Unmarked simple length spectral rigidity for covers

For any positive real number \epsilon > 0, let \mathcal{ MEL } _{ \epsilon } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \coloneqq F^{ -1 } \IfValueTF{ \mathcal{ PMEL } _{ \epsilon } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathcal{ PMEL } _{ \epsilon } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, where F \colon \mathcal{ ML } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is the quotient map. We will first show that there exists \epsilon_{ X } > 0 so that \mathcal{ MEL } _{ \epsilon_X } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is dense in \mathcal{ ML } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

Let \phi \in \mathrm{ Mod } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } be a pseudo-Anosov mapping class with stable lamination \lambda_{ \mathrm{ top } } \in \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. There is a positive real number \epsilon_X > 0, which we fix for the remainder of this proof, so that the axis R of \phi in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is contained in the \epsilon_X-thick part of \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. This implies that any measured lamination \lambda with underlying lamination \lambda_{ \mathrm{ top } } has the property that F(\lambda) lies in \mathcal{ PMEL } _{ \epsilon_X } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Fix such a measured lamination \lambda.

Since \mathrm{ Mod } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } acts by isometries of the Teichmüller metric which preserve the \epsilon_{ X }-thick part of \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, \mathcal{ MEL } _{ \epsilon_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is invariant under this action. Indeed, for any mapping class g \in \mathrm{ Mod } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, F \IfValueTF{ g \cdot \lambda } { \parens[ g \cdot \lambda ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = g \cdot F \IfValueTF{ \lambda } { \parens[ \lambda ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is an endpoint of the Teichmüller geodesic g \cdot R, which is contained in the \epsilon_{ X }-thick part of \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Thus, \mathcal{ MEL } _{ \epsilon_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } contains the entire orbit \mathrm{ Mod } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cdot \lambda.

Theorem Theorem implies that the underlying lamination \lambda_{ \mathrm{ top } } of \lambda is uniquely ergodic, and so Theorem Theorem implies that its orbit under the mapping class group \mathrm{ Mod } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is dense in \mathcal{ ML } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Since \mathcal{ MEL } _{ \epsilon_X } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } contains this orbit by the above argument, it is also dense in \mathcal{ ML } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Therefore, since \mathcal{ PMEL } _{ \epsilon_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = F \IfValueTF{ \mathcal{ MEL } _{ \epsilon_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathcal{ MEL } _{ \epsilon_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is the image of a dense subset under a continuous surjection, it is dense in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Finally, note that for any 0 < \epsilon \leq \epsilon_{ X }, \mathcal{ PMEL } _{ \epsilon_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \subseteq \mathcal{ PMEL } _{ \epsilon } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and so \mathcal{ PMEL } _{ \epsilon } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is also dense in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, as desired.

For any hyperbolic metric \mu on X, it follows directly from the definitions of the deck group and the pullback metric that \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi } { \parens[ \pi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \leq \mathrm{ Isom } \IfValueTF{ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu } { \parens[ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. It therefore suffices to show there is a hyperbolic metric \mu on X so that the reverse containment holds.

Fix basepoints x \in X and z \in Z such that \pi \IfValueTF{ z } { \parens[ z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = x, and let \rho_{ \mu } \colon \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xhookrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathrm{ PSL } _{ 2 } \IfValueTF{ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } } { \parens[ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } be an associated holonomy representation. Such a choice is well-defined up to conjugation by an element of \mathrm{ PGL } _{ 2 } \IfValueTF{ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } } { \parens[ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. We will denote

where \rho_{ \pi^{ * } \mu } \coloneqq \rho_{ \mu } \circ \pi_{ * } \colon \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ Z , z } { \parens[ Z , z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xhookrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathrm{ PSL } _{ 2 } \IfValueTF{ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } } { \parens[ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a holonomy representation of the cover \IfValueTF{ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu } { \parens[ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Recall that the commensurator of \Gamma in \mathrm{ PSL } _{ 2 } \IfValueTF{ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } } { \parens[ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is defined by

