Schild's ladder: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
en>FrescoBot
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Hello, dear friend! My name is Kendall. I smile that I can join to the whole globe. I live in Italy, in the FE region. I dream to visit the various nations, to obtain familiarized with appealing individuals.<br><br>my web page [http://brokerltd.com/adv_cpm_network.html webmaster]
In [[mathematics]], the '''ping-pong lemma''', or '''table-tennis lemma''', is any of several mathematical statements that ensure that several elements in a group [[group action|acting]] on a set freely [[Generating set of a group|generates]] a [[free group|free]] [[subgroup]] of that group.
 
==History==
 
The ping-pong argument goes back to late 19th century and is commonly attributed<ref name="DH"/> to [[Felix Klein]] who used it to study subgroups of [[Kleinian group]]s, that is, of discrete groups of isometries of the [[hyperbolic 3-space]] or, equivalently [[Möbius transformation]]s of the [[Riemann sphere]]. The ping-pong lemma was a key tool used by [[Jacques Tits]] in his 1972 paper<ref name="T">J. Tits. [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WH2-4D7K6RV-19X&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F1972&_rdoc=3&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236838%231972%23999799997%23518342%23FLP%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6838&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=12&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bb8d98f320404accc3525ca235cf821e ''Free subgroups in linear groups.''] [[Journal of Algebra]], vol. 20 (1972), pp. 250–270</ref> containing the proof of a famous result now known as the [[Tits alternative]]. The result states that a [[finitely generated group|finitely generated]] [[linear group]] is either [[virtually]] [[solvable group|solvable]] or contains a [[free group|free]] [[subgroup]] of rank two. The ping-pong lemma and its variations are widely used in [[geometric topology]] and [[geometric group theory]].
 
Modern versions of the ping-pong lemma can be found in many books such as Lyndon&Schupp,<ref name="LS">[[Roger Lyndon|Roger C. Lyndon]] and Paul E. Schupp. ''Combinatorial Group Theory.'' Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001. "Classics in Mathematics" series, reprint of the 1977 edition. ISBN 978-3-540-41158-1; Ch II, Section 12, pp. 167&ndash;169</ref> de la Harpe,<ref name="DH">Pierre de la Harpe. [http://books.google.com/books?id=cRT01C5ADroC&pg=PA25&dq=ping+pong+lemma+group+theory&sig=_1EZ9oSfAdljZFH1g7uvFiHuI-w#PPA25,M1 ''Topics in geometric group theory.''] Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-226-31719-6; Ch. II.B "The table-Tennis Lemma (Klein's criterion) and examples of free products"; pp. 25&ndash;41.</ref> Bridson&Haefliger<ref name="BH">Martin R. Bridson, and André Haefliger. [http://books.google.com/books?id=3DjaqB08AwAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Martin+R.+Bridson,+and+Andr%C3%A9+Haefliger.+%22Metric+spaces+of+non-positive+curvature%22 ''Metric spaces of non-positive curvature.''] Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], 319. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. ISBN 3-540-64324-9; Ch.III.&Gamma;, pp. 467&ndash;468</ref> and others.
 
==Formal statements==
 
===Ping-pong lemma for several subgroups===
 
This version of the ping-pong lemma ensures that several [[subgroup]]s of a group acting on a set generate a [[free product]]. The following statement appears in,<ref>Andrij Olijnyk and Vitaly Suchchansky. [http://www.worldscinet.com/cgi-bin/details.cgi?id=pii:S0218196704001931&type=html Representations of free products by infinite unitriangular matrices over finite fields.] International Journal of Algebra and Computation. Vol. 14 (2004), no. 5&ndash;6, pp. 741&ndash;749; Lemma 2.1</ref> and the proof is from.<ref name="DH"/>
 
Let ''G'' be a group acting on a set ''X'' and let ''H''<sub>1</sub>, ''H''<sub>2</sub>,...., ''H''<sub>''k''</sub> be nontrivial subgroups of ''G'' where ''k''≥2, such that at least one of these subgroups has [[order (group theory)|order]] greater than 2.
Suppose there exist disjoint nonempty subsets ''X''<sub>1</sub>, ''X''<sub>2</sub>,....,''X''<sub>''k''</sub> of ''X'' such that the following holds:
 
*For any ''i''≠''s'' and for any ''h''∈''H''<sub>''i''</sub>, ''h''≠1  we have ''h''(''X''<sub>''s''</sub>)⊆''X''<sub>''i''</sub>.
 
