5
$\begingroup$

My question is that

Is every stabilizer of the canonical boundary action of a hyperbolic group on its Gromov boundary a finitely generated group?

I guess every stabilizer is a (finitely generated) virtually cyclic group, but I do not have a proof nor a reference.

More generally, let G be a countable group that is relatively hyperbolic to subgroups $P_1,\ldots, P_n$. Under which conditions we can conclude that every stabilizer of the canonical boundary action on its boundary is a (finitely generated) virtually cyclic group or finitely generated virtually abelian group?

Please see section 2 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04834.pdf for relative hyperbolic groups and their boundaries.

Thank you very much!

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes (to your first question), it's virtually cyclic. Indeed, it has a loxodromic element (every infinite subgroup of a hyperbolic group has a loxodromic, = infinite order, element). So, if infinite, its action at infinity is axial or focal. In both case, it's quasi-convex. Focal is not possible in this context (it would be if you were considering locally compact compactly generated groups). I'll leave to others to write this in a more standard language (although my wording is more faithful to Gromov's original approach). $\endgroup$ – YCor Apr 11 at 17:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hyperbolic dynamics is unrelated to hyperbolic groups (at least not in an obvious way), I removed the tag. $\endgroup$ – YCor Apr 11 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you Yves. Is it possible to provide me a reference? $\endgroup$ – m07kl Apr 11 at 17:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @m07kl If I understand your questions correctly, an answer follows from the classification of acylindrical actions on hyperbolic spaces; see Theorem 1.1 in Osin's paper arxiv:1304.1246. $\endgroup$ – AGenevois Apr 12 at 9:24
  • $\begingroup$ @AGenevois: Thank you and I will take a look into it $\endgroup$ – m07kl Apr 12 at 15:00
4
$\begingroup$

This is following my comment, which was getting too long. Using the notations of the paper you are citing, there are two kinds of points in the boundary : elements of the Gromov boundary $\partial \Gamma$ of the fine graph $\Gamma$ on which $G$ acts and elements in $V_\infty$, which are vertices of $\Gamma$ of infinite valence. The former are called conical limit points and the later are called parabolic limit points.

This boundary equivariantly agrees with the Gromov boundary $\partial X$ of any proper Gromov hyperbolic space on which $G$ acts via a geometrically finite and minimal action (if you want to remove the word minimal, you need to take the limit set $\Lambda G$ of $G$ instead of $\partial X$). This is Proposition 9.1 combined with Theorem 9.4 in Bowditch's paper relatively hyperbolic groups. In particular, you can choose any fine graph $\Gamma$ on which $G$ acts which satisfies Bowdtich's Definition 2 (which is the definition in the paper you're referring to).

To simplify the following, choose $\Gamma$ to be the coned-off graph with respect to the parabolic subgroups $P_1,...,P_n$, or if you prefer Osin's formulation, the Cayley graph $\mathrm{Cay}(G,S\cup P_1\cup ... \cup P_n)$, where $S$ is any finite generating set, which is quasi-isometric to the coned-off graph. Then, the action of $G$ on this graph $\Gamma$ is acylindrical (this is Proposition 5.2 in Osin's paper that AGenevois indicated in their comment).

Now take any point $\xi$ in the Gromov boundary of $\Gamma$ and let $H$ be its stabilizer. Then, the action of $H$ on $\Gamma$ also is acylindrical and $H$ cannot contain infinitely many independent loxodromic elements, so it is virtually cyclic, by Theorem 1.1 of Osin's paper. This settles conical limit points. On the other hand, let $\xi$ be a parabolic limit point. By point (3) of Bowditch's Definition 2, the stabilizer of $\xi$ is exactly one of the peripheral subgroups, that is, with our notations, is one of the conjugates of the $P_k$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your answer. So the answer to my question is that 1)When P_i are all virtually cyclic, so are all stabilizer groups. ") When P_i are all finitely generated virtually abelian, so are all stabilizer groups :) $\endgroup$ – m07kl Apr 13 at 16:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @m07kl You're welcome and yes you're right ! There is one small thing missing in my argument which I had implicitely in mind. Theorem 1.1 of Osin's paper tells you that the stabilizer of a conical limit point either is virtually cyclic or has bounded orbits on the coned-off graph. To conclude that the group is finite in the later case you need to say that if an element acts with bounded orbits on the coned-off graph, then for the action on the space $X$, it is either eliptic (so has finite order) or is parabolic (which cannot happen here since it already fixes a conical limit point). $\endgroup$ – M. Dus Apr 14 at 7:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @m07kl By the way, if you're interested in groups that are hyperbolic relative to infinitely generated subgroups, you might take a look at Gerasimov and Potyagailo's paper arxiv.org/abs/1008.3470. I'm not used to this framework, but I'm pretty sure that the result in my answer still holds : stabilizers are either virtually cyclic or are a conjugate of one of the $P_k$. $\endgroup$ – M. Dus May 14 at 12:36

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.