C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON
TREES

arXiv:1711.10442v1 [math.OA] 28 Nov 2017

RASMUS SYLVESTER BRYDER, NIKOLAY A. IVANOV, AND TRON OMLAND

Abstract. We study groups admitting extreme boundary actions, and in particular,
groups acting on trees, and we give necessary and sufficient criteria for such groups
to be C ∗ -simple or have the unique trace property. Applying these results to the case
of a non-ascending HNN extension acting on its Bass-Serre tree, we can characterize
C ∗ -simplicity and the unique trace property by means of the kernel and quasi-kernels of
the HNN extension in question. We also present a concrete example of an HNN extension
that is a new example of a group that is not C ∗ -simple but does have the unique trace
property.

1. Introduction
A discrete group is said to be C ∗ -simple when its reduced C ∗ -algebra, i.e., the C ∗ -algebra
associated to its left regular representation is simple. This property for discrete groups found
its primus motor in a paper by Powers, who proved in 1975 that the non-abelian free group
on two generators is C ∗ -simple [29]. Since then, many other examples of C ∗ -simple groups
of all sizes and shapes have been found, one of the chief C ∗ -simple group detectives being
de la Harpe (see [18] for a survey). What these groups have in common is that they are all
proven to be C ∗ -simple by using variations of Powers’ technique. A common denominator
for C ∗ -simple groups is that they are highly non-amenable, in the sense that they have
trivial amenable radical, i.e., they admit no normal non-trivial amenable subgroups. Another
property related to C ∗ -simplicity of a discrete group is the unique trace property, meaning
that its reduced group C ∗ -algebra admits a unique tracial state. The unique trace property
also implies triviality of the amenable radical. An early question of de la Harpe [17] was
whether there was any connection between the aforementioned properties. Until recently, no
characterizations of C ∗ -simplicity nor the unique trace property were known, nor did there
exist examples of groups that only satisfied one of these two properties. Only in 2014 did
Kalantar and Kennedy obtain the first known characterization of C ∗ -simplicity [23], and later
that year, Breuillard, Kalantar, Kennedy and Ozawa gave a characterization of the unique
trace property in terms of its amenable radical [7]. By means of the result of Kalantar and
Kennedy, de la Harpe’s question was finally completely settled in 2015, when Le Boudec found
examples of non-C ∗ -simple groups with the unique trace property, by examining actions of
countable groups on trees [5].
In the 1960’s, Furstenberg considered what came to be known as boundary actions [12], in
order to investigate the irreducible unitary representations of a group. A boundary action is
a minimal action of a group on a compact Hausdorff space that is strongly proximal, i.e.,
Date: November 28, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 22D25, 20E06 (Primary) 46L05, 20E08 (Secondary).
Key words and phrases. C ∗ -simplicity, HNN extension.
The first author is supported by a PhD stipend from the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF)
through the Centre for Symmetry and Deformation at University of Copenhagen. The second author is
partially supported by grant 80.10-120/2017 of the Research Fund of the University of Sofia. The third author
is funded by the Research Council of Norway through FRINATEK, project no. 240913.
1

2

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

the weak∗ -closure of each orbit in the space of probability measures on the space contains
a point mass. Furstenberg proved that any locally compact group G always admits a
universal boundary action, meaning a compact Hausdorff space ∂F G that maps uniquely
G-equivariantly onto any other compact Hausdorff space with a boundary action of the group
G. This was the technology used in [23] to obtain a characterization of C ∗ -simplicity, where
the authors showed that a discrete group Γ is C ∗ -simple if and only if the action of Γ on the
Furstenberg boundary ∂F Γ is topologically free. The theory of boundary actions was also the
main force used in [7] to show that the unique trace property of a discrete group is equivalent
to the group having trivial amenable radical. Because of the above characterizations, as well
as their close affiliation with non-amenability, C ∗ -simplicity and the unique trace property
have since witnessed a spike in interest.
In this article, we mainly study HNN extensions and obtain necessary and sufficient
conditions for C ∗ -simplicity, in which we take both a purely algebraic point of view, and a
geometric point of view, giving a partial answer to [18, Problem 28].
However, in Sections 2 and 3 we present a number of results that hold in more general
situations. Theorem 2.2 characterizes the unique trace property and C ∗ -simplicity in terms of
the kernel and the interior (cf. [22, Section 5]) of some boundary action by the group. In fact,
if any kernel (resp. interior) of a boundary action by a group has the unique trace property
(resp. is C ∗ -simple), then the group has the unique trace property (resp. is C ∗ -simple).
We then investigate the case of when a group acts on a tree via an action that is minimal
and of general type (cf. [6, Section 4.3]). These are fairly weak assumptions, and together they
give rise to a boundary action of the group on a natural boundary of the tree. With this set-up,
Proposition 3.8 provides a connection to conditions implying C ∗ -simplicity earlier studied
by de la Harpe, and Theorem 3.9 gives necessary and sufficient conditions for C ∗ -simplicity.
Although C ∗ -simplicity already has been characterized in terms of actions on its Furstenberg
boundary, the advantage of our results is that it provides a description in a more concrete
situation.
Specializing further, for a graph of groups one can study its fundamental group and
its action on the Bass-Serre tree (see Section 4). Graphs of groups with only one edge
are the most studied examples, and their fundamental groups are of two types, either an
amalgamated free product or an HNN extension. The former case was investigated in [22]
and the latter case is studied in detail in the remaining sections of this paper, where we define
two “quasi-kernels” of an HNN extension in order to determine C ∗ -simplicity. Theorem 4.11
gives combinatorial properties analog to Proposition 3.8, and Proposition 4.15 shows that
in certain cases, C ∗ -simplicity is equivalent to the group being icc. A characterization of
C ∗ -simplicity in terms of quasi-kernels is then given in Theorem 4.23.
Finally, in Section 5 we produce a concrete HNN extension construced from locally finite
groups, that is not C ∗ -simple, but has the unique trace property.

2. Boundary actions and extreme boundary actions
In this section, we first recall the theory of boundary actions and extreme boundary actions,
and their relation to C ∗ -simplicity and the unique trace property. We employ the terminology
of [22, Section 5] to formalize our own results.
Let Γ be a discrete group with identity element 1. Consider the Hilbert space `2 (Γ) with
the standard orthonormal basis {δg }g∈Γ , and define the left regular representation λ of Γ
on `2 (Γ) by λ(g)δh = δgh . The reduced group C ∗ -algebra of Γ, denoted by Cr∗ (Γ), is the
C ∗ -subalgebra of B(`2 (Γ)) generated by λ(Γ). A group Γ is called C ∗ -simple if Cr∗ (Γ) is
simple, that is, if it has no non-trivial proper two-sided closed ideals.

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

3

A state on a unital C ∗ -algebra B is a linear functional φ : B → C that is positive, i.e.,
φ(a) ≥ 0 whenever a ∈ B and a ≥ 0, and unital, i.e., φ(1) = 1. A state φ is called
tracial if it satisfies the additional property that φ(ab) = φ(ba) for all a, b ∈ B. There is a
canonical faithful tracial state τ on Cr∗ (Γ), namely the vector state associated with δ1 , that
is, τ (a) = haδ1 , δ1 i for all a ∈ Cr∗ (Γ). The group Γ is said to have the unique trace property if
τ is the only tracial state on Cr∗ (Γ).
The first larger class of groups that were shown to be C ∗ -simple with the unique trace
property, consisted of the Powers groups (see [17] for a definition).
Further, recall that a group Γ is amenable if there exists a state on `∞ (Γ) which is invariant
under the left translation action by Γ. It is explained in [10] that every group Γ has a unique
maximal normal amenable subgroup R(Γ), called the amenable radical of Γ. It was shown in
[7, Theorem 1.3] that Γ has the unique trace property if and only if the amenable radical of
Γ is trivial. As a consequence, C ∗ -simplicity is stronger than the unique trace property by
[28], and strictly stronger by [5, Theorem A].
The following study of C ∗ -simplicity is based on the dynamical approach to and characterization of C ∗ -simplicity given in [23]. Let Γ be a group acting continuously (i.e., by
homeomorphisms) on a topological space X. The fixed-point set of an element g ∈ Γ is
denoted by X g = {x ∈ X | gx = x}. Let Γx = {g ∈ Γ | gx = x} be the stabilizer subgroup of
x ∈ X and let Γ◦x denote the subgroup of Γx consisting of all elements that fix a neighborhood
of x pointwise. We then define ker(Γ y X) = {g ∈ Γ | X g = X} and
int(Γ y X) = hΓ◦x | x ∈ Xi = h{g ∈ Γ | X g has non-empty interior}i.
If ker(Γ y X) = {1}, the action is faithful, and when int(Γ y X) = {1}, the action is
topologically free. If X is a Hausdorff space, then X g is always closed.
Remark 2.1. Let Γ act on a Hausdorff space X. If D is a Γ-invariant subset of X, then so
is D, and we have
ker(Γ y D) = ker(G y D),

int(Γ y D) = int(Γ y D).

Here the first equality follows from continuity of the action. If Dg has non-empty interior
for some g ∈ Γ, there is a non-empty open subset V of D such that V ∩ D ⊆ Dg which
g
g
ensures that V ⊆ V ∩ D ⊆ Dg ⊆ D . Conversely, if D has non-empty interior, then there is
g
a non-empty open subset V of D such that V ⊆ D , meaning that V ∩ D ⊆ Dg . As V is
non-empty, so is V ∩ D.
The action of Γ on the topological space X is said to be minimal if the Γ-orbit Γx is dense
in X for all x ∈ X. Now assume that X is compact Hausdorff, so that X always admits a
minimal and closed Γ-invariant subset by Zorn’s lemma. By the Riesz representation theorem
we may identify the space P(X) of Radon probability measures on X with the state space of
the unital C ∗ -algebra C(X). We then say that the action of Γ on X is strongly proximal if
the weak∗ -closure of every Γ-orbit in P(X) contains a Dirac measure.
The action is a boundary action (and X is said to be a Γ-boundary) if the action of Γ on
X is minimal and strongly proximal. Any Γ-boundary has an isolated point if and only if it
is a one-point space.
The major result [23, Theorem 6.2] states (among other things) that if Γ y X is a
topologically free boundary action, then Γ is C ∗ -simple.
A result due to Furstenberg [12] states that any discrete group Γ admits a universal
Γ-boundary ∂F Γ, known as the Furstenberg boundary, in the sense that for any Γ-boundary X
there exists a unique Γ-equivariant continuous surjection ∂F Γ → X. Then [23, Theorem 6.2]
says that Γ is C ∗ -simple if and only if the action of Γ on the Furstenberg boundary ∂F Γ is
topologically free, i.e., if and only if int(Γ y ∂F Γ) is trivial. Moreover, in [11, Corollary 8], it

4

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

is proved that R(Γ) = ker(Γ y ∂F Γ). Thus, minimality of the Γ-action on ∂F Γ implies that
Γ is amenable if and only if ∂F Γ is a one-point space.
Another, intrinsic, description of C ∗ -simplicity is obtained in [24]. A subgroup
T H of−1a group
Γ is called recurrent if for any net (gi ) in Γ there is a subnet (gj ) such that j gj Hgj 6= {e}.
Then [24, Theorem 5.3] says that Γ is C ∗ -simple if it has no amenable recurrent subgroups.
In [22, Section 7] the amenablish radical AH(Γ) of a group Γ is defined. It is the unique
maximal normal subgroup of Γ producing a C ∗ -simple quotient. In particular, a group is
C ∗ -simple if and only if AH(Γ) = {1} and is called amenablish if AH(Γ) = Γ. For any group
Γ, the normal subgroup int(Γ y ∂F Γ) is always amenablish. In [22, Section 6 and 7], it is
explained that the class of amenablish groups is radical and is “dual” to the class of C ∗ -simple
groups, which is residual, analogously to the duality between the radical class of amenable
groups and the residual class of groups with the unique trace property.
The following result is an adaptation of [23, Theorem 6.2] and [14, Theorem 5.2] to our
purposes.
Theorem 2.2. Let X be a Γ-boundary. The following hold:
(i) Γ has the unique trace property if and only if ker(Γ y X) has the unique trace
property.
(ii) Γ is C ∗ -simple if and only if int(Γ y X) is C ∗ -simple.
Proof. Every g ∈ R(Γ) fixes every point in X by [11, Corollary 8]. Hence R(Γ) ⊆ ker(Γ y X),
so by [22, Lemma 6.7] we have that R(Γ) = R(ker(Γ y X)). Consequently, (i) holds.
For (ii), suppose first that N = int(Γ y X) is C ∗ -simple, i.e., AH(N ) = {1}. Since
X is a Γ-boundary, there exists a continuous surjective Γ-equivariant map ∂F Γ → X.
Suppose that there is some non-trivial g ∈ Γ such that (∂F Γ)g has non-empty interior. By
[7, Lemma 3.2], it means that the set X g has non-empty interior. Thus, int(Γ y ∂F Γ) ⊆ N .
The proof of [22, Proposition 7.8] gives that int(Γ y ∂F Γ) is amenablish, so we have
int(Γ y ∂F Γ) ⊆ AH(N ) = {1} by [22, Lemma 7.7]. Hence, int(Γ y ∂F Γ) = {1}, so
AH(Γ) = {1} (see [22, Definition 7.4]), that is, Γ is C ∗ -simple.
The converse holds by [7, Theorem 1.4] because int(Γ y X) is a normal subgroup of Γ. 
For Γ and X as above and a non-empty subset U ⊆ X, define the fixator subgroup
ΓU = {g ∈ Γ | gx = x for all x ∈ U }. Since group elements act continuously, it should be
clear that ΓU = ΓU . In particular, if V is dense in X, then ΓV ⊆ ΓU for all non-empty
U ⊆ X.
Recall that the normal closure in a group Γ of a subset S ⊆ Γ is the smallest normal
subgroup hhSii of Γ containing S.
Lemma 2.3. For any minimal action of a group Γ on a Hausdorff space X and any x ∈ X,
the interior of Γ y X equals the normal closure of Γ◦x .
Proof. The normal closure of Γ◦x is always contained in int(Γ y X). Now let y ∈ X and let
g ∈ Γ◦y . Then there exists a neighbourhood U of y such that g fixes U pointwise. Since the
action is minimal, we can find an h ∈ Γ such that hx ∈ U . Then h−1 gh fixes h−1 U pointwise,
so that h−1 gh ∈ Γ◦x , i.e., g ∈ hΓ◦x h−1 . Hence g is contained in the normal closure of Γ◦x ,
completing the proof.

Lemma 2.4. Let Γ y X be a minimal action on a Hausdorff space X. The following are
equivalent:
(i) Γ y X is topologically free;
(ii) Γ◦x is trivial for some x ∈ X;
(iii) ΓU is trivial for all non-empty open U ⊆ X.

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

5

Proof. The implication (i) =⇒ (ii) is obvious.
If Γ◦x is trivial for some x ∈ X, then Γ◦x is trivial for all x ∈ X by Lemma 2.3. Let U be
an arbitrary non-empty open set in X and pick any x ∈ U . Clearly, ΓU is a subgroup of Γ◦x ,
which is trivial. Thus ΓU is trivial, and we have shown (ii) =⇒ (iii).
Finally, to prove (iii) =⇒ (i), assume that Γ y X is not topologically free, and choose a
non-trivial g ∈ Γ such that X g has non-empty interior U . Then g ∈ ΓU , which is therefore
non-trivial.

