arXiv:1401.4995v2 [] 30 Nov 2017

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL
CANCELLATION THEORY
KASIA JANKIEWICZ

Abstract. We give a new proof of the main theorem in the theory of C(6)
small cancellation complexes. We prove the fundamental theorem of cubical
small cancellation theory for C(9) cubical small cancellation complexes.

Introduction
Small cancellation theory studies groups with the property that the relators in
their group presentation have small overlaps with each other. The theory, initiated
by Tartakovskii [7], was developed by Greendlinger and others in the 60s, however
some ideas appeared much earlier, in the work of Dehn, among others. The geometric approach in the study of small cancellation groups, i.e. the use of disc diagrams,
was introduced by Lyndon and can be found in Chapter V of [4]. In geometric language, a combinatorial 2-complex satisfies the metric small cancellation condition
C0 ( p1 ), if each piece, i.e. a path arising in two ways as a subpath of 2-cell attaching
maps, has length less than p1 of the length of the boundary path of a 2-cell containing the piece. The non-metric small cancellation condition C(p) requires that
the boundary path of each 2-cell cannot be expressed as a concatenation of fewer
than p pieces. Note that the condition C0 ( p1 ) implies the condition C(p + 1). The
fundamental theorem in the theory takes the following form:
Theorem 1. Let X be a C(6)-complex and D → X a minimal disc diagram. One
of the following holds:
• D is a single cell,
• D is a ladder, or
• D has at least three spurs or shells of degree ≤ 3.
For details, see Theorem 2.3, all definitions can be found in Section 1. Theorem 1
incorporates a variation of Greendlinger’s Lemma as well as a "ladder result" that is
a variant of a classical result on annular diagrams. In its initial form, Greendliger’s
Lemma was used to prove that Dehn’s algorithm solves the word problem in C0 ( 61 )

Figure 1. Disc diagrams in C(6)-complexes.
1

2

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

small cancellation groups (see [1]). The above formulation was given by McCammond and Wise in [5]. Unlike the proof presented in this paper, their proof uses
combinatorial curvature and the combinatorial Gauss-Bonnet formula.
Cubical small cancellation theory is a generalization of classical theory and it
was introduced and developed by Wise in [8]. This builds upon the theory of nonpositively curved cube complexes. Instead of a standard group presentation,
we use

cubical presentation, i.e. express a group as π1 (X)/hh{φi∗ π1 (Yi ) }ii, where X is a
non-positively curved cube complex and each φi : Yi → X is a local isometry of
cube complexes.Immersed complexes Yi play the role of relators in classical theory.
We now introduce two types of pieces, contained in the intersection either of two
“relators”, or of a “relator” and the carrier of a hyperplane. Our main result is the
following:
Theorem 2. Let hX, {Yi }i satisfy C(9) and let (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) be a minimal
disc diagram. Then one of the following holds:
• D is a single vertex or single cone-cell,
• D is a ladder,
• D has at least three shells of degree ≤ 4 and/or corners and/or spurs.
The notation is explained in Section 4.1. The theorem in the case of C(12) is due
to Wise and can be found in [8]. Our result partially answers the question on the
limits of the theory posed by Wise in section 3.r in [8]. Compared to the proof in [8]
our explanation is shorter, self-contained and works for the more general condition
C(9) instead of C(12). Wise’s approach generalizes the classical case in ways we
have not engaged with, but the most important result there is covered here.
The paper is divided into five sections. Section 1 presents some preliminaries;
we set up notation and terminology that is used throughout the paper. It also
provides an exposition of classical small cancellation theory. In Section 2 we give
a new proof of Theorem 1. In Section 3 we will look more closely at non-positively
curved cube complexes and prove the following theorem:
Theorem 3. Let X be a non-positively curved cube complex and D → X be a
minimal disc diagram. Then D is a path graph or it has at least three corners
and/or spurs.
This proof is intended to motivate our approach in the proof of Theorem 2.
Section 4 provides the exposition of cubical small cancellation theory. Finally,
Section 5 is devoted to our main result - Theorem 2. We first introduce the notion
of D-walls, which are the crucial tool in our approach, and then after a few lemmas
we proceed with the proof.
Acknowledgements. I am deeply grateful to my advisor, Piotr Przytycki, for
being simply the best. I would also like to thank Damian Osajda and Daniel Wise
for helpful discussions and Maciej Zdanowicz for his support.

1. Basic definitions
In this section we give definitions of classical small cancellation theory, following
mainly [4] and [9].

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

3

1.1. Cell complexes. A map φ : X → Y between CW-complexes X, Y is called
combinatorial, if its restriction to any open cell of X is a homeomorphism onto an
open cell of Y . A CW-complex X is called combinatorial, if the attaching map
of each open cell in X is combinatorial for some subdivision of the sphere. We
will refer to a closed cell as a cell. A cell of dimension 0 is called a vertex and
a cell of dimension 1 is called an edge. Combinatorial map φ : X → Y between
combinatorial complexes X, Y is a combinatorial immersion if it is locally injective.
An n-cube is a copy of [−1, 1]n . A face of a cube is a subspace obtained by
restricting some coordinates to ±1, faces are cubes of lower dimension. A cube
complex is a combinatorial complex whose cells are cubes (with subdivision of the
boundary consisting of all faces of the cube). A cube of dimension 2 is called a
square.
A valence of a vertex v ∈ X is the number of edges in X incident to v with
loops counted twice. A path graph is a 1-complex P which is homeomorphic to an
interval (possibly degenerated, i.e. a single point). The value #{vertices} − 1 is
called the length of P and is denoted by l(P ). A combinatorial immersion P → X
where P is a path graph is called a combinatorial path. The images of vertices of
valence 1 in P are called endpoints of P . A path graph of length n is denoted by
In .
1.2. Disc diagrams. A disc diagram D is a compact, contractible 2-complex with
a fixed embedding in the plane. A disc diagram D in X is a combinatorial map
D → X where D is a disc diagram. The boundary path of D is the attaching map
of the 2-cell containing the point at ∞ (regarding S 2 = R2 ∪ ∞). See Figure 2.
The number of 2-cells in D is called the area of D and is denoted by area(D). A

Figure 2. Boundary paths.
minimal disc diagram is a disc diagram D → X with the boundary path P → X
such that area(D) is minimal among all disc diagrams with boundary path P . If
a disc diagram is homeomorphic to a disc, it is called nonsingular. A 2-cell C is
a boundary cell, if C ∩ ∂D 6= ∅ and C is an internal cell otherwise. An edge e is
a boundary edge, if e ⊂ ∂D, e is semi-internal, if e ∩ ∂D 6= ∅ but e 6⊂ ∂D and e
is internal if e ∩ ∂D = ∅. A vertex v is a boundary vertex, if v ∈ ∂D, and v is
an internal vertex otherwise. A combinatorial path P → D of length ≥ 1 with
endpoints of valence ≥ 3 in D and all other vertices of valence 2 in D is called an
arc. Note that every arc is embedded except for endpoints possibly. We call an arc
P in D a boundary arc if P ⊂ ∂D, and an internal arc otherwise. The internal
subdiagram of D, denoted by IntD , is the subcomplex consisting of all internal 2cells and all arcs that intersect ∂D trivially. See Figure 3. A disc diagram which is
a cube complex is called a squared disc diagram. It has cells of three types: vertices,
edges and squares.

4

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

Figure 3. The internal subdiagram.
1.3. C(p)-small cancellation condition. Let X be a combinatorial 2-complex.
A nontrivial combinatorial path P → X is a piece if there are 2-cells C1 , C2 such
that P → X factors as P → ∂C1 → X and P → ∂C2 → X but there does not exist
a homeomorphism ∂C1 → ∂C2 such that the diagram
P

∂C1

∂C2

X

commutes. A maximal piece is a piece that is not a proper subpath of any piece.
Note that in a minimal disc diagram D notions of maximal pieces and of internal
arcs coincide. Every internal and semi-internal edge in such a minimal disc diagram
is contained in a unique arc, hence in a unique maximal piece.
Let p be a natural number. A 2-complex X is C(p)-complex (or it satisfies
C(p)-condition) if the boundary path of each 2-cell cannot be expressed as a concatenation of fewer than p pieces in X.
1.4. Spurs and shells. Let D be a disc diagram. A k-shell of D is a 2-cell C → D
whose boundary path ∂C → D is the concatenation P0 P1 · · · Pk for some k ≥ 0
where P0 is a boundary arc in D and P1 , . . . , Pk are nontrivial internal arcs in D.
The concatenation P1 · · · Pk is called the inner path of C. The value k is called the
degree of C. A spur in D is a vertex of valence one in D. See Figure 4.
0-shell

spur

2-shell

Figure 4. Spur, 2-shell and 0-shell.
A cell C in D is called a disconnecting cell, if D − C is not connected.
1.5. Ladders. A ladder is a disc diagram L consisting of a sequence of 2-cells
and/or vertices C1 , C2 , . . . , Cn (n ≥ 2) and edges joining them in the following
way:
• if n = 2 one of the following holds:
– L = C1 ∪P C2 , where C1 , C2 are 2-cells and P → Ci is an arc for
i = 1, 2,

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

5

– L consists of C1 , C2 and an edge e such that e ∩ C1 , e ∩ C2 are two
endpoints of e,
• if n > 2 for every 1 < i < n there are exactly two connected components
L0 , L00 of L − Ci and subdiagrams L0 ∪ Ci , L00 ∪ Ci ⊂ L are both ladders.
Cells C1 and Cn are called end-cells. See Figure 5.

Figure 5. Examples of ladders. End-cells are marked.
1.6. n-Greendlinger Condition. We say that a disc diagram D satisfies n-Greendlinger
Condition if one of the following holds:
• D is a single cell,
• D is a ladder, or
• D has at least three spurs and/or shells of degree ≤ n, called exposed cells.
2. Fundamental theorem of classical small cancellation
The aim of this section is to give a proof of Theorem 1. First we state and
prove two lemmas, which will be useful in this proof, as well as later in the case of
non-positively curved cube complexes and diagrams in cubical small cancellation
complexes. Then we proceed with the proof of Theorem 1.
Lemma 2.1. Let D be a disc diagram without disconnecting cells. Then either IntD
is a nontrivial disc diagram, or D consists of at most two cells. If D is minimal
then so is IntD .
Proof. The embedding of IntD in the plane is induced by the embedding of D.
First, suppose that D has a trivial internal subdiagram. We will show that D has
a disconnecting cell or consists of ≤ 2 cells. Suppose D is not a single vertex. Let
b : S 1 → D denote the boundary path of D. If b is not an embedding, then either
D is a single 1-cell, or there exists vertex v such that |b−1 (v)| > 1. But then v is
disconnecting, which contradicts the assumption that D has no disconnecting cells.
Suppose b is an embedding. If all the vertices in ∂D have valence two, then D is
a single 2-cell. Suppose that there is a vertex v ∈ ∂D of valence ≥ 3 and denote
by P an internal arc in D starting at v. Since D has a trivial internal subdiagram,
the other endpoint of P also lies in ∂D. There are two 2-cells C1 , C2 containing
P . Observe that D − P is not connected. If there are any 2-cells in D other than
C1 , C2 , then one of C1 , C2 is disconnecting, a contradiction. Thus if D has more
than two cells then IntD is nontrivial.
Now let us prove that in this case IntD is compact and contractible. Let H :
D × I → D be a homotopy between H0 = idD and a constant map H1 = px
mapping D to x ∈ D which exists since D is contractible. There is a well-defined
retraction r : D → IntD mapping each internal arc P such that P ∩ ∂D 6= ∅ to its
endpoint contained in IntD (such an endpoint exists since P is not disconnecting)
and projecting each boundary 2-cell C onto C ∩ IntD . See Figure 6. We have
r ◦ ι = idIntD where ι : IntD → D is the inclusion. Then r ◦ H ◦ ι : IntD × I → IntD
is a homotopy between r ◦ idD ◦ ι = idIntD and a constant map r ◦ px ◦ ι = pr(x) .