Then
:<math>\langle H_1,\dots, H_k\rangle=H_1\ast\dots \ast H_k.</math>
 
====Proof====
By the definition of free product, it suffices to check that a given reduced word is nontrivial. Let ''w'' be such a word, and let
 
:<math> w= \prod_{i=1}^m w_{\alpha_i,\beta_i}. </math>
 
Where ''w''<sub>''s'',''β''<sub>''k''</sub></sub>∈ ''H''<sub>''s''</sub> for all such ''β''<sub>''k''</sub>, and since ''w'' is fully reduced ''α''<sub>''i''</sub>≠ α<sub>''i''+1 </sub> for any ''i''. We then let ''w'' act on an element of one of the sets ''X''<sub>''i''</sub>. As we assume for at least one subgroup ''H''<sub>i</sub> has order at least 3, without loss we may assume that ''H''<sub>1</sub> is at least 3. We first make the assumption that α<sub>1</sub> and α<sub>m</sub> are both 1. From here we consider ''w'' acting on ''X''<sub>2</sub>. We get the following chain of containments and note that since the ''X''<sub>i</sub> are disjoint that ''w'' acts nontrivially and is thus not the identity element.
 
:<math> w(X_2) \subseteq \prod_{i=1}^{m-1} w_{\alpha_i,\beta_i}(X_1) \subseteq \prod_{i=1}^{m-2} w_{\alpha_i,\beta_i}(X_{\alpha_{m-1}})\subseteq \dots \subseteq w_{1,\beta_1}w_{\alpha_2,\beta_2}(X_{\alpha_3}) \subseteq </math> <math> \subseteq w_{1,\beta_1}(X_{\alpha_2})\subseteq X_1 </math>
 
To finish the proof we must consider the three cases:
*If <math> \alpha_1 = 1;\alpha_m\neq 1 </math>, then let <math> h\in H_1\setminus \{w_{1,\beta_1}^{-1},1\} </math>
*If <math>\alpha_1\neq 1;\alpha_m=1</math>, then let <math> h\in H_1\setminus \{w_{1,\beta_m},1\} </math>
*And if <math> \alpha_1\neq 1;\alpha_m\neq 1</math>, then let <math> h\in H_1\setminus \{1\} </math>
In each case, ''hwh''<sup>−1</sup> is a reduced word with ''α''<sub>1</sub>'  and ''α''<sub>''m'' '</sub>' both 1, and thus is nontrivial. Finally, ''hwh''<sup>−1</sup> is not 1, and so neither is ''w''. This proves the claim.
 
===The Ping-pong lemma for cyclic subgroups===
 
Let ''G'' be a group [[group action|acting]] on a set ''X''. Let ''a''<sub>1</sub>,...,''a''<sub>''k''</sub> be elements of ''G'', where ''k'' ≥ 2. Suppose there exist disjoint nonempty subsets
 
:''X''<sub>1</sub><sup>+</sup>,...,''X''<sub>''k''</sub><sup>+</sup> and ''X''<sub>1</sub><sup>&ndash;</sup>,...,''X''<sub>''k''</sub><sup>&ndash;</sup>
 
of ''X'' with the following properties:
 
*''a''<sub>''i''</sub>(''X''&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;''X''<sub>''i''</sub><sup>&ndash;</sup>) ⊆ ''X''<sub>''i''</sub><sup>+</sup> for ''i'' = 1, ..., ''k'';
 
*''a''<sub>''i''</sub><sup>&minus;1</sup>(''X''&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;''X''<sub>''i''</sub><sup>+</sup>) ⊆ ''X''<sub>''i''</sub><sup>&ndash;</sup> for ''i'' = 1, ..., ''k''.
 
Then the subgroup ''H'' = <''a''<sub>1</sub>, ..., ''a''<sub>''k''</sub>> ≤ ''G'' [[Generating set of a group|generated]] by ''a''<sub>1</sub>, ..., ''a''<sub>''k''</sub> is [[free group|free]] with free basis {''a''<sub>1</sub>, ..., ''a''<sub>''k''</sub>}.
 
