arXiv:1705.00784v1 [math.GR] 2 May 2017

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND SPLITTINGS OF
GROUPS WITH ISOLATED FLATS
G. CHRISTOPHER HRUSKA AND KIM RUANE
Abstract. In this paper we study CAT(0) groups and their splittings
as graphs of groups. For one-ended CAT(0) groups with isolated ﬂats
we prove a theorem characterizing exactly when the visual boundary is
locally connected. This characterization depends on whether the group
has a certain type of splitting over a virtually abelian subgroup. In the
locally connected case, we describe the boundary as a tree of metric
spaces in the sense of Świątkowski.
As an application of the local connectedness theorem, we deduce that
all CAT(0) groups with isolated ﬂats are semistable at inﬁnity.
A signiﬁcant tool used in both of the above results is a general convex
splitting theorem for arbitrary CAT(0) groups. If a CAT(0) group splits
as a graph of groups with convex edge groups, then the vertex groups
are also CAT(0) groups.

1. Introduction
A major theme of geometric group theory over the last few decades has
been the study of a group using various boundaries at inﬁnity attached to
spaces on which the group acts. There has been a fruitful connection between
topological properties of these boundaries and algebraic properties of the
group. Our main theorem provides another example of such a connection
for the nonpositively curved spaces known as CAT(0) spaces. A group is
a CAT(0) group if it acts geometrically—i.e., properly, cocompactly, and
isometrically—on a CAT(0) space.
This article is concerned with the following question: if G acts geometrically on a one-ended CAT(0) space X, when is the boundary at inﬁnity
∂X locally connected? On the one hand, every one-ended hyperbolic group
has a locally connected boundary [BM91, Swa96, Bow99b]. On the other
hand, the product F2 × Z of a free group of rank two with the integers has
a boundary—the suspension of a Cantor set—that is not locally connected.
Groups acting on CAT(0) spaces with isolated ﬂats are a natural setting
to explore the above question [KL95, HK05], because they are, in a sense,
the simplest generalization of hyperbolicity in the CAT(0) setting. Indeed,
Date: May 3, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20F67, 20E08.
Key words and phrases. Nonpositive curvature, isolated ﬂats, locally connected,
semistable at inﬁnity.
1

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

2

this family of groups includes all CAT(0) hyperbolic groups as well as fundamental groups of complete, ﬁnite volume hyperbolic manifolds. In this
manifold setting, the CAT(0) boundary is a Sierpinski compactum, which is
known to be locally connected (see [Rua05]).
On the other hand, one can construct many one-ended CAT(0) groups
with isolated ﬂats whose boundaries are not locally connected, using an
amalgam theorem of Mihalik–Ruane [MR99, MR01]. A simple example with
non–locally connected boundary is the fundamental group of the space obtained from a closed genus two surface and a torus by gluing together an
essential simple closed curve from each surface (see Example 2.1).
Let G act geometrically on a one-ended CAT(0) space X with isolated
ﬂats. Our main theorem provides a full converse to the Mihalik–Ruane
amalgam theorem in the isolated ﬂats setting. The only way the CAT(0)
boundary can fail to be locally connected is when G admits a Mihalik–
Ruane splitting. We therefore obtain the following complete characterization
determining exactly when X has a locally connected boundary. A virtually
abelian group has higher rank if its rank over Q is at least two.
Theorem 1.1 (Locally connected). Let X be a one-ended CAT(0) space with
isolated flats that admits a geometric action by a group G. The boundary ∂X
is non–locally connected if and only if G contains a pair of virtually abelian
subgroups B < A with the following properties:
(1) G splits (nontrivially) over B,
(2) A has higher rank, and
(3) The Q–rank of B is strictly less than the Q–rank of A.
The reverse implication of Theorem 1.1 is the direction given immediately
by the Mihalik–Ruane theorem. Most of this article concerns the forward
implication of Theorem 1.1, which was not known previously.
A key part of the proof of the forward implication is Proposition 11.11,
which describes the boundary as a tree of metric spaces in the sense of
Świątkowski, built by gluing locally connected boundaries of certain subgroups along spheres. (See Section 1.1 for more discussion of trees of spaces.)
Haulmark uses the local connectedness provided by Theorem 1.1 as a
critical ingredient in a proof of the following classiﬁcation theorem for onedimensional boundaries. Suppose G acts geometrically on a CAT(0) space
X with isolated ﬂats. If ∂X is one-dimensional and G does not split over
a virtually cyclic group, then ∂X is either a circle, a Sierpinski carpet, or
a Menger curve [Hau]. This result of Haulmark generalizes a theorem of
Kapovich–Kleiner from the hyperbolic setting [KK00].
Although there are one-ended CAT(0) groups with isolated ﬂats whose
boundaries are not locally connected, we show that each such boundary has
the shape of a locally connected continuum (in the sense of shape theory).
As explained by Geoghegan, this shape theoretic property of the boundary
is equivalent to semistability at inﬁnity of the group [Geo]. Speciﬁcally we
prove the following theorem for groups with any number of ends.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

3

Theorem 1.2 (Semistable). Let G be any group that acts geometrically on
a CAT(0) space with isolated flats. Then G is semistable at infinity.
Let us explain the signiﬁcance of semistability at inﬁnity, focusing on
the one-ended case for simplicity. Any one-ended, ﬁnitely presented group
G acts properly and cocompactly on a one-ended, simply connected space
X. Semistability at inﬁnity of G is a condition that plays a key role in
deﬁning the notion of the fundamental group at inﬁnity of G (equivalently of
X). Just as the ordinary fundamental group requires a choice of basepoint,
the fundamental group at inﬁnity requires a choice of proper ray, i.e., a
proper map [0, ∞) → X, which is used as a “base ray.” In order to deﬁne a
change of base ray isomorphism, one needs to know that the two base rays
are connected by a proper homotopy. If all pairs of proper rays in X are
connected by proper homotopies, then G is semistable at infinity. It is not
known whether every one-ended, ﬁnitely presented group is semistable at
inﬁnity. Indeed this issue is a long standing open problem in the theory of
fundamental groups at inﬁnity.
An important tool used several times throughout the proofs of Theorems
1.1 and 1.2 is the following Convex Splitting Theorem about splittings of
general CAT(0) groups over convex subgroups. We note that this theorem
does not involve the notion of isolated ﬂats, and therefore could prove useful
in other CAT(0) situations.
Suppose G acts geometrically on any CAT(0) space X. A subgroup H ≤ G
is convex if H stabilizes a closed convex subspace Y of X, and H acts
cocompactly on Y .
Theorem 1.3 (Convex Splitting Theorem). Let G act geometrically on any
CAT(0) space X. Suppose G splits as the fundamental group of a graph of
groups G such that each edge group of G is convex. Then each vertex group
is also convex. In particular, each vertex group is a CAT(0) group itself.
Analogous theorems have been proved for hyperbolic and relatively hyperbolic groups using quasiconvexity in place of convexity (see for example
[Bow98, Prop. 1.2], [Bow01, §1], and [BW13]). Related results have also been
proved for ﬁnite presentability in [Bow99b, Lemma 1.1] and for the ﬁniteness
property FPn in [Bie76, Proposition 2.13].
We use Theorem 1.3 as a key tool in studying CAT(0) groups via their
splittings over virtually abelian (or even ﬁnite) edge groups. By the ﬂat
torus theorem these edge groups are always convex. Therefore we can reduce
questions about an amalgam to questions about its “simpler” vertex groups.
This reduction would be impossible without the key conclusion that the
vertex groups are again CAT(0) groups.
We remark that the Convex Splitting Theorem is needed even for the
“well-known” reduction of Theorem 1.2 from the general case to the oneended case.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

4

1.1. Methods of proof. By Hruska–Kleiner, CAT(0) groups with isolated
ﬂats are relatively hyperbolic with respect to the collection of maximal virtually abelian subgroups of higher rank [HK05]. The proof of Theorem 1.1
heavily depends on an accessibility theorem due to Bowditch for splittings of
relatively hyperbolic groups [Bow01]. For a one-ended CAT(0) group G with
isolated ﬂats, let A be the family of subgroups of G that are contained in
higher rank virtually abelian subgroups. In the present context, Bowditch’s
theorem gives an accessibility for splittings of G over the subgroups in A.
Using this accessibility theorem, the proof of Theorem 1.1 requires two
main steps, each of which appears to be of independent interest. The ﬁrst
step is an investigation of the special case of CAT(0) groups with isolated
ﬂats that do not split over subgroups from A. Bowditch’s accessibility theorem roughly states that the groups in the general case split as graphs of
groups with “unsplittable” vertex groups of the type studied in the ﬁrst step.
The second step is a combination theorem describing the boundary explicitly
using Świątkowski’s trees of metric spaces.
We will now say a little bit more about the content of these two steps.
The ﬁrst step involves proving the following special case of Theorem 1.1.
We have stated it separately here because this suﬃcient condition for local
connectedness is simpler than the general statement and may be easier to
apply to speciﬁc examples.
Theorem 1.4. Let X be a one-ended CAT(0) space with isolated flats that
admits a geometric group action by a group G. Suppose G does not split over
any subgroup in A. Then the boundary ∂X is locally connected.
The proof of Theorem 1.4 involves establishing local connectedness at two
types of points in the boundary: those that lie in the boundary of a ﬂat
and those that do not. For those that do not, we use a theorem of Hung
Cong Tran [Tra13] stating that a natural quotient of the CAT(0) boundary is homeomorphic to the Bowditch boundary introduced by Bowditch in
[Bow12] in the setting of relatively hyperbolic groups. It is well-known that
Bowditch’s boundary is locally connected (under the present circumstances)
[Bow99a]. However local connectedness does not, in general, pull back under
quotient maps. We use elementary decomposition theory to pull back local
connectedness, but only for points not on the boundary of a ﬂat.
In order to prove local connectedness at a point on the boundary of a ﬂat,
a new strategy is needed, because the previous local connectedness results of
Bowditch do not apply in this situation. Our strategy here is heavily inﬂuenced by techniques developed by Haulmark in his work on local cut points
in boundaries [Hau]. Techniques used in this case are, in a sense, analogous to Dahmani’s construction of a Z-compactiﬁcation of certain relatively
hyperbolic groups in [Dah03].
The second main step in the proof of the forward direction of Theorem 1.1
involves studying the boundary of a group that splits over subgroups from
A such that every vertex group has a locally connected boundary. In the

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

5

setting of Theorem 1.1, we show that the boundary can be obtained by gluing
together the boundaries of vertex groups along spheres in the pattern of the
Bass–Serre tree, and that such a combination is again locally connected.
Although one could prove local connectedness for the amalgam directly,
we get more information about the boundary by identifying the “gluing” as
a tree of metric compacta in the sense of Świątkowski [Świb]. This structure
describes the boundary as a tree of spaces built in the same manner as
the trees of manifolds of Jakobsche and Ancel–Siebenmann [Jak80, AS85,
Jak91]. Previous examples of boundaries that decompose as trees of spaces
were boundaries of Coxeter groups [AS85, Fis03]. These trees of spaces
result from a construction analogous to Bestvina–Brady combinatorial Morse
theory, applied to a space that is a manifold except for isolated singularities.
Related applications are considered by Świątkowski in [Świa]. In these Morse
theoretic applications, the group typically does not act on the underlying tree
of the tree of spaces.
In contrast, the trees of spaces appearing in this article are associated to
the Bass–Serre tree of a splitting as a graph of groups. Previous decompositions of boundaries into pieces according to splittings have been illustrated in
[GH90, §7.5] and studied in [CK00, Bow01, CK02, Tir11, Świ16]. Some, but
not all, of these could similarly be described as trees of metric compacta (but
that terminology was not used in those articles). Speciﬁcally the boundaries
of free products examined in [GH90, Tir11, Świ16] are examples of trees of
spaces, while the decompositions arising in [CK00, CK02, Bow01] are generally not. We encourage the interested reader to verify these assertions in
order to better understand the details of the tree of spaces construction.
We note that the Croke–Kleiner examples fail to be trees of spaces for a
quite serious reason related to the existence of isolated arcs in their Tits
boundaries.
1.2. Acknowledgements. During their work on this project, the authors
beneﬁted from many conversations about this work with Ric Ancel, Mladen
Bestvina, Craig Guilbault, Matthew Haulmark, Mike Mihalik, Boris Okun,
Eric Swenson, Hung Cong Tran, Genevieve Walsh. We are grateful for the
advice and feedback received during these conversations.
This work was partially supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation
(#318815 to G. Christopher Hruska).
2. Examples with and without locally connected boundary
In this section we illustrate both directions of Theorem 1.1 with examples. The ﬁrst example shows a group whose visual boundary is not locally
connected, but whose Bowditch boundary is locally connected. The remaining examples illustrate various constructions of nonhyperbolic groups with
locally connected visual boundaries, some illustrating the “indecomposable”
case of Theorem 1.4 and others constructed using “locally ﬁnite” amalgams
of indecomposable groups.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

6

Example 2.1 (A non–locally connected boundary). Consider the following
amalgam of surface groups whose visual boundary is not locally connected.
Let Σ be a closed hyperbolic surface, and T 2 be a 2–dimensional torus with
a ﬁxed Euclidean metric. Fix a simple closed geodesic loop γ in Σ. Choose
a closed geodesic γ ′ ⊂ T such that γ and γ ′ have equal lengths. Let X be
the result of gluing Σ to T 2 along γ = γ ′ . Then the universal cover X̃ of X
is a CAT(0) space with isolated ﬂats. The group G = π1 (X) is clearly an
amalgam of the subgroups A = π1 (T 2 ) and C = π1 (Σ) amalgamated over
the subgroup B = hγi. Since this splitting A ∗B C satisﬁes the conditions of
Theorem 1.1, we see that the visual boundary ∂ X̃ is not locally connected.
Recall that G has a natural relatively hyperbolic structure with respect
to P, the family of all conjugates of A. Hung Cong Tran has shown that
the Bowditch boundary ∂(G, P) can be obtained from ∂X by collapsing the
boundary circle of each ﬂat plane to a point [Tra13]. For one-ended groups
with isolated ﬂats, the Bowditch boundary is always locally connected. However in Example 2.1, the visual boundary ∂ X̃ is not locally connected.
In order to illustrate the diﬀerence between the visual boundary of the
CAT(0) space X̃ and the Bowditch boundary for the group in Example 2.1,
we will brieﬂy sketch a signiﬁcant non–locally connected subset of the boundary. We then describe its locally connected image in the Bowditch boundary.
Each ﬂat F in X̃ is a lift of the torus T 2 . Inside F are inﬁnitely many
lifts of the geodesic γ, along each of which there is a copy of H2 attached.
The lifts of γ in the ﬂat F are all parallel and thus all share the same pair
of endpoints a, b in ∂F . Let Y be the convex subcomplex of X̃ consisting of
the ﬂat F along with the countably many hyperbolic planes glued to F along
the lifts of γ. Then ∂Y is a suspension of a set K that is countably inﬁnite
with two limit points. The suspension points are a and b. Note that this
suspension itself is not locally connected. Furthermore, each of the points in
∂F − {a, b} turns out to be a point of non–local connectivity in ∂ X̃.
To understand what the Bowditch boundary is in this example, note that
there are two types of circles in the visual boundary ∂ X̃—those that occur as
the boundary of a hyperbolic plane and those that occur as the boundary of
a ﬂat. To obtain the Bowditch boundary, we only collapse the circles arising
as boundaries of ﬂats. In the quotient, each such circle becomes a global cut
point of the Bowditch boundary. Each of these cut points is incident to a
countable family of circles whose union forms a Hawaiian earring.
Example 2.2 (Some locally connected boundaries). In this example we show
three diﬀerent groups with locally connected boundary, formed by gluing
hyperbolic 3–manifolds along cusps.
First consider the ﬁgure eight knot K ⊂ S 3 , and let N be a closed regular
neighborhood of K. Let M 3 be the compact knot complement, S 3 minus the
interior of N . It is well-known that G = π1 (M 3 ) is one-ended with isolated
ﬂats and does not split over any subgroup of the cusp group. Thus by Theorem 1.4 the visual boundary of the CAT(0) space M̃ 3 is locally connected. In

