arXiv:1607.02079v1 [math.GR] 7 Jul 2016

NORMAL SUBGROUPS OF LIMIT GROUPS OF PRIME INDEX
JHOEL S. GUTIERREZ AND THOMAS S. WEIGEL
Abstract. Motivated by their study of pro-p limit groups, D.H. Kochloukova
and P.A. Zalesskii formulated in [14, Remark after Thm. 3.3] a question concerning the minimum number of generators d(N ) of a normal subgroup N of
index p in a non-abelian limit group G (cf. Question*). It is shown that
the analogous question for the rational rank has an affirmative answer (cf.
Thm. A). From this result one may conclude that the original question of
D.H. Kochloukova and P.A. Zalesskii has an affirmative answer if the abelianization Gab of G is torsion free and d(G) = d(Gab ) (cf. Cor. B), or if G has
the IF-property (cf. Thm C).

1. Introduction
In recent years limit groups (or ω-residually free groups) have received much
attention (cf. [1], [3], [5], [8], [15]) primarily due to the groundbreaking work
of Z. Sela (cf. [16], [17] and the references therein). This class of groups was first
introduced by B. Baumslag in [2] under the more traditional name of fully residually
free groups, and subsequently studied intensively by many authors (cf. [6], [9], [10],
[11], [12]). Indeed, this notion reflects the fact that for any limit group G and any
finite subset T of G there exists a homomorphism from G to a free group F that is
injective on T . Examples of limit groups include all finitely generated free groups,
all finitely generated free abelian groups, and all the fundamental groups of closed
oriented surfaces. Moreover, the class of limit groups is closed with respect to
finitely generated subgroups and free products. This fact can be used to construct
many examples. More sophisticated examples can be found in some of the articles
cited above.
The purpose of this note is to investigate the following question which was raised
by D.H. Kochloukova and P.A. Zalesskii in [14], where they answered the analogous
question for pro-p limit groups.
Question*. Let G be a non-abelian limit group, and let U be a normal subgroup
of G of prime index p. Does this imply that d(U ) > d(G)?
Here d(G) denotes the minimum number of generators of a finitely generated
group G. For a pro-p group G̃ the minimum number of (topological) generators
d(G̃) of G̃ is closely related to the cohomology group H 1 (G̃, Fp ), where Fp denotes
the finite field with p elements, i.e., d(G̃) = dimFp (H 1 (G̃, Fp )) (cf. [18, §I.4.2, Cor.
of Prop. 25]). For an abstract group G such a close relation does not hold. There
are two homological invariants of a finitely generated group G which can be seen
Date: July 8, 2016.
The first author was supported by CNPq-Brazil.
1

2

JHOEL S. GUTIERREZ AND THOMAS S. WEIGEL

as a homological approximation of d(G): The rational rank of G given by
(1.1)

rkQ (G) = dimQ (Gab ⊗Z Q) = dimQ (H1 (G, Q)),

where Gab = G/[G, G] denotes the abelianization of G, and
(1.2)

d(Gab ) = rkZ (Gab ) = rkZ (H1 (G, Z)).

In particular, rkQ (G) ≤ d(Gab ) ≤ d(G). The main result of this paper is an
affirmative answer to the analogue of Question* for the rational rank (cf. Thm. 3.2).
Theorem A. Let G be a non-abelian limit group, and let U be a normal subgroup
of G of prime index p. Then rkQ (U ) > rkQ (G).
From Theorem A one concludes the following affirmative partial answer to Question* (cf. Corollary 3.3).
Corollary B. Let G be a non-abelian limit group such that Gab is torsion free
group and that d(G) = d(Gab ). If U is a normal subgroup of G of prime index p,
then d(U ) > d(G).
It should be mentioned that there exist limit groups G for which d(Gab ) 6= d(G)
(cf. Remark 4.4), and also for which Gab is not torsion free (cf. Remark 4.5), and
one expects that Question* has an affirmative answer for all limit groups. A group
G is said to have the IF-property, if every subgroup U which is of infinite index in
G is free. For the class of limit groups with the IF-property the proof of Theorem A
can be modified in order to deduce the following (cf. Thm. 4.3).
Theorem C. Let G be a limit group with the IF-property, and let U be a normal
subgroup of G of prime index p. Then d(U ) > d(G).
2. Limit groups
By N we will denote the set of positive integers, and by N0 the set of non-negative
integers, i.e., N0 = {0, 1, 2, . . .}. We will use the symbol “⋆” for free products with
amalgamation in the category of groups.
2.1. Extension of centralizers. Starting from a limit group G there is a standard
procedure to construct a limit group G(C, m), where C ⊆ G is a maximal cyclic
subgroup of G and m ∈ N. This procedure is known as extension of centralizers,
i.e., if G is a limit group, then
(2.1)

G(C, m) = G ⋆C (C × Zm )

is again a limit group (cf. [12, Lemma 2 and Thm. 4]). For short we call a limit
group G to be an iterated extension of centralizers of a free group (= i.e.c.f. group),
if there exists a sequence of limit groups (Gk )0≤k≤n such that
(EZ1 ) G0 = F is a finitely generated free group, and Gn ≃ G;
(EZ2 ) for k ∈ {0, . . . , n − 1} there exists a maximal cyclic subsgroup Ck ⊆ Gk and
mk ∈ N such that Gk+1 ≃ Gk (Ck , mk ).
If G is an iterated extension of centralizers of a free group, one calls the minimum
number n ∈ N0 for which there exists a sequence of limit groups (Gk )0≤k≤n satisfying (EZ1 ) and (EZ2 ) the level of G. This number will be denoted it by ℓ(G).
E.g., a finitely generated free group is an iterated extension of centralizers of a free
group of level 0, and a finitely generated free abelian group is an iterated extension
of centralizers of a free group of level 1.

