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

While attending a very nice talk on the geometric group theory of fundamental groups of Kahler manifolds by Pierre Py last weekend, I realized that I don't know the answer to the following question. Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over $\mathbb{C}$. Is the word problem for $\pi_1(X)$ solvable?

Here are a couple of relevant facts. Taubes proved that every finitely presentable group is the fundamental group of a compact complex manifold of complex dimension 3. Earlier, Gompf proved that every finitely presentable group is the fundamental group of a compact symplectic manifold of real dimension 4. Thus the word problem is not solvable for fundamental groups of compact complex manifolds. Also, Toledo has an example of a smooth compact projective variety whose fundamental group is not residually finite. This rules out using maps to finite groups to solve the word problem, and also shows that $\pi_1(X)$ need not be linear.

EDIT : Another relevant remark is that the answers to the question here show that presentations for $\pi_1(X)$ are computable, so there are no issues there.

share|improve this question
Interestingly, I heard the same question from Dick Hain in a conversation about 15 years ago. But I have no feeling for whether it ought to be true or false. –  Donu Arapura Apr 21 '10 at 11:38

1 Answer 1

Try Bogomolov and Katzarkov (google books or an earlier paper). I don't understand the statements, but I think that for every finitely presented group, they find a extensions of surface groups by the given group that are "approximated" by projective groups. The quality of the approximations is not clear, but I suspect that they preserve uncomputability.

share|improve this answer
Ben, could you (or any other passing expert!) explain the relationship between the Bogomolov--Katzarkov paper and the work of Delzant--Gromov on cuts in Kahler groups? –  HJRW Apr 21 '10 at 17:11

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.