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

7

this simple example, it was known previously that the boundary was locally
connected, since it is homeomorphic to a Sierpinski carpet by [Rua05]. (In
this case the Bowditch boundary is a 2–sphere formed by collapsing each
peripheral circle of the Sierpinski carpet to a point.)
If we double M 3 along its boundary torus ∂N , we get a closed 3–manifold
consisting of two hyperbolic pieces glued along the torus T 2 = ∂N . The
fundamental group D of the double does not split over any cyclic subgroup
of π1 (T 2 ), and thus by Theorem 1.1 its boundary is also locally connected.
Once again, we knew this already because the visual boundary of any closed
nonpositively curved 3–manifold group is a 2–sphere. Applying the proof of
Theorem 1.1 to this example recovers the classical decomposition of S 2 as a
tree of Sierpinski carpets glued in pairs along peripheral circles.
If we form a “triple” of M 3 instead of a double, we get a less familiar
example, whose visual boundary was not previously known to be locally
connected. As with the double, the tripled space is formed by gluing three
copies of M 3 along the boundary torus T 2 . As above its fundamental group
does not split over any cyclic subgroup of π1 (T 2 ). Thus we establish that
its visual boundary is locally connected. We also obtain a description of this
boundary as a 2–dimensional compactum formed as the limit of a tree of
Sierpinski carpets, this time glued in triples along peripheral circles.
Example 2.3. A variation of the tripled example above is studied by Haulmark–
Walsh in [HW] and is shown to have visual boundary homeomorphic to the
Menger curve. In this case, one starts with a complete, ﬁnite volume, orientable hyperbolic 3–manifold M with one cusp and one totally geodesic
boundary component, and then one forms a triple over the cusp torus.
Haulmark–Walsh apply a result of Haulmark [Hau] to show that the fundamental group G of the triple has visual boundary a Menger curve. As
mentioned above, the proof of Haulmark’s theorem uses Theorem 1.1 as a
key step. However, applying the proof of Theorem 1.1 directly to this example shows that this Menger curve decomposes as a tree of Sierpinski carpets
glued in triples along some—but not all—of the peripheral circles. We refer
the reader to [HW] for more details.
Example 2.4. We conclude this section with an example of a group with
isolated ﬂats having Serre’s Property FA—i.e., no splittings at all. Such a
group must be one-ended with locally connected visual boundary by Theorem 1.4. Consider the Coxeter group W on 5 generators si of order two with
deﬁning Coxeter relations (si sj )3 = 1 for all i 6= j. We are grateful to Mike
Mihalik for the observation that W has FA (see for example Section I.6.5 of
[Ser77] for a proof). The Davis complex Σ of W is a piecewise Euclidean
CAT(0) 2–complex whose 2–cells are isometric to regular Euclidean hexagons
because each Coxeter relator involves an exponent mi,j = 3. By an observation of Wise, such a hexagonal complex must always have isolated ﬂats
[Wis96] (see also [Hru04]). As mentioned above, Theorem 1.4 implies that
the visual boundary ∂Σ is locally connected.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

8

3. The visual boundary of a CAT(0) space
We refer the reader to [Bal95, BH99] for introductions to the theory
of CAT(0) spaces. Throughout this section X is assumed to be a proper
CAT(0) space, a condition that holds whenever X admits a proper, cocompact, isometric group action.
The CAT(0) geometry X gives rise to the visual boundary ∂X, which is
a compact metrizable space. We ﬁrst, deﬁne the boundary ∂X as a set as
follows:
Definition 3.1 (Visual boundary as a set). Two geodesic rays c, c′ : [0, ∞) →
X are said to be asymptotic if there exists a constant K such that d c(t), c′ (t) ≤
K for all t > 0—this is an equivalence relation. The boundary of X, denoted
∂X, is then the set of equivalence classes of geodesic rays. The equivalence
class of a ray c is denoted by c(∞).
Since X is complete, then for each basepoint q ∈ X and each ξ ∈ ∂X
there is a unique geodesic c such that c(0) = q and c(∞) = ξ. Thus we
may identify ∂X with the set ∂q X of all rays emanating from q. We use the
notation X = X ∪ ∂X.
Definition 3.2 (The cone topology on X). There is a natural topology
on X called the cone topology, which is deﬁned in terms of the following
neighborhood basis. Let c be a geodesic segment or ray, let q = c(0), and
choose any r > 0 and D > 0. Also, let B(q, r) denote the closed ball of
radius r centered at q with πr : X → B(q, r) denoting projection. Deﬁne


U (c, r, D) = x ∈ X d(x, q) > r, d πr (x), c(r) < D
This consists of all points in X such that when projected back to B(q, r),
this projection is not more than D away from the intersection of the sphere
with c. These sets along with the metric balls in X form a basis for the cone
topology on X. The induced topology on ∂X is also called the cone topology
on ∂X, and the resulting topological space is the visual boundary of X. We
occasionally use the notation U (c, r, D) to refer to basic neighborhoods in
the visual boundary. Since X is proper, both X and the visual boundary
are compact.
It is a well-known result that for any proper CAT(0) space, both X and
X are ANR’s (Absolute Neighborhood Retracts). We refer the reader to
[Ont05] for a proof that X is an ANR, using a theorem of [Hu65]. See also
[Gui14, §2.9] for a proof that X is an ANR using work of [Han51].
The main consequence of being an ANR that we will use is that X is
locally connected. This consequence is much easier to prove directly, which
we do below.
Proposition 3.3. X is locally connected. Furthermore, each point ξ ∈ ∂X
has a connected neighborhood N such that N = N ∩ X is a connected set in
X and each point of Λ = N ∩ ∂X is a limit point of N .

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

9

Let us pause for a moment to warn the reader that the notation N does
not refer to a closed set of X, but rather refers to the fact that each point
of N is a limit point of N .
Proof. Metric balls in X are connected. Furthermore the basic open sets
N = U (c, r, D) are also connected. Indeed a point p ∈ X lies
 in N =
U (c, r, D) ∩ X if and only if the geodesic segment c′ = c(0), p intersects
B c(r), D .  For any such point p = c′ (t) ∈ N , we can choose s so that
d c′ (s), c(r) < D. It follows that the entire subpath of c′ from c′ (s) to
p = c′ (t) is contained in N . Therefore every point of N lies
 in a connected
subset of N that intersects the connected ball B c(r), D . In other words,
N is connected. The entire set N = U (c, r, D) is contained in the closure of
N within the space X, so N is also connected.

Throughout this paper we will often need to compare the sizes of diﬀerent
subsets of the visual boundary. To make such a comparison, it is useful to
consider explicit metrics on the visual boundary. The following deﬁnition
introduces a family of such metrics.
Definition 3.4 (Boundary as a metric space). Fix a basepoint q ∈ X. For
each D > 0 and r < ∞ we deﬁne a metric dD on ∂q X as follows. Given
distinct rays c and c′ based at q, the distance function t 7→ d c(t), c′ (t)
monotonically increases
 from 0 to ∞. Thus there exists a unique r ∈ (0, ∞)
such that d c(r), c′ (r) = D. We set dD (c, c′ ) = 1/r. The function dD is a
metric compatible with the cone topology by [Mor16].
4. Relatively hyperbolic groups and their boundaries
In this section we deﬁne the notions of relative hyperbolicity and the
Bowditch boundary. The deﬁnitions we use are due to Yaman [Yam04] and
are given in terms of dynamical properties of an action on a compact space,
which turns out to be the Bowditch boundary.
A convergence group action is an action of a ﬁnitely generated group
G on a compact, metrizable space M satisfying the following conditions,
depending on the cardinality of M :
• If M is the empty set, then G is ﬁnite.
• If M has exactly one point, then G is inﬁnite.
• If M has exactly two points, then G is virtually cyclic.
• If M has at least three points, then the action of G on the space of
distinct (unordered) triples of points of M is properly discontinuous.
In the ﬁrst three cases the convergence group action is elementary, and in
the ﬁnal case the action is nonelementary.
Suppose G has a convergence group action on M . An element g ∈ G
is loxodromic if it has inﬁnite order and ﬁxes exactly two points of M . A
subgroup P ≤ G is a parabolic subgroup if it is inﬁnite and contains no
loxodromic element. A parabolic subgroup P has a unique ﬁxed point in

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

10

M , called a parabolic point. The stabilizer of a parabolic point is always a
maximal parabolic group. A parabolic point p with stabilizer P := StabG (p)
is bounded parabolic if P acts cocompactly on M − {p}. A point ξ ∈ M is
a conical limit point if there exists a sequence (gi ) in G and distinct points
ζ0 , ζ1 ∈ M such that gi (ξ) → ζ0 , while for all η ∈ M −{ξ} we have gi (η) → ζ1 .
Definition 4.1 (Relatively hyperbolic). A convergence group action of G
on M is geometrically finite if every point of M is either a conical limit
point or a bounded parabolic point. If P is a collection of subgroups of G,
then the pair (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic if G admits a geometrically ﬁnite
convergence group action on a compact, metrizable space M such that P is
equal to the collection of all maximal parabolic subgroups.
Definition 4.2 (Bowditch boundary). By [Yam04] and [Bow12] the space
M is uniquely determined by (G, P) in the following sense: Any two spaces
M and M ′ arising from the previous deﬁnition are G–equivariantly homeomorphic. The compactum M is the Bowditch boundary of (G, P), and will
be denoted by ∂(G, P).
We remark that by work of Yaman, the Bowditch boundary can be obtained as the Gromov boundary of a certain δ–hyperbolic space on which G
acts. Although we will not use this point of view in the present article, the
construction of this δ–hyperbolic space is the basis of Yaman’s proof that
Deﬁnition 4.1 is equivalent to other deﬁnitions appearing in the literature
(such as those in [Bow12]).
Suppose G acts properly, cocompactly, and isometrically on a CAT(0)
space X. Suppose also that G has a family of subgroups P such that (G, P)
is relatively hyperbolic. In this case, we have introduced two diﬀerent types
of boundary that one may associate with G: the visual boundary ∂X of the
CAT(0) space X and the Bowditch boundary ∂(G, P). These boundaries are
closely related by a theorem of Hung Cong Tran.
Theorem 4.3 ([Tra13]). Let (G, P) and X be as above. The quotient space
formed from ∂X by collapsing the limit set of each P ∈ P to a point is
G–equivariantly homeomorphic to the Bowditch boundary ∂(G, P).
5. Isolated flats
A k–flat in a CAT(0) space X is an isometrically embedded copy of Euclidean space Ek for some k ≥ 2. In particular, note that a geodesic line is
not considered to be a ﬂat.
Definition 5.1. Let X be a CAT(0) space, G a group acting geometrically
on X, and F a G–invariant set of ﬂats in X. We say that X has isolated
flats with respect to F if the following two conditons hold.
(1) There is a constant D such that every ﬂat F ⊂ X lies in a D–
neighborhood of some F ′ ∈ F.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

11

(2) For each positive r < ∞ there is a constant ρ = ρ(r) < ∞ so that
for any two distinct ﬂats F, F ′ ∈ F we have

diam Nr (F ) ∩ Nr (F ′ ) < ρ.
We say X has isolated flats if it has isolated ﬂats with respect to some
G–invariant set of ﬂats.
Theorem 5.2 ([HK05]). Suppose X has isolated flats with respect to F. For
each F ∈ F the stabilizer StabG (F ) is virtually abelian and acts cocompactly
on F . The set of stabilizers of flats F ∈ F is precisely the set of maximal
virtually abelian subgroups of G of rank at least two. These stabilizers lie in
only finitely many conjugacy classes.
Theorem 5.3 ([HK05]). Let X have isolated flats with respect
the following properties hold.
(1) G is relatively hyperbolic with respect to the collection of
virtually abelian subgroups of rank at least two.
(2) The connected components of the Tits boundary ∂T X
points together with the boundary spheres ∂T F for all F

to F. Then
all maximal
are isolated
∈ F.

The previous theorem also has the following converse.
Theorem 5.4 ([HK05]). Let G be a group acting geometrically on a CAT(0)
space X. Suppose G is relatively hyperbolic with respect to a family of virtually abelian subgroups. Then X has isolated flats.
A group G that admits an action on a CAT(0) space with isolated ﬂats
has a “well-deﬁned” visual boundary, often denoted by ∂G, by the following
theorem.
Theorem 5.5 ([HK05]). Let G act properly, cocompactly, and isometrically
on two CAT(0) spaces X and Y . If X has isolated flats, then so does Y , and
there is a G–equivariant homeomorphism ∂X → ∂Y .
Finally, we point out a key geometric fact about CAT(0) spaces with
isolated ﬂats that will be used several times throughout this paper.
Theorem 5.6. Suppose X is a CAT(0) space with isolated flats with respect
to F. There exists a constant κ > 0, such that the following holds: Given
a point x, a flat F ∈ F, with c : [a, b] → X the shortest path from x to F ,
we have c ∪ F is κ–quasiconvex in X. More precisely, if c′ is any geodesic
joining a point of c to a point of F , then c′ intersects B c(b), κ .
Proof. If the claim were false, there would be sequences of ﬂats Fi ∈ F and
points xi ∈ X and qi , yi ∈ Fi such that [xi , qi ] is a shortest path from xi to
Fi and d qi , [xi , yi ] tends to inﬁnity.
Pass to a subsequence and translate by the action of G so that Fi = F
is constant. After passing to a further subsequence, the points qi , xi , and
yi converge respectively to q ∈ F , ξx ∈ ∂X, and ξy ∈ ∂F . furthermore,
ξx ∈
/ ∂F since the ray from q to ξx meets F orthogonally. Since d qi , [xi , yi ]

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

12

tends to inﬁnity, it follows from [HK09, Corollary 7] that dT (ξx , ξy ) ≤ π,
contradicting Theorem 5.3(2).

