4 Group splittings and asymptotic topology

One may pose a very general question: What meaningful geometric properties distinguish Cayley graphs from arbitrary metric spaces? Here geometric of course is in the sense of Gromov's quasi-isometries. A lot of the recent work in geometric group theory falls in this frame. Stallings ends theorem, Gromov's polynomial growth theorem and Varopoulos isoperimetric inequality are three deep positive results distinguishing Cayley graphs from general metric spaces. On the other hand one may see Grigorchuk's intermediate growth examples and Rips-Sapir-Birget-Olshanskii-Bridson isoperimetric inequalities examples as negative results to the above question, saying that "everything is possible" for Cayley graphs.

Splitting theory has provided some further positive results in this quest and there is some reasonable hope for further progress. We state here some specific questions in this spirit.

Problem 4.1 (Comments) (Papasoglu) Let 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
be a hyperbolic group such that 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
is not separated by a Cantor set. Is it true that 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
is not separated by a simple path?

Remark Since Stallings ends theorem the theory of splittings has been related to "asymptotic topology" of Cayley graphs. The relation became clearer after Bowditch's work. In the case of hyperbolic groups the asymptotic topology of the group is reflected on the topology of the boundary which is a compact metrizable space. Bowditch MR1638764 and Swarup MR1412948 showed that the boundary of a one ended hyperbolic group has no cut points. Bowditch MR1638764 showed that if the boundary has a local cut point then the group splits over a 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
-ended group.

Problem 4.2 (Comments) (Papasoglu) Let 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
be a finitely generated group which does not split over a finite group. Is it true that (any subset of) a quasi-ray does not separate coarsely the Cayley graph of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
?

Remark By quasi-ray we mean a uniform embedding of 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
in the Cayley graph of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
. We remark that the answer to the above question is positive for finitely presented groups ( MR2153400, Kl). This question is similar to Bowditch's no cut point theorem for finitely generated groups. We recall below the relevant definitions.

A map 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
between two metric spaces is called a uniform embedding if

We say that a set 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
is coarsely contained in a set 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
if 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
is contained in a finite neighborhood, 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
, of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
.

We say that a subset 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
coarsely separates 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
if for some finite neighborhood 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
, 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
with 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
open and neither 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
nor 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
is coarsely contained in 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
.

It is worth remarking that the no quasi-ray separates question can be seen also as generalizing Stallings theorem. Indeed one may restate Stallings theorem as follows:

Let 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
be a finitely generated group that does not split over a finite group. Then a point does not separate coarsely the Cayley graph of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
. So if the answer to the above problem is positive it gives a strengthening of Stallings ends theorem. We note also that the exact analog of the no-cut point theorem would be to show that quasi-"horo-balls" do not separate, rather than quasi-rays. This is not known for finitely presented groups though, in fact it is not even clear what is the right notion of quasi-"horo-ball".

Problem 4.3 (Comments) (Geoghegan) Are one-ended CAT(0) groups semi-stable at infinity?

Remark The no cut point theorem for hyperbolic groups implies (via work of Bestvina-Mess MR1096169) that hyperbolic groups are semi-stable at infinity. Although it is known now math.GR/0701618 that CAT(0) boundaries have no cut points the semi-stability question is still open for CAT(0) groups.

Problem 4.4 (Comments) Are splittings of one-ended finitely generated groups over 2-ended groups invariant under quasi-isometries?

Remark The answer is positive for finitely presented groups MR2153400

Problem 4.5 (Comments) (Kleiner) Let 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
be a finitely generated group such that there is a sequence of quasi-circles that separate its Cayley graph. Is 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
a virtually surface group?

Remark It follows by work of Bowditch MR2099199 that this is true for finitely presented groups. By a sequence of quasi-circles that separate we mean the following: we take a union of circles 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
in 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
with radii tending to infinity and we consider a uniform embedding 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
from 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
to the Cayley graph of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
. Now we assume that for some fixed 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
the 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
-neighborhood of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
separates the Cayley graph and at least 2 components are not contained in the 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
neighborhood of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
.

For example in the hyperbolic or Euclidean plane one can take 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
to be a sequence of circles (i.e. boundaries of balls). In the case of the Euclidean plane these are quasi-isometrically embedded but this is not the case for the hyperbolic plane.

Problem 4.6 (Comments) Are splittings over virtually-

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
groups invariant under quasi-isometries? More precisely let 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
be a one-ended finitely presented group that does not split over a 2-ended group. Suppose that 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
splits over virtually-
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
. Is it true a group quasi-isometric to 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
splits over virtually-
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
?

Remark One might ask more generally whether JSJ decompositions over virtually-

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
groups are invariant under quasi-isometries.

Problem 4.7 (Comments) (Papasoglu) Let 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
be a group with 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
, 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
. Assume that a uniformly embedded copy of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
separates coarsely the Cayley graph of 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
. Is it true then that 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
splits over virtually-
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
?

Remark Both in Stallings theorem and in Bowditch JSJ theory there are some classes of groups that can be thought of as "exceptional". In Stallings theorem these are the groups with 2 ends (all commensurable to 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
) and in Bowditch's theorem it is hyperbolic triangle groups (although their boundary has local cut points they do not split). As one tries to generalize these theorems to splittings over 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
it is natural to expect that the number of "exceptions" increases. The question above avoids this technical issue by formulating the problem so that exceptions are ruled out.

Some evidence in favor of this is provided by MR1998479 and MR2300450.

It is interesting to note that some of the above questions can be stated also for locally connected continua (especially homogeneous continua). For example the question on quasi-rays that separate has the following twin:

Problem 4.8 (Comments) (Papasoglu) Let 

dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
be a locally connected homogeneous continuum of dimension 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
. Is it true that 
dvipng error! exitcode was 2 (signal 0), transscript follows:
is not separated by an arc?

Remark The answer is positive in the case of simply connected continua ( math.GN/0611817) which heuristically corresponds to the case of finitely presented groups. Several people have noted affinities between continua and groups. It is worth noting that locally connected homogeneous continua of dimension 1 were classified by Anderson ( MR0096181) while boundaries of hyperbolic groups of dimension 1 were classified by Kapovich-Kleiner ( MR1834498). One does not know much in either case when dimension is greater than 1.

JSJ Decompositions/Section4 (last edited 2010-09-15 22:23:27 by RickScott)