Trees of metric compacta and trees of manifolds
Jacek Świa̧tkowski *
MSC Subject Classification: 20F65, 57M07, 54D80.

arXiv:1304.5064v2 [math.GT] 4 Mar 2016

Introduction
We present a construction, called the limit of a tree system of spaces (or, less formally,
a tree of spaces). The construction is designed to produce compact metric spaces that
resemble fractals, out of more regular spaces, such as closed manifolds, compact polyhedra,
compact Menger manifolds, etc. Such spaces are potential candidates to be homeomorphic
to ideal boundaries of inﬁnite groups.
A very special case of this construction, trees of manifolds (known also as Jakobsche
spaces), has been studied in the literature (see [AS], [J1], [J2], [St]). We present here
a diﬀerent approach, much more general, and, as we believe, much more convenient for
establishing various basic properties of the resulting spaces, in a more general setting.
Already in the case of trees of manifolds, using this approach we clarify, correct and
extend so far known results and properties.
A wider context for the results of the present paper.
Our motivation for dealing with the general construction as presented in this paper
comes from an attempt to understand which topological spaces are boundaries of hyperbolic
groups. This problem, stated e.g. in [KK] as Question A, remains widely open. An
overview of the limited knowledge concerning this problem can be found in Section 17 of
[KB] or in the introduction in [PŚ].
The present paper initiates a larger research project, investigated by the author, concerning the above problem. We brieﬂy outline the aims and expected lines of further
development in this project.
• In a paper under preparation we describe a vast class of topological spaces called trees
of polyhedra. These spaces are compact, metrizable, have ﬁnite topological dimension,
and typically they are ”wild” (e.g. they are usually not locally contractible, and hence
not ANR). They are obtained as limits of some tree systems, and depend uniquely
up to homeomorphism on certain ﬁnite data, part of which is a ﬁnite collection of
compact polyhedra. Thus, the spaces are given not by a universal characterization in
terms of a list of properties, but rather by a sort of “presentation” (similar in spirit to
a presentation of a group in combinatorial group theory). Typically, the same space
has many distinct “presentations”, and clariﬁcation of the relationship between such
“presentations” will be one of the challenges.
• Next part of the project consists of identifying boundaries of various classes of groups
as explicit trees of polyhedra. We have formulated several conjectures in this direction,
* This work was supported by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education
(MNiSW), grant N201 541738, and by the Polish National Science Centre (NCN), grant
2012/06/A/ST1/00259.
1

based on some results from the literature (see Remark 2.C.8), and on our new partial
results. One of these conjectures deals with Gromov boundaries of all groups obtained
by any procedure of strict hyperbolization (e.g. the one described in [CD]). Another
conjecture concerns CAT(0) boundaries of a large class of right angled Coxeter groups,
namely the ones that enjoy some partial hyperbolicity property, weaker than word
hyperbolicity. We have already conﬁrmed these conjectures in some cases when the
boundaries are trees of manifolds (in arbitrary dimension), trees of graphs, or trees of
various 2-dimensional polyhedra which can be recognized as the Menger curve or the
Sierpiński curve. It seems that boundaries of numerous (maybe even most of) other
groups so far studied in the literature are trees of polyhedra.
• A question arises, for which hyperbolic groups their Gromov boundaries are not trees
of polyhedra. The following examples seem to belong to this class:
(1) groups whose Gromov boundaries are Menger compacta of dimension ≥ 2 (see
[DO] for examples of such groups, with boundaries of dimension 2 and 3); we
suspect that Menger compacta satisfy stronger disjoint disk properties than any
trees of polyhedra of the same topological dimension;
(2) 7-systolic groups, as deﬁned in [JS], with boundaries of dimension ≥ 3; by [Sw1],
Gromov boundaries of 7-systolic groups contain no copy of the 2-disk, which
cannot happen for a tree of polyhedra in dimensions ≥ 3;
(3) topologically rigid hyperbolic groups, examples of which have been constructed
in [KK]; we expect that trees of polyhedra always admit homeomorphisms whose
dynamics is diﬀerent from that occuring for the induced action of a group on its
boundary.
It seems to be known that boundaries of all hyperbolic groups fall in the class of spaces
called Markov compacta (as deﬁned e.g. in [Dr]). We work on showing that trees of
polyhedra coincide with a subclass of Markov compacta of some rather simple form.
This suggests a possibility to introduce certain notion of degree of complexity for
Markov compacta, with the lowest degree corresponding to trees of polyhedra. A big
challenge is to explore more fully the territory of hyperbolic groups with higher degree
boundaries (i.e. boundaries which are not trees of polyhedra). For example, one can
ask for new strict hyperbolization procedures, resulting with groups of higher degree
boundaries. One can also ask for explicit description of such boundaries, perhaps
starting with degree just above the lowest one.
The content of the paper.
In Part 1 we introduce the notions of a tree system of metric compacta (Section 1.B)
and its limit (Section 1.C). We then prove that such limit is always a compact metrizable
space (Section 1.D) by showing that it is homeomorphic to the limit of some inverse
system naturally associated to a tree system. In Section 1.E we introduce the notion of
isomorphism of tree systems. We also present a class of natural examples - dense tree
systems of closed (topological) manifolds, and a class of spaces obtained as their limits the trees of manifolds M . As we show in Part 2 of the paper, trees of manifolds M coincide
with the spaces studied earlier by W. Jakobsche in [J2] (for M oriented) and by P. Stallings
in [St] (for non-orientable M ). Our exposition of the case of non-orientable manifolds M ,
in Subsection 1.E.4, concerns all topological manifolds (and not only PL ones, as in [St]),
2

and it frees the description from certain unconvenient and unnecessary condition present
in Stallings’ approach (see Remark 1.E.4.3).
In Part 2 of the paper we exhibit some other useful inverse systems associated to tree
systems. In Section 2.A we introduce some additional data, called extended system of spaces
and maps, necessary to produce such inverse systems. In Section 2.B we show that inverse
limits of these new inverse systems canonically coincide with limits of the corresponding
tree systems. Section 2.C deals with a subclass of tree systems called peripherally ANR,
and describes inverse systems of particularly nice form associated to such tree systems.
This allows us to relate our construction of limit of a tree system, in the case of dense
tree systems of manifolds, to some earlier constructions from the literature, notably the
construction of Jakobsche [J2]. In Section 2.D we apply associated inverse systems to
provide estimates from above for the topological dimension of limits of tree systems. We
indicate some general cases in which these estimates are sharp.
In Part 3 of the paper we introduce some natural and useful operations on tree systems.
In Section 3.A we describe an operation of consolidation, by which the spaces appearing
in the initial system are merged together into bigger spaces, constituting naturally a new
tree system. We show that this operation does not aﬀect the limit. As an application,
we derive equalities (up to homeomorphism) between the limits of various diﬀerent tree
systems of manifolds. We also include a correction to the main result of H. Fischer in
[Fi], in which he identiﬁes boundaries of certain right angled Coxeter groups as some
explicit trees of manifolds M (see Theorem 3.A.3 in the text, and a comment after its
statement). In Section 3.B we show how to decompose a compact metric space X into
pieces which form a tree system, so that X naturally coincides with the limit of this tree
system. We also show how to use such decompositions to determine limits of certain tree
systems. In Section 3.C we introduce subdivision of a tree system, an operation opposite
to consolidation, which generalizes the operation of decomposition from Section 3.B. In
Section 3.D we apply operations of subdivision and consolidation to study orbits under
homeomorphisms in trees of manifolds. The presented method is potentially applicable to
more general tree systems. Finally, in Section 3.E we apply operations of consolidation
and subdivision to provide a much more ﬂexible description of certain trees of manifolds
than those so far present in the literature (see Theorem 3.E.2 and Corollary 3.E.4 in the
text). In the companion paper [Sw2], we use this description to identify ideal boundaries of
many groups as trees of manifolds. In particular, we show in [Sw2] that trees of manifolds
in arbitrary dimension appear as Gromov boundaries of certain hyperbolic groups.
Acknowledgments.
The author thanks the referee for many suggestions leading to the improvement of
the present paper, and especially for inventing and communicating to the author the idea
of the standard inverse system associated to a tree system (presented in Section 1.D), and
its usefulness in the whole of the paper.

3

1. Tree systems and their limits.
1.A Some terminology and notation concerning trees.
Trees under our consideration will be usually countable inﬁnite, and locally inﬁnite.
We donote by VT the set of all verticess of a tree T , and by OT the set of its all oriented
edges. For any e ∈ OT , we denote by α(e), ω(e) the initial and the terminal vertex of e,
respectively. We also denote by ē the same geometric edge as e, but oppositely oriented.
For any t ∈ VT , we denote by Nt = {e ∈ OT : α(e) = t} the set of all oriented edges of T
with initial vertex t.
We denote the combinatorial (embedded) paths in T as sequences of consecutive vertices [t0 , t1 , . . . , tm ], or as sequences [e1 , . . . , em ] of consecutive oriented edges, or shortly
by [t, s] if t and s are the ends of the path. An inﬁnite combinatorial path [t0 , t1 , . . .] in T
is called a ray, and denoted usually by ρ. We denote by ρ(0) the initial vertex t0 , and by
e1 (ρ) the initial oriented edge (t0 , t1 ) of a ray ρ.
We denote by ET the set of ends of T , i.e. the set of equivelence classes of rays in T
with respect to the relation of coincidence except possibly at some ﬁnite initial parts. We
denote the end determined by a ray ρ as [ρ].
Let S be a subtree of T . We then distinguish the set
NS = {e ∈ OT : α(e) ∈ VS and ω(e) ∈
/ VS }.
Note that, in case when S is reduced to a single vertex t, this notation agrees with the
earlier introduced notation for the set Nt . A ﬁnite subtree of T will be usually denoted by
F , and we shall consider the poset (FT , ⊂) of all ﬁnite subtrees of T .
1.B Tree systems of spaces.
Recall that a family of subsets of a compact metric space is null if for each ǫ > 0 all
but ﬁnitely many of these subsets have diameters less than ǫ.
1.B.1 Definition. A tree system of metric compacta is a tuple Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe })
such that:
(TS1) T is a countable tree;
(TS2) to each t ∈ VT there is associated a compact metric space Kt ;
(TS3) to each e ∈ OT , there is associated a nonempty compact subset Σe ⊂ Kα(e) , and
a homeomorphism φe : Σe → Σē such that φē = φ−1
e ;
(TS4) for each t ∈ VT the family Σe : e ∈ Nt is null and consists of pairwise disjoint
sets.
We call T the underlying tree, Kt : t ∈ VT the constituent spaces, Σe : e ∈ OT the peripheral
subspaces, and φe : e ∈ OT the connecting maps of the tree system Θ.
Remark. In future applications of tree systems of spaces we will often additionally require
that for any t ∈ V the family Σe : e ∈ Nt is dense in the space Kt (which means that the
union of this family is a dense subset). However, to establish many basic properties of tree
systems of metric compacta we do not need this requirement.
4

1.B.2 Example: tree system of manifolds. Let T be a countable tree. Let Mt : t ∈ VT
be a family of closed manifolds of the same dimension n. For each t ∈ VT and each
e ∈ Nt let ∆e be a collared n-dimensional disk embedded in Mt , and suppose that each
Dt = {∆e : e ∈ Nt } is a null family of pairwise disjoint subsets of Mt .
For each t ∈ VT put
[
Kt = Mt \ {int(∆e ) : e ∈ Nt }.

This deﬁnes a family {Kt } in a tree system of manifolds.
For each e ∈ OT , put Σe = ∂∆e , and note that Σe ⊂ Kα(e) . For each e ∈ OT consider
also a homeomorphism φe : Σα(e) → Σω(e) between the corresponding (n − 1)-spheres, so
that φē = φ−1
e for each e. A tree system of manifolds is a tuple M = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe })
as described above.
Intuitively, such a system M may be viewed as a pattern for a connected sum operation
applied at the same time to a countable (in general inﬁnite) family of closed manifolds.
1.C Limit of a tree system of spaces.
We now describe the limit of a tree system Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }), denoted lim Θ,
starting with its description as a set. Denote by #Θ the quotient
G
(
Kt )/ ∼
t∈VT

of the disjoint union of the sets Kt by the equivalence relation ∼ induced by the equivalences
x ∼ φe (x) for any e ∈ OT and any x ∈ Σe . This set may be viewed as obtained from the
family Kt : t ∈ V as a result of gluings provided by the maps φe . Observe that any set
Kt canonically injects in #Θ. Deﬁne lim Θ to be the disjoint union #Θ ∪ ET , where ET
is the set of ends of T .
To put appropriate topology on the set lim Θ we need some terminology. Given a
family A of subsets in a set X, we say that U ⊂ X is saturated with respect to A (shortly,
A-saturated) if for any A ∈ A we have either A ⊂ U or A ∩ U = ∅.
For any ﬁnite subtree F of T , denote by VF , OF the sets of vertices and of oriented
edges in F , respectively. Denote also by
ΘF = (F, {Kt : t ∈ VF }, {Σe : e ∈ OF }, {φe : e ∈ OF })
the tree system of spaces Θ restricted to F . The set KF := #ΘF , equipped with the
natural quotient topology (with which it is clearly a metrizable compact space), will be
called the partial union of the system Θ related to F . Observe that any partial union KF
is canonically a subset in #Θ, and thus also in lim Θ.
For any ﬁnite subtree F put AF = {Σe : e ∈ NF }, and view the elements of this
family as subsets in the partial union KF . Observe that the family AF consists of pairwise
disjoint compact sets, and that it is null. Let U ⊂ KF be a subset which is saturated with
respect to AF . Put NU := {e ∈ NF : Σe ⊂ U } and
DU := {t ∈ VT : [ω(e), t] ∩ VF = ∅ for some e ∈ NU }
5

(i.e. DU is the set of these vertices t ∈ VT \VF for which the shortest path in T connecting F
to t starts with an edge e ∈ NU ). Here we mean in particular that the vertices ω(e) : e ∈ NU
all belong to DU .
Again, for any ﬁnite subtree F of T let RF be the set of all rays ρ in T with ρ(0) ∈ VF ,
and with all other vertices outside VF . Note that the map ρ → [ρ] is then a bijection from
RF to the set ET of all ends of T . Given a subset U ⊂ KF as above (i.e. saturated with
respect to AF ), put RU := {ρ ∈ RF : e1 (ρ) ∈ NU } and EU := {[ρ] ∈ ET : ρ ∈ RU }.
Finally, for any subset U ⊂ KF as above, put
G(U ) := U ∪ (

[

Kt ) ∪ EU ,

t∈DU

where all summands in the above union are viewed as subsets of lim Θ; clearly, G(U ) is
then also a subset in lim Θ. We consider the topology in the set lim Θ given by the basis
B consisting of all sets G(U ), for all ﬁnite subtrees F in T , and all open subsets U ⊂ KF
saturated with respect to AF . The family B satisﬁes the axioms for a basis of topology
because intersection of any two sets from B is again in B, as it can be quickly deduced
from the following two easy observations:
(1) if U, U ′ ⊂ KF are open and AF -saturated then U ∩ U ′ is also AF -saturated, and
G(U ) ∩ G(U ′ ) = G(U ∩ U ′ );
(2) if U ⊂ KF is open and AF -saturated, then for any ﬁnite F ′ ⊃ F the set U ′ :=
G(U ) ∩ KF ′ is AF ′ -saturated, and G(U ′ ) = G(U ).
1.C.1 Proposition. For any tree system Θ of metric compacta the limit lim Θ, with
topology given by the above described basis B, is a metrizable compact space. Moreover, for
each finite subtree F of T the canonical inclusion (as a set) of the partial union KF = #ΘF
in lim Θ is a topological embedding. In particular, for any t ∈ VT the canonical inclusion of
Kt in lim Θ is a topological embedding. Finally, both families of subsets {Kt : t ∈ VT } and
{Σe : e ∈ OT } in lim Θ are null (with respect to any metric compatible with the topology).
We present a proof of Proposition 1.C.1 in the next section, after showing Proposition
1.D.1, which we need in this proof.
1.C.2 Remark. If we skip the assumption that each of the families of subsets {Σe :
e ∈ Nt } in Kt , for any t ∈ VT , is null, then the above description still deﬁnes a compact
topological space lim Θ, but then the limit is in general not Hausdorﬀ. Moreover, canonical inclusions Kt → lim Θ are then in general not embeddings (though they are always
continuous).
1.D The standard inverse system associated to a tree system.
We describe some inverse system of metric compacta naturally associated to a tree
system Θ, and show that the inverse limit of this system is cononically homeomorphic to
the limit lim Θ. We use this fact to prove Proposition 1.C.1, and to derive few further
properties of limits of tree systems.
Given a tree system Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }), we proceed using the notation as
in Section 1.C. For any ﬁnite subtree F ⊂ T , denote by KF∗ = KF /AF the qotient of
6

KF in which all the subsets AF are shrinked to points. More precisely, let DF be the
decomposition
of KF consisting of the sets in AF and the singletons from the complement
S
KF \ AF , and let KF∗ = KF /DF . Since the family AF is null, the decomposition DF
is upper semicontinuous, and hence the quotient KF∗ is metrizable (see [Dav], Proposition
3 on p. 14 and Proposition 2 on p.13). Consequently, KF∗ is a metric compactum, and
we call it the reduced partial union of Θ related to F . We denote by qF : KF → KF∗ the
quotient map resulting from the above description of KF∗ .
For any pair F1 ⊂ F2 of ﬁnite subtrees of T , deﬁne a map fF1 F2 : KF∗ 2 → KF∗ 1 as
follows. For each edge e ∈ NF1 ∩ OF2 denote by Ve the set of all vertices s ∈ VF2 \ VF1
such that the shortest path in T connecting F1 with s starts with e. Then the family
Ve : e ∈ NF1 ∩ OF2 is a partition of VF2 \ VF1 , and each Ve is the vertex set of a subtree
of F2 which we denote Se . Viewing each KSe canonically as a subset in KF2 , note that
it is AF2 -saturated. Thus, the corresponding subset qF2 (KSe ) in KF∗ 2 is well deﬁned and
closed. Moreover, by shrinking each of the subsets qF2 (KSe ) : e ∈ NF1 ∩ OF2 to a point
we get a quotient of KF∗ 2 which is canonically homeomorphic to (and which we identify
with) KF∗ 1 . Take the corresponding quotient map as fF1 F2 , and observe that this map is
continuous and surjective.
Given any ﬁnite subtrees F1 ⊂ F2 ⊂ F3 of T , it is not hard to see that fF1 F2 ◦ fF2 F3 =
fF1 F3 . Consequently, the system
(1.D.1)

