![MathJax Logo](/templates/jsp/_style2/_tandf/pb2/images/math-jax.gif)
Abstract
The triangular ratio metric is studied in a domain ,
. Several sharp bounds are proven for this metric, especially in the case where the domain is the unit disk of the complex plane. The results are applied to study the Hölder continuity of quasiconformal mappings.
AMS Subject Classifications:
1. Introduction
In geometric function theory, metrics are often used to define new types of geometries of subdomains of the Euclidean, Hilbert, Banach and other metric spaces [Citation1–4]. One can introduce a metric topology and build new types of geometries of a domain ,
, based on metrics. Since the local behaviour of functions defined on G is an important area of study, it is natural to require that, given a point in G, a metric recognises points close to it from the boundary
.
Thus, certain constraints on metrics are necessary. A natural requirement is that the distance defined by a metric for given two points takes into account both how far the points are from each other and also their location with respect to the boundary. Indeed, we require that the closures of the balls defined by the metrics do not intersect the boundary
of the domain. We call these types of metrics intrinsic metrics. A generic example of an intrinsic metric is the hyperbolic metric [Citation5] of a planar domain or its generalisation, the quasihyperbolic metric [Citation6] defined in all proper subdomains of
,
.
In the recent years, new kinds of intrinsic geometries have been introduced by numerous authors, see Ref. [Citation7, pp. 18–19]. Papadopoulos lists in Ref. [Citation8, pp. 42–48] 12 metrics recurrent in function theory. Because there are differences how these metrics catch certain intricate features of functions, using several metrics is often imperative. We might further specify the properties of the metrics by requiring that the intrinsic metric should be compatible with the function classes studied. For instance, some kind of quasi-invariance property is often valuable. Recall that the hyperbolic metric of a planar domain G is invariant under conformal automorphisms of G.
In 2002, Hästö [Citation9] introduced the triangular ratio metric, defined in a domain as the function
This metric was studied recently in Refs. [Citation10–12], and our goal here is to continue this investigation. We introduce new methods for estimating the triangular ratio metric in terms of several other metrics and establish several results with sharp constants.
In order to compute the value of the triangular ratio metric between points x and y in a domain G, we must find a point z on the boundary of G that gives the infimum for the sum . This is a very simple task if the domain is, for instance, a half-plane or a polygon, but solving the triangular ratio distance in the unit disk is a complicated problem with a very long history (see Ref. [Citation11]). However, there are two special cases where this problem becomes trivial: if the points x and y in the unit disk are collinear with the origin or at the same distance from the origin, there are explicit formulas for the triangular ratio metric.
Since the points x and y can be always rotated around their midpoint to end up into one of these two special cases, we can estimate the value of the triangular ratio metric, regardless of how the original points are located in the unit disk. This rotation can be done either by using Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry, and the main result of this article is to prove that both these ways give lower and upper limits for the value of the triangular ratio metric. Note that while we study the midpoint rotation only in the two-dimensional disk, our results can be directly extended into the case ,
, for the point z giving the infimum is always on the same two-dimensional disk as x, y and the origin.
The structure of this article is as follows. First, we show a few simple ways to find bounds for the triangular ratio metric in Section 3. We define the Euclidean midpoint rotation and prove the inequalities related to it in Section 4 and then do the same for the hyperbolic midpoint rotation in Section 5. Finally, in Section 6, we explain how finding better bounds for the triangular ratio metric can be useful for studying K-quasiconformal mappings in the unit disk.
2. Preliminaries
Let G be some non-empty, open, proper and connected subset of . For all
,
is the Euclidean distance
. Other than the triangular ratio metric defined earlier, we will need the following hyperbolic type metrics:
The -metric
the point pair function
and the Barrlund metric
,
Note that the function
is not a metric in all domains [Citation10, Remark 3.1, p. 689].