====Proof====
This statement follows as a corollary of the version for general subgroups if we let ''X''<sub>''i''</sub>= ''X''<sub>''i''</sub><sup>+</sup>∪''X''<sub>''i''</sub><sup>-</sup> and let ''H''<sub>''i''</sub> = ⟨''a''<sub>''i''</sub>⟩.
 
==Examples==
 
===Special linear group example===
One can use the ping-pong lemma to prove<ref name="DH"/> that the subgroup ''H'' = <''A'',''B''>≤SL(2,'''Z'''), generated by  the matrices
 
:<math>\scriptstyle A=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 2\\ 0 &1 \end{pmatrix} </math> and <math>\scriptstyle B=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0\\ 2 &1 \end{pmatrix} </math>
 
is [[free group|free]] of rank two.
 
====Proof====
Indeed, let ''H''<sub>1</sub> = <''A''> and ''H''<sub>2</sub> = <''B''> be [[cyclic group|cyclic]] [[subgroup]]s of SL(2,'''Z''') generated by ''A'' and ''B'' accordingly.  It is not hard to check that A and B are elements of infinite order in SL(2,'''Z''') and that
 
:<math>H_1=\{A^n|n\in \mathbb Z\}=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}1 & 2n\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} : n\in\mathbb Z\right\}</math>
 
and
 
:<math>H_2=\{B^n|n\in \mathbb Z\}=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0\\ 2n & 1 \end{pmatrix} : n\in\mathbb Z\right\}.</math>
 
Consider the standard action of SL(2,'''Z''') on '''R'''<sup>2</sup> by [[linear transformation]]s. Put
 
:<math>X_1=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}x \\ y \end{pmatrix}\in \mathbb R^2 : |x|>|y|\right\}</math>
 
and
 
:<math>X_2=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}x \\ y \end{pmatrix}\in \mathbb R^2 : |x|<|y|\right\}.</math>
 
It is not hard to check, using the above explicitly descriptions of ''H''<sub>1</sub> and ''H''<sub>2</sub> that for every nontrivial ''g''&nbsp;∈&nbsp;''H''<sub>1</sub> we have ''g''(''X''<sub>2</sub>)&nbsp;⊆&nbsp;''X''<sub>1</sub> and that for every nontrivial ''g''&nbsp;∈&nbsp;''H''<sub>2</sub> we have ''g''(''X''<sub>1</sub>)&nbsp;⊆&nbsp;''X''<sub>2</sub>. Using the alternative form of the ping-pong lemma, for two subgroups, given above, we conclude that ''H''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''H''<sub>1</sub>∗''H''<sub>2</sub>. Since the groups ''H''<sub>1</sub> and ''H''<sub>2</sub> are [[infinite cyclic group|infinite cyclic]], it follows that ''H'' is a [[free group]] of rank two.
 
===Word-hyperbolic group example===
 
Let ''G'' be a [[word-hyperbolic group]] which is [[torsion-free group|torsion-free]], that is, with no nontrivial elements of finite [[Order (group theory)|order]]. Let ''g'',&nbsp;''h''&nbsp;∈&nbsp;''G'' be two non-commuting elements, that is such that ''gh''&nbsp;≠&nbsp;''hg''. Then there exists ''M''≥1 such that for any integers ''n''&nbsp;≥&nbsp;''M'', ''m''&nbsp;≥&nbsp;''M'' the subgroup H&nbsp;=&nbsp;<''g''<sup>''n''</sup>, ''h''<sup>''m''</sup>>&nbsp;≤&nbsp;''G'' is [[free group|free]] of rank two.
 
====Sketch of the proof<ref name="Gromov">M. Gromov. ''Hyperbolic groups.'' Essays in group theory, pp. 75&ndash;263,
Mathematical Sciiences Research Institute Publications, 8, Springer, New York, 1987;  ISBN 0-387-96618-8; Ch. 8.2, pp. 211&ndash;219.</ref>====
The group ''G'' [[Group action|acts]] on its ''hyperbolic boundary'' ∂''G'' by [[homeomorphism]]s. It is known that if ''a''&nbsp;∈&nbsp;''G'' is a nontrivial element then ''a'' has exactly two distinct fixed points, ''a''<sup>∞</sup> and ''a''<sup>&minus;∞</sup> in ∂''G'' and that ''a''<sup>∞</sup> is an [[attracting fixed point]] while ''a''<sup>&minus;∞</sup> is a [[Fixed point (mathematics)|repelling fixed point]].
 
