A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC
REDUCIBILITY OF GROUP PRESENTATIONS

arXiv:1601.00604v2 [] 4 Oct 2016

JONATHAN ARIEL BARMAK AND ELIAS GABRIEL MINIAN
Abstract. We present a new test for studying asphericity and diagrammatic reducibility of group presentations. Our test can be applied to prove diagrammatic reducibility
in cases where the classical weight test fails. We use this criterion to generalize results
of J. Howie and S.M. Gersten on asphericity of LOTs and of Adian presentations, and
derive new results on solvability of equations over groups. We also use our methods to
investigate a conjecture of S.V. Ivanov related to Kaplansky’s problem on zero divisors:
we strengthen Ivanov’s result for locally indicable groups and prove a weak version of
the conjecture.

1. Introduction
The notion of asphericity is central to topology, geometry and algebra. Recall that
a path-connected space X is called aspherical if its homotopy groups πn (X) are trivial
for n ≥ 2. A longstanding open problem in low dimensional topology is the Whitehead
asphericity conjecture, which asserts that a path-connected subcomplex of an aspherical
2-complex is itself aspherical [3, 30, 32]. There have been considerable advances in this
question which include works of Cockcroft [8], Adams [1] and Howie [16, 17]. A closely
related unsolved problem is whether ribbon disc complements are necessarily aspherical
[19, 20]. This question was shown to be equivalent to whether complexes associated to
labeled oriented trees (LOTs) are aspherical. LOT-complexes are combinatorially encoded
2-complexes which naturally appear as spines of ribbon disc complements [19]. A proof
of the asphericity of ribbon disc complements would generalize, in some sense, Papakyriakopoulos’ analogous result for knot complements. It is easy to see that every LOTcomplex embeds in a contractible 2-complex. Therefore LOT-complexes are considered
test cases for the Whitehead conjecture. The concept of asphericity plays a key role in
combinatorial group theory (see for example [6, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, 26]). In this context, a
group presentation is called aspherical if its standard 2-complex is aspherical. In geometry, asphericity is fundamental in the study of manifolds and it is related to the theory of
hyperbolic groups (see [2, 14, 25]).
The concept of diagrammatic reducibility, first studied by Sieradski [29] and Gersten
[10, 11], is related to asphericity. Any diagrammatically reducible (DR) presentation is
aspherical. On the other hand diagrammatic reducibility is intimately connected with the
problem of solving equations over groups. The Kervaire-Laudenbach-Howie conjecture
asserts that any independent system of equations over a group H has a solution in an
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 57M20, 20F05, 20F06, 57M05.
Key words and phrases. Asphericity, DR presentations, labeled oriented trees, weight test, locally indicable groups, Adian presentations.
Researchers of CONICET. Partially supported by grants ANPCyT PICT-2011-0812, CONICET PIP
112-201101-00746 and UBACyT 20020130100369.
1

2

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

overgroup of H [15, 11, 28]. Howie showed that the conjecture is true for locally indicable
groups. Gersten proved that if a presentation P is DR then all systems of equations
over an arbitrary group H modeled on P are solvable in an overgroup of H [11] (see
also [4, 5, 24] for more results in these directions). Gersten also used the concept of
diagrammatic reducibility to study subgroups of hyperbolic groups [12].
One of the best-known tests for asphericity and diagrammatic reducibility of 2-complexes
(or group presentations) is Gersten’s weight test [10, 11] which is a generalization of Sieradski’s coloring test [29]. Gersten’s weight test was further developed by Pride [27] and
generalized by Huck and Rosebrock [21]. All these variants of the weight test are based
on the combinatorial Gauss-Bonnet theorem. Howie attacked asphericity problems with
a different approach, using the notion of local indicability. Recall that a group G is indicable if it admits a nontrivial homomorphism to the infinite cyclic group, and it is locally
indicable if all its nontrivial finitely generated subgroups are indicable. Howie showed
that a connected 2-complex with locally indicable fundamental group and trivial second
homology group is aspherical [16]. He also used the concept of local indicability to deduce
that reducible presentations with no proper powers are aspherical and to prove asphericity
of certain classes of LOT-complexes [19]. In [20] he showed that for n ≥ 3, ribbon n-knots
in S n+2 admit minimal Seifert manifolds provided their associated LOTs have diameter
at most 3.
In this paper we present a new test for studying asphericity and diagrammatic reducibility of group presentations. The I-test provides a criterion for deciding when a presentation
P of an indicable group G is DR. Our test is based on a description of the second homotopy group of the 2-complex KP associated to P as the kernel of the boundary map
e P ) → C1 (K
e P ) in the cellular chain complex of the universal cover of KP , and it uses
C2 (K
basic linear algebra methods. We compare our test with the different variations of the
weight test and use our methods to prove asphericity and diagrammatic reducibility in
cases where known tests fail.
We use our test to obtain generalizations of results of Gersten and Howie on Adian
presentations and LOTs [10, 19]. We introduce the notions of deforestable and weakly
deforestable labeled oriented graph (LOG) and show that their associated presentations
are diagrammatically reducible. These classes strictly contain those LOGs Γ such that
either the initial graph I(Γ) or the terminal graph T (Γ) has no cycles (cf. [19]).
We also apply our methods to investigate a conjecture of Ivanov related to Kaplansky
problem on zero divisors [22]. Suppose P is a finite presentation and Q is obtained from
P by adding one generator x and one relator r. Ivanov conjectured that, under certain
hypotheses, the asphericity of P implies that of Q. Ivanov showed that a counterexample
to this conjecture would provide a torsion-free group G whose integral group ring ZG
contains zero divisors. He proved that the conjecture holds in certain cases, including the
case where the group H presented by P is locally indicable. This follows from results of
Howie. In fact under the hypotheses of the conjecture it is immediate that the locally
indicability of H implies that of G. We prove that the conjecture remains valid if one only
requires that some specific (finitely many) subgroups of G, determined by the relator r,
be indicable (see Theorem 5.4 below). In Theorem 5.5 we show that the conjecture is true
if we are allowed to perturb the relation r.
In the last section of the article we apply our test to derive new results on solvability
of equations over groups. We concentrate on the existence of solutions of one equation

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

3

with many variables. Our results in this direction provide a partial complement to an old
result of Brick [4] and recent results of Klyachko and Thom [23].
2. The I-test
Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i be a presentation of a group G, where A =
{x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } is an alphabet and the relators rj are non-necessarily reduced words in
A ∪ A−1 . If w is a word in A ∪ A−1 , w will also denote the corresponding element
in the free group F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) with basis A and the element p(w) ∈ G, where p :
F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) → G is the quotient map. In particular if g ∈ G, gw denotes the
element g.p(w) ∈ G. The second homotopy group π2 (KP ) of the associated 2-complex
e P ) of the universal cover of KP . The
is isomorphic to the second homology group H2 (K
e P has one 0-cell e0g for each element g ∈ G. For each 1 ≤ i ≤ n, there is an
complex K
oriented 1-cell e1i,g from e0g to e0gxi . For each g ∈ G and 1 ≤ j ≤ m there is an oriented
2-cell e2j,g . If xi is a letter of rj , say rj = wxi w′ for certain words w, w′ , then e1i,gw is a face
2
′
1
of e2j,g with incidence 1. If rj = wx−1
i w , then ei,gwx−1 is a face of ej,g with incidence −1.
i

This yields a description of π2 (KP ) that goes back to Reidemeister and Whitehead (see
e P ) → C1 (K
e P ) in the cellular
[30, pp. 84]), as the kernel of the boundary map ∂ : C2 (K
chain complex. Theorem 2.1 below summarizes these ideas giving equations for π2 which
can be read off from the presentation. If w = xǫi11 xǫi22 . . . xǫill is a (non-necessarily reduced)
word in A ∪ A−1 , where ǫk,w = ǫk = ±1 for each 1 ≤ k ≤ l, the length l(w) = l of w is the
number of letters in w. Given 1 ≤ k ≤ l(w), denote by w(k) the subword of w obtained
ǫk+1
. . . xǫill . For 1 ≤ k ≤ l(w)
by removing the first k − 1 letters of w. That is, w(k) = xǫikk xik+1
define s(k, w) = w(k) if ǫk = 1, and s(k, w) = w(k+1) if ǫk = −1. Let 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Denote
by occ(xi , w) = {1 ≤ k ≤ l | xik = xi } the set of positions in which the letter xi (or its
inverse x−1
i ) occurs in w.
Theorem 2.1. Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn | r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i be a presentation of a group G.
For each 1 ≤ i ≤ n and each g ∈ G consider the integral linear equation Ei,g :
X
X
ǫk,rj njgs(k,rj ) = 0
1≤j≤m k∈occ(xi ,rj )

njh ,

in the unknowns
for 1 ≤ j ≤ m, h ∈ G.
Then KP is aspherical if and only if the unique solution of the system {Ei,g }i,g with
finitely many nontrivial njg is the trivial solution, njg = 0 for each 1 ≤ j ≤ m, g ∈ G.
Remark 2.2. A term njh appears in the equation Ei,g if and only if e1i,g is a face of e2j,h .
Example 2.3. Let P = hx, y, z, w|x2 y 2 z 2 , xyx−1 zyz −1 , w2 x−1 w−1 zi. The equations associated to the generators x, y, z, w are respectively
n1gx2 y2 z 2 + n1gxy2 z 2 + n2gxyx−1zyz −1 − n2gzyz −1 − n3gw−1z = 0,
n1gy2 z 2 + n1gyz 2 + n2gyx−1 zyz −1 + n2gyz −1 = 0,
n1gz 2 + n1gz + n2gzyz −1 − n2g + n3gz = 0,
n3gw2x−1 w−1 z + n3gwx−1 w−1 z − n3gz = 0.
Let G be a finitely presented group. Recall that G is said to be indicable if there exists
an epimorphism from G onto the infinite cyclic group Z. We denote by Gab = G/[G, G]

