On geodesic ray bundles in hyperbolic groups
Nicholas Touikan

arXiv:1706.01979v1 [] 6 Jun 2017

June 8, 2017
Abstract
We construct a Cayley graph CayS (Γ) of a hyperbolic group Γ such that
there are elements g, h ∈ Γ and a point γ ∈ ∂∞ Γ = ∂∞ CayS (Γ) such that
the sets RB (g, γ) and RB (h, γ) in CayS (Γ) of vertices along geodesic rays
from g, h to γ have infinite symmetric difference; thus answering a question of
Huang, Sabok and Shinko.

1

Introduction

To every infinite finite valence tree T we can associate a boundary at infinity
∂∞ T corresponding to ends of infinite rays. ∂∞ T is homeomorphic to a Cantor
set. A metric space is called δ-hyperbolic if, roughly speaking, up to an error
term δ it has a tree-like structure. Analogously to a tree, to a δ-hyperbolic
space X, one can assign a Gromov boundary ∂∞ X which is a compact, metrizable, yet oftentimes exotic set, corresponding to equivalence classes of ends of
infinite geodesic rays. A group Γ is called hyperbolic if one of its Cayley graphs
is is a δ-hyperbolic metric space for some δ ≥ 0. In this case to Γ we can assign
a canonical Gromov boundary ∂∞ Γ on which Γ acts non-trivially. The deep
connections between the properties of ∂∞ Γ and the group Γ makes it highly a
structured, and therefore fascinating, object to study.
In [HSS17] Huang, Sabok and Shinko investigate Borel equivalence relations on ∂∞ Γ. They show that if Γ is a hyperbolic group with the additional
property that Γ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly on a CAT(0)
cube complex, i.e. Γ is cubulated, then the action of Γ on its boundary ∂∞ Γ
is hyperfinite. This generalizes a result of Dougherty, Jackson and Kechris
[DJK94, Corollary 8.2] from the class of free groups to the larger class of
cubulated hyperbolic groups.
Although the result of [HSS17] feels like it should be true for all hyperbolic groups, an additional cubulation requirement is needed to prove a key
lemma, [HSS17, Lemma 1.3], which states that for any two vertices x, y of a
δ-hyperbolic CAT(0) cube complex C and for any point γ ∈ ∂∞ C the sets,
called ray bundles, RB (x, γ) and RB (y, γ) of vertices of C that occur along
geodesic rays from x and y (respectively) to γ ∈ ∂∞ C have finite symmetric
difference.
The authors pose [HSS17, Question 1.4] which asks if [HSS17, Lemma 1.3]
holds for any Cayley graph of a hyperbolic groups. Not only would a positive

1

answer immediately imply that the action of any hyperbolic group Γ on ∂∞ Γ
is hyperfinite, but this is also a very natural question to ask from the point of
view of geometric group theory. This paper gives a negative answer by giving
examples of Cayley graphs CayS (Γ) of hyperbolic groups Γ with vertices x, y
and some γ ∈ ∂∞ CayS (Γ) such that the ray bundles RB (x, γ) and RB (y, γ)
have infinite symmetric difference. This example, if anything, reinforces the
relevance of [HSS17, Lemma 1.3].
The methods of this paper will be familiar to geometric group theorists,
but, since this paper is aimed at a broader audience, necessary background is
included to make it self-contained. That being said, the reader is expected to
know the following notions from topology: group presentations, fundamental
groups, the Seifert-van Kampen theorem, and universal covering spaces.

1.1

Acknowledgements

I first wish to thank Michael Hull and Jindrich Zapletal for the invitation to
the South Eastern Logic Symposium 2017, which greatly increased my appreciation of the contemporary work of descriptive set theorists. I also wish to
thank Marcin Sabok for posing this question about symmetric differences of
ray bundles, specifically about the embedability of bad ladders into Cayley
graphs, and for an interesting discussion, encouragement and feedback. Finally I am grateful to Bob Gilman and Paul Schupp for conversations that
confirmed that the main result of this paper is probably not a trivial consequence of what is known about the automaticity of the language of geodesics
in hyperbolic groups.