6

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

IntD
Figure 6. Retraction D → IntD .
Thus IntD is contractible. Finally, IntD is compact since it is the image of the
compact space D under the continuous map r.
The minimality of IntD assuming the minimality of D is immediate.

We write D = D1 ∪C D2 if D = D1 ∪ D2 and C = D1 ∩ D2 .
Lemma 2.2. Let D = D1 ∪C D2 be a disc diagram where D1 , D2 are disc diagrams
and C is a single cell. If D1 and D2 satisfy n-Greendlinger Condition, then so does
D.
Proof. Suppose C is a 1-cell. If for i = 1, 2 the disc diagram Di is a single 2-cell
and C ⊂ Di then D is a ladder. Otherwise either C contains a 0-cell which is
disconnecting in D or C is contained in a 2-cell which is disconnecting in D. Thus
it suffices to consider cases where C is a 0-cell or a 2-cell. If one of D1 , D2 consists
only of C, then there is nothing to show, so we assume that C ( Di for i = 1, 2.
Observe that C is a boundary cell in Di for i = 1, 2, because otherwise D would
not embed in the plane. If one of D1 and D2 has at least three exposed cells, say
D1 , then at least two exposed cells of D1 remain exposed in D, since we glue along
a single cell. Also, at least one of exposed cells of D2 remains an exposed cell of
D. See Figure 7. If D1 and D2 are both ladders or single cells, then one of the

∪

=

Figure 7. We glue disc diagram with three exposed cells and
ladder along the marked cell.
following holds:
• the diagram D is a ladder, if for both i = 1, 2 either Di is a single 2-cell or
C is contained in an end-cell of Di ,
• the diagram D has three exposed cells, otherwise. To see this suppose that
D1 is a ladder and C is not contained in any end-cell of D1 . Then the
end-cells of D1 remain exposed in D and there is at least one end-cell of
D2 which remains exposed in D.

Theorem 2.3. Let X be a C(6)-complex and D → X a minimal disc diagram.
Then D satisfies 3-Greendlinger Condition.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

7

Proof. We prove the theorem inductively on the number of 2-cells. It suffices to
check 3-Greendlinger Condition for a disc diagram D with no disconnecting cells.
Indeed, if D has a disconnecting cell, i.e. D = D1 ∪C D2 , then by the induction
assumption they both satisfy 3-Greendlinger Condition and by Lemma 2.2 so does
D. If D is a single cell, there is nothing to prove. If D consists of two cells, then
it is a ladder. From now on we assume that D has no disconnecting cells and that
it has ≥ 3 cells. By Lemma 2.1 the internal subdiagram IntD is a minimal disc
diagram with fewer internal cells than D and by the induction assumption IntD
satisfies 3-Greendlinger Condition.
We now consider different cases depending on what IntD is and we show that in
every case there are at least three exposed cells in D. The case of a ladder is the
last one.
• (IntD is a single vertex v) The valence of v in D is at least 3 (if it was
2, then v would belong to the arc with endpoints in ∂D, so v would not
belong to IntD ), so there are at least three 2-cells attached to IntD , they
are 2-shells in D.
• (IntD is a single 2-cell) There is a 2-cell attached to each arc in IntD , it is
a 3-shell of D. By C(6) there are at least six arcs, hence there are at least
six 3-shells in D.
• (IntD has at least three exposed cells) Let C be an exposed cell of D, if C is
a spur, then there is at least one 2-shell in D attached to the endpoint of C.
Suppose C is a shell. Let P1 , . . . Pk be arcs in D such that the concatenation
P1 · · · Pk is a boundary arc of C in IntD . Since C is an exposed cell in IntD
and D is C(6) diagram, we have k ≥ 3. The 2-cell attached to P2 is a
3-shell in D. See Figure 8. Hence, for any exposed cell C of IntD there is
an exposed cell of D attached to C and to no other cell of IntD .
P2 P3
P 1 C P4

P
C

Figure 8. The cell C is exposed in the internal subdiagram. The
cells P2 , P3 on the left and P on the right are exposed in D.
• (IntD is a ladder) First suppose that IntD is a path graph of non-zero length.
Let IntD = P1 · · · Pk where Pi are arcs in D. There is at least one 2-shell in
D attached to each endpoint of IntD . At most one of 2-shells attached to
P1 is also attached to P2 , so there is one which is a 3-shell. See Figure 9.
P1 P2

P1

Figure 9. The internal subdiagram is a path graph of length ≥ 2
and of length 1.
If IntD is not a path graph, then there is a 2-cell in IntD which we assume
now. Suppose one of the end-cells of IntD , say C1 , is a 2-cell in IntD . Let

8

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

P1 , . . . , Pk be arcs in D such that P1 · · · Pk is a boundary arc of C1 in IntD .
There is a 3-shell in D attached to Pi for each i = 2, . . . , k − 1. By C(6) we
have k ≥ 5, so there are at least three such 3-shells. If both end-cells are
vertices, then there is at least one exposed cell attached to each of them.
Denote by i the minimal index such that Ci from the definition of ladder
is a 2-cell. There is a boundary arc P = P1 · · · Pk of Ci in IntD where
P1 . . . , Pk are arcs in D. As before there is a 3-shell in D attached to Pi
for each i = 2, . . . , k − 1. By C(6) we have k ≥ 3, so there are at least one
such 3-shell and in total there are at least three 3-shells in D.

3. Non-positively curved cube complexes
In this section we give a brief exposition of cube complexes, following [2] or [8]
and prove Theorem 3. The approach applied here will be later adapted in the proof
of the main theorem.
3.1. Non-positively curved cube complexes. A link of a vertex v in a cube
complex X is a complex whose vertices correspond to oriented edges incident to v
and there is an n-simplex spanned on a collection of vertices whenever there is an
(n + 1)-cube C → X such that corresponding edges in X are images of faces of C
containing a vertex v̄ which is mapped to v. It can be thought as an intersection
of a small radius sphere around the vertex v in X. A flag complex is a simplicial
complex, such that each set of vertices pairwise connected by edges spans a simplex.
A cube complex is called non-positively curved if all its vertex links are flag. A
CAT(0) cube complex is a simply connected, non-positively curved cube complex.
Let X be a non-positively curved cube complex and D → X a disc diagram in
X consisting of a three squares incident to a vertex v that are pairwise intersecting
along one edge. Since X is non-positively curved, there exists the disc diagram D0 →
X with ∂D = ∂D0 , such that D ∪∂D=∂D0 D0 is the 2-skeleton of a 3-dimensional
cube Q → X. The replacement of D by D0 is called a hexagon move. See Figure 10.
For every square C → D there exists the unique square Ĉ → D0 such that C ∩ Ĉ = ∅
in Q. Such Ĉ is called opposite to C.

C

b
C

Figure 10. Hexagon move.
3.2. Corners. Let D → X be a disc diagram in a cube complex X. A boundary
vertex v of valence 2 contained in some square C in D is a corner. The square C is
called a corner-square. See Figure 11. Note that a corner-square may contain more
than one corner.
3.3. Hyperplanes. Let X be a cube complex. A midcube is a subspace of a cube
[−1, 1]n obtained by restricting one coordinate to 0. A midcube of an edge is called
a midpoint. Let H be a new cube complex whose cubes are midcubes of X and
attaching maps are restrictions of attaching maps in X to midcubes. A connected
component Γ of H is called an immersed hyperplane.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

C

9

corner

Figure 11. Corner-square C.
There is a natural immersion Γ → X and we will often think of hyperplanes as
subspaces of X. See Figure 12. An immersed hyperplane Γ is said to be dual to
an edge e if a midpoint of e is a vertex of Γ. The immersed hyperplane dual to e is
denoted by Γ(e). We say that edges e, e0 are parallel if Γ(e) = Γ(e0 ).
hyperplane
midpoint
Figure 12. Hyperplane.
The carrier N (Γ) of an immersed hyperplane Γ in X (or of a subcomplex Γ of
an immersed hyperplane) is a cube complex defined as follows: for each cube C
in Γ we take the copy of the cube in X whose midcube is C and two such cubes
are attached to each other along faces if corresponding midcubes are attached to
each other in Γ along midcubes of these faces. By the construction, we have a map
ι : N (Γ) → X. Whenever ι is an embedding we write N (Γ) instead of ι N (Γ) .
The immersed hyperplanes in a squared disc diagram are immersed path graphs.
Suppose Γ is an immersed hyperplane in a squared disc diagram D such that ι :
N (Γ) → D is an embedding. Denote by K one of two connected components of
D − Γ. We define the Γ-component corresponding to K as K ∪ N (Γ), i.e. this is
the minimal subdiagram of D which contains K. See Figure 13.

Figure 13. The Γ-components.
Let D be a squared disc diagram with no disconnecting cells and nontrivial
internal subdiagram. A hyperplane Γ is collaring, if it is not dual to any internal
edge in D. We say that D is collared if Γ(e) is collaring for every semi-internal
edge e. We say that D is collared by {Γ1 , . . . , Γn } if for every semi-internal e there
exists i such that Γ(e) = Γi and all Γi are collaring.
Lemma 3.1. Let D be a squared disc diagram with no disconnecting cells that has
at least one corner. The following are equivalent
(1) D is collared,
(2) every hyperplane dual to an edge containing a corner of D is collaring,

10

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

Figure 14. First two disc diagrams are collared by a single hyperplane and the last disc diagram is bounded by three hyperplanes.
(3) all boundary vertices of D have valence ≤ 3.
Proof.
(1) ⇒ (2) This implication is trivial.
(2) ⇒ (3) If a boundary vertex v has valence > 3, then no hyperplane dual to a
semi-internal edge containing v is collaring. Let P be a minimal subpath of ∂D
with corners of D as endpoints and denote by v1 , . . . , vn the consecutive vertices of
P . Let 1 < i < n be the minimal number such that valence of vi in D is > 3. Let e
be the edge in D that contains v1 but is not contained in P . The hyperplane Γ(e)
is not collaring. See Figure 15.
vi
v1
e

Γ

Figure 15. The hyperplane Γ(e) dual to an edge e containing
corner v1 is not collaring.
(3) ⇒ (1) If D is not collared, then there exists an immersed hyperplane dual to
some internal edge and some semi-internal edge in D. There exists a square C in
D such that one of its edges e is semi-internal and the opposite one ē is internal.
Denote by v the boundary vertex contained in e. The valence of v is ≥ 4, because
otherwise ē would contain a boundary vertex.

