Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recall that a CW-complex $X$ with an action of a group $G$ which permutes the cells (i.e., for any $g \in G$ and any cell $\sigma \subseteq X$, $g\sigma$ is a cell) is called a $G$-complex. If the action permutes the cells freely ($g\sigma = \sigma$ implies $g=1$), $X$ is a free G-complex.

Clearly, if $X$ is a free $G$-complex, then the $G$-action on $X$ is free (i.e., for any $g \in G$ and any $x \in X$, $gx = x$ implies $g=1$). A question that pops to my mind every once in a while is the following: is a $G$-complex with a free $G$-action a free $G$-complex? I see that if $g\sigma = \sigma$ for some nontrivial $g \in G$ and a cell $\sigma$, then $g$ has infinite order (for a finite group cannot act freely on a contractible space), but this doesn't seem to get me anywhere.

share|improve this question
    
The usual definition of a $G$-CW-complex also requires that a group element fixing a cell setwise also fixes it pointwise. For example the unit interval with the $\mathbb{Z}/2$-action given by reflection at $1/2$ and the usual G-CW structure is not a G-CW-complex. I never came across the notion of a $G$-complex. –  HenrikRüping Dec 11 '12 at 13:33
    
Maybe the difference is just one of based vs. unbased worlds? Both seem like reasonable definitions to me. –  David White Dec 11 '12 at 15:10

1 Answer 1

If $G$ acts freely on a CW-complex, permuting the cells, then the stabilizer of a cell must be finite (and therefore trivial, as pointed out in the question).

This can be shown by induction on the dimension, the case of 0-cells being trivial. If $\sigma$ is an $n$-cell, with $n\geq 1$, let $H$ be the stabilizer of $\sigma$. Then $H$ permutes the set of cells with dimension less than $n$ in the closure of $\sigma$. But there are only finitely many such cells, and inductively each has finite (indeed, trivial) stabilizer. Thus $H$ is finite.

share|improve this answer
2  
This argument applies when the cell has positive dimension, because then there is at least one lower-dimensional cell involved in the boundary. Fortunately a separate argument is available to show that an infinite group cannot act freely on a $0$-cell. –  Tom Goodwillie Dec 11 '12 at 14:04
    
A separate argument is also needed if the complex $X$ is not locally finite (in which case the number of lower-dimensional cells whose images intersect the boundary of the $n$-cell, could be infinite). –  Misha Dec 11 '12 at 16:46
    
@Misha: Doesn't the boundary of an $n$-cell $\sigma$ always involve only finitely many cells in the $(n-1)$-skeleton? Local finiteness means there are only finitely many higher dimensional cells whose boundaries involve $\sigma$, and I don't think my argument uses that. –  Jeremy Rickard Dec 11 '12 at 18:38
    
@Tom: True. I've slightly edited my answer so that I don't lie about 0-cells. :-) –  Jeremy Rickard Dec 11 '12 at 20:18

Your Answer

 
discard

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.