NORMAL SUBGROUPS OF LIMIT GROUPS OF PRIME INDEX

3

2.2. The height of a limit group. By the second embedding theorem (cf. [10,
§2.3, Thm. 2]), every limit group G is isomorphic to a subgroup of an i.e.c.f. group
H. The height ht(G) of G is defined as
(2.2)

ht(G) = min{ ℓ(H) | G ⊆ H, H an i.e.c.f. group }.

E.g., a limit group G is of height 0 if, and only if, it is a free group of finite rank,
and non-cyclic finitely generated free abelian groups are of height 1.
2.3. Limit groups as fundamental groups of graph of groups. Let G be a
limit group of height ht(G) = n ≥ 1, and let H be an i.e.c.f. group of level ℓ(H) = n
such that G ⊆ H. Then H acts on a tree Γ without inversion (of edges) with 2
orbits on V (Γ) and 2 orbits on E(Γ), where V (Γ) is the set of vertices of Γ, and
E(Γ) is the set of (oriented) edges of Γ (cf. [19, §I.4.4]). Moreover, for v ∈ V (Γ) its
stabilizer Hv is either free abelian or an i.e.c.f. group of level n − 1. For e ∈ E(Γ)
its stabilizer He is infinite cyclic.
As G is acting on Γ without inversion of edges, the fundamental theorem of
Bass-Serre theory (cf. [19, §I.5.4, Thm. 13]) implies that G is isomorphic to the
fundamental group π1 (G, Λ, T ) of a graph of groups G based on a connected graph
Λ and T is a maximal subtree of Λ. For simplicity we assume that G = π1 (G, Λ, T ).
Since G is finitely generated, E = E(Λ) \ E(T ) must be finite. Otherwise, G would
have an infinitely generated free group as a homomorphic image. Similarly, as G is
finitely generated, there exists a finite set Ω ⊆ V (Λ), such that
(2.3)

G = h e, Gv | e ∈ E, v ∈ Ω i.

Let T0 = spanT (Ω ∪ { o(e), t(e) | e ∈ E }) be the tree spanned by the set Ω and
the origins and termini of the edges in E, and let Λ0 be the subgraph of Λ satisfying V (Λ0 ) = V (T0 ), and E(Λ0 ) = E(T0 ) ⊔ E. By construction, Λ0 is a finite
connected graph, and T0 is a maximal subtree of Λ0 . Let G ′ = G|Λ0 be the restriction of G to Λ0 . Then, by definition, one has a canonical homomorphism of groups
iT : π1 (G ′ , Λ0 , T0 ) → π1 (G, Λ, T ). For P0 ∈ V (Λ0 ), one has a commutative diagram
(2.4)

π1 (G ′ , Λ0 , P0 )

π1 (G ′ , Λ0 , T0 )

iP0

iT

/ π1 (G, Λ, P0 )

/ π1 (G, Λ, T )

where the vertical maps are isomorphisms (cf. [19, §I.5.1, Prop. 20]). As the
canonical map is mapping generalized reduced words to generalized reduced words,
iP0 is injective (cf. [19, p. 50, Ex. (c)]), and hence iT is injective. Thus, by (2.3), iT
is an isomorphism. As a consequence, one concludes the following property which
is slightly more precise than [12, Thm. 6].
Proposition 2.1. Let G be a limit group of height n ≥ 1. Then G is isomorphic
to the fundamental group π1 (G ′ , Λ0 , T0 ) of a graph of groups G ′ satisfying
(i) Λ0 is finite;
(ii) for all v ∈ V (Λ0 ), Gv′ is finitely generated abelian or a limit group of height
at most n − 1;
(iii) for all e ∈ E(Λ0 ), Ge′ is infinite cyclic or trivial.

4

JHOEL S. GUTIERREZ AND THOMAS S. WEIGEL

Proof. By the previously mentioned argument, it suffices to show that Gv′ is finitely
generated for all v ∈ V (Λ0 ). This follows by the argument used in [12, Proof of
Thm. 6, p. 567] in connection with [4, Satz 5.8] and the equivalent statement for
HNN-extensions (cf. [4, Satz 6.3]).

2.4. Limit groups of small rank. As limit groups are (fully) residually free, they
must be torsion free. From this property one concludes the following useful fact.
Fact 2.2. Let G be a limit group with rkQ (G) = 1. Then G ≃ Z.
Proof. Suppose that G is non-abelian, i.e., there exist a, b ∈ G with [a, b] 6= 1. Since
G is a limit group, there exists a free group F of finite rank and an epimorphism
φ : G −→ F satisfying φ([a, b]) 6= 1. As φab : Gab → F ab is surjective, its induced
ab
map φab
⊗Z Q → F ab ⊗Z Q is also surjective. Hence 1 = rkQ (G) ≥ rkQ (F ),
Q : G
and therefore rkQ (F ) = 1. As rkQ (F ) = d(F ab ) = d(F ) = 1, F must be cyclic, and,
in particular, abelian. Thus φ([a, b]) = [φ(a), φ(b)] = 1, a contradiction. Hence G
is a finitely generated free abelian group. In particular, d(G) = rkQ (G) = 1, and G
is cyclic.

