Groups acting on trees
$begingroup$
Assume that $X$ is a tree such that every vertex has infinite degree, and a discrete group $G$ acts on this tree properly (with finite stabilizers) and transitively.
Is it true that $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup?
gr.group-theory trees
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assume that $X$ is a tree such that every vertex has infinite degree, and a discrete group $G$ acts on this tree properly (with finite stabilizers) and transitively.
Is it true that $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup?
gr.group-theory trees
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assume that $X$ is a tree such that every vertex has infinite degree, and a discrete group $G$ acts on this tree properly (with finite stabilizers) and transitively.
Is it true that $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup?
gr.group-theory trees
$endgroup$
Assume that $X$ is a tree such that every vertex has infinite degree, and a discrete group $G$ acts on this tree properly (with finite stabilizers) and transitively.
Is it true that $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup?
gr.group-theory trees
gr.group-theory trees
edited yesterday
Shaun
12316
12316
asked Mar 1 at 22:54
Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova
34118
34118
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:09
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:09
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:09
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes.
You're assuming more than what's necessary.
For an isometric group action on a Gromov-hyperbolic space, you have 5 possibilities (Gromov's classification):
- (a) bounded orbits
- (b) horocyclic (fixes a unique point at infinity, no loxodromic element; preserves "horospheres")
- (c) axial (preserves an axis, on which some element acts loxodromically)
- (d) focal (fixes a unique point at infinity, existence of a loxodromic element)
- (e) general type (= other): implies the existence of a non-abelian free subgroup acting metrically properly.
(a), (b), (c) are clearly ruled out in your setting (transitivity, and valency; valency $ge 3$ would be enough). (d) is ruled out because discrete groups have no metrically proper focal action at all. So (e) holds.
The case of actions on trees is a useful motivating baby case illustrating the above "classification"; all cases can actually occur.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
Mar 1 at 23:40
2
$begingroup$
@MariaGerasimova you have to discard the focal case. Writing, for instance, the solvable group $mathbf{Z}wrmathbf{Z}$ as an ascending HNN extension (w.r.t. an endomorphism with image of finite index), you make it act vertex-transitively on a tree with infinite valency (with abelian stabilizers). So you need to explicitly exclude the case of a fixed point at infinity.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The geometry of simplicial trees can be extended in two directions: Gromov-hyperbolic spaces and CAT(0) cube complexes. Yves' answer is based on the first point of view. About cube complexes, we have the following statement (essentially due to Caprace and Sageev):
Theorem: Let $G$ be a group acting on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex $X$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to mathbb{Z}^n to 1$$
where $n leq dim(X)$ and where $L$ is locally $X$-elliptic (ie., any finitely generated subgroup of $L$ has a bounded orbit in $X$).
As a consequence, if a Tits' alternative is known for cube-stabilisers, then it is possible to deduce a Tits' alternative in the entire group. In the particular case of trees, we have:
Corollary: Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index* subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to Z to 1$$
where $L$ is locally $T$-elliptic and where $Z$ is trivial or infinite cyclic.
Of course, a direct argument can be given here.
Sketch of proof of the corollary. We distinguish two cases.
First, assume that $G$ has a finite orbit in $partial T$. So it contains a finite-index subgroup $H$ which fixes a point $xi in partial T$. Fix a basepoint $x in T$. Notice that, for every $g in H$, the intersection $g [x,xi) cap [x,xi)$ contains an infinite geodesic ray (as $g$ fixes $xi$). Consequently, $g$ defines a translation of length $tau(g)$ on a subray of $[x,xi)$. (Here $tau(g)$ is positive if the translation is directed to $xi$ and negative otherwise.) The key observation is that
$$tau : H to mathbb{Z}$$
defines a homomorphism whose kernel contains only elliptic elements (as each such element fixes pointwise a subray of $[x,xi)$). Thus, we get the desired short exact sequence.
Next, assume that $G$ has infinite orbits in $partial T$. Play ping-pong to construct a non-abelian free subgroup. $square$
*As noticed by Yves Cornulier in the comments, the subgroup can be always taken with index at most two.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You seem to assume (metric) properness at some point. Both the theorem and its corollary are false otherwise. Anyway I guess that the Caprace-Sageev theory is powerful enough to encompass non-proper actions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 9:58
$begingroup$
I am not assuming anything about the action. Why do you think the statements shoudn't be correct?
