5
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a the fundamental group of a hyperbolic knot complement. Then $G$ is hyperbolic relative to a subgroup $P\cong \mathbb Z \oplus \mathbb Z$. The knot complement has a $2$-dimensional spine with contractible universal cover illustrating that $G$ has geometric dimension $2$.

Question: Does there exist a $2$-dimensional $G$-complex $X$ with the property that the fixed point set $X^Q$ is contractible (in particular non-empty) for every subgroup $Q$ conjugate to a subgroup of $P$ (in particular $X$ is contractible)? EDIT: Add the condition that the $G$-stabilizer of every cell is a parabolic subgroup -- this is part of the definition of $E_{\mathcal F}G$.

The question can be phrased as whether there exist a $2$-dimensional model for $E_{\mathcal F}G$ where $\mathcal F$ is the full family of parabolic subgroups of $G$.

One obtains a $3$-dimensional $G$-space with this property by coning-off the flats in the universal cover of the $2$-dimensional spine. The flats are isolated and it is conceivable that one can push them towards the cone points.

The motivation of the question is that I have recently proved an extension for toral relatively hyperbolic groups of Gersten's result that finitely presented subgroups of hyperbolic groups of cohomological dimension $2$ are hyperbolic. If the answer to the question is known, then $G$ illustrates the result since finitely generated subgroups of $G$ are either a virtual fibers or geometrically finite. ---Apologies, for the many references of important work that I am skipping here---

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

Proposition 9.6 of M. Kapovich's 'Homological dimension and critical exponent of Kleinian groups' (it's Proposition 9.5 of the arXiv version) asserts that the cohomological dimension of the pair $(G,\mathcal{F})$ is equal to $\mathrm{dim}~\Lambda(G)+1$, where $\Lambda(G)$ is as usual the limit set of $G$. For cofinite $G$, $\Lambda(G)$ is the full 2-sphere and so $cd(G,\mathcal{F})=3$. In particular, no 2-dimensional model exists.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Henry, thanks for the reference, this settles the question. $\endgroup$ – Eduardo Martinez Pedroza Jun 30 '15 at 22:33
  • $\begingroup$ No problem. Nice theorem, by the way! $\endgroup$ – HJRW Jul 1 '15 at 9:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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