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

I have a question about some quotient groups of the lower central series of a free group.

When there's a free group $F = \langle x_1,\cdots, x_n, y_1, \cdots, y_m\rangle $,

let $A$ be the subgroup generated by elements of the forms $[x_i, a]$ in $F_{k+1}/F_{k+2}$, with $1\leq i\leq n$ and $a\in F_{k}/F_{k+1}$; and $B$ be the subgroup generated by those $[y_j, b]$ of $F_{k+1}/F_{k+2}$, with $1\leq j\leq m$ and $b\in F_k/F_{k+1}$.

(May consider when $k\geq 2$.)

In this case, $A \cap B = 1$?

add. What is the rank of $A$ (and $B$) in the free abelian group $F_{k+1}/F_{k+2}$?

Thank you for your reading, considering and answering.

share|improve this question
    
I added one more question~ –  qkqh May 29 '13 at 20:06

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I don't believe so.

I will associate my commutators on the left, so that $[a,b,c]=[[a,b],c]$; and use $[x,y]=x^{-1}y^{-1}xy$; I'm not sure it matters, but that's what I'm used to.

Say $k=2$; in $F/F_{4}$, the Hall-Witt identity becomes $$ [r,s,t][s,t,r][t,r,s]\equiv 1\pmod{F_{4}}.$$

Now consider the case where $a_1=[y_2,y_1]$, $b_1=[y_2,x_1]$, $b_2=[y_1,x_1]$. Then $$ [a_1,x_1] \equiv [y_2,y_1,x_1] \equiv [y_2,x_1,y_1][y_1,x_1,y_2]^{-1} \equiv [b_1,y_1][b_2,y_2]^{-1}\pmod{F_4}.$$ Now note that $[a_1,x_1]\in A$, but $[b_1,y_1][b_2,y_2]\in B$.

Similar problems are likely to arise with other values of $k$.

Edited: It seems your question was different from what I understood; rather, your $A$ is generated by all commutators of the form $[x_i,a]$ with $a\in F_k$ (modulo $F_{k+2}$), and your $B$ by all commutators of the form $[y_j,b]$ with $b\in F_k$ (modulo $F_{k+2}$).

$F_{k}/F_{k+1}$ is free abelian, with basis given by the basic commutators of weight $k$ on $x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_m$; by the Witt Formula, the rank is $$M_{n+m}(k)=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{d|k}\mu(d)(n+m)^{k/d}$$ where $\mu$ is the Möbius function. The rank of $A$ is at most $nM_{n+m}k$, and the rank of $B$ is at most $mM_{n+m}(k)$. But in general they will be much smaller, since commutators of the form $[c,x_j]$ and $[c,y_j]$, where $c$ is a basic commutator of weight $k$, are seldom basic themselves; so you will have a fair amount of "collision". It would take some rather careful analysis with basic commutator collection to figure it out exactly. I would suggest looking at

  • Ward, James. Basic commutators. Philosoph. Trans. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 264 (1969), 343-412, MR 0251148

to see if by any chance Ward has already computed these (or for information on techniques for computing it).


Added.

Let's look at the case of $k=2$. $F_2/F_3$ is freely generated by commutators of the forms $[x_j,x_i]$, $1\leq i\lt j\leq n$, $[y_s,y_r]$, $1\leq r\lt s\leq m$, and $[y_t,x_k]$, $1\leq k\leq n$ and $1\leq t\leq m$.

On the other hand, $F_3/F_4$ is freely generated by commutators of the forms

  1. $[x_j,x_i,x_k]$ with $1\leq i\lt j\leq n$, $i\leq k\leq n$;
  2. $[x_j,x_i,y_t]$ with $1\leq i\lt j \leq n$, $1\leq t\leq m$;
  3. $[y_t,x_k,x_i]$ with $1\leq k\leq i\leq n$, $1\leq t\leq m$;
  4. $[y_t,x_k,y_v]$ with $1\leq k\leq n$, $1\leq t\leq m$, $1\leq v\leq m$; and
  5. $[y_s,y_r,y_t]$ with $1\leq r\lt s\leq m$, $r\leq t\leq m$.

For $A$, we will obtain all commutators of type 1 and all commutators of type 3; no commutators of type 5; when we consider a commutator of the form $[y_s,y_r]$ and take the commutator with $x_i$, we obtain $[y_s,y_r,x_i] \equiv [y_s,x_i,y_r][y_r,x_i,y_s]^{-1}$. So commutators of type 4 are paired off, except we do not get the ones in which $t=v$. Finally, we obtain all commutators of type 2 because when we take $[y_t,x_j]$ for $a$, and take the commutator with $x_i$, we will obtain $[y_t,x_j,x_i]\equiv [y_t,x_i,x_j][x_j,x_i,y_t]^{-1}$; and since $[y_t,x_i,x_j]\in A$, we obtain the commutator $[x_j,x_i,y_t]$.