3.4. Disc diagrams in non-positively curved cube complexes.
Theorem 3.2. Let X be a non-positively curved cube complex and D → X a
minimal disc diagram. Then D is a path graph or it has at least three corners
and/or spurs.
Proof.
Step 1. It suffices to verify 2-Greendlinger Condition.
Indeed,
• if D is a single 0-cell or a ladder consisting only of 1-cells, then D is a path
graph,
• if D is a single square or a ladder with at least one 2-cell or D has at
least three shells of degree ≤ 2 and/or spurs, then D has at least three
corners and/or spurs. To see that note that shells of degree ≤ 2 in D are
corner-squares.
We show that 2-Greendlinger Condition is satisfied by induction on the number of
cells.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

11

Step 2. All cells in D are embedded and that the intersection of two cells consists
of exactly one cell.
Since X is non-positively curved, no square in D has two consecutive edges glued,
because otherwise on of the vertex links in X would contain a loop. Similarly if
there are two squares with ≥ 2 consecutive common edges in D, then since X is
non-positively curved they are mapped to the same square in X, thus D is not
minimal. See Figure 16. Suppose that S is a non-embedded square in D. Let

Figure 16. These cannot be minimal disc diagrams in a nonpositively curved cube complex.
P → ∂S be a minimal subpath whose endpoints are mapped to the same point in
D such that S is not contained in the subdiagram D0 of D bounded by P . See
the left diagram in Figure 17. By the minimality of P the diagram D0 has no
S
D0

S1

D0 S2

Figure 17. Subdiagram D0 .
spurs. Since two squares cannot have two consecutive edges in common, the only
possible corner of D0 is the endpoint of P . Thus D0 contradicts the induction
assumption. Now suppose that there are two cells S1 , S2 in D whose intersection
is not connected. Let P1 → ∂S1 , P2 → ∂S2 be minimal subpaths with common
endpoints in D such that none of S1 , S2 is contained in the subdiagram D0 of D
bounded the concatenation of P1 and P2 . See the right diagram in Figure 17. As
before there are no spurs in D0 and there are at most two corners, so D0 contradicts
the induction assumption. Similarly all edges are embedded and every two edges
have at most one common vertex.
Step 3. It suffices to verify 2-Greendlinger Condition for D → X that has no
disconnecting cells.
It follows from Lemma 2.2. If D is a single cell, there is nothing to prove. If D
consists of two cells, then it contains a disconnecting cell. Thus we can restrict our
attention to diagrams with ≥ 3 squares. In such case we need to show that D has
≥ 3 corner-squares.

Step 4. From now on, we assume that D has no disconnecting cells. The carriers
of immersed hyperplanes in D embed.

Suppose to the contrary that Γ is an immersed hyperplane such that N (Γ) does
not embed. Let Γ0 be a minimal subpath of Γ such that N (Γ0 ) does not embed.
See Figure 18. Denote by DΓ0 the minimal disc diagram that contains N (Γ0 ) and
the internal connected component of D − N (Γ0 ), i.e. the unique component which
has trivial intersection with ∂D. One of the following holds:

12

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

Figure 18. The hyperplane Γ where N (Γ) does not embed.
• The diagram DΓ0 is a proper subdiagram of D, so DΓ0 has fewer cells than
D. But D0 has at most two corner-squares (images of end-cells of N (Γ0 )
possibly) and no spurs, hence we get a contradiction with the induction
assumption.
• We have DΓ0 = D. Set S to be any square in N (Γ0 ) that is not a cornersquare and let ΓS be the immersed hyperplane dual to the unique boundary
edge of S. See Figure 19. If N (ΓS ) is not embedded, then we proceed as

Figure 19. The diagram D = DΓ0 and hyperplane ΓS .
in the previous case and get a proper subdiagram DΓS of D with at most
two corner squares and no spurs, a contradiction. Thus N (ΓS ) embeds.
One of ΓS -components has 2 exposed squares and fewer cells than D, a
contradiction with the induction assumption.
Thus carriers of hyperplanes embed in D.
Step 5. The diagram D satisfies 2-Greendlinger condition.
Suppose, contrary to 2-Greendlinger Condition, that D has at most two cornersquares. We now show that in this case D is collared. If D had no corner-squares,
then any Γ(e)-component, for any boundary edge e would have ≤ 2 corner-squares,
no spurs and obviously less cells than D, which would contradict the induction
assumption. Thus D has some corner-squares. By Lemma 3.1 it suffices to verify
that all hyperplanes dual to edges containing corners are collaring. Let e0 be such
an edge. If Γ(e0 ) was not collaring then one of Γ(e0 )-components would have at
most two corner-squares, no spurs and fewer cells than D, which is impossible by
the induction assumption. See Figure 20. Thus D is collared.

Figure 20. The hyperplane Γ(e0 ).
By Lemma 2.1 the internal subdiagram IntD is a minimal disc diagram, so by
the induction assumption it satisfies 2-Greendlinger Condition and therefore it is a
path graph, or it has at least three corners and/or spurs. Let us consider these two
cases separately.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

13

• (IntD has at least three corners and/or spurs) There is a corner-square of
D attached to each spur of IntD , since valence in D of a spur of IntD is
≥ 3. Suppose that there is a corner v in IntD , let S be a square in IntD
containing v. If the valence of v in D is ≥ 4 then there is a corner-square of
D containing v. See Figure 21. If the valence is 3, then by a hexagon move
applied to squares containing v we obtain a disc diagram D0 with the same
number of cells as D and ∂D = ∂D0 . Since D is collared, by Lemma 3.1
all boundary vertices in D have valence ≤ 3, so square Sb opposite to S is a
corner-square of D0 and the diagram D0 − Sb has ≤ 2 corners and no spurs,
a contradiction. See Figure 21.
S

Ŝ
S

Figure 21. Internal diagram contains a spur, a corner whose valence in D is ≥ 4, or a corner whose valence in D is 3.
• (IntD is a path graph) There are corner-squares S1 , S2 each incident to
one endpoint of IntD . Since D is collared by Lemma 3.1, the diagram D
has no boundary vertices of valence > 3. Since S1 , S2 are the only cornersquares in D, we have D − (S1 ∪ S2 ) = I2 × In where n ≥ 1 is the length
of IntD . See the left diagram in Figure 22. Applying a hexagon move to
squares containing an endpoint of IntD we obtain a diagram with a proper
subdiagram D0 with two corners and no spurs, which is a contradiction and
completes a proof. See the right diagram in Figure 22.

Figure 22. On the left, the diagram D where IntD is a path graph
of length 3. On the right, the diagram D0 obtained from D by a
hexagon move.

Corollary 3.3. If X is a non-positively curved cube complex and D → X is a
minimal nonsingular disc diagram, then D has at least three corners.
3.5. Convexity. Let X be a CAT(0) cube complex. A subcomplex Y ⊂ X is
convex if for any vertices v, v 0 ∈ Y every combinatorial path P → X of minimal
length with endpoints v and v 0 is contained in Y . A combinatorial immersion
φ : Y → X of cube complexes is called a local isometry provided that for any pair
of edges e, e0 incident to a vertex v in X, if the vertices in link of φ(v) corresponding
to φ(e), φ(e0 ) are adjacent, then the vertices corresponding to e, e0 in the link of v
are also adjacent. Note that, if X is a non-positively curved cube complex and Γ
is an immersed hyperplane in X, then ι : N (Γ) → X is a local isometry.

Lemma 3.4. Let X, Y be non-positively curved cube complexes and let φ : Y → X
e is an embedding and the image is a
be a local isometry. Then the lift φe : Ye → X
e
e
e
convex subcomplex of X, where X, Y are universal covers of X, Y .

14

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

Proof. Let v, v 0 ∈ Ye be vertices. It suffices to verify that any minimal length
e
e 0 ) is the image under φe of a minimal length
e joining φ(v),
combinatorial path in X
φ(v
e be a minimal disc diagram with
combinatorial path in Ye joining v, v 0 . Let D → X
e
boundary path φ(β)γ̄, where β is a minimal length combinatorial path in Ye joining
e
e 0 ) (γ̄ denotes the
v, v 0 and γ is a minimal length combinatorial path joining φ(v),
φ(v
path γ with reversed direction). By induction on area(D) over pairs β, γ we show
e
that there exists a minimal length combinatorial path α in Ye such that φ(α)
= γ.
If area(D) = 0, then by Theorem 3.2
e
e 0 ), and what follows φ(β)
e
• either D is a path graph with endpoints φ(v),
φ(v
=
γ,
• or there is a spur w in D, distinct from v, v 0 . If w ∈ γ, then the length of
e
γ is not minimal. Otherwise, if w ∈ φ(β),
then since φe is a combinatorial
immersion, the length of β is not minimal.
Now suppose that area(D) = n > 0. By Theorem 3.2 there are at least three
corners and/or spurs in D, so at least one corner or spur distinct from v, v 0 , let us
denote it by w. If w is a spur, we conclude as before, that the length of one of
e containing
γ, β is not minimal. Thus w is a corner, denote by S the square in X
e
w. If w ∈ φ(β),
then since φe is a local isometry, there is a square S 0 in Ye such
e 0 ) = S. Let e1 e2 e3 e4 = ∂S 0 such that φ(e1 ), φ(e2 ) both contain w and
that φ(S
their concatenation e1 e2 is a subpath of β. Let β 0 be the path obtained from β by
replacing e1 e2 by e¯4 e¯3 (ē denotes the edge e with reversed direction). See Figure 23.
The path β 0 is joining v, v 0 in Ye and the minimal area of disc diagram with the
β

e4 e3
e1 e2

β0

Figure 23. Replacing e1 e2 by e¯4 e¯3 .
e 0 )γ̄ is equal to n−1. By induction assumption there is a minimal
boundary path φ(β
e
length combinatorial path α in Ye such that φ(α)
= γ.
Now suppose w ∈ γ and let e1 e2 e3 e4 = ∂S such that e1 , e2 both contain w and
their concatenation e1 e2 is a subpath of γ. Let γ 0 be the path obtained from γ
by replacing subpath e1 e2 by e¯4 e¯3 . The minimal area of a disc diagram with the
0
e
boundary path φ(β)γ̄
is n − 1, thus by the induction assumption there is a minimal
e 0 ) = γ 0 . Since φe is a local isometry,
length combinatorial path α0 in Ye such that φ(α
e
there exists a minimal length combinatorial path α in Ye such that φ(α)
= γ.

