Boundary behaviour of universal covering maps (Q7001174)

The well-known Carathéodory-Torhorst theorem states that the Riemann map from the unit disk \(\mathbb{D}\) to a simply connected domain \(\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}\) extends to the unit circle continuously if and only if \(\partial \Omega\) is locally connected. Investigation of the boundary behavior of such conformal maps naturally entails investigation of prime ends.\N\NThe goal of this paper is to discuss the corresponding questions in the multiply connected case (including infinitely connected domains) regarding the boundary behavior of the universal covering (in terms of cluster sets and radial limits), the geometry of \(\Omega\), and the group of deck transformations.\N\NThe paper itself is 60 pages long with several results. In the introduction, the authors also gives an overview of earlier publications developing prime end theory in more general cases. The authors present five main results (Theorem A to Corollary E) as an extract. To review Proposition D, we need the following. Let \(\Omega\subset \widehat{\mathbb{C}}\) be a hyperbolic domain, i.e., its universal cover is the unit disk \(\mathbb{D}\). Let \(\pi:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow\Omega\) be a universal cover. The group \(\Gamma\) of deck transformations of \(\pi\) consists of all automorphisms \(\varphi\) of \(\mathbb{D}\) such that \(\pi\circ\varphi=\pi\). The authors call an open Jordan arc \(C\) a true crosscut of \(\Omega\) if \(C\subset\Omega\), the closure of \(C\) is \(C\cup \{a,b\}\) where \(a\ne b\), \(a\) and \(b\) are in the same component of \(\partial \Omega\) and \(\Omega\setminus C\) has exactly two components. Also, they introduce the limit set and the non-tangential limit set of the deck transformation group \(\Gamma\) as follows\N\begin{align*}\N\Lambda(\Gamma):=&\ \{\zeta:\ |\zeta|=1, \gamma_n(0)\rightarrow\zeta, \text{ for some } \left(\gamma_n\right)\subset \Gamma\}, \\\N\Lambda_{NT}(\Gamma):=&\ \{\zeta:\ |\zeta|=1, \gamma_n(0)\rightarrow\zeta\text{ non-tangentially, for some } \left(\gamma_n\right)\subset \Gamma\}.\N\end{align*}\NHere, \(0\) serves as a basepoint and it is shown that \(\Lambda=\Lambda(\Gamma)\) and \(\Lambda_{NT}=\Lambda_{NT}(\Gamma)\) do not depend on the basepoint.\N\NProposition D states the following. Let \(\Omega\subset \widehat{\mathbb{C}}\) be a hyperbolic domain and let \(\pi:\mathbb{D}\rightarrow\Omega\) be a universal covering with deck transformation group \(\Gamma\). Then, there is a one-to-one correspondence between its prime ends and \((\partial \mathbb{D} \setminus \Lambda_{NT} )/\Gamma\). Furthermore, \(\pi\) extends continuously to \(\partial \mathbb{D}\setminus\Lambda\) if and only if every true crosscut neighbourhood in \(\Omega\) has a locally connected boundary.\N\NThe authors use, among others, Ohtsuka's exhaustion of multiply connected domains, and the theorems of Lehto-Virtanen and Hopf-Tsuji-Sullivan. They also extend Ohtsuka's results.\N\NThe paper's lucid style and crystal-clear presentation supported by several, well-chosen figures establish it as an accessible and enjoyable reference and a landmark on conformal mappings and their boundary behaviors.