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
asked 4 hours ago
Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova
30117
$endgroup$
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
asked 4 hours ago
Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova
30117
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
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
asked 4 hours ago
Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova
30117
$endgroup$
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
gr.group-theory
asked 4 hours ago
Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova
30117
asked 4 hours ago
Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova
30117
asked 4 hours ago
Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova
30117
asked 4 hours ago
Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova
30117
asked 4 hours ago
Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova
30117
30117
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
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 an useful motivating baby case in the above "classification"; all cases can already occur.
answered 4 hours ago
YCorYCor
27.8k482134
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@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
3 hours ago
add a comment |
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
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
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 an useful motivating baby case in the above "classification"; all cases can already occur.
answered 4 hours ago
YCorYCor
27.8k482134
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@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
3 hours ago
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 an useful motivating baby case in the above "classification"; all cases can already occur.
answered 4 hours ago
YCorYCor
27.8k482134
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@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
3 hours ago
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 an useful motivating baby case in the above "classification"; all cases can already occur.
answered 4 hours ago
YCorYCor
27.8k482134
$endgroup$
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 an useful motivating baby case in the above "classification"; all cases can already occur.
answered 4 hours ago
YCorYCor
27.8k482134
answered 4 hours ago
YCorYCor
27.8k482134
answered 4 hours ago
YCorYCor
27.8k482134
answered 4 hours ago
YCorYCor
27.8k482134
27.8k482134
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@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
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@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
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@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
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@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
3 hours ago
add a comment |
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
4 hours ago