Corollary 3.5. The carrier N (Γ) of a hyperplane Γ in a CAT(0) cube complex X
is a convex subcomplex.
4. Cubical small cancellation theory
The aim of this section is to describe cubical small cancellation theory, due
to Wise, which is a generalization of classical small cancellation theory. In the
beginning we define cubical presentations introduced by Wise, following [6], [10]

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

15

or [8]. Secondly, we introduce the notion of pseudorectangles and use it to define
ladders. This definition is consistent with the one given in [8], but is more general
than the one in [10] and [6], which is equivalent to our definition with the restriction
that the joining pseudorectangles are actual rectangles. Then, we define cone-pieces
and hyperplane-pieces, there are several equivalent definitions of pieces in cubical
presentation complexes, here we follow [6]. This allows us to formulate cubical small
cancellation conditions. Notice, that we use different terminology than in [6], i.e.
our hyperplanes-pieces are referred to as wall-pieces there. Finally, we introduce
D-pieces for a disc diagram D in a cube complex X, which are aimed to correspond
to pieces in X.
4.1. Cubical presentation. A cubical presentation hX, {Yi }i consists of a nonpositively curved cube complex X and a family of local isometries of cube complexes
φi : Yi → X. The group G assigned to a cubical presentation is the quotient

G = π1 (X)/hh{φi∗ π1 (Yi ) }ii

Let

X∗ = X ∪

[
i

Cone(Yi )/{(yi , 0) ∼ φi (yi ) for all yi ∈ Yi },

where Cone(Y ) = Y × [0, 1]/Y × {1}. Then we have G = π1 (X ∗ ). We regard
X ∗ as a cell complex with cells divided into two families: cubes and pyramids (i.e.
cones on single cubes). We will refer to X ∗ as a presentation complex. There is
a natural combinatorial inclusion X → X ∗ . The vertices of X ∗ which are not
contained in X are called cone-points. By van Kampen lemma (see [3]), for every
closed combinatorial path P → X such that the composition P → X → X ∗ is
null-homotopic, there exist a disc diagram (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) with boundary path
P . The 2-cells of D are either squares of X or triangles (i.e. cones on edges) in
the cone Cone(Yi ) for some i. The points which are mapped to cone-points in X ∗
are also called cone-points of D. Triangles in D are grouped together into cyclic
families meeting around a cone-point v, such families form polygons which we call
cone-cells. From now on we regard D as a cell complex with 2-cells divided into
two families: squares and cone-cells. We define the complexity of a disc diagram D
as the following
Comp(D) = (#cone-cells, #squares).
The disc diagram (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) is called minimal if Comp(D) is minimal in
the lexicographical order among disc diagrams with the same boundary path as D.
Whenever the boundary path of a cone-cell C in D has a spur, we can replace C
by a cone-cell with this spur removed without changing the complexity of D. Thus
we can assume that the boundary path of each cone-cell is immersed.
Example. Let X be a wedge of circles labelled by x1 , . . . , xn . Suppose Yi are immersed closed combinatorial paths, i.e. Yi corresponds to a cyclically reduced word
±1
∗
ri in alphabet x±1
1 , . . . , xn . Then X of the cubical presentation hX, {Y1 , . . . , Ym }i
is the standard presentation complex associated to the group presentation hx1 , . . . , xn |r1 , . . . , rm i.
4.2. Pseudorectangles and ladders.
Definition 4.1. A rectangle is a squared disc diagram isometric to In × Im for
some natural numbers n, m. A pseudorectangle is a square disc diagram R with
∂R = e1 · · · en f1 · · · fk e0n · · · e01 gl · · · g1 (where n ≥ 1, k, l ≥ 0) such that
• for every i = 1, . . . , n we have Γ(ei ) = Γ(e0i ),

16

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

• for i 6= j we have Γ(ei ) ∩ Γ(ej ) = ∅, and

0
0
• the concatenation
 en f1 · · · fk en is a path in N Γ(en ) and e1 gl · · · g1 e1 is a
path in N Γ(e1 ) .
See the left diagram in Figure 24. Paths e1 · · · en and e0n · · · e01 are called the (opposite) sides of a pseudorectangle R.
Let D be a squared disc diagram with e1 e2 , e01 e02 ⊂ ∂D such that for i = 1, 2
we have Γ(ei ) = Γ(e0i ) and Γ(e1 ) ∩ Γ(e2 ) = ∅. The subdiagram K lying between
Γ(e1 ) and Γ(e2 ) is the maximal subdiagram in the
 unique connected component of
D − Γ(e1 ) ∪ Γ(e2 ) that intersects both N Γ(e1 ) , N Γ(e2 ) . See the right diagram
in Figure 24.
e1
e2

gl

g1

e01
e02
e0n

en
f1

fk

e01 0
e2
e1
e2

K
D

Figure 24. On the left, a pseudorectangle. On the right, the
subdiagram K consists of all squares lying between Γ(e1 ) and Γ(e2 )
in D .
Lemma 4.2. Let D → X be a minimal disc diagram in a non-positively curved cube
complex X. Suppose D is a pseudorectangle, as in Definition 4.1. Then k = l and
all squares lying between hyperplanes Γ(ei ) (i=1,. . . , n) can be pushed upward, i.e.
there exists a disc diagram D0 obtained from D by a sequence of hexagon moves such
that one of Γ(e1 )-components of D0 is rectangle with sides e1 · · · en and e0n . . . e01 .
See Figure 25.
e1

e1

Figure 25. Pushing squares upward.
Proof. It is immediate that it suffices to prove this lemma for n = 2. Denote by
m the number of squares in subdiagram lying between Γ(e1 ) and Γ(e2 ). We will
construct a sequence of diagrams D = Dm , . . . , D0 with the following properties:
• Di is obtained from Di+1 by a single hexagon move,
• the subdiagram Ki of Di lying between Γ(e1 ) and Γ(e2 ) has exactly i
squares.
By definition of m the diagram Dm satisfy the second property. Suppose we have
already defined Dm , . . . , Di+1 (where i = 0, . . . , m − 1), let us define Di . By Theorem 3.2 the diagram Ki+1 has at least three corners and/or spurs. Denote by vi+1
one, that is distinct from e1 ∩ e2 and e01 ∩ e02 . If vi+1 was a spur, there would be two
squares with two consecutive common edges, which is impossible by the minimality
of D. See Figure 26. Thus vi+1 is a corner. Denote by C the square in Ki+1
containing vi+1 . There are two more squares in Di+1 containing vi+1 , they are

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

17

Figure 26. A spur in Ki violates the minimality of D.
contained in the carrier of exactly one of hyperplanes Γ(e1 ), Γ(e2 ). We perform a
hexagon move at vi+1 . We set Di to be the resulting diagram and we denote by Ci
the square opposite to C. See Figure 27. In D0 the diagram N Γ(e1 ) ∪ N Γ(e2 )
C

C3

Figure 27. The sequence of diagrams D = D4 , . . . , D0 .
is a rectangle, i.e. K0 is a path graph, because otherwise there would be three spurs
in K0 , which would contradict the minimality of D0 . Note that Cj remains in all
Dt for t ≤ j, in particular in D0 . Let n1 , . . . , nh be a subsequence of 1, . . . , m consisting of exactly those numbers for which Cnj was obtained by pushing a square
downward, i.e. they appeared in steps where the hexagon move was applied to
squares such that two of them
 are contained in N (Γ(e2 )). In other words, Cnj
intersects N (Γ(e2 )) in Dnj and what follows, Cnj does not intersect N Γ(e1 )

in Dnj and what follows also in Dt for t < nj . Now squares pushed downward,
will be pushed “back”. We define a sequence of disc diagrams D0 = D00 , . . . , Dh0 in
0
the following way: the diagram Dj+1
is obtained from Dj0 by pushing square Cnj
upward, i.e. we first
 apply a hexagon move to Cnj and two uniquely determined
squares in N Γ(e2 ) which meet Cnj and then we apply a second hexagon move to

bn opposite to Cn and two uniquely determined squares in N Γ(e1 )
the square C
j
j
bn . See Figure 28. Note that the first hexagon move is the “inverse”
which meet C
j

Figure 28. Pushing squares “back”. The sequence of diagrams D00 , . . . , Dh0 .
of the hexagon moves performed in the definition of Dnj and can be performed because all other hexagon moves performed in first part (i.e. those used in definition
of Di for i = nj j = 1, . . . , h) leave unchanged N (Γ(e2)) and all squares
already

pushed downward. In each Dj0 the subdiagram N Γ(e1 ) ∪ N Γ(e2 ) is a rectangle
and so the second hexagon move is also well defined. We set D0 = Dh0 and we are
done.


18

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

Definition 4.3. A ladder is a minimal disc diagram (L, ∂L) → (X ∗ , X) in a presentation complex X ∗ consisting of a sequence of cone-cells and/or vertices C1 , . . . , Cn
(n ≥ 2) and square complexes joining them in the following sense:
• if n = 2 one of the following holds:
(1) C1 and C2 are cone-cells glued along a vertex v, i.e. L = C1 ∪v C2 , or
(2) C1 and C2 are joined by a single edge e where e ∩ C1 , e ∩ C2 are two
vertices of e, or
(3) the diagram consists of a pseudorectangle R and cone cells C1 , C2 each
attached to one side of R,

Figure 29. Ladders for n = 2.
• if n ≥ 3, then for each 1 < i < n there are exactly two connected components L0 and L00 of L − Ci and subdiagrams L0 ∪ Ci , L00 ∪ Ci ⊂ L are both
ladders.
Cn

C1
Figure 30. Example of a ladder.
The cells C1 , Cn are called end-cells of L.

e
4.3. Pieces. Given a map φ : Y → X an elevation of Y to the universal cover X
e
e
e
of X is a map Y → X which covers Y → X such that Y is the covering space
corresponding to ker φ∗ , where φ∗ : π1 (Y ) → π1 (X) is induced by φ. Note that
such Ye is the universal cover of Y , whenever φ∗ is injective. An abstract cone-piece
in Yi of Yj is the intersection P = Yei ∩ Yej0 for some elevations Yei , Yej0 of Yi , Yj to the
e of X. In the case where i = j we require that for the projections
universal cover X
P → Yi , P → Yj there is no automorphism Yi → Yj such that the diagram
P

Yi

Yj

X

e where
commutes. An abstract hyperplane-piece in Yi is the intersection Yei ∩ N (A),
e
e
e
e
A is a hyperplane in X such that A ∩ Yi = ∅. An abstract piece is an abstract
cone-piece or an abstract hyperplane-piece. A path α → Yi is a piece (respectively,
a cone-piece, or a hyperplane-piece) in Yi , if it lifts to Yei into an abstract piece
(respectively, an abstract cone-piece, or an abstract hyperplane-piece) in Yi . A
closed path is essential if it is not homotopic to a constant map. The cubical
presentation hX, {Yi }i satisfies C(p)-small cancellation condition, if no essential
closed path in Yi can be expressed as a concatenation of fewer than p pieces.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

19

Let (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) be a minimal disc diagram. A D-cone-piece in a conecell C is a subpath P of ∂C which lies in C ∩C 0 for some cone-cell C 0 6= C in D. See
Figure 31. A D-hyperplane-piece in C is a subpath P of ∂C such that there exists a
C0