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 10:25
$begingroup$
Ah, sorry, it's confusing (at least to me) that "locally elliptic", which I usually know as an intrinsic property of the group, is used here as a property of the action, especially since the conclusion is a mixture of intrinsic properties of $G$ (the homomorphism onto an abelian group is not related to the action, as stated here) and extrinsic (being locally elliptic).
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:32
$begingroup$
Still there's a minor error in the corollary: it can happen that $G$ is already acting locally elliptically (horocyclic case). Side remark: in the corollary, no need to pass to a finite index subgroup, except precisely in the case $G$ preserves an axis, where one might have to pass to a subgroup of index 2.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:34
1
$begingroup$
I replaced "elliptic" with "$X$-elliptic" to avoid confusion. I also corrected the mistake in the corollary, thank you.
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 11:03
|
show 5 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324438%2fgroups-acting-on-trees%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yes.
You're assuming more than what's necessary.
For an isometric group action on a Gromov-hyperbolic space, you have 5 possibilities (Gromov's classification):
- (a) bounded orbits
- (b) horocyclic (fixes a unique point at infinity, no loxodromic element; preserves "horospheres")
- (c) axial (preserves an axis, on which some element acts loxodromically)
- (d) focal (fixes a unique point at infinity, existence of a loxodromic element)
- (e) general type (= other): implies the existence of a non-abelian free subgroup acting metrically properly.
(a), (b), (c) are clearly ruled out in your setting (transitivity, and valency; valency $ge 3$ would be enough). (d) is ruled out because discrete groups have no metrically proper focal action at all. So (e) holds.
The case of actions on trees is a useful motivating baby case illustrating the above "classification"; all cases can actually occur.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
Mar 1 at 23:40
2
$begingroup$
@MariaGerasimova you have to discard the focal case. Writing, for instance, the solvable group $mathbf{Z}wrmathbf{Z}$ as an ascending HNN extension (w.r.t. an endomorphism with image of finite index), you make it act vertex-transitively on a tree with infinite valency (with abelian stabilizers). So you need to explicitly exclude the case of a fixed point at infinity.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes.
You're assuming more than what's necessary.
For an isometric group action on a Gromov-hyperbolic space, you have 5 possibilities (Gromov's classification):
- (a) bounded orbits
- (b) horocyclic (fixes a unique point at infinity, no loxodromic element; preserves "horospheres")
- (c) axial (preserves an axis, on which some element acts loxodromically)
- (d) focal (fixes a unique point at infinity, existence of a loxodromic element)
- (e) general type (= other): implies the existence of a non-abelian free subgroup acting metrically properly.
(a), (b), (c) are clearly ruled out in your setting (transitivity, and valency; valency $ge 3$ would be enough). (d) is ruled out because discrete groups have no metrically proper focal action at all. So (e) holds.
The case of actions on trees is a useful motivating baby case illustrating the above "classification"; all cases can actually occur.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
Mar 1 at 23:40
2
$begingroup$
@MariaGerasimova you have to discard the focal case. Writing, for instance, the solvable group $mathbf{Z}wrmathbf{Z}$ as an ascending HNN extension (w.r.t. an endomorphism with image of finite index), you make it act vertex-transitively on a tree with infinite valency (with abelian stabilizers). So you need to explicitly exclude the case of a fixed point at infinity.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes.
You're assuming more than what's necessary.
For an isometric group action on a Gromov-hyperbolic space, you have 5 possibilities (Gromov's classification):
- (a) bounded orbits
- (b) horocyclic (fixes a unique point at infinity, no loxodromic element; preserves "horospheres")
- (c) axial (preserves an axis, on which some element acts loxodromically)
- (d) focal (fixes a unique point at infinity, existence of a loxodromic element)
- (e) general type (= other): implies the existence of a non-abelian free subgroup acting metrically properly.
(a), (b), (c) are clearly ruled out in your setting (transitivity, and valency; valency $ge 3$ would be enough). (d) is ruled out because discrete groups have no metrically proper focal action at all. So (e) holds.
The case of actions on trees is a useful motivating baby case illustrating the above "classification"; all cases can actually occur.
$endgroup$
Yes.
