Whitehead's algorithm

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Whitehead's algorithm is a mathematical algorithm in group theory for solving the automorphic equivalence problem in the finite rank free group Fn. The algorithm is based on a classic 1936 paper of J. H. C. Whitehead.[1] It is still unknown (except for the case n = 2) if Whitehead's algorithm has polynomial time complexity.

Statement of the problem

Let Fn=F(x1,,xn) be a free group of rank n2 with a free basis X={x1,,xn}. The automorphism problem, or the automorphic equivalence problem for Fn asks, given two freely reduced words w,wFn whether there exists an automorphism φAut(Fn) such that φ(w)=w.

Thus the automorphism problem asks, for w,wFn whether Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)w. For w,wFn one has Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)w if and only if Out(Fn)[w]=Out(Fn)[w], where [w],[w] are conjugacy classes in Fn of w,w accordingly. Therefore, the automorphism problem for Fn is often formulated in terms of Out(Fn)-equivalence of conjugacy classes of elements of Fn.

For an element wFn, |w|X denotes the freely reduced length of w with respect to X, and wX denotes the cyclically reduced length of w with respect to X. For the automorphism problem, the length of an input w is measured as |w|X or as wX, depending on whether one views w as an element of Fn or as defining the corresponding conjugacy class [w] in Fn.

History

The automorphism problem for Fn was algorithmically solved by J. H. C. Whitehead in a classic 1936 paper,[1] and his solution came to be known as Whitehead's algorithm. Whitehead used a topological approach in his paper. Namely, consider the 3-manifold Mn=#i=1nπ•Š2×π•Š1, the connected sum of n copies of π•Š2×π•Š1. Then π1(Mn)Fn, and, moreover, up to a quotient by a finite normal subgroup isomorphic to β„€2n, the mapping class group of Mn is equal to Out(Fn); see.[2] Different free bases of Fn can be represented by isotopy classes of "sphere systems" in Mn, and the cyclically reduced form of an element wFn, as well as the Whitehead graph of [w], can be "read-off" from how a loop in general position representing [w] intersects the spheres in the system. Whitehead moves can be represented by certain kinds of topological "swapping" moves modifying the sphere system.[3][4][5]

Subsequently, Rapaport,[6] and later, based on her work, Higgins and Lyndon,[7] gave a purely combinatorial and algebraic re-interpretation of Whitehead's work and of Whitehead's algorithm. The exposition of Whitehead's algorithm in the book of Lyndon and Schupp[8] is based on this combinatorial approach. Culler and Vogtmann,[9] in their 1986 paper that introduced the Outer space, gave a hybrid approach to Whitehead's algorithm, presented in combinatorial terms but closely following Whitehead's original ideas.

Whitehead's algorithm

Our exposition regarding Whitehead's algorithm mostly follows Ch.I.4 in the book of Lyndon and Schupp,[8] as well as.[10]

Overview

The automorphism group Aut(Fn) has a particularly useful finite generating set 𝒲 of Whitehead automorphisms or Whitehead moves. Given w,wFn the first part of Whitehead's algorithm consists of iteratively applying Whitehead moves to w,w to take each of them to an "automorphically minimal" form, where the cyclically reduced length strictly decreases at each step. Once we find automorphically these minimal forms u,u of w,w, we check if uX=uX. If uXuX then w,w are not automorphically equivalent in Fn.

If uX=uX, we check if there exists a finite chain of Whitehead moves taking u to u so that the cyclically reduced length remains constant throughout this chain. The elements w,w are not automorphically equivalent in Fn if and only if such a chain exists.

Whitehead's algorithm also solves the search automorphism problem for Fn. Namely, given w,wFn, if Whitehead's algorithm concludes that Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)w, the algorithm also outputs an automorphism φAut(Fn) such that φ(w)=w. Such an element φAut(Fn) is produced as the composition of a chain of Whitehead moves arising from the above procedure and taking w to w.

Whitehead automorphisms

A Whitehead automorphism, or Whitehead move, of Fn is an automorphism τAut(Fn) of Fn of one of the following two types:

  1. There is a permutation σSn of {1,2,,n} such that for i=1,,n τ(xi)=xσ(i)±1 Such τ is called a Whitehead automorphism of the first kind.
  2. There is an element aX±1, called the multiplier, such that for every xX±1 τ(x){x,xa,a1x,a1xa}. Such τ is called a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind. Since τ is an automorphism of Fn, it follows that τ(a)=a in this case.

Often, for a Whitehead automorphism τAut(Fn), the corresponding outer automorphism in Out(Fn) is also called a Whitehead automorphism or a Whitehead move.

Examples

Let F4=F(x1,x2,x3,x4).

