CLASSIFYING SPACES FROM
ORE CATEGORIES WITH GARSIDE FAMILIES

arXiv:1710.02992v1 [] 9 Oct 2017

STEFAN WITZEL

Abstract. We describe how an Ore category with a Garside family can
be used to construct a classifying space for its fundamental group(s). The
construction simultaneously generalizes Brady’s classifying space for braid
groups and the Stein–Farley complexes used for various relatives of Thompson’s groups. It recovers the fact that Garside groups have finite classifying
spaces.
We describe the categories and Garside structures underlying certain Thompson groups. The Zappa–Szép product of categories is introduced and used to
construct new categories and groups from known ones. As an illustration of
our methods we introduce the group Braided T and show that it is of type
F∞ .

Our main object of study are groups that arise as the fundamental group of an Ore
category with a Garside family. The two basic motivating examples are the braid
groups Braidn and Thompson’s group F . We provide tools to construct classifying
spaces with good finiteness properties for these groups. Our first main result can
be formulated as follows (see Section 1 for definitions and Section 3 for the general
version).
Theorem A. Let C be a small right-Ore category that is factor-finite, let ∆ be a
right-Garside map, and let ∗ ∈ Ob(C). There is a contractible simplical complex
X on which G = π1 (C, ∗) acts. The space is covered by the G-translates of compact subcomplexes Kx , x ∈ Ob(C). Every stabilizer is isomorphic to a finite index
subgroup of C × (x, x) for some x ∈ C.
Taking C to be a Garside monoid and ∆ to be the Garside element, one immediately
recovers the known fact that Garside groups, and braid groups in particular, have
finite classifying spaces [CMW04]. In fact, if C is taken to be the dual braid monoid,
the quotient G\X is precisely Brady’s classifying space for Braidn [Bra01].
In the case of Thompson’s group F the complex in Theorem A is the Stein–Farley
complex. The action is not cocompact in this case because C has infinitely many
objects. In order to obtain cocompact actions on highly connected spaces, we
employ Morse theory.
Theorem B. Let C, ∆, ∗ be as in Theorem A and let ρ : Ob(C) → N be a height
function such that {x ∈ Ob(C) | ρ(x) ≤ n} is finite for every n ∈ N. Assume that
( stab)
( lk)

C × (x, x) is of type Fn for all x,
|E(x)| is (n − 1)-connected for all x with ρ(x) beyond a fixed bound.

Then π1 (C, ∗) is of type Fn .
Date: October 10, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 57M07; Secondary 20F65, 20F36.
Key words and phrases. Classifying spaces, Ore categories, Garside structures, braid groups,
Thompson groups, finiteness properties.
1

2

S. WITZEL

The methods for proving Theorem B have been repeatedly used to show that various Thompson groups are of type F∞ [Bro87, Ste92, Far03, FMWZ13, BFM+ 16,
WZc, MPMN16, BF]. Theorem B could be used as a drop-in replacement in most
of the proofs. The complexes |E(x)| depend on C and ∆ and are described in Section 3.4. In general, verifying condition (lk) is the key problem in all the F∞ proofs
mentioned.
Theorem B provides a general scheme for proving that an (eligible) group is of
type F∞ : first describe the category, second analyze the complexes |E(x)|, and
then apply the theorem. This scheme will be illustrated in Section 5 (describe
the category) and Section 6 (analyze the complexes, apply the theorem) on the
examples of Thompson’s groups F , T and V , their braided versions and some other
groups. To our knowledge this is the first time that Garside structures are studied
in connection with Thompson groups. In the course we define the Thompson group
BT , braided T , and prove (see Theorem 6.7):
Theorem C. The braided Thompson group BT is of type F∞ .
Although braided versions of V [Deh06, Bri07] and F [BBCS08] exist in the literature, our main merit is to be able to define braided T . The fact that it is F∞ then
follows from Theorem B and results from [BFM+ 16]. The reason that BT was not
defined before is that the natural categorical approach was artificially and painfully
avoided in the past, see Remark 5.11.
A helpful tool in describing the needed categories is the Zappa–Szép F ./ G product
of two categories F, G. We call it the indirect product and introduce it in Section 4.
The article is organized as follows. The basic notions are introduced in Section 1.
The underlying structures for braid groups and Thompson’s group F are described
in Section 2. Section 3 contains the main construction and the proofs of Theorems A
and B. The indirect product of categories is introduced in Section 4 and is used
in Section 5 to construct the categories underlying Thompson’s groups and their
braided versions. In Section 6 Theorem B is applied to the examples from Section 5
to deduce finiteness properties, among them Theorem C. Since the results about
finiteness properties and the indirect product may be of independent interest, we
include the following leitfaden.
Section 1

Section 2

Section 4

Section 3

Section 5
Section 6
This article arose out of the introduction to the author’s habilitation thesis [Wit16]
which contains further examples not covered here.
1. Categories generalizing monoids
We start by collecting basic notions of categories regarding them as generalizations
of monoids. Our exposition is based on [DDG+ 15, Chapter II] where the perspective
is similar. The main difference is notational, see Remark 1.1 below.

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

3

A monoid may be regarded as (the set of morphisms) of a category with a single object. For us categories will play the role of generalized monoids where the
multiplication is only partially defined. In particular, all categories in this chapter
will be small. The requirement that they be locally small is important and taking
them to be small is convenient, for example, it allows us to talk about morphisms
of categories as maps of sets.
Let C be a category. Notationally, we follow [DDG+ 15] in denoting the set of
morphisms of C by C as well (thinking of them as elements), while the objects are
denoted Ob(C). The identity at x will be denoted 1x . If f is a morphism from y
to x we call y the source and x the target of f . Our notation for composition is
is the familiar one for functions, that is, if f is a morphism from y to x and g is a
morphism from z to y then f g exists and is a morphism from z to x. If x, y ∈ Ob(C)
then the set of morphisms from y to x is denoted C(x, y), the set of morphisms from
y to any object is denoted C(−, y) and the set of morphisms from any object to x is
denoted C(x, −). This may be slightly unusual but renders the following intuitive
expression valid:
f ∈ C(x, y), g ∈ C(y, z) ⇒ f g ∈ C(x, z).
The corresponding diagram is
x

f

y

g

z.

fg
When we write an expression involving a product of morphisms, the requirement
that this product exists is usually an implicit condition of the expression. Thus
f g = h means that the source of f is the target of g and that the equality holds.
Remark 1.1. The net effect of the various differences in notation is that our
formalism is consistent with [DDG+ 15], only the meaning of source/target, from/to,
and the direction of arrows are switched. The reason for this decision is that some
of our morphisms will be group elements which we want to act from the left.
1.1. Groupoids. A morphism f ∈ C(x, y) is invertible if there is an inverse, namely
a morphism g ∈ C(y, x) such that f g = 1x and gf = 1y . A groupoid is a category
in which every morphism is invertible. Just as every monoid naturally maps to a
group, every category naturally maps to a groupoid, see [DDG+ 15, Section 3.1]:
Theorem 1.2. For every category C there is a groupoid Gpd(C) and a morphism
ι : C → Gpd(C) with the following universal property: if ϕ : C → G is a morphism to
a groupoid then there is a unique morphism ϕ̂ : Gpd(C) → G such that ϕ = ϕ̂ ◦ ι.
The groupoid Gpd(C) and the morphism ι are determined by C uniquely up to unique
isomorphism.
We call Gpd(C) the enveloping groupoid of C. The morphism ι is a bijection on
objects but it is not typically injective (on morphisms). One way to think about
the enveloping groupoid is as the fundamental groupoid of C:
The nerve of C is the simplicial set whose k-simplices are diagrams
x0

f1

x1

f2

x2

xk−1

fk

xk

in C. The ith face is obtained by deleting xi and replacing fi , fi+1 by fi fi+1 and
the jth degenerate coface is obtained by introducing 1xj between fj and fj+1 .

4

S. WITZEL

Proposition 1.3 ([Qui73, Proposition 1]). The groupoid Gpd(C) is canonically
isomorphic to the fundamental groupoid of the realization of the nerve of C.
In particular, the fundamental group of C in an object x is just the set of endomorphisms of Gpd(C) in x: π1 (C, x) = Gpd(C)(x, x).
1.2. Noetherianity conditions. If f g = h then we say that f is a left-factor of
h and that h is a right-multiple of f . It is a proper left-factor respectively proper
right-multiple if g is not invertible. We say that f is a (proper) factor of h if ef g = h
(and one of e and g is not invertible).
The category C is Noetherian if there is no infinite sequence f0 , f1 , . . . such that
fi+1 is a proper factor of fi . It is said to be strongly Noetherian if there exists
a map δ : C → N that satisfies δ(f g) ≥ δ(f ) + δ(g) and for f ∈ C non-invertible
δ(f ) ≥ 1. Clearly, a strongly Noetherian category is Noetherian. See [DDG+ 15,
Sections II.2.3, II.2.4] for a detailed discussion.
We call a height function a map ρ : Ob(C) → N such that ρ(x) = ρ(y) if C(x, y)
contains an invertible morphism and ρ(x) < ρ(y) if C(x, y) contains a non-invertible
morphism. Note that the existence of a height function implies strong Noetherianity
by taking δ(f ) = ρ(y) − ρ(x) if f ∈ C(x, y).
We say that C is factor-finite if every morphism in C has only finitely many factors up pre- and post-composition by invertibles. This condition implies strong
Noetherianity (cf. [DDG+ 15, Proposition 2.48]).
1.3. Ore categories. Two elements g, h ∈ C(x, −) have a common right-multiple d
if there exist elements e, f ∈ C with ge = hf = d. It is a least common right-multiple
if every other common right-multiple is a right-multiple of d. We say that C has
common right-multiples if any two elements with same target have a common rightmultiple. We say that it has conditional least common right-multiples if any two
elements that have a common right-multiple have a least common right-multiple.
We say that it has least common right- multiples if any two elements with same
target have a least common right- multiple. We say that C is left-cancellative if
ef = eh implies f = h for all e, f, g ∈ C. All of these notions have obvious analogues
with left and right interchanged. A category is cancellative if it is left-cancellative
and right-cancellative.
Lemma 1.4. If C is cancellative and f ∈ C has a left-inverse or right-inverse then
it is invertible.
Proof. Let f ∈ C(x, y) and assume that there is an e ∈ C(y, x) that is a left-inverse
for f , that is, ef = 1y . Then f ef = f and canceling f on the right shows that e is
also a right-inverse. The other case is symmetric.

Lemma 1.5. Let C be strongly Noetherian. Then C has least common rightmultiples if and only if it has greatest common left-factors.
Proof. Suppose that C has least common right-multiples and let f, g ∈ C(x, −). Let
s and t be common left-factors of f, g and let r be a least common right-multiple
of s and t. Then, since f and g are common right-multiples of s and t, they are
right-multiples of r, meaning that r is a common left-factor. If s and t are not rightmultiples of each other then δ(r) > δ(s), δ(t) and an induction on δ(r) ≤ δ(f ), δ(g)
over the common left-factors of f and g produces a greatest common left-factor.
The other direction is analogous.


CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

5

We say that C is right/left-Ore if it is cancellative and has common right/leftmultiples.
Theorem 1.6. A category C that is right-Ore embeds in a groupoid G such that
every element h ∈ G can be written as h = f g −1 with f, g ∈ C.
The groupoid G in the theorem is called the Ore localization Ore(C) of C. Using
the universal property, it is not hard to see that it coincides with the enveloping
groupoid of C.
The fundamental group of an Ore category has a particularly easy description. In
general, an element of π1 (C, x) is represented by a sequence f0 g1−1 f1 · · · fn−1 gn−1
with fi , gi ∈ C(xi , −) and fj , gj+1 ∈ C(−, yj ). But if C has common right-multiples,
−1
then g1−1 f1 can be rewritten as f10 g10
and so the sequence can be shortened to
0
0 −1
−1
(f0 f1 )(g2 g1 ) f2 · · · fn−1 gn . Iterating this argument, we find that every element
of π1 (C, x) is of the form f g −1 with f, g ∈ C(x, −).
1.4. Presentations. We introduce presentations for categories. This is analogous
to the situation for monoids and we will be brief. See [DDG+ 15, Section II.1.4] for
details.
A (small) precategory S consists of a set of objects Ob(S) and a set of morphisms
S. As for categories, each morphism has a source and a target that are objects and
it is a morphism from the source to its target. The set of morphisms from y to x is
denoted S(y, x). The monoidal aspects of a category are missing in a precategory:
it does not have identities or a composition.
Given a precategory S there exists a free category S ∗ generated by S. It has the
universal property that if φ : S → C is a morphism of precategories and C is a
category, then φ uniquely factors through S → S ∗ . One can construct S ∗ to have
the same objects as S and have morphisms finite words in S that are composable.
A relation is a pair r = s of morphisms in S ∗ with same source and target. If
φ : S ∗ → C is a morphism, the relation holds in C if φ(r) = φ(s). A presentation
consists of a precategory S and a family of relations R in S ∗ . The category it
presents is denoted hS | Ri.
It has the universal property that if φ : S → C is a morphism of precategories and
C is a category in which all relations in R hold then φ uniquely factors through
S → hS | Ri. One can construct hS | Ri by quotienting S ∗ by the symmetric,
transitive closure of the relations.
1.5. Garside families. The following notions are at the core of [DDG+ 15]. We
will sometimes be needing the notions with the reverse order. What in [DDG+ 15]
referred to as a Garside family in a left-cancellative category, will be called a
left-Garside family here to avoid confusion in categories that are left- and rightcancellative.
Let C be a left-cancellative category and let S ⊆ C be a set of morphisms. We
denote by S ] the set C × ∪ SC × of morphisms that are invertible or left-multiples of
invertibles by elements of S. We say that S ] is closed under (left/right-) factors if
every (left/right-) factor of an element in S ] is again in S ] . An element s ∈ S is an
S-head of f ∈ C if s is a left-factor of f and every left-factor of f is a left-factor of s
[DDG+ 15, Definition IV.1.10]. The set S is a left-Garside family if S ] generates C,
is closed under right-factors, and every non-invertible element of C admits and Shead [DDG+ 15, Proposition IV.1.24]. If S is a left-Garside family then C × S ⊆ S ] ,
so in fact S ] = C × ∪ C × SC × [DDG+ 15, Proposition III.1.39].

6

S. WITZEL

All notions readily translate to right-Garside families, except that the head is called
an S-tail if S is a right-Garside family. Note that S ] is defined as C × ∪ C × S when
S is (regarded as) a right-Garside family.
We will be interested in Garside families that are closed under factors. We describe
two situations where this is the case.
Let C be left-cancellative and consider a map ∆ : Ob(C) → C with ∆(x) ∈ C(x, −).
We write
Div(∆) = {g ∈ C | C(x, −) 3 g ∃h ∈ C gh = ∆(x)}
g
Div(∆)
= {h ∈ C | ∃x∃g ∈ C(x, −) gh = ∆(x)}
for the families of left- respectively right-factors of morphisms in the image of ∆.
g
Such a map is a right-Garside map if Div(∆) generates C, if Div(∆)
⊆ Div(∆),
and if for every g ∈ C(x, −) the elements g and ∆(x) admit a greatest common
left-factor. If ∆ is a right-Garside map then Div(∆) is a left-Garside family closed
under left-factors and thus under factors [DDG+ 15, Proposition V.1.20]. We note
the following for future reference.
Observation 1.7. Let C be a left-cancellative, factor-finite category and let ∆ be a
right-Garside map. Then S := Div(∆) is a left-Garside family closed under factors
and S(x, −) is finite for every x ∈ Ob(C).
Let C be right-Ore. A right-Garside family is strong if for s, t ∈ S ] there exist
s0 , t0 ∈ S ] such that st0 = ts0 is a least common right-multiple of s and t [DDG+ 15,
Definition 2.29]. If S is a strong right-Garside family then S ] is also closed under
left-factors and thus is closed under factors [DDG+ 15, Proposition 1.35].
2. Fundamental examples
2.1. Thompson’s group F and the category F. Our description of Thompson’s
groups is not the standard one, which can be found in [CFP96]. An element of
Thompson’s group F is given by a pair (T+ , T− ) of finite rooted binary trees with
the same number of leaves, say n. If we add a caret to the ith leaf (1 ≤ i ≤ n)
of T+ , that is we make it into an inner vertex with to leaves below it, we obtain a
tree T+0 on n + 1 vertices. If we also add a caret to the ith leaf of T− we obtain
another tree T−0 . We want to regard (T+0 , T−0 ) as equivalent to (T+ , T− ) so we take
the reflexive, symmetric, transitive closure of the operation just described and write
the equivalence class by [T+ , T− ]. Thompson’s group F is the set of equivalence
classes [T+ , T− ].
In order to define the product of two elements [T+ , T− ] and [S+ , S− ] we note that
we can add carets to both tree pairs to get representatives [T+0 , T 0 ] = [T+ , T− ] and
[T 0 , T−0 ] = [S+ , S− ] where the second tree of the first element and the first tree of
the second element are the same. Therefore multiplication is completely defined
by declaring that [T+0 , T 0 ] · [T 0 , T−0 ] = [T+0 , T−0 ]. It is easy to see that [T, T ] is the
neutral element for any tree T and that [T+ , T− ]−1 = [T− , T+ ].
We have defined the group F in such a way that a categorical description imposes
itself, cf. [Bel04]. We define F to be the category whose objects are positive natural
numbers and whose morphisms m ← n are binary forests on m roots with n leaves.
Multiplication of a forest E ∈ F(`, m) and a forest F ∈ F(m, n) is defined by
identifying the leaves of E with the roots of F and taking EF to be the resulting
tree. Pictorially this corresponds to stacking the two forests on top of each other
(see Figure 1).

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

...

7

...

=
...

Figure 1. Multiplication of forests (taken from [WZa]).
Proposition 2.1. The category F is strongly Noetherian and right-Ore. In fact,
it has least common right-multiples and greatest common left-factors.
Proof. The identity map ρ : N = Ob(F) → N is a height function on F. Thus F is
strongly Noetherian.
The least common right-multiple of two forests in F(m, −) is their union (regarding
both forests as subforests of the leafless binary forest on m roots). The greatest
common left-factor is their intersection. Left cancellativity means that given a
forest f ∈ F(m, `) and a left-factor a ∈ F(m, n) the forest in b ∈ F(n, `) with
f = ab is unique. Indeed it is the forest obtained from f by removing a and turning
the leaves of a into roots. Right cancellativity means that a is uniquely determined
if f = ab. To see this, we identify the leaves of f with the leaves of b. Now the
common predecessor in f of a set of leaves of a tree of b is a leaf of a and every leaf
of a arises in that way.

The proposition together with the remark at the end of Section 1.3 shows that
every element of π1 (F, 1) is represented by f g −1 where f, g ∈ F(1, −) are binary
−1
trees. Cancellativity ensures that f g −1 = f 0 g 0 if and only if there exist h and h0
0 0
0 0
such that f h = f h and gh = g h . Comparing this description with our definition
of F we see:
Proposition 2.2. Thompson’s group F is isomorphic to π1 (F, 1).
Later on it will be convenient to have a presentation for F. The shape of the
relations will not come as a surprise to the reader familiar with Thompson’s groups.
A proof can be found in [Wit16].
Proposition 2.3. The category F has a presentation with generators morphisms
λni : n ← n + 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n subject to the relations
(2.1)

λni λn+1
= λnj λn+1
j
i+1

for

1 ≤ j < i ≤ n.

n−1
Every morphism in F(m, n) can be written in a unique way as λm
im · · · λin−1 with
(ij )j non-decreasing.

Remark 2.4. The relations (2.1) reflect a commutation phenomenon: for any forest
adding a caret to the ith leaf and then to the jth leaf has the same effect as doing
it the other way around. That it does not algebraically look like a commutation
relation is due to the fact the the index of the right one of the two leaves has
changed when adding the left caret. This is inevitable in the present setup because
the ith leaf has no identity as a particular vertex in the infinite rooted binary
tree but simultaneously represents all ith leaves of trees with n leaves. A larger
category in which the relations are algebraically commutation relations will appear
in Section 5.5.

8

S. WITZEL

Note that since F is connected, the fundamental groups at different objects are
isomorphic. This corresponds to the elementary fact that the tree pair (T+ , T− )
representing an element of F can always be chosen so that T+ , T− contain an
arbitrary fixed subtree.
The most convenient way to exhibit a Garside family in F is by describing a rightGarside map: for every n ∈ N = Ob(F) let ∆(n) be the forest where every tree is
a single caret.
Proposition 2.5. The map ∆ : Ob(F) → F is a right-Garside map.
Proof. The family Div(∆) consists of morphisms where every forest is either a single
caret or trivial. Every forest can be built of from these, for example by adding one
g
caret at a time. This shows that Div(∆) generates F. The family Div(∆)
also
consists of morphisms where every forest is either a single caret or trivial with the
additional condition that the total number of leaves is even and the left leaf of every
g
caret has an odd index. In particular Div(∆)
⊆ Div(∆). If g ∈ F(x, −) then g and
∆(x) have a greatest common left-factor by Proposition 2.1.

With Observation 1.7 we get:
Corollary 2.6. The category F admits a left-Garside family S that is closed under
factors such that S(x, −) is finite for every x ∈ F.
Remark 2.7. The family Div(∆) is in fact a right- as well as a left-Garside family.
It is strong as a right-Garside family but not as a left-Garside family.
If instead of rooted binary trees one takes rooted n-ary trees (n ≥ 2) in the description above, one obtains the category Fn . Everything is analogous to F but the new
aspect that occurs for n > 2 is that the category is no longer connected: the number
of leaves of an n-ary tree with r roots will necessarily be congruent to r modulo
n − 1, hence there is no morphism in Fn connecting objects that are not congruent
modulo n−1. As a consequence, the point at which the fundamental group is taken
does matter and we obtain n − 1 different groups for each category. It turns out,
however, that the fundamental groups are in fact isomorphic independently of the
basepoint and so one only defines
Fn = π1 (Fn , 1).
The groups Fn are the smallest examples of the Higman–Thompson groups introduced by Higman [Hig74]. As we will see later, the fundamental groups of the
different components are non-isomorphic in the categories for the larger Higman–
Thompson groups.
2.2. Braid groups. The braid group on n strands, introduced by Artin [Art25], is
the group given by the presentation


σi σj = σj σi ,
|i − j| ≥ 2,
(2.2) Braidn = σ1 , . . . , σn−1
.
σi σi+1 σi = σi+1 σi σi+1 , 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 2
Its elements, called braids, can be conveniently depicted as braid diagrams as in
Figure 2, illustrating a physical interpretation as braids on n strands. The first
relations are commutation relations, the second are braid relations. The group
Braidn arise as the fundamental group of the configuration space of n unordered
points in the disc and as the mapping class group of the n-punctured disc, see
[Bir74, KT08] for more details.

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

9

=

Figure 2. Diagrams illustrating the braid relation.

