arXiv:1606.03994v2 [math.GR] 2 Mar 2017

ON THE LARGE-SCALE GEOMETRY OF DIFFEOMORPHISM
GROUPS OF 1-MANIFOLDS
MICHAEL P. COHEN
Abstract. We apply the framework of Rosendal to study the large-scale geometry of the topological groups Diff k+ (M 1 ), consisting of orientation-preserving C k diffeomorphisms (for 1 ≤ k ≤ ∞) of a compact 1-manifold M 1 (= I or S1 ).
We characterize the relative property (OB) in such groups: A ⊆ Diff k+ (M 1 ) has
property (OB) relative to Diff k+ (M 1 ) if and only if sup sup | log f ′ (x)| < ∞ and
f ∈A x∈M 1

sup sup |f (j) (x)| < ∞ for every integer 2 ≤ j ≤ k. We deduce that Diff k+ (M 1 ) has

f ∈A x∈M 1

the local property (OB), and consequently a well-defined non-trivial quasi-isometry
class, if and only if k < ∞. We show that the groups Diff 1+ (I) and Diff 1+ (S1 ) are
quasi-isometric to the infinite-dimensional Banach space C[0, 1].

1. Introduction
The purpose of this note is to study the large-scale geometry (or quasi-isometry
type) of the topological groups Diff k+ (I) and Diff k+ (S1 ) of orientation-preserving C k diffeomorphisms of the interval I and the circle S1 , for 1 ≤ k ≤ ∞, and to concretely
identify this geometry in case k = 1.
Some clarification is needed since the study of quasi-isometry types of groups is
most commonly confined to the case of finitely generated countable groups, while the
diffeomorphism groups above are uncountable, hence certainly not finitely generated.
We work in the very general framework for coarse geometry recently advanced by
Rosendal, which in many ways gives a satisfactory unification of active branches of
research in large scale geometry of countable finitely generated groups (the domain of
classical geometric group theory), the large scale geometry of locally compact groups
(see the in-progress [2] for a thorough survey), and the coarse geometry of Banach
spaces (see [4], [5], for instance). We give a brief summary of this general framework
below, and refer the reader to [7] for a more detailed account.
1.1. Context For Non-Locally Compact Groups. If G is a finitely generated
countable group, then the quasi-isometry type of G is determined by its finite symmetric generating sets Σ. Each such Σ defines an associated (right) Cayley metric
on G, and each of these Cayley metrics are mutually quasi-isometric. So any choice
of Cayley metric may be said to be a representative of a canonical quasi-isometry
class for G, and therefore to represent the large-scale geometry of G. To extend this
1

2

MICHAEL P. COHEN

theory to groups G which are perhaps not countable or finitely generated, one must
seek conditions on possible generating sets Σ ⊆ G, which will guarantee that the
associated Cayley metrics will turn out to be quasi-isometric.
The theory of quasi-isometry types extends readily if one assumes G to be a locally
compact, compactly generated metrizable topological group. In this case, compact
sets play the analogue of finite sets in countable groups, because any Cayley metric
defined using a compact generating set Σ for G is quasi-isometric to any other such
metric. So the group has a canonical quasi-isometry class. Of course, each Cayley
metric is discrete and therefore “forgets” the topology on G. However, using a classical
theorem of Struble, one may in fact find a right-invariant metric d on G which is
not only a representative of the quasi-isometry class of G, but in fact generates the
topology on G. So there exist right-invariant metrics which convey both the algebraictopological and the geometric information of G.
The groups Diff k+ (M 1 ) we study in this paper are not locally compact, and so other
machinery is required. The primary obstacle in extending the study of large scale geometry to the more general setting of metrizable groups, which may or may not be
locally compact, lies in the absence of apparent canonical generating sets—in particular if G is Polish and not locally compact, then G can never be compactly generated.
Rosendal’s solution to this obstacle is the invocation of the relative property (OB),
introduced in [6] and [7]. If G is any separable metrizable group, then a subset Σ ⊆ G
is said to have the property (OB) relative to G if Σ has finite diameter with respect
to every right-invariant topologically compatible metric on G. The property (OB)
in a separable metrizable group is a suitable analogue for being finite in a countable
group or compact in a locally compact group—indeed, a set in a countable group has
property (OB) if and only if it is finite, and a set in a locally compact group has
property (OB) if and only if its closure is compact. G is called locally (OB) if it has
a neighborhood of identity with the property (OB) relative to G.
Rosendal has shown that if G is locally (OB), and is generated as a group by an open
subset Σ which has the property (OB) relative to G, then G admits a topologically
compatible right-invariant metric d, which assigns finite diameter precisely to those
subsets which are relatively (OB) in G, and which is quasi-isometric to the rightinvariant Cayley metric dΣ . Consequently, all Cayley metrics dΣ , where Σ is an open
set with the property (OB) in G, are mutually quasi-isometric, and we are thus able
to speak of a canonical quasi-isometry class for G.
Some groups, such as the group Homeo+ (I) of increasing homeomorphisms of the
interval, and the infinite permutation group S∞ , are locally (OB) and (OB)-generated
but have a trivial quasi-isometry type, i.e. the quasi-isometry type of a singleton,
despite being quite large, non-locally compact groups. Rosendal has identified other
non-locally compact groups which have a non-trivial quasi-isometry type, and in many
cases he has actually computed this type by displaying an “understandable” space
as a type representative. For instance the group Aut(T ) of automorphisms of the

ON THE LARGE-SCALE GEOMETRY OF DIFFEOMORPHISM GROUPS OF 1-MANIFOLDS 3

ℵ0 -regular tree is quasi-isometric to the tree T itself (see [7], [8] for this and other
examples).
1.2. Main Results. Our first task in the present work is to address the question:
exactly which subsets of Diff k+ (I) and Diff k+ (S1 ) have the relative property (OB), and
thus play the analogue of compact sets in these groups? We classify the property
(OB) in these groups in terms of an easily recognizable boundedness property.
Theorem 1.1 (see Theorem 3.8). Let 1 ≤ k ≤ ∞ and let M 1 = I or M 1 = S1 . A subset A ⊆ Diff k+ (M 1 ) has the relative property (OB) if and only if sup sup | log f ′ (x)| <
f ∈A x∈M 1

∞ and sup sup |f

(j)

(x)| < ∞ for every integer 2 ≤ j ≤ k.

f ∈A x∈M 1

It seems reasonable to conjecture that an appropriate analogue of the characterization above will hold for relatively (OB) sets in the diffeomorphism group of a general
compact manifold of arbitrary dimension.
Our characterization yields the following corollary.
Theorem 1.2. Diff k+ (I) and Diff k+ (S1 ) are locally (OB) and have a well-defined, nontrivial quasi-isometry class, if and only if k < ∞.
∞ 1
So Diff ∞
+ (I) and Diff + (S ) fail to be generated by open relatively (OB) subsets, and
therefore do not have a canonical quasi-isometry type in the sense of [7]. However,
for 1 ≤ k < ∞, studying the geometry of these groups is a well-formulated objective.
At the moment we do not know exactly the quasi-isometry type of these groups for
k ≥ 2. However, for k = 1 we completely classify the geometry, in the main theorem
below.

