arxiv:math/ v1 [math.gr] 4 Aug 2006

Transcription

1 RIGIDITY OF THE MINIMAL GROPE GROUP arxiv:math/ v1 [math.gr] 4 Aug 2006 MATIJA CENCELJ, KATSUYA EDA, AND ALEŠ VAVPETIČ Abstract. We give a systematic definition of the fundamental groups of gropes, which we call grope groups. We show that there exists a nontrivial homomorphism from the minimal grope group M to another grope group G only if G is the free product of M with another grope group. 1. Introduction Here we study groups whose classifying spaces are (open infinite) gropes (a recent short note on gropes in general is [10]). In algebra these groups first appeared in the proof of a lemma by Alex Heller [7] as follows. Let ϕ 0 be a homomorphism from the free group F 0 on one generator α to any perfect group P. Let ϕ 0 (α) = [p 0, p 1 ][p 2, p 3 ] [p 2n 2, p 2n 1 ] P then we can extend ϕ 0 to a homomorphism ϕ 1 of a (nonabelian) free group F 1 on 2n generators β 0,...,β 2n 1 by setting ϕ 1 (β i ) = p i. Note that ϕ 0 (α 0 ) may have several different expressions as a product of commutators, so we may choose any; even if some of the elements p 1,...,p 2n 1 coincide we let all elements β i to be distinct. Now we repeat the above construction for every homomorphism ϕ 1 βi of the free group on one generator to P and thus obtain a homomorphism ϕ 2 : F 2 P. Repeating the above construction we obtain a direct system of inclusions of free groups F 1 F 2 F 3 and homomorphisms ϕ n : F n P. The direct limit of F n is a locally free perfect group D and every group obtained by the above construction is called a grope group (and its clasifying space is a grope). This construction shows therefore that every homomorphism from a free group on one ( ) Date: August 3, Mathematics Subject Classification. (MSC 2000): 20F22, 20F12, 20F38. Key words and phrases. group, grope. Supported in part by the Slovenian-Japanese research grant BI JP/05-06/2, ARRS research program No , the ARRS research project of Slovenia No. J and the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific research (C) of Japan No

2 2 MATIJA CENCELJ, KATSUYA EDA, AND ALEŠ VAVPETIČ generator to a perfect group P can be extended to a homomorphism from a grope group to P. Note that in case the perfect group P has the Ore property ([8], [6]) that every element in P is a commutator, in the above process ( ) we can make every generator in the chosen basis of F n a single commutator of two basis elements of F n+1. The group obtained in this way is the minimal grope group M. Clearly every grope group admits many epimorphisms onto M. In the sequel we show that M admits a nontrivial homomorphism to another grope group G only if the latter is the free product G = M K where K is a grope group. Gropes were introduced by Štan ko [9]. They have an important role in geometric topology ([3], for more recent use in dimension theory see [5] and [4]). Their fundamental groups were used by Berrick and Casacuberta to show that the plus-construction in algebraic K- theory is localization [2]. Recently [1] such a group has appeared in the construction of a perfect group with a nonperfect localization. In the first part of the paper we give a systematic definition of grope groups and prove some technical lemmas. In the second part we prove that the minimal grope group admits nontrivial homomorphisms to almost no other grope group thus proving that there exist at least two distinct grope groups. 2. Systematic definition of grope groups and basic facts For every positive integer n let n = {0, 1,..., n 1}. The set of non-negative integers is denoted by N. We denote the set of finite sequences of elements of a set X by Seq(X) and the length of a sequence s Seq(X) by lh(s). The empty sequence is denoted by. For a non-empty set A let L(A) be the set {a, a : a A}, which we call the set of letters. We identify (a ) with a. Let W(A) = Seq(L(A)), which we call the set of words. For a word W a 0 a n, define W a n a 0. We write W W for identity in W(A) while W = W for identity in the free group generated by A. For instance aa = but aa. We adopt [a, b] = aba 1 b 1 as the definition of a commutator. To describe all the grope groups we introduce some notation. A grope frame S is a subset of Seq(N) satisfying: S and for every s S there exists n > 0 such that 2n = {i N : si S}. For each grope frame S we induce formal symbols c S s for s S and define Em S = {cs s : lh(s) = m, s S} and a free group F m S = ES m. Then define e S m : Fm S Fm+1 S by: e S m(c S s ) = [c S s0, c S s1] [c S s2k 2, cs s2k 1 ]