The hyperbolic metric is defined as
in the upper half-plane
and in the Poincaré unit ball
, respectively [Citation7, (4.8), p. 52; (4.14), p. 55]. In the two-dimensional unit disk
where
is the complex conjugate of y and
is the Ahlfors bracket [Citation7, (3.17) p. 39]. The hyperbolic segment between points x and y is denoted by
, while Euclidean lines, line segments, balls and spheres are written in forms
,
,
and
, respectively, just like in Ref. [Citation7, pp. vii–xi]. Note that if the centre x or the radius r is not specified in the notations
and
, it means that x = 0 and r = 1. The hyperbolic ball is denoted by
, as in the following lemma.
Lemma 2.1
[Citation7, (4.20) p. 56]
The equality holds, if
For the results of Section 5, the formula for the hyperbolic midpoint is needed.
Theorem 2.2
[Citation13, Theorem 1.4, p. 3]
For all the hyperbolic midpoint q of
with
is given by
Furthermore, the next results will be useful when studying the triangular ratio metric in the unit disk.
Theorem 2.3
[Citation7, p. 460]
For all ,
Theorem 2.4
[Citation11, p. 138]
For all , the radius drawn to the point z giving the infimum
bisects the angle
.
Lemma 2.5
[Citation7, 11.2.1(1), p. 205]
For all ,
where the equality holds if the points x, y are collinear with the origin.
Theorem 2.6
[Citation14, Theorem 3.1, p. 276]
If with h, k>0, then
Remark 2.7
If such that
and there is only one point
giving the infimum
, then it can be verified with Theorem 2.6 that
.
3. Bounds for triangular ratio metric
In this section, we will introduce a few different upper and lower bounds for the triangular ratio metric in the unit disk , using the Barrlund metric and a special lower limit function. There are numerous similar results already in the literature, but we complement them and prove that our inequalities are sharp by showing that they have the best possible constant. First, we introduce the following inequality:
Lemma 3.1
For all the inequality
holds, if the domain G is starlike with respect to
and
.
Proof.
Let G be starlike with respect to and consider an arbitrary point
. Clearly,
. It also follows from the starlikeness of G that the convex hull
must belong to G. Fix
,
, on the same plane with the points x, y so that the lines
and
are tangents of
, and fix
.
By the starlikeness of G, , so it follows that
fulfils
Here,
and, with the information that
and
, we can conclude that
Thus, the lemma follows.
Remark 3.2
The same method as in the proof of Lemma 3.1 can be also applied into the case where G is convex. In that case, for all
, so
where
is chosen from
so that
is at minimum. By finding the value of this sum, we end up with the result
, which holds by Ref. [Citation7, Lemma 11.6(1), p. 197].
Let us now focus on the Barrlund metric.
Lemma 3.3
[Citation15, Theorem 3.6, p. 7]
For all ,
Theorem 3.4
[Citation15, Theorem 3.15, p. 11]
For all ,
Lemma 3.5
For all ,
Furthermore, this inequality is sharp.
Proof.
The inequality follows from Lemma 3.3. Let x = 0 and y = k with 0<k<1. By Lemma 2.5 and Theorem 3.4,
so we will have the following limit values
Thus, the sharpness follows.
Let us next study the connection between the Barrlund metric and two other hyperbolic type metrics that can be used to bound the value of the triangular ratio metric in the unit disk, see Theorem 2.3.
Theorem 3.6
For all , the sharp inequality
holds.
Proof.
The inequality follows from Lemma 3.5, Theorem 2.3 and Ref. [Citation12, Theorem 2.9(1), p. 1129]. By Theorem 3.4,
For x = 0 and y = k with 0<k<1,
and for x = −k and y = k with 0<k<1,
Thus, the sharpness follows.
Theorem 3.7
For all , the sharp inequality
holds.
Proof.
Consider now the quotient
(1)
(1)
By Lemma 3.5 and Ref. [Citation7, 11.16(1), p. 203],
holds for all
. This inequality is sharp, because, for x = 0 and y = k,
Without loss of generality, fix x = h and
with
and
. The quotient (Equation1
(1)
(1) ) is now
This is decreasing with respect to
, so we can assume that
and
, when looking for the maximum of this quotient. It follows that
where
. The quotient above is clearly decreasing with respect to q. Thus, let us fix j = h. It follows that
where
,
. By differentiation, for
,
Since
and
, the quotient (Equation1
(1)
(1) ) has a maximum
and the other part of the theorem follows.