What is known as Garside Theory today arose out of Garside’s study of braid
groups [Gar69]. In this classical case, the category C has a single object and thus is
a monoid. Specifically, a Garside monoid is a monoid M with an element ∆ ∈ M ,
called a Garside element, such that
(i) M is cancellative and has least common right- and left-multiples and greatest common right- and left-factors,
(ii) the left- and right-factors of ∆ coincide, they are finite in number, and
generate M ,
(iii) there is a map δ : M → N such that δ(f g) ≥ δ(f ) + δ(g) and δ(g) > 0 if
g 6= 1.
A Garside group is the group of fractions of a Garside monoid. Among the main
features of Garside groups is that they have solvable word problem and conjugacy
problem.
Note that a Garside monoid, regarded as a category with one object is, by definition,
left- and right-Ore and strongly Noetherian. Moreover the family of factors of ∆ is
a left- and right-Garside family.
To see that braid groups are in fact Garside groups consider the braid monoid
Braid+
n . It is obtained by interpreting the presentation (2.2) as a monoid presentation. It is a non-trivial consequence of Garside’s work that the obvious map
Braid+
n → Braidn is injective so that the braid monoid can be regarded as a subset of the braid groups. Its elements are called positive braids and are characterized
by the property that left strands always overcrosses the right strand. The element
∆ in Braid+
n is the braid that performs a full half twist and is characterized by the
fact that every strand crosses every other strand precisely once, see Figure 3. Its
(left- or right-) factors are the braids where every strand crosses every other strand
at most once. The function δ is simply number of crossings, which is the same as
length as a word in the generators. Now Braid+
n is a Garside monoid with Garside
element ∆, see [DDG+ 15, Section I.1.2, Proposition IX.1.29]. Its group of fractions
is Braidn which is therefore a Garside group.
It was noted by Birman–Ko–Lee [BKL98] that there is in fact another monoid
∗
Braid∗+
n , called the dual braid monoid, that also admits a Garside element ∆
+
and has Braidn as its group of fractions, see also [DDG 15, Section I.1.3]. This
monoid is in many ways better behaved than Braid+
n . Brady [Bra01] used the dual
braid monoid to construct a finite classifying space for the braid group.
Note that adding the relations σi2 to the presentation (2.2) results in a presentation
for the symmetric group Symn . In particular, there is a surjective homomorphism
π : Braidn → Symn that takes σi to the transposition si := (i i + 1).

10

S. WITZEL

Figure 3. The element ∆ in Braid+
7.
The symmetric group is a finite Coxeter group and the braid group is its corresponding Artin group. For every Coxeter system (W, S) there exists an Artin group
AW obtained analogously and a morphism π : AW → W . Whenever W is finite,
the Artin group AW again contains a Garside monoid and a dual Garside monoid,
see [BS72, Bes03].
3. Finiteness properties of fundamental groups of Ore categories
A classifying space for a group G is a CW complex B whose fundamental group
is G and whose universal cover X = B̃ is contractible. Since G acts freely on X
with quotient B = G\X, one can equivalently say that a classifying space is the
quotient of a contractible CW complex by a free G-action. Our goal in this section
is to construct “good” classifying spaces for fundamental groups of Ore categories.
The best classifying spaces are compact ones; they have finitely many cells so we
also refer to them as finite. If G admits a finite clasifying space, we say that it is of
type F . If a finite classifying space does not exist we aim at classifying spaces with
weaker finiteness properties. We start by constructing an action on a contractible
space.
3.1. Contractible spaces from Ore categories with Garside families. Let
C be a category that is right-Ore and strongly Noetherian. Let S be a left- or
right-Garside family such that S ] is closed under factors. Let ∗ ∈ Ob(C) be a base
object. Our goal is to construct a contractible space X on which π1 (C, ∗) acts with
good finiteness properties of the stabilizers as well as the quotient. In the whole
discussion C can be replaced by the component of ∗ in C so all assumptions only
need to be made for objects and morphisms in that component.
We put E = S ] and recall that E = C × ∪ C × SC × . We call the elements of E
elementary. Let δ : C → N be a map that witnesses strong Noetherianity. Note
that if f ∈ C(x, y) and g ∈ C × (−, x) and h ∈ C × (y, −) are invertible then
−δ(g −1 ) + δ(f ) − δ(h−1 ) ≥ δ(gf h) ≥ δ(g) + δ(f ) + δ(h)
so δ(f ) = δ(gf h) and δ is invariant under pre- and postcomposition by invertibles.
We define the set P = Ore(C)(∗, −)/C × , that is, elements of P are equivalence
classes ā of elements a ∈ Ore(C)(∗, −) modulo the equivalence relation that ā = ā0
if there exists a g ∈ C × with ag = a0 . We define a relation ≤ on P by declaring
ā ≤ b̄ if there exists an f ∈ C with af = b.
Lemma 3.1. The relation ≤ is a partial order on P in which any two elements
have a common upper bound. In particular, the realization |P | is contractible.

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

11

Proof. Note first that whether f = a−1 b lies in C is independent of the representatives. Reflexivity and transitivity are clear. If ā ≤ b̄ ≤ ā then there exist f, h ∈ C
and g ∈ C × such that af = b and bh = ag showing that f h is a unit. In particular,
f has a right-inverse and h has a left-inverse so f and h are units by Lemma 1.4.
This shows ā = b̄.
For any a ∈ Ore(C) there is an f ∈ C such that af ∈ C. Since C has common
right-multiples, it follows that for any two elements a1 , a2 ∈ Ore(C) there exist
f1 , f2 ∈ C with a1 f1 = a2 f2 .

We define a second, more restrictive relation  on P by declaring that ā  b̄ if there
exists an e ∈ E with ae = b. Note that this relation will typically not be transitive.
However, if ā  b̄ and ā ≤ c̄ ≤ b̄ then ā  c̄  b̄ because E is closed under factors.
The complex X ⊆ |P | consists of those chains in |P | that are chains with respect
to . In particular, P is the vertex set of X.
Proposition 3.2. The complex X is contractible.
Proof. Note that X is a subspace of |P | containing all the vertices. One can obtain
|P | from X by gluing in (realizations of) intervals [ā, b̄] not yet contained in X. To
¯ is a proper subinterval of [ā, b̄] with
organize the gluing, note the following: if [c̄, d]
−1
−1
f = a b ∈ C and h = c d ∈ C then h is a proper factor of f . To an interval [ā, b̄]
with f = a−1 b we assign the height δ̂([ā, b̄]) = δ(f ). Note that this is well-defined,
because any other representative f 0 will differ from f only by invertibles and δ
is invariant under pre- and postcomposition by invertibles. Note also that proper
subintervals have strictly smaller δ̂-value. We can therefore glue in the intervals
with increasing value of δ̂ and are sure that when we glue in an interval, any proper
subinterval is already glued in.
For any n ∈ N let |P |δ̂<n be the subcomplex of |P | consisting of X and intervals of
δ̂-value < n. If X was not contractible, there would be a sphere in X that could
not be contracted in X but in |P |. The contraction would be compactly supported,
hence use simplices supported on finitely many simplices. It therefore suffices to
show that the inclusion X → |P |δ̂<n is a homotopy equivalence for all n ∈ N.
For n = 0 this is clear, so assume n > 0. Then
|P |δ̂<n = |P |δ̂<n−1 ∪

[

|[ā, b̄]|.

δ̂([ā,b̄])=n−1

The intervals that are glued in meet only in |P |δ̂<n−1 and they are glued in along
|[ā, b̄)| ∪ |(ā, b̄]|. This is a suspension of |(ā, b̄)| and so it suffices to show that the
open interval is contractible.
If S is a left-Garside family, every element h of C, and every left-factor of f in
particular, has an S-head head(g). We define the map θ : [ā, b̄] → [ā, b̄] by ah 7→
a head(h). Note that θ(b̄) < b̄ because otherwise [ā, b̄] is already contained in |P |.
Note also that θ(c̄) > ā for c̄ > ā because the head of a non-invertible is not
invertible. This shows that θ restricts to a map (ā, b̄) → (ā, b̄) with c̄ ≥ θ(c̄) ≤ θ(b̄)
and we can apply [Qui78, Section 1.5] to see that |(ā, b̄)| is contractible.
If S is a right-Garside family, θ is defined by bh−1 7→ b tail(h)−1 . For the same
resasons as above θ restricts to a map (ā, b̄) → (ā, b̄) with c̄ ≤ θ(c̄) ≥ θ(ā) and we
can again apply [Qui78, Section 1.5].


12

S. WITZEL

There is an obvious action of π1 (C, ∗) on X which is given by precomposition: if
g ∈ π1 (C, ∗) = Ore(C)(∗, ∗) and a ∈ Ore(C)(∗, −) then gā = ga and the relations
≤ and  are clearly preserved under this action.
Next we want to look at stabilizers and weak fundamental domains. These will be
particularly well-behaved with an additional assumption. We say that S is (right)locally finite if for every object x ∈ Ob(C) the set S(x, −) is finite up to pre- and
post-composition by invertibles. Local finiteness of S does not imply that X is
locally finite but does imply:
Observation 3.3. Assume that S is locally finite. For every ā ∈ P there are only
finitely many b̄ ∈ P with ā  b̄. In particular, there are only finitely many simplices
for which ā is -minimal.
Lemma 3.4. Every simplex-stabilizer of the action of π1 (C, ∗) on X is isomorphic
to a subgroup of C × (x, x) for some x ∈ Ob(C). If S is locally finite, the subgroup
has finite index.
Proof. Let ā be a vertex in X with a ∈ Ore(C)(∗, x) and suppose that g ∈ π1 (C, ∗)
fixes a, that is, a = ga = ga. Then a−1 ga ∈ C × (x, x). This shows that the stabilizer
of ā is conjugate to C × (x, x). If S is locally finite then Observation 3.3 implies that
the stabilizer of an arbitrary simplex has finite index in a vertex stabilizer.

Corollary 3.5. If C × (x, x) = {1x } for every object x ∈ Ob(C) then the action of
π1 (C, ∗) on X is free. If C × (x, x) is finite then the action is proper.
Now let us pick, for every x ∈ Ob(C) a morphism fx ∈ Ore(C)(∗, x) arbitrarily
and let Kx ⊆ X be the union of the realizations of the intervals [fx , fx e] with
e ∈ E(x, −).
Lemma 3.6. The complex X is covered by the π1 (C, ∗)-translates of the complexes
Kx , x ∈ Ob(C). If S is locally finite then each Kx is compact.
Proof. If σ = {f ≺ f e1 ≺ . . . ≺ f ek } is a simplex in X with f ∈ Ore(C)(∗, x) and
e1 , . . . , ek ∈ E(x, −) then fx f −1 ∈ π1 (C, ∗) and fx f −1 Kx contains σ. The second
statement is clear.

The ideal special case is:
Corollary 3.7. If C has no non-identity invertible morphisms and has only finitely
many objects and if S is locally finite then π1 (C, ∗) has a finite classifying space.
Proof. Under the assumption the action of π1 (C, ∗) is free by Lemma 3.5 and cocompact by Lemma 3.6. The quotient is then finite a classifying space.

In particular we recover the main result of [CMW04].
Corollary 3.8. Every Garside group G has a finite classifying space.
In the case of the dual braid monoid, the complex we constructed is precisely the
dual Garside complex constructed by Brady [Bra01].