3 RIGIDITY OF THE MINIMAL GROPE GROUP 3 where 2k = {i N : si S}. Let G S = lim(f S m, es m : m N) and e S mn = es n 1 es m for m n and every such group GS is a grope group. For s S, s is binary branched, if {i N : si S} = 2. Let S 0 be a grope frame such that every s S 0 is binary branched, i.e. S 0 = Seq(2). Then G S 0 = M is the so-called minimal grope group. Since e S m is injective, we frequently regard F m S is a subgroup of GS. For a non-empty word W the head of W is the left most letter b of W, i.e. W bx for some word X, and the tail of W is the right most letter c of W, i.e. W Y c for some word Y. When AB W, we say that A is the head part of W and B is the tail part of W. For a word W W(Em S ) and n m, we let es m,n [W] be a word in W(ES n ) defined as follows: e S m,m[w] W and e S m,n+1[w] is obtained by replacing every c t in e S m,n [W] by and every c S t (P0) by c S t0 cs t1 cs t0 cs t1 cs t2k 2 cs t2k 1 cs t2k 2 cs t2k 1 (P1) c S t2k 1c S t2k 2c S t 2k 1 cs t2k 2 cs t1c S t0c S t1 c S t0 respectively. We drop the superscript S, if no confusion can occur. For a reduced word W W(E n ) with W F m for m < n, let W 0 W(E m ) such that e m,n [W 0 ] W. (The existence of W 0 is assured in Lemma 2.2.) A subword V of W is small, if there exists a letter c s or c s in W 0 and i N such that V is a subword of e m+1,n [c si ] or e m+1,n [c si ] respectively. (Note that being small depends on m. In the following usage of this notion m and n are always fixed in advance.) Observation 1. Let n > m+1 and let W e m+1,n [c s0 ]. Suppose that X W(E n ) is a reduced word and X F m. When W is a subword of X, W may appear in e m,n [c s ] or e m,n [c s ] and hence we cannot uniquely determine a successive letter to W in X. However, if X WY for some Y, the head of Y is uniquely determined as c s10 0. Also if we know the preceding letter to W, i.e. X ZWY and we know the tail of Z which is c t10 0 or c t0 0 for some t or c s110 0, the head of Y is uniquely determined. That is, the head is c s10 0, if the preceding letter is c t10 0 or c t0 0 for some t and the head is c s110 0, if the preceding letter is c s (In the above we ignore i-digits for i > n.) Observation 2. A letter c s0 0 W(E n ) for lh(s) = m possibly appears in e m,n [W 0 ] in the following cases. When n = m + 1, c s0 appears once in e m,n [c s ] and also once in e m,n [c s ]. According to the increase of n, c s0 0 appears in many parts. c s0 0 appears 2 n m 1 -times in e m,n [c s ] and also 2 n m 1 -times in e m,n [c s ].

4 4 MATIJA CENCELJ, KATSUYA EDA, AND ALEŠ VAVPETIČ Lemma 2.1. For a word W W(E m ) and n m, e m,n [W] is reduced, if and only if W is reduced. Lemma 2.2. For a reduced word V W(E n ) and n m, V F m if and only if there exists W W(E m ) such that e m,n [W] V. Proof. The sufficiency is obvious. To see the other direction, let W be a reduced word in W(E m ) such that e m,n [W] = V in F n. By Lemma 2.1 e m,n [W] is reduced. Since every element in F n has a unique reduced word in W(E n ) presenting itself, we have e m,n [W] V. Lemma 2.3. Let m < n and A be a non-empty word in W(E n ). Let X 0 AY 0 and X 1 AY 1 be reduced words in W(E n ) satisfying X 0 AY 0, X 1 AY 1 F m. (1) If A is not small, X 0 A / F m and X 1 A / F m, then the heads of Y 0 and Y 1 are the same. (2) Let X 0 be an empty word. If A is not small and A / F m, the heads of Y 0 and Y 1 are the same. (3) Let X 0 and X 1 be empty words. If A / F m, the heads of Y 0 and Y 1 are the same. Proof. (1) Since X 0 AY 0 F m but X 0 A / F m, we have a letter c E m Em and words U 0, U 1, U 2 such that U 1, U 2, X 0 A U 0 U 1 and U 1 U 2 e m,n [c]. Since A is not small, c and U 0, U 1, U 2 are uniquely determined by A. Since the same thing holds for X 1 AY 1, we have the conclusion by Observation 1 for n > m + 1. (The case for n = m + 1 is easier.) (2) Since AY 0 F m, A / F m and A is not a small word, for any word B such that BA is reduced we have BA / F m. In particular X 1 A / F m and the conclusion follows from (1). (3) Since AY 0 F m, there are A 0 and non-empty U 0, U 1 such that A 0 F m, A A 0 U 0 and U 0 U 1 e m,n [c] for some c E m Em. Since A / F m, the head of U 1 is uniquely determined by A and hence the heads of Y 0 and Y 1 are the same (Observation 1). Lemma 2.4. Let m < n and A, X, Y in W(E n ) and AXA Y F m. If AXA Y is reduced and A is not small, then AXA F m and Y F m. Proof. The head of the reduced word in W(E m ) for the element AXA Y is c s or c s for c s E m. According to c s or c s, A e m+1,n[c s0 ]Z or e m+1,n [c sk ]Z for a non-empty word Z, where k + 1 = {i N : si S} is even. Then A Z e m+1,n [c s0 ] or A Z e m+1,n [c sk ] and hence AXA F m and consequently Y F m. Lemma 2.5. For e x F S m and u GS, uxu 1 F S m implies u F S m.