Theorem 1.3 (see Corollary 4.4). The following are mutually quasi-isometric:
(1) Diff 1+ (I) as a topological group;
(2) Diff 1+ (S1 ) as a topological group;
(3) C[0, 1] as a Banach space;
(4) C[0, 1] as an additive topological group.
So these groups have a very large and complicated large scale geometry. In particular every separable Banach space embeds quasi-isometrically into both Diff 1+ (I) and
Diff 1+ (S1 ), since C[0, 1] is a universal separable metric space by a classical theorem
of Banach and Mazur [1]. The quasi-isometric equivalence of (3) and (4) above was
proved by Rosendal.
Actually we show a little bit more: we display concrete, easily understandable
right-invariant topologically compatible metrics on Diff 1+ (I) and Diff 1+ (S1 ) which are
representatives of each respective group’s quasi-isometry class. Fixing these metrics,
we display natural mappings which make Diff 1+ (I) isometric to a closed subspace of
codimension 1 in C[0, 1], and Diff 1+ (S1 ) quasi-isometric to a closed subspace of codimension 2 in C[0, 1]. Using the well-known fact that C[0, 1] is isomorphic to each of

4

MICHAEL P. COHEN

its closed hyperplanes, we obtain the result above.
Acknowledgments. I would like to thank C. Rosendal, B. Sari, and A. Akhmedov for
helpful discussions and remarks.
2. Notation and Preliminaries
2.1. Coarse Metric Geometry. Although the theory of coarse geometry of topological groups may be developed in some tremendous generality, we are really only
concerned with the groups Diff k+ (M 1 ), which are connected Polish groups. We present
the basic facts we need and refer the reader to [7] for a detailed study.
If A is a subset of a connected Polish group G, then A has the property (OB)
relative to G if and only if the following property holds: for every open neighborhood
of identity U ⊆ G, there exists a positive integer r so that A ⊆ U r . It follows immediately from this characterization, for instance, that all compact subsets of connected
Polish groups have the relative property (OB). If A and B are relatively (OB) subsets
of G then so is AB.
Let G be a Polish group and d a metric on G. Then d is called coarsely proper if
for every A ⊆ G, A has the property (OB) relative to G if and only if diamd (A) < ∞.
The metric space (G, d) is called large-scale geodesic if there exists a constant K ≥ 1
so that for all f, g ∈ G, there are f = ℓ0 , ℓ1 , ℓ2 , ..., ℓn = g in G so that d(ℓi−1 , ℓi ) ≤ K
n
X
for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, and
d(ℓi−1 , ℓi ) ≤ K · d(f, g). For instance, if (G, d) is a geodesic
i=1

space in the usual sence, then (G, d) is large-scale geodesic with constant K = 1.
We need the following central characterization for representatives of the quasiisometry class of G:

Lemma 2.1 ([7] Proposition 47). Let d be a topologically compatible right-invariant
metric on a topological group G. The following are equivalent:
(1) d is coarsely proper and (G, d) is large-scale geodesic;
(2) d is quasi-isometric to each right Cayley metric given by a relatively (OB)
symmetric generating set in G.
2.2. Banach Spaces. Beginning now and throughout the remainder of Section 2, we
consider integers 0 ≤ k < ∞. For such k, we let C k [0, 1] denote the Banach space of
real-valued functions of class C k with domain [0, 1]. We also denote C[0, 1] = C 0 [0, 1].
For any such space X = C k [0, 1], we set
X # = {f ∈ X : f (0) = 0}.
For any space X of the form X = C k [0, 1] or X = C k [0, 1]# or X = C k [0, 1] ⊕ Rn
(n ≥ 1), we let k · k denote the supremum norm on X. So k · k induces the usual
Banach space structure on X = C[0, 1] or X = C[0, 1]# or X = C[0, 1] ⊕ Rn , but

ON THE LARGE-SCALE GEOMETRY OF DIFFEOMORPHISM GROUPS OF 1-MANIFOLDS 5

not on X = C k [0, 1]. The usual norm on C k [0, 1] will be denoted by k · kk . (So
k
X
kf kk =
kf (i) k for each f ∈ C k [0, 1].)
i=0

We permanently fix the antiderivative mapping I : C[0, 1]⊕R → C 1 [0, 1] defined by
I(f, b)(x) =

Rx
0

f (t)dt + b for all x ∈ [0, 1].

Note that for each k ≥ 0, kI(f, b)kk+1 ≤ kf kk + kbk ≤ 2 max(kf kk , kbk). So the
restriction of I to C k [0, 1] ⊕ R is a bounded linear operator from C k [0, 1] × R into
C k+1 [0, 1] with kIk = 2.
We also define ι : C[0, 1] → C 1 [0, 1] by ι(f ) = I(f, 0). The following lemma is
straightforward to check.
Lemma 2.2. For each k ≥ 0, the restriction of the mapping I to C k [0, 1] ⊕ R is
a Banach space isomorphism (and hence a homeomorphism) of C k [0, 1] ⊕ R onto
C k+1 [0, 1]. The restriction of ι to C k [0, 1] is a Banach space isomorphism (and hence
a homeomorphism) of C k [0, 1] onto C k+1 [0, 1]# .