C

Figure 31. D-cone-piece and D-hyperplane-pieces.
diagram D0 obtained from D by a sequence of hexagon moves and a rectangle In ×I1
in D0 with P = In × {1}. A D-piece is a D-cone-piece or a D-hyperplane-piece.
See Figure 31. Note that any subpath of a D-piece is a D-piece.
For every D-cone-piece in C there exists a unique maximal D-cone-piece containing it, but in general this is not true for the D-hyperplane-pieces. See Figure 32.

e1 e2
e3
C
Figure 32. The maximal D-hyperplane-pieces in C are e1 e2 and e2 e3 .
Lemma 4.4. Let ψ : (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) be a minimal disc diagram in the presentation complex X ∗ . Then every D-piece in a cone-cell C corresponding to Yi is
mapped under ψ to a piece in Yi .
Proof. First suppose that P is a D-cone-piece of C 0 in C, where C corresponds to
Yi and C 0 to Yj . If i 6= j, then there is nothing to check. Suppose that i = j and P
is not mapped to a piece, i.e. there is an automorphism φ : Yi → Yj such that the
diagram
cp

P

Yi

0 0

cp

φ

Yj

X

commutes, where p : P → ∂C, c : ∂C → Yi , p0 : P → ∂C 0 , c0 : ∂C 0 → Yj . By
the universal property of amalgamated sum, there exists µ : C1 ∪P C2 → Cone(Yj )
such that the diagram
P

C
Cone(φ)Cone(p)

C

0

C ∪P C
0

Cone(p )

0

µ

Cone(Yj )

20

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

commutes. We can replace C and C 0 by a single cone-cell contained in Cone(Yj )
and get a diagram D0 → X, with ∂D0 = ∂D and Comp(D0 ) <lex Comp(D), which
contradicts the minimality of D.
Now suppose P is a D-hyperplane-piece in C, let R = In × I1 be the rectangle
in diagram D0 obtained from D by a sequence of hexagon moves such that P =
In × {1}. Let e be any edge in ψ(R) which has a vertex in Yi , but is not contained
in Yi . Let Yei be some elevation of Yi and ẽ a lift of e with a vertex ṽ in Yei . Then ẽ
is not contained in Yei , since e was not contained in Yi . It suffices to check that Γ(ẽ)
does not intersect Yei . Suppose the contrary and denote by e˜0 an edge in Yei dual
to Γ(ẽ). See Figure 33. Observe that, by Lemma 3.4 Yei is a convex subcomplex


e and by Corollary 3.5, also N Γ(ẽ) is convex. The intersection N Γ(ẽ) ∩ Yei
of X
contains ṽ and e˜0 and since it is convex as an intersection of convex complexes it
also contains ẽ, which is a contradiction.
ṽ
ẽ
Γ(ẽ)

Yei

ẽ0

Figure 33. The thickened path is minimal, so it is contained in
Yei , since Yei is convex.



Having defined D-pieces in a disc diagram D, we can adapt the notion of shells.
A non-disconnecting boundary cell C is a shell of degree k (or a k-shell for short)
if k is the minimal number such that the inner path P of C can be expressed as
a concatenation of k D-pieces. The degree of a cone-cell C in D is denoted by
degD (C). In the statement of the main result we will also use the notion of corners
as defined in Section 3.2 and spurs as in Section 1.4.
Lemma 4.5. If C is a k-shell, then for every i = 1, . . . , k there exists an edge e in
the inner path P of C, such that e ⊂ Pi for any decomposition P = P1 · · · Pk into
D-pieces.
T
Proof. Suppose the contrary and let i be minimal such that the intersection Pi
over all decompositions P = P1 · · · Pk into D-pieces contains no edges. Since all Pi
are connected subpaths of P it follows that there exist two decompositions P1 · · · Pk
and Q1 · · · Qk of P into D-pieces such that Pi ∩ Qi contains no edges. Without loss
of generality we can assume that Qi occurs in P before Pi . Then
Observe that

Pj ∩ Ql 6= ∅ for some j < i and l > i.

P1 · · · Pj · Ql − Pj · Ql+1 · · · Qk
is a decomposition of P into at most k−1 D-pieces which contradicts the assumption
that C is a k-shell.

Every embedded boundary cone-cell C that does not disconnect is a k-shell for
some k, since every edge of ∂C internal in D is contained in some D-piece. The
degree of a boundary cone-cell in D is stable under applying hexagon moves in D.
This follows immediately from the definition of D-piece.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

21

Example. By Lemma 4.2, if R is pseudorectangle with a side P contained in ∂C,
then P is a D-hyperplane-piece in C, In particular if L is a ladder, then every
end-cell C is a vertex or 1-shell in L . All other cone-cells are disconnecting, so
there are no shells of degree > 1 in L.
5. The main theorem
Our goal is to prove the following theorem:
Theorem 5.1. Let hX, {Yi }i be a cubical presentation satisfying C(9) small cancellation condition and let (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) be a minimal disc diagram. Then
one of the following holds:
• D is a single vertex or a single cone-cell,
• D is a ladder,
• D has at least three shells of degree ≤ 4 and/or corner-squares and/or
spurs. However, if D contains a 4-shell, there are at least four shells of
degree ≤ 4 and/or corner-squares and/or spurs.
We will refer to shells of degree ≤ 4, corner-squares and spurs as exposed cells. If
D = C is a single cone-cell, then C is also called an exposed cell of D. This theorem
1
) with suitable notion of exposed cone-cells is Theorem 9.3
for the condition C 0 ( 12
in [10] or Theorem 3.38 in [8]. In these papers generalized corners are allowed
in the place of corners, which gives a slightly weaker statement than here. See
Lemma 5.12 for the definition of generalized corners and note that in [10] they are
called cornsquares.
Definition 5.2. A generalized ladder is a disc diagram D such that
• either D is a rectangle In × I1 with n ≥ 1,
• or D = R1 ∪C1 L ∪C2 R2 , where
– L is a ladder or a single cone-cell or vertex (called the ladder part of
D) and C1 , C2 are vertices or edges that in the case where L is a ladder
are contained in two different end-cells of L.
– for i = 1, 2 the diagram Ri is one of the following:
∗ a vertex equal Ci , or
∗ a rectangle Ini × I1 with ni ≥ 1 (called an attached rectangle of
D) with Ci = vi × I1 where vi is an endpoint of Ini , or
∗ a square (called an attached square) and Ci is a vertex of Ri .
See Figure 34.
R1

R2
L

Figure 34. Generalized ladder.
A single cell meets the definition of a generalized ladder, while it is not a genuine
ladder. Note that all generalized ladders have ≤ 2 exposed cells. In fact, as we will
see later, every minimal disc diagram (D, ∂D) → (X, X ∗ ) with ≤ 2 exposed cells is
a generalized ladder. We will inductively prove for D as in Theorem 5.1 that the
following condition (which will be referred to as condition (?)) is satisfied:

22

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

• D is a generalized ladder, or
• D has at least three exposed cells (shells of degree ≤ 4 and/or cornersquares and/or spurs). However, if D contains a 4-shell, there are at least
four exposed cells.
Lemma 5.3. Let (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) be a disc diagram such that D = D1 ∪C D2
where C is a single cell. If both D1 , D2 satisfy (?), then so does D.
Proof. This proof is much like the proof of Lemma 2.2. We can assume that C ( Di
for i = 1, 2, because otherwise there is nothing to prove. If any of the components,
say D1 , has ≥ 3 exposed cells, then ≥ 2 of them are disjoint from C, so they remain
exposed in D. Together with one exposed cell in D2 (possibly D2 itself in the case
where D2 is a single cell) there are ≥ 3 exposed cells in D. Similarly, if there is a
4-shell in D, then it is a 4-shell of one of components D1 , D2 , say D1 . Thus D1 has
≥ 4 exposed cells, so ≥ 3 remain exposed in D and we have ≥ 4 exposed cells in
total in D.
Now suppose that D1 , D2 are both generalized ladders. Then D is a generalized
ladder, if one of the following holds:
• C is a vertex and for i = 1, 2 either the vertex C is contained in an exposed
cone-cell/spur of Di (in that case, in particular, Di has at most one attached
rectangle or square) or Di is a single square. See the first diagram in
Figure 35.
• C is a cone-cell and for i = 1, 2 it is exposed in Di .
• C is an edge and for i = 1, 2 one of the following holds:
– C is contained in an exposed cone-cell of Di ,
– C is a side of an attached rectangle Ri in Di opposite to the side
contained in the ladder part Li of Di ,
– Di is a rectangle and C is one of its sides.
See the second diagram in Figure 35.
• C is a square and for i = 1, 2 the square C is a corner-square contained
in a rectangle Ri , that is either an attached rectangle of Di or Ri = Di .
Moreover R1 ∪C R2 is a rectangle whose two opposite sides are contained
in cone-cells and/or corner-squares of D. See the third figure in Figure 35.

Figure 35. Gluing generalized ladders along marked cells.
In other cases, there are at least three exposed cells in D. Indeed one of the following
holds:
• C is not contained in an exposed cell in one of D1 , D2 , say D1 . In such case
there are two exposed cells in D1 , which remain exposed in D, so there are
at least three exposed cells in total.
• C is contained in an attached square R of one of D1 , D2 . Then R is a
corner-square of D.
• for i = 1, 2 the cell C is contained in a rectangle Ri , that is either an
attached rectangle of Di or Ri = Di , but R1 ∪C R2 is not a rectangle with
two opposite sides entirely contained in cone-cells and/or corner-squares of
Di . See Figure 36.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

23

Figure 36. Gluing generalized ladders along marked cells.