Since ''g'' and ''h'' do not commute, the basic facts about [[word-hyperbolic group]]s imply that ''g''<sup>∞</sup>, ''g''<sup>&minus;∞</sup>, ''h''<sup>∞</sup> and ''h''<sup>&minus;∞</sup> are four distinct points in  ∂''G''. Take disjoint [[Neighbourhood (mathematics)|neighborhoods]] ''U''<sub>+</sub>, ''U''<sub>&ndash;</sub>, ''V''<sub>+</sub> and ''V''<sub>&ndash;</sub> of ''g''<sup>∞</sup>, ''g''<sup>&minus;∞</sup>, ''h''<sup>∞</sup> and ''h''<sup>&minus;∞</sup> in ∂''G'' respectively.
Then the attracting/repelling properties of the fixed points of ''g'' and ''h'' imply that there exists ''M''&nbsp;≥&nbsp;1 such that for any integers ''n''&nbsp;≥&nbsp;''M'', ''m''&nbsp;≥&nbsp;''M'' we have:
*''g''<sup>''n''</sup>(∂''G'' &ndash; ''U''<sub>&ndash;</sub>) ⊆ ''U''<sub>+</sub>
*''g''<sup>&minus;''n''</sup>(∂''G'' &ndash; ''U''<sub>+</sub>) ⊆ ''U''<sub>&ndash;</sub>
*''h''<sup>''m''</sup>(∂''G'' &ndash; ''V''<sub>&ndash;</sub>) ⊆ ''V''<sub>+</sub>
*''h''<sup>&minus;''m''</sup>(∂''G'' &ndash; ''V''<sub>+</sub>) ⊆ ''V''<sub>&ndash;</sub>
 
The ping-pong lemma now implies that ''H''&nbsp;=&nbsp;<''g''<sup>''n''</sup>, ''h''<sup>''m''</sup>>&nbsp;≤&nbsp;''G'' is [[free group|free]] of rank two.
 