SΘ = ({KF∗ : F ∈ FT }, {fF F ′ : F ⊂ F ′ })

is an inverse system of metric compacta over the poset FT of all ﬁnite subtrees of T . We
call it the standard inverse system associated to Θ.
We now turn to describing a natural map β : lim Θ → lim←− SΘ (initially as a map
between the sets, but then we show that it is a homeomorphism). We split the description
into two parts, accordingly with the partition lim Θ = #Θ ⊔ ET .
To describe β on the subset #Θ ⊂ lim Θ, for each ﬁnite subtree F ⊂ T consider the
map fF # : #Θ → KF∗ deﬁned similarly to the maps fF F ′ , as follows. For each edge e ∈ NF
denote by Ve the set of all vertices s ∈ VT \ VF such that the shortest path in T connecting
F with s starts with e. Then the family Ve : e ∈ NF is a partition of VT \ VF , and each Ve
is the vertex set of a subtree of T which we denote Se . For each e ∈ NF , denote by ΘSe
the tree system obtained by restricting Θ to Se , and view #ΘSe canonically as a subset in
#Θ. Note that #Θ splits as
[
G
#Θ = (KF \
Σe ) ⊔
#ΘSe .
e∈NF

e∈NF

S
Viewing KF as a subset in #Θ, for any x ∈ KF \ e∈NF Σe we put fF # (x) := x. For any
e ∈ NF and any x ∈ #ΘSe we put fF # (x) := qF (Σe ) ∈ KF∗ , where the latter is a single
point by deﬁnition of KF∗ . A straightforward veriﬁcation shows that for any ﬁnite subtrees
F ⊂ F ′ in T we have fF F ′ ◦ fF ′ # = fF # . Thus the family fF # : F ∈ FT induces a well
deﬁned map f# : #Θ → lim←− SΘ , and we put β(x) := f# (x) for any x ∈ #Θ.
To describe β on the subset ET ⊂ lim Θ, consider any x ∈ ET . For any ﬁnite subtree
F ⊂ T let eF
x be the ﬁrst oriented edge in the ”shortest” path in T connecting F to x
7

(i.e. in the unique ray in T starting at a vertex of F , passing through no other vertex of
F , and representing x). Put x(F ) = qF (ΣeFx ) ∈ KF∗ . It is not hard to observe that the
tuple (x(F ))F ∈FT is a thread of the inverse system SΘ , i.e. an element of the inverse limit
lim←− SΘ , which we denote ξx . We then put β(x) := ξx .
1.D.1 Proposition. The above described map β : lim Θ → lim←− SΘ is a homeomorphism.
Proof: We will ﬁrst show that β is a bijection, and then that both β and β −1 are continuous.
β is injective.
Consider ﬁrst anyStwo distinct points x, y ∈ #Θ. Let F be any ﬁnite subtree of T
such that x, y ∈ KF \ e∈NF Σe (which obviously exists). By deﬁnition of the map fF # ,
we get fF # (x) 6= fF # (y), and this implies f# (x) 6= f# (y), and hence also β(x) 6= β(y).
Second, consider any two distinct x, y ∈ ET . Obviously, there is a ﬁnite subtree
F
F ⊂ T such that the oriented edges, eF
x and ey are distinct. Since then x(F ) 6= y(F ), we
get ξx 6= ξy , and thus β(x) 6= β(y).
To ﬁnish the proof of injectivity, we need to show that for any x ∈ #Θ and any
y ∈ ET , we have β(x) 6= β(y). To do this, for any F ∈ FT denote by PF the set of all
points in KF∗ of form qF (Σe ) : e ∈ NF . Observe that β(y) = (y(F ))F ∈FT has the property
that for each F ∈ FT we have y(F ) ∈ PF . On the other hand, denoting S
β(x) = (xF )F ∈FT ,
we have xF = fF # (x) for any F ∈ FT . Taking F0 such that x ∈ KF0 \ e∈NF Σe , we get
0
xF 0 ∈
/ PF0 , and thus β(x) 6= β(y), as required.
β is surjective.
Let x0 = (xF )F ∈FT be an arbitrary point of lim←− SΘ . SupposeSﬁrst that for some
F0 ∈ FT we have xF0 ∈
/ PF . We may then view xF0 as a point of KF0 \ e∈NF Σe . Observe
0
that for any ﬁnite F ⊃ F0 there is unique zF ∈ KF∗ such that fF0 F (zF ) = xF0 , and in fact
we have zF = qF (xF0 ) = fF # (xF0 ), under canonical inclusions xF0 ∈ KF0 ⊂ KF ⊂ #Θ.
From this it easily follows that, viewing xF0 as an element of #Θ, we have x0 = β(xF0 ).
In the remaining case, for each F ∈ FT we have xF ∈ PF . As we will see, in this
case the tree T is necessarily unbounded. For any F ∈ FT denote by eF the edge in NF
corresponding to xF ∈ PF (i.e. such that xF = qF (ΣeF )), and put tF := α(e
S F ) ∈ VF .
Consider any increasing sequence σ = (Fi )i≥1 of ﬁnite subtrees of T such that i≥1 Fi = T
(we will call any such sequence an exhausting sequence). It is not hard to realize that the
associated sequence (tFi )i≥1 , after deleting potential repetitions of subsequent terms, is
necessarily inﬁnite, and determines a ray in T starting at tF1 and passing through all
vertices tFi as well as through all oriented edges eFi (and possibly through some other
vertices and edges). We denote this ray by ρσ . Given any two exhausting sequences
σ = (Fi )i≥1 and σ ′ = (Fi′ )i≥1 of ﬁnite subtrees in T , we obviously have the following
property: for any i ≥ 1 there is j ≥ 1 such that Fi ⊂ Fj′ and Fi′ ⊂ Fj . From this property
one deduces that the rays ρσ and ρσ′ eventually coincide. It follows that in the considered
case the point x0 = (xF )F ∈FT uniquely determines an end ξ0 ∈ ET . It is also clear that
β(ξ0 ) = x0 , which completes the proof.
8

β and β −1 are continuous.
Recall
Q that, by∗ deﬁnition, the inverse limit lim←∗− SΘ is a subspace in the topological
product F ∈FT KF . Given any open subset U ⊂ KF0 , for any F0 ∈ FT , put
GS (U ) := (U ×

Y

KF∗ ) ∩ lim SΘ .

F ∈FT \{F0 }

←−

Note that GS (U ) is an open subset of lim←− SΘ , and that all subsets of this form constitute
a subbasis of the topology of lim←− SΘ .
(U ) and note that, as U runs through all open subsets of KF∗ 0 , U ′ runs
Put U ′ := qF−1
0
through all open AF0 -saturated subsets of KF0 . Moreover, a direct observation shows that
(1.D.2)

β −1 (GS (U )) = G(U ′ ),

where G(U ′ ) is an element of the basis B (of the topology in lim Θ) described in Section
1.C. Since, by what was said above, (1.D.2) implies that both β and β −1 are continuous,
this completes the proof of Proposition 1.D.1.
Proof of Proposition 1.C.1: We apply Proposition 1.D.1. Since lim Θ is homeomorphic
to the inverse limit of an inverse system of metric compacta, it is itself a compact metrizable
space, which yields the ﬁrst assertion.
To see the second assertion, for each F0 ∈ FT consider the subposet FTF0 consisting of
all subtrees F ∈ FT that contain F0 , and note that this subposet is coﬁnal with FT . Denote
F0
by SΘ
the restriction of the inverse system SΘ to this subposet, and note that we have a
F0
canonical identiﬁcations of the limits lim←− SΘ
= lim←− SΘ . For each F ∈ FTF0 consider
∗
0
the map hF
F : KF0 → KF given as the composition of the inclusion map KF0 → KF and
F0
0
the map qF : KF → KF∗ . Note that the family of maps hF
F : F ∈ FT gives a morhism
F0
KF0 → SΘ
, and thus induces a continuous map hF0 : KF0 → lim←− SΘ . Since it is not
hard to observe that, under identiﬁcation of lim←− SΘ with lim Θ through β, the map
hF0 coincides with the inclusion map KF0 → lim Θ, it follows that the latter map is an
embedding.
To see the last assertion,Sconsider an auxilliary increasing sequence (Fi )i≥1 of ﬁnite
subtrees of T such that T = i≥1 Fi . Obviously, this sequence yields a coﬁnal subposet
of the poset FT . Denote by S ′ the inverse sequence obtained by restricting SΘ to this
subposet, and note that there is a canonical identiﬁcation lim←− S ′ = lim←− SΘ . The
′
map
Q β is∗ then naturally viewed as a map lim Θ → lim←−QS . Call a∗ subset of the product
∗
k )} ×
i≥1 KFi a k-slice if it is of the form {(p1 , . . . , pQ
i≥k+1 KFi , where pi ∈ KFi for
1 ≤ i ≤ k. Consider any metric on the product i≥1 KF∗ i compatible with the product
topology. Then for each ǫ > 0 there is k0 such that each k0 -slice has diameter < ǫ. Observe
that for 1 ≤ i ≤ k0 , each of the maps fFi # : #Θ → KF∗ i sqeezes each subset from the
collection Kt :Q
t ∈ VT \VFk0 to a point. As a consequence, viewing lim←− S ′ = lim←− SΘ as
a subspace in i≥1 KF∗ i , we realize that for t ∈ VT \ VFk0 the images β(Kt ) are contained in
k0 -slices, and thus they all have diameters < ǫ for the metric restricted from the product. It
follows that the family β(Kt ) : t ∈ Vt is null in lim←− S ′ , and hence the family Kt : t ∈ VT
is null in lim Θ.
9

To see that the family Σe : e ∈ OT is null, we apply the following general observation:
if a family of subsets Ai : i ≥ 1 of a metric space is null, and if for each i ≥ 1 the family
Bi,j : j ≥ 1 of subsets of Ai is null, then the full family Bi,j : i ≥ 1, j ≥ 1 is also null. We
omit further details, thus completing the proof.
1.D.2 Example: limit of a tree system of spheres. For arbitrary n ≥ 1, consider
a tree system of n-spheres, i.e. a tree system M of manifolds, as described in 1.B.2, for
which all manifolds Mt : t ∈ VT are the n-spheres S n . Next result is an application of
Proposition 1.D.1.
1.D.2.1 Lemma. The limit of any tree system of n-spheres is homeomorphic to S n .
To prove Lemma 1.D.2.1, we need a special case of the following well known result
(which we will also need later, in its full generality).
1.D.2.2 Lemma. Let M be an n-dimensional compact topological manifold with boundary,
and let D be a null and dense family of pairwise disjoint collared n-disks contained in the
interior of M . Let M/D be the quotient space obtained by collapsing all disks D ∈ D to
points, i.e. the quotient space of the decomposition of M induced by D. Then M/D is
homeomorphic to M , via a homeomorphism which is identical on ∂M .
Proof: It follows from a theorem of Bing (Theorem 7.2 in [Fr]) that the decomposition of M
induced by D is shirinkable (see Section II.5 of [Dav] for the deﬁnition of shrinkability). By
Theorem 5.3 in [Dav], this implies that the quotient map M → M/D can be approximated
by homeomorphisms, which clearly implies our assertion.
Proof of Lemma 1.D.2.1: Let M = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be any tree system of nspheres. Note that, due to Lemma 1.D.2.2, each space KF∗ : F ∈ FT is homeomorphic
to S n . Moreover, for each ﬁnite subtrees F ⊂ F ′ of T the map fF F ′ : KF∗ ′ → KF∗ is the
quotient map from S n to S n modulo a decomposition induced by a ﬁnite collection of closed
collared n-disks. Since such a map is obviously a near homeomorphism, we get that the
associated standard inverse system SM consists of n-spheres and near homeomorphisms.
S
Let (Fi )i ≥ 1 be an increasing sequence of ﬁnite subtrees of T such that i≥1 Fi = T .
Since this sequence forms a coﬁnal subposet of the poset FT , the inverse sequence S ′
obtained from SM by restriction to this sequence has the same inverse limit. Since S ′
consists of n-spheres and near homeomorphisms, it follows from a result of M. Brown
(Theorem 4 in [Br]) that lim←− S ′ ∼
= S n . Applying Proposition 1.D.1, we get
lim M ∼
= lim SM = lim S ′ ∼
= Sn,
←−

←−

as required.
1.D.3 Estimates of the dimension of lim Θ. In the remaining part of this section we
use Proposition 1.D.1 to estimate the topological dimension of the limit of a tree system.
Some further estimates (or rather exact calculations) will be provided in Section 2.D.
An obvious estimate, implied by the fact that each constituent space Kt embeds in
lim Θ, is
(1.D.3)

dim(lim Θ) ≥ sup{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VT }.
10

Below we provide an upper bound for dim(lim Θ). Clearly, if sup{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VT } = ∞
then dim(lim Θ) = ∞ as well. Thus, we restrict our attention to tree systems which have
a universal ﬁnite upper bound for the dimensions of the constituent spaces Kt .
1.D.3.1 Proposition. Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a tree system of metric compacta
such that
sup{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VT } = n < ∞.
Then dim(lim Θ) ≤ n + 1.
Proof: By the closed sum theorem in S
dimension theory, for any F ∈ FT we have
dim(KF ) ≤ n, and hence also dim(KF \ e∈Nt Σe ) ≤ n. Recall that, for each F ∈ FT ,
we denote by PF the set of all points in KF∗ which are
S obtained by shrinking∗the subsets
∗
Σe : e ∈ NF . Since KF \ PF is homoemorphic to KF \ e∈Nt Σe , we get dim(KF \ PF ) ≤ n.
Since each PF is countable, it has dimension ≤ 0, and by the addition theorem we get
dim(KF∗ ) ≤ n + 1. By Proposition 1.D.1, and by the properties of inverse limits, we get
dim(lim Θ) = dim(lim←− SΘ ) ≤ supF ∈FT dim(KF∗ ) ≤ n + 1, as required.
1.D.3.2 Corollary. Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a tree system of metric compacta
such that
sup{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VT } = n < ∞.
Then dim(lim Θ) ∈ {n, n + 1}.
In Section 2.D we show that both asserted in the above corollary values for the dimension appear, for various classes of examples.
1.E An isomorphism of tree systems of spaces.
Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) and Θ′ = (T ′ , {Kt′ }, {Σ′e }, {φ′e }) be two tree systems of
spaces. An isomorphism F : Θ → Θ′ is a tuple F = (λ, {ft}) such that:
(I1) λ : T → T ′ is an isomorphism of trees;
′
(I2) for each t ∈ VT the map ft : Kt → Kλ(t)
is a homeomorphism;
′
(I3) for each e ∈ Nt we have ft (Σe ) = Σλ(e) ;
(I4) for each e ∈ Nt the following commutation rule holds: φ′λ(e) ◦ (fα(e) |Σα(e) ) = fω(e) ◦ φe .
An easy consequence of the deﬁnition of the limit (of a tree system of metric compacta)
is the following.
1.E.1 Lemma. If Θ, Θ′ are isomorphic tree systems of metric compacta then their limits
lim Θ and lim Θ′ are homeomorphic.
1.E.2 Toruńczyk’s Lemma and dense tree systems of oriented manifolds.
The following result proved by Henryk Toruńczyk (see [J1]) has interesting consequences concerning existence of isomorphisms for certain natural classes of tree systems
of manifolds. (Throughout this paper, by a manifold we mean a topological manifold.)
Recall that a family of subsets of a topological space is dense if the union of this family is
a dense subset.
11

1.E.2.1 Toruńczyk’s Lemma. Let M be a compact n-dimensional topological manifold
with or without boundary, and let D, D ′ be two families of collared n-disks in int(M ) such
that each family consists of pairwise disjoint sets and both families are null and dense.
Then each homeomorphism h : ∂M → ∂M which is extendable to a homeomorphism of
M admits an extension to a homeomorphism H : M → M which maps D to D ′ . More
precisely, this means that there is an associated bijective map ν : D → D ′ such that for
each ∆ ∈ D the restriction H|∆ maps ∆ homeomorphically on the disk ν(∆) ∈ D ′ .
The above lemma provides motivation for the following.
1.E.2.2 Definition. Let M be a tree system of closed manifolds, with families of manifolds
{Mt } and disks {∆e } as in Example 1.B.2. We say that this system is dense if for each
t ∈ VT the family Dt = {∆e : e ∈ Nt } is dense in the manifold Mt .
We denote the constituent spaces of a dense system of manifolds Mt by Mt◦ . The
symbol Mt◦ is meant to contain information both of the space itself and of the peripheral
subspaces contained in this space. Given Mt , it follows from Lemma 1.E.2.1 that the
corresponding Mt◦ is unique up to a homeomorphism preserving the peripheral subspaces.
We will call any constituent space of form Mt◦ (viewed again as equipped with its standard
family of peripheral subspaces) a densely punctured manifold Mt .
A recursive application of Toruńczyk’s Lemma, together with Lemma 1.E.1, immediately yield the following.
1.E.2.3 Proposition. Let M be a closed connected oriented topological manifold. Let M,
M′ be two dense tree systems of manifolds such that
(1) all manifolds in the corresponding families {Mt } and {Mt′′ } are homeomorphic to M ,
(2) all maps φe : Σe = ∂∆e → Σē = ∂∆ē respect orientations, i.e. reverse the induced
orientations on the corresponding spheres, and the same holds for all maps φ′e′ .
Then the tree systems M, M′ are isomorphic, and consequently, their limits are homeomorphic.
Note that, due to the above proposition, each closed connected oriented manifold
M determines uniquely up to isomorphism the dense tree system of manifolds satisfying
conditions (1) and (2) as in the proposition. We denote this tree system by M(M ) and
call it the dense tree system of manifolds M or the Jakobsche system for M . The latter
term is motiveted by the fact that the tree systems M(M ) are intimately related to some
inverse sequences described by W. Jakobsche in [J2]. We describe this relationship in Part
2 of the paper, especially in Example 2.C.7.
As a consequence of Lemma 1.E.1, M as above determines, uniquely up to homeomorphism, the compact metric space lim M(M ), which we denote by X (M ) and call the tree of
manifolds M or the Jakobsche space for M . In Jakobsche’s paper [J2] this space is denoted
by X(M, {M }), and it is obtained as inverse limit of an inverse sequence mentioned in the
previous paragraph.
Remark. In [J2] Jakobsche considered also a more general class of spaces obtained as
inverse limits and determined uniquely up to homeomorphism by a ﬁnite or inﬁnite family
N of closed connected oriented manifolds of the same dimension. We discuss the corresponding dense tree systems of manifolds, for ﬁnite families N , in Example 3.A.2.
12

