A remark on $\varepsilon$-maps in dimension 1
T. Tam Nguyen Phan

TL;DR
This paper investigates whether certain surjective maps from the circle to a graph, with small pre-image diameters, can be decomposed as free factors in the fundamental group, exploring properties of epsilon-maps in one dimension.
Contribution
It examines conditions under which epsilon-maps from the circle to a graph split as free factors in the fundamental group, providing insights into their algebraic and topological structure.
Findings
Identifies conditions for epsilon-maps to split as free factors.
Establishes bounds on epsilon for such splittings.
Provides examples and counterexamples related to epsilon-maps.
Abstract
Let be a surjective map from the standard unit circle to a graph such that the pre-image of each point has diameter less than . If is small enough, does split as a free factor in ?
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical Dynamics and Fractals · Geometric Analysis and Curvature Flows · Geometric and Algebraic Topology
A remark on -maps in dimension 1
T. Tm Nguyn-Phan
Max Planck Institute for Mathematics
Bonn
Germany
Abstract.
Let be a surjective map from the standard unit circle to a graph such that the pre-image of each point has diameter less than . If is small enough, does split as a free factor in ?
1. Introduction
Bestvina-Brady’s paper “Morse theory and finiteness propeties of groups” ended with the following conjecture ([1]).
Conjecture 1** (Bestvina-Brady).**
Let be a finite 2-complex. Fix a metric on . There is such that if is a surjective, PL -map111A map is an -map if pre-images of points have diameters less than ., then is homotopy equivalent to with -cells and -cells attached.
They had a specific complex in the paper and it is a spine of the Poincare homology sphere, and they remarked that if the conjecture is true for this 2-complex, then the Eilenberg-Ganea conjecture is false. In this paper we will take the point of view that Conjecture 1 is clearly more interesting.
While Conjecture 1 might sound “obviously true”, it remains open. If we reduce the dimension of from to , then Conjecture 1, in its literal form, is true for a rather dull reason, which is that such -quotients of a circle by -maps are graphs that are not trees, and such graphs are always circles with 1-cells attached.
A more interesting version of Conjecture 1 in dimension is the following.
Question 2**.**
Is there small enough such that if is a surjective, PL -map onto a graph , then the loop given by splits as a generator in a free basis in ?
The answer to this question should be “yes, of course”. However, a second glance at it might change the “yes, of course” to “maybe not”. Experience shows that one easily gets confused when trying to prove this. As usual, these confusions revolve around a base point change and the affirmative answer to Question 2 starts out being obvious and then it becomes not so obvious and then it becomes just wrong.
This note is to remark that the answer to Question 2 is no.
Theorem 3**.**
For each , there is a surjective -map to a graph such that is NOT a generator in a free basis in .
This sheds no light on Conjecture 1 but we find it rather surprising. Maybe the reason why this is surprising is because if is small enough, then the loop is a primitive element in homology. We will leave the proof of this to the readers.
Acknowledgement**.**
I would like to thank Grigori Avramidi and Max Forester for interesting conversations. I learned the Whitehead algorithm from the second lecture of a three-lecture series by Henry Wilton at the Hausdorff Institute in Fall 2018. I wish the video of his second lecture was available. Finally, I am thankful to the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics for the perfect working environment.
2. Proof of Theorem 3
For each positive integer , take the following word.
[TABLE]
The word is an element of the free group on generators and . Realize as the fundamental group of a wedge of circles that are in one-to-one correspondence with . The Whitehead graph222The definition of the Whitehead graph is recalled in the Appendix. of is given in Figure 1,
and does not have a cut vertex333A vertex of a graph is a cut vertex if the graph consists of two subgraphs with a single vertex in common that is .. It follows from the Whitehead algorithm ([2]) that is not a generator of . We recall the theorem by Whitehead.
Theorem 4** (Whitehead).**
Let be the free group with generators and let be a word in the generators. If is a generator in a free basis of , then the Whitehead graph of has a cut vertex.
Next, we explain how to realize as a surjective map
[TABLE]
for a particular graph , such that for a fixed , the map is an -map if is large enough.
The graph is defined as in Figure 2. The base point is . The large middle loop, oriented clockwise, is . Each small (embedded) loop based at has length . To make them based at , use the arc going clockwise from to for a change of base point. Each segment also has length .
The map is constructed as follows. Divide into equal segments. As we go around starting at the base point , the segments are mapped to in the following order.
- .
Loop
- .
Segment
- .
Loop
- .
Segment
- .
Loop
- .
Segment (we are done with the segment of )
- .
Loop
- .
Segment
- .
Loop
- .
Segment
- .
Loop
- .
Segment (we are done with the segment of )
- …
- …
- .
Loop
- .
Segment
- .
Loop
- .
Segment
- .
Loop
- .
Segment (we are done with ).
Remark**.**
The loop we have just defined has cyclic symmetries. However, the element of does not look like it has cyclic symmetries. This is because when the loop occurs at the end of the journey, we have already basically gone around , so going around then means that , instead of , should be added to the .
Appendix: The Whitehead graph
Let be the free group on generators . Let be word in the generators.
The Whitehead graph of has vertices called . To draw the edges of the Whitehead graph, first we put “” on the right and “” on the left of each letter that appears in so that it looks like
[TABLE]
For each inverse element that occurs in , we change to . Then the chain of symbols we created above becomes
[TABLE]
Each pairs of adjacent signs corresponds to an edge in the Whitehead graph. For example, with the above labeling, there is an edge from to and there is an edge from to .
One thing one should not forget is that should be written as a circular word, so there is also an edge from to . That is how to draw the Whitehead graph of .
Remark**.**
The Whitehead graph of is obtained by first drawing a wedge if circles intersecting at a point and then drawing the loop given by in a different color (say, blue) and then cutting out a small neighborhood of . The edges are the blue segments of in this neighborhood and the vertices are where the blue curves exit the neighborhood. This explains why the word should be treated as circular.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Mladen Bestvina and Noel Brady, Morse theory and finiteness properties of groups , Invent. Math. 129 (1997), no. 3, 445–470. MR 1465330
- 2[2] J. H. C. Whitehead, On Certain Sets of Elements in a Free Group , Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) 41 (1936), no. 1, 48–56. MR 1575455