==Applications of the ping-pong lemma==
 
*The ping-pong lemma is used in [[Kleinian group]]s to study their so-called [[Schottky group|Schottky subgroups]].  In the Kleinian groups context the ping-pong lemma can be used to show that a particular group of isometries of the [[hyperbolic 3-space]] is not just [[free group|free]] but also [[properly discontinuous]] and [[geometrically finite group|geometrically finite]].
*Similar Schottky-type arguments are widely used in [[geometric group theory]], particularly for subgroups of [[word-hyperbolic group]]s<ref name="Gromov"/> and for automorphism groups of trees.<ref>[[Alexander Lubotzky]]. [http://www.springerlink.com/content/g374700j2401nl64/ ''Lattices in rank one Lie groups over local fields.'']  [[Geometric and Functional Analysis]], vol. 1 (1991),  no. 4, pp. 406&ndash;431</ref>
*Ping-pong lemma is also used for studying Schottki-type subgroups of [[mapping class group]]s of [[Riemann surface]]s, where the set on which the mapping class group acts is the Thurston boundary of the [[Teichmüller space]].<ref>Richard P. Kent, and Christopher J. Leininger. ''Subgroups of mapping class groups from the geometrical viewpoint.'' In the tradition of Ahlfors-Bers. IV, pp. 119&ndash;141,
Contemporary Mathematics series, 432, [[American Mathematical Society]], Providence, RI, 2007; ISBN 978-0-8218-4227-0; 0-8218-4227-7</ref> A similar argument is also utilized in the study of subgroups of the [[outer automorphism group]] of a [[free group]].<ref>[[Mladen Bestvina|M. Bestvina]], M. Feighn, and M. Handel. [http://www.springerlink.com/content/50hq64n0l6gpuukk/ ''Laminations, trees, and irreducible automorphisms of free groups.'']  [[Geometric and Functional Analysis]], vol. 7  (1997),  no. 2, pp. 215&ndash;244.</ref>
*One of the most famous applications of the ping-pong lemma is in the proof of [[Jacques Tits]] of the so-called [[Tits alternative]] for [[linear group]]s.<ref name="T"/> (see also <ref>Pierre de la Harpe. ''Free groups in linear groups.'' L'Enseignement Mathématique (2), vol. 29 (1983), no. 1-2, pp. 129&ndash;144</ref> for an overview of Tits' proof and an explanation of the ideas involved, including the use of the ping-pong lemma).
*There are generalizations of the ping-pong lemma that produce not just [[free product]]s but also [[free product with amalgamation|amalgamated free products]] and [[HNN extension]]s.<ref name="LS"/> These generalizations are used, in particular, in the proof of Maskit's Combination Theorem for [[Kleinian group]]s.<ref>Bernard Maskit.
''Kleinian groups.'' Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], 287. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988. ISBN 3-540-17746-9;  Ch. VII.C and Ch. VII.E pp.149&ndash;156 and pp. 160&ndash;167</ref>
*There are also versions of the ping-pong lemma which guarantee that several elements in a group generate a [[free semigroup]]. Such versions are available both in the general context of a [[group action]] on a set,<ref name="DH1">Pierre de la Harpe. [http://books.google.com/books?id=cRT01C5ADroC&pg=PA188&vq=semi-group&dq=ping+pong+lemma+group+theory&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U2oMEeKTE_pB7Gt_MqNjOaUNZL8yw ''Topics in geometric group theory.''] Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-226-31719-6; Ch. II.B "The table-Tennis Lemma (Klein's criterion) and examples of free products"; pp. 187&ndash;188.</ref>  and for specific types of actions, e.g. in the context of [[linear group]]s,<ref>Alex Eskin, Shahar Mozes and Hee Oh. [http://www.springerlink.com/content/3ybuud1bpkkkcxn0/ On uniform exponential growth for linear groups.] [[Inventiones Mathematicae]]. vol. 60 (2005), no. 1, pp.1432&ndash;1297; Lemma 2.2</ref> groups [[Bass-Serre theory|acting on trees]]<ref>Roger C. Alperin and Guennadi A. Noskov. [http://books.google.com/books?id=w7LO6AkB8Y8C&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=%22ping-pong+lemma%22+semigroup&source=web&ots=aBPNu6adQ2&sig=7mZjESpp-6Bkekw68RCPEDYJSTM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA2,M1 Uniform growth, actions on trees and GL<sub>2</sub>.] Computational and Statistical Group Theory:AMS Special Session Geometric Group Theory, April 21–22, 2001, Las Vegas, Nevada, AMS Special Session Computational Group Theory, April 28–29, 2001, Hoboken, New Jersey. (Robert H. Gilman, Vladimir Shpilrain, Alexei G. Myasnikov, editors). [[American Mathematical Society]], 2002. ISBN 978-0-8218-3158-8; page 2, Lemma 3.1</ref> and others.<ref>Yves de Cornulier and Romain Tessera. [http://msp.warwick.ac.uk/gt/2008/12-01/p011.xhtml Quasi-isometrically embedded free sub-semigroups.] [[Geometry & Topology]], vol. 12 (2008), pp. 461&ndash;473; Lemma 2.1</ref>
 
==References==
{{reflist}}
 
==See also==
*[[Free group]]
*[[Free product]]
*[[Kleinian group]]
*[[Tits alternative]]
*[[Word-hyperbolic group]]
*[[Schottky group]]
 
[[Category:Algebra]]
[[Category:Group theory]]
[[Category:Discrete groups]]
[[Category:Lie groups]]
[[Category:Combinatorics on words]]

Revision as of 09:46, 17 December 2013

In mathematics, the ping-pong lemma, or table-tennis lemma, is any of several mathematical statements that ensure that several elements in a group acting on a set freely generates a free subgroup of that group.