2.3. Interval and Circle Diffeomorphisms. As we study the groups Diff k+ (S1 ), we
wish to avoid discussion of charts and universal coverings, so we choose the simplest
available conventions. We imagine S1 as the topological quotient space I/E, where
E is the equivalence relation on I identifying 0 and 1. We define the distance dS1
in the circle via a natural parametrization, say, dS1 ([x], [y]) = ke2πix − e2πiy k for all
(equivalence classes) [x], [y] ∈ S1 = I/E, where the norm is taken in C. Whenever
x ∈ R and 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, we adopt the habit of identifying x with its equivalence class
[x], and understanding x ∈ S1 .
To each homeomorphism f : S1 → S1 we associate its unique lift map f˜ : R → R,
which satisfies: (1) f˜(0) ∈ [0, 1); (2) f˜(x) + 1 = f˜(x + 1) for all x ∈ R; and (3) f (x
mod 1) = f˜(x) mod 1 for all x ∈ R. We say such a homeomorphism f is of class
C k if and only if f˜ is of class C k (which necessarily implies f˜(j) (0) = f˜(j) (1) for all
0 ≤ j ≤ k). In general we define the derivatives f (j) (x) = f˜(j) (x) for each x ∈ S1 ,
each f ∈ Diff k+ (S1 ), and each 1 ≤ j ≤ k. It is straightforward to verify that these
derivatives satisfy the usual chain rule, product rule, quotient rule, and inversion rule.
By a small abuse of notation, we regard the group of rotations S1 as a closed
subgroup of Diff k+ (S1 ), by identifying each [t] ∈ S1 with the mapping [x] 7→ [(x + t)
mod 1].
For the remainder of this section let either M 1 = I or M 1 = S1 . A standard
compatible metric ρk on Diff k+ (M 1 ) is given by the following:

6

MICHAEL P. COHEN

ρk (f, g) = sup dM 1 (f (x), g(x)) +
x∈M 1

k
X

kf (j) − g (j)k.

j=1

We introduce some more permanent notation. Define a map φ1 : Diff 1+ (M 1 ) →
C[0, 1]# by
φ1 (f ) = log f ′ − log f ′ (0).
Note that for each k ≥ 2, the restriction of the mapping φ1 to the subgroup
Diff k+ (M 1 ) takes values in C k−1 [0, 1]# . For each k ≥ 2 define a map φk : Diff k+ (M 1 ) →
C[0, 1] by
φk (f ) = (φ1 (f ))(k−1) .
′′

So we have defined φ2 to be the logarithmic derivative φ2 (f ) = ff ′ , and each φk (f )
is just (φk−1 (f ))′ . The maps φk serve as “alternative derivatives” for us that are
better behaved than the usual ones. Each map φk is continuous.
The following lemmas are elementary calculus that we will need later.
Lemma 2.3. For each k ≥ 2, there exists a polynomial Qk in 2(k−1) variables so that
f (k) = Qk (f ′ , f ′′ , ..., f (k−1) , φ2 (f ), φ3 (f ), ..., φk (f ))
for every f ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ).
Proof. By induction on k. For the base case, note that f ′′ = f ′ φ2 (f ), so setting
Q1 (x, y) = xy, we are done. Now the inductive case is just applications of the
product rule.

Lemma 2.4. For each k ≥ 1, there exists a polynomial Rk in k variables so that
−1 (k)

(g )




Rk (g ′, g ′′, ..., g (k) )
=
◦ g −1
(g ′ )2k−1

for every g ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ).
Proof. By induction on k. Taking R1 (x) = 1, we get the base case by the inversion
1
rule (g −1)′ = ′ ◦ g −1. The inductive case now follows from the product rule, quotient
g
rule, and chain rule.

Remark 2.5. The polynomials Qk in Lemma 2.3 may be computed using the Leibniz
rule for k-th order derivatives of products. The polynomials Rk in Lemma 2.4 are
more difficult to compute, but it is also possible to derive them by using the classical

ON THE LARGE-SCALE GEOMETRY OF DIFFEOMORPHISM GROUPS OF 1-MANIFOLDS 7
Φ

⊆

1
Diff 1+ (M 1 ) −→

Φ

⊆

2
Diff 2+ (M 1 ) −→

Φ

⊆

3
Diff 3+ (M 1 ) −→

Φ

C[0, 1]#
x
ι
C[0, 1]
x
I

C[0, 1] ⊕ R
x
I ⊕ id

⊆

4
Diff 4+ (M 1 ) −→
C[0, 1] ⊕ R2
x
I ⊕ id ⊕ id

..
.

..
.

Figure 1. Road map for studying (pseudo-) metrics on Diff k+ (M 1 ). All
upward arrows in the right column are continuous injective linear maps
which are never surjective, but which are Banach space isomorphisms
onto their range. The diagram commutes.
Faá di Bruno’s formula for k-th order derivatives of compositions of functions. We
omit the details– all we really care about is that Qk and Rk are polynomials, thus
continuous and bounded on compact sets. We will use these facts in the proofs of
Lemma 3.4 and Corollary 3.5.
3. Characterizing the Relative Property (OB) in Diff k+ (M 1 )
The goal of this section is to show that a subset of Diff k+ (M 1 ) has the relative property (OB) if and only if it has uniformly log-bounded first derivatives, and uniformly
bounded higher order derivatives for each order greater than 1.
The standard metrics ρk on Diff k+ (M 1 ) are cumbersome for establishing this fact.
So our strategy is to associate with each group Diff k+ (M 1 ) a natural Banach space
consisting of “initial value problems,” via certain continuous mappings Φk (see Figure
1 below). These maps are homeomorphisms when M 1 = I, but not injective nor
surjective when M 1 = S1 . We use the maps Φk to pull back the norm and define a
corresponding continuous pseudometric on Diff k+ (M 1 ), which we denote by dk . We
have dk is a metric if M 1 = I but not if M 1 = S1 . These pseudometrics dk turn out
to be well suited for our computations.