5 RIGIDITY OF THE MINIMAL GROPE GROUP 5 Proof. There exists n m such that u F n. Let W be a cyclically reduced word and V be a reduced word such that x = V WV in F m and V WV is reduced. Then e m,n (x) = e m,n [V ]e m,n [W]e m,n [V ] and e m,n [V ] is reduced and e m,n [W] is cyclically reduced by Lemma 2.1. Let U be a reduced word for u in F n. Let k = lh(u). Then e m,n (x 2k+1 ) = e m,n [V ]e m,n [W] 2k+1 e m,n [V ] and the right hand term is a reduced word. Hence the reduced word for ux k u of the form Xe m,n [W]Y, where Ue m,n [V ]e m,n [W] k = X and e m,n [W] k e m,n [V ] U = Y. Since ux k u 1 F m, X F m and Y F m. Now we have Ue m,n [V ] e m,n (F m ) and hence U e m,n (F m ), which implies the conclusion. Lemma 2.6. Let UWU be a reduced word in W(E n ). If UWU F m and W is cyclically reduced, then U, W F m. Proof. If U is empty or n = m, then the conclusion is obvious. If U F m, then WU F m and so W F m. Suppose that U is U F m. Since UWU, UW U F m, the head of W and that of W is the same by Lemma 2.3 (3), which contradicts that W is cyclically reduced. Lemma 2.7. Let XY and Y X be reduced words in W(E n ) for n m. If XY and Y X belong to F m, then both of X and Y belong to F m. Proof. We may assume n > m. When n > m, the head of e m,n [W] for a non-empty word W W(E m ) is c s0 0 or c sk0 0 where lh(s) = m and k + 1 = {i N : si S} is even. (When n = m + 1, there appears no 0 0.) Since X Y F m and X Y is reduced, the tail of X is of the form c s0 0 or c sk0 0. We only deal with the former case. Suppose that X / F m. Since XY F m and XY is reduced, X Ze m+1,n [c s1 c s0 ] for some Z. This implies X e m+1,n [c s0 c s1]z, which contradicts that X Y F m and X Y is reduced. Now we have X, Y F m. Lemma 2.8. Let m < n and A, B, C in W(E n ) and e ABCA B C F m. If ABCA B C is a reduced word and at least one of A, B, C is not small, then A, B, C F m. Proof. Since ABCA B C e, at most one of A, B, C is empty. When C is empty, the conclusion follows from Lemma 2.4 and the fact that BAB A is also reduced and BAB A F m. Now we assume that A, B, C are non-empty. If A is not small, then ABCA F m and B C F m by Lemma 2.4. Since BC is cyclically reduced, A F m and BC F m by Lemma 2.6. The conclusion follows from Lemma 2.7. In the case that C is not small, the argument is similar. The remaining case is when A and C are small. Then ABCA B C F m and CBAC B A F m imply A C, which contradicts the reducedness of ABCA B C.

6 6 MATIJA CENCELJ, KATSUYA EDA, AND ALEŠ VAVPETIČ Lemma 2.9. Let m < n and A, B, C in W(E n ) and e ABCA B C F m. If ABCA B C is a reduced word and A, B, C are small, then one of A, B, C is empty. Assume C is empty. Then there exists c s E m such that s is binary branched and either A e m+1,n [c s0 ] and B e m+1,n [c s1 ], or A e m+1,n [c s1 ] and B e m+1,n [c s0 ]. Proof. Since A, B, C are small, all the words A, B, C and their inverses must be subwords of e m+1,n [c si ], i = 0, 1, or e m+1,n [c si ], for an element c s E m, and in particular that either or ABCA B C = e m,n (c s ) = e m+1,n [c s0 c s1 c s0c s1] ABCA B C = e m,n (c s ) = e m+1,n[c s1 c s0 c s1 c s0 ], where the left most and right most terms are reduced words. We remark that if the cardinality of {i N : si S} were greater than 2, one of A, B, C would not be small; hence in our case s is binary branched. We only deal with the first case. Then ABC e m+1,n [c s0 c s1 ] and A B C e m+1,n [c s0c s1]. In case A, B, C are non-empty, A is a proper subword of e m+1,n [c s0 ] or C is a proper subword of e m+1,n [c s1 ]. In either case A B C e m+1,n [c s0c s1] does not hold. Hence one of A, B, C is empty. We may assume C is empty. Since A, B are small, A e m+1,n [c s0 ] and B e m+1,n [c s1 ]. In this section we prove 3. Proof of Theorem 3.1 Theorem 3.1. The minimal grope group M = G S 0 admits a nontrivial homomorphism into a grope group G S, if and only if there exists s S such that a frame {t Seq(N) : st S} is equal to S 0. It is easy to see that the condition on G S in the above theorem is equivalent to G S = M K, where K is another grope group. In our proof of Lemma 3.9 we analyze a reduction procedure of a word Y ABY X A B X where Y ABY and X A B X are reduced. Lemmas 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 show connections between our reduction steps in case at least one of X and Y is empty. Lemma 3.6 corresponds to the final step, i.e. when we have the reduced word. Lemmas 3.7 and 3.8 correspond to the case that X and Y are non-empty. In the following lemmas we assume m < n.

