3

Let $G$ be a finitely generated group and let $|\cdot|$ be a word norm (word length function) on $G$ with respect to some finite generating set. For every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $B_n$ denote the ball of radius $n$ around $1_G$, i.e. the set $\{g\in G\colon |g|\leq n\}$.

Does there exist a positive constant $K>0$ such that for every $n$ there is a $K$-Lipschitz retraction $P_n: G\rightarrow B_n$? That is, a $K$-Lipschitz map from $G$ onto $B_n$ which is identity on $B_n$.

There are particular examples for which it is clear. For instance, if $G$ is a free group, then $P_n$ for every $g\in G$, written as a reduced word $a_1a_2\ldots a_n\ldots a_k$, produces the reduced word $a_1\ldots a_n$. That can be checked to be $1$-Lipschitz for every $n$. With a little bit more care, a similar argument works for any hyperbolic group.

A bit different (but easy) argument works for $\mathbb{Z}^n$. I believe I have also an argument for two-step nilpotent groups, but that's already a bit messy. It's plausible it may work for all nilpotent (torsion-free) groups.

But perhaps I am missing something and by some general argument this is actually true for all finitely generated groups. Is it possible? Or is there some obvious counter-example (or a candidate for a counter-example)?

EDIT: I forgot to add that ideally I would prefer these retractions to commute, i.e. $P_n\circ P_m=P_m\circ P_n$, for all $n,m\in\mathbb{N}$.

  • 2
    This seems related to combable group, which is about choosing preferred paths between points which fellow travel in a precise way (you can look up the full def). You can construct a retraction by going backwards along these nice preferred paths, coming from the identity, until hitting the ball. I don't know if I will have time to think about the details(you might need synchronous). If these concepts are as related as I believe then I suspect nilpotent groups, which are not virtually abelian, will not have this property, although I am not very familiar with the general theory of combable groups –  Oct 24 '19 at 16:14
  • Paul Plummer: Thanks a lot! I am going to check it properly tomorrow, but it looks very promising and indeed related. – user446046 Oct 24 '19 at 16:43
  • 2
    You get a combing of $G$ using your retractions $P_n$ by: $c_{g,1}(n)=P_n(g)$, $n\in [0, |g|]$. This will be a combing path from $g$ to $1$. (It's only a combing, not a bicombing.) See Bridson-Haefliger for definitions and examples. – Moishe Kohan Oct 24 '19 at 18:31
  • 1
    One more thing: The combing I described works under your commutativity condition. – Moishe Kohan Oct 24 '19 at 21:00
  • Moishe Kohan: Thanks, you are right. It's certainly reassuring that the concept I was interested in has been studied. – user446046 Oct 25 '19 at 13:23
  • Paul Plummer: Thanks again. You basically answered my question (along with the Moishe's observation that combing is actually equivalent with what I was looking for). If you like you can rewrite your comment as an answer, I will accept the answer, so that this question is considered as answered. – user446046 Oct 25 '19 at 13:27
  • 1
    There is some subtlety with my comment. I think your condition, with commuting retracts, is equivalent to having a synchronous combing(perhaps with even more nice adjectives). If/when I write an answer I would like to get this equivalence pretty exact and give a nice proof of some groups not having this property. The subtly with the "going backwards" projection is that in general comb paths can be a little wild and maybe the spends a lot of time in one of the outer shells and if the combing is asynchronous this could lead to some problems with my description –  Oct 25 '19 at 16:38
  • 1
    Also to notify people in comments you need @name if it isn't a comment on the persons post. (So I don't need to @ you since it is your post) –  Oct 25 '19 at 16:41
  • @MoisheKohan it seems that there is no reason for $P_n(g)$ to be close to $P_{n+1}(g)$. It's really not a problem in the definition of a combing? – YCor Oct 25 '19 at 20:08

1 Answers1

2

My guess in the comments was somewhat wrong, you can get a combing by quasigeodesics, but it is not necessarily synchronous.

