arXiv:1606.07728v1 [math.GR] 24 Jun 2016

Groups of piecewise isometric permutations
of lattice points
by
Robert Bieri and Heike Sach
Summary. Let M denote either Euclidean or hyperbolic N -space, and let Γ be a discrete
group of isometries of M , with the property that Γ respects and acts tile-transitively on a
convex polyhedral tesselation of M . Given an arbitrary base point p ∈ M , we consider the
orbit Ω := Γp ⊆ M and define a notion of “Γ-polyhedral pieces” S ⊆ Ω. The objects of our
interest are the groups GΓ (S) of all piecewise Γ-isometric permutations on S.
In this paper we merely present the two most basic examples, and these play rather different
roles: The case when Γ = PSL2 (Z) acting on the hyperbolic plane reveals that the groups
GΓ (Ω) here have prominent relatives: they are closely related to Richard Thompson’s group
V . And in the case Γ = Isom(ZN ) we find that the groups GΓ (S) have diverse but to some
extent computable finiteness properties.
The conjunction of the two examples suggests that to investigate the piecewise Γ-isometric
permutation groups more systematically might be a worthwhile project and might yield
interesting new groups with an accessible finiteness pattern.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 20F65; Secondary 20J05, 22E40. Key words and
phrases: Houghton groups, homological finiteness properties of groups, piecewise isometric infinite
permutations.

1

I Introduction
1 Generalities and main result
1.1 The groups. Let M denote either Euclidean or hyperbolic N-space, N ∈ N, and
Γ ≤ Isom(M) a discrete group of isometries of M with the property that Γ admits a
finite sided convex fundamental polyhedron D with finite volume1 . We aim to study
certain groups of permutations of the orbit Ω := Γp, for a given point p ∈ M.
To define the notion of a piecewise Γ-isometric permutation π : Ω → Ω requires a notion
of “Γ-polyhedral pieces” of Ω on which π should be isometric, and it is reasonable
to require that the geometry of these pieces be related to the geometry of Γ. Thus,
together with the base point p ∈ M we choose a finite set H of “Γ-relevant” closed
half-spaces of M, and the resulting groups will - to some extent - depend on this
T
choice. One possibility would be to write D as the intersection D = H∈H H with H
an irredundant finite set of half spaces, whose boundaries are spanned by the sides of
D; but other choices might be more convenient.
By a convex Γ-polyhedral subset P of M we mean any finite intersection of Γ-translates
Hγ, where γ ∈ Γ and H ∈ H. And a general Γ-polyhedral subset of M is a finite
union of convex ones. By abuse of language, we call the intersection S = Ω ∩ P a
(convex) Γ-polyhedral piece of Ω whenever P ⊆ M is a (convex) Γ-polyhedral subset.
However, we will also meet situations where it is reasonable to use “Γ-convex pieces”
to define piecewise Γ∗ -isometric permutations on Ω when Γ∗ ≤ Isom(M) contains Γ as
a subgroup and Γ∗ p = Γp.
Definition. Let S ⊆ Ω be a Γ-polyhedral piece. A permutation g : S → S is said
to be piecewise Γ∗ -isometric if S can be written as a union of finitely many convex
Γ-polyhedral pieces Ω = S1 ∪ S2 ∪ ... ∪ Sk with the property that the restriction of g to
each Si is also the restriction of an isometry ϕ ∈ Γ∗ .
We write GΓ∗ (S) for the group of all piecewise isometric Γ∗ -permutations of S. The
permutations in GΓ∗ (S) with finite support form a normal subgroup of GΓ∗ (S) which we
denote by Σ∞ (S); the quotient group GΓ∗ (S)/Σ∞ (S) is often particularly interesting.
In this paper we consider the group GΓ∗ (S) in two special cases:
a) When M is the hyperbolic plane and Γ = PSL2 (Z) we consider the group
phi(Ω) := GΓ (Ω) on the orbit Ω = Γeiπ/3 . We show that phi(Ω) is the group of all

1

In the hyperbolic case this implies that D is actually a generalized polytope - see Thm. 6.4.8 in
[Ra94].

2

quasi isomorphisms of the planar dyadic tree, and the quotient phi(Ω)/Σ∞ (S) is Richard Thompson’s group V . Thus, the quotient GΓ (S)/Σ∞ (S) for S an arbitrary hyperbolic or Euclidean polyhedral piece can be viewed as a far reaching generalization
of Thompson’s group V .
b) Our main concern then is the case when M is Euclidean N-space, Γ is the translation
group T = Tra(ZN ), and Γ∗ is either the full isometry group Isom(ZN ) or equal to T . In
both cases we use T -polyhedral pieces S ⊆ ZN and term them the orthohedral subsets
of ZN . We consider the piecewise Euclidean isometry groups pei(S) = GΓ∗ (S) and
the piecewise Euclidean translation groups pet(S) = GΓ (S) of arbitrary orthohedral
subsets S ⊆ ZN . If S is the set of all points on the positive coordinate axes then the
pet-group GΓ (S) is the Houghton group HN [Ho78]. Hence the quotients pei(S)/Σ∞ (S)
can be viewed as Euclidean relatives of Thompson’s group V .
We are interested in structural and finiteness properties of these generalized Houghton
groups.
1.2 The finiteness length of a group. By definition, every group is of type F0 ;
every finitely generated group is of type F1 ; every finitely presented group (equivalently:
every fundamental group π1 (X) of a finite cell complex X) is of type F2 ; and π1 (X) is
of type Fm (m ≥ 2) if X is a finite cell complex and π1 (X) = 0, for all i with 2 ≤ i < m.
Ten years after C.T.C. Wall introduced these finiteness properties, Borel and Serre
[BS73]/[BS76] showed that all semi-simple S-arithmetic groups have special homological features; in particular they are of type F∞ (i.e., type Fm for all m ∈ N). And this
was only the first of a number of important infinite families of groups that turned out
to be of type F∞ in the following decades; many of them, just like arithmetic groups,
in the center of mainstream group theory: automorphism groups of free groups [CV86],
Richard Thompson’ s groups [BG84], etc. More recent results in this direction are based
on Ken Brown’s topological discrete Morse theory technique [Br87] and its powerful
CAT(0)-version of Bestvina-Brady [BB97].
The insight that many important groups have much further reaching finiteness properties than finite presentability is great progress - but having “good” finiteness properties is only one side of the concept: The focus on the finiteness length function
f l : Gr → N ∪ {0, ∞}, defined on all groups G by
f l(G) := {sup m | G is of type Fm }
takes both sides into account. Analogous algebraic length functions af lA are defined for
every G-module A, to be the supremum of all non-negative integers m with the property
that A admits a free resolution which is finitely generated in all dimensions ≤ m.
The functions af lA have the considerable advantage, that they extend immediately to
monoids G. We write af l for af lZ , where Z stands for the infinite cyclic up with the
trivial G-action; by the Hurewicz Theorem we know that af l coincides with f l on all

3

finitely presented groups (i.e., whenever f l(G) ≥ 2). An important feature of both f l
and af lA is that they are constant on commensurability classes of groups.
The finiteness length of a stray group is notoriously difficult to compute. Nevertheless,
to study and interpret accessible parts of the pattern that these functions carve into
group theory can be very fruitful. A convincing example is the following: If we fix a
finitely generated group G, then the function Hom(G, Radd ) → N ∪ {0, ∞}, which associates with each homomorphism χ : G → Radd the value of af lA on the submonoid
χ−1 ([0, ∞)) ⊆ G, imposes in the finite dimensional R-vector space Hom(G, Radd ) the
pattern exhibited by the homological Σ-invariants Σk (G; A) of [BR88]. On the other
hand, we can also evaluate f l and af lA on the commensurability classes of subgroups
containing G′ , and this yields patterns on the rational Grassman space of Q-linear subspaces of G/G′ ⊗ Q (which parametrizes these classes). The core of the main Σ-results
of [BNS86], [BR88], [R89], [BGe03] consists then of exhibiting the precise relationship
between the two patterns.
An intriguing point is that in all computable examples, the finiteness length patterns
have a polyhedral flavor: they turn out to be expressible in terms of finitely many
inequalities. One of the few general results here, polyhedrality of Σ0 (G; A) when G is
Abelian, was proved in [BGr84] by methods which were later partly re-detected in tropical geometry. But polyhedrality questions on Σk (G; A) for non-Abelian G and k > 0
are wide open.
1.3 The results. In this paper we make first steps to evaluate the finiteness length
function f l and af l on what we like to view as the pei- and pet-clouds around Isom(ZN ),
resp. ZN : the groups pei(S), resp. pet(S), as S runs through all orthohedral subsets
of ZN . Our main tool is Ken Brown’s approach in [Br87]. In that paper each f l-result
comes together with a parallel af l-result, and hence our results have the same feature.
To state our main results requires the following notation: By an orthant of rank n
(n ∈ N) we mean any subset L ⊆ ZN isometric to the standard rank-n orthant Nn .
Each orthohedral set S ⊆ ZN is the disjoint union of finitely many orthants S =
L1 ∪ L2 ∪ . . . ∪ Lk . By the rank of S, denoted rkS, we mean the maximum rank of the
orthants Li ; and the height of S, denoted h(S), is the number of orthants of rank rkS
among the Li .
Theorem A. Rank and height of an orthohedral set S determines the group pei(S) up

to isomorphism, and we have f l pei(S) ≥ h(S) − 1.
Fore a more precise result see Theorem 3.1. As h(Zn ) = 2n we have, in particular,

Corollary. f l pei(Zn ) ≥ 2n − 1.

The isomorphism class of the pet-groups are not determined by rank and height of the
orthohedral set S. Here we find a precise result for the special case when S is a stack
of h (parallel) orthants of the same rank:

4


Theorem B. If S is a stack of h rank-n orthants then fl pet(S) = h(S) − 1.

For a generalization to a stack of k-skeletons of an orthant see Proposition 4.2 in Section
4.1.
1.4 Outlook. Let Γ be a discrete group of (Euclidean or hyperbolic) isometries with
polyhedral fundamental domain of finite volume. By generalizing the definition of the
group pei(ZN ) to the groups piΓ (Ω) of all piecewise Γ-isometric permutations of the
orbit Ω = Γp, we have endowed each such group Γ with the piΓ -cloud of all piecewise
Γ-isometric permutation groups piΓ (S) where S runs through the Γ-polyhedral subsets
of Ω. Our success with evaluating the finiteness length function on the clouds around
Isom(ZN ) and ZN , together with the observation that the groups around SL2 (Z) are
closely related to the highly respected Thompson groups, indicates that aiming to
investigate the finiteness pattern on more of these piΓ -clouds might be a difficult but
worthwhile program.
1.5 Remark on the history of this paper. C. Houghton introduced his groups in
[Ho78]. Theorem B, in the Hougton group case, i.e., when S is a stack of rays, is due

to K.S. Brown [Br87]. The inequality f l pet(S) ≥ h(S) − 1 in the special case when
S is a stack of quadrants (as well as the equality for a certain “diagonal subgroup”
of pet(S)) is due to the second author and appears in her Diploma thesis (Frankfurt
1992 [Sa92]), to which the first author contributed little more then the definition of the
groups. It was recent increasing interest for the Houghton groups ([ABM14], [BCMR14],
[St15], [Leh08], [Za15] etc.) that suggested Heike Sach’s Diploma thesis [Sa92] should
be published, translated, and generalized.
The surprising observation that our concept leads to rather interesting connections in
the hyperbolic case is more recent.

2 A hyperbolic example
2.1 PSL2 (Z)-polyhedral subsets of the hyperbolic plane. Let M denote the upper half-plane model of the hyperbolic plane H2 on which the group Γ = PSL2 (Z) acts
by Moebius transformations. Its standard fundamental polyhedron is the intersection
D = H ∩ H ′ ∩ H ′′ ⊆ H2 of the three half spaces
1
1
H = {z ∈ C | |z| ≥ 1}, H ′ = {z ∈ C | Re(z) ≤ }, H ′′ = {z ∈ C | − ≤ Re(z)}.
2
2
D is a generalized triangle with one finite edge which we denote by e. The union
S
T := γ∈Γ γe is the Serre tree, a combinatorial planar dyadic tree on which Γ acts
by planar tree-isomorphisms. In fact, restriction to T induces an isomorphism between
Γ and the group of all planar automorphisms of T i.e., the tree automorphism which
respect the cyclic orientation of the link of each vertex.