Finally, we will introduce one special function defined in the punctured unit disk.
Definition 3.8
For , define
where
and
.
Remark 3.9
The low-function is not a metric on the punctured unit disk: by choosing points x = 0.3, y = −0.1 and z = 0.1, we will have
so the triangle inequality does not hold.
Furthermore, because for
, it follows that
(2)
(2)
see Ref. [Citation16, 7.44(20)]. Note also that, by Ref. [Citation16, 7.42(1)], the left-hand side of (Equation2
(2)
(2) ) defines a metric.
This low-function is a suitable lower bound for the triangular ratio metric, as the next theorem states.
Lemma 3.10
For all the inequality
holds.
Proof.
Suppose that and fix
. Clearly,
It follows from this that
As a lower bound for , the low-function is essentially sharp, when
. However, the low-function does not give any useful upper limits for the triangular ratio metric, unless we limit from below the absolute value of the points inspected. This can be seen in our next theorem.
Theorem 3.11
For all , the triangular ratio metric and its lower bound fulfil
where the equality holds if
.
Proof.
Consider the quotient
(3)
(3)
Fix
such that
and choose
so that it gives the infimum in the denominator of the quotient (Equation3
(3)
(3) ). Let
and
, where the point o is the origin. Note that, by Theorem 2.4,
, so it follows that
. We can write that
Furthermore,
Now, we can find an upper bound for the quotient (Equation3
(3)
(3) ):
(4)
(4)
Let us yet find another upper bound for the quotient (Equation4
(4)
(4) ). It can be shown by differentiation that the function
,
is increasing. It follows from this that
Thus, for all
such that
, the quotient (Equation3
(3)
(3) ) fulfils the inequality
(5)
(5)
Fix now
and
with
. The quotient (Equation3
(3)
(3) ) is now
and it has a limit value
Thus, the inequality (Equation5
(5)
(5) ) is sharp and this result proves that
Since the quotient
is decreasing for
, the theorem follows.
The low-function yields a lower limit also for other hyperbolic type metrics.
Lemma 3.12
For all , the following inequalities hold and are sharp:
,
,
.
Furthermore, there is no c>0 such that for all
, where
.
Proof.
The inequalities follow from Theorem 2.3, Lemmas 3.5 and 3.10, and Ref. [Citation12, Theorem 2.9(1), p. 1129]. Let . Since
the inequalities are sharp. The latter part of the lemma follows from the fact that the limit values above are all 0 if
instead.
4. Euclidean midpoint rotation
In this section, we introduce the Euclidean midpoint rotation. Finding the value of the triangular ratio distance for two points in the unit disk is a trivial problem, if the points are collinear with the origin or at same distance from it, see Lemma 2.5 and Theorem 2.6. Since any two points can always be rotated around their midpoint into one of these two positions, this transformation gives us a simple way to estimate the value of the triangular ratio metric of the original points.
Definition 4.1
Euclidean midpoint rotation. Choose distinct points . Let
and
. Let
,
, so that
and the points
are collinear. Fix then
so that
are collinear,
and
. Note that
always but
is not necessarily in
. See Figure .
For all ,
, such that
, the inequality
holds, as we will prove in Theorems 4.11 and 4.12. If
,
is not defined but the first part of this inequality holds. In order to prove this result, let us next introduce a few results needed to find the value of
-diameter of a closed disk in some domain G.
Proposition 4.2
For a fixed point and a fixed direction of
, the value of
is increasing with respect to
.
Proof.
Let and
. Choose
so that
Because the function
with constants
is increasing,
Thus, the result follows.
Proposition 4.3
The function ,
where u, v>0 are constants, is increasing on the interval
.
Proof.
Let , so that the function f can be written as
,
. By differentiation,
and it follows that the function g is decreasing on the interval
. Because
is decreasing, too, with respect to μ, the function f is increasing.
Theorem 4.4
Fix such that
. Choose
so that
with
and
. Then the quotient
(6)
(6)
is decreasing with respect to μ.
Proof.
