Login
You're viewing the assemblag.es public feed.
  • Oct 24, 2026, 10:29 AM

    Given two distinct points A and B in the hyperbolic plane, there are always two horocycles that contain both A and B.

    A horocyle is a curve of constant geodesic curvature κ=1.

    In the Poincaré disk model of the hyperbolic plane, a horocycle is represented by a circle that is tangent to the boundary of the disk (aka the circle of infinitely distant “ideal points”).

    In the hyperboloid model of the hyperbolic plane, a horocycle is the intersection of the hyperboloid –t^2 + x^2 + y^2 = –1 in (2+1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime and a plane with a null (aka “lightlike”) normal vector.

    What is the area of the region bounded by the two horocycles that pass through two given points? This should only depend on the distance between the points, δ. The computations I performed in both the Poincaré disk model and the hyperboloid model give the same answer:

    A(δ) = 4 sinh(δ/2) – 8 atan(tanh(δ/4))

    That these two calculations agreed makes me fairly confident that this formula is correct ... but frustratingly I can’t locate anything on the web that says anything about this area.

    I can’t believe this simple result isn’t stated *anywhere* on the internet. Even if the formula I’m claiming is wrong, whatever the correct result is, someone like Nikolai Lobachevsky or Eugenio Beltrami surely figured it out in the 19th century, so it must be mentioned somewhere.

    So I’m wondering if anyone is aware of a reliable reference on hyperbolic geometry that gives a formula for the area between the two horocycles that contain two given points.

    💬 1🔄 1⭐ 0

Replies

  • Oct 24, 2026, 1:16 PM

    @gregeganSF This is the kind of thing the robots are good at finding nowadays and, lo, I asked a robot and it found a reference.

    (If you are sufficiently allergic to robot-derived information, you may choose to stop reading here. It looks to me as if the robot got it right, though.)

    Luis A. Santaló, “Convexidad en el plano hiperbólico”, Matemática y Física Teórica XIX (1969), pp. 174–184, equation (2.6). ciaem-iacme.org/wp-content/upl

    It's in Spanish, which I don't read very well, so I haven't actually checked that what Santaló is calculating is the same thing as you are, but the robot thinks it is.

    The formula isn't exactly the same as yours but is equivalent. Santaló's formula is 4 sinh d/2 - 4 atan sinh d/2, which will be the same as yours if atan sinh d/2 = 2 atan tanh d/4, i.e., if sinh d/2 = 2 tanh d/4 / (1 - tanh^2 d/4), which is true.

    There's a paper from Santaló two years earlier (in English) that might but probably doesn't have the same or an equivalent formula in, but it isn't freely available online.

    If there's an earlier appearance of the formula, the robot doesn't know of it and couldn't find it. (Neither do I or could I, but I didn't find the Santaló paper either.)

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Oct 24, 2026, 1:27 PM

    @gjm Thanks! It’s annoying that conventional search engines have deteriorated to the point where they apparently can’t find anyone else even mentioning this formula, but I’ll set aside my robot allergy and focus on the human-written paper itself, and take that as confirmation that I didn’t screw up the calculation.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0