7 RIGIDITY OF THE MINIMAL GROPE GROUP 7 Lemma 3.2. Let A, B W(E n ) be non-empty reduced words such that ABA B e and AB and A B are reduced words. Then the following hold: (1.1) If B B 0 A, then B 0 is non-empty, AB 0 and A B 0 are reduced words and AB 0 A B 0 = ABA B. In addition if AB 0, A B 0 F m, then AB, A B F m. (1.2) If A A 0 B, then A 0 is non-empty, A 0 B and A 0 B are reduced words and A 0 BA 0 B = ABA B. In addition if A 0 B, A 0 B F m, then AB, A B F m. (1.3) If A A 0 Z and B B 0 Z for non-empty words A 0 and B 0 and B 0 A 0 is reduced, then A 0ZB 0 A 0 Z B 0 is reduced and A 0ZB 0 A 0 Z B 0 = ABA B. In addition if A 0, B 0, Z F m, then AB, A B F m. Proof. We only show (1.1). The non-emptiness of B 0 follows from ABA B e. Since AB and A B are reduced, AB 0 and A B0 are cyclically reduced and hence the second statement follows from Lemma 2.7. Lemma 3.3. Let A, B, C W(E n ) be reduced words (possibly empty) such that ABCA B C e and AB and CA B C are reduced words. Then the following hold: (2.1) If B B 0 C, then AB 0 and A CB0 C are reduced words and AB 0 A CB0 C = ABCA B C. In addition if AB 0 A, CB0 C F m, then AB, CA B C F m. (2.2) If C B C 0, then AC 0 and A B C0 B are reduced words and AC 0 A B C0 B = ABCA B C. In addition if AC 0 A, B C0 B F m, then AB, CA B C F m. (2.3) If B B 0 Z and C ZC 0 for non-empty words B 0 and C 0 and B 0 C 0 is reduced, then AB 0 C 0 A ZB0 C0 Z is reduced and AB 0 C 0 A ZB0 C 0 Z = ABCA B C. In addition if AB 0 C 0 A, ZB0 C 0 Z F m, then AB, CA B C F m. Proof. (2.1) The first proposition is obvious. Let B 0 XB 1 X for a cyclically reduced word B 1. Since (AX)B 1 (AX), (CX)B1 (CX) F m, AX, CX, B 1 F m by Lemma 2.6. Now AB = (AX)B 1 (CX) F m and CA B C = (CX)(AX) (CB0 C ) F m. We see (2.2) similarly. For (2.3) observe the following. Since the both B 0 and C 0 are nonempty, B 0 C 0 and B0 C 0 are cyclically reduced. Hence, using Lemmas 2.6 and 2.7, we have (2.3). The next two lemmas are straightforward and we omit the proofs.

8 8 MATIJA CENCELJ, KATSUYA EDA, AND ALEŠ VAVPETIČ Lemma 3.4. Let A, B, C W(E n ) be reduced words (possibly empty) such that ABA CB C e and AB and A CB C are reduced. Then the following hold: (3.1) If A A 0 B, then A 0 B and A 0 CB C are reduced and A 0 BA 0 CB C = ABA CB C. In addition if A 0 BA 0, CB C F m, then ABA, CB C F m. (3.2) If B B 0 A, then AB 0 and CA B0 C are reduced and AB 0 CA B0 C = ABA CB C. In addition if AB 0, CA B0 C F m, then ABA, CB C F m. (3.3) If B B 0 Z and A A 0 Z for non-empty words A 0 and B 0 and B 0 A 0 is reduced, then A 0 ZB 0 A 0 CZ B0 C is reduced. In addition if A 0 ZB 0 A 0, CZ B0 C F m, then ABA, CB C F m. Lemma 3.5. Let A, B, C W(E n ) be reduced words (possibly empty) such that ABA CB C e and A and BA CB C are reduced words. Then the following hold: (4.1) If A A 0 B, A 0 and BA 0 CB C are reduced and A 0 BA 0 CB C = ABA CB C. In addition if A 0 BA 0, CB C F m, then ABA, CB C F m. (4.2) If B A B 0, and B 0 A CB0 AC is reduced and B 0 A CB 0 AC = ABA CB C. In addition if B 0 A, CB0 AC F m, then ABA, CB C F m. (4.3) If A A 0 Z and B ZB 0 for non-empty words A 0, B 0 and A 0 B 0 is reduced, then A 0 B 0 ZA 0 CB 0 Z C is reduced and A 0 B 0 ZA 0 CB 0 Z C = ABA CB C. In addition if A 0 B 0 ZA 0, CB0 Z C F m, then ABA, CB C F m. Lemma 3.6. Let A, B, C, D W(E n ) be reduced non-empty words. (1) if ABA B is reduced and ABA B F m and at least one of A, B is not small, then A, B F m ; (2) if ABCA B C is reduced and ABCA B C F m at least one of A, B, C is not small, then A, B, C F m ; (3) if CABC DA B D is reduced and CABC DA B D F m, then A, B, C, D F m. (4) if CAC DA D is reduced and CAC DA D F m, then CAC, DA D F m. Proof. The statements (1) and (2) are paraphrases of Lemma 2.8. (3) Let c be the head of C and d be the tail of D. Since c and d are contiguous, we have CABC, DA B D F m. Since AB and A B are reduced and the both A and B are non-empty, AB is cyclically reduced. Now the conclusion follows from Lemmas 2.6 and 2.7.