5

The situation here is particularly simple: Γ acts transitively on the oriented edges of
T , hence the half-planes H, H ′, H ′′ are Γ-translates of each other. Moreover, the union
of all Γ-translates of ∂H is the union of all Γ-translates of ∂D. Hence all 2-dimensional
convex Γ-polyhedral subsets P ⊆ H2 are unions of Γ-translates of tiles Dγ, γ ∈ Γ.
Since each Γ-translate of ∂H intersects T in an edge, we observe that the intersection
T ∩ ∂P of the Serre tree T with the boundary of an arbitrary convex Γ-polyhedral set
P ⊆ H2 is a finite set of tree-geodesic segments [v, v ′] of T , and T ∩ P is a sub-forest
of T in which all but finitely many vertices are of degree 3.
In terms of the horo-ball B = {z ∈ C | Im(z) ≥ 1} and its Γ-translates we can be more
precise: Each connected component [v, v ′ ] of T ∩ ∂P consists of edges tangent to one of
these horo-balls, and at its endpoints v, v ′ ∈ ∂P turns into a ray that plunges vertically
into either the same or a the neighboring horo-ball and runs to infinity. Each connected
component of T ∩ Int(P ) is a homogeneous rooted tree hanging at an endpoint of a
connected component of T ∩ ∂P .
2.2 Piecewise Γ-isometric versus piece planar tree-isometric permutations.
Let Ω = Γp be the set of all vertices of the Serre tree T . On the basis of the above
description it easy to pin down the Γ-polyhedral pieces of Ω. We need the following
terminology concerning a subgraph X ⊆ T . A vertex v of X is inner if its degree
degX (v) = 3 and v is a leaf of X if degX (v) = 1. X is a rooted subtree of T if all except
one of its vertices are inner; the one exceptional vertex p is the root of X. We write
T0 (p) for a rooted tree with root p of degree 2 and T1 (p) if the root p is a leaf. Thus
we have
Proposition 2.1 Each convex Γ-polyhedral piece S ∈ Ω has a cofinite subset, which
is the disjoint union of the vertex sets of finitely many rooted subtrees of the form
T1 (p).

It follows that every piecewise Γ-isometric permutation of Ω = ver(T ) can be interpreted as a piecewise planar tree isometric (ppti) permutation of the vertices of the
tree T – i.e, a permutation of ver(T ) that respect all but finitely many edges and the
link-orientations at all but finitely many vertices of T . Other authors use the term
quasi-autmorphisms ([Leh08], [LS07], [BMN13], and [NSt15]). Conversely, the convex
closure of T1 (p) is a convex Γ-polyhedral subset P with ver(T1 (p)) = Ω ∩ P , and the
tree-isometric embedding T1 (p) → T extends to an isometric embedding of the convex
closure of T1 (p) into H2 . Hence we can summarize:
Theorem 2.2 If Γ = PSL(Z) and Ω = Γeiπ/3 is the set of vertices of the Serre tree T
then phi(Ω) coincides with ppti(Ω).

2.3 Classification of the Γ-polyhedral subsets S ⊆ Ω. To classify the Γpolyhedral subsets S ⊆ Ω (i.e., the vertex set of finite unions of finite and rooted

6

subtrees of T ) up to ppti-isomorphism is not too difficult. First of all, adjoining or
removing finitely many edges and displacing connected components does not change
the ppti-isomorphism type – hence T itself is ppti-isomorphic to the disjoint union
T0 (p) ∪ T0 (p′ ).
The observation that the disjoint union T0 (p) ∪ T0 (p′ ) ∪ {p′′ } is ppti-isomorphic to
T0 (p′′ ) leads to the following classification: Every Γ-polyhedral subsets S ∈ Ω is pptiisomorphic to one of the following types: We define isomorphism types Tk for each
k ∈ Z as follows: T0 and T1 stand for the types represented by single rooted sub-trees
as above, and for k ∈ N we write Tk for the type represented by the disjoint union of T0
with k isolated vertices, while T−k stands for the forest obtained from T0 by removing
k vertices. Note that the disjoint union of k copies of T0 is T−k , in particular T is
phi-isomorphic to T−1 .
It should not be too difficult to show that the isomorphism types Tk are pairwise different. The isomorphism types of their quasi-automorphism groups QTk = ppti(ver(Tk ))
and their finiteness length seems to be more of a problem! Brita Nucinkis and Simon
St. John-Green [NSt15] have recently shown that f l(QT1 ) = ∞, and (based on [Leh08]
and [BMN13]) they uncovered structural properties which show, in particular, that
the two groups QT0 and QT1 cannot be isomorphic. It would be interesting to know
more about the finiteness length and the isomorphism types of the groups QTk for all
integers k.
2.4 Relationship with Thompson’s group V. We do not claim originality for
the context of this subsection – the quasi-automorphism group of dyadic trees and the
SL2 (Z)-aspects of Thompson’s groups have been around for some time (e.g. [LS07],
[Leh08], [FKS11]).
We start by choosing a finite subtree X ⊆ T with the property that the given pptipermutation α of ver(X) respects all edges and all link orientations outside X. By
adjoining edges we may and will assume that X has no vertex of degree 2. We write
∂X for the set of leaves of X and X̊ for the subtree generated by the the inner vertices
of X. The complement of X̊ in ver(T ) contains for each leaf a ∈ ∂X a leafless rooted
S
tree Ba with Ba ∩ X = {a}; and we have T = X ∪ ( a∈∂X Ba ).
S
The image of a∈∂X Ba under α is the disjoint union of the leafless rooted subtrees
α(Ba ), a ∈ ∂X. Let X ′ denote the convex hull of α(∂X). X ′ is a finite subtree of T
which contains from each of the trees Ba the root a, and only the root a. And these
roots a are the leaves of X ′ . A vertex b of degree 2 of X ′ would be the base point of a
S
geodesic ray R of T emanating from b into the complement of α( a∈∂X Ba ). On the one
hand R could enter any of the subtrees α(Ba ) only through its root which is impossible;
S
on the other hand R cannot stay in the complement of α( a∈∂X Ba ) since this is finite.
S
Hence X ′ contains no vertices of rank 2, and this shows X ′ ∪ (α( a∈∂X Ba )) = T . Thus
ver(X ′ ) = α(ver(X)), X ′ has the same features as X, and α|ver(X) defines bijections of
both ∂X → ∂X ′ and ver(X̊) → ver(X̊ ′ ).

7

We summarize:
Proposition 2.3 The ppti-permutations of ver(T ) are classified by the pairs [X, X ′ ]
of finite subtrees of T which have no vertex of degree 2, together with bijections
α : ∂X → ∂X ′

α̊ : ver(X̊) → ver(X̊ ′ ).

and



This is closely related to the often used combinatorial description of Richard Thompson’s group V (see [Br87]), which is commonly defined in terms of the rooted tree T0 (p);
it is the group of homeomorphisms induced by the almost-planar-automorphisms α of
T0 (p) with α(p) = p on the Cantor set at the boundary at infinity of T0 (p). The observation that T is ppti-isomorphic to the disjoint union of two copies of T0 (p) and
hence to T0 (p) − {p} shows that V is isomorphic to the group induced by ppti(ver(T ))
on the boundary at infinity of T . The kernel of the corresponding homomorphism
ppti(Ω) ։ V is the normal subgroup Σ∞ (Ω) consisting of all permutations of Ω with
finite support. Combined with Theorem 2.2 this proves
Theorem 2.4 phi(Ω)/Σ∞ (Ω) is isomorphic to Thompson’s group V .

8

II The orthogonal-Euclidean case
1 Orthohedral sets
1.1 Integral orthants in ZN . In the standard N-dimensional Euclidean integral
lattice ZN , endowed with the canonical basis X, we consider affine-orthogonal transformations τa,A : ZN → ZN , τa,A (x) = a+Ax, where A ∈ O(N, Z) is an integral orthogonal
matrix and a ∈ ZN . Inside ZN we have the standard orthant of rank N, NN ⊆ ZN , and
all images of its k-dimensional faces, 0 ≤ k ≤ N, under affine-orthogonal transformations. More precisely: the subsets L = τa,A hY i ⊆ ZN , where hY i stands for the monoid
generated by the k-element subset Y ⊆ X. We call L an integral orthant (of rank k,
and based at a ∈ L) of ZN or just a rank-k orthant.
S
We write Ωk for the set of all rank-k orthants of Z N and Ω∗ for the union k Ωk . Ω∗
is partially ordered by inclusion, with Ω0 = Z N . The subset of all orthants based at
the origin 0 will be denoted by Ω∗0 ⊆ Ω∗ ; it retracts the order preserving projection
τ : Ω∗ → Ω∗0 which associates to each orthant L ∈ Ω∗ based at a ∈ ZN its unique
parallel translate τ (L) = −a + L ∈ Ω∗0 . τ (L) is characterized by its canonical basis
Y = {y ∈ ±X | a + Ny ⊆ L} which indicates the directions of L; hence we call
τ (L) the indicator of L. Note that Y is given by the function f : X → {0, 1, −1} with
f (x) = ε ∈ {1, −1} if εx ∈ Y , and f (x) = 0 if {x, −x} ∩ Y = ∅; hence |Ω∗0 | = 3N .
We call a subset S ⊆ ZN orthohedral if it is the union of a finite set of orthants - without
loosing generality we can assume that the union is disjoint. The rank of S, denoted rkS,
is the maximum rank of an orthant contained in S. If S is isometric to Nk ×{1, 2, . . . , h},
we call it a stack of orthants of height h. The terminology agrees with the height
h(S) of an arbitrary orthohedral set S ⊆ ZN , defined as the number of orthants of
maximal rank, rkS, which participate in a pairwise disjoint finite decomposition of
S = L1 ∪ L2 ∪ . . . ∪ Lm – see §1.3 in the Introduction.
We will often use the elementary
Lemma 1.1 Orthohedrality of subsets S ⊆ ZN is closed under the set theoretic operations of taking intersections, unions, and complements.

We write Ωk (S) = {L ∈ Ωk |L ⊆ S} for the set of all rank-k orthants of S, Ω∗ (S) for the
disjoint union over k, and Ω∗0 (S) for the set of all orthants of S based at the origin 0.
We consider the restriction of the indicator map τ : Ω∗ (S) → Ω∗0 . We write Sτ ⊆ ZN for
the union of all orthants in τ (Ω∗ (S)) and call this the indicator image of S. Note that
τ (Ω∗ (S)) = Ω∗0 (Sτ ), and we can view the indicator map as a rank preserving surjection
τ : Ω∗ (S) ։ Ω∗0 (Sτ ).

9

1.2 Germs of orthants. Two orthants L, L′ in Ω∗ are said to be commensurable if
rkL = rk(L ∩ L′ ) = rkL′ . We write γ(L) for the commensurability class of L and call
it the germ of L. The union of all members of γ(L) is the coset of ZN and denoted
by hLi ⊆ ZN . The germs inherit from their representing orthants L the rank, relations
like parallelism and orthogonality, and also a partial ordering defined as follows: given
two germs γ, γ ′ we put γ ≤ γ ′ if they can be represented by orthants L, L′ ∈ Ω∗ with
L ⊆ L′ . Note that if L and L′ are arbitrary orthants representing γ and γ ′ , respectively,
then γ ≤ γ ′ if and only if (1) L′ contains an orthant parallel to L and (2) L ⊆ hLi.
S
We write Γ∗ (S) = k Γk (S) for the set of all germs of orthants in S and Γ∗0 (S) for
the set of all germs represented by an orthant of S based at the origin 0. Γ∗ (ZN )
and Γ∗0 (ZN ) are abbreviated by Γ∗ and Γ∗0 , respectively. As Γ∗0 and Ω∗0 are canonically
bijective, we will identify them when this is convenient. Note that Γ∗ (S) is a convex
subset of Γ∗ in the sense that if γ ∈ Γ∗ (S) then {γ ′ ∈ Γ∗ | γ ′ ≤ γ} ⊆ Γ∗ (S). We can
interpret the indicator map as an order and rank preserving surjection τ : Γ∗ (S) → Γ∗0
with τ (Γ∗ (S)) = Γ∗0 (Sτ ). By maxΓ∗ (S) we mean the set of all maximal germs of S.
Excercise: Observe that τ (maxΓ∗ (S)) ⊇ maxΓ∗0 (Sτ ), but this is not, in general, an
equality.
Lemma 1.2 maxΓ∗ (S) is finite for each orthohedral set S. The set of all germs of rank
n = rkS is a subset of maxΓ∗ (S), whose cardinality coincides with the height h(S).
Hence h(S) is independent of the particular decomposition of S.
S
Proof. Let S = j Lj be an arbitrary decomposition of S as a finite pairwise disjoint
union of orthants Lj . Each orthant L ⊆ is the disjoint union of the orthants Mj = L∩Lj ,
and exactly one of them is commensurable to L. Hence γ(L) = γ(Mj ) ⊆ γ(Lj ). This
shows that each germ γ ∈ Γ∗ (S) is smaller or equal to one of the γ(Lj ). In particular,
maxΓ∗ (S) is contained {γ(Lj ) | j} and hence finite. The orthants Lj of rank n form a
complete set of representatives of all orthants of rank n.

