Ping-pong lemma: Difference between revisions

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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:

Then H1,,Hk=H1Hk.

Proof

By the definition of free product, it suffices to check that a given (nonempty) reduced word represents a nontrivial element of G. Let w be such a word of length m2, and let w=i=1mwi, where wiHαi for some αi{1,,k}. Since w is reduced, we have αiαi+1 for any i=1,,m1 and each wi is distinct from the identity element of Hαi. We then let w act on an element of one of the sets Xi. As we assume that at least one subgroup Hi has order at least 3, without loss of generality we may assume that H1 has order at least 3. We first make the assumption that α1and αm are both 1 (which implies m3). From here we consider w acting on X2. We get the following chain of containments: w(X2)i=1m1wi(X1)i=1m2wi(Xαm1)w1(Xα2)X1.

By the assumption that different Xi's are disjoint, we conclude that w acts nontrivially on some element of X2, thus w represents a nontrivial element of G.

To finish the proof we must consider the three cases:

  • if α1=1,αm1, then let hH1{w11,1} (such an h exists since by assumption H1 has order at least 3);
  • if α11,αm=1, then let hH1{wm,1};
  • and if α11,αm1, then let hH1{1}.

In each case, hwh1 after reduction becomes a reduced word with its first and last letter in H1. Finally, hwh1 represents a nontrivial element of G, and so does 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 of infinite order, where k ≥ 2. Suppose there exist disjoint nonempty subsets

Template:Block indent

of Template:Math with the following properties:

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 A=(1201) and B=(1021) 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 H1={Ann}={(12n01):n} and H2={Bnn}={(102n1):n}.

Consider the standard action of Template:Math on Template:Math by linear transformations. Put X1={(xy)2:|x|>|y|} and X2={(xy)2:|x|<|y|}.

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 boundaryG 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

References

Template:Reflist

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. Template:Isbn; 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. Template:Isbn; 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. Template:Isbn; 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 Sciences Research Institute Publications, 8, Springer, New York, 1987; Template:Isbn; 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; Template:Isbn; 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. Template:Isbn; 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. Template:Isbn; 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. Template:Isbn; 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