9 RIGIDITY OF THE MINIMAL GROPE GROUP 9 (4) This follows from a reasoning in the proof of (3). Lemma 3.7. Let A B and X 0 ABX0 be reduced words such that X 0 AB BAX 1 for some X 1. If lh(x 0 ) lh(b), then there exist A, B such that lh(b ) < lh(b), (A ) (B ) and X 0 A B X0 are reduced words, X 0 A B B A X 1, A B X 0 ABX0 = (A ) (B ) X 0 A B X0, and A, B X 0, A, B. Proof. First we remark that lh(x 0 ) lh(b) since BX0 is reduced. Hence lh(b) > lh(x 0 ). If lh(b) = lh(x 0 ) + lh(a), then we have X 0 A B AX 1 and have the conclusion, i,e, A A and B. If lh(b) < lh(x 0 ) + lh(a), we have k > 0 and A 0, A 1 such that B X 0 A 0 A 1, A (A 0 A 1 ) k A 0, and A 1 is non-empty. (We remark that A 0 may be empty.) Let A A 0 and B A 1. Since lh(x 0 ) + lh(a) = lh(b) + (k 1)lh(A 0 A 1 ) + lh(a 0 ), we have B A 1 A 0 X 1. Let A A 0 and B A 1, then we have the conclusion. If lh(b) > lh(x 0 ) + lh(a), we have k > 0 and B 0, B 1 such that B 0 B 1 X 0 A, B (B 0 B 1 ) k B 0, and B 1 is non-empty. (We remark that B 0 may be empty.) Since lh(b 1 B 0 ) = lh(ax 1 ), we have B 1 B 0 AX 1. Now B X 0 A(B 0 B 1 ) k 1 B 0 (B 0 B 1 ) k 1 B 0 AX 1 holds. Let A A and B (B 0 B 1 ) k 1, then we have the conclusion. In Lemma 3.7 we have A B X 0 ABX 0 = X 1 X 0 = (A ) (B ) X 0 A B X 0. Lemma 3.8. Let A, B, X, Y W(E n ) be reduced words (possibly empty) such that X and Y are non-empty, Y A B Y X ABX e, Y A B Y and X ABX are reduced words, and the reduced word of Y A B Y X ABX is cyclically reduced. If Y A B Y X ABX F m, then (1) Y A B Y, X ABX F m, or (2) Y A B Y X ABX is equal to c s or c s for some s such that lh(s) = m and s is binary branched. Proof. If Y X is reduced, then Y A B Y X ABX is cyclically reduced. By an argument analyzing the head and the tail of Y and X we can see Y A B Y, X ABX F m. Otherwise, in the cancellation of Y A B Y X ABX the leftmost Y or the rightmost X is deleted. Since Y A B Y X ABX e and lh(y A B Y ) = 2lh(Y ) + lh(ab) and lh(x ABX) = 2lh(X) + lh(ab), lh(x) lh(y ). We suppose that lh(x) > lh(y ), i.e. the head of Y is deleted. Then we have X ZY for a non-empty word Z. We first analyze a reduced word of A B Z ABZ, where A B is deleted. The head part of Z AB is BA. Applying Lemma 3.7