Let τ:F4F4 be a homomorphism such that τ(x1)=x2x1,τ(x2)=x2,τ(x3)=x2x3x21,τ(x4)=x4 Then τ is actually an automorphism of F4, and, moreover, τ is a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind, with the multiplier a=x21.

Let τ:F4F4 be a homomorphism such that τ(x1)=x1,τ(x2)=x11x2x1,τ(x3)=x11x3x1,τ(x4)=x11x4x1 Then τ is actually an inner automorphism of F4 given by conjugation by x1, and, moreover, τ is a Whitehead automorphism of the second kind, with the multiplier a=x1.

Automorphically minimal and Whitehead minimal elements

For wFn, the conjugacy class [w] is called automorphically minimal if for every φAut(Fn) we have wXφ(w)X. Also, a conjugacy class [w] is called Whitehead minimal if for every Whitehead move τAut(Fn) we have wXτ(w)X.

Thus, by definition, if [w] is automorphically minimal then it is also Whitehead minimal. It turns out that the converse is also true.

Whitehead's "Peak Reduction Lemma"

The following statement is referred to as Whitehead's "Peak Reduction Lemma", see Proposition 4.20 in [8] and Proposition 1.2 in:[10]

Let wFn. Then the following hold:

  1. If [w] is not automorphically minimal, then there exists a Whitehead automorphism τAut(Fn) such that τ(w)X<wX.
  1. Suppose that [w] is automorphically minimal, and that another conjugacy class [w] is also automorphically minimal. Then Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)w if and only if wX=wX and there exists a finite sequence of Whitehead moves τ1,,τkAut(Fn) such that τkτ1(w)=w and τiτ1(w)X=wX for i=1,,k.

Part (1) of the Peak Reduction Lemma implies that a conjugacy class [w] is Whitehead minimal if and only if it is automorphically minimal.

The automorphism graph

The automorphism graph π’œ of Fn is a graph with the vertex set being the set of conjugacy classes [u] of elements uFn. Two distinct vertices [u],[v] are adjacent in π’œ if uX=vX and there exists a Whitehead automorphism τ such that [τ(u)]=[v]. For a vertex [u] of π’œ, the connected component of [u] in π’œ is denoted π’œ[u].

Whitehead graph

For 1wFn with cyclically reduced form u, the Whitehead graph Γ[w] is a labelled graph with the vertex set X±1, where for x,yX±1,xy there is an edge joining x and y with the label or "weight" n({x,y};[w]) which is equal to the number of distinct occurrences of subwords x1y,y1x read cyclically in u. (In some versions of the Whitehead graph one only includes the edges with n({x,y};[w])>0.)

If τAut(Fn) is a Whitehead automorphism, then the length change τ(w)XwX can be expressed as a linear combination, with integer coefficients determined by τ, of the weights n({x,y};[w]) in the Whitehead graph Γ[w]. See Proposition 4.16 in Ch. I of.[8] This fact plays a key role in the proof of Whitehead's peak reduction result.

Whitehead's minimization algorithm

Whitehead's minimization algorithm, given a freely reduced word wFn, finds an automorphically minimal [v] such that Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)v.

This algorithm proceeds as follows. Given wFn, put w1=w. If wi is already constructed, check if there exists a Whitehead automorphism τAut(Fn) such that τ(wi)X<wiX. (This condition can be checked since the set of Whitehead automorphisms of Fn is finite.) If such τ exists, put wi+1=τ(wi) and go to the next step. If no such τ exists, declare that [wi] is automorphically minimal, with Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)wi, and terminate the algorithm.

Part (1) of the Peak Reduction Lemma implies that the Whitehead's minimization algorithm terminates with some wm, where mwX, and that then [wm] is indeed automorphically minimal and satisfies Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)wm.

Whitehead's algorithm for the automorphic equivalence problem

Whitehead's algorithm for the automorphic equivalence problem, given w,wFn decides whether or not Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)w.

The algorithm proceeds as follows. Given w,wFn, first apply the Whitehead minimization algorithm to each of w,w to find automorphically minimal [v],[v] such that Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)v and Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)v. If vXvX, declare that Aut(Fn)wAut(Fn)w and terminate the algorithm. Suppose now that vX=vX=t0. Then check if there exists a finite sequence of Whitehead moves τ1,,τkAut(Fn) such that τkτ1(v)=v and τiτ1(v)X=vX=t for i=1,,k.

This condition can be checked since the number of cyclically reduced words of length t in Fn is finite. More specifically, using the breadth-first approach, one constructs the connected components π’œ[v],π’œ[v] of the automorphism graph and checks if π’œ[v]π’œ[v]=.

If such a sequence exists, declare that Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)w, and terminate the algorithm. If no such sequence exists, declare that Aut(Fn)wAut(Fn)w and terminate the algorithm.