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

13

3.2. Finiteness properties. Topological finiteness properties of a group G were
introduced by Wall [Wal65, Wal66] and are conditions on how finite a classifying
space for G can be chosen. A group is said to be of type Fn if it admits a classifying
space B whose n-skeleton B (n) has finitely many cells. Equivalently a group is of
type Fn if it acts freely on a contractible space X such that the action on X (n) is
cocompact. It is clear that type Fn implies type Fm for m < n and one defines the
finiteness length φ(G) to be the supremal n for which G is of type Fn . If φ(G) = ∞
then G is said to be of type F∞ .
In low dimensions, these properties have familiar descriptions: a group is of type F1
if and only if it is finitely generated, and it is of type F2 if and only if it is finitely
presented.
Given a group G, in order to study its finiteness properties, one needs to let G act on
a highly connected space X. If the action is free, then the low-dimensional skeleta
of G\X are those of a classifying space. A useful result is Brown’s criterion which
says that one does not have to look at free actions, see [Bro87, Propositions 1.1, 3.1]:
Theorem 3.9. Let G act cocompactly on an (n − 1)-connected CW complex X. If
the stabilizer of every p-cell of X is of type Fn−p then G is of type Fn .
The full version of Brown’s criterion also gives a way to decide that a group is not
of type Fn . We formulate it here only to explain why we will not be able to apply
it:
Theorem 3.10. Let G act on an (n − 1)-connected CW complex X and assume
that the stabilizer of every p-cell of X is of type Fn−p . If G is of type Fn then
for every cocompact subspace Y and any basepoint ∗ ∈ Y there exists a cocompact
subspace Z ⊇ Y such that the maps πk (Y, ∗) → πk (Z, ∗) induced by inclusion have
trivial image for k ≤ n − 1.
Theorem 3.10 can be used to show that a group is not of type Fn if this is visible
in the topology of X. On the other hand, if the stabilizers have bad finiteness
properties we cannot decide whether G has good finiteness properties or not: in
that case we are looking at the wrong action.
3.3. Combinatorial Morse theory. In order to study connectivity properties of
spaces and apply Brown’s criterion we will be using combinatorial Morse theory
as introduced by Bestvina and Brady [BB97]. Here we give the most basic version
used in Section 3.4.
Let X be the realization of an abstract simplicial complex, regarded as a CW
complex. A Morse function is a function ρ : X (0) → N with the property that
ρ(v) 6= ρ(w) if v is adjacent to w. For n ∈ N the sublevel set Xρ<n is defined to be
the full subcomplex of X supported on vertices v with ρ(v) < n. The descending
link lk↓ v of a vertex v is the full subcomplex of lk v of those vertices w with
ρ(w) ≤ ρ(v) and the descending star st↓ is defined analogously. That ρ is a Morse
function implies that that the inequality ρ(w) ≤ ρ(v) is strict for the descending
link and for the descending star is not strict only when w = v. In particular, the
descending star is the cone over the descending link.
The goal of combinatorial Morse theory is to compare the connectivity properties
of sublevel sets to each other and to those of X. The tool to do so is a basic lemma,
called the Morse Lemma:
Lemma 3.11. Let ρ be a Morse function on X. Let m ≤ n ≤ ∞ and assume that
for every vertex v with m ≤ ρ(v) < n the descending link of v is (d − 1)-connected.

14

S. WITZEL

Then the pair (Xρ<n , Xρ<m ) is d-connected, that is, πk (Xρ<m → Xρ<n ) is an
isomorphism for k < d and an epimorphism for k = d.
Proof. The basic observations are that
Xρ<m+1 = Xρ<m ∪

[

st↓ v,

ρ(v)=m

that st v ∩ st v ⊆ Xρ<m for ρ(v) = m = ρ(v 0 ), and that st↓ v ∩ Xρ<m = lk↓ v.
As a consequence (using compactness of spheres) it suffices to study the extension
Y := Xρ<m ∪lk↓ v st↓ v for an individual vertex v with ρ(v) = m.
↓

↓

0

In this situation πk (Y, Xρ<m ) ∼
= πk (st↓ v, lk↓ v) for k ≤ d. This can be seen by
separately looking at π1 and H∗ (where excision holds) and applying Hurrewicz’s
theorem [Hat02, Theorem 4.37]. The statement now follows from the long exact
homotopy/homomlogy sequence for the pair (st↓ v, lk↓ v).

3.4. Finiteness properties of fundamental groups of Ore categories. We
take up the construction from Section 3.1. So C is again a right-Ore category, S
is a left- or right-Garside family closed under factors, and ∗ ∈ Ob(C) is a base
object. More than requiring strong Noetherianity, we now need a height function
ρ : Ob(C) → N.
We use these data and assumptions to provide a criterion to prove finiteness properties for the fundamental group.
We need to introduce one further space construction. It is another variant of the
nerve construction. For x ∈ Ob(C) let E(x) be the set of equivalence classes in
a ∈ E(−, x) r E × (x, x) modulo the equivalence relation that ā = ā0 if there exists
a g ∈ C × with ga = a0 . We define a relation ≤ on E(x) by declaring ā ≤ b̄ if there
is an f ∈ C with f a = b. Note that if g and f as above exist, they lie in E so the
description can be formulated purely in terms of E. As in Lemma 3.1 one sees that
≤ is a partial order on E(x), however it is usually not contractible.
Theorem 3.12. Let C be a right-Ore category and let ∗ ∈ Ob(C). Let S be a locally
finite left- or right-Garside family that is closed under factors. Let ρ : Ob(C) → N
be a height function such that {x ∈ Ob(C) | ρ(x) ≤ n} is finite for every n ∈ N.
Assume
( stab)
( lk)

C × (x, x) is of type Fn for all x,
|E(x)| is (n − 1)-connected for all x with ρ(x) beyond a fixed bound.

(If ρ is unbounded on the component of ∗ then it suffices if (stab) holds for every
x with ρ(x) beyond a fixed bound.)
Then π1 (C, ∗) is of type Fn .
Remark 3.13. Recall that C can be replaced by the component of ∗ in C so all
assumptions need to be made only for that component.
Proof. We take X to be the complex constructed in Section 3. Assume first that
(stab) holds for all x ∈ Ob(C).
For a vertex ā ∈ X with a ∈ Ore(C)(∗, x) we define ρ(ā) = ρ(x). This is a π1 (C, ∗)invariant Morse function which we think of as height. For n ∈ N we consider the
subcomplex Xρ<n supported on vertices of height < n.
We want to see that every Xρ<n is π1 (C, ∗)-cocompact. To do so we note that
π1 (C, ∗) acts transitively on vertices ā with a ∈ Ore(C)(∗, x): indeed, if b̄ is another

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

15

such then ba−1 ∈ π1 (C, ∗) takes ā to b̄. It follows from the assumption on ρ that
there are only finitely many vertices ā with ρ(ā) < n up to the π1 (C, ∗)-action.
Cocompactness now follows from Observation 3.3.
Stabilizers are of type Fn by Lemma 3.4 because finiteness properties are inherited
by finite-index subgroups.
Let N be large enough so that all the x ∈ Ob(C) for which the nerve of |E(x)| is not
(n − 1)-connected have ρ(x) < N . We have just seen that π1 (C, ∗) acts on Xρ<N
cocompactly with stabilizers of type Fn , so once we show that Xρ<N is (n − 1)connected, we are done by Theorem 3.9. We want to apply the Morse Lemma
(Lemma 3.11) so let us look at the descending link of a vertex b̄ of X, where
b ∈ C(∗, x). The vertices in the descending link are the ā that are comparable
with b̄ and have ρ(ā) < ρ(b̄). The condition on the height shows that a cannot
be a right-multiple of b but has to be a left-factor. Thus a−1 b ∈ E(−, x) and
the descending link of b̄ is the realization of {ā | a ≺ b}. We see that the map
E(−, x)rE(x, x) → {ā | a ≺ b} that takes f to af −1 is an order-reversing surjection.
The definition of E(x) is made so that the induced map E(x) → {ā | a ≺ b} is
well-defined and a order-reversing bijection. Since |E(x)| is (n − 1)-connected by
assumption, this completes the proof in the case that (stab) holds for all x.
If (stab) only holds for x with ρ(x) ≥ M let ∗0 be in the component of ∗ satisfying
ρ(∗0 ) > M . Since C is Ore, one sees that
π1 (C, ∗) = π1 (C, ∗0 ) = π1 (Cρ≥M , x0 )
where Cρ≥M is obtained from C by removing objects y with ρ(y) < M . Moreover
local finiteness of S implies that the complexes E(y) for C and for Cρ≥r are the
same for y in the component of ∗0 once ρ(y) is large enough. One can therefore
consider Cρ≥M instead of C with the effect that the groups C × (x, x) only need to
be of type Fn when ρ(x) ≥ M .

Corollary 3.14. Let C, S, ρ, ∗ be as in the theorem. If C × (x, x) is of type F∞ for
every x and the connectivity of |E(x)| tends to infinity for ρ(x) → ∞ then π1 (C, ∗)
is of type F∞ .
The construction of X uses two important ideas. One is the passage from |P |
to X which is due to Stein, see [Ste92, Theorem 1.5]. The other is to take P
to consist of C × -equivalence classes and goes back to [BFM+ 16]. Apart from these
ideas the main difficulty in proving that π1 (C, ∗) is of type Fn lies in establishing the
connectivity properties of the complexes |E(x)|. This problem depends individually
on the concrete setup and we will see various examples later.
3.5. Example: F is of type F∞ . As a first illustration of the results in this
section we reprove a result due to Brown and Geoghegan [BG84]:
Proposition 3.15. Thompson’s group F is of type F∞ .
We have seen in Proposition 2.1 that F is right-Ore and admits a height function
and by Corollary 2.6 it has a locally finite left-Garside family that is closed under
factors. Moreover, F × (x, x) = {1x } for every x, so (stab) is satisfied as well. It
only remains to verify (lk). Although things are not always as easy, we remark
that this is the typical situation: property (lk) is where one actually needs to show
something.
To understand the complexes |E(n)| we first need to unravel the definition. Recall
that a matching of a graph Γ is a set of edges M ⊆ E(Γ) that are pairwise disjoint.

16

S. WITZEL

Matchings are ordered by containment and we denote the poset of matchings by
M(Γ). In fact, since every subset of a matching is again a matching, M(Γ) is (the
face poset of) a simplicial complex, the matching complex. We denote by Ln the
linear graph on n vertices {1, . . . , n} so its edges are {i, i + 1} for 1 ≤ i < n.
Lemma 3.16. The poset EF (n) is isomorphic to M(Ln ).
Proof. Let f ∈ EF (−, n), so f is an element of EF (n). We identify the roots of
f with the vertices of the linear graph Ln on the vertices {1, . . . , n}. Every caret
of f connects two of these roots and thus corresponds to an edge of Ln . All these
edges are disjoint so the resulting subgraph Mf of Ln is a matching. It is clear that
conversely every matching of Ln arises in a unique way from an elementary forest.
If h ≤ f then h is a left-multiple of f , that is, f can be obtained from h by adding
carets to some roots of h that do not have carets yet. On the level of graphs this
means that Mf is obtained from Mh by adding edges so that Mh ≤ Mf in the poset
of matchings.