Remark: We leave it to the reader to deduce that h(S ∪ S ′ ) = h(S) + h(S ′ ), if S and
S ′ are orthohedral sets with rk(S) = rk(S ′ ) > rk(S ∩ S ′ ).
1.3 Piecewise isometric maps. Let S ⊆ ZN be a subset. We call a map f : S → ZN
piecewise Euclidean-isometric (abbreviated as pei-map), if S is a finite disjoint union
of orthants with the property that the restriction of f to each of them is given by the
restriction of an isometry.
Correspondingly, we call f piecewise Euclidean-translation map (abbreviated as petmap), if S is a finite disjoint union of orthants with the property, that the restriction
of f to each of them is given by the restriction of a translation.
If a bijection f : S → S ′ is a pei-map (resp a pet-map), so is f −1 and we say that S
and S ′ are pei-isomorphic (resp. pet-isomorphic).

10

By the argument used in the proof of Lemma 1.2 above one shows that if f is a pei-map,
then each orthant L ⊆ S contains a commensurable suborthant on which f restrict to
an isometric embedding. In fact, we leave it to the reader to observe
Lemma 1.3 Let f : ZN → ZN be an injective map on an orthohedral set S ⊆ ZN .
Then f is a pei(resp. pet)-injection if and only if every orthant L of ZN contains a
commensurable suborthant L′ ⊆ L on which f is given by an isometry (resp translation)
onto f (L′ ) ⊆ ZN .
It follows that every injective pei-map f : S → ZN induces a rank preserving injection
f∗ : Γ∗ (S) → Γ∗ (f (S)). f∗ does not preserve the ordering – not even if f is a pet map.
But since it is rank-preserving, it does induce a bijection between the germs of maximal
rank of Γ∗ (S) and Γ∗ (f (S)), whence h(f (S)) = h(S). The following observations can
be left as an exercise:
Lemma 1.4 If f : S → ZN is a pet-map, then f∗ (γ) is parallel to γ for each γ ∈ Γ∗ (S).
Hence τ (f∗ (γ)) = τ (γ), and Sτ = f (S)τ . In other words we have the commutative
diagram
Γ∗ (S)

f∗

Γ∗ (f (S))
/

τ

τ



Γ∗0 (S)



Γ∗0 (f (S)τ )


1.4 Normal forms. Consider the disjoint union of orthants S = L1 ∪ L2 ∪ . . . ∪ Lm
in ZN . Assuming that rkS < N we have enough space to parallel translate each Li
to an orthant L′i in such a way that the L′i are still pairwise disjoint, but that each
(oriented) parallelism class of the orthants L′i is assembled to a stack. This describes
S
a pet-bijection S → S ′ = j Sj , where the Sj stand for pairwise disjoint and nonparallel stacks of orthants. We can go one step further by observing that when the
maximal orthants of a stack Si are parallel to suborthants of the stack Sj , then there
is a pet-bijection Si ∪ Sj → Sj which feeds Si into Sj . Hence we can delete all stacks
Si of orthants that are parallel to a suborthant of some other Sj and find
Proposition 1.5 (pet-normal form) Each orthohedral set S is pet-isomorphic to a
S
disjoint union of stacks of orthants S ′ = j Sj , with the property that no maximal
orthant of any Sj is parallel to a suborthant in some Sk , if k 6= j.

Corollary 1.6 (pei-normal form) Each orthohedral set S is pei-isomorphic to a stack
of orthants.

As observed in Section 1.3, rank rkS and height h(S) are pei-invariant; hence they can
be read of from the pei-normal form; and the pair (rkS, h(S)) characterizes S up to
pei-isomorphism. For the corresponding pet-result we consider the height function

11

(1.1)

hS : Γ∗0 −→ N0

which assigns to each 0-based orthant L ∈ Ω∗0 = Γ∗0 the number of maximal germs
γ ∈ maxΓ∗ (S) with τ (γ) = L, which is finite by Lemma 1.2. The support supp(hS ) ⊆ Γ∗0
is the set of all 0-based orthants L with hS (L) > 0. From the Exercise in Section 1.2
we infer that maxΓ∗0 (Sτ ) ⊆ supp(hS ), and that this is not, in general an equality. One
observes easily that the equality
(1.2)

τ (maxΓ∗ (S)) = maxΓ∗0 (Sτ )) (or equivalently: maxΓ∗0 (Sτ ) = supp(hS ) )

is a necessary condition for S to be in pet-normal form. Thus we call S quasi-normal
if the equation (1.2) holds. Of course, a quasi-normal orthohedral set is not necessarily in pet-normal form. But as quasi-normality implies that τ restricts to a surjection τ : maxΓ∗ (S) ։ maxΓ∗0 (Sτ ), maxΓ∗ (S) is the pairwise disjoint union of the fibers
f −1 (γ), which consist of hS (γ) germs parallel to γ. This can be viewed as a weak
germ-version of the pet-normal form.
Lemma 1.7 If f : ZN → ZN is a pet-injection of a quasi-normal orthohedral set S ⊆
ZN , then f∗ (maxΓ∗ (S)) ⊆ maxΓ∗ (f (S)).
Proof. By Lemma 1.3 f induces a rank preserving bijection f∗ : Γ∗ (S) → Γ∗ (f (S)), and
by Lemma 1.4 f (S)τ = Sτ . Let γ ∈ maxΓ∗ (S). Then we know that τ (γ) is maximal
in Γ∗0 (Sτ ). Since f is a pet map, we also know that τ (f∗ (γ)) = τ (γ); hence τ (f∗ (γ)) is
maximal in Γ∗0 (Sτ ) = Γ∗0 (f (S)τ ). We claim that f∗ (γ) is maximal in Γ∗ (f (S)τ ). Indeed,
if f∗ (γ) is not in maxΓ∗ (f (S)τ ), then τ (f∗ (γ)) cannot be maximal in Γ∗0 (f (S)τ ). This
shows that f∗ (maxΓ∗ (S)) ⊆ maxΓ∗ (f (S)), as asserted.

Corollary 1.8 If f : S → S ′ is a pet-isomorphism between quasi-normal orthohedral

sets, then f∗ (maxΓ∗ (S)) = maxΓ∗ (S ′ ) and hS = hS ′ .
This shows, in particular, that the stack heights in a pet-normal form are uniquely
determined and characterize S up to pet-isomorphism.

2 Permutation groups supported on orthohedral sets
2.1 pei- and pet-permutation groups. Let G = pei(ZN ) denote the group of all
pei-permutations of ZN . Given any subset S ⊆ ZN , we write G(S) for the subgroup
of G supported on S, i.e. G(S) = {g ∈ G | g(x) = x for every x ∈ (ZN − S)}. If S is
orthohedral, so is its complement and hence every pei-permutation of S extends to a
pei-isomorphism of ZN , and we write pei(S) for G(S) when this is convenient.
As an immediate consequence of Corollary 1.6 we have

12

Corollary 2.1 If S ⊆ ZN is an orthohedral subset, then pei(S) is isomorphic to
pei(S ′ ), where S ′ is a stack of orthants of rank rkS and height h(S).

The set of all pet-permutations on the orthohedral set S is the pet-subgroup pet(S) ≤
G(S). As an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.5 and its subsequent remark we find

Corollary 2.2 If S ⊆ ZN is an orthohedral subset and S ′ =
then pet(S) is isomorphic to pet(S ′ ).

S

j

Sj its pet-normal form,


2.2 The germ stabilizer. Let S ⊆ ZN be an orthohedral set. We start by attaching
to each germ γ ∈ Γ∗ (S) the union hγi ⊆ ZN of all orthants representing γ, which we call
the tangent coset at γ. Clearly, hγi isometric to ZrkL . Given a pei-permutation g ∈ G(S),
we find in each orthant L of S a suborthant L′ commensurable with L, such that the
restriction g|L′ : L′ → S is an isometric embedding, and putting gγ(L′ ) = γ(gL′ ) yields
a well defined induced action of G(S) on Γ∗ (S). A certain control over the stabilizer
C(γ) of γ is given by
Proposition 2.3 C(γ) acts canonically on the tangent coset hγi ∼
= Zrk(γ) by isome
tries. The kernel K(γ) = ker C(γ) → Isomhγi of this action consists of all elements
g ∈ G(S) with the property that γ is represented by an orthant pointwise fixed by g.
Proof. Let g ∈ G(S) with L′ ⊆ L as above. If gγ(L′ ) = γ(gL′ ) = γ(L′ ), then L′ and
gL′ are commensurable and hence the restriction map g|L′ embeds L′ isometrically into
hγi. This embedding extends to an isometry of hγi and is independent of the particular
choice of L′ . One observes that this well defines an action of C(γ) on hγi; the second
statement is obvious.

Remark. Note that Isom(Zk ) contains the translation subgroup Zk as a normal subgroup of finite index.
2.3 A normal series for G(S). With S as in 2.2 we consider the chain of subsets
(∗ ) Γ∗ (S) = Γ[0] ⊇ Γ[1] ⊇ Γ[2] ⊇ . . . ⊇ Γ[j] ⊇ . . . ⊇ Γ[n] = Γn (S),
S
where Γ[j] = k≥j Γk (S). As the action of G(S) on Γ∗ (S) preserves the rank it yields
an ascending series for the germwise stabilizers

1 = C(Γ[0]) ⊆ C(Γ[1]) ⊆ C(Γ[2]) ⊆ . . . ⊆ C(Γ[j]) ⊆ . . . ⊆ C(Γ[n]) = C Γn (S) ,

where

C(Γ[j]) := {g ∈ G(S) | gγ = γ, for all germs γ ∈ Γ∗ (S) with rkγ ≥ j}.
But we can do better: Let

13

K(Γ[j] :=

\

K(γ)

γ∈Γ[j]

= {g ∈ C(Γ[j]) | g pointwise fixes in each L ∈ Ωk (S),
with k ≤ j, a commensurable suborthant.}
We claim
Proposition 2.4 K(Γ[j]) acts by finitary permutations on Γ[j − 1].
Proof. Let g ∈ K(Γ[j]). We start by proving, that g is supported on an orthohedral
subset S ′ ⊆ S with rank S ′ = j − 1. We prove this by induction on i = n − j.
If j = n, then g ∈ K(Γ[n]) asserts that each rank-n germ is represented by an orthant
pointwise fixed by g. By Corollary 1.2 Γn (S) is finite, and when we remove from S for
each γ ∈ Γn (S) an orthant representing γ which is pointwise fixed by g, we end up
with a rank-(n − 1) orthohedral subset S ′ ⊆ S which supports g.
If j < n and g ∈ K(Γ[j]), the inductive hypothesis asserts that g is supported on a
orthohedral subset S ′ ⊆ S of rank j. As before, Γj (S ′ ) is finite. So we can remove
representing rank-j orthants pointwise fixed by g and find an orthohedral rank-(j − 1)
subset S ′′ ⊆ S ′ supporting g. S ′′ contains all (finitely many) rank-(j − 1) orthants of
S which are not pointwise fixed by g. This proves the proposition, for it is the set of
all germs of such orbits that g has to permute in Γ[j − 1].

The kernel of the finitary permutation representation K(Γ[j]) → Sym(Γ[j − 1]) is the
subgroup C(Γ[j − 1]); hence we have
Theorem 2.5 For any orthohedral set S with rkS = n the group G(S) admits the
normal series
1 ≤ K(Γ[1]) ≤ C(Γ[1]) ≤ K(Γ[2]) ≤ C(Γ[2]) ≤ . . .
≤ C(Γ[n − 1]) ≤ K(Γ[n]) ≤ C(Γ[n]) ≤ G(S),
with the factor groups pei(S)/C(Γ[n]) = sym(n),
C(Γ[n])/K(Γ[n]) ≤ Isom(Zn )h(S) Abelian-by-finite,
C(Γ[j])/K(Γ[j]) ≤ Isom(Zj )∞ Abelian-by-(locally finite), if 1 < j < n
K(Γ[j])/C(Γ[j − 1]) ≤ sym(∞) locally finite, if 1 ≤ j ≤ n.

Corollary 2.6 G(S) is elementary-amenable.

14



3 A lower bound for the finiteness length of pei(S)
In this section we will define a certain “diagonal” subgroup, peidia (S) ≤ pei(S), and
prove
Theorem 3.1 For every orthohedral set S we have


f l pei(S) ≥ f l peidia (S) = h(S) − 1.
3.1 The height of a pei-injection f : S → S. We start with a general observation
on the set of germs, when an orthohedral set S comes with a decomposition of a disjoint
union S = A ∪ B of two orthohedral subsets. In that case every orthant L ⊆ S inherits
the decomposition L = (A ∩ L) ∪ (B ∩ L), which shows that one of the orthants of
either A or B is commensurable to L. This shows that the germs of S have an induced
disjoint decomposition Γk (S) = Γk (A) ∪ Γk (B) for each k.
Now let S be an orthohedral set of rank rkS = n. We can represent the rank-n germs
of S by pairwise disjoint orthants L1 , . . . , Lh , h = h(S), with the property that the restriction of f to each Li is an isometric embedding into S. f (Li ) is then commensurable
to some Lj, and since f is injective it follows:
f permutes the germs γ(L1 ), . . . , γ(Lp ), and rk(S − f (S)) < rkS.
As S −f (S) is an orthohedral set, we now obtain that the number of rank-(n−1) germs

in S −f (S) is finite. We call this number the height of f , denoted h(f ) = h S −f (S) =
h(S − Sf ).
Lemma 3.2

i) If f, g : S → S are two pei-injections, then h(f · g) = h(f ) + h(g).

ii) If A ⊆ S is an orthohedral subset whose complement Ac = S − A has rank
rkAc < n = rkS, then the height of any pei-injection f : S → S is given by


h(f ) = h A ∩ f (A)c − h Ac ∩ f (A) .