8

MICHAEL P. COHEN

We begin by setting Φ1 = φ1 and Φ2 = φ2 . For all k ≥ 3, define maps Φk :
Diff k+ (I) → C[0, 1] × Rk−2 by
Φk (f ) = (φk (f ), φk−1(f )(0), φk−2(f )(0), ..., φ2 (f )(0)).
So, for instance, Φ4 (f ) = (φ4 (f ), φ3(f )(0), φ2(f )(0)) for any f ∈ Diff 4+ (I). We note
that each Φk sends the identity element e ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ) to the zero vector.
It is clear that each map Φk is continuous. So we define a continuous pseudometric
dk on Diff k+ (M 1 ) by the rule
dk (f, g) = kΦk (f ) − Φk (g)k.
So every open dk -ball in Diff k+ (M 1 ) is an open set in Diff k+ (M 1 ). In case M 1 = I,
we can say more: by Lemma 3.1 below, dk is a compatible metric on Diff k+ (I), which
renders it isometric with the target Banach space of Φk .
Lemma 3.1.
(1) The mapping Φ1 is a homeomorphism of Diff k+ (I) onto C k−1[0, 1]# .
(2) For each k ≥ 2, the mapping Φ2 is a homeomorphism of Diff k+ (I) onto C k−2 [0, 1].
(3) For each k ≥ 2, the mapping Φk is a homeomorphism of Diff k+ (I) onto C[0, 1]×
Rk−2.
Proof. It is easy to see that Φ1 is injective. If F ∈ C k−1[0, 1]# for k ≥ 1, then one
R1
may set C = 0 exp(F (t))dt, and observe that f = Φ−1
1 (F ) is given by the formula
f (x) = Φ−1
1 (F )(x) =

1
C

Rx
0

exp(F (t))dt for x ∈ [0, 1].

This map f is increasing on I, with positive derivative C1 exp ◦F of class C k−1 , so f is
of class C k . It also fixes 0 and 1, so f ∈ Diff k+ (I) and therefore the restriction mapping
Φ1 |Diff k+ (I) is in fact a bijection onto C k−1 [0, 1]# . It is also clear that Φ−1
1 |C k−1 [0,1]# as we
k
have displayed it is continuous with respect to the uniform C -topology on Diff k+ (I)
and the uniform C k−1 -topology on C k−1 [0, 1]# . So Φ1 is a homeomorphism of Diff k+ (I)
onto C k−1 [0, 1]# for each k as claimed.
Also, note that Φ2 is exactly the composition mapping Φ2 = ι−1 ◦ Φ1 . Since ι−1
is a homeomorphism from C 1 [0, 1]# onto C[0, 1], we see that Φ2 is a composition of
homeomorphisms and hence a homeomorphism.
Similarly, for each k ≥ 3, the mapping Φk is exactly the composition mapping
Φk = (I ⊕ |id ⊕ ·{z
· · ⊕ id})−1 ◦ · · · ◦ (I ⊕ id)−1 ◦ I −1 ◦ ι−1 ◦ Φ1 .
k−3

ON THE LARGE-SCALE GEOMETRY OF DIFFEOMORPHISM GROUPS OF 1-MANIFOLDS 9

So each Φk is a composition of homeomorphisms and hence a homeomorphism.

Lemma 3.2. Let f ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ) and δ > 0. If d1 (f, e) < δ, then e−2δ ≤ f ′ ≤ e2δ and
e−2δ ≤ (f −1 )′ ≤ e2δ .
Proof. Let F = Φ1 (f ) ∈ C[0, 1]# , so by hypothesis kF k < δ. We gave a formula for
−1
#
Φ−1
1 in the proof of Lemma 3.1, where we regard Φ1 as a mapping from C[0, 1] to
1
−1
1
1
1
′
Diff + (I). If M = I, then f = Φ1 (F ), and if M = S , then f ([x]) agrees with
′
(Φ−1
1 (F )) (x) at each x ∈ I.
By taking the derivative of the formula for Φ−1
1 , we compute that
f ′ (0) = R 1
0

1
exp(F (t))dt

.

R1
Now kF k < δ implies that e−δ < k exp(F )k < eδ , and therefore e−δ ≤ 0 exp(F (t))dt ≤
eδ . So reciprocating, we get e−δ ≤ f ′ (0) ≤ eδ . By hypothesis we also have e−δ <
f′
< eδ . Combining the two inequalities, we get e−2δ ≤ f ′ ≤ e−2δ . The same
f ′ (0)
inequality follows immediately for (f −1 )′ by the inverse rule for derivatives.

Lemma 3.3. For each k ≥ 2 and j < k, the identity mapping id : (Diff k+ (M 1 ), dk ) →
(Diff k+ (M 1 ), dj ) is 2k−j -Lipschitz at the identity element e.
Proof. We show the result for j = k − 1 by induction on k, whence the result for
general j < k follows immediately.
For k = 2, we note that for every f ∈ Diff 2+ (M 1 ), d1 (f, e) = kφ1 (f )k ≤ kφ1 (f )k1 =
kι(φ2 (f ))k1 . Now kιk ≤ 2 by the remarks preceding Lemma 2.2, and therefore
d1 (f, e) ≤ 2kφ2 (f )k = 2d2(f, e), which proves the base case. Similarly, for the inductive case, we note that if f ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ) with k ≥ 3, we have
dk−1 (f, e) = k(φk−1(f ), φk−2(f )(0), ..., φ2(f )(0))k
= max{kφk−1 (f )k, k(φk−2(f )(0), ..., φ2(f )(0))k}
≤ max{kφk−1(f )k1 , k(φk−2(f )(0), ..., φ2(f )(0))k}
≤ max{kI(φk (f ), φk−1(f )(0))k1 , kΦk (f )k}
≤ max{kIkk(φk (f ), φk−1(f )(0)k, kΦk (f )k}
≤ max{2kΦk (f )k, kΦk (f )]k}
= 2kΦk (f )k
= 2dk (f, e).


10

MICHAEL P. COHEN

Lemma 3.4. For each k ≥ 1, the identity mapping id : (Diff k+ (M 1 ), dk ) → (Diff k+ (M 1 ), ρk )
takes dk -bounded sets to ρk -bounded sets.
Proof. It suffices to show that for every δ > 0, there is ǫ > 0 so that Bdk (e, δ) ⊆
Bρk (e, ǫ).
We proceed by induction on k. First consider k = 1 and let δ > 0 be given.
Let ǫ > 2 + e2δ − 1. If f ∈ Diff 1+ (M 1 ) satisfies d1 (f, e) < δ, then ||φ1(f )|| < δ,
whence e−2δ < f ′ < e2δ by Lemma 3.2. So e−2δ − 1 < f ′ − 1 < e2δ − 1, whence
(M 1 ) + e2δ − 1 ≤ 2 + e2δ − 1 < ǫ.
ρ1 (f, e) = sup dM 1 (f (x), x) + kf ′ − 1k ≤ diam
1
dM

x∈M 1

Therefore E ⊆ Bρ1 (e, ǫ), proving the base case.
Now fix some k ≥ 2, and inductively suppose that every dj -bounded set is also
ρj -bounded, for every j < k. Let δ > 0 be given. Then Bdk (e, δ) ⊆ Bdj (e, 2k−j δ) by
the Lipschitz property of the identity mapping with respect to these metrics (Lemma
3.3). So our inductive hypothesis says there is a γ > 2k δ so that Bdk (e, δ) ⊆ Bρj (e, γ),
for every j < k.
Let Qk be the polynomial in 2(k − 1) variables guaranteed by Lemma 2.3, and let
ǫ > 0 be large enough that ǫ > 2γ and
ǫ>2·

sup

|Qk (~x)|.