and that when \Gamma is non-arithmetic, \mathrm{ Comm } \IfValueTF{ \Gamma } { \parens[ \Gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a lattice, and the quotient \mathbb{ H } ^{ 2 } / \mathrm{ Comm } \IfValueTF{ \Gamma } { \parens[ \Gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is the unique minimal area representative in the commensurability class of \Gamma. Moreover, since \Gamma \leq \mathrm{ Comm } \IfValueTF{ \Gamma } { \parens[ \Gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \mathrm{ Comm } \IfValueTF{ \Delta } { \parens[ \Delta ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \mathrm{ Comm } \IfValueTF{ \Gamma } { \parens[ \Gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, there are covering maps \mathbb{ H } ^{ 2 } / \Gamma \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathbb{ H } ^{ 2 } / \mathrm{ Comm } \IfValueTF{ \Gamma } { \parens[ \Gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \mathbb{ H } ^{ 2 } / \Delta \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathbb{ H } ^{ 2 } / \mathrm{ Comm } \IfValueTF{ \Gamma } { \parens[ \Gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

For the rest of the proof, we fix a metric \mu on X for which \mathrm{ Comm } \IfValueTF{ \Gamma } { \parens[ \Gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \Gamma. By [Gre63, Theorems 2, 3A], the set of points in Teichmüller space represented by such metrics is a dense open subset of \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } when X has genus at least 3. Note that with this choice of \mu, \Gamma is necessarily non-arithmetic by the Margulis dichotomy [Mar75], as otherwise \mathrm{ Comm } \IfValueTF{ \Gamma } { \parens[ \Gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } would be dense in \mathrm{ PSL } _{ 2 } \IfValueTF{ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } } { \parens[ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

Recall that \mathrm{ Isom } \IfValueTF{ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu } { \parens[ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is canonically isomorphic to N_{ \mathrm{ PSL } _{ 2 } \IfValueTF{ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } } { \parens[ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } \IfValueTF{ \Delta } { \parens[ \Delta ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } / \Delta, where

is the normalizer of \Delta in \mathrm{ PSL } _{ 2 } \IfValueTF{ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } } { \parens[ \IfBooleanTF{#1} { \overline{ \mathbb{ R } } } { \mathbb{ R } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Note that

Since \pi is a regular cover, \Delta is normal in each of these groups, and so

By the remark at the beginning of the proof, we see that for any such choice of \mu as above, \mathrm{ Isom } \IfValueTF{ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu } { \parens[ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi } { \parens[ \pi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } as required.

Let \varphi \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi } { \parens[ \pi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, fix an orientation and a hyperbolic metric on X, which pullback along \pi to an orientation and a hyperbolic metric on Z. Then any deck transformation of \pi is an orientation-preserving isometry of X.

Fix a non-separating simple closed geodesic \gamma on X and a component \alpha of its full pre-image on Z, which is also a non-separating simple closed geodesic. Since \alpha is simple and non-separating, there is a simple closed geodesic \beta on Z which intersects it exactly once. Since \varphi is an isometry, \varphi \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \varphi \IfValueTF{ \beta } { \parens[ \beta ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } are simple closed geodesics on Z which intersect exactly once.

Suppose that Q \IfValueTF{ \varphi } { \parens[ \varphi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is trivial in \mathrm{ Mod } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Then Q \IfValueTF{ \varphi } { \parens[ \varphi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } acts trivially on the homotopy classes of \alpha and \beta, and so \varphi \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \varphi \IfValueTF{ \beta } { \parens[ \beta ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } are homotopic to \alpha and \beta, respectively. Since the metric on Z is negatively curved, closed geodesics are unique within their homotopy class, and hence \varphi preserves \alpha and \beta. This implies that \varphi fixes the unique intersection point between \alpha and \beta. Since any non-trivial element of the deck group \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi } { \parens[ \pi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } acts freely on the total space Z, this implies that \varphi = \mathrm{ id } _{ Z } is trivial in \mathrm{ Homeo } ^{ + } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

