Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Atypical generic directions in Teichm\"uller space

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read There exist Teichmüller geodesic rays that are sublinearly Morse yet have minimal non-uniquely ergodic vertical foliations.

desk verdict First examples of sublinearly Morse Teichmüller geodesic rays with minimal non-uniquely ergodic vertical foliations; the construction is plausible and the paper deserves refereeing, but the proof has a load-bearing dependency on an unproved proposition from an unpublished preprint. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17986 v2 pith:NLEKYSDE submitted 2025-04-24 math.GT math.DSmath.GR

Matthew Gentry Durham , Chenxi Wu , Kejia Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GTmath.DSmath.GR MSC 32G1530F6037E3537D40
keywords TeichmüllerspacegeodesicsublinearlyMorsenon-uniquelyergodicfoliationminimalcurvegraphtranslationsurfacemappingclassgroup
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that a geodesic ray in Teichmüller space can satisfy the weak hyperbolicity condition called sublinear Morseness while its vertical foliation is minimal but not uniquely ergodic. That existence separates sublinear Morseness from the unique-ergodicity property of the vertical foliation, so the class of sublinearly Morse rays is strictly larger than the class of rays with uniquely ergodic vertical foliations. The construction is explicit: a flat genus-two surface built from two skewed tori glued along a slit, using the continued fraction $\alpha=[1,4,9,16,\ldots]$ with the subsequence $n_k=2k+1$. The paper verifies sublinear Morseness by showing the geodesic has log-bounded subsurface projections, using quantitative estimates on how the associated slit curves spread out in the curve graph. If correct, the result marks a concrete limit on how much of the random-walk genericity picture can be recovered from sublinear Morseness alone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the explicit flat surface $X$: two identically oriented copies of the skewed torus $Y=\begin{pmatrix}1&-\alpha\\0&1\end{pmatrix}T$ glued along a slit with holonomy $(b,0)$, where $\alpha=[1,4,9,16,\ldots]$ and $b=2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(q_{2k+1}\alpha-p_{2k+1})$, with the subsequence $n_k=2k+1$. The Teichmüller geodesic $\gamma(t)=g_tX$ has first-return rotation by $\alpha$; at times $t_k=\log q_{2k+1}$ a sequence of slit curves $\zeta_k$ becomes extremely short. The workhorse of the proof is the combination of the paper's quantitative short-curves-to-large-projections statement (Proposition 4) with the strong passing-up proposition (Proposition 5), which together force boundary curves of many relevant subsurfaces to appear in order along a curve-graph geodesic, and therefore force the slit curves to spread out linearly. Lemma 3 packages this spread as intervals with bounded overlap, which yields the log-bounded projections estimate needed to conclude $\log^{2p}$-Morseness through the criterion quoted from [DZ22].