1.E.3 Example: tree of spheres is a sphere.
For arbitrary n ≥ 1, consider the dense tree system M(S n ) of n-spheres, as described
in Subsection 1.E.2. Note that this tree system can be alternatively thought of as follows.
1.E.3.1 Remark: an alternative description of the tree system M(S n ).
Recall that the unique topological space (S n )◦ obtained from S n by deleting interiors
of n-disks D from any null and dense family D consisting of pairwise disjoint collared disks
is called the (n − 1)-dimensional Sierpiński compactum. (The uniqueness follows from [Ca]
if n 6= 4, and in the remaining case the argument in [Ca] also holds true in view of the
later proofs of the Annulus Theorem and the Approximation Theorem for n = 4, due to F.
Quinn [Qu]; in fact, this follows also from Toruńczyk’s Lemma 1.E.2.1.) The space (S n )◦
contains a family of distinguished subsets, called peripheral spheres, which coincides with
the family of boundaries ∂D of the disks D ∈ D. The tree system M(S n ) can be described
as follows. It is the unique tree system of metric compacta in which all constituent spaces
are (n − 1)-dimensional Sierpiński compacta, and families of peripheral subsets in all of
these spaces coincide with the families of peripheral spheres.
Next result is a special case of Lemma 1.D.2.1.
1.E.3.2 Corollary. The limit lim M(S n ), i.e. the tree of spheres X (S n ), is homeomorphic
to S n .
A diﬀerent argument for proving Corollary 1.E.3.2 is sketched in Remark 3.B.12.2.
1.E.4 Example: the tree of non-orientable manifolds N .
Reall the following rather well known fact.
1.E.4.1 Lemma. Let N be a closed connected non-orientable topological manifold of
dimension n and let D, D′ be any collared n-disks in N . Then each homeomorphism
D → D′ (no matter how it behaves with respect to local orientations in the disks) extends
to a homeomorphism of N .
A recursive application of Toruńczyk’s Lemma 1.E.2.1 and Lemma 1.E.4.1 yields the
following.
1.E.4.2 Proposition. Let N be a closed connected non-orientable topological manifold,
and let M, M′ be any two dense tree systems of manifolds such that all manifolds in the
corresponding families {Mt } and {Mt′′ } are homeomorphic to N . Then the tree systems
M, M′ are isomorphic, and consequently, their limits are homeomorphic.
The tree system as above, uniquely determined by N , will be denoted M(N ) and
called the dense tree system of manifolds N , or the Jakobsche system for N . Its limit,
denoted X (N ), will be called the tree of manifolds N or the Jakobsche space for N .
1.E.4.3 Remark. Proposition 1.E.4.2 clariﬁes the picture with trees of non-orientable
manifolds, as documented so far in the literature. Namely, in the paper [St] Paul Stallings
describes these spaces in a way which could be translated to our setting as follows: the tree
of manifolds N is the limit of a dense tree system as in Proposition 1.E.4.2 satisfying some
additional technical condition for the connecting maps called dense orientation condition
13

(we do not recall this condition). Proposition 1.E.4.2 shows that this additional condition
plays in fact no role. Moreover, Proposition 1.E.4.2 applies to all topological manifolds,
while the methods used by Stallings in [St] allowed him to deal only with PL manifolds.
2. Extensions of tree systems and associated inverse systems.
In this part of the paper we present some alternative expressions of trees of spaces as
inverse limits. It turns out that these expressions (rather than those related to standard
associated inverse systems described in Section 1.D) allow to relate the spaces obtained as
limits of tree systems with certain previously studied classes of topological spaces deﬁned
in terms of inverse limits (e.g. Jakobsche trees of manifolds, Markov compacta as deﬁned
in [Dr], etc.). Moreover, these expressions seem to be potentially more convenient for the
purpose of recognizing ideal boundaries of various spaces and groups as (homeomorphic to)
some speciﬁc trees of spaces (see Remark 2.C.8 for examples of such applications occuring
in the literature).
The alternative expressions of trees of spaces as inverse limits, presented in this section,
turn out to be useful for exact calculations of topological dimension for certain classes of
trees of spaces (see Section 2.D).
2.A Extended spaces and maps.
Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a tree system of metric compacta. Suppose that for
each e ∈ OT we are given a compact metric space ∆e , its compact subspace Se , and a
homeomorphism ϕe : Se → Σe .
For any t ∈ VT let T (t) be a subtree of T spanned on the set {t} ∪ {ω(e) : e ∈ Nt }
(i.e. t and all vertices adjacent to t). We deﬁne a tree system
Θ(t) = (T (t), {Ks′ }, {Σ′e }, {φ′e })
′
as follows. Put Kt′ = Kt and Kω(e)
= ∆e for each e ∈ Nt . Put Σ′e = Σe and Σ′ē = Se for
′
each e ∈ Nt . Finally, put φ′e = ϕ−1
e and φē = ϕe for each e ∈ Nt . Denote by K̂t = lim Θ(t)
the limit of the above tree system. Observe that Kt and the sets ∆e : e ∈ Nt are then
canonically the subspaces of K̂t (in particular, they are compact subspaces). Moreover,
the sets Σe and Se , viewed in the above way as subspaces of K̂t , do coincide. We call any
family K̂t : t ∈ Vt as above a family of extended spaces for Θ.

2.A.1 Examples.
(1) For each e ∈ OT put ∆e = Se = Σe and ϕe = idΣe . This deﬁnes what we call the
trivial family of extended spaces for Θ. Note that in this family we have K̂t = Kt for
each t ∈ VT .
(2) Let M be a tree system of manifolds as in Example 1.B.2. Let ∆e : e ∈ OT be
the family of n-disks as in this example, and put Se = ∂∆e and ϕe = idSe for each
such e. Observe that then we have K̂t = Mt for each t ∈ VT . Indeed, by Lemma
1.D.2.2 all reduced partial unions of the system Θ(t) corresponding to ﬁnite subtrees
F ⊂ T (t) containing t (i.e. all spaces in the standard associated inverse system
14

SΘ(t) restricted to the coﬁnal subposet in FT (t) consisting of all subtrees containing
t) are then homeomorphic to Mt . Moreover, an argument as in the proof of Lemma
1.D.2.2 shows that the maps in the above restriction of the system SΘ(t) are all near
homeomorphisms, and thus (applying also Proposition 1.D.1) we get K̂t = lim Θ(t) ∼
=
lim←− SΘ(t) ∼
M
.
(A
more
canonical
identiﬁcation
of
K̂
with
M
is
easily
provided
= t
t
t
by Theorem 3.B.10.) This means that as a family of extended spaces for M we can
take the initial family of manifolds Mt . We will call the family {K̂t = Mt } as above
the standard family of extended spaces for M.
(3) The previous example can be generalized as follows. Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be
any tree system of metric compacta. For each e ∈ NT put ∆e = cone(Σe ) and Se to
be the base of this cone, and let ϕe be the identity on Se = Σe . We call the associated
family K̂t : t ∈ VT the family of conically extended spaces for Θ.
Given a family of extended spaces for Θ determined, as above, by a family of pairs
(∆e , Se ) : e ∈ OT , consider the family K̂e : e ∈ OT of subspaces deﬁned by K̂e =
K̂ω(e) \ (∆ē \ Sē ). Suppose that we are given a family of maps δe : K̂e → ∆e such that
δe |Σē = φē . Any tuple E = ({K̂t : t ∈ VT }, {δe : e ∈ OT }) as above will be called a family
of extended spaces and maps for Θ.
To any family E of spaces and maps as above we associate an inverse system of metric
compacta, denoted SE , as follows. Let (FT , ⊂) be the poset of all ﬁnite subtrees of T . For
any F ∈ FT let K̂F be the quotient of the disjoint union
[ 
[

K̂F =
K̂t \
(∆e \ Se ) / ∼
t∈VF

e∈Nt ∩OF

where ∼ is the equivalence relation induced by the equivalences of form x ∼ φe (x) for all
e ∈ OF and all x ∈ Σe (where we view Σe and Σē canonically as subsets in K̂α(e) and
K̂ω(e) , respectively). This gives us the family K̂F : F ∈ FT of spaces in the inverse system
SE .
We now turn to deﬁning the maps hF1 F2 : K̂F2 → K̂F1 , for all pairs F1 ⊂ F2 of ﬁnite
subtrees of T . We do this in two steps, as follows. First, suppose that VF2 = VF1 ∪ {t} for
some t ∈
/ VF1 . Let e be the unique oriented edge in F2 with ω(e) = t. Viewing canonically
∆e as a subset of K̂F1 , we put

x
for x ∈ K̂F1 \ (∆e \ Se ) ⊂ K̂F2
hF1 F2 (x) =
.
δe (x) for x ∈ K̂e ⊂ K̂F2
In the second step, for any pair F ′ ⊂ F of ﬁnite subtrees of T we consider a sequence
F1 ⊂ F2 ⊂ . . . ⊂ Fm such that F1 = F ′ , Fm = F and the pairs Fi , Fi+1 are of the form as
in the ﬁrst step. We then put
hF F ′ = hF1 F2 ◦ hF2 F3 ◦ . . . ◦ hFm−1 Fm
and we observe that the resulting map does not depend on the choice of the above sequence
F1 , . . . , Fm (which is in general not unique). A related observation is that hF1 F3 = hF1 F2 ◦
hF2 F3 whenever F1 ⊂ F2 ⊂ F3 .
15

2.A.2 Definition. Let Θ be a tree system of metric compacta, and let E be an associated
family of extended spaces and maps for Θ. The associated inverse system for Θ induced
by E is the tuple
SE = ({K̂F : F ∈ FT }, {hF F ′ : F ⊂ F ′ }).
In the next section we show (see Theorem 2.B.4) that in some cases one can use
limit of an associated inverse system SE as an alternative description of the limit of a tree
system.
2.A.3 Remark. Any associated inverse system SE as above has various coﬁnal subsequences. Since any coﬁnal subsystem is viewed as equivalent to the original one (for
example, its inverse limit is canonically the same), this allows simpler (in certain sense)
descriptions of the system SE , which might be more convenient for some purposes. More
precisely, let F1 ⊂ F2 ⊂ . . . be an increasing sequence of ﬁnite subtrees of T . Clearly, this
sequence is coﬁnal with FT iﬀ ∪∞
i=1 VFi = VT . For any such coﬁnal sequence (Fi ) the tuple
SE,(Fi ) = ({K̂Fi : i ∈ NI}, {hFj Fi : i < j})
is an inverse sequence equivalent to the inverse system SE .
2.B. Relationship to the limit of a tree system.
In order to relate the limit lim Θ with the inverse limit of some associated inverse
system SE , we need one more condition on the associated family E of extended spaces and
maps. We use the notation as in the previous section.
Let γ = (t0 , t1 , . . . , tm ) be any ﬁnite combinatorial path in T of length m ≥ 2. For
i = 1, . . . , m let ei = (ti−1 , ti ) be the consecutive oriented edges in γ. We then have
∆em ⊂ K̂em−1

δem−1
−→

∆em−1 ⊂ . . .

δe2
−→

e1
∆e2 ⊂ K̂e1 δ−→
∆e 1

and we denote by δγ : ∆em → ∆e1 the composition map δγ = δe1 ◦ . . . ◦ δem−2 ◦ δem−1 |∆em .
2.B.1 Definition. We say that an associated family E of extended spaces and maps is
fine if for each e ∈ OT the family of images δγ (∆em ) (where em is the terminal edge in γ),
for all combinatorial paths γ in T of length ≥ 2 and starting with e1 = e, is a null family
of subsets in ∆e .
Remark. The condition of ﬁneness does not follow automatically from the nullity conditions in Θ (for families {Σe : e ∈ Nt }).
Next deﬁnition describes a subclass of ﬁne families E of extended spaces and maps
which occur in practical situations where we express limits of tree systems as inverse limits.
2.B.2 Definition. Let E = ({K̂t }, {δe }) be a family of extended spaces and maps related
to a family of pairs {(∆e , Se )}. We say that E is contracting if there are metrics dˆt on the
extended spaces K̂t and a constant 0 ≤ c < 1 such that
16

(1) for each e, e′ ∈ OT such that e′ 6= ē and α(e′ ) = ω(e) the restricted map δe |∆e′ is a ccontraction with respect to the metrics dˆω(e) in ∆e′ ⊂ K̂ω(e) and dˆα(e) in ∆e ⊂ K̂α(e) ;
more precisely, for any x, y ∈ ∆e′ we have
dˆα(e) (δe (x), δe (y)) ≤ c · dˆω(e) (x, y);
(2) if c > 0 then there is another constant C > 0 such that for each t ∈ VT we have
diam(K̂t , d̂t ) ≤ C.
We omit the proof of the following apparent fact.
2.B.3 Fact. Any contracting family E of extended spaces and maps is fine.
2.B.4 Theorem. Let Θ be a tree system of metric compacta, let E be an associated
family of extended spaces and maps for Θ, and suppose that E is fine. Let SE be the
associated inverse system of compact topological spaces. Then the limit lim Θ is canonically
homeomorphic to the inverse limit lim← SE .
Proof: The proof consists of three parts. In the ﬁrst part we describe explicitely strings
(xF )F ∈FT which represent points of lim← SE . In the second part, we use this decription
to deﬁne a natural map β : lim← SE → lim Θ, which is a bijection. Finally, in the third
part we prove that β is a homeomorphism.
Recall that, by deﬁnition of inverse limit, each element x ∈ lim← SE is a tuple
(xF )F ∈FT , with xF ∈ K̂F , such that hF F ′ (xF ) = xF ′ whenever F ′ ⊂ F . We will show that
there are two kinds of such tuples in lim← SE . At ﬁrst, we consider tuples (xF ) satisfying
the following property:
(⋆) for any coﬁnal subsequence F1 ⊂ F2 ⊂ . . . in the poset FT the sequence xFn eventually
stabilizes, i.e. there is N such that for all n ≥ N we have xFn ∈ KFn ⊂ K̂Fn and,
under the natural inclusions KFn ⊂ KFn+1 , we have the equalities xFn+1 = xFn .
A large class of such tuples can be described as follows. Let y ∈ Kt for some t ∈ VT . This
y determines the tuple (xyF ) as follows. If F contains t, we have the canonical inclusion
Kt ⊂ K̂F , and we put xyF = x. If F does not contain t, let F ′ be the smallest subtree of
T containing both F and t. Viewing Kt as a subset of K̂F ′ we put xyF := hF ′ F (x). It is
easy to check that xy = (xyF ) is then a string, i.e. xy ∈ lim← SE , and it obviously satisﬁes
condition (⋆). Moreover, we have the following.
Claim 1. Each string (xF ) ∈ lim← SE which satisfies property (⋆) has form (xyF ), as
described above.
The claim follows by observing that if y is the element to which some sequence xFn
stabilizes, then any other such sequence stabilizes to the same element, and consequently
the string necessarily has the asserted form (xyF ).
We now turn to strings (xF ) not satisfying condition (⋆). A large class of such strings
is induced by ends z ∈ ET . Given any z ∈ ET , we deﬁne the tuple (xzF ) as follows. For
any F ∈ FT let ρF be the minimal (with respect to inclusion) ray starting at a vertex of
F and such that [ρF ] = z. Let γn = (e′1 , . . . , e′n ) be the initial path of length n in ρF , and
17

let δγn : ∆e′n → ∆e′1 be the map described at the beginning of this section. Note that the
sequence (Qn ) of compact subsets in ∆e′1 given by Qn = δγn (∆e′n ) is then decreasing and,
due to ﬁneness of E, we have limn→∞ diam(Qn ) = 0. Consequently, the intersection ∩Qn
is a single point in ∆e′1 ⊂ K̂F , and we take it as xzF . We make the following observations
(omitting their straightforward proofs):
(1) (xzF ) is a string, i.e. it belongs to lim← SE ,
(2) (xzF ) does not satisfy condition (⋆),
′
(3) if z 6= z ′ then (xzF ) 6= (xzF ).
Claim 2. Each element (xF ) ∈ lim← SE which does not satisfy condition (⋆) has a form
(xzF ) as above, for some end z ∈ ET . Moreover, z → (xzF ) is a bijective correspondence
between the set of ends of T and the set of elements of lim← SE not satisfying (⋆).
To prove the claim, note that for each string (xF ) not satisfying (⋆) there is a coﬁnal
sequence F1 ⊂ F2 ⊂ . . . for which elements xFn change inﬁnitely often. By passing
to a subsequence, we may assume that xFn+1 6= xFn (i.e. it is not true that xFn+1 =
xFn ∈ KFn ⊂ KFn+1 ) for all n. Observe that in this situation we have xFn ∈ ∆en for
some unique en ∈ NFn , and that the edges en induce uniquely a ray ρ in T of form
[ρ]
ρ = (e1 , . . . , e2 , . . . , e3 , . . .). It is not hard to realize that then (xF ) = (xF ), which yields
the ﬁrst assertion of the claim. The second assertion follows then from observation (3)
stated just before Claim 2.
We are now ready to describe a natural map β : lim← SE → lim Θ, which will be our
candidate for a homeomorphism. If a string x = (xF ) satisﬁes condition (⋆), there is a
point y to which (xF ) stabilizes, and this y belongs to some Kt . Viewing Kt as a subset in
lim Θ, we put β(x) = y. If x does not satisfy (⋆), it corresponds uniquely to some end z of
T . Viewing ends of T as elements of lim Θ, we put β(x) = z. We skip a direct veriﬁcation
of the fact that so described β is well deﬁned, and that it is a bijection.
Since both spaces lim← SE and lim Θ are compact, to prove that β is a homeomorphism, it is suﬃcient to show that it is continuous. To do this, we will show that for any
open set G(U ) ∈ B its preimage β −1
Q(G(U )) is open in lim← SE . More precisely, viewing
lim← SE as subspace of the product F K̂F , we will show that β −1 (G(U )) = W ∩ lim← SE
Q
for some open set W in F K̂F . Suppose that U is an open subset of KF0 saturated with
respect to the family AF0 . Put
Û = U ∪