Before the proof of Theorem 5.1 we define D-walls which will play similar role in
cubical small cancellation complexes as hyperplanes play in cube complexes. This
is the crucial tool we use in proving Theorem 5.1. Next we discuss the notion of
Γ-components, similar to one introduced in Section 3.3 and finally proceed with the
proof.
5.1. D-walls. Throughout this section (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) is a minimal disc diagram with no disconnecting cells such that all cone-cells embed. The complex X ∗ is
the presentation complex corresponding to a presentation hX, {Yi }i satisfying C(9)
condition.
Definition 5.4. Let e0 , . . . , en be a sequence of edges of D and C1 , . . . , Cn a sequence of 2-cells in D (with ei 6= ei+1 and Ci 6= Ci+1 ) such that for all i = 1, . . . , n
we have
(1) either Ci is a square with ei−1 , ei a pair of opposite edges, i.e. ei−1 ∩ ei = ∅,
(2) or Ci is a cone-cell with edges ei−1 , ei ⊂ ∂Ci such that there does not exist
a subpath of ∂Ci containing both ei−1 and ei , that can be expressed as a
concatenation of < 5 D-pieces.
Such a pair of sequences Γ = {(ei ), (Ci )} is called a D-wall. Note that, if Cn is a
boundary cone-cell of D and en−1 is an internal or semi-internal edge contained in
Cn , then condition (2) is satisfied for any en ⊂ ∂D ∩ ∂Ci .
The D-wall Γ might be identified with a path graph locally embedded (not
combinatorially) in D in the following way:
• the vertices of Γ correspond to edges e0 , . . . , en and they are mapped to the
midpoints of corresponding edges
• the edges of Γ correspond to cells C1 , . . . , Cn and each edge of Γ is mapped
to a midcube in the square, or respectively to the union of two intervals
joining cone-point with midpoints of the appropriate edges in the cone-cell.
See Figure 37.
Γ

Figure 37. Example of a D-wall Γ.
The D-wall {(ek−1 , . . . , el ), (Ck , . . . , Cl )} for some 1 ≤ k < l ≤ n is called a
sub-D-wall of Γ. The D-wall Γ = {(e0 , . . . , en ), (C1 , . . . , Cn )} with n ≥ 1 is called

24

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

• maximal if en ⊂ ∂D or en = ek for some k < n,
• bimaximal if both {(e0 , . . . , en ), (C1 , . . . , Cn )} and {(en , . . . , e0 ), (Cn , . . . , C1 )}
are maximal.
Let e be an edge in D and K ⊂ D a subcomplex, we say that
• Γ is dual to e, if there exists k such that ek = e (then we also say that e is
dual to Γ),
• Γ starts at e (respectively, in K), if e0 = e (respectively, if e0 ⊂ K),
• Γ terminates at e (respectively, in K) if en = e (respectively, if en ⊂ K).
0
0
Let Γ = {(e00 , . . . , e0m ), (C10 , . . . , Cm
)}. We say that Γ and Γ0 intersect if Ci = Cj0
for some i, j.
Lemma 5.5. Let e be an edge in D. There exists a bimaximal D-wall dual to e.
Proof. Since D is compact, there are finitely many edges in D, so it suffices to prove
that for every cone-cell C and edge e ⊂ ∂C there exists e0 ⊂ ∂C such that e, e0
satisfy Condition (2) from Definition 5.4. Indeed, we construct a bimaximal D-wall
step by step until it terminates in ∂D or itself. If e ⊂ ∂D we set e0 to any other
edge in ∂C. If e 6⊂ ∂D, but C ∩ ∂D contains some edges, we set e0 to any boundary
edge in C. Assume that C is a cone-cell with at most one boundary vertex in ∂C.
Suppose that for every edge e0 in ∂C there is a path in ∂C containing both e, e0 ,
that is a concatenation of ≤ 4 D-pieces. Then there exists a pair of such paths
that covers whole ∂C, thus ∂C can be expressed as a concatenation of 8 D-pieces,
which is a contradiction with C(9) condition. Thus there exists a required e0 .

Note that in general a maximal D-wall dual to an edge e is not unique. The
notions of hyperplanes and maximal D-walls starting at boundary edges coincide
if D → X ∗ factors as D → X → X ∗ , i.e. if D consists of squares only.
A D-wall Γ is collaring if Γ is not dual to any internal edge in D. We say that
D is collared, if for every semi-internal edge e every D-wall Γ dual to e is collaring.
We say that D is collared by a collection of D-walls Γ1 , . . . , Γn , if D is collared and
every semi-internal edge e is dual to Γi for some i.

Figure 38. Collared disc diagrams.
Remark 5.6. If D is collared then for every boundary cone-cell C with the inner
path e1 · · · en , paths e2 · · · en and e1 · · · en−1 both can be expressed as concatenations
of < 5 D-pieces. In particular, degD C ≤ 5.
Proof. Indeed, otherwise the D-wall {(e1 , en−1 ), (C)} or {(e2 , en ), (C)} would contradict the assumption that D is collared.

Lemma 5.7. The diagram D with at least one exposed cell is collared if and only
if all D-walls starting in semi-internal edges of exposed cells are collaring.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

25

Proof. The implication from left to right is trivial. For the other implication, assume that all D-walls starting in semi-internal edges of exposed cells are collaring.
Observe that for every semi-internel edge e contained in non-exposed cone-cell C
there is an edge e0 which is not in ∂D such that {(e, e0 ), (C)} is a D-wall. Thus for
every semi-internal edge e of exposed cell there exists a D-wall starting at e which
also terminates at a semi-internal edge of an exposed cell. It follows that there
exists a unique collection G of D-walls with both endpoints in semi-internal edges
of exposed cells, such that every semi-internal edge in D is dual to an element of
G.
If D is not collared, there are a semi-internal edge e, an internal edge e0 and a
2-cell C such that Γ = {(e, e0 ), (C)} is a D-wall. But e is also dual to some Γ0 ∈ G,
so taking the suitable sub-D-wall of Γ0 and composing it with Γ, we obtain a non
collaring D-wall starting in a semi-internal edge of an exposed cell of D. This is a
contradiction.

Remark 5.8. Let D be a collared disc diagram with n ≥ 1 exposed cells. We have
|G| = n where G is the collection of D-walls from the proof of Lemma 5.7. The
diagram D is collared by G. For any collection H such that D is collared by H we
have |H| ≥ n.
We define the D-carrier N (Γ) of a D-wall Γ = {(ei ), (Ci )} as follows
ǹ

N (Γ) :=

j=1

Ci / ,
∼

where Ci , Ci+1 are glued along the maximal D-piece of Ci in Ci+1 containing ei+1 .
It is immediate that N (Γ) is a ladder. There is a natural combinatorial immersion
ι : N (Γ) → D whose image is the minimal subcomplex of D that contains Γ
regarded as an immersed path graph. Whenever ι is an embedding we write N (Γ)
for ι N (Γ) .
Let Γ be a bimaximal D-wall with embedded D-carrier. Observe that D − Γ has
exactly two connected components, denote one of them by K. The Γ-component
corresponding to K is defined as K ∪ N (Γ). It is the minimal subdiagram of D
containing N (Γ) and K.
Lemma 5.9. Let C be a cone-cell which is an end-cell of a ladder L contained in
D. Denote by P the inner path of C in L. For any maximal D-piece Q in C, which
has a common edge with P , we have P ⊂ Q. See the left diagram in Figure 39.
Q P

Figure 39. If Q is maximal D-piece, then it contains whole P .
Proof. We may assume that there is a rectangle in D with side Q. Let R be a
pseudorectangle from the definition of ladder with side P . By Lemma 4.2 we may
push all squares lying between hyperplanes dual to edges in P upward, so we get a
diagram containing a rectangle with side P ∪ Q. See Figure 39.


26

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

Lemma 5.10. Let Γ be a bimaximal D-wall with embedded carrier and denote by
D0 , D00 Γ-components of D. If D0 is a ladder (see Figure 40.), then degD (C) ≤
degD00 (C) for every boundary cone-cell C in D00 . In particular, all exposed cells of
D00 are also exposed in D.

Γ

Figure 40. D-wall Γ.
Proof. Let C1 , · · · , Cn denote the cone-cells in the ladder D0 . By Lemma 5.9
we have degD (C) = degD00 (C). For any other cone-cell C 6= Ci in D00 we have
degD (C) ≤ degD00 (C), because every hexagon move in D00 can be also performed
in the bigger diagram D which contains D00 and what follows every D00 -piece of C
is a D-piece. It remains to verify that there are no exposed cells in D00 , which are
internal in D. All boundary cells of D00 , which are internal in D lie in N (Γ), so
they are not exposed in D00 , by the definition of D-wall.

Remark 5.11. By the definition of a ladder, if both Γ-components in Lemma 5.10
are ladders, then so is D.
5.2. Preliminaries. Let us now prove the following lemmas useful in the proof of
Theorem 5.1.
Lemma 5.12 (Lemma 3.6 in [10]). Let D → X be a minimal disc diagram in a
non-positively curved cube complex X and let e, e0 ⊂ ∂D be a pair of adjacent edges
such that Γ(e) and Γ(e0 ) intersect in a square S in D. Suppose that S is the only
square of the intersection of Γ(e), Γ(e0 ) in D and that Γ(e), Γ(e0 ) are collaring. See
Figure 41. Such square S together with edges e, e0 will be referred to as generalized
corner with edges e, e0 .
e
e0

v S

Figure 41. Generalized corner.
There exists a diagram D0 → X obtained from D by a sequence of hexagon moves
such that there is a square S 0 in D0 with e0 e a subpath of ∂S 0 .
Proof. Denote by v the unique vertex in S which is internal in D. First suppose that
D − S = I2 × In for some n ≥ 0, i.e the internal subdiagram IntD is a path graph.
Denote by v1 , . . . , vn all consecutive vertices of IntD with vn = v. Set Dn = D and
define Dk−1 as a diagram obtained from Dk by a hexagon move applied to squares
containing vertex vk , see Figure 42. The diagram D0 contains a square S such that
ee0 is a subpath of ∂C.
In general case by Lemma 4.2 applied to D − S, we know that there exists a
disc diagram D0 → X obtained from D by a sequence of hexagon moves such that

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

e
e0

v1

27

vk

Figure 42. The diagram Dk .
the subdiagram lying between Γ(e) and Γ(e0 ) in D − S is a path graph, so there
is a subdiagram containing e, e0 and S which has a form as in the first step. This
completes the proof.

Let us state two corollaries of Lemma 5.12, which are useful in the proof of
Theorem 5.1. We assume that (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) is a disc diagram in the presentation complex X ∗ corresponding to a presentation hX, {Yi }i which satisfies C(9)
condition. The first corollary is an immediate consequence of the assumption that
maps Yi → X are local isometries:
Corollary 5.13. Suppose D contains a cone-cell C and a generalized corner with
edges e, e0 ⊂ ∂C. See Figure 43. Then D is not minimal.
D

C ee0

Figure 43. This diagram is not minimal.
Corollary 5.14. Suppose that (D, ∂D) → (X ∗ , X) is a minimal disc diagram,
C ⊂ D is a cone-cell, P = e1 · · · en is a subpath of ∂C and e is an edge which
has a common vertex with e1 , but is not contained in ∂C. Suppose that there is a
subdiagram DP of D consisting of squares only and containing P and e such that
hyperplanes Γ(e) and Γ(en ) intersect in DP . See the left diagram in Figure 44.
Then there exists a diagram
DP0 obtained from DP by a sequence of hexagon moves

such that P ⊂ N Γ(e) in DP0 , see the right diagram in Figure 44. In particular,
P is a D-piece.
en

en

e

e

Figure 44. The diagrams DP and DP0 .
Proof. The proof is by induction on the length of P . If n = 1, i.e. P = e1 , then the
assertion follows immediately from Lemma 5.12 applied to the generalized corner
with edges e, e1 . Suppose n > 1, by Corollary 5.13 we know that Γ(ei ) and Γ(ei+1 )
do not intersect for any i = 1, . . . , n − 1. It follows that Γ(e1 ) intersects Γ(e), hence
by Lemma 5.12 there is a disc diagram D0 obtained from DP by a sequence of
hexagon moves such that there is a square S in D0 with ee1 ⊂ ∂S. Denote by e0 the

28

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

edge opposite to e in S and set P 0 = e2 · · · en . Note that Γ(en ) and Γ(e) = Γ(e0 )
intersect in D0 , since Γ(en ) and Γ(e) intersect in DP . By the induction assumption
applied to P 0 , e0 and the appropriate diagram there is a diagram DP0 obtained from
D0 by a sequence of hexagon moves leaving S unchanged such that P 0 is a path in
N Γ(e0 ) , by construction so is P .