Now suppose that \pi is regular and that X has genus at least 3. The containment

is clear, since pullbacks of metrics along \pi are invariant under the deck group \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi } { \parens[ \pi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. To show the other containment, fix a hyperbolic metric \mu on X as in Lemma Lemma; that is, we require \mathrm{ Isom } \IfValueTF{ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu } { \parens[ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi } { \parens[ \pi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Let \varphi \in \mathrm{ Homeo } ^{ + } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, and suppose that Q \IfValueTF{ \varphi } { \parens[ \varphi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cdot \pi^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \IfValueTF{ \mu } { \bracks[ \mu ]{ #2 } } { \bracks*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \IfValueTF{ \mu } { \bracks[ \mu ]{ #2 } } { \bracks*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \pi^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \IfValueTF{ \mu } { \bracks[ \mu ]{ #2 } } { \bracks*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \IfValueTF{ \mu } { \bracks[ \mu ]{ #2 } } { \bracks*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Then

and so there is a homeomorphism \psi \in \mathrm{ Homeo } ^{ + }_{ 0 } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } such that

Thus \varphi \circ \psi \in \mathrm{ Isom } \IfValueTF{ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu } { \parens[ Z , \pi^{ * } \mu ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi } { \parens[ \pi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is an isometry of \pi^{ * } \mu and therefore a deck transformation of \pi. In particular, this implies that Q \IfValueTF{ \varphi } { \parens[ \varphi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = Q \IfValueTF{ \varphi \circ \psi } { \parens[ \varphi \circ \psi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \in Q \IfValueTF{ \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi } { \parens[ \pi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi } { \parens[ \pi ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

Let \alpha \in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } be a simple curve on X. Then \alpha is a simple elevation of p \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } along p to X and so by assumption, p \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } has a simple elevation \beta \in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } along q to Y. Note that

for any g \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Since \pi_{ S } \colon Z \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } S is a regular cover, g \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = h \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \beta } { \parens[ \beta ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } for some deck transformation h \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, and thus \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \subseteq \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. By symmetry, the other containment also holds.

Let g \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \alpha \in \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Since \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is the Gromov boundary of \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } (as discussed in ?), some sequence \IfValueTF{ \alpha_{ n } } { \parens[ \alpha_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } _{ n = 0 }^{ \infty } in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } converges to \alpha. Thus \IfValueTF{ g \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha_{ n } } { \parens[ \alpha_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ g \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha_{ n } } { \parens[ \alpha_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } _{ n = 0 }^{ \infty } converges to g \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

By ?, for each n there is a deck transformation h_{ n } \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and a simple curve \beta_{ n } \in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } so that g \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha_{ n } } { \parens[ \alpha_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = h_{ n } \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ n } } { \parens[ \beta_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Since \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is finite, some element h appears in the sequence \IfValueTF{ h_{ n } } { \parens[ h_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } _{ n = 0 }^{ \infty } infinitely often and so, by passing to a subsequence, we may assume without loss of generality that h_{ n } = h is a fixed deck transformation for all indices n \in \mathbb{ N }.

Note that the sequence \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ n } } { \parens[ \beta_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } _{ n = 0 }^{ \infty } is unbounded in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Indeed, since \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \colon \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a quasi-isometric embedding, and g \colon \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is an isometry, it follows that the sequence \IfValueTF{ g \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha_{ n } } { \parens[ \alpha_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ g \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha_{ n } } { \parens[ \alpha_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } _{ n = 0 }^{ \infty } = \IfValueTF{ h \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ n } } { \parens[ \beta_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ h \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ n } } { \parens[ \beta_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } _{ n = 0 }^{ \infty } is unbounded in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Similarly, since \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \colon \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a quasi-isometric embedding and h \colon \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is an isometry, it follows that \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ n } } { \parens[ \beta_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } _{ n = 0 }^{ \infty } is unbounded in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

Thus by passing to yet another subsequence, we may assume that \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ n } } { \parens[ \beta_{ n } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } _{ n = 0 }^{ \infty } converges to an ending lamination \beta \in \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } on Y. In particular, by continuity of \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \colon \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \colon \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } },

and so \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \subseteq \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. By symmetry, the other containment also holds.

