BIG FREE GROUPS ACTING ON Λ-TREES

arXiv:1403.7805v2 [math.GR] 7 Apr 2016

BRENDON LABUZ

Abstract. The set of homotopy classes of based paths in the Hawaiian earring has a natural R-tree structure, but under that metric the action by the
fundamental group is not by isometries. Motivated by a suggestion by James
W. Cannon and Gregory R. Conner, this paper defines an Rω -metric that does
admit for an isometric action by the fundamental group. The space does not
become an Rω -tree but is 0-hyperbolic and embeds in an Rω -tree.
Cannon and Conner define big free groups BF(c) for cardinal number c
which are a generalization of the fundamental group of the Hawaiian earring.
They define a big Cayley graph which coincides with the set of homotopy
classes of paths in the case of the Hawaiian earring. Instead of inserting real
intervals to obtain the Cayley graph, we can insert Rc -intervals and obtain
a new Rc -tree which admits an isometric action. In fact we do not need all
of Rc ; we can insert Zc -intervals and obtain a Zc -tree. In the case of the
Hawaiian earring we give a combinatorial description of the Zω -tree and the
corresponding action.

Contents
1. Introduction
2. Big free groups and Λ-trees
3. Big free groups acting on the big Cayley graph
4. A combinatorial description
5. The induced topology
References

1
2
8
9
11
11

1. Introduction
Free groups have the property that their Cayley graphs are trees. Equivalently,
the word metric on free groups is 0-hyperbolic. We can view free groups as the
fundamental group of a wedge of circles. Let c be an arbitrary
cardinal number
W
and J be an indexing set of cardinality c. Set W(c) = J S 1 . Then π1 (W(c)) is
isomorphic to F(c), the free group on c generators. The generators can be realized
as equivalence classes of loops. For each j ∈ J let aj denote the equivalence class of
a loop in W(c) that goes once around the jth circle. Then A = {aj } is a generating
set for π1 (W(c)).
The Hawaiian earring E is a space that stands opposed to the wedge of countably
infinitely many circles. We can similarly define a “generating” set A but this set
will not generate π1 (E) since a loop in E may traverse infinitely many of the circles.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20E08, 20F67.
Key words and phrases. Big free groups, Hawaiian earring, Λ-metric spaces, Λ-trees.
1

2

BRENDON LABUZ

Motivated by this situation, Cannon and Conner define the big free group BF(c)
as the set of possibly infinite products of elements of a generating set of cardinality
c [1]. They show that if c is countably infinite then BF(c) is isomorphic to π1 (E).
Since words in BF(c) may have infinitely many letters the word metric on BF(c)
is not ideal–it would take on infinite values. For the same reason the Cayley graph
of BF(c) is not connected and therefore is not a tree. In this paper a new word
metric on BF(c) is defined that distinguishes between different generators and takes
on values in Zc . It turns out that BF(c) is 0-hyperbolic under this metric and
therefore acts on a Zc -tree by isometries.
2. Big free groups and Λ-trees
We start by recalling the definition of big free group.
2.1. Big free groups. The notion of a group defined as the set of possibly infinite
products of generators has been developed by several authors. We follow the theory
of Cannon and Conner [1]. See that paper for a review of other treatments.
Let A be an alphabet of arbitrary cardinality c and let A−1 denote a formal
inverse set for A. A transfinite word is any function w : S → A ∪ A−1 where S
is totally ordered and w−1 (a) is finite for all a ∈ A ∪ A−1 . The condition that
each a ∈ A ∪ A−1 appears only finitely many times helps to avoid the calculation
a∞ = aa∞ =⇒ a = 1 and also allows the theory to coincide with the property
of the Hawaiian earring that no circle can be traversed by a path infinitely many
times. Note that if A is countable then S is always countable as the countable
union of finite sets.
Two transfinite words w1 : S1 → A ∪ A−1 and w2 : S2 → A ∪ A−1 are identified
if there is an order preserving bijection φ : S1 → S2 such that w2 ◦ φ ≡ w1 .
A theory of infinite cancellation is required. Given a totally ordered set S and
s, t ∈ S let [s, t]S denote the interval {r ∈ S : s ≤ r ≤ t}. A transfinite word
w : S → A ∪ A−1 admits a cancellation ∗ if there is a subset T of S and an
involution ∗ : T → T such that for each t ∈ T , [t, t∗]S = [t, t∗]T (∗ is complete),
([t, t∗]T ))∗ = [t, t∗]T (∗ is noncrossing) and w(t∗) = w(t)−1 (∗ is an inverse pairing).
The restriction of w to S − T is a transfinite word that arises from w via the
cancellation ∗. The symmetric transitive closure of this relation gives an equivalence
relation on transfinite words. We say a transfinite word is reduced if it admits
no nonempty cancellations. Every word admits a maximal cancellation by Zorn’s
Lemma and the resulting word is reduced. There may be more than one maximal
cancellation but the resulting word is always the same.
Theorem 2.1 ([1] 3.9). Each equivalence class of transfinite words in BF(c) contains exactly one reduced word, up to an order preserving identification.
The product of two transfinite words w1 : S1 → A ∪ A−1 and w2 : S2 → A ∪ A−1
is defined as the transfinite word w1 w2 : S1 S2 → A ∪ A−1 where S1 S2 is the
disjoint union of S1 and S2 (given the obvious ordering) and w1 w2 |S1 ≡ w1 and
w1 w2 |S2 ≡ w2 . The inverse of a transfinite word w : S → A ∪ A−1 is the word
w−1 : S → A ∪ A−1 where S reverses the ordering on S and w−1 (s) = w(s) for all
s ∈ S. Thus we have a group BF(c), the big free group on an alphabet of cardinality
c. We typically represent BF(c) as the set of all reduced transfinite words.
Cannon and Conner define the big Cayley graph Γ(BF(c)) ([1, Section 6]) as
follows. Given a reduced transfinite word w : S → A ∪ A−1 , form the Dedekind