4

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

the abelianization of G. Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i be a presentation of G.
Denote by q : F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) → F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )ab = Zn the quotient map. We identify
q(xi ) ∈ F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )ab with the i-th vector of the standard basis of Zn .
Lemma 2.4. G is indicable if and only if there is a nonzero vector v ∈ Rn orthogonal to
each q(rj ).
Proof. An epimorphism G → Z induces an epimorphism Gab → Z. Since Gab is isomorphic
to Zn /hq(rj )ij , there exists an epimorphism Zn → Z which is zero in each q(rj ). A
homomorphism Zn → Z is the multiplication by a vector v ∈ Zn . Conversely, a nonzero
vector v ∈ Rn orthogonal to each q(rj ) induces a nontrivial homomorphism f : Gab → R.
Since f (Gab ) is a nontrivial finitely generated torsion free abelian group, it is isomorphic
to Zr for some r ≥ 1, and then G is indicable.

Assume that G is indicable and let v ∈ Rn be a vector orthogonal to each q(rj ).
Given w ∈ F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ), its weight (relative to v) is w = hq(w), vi ∈ R, where h, i
denotes the standard inner product of Rn . If g ∈ G is represented by an element w ∈
F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xm ), we define its weight as g = w. Note that the definition does not depend
on the representative. We define the weight matrix M of P as follows. It is an n × m
matrix whose entries are families of real numbers. The family Mi,j is
Mi,j = {s(k, rj )}k∈occ(xi ,rj )
In other words, Mi,j contains the weights of the subindices g of the unknowns njg which
appear in the equation Ei,1 (corresponding to the generator xi and the trivial element
1 ∈ G) in the statement of Theorem 2.1. Of course, M depends on the vector v. It is
important to note that a number can appear in Mi,j with multiplicity and that Mi,j is
empty if xi does not occur in rj .
Definition 2.5. An n × m matrix M whose entries are (possibly empty) families of
real numbers will be called good if n ≥ m and there exists an ordering j1 , j2 , . . . , jm of the
columns of M and an ordering i1 , i2 , . . . , im of m of the rows, such that for each 1 ≤ k ≤ m
(1) Mik ,jk is non-empty,
m
S
(2) the maximum λk of Mik ,jk is the maximum of the whole row
Mik ,j and
j=1

(3) the multiplicity of λk in

m
S

Mik ,jl is one.

l=k

A presentation P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i satisfies the I-test if there exists a
vector v ∈ Rn , orthogonal to each q(rj ) such that the corresponding weight matrix is good.
In this case we say that P satisfies the I-test for v, and for the orderings j1 , j2 , . . . , jm and
i1 , i2 , . . . , im that make M good.
In Example 2.3 above, the vector v = (1, 0, −1, 2) is orthogonal to q(r1 ) = (2, 2, 2, 0),
q(r2 ) = (0, 2, 0, 0) and q(r3 ) = (−1, 0, 1, 1). The weight matrix M is
r1
x
0, −1
y
−2,
−2

z  −2, −1
w
∅


r2
0, 0
−1, 1
0, 0
∅

r3

−3
∅

− 1
0, −2, −1

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

5

P satisfies the I-test with respect to the orders 2, 3, 1 of the columns and 2, 4, 1 of the
rows: the maximum of the second row is 1 ∈ M2,2 and has multiplicity one in M2,2 ∪M2,3 ∪
M2,1 = {−2, −2, −1, 1}, the maximum of the fourth row is 0 ∈ M4,3 and has multiplicity
one in M4,3 ∪ M4,1 = {−2, −1, 0}, the maximum of the first row is 0 ∈ M1,1 and has
multiplicity one in M1,1 = {−1, 0}.
Theorem 2.6. If P satisfies the I-test, it is aspherical.
Proof. Suppose P satisfies the I-test and let v, j1 , j2 , . . . , jm and i1 , i2 , . . . , im be as in the
definition. If P is not aspherical, there is a nontrivial family of integer numbers {njg }j,g
with finite support, which is a solution to the equations Ei,g . Let α = min{h | h ∈ G and
there exists 1 ≤ j ≤ m such that njh 6= 0}. Let t = min{1 ≤ l ≤ m | there exists h ∈ G
with njhl 6= 0 and h = α} and let h ∈ G be such that njht 6= 0 and h = α. The equation
Eit ,g is
X
X
ǫk,rj njgs(k,rj ) = 0.
1≤j≤m k∈occ(xit ,rj )

The maximum of Mit ,jt is λ = s(k, rjt ) for certain k ∈ occ(xit , rjt ). Let g = hs(k, rjt )−1 .
Then, the term njht appears in the equation Eit ,g . Since njht 6= 0, there must be a second
nonzero term in the equation. However, α = h = g + λ is the maximum among the weights
of all the subindices in Eit ,g . Therefore, any nonzero term must have subindex of weight
α. This cannot happen for terms with superindex jl and l < t by definition of t and this
cannot happen for the other terms either, by the hypothesis on the multiplicity of λ in
m
S
Mit ,jl .

l=t

In the proof of Theorem 2.6 we have only used part of the information given by the
equations Ei,g . Namely, that if the sum of the terms in each equation is zero, then they
are all zero or there are at least two nonzero terms. Therefore we have proved that the
I-test guarantees that P satisfies the following property (p): If {njg }j,g is a family of integer
numbers with finite support, and in each equation Ei,g all the terms are zero or there are
at least two nonzero terms (we do not actually need the family to satisfy the equations),
then all the njg must be trivial.
We will see that property (p) is equivalent to the notion of diagrammatic reducibility.
Recall that a combinatorial 2-complex K (for instance, the complex associated with a
presentation) is said to be diagrammatically reducible (DR) if for each cell structure C
on S 2 and each combinatorial map f : C → K, there exist distinct 2-cells e2 , ee2 of C
with a common 1-face e1 and a homeomorphism h : e2 → ee2 fixing e1 pointwise such
that f |ee2 h = f |e2 . We will say that the presentation P is DR if its standard complex
is DR. This notion is stronger than asphericity. For basic definitions and applications of
diagrammatic reducibility see [10, 11]. In any case, for our purposes only the following
characterization will be needed. This result, due to Corson and Trace, appeared in [9,
Theorem 2.4].
Theorem 2.7 (Corson-Trace). A combinatorial 2-complex K is DR if and only if every
e collapses to a 1-dimensional complex.
finite subcomplex of the universal cover K

To prove that P satisfies property (p) if and only if KP is DR, we argue as follows.
e P of dimension 2
Suppose KP is not DR. Then there exists a finite subcomplex L of K

6

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

without free faces. We define a family {njg }j,g associated to L. For each 1 ≤ j ≤ m and
g ∈ G define njg = 1 if e2j,g ∈ L and njg = 0 otherwise. Then {njg }j,g is a nontrivial family
with finite support which is not a solution to the system {Ei,g }i,g , in general. However,
since each 1-cell e1i,g is a proper face of 0 or ≥ 2 cells, by Remark 2.2, each equation Ei,g
has zero or at least two nonzero terms. Conversely, if {njg }j,g is a nontrivial family with
finite support and each equation Ei,g has zero or at least two nonzero terms, then the
e P generated by the cells e2 such that njg 6= 0, is finite, 2-dimensional,
subcomplex of K
j,g
and has no free faces. Then KP is not DR. Therefore, we have proved
Theorem 2.8. If P satisfies the I-test, KP is DR.
Note that the I-test can only be applied to presentations P such that the presented
group G is indicable and the deficiency of P is non-negative, i.e. n ≥ m. The positivity
of the deficiency automatically implies indicability.
Remark 2.9. Given a presentation P, the set V ⊆ Rn of vectors v orthogonal to every
q(rj ) is naturally described as the solution of a system of m linear equations in n variables.
Given v ∈ V , it is easy to decide algorithmically whether P satisfies the I-test with
respect to v. Moreover, if {v1 , v2 , . . . , vk } is a basis of V , then P satisfies the I-test
with respect to a vector v = λ1 v1 + λ2 v2 + . . . + λk vk and orderings j1 , j2 , . . . , jm and
i1 , i2 , . . . , im of columns and rows if and only P
if certain linearP
inequalities on the λi are
satisfied. A system of equations of the form
λi ci ≥P0 or
λi ci >P0 has a solution
if and only if the system obtained by replacing each
λi ci > 0 by
λi ci ≥ 1 has a
k
solution (if λ = (λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λk ) ∈ R solves the first one, for N large enough N λ solves
the second one). The feasibility can be then decided with linear programming. Therefore
it is algorithmically decidable whether a presentation satisfies the I-test for some vector v.
If P satisfies the I-test for v and orderings j1 , j2 , . . . , jm and i1 , i2 , . . . , im of columns and
rows, then any partial orderings j1′ , j2′ , . . . , jl′ and i′1 , i′2 , . . . , i′l (l ≤ m) satisfying Definition
′ and i′ , i′ , . . . , i′ such that P
2.5 for 1 ≤ k ≤ l can be extended to orderings j1′ , j2′ , . . . , jm
m
1 2
satisfies the I-test for those orderings.
Remark 2.10. If P satisfies the I-test, then any subpresentation of P does. In particular
the Whitehead conjecture is true for presentations satisfying the I-test. The later follows
also from Theorem 2.8.
The following example shows a class of presentations which satisfy our test.
Example 2.11. Let n ∈ N and let
P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn , x|xi xωi = xτi , 1 ≤ i ≤ ni
where ωi , τi are words in which x occurs only with positive exponent. Suppose further
that for each i the total exponent exp(x, ωi ) of x in ωi coincides with exp(x, τi ). We show
that P satisfies our test and therefore it is DR.
The vector v = (0, 0, . . . , 0, 1) is orthogonal to each q(ri ), where ri = xi xωi (τi )−1 x−1 .
The weight of s(1, ri ) = ri is 0. For any other occurrence k ∈ occ(xi , ri ) of xi in ri ,
s(k, ri ) = exp(x, s(k, ri )) < 0. At the same time, all the elements in Mi,j are negative for
j 6= i. Then P satisfies the I-test with respect to v and the natural order 1, 2, . . . , n of the
columns and rows.