We now say that an action Γ y X is amenably free if Γ◦x is amenable for all x ∈ X.
Lemma 2.5. Let Γ y X be a minimal action on a Hausdorff space X. The following are
equivalent:
(i) Γ y X is amenably free;
(ii) Γ◦x is amenable for some x ∈ X;
(iii) ΓU is amenable for all non-empty open U ⊆ X.
Proof. The implication (i) =⇒ (ii) is obvious.
To prove that (ii) =⇒ (i), we assume that Γ◦x is amenable for some x ∈ X. Clearly,
◦
Γgx = gΓ◦x g −1 is amenable for all g ∈ Γ. Choose an arbitrary y ∈ X and let F be a finitely
generated subgroup of Γ◦y . Let {gi }ni=1 be a set of generators of F , let {Ui }ni=1 be the
Tn
corresponding open sets around y fixed by the generators, and set U = i=1 Ui . By a similar
argument as in Lemma 2.4 there is an h ∈ Γ such that hx ∈ U , and thus gi ∈ Γ◦hx for all i, so
F is a subgroup of Γ◦hx . Since Γ◦y is a direct limit of all of its finitely generated subgroups,
which are all amenable, it follows that Γ◦y is amenable.
For (i) =⇒ (iii), choose an arbitrary non-empty open U ⊆ X, pick any x ∈ U , and notice
that ΓU ⊆ Γ◦x .
Finally, to show (iii) =⇒ (i), we assume that ΓU is amenable for all non-empty open
U ⊆ X. Choose an arbitrary x ∈ X and let V be the collection of all open neighbourhoods of
x. The collection is clearly closed under
S finite intersections, so it is downward directed, and
therefore Γ◦x equals the direct limit V ΓU , which is amenable.

Remark 2.6. Let Γ be a minimal action of a countable group on a Hausdorff space X. Then
there exists x ∈ X such that Γ◦x = Γx (see [6, Proposition 2.4]). Therefore, in this case,
Γ y X is topologically free if and only if Γx is trivial for some x ∈ X, and amenably free if
and only if Γx is amenable for some x ∈ X.
Proposition 2.7. Let Γ y X be a minimal action on a compact Hausdorff space X. If Γ is
C ∗ -simple, then the action is either topologically free or not amenably free.
Proof. This follows from [7, Theorem 7.1] and [27, Theorem 14 (2)].



Proposition 2.8. Let Γ y X be a minimal action on a Hausdorff space such that N =
ker(Γ y X) is C ∗ -simple. Suppose that ΓU /N is non-amenable for all non-empty open
U ⊆ X. Then Γ is C ∗ -simple.
Proof. The action of Γ on X factors to a faithful action of Γ/N on X, and for any non-empty
subset U ⊆ X, the fixator subgroup ΓU in Γ satisfies ΓU /N ∼
= (Γ/N )U . Hence (Γ/N )U is
non-amenable for all non-empty open U ⊆ X, and it now follows from [6, Corollary 3.6] and
[24, Proposition 5.3] that Γ/N is C ∗ -simple (note that the countability assumption used in
[6, Lemma 2.1] is not necessary, as shown in [24, Proposition 5.2]). Hence, since N and Γ/N
are both C ∗ -simple, Γ is C ∗ -simple by [7, Theorem 1.4].

Corollary 2.9. Let Γ y X be a faithful boundary action that is not topologically free.
Consider the following properties:

6

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

(i) ΓU is non-amenable for all non-empty open U ⊆ X;
(ii) Γ is C ∗ -simple;
(iii) ΓU is non-amenable for some non-empty open U ⊆ X.
Then (i) =⇒ (ii) =⇒ (iii).
Proof. (i) =⇒ (ii) is just Proposition 2.8 with trivial kernel, while (ii) =⇒ (iii) follows from
Proposition 2.7 and Lemma 2.5.

Example 2.10. (a) Let H, G0 , and G1 be non-trivial groups, where G0 and G1 are not
both isomorphic to Z2 . We have that
Γ = (G0 × H) ∗H (H × G1 ) ∼
= (G0 ∗ G1 ) × H,
which acts on the closure X = ∂T of the boundary ∂T of its Bass-Serre tree T (see Sections 3
and 4). Moreover, Γ y X is an extreme boundary action (see Definition 2.11), and H =
ker(Γ y X) = int(Γ y X) = Γ◦x = ΓU for all x ∈ X and non-empty open U ⊆ X. Clearly, Γ
is C ∗ -simple if and only if H is C ∗ -simple. In particular, when H is non-amenable and non-C ∗ simple, Γ is not C ∗ -simple. In other words, when the action is not faithful, non-amenability
of all Γ◦x and ΓU is in general not sufficient for C ∗ -simplicity.
(b) Let H be a non-C ∗ -simple group with the unique trace property admitting an extreme
boundary action (see Definition 2.11) on some compact Hausdorff space X, for example
the group from Section 5. Define G = FH o H, where FH is the free group on the set H,
with generators vh for h ∈ H, and where H acts on FH by h · vg = vgh for h, g ∈ H. Since
FH is C ∗ -simple and normal in G and clearly has a trivial centralizer in G, it follows from
[7, Theorem 1.4] that G is also C ∗ -simple.
Moreover, we can define an extreme boundary action of G on X by letting the normal
subgroup FH act trivially. Consequently, it is possible that Γ is C ∗ -simple and Γ/ ker(Γ y X)
is not C ∗ -simple, i.e., the kernel of the action Γ y X is responsible for the C ∗ -simplicity of Γ.
The following definition is based on the notion of an extremely proximal flow from [13].
Definition 2.11. An action of a group Γ on a compact Hausdorff space X (with more than
two points) is called an extreme boundary action (called a strong boundary action in [25]) if
for every closed K ( X and non-empty open U ⊆ X there exists g ∈ Γ such that gK ⊆ U .
Lemma 2.12 ([13, 25]). Let Γ y X be an extreme boundary action. Then the action is
minimal and strongly proximal, and X is a Γ-boundary in the sense of Furstenberg.
Lemma 2.13. Let Γ y X be an extreme boundary action. Let U and V be two non-empty
open sets that are not dense in X. Then the normal closures of ΓU and ΓV coincide, and
equal int(Γ y X). Moreover, ΓU is amenable (resp. trivial) if and only if ΓV is amenable
(resp. trivial).
Proof. By definition, there exists g ∈ Γ such that gU ⊆ V . Let h ∈ ΓV , and let v ∈ U .
Then g · v ∈ V , so g −1 hg · v = g −1 g · v = v. Since v was arbitrarily chosen, this means that
g −1 hg ∈ ΓU . Thus ΓV ⊆ gΓU g −1 , and the normal closure of ΓV is contained in the normal
closure of ΓU = ΓU . The other inclusion is similar. Hence, the normal closures of ΓU and
ΓV coincide. If g ∈ ΓU , then U ⊆ X g , so g ∈ int(Γ y X), which implies that the normal
closure of ΓU is contained in int(Γ y X). Conversely, if g ∈ Γ and X g has non-empty interior
W ⊆ X, then g ∈ ΓW . Therefore, the conclusion follows from the containments
[
{g ∈ Γ | X g has non-empty interior} ⊆
ΓW ⊆ hhΓU ii ⊆ int(Γ y X),
where the union is taken over all non-empty open sets of X.
Finally, since each of ΓU and ΓV is contained in a conjugate of the other, we get that ΓU
is amenable (resp. trivial) if and only if ΓV is amenable (resp. trivial).


C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

7

Corollary 2.14. Let Γ y X be an extreme boundary action such that N = ker(Γ y X) is
C ∗ -simple. If Γ/N y X is either topologically free or not amenably free, then Γ is C ∗ -simple.
In particular, if N is trivial, then Γ is C ∗ -simple if and only if Γ y X is either topologically
free or not amenably free.
Proof. Note first that Γ/N y X is a faithful extreme boundary action. If the action is
topologically free, then Γ/N is C ∗ -simple by [23, Theorem 6.2]. If the action is not amenably
free, then Γ is C ∗ -simple by Proposition 2.8
The first part follows from Proposition 2.8 and Lemma 2.13, and the second by Corollary 2.9
and Lemma 2.13.

Note that the second statement above is just [6, Theorem 1.4] without the countability
condition. We now get the following characterization of non-C ∗ -simplicity for an extreme
boundary action.
Corollary 2.15. Let Γ y X be a faithful extreme boundary action. The following are
equivalent:
(i) Γ is non-C ∗ -simple;
(ii) Γ◦x is non-trivial and amenable for some x ∈ X;
(iii) ΓU is non-trivial and amenable for some non-empty open U ⊆ X.
Proof. For (iii) =⇒ (ii), suppose that ΓU is non-trivial and amenable for some non-empty
open U ⊆ X. By Lemma 2.13, ΓU is non-trivial and amenable for all non-empty open U ⊆ X.
Hence, the conclusion follows from Lemmas 2.4 and 2.5.
If Γ◦x is non-trivial and amenable for some x ∈ X, then Γ y X is amenably free, but not
topologically free, so Γ is not C ∗ -simple by Proposition 2.7, and thus (ii) =⇒ (i) holds.
Finally, assume that Γ is not C ∗ -simple. Then Γ y X is not topologically free by
[23, Theorem 6.2]. Thus ΓU is non-trivial for all non-empty open U ⊆ X by Lemma 2.13 and
amenable for some non-empty open U ⊆ X by Corollary 2.9.

3. Groups acting on trees
Let G be a graph, let V be its set of vertices and E its set of edges, and let s, r : E → V
denote the source and range maps. All graphs considered will be unoriented, meaning that
we assume the existence of an inversion map E → E, e 7→ e, such that e = e and s(e) = r(e)
for any edge e ∈ E. The degree of a vertex v ∈ V is the cardinality of s−1 (v) or r−1 (v) (the
numbers coincide), and a vertex is a leaf if it has degree 1.
A tree is a connected graph without circuits. If V is the set of vertices of a tree T , then
given any two vertices u, v ∈ V there are two paths between them (one starting in u and
ending in v, and one in the opposite direction), and the (equal) length of these paths is the
combinatorial distance d(u, v), yielding the path metric on V . For the remainder of this
section, we will always consider a tree T with vertices V , edges E and source, range and
inversion maps as above.
A geodesic in T between two vertices v, w ∈ V is a finite sequence v = v0 , . . . , vn = w
such that d(vi , vj ) = |i − j| for all i, j ∈ {0, . . . , n}. A ray in T is an infinite sequence of
vertices r = (ri )i≥0 such that d(ri , ri+n ) = n for all i, n ≥ 0. Two rays r, s are said to be
cofinal, written x ∼ y, if there exist k, n ≥ 0 such that ri+k = si+n for all i ≥ 0. The set of
equivalence classes of cofinal rays in T is denoted ∂T , and called the boundary of T .
In the following, we will identify T with the set of vertices V equipped with its path metric.
For an edge e ∈ E, define the shadow Z0 (e) = {v ∈ T | d(v, s(e)) > d(v, r(e))}, i.e., the set of
all vertices that are closer to the range of e than the source. Moreover, define Z∞ (e) as the
set of all rays r = (ri )i≥0 such that rj = s(e) and rj+1 = r(e) for some j ≥ 0, and then define
ZB (e) ⊂ ∂T as Z∞ (e)/ ∼. Finally, define the extended shadow Z(e) = Z0 (e) ∪ ZB (e). The

8

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

collection {Z(e) | e ∈ E} forms a subbase of compact open sets for a totally disconnected
compact Hausdorff topology on X = T ∪ ∂T , sometimes called the “shadow topology” on X.
We refer to [26, Section 4.1, especially Proposition 4.4] in this regard (they assume that T is
countable, but their proofs hold also without this hypothesis, although then the resultant
topology is not metrizable, see Appendix A for details).
By removing an edge from T , we obtain two components, known as half-trees. An extended
half-tree is a half-tree together with all its associated boundary points. In this terminology,
as explained in [6, Section 4.3] (which does not require countability), half-trees and extended
shadows are the same notion, so that the shadow topology is generated by all the extended
half-trees in T ∪ ∂T .
Next, define F ⊆ T as the set of all vertices v of finite degree. The following can be
deduced from the mentioned sections of [6, 26]:
Proposition 3.1. All points in F are isolated in T ∪ ∂T . The closure ∂T of ∂T in T ∪ ∂T
is (T \ F ) ∪ ∂T , and is compact. Moreover, ∂T is closed in T ∪ ∂T if and only if F = T , if
and only if T is locally finite.
Lemma 3.2. The sets ZB (e) constitute a basis for the shadow topology restricted to ∂T .
Proof. We need to prove that whenever x ∈ ZB (e1 ) ∩ ZB (e2 ) for x ∈ ∂T and edges e1 , e2 in
T , then there exists an edge e such that x ∈ ZB (e) ⊆ ZB (e1 ) ∩ ZB (e2 ). With this set-up, x
is the equivalence class of a ray (ri )i≥0 such that r0 = s(e1 ) and r1 = r(e1 ), which is cofinal
to a ray (si )i≥0 such that s0 = s(e2 ) and s1 = r(e2 ). Now there exist k, n ≥ 0 such that
Z0 (e) 3 ri+k = si+n ∈ Z0 (f ) for all i ≥ 0. Letting e be the edge defined by s(e) = rk and
r(e) = rk+1 , then x is clearly contained in ZB (e).
Any ray in Z∞ (e) is cofinal to a ray (ti )i≥0 satisfying t0 = rk = sn and t1 = rk+1 = sn+1 .
For such a ray (ti )i≥0 , construct a new ray (t0i )i≥0 by defining t0i = ri for 0 ≤ i ≤ k − 1 and
t0k+m = tm for all m ≥ 0 in Z∞ (e1 ). Then (t0i )i≥0 is cofinal to (ti )i≥0 , so that ZB (e) ⊆ ZB (e1 ).
A similar argument shows that ZB (e) ⊆ ZB (e2 ).

Lemma 3.3. Every non-empty open subset of ∂T contains Z(e) ∩ ∂T for some edge e in T .
Proof. Notice first that any edge e in T satisfies ZB (e) = Z(e) ∩ ∂T . Indeed, for any open
neighbourhood V ⊆ ∂T of a point x ∈ Z(e), then V ∩ Z(e) is an open neighbourhood of
x ∈ ∂T since Z(e) is clopen in the shadow topology (see Lemma A.3), so that
V ∩ ZB (e) = V ∩ Z(e) ∩ ∂T 6= ∅.
Tn
Tn
For edges e1 , . . . , en in T such that i=1 Z(ei ) intersects T
∂T , then as i=1 Z(ei ) ∩ ∂T is
n
open in ∂T , Lemma 3.2 yields an edge e such that ZB (e) ⊆ i=1 Z(ei ). Hence
Z(e) ∩ ∂T = ZB (e) ⊆

n
\

Z(ei ) ∩ ∂T

i=1

by what we have seen above. Finally, if U ⊆ T
∂T is a non-empty open set,
6 ∅.
Tn then U ∩ ∂T =
n
As there exist edges e1 , . . . , en in T such that i=1 Z(ei ) ∩ ∂T ⊆ U and i=1 Z(ei ) ∩ ∂T 6= ∅,
we infer that Z(e) ∩ ∂T ⊆ U for some edge e in T .

A morphism γ of two trees T1 = (V1 , E1 ) and T2 = (V2 , E2 ) is a tuple of maps γV : V1 → V2
and γE : E1 → E2 such that
s(γE (e)) = γV (s(e)), γE (e) = γE (e),

e ∈ E1 .