Remark 3.17. In particular, EF (n) is (the face poset of) a simplicial complex.
Note that the realization as a poset is the barycentric subdivision of the realization
as a simplicial complex, and in particular both are homeomorphic. So there is
no harm in working with the coarser cell structure where elements of EF (n) are
simplices rather than vertices. This fact applies in most of our cases.
Matching complexes of various graphs have been studied intensely and their connectivity properties can be verified in various ways [BLVŽ94]. In fact, for linear
and cyclic graphs the precise homotopy type is known [Koz08, Proposition 11.16].
Rather than using the known optimal connectivity bounds we use the opportunity to
introduce a criterion due to Belk and Forrest [BF, Theorem 4.9] that is particularly
well suited to verifying that the connectivity of the spaces E(x) tends to infinity in
easier cases. We need to introduce some notation.
An abstract simplicial complex X is flag if every set of pairwise adjacent vertices
forms a simplex. A simplex σ in a simplicial flag complex is called a k-ground for
k ∈ N if every vertex of X is connected to all but at most k vertices of σ. The
complex is said to be (n, k)-grounded if there is an n-simplex that is a k-ground.
Theorem 3.18. For m, k ∈ N every (mk, k)-grounded flag complex is (m − 1)connected.
The reference requires m, k ≥ 1 but it is clear that every (0, k)-grounded flag
complex is non-empty, and every (0, 0)-grounded flag complex is a cone an therefore
contractible.
Using Theorem 3.18 we verify:
Lemma 3.19. For every n ∈ N let Γn be a subgraph of Kn containing Ln . The
connectivity of M(Γn ) goes to infinity as n goes to infinity.
Proof. Consider the matchings of Ln that use only the edges {2i − 1, 2i}, 1 ≤ i ≤
bn/2c. They form an (bn/2c − 1)-simplex σ in M(Γn ). If v = {j, k} is any edge
of Γn , so a vertex of M(Γn ) then there are at most 2 vertices of σ that v is not
connected to: one is {j −1, j} or {j, j +1}, the other is {k −1, k, } or {k, k +1}. This
shows that M(Γn ) is (bn/2c − 1, 2)-grounded, so by Theorem 3.18 it is (bn/4c − 1)connected.


CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

17

Proof of Proposition 3.15. We want to apply Corollary 3.14. The only thing left to
check is condition (lk). This follows from Lemmas 3.16 and 3.19.

4. The indirect product of two categories
The construction introduced in this section will help us to produce more interesting
examples. It is usually called the Zappa–Szép product in the literature of groups and
monoids, cf. [Bri05]. The Zappa–Szép product naturally generalizes the semidirect
product in the same way as the semidirect product generalizes the direct product.
We think that such a basic construction should have a simpler name and therefore
call it the indirect product.
For motivation, let M be a monoid (or group) whose multiplication we denote by
◦ and suppose that M decomposes uniquely as M = A ◦ B. By this we mean that
A and B are submonoids of M such that every element m ∈ M can be written in a
unique way as m = a ◦ b with a ∈ A and b ∈ B. In particular, if b0 ∈ B and a0 ∈ A,
the product m = b0 ◦ a0 can be rewritten as b0 ◦ a0 = a ◦ b. This allows to formally
a0
define maps A × B → B, (a0 , b0 ) 7→ a0 · b0 := a and B × A → A, (b0 , a0 ) 7→ b0 := b
so that
b ◦ a = (b · a) ◦ ba .
These maps turn out to be actions of monoids on sets. If both actions are trivial
then M is a direct product, if one of the actions is trivial then M is a semidirect
product, and in general it is an indirect product.
We therefore start by introducing the appropriate notion of actions of categories.
4.1. Actions. Let C be a category and let (Xm )m∈Ob(C) be a family of sets, one
for each object of C. We say that a left action of C on (Xm )m is a family of maps
C(n, m) × Xm → Xn
(f, s) 7→ f · s
satisfying 1m · s = s for all m ∈ Ob(C) and s ∈ Xm and f g · s = f · (g · s) whenever
f g is defined. A right action is defined analogously. An action is said to be injective
if f · x = f · y implies x = y. Note that actions of groupoids are always injective.
In our examples the family (Xm )m itself will consist of morphisms of a category
with the same objects as C. We have to bear in mind, however, that the action is
on these as sets and does not preserve products.
4.2. The indirect product. Let C be a category and let F and G be subcategories.
We say that C is an internal indirect product F ./ G if every h ∈ C can be written in
a unique way as h = f g with f ∈ F and g ∈ G. Note that this means in particular
that Ob(C) = Ob(F) = Ob(G). Given elements f ∈ F(x, −) and g ∈ G(−, x) there
exist then unique elements f 0 ∈ F and g 0 ∈ G such that gf = f 0 g 0 , see Figure 4a.
In this situation we define g · f to be f 0 and g f to be g 0 .
The following properties are readily verified, see Figure 4b and 4c, the last four
hold whenever one of the sides is defined:
(IP1)
(IP2)
(IP3)
(IP4)
(IP5)
(IP6)

1x · f = f for f ∈ F(x, −),
g 1y = g for g ∈ G(−, y),
(g1 g2 ) · f = g1 · (g2 · f ),
g f1 f2 = (g f1 )f2 ,
1fx = 1y for f ∈ F(x, y),
g · 1y = 1z for g ∈ G(z, x),

18

S. WITZEL

•

g

•

g·f

f
•

gf

1x

x
f

•

•

x

1y

(a)

•

g2 · f
•

y

g2

•

g1 · (g2 · f )

f
y

g1

(b)

g1g2 ·f

•

g2f

f
•

(c)

Figure 4. The indirect product.
(g ·f )

(IP7) (g1 g2 )f = g1 2 g2f ,
(IP8) g · (f1 f2 ) = (g · f1 )(g2f1 · f2 ).
The first four relations say that the map (g, f ) 7→ g · f is an left action of G on the
sets (F(x, −))x and that (g, f ) 7→ g f is a right action of F on the sets (G(−, y))y .
The next two relations say that identity elements are taken to identity elements,
while the last two are cocycle conditions. We call actions satisfying (IP1) to (IP8)
indirect product actions.
Now assume that conversely categories F and G with Ob(F) = Ob(G) are given
together with indirect product actions of F and G on each other. Then the external
indirect product C = F ./ G is defined to have objects Ob(C) = Ob(F) = Ob(G)
and morphisms
[
C=
{(f, g) | f ∈ F(−, x), g ∈ G(x, −)}.
x∈Ob(C)

Composition is defined by
(f1 , g1 )(f2 , g2 ) = (f1 (g1 · f2 ), g1f2 g2 ).

(4.1)

Lemma 4.1. The external indirect product F ./ G is well-defined. It is naturally
isomorphic to the internal indirect product of the copies of F and G inside F ./ G.
Proof. That the identity morphisms (1x , 1x ) behave as they should is easily seen
using relations (IP1), (IP2), (IP5), and (IP6). To check associativity we verify the
four equations
f (g2 ·f3 ) (IP4)

g12

(4.2)

(IP3)

(g1f2 g2 ) · f3 = g1f2 · (g2 · f3 ),

(4.3)

f (g2 ·f3 ) f3 (4.2)
g2 =

g12

(4.4)
(4.5)

= (g1f2 )g1 ·f3 ,

(4.3)

(IP7)

(g1f2 )g1 ·f3 g2f3 = (g1f2 g2 )f3 ,

and

(IP8)

(g1 · f2 )((g1f2 g2 ) · f3 ) = (g1 · f2 )(g1f2 · (g2 · f3 )) = g1 · (f2 (g2 · f3 ))

see Figure 5.
The categories F and G naturally embed into the external indirect product F ./ G
as f 7→ (f, 1y ) for f ∈ F(−, y) and g 7→ (1x , g) for g ∈ G(x, −). Any morphism of
F ./ G decomposes as (f, g) = (f, 1y )(1y , g) and it is clear from (4.1) that respective
actions on each other are the ones used to define F ./ G.

If the action of G on F is trivial then the indirect product is a semidirect product
F n G. Similarly, if the action of F on G is trivial then it is a semidirect product

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

19

•

f1

•

g1

•

g1 · f2

f2
f

•

g1 · (f2 (g2 · f3 ))

g1 2

•

g2

•

f

g1 2 · (g2 · f3 )
f
(g1 2 g2 )

g2 · f3

f3

· f3
f

•

•

f
(g1 2 )g2 ·f3

g2 3

•

g3

•

f (g2 ·f3 )

g1 2

f

(g1 2 g2 )f3

Figure 5. Associativity in F ./ G. The dashed thick black and
the thick green path are the components of (f1 , g1 )((f2 , g2 )(f3 , g3 ))
and ((f1 , g1 )(f2 , g2 ))(f3 , g3 ) respectively.
F o G. Finally, if both actions are trivial then the indirect product is in fact a
direct product F × G.
We close the section by collecting facts that ensure that an indirect product is Ore.
Lemma 4.2. If F and G are right-cancellative and the action of F on G is injective
then F ./ G is right-cancellative. Symmetrically, if F and G are left-cancellative
and the action of G on F is injective then F ./ G is left-cancellative.
Proof. If f1 g1 f g = f2 g2 f g then f1 (g1 · f ) = f2 (g2 · f ) and g1f g = g2f g. Since
G is right-cancellative the latter equation shows that g1f = g2f and injectivity of
the action then implies g1 = g2 . Putting this in the former equation and using
right-cancellativity of F gives f1 = f2 .

Observation 4.3. Let F have common right-multiples and let G be a groupoid.
Then F ./ G has common right-multiples.
Proof. Let f g ∈ F ./ G with f ∈ F and g ∈ G. Since G is a groupoid, f is both a
left-factor and a right-multiple of f g. It follows that common right-multiples exist
in F ./ G because they exist in F.

Observation 4.4. Let F have no non-trivial invertible morphisms and let G be a
groupoid. Then (F ./ G)× = G.
Proposition 4.5. Let C = F ./ G where F has no non-trivial invertibles and G is
a discrete groupoid.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

If
If
If
If

F is right-Ore and the action of F on G is injective then C is right-Ore.
F is strongly Noetherian then so is C.
ρ is a height function on F then it is a height function on C.
S is a left-Garside family in F then it is a left-Garside family in C.

20

S. WITZEL

(v) If S is a right-Garside family in F then SG is a right-Garside family in C.
Proof. Property (i) follows from Lemma 4.2 and Observation 4.3. Properties (ii)
and (iv) follow from the fact that for f ∈ F and g ∈ G the morphisms f and f g
are right-multiples by invertibles of each other. Property iii follows from G being
discrete (i.e. every morphism being an endomorphism). Toward (v) it is clear that
every right-factor of SG is contained in SG. Moreover if t is an S-tail for f then tg
is a S-tail for f g.

5. Examples: categories constructed by indirect products
In this section we show how the indirect product can be used to construct new
groups. The basic examples are Thompson’s groups T and V as well as the braided
Thompson groups, which all arise as fundamental groups of categories of the form
F ./ G where G is an appropriate groupoid. More generally, the groups studied in
joint work with Zaremsky [WZc] are essentially by definition groups that can be
obtained in this form. Later we also describe other groups obtained via indirect
products.
We will sometimes draw pictures to motivate our definition. In these pictures the
up-direction always corresponds to left in our notation and down corresponds to
right. This is especially relevant for group elements. For example, a permutation
X ← X, g(x) →7 x will be depicted by connecting the point x at the bottom to the
point g(x) at the top.
5.1. Thompson’s groups T and V. In this section we introduce Thompson’s
groups T and V as fundamental groups of categories T and V. The categories will
be obtained from F as indirect products with groupoids and we start by introducing
these.
We define GT and GV to be groupoids whose objects are positive natural numbers
with GT (m, n) = ∅ for m 6= n. We put GT (n, n) = Z/nZ and GV (n, n) = Symn . We
want to define T = F ./ GT and V = F ./ GV and have to specify the actions that
define these indirect products. That is, given a forest f ∈ F(m, n) and a group
element g ∈ G(m, m) we need to specify how the product gf should be written as
(g · f )g f with g · f ∈ F(m, n) and g f ∈ G(n, n) (for G one of GT and GV ).