Proof. i) Consider the disjoint union S = (S − Sg) ∪ Sg. As f is injective Sf =
(Sf − Sgf ) ∪ gf is also a disjoint union. Hence so is S = (S − Sf ) ∪ Sf = (S − Sf )∪
(Sf − Sgf ) ∪ Sgf, and we find
S − Sgf = (S − Sf ) ∪ (Sf − Sgf ).
Now, f is a pei-bijection between (S − Sg) and (S − Sg)f = (Sf − Sgf ); and a peibijection of a an orthohedral set induces a pei-bijection on its germs. Thus the number
of rank-(n − 1) germs of (S − Sg) and (Sf − Sgf ) are the same. This proves i).
ii) Each pei-injection f : S → S induces an injection f ∗ : Γn−1 (S) → Γn−1 (S). We
abbreviate B = Ac and know from rkB < n that Γn−1 (B) is finite. Hence f ∗ restricts

to a bijection f ∗ : Γn−1 (B) → Γn−1 f (B) . On the complement we find the induced

injection f ∗ : Γn−1 (A) → Γn−1 f (A) .
15

We use the abbreviation P ∗ := Γn−1 (P ) for P = S, A, B, and consider the disjoint
union


S ∗ − f ∗ (S ∗ ) = A∗ − A∗ ∩ f ∗ (S ∗ ) ∪ B ∗ − B ∗ ∩ f ∗ (S ∗ )


= A∗ − A∗ ∩ f ∗ (A∗ ) − A∗ ∩ f ∗ (B ∗ ) ∪ B ∗ − B ∗ ∩ f ∗ (A∗ ) − B ∗ ∩ f ∗ (B ∗ ) .

Using the fact that B ∗ and A∗ − f ∗ (A∗ ) are finite, we find for h(f ) = h S ∗ − f ∗ (S ∗ )




h(f ) = h A∗ −A∗ ∩f ∗ (A∗ ) −h A∗ ∩f ∗ (B ∗ ) +h(B ∗ )−h B ∗ ∩f ∗ (A∗ ) −h B ∗ ∩f ∗ (B ∗ ) .

Now we apply that h(B ∗ ) = h f (B ∗ ) and observe that


−h A∗ ∩ f ∗ (B ∗ ) + h(B ∗ ) − h B ∗ ∩ f ∗ (B ∗ )



= −h A∗ ∩ f ∗ (B ∗ ) + h f (B ∗ ) − h B ∗ ∩ f ∗ (B ∗ )


= h f (B ∗ ) − h (A∗ ∩ f ∗ (B ∗ ) ∪ B ∗ ∩ f ∗ (B ∗ ) = 0.
Hence our expression for h(f) simplifies to




h(f ) = h A∗ − A∗ ∩ f ∗ (A∗ ) − h B ∗ ∩ f ∗ (A∗ ) = h A∗ ∩ f ∗ (A∗ )c − h B ∗ ∩ f ∗ (A∗ )
as asserted.



3.2 Monoids of pei-injections. Let S be an orthohedral set of rank n = rkS
in pet-normal form. In particular S is the pairwise disjoint union of finitely many
specified stacks of orthants. Let maxΓ∗ (S) denote the finite set of all maximal germs
of S. We write M(S) for the monoid of all pei-injections S → S. It is endowed with
the height function h : M(S) → N of Section 3.1. Let M0 (S) be the submonoid of all
pei-endoinjections of S, which fix all maximal germs of S. M0 (S) is of finite index in
M(S) since maxΓ∗ (S) is finite. As in the proof of Proposition 2.2 we see, that each
f ∈ M0 induces an isometry τ(f,γ) : hγi → hγi on the tangent coset of each germ
γ ∈ max Γ∗ (S). Thus we have a homomorphism
L
L
(3.1)
κ : M0 (S) −→> γ∈max Γ∗ (S) Iso (hγi) , given by κ(f ) = γ∈max Γ∗ (S) τ(f,γ) .

The translation submonoid Mtr (S) ⊆ M0 (S) consists of all f ∈ M0 (S) with the property that the induced maps τ(f,γ) : hγi → hγi are translations for each γ ∈ max Γ∗ (S).
Since the translation subgroup of Isom(hγi) is of finite index, Mtr (S) has finite index
in M0 (S). And restricting (3.1) yields a surjective homomorphism
L
(3.2)
κ : Mtr (S) −→> γ∈max Γ∗ (S) Zrkγ = ZN , with N = Σγ∈max Γ∗ (S) rkγ.

Every orthant L contains a characteristic diagonal element uL ∈ L: the sum of the
canonical basis of L. We write tL : L → L for the translation given by addition of
uL and call this the diagonal unit-translation of L. The general diagonal translations
on L (i.e on hLi) are given by addition of an integral multiple of uL . By the diagonal
submonoid Mdia (S) ⊆ Mtr (S) we mean the set of all elements f ∈ Mtr (S) with the

16

property, that for each γ ∈ max Γ∗ (S) the induced isometry τ(f,γ) : hγi → hγi is a
diagonal translation. Restricting (3.2) yields the homomorphism
L
∗
(3.3)
κ : Mdia (S) −→> γ∈max Γ∗ (S) Z = Z|max Γ (S)| .

We write maxΩ∗ (S) for the set of all maximal orthants of the stacks of S, and consider
the set T = {tL | L ∈ max Ω∗ (S)} of all diagonal unit-translations of these orthants.
Each tL ∈ T extends canonically to a pei-injection on tL : S → S, which is the identity
on S −L. We denote it by the same symbol tL , and with this interpretation T generates
a free-Abelian submonoid mon(T ) ≤ Mdia (S).

Definition 3.3 Given f, f ′ ∈ Mdia (S) we define f ≤ f ′ if there is some t ∈ mon(T )
with tf = f ′ .
Observation. Mdia (S) is a directed partially ordered set.



It is an important fact, that the height function h : M(S) → N is order preserving and
its restrictions to totally ordered subsets of M(S) are injective. We will also have to
consider slices of Mdia (S). For given r, s ∈ N0 , r ≤ s we put
M [r,s] := {f ∈ Mdia (S) | r ≤ h(f ) ≤ s} and
M [r,∞] := {f ∈ Mdia (S) | r ≤ h(f )}.
M [r,∞] inherits the partial ordering from Mdia (S) and is also a directed set.
3.3 Maximal elements < f in Mdia (S). From now on we assume that all maximal
orthants of the stacks of S have the same finite rank n = rkS. We put Λ := max Ω∗ (S).
We write
M<f = {a ∈ Mdia (S) | a < f },

M≤f = {a ∈ Mdia (S) | a ≤ f }

for the “open resp. closed cones below f ” and aim to understand the set of all maximal
elements of M<f . For this it will be convenient to have to introduce the abbreviation for
the points on the (finite) boundary of the maximal orthants L, so we set ∂L := L − LtL .
Lemma 3.4 Let b be a maximal element of M<f . Then there is a unique maximal
orthant L ∈ Λ with the property that f = tL b and h(f ) = h(b) + n. Furthermore b
is given as the union b = b′ ∪ b′′ , where b′ : ∂L → (S − Sf ) is a pei-injection, and
′
b′′ : (S − ∂L) → Sf is the restriction (t−1
L f ) |(S−∂L) . Converseley, if c : ∂L → (S − Sf )
is an arbitrary pei-injection distinct to b′ , then the union c = c′ ∪ b′′ is a maximal
element of M<f distinct to b.
Proof. For each element b ∈ M<f there is some t ∈ mon(T ) with f = tb. t has a unique
reduced expansion as a product of elements of T ; let l(t) denote the length of this

17

expansion. As h(tL ) = L = n for each L ∈ Λ we have h(t) = n l(t). It follows that if
b is maximal, then h(t) = n and t = tL ∈ T for some L ∈ Λ. The maximal orthant L
is uniquely determined by the fact that the restriction of f and b coincide on S − L.
The restriction b′′ of b to (S − ∂L) coincides with (t−1
L f ) |(S−∂L) , and has its image in
′
Sf. The restriction b of b to ∂L is not determined by f and L. As b and f are injective
we know that

∅ = (∂L)b ∩ (S − ∂L)b = (∂L)b ∩ (S − L)b ∪ LtL b

= (∂L)b ∩ (S − L)f ∪ Lf
= (∂L)b ∩ Sf.
Hence b′ can be viewed as a pei-injection ∂L → (S − Sf ). If we replace b′ by another
pei-map c′ : ∂L → (S − Sf ), the union c = c′ ∪ b′′ will still satisfy f = tL c and
h(f ) = h(c) + n. This shows that c will also be maximal in M<f .

Lemma 3.5 Let B ⊆ M<f be a finite set of maximal elements of M<f . Then the
following conditions are equivalent:
i) The elements of B have a common lower bound δ in M<f
ii) For every pair (b, b′ ) ∈ B × B with b 6= b′ and tb = f = t′ b′ for diagonal unittranslations t, t′ , we have
a) t 6= t′ and
b) b(∂L) ∩ b′ (∂L′ ) = ∅, where L resp. L′ are the maximal orthants of S on
which t resp. t′ acts non-trivially.
Proof. i) ⇒ ii). Let δ be a common lower bound of the elements of B. Then for every pair
(b, b′ ) ∈ B × B there are diagonal translations d, d′ ∈ mon(T ) with dδ = b and d′ δ = b′ .
From tb = f = t′ b′ we obtain tdδ = t′ d′ δ and conclude td = t′ d′ . The assumption t = t′
would now imply d = d′ and hence b = b′ .
Let L resp. L′ denote the maximal orthants of S on which t resp. t′ acts non-trivially.
As d, d′ are diagonal translations, we have d(L) ⊆ L and d′ (L′ ) ⊆ L′ . From t 6= t′ we
know L ∩ L′ = ∅ , and hence (∂L)d ∩ (∂L′ )d′ = ∅. Since δ is injective, this implies
∅ = (∂L)dδ ∩ (∂L′ )d′ δ = (∂L)b ∩ (∂L′ )b′ , as asserted.
ii)⇐ i). For each b ∈ B we have some diagonal unit-translation tb ∈ T with tb b = f ,
and we put
Q
(3.4) tB := b∈B tb .

By assumption (i) the maximal orthants Lb on which tb is a diagonal unit-translation
are pairwise disjoint. Thus |B| ≤ h(S), and S decomposes in the disjoint union S =

18

S

b∈B


Lb ∪ S ′ . We define the pei-injection δB : S → S as follows:

−1


tb f on each Lb tb
δB := b
on the complements ∂Lb = Lb − Lb tb


f
on S ′ .

S
Assumption (ii) guarantees that the restriction of δB to the union b∈B ∂Lb =
S
b∈B (Lb − Lb tb ) = (S − StB ) is injective. And since the image of each ∂Lb is disjoint to f (S), we also find that the image of (S − StB ) is disjoint to f (S), and also
to f (S ′) ⊆ f (S). This shows that δ is a pei-injection. It remains to prove that δB
is a common lower bound for the elements of B. By commutativity we find elements
Q
sb ∈ mon (T ) with tB δB = tb sb δB , where sb = x∈(B−{b}) tx . One observes that sb δB
and b agree on (S − Stb ) = (Lb − Lb tb ), and that tB δB = f = tb b. Hence b and sb δB
agree on S.

Lemma 3.6 In the situation of Lemma 3.5 we have for the lower bound δB defined in
the proof:
i) δB is, in fact, a largest common lower bound of the elements of B
ii) h(δB ) ≥ h(f ) − h(S)n.
Proof. i) We compare an arbitrary common lower bound γ with δB , the lower bound
constructed in the proof above. Thus for each b ∈ B we are given ub ∈ mon(T ) with
ub γ = b. We fix a base element b′ ∈ B and define the diagonal translation t′ ∈ mon(T )
by its action on S as
(
ub′ on S ′
t′ :=
ub on each Lb .
We use the elements sb defined in the proof of Lemma 3.5 and observes that
xt′ γ = xub′ γ = xb′ = xsb′ δB = xδB
xt′ γ = xub γ = xb = xsb δB = xδB

for x ∈ S ′
for x ∈ Lb .

This shows that t′ γ = δB , hence δB ≥ γ.
ii) For the translation t of (3.4) we have tδB = f and can deduce that h(δB ) =
h(f ) − h(t) = h(f ) − |B|n ≥ h(f ) − h(S)n.