If γV and γE are bijections, γ is called an isomorphism, and if T1 = T2 we say that γ is an
automorphism. The group of automorphisms of the tree T is denoted by Aut(T ). Furthermore,
any automorphism of T is a surjective isometry with respect to the path metric on T , so that

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

9

we may easily extend σ ∈ Aut(T ) to T ∪ ∂T by defining σ(x) for any equivalence class x of a
ray (xi )i≥0 to be the equivalence class of the ray (σ(xi ))i≥0 .
We say that an automorphism σ ∈ Aut(T ) is elliptic if it fixes a vertex of T , and an
inversion if it fixes no vertices but does fix an edge (i.e., σ(e) = e for some e ∈ E). The fixed
point set T σ of an elliptic automorphism σ of T is easily seen to be a subtree of T , and if σ
is an inversion of T , then σ(e) = e for a unique edge e ∈ E. An automorphism σ ∈ Aut(T ) is
said to be hyperbolic if it is neither elliptic nor an inversion. We will not make the common
assumption here that a given group acts without inversions on a tree as most of our results
concern fixed points, and an inversion of a tree T fixes no points in T ∪ ∂T .
For any automorphism σ ∈ Aut(T ), the amplitude of σ is `(σ) = min{d(v, σ(v)) | v ∈ V }.
The characteristic set of σ is the σ-invariant set
T σ = {v ∈ V | d(v, σ(v)) = `(σ)}.
A bi-infinite path in a graph is a subgraph isomorphic to the graph with vertex set Z and
edge set {en | n ∈ Z} ∪ {en | n ∈ Z}, with s(en ) = r(en ) = n and r(en ) = s(en ) = n + 1 for all
n ∈ Z. A fundamental result of Tits states that for a hyperbolic automorphism σ ∈ Aut(T ),
the characteristic set T σ is always the vertex set of a bi-infinite path L in T , called the axis
of σ, and any non-empty subtree of T which is invariant under σ and σ −1 always contains
L. We refer to [30, Proposition 6.4.24] for details. Moreover, σ admits exactly two fixed
points in T ∪ ∂T , namely the two points in ∂T arising from the σ-invariant axis of σ. Two
hyperbolic automorphisms are said to be transverse if they have disjoint fixed point sets.
Henceforth, we assume that the action of a discrete group Γ on a tree T is minimal, i.e.,
that T contains no proper Γ-invariant subtrees, and strongly hyperbolic (cf. [19]), that is, of
general type in the sense of [6, Section 4.3], meaning that Γ contains two transverse hyperbolic
automorphisms of T .
Remark 3.4. If Γ acts minimally on a tree T and T has at least 3 vertices, then T has no
leaves. Indeed, the subgraph T 0 arising from removing all vertices of degree 1 from T is a
Γ-invariant subtree. In fact, if we assume additionally that Γ contains at least one hyperbolic
automorphism of T , then T is the union of all axes of hyperbolic automorphisms of T in Γ
(combine the proof of [9, Proposition 3.1] with [1, Proposition 8.1]).
Lemma 3.5. For a tree T , let Γ y T be a minimal, strongly hyperbolic action. Then the
induced action Γ y ∂T is an extreme boundary action. In particular, ∂T is a Γ-boundary.
Proof. The action of Γ on ∂T is an extreme boundary action by [6, Section 4.3] (they also
assume faithfulness, but that is not needed in their proof), and ∂T is a Γ-boundary, by
Lemma 2.12.

Observe that the fixator subgroup of a half-tree (or shadow) in T coincides with the fixator
subgroup of the associated extended half-tree. Indeed, for any edge e in T , g ∈ Γ fixing all
vertices in Z0 (e) and any ray in Z∞ (e), there is k ≥ 0 such that gri = ri for all i ≥ k, which
implies that g fixes Z(e) pointwise. In order to determine fixator subgroups of open subsets
of the Γ-boundary ∂T , we need the following lemma.
Lemma 3.6. Let e be an edge in T and suppose that g ∈ Γ fixes ZB (e) pointwise. Then
g fixes Z(e) pointwise. In particular, the fixator subgroups of Z0 (e), ZB (e) and Z(e) ∩ ∂T
coincide.
Proof. Notice that Z(e) ∩ ∂T = ZB (e) as seen in Lemma 3.3. Define v0 = r(e) and v1 = s(e).
Now notice that g is not hyperbolic; if it were, then g would have only two fixed points
in all of ∂T , implying that Z(e) ∩ ∂T would be an open set in ∂T that contained at most
two points. Hence ∂T would have an isolated point, contradicting that ∂T is a non-trivial

10

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

Γ-boundary. We conclude that g is elliptic (since g cannot be an inversion), so it fixes at
least one vertex, say, v ∈ T . Let m = d(v, v0 ).
Notice first that if (ri )i≥0 is a ray in T such that gr0 = r0 and there exists n ≥ 0 such that
rk ∈ Z0 (e) for all k ≥ n, then g fixes each vertex ri . Indeed, there exist k, n ≥ 0 such that
ri+k = gri+n for all i ≥ 0, then k = d(rk , r0 ) = d(grn , gr0 ) = d(rn , r0 ) = n. By geodesics in
T being unique (so that the paths r0 , . . . , rk and gr0 , . . . , grk = rk coincide), we conclude
that gri = ri for all i ≥ 0. We now have two cases:
(1) If v ∈
/ Z0 (e), then as T is leafless by Remark 3.4, any vertex in Z0 (e) belongs to the
image of a ray (ri )i≥0 such that r0 = v, rm = v0 and rk ∈ Z0 (e) for all k ≥ m. In
particular, g fixes v0 .
(2) If v ∈ Z0 (e), assume first that v0 has degree at least 3. Then there exists a ray (ri )i≥0
such that r0 = v, rm = v0 and rk ∈ Z0 (e) for all k ≥ m. From the above argument,
g fixes v0 .
If v0 has degree 2, then let x0 = v, x1 , . . . , xm = v0 be the geodesic from v to v0 .
Let 0 ≤ k ≤ n be smallest such that xj has degree 2 for all k ≤ j ≤ n. If k > 0,
then let v 0 ∈ T be a vertex adjacent to xk−1 , but v 0 6= xk . As T is leafless, there is
a ray (ri )i≥0 with image in Z0 (e) such that r0 = x0 = v, rk−1 = xk−1 and rk = v 0 .
The same argument as above implies gv 0 = v 0 and gxk−1 = xk−1 . Since g is an
automorphism fixing xk−1 and all vertices adjacent to xk−1 bar xk , it must fix xk
as well. By xk having degree 2, xk+1 is also fixed by g (since g fixes xk−1 and xk ),
and we continue this way until we reach xm = v0 , concluding that g fixes v0 . If
k = 0, then let v 0 be the vertex adjacent to v that is not x1 . By taking a ray in Z0 (e)
emanating in v and passing through v 0 , we see that g fixes v 0 , so it fixes x1 . By the
same method as above, we conclude that g fixes v0 .
Now, for any w ∈ Z0 (e), then there exists a ray (ri )i≥0 such that r0 = v0 , ri ∈ Z0 (e) for
all i ≥ 0, and rk = w for some k ≥ 0. As above, we see that g fixes w, so that g fixes Z0 (e)
and hence Z(e) pointwise.

Note that by Remark 2.1,
ker(Γ y T ) = ker(Γ y ∂T ) = ker(Γ y ∂T ),
using Lemma 3.6 for the first identity, and that
int(Γ y ∂T ) = int(Γ y ∂T ).
The following is now an immediate consequence of Lemmas 2.13, 3.5, and 3.6.
Corollary 3.7. Let T1 and T2 be any two half-trees of T , and denote by K1 and K2 the
fixator subgroups of T1 and T2 , respectively. Then the normal closures of K1 and K2 coincide,
and equal int(Γ y ∂T ).
Moreover, K1 is amenable if and only if K2 is amenable.
We say that a continuous action of a group G on a topological space X is strongly faithful
[17, Lemma 4] if for all finite subsets F ⊆ G \ {1} there exists x ∈ X such that f x 6= x for all
f ∈ F.
Proposition 3.8. The following are equivalent:
(i) int(Γ y ∂T ) = {1};
(ii) Γ y T is strongly faithful;
(iii) Γ y ∂T is strongly faithful;
(iv) Γ y ∂T is topologically free, i.e., Γ y T is slender in the sense of [19];
(v) fixator subgroups of all half-trees are trivial;
(vi) the fixator subgroup of some half-tree is trivial.

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

11

If these conditions hold, then Γ is a Powers group, and in particular C ∗ -simple.
Proof. The equivalence between (i) and (iv) follows from the definition, and the equivalence
between (i), (v) and (vi) follows from Corollary 3.7.
(ii) =⇒ (v): Suppose that T admits a half-tree T1 for which the fixator subgroup K1 is
non-trivial. Let T2 be the component obtained by removing the edge defining T1 from T
(and so that T1 and T2 are disjoint), and let K2 be the fixator subgroup of T2 . Note that
K1 ∩ K2 = ker(Γ y T ). If K1 = ker(Γ y T ), pick a ∈ K1 \ {1} = ker(Γ y T ) \ {1}, and
set F = {a}. Then a · x = x for all x ∈ T ∪ ∂T . Otherwise, let a1 ∈ K1 \ ker(Γ y T ).
Notice that K1 is contained in a conjugate of K2 , as seen in the proof of Corollary 3.7.
Hence ker(Γ y T ) ( K1 implies ker(Γ y T ) ( K2 since ker(Γ y T ) is normal. Let
a2 ∈ K2 \ ker(Γ y T ), and set F = {a1 , a2 }. For every x ∈ ∂T ∪ ∂T , then we will either have
a1 · x = x or a2 · x = x. In particular, (ii) does not hold.
T
(iv) =⇒ (iii): For any finite subset F ⊆ Γ \ {1}, f ∈F ∂T \ (∂T )f is open and dense in
∂T . Hence there exists x ∈ ∂T such that f x 6= x for all f ∈ F , so the action of G on ∂T is
strongly faithful.
(iii) =⇒ (ii): Let F be a finite subset of Γ \ {1} and take x ∈ ∂T such that f x =
6 x for all
f ∈ F . By Lemma 3.2, there is an edge e in T such that f ZB (e) ∩ ZB (e) = ∅ for all f ∈ F .
For each f ∈ F , the set of f -fixed points in Z0 (e) is now a bounded subtree of the unbounded
subtree Z0 (e) in T . Hence Z0 (e) contains a vertex not fixed by any f ∈ F .
[19, Corollary 15] ensures the Powers property.

Theorem 3.9. Let K be the a fixator subgroup of a half-tree of T . The following hold:
(i) If Γ is C ∗ -simple, then K is either trivial or non-amenable;
(ii) If K = ker Γ and ker Γ is C ∗ -simple, then Γ is C ∗ -simple;
(iii) If K/ ker Γ is non-amenable and ker Γ is C ∗ -simple, then Γ is C ∗ -simple.
In particular, If ker Γ is trivial, then Γ is C ∗ -simple if and only if K is trivial or non-amenable.
Moreover, if K is amenable, then Γ is C ∗ -simple if and only if K is trivial.
Proof. By Lemma 3.6, K is the fixator subgroup of a non-empty and non-dense open subset
of ∂T . Then part (i) follows from Proposition 2.7, part (ii) from Proposition 2.8, and part (iii)
from Corollary 2.14.

Example 3.10. Let T be a regular tree of degree d ≥ 3, i.e., all vertices in T have degree
d, and let Γ be the subgroup of Aut(T ) consisting of all automorphisms that are either
elliptic or hyperbolic with an even translation length. The group Γ is also considered in
[19, Remarks (iv), p. 18], and it is uncountable and has finite index in Aut(T ). We will now
show that Γ y ∂T is an extreme boundary action. As T is regular, ∂T = ∂T if d < ∞ and
∂T = T ∪ ∂T if d = ∞.
We start by explaining that for every two edges e and f an element g ∈ Γ can be found,
such that gZ0 (f ) ⊆ Z0 (e). The canonical binary partitioning of T induces an orientation
of the edges. There are two cases: e and f have the same orientation, or e and f have
opposite orientation. In the latter case, take an edge e1 ∈ Z0 (e) with r(e) = s(e1 ). Then it
is easy to see that e1 has the same orientation as f and, of course, Z0 (e) ⊇ Z0 (e1 ). So it is
enough to show that there is a group element g ∈ Γ for which e = gf (in the first case), or
e1 = gf (in the second case). But if p and q are edges of the same orientation, then either the
geodesic connecting them has even number of edges, and |d(s(p), s(q)) − d(r(p), r(q))| = 2
(in this case there is an elliptic element g with p = gq), or the geodesic connecting them
has odd number of edges, and |d(s(p), s(q)) − d(r(p), r(q))| = 0 (in this case there is a
hyperbolic element g with p = gq). But Γ contains all elements that preserve the orientation,
so gZ0 (f ) = Z0 (gf ) ⊆ Z0 (e).

12

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

Let K ( ∂T be a closed set and ∅ =
6 U ⊆ ∂T be an open set. Since ∂T \ K is open and nonempty, then by Lemma 3.3 there exist edges e and f such that Z(e) ⊆ U and Z(f ) ⊆ ∂T \ K,
that is, K ⊆ Z(f ). The element g constructed above, for which gZ0 (f ) ⊆ Z0 (e), satisfies
gZ(f ) ⊆ Z(e) by continuity. Therefore gK ⊆ gZ(f ) ⊆ Z(e) ⊆ U . It follows that the actions
of Γ and Aut(T ) on ∂T are extreme boundary actions.
Since Γ acts faithfully on T , Γ has the unique trace property by Theorem 2.2. Moreover,
the action is not topologically free (i.e., not slender), so int(Γ y ∂T ) is non-trivial, and
thus the simplicity of Γ implies that int(Γ y ∂T ) = Γ. Note that any half-tree of T is a
regular rooted tree, so the fixator subgroup in Aut(T ) of a half-tree is isomorphic to the full
automorphism group of a regular rooted tree of branching degree d. This group contains
the full automorphism group of a regular rooted tree of branching degree 3 (i.e., of a rooted
binary tree), which in turn contains a free subgroup on two generators according to [31].
Note that all automorphisms of a binary rooted tree preserve the orientation, therefore this
group is contained in Γ. We can conclude that the fixator subgroup in both Γ and Aut(T ) of
any half-tree is non-amenable. Therefore, both Γ and Aut(T ) are C ∗ -simple by Theorem 3.9.
Remark 3.11. In [22, Lemma 5.8] by the second and third author it was incorrectly stated
that ∂T is always a Γ-boundary, which was later used the proof of [22, Theorem 5.9]. The
statement of [22, Theorem 5.9] is still correct; in fact, a much more general result holds, as
shown in Theorem 3.9.
4. Graphs of groups and HNN extensions
In this section we give some of the preliminaries for the branch of geometric group theory
now known as Bass-Serre theory. Much of our exposition is based on the original source
[30, §I.5] for this topic, but is also inspired by the approach taken in [2] and [19].
4.1. Graphs of groups. A graph of groups (G, Y ) consists of a non-empty connected graph
Y = (V, E, s, r), families of groups (Gv )v∈V and (Ge )e∈E such that Ge = Ge for all e ∈ E, and
a family of injective group homomorphisms ϕe : Ge → Gs(e) , e ∈ E. We pick an orientation
E+ ⊆ E of Y , meaning that E+ ∩ {e, e} contains only one edge for all e ∈ E, and define
E− = E \ E+ .
Now, let M = (V (M ), E(M )) be a maximal subtree of Y . We define the fundamental
group Γ = π1 (G, Y, M ) of (G, Y ) by
*
+
τe = τe−1
for all e ∈ E,
−1
Γ = {Gv }v∈V , {τe }e∈E τe ϕe (g)τe = ϕe (g) for all e ∈ E, g ∈ Ge
.
τe = 1
for all e ∈ E(M )
We have natural group homomorphisms Gy → Γ for all y ∈ V , and they are all injective.
Moreover, τe ∈ Γ has infinite order for all e ∈ E \ E(M ).
We next define a graph T = (V (T ), E(T ), s, r) as follows. For any edge e ∈ E, let |e| be
the unique edge in {e, e} ∩ E + and define Γe = ϕ|e| (Ge ). We define V (T ) and E(T ) by means
of left coset spaces in the following way:
G
G
V (T ) =
Γ/Gv , E(T ) =
Γ/Γe .
v∈V

e∈E

The source, range and inversion maps are given by


gGs(e)
for e ∈ E +
gτe Gr(e)
r(gΓe ) =
s(gΓe ) =
gτe−1 Gs(e) for e ∈ E − ,
gGr(e)
gΓe = gΓe
for all g ∈ Γ and e ∈ E.