BIG FREE GROUPS ACTING ON Λ-TREES

3

cut space Cut(w) = Cut(S) and then insert the real open interval (0, 1) between
adjacent points to form the “big interval” Iw . The adjacent points are of the form
(−∞, s) and (−∞, s] so they correspond to the element w(s) ∈ A ∪ A−1 . Each
inserted interval is labeled by this element. Then Γ(BF(c)) is formed by taking the
disjoint union of the Iw and, for each pair, identifying the largest initial segment on
which all of the labels agree. There is an action of BF(c) on Γ(BF(c)) (see Section
3 of this paper).
In the case of the countably infinite cardinal ℵ0 , Γ(BF(ℵ0 )) is in one-to-one
correspondence with the space of fixed endpoint homotopy classes of paths in the
Hawaiian earring and this correspondence suggests a metric for Γ(BF(ℵ0 )) where
the action is by isometries1 [3, Lemma 2.11]. However, this metric loses the large
scale structure of Γ(BF(ℵ0 )) and does not make it an R-tree. In fact, under a
basic condition, there is no R-tree metric on Γ(BF(c)) for which the action is by
isometries (see Proposition 3.1 of this paper).
Motivated by these issues, Cannon and Conner suggest a “big metric” for Γ(BF(c)).
Their definition uses the tree structure of Γ(BF(c)) to find the shortest big interval
between points x, y ∈ Γ(BF (c)). The big metric d : Γ(BF(c)) × Γ(BF(c)) → Rc≥0
counts, for each a ∈ A, the number of occurrences of a and a−1 (with fractions occurring at the ends) in that interval. Canon and Conner suggest deriving a topology
from this metric by fixing  neighborhoods of 0 in Rc≥0 . We follow a different path
by considering Γ(BF(c)) as a Λ-metric space with Λ = Rc .
2.2. Λ-metric spaces. The theory of Λ-metric spaces is developed in [2] and that
text is the reference for the facts stated in this section. Given an abelian group Λ
and a total order ≤ on Λ, Λ is an ordered abelian group if for all a, b, c ∈ Λ, a ≤ b
implies a + c ≤ b + c. Given a set X, a Λ-metric on X is a function d : X × X → Λ
such that the usual conditions are satisfied. For all x, y, z ∈ X,
• d(x, y) ≥ 0
• d(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y
• d(x, y) = d(y, x)
• d(x, y) ≤ d(x, z) + d(z, y).
The topology induced by the metric is defined by the basic elements B(x, ) = {y ∈
X : d(x, y) < } where  ∈ Λ and  > 0.
Let F(c) be the free group on c generators where c is a cardinal number. Given
words w, v ∈ F(c), the word metric counts the number of letters in the reduced
form of w−1 v. Then F(c) under the word metric is a Z-metric space. Notice any
Z-metric space is discrete since Z has a smallest positive element.
As mentioned above the word metric does not work well for BF(c) because words
may contain infinitely many letters. Given w, v ∈ BF(c) we count, for each a ∈ A,
the occurrences of a and a−1 in w−1 v and therefore wish to define a Zc -metric. Thus
we need an order on Zc . To define the order we use an order on A. In the case of
the fundamental group of the Hawaiian earring it is natural to consider the order
on A when defining a metric since these elements represent circles of decreasing
size. In fact we will require A to be well ordered so we define the big free group
BF(o) for the ordinal number o of the well ordered set A. We start by giving a
general definition for lexicographic orders.
1In [1, Theorem 6.1] the authors claim there is no metric on Γ(BF(ℵ )) for which the action
0
is by isometries. They meant no R-tree metric.