3.4 The simplicial complex of Mdia (S). We consider the simplicial complex
|Mdia (S)|, whose vertices are the elements of Mdia (S) and whose chains of length
k, a0 < a1 < . . . < ak , are the k-simplices. As the partial ordering on Mdia (S) is
directed, |Mdia (S)| is contractible.
In this section we aim to prove

19

Lemma 3.7 If h(f ) ≥ 2 · rkS · h(S), then |M<f | has the homotopy type of a bouquet

of h(S) − 1 -spheres.

The first step towards proving Lemma 3.7 is to consider the covering of |M<f | by the
subcomplexes |M≤b | , where b runs through the maximal elements of M<f . We write
N(f ) for the nerve of this covering. Lemma 3.5 and 3.6 show, that all finite intersections
of such subcomplexes |M≤b | are again cones and hence contractible. It is a well known
fact that in this situation the space is homotopy equivalent to the nerve of the covering.
Hence we have
|M<f | is homotopy equivalent to the nerve N(f )
and it remains to compute the homotopy type of N(f ).

The next step is to use the results of Section 3.3 to find a combinatorial model for
the nerve N(f ). The vertices of N(f ) are the maximal elements of M<f , and hence,
S
by Lemma 3.4, in 1-1-correspondence to the disjoint union A = L∈Λ AL , where AL
stands for the set of all pei-injections a : ∂L → (S −Sf ). Lemma 3.4 allows to translate
the simplicial structure of N(f ) into a simplicial complex Σ(f ) on A:
the p-simplices of N(f ) are the p-element sets of maximal elements B ⊆ M<f with
a common lower bound, and the corresponding p-simplices of Σ(f ) are the sequences
(aL )L∈Λ′ , where Λ′ is a p-element subset of Λ and aL ∈ AL with the property
(∗) The intersections of the images aL (∂L), L ∈ Λ′ , are pairwise disjoint.
Following [Br87] and [Sa92] we will now be able to compute the homotopy type of Σ(f )
by means of a lemma on colored graphs.
Let Γ = (V, E) be a combinatorial graph, given by a set V of vertices and set E of
edges, where an edge is a set consisting of two non-equal vertices. A clique of Γ is any
subset C ⊆ V with the property, that any two vertices of C are joined by an edge of
Γ. The flag-complex K(Γ) is the simplicial complex on V whose p-simplices are the
cliques consisting of p + 1 vertices of V . Our main example here is the complex Σ(f ),
which is easily seen to be the flag-complex of its 1-skeleton Γ(f ).
Let h be a natural number. By an h-colored graph Γh whose vertex set V is the disjoint
union of n subsets V1 , . . . Vh . Vertices v, v ′of V are said to have the same color i if they
are contained in the same subset Vi . And we assume that two vertices joined by an
edge are never of the same color.
Lemma 3.8 If all colors i ∈ {1, 2, . . . , h} of an h-colored graph Γh = (V, E) satisfy
the two properties
(1) Vi contains at least two elements, and

20

(2) For any choice of 2(h − 1) vertices u1 , . . . u2(h−1) in V − Vi there are two vertices
v, w in Vi which are adjacent to each uj , i.e., for each j ∈ {1, 2, . . . 2(h−1)} there
is an edge path of length 2 in Γh joining v and w via uj .
Then the flag-complex K(Γh ) has the homotopy type of a bouquet of (h − 1)-spheres.
Proof. We use induction on h, starting with the observation that the statement is trivial
when h = 1. For h ≥ 2 we assume that K(Γh−1 ) is homotopy equivalent to a bouquet
of (h − 2)-spheres, if Γh−1 is an (h − 1)-colored graph which satisfies the properties (1)
and (2). We construct K(Γh ) in several steps, similar to the method applied in Brown’s
proof for Hougthon’s Groups [Br87]. We start with choosing a base vertex v1 ∈ V 1 and
consider its star in K(Γh ),
K0 := stK(Γh) (v1 )
Then we proceed with i = 1, 2, . . . , h by taking the union of Ki−1 ∪ Vi′ , where Vi′ is the
set of all vertices of Vi which are not joined with the base vertex v1 by an edge. And
we put
Ki := full subcomplex of K(Γh ) generated by Ki−1 ∪ Vi′ .
One observes that (V1 ∪ . . . ∪ Vi ) ⊆ Ki and (Vi+1 ∪ . . . ∪ Vh ) ∩ Ki = K0 . In particular,
Kh = K(Γh ). Ki is obtained from Ki−1 by adjoining vertices v ∈ Vi that are not
connected to the base vertex v1 by an edge; then taking the full subcomplex of K(Γh ).
Thus Ki is obtained from Ki−1 by adjoining for these vertices v the cone over
lk(Ki−1 , v) := the link of v in Ki−1 .
The 1-skeleton of lk(Ki−1 , v) has vertex set
W = W1 ∪ . . . ∪ Wi−1 ∪ Wi+1 ∪ . . . ∪ Wh with
Wj := set of vertices of Vj which are joined with v by an edge,
for j = 1, . . . , i − 1
Wj := set of vertices of Vj which are joined with v and v1 by an
edge, for j = i + 1, . . . , h.
Thus, the 1-skeleton of lk(Ki−1 , v) is an (h−1)-colored subgraph Γh−1 of Γh with vertex
set W and colors {1, 2, . . . , h} − {i}, and lk(Ki−1 , v) is the flag-complex K(Γh−1 ). Now
we consider any 2(h−2) vertices u1 , . . . , u2(h−2) of W −Wj with colors in {1, 2, . . . , h}−
{i, j} for some j ∈ {1, 2, . . . , h} − {i}. Together with the vertices v1 and v, we obtain
2(h − 1) vertices u1 , . . . , u2(h−2) , v1 , v of V − Vj . By property (2) of Γh , there exists
two vertices w, w ′ in Vj , which can be joined by an edge path of length 2 via uk for
each k ∈ {1, 2, . . . , 2(h − 2)}, and additionally via v1 , v. In particular, w and w ′ can be
joined by an edge with v1 and v, and so they are vertices of Wj . Hence Γh−1 satisfies

21

the two properties of the lemma, and in view of the inductive hypothesis, lk(Ki−1 , v)
is homotopy equivalent to a bouquet of (h − 2)-spheres.
From here we can use the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma 5.3 in [Br87]:
Starting with the contractible complex K0 , K1 is obtained from K0 by adjoining for
each vertex v ∈ V1′ a cone over lk(K0 , v). Using the homotopy type of lk(K0 , v), we can
deduce that K1 is homotopy equivalent to a bouquet of (h − 1)-spheres. For the next
steps in the construction of Kh , we know that Ki is obtained from Ki−1 by adjoining for
each vertex v ∈ Vi′ a cone over lk(Ki−1 , v). In view of the homotopy type of lk(Ki−1 , v),
we see that, up to homotopy, the passage from Ki−1 to Ki consists of the adjunction
of (h − 1)-cells to a bouquet of (h − 1)-spheres.

We will now apply Lemma 3.8 to the 1-skeleton Γ(f ) of Σ(f ). By definition its vertex
S
set is the disjoint union A = L∈Λ AL , and we regard the various AL as the coloring
of Γ(f ). The edges of Γ are the pairs of such pei-injections {aL , a′L′ } with disjoint
images. Thus Γ(f ) is an h(S)-colored graph Γ(f )h(S) in the sense above, and in order
to establish Lemma 3.7 it remains to prove
Lemma 3.9 If h(f ) ≥ 2 · rkS · h(S), then Γ(f )h(S) satisfies the assumptions of Lemma
3.8.
Proof. Let n := S and h := h(S). Assumption (1) is a consequence of assumption (2)
except in the trivial case h = 1.
To prove (2) we fix L ∈ Λ and consider a set of 2(h − 1) elements F ⊆ A − AL . We
have to show that there are two elements a, b ∈ AL with the property that for each
c ∈ F the image im(c) = c (∂L(c)) is disjoint to both a(∂L) and b(∂L). In other words:
there are two pei-injections

 [
a, b : ∂L → S − Sf −
im(c) .
c∈F

To show this it suffices to compare the height function - i.e., the number of rank-(n−1)
germs - of domain and target. Clearly, h (a(∂L))) = h(∂L) = n, and the same applies to


S
every vertex of A. Hence h c∈F im(c) ≤ 2(h−1)n. By assumption h S −Sf ≥ 2hn,
and so the target orthohedral set has height at least 2hn − 2(h − 1)n = 2n, which is
more than the height h(∂L) = n of the domain. In this situation one observes easily
that there are arbitrarily many different pei-injections in AL whose image is disjoint
S
to c∈F im(c). This proves the lemma.

Remark 3.10 If we replace M<f by the subset Mr,f := {a ∈ Mdia (S) | h(a) ≥
r and a < f }, the assertion of Lemma 3.7 holds true, provided f satisfies the additional
condition h(f ) ≥ r + h(S). In this case we know by Lemma 3.6 that h(δB ) ≥ r, where
δB stands for the largest lower bound of a finite set B of maximal elements of Mr,f .
Thus δB is an element of Mr,f and the proof of Lemma 3.7 works the same way for the
reduced simplicial complex |Mr,f |.

22

3.5 Stabilizers and cocompact skeletons of M(S). The group G(S) of all peipermutations acts on M(S) from the right, and as h(g) = 0 for all g ∈ G(S) the height
function h : M(S) → N is invariant under this action. Correspondingly, G# (S) :=
G(S) ∩ M# (S) acts on M# (S), where # stands for 0, tr, or dia. We will also restrict
[r,s]
attention to the various G# (S)-invariant subsets M# (S) = {f ∈ M# (S) | r ≤
h(f ) ≤ s} for prescribed numbers r ≤ s in N0 . And also, mutatis mutandis, for the
corresponding pet-groups pet# (S) - note that pet0 (S) = pettr (S).
We start with the following easy observation:
Lemma 3.11 Two elements f, f ′ ∈ M(S) are in the same pei(S)-orbit if and only if
(S − Sf ) and (S − Sf ′) are pei-isomorphic.
Proof. As both Sf and Sf ′ are pei-isomorphic to S there is a pei-isomorphism
g ′ : Sf → Sf ′. If there is also a pei-isomorphism g ′′ : (S − Sf ) → (S − Sf ′ ) then
the union g = g ′ ∪ g ′′ is a pei-permutation of S with f g = f ′ . Conversely, f g = f ′
implies (S − Sf ′ ) = (Sg − Sf g) = (S − Sf )g, hence (S − Sf ′) is pei-isomorphic to
(S − Sf ).

Since orthohedral sets of the same rank and height are pei-isomorphic by Corollary
1.5, it follows that pei(S) acts transitively on the set of all pei-injections of a given
rk(S −Sf ) and height k. The very same can be said for the action of G# (S) on M# (S).
Let ∆ = (a0 < a1 < . . . < ak−1 < ak ) be a k-simplex of |M(S)|. By definition there
are elements t1 , t2 , . . . , tk ∈ mon(T ), with ai = ti a0 for all i; they are uniquely defined
and form a k-simplex ∆′ = (id < t1 < . . . < tk−1 < tk ) ∈ |mon(T )| . Moreover, putting
σ(∆) := (∆, a0 ) defines a bijection
σ : |M(S)| −→ |mon(T )| × M(S).
The action of pei(S) on |M(S)| is given by (a0 < a1 < . . . < ak )g = (a0 g < a1 g < . . . <
ak−1 g < ak g). We can leave it to the reader to observe that this action induces, via σ,
on |mon(T )| × M(S) the G(S)-action given by simple right action on M(S).
The simple structure of the G# (S)-action on |M# (S)| has two immediate consequences:
Corollary 3.12
i) The stabilizer of a k-simplex of |M# (S)| coincides with the stabilizer of its minimal vertex f and is isomorphic to G# (S − Sf ).
[r,s]

ii) For every numbers r ≤ s in N0 the simplicial complex of M# (S) = {f ∈
M# (S) | r ≤ h(f ) ≤ s} is cocompact under the G# (S)-action
Proof. i) One observes that right action of g ∈ G# (S) on M# (S) fixes an element
f ∈ M# (S) if and only if g restricted to Sf is the identity. In other words, the stabilizer

23

of the vertex f ∈ M# (S) is isomorphic to G# (S − Sf ).
ii) We use the interpretation of a simplex ∆ = (a0 < a1 < . . . < ak−1 < ak ) ∈ |M(S)|
in |mon(T )| × M(S). Since G# (S) acts transitively on the set of all pei-injections in
M# (S) of a given rk(S −Sf ) and height k, the bound on h(a0 ) allows only finitely many
G# (S)-orbits on the second component M(S). The bound on h(ai ) for i = 1, . . . , k
allows only finitely many simplices in the first component |mon(T )|.

3.6 The conclusion. Here we put things together to prove Theorem 3.1, i.e


f l G(S) ≥ f l Gdia (S) = h(S) − 1.