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

7

3. Relationship with previous weight tests
Gersten’s weight test provides a useful tool for proving diagrammatic reducibility (and
hence asphericity) of group presentations [10]. In [21] Huck and Rosebrock introduced a
more general weight test which guarantees asphericity. We recall these criteria and exhibit
examples of presentations which satisfy the I-test but not the previous weight tests.
As explained in [21], given a presentation P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i, the Whitehead graph WP is the boundary of a regular neighborhood of the unique vertex of KP . In
other words, WP is the undirected graph (possibly with parallel edges) which can be described as follows. For each word w = xǫi11 xǫi22 . . . xǫill , with ǫi = ±1, consider the graph Ww
whose vertex set is {x1 , −x1 , x2 , −x2 , . . . , xn , −xn } and with an edge (ǫk xik , −ǫk+1 xik+1 )
for each 1 ≤ k ≤ l (subindices considered modulo l). Then WP is the union of all the
graphs Wrj , 1 ≤ j ≤ m.
Suppose that no relator rj is a proper power. A weight function on WP is a real valued
function g on the edges of WP (i.e. the corners of KP ). A weight function g satisfies Huck
and Rosebrock’s weight test if
P
(1) For each 1 ≤ j ≤ m,
g(e) ≤ l(rj ) − 2 and
e∈E(Wrj )

(2) For each simple cycle z in WP ,

P

g(e) ≥ 2.

e∈z

Theorem 2.2 in [21] claims that the existence of a weight function satisfying the test
implies vertex asphericity, a concept which in turn implies asphericity of P. Gersten’s
original weight test requires a stronger hypothesis on the weight function g and implies
diagrammatic reducibility (see [10, Theorem 4.7]).
The following example shows a presentation which satisfies the I-test while no weight
function g satisfies the weight test.
Example 3.1. Let P = hx, y|x3 yxyi. Then P satisfies the I-test but it does not satisfy
the weight test. The Whitehead graph of P appears in Figure 1.

x

-x

-y

y

Figure 1. The Whitehead graph of P = hx, y|x3 yxyi.
Suppose a weight function g satisfies the weight test. Condition (2) implies that the sum
of the weights of the two edges from x to −y is at least 2. The same
P holds for 3the two edges
g(e) ≤ l(x yxy)−2 = 4,
from x to −x and from −x to y. Then condition (1) gives 6 ≤
e∈WP

a contradiction.
The vector v = (1, −2) is orthogonal to q(x3 yxy) = (4, 2). The coefficient of the second
row in the weight matrix is M2,1 = {−3, −2}, so P satisfies the I-test.
Similarly, the presentation P = hx, y|x3 y 3 xyi provides another example of a presentation
which satisfies the I-test but not the weight test.

8

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

The presentations of Example 2.11, which are proved to be DR by the I-test, do not
satisfy in general the weight tests. Take for instance ω1 = x−1
1 x and τ1 = x1 xx1 . Then
the weight test fails independently of the choices of ωi , τi for 2 ≤ i ≤ n.
4. Adian presentations and LOGs
We now apply our test to generalize some results of Howie and Gersten on LOTs and
Adian presentations. This will produce extensive families of DR presentations.
Recall that a labeled oriented graph (LOG) Γ consists of two finite sets V , E, and three
maps ι, τ, λ : E → V . The elements of V are called vertices and the elements of E, edges.
If e ∈ E, ι(e) is called the initial vertex of e, τ (e) its terminal vertex, and λ(e) its label. A
LOG Γ is called a labeled oriented tree (LOT) if the underlying graph is a tree. Associated
with a LOG Γ there is a presentation. An edge e of Γ with initial vertex x, terminal vertex
y and label z, has an associated relator re = xzy −1 z −1 . The presentation corresponding
to a LOG Γ with vertex set V = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } and edge set E = {e1 , e2 , . . . , em } is
PΓ = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn | re1 , re2 , . . . , rem i.
Given a LOG Γ, consider the undirected graph I(Γ) with the same vertex set as Γ and
with an edge (x, y) for each edge of Γ with label x and terminal vertex y. Similarly, define
T (Γ) with the same vertex set and an edge (x, y) for each edge of Γ with initial vertex x
and label y. The following result by Howie ([19, Corollary 10.2]) says that these graphs
can be used to prove asphericity of Γ.
Theorem 4.1 (Howie). If either I(Γ) or T (Γ) is a tree, PΓ is aspherical.
We will prove a generalization of this result.
Definition 4.2. Let Γ be a LOG and let Γ′ be a sub-LOG (i.e. an admissible subgraph,
in Howie’s terminology [19]). We say that there is a deforestation of type IL/T from Γ
to Γ′ if the number of edges in Γ r Γ′ equals the number of vertices in Γ r Γ′ and there
exists an ordering e1 , e2 , . . . , em of the edges of Γ r Γ′ and an ordering x1 , x2 , . . . , xm of
the vertices of Γ r Γ′ such that for each 1 ≤ j ≤ m one of the following holds:
(IL) The number of edges in Γj−1 = Γ r {e1 , e2 , . . . , ej−1 } which have initial vertex xj
plus the number of edges in Γj−1 having label xj is one. Moreover, this unique
edge with initial vertex or label xj is ej .
(T) xj is the terminal vertex of a unique edge in Γj−1 , this edge being ej . Moreover,
there is no edge in Γ whose initial vertex or label is xj .
A deforestation of type TL/I is defined similarly by interchanging the words “initial”
and “terminal”. A LOG Γ is deforestable if there is a deforestation of type IL/T to a
discrete subgraph or a deforestation of type TL/I to a discrete subgraph. Of course, a
LOG Γ is deforestable if and only if its opposite Γop is deforestable.
Proposition 4.3. If Γ is deforestable LOG, PΓ satisfies the I-test.
Proof. Suppose there is a deforestation of type IL/T from Γ to a discrete sub-LOG Γ′ .
Let e1 , e2 , . . . , em and x1 , x2 , . . . , , xm be as in Definition 4.2. Let xm+1 , xm+2 , . . . , xn be
the vertices of Γ′ . Then PΓ = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xm , xm+1 , . . . , xn | r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i, where rj is
the relation associated to ej .
Suppose ej is an edge of Γ with initial vertex x, terminal vertex y and label z (we do
not require them to be different). Then rj = xzy −1 z −1 . In particular v = (1, 1, . . . , 1) is
orthogonal to each q(rj ). We will prove that PΓ satisfies the I-test for v and the natural

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

9

order of the columns and rows of M . The coefficient Mi,j consists of a (possibly empty)
family which contains the elements −1 and 0 with certain multiplicity. If xi is the terminal
vertex of ej , then −1 is an element of this family, if xi is the initial vertex, then 0 ∈ Mi,j ,
and if xi is the label, −1, 0 ∈ Mi,j .
Let 1 ≤ j ≤ m. If condition (IL) holds, then 0 is an element of Mj,j of multiplicity one
and 0 ∈
/ Mj,k for each k > j. If condition (T) holds, then Mj,j = {−1}, Mj,k = ∅ for each
k > j and Mj,k = ∅ or {−1} for each 1 ≤ k ≤ m. This proves that PΓ satisfies our test.
Finally, if there is a deforestation of type TL/I from Γ to a discrete sub-LOG, PΓ
satisfies the I-test for v = (−1, −1, . . . , −1).