[

{∆e : e ∈ NF0 and Σe ⊂ U }

Q
and note that Û is an open subset of K̂F0 . Take W = F WF , where WF0 = Û and
Q
WF = K̂F for F 6= F0 . Clearly, W is open in F K̂F . It is also not hard to deduce from
Claims 1 and 2, and from the descriptions of strings, that β −1 (G(U )) = W ∩ lim← SE .
This completes the proof.
2.C Tree systems with ANR peripheral subspaces.
This section is devoted to showing that any tree system Θ in which all peripheral
subspaces Σe are ANRs admits a ﬁne family E = ({K̂t }, {δe }) of extended spaces and
18

maps in which {K̂t } is the family of conically extended spaces (see Example 2.A.1(3))
and {δe } is an associated family of 0-contracting maps. See Proposition 2.C.2 for precise
statement of this main result of the section.
Recall that a compact metric space Σ is an ANR (absolute neighbourhood retract) if
for any embedding of Σ in another compact metric space K there is a neighbourhood of Σ
in K which retracts on Σ. Recall also that every compact polyhedron is an ANR. Lemma
2.C.3 below presents a diﬀerent characterization of ANR spaces, more convenient for our
purposes.
2.C.1 Definition. Let E = ({K̂t }, {δe }) be a family of extended spaces and maps for a
tree system Θ.
(1) We say that Θ is peripherally ANR if all peripheral subspaces Σe : e ∈ OT of Θ are
ANRs.
(2) We say that E is conical if the corresponding family {K̂t } is the family of conically
extended spaces for Θ.
(3) We say that E is 0-contracting if for each e, e′ ∈ OT such that e′ 6= ē and α(e′ ) = ω(e)
the restricted map δe |∆e′ is a 0-contraction; equivalently, for all e, e′ as above δe maps
the subspace ∆e′ ⊂ K̂e to a point.
Note that a 0-contracting family E is automatically ﬁne (compare Fact 2.B.3) and
thus, due to Theorem 2.B.4, can be used to express the limit lim Θ as an inverse limit.
The main result of this section is the following.
2.C.2 Proposition. Each peripherally ANR tree system has a conical and 0-contracting
family of extended spaces and maps.
The proof of Proposition 2.C.2 requires various preparations. We start with a lemma
which characterizes ANR spaces Σ in terms of maps to the cones over Σ. Since this
characterization is an obvious reformulation of the deﬁnition of an ANR space, we omit
its proof.
2.C.3 Lemma. Let Σ be a compact metric space, and let cone(Σ) be the cone over Σ, with
Σ canonically identified as the cone base. Then the following two conditions are equivalent:
(1) for any metric compactum K containing Σ as a subspace there is a continuous map
f : K → cone(Σ) such that f |Σ = idΣ ;
(2) Σ is an ANR.
We now turn to discussing decompositions of the constituent spaces Kt induced by
families of their peripheral subsets. For any e ∈ OT , put
Ae = {Σe′ : e′ 6= ē and α(e′ ) = ω(e)}.
Clearly, Ae is a null family of pairwise disjoint compact subsets of the space Kω(e) . We
will view Ae as a decomposition of Kω(e) into closed subsets by considering all singletons
{x} with x ∈
/ ∪Ae , together with the sets from Ae , as elements of this decomposition.
Equivalently, we identify the family Ae with the decomposition of Kω(e) in which Ae is
the set of nondegenerate elements. By the fact that the family Ae is null we immediately
get the following (compare [Dav], Proposition 3 on p. 14).
19

2.C.4 Fact. For each e ∈ OT the decomposition Ae of the space Kω(e) is upper semicontinuous.
Denote by Kω(e) /Ae the quotient space of the decomposition Ae . Since any quotient
of an upper semicontinuous decomposition of a metric space is metrizable (see [Dav],
Proposition 2 on p. 13), we get
2.C.5 Fact. For each e ∈ OT the quotient Kω(e) /Ae is a compact metrizable space, and
the subspace Σē canonically topologically embeds in this quotient.
Fact 2.C.5 together with Lemma 2.C.3 yield the following.
2.C.6 Corollary. Suppose that the peripheral subset Σē is an ANR. Then there is a
continuous map fe : Kω(e) /Ae → cone(Σē ) which is identical on Σē . Consequently, there
is an induced continuous map fe′ : Kω(e) → cone(Σē ) which is identical on Σē and which
maps each subset Σe′ ∈ Ae to a point.
Proof of Proposition 2.C.2: Let {K̂t : t ∈ VT } be the associated family of conically
extended spaces for Θ, as described in Example 2.A.1(3), and let {K̂e : e ∈ OT } be the
corresponding family of subspces. For each e ∈ OT deﬁne a map δe′ : K̂e → cone(Σe ) by
δe′ (x) =

(

fe′ (x)
if x ∈ Kω(e) ⊂ K̂e
′
fe (Σe′ ) if x ∈ ∆e′ ⊂ K̂e , for some e′ ∈ Nω(e) \ {ē},

where fe′ is a map as in Corollary 2.C.6.
After identifying cone(Σē ) with cone(Σe ) via cone of the map φē : Σē → Σe , and then
identifying cone(Σe ) with ∆e , the above described map δe′ gives the map δe : K̂e → ∆e
such that:
(1) δe maps each subset ∆e′ ⊂ K̂e , for e′ ∈ Nω(e) \ {ē}, to a point;
(2) the restriction of δe to Σē coincides with φē .
Thus, the tuple E = ({K̂e }, {δe }) is a conical and 0-contracting family of extended spaces
and maps for Θ, as required. This ﬁnishes the proof.
2.C.7 Example: Jakobsche’s inverse sequences.
As we have already mentioned in Section 1.E, Wlodzimierz Jakobsche has introduced
and studied (in his papers [J1,J2]) the spaces which appear in the present paper as limits
of dense tree systems of manifolds, in particular the tree systems of manifolds M , as
described in Proposition 1.E.2.3 (the Jakobsche spaces X (M )). Jakobsche has introduced
those spaces as inverse limits of certain inverse sequences of manifolds, which we can
describe in our terms as follows.
Given a closed oriented manifold M , let M = M(M ) be the dense tree system of manifolds M (as deﬁned in Section 1.E, right after Proposition 1.E.2.3). Let E = ({K̂t }, {δe })
be any ﬁne conical family of extended spaces and maps for M (existence of which is justiﬁed by Proposition 2.C.2). Let SE = ({K̂F }, {hF,F ′ }) be the associated inverse system for
M, as in Deﬁnition 2.A.2. Note that the spaces K̂F in this system are homeomorphic to
iterated connected (oriented) sum of copies of M .
20

Jakobsche has considered coﬁnal inverse subsequences SE,(Fi ) of the system SE , as
described in Remark 2.A.3, in which the sequences F1 ⊂ F2 ⊂ . . . of ﬁnite subtrees of T
satisfy the following conditions:
(j1) F1 is a subtree of T reduced to a single vertex;
(j2) for each i ≥ 1 the vertex set VFi+1 \ VFi consists of vertices adjacent to Fi (i.e. of form
ω(e) for some e ∈ NFi ).
A choice of a sequence (Fi ) in the above way yields an inverse sequence with the following
properties:
(p1) each manifold K̂Fi+1 is obtained from K̂Fi by means of operations of connected sum,
with copies of the manifold M , performed at a ﬁnite set of pairwise disjoint connecting
disks in the manifold K̂Fi ;
(p2) each map hFi+1 ,Fi maps each new copy of M in K̂Fi+1 , attached to K̂Fi by means of
conneted sum at appropriate connecting disk, to this disk, and it is the identity in the
complement of the union of the connecting disks.
2.C.8 Remark. There are at least two examples in the literature where ideal boundaries
of groups have been identiﬁed as certain trees of manifolds, and this has been achieved by
referring to the description of these spaces as limits of Jakobsche’s inverse sequences, as
described in Example 2.C.7.
First, there is a paper [Fi] by Hanspeter Fischer, in which the author identiﬁes the
CAT(0) boundaries of right angled Coxeter groups having manifold nerves as trees of the
corresponding manifolds. A minor mistake in the statement of the main result of [Fi] is
corrected in Theorem 3.A.3 below. The work of Fisher is complemented by the paper [PŚ],
by Piotr Przytycki and the author, where a vast class of trees of manifolds, in dimensions
≤ 3, is realized as Gromov boundaries of Coxeter groups which are hyperbolic.
A diﬀerent class of spaces, and associated hyperbolic groups, is studied by Pawel
Zawiślak in [Z1]. He shows, among others, that Gromov boundary of a 7-systolic 3dimensional orientable simplicial pseudomanifold is the tree of 2-tori (known also as the
Pontriagin sphere). A related class of spaces is exhibited, for which the Gromov boundary
is the tree of projective planes.
2.D More on the dimension of the limit of a tree system.
For the reasons explained in Subsection 1.D.3, we restrict our attention to tree systems
which have a universal ﬁnite upper bound for the dimensions of the constituent spaces Kt .
2.D.1 Proposition. Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a tree system of metric compacta
such that
sup{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VT } = n < ∞.
Suppose that for some constant 0 ≤ c < 1 for each e ∈ OT there is a retraction re : Kα(e) →
Σe such that for each e′ ∈ Nα(e) \ {e} the restriction re |Σe′ is a c-contraction. Suppose also
that if the constant c in the previous assumption is positive, there exists another constant
C > 0 such that diam(Kt ) ≤ C for each t ∈ VT . Then dim(lim Θ) = n.
Note that any family of maps {re : e ∈ OT } as in Proposition 2.D.1, together with the
trivial family of extended spaces for Θ (see Example 2.A.1(1)), form a contracting system
21

E = ({K̂t = Kt }, {re }) of extended spaces and maps for Θ. Moreover, by Fact 2.B.3, E is
then ﬁne. Thus, Proposition 2.D.1 is a special case of the following slightly more general
result.
2.D.2 Proposition. Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a tree system of metric compacta
such that
sup{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VT } = n < ∞.
Suppose that Θ admits a fine family E of extended spaces and maps, in which the corresponding family of extended spaces is trivial. Then dim(lim Θ) = n.
Proof of Proposition 2.D.2: Since we have an easy estimate
dim(lim Θ) ≥ sup{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VT } = n,
it is suﬃcient to show the converse inequality dim(lim Θ) ≤ n.
Let SE = ({K̂F }, {hF F ′ }) be the inverse system associated to E. Since the family E
is ﬁne, Theorem 2.B.4 implies that lim Θ ∼
= lim← SE . Since the family of extended spaces
in E is trivial, for each ﬁnite subtree F ⊂ T we have K̂F = #{Kt : t ∈ VF } (ﬁnite partial
union), and hence dim(K̂F ) = max{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VF } ≤ n. Moreover, by the properties of
inverse limits we have dim(lim← SE ) ≤ supF ∈FT dim(K̂F ). This gives the required converse
inequality dim(lim Θ) ≤ n, thus proving the proposition.
2.D.3 Example: tree of internally punctured manifolds with boundary.
We show how to apply Proposition 2.D.1 to calculate dimension of the limit for the
following class of tree systems Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }). Fix any n ≥ 1, and suppose that
for each t ∈ VT
[
Kt = Mt \ {int(D) : D ∈ D} and {Σe : e ∈ Nt } = {∂D : D ∈ D},

where Mt is a compact n-dimensional topological manifold with nonempty boundary, and
D is a null and dense in Mt family of pairwise disjoint collared n-disks D ⊂ int(Mt ). We
call any Θ as above a dense tree system of internally punctured manifolds with boundary.
We claim that for any such Θ the topological dimension dim(lim Θ) = n − 1.
To prove the claim, ﬁx any t ∈ VT and any e ∈ Nt , and suppose that Σe = ∂D0 , where
D0 ∈ D. Observe that by collapsing all peripheral subsets Σe′ : e′ ∈ Nt \ {e} to points one
gets the quotient space Kt / ∼e homeomorphic to Mt \int(D0 ), via a homeomorphism which
sends ∂Mt ∪ ∂D0 ⊂ Kt / ∼e identically to ∂Mt ∪ ∂D0 ⊂ Mt \ int(D0 ) (see Lemma 1.D.2.2).
We denote a homeomorphism Kt / ∼e → Mt \ int(D0 ) as above by he . Observe also that,
since ∂Mt 6= ∅, there exists a retraction ge : Mt \ int(D0 ) → ∂D0 = Σe . (Existence of
such a retraction is pretty obvious when Mt is either smooth or PL, and it requires some
eﬀort in topological category; the latter case is carefully dealt with in [Z2].) Thus, putting
re := ge ◦ he , we obtain a family {re } of retractions as in the assumption of Proposition
2.D.1, with constant c = 0. Since we clearly have dim(Kt ) = n − 1 for each t, Proposition
2.D.1 directly implies that dim(lim Θ) = n − 1.
2.D.3.1 Remark. Let M be a dense tree system of internally punctured manifolds with
boundary, as deﬁned above. Let M be a connected topological manifold with nonempty
22

boundary, oriented or non-orientable, and suppose that all manifolds Mt used to describe
M are homeomorphic to M . Suppose also that, in case when M is oriented, all connecting
maps φe of M respect orientations, i.e. they reverse the induced orientations on the
corresponding spheres. By the arguments as before (see Examples 1.E.2 and 1.E.4) one
easily shows that the system M depends uniquely up to isomorphism on M only. We will
call such system M the dense tree system of internally punctured manifolds M , and its
limit lim M the tree of internally punctured manifolds M , denoted Xint (M ).
2.D.4 Remark. The following example shows that the equality as in the assertion of
Proposition 2.D.1 or 2.D.2 does not hold universally. Let M be a dense tree system of closed
oriented (n + 1)-dimensional manifolds {Mt }. Then the corresponding constituent spaces
Kt (obtained from the manifolds Mt as in Deﬁnition 1.E.2.2) can be easily shown to have
the topological dimension dim(Kt ) = n. In particular, we have sup{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VT } = n.
On the other hand, it is known that dim(lim M) = n + 1, see Proposition (2.2) in [J2]. In
the special case when all Mt are (n + 1)-spheres, this follows also from Lemma 1.D.2.1.
The next result concerns peripherally ANR tree systems Θ, as deﬁned in Section
2.C. It exhibits another class of examples for which we have the equality dim(lim Θ) =
sup{dim(Kt ) : t ∈ VT }.
2.D.5 Proposition. For any peripherally ANR tree system of metric compacta Θ =
(T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) we have




dim(lim Θ) ≤ max sup dim(Kt ), sup dim(Σe ) + 1 .
e∈OT

t∈Vt

In particular, if Θ is peripherally ANR, if supt dim(Kt ) = n < ∞ and supe dim(Σe ) ≤ n−1,
then dim(lim Θ) = n.
Proof: Consider any conical and 0-contracting family E of extended spaces and maps
for Θ, the existence of which is justiﬁed by Proposition 2.C.2, and recall that it is ﬁne.
Let SE be the associated inverse system for Θ induced by E. For each t ∈ VT the family
{Kt }∪{∆e : e ∈ Nt } is a countable closed covering of K̂t and hence, by the countable union

theorem (see [Eng, Theorem 7.2.1]), we have dim(K̂t ) = max dim(Kt ), supe∈Nt dim(∆e ) .
Since the family E is conical, and since we have the equality dim(cone(X)) = dim(X) + 1
for any compact metric space, it follows that


dim(K̂t ) = max dim(Kt ), sup dim(Σe ) + 1 .
e∈Nt

Using this, and applying once again the countable union theorem (this time to a ﬁnite
union), we get the following estimate for each ﬁnite subtree F of T :
dim(K̂F ) ≤





sup dim(Kt ), sup dim(Σe ) + 1 .
t∈Vt

e∈OT

23

Finally, since by Theorem 2.B.4 we have lim Θ ∼
= lim← SE , and since by the properties of
inverse limits we have dim(lim← SE ) ≤ supF ∈FT dim(K̂F ), we get the required estimate
for dim(lim Θ), as in the ﬁrst assertion of the proposition.
The second assertion follows from the ﬁrst one, and from the inequality (1.D.3).