4

BRENDON LABUZ

Definition 2.2 ([4]). Let A be a totally ordered indexing
set and for each a ∈ A
Q
let Sa be a partially ordered set. Given (sa ), (ta ) ∈ A Sa , define (sa ) < (ta ) if
there exists a ∈ A with sa < ta and sb = tb for all b < a. Define (sa ) ≤ (ta ) if
(sa ) < (ta ) or (sa ) = (ta ).
The indexing set A is required to be totally ordered so that ≤ is a partial order,
the lexicographic order. In the case that the Sa are partially ordered
Q abelian groups
(partially ordered sets that satisfy a ≤ b =⇒ a+c ≤ b+c) then A Sa is a partially
ordered abelian group. In the case that the Sa are totally ordered, the product may
not be totally ordered. It is totally ordered provided A is well ordered.
Lemma 2.3. Let A be an indexing set and for each a ∈ Q
A let Sa be a totally ordered
set. If A is well ordered then the lexicographic order on A Sa is a total order. The
converse holds provided the sets Sa have at least two elements.
Q
Proof. Suppose A is well ordered. Suppose (sa ), (ta ) ∈ A Sa . Let B = {a ∈ A :
sa 6= ta }. If B = ∅ then (sa ) = (ta ). Otherwise B has a least element a and either
sa < ta or sa > ta . For the converse, suppose the sets Sa have at least two elements.
If A is not well ordered then
Q there is an infinite decreasing sequence and we can
construct two elements of A Sa that are not comparable.

Now that we have an order on Zo we are in a position to define a Zo -metric on
BF(o). Given w, v ∈ BF(o), define d(w, v) = (na ) where na counts the number of
occurrences of a and a−1 in the reduced form of w−1 v. It is obviously symmetric
and positive definite. To see the triangle inequality holds, suppose w, v, u ∈ BF(o).
Consider the reduced form of w−1 v and the reduced form of v −1 u concatenated.
Since for each a ∈ A the reduced form of a word has the same or fewer occurrences
of a and a−1 as the unreduced form, we must have d(w, u) ≤ d(w, v) + d(v, u).
2.3. Geodesic Λ-metric spaces. An important example of a Λ-metric space is Λ
itself where d(a, b) = |a − b| for a, b ∈ Λ (|a| is defined in the usual way). Then we
can define a Λ-geodesic in a Λ-metric space X as an isometry α : [a, b]Λ → X (the
interval [a, b]Λ is also defined in the usual way). We can assume a = 0 ([2, p.8]).
We call the image a segment. We will sometimes refer to a Λ-geodesic as a geodesic
if the context is clear. A space is called Λ-geodesic if every pair of points can be
joined by a geodesic.
The free group F(c) under the word metric is Z-geodesic. Given reduced words
w, v ∈ F(c), let l be the number of initial letters that w and v have in common (we
could have l = 0). Suppose w has n letters and v has m letters. For each l ≤ i ≤ n
let wi be the word obtained by removing the last n − i letters from w and for each
l ≤ i ≤ m let vi be the word obtained by removing the last m − i letters from v.
Then {wn , wn−1 , . . . , wl , vl+1 , vl+2 , . . . , vm } is a segment with endpoints w and v.
On the other hand, the big free group BF(o) is not Zo -geodesic provided o > 1.
Let a be the first generator and suppose α : [(0, 0, . . .), (1, 0, 0, 0, . . .)]Zo → BF(o)
is a geodesic from ι to a where ι is the empty word. But (1, −1, 0, 0, . . .) ∈
[(0, 0, . . .), (1, 0, 0, . . .)]Zo and there is no word w ∈ BF(o) with d(ι, w) = (1, −1, 0, 0 . . .).
We will see that BF(o) embeds isometrically in a geodesic Zo -metric space and that
it acts on that space by isometries.
2.4. Λ-trees. A Λ-tree is defined to be a Λ-geodesic Λ-metric space X such that
following conditions are satisfied.