Proposition 4.4. Let Γ be a LOG. If T (Γ) or I(Γ) has no cycles, Γ is deforestable.
Proof. Suppose T (Γ) has no cycles and that x1 is a leaf of T (Γ). Then there is a unique
edge e1 of Γ whose initial vertex or label is x1 , but not both simultaneously.
Let Γ1 = Γ r {e1 } and let T1 be the subgraph of T (Γ) induced by the vertices different
from x1 . By induction suppose defined x1 , x2 , . . . , xj and e1 , e2 , . . . , ej . Let Γj = Γ r
{e1 , e2 , . . . , ej } and let Tj be the subgraph of T (Γ) induced by the vertices different from
x1 , x2 , . . . , xj . Let xj+1 be a leaf of Tj . Then there is a unique edge ej+1 of Γj whose
initial vertex or label is xj+1 . This process ends when Tj is discrete for some j, say j = m,
and, then, Γm is also discrete. The orders e1 , e2 , . . . , em and x1 , x2 , . . . , xm constructed
show that there is a deforestation of type IL/T from Γ to Γ′ = Γm r {x1 , x2 , . . . , xm }.
Therefore, Γ is deforestable. Note that condition (T) is never used. If I(Γ) = T (Γop ) has
no cycles, Γop is deforestable, and then so is Γ.

Example 4.5. The following LOT is deforestable but both I(Γ) and T (Γ) have cycles.

1

4
1

2

1

5
3

4

5

There is a deforestation of type IL/T from Γ to a one-vertex LOT. An order of the
vertices which satisfies Definition 4.2 is 5, 3, 2, 1.
In Section 6 we will extend Proposition 4.3 to a wider class of LOGs.
An Adian presentation is a presentation P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |Uj = Vj , j ∈ Ji where Uj
and Vj are non-trivial positive words. Gersten defines the left graph L(P) of P as the
undirected graph whose vertices are the first letters of the words Uj and the first letters
of the words Vj . For each j ∈ J there is an edge (the j-th edge) from the first letter of
Uj to the first letter of Vj . The right graph R(P) is defined similarly considering the last
letters of the words Uj , Vj . Gersten proved the following result [10, Proposition 4.15].
Proposition 4.6 (Gersten). Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |Uj = Vj , j ∈ Ji be an Adian presentation such that l(Uj ) = l(Vj ) for each j ∈ J. If either L(P) or R(P) has no cycles, KP
is DR.
Note that the presentation PΓ associated to a LOG Γ is Adian, and in this case L(P) =
T (Γ) and R(P) = I(Γ). Hence, Proposition 4.6 generalizes Theorem 4.1. We will now use
our methods to prove a generalization of Proposition 4.6.
Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |Uj = Vj , j ∈ Ji be an Adian presentation. We label each edge
of L(P) with a family of generators of P in the following way. Given a generator x = xi ,

10

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

consider those words Uj , Vj containing x, in which x occurs in the left-most position
among all the words Uk , Vk . Then label the corresponding j-th edges of L(P) with x. An
edge may have various labels. In particular, if x occurs simultaneously in Uj and Vj in the
left-most position among all the Uk and Vk , then the j-th edge will have the label x twice.
Note that every generator which appears in some relator will be label of at least one edge
of L(P). Note also that the vertices adjacent to an edge are always labels of that edge.
These labels are called trivial and they are not written in the graphical representation of
L(P). Similarly, we label the edges of the graph R(P) with the generators that occur at
the right-most positions among all the words.
Example 4.7. Let P = hx, y, z, t, u, v|xuz 2 = yutv, yu = zv, y 3 = tx2 , tv 2 = zxu, tx =
zyi. Note that both L(P) and R(P) have cycles. Figure 2 shows the labeled left and right
graphs of P.
y

x

t

u,u
u,v

t

x
z

v

z

v

t

u
y

Figure 2. The labeled left and right graphs of P.
Definition 4.8. Let G be an undirected graph in which each edge is labeled with a family
of elements in a set S. If e is an edge of G which is labeled with a family that contains an
element s ∈ S, which appears only once in total in all the labels of G, then we can remove
the edge e from G. This removal is called a deletion. The graph G is called discretizable
if a graph with no edges can be obtained from G by a sequence of deletions.
Remark 4.9. If P is an Adian presentation and L(P) has no cycles, then L(P) is discretizable. Note that if x = xi is a leaf of L(P), then the edge incident to x is the unique
edge labeled with x. Thus we can delete leaf edges one at the time. Analogously, if R(P)
has no cycles, it is discretizable. Example 4.7 shows a presentation P such that L(P) is
discretizable, although it has cycles. Since x is a leaf of L(P), the edge xy can be deleted.
Now, the generator u appears in a unique label, so edge yz can be removed. Then we
can delete yt, then the edge containing v in its label, and finally the last edge. By Theorem 4.10 below, this presentation is DR. Note that the right graph is not discretizable:
although the edge zv and both edges between x and y can be deleted, the edges between
u and v cannot be removed.
Theorem 4.10. Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |Uj = Vj , j ∈ Ji be an Adian presentation such
that l(Uj ) = l(Vj ) for each j ∈ J. If either L(P) or R(P) is discretizable, P satisfies the
I-test.
Proof. Suppose L(P) is discretizable. We prove that P satisfies the I-test for the vector
v = (1, 1, . . . , 1). If xi is the k-th letter of Uj , the weight s(k, Uj Vj−1 ) = 1 − k is an element
of Mi,j . If xi is the k-th letter of Vj , then s(2l(Uj ) − k + 1, Uj Vj−1 ) = 1 − k ∈ Mi,j .
Thus, if xi appears only once in the labels of L(P), in the j-th edge, then xi is the k-th
letter of Uj or of Vj for some k (but not of both), the first k − 1 letters of Uj and Vj are

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

11

different from xi , and the first k letters of Uj ′ and Vj ′ are different from xi for every j ′ 6= j.
Then 1 − k ∈ Mi,j is the maximum of the whole i-th row in the weight matrix M and
it appears with multiplicity one. The order of deletion of the edges of L(P) induces an
order in the columns and |J| of the rows which proves that P satisfies the I-test. If R(P)
is discretizable, P satisfies our test for v = (−1, −1, . . . , −1).

Remark 4.11. If Γ is a LOG, then L(PΓ ) or R(PΓ ) is discretizable if and only if Γ is
deforestable.
Remark 4.12. These ideas can be easily extended to study diagrammatic reducibility of
more general presentations P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i such that the total exponent
of each relator rj is 0 and each proper final segment (rj )(k) has negative total exponent.
In this case, define L(P) to be the undirected graph whose vertices are the first and last
letters of the relators rj and with an edge (the j-th edge) from the first to the last letter
of rj for each 1 ≤ j ≤ m. The labels of the edges in L(P) are the following. For each
generator xi consider all the total exponents of the words s(k, rj ) with 1 ≤ j ≤ m and
k ∈ occ(xi , rj ) and label the j-th edge of L(P) with xi if the maximum of those exponents
is attained at rj , once for each time this number is attained at rj . Then, if L(P) is
discretizable, P is aspherical.
5. Ivanov’s asphericity conjecture
In [22] Ivanov proposed the following conjecture.
Conjecture 5.1 (Ivanov). Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i be an aspherical presentation and let Q = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn , x|r1 , r2 , . . . , rm , ri be such that:
• The total exponent of x in r is non-zero,
• The group H presented by P naturally embeds in the group G presented by Q, and
• G is torsion-free.
Then Q is aspherical.
It is unknown whether the first hypothesis implies the second one (this is in fact the
statement of the Kervaire Conjecture). Ivanov’s conjecture is related to the Kaplansky
conjecture on zero divisors of a group ring. If Conjecture 5.1 is false, there is a torsion free
group G such that ZG has zero divisors ([22, Theorem 1]). In this section we will prove
two results related to Conjecture 5.1.
Lemma 5.2. Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i be an aspherical presentation and
let Q = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn , x|r1 , r2 , . . . , rm , ri be such that the group H presented by P naturally embeds in the group G presented by Q. Moreover, suppose that for any solution
{njg }1≤j≤m,g∈G ∪ {ng }g∈G of the system {Ei,g }1≤i≤n,g∈G ∪ {Eg }g∈G with finite support, we
have that ng = 0 for every g ∈ G. Here ng denotes the coefficients corresponding to the
relator r and Eg the equations associated to the generator x. Then Q is aspherical.
Proof. Let {njg }1≤j≤m,g∈G ∪{ng }g∈G be a solution of the system {Ei,g }1≤i≤n,g∈G ∪{Eg }g∈G
with finite support. We want to show that all the njg and ng are zero. By hypothesis
ng = 0 for every g ∈ G. Let k ∈ G. Let ι : H → G be the natural embedding. For
each 1 ≤ j ≤ m and each h ∈ H, define n
ejh = njkι(h) . Since ng = 0 for every g ∈ G, the
ei,h associated to the presentation P, reduces to equation Ei,kι(h) associated to
equation E
ei,h }1≤i≤n,h∈H . Moreover, since
Q. Therefore, {e
nj }1≤j≤m,h∈H is a solution of the system {E
h

12

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

njg = 0 except for finitely many (g, j) and the kernel of ι is finite (trivial, in fact), only
finitely many n
ejh are non-zero. Theorem 2.1 implies then that n
ejh = 0 for every h ∈ H and
1 ≤ j ≤ m. In particular, njk = n
ej1 = 0 for every j. Since k ∈ G is arbitrary, by Theorem
2.1, Q is aspherical.