3. Modifications of tree systems.
In this part of the paper we describe some natural operations on tree systems which
do not aﬀect their limits. We also present several applications of these operations for
justifying various properties of trees of manifolds. We are convinced that these operations
provide a powerful tool for the future study of more general classes of trees of spaces.
3.A Consolidation of a tree system.
We describe an operation which turns one tree system of spaces into another by
merging the constituent spaces of the initial system, and forming a new system out of
bigger pieces (corresponding to a family of pairwise disjoint subtrees in the underlying tree
of the initial system). As we show below (see Theorem 3.A.1), this operation does not
aﬀect the limit of a system.
Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a tree system of metric compacta. Let Π be a
partition of a tree T into subtrees, i.e. a family of subtrees S ⊂ T such that the vertex sets
VS : S ∈ Π are pairwise disjoint and cover all of VT . We allow that some of the subtrees
S ∈ Π are just single vertices of T .
We deﬁne a consolidation of Θ with respect to Π, denoted ΘΠ , to be the following tree
system (TΠ , {KS }, {Σe }, {φe }). As a vertex set VΠ of the tree TΠ we take the family Π,
and as the edge set OΠ the set {e ∈ OT : e ∈
/ ∪S∈Π OS }. Clearly, for each oriented edge
e ∈ OΠ the initial vertex αΠ (e) is this subtree S ∈ Π for which α(e) ∈ VS . Similarly, ωΠ (e)
is this subtree S ∈ Π for which ω(e) ∈ VS .
For any subtree S ∈ Π denote by ΘS the restriction of Θ to S, and put KS := lim ΘS .
Note that for any e ∈ OΠ we have the canonical inclusion Σe ⊂ KαΠ (e) , and if we put
NS = {e ∈ OΠ : αΠ (e) = S}, the family Σe : e ∈ NS of subsets of KS consists of pairwise
disjoint sets. Moreover, by Proposition 1.C.1, the subsets Σe ⊂ KαΠ (e) are all compact
and each family Σe : e ∈ NS is null. This justiﬁes that the just described tuple
ΘΠ := (TΠ , {KS : S ∈ Π}, {Σe : e ∈ OΠ }, {φe : e ∈ OΠ })
is a tree system of metric compacta.
3.A.1 Theorem. For any tree system Θ of metric compacta, and its any consolidation
ΘΠ , the limits lim Θ and lim ΘΠ are canonically homeomorphic.
Proof: We ﬁrst describe the natural map iΠ : lim ΘΠ → lim Θ, and then show it is a
homeomorphism.
To deﬁne iΠ (x) for all x ∈ lim ΘΠ , we consider three possible positions of x in lim ΘΠ .
First, suppose that x ∈ Kt ⊂ KS ⊂ lim ΘΠ , for some t ∈ VS and some S ∈ Π. View x as
24

an element of lim Θ via the canonical inclusion Kt ⊂ lim Θ, and put iΠ (x) = x. Second,
suppose that x ∈ ES ⊂ lim ΘS = KS ⊂ lim ΘΠ is an end of some tree S ∈ Π. Since we
have the canonical inclusion ES ⊂ ET , x is also an end of T , and hence an element of
lim Θ. We put again iΠ (x) = x. Finally, in the remaining case x is an end of the tree TΠ .
Suppose that x is represented by a ray ρ = (S0 , S1 , . . .) in the tree TΠ . Then ρ determines
the ray ρT in T by
ρT = (e1 , [ω(e1 ), α(e2 )], e2 , [ω(e2 ), α(e3 )], e3 , . . .),
where ei is the edge in T connecting Si−1 to Si , and [ω(ei ), α(ei+1 )] are the paths in T
(sometimes perhaps empty) connecting the corresponding vertices. Put iΠ (x) = [ρT ] ∈
ET ⊂ lim Θ. We skip the straightforward veriﬁcation that iΠ is well deﬁned, and that it
is a bijection.
Since any continuous bijection between compact metric spaces is a homeomorphism,
to prove that iΠ is a homeomorphism, it is suﬃcient to show that it is continuous. To do
this, we will show that for any open set V ⊂ lim Θ from the basis B the preimage i−1
Π (V )
is open in lim ΘΠ . For this we need two claims.
Claim 1. For any S ∈ Π the restriction iΠ |KS is a homeomorphism on its image (a
topological embedding).
Since KS is compact and iΠ is injective, to prove Claim 1 it is suﬃcient to show that
iΠ |KS is continuous. Let G(U ) ∈ B, where U is an open subset in KF for some ﬁnite
F ⊂ T , and U is AF -saturated. We need to show that KS ∩ i−1
Π (G(U )) is open in KS .
Suppose ﬁrst that F ∩ S = ∅. It is not hard to realize that in this case KS ∩ i−1
Π (G(U ))
is either empty or coincides with KS , and thus the assertion follows. Suppose then that
F ∩ S 6= ∅. Viewing KF ∩S as subset in KF , put US := U ∩ KF ∩S , and note that US
S
is open in KF ∩S and saturated with respect to the family AΘ
F ∩S of peripheral subsets in
KF ∩S viewed as a partial union of the system ΘS . Moreover, it is not hard to observe
−1
(G(U )) = G(US ) ∈ BS , where BS is the standard basis in the limit KS of
that KS ∩ iΠ
the system ΘS (as described in Section 1.C). Thus Claim 1 follows.
Claim 2. For any finite subtree F0 ⊂ TΠ the restriction iΠ |KF0 is a homeomorphism on
its image.
Since KF0 is a ﬁnite union of its compact subsets of form KS , it is compact itself.
Moreover, in view of Claim 1, the same fact implies that iΠ |KF0 is continuous. Since this
map is also injective, the assertion of Claim 2 follows.
Coming back to the proof that iΠ is continuous, let V = G(U ) for some open and AF saturated subset U ⊂ KF , where F ⊂ T is some ﬁnite subtree. Let FΠ be the subtree of
TΠ spanned by the vertices represented by those subtrees S ∈ Π which intersect F ; clearly,
FΠ is ﬁnite. Note that, by Claim 2, the set UΠ := KFΠ ∩ i−1
Π (V ) is open in KFΠ (because
iΠ (KFΠ ) ∩ V is open in iΠ (KFΠ )). Moreover, since U is AF -saturated, it is not hard to
realize that UΠ is AFΠ -saturated, where AFΠ is the appropriate family of peripheral subsets
of the system ΘΠ in its partial union KFΠ . Finally, observe that i−1
Π (V ) = G(UΠ ) ∈ BΠ
(BΠ denotes the standard basis for the topology in lim ΘΠ ), and hence this preimage is
open in lim ΘΠ . This ﬁnishes the proof.
25

The next example illustrates how one can apply the procedure of consolidation to
justify that limits of various classes of tree systems are homeomorphic.
3.A.2 Example: dense trees of finite families of manifolds.
Let N = {M1 , . . . , Mk } be a ﬁnite family of closed connected oriented topological
manifolds of the same dimension. Let M = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a dense tree system
of manifolds from N . For each t ∈ VT let it ∈ {1, . . . , k} be this index for which the space
Kt has a form Mi◦t , as described in Section 1.E, just after Deﬁnition 1.E.2.2. We say that
M is 2-saturated if for each t ∈ VT and every j ∈ {1, . . . , k} there are at least two distinct
edges e ∈ Nt such that iω(e) = j.
If M is 2-saturated, it is not hard to construct a partition Π of T such that for each
S ∈ Π the vertex set VS contains exactly one vertex s with is = j, for each j ∈ {1, . . . , k}
(in particular, the cardinality of each VS is k). Consider the consolidated tree system
MΠ for the partition Π. It is easy to note that the constituent spaces of MΠ are all of
form (M1 # . . . #Mk )◦ , and that MΠ is (isomorphic to) the dense tree system of manifolds
M1 # . . . #Mk . In view of Theorem 3.A.1 and Proposition 1.E.2.3 we get the following.
3.A.2.1 Proposition. For any 2-saturated dense tree system M of manifolds from N the
limit lim M is homeomorphic to the Jakobsche space X (M1 # . . . #Mk ).
The above observation can be generalized as follows. Let N be a family of manifolds
as above, and let µ = (m1 , . . . , mk ) be a tuple of arbitrary positive integers. If M is a
tree system as above, one can easily construct a partition Πµ such that for each S ∈ Πµ
and each j ∈ {1, . . . , k} the vertex set VS contains exactly mj elements s with is = j. By
the argument as above, we get that lim M = lim MΠµ is homeomorphic to the Jakobsche
space X (m1 M1 # . . . #mk Mk ), where each mi Mi is the connected sum of mi copies of Mi .
As a consequence, we get the following.
3.A.2.2 Corollary. Let M1 , . . . , Mk be any closed connected oriented topological manifolds of the same dimension, and let m1 , . . . , mk be arbitrary positive integers. Then the
Jakobsche spaces X (M1 # . . . #Mk ) and X (m1 M1 # . . . #mk Mk ) are homeomorphic.
Now, let K = {N1 , . . . , Nk } be a family of closed connected topological manifolds of
the same dimension, at least one of which is non-orientable. We also assume that the
orientable manifolds in K have no distinguished orientation. By a tree system of manifolds
from K we mean a tree system of manifolds in which every constiuent space has a form N ◦
for some N ∈ K, and in which the connecting maps are arbitrary homeomorphisms between
the corresponding spherical peripheral subspaces. Note that a connected sum N1 # . . . #Nk
(again, with arbitrary connecting homeomorphisms) is unique up to homeomorphism (this
is a consequence of Lemma 1.E.4.1).
The arguments as above, enriched by application of Lemma 1.E.4.1, yield the following
variation on Proposition 3.A.2.1 and Corollary 3.A.2.2.
3.A.2.3 Proposition. Let K = {N1 , . . . , Nk } be a family of closed connected topological
manifolds of the same dimension, at least one of which is non-orientable. Let M be any 2saturated dense tree system of manifolds from K. Then the limit lim M is homeomorphic
to the Jakobsche space X (N1 # . . . #Nk ) (as defined in Example 1.E.4). Moreover, for
26

any positive integers m1 , . . . , mk the space X (m1 N1 # . . . #mk Nk ) is also homeomorphic
to X (N1 # . . . #Nk ).
3.A.2.4 Remark. In [J2] Jakobsche considered inverse sequences related to dense tree systems of manifolds from a family N , and established a much weaker variant of Proposition
3.A.2.1. Namely, using our terms, he got uniqueness up to homeomorphism under the following (much stronger than 2-saturation) assumption for a dense tree system of manifolds
from N : for each M ∈ N and for each t ∈ T the set of collared disks ∆e ⊂ Mt : Mω(e) ∼
=M
is dense in Mt (see Theorem (4.6) in [J2]). His proof consisted of showing something equivalent to the fact that any two tree systems satisfying the above assumption are isomorphic.
Observe that, under our weaker assumption of 2-saturation, tree systems as in Proposition
3.A.2.1 needn’t be isomorphic, so the proof of this proposition necessarily requires some
argument involving modiﬁcations of tree systems.
As another application of the technique of consolidation we present the following
correction to the main result from the paper [Fi] by Hanspeter Fischer.
3.A.3 Theorem. Suppose W is a right angled Coxeter group whose nerve is a flag PL triangulation of a closed oriented manifold M , and let M be the same manifold with reversed
orientation. Then the CAT(0) boundary of W (i.e. the boundary of the Coxeter-Davis
complex for W ) is the Jakobsche space X (M #M ).
In the original (wrong) statement of this result in [Fi] instead of the space X (M #M ),
there appears the space X (M ), which is in general diﬀerent (for example, it is not hard to
2
show that the spaces X (CP 2 ) and X (CP 2 #CP ) are not homeomorphic, by referring to
the properties of their Čech cohomology rings).
Proof of Theorem 3.A.3: We indicate a necessary minor modiﬁcation of the argument
provided in [Fi]. The author argues by showing that ∂W is homeomorphic to the inverse
limit of some inverse sequence of manifolds of the form as in Example 2.C.7. A part of
his argument which requires correction is this (see the beginning of the proof of Theorem
3.7 in [Fi]). Let XW be the Coxeter-Davis complex for W , obtained as the union XW =
∪{gQ : g ∈ W }, where Q is the Davis’ cell for W (topologically equal to the cone over the
manifold M ). Let |g| be the word norm for elements g ∈ W with respect to the standard
generating set. Let Xk = ∪{gQ : |g| ≤ k} and let Mk = ∂Xk . The author claims that
Mk is the connected sum of the appropriate number of copies of M , but it is clear from
the way Xk is formed out of copies of Q that in fact Mk is the connected sum of copies of
both M and M . Moreover, since any two adjacent copies of Q in XW are obtained from
one another by reﬂection, Mk+1 is obtained from Mk by connected sum with copies of M
if k is odd, and with copies of M if k is even (in particular, M0 = ∂Q = M ). From this,
using the remaining arguments of Fischer, one deduces that ∂W is homeomorphic to the
limit of a 2-saturated dense tree system of manifolds M and M . By Proposition 3.A.2.1,
this yields the assertion.
3.B Tree decomposition of a compact metric space.
In Sections 3.B and 3.C we describe an operation on a tree system that is inverse
to that of consolidation (as described in Section 3.A). In this section, we start with an
27

elementary case when the initial tree system is trivial, i.e. the underlying tree T is reduced
to a single vertex. The operation is then called tree decomposition of a compact metric
space.
We start with introducing terminology related to the concept of tree decomposition.
The main result of the section, which relates this concept to that of a tree system and its
limit, is Theorem 3.B.10 below.
At the end of the section we show how to use tree decompositions to prove that limits
of some tree systems are homeomorphic to some explicit spaces (Example 3.B.12).
3.B.1 Definition. An elementary splitting of a compact metric space K is a triple
(A, {Y, Z}) of compact subspaces of K such that Y ∪ Z = K, Y ∩ Z = A, and A is a
nonempty proper subset both in Y and in Z. The set A is called the separator of the
splitting, and the sets Y, Z are the halfspaces. Moreover, the sets Y \ A and Z \ A will
be called the open halfspaces of the splitting. If H is any halfspace of the splitting above
(i.e. H = Y or H = Z), we denote by Ḣ the corresponding open halfspace, and by H c the
complementary (or opposite) halfspace (equal to K \ Ḣ).
Note that for any splitting as above we have the following:
(1) the set K \ A is disconnected and the open halfspaces are the unions of connected
components in this set;
(2) K is canonically homeomorphic to the space Y ∪A Z obtained from the disjoint union
of Y and Z by gluing through the identity on A; equivalently, K is the limit of the
tree system whose underlying tree T is a single edge, the constituent spaces Kt are Y
and Z, the peripheral subspaces Σe coincide with A, and the connecting maps φe are
the identities on A.
3.B.2 Definition. Given two elementary splittings (Ai , {Yi , Zi }), i = 1, 2, of a compact
metric space K, we say they do not cross if for at least one pair of halfspaces H1 , H2
selected from those splittings we have H1 ∩ H2 = ∅.
3.B.3 Remark. Note that the noncrossing condition H1 ∩ H2 = ∅ has the following
consequences: (1) A1 ∩ A2 = ∅, (2) H1 ⊂ Ḣ2c and H2 ⊂ Ḣ1c .
3.B.4 Definition. Given three pairwise noncrossing splittings (Ai , {Yi , Zi }), i = 1, 2, 3,
of a compact metric space K, we say that A2 separates A1 from A3 if for appropriately
chosen halfspace H for A2 we have A1 ⊂ Ḣ and A3 ⊂ Ḣ c .
We will be interested in countable (usually inﬁnite) families of pairwise noncrossing
splittings satisfying some additional properties, which we now describe.
3.B.5 Definition. Let C = (Aλ , {Yλ , Zλ })λ∈Λ be a family of pairwise noncrossing splittings of a compact metric space K. We say that C is discrete if for any two separators
A, A′ from C there is only ﬁnitely many separators in C that separate A from A′ .
Any discrete family C of pairwise noncrossing splittings of K determines the associated
family of domains obtained by splitting, and the dual tree TC . We start with describing the
domains.
Consider any separator A from C and any halfspace H related to A. The pair (A, H)
determines a domain ΩA,H described as follows. Let A = Aλ0 , and put Λ0 = Λ \ {λ0 }.
28

For any separator Aλ with λ ∈ Λ0 consider this halfspace Hλ which contains A. We have
to consider the following two cases. First, suppose that for each λ ∈ Λ0 we have H ⊂ Hλ .
We then put ΩA,H := H and note that this domain is disjoint with all separators from C
other than A. In the second case, there is some λ ∈ Λ0 with H ⊂
/ Hλ . By discreteness,
there is also such λ for which no separator from C separates A from Aλ . Denote by ΛA,H
the set of all λ ∈ Λ0 for which H ⊂
/ Hλ and no separator from C separates A from Aλ . By
what was said above, this set is nonempty. Put
ΩA,H := H ∩

\

Hλ

λ∈ΛA,H

and note that this set satisﬁes the following properties:
(1) ΩA,H is compact, contains the sets A and Aλ : λ ∈ ΛA,H , and it is disjoint with all
other separators from C;
(2) for each λ ∈ ΛA,H we have ΩAλ ,Hλ = ΩA,H .
A domain in K induced by C is any subset Ω = ΩA,H as above. A domain Ω is called
adjacent to a separator A of C if it contains A or equivalently, if Ω = ΩA,H for some
halfspace H related to A. For each separator A of C there are exectly two domains induced
by C and adjacent to A.
We are now ready to describe the dual tree TC of a discrete family of pairwise noncrossing splittings C. As a vertex set VC we take the set of all domains for C, as described
above. As the set OC of orieted edges we take the set of all pairs (A, H) as above, and
we put ωC (A, H) = ΩA,H and (A, H) = (A, H c ). It is an easy exercise to show that the
graph obtained in the above way is connected, and contains no loops, thus being a tree.
We denote this tree by TC and call the dual tree of C.
Remark. Note that for any discrete family C of pairwise noncrossing splittings of a
compact metric space K the corresponding dual tree TC is locally countable (and hence
countable). More precisely, given a vertex Ω of TC (i.e. a domain for C), consider the set
NΩ of all edges (A, H) in TC satisfying αC (A, H) = Ω. Note that the corresponding family
of open halfspaces in K, {Ḣ : (A, H) ∈ NΩ } consists of pairwise disjoint nonempty open
subsets of K. Since any compact metric space is separable, it follows that the set NΩ is
countable, thus justifying the remark.
The above construction of the dual tree motivates the ﬁrst part of the following.
3.B.6 Definition.
(1) A discrete family C of pairwise noncrossing splittings of a compact metric space K
will be called a tree decomposition of K.
(2) A tree decomposition C = {(Aλ , {Yλ , Zλ })}λ∈Λ of K is fine if for each ǫ > 0 the set
{λ ∈ Λ : min[diam(Yλ ), diam(Zλ )] > ǫ} is ﬁnite.
3.B.7 Example. Let K = lim Θ be the limit of a tree system Θ of metric compacta, and
suppose that it is essential, in the sense that for any e ∈ OT the set Σe is a proper subset in
Kα(e) . For any edge e ∈ OT , let Te denote the maximal subtree of T \ int(|e|) that contains
ω(e). Put He to be the limit of the restricted system ΘTe . Note that for each e ∈ OT the
triple (Σe , {He , Hē }), viewed as consisting of subsets of K, is an elementary splitting of K.
29