Suppose without loss of generality that j = 0 and r = 1. First, we will consider the special case where k = 0. From the condition , it follows that x, y are the endpoints of a diameter of
and therefore
for all angles μ. Since
and z = 1 + d, we obtain by the law of cosines
The sum
can be described with the function f of Proposition 4.3 if the constants u, v are replaced with
and
, respectively. By Proposition 4.3, this function f is increasing with respect to
. Since the quotient (Equation6
(6)
(6) ) can be clearly written as
, it follows that it must be decreasing with respect to μ.
Suppose now that is still the unit circle
, but let 0<k<1. The equation of the line
can be written as
(7)
(7)
with
as variable. Here, x can be written as
with
. Furthermore, the line
must contain k and, by substituting t = k in (Equation7
(7)
(7) ), we will have
Consider now a function
,
which clearly depicts the values of the quotient (Equation6
(6)
(6) ). For all
, by symmetry,
(8)
(8)
The function h fulfils
, which is clearly its maximum value. If
, then so is μ, so the maximum of the quotient (Equation6
(6)
(6) ) is at
. By Rolle's theorem, there is a critical point
such that
. By the property (Equation8
(8)
(8) ),
is the solution of
Thus,
Consequently, the quotient (Equation6
(6)
(6) ) attains its minimum value at
. Because there are no other points where the derivative
is 0 at the open interval
than the one found above, the quotient is monotonic on the interval
. To be more specific, the quotient must be decreasing because its maximum is at
and minimum at
.
Thus, we have proved that the quotient (Equation6(6)
(6) ) is decreasing with respect to μ, regardless of if k = j or k>j.
Theorem 4.5
Fix and
so that
. Then,
Proof.
Suppose without loss of generality that n = 2, j = 0, r = 1 and . By symmetry, we can assume that the points
fulfil
and
. We will next prove the theorem by inspecting the quotient (Equation6
(6)
(6) ) in a few different cases separately.
Consider first the case where . Now, x = 1 and
for some
. It follows that
Since both of the quotients
and
obtain clearly their minimum with
, the quotient (Equation6
(6)
(6) ) is at maximum within limitation x = 1 when y = −1.
Suppose then that and
. Now, we can rotate the points x, y by the angle θ clockwise about the origin. This transformation does not affect the distance
but decreases distances
and
, so it increases the value of the quotient (Equation6
(6)
(6) ). Since x maps into 1 in the rotation, this transformation leads to the first case studied above.
Finally, consider the case where and
. Now,
, so we can choose a point
. If
, we can always reflect the points x, y over the imaginary axis so that the quotient (Equation6
(6)
(6) ) increases. Thus, we can suppose that
. By Theorem 4.4, the quotient is decreasing with respect to
, so its maximum is at
. It follows that x = 1 and y = −1.
Thus, the quotient (Equation6(6)
(6) ) obtains its highest value with x = 1 and y = −1. In the general case
, this means that x = j + r and y = j−r. Since the value of the quotient (Equation6
(6)
(6) ) is now
, the result follows.
Corollary 4.6
The -diameter of a closed ball
in a domain
is
, where
.
Proof.
Clearly,
Trivially,
is at maximum when the distance
is at minimum. Thus,
(9)
(9)
where
such that
. It follows from Proposition 4.2 that for all distinct
, we can choose
,
, such that
and
. Thus, the points x, y giving the supremum in (Equation9
(9)
(9) ) must belong to
. By Theorem 4.5, it follows from this that
Corollary 4.7
The -diameter of a ball
is
.
Proof.
Follows directly from Corollary 4.6.
Corollary 4.8
For all such that
, the inequality
holds.
Proof.
Since ,
and, by Corollary 4.7,
.
Consider yet the following situation.
Lemma 4.9
For all points and
non-collinear with the origin,
Proof.
Since and
, the point
is chosen from
. By symmetry, we can assume that
is the intersection point closer to y. Fix z so that it gives the infimum
. If
, then
. Clearly, by the law of cosines
so the lemma follows.
Let us now focus on the results related to the Euclidean midpoint rotation.
Proposition 4.10
Consider two triangles and
with obtuse angles
and
. Let k and
be the midpoints of sides XY and
, respectively. Suppose that
,
and
. Then,
Proof.