Recall that a group G is said to have the unique product property (upp) if for any two
non-empty finite subsets A, B ⊆ G, there exists g ∈ G such that gA ∩ B has exactly one
element. It is easy to see that if G has the upp, then it is torsion-free and the group ring
ZG has no zero divisors (see [31] for examples of torsion-free groups without the upp).
The result of Ivanov [22, Theorem 1] mentioned above implies then that his conjecture is
true if G has the upp. We give next a direct proof of this result using Lemma 5.2.
Proposition 5.3. Ivanov’s conjecture is true if the group G presented by Q has the unique
product property.
Proof. Let {njg }1≤j≤m,g∈G ∪ {ng }g∈G be a solution with finite support of the system
{Ei,g }1≤i≤n,g∈G ∪ {Eg }g∈G associated to Q. Since the generator x does not appear in
the relators rj , the equation Eg is
X
ǫk,r ngs(k,r) = 0,
k∈occ(x,r)

where occ(x, r) denotes the set of occurrences of x in r. Since the total exponent
of x in r is non-zero, the equation above is not trivial, and it can be rewritten as
(1)

p
X

P

ǫk,r

ai ngsi = 0,

i=1

where p ≥ 1, 0 6= ai ∈ Z for every 1 ≤ i ≤ p, and s1 , s2 , . . . , sp are different elements
of G. Let A = {s1 , s2 , . . . , sp } and B = {g ∈ G|ng 6= 0}. Suppose B is non-empty. By
hypothesis, there exists g ∈ G such that gA ∩ B has a unique element, say h ∈ G. Then
equation (1) above says that nh = 0, a contradiction. Thus, B = ∅ and Lemma 5.2 implies
that Q is aspherical.

As explained in [22], Howie’s results show that Conjecture 5.1 is true when G (equivalently H) is locally indicable, that is, if every nontrivial finitely generated subgroup of
G is indicable (this follows also from Proposition 5.3). The next result improves this.
−1
Concretely, if x occurs k times in r, then we only have to check that certain 2k − k(k+1)
2
subgroups of G are indicable. In the case of 4 occurrences, for instance, the asphericity of
Q would follow from the indicability of a subgroup of G generated by 3 elements and four
subgroups generated by 2 elements each. Recall that a group G is said to be left-orderable
if there exists a total order ≤ in the underlying set of G such that h ≤ h′ implies gh ≤ gh′
for every h, h′ , g ∈ G.
Theorem 5.4. Under the hypothesis of Conjecture 5.1, suppose that for every subset
S ⊆ {s(k, r) ∈ G|k ∈ occ(x, r)} with more than two elements, the subgroup GS of G
generated by the elements s−1 t for s, t ∈ S, is indicable, or, more generally, there exists a
nontrivial homomorphism GS → LS to a left-orderable group LS . Then Q is aspherical.
Proof. For simplicity we assume that each subgroup GS in the statement is indicable. The
proof of the general case is identical. Suppose {njg }1≤j≤m,g∈G ∪ {ng }g∈G is a solution with

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

13

finite support of the system {Ei,g }1≤i≤n,g∈G ∪ {Eg }g∈G . Assume there exists g0 ∈ G such
that ng0 6= 0. Similarly as in the proof of Proposition 5.3, let
p
X

(1)

ai ngsi = 0,

i=1

be the equation Eg associated to x and g ∈ G, where p ≥ 1, ai are nonzero integers and
s1 , s2 , . . . , sp are pairwise different elements of G. Then {s1 , s2 , . . . , sp } ⊆ {s(k, r) ∈ G|k ∈
occ(x, r)}. Let G1 = hs−1
i sj |1 ≤ i, j ≤ pi. If p1 = p > 1, by hypothesis there exists a
nontrivial homomorphism ϕ1 : G1 → Z (for p = 2 this follows from the fact that G is
torsion-free). Let m1 = min{ϕ1 (g)|g ∈ G1 and ng0 g 6= 0}. Note that m1 is well-defined
since ng0 6= 0 and only finitely many ng are non-zero. Let g1 ∈ G1 be such that ng0g1 6= 0
and ϕ1 (g1 ) = m1 . Let M1 = max{ϕ1 (s1 ), ϕ1 (s2 ), . . . , ϕ1 (sp1 )}. By reordering the si if
needed, there exists 1 ≤ p2 ≤ p1 such that ϕ1 (si ) = M1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ p2 and ϕ1 (si ) < M1
for p2 < i ≤ p1 . Since ϕ1 is non-trivial, p2 < p1 . Let G2 = hs−1
i sj |1 ≤ i, j ≤ p2 i.
If p2 > 1, by hypothesis there exists a nontrivial homomorphism ϕ2 : G2 → Z. Let
m2 = min{ϕ2 (g)|g ∈ G2 and ng0g1 g 6= 0}. Let g2 ∈ G2 be such that ng0g1 g2 6= 0 and
ϕ2 (g2 ) = m2 . Let M2 = max{ϕ2 (s1 ), ϕ2 (s2 ), . . . , ϕ2 (sp2 )}. By reordering the si , there
exists 1 ≤ p3 ≤ p2 such that ϕ2 (si ) = M2 for 1 ≤ i ≤ p3 and ϕ2 (si ) < M2 for p3 < i ≤ p2 .
Since ϕ2 is non-trivial, p3 < p2 . This process ends when pl+1 = 1 for some l. Then
ml = min{ϕl (g)|g ∈ Gl and ng0 g1 ...gl−1 g 6= 0}, the minimum attained by some gl ∈ Gl
and the maximum Ml = max{ϕl (s1 ), ϕl (s2 ), . . . , ϕl (spl )} is only attained by s1 . Note that
G1 ⊇ G2 ⊇ . . . ⊇ Gl .
Let g = g0 g1 . . . gl s−1
1 ∈ G. Equation (1) becomes then
p
X

ai ng0 g1 ...gl s−1 si = 0.
1

i=1

Let i > p2 . Since ϕ1 is trivial in G2 , ϕ1 (g1 g2 . . . gl s−1
1 si ) = ϕ1 (g1 ) − ϕ1 (s1 ) + ϕ1 (si ) <
ϕ1 (g1 ) = m1 , thus ng0g1 ...gl s−1 si = 0. Then
1

p2
X

ai ng0 g1 ...gl s−1 si = 0.
1

i=1
ϕ2 (g2 g3 . . . gl s−1
1 si )

If i > p3 , then
ng0 g1 ...gl s−1 si = 0 and

= ϕ2 (g2 ) − ϕ2 (s1 ) + ϕ2 (si ) < ϕ2 (g2 ) = m2 , thus

1

p3
X

ai ng0 g1 ...gl s−1 si = 0.
1

i=1

Following this reasoning we conclude a1 ng0 g1 ...gl = 0, which contradicts the definition
of gl . The contradiction arose from the faulty assumption that there exists g0 ∈ G with
ng0 6= 0. By Lemma 5.2, Q is aspherical.

The following result is a weak version of the conjecture, where we are allowed to perturb
the relation r.
Theorem 5.5. Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i be an aspherical presentation of an
indicable group H and let Q = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn , x|r1 , r2 , . . . , rm , ri be such that the total

14

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

exponent of x in r is non-zero. Then there exists a cyclic permutation r ′ of r, 1 ≤ i ≤ n
and M0 ∈ N such that, for every integer M with |M | ≥ M0 , the perturbed presentation
′
Q′ = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn , x|r1 , r2 , . . . , rm , xM
i ri

