|}{1-|z_2|}\leq e^{d(z_1,z_2)}-1 \leq 2d(z_1, z_2).

(c): Let \gamma(t)=tz_2+(1-t)z_1 be the parametrized curve that connects z_1 and z_2. Clearly, |\gamma(t)|\leq t|z_2|+(1-t)|z_1|\leq |z_2| holds for all t\in[0,1]. Therefore,

d(z_2,z_1) \leq l(\gamma) \leq \int_0^1\frac{2|\gamma'(t)|}{1-|\gamma(t)|^2}dt \leq \frac{2|z_2-z_1|}{1-|z_2|}.

Lemma

Lemma 5.3

BLMD

Let \gamma and \gamma' be the hyperbolic and Euclidean geodesic segments in \mathbb{D} connecting z_1 and z_2, respectively. If d(z_1, z_2)\leq 1, then the angle of intersection between \gamma and \gamma' is less than 2d(z_1, z_2).

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 5.3

If \gamma extends to a diameter of \mathbb{D}, then \gamma' coincides with \gamma, and the angle of intersection is zero. Otherwise, let c be the center of the circle containing \gamma in \mathbb{D}, where the circle is orthogonal to the unit circle. Since |c|>1, it follows that |c-z_1|>1-|z_1|. Furthermore, combining Lemma 5.2 (b) with the assumption that d(z_1,z_2)\leq 1 yields

\frac{|z_2-z_1|}{2|c-z_1|} \leq \frac{|z_2-z_1|}{2(1-|z_1|)} \leq d(z_1, z_2)\leq 1.

Using the inequality \arcsin x \leq 2x in Lemma 5.2(a) when x\in [0, 1], the angle of intersection between \gamma and \gamma' is

\frac{1}{2}\angle z_1cz_2 =\arcsin \frac{|z_2-z_1|}{2|c-z_1|} \leq \frac{|z_2-z_1|}{|c-z_1|} <\frac{|z_2-z_1|}{1-|z_1|} \leq 2d(z_1,z_2).

Uses Lemma 5.2

Proof

Proof (Theorem : IR-H)

U7BJ

By the assumption, there exists a discrete conformal factor w^h such that \bar{l}=w^h*l. It suffices to show that w_i^h\geq 0 for all v_i\in V. By symmetry, we have w^h\equiv0, which implies that \bar{l} and l are the same PH metrics.

Otherwise, assume that w^h_0<0 for some vertex v_0. Without loss of generality, we assume that v_0=O for both triangulations l and \bar l. We perform the following transformation to \bar{l} while preserving l.

Step 1: Let z_i be the complex number representing the position of v_i in \bar{l}. Then \{z_i\} forms a set of points in \mathbb{D}. Replace the hyperbolic geodesic segment connecting z_i and z_j with the Euclidean segment connecting z_i and z_j. In general, the PH metric \bar{l} does not necessarily induce a PL metric \bar{L}. However, under the assumptions in Theorem 1.6, the PH metric \bar{l} induces a PL metric \bar{L} in this way. By the assumption that all inner angles of all triangles in \bar{l} are at least \delta, we have \delta<\frac{\pi}{3}. Since the maximum length of the edge in \bar l is assumed to be less than \delta^3/8192, by Lemma 5.3, the angles of the Euclidean triangles in \bar{L} are at least \delta/2, and the orientation of the triangles is preserved. Thus, \bar{L} is a PL metric induced by \bar{l}.