The Peak Reduction Lemma implies that Whitehead's algorithm correctly solves the automorphic equivalence problem in Fn. Moreover, if Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)w, the algorithm actually produces (as a composition of Whitehead moves) an automorphism φAut(Fn) such that φ(w)=w.

Computational complexity of Whitehead's algorithm

  • If the rank n2 of Fn is fixed, then, given wFn, the Whitehead minimization algorithm always terminates in quadratic time O(|w|X2) and produces an automorphically minimal cyclically reduced word uFn such that Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)u.[10] Moreover, even if n is not considered fixed, (an adaptation of) the Whitehead minimization algorithm on an input wFn terminates in time O(|w|X2n3).[11]
  • If the rank n3 of Fn is fixed, then for an automorphically minimal uFn constructing the graph π’œ[u] takes O(uX#Vπ’œ[u]) time and thus requires a priori exponential time in |u|X). For that reason Whitehead's algorithm for deciding, given w,wFn, whether or not Aut(Fn)w=Aut(Fn)w, runs in at most exponential time in max{|w|X,|w|X}.
  • For n=2, Khan proved that for an automorphically minimal uF2, the graph π’œ[u] has at most O(uX) vertices and hence constructing the graph π’œ[u] can be done in quadratic time in |u|X.[12] Consequently, Whitehead's algorithm for the automorphic equivalence problem in F2, given w,wF2 runs in quadratic time in max{|w|X,|w|X}.
  • Whitehead's algorithm can be adapted to solve, for any fixed m1, the automorphic equivalence problem for m-tuples of elects of Fn and for m-tuples of conjugacy classes in Fn; see Ch.I.4 of [8] and [13]
  • McCool used Whitehead's algorithm and the peak reduction to prove that for any wFn the stabilizer StabOut(Fn)([w]) is finitely presentable, and obtained a similar results for Out(Fn)-stabilizers of m-tuples of conjugacy classes in Fn.[14] McCool also used the peak reduction method to construct of a finite presentation of the group Aut(Fn) with the set of Whitehead automorphisms as the generating set.[15] He then used this presentation to recover a finite presentation for Aut(Fn), originally due to Nielsen, with Nielsen automorphisms as generators.[16]
  • Gersten obtained a variation of Whitehead's algorithm, for deciding, given two finite subsets S,SFn, whether the subgroups H=S,H=SFn are automorphically equivalent, that is, whether there exists φAut(Fn) such that φ(H)=H.[17]
  • Whitehead's algorithm and peak reduction play a key role in the proof by Culler and Vogtmann that the Culler–Vogtmann Outer space is contractible.[9]
  • Collins and Zieschang obtained analogs of Whitehead's peak reduction and of Whitehead's algorithm for automorphic equivalence in free products of groups.[18][19]
  • Gilbert used a version of a peak reduction lemma to construct a presentation for the automorphism group Aut(G) of a free product G=i=1mGi.[20]
  • Levitt and Vogtmann produced a Whitehead-type algorithm for saving the automorphic equivalence problem (for elects, m-tuples of elements and m-tuples of conjugacy classes) in a group G=π1(S) where S is a closed hyperbolic surface.[21]
  • If an element wFn=F(X) chosen uniformly at random from the sphere of radius m1 in F(X), then, with probability tending to 1 exponentially fast as m, the conjugacy class [w] is already automorphically minimal and, moreover, #Vπ’œ[w]=O(wX)=O(m). Consequently, if w,wFn are two such ``generic" elements, Whitehead's algorithm decides whether w,w are automorphically equivalent in linear time in max{|w|X,|w|X}.[10]
  • Similar to the above results hold for the genericity of automorphic minimality for ``randomly chosen" finitely generated subgroups of Fn.[22]
  • Lee proved that if uFn=F(X) is a cyclically reduced word such that [u] is automorphically minimal, and if whenever xi,xj,i<j both occur in u or u1 then the total number of occurrences of xi±1 in u is smaller than the number of occurrences of xi±1, then #Vπ’œ[u] is bounded above by a polynomial of degree 2n3 in |u|X.[23] Consequently, if w,wFn,n3 are such that w is automorphically equivalent to some u with the above property, then Whitehead's algorithm decides whether w,w are automorphically equivalent in time O(max{|w|X2n3,|w|X2}).
  • The Garside algorithm for solving the conjugacy problem in braid groups has a similar general structure to Whitehead's algorithm, with "cycling moves" playing the role of Whitehead moves.[24]
  • Clifford and Goldstein used Whitehead-algorithm based techniques to produce an algorithm that, given a finite subset ZFn decides whether or not the subgroup H=ZFn contains a Template:Vanchor of Fn, that is an element of a free generating set of Fn.[25]
  • Day obtained analogs of Whitehead's algorithm and of Whitehead's peak reduction for automorphic equivalence of elements of right-angled Artin groups.[26]