History

The ping-pong argument goes back to late 19th century and is commonly attributed[1] to Felix Klein who used it to study subgroups of Kleinian groups, that is, of discrete groups of isometries of the hyperbolic 3-space or, equivalently Möbius transformations of the Riemann sphere. The ping-pong lemma was a key tool used by Jacques Tits in his 1972 paper[2] containing the proof of a famous result now known as the Tits alternative. The result states that a finitely generated linear group is either virtually solvable or contains a free subgroup of rank two. The ping-pong lemma and its variations are widely used in geometric topology and geometric group theory.

Modern versions of the ping-pong lemma can be found in many books such as Lyndon&Schupp,[3] de la Harpe,[1] Bridson&Haefliger[4] and others.

Formal statements

Ping-pong lemma for several subgroups

This version of the ping-pong lemma ensures that several subgroups of a group acting on a set generate a free product. The following statement appears in,[5] and the proof is from.[1]

Let G be a group acting on a set X and let H1, H2,...., Hk be nontrivial subgroups of G where k≥2, such that at least one of these subgroups has order greater than 2. Suppose there exist disjoint nonempty subsets X1, X2,....,Xk of X such that the following holds:

  • For any is and for any hHi, h≠1 we have h(Xs)⊆Xi.

Then

Proof

By the definition of free product, it suffices to check that a given reduced word is nontrivial. Let w be such a word, and let

Where ws,βkHs for all such βk, and since w is fully reduced αi≠ αi+1 for any i. We then let w act on an element of one of the sets Xi. As we assume for at least one subgroup Hi has order at least 3, without loss we may assume that H1 is at least 3. We first make the assumption that α1 and αm are both 1. From here we consider w acting on X2. We get the following chain of containments and note that since the Xi are disjoint that w acts nontrivially and is thus not the identity element.

To finish the proof we must consider the three cases:

In each case, hwh−1 is a reduced word with α1' and αm '' both 1, and thus is nontrivial. Finally, hwh−1 is not 1, and so neither is w. This proves the claim.

The Ping-pong lemma for cyclic subgroups

Let G be a group acting on a set X. Let a1,...,ak be elements of G, where k ≥ 2. Suppose there exist disjoint nonempty subsets

X1+,...,Xk+ and X1,...,Xk

of X with the following properties:

  • ai(X − Xi) ⊆ Xi+ for i = 1, ..., k;
  • ai−1(X − Xi+) ⊆ Xi for i = 1, ..., k.

Then the subgroup H = <a1, ..., ak> ≤ G generated by a1, ..., ak is free with free basis {a1, ..., ak}.

Proof

This statement follows as a corollary of the version for general subgroups if we let Xi= Xi+Xi- and let Hi = ⟨ai⟩.

Examples

Special linear group example

One can use the ping-pong lemma to prove[1] that the subgroup H = <A,B>≤SL(2,Z), generated by the matrices

and

is free of rank two.

Proof

Indeed, let H1 = <A> and H2 = <B> be cyclic subgroups of SL(2,Z) generated by A and B accordingly. It is not hard to check that A and B are elements of infinite order in SL(2,Z) and that

and

Consider the standard action of SL(2,Z) on R2 by linear transformations. Put

and

It is not hard to check, using the above explicitly descriptions of H1 and H2 that for every nontrivial g ∈ H1 we have g(X2) ⊆ X1 and that for every nontrivial g ∈ H2 we have g(X1) ⊆ X2. Using the alternative form of the ping-pong lemma, for two subgroups, given above, we conclude that H = H1H2. Since the groups H1 and H2 are infinite cyclic, it follows that H is a free group of rank two.

Word-hyperbolic group example

Let G be a word-hyperbolic group which is torsion-free, that is, with no nontrivial elements of finite order. Let gh ∈ G be two non-commuting elements, that is such that gh ≠ hg. Then there exists M≥1 such that for any integers n ≥ M, m ≥ M the subgroup H = <gn, hm> ≤ G is free of rank two.

Sketch of the proof[6]

The group G acts on its hyperbolic boundaryG by homeomorphisms. It is known that if a ∈ G is a nontrivial element then a has exactly two distinct fixed points, a and a−∞ in ∂G and that a is an attracting fixed point while a−∞ is a repelling fixed point.