What would settle it

Compute the curve graph distances $d_{\mathcal C(S)}(\zeta_{k_n},\zeta_{k_n+1})$ for the explicit surface $X$ at times $t_k=\log q_{2k+1}$, with $\alpha=[1,4,9,16,\ldots]$ and $n_k=2k+1$; Proposition 3 predicts that for any fixed $L>0$ these distances eventually exceed $L$ on a subsequence while the time gaps are $O(\log k)$. A subsequence with bounded or sublinear curve-graph distances would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is Theorem A: there exist Teichmüller geodesic rays which are sublinearly Morse but have minimal non-uniquely ergodic vertical foliations. The rays come from the flat surface $X$ given by gluing two copies of a skewed torus along a slit, with $\alpha=[1,4,9,16,\ldots]$ and $n_k=2k+1$; Lemma 2 verifies non-unique ergodicity, and Theorem 2 verifies that the ray is $\log^{2p}$-Morse for some $p=p(S)>0$. The proof of Theorem 2 checks the log-bounded projections criterion from [DZ22]: at times $t_k=\log q_{2k+1}$ the slit curves $\zeta_k$ become hyperbolically short, and the combinatorial argument shows these curves spread out linearly in the curve graph while the time gaps grow only logarithmically. A corollary records that two such rays with the same underlying vertical foliation can diverge at a sublinear rate, and the construction can be adjusted so the limit set in the space of projectivized measured foliations is an interval rather than a point.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the strong passing-up proposition imported from a separate unpublished manuscript applies to the family of relevant subsurfaces produced by the short slit curves; if it fails there, the proof that these curves spread linearly in the curve graph collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sublinear Morseness does not imply unique ergodicity of the vertical foliation, so the class of sublinearly Morse Teichmüller geodesic rays is strictly larger than the class of rays with uniquely ergodic vertical foliations.
  • The example rays are non-recurrent, because minimal non-uniquely ergodic vertical foliations fail a standard recurrence criterion; they are therefore atypical among the directions that random walks track almost surely, despite being sublinearly Morse.
  • Two distinct rays with the same underlying topological vertical foliation can diverge at a sublinear rate, so the sublinearly Morse boundary does not separate such rays at a linear scale.
  • Varying the weights of the two ergodic measures can make the limit set of one of these rays in projectivized measured foliation space an interval, while the ray still determines a unique point in the Gromov boundary of the curve graph.
  • The genus-two examples lift to higher-genus surfaces by covering constructions, so the phenomenon is not an accident of genus two.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This suggests that any attempt to characterize random-walk genericity purely by sublinear Morseness must add a second condition, such as recurrence or unique ergodicity, to exclude a measure-zero population of atypical generic rays.
  • The explicit family invites a testable spectrum: choosing other subsequences of the partial quotients of $\alpha=[1,4,9,16,\ldots]$ in place of $n_k=2k+1$ should produce rays with different curve-graph divergence rates and possibly different ergodicity properties, if the estimates from the slit-torus construction continue to apply.
  • One could try to prove the linear spread of the slit curves directly from the flat geometry, without the imported strong passing-up proposition; a direct proof would make the construction self-contained and might extend to a broader class of translation surfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs an explicit Teichmüller geodesic ray γ in the genus-two surface, built from the Chaika–Masur–Wolf slit-torus construction with the continued fraction α=[1,4,9,16,...] and subsequence n_k=2k+1, whose vertical foliation is minimal and non-uniquely ergodic. The main theorem (Theorem A) asserts that this ray is sublinearly Morse, and the authors prove this by verifying a log-bounded projections criterion from [DZ22] via a combinatorial analysis of the slit curves in the curve graph. The proof has two main parts: Proposition 3 shows that the slit curves make linearly growing distance in C(S) at logarithmically spaced times, and Theorem 2 converts this into log-bounded projections and hence sublinear Morseness. The construction also yields Corollary B about a pair of sublinearly divergent rays with the same underlying vertical foliation.