The following property has been shown by D. Kochloukova in [13].
Proposition 2.3 (D. Kochloukova). For a limit group G its Euler characteristic
χ(G) is non-positive. Moreover, χ(G) = 0 if, and only if, G is abelian.
Limit groups with minimum number of generators less or equal to 3 are well
known. In [6] the following was shown.
Theorem 2.4 (B. Fine, A. Gaglione, A.G. Myasnikov, G. Rosenberger, D. Spellman). Let G be a limit group. Then
(a) d(G) = 1 if, and only if, G is infinite cyclic;
(b) d(G) = 2 if, and only if, G is a free group of rank 2 or a free abelian group
of rank 2;
(c) d(G) = 3 if, and only if, G is a free group of rank 3, a free abelian group
of rank 3, or an extension of centralizers of a free group of rank 2, i.e, G
has a presentation
(2.5)

G = h x1 , x2 , x3 | x−1
3 v x3 = v i,
where v = v(x1 , x2 ) ∈ F ({x1 , x2 }) is non-trivial.

By [7, Thm. 3.1], there are only few limit groups with the IF-property.
Theorem 2.5 (B. Fine, O.G. Kharlampovich, A.G. Myasnikov, V.N. Remeslennikov, G. Rosenberger). Let G be a limit group with the IF-property. Then G is a
free group or a cyclically pinched or a conjugacy pinched one-relator group.
3. Generators of normal subgroups of limit groups
The following fact will turn out to be useful for our purpose.
Lemma 3.1. Let G1 and G2 be groups, and let C = hci be an infinite cyclic group
or the trivial group.
(a) If G = G1 ⋆C G2 is a free product with amalgamation in C, then
(3.1)

rkQ (G) = rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) − ρ(G),
where ρ(G) ∈ {0, 1}. Moreover, if C = 1, then ρ(G) = 0.

NORMAL SUBGROUPS OF LIMIT GROUPS OF PRIME INDEX

5

(b) If G = HNNφ (G1 , C, t) = h G1 , t | t c t−1 = φ(c) i is an HNN-extension with
equalization in C ⊆ G1 , then
(3.2)

rkQ (G) = rkQ (G1 ) + ρ(G),
where ρ(G) ∈ {0, 1}. One has an exact sequence

(3.3)

C ⊗Z Q

α

/ Gab ⊗Z Q
1

β

/ Gab ⊗Z Q

/Q

/ 0,

′

where α(c ⊗ q) = (cφ(c)−1 G1 ) ⊗ q, q ∈ Q. Moreover,
(1) ρ(G) = 0 if, and only if, α is injective;
(2) ρ(G) = 1 if, and only if, α is the 0-map.
Proof. (a) Let G = G1 ⋆C G2 , and let ιi : C → Gi , i ∈ {1, 2} denote the associated
embeddings. The Mayer-Vietoris sequence associated to − ⊗Z Q specializes to an
exact sequence
(3.4)

H1 (C, Q)

α

/ H1 (G1 , Q) ⊕ H1 (G2 , Q)

β

/ H1 (G, Q)
γ

0o

H0 (G, Q) o

H0 (G1 , Q) ⊕ H0 (G2 , Q) o


H0 (C, Q)

where α(c ⊗ q) = ((ι1 (c)G′1 ) ⊗ q, −(ι2 (c)G′2 ) ⊗ q), q ∈ Q. In particular, γ = 0, and
this yields (a).
(b) In this case the Mayer-Vietoris sequence specializes to
(3.5)

H1 (C, Q)

0o

H0 (G, Q) o

α

/ H1 (G1 , Q)

H0 (G1 , Q) o

β

δ

/ H1 (G, Q)

H0 (C, Q)

with α as described in (b) of the statement of the lemma. In particular, δ = 0
which yields (3.3), and thus also (3.2). The final remarks (1) and (2) follow from
the fact that dim(im(α)) ∈ {0, 1}, and that dim(im(α)) = 1 if, and only if, α is
injective.

From Lemma 3.1 one concludes the following.
Theorem 3.2. Let G be a non-abelian limit group, and let U be a normal subgroup
of G of prime index p. Then rkQ (U ) > rkQ (G).
Proof. We proceed by induction on n = ht(G) (cf. §2.2). If n = 0, then G is a
finitely generated free group satisfying d(G) ≥ 2, and the Nielsen-Schreier theorem
yields
(3.6)

rkQ (U ) = d(U ) = p · (d(G) − 1) + 1 > d(G) = rkQ (G)

and hence the claim. So assume that G is a limit group of height ht(G) = n ≥ 1,
and that the claim holds for all limit groups of height less or equal to n − 1. By
Proposition 2.1, G is isomorphic to the fundamental group π1 (Υ, Λ, T ) of a graph of
groups Υ based on a finite connected graph Λ which edge groups are either infinite
cyclic or trivial, and which vertex groups are either limit group of height at most
n − 1 or free abelian groups. Applying induction on s(Λ) = |V (Λ)| + |E(Λ)| it
suffices to consider the following two cases:

6

JHOEL S. GUTIERREZ AND THOMAS S. WEIGEL

(I) G = G1 ⋆C G2 and Gi is either a limit group of height at most n − 1 or
abelian, and C is either infinite cyclic or trivial, i ∈ {1, 2};
(II) G = HNNφ (G1 , C, t) where G1 is either a limit group of height at most
n − 1 or abelian, and C is either infinite cyclic or trivial.
Case I: Let G = G1 ⋆C G2 . If C is non-trivial, then either G1 or G2 is nonabelian. Otherwise, by a result of I. Chiswell, one would conclude that χ(G) =
χ(G1 ) + χ(G2 ) − χ(C) = 0 and G must be abelian (cf. Prop. 2.3) which was
excluded by hypothesis. The group G acts naturally on a tree T without inversion
of edges with two orbits V1 and V2 on V (T ) and two orbits E1 and E2 on E(T )
satisfying Ē1 = E2 . We may assume that for e ∈ E1 one has o(e) ∈ V1 and
t(e) ∈ V2 . By hypothesis,
(3.7)