Fix \epsilon \coloneqq \min \IfValueTF{ \epsilon_{ X } , \epsilon_{ Y } } { \parens[ \epsilon_{ X } , \epsilon_{ Y } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } > 0 as in Lemma Lemma, let g \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and consider a projective measured ending lamination \alpha \in \mathcal{ PMEL } _{ \epsilon } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } on X whose underlying geodesic lamination \alpha_{ \mathrm{ top } } \in \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is the endpoint of a geodesic ray R in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } which recurs infinitely often to the \epsilon-thick part. Since lower bounds on injectivity radius are preserved by local isometries, \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ R } { \parens[ R ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a geodesic ray in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } which recurs infinitely often to the \epsilon-thick part, with endpoint

In particular, Masur’s criterion Theorem Theorem implies that this ending lamination on Z is uniquely ergodic. By ?, g \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha_{ \mathrm{ top } } } { \parens[ \alpha_{ \mathrm{ top } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = h \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } } } { \parens[ \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } for some deck transformation h \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and some ending lamination \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } } \in \mathcal{ EL } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } on Y. Since \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha_{ \mathrm{ top } } } { \parens[ \alpha_{ \mathrm{ top } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is uniquely ergodic, so too is its image \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } } } { \parens[ \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = h^{ -1 } g \cdot \widetilde{ \pi_{ X } } \IfValueTF{ \alpha_{ \mathrm{ top } } } { \parens[ \alpha_{ \mathrm{ top } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } under the deck transformation h^{ -1 } g.

As \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } } } { \parens[ \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } comes from pullback of an ending lamination on Y, it is invariant under the action of \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ Y } } { \parens[ \pi_{ Y } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, and so any representative of the unique projective class of transverse measures on \widetilde{ \pi_{ Y } } \IfValueTF{ \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } } } { \parens[ \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } descends to a transverse measure on \beta_{ \mathrm{ top } }. Let \beta \in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } be the corresponding projective measured lamination, and note that h \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \beta } { \parens[ \beta ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a projective measured lamination on Z with underlying geodesic lamination

Since g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is uniquely ergodic, this implies that g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = h \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \beta } { \parens[ \beta ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, and so

Note that for each deck transformation h \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, h \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \colon \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a topological embedding, and so h \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is compact and therefore closed in the Hausdorff space \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Thus

is closed in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, since \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is finite. Finally, since \mathcal{ PMEL } _{ \epsilon } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is dense in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } by Lemma Lemma, \pi_{ X }^{ * } is a topological embedding, and \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is finite

By symmetry, the other containment also holds.

Let g \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \mu \in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Fix a projective measured lamination \kappa \in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ S } { \parens[ S ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, and let \alpha^{ + } \coloneqq p^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \kappa } { \parens[ \kappa ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \beta^{ + } \coloneqq q^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \kappa } { \parens[ \kappa ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. By [HM79], \alpha^{ + } is one endpoint of a geodesic L_{ X } \subseteq \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } through \mu. Let \alpha^{ - } be the other endpoint of L_{ X }. Since \pi_{ X }^{ * } \colon \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xhookrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is an isometric embedding and g \colon \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is an isometry, g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ L_{ X } } { \parens[ L_{ X } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a geodesic in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } containing g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mu } { \parens[ \mu ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } with endpoints g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \alpha^{ + } } { \parens[ \alpha^{ + } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \alpha^{ - } } { \parens[ \alpha^{ - } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