~
x∈[−γ,γ]2(k−1)

If f ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ) satisfies dk (f, e) < δ, then dj (f, e) < 2k δ < γ for all 1 ≤ j ≤ k,
and ρj (f, e) < γ for all 1 ≤ j < k by the inductive hypothesis. In particular kf (j) k < γ
for all 1 ≤ j < k. It follows then from Lemma 2.3 and our choice of ǫ that
kf (k) k = sup |f (k) (x)|
x∈M 1

= sup |Qk (f, f ′ , ..., f (k−1) , φ2 (f ), ..., φk (f ))|(x)
x∈M 1

= sup |Qk (f (x), f ′ (x), ..., f (k−1) (x), φ2 (f )(x), ..., φk (f )(x))|
x∈M 1

≤ sup ǫ/2 = ǫ/2.
x∈M 1

Also ρk−1 (f, e) < γ < ǫ/2, so ρk (f, e) = ρk−1 (f, e) + kf (k) k < ǫ. This concludes the
inductive step and the proof.

Corollary 3.5. For each k ≥ 1, the inverse mapping h 7→ h−1 , (Diff k+ (M 1 ), dk ) →
(Diff k+ (M 1 ), ρk ) takes dk -bounded sets to ρk -bounded sets.
Proof. As in the previous proof, it suffices to show that for every δ > 0, there is ǫ > 0
so that (Bdk (e, δ))−1 ⊆ Bρk (e, ǫ).

ON THE LARGE-SCALE GEOMETRY OF DIFFEOMORPHISM GROUPS OF 1-MANIFOLDS 11

Let k ≥ 1 and let δ > 0 be given. By the previous Lemma 3.4, there is γ > 0 so
that Bdk (e, δ) ⊆ Bρj (e, γ) for all j ≤ k. For each j ≤ k, let Rj be the polynomial
in j variables guaranteed by Lemma 2.4. Let ǫ > 0 be so large that ǫ/(k + 1) >
k
max{e2 δ , diamdM 1 (M 1 )}, and

ǫ/(k + 1) > max

sup

1≤j≤k ~
x∈[−(γ+1),γ+1]j

|Rj (~x)|
.
(e−2k δ )2j−1

Now if h ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ) satisfies dk (h, e) < δ, then ρk (h, e) < γ and therefore in
particular kh′ k, kh′′ k, ..., kh(k) k < γ + 1. By the Lipschitz property of the mapping
id : (Diff k+ (M 1 ), dk ) → (Diff k+ (M 1 ), d1 ) (Lemma 3.3), we also have d1 (h, e) < 2k−1 δ,
k
k
k
and thus by Lemma 3.2 we get e−2 δ < (h−1 )′ < e2 δ . Thus k(h−1 )′ − 1k < e2 δ <
ǫ/(k + 1). Now it also follows from Lemma 2.4 and our choice of ǫ that

k(h−1 )(j) k = sup |(h−1 )(j) (x)|
x∈M 1

= sup
x∈M 1

= sup
x∈M 1

Rj (h′ , h′′ , ..., h(j) )
◦ h−1 (x)
′
2j−1
(h )
Rj (h′ , h′′ , ..., h(j) )
(x)
(h′ )2j−1

|Rj (h′ (x), h′′ (x), ..., h(j) (x))|
(e−2k δ )2j−1
x∈M 1
≤ sup ǫ/(k + 1) = ǫ/(k + 1)

= sup

x∈M 1

for all 2 ≤ j ≤ k. So we have ρk (h−1 , e) = sup dM 1 (h−1 (x), x) + k(h−1 )′ − 1k +
x∈M 1

k
X

k(h−1 )(j) k < ǫ/(k + 1) + ǫ/(k + 1) + (k − 1) · ǫ/(k + 1) = ǫ. Since h was arbitrary,

j=2

we have shown (Bdk (e, δ))−1 ⊆ Bρk (e, ǫ) as claimed.



Lemma 3.6. For all f, h ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ), φ1 (f h−1 ) = [φ1 (f ) − φ1 (h)] ◦ h−1 . For each
k ≥ 2, there exist polynomials P2k , P3k , ..., Pkk in 1, 2, ..., k − 1 variables respectively,
with the property that for all f, h ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ),

12

MICHAEL P. COHEN

φk (f h−1 ) =[φk (f ) − φk (h)] ◦ h−1 · P2k ((h−1 )′ )
+ [φk−1(f ) − φk−1(h)] ◦ h−1 · P3k ((h−1 )′ , (h−1 )′′ )
+ ...
k
+ [φ3 (f ) − φ3 (h)] ◦ h−1 · Pk−1
((h−1 )′ , (h−1 )′′ , ..., (h−1 )(k−2) )

+ [φ2 (f ) − φ2 (h)] ◦ h−1 · Pkk ((h−1 )′ , (h−1 )′′ , ..., (h−1 )(k−1) ).
Proof. The fact that φ1 (f h−1 ) = [φ1 (f ) − φ1 (h)] ◦ h−1 is an easy computation. The
longer claim is established by induction on k. By the chain rule and the linearity of
the derivative,

φ2 (f h−1 ) = ([φ1 (f ) − φ1 (h)] ◦ h−1 )′
= [φ2 (f ) − φ2 (h)] ◦ h−1 · (h−1 )′ .
Taking P22(x) = x, this establishes the base case k = 2. The inductive case is
once again a straightforward consequence of the chain rule, the product rule, and the
linearity of the derivative.