6. Peripheral splittings
In this section, we give the deﬁnition of a peripheral splitting of a relatively
hyperbolic group and review some of their basic properties. We introduce
the notion of a locally ﬁnite peripheral splitting, which plays a key role in
the proof of Theorem 1.1. The ﬁrst goal of this section involves groups whose
maximal peripheral splitting is locally ﬁnite; we prove Theorem 6.4, which
roughly states that in this case many features of a relatively hyperbolic group
are inherited by the vertex groups of its maximal peripheral splitting. The
second goal of the section involves groups whose maximal peripheral splitting
is not locally ﬁnite; we prove Theorem 6.5, which is the easy direction of
Theorem 1.1.
Most of this article is concerned with one-ended groups. The following
result allows one to reduce the general relatively hyperbolic case to the oneended case. This result is an easy consequence of Proposition 1.1 of [Bow01].
Proposition 6.1. Let G be hyperbolic relative to a collection P of one-ended
groups. Suppose G is the fundamental group of a graph of groups G with
finite edge groups. Then each peripheral subgroup P ∈ P is contained in
a vertex group. Furthermore each vertex group is hyperbolic relative to the
members of P that it contains.
Definition 6.2 (Peripheral splittings). Suppose (G, P) is a relatively hyperbolic group. A peripheral splitting of (G, P) is a splitting of G as a ﬁnite
bipartite graph of groups G, whose vertices have two types that we call peripheral vertices and component vertices. We require that the collection of
subgroups of G conjugate to the peripheral vertex groups is identical to the
collection P of all peripheral subgroups. We also require that G does not
contain a component vertex of degree one that is contained in the adjacent
peripheral group.
Such a splitting is called trivial if one of the vertex groups is equal to
G and nontrivial otherwise. One peripheral splitting H is a refinement of
another G if G can be obtained from H by a ﬁnite sequence of foldings of
edges that preserve the colors of vertices. A peripheral splitting of (G, P) is
maximal if it is not a reﬁnement of any other peripheral splitting.
We say that (G, P) does not split over peripheral subgroups if its maximal
peripheral splitting is trivial. In this case, it follows that every peripheral
splitting is trivial. The notion of not splitting over peripheral subgroups is
equivalent to the following condition: G cannot be expressed as an HNN extension or a nontrivial amalgam over any subgroup of a peripheral subgroup.
Theorem 6.3 (Bowditch). Suppose (G, P) is relatively hyperbolic, G is oneended and each P ∈ P is finitely presented, does not contain an infinite
torsion group, and is either one-ended or two-ended.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

13

(1) [Bow12, Prop. 10.1] ∂(G, P) is connected.
(2) [Bow01, Thm. 1.5] ∂(G, P) is locally connected.
(3) [Bow01, Thm. 1.4] (G, P) has a unique (possibly trivial) maximal
peripheral splitting.
(4) [Bow01, §9] If (G, P) does not split over peripheral subgroups, then
∂(G, P) does not contain a global cut point.
A peripheral splitting G is locally finite if for each peripheral vertex group
P the adjacent edge groups include as ﬁnite index subgroups of P . Equivalently, in the Bass–Serre tree T for G, the vertex v stabilized by P has ﬁnite
valence. The following theorem summarizes key properties of the component
vertex groups in the unique maximal peripheral splitting in the special case
that this splitting is locally ﬁnite.
Theorem 6.4. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic such that G is one-ended
and each P ∈ P is finitely presented, does not contain an infinite torsion
subgroup, and is one-ended. Suppose the maximal peripheral splitting G of
(G, P) is locally finite.
For each component vertex group H of G, let Q be the collection of infinite
groups of the form H ∩ P for all P ∈ P. Then
(1) (H, Q) is relatively hyperbolic.
(2) H is one-ended and finitely presented.
(3) Each Q ∈ Q is finitely presented, does not contain an infinite torsion
group, and is one-ended.
(4) (H, Q) does not split over peripheral subgroups.
We remark that a theorem of Bigdely–Wise [BW13] implies that each
component group H is relatively quasiconvex in (G, P), which is stronger
than conclusion (6.4). We will not use this stronger fact, but mention it only
to put the results in a broader context.
Proof of Theorem 6.4. The relative hyperbolicity of (H, Q) follows from Theorem 1.3 of [Bow01]. In particular, Bowditch shows that the Bowditch
boundary ∂(H, Q) is connected and describes the peripheral structure on
H in terms of the splitting G as follows: Let T be the Bass–Serre tree for
G, and let v be the vertex stabilized by H. Then each peripheral subgroup
Q ∈ Q is the stabilizer of an edge e of T adjacent to v.
Since the graph of G is bipartite, the other end of the edge e is a peripheral
vertex w. By the local ﬁniteness of the splitting G, the edge group Q includes
into the adjacent peripheral vertex group P as a ﬁnite index subgroup of P .
It follows immediately that Q is ﬁnitely presented and one-ended and does
not contain an inﬁnite torsion group. We conclude that H is also ﬁnitely
presented by [Osi06], since H is hyperbolic relative to ﬁnitely presented
groups.
Since the Bowditch boundary ∂(H, Q) is connected, Proposition 10.1 of
[Bow12] implies that any splitting of H over a ﬁnite subgroup induces a

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

14

splitting of some Q ∈ Q over a ﬁnite subgroup. This is impossible, since
each Q is one-ended. By Stallings’ Theorem, it follows that H is one-ended.
The fact that (H, Q) does not split over peripheral subgroups is proved in
Lemma 4.6 of [Bow01].

We now focus on relatively hyperbolic groups whose maximal peripheral
splitting is not locally ﬁnite. In particular, we concentrate on CAT(0) spaces
with isolated ﬂats. Recall from Theorem 5.3 that if G acts geometrically on
a CAT(0) space X with isolated ﬂats, then G is hyperbolic relative to the
collection P of all maximal abelian subgroups of rank at least two.
Theorem 6.5. Suppose G is a one-ended group acting geometrically on a
CAT(0) space X with isolated flats. Let G be the maximal peripheral splitting
of (G, P). If G is not locally finite, then the visual boundary ∂X of the CAT(0)
space X is connected but not locally connected.
The proof of Theorem 6.5 is a direct application of the main results of
[MR99, MR01], which give suﬃcient conditions that ensure the boundary of
a one-ended CAT(0) group is not locally connected. The following corollary
is a uniﬁed statement that combines the conclusions of [MR99] with those
of [MR01].
Corollary 6.6 (Mihalik–Ruane). Suppose G is a one-ended group acting
geometrically on a CAT(0) space X. Suppose also that G splits as the fundamental group of a graph of groups G. If the graph of groups contains an
edge e satisfying the following conditions, then ∂X is not locally connected.




(1) A : iA (Ge ) ≥ 2 and B : iB (Ge ) ≥ 3, where iA and iB are the
injective inclusions of Ge into its neighboring vertex groups A and
B.
(2) There exists s ∈ G−Ge such that sn ∈
/ Ge for all n 6= 0 and sGe s−1 ⊆
Ge .
(3) The orbit Ge (x0 ) is a quasiconvex subset of X for some (and hence
any) basepoint x0 ∈ X.
Proof of Theorem 6.5. Since the maximal peripheral splitting G is not locally ﬁnite, there exists an edge e such that iP (Ge ) has inﬁnite index in the
adjacent peripheral vertex group P . If H is the adjacent component vertex
group, then the deﬁnition of peripheral splitting implies that the edge map
iH : Ge → H is not surjective. In particular, the image iH (Ge ) has index at
least two in H. (In fact, this index is also inﬁnite.) Thus we have established
Condition (1).
Since P is virtually abelian of higher rank than its inﬁnite index subgroup
iP (Ge ), Condition (2) follows immediately.
Since Ge is virtually abelian, Condition (3) is a consequence of the Flat
Torus Theorem [BH99].


CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

15

7. Convex splittings of CAT(0) groups
In certain classes of groups that split, convexity properties of edge groups
imply analogous convexity properties of vertex groups. Bowditch proves
such a result for quasiconvex splittings of hyperbolic groups in [Bow98, §1].
Bigdely–Wise prove several similar theorems for relatively quasiconvex splittings of relatively hyperbolic groups in [BW13].
In this section we prove Theorem 1.3, which is a convex splitting theorem
for CAT(0) groups. We apply this theorem to peripheral splittings of CAT(0)
groups with isolated ﬂats, in order to prove Theorem 7.7, which states that
the vertex groups of such a splitting are also CAT(0) groups with isolated
ﬂats.
The next two results are key tools used in the proof of Theorem 1.3.
Lemma 7.1. Suppose G acts geometrically on a CAT(0) space X, and G also
acts on a simplicial tree T . Then there is a G–equivariant map π : X → T
that is continuous with respect to the CW–topology on T .
Proof. The proof depends on the following result of Ontaneda [Ont05]: Let X
be a CAT(0) space on which G acts properly, cocompactly, and isometrically.
Then there exists a locally ﬁnite, ﬁnite dimensional simplicial complex K on
which G acts properly, cocompactly, and simplicially. Furthermore there is
a G–equivariant continuous map X → K.
To complete the proof, we need a G–equivariant continuous map K → T .
After replacing T with its barycentric subdivision, we may assume that G
acts on T without inversions. Choose a representative σ for each G–orbit
of 0–simplices. Since G acts properly on K, the G–stabilizer of σ is a ﬁnite
group Kσ . Let vσ be a vertex of T ﬁxed by Kσ . We deﬁne the map K (0) → T
by mapping σ 7→ vσ and extending equivariantly. Since T is contractible, we
may extend this map to the higher skeleta of K in an equivariant fashion. 
The following folk result has been used implicitly in many places throughout the literature (see for example [HK05]). We have decided to include the
(short) proof for the beneﬁt of the reader. Dani Wise has described the proof
as a “pigeonhole principle” for cocompact group actions.
Proposition 7.2 (Pigeonhole). Suppose a group G acts cocompactly and
isometrically on a metric space X. Let A be a family of closed subspaces
of X. Suppose A is G–equivariant and locally finite, in the sense that each
compact set of X intersects only finitely many members of A. Then the
stabilizer of each A ∈ A acts cocompactly on A. Furthermore the members
of A lie in finitely many G–orbits.
Proof. Let K be a compact set whose G–translates cover X. Since K intersects only ﬁnitely members of A, the sets of A lie in ﬁnitely many orbits.
Thus we only need to establish that for each A ∈ A the group H = StabG (A)
acts cocompactly on A. Let {gi } be a set of group elements such that the
translates gi (K) cover A, and each gi (K) intersects A. If the sets gi−1 (A)

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

16

and gj−1 (A) coincide, then gj gi−1 lies in H. It follows that the gi lie in only
ﬁnitely many right cosets Hgi . In other words, the sets gi (K) lie in only
ﬁnitely many H–orbits. But any two H–orbits Hgi (K) and Hgj (K) lie at a
ﬁnite Hausdorﬀ distance from each other. Thus any gi (K) can be increased
to a larger compact set K ′ so that the translates of K ′ under H cover A.
Since A is closed, it follows that H acts cocompactly on A, as desired. 
The proof of Theorem 1.3 will be developed over the course of the next
several lemmas and deﬁnitions.
Let π : X → T be the G–equivariant continuous map given by Lemma 7.1.
For each edge e of T , let me denote the midpoint of e. For each vertex v of
T , let S(v) be the union of all segments of the form [v, me ] where e is an edge
adjacent to v; in other words, S(v) is the union of all half-edges emanating
from v. Let Q(e) ⊂ X be the preimage π −1 (me ), and let Q(v) ⊂ X be the
preimage π −1 S(v) .
Lemma 7.3. Let Ge be the G–stabilizer of the edge e of T . Then Ge acts
cocompactly on Q(e).

Proof. The family A = Q(e) e an edge of T is clearly G–equivariant.
Each Q(e) is closed in X since it is the preimage of the closed set {me }
under a continuous map. We will show that A is locally ﬁnite, and that the
G–stabilizer of each Q(e) is equal to the group Ge .
In order to see local ﬁniteness, let K be a compact set in X. Since π : X →
T is continuous with respect to the CW topology on T , the image π(K)
intersects at most ﬁnitely many open edges of T . In particular π(K) contains
only ﬁnitely many midpoints me of edges. It follows that K intersects only
ﬁnitely many sets Q(e).

The equivariance of π implies that an element g ∈ G satisﬁes g Q(e) =
Q(e) if and only if g(me ) = me . Thus Stab Q(e) = Stab(me ) = Ge . The
result now follows from Proposition 7.2.

Lemma 7.4. Suppose the edge group Ge cocompactly stabilizes a convex
subspace Ye of the CAT(0) space X. Let C(e) be the closure of the convex
hull of Q(e). Then Ge acts cocompactly on C(e).
Proof. Let K be a compact set of X whose Ge –translates cover Q(e). Then
K is contained in the closed neighborhood ND (Ye ) for some D. Since X is
proper, any compact set K ′ whose translates cover Ye can be increased to
a larger compact set ND (K ′ ) whose Ge –translates cover the closed neighborhood ND (Ye ). This neighborhood is a closed, convex, Ge –cocompact set
containing Q(e). Thus it contains C(e), which is also Ge –cocompact.

Lemma 7.5. Let Gv be the G–stabilizer of the vertex v of T . Then Gv acts
cocompactly on Q(v).
Proof. We only need to observe that when projecting a compact set K to
the tree T , the image π(K) intersects only ﬁnitely many sets S(v) since

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

17

it intersects only ﬁnitely many open edges of T . The rest of the proof is
identical to the proof of Lemma 7.3.

Although the vertex group Gv acts cocompactly on Q(v), it is unlikely that
Q(v) is a convex subspace of X. In the following proposition, we increase
Q(v) to a larger set C(v). We ﬁrst show that Gv acts cocompactly on C(v).
Afterwards we will complete the proof of Theorem 1.3 by showing that C(v)
is a convex subspace of X.
Proposition 7.6. For each vertex v ∈ T , let C(v) be the union of Q(v)
together with all sets C(e) such that e is adjacent to v in T . Then Gv acts
cocompactly on C(v).
Proof. Since G is ﬁnitely generated, we could have chosen T to be a tree on
which G acts with quotient a ﬁnite graph (using standard Bass–Serre theory
techniques). Instead, we will use the proof of Lemma 7.3 to show that each
vertex in the quotient graph G\T has ﬁnite valence. For each vertex v ∈ T ,
the action of Gv permutes the subspaces Q(e) such that e is adjacent to v.
Since these subspaces form a locally ﬁnite family, Proposition 7.2 implies
that they lie in ﬁnitely many Gv –orbits. It follows that there are ﬁnitely
many Gv –orbits of sets C(e) where e is adjacent to v.
Let C(e1 ), . . . , C(eℓ ) contain one from each Gv –orbit of the sets C(e).
Let Ki be a compact set whose Gei –translates cover C(ei ). Let K be a
compact set whose Gv –translates cover Q(v). Then C(v) is covered by the
Gv –translates of the compact set K ∪ K1 ∪ · · · ∪ Kℓ .