is aspherical if H naturally embeds in the group G′ presented by Q′ .
Proof. Let β be the total exponent of x in r. Replacing r by r −1 if needed, we can
assume β > 0. Let occ(x, r) = {k1 , k2 , . . . , kp } be the set of occurrences of x in r, with
1 ≤ k1 (r) < k2 (r) < . . . < kp (r) ≤ l(r). Consider the sequence
S(r) : a1 (r), a2 (r), . . . , ap (r)
where ai is the total exponent of x in the subword s(ki , r). We will prove the following
Claim: there exists a cyclic permutation r ′ of r such that k1 (r ′ ) = 1, ǫ1,r′ = +1 (that
is, that the first letter of r ′ is x+1 ), and ai (r ′ ) < a1 (r ′ ) = β for every i > 1.
If r ′ is a cyclic permutation of r which begins with x+1 , then it is easy to see that
(i) The sequence S(r ′ ) begins with a1 (r ′ ) = β,
(ii) |ai+1 (r ′ ) − ai (r ′ )| ≤ 1 for every 1 ≤ i < p,
(iii) ap (r ′ ) is 0 or 1 (it is 0 if ǫkp (r′ ),r′ = −1 and 1 if ǫkp (r′ ),r′ = 1).
Suppose that for a given cyclic permutation r ′ = r1′ of r which begins with x+1 , there
exists 1 < i ≤ p such that ai (r1 ) ≥ β. Assume i = i1 is maximum with that property. Then
by (ii) and (iii), ai (r ′ ) = β. We will show that ǫki (r′ ),r′ = 1. Assume on the contrary that
ǫki (r′ ),r′ = −1, then i 6= p by (iii), since β 6= 0. Now there are two cases: ǫki+1 (r′ ),r′ = −1
or ǫki+1 (r′ ),r′ = 1. In the first case, ai+1 (r ′ ) = ai (r ′ ) + 1 = β + 1, and in the second,
ai+1 (r ′ ) = ai (r ′ ) = β. Any of these contradicts the maximality of i. We conclude then
that ǫki (r′ ),r′ = 1. Note that the total exponent of x in the subword w = w1 given by
the first ki (r ′ ) − 1 letters of r ′ is 0. We can consider then the cyclic permutation r2′ of
r ′ = r1′ which begins with the ki1 (r1′ )-th letter of r1′ and repeat this argument. If r2′ does
not satisfy the property of the Claim, then there exists 1 < i2 ≤ p such that the total
exponent of x in the subword w2 given by the first ki2 (r2′ )− 1 letters of r2 is 0. If the Claim
is false, there is a sequence w1 , w2 , . . . of subwords of cyclic permutations of r, all of which
have zero total exponent for x. Moreover, the infinite word w1 w2 w3 . . . coincides with the
infinite word r ′ r ′ r ′ . . .. There exist then k, l ∈ N with k < l such that wk wk+1 . . . wl is a
nontrivial power (r0′ )N of a cyclic permutation r0′ of r. But this is absurd since the total
exponent of x in wk wk+1 . . . wl is 0, while the exponent of x in (r0′ )N is N β > 0. This
finishes the proof of the Claim.
Let r ′ be a cyclic permutation of r which satisfies the properties stated in the Claim. Let
q : F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) → Zn and q ′ : F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , x) → Zn+1 denote the abelianization
maps. Since H is indicable, there exists a nonzero vector v = (v1 , v2 , . . . , vn ) ∈ Rn
orthogonal to each q(rj ). Let 1 ≤ i ≤ n be such that vi 6= 0 and let M ∈ Z. Define
′
′
re = xM
i r , let Q be the presentation defined in the statement of the theorem and let
′ r) =
G′ be the group presented by Q′ . Let q ′ (r) =
P (β1 , β2 , . . . , βi , . . . , βn , β). Then q (e
vl βl +M vi
′
. Then vM = (v1 , v2 , . . . , vn , αM )
(β1 , β2 , . . . , βi + M, . . . , βn , β). Define αM = −
β
M vi
r ).
= (v1 , v2 , . . . , vn , α0 ) − (0, 0, . . . , 0, β ) is orthogonal to each q ′ (rj ) and to q ′ (e
′
Let g ∈ G and let Eg
0=

X

k∈occ(x,e
r)

ǫk,er ngs(k,er) =

X

k∈occ(x,r ′ )

ǫk,r′ ngs(k,r′ ) =

p
X
j=1

ǫkj (r′ ),r′ ngs(kj (r′ ),r′ )

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

15

be the equation associated to x and g in Q′ .
′ i = hq ′ (s(k (r ′ ), r ′ )), v ′ i−
The weight of s(kj (r ′ ), r ′ ) is s(kj (r ′ ), r ′ ) = hq ′ (s(kj (r ′ ), r ′ )), vM
j
0
M vi
M vi
′
′
′
′
hq (s(kj (r ), r )), (0, 0, . . . , 0, β )i = cj − β aj (r ), where cj is a constant which does not
depend on M , and aj (r ′ ) is the total exponent of x in s(kj (r ′ ), r ′ ), which appears in the
Claim above. By the Claim aj (r ′ ) < a1 (r ′ ) = β for every j > 1. Then, if |M | is big
enough, the family of weights
{s(kj (r ′ ), r ′ ) | 1 ≤ j ≤ p}
has a maximum or a minimum with multiplicity one. Then, the ideas of Section 2 apply
to show that ng = 0 for every g ∈ G′ . The theorem follows then from Lemma 5.2.

Remark 5.6. There is a DR analogue of Theorem 5.5 obtained by replacing the words
“aspherical” by “DR” in the statement. The proof is identical, considering a finite sube Q′ without free faces, then proving that it cannot have cells of type e2
complex L of K
m+1,g
and then using the hypothesis on P to conclude that L is 1-dimensional.
The DR versions of Proposition 5.3 and Theorem 5.4 do not hold. In fact P = h|i,
Q = hx|x2 x−1 i show that even when P is DR, Q can be non-DR.
6. An extension of the test
The ideas of the previous sections can be applied to a obtain a more general method.
We use this extended test to prove diagrammatic reducibility of a larger class of LOTs
and to study asphericity of presentations when our original I-test fails.
Definition 6.1. A function ϕ : G → P from a group G to a poset P is called order
preserving if ϕ(h) ≤ ϕ(h′ ) implies ϕ(gh) ≤ ϕ(gh′ ) for each g ∈ G (in particular ϕ(h) <
m̀
m
S
ϕ(h′ ) implies ϕ(gh) < ϕ(gh′ )). More generally, a function ϕ :
G=
G × {j} → P is
j=1

j=1

order preserving if ϕ(h, j) ≤ ϕ(h′ , j ′ ) implies ϕ(gh, j) ≤ ϕ(gh′ , j ′ ) for every g ∈ G.
We say that a presentation P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i of a group G satisfies the
m̀

G → P such

extended test if there exists a poset P and an order preserving map ϕ :
j=1

that for every 1 ≤ j ≤ m there is some 1 ≤ i ≤ n with the following property: there
exists k ∈ occ(xi , rj ) such that ϕ(s(k, rj ), j) > ϕ(s(k′ , rj ′ ), j ′ ) for every 1 ≤ j ′ ≤ m and
k′ ∈ occ(xi , rj ′ ) with (k′ , j ′ ) 6= (k, j).
Proposition 6.2. If P satisfies the extended test, it is DR.
Proof. Let {njg }j,g be a nontrivial family of integer numbers with finite support such that
each equation Ei,g has zero or at least two nonzero terms. Let P and ϕ be as in the
definition. The finite subposet {ϕ(g, j)|njg 6= 0} ⊆ P has at least one minimal element,
say ϕ(h, j) for h ∈ G, 1 ≤ j ≤ m. Let 1 ≤ i ≤ n and k ∈ occ(xi , rj ) be as in Definition
6.1. Let g = hs(k, rj )−1 . Since ϕ(gs(k′ , rj ′ ), j ′ ) < ϕ(gs(k, rj ), j) = ϕ(h, j) for each
k′ ∈ occ(xi , rj ′ ) with (k′ , j ′ ) 6= (k, j), the equation Ei,g has a unique nonzero term, which
is a contradiction.

Example 6.3. The I-test is a very particular case of the extended test. Suppose P satisfies
the I-test for v ∈ Rn and the orders j1 , j2 , . . . , jm and i1 , i2 , . . . , im of columns `
and rows.
Consider P = R × {j1 < j2 < . . . < jm } with the lexicographic order and let ϕ : G → P

16

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

be defined by ϕ(g, j) = (g, j). Then ϕ is order preserving and the fact that the weight
matrix M is good implies that ϕ satisfies the required property.
Suppose now that P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i is a presentation and let 1 ≤ n1 <
n2 < . . . < nk = n, 1 ≤ m1 < m2 < . . . < mk = m be such that for each 1 ≤ l ≤ k,
the relators r1 , r2 , . . . , rml are words in the first nl generators. In particular, if v ∈ Rn is
orthogonal to each q(rj ), the weight matrix M (v) is a block matrix


∗
···
∗
M1 (v)


∅
M2 (v)
∗




..
.
..


.
.
..
∅
∅
· · · Mk (v)
Here Ml (v) is the submatrix of M (v) corresponding to rows nl−1 + 1, nl−1 + 2, . . . , nl
and columns ml−1 + 1, ml−1 + 2, . . . , ml .

Theorem 6.4. Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i and let 1 ≤ n1 < n2 < . . . < nk = n,
1 ≤ m1 < m2 < . . . < mk = m be such that for each 1 ≤ l ≤ k, the relators r1 , r2 , . . . , rml
are words in the first nl generators. Let v1 , v2 , . . . , vk ∈ Rn such that each vl is orthogonal
to every q(rj ) and for each 1 ≤ l ≤ k, Ml (vl ) is good (see Definition 2.5). Then P is DR.
Proof. We show that P satisfies the extended test. Let jml−1 +1 , jml−1 +2 , . . . , jml be an
order of the columns ml−1 + 1, ml−1 + 2, . . . , ml that makes Ml (vl ) good. Recall that for
posets P, Q, the join P ∗ Q is the order in the disjoint union of P and Q obtained by
preserving the ordering in each copy and setting p < q for each p ∈ P and q ∈ Q. Define
then
P = (R×{jmk−1 +1 < jmk−1 +2 < . . . < jmk })∗(R×{jmk−2 +1 < jmk−2 +2 < . . . < jmk−1 })∗. . .
. . . ∗ (R × {j1 < j2 < . . . < jm1 }),
in which each factor R × {jml−1 +1 , jml−1 +2 , . . . , jml } is considered with the lexicographic
m̀

G → P by ϕ(g, j) = (g, j), where the weight g is taken with respect

order. Define ϕ :
j=1

to the vector vl if ml−1 + 1 ≤ j ≤ ml . Then ϕ is order preserving and P satisfies the
extended test.