for e ∈ E +
for e ∈ E − ,

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

13

Remark 4.1. Note that in [30] the set-up is slightly different: there ϕe is a map : Ge → Gr(e) ,
and the relation is τe ϕe (g)τe−1 = ϕe (g). However, above we follow the convention used in [2].
Theorem 4.2 ([30, §I.5]). For (G, Y ), M and E + as above, the graph T constructed above
is a tree. Up to isomorphisms, Γ and T are independent of the choice of maximal subtree M
and orientation E + .
The tree T is the so-called Bass-Serre tree of the graph of groups (G, Y ); we will also say
that T is the Bass-Serre tree of the fundamental group Γ of (G, Y ).
The definition of T incites us to define an action of Γ on T by left translation of cosets, and
Γ acts on T by automorphisms without inversions, i.e., ge 6= e for all g ∈ Γ and e ∈ E(T ).
Theorem 4.3. Suppose that Γ is a group acting without inversions on a tree T . Then there
exists a graph of groups with fundamental group Γ0 isomorphic to Γ such that the action of Γ0
on its Bass-Serre tree T 0 is isomorphic to the action of Γ on T .
We complete this subsection by discussing a few well-known normal subgroups. For a
group G, let F C(G) denote the FC-center of g, i.e., normal subgroup of elements in G of
finite conjugacy class, and let N F (G) denote the largest normal subgroup of G that does
not contain any non-abelian free subgroup. Now let Γ be a fundamental group of graphs of
groups acting on its Bass-Serre tree T and just write ker Γ for ker(Γ y T ). As usual, we
assume that the action is minimal and of general type. Then we have the following sequence
of subgroups:
(4.1)

F C(Γ) ⊆ F C(ker Γ) ⊆ R(ker Γ) = R(Γ) ⊆ N F (Γ) = N F (ker Γ) ⊆ ker Γ.

The inclusion R(Γ) ⊆ N F (Γ) is well-known to hold for any group [10], and the two equalities
follow from [22, Examples 6.4, 6.6, and Lemma 6.7]. The last inclusion follows from [8,
Proposition 19]. Note that this implies that Γ always contains a non-abelian free subgroup.
The first containment is clear since F C(Γ) is a subgroup of ker Γ, the second holds since
F C(ker Γ) is an amenable normal subgroup of ker Γ, In general, F C(ker Γ) is always normal
in Γ (since an FC-center is a characteristic subgroup), but it may be bigger than F C(Γ).
Moreover, if ker Γ is finite, then F C(Γ) = ker Γ, and the sequence (4.1) collapses. To see
why, note that h ∈ ker Γ = g −1 (ker Γ)g for all g ∈ Γ, so ghg −1 ∈ ker Γ for all g ∈ Γ. Therefore
the conjugacy class of h is contained in ker Γ, which is finite, so h ∈ F C(Γ).
4.2. HNN extensions. We now zoom in on the case of HNN extensions, first from an
algebraic point of view, for which we provide some structure results and define subgroups
which we shall interpret geometrically in the next subsection. Our work should be compared
with similar results by the second and third author for free products with amalgamation [22]:
whereas HNN extensions are fundamental groups of loops, free amalgamated products are
fundamental groups of a segment of length 1.
Suppose that (F, Y ) is a graph of groups, where Y is a loop with one vertex v and one
pair of edges {e, e}. We let {e} be the orientation of Y and G = Fv . As the homomorphisms
ϕe : Fe → G and ϕe : Fe → G of Fe are both injective, we may define H = ϕe (Fe ) and a
injective group homomorphism θ = ϕe ϕ−1
e : H → G. Defining the stable letter τ = τe , the
fundamental group Γ is the well-known HNN extension HNN(G, H, θ):
Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) = hG, τ | τ −1 hτ = θ(h) for all h ∈ Hi.
These groups are named after Higman, Higman, and Neumann, who first studied them in
[20].
Let Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) be an HNN extension and let T be the Bass-Serre tree of Γ. The
vertices in T are left cosets of Γ/G and the edge set of T consists of two disjoint copies of

14

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

Γ/H, say, Γ/H t Γ/H, where the inversion map sends gH to gH and vice versa. The source
and range maps are given by
s(gH) = gG = r(gH),

r(gH) = gτ G = s(gH),

g ∈ Γ.

The action of Γ on T by left translation is transitive. Moreover, T is regular, i.e., all vertices
have the same degree [G : H] + [G : θ(H)], so that in particular, T is leafless, and T is
countable if and only if G/H and G/θ(H) are of at most countably infinite cardinality.
The picture below illustrates part of the Bass-Serre tree of the HNN extension of a group
∼ θ(H) such that [G : H] = 2 and [G : θ(H)] = 3. We let S−1 = {1, s}
G, and subgroups H =
and S1 = {1, t1 , t2 } be sets of left coset representatives for H and θ(H), respectively. Observe
that for g ∈ S−1 , if we want to add gτ to the right in one of the vertex cosets mG (e.g., going
from mG to mgτ G), we traverse an edge emanating from mG, and when adding gτ −1 to the
right for g ∈ S1 , one traverses an edge ending in mG.
τ t2 τ −1 G

τ sτ G

• d

sτ t2 τ −1 G

τ sH



τ 2G

• o

τ t1 τ −1 G

sτ t2 τ −1 H

τ t2 τ −1 H

: •

sτ sH



2

sτ G

τG

D• d

: •Z

τH

sτ sτ G

•

•

τ t1 τ −1 H

sτ H

sτ t1 τ −1 H
sH

H

•

/ sτ• G

sτ t1 τ −1 G

•

G

5 •O j
τ −1 H
t2 τ −1 H

τ −1 G

•

t2 τ −1 G

•

t1 τ −1 H

t1 τ −1 G

•

Let g ∈ Γ be an element with normal form g = g1 τ ε1 g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn . Defining t0 = 1 and

k
Y
tk τ −1 H = tk−1 gk H if εk = 1,
(4.2)
tk =
gi τ εi , ek =
tk H
if εk = −1
i=1

for 1 ≤ k ≤ n, the unique path from G to gG is given by
G

e1

/ t1 G

e2

/ ···

en

/ gG

Indeed, if εk = 1, then s(tk−1 gk H) = tk−1 G and r(tk−1 gk H) = tk−1 gk τ G = tk G, and if
εk = −1 we notice that s(tk H) = tk τ G = tk−1 G and r(tk H) = tk G.
If we let S−1 and S1 be systems of representatives for the left cosets of H and θ(H) in G,
respectively, such that 1 ∈ S−1 ∩ S1 , the unique normal form of an element g ∈ Γ (see, e.g.,
[3, Theorem 2.14.3]) can be written
g = g1 τ ε1 g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn gn+1 ,
where n ≥ 0, and the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) gn+1 ∈ G and εi ∈ {±1} for 1 ≤ i ≤ n;

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

15

(ii) gi ∈ S−εi for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n;
(iii) gi = e implies εi−1 = εi for 2 ≤ i ≤ n.
This also entails that the natural map G → Γ is actually an injection. With g as above,
we say that n = |g| is the length of g, and if n ≥ 1, we say that ε1 and εn is the type and
direction of g, respectively. The initial letter of g is g1 ∈ S−ε1 and the end letter of g is
gn+1 ∈ G. We define the length of any g ∈ G to be 0, and the initial letter and end letter of
g as an element in Γ are given by 1 and g, respectively.
Remark 4.4. For n ≥ 1, g1 , . . . , gn+1 ∈ G and ε1 , . . . , εn ∈ {±1}, the word
g1 τ ε1 · · · gn τ εn gn+1
is said to be reduced (in Γ) if for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 we have
(a) gi+1 ∈
/ H whenever εi = −1 and εi+1 = 1, and
(b) gi+1 ∈
/ θ(H) whenever εi = 1 and εi+1 = −1.
If we define
H−1 = H, H1 = θ(H),
the conditions (a) and (b) can be rephrased as follows: for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, gi+1 ∈
/ Hεi
whenever εi+1 = −εi . Notice that
(4.3)

τ −ε H−ε τ ε = Hε .

We say that g1 ∈ G is reduced if g1 6= 1. A fundamental result for HNN extensions, also
known as Britton’s lemma, is that reduced words always define non-identity elements. The
result itself can be derived from the uniqueness of the normal form. Indeed, if for n ≥ 1
the word g = g1 τ ε1 · · · gn τ εn gn+1 ∈ Γ is reduced, let s1 ∈ S−ε1 and h1 ∈ H−ε1 such that
g1 = s1 h1 and rewrite
g = s1 τ ε1 (τ −ε1 h1 τ ε1 )g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn gn+1 .
The remainder of the proof divides into two possible situations, depending on whether
consecutive powers of τ in the word coincide. Indeed, define g20 = (τ −ε1 h1 τ ε1 )g2 . If ε2 = ε1 ,
then write g20 = s2 h2 for s2 ∈ S−ε2 and h2 ∈ H−ε2 as above, and write
g = s1 τ ε1 g20 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn gn+1 = s1 τ ε1 s2 τ ε2 (τ −ε2 h2 τ ε2 )g3 · · · gn τ εn gn+1 .
If ε2 = −ε1 , then g2 ∈
/ H−ε2 = Hε1 by assumption, so that due to (4.3), g20 = (τ −ε1 h1 τ ε1 )g2 ∈
Hε1 g2 and g20 ∈
/ Hε1 = H−ε2 . We then proceed as for g1 , noting that the coset representative
of g20 with respect to H−ε2 is not 1. Iterating the process yields the normal form of g, which
contains at least 2n − 1 terms. If n ≥ 2 then g 6= e due to uniqueness of the normal form,
and if n = 1, then g = g1 τ ε1 g2 = 1 would imply τ ∈ G, a contradiction.
The above proof of Britton’s lemma also proves the following lemma.
Lemma 4.5. Let n ≥ 1 and let g = g1 τ ε1 · · · gn τ εn gn+1 ∈ Γ be a reduced word. Then
(i) g ∈
/ G and |g| = n;
(ii) the type of g is ε1 ;
(iii) the direction of g is εn ;
(iv) the initial letter of g is 1 if and only if g1 ∈ H−ε1 ;
(v) if gn+1 ∈ Hεn , the end letter of the normal form is contained in Hεn as well.
The kernel of the HNN extension Γ is the normal subgroup
\
ker Γ =
rHr−1 .
r∈Γ

16

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

For ε ∈ {±1}, let Tε be the collection of elements g ∈ Γ of length n ≥ 1 and type ε. Let Tε†
be the subset of g ∈ Tε of length n ≥ 1 with initial letter 1. We then define the quasi-kernel
\
Kε =
rHr−1 .
r∈Γ\Tε†
†
Notice that (Γ \ T−1
) ∪ (Γ \ T1† ) = Γ, so that ker Γ = K−1 ∩ K1 .
We will consider criteria for HNN extensions to be C ∗ -simple and to have the unique trace
property in the following. In order to make the most of Britton’s lemma, we will mostly
consider non-ascending HNN extensions, which luckily is not too restrictive of a property.

Definition 4.6. An HNN extension Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) is ascending if either H = G or
θ(H) = G.
Lemma 4.7. If Γ is a non-ascending HNN extension, the normal closures of the quasi-kernels
in Γ coincide.
†
Proof. For any s ∈ S−1 \ {1}, sτ (Γ \ T−1
) ⊆ Γ \ T1† , so that


\
\


K1 =
rHr−1 ⊆ sτ 
rHr−1  τ −1 s−1 = sτ K−1 τ −1 s−1 .
r∈Γ\T1†

†
r∈Γ\T−1

Hence the normal closure of K−1 contains that of K1 . The reverse inclusion is seen in a
similar manner.

Remark 4.8. As the normal closures of K1 and K−1 in Γ coincide by the above lemma, it
follows that K1 is trivial if and only if K−1 is trivial. Moreover, if one of K1 and K−1 is
equal to the normal subgroup ker Γ, then the other one is also equal to ker Γ.
Definition 4.9. For a non-ascending HNN extension Γ, let int Γ be the normal closure of
either of the quasi-kernels. We call int Γ the interior of Γ.
In some cases when working with large subsets of an HNN extension, it will prove helpful
to be able to uncover properties of elements in these subsets without having to reduce. We
introduce a simple lemma to remedy this situation, the proof modeled after the proof of the
preceding lemma.
Lemma 4.10. For an HNN extension Γ = HNN(G, H, θ), n ≥ 1, g1 , . . . , gn+1 ∈ G and
ε1 , . . . , εn ∈ {±1}, define
g = g1 τ ε1 · · · gn τ εn gn+1 ∈ Γ.
If n is odd, then g ∈
/ G, and if ε1 = . . . = εk for some k > n2 , the type of g is ε1 .
Proof. Notice that the above expression of g is reduced if and only if τ εj gj+1 τ εj+1 ∈
/ G
for all 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1. We may therefore assume that there is 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1 such that
τ εj gj+1 τ εj+1 ∈ G. Let 1 ≤ i ≤ min{j, n − j} be largest such that
h = gj−(i−1) τ εj−(i−1) gj−(i−1)+1 · · · gj+i τ εj+i gj+i+1 ∈ G.
We may now write g = g1 τ ε1 · · · gj−i τ εj−i hτ εj+i+1 · · · gn τ εn gn+1 . If this word is not reduced,
we can continue this process for this new expression of g. After a finite number of iterations,
the word must be reduced, so because this process always removes an even number of powers
of τ from the preceding expression of g, n being odd implies that g ∈
/ G by Lemma 4.5 (i). If
ε1 = . . . = εk for some k > n2 , then reduction removes at most n−k < k of the identical first k
powers of τ in the original expression of g. Therefore the type of g is ε1 by Lemma 4.5 (ii). 
The following theorem (and the main result of this section) is motivated by condition (SF’)
in [17, Proposition 11] and [22, Theorem 3.2].

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

17

Theorem 4.11. Let Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) be a non-ascending HNN extension. The following
are equivalent:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)

int Γ = {1};
the quasi-kernel Kε is trivial for some or both ε;
for every finite subset F ⊆ Γ \ {1}, there exists g ∈ Γ such that gF g −1 ∩ G = ∅;
for every finite subset F ⊆ Γ \ {1}, there exists g ∈ Γ such that gF g −1 ∩ H = ∅;
for every finite subset F ⊆ G \ {1}, there exists g ∈ Γ such that gF g −1 ∩ H = ∅;
for every finite subset F ⊆ H \ {1}, there exists g ∈ Γ such that gF g −1 ∩ H = ∅.