Note also that the family of all splittings of K having this form yields a tree decomposition
of K. We denote this decomposition by C(Θ). Moreover, this decomposition is ﬁne, which
can be deduced by the same methods as in the proof of the last assertions in Proposition
1.C.1 (as given in Section 1.D).
One of the consequences of ﬁneness of a tree decomposition is the following.
3.B.8 Fact. Let C be a fine tree decomposition of a compact metric space K. Then for
any domain Ω for C the family AΩ of all separators from C adjacent to Ω is null.
Proof: Note that AΩ coincides with the family of those separators A from C for which
there is a halfspace H (related to A) such that αC (A, H) = Ω. Since any opposite halfspace
H c to a halfspace H as in the previous sentence contains Ω, and since for such H c we have
diam(H c ) ≥ diam(Ω) > 0, it follows from ﬁneness of C that the family of halfspaces
{H : αC (A, H) = Ω} is null. Consequently, since we have inclusions A ⊂ H, the family AΩ
is also null.
3.B.9 Definition. Given a ﬁne tree decomposition C of a compact metric space K, the
tree system ΘC associated to C is described as follows. The underlying tree for ΘC is the
dual tree TC . For each vertex t ∈ VC represented by some domain Ω we put Kt = Ω. For
each oriented edge e = (A, H) ∈ OC we put Σe = A and φe = idA . In view of Fact 3.B.8,
this well deﬁnes a tree system of metric compacta (which is moreover essential).
Remark. It is not hard to realize that if C(Θ) is the tree decomposition of lim Θ described
in Example 3.B.7 then the associated tree system ΘC(Θ) is canonically isomorphic with Θ.
The main result of this section is the following.
3.B.10 Theorem. For any fine tree decomposition C of a compact metric space K the
limit lim ΘC of the associated tree system is canonically homeomorphic to K.
To prove Theorem 3.B.10 we need the following result which exhibits consequences of
ﬁneness.
3.B.11 Fact. Let C be a fine tree decomposition of a compact metric space K.
(1) For each domain Ω for C the family of halfspaces from C given by HΩ := {H :
αC (A, H) = Ω} is null.
(2) For each ray ρ = (e1 , e2 , . . .) in the dual tree TC , with ei = (Ai , Hi ), the corresponding
family {Hi } of halfspaces is null in K.
Proof: The proof of part (1) has already been given in the proof of Fact 3.B.8. To prove
part (2), put Ω = αC (e1 ) and note that for each i we have Ω ⊂ Hic . Consequently, we have
diam(Hic ) ≥ diam(Ω) > 0. It follows then from ﬁneness of C that limi→∞ diam(Hi ) = 0,
which completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem 3.B.10: We use the identiﬁcation of lim ΘC with the inverse limit
lim←− SΘC , provided by Proposition 1.D.1.
We describe a natural map µ : K → lim ΘC . Denoting ΘC = (TC , {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }),
for each ﬁnite subtree F of TC consider a map µF : K → KF∗ (where KF∗ is the corresponding reduced partial union of the system ΘC ) deﬁned as follows. Denoting e = (Ae , He ) for
30

T
all e ∈ OTC , we have that KF = e∈NF Hec and KF∗ = KF /{Ae : e ∈ NF } = K/{He :
e ∈ NF }. The latter equality is a homeomorphism by nullness of the family He : e ∈ NF
(which follows from Fact 3.B.11(1) by observing that He : e ∈ NF is a subfamily of the
union of ﬁnitely many families as in this fact). Thus, we take as µF the corresponding
quotient map K → K/{He : e ∈ NF } = KF∗ . Since the maps µF commute with the maps
in the inverse system SΘC , they induce a continuous map µ : K → lim←− SΘC = lim ΘC .
Using the arguments as in the proof of Proposition 1.D.1, we verify that µ is a bijection.
(In the proof of injectivity one needs to use Fact 3.B.11(2)). Since both spaces K and
lim ΘC are compact, µ is a homeomorphism, which completes the proof.
3.B.12 Example: boundary tree of disks is a disk.
For any n ≥ 2, let Dn be the n-disk, and let D be a dense and null family of pairwise
disjoint collared (n − 1)-disks in the boundary sphere ∂Dn . Note that, due to Toruńczyk’s
Lemma 1.E.2.1 (followed by Alexander’s trick), the tuple (Dn , D) is unique up to homeomorphism. Consider the unique tree system in which all constituent spaces are homeomorphic to Dn , and all families of peripheral subspaces coincide, up to ambient homeomorphism, with D. We denote this tree system by M∂ (Dn ) and call it the dense boundary
tree system of n-disks.
3.B.12.1 Lemma. The limit lim M∂ (Dn ) is the n-disk.
Proof: We will describe a ﬁne tree decomposition C of the n-disk Dn such that the
associated tree system ΘC is isomorphic to M∂ (Dn ). By applying Theorem 3.B.10, and
in view of Lemma 1.E.1, this gives the assertion.
To construct C, view Dn as the standard n-disk in Rn , and consider the group
Möb(Dn ) of all Möbius transformations of Dn , i.e. those Möbius transformations of Rn
which preserve Dn . Viewing int(Dn ) as the Poincare disk model for the hyperbolic nspace, we will think of Möb(Dn ) as the group of all hyperbolic isometries in its action on
the completion of the hyperbolic n-space by its ideal boundary.
Let D be any null and dense family of pairwise disjoint round (n − 1)-disks in ∂Dn .
For each D ∈ D, let HD be the hyperbolic halfspace in Dn such that HD ∩ ∂Dn = D, and
c
let HD
be the opposite halfspace. Denote by AD the hyperplane in Dn bounding HD , and
by sD the heperbolic reﬂection with respect to AD , which clearly belongs to Möb(Dn ).
Let Γ be the subgroup of Möb(Dn ) generated by all elements sD : D ∈ D. Obviously,
Γ is then an inﬁnitely generated free reﬂection group with the fundamental domain
\
c
Ω0 :=
HD
.
D∈D

Algebraically, Γ is the free product of its order 2 subgroups hsD i : D ∈ D.
Let A be the family of reﬂection hyperplanes in Dn for all reﬂections from Γ. In other
words, A is the family of all images through elements of Γ of the hypeplanes AD : D ∈ D.
Each A ∈ A splits Dn into two components. Denote the closures of these components in
Dn by Y and Z, and observe that (A, {Y, Z}) is an elementary splitting of Dn . Denote by
C the set of elementary splittings (A, {Y, Z}) as above, for all A ∈ A. It is fairy clear that C
is then a discrete family of pairwise noncrossing splittings of Dn , i.e. a tree decomposition
of Dn , and that it is ﬁne.
31

It remains to show that the tree system ΘC associated to C is isomorphic to M∂ (Dn ).
c coincides with the fundamental
To see this, note that for each D ∈ D the domain ΩAD ,HD
domain Ω0 for Γ. It is not hard too see that this domain is homeomorphic to the n-disk.
The separators of C contained in Ω0 are exactly AD : D ∈ D, and they clearly form a
null and dense family of collared and pirwise disjoint (n − 1)-disks in the boundary ∂Ω0 .
Consequently, the constituent space Ω0 of ΘC , together with the family AD : D ∈ D of
its all peripheral subspaces, is homeomorphic to (Dn , D). To see that the same is true
for all other constituent spaces of ΘC , note that each such space has a form γΩ0 for some
γ ∈ Γ, and the corresponding family of peripheral subspaces has a form γAD : D ∈ D.
This shows that ΘC is isomorphic to M∂ (Dn ), thus completing the proof.
3.B.12.2 Remark. Let C be a family of elementary splittings of Dn , as constructed in
the proof of Lemma 3.B.12.1. Restricting C to the boundary ∂Dn , we obviously get a
ﬁne tree decomposition of the (n − 1)-sphere, and we denote it by C|∂Dn . Moreover, the
domains of this new decomposition are the intersections of the domains of C with ∂Dn , and
it is not hard to verify that they are the (n − 2)-dimensional Sierpiński compacta (S n−1 )◦ .
Thus, these Sierpiński compacta are the constituent spaces of the associated tree system
ΘC|∂Dn , and the peripheral subspaces correspond exactly to the peripheral spheres in these
Sierpiński compacta. It follows that the associated tree system ΘC|∂Dn is isomorphic to
the tree system M(S n−1 ). Since, by Theorem 3.B.10, we have
lim ΘC|∂Dn = ∂Dn = S n−1 ,
it follows that lim M(S n−1 ) = S n−1 . Thus, we get an alternative (and more elementary)
proof of Corollary 1.E.3.2.
3.B.13 Remark/Example/Exercise. Using a similar argumant as in the proof of
Lemma 3.B.12.1 one can identify, up to homeomorphism, limits of various other tree
systems. For example, one can show that the limit of any dense tree system of internally punctured n-disks (see Example 2.D.3) is homeomorphic to the (n − 1)-dimensional
Sierpiński compactum (S n )◦ . Once this is known, one can use a consolidation procedure
from Section 3.A to show that the limit of any dense tree system of internally punctured
connected planar surfaces is homeomorphic to the Sierpiński curve.
3.C Subdivision of a tree system.
Generalizing the concepts from the previous section, we describe in this section the operation of subdivision of a tree system, opposite to the operation of consolidation described
in Section 3.A.
Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a tree system, let t ∈ VT be any vertex, and suppose
that C is a tree decomposition of the space Kt . We say that C does not cross Θ if for each
separator A of C and each e ∈ Nt there is a halfspace H for A such that Σe ⊂ Ḣ. This
means in particular that A ∩ Σe = ∅.
Furthermore, given a tree decomposition C of Kt not crossing Θ, and any edge e ∈ Nt ,
we say that C is discrete at e if for some (and hence any) separator A of C there are only
ﬁnitely many separators in C that separate A from Σe (i.e. ﬁnitely many separators A′
32

from C such that for some halfspace H related to A′ we have A ⊂ Ḣ and Σe ⊂ Ḣ c ). It is
not hard to realize that C is discrete at e iﬀ Σe ⊂ Ω for some domain Ω ⊂ Kt for C. We
also have the following suﬃcient condition for discreteness at e.
3.C.1 Lemma. Let Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a tree system, let C be a tree decomposition not crossing Θ of some constituent space Kt , and let e ∈ Nt . If C is fine and if
diam(Σe ) > 0, then C is discrete at e.
Proof: Let A be any separator from C, and let HA be this halfspace for A which does
not contain Σe . Let A′ be any separator from C that separates A from Σe , with A ⊂ Ḣ
and Σe ⊂ Ḣ c for the corresponding halfspaces H, H c for A′ . Note that HA ⊂ Ḣ, and
consequently
diam(H) ≥ diam(HA ) > 0 and

diam(H c ) ≥ diam(Σe ) > 0.

In view of ﬁneness of C, this implies that there are only ﬁnitely many separators A′ as
above, which completes the proof.
3.C.2 Definition. A tree decomposition C of a space Kt from a tree system Θ is compatible
with Θ if it does not cross Θ and if it is discrete at e for each e ∈ Nt .
3.C.3 Example. Given a tree system Θ = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) and a vertex t ∈ VT ,
we present a criterion for a family of elementary splittings of the space Kt to be a tree
decomposition of Kt compatible with Θ. We will use this criterion in Section 3.D.
Let x0 ∈ Kt \ ∪{Σe : e ∈ Nt }. Suppose that a family Ct of elementary splittings of Kt
has a form
Ct = {(Ak , {Hk , Hkc }) : k ∈ IN },
where the following three conditions hold:
(1) splittings from Ct do not cross Θ, i.e. each separator Ak is disjoint with each of the
sets from the family At = {Σe : e ∈ Nt } and each halfspace Hk is At -saturated,
(2) Hk+1 ⊂ Ḣk for each natural k,
∞
(3) ∩∞
k=1 Hk = {x0 } (equivelently, x0 ∈ ∩k=1 Hk and limk→∞ diam(Hk ) = 0).
We then get the following.
3.C.3.1 Lemma. If a family Ct satisfies conditions (1)-(3) above then Ct is fine, discrete
and discrete at all e ∈ Nt . In particular, it is a tree decomposition of Kt , and it is
compatible with Θ.
Proof: By condition (2), splittings in Ct are pairwise noncrossing, and Ct is discrete. By
condition (3), Ct is ﬁne. Thus, in view of condition (1), Ct is a tree decomposition of Kt .
Moreover, by condition (3), for each e ∈ Nt there is k such that Σe ∩ Hk = ∅. It follows
that for each e ∈ Nt the family Ct is discrete at e. This completes the proof.
3.C.4 Definition. A tree decomposition of a tree system Θ is a family C = {Ct : t ∈ VT }
of tree decompositions Ct of the spaces Kt which are all compatible with Θ.
We now describe some elementary splittings of the limit space lim Θ induced by any
elementary splittings from any tree decomposition C = {Ct } of Θ. Let t be an arbitrary
33

vertex in the underlying tree T of Θ and let (A, {H, H c}) be an elementary splitting of
the space Kt belonging to Ct . Note that both subsets H and H c of Kt are saturated
with respect to the family At = {Σe : e ∈ Nt }. In particular, it makes sense to speak of
the subsets G(H) and G(H c ) in lim Θ of the form described in Section 1.C (just before
Proposition 1.C.1). Moreover, when we view A as the subset of lim Θ, we clearly have
G(H) ∩ G(H c ) = A, where all three subsets in this expression are compact subspaces of
lim Θ. Thus, the triple (A, {G(H), G(H c)}) is an elementary splitting of the limit space
lim Θ. For each t ∈ VT we put
Ctlim = {(A, {G(H), G(H c)}) : A is a separator in Ct }
3.C.5 Lemma. Let Θ be a tree system of metric compacta, and let C(Θ) be the associated
tree decomposition of the limit lim Θ. Then for any tree decomposition C of Θ the family
Clim = (

[

Ctlim ) ∪ C(Θ)

t∈VT

is a tree decomposition of lim Θ.
Proof: The fact that the elementary splittings from Clim are pairwise noncrossing follows
directly from the fact that the families Ct do not cross Θ. The discreteness of Clim follows
fairly directly from discreteness of each Ct at each e ∈ Nt . We omit further details.
3.C.6 Proposition. Under notation of Lemma 3.C.5, the tree decomposition Clim is fine
iff each tree decomposition Ct from C is fine.
Proof: One implication, namely that ﬁneness of Clim implies ﬁneness of every Ct , is immediate just by observing that halfspaces for Ct are simply restrictions to Kt of the appropriate
halfspaces for Clim . The converse implication requires much more eﬀort and some preparatory claims. We start with a claim which gives a useful characterization of ﬁneness of a
tree decomposition.
Claim 1. A tree decomposition C of a compact K is fine iff for any ǫ > 0 there is a
finite collection Ω1 , . . . , Ωm of domains for C such that if H is any halfspace from C not
containing any of the above domains then diam(H) < ǫ.
To prove Claim 1, suppose ﬁrst that C is ﬁne. Given ǫ > 0, let (Ai , {Yi , Zi }) : i =
1, . . . , q be all elementary splittings in C for which diam(Yi ) ≥ ǫ and diam(Zi ) ≥ ǫ. Let
Ω1 , . . . , Ωm be the set of all domains for C adjacent to some of the separators A1 , . . . , Aq .
Since each separator has exactly two adjacent domains, the above set of domains is ﬁnite.
Let H be a halfspace from C not containing any of the above domains. It is not hard
to realize that then for any 1 ≤ i ≤ q either Yi or Zi is contained in H c , and hence
diam(H c ) ≥ ǫ. On the other hand, the separator A corresponding to H is clearly distinct
from each of the separators A1 , . . . , Aq , and hence diam(H) < ǫ, as required.
To prove the converse implication in Claim 1, ﬁx ǫ > 0 and let Ω1 , . . . , Ωm be some
domains associated to ǫ, as in the assumtion of the implication. Note that, by the assumtion, for any splitting (A, {Y, Z}) ∈ C with at least one halfspace not containing any of the
34

above domains we have min(diam(Y ), diam(Z)) < ǫ. Thus, it is suﬃcient to show that
the number of splittings with both halfspaces containing some of the domains Ω1 , . . . , Ωm
is ﬁnite. Translating this to the language of the dual tree, we need to know that for any
ﬁnite set V0 of vertices in TC the set of edges in TC which separate some two of the vertices
of V0 is ﬁnite. Since this set of edges clearly coincides with the set of edges in the subtree
of TC spanned by V0 , this completes the proof of Claim 1.
We come back to the tree decomposition Clim . For each t ∈ VT and any e ∈ Nt let
He be this halfspace from C(Θ) associated to the separator Σe which does not contain
Kt . For each halfspace H from Ct put HH := {He : e ∈ Nt and Σe ⊂ H}. The next
preparatory claim provides some estimate for the diameter of a halfspace from Clim in
terms of diameters of appropriate halfspaces from C and C(Θ).
Claim 2. Let t be any vertex of T and let H be any
S halfspace from Ct . Then the induced
halfspace G(H) from Ctlim has form G(H) = H ∪ ( HH ) and its diameter is estimated by
diam(G(H)) ≤ diam(H) + 2 · max{diam(H ′ ) : H ′ ∈ HH }.