Since g and h do not commute, the basic facts about word-hyperbolic groups imply that g, g−∞, h and h−∞ are four distinct points in ∂G. Take disjoint neighborhoods U+, U, V+ and V of g, g−∞, h and h−∞ in ∂G respectively. Then the attracting/repelling properties of the fixed points of g and h imply that there exists M ≥ 1 such that for any integers n ≥ M, m ≥ M we have:

  • gn(∂GU) ⊆ U+
  • gn(∂GU+) ⊆ U
  • hm(∂GV) ⊆ V+
  • hm(∂GV+) ⊆ V

The ping-pong lemma now implies that H = <gn, hm> ≤ G is free of rank two.

Applications of the ping-pong lemma

References

43 year old Petroleum Engineer Harry from Deep River, usually spends time with hobbies and interests like renting movies, property developers in singapore new condominium and vehicle racing. Constantly enjoys going to destinations like Camino Real de Tierra Adentro.

See also

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Pierre de la Harpe. Topics in geometric group theory. Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-226-31719-6; Ch. II.B "The table-Tennis Lemma (Klein's criterion) and examples of free products"; pp. 25–41.
  2. 2.0 2.1 J. Tits. Free subgroups in linear groups. Journal of Algebra, vol. 20 (1972), pp. 250–270
  3. 3.0 3.1 Roger C. Lyndon and Paul E. Schupp. Combinatorial Group Theory. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2001. "Classics in Mathematics" series, reprint of the 1977 edition. ISBN 978-3-540-41158-1; Ch II, Section 12, pp. 167–169
  4. Martin R. Bridson, and André Haefliger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], 319. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999. ISBN 3-540-64324-9; Ch.III.Γ, pp. 467–468
  5. Andrij Olijnyk and Vitaly Suchchansky. Representations of free products by infinite unitriangular matrices over finite fields. International Journal of Algebra and Computation. Vol. 14 (2004), no. 5–6, pp. 741–749; Lemma 2.1
  6. 6.0 6.1 M. Gromov. Hyperbolic groups. Essays in group theory, pp. 75–263, Mathematical Sciiences Research Institute Publications, 8, Springer, New York, 1987; ISBN 0-387-96618-8; Ch. 8.2, pp. 211–219.
  7. Alexander Lubotzky. Lattices in rank one Lie groups over local fields. Geometric and Functional Analysis, vol. 1 (1991), no. 4, pp. 406–431
  8. Richard P. Kent, and Christopher J. Leininger. Subgroups of mapping class groups from the geometrical viewpoint. In the tradition of Ahlfors-Bers. IV, pp. 119–141, Contemporary Mathematics series, 432, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007; ISBN 978-0-8218-4227-0; 0-8218-4227-7
  9. M. Bestvina, M. Feighn, and M. Handel. Laminations, trees, and irreducible automorphisms of free groups. Geometric and Functional Analysis, vol. 7 (1997), no. 2, pp. 215–244.
  10. Pierre de la Harpe. Free groups in linear groups. L'Enseignement Mathématique (2), vol. 29 (1983), no. 1-2, pp. 129–144
  11. Bernard Maskit. Kleinian groups. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], 287. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988. ISBN 3-540-17746-9; Ch. VII.C and Ch. VII.E pp.149–156 and pp. 160–167
  12. Pierre de la Harpe. Topics in geometric group theory. Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-226-31719-6; Ch. II.B "The table-Tennis Lemma (Klein's criterion) and examples of free products"; pp. 187–188.
  13. Alex Eskin, Shahar Mozes and Hee Oh. On uniform exponential growth for linear groups. Inventiones Mathematicae. vol. 60 (2005), no. 1, pp.1432–1297; Lemma 2.2
  14. Roger C. Alperin and Guennadi A. Noskov. Uniform growth, actions on trees and GL2. Computational and Statistical Group Theory:AMS Special Session Geometric Group Theory, April 21–22, 2001, Las Vegas, Nevada, AMS Special Session Computational Group Theory, April 28–29, 2001, Hoboken, New Jersey. (Robert H. Gilman, Vladimir Shpilrain, Alexei G. Myasnikov, editors). American Mathematical Society, 2002. ISBN 978-0-8218-3158-8; page 2, Lemma 3.1
  15. Yves de Cornulier and Romain Tessera. Quasi-isometrically embedded free sub-semigroups. Geometry & Topology, vol. 12 (2008), pp. 461–473; Lemma 2.1