Ping-pong lemma: Difference between revisions
imported>Citation bot Misc citation tidying. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | #UCB_CommandLine |
(No difference)
|
Latest revision as of 15:59, 20 March 2023
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 the 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 Olijnyk and Suchchansky (2004),[5] and the proof is from de la Harpe (2000).[1]
Let G be a group acting on a set X and let H1, H2, ..., Hk be subgroups of G where k ≥ 2, such that at least one of these subgroups has order greater than 2. Suppose there exist pairwise disjoint nonempty subsets Template:Math of Template:Math such that the following holds:
- For any Template:Math and for any Template:Math in Template:Math, Template:Math we have Template:Math.
Then
Proof
By the definition of free product, it suffices to check that a given (nonempty) reduced word represents a nontrivial element of . Let be such a word of length , and let where for some . Since is reduced, we have for any and each is distinct from the identity element of . We then let act on an element of one of the sets . As we assume that at least one subgroup has order at least 3, without loss of generality we may assume that has order at least 3. We first make the assumption that and are both 1 (which implies ). From here we consider acting on . We get the following chain of containments:
By the assumption that different 's are disjoint, we conclude that acts nontrivially on some element of , thus represents a nontrivial element of .
To finish the proof we must consider the three cases:
- if , then let (such an exists since by assumption has order at least 3);
- if , then let ;
- and if , then let .
In each case, after reduction becomes a reduced word with its first and last letter in . Finally, represents a nontrivial element of , and so does . 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 of infinite order, where k ≥ 2. Suppose there exist disjoint nonempty subsets
of Template:Math with the following properties:
- Template:Math for Template:Math;
- Template:Math for Template:Math.
Then the subgroup Template:Math generated by a1, ..., ak is free with free basis Template:Math.
Proof
This statement follows as a corollary of the version for general subgroups if we let Template:Math and let Template:Math.
Examples
Special linear group example
One can use the ping-pong lemma to prove[1] that the subgroup Template:Math, generated by the matrices and is free of rank two.
Proof
Indeed, let Template:Math and Template:Math be cyclic subgroups of Template:Math generated by Template:Math and Template:Math accordingly. It is not hard to check that Template:Math and Template:Math are elements of infinite order in Template:Math and that and
Consider the standard action of Template:Math on Template:Math by linear transformations. Put and
It is not hard to check, using the above explicit descriptions of H1 and H2, that for every nontrivial Template:Math we have Template:Math and that for every nontrivial Template:Math we have Template:Math. Using the alternative form of the ping-pong lemma, for two subgroups, given above, we conclude that Template:Math. Since the groups Template:Math and Template:Math are infinite cyclic, it follows that H is a free group of rank two.
Word-hyperbolic group example
Let Template:Math be a word-hyperbolic group which is torsion-free, that is, with no nonidentity elements of finite order. Let Template:Math be two non-commuting elements, that is such that Template:Math. Then there exists M ≥ 1 such that for any integers Template:Math, Template:Math the subgroup Template:Math is free of rank two.
Sketch of the proof[6]
The group G acts on its hyperbolic boundary ∂G by homeomorphisms. It is known that if a in G is a nonidentity element then a has exactly two distinct fixed points, Template:Math and Template:Math in Template:Math and that Template:Math is an attracting fixed point while Template:Math is a repelling fixed point.
Since Template:Math and Template:Math do not commute, basic facts about word-hyperbolic groups imply that Template:Math, Template:Math, Template:Math and Template:Math are four distinct points in Template:Math. Take disjoint neighborhoods Template:Math, Template:Math, Template:Math, and Template:Math of Template:Math, Template:Math, Template:Math and Template:Math in Template:Math respectively. Then the attracting/repelling properties of the fixed points of g and h imply that there exists Template:Math such that for any integers Template:Math, Template:Math we have:
The ping-pong lemma now implies that Template:Math is free of rank two.
Applications of the ping-pong lemma
- The ping-pong lemma is used in Kleinian groups to study their so-called 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 but also properly discontinuous and geometrically finite.
- Similar Schottky-type arguments are widely used in geometric group theory, particularly for subgroups of word-hyperbolic groups[6] and for automorphism groups of trees.[7]
- The ping-pong lemma is also used for studying Schottky-type subgroups of mapping class groups of Riemann surfaces, where the set on which the mapping class group acts is the Thurston boundary of the Teichmüller space.[8] A similar argument is also utilized in the study of subgroups of the outer automorphism group of a free group.[9]
- 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 groups.[2] (see also [10] 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 products but also amalgamated free products and HNN extensions.[3] These generalizations are used, in particular, in the proof of Maskit's Combination Theorem for Kleinian groups.[11]
- 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,[12] and for specific types of actions, e.g. in the context of linear groups,[13] groups acting on trees[14] and others.[15]
References
See also
- ↑ 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. Template:Isbn; Ch. II.B "The table-Tennis Lemma (Klein's criterion) and examples of free products"; pp. 25–41.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 J. Tits. Free subgroups in linear groups. Journal of Algebra, vol. 20 (1972), pp. 250–270
- ↑ 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. Template:Isbn; Ch II, Section 12, pp. 167–169
- ↑ 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. Template:Isbn; Ch.III.Γ, pp. 467–468
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 M. Gromov. Hyperbolic groups. Essays in group theory, pp. 75–263, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications, 8, Springer, New York, 1987; Template:Isbn; Ch. 8.2, pp. 211–219.
- ↑ Alexander Lubotzky. Lattices in rank one Lie groups over local fields. Geometric and Functional Analysis, vol. 1 (1991), no. 4, pp. 406–431
- ↑ 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; Template:Isbn; 0-8218-4227-7
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Pierre de la Harpe. Free groups in linear groups. L'Enseignement Mathématique (2), vol. 29 (1983), no. 1-2, pp. 129–144
- ↑ Bernard Maskit. Kleinian groups. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], 287. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988. Template:Isbn; Ch. VII.C and Ch. VII.E pp.149–156 and pp. 160–167
- ↑ Pierre de la Harpe. Topics in geometric group theory. Chicago Lectures in Mathematics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Template:Isbn; Ch. II.B "The table-Tennis Lemma (Klein's criterion) and examples of free products"; pp. 187–188.
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 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. Template:Isbn; page 2, Lemma 3.1
- ↑ Yves de Cornulier and Romain Tessera. Quasi-isometrically embedded free sub-semigroups. Geometry & Topology, vol. 12 (2008), pp. 461–473; Lemma 2.1