2

Hyperbolic groups and their boundary

The author recommends [Aea91] for an accessible yet thorough treatment of
the topics in this section. Given a group Γ and a generating set S of Γ we can
construct a Cayley graph CayS (Γ) which is a directed graph whose vertices
are the elements of Γ and for each g ∈ Γ and s ∈ S we draw the edge
g

s
I

gs

.

By declaring each edge to be an isometric copy of the closed unit interval,
we make graphs into connected metric spaces via the path metric. If X is a
graph we say that a path starting at a vertex v and ending at a vertex u is
geodesic if it is the shortest possible path between u, v. Typically there will be
multiple geodesics between a pair of vertices. A metric space is δ-hyperbolic if
it has the following property: for any three vertices u, v, w if α, β, and γ are
geodesics from u to v, v to w, and w to u respectively then α is contained in a
δ-neighbourhood of β ∪ γ. If a group Γ has a δ-hyperbolic Cayley graph with
respect to one finite generating set, then for any other finite generating set the
corresponding Cayley graph will also be δ 0 -hyperbolic, though possibly with
δ 0 6= δ. Such a group will therefore be called a hyperbolic group.
For example, if A is a finite set of symbols and F(A) is the free group on
A, then, taking A as a generating set of F(A), the Cayley graph CayA (F(A))

2

is a regular tree with valence |A| and in particular for any geodesics α, β, and
γ as above, α ⊂ β ∪ γ so that CayA (F(A)) is in fact 0-hyperbolic.
Let us now give a precise definition of the Gromov boundary ∂∞ Γ. Let S
be a finite generating set of Γ. A geodesic ray is a continuous map
ρ : [0, ∞) → CayS (Γ)
such that for every pair of positive integers m < n, ρ(m) is a vertex and the
segment ρ([n, m]) is a geodesic. ∂∞ Γ is the set of geodesic rays of CayS (Γ)
modulo the relation: ρ ∼ ρ0 ⇔ there is some R ≥ 0 such that ρ ([0, ∞)) is
contained in an R−neighbourhood of ρ0 ([0, ∞)) and ρ0 ([0, ∞)) is contained in
an R−neighbourhood of ρ ([0, ∞)).
We recommend the following exercises:
• If Γ = F(A) is a free group as above, then ∂Γ is naturally identified with
a Cantor set.
• If Γ = hai ⊕ hbi, the free abelian group of rank two (which is not a
hyperbolic group), then ∂∞ CayA (Γ) can be identified with the circle at
infinity for R2 , but the action of Γ (induced by translating rays) yields a
trivial action on ∂∞ Γ.
That ∂∞ Γ, thus given, is well-defined, non-trivial, canonical for Γ, and
admits a non-trivial Γ action is a consequence of δ-hyperbolicity. The reader
may consult [GdlH90, §6-§8] or [KB02] for a complete treatment of the topic.

3

The bad ladder

Consider the infinite graph L consisting of two sides, copies of R, with a vertex
at each integer point, and countably many rungs, edges connecting vertices at
corresponding integral vertices on each side. Add a vertex to the middle of
each rung. The resulting graph L is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: A ladder with a vertex x on a side and a vertex y in the middle of a rung.
We note that any two geodesic rays either go to the left or to the right,
and if they go in the same direction, they remain at a bounded distance. It
follows that ∂∞ L consists of two points.
Proposition 3.1. Let x be a vertex on a side of L, let y be a vertex in the
middle of a rung and let γ ∈ ∂∞ L = {±∞} correspond to one of the ends
of the ladder. Then the sets RB (x, γ) and RB (y, γ) have infinite symmetric
difference.

3

Proof. Without loss of generality we may assume that γ corresponds to +∞.
As any geodesic ρ travels towards γ it must eventually stay within one of the
sides of L. If ρ originates at x then it is allowed to travel once through a rung
to reach the other side. It follows that every vertex on a rung that is “greater”
than x is in RB (x, γ). If ρ originates at y in the middle of a rung, then once
it enters a side s1 it is no longer able to switch because if that happens then
there is some initial segment ρ0 of ρ whose length does not realize the distance
between y and the first point it encounters in s2 6= s1 . See Figure 1. It follows
that RB (y, γ) doesn’t contain any vertices contained in rungs; thus the two
sets have infinite symmetric difference.
Although L is a hyperbolic graph, due to its nonhomogeniety, it cannot be
the Cayley graph of a group. We will now construct the Cayley graph of a
group, in fact a free group, which contains a ladder L as a convex subgraph.
That is to say any geodesic connecting two points on the ladder inside this
larger graphs must stay within the ladder. To show this we must reach a sufficiently complete understanding of the geometry of a Cayley graph. Although
it is not invoked explicitly, the proof is informed by the Bass-Serre theory of
groups acting on trees and corresponding decompositions into graphs of spaces
[SW79, Ser03].