Moreover, if any of these equivalent conditions holds, then Γ is a Powers group.
Proof. (iii) =⇒ (iv) =⇒ (v) =⇒ (vi) and (i) ⇐⇒ (ii) are obvious.
(vi) =⇒ (ii): If Kε is trivial for some ε ∈ {±1}, then K−ε is trivial by Lemma 4.7.
Therefore suppose that K−1 and K1 are both non-trivial. First, if ker Γ = K−1 ∩ K1 is
non-trivial, we pick f ∈ ker Γ \ {1}. Set F = {f }. Clearly F ⊆ H since ker Γ ⊆ H. Then
gf g −1 ∈ ker Γ ⊆ H for all g ∈ Γ.
If ker Γ is trivial, pick fε ∈ Kε \ {1} for ε ∈ {±1} and set F = {f−1 , f1 }. For an arbitrary
g ∈ Γ, then g ∈ Γ \ Tε† for some ε. Then gfε g −1 ∈ H, i.e., gfε g −1 ∈ gF g −1 ∩ H.
(ii) =⇒ (iii): Choose a finite F ⊆ Γ \ {1}. Assume first there is an element f1 ∈ F ∩ G
(otherwise, there is nothing to show). Since f1 =
6 1, we may pick g1 ∈ Γ \ T1† such that
−1
−1
g1 f1 g1 ∈
/ H. We may now assume that g1 f1 g1 ∈
/ G; if g1−1 f1 g1 ∈ G, we can freely replace
g1 by g1 τ . In particular, g1 ∈
/ G, and so we may let ε1 be the direction of g1 . We then
see that the type and direction of g1−1 f1 g1 are −ε1 and ε1 , respectively, since we can write
g1−1 f1 g1 as a reduced word by means of the normal form of g1 and then apply Lemma 4.5.
In this way, we also see that replacing g1 by g1 h−1 where h is the end letter of g1 does not
change this conclusion, so we may assume that g1−1 f1 g1 has initial letter 1 and end letter
contained in Hε1 .
We now assume that there is an element f2 ∈ F such that g1−1 f2 g1 ∈ G (otherwise, we are
†
done). Pick g2 ∈ Γ \ T−ε
such that g2−1 g1−1 f2 g1 g2 ∈
/ H. In the same manner as above, we may
1
−1 −1
assume that g2 g1 f2 g1 g2 ∈
/ G, g2 ∈
/ G and g2 has end letter 1, and if ε2 is the direction of
g2 , then g2−1 g1−1 f2 g1 g2 has type −ε2 and direction ε2 . We now claim that g2−1 g1−1 f1 g1 g2 ∈
/G
as well. Indeed, since g1−1 f1 g1 ∈
/ G has type −ε1 and direction ε1 with initial letter 1 and
end letter in Hε1 , then g2−1 g1−1 f1 g1 g2 has type −ε2 and direction ε2 , with initial letter 1 and
end letter contained in Hε2 . To realize this, we consider the normal forms of g1−1 f1 g1 and of
g2 , say, g2 = h1 τ ε · · · hm τ ε2 . Then
−ε −1 −1
g2−1 (g1−1 f1 g1 )g2 = τ −ε2 h−1
h1 (g1 f1 g1 )h1 τ ε · · · hm τ ε2 .
m ···τ

Hence reduction is only possible if ε = −ε1 , but h1 ∈
/ H−ε = Hε1 by assumption since
†
g2 ∈ Γ \ T−ε
.
Therefore
the
above
word
is
always
reduced,
so Lemma 4.5 applies.
1
It should be clear how this process continues, choosing gi from the set Γ \ Tε† , depending
on the direction of gi−1 , and since F is finite, we take g to be the product of the gi ’s, and
then g −1 f g ∈
/ G for every f ∈ F .
We refer to [17, Proposition 11] for a proof that any of the four conditions implies that Γ
is a Powers group, if Γ is non-ascending.

Remark 4.12. In the 2011 article [19, Theorem 2 (ii)], a sufficient criterion to ensure
C ∗ -simplicity of a non-ascending, countable HNN extension was given by de la Harpe and
Préaux, formulated as follows. For Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) non-ascending and G countable, define
H0 = H, and recursively define a descending sequence of subgroups (Hk )k≥1 of H0 = H by

18

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

Hk0 = Hk ∩ τ −1 Hk τ and

Hk = 


\



gHk0 g −1  ∩ τ 

g∈G


\

gHk0 g −1  τ −1 .

g∈G

∗

The criterion ensuring C -simplicity of Γ was that Hk = {1} for some k ≥ 0 (in fact, Γ is a
Powers group).
We claim that Theorem 4.11 is a stronger result. Indeed,
T for k ≥ 1, let Ck be the set of
elements in Γ of length ≤ k + 1. Then Hk = {1} implies r∈Ck rHr−1 = {1}, since each Hk
is obtained by taking intersections of sets of the form rHr−1 , r running through a subset of
Ck . For ε ∈ {±1} and s ∈ S−ε \ {1}, then sτ (k+2)ε Ck ⊆ Γ \ Tε† due to Lemma 4.10. Therefore
!
\
\
−1
(k+2)ε
−1
Kε =
rHr ⊆ sτ
rHr
τ −(k+2)ε s−1 = {1}.
r∈Γ\Tε†

r∈Ck

The following corollary is a rather simple criterion for when a quasi-kernel coincides with
the kernel of an HNN extension.
Corollary 4.13. Let Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) be a non-ascending HNN extension. If there exists
gε ∈ G \ H−ε such that gε Kε gε−1 = Kε for ε ∈ {±1}, then int Γ = ker Γ. If Γ also satisfies
ker Γ = {1}, Γ is a Powers group.
Proof. For ε ∈ {±1} and all gε ∈ G \ H−ε we have
†
Γ \ T−ε
⊆ (Γ \ Tε† ) ∪ gε (Γ \ Tε† ).
†
Indeed, if x ∈ Tε† ⊆ Γ \ T−ε
, then gε−1 x has type ε and initial letter different from 1. Therefore
†
†
Γ = (Γ \ Tε ) ∪ gε (Γ \ Tε ), so that
\
\
ker Γ =
rHr−1 ∩
gε rHr−1 gε−1 = Kε ∩ gε Kε gε−1 .
r∈Γ\Tε†

r∈Γ\Tε†

If gε Kε gε−1 = Kε , then ker Γ = Kε , so int Γ = ker Γ by normality. If ker Γ = {1}, it then
follows from Theorem 4.11 that Γ is a Powers group.

Proposition 4.14. Let Γ be a non-ascending HNN extension. Then Γ has the unique trace
property if and only if ker Γ has the unique trace property.
The following result, similar to [22, Theorem 3.7], now holds.
Proposition 4.15. Let Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) be a non-ascending HNN extension such that
H ∩ θ(H) is finite. Then the following are equivalent:
(i) Γ is icc;
(ii) ker Γ = {1};
(iii) int Γ = {1};
(iv) Γ is a Powers group;
(v) Γ is C ∗ -simple;
(vi) Γ has the unique trace property.
Proof. It is clear that (iii) =⇒ (iv) =⇒ (v) =⇒ (vi) =⇒ (i).
Note that ker Γ ⊆ H ∩ θ(H) so the kernel is finite, and therefore (i) =⇒ (ii) by (4.1) and
the preceding comment.
Thus only (ii) =⇒ (iii) remains. Suppose that ker Γ = {1}. Note that ker Γ coincides with
the intersection of the decreasing sequence
H0 ⊇ H1 ⊇ · · · Hk ⊇ Hk+1 ⊇ · · ·

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

19

of Remark 4.12. For k ≥ 1, Hk is a subgroup of H ∩ θ(H) and therefore finite, meaning that
Hk must be trivial for some k ≥ 1. As in Remark 4.12, we conclude that Kε is trivial for
ε ∈ {±1}.

The above result indicates that in order to search for examples of non-ascending HNN
extensions HNN(G, H, θ) that are not C ∗ -simple but do satisfy the unique trace property, we
have to ensure that the image of θ inside G is not too far away from H. We give such an
example in Section 5.
Recalling the discussion before Theorem 2.2, an alternate characterization of recurrence
of a subgroup H of a group G is that there exists a finite subset F ⊆ G \ {1} such that
F ∩ gHg −1 6= ∅ for all g ∈ G (see [24, Section 5]). Combining [24, Proposition 5.2] with
Theorem 4.11, we obtain the following result.
Lemma 4.16. Let Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) be a non-ascending HNN extension. The following
are equivalent:
(i) K−1 and K1 are non-trivial;
(ii) H is recurrent in Γ;
(iii) G is recurrent in Γ.
Corollary 4.17. Let Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) be a non-ascending HNN extension. If H is nonrecurrent, then Γ is C ∗ -simple. Consequently, if H is amenable, then Γ is C ∗ -simple if and
only if H is not recurrent in Γ.
Proof. If H is not recurrent, then K−1 and K1 are trivial by Lemma 4.16, and therefore Γ is
C ∗ -simple by Theorem 4.11. The last part now follows from [24, Theorem 5.3].

Remark 4.18. There is also another way of seeing that Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) is not C ∗ -simple
when H is amenable and the quasi-kernels K−1 and K1 are non-trivial.
Note first that if K1 = ker Γ, then K−1 = ker Γ. Thus, by assumption, ker Γ is a non-trivial
normal amenable subgroup of Γ, and hence Γ cannot be C ∗ -simple. Hence, we may assume
that both K1 and K−1 are different from ker Γ.
Choose a ∈ K1 \ ker Γ and b ∈ K−1 \ ker Γ. Then
{gH | gH 6= agH} ⊆ {gH | g ∈ T−1 }

and

{gH | gH 6= bgH} ⊆ {gH | g ∈ T1 },
which are clearly disjoint. By using the technique from Proposition 4.8 in [15], also explained
in [27, p. 12], the action of Γ on Γ/H gives rise to a unitary representation π : G → `2 (Γ/H),
that extends to a continuous representation of Cr∗ (Γ). It follows that (1 − λ(a))(1 − λ(b))
generates a proper two-sided closed ideal of Cr∗ (Γ). Hence, Γ is not C ∗ -simple.
4.3. Boundary actions of non-ascending HNN extensions. Now let T denote the BassSerre tree of an HNN extension Γ = HNN(G, H, θ). It was remarked in the beginning of the
previous subsection that the action of Γ on T is transitive, so it is also minimal. Moreover,
we either have ∂T = ∂T or ∂T = T ∪ ∂T in T ∪ ∂T in the shadow topology, since T is
regular. If |∂T | ≤ 2, every vertex in T has degree 2, so that H = θ(H) = G and Γ = G oθ Z.
Furthermore, we have the following fact, due to de la Harpe and Préaux [19, Proposition 19].
Proposition 4.19. Let Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) be an HNN extension, and let T be the Bass-Serre
tree of Γ. If |∂T | ≥ 3, then the following are equivalent:
(i) The action of Γ on T is strongly hyperbolic.
(ii) Γ is non-ascending.
If any of these two conditions is satisfied, ∂T is a Γ-boundary in the shadow topology.

20

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

Proof. We will only prove that (ii) implies (i); the other implication is proved in [19]. Taking
s ∈ G \ H and t ∈ G \ θ(H), then sτ and tτ −1 define hyperbolic automorphisms of T due to
Lemma 4.10, since they fix no vertices in T . Moreover, the intersection of their axes is {G},
as one may easily see that (tτ −1 )−m (sτ )n ∈ G for m, n ∈ Z implies m = n = 0. Hence sτ
and tτ −1 are transverse. Finally, since the action of G on T is minimal, it follows from (i)
and Lemma 3.5 that ∂T is indeed a Γ-boundary.

The shadows in T ∪ ∂T can be described as follows. If g has normal form
g = g1 τ ε1 g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn gn+1
for n ≥ 1, let U (g) be the subset of all elements hG where the normal form of h begins with
−1
ggn+1
= g1 τ ε1 g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn , as well as all equivalence classes of rays identifiable with a
ray beginning with g1 τ ε1 g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn . Then U (g) is an extended half-tree, and by letting
V (g) be the complement extended half-tree resulting from removing the edge connecting
−1 −εn
ggn+1
τ
G and gG, the collection of all sets of the form U (g) and V (g), g ∈ Γ, generates
the shadow topology.
For any g ∈ Γ, let K(g) resp. L(g) be the fixator subgroup of the extended half-tree U (g)
resp. V (g). Then K(g) is the fixator of the half-tree U (g) ∩ T , and L(g) is the fixator of
V (g) ∩ T .
Lemma 4.20. Let Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) be a non-ascending HNN extension with Bass-Serre
tree T . For any g ∈ Γ \ G with direction ε,
K(g) = gK−ε g −1 ,

L(g) = gt−1 τ −ε Kε τ ε tg −1 ,

where t ∈ G is the end letter of g. Moreover, g ∈ Γ fixes all x ∈ T if and only if g ∈ ker Γ.
Proof. Suppose that g 0 ∈ Γ is a fixator of all elements in U (g) where
g = g1 τ ε1 g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn gn+1 ∈ Γ
in the normal form, and let ε be the direction of g. Then g 0 fixes all edges in the subtree
spanned by U (g), i.e., g 0 (mH) = mH for all m ∈ Γ with normal form beginning with
g1 τ ε1 g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ ε . Therefore g 0 ∈ K(g) if and only if g 0 (grH) = grH for all r ∈ Γ with the
normal form r = r1 τ f1 r2 τ f2 · · · rm τ fm rm+1 where either
(1) m = 0, or
(2) m ≥ 1 and either (2a) f1 = ε, or (2b) f1 = −ε and r1 ∈
/ Hε .
In case (2b), the fact r1 ∈ S−f1 = Sε implies that r1 6= 1. Therefore the r ∈ Γ of the above
†
form constitute the set Γ \ T−ε
, so


\


g0 ∈ g 
rHr−1  g −1 = gK−ε g −1 .
†
r∈Γ\T−ε

Hence K(g) = gK−ε g −1 .
Now let s = g1 τ ε1 g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn−1 gn and notice that sU (gn τ εn ) ∩ T = U (g) ∩ T . Indeed,
m ∈ Γ has normal form beginning with gn τ εn if and only sm has normal form beginning with
g1 τ ε1 g2 τ ε2 · · · gn τ εn . In particular, sV (gn τ εn ) ∩ T = V (g) ∩ T , so that L(g) = sL(gn τ εn )s−1 .
We next observe that L(gn τ εn ) is the subgroup of elements in Γ fixing all vertices of
half-trees of the form U (rτ εn ) for r ∈ S−εn \ {gn } and U (tτ −εn ) for t ∈ Sεn , as well as the
vertex G. In particular, any s ∈ L(gn τ εn ) must fix all the edges emanating from and ending

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

21

T
in the vertex G, i.e., {rH}r∈S−1 and {tτ −1 H}t∈S1 , so that s ∈ g∈G g(H ∩ θ(H))g −1 . Thus
\
\
\
L(gn τ εn ) =
rτ εn K−εn τ −εn r−1 ∩
tτ −εn Kεn τ εn t−1 ∩
g(H ∩ θ(H))g −1
t∈Sεn

r∈S−εn \{gn }

=

\

rHr

r∈Γ\gn Tε†n

−1

∩

\

g(H ∩ θ(H))g

g∈G

−1

g∈G

|r|≥1

=

\

gn rHr−1 gn−1 ∩

r∈Γ\Tε†n
|r|≥1

\

g(H ∩ θ(H))g −1 ⊆ gn Kεn gn−1 .

g∈G

Conversely, assume that (gn r)−1 s(gn r) ∈ H for all r ∈ Γ \ Tε†n . Then for any g 0 ∈ Γ such that
g 0 G belongs to one of the half-trees U (rτ εn ) for r ∈ S−εn \ {gn } and U (tτ −εn ) for t ∈ Sεn ,
we have gn−1 g 0 ∈
/ Γ \ Tε†n , so that sg 0 G = g 0 G, and clearly s ∈ G. Hence s ∈ L(gn τ εn ). We
conclude that
−1 −εn
L(g) = sL(gn τ εn )s−1 = sgn Kεn gn−1 s−1 = ggn+1
τ
Kεn τ εn gn+1 g −1 ,



which completes the proof.