|G : U Gi | ∈ {1, p}

and

|G : U C| ∈ {1, p},

and one may distinguish the following cases:
(I.1) |G : U C| = 1, i.e., U has one orbit on E1 and E2 ;
(I.2) |G : U C| = p, i.e., U has p orbits on E1 and E2 .
Case I.1: The hypothesis implies that G = U G1 = U G2 , and U has one orbit on
V1 and one orbit on V2 . Thus, by the fundamental theorem of Bass-Serre theory (cf.
[19, §I.5.4, Thm. 13]), one has that U ≃ (U ∩ G1 ) ⋆(U∩C) (U ∩ G2 ). The hypothesis
implies also that |C : C ∩ U | = p, i.e., C 6= 1. Hence without loss of generality we
may assume that G1 is non-abelian, and, by induction, rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) ≥ 1 + rkQ (G1 ).
If G2 is also non-abelian, then, by induction, rkQ (U ∩ G2 ) ≥ rkQ (G2 ) + 1. Hence,
by applying Lemma 3.1(a), one concludes that
(3.8) rkQ (U ) ≥ rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) + rkQ (U ∩ G2 ) − 1 > rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) ≥ rkQ (G).
On the other hand, if G2 is abelian, C is a direct factor in G2 , i.e., G2 ≃ Z×B, where
B is a free abelian group of rank d(G2 ) − 1. Thus the map α in (3.4) is injective,
and one has rkQ (G) = rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) − 1. Moreover, rkQ (U ∩ G2 ) = rkQ (G2 )
and Lemma 3.1(a) yields
(3.9) rkQ (U ) ≥ rkQ ((U ∩ G1 ) + rkQ (U ∩ G2 ) − 1 ≥ rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) > rkQ (G).
Case I.2: In this case U has p orbits on E1 and p orbits on E2 . Moreover,
|G : U Gi | ∈ {1, p}. Hence, by (3.7), it suffices to consider the following three cases
(a) |G : U G1 | = |G : U G2 | = p;
(b) |G : U G1 | = p and G = U G2 ;
(c) G = U G1 = U G2 .
e = U \\T be the quotient graphs of T modulo the left G- and U Let Λ = G\\T and Λ
action, respectively. In particular, Λ = ({v, w}, {e, ē}) is a line segment of length 1
e is connected. Moreover, one has a surjective homomorphism
and thus a tree, and Λ
e → Λ.
of graphs π : Λ
Case (a): By hypothesis, U G1 = U G2 = U , i.e., G/U acts regularly on the
e one has either o(f ) ∈ π −1 ({v})
vertex fibres and edge fibres of π. For f ∈ E(Λ)
or t(f ) ∈ π −1 ({v}). If f1 and f2 satisfy the first condition, and ṽ = o(f1 ) = o(f2 ),
then g̃.f1 = f2 for g̃ ∈ stabG/U (ṽ) = 1. Hence f1 = f2 . In the latter case the same
e
argument applies, and this shows that π is a fibration, i.e., for every z ∈ V (Λ)
the map πz : stΛe (z) → stΛ (π(z)) is a bijection. As Λ is a tree and hence simplyconnected, this implies that π is a bijection, a contradiction, showing that Case (a)
is impossible.

NORMAL SUBGROUPS OF LIMIT GROUPS OF PRIME INDEX

7

Case (b): We may assume that G1 = stabG (v) and G2 = stabG (w). Hence, by
e with π(w̃) = w.
hypothesis, |π −1 ({v})| = p and |π −1 ({w})| = 1. Let w̃ ∈ V (Λ)
e
Then E(Λ) = stΛe (w̃) ⊔ stΛe (w̃) is a star with p geometric edges.
Put U2 = U ∩ G2 . By hypothesis, |G2 : U2 | = p and G1 ⊆ U . Choosing a set
of representatives R ⊆ G2 for G2 /U2 , the Mayer-Vietoris sequence associated to
TorU
• ( , Q) specializes to
(3.10)
`
α / `
/0.
/ H1 (U, Q)
H1 (r C, Q)
H1 (r G1 , Q) ⊕ H1 (U2 , Q)
r∈R

r∈R

This yields
(3.11)

rkQ (U ) = p · rkQ (G1 ) + rk(U2 ) − δ,

where δ = dim(im(α)). We distinguish two cases.
(1) C = 1. So δ = 0. Then, by (3.10),
(3.12)

rkQ (U ) = p · rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (U2 ).

As rkQ (U2 ) ≥ rkQ (G2 ) with equality in case that G2 is abelian, one concludes that
rkQ (U ) = p · rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (U2 ) > rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) ≥ rkQ (G).
(2) C 6= 1. Then, by (3.11),
(3.13)

rkQ (U ) ≥ p · (rkQ (G1 ) − 1) + rkQ (U2 ) ≥ 2 · (rkQ (G1 ) − 1) + rkQ (U2 ).

As d(G1 ) = 1 implies that G = Z ⋆Z G2 ≃ G2 , which was excluded by (I), we may
assume that d(G1 ) ≥ 2. Hence
(3.14)

rkQ (U ) ≥ rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (U2 ).