By ?, g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \alpha^{ - } } { \parens[ \alpha^{ - } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = h \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \beta^{ - } } { \parens[ \beta^{ - } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } for some deck transformation h \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and projective measured lamination \beta^{ - } \in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. On the other hand, \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \alpha^{ + } } { \parens[ \alpha^{ + } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \pi_{ S }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \kappa } { \parens[ \kappa ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }-invariant, and so

In summary, g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ L_{ X } } { \parens[ L_{ X } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a geodesic in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } containing g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mu } { \parens[ \mu ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } with endpoints g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \alpha^{ + } } { \parens[ \alpha^{ + } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = h \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \beta^{ + } } { \parens[ \beta^{ + } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and g \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \alpha^{ - } } { \parens[ \alpha^{ - } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = h \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \beta^{ - } } { \parens[ \beta^{ - } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

We now show that \beta^{ + } and \beta^{ - } jointly fill Y and therefore are endpoints of a geodesic L_{ Y } \subseteq \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Indeed, if \lambda \in \mathcal{ PML } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is disjoint from \beta^{ + } and \beta^{ - }, then \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \lambda } { \parens[ \lambda ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a projective measured lamination on Z which is disjoint from \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \beta^{ + } } { \parens[ \beta^{ + } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \beta^{ - } } { \parens[ \beta^{ - } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. However, the latter projective measured laminations are the endpoints of the geodesic h^{ -1 } g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ L_{ X } } { \parens[ L_{ X } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, hence they jointly fill Z. Therefore, no such \lambda exists, and so \beta^{ + } and \beta^{ - } jointly fill Y as required.

In particular, g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ L_{ X } } { \parens[ L_{ X } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and h \cdot \pi_{ Y }^* \IfValueTF{ L_{ Y } } { \parens[ L_{ Y } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } are geodesics in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } with the same endpoints, and hence are equal. Therefore

and so \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \subseteq \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. By symmetry, the other containment also holds.

For each deck transformation g \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } of \pi_{ S } \colon Z \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } S, let

Since \pi_{ X }^{ * } and \pi_{ Y }^{ * } are proper isometric embeddings and g \colon \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is an isometry, it follows that g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } are properly embedded submanifolds of \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Z } { \parens[ Z ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Therefore, I_{ g } is a properly embedded submanifold of both g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and of \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Note that

where in the above unions g ranges over elements of \mathrm{ Deck } (\pi_S). So \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is covered by finitely many properly embedded submanifolds.

For each deck transformation g \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, if the containment I_{ g } \subsetneq \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is strict, then I_{ g } has positive codimension in \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, since it is a properly embedded submanifold of a connected manifold. Since \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is covered by finitely many of these submanifolds, this cannot be the case for all such deck transformations and so \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = I_{ g } for some deck transformation g \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ S } } { \parens[ \pi_{ S } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. In particular,

By symmetry, the reverse inequality also holds, so that the above inequality is an equality. Thus \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = I_{ g } is a properly embedded open submanifold of g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Since g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is connected, this implies that g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }.

Consider a deck transformation h \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ X } } { \parens[ \pi_{ X } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, and note that for each point \mu \in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, g^{ -1 } \cdot \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mu } { \parens[ \mu ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \in \pi_{ X }^{ * } \IfValueTF{ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, so that

By Proposition Proposition above, this implies that g h g^{ -1 } \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ Y } } { \parens[ \pi_{ Y } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, so that g \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ X } } { \parens[ \pi_{ X } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \subseteq \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ Y } } { \parens[ \pi_{ Y } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } g. Conversely, consider a deck transformation k \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ Y } } { \parens[ \pi_{ Y } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, and note that for each point \mu \in \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, g \cdot \pi_{ X }^{ * } (\mu) \in \pi_{ Y }^{ * } \mathscr{ T } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, so that

Again by Proposition Proposition, this implies that g^{ -1 } k g \in \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ X } } { \parens[ \pi_{ X } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, so that the reverse containment \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ Y } } { \parens[ \pi_{ Y } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } g \subseteq g \mathrm{ Deck } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ X } } { \parens[ \pi_{ X } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } also holds.