A (asynchronous) combing of a group $G$, with finite generating set $S$, is a choice of paths $\sigma_g$ from the identity to $g \in G$ with the property that if $d_S(g,h)=1$ then the paths $\sigma_g,\sigma_h$ $K'$-fellow travel, up to reparametrization, for some fixed $K'$. If they $K'$-fellow travel without reparametrization we say that we have a synchronous combing. Recall the fellow travel property says that the paths stay close if the endpoints are close―depending on $K'$.

If you have a sequence of commuting $K$-Lipschitz retractions, $P_n: G \to B_n$, then you can construct a combing on $G$ like so:

  • First $$P_n\circ P_m =P_m \circ P_n=P_m$$ for $n>m$, which can be seen by just plugging in elements and using that they are retracts.

  • Take $g \in G$ distance $n$ from the origin. $$P_n(g)=g,P_{n-1}(g),\dots P_0(g)=e$$ gives a list of elements with the property that $$d(P_k(g),P_{k+1}(g)) \leq K+1:$$ If $P_{k+1}(g)$ is in $B_k$ then the distance is $0$, otherwise $P_{k+1}(g)$ is adjacent to $x$ in $B_k$ and $d(P_k(x),P_k(g)) \leq K$.

  • Now define $\sigma_g$ by choosing geodesics, $\gamma:[0,d(P_k(g),P_{k+1}(g)] \to G$, between $P_k(g),P_{k+1}(g)$. Note that it is not necessarily true that $P_k(g)$ is on the $k$th shell of the ball $B_n$. $\sigma_g$ is a $(K+1,K+1)$-quasigeodesic, independent of $g$: Each geodesic segment is at most $K+1$ making the upperbound obvious; the lower bound is found by noticing if there is a geodesic between $\sigma_g(t)$ and $\sigma_g(s)$ of length $k$ then the path there used at most $k$ geodesic segments of length less than or equal to $K+1$.

  • We need to verify that we have the (asynchronous) $K'$-fellow travel property, for some $K'$. Assume that $d(g,e)\geq d(h,e)$. By $K$-Lipschitz, if $d(g,h)=1$ then $d(P_k(g),P_k(h) \leq K$, and the sequence $P_n(h),\dots, P_0(h)$ will be the defining sequence for $\sigma_h$ except possible repeating $h$ at $P_n$ and $P_{n-1}$. Arranging "squares" for the $P_k(g),P_k(h),P_{k+1}(g),P_{k+1}(h)$ gives that any two points on them is at most $4(K+1)$ away from any other. Reparametrize on of the quasigeodesics so that you are traveling through the sides of the squares at roughly the same rate. The thing preventing this from being synchronized is that maybe for $h$ you have an actual geodesic and for $g$ you have an as-bad-as-it-gets quasigeodesic and it takes about $(K+1)n$ time to transverse vs just $n$ time.

Having a combing implies that you have solvable word problem and is finitely presented. I personally don't know how much more restrictive adding quasigeodesics is (probably a lot more). There is a nice survey on the subject Hairdressing in groups: a survey of combings and formal languages by Sarah Rees.

  • Thanks (and sorry for getting to your reply late, I didn't get any notification about your answer). However, in the other direction, even in the case of synchronous combing, the retractions $P_n$ you define are not necessarily commuting, right? At least if we don't require that for every $g,h\in G$ if $h$ lies on the path $\sigma_g$, then $\sigma_h$ must be the corresponding restriction of $\sigma_g$. I don't know how restrictive this is. – user446046 Nov 07 '19 at 16:50
  • @user446046 Ah, yes you are right―knew I should have written the details. There might be something with "coarsely commute", which is probably more natural for GGT applications anyways, although that could be subtle too (a priori segments of combs could have arbitarily bad fellow travel properties with the actual combing; not sure if that is true). –  Nov 07 '19 at 17:08
  • I found a notion of consistent bicombing, which is what would imply commutativity, but only for metric spaces. It seems it's a reasonable notion for groups as well, but perhaps restrictive. – user446046 Nov 07 '19 at 17:29
  • @user446046 That is cool. You can make groups a metric space with word metrics (and parametrize the edges in the Cayley graph) but that depends on generating set and things like that (hence it might be more natural to work with a coarse commuting anyways). –  Nov 07 '19 at 19:36