S
The ﬁrst assertion of Claim 2, i.e. that G(H) = H ∪ ( HH ), follows directly from
the deﬁnition of G(H). To prove the second assertion, we estimate the distance of any two
points of G(H). Suppose that x, y are some points of G(H) not contained in H. Then, by
the ﬁrst assertion, there exist e, e′ ∈ Nt such that x ∈ He and y ∈ He′ . Let x′ ∈ Σe and
y ′ ∈ Σe′ be arbitrary points. Since Σe = H ∩ He and Σe′ = H ∩ He′ , we get the estimate
d(x, y) ≤ d(x, x′ ) + d(x′ , y ′ ) + d(y ′ , y) ≤ diam(He ) + diam(H) + diam(He′ )
which can be further estimated from above by the right hand side term in the desired
inequality. In case when one or both point x, y belong to H a similar (even simpler)
estimate can be obtained in the same way. This completes the proof of Claim 2.
We come back to the proof of the following implication: if each tree decomposition
Ct from C is ﬁne then Clim is ﬁne. We use the characterization of ﬁneness given in Claim
1. Fix any ǫ > 0. Since C(Θ) is ﬁne (see the last comment in Example 3.B.7), we choose
a ﬁnite subtree S ⊂ T such that any halfspace H ′ from C(Θ) which does not contain any
of the spaces Kt : t ∈ VS satisﬁes diam(H ′ ) < 3ǫ . Note that this implies also that for any
s ∈ VT \ VS we have diam(Ks ) < 3ǫ . For each t ∈ VS , using the fact that Ct is ﬁne, choose
some domains Ωt1 , . . . , Ωtmt , with mt ≥ 1, such that any halfspace H from Ct which does
not contain any of these domains satisﬁes diam(H) < 3ǫ . Put Z := ∪t∈VS {Ωt1 , . . . , Ωtmt }
and note that Z is a ﬁnite family of domains for the tree decomposition Clim . We claim
that any halfspace Hlim from Clim which does not contain any of the domains from Z
satisﬁes diam(Hlim ) < ǫ.
To prove the above claim, suppose ﬁrst that Hlim = H for some halfspace H from
C(Θ). Since H = Hlim does not contain any of the domains from Z, it also does not contain
any of the spaces Kt : t ∈ VS . By the choice of S, this implies that diam(Hlim ) < 3ǫ < ǫ,
as required.
35

In the remaining case we have Hlim = G(H), where H is a halfspace from Ct in the
space Kt , for some t ∈ VT . We will estimate the diameter of Hlim = G(H) using Claim 2.
To do this, we claim that diam(H) < 3ǫ . Indeed, if H ⊂ Kt for some t ∈ VS , this estimate
follows from our choice of the domains Ωt1 , . . . , Ωtmt in view of the fact that H does not
contain any of them. If H ⊂ Ks for some s ∈ VT \ VS , we get diam(H) ≤ diam(Ks ) < 3ǫ ,
where the last inequality follows from the choice of S.
We now estimate diameters of the halfspaces H ′ ∈ HH . Since any such H ′ (being a
halfspace from C(Θ)) does not contain any of the spaces Kt : t ∈ VS (because it does not
contain any of the domains from Z), it follows from the choice of S that diam(H ′ ) < 3ǫ .
In view of Claim 2, the estimates from the two previous paragraphs yield the inequality
diam(G(H)) < ǫ, as required. By Claim 1, the tree decomposition Clim is then ﬁne, which
completes the proof.
3.C.7 Definition. Let Θ be a tree system of metric compacta. A subdivision of Θ is any
tree system of form ΘClim , for any ﬁne tree decomposition Clim as in Lemma 3.C.5.
3.C.8 Proposition. Let Ξ be any subdivision of Θ. Then Θ can be canonically obtained
from Ξ by means of a consolidation. Moreover, the limits lim Ξ and lim Θ are canonically
homeomorphic.
Proof: Let Ξ = ΘClim . Note that the constituent spaces of the tree system Ξ are precisely
the constituent spaces of the systems ΘCt for all t ∈ VT . Since each Ct is a ﬁne tree
decomposition of Kt , it follows from Theorem 3.B.10 that lim ΘCt = Kt . This shows that
Θ is a consolidation of Ξ, for the canonical partition of the dual tree TClim into subtrees
TCt . The second assertion follows either from Theorem 3.B.10 and Lemma 3.C.5 or, in
view of the ﬁrst assertion, from Theorem 3.A.1.
3.D Homogeneity of trees of manifolds.
In this section we prove the following.
3.D.1 Proposition. Let M be a closed connected topological manifold (either oriented or
non-orientable). Then the tree of manifolds M , i.e. the Jakobsche space X (M ) (as defined
in Section 1.E), is homogeneous.
This result has been proved before in [J2] (for oriented M ) and in [St] (for nonorientable M which are PL). The proof we present here uses the technique of subdivisions
and consolidations of tree systems. It is inspired by the corresponding proof in Sections 7
and 8 of [J2]. Our argument, and the technique used in it, has a potential for extensions.
It can be applied to various other classes of tree systems (e.g. to tree systems of polyhedra
mentioned in the introduction), to study orbits of the group of homeomorphisms of the
corresponding limit space. One easy instance of such extension is presented below, as
Propositions 3.D.6.1 and 3.D.6.2.
We start with few technical preparatory results.
3.D.2 Lemma. Let M be a closed connected topological manifold, oriented or nonorientable, and let M be the dense tree system of manifolds M , with the underlying tree
T . Then the points of the limit X (M ) = lim M corresponding to the set ET of the ends of
T are all in the same orbit of the group of homeomorphisms of X (M ).
36

Proof: Let z1 , z2 ∈ ET ⊂ lim M. Using Toruńczyk’s Lemma 1.E.2.1 (together with
Lemma 1.E.4.1 in case when M is non-orientable) it is not hard to get an automorphism
of the tree system M for which the corresponding automorphism of the underlying tree
T maps z1 to z2 . Clearly, this automorphism of M induces a homeomorphism of lim M
which maps z1 to z2 . This ﬁnishes the proof.
Next result is an extension of Lemma 5 from [J1], and it appears implicitely inside
the proof of Lemma 7.1 in [J2].
We will need the following corollary to Lemma 1.D.2.2.
3.D.3 Corollary. Let M and D be as in Lemma 1.D.2.2, and let x0 be an interior point of
M not contained in any D ∈ D. Then there is a sequence of collared n-disks Qk contained
in int(M ), such that
(1) for each k the boundary ∂Qk is disjoint with the union of D,
(2) for each k we have Qk+1 ⊂ int(Qk ),
(3) {x0 } = ∩k Qk .
Proof: By Lemma 1.D.2.2, the quotient M/D is homeomorphic to M . Let AD be the set
of points in the quotient M/D corresponding to the collapsed elements of D. Clearly, AD
is then countable inﬁnite, and x0 ∈ (M/D) \ AD . Obviously, there exists a sequence of
collared n-disks Pk in M/D such that
(1) for each k the boundary ∂Pk is disjoint with AD ,
(2) for each k we have Pk+1 ⊂ int(Pk ),
(3) x0 = ∩k Pk .
For each k put Qk = q −1 (Pk ), where q : M → M/D is the quotient map. To see that the
sequence Qk is as required, it obviously suﬃces to show that each Qk is a collared n-disk
in M . To do this, consider the decomposition of Qk induced by the family Dk = {D ∈
D : D ⊂ Qk }. Then we clearly have Pk = Qk /Dk , and we denote the quotient map by
qk . Arguing as in the proof of Lemma 1.D.2.2, we get that the above decomposition is
shrinkable, and hence qk can be approximated by homeomorphisms. This shows Qk is an
n-disk. By applying the same argument to the complement M \ int(Qk ) (instead of Qk ),
we get that Qk is collared, which ﬁnishes the proof.
A crucial ingredient in the proof of Proposition 3.D.1, is the following result, in the
proof of which we use the technique of modiﬁcations of tree systems, developed in Sections
3.A-3.C above. This proof is inspired by the Jakobsche’s idea from his proof of Lemma
(7.1) in [J2].
3.D.4 Lemma. Let M be a closed connected manifold, oriented or non-orientable, and
let M = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be the dense tree system of manifolds M . Let
x ∈ Kt∗ \ ∪{Σe : e ∈ Nt∗ } ⊂ lim M
for some t∗ ∈ VT , and let y ∈ ET ⊂ lim M. Then there is a homeomorphism of lim M
which maps x to y.
Proof: Denoting n = dim M , recall that for all t ∈ VT we have
Kt = Mt◦ = Mt \ ∪{int(D) : D ∈ D},
37

where Mt is a homeomorphic copy of M , and where D is a null and dense family of pairwise
disjoint collared n-disks in Mt . View x as a point of Mt∗ and consider a sequence Qk of
n-disks as in Corollary 3.D.3, for x0 = x. For each k consider the elementary splitting
(Ak , {Hk , Hkc }) of Kt∗ given by Ak := ∂Qk and Hk := Qk ∩ Kt∗ , and denote by Ct∗ the
set of these elementary splittings for all natural k. By Lemma 3.C.3.1, the family Ct∗ is a
tree decomposition of Kt∗ compatible with M.
Let C x = {Ct : t ∈ VT } be a tree decomposition of M such that Ct∗ is as above
and Ct = ∅ for t 6= t∗ . Let Mx = (T x , {Ktx }, {Σxe }, {φxe }) be the subdivision of M
induced by C x . The underlying tree T x may be viewed as obtained from T by expanding
the vertex t∗ into an inﬁnite polygonal ray ρ = (t0 , t1 , . . .). We may identify all other
vertices of T x bijectively with the vertices in VT \ {t∗ }. The set of the edges of T adjacent
to t∗ canonically splits into subsets which may be identiﬁed with the sets of edges of
T x adjacent to the vertices ti (for i = 0, 1, . . .). The edges of T x disjoint from the ray
ρ are in the natural bijective corresponedence with the deges of T not adjacent to t∗ .
Accordingly, the constituent spaces Kt : t 6= t∗ are still the constituent spaces in Mx
at the corresponding vertices, with the families of peripheral subspaces unchanged. In
particular, they are still the densely punctured manifolds M . The constituent space Kt∗ of
M splits into the constituent spaces Ktxi : i ≥ 0 of Mx , which are described as follows. We
c
have Ktx0 := H1c ∩ Kt∗ = Kt∗ \ int(Q1 ), and for i ≥ 1 we have Ktxi := (Hi+1
\ Ḣi ) ∩ Kt∗ =
x
Kt∗ ∩ (Qi \ int(Qi+1 )). It is not hard to note that Kt0 still has the form of the denesely
punctured manifold M , while each of Ktxi : i ≥ 1 is the densely punctured sphere S n .
By Proposition 3.C.8, we have the canonical identiﬁcation of the limits lim M and
lim Mx . The point x, viewed as an element of lim Mx , clearly corresponds to the end
of the tree T x induced by the ray ρ, i.e. x = [ρ] ∈ ET x . On the other hand, the point
y viewed as an element of lim Mx still corresponds to an end of the underlying tree, i.e
y ∈ ET x ⊂ lim Mx .
We now apply to the system Mx an operation of consolidation, as described in Section
3.A. More precisely, for each i ≥ 1 choose any vertex si in T x adjacent to ti and distinct
from both ti−1 and ti+1 , and denote by Π the partition of T x consisting of the subtrees
Si : i ≥ 1 spanned on the pairs ti , si (these subtrees are just edges), and of subtrees reduced
to vertices for all remaining vertices of T x . Let MxΠ be the tree system obtained from Mx
by consolidation with respect to Π. By Proposition 3.C.8, the limit lim MxΠ is canonically
homeomorphic to lim Mx , and hence also to lim M.
From what was said above about the system Mx it is not hard to deduce that MxΠ
is a dense tree system of manifolds M . Moreover, the point x (viewed now as a point of
lim MxΠ ) clearly corresponds to the end of the tree TΠx induced by the ray ρΠ = (S1 , S2 , . . .).
On the other hand, the point y still corresponds to an end of the underlying tree, i.e.
y ∈ ETΠx ⊂ lim MxΠ . Thus, by Lemma 3.D.2, there is a homeomorphism of lim MxΠ which
maps x to y, which ﬁnishes the proof.
The next result is a consequence of Lemma 3.D.4.
3.D.5 Corollary. Let M and M be as in Lemma 3.D.4, let x ∈ Σe∗ ⊂ lim M for some
e∗ ∈ OT , and let y ∈ ET ⊂ lim M. Then there is a homeomorphism of lim M which maps
x to y.
38

Proof: Denoting n = dim M , view the constituent space Kα(e∗ ) of M as obtained from
Mα(e∗ ) = M by deleting interiors of disks D from a null and dense family D of pairwise
disjoint collared n-disks. Let D∗ ∈ D be this disk for which ∂D∗ = Σe∗ . Let Q be a collared
n-disk in Mα(e∗ ) with D∗ ⊂ Q and with ∂Q disjoint from the union of D (existence of such
Q follows by the arguments as in the proof of Lemma 3.D.3).
Consider the elementary splitting (A, {H, H c}) of Kα(e∗ ) given by A = ∂Q and H =
Q ∩ Kα(e∗ ) . Let MQ be the subdivision of M induced by this single splitting. Let tH be
the vertex of the underlying tree T Q of MQ corresponding to the constituent space H.
Viewing ω(e∗ ) naturally as a vertex in T Q , note that tH and ω(e∗ ) are adjacent, and denote
by SQ the subtree of T Q consisting of these two vertices and the edge which connects them.
Q
for the partition Π consisting of the subtree SQ
Consider the consolidation MQ
Π of M
and the singleton subtrees for all other vertices. Clearly, the limits lim MQ
Π and lim M are
canonically homeomorphic.
Note that MQ
Π is again a dense tree of manifolds M , and that x, naturally viewed as
Q
element of lim MΠ , belongs to the constituent space KSQ ⊂ lim MQ
Π , and lies outside its
all peripheral subspaces. Since the point y, viewed as element of lim MQ
Π , still corresponds
to an end of the underlying tree, the corollary follows by applying Lemma 3.D.4.
Proof of Proposition 3.D.1: The proposition is a direct consequence of Lemmas 3.D.2,
3.D.4 and Corollary 3.D.5.
3.D.6 Remarks.
The argument as above in this section yields also the following.
3.D.6.1 Proposition. Let M be a connected compact topological manifold with boundary,
either oriented or non-orientable, and let M be the dense tree system of internally punctured manifolds M , as defined in Remark 2.D.3.1. Then, viewing the boundaries ∂Mt as
subsets of the constituent spaces Kt = Mt◦ of M, all points of Kt \ ∂Mt ⊂ lim M (for all
t) and all points of ET ⊂ lim M are in the same orbit of the group of homeomorphisms of
lim M = Xint (M ).
Recall that, given any natural number m, a topological space X is m-homogeneous if
the group of its homeomorphisms acts transitively on the set of all m-tuples of pairwise
distinct points of X. A straightforward extension of the arguments of this section allows to
prove Theorem 8.1 of [J2], i.e. the fact that the Jakobsche space X (M ) is m-homogeneous,
for arbitrary m. It also allows to prove the following variant of this result, for trees of
manifolds with boundary.
3.D.6.2 Proposition. Let M and M be as in Proposition 3.D.6.1. Consider the subspace
U = ET ∪ (

[

Kt \ ∂Mt ) ⊂ lim M.

t∈VT

Then for any natural number m the group of homeomorphisms of lim M acts transitively
on the set of m-tuples of pairwise distinct points of U .
3.E Weakly saturated tree systems of manifolds.
39