Let ,
,
,
and
, see Figure . By the law of cosines
Furthermore, by Proposition 4.3, the function
,
where u, v>0, is increasing with respect to
. Note that here
because the triangles already have obtuse angles
and
. Thus, it follows from
and
that
Theorem 4.11
For all ,
Proof.
Fix and
. Suppose that
, for otherwise
holds trivially. Without loss of generality, let 0<k<1 and
. Now,
,
and
. There are two possible cases; either the infimum
is given by one point
or there are two possible points
.
Suppose first that the infimum is given by only one point. By Remark 2.7, this point must be
. Fix
and
and consider the function f of Proposition 4.3 for a variable ν. Now, we will have
from which the inequality
follows.
Consider yet the case where there are two points giving the infimum . By symmetry, we can fix
so that
. Now, the infimum
is given by some point z such that
. If x, y are collinear with the origin, by Lemma 2.5 and Corollary 4.7,
If x, y, 0 are non-collinear instead, the triangles
and
exists. The sides XY and
are both the length of
and have a common midpoint k. It follows from Theorem 2.4 and the inequality
that angles
and
are obtuse,
and
. By Proposition 4.10,
so the inequality
follows.
Thus, holds in every cases and, by Theorem 2.6,
which proves the latter part of the theorem.
Theorem 4.12
Let with
and
. If r + k<1,
Proof.
If r + k<1, then and, by Lemma 2.5,
5. Hyperbolic midpoint rotation
In this section, we consider the hyperbolic midpoint rotation. The idea behind it is the same as the one of the Euclidean midpoint rotation, for our aim is still to rotate the points around their midpoint in order to estimate their triangular ratio distance. However, now the rotation is done by using the hyperbolic geometry of the unit circle instead of the simpler Euclidean method.
Definition 5.1
Hyperbolic midpoint rotation. Choose distinct points . Let q be their hyperbolic midpoint and
. Let
so that
but
. Fix then
so that
are collinear with the origin and
. See Figure .
The main result of this section is the inequality
This inequality is well-defined for all distinct
because the values of
and
are always defined. The first part of this inequality is proved in Theorem 5.11 and the latter part in Theorem 5.12, and the formula for the value of
is in Theorem 5.3. Note that, according to numerical tests, the hyperbolic midpoint rotation gives better estimates for
than the Euclidean midpoint rotation or the point pair function, see Conjecture 5.13.
Lemma 5.2
Choose so that their hyperbolic midpoint is 0<q<1. Let
. Then,
Proof.
By Lemma 2.1, with
To find
and
, we need to find the intersection points of
and
, where
and c>1. Now,
, from which it follows that
Clearly,
since both
. Let
and
. Now,
and
. Thus,
Since
we will have
From the equality
, it follows that
Theorem 5.3
For all with a hyperbolic midpoint
and
,
Proof.
Suppose without loss of generality that 0<q<1, and
. From Lemma 5.2, it follows that
and
The result follows now from Theorem 2.6.
Theorem 5.4
[Citation17, Proposition 3.1, p. 447]
The hyperbolic midpoint of is
for all
such that
and c, d are non-collinear with the origin.
Theorem 5.5
If hyperbolic segments ,
, are of the same hyperbolic length and have a common hyperbolic midpoint q, all their Euclidean counterparts
intersect at the same point.
Proof.
Choose distinct points that are non-collinear with the origin. Let q be their hyperbolic midpoint,
and
. Fix j, h as in Lemma 2.1. Now,
,
and
are non-collinear. It follows from Theorem 5.4 that the hyperbolic midpoint of
is
. Since 0, j, q are collinear and
,
. Thus, q is the hyperbolic midpoint of
. It follows that k only depends on q and j, so the intersection point
must be the same for all indexes i, as can be seen in Figure . If
are collinear with the origin for some index i, then
trivially. Thus, the theorem follows.
Corollary 5.6
For all , there is a point
Proof.
Follows from Theorem 5.5.
Theorem 5.7
For all that are non-collinear with the origin and have a hyperbolic midpoint
, the distance
is decreasing with respect to the smaller angle between
and
.
