15
$\begingroup$

Let $F_n$ be the free group on $n$ letters.

The question is as in the title: letting $i:\text{Aut}(F_n) \hookrightarrow \text{Aut}(F_{n+1})$ be the natural injection, does there exist a homomorphism $\phi: \text{Aut}(F_{n+1}) \rightarrow \text{Aut}(F_n)$ such that $\phi \circ i = \text{id}$? My guess is "no", but I have no idea how to prove it.

As "evidence", here are two similar situations in other analogous contexts:

  1. Let $S_n$ be the symmetric group on $n$ letters. Then the injection $S_n \hookrightarrow S_{n+1}$ does not split (at least for $n$ sufficiently large). This follows easily from the simplicity of the alternating group.

  2. The injection $\text{SL}(n,\mathbb{Z}) \hookrightarrow \text{SL}(n+1,\mathbb{Z})$ does not split. One way to see this is to use the fact that for $n \geq 3$, all normal subgroups of $\text{SL}(n,\mathbb{Z})$ are either finite or finite-index (this is a consequence of the Margulis normal subgroup theorem, but it can be proved in more elementary ways as well; I do not know who to attribute it to).

The above two proofs work because we understand normal subgroups of $S_n$ and $\text{SL}(n,\mathbb{Z})$. Such an understanding seems entirely out of reach for $\text{Aut}(F_n)$.

$\endgroup$
21
$\begingroup$

Bridson and Vogtmann proved a much stronger result. From the abstract: 'If $m$ is less than $n$ then [the image of] a homomorphism $\mathrm{Aut}(F_n)\to\mathrm{Aut}(F_m)$ can have cardinality at most 2.'

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Theorem A is clearer: "If $n\geq 3$ and $n>m$, then every homomorphism $\mathrm{Aut}(F_n)\to\mathrm{Aut}(F_m)$ is either trivial, or has image of order $2$." $\endgroup$ – Arturo Magidin May 19 '16 at 20:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ArturoMagidin, other than the slightly unfortunate reference to the cardinality of a homomorphism, I don't see the difference. The result is, after all, also true when $n=2$. $\endgroup$ – HJRW May 19 '16 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ @HJRW: Yes, I meant just to clarify what "homomorphism [has] cardinality at most 2" meant. I was confused by it on reading your quote (which is verbatim from the abstract, but still unfortunate). Sorry for not being clear. $\endgroup$ – Arturo Magidin May 20 '16 at 2:22

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.