10 10 MATIJA CENCELJ, KATSUYA EDA, AND ALEŠ VAVPETIČ for X 0 Z and X 1 repeatedly, we have reduced words A 0 and B 0 such that Z A 0 B 0 Z is reduced, Z A 0 B 0 B 0 A 0 X 1 for some X 1, A 0 B0 Z A 0 B 0 Z = A B Z ABZ, A, B Z, A 0, B 0 and lh(b 0 ) < lh(z). It never occurs that the both A 0 and B 0 are empty, but one of A 0 and B 0 may be empty. If B 0 =, interchange the role of A 0 and B 0 and by Lemma 3.7 we can assume B 0 is non-empty and lh(b 0 ) < lh(z). First we deal with the case A 0 is empty. Since the left most B0 is deleted in the reduction of B0 Z B 0 Z, we have non-empty Z 0 such that Z Z 0 B0 and have a reduced word Z 0 B 0Z 0 B0 with Z 0 B 0Z 0 B0 = B0 Z B 0 Z. Since the left most Y is deleted in the reduction of Y B0 Z B 0 ZY and Z0 B 0 Z 0 B0 Y is reduced, Z0 B 0 Z 0 B0 is cyclically reduced and hence the reduced word of Y A B Y X ABX is a cyclical transformation of Z0 B 0Z 0 B0. By the fact that Y is the head part of B0 Z B 0 ZY, Y is of the form (Z0 B 0Z 0 B0 )k Y 0 where Y 0 Y 1 Z0 B 0 Z 0 B0 for some non-empty Y 1 and k 0. If Y 0 is empty, we have Y A B Y X ABX = Z0 B 0 Z 0 B0. If one of Z 0 and B 0 is not small, then Z 0, B 0 F m by Lemma 2.8 and we have Y A B Y, X ABX F m by Lemma 3.7 and the fact Y = (Z0 B 0Z 0 B0 )k. Otherwise, i.e., when of Z 0 and B 0 are small, Y A B Y X ABX = Z0 B 0 Z 0 B0 is equal to c s or c s for some s such that lh(s) = m and s is binary branched by Lemma 2.9. If Y 0 Z0, Y 0 Z0 B 0 or Y 0 Z0 B 0Z 0, the argument is similar to the case that Y 0 is empty. Otherwise Y 0 cut short Z0, B 0, Z 0 or B0. Since arguments are similar, we only deal with the case that Y 0 Z0 B 1 where B 1 B 2 B 0 for non-empty B 1 and B 2. Then Y A B Y X ABX = B 2 Z 0 B2 B 1 Z 0 B 1 and hence B 2 Z 0 B2, B 1 Z 0 B 1 F m by Lemma 3.6 (4). Let Z 1 be a cyclically reduced word such that Z 0 U Z 1 U. Then Z 1, B 2 U, UB 1 F m by Lemma 2.6. Now Y Z 0 Y = B 1 Z 0(B 1 B 2 Z 0 B 2 B 1 Z 0) k Z 0 (Z 0 B 1B 2 Z 0 B 2 B 1 )k Z 0 B 1 = (B 1 Z 0 B 1 B 2 Z 0 B 2 ) k B 1 Z 0 B 1 (B 2 Z 0 B 2 B 1 Z 0 B 1 ) k Y B 0 Y = B 1 Z 0(B 1 B 2 Z 0 B 2 B 1 Z 0) k B 1 B 2 (Z 0 B 1B 2 Z 0 B 2 B 1 )k Z 0 B 1 = B 1 Z 0 B 1 (B 2 Z 0 B 2 B 1 Z 0 B 1 ) k B 2 Z 0 B 1 (B 2 Z 0 B 2 B 1 Z 0 B 1 ) k. Hence Y Z 0 Y, Y B 0 Y F m. Since Z = Z 0 B0 and A, B Z, B 0, we have Y ABY, X A B X F m. Next we suppose that A 0 is non-empty. We have k > 0 and A 1 and A 2 such that Z B 0 A 1 A 2, A 0 (A 1 A 2 ) k A 1, X 1 A 2 A 1 B 0. Since X AB UX 1 for some U and X ABZ is reduced, X 1 Z A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2 A 1 B 0 is a reduced word. By the assumption a reduced word of Y A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2 A 1 B0 Y is cyclically reduced and A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2 A 1 B0 Y