If G2 is non-abelian, then, by induction, rkQ (U2 ) ≥ 1 + rkQ (G2 ). Hence rkQ (U ) ≥
1 + rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) > rkQ (G). If G2 is abelian, then G = G1 ⋆Z (Z × B) for some
free abelian group B of rank d(G2 ) − 1. In particular, rkQ (G) = rkQ (G1 ) + d(B).
As rkQ (U2 ) = d(B) + 1, (3.14) yields the claim also in this case.
e is a graph with two vertices v and w and p geometric
Case (c): By hypothesis, Λ
edges. We may assume that G1 = stabG (v), G2 = stabG (w) and put U1 = U ∩ G1 ,
U2 = U ∩ G2 . By the same argument used in Case (b), one obtains an exact
sequence
(3.15)

`

r
r∈R H1 ( C, Q)

β

/ H1 (U1 , Q) ⊕ H1 (U2 , Q)

/ H1 (U, Q)

0o


Qp−1

where R ⊂ G is a set of representatives of G/U . Again we distinguish two cases.
(1) C = 1. Then β is the 0-map, and as rkQ (Ui ) ≥ rkQ (Gi ) for i ∈ {1, 2}, one has
(3.16) rkQ (U ) = rkQ (U1 ) + rkQ (U2 ) + (p − 1) ≥ rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) + 1 > rkQ (G).
(2) C 6= 1. Then, by (3.15),
(3.17)

rkQ (U ) ≥ rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) + rkQ (U ∩ G2 ) − 1.

If G1 and G2 are non-abelian, then, by induction, rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) ≥ 1 + rkQ (G1 ) and
rkQ (U ∩ G2 ) > rkQ (G2 ). Hence
(3.18)

rkQ (U ) > rkQ (G1 ) + 1 + rkQ (G2 ) − 1 = rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) ≥ rkQ (G).

8

JHOEL S. GUTIERREZ AND THOMAS S. WEIGEL

In case that one of the groups G1 , G2 is abelian, not both of them can be abelian.
Otherwise, the Euler characteristic χ(G) = χ(G1 ) + χ(G2 ) − χ(C) must equal 0,
and G must be abelian, which was excluded by hypothesis (cf. Prop. 2.3). So
without loss of generality we may assume that G1 is a non-abelian, and that G2 is
abelian. Then G2 ≃ Z × B, where B is a free abelian group of rank rkQ (G2 ) − 1,
and G ≃ G1 ⋆Z (Z × B). Hence rkQ (G) = rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) − 1. Furthermore,
rkQ (U ∩ G2 ) = rkQ (G2 ), and, by induction, rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) ≥ 1 + rkQ (G1 ). Thus, by
(3.17),
(3.19)

rkQ (U ) ≥ rkQ (G1 ) + 1 + rkQ (G2 ) − 1 = rkQ (G1 ) + rkQ (G2 ) > rkQ (G).

Case II: Let G = HNNφ (G1 , C, t) = h G1 , t | t c t−1 = φ(c) i be an HNN-extension
with C = hci. By (3.2), one has
(3.20)

rkQ (G1 ) ≤ rkQ (G) ≤ rkQ (G1 ) + 1.

If C = 1, then G = G1 ⋆ < t > is isomorphic to a free product. Hence the claim
follows already from Case I. So we may assume that C 6= 1. Note that G1 must be
non-abelian. Otherwise, one has χ(G) = χ(G1 ) − χ(C) = 0, and G must be abelian
(cf. Prop. 2.3), a contradiction.
As in Case I, the group G has a natural vertex transitive action on a tree T
with vertex stabilizer isomorphic to G1 , and edge stabilizer isomorphic to C. In
particular,
(3.21)

|G : U G1 | ∈ {1, p},

and

|G : U C| ∈ {1, p}.

Hence one may distinguish the following two cases:
(II.1) G = U C;
(II.2) |G : U C| = p.
Case II.1: By hypothesis, G = U G1 . In particular, U is acting vertex transitively
on T , and has two orbits on the set of edges, i.e., U \\T is a loop with one vertex.
Thus U ≃ HNNφ (U ∩ G1 , C p , t) = h U ∩ G1 , t | t (cp ) t−1 = φ(c)p i, and as in (3.20),
one concludes that
(3.22)

rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) ≤ rkQ (U ) ≤ rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) + 1.

Since G1 is non-abelian and |G1 : U ∩G1 | = p, induction implies that rkQ (G1 ∩U ) ≥
rkQ (G1 ) + 1. Hence
(3.23)

rkQ (U ) ≥ rkQ (G1 ∩ U ) ≥ rkQ (G1 ) + 1 ≥ rkQ (G).

Suppose that rkQ (U ) = rkQ (G). Then rkQ (U ) = rkQ (G1 ∩ U ) = rkQ (G1 ) + 1 =
rkQ (G). In particular, by Lemma 3.1(b), ρ(U ) = 0 and ρ(G) = 1, i.e., α is the
0-map, and α1 is injective. However, as the map tr1 in the diagram
(3.24)

...

/ H1 (C, Q)

α

tr1

...


/ H1 (C p , Q)

/ H1 (G1 , Q)
tr2

α1


/ H1 (U ∩ G1 , Q)

/ H1 (G, Q)

/ ...

tr3


/ H1 (U, Q)

/ ...

- which is given by the transfer - is an isomorphism, this yields a contradiction.
Thus rkQ (U ) < rkQ (G).
Case II.2: In this case U has 2p orbits on E(T ), and again one may distinguish
two cases:
(a) U acts vertex transitively on T ;

NORMAL SUBGROUPS OF LIMIT GROUPS OF PRIME INDEX

9

(b) U has p orbits on V (T ).
Case (a): In this case U \\T is a bouquet of p loops, |G1 : U ∩ G1 | = p and C ⊆ U .
The Mayer-Vietoris sequence for H• ( , Q) yields a commutative and exact diagram
(3.25)
α
/ Gab ⊗Z Q
/Q
/0
/ Gab
C ⊗Z Q
1 ⊗Z Q
tr1

tr2

`p gi 
i=1 C ⊗Z Q

α1

tr3


/ (U ∩ G1 )ab ⊗Z Q


/ U ab ⊗Z Q


/ Qp

/ 0,

where { g1 , . . . , gp } ⊆ G1 is a set of representatives for G/U , and tr2/3 is induced
Pp
by the transfer, and for c ∈ C, q ∈ Q, one has tr1 (c ⊗ q) = i=1 gi c ⊗ q. Moreover,

for c ∈ C.
(3.26)
α1 ((gi c) ⊗ q) = gi c φ(c)−1 gi−1 (U ∩ G1 )′ ⊗ q,
Thus, one has
(3.27)

rkQ (U ) + dimQ (im(α1 )) = rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) + p,

and induction implies that rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) ≥ rkQ (G1 ) + 1. Hence
(3.28)

rkQ (U ) ≥ rkQ (U ∩ G1 ) ≥ rkQ (G1 ) + 1 ≥ rkQ (G).