You're assuming more than what's necessary.
For an isometric group action on a Gromov-hyperbolic space, you have 5 possibilities (Gromov's classification):
- (a) bounded orbits
- (b) horocyclic (fixes a unique point at infinity, no loxodromic element; preserves "horospheres")
- (c) axial (preserves an axis, on which some element acts loxodromically)
- (d) focal (fixes a unique point at infinity, existence of a loxodromic element)
- (e) general type (= other): implies the existence of a non-abelian free subgroup acting metrically properly.
(a), (b), (c) are clearly ruled out in your setting (transitivity, and valency; valency $ge 3$ would be enough). (d) is ruled out because discrete groups have no metrically proper focal action at all. So (e) holds.
The case of actions on trees is a useful motivating baby case illustrating the above "classification"; all cases can actually occur.
edited Mar 2 at 11:27
user21820
834717
834717
answered Mar 1 at 23:15
YCorYCor
28.2k483136
28.2k483136
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
Mar 1 at 23:40
2
$begingroup$
@MariaGerasimova you have to discard the focal case. Writing, for instance, the solvable group $mathbf{Z}wrmathbf{Z}$ as an ascending HNN extension (w.r.t. an endomorphism with image of finite index), you make it act vertex-transitively on a tree with infinite valency (with abelian stabilizers). So you need to explicitly exclude the case of a fixed point at infinity.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
Mar 1 at 23:40
2
$begingroup$
@MariaGerasimova you have to discard the focal case. Writing, for instance, the solvable group $mathbf{Z}wrmathbf{Z}$ as an ascending HNN extension (w.r.t. an endomorphism with image of finite index), you make it act vertex-transitively on a tree with infinite valency (with abelian stabilizers). So you need to explicitly exclude the case of a fixed point at infinity.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:56
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
Mar 1 at 23:40
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
Mar 1 at 23:40
2
2
$begingroup$
@MariaGerasimova you have to discard the focal case. Writing, for instance, the solvable group $mathbf{Z}wrmathbf{Z}$ as an ascending HNN extension (w.r.t. an endomorphism with image of finite index), you make it act vertex-transitively on a tree with infinite valency (with abelian stabilizers). So you need to explicitly exclude the case of a fixed point at infinity.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:56
$begingroup$
@MariaGerasimova you have to discard the focal case. Writing, for instance, the solvable group $mathbf{Z}wrmathbf{Z}$ as an ascending HNN extension (w.r.t. an endomorphism with image of finite index), you make it act vertex-transitively on a tree with infinite valency (with abelian stabilizers). So you need to explicitly exclude the case of a fixed point at infinity.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:56
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The geometry of simplicial trees can be extended in two directions: Gromov-hyperbolic spaces and CAT(0) cube complexes. Yves' answer is based on the first point of view. About cube complexes, we have the following statement (essentially due to Caprace and Sageev):
Theorem: Let $G$ be a group acting on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex $X$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to mathbb{Z}^n to 1$$
where $n leq dim(X)$ and where $L$ is locally $X$-elliptic (ie., any finitely generated subgroup of $L$ has a bounded orbit in $X$).
As a consequence, if a Tits' alternative is known for cube-stabilisers, then it is possible to deduce a Tits' alternative in the entire group. In the particular case of trees, we have:
Corollary: Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index* subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to Z to 1$$
where $L$ is locally $T$-elliptic and where $Z$ is trivial or infinite cyclic.
Of course, a direct argument can be given here.
Sketch of proof of the corollary. We distinguish two cases.
First, assume that $G$ has a finite orbit in $partial T$. So it contains a finite-index subgroup $H$ which fixes a point $xi in partial T$. Fix a basepoint $x in T$. Notice that, for every $g in H$, the intersection $g [x,xi) cap [x,xi)$ contains an infinite geodesic ray (as $g$ fixes $xi$). Consequently, $g$ defines a translation of length $tau(g)$ on a subray of $[x,xi)$. (Here $tau(g)$ is positive if the translation is directed to $xi$ and negative otherwise.) The key observation is that
$$tau : H to mathbb{Z}$$
defines a homomorphism whose kernel contains only elliptic elements (as each such element fixes pointwise a subray of $[x,xi)$). Thus, we get the desired short exact sequence.