Step 2: Apply a similarity transformation z\to e^\mu z to \bar L, where 0<\mu<-w^h_0 is chosen sufficiently small to obtain a new PL metric \tilde L. Under this transformation, the Euclidean angles remain unchanged. Let \tilde z_i be the complex number in \tilde{L} representing the position of v_i. Note that some \tilde z_i may lie outside the unit disk due to the scaling. Recall that d(z_1,z_2)=\infty if either z_1 or z_2 lies outside \mathbb{D}. However, we are not concerned with points outside \mathbb{D}. Instead, we define a subcomplex T_0 of \mathcal{T} with the following properties:

(1) all edges v_iv_j in E_0=E(T_0) satisfy d(\tilde z_i, \tilde z_j)\leq \delta/16,
(2) all vertices in V_0=V(T_0) are the set of vertices intersecting some edges in E_0,
(3) all faces in F_0=F(T_0) are the set of triangles whose edges are all in E_0.

Note that T_0 is a finite complex, since the set \{z_i\} is discrete in \mathbb{D} with its limit set in \partial \mathbb{D}. Since \mu is chosen to be sufficiently small, it is straightforward to check that v_0\in V_0.

Step 3: Replace the Euclidean geodesic segments in \tilde{L} with hyperbolic geodesic segments to obtain a hyperbolic metric \tilde l. By Lemma 5.3 again, \tilde l is a PH metric on T_0 with angles bounded by \delta/4. This completes the construction.

By Lemma 5.1, the PH metrics l and \tilde l are discrete conformal equivalent, i.e., \tilde l =\tilde w^h*l with

\tilde w^h_i =w^h_i+\mu+\ln\frac{1-|z_i|^2}{1-|\tilde z_i|^2}.

This follows from the fact that \bar l=w^h*l by definition and \tilde{l}=w* \bar l with w_i=\mu_i+\ln\frac{1-|z_i|^2}{1-|\tilde z_i|^2} by (?).

By v_0=O and the definition of \mu, it follows that \tilde w^h_0=w^h_0+\mu<0. Let \tilde w^h_i=\min_{j\in V_0} \tilde w^h_j. By the hyperbolic maximum principle in Theorem 1.4, \tilde w^h_i is attained at a boundary vertex v_i\in V_0. Furthermore, there exists v_k adjacent to v_i such that v_k\notin V_0. Otherwise, all the vertices adjacent to v_i are contained in V_0. Applying the hyperbolic maximum principle in Theorem 1.4 to the 1-ring neighborhood of v_i, we have \tilde w^h_i>\min_{j, v_iv_j\in E(\mathcal{T})} \tilde w^h_j, which contradicts \tilde w^h_i=\min_{j\in V_0} \tilde w^h_j. As a result, there exists a triangle \triangle v_iv_jv_k such that v_iv_j\in E_0 and v_iv_k\not\in E_0. Therefore, by the definition of E_0, we have \tilde l_{ij}\leq \delta/16 and \tilde l_{ik}>\delta/16.

Since \tilde l_{ij}\leq \delta/16, we can bound \tilde l_{ik} and \tilde l_{jk} using the Euclidean sine law as follows. By Lemma 5.2 (b), the inequality \tilde l_{ij}\leq \delta/16 implies that

\frac{|\tilde z_i-\tilde z_j|}{1-|\tilde z_j|} \leq 2\tilde l_{ij} \leq\frac{\delta}{8}.

Note that the inner angles of the Euclidean triangle \triangle_E v_iv_jv_k are at least \delta/2. By the Euclidean sine law, we have

\frac{|\tilde z_k-\tilde z_j|}{1-|\tilde z_j|} \leq \frac{|\tilde z_i-\tilde z_j|}{1-|\tilde z_j|}\frac{1}{\sin(\delta/2)} \leq \frac{\delta}{8\sin(\delta/2)} \leq \frac{\delta}{8(\delta/2)/2} =\frac{1}{2},

1-|\tilde z_k| \geq 1-|\tilde z_j|-|\tilde z_j-\tilde z_k| \geq 1-|\tilde z_j|-\frac{1}{2}(1-|\tilde z_j|) =\frac{1}{2}(1-|\tilde z_j|).