Suppose that rkQ (U ) = rkQ (G). Then equality holds throughout (3.28). In particular, (3.27) implies that dimQ (im(α1 )) = p, i.e., α1 is injective. Hence, as tr1 is
injective, α1 ◦ tr1 is injective. From Lemma 3.1(b) one concludes that ρ(G) = 1
and α = 0, a contraction. Thus rkQ (U ) > rkQ (G) must hold.
Case (b): In this case one has G1 ⊆ U and C ⊆ U . As G/U is acting vertex
transitively on Λ = U \\T , Λ must be k-regular. Hence |E(Λ)| = k · |V (Λ)|, forcing
k = 2. So Λ is a 2-regular connected graph, and thus a circuit with p vertices.
Let { g1 , . . . , gp } ⊆ G be a set of representatives for G/U . Then the MayerVietoris sequence for H• ( , Q) yields a commutative and exact diagram
(3.29)

C ⊗Z Q

α

tr1

/ Gab
1 ⊗Z Q

/ Gab ⊗Z Q

tr2

`p gi 
i=1 C ⊗Z Q

α1


/ `p gi Gab ⊗Z Q
1
i=1

/Q

/0


/Q

/ 0,

tr3


/ U ab ⊗Z Q

where tr1/2 are the diagonal maps and tr3 is the transfer. Hence
(3.30)

rkQ (U ) = 1 + p · (rkQ (G1 ) − 1) + dimQ (ker(α1 )).

Therefore, as (p − 1) · (rkQ (G1 ) − 1) ≥ 1,
(3.31)

rkQ (U ) ≥ rkQ (G1 ) + 1 ≥ rkQ (G).

Suppose that rkQ (U ) = rkQ (G). Then equality has to hold throughout (3.31), and
dimQ (ker(α1 )) = 0, p = 2, rkQ (G1 ) = 2. In particular, α1 is injective, and by
Lemma 3.1(b), ρ(G) = 1, i.e., α = 0. Hence, as tr1 is injective, one obtains a
contradiction as in Case (a) showing that rkQ (U ) > rkQ (G).

Theorem 3.2 has the following consequence.
Corollary 3.3. Let G be a non-abelian limit group such that Gab is torsion free
and that d(G) = d(Gab ). Then, if U is a normal subgroup of G of prime index p,
one has that d(U ) > d(G).

10

JHOEL S. GUTIERREZ AND THOMAS S. WEIGEL

Proof. By Theorem 3.2, one has d(U ) ≥ rkQ (U ) > rkQ (G) = d(Gab ) = d(G).



Obviously, if G is a free group, an abelian free group or an iterated extension of
centralizers group of a free group, then rkQ (G) = d(G). In particular, in connection
with Theorem 2.4 one concludes the following.
Corollary 3.4. Let G be a non-abelian limit group satisfying d(G) ≤ 3, and let U be
a normal subgroup of G of prime index p. Then d(U ) ≥ rkQ (U ) > rkQ (G) = d(G).
4. Limit Groups with the IF-property
For a limit group G it is not necessarily true that d(G) = d(Gab ). The following
lemma shows that there exists a class of limit groups containing groups G satisfying
d(G) 6= d(Gab ) (cf. Remark 4.4) for which Question* has an affirmative answer.
Lemma 4.1. Let G = G1 ⋆C G2 be a non-abelian limit group, where G1 and G2
are free groups of finite rank r(G1 ) and r(G2 ), respectively, and let C = hci be an
infinite cyclic group or trivial. Then, if U is a normal subgroup of prime index p
in G, one has rkQ (U ) > d(G). In particular, d(U ) > d(G).
Proof. If C = 1, G is a finitely generated free group, and there is nothing to prove.
So from now on we may assume that C 6= 1. Then, as G is non-abelian, either G1
or G2 must be non-abelian. Otherwise, χ(G) = χ(G1 ) + χ(G2 ) − χ(C) = 0, and
by Lemma 2.3, G must be abelian. Let T be the tree on which G acts naturally.
Then, as in the proof of Theorem 3.2, Case I, one may distinguish three cases:
(1) G = U C, i.e., U has one orbits on E1 and E2 ;
(2) |G : U C| = p, i.e., U has p orbits on E1 and E2 ;
(b) |G : U G1 | = p and G = U G2 ;
(c) G = U G1 = U G2 .
Case 1: By hypothesis, G = U G1 and G = U G2 and therefore,
(4.1)

U ≃ (U ∩ G1 ) ⋆U∩C (U ∩ G2 ).

In analogy to Case I.1 of the proof of Theorem 3.2, we may choose G1 to be nonabelian. If G2 is abelian, then G2 must be cyclic, i.e., d(G2 ) = 1. If d(G1 ) = 2,
then d(G) ≤ 3, and the claim follows from Corollary 3.4. Thus, we may assume
that d(G1 ) ≥ 3. Again, by the Nielsen-Schreier theorem (and as d(G1 ) ≥ 3), one
has that d(U ∩ G1 ) > 1 + d(G1 ). As G2 is abelian, d(U ∩ G2 ) = d(G2 ). Therefore,
by Lemma 3.1(a), one has
(4.2)

rkQ (U ) ≥ d(U ∩ G1 ) + d(U ∩ G2 ) − 1 > d(G1 ) + d(G2 ) ≥ d(G).