We now complete the proof of Theorem 1.3 by showing that the subspace
C(v) constructed above is convex.
Proof of Theorem 1.3. Fix a vertex v ∈ T . We will show that C(v) is convex
in X. Let e be any edge adjacent to v. Recall that Q(e) is deﬁned to be
π −1 (me ), where me is the midpoint of the edge e. Notice that me splits the
tree T into two halfspaces. Thus Q(e) can be considered as a “wall” in X
that separates X into two halfspaces, each a preimage of a halfspace of T .
The key property of this separation that we need is that any path in X from
one halfspace of Q(e) to the other must intersect their separating wall Q(e).
(These halfspaces in X are preimages of connected sets, so they need not be
connected. This will not cause any problems for our proof.)
Let H(e) be the closed halfspace of T bounded by the midpoint me and
pointing away
from the vertex v. Let O(e) ⊂ X be the intersection C(e) ∩

π −1 H(e) .
Our strategy is to ﬁrst prove that C ′ (v) is convex, where C ′ (v) is the union
of Q(v) with all sets O(e) such that e is adjacent to v. We will complete the
proof by showing that C ′ (v) is actually equal to C(v).
Choose two points p, q ∈ C ′ (v). We claim that the geodesic c in X from p
to q lies inside C ′ (v). We have several cases depending on which subspaces
they are chosen from.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

18

Case 1. Suppose p, q ∈ Q(v). Any maximal subsegment c′ of c outside
Q(v) has its endpoints in Q(e) for some e adjacent to v. By convexity, c′
must be contained in C(e). But c′ is outside Q(v), so it must lie inside O(e).
Therefore c lies entirely inside C ′ (v).
Case 2. Suppose p, q ∈ O(e) for some e adjacent to v. Any maximal
subsegment c′ of c outside O(e) has its endpoints in Q(e). Therefore c′ is
a path with both endpoints in Q(v). By Case 1, the path c′ lies in C ′ (v).
Therefore c lies in C ′ (v) as well.
Case 3. Suppose p ∈ O(e) and q ∈ Q(v). By separation, c contains a
point r ∈ Q(e). By the ﬁrst two cases, the subsegments [p, r] and [r, q] each
lie in C ′ (v). Therefore we are done.
Case 4. Suppose p ∈ O(e) and q ∈ O(e′ ) for e 6= e′ two edges adjacent
to v. In this case, p and q are separated by two walls, Q(e) and Q(e′ ). As
in the previous case, we can choose r and r ′ on c such that r ∈ Q(e) and
r ′ ∈ Q(e′ ). By the ﬁrst two cases, the subsegments [p, r], [r, r ′ ] and [r ′ , q]
each lie in C ′ (v).
We have shown above that C ′ (v) is convex. We observe that C ′ (v) is
closed, since it is equal to the union of a locally ﬁnite family of closed sets.
Now let us see that C ′ (v) is equal to our original C(v). Clearly C ′ (v) ⊆ C(v).
Recall that C(e) is the closure of the convex hull on Q(e). By the above
argument each C(e) is contained in the closed, convex set C ′ (v). Therefore
C(v) ⊆ C ′ (v), as needed.

Theorem 7.7. Let G be a one-ended group acting geometrically on a CAT(0)
space with isolated flats. Let G be any peripheral splitting of G with respect
to the natural peripheral structure P. Then each component vertex group H
of the splitting G acts geometrically on a CAT(0) space with isolated flats.
Furthermore, the inclusion H ֒→ G induces a topological embedding ∂H ֒→
∂G.
Proof. Let Q be the family of inﬁnite subgroups of H of the form H ∩ P
for P ∈ P. By Theorem 1.3 of [Bow01] we get that (H, Q) is relatively
hyperbolic with respect to a family of virtually abelian subgroups. In any
peripheral splitting of G, the edge groups are virtually abelian. By the Flat
Torus Theorem, it follows that all edge groups of G are convex subgroups of
G. It follows from Theorem 1.3 that the vertex group H acts geometrically
on a CAT(0) space Y , which is obtained as a closed convex subspace of X.
The space Y has isolated ﬂats by Theorem 5.4. Since Y is convex in X, the
visual boundary ∂H = ∂Y embeds in ∂X = ∂G

We obtain the following corollary by combining Theorem 7.7 with Theorem 6.4.
Corollary 7.8. Let G be a one-ended group acting geometrically on a CAT(0)
space with isolated flats. Suppose the maximal peripheral splitting G is locally
finite. Then each component vertex group H of G is a one-ended CAT(0)
group with isolated flats that does not split over peripheral subgroups.


CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

19

8. Local connectivity at rank one points
In this section, we begin the proof of Theorem 1.1. Our goal is to study
the boundary of a one-ended CAT(0) group with isolated ﬂats. We need
to show that if the maximal peripheral splitting is locally ﬁnite, then the
boundary of the CAT(0) space is locally connected. The ﬁrst step of the
proof, which is the main goal of the current section, is to show that the
visual boundary ∂X is locally connected at any point not on the boundary
of a ﬂat. Such points will be called rank one points. Indeed any rank one
point is the endpoint of a geodesic line that does not bound a ﬂat halfplane
in X.
We use decomposition theory to prove Corollary 8.13, which states that
the map ∂X → ∂(G, P) given by Theorem 4.3 from the visual boundary to
the Bowditch boundary is upper semicontinuous. Using this structure we
are able to pull back local connectivity from the Bowditch boundary to the
CAT(0) boundary, but only at rank one points (see Corollary 8.14).
Many of our techniques in the proof of the main theorem depend on elementary results from decomposition theory, which we summarize below. We
refer the reader to [Dav86] for more details. Recall that a decomposition D
of a topological space M is a partition of X. Decompositions are equivalent to quotient maps in the following sense. A decomposition D of a space
M has a natural quotient map π : M → M/D obtained by collapsing each
equivalence class of D to a point and endowing the result with the quotient
topology. Conversely, any quotient map M → N gives rise to an associated
decomposition of M consisting of the family of point preimages.
Definition 8.1. Let D be a decomposition of a space M , and let S be a
subset of M . The D–saturation of S is the union of S together with all sets
D ∈ D that intersect S.
Definition 8.2. A decomposition D of a Hausdorﬀ space M is upper semicontinuous if each D ∈ D is compact, and if, for each D ∈ D and each
open subset U of M containing D, there exists another open subset V of M
containing D such that the D–saturation of V is contained in U . In other
words, every D ′ ∈ D intersecting V is contained in U . A quotient map is upper semicontinuous if its associated decomposition is upper semicontinuous.
The proof of the following result is left as a routine exercise to the reader
(cf. Proposition I.1.1 of [Dav86]).
Proposition 8.3. Let D be a decomposition of a Hausdorff space M . The
following are equivalent:
(1) D is upper semicontinuous.
(2) For each open set U of M , let U ∗ equal the union of all members of
D contained in U . Then U ∗ is open.
(3) For each closed set C of M , the D–saturation of C is closed.


CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

20

Proposition 8.4. Let D be an upper semicontinuous decomposition of a
space M . Let π : M → M/D be the natural quotient map.
(1) [Dav86, Prop. I.3.1] π is a proper map; i.e., a set C ⊆ M/D is
compact if and only if π −1 (C) is compact.
(2) [Dav86, Prop; I.4.1] Suppose each member of D is connected. A set
C ⊆ M/D is connected if and only if π −1 (C) is connected.
Proposition 8.5. Let D be an upper semicontinuous decomposition of M .
Suppose each member of D is connected. Let {x} be a singleton member of
D. If M/D is locally connected at the point π(x), then M is locally connected
at x.
Proof. Let U be a neighborhood of x in M . By Proposition 8.3 there is a
saturated neighborhood U ∗ of x contained in U . Since M/D is locally connected at π(x), the open set π(U ∗ ) contains a connected open neighborhood
V of π(x). By Proposition 8.4, the preimage π −1 (V ) is a connected open
neighborhood of x contained in U .

Definition 8.6 (Subspace decomposition). Let D be a decomposition of a
Hausdorﬀ space M . Let W be an open D–saturated subspace of M . The
induced subspace decomposition of W is the decomposition consisting of all
members of D that are contained in W . If D is upper semicontinuous, then
the induced subspace decomposition is as well.
Proposition 8.7 ([Dav86], Prop. I.2.2). If M is compact, metrizable and D
is an upper semicontinuous decomposition of M , then M/D is metrizable.
Definition 8.8. A collection of subsets A in a metric space is a null family
if, for each ǫ > 0, only ﬁnitely many of the sets A ∈ A have diameter greater
than ǫ.
Note that if M is compact and metrizable, then being a null family does
not depend on the choice of metric on M .
The following property of null families is related to the deﬁnition of upper semicontinuous, but here we do not require that the members of A be
disjoint.
Proposition 8.9. Let A be a null family of compact sets in a metric space
M . Suppose q ∈ M is not contained in any member of the family A. Then
each neighborhood U of q contains a smaller neighborhood V of q such that
each A ∈ A intersecting V is contained in U .
Proof. Let U be a neighborhood of q, and suppose B(q, ǫ) ⊆ U . Choose δ
such that 0 < δ < ǫ/2 and such that d(q, A) > δ for each of the ﬁnitely
many A ∈ A with diameter greater than ǫ/2. The result follows if we set
V = B(q, δ).

Remark 8.10. The notion of a null family can be formulated in terms of
the cone topology on ∂X as follows. Fix a basepoint x0 ∈ X. A collection

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

21

A of subspaces of ∂X is a null family provided that there exists D > 0 such
that for each r < ∞ only ﬁnitely many members of the collection A are not
contained in any set of the form U (·, r, D). It follows from Deﬁnition 3.4 that
only ﬁnitely many members of A have diameter at least 1/r with respect to
the metric dD on ∂x0 X.
A similar condition can be used to characterize null families in the cone
topology on X = X ∪ ∂X. We leave the proof as an exercise for the reader.
When the collection A of subsets of M is disjoint, there is an associated
decomposition of M consisting
of the sets in A together with all singletons
S
{x} such that x ∈ M − A. By a slight abuse of notation, we let M/A
denote the corresponding quotient in which each member of A is collapsed
to a point.
Decompositions arising from null families play a central role in the proof
of the main theorem. The following result is stated as an exercise in [Dav86].
The proof is nearly identical to the proof of Proposition 8.9.
Proposition 8.11 ([Dav86], Prop. I.2.3). Let A be a null family of disjoint
compact subsets in a metric space M . Then the associated decomposition of
M is upper semicontinuous.
Proposition 8.12. Let X be a CAT(0) space that has isolated flats with
respect to the family of flats F. Let A be the family of spheres { ∂F | F ∈ F }.
Then A is a null family of disjoint compact subsets in ∂X.
Proof. Each ∂F ∈ A is a sphere, which is compact. The deﬁnition of isolated
ﬂats immediately implies that the members of A are pairwise disjoint. Thus
we only need to show they are a null family.
Choose a basepoint x0 ∈ X. Let κ be the constant from Theorem 5.6.
We will prove the following claim below: for any ﬂat F ∈ F satisfying
d(x0 , F ) ≥ r + 3κ for some constant r, there exists a geodesic ray c based at
x0 such that ∂F ⊆ U (c, r, 7κ).
Since the collection of ﬂats F is locally ﬁnite, there are only ﬁnitely many
within a distance r + 3κ of x0 for each r < ∞. Thus it will follow from
Remark 8.10 that A is a null family.
In order to prove the claim, let q be the nearest point in F to x0 . Then
d(x0 , q) ≥ r + 3κ. Let c, c′ be geodesic segments from x0 to F . By Theorem 5.6 the set [x0 , q] ∪ F is κ–quasiconvex.
Thus there exist s, s′ with

′
′
follows
that d c(s), q
c(s), c (s ) both
 contained in Nκ [x0 , q] ∩ Nκ (F ). It

′
′
′
′
and d c (s ), q are each less than 3κ. Thus d c(s), c (s ) < 6κ. By the Law
of Cosines d c(r), c′ (r) < 6κ. In particular c′ ∈ U (c, r, 6κ).
Now suppose c and c′ are geodesic rays asymptotic to F (possibly not
intersecting F ). Then each is a limit of geodesic segments that intersect F .
In this case, we conclude that c′ ∈ U (c, r, 7κ). Therefore ∂F ⊆ U (c, r, 7κ)
for any c with c(∞) ∈ ∂F , establishing the claim.

Corollary 8.13. Let G act geometrically on a CAT(0) space X with isolated flats. Let P be the standard relatively hyperbolic structure on G. Then

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

22

the quotient map ∂X → ∂X/A → ∂(G, P) given by Theorem 4.3 is upper
semicontinuous.

Corollary 8.14. Let G be a one-ended group acting geometrically on a
CAT(0) space X with isolated flats. Then ∂X is locally connected at any
point ξ not in the boundary of any flat.
Proof. By Theorem 6.3, the Bowditch boundary ∂(G, P) is locally connected
at every point. Each member of the decomposition A is either a point or a
sphere S k with k > 0. Thus all members of A are connected. The result
follows immediately from Proposition 8.5.

9. Local connectivity on the boundary of a flat
Recall our main goal is to establish local connectivity of the visual boundary of a CAT(0) group with isolated ﬂats in the setting where the maximal
peripheral splitting is locally ﬁnite.
In this section we focus on the special case where the maximal peripheral
splitting is trivial, in other words, we study groups that do not split over
peripheral subgroups. The main goal of this section is to prove Theorem 1.4,
which states that the boundary of such a group is locally connected.
In the previous section, we showed that the boundary of such a group is
locally connected at any point not in the boundary of a ﬂat subspace. To
reach our goal, it suﬃces to show that the boundary ∂X is weakly locally
connected at points of ∂F , where F is a ﬂat subspace. Recall that a space is
weakly locally connected at a point ξ if ξ has a local base of (not necessarily
open) connected neighborhoods. A space is locally connected if it is weakly
locally connected at every point.
In order to understand the topology of ∂X near a point of ∂F , we decompose ∂X into ∂F and its complement Υ = ∂X − ∂F . If P is the stabilizer
of F , then we will see that P acts properly and cocompactly on F , on Υ,
and also on ∂(G, P) − {ρ}, where ρ is the parabolic point corresponding to
∂F . Our main strategy is to exploit similarities between these three spaces.
Many of these similarities do not not depend on the extra hypothesis that
G does not split over peripheral subgroups. After developing some features
of this similarity, we will add the extra “no peripheral splitting” hypothesis, which implies that both F and Υ are 0–connected spaces. Since they
share proper and cocompact group actions by the same group, we are able to
transfer 0–connectedness properties between them. In particular, the local
connectedness of ∂X = Υ ∪ ∂F at a point ξ ∈ ∂F will follow from the local
connectedness of F = F ∪ ∂F at ξ.
The similarity between F and Υ was ﬁrst introduced and extensively studied by Haulmark [Hau] in the general situation of groups acting on CAT(0)
spaces with isolated ﬂats (without the “no peripheral splitting” hypothesis).
This similarity depends heavily on the following two lemmas that play a signiﬁcant role in Haulmark’s work. We note that analogous ideas were used by

