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

Definitions: Let $G$ be a group wich acts without inversion on a connected nonempty graph $X$. We shall see that, if $X$ is a tree, then $G$ can be identified with the fundamental group of a certain graph of groups $(G,Y)$, where $Y=G\setminus X$. We begin with the construction of $(G,Y)$. Let $T$ be a maximnal tree of $Y$ and let $j:T\rightarrow X$ be a lifting of $T$. Let $A$ be an orientation of $Y$.

We shall extend $j$ to a section $j:edge Y\rightarrow edgeX$ such that $j \bar y= \overline{jy}$ ;

It suffices to define $jy$ for $y\in A-edgeT$ ; in this case we choose $jy$ so that $o(jy)\in vert jT$; we then have $o(jy)=jo(y)$. We also choose $\gamma_y\in G$ so that $t(jy)=\gamma_y*jt(y)$; this is possible because $t(jy)$ and $jt(y)$ have the same projection $t(y)$ in $Y$.

This is the original describtion of the book on side 54. So my question is the following:

  1. If we choose an arbitrary $z\in edgeX$ with $jy=z$ and $o(jy)=o(z)\in vertjT$ it could be happen that $o(jy)\not= jo(y)$. But I think we should choose it such that this equation is satisfied, since $j$ should be extendend to a graph morphism, right? Or why is that clear?

  2. Why does the $\gamma_y\in G$ exist? Okay. If $t(jy)$ and $jt(y)$ lying in the same equivalence class under the action of $G$, this is clear. But why does this two elements have to lie in the same equivalence class?

share|improve this question
    
backslash overline curly brackets gives you a bar over more than one character. I edited it. –  Stefan Geschke Sep 13 '11 at 9:43
    
thanks, Stefan. –  Eric Sep 13 '11 at 9:56

1 Answer 1

On 1.: $j$ is not meant to be a graph morphism. For example $Y$ could contain loops, which you have to 'break up' to 'lift' it to $X$.

On 2.: I think it is implicitly implied that you should choose $jy$ to have $y$ as projection in $Y$. If you assume this then they do lie in the same equivalence class.

share|improve this answer
    
Why couldn't be $j$ a graph morphism? Why do I have to break up these loops you mentioned? Couldn't they be mapped on something in $X$? And if j is not a graph morphism, is it implicity implied, too, that $o(jy)=jo(y)$? Then I would say, that the construction is a little bit impresicely, because it is concluded, that if we only choose $o(jy)\in vertjT$ all the other facts are immediately clear. –  Eric Sep 13 '11 at 13:08
    
Let me clarify what is going on with an example: Assume that we are dealing with the case where the graph $Y$ is a 4-cycle. A spanning tree $T$ of this graph is then a path on 4 vertices. One can lift this spanning tree $T$ into the tree $X$ easily. However the question is now what to do with the remaining edge $y$ in $Y$. AS $X$ is a tree, and because of the way we embed $T$ in it, it is impossible to choose a lifting of $y$ in $X$ such that we obtain a graph morphism. (the remaining part is for the next comment) –  Koen S Sep 14 '11 at 9:32
    
What Serre does is to pick an orientation on the remaining edge (the $A$), so we are only trying to lift $y$ but not $\overline{y}$. The lift of $y$ is then chosen such that it attaches to the embedding of $T$ in $X$ in the lift of the point $o(y)$ (this is what is meant by "in this case we choose $jy$ so that $o(jy) \in vertjT$; we then have $o(jy)=jo(y).$"). The resulting lift (or better said section) of $Y$ in $X$ is then a path on 5 vertices. What I said was implicit might be contained in the definition of a "section", which I cannot find in the book right away. I hope this helps. –  Koen S Sep 14 '11 at 9:43
    
Thanks. Hmm. Okay. $X$ doesn't have to be a tree for the construction, right? At first it is only an connected nonempty graph. Only in the following Theorem in the book the situation where $X$ is a tree is involved. But you are still right, because it is possible, that a fundamental domain doesn't exist. Right? Another question is: If we take a lift $j$ of $T$ in $X$. Is it true, that the image of $t\in vertT$ lies in the equivalence class of $t$, such that $G∗(jt)=t$? Or is this assumption wrong?And why do we find this $\gamma_y\in G$? How would you explain it in your example? Thank you. –  Eric Sep 15 '11 at 10:27

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.