4

Embedding bad ladders into Cayley graphs

We will take some liberties with notation and identify group presentations with
the groups they present. First consider the presentation
Γ0 = p, q, t | t−1 ptq −1 ≈ F2 .
For any group presentation, there is a standard construction known as a presentation complex, which is a CW-complex P (Γ0 ) obtained by gluing polygons (corresponding to relations) to graphs (edges correspond to generators)
in such a way (as a consequence of the Seifert-van Kampen Theorem) that
π1 (P (Γ0 )) ≈ Γ0 .
In this case presentation complex P (Γ0 ) consists of a graph with one vertex,
three directed edges labelled p, q, t, and a square along whose boundary the
word t−1 ptq −1 can be read. This word specifies the identifying map between
the boundary of the square and a closed loop in the graph, making the latter
nullhomotopic. As a topological space P (Γ0 ) can also be obtained by taking
a cylinder A = [−1, 1] × S 1 , picking a point on each boundary component and
identifying them. This is shown on Figure 2.
Remark 4.1. The 1-skeleton of the universal cover P^
(Γ0 ) corresponds to the
Cayley graph Cay{p,q,t} (F2 ), i.e. the Cayley graph relative to the generating
set explicitly given by the group presentation. This is true for any presentation
complex.
The universal cover P^
(Γ0 ) is a tree of spaces obtained by taking an infinite
collection of copies of strips corresponding to connected components of the lift
A ⊂ P (Γ0 ) in P^
(Γ0 ) attached by points. We call these pq-strips. This is

4

Figure 2: The presentation complex P (Γ0 )
shown if Figure 3. There is also a collection of bi-infinite lines in P^
(Γ0 ) along
which we read . . . ttt . . ., we call these t-lines. Consider now the amalgamated

Figure 3: The universal cover of P (Γ0 ). Decorated edges are labelled t. pq-strips
are shaded grey.
free product:
Γ1 = Γ0 ∗t=s2 hsi = p, q, t, s | t−1 ptq −1 , s2 t−1 ≈ F2
corresponding to adjoining a square root s to the basis element t ∈ F2 . By the
Seifert-van Kampen Theorem, it can be realized as the fundamental group of
a space P1 , which is not a presentation complex, obtained by taking a copy
of P (Γ0 ), a circle C = S 1 , and attaching another cylinder D = [−1, 1] × S 1
so that the attaching map {−1} × S 1 → P (Γ0 ) wraps with degree 1 around
the loop corresponding to the edge with label t and the other attaching map
{1} × S 1 → C wraps with degree 2. See Figure 4.

5

f1 . Below, how the CW-complex
Figure 4: On top, a portion of the universal cover P
P1 is obtained from P0 .
f1 , P (Γ0 ) ⊂ P1 lifts to a countable collecIn the universal covering space P
tion of disjoint copies of P^
(Γ0 ) called Γ0 -pieces and the circle C ⊂ P1 lifts to a
countable collection of disjoint lines called C-lines. The connected components
of lifts of the cylinder D are called D−strips, copies of [−1, 1] × R connecting
t-lines in Γ0 -pieces to C-lines. In particular each C-line is attached to two
D-strips. Globally, the universal cover has the structure of a tree of spaces.
See Figure 5.