=

Figure 6. Defining F ./ GT . The picture shows how to write
gf as (g · f )g f in the case where f is the caret λ33 ∈ F(3, 4) and
g = 1 + Z/3Z ∈ GT (3, 3). The colored strand gets doubled under
the action of f . As a result g·f = λ31 ∈ F(3, 4) and g f = 2+Z/4Z ∈
GT (4, 4).
Since GT is contained in GV , it would suffice to only define the actions for GV , but
we look at the simpler case of GT first.
We need to rewrite a cyclic permutation followed by a tree as a tree followed by
a cyclic permutation. This is illustrated in Figure 6. For f ∈ F(m, n) and g =
` + Z/mZ ∈ GT (m, m) the forest g · f is just f with the trees rotated by ` to the

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

21

right. The definition of g f is more subtle: looking at the figure we see that we have
to define it to be k + Z/nZ where k is the number of leaves of the first ` trees of
g · f , or equivalently, to be the number leaves of the last ` trees of f . Note that this
number does not depend on the chosen representative `: if we replace ` by ` + m,
instead of k we get k + n, because we counted every leaf once more. If k` denotes
the number of leaves of the last ` trees of f , the sequence (k` )0≤`<m is strictly
increasing. This shows:
Observation 5.1. The action of F on GT is injective.
Lemma 5.2. The actions of F and GT on each other are indirect product actions.
Proof. Conditions (IP1), (IP2), (IP3), (IP4), (IP5), (IP6) are clear.
The condition (IP7) in our setting follows from the fact that the last k + ` trees of
f are the last ` trees of f plus the last k trees of (` + mZ) · f . Condition (IP8) can
be verified drawing a picture.

The lemma allows us to define T = F ./ GT . Combining Observation 5.1 with
Propositions 2.1 and Corollary 2.6 and applying Proposition 4.5 we find:
Corollary 5.3. The category T is right-Ore and admits a height function and a
left-Garside family S that is closed under factors such that S(x, −)/S × is finite for
every x.
The fundamental group π1 (T , 1) is Thompson’s group T .
Now we want to define the actions of F and GV on each other. So let f ∈ F(m, n)
and let g ∈ GV (m, m). The action of GV on F is again as expected: the forest
f 0 = (g · f ) is given by the relationship that the g(j)th tree of f 0 is the jth tree
of f . The permutation g 0 = g f ∈ GV (n, n) has the following description. Identify
{1, . . . , n} with the leaves of f and with the leaves of (g · f ). If i is the kthe leaf of
the jth tree of f then g 0 (i) is the kth leaf of the g(j)th tree of g · f , see Figure 6.
At this point it becomes clear that working the actions as described above is virtually impossible. To obtain a more explicit algebraic description, we make use of
the presentation of F. Property (IP4) tells us that we know how any element of F
acts as soon as we know how the generators act and property (IP8) tells us that
we know how GV acts on any element once we know how it acts on the generators
of F. It therefore suffices to specify both actions for generators of F. Checking
well-definedness then means to check various conditions coming from the relations
in F.
So now we consider g ∈ GV (m, m) and λm
i ∈ F(m, m + 1) and define the actions
on each other. We start again with the easy case:
(5.1)

g · λi = λg(i) .

Working out g λi we have to distinguish four cases depending on the position of a
point relative to i and relative to g(i):

g(j)
j ≤ i, g(j) ≤ g(i),



g(j − 1)
j > i, g(j − 1) ≤ g(i),
λi
(5.2)
g (j) =
g(j)
+
1
j ≤ i, g(j) > g(i),



g(j − 1) + 1 j > i, g(j − 1) > g(i).
Since i = j if and only if g(i) = g(j), the inequalities in the second and third case
can be taken to be strict.

22

S. WITZEL

Lemma 5.4. The formulas (5.1) and (5.2) define well-defined indirect product
actions of F and GV on each other.
Proof. The conditions that involve only the action of GV , namely (IP1), (IP3), and
(IP6) are clear. Condition (IP2) is defined to hold. Verifying conditions (IP5),
(IP7) on the λi is straightforward, although in the second case tedious.
Conditions (IP4) and (IP8) should also be defined to hold, but in order for this to
be well-defined, we need to check them on relations. That is, we need to verify that
(g λi )λj = g λi λj = g λj λi+1 = (g λj )λi+1
(g ·

λi )(g2λi

and
λ

· λj ) = g · (λi λj ) = g · (λj λi+1 ) = (g · λj )(g2 j · λi+1 )

for j < i. These are again not difficult but tedious and we skip them here. See
[WZc, Example 2.9] for a detailed verification.

Thus we can define V = F ./ GV .
Lemma 5.5. The action of F on GV defined by (5.2) is injective.
Proof. Since by definition g λi1 ···λin = (. . . (g λi1 ) . . .)λin we only need to check that
the map g 7→ g λi defined in (5.1) is injective. But g can be recovered from g λi as
follows. Let τi , πi : N → N be given by


j
j≤i
j
j≤i
τi (j) :=
πi (j) :=
j+1 j >i
j−1 j >i
Then g(j) = πi (g λi (τi (j))).



Proposition 2.1, Corollary 2.6 and Proposition 4.5 now imply:
Corollary 5.6. The category V is right-Ore and admits a height function and a
left-Garside family S that is closed under factors such that S(x, −)/S × is finite for
every x.
The fundamental group π1 (V, 1) is Thompson’s group V .
5.2. The braided Thompson groups. The group BV , called braided V , was
introduced independently by Brin [Bri07] and Dehornoy [Deh06]. We describe it
using our framework which is similar to Brin’s approach.
To define the categories underlying the braided Thompson groups, we define the
groupoid GBV to have as objects natural numbers, and to have morphisms GBV (m, n) =
∅ for m 6= n, and GBV (n, n) = Braidn . Note that the morphisms π : Braidn →
Symn define a morphism GBV → GV that we denote by π as well. We want to
define a indirect product F ./ GBV and need to define actions of F and GBV on
each other. Our guiding picture is Figure 7.

=

Figure 7. Defining F ./ GBV .

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

23

We define the action of GBV on F simply as the action of GV composed with π. In
particular, σi · λi = λi+1 , σi · λi+1 = λi and σi · λj = λj for j 6= i, i + 1. The action
of F on GBV we only define for generators acting on generators by

σi+1
j<i



σ
σ
λ
i i+1 j = i
σi j :=
σ
j =i+1

i+1 σi


σi
j > i + 1.
Lemma 5.7. The formulas above define well-defined indirect product actions of F
and GBV on each other.
In the proof we will use the fact that there is a set-theoretic splitting ι : Symn →
Braidn that takes a reduced word w(s1 , . . . , sn−1 ) to the braid w(σ1 , . . . , σn−1 ).
This map is not multiplicative but if β is a positive word (meaning involving no
inverses) of length at most 3 in the σi then ιπ(β) = β.
Proof. As in the proof of Lemma 5.4 most conditions hold by definition but we
need to check well-definedness on relations. Namely
(5.3)
(σi σi+1 σi ) · λk = σi · (σi+1 · (σi · λk )) = σi+1 · (σi · (σi+1 · λk )) = (σi+1 σi σi+1 ) · λk ,
(5.4)
(σi+1 σi )·λk

(σi σi+1 σi )λk = σi
(5.5)
(5.6)
(5.7)

σ ·λ

(σ σi+1 )·λk

λ

i k
σi+1
σi k = σi+1i

σ

σi i+1

·λk

λ

k
σi+1
= (σi+1 σi σi+1 )λk ,

(σi σj ) · λk = σi · (σj · λk ) = σi · (σj · λk ) = (σj σi ) · λk ,
σ ·λk

(σi σj )λk = σi j

σ ·λk

λ

σj k = σj i

λ

σi k = (σj σi )λk ,

λ

λ

σi · (λ` λk ) = (σi · λ` )(σi ` · λk ) = (σi · λk )(σi k · λ`+1 ) = σi · (λk λ`+1 ),
λ λ
σi ` k

(5.8)

=

λ
(σi ` )λk

=

λ
(σi k )λ`+1

=

and

λ λ
σi k `+1

for i − j ≥ 2, ` > k.
Relations (5.3) and (5.5) follow from Lemma 5.4. For the remaining relations note
that π(β λk ) = π(β)λk . Now (5.7) follows from Lemma 5.4 as well because
(5.9)

π(σiλ` ) · λk = σiλ` · λk

and π(σiλk ) · λ`+1 = σiλk · λ`+1 .

Relation (5.8) follows from Lemma 5.4 by noting that both sides are positive words
of length at most 3 and applying ι.
We verify (5.4) by distinguishing cases. The cases k < i and k > i + 2 are clear.
If k = i + 1 then the left hand side equals (σi+1 σi )σi+2 (σi+1 σi ) and the right
hand side equals (σi+1 σi+2 )σi (σi+1 σi+2 ). Both are equivalent through two braid
relations with intermediate commutator relations. The cases k = i and k = i+2 are
symmetric and we only verify k = i. The left hand side equals σi (σi+1 σi+2 )(σi σi+1 )
while the right hand side equals (σi+1 σi+2 )(σi σi+1 )σi+2 . Again these are equivalent
through two braid relations with intermediate commutator relations.
Relation (5.6) is left to the reader.



For future reference we record (5.9) which in the presence of Lemma 5.7 can be
formulated as:
Observation 5.8. The morphism π : GBV → GV is equivariant with respect to the
F-action in the sense that
π(β f ) = π(β)f
for β ∈ GBV and f ∈ F.

24

S. WITZEL

We define the category BV to be F ./ GBV with the above indirect product actions.
Lemma 5.9. The action of GBV on F is injective.
Proof. We only need to check that β 7→ β λi is injective. But β can be recovered
from β λi by removing the (i + 1)st strand.

Corollary 5.10. The category BV is right-Ore.
The fundamental group π1 (BV, 1) is the braided Thompson group BV .
It is now easy to define braided versions of T and F . We let GBT and GBF be the
inverse image under π : GBV → GV of GT and GF respectively. Both of these act
on F by restricting the action of GBV , which is the same as to say that they act
through π.
The action of F of GBV leaves GBT and GBF invariant and restricts to actions
on these, thanks to Observation 5.8: we know from Section 5.1 that F leaves GT
invariant and it is axiomatically required that it leaves the trivial groupoid invariant.
Hence if β ∈ GBT and f ∈ F then π(β f ) = π(β)f ∈ GT so that β f ∈ GBT and an
analogous reasoning applies for β ∈ GBF .
As a consequence we can define the categories BT = F ./ GBT and BF = F ./ GBF ,
which are right-Ore. The group BF = π1 (BF, 1) is called braided F and was first
introduced in [BBCS08]. We call the group BT = π1 (BT , 1) braided T .
Remark 5.11. The group BT was not introduced before for the following technical
reason. Instead of our category BV Brin [Bri07] used a monoid that can be thought
of as a category with a single object ω which represents countably infinitely many
strands. This is possible because splitting one of countably infinitely many strands
leads to countably infinitely many strands and because braid groups Braidn are
contained in a braid group lim Braidn on infinitely many strands. A practical
−→
downside of that approach is that the group of fractions of that monoid is too
big so one needs to describe which elements should be elements of BV . A formal
downside is that groups like BT or even T cannot be described because Z/nZ is
not contained in Z/(n + 1)Z so that the needed limit does not exist.
Despite this formal problem, the main topological ingredient to establishing the
finiteness properties of BT has been verified in [BFM+ 16, Section 3.4].
5.3. Groups arising from cloning systems. In [WZc] Zaremsky and the author
have defined (filtered) cloning systems to be the data needed to define indirect product actions of F and a groupoid on each other. Thus the groups considered there
are by definition fundamental groups of categories F ./ G where G is a groupoid.
However, the approach follows Brin [Bri07] to construct the groups as subgroups
of an indirect product of monoids F∞ ./ G∞ . As a consequence it has to deal
with technical complications such as the notion of being properly graded, as well as
practical shortcomings such as being unable to construct (braided) T .
Our categorical approach removes the necessity that the groups (Gn )n fit into a
directed system of groups and therefore the whole discussion goes through without
that assumption. Thus a cloning system is given by a sequence (Gn )n∈N of groups,
a sequence (ρn )n∈N : Gn → Sn of morphisms and a family of maps (κnk )k≤n : Gn →
Gn+1 such that the following hold for all k ≤ n, k < `, and g, h ∈ Gn :
(CS1) (gh)κnk = (g)κnρ(h)k (h)κnk .
(CS2) κn` ◦ κn+1
= κnk ◦ κn+1
k
`+1 .