BIG FREE GROUPS ACTING ON Λ-TREES

5

x

y
u

v
Figure 1. The Gromov product
(1) If two segments in X intersect in a single point, which is an endpoint of
both, then their union is a segment.
(2) If two segments in X have a common endpoint, then their intersection is
also a segment.
In the case that Λ = Z or Λ = R, condition (2) is automatically satisfied ([2, Lemma
1.2.3]). A Λ-tree is uniquely geodesic ([2, Lemma 1.3.6]) and if X is a Λ-tree, for
x, y ∈ X we write [x, y] to denote the unique segment between x and y.
The definition above is formulated in terms of basic facts about classical trees.
There is another characterization that relies on the concept of a metric space being
δ-hyperbolic. We recount the definition and then comment on the case of δ = 0 in
relation to trees.
Let X be a Λ-metric space and let v ∈ X be a basepoint. Given x, y ∈ X, the
Gromov product of x and y with respect to v is (x·y)v = 21 (d(v, x)+d(v, y)−d(x, y)).
We usually suppress the notation of the basepoint and write x · y. Notice in general
we may have x · y ∈
/ Λ (it is in 12 Λ). However, in the case of a Λ-tree, x · y ∈ Λ and
it measures how long the segments [v, x] and [v, y] coincide. For there is a u ∈ X
with [v, x] ∩ [v, y] = [v, u] and [x, u] ∪ [u, y] = [x, y] (see Figure 1). Then
1
(d(v, x) + d(v, y) − d(x, y))
2
1
= (d(v, u) + d(u, x) + d(v, u) + d(u, y) − d(u, x) − d(u, y))
2
= d(v, u).

x·y =

Denote the point u in the above argument as Y(v, x, y). It does not depend on the
order of v, x, y.
In the case of the the free group F(c), if w, v ∈ F(c) and ι is the basepoint then
w · v counts the number of initial letters that w and v have in common. Similarly,
for w, v ∈ BF(o), w · v counts, for each a ∈ A, the number of occurrences of a and
a−1 in the initial letters that w and v have in common.
Given δ ∈ Λ and v ∈ X, the Λ-metric space X is δ-hyperbolic with respect to v
if for all x, y, z ∈ X, (x · y)v ≥ min{(x · z)v , (y · z)v } − δ. We say X is δ-hyperbolic if
it is δ-hyperbolic for all v ∈ X. If X is δ-hyperbolic with respect to one basepoint
then it is 2δ-hyperbolic with respect to any other basepoint. Thus if a space is
0-hyperbolic with respect to one basepoint then it is 0-hyperbolic.

6

BRENDON LABUZ

In the case of 0-hyperbolicity the requirement becomes x · y ≥ min{x · z, y · z}.
But we also have x · z ≥ min{x · y, y · z} and y · z ≥ min{x · y, x · z}. By choosing
the smallest of x · y, x · z, and y · z we see that it must be equal to one of the other
two. In other words, two of x · y, x · z, and y · z are equal and they are less than or
equal to the third.
Both F(c) and BF(o) are 0-hyperbolic. Suppose w, v, u ∈ F(c). Suppose without
loss of generality that w · v ≤ v · u. Then v and u have at least as many initial
letters in common as w and v so w and u must have the same number of initial
letters in common, that is, w · u = w · v. A similar argument shows that BF(o) is
0-hyperbolic.
The following theorem combines [2, Lemma 2.1.6] and [2, Lemma 2.4.3].
Theorem 2.4. Suppose X is a geodesic Λ-metric space. The following statements
are equivalent.
(1) X is 0-hyperbolic and there is a basepoint v ∈ X such that (x · y)v ∈ Λ for
all x, y ∈ X.
(2) X is a Λ-tree.
Thus F(c) is a Z-tree. Given any Z-tree X there is a classical tree Γ with X as
the set of vertices and the Z-metric of X is the path metric on Γ. In the case of
F(c), Γ is the Cayley graph.
2.5. Groups acting on Λ-trees. We know that BF(o) is not a Zo -tree since it
is not Zo -geodesic. However there is a standard construction of a Λ-tree from a
Λ-metric space that satisfies (1) in the above theorem. In the context of the space
being a group we obtain an isometric action of the group on the Λ-tree. It is
convenient to use the notation of a length function.
Given a group G and an ordered abelian group Λ, a length function is a function
L : G → Λ such that the following conditions are satisfied.
(1) L(g) = 0 if and only if g = 1.
(2) L(g) = L(g −1 ) for all g ∈ G.
(3) For all g, h, k ∈ G, c(g, h) ≥ min{c(g, k), c(h, k)} where c(g, h) = 21 (L(g) +
L(h) − L(g −1 h)).
This definition is that of a Lyndon length function in [2] except that only the
reverse direction in condition (1) is assumed there. A length function L induces a
metric d on G where d(g, h) = L(g −1 h) for g, h ∈ G (condition (3) implies that the
triangle inequality holds). Notice c(g, h) = (g · h)1 . Because of condition (3), G is
0-hyperbolic under d.
Given w ∈ F(c), let L(w) be the number of letters in the reduced word w. Then
the induced metric is the word metric. Similarly, for w ∈ BF(c), set L(w) = (na ) ∈
Zo where for each a ∈ A, na is the number of occurrences of a and a−1 in the
reduced word w.
If a group G has a length function such that c(g, h) ∈ Λ for all g, h ∈ G, then there
is a canonical Λ-tree on which it acts by isometries. The Λ-tree T(G) is constructed
in [2, Theorem 2.4.6] by taking the disjoint union of Λ-intervals [0, L(g)] for each
g ∈ G and then identifying n ∈ [0, L(g)] and n ∈ [0, L(h)] if n ≤ c(g, h). Denote the
equivalence class of n ∈ [0, L(g)] by hn, gi.
To see the appropriate metric to put on T(G) let us examine the metric of Λtrees more closely. The following calculation is from [2, Lemma 2.1.2(2)]. Suppose