Remark 4.21. In the Bass-Serre tree of a non-ascending HNN extension Γ = HNN(G, H, θ),
remove the edge H connecting G and τ −1 G. By the above lemma, the fixator subgroups of
the resulting half-trees are K(τ −1 ) = τ −1 K1 τ = θ(K1 ) and L(τ −1 ) = K−1 .
Similarly, if we remove the edge τ H connecting G and τ G, then the elements that fix the
two resulting half-trees are θ−1 (K−1 ) and K1 .
The second situation is similar. Of course, the normal closures in Γ of K−1 , θ(K1 ),
θ−1 (K−1 ), and K1 all coincide, so if one of them is trivial, then they are all trivial.
Proposition 4.22. Let Γ be a non-ascending HNN extension with Bass-Serre tree T , and
consider T ∪ ∂T equipped with the shadow topology. The action of Γ on T satisfies
ker Γ = ker(Γ y T ) = ker(Γ y ∂T )
and
int Γ = int(Γ y ∂T ).
Proof. By Lemma 4.20, we have ker Γ = ker(Γ y T ), and ker(Γ y T ) = ker(Γ y ∂T ) as
noted after the proof of Lemma 3.5. Moreover, by the above remark, both quasi-kernels K−1
and K1 are fixator subgroups of half-trees in T , so by Corollary 3.7, their normal closures, or
the interior int Γ, coincides with the interior of the action of Γ on ∂T .

Theorem 4.23. Let Γ be a non-ascending HNN extension with Bass-Serre tree T . Then Γ
is C ∗ -simple if and only if int Γ is C ∗ -simple.
Proof. This follows from Proposition 4.22 and Theorem 2.2.



Remark 4.24. Another proof of Proposition 4.14 is also obtained by combining Proposition 4.22 and Theorem 2.2.
Proposition 4.25. Let Γ be a non-ascending HNN extension, with quasi-kernels K−1 and
K1 . If either K−1 or K1 is amenable, then Γ is C ∗ -simple if and only if K−1 and K1 are
trivial.
Proof. This follows from Theorem 3.9, since both K−1 and K1 are fixator subgroups for
half-trees in the Bass-Serre tree T , due to Remark 4.21.


22

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

Example 4.26. Let G = Z and let g ∈ G be a generator of G. For m, n ∈ Z \ {0}, define
H = hg m i (thus corresponding to mZ) and an injective homomorphism θ : H → G by
θ(g km ) = g kn for k ∈ Z. Then the HNN extension HNN(G, H, θ) = HNN(Z, mZ, km 7→ kn)
is the Baumslag-Solitar group
Γ = BS(m, n) = hg, τ | τ −1 g m τ = g n i.
Clearly, Γ is non-ascending if and only if min{|m|, |n|} ≥ 2. A result of the second author
[21, Theorem 4.9] states that BS(m, n) is C ∗ -simple if and only if min{|m|, |n|} ≥ 2 and
|m| =
6 |n|.
We give a new proof using the C ∗ -simplicity criterion for HNN extensions given above.
Notice first that if |m| = |n|, then H = hg m i is a normal abelian subgroup of Γ. Furthermore,
BS(±1, n) and BS(m, ±1) are solvable. Indeed, in the case m = 1, N = h{τ k gτ −k | k ∈ Z}i
is a normal abelian subgroup of Γ, with Γ/N infinite and cyclic.
Next assume that min{|m|, |n|} ≥ 2 and |m| =
6 |n| and let d be the greatest common
divisor of m and n, so that we may write m = dm0 and n = dn0 for m0 , n0 ∈ Z. We may
0
assume that |n| > |m| so that |n0 | > 1. Clearly τ −1 Hτ = hg n i = hg dn i. For k ∈ Z and i ≥ 1,
write kd(n0 )i = qm + r for q ∈ Z and 0 ≤ r < m. If
0 i

G 3 τ −1 g kd(n ) τ = g qn τ −1 g r τ,
then r = 0, so m | kd(n0 )i and m | kd. Hence m(n0 )i | kd(n0 )i = qm, meaning that (n0 )i
divides q and
0

0 2

0 i

0 i+1

τ −1 g kn τ ∈ hg n(n ) i = hg d(n ) i, τ −i g kn τ i ∈ hg n(n ) i = hg d(n )

i.

0 i+1

This shows that τ −i Hτ i ∩ G ⊆ hg d(n ) i for i ≥ 1, meaning that K1 = {1}. Therefore Γ is
C ∗ -simple by Theorem 4.11 or Proposition 4.22.
5. A non-C ∗ -simple HNN extension with the unique trace property
S
In the following, let A = n∈N {0, 1}2n and define X ⊆ A by
X = {(i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) | n ∈ N, (jk , ik+1 , jk+1 ) 6∈ {(0, 0, 1), (1, 0, 0)} for all 1 ≤ k ≤ n − 1}.
We say that an element x = (i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) ∈ X has length `(x) = n. For 1 ≤ k ≤ n, we
define πj : X → {0, 1}2 by
πj (i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) = (ik , jk ).
We let H be the group with generators {h(x) | x ∈ X} satisfying the following relations:
(R1) h(x)2 = 1 for all x ∈ X;
(R2) h(x)h(y) = h(y)h(x) whenever `(x) = `(y);
(R3) for all 2 ≤ k + 1 ≤ n,
h(i01 , j10 , . . . , i0k , jk0 )h(i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn )h(i01 , j10 , . . . , i0k , jk0 ) =
(

h(i1 , j1 , . . . , ik , jk , ik+1 ⊕ 1, jk+1 , . . . , in , jn ), if i01 = i1 , j10 = j1 , . . . , i0k = ik , jk0 = jk = jk+1 ,
h(i1 , j1 , . . . , ik , jk , ik+1 , jk+1 , . . . , in , jn ),
otherwise,

where ⊕ denotes addition modulo 2. We now let G be the group containing H as a subgroup
as well as elements g0 , g1 such that hH, g0 , g1 i = G,
g02 = 1 = g12 ,

g0 g1 = g1 g0 ,

and such that for all n ∈ N0 ,
• gj h(i, j ⊕ 1, i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) = h(i, j ⊕ 1, i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn )gj and
• gj h(i, j, i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) = h(i ⊕ 1, j, i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn )gj .

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

23

For all n ∈ N and x = (i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) ∈ X, let us write
H(i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) = {h(x0 ) | x0 ∈ X, `(x0 ) ≥ `(x), πk (x0 ) = πk (x) for all k = 1, . . . , n}.
For i ∈ {0, 1}, we define Hi = hH, gi i and a map θi : {h(x) | x ∈ X} ∪ {gi } → G by
θi (gi ) = h(0, i),

θi (h(0, i ⊕ 1)) = gi⊕1 ,

and for all n ∈ N0 ,
• θi (h(i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn )) = h(0, i, i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) whenever (i1 , j1 ) 6= (0, i ⊕ 1);
• θi (h(0, i ⊕ 1, i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn )) = h(i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) whenever n ≥ 1.
Lemma 5.1. The map θi extends to a group homomorphism Hi → G with image Hi⊕1 .
Proof. Let x, y ∈ X. If π1 (x) 6= π1 (y), then (R2) and (R3) together imply that h(x) and h(y)
commute. If π1 (x), π1 (y) ∈
/ {(0, i ⊕ 1)}, then (R2) and (R3) together imply that θi (h(x))
and θi (h(y)) commute. We may therefore assume π1 (y) = (0, i ⊕ 1). If `(y) ≥ 2, then
π2 (y) 6= (0, i) so that θi (h(x)) and θi (h(y)) commute by (R2) and (R3) again, and if `(y) = 1,
then θi (h(x)) ∈ H(0, i) and θ(h(y)) = gi⊕1 commute.
We may therefore assume from now on that π1 (x) = π1 (y). If `(x) = `(y), then by
(R2) we have h(x)h(y) = h(y)h(x) and θi (h(x))θi (h(y)) = θi (h(y))θi (h(x)), so we may
assume that `(x) > `(y) without loss of generality. Write x = (i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ), so that
`(x) = n > k = `(y). Let m ≤ k be largest such that πr (x) = πr (y) for all 1 ≤ r ≤ m. If
m < k, then h(x) and h(y) commute, and so do θi (h(x)) and θi (h(y)). Therefore we may
assume m = `(y). If jk+1 =
6 jk , then h(x) and h(y) commute, as do θi (h(x)) and θi (h(y)) once
more. We may therefore also assume jk+1 = jk as well, as well as π1 (y) = π1 (x) = (0, i ⊕ 1)
(the case π1 (y) 6= (0, i ⊕ 1) is completely analoguous). Then j2 = i ⊕ 1. There are now two
cases:
• If k = 1, then
θi (h(y))θi (h(x))θi (h(y)) = gi⊕1 h(i2 , j2 , . . . , in , jn )gi⊕1
= h(i2 ⊕ 1, j2 , . . . , in , jn )
= θi (h(x)h(y)h(x)).
• If k ≥ 2, then
θi (h(y))θi (h(x))θi (h(y)) = h(i2 , j2 , . . . , ik , jk )h(i2 , j2 , . . . , in , jn )h(i2 , j2 , . . . , ik , jk )
= h(i2 ⊕ 1, j2 , . . . , in , jn ) = θi (h(x)h(y)h(x)).
Finally, if j1 = i ⊕ 1, then gi commutes with h(x), and θi (gi ) = h(0, i) commutes with
θi (h(x)). If j1 = i, then
θi (gi )θi (h(x))θi (gi ) = h(0, i)h(0, i, i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn )h(0, i)
= h(0, i, i1 ⊕ 1, j1 , . . . , in , jn )
= θi (h(i1 ⊕ 1, j1 , . . . , in , jn ))
= θi (gi h(i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn )gi ).
It follows that there is a homomorphism θi : Hi → G with the desired requirements, and
θi (Hi ) = hH, gi⊕1 i.

Letting H = H0 and θ = θ0 : H → G be the group homomorphism of the above lemma
(for i = 0), then θ1 ◦ θ = idH . In particular, θ is injective.
The following are some easy properties of the group G.

24

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

Lemma 5.2. (i) [G : H] = [G : θ(H)] = 2 and therefore H C G and θ(H) C G;
(ii) H = hH(0, 0)i · hH(1, 0)i · hH(0, 1)i · hH(1, 1)i;
(iii) For each x ∈ {0, 1}2 there exists a homomorphism H → hH(x)i which is the identity
map on hH(x)i and maps each element of H(y) to 1 for all y ∈ {0, 1}2 \ {x}. In particular,
hH(x)i ∩ hH(y)i = {1} for distinct x, y ∈ {0, 1}2 .
Proof. (i) is evident and (ii) follows from the commutation relations. To see that (iii) holds,
notice for x ∈ {0, 1}2 that the universal property of H yields a surjective homomorphism ϕx
onto the group H 0 (x) generated by {h(y) | y ∈ X π1 (y) = x} with the same relations as H;
moreover, there is a natural homomorphism ιx : H 0 (x) → H such that ιx (h(y)) = h(y) for all
y ∈ X with π1 (y) = x. As ϕx ◦ ιx is the identity map on H 0 (x), (iii) follows.

We now consider the HNN extension Γ = HNN(G, H, θ) = hG, τ | τ −1 hτ = θ(h)i. We
choose the coset representatives {1, g1 } for H and {1, g0 } for θ(H). Therefore, any
g = r1 τ ε1 · · · rn τ εn rn+1 ∈ Γ
satisfies ri ∈ {1, g1 } if εi = 1 and ri ∈ {1, g0 } if εi = −1, for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n.
Let K−1 and K1 be the quasi-kernels of the HNN extension Γ.
Lemma 5.3. The quasi-kernels of Γ satisfy hH(0, 0)i ⊆ K−1 and hH(0, 1)i ⊆ K1 .
Proof. We first define M−1 = H(0, 1) and M1 = H(0, 0). Let i ∈ {0, 1} and s ∈ H(0, i). Let
ε = −1 if i = 0 and ε = 1 if i = 1. We claim first that g −1 sg ∈ Mε0 for all g ∈ Γ \ Tε† of
length ≥ 1, end letter 1 and direction ε0 .
Assume that |g| = 1. We separate the cases i = 0 and i = 1:
• i = 0. For ε1 = −1 we have r1 = g0 , in which case r1 sr1 ∈ g0 H(0, 0)g0 = H(1, 0) and
g −1 sg ∈ θ−1 (H(1, 0)) ⊆ H(0, 1). If ε1 = 1, then sr1 = r1 s and
g −1 sg = θ(s) ∈ H(0, 0).
• i = 1. For ε1 = −1 we have sr1 = r1 s and g −1 sg = θ−1 (s) ∈ H(0, 1), and for ε1 = 1
we have r1 = g1 so that r1 sr1 ∈ g1 H(0, 1)g1 = H(1, 1) and
g −1 sg ∈ θ(H(1, 1)) ⊆ H(0, 0).
†
Next assume that we have proved the claim for all g ∈ Γ \ T−1
with |g| = n − 1, n ≥ 2.
†
Let g ∈ Γ \ T−1 with |g| = n and write

g −1 sg = (τ −εn rn · · · τ −ε1 r1 )s(r1 τ ε1 · · · rn τ εn ).
Letting ε0 be the direction of g 0 = r1 τ ε1 · · · rn−1 τ εn−1 , then s0 = (g 0 )−1 sg 0 ∈ Mε0 .
If εn = −1, then for rn = 1 we have εn = ε0 , so that s0 ∈ M−1 = H(0, 1). Hence g −1 sg =
0 −1
τ s τ = θ−1 (s0 ) ∈ H(0, 1). If rn = g0 , then for ε = 1 we have rn s0 rn ∈ g0 H(0, 0)g0 = H(1, 0)
and g −1 sg = θ−1 (H(1, 0)) ∈ H(0, 1), and for ε0 = −1 we have rn s0 rn ∈ g0 H(0, 1)g0 ⊆ H(0, 1)
and g −1 sg ∈ H(0, 1).
If εn = 1, the procedure is exactly the same: if rn = 1, then s0 ∈ M1 = H(0, 0). Thus
−1
g sg = τ −1 s0 τ = θ(s0 ) ∈ H(0, 0). If rn = g1 , then ε0 = 1 implies rn s0 rn ∈ g1 H(0, 0)g1 =
H(0, 0) and g −1 sg ∈ θ(H(0, 0)) = H(0, 0), and ε0 = −1 implies rn s0 rn ∈ g1 H(0, 1)g1 = H(1, 1)
and g −1 sg ∈ θ(H(1, 1)) ⊆ H(0, 0). This finishes the proof of the claim.
For any g ∈ Γ \ Tε† of length ≥ 1, then there exists t ∈ G such that gt ∈ Γ has end letter
1. Thus g −1 sg ∈ t(H(0, 0) ∪ H(0, 1))t−1 ⊆ tHt−1 = H, since H is normal in G. Therefore
H(0, 0) ⊆ K−1 and H(0, 1) ⊆ K1 .