Lemma 3.7. The pseudometric d1 is right-invariant. For each k ≥ 2, there exists a non-decreasing function Ak : (0, ∞) → (0, ∞) with the property that for all
f, g, h ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ),
dk (f h−1 , gh−1 ) ≤ Ak (kΦk (h)k) · dk (f, g).
In other words, right translation by h−1 is Lipschitz with a constant depending only
on the magnitude of Φk (h).
Proof. By Lemma 3.6, for each f, h ∈ Diff 1+ (M 1 ) we have d1 (f, h) = kφ1 (f )−φ1 (h)k =
k[φ1 (f h−1 )] ◦ h−1 k = kφ1 (f h−1 )k = k0 − φ1 (f h−1 )k = d1 (e, f h−1 ). It follows from
this observation that for every f, g, h ∈ Diff 1+ (I), d1 (f h, gh) = d1 (e, (f h)(hg)−1) =
d1 (e, f g −1) = d1 (f, g) and thus d1 is right-invariant as claimed.
Now suppose k ≥ 2. Using the fact that inversion takes dk -bounded sets to ρk bounded sets (Corollary 3.5), we see that to each δ ∈ (0, ∞), one may assign a
constant γδ for which dk (h, e) < δ implies ρk (h−1 , e) < γδ . Without loss of generality
we may further assume that the mapping δ 7→ γδ is a non-decreasing function of
δ. Now let P2k , ..., Pkk be the polynomials guaranteed by Lemma 3.6. Define Ak as
follows:
Ak (δ) =

sup
x2 ∈[−γδ ,γδ ]

|P2k (x2 )| +

sup
~
x3 ∈[−γδ ,γδ ]2

|P3k (~x3 )| + ... +

sup
~
xk ∈[−γδ ,γδ ]k−1

|Pkk (~xk )|.

ON THE LARGE-SCALE GEOMETRY OF DIFFEOMORPHISM GROUPS OF 1-MANIFOLDS 13

It is clear from the definition that Ak is non-decreasing, given that γδ is nondecreasing. Now let f, g, h ∈ Diff k+ (M 1 ) and fix δ = kΦk (h)k = dk (h, e). By construction, ρk (h, e) ≤ γδ , and in particular k(h−1 )′ k, k(h−1 )′′ k, ..., k(h−1 )(k) k ≤ γδ . Now it
follows from Lemma 3.6 that

−1

−1

kφk (f h ) − φk (gh )k =

k−1
X

k
[φk−i+1 (f ) − φk−i+1 (h)] ◦ h−1 · Pi+1
((h−1 )′ , ..., (h−1 )(i) )

i=1

−

k−1
X

k
[φk−i+1 (g) − φk−i+1(h)] ◦ h−1 · Pi+1
((h−1 )′ , ..., (h−1 )(i) )

i=1

=

k−1
X

k
((h−1 )′ , ..., (h−1 )(i) )
[φk−i+1 (f ) − φk−i+1 (g)] ◦ h−1 · Pi+1

i=1

≤

k−1
X

k[φk−i+1 (f ) − φk−i+1(g)] ◦ h−1 k ·

k−1
X

dk−i+1 (f, g) ·

~
xi+1 ∈[−γδ ,γδ

i=1

≤

sup

i=1

sup
~
xi+1 ∈[−γδ ,γδ

]i

]i

k
|Pi+1
(~xi+1 )|

k
|Pi+1
(~xi+1 )|

≤ dk (f, g) · Ak (δ).

Now the hard work is over, and we can finish the proof with a quick induction
on k. For the base case k = 2, if f, g, h ∈ Diff 2+ (M 1 ), we have d2 (f h−1 , gh−1) =
kφ2 (f h−1 ) − φ2 (gh−1 )k ≤ A2 (kΦ2 (h)k)d2(f, g) by the above, and we are done. For
the inductive case, fix k ≥ 3 and h ∈ Diff k+ (I), and assume the mapping f 7→ f h−1 ,
(Diff j+ (I), dj ) → (Diff j+ (I), dj ) is Aj (kΦj (h)k)-Lipschitz for each j < k. We may assume that Ak ≥ Aj for all j < k, by replacing Ak with max Aj if necessary. Then
1≤j≤k

for any f, g ∈
we have

Diff k+ (M 1 ),

by the inductive hypothesis and the computation above,

14

MICHAEL P. COHEN

dk (f h−1 , gh−1 ) = kΦk (f h−1 ) − Φk (gh−1 )k
= max{φk (f h−1 ) − φk (gh−1 ), [φk−1(f h−1 ) − φk−1 (gh−1)](0),
. . . , [φ2 (f h−1 ) − φ2 (gh−1)](0)}
≤ max{Ak (kΦk (h)k) · dk (f, g), Ak−1(kΦk−1 k) · dk−1 f, g),
. . . , A2 (kΦ2 (h)k) · d2 (f, g)}
≤ Ak (kΦk (h)k) · dk (f, g).
This demonstrates the inductive step.



Theorem 3.8. Let 1 ≤ k ≤ ∞. A subset A ⊆ Diff k+ (M 1 ) has the relative property
(OB) if and only if sup sup | log f ′ (x)| < ∞ and sup sup |f (j) (x)| < ∞ for every
f ∈A x∈M 1

f ∈A x∈M 1

integer 2 ≤ j ≤ k.
Proof. First fix any 1 ≤ k ≤ ∞ and suppose A has the property (OB) relative
to Diff k+ (M 1 ). Let U be the d1 -ball of radius 1 about identity, so U is open in
Diff k+ (M 1 ). Since A has the relative property (OB) and Diff k+ (M 1 ) is connected,
there is a positive integer r so that A ⊆ U r . Since U is d1 -bounded, and d1 is rightinvariant, it follows that U r is d1 -bounded and hence A is d1 -bounded. In particular
sup sup | log f ′ (x) − log f ′ (0)| < ∞ and hence sup sup | log f ′ (x)| < ∞.
f ∈A x∈M 1

f ∈A x∈M 1

Next fix any integer j so that 2 ≤ j ≤ k, let V be the dj -ball of radius 1 about
identity, and let U = V ∩ V −1 . Again since A has the relative property (OB) and U
is open, there is a positive integer r so that A ⊆ U r .
Let N = sup kΦj (h)k. This supremum exists because U is dj -bounded. Let C =
h∈U

Aj (N), where Aj is the function guaranteed in Lemma 3.7. Then right translation
by h is C-Lipschitz for any choice of h ∈ U. For any a ∈ A, we have a = u1 u2 ...ur for
some u1 , ..., ur ∈ U = U −1 . Then by the triangle inequality and repeated applications
of the Lipschitz property, we get
dj (a, e) ≤ dj (ur , e) + dj (ur−1 ur , ur ) + ... + dj (u1 u2 ...ur , u2...ur )
≤ dj (ur , e) + Cdj (ur−1, e) + ... + C r−1 dj (u1 , e)
≤ (1 + C + ... + C r−1 )N.