Next, assume that $G$ has infinite orbits in $partial T$. Play ping-pong to construct a non-abelian free subgroup. $square$
*As noticed by Yves Cornulier in the comments, the subgroup can be always taken with index at most two.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You seem to assume (metric) properness at some point. Both the theorem and its corollary are false otherwise. Anyway I guess that the Caprace-Sageev theory is powerful enough to encompass non-proper actions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 9:58
$begingroup$
I am not assuming anything about the action. Why do you think the statements shoudn't be correct?
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 10:25
$begingroup$
Ah, sorry, it's confusing (at least to me) that "locally elliptic", which I usually know as an intrinsic property of the group, is used here as a property of the action, especially since the conclusion is a mixture of intrinsic properties of $G$ (the homomorphism onto an abelian group is not related to the action, as stated here) and extrinsic (being locally elliptic).
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:32
$begingroup$
Still there's a minor error in the corollary: it can happen that $G$ is already acting locally elliptically (horocyclic case). Side remark: in the corollary, no need to pass to a finite index subgroup, except precisely in the case $G$ preserves an axis, where one might have to pass to a subgroup of index 2.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:34
1
$begingroup$
I replaced "elliptic" with "$X$-elliptic" to avoid confusion. I also corrected the mistake in the corollary, thank you.
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 11:03
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
The geometry of simplicial trees can be extended in two directions: Gromov-hyperbolic spaces and CAT(0) cube complexes. Yves' answer is based on the first point of view. About cube complexes, we have the following statement (essentially due to Caprace and Sageev):
Theorem: Let $G$ be a group acting on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex $X$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to mathbb{Z}^n to 1$$
where $n leq dim(X)$ and where $L$ is locally $X$-elliptic (ie., any finitely generated subgroup of $L$ has a bounded orbit in $X$).
As a consequence, if a Tits' alternative is known for cube-stabilisers, then it is possible to deduce a Tits' alternative in the entire group. In the particular case of trees, we have:
Corollary: Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index* subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to Z to 1$$
where $L$ is locally $T$-elliptic and where $Z$ is trivial or infinite cyclic.
Of course, a direct argument can be given here.
Sketch of proof of the corollary. We distinguish two cases.
First, assume that $G$ has a finite orbit in $partial T$. So it contains a finite-index subgroup $H$ which fixes a point $xi in partial T$. Fix a basepoint $x in T$. Notice that, for every $g in H$, the intersection $g [x,xi) cap [x,xi)$ contains an infinite geodesic ray (as $g$ fixes $xi$). Consequently, $g$ defines a translation of length $tau(g)$ on a subray of $[x,xi)$. (Here $tau(g)$ is positive if the translation is directed to $xi$ and negative otherwise.) The key observation is that
$$tau : H to mathbb{Z}$$
defines a homomorphism whose kernel contains only elliptic elements (as each such element fixes pointwise a subray of $[x,xi)$). Thus, we get the desired short exact sequence.
Next, assume that $G$ has infinite orbits in $partial T$. Play ping-pong to construct a non-abelian free subgroup. $square$
*As noticed by Yves Cornulier in the comments, the subgroup can be always taken with index at most two.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You seem to assume (metric) properness at some point. Both the theorem and its corollary are false otherwise. Anyway I guess that the Caprace-Sageev theory is powerful enough to encompass non-proper actions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 9:58
$begingroup$
I am not assuming anything about the action. Why do you think the statements shoudn't be correct?
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 10:25
$begingroup$
Ah, sorry, it's confusing (at least to me) that "locally elliptic", which I usually know as an intrinsic property of the group, is used here as a property of the action, especially since the conclusion is a mixture of intrinsic properties of $G$ (the homomorphism onto an abelian group is not related to the action, as stated here) and extrinsic (being locally elliptic).
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:32
$begingroup$
Still there's a minor error in the corollary: it can happen that $G$ is already acting locally elliptically (horocyclic case). Side remark: in the corollary, no need to pass to a finite index subgroup, except precisely in the case $G$ preserves an axis, where one might have to pass to a subgroup of index 2.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:34
1
$begingroup$
I replaced "elliptic" with "$X$-elliptic" to avoid confusion. I also corrected the mistake in the corollary, thank you.
