The boundary at infinity of a rough \(\mathrm{CAT}(0)\) space (Q2453565)

The boundary theory of Gromov hyperbolic and complete \(\mathrm{CAT}(0)\) spaces share common features; by ``boundary'', we always mean some sort of boundary at infinity. In particular if \(X\) is both a Gromov hyperbolic space and a complete \(\mathrm{CAT}(0)\) space, then it is well known that its Gromov boundary \(\partial_G X\) and its ideal boundary \(\partial_I X\) can naturally be identified. The authors of the article under review defined a class of rough \(\mathrm{CAT}(0)\) spaces (abbreviated \(\mathrm{rCAT}(0)\)) in their article [Bull. Math. Soc. Sci. Math. Roum., Nouv. Sér. 55(103), No. 1, 3--33 (2012; Zbl 1265.51011)] where they investigated geometry of such spaces. By the authors, this new class of length spaces is arguable the smallest natural class of spaces that properly contains all Gromov hyperbolic length spaces and all \(\mathrm{CAT}(0)\) spaces. Building on the above article, the authors investigate the boundary theory of \(\mathrm{rCAT}(0)\) spaces. Unlike complete \(\mathrm{CAT}(0)\) spaces, geodesic rays in an \(\mathrm{rCAT}(0)\) space do not form the basis of a nice boundary theory, and completeness is not a useful assumption. Instead the authors replace geodesic rays by bouquets of short paths whose length tend to infinity. Next, they define the bouquet boundary \(\partial_B X\) of \(X\), and the associated bordification \(\bar{X}_B := X\cup\partial_B X\). Finally let us present two from the four of main theorems of the article under review. All are about the properties of the bouquet boundary. 1. Suppose \(X\) is a complete \(\mathrm{CAT}(0)\) space. Then \(\bar{X}_I\) equipped with the cone topology and \(\bar{X}_B\) equipped with the bouquet topology are naturally homeomorphic. 2. Suppose \(X\) is a \(\delta\)-hyperbolic length space \(\delta\geq 0\). Then \(\bar{X}_B\) equipped with the bouquet topology and \(\bar{X}_G\) equipped with the canonical topology are naturally homeomorphic.