5.3. Proof of the main theorem. In this section we prove Theorem 5.1. The
proof is divided into nine steps. The first three steps allow us to reduce the problem
to diagrams with nontrivial internal subdiagram and all cells embedded and not
disconnecting. In the fourth step we show that the D-carriers of D-walls embed.
In the next two steps we restrict our attention to collared diagrams of two types:
diagrams with exactly two exposed cells (in that case we intend to verify that they
are ladders) and diagrams with three exposed cells with a 4-shell among them (in
that case we intend to obtain a contradiction). In Step 7 we prove that the internal
subdiagrams are squared. Finally, in two last steps we show that there are no nonexposed cone-cells in our diagrams and what follows they are ladders in the first
case and in the second case we obtain a contradiction.
It is immediate that condition (?) (formulated after Definition 5.2) implies the
hypothesis of the theorem. We will prove by induction on the number of cells that
all minimal disc diagrams satisfy (?). We assume that all disc diagrams having
fewer cells than D satisfy (?) and deduce that so does D.
Step 1. All cone-cells in D are embedded. The intersection of two cone-cells is
connected.
Proof. First suppose that C is a cone-cell that does not embed. Let P be the
minimal subpath of ∂C such that its endpoints are mapped to the same point p in
D. The path P is a boundary path of the disc diagram D0 , which is the closure
of a connected component of D − C. See the left diagram in Figure 45. There are

C

D0

D0
C1 C2

Figure 45. Cell C is not embedded. Cells C1 , C2 intersect in two points.
no spurs in D0 by the minimality of P . Observe that for any shell C 0 in D0 , the
connected intersection C 0 ∩ ∂D0 is a path that can be expressed as a concatenation
of ≤ 2 D-pieces. Thus there are no exposed cone-cells in D0 and D0 is not a single
cone-cell. No vertex of P , except for p possibly, is a corner of D0 . Hence, D0 does
not satisfy (?), which contradicts the induction assumption.
Let us now prove the second statement. Suppose that the intersection of conecells C1 , C2 is not connected. Let P1 → ∂C1 , P2 → ∂C2 be minimal paths such that
P1 , P2 have common endpoints in D. Their concatenation is a boundary path of the
disc diagram D0 , which is the closure of a connected component of D − C1 ∪ C2 . See
the right diagram in Figure 45. Similarly as before, we conclude that D0 does not
contain exposed cone-cells and has no more than two corners, hence D0 contradicts
the induction assumption.


THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

29

Step 2. We may assume that D has no disconnecting cells.


Proof. This follows from Lemma 5.3.
Step 3. We may assume that IntD 6= ∅.

Proof. Since D has no disconnecting cells, by Lemma 2.1 either D consists of at most
two cells, or IntD 6= ∅. If D is a single cell, there is nothing to prove. If D consists
of two cells, then there is a path of length ≥ 2 contained in their intersection, since
there are no disconnecting cells. If D consists of two cone-cells, then D is a ladder.
Otherwise, if D contains a square, D is not minimal.

To prove (?) we will verify that
• either D is a ladder consisting of two cone-cells joined by a pseudorectangle,
• or there are at least three exposed 2-cells in D.
Step 4. For any D-wall Γ the D-carrier N (Γ) embeds in D.
Proof. Suppose to the contrary that ι : N (Γ) → D is not an embedding. Let
Γ0 = {(e0 , . . . , en ), (C1 , . . . , Cn )} be a minimal sub-D-wall of Γ such that N (Γ0 )
does not embed. Since the intersection of any two
 cells is connected, we have
n ≥ 3. Denote by K the component of D − ι N (Γ0 ) which
 intersects ∂D trivially.
Let DΓ0 be the minimal subdiagram containing ι N (Γ0 ) and K. See Figure 46.
K

Figure 46. The diagram DΓ0 .
By the minimality of Γ0 the diagram DΓ0 is a disc diagram. One of the following
holds:
• the diagram DΓ0 is a proper subdiagram of D. The images of end-cells of
N (Γ0 ) are the only possible exposed cells in DΓ0 . Since they are shells of
degree ≥ 2, the diagram DΓ0 cannot be a ladder, so since DΓ0 has fewer
cells than D we obtain a contradiction with the induction assumption.
• we have DΓ0 = D. Choose any boundary cell C distinct from C1 , Cn and
consider a bimaximal D-wall Γ00 dual to an edge of C that is contained in any
piece intersecting ∂D. If N (Γ00 ) is not embedded, then proceeding as in the
first case, we obtain a proper subdiagram which contradicts the induction
assumption. If N (Γ00 ) is embedded, then one of the Γ00 -components D0 is a
diagram collared by Γ00 and sub-D-wall of Γ, so D0 has ≤ 2 exposed cells.
The cell C is either a corner-square or a shell of degree ≥ 2 in D0 , so D0 is
not a ladder, a contradiction.

Step 5. The diagram D has at least two exposed cells.
Proof. Suppose D has ≤ 1 exposed cells. Let C be any non-exposed boundary cell
in D and let Γ be a bimaximal D-wall dual to an edge of C that is not contained
in any piece intersecting ∂D. There is at least one Γ-component D0 that has ≤ 2

30

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

exposed cells. Since C is a corner-square or a shell of degree ≥ 2 in D0 , we conclude
that D0 is not a ladder. The diagram D0 has less cells than D, so we obtain a
contradiction with the induction assumption.

From now on we assume that
(A) the diagram D has exactly 2 exposed cells C1 , C2 , or
(B) the diagram D has three exposed cells C1 , C2 , C3 and C3 is a 4-shell.
To complete the proof of the theorem we will verify that D is a ladder in Case (A)
and we will obtain a contradiction in Case (B).
Step 6. The diagram D is collared and both C1 , C2 have inner paths of length 2 or
D is a ladder.
Proof. By Lemma 5.7, to verify that D is collared and the internal paths of C1 , C2
have length 2 it suffices to check that all D-walls starting in C1 , C2 or in a semiinternal edge of C3 in Case (B) are collaring. Suppose that Γ is a non collaring

D-wall starting in one of C1 , C2 or in a semi-internal edge of C3 in Case (B) . Let
us consider Cases (A) and (B) separately:
(A) One of Γ-components has ≤ 2 exposed cells, so by the induction assumption
is a ladder. By Lemma 5.10 the other Γ-component has ≤ 2 exposed cells, so
by the induction assumption it is also a ladder (this happens only if Γ starts
and terminates in C1 and C2 ). By Remark 5.11 the diagram D is a ladder.
(B) If there is a Γ-component with ≤ 2 exposed cells, then by the induction assumption it is a ladder and by Lemma 5.10 the other Γ-component D00 has
either 3 exposed cells with a shell C3 of degree 4 among them or ≤ 2 exposed cells and at least one non-exposed shell. The second case occurs if
degD00 (C3 ) > degD (C3 ) = 4, i.e. some D-piece in the inner path of C3 in D00 is
not a single D00 -piece. In both cases D00 contradicts the induction assumption.
If none of Γ-components has ≤ 2 exposed cells, then both have three exposed
cells and one of them contains a 4-shell, a contradiction.
It follows that D is collared and C1 , C2 have inner paths of length 2.

By Remark 5.8:
In Case (A) there exist D-walls Γ, Γ0 such that D is collared by Γ, Γ0 .
In Case (B) there exist D-walls Γ, Γ01 , Γ02 such that D is collared by Γ, Γ01 , Γ02 and
Γ0i starts in Ci and terminates in C3 . See Figure 47.
Γ
Γ
Set Γ = {(e0 , . . . , eΓm ), (C1Γ , . . . , Cm
)} such that eΓo ⊂ C1 and eΓm ⊂ C2 . Note that
C1 , C2 can be corner-squares and/or shells.
Γ
C1

Γ
C2
Γ0

(A)

C2
Γ02

C1
(B) Γ0
1

C3

Figure 47. In Case (A) the diagram is collared by two D-walls,
in Case (B) the diagram is collared by three D-walls.
Step 7. Internal subdiagram IntD of D is a squared diagram.

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

31

Proof. Suppose to the contrary that there is an internal cone-cell in D and denote
it by C. First suppose that there exists a D-wall starting in C and terminating in
N (Γ). We will discuss the other case in the very end of this step. Let e1 · · · en be
the boundary path of C where e1 is chosen so that there is a D-wall Γe1 starting
at e1 which terminates in CiΓ1 for minimal i1 (i.e. closest to C1 in N (Γ)). Let ek be
the edge in ∂C such that there exists a D-wall Γek starting at ek which terminates
in CiΓk for maximal ik . If e1 · · · ek cannot be expressed as a concatenation of < 5
Γ

Γ
C1

C

C2

C1

Γ0
(A)

(B) Γ0
1

C

C2
Γ02

C3

Figure 48. We suppose there is an internal cone-cell in D.
D-pieces, then the diagram D0 collared by Γe1 , Γek and the appropriate sub-D-wall
of Γ has ≤ 2 exposed cells and degD0 (C) ≥ 5, so D0 is not a ladder, which is a
contradiction with the induction assumption. Hence e1 · · · ek can be expressed as
a concatenation of ≤ 4 D-pieces. Observe that for every l > k such that there
is a D-wall Γel starting at el which intersects Γek (respectively, Γe1 ), the diagram
collared by the appropriate sub-D-walls of Γek and Γel (respectively, Γel and Γe1 )
has ≤ 2 exposed cells. By the induction assumption it is a ladder, in particular, by
Lemma 5.9 any maximal D-piece containing ek (respectively e1 ) contains also el . It
follows that the minimal path containing e1 · · · ek and every edge e dual to some Dwall intersecting one of Γe1 , Γek , can be expressed as a concatenation of ≤ 4 pieces.
Denote by P the maximal subpath of ek+1 · · · en such that all D-walls starting in P
intersect none of Γe1 , Γek . By C(9) and our last observation P cannot be expressed
P
as a concatenation of ≤ 5 D-pieces. Denote by ΓP
1 , Γ2 D-walls starting at two
different end-cells of P . They do not intersect, because otherwise there would be a
diagram with only one exposed cell collared by them. Since they do not intersect
any of Γe1 , Γek , they both terminate in
(A) N (Γ0 ),
(B) N (Γ01 ) ∪ C3 ∪ N (Γ02 )
in the following way:
P
0
(A) the diagram D0 collared by ΓP
1 , Γ2 and the appropriate sub-D-wall of Γ has
0
≤ 2 exposed cells and degD0 (C) ≥ 5. Thus D is not a ladder and this is a
contradiction with the induction assumption.
P
0
0
(B) the diagram D0 collared by ΓP
1 , Γ2 and the appropriate sub-D-walls of Γ1 , Γ2
has either ≤ 2 exposed cells and contains a shell of degree ≥ 5, or has ≤ 3
exposed cells with a 4-shell among them. In both cases this is a contradiction
with the induction assumption.
Now suppose that no D-wall starting in C terminates in N (Γ). In Case (A)
proceed exactly as before replacing Γ by Γ0 . In Case (B) for i = 1, 2 denote by ΓP
i the
D-wall starting in C and terminating in the closest cell to Ci in N (Γ01 )∪C3 ∪N (Γ02 ).
P
Similarly as before, the subdiagram collared by ΓP
1 , Γ2 and the appropriate sub-D0
0
walls of Γ1 , Γ2 contradicts the induction assumption. Thus we have shown that D
has no internal cone-cells.