(Cloning a product)
(Product of clonings)

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

(CS3) ρn+1 ((g)κnk )(i) = (ρn (g))ςkn (i) for all i 6= k, k + 1

25

(Compatibility)

Here ςkn describes the action of F on GV so that (g)ςkn (j) = g λk (j) as in (5.1).
Given a cloning system, a groupoid G is defined by setting G(m, n) = ∅ if m 6= n
and setting G(n, n) = Gn . Indirect product actions of F and G on each other are
λn
k = (g)κn for g ∈ G . The axioms (CS1), (CS2),
defined by g · λnk = λn+1
n
k
ρn (g)k and g
(CS3) ensure that these indeed define indirect product actions.
5.4. The Higman–Thompson groups. In total analogy to Section 5.1 one can
define Tn = Fn ./ GT and Vn = Fn ./ GV . As mentioned in Section sec:fn the
category Fn is not connected for n > 2 and neither are the categories Tn and Vn .
Thus it makes sense to define the groups
Tn,r = π1 (Tn , r)
Vn,r = π1 (Vn , r)
and unlike the situation of Fn , these groups are indeed distinct for different r. They
are the remaining Higman–Thompson groups.
5.5. Groups from graph rewriting systems. We now look at indirect products
that do not involve F. The corresponding groups have been introduced and described in some detail in [BF]. In this section, when we talk about graphs we will
take their edges to be directed and allow multiple edges and loops. In particular,
every vertex has an initial and a terminal vertex. The edge set of a graph G is
denoted E(G) and the vertex set V (G).
An edge replacement rule e → R consists of a single directed edge e and a finite
graph R that contains the two vertices of e (but not e itself). If G is any graph and
ε is an edge of G, the edge replacement rule can be applied to G at ε by removing
ε and adding in a copy of R while identifying the initial/terminal vertex of ε with
the initial/terminal vertex of e in R. The resulting graph is denoted G C ε. If δ is
another edge of G, then it is also an edge of G C ε and so the replacement rule can
be applied to G C ε at δ. We regard G C ε C δ and G C δ C ε as the same graph.
The vagueness inherent in the last sentence can be remedied by declaring that a
graph obtained from G by applying the edge replacement rule (possibly many times)
has as edges words in E(G)×E(R)∗ and as vertices words in V (G)∪(E(G)×E(R)∗ ×
V (R)). For example, the graph G C ε C δ would have edges ζ ∈ E(G) r {ε, δ} and
εξ, δξ for ξ ∈ E(R) and vertices v ∈ V (G) as well as εw and δw for w ∈ V (R).
For every edge replacement rule e → R we define a category Re→R whose objects
are finite graphs. In order for the category to be small we will take the graphs
to have vertices and edges coming from a fixed countable set, which in addition
is closed under attaching words in E(R) and V (R). The category is presented by
having generators
λG
ε ∈ Re→R (G, G C ε)

for G a graph and ε an edge of G

subject to the relations
(5.10)

GCδ
GCε
λG
= λG
δ λε
ε λδ

for G a graph and δ, ε distinct edges of G.

Lemma 5.12. For any edge replacement rule e → R the category Re→R is rightOre.
Proof. Thanks to the relations (5.10) a morphism λε1 . . . λεk in Re→R is uniquely
determined by its source, its target, and the set {ε1 , . . . , εk }. The claim now follows
by taking differences and unions of these sets of edges.


26

S. WITZEL

As in previous sections, the second ingredient will be a groupoid. Its definition
does not depend on the edge replacement rule, except possibly for the foundational
issues of choosing universal sets of vertices and edges. We define Ggraph to have as
objects finite graphs and as morphisms isomorphisms of graphs.
We define actions of Re→R and Ggraph on each other as follows. If g : G → G0 is an
isomorphism of graphs and ε ∈ E(G) is an edge then
0

G
g · λG
ε = λg(ε)

and g λε is the isomorphism GCε → G0 Cg(ε) that takes δ to g(δ) for δ ∈ E(G)r{ε}
and that takes εζ to g(ε)ζ for ζ ∈ V (R) ∪ E(R). The following is easy to verify:
Observation 5.13. The actions of Re→R and Ggraph on each other defined above
are well-defined indirect product actions. The action of Re→R on Ggraph is injective.
As a consequence we obtain a right-Ore category RG e→R := Re→R ./ Ggraph and
for every finite graph G we obtain a potential group π1 (RG e→R , G).
Example 5.14. If we consider the edge replacement rule
w

w
→

e=

= L2

v

v

and take L1 to be the graph consisting of a single edge then then π1 (RG e→L2 , L1 )
is isomorphic to F . Similarly, if C1 is the graph consisting of a single loop then
π1 (RG e→L2 , C1 ) is isomorphic to T . Finally, V arises as π1 (RG e→D2 , L1 ) where the
rule e → D2 replaces an edge by two disconnected edges.
Various fundamental groups of categories arising from graph rewriting systems are
described in [BF]. Here we will only mention the Basilica Thompson group introduced by them in [BF15].
We consider the replacement rule
w

w
→

e=
v

=R
v

and the graph

G=

The Basilica Thompson group is TB := π1 (RG e→R , G).

.

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

27

6. Examples: Finiteness properties
In this final section we give various examples of applications of Theorem 3.12 and
Corollary 3.14. In most cases these finiteness properties are known and the proofs
involve proving that certain complexes are highly connected. We will see that
these complexes always coincide with the complexes |E(x)|. As a consequence the
connectivity statement from the literature together with Theorem 3.12 gives the
result.
6.1. Finiteness properties of Thompson’s groups. We start with the categories T and V. The conditions needed to apply the results from Section 3 have
been verified in Corollary 5.3 and Corollary 5.6.
In order to apply Corollary 3.14 two more things are left to verify: that automorphism groups are of type F∞ and that the connectivity of the simplicial complexes
|E(n)| goes to infinity with n. The groups F(n, n) = {1}, T (n, n) = Z/nZ and
V(n, n) = Symn are all finite and therefore of type F∞ .
In order to describe the complexes E(n), we need to talk about further graphs. The
cyclic graph is denoted Cn , it has the same edges as Ln and additionally {1, n}. The
complete graph Kn has all edges {i, j}, 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n. We describe the complexes
E(n) in the case of V and leave T to the reader.
Lemma 6.1. The poset ET (n) is isomorphic to M(Cn ).
Lemma 6.2. There is a poset-morphism EV (n) → M(Kn ) whose fibers over ksimplices are k-spheres.
Proof. Every element of (E ./ GV )(−, n) can be written as a product f g of an
elementary forest f ∈ E(−, n) and a permutation g ∈ GV (n, n). By definition the
vertices of E(n) are these products modulo multiplication by permutations from
the left. As in Lemma 3.16 an elementary forest can be interpreted as a matching
on Ln . Under this correspondence, the group GV (n, n) = Symn acts on the vertices
of Ln and the permutations from the left act on components of the matching. Thus
elements of (E ./ GV )(−, n) can be described by matchings on the linear graph on
g −1 (1), . . . , g −1 (n) modulo reordering the components of the matching.
The possibility of reordering the vertices of the matching means that any two elements of {1, . . . , n} can be connected and so we obtain a map |E(n)| → M(Kn )
to the matching complex of the complete graph on {1, . . . , n}. This map is clearly
surjective.
It is not injective because in E(n) the order of two matched vertices matters while
in M(Kn ) it does not. For example, λi and λi (i i + 1) map to the same vertex in
M(Kn ). As a result the fiber over a k-simplex is a join of k + 1 many 0-spheres,
i.e. a k-sphere.

The fact that the morphism in Lemma 6.2 is not an isomorphism means that we
have to do one extra step, namely to apply the following result by Quillen [Qui73,
Theorem 9.1]. Rather than giving the general formulation for posets we restrict to
face posets of (n-skeleta of) simplicial complexes, to save us some notation.
Theorem 6.3. Let n ∈ N and let f : X → Y be a simplicial map. Assume that Y is
(n−1)-connected and that for every k-simplex σ of Y the link lk σ is (n−dim σ −2)connected and the fiber |f −1 (σ)| is (k − 1)-connected. Then X is (n − 1)-connected.
Theorem 6.4. Thompson’s groups T , and V are of type F∞ .

28

S. WITZEL

Proof. Using Corollary 3.14 we need to show that the connectivity of the complexes
|E(n)| goes to infinity as n goes to infinity. We work with the simplicial complexes
E(n) instead. In the case of T the complexes are matching complexes by Lemma 6.1
whose connectivity goes to infinity by Lemma 3.19. In the case of V the complexes
map to matching complexes with good fibers by Lemma 6.2. Noting that the link of
a k-simplex in M(Kn ) is isomorphic to M(Kn−2(k+1) ), we can apply Theorem 6.3
to see that the connectivity of EV goes to infinity as well.

6.2. Finiteness properties of braided Thompson groups. We have alreadt
seen that BF, BT , and BV are right-Ore. That they admit a height function and
a left-Garside family follows via Proposition 4.5, just as it did for T and V. The
braid groups BV × (n, n) = GBV (n, n) are of type F by Corollary 3.8 (and hence of
type F∞ ). Consequently the finite index subgroups of pure braids BF × (n, n) and
of cyclically-permuting braids BT × (n, n) are of type F as well.
It remains to understand the complexes |E(n)|. For that purpose, we will want
to think of braid groups as mapping class groups. Let D be a closed disc with n
punctures p1 , . . . , pn which we can think of as distinguished points in the interior
of D. The mapping class group of the n-punctured disc is
Homeo+ (D r {p1 , . . . , pn }, ∂D)/ Homeo+
0 (D r {p1 , . . . , pn }, ∂D)
where Homeo+ (D r {p1 , . . . , pn }, ∂D) is the group of orientation-preserving homeomorphisms of D r {p1 , . . . , pn } that fix ∂D and Homeo+
0 (D r {p1 , . . . , pn }, ∂D) is
the subgroup of homeomorphisms that are isotopic to the identity. It is well-known
that the mapping class group of the n-punctured disc is isomorphic to the braid
group, see for example [KT08].
With this description in place, we can start to look at the complexes |E(n)|. Let
f g ∈ E(n) with f ∈ E(−, n) and g ∈ GBV (n, n). Regard the n punctures p1 , . . . , pn
as the vertices of an Ln embedded into D. As we have seen before, f corresponds
to a matching Mf on Ln which we now regard as a disjoint selection of the fixed
arcs connecting pairs of adjacent punctures. The element g, regarded as a mapping
class, acts on Mf and we obtain a set Mf g of disjoint arcs connecting some pairs of
punctures. Such a collection of arcs is called an arc matching in [BFM+ 16]. Note
that if f ∈ E(k, n) so that the arc matching consists of n−k arcs, then removing the
arcs from the punctured disc results in a k-punctured disc. The action of GBV (k, k)
from the left is just the action of the mapping class group of that k-punctured disc
and in particular does nothing to Mf .
For a subgraph Γ of Kn the arc matching complex MA(Γ) is the simplicial complex
whose k-simplices are sets of pairwise disjoint arcs connecting punctures with the
condition that an arc can only connect two punctures if they are connected by an
edge in Γ.
Proposition 6.5. There surjective morphisms of simplicial complexes
(i) EBF (n) → MA(Ln )
(ii) EBT (n) → MA(Cn )
(iii) EBV (n) → MA(Kn )
whose fiber over any k-simplex is the join of k countable infinite discrete sets.
Proof. The product f g ∈ E(n) is taken to the arc matching Mf g as described above.
Since GBF (n, n) takes every puncture to itself, the map (i) maps onto MA(Ln ).
Similarly, since GBT (n, n) cyclically permutes the punctures, the map (ii) maps into
MA(Cn ). Surjectivity is clear.