11 RIGIDITY OF THE MINIMAL GROPE GROUP 11 is reduced, hence X 1 Z A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2 A 1 B 0 is cyclically reduced and the reduced word of Y A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2 A 1 B 0 Y is given by a cyclical transformation of A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2 A 1 B0. Hence Y (A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2 A 1 B0 ) k Y 0 where k 0 and A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2 A 1 B0 Y 0 Y 1 for some Y 1. For instance the reduced word of Y A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2 A 1 B0 Y is of the form B 0 A 2 A 1 B 0 A 2A 1 or B 2 A 2 A 1 B 2 B 1 A 2A 1 B 1 where B 0 B 1 B 2. By Lemma 3.6 (4) or (3) respectively we conclude A 1, A 2, B 0 F m or A 1, A 2, B 1, B 2 F m which implies Y ABY, X A B X F m. Lemma 3.9. For every grope group G S the following hold: If e [u, v] F m and at least one of u and v does not belong to F m, then [u, v] is conjugate to c s or c s in F m for some s such that lh(s) = m and s is binary branched. Proof. We have n > m such that u, v F n. It suffices to show the lemma in case that the reduced word for [u, v] is cyclically reduced. For, suppose that we have the conclusion of the lemma in the indicated case. Let [u, v] F m and [u, v] = XY X where XY X is a reduced word and Y is cyclically reduced. Then we have [X ux, X vx] = X [u, v]x = Y. On the other hand X, Y F m by Lemma 2.6. By the assumption at least one of X ux and X vx does not belong to F m. Since [u, v] is conjugate to Y in F m, we have the conclusion. Let u, v F n such that [u, v] e and the reduced word for [u, v] is cyclically reduced. There exist a cyclically reduced non-empty word V 0 W(E n ) and a reduced word X W(E n ) such that v = X V 0 X and the word X V 0 X is reduced. Let U 0 be a reduced word for ux. Since V 0 is a cyclically reduced word, at least one of U 0 V 0 and V 0 U0 is reduced. When U 0 V 0 is reduced, there exist k 0 and reduced words Y, A, B such that Y ABY is reduced, U 0 Y AV0 k and V 0 BA. When V 0 U0 is reduced, there exist k 0 and reduced words Y, A, B such that Y ABY is reduced, U 0 Y A(V0 ) k and V 0 BA. In the both bases uvu 1 = Y ABY and v = X BAX. We remark that AB and BA are cyclically reduced. We analyze a reduction procedure of Y ABY X A B X in the following. (Case 0): X and Y are empty. In this case the both A and B are non-empty and corresponds to Lemma 3.2. Using (1.1) and (1.2) alternately and (1.3) possibly as the last step we obtain a reduced word of ABA B. If the reduced word XY ZX Y Z satisfies that one of X, Y, Z is not small, by (1) and (2) of Lemma 3.6 and applying Lemma 3.2 repeatedly we can see A, B F m. Otherwise, one of X, Y, Z is empty and [u, v] = c s or [u, v] = c s for some binary branched s with lh(s) = m by Lemma 2.9.

12 12 MATIJA CENCELJ, KATSUYA EDA, AND ALEŠ VAVPETIČ (Case 1): Y is empty, but X is non-empty. (Case 2): X is empty, but Y is non-empty. In these cases arguments are symmetric, we only deal with (Case 1). There is possibility that one of A and B may be empty, though at least one of A and B is non-empty. We assume that A is non-empty. We trace Lemmas 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 to get a reduced word of ABX A B X. Then we apply one of (2), (3) and (4) of Lemma 3.6 to the reduced word and applying Lemma 3.2 repeatedly we get a reduced word. Then we have A, B F m, which implies u, v F m, or [u, v] = c s etc. as in (Case 0). (Case 3): The both X and Y are non-empty. Only in this case we use the assumption that the reduced word of Y ABY X A B X is cyclically reduced. By Lemma 3.8 we have the conclusion. Lemma Let F be a free group generated by C and c, d C be distinct elements. If [c, d] = [u, v] for u, v F, then neither u nor v belongs to the commutator subgroup of F. Proof. Since c, d are generators, [c, d] / [F, [F, F]] and the conclusion follows. Lemma Let F be a free group generated by B and b 0, b 1 B be distinct. If c, d {b, b : b B} and [b 0, b 1 ] = [x 1 cx, y 1 dy] for x, y F, then c, d {b 0, b 0, b 1, b 1 } and moreover c {b 0, b 0 } iff d {b 1, b 1 } and c {b 1, b 1 } iff d {b 0, b 0 }. Proof. Using a canonical projection to b 0, b 1 we easily see that c, d {b 0, b 0, b 1, b 1 }. To see the remaining part it suffices to show that if c = b 0, and d = b 0 or b 0, then [b 0, b 1 ] [x 1 cx, y 1 dy] for any x, y. We show that b 0 b 1 b 0 b 1 is not cyclically equivalent to the reduced word for [x 1 cx, y 1 dy]. For this purpose we may assume x = e. We only deal with d = b 0. We have a reduced word Y such that y 1 b 0 y = Y b 0 Y and Y b 0 Y is reduced. (Note that y = Y may not hold.) The head of Y is not b 0 nor b 0, since Y b 0 Y is reduced. When the tail of Y is b 0 or b 0, we choose n 0 so that Y Zb n 0 or Y Z(b 0 )n respectively and n is maximal. Then Z is non-empty. Now b 0 Z b 0 Zb 0 Z b 0 Z is a cyclically reduced word which is cyclically equivalent to b 0 Y b 0 Y b 0 Y b 0 Y. Since b 0 Z b 0 Zb 0 Z b 0 Z is not cyclically equivalent to b 0 b 1 b 0 b 1, we have the conclusion. Proof of Theorem 3.1. Let h : G S 0 G S be a nontrivial homomorphism. Then there exists s S 0 such that h(c s ) is nontrivial (clearly for every finite sequence s starting with s also h(c s ) is nontrivial). We let c s = c S 0 s and d t = c S t and F m = Fm. S