Significance. If the proof is sound, the paper provides the first explicit examples of sublinearly Morse Teichmüller geodesic rays with minimal non-uniquely ergodic vertical foliations, sharpening the known contrast between generic directions and non-generic ones. The use of a concrete continued fraction and the reduction of sublinear Morseness to an explicit combinatorial statement in the curve graph are valuable and potentially exportable. The paper also carefully separates the roles of the curve graph boundary and the PMF limit set, giving a new illustration of why the injection of Cordes for Morse rays does not extend to sublinearly Morse rays.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 4, Claim 1 (proof of Proposition 3)] The proof applies Proposition 5 with the subdivision constant σ=1/100, but Proposition 5 is stated only for σ≥10E, where E=E(S) is a fixed constant. Since 1/100 is certainly smaller than 10E for the relevant E, the application as written is outside the theorem's hypotheses. This is load-bearing because Claim 1 is the mechanism that converts the counting conclusion of Proposition 5 into the ordered, separated four-tuple of slit curves, and Proposition 3 depends on it. The argument can likely be repaired by choosing σ to be a function of L1 (e.g., σ = L1/100) and letting P2 depend on L1, but as written the proof is invalid at this step.
  2. [Section 4, Proposition 5 and its role] The central combinatorial step of the paper rests on Proposition 5, which is quoted verbatim from the unpublished preprint [Dur23, Proposition 4.7] by one of the authors. Since Proposition 5 is neither proved nor independently established in this manuscript, the paper's main result is contingent on an unreviewed external statement. At minimum, the authors should either include a proof of Proposition 5 in an appendix or provide a reference to a peer-reviewed publication containing it. Additionally, the paper should explicitly verify that the collection V={V_k} produced by Proposition 4 satisfies the quantitative hypotheses of Proposition 5, including K1-relevance with K1≥50E and the cardinality requirements.
  3. [Section 4, Proposition 4] Proposition 4 is a quantitative version of Rafi's short-curve/big-projection theorem, stated as 'following from Rafi's original proof in [Raf05], though it is not commonly stated this way in the literature.' Since the subsequent construction of the subsurfaces V_k relies directly on the exact quantitative constants in Proposition 4, the authors should supply a proof or a precise reference that establishes this version. Without this, the verification that the V_k are sufficiently relevant is not self-contained.
  4. [Section 4, Claim 2] The proof of Claim 2 refers to 'item (4) of Claim 1', but Claim 1 has only items (1), (2), and (3). The intended argument appears to be that applying item (3) to two distinct blocks produces two distinct slit curves contained in the same subsurface W, contradicting the fact that the slit curves are filling. This is a fixable error, but it must be corrected because Claim 2 is used to ensure that the container subsurfaces W_i are distinct, which is needed for the complexity induction.
  5. [Section 4, proof of Claim 1, item (3)] The active-interval argument establishing that some slit curve ζ_j is contained in the container subsurface W is only sketched. In particular, the assertions that the active intervals I_{V_i}, I_{V_j}, I_{V_k} can be arranged to be contained in I_W and to appear in the same order as the projections to C(W), and that simultaneous shortness of ζ_j and ∂W implies ζ_j⊂W by the Collar Lemma, require a more detailed and precise justification. This step is essential for carrying the induction that produces the final pair of domains with large distance in C(S).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Corollary B, first paragraph] There is a repeated phrase: 'we can we can construct two distinct rays' should read 'we can construct two distinct rays'.
  2. [Proof of Proposition 3, first paragraph after defining V_k] The text says the subsurface V_k is 'provided by item (2) of Proposition 4', but the relevant implication is item (1), which produces a large-projection subsurface from a short curve. The reference should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4, statement of Proposition 3 and proof] The proof of Proposition 3 concludes that the slit curves for the first and last domains in a block project about L0/100 apart, but it does not explicitly state how the index gap between those domains is controlled. Adding a sentence explaining that the domains are chosen from consecutive blocks of size N_1^6 would improve clarity.
  4. [Several places] Hyperbolic and extremal length notation is used without a formal definition; in particular the comparison H(ζ_k)/π ≤ E(ζ_k) in the proof of Proposition 1 would benefit from a citation to Maskit's original paper, which is already provided, but the notation could be defined explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the explicit construction and the sublinear Morseness verification do not assume Theorem A; the Durham self-citations are independent general theorems, though one application has a fixable parameter mismatch.