Remark 6.5. Note that even if all the vectors vl in the previous theorem are equal, it may
happen that the blocks Ml (vl ) are good while the weight matrix M is not.
Theorem 6.4 can be used to generalize the notion of deforestability for LOGs.
Definition 6.6. A LOG Γ is weakly deforestable if there is a sequence Γ = Γ0 ⊃ Γ1 ⊃
. . . ⊃ Γk of sub-LOGs of Γ with Γk discrete, such that for each 1 ≤ i ≤ k there is a
deforestation of type IL/T (see Definition 4.2) or a deforestation of type TL/I from Γi−1
to Γi .
Example 6.7. Figure 3 shows a non-deforestable LOT Γ of diameter 4. There is a
deforestation of type IL/T from Γ to the sub-LOT Γ′ given by the horizontal edges. This
sub-LOT is deforestable. Hence Γ is weakly deforestable.
Theorem 6.8. If a LOG Γ is weakly deforestable, the associated presentation P satisfies
the hypothesis of Theorem 6.4. In particular KP is DR.

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

17

6
4
7
9
1

3

2

1

3

5

4

1

5

6
8
7
9

Figure 3. A weakly deforestable LOT of diameter 4.

Proof. If Γ = Γ0 ⊃ Γ1 ⊃ . . . ⊃ Γk are as in Definition 6.6, there exist 1 ≤ n1 < n2 <
. . . < nk = n, 1 ≤ m1 < m2 < . . . < mk = m such that P = PΓ = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 ,
. . . , rm i and for each 1 ≤ l ≤ k, the relators r1 , r2 , . . . , rml are words in the first nl
generators. Moreover, nl − nl−1 = ml − ml−1 is the number of vertices (and edges) in
Γk−l r Γk−l+1 for each l ≥ 2. There exist v1 , v2 , . . . , vk ∈ Rn , each vl equal to (1, 1, . . . , 1)
or to (−1, −1, . . . , −1), such that M1 (v1 ) and the square matrices M2 (v2 ), . . . , Mk (vk ) are
good. Then Theorem 6.4 applies.

A particular case of the extended test which gives a useful generalization of the Itest is the following. Suppose L is a left-orderable group and ψ : G → L is a group
homomorphism. Then for an ordering j1 , j2 , . . . , jm of {1, 2, . . . , m}, consider P = L ×
m̀

{j1 < j2 < . . . < jm }, again with the lexicographic order. The map ϕ :

G → P
j=1

given by ϕ(g, j) = (ψ(g), j) is order preserving and can be used to test the diagrammatic
reducibility of P.
Example 6.9. Let P = hx, y, z|xzx−1 yzy −1 z −1 y −1 , xy −1 x−1 y −1 xyi be a presentation of
a group G. The subspace of vectors orthogonal to q(r1 ) and q(r2 ) is h(1, 1, 1)i ⊆ R3 . It is
easy to check that for any v ∈ h(1, 1, 1)i, the weight matrix M (v) is not good. However
we will see that the extended test can be applied to prove diagrammatic reducibility of P.
Let B4 = hx, y, z|xzx−1 z −1 , xyxy −1 x−1 y −1 , yzyz −1 y −1 z −1 i be the braid group of 4braids. The (opposite of the) Dehornoy ordering is a left-ordering in B4 which satisfies
the following: if an element g ∈ B4 is represented by a word w in the generators which
contains the letter x and no occurrence of x in w`has positive exponent, then g > 1 in B4
(see [7, Section 7.2] for more details). Let ϕ : G G → B4 be the map whose restriction
to each copy of G is the natural homomorphism G → B4 .
The 3 × 2 matrix M defined by Mi,j = {ϕ(s(k, rj ), j)}k∈occ(xi ,rj ) is

18

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

r1
x
1, z −1
−1
y  z , z −1 y −1 , 1
z x−1 , y −1 z −1 , y −1


r2

−1
1, y xy, xy

yx−1 , xy, y 
∅

Then x−1 is the greatest element of the third row while yx−1 is the greatest of the
second one. Therefore P satisfies the extended test.
7. Applications to equations over groups
Recall that a system S of equations over a group H with unknowns x1 , x2 , . . . , xn is a
set {wj (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn )}j of words in H ∗ F (x1 , . . . , xn ) . The letters of wj which lie in
H are called the coefficients of wj . The non-necessarily reduced word rj in the alphabet
−1
{x1 , x1−1 , x2 , x−1
2 , . . . , xn , xn } which is obtained by deleting the coefficients of wj will
be called the shape of wj , and the word rj considered as an element of the free group
F (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) will be called the content of wj . Note that the content of wj is just the
image of wj under the canonical map H ∗ F (x1 , . . . , xn ) → F (x1 , . . . , xn ) which maps H
to the identity.
We say that the system S has a solution in an overgroup of H if there exits a group H ′
which contains H as a subgroup and elements h1 , h2 , . . . , hn in H ′ such that
wj (h1 , h2 , . . . , hn ) = 1 ∈ H ′
for every j. The Kervaire-Laudenbach Conjecture states that for any group H, a unique
equation w with a unique unknown x has a solution in an overgroup of H if w is nonsingular (i.e. if the total exponent of x in w is non-zero). This conjecture has been
proved in many cases, for different groups H and/or equations w. The so called KervaireLaudenbach-Howie Conjecture generalizes this to an arbitrary finite number n of unknowns
and a non-singular system of m equations (in this case, non-singular means that the m × n
matrix of total exponents has rank equal to m). This generalized conjecture has also been
verified in various cases. For example, Howie proved that it holds for locally indicable
groups [15].
Let S be a system of equations w1 , w2 , . . . , wm over a group H. Let P be the presentation
hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |r1 , r2 , . . . , rm i whose generators are the unknowns of S and its relators are
the shapes of the equations wj . A well known result by Gersten [10] states that if P is
DR, then S has a solution in an overgroup of H. In other words, for any group H, any
system of equations modeled by the presentation P has a solution in an overgroup of H.
A presentation with this property is said to be Kervaire. The converse of this result is
false. The presentation P = ht|ttt−1 i is not DR, but it is Kervaire: any equation atbtct−1
modeled by P over any coefficient group H has a solution in an overgroup of H [18].
We concentrate now on solutions of one equation w with many unknowns. By a result
attributed to Pride, for any coefficient group H, if the shape of w is cyclically reduced
(and non-trivial) then the equation has a solution in an overgroup of H (see [10, Corollary
5.7]). In the same direction, as a consequence of a result of Brick [5, Proposition 4.1], for
an arbitrary group H, if the shape of w is reduced (although not necessarily cyclically)
and it is not a proper power, then there is a solution in an overgroup of H.
Recently Klyachko and Thom [23] proved the following result for one equation with
many variables over hyperlinear groups. Note that their result does not depend on the
shape of the equation but only on its content.

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

19

Theorem 7.1 (Klyachko - Thom). Let G be a hyperlinear group. An equation in two variables with coefficients in G can be solved over G if its content does not lie in [F2 , [F2 , F2 ]].
Moreover, if G is finite, then a solution can be found in a finite extension of G.
Here F2 denotes the free group generated by the two unknowns. In general we denote
by Fn the free group generated by the variables x1 , . . . , xn .
We use our methods to prove Kervaireness in many cases which are not covered by
Theorem 7.1 and the previous results of Brick [5].
Lemma 7.2. Let P = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn |ri be a one-relator presentation with r ∈ [Fn , Fn ].
For each k ∈ occ(xi , r), let vk denote the class of s(k, r) ∈ Fn in Fnab = Zn . Let Pi denote
the convex hull of the set {vk }k∈occ(xi ,r) . If for some 1 ≤ i ≤ n there exists k ∈ occ(xi , r)
such that vk is a vertex of the polytope Pi and the multiplicity of vk in {vj }j∈occ(xi ,r) is
one, then P is DR, and therefore Kervaire.
Proof. Suppose i and k are in the hypothesis of the statement. Let H by an hyperplane
of Rn such that H ∩ Pi = {vk }. Let v ∈ Rn be a nonzero vector orthogonal to H. Then
P satisfies the I-test with respect to v or to −v.

Example 7.3. Let P = hx, y|[yx−1 , [x2 , y]]i. The generator x occurs 10 times in the
relator yx−1 x2 yx−2 y −1 xy −1 yx2 y −1 x−2 . The vectors vk for k ∈ occ(x, r) appear in Figure
4

Figure 4. The convex hull of the collection {vk }k∈occ(x,r) .
The repeated vectors (0, −1) and (1, −1) are marked with a cross while the others
appear with a circle. The vector (−1, 0) is a vertex of the convex hull and has multiplicity
one. Therefore P is DR.
It is not difficult to see that Brick’s result [5, Proposition 3.1 (1)] can be derived from
Lemma 7.2.
We now use the lemma to prove two results that cover many cases which are not
contemplated in the results of Brick and Klyachko-Thom. Note that in both cases, the
shapes of the equations involved are non-necessarily reduced.
Proposition 7.4. Let w1 , w2 , . . . , wn be nontrivial words in two variables {x, y}, each of
them positive or negative, and let w = [wn , [wn−1 , . . . , [w2 , [w1 , [x, y]]] . . .]]. Then for any
group H, any equation modeled by w has a solution in an overgroup of H.