BIG FREE GROUPS ACTING ON Λ-TREES

7

hg

g

h−1

1

h

1

Figure 2. The action of G on T(G)
X is a Λ-tree with basepoint v. Let x, y ∈ X and set u = Y(v, x, y) as in Figure 1.
Let xn ∈ [v, x] be the point that is distance n from v and ym ∈ [v, y] be the point
that is distance m from v. Then d(xn , ym ) = n + m − 2 min{n, m, x · y}. For if
n ≤ x · y then xn , ym ∈ [v, y] so d(xn , ym ) = |n − m|. A symmetric statement holds
if m ≤ x · y. If n > x · y and m > x · y then xn , ym ∈ [x, u] ∪ [u, y] = [x, y] so
d(xn , ym ) = d(xn , u) + d(u, ym )
= (d(xn , v) − x · y) + (d(ym , v) − x · y)
= n + m − 2x · y.
We use the same formula to define the metric on T(G); given hn, gi, hm, hi ∈ T(G),
set d(hn, gi, hm, hi) = n + m − 2 min{n, m, c(g, h)}. Then T(G) is a Λ-tree. Notice
G embeds isometrically in T(G) where g ∈ G is sent to hL(g), gi. We may just
write g ∈ T(G) with the understanding that g = hL(g), gi.
There is an action of G on T(G) by isometries where, given hn, gi ∈ T(G) and
h ∈ G, hn, gi is sent to the point on the segment [h, hg] that is distance n from h.
Theorem 2.5. The action of G on T(G) is by isometries.
Proof. The theorem follows from Theorems 2.4.4, 2.4.5, and 2.4.6 in [2] but a direct
proof is instructive.
Let h, g, k ∈ G and notice c(g, k) = (hg · hk)h . Thus the action can be thought
of as changing the basepoint from 1 to h (see Figure 2). Set u = Y(h, hg, hk).
We first show the action of h on T(G) is well defined. Suppose hn, gi = hn, ki ∈
T(G), so n ≤ c(g, k) = (hg · hk)h . Thus hhn, gi, hhn, ki ∈ [h, u] so we must have
hhn, gi = hhn, ki.
To see that the action is an isometry, suppose hn, gi, hm, ki ∈ T(G). If n ≤
c(g, k), then hhn, gi, hhm, ki ∈ [h, k] so d(hhn, gi, hhm, ki) = |n − m|. A symmetric
statement holds if m ≤ c(g, k). If m > c(g, k) and n > c(g, k) then hhn, gi ∈ [u, hg]
and hhm, ki ∈ [u, hk] so d(hhn, gi, hhm, ki) = n + m − 2 c(g, h).
Finally for surjectivity, suppose hm, ki ∈ T(G). Set w = Y(1, h, k). If m ≤
c(h, k) then hm, ki ∈ [1, w] and hhL(h) − m, h−1 i = hm, hi = hm, ki. If m ≥ c(h, k),
then hm, ki ∈ [w, k] and hhL(h) + m − 2 c(h, k), h−1 ki = hm, ki.

We can read a formula for the action from Figure 2. If n ≤ c(g, h−1 ) then
h·hn, gi = hL(h)−n, hi. If n ≥ c(g, h−1 ) then h·hn, gi = hL(h)+n−2 c(g, h−1 ), hgi.

