Fundamental Group of a Cayley Graph

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the fundamental group of a Cayley graph associated with a group presentation and the subgroup generated by a specific set in the free group. Participants explore theoretical implications and potential proofs related to this relationship.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express individual hypotheses and methods for proving the relationship, but there is no consensus on the validity of these claims or the existence of a formal theorem supporting them.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the lack of references or established theorems regarding the proposed relationship, indicating a potential gap in the literature.

Monobrow
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Suppose we have a group with presentation G = <A|R> i.e G is the quotient of the free group F(A) on A by the normal closure <<A>> of some subset A of F(A). Is it true that that fundamental group of the Cayley graph of G (with respect to the generating set A) will be isomorphic to the subgroup <<A>> in F(A)? It seems to me that this should be true (and it agrees with the facts that: a subgroup of a free group is free and the fundamental group of a graph is free) but I can't find this theorem stated anywhere...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for the reference, I'll take a look when I have the chance. I was thinking that I may have a method to prove what I was asking. The Cayley graph of F(A) is a tree T. Now F(A) acts freely and properly discontinuously on T, and thus any subgroup must also act freely and properly discontinuously (this is easy to show). So we have a free properly discontinuous action of <<S>> on T. Now if it were true that T/<<S>> were the Cayley graph of G then we would be done, since T is the universal cover of T/<<S>>. Again, I am convinced that this statement is true but I have haven't seen it stated in ANY reference which I find strange.
 
I've just noticed that I wrote <<A>> when I meant <<R>> in the first post and <<S>> when I meant <<R>> in my second post, sorry about that!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K