In this section we present another application of the operations of consolidation and
subdivision. It concerns dense trees of ﬁnite families of manifolds, as in Example 3.A.2, and
provides a signiﬁcant strengthening of Propositions 3.A.2.1 and 3.A.2.3. More precisely,
we will show that under a much weaker assumption than 2-saturation, the limit of a
dense tree of a ﬁnite family of manifolds {M1 , . . . , Mk } is still homeomorphic to the space
X (M1 # . . . #Mk ). The weaker condition will be called weak saturation. The results of
this section are used by the author (in another paper [Sw2]) to show that various trees
of manifolds, in arbitrary dimension, appear as Gromov boundaries of some hyperbolic
groups.
Let N = {M1 , . . . , Mk } be a ﬁnite family of closed connected topological manifolds
of the same dimension, either all oriented, or at least one of which is non-orientable. Let
M = (T, {Kt }, {Σe }, {φe }) be a dense tree system of manifolds from N . As in Example
3.A.2, for each t ∈ VT let it ∈ {1, . . . , k} be this index for which Kt has a form Mi◦t . Recall
also that a half-tree in a tree is its any maximal subtree obtained by deleting the interior
of any edge.
3.E.1 Definition We say that a dense tree system M of manifolds from N is weakly
saturated if for each j ∈ {1, . . . , k} any half-tree in the underlying tree T contains a vertex
t with it = j (equivalently, for each j ∈ {1, . . . , k} the set VTj = {t ∈ VT : it = j} spans T ).
The main result of this section is the following.
3.E.2 Theorem. Let M be any weakly saturated dense tree system of manifolds from a
finite family N = {M1 , . . . , Mk } (where Mi are closed connected topological manifolds of
the same dimension, either all oriented, or at least one of which is non-orientable). Then
the limit lim M is homeomorphic to the Jakobsche space X (M1 # . . . #Mk ).
Proof: The proof consists of showing that, by applying certain consolidation followed by
some subdivision, the tree system M can be transformed into a 2-saturated dense tree
system of manifolds from N . Due to invariance of the limit under operations as above,
and in view of Propositions 3.A.2.1 and 3.A.2.3, this will give the assertion.
We use the following notation. Given an oriented edge e ∈ OT (where T is the
underlying tree of the system M), denote by Te this half-tree obtained by deleting from T
the interior of e, which contains the terminal vertex ω(e).
We describe appropriate consolidation and subdivision simultaneously, accordingly
with the following scheme. We successively choose ﬁnite subtrees S of a partition Π of
the tree T (which will induce a desired consolidation MΠ of M), and ﬁnite tree decompositions CS of the corresponding constituent spaces KS in MΠ (which will give the tree
decomposition C = {CS : S ∈ Π} inducing a desired subdivision of MΠ ). The choices of
subtrees S and decompositions CS are made inductively, using an auxilliary ordering of
the vertices of T into a sequence (un )n≥1 , as follows.
Step 1. Put S1 = {u1 } (i.e. the subtree consisting of a single vertex u1 ), and put Π1 =
{S1 }. Furthermore, let CS1 be the empty tree decomposition of the corresponding space
KS1 = Ku1 .
Step 2. Having constructed a ﬁnite family Πn of ﬁnite subtrees, and a corresponding family
of decompositions CS : S ∈ Πn , we keep as a part of inductive assumption the following
40

properties (which clearly hold true for n = 1):
(i0) the subtrees in Πn are pairwise disjoint,
(i1) un ∈ ∪{VS : S ∈ Πn },
(i2) the union ∪{VS : S ∈ Πn } is the vertex set of a ﬁnite subtree of T , which we denote
Tn ,
(i3) for each S ∈ Πn , for each separator A of the decomposition CS , and for any edge
e ∈ NS there is a halfspace H for A such that Σe ⊂ Ḣ.
For each subtree S ∈ Πn \ Πn−1 and for each domain Ω ⊂ KS corresponding to CS , choose
arbitrary pairwise distinct oriented edges e1 , . . . , ek , e′1 , . . . , e′k from NS , not belonging to
Tn , and such that for 1 ≤ j ≤ k the corresponding peripheral subsets Σej and Σe′j are
contained in Ω. This is possible since, due to ﬁniteness of CS , Ω has nonepty interior in
KS , and by denseness of M, it thus contains inﬁnitely many peripheral subsets Σe with
e ∈ NS and not belonging to Tn . For each 1 ≤ j ≤ k choose a vertex tj in Tej and t′j in
Te′j such that itj = it′j = j. This is possible since M is weakly saturated. Further, for each
j choose a ﬁnite subtree Sj (Ω) in Tej containing the vertices ω(ej ) and tj , and a ﬁnite
subtree Sj′ (Ω) in Te′j containing the vertices ω(e′j ) and t′j . We also require that, putting
Πn+1 = Πn ∪

[
{S1 (Ω), . . . , Sk (Ω), S1′ (Ω), . . . , Sk′ (Ω)}
Ω

(where Ω runs through all domains in all spaces KS : S ∈ Πn \ Πn−1 ), we have un+1 ∈
∪{VS : S ∈ Πn+1 }. This clearly holds true if un+1 ∈ ∪{VS : S ∈ Πn }; otherwise, this can
be assured as follows. Let s be the vertex in Tn which is closest to un+1 in T , and let
e be the ﬁrst oriented edge on the path from s to un+1 . Let S ∈ Πn be the subtree for
which s ∈ VS , and let Ω ⊂ KS be the domain corresponding to CS for which Σe ⊂ Ω. We
then choose e1 as above so that additionally we have un+1 ∈ Te1 (i.e. we put e1 = e), and
then choose S1 (Ω) so that it contains un+1 . As a consequence of all our choices above,
the family Πn+1 satisﬁes conditions (i0)-(i2). For example, (i0) holds because if S and S ′
are distinct elements of Πn+1 \ Πn then S ⊂ Te and S ′ ⊂ Te′ where e and e′ are distinct
elements of NTn .
Now, for each S = Sj (Ω) or S = Sj′ (Ω) as above, we choose an appropriate tree
decomposition CS of the space KS . To describe it, note that KS (together with its peripheral subspaces of the system MΠ ) is homeomorphic to the densely punctured manifold,
denoted MS , which is a connected sum of the manifolds Mt : t ∈ VS . We denote by ∆e the
disks in MS corresponding to the peripheral subspaces Σe of KS . We also denote by ∆j
and Kj the spaces ∆ēj and Ktj if S = Sj (Ω), and the spaces ∆ē′j and Kt′j if S = Sj′ (Ω).
Choose any ∆e0 ⊂ MS such that Σe0 ⊂ Kj and note that, by applying Toruńczyk’s
Lemma 1.E.2.1 to the manifolds MS \ int(∆e0 ) and MS \ int(∆j ), we get a homeomorphism
h : MS → MS (preserving the orientation if all manifolds in N are oriented) which maps
∆e0 onto ∆j , and which preserves the family of all disks ∆e in MS . We denote by h◦ :
KS → KS the restricted homeomorphism of the densely punctured manifold. Now, we
consider the ﬁnite tree decomposition CS of KS which is induced by pushing through h◦
the original tree decomposition of KS into constituent spaces Kt : t ∈ VS (of the system M
restricted to S). Obviously, CS satisﬁes property (i3) above, and it also has the following
property:
41

(∗) all domains Ω ⊂ KS for CS are densely punctured manifolds from N , and the domain
Ω which contains the peripheral subspace Σj = ∂∆j is homeomorphic to Kj , i.e. to
the densely punctured manifold Mj .
S∞
We now put Π = i=1 Πn and note that, by conditions (i0) and (i1), Π describes a
decomposition of the tree T into ﬁnite subtrees. We thus consider the induced consolidation
MΠ . By codition (i3), and by ﬁniteness of the decompositions CS , the family C = {CS : S ∈
Π} is a tree decomposition of the system MΠ . Denoting by M′ the tree system obtained
from MΠ by the subdivision induced by C (i.e. putting M′ = (MΠ )Clim ), we get from
the construction, and in particular from the property (∗) above, that M′ is a 2-saturated
dense tree system of manifolds from N . By the comment in the ﬁrst paragraph of the
proof, Theorem 3.E.2 follows.
As an application of Theorem 3.E.2, we now describe a class of inverse sequences
of manifolds whose limits are the Jakobsche spaces X (M1 # . . . #Mk ). This class of inverse sequences is much more ﬂexible, and much more convenient to deal with, than the
corresponding class considered by Jakobsche in [J2] (compare Remark 3.A.2.4). For this
reason, it can be more eﬃciently used to identify boundaries of some spaces and groups as
appropriate trees of manifolds, see [Sw2].
3.E.3 Definiton. Let N be a ﬁnite family of closed connected n-dimensional topological
manifolds, either all oriented, or at least one of which is non-orientable. Let
J = ({Xi : i ≥ 1}, {πi : i ≥ 1})
be an inverse sequence consisting of closed connected topological n-manifolds Xi and maps
πi : Xi+1 → Xi . Assume furthermore that if the manifolds in N are oriented then all Xi
are also oriented. We say that J is a weak Jakobsche inverse sequence for N if for all i ≥ 1
one can choose ﬁnite families Di of collared n-disks in Xi , partitioned into subfamilies
DiM : M ∈ N , such that:
(1) for each i ≥ 1 the disks in the family Di are pairwise disjoint;
(2) for each i ≥ 1 the map πi maps the preimage πi−1 (Xi \ ∪{int(D) : D ∈ Di })
homeomorphically onto Xi \ ∪{int(D) : D ∈ Di };
(3a) X1 is homeomorphic to one of the manifolds from N , and if the manifolds in N
are oriented, we require that this homeomorphism respects orientations;
(3b) for each i ≥ 1, for each M ∈ N , and for any D ∈ DiM the preimage πi−1 (D) is
homeomorphic to M \ int(∆), where ∆ is some collared n-disk in M ; furthermore,
if the manifolds in N are oriented, we require that the above homeomorphism
respects the orientations induced from Xi+1 and from M ;
(4) if i < j, D ∈ Di , D′ ∈ Dj , then πi,j (D′ )∩∂D = ∅, where πi,j := πi ◦πi+1 ◦. . .◦πj−1 ;
(5) for each i ≥ 1 the family {πi,j (D) : j ≥ i, D ∈ Dj } of subsets of Xi is null, i.e.
the diameters of these subsets converge to 0; here πi,i denotes the identity map
on Xi ;
S∞
(6) for any i ≥ 1 and each M ∈ N the set j=i πi,j (∪DjM ) is dense in Xi .

Remarks.

42

(1) It follows from conditions (1), (2), (3a) and (3b) that each Xi is the connected sum
of a family of manifolds each homeomorphic to one of the manifolds in N ; moreover,
if the manifolds in N are oriented, the above mentioned homeomorphisms and the
connected sum respect the orientations.
(2) In the case when the manifolds in N are oriented, conditions (1)-(5) in Deﬁnition
3.E.3 coincide with conditions (1)-(6) in [J2], Section 2, p. 82.
(3) Condition (6) in Deﬁnition 3.E.3 implies condition (7) in [J2], but it is essentially
weaker than the conjunction of conditions (7) and (8) of [J2] (except when the family
M consists of a single manifold M , in which case (6) is equivalent to the conjunction
of (7) and (8), as it was observed and exploited in [Fi] and [Z1]).
3.E.4 Corollary. Given N = {M1 , . . . , Mk } as in Definition 3.E.3, the limit lim←− J
of any weak Jakobsche inverse sequence J for N is homeomorphic to the Jakobsche space
X (M1 # . . . #Mk ).
Proof: First, observe that by conditions (1)-(5) of Deﬁnition 3.E.3, there is a tree system
M of manifolds from N such that J has the form of an inverse sequence associated to
M, as in Example 2.C.7, for an appropriate choice of a conical family of extended spaces
and maps. More precisely, the constituent spaces of M coincide with the spaces Y of the
following two kinds:
(1) for any i ≥ 1 put
Di′ = {D ∈ Di such that there is no j < i with πi,j (D) ⊂ D′ for some D′ ∈ Dj },
S∞ S
and set Y = X1 \ i=1 D∈D′ π1,i (int(D));
i
(2) for any m ≥ 1, any ∆ ∈ Dm , and any i ≥ m + 1 put D∆,i to be the family of all
D ∈ Di such that πm,i (D) ⊂ ∆ and
thereSis no m + 1 ≤ j < i with πi,j (D) ⊂ D′ for
S
∞
−1
some D′ ∈ Dj ; set Y = πm
(∆) \ i=m+1 D∈D∆,i πm+1,i (int(D)).
We skip further explanations and justiﬁcations concerning this ﬁrst observation, and we
note that, due to Theorem 2.B.4, we have lim←− J = lim M.
Next, it follows fairly directly from condition (6) of Deﬁnition 3.E.3 that the tree
system M of manifolds from N , as above, is dense and weakly saturated. The assertion
follows then directly from Theorem 3.E.2.
We ﬁnish with presenting brieﬂy a more restrictive, but slightly less technical than
weak Jakobsche inverse sequence, concept of a special Jakobsche inverse sequence.
3.E.5 Definiton. Let N be a ﬁnite family of closed connected n-dimensional topological
manifolds, either all oriented, or at least one of which is non-orientable. Let
G = ({Xi : i ≥ 1}, {πi : i ≥ 1})
be an inverse sequence consisting of closed connected topological n-manifolds Xi and maps
πi : Xi+1 → Xi . Assume furthermore that if the manifolds in N are oriented then all Xi
are also oriented. We say that G is a special Jakobsche inverse sequence for N if for all
i ≥ 1 one can choose ﬁnite sets Qi in Xi , partitioned into subsets QM
i : M ∈ N , such that:
43

(1) for each i ≥ 1 the map πi maps the preimage πi−1 (Xi \ Qi ) homeomorphically
onto Xi \ Qi ;
(2a) X1 is homeomorphic to one of the manifolds from N , and if the manifolds in N
are oriented, we require that this homeomorphism respects orientations;
−1
(2b) for each i ≥ 1, for each M ∈ N , and for any q ∈ QM
i the preimage πi (q) is
a submanifold of Xi+1 homeomorphic to M \ int(∆), where ∆ is some collared
n-disk in M ; furthermore, if the manifolds in N are oriented, we require that the
above homeomorphism respects the orientations induced from Xi+1 and from M ;
−1
(q)] = ∅;
(3) if i < j and q ∈ Qi , then Qj ∩ ∂[πij
S∞
(4) for any i ≥ 1 and each M ∈ N the set j=i πi,j (QM
j ) is dense in Xi .

Remark. Condition (3) in the above deﬁnition requires a comment. Note that, by con−1
dition (2b), if q ∈ Qi and if j = i + 1 then πij
(q) is an n-submanifold with boundary in
−1
Xj . Moreover, if for some j > i we have that πij
(q) is an n-submanifold with bound−1
ary in Xj , and if Qj ∩ ∂[πij (q)] = ∅, then it follows from conditions (1) and (2b) that
−1
(q) is an n-submanifold with boundary in Xj+1 . Thus, by induction, all the preimπi,j+1
−1
(q) occuring in the statement of condition (3) are n-submanifolds with boundary
ages πij
in the corresponding manifolds Xj , and hence it makes sense to speak of their boundaries
−1
(q)].
∂[πij

An argument similar to that in the proof of Corollary 3.E.4 shows that a special Jakobsche inverse sequence G (for N ) has the form of the standard inverse sequence associated
to a weakly saturated tree system of manifolds from N . In this argument the reference to
Theorem 2.B.4 has to be replaced with the corresponding reference to Proposition 1.D.1.
As a consequence, we get the following.
3.E.6 Corollary. Given N = {M1 , . . . , Mk } as in Definition 3.E.5, the limit lim←− G of
any special Jakobsche inverse sequence G for N is homeomorphic to the Jakobsche space
X (M1 # . . . #Mk ).
Remark. It is not hard to see that any special Jakobsche inverse sequence for N is also a
weak Jakobsche inverse sequence for N , but we omit the details. (Obviously, this can be
used as another justiﬁcation of Corollary 3.E.6.) The converse is not true.

References
[AS] F. Ancel, L. Siebenmann, The construction of homogeneous homology manifolds,
Abstracts Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1985), 92.
[Br] M. Brown, Some applications of an appropximation theorem for inverse limits,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 11 (1960), 478–481.
[Ca] J. W. Cannon, A positional characterization of the (n −1)-dimensional Sierpiński
curve in S n (n 6= 4), Fund. Math. 79 (1973), 107–112.
[CD] R. Charney, M. Davis, Strict hyperbolization, Topology 34 (1995), 329–350.
[Dav] R. Daverman, Decompositions of Manifolds, Academic Press, 1986.
44

[DJ] M. Davis, T. Januszkiewicz, Hyperbolization of polyhedra, J. Diﬀerential Geometry 34 (1991), 347–388.
[Dr] A. Dranishnikov, Cohomological dimension of Markov compacta, Top. Appl. 154
(2007), 1341–1358.
[DO] J. Dymara, D. Osajda, Boundaries of right–angled hyperbolic buildings, Fund.
Math. 197 (2007), 123–165.
[Eng] R. Engelking, General Topology, PWN - Polish Scientiﬁc Publishers, Warszawa,
1977.
[Fi] H. Fischer, Boundaries of right–angled Coxeter groups with manifold nerves,
Topology 42 (2003), 423–446.
[Fr] M. Freedman, The topology of four dimensional manifolds, J. Diﬀerential Geometry 17 (1982), 357–453.
[J1] W. Jakobsche, The Bing–Borsuk conjecture is stronger than the Poincare conjecture, Fundamenta Mathematicae 106 (1980), 127–134.
[J2] W. Jakobsche, Homogeneous cohomology manifolds which are inverse limits, Fundamenta Mathematicae 137 (1991), 81–95.
[JS] T. Januszkiewicz, J. Świa̧tkowski, Simplicial nonpositive curvature, Publ. Math.
IHES 104 (1) (2006), 1–85.
[KB] I. Kapovich, N. Benakli, Boundaries of hyperbolic groups, in: Combinatorial and
geometric group theory (New York, 2000/Hoboken, NJ, 2001), 39–93, Contemp.
Math. 296, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2002.
[KK] M. Kapovich, B. Kleiner, Hyperbolic groups with low-dimensional boundary, Ann.
Sci. ENS 33 (2000) 647–669.
[PŚ] P. Przytycki, J. Świa̧tkowski, Flag-no-square triangulations and Gromov boundaries in dimension 3, Groups, Geometry & Dynamics 3 (2009), 453–468.
[Qu] F. Quinn, Ends of maps. III: dimensions 4 and 5, J. Diﬀ. Geom. 17 (1982),
503–521.
[St] P.R. Stallings, An extension of Jakobsches construction of n–homogeneous continua to the nonorientable case, in Continua (with the Houston Problem Book),
ed. H. Cook, W.T. Ingram, K. Kuperberg, A. Lelek, P. Minc, Lect. Notes in
Pure and Appl. Math. vol. 170 (1995), 347–361.
[Sw1] J. Świa̧tkowski, Fundamental pro-groups and Gromov boundaries of 7-systolic
groups, Journal of the London Mathematical Society 80 (2009), 649–664.
[Sw2] J. Świa̧tkowski, Trees of manifolds as boundaries of spaces and groups, preprint,
2013.
[Z1] P. Zawiślak, Trees of manifolds and boundaries of systolic groups, Fund. Math.
207 (2010), 71–99.
[Z2] P. Zawiślak, Trees of manifolds with boundaries, Colloquium Mathematicum, to
appear.
Instytut Matematyczny, Uniwersytet Wroclawski,
pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4, 50-384 Wroclaw, Poland
E-mail: Jacek.Swiatkowski@math.uni.wroc.pl

45