8

BRENDON LABUZ

Of course there are other ways of measuring the first coordinate of h · hn, gi in the
second case.
The big free group BF(o) acts by isometries on the Zo -tree T(BF(o)). The action
is free and without inversions.
3. Big free groups acting on the big Cayley graph
In addition to BF(o) acting on the Zo -tree T(BF(o)), we also have BF(o) acting
on the big Cayley graph Γ(BF(o)). The action can be described in a way similar to
the former action, but can also be described using a combinatorial description of
Γ(BF(o)). A description of the space of homotopy classes of paths in the Hawaiian
earring is given in [3, Example 4.15] and can be extended to any Γ(BF(o)). An
element of Γ(BF(o)) is an equivalence class of some t in a real interval labeled by
some a±1 ∈ A ∪ A−1 and can be represented by a triple (w, a±1 , t) where w is
the word that is read before the interval containing t. In order to obtain a unique
representation, given a triple (w, ap , t), we assume that w does not end in the letter
a−p . Also, if t = 0 then no second coordinate is used and we may just write w.
Then the action is defined as follows. Given u ∈ BF(o) and (w, ap , t) ∈ Γ(BF(o)),
u · (w, ap , t) = (uw, ap , t) provided uw does not have a−p as a last letter. In the
case that it does, u · (w, ap , t) = (uwap , a−p , 1 − t).
Fischer and Zastrow show that while there is an R-tree metric on Γ(BF(ℵ0 )),
there is no such metric where the action is by isometries [3, Example 4.14]. Their
argument relies on lifts of paths via a generalized covering map of the Hawaiian
earring, and they work under the assumption that the R-tree metric induces a
certain topology. We can extend essentially the same argument to all Γ(BF(o))
under a natural geometric condition on the metric. The search for an R-tree metric
on BF(ℵ0 ) is guided by the attempt to identify the big intervals with the R-tree
intervals. Note this identification is always impossible for uncountable alphabets
for separability reasons.
Proposition 3.1. Let o be an infinite ordinal number. There is no R-tree metric
on Γ(BF(o)) where, for each w ∈ BF(o), the big interval between ι and w coincides
with the R-tree interval [ι, w] and the action by BF(o) is by isometries.
Proof. Suppose there is such an R-treePmetric. Let {ai }i∈N ⊂ A and set di =
d(ai , ι). Then there are pi ∈ N so that
pi di = ∞. Set w = ap11 ap22 ap33 · · · . Then
p1
p1
p1 p2
p1 p2
p1 p2 p3
[ι, a1 ] ∪ [a1 , a1 a2 ] ∪ [a1 a2 , a1 a2 a3 ] ∪ · · · ⊂ [ι, w] and the intervals in the
union are disjoint
except for at endpoints by construction. Since the action is by
P
isometries,
pi di ≤ L(w), a contradiction.

The question still remains if there is any R-tree metric on Γ(BF(o)) that makes
the action isometric. The following question may be more interesting.
Question 3.2. Does BF(o) act on any R-tree by isometries?
In [2] a group that acts by isometries freely and without inversions on some Λtree is called Λ-free. It is called tree-free if it is Λ-free for some Λ. There are the
following inclusions: R-free groups ⊂ locally fully residually free groups ⊂ tree-free
groups. Note BF(o) is better than locally fully residually free–it is locally free.
The Ro -metric that Cannon and Conner describe for Γ(BF(o)) is an extension of the Zo -metric on BF(o). Given (w, ap , t), (v, bq , s) ∈ Γ(BF(o)), define
d((w, ap , t), (v, bq , s)) = L(w) + t L(a) + L(v) + s L(b) − 2 min{L(w) + t L(a), L(v) +

