You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Hyperbolic groups’ tag.

Recall, that for any graph we built a combinatorial horoball . For a group and a collection of subgroups and a generating set , we built the *augmented Cayley graph* by gluing copies of . is hyperbolic relative to if and only if is Gromov hyperbolic.

**Exercise 28:** If and are finitely generated, then is hyperbolic relative . (*Hint: is a graph of spaces with underlying graph a tree and the combinatorial horoballs for vertex spaces.*)

**Example:** Suppose is a complete hyperbolic manifold of finite volume. So, acts on . Let be a subset of consisting of points that are the unique fixed point of some element of . So acts on , and there only finitely many orbits. Let be stabilizers of representatives from these orbits and let . Then, is hyperbolic relative to .

**Example:** Let be a torsion-free word-hyperbolic group. Then, is clearly hyperbolic relative to . A collection of subgroups is *malnormal* if for any , implies that and . is hyperbolic relative to if and only if is malnormal.

The collection of subgroups is the collection of *peripheral subgroups*.

**Lemma 31:** If is torsion-free and hyperbolic relative to a set of quasiconvex subgroups , then is malnormal.

**Sketch of Proof:** Suppose that is infinite. Consider the following rectangles: Note that if , then is contained in a -neighborhood of . Now, there exists infinite sequences and such that . Look at the rectangles with vertices . The geodesics in between 1 and and and go arbitrarily deep into the combinatorial horoballs. Therefore, they are arbitrarily far apart. It follows that these rectangles cannot be uniformly slim.

Let where each . Write . Call this the *Dehn filling* of .

**Note:** If is hyperbolic relative to , then is hyperbolic.

**Theorem 21:** (Groves-Manning-Osin). Suppose is hyperbolic relative to . Then, there exists a finite set contained in such that whenever we have

- is injective for all , and
- is hyperbolic relative to the collection ;

In particular, if are all hyperbolic, then so is .

One application of this theorem is a simple proof of a theorem of Gromov, Olshanskii, and Delzant:

**Theorem 22:** Let be hyperbolic and suppose is malnormal, with each infinite. Then, there is constant such that for all positive integers there is an epimorphism to a hyperbolic group such that for each .

**Theorem 12 (Gromov)**: Let be torsion-free -hyperbolic group. If such that , then for all sufficiently large , .

**Remark:** The torsion-free hypothesis is not necessary, but it allows us to avoid some technicalities. For instance, it is a non-obvious fact that an infinite hyperbolic group contains a copy of .

For the rest of this lecture will be a torsion-free -hyperbolic group, where are primitive (i.e. not proper powers).

Recall that for torsion-free -hyperbolic, primitive implies that .

If and do not commute we can show there is some point on arbitrarily far from .

Hence we have the following lemma.

**Lemma 13: **

If and do not commute there is some point on arbitrarily far from .

**Proof:** Suppose not. That means such that such that . So is in . But the Cayley graph is locally finite so has finitely many elements. By the Pigeonhole Principle such that for some . Then . But then . .

For a moment view and as the horizontal and vertical geodesics in . For two points on and on , we can argue that the geodesic between them curves toward the origin.

And so we have Lemma 14.

**Lemma 14:** There exists such that , .

**Proof**:

Recall that by is a quasi-isometric embedding. So by Theorem 6, and

By Lemma 13 choose such that

. Choose such that . Now, must be -close to so for some point on the geodesic between and , . Then .

For a subgroup , one can choose a closest point projection which is -equivariant. (Write . Choose where and are close and declare to be -equivariant.) is typically not a group homomorphism.

We’re interested in and .

In , there is some such that either or .

**Lemma 15:** such that , or .

**Proof:**

Let . WLOG, is -close to and since is the closest point to (in particular compared to ). So . .

Now we can prove the theorem.

**Proof of Theorem 12:**

The idea is to use the Ping-Pong Lemma on the Cayley graph.

Let and let , where is provided by Lemma 15. For all we have and likewise for all we have . In particular, .

Let . By -equivariance,

for any . In particular,

by the triangle inequality. Similarly,

for all and all . Because and are quasi-isometrically embedded, it follows that and for .

Therefore, by the Ping-Pong Lemma .

Finally, we are in a position to prove that a hyperbolic group has no subgroup isomorphic to .

**Theorem 11.** Let with . Then .

**Proof.** By Lemma 10, we can assume that is not conjugate to any element of length by replacing with a power of itself. Suppose . We need to bound .

Replacing with for some , we may assume that . We will be done if we can bound .

Suppose . By dividing into triangles, we see that any geodesic rectangle is -slim, in the same way that triangles are -slim.

Because the rectangle with vertices is -slim, there exists such that .

If , then , a contradiction. Similarly . So . Therefore, .

But . This is a contradiction since we assumed that is not conjugate to anything so short. Therefore . Thus .

An element of a group is *torsion* if its order is finite.

A group is *torsion* if every element is torsion.

A group is *torsion-free* if no nontrivial elements are torsion.

**Corollary.** Every non-trivial abelian subgroup of a hyperbolic group is virtually cyclic.

**Lemma 11.** Let be a torsion-free hyperbolic group. Whenever is not a proper power, then is malnormal.

**Definition.** A subgroup of a group is *malnormal* if for all , , then .

**Remark.** By Theorem 11, if is hyperbolic and torsion-free, centralizers are cyclic.

**Proof of Lemma.** Suppose .

Therefore for some , .

By Lemma 10, . Therefore . Thus . Therefore .

**Exercise 17.** Prove that if where is hyperbolic and torsion-free and and and , then . That is, is commutative transitive.

We now turn briefly to a fundamental open question about hyperbolic groups. This question is a theme of the course.

**Question.** Is every word-hyperbolic group residually finite?

The fundamental groups of hyperbolic manifolds are linear, so residually finite by Selberg’s Lemma.

What about for negative curved manifolds?

Evidence for:

**Theorem (Sela).** Every torsion-free hyperbolic group is Hopfian.

**Theorem (I. Kapovich-Wise).** If every nontrivial hyperbolic group has a proper finite-index subgroup, then every hyperbolic group is residually finite.

Evidence against:

**Theorem (Agol-Groves-Manning).** If every hyperbolic group is residually finite, then every quasi-convex subgroup of every hyperbolic group is separable.

## Recent Comments