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 11:03
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
The geometry of simplicial trees can be extended in two directions: Gromov-hyperbolic spaces and CAT(0) cube complexes. Yves' answer is based on the first point of view. About cube complexes, we have the following statement (essentially due to Caprace and Sageev):
Theorem: Let $G$ be a group acting on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex $X$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to mathbb{Z}^n to 1$$
where $n leq dim(X)$ and where $L$ is locally $X$-elliptic (ie., any finitely generated subgroup of $L$ has a bounded orbit in $X$).
As a consequence, if a Tits' alternative is known for cube-stabilisers, then it is possible to deduce a Tits' alternative in the entire group. In the particular case of trees, we have:
Corollary: Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index* subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to Z to 1$$
where $L$ is locally $T$-elliptic and where $Z$ is trivial or infinite cyclic.
Of course, a direct argument can be given here.
Sketch of proof of the corollary. We distinguish two cases.
First, assume that $G$ has a finite orbit in $partial T$. So it contains a finite-index subgroup $H$ which fixes a point $xi in partial T$. Fix a basepoint $x in T$. Notice that, for every $g in H$, the intersection $g [x,xi) cap [x,xi)$ contains an infinite geodesic ray (as $g$ fixes $xi$). Consequently, $g$ defines a translation of length $tau(g)$ on a subray of $[x,xi)$. (Here $tau(g)$ is positive if the translation is directed to $xi$ and negative otherwise.) The key observation is that
$$tau : H to mathbb{Z}$$
defines a homomorphism whose kernel contains only elliptic elements (as each such element fixes pointwise a subray of $[x,xi)$). Thus, we get the desired short exact sequence.
Next, assume that $G$ has infinite orbits in $partial T$. Play ping-pong to construct a non-abelian free subgroup. $square$
*As noticed by Yves Cornulier in the comments, the subgroup can be always taken with index at most two.
$endgroup$
The geometry of simplicial trees can be extended in two directions: Gromov-hyperbolic spaces and CAT(0) cube complexes. Yves' answer is based on the first point of view. About cube complexes, we have the following statement (essentially due to Caprace and Sageev):
Theorem: Let $G$ be a group acting on a finite-dimensional CAT(0) cube complex $X$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to mathbb{Z}^n to 1$$
where $n leq dim(X)$ and where $L$ is locally $X$-elliptic (ie., any finitely generated subgroup of $L$ has a bounded orbit in $X$).
As a consequence, if a Tits' alternative is known for cube-stabilisers, then it is possible to deduce a Tits' alternative in the entire group. In the particular case of trees, we have:
Corollary: Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$. Either $G$ contains a non-abelian free subgroup or it contains a finite-index* subgroup which decomposes as a short exact sequence
$$1 to L to G to Z to 1$$
where $L$ is locally $T$-elliptic and where $Z$ is trivial or infinite cyclic.
Of course, a direct argument can be given here.
Sketch of proof of the corollary. We distinguish two cases.
First, assume that $G$ has a finite orbit in $partial T$. So it contains a finite-index subgroup $H$ which fixes a point $xi in partial T$. Fix a basepoint $x in T$. Notice that, for every $g in H$, the intersection $g [x,xi) cap [x,xi)$ contains an infinite geodesic ray (as $g$ fixes $xi$). Consequently, $g$ defines a translation of length $tau(g)$ on a subray of $[x,xi)$. (Here $tau(g)$ is positive if the translation is directed to $xi$ and negative otherwise.) The key observation is that
$$tau : H to mathbb{Z}$$
defines a homomorphism whose kernel contains only elliptic elements (as each such element fixes pointwise a subray of $[x,xi)$). Thus, we get the desired short exact sequence.
Next, assume that $G$ has infinite orbits in $partial T$. Play ping-pong to construct a non-abelian free subgroup. $square$
*As noticed by Yves Cornulier in the comments, the subgroup can be always taken with index at most two.
edited Mar 2 at 10:59
answered Mar 2 at 9:41
AGenevoisAGenevois
1,457715
1,457715
$begingroup$
You seem to assume (metric) properness at some point. Both the theorem and its corollary are false otherwise. Anyway I guess that the Caprace-Sageev theory is powerful enough to encompass non-proper actions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 9:58
$begingroup$
I am not assuming anything about the action. Why do you think the statements shoudn't be correct?