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

23

Dahmani to construct Z–compactiﬁcations for certain relatively hyperbolic
groups in [Dah03].
Lemma 9.1 ([Hau]). Let G be a group acting geometrically on a CAT(0)
space with isolated flats. Suppose F ∈ F and Υ = ∂X − ∂F . For each
compact set K ⊂ Υ there exists a compact set C ⊂ F such that for each
η ∈ Υ there is a geodesic ray c′ with c′ (0) ∈ C and c′ (∞) = η such that
c′ meets F orthogonally. Furthermore the compact set C can be chosen P –
equivariantly in the sense that if p ∈ P then pC is the compact set of F
corresponding to pK.
We occasionally apply the previous lemma in the following special case:
each point of Υ is the endpoint of a geodesic ray meeting F orthogonally.
The following corollary of Theorem 5.6 was ﬁrst observed by Haulmark.
Lemma 9.2 ([Hau]). Let κ be the constant given by Theorem 5.6. Let Υ =
∂X − ∂F , and suppose c′ is a geodesic ray meeting F orthogonally. Suppose
c is a geodesic ray contained in F . If c′ (0) ∈ U (c, r, D) for some constants
r and D then c′ (∞) ∈ U (c, r, D + κ). Conversely if c′ (∞) ∈ U (c, r, D) then
c′ (0) ∈ U (c, r, D + κ).
In any CAT(0) space X with a geometric group action, the family of
translates of a compact fundamental domain is a null family in the following
sense.
Proposition 9.3 ([Bes96]). Let H be any group acting geometrically on a
CAT(0) space Y . Let C ⊂ Y be any compact set. Then the collection of
H–translates of C is a null family in the compact space Y .
We will use the previous proposition in the case when Y is a ﬂat subspace
F of a CAT(0) space with isolated ﬂats, and H is its stabilizer P .
The similarity between F and Υ allows us to transfer this version of the
null condition to the action of P on Υ as follows:
Proposition 9.4. Let G act geometrically on a space X with isolated flats.
Choose F ∈ F with stabilizer P , and let Υ = ∂X −∂F . If K ⊂ Υ is compact,
then the collection of P –translates of K is a null family in Υ = ∂X.
Proof. Choose a compact set K ⊂ Υ. Our strategy is to exploit the similarity
between Υ and F as follows: use Lemma 9.1 to pull K back to a compact
set C in F , use Proposition 9.3 to see that almost all translates of C are
“small” in F , and then apply Lemma 9.2 to conclude that the corresponding
translates of K are similarly small in Υ = ∂X.
For our given compact set K ⊂ Υ, let C be the corresponding compact
set of F given by Lemma 9.1. Fix a positive constant D, and let κ be the
constant from Theorem 5.6. By Remark 8.10, it suﬃces to show that for
each r < ∞ only ﬁnitely many P –translates of K are not contained in any
set of the form U (·, r, D + κ). According to Proposition 9.3, the P –translates
of C are a null family. Thus only ﬁnitely many P –translates of C are not

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

24

contained in a set of the form U (·, r, D). For any p ∈ P , if pC lies in a set
of the form U (·, r, D) then the corresponding set pK of Υ lies in a set of the

form U (·, r, D + κ) by Lemma 9.2. So {pK} is a null family in Υ.
Since P acts cocompactly on F , Haulmark exploited the similarity between
F and Υ to show that P also acts cocompactly on Υ [Hau].
For the rest of this section, we focus on the special setting where G does
not split over peripheral subgroups. In this special situation, we can improve
the conclusion of Haulmark’s cocompactness theorem to get a compact, connected fundamental domain for the action of P on Υ.
Proposition 9.5. Let G be a one-ended group acting geometrically on a
CAT(0) space X that has isolated flats with respect to the family of flats F.
Suppose G does not split over any peripheral subgroup. For each flat F ∈ F
with stabilizer P , there is a compact connected set K in Υ = ∂X − ∂F whose
P –translates cover Υ.
Furthermore if T is any finite generating set for the group P , we can
choose K large enough that K intersects tK for all t ∈ T .
The previous results of this section are proved using the similarity between
Υ and F . However for the proof of Proposition 9.5, we use the other similarity
between Υ and ∂(G, P)−{ρ}, where ρ is the parabolic point corresponding to
∂F . The proof of the proposition relies on the fact that each parabolic point
ρ of the Bowditch boundary is bounded parabolic; i.e., there is a compact
fundamental domain for the action of its stabilizer on ∂(G, P) − {ρ}. (See
Deﬁnition 4.1.)
We also need the following lemma, which allows us to increase any such
compact fundamental domain to a connected one, provided that G is oneended and does not split over peripheral subgroups.
Lemma 9.6. Let (G, P) be relatively hyperbolic. Suppose G is one-ended and
the maximal peripheral splitting of G is trivial. Let ρ ∈ ∂(G, P) be a parabolic
point with stabilizer P . Let C0 be any compact fundamental domain for the
action of P on ∂(G, P) − {ρ}. Then C0 is contained in a compact connected
fundamental domain C.
Proof. By Theorem 6.3 the Bowditch boundary ∂(G, P) is connected and
locally connected, and the parabolic point ρ is not a global cut point. Thus
∂(G, P)−{ρ} is an open, connected subset of the compact, locally connected,
metrizable space ∂(G, P). It follows that ∂(G, P) − {ρ} is path connected by
[Wil70, 31C.1].
Let d be a metric on ∂(G, P), and let ǫ = d(ρ, C0 ). We can cover the
compact set C0 by ﬁnitely many open connected sets with diameter less
then ǫ/2. In ∂(G, P) the union of the closures of these sets is a compact set
C1 containing C0 and having only ﬁnitely many components. By our choice
of ǫ, the compact set C1 is contained in ∂(G, P) − {ρ}.
Finally we form C from C1 by attaching ﬁnitely many compact paths in
∂(G, P) − {ρ} that connect the ﬁnitely many components of C1 .


CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

25

Proof of Proposition 9.5. Our strategy is to use the quotient map π : ∂X →
∂(G, P) given by Theorem 4.3. We will ﬁnd an appropriate fundamental
domain in the Bowditch boundary and then pull it back via π to get a
compact connected fundamental domain in ∂X.
Let ρ be the parabolic point of ∂(G, P) stabilized by P ; i.e., {ρ} is the
image of ∂F in the Bowditch boundary. By the deﬁnition of relative hyperbolicity, the action of P on ∂(G, P) − {ρ} has a compact fundamental
domain C0 . Increasing the size of C0 , we may assume without loss of generality that C0 intersects the ﬁnitely many translates tC0 for all t ∈ T . By
Lemma 9.6, we can increase C0 to a compact, connected fundamental domain
C intersecting its translates tC for all t ∈ T .
Recall that the quotient π : ∂X → ∂(G, P) collapses connected sets to
points; i.e. each member of the associated decomposition of ∂X is either a
point or the boundary of a one-ended peripheral subgroup (in our case this
boundary is a sphere). By Corollary 8.13, the quotient π is upper semicontinuous. It follows from Proposition 8.4 that the preimage K = π −1 (C) is
compact and connected. Theorem 4.3 implies that π is G–equivariant. Thus
K is a fundamental domain for the action of P on Υ, and K intersects its
translates tK for each t ∈ T .

Our goal for the rest of this section is to prove the following proposition.
Proposition 9.7. Let G be a one-ended group acting geometrically on a
CAT(0) space with isolated flats. Assume G does not split over any peripheral
subgroup. Then ∂X is weakly locally connected at any point in the boundary
of any flat.
The proof of Proposition 9.7 depends on three lemmas. Before discussing
the lemmas, we outline the broad strategy that leads to the proof. Recall
that ∂X = Υ is similar in many ways to F . We know that F is locally
connected at each point ξ ∈ ∂F by Proposition 3.3. In order to prove that
Υ is also locally connected at ξ, we will describe a procedure for transferring
small connected neighborhoods of ξ from F to Υ, which is valid when G does
not split over peripheral subgroups.
The one-ended and “no peripheral splitting” hypotheses imply that Υ is
connected. Obviously F is also connected. The foundation of our strategy
is the following lemma, which allows us to transfer 0–connectedness from F
to Υ using the fact that both F and Υ are 0–connected spaces on which the
same group P acts properly and cocompactly.
Lemma 9.8. Assume G does not split over any peripheral subgroup. There
exist compact, connected fundamental domains C ⊂ F and K ⊂ Υ for the
actions of P on each, such that the following holds. Let P be any subset of
the group P .
[
[
If
pC is connected in F , then
pK is connected in Υ.
p∈P

p∈P

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

26

Proof. Choose a compact connected fundamental domain C for the action of
P on F . Let T be the set of elements t ∈ P such that C intersects tC. Then
T is a ﬁnite generating set for P . Choose a compact connected fundamental
domain K for the action of P on Υ as given by Proposition 9.5 such that K
intersects tK for all t ∈ T . This intersection property immediately implies
the following condition that holds for all p ∈ P :
If C ∩ pC is nonempty, then K ∩ pK is nonempty.
This condition easily implies our conclusion.



The following terminology and notation will be used throughout the rest
of this section and the eventual proof of Proposition 9.7. Let C and K be the
compact, connected fundamental domains given by the previous lemma. By
Lemma 9.1 there exists a geodesic ray c′ in X meeting F orthogonally. We
will treat the points q0 = c′ (0) ∈ F and q∞ = c′ (∞) ∈ Υ as basepoints in F
and Υ respectively. Translating C and K by the cocompact group actions,
we can also assume that q0 ∈ C and q∞ ∈ K.
Suppose ξ ∈ ∂F . As mentioned above, our strategy for proving Proposition 9.7 is to transfer small connected neighborhoods of ξ in F to small
connected neighborhoods of ξ in Υ. To facilitate this transfer, we assume
that the given neighborhood N of ξ in F is clean in the sense that N = N ∩F
is connected, and each point of N is a limit point of N . Recall that ξ has a
local base of clean connected neighborhoods by Proposition 3.3.
For each clean connected neighborhood N , we will deﬁne a corresponding
set Z in Υ = ∂X. In the two subsequent lemmas, we will show that Z is
a connected neighborhood of ξ in Υ, and that Z can be chosen arbitrarily
small. We begin with the construction of Z.
Definition 9.9 (Associated neighborhoods). Suppose ξ ∈ ∂F and N is a
clean connected neighborhood of ξ in F . Let N = N ∩F , and let Λ = N ∩∂F .
Let P be the set of all pS∈ P such that pC intersects N . The corresponding
set Z ⊂ Υ is the union p∈P pK. Finally the Υ–neighborhood associated to
N is the set Z = Z ∪ Λ.
For this deﬁnition to make sense, we must verify that Z is actually a
neighborhood of ξ in Υ. The next lemma establishes that Z is, in fact, a
(clean) connected neighborhood.
Lemma 9.10. For any clean, connected neighborhood N of ξ in F , the Υ–
neighborhood Z associated to N , defined above, is a connected neighborhood
of ξ in Υ.
Proof. We ﬁrst verify that Z is a neighborhood of ξ in Υ. Let κ be the
constant given by Theorem 5.6, and let D > 0 be an arbitrary constant.
Choose a geodesic ray c in F with c(∞) = ξ. Since N is a neighborhood of ξ
in F , we can choose R large enough so that U (c, R, D) ∩ F lies inside N . By
Proposition 9.4, the collection of P –translates of our compact fundamental
domain K is a null family in Υ. Therefore there exists a neighborhood V of

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

27

ξ in Υ such that V ⊆ U (c, R, D + κ), and such that every pK intersecting
V is contained in U (c, R, D + κ) by Proposition 8.9.
It follows that V ⊆ Z. Indeed, each element η ∈ V either lies in Υ or in
∂F . In the ﬁrst case, by our choice of K, the point η lies in pK for some
p ∈ P . Each such pK is contained in U (c, R, D + κ). In particular, p(q∞ )
lies in U (c, R, D + κ) ⊂ Υ. Thus p(q0 ) ∈ U (c, R, D) ⊂ F by Lemma 9.2.
Since p(q0 ) ∈ pC, our choice of R implies that the P –translate pC intersects
N . By the deﬁnition of Z, we have η ∈ pK ⊂ Z ⊂ Z.
In the second case, we have η ∈ V ∩ ∂F , so
η ∈ U (c, R, D + κ) ∩ ∂F ⊆ U (c, R, D) ∩ ∂F ⊆ N ∩ ∂F = Λ ⊆ Z.
Combining the two cases, we see that V ⊆ Z, as desired. It follows that Z
is a neighborhood of ξ in Υ.
Next we will see that Z is connected. The cleanliness of N means that N =
N ∩ F is connected. Recall that P is the set of all p such that pC intersects
b = S
N . Since C is connected, the union N
p∈P pC is also connected. By
S
Lemma 9.8, the union Z = p∈P pK is connected as well.
In order to show that Z = Z ∪ Λ is connected, it suﬃces to show that
every point of Λ is a limit point of Z. Since N is clean, each point ζ ∈ Λ
is a limit of a sequence {xi } in
 N . Each xi ∈ pi C for some pi ∈ P, and by
Proposition 9.3
the
sequence
pi (q0 ) also converges to ζ. By Lemma 9.2,

the sequence pi (q∞ ) converges to ζ as well. Since q∞ ∈ K, we have
pi (q∞ ) ∈ pi K ⊆ Z. Thus ζ is a limit point of Z.

Lemma 9.11. The Υ–neighborhood Z associated to N can be made arbitrarily small by choosing N to be a sufficiently small neighborhood of ξ.
Proof. Let U be a neighborhood of ξ in Υ = ∂X. Our goal is to show that if
N is chosen appropriately, its associated neighborhood Z will be contained
in U . By Proposition 9.4, there is a neighborhood V of ξ in Υ such that
V ⊆ U and every pK intersecting V is contained in U . By Lemma 9.2, there
is a neighborhood W of ξ in F such that W ∩ ∂F ⊂ V and such that if
p(q0 ) ∈ W then p(q∞ ) ∈ V and hence pK ⊂ U . Proposition 9.3 gives a
neighborhood W ′ of ξ in F such that W ′ ⊆ W and every pC intersecting
W ′ is contained in W . Due to Proposition 3.3, there is a clean connected
neighborhood N of ξ inside W ′ .
It follows that the associated Υ–neighborhood Z is contained in U . Indeed,
each element η ∈ Z either lies in Z or in Λ = N ∩ ∂F . Suppose ﬁrst that
η ∈ Z. Then η ∈ pK for some p such that pC intersects N , and N ⊆ W ′ . In
this case, it is clear from our choices above that η ∈ U . On the other hand,
suppose η ∈ Λ. Since Λ ⊆ W ∩ ∂F , it is contained in V , which is contained
in U . We have shown that Z ⊆ U , as needed.

At this point the proof of Proposition 9.7 is nearly complete.
Proof of Proposition 9.7. Suppose ξ ∈ ∂F . We must show that ∂X = Υ is
weakly locally connected at ξ. The combination of Lemmas 9.10 and 9.11

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

28

implies that ξ has arbitrarily small connected neighborhoods (that are not
necessarily open).