So A is dj -bounded. Therefore A is ρj -bounded by Lemma 3.4. It immediately
follows that sup sup |f (j) (x)| < ∞. Thus one direction of the theorem is proved.
f ∈A x∈M 1

ON THE LARGE-SCALE GEOMETRY OF DIFFEOMORPHISM GROUPS OF 1-MANIFOLDS 15

For the other direction, we consider separately the cases M 1 = I and M 1 = S1 .
First take M 1 = I. Fix 1 ≤ k ≤ ∞ and suppose sup sup | log f ′ (x)| < ∞, and
f ∈A x∈I

sup sup |f
f ∈A x∈I

(j)

(x)| < ∞ for every j ≤ k. Deduce that A ⊆ Bdk (e, M) for some fixed real

number M > 0. Let U ⊆ Diff k+ (I) be an arbitrary basic open set, so U = Bdj (e, ǫ) for
some j ≤ k and some real number ǫ > 0. Let Aj be the function supplied by Lemma
A (M )
3.7. Let r be a positive integer so large that j r < ǫ. We now claim that A ⊆ U r ,
and thus has the relative property (OB).
To see this, let f ∈ A be arbitrary. Set F = φj (f ), and for each 0 ≤ i ≤ r, let
Fi = ri · F . Note that kFi k ≤ M for each i, and kFi − Fi−1 k ≤ 1r . Now for each
1 ≤ i ≤ r, let fi = Φ−1
j (Fi , φj−1 (f )(0), ..., φ2 (f )(0)). Informally speaking, each fi
has the same “initial conditions” as f , but φj (fi ) = ri φj (f ) for each i. Note that
dj (fi , fi−1 ) ≤ 1r by construction. Therefore since kΦj (fi )k ≤ kΦj (f )k ≤ M, we have
−1
dj (e, fi fi−1
) ≤ Aj (M) · dj (fi , fi−1 ) ≤

Aj (M )
r

<ǫ

−1
by Lemma 3.7. Thus if we set gi = fi fi−1
for each 1 ≤ i ≤ r, then we have gi ∈
Bdj (e, ǫ) = U. Moreover f = gr gr−1...g2 g1 , so f ∈ U r . Since f ∈ A is arbitrary,
A ⊆ U r as claimed.
Now we explain how to modify the above proof for M 1 = S1 . Again suppose that
sup sup | log f ′ (x)| < ∞, and sup sup |f (j) (x)| < ∞ for every j ≤ k. Let us denote
f ∈A x∈S1
in Diff k+ (S1 ).

f ∈A x∈S1

by H the stability group of 0
Note that each mapping Φj , 1 ≤ j ≤ k,
becomes injective when restricted to H, and thus dk becomes a compatible metric on
H. Let
A∗ = {a∗ ∈ H : ∃t ∈ S1 ta∗ = a}.
Now if a∗ ∈ A∗ , compute that for some rotation t ∈ S1 and for all x ∈ S1 , we have
log(a∗ )′ (x) = log(at−1 )′ (x) = log a′ (t−1 (x)) < sup sup | log f ′ (x)|, and (a∗ )(j) (x) =
f ∈A x∈S1
−1 (j)

(j)

(at ) (x) = a (x) ≤ sup sup |f

(j)

∗

(x)|. So A satisfies the same boundedness con-

f ∈A x∈S1

ditions as A.
Let U ⊆ Diff k+ (S1 ) be an open neighborhood of e, and let V = U ∩ H. V contains
a basic open dk -ball in H. Therefore, repeating the exact same argument as in the
interval case, we can find a positive integer r so that A∗ ⊆ V r ⊆ U r . Since U was
arbitrary, we have shown that A∗ has the property (OB) relative to Diff k+ (S1 ). But
A ⊆ S1 A∗ , and S1 is compact, therefore relatively (OB) as well. It follows that A is

relatively (OB) in Diff k+ (S1 ) as claimed.

16

MICHAEL P. COHEN

4. Computing Quasi-Isometry Types
Theorem 4.1. Let either M = I or M = S1 . Then the group Diff k+ (M 1 ) has the
local property (OB), and thus a well-defined, non-trivial quasi-isometry class, if and
only if k < ∞.
Proof. If k < ∞, then dk -open balls have the property (OB) by Theorem 3.8, and
they generate Diff k+ (M 1 ) since the group is connected. Thus the group has a welldefined quasi-isometry type by the results of [7]. This quasi-isometry type is also
non-trivial by Theorem 3.8, because Diff k+ (M 1 ) contains maps with unboundedly
large derivatives and therefore does not have the property (OB) relative to itself.
1
It remains only to check the case k = ∞. To see that Diff ∞
+ (M ) does not have
the local property (OB), let U be any basic open subset of the group. Then U has
the form U = Bdj (e, ǫ) for some integer 1 ≤ j < ∞ and some distance ǫ > 0. But
U contains maps with unboundedly large k-th derivatives for k > j. It follows from
1
Theorem 3.8 that U does not have property (OB) relative to Diff ∞

+ (M ).
Theorem 4.2. Diff 1+ (I) is quasi-isometric to C[0, 1]# (viewed as a Banach space with
the norm metric) via the mapping Φ1 .
Proof. It suffices to note that the metric d1 is right-invariant, coarsely proper by
Theorem 3.8, isometric to the norm-metric on C[0, 1]# (via Φ1 ), and therefore makes
Diff 1+ (I) into a geodesic space, since C[0, 1]# together with its norm metric is geodesic.
It follows from Theorem 2.1 that d1 is a representative of the quasi-isometry class of
Diff 1+ (I). Therefore the right-invariant word metrics on Diff 1+ (I) are each quasiisometric to the norm-metric on C[0, 1]# .

