We will see two examples of non-quasiconvex subgroups in this section. The first one is NOT a hyperbolic group, while the second one is.
Example: For the first example, let
with one eigenvalue (the larger one) . Notice that does not fix any non-zero vectors in (such a map is called Anosov).
Now let . This is a group. The group law works like this: for any , . Pick , . The map is, by the following analysis, NOT a quasi-embedding:
Choose such that . All norms on are bilipschitz, so there exists such that . Therefore, for sufficiently large , , and so . On the other side, we have . It follows that is not a quasi-embedding.
Example: For the second example, let be a hyperbolic surface. An automorphism of is called pseudo-Anosov if for any smooth closed curve on and any , is not homotopic to . Let be the mapping torus of , i.e., , with the relation generated by .
Under these assumptions, we are able to use a theorem of Thurston asserting that, must be a hyperbolic 3-manifold. (W. Thurston, “On the geometry and dynamics of diffeomorphisms of surfaces,” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. vol 19 (1988), 417-431)
Hence, if is closed, then is also closed. So acts nicely on (actually ), and so is word-hyperbolic by the Švarc–Milnor Lemma. Then a similar argument to the previous shows the natural map is NOT a quasi-embedding.
For concrete examples, see A. Casson & S. Bleiler, “Automorphisms of Surfaces After Nielsen and Thurston”.
After the two examples, let us switch to a property for all hyperbolic groups:
Theorem 7: Hyperbolic groups are finitely presented.
In order to prove this theorem, we need the following lemma:
Lemma 9: Let be two geodesics in a -hyperbolic metric space , . (If is longer than , say, then extend by the constant map). Then for any , .
Proof: Case 1: there is such that . Without loss of generality, assume , then . So, .
Case 2: there is no such that . Then must be within distance of . Apply a similar argument to the previous, we see .
Proof of Theorem 7: Let be -hyperbolic, with the generating set . Let be any relation, which corresponds to a loop in the Cayley graph . We can always take with and geodesics in and , by “triangulating”.
Write , . Denote , , . An easy induction shows that
But Lemma 9 implies that for all , so we have written the loop as a product of conjugates of loops of length at most . Therefore, the set of all loops of length at most is a finite set of relations for .