MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is there a good reference for information about the second homotopy group of the Cayley complex or Presentation complex of a finitely presented group, especially a hyperbolic group? I'm looking for an argument that the second homotopy group of the Cayley complex of a hyperbolic group $G$ is finitely generated as a $G$-module in particular, but I'd welcome other interesting starting points around the second homotopy group of the Cayley complex too.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted

If $\langle X,R \rangle$ is a finite presentation of a group $G$, then there exists an exact sequence of $\mathbb ZG$-modules $$0 \to \pi_2(Z) \to \mathbb{Z} G^{\oplus R} \to \mathbb Z G^{\oplus X} \to \mathbb Z G \to \mathbb{Z} \to 0,$$ where $Z$ is the presentation $2$-complex of the presentation above. If one knows in addition that $G$ is of type $FP_3$, then $\pi_2(Z)$ must be finitely generated as a $\mathbb Z G$-module. It is well-known that hyperbolic groups are $FP_{\infty}$, using the Rips complex.

Any example of a finitely presented group which is not of type $FP_3$ gives a counterexample, i.e. $\pi_2$ is not finitely generated. Brady constructed a subgroup of a hyperbolic group with this property in

Brady, N. Branched Coverings of Cubical Complexes and Subgroups of Hyperbolic Groups J. London Math. Soc. (1999) 60(2): 461-480.

Much earlier, Stallings gave an example where the third homology is not finitely generated as a module over the group ring of a finitely presented group.

Stallings, J. A finitely presented group whose 3-dimensional integral homology is not finitely generated. Amer. J. Math. 85 (1963), 541–543.

share|cite|improve this answer

Here are some starting points, for which I am afraid I have to refer to my own work.

The old problem of "Identities among relations" was discussed in

Brown, R. and Huebschmann, J. Identities among relations. In Low-dimensional topology (Bangor, 1979), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., Volume~48. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1982), 153--202.

The problem of calculating $\pi_2$ was further attacked in

Brown, R. and Razak~Salleh, A. , "Free crossed resolutions of groups and presentations of modules of identities among relations". LMS J. Comput. Math. 2 (1999) 28--61 (electronic).

which gives a method for a finite group. This involves constructing inductively a universal cover with a contracting homotopy. The nice point is that constructing a "home for a contracting homotopy" can be made computational.

These methods have been developed into a big software system by Graham Ellis:

Homological algebra programming . .

The notion of crossed module is behind this, since for a 2-complex $K$, $\pi_2(K)$ is the kernel of the crossed module $\pi_2(K^2,K^1,x) \to \pi_1(K^1,x)$. It seems to be a challenge to link methods already developed for crossed modules (e.g. coproducts, induced crossed modules) into geometric group theory.

share|cite|improve this answer

A standard way to get at $\pi_2$ of any space is that it is $H_2$ of the universal cover of the space. This is because higher homotopy groups are invariant under covering maps plus the Hurewicz theorem. Presentation complexes are basically just the connected 2-complexes. Its not clear to me that $\pi_2$ should be finitely generated over $\pi_1$. Do you have some reason to think it should be true when the group is hyperbolic? It appears to not be true for general presentation complexes.

share|cite|improve this answer
With regard to the word "any" in the last comment, I don't think this deals with the examples in R. Brown and C.D. Wensley, `Computation and homotopical applications of induced crossed modules', J. Symbolic Computation 35 (2003) 59-72. where the key tool is the 2-dimensional van Kampen theorem, which involves crossed modules, and so calculates 2-types first, and then deduces, when possible, results on $\pi_2$. – Ronnie Brown Jun 21 '12 at 9:50

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.