Proof. We will first show, by induction on n = S, that f l Gdia (S) = h(S) − 1. If
n = 1, then the group G0 (S) is the Houghton group on h(S) rays and has finite index
in G(S). In that case the assertion is due to Ken Brown [Br87].
Now we assume n > 1. Here we use M [r,s] = {f ∈ Mdia (S) | r ≤ h(f ) ≤ s}, r, s ∈ N.
Since f ∈ M [r,s] is a diagonal pei-injection, the height of f is a multiple of n. So we fix
the lower bound r = nk0 , k0 ∈ N, and consider the filtration of M := M [r,∞] in terms
of M k := M [r,nk] , with k → ∞. Then we follow the argument of Brown [Br87].
• First we note that M is a directed partially ordered set and hence |M| is contractible.
• |M k+1 | is obtained from |M k | by adjoining cones over the subcomplexes |M<f |
for each f with h(f ) = k + 1. By Lemma 3.7 and Remark 3.10 we know, that

the subcomplexes |M<f | have the homotopy type of a bouquet of h(S) − 1 spheres for k sufficiently large. This shows that the embedding |M k | ⊆ |M k+1 | is
homotopically trivial in all dimensions < h(S).
• By Corollary 3.12 we know that the |M k | have cocompact skeleta.
• The stabilizers, stabG(S) (f ), of the vertices f ∈ M - in fact of all simplices - are
of the form G(S − Sf ). As rk(S − Sf ) < rkS the inductive hypothesis applies.
The assumption that M contains only injections f with h(f ) ≥ r implies now,

that f l stabG(S) (f ) ≥ r − 1 for each f ∈ M.

We can choose r arbitrarily; if we choose r ≥ h(S) + 1 the main results of [Br87] apply

and it follows that f l Gdia (S) = h(S) − 1. This completes the inductive step.




In order to prove that f l G(S) ≥ f l Gdia (S) we note that f l G(S) = f l Gtr (S) ,
since Gtr (S) is of finite index in G(S). Then we observe that Gdia (S) is a normal
subgroup of Gtr (S) with Q = Gtr (S)/Gdia (S) finitely generated Abelian. As f l(Q) = ∞


this implies f l Gtr (S) ≥ f l Gdia (S) .


24

4 A lower bound for the finiteness length of pet(S) for a stack
of orthants
In this section we will show

Theorem 4.1 If S is a stack of orthants then f l pet(S) ≥ h(S) − 1.


The steps to prove this lower bound of f l pet(S) are similar to those in section 3
for the corresponding pei-result. We will use a certain poset of injective pet-maps
f : S → S to form a simplicial complex, and we will choose a diagonal subgroup of
pet(S) for the action on the complex. However, the part concerning the finiteness length
of the stabilizers of f is more difficult here, because the set (S − Sf ) is generally not
pet-isomorphic to a stack of orthants with lower rank (there are different parallelism
classes of rank-(n − 1) germs in S if rkS = n). So even if the stabilizers are isomorphic
to pet(S − Sf ), there is no base for an induction argument.
In order to set up an inductive proof we need a version of Theorem 4.1, which makes
the assertion not only for stacks of orthants but also for stacks S of paralell copies of
a “rank-n-skeleton” of an orthant. In combination with special injective pet-maps f
(the “super-diagonal” maps), such a stack S leads to a set (S − Sf ), which has the
structure of a stack of rank-(n − 1)-skeletons.
4.1 Stack of skeletons of an orthant. Let X be the canonical basis of the standard
orthant NN . Every orthant L is of the form a + ⊕y∈Y Ny, where Y is a subset of X. L
carries the structure of a simplex whose faces, indexed by the subsets Z ⊆ Y , are the
suborthants LZ = a + ⊕z∈Z Nz ⊆ L. We refer to LZ as a rank-k face of L if |Z| = k.
By the rank-k skeleton of L, denoted L(k) , we mean the union of all rank-k-faces of L.
Thus the skeleta of L form an ascending chain of orthohedral set
{a} = L(0) ⊆ L(1) ⊆ . . . ⊆ L(k) ⊆ . . . ⊆ L(rkL) = L.
L
Let L(n) be the rank-n skeleton of a rank-r orthant L = a + y∈Y Ny. Then L(n) is the

union of h(L(n) ) = nr pairwise non-parallel rank-n orthants.

Now we consider a stack S of paralell copies of the rank-n-skeleton L(n) of an rank-r
orthant - in other words, S = R(n) is the rank-n-skeleton of a stack R of rank-r orthants.
We call each copy of L(n) in such a stack S a component of S, and we write c(S) for the

number of components of S. Note that h(S) = c(S) nr . The next proposition shows a

lower bound for f l pet(S) , and the case n = r yields the assertion of Theorem 5.1.

Proposition 4.2 If S is a stack of rank-n skeletons of an orthant then f l pet(S) ≥
c(S) − 1.

25

For later purpose in this section we consider the subset S̊ ⊆ S of all regular points of S,
which is defined as follows: If S is an orthant, then S̊ is the image tS (S) of S under the
diagonal unit-translation; and if S is a stack of rank-n skeletons of an orthant, a point
p ∈ S is regular if S contains a maximal suborthant of rank equal to S, which contains
p as a regular point. The complement, denoted sing(S) = S − S̊, is the set of all singular
points of S. In the case when S is a stack of orthants, we will also use the geometrically
more suggestive notation ∂S for sing(S). If S = R(n) is the n-skeleton of a stack of
rank-r orthants L, then sing(S) = R(n−1) and S̊ has the canonical decomposition as the
disjoint union of the regular points of the maximal orthants of S. By a component of S̊
we mean C ∩ S̊, the intersection of S̊ with a component C of S. Note that c(S) = c(S̊).

Lemma 4.3 For the sets S and S̊ the following holds
i) S and S̊ are pet-isomorphic. Hence pet(S) is isomorphic to pet(S̊).


ii) h sing(S̊) = h sing(S) (r − n + 1), where r is the rank of the stack R with
S = R(n) .
Proof: i) S is the disjoint union of S̊ and (S − S̊). As each maximal orthant of (S − S̊)
is parallel to a subortant of S̊, the assertion follows from the pet-normal form.
ii) Since S̊ = R(n) − R(n−1) , sing(S̊) is the disjoint union of h(R(n) ) · n rank-(n − 1)
orthants. So h(sing(S̊)) = h(R(n) )n. For the height of S and sing(S) we have h(S) =




r
r
h(R(n) ) = c(S) nr and h(sing(S)) = h(R(n−1) ) = c(S) n−1
. As nr n = n−1
(r −n+1),
(n)
(n−1)
we get h(R )n = h(R
)(r − n + 1).

4.2 Reduction to the diagonal subgroup. From now on we assume that S is a
stack of rank-n skeletons of an orthant. Since S and S̊ are pet-isomorphic, it suffices to
show Proposition 4.2 for the set S̊, which is more suitable for some parts of the proof.
As noted above S̊ is canonically in pet-normal form. In particular, every maximal germ
of S (or S̊) is represented by a unique maximal orthant of S̊. Thus we can conceptually
simplify matters by replacing the set of all maximal germs, maxΓ∗ (S) = maxΓ∗ (S̊), by
the set of the canonical representatives maxΩ∗ (S̊), the set of all maximal orthants of
S̊.
Let Mdia (S̊) denote the monoid of all diagonal pei-injections of S̊ introduced in Section
3.2. Mdia (S̊) is a submonoid of Mtr (S̊), the translation submonoid of M(S̊). Its elements
f have the property that they induce, for each L ∈ maxΩ∗ (S̊), a diagonal translation
pet
τ(f,L) : hLi → hLi. Now we consider the submonoid Msdia
(S̊) ⊆ Mdia (S̊) consisting of
all diagonal pet-injections f : S̊ → S̊ which satisfy the additional super-diagonality
condition:
(4.1) When two maximal orthants L, L′ of S̊ are contained in the same component of
S, then the diagonal translations τ(f,L) and τ(f,L′ ) have the same translation
length.

26

pet
The restriction of the homomorphism (3.3) of Section 3.2 to Msdia
(S̊) can thus be
interpreted as a map
L
pet
(4.2) λ : Msdia
(S̊) ։ C∈Comp(S̊) Z = Zc(S) ,

which associates to each super-diagonal pet-injection f the translation length λ(f, C)
on each component C of S̊.
pet
The group of all invertible elements of Msdia
(S̊) is the super-diagonal pet-group
petsdia (S̊).

Let be pettr (S̊) the group of all invertible elements of Mtr (S̊). It is a subgroup of
pet(S̊), which has finite index in pet(S̊). Analogous to (3.2) in Section 3.2 there is a
homomorphism
L
L
(4.3) κ : pettr (S̊) ։ L∈max Ω∗ (S̊) T ran(hLi), given by κ(g) = L∈max Ω∗ (S̊) τ (g, L)

which associates to each pet-injection g ∈ pettr (S̊) the translation length τ (g, L) on
each maximal orthant L of maxΩ∗ (S̊). We observe that a permutation g ∈ pettr (S̊)
is in petsdia (S̊), if and only if the translations τ(g,L) are diagonal for each L and its
translation length constant as L runs through the maximal orthants of a component
C of S̊.

Given a component C of S̊, we consider the set Λ(C) := maxΩ∗ (C) of all h(C) = nr
rank-n orthants of C. For each orthant L ∈ Λ(C), we write Y (L) for its canonical basis. The translation τ(g,L) : hLi → hLi has the canonical decomposition into the direct
y
sum of translations τ(g,L)
in the directions y ∈ Y (L), and we write ly (g, L) ∈ Z for the
corresponding translation lengths.
Hence, for g ∈ pet(S̊) to be super-diagonal means, that the numbers ly (g, L) ∈ Z coincide for all pairs in P (C) := {(y, L) | y ∈ L ∈ Λ(C)} - and this is so for all components

′
C. Hence, associating to g the sequence ly (g, L) − ly (g, L′) (i(C),C) , with i(C) run
ning through all pairs (y, L), (y ′, L′ ) ∈ P (C), and C through the components of S̊,
exhibits the super-diagonal pet-group petsdia (S̊) as the kernel of a homomorphism of
pettr (S̊) into a finitely generated Abelian group. It is well known that in this situa

tion f l pettr (S̊) ≥ f l petsdia (S̊) . Since pettr (S̊) has finite index in pet(S̊), we have


f l pet(S̊) = f l pettr (S̊) , hence


f l pet(S̊) ≥ f l petsdia (S̊) .

The proof of Proposition 4.2 is thus reduced to a proof of f l petsdia (S̊) = c(S) − 1.
To show this, we follow the arguments in the proof of the corresponding pei-result:

f l peidia (S) = h(S) − 1, where S was a stack of h(S) orthants of rank n. In the
present situation, where S̊ is the set of regular points of the n-skeleton of the stack
R of h(R) orthants, the components C of S̊ have to take over the role previously
played by the orthants L of the stack S. Correspondingly we now have to work with
pet
the multiplicative submonoid mon(T ) ⊆ Msdia
(S̊) freely generated by the set T of all

27

super-diagonal unit-translations tC : C → C as C runs through the components of
Q
S̊, where each tC = L∈Λ(C) tL is the composition of the diagonal unit-translations tL
defined in Section 3.2. As at the end of Section 3.2 we use the action of mon(T ) by
pet
left multiplication to endow Msdia
(S̊) with a partial ordering; and we observe that this
partial ordering is directed.
4.3 Maximal elements < f in Mpet
sdia (S̊). To adapt notation to the one used in the
corresponding pei-situation in Section 3, we write Λ for the set of all components C of
S̊, and ∂C := C − CtC for each component C ∈ Λ . Note that C is the disjoint union of

h(C) = nr rank-n orthants – using the notation of Section 4.1 one for each n-element

set Z ⊆ Y . Hence h(∂C) = n nr . We are still in the situation that all maximal orthants
pet
of S̊ have the same finite rank n = rkS. And given f ∈ Msdia
(S̊) we write
pet
pet
M<f = {a ∈ Msdia
(S̊) | a < f }, M≤f = {a ∈ Msdia
(S̊) | a ≤ f },

for the “open resp. closed cones below f ”, aiming to understand the set of all maximal
elements of M<f .
Lemma 4.4 Let b be a maximal element of M<f . Then there is a unique component C
of S̊ with the property that f = tC b, and h(f ) = h(b)+n. Furthermore, b is given as the
union b = b′ ∪ b′′ , where b’: ∂C → (S̊ − S̊f ) is a pet-injection, and b′′ : (S̊ − ∂C) → S̊f
′
is the restriction t−1
C f |(S̊−∂C) . Converseley, if c : ∂C → (S̊ − S̊f ) is an arbitrary petinjection distinct to b′ , then the union c = c′ ∪ b′′ is a maximal element of M<f distinct
to b.
Proof. See argument in Lemma 3.4.