BIG FREE GROUPS ACTING ON Λ-TREES

9

s L(b), c(wa, vb)}. In the case that c(wa, vb) ≤ L(w) and c(wa, vb) ≤ L(v), the
formula becomes L(a−1 w−1 vb) − (1 − t) L(a) − (1 − s) L(b). In the case that
L(w) + t L(a) ≤ c(wa, wv) (which implies wa is in the big interval Ivb ), the formula
becomes L(v) + s L(b) − L(w) − t L(a). A similar formula holds if L(v) + s L(b) ≤
c(wa, vb). Under this Ro -metric, Γ(BF(o)) is 0-hyperbolic and the action of BF(o)
on Γ(BF(o)) is by isometries.
Remark 3.3. Since Γ(BF(o)) is 0-hyperbolic and x·y ∈ Ro for all x, y ∈ Γ(BF(o)), it
embeds in an Ro -tree and the action of BF(o) on Γ(BF(o)) extends to to an isometric
action on that Ro -tree. Also, using the inclusion Zo ,→ Ro we obtain an isometric
embedding of T(BF(o)) into an Ro -tree. While this Ro -tree differs from the one
mentioned just before, in both of them a word w ∈ BF(o) is associated with an Ro interval [(0, 0, . . .), L(w)]Ro . Given a letter a ∈ A, the embedding of the real interval
between w and wa in Γ(BF(o)) into the Ro -interval [(0, 0, . . .), L(wa)] is given by
L(w) + t L(a) for 0 ≤ t ≤ 1. The embedding of the Zo -interval between w and wa in
T(BF(o)) into the same Ro -interval is given by L(w)+t where t ∈ [(0, 0, . . .), L(a)]Zo .
Thus the two embeddings intersect only at the endpoints.
4. A combinatorial description
We wish to give a combinatorial description of T(BF(o)) similar to the one given
above for Γ(BF(o)). That is, given hn, wi ∈ T(BF(o)), we wish to find v ∈ BF(o)
and a ∈ A so that hn, wi ∈ [v, va±1 ]. We will see that such a description may not
exist for o > ω, the first infinite ordinal, and show that one does exist for o = ω.
We will need the concept of a subword of a word in BF(o). First note that for
any T(G), h ∈ [1, g] if and only if L(h) + L(h−1 g) = L(g). The reverse direction is a
direct calculation, and if h ∈ [1, g] then L(h) ≤ c(g, h) = 21 (L(g)+L(h)−L(g −1 h)) so
L(h) + L(h−1 g) ≤ L(g). But we always have L(h) + L(h−1 g) ≥ L(g) by the triangle
inequality. Now consider v, w ∈ BF(o). The equation L(v) + L(v −1 w) = L(w)
means that there is no reduction in the product of v and v −1 w. In that case if we
write v : Sv → A ∪ A−1 and w : Sw → A ∪ A−1 then we may assume Sv ⊂ Sw and it
follows that Sv is a Dedekind cut of Sw . We call such a v a subword of w. Cannon
and Conner note that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the Dedekind
cuts of Sw and the subwords of w. This correspondence induces a linear order on
the set of subwords of w.
If hn, wi ∈ [v, vap ], then v is a subword of w. For then L(v) ≤ n ≤ c(w, vap ) and
if v −1 w does not begin with ap , c(w, vap ) = c(v, w) so L(v) = c(v, w). If v −1 w does
begin with ap then c(w, vap ) = c(v, w) + L(a) and since two of c(w, vap ), c(v, w),
and c(v, vap ) are equal and not greater than the third, we must have c(v, w) =
c(v, vap ) = L(v).
We now show that if o > ω then there is hn, wi ∈ T(BF(o)) such that there
are no v ∈ BF(o) and a ∈ A with hn, wi ∈ [v, va±1 ]. We assume o = ω + 1 for
convenience of notation but the argument extends to any o > ω.
Example 4.1. Set o = ω + 1, say A = {a1 , a2 , . . . , b}. Define the word w =
· · · a3 a2 a1 . Suppose there is a subword v of w and a ∈ A so that hL(b), wi ∈
[v, va±1 ]. Then L(v) ≤ L(b) and the only such v is ι. Thus hL(b), wi ∈ [ι, a±1 ]∩[ι, w]
so L(b) ≤ c(a±1 , w) = 0, a contradiction.
The situation in the above example is that there is not a first subword of w that
has length at least L(b). We now show that in BF(ω) there are no problem elements

10

BRENDON LABUZ

like hL(b), wi; given hn, wi we can always find the first subword of w that has length
at least n.
Proposition 4.2. Given hn, wi ∈ T(BF(ω)), there are v ∈ BF(ω) and a ∈ A so
that hn, wi ∈ [v, va±1 ].
Proof. We may assume n > 0 since h0, wi = ι. Let a1 ∈ A be the first index where
the coordinate of n has nonzero value. Note this value is positive since n > 0.
There are only finitely many b ≤ a1 and only finitely many occurrences of each b
and b−1 in w so we may list them in the order induced by the order on subwords
of w. Notice any occurrence of a b or b−1 for b < a1 will cause the corresponding
subword to have length larger than n. We look for the first instance of one of two
conditions: (1) an occurrence of a b or b−1 for b < a1 or (2) an occurrence of a1
or a−1
that causes the length of the corresponding subword to equal n in the a1
1
coordinate.
Under the first condition we are done; let w(s) be the occurrence of the b or b−1
and take v to be w restricted to (−∞, s). Suppose the second condition is met and
let u be the resulting subword. If L(u) ≥ n we are done also. Otherwise let a2 be
the first index where the coordinate of the length of u is less than the coordinate of
n. Note a2 > a1 . We follow the procedure above, starting by listing the occurrences
of b and b−1 for b ≤ a2 . If the process never terminates we find L(w) = n.