Theorem 4.3. Diff 1+ (S1 ) is quasi-isometric to Z = {f ∈ C[0, 1]# : f (1) = 0} via the
mapping Φ1 .
Proof. Define a metric σ on Diff 1+ (S1 ) by the rule
σ1 (f, g) = sup dS1 (f (x), g(x)) + kΦ1 (f ) − Φ1 (g)k.
x∈S1

It is straightforward to check that σ1 is a right-invariant metric compatible with
the topology on Diff k+ (S1 ). It is also coarsely proper by Theorem 3.8.
Let H denote the stabilizer of 0 in Diff k+ (S1 ). Note that when σ1 is restricted to
H, we have σ1 − 2 ≤ d1 ≤ σ1 . Therefore the mapping Φ1 , restricted to H, becomes
a surjective quasi-isometry from (H, σ1 ) onto Z with its norm distance. Since Z is a
Banach space, it is also a geodesic space, and therefore (H, σ1 ) is large-scale geodesic
with some constant K0 . We assume K0 ≥ 2.
We claim (Diff 1+ (S1 ), σ1 ) is large-scale geodesic with constant K = 10π · K0 . By the
right-invariance of σ1 , it suffices to check the large scale geodecity condition at the

ON THE LARGE-SCALE GEOMETRY OF DIFFEOMORPHISM GROUPS OF 1-MANIFOLDS 17

identity; so let f ∈ Diff 1+ (S1 ) be arbitrary. We may also assume σ1 (e, f ) > 10π · K0 .
Let R ∈ S1 be the unique rotation satisfying R(0) = f (0). So R−1 f lies in H.
By the large-scale geodecity of (H, σ1 ) we may find finitely many maps h0 , h1 , ..., hn ∈
n
X
−1
σ1 (hi−1 , hi ) =
H so that h0 = e, hn = R f , and σ1 (hi−1 , hi ) ≤ K0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, and
i=1

−1

K0 · σ1 (e, R f ).
Let now R1 be a rotational n-th root of R, and set Ri = (R1 )i for 0 ≤ i ≤ n.
Let ℓi = Ri hi for 0 ≤ i ≤ n. So ℓ0 = e and ℓn = f . Compute that for any
rotation S and any map h ∈ Diff 1+ (S1 ), we have Φ1 (Sh) = Φ1 (h), and therefore
σ1 (Sh, h) = sup dS1 (S(h(x)), h(x)) ≤ dS1 (S(0), 0) ≤ 2. Therefore
x∈S1

σ1 (ℓi−1 , ℓi ) = σ1 (Ri−1 hi−1 , Ri hi )
≤ σ1 (Ri−1 hi−1 , hi−1 ) + σ(hi−1 , hi ) + σ1 (hi , Ri hi )
≤ 2 + K0 + 2 ≤ 10π · K0 = K.

Also
n
X
i=1

σ1 (ℓi−1 , ℓi ) ≤

n
X

(σ1 (Ri−1 hi−1 , hi−1 ) + σ(hi−1 , hi ) + σ1 (hi , Ri hi ))

i=1

≤ K0 · σ1 (e, R−1 f ) +

n
X

(σ1 (Ri−1 hi−1 , hi−1 ) + σ1 (hi , Ri hi ))

i=1

≤ K0 · σ1 (e, f ) + K0 · σ1 (f, R−1 f ) + 2

n
X

(2π/n + 2π/n)

i=1

≤ K0 σ1 (e, f ) + 10π
≤ 2K0 σ1 (e, f ) ≤ 10πK0 · σ1 (e, f ).

This proves the claim. So σ1 is a representative of the quasi-isometry class of
Diff k+ (S1 ) by Theorem 2.1. To finish the proof, we reiterate our observation that Φ1
is a quasi-isometry between (Diff 1+ (S1 ), σ1 ) and Z.

Corollary 4.4. The following are mutually quasi-isometric:
(1) Diff 1+ (I) as a topological group;
(2) Diff 1+ (S1 ) as a topological group;
(3) C[0, 1] as a Banach space;
(4) C[0, 1] as an additive topological group.

18

MICHAEL P. COHEN

Proof. It is well-known that C[0, 1] is isomorphic as a Banach space to each of its
closed hyperplanes (its closed subspaces of finite codimension). This appears for
instance as Exercise 5.33 in [3]. It follows that C[0, 1], C[0, 1]# , and Z = {F ∈
C[0, 1] : F (1) = 0} are mutually quasi-isometric. This proves the quasi-isometric
equivalence of (1)–(3). The fact that (3) and (4) are quasi-isometric is a special case
of a general fact about Banach spaces proved in [7].

We have proven that Diff k+ (M 1 ) is quasi-isometric to C[0, 1]# , a closed hyperplane
of C[0, 1], for either choice of M 1 = I or M 1 = S1 . Referring back to the road
map in Figure 1, it seems natural to conjecture that Diff 2+ (M 1 ) is quasi-isometric to
C[0, 1]; Diff 3+ (M 1 ) is quasi-isometric to C[0, 1] ⊕ R; etc. It would then follow that
all of these topological groups are mutually quasi-isometric, since the corresponding
Banach spaces are isomorphic. If this is the case, then evidently computing quasiisometry types fails to distinguish the groups Diff k+ (M 1 ).
Question 4.5. Is Diff k+ (M 1 ) quasi-isometric to Diff j+ (M 1 ) for j 6= k?
References
[1] S. Banach, Théorie des opérations linéaires. Monografie Matematyczne, Warsaw, 1932.
[2] Y. de Cornulier and P. de la Harpe, Metric geometry of locally compact groups, preprint.
[3] Fabian, M., Habala, P., Hajek, P., Montesinos Santalucia, V., Pelant, J., Zizler, V., Functional
Analysis and Infinite-Dimensional Geometry. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001.
[4] Kalton, N. J., The Nonlinear Geometry of Banach spaces, Revista Matemática Complutense 21
(2008), 760.
[5] Ostrovskii, M, Metric embeddings: bilipschitz and coarse embedddings into Banach spaces, de
Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, vol. 49, de Gruyter, Berlin, 2013.
[6] C. Rosendal, A topological version of the Bergman property. Forum Mathematicum 21 (2009),
no. 2, 299-332.
[7] C. Rosendal, Coarse geometry of topological groups, preprint.
[8] C. Rosendal, Large scale geometry of automorphism groups, preprint.
Michael P. Cohen, Department of Mathematics, North Dakota State University,
PO Box 6050, Fargo, ND, 58108-6050
E-mail address: michael.cohen@ndsu.edu