Lemma 4.5 Let B ⊆ M<f be a finite set of maximal elements of M<f . Then the
following conditions are equivalent:
i) The elements of B have a common lower bound δ in M<f .
ii) For every pair (b, b′ ) ∈ B × B, with b 6= b′ and tb = f = t′ b′ for super-diagonal
unit-translations t, t′ , we have
a) t 6= t′ , and
b) b(∂C) ∩ b′ (∂C ′ ) = ∅, where C resp. C ′ are the components of S̊ on which t
resp. t′ acts non-trivially.
Proof. For each b ∈ B we have a super-diagonal unit-translation tb ∈ T with tb b = f ,
and we put
Q
(4.4) tB := b∈B tb .

28

By assumption (a) the components Cb , on which tb acts non-trivially, are pairwise

S
′
disjoint. Thus |B| ≤ c(S), and S decomposes in the disjoint union S =
b∈B Cb ∪ S .
We define the pet-injection δB : S → S as follows:

−1


tb f on each Cb tb
δB :=

b


f

on the complements ∂Cb = Cb − Cb tb
on S ′ .

To show that δB is a common lower bound, see arguments in Lemma 3.5.



Lemma 4.6 In the situation of Lemma 4.5 we have for the lower bound δB defined in
the proof:
i) δB is, in fact, a largest common lower bound of the elements of B
ii) h(δB ) ≥ h(f ) − h(S)n.
Proof. For (i) see argument in Lemma 3.6. For (ii) we use the translation t = Πb∈B tb
of (4.4) which satisfies tδB = f and reads:
h(δB ) = h(f ) − h(t) = h(f ) − |B| · h(tC )
= h(f ) − |B| · h(C)n
≥ h(f ) − c(S)h(C)n = h(f ) − h(S)n.

4.4 The simplicial complex of Mpet
sdia (S̊). We consider the simplicial complex
pet
pet
|Msdia (S̊)|, whose vertices are the elements of Msdia
(S̊) and whose chains of length
pet
k, a0 < a1 < . . . < ak , are the k-simplices. As the partial ordering on Msdia
(S̊) is
pet
directed, |Msdia (S̊)| is contractible.
In this section we aim to prove
Lemma 4.7 If h(f ) ≥ 2 · rkS · h(S) then |M<f | has the homotopy type of a bouquet of

c(S) − 1 -spheres.

The first step towards proving Lemma 4.7 is to consider the covering of |M<f | by the
subcomplexes |M≤b |, where b runs through the maximal elements of M<f . We write
N(f ) for the nerve of this covering. Lemma 4.6(i) asserts that all finite intersections
of such subcomplexes |M≤b | are again cones and hence contractible. It is a well known
fact that in this situation the space is homotopy equivalent to the nerve of the covering.
Hence we have
|M<f | is homotopy equivalent to the nerve N(f ),
and it remains to compute the homotopy type of N(f ).

29

The next step - replacing the nerve N(f ) by the combinatorial complex Σ(f ) - follows
the arguments in Section 3: We find that the set of vertices of Σ(f ) is the disjoint union
S
A = C∈Λ AC , where AC stands for the set of all pet-injections a : ∂C → (S̊ − S̊f );
and the p-simplices of Σ(f ) are the sequences (aC )C∈Λ′ , where Λ′ is a p-element subset
of Λ whose entries aC ∈ AC satisfy the condition
(4.5)

the intersections of the images aC (∂C), C ∈ Λ′ , are pairwise disjoint.

The homotopy type of Σ(f ) can again be computed by Lemma 3.8., which we apply
to the 1-skeleton Γ(f ) of Σ(f ), viewed as a c(S)-colored graph Γ(f )c(S). At the end it
remains to prove
Lemma 4.8 If h(f ) ≥ 2 · rkS · h(S) then Γ(f )c(S) satisfies the assumptions of Lemma
3.8.
Proof. Let n := rkS and h := c(S). Assumption (1) is a consequence of assumption (2)
except in the trivial case h = 1.
To prove (2) we fix C ∈ Λ and consider a set of 2(h − 1) elements F ⊆ A − AC . We
have to show that there are two elements a, b ∈ AC with the property that for each
d ∈ F, d : ∂Cd → (S̊ − S̊f ), im(d) = d(∂Cd ) is disjoint to both a(∂C) and b(∂C). In
other words: there are two pet-injections

S
(4.6) a, b : ∂C → (S̊ − S̊f ) −
d∈F im(d) .

For this it suffices to compare the height function - i.e., the number of rank-(n − 1)

germs - of domain and target. Clearly, h a(∂C) = h(∂C) = nh(C), and the same

S
applies to every vertex of A. Hence h d∈F im(d) ≤ 2(h − 1)nh(C). By assumption
h(S̊ − S̊f ) ≥ 2nh(S), and so the target orthohedral set has height at least 2nh(S) −
2(h − 1)nh(C) = 2nh(C), which is more than at least twice the height h(∂C) = nh(C)
of the domain when h(C) is positive. Moreover, by Lemma 4.10 below, the set (S̊ − S̊f )
is pet-isomorphic to a stack of copies of ∂C. In this situation one observes that the two
different pet-injections required in (4.6) certainly do exist. This proves the Lemma 4.8
and hence Lemma 4.7.


Remark 4.9 By the same argument as in Remark 3.10, the assertion of Lemma 4.7
pet
holds true if M<f is replaced with the subset Mr,f := {a ∈ Msdia
(S̊) | h(a) ≥ r and a <
f } and f satisfies the additional condition h(f ) ≥ r + h(S).
4.5 Stabilizers and cocompact skeletons of |Mpet
sdia (S̊)|. Here we consider the
pet
monoid M (S) of all pet-injections endowed with the height function h : M pet (S) → Z
inherited from M(S) and the pet(S)-action induced by right multiplication. Our main
pet
interest, however, is the super-diagonal submonoid Msdia
(S̊) ⊆ M pet (S) acted on by
the super-diagonal pet-group petsdia (S̊).

30

Lemma 4.10
i) f, f ′ ∈ M pet (S) are in the same pet(S)-orbit if and only if (S−Sf )
and (S − Sf ′) are pet-isomorphic.
pet
ii) Let S be a stack of copies of L(n) , where L is a rank-r orthant. If f ∈ Msdia
(S̊)

r
with h(f ) > 0, then h(f ) is a multiple of (r − n + 1) n−1 and (S̊ − S̊f ) is

r
pet-isomorphic to a stack of h(f )/ n−1
copies of L(n−1) .

pet
iii) Two elements f, f ′ ∈ Msdia
(S̊) with h(f ) = h(f ′ ) > 0 are in the same petsdia (S̊)orbit.

Proof. The proof of i) is analogous to the pei-version in Section 3.
ii) The key here is a pet-version of Lemma 3.2i). The set of germs Γn−1 (S̊) decomposes
into its parallelism classes, and as these are pet(S̊)-invariant, the height function h :
pet
pet
Msdia
(S̊) → Z can be written as the sum of functions hY : Msdia
(S̊) → Z, with Y
running through all (n − 1)-element subsets of the canonical basis of L, that count the
number of germs in Γn−1 (S̊ − S̊f ) parallel to hY i.
We need the hY -version of Lemma 3.2i), asserting that we have for all rank-(n − 1)
faces Y of L

(4.7) hY (f ) = hY A ∩ (Af )c − hY (Ac ∩ Af ), for every orthohedral subset A ⊆ S
with rkAc < n.
The proof is a straightforward adaptation of the one in Section 3.1 and can be left to
the reader.
We can refine (4.7) by exhibiting A as the disjoint union of rank-n orthants Ki on
which f acts by (super-diagonal) translations. Since f is super-diagonal, the corresponding translation lenghts λC(i) depend only on the component C(i) of S̊ containing
Ki . One observes that f (Ki ) is contained in the uniquely defined maximal orthant
of S̊ containing Ki . This has the consequence that for i 6= j, Ki ∩ (Kj f )c = Ki and
Kic ∩ Kj f = Kj f, from which one finds


S
S
c
c
(4.8) hY (f ) = hY
(K
∩
(K
f
)
−
h
(K
∩
K
f
)
i
i
Y
i
i
i
i
P
P
c
c
=
h
(K
∩
(K
f
)
−
h
(K
∩
K
f ) = i λC(i) .
Y
i
i
Y
i
i
i

Clearly, for each component C of S, sing(C) contains exactly one orthant parallel to
hY i. By Lemma 4.3ii) this orthant is parallel to a face of exactly (r − n + 1) maximal
orthants Ki in C, and each of them gives rise to a summand λC(i) . Hence summation
over all Ki contained in a single component C of S yields λC (r −n+1). And summation
over all I, finally,

hY (f ) = λ(r−n+1) , where λ is the sum of λC , with C running through all components
of S.
This shows, in particular, that hY (f ) is intependent of Y . As we are assuming that

r
h(f ) > 0 it follows that λ > 0 and h(f ) = λ · (r − n + 1) · n−1
.
31

It follows that (S̊ − S̊f ) is pet-isomorphic to disjoint union S ′ ∪ S ′′ , where S ′ is a stack
of hY (f ) = λ(r − n + 1) copies of L(n−1) and S ′′ a subset of rank < n − 1. As λ > 0,
S ′ contains at least one copy of L(n−1) . In this situation S ′ contains orthants parallel
to any given maximal orthant of S ′′ . In view of the the pet-normal form of S ′ ∪ S ′′ it
follows that S ′ ∪ S ′′ is pet-isomorphic to S ′ , i.e., to a stack of λ(r − n + 1) copies of
L(n−1) .
iii) Part ii) shows that h(f ) = h(f ′ ) > 0 implies that S̊ − S̊f and S̊ − S̊f ′ are petisomorphic. Hence, by assertion i), there is a pet-permutation g ∈ pet(S̊) with f ′ = f g.
pet
The assumption that f and f ′ are in Msdia
(S̊) implies that g ∈ petsdia (S̊).

Corollary 4.11
pet(S̊ − S̊f )

pet
i) The stabilizer of f ∈ Msdia
(S̊) in petsdia (S̊) is isomorphic to

pet
ii) For every number r, s ∈ N0 , the simplicial complex of M [r,s] := {f ∈ Msdia
(S̊) |
r ≤ h(f ) ≤ s} is cocompact under the petsdia (S̊)-action.

Proof. i) Same reasoning as the proof of Corollary 3.12.
ii) Lemma 4.10iii) asserts that petsdia (S) acts cocompactly on the vertices of a given
pet
height in the simplicial complex |Msdia
(S)|. Just as in the proof of Corollary 3.12ii) this
yields the claimed assertion.

4.6 The conclusion. It is an elementary observation that right action of g ∈ pet(S)
on M pet (S) fixes an element f ∈ M pet (S) if and only if g restricted to f (S) is the identity. In other words, the stabilizer of a vertex f ∈ M pet (S) is isomorphic to pet(S − Sf ).
This will be crucial for the inductive step in the following inductive


Proof of Proposition 4.2. In Section 4.2 was already proved f l pet(S̊) ≥ f l petsdia (S̊) ,

so it suffices to show f l petsdia (S̊) ≥ c(S) − 1. We will argue by induction on n = rkS.
If n = 1, then h(S) = c(S) · r, and the group petsdia (S̊) is the Houghton group on h(S)

rays. By Brown [Br87] this implies that f l petsdia (S̊) ≥ h(S) − 1 ≥ c(S) − 1. This
establishes the case n = 1 of the induction.

Now we assume n > 1. By induction we can assume that f l pet(S ′ ) ≥ c(S ′ ) − 1 holds
for every stack S’ of copies of a rank-(n − 1) skeleton of an orthant L. To prove the
inductive step we start with restricting attention to the subgroup petsdia (S̊) acting on
pet
the super-diagonal monoid M [u,v] = {f ∈ Msdia
(S̊) | u ≤ h(f ) ≤ v}, u, v ∈ N. By

r
Lemma 4.10ii) the h(f ) is a multiple of s := (r − n + 1) n−1
. So we fix a lower bound
[u,∞]
u = sk0 , k0 ∈ N, and consider the filtration of M := M
in terms of M k =: M [u,sk],
with k → ∞. Then we argue as follows
• First we note that M is a directed partially ordered set and hence |M| is contractible.

32

• |M k+1 | is obtained from |M k | by adjoining cones over the subcomplexes |M<f |
for each f with h(f ) = k + 1. By Lemma 4.7 and Remark 4.9 we know, that

the subcomplexes |M<f | have the homotopy type of a bouquet of c(S) − 1 spheres for k sufficiently large. This shows that the embedding |Mk | ⊆ |Mk+1 | is
homotopically trivial in all dimensions < c(S).
• By Corollary 4.11 we know that each |M k | has cocompact skeleta.
• The stabilizer of the f ∈ M under the action of petsdia (S̊) on M coincides with
pet(S̊ − S̊f ) by Corollary 4.11i). Lemma 4.10ii) asserts that if h(f ) > 0 then
(S̊ − S̊f ) is pet-isomorphic to a stack of copies of the rank-(n − 1) skeleton of

r
an orthant. The stack height here is c(S̊ − S̊f ) = h(f )/ n−1
. We can choose u

r
arbitrarily; if we choose u = c(S) + 1) n−1 the inductive hypothesis together
with the assumption that h(f ) ≥ u yields



r
− 1 ≥ c(S), for all f ∈ M.
f l pet(S̊ − S̊f ) ≥ c(S̊ − S̊f ) − 1 = h(f )
n−1

• The main results of [Br87] now establishs f l petsdia (S̊) ≥ c(S) − 1. This completes the inductive step.