Let p \colon \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \IfValueTF{ S , s } { \parens[ S , s ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } and q \colon \IfValueTF{ Y , y } { \parens[ Y , y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \IfValueTF{ S , s } { \parens[ S , s ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } be finite-degree based covers of a closed surface S of negative Euler characteristic arising from Sunada’s construction on a surjective homomorphism \rho \colon \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ S , s } { \parens[ S , s ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \twoheadrightarrow G and almost conjugate subgroups A , B \leq G. Theorem Theorem provides a bijection between the set of curves on X and the set of curves on Y. Moreover, as can be seen from the proof in [Bus10, 291-294], for each curve \gamma on X and each positive integer d \geq 1, this bijection restricts to a bijection between the set of degree d elevations of \gamma along p to X and the set of degree d elevations of \gamma along q to Y.

Suppose that the above bijection restricts to a bijection \psi \colon \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, and consider a primitive curve \gamma on S. If \alpha \in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a simple elevation of \gamma along p to X, then \psi \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a simple elevation of \gamma along q to Y. Conversely, if \beta \in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ Y } { \parens[ Y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a simple elevation of \gamma along q to Y, then \psi^{ -1 } \IfValueTF{ \beta } { \parens[ \beta ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \in \mathscr{ C } \IfValueTF{ X } { \parens[ X ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } is a simple elevation of \gamma along p to X.

Theorem Theorem now implies that p \colon X \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } S and q \colon Y \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } S are isomorphic as covers of S. The Galois correspondence yields an element \gamma \in \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ S , s } { \parens[ S , s ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } such that \gamma \IfValueTF{ p_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ p_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \gamma^{ -1 } = q_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ Y , y } { \parens[ Y , y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ Y , y } { \parens[ Y , y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. Thus \rho \IfValueTF{ \gamma } { \parens[ \gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } A \rho \IfValueTF{ \gamma } { \parens[ \gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ^{ -1 } = B. Moreover, any isomorphism of covers is an isometry with respect to the pullbacks of any Riemannian metric on S.

Suppose that n_{ p } \IfValueTF{ \gamma } { \parens[ \gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = n_{ q } \IfValueTF{ \gamma } { \parens[ \gamma ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } for all simple elements \gamma \in \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ S , s } { \parens[ S , s ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }. We will first show that p_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cap \mathcal{ S }_{ \mathbb{ N } } = q_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ Y , y } { \parens[ Y , y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ Y , y } { \parens[ Y , y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cap \mathcal{ S }_{ \mathbb{ N } }. To that end, let \eta \in p_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cap \mathcal{ S }_{ \mathbb{ N } }. Then \eta = p_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \alpha } { \parens[ \alpha ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \gamma^{ m } for some element \alpha \in \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, some simple element \gamma \in \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ S , s } { \parens[ S , s ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } }, and a non-zero integer m \neq 0. Since \alpha represents an elevation of degree \IfValueTF{ m } { \verts[ m ]{ #2 } } { \verts*{ #2 } } of the curve represented by \gamma along p to X, then

So there is an element \beta \in \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ Y , y } { \parens[ Y , y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } such that q_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \beta } { \parens[ \beta ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } = \gamma^{ m } = \eta. Thus p_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ X , x } { \parens[ X , x ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cap \mathcal{ S }_{ \mathbb{ N } } \subseteq q_{ * } \IfValueTF{ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ Y , y } { \parens[ Y , y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } } { \parens[ \pi_{ 1 } \IfValueTF{ Y , y } { \parens[ Y , y ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } ]{ #2 } } { \parens*{ #2 } } \cap \mathcal{ S }_{ \mathbb{ N } }. By symmetry, the other containment also holds. This implies that

and so p \colon X \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } S and q \colon Y \xrightarrow[ #1 ]{ #2 } S are isomorphic as covers of S.