32

KASIA JANKIEWICZ


Step 8. In Case (A) the diagram D is a ladder.
Proof. First, let us show that D has no cone-cells at all except for C1 , C2 possibly.
Suppose to the contrary that C is a non-exposed boundary cone-cell. Without loss
of generality we can assume that C ⊂ N (Γ). By Remark 5.6 we know that C is
a 5-shell. By Lemma 4.5 there exists an edge e2 which is contained in P2 for any
decomposition of the inner path P = P1 · · · P5 of C into D-pieces. Denote by Γe2 a
maximal D-wall starting at e2 . See Figure 49. One of the following holds:
Γ
C1

C
Γ e2
Γ0

Γ
C2

C1

C
Γ e2

C2

Γ0

Figure 49. Γe2 terminates in N (Γ) or N (Γ0 ).
• If Γe2 terminates in N (Γ), then the Γe2 -component D0 collared by Γe2 and
the appropriate sub-D-wall of Γ has ≤ 2 exposed cells. The inner path
of C in D0 cannot be expressed as a concatenation of 2 (respectively 4)
D-pieces, so it cannot be expressed as a concatenation of ≥ 2 (respectively
≥ 4) D0 -pieces. Thus D0 is not a ladder. This is a contradiction.
• If Γe2 terminates in N (Γ0 ), then the Γe2 -component D00 such that degD00 (C) ≥
4 has either three exposed cells with a 4-shell among them (if deg D00 (C) =
4) or two exposed cells and a non-exposed cone-cell (if degD00 (C) > 4). By
the induction assumption we obtain a contradiction.
Hence there are no cone-cells in D except for C1 , C2 possibly. Let us now consider
different cases depending on what C1 , C2 are:
• if C1 , C2 are both squares, then D is a squared diagram with only two
corners which is impossible by Theorem 3.2.
• if one of C1 , C2 is a square and the other one is a cone-cell, then D is not
minimal by Corollary 5.13.
• if C1 , C2 are both cone-cells, then by definition D is a ladder.

Step 9. Case (B) is not possible.
Proof. First let us show that there are no cone-cells in N (Γ01 ) ∪ N (Γ02 ). Suppose to
the contrary that C is a non-exposed cone-cell, say in N (Γ01 ), i.e. there exists i such
Γ0
Γ0
Γ0
Γ0
Γ0
Γ0
that Ci 1 = C where Γ01 = {(e0 1 , . . . , em1 ), (C1 1 , . . . , Cm1 )} such that e0 1 ⊂ C1 .
Γ0

Let P be the inner path of C such that its first edge is ei 1 and its last edge is
Γ0

1
ei−1
. By Lemma 4.5 there is an edge e contained in P2 for any decomposition of
the inner path P = P1 · · · P5 of C into D-pieces. Denote by Γe a maximal D-wall
starting at e. The degree of C in a Γe -component is ≥ 2 (respectively ≥ 4), since
the inner path of C in Γe -components cannot be expressed as a concatenation of
2 (respectively 4) D-pieces. If Γe terminates in N (Γ01 ) then one of Γe -components
has ≤ 2 exposed cells and contains a shell of degree ≥ 2, so it is not a ladder, a
contradiction. If Γe terminates in N (Γ02 ) then the Γe -component containing C3 has

THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

33

≤ 3 exposed cell and a 4-shell among them, a contradiction. If Γe terminates in
N (Γ), then the Γe -component that does not contain C3 have either 3 exposed cells
with a 4-shell C among them or ≤ 2 exposed cell and a non-exposed cone-cell C, a
contradiction. See Figure 50. We have just proved that there are no cone-cells in
Γe

C1
C

Γe

C1

C2

C3

C

C2
C3

Figure 50. One of Γe -components has either 3 exposed cells with
a 4-shell among them, or ≤ 2 exposed cell.
N (Γ01 ) ∪ N (Γ02 ).
Now we will show that the only cone-cells in D are C3 and C1 , C2 possibly. It
remains to verify that there are no cone-cell in N (Γ). Suppose to the contrary that
C is a non-exposed cone-cell in N (Γ), by Remark 5.6 we know that C is a 5-shell.
Denote by e3 an edge contained in P3 for every decomposition of the inner
path P = P1 · · · P5 of C into pieces. Let e2 (e4 respectively) be the first (the
last respectively) edge in P that is not contained in P1 (P5 respectively) for any
decomposition of P into pieces. Note that e2 and e3 (e3 and e4 ) are not contained
in a single piece. Let P 0 be the minimal subpath of P containing e2 and e4 . Observe
that every D-wall starting in P 0 terminates in N (Γ01 ) ∪ N (Γ02 ). Otherwise, there
would be a subdiagram with two exposed cells and a shell of degree ≥ 2 among
them, which is impossible by the induction assumption. Let us consider three cases:

• we have e3 ∩ N (Γ01 ) ∪ C3 ∪ N (Γ02 ) = ∅, see Figure 51. Denote by S a
C

ΓS
C1

C3

C2

Figure 51. The edge e3 is not contained in N (Γ01 ) ∪ C3 ∪ N (Γ02 ).
ΓS
square in D which contains e3 . Let ΓS = {(eΓ0 S , . . . , eΓmS ), (C1ΓS , . . . , Cm
)}
ΓS
be a bimaximal D-wall intersecting S but not e3 , i.e. S = Ci for some
S
i and eΓi−1
, eΓi S 6= e3 . See Figure 51. Observe that no endpoint of ΓS lies
in N (Γ), because otherwise by Corollary 5.14 the minimal subpath of ∂C
containing e3 and one of e2 , e4 would be a D-piece, but this is not the case.
Thus both endpoints of ΓS lie in N (Γ01 ) ∪ N (Γ02 ). The diagram collared by
ΓS and the appropriate sub-D-walls of Γ01 and Γ02 has either three exposed
cells with a 4-shell C3 among them, or only two exposed cells and at least
one of them is a corner-square. In both cases we obtain a contradiction.
• we have e3 ⊂ N (Γ01 ) ∪ N (Γ02 ), see Figure 52. Without loss of generality, we
may assume that e3 ⊂ N (Γ01 ). Let e be the one of two edge intersecting e3
and dual to Γ01 that is closer to C3 in N (Γ01 ). Let Γe2 be a D-wall dual to e2 .
Since Γe2 terminates in N (Γ01 ), by Corollary 5.14 applied to the minimal
subpath of ∂C containing e2 and e3 and to the edge e we conclude that e2
and e3 are contained in a single D-piece, a contradiction. See Figure 52.

34

KASIA JANKIEWICZ

C
e2 e3
e
C1

C3

C2

Figure 52. The edge e3 is contained in N (Γ01 ).
• we have e3 ⊂ C3 , see Figure 53. Let Q = Q1 · · · Q4 be some decomposition
into D-pieces of the inner path Q of C3 , where Γ01 is dual to an edge in Q1 .
The edge e3 is contained in one of Q2 , Q3 , without loss of generality we can
assume that it is in Q2 . Note that Q3 is a D-hyperplane-piece. Denote by
Q00 , Q0 paths such that Q = Q00 e3 Q0 , note that Q3 Q4 ⊂ Q0 . Let e be the
edge that occurs right after e3 in P . Since D-wall starting at e terminates
in N (Γ02 ), by Corollary 5.14 applied to the path Q0 and edge e, we conclude
that Q3 Q4 is a single D-piece, which is a contradiction. See Figure 53.
C
e3 e 0
Q
C3
C2

C1

Figure 53. The edge e3 is contained in C3 .
Thus, there are no cone-cells in D except for C3 and C1 , C2 possibly.
Finally, we show that such D cannot exist. Let Q be the inner path of C
with Γ01 dual the first edge e1 of Q. Denote by e2 (e3 respectively) the first (the
last respectively) edge in Q that is not contained in Q1 (respectively Q4 ) for any
decomposition Q = Q1 · · · Q4 into pieces. At most one of e2 , e3 is contained in
N (Γ). Without loss of generality, assume that e2 6⊂ N (Γ). Denote by S the square
in D containing e2 and by e the one of two edges of S dual to ΓS that intersect Q
farther from e1 . See Figure 54. By Corollary 5.14 applied to the minimal subpath of
Γ
C1

C2
e
e2
e1 C
3

C1

Γ

C2

C3

Figure 54. Corollary 5.14 is applied to the thickened path.
Q containing e1 and e2 and to the edge e we know that ΓS cannot have an endpoint
in N (Γ01 ), because otherwise e1 and e2 would lie in the single piece of C, which is
not the case. Similarly, we conclude that ΓS do not have endpoints in N (Γ02 ). It
follows that both endpoints of ΓS lie in N (Γ). Hence there is a squared diagram
collared by ΓS and a sub-D-wall of Γ, which has only two corners and consists of
squares only, which is a contradiction and completes the proof.


THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CUBICAL SMALL CANCELLATION THEORY

35

References
[1] Martin Greendlinger. On Dehn’s algorithms for the conjugacy and word problems, with applications. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 13:641–677, 1960.
[2] Frédéric Haglund and Daniel T. Wise. Special cube complexes. Geom. Funct. Anal.,
17(5):1551–1620, 2008.
[3] Egbert R. Van Kampen. On Some Lemmas in the Theory of Groups. Amer. J. Math., 55(14):268–273, 1933.
[4] Roger C. Lyndon and Paul E. Schupp. Combinatorial group theory. Classics in Mathematics.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001. Reprint of the 1977 edition.
[5] Jonathan P. McCammond and Daniel T. Wise. Fans and ladders in small cancellation theory.
Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 84(3):599–644, 2002.
[6] Piotr Przytycki and Daniel T. Wise. Mixed manifolds are virtually special. http://arxiv.org/
abs/1205.6742.
[7] Vladimir A. Tartakovskii. Solution of the word problem for groups with a k-reduced basis for
k>6. (Russian) Izvestiya Akad. Nauk SSSR. Ser. Mat., 13:483–494, 1949.
[8] Daniel T. Wise. The structure of groups with quasiconvex hierarchy. https://docs.google.
com/open?id=0B45cNx80t5-2T0twUDFxVXRnQnc.
[9] Daniel T. Wise. Cubulating small cancellation groups. Geom. Funct. Anal., 14(1):150–214,
2004.
[10] Daniel T. Wise. From riches to raags: 3-manifolds, right-angled Artin groups, and cubical
geometry, volume 117 of CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics. Published for
the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC, 2012.
Dept. of Math. and Stat., McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
E-mail address: kasia.jankiewicz@mail.mcgill.ca