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

29

To describe the fibers consider a disc D0 containing pi and pi+1 but none of the
other punctures and let β be a braid that is arbitrary inside D0 but trivial outside.
Then λi β maps to the same arc (= vertex of MA(Kn )) irrespective of β. Thus the
fiber over this vertex is the mapping class group of D0 r {pi , pi+1 } in the case of
BV and is the pure braid group of D0 r {pi , pi+1 } in the cases of BF and BT . In
either case it is a countable infinite discrete set.

The connectivity properties of arc matching complexes have been studied in [BFM+ 16].
We summarize Theorem 3.8, Corollary 3.11, and the remark in Section 3.4 in the
following theorem. It applies to arc matching complexes not only on disks but on
arbitrary surfaces with (possibly empty) boundary.
Theorem 6.6.
(i) MA(Kn ) is (ν(n) − 1)-connected,
(ii) MA(Cn ) is (η(n − 1) − 1)-connected,
(iii) MA(Ln ) is (η(n) − 1)-connected,
n−1
where ν(n) = b n−1
3 c and η(n) = b 4 c.

Theorem 6.7. The braided Thompson groups BF , BT , and BV are of type F∞ .
Proof. We want to apply Corollary 3.14. By Proposition 6.5 the complexes E(n)
map onto arc matching complexes and we want to apply Theorem 6.3. To do so, we
need to observe that the link of a k + 1-simplex on an arc matching complex on a
surface with n punctures is an arc matching complex with n − 2k punctures where
the k arcs connecting two punctures have been turned into boundary components.
Putting these results together shows that the connectivity properties of E(n) go to
infinity with n by Theorem 6.6.

6.3. Absence of finiteness properties. Theorem 3.12 gives a way to prove that
certain groups are of type Fn . If the group is not of type Fn one of the hypotheses
fails. We will now discuss to which extent the construction is (un-)helpful in proving
that the group is not of type Fn depending on which hypothesis fails.
In the first case the groups C × (x, x) are not of type Fn (even for ρ(x) large). In
this case the general part of Brown’s criterion, Theorem 3.10, cannot be applied.
Thus the whole construction from Section 3.4 is useless for showing that π1 (GC , ∗)
is not of type Fn . An example of this case are the groups T (B∗ (OS )) treated in
[WZc, Theorem 8.12]. The proof redoes part of the proof that the groups C × (x, x),
which are the groups in Bn (OS ) in this case, are not of type Fn = F|S| .
In the second case the complexes E(x) are not (even asymptotically) (n − 1)connected. In this case Brown’s criterion, Theorem 3.10, can in principle be applied,
but not by using just Morse theory. An example of this case is the Basilica Thompson group from Section 5.5 which is not finitely presented [WZb], so n = 2. A
morphism in RG e→R = Re→R ./ Ggraph is declared to be elementary if there are
edges {e1 , . . . , ek } of G such that f = λe1 . . . λek . The function ρ : Re→R → N is
the number of edges of a graph. The basepoint ∗ is the Basilica graph G.
The connectivity-assumption of Theorem 3.12 is violated because the RG e→R -component of G contains graphs H with arbitrarily many edges for which E(H) is not
simply connected. Examples of such graphs are illustrated in Figure 8. In these
examples E(H) has four vertices, two vertices vll , vul corresponding to the loops on
the left and two vertices vlr and vur corresponding to the loops on the right. The
left vertices are connected to the right vertices but not to each other and neither are
the right vertices. Thus E(H) is a circle vll , vlr , vul , vur and is not simply connected.

30

S. WITZEL

···

Figure 8. Arbitrarily large graphs H with E(H) not simply connected.

Looking into the proof of Theorem 3.12 we can compare directly what the nonsimple connectedness of E(H) tells us and what is needed to apply Brown’s criterion
(Theorem 3.10) in order to prove that the group is not of type Fn . To apply
Theorem 3.10, one needs to show that for every m there is an arbitrarily large n
such that passing from Xρ<m to Xρ<n+1 a non-trivial 1-sphere in Xρ<m is filled
in. The assumption that E(H) is not simply connected for ρ(H) = n translates
via the Morse argument to the statement that when passing from Xρ<n to Xρ<n+1
either a non-trivial 1-sphere in Xρ<n is filled in, or a non-trivial 2-sphere is created.
The proof in [WZb] that the Basilica-Thompson group TB is not finitely presented,
therefore needs to rule out the second possibility and also show that the 1-sphere
that is filled in was non-trivial already in Xρ<m .

References
[Art25]
[BB97]

Emil Artin, Theorie der Zöpfe., Abh. Math. Semin. Univ. Hamb. 4 (1925), 47–72.
Mladen Bestvina and Noel Brady, Morse theory and finiteness properties of groups,
Invent. Math. 129 (1997), no. 3, 445–470. MR 1465330
[BBCS08] Tom Brady, José Burillo, Sean Cleary, and Melanie Stein, Pure braid subgroups of
braided Thompson’s groups, Publ. Mat. 52 (2008), no. 1, 57–89. MR 2384840
[Bel04]
James Michael Belk, Thompson’s group F , Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, 2004,
arXiv:0708.3609.
[Bes03]
David Bessis, The dual braid monoid, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 36 (2003), no. 5,
647–683. MR 2032983
[BF]
James Belk and Bradley Forrest, Rearrangement groups of fractals, arXiv:1510.03133.
, A Thompson group for the Basilica, Groups Geom. Dyn. 9 (2015), no. 4,
[BF15]
975–1000. MR 3428407
[BFM+ 16] Kai-Uwe Bux, Martin G. Fluch, Marco Marschler, Stefan Witzel, and Matthew C. B.
Zaremsky, The braided Thompson’s groups are of type F∞ , J. Reine Angew. Math.
718 (2016), 59–101, With an appendix by Zaremsky. MR 3545879
[BG84]
Kenneth S. Brown and Ross Geoghegan, An infinite-dimensional torsion-free FP∞
group, Invent. Math. 77 (1984), no. 2, 367–381. MR 752825
[Bir74]
Joan S. Birman, Braids, links, and mapping class groups, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, N.J.; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1974, Annals of Mathematics
Studies, No. 82. MR 0375281
[BKL98]
Joan Birman, Ki Hyoung Ko, and Sang Jin Lee, A new approach to the word and
conjugacy problems in the braid groups, Adv. Math. 139 (1998), no. 2, 322–353.
MR 1654165
[BLVŽ94] A. Björner, L. Lovász, S. T. Vrećica, and R. T. Živaljević, Chessboard complexes and
matching complexes, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 49 (1994), no. 1, 25–39.
[Bra01]
Thomas Brady, A partial order on the symmetric group and new K(π, 1)’s for the
braid groups, Adv. Math. 161 (2001), no. 1, 20–40. MR 1857934
[Bri05]
Matthew G. Brin, On the Zappa-Szép product, Comm. Algebra 33 (2005), no. 2,
393–424. MR 2124335
[Bri07]
, The algebra of strand splitting. I. A braided version of Thompson’s group V ,
J. Group Theory 10 (2007), no. 6, 757–788. MR 2364825

CLASSIFYING SPACES, ORE CATEGORIES, GARSIDE FAMILIES

31

[Bro87]

Kenneth S. Brown, Finiteness properties of groups, Proceedings of the Northwestern
conference on cohomology of groups (Evanston, Ill., 1985), vol. 44, 1987, pp. 45–75.
MR 885095
[BS72]
Egbert Brieskorn and Kyoji Saito, Artin-Gruppen und Coxeter-Gruppen, Invent.
Math. 17 (1972), 245–271. MR 0323910
[CFP96]
J. W. Cannon, W. J. Floyd, and W. R. Parry, Introductory notes on Richard Thompson’s groups, Enseign. Math. (2) 42 (1996), no. 3-4, 215–256. MR 1426438
[CMW04] R. Charney, J. Meier, and K. Whittlesey, Bestvina’s normal form complex and the
homology of Garside groups, Geom. Dedicata 105 (2004), 171–188. MR 2057250
[DDG+ 15] Patrick Dehornoy, François Digne, Eddy Godelle, Daan Kramer, and Jean Michel,
Foundations of Garside theory., European Mathematical Society (EMS), 2015 (English).
[Deh06]
Patrick Dehornoy, The group of parenthesized braids, Adv. Math. 205 (2006), no. 2,
354–409. MR 2258261
[Far03]
Daniel S. Farley, Finiteness and CAT(0) properties of diagram groups, Topology 42
(2003), no. 5, 1065–1082. MR 1978047
[FMWZ13] Martin G. Fluch, Marco Marschler, Stefan Witzel, and Matthew C. B. Zaremsky,
The Brin-Thompson groups sV are of type F∞ , Pacific J. Math. 266 (2013), no. 2,
283–295.
[Gar69]
F. A. Garside, The braid group and other groups, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2) 20
(1969), 235–254. MR 0248801
[Hat02]
Allen Hatcher, Algebraic topology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002.
MR 1867354
[Hig74]
Graham Higman, Finitely presented infinite simple groups, Department of Pure Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, I.A.S. Australian National University, Canberra, 1974, Notes on Pure Mathematics, No. 8 (1974). MR 0376874
[Koz08]
Dmitry Kozlov, Combinatorial algebraic topology, Springer, 2008.
[KT08]
Christian Kassel and Vladimir Turaev, Braid groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics,
vol. 247, Springer, New York, 2008, With the graphical assistance of Olivier Dodane.
MR 2435235
[MPMN16] Conchita Martı́nez-Pérez, Francesco Matucci, and Brita E. A. Nucinkis, Cohomological finiteness conditions and centralisers in generalisations of Thompson’s group V ,
Forum Math. 28 (2016), no. 5, 909–921. MR 3543701
[Qui73]
Daniel Quillen, Higher algebraic K-theory. I, Algebraic K-theory, I: Higher K-theories
(Proc. Conf., Battelle Memorial Inst., Seattle, Wash., 1972), Springer, Berlin, 1973,
pp. 85–147. Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 341. MR 0338129
[Qui78]
, Homotopy properties of the poset of nontrivial p-subgroups of a group, Adv.
in Math. 28 (1978), no. 2, 101–128. MR 493916
[Ste92]
Melanie Stein, Groups of piecewise linear homeomorphisms, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
332 (1992), no. 2, 477–514. MR 1094555
[Wal65]
C.T.C. Wall, Finiteness conditions for CW-complexes, Ann. of Math. (2) 81 (1965),
56–69.
[Wal66]
, Finiteness conditions for CW complexes. II, Proc. Roy. Soc. Ser. A 295
(1966), 129–139.
[Wit16]
Stefan Witzel, Finiteness properties of thompson groups, Bielefeld University, 2016,
Habilitation Thesis.
[WZa]
Stefan Witzel and Matthew C.B. Zaremsky, The Σ-invariants of Thompson’s group
F via Morse theory, arXiv:1501.06682, to appear in the proceedings of Conference
“Topological Methods in Group Theory”.
, The Basilica Thompson group is not finitely presented, arXiv:1603.01150.
[WZb]
[WZc]
, Thompson groups for systems of groups, and their finiteness properties,
arXiv:1405.5491, to appear in Groups, Geometry, and Dynamics.
Faculty of Mathematics, Bielefeld University, Postfach 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany
E-mail address: switzel@math.uni-bielefeld.de