5 The upper bounds of fl pet(S) when S ⊆ NN

5.1 More structure at infinity. Here we assume, for simplicity, that our orthohedral
sets S are contained in NN . By Corollary 1.5 this is not a restriction for the pei-group
pei(S), and it is a basic special case for the pet-group pet(S):
Given an element x ∈ X (i.e. a coordinate axis), we write Γ1x (S) for the set of all germs
of rank-1 orthants of S parallel to Nx. We have a canonical embedding κ : Γ1x (S) →
NN −1 defined as follows: Each γ ∈ Γ1x (S) is represented by a unique maximal orthant
L ∈ Ω1 (S); we delete the x-coordinate of the base point of L and put κ(γ) to the

remaining coordinate vector. We write ∂x S for the image κ Γ1x (S) , and we will often
identify Γ1x (S) with ∂x S via κ. ∂x S can be viewed as the boundary of S at infinity in
direction x.
Lemma 5.1 For ∂x S the following hold.
i) ∂x S is an orthohedral subset of NN −1 .
ii) For very rank-(k − 1) orthant L ⊆ ∂x S there is a unique rank-k orthant L′ ⊆ S,
which is maximal with respect to the property that for each point of p ∈ L κ−1 (p)
is represented by a suborthant of L.
Proof. Easy.



33

5.2 Short exact sequences of pet-groups. From now on we assume that S =
S
m
j Sj ⊆ N where m is minimal and S is in pet-normal form as defined after Proposition 1.5. Given x ∈ X arbitrary we note that S is the disjoint union S = S(x) ∪ S ⊥ (x),
where S(x) collects the stacks Sj which contain a rank-1 orthant parallel to Nx, and
S ⊥ (x) the stacks Sj which are perpendicular to x. We note that ∂x S = ∂x S(x), and we
have an obvious projection πx : S(x) ։ ∂x S. Moreover, there is a canonical injection
σx : ∂x S → S(x) which maps each germ γ ∈ ∂x S to the base point of the unique
maximal rank-1 orthant representing γ, and is right-inverse to πx : S(x) ։ ∂x S.
As the action of pet(S) on the Ω1 (S) preserves directions it induces, for each coordinate
axis x ∈ X, an action on Γ1x (S) = ∂x S, and one observes that this is an action by
pet-permutations. This yields an induced homomorphism ϑx : pet(S) → pet(∂x S). The
kernel of ϑx is the set of all pet-permutations fixing all rank-1 germs parallel to x. And
we note the following:

i) σx : ∂x S → S(x) induces an embedding of pet(∂x S) as a subgroup of pet S(x) ,
which splits the surjective homomorphism ϑx : pet(S(x)) ։ pet(∂x S) induced by
πx .

ii) Every pet-permutation g ∈ pet S(x) extends to a pet-permutation of S by

the identity on S ⊥ (x). This exhibits pet S(x) as a canonical subgroup of
pet(S). Even though we do not have pet(S) acting on S(x), we do have that
the surjective homomorphism ϑx : pet(S) ։ pet(∂x S) splits by the embedding

pet(∂x S) ≤ pet S(x) ≤ pet(S).

Summarizing we have


Proposition 5.2 pet(∂x S) is a retract both of pet(S) and of pet S(x) . In other
words, we have split exact sequences 1 → K → pet(S) → pet(∂x S) → 1 and

1 → K † → pet S(x) → pet(∂x S) → 1.


5.3 An upper bound of the finiteness length of pet(S). To deduce an upper
bound for the finiteness lengths of the pet-groups we need the following elementary
lemma which was overlooked in [BE75]; the first occurrence in the literature we are
aware of is [Bu04].

Lemma 5.3 Let G be a group. If a subgroup H ≤ G is a retract of G then f l(H) ≥
f l(G).
Proof. The assertion f l(G) ≥ s is equivalent to saying that on the category of Gmodules the homology functors Hk (G; −) commute with direct products for all k < s.
That this is inherited by retracts follows from the fact that Hk (−; −) is a functor on
the appropriate category of pairs (G, A), with G a group and A a G-module.


34

If S ⊆ NN is an orthohedral set of rank rkS = n in pet-normal form, then Ω∗0 (Nm ) is
canonically bijective to the set P (X) of all subsets of X. Hence we can view the height
function (1.1) of section 1.4 as map hS : P (X) → N0 , and organize stacks of maximal
orthants of S as follows: For every subset Y ⊆ X we have the (possibly empty) stack
S(Y ) ⊆ S of hS (Y ) orthants parallel to the orthant hY i defined by Y .
For each (n − 1)-element subset Y ⊆ X we consider the link Lk(Y ) of Y in Sτ , by
this we mean the set of all n-element sets Y ′ ⊆ Y with the property, that hY ′ i ⊆ Sτ ,
noting that hY ′ i ∈ maxΩ∗0 (Sτ ). Then we put S(Lk(Y )) ⊆ S to be the union of the

stacks S(Y ′ ) with Y ′ running through Lk(Y ). The height, h S Lk(Y ) , is the sum of
all stack-heights hS (hY ′ i) as Y ′ runs through Lk(Y ).
Theorem 5.4 If S ⊆ Nm is orthohedral of rank n in pet-normal form, then each
indicator (n − 1)-subset Y ⊆ X with non-empty link Lk(Y ) imposes an upper bound


f l pet(S) ≤ h S Lk(Y ) − 1.
Proof. We choose any y ∈ Y and consider the projection πy : S ։ ∂y S ∪ {∅}, where the
symbol {∅} is the image of S−S(y). Proposition 5.2 asserts, that pet(∂y S) is a retract of
pet(S). We have rk∂y S = rkS −1; in fact, ∂y S is the disjoint union of stacks S(Z), with
Z running through all subsets of X avoiding y and satisfying hZ ∪ {y}i ∈ maxΩ∗0 (Sτ ).
Thus note that S(Z) is a stack of rank-(n − 1) orthants with unchanged stack height
h(S(Z)) = hS (Z ∪ {y}).
We can choose the next element y ′ ∈ Y − {y}, consider the projection πy′ : ∂y S ։
∂y′ ∂y S ∪ {∅}. Upon putting πy (∅) = ∅ for all y ∈ Y , we can iterate the argument with
all elements of Y = {y, . . . , z}, noting that only the stacks in S(Lk(Y )) survive all
these projections. The composition
πy = πz . . . πy : S ։ ∂z . . . ∂y ∪ {∅}
projects the stacks of S(Lk(Y )) onto stacks of rank-1 orthants with the original stack
heights. This shows that pet(S) admits a retract isomorphic to the pet-group pet(S ′ ) of
a disjoint union of h(S(Lk(Y )) rank-1 orthants. But pet(S ′ ) contains Houghton’s group

on h S Lk(Y ) copies of N as a subgroup of finite index. Hence Lemma 5.3 together



with Ken Brown’s result [Br87] yields f l pet(S) ≤ f l pet(S ′ ) = h S(Lk(Y ) − 1, as
asserted.

5.4 Application to stacks of the n-skeleton of an orthant. Let S be a stack
of c(S) copies of the rank-n skeleton K (n) of a rank-r orthant K. The link of each
cardinality-(n − 1) subset Y of the cardinality-r set X contains exactly (r − n + 1)
cardinality-n subsets Y ′ . And S contains exactly c(S) orthants parallel to hY ′ i. Hence
the height of disjoint union of the stacks of S over the link Lk(Y ) is h(S(Lk(Y )) =
c(S)(r − n + 1). Combining Proposition 4.2 with Theorem 5.4 thus yields

35

Theorem 5.5 If S is the rank-n skeleton of a stack of rank-r orthants then

c(S) − 1 ≤ f l pet(S) ≤ c(S)(r − n + 1) − 1.


Corollary 5.6 If S is a stack of orthants then f l pet(S) = c(S) − 1.

36



Literaturverzeichnis
[ABM14] Y. Atolin, J. Burillo, A. Martino. Conjugacy in Houghton’s groups.
arXiv:1305.2044 (Preprint 2013).
[BB97]

M. Bestvina, N. Brady. Morse theory and finiteness properties of groups.
Inventiones Mathematicae, vol. 129 (1997), 445-470.

[BCMR14] J. Burillo, S. Cleary, A Martino, C.E. Röver. Commensurations and metric
properties of Houghton’s groups. arXiv:1403.0026 (Preprint 2014).
[BG84]

K.S. Brown, R. Geoghegan. An infinite dimensional F P ∞-group. Invent.
Math., 77 (1984), 367-381.

[BGe03]

R. Bieri, R. Geoghegan. Connectivity Properties of Group Actions on NonPositively Curved Spaces. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society vol.
765 (Jan. 2003).

[BGr84]

R. Bieri, J.R.J. Groves. The geometry of the set of characters iduced by valuations. Journal für die Reine und die Angewandte Mathematik vol. 347 (1984),
168-195.

[BNS86]

R. Bieri, W.D. Neumann and R. Strebel. A geometric invariant of discrete
groups. Invent. Math. 90 (1987), 451-477.

[BR88]

R. Bieri, B. Renz. Valuations on free resolutions and higher geometric invariants
of groups. Comm. Math. Helv. 63 (1988), 464-497.

[Bi75]

R. Bieri. Mayer-Vietoris sequences for HNN-groups and homological duality.
Math. Z. 143 (1975), 123-130.

[BCM14] J Burillo, S Cleary, A Martino, C.E. Röver. Commensurations and metric
properties of Houghton’s groups. arXiv:1403.0026, (Preprint 2014).
[BG84]

K.S. Brown, R. Geoghegan. An infinite dimensional F P∞ -group. Invent.
Math., 77 (1984), pp. 367-381.

[BMN13] C. Bleak, F. Matucci, M. Neunhoeffner. Embeddings into Thompson’s group
V and coCF groups. arXiv:1312.1855 (2013), (Preprint 2013).
[Br87]

K. S. Brown. Finiteness properties of groups. Journal of Pure and Algebra 44
(1987), 45-75.

[BS73]

A. Borel, J.-P. Serre. Corners and arithmetic groups. Comm. Math. Helv. 48
(1973),436-491.

[BS76]

A. Borel, J.-P. Serre. Cohomologie d’ immeubles et de groupes S-arithmetiques.
Topology 15 (1976), 211-232.

37

[CV86]

M. Culler, K. Vogtmann. Moduli of graphs and automorphisms of free groups.
Invent. Math. 84 (1986), 91-119.

[FKS11]

L. Funar, C. Kapoudjian, V. Sergiescou. Asymptotically rigid mapping class
groups and Thompson’s groups. Handbook of Teichmüller Theory, vol 3. Edited
by A. Papadopoulos. (arXiv:1105.0559v1[math.GR] Preprint 2011).

[Ho78]

C. H. Houghton. The first cohomology of a group with permutation module
coefficients. Arch Math. 31 (1978), 254-258.

[Ka03]

C. Kopoudjian. From Symmetries of the Modular Tower of Genus Zero Real
Stable Curves to a Euler Class for the Dyadic Circle. Compositio Mathematica
13, 49-73 (2003).

[Lee12]

S. R. Lee. Geometry of Houghton’s groups. arXiv:1212.0257 (Preprint 2012).

[Leh08]

J. Lehnert. Gruppen von quasi-Automorphismen. Goethe-Universitaet Frankfurt
am Main 2008.

[LS07]

J. Lehnert, P. Schweitzer. The co-word problem for the Higman-Thompson
group is solvable. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 39(2), 235-241.

[NSt15]

B. Nucinkis, S. St. John-Green. Quasi automorphisms of the infinite rooted
2-edge coloured binary tree. ArXiv: 1412.7715 (January 2015).

[R89]

B. Renz. Geometrische Invarianten und Endlichkeitseigenschaften von Gruppen.
Dissertation, Frankfurt am Main 1988.

[Sa92]

H. Sach. (F P )n -Eigenschaften der verallgemeinerten Houghton-Gruppen. Diplomarbeit 1992, Goethe Universitaet Frankfurt.

[St15]

S. St. John-Green. Centralizers in Houghton’s groups. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society (2015), arXiv:1207.1597 (Preprint 2012)

[Za15]

M.C.B. Zaremsky. On the Σ-invariants of generalized Thompson groups and
Houghton groups. arXiv:1502.02620 (Preprint 2015).

Robert Bieri
Binghamton University and Goethe Universität Frankfurt
e-mail: bieri@math.uni-frankfurt.de , rbieri@math.binghamton.edu

Heike Sach
e-mail: heike sach@yahoo.de

38

