Groups acting on trees












3












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Properly implies finite stabilizers
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    4 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Properly implies finite stabilizers
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    4 hours ago














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


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







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 4 hours ago









Maria GerasimovaMaria Gerasimova

30617




30617












  • $begingroup$
    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




$begingroup$
Properly implies finite stabilizers
$endgroup$
– YCor
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Gerasimova
    4 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













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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















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









5












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Gerasimova
    4 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


















5












$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Gerasimova
    4 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
















5












5








5





$begingroup$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



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.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









YCorYCor

27.9k482134




27.9k482134












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Gerasimova
    4 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
    4 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
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Thank you! And if I assume that stabilizers are amenable, will it be the same?
$endgroup$
– Maria Gerasimova
4 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




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







-

Popular posts from this blog

What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
Read more

Berlina muro

Image
La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
Read more

Berlina aerponto

Image
Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
Read more