To prove the reverse inclusions, we need two preparatory lemmas that describe how we
may “reduce” a given element in {h(x) | x ∈ X} by means of conjugation by elements of Γ.

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

Lemma 5.4. Let x ∈ X and n = `(x). Define

τ −1
when



g0 τ −1 when
rj (x) =
τ
when



g1 τ
when

25

πj (x) = (0, 0),
πj (x) = (1, 0),
πj (x) = (0, 1),
πj (x) = (1, 1),

and let r(x) = r1 (x) · · · rn (x). Furthermore, let i : X → {0, 1} be given by

0 if πn (x) ∈ {(0, 0), (1, 0)},
i(x) =
1 if πn (x) ∈ {(0, 1), (1, 1)}.
Then r(x) ∈ Γ is the unique element in Γ with end letter 1, such that |r(x)| = n and
r(x)−1 h(x)r(x) ∈ {g0 , g1 }, in which case r(x)−1 h(x)r(x) = gi(x) . The resulting map r : X →
Γ is injective.
Proof. It is easy to check that r(x) and i(x) satisfy the desired requirements. Notice also that
for all x ∈ X, the inner automorphisms Ad(τ ), Ad(g1 τ ), Ad(τ −1 ), Ad(g0 τ −1 ) map an element
of the form h(y), `(y) ≥ 2, to an element of the form h(y 0 ) for which `(y 0 ) ∈ {`(y) ± 1}.
For any x ∈ X, r(x) = r1 (x) · · · rn (x) is a reduced word in Γ. Indeed, for all 1 ≤ k ≤ n − 1
then πk (x) = (0, 1) or πk = (1, 1) implies πk+1 (x) 6= (0, 0), meaning rk (x) ∈ {τ, g1 τ }
implies rk+1 (x) ∈ {g0 τ −1 , τ, g1 τ }. Similarly, one sees that rk (x) ∈ {τ −1 , g0 τ −1 } implies
rk+1 (x) ∈ {τ −1 , g0 τ −1 , g1 τ }. Hence injectivity of r will follow from Britton’s lemma, once
we show that r(x) is uniquely determined for all x ∈ X.
For uniqueness, let us first assume that n = 1. For (i, j) 6= (0, 0) assume that t = t1 τ ε1
ε1
0
0
satisfies τ −ε1 t−1
= gi . As t−1
1 h(i, j)t1 τ
1 h(i, j)t1 = h(x ) for some x ∈ X of length 1, then
ε1
−ε1
0
τ gi τ
= h(x ). Hence i = 0 implies ε1 = −1, in which case the equation h(i, j) =
−1
t1 h(0, 0)t−1
1 determines t1 ; if i = 1, then ε1 = 1 and h(i, j) = t1 h(0, 1)t1 also determines t1 .
Hence t = r1 (x).
For n ≥ 2, write x = (i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) and assume that uniqueness holds for x0 =
(i2 , j2 , . . . , in , jn ). If t = t1 τ ε1 · · · tn τ εn satisfies t−1 h(x)t = gi for some i, then
(t1 τ ε1 )−1 h(x)(t1 τ ε1 ) = h(x0 ).
Now gi = t−1 h(x)t = (t2 τ ε2 · · · tn τ εn )−1 h(x0 )(t2 τ ε2 · · · tn τ εn ), so that uniqueness yields
r(x0 ) = t2 τ ε2 · · · tn τ εn and t = t1 τ ε1 r(x0 ). Now (t1 τ ε1 )−1 h(x)(t1 τ ε1 ) = h(i2 , j2 , . . . , in , jn )
determines t1 and ε1 , completing the proof.

Lemma 5.5. Let x, y ∈ X such that either of the following conditions hold:
(i) `(x) < `(y);
(ii) `(y) ≤ `(x) and πi (x) = πi (y) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k implies k < `(y).
Then for the element r(x) ∈ Γ defined in Lemma 5.4, we have r(y)−1 h(x)r(y) = h(x0 ) for
some x0 ∈ X. In fact, in either of the above cases, the sequence x0 satisfies
`(x0 ) = `(x) + `(y) − 2 max{k | πi (x) = πi (y) for all i ≤ k}.
Proof. Assume first that we have proved that the equation holds for x, y ∈ X such that
π1 (y) 6= π1 (x). If π1 (y) = π1 (x), let 1 ≤ k ≤ min{`(x), `(y)} be largest such that πi (y) =
πi (x) for all i ≤ k. Remember that we deliberately choose ri (x) for 1 ≤ i ≤ `(x) such
that applying the inner automorphisms Ad(r1 (x)−1 ), Ad(r2 (x)−1 ), . . . , Ad(r`(x) (x)−1 ) in that
order removes the first tuple, then the second tuple, until we have removed all tuples from x.
Hence the inner automorphism Ad(r1 (x) · · · rk (x))−1 will remove the first k tuples from both
h(x) and h(y).

26

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

If `(y) ≤ `(x), then k < `(y). Let x0 and y0 be x and y respectively, but without
their first k tuples, and observe that r(x0 )−1 h(y0 )r(x0 ) = h(y 0 ) for some y 0 ∈ X such that
`(y 0 ) = `(y0 ) + `(x0 ) = `(y) + `(x) − 2k. We then have
r(x0 )−1 h(y0 )r(x0 ) = r(x0 )−1 ϕ(h(y))r(x0 )
= r(x0 )−1 (r1 (x) · rk (x))−1 h(y)r1 (x) · rk (x)r(x0 )
= r(x)−1 h(y)r(x).
If `(y) > `(x) and k < `(x), then the same argument applies; finally, for k = `(x), then the
first k tuples of y constitute x, so that the y 0 ∈ X such that r(x)−1 h(y)r(x)−1 has length
`(y) − `(x) = `(x) + `(y) − 2k.
Now assume that π1 (y) 6= π1 (x). Write x = (i1 , j1 , . . . , in , jn ) and define r0 (x) = 1. Define
ϕi = Ad(ri (x)−1 ) for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n and Φi = ϕi ◦ · · · ◦ ϕ0 , so that Φn (h(x)) = r(x)−1 h(x)r(x).
We claim for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n that the first tuple of Φi (h(y)) never agrees with the first tuple of
Φi (h(x)). This will prove that h(y) gets one tuple longer for each i, while h(x) will eventually
collapse to either g0 or g1 .
Let 1 ≤ i ≤ n. The first line in one of the 12 cells in the table below is one of the
possibilities of what the first tuple of Φi−1 (h(x)) could be, the arrow pointing to what the
first tuple of Φi (h(x)) may be. The next line considers Φi−1 (h(y)) with distinct first tuple
from Φi−1 (h(x)), the arrow pointing to what the first tuple of Φi (h(y)) will then be (which
depends on the first tuple of Φi−1 (h(x))). Notice that the pair of two digits after the arrow
on the lower line inside each cell never coincides with any pair above it.
10
00
00
01
00
10
00
11

→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→

00,10,11
01
00,10,11
01
00,10,11
01
00,10,11
01

01
00
10
01
01
10
01
11

→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→

01,10,11
00
00,10,11
01
01,10,11
00
01,10,11
00

11
00
11
01
11
10
10
11

→
→
→
→
→
→
→
→

01,10,11
00
01,10,11
00
01,10,11
00
00,10,11
01


This completes the proof.
Lemma 5.6. The quasi-kernels of Γ are given by K−1 = hH(0, 0)i and K1 = hH(0, 1)i.

Proof. We established the inclusions “⊇” in Lemma 5.3. Showing that K−1 ⊆ hH(0, 0)i is
†
equivalent to showing that for all g ∈
/ hH(0, 0)i, there exists r ∈ Γ \ T−1
such that r−1 gr ∈
/ H.
Of course, if g ∈
/ H, just take r = e. If g = hg0 for h ∈ H, then take r = g0 τ −1 , so that
τ g0 gg0 τ −1 = τ g0 τ −1 θ−1 (h) ∈
/ H. Since H = H ∪ g0 H, we may assume from this point on
that g ∈ H. Due to Lemma 5.2, we may write
Y
g=
gx ,
x∈{0,1}2

Qnx

where gx is a product of the form k=1 h(ωx,k ) where π1 (ωx,k ) = x. We can assume that nx
is the smallest positive integer such that gx is a product of nx elements from H(x).
Let x ∈ {0, 1}2 . By means of the commutation relations in H, we may assume that
`(ωx,k ) ≤ `(ωx,k+1 ) for all 1 ≤ k < nx . If nx ≥ 2, assume that ωx,k = ωx,m for some
1 ≤ k < m ≤ nx . Then `(ωx,k ) = `(ωx,k0 ) for all k ≤ k 0 ≤ m, so that
h(ωx,k )h(ωx,k+1 ) · · · h(ωx,m ) = h(ωx,k )2 h(ωx,k+1 ) · · · h(ωx,m−1 ),

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

27

contradicting the assumption that nx is smallest possible. Hence ωx,k 6= ωx,m , so that
h(ωx,k ) 6= h(ωx,m ) for all distinct k, m ∈ {1, . . . , nx }.
Since h(ωx,k ) and h(ωy,k0 ) commute for distinct x, y ∈ {0, 1}2 and k, k 0 , we can reorder
the factors and write
g = h(x1 )h(x2 ) · · · h(xn ),
where n is smallest possible, `(xi ) ≤ `(xi+1 ) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 and h(xi ) 6= h(xj ) for all
i 6= j by what we saw above. Since g ∈
/ hH(0, 0)i, there is a smallest 1 ≤ i ≤ n such that
π1 (xi ) 6= (0, 0). Then the element r(xi ) ∈ Γ of Lemma 5.4 satisfies r(xi )−1 h(xi )r(xi ) = gm
†
for some m ∈ {0, 1}, and r(xi ) ∈ Γ \ T−1
. Moreover, r(xi )−1 h(xj )r(xi ) ∈ H for all j 6= i by
Lemma 5.5, since the existence of 1 ≤ j < i such that πk (xj ) = πk (xi ) for all 1 ≤ k ≤ `(ωj )
would contradict the minimality of i. Hence
r(xi )−1 gr(xi ) ∈ Hgm H = gm H.
If m = 0, let r = r(xi )g0 τ −1 , and if m = 1, let r = r(xi )g1 τ .
The proof that K1 ⊆ hH(0, 1)i is completely analoguous.



Lemma 5.7. The group G is locally finite and hence amenable.
Proof. For any non-negative integer n ≥ 0, consider the subgroup H n of H generated by
the union of the sets Hx,n = {H(y) | y ∈ X, π1 (y) = x, `(y) ≤ n}, x ∈ {0, 1}2 . As in the
proof of Lemma 5.6, any element in the latter subgroup can be decomposed into factors gx
for x ∈ {0, 1}2 . ByQ
assuming the number of factors in each gx to be the smallest possible,
we can write gx = s∈Hx,n sεs for numbers εs ∈ {0, 1}, s ∈ Hx,n . Therefore there are only
finitely many elements in hHx,n i, and since the sets Hx,n and Hy,n commute in H for x =
6 y,
it follows that H n is finite.
Every finitely generated subgroup of G is contained in the subgroup Gn generated by g0 ,
g1 and H n for some n ≥ 0. As H n is invariant under conjugation by g0 and g1 , any element
in Gn has a unique decomposition g = g0ε0 g1ε1 h for ε0 , ε1 ∈ {0, 1} and h ∈ H n , and so Gn is
also finite.

Proposition 5.8. The HNN extension Γ has the unique trace property, but is not C ∗ -simple.
Proof. Since K−1 = hH(0, 0)i and K1 = hH(0, 1)i by Lemma 5.6, we see that
ker Γ = hH(0, 0)i ∩ hH(0, 1)i = {1}
by Lemma 5.2 (iii), meaning that Γ has the unique trace property by Proposition 4.14.
However, K−1 and K1 are both amenable by Lemma 5.7 and non-trivial, so Γ is not C ∗ simple by Proposition 4.25.

Remark 5.9. The interior of Γ coincides with the normal closure of G in Γ. Indeed, H(1, 0) =
τ H(0, 0, 1, 0)τ −1 , H(1, 1) = τ H(0, 0, 1, 1)τ −1 , g0 = τ h(0, 0)τ −1 , and g1 = τ −1 h(0, 1)τ all
belong to the normal closure of hH(0, 0), H(0, 1)i. Thus G ⊆ int Γ, so the normal closure of
G belongs to int Γ. Conversely, H(0, 0), H(0, 1) ⊆ G, and the containment clearly still holds
when passing to normal closures. Moreover, consider the map Γ → Z defined by g 7→ 0 for
g ∈ G and τ 7→ 1. The normal closure of G coincides with the kernel of this map, and it
follows that Γ is isomorphic to a semidirect product int Γ o Z.
Remark 5.10. The tree of Γ is the regular tree of branching degree 4. Let T0 denote the
subtree consisting of all vertices gG, where g ∈ Γ \ G starts with either g0 τ −1 or τ −1 on
reduced form (that is, of type −1), and let T1 denote the subtree consisting of all vertices
gG, where g ∈ Γ \ G starts with either g1 τ or τ on reduced form (that is, of type 1). Then
we can find a coloring of the edges of T in such a way that the local permutation of g0 is
(12) on T0 and id on T1 , the local permutation of g1 is id on T0 and (34) on T1 , and the

28

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

local permutation of τ is (23) everywhere (cf. [5]). Therefore Γ is not one of the examples of
[5, Theorem C].
Proposition 5.11. The group Γ is amenablish.
Proof. Let Γ+ be the subgroup of Γ generated by the stabilizers of the edges of T , and
let T0 and T1 be as in the previous remark. It is easy to see that the fixator subgroup
of T0 is θ(H) and the fixator subgroup of T1 is H. For example the edge H with ends G
and τ G is stabilized by the subgroup [H ∩ θ(H)] × τ [H ∩ θ(H)]τ −1 which is the product
of the fixators of the corresponding half-trees. This statement holds for every edge. It is
clear that if g ∈ Γ, the stabilizer subgroup of the edge grH, where r ∈ {1, g1 , τ −1 , g0 τ −1 }
is γ[H ∩ θ(H)]γ −1 × gr[H ∩ θ(H)]r−1 g −1 and these groups generate int Γ. We can use
[4, Corollary 4.6], which is modeled after the Tits criterion, to conclude that a normal
subgroup N < int Γ contains the commutator groups [Γe , Γe ] for every e ∈ E(T ). It easily
follows that
int Γ := hg[H ∩ θ(H), H ∩ θ(H)]g −1 | g ∈ Γi
consists of all elements of int Γ with even number of g0 and even number of g1 in their
products. Therefore
int Γ = ker(Γ → Z × Z2 × Z2 ),
where the homomorphism is defined on the generators of Γ as follows
τ 7→ (1, 0, 0),

g0 7→ (0, 1, 0),

g1 7→ (0, 0, 1).

We conclude that int Γ is a simple amenablish group. Since the class of amenablish groups is
closed under extensions, it follows that Γ is amenablish.

Appendix A. Compactness of T ∪ ∂T
We include a proof of the following theorem of Monod and Shalom [26, Theorem 4.1].
Theorem A.1. Let T be a tree with boundary ∂T . Then T ∪ ∂T is compact and totally
disconnected in the shadow topology. Moreover, T ∪ ∂T is metrizable if and only if T is
countable.
In [26, Section 4] countability of T is assumed, but it is not needed to conclude compactness
of the space T ∪ ∂T . Throughout this section, let T denote a tree and for any edge e in T ,
we let Z0 (e) ⊆ T , ZB (e) ⊆ ∂T and Z(e) be as defined in Section 3.
Lemma A.2. Let e, e0 be edges in T .
(i) If ZB (e) ∩ ZB (e0 ) 6= ∅, then Z0 (e) ∩ Z0 (e0 ) is infinite. In particular, Z0 (e) ∩ Z0 (e0 ) = ∅
if and only if Z(e) ∩ Z(e0 ) = ∅.
(ii) T ∪ ∂T is the disjoint union of the clopen sets Z(e) and Z(e).
Proof. (i): Any x ∈ ZB (e) ∩ ZB (e0 ) is the equivalence class of a ray (ri )i≥0 such that r0 = s(e)
and r1 = r(e), which is cofinal to a ray (si )i≥0 such that s0 = s(e0 ) and s1 = r(e0 ). Now
there exist k, n ≥ 0 such that Z0 (e) 3 ri+k = si+n ∈ Z0 (e0 ) for all i ≥ 0.
(ii): Clearly Z0 (e) and Z0 (e) are disjoint (so that Z(e) ∩ Z(e) = ∅ by (i)), and their
union is T . Therefore let x ∈ ∂T and assume that x ∈
/ ZB (e). Let (ri )i≥0 be the ray in the
equivalence class of x such that r0 = s(e). Then r1 6= r(e), so that we may define a ray
(ti )i≥0 by ti = ri−1 for i ≥ 1 and t0 = r(e). Now (ti ) and (ri ) are cofinal, and (ti ) ∈ Z∞ (e),
meaning that x ∈ ZB (e).

Lemma A.3. Suppose that two edges e and e0 in T satisfy d(r(e), r(e0 )) > d(s(e), s(e0 )).
Then Z(e) ∩ Z(e0 ) = ∅.

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

29

Proof. We clearly have e 6= e0 and e =
6 e0 . If we had {s(e), r(e)} ⊆ Z0 (e0 ), then the geodesic
between r(e0 ) and s(e) would not contain r(e) (otherwise d(s(e), s(e0 )) = 1 + d(s(e), r(e0 )) =
d(r(e), r(e0 )) + 2), meaning that d(r(e), r(e0 )) = d(s(e), r(e0 )) + 1 = d(s(e), s(e0 )). Hence
{s(e), r(e)} ⊆ Z0 (e0 ).
Now r(e) is not contained in the geodesic between s(e) and r(e0 ) – otherwise
d(s(e), s(e0 )) = d(r(e), s(e0 )) + 1 = d(r(e), r(e0 )),
a contradiction. Therefore the geodesic between r(e) and r(e0 ) contains s(e). As r(e0 ) ∈
/ Z0 (e)
(otherwise d(s(e0 ), s(e)) < d(r(e0 ), r(e)) < d(r(e0 ), s(e)), so that s(e) ∈ Z0 (e0 )), then for all
v ∈ Z0 (e),
d(v, r(e0 )) = d(v, s(e)) + d(s(e), r(e0 )) = d(v, s(e)) + d(s(e), s(e0 )) + 1 > d(v, s(e0 )),
i.e., v ∈
/ Z0 (e0 ). Hence Z0 (e) and Z0 (e0 ) are disjoint, so the claim follows from Lemma A.2 (i).

The following lemma is proved in [30, Lemma 6.4.9], so we omit the proof.
Lemma A.4 (“The bridge lemma”). If T1 and T2 are subtrees of a tree T , and T1 ∩T2 contains
at most one vertex, there are unique vertices v1 ∈ T1 , v2 ∈ T2 with d(v1 , v2 ) = d(T1 , T2 ).
Moreover, we have d(w1 , w2 ) = d(w1 , v1 ) + d(v1 , v2 ) + d(v2 , w2 ) for all w1 ∈ T1 and w2 ∈ T2 .
Proof of Theorem A.1. Let X = T ∪ ∂T , and let S ⊆ 2X be the Boolean algebra generated
by the extended shadows {Z(e)}e∈E . We consider the space M of Boolean homomorphisms
S → {0, 1} of the compact Hausdorff space 2S , i.e., maps µ : S → {0, 1} such that µ(∅) = 0,
µ(X) = 1, and
µ(A ∪ B) = max{µ(A), µ(B)}, µ(A ∩ B) = min{µ(A), µ(B)},

A, B ∈ S.

S

We claim that M is compact. For any µ ∈ 2 , define maps ϕ1 (µ) : S × S → {0, 1} by
ϕ1 (µ)(A, B) = µ(A ∪ B) and ϕ2 (µ) : S × S → {0, 1} by ϕ2 (µ)(A, B) = max{µ(A), µ(B)}.
These maps are continuous, when viewed as maps ϕ1 : 2S → 2S×S and ϕ2 : 2S → 2S×S . Since
2S×S is Hausdorff, {µ ∈ 2S | ϕ1 (µ) = ϕ2 (µ)} is closed. Considering intersections the same
way, it follows that M is closed in 2S .
Now let µ ∈ M, and let Oµ = {e ∈ E | µ(Z(e)) = 1}. Then Oµ is an orientation of T by
Lemma A.2 (ii). We claim that there exists x ∈ X such that
\
{x} =
Z(e).
e∈Oµ

Observe that for any v ∈ T there is at most one edge e such that s(e) = v and e ∈ Oµ .
(If s(e) = s(e0 ) = v for e 6= e0 , then Z0 (e) ∩ Z0 (e0 ) = ∅, but then either µ(Z(e)) = 0 or
µ(Z(e0 )) = 0.) There are now two cases:
Case 1: Any v ∈ T admits one edge ev ∈ Oµ such that s(ev ) = v. For fixed r0 ∈ T , let
e0 ∈ Oµ such that s(e0 ) = r0 , let r1 = r(e0 ). We then let e1 ∈ Oµ such that s(e1 ) = r1 ,
and continue taking edges (ei )i≥0 and vertices (ri )i≥0 in T , until we obtain a sequence
(ri )i≥0 of vertices in T . Then (ri )i≥0 is a ray in T : if ri−1 = s(ei−1 ) = r(ei ) = ri+1 and
r(ei−1 ) = s(ei ) = ri , then ei = ei−1 ∈ Oµ , a contradiction. Let x ∈ ∂T be the equivalence
class of (ri )i≥0 .
Now x ∈ Z(e) for all e ∈ Oµ . If e = ei for some i ≥ 0, the claim is evident, assume that
e∈
/ {ei | i ≥ 0}. Now let k ≥ 0 be such that rk is the closest of the vertices in the ray (ri )i≥0
to the subtree of endpoints s(e), r(e) of e by the bridge lemma (Lemma A.4). If s(e) belongs to
the geodesic between r(e) and rk , then d(r(e), r(ek )) = 1 + d(r(e), s(ek )) = 2 + d(s(e), s(ek )),
meaning that Z(e) ∩ Z(ek ) = ∅, contradicting Lemma A.3. Hence we may let (ti )i≥0 be a ray
emanating from s(e), passing through r(e) and the vertices (ri )i≥k , meaning that x ∈ Z(e).

30

R. S. BRYDER, N. A. IVANOV, AND T. OMLAND

T∞
We next note that n=0 Z(en ) = {x}. Indeed, for v ∈ T , let n ≥ 0 such that d(rn , v) ≤
d(rj , v) for all j ≥ 0 by the bridge lemma. Then d(v, s(en )) = d(v, rn ) < d(v, rn+1 ) =
d(v, r(en )) and v ∈
/ Z(en ). If y ∈ ∂T satisfies y ∈ Z(en ) for all n ≥ 1, let (ti )i≥0 be the
unique ray with equivalence class y and t0 = r0 . For n ≥ 1, (ti )i≥0 is cofinal to a ray (uj )
such that uj+1 = rn+1 and uj = rn for some j ≥ 0. In particular, there exists m ≥ 0 for
which tm ∈ Z0 (en ). Since t0 ∈
/ Z0 (en ), the geodesic from t0 = r0 to tm passes through rn
and rn+1
,
meaning
that
t
=
rn and tn+1 = rn+1 . Since n was arbitrary, y = x. Therefore
n
T
{x} = e∈Oµ Z(e).
Case 2. There exists v ∈ T such that s(e) 6= v for all e ∈ Oµ . For some e ∈ Oµ , assume
that v ∈ Z(e), so that the geodesic from v to r(e) passes through s(e). Let e0 , . . . , en = e
be the edges constituting this geodesic, so that r(ei ) = s(ei+1 ) for all 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1. Since
s(en−1 ) ∈
/ Z(en ), the geodesic from w ∈ Z(en ) to s(en−1 ) must contain r(en−1 ) = s(en ),
meaning that Z(en ) ⊆ Z(en−1 ). Hence en−1 ∈ Oµ . We continue this way until we obtain
e0 ∈ Oµ , a contradiction (since s(e0 ) = v). Hence v ∈ Z(e) for all e ∈ Oµ .
Assume that w ∈ T \ {v}. Let e0 , . . . , en be a path such that r(ei ) = s(ei+1 ) for all
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 and s(e0 ) = v, r(en ) = w. Then e0 ∈
/ Oµ , so that e0 ∈ Oµ but w ∈
/ Z(e0 ). For
x ∈ ∂T , let (ri )i≥0 be the unique ray representing x such that r0 = v, and let (ei )i≥0 be the
edges such that s(ei ) = ri , r(ei ) = ri+1
/ Z(e0 ) by Lemma A.2 (ii),
T. Now x ∈ Z(e0 ), so that x ∈
but e0 ∈ Oµ as above. Hence {v} = e∈Oµ Z(e).
Finally, let Sµ = {S ∈ S | µ(S) = δx (S)}. Then Sµ is stable under complements, finite
unions and intersections and Z(e) ∈ Sµ for all e ∈ E, so Sµ = S by minimality. Hence
Tn µ = δx .
We conclude that M = {δx | x ∈ X}. For edges e1 , . . . , en in T such that Z = i=1 Z(ei )
is non-empty (this is a basis element of X), then U = {f ∈ 2S | f (Z) = 1} is open in 2S , so
that M ∩ U is open in M. As δx ∈ M ∩ U if and only if x ∈ Z, it follows that M ∩ U is
the pre-image of the clopen basis element Z under the bijection M → X given by δx 7→ x,
so that this map is continuous. In particular X is compact, and since X is Hausdorff, the
bijection M → X is a homeomorphism.
Notice that M is totally disconnected by 2S being totally disconnected. If T is countable,
then S is countable, so that 2S and M are metrizable. If M is metrizable, it has a countable
basis B of clopen subsets. By [16, Corollary, p. 75] the countable algebra generated by B
contains all clopen sets of M, i.e., the edge set of T is countable. Hence T is countable. 
References
[1] R. Alperin and H. Bass. Length functions of group actions on Λ-trees. In Combinatorial group theory
and topology, vol. 111 of Ann. of Math. Stud., pp. 265–378. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1987.
[2] H. Bass. Covering theory for graphs of groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 89(1-2):3–47, 1993.
[3] O. Bogopolski. Introduction to group theory. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2008.
[4] A. Le Boudec. Groups acting on trees with almost prescribed local action. Comment. Math. Helv.,
91(2):253–293, 2016.
[5]
. C ∗ -simplicity and the amenable radical. Invent. Math., 209(1):159–174, 2017.
[6] A. Le Boudec and N. Matte Bon. Subgroup dynamics and C ∗ -simplicity of groups of homeomorphisms.
Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4), to appear.
[7] E. Breuillard, M. Kalantar, M. Kennedy, and N. Ozawa. C ∗ -simplicity and the unique trace property for
discrete groups. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci., to appear.
[8] Y. de Cornulier. Infinite conjugacy classes in groups acting on trees. Groups Geom. Dyn., 3(2):267–277,
2009.
[9] M. Culler and J. W. Morgan. Group actions on R-trees. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 55(3):571–604,
1987.
[10] M. M. Day. Amenable semigroups. Illinois J. Math., 1:509–544, 1957.
[11] A. Furman. On minimal strongly proximal actions of locally compact groups. Israel J. Math., 136:173–187,
2003.

C ∗ -SIMPLICITY OF HNN EXTENSIONS AND GROUPS ACTING ON TREES

31

[12] H. Furstenberg. Boundary theory and stochastic processes on homogeneous spaces. In Harmonic analysis
on homogeneous spaces, pp. 193–229. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1973.
[13] S. Glasner. Topological dynamics and group theory. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 187:327–334, 1974.
[14] U. Haagerup. A new look at C ∗ -simplicity and the unique trace property of a group. In Operator algebras
and applications, vol. 12 of Abel Symp., pp. 161–170. Springer, Heidelberg, 2016.
[15] U. Haagerup and K. Knudsen Olesen. Non-inner amenability of the Thompson groups T and V . J. Funct.
Anal., 272(11):4838–4852, 2017.
[16] P.-R. Halmos. Lectures on Boolean algebras. Springer-Verlag New York, 1974.
[17] P. de la Harpe. Reduced C ∗ -algebras of discrete groups which are simple with a unique trace. In Operator
algebras and their connections with topology and ergodic theory (Buşteni, 1983), vol. 1132 of Lecture
Notes in Math., pp. 230–253. Springer, Berlin, 1985.
[18]
. On simplicity of reduced C ∗ -algebras of groups. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., 39(1):1–26, 2007.
[19] P. de la Harpe and J.-P. Préaux. C ∗ -simple groups: amalgamated free products, HNN extensions, and
fundamental groups of 3-manifolds. J. Topol. Anal., 3(4):451–489, 2011.
[20] G. Higman, B. H. Neumann, and H. Neumann. Embedding theorems for groups. J. London Math. Soc.,
24:247–254, 1949.
[21] N. A. Ivanov. On the structure of some reduced amalgamated free product C ∗ -algebras. Internat. J.
Math., 22(2):281–306, 2011.
[22] N. A. Ivanov and T. Omland. C ∗ -simplicity of free products with amalgamation and radical classes of
groups. J. Funct. Anal., 272(9):3712–3741, 2017.
[23] M. Kalantar and M. Kennedy. Boundaries of reduced C ∗ -algebras of discrete groups. J. Reine Angew.
Math., 727:247–267, 2017.
[24] M. Kennedy. An intrinsic characterization of C ∗ -simplicity. Preprint arXiv:1509.01870, 2017.
[25] M. Laca and J. Spielberg. Purely infinite C ∗ -algebras from boundary actions of discrete groups. J. Reine
Angew. Math., 480:125–139, 1996.
[26] N. Monod and Y. Shalom. Cocycle superrigidity and bounded cohomology for negatively curved spaces.
J. Differential Geom., 67(3):395–455, 2004.
[27] N. Ozawa. Lecture on the Furstenberg boundary and C ∗ -simplicity, 2014. http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.
ac.jp/~narutaka/notes/yokou2014.pdf.
[28] W. L. Paschke and N. Salinas. C ∗ -algebras associated with free products of groups. Pacific J. Math.,
82(1):211–221, 1979.
[29] R. T. Powers. Simplicity of the C ∗ -algebra associated with the free group on two generators. Duke Math.
J., 42:151–156, 1975.
[30] J.-P. Serre. Trees. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1980.
[31] S. Sidki and J. S. Wilson. Free subgroups of branch groups. Arch. Math. (Basel), 80(5):458–463, 2003.
Department of Mathematics, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, 2100 Copenhagen,
Denmark
E-mail address: rasmus@ananas.nu
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Sofia, blvd. James Bourchier 5, BG-1164
Sofia, Bulgaria
E-mail address: nikolay.antonov.ivanov@gmail.com
Department of Mathematics, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1053 Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway
E-mail address: trono@math.uio.no