From Lemma 5.2 (c), it follows that

\frac{1}{2}\tilde l_{jk} \leq \max \left\{\frac{|\tilde z_k - \tilde z_j|}{1- |\tilde z_k|}, \frac{|\tilde z_k - \tilde z_j|}{1-|\tilde z_j|}\right\} \leq \frac{|\tilde z_k - \tilde z_j|}{\frac{1}{2}(1-|\tilde z_j|)}.

Therefore,

\frac{1}{2}\tilde l_{jk} \leq\frac{2|\tilde z_k-\tilde z_j|}{1-|\tilde z_j|} \leq\frac{2|\tilde z_j-\tilde z_i|}{(1-|\tilde z_j|)\sin(\delta/2)} \leq\frac{8}{\delta}\frac{|\tilde z_i-\tilde z_j|}{1-|\tilde z_j|} \leq\frac{8}{\delta}\cdot 2\tilde l_{ij} \leq 1,

where the second inequality follows from the Euclidean sine law, the third inequality follows from \sin x\geq x/2 in Lemma 5.2 (a), and the forth inequality follows from (?). Consequently, \tilde l_{jk}\leq (32/\delta)\tilde l_{ij}\leq 2. Similarly, by exchanging the index j with i in (?) and replacing the index j by i in (?), we can show that \tilde l_{ik}\leq 2 by repeating the computation above.

In summary, the edges in the hyperbolic triangle \triangle_H v_iv_jv_k satisfy the following bounds: \tilde l_{ij}\leq \delta/16, \tilde l_{jk}\leq 2, and \delta/16< \tilde l_{ik}\leq 2. Then, from the definition of \tilde w^h_i in (?), it follows that

e^{\tilde w^h_i} =\frac{(\sinh \frac{\tilde l_{ij}}{2}/\sinh \frac{l_{ij}}{2})(\sinh \frac{\tilde l_{ik}}{2}/\sinh \frac{l_{ik}}{2})}{(\sinh \frac{\tilde l_{jk}}{2}/\sinh \frac{l_{jk}}{2})} =\frac{\sinh \frac{\tilde l_{ik}}{2}}{\sinh \frac{l_{ij}}{2}}\frac{\sinh\frac{\tilde l_{ij}}{2}}{\sinh \frac{\tilde l_{jk}}{2}}\frac{\sinh\frac{l_{jk}}{2}}{\sinh \frac{ l_{ik}}{2}}.

Therefore,

e^{\tilde w^h_i} \geq \frac{\tilde l_{ik}/2}{l_{ij}}\frac{\tilde l_{ij}/2}{\tilde l_{jk}}\frac{(\sinh l_{jk})/4}{\sinh l_{ik}/2} =\frac{1}{8}\frac{\tilde l_{ik}}{l_{ij}}\frac{\tilde l_{ij}}{\tilde l_{jk}}\frac{\sinh l_{jk}}{\sinh l_{ik}} \geq\frac{1}{8}\frac{\delta/16}{l_{ij}}\frac{\delta}{32}\sin\delta \geq \frac{\delta^3}{8192l_{ij}} \geq 1,

where the first inequality follows from x\geq\sinh (x/2)\geq x/2\geq (\sinh x)/4 in Lemma 5.2 (a) and 2\sinh (l_{ik}/2)\leq \sinh l_{ik}, the second inequality follows from \tilde l_{ij}/\tilde l_{jk}\geq \delta/32 by (?), \tilde l_{ik}> \delta/16, and \sinh l_{jk}/\sinh l_{ik}\geq \sin\delta by the hyperbolic cosine law and the assumption, the third inequality follows from \sin \delta \geq \delta/2, and the last inequality follows from l_{ij}\leq \delta^3/8192. This contradicts with that \tilde w^h_i<\tilde w^h_0<0. Q.E.D.

Uses Theorem 1.6, Lemma 5.3, Lemma 5.1, Theorem 1.4, Lemma 5.2

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2208.04502v2 by Yanwen Luo, Xu Xu and Chao Zheng, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2208/2208.04502.jsonl.