So, what is the rank of $A$? We have $\binom{n}{3}+2\binom{n}{2}$ commutators of type 1; we have $m\binom{n}{2}$ commutators of type 2 and $m\binom{n}{2}+mn$ of type 3; and we have $n\binom{m}{2}$ generators corresponding to commutators of type 4. This gives $$\mathrm{rank}(A) = \binom{n+1}{3} + (2m+1)\binom{n}{2}+n\binom{m+1}{2}.$$

As for $B$, the argument is similar: we get no commutators of type 1, all commutators of type 5 (of which there are $\binom{m}{3}+2\binom{m}{2}$); all commutators of type 2 (of which there are $m\binom{n}{2}$); we also get all of type 4, which gives $nm^2$ commutators; as for type 3, these cannot occur from expressions of the form $[b,y_j]$ with $b\in F_2/F_3$. So the rank of $B$ will be $$\mathrm{rank}(B) = \binom{m+1}{3}+\binom{m}{2} + m\binom{n}{2} + nm^2.$$

Finally, for the overlap: according to the Witt formula, the rank of $F_3/F_4$ is $$\frac{1}{3}(n+m)\left( (n+m)^2 - 1\right).$$ So this allows you to compute the rank of the overlap.

For larger values of $k$ the computations become more difficult, because not all basic commutators are of the form $[c,x_i]$ or $[c,y_j]$. But this should give you an idea of the kind of thing that is going on (and why I don't want to try doing this for $k=3$).

share|improve this answer
    
Oh, thank you for your kind answer. My $A$ means not a subgroup generated by $n$ element with some fixed $a_i$'s, but the one generated by all elements of that form $[x_i,a_i]$ where $a_i$'s range over $F_k/ F_{k+1}$. so, $A$ doesn't depend on the choice of $a_i$. sorry to give confusion. –  qkqh May 30 '13 at 9:00
    
@qkqh: That's lousy notation, then. You are really looking at $\langle [F_k,x_1],\ldots,[F_k,x_n]\rangle\bmod F_{k+2}$, and similarly for $B$. I'll have to think about it. –  Arturo Magidin May 30 '13 at 14:55
    
Thank you for your deep considering and editing my deficient questions. It seems to have small mistakes. In my thought, for $A$, there are $2n\binom{m}{2}$ commutators of type 4, and $B$ has $m\binom{n}{2}$ commutators of type 3, so \begin{eqnarray*} \textrm{rank}(B) &=& \binom{m+1}{3} + \binom{m}{2} + 2m\binom{n}{2} + nm^2 \\ &=& \binom{m+1}{3} + (2n+1)\binom{m}{2} + mn^2 \end{eqnarray*} Am I right? –  qkqh Jun 9 '13 at 15:01
    
@qkqh: I'm wrong in type $4$ (there's no factor of $\frac{1}{2}$, but how do you get $2n\binom{m}{2}$ commutators of type 4? You choose two indices between $1$ and $m$ for the $y$s, which gives $\binom{m}{2}$; then you choose the index for $x$, which has $n$ possibilities. For this choice, we get the generator $[y_t,x_k,y_s][y_s,x_k,y_t]^{-1}$. So it's only $n\binom{m}{2}$. And I do not see how you get any commutators of type 3 in $B$ at all. –  Arturo Magidin Jun 9 '13 at 19:57
    
Yes, you are right. I have wanted that rank$(A)$ and rank$(B)$ are symmetric (i.e. by changing $n$ and $m$, we get the other), and now it's right. Thank you –  qkqh Jun 11 '13 at 3:17

Not necessarily. By the Jacobi Identity, in $F/F_4$ we have for example

$[x_1,[x_2,y_1]][x_2,[y_1,x_1] = [y_1,[x_1,x_2]]^{-1}$.

For your second question, the rank of $A$ is clearly at most $n$. For $k=2$, you could choose $a_i=x_i$, so it could be anything between 0 and $n$. For $k>2$, the relation above shows that it can be strictly less than $n$. It is possible that there is some lower bound in this case.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you, I understand the first answer. And sorry, too. –  qkqh May 30 '13 at 9:03
    
I have edit my definition of $A$ and $B$. –  qkqh May 30 '13 at 9:10

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.