References

Template:Reflist

Further reading

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 J. H. C. Whitehead, On equivalent sets of elements in a free group, Ann. of Math. (2) 37:4 (1936), 782–800. Template:MR
  2. ↑ Suhas Pandit, A note on automorphisms of the sphere complex. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. 124:2 (2014), 255–265; Template:MR
  3. ↑ Allen Hatcher, Homological stability for automorphism groups of free groups, Commentarii Mathematici Helvetici 70:1 (1995) 39–62; Template:MR
  4. ↑ Karen Vogtmann, Automorphisms of free groups and outer space. Proceedings of the Conference on Geometric and Combinatorial Group Theory, Part I (Haifa, 2000). Geometriae Dedicata 94 (2002), 1–31; Template:MR
  5. ↑ Andrew Clifford, and Richard Z. Goldstein, Sets of primitive elements in a free group. Journal of Algebra 357 (2012), 271–278; Template:MR
  6. ↑ Elvira Rapaport, On free groups and their automorphisms. Acta Mathematica 99 (1958), 139–163; Template:MR
  7. ↑ P. J. Higgins, and R. C. Lyndon, Equivalence of elements under automorphisms of a free group. Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2) 8 (1974), 254–258; Template:MR
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Roger Lyndon and Paul Schupp, Combinatorial group theory. Reprint of the 1977 edition. Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. Template:IsbnTemplate:MR
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Template:Cite journal
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Ilya Kapovich, Paul Schupp, and Vladimir Shpilrain, Generic properties of Whitehead's algorithm and isomorphism rigidity of random one-relator groups. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 223:1 (2006), 113–140
  11. ↑ AbdΓ³ Roig, Enric Ventura, and Pascal Weil, On the complexity of the Whitehead minimization problem. International Journal of Algebra and Computation 17:8 (2007), 1611–1634; Template:MR
  12. ↑ Bilal Khan, The structure of automorphic conjugacy in the free group of rank two. Computational and experimental group theory, 115–196, Contemp. Math., 349, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004
  13. ↑ Sava KrstiΔ‡, Martin Lustig, and Karen Vogtmann, An equivariant Whitehead algorithm and conjugacy for roots of Dehn twist automorphisms. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society (2) 44:1 (2001), 117–141
  14. ↑ James McCool, Some finitely presented subgroups of the automorphism group of a free group. Journal of Algebra 35:1-3 (1975), 205–213; Template:MR
  15. ↑ James McCool, A presentation for the automorphism group of a free group of finite rank. Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2) 8 (1974), 259–266; Template:MR
  16. ↑ James McCool, On Nielsen's presentation of the automorphism group of a free group. Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2) 10 (1975), 265–270
  17. ↑ Stephen Gersten, On Whitehead's algorithm, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 10:2 (1984), 281–284; Template:MR
  18. ↑ Donald J. Collins, and Heiner Zieschang, Rescuing the Whitehead method for free products. I. Peak reduction. Mathematische Zeitschrift 185:4 (1984), 487–504 MR0733769
  19. ↑ Donald J. Collins, and Heiner Zieschang, Rescuing the Whitehead method for free products. II. The algorithm. Mathematische Zeitschrift 186:3 (1984), 335–361; Template:MR
  20. ↑ Nick D. Gilbert, Presentations of the automorphism group of a free product. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (3) 54 (1987), no. 1, 115–140.
  21. ↑ Gilbert Levitt and Karen Vogtmann, A Whitehead algorithm for surface groups, Topology 39:6 (2000), 1239–1251
  22. ↑ FrΓ©dΓ©rique Bassino, Cyril Nicaud, and Pascal Weil, On the genericity of Whitehead minimality. Journal of Group Theory 19:1 (2016), 137–159 Template:MR
  23. ↑ Donghi Lee, A tighter bound for the number of words of minimum length in an automorphic orbit. Journal of Algebra 305:2 (2006), 1093–1101; Template:MR
  24. ↑ Joan Birman, Ki Hyoung Ko, and Sang Jin Lee, A new approach to the word and conjugacy problems in the braid groups, Advances in Mathematics 139:2 (1998), 322–353; Template:Zbl Template:MR
  25. ↑ Andrew Clifford, and Richard Z. Goldstein, Subgroups of free groups and primitive elements. Journal of Group Theory 13:4 (2010), 601–611; Template:MR
  26. ↑ Matthew Day, Full-featured peak reduction in right-angled Artin groups. Algebraic and Geometric Topology 14:3 (2014), 1677–1743 Template:MR