Thus we can represent any element of T(BF(ω)) as a triple (w, ap , t) where
w ∈ BF(ω), a ∈ A, p = ±1, and t ∈ [0, L(a)) (the triple represents the element
hL(w)+t, wap i). We have restrictions analogous to those for Γ(BF(ω)) and can give
a description of the action and distance function in the same fashion as well. Given
u ∈ BF(ω) and (w, ap , t) ∈ T(BF(ω)), u · (w, ap , t) = (uw, ap , t) unless uw ends in
a−p in which case u · (w, ap , t) = (uwap , a−p , L(a) − t). Given (w, ap , t), (v, bq , s) ∈
T(BF(o)), d((w, ap , t), (v, bq , s)) = L(w−1 v) + t + s unless w = v and ap = bq in
which case we simply have |t − s|.
Now we see that the above combinatorial representation is unique. Suppose
(w, ap , t) and (v, bq , s) represent the same element in T(BF(ω)). Then L(w) + t =
L(v) + s ≤ c(wap , vbq ) so t + s + L(b−q v −1 wap ) ≤ L(a) + L(b). Thus we must
have w = v since otherwise L(b−q v −1 wap ) > L(a) + L(b). Therefore t = s and
t + s + L(b−q ap ) ≤ L(a) + L(b). If t = s > 0 then we must have ap = bq . If t = s = 0
then we do not use a second coordinate.
As an application of our combinatorial description, we describe the quotient
of the tree T(BF(ω)) under the action of BF(ω) as the wedge of Zω -circles Ca
for a ∈ A. Given a ∈ A, let Ca be the Zω -interval [0, L(a)] with the endpoints
identified. Define the distance between points s and t in the circle to be min{|s −
t|, L(a)−|s−t|}. The formula works with both 0 and L(a) used for the identification
point.
The quotient is the set T(BF(ω)) under the identification of elements that are
in the same orbit. Thus we map an element (w, ap , t) of the quotient to the point
t ∈ Ca if p = 1 and the point L(a) − t if p = −1. We show that this mapping is a
bijection.
Let (w, ap , t) ∈ T(BF(ω)) and u ∈ BF(ω). Then u · (w, ap , t) = (uw, ap , t) unless
uw ends in a−p in which case u · (w, ap , t) = (uwap , a−p , L(a) − t). First suppose
p = 1. In the first case both (w, a, t) and u · (w, a, t) are sent to t ∈ C(a). In the
second case u · (w, a, t) = (uwa, a−1 , L(a) − t) is also sent to t ∈ C(a). If p = −1 we

BIG FREE GROUPS ACTING ON Λ-TREES

11

find that all of the elements are sent to L(a) − t. Thus the mapping is well defined.
Now suppose (w, ap , t) and (v, aq , s) are mapped to the same point r ∈ C(a). If
p = q = 1 we obtain t = s and (v, a, t) = vw−1 · (w, a, t) since vw−1 w = v does
not end in a−1 by assumption. If p = 1 and q = −1 we have s = L(a) − t and
(v, a−1 , L(a) − t) = va−1 w−1 · (w, a, t) since va−1 w−1 w = va−1 does end in a−1 (v
does not end in a). The other cases for p and q are handled in a similar fashion.
Finally, given t ∈ Ca we have (ι, a, t) in the quotient space which is sent to t.
We define a Zω -metric on the quotient space. Given (w, ap , t) and (v, bq , s),
define the distance in the quotient space to be t + s unless w = v and ap = bq in
which case we set the distance to be |t − s|. It is the quotient metric
W inherited from
T(BF(ω)) and it is easy to check that it is definite. If the wedge Ca is given the
standard wedge metric then the mapping is an isometry.
5. The induced topology
The fact that BF(ω) is isomorphic to the fundamental group of the Hawaiian
earring suggests a topology for it that is inherited from a standard topology on
the space of fixed endpoint homotopy classes of paths called the whisker topology.
Given a path α in X and a neighborhood U of the endpoint of α, the basis element
B([α], U ) = {[β] : β = αγ for some path γ whose image lies in U } (see [3]). We define
the following topology on BF(o) following the the above model. Let w ∈ BF(o) and
a ∈ A. Define B(w, a) = {v : v = wu where u ∈ BF(o) has each letter greater than
a}. It is easy to check that the Zo -metric on BF(o) induces this topology.
References
[1] J.W. Cannon, G.R. Conner. The combinatorial structure of the Hawaiian earring group.
Topology and its Applications 106 (2000), 225–271.
[2] I. Chiswell. Introduction to Λ-trees. World Scientific, Singapore, 2001.
[3] H. Fischer, A. Zastrow. Generalized universal coverings and the shape group. Fundamenta
Mathematicae 197 (2007), 167–196.
[4] E. Harzheim. Ordered sets, Advances in Mathematics, Vol. 7. Springer, New York, 2005.
Saint Francis University, Loretto, PA 15940
E-mail address: blabuz@@francis.edu