13 RIGIDITY OF THE MINIMAL GROPE GROUP 13 We have n such that h(c s ) F n. Since F n is free, Im(h) is not included in F n and hence there exists s 0 S 0 starting with s and such that h(c s0 ) F n, but h(c s0 0) / F n or h(c s0 1) / F n. Then by Lemma 3.9 we have d t0 E n such that h(c s0 ) is conjugate to d t0 or d t 0 and t 0 is binary branched. Moreover, Lemma 2.5 implies that neither h(c s0 0) nor h(c s0 1) belongs to F n. We show the following by induction on k N: (1) For u Seq(2) with lh(u) = k (a) h(c s0 u) is conjugate to d t0 v or d t 0 v in F n+k and t 0 v is binary branched for some v Seq(2) with lh(v) = k; (b) Neither h(c s0 u0) nor h(c s0 u1) belongs to F n+k ; (2) For every v Seq(2) with lh(v) = k there exists u Seq(2) such that lh(u) = k and h(c s0 u) is conjugate to d t0 v or d t 0 v in F n+k. We have shown that this holds when k = 0. Suppose that (1) and (2) hold for k. Let lh(u) = k and h(c s0 u) is conjugate to d t0 v or d t 0 v etc. Then [h(c s0 u0), h(c s0 u1)] is conjugate to [d t0 v0, d t0 v1] or [d t0 v1, d t0 v0] in F n+k+1. We claim h(c s0 u0) F n+k+1. To show this by contradiction, suppose that h(c s0 u0) / F n+k+1. Apply Lemma 3.9 to F n+k+1, then we have [h(c s0 u0), h(c s0 u1)] is a conjugate to d t or d t with lh(t) = n + k + 1 in F n+k+1, which is impossible since [h(c s0 u0), h(c s0 u1)] [F n+k+1, F n+k+1 ]. Similarly we have h(c s0 u1) F n+k+1. On the other hand, neither h(c s0 u0) nor h(c s0 u1) belongs to [F n+k+1, F n+k+1 ] by Lemma Hence at least one of h(c s0 u00) and h(c s0 u01) does not belong to F n+k+1 and consequently neither h(c s0 u00) nor h(c s0 u01) belongs to F n+k+1 by Lemma 2.5. Hence h(c s0 u0) is conjugate to d t or d t with lh(t) = n + k + 1 by Lemma 3.9. Similarly, h(c s0 u1) is conjugate to d t or d t with lh(t ) = n+ k+1. Since [h(c s0 u0), h(c s0 u1)] is conjugate to [d t0 v0, d t0 v1] or [d t0 v0, d t0 v1] in F n+k+1, h(c s0 u0) and h(c s0 u1) are conjugate to d t0 vj or d t 0 vj for some j 2 and for each j 2 the element d t0vj is conjugate to exactly one of h(c s0 u0), h(c s0 u1), h(c s0 u0) and h(c s0 u1) by Lemma Hence (1) and (2) hold for k + 1. Now we have shown the induction step and finished the proof. Remark Though the conclusion of Theorem 3.1 is rather simple, embeddings from G S 0 into G S may be complicated. In particular automorphisms on G S 0 may be complicated, since the following hold: [dc d, dcd c d ] = dc d dcd c d dcd dcdc d = cdc d = [c, d].

14 14 MATIJA CENCELJ, KATSUYA EDA, AND ALEŠ VAVPETIČ References [1] B. Badzioch, M. Feshbach, A note on localizations of perfect groups, PAMS, vol. 133 (2004), no. 3, pp [2] A.J. Berrick, C. Casacuberta, A universal space for plus-constructions, Topology [3] J.W. Cannon, The recognition problem: What is a topological manifold?, Bull. A.M.S. 84 (1978), [4] M. Cencelj, D. Repovš, On compacta of cohomological dimension one over nonabelian groups, Houston J. Math. 26 (2000), [5] A.N. Dranishnikov, D. Repovš, Cohomological dimension with respect to perfect groups, Topology and Its Applications 74 (1996), [6] E.W. Ellers, N. Gordeev, On the conjectures of Thompson and Ore, TAMS, 350, , [7] A. Heller, On the Homotopy Theory of Topogenic Groups and Groupoids, Ill. J. Math., 24, , [8] O. Ore, Some remarks on commutators, PAMS, 272, , [9] M.A. Štan ko, Approximation of compacta in En in codimension greater than two, Mat. Sb. 90 (132) (1973), (Math. USSR-Sb. 19 (1973), ). [10] P. Teihner, What is...a grope?, Notices AMS, 51, no. 8, , IMFM, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, Ljubljana, SLOVE- NIA address: matija.cencelj@guest.arnes.si School of Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo , JAPAN address: eda@waseda.jp IMFM, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, Ljubljana, SLOVE- NIA address: ales.vavpetic@fmf.uni-lj.si