Thus, we may assume that G2 is non-abelian. From the Nielsen-Schreier theorem
one concludes that d(U ∩ G1 ) ≥ 1 + d(G1 ) and d(U ∩ G2 ) ≥ 1 + d(G2 ). Therefore,
by Lemma 3.1(a),
(4.3)

rkQ (U ) ≥ d(U ∩ G1 ) + d(U ∩ G2 ) − 1 ≥ d(G1 ) + d(G2 ) + 1 > d(G).

Case 2(b): By (3.13), one has that
(4.4)

rkQ (U ) ≥ p · (d(G1 ) − 1) + d(G2 ∩ U ).

If G1 is abelian, then d(G1 ) = 1. In this case G2 is non-abelian. If d(G2 ) =
2, then d(G) ≤ 3 and the claim follows from Corollary 3.4. So we may assume
that d(G2 ) ≥ 3. In particular, the Nielsen-Schreier theorem and (4.4) imply that
rkQ (U ) ≥ d(G2 ∩ U ) > 1 + d(G2 ) ≥ d(G).

NORMAL SUBGROUPS OF LIMIT GROUPS OF PRIME INDEX

11

So from now on we may assume that G1 is non-abelian, i.e., d(G1 ) ≥ 2. If G2
is abelian, then d(U ∩ G2 ) = d(G2 ) = 1. So if d(G1 ) = 2, then the claim follows
by Corollary 3.4. Thus we may assume that d(G1 ) ≥ 3. Then, by (4.4) and the
Nielsen-Schreier theorem, one concludes that
(4.5)

rkQ (U ) ≥ p · (d(G1 ) − 1) + 1 ≥ d(G1 ) + 2 · (p − 1) > d(G1 ) + 1 ≥ d(G).

So we may assume that G2 is non-abelian. In this case the Nielsen-Schreier theorem
implies that d(U ∩ G2 ) ≥ 1 + d(G2 ). Then, by (4.4), one has
(4.6)

rkQ (U ) ≥ p · d(G1 ) − p + d(G2 ) + 1 ≥ d(G1 ) + d(G2 ) + (p − 1)
≥ d(G1 ) + d(G2 ) + 1 > d(G).

Case 2(c): By (3.17), one has
(4.7)

rkQ (U ) ≥ d(U ∩ G1 ) + d(U ∩ G2 ) − 1.

Then, the proof of Case 1 can be transferred verbatim in order to show that the
claim holds if one of the groups Gi , i ∈ {1, 2} is abelian. So we may assume that G1
and G2 are non-abelian. Then the Nielsen-Schreier theorem and the same argument
which was used in order to prove (4.3) implies that rkQ (U ) > d(G).

For HNN-extensions one has the following.
Lemma 4.2. Let G = HNNφ (G1 , C, t) = h G1 , t | t c t−1 = φ(c) i be a non-abelian
limit group, where G1 is a free group of finite rank r and C is an infinite cyclic group
or trivial. Let U be a normal subgroup of G of prime index p. Then rkQ (U ) > d(G),
and, in particular, d(U ) > d(G).
Proof. If C is trivial, then G = G1 ⋆ < t > is a free group of rank r + 1, and there
is nothing to prove. Moreover, if r = 1, then χ(G) = 0, and G must be abelian (cf.
Prop. 2.3), which was excluded by hypothesis. Hence r ≥ 2. Let T be the tree on
which G acts naturally. Then one may distinguish three cases:
(1) G = U C;
(2) |G : U C| = p;
(a) U acts vertex transitiely on T ;
(b) U has p orbits on V (T ).
Case 1: In this case one has U ≃ HNNφ (U ∩ G1 , C p , t) (cf. Pf. of Theorem 3.2,
Case II.1). If r = 2, then d(G) ≤ 3, and the claim follows from Corollary 3.4. Hence
we may assume that r ≥ 3. In this case the Nielsen-Schreier theorem implies that
that d(G1 ∩ U ) > r + 1, and by (3.22), one concludes that
(4.8)

rkQ (U ) ≥ d(G1 ∩ U ) > r + 1 ≥ d(G).

Case 2(a): As in Case 1, we may assume that r ≥ 3. Then, as |G1 : G1 ∩ U | =
p and G1 is a non-abelian free group, the Nielsen-Schreier theorem implies that
d(U ∩ G1 ) > r + 1. Hence, by (3.23),
(4.9)

rkQ (U ) ≥ d(U ∩ G1 ) > r + 1 ≥ d(G).

Case 2(b) As in Case 1, we may assume that r ≥ 3. By (3.30) and the fact that
(p − 1) · (d(G1 ) − 1) > 1, one concludes that
(4.10)

rkQ (U ) ≥ 1 + p · (d(G1 ) − 1) > d(G1 ) + 1 ≥ d(G)

completing the proof of the lemma.
As a consequence one concludes the following.



12

JHOEL S. GUTIERREZ AND THOMAS S. WEIGEL

Theorem 4.3. Let G be a limit group with the IF-property, and let U be a normal
subgroup of G of prime index prime p. Then d(U ) > d(G).
Proof. By Theorem 2.5, G is either a free group, or a cyclically pinched one relator
group, or a conjugacy pinched one relator group. In the first case there is nothing to
prove. In the second case G ≃ G1 ⋆C G2 with G1 and G2 free groups, and C being an
infinite cyclic group being generated by a cyclically reduced word w ∈ G1 and C is
a maximal cyclic subgroup in either G1 or G2 . Hence in this case, Lemma 4.1 yields
the claim. If G is a conjugacy pinched one-relator group, then G ≃ HNNφ (G1 , C, t)
with G1 a free group, C and infinite cyclic subgroup being generated by a cyclically
reduced word w ∈ G1 , and either C or φ(C) is a maximal cyclic subgroup of G1 .
Then, by Lemma 4.2, one has that d(U ) > d(G) completing the proof.