Proof.
Consider a hyperbolic circle , where
, and let
be the corresponding Euclidean circle. By Lemma 2.1, we see that the points
are collinear. Fix
as in Corollary 5.6 and let
. Denote
. Clearly, the distance $u$ does not depend on the angle
. It follows that
is decreasing with respect to
.
Corollary 5.8
For all ,
.
Proof.
Follows from Theorem 5.7.
Corollary 5.9
For all ,
where q is the hyperbolic midpoint of
, and
.
Proof.
By fixing h as in Lemma 2.1, we will have
so the result follows from Corollary 5.8.
Remark 5.10
The inequality can be also found in Ref. [Citation7, (4.25), p. 57].
Theorem 5.11
For all
.
Proof.
Let q be the hyperbolic midpoint of and
. If q = 0,
holds trivially. Thus, choose
so that 0<q<1. Now, either the infimum
is given by one point
or two points on
.
If there is only one point giving the infimum , it must be
. by Remark 2.7 like in Lemma 2.1, and fix k as in Corollary 5.6. By symmetry, we can assume that
. Note that, if
, then
and
. Now, it follows from Theorem 4.4 that
Suppose now that there are two possible points for
. By symmetry, let
and
. Fix
so that
and
, where o is the origin. By Theorem 2.4, this point
gives the infimum
. Denote yet
, which is clearly an obtuse angle.
By Corollary 5.8, we can fix so that
. Let
with
so that
. Clearly,
. By Proposition 4.2, it follows that
Theorem 5.12
For all ,
where q is the hyperbolic midpoint of
, and
.
Proof.
Let q be the hyperbolic midpoint of . Fix then
and j, h, t as in Lemma 2.1. Now,
and
. By Corollary 4.7,
Since
and
, by Lemma 2.5,
so the theorem follows.
According to numerous computer tests, the following result holds.
Conjecture 5.13
For all ,
,
,
,
where the points ,
, are as in Definitions 4.1 and 5.1.
Thus, by this conjecture, the hyperbolic midpoint rotation gives sharper estimations for than the Euclidean midpoint rotation or the point pair function.
6. Hölder continuity
In this section, we show how finding better upper bounds for the triangular ratio metric in the unit disk is useful when studying quasiconformal mappings. The behaviour of the distance between two points under a K-quasiconformal homeomorphism
has been studied earlier in numerous works, for instance, see Ref. [Citation7, Theorem 16.14, p. 304]. Our next theorem illustrates how finding a good upper limit for the value of the triangular ratio metric can give new information regarding this question.
Theorem 6.1
If is a K-quasiconformal map, the inequality
holds for all
.
Proof.
Define a homeomorphism as in Ref. [Citation7, (9.13), p. 167] for K>0. By Refs. [Citation7, Theorem 9.32(1), p. 167] and [Citation7, (9.6), p. 158],
(10)
(10)
where
and
. Let f be as above,
and
. By Theorem 2.3, Schwarz lemma (see Ref. [Citation7, Theorem 16.2, p. 300]) and the inequality (Equation10
(10)
(10) ),
By Ref. [Citation7, Lemma 11.12, p. 201; Proposition 11.15, p. 202], it follows from the inequality above that
which proves the theorem.
Thus, as we see from Theorem 6.1, finding a suitable upper bound for the value of can help us estimating the distance of the points x, y under the K-quasiconformal mapping f.
Corollary 6.2
If f is as in Theorem 6.1, the inequality
holds for all
.
Proof.
It follows from Theorems 6.1 and 2.3 that
Corollary 6.3
If f is as in Theorem 6.1, the inequality
holds for all
.
Proof.
Follows from Theorem 6.1 and Lemma 2.5 and the fact that .
Corollary 6.4
If f is as in Theorem 6.1, all fulfil
where q is the hyperbolic midpoint of
, and
.
Proof.
Follows from Theorems 6.1 and 5.12.