Combining Corollary 8.14 and Proposition 9.7 completes the proof of Theorem 1.4.
10. The limit of a tree system of spaces
In order to complete the proof of Theorem 1.1, we need to examine the
boundary of a one-ended CAT(0) group G with isolated ﬂats whose maximal
peripheral splitting is nontrivial and locally ﬁnite.
By Corollary 7.8, the component vertex groups of this splitting are oneended CAT(0) groups with isolated ﬂats that do not admit peripheral splittings. Therefore by Theorem 1.4 the boundary of each component vertex
group is locally connected. We will see in Section 11 that the visual boundary of G is obtained by gluing copies of the component group boundaries
along spheres in the pattern of the Bass-Serre tree. The tool necessary to
make this precise is the notion of a tree system of spaces, introduced by
Świątkowski in [Świb].
In this section we present the deﬁnition of the limit of a tree system of
metric compacta. We also prove Theorem 10.6, which roughly states that
a tree system of locally connected spaces has a limit that is also locally
connected.
Definition 10.1. A tree is a connected nonempty graph without circuits.
We use Serre’s notation for graphs with oriented edges. A graph has a vertex

set V, a set of oriented edges E, a map E → V × V denoted e 7→ o(e), t(e) ,
and an involution E → E denoted e 7→ e. We require that e 6= e and that
o(e) = t(e). The vertices o(e) and t(e) are the origin and terminus of the
edge e. We refer the reader to [Ser77] for more details.
Definition 10.2. A tree system Θ of metric compacta consists of the following data:
`
(1) T is a bipartite tree with a countable vertex set V = C P such that
each vertex w ∈ P has ﬁnite valence.
(2) To each vertex v ∈ V there is associated a compact metric space Kv .
(3) To each edge e ∈ E there is associated a compact metric space Σe , a
homeomorphism φe : Σe → Σe such that φe = φ−1
e , and a topological
embedding ie : Σe → Kt(e) .
(4) For each v ∈ C the family of subspaces { ie (Σe ) | t(e) = v } is null
and consists of pairwise disjoint sets. We will refer to the spaces Kv
for v ∈ V as component spaces.
(5) For each w ∈ P and each e with t(e) = w the map ie : Σe → Kw
is a homeomorphism. We will refer to the spaces Kw for w ∈ P as
peripheral spaces.
The tree system Θ is degenerate if the tree T contains only one vertex, and
that vertex is peripheral.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

29

Remark 10.3. The deﬁnition above of tree system is slightly more general
than the one used by Świątkowski in [Świb]. In the special case that each
vertex w ∈ P has valence two, our deﬁnition is equivalent to Świątkowski’s
using a barycentric subdivision of his tree. The proofs in [Świb] generalize
to tree systems in the sense of Deﬁnition 10.2 with only minor modiﬁcations.

`
Let #Θ denote the quotient
v∈C∪P Kv / ∼ by the equivalence relation
generated by ie (x) ∼ ie φe (x) for all edges e ∈ E and all x ∈ Σe endowed
with the quotient topology.
`
For each subtree S of T let VS = CS PS and ES denote the set of vertices
and the set of edges of S. Let ΘS denote the restriction of the tree system
Θ to the subtree S. Let NS = { e ∈ E | o(e) ∈
/ VS and t(e) ∈ VS } be the set
of oriented edges adjacent to S but not contained in S, oriented towards S.
Definition 10.4 (Limit of a tree system). For each ﬁnite subtree F of T ,
the partial union KF is deﬁned to be #ΘF . Since F is ﬁnite it follows that
KF is compact and metrizable. Let AF = { ie (Σe ) | e ∈ NF }. We consider
AF to be a family of subsets of KF , and note that this is a null family that
consists of pairwise disjoint compact sets. Let KF∗ = KF /AF , the quotient
formed by collapsing each set in AF to a point. By Propositions 8.11 and
8.7, the quotient KF∗ is metrizable.
For each pair of ﬁnite subtrees F1 ⊆ F2 , let fF1 F2 : KF∗ 2 → KF∗ 1 be the
quotient map obtained by collapsing Ks to a point for each s ∈ VF2 −VF1 and
identifying the resulting quotient space with KF∗ 1 . Since fF1 F2 ◦fF2 F3 = fF1 F3
whenever F1 ⊆ F2 ⊆ F3 , the system of spaces KF∗ and maps fF F ′ where
F ⊆ F ′ is an inverse system of metric compacta indexed by the poset of all
ﬁnite subtrees F of T .
The limit lim Θ of the tree system Θ is the inverse limit of the above
inverse system. Observe that lim Θ is compact and metrizable, since it is an
inverse limit of a countable system of compact metrizable spaces.
A function f : Y → Z is monotone if f is surjective and for each z ∈ Z
the preimage f −1 (z) is compact and connected. The following theorem due
to Capel is used in the proof of Theorem 10.6.
Theorem 10.5 ([Cap54]). Let {Xα } be an inverse system such that each
bonding map Xα → Xβ is monotone. If each factor space Xα is compact and
locally connected then the inverse limit lim Xα is locally connected.
←−
Theorem 10.6. The limit lim Θ of a nondegenerate tree system Θ is locally
connected, provided that each component vertex space Kv with v ∈ C is connected and locally connected and that each peripheral vertex space Kw with
w ∈ P is nonempty.
Proof. Since the component vertex spaces are connected and the peripheral
vertex spaces are nonempty, KF and KF∗ are connected for each ﬁnite subtree
F of T . Recall that any quotient of a locally connected space is locally
connected. Since KF is obtained by gluing ﬁnitely many locally connected

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

30

spaces, it is locally connected itself. Since KF∗ is a quotient of KF , it is also
locally connected.
In order to apply Theorem 10.5 to see that lim Θ is locally connected, it
suﬃces to check that the bonding maps KF∗ 2 → KF∗ 1 are monotone. Any
nontrivial point preimage is a quotient of KF for some subtree F of F2 − F1 ,
which must be compact and connected. Thus lim Θ is locally connected. 
11. Putting together the pieces
In this section, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.1. Suppose G is a oneended group acting geometrically on a CAT(0) space X with isolated ﬂats,
and assume that the maximal peripheral splitting G of G is locally ﬁnite. The
results of this section lead up to Proposition 11.11, which states that ∂X is
homeomorphic to the limit of a tree system of spaces, whose underlying tree
is the Bass–Serre tree T for the splitting G and whose component spaces are
the boundaries of the component vertex groups. The proof of Theorem 1.1
will follow by combining Proposition 11.11 with ingredients established in
the previous sections.
Let X be the given CAT(0) space with isolated ﬂats on which G acts
geometrically. To simplify some of the geometric arguments, we will replace
X with a quasi-isometric space XT obtained by Bridson–Haeﬂiger’s Equivariant Gluing construction for graphs of groups with CAT(0) vertex groups
and convex edge groups (see Theorems II.11.18 and II.11.21 of [BH99]).
The space XT is constructed as follows. Recall that the vertices of T have
two types: component vertices and peripheral vertices. We denote the set
of component vertices by C and the set of peripheral vertices by P. Each
component vertex group Gv acts geometrically on a CAT(0) space Cv . Each
peripheral vertex group Pw , being virtually abelian, acts geometrically on a
ﬂat Euclidean space Fw .
Each edge e in T is incident to a unique peripheral vertex w ∈ P. Let Fe be
equal to the ﬂat Fw . Each edge group Pe also comes with a monomorphism
φe : Pe ֒→ Gv . By the Flat Torus Theorem there is a φe –equivariant isometric
embedding of the ﬂat Fe in the space Cv .
The space XT is obtained by gluing all components Cv and ﬂats Fw using
edge spaces of the form Fe × [0, 1] in the pattern of the tree T . For each
edge e incident to vertices v ∈ C and w ∈ P(T ), the map from Fe to Fw
is the identity while the map from Fe to Cv is the map given by the Flat
Torus Theorem. Our setup is now a special case of the Equivariant Gluing
discussed in [BH99, Chapter II.11]. Therefore G acts geometrically on XT .
From this point on, we work in the space XT instead of X. Since CAT(0)
groups with isolated ﬂats have “well-deﬁned boundaries,” the spaces X and
XT have G–equivariantly homeomorphic boundaries (see Theorem 5.5).
Suppose x0 ∈ XT is a basepoint in a component space C0 . Let v0 ∈ C(T )
be the vertex corresponding to C0 . Let ξ ∈ ∂XT . Using the terminology in
[CK00], we can assign an itinerary to ξ at x0 . This consists of a sequence of

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

31

edges {ei } of T corresponding to the sequence of edge spaces Fi × [0, 1] that
ξ enters when based at x0 . We say a ray enters an edge space Fi ×[0, 1] if the
ray reaches a point of the interior Fi × (0, 1). Observe that ξ has an empty
itinerary if and only if ξ ∈ ∂C0 . The next result is analogous to Lemma 2 in
[CK00].
Lemma 11.1. If ξ ∈
/ ∂C0 , then the itinerary to ξ at x0 is the sequence of
successive edges of a geodesic segment or geodesic ray beginning at v0 in the
tree T .
Proof. The separation properties of edge spaces imply that successive edges
in the itinerary must be adjacent in T , so the itinerary deﬁnes a path in T .
A geodesic that enters an edge space F × [0, 1] through the ﬂat F × {0} must
exit through the ﬂat F × {1} without backtracking. Edge spaces are convex
so a geodesic cannot revisit any edge space which it has left. Therefore the
corresponding path in T is a geodesic.

Lemma 11.2. Let x0 be a basepoint contained in a component Cv0 .
(1) If a geodesic ray based at x0 has an infinite itinerary, then that
itinerary is a geodesic ray of T based at v0 .
(2) Every ray of T based at v0 is the itinerary of a geodesic ray based at
x0 .
(3) If c, c′ are geodesic rays based at x0 in XT that have the same infinite
itinerary at x0 , then c = c′ .
Proof. In order to show (1), it suﬃces to verify that the inﬁnite itinerary is
based at v0 , which is clear since the ﬁrst ﬂat the ray enters must be adjacent
to the component Cv0 .
Any geodesic ray {ei }∞
i=1 in T based at v0 corresponds to a sequence of
edge spaces Fi × [0, 1]. Any geodesic segment ci from x0 to Fi × {1/2} must
enter the edge space Fj × [0, 1] for all 1 ≤ j ≤ i since that edge space
separates x0 from Fi × {1/2}. After passing to a subsequence the geodesics
ci converge to a ray c based at x0 which enters all edge spaces Fi × [0, 1] for
i = 1, 2, 3, . . . since the edge spaces separate XT . It follows that the given
geodesic in T is the itinerary of c at x0 , establishing (2).
Since the itinerary is inﬁnite, there is a sequence of edge spaces Fi × [0, 1]
that c, c′ both enter. Let Fi denote the ﬂat Fi × {1/2} in the ith edge space.
Using Theorem 5.6, there exists a constant κ such that for each i, if qi is the
closest point of Fi to x0 then [x0 , qi ] ∪ Fi is κ–quasiconvex in X. Thus both
c and c′ come within a distance 3κ of qi . In particular, c, c′ come 6κ–close
to each other arbitrarily far from x0 . By convexity of the distance function
in XT , this implies c = c′ , which proves (3).

Lemma 11.3. If ξ ∈ ∂XT , then exactly one of the following holds:
(1) ξ ∈ ∂C for some component C. This includes the case that ξ ∈ ∂F
for some flat.
(2) ξ has an infinite itinerary with respect to any x0 ∈ XT and is not
contained in ∂C for any component C in XT .

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

32

Proof. Let c be a geodesic ray based at x0 representing ξ. Note that ξ has a
ﬁnite itinerary if and only if c enters only ﬁnitely many edge spaces, which
holds if and only if c eventually remains in a component Cv for some v ∈ C.
That component is Cv0 , if and only if the itinerary of ξ at x0 is empty as was
previously noted. Otherwise, the itinerary of ξ at x0 is the geodesic segment
[v0 , v] in T , and ξ ∈ ∂Cv .
The property of having an inﬁnite itinerary does not depend on the choice
of basepoint x0 ∈ XT . Suppose ξ has an inﬁnite itinerary and Cv is any
component. Then ξ ∈
/ ∂Cv . Indeed this becomes obvious if we choose a
basepoint x0 from the convex set Cv .

Lemma 11.4. Let Cv and Cv′ be two distinct components of XT . Then one
of the following holds:
(1) ∂Cv ∩ ∂Cv′ = ∅.
(2) ∂Cv ∩ ∂Cv′ = ∂Fw for some w ∈ P(T ) adjacent to both v and v ′ .
In this case, there is a copy of Fw × [−1, 1] embedded in XT with
Fw × {−1} ⊂ Cv and Fw × {1} ⊂ Cv′ .
Proof. Suppose ξ ∈ ∂Cv ∩ ∂Cv′ for some v 6= v ′ . Then dT (v, v ′ ) = 2. Indeed
if this distance were greater than two then Cv and Cv′ would be separated
by a pair of distinct ﬂats Fe 6= Fe′ from the family of isolated ﬂats F. The
existence of a ray asymptotic to both Cv and Cv′ would then contradict
isolated ﬂats.
Let w ∈ P be the unique peripheral vertex adjacent to both v and v ′ . Note
that the two edge spaces between v and v ′ are each isometric to Fw ×[0, 1], so
their union is isometric to Fw ×[−1, 1]. Observe that this copy of Fw ×[−1, 1]
separates Cv from Cv′ in XT . Thus for any constant r, the intersection
Nr (Cv ) ∩ Nr (Cv′ ) lies in a ﬁnite tubular neighborhood of Fw . It follows that
ξ ∈ ∂Fw .

The results above hold for any one-ended CAT(0) group with isolated
ﬂats. For the rest of the section we are concerned only with the special case
in which the maximal peripheral splitting is locally ﬁnite.
It is our goal to show that, in this case, ∂XT is homeomorphic to the limit
of the tree system Θ deﬁned in the following construction.
Construction (The tree system of the peripheral splitting). Recall that the
one-ended group G has a maximal peripheral splitting G. By hypothesis, this
splitting is assumed to be locally ﬁnite, which means that each peripheral
vertex w ∈ P of the Bass–Serre tree T has ﬁnite valence. To each vertex
v ∈ C we associate the subspace Kv = ∂Cv , and to each w ∈ P we associate
the subspace Kw = ∂Fw . To each oriented edge e ∈ E we associate the
subspace Σe = ∂Fe . Since Σe = Σe , we set φe to be the identity map. Since
Σe ⊆ Kt(e) we set ie to be the inclusion. For each v ∈ C, the family of

closed subspaces ie (Σe ) t(e) = v is pairwise disjoint by the deﬁnition of
isolated ﬂats. Proposition 11.6 will imply that this family is null. Thus the
data above deﬁne a tree system Θ whose underlying tree is T .

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

33

The following proposition follows easily from the conclusions of Lemmas
11.2, 11.3, and 11.4 about itineraries and their relation to the structure of
∂XT . As in Section 10, given a tree system Θ, we let #Θ denote the quotient
space obtained by gluing the vertex spaces of Θ along edge spaces via the
maps ie .
Proposition 11.5. There is a map ρ : #Θ ∪ ∂T → ∂XT with the following
properties:
(1) ρ is a bijection.
(2) ρ is continuous on #Θ.
(3) For each finite subtree F of T , the map ρ restricted to the partial
union KF is a topological embedding. In particular, ρ is an embedding
when restricted to any vertex space Kv .