Remark 4.4. It should be mentioned that there exist limit groups G satisfying
d(Gab )
d(G). Let G1 = G2 = F2 be the free group of rank two, and let C1 =
C2 = hwi, where w = a2 ba−1 b−1 . Then w is cyclically reduce, and Ci is a maximal
cyclic subgroup of Gi for i = 1, 2, but Ci is not a free factor. The corresponding
double G = G1 ⋆C1 =C2 G2 is a non-abelian limit group and has abelianization
Gab isomorph to Z3 , i.e., d(Gab ) = 3. By construction, there exists a surjective
homomorphism β : G → (F2 /hwF2 i) ⋆ (F2 /hwF2 i), and by hypothesis and Grushko’s
theorem, d(F2 /hwF2 i ⋆ F2 /hwF2 i) = 4. Hence d(G) = 4. Note that by Lemma 4.1,
rkQ (U ) > 4 for any normal subgroup U of G of prime index p.
Remark 4.5. The group G = ha, bia2 b2 =c2 d2 hc, di is the fundamental group of a
closed non-orientable surface, and it is known that it is a limit group (cf. [8, §3.1]).
However, Gab ≃ Z3 × C2 , where C2 = Z/2Z.
References
[1] E. Alibegović and M. Bestvina, Limit groups are CAT(0), J. London Math. Soc. (2) 74
(2006), no. 1, 259–272. MR 2254564
[2] B. Baumslag, Residually free groups, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 17 (1967), 402–418.
MR 0215903
[3] M. Bestvina and M. Feighn, Notes on Sela’s work: limit groups and Makanin-Razborov
diagrams, Geometric and cohomological methods in group theory, London Math. Soc. Lecture
Note Ser., vol. 358, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2009, pp. 1–29. MR 2605174
[4] T. Camps, V. große Rebel, and G. Rosenberger, Einführung in die kombinatorische und die
geometrische Gruppentheorie, Berliner Studienreihe zur Mathematik [Berlin Study Series on
Mathematics], vol. 19, Heldermann Verlag, Lemgo, 2008. MR 2378619
[5] C. Champetier and V. Guirardel, Limit groups as limits of free groups, Israel J. Math. 146
(2005), 1–75. MR 2151593
[6] B. Fine, A. M. Gaglione, A. Myasnikov, G. Rosenberger, and D. Spellman, A classification
of fully residually free groups of rank three or less, J. Algebra 200 (1998), no. 2, 571–605.
MR 1610668
[7] B. Fine, O. G. Kharlampovich, A. G. Myasnikov, V. N. Remeslennikov, and G. Rosenberger,
On the surface group conjecture, Sci. Ser. A Math. Sci. (N.S.) 15 (2007), 1–15. MR 2367908
[8] V. Guirardel, Limit groups and groups acting freely on Rn -trees, Geom. Topol. 8 (2004),
1427–1470 (electronic). MR 2119301
[9] I. Kapovich, Subgroup properties of fully residually free groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354
(2002), no. 1, 335–362 (electronic). MR 1859278
[10] O. G. Kharlampovich, A. G. Myasnikov, V. N. Remeslennikov, and D. E. Serbin, Subgroups of
fully residually free groups: algorithmic problems, Group theory, statistics, and cryptography,
Contemp. Math., vol. 360, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004, pp. 63–101. MR 2105437
[11] O. G. Kharlampovich and A. M. Myasnikov, Irreducible affine varieties over a free group.
I. Irreducibility of quadratic equations and Nullstellensatz, J. Algebra 200 (1998), no. 2,
472–516. MR 1610660

NORMAL SUBGROUPS OF LIMIT GROUPS OF PRIME INDEX

[12]

[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]

[19]

13

, Irreducible affine varieties over a free group. II. Systems in triangular quasiquadratic form and description of residually free groups, J. Algebra 200 (1998), no. 2, 517–
570. MR 1610664
D. H. Kochloukova, On subdirect products of type FPm of limit groups, J. Group Theory 13
(2010), no. 1, 1–19. MR 2604842
D. H. Kochloukova and P. A. Zalesskii, Subgroups and homology of extensions of centralizers
of pro-p groups, Math. Nachr. 288 (2015), no. 5-6, 604–618. MR 3338916
F. Paulin, Sur la théorie élémentaire des groupes libres (d’après Sela), Astérisque (2004),
no. 294, ix, 363–402. MR 2111650
Z. Sela, Diophantine geometry over groups. I. Makanin-Razborov diagrams, Publ. Math. Inst.
Hautes Études Sci. (2001), no. 93, 31–105. MR 1863735
, Diophantine geometry over groups. II. Completions, closures and formal solutions,
Israel J. Math. 134 (2003), 173–254. MR 1972179
J-P. Serre, Galois cohomology, english ed., Springer Monographs in Mathematics, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2002, Translated from the French by Patrick Ion and revised by the author.
MR 1867431
, Trees, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003, Translated from the French original by John Stillwell, Corrected 2nd printing of the 1980 English
translation. MR 1954121

Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca,
Ed. U5, Via R.Cozzi 55, 20125 Milano, Italy
E-mail address: thomas.weigel@unimib.it
E-mail address: jhoelsg31@gmail.com

