5
$\begingroup$

Let $(\mathbb G,\Gamma)$ be a graph of groups. A $G$-path from $u_0$ to $u$ is $$g_0e_1g_1\cdots e_{n}g_n,$$ where $e_1\cdots e_{n}$ is a walk in $\Gamma$ from $u_0$ to $u$ and each $g_i\in G_{s(e_i)}$. We denote the set of all $\mathbb G$-paths from $u_0$ to $u$ by $\pi[u_0,u]$. Let $\mathbb F(\mathbb G,\Gamma)$ be the group generated by the vertex groups and the elements $e$ of edge $\Gamma$, subject to the relations $$\{s_e(g)e=et_e(g)\mid g\in G_e,e\in E(\Gamma)\},\{e^{-1}=\bar{e}\mid e\in E(\Gamma)\}$$

Recall that the fundamental group of $(\mathbb G,\Gamma)$ on the base point $u_0$ is the set of all elements $g_0e_1g_1\cdots e_{n}g_n$ in $\mathbb F(\mathbb G,\Gamma)$, where $e_1\cdots e_{n}$ is a closed walk from $u_0$ to $u_0$. In other words, the fundamental group of $(\mathbb G,\Gamma)$ is $\pi[u_0,u_0]$.

My question is regarding the universal cover (Bass-Serre tree) of $(\mathbb G,\Gamma)$.

In the book "Trees'' by Serre page 51, the universal cover is defined in the following way:

The vertices are the left cosets of the vertex groups in $\pi[u_0,u_0]$, i.e.

$$\bigcup_{u\in V(\Gamma)} \pi[u_0,u_0]G_u$$

However in a paper by Bass "Covering theory for graphs of groups ", he defined in the following way:

The vertices are $$\bigcup_{u\in V(\Gamma)} \pi[u_0,u]G_u$$

My question is that

Are they $\pi[u_0,u_0]$-isomorphic?or they are completely different?

If yes, I really wonder to know the $\pi[u_0,u_0]$-isomorphism map.

$\endgroup$
0
4
$\begingroup$

To address a small point: the sets $\pi[u_0,u]$ should really be considered as their images in $\mathbb F(\mathbb G,\Gamma)$. This has the effect of doing some algebraic version of passing to homotopy classes of paths rel endpoints. For example, if $e$ is an edge of $\Gamma$, then $e\bar e e$ and $e$ should be considered as equivalent. This is already what happens when constructing the universal cover of a graph, say.

Modulo agreement on that point, my claim is that the definitions of the vertex sets of the universal cover of $(\mathbb G,\Gamma)$ are equivalent. Here is how to see it. Fix a choice of spanning tree $T$ in $\Gamma$. For every vertex $u$ of $\Gamma$, there is a unique path $\sigma_u$ from $u_0$ to $u$ that stays entirely within $T$. We can think of $\sigma_u$ as an element of $\pi[u_0,u]$ by sending $\sigma_u$ to (the equivalence class of) the ordered sequence of edges it traverses.

We get maps $\pi[u_0,u_0] \to \pi[u_0,u]$ and $\pi[u_0,u]\to \pi[u_0,u_0]$. The former sends a class $\tau \in \pi[u_0,u_0]$ to the class of the concatenation $\tau\sigma_u$. The latter sends $\rho \in \pi[u_0,u]$ to the class of the concatenation $\rho\bar\sigma_u$. Since the classes $\tau$ and $\tau\sigma_u\bar\sigma_u$ are equal, it’s easy to see that these maps are inverse bijections.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Don't you mean that for every vertex $u$ there is a unique path that says entirely within $T$ (not $\Gamma$)? $\endgroup$ – Max Horn Dec 30 '19 at 8:44
  • $\begingroup$ I absolutely do! good catch $\endgroup$ – Rylee Lyman Dec 30 '19 at 16:34

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.