full rationale

The derivation of Theorem A has two independent components. First, the flat surface X is defined explicitly from alpha=[1,4,9,16,...] and n_k=2k+1, and Lemma 2 imports non-unique ergodicity from Veech via [CMW19, Thm 2.3] after verifying Assumptions (A)-(C) in Lemma 1; no property of the target ray is used in the construction. Second, sublinear Morseness is proved by verifying the sufficient criterion of [DZ22, Thm K]: after establishing log-bounded projections in Theorem 2, the ray is log^{2p}-Morse. The proof of Proposition 3 uses Rafi's short-curve to subsurface-projection theorem [Raf05] and the 'strong passing-up' Proposition 5, quoted from [Dur23, Prop 4.7]. Although [Dur23] is an unpublished preprint by co-author Durham and is load-bearing for the combinatorial heart, it is a general HHS statement with universal constants (E, P_1, P_2) and hypotheses about arbitrary Teichmuller geodesics and large collections of K-relevant subsurfaces; it does not mention slit curves, the particular alpha, or the conclusion of Theorem A. The specific reduction a reader might suspect is Claim 1, where the paper says 'Items (1) and (2) follows immediately from Proposition 5'; but this reduces to an independent general lemma, not to the theorem being proved. The paper fits no parameter to its conclusion and renames no known result. The main proof risks are correctness issues rather than circularity: the paper neither proves Proposition 5 nor verifies the hypotheses for the specific family V_k, and Claim 1 chooses sigma=1/100 although Proposition 5 requires sigma>=10E, an apparent parameter mismatch that would need repair. These issues bear on completeness, not on circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the CMW slit-torus construction and on the sublinear Moresness criterion from DZ22, with Proposition 3 depending essentially on Durham's strong passing-up theorem from the unpublished preprint [Dur23]. These are prior results rather than assumptions built into the paper's own derivation; the free parameters are the explicit choices of α and the subsequence, plus the optional weight c. No new theoretical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • α (continued fraction [1,4,9,16,...]) = α = [1,4,9,16,...] (explicit, not fitted)
    Selected by hand to satisfy the assumptions (A), (B), (C) of [CMW19] and to give the required logarithmic time gaps and quartic slit-length decay; this choice is the core of the construction.
  • Subsequence parity n_k = 2k+1 = n_k = 2k+1
    Used to select the subsequence of convergents; this choice, together with α, enters the definition of b and the slit holonomy.
  • Weight parameter c (for the PMF interval variant) = c ∈ (-1,1), c ≠ 0
    Only needed for the strengthened statement that the limit set in PMF is an interval; the main Theorem A uses c=0. The proof of sublinear Moresness is claimed to hold for all c.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption CMW Theorem 2.3 (via Veech): vertical flow non-uniquely ergodic when Assumption (A) holds.
    Invoked in Lemma 2 to prove the constructed geodesic is non-uniquely ergodic.
  • domain assumption CMW Proposition 4.2 and Lemma 2.16: at times t_k the geodesic flow splits into uniformly thick tori with slit lengths |ζ_k| ≍ 1/a_{n_k+1}.
    Invoked in Proposition 1 to establish uniform thickness and shrinking slit lengths.
  • domain assumption DZ22 Theorem K part 2: a Teichmüller geodesic with κ-bounded projections is κ^{2p}-Morse for some p = p(S).
    Invoked in Theorem 2; note this is a result of co-author Durham and Zalloum.
  • domain assumption DZ22 Theorem A part (1): the sublinearly Morse boundary injects into the Gromov boundary of the curve graph.
    Invoked in Corollary B to identify the sublinearly Morse classes of γ and γ'.
  • domain assumption Dur23 Proposition 4.7 (strong passing-up): large collections of relevant subsurfaces produce container domains whose boundary curves appear in order along geodesics in C(W).
    Invoked as Proposition 5 in the proof of Proposition 3 and Claim 1; from an unpublished preprint by co-author Durham.
  • domain assumption Rafi Theorem 6.1 (quantitative short curves / big projections): short curves along a Teichmüller geodesic determine large subsurface projections, and vice versa.
    Invoked as Proposition 4; the quantitative statement is said to follow from Rafi's proof.
  • standard math Standard tools: hyperbolicity of the curve graph, Bounded Geodesic Image Theorem, distance formula for Teichmüller space, and active interval theorem for subsurface projections.
    Used throughout Sections 4 and 5 to compare projections and bound the log-distance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atypical generic directions in Teichm\"uller space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NLEKYSDE

@misc{pith2026250417986,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atypical generic directions in Teichm\"uller space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NLEKYSDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17986}
}
read the original abstract