Remark 6.5
Neither of Corollaries 6.3 and 6.2 is better than the other for all points . For x = 0.3 and y = 0.3i, the limit in Corollary 6.3 is sharper than the one in Corollary 6.2 and for x = 0.9 and y = 0.9i, the opposite holds. However, according to numerical tests related to Conjecture 5.13, the result in Corollary 6.4 is always better than the ones in Corollaries 6.3 and 6.2.
By restricting how the point pair x, y is chosen from , we can find yet better estimates.
Corollary 6.6
If f is as in Theorem 6.1, the inequality
holds for all
such that
.
Proof.
Now,
so the result follows from Corollary 6.3.
Corollary 6.7
For all such that
,
where f is as in Theorem 6.1.
Proof.
Follows from Corollary 6.6.
Remark 6.8
The proof of Theorem 6.1 is based on the Schwarz lemma of quasiregular mappings [Citation7, Thm 16.2, p. 300] and therefore the results of this section hold also for quasiregular mappings with minor modifications.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to Professor Masayo Fujimura and Professor Marcelina Mocanu for their kind help in connection with the proof of Theorem 4.4.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Correction Statement
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Additional information
Funding
References
- Gehring FW, Hag K. The ubiquitous quasidisk. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society; 2012 (Mathematical surveys and monographs, Vol. 184) with contributions by Ole Jacob Broch.
- Gehring FW, Martin GJ, Palka BP. An introduction to the theory of higher dimensional quasiconformal mappings. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society; 2017 (Mathematical surveys and monographs, Vol. 216).
- Heinonen J, Koskela P, Shanmugalingam N, et al. Sobolev spaces on metric measure spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015 (New mathematical monographs, Vol. 27), an approach based on upper gradients.
- Väisälä J. The free quasiworld. Freely quasiconformal and related maps in Banach spaces. In: Quasiconformal geometry and dynamics (Lublin, 1996), 55–118, Banach Center Publ., 48, Polish Acad. Sci. Inst. Math., Warsaw, 1999.
- Beardon AF, Minda D. The hyperbolic metric and geometric function theory. In: Ponnusamy S, Sugawa T, Vuorinen M, editors. Proceedings International Workshop on Quasiconformal Mappings and Their Applications (IWQCMA05), IIT-Madras, Chennai, India; 2007. p. 9–56.
- Gehring FW, Palka BP. Quasiconformally homogeneous domains. J Analyse Math. 1976;30:172–199.
- Hariri P, Klén R, Vuorinen M. Conformally invariant metrics and quasiconformal mappings. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2020.
- Papadopoulos A. Metric spaces convexity and non-positive curvature. Second ed. Zürich: European Mathematical Society (EMS); 2014 (IRMA lectures in mathematics and theoretical physics, Vol. 6).
- Hästö P. A new weighted metric the relative metric I. J Math Anal Appl. 2002;274:38–58.
- Chen J, Hariri P, Klén R, et al. Lipschitz conditions triangular ratio metric and quasiconformal maps. Ann Acad Sci Fenn Math. 2015;40:683–709.
- Fujimura M, Hariri P, Mocanu M, et al. The Ptolemy–Alhazen problem and spherical mirror reflection. Comput Methods Funct Theory. 2019;19:135–155.
- Hariri P, Vuorinen M, Zhang X. Inequalities and bilipschitz conditions for triangular ratio metric. Rocky Mountain J Math. 2017;47(4):1121–1148.
- Wang G, Vuorinen M, Zhang X. On cyclic quadrilaterals in Euclidean and hyperbolic geometries. Publ. Math. Debrecen (to appear). Preprint arXiv:1908.10389.
- Hariri P, Klén R, Vuorinen M, et al. Some remarks on the Cassinian metric. Publ Math Debrecen. 2017;90(3–4):269–285.
- Fujimura M, Mocanu M, Vuorinen M. Barrlund's distance function and quasiconformal maps. Complex Var Elliptic Equ. 2020;1–31. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17476933.2020.1751137
- Anderson G, Vamanamurthy M, Vuorinen M. Conformal invariants inequalities and quasiconformal maps. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1997.
- Vuorinen M, Wang G. Hyperbolic lambert quadrilaterals and quasiconformal mappings. Ann Acad Sci Fenn Math. 2013;38:433–453.