If S is a subtree of T , we write Ψ(S) = ρ #ΘS ∪ ∂S . If Te is a branch of
T , the set Ψ(Te ) is a branch of ∂XT .
Proposition 11.6. Choose a basepoint v ∈ V. The family of all branches
Ψ(Te ) of ∂XT such that e points away from v is a null family.
The proof of the previous proposition uses the following two lemmas.
Lemma 11.7. Let x0 be a basepoint contained in a component Cv0 .
(1) If ξ ∈ ∂Cv for some v ∈ C but not in ∂Fw for any w, then the
itinerary of ξ at x0 is the geodesic segment [v0 , v].
(2) If ξ ∈ ∂Fw for some w ∈ P, then the itinerary of ξ at x0 is the
geodesic segment [v0 , v] of T , where v is the vertex adjacent to w that
is closest to v0 .
Proof. In case (1), it follows from Lemma 11.4 that Cv is the unique component whose boundary contains ξ. The proof of Lemma 11.3 implies that ξ
eventually remains in Cv , and the itinerary of ξ at x0 equals [v0 , v] as desired.
If ξ ∈ ∂Fw then ξ also lies in ∂Cv for all v adjacent to w in T . Furthermore,
ξ does not lie in ∂C ′ for any other component C ′ . The component that ξ
eventually remains in must therefore be adjacent to Fw . Observe that ξ
cannot enter any edge space Fe × [0, 1] adjacent (and parallel) to Fw since
then ξ would fail to be asymptotic to Fw .

Lemma 11.8. Let Ψ(Te ) be a branch of ∂XT determined by an oriented edge
e ∈ E. Let x0 ∈ XT be a basepoint contained in Cv for some vertex v ∈
/ Te .
Let κ be the constant from Theorem 5.6. If d(x0 , Fe ) ≥ r + 3κ, then there
exists a geodesic ray c based at x0 such that Ψ(Te ) ⊆ U (c, r, 7κ).
Proof. Let q be the nearest point in Fe to x0 . Then d(x0 , q) ≥ r + 3κ. Let
c, c′ be geodesic rays based at x0 that both intersect Fe . By Theorem 5.6 the
set [x0 , q] ∪ Fe is κ–quasiconvex.
Thus there exist s, s′ with c(s), c′ (s′ ) both

′ ′
contained in Nκ [x0 , q] ∩ Nκ (Fe ). It follows
 that d c(s), q and d c (s ), q
′
′
are each less
c (s ) < 6κ. By the Law of Cosines
 than 3κ. Thus d c(s),
′
′
d c(r), c (r) < 6κ. In particular c ∈ U (c, r, 6κ).

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

34

If c intersects Fe and c′ is asymptotic to Fe (but does not intersect Fe ),
then c′ is a limit of geodesics that intersect Fe . In this case, we conclude
that c′ ∈ U (c, r, 7κ).
By Lemma 11.7 each ray based at x0 and asymptotic to Ψ(Te ) has an
itinerary involving Fe —and hence intersects Fe —unless the ray is asymptotic
to Fe itself. In all cases we see that Ψ(Te ) ⊆ U (c, r, 7κ) for any c crossing
Fe .

Proof of Proposition 11.6. Let v ∈ C. Choose a basepoint x0 ∈ Cv . Let
D = 7κ where κ is as in the previous lemma and let r < ∞. Let Ψ(Te ) be a
branch such that e points away from v and such that Ψ(Te ) is not contained
in any set of the form U (·, r, D). Applying Lemma 11.8 in the contrapositive
implies d(x0 , Fe ) < r + 3κ. Since the collection of ﬂats {Fe } in XT is locally
ﬁnite, there are only ﬁnitely many edges e whose corresponding ﬂat Fe is that
close to x0 . Thus there are only ﬁnitely many possibilities for the branch
Ψ(Te ).

Proposition 11.9. Branches Ψ(Te ) are closed in ∂XT .
Proof. Let x0 ∈ XT be a basepoint contained in Cv for some vertex v ∈
/ Te .
Suppose {ci } is a sequence of geodesic rays in XT based at x0 asymptotic
to Ψ(Te ) such that ci converges to the geodesic ray c based at x0 . As in
the proof of Lemma 11.8, each such ray intersects Fe or is asymptotic to Fe .
By passing to a subsequence we can assume all ci intersect Fe or all ci are
asymptotic to Fe .
If each ci is asymptotic to Fe , then c is as well, since Fe is a closed convex
subspace of XT . On the other hand, if each ci intersects Fe then c either
intersects Fe or is asymptotic to Fe depending on whether the intersections
of the ci with Fe remain bounded as i → ∞. In all cases we conclude that c
is asymptotic to the branch Ψ(Te ).

Recall that lim Θ is the inverse limit of an inverse system of spaces KF∗ =
KF /AF for all ﬁnite subtrees F of T (see Deﬁnition 10.4). The collection
AF contains an edge space ie (Σe ) for each edge e ∈ NF , where NF contains
all edges whose origin is outside F and whose terminus is in F .
Lemma 11.10. For each finite subtree F of T , let ∂XT /DF be the quotient
of ∂XT formed by collapsing each branch Ψ(Te ) to a point whenever e ∈ NF .
Let qF : ∂X → ∂X/DF denote the natural quotient map. Then ∂XT /DF is
homeomorphic to the quotient KF∗ = KF /AF .
Proof. The embedding ρ : KF → ∂XT induces a continuous map gF : KF∗ →
∂XT /DF , which is clearly a bijection. It suﬃces to verify that gF is a closed
map. We will show that the decomposition DF is upper semicontinuous. It
then follows immediately from Proposition 8.7 that ∂XT /DF is Hausdorﬀ,
and since KF∗ is compact, we can conclude that gF is closed.
By Proposition 11.5(1), two branches Ψ(Te ) and Ψ(Te′ ) with e, e′ ∈ NF
intersect precisely when their origin vertices o(e) and o(e′ ) are peripheral

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

35

vertices (lying in P) and are equal. In this case the intersection of the
branches is the peripheral vertex space Σe = Ko(e) = Σe′ . Therefore each
nontrivial member of the decomposition DF is the union of ﬁnitely many
branches whose deﬁning edges have a common origin.
By Proposition 11.6 the branches being collapsed are a null family. Therefore DF is also null. Similarly by Proposition 11.9 we see that the members of DF are closed. Therefore DF is upper semicontinuous by Proposition 8.11.

Proposition 11.11. Suppose G is a one-ended group acting geometrically
on a CAT(0) space X with isolated flats. Suppose the maximal peripheral
splitting of G is locally finite. Then the boundary ∂X is homeomorphic to
the limit lim Θ of the associated tree system.
Proof. By Theorem 5.5, the boundary ∂X is G–equivariantly homeomorphic
to the boundary ∂XT constructed above. In order to prove that ∂XT is
homeomorphic to lim Θ we will deﬁne maps hF from ∂XT onto each KF∗ in
the inverse system, and show that the induced map h : ∂XT → lim Θ is a
homeomorphism.
The map hF is the composition gF−1 ◦ qF , where gF is the homeomorphism deﬁned in Lemma 11.10 and qF is the natural quotient map ∂XT →
∂XT /DF . Since fF1F2 ◦ hF2 = hF1 whenever F1 ⊆ F2 , the maps hF induce a
continuous map h : ∂XT → lim Θ.
Observe that ∂XT is compact, each quotient space KF∗ is Hausdorﬀ, and
hF is surjective for each ﬁnite subtree F . It follows that h is surjective (see
for instance §I.9.6, Corollary 2(b) of [Bou71]). Since lim Θ is Hausdorﬀ, the
map h is closed.
Thus we only need to show that h is injective. Suppose ξ 6= η are two
distinct points of ∂XT . Recall that by Proposition 11.5(1) each point of ∂XT
is either contained in a block boundary Kv for some v ∈ C or is equal to an
ideal point ρ(z) for some z ∈ ∂T . We also know that the map ρ : ∂T → ∂XT
from ends of the tree to ideal points is injective.
Case 1: Suppose ξ and η are both contained in block boundaries. Recall that each point of ∂XT lies in at most ﬁnitely many block boundaries.
Choose a ﬁnite subtree F that contains all block boundaries Kv that contain
either ξ or η. Then ξ and η are contained in the partial union KF , but
neither ξ nor η is contained in any subspace ie (Σe ) with e ∈ NF . It follows
that ξ and η have distinct images hF (ξ) and hF (η) in the quotient KF∗ .
Case 2: Suppose ξ and η are equal to distinct ideal points ρ(z) and ρ(z ′ )
with z 6= z ′ in ∂T . Let c be the geodesic in the tree T from z to z ′ . Choose
any vertex v ∈ C of c, and let F be the ﬁnite subtree {v}. Then KF = Kv
consists of only one block boundary. Since c is a geodesic, there are distinct
edges e 6= e′ with o(e) = o(e′ ) = v such that ξ lies in the branch Ψ(Te ) and
η lies in the branch Ψ(Te′ ). Therefore ξ and η have distinct images hF (ξ)
and hF (η) in the quotient KF∗ .

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

36

Case 3: Suppose ξ is contained in a block boundary and η is an ideal
point ρ(z) for z ∈ ∂T . Choose a ﬁnite subtree F containing all of the ﬁnitely
many blocks Kv that contain ξ. Then ξ lies in the partial union KF but is
not contained in any branch Ψ(Te ) with e ∈ NF . On the other hand, η is
not contained in KF , so it must lie in some branch Ψ(Te ) with e ∈ NF . It
follows that ξ and η have distinct images qF (ξ) and qF (η) in the quotient
∂XT /DF . Consequently their images in KF∗ are distinct as well.

We now use Proposition 11.11 to complete the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. The reverse implication follows from work of Mihalik–
Ruane [MR99, MR01] as explained in the proof of Theorem 6.5.
We prove the forward implication using the contrapositive; i.e., if G does
not split over a virtually abelian subgroup as in the statement of Theorem 1.1, we must show that ∂X is locally connected.
Let G be the maximal peripheral splitting of G given by Theorem 6.3. By
hypothesis, this splitting is locally ﬁnite. Proposition 11.11 implies that ∂X
is homeomorphic to the limit of the associated tree system. The trivial case
in which G is virtually abelian of higher rank is obvious since the boundary
is a sphere in that case. In all other cases the tree system is nondegenerate.
By Corollary 7.8 each component vertex group is a one-ended CAT(0) group
with isolated ﬂats that does not split over peripheral subgroups. By Theorem 1.4 each component vertex space is connected and locally connected.
Each peripheral vertex space is a sphere of dimension at least one, hence is
connected. Therefore we may apply Theorem 10.6 to conclude that ∂X is
locally connected, as desired.

12. Semistability
In this section we study semistability at inﬁnity for ﬁnitely presented
groups, a notion that is deﬁned precisely below. The main goal of the section
is to prove Theorem 1.2, which states that every CAT(0) group with isolated
ﬂats is semistable at inﬁnity.
To prove this theorem, our strategy is to begin with Theorem 1.4, which
gives a family of CAT(0) groups with connected and locally connected boundaries. Such groups are semistable at inﬁnity by work of Geoghegan. We
reduce from the general case of Theorem 1.2 to this special case using a
(short) hierarchy of splittings over ﬁnite and virtually abelian subgroups.
We construct this hierarchy by hand, but an alternate approach could be to
apply the Delzant–Potyagailo accessibility theorem [DP01].
The reduction process depends on two key facts: the convex splitting
theorem for CAT(0) groups (Theorem 1.3) and the following combination
theorem for semistability due to Mihalik–Tschantz [MT92], which for convenience we state only in the CAT(0) setting.
Theorem 12.1 (Mihalik–Tschantz). Let the CAT(0) group G be the fundamental group of a graph of CAT(0) groups. Suppose each vertex group is

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

37

semistable at infinity. Suppose also that each edge group is finitely generated.
Then G is semistable at infinity.
The following is a deﬁnition of semistability at inﬁnity that is tailored
for the setting of groups acting on CAT(0) spaces. A proper CAT(0) space
X is strongly connected at infinity if any two proper rays converging to the
same end of X are properly homotopic. Here, a proper ray is a proper
map [0, ∞) → X. A group G acting geometrically on a CAT(0) space X is
semistable at infinity if X is strongly connected at inﬁnity. See [Geo08, Geo]
for more information about semistability.
Proposition 12.2. Finite groups are semistable at infinity.
Proof. A ﬁnite group acts geometrically on the one-point space X. The
deﬁnition of semistable at inﬁnity is satisﬁed vacuously, since there are no
proper rays in X.

Geoghegan [Geo] has observed that the following result is a corollary of
work of Krasinkiewicz and Geoghegan–Krasinkiewicz [Kra77, GK91].
Theorem 12.3 (Geoghegan). Let G be a group acting geometrically on
a CAT(0) space X. If ∂X is connected and locally connected, then G is
semistable at infinity.
Corollary 12.4. Let G be a CAT(0) group with isolated flats. If G is oneended and does not split over peripheral subgroups, then G is semistable at
infinity.
Proof. Let X be a one-ended CAT(0) space on which G acts geometrically.
By Theorem 1.4 the boundary of X is connected and locally connected.
Therefore by Theorem 12.3 the group G is semistable at inﬁnity.