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 10:25
$begingroup$
Ah, sorry, it's confusing (at least to me) that "locally elliptic", which I usually know as an intrinsic property of the group, is used here as a property of the action, especially since the conclusion is a mixture of intrinsic properties of $G$ (the homomorphism onto an abelian group is not related to the action, as stated here) and extrinsic (being locally elliptic).
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:32
$begingroup$
Still there's a minor error in the corollary: it can happen that $G$ is already acting locally elliptically (horocyclic case). Side remark: in the corollary, no need to pass to a finite index subgroup, except precisely in the case $G$ preserves an axis, where one might have to pass to a subgroup of index 2.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:34
1
$begingroup$
I replaced "elliptic" with "$X$-elliptic" to avoid confusion. I also corrected the mistake in the corollary, thank you.
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 11:03
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
You seem to assume (metric) properness at some point. Both the theorem and its corollary are false otherwise. Anyway I guess that the Caprace-Sageev theory is powerful enough to encompass non-proper actions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 9:58
$begingroup$
I am not assuming anything about the action. Why do you think the statements shoudn't be correct?
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 10:25
$begingroup$
Ah, sorry, it's confusing (at least to me) that "locally elliptic", which I usually know as an intrinsic property of the group, is used here as a property of the action, especially since the conclusion is a mixture of intrinsic properties of $G$ (the homomorphism onto an abelian group is not related to the action, as stated here) and extrinsic (being locally elliptic).
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:32
$begingroup$
Still there's a minor error in the corollary: it can happen that $G$ is already acting locally elliptically (horocyclic case). Side remark: in the corollary, no need to pass to a finite index subgroup, except precisely in the case $G$ preserves an axis, where one might have to pass to a subgroup of index 2.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:34
1
$begingroup$
I replaced "elliptic" with "$X$-elliptic" to avoid confusion. I also corrected the mistake in the corollary, thank you.
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 11:03
$begingroup$
You seem to assume (metric) properness at some point. Both the theorem and its corollary are false otherwise. Anyway I guess that the Caprace-Sageev theory is powerful enough to encompass non-proper actions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 9:58
$begingroup$
You seem to assume (metric) properness at some point. Both the theorem and its corollary are false otherwise. Anyway I guess that the Caprace-Sageev theory is powerful enough to encompass non-proper actions.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 9:58
$begingroup$
I am not assuming anything about the action. Why do you think the statements shoudn't be correct?
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 10:25
$begingroup$
I am not assuming anything about the action. Why do you think the statements shoudn't be correct?
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 10:25
$begingroup$
Ah, sorry, it's confusing (at least to me) that "locally elliptic", which I usually know as an intrinsic property of the group, is used here as a property of the action, especially since the conclusion is a mixture of intrinsic properties of $G$ (the homomorphism onto an abelian group is not related to the action, as stated here) and extrinsic (being locally elliptic).
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:32
$begingroup$
Ah, sorry, it's confusing (at least to me) that "locally elliptic", which I usually know as an intrinsic property of the group, is used here as a property of the action, especially since the conclusion is a mixture of intrinsic properties of $G$ (the homomorphism onto an abelian group is not related to the action, as stated here) and extrinsic (being locally elliptic).
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:32
$begingroup$
Still there's a minor error in the corollary: it can happen that $G$ is already acting locally elliptically (horocyclic case). Side remark: in the corollary, no need to pass to a finite index subgroup, except precisely in the case $G$ preserves an axis, where one might have to pass to a subgroup of index 2.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:34
$begingroup$
Still there's a minor error in the corollary: it can happen that $G$ is already acting locally elliptically (horocyclic case). Side remark: in the corollary, no need to pass to a finite index subgroup, except precisely in the case $G$ preserves an axis, where one might have to pass to a subgroup of index 2.
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 2 at 10:34
1
1
$begingroup$
I replaced "elliptic" with "$X$-elliptic" to avoid confusion. I also corrected the mistake in the corollary, thank you.
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 11:03
$begingroup$
I replaced "elliptic" with "$X$-elliptic" to avoid confusion. I also corrected the mistake in the corollary, thank you.
$endgroup$
– AGenevois
Mar 2 at 11:03
|
show 5 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324438%2fgroups-acting-on-trees%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 1 at 23:09