f1 depicted as a tree of spaces obtained by attaching Γ0 -pieces
Figure 5: A portion of P
to D-strips (shown in grey) along t-lines. Note that although drawn as “pancakes”
the Γ0 -pieces are actually copies of the space shown in Figure 3.
Our final presentation Γ is obtained via the following Tietze transformation:
Γ1 = p, q, t, s | t−1 ptq −1 , s2 t−1 ≈ p, q, s | s−2 ps2 q = Γ.
This Tietze transformation corresponds to the fact that, since s2 = t, we can
remove t from the generating set. Geometrically the resulting presentation
complex is obtained by collapsing the [−1, 1] factor in the cylinder D = S 1 ×
[−1, 1] ⊂ P1 to a point. See Figure 6. The universal cover of the presentation
^
f1 , subdividing each
complex P
(Γ) can be obtained by taking the Γ0 -pieces in P
t-labelled edge into a length 2 edge path labelled ss, replacing t−lines with

6

Figure 6: Collapsing D-strips (shaded grey) onto lines as seen from the universal
cover, and the resulting pq-ladders, contained in a Γ0 -piece.
s-lines, and then identifying two s-lines in different Γ0 -pieces if they were both
f1 has a large scale
connected by D-strips to the same C-line. In this way P
tree of spaces structure obtained taking resulting Γ0 -pieces and attaching them
along s−lines. Furthermore we observe that each Γ0 -piece contains a ladder L
obtained by gluing together squares labelled s−2 ps2 q along segments labelled
s2 . We call such a ladder a pq-ladder. See Figure 6.
^
In this way P
(Γ) admits a depth 2 hierarchical decomposition as a tree of
spaces. At the top level we have Γ0 -pieces connected along s-lines as a tree
of spaces, then the Γ0 -pieces themselves are trees of pq-ladders, connected by
vertices.
^
Proposition 4.2. A pq-ladder L is convex in the 1-skeleton of P
(Γ). Furthermore any geodesic ray starting in L and going to one of the ends of L must
stay in L.
Proof. Let p be the Γ0 -piece containing a pq-ladder L. Let u, v ∈ L be vertices
and let ρ be a geodesic connecting u and v.
Claim 1: ρ cannot exit p. Suppose towards the contrary that this was
the case then, by the tree of spaces structure, ρ must exit p at some point a
contained in some s-line s, and then re-enter p by at some other point b ∈ s
in the same s-line. It follows that if ρ is geodesic it cannot exit p because
the subsegment ρ([na , nb ]), where ρ(na ) = a, ρ(nb ) = b, can be replaced the
strictly shorter segment from a to b contained within s.
Claim 2: If ρ stays in the Γ0 -piece p, it cannot exit L. Indeed each piece
consists of a tree of pq-ladders connected by points; since it is the same space
as the one shown in Figure 3 except with each edge labelled t replaced by a
path of length 2 labelled ss. If ρ leaves L at some vertex p, then to re-enter L
it must pass through p again, contradicting that it is geodesic.
The convexity of L now follows. This implies that any infinite path that
stays in the p or q side of L is a geodesic ray. It remains to show that any
geodesic ray starting at x ∈ L going to γ ∈ ∂∞ L stays in L. Let ρ be one such
^
geodesic ray and let β : [0, ∞) → P
(Γ) be another arc-length parameterized

7

geodesic ray from x to γ. Suppose that β exits L at the point β(N ).
By convexity of L, β cannot re-enter L, but it could still travel close to
it. By definition of the Gromov boundary there must be some bound R such
that for all z, d(β(z), ρ) ≤ R. However, since β is geodesic and arc-length
parameterized, d(β(N + M ), β(N )) = M and since the shortest path from
β(N + M ) to L must pass through β(N ) we conclude that
d(β(N + M ), ρ) ≥ d(β(N + M ), L) = M.
Since β is an infinite ray we may take M > R which yields a contradiction.
Proposition 3.1 and 4.2 immediately imply the main result:
Corollary 4.3. Let Γ = p, q, s | s−2 ps2 q ≈ F2 and let X = Cay{p,q,s} (Γ).
If γ ∈ ∂∞ X = ∂∞ Γ corresponds to an end of a pq-ladder L, x is a vertex
contained in a side of L, and y is a vertex contained in a rung of L, then
RB (x, γ) and RB (y, γ) have infinite symmetric difference.

4.1

A one-ended example

The example we just gave is somewhat unsatisfying since it is a free group. We
will outline another construction, which was the original example found by the
author. This group is not free since it is one-ended, which in the torsion-free
case means it does not decompose as a non-trivial free product. Consider first
the presentation
Σ0 = a, b, p, q, t | abpa−1 b−1 q, ptqt−1 .
This is an explicit decomposition of Σ0 as an HNN extension of a free group of
rank 3 and the presentation complex is homeomorphic to an orientable closed
surface of genus 2. We then repeat the construction in the previous section
Σ1 = a, b, p, q, t | abpa−1 b−1 q, ptqt−1 ∗t=s2 s2
≈ a, b, p, q, s | abpa−1 b−1 q, ps2 qs−2 = Σ
to embed a bad ladder into a the Cayley graph corresponding to the presentation Σ. Since Σ0 is a closed surface group, therefore one-ended, and hsi cannot
act with an infinite orbit on a tree if s2 fixes a point, [Tou15, Theorem 3.1]
implies that Σ is one-ended. In particular Σ is not free. Hyperbolicity follows
from the combination theorems [BF92, BF96, KM98].
Again the universal cover is a tree of spaces obtained by gluing hyperbolic
planes H2 along s-lines and the proof goes similarly to Proposition 4.2. The
first claim goes through as is, we leave the proof of Claim 2 (convexity of
pq-ladders) as an exercise in small cancellation theory (one can use [MW02,
Theorem 9.4].)

4.2

Cubulating bad ladders

A bad ladder consists of a chain of hexagons glued along edges. As an illustration of [HSS17, Lemma 1.3], observe that if we cubulate a bad ladder, i.e.

8

Figure 7: A cubulated bad ladder
make it into a cube complex, (see Figure 7) the conclusion of Proposition 3.1
no longer holds. In fact both groups shown in this paper can be cubulated
and therefore do not give counterexamples to the conjecture that the action of
every hyperbolic group Γ on ∂∞ Γ is hyperfinite, a conjecture that this author
believes to be true.

References
[Aea91]

J. M. Alonso and et al. Notes on word hyperbolic groups. In Group
theory from a geometrical viewpoint (Trieste, 1990), pages 3–63.
World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1991. Edited by H. Short.

[BF92]

M. Bestvina and M. Feighn. A combination theorem for negatively
curved groups. J. Differential Geom., 35(1):85–101, 1992.

[BF96]

Mladen Bestvina and Mark Feighn. Addendum and correction to:
“A combination theorem for negatively curved groups” [J. Differential Geom. 35 (1992), no. 1, 85–101; MR1152226 (93d:53053)]. J.
Differential Geom., 43(4):783–788, 1996.

[DJK94] Randall Dougherty, Steve Jackson, and Alexander S Kechris. The
structure of hyperfinite borel equivalence relations. Transactions of
the American Mathematical Society, 341(1):193–225, 1994.
[GdlH90] Étienne Ghys and Pierre de la Harpe. Sur les groupes hyperboliques
d’apres Mikhael Gromov, volume 83 of Progress in Mathematics.
Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1990.
[HSS17]

Jingyin Huang, Marcin Sabok, and Forte Shinko. Hyperfiniteness
of boundary actions of cubulated hyperbolic groups. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1701.03969, 2017.

[KB02]

Ilya Kapovich and Nadia Benakli. Boundaries of hyperbolic groups.
Combinatorial and geometric group theory (New York, 2000/Hoboken, NJ, 2001), 296:39–93, 2002.

[KM98]

O. Kharlampovich and A. Myasnikov. Hyperbolic groups and free
constructions. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 350(2):571–613, 1998.

[MW02] Jonathan P. McCammond and Daniel T. Wise. Fans and ladders in
small cancellation theory. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 84(3):599–
644, 2002.
[Ser03]

Jean-Pierre Serre. Trees. Springer Monographs in Mathematics.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003. Translated from the French original

9

by John Stillwell, Corrected 2nd printing of the 1980 English translation.
[SW79]

Peter Scott and Terry Wall. Topological methods in group theory.
In Homological group theory (Proc. Sympos., Durham, 1977), volume 36 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., pages 137–203.
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1979.

[Tou15]

Nicholas Touikan. On the one-endedness of graphs of groups. Pacific
Journal of Mathematics, 278(2):463–478, 2015.

10