The proof of Theorem 1.2 occupies the rest of this section. We will perform
a sequence of steps reducing the general case to more and more speciﬁc
special cases, until we reach the setting of Corollary 12.4, where semistability
is already known.
The ﬁrst step is to reduce the general case to the one-ended case.
Proof of Theorem 1.2. By Theorem 5.3, the group G is hyperbolic relative to
the family P of stabilizers of ﬂats, which are each virtually abelian groups of
rank at least two. Since G is ﬁnitely presented, it splits as the fundamental
group of a graph of groups G with all edge groups ﬁnite and each vertex group
either one-ended or ﬁnite by Dunwoody’s accessibility theorem [Dun85].
Each ﬁnite vertex group is semistable at inﬁnity by Proposition 12.2. Let
us now check that each inﬁnite vertex group Gv is also semistable at inﬁnity.
Since the ﬁnite edge subgroups of G are convex, it follows from Theorem 1.3
that all vertex groups are again CAT(0) groups. By Proposition 6.1, Gv is
hyperbolic relative to Q, the family of subgroups P ∈ P such that P ⊆ Gv .
Now we have Gv is a one-ended CAT(0) group, hyperbolic relative to Q, a

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

38

family of virtually abelian groups of rank two or more (since Q ⊆ P). According to Theorem 5.4, the CAT(0) group Gv is CAT(0) with isolated ﬂats.
Semistability of Gv now follows immediately from Proposition 12.5 below.
All edge groups are ﬁnite, so G is semistable at inﬁnity by Theorem 12.1. 
Our next step is to reduce from the one-ended case to the case of (possibly
multi-ended) groups with no peripheral splitting.
Proposition 12.5. Let G be a one-ended CAT(0) group with isolated flats.
Then G is semistable at infinity.
Proof. By Theorem 5.3, the group G is hyperbolic relative to the family P
of stabilizers of ﬂats, which are each virtually abelian groups of rank at least
two. Since G is one-ended, the Bowditch boundary of (G, P) is connected.
By Theorem 6.3, there is a maximal peripheral spitting G of (G, P), which
has the property that all edge groups are virtually abelian. By the Flat
Torus Theorem [BH99], each edge group of G is a convex subgroup of G. It
follows from Theorem 1.3 that each vertex group is CAT(0). Furthermore
by [Bow01, Theorem 1.3] each vertex group Gv is hyperbolic relative to Q,
the family of inﬁnite groups that have the form P ∩ Gv for some P ∈ P.
Note that the members of the peripheral structure Q are either 2–ended
or virtually abelian of higher rank. By [Bow01, Lemma 4.6], the group Gv
does not split over any group E that is a subgroup of any peripheral group
Q ∈ Q.
Since the 2–ended groups of Q are all word hyperbolic, we may remove
them from the peripheral structure to get Q, a subset of Q, such that (Gv , Q)
is still relatively hyperbolic (see for example Corollary 1.14 of [DS05]). Since
members of Q are all virtually abelian of higher rank and Gv is CAT(0), it
follows from Theorem 5.4 that Gv is CAT(0) with isolated ﬂats. Although
Gv might not be one-ended, we do know that Gv does not split over any
group E that is a subgroup of any Q ∈ Q, since this property is inherited
from Q. (Recall that Q ⊆ Q).
Semistability of each vertex group Gv now follows from Proposition 12.6
below. Observe that edge groups of G are all ﬁnitely generated, so by Theorem 12.1 the group G is semistable at inﬁnity.

Our ﬁnal reduction takes us from the setting of possibly multi-ended
groups with no peripheral splitting to the setting of one-ended groups with
no peripheral splitting. The key diﬃculty here is to prove that the “no peripheral splittings” property is inherited by vertex groups of a splitting over
ﬁnite groups.
Proposition 12.6. Let G be CAT(0) with isolated flats, with P the peripheral structure consisting of all stabilizers of maximal flats. Suppose G does
not split over any group E that is a subgroup of some P ∈ P. Then G is
semistable at infinity.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

39

Proof. Dunwoody’s accessibility theorem gives a splitting of G as the fundamental group of a graph of groups G, where the vertex groups are either
ﬁnite or one-ended and the edge groups are ﬁnite. Recall that each oneended vertex group Gv is hyperbolic relative to Q, the family of subgroups
P ∈ P such that P ⊆ Gv , and that Gv is CAT(0) with isolated ﬂats. To
complete the proof it suﬃces to show that each one-ended vertex group Gv
of G does not split over any group E that is contained in a peripheral subgroup of Q. Indeed this condition implies that each Gv is semistable at
inﬁnity by Corollary 12.4, which implies that G is semistable at inﬁnity by
Theorem 12.1.
By contradiction, assume a vertex group Gv does have a further splitting
with Bass–Serre tree Tv where each edge group is a subgroup of a peripheral
group of Q. Since all edge groups of G are ﬁnite, we may form a combined
tree Tb using Proposition 12.7, on which G acts, and which contains Tv as a
Gv –equivariantly embedded subtree. Recall that by hypothesis G does not
split over any subgroup of any peripheral group of P. Since all edge groups
of Tv are subgroups of peripheral groups of Q ⊆ P, the combined tree Tb
has a G–invariant subtree not containing any edge of Tv (see Lemma 12.8).
Therefore Tv has a Gv –invariant subtree containing no edges, i.e., Tv has a
vertex ﬁxed by Gv . Therefore any peripheral splitting of Gv is trivial.

In the next proposition we construct a “combined tree,” which is inspired
by the combined cut point–cut pair tree of Papasoglu–Swenson [PS06]. In our
setting the hypotheses are suﬃciently strong to guarantee that the combined
tree is simplicial, whereas the Papasoglu–Swenson construction in general
gives an R–tree.
Proposition 12.7 (Combined Tree). Let G act without inversions on a
simplicial tree T . Let v be a vertex of T such that the vertex group Gv also
acts without inversions on a simplical tree Tv .
Suppose the actions on T and Tv are compatible in the sense that for each
edge e of T incident to v, the edge group Ge stabilizes a vertex of Tv .
Then there is a combined tree Tb on which G acts that has the following
properties. The tree Tv has a Gv –equivariant embedding in Tb. The quotient
of Tb obtained by collapsing each G–translate of Tv to a point is isomorphic
to the original tree T and the quotient map is G–equivariant.
Proof. We will begin with T , and “blow up” the vertex v into a copy of Tv in a
manner to be described below. Performing this replacement G–equivariantly
for each vertex in the orbit of v will yield the desired combined tree on which
G acts. Consider the subspace T − {v} of T , in which the edges adjacent to
v are now “open edges”. We blow up v by gluing Tv to T − {v}, attaching the
“empty” end of each open edge e to a vertex ve of Tv ﬁxed by Ge . In case Ge
ﬁxes more than one vertex of Tv we must make an arbitrary choice of vertex
ve . These choices can be made Gv –equivariantly for the various edges in the
same Gv –orbit. After blowing up all vertices in the orbit of v equivariantly,

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

40

it is an easy exercise to show that G has an action on the combined tree Tb
satisfying all the desired properties.

The ﬁnal ingredient needed to complete the proof of Proposition 12.6 is
the following easy application of basic notions from Bass–Serre theory.
Lemma 12.8. Suppose G acts without inversions on a simplicial tree T . Let
e be an edge of T . If every G–invariant subtree of T contains e, then G splits
(nontrivially) over the edge stabilizer Ge .
Recall that G splits over a subgroup C if G can be expressed an HNN
extension A∗C or a nontrivial amalgam A ∗C B. (Nontrivial means that
neither A nor B is equal to G.)
Proof. Let T → T be the quotient map obtained by collapsing each edge
that is not in the orbit of e to a point. Then G has an induced action on T
with only one orbit of edge. Since every invariant subtree of T contains e, it
follows that T does not have a proper invariant subtree. In particular, the
action of G on T does not have a global ﬁxed point. If the quotient of T by
G is a loop, then G splits as an HNN extension over Ge . If the quotient is
an edge with distinct endpoints, then G splits as a nontrivial amalgam over
Ge .

References
[AS85]

F.D. Ancel and L. Siebenmann. The construction of homogeneous homology
manifolds. Abstracts Amer. Math. Soc., 6, 1985. Abstract number 816-57-72.
[Bal95]
Werner Ballmann. Lectures on spaces of nonpositive curvature, volume 25 of
DMV Seminar. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1995.
[Bes96] Mladen Bestvina. Local homology properties of boundaries of groups. Michigan
Math. J., 43(1):123–139, 1996.
[BH99]
Martin R. Bridson and André Haeﬂiger. Metric spaces of non-positive curvature.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
[Bie76]
Robert Bieri. Homological dimension of discrete groups. Queen Mary Maths
Notes. School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London,
1976.
[BM91] Mladen Bestvina and Geoﬀrey Mess. The boundary of negatively curved groups.
J. Amer. Math. Soc., 4(3):469–481, 1991.
[Bou71] N. Bourbaki. Éléments de mathématique. Topologie générale. Chapitres 1 à 4.
Hermann, Paris, 1971.
[Bow98] Brian H. Bowditch. Cut points and canonical splittings of hyperbolic groups.
Acta Math., 180(2):145–186, 1998.
[Bow99a] B.H. Bowditch. Boundaries of geometrically ﬁnite groups. Math. Z., 230(3):509–
527, 1999.
[Bow99b] B.H. Bowditch. Connectedness properties of limit sets. Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc., 351(9):3673–3686, 1999.
[Bow01] B.H. Bowditch. Peripheral splittings of groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
353(10):4057–4082, 2001.
[Bow12] B.H. Bowditch. Relatively hyperbolic groups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput.,
22(3):1250016, 66 pages, 2012.
[BW13] Hadi Bigdely and Daniel T. Wise. Quasiconvexity and relatively hyperbolic
groups that split. Michigan Math. J., 62(2):387–406, 2013.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

[Cap54]
[CK00]
[CK02]
[Dah03]
[Dav86]
[DP01]
[DS05]

[Dun85]
[Fis03]
[Geo]
[Geo08]
[GH90]
[GK91]
[Gui14]
[Han51]
[Hau]
[HK05]
[HK09]
[Hru04]
[Hu65]
[HW]
[Jak80]
[Jak91]
[KK00]
[KL95]
[Kra77]
[Mor16]

41

C. E. Capel. Inverse limit spaces. Duke Math. J., 21:233–245, 1954.
Christopher B. Croke and Bruce Kleiner. Spaces with nonpositive curvature and
their ideal boundaries. Topology, 39(3):549–556, 2000.
C.B. Croke and B. Kleiner. The geodesic ﬂow of a nonpositively curved graph
manifold. Geom. Funct. Anal., 12(3):479–545, 2002.
François Dahmani. Classifying spaces and boundaries for relatively hyperbolic
groups. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3 ), 86(3):666–684, 2003.
Robert J. Daverman. Decompositions of manifolds, volume 124 of Pure and
Applied Mathematics. Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL, 1986.
Thomas Delzant and Leonid Potyagailo. Accessibilité hiérarchique des groupes
de présentation ﬁnie. Topology, 40(3):617–629, 2001.
Cornelia Drutu
and Mark Sapir. Tree-graded spaces and asymptotic cones of
,
groups. Topology, 44(5):959–1058, 2005. With an appendix by Denis Osin and
Mark Sapir.
M. J. Dunwoody. The accessibility of ﬁnitely presented groups. Invent. Math.,
81(3):449–457, 1985.
Hanspeter Fischer. Boundaries of right-angled Coxeter groups with manifold
nerves. Topology, 42(2):423–446, 2003.
Ross Geoghegan. Semistability and CAT(0) geometry. Preprint.
arXiv:1703.07003.
Ross Geoghegan. Topological methods in group theory, volume 243 of Graduate
Texts in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2008.
É. Ghys and P. de la Harpe, editors. Sur les groupes hyperboliques d’après
Mikhael Gromov. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1990.
Ross Geoghegan and Józef Krasinkiewicz. Empty components in strong shape
theory. Topology Appl., 41(3):213–233, 1991.
Craig R. Guilbault. Weak Z-structures for some classes of groups. Algebr. Geom.
Topol., 14(2):1123–1152, 2014.
Olof Hanner. Some theorems on absolute neighborhood retracts. Ark. Mat.,
1:389–408, 1951.
Matthew Haulmark. Boundary classiﬁcation and 2–ended splittings of groups
with isolated ﬂats. Preprint. arXiv:1704.07937.
G. Christopher Hruska and B. Kleiner. Hadamard spaces with isolated ﬂats.
Geom. Topol., 9:1501–1538, 2005.
G. Christopher Hruska and Bruce Kleiner. Erratum to: “Hadamard spaces with
isolated ﬂats”. Geom. Topol., 13(2):699–707, 2009.
G. Christopher Hruska. Nonpositively curved 2–complexes with isolated ﬂats.
Geom. Topol., 8:205–275, 2004.
Sze-Tsen Hu. Theory of retracts. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, 1965.
Matthew Haulmark and Genevieve Walsh. Notes on groups with Menger curve
boundary. In preparation.
W. Jakobsche. The Bing–Borsuk conjecture is stronger than the Poincaré conjecture. Fund. Math., 106(2):127–134, 1980.
W. Jakobsche. Homogeneous cohomology manifolds which are inverse limits.
Fund. Math., 137(2):81–95, 1991.
Michael Kapovich and Bruce Kleiner. Hyperbolic groups with low-dimensional
boundary. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), 33(5):647–669, 2000.
M. Kapovich and B. Leeb. On asymptotic cones and quasi-isometry classes of
fundamental groups of 3–manifolds. Geom. Funct. Anal., 5(3):582–603, 1995.
Józef Krasinkiewicz. Local connectedness and pointed 1–movability. Bull. Acad.
Polon. Sci. Sér. Sci. Math. Astronom. Phys., 25(12):1265–1269, 1977.
Molly A. Moran. Metrics on visual boundaries of CAT(0) spaces. Geom. Dedicata, 183:123–142, 2016.

CONNECTEDNESS PROPERTIES AND ISOLATED FLATS

42

[MR99]

Michael Mihalik and Kim Ruane. CAT(0) groups with non–locally connected
boundary. J. London Math. Soc. (2 ), 60(3):757–770, 1999.
[MR01] Michael Mihalik and Kim Ruane. CAT(0) HNN-extensions with non–locally
connected boundary. Topology Appl., 110(1):83–98, 2001. Geometric topology
and geometric group theory (Milwaukee, WI, 1997).
[MT92] Michael L. Mihalik and Steven T. Tschantz. Semistability of amalgamated products and HNN-extensions. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 98(471):1–86, 1992.
[Ont05] Pedro Ontaneda. Cocompact CAT(0) spaces are almost geodesically complete.
Topology, 44:47–62, 2005.
[Osi06]
Denis V. Osin. Relatively hyperbolic groups: Intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 179(843):1–100,
2006.
[PS06]
Panos Papasoglu and Eric Swenson. From continua to R–trees. Algebr. Geom.
Topol., 6:1759–1784, 2006.
[Rua05] Kim Ruane. CAT(0) boundaries of truncated hyperbolic space. Topology Proc.,
29(1):317–331, 2005.
[Ser77]
Jean-Pierre Serre. Arbres, amalgames, SL2 , volume 46 of Astérisque. Société
Mathématique de France, Paris, 1977. Written in collaboration with Hyman
Bass.
[Swa96] G.A. Swarup. On the cut point conjecture. Electron. Res. Announc. Amer.
Math. Soc., 2(2):98–100, 1996.
[Świa]
J. Świątkowski. Trees of manifolds as boundaries of spaces and groups. Preprint.
arXiv:1304.5067.
[Świb]
J. Świątkowski. Trees of metric compacta and trees of manifolds. Preprint.
arXiv:1304.5064.
[Świ16] J. Świątkowski. The dense amalgam of metric compacta and topological characterization of boundaries of free products of groups. Groups Geom. Dyn.,
10(1):407–471, 2016.
[Tir11]
Carrie J. Tirel. Z-structures on product groups. Algebr. Geom. Topol.,
11(5):2587–2625, 2011.
[Tra13] Hung Cong Tran. Relations between various boundaries of relatively hyperbolic
groups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 23(7):1551–1572, 2013.
[Wil70] Stephen Willard. General topology. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading,
Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont., 1970.
[Wis96] Daniel T. Wise. Non-positively curved squared complexes, aperiodic tilings, and
non-residually finite groups. PhD thesis, Princeton Univ., 1996.
[Yam04] Aslı Yaman. A topological characterisation of relatively hyperbolic groups. J.
Reine Angew. Math., 566:41–89, 2004.
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee,
PO Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA
E-mail address: chruska@uwm.edu
Department of Mathematics, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155, USA
E-mail address: kim.ruane@tufts.edu