20

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

Proof. We prove by induction that the presentation P = hx, y|wi satisfies the I-test with respect to the vector v = (−1, −1). Moreover, we show that the collection {s(k, r)}k∈occ(x,r)
has a positive maximum with multiplicity 1. For n = 0, x occurs twice in r = xyx−1 y −1
and the collection is {0, 1} which satisfies our claim.
Assume now that Q = hx, y|ui satisfies the claim for u = [wn−1 , . . . , [w2 , [w1 , [x, y]]] . . .].
Concretely, the collection {s(k, u)}k∈occ(x,u) is an ordered list a1 , a2 , . . . , aj where j is the
number of occurences of x in u, and this list has a unique maximum, say am , and am > 0.
Then x occurs 2j + 2l times in r = wn uwn−1 u−1 where l is the number of occurences
of x in wn . If k ∈ occ(x, wn ), then k and k′ = 2l(wn ) + l(wn ) − k + 1 are in occ(x, r).
Moreover s(k, r) = s(k′ , r) = s(k, wn ) since the weight of u is zero. If k ∈ occ(x, u), then
k′ = l(wn ) + k and k′′ = 2l(wn ) + 2l(u) − k + 1 are in occ(x, r) and s(k ′ , r) = s(k, u) − wn ,
while s(k′′ , r) = s(k, u). In particular, the collection s(k, r)k∈occ(x,r) is an ordered list of
the form
b 1 , b 2 , . . . , bl , a 1 − w n , a 2 − w n , . . . , a j − w n , b l , . . . , b 2 , b 1 , a j , . . . , a 2 , a 1 .
In the case that wn is a positive word, the sequence b1 , b2 , . . . , bl is strictly increasing, each
bi is non-negative and −wn > bl . In this case, am − w n is the unique maximum of the list
and it is positive.
In the case that wn is negative, b1 , b2 , . . . , bl is strictly decreasing, each bi is negative

and −wn ≤ bl . In this case, am is the unique maximum of the list and it is positive.
If w is a word in the alphabet {x, x−1 } with total exponent zero, then it is clear that
there exists a cyclic permutation of x which is a (non-negative) Dyck word, meaning that
each proper initial segment of w has non-negative total exponent. We will say that a
word w in {x, x−1 } is a strong Dyck word if each initial proper segment has positive total
exponent (positive strong Dyck word) or if each initial proper segment has negative total
exponent (negative strong Dyck word).
If w is a word in the alphabet {x, x−1 , y, y −1 }, the x-shape of w is the word in {x, x−1 }
obtained by removing all the y and y −1 letters.
Proposition 7.5. Let w ∈ [F2 , F2 ] be a non-necessarily reduced word in two variables
l
x, y. Suppose that w has a cyclic permutation w′ = z1l1 z2l2 . . . zpp (each zi ∈ {x, y}, each li
a non-zero integer) with the following properties.
(a) The x-shape of w′ is a strong Dyck word.
(b) z1 = zp−1 = x, zp = y.
Then any equation modeled by w over any coefficient group H has a solution in an
overgroup of H.
Proof. We can assume that w′ = w. We can also assume that the x-shape of w is a positive
strong Dyck word by replacing x by x−1 if necessary. Then the class v1 of s(1, w) = w ∈ F2
in Z2 is (0, 0). Assume that k ∈ occ(x, w) is the last occurence of x in w. Then the class vk
of s(k, w) is (0, lp ) ∈ Z2 . For any other occurence k′ 6= 1, k of x in w, the first coordinate
of vk′ ∈ Z2 is negative by hypothesis. Then v1 (and vk ) is a vertex of the polytope P1 with
multiplicity one in {vj }j∈occ(x,w) . By Lemma 7.2, hx, y|wi is DR.

Example 7.6. The presentation P = hx, y|[y −1 x, [x−1 , y −2 x]]i is Kervaire. We prove
that w = [y −1 x, [x−1 , y −2 x]] satisfies the hypothesis of Proposition 7.5. The x-shape
of w = y −1 xx−1 y −2 x2 x−1 y 2 x−1 yy −2 xx−2 y 2 x is not a strong Dyck word. However, the

A NEW TEST FOR ASPHERICITY AND DIAGRAMMATIC REDUCIBILITY

21

x-shape of the cyclic permutation w′ = xy −1 xx−1 y −2 x2 x−1 y 2 x−1 yy −2 xx−2 y 2 of w is
x2 x−1 x2 x−2 xx−2 which is a positive strong Dyck word. Moreover, following the notation of Proposition 7.5 we have p = 14, z1 = z13 = x and z14 = y, so the result applies.
References
[1] J.F. Adams. A new proof of a theorem of W. H. Cockcroft. J. London Math. Soc. 30 (1955), 482-488.
[2] A. Bartels, W. Lück, S. Weinberger. On hyperbolic groups with spheres as boundary. J. Differential
Geometry 86 (2010), 1-16.
[3] W. Bogley. J.H.C. Whitehead’s asphericity question, in Two-dimensional homotopy and combinatorial
group theory. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 197, Cambridge University Press
(1993).
[4] S. Brick. Normal-convexity and equations over groups. Invent. Math. 94 (1988), no. 1, 81-104.
[5] S. Brick. A note on coverings and Kervaire complexes. Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 46 (1992), 1-21.
[6] I. Chiswell, D. Collins, J. Huebschmann. Aspherical group presentations. Math. Z. 178 (1981), no. 1,
1-36.
[7] A. Clay, D. Rolfsen. Ordered groups and topology. Preprint (2015) Available at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05088
[8] W.H. Cockcroft. On two-dimensional aspherical complexes. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 4, (1954).
375-384.
[9] J.M. Corson, B. Trace Diagrammatically reducible complexes and Haken manifolds. J. Austral. Math.
Soc. (Series A) 69(2000), 116-126.
[10] S.M. Gersten. Reducible diagrams and equations over groups. Essays in group theory, Math. Sci. Res.
Ins. Publ. 8 (Springer Verlag), 1987.
[11] S.M. Gersten. Branched coverings of 2-complexes and diagrammatic reducibility. Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 303(1987), 689-706.
[12] S.M. Gersten. Some remarks on subgroups of hyperbolic groups. Preprint (1999) Available at
http://www.math.utah.edu/~ sg/Papers/sgs.pdf
[13] S.M. Gersten. Asphericity for certain groups of cohomological dimension 2. Preprint (2015) Available
at http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06875
[14] M. Gromov. Hyperbolic groups. Essays in group theory, 75-263, Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., 8, Springer,
New York, 1987.
[15] J. Howie. On pairs of 2-complexes and systems of equations over groups. J. Reine Angew. Math. 324
(1981), 165-174.
[16] J. Howie. On locally indicable groups. Math. Z. 180(1982), 445-451.
[17] J. Howie. Some remarks on a problem of J. H. C. Whitehead. Topology 22 (1983), no. 4, 475-485.
[18] J. Howie The solution of length three equations over groups. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society (1983) 26, 89-96.
[19] J. Howie. On the asphericity of ribbon disc complements. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 289(1985), 281-302.
[20] J. Howie. Minimal Seifert manifolds for higher ribbon knots. The Epstein birthday schrift, 261-293
(electronic), Geom. Topol. Monogr., 1, Geom. Topol. Publ., Coventry, 1998.
[21] G. Huck and S. Rosebrock. Weight tests and hyperbolic groups. In J. Howie, A. Duncan and N. Gilbert
(eds.) Combinatorial and Geometric Group Theory, Vol. 204 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser.
(Cambridge University Press, London, 1995) pp. 174-183.
[22] S.V. Ivanov. An asphericity conjecture and Kaplansky problem on zero divisors. J. Algebra 216(1999),
13-19.
[23] A. Klyachko, A. Thom. New topological methods to solve equations over groups. arXiv:1509.01376
[24] S. Krstić. Systems of equations over locally p-indicable groups. Invent. Math. 81 (1985), no. 2, 373-378.
[25] W. Lück. Aspherical manifolds. Bull. Manifold Atlas (2012) 1-17.
[26] R. Lyndon, P. Schupp. Combinatorial group theory. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 89. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1977. xiv+339 pp.
[27] S. Pride. Star-complexes, and the dependence problems for hyperbolic complexes. Glasgow Math. J. 30,
(1988) 155-170.
[28] C.P. Rourke. On dunce hats and the Kervaire conjecture. Papers presented to Christopher Zeeman,
University of Warwick (1988), 221-230.

22

J.A. BARMAK AND E.G. MINIAN

[29] A.J. Sieradski. A coloring test for asphericity. Quart. J. Math. Oxford (2) 34(1983), 97-106.
[30] A.J. Sieradski. Algebraic topology for two dimensional complexes, in Two-dimensional homotopy and
combinatorial group theory. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 197, Cambridge University Press (1993).
[31] M. Steenbock. Rips-Segev torsion-free groups without the unique product property. J. Algebra 438
(2015), 337-378
[32] J.H.C. Whitehead. On adding relations to homotopy groups. Ann. of Math. (2) 42, (1941). 409-428.
Departamento de Matemática–IMAS, FCEyN, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires,
Argentina
E-mail address: jbarmak@dm.uba.ar
E-mail address: gminian@dm.uba.ar