Motivated by geometrically capturing generic directions in Teichm\"uller space -- that is, tracking rays for random walks of the mapping class group -- we use work of Chaika--Masur--Wolf and Durham--Zalloum to construct the first examples of a sublinearly-Morse Teichm\"uller geodesic rays with minimal non-uniquely ergodic vertical foliations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17986 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. On each torus, find a disk containing the slit; gluing the two disks containing the slit along the slits gives the cylinder. The length of the green segment is the shear of the torus, α. Remark 2. By Lemma 2, the vertical flow of the flat surface X defined above is non uniquely ergodic. The flat structure of X corresponds to the average of the two ergodic measures (c = 0 in the language of [CMW19]). If we replace th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The blue dashed line represents the ζk+3, and the length of the green segment represents the horizontal distance from some point P to ζk+3. Hence, at time tk, the shortest horizontal distance from every point to ζk+3 ≃ qnk /qnk+1 = O(1/k4 ) By a similar argument, at time tk the shortest vertical distance from every point to ζk−3 is bounded by O(1/k4 ). Because the slits are geodesics and the flat surface is non-posi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Using Proposition 5, we can arrange for the boundary curves ∂Vi , ∂Vj , ∂Vk, ∂Vl , and hence ζi , ζj , ζk, ζl , appear in order along any geodesic in C(W) between µ −, µ+. t, then item (1) of Proposition 4 provides a subsurface V ⊂ S − ζ (with possibly V the annulus with core ζ) so that diamC(V )(γ) > L0. For the rest of the proof, we will increase L0 and ϵ as necessary while maintaining the dependencies only on S. … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces ii: Combination theorems and the distance formula

    Jason Behrstock, Mark Hagen, and Alessandro Sisto. Hierarchically hyperbolic spaces ii: Combination theorems and the distance formula. Pacific Journal of Mathematics , 299(2):257--338, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    u ller geodesics with minimal nonuniquely ergodic vertical foliation, II . Journal f \

    Jeffrey Brock, Christopher Leininger, Babak Modami, and Kasra Rafi. Limit sets of T eichm \"u ller geodesics with minimal nonuniquely ergodic vertical foliation, II . Journal f \"u r die reine und angewandte Mathematik ( C relles Journal) , 2020(758):1--66, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Tight geodesics in the curve complex

    Brian H Bowditch. Tight geodesics in the curve complex. Inventiones mathematicae , 171(2):281--300, 2008

    2008

  4. [4]

    Slow Divergence and Unique Ergodicity

    Yitwah Cheung and Alex Eskin. Slow divergence and unique ergodicity. arXiv preprint arXiv:0711.0240 , 2007

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    u ller geodesics. Journal f \

    Jon Chaika, Howard Masur, and Michael Wolf. Limits in PMF of T eichm \"u ller geodesics. Journal f \"u r die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) , 2019(747):1--44, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Morse boundaries of proper geodesic metric spaces

    Matthew Cordes. Morse boundaries of proper geodesic metric spaces. Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics , 11(4):1281--1306, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Logarithmic laws and unique ergodicity

    Jon Chaika and Rodrigo Trevi \ n o. Logarithmic laws and unique ergodicity. Journal of Modern Dynamics , 11:563--588, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Statistical hyperbolicity in teichm \"u ller space

    Spencer Dowdall, Moon Duchin, and Howard Masur. Statistical hyperbolicity in teichm \"u ller space. Geometric and Functional Analysis , 24(3):748--795, 2014

    work page 2014

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    The augmented marking complex of a surface

    Matthew Gentry Durham. The augmented marking complex of a surface. Journal of the London Mathematical Society , page jdw065, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Cubulating I nfinity in H ierarchically H yperbolic S paces

    Matthew Gentry Durham. Cubulating I nfinity in H ierarchically H yperbolic S paces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13689 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The geometry of genericity in mapping class groups and T eichm \"u ller spaces via CAT(0) cube complexes

    Matthew Gentry Durham and Abdul Zalloum. The geometry of genericity in mapping class groups and T eichm \"u ller spaces via CAT(0) cube complexes. To appear in Transactions of the American Mathematical Society; arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.06516 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A primer on mapping class groups , volume 49

    Benson Farb and Dan Margalit. A primer on mapping class groups , volume 49. Princeton university press, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Genericity of sublinearly M orse directions in CAT(0) spaces and the T eichm \"u ller space

    Ilya Gekhtman, Yulan Qing, and Kasra Rafi. Genericity of sublinearly M orse directions in CAT(0) spaces and the T eichm \"u ller space. To appear in Mathematische Zeitschrift; arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.04778 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    The P oisson boundary of the mapping class group

    Vadim A Kaimanovich and Howard Masur. The P oisson boundary of the mapping class group. Inventiones mathematicae , 125(2):221--264, 1996

    1996

  7. [15]

    Teichm \"u ller geodesics that do not have a limit in PMF

    Anna Lenzhen. Teichm \"u ller geodesics that do not have a limit in PMF . Geometry & Topology , 12(1):177--197, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    u ller geodesics with minimal non-uniquely ergodic vertical foliation. Journal f \

    Christopher Leininger, Anna Lenzhen, and Kasra Rafi. Limit sets of T eichm \"u ller geodesics with minimal non-uniquely ergodic vertical foliation. Journal f \"u r die reine und angewandte Mathematik (Crelles Journal) , 2018(737):1--32, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Interval exchange transformations and measured foliations

    Howard Masur. Interval exchange transformations and measured foliations. Annals of Mathematics , 115(1):169--200, 1982

    1982

  10. [18]

    Comparison of hyperbolic and extremal lengths

    Bernard Maskit. Comparison of hyperbolic and extremal lengths. Annales Fennici Mathematici , 10(1):381--386, 1985

    1985

  11. [19]

    Curve complexes, surfaces and 3-manifolds

    Yair N Minsky. Curve complexes, surfaces and 3-manifolds. In International Congress of Mathematicians , volume 2, pages 1001--1033, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Geometry of the complex of curves, I : H yperbolicity

    Howard Masur and Yair Minsky. Geometry of the complex of curves, I : H yperbolicity. Invent. Math. , 138:103--149, 1999

    1999

  13. [21]

    Geometry of the complex of curves I : H yperbolicity

    Howard A Masur and Yair N Minsky. Geometry of the complex of curves I : H yperbolicity. Inventiones Mathematicae , 138(1):103--149, 1999

    1999

  14. [22]

    Geometry of the complex of curves II : H ierarchical structure

    HA Masur and YN Minsky. Geometry of the complex of curves II : H ierarchical structure. Geometric & Functional Analysis GAFA , 10:902--974, 2000

    2000

  15. [23]

    Sublinearly M orse boundary I : CAT(0) spaces

    Yulan Qing and Kasra Rafi. Sublinearly M orse boundary I : CAT(0) spaces. Advances in Mathematics , 404:108442, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Sublinearly M orse boundary, II : P roper geodesic spaces

    Yulan Qing, Kasra Rafi, and Giulio Tiozzo. Sublinearly M orse boundary, II : P roper geodesic spaces. Geometry & Topology , 28(4):1829--1889, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    A characterization of short curves of a T eichm \"u ller geodesic

    Kasra Rafi. A characterization of short curves of a T eichm \"u ller geodesic. Geometry & Topology , 9(1):179--202, 2005

    2005

  18. [26]

    A combinatorial model for the T eichm \"u ller metric

    Kasra Rafi. A combinatorial model for the T eichm \"u ller metric. GAFA Geometric And Functional Analysis , 17:936--959, 2007

    2007

  19. [27]

    Hyperbolicity in T eichm \"u ller space

    Kasra Rafi. Hyperbolicity in T eichm \"u ller space. Geometry & Topology , 18(5):3025--3053, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    On the ergodicity of flat surfaces of finite area

    Rodrigo Trevino. On the ergodicity of flat surfaces of finite area. Geometric and Functional Analysis , 24:360--386, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Strict ergodicity in zero dimensional dynamical systems and the kronecker-weyl theorem mod 2

    William A Veech. Strict ergodicity in zero dimensional dynamical systems and the kronecker-weyl theorem mod 2. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society , 140:1--33, 1969

    1969

  22. [30]

    Translation surfaces and their orbit closures: an introduction for a broad audience

    Alex Wright. Translation surfaces and their orbit closures: an introduction for a broad audience. EMS Surveys